|
|
|
|
|
Texas PUC To Consider, In Another Proceeding, Retail Providers' Request That PUC Designate Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service As Ancillary Service Beyond REPs' Control (Designation Would Allow Fixed Rate Change For Existing Retail Contracts)
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Texas PUC approved ERCOT Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) 1309, implementing Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service (DRRS), without including in the approval order language that had been requested by the Retail Electric Provider Coalition which would have designated DRRS as a new ancillary service, "that will incur costs beyond the REPs’ control at the time that service is incorporated into the ERCOT Ancillary Services plan."
Under 16 TAC 25.475(b)(5), for an existing fixed rate to be adjusted to reflect the cost of a new ancillary service, the Commission must first designate the ancillary service as one that incurs charges beyond the REP’s control for existing customer contracts
As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the REPs sought such a designation for NPRR 1309, "solely for customer contracts that were existing prior to the date on which DRRS is included in the applicable ERCOT Ancillary Services Plan."
The REP Coalition had said, "This designation will ensure that REPs are not in a position of trying to speculate about what these costs might be for those customers today who desire to sign onto a multi-year electricity service agreement. Further, it keeps customers from incurring any charges for these costs before the costs are actually implemented. In addition, without this designation, REPs may be reluctant to enter into multi-year contracts that would span into the period in which DRRS is expected to be implemented, even though those multi-year contracts provide customer protections, and market stability for those looking to invest in this market to provide generation."
The PUC declined to grant the REPs' request, instead stating that the PUC would open a project concerning the REPs' issue
PUC Chair Thomas Gleeson said that, in considering the REPs' request today, he didn't know, "when we would move forward with that; I don't think there are lot of details around how that would be done, safeguards for customers, and the like."
Gleeson recommended that a project be opened to delve into the issue, "to see what changes need to be made, what details or guardrails need to be put around this, so that if we were to move forward with something like this in the future we'd be safe in knowing that it was done in an appropriate way."
Gleeson said that examining the issue in a project is appropriate given the PUC's concern with "affordability".
Other Commissioners agreed with this approach
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
July 8, 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
|
|
|
|
|