News Stories

This Texas customer complaint matter revolves around a formal residential customer complaint against a Retail Electric Provider (REP) for allegedly not honoring a deferred payment plan.

Complaint Background:

“On September 22,2025, Messele Kelel filed a formal complaint against Express Energy for unfair billing practices, misrepresentation, and retaliatory conduct. In his complaint, Mr. Kelel alleges that he entered a deferred payment plan with Express Energy and that Express Energy failed to honor the deferred payment plan.” 

“Mr. Kelel seeks 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 relates that he switched electric service providers to Gexa Energy on September 23, 2025, after his electric service had been disconnected by Express Energy.”

Excerpts from Motion to Dismiss:

“On October 14, 2025 Express Energy filed a motion to dismiss under 16 TAC § 22.181(d)(2) and (8) for mootness and for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Express Energy argues that there is not a live controversy because Mr. Kelel is no longer a customer of Express Energy. Because Mr. Kelel switched service to a different provider, Express Energy cannot restore his service or honor a deferred payment plan. Therefore, Express Energy argues, there is no current violation and no available remedy, rendering the case moot. 

“On October 28,2025, Commission Staff filed a motion to dismiss on the same grounds as those asserted by Express Energy and using the same reasoning. On October 14 and 29,2025, Mr. Kelel filed responses to the motions to dismiss. For the following reasons, the ALJ denies both motions to dismiss.” [Emphasis added.]

“Mr. Kelel’s complaint alleges conduct that, if true, could constitute violations of rules that the Commission has authority to enforce. Specifically, he alleges that Express Energy failed to honor a deferred payment plan, which could be a violation of 16 TAC § 25.480, and improperly disconnected his electric service, which could be a violation of 16 TAC § 25.483.” [Emphasis added.]

“A recent Commission decision concluded that, if a complaint alleges a violation of a rule or statute that the Commission has authority to enforce, the Commission should make a finding as to whether the violation occurred, even if a remedy can no longer be granted.1 Another recent Commission order found that a finding that a violation occurred constitutes a form of relief in itself, and any complaint alleging a violation of a rule or statute under the Commission’ s authority should be construed as a request for such a finding.2” [Emphasis added.]

“Mr. Kelel has alleged that his electric service was improperly disconnected and that his deferred payment plan was not honored by Express Energy, both of which could be violations of rules or statutes that the Commission has authority to enforce. Mr. Kelel is therefore entitled to a decision as to whether violations occurred, even if no other relief or remedy can be granted. Accordingly, the motions to dismiss filed by Express Energy and Commission Staff are denied.” [Emphasis added.]

Complainant’s Statement Requesting Hearing With SOAH Per Order Number 3  (10/29/2025)
Order No. 3 – Addressing Procedural Matters, Denying Motions To Dismiss, And Setting A Deadline (10/29/2025)
Complainant’s Response Opposing Motion To Dismiss And Notice Of Continuing Violations  (10/29/2025)
Staff’s Statement Of Position And Motion To Dismiss  (10/28/2025)
58743
(Formal Complaint Of Messele Kelel Against Express Energy)