News Stories

“This Order addresses the September 5, 2025 application of EE REP 2, LLC fka MI Texas REP 2, LLC to amend its Option 1 retail electric provider certificate number 10315.” 

As previously reported on November 4, 2025, 2025, Commission Staff filed its recommendation on final disposition and recommended that the application of EE REP 2 be found deficient largely on the grounds that the applicant included principals banned from from applying for a REP application.

On November 12, 2025, EE REP 2 filed a response to Commission Staff’ s recommendation and on November 13, 2025, EE REP 2 filed an amended application, including a portion filed under confidential seal. 

As reported previously Commission Staff filed its Final Recommendation stating “Staff has reviewed the application and as supported by the attached memorandum of Josephine Gonzalez of the Customer Protection Division, recommends that the application does not meet the requirements of 16 TAC § 25.107. Specifically, the application relies on persons prohibited from exercising control under 16 TAC § 25.107(g)(1)(A) to meet the requirements of subsections (d) and (e). Subsection (g) creates a strict prohibition by explicitly stating “in no instance” can persons in the categories described serve as principals of an Option 1 REP.2” 

“Accordingly, Staff recommends that the application be denied.” 

“According to 16 TAC § 25.107(g)(1)(A)(i-iii) , “[i]n no instance may any of the following persons control the REP or be relied upon to meet the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) of this section: (A) A person who was a principal of a market participant, at any time within the six months prior to the market participant: (i) experiencing a mass transition of the REP’ s customers under §25.43 of this title; (ii) having their ERCOT SFA, or similar agreement for an independent organization other than ERCOT terminated; or (iii) exiting an electricity or gas market with outstanding payment obligations that, at the time ofthe application or amendment, remain outstanding.”

“Specifically, the application relies on persons prohibited from exercising control under 16 TAC § 25.107(g)(1)(A) to meet the requirements of subsections (d) and (e). “Subsection (g) creates a strict prohibition by explicitly stating “in no instance” can persons in the categories described serve as principals of an Option 1 REP.2 Accordingly, Staff recommends that the application be denied.”

In response to staff’s final recommendation recommending denial of EE REP’s License states the following: 

“A. In a Formal Order, the Commission Made a Finding of Fact Listing Who Were Griddy’s Principals – and Mr. McGinn and Ms. Stewart Were Not Included.”

“Commission regulations require that an Option 1 REP have the technical and managerial resources and ability to provide continuous and reliable retail electric service to customers, and in order to meet that mandate, require a REP to have one or more individuals in managerial positions whose combined experience in the competitive electric industry or competitive gas industry equals or exceeds 15 years. Of course, individuals who were principals of a REP that had its REP certificate revoked by the Commission following a mass transition of the company’ s customers under 16 TAC § 25.43(1) cannot be used to meet the requirements of 16 TAC § 25.107(d) or (e). Two of EE REP 2’s personnel, Mr. Tom McGinn and Ms. Marilee Stewart, were identified in its amendment application to show that EE REP 2 has personnel with the requisite experience, neither of whom is precluded from any activity under the Commission’s regulations.” 

“Staff, however, erroneously concluded that, “[both, Tom McGinn and Marilee Stewart were principals for Griddy Energy LLC (“Griddy”), which had its REP certificate revoked by the Commission in Docket No. 51859 on August 4,2022, following a mass transition of the company’s customers under 16 TAC § 25.43(1).” 1 The conclusion that Mr. McGinn and Ms. Stewart were principals of Griddy (1) contradicts a Commission Final Order that listed who were the principals of Griddy, and did not include Mr. McGinn or Ms. Stewart; (2) is belied by the Commission’s definition of “principal” in TAC § 25.107, which does not include the positions that Mr. McGinn and Ms. Stewart held; and (3) finds no basis in the factual record to support the notion that either Mr. McGinn or Ms. Stewart exercised the requisite control over Griddy to qualify as a “principal,” which they did not. EE REP 2 requests that the ALJ overrule Staff’s Final Recommendation and find that EE REP 2’s application to amend its REP license meets the requirements of 16 TAC § 25.107 and should be granted.”

“The only support Staff offers for its conclusion that Mr. McGinn and Ms. Stewart were principals of Griddy is a footnote citing to pages 2 and 10 of the amendment application filed by Griddy in Docket No. 51622 on December 15, 2020.2 Those two pages merely identify Mr. McGinn and Ms. Stewart as a Vice President and as a Senior Vice President, respectively. There is nothing in that application establishing – using those titles or otherwise -that Mr. McGinn or Ms. Stewart were “principals” of Griddy as that term is defined by 16 TAC §25.107.”

The following procedural schedule applies for the continued processing of this application: 

Event Date 

Deadline for Commission Staff to file its supplemental recommendation on final disposition is December 5, 2025

Deadline for any party to request a hearing December 12, 2025

If no hearing is requested, deadline to respond to Commission December 12, 2025

Order No. 3 – Requiring Supplemental Recommendation From Commission Staff  (12/14/2025)
Response to Staff’s Final Recommendation  (11/12/2025)
Commission Staff’s Final Recommendation (11/04/2025)
58646
(Application Of EE REP 2, LLC (FKA MI Texas REP 2, LLC) To Amend Its Retail Electric Provider Certificate)