Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc.

On Nov. 14, 2006, Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc. filed a complaint with the Public Utility Commission of Texas against the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, alleging that two of ERCOT's protocols were contradictory and inconsistent and that ERCOT had improperly assessed charges against Constellation from April 10, 2006, to Sept. 27, 2006, using the inconsistent protocols. Luminant Energy Co. LLC f/k/a TXU Portfolio Management Co. LP and Luminant Generation Co. LLC f/k/a TXU Generation Company LP, as well as City of Austin d/b/a Austin Energy, City of San Antonio d/b/a CPS Energy, Reliant Energy Power Supply LLC and Lower Colorado River Authority, intervened in the proceeding in support of ERCOT. After the commission referred the case to the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the administrative law judge agreed with Constellation that the protocols in question were inconsistent and recommended the commission require ERCOT to resettle the charges. The commission rejected the ALJ's recommendation, determining instead that ERCOT had correctly settled the capacity insufficiency charges in accordance with the protocols then in effect. Constellation filed suit for judicial review in district court, which reversed the commission's determination that ERCOT had correctly assessed the charges against Constellation. The trial court's judgment is reversed and the commission's final order is affirmed. Austin Court of Appeals, No. 03-09-00417-CV, 09-28-2011.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

On November 14, 2006, Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. (“Constellation”) filed a complaint with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (“the Commission”) against the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (“ERCOT”) alleging that two of ERCOT’s protocols*fn1 were contradictory and inconsistent and that ERCOT had improperly assessed charges against Constellation from April 10, 2006, to September 27, 2006, using the inconsistent protocols. Luminant Energy Company LLC f/k/a TXU Portfolio Management Company LP and Luminant Generation Company LLC f/k/a TXU Generation Company LP (“Luminant”), as well as City of Austin d/b/a Austin Energy, City of San Antonio d/b/a CPS Energy, Reliant Energy Power Supply, LLC, and Lower Colorado River Authority (“Joint Intervenors”) intervened in the proceeding in support of ERCOT. After the Commission referred the case to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (“SOAH”), the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) agreed with Constellation that the protocols in question were inconsistent and recommended the Commission require ERCOT to resettle the charges. The Commission rejected the ALJ’s recommendation, determining instead that ERCOT had correctly settled the capacity insufficiency charges in accordance with the protocols then in effect. Constellation filed suit for judicial review in district court, which reversed the Commission’s determination that ERCOT had correctly assessed the charges against Constellation. This appeal followed.

Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal