News Stories

At the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), a customer files a formal complaint against Tesla Energy Ventures for – among other things- failure to disclose in marketing materials including the electric facts label (EFL) “participation in the VPP program carries a material risk of increasing the consumer’s electricity costs above what the consumer would pay if they never enrolled.”

Formal Complaint Of Josh Brodbeck Against Tesla Energy Ventures –  “Under the Dynamic Plan, Tesla retains priority access to the customer’s enrolled Powerwalls at all times and may charge or discharge those Powerwalls at its sole discretion, subject only to the customer’s designated Backup Reserve floor. The VPP program is marketed to consumers exclusively as an opportunity to earn additional savings – specifically, up to $10 per Powerwall per month in VPP Credits, plus sell-back credits at 90% of real-time market price. At no point in Tesla’s marketing materials, enrollment communications, or Electricity Facts Label (EFL) is the consumer informed that participation in the VPP program carries a material risk of increasing the consumer’s electricity costs above what the consumer would pay if they never enrolled.

Beginning in late 2025 and continuing into early 2026, Complainant observed his system repeatedly drawing power from the grid for routine home consumption while his Powerwalls remained charged at levels substantially above his Backup Reserve. Tesla, exercising its rights under the VPP Terms of Service, was holding the stored battery charge in reserve for potential grid dispatch – thereby forcing Complainant to purchase grid electricity he would not otherwise have needed to buy. In documented instances, Complainant’s Powerwalls held 60-99% charge overnight while the system simultaneously purchased grid power for routine home loads.

Complainant raised this issue directly and repeatedly with Tesla support beginning December 2025. Complainant posed two specific questions that Tesla never adequately answered: (1) whether Tesla would reimburse customers for grid electricity they were forced to purchase as a direct result of Tesla withholding access to their own stored power under VPP; and (2) whether Tesla would begin disclosing to prospective VPP enrollees that participation could result in higher electricity costs than if the customer had never enrolled at all. Tesla did not answer either question substantively. Instead, Tesla’s written response of January 14, 2026 incorrectly characterized the situation as a “system-wide issue.” The CPD’s own informal complaint review (CP2026020580) found this response to be unclear and misleading, potentially inconsistent with PUCT Rule 25.475(c)(1)(A). However, the CPD’s determination did not address the underlying and more fundamental issue: that Tesla’s VPP program is marketed without any disclosure ofthe material financial risk it imposes on participating consumers.

Complainant asserts that Tesla’s conduct violates the following PUCT rules:

PUCT Rule 25.475(c)(1)(A) – All written, electronic, and oral communications must be clear and not misleading, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, or anticompetitive. Tesla’s marketing of the Dynamic Plan and VPP program presents participation exclusively as a savings and earnings opportunity, with no disclosure that enrollment carries the risk of the consumer being forced to purchase grid electricity they do not need – and thereby incurring higher total electricity costs than if they had never participated. This omission constitutes a deceptive and misleading consumer communication. PUCT Rule 25.471 (Electricity Facts Label requirements) – The EFL for the Dynamic Plan does not disclose the material risk that Tesla’s exercise of its VPP priority-access rights may cause the consumer to purchase more grid electricity than they would otherwise require, resulting in net costs that exceed what the consumer would pay absent VPP enrollment. This is a material omission from a required consumer disclosure document. PUCT Rule 25.475(c)(3) – A REP may not engage in misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent marketing practices. Marketing the VPP program solely as an earnings and savings opportunity, while contractually reserving the right to force customers to purchase electricity they do not need, constitutes a deceptive marketing practice.

The CPD’s informal review did not address this disclosure failure – it focused solely on whether Tesla acted within its contractual rights, which is not in dispute. The core unresolved issue is that those contractual rights were never disclosed to the consumer as a material financial risk in Tesla’s marketing of the program.

Complainant requests the following relief:

1. A formal finding by the PUCT that Tesla Energy Ventures, LLC dba Tesla Electric has violated PUCT Rules 25.475(c)(1)(A), 25.471, and/or 25.475(c)(3) by failing to disclose to consumers that participation in the Dynamic Plan VPP program carries a material risk of increasing the consumer’s electricity costs above what they would incur absent participation.
2. An order requiring Tesla to immediately revise its Dynamic Plan marketing materials, Electricity Facts Label, and VPP enrollment communications to include a clear, plain-language disclosure that VPP participation may result in the consumer being forced to purchase grid electricity they do not need – and thereby incurring higher total electricity costs – compared to what the consumer would pay if they had not enrolled in the VPP program.
3. Any additional relief the PUCT deems appropriate to protect Texas residential electricity consumers from undisclosed financial risk associated with VPP program enrollment.”