|
|
|
|
|
Texas PUC Staff Decline To Modify Proposed Crypto Mining Registry Rule To Impose Sought New Obligation On REPs; But Also Won't Require Sharing Of Registration With REPs
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
A draft proposal for adoption from Texas PUC Staff to implement the registration of certain cryptocurrency miners would not impose new obligations on retail electric providers as sought by certain parties, but would also not provide info on miners' registrations to REPs
Under Staff's draft proposal for adoption, a "person" (which under Texas law generally includes businesses organized under various typical forms) operating a "virtual currency mining facility" in ERCOT shall register with the PUC as a large flexible load if the facility requires a total load of more than 75 MW and the facility’s interruptible load equals 10 percent or more of the actual or anticipated annual peak demand of the facility.
In comments on a proposal for publication, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers (TIEC) had proposed that the final rule should compel retail electric providers to provide notice of the new registration obligation to, "all potentially applicable loads."
Specifically, TIEC proposed that REPs be required to provide notice of the new registration rule to any existing customers with load of more than 50 MW and also to, "any retail customers that the load serving entity [REP] otherwise has reason to believe may be a virtual currency mining facility[.]"
Furthermore, TIEC proposed that this notice obligation, to be imposed on REPs, shall be ongoing, such that REPs would be required to notify any new customers, meeting TIEC's stated criteria described immediately above, of the registration requirement
Staff rejected TIEC's proposed notice obligation for REPs, with Staff observing that, "this would impose burdens on entities to which this rule does not apply."
Staff also said that affected customers are sophisticated and may "reasonably be expected" to be cognizant of new rules and obligations
TIEC had also proposed that a market notice should be issued concerning the new registration obligation for cryptominers. Staff said that requiring a market notice as part of the rule language is unnecessary, and that the PUC could direct Staff and ERCOT to issue a market notice about the new registration without such notice being codified in rule
While PUC Staff declined to impose a new obligation on REPs under the cryptominer registration rule, Staff also declined to require that a customer registering under the rule shall notify their retail electric provider of the customer's registration
Under the draft rule, registering crytpo entities must notify the relevant TDSP that the registering entity has complied with the registration rule
Vistra had proposed that this obligation of cryptominers to provide a notice of compliance should also be expanded to require that cryptominers notify their retail electric provider of the customer's compliance with the registration obligation
"This is necessary because the entity (or entities) with a direct
contractual relationship with the virtual currency miner will have a vested interest in understanding
whether their customer is compliant with Commission requirements," Vistra had said
However, Staff declined to adopt Vistra's suggestion
"If REPs or other entities with contractual relationships with the virtual currency mining facility are interested in this information, they can seek to obtain it directly from their business partners," Staff said, as Staff said that the purpose of the rule is to inform the PUC and ERCOT of crypto mining facilities
Generally, Staff's proposal for adoption largely tracks the original proposal for publication, with a few changes, which are mostly clarifying in nature, and which do not impact the retail market
One of the few non-clarifying changes is that, in the proposal for adoption, Staff has struck an earlier proposal that, as part of the registration, cryptominers would have been required to state whether their facility has on-site backup generation and, if so, the nameplate capacity of the generation.
Staff said that deleting this data point from the registration form more closely follows statute, while reducing the compliance burden on registering entities
Staff declined Vistra's suggestion that the rule should apply to "large flexible
loads" based on a customer's functional load characteristics, and not based on the customer's end use case (e.g. not only applicable to cryptominers)
Vistra had noted that statute refers to a large flexible
load registration, though the statutory language focuses this registration requirement on virtual currency mining. Vistra argued that a load's functional characteristics, not the load's end use case, should determine the registration obligation, and said that entities which have similar load characteristics should be subject to the same requirement, regardless of their industry
Staff said that statute mandates the registration of a virtual currency mining facility as a large flexible load, but that, "the statute is silent on the characteristics of a large flexible load and whether other entities should be required to register as such at this time."
Project 56962
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
November 15, 2024
Email This Story
Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Director of Policy and Research, Retail Energy
• NEW! -- Director, Load Forecasting
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Wholesale Markets Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Origination Analyst
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Settlements Analyst
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Billing Supervisor
|
|
|
|
|