Texas ALJ Denies Motion To Dismiss Trader's Complaint Seeking Re-pricing Of May ERCOT Price Spike Caused By QSE Input Error

A Texas ALJ has denied a motion to dismiss a complaint filed at the Texas PUC by Aspire Commodities, LLC ("Aspire") against ERCOT, in which Aspire has sought an order directing ERCOT to re-price the published settlement prices for interval 14:50 on May 30, 2019

As previously reported, Aspire has alleged that the event which led to the spike, a Qualified Scheduling Entity (Calpine) wrongly setting the HSL and LSL levels for certain generation it represented at 0, does not reflect a valid market solution. The input error led prices for the interval to reach $9,000 per MWh. ERCOT issued a market notice on May 30, 2019 stating that it would not be performing a price correction for interval 14:50. See more background here

ERCOT requested dismissal of the complaint on the basis of (1) insufficiency of the form of the complaint, (2) lack of jurisdiction, and (3) failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The ALJ concluded that dismissal is not warranted at this time.

ERCOT argued that complainant Aspire Commodities, LLC was required to pursue alternative dispute resolution prior to filing the complaint

The ALJ notes that Aspire appears to contend that because it is not a "Market Participant," within the meaning of the ERCOT protocols, it is not subject to the ADR provisions

The ALJ said, "ERCOT admits that Aspire is not a Market Participant under Section 2, but contends that a related entity, Aspire Power Ventures, LP is a registered Market Participant and is the entity who should have submitted the complaint. ERCOT thus complains that, by filing its complaint in the name of Aspire rather than Aspire Power Ventures, Aspire improperly attempted to circumvent the ADR procedures. Aspire counters that, although it is related to Aspire Power Ventures, it was Aspire that suffered harm from the erroneous prices."

"The ALJ concludes that, because Aspire is not a Market Participant within the meaning of Section 20 of ERCOT' s Nodal Protocols, under 16 TAC § 22.251(c)(1)(B) Aspire was not required to participate in the ADR procedures. Therefore, Aspire's complaint is not subject to dismissal or abatement for failure to engage in ADR procedures," the ALJ said

ERCOT contended that Aspire's complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. As summarized by the ALJ, "In support, ERCOT contends that any claimed connection between the ERCOT market and the activity of a trader, such as Aspire, is too attenuated to support a claim for relief. ERCOT contends that if such a complaint could be maintained, any person or entity could allege a tangential connection to an ERCOT action and seek a price correction or 'other invasive remedy' against ERCOT, which ERCOT argues could not have been the result intended under Commission rules."

"The ALJ disagrees with ERCOT's contentions in this regard. Neither the text of PURA § 39.151 nor 16 TAC § 22.251 reveal an intent limit [sic] the scope of the Commission's complaint procedure to ERCOT Market Participants. Further, PURA § 39.001, in addressing the legislative purposes of PURA chapter 39, expresses a policy preference that electric prices should be determined by customer choices and the normal forces of competition. The ALJ concludes that permitting Aspire's complaint falls within the scope of complaints authorized by PURA § 39.151 and 16 TAC § 22.251. Therefore, dismissal under 22 TAC 22.181(d)(8) is not warranted," the ALJ said

An ALJ granted PUC Staff until January 21, 2020 to file comments on the complaint

Docket 49673