Texas Demand Response Provider Would Pay $40,000 Under Settlement Regarding Alleged Failure To Adhere To Availability Factor Protocol

Links EP, LLC would pay $40,000 under a settlement with Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas to resolve Links' alleged failure to adhere to Electric Reliability Council of Texas Protocols § 8.1.3.3.1, related to Emergency Response Service Performance (ERS) and Testing

Links is a Qualified Scheduling Entity (QSE) representing an entity or entities controlling Emergency Response Service (ERS) resource(s) that provide ERS in ERCOT

According to the settlement agreement, "Links LP was contracted to provide ERS - 10 during the June to September 2014 contract period for Business Hours 1, 2 and 3 and Non-Business Hours. Links LP was also contracted to provide ERS - 30 during the June to September 2014 contract period for Business Hours 1, 2 and 3 and Non-Business Hours."

Pursuant to ERCOT Protocols § 8.1.3.3.1, if a QSE submits an offer during the ERS contract period and that offer is accepted by ERCOT, the QSE must be ready to dispatch. If dispatched by ERCOT, ERS resources shall deploy consistent with their obligations and shall remain deployed until recalled by ERCOT. If a QSE submits an offer during the ERS contract period and that offer is accepted by ERCOT, the QSE must be ready to dispatch. If dispatched by ERCOT, ERS resources shall deploy consistent with their obligations and shall remain deployed until recalled by ERCOT. If the resource is not dispatched by ERCOT, ERCOT will calculate a portfolio-level ERS Availability Factor (ERSAF). If the ERSAF meets or exceeds 0.95, the QSE will be deemed to have met its ERS performance requirements for their ERS contract period. If a QSE does not achieve a 0.95 ERSAF, the QSE is subject to suspension from participating in ERS as well as administrative penalties levied by the Commission.

A proposed order accompanying the settlement states, "Links LP failed to achieve the required ERSAF of 0.95 in failing to maintain the required amount of load available for ERS deployment during any of the time periods for ERS - 10 in the June to September 2014 Contract Period. In addition, Links LP also failed to achieve the required ERSAF of 0.95 in failing to maintain the required amount of load available for ERS deployment during any of the time periods for ERS - 30 in the June to September 2014 Contract Period."

However, the settlement agreement itself states, "Links LP failed to achieve the required ERSAF of 0.95 by not maintaining the required amount of load available for ERS deployment during the ERS contract period(s) for ERS-30 in the October 2014 to January 2015 [sic] Contract Period."

Docket 45777