Texas ALJ Would Deny Aspire Complaint Seeking Re-pricing Of May 2019 ERCOT Price Spike Caused By QSE Input Error
Would Grant ERCOT Motion For Summary Decision
August 7, 2020 Email This Story Copyright 2010-20 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • firstname.lastname@example.org
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
A proposal for decision (PFD) from a Texas ALJ would deny a complaint filed by Aspire Commodities, LLC (Aspire) against the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (ERCOT), in which Aspire has sought an order directing ERCOT to re-price the published settlement prices for interval 14:50 on May 30, 2019
As previously reported, Aspire has alleged that the event which led to the spike, a Qualified Scheduling Entity (Calpine) wrongly setting the HSL and LSL levels for certain generation it represented at 0, does not reflect a valid market solution. The input error led to prices for the interval reaching $9,000 per MWh. ERCOT issued a market notice on May 30, 2019 stating that it would not be performing a price correction for interval 14:50. See more background here
The ALJ noted that, "The resolution of this case hinges on the interpretation of ERCOT's nodal protocols, specifically, Nodal Protocols § 6.3(4). Aspire contends the price spike the for the 14:50 SCED interval constituted an 'invalid market solution' within the meaning of Nodal Protocols § 6.3(4), requiring ERCOT to re-price the interval. ERCOT contends that because the price spike was due an external telemetry error rather than a failure of an ERCOT system, that the circumstances did not rise to the level of an 'invalid market solution.' ERCOT therefore contends that it was not required to re-price the interval. The term 'invalid market solution' is not defined in ERCOT's protocols."
The ALJ said, "The ALJ concludes that ERCOT correctly applied § 6.3(4) in failing to require a price correction in this case. ERCOT's interpretation is not inconsistent with the text of the protocol and appears to be consistent with its longstanding practices and a policy of market certainty. Although the impacts of the erroneous telemetry on operating day May 30, 2019 were extreme, given ERCOT's longstanding interpretation, market participants knowingly assume the risk of price fluctuations due to erroneous telemetry. Because the relevant facts are not disputed and the outcome of this case hinges purely on questions of law, summary decision is appropriate in this case under 16 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 22.182(a). The ALJ recommends that summary decision be granted in favor of ERCOT and that the relief sought in Aspire's complaint be denied."
"The language of ERCOT Protocol § 6.3(4) does not mandate a price correction when the pricing for an interval is impacted by erroneous telemetry from a QSE," the ALJ would conclude
The ALJ would grant ERCOT's motion for summary decision and deny Aspire's complaint.