Just Energy Seeks Reconsideration Of Denied Intervention In Just One Energy, LLC Texas Aggregator Application, Says Rules Prohibit Misleading Aggregator Behavior
August 15, 2019 Email This Story Copyright 2010-19 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
Just Energy Texas, LP d/b/a Just Energy ("Just Energy") has sought reconsideration of a Texas PUC procedural order which had denied Just Energy's motion to intervene the proceeding considering the application of Just One Energy, LLC, for a Texas electric aggregator certificate, as Just Energy argued that the PUC's Substantive Rules prohibit an aggregator from engaging in misleading or deceptive practices
As first exclusively reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, Just Energy had filed an objection to the application of Just One Energy, LLC, with Just Energy alleging that "An Aggregator using the name 'Just One Energy' will mislead and confuse Texas consumers and Just Energy's current customers and improperly leverage the good will of Just Energy established by its long-term use of the Commission-approved name in the Texas retail electric market."
As previously reported, a Texas PUC ALJ denied Just Energy's motion to intervene, noting that the aggregator registration rules do not have a similar provision concerning "misleading" names as the REP certification rules do.
Just Energy, in its motion for reconsideration, said that other rules do, however, prohibit misleading and deceptive behavior by an aggregator
Just Energy said that 16 TAC 25.475
(c)(1)(A)(iv) prohibits an aggregator from, "falsely suggesting, implying or otherwise leading
someone to believe that a person is a representative of a TDU or any REP or aggregator."
Furthermore, Just Energy said that 16 TAC 25.111(j) establishes that, "engaging in fraudulent, unfair,
misleading, deceptive or anti-competitive practices," is a significant violation of the rules under
which an aggregator must operate.
Just Energy said that the Commission has previously denied aggregator registrations on the basis that the
proposed aggregator name was similar to existing market participants.
Just Energy said, "In PUC Docket No.
25747, the Commission denied the application of Gulf States Energy, Inc. based on its similarity
to Entergy Gulf States, Inc. More recently, the Commission Staff has issued determinations
that an aggregator proposing to register under a name that is similar to an existing REP could be
misleading and could inform whether the aggregator was capable of fulfilling all customer
protection provisions, all disclosure requirements, and all marketing guidelines of PURA as
required by PURA §39.353(c) [citing a Staff Notice of Deficiency in Docket No. 44955 Application of TXSU LLC for an Aggregator Registration]."
An ALJ had also denied Just Energy's motion to intervene by stating, "PURA §39.003 specifically excludes registrations from being conducted as contested cases."
However, Just Energy said that while the language in § 39.003 makes
clear the proceedings that the Commission "shall" consider under a contested case, "[i]t does not appear that § 39.003 prohibits the Commission from considering other types of applications under the contested case process."
To the extent the PUC will not treat the docket as a contested case, Just Energy said that its filings should be treated as informational filings and be considered as the PUC reviews the application
Just Energy asked that the PUC, "reject Just One Energy, LLC's Application on the
basis that the name is misleading and would have an anti-competitive effect in the Texas retail