News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
PUC Informs Another Formal Complainant of Alternative Complaint Options
On March 27, 2026, the Public Utility of Texas (PUCT) issued an order requiring a response from complainant Mr. Kelel to select between two complaint options available to him under the PUC’s jurisdiction.
Specifically in this order the PUCT directed Mr. Kelel to choose between the following two options he wishes to use to pursue his formal complaint with Express Energy, a retail electric provider (REP).
Option 1: Mr. Kelel may continue to pursue and prosecute his complaint. Under this option, Mr. Kelel would continue to have responsibility for this case.
Option 2: Mr. Kelel may request the Commission’ s Division of Compliance and Enforcement (DICE) investigate and take appropriate action. Under this option, Mr. Kelel turns responsibility over the case to DICE.
Option 1 – Formal Complaint
Currently, Mr. Kelel’s case is a formal complaint. A formal complaint is an official request for the Commission to decide on a dispute and is like a lawsuit in court. It may involve a hearing with testimony and evidence, and Mr. Kelel would have the burden of proving his case. Formal complaints can address whether a complainant is owed a refund or determine whether the utility service provider complied with the laws that the Commission has jurisdiction to enforce. However, the Commission does not have authority to order some forms of relief that are available in typical courts, such as attorney fees, court costs, or damages under contract law. Those types of relief typically must be sought in court.
Option 2 – DICE
Alternatively, Mr. Kelel may request that the formal complaint be withdrawn and that the matter be turned over to DICE. If Mr. Kelel chooses this option, the information Mr. Kelel has provided will be independently investigated and evaluated by DICE. DICE will then take the actions it deems appropriate. If DICE determines violations have occurred, it may start an enforcement action against Express Energy and may ask the Commission to impose administrative penalties or corrective action. Under this option, Mr. Kelel would no longer be a party to the case nor any enforcement action that might result from the DICE investigation. In such event, DICE would have the burden of proving the case.
Mr. Kelel’s response choosing the formal complaint or DICE option is due by May 4, 2026.
As reported previously, a formal complaint was filed against Express Energy by Messele Kelel alleging unfair billing practices, misrepresentation, and retaliatory conduct.
According to Mr. Kelel’s complaint, he was offered, and agreed to, a deferred payment plan based on a July 22, 2025 call with Express Energy and immediately paid over 50% of his outstanding bill, as required. However, he later received a disconnection notice. Express Energy then told him that there was no deferred payment plan and that he was only offered a new plan with late fees. Express Energy said that record of the July 22nd call exists, but that it was not documented in Mr. Kelel’s account and allegedly refused to provide a transcript. After filing a complaint, Mr. Kelel said that Express Energy told him that his service would be disconnected if PUCT closed his complaint and he had not made full payment, which he alleges was a retaliatory threat.
Mr. Kelel also noted that he is “especially vulnerable to disconnection and hardship,” being “an elderly, disabled customer on a fixed income.”
