|
|
|
|
|
Texas Storage Owner Seeks Hearing, Settlement Talks In Answer To PUC Enforcement Staff's Sought Revocation Of Market Participant's PGC Registration, Due To Alleged Ownership By Chinese National At Time Of Registration, In Alleged Violation Of State's Infrastructure Protection Act, & Alleged Submission Of False Information
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In a response to a report from the Division of Compliance and Enforcement (DICE) of the Public Utility Commission of Texas, Meadow Park ESS Assets, LLC (Meadow Park) formally sought a hearing on DICE's allegations that, "At all points relevant to this investigation, Meadow Park knew it was owned solely by Geng Tian, then a Chinese citizen, on the dates Meadow Park sought and obtained entry as an ERCOT market participant".
Meadow Park is a power generation company (PGC) registered with the PUC and operates a 9.9 MW electric energy storage resource.
The Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act (LSIPA) prohibits business entities from entering into agreements related to critical infrastructure in the state wherein the agreement would grant direct or remote access or control of critical infrastructure to a company known to be owned or controlled by nationals of, or otherwise headquartered in, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia or any other designated country
PUC Enforcement Staff have alleged that, "Meadow Park provided false or misleading information to ERCOT in its application that resulted in Meadow Park being improperly granted registration as an ERCOT market participant."
Among other remedies, PUC Enforcement Staff sought revocation of Meadow Park's power generation company registration and an order that Meadow Park’s principals be prohibited from registering as principals of a retail electric provider or a PGC for a period of at least one year
See full background on DICE's allegations here
Meadow Park said in its response that Meadow Park disputes the factual and legal bases for
the alleged violations.
Meadow Park requested a hearing on the merits
Meadow Park in its response identified the following principal matters that it disputes in the proceeding, but in doing so stressed that, "Meadow Park does not, by this filing,
admit any violation, and the descriptions below are provided to frame the matters for hearing and
settlement and are not admissions."
Meadow Park stated, "Meadow Park disputes that it acted knowingly or with intent to provide false or
misleading information. The record reflects, at most, inadvertent error and a good-faith
misunderstanding of the conditional structure and application of Question 1 and Question 2 of
the Section 23, Form Q attestation, and of the interplay between the June 10, 2025 Form Q and
the June 13, 2025 Planning Guide Section 8, Attachment D attestation. The two attestations were
prepared during a period of contemporaneous change in the ownership structure, and any
inconsistency between them reflects confusion and timing, not intentional concealment. Meadow
Park contests the characterization of its conduct as 'knowing' or 'false' within the meaning of
16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.503(f)(8) and the report’s related findings."
Meadow Park stated, "Meadow Park disputes the recommended disposition as excessive and not
commensurate with the conduct or supported by the penalty factors in 16 Texas Administrative
Code § 22.246. In particular, Meadow Park contests the proposed one-year prohibition on its
principals. The record reflects an absence of economic or environmental harm, an absence of any
history of previous violations, and affirmative steps relevant to the matters at issue -- including
the naturalization of the company’s ultimate owner as a United States citizen -- such that the
recommended principal prohibitions are not warranted or, in the alternative, should be substantially reduced."
Pursuant to PUC rule, Meadow Park also requested a settlement conference
with Commission Staff to discuss the occurrence of the alleged violations, the amount of any
penalty, and an appropriate resolution of this matter.
Docket 59768
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
June 11, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy
|
|
|
|
|