News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
REP Appeals ALJ’s Reconnection Order As Inconsistent With Rule
In Texas BKV-BPP Retail files an Emergency Appeal of Order No. 1 directing the supplier to reconnect the customer related to an ongoing customer complaint.
Excerpt from BKV-BPP emergency appeal:
“On December 15, 2025, Billy Sorrells filed a complaint against BKV-BPP Retail LLC (“BKV Energy”).1 In his complaint, Mr. Sorrells alleges that BKV Energy improperly disconnected his service and requests emergency interim relief, including mandatory reconnection and a prohibition on further disconnections, while billing disputes and a full account audit are pending. In response, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued Order No. 1, which included a directive to immediately reconnect Mr. Sorrell’ s electricity service, pursuant to the ALJ’ s authority under 16 TAC § 22.242(h).3 BKV Energy not only denies the accusations made by Mr. Sorrells, but respectfully submits that the reconnection directive in Order No. 1 was procedurally improper. BKV Energy respectfully requests that the ALJ’ s reconnection order be immediately rescinded.”
“A. The ALJ’s reconnection order was procedurally improper.
In Order No. 1, the ALJ purported to use his authority under 16 TAC § 22.242(h) to order BKV Energy to reconnect a disconnected customer. However, the cited rule does not authorize ALJs to preemptively order reconnection, rather it states: “[i]n any case in which a formal complaint has been filed and an allegation is made that a person is threatening to discontinue a customer’ s service, the presiding officer may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, issue an order requiring the person to continue to provide service during the processing of the complaint. The presiding officer may issue such an order for good cause, on such terms as may be reasonable to preserve the rights of the parties during the processing of the complaint.” (emphasis added)
Thus, for the ALJ to issue an order requiring the restoration of or continued service during the proceeding, the service must have been disconnected after the formal complaint was filed.4 This rule does not give the ALJ authority to order the restoration of service disconnected prior to the filing of the complaint. Further, the ALJ may only order the continuation of service for the duration of the complaint after notice and an opportunity for a hearing. 5 In this case, neither condition has been met for the ALJ to order BKV Energy to restore or continue service for the duration of the complaint. First, as Mr. Sorrells states in his complaint, BKV Energy disconnected his service prior to the filing of the complaint. 6 Accordingly, 16 TAC § 22.242(h) is inapplicable and does not give the ALJ authority to order BKV Energy to restore or continue service that was discontinued prior to the complaint. Additionally, even if this rule did apply, BKV Energy has not been given the opportunity for a hearing before receiving an order to continue to provide service.”
- Requiring BKV Energy to continue providing service throughout the proceeding exposes BKV Energy to irreparable harm.
“Mr. Sorrells owes BKV Energy roughly $4,000 in unpaid electricity charges and fees for his home. Mr. Sorrells’ s home is quite large, and during the period of his enrollment, he has consumed as much as 6,181 kW in a single month. BKV Energy expects that he will continue to consume significant amounts of energy during the pendency of this proceeding. As Mr. Sorrells has paid for very little of the energy he has consumed this year, BKV Energy does not expect that Mr. Sorrells will pay for the additional energy consumed during the pendency of the complaint. Further, BKV Energy is also uncertain whether Mr. Sorrells could even pay BKV Energy for the additional energy should he wish to do so.”
- BKV Energy requests to disconnect Mr. Sorrells without additional notice.
“In accordance with Order No. 1, BKV Energy immediately reconnected Mr. Sorrells even though the order was procedurally improper. However, if the Public Utility Commission of Texas (“Commission”) were to rescind the disconnection order, it is unclear whether BKV Energy would be required to issue a new disconnection notice and wait an additional ten days before disconnecting Mr. Sorrells.
Therefore, BKV Energy respectfully requests an order stating that it may disconnect Mr. Sorrells without any additional notice and without being subject to additional restrictions under 16 TAC § 25.483.”
BKV-BPP Retail LLC’s Emergency Appeal of Order No. 1 (12/19/2025)
Order No. 1 – Requiring Responses (12/16/2025)
59122
(Complaint Of Billy Sorrells Against BKV-BPP Retail LLC)
