Update: Settlement Data Dispute Between REP, TDU Referred to SOAH

Update: This matter was referred to SOAH on October 6

Earlier:

A complaint filed by Champion Energy against Texas-New Mexico Power and ERCOT concerning settlement data should be referred to the State Office of Administrative Hearings to develop a factual record, Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas said.

Click here for background on the case

While acknowledging the disputed meter data as incorrect, ERCOT sought dismissal of the complaint since Champion did not dispute the original settlement by the deadlines required under market rules. While Champion said that it could not have known of the meter data discrepancy prior to those deadlines, ERCOT said that finality demands that REPs engage in shadow settlement, and reliance on various market tools, to be cognizant of any apparent errors.

"[I]t is Staff's position that a factual record needs to be developed in order for the Commission to make an informed decision on Champion Energy's claims against TNMP and ERCOT. Thus, Staff recommends that the Commission refer this proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings," Staff said.

Staff said that it has identified three fact issues from Champion Energy's complaint and TNMP's and ERCOT's responses.

The first fact issue is whether Champion Energy received timely ESI ID data for the ESI ID in question, as required by the ERCOT Protocols.

Assuming that ERCOT did provide Champion Energy this ESI ID data on a daily basis, the second fact issue is whether this ESI ID data was sufficient such that, upon a reasonable review of this ESI ID data, Champion Energy should have been aware of any inaccuracies between the TNMP consumption data Champion Energy used to bill end-use customers and the interval data from TNMP's advanced meter that ERCOT used for settlement purposes.

The third fact issue is the determination of when Champion Energy had access to the interval data from TNMP's advanced meter that ERCOT used for settlement purposes.

Staff said that it has identified two legal issues from Champion Energy's complaint and TNMP's and ERCOT's responses.

The first legal issue is whether the discovery rule applies to the ERCOT Protocols and therefore may toll deadlines in the ERCOT Protocols. The discovery rule exception defers accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff knew or, exercising reasonable diligence, should have known of the facts giving rise to the cause of action.

"[T]he Commission must determine whether the ESI ID data that Champion Energy received on a daily basis was sufficient such that Champion Energy knew or should have known of the inaccuracies between the TNMP consumption data Champion Energy used to bill end-use customers and the interval data from TNMP's advanced meter that ERCOT used for settlement purposes," Staff said.

The second legal issue is whether the facts, which have to be further developed, merit a good cause waiver of ERCOT's ADR procedures pursuant to P.U.C. PROC. R. 22.251(c)(2)

Docket 42775