News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Customer Does Not Need to be a Current Customer for the Commission to have Jurisdiction Over Customer Complaint
Commission asserts jurisdiction over formal customer complaints for alleged REP misconduct
The Public Utilities Commission of Texas issued an Interim Order in the customer complaint case against Express Energy, ruling that “[t]here is no Commission rule or statute that requires a complainant to continue to be a customer or that a violation of a Commission rule or statute remain ongoing for the Commission to have jurisdiction over the complaint.
In its interim order issued today, the Commission went on to say that Mr. Kelel has asserted conduct that, if true, could entitle him to relief that is within the Commission’s jurisdiction to grant. There is insufficient evidence at this time to dismiss this case, and Mr. Kelel has requested an evidentiary hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Commission denies Express Energy’s appeal of Order No. 3 and will refer this proceeding to SOAH for further processing, including the development of an evidentiary record and, if necessary, a hearing on the merits. That referral will be addressed in a separate order.”
As background on October 14, 2025, Express Energy filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for mootness and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted because Mr. Kelel is no longer a customer of Express Energy.
“In Order No. 3, the Commission administrative law judge denied Express Energy’s motion to dismiss because Mr. Kelel has asserted conduct that, if true, could entitle him to relief that the Commission has jurisdiction to grant.”
Chairman Gleeson had previously expressed his thoughts on the matter in a Commissioner memorandum issued on January 14, 2026 stating that “I would deny the appeal. Contested issues remain in this docket and an evidentiary record should be developed on those issues. Mr. Kelel has alleged conduct, that if true, could entitle him to relief that the Commission has jurisdiction to grant. Specifically, Mr. Kelel is entitled to a decision as to whether legal violations occurred. And based on that decision, he may also be entitled to additional remedies from the Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction.”
In the memo, the Chairman went on to state that “I believe the Commission should expressly reject the idea that “a live controversy” is a requirement for the Commission to consider a complaint.”
As further background, on October 29, 2025, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued Order No. 3 that addressed procedural matters, denied motions to dismiss and set a procedural schedule.
As further background, the complainant, Messele Kelel on September 22, 2025 filed a formal complaint against Express Energy for unfair billing practices, misrepresentation, and retaliatory conduct.
The customer alleges that he entered a deferred payment plan with Express Energy and that Express Energy failed to honor the deferred payment plan.
The complaint sought three forms of relief: (i) an order preventing Express Energy from disconnecting his electric service, (ii) an order requiring Express Energy to honor the deferred payment plan that was allegedly entered, and (iii) an investigation into Express Energy’ s alleged failure to properly document customer agreements and its alleged retaliatory statements tied to complaints with the Commission.
In a subsequent filing, on October 1, 2025, Mr. Kelel informed the Commission that he switched electric service providers to Gexa Energy on September 23, 2025 after his electric service had been disconnected by Express Energy.
