News Stories

A complainant at the Texas PUC has moved to withdraw a previously filed complaint against Save On Energy, LLC (SOE), with such complaint having implicated several issues concerning marketing, the presentation of prices (and customer understanding of such), and certain product designs in the retail electric market, and which could have resulted in PUC precedent on such matters if the complaint had reached adjudication by the PUC.

Complainant and SOE informed the PUC that the parties have reached a settlement which resolves all issues in the complaint, and complainant moved to withdraw the complaint. The parties averred that PUC Staff does not oppose withdrawal of the complaint. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

A SaveOnEnergy representative provided the following statement concerning the matter:

“We are happy this matter has been resolved amicably and that the complaint was withdrawn. SOE is proud to have served Texas residents since 2003 and looks forward to continuing to help Texans make informed decisions about their energy consumption.”

— Statement from SaveOnEnergy representative

Among other things, the complaint, which was filed in 2023 and relates to an enrollment from December 2022, implicated alleged use of the name “Power to Choose” or similar in the market, including search engine optimization or similar.

Complainant had alleged that, in December 2022, “I googled Power to Choose I then clicked on a link that popped up as Power to Choose. I tried to navigate the website to no avail. On the webpage, there was a link to click on a phone number to reach a representative for assistance.”

Complainant alleged that such call connected the complainant to SOE. Complainant alleged, “I then spoke to a Customer Service Representative who represented themselves as Powertochoose.org while discussing rates and plans.”

The complainant enrolled with a REP through SOE.

The complainant did not file a complaint against the REP. The complainant did not make any allegations against the REP related to marketing or pricing by the REP.

The complainant had alleged that on the call with SOE, the sales agent, “mentioned the price would be .11 cents per kwh plus a monthly credit of $100 a month.”

When the complainant received the first bill for the plan, the complainant alleged that the billed rate was not the rate for which the complainant believed the complainant had signed up.

The complainant had alleged, “About a month later, I received a copy of the bill and it showed I am being charged .164 per kwh.”

The complainant had alleged, “I received my first bill and immediately noticed the price listed was much higher and fixed, than agreed upon during the recorded conversation when placing my order with who I thought was Powertochoose.org”.

The complaint concerns a product whose ultimate price per kWh, in terms of total bill divided by usage, varies based on whether the customer is eligible for a usage credit. Specifically, the product included a $100 refund for each billing cycle in which usage is at least 1000 kWhs. However, it is unclear from complainant’s allegations if complainant’s allegation, that complainant’s billed rate exceeded the rate that complainant had allegedly been presented with, is due to the mechanics of the usage credit, or rather only due to the presentation of prices more generally at different usage levels (namely, the difference between 1,000 kWh average usage versus 2,000 kWh average usage, which differ under the plan, but both of which receive the credit).

In a previously filed response to the complaint, SOE had said that there was no inconsistency in the rates, and that there was no misrepresentation of the rate on the call with the complainant.

SOE had previously stated, “In the recording [of the call], Save On Energy explains to Mr. Godard [complainant] that the rate’s average price per kWh at 1000kWh average monthly use, when taking into account the $100 rate credit applicable at that usage threshold, is 11.5¢.”

SOE had previously stated, “In the recording, Save On Energy explains to Mr. Godard that the average price per kWh at 2000 kWh average monthly use, while still taking into account the $100 rate credit applicable at that usage threshold, is 16.32¢. The EFL also states this. Save On Energy further explains in the recording that this price averages 16.74¢ when the fixed energy charge is added.”

SOE had further said, “the recording dispels Mr. Godard’s other allegations. In particular, Mr. Godard acknowledges that he used Save On Energy’s website, ‘Choose Texas Power,’ to identify an electric rate, not the Commission’s ‘Power to Choose’ website.”

SOE had further said that complainant acknowledged in the call that complainant understood that complainant would receive notice of the rates, terms, and conditions of the selected retail electric rate. SOE said, “He [complainant] also confirms receipt of that notice via email while he is on the call with Save On Energy’s representative. Combined, these verbal acknowledgements refute Mr. Godard’s assertion that he did not receive notice concerning the rates he signed up for and for which he now complains.”

Save On Energy more broadly denied each and every, all and singular, of the allegations of wrongdoing or contentions that Save On Energy failed to comply with PURA or the Commission’s substantive rules.

In addition to raising issues concerning use of the words “power” and “choose” and/or search engine optimization related to “Power to Choose” or similar, and issues concerning rate presentation, whether specific to a usage-based credit product or not, the proceeding also held the potential for another issue that the PUC could have potentially addressed.

The complainant had included in one of complainant’s filings with the PUC a screen shot of the REP’s pricing allegedly from the REP’s website. The complainant had filed the screen shot in support of the complainant’s allegations that the rate ultimately charged, through the enrollment resulting from the call with SOE, exceeded the REP’s generally available rates.

The complainant did not allege that the rates on the screen shot of the REP’s website violated any rule or law or were improper in any way.

However, such screen shot being filed as part of the complaint case could have resulted in formal consideration of, and potential ruling on, the rates presented on such screen shot, even though no allegations against the REP’s screen shot rates were made by the complainant.

The screen shot rate notably listed a product’s price most prominently as without TDU charges, with an asterisk under the price stating, “not including TDU charges”. For these plans, the all-in average rate was listed under “More info” and also in the linked EFL. ECM understands that the REP previously presented rates in this manner in order to promote certain plans that were more advantageous for potential customers.

At the time the complaint was filed, the REP voluntarily ceased this form of price presentation, and changed the presentation such that the most prominently listed rate included TDU charges.

As noted, no allegation was made against the REP or otherwise concerning these screen shot price presentations, but further litigation in the complaint proceeding, had it occurred, could have potentially resulted in the PUC formally addressing the practice.

The withdrawal of the complaint, if accepted by the PUC, means there will be no potentially precedential PUC rulings concerning any of these various matters described above.

Settling parties take the position that PUC approval is not required to withdraw the complaint, because complainant had not yet filed the complainant’s direct case. Selling parties said, based on PUC precedent, that presentation of a direct case means presentation at a hearing on the merits (which has not yet occurred), and that the submission of complainant’s pre-filed testimony (as has been done by complainant) does not constitute presentation of a direct case.

The request to withdraw is unopposed.