Sponsor Of Texas Bill For Reimbursement Financing Program For Costs Above ERCOT Price Cap Tells PUC That "Netting" An LSE's Costs Is Not Authorized Under Law

August 3, 2021

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Texas Representative Chris Paddie sent a letter to the Texas PUC stating his opinion that HB 4492 -- which creates a program to finance Reliability Deployment Price Adder ("RDPA") charges and Ancillary Service costs above the Commission's system-wide offer cap for the period beginning 12:01 a.m., February 12, 2021, and ending 11:59 p.m., February 20, 2021 (known as "uplift") -- does not authorize any "netting" of an LSE's costs under the program against any affiliate or other company

As previously reported (see details here), the PUC has sought briefing on whether the bill requires offsetting the amounts paid in excess of the Commission's system-wide offer cap by amounts received in excess of the Commission's system-wide offer cap, and, if not, does this offset include amounts received by entities affiliated with the entity that made such payments

Paddie wrote, "As the House sponsor of the bill, I want to share with you the legislative intent. Via a July 21, 2021 'Briefing Order' the Commission is examining whether it can or should 'net' a load-serving entity's exposure to uplift costs. The Briefing Order goes so far as to postulate that such 'netting' might occur between separate companies, even if only one of the companies 'made such payments' for the uplift costs."

"The legislation is clear that each load-serving entity is to provide documentation of its own exposure to the uplift costs (see, for example Section 39.653(b)(3)). It does not contemplate or authorize any 'netting' between companies. As I stated on the House floor when the House was voting to adopt the conference committee report on the bill, the overall $2.1 billion cap must 'be applied to all load serving entities on a load-proportionate and equitable basis.' I stated: 'It is crucial that we do not discriminate between load-serving entities, in order to protect against market imbalances,'" Paddie wrote

"That emphasis on non-discrimination was purposeful and remains essential. Each load-serving entity must be treated without discrimination, including without regard to whether it might or might not have an affiliate whose exposure was different. I was directly involved in all the discussions that resulted in the final bill language being adopted in the House, and at no time was 'netting' between a load-serving entity and any other company -- affiliated or not -- considered or intended," Paddie wrote

"I will be watching this proceeding closely, and I look forward to working together to ensure Texans have a world-class reliable and affordable electric grid," Paddie wrote

Docket 52322

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Senior Account Operations Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Energy Procurement Manager
• NEW! -- Natural Gas Retail Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Associate Director of Market Strategy -- New York/Anywhere
• NEW! -- Energy Risk Professional -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Energy Customer Support Specialist -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Business Development Account Executive - Indirect Broker Sales -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Customer Engagement Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Energy Customer Service Specialist
• NEW! -- Energy Sales Executive
• NEW! -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst
• NEW! -- Energy Advisor

HOME

Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.