ESR eligibility
Summary not yet generated for this topic.
Community sentiment
Related issue
Energy storage eligibility in DRRS→At a glance
- Public comments
- 1
- Last 30 days
- 0
Last discussed Feb 4, 2026.
Public comments (6)
APA wants 1309 technology neutral with storage included, and says 1310 needs far more modeling before moving forward.
Special Technical Advisory Committee Workshop - Feb 4, 2026 · 1:20:29 →TSSA argues storage is clearly contemplated by the statute — the four-hour amendment was written for batteries — and inclusion is good policy.
Special Technical Advisory Committee Workshop - Feb 4, 2026 · 2:19:08 →Joint commenters (Jupiter/NG) say there's no technical reason to tie storage eligibility to 1310; good market design is technology neutral.
Special Technical Advisory Committee Workshop - Feb 4, 2026 · 1:40:17 →Echoed that storage participation needn't wait for the resource adequacy mechanism and pressed ERCOT for a substantive reason to keep them linked.
Special Technical Advisory Committee Workshop - Feb 4, 2026 · 2:35:03 →TAC's middle name is advisory — the committee should give its best advice that ESRs qualify under the statute, and the board can strip it if it disagrees.
Special Technical Advisory Committee Workshop - Feb 4, 2026 · 2:37:11 →Sierra Club wants ESRs in 1309 from the start, citing both statutory language and legislative history behind the four-hour requirement.
Special Technical Advisory Committee Workshop - Feb 4, 2026 · 2:38:16 →