|
|
|
|
|
Retail Supplier Seeks Regulator's Approval For Transfer Of RECs For RPS Compliance
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Eligo Energy CT, LLC requested that the Connecticut PURA provide Eligo with a statement in writing that the Authority will accept RECs generated in the calendar year 2024 (the 2024 RECs) towards the Connecticut RPS compliance requirements for the compliance year 2025
Eligo stated, "Eligo makes this request pursuant to the New England Power Pool ('NEPOOL') Generation Information System ('GIS') Operating Rules ('Operating Rules'), Rule 3.8(d). Eligo has spoken to NEPOOL and the APX Administrator, in charge of managing the GIS system, and has received approval to make a post-closing account adjustment of these 2024 RECs in order to apply them to the 2025 compliance year. These post-closing adjustments will result in the 2024 RECs appearing in the My Settled Certificate Disposition Report issued by NEPOOL GIS and to be submitted to the Authority by Eligo on October 15, 2026 for 2025 compliance. All accounting and tracking will be done through NEPOOL, with the 2024 RECs reflecting a 2024 generation date and 2025 settlement date. NEPOOL and the APX Administrator have requested only that the Authority provide notification of its consent for Eligo and APX to proceed with this transfer under Rule 3.8(d)(ii)."
Rule 3.8(d)(ii), which sets forth the requirements for such transfers, allows state regulators to require that the regulator must approve any such transfer in order for the transfer to be executed
Eligo stated, "It is Eligo’s understanding that the Authority had 'opted-in' to subsection (ii) of Rule 3.8(d) and has notified NEPOOL that the Authority must approve a crediting or transfer of RECs eligible for the Connecticut RPS, although Eligo was not able to find such opt-in notification as part of the public record."
Eligo stated, "Presently, there is nothing in Rule 3.8(d), Connecticut General States § 16-245a or the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies ('RCSA') § 16-245a-1 et seq. that disallows RECs generated from a prior year to be applied directly to a future RPS compliance year."
Eligo said that the relevant RECs meet the other requirements for a transfer under Rule 3.8(d), with Eligo stating, "The last, and only remaining requirement is for Eligo to receive the Authority’s approval, in writing, to allow the post-close transfer to occur."
Eligo noted that, "Eligo is aware of the Authority precedent since July 31, 2020, where the Authority stated it would 'no longer entertain any requests for Authority approval to reallocate and use misplaced or inadvertently transferred RECs for the 2019 RPS compliance year, and any subsequent compliance years thereafter.'"
Eligo stated, "However, such precedent is inapplicable to the instant request for two reasons. The first being that since the Authority has implemented this guidance, it has not issued any decisions specific to Unsettled Credits, nor under Operating Rule 3.8(d). The most recent example of requests pursuant to Operating Rule 3.8(d) occurred in Docket No. 20-06-01, where the Authority approved Vistra Corp.’s transfer of Unsettled RECs totaling 16,761 Class II RECs and 16,373 Class III RECs that became unsettled. In response to a request in Docket No. 17-06-29, the Authority similarly approved the transfer of 7,548 RECs from Choice Energy’s Unsettled Certificates housed in the residual mix to be moved to its Connecticut subaccount. Second, Rule 3.8(d) was amended in 2014, as reflected in NEPOOL Working Group and Markets Committee materials from July 2014, to solve exactly this problem: it extended the post-closing adjustment window to each state’s annual compliance-filing deadline and adopted an opt-in state-approval option so that Unsettled Certificates could be corrected and used for compliance. The Authority’s own practice aligned with that practice in Docket No. 17-06-29 where it approved Choice Energy’s transfer."
Eligo stated, "Eligo understands that the Authority may have reservations in reviewing requests for approval of REC transfers, including those requests specific to Rule 3.8(d)."
Eligo, in such case, sought alternative relief
Eligo stated, "In the case that the Authority is inclined to refuse written consent for the APX Administrator to go through with the discussed transfer, Eligo would request, in the alternative, that the Authority then withdraw its notification to NEPOOL requesting that Rule 3.8(d) requests require direct approval by the Authority, as well as meeting the other requirements for eligibility. Eligo, NEPOOL, and the APX Administrator have reviewed the request and are able to move ahead with the transfer without any state-level regulatory approval (absent the NEPOOL notification) pursuant to the Operating Rules and Connecticut law, and doing so may alleviate the administrative burden that would require the Authority to review such a request."
Eligo said that, "However, if the Authority simultaneously declines to consider this Rule 3.8(d) request -- whether by applying the 2020 Authority policy in denying reallocation of RECs or otherwise -- the practical effect is that Rule 3.8(d) is nullified for Connecticut. Eligo would be left with no possible pathway: the APX Administrator cannot act without the Authority’s optional consent, and the Authority will not provide it while still requiring it."
Eligo said, "In either situation, whether the Authority provides affirmative consent for the 2024 RECs to be utilized for the 2025 compliance year RPS, or the Authority opts to instead rescind its NEPOOL notification, the APX Administrator will conduct the post-closing transfer of the 2024 RECs, and Eligo will provide the documentation in its usual RPS compliance filing October 15, 2026 for the Authority’s review and approval."
Eligo stated, "If the Authority instead wishes for a fulsome review of this proposal and retain authorization authority under Rule 3.8(d) through the Authority’s opt-in notification, Eligo has discussed this matter with the Authority’s Office of Education, Outreach, and Enforcement ('EOE'), and both Eligo and EOE are willing to enter into settlement discussions, if directed, to effectuate the sign-off for the APX Administrator to conduct the transfer."
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
March 10, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW / Refreshed 2/24/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Billing Analyst - Retail Supplier
• Refreshed 2/2/26 -- Account Executive (Commercial Retail Energy)
|
|
|
|
|