Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Texas Retail Provider Would Pay $70,000 Under Settlement With Texas PUC Staff

June 29, 2017

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-17 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

Direct Energy, LP would pay $70,000 under a settlement with Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas to resolve alleged violations of 16 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 25.474 (TAC), relating to selection of a retail electric provider (REP); 25.475, relating to general retail electric provider requirements; 25.481, related to unauthorized charges; and 25.495, relating to unauthorized change of retail electric provider.

The settlement states that Commission Staff investigated a series of informal complaints relating to door-to-door sales vendors from January 1, 2014 through February 1, 2016.

One of the allegations which merits highlighting concerns REPs' obligation to execute a switch on the date agreed to by the customer

Under 16 TAC 25.474(k), a REP is required to submit a move-in or switch so that the move-in or switch will be processed on the approximate scheduled date agreed to by the applicant.

The settlement states that two customer complaints alleged that Direct failed to enact a switch on the date requested by the applicant resulting in early termination fees being levied by the previous REP.

Other allegations included:

Under 16 TAC 25.474(f)(5)(C), a REP is forbidden from deeming an enrollment valid in the event the applicant does not consent to be switched to the REP and forbids the REP from submitting a switch request for the applicant's service.

The settlement states two customer complaints alleged that Direct continued the enrollment process when the applicant failed to provide consent.

Under 16 TAC 25.474(f)(4)(E), a REP's sales representative is prohibited from participating in the enrollment verification process.

The settlement states that six customer complaints alleged that sales agents representing Direct participated in the verification of authorization process.

Under 16 TAC 25.474(f)(4)(A), a REP is required to audio record the entirety of the applicant's verification of the authorization.

The settlement states that thirteen customer complaints alleged that Direct failed to audio record the entirety of the applicant's verification of authorization.

Under 16 TAC 25.475(c)(1)(A), the REP is required to provide communications which are not misleading, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive or anti-competitive. Furthermore, pursuant to 16 TAC 25.475(c)(1)(A)(iv), a REP or any of its agents is forbidden from falsely suggesting, implying or otherwise leading someone to believe the person is a representative of a TDU or any other REP.

The settlement states that one customer complaint alleged that a salesperson representing Direct identified themselves as the applicant's current REP at that time.

Under 16 TAC § 25.474(f)(1)(B), a REP is required to have its sales force wear clear and conspicuous identification of the REP.

The settlement states that one customer complaint alleged that a door-to-door salesman representing Direct failed to wear clear and conspicuous identification while attempting to sell Direct's products.

Under 16 TAC 25.474(f)(4)(C), a REP is required to conduct verification of enrollment in the same language used in the sales transaction.

The settlement states one customer complaint alleged that Direct conducted a verification of enrollment in a language other than the language used in the sales transaction.

Under 16 TAC 25.474(f)(5)(B)(iii), a REP is required to obtain personal access verification data prior to the final confirmation by the applicant that they wish to enroll with the REP.

The settlement states one customer complaint alleged that Direct failed to obtain personal access verification data prior to the final confirmation by the applicant that they wish to enroll with Direct

Under 16 TAC 25.481(b)(1), a REP is required to inform the customer of all associated charges and that the associated charges will appear on the customer's electric bill.

The settlement states that one customer complaint alleged that Direct assessed a fee that was not disclosed to the customer prior to signing up for service and was not informed the fee would appear on their bill. The fee in question was levied against the previous resident but appeared on the current customer's billing.

Under 16 TAC 25.495(a)(1), a REP is required to notify the registration agent of an unauthorized change of REP as promptly as possible.

The settlement states that one customer complaint alleged that Direct was informed by a customer of an inadvertent gain on January 14, 2015, but that Direct did not notify the registration agent of the unauthorized change of REP until March 25, 2015.

The settlement states that Direct ceased door-to-door solicitations in Texas on December 1, 2016.

The settlement would resolve all claims regarding Direct's door-to-door marketing from January 1, 2014 through the date of the settlement agreement, including the specific complaints addressed therein. The settlement remains subject to approval by the Commission

Direct Energy provided the following statement to EnergyChoiceMatters.com: "We are pleased to have worked with Commission staff on this matter and come to an amicable resolution."

Docket 47362

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Director of Supply -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Indirect Sales Manager -- Retail Supplier -- DFW
• NEW! -- Manager, Supply & Pricing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Senior Pricing & Structuring Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Manager, Billing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Operations Supervisor -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Director, Regulatory Compliance -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
• NEW! -- Sales & Marketing Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Pit Crew Analyst - Pricing, Contracting & Service Guru -- DFW / Irving
• NEW! -- Sr. Energy Consultant