News Stories

Enron Energy Texas LLC in a Texas PUC filing alleged that a recommendation from Staff of the Texas PUC, in which Staff recommends denial of Enron Energy Texas LLC’s Option 1 Texas retail electric provider application, fails to cite any grounds for denial under the REP certifications rules. Enron Energy Texas LLC alleges that Staff alleges no violation of PURA or PUC rules by Enron Energy Texas LLC

As previously reported, Staff, in Staff’s latest filing, had recommended that the PUC deny, with prejudice, Enron Energy Texas LLC’s application for an Option 1 retail electric provider certificate, due to what Staff alleges is “satire” which Staff alleges, when presented alongside legitimate retail electric services, “is misleading and likely to confuse consumers.”

Although Staff acknowledged that the website of Enron Energy Texas LLC as stated in the REP application is inactive, Staff raised allegations concerning the website of Enron Energy Texas LLC’s parent company (“Parent Company”).

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged that Staff, “incorrectly cast the website of Parent Company as the responsibility of Enron Energy Texas LLC.”

In brief, Staff alleged that such Parent Company site, “contains references to a seemingly fake at-home nuclear reactor, Enron merchandise, and links to the company’s satirical social media accounts, all alongside a form that allows customers to sign up to receive a notification when the Enron’s energy services are ready for launch.”

Staff had alleged, “Enron’s own website claims that the company is fictitious and fails to differentiate the company’s retail electric services. By attempting to market potentially legitimate retail electric services alongside satire, Enron has made it unnecessarily difficult for Texans to differentiate between real information and humor.”

Staff had alleged, “Enron’s presentation of itself and its services is misleading, and the public interest is not served by forcing consumers to meticulously sort fact from fiction when selecting an electric provider. Therefore, granting Enron’s application for a REP certificate would be inconsistent with the Commission’s consumer protection standards.”

In a response filed with the PUC, Enron Energy Texas LLC said that Staff did not cite any rules, either regarding certification or marketing, in support of Staff’s recommendation of denial, and that Staff’s recommendation would be, “discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious.” Enron Energy Texas LLC also alleged that Staff’s latest recommendation, which raised wholly new issues, is procedurally barred, as further discussed below.

Staff in its latest recommendation had alleged, “The consumer protection standards set forth in PURA Chapter 17 recognize that all buyers of retail electric services are entitled to protection from fraudulent, unfair, misleading, deceptive, or anticompetitive practices. The Commission has been granted the authority and the duty to create and enforce rules to protect retail consumers from such practices and to protect customers of electric services consistent with the public interest. Enron’s [sic] presentation of itself and its services is misleading, and the public interest is not served by forcing consumers to meticulously sort fact from fiction when selecting an electric provider. Therefore, granting Enron’ s application for a REP certificate would be inconsistent with the Commission’s consumer protection standards.”

As further discussed below, Enron Energy Texas LLC in response alleged, “Staff does not assert that Enron Texas has violated any PURA provision or customer protection standards. Instead, Staff vaguely alleges that granting a REP certification would be ‘inconsistent with consumer protection standards.’”

Enron Energy Texas LLC (“Enron Texas” or “Enron”) said in its filed response that Enron Energy Texas LLC meets all of the certification requirements of 16 TAC § 25.107 (the certification rule)

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged, “Staff’s Supplemental Recommendation is notable for (1) its lack of any substantive citation to the Commission’s rules, particularly 16 TAC § 25.107, Certification and Obligations of Retail Electric Providers (‘REPs’), and (2) failure to denote any deficiency in the Application.”

Enron Energy Texas LLC said, “The core question in this proceeding is whether Enron Texas meets the requirements of 16 TAC § 25.107. An objective application of the facts in this proceeding to the rule establishes that Enron Texas does.”

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged, “In its Supplemental Recommendation, Staff does not assert any deficiency in Enron Texas’s Application. Rather, Staff urges the ALJ to deny Enron Texas’s Application for reasons outside the Commission rule governing the qualification and certification of a REP. As discussed in greater detail below, Staff’s Supplemental Recommendation asks the ALJ to look beyond the core question presented in this proceeding, beyond its First Recommendation, and without any record evidence or legal basis, deny the Application with prejudice based on factors that have not been applied to other applicants for REP certifications. Denying an applicant certification based on standards or requirements not evenly applied is arbitrary and capricious.” [emphasis by Enron Energy Texas LLC]

Enron Energy Texas LLC further alleged that Staff’s latest recommendation provides no basis for Staff’s conclusions

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged, “Most critically, Staff incorrectly attributes actions and statements of the Parent Company to Enron Texas, confuses the Parent Company’s website for Enron Texas’s separate website (which is not yet operational), and cavalierly asserts that ‘[Enron’s] presentation of itself and its services is misleading,’ again substituting the Parent Company in place of Enron Texas.” [emphasis by Enron Energy Texas LLC]

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged, “Staff’s position does not credibly reflect a genuine confusion between Enron Texas and Parent Company. Rather it suggests a continued predisposition to seeing this Application denied.”

Enron Energy Texas LLC said, “Enron Texas has been careful not to market or promote itself as a provider of retail electric service in Texas pending approval of its Application to be sure it does not violate 16 TAC § 25.107. The only undertaking related to electric services, which Staff references in its Supplemental Recommendation, is the opportunity for website visitors to sign up for future email notifications. This can hardly be considered ‘attempting to market legitimate retail electric services’ as Staff dubiously asserts.”

Enron Energy Texas LLC said, “Significantly, in its Supplemental Recommendation, Staff does not assert that Enron Texas has violated any PURA provision or customer protection standards. Instead, Staff vaguely alleges that granting a REP certification would be ‘inconsistent with consumer protection standards.’”

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged, “Staff’s use of the term ‘misleading’ runs contrary to the examples of prohibited misleading conduct provided in the Commission’s rules, each of which entails intentional deceit towards some material end adverse to the consumer. In contrast, Staff’s argument is devoid of any evidence, or even any specific allegation, as to how consumers might be misled by Enron Texas’s alleged conduct, how consumers would be materially, adversely affected if they were misled, or how Enron Texas would stand to make any pecuniary gain from misleading consumers in the manner suggested by Staff. Instead, Staff merely hypothesizes that satire related to non-electric products and services is too complicated for Texans to process and future consumers will be unable to discern whether Enron Texas’s REP services are real. Staff’s allegation is not only conclusory and devoid of any evidence, but it also fails to amount to a violation of PURA or the Commission’s consumer protection standards.”

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged, “Put more simply, Staff’s own Supplemental Recommendation establishes that Parent Company’s separate website is not, in fact, misleading. Staff acknowledges that the Parent Company website clearly states that the information provided on the site is parody and provided for entertainment purposes. Once certified, Enron Texas’s website will provide the Texas retail service marketing information.”

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged, “Ultimately, Staff’s Supplemental Recommendation is undermined by the fact that Staff failed to identify any conduct of Enron Texas, as opposed to Parent Company.” [emphasis by Enron Energy Texas LLC]

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged, “Enron Texas has already informed Staff in its Application, in the July 17th, 2025 conference, and its response to the Second Request that Parent Company is a separate legal entity with different goals and objectives. Staff presents no basis for its apparent position that the actions of Parent Company should be imputed to Enron Texas.”

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged, “Furthermore, Staff’s Supplemental Recommendation is unsupported by evidence. Staff asks the Commission to deny Enron Texas’s Application based on a series of links to the internet and nothing more. Staff fails to present any record evidence supporting its insinuation of consumer protection violations by proving that consumers have been or are likely to be misled. Staff could have, but did not, raise a fact issue to be adjudicated pursuant to the Commission’s procedural rules. In fact, Staff had the opportunity to request a hearing on the merits in this proceeding, at which it could have presented actual evidence supporting its arguments, but it waived that opportunity. Staff’s attempt to now present evidence at the last hour should be disregarded.”

Enron Energy Texas LLC noted that Staff did not raise the allegedly misleading information until Staff’s latest recommendation. Enron Energy Texas LLC noted that, as previously reported, Staff initially had recommended denial based on Staff’s allegation that Enron Energy Texas LLC did not meet the requirement for sufficient past competitive electric or gas market experience. Enron Energy Texas LLC disputed such Staff position, and provided an explanatory response and supplemental information.

Subsequently, although Staff did not issue a revised or additional recommendation between the time of Staff’s first denial recommendation (relating to past industry experience) and Staff’s latest recommendation (in which Staff raises the allegations of allegedly misleading information), Staff in this interim period did issue, after Staff’s first recommendation, additional RFIs concerning Enron Energy Texas LLC’s finances and related issues. Enron Energy Texas LLC provided an explanatory response and supplemental information in response to such RFIs, and Staff did not in any formal filing allege that Enron Energy Texas LLC lacked financial fitness under the certification rules

Given this history, Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged that Staff’s latest recommendation concerning allegedly misleading information, “could have and should have been raised by Staff either in its First Request or in its First Recommendation.”

Enron Energy Texas LLC alleged, “In Order No. 11, the ALJ very clearly ordered staff to file a ‘supplemental recommendation on final disposition’ by August 4, 2025. Instead of supplementing its First Recommendation, Staff has proposed an entirely new, revised recommendation (notwithstanding its title, ‘Supplemental Recommendation’). Staff’s latest attempt to introduce new arguments into the record is late and falls outside of the scope of Order No. 11.” [emphasis by Enron Energy Texas LLC]

Enron Energy Texas alleged, “In its Supplemental Recommendation, Staff urges the ALJ to deny the Application (1) not for any reason set forth in Staff’s First Theory, (2) not for any reason set forth in Staff’s Second Theory, (3) not for any asserted deficiency in the Application, (4) not for any evidence or filing submitted in this docket, but based solely on extraneous factors and actions not attributable to Enron Texas or any entity subject to PUCT jurisdiction.”

Enron Energy Texas LLC further alleged, “Staff’s Supplemental Recommendation at best constitutes allegations of future violations of governing consumer protection standards. Staff’s Supplemental Recommendation with respect to Enron Texas is in sharp contrast to the standards governing certified REPs, who are entitled to notice and a right to a hearing if accused of consumer protection violations, and can only have their certification revoked for an adjudicated ‘significant’ violation. Accepting Staff’s argument that the Commission should deny the Application based on mere allegations of consumer protection violations, supported only by links to the internet and no record evidence, with no opportunity for Enron Texas to defend itself or have the merits determined through a contested hearing, would create a far harsher result than PURA and the Commission’s rules provide for certified REPs. There is simply no legal basis for Staff’s recommendation, particularly given that Staff requests dismissal with prejudice. Such a result would be discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious, and violative of Enron Texas’s due process rights.”

Enron Energy Texas requested the entry of an order approving its application for certification as an Option 1 retail electric provider.

As previously reported, an ALJ had ruled that Enron Energy Texas, LLC’s application was administratively complete for further review (generally meaning that the application is “sufficient”) on May 12, 2025.

Under PUC rules, the presiding officer will issue an order approving, rejecting, or approving with modifications a REP application within 90 days of finding an application sufficient, except where good cause exists to extend the time for review. To date, there has been no extension of this 90-day deadline (or any request for such), which would be reached on or about August 12.