News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Texas District Court Sides with Plaintiff by Requiring REP to Remove Switch Hold From Customer’s Account
Parties File List of Issues to be Addressed in TPUC Complaint
On February 24,2026, Judge Erica R. Hughes of the 127th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, signed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) requiring BKV-BPP Retail LLC to release its switch hold on Complainant’s ESI ID.
The District Courts TRO ordered BKV-BPP Retail to remove the switch sought by complainant Billy Sorrells, III. The Complainant Mr. Sorrells -as previously reported- filed a formal complaint against BKV-BPP Retail LLC with the Texas Public Utilities Commission (TPUC) in Docket 59122.
Among other things, Mr. Sorrels alleged that BKV-BPP Retail had disconnected without following the Texas PUC’s disconnect rules that among other things require specific notices and documentation of any deferred payment plan and opportunity for hearing.
The district court in granting the TRO ordered the immediate release of the switch hold and said “Plaintiffs [complainant] have shown a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury.”
“The balance of equities favors Plaintiffs [complainant].”
“It clearly appears from specific facts shown by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury will result to Plaintiffs before notice can be served and a hearing had thereon, as required by TRCP 680.”
The TRO further enjoins BKV-BPP Retail from reimposing any switch hold during the pendency of the district court case and the complaint docket pending before the TPUC.
The district court will hold a hearing on the TRO on March 5.
Subsequently on February 27, 2026 the complainant filed a Motion for Default Judgment and Evidentiary Sanctions with the TPUC asking the TPUC to “enter a default judgment against BKV Energy pursuant to 16 TAC § 22.161(a)(3), or in the alternative, to impose the full range of evidentiary and procedural sanctions authorized by § 22.161(a)(1)-(4) because BKV-BPP Retail has allegedly not complied with the Harris County District Court’s TRO by failing to “present any legal defense, designate any witnesses, pre-file any testimony, authenticate any evidence, or comply with any of its discovery obligations in this proceeding.”
Complainant filed its list of issues to be addressed in the TPUC docket in response to the ALJ’s February 5, 2026 Order Requesting Lists of Issues.
BKV-BPP Retail also filed its lists of issues to be addressed in response to the ALJ’s February 5, 2026 order.
“BKV Energy requests that the following issues be addressed in this proceeding and be incorporated into the Commission’s preliminary order:
- Does the complaint state a claim for which relief may be granted by the Commission?
- Is Respondent a retail electric provider?
- Is Complainant an affected person?
- For each asserted violation of the Public Utilities Regulatory Act (“PURA”) and Commission rules, what was the relevant time period?
- Was Complainant a residential customer of Respondent during the period covered by the complaint?
- Is Complainant a current customer of BKV Energy? If not, when did service terminate?
- Did Respondent comply with the Commission’s requirements regarding disconnection of service? a. Did Respondent disconnect Complainant’s electric service under 16 TAC § 25.483? If so, did Respondent provide proper notice as required under the rule?4 b. Did Respondent disconnect Complainant’ s electric service for any of the reasons prohibited under Commission rules? c. Did Respondent comply with Commission rules regarding any disconnection notices issued to Complainant? d. Did Respondent comply with the requirements of its terms of service regarding disconnection of service?
- Did Respondent comply with Commission rules regarding disconnection for nonpayment?
- If respondent did not comply with Commission rules, PURA, or Respondent’ s terms of service, what is the appropriate remedy.
