Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

Proton Energy Denies Allegations by Texas Staff, Alleges Misuse of Power

September 20, 2013

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-13 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

Proton Energy has denied the alleged violations made against it by Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas, and alleged that the sought fine represents a misuse of power. See prior story on Staff petition to revoke Proton certificate

Proton told Matters that, as a small business, it operates under the following principles to retain customers:

• Treat all customers like a king.

• Customers are always right.

• Treat your customer the way you want to be treated.

With respect to the specific allegations of disconnections without proper notice, Proton said that it is nonsensical for it to operate in the claimed manner, as it makes its money by retaining and serving the customer.

Specifically, Proton said that in addition to the disconnection notice required by the rules, it sends the customer supplemental email and text messages on each day during the 10-day period between the required disconnection notice and the date of disconnection, and, on each of the last three days, calls the customer.

Proton said that it has only had two complaints at the PUCT in 4.5 years from customers whose service was disconnected. In each case, Proton said that, upon explanation of its actions to Staff, the case was dismissed. Proton further said the complaints were not made by the customer (but rather by relatives without knowledge of the customer) and that the customers also withdrew the complaints.

Regarding the alleged submission of 29 disconnects for non-pay submitted during an extreme weather event (thus rejected by the TDU), Proton said that these disconnections were with landlords, and though apparently were submitted as such, were not disconnections for actual non-payment, but rather, because there was no current tenant (apparently), the landlord was essentially seeking to accomplish a move-out under a faster timeline through a disconnect.

Proton said that while the use of a disconnect still imposes wires charges, reconnection can be completed much more quickly for the landlord, in 1-2 hours. In contrast, had the standard move-out been used, the process could take 3-4 days, Proton said.

Proton did concede that, due to a procedural error by an employee, it placed switch-holds on customers which Proton had intended to instead disconnect for non-payment. Proton said that it had previously experimented with switch-holds, but that after this experience, it adopted a policy of not using switch-holds because it did not produce results, and customers would often change service to the name of a relative to avoid the switch-hold.

Proton said it fired this employee for erroneously placing switch-holds on these accounts. Proton said that it immediately reversed all switch-holds upon being informed of the error. Proton said that it received no complaints at the PUCT regarding these switch-holds, and was prepared to make customers whole to the extent they were injured by the switch-hold.

Regarding the allegation that Proton did not provide the Lite Up discount to a customer, Proton said that a customer called Proton stating this customer did not receive the discount. Proton said that it contacted the PUCT Lite Up program, but was informed that the customer was not in the system. Proton said that the average Lite Up discount is $25 and that it would be illogical for a company to violate the Lite Up standard for a single customer for a gain of only $25.

Regarding the alleged imposition of an improper switching fee, Proton said that it had previously been using an aggregator which was charging a processing fee. Proton said that when informed that this fee was impermissible, Proton informed the aggregator, whose identity was not disclosed, that it would not accept more customers. Proton alleges that this led the aggregator to email the customers placed with Proton, with the aggregator encouraging the customers to complain to the PUCT regarding Proton.

Recognizing the switch-hold problems, Proton was willing to accept some form of probation, subject to penalty for a repeat violation.

However, it said that the proposed $2.2 million fine was a misuse of power, and alleged that Staff was discriminating against a small business.

Proton said that, after prior discussions with Staff, it had decided to find a buyer for the business. However, that process took three months, and now that it has found a buyer, it has been hit with the latest NOV.

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
NEW! -- Vice President, Residential Sales and Marketing -- Retail Provider -- Houston
NEW! -- Director of Operations & Compliance
NEW! -- Inside Sales Representative -- ESCO -- NY
Director of National Accounts -- DFW
Energy Advisor -- DFW
Operations Manager -- DFW
Marketing Coordinator -- Retail Supplier
Risk Manager -- Retail Provider -- Houston
Sales Associate -- Houston

Search for more retail energy careers:
RetailEnergyJobs.com


Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2010-13 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.

 

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search