News Stories

At the Texas Public Utilities Commission’s (TPUC) agenda session, the Commission voted to reject the proposed settlement agreement entered between TPUC staff and OnPoint Energy Texas.  Under the proposed settlement, the parties sought, among other things, to allow OnPoint to relinquish its retail energy provider (REP) certificate and requiring a $500,000 letter of credit with the PUC to cover the transmission distribution utilities (TDUs) costs, which did not satisfy all monies owed to the TDUs.

The initial rationale leading to the rejection of the settlement is spelled out in Commissioner Hjalman’s Memo below, which led to further discussion of the matter at the Commission’s agenda session.  Watch February 20, 2025, TPUC agenda session here. 

From Commissioner Hjalman’s Memo:
{***} “Before the Commission is a revised proposed order that would permit OnPoint Energy Texas, LLC (OnPoint) to relinquish its retail electric provider (REP) certificate. For the following reasons, I recommend we reject the proposed order and deny OnPoint’s relinquishment application. In February 2024, OnPoint filed an application to relinquish its REP certificate.1 However, OnPoint failed to follow the rules for relinquishment, specifically notice requirements.2 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I find no support for issuing a good cause exception to a rule that has already been violated. To do otherwise could tacitly condone this behavior for others. 

It is also undisputed that OnPoint violated Commission rules by failing to timely remit payment for invoiced charges to several transmission and distribution utilities.3 A letter of credit is required to address the types of situations when a REP exiting the market has unpaid financial obligations.4 However, our rules only permit the Commission to draw on a REP’s financial resources for specific circumstances, including a revocation; a relinquishment of certification under these circumstances would not qualify.5 Not only did OnPoint fail to follow the steps to properly relinquish its certificate, but a revocation is a substantively different action by the Commission. I am concerned that there could be potential unintended consequences associated with accepting OnPoint’s relinquishment in this case. Therefore, I recommend we reject the proposed order and direct Staff to pursue a revocation instead. 

Additionally, OnPoint has stated that it has three principals in common with Good Charlie, LLC, the REP that its former customers were transferred to. Commission rules indicate that principals can be prohibited from exercising control over a REP if they have exited an electricity or gas market with outstanding payment obligations.6 I also recommend we direct enforcement Staff to investigate whether the principals of OnPoint are principals of any other REP in violation of our rules. 

I look forward to discussing these considerations with you at the Open Meeting on February 20, 2025.” {***}

Excerpt from Proposed Order:
{***} “Under the terms of the agreement, Commission Staff does not oppose OnPoint’ s request to relinquish its REP certificate and Commission Staff recommends that the proceeds of OnPoint’s letter of credit should be disbursed in accordance with the order of priority established under 16 TAC § 25.107(f)(6)(A) The Commission approves the disbursement of the proceeds of OnPoint’s letter of credit as stipulated in the agreement, orders Commission Staff to conduct the disbursement of the proceeds of OnPoint’ s letter of credit, and approves OnPoint’ s relinquishment of REP certificate number 10326 to the extent provided in this Order.” {***}

The final order rejecting the settlement was not available at publication time.

Commissioner Hjaltman’s Memo  (02/19/2025)
Proposed Order Correction Memo  (01/08/2025)
Proposed Order (12/19/2024)
56201
(Settlement Agreement Regarding OnPoint Energy Texas, LLC’s Violations Of 16 TAC § 25.107, Related To Financial Obligations Of Retail Electric Providers And Application To Relinquish A Retail Electric Provider)