News Stories

The Texas REP Coalition, in an amicus filing, asked the Texas PUC to not apply recent precedent governing the dismissal (and non-dismissal) of complaints against monopoly delivery utilities to complaints filed against competitive retail electric providers, as the Texas REP Coalition cited unique statutory provisions as well as the difference between monopoly and choice service.

Excerpts from the TEAM Amicus Letter:

“Texas REP Coalition is concerned about the proposed interpretation and application of the Public Utility Commission of Texas’s (Commission) prior decision in a complaint case involving a customer complaint against a monopoly regulated transmission and distribution utility to the matters at issue in the formal complaint filed by this former customer of a competitive REP. 2 This extension of the Oncor / Boyken case would have far reaching effects that could negatively impact customers, REPs, and the Commission.”

“Consistent with this emphasis on customer service, the Texas REP Coalition supports the Commission’s commitment to construing pleadings “so as to do substantial justice.” It is important to recognize that the statutory authority to address customer complaints in PURA3 Chapter 15 is specific to monopoly public utilities, whereas customer issues regarding competitive retail electric service are to be governed by a dispute resolution process set out in PURA Chapter 17. While customer complaints against both types of entities are processed under the same procedural rule, the substance of the review and potential relief under the statute are not equivalent.”

“PURA Chapter 15 complaints involving utilities may involve Commission review of claims regarding a utility’s act or omission that violates a Commission rule or order as follows: (a) An affected person may complain to the regulatory authority in writing setting forth an act or omission by a public utility in violation or claimed violation of a law that the regulatory authority has jurisdiction to administer or of an order, ordinance, or rule of the regulatory authority. However, Commission review of a customer dispute regarding a REP differs and contemplates that the Commission can require a billing adjustment and ensure that the customer’s choice of provider is honored.4 This type of review and relief is consistent with the statute on disputes related to competitive service, which contemplates a more streamlined approach and states that the dispute should be resolved in a timely manner and should not exceed 60 days.5 It is not consistent with this statutory difference to apply the utility complaint review standards recently adopted in the Oncor / Boyken case , pursuant to the very different statutory framework under PURA Chapter 15 for monopoly regulated utilities, to a dispute brought by a customer against a competitive REP under PURA Chapter 17.”

“In the Commission’s prior decision not to dismiss the customer complaint brought under Chapter 15 in Oncor / Boyken , the Commission determined that it had the ongoing jurisdiction to determine if the utility had complied with relevant Commission rules regardless of the relief that could be ordered under the Commission’s jurisdiction. In that case, the customer had no option but to continue to receive delivery service from the utility and thus the ongoing relationship would be governed by the Commission’s determination of the regulatory requirements applicable to the utility.” 

“In the case that is currently before the Commission, the customer is no longer served by the REP that is the subject of the complaint. Nor does the customer dispute the propriety of the charges for electric service it received from the REP. The relief sought by the customer was to be put on a deferred payment plan. That relief is not available where the customer is no longer served by the REP. Thus, even if the Commission were to determine that a deferred payment may have been required by the rules, that requested relief is moot where the customer is no Ionger served by the REP. Unlike the customer’s position in the Oncor / Boyken case , where the customer had no choice in utility service provider, the customer of the REP in the instant dispute voluntarily chose to switch away from Express Energy and chose to be served by another REP of record. That is the ultimate relief in disputes regarding service by a competitive REP.”

Complainant’s Response:

“The amicus letter characterizes Complainant’ s change of providers as voluntary. The record reflects otherwise.”

 Complainant was disconnected, faced immediate health and safety risks, and was forced to switch providers solely to restore electric service. A provider change compelled by wrongful disconnection cannot render a complaint moot or defeat Commission jurisdiction.”

“Order No. 3 correctly relied on recent Commission precedent holding that: 

• A finding of a rule violation constitutes relief in itself; and 
• The Commission retains jurisdiction to determine whether violations occurred even if certain remedies are no longer available. 

The amicus letter does not meaningfully distinguish or refute this precedent.”

As reported previously on October 29, 2025 the Texas PUC issued Order No. 3 whereby the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied both motions to dismiss filed by  Mr. Kelel (the complainant) and PUCT Staff.  

The ALJ denied both motions to dismiss stating that “complaint alleges conduct that, if true, could constitute violations of rules that the Commission has authority to enforce. Specifically, he [the complainant} 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.” 

“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 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.”

______________________

1 Complaint of Douglas Brandt Against Carroll at Rivery Ranch Apartments and RE Carroll Management, Docket No. 54004, Interim Order (Jan. 29,2025) 

2 Complaint of Dennis and Peggy Boyken Against Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC , Docket No. 57368, Order Declining to Adopt Proposal for Decision (Oct. 7,2025)

Complainant’s Response To Team’s Amicus Letter  (01/08/2026)
Team Amicus Letter  (01/08/2026)
58743 
(Complaint Of Messele Kelel Against Express Energy)