Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

Retail Provider to Pay $164,000 Under Settlement With Texas Staff

April 10, 2014

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

Just Energy Texas, LP would pay $164,000 under a settlement with Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas to resolve a Staff investigation which alleged 11 violations of the customer protection substantive rules.

The investigation was prompted by specific customer complaints.

Among other things, Staff alleged that Just Energy failed to comply with the following:

• P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.474(h)(5)(A), relating to verification of authorization of telephonic enrollment, which requires a REP to electronically record on audio tape, a wave sound file, or other recording device the entirety of an applicant's verification of the authorization. Staff alleged that Just Energy violated the rule by completing a verification of authorization from a person other than the named applicant.

• P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.474(h)(5)(B)(ii), relating to verification of authorization of telephonic enrollment, which requires that a REP, prior to final confirmation by the applicant that they wish to enroll with the REP, shall, at a minimum, obtain or confirm the applicant's ESI-ID. Staff alleged that Just Energy violated the rule by failing to obtain or confirm the proper ESI-ID number.

• P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.479(b)(2), relating to frequency and delivery of bills, which states that bills shall be issued no later than 30 days after the REP receives the usage data and any related invoices for non-bypassable charges. Staff alleged that Just Energy violated the rule by failing to issue a bill no later than 30 days after receiving the usage data.

• P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.479(b)(3), relating to frequency and delivery of bills, which states that a REP shall issue bills to residential customers in writing and delivered via the U.S. Postal Service unless the customer agrees to electronic billing. Staff alleged that Just Energy violated the rule by providing electronic billing without the customer's agreed consent.

• P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.483(c)(1), relating to disconnection with notice, which states that a REP may authorize the disconnection of a customer's electric service after proper notice and not before the first day after the disconnection date in the notice for failure to pay any outstanding bona fide debt for electric service owed to the REP or to make deferred payment arrangements by the date of disconnection stated on the disconnection notice. The rule also states that payment of a delinquent bill at the REP's authorized payment agency is considered payment to the REP. Staff alleged that Just Energy violated the rule by issuing a disconnection order despite the customer paying the outstanding balance or making deferred payment arrangements by the first day after the disconnection date.

• P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.483(d), relating to disconnection without prior notice, which states that a REP may authorize disconnection of a customer's electric service without prior notice when a known dangerous condition exists, where service is connected without authority by a person who has not applied for service, where service is reconnected without authority after disconnection for non-payment, where there has been tampering with equipment or when there has been theft of service. Staff alleged that Just Energy violated the rule by authorizing disconnection of service without notice for reasons other than the reasons provided for in the rule.

• P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.483(e)(5), relating to prohibited disconnections, which states that a REP shall not authorize a disconnection for nonpayment of a customer's electric service for failure to pay disputed charges, except for the amount not under dispute, until a determination as to the accuracy of the charges has been made by the REP or the Commission. Staff alleged that Just Energy violated the rule and authorized disconnection of service over disputed amounts prior to a final determination.

In the settlement agreement, Just Energy states that, prior to settlement of this matter, it developed and instituted corrective action plans and implemented corrective actions to prevent similar violations.

Docket 42375

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
NEW! -- Regional Sales Manager, New England/Various -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Channel Marketing Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Regional Sales Manager, Texas -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Manager, Pricing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Energy Analyst -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Senior Billing & Transactions Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Gas Accounting Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Analyst - Energy & Operations -- Retail Supplier -- New York
NEW! -- Analyst, Trading and Supply Operations -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Vice President Risk Management -- Retail Supplier -- New York

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