News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
ALJ Disagrees With Staff’s Recommended Dismissal Of Customer’s REP Billing Dispute Finding Instead That Complaint Raises Factual And Legal Questions To Be Determined Through Proceeding
The Texas Public Utilities Commission of Texas pauses dismissal of customer billing complaint against Direct Energy. As background, on May 20,2025, Rosalind Murphy Caesar filed a formal complaint against Direct Energy alleging overbilling for retail electric service.
Order No. 7 addresses the motion to dismiss filed by Commission Staff on September 17, 2025. Commission Staff moved for dismissal under 16 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 22.181(d)(2) and (8), for mootness and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In this Order, the administrative law judge denies Commission Staff’ s motion to dismiss. This Order also establishes deadlines for further processing of this case.
- Motion to Dismiss
“Under 16 TAC § 22.242, any affected person may complain to the Commission about anything done or not done by any person under the Commission’ s jurisdiction in claimed violation of any law which the Commission has jurisdiction to administer or of any order, ordinance, rule, or regulation of the Commission.
Under PURA1 § 17.004, all buyers of retail electric services are entitled to accuracy in billing, protection from billing for services not authorized or provided, and prompt resolution of disputes related to unauthorized charges. Under PURA § 17.157, the Commission may investigate an alleged violation of these rules and may require a service provider to refund or credit overcharges or unauthorized charges with interest if the service provider failed to comply with Commission rules or a contract with the customer.
Ms. Caesar alleges that she enrolled in an average monthly billing program with Direct Energy to ensure a consistent budgeted amount for her household. She alleges that she has not made any significant changes to energy usage, but her recent billing has fluctuated, has been unusually high, and does not reflect actual usage. Ms. Caesar attached several bills to her complaint in support of her claims.
On September 3,2025, Direct Energy filed its response to the complaint. In its response, Direct Energy argues that it accurately calculated Ms. Caesar’s bill in accordance with the average monthly billing program, the contract with Ms. Caesar, and Commission rules. In support of its response, Direct Energy filed several documents pertaining to Ms. Caesar’ s account, including enrollment and contract documents, copies of bills, a billing breakdown, a consumption chart of energy usage, and a statement of the account.
In its statement of position of September 17, 2025, Commission Staff agrees with the position of Direct Energy. Relying on the documents attached to Direct Energy’ s response, Commission Staff concluded that the average monthly billing appeared to be calculated correctly. Commission Staff found that Ms. Caesar’ s usage increased over the past year as did the charges from the transmission and distribution utility, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC. Commission Staff found that her billing fluctuated based on usage and the terms of the average monthly billing plan.
Commission Staff’ s arguments are based upon its view of the evidence and the factual dispute that has been raised by Ms. Caesar, go to the merits of the complaint, and rely on factual claims that have not been established in this case at this time. Whether Ms. Caesar has been billed for charges not authorized or provided by Direct Energy is a factual and legal question that will be determined through this proceeding. Because Ms. Caesar is alleging the violation of a rule that is within the authority of the Commission to enforce, she has stated a claim for which relief can be granted. Likewise, because the legal and factual issues in this case are unresolved, the case is not moot. Commission Staff”s motion to dismiss is denied accordingly.” {***}
- Setting Deadlines
{***} “The deadline for any party to file a motion for summary decision or other dispositive motion is November 5,2025.
To the extent that there are factual issues in dispute, a hearing with the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) could help resolve those disputes. If no hearing is requested or held, the ALJ will make a proposal for decision based on the limited information in his possession.
By November 5,2025, each party is ordered to file a statement in this proceeding indicating whether they request a hearing with SOAH.” {***}
Order No. 7 – Denying Commission Staff’s Motion To Dismiss And Setting Deadlines
Order No. 6 – Finding Complaint Administratively Complete & Setting Deadline For Motion To
Dismiss (10/8/2025)
58129
(Complaint Of Rosalind Murphy Caesar Against Direct Energy)
