RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:JE transaction OTC March 24thGaillardDeshaie wrote: Capharnaum, I would like to tell you, I don't want to miss respect about the house speaker but lots of people raised the point that ERCOT overcharged for at least 32 hours. I apologized if you think I missed respect for the house speaker. I know, it is a huge impact to all energy retailers and ERCOT will face to pursuit from energy retailers, from cities and from others big companies. Hope it will be resolved with WIN WIN for all parties involved. GLTA Gaillard.
ERCOT set the rates forward to the max and the market actors used those rates to operate (provide power, trade contracts, etc). While the decision to set the rates to the max for "allegedly" longer than they should has been questioned, it seems from what I read that ERCOT was legitimate in doing that. It may not have been the best decision, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't take that decision.
Legally, I do believe that ERCOT (and since it's a non-profit organisation, either all actors on the market or the State of Texas) probably won't have anything to pay if they don't reverse the rates. On the other hand, I do believe they will be liable for a lot of money if they do reverse the rates backwards, as all market participants could go after them for damages. Take an energy supply producer that didn't have any firm sale during those 32 hours and decided to put energy in the market (at likely a higher producing cost) due to the set maximum rate, why should they have to take a loss due to ERCOT changing the rules afterwards? They will sue and win.
The end-users were mostly not affected by that 32 hours at max rate. Those that took the hit were energy marketers (like JE and for some places cities that act as such) that didn't have sufficient protection through hedging and insurance and the banks/insurance companies (that provide hedging and insurance). There are end users that signed up to wholesale rates that received huge bills, but that's far from a majority of clients.