|
|
|
|
|
Proton Energy Formally Responds to Texas Staff Petition to Revoke REP Certificate
Proton Energy, Inc. has filed a formal response to a petition from Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas to revoke Proton Energy's REP certificate and fine the company $2 million.
See prior story for Staff's petition and allegations (click here)
Proton Energy is contesting the allegations and requested a hearing.
Among other defenses, Proton responded as follows:
"Staff alleges that Proton disconnected 407 customers for non-payment of their bills without providing those customers with proper notice pursuant to Commission rules. At least one third of the 407 instances cited by Staff either are the result of double counting or are not governed by the rules Staff cited [Proton says that the ESI-ID's were served under prepay service offered pursuant to P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.498]."
"Included as part of Staff's disconnect allegation is the further claim that Proton attempted to disconnect 29 customers during extreme weather events. Proton became aware of this claim for the first time when it received a copy of Staff's petition. If Staff had asked, Proton would have explained that the offending disconnect attempts were not generated by Proton, but instead they were generated automatically by third-party prepaid services software without Proton's knowledge," Proton said.
"With regard to the remaining customers in this group, Staff's allegation is so vague that it does not know what it has allegedly done wrong. Finally, none of the violations that Proton is alleged to have committed warrant classification as a Class A violation under P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.8 as alleged by Staff. Proton believes the penalty classification selected by staff is, at best, questionable, based on the language of the rule," Proton said.
"Staff also alleges that Proton has improperly placed switch-holds on at 288 customer accounts and the switch-holds remained on these accounts for many months on average. Proton disagrees with Staff and does not believe any violations of the Commission's rules occurred," Proton said.
"Staff alleges that Proton failed to provide a discount to one customer on one occasion under the Commission's LITE-UP TEXAS assistance program. This allegation was the subject of an informal request for information from Staff several months ago, and Proton established that the discount was applied to the account in question. This allegation is without merit," Proton said.
"Staff claims that Proton has shown a reckless indifference in responding to communications from Staff. Proton is a very small REP and concedes that it does not have the resources available to it that the larger REPs have. There is no staff at Proton whose sole job is to be a liaison with Staff and perform such tasks as putting together responses to Staff inquiries. Instead, dealing with Staff inquiries at Proton means that Mr. Ali [Proton President and sole owner Ramzan Ali] or his staff must be pulled away from their job assisting customers and operating Proton," Proton said.
"[S]ince Proton entered the market in 2009, it has only received 31 complaints from the Commission. While not an excuse, Proton does not believe that failing to submit 5 complaint responses (due to its failure to properly track receipt of Commission complaints) nor its failure to timely file 3 responses, is justification for revocation. There is no pattern of failing to respond to customer complaints that warrants revocation of Proton's certificate," Proton said.
"One of the more troubling allegations by Staff is that Proton provided false or misleading information in response to informal requests for information from Staff. This allegation is flat wrong. Proton has cooperated with Staff on its year-long investigation and, most importantly, Proton has always truthfully responded to Staff's requests for information," Proton said.
"Staff alleges that 'Proton charged 200 customers a fee to enroll with the REP ranging from $75 to $100.' These improperly charged enrollment fees totaled $16,475. Staff has inflated the number of alleged violations. Staff is in possession of documentation from Proton confirming that 144 of the 200 customers cited by Staff were charged a fee by EBC Energy Today under an agreement with Proton Energy that was never fully executed. Proton Energy is aware that the Commission addressed EBC Energy Today's violations in P.U.C. Docket 41106. Further, Staff is in possession of documentation wherein Proton attested that it has provided refunds to all affected customers. Proton denies that the funds Proton collected from the remaining 56 customers at time of enrollment were improper enrollment fees," Proton said.
Docket 41848 et. al.
ADVERTISEMENT Search for more retail energy careers: Copyright 2010-
October 9, 2013
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-13 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Energy Sales -- DFW
• NEW! -- Vice President, Residential Sales and Marketing -- Retail Provider -- Houston
• NEW! -- Accounting Manager -- Retail Provider -- Houston
• NEW! -- Indirect Sales Representative -- Retail Provider -- Texas
• Indirect Sales Coordinator -- Retail Provider
• Database Reporting Analyst -- ESCO -- NY
• Director of Operations & Compliance
• Director of National Accounts -- DFW
• Marketing Coordinator -- Retail Supplier
RetailEnergyJobs.com
|
|
|
|