Update: Adopted Preliminary Order In Texas Customer Complaint Includes Examining Whether REP Had To Describe Delivery Service Rate Class Change
July 27, 2018 Email This Story Copyright 2010-17 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • email@example.com
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Public Utility Commission of Texas has adopted a preliminary (scoping) order in a customer complaint that includes, as an issue to be addressed in the case, whether the customer's retail electric provider had a duty to inform the complainant of the change in a customer's TDU rate classification that had prompted the complaint
As previously reported, in docket 48387, a customer has filed a complaint against Oncor concerning the charges for a storage building, and assignment of a new delivery class based on a usage audit. While the customer's REP, Champion Energy Services, has been included as a respondent, the customer in their complaint stated, "the complaint is not specific to the charges levied by them [Champion]."
The customer was transitioned to the Secondary Service Greater Than 10 kW from the prior classification of Secondary Service Less Than or Equal to 10 kW. As a result, the pass-through of TDU costs from their REP significantly increased
The adopted preliminary order in the proceeding includes as an issue to be addressed the following: "Did Oncor or Champion Energy have a duty to inform the complainant of the transition in tariff treatment from section 22.214.171.124.2 (secondary service less than or equal to 10 kW) to section 126.96.36.199.3 (secondary service greater than 10 kW)?"
As previously reported, PUCT Staff had essentially proposed that such issue be addressed, though Staff used different language (proposing that an issue to be addressed include whether Champion had a duty to describe to complainant the Secondary Service Greater than 10 KVA rates that would apply to Complainant's account) [emphasis added]
As noted in our prior story, a similar issue was raised in a customer complaint case previously but such case was dismissed prior to any final determination concerning a REP's obligation to inform customers of TDU rate class changes