Texas Business Customer Files Suit Against Large Retail Provider Alleging "Price Gouging"
--- Alleges "Duty" To Protect Customer Against "Foreseeable" Winter Weather Event Price Spike
May 5, 2021 Email This Story Copyright 2010-21 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 owner of a North Texas Harley-Davidson dealership has filed a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas, district court against Direct Energy Business, LLC and affiliates, alleging that, "Direct Energy price gouged AEHD when it excessively raised electricity prices," after the winter weather event in ERCOT
In brief, the plaintiff was being served on a rollover index rate after expiration of a fixed price agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the index pricing did not comport to representations alleged to have been made at the time of marketing the initial fixed price plan, and alleges that Direct Energy had a duty under the contract to prevent plaintiff from being charged excessive prices and to take aggressive steps to prevent the charging of such excessive prices, "[g]iven the foreseeability of excessive prices."
A Direct Energy spokesperson stated that, "It is Direct Energy’s policy not to comment on ongoing litigation."
Plaintiff American Eagle Harley-Davidson (AEHD), located in Denton County, alleged that it received an invoice for February electricity service of almost $277,000, approximately 55 times more than the dealership's typical monthly bill.
Plaintiff alleged that it had a fixed price electricity supply agreement (CSA) with Direct Energy which had expired.
Plaintiff alleged that, "The Agreement included a Holdover provision that stated:
If the Supply Term of any CSA expires without renewal or terminates for any
reason where, in either case, Seller continues to supply electricity to Buyer then
Seller will calculate Buyer's invoice(s) as follows: ((ISO Published Index-Rate plus
$0.020/kWh) multiplied by the applicable metered usage, adjusted for Line
Losses)) plus (all other retail cost and charges incurred by Seller in supplying
electricity to Buyer's Account(s) reasonably calculated). plus TDU charges and
Taxes. This holdover supply service will continue to be governed by this
Agreement on a month to month basis until either Party terminates the Agreement.
Ex. A, Terms and Conditions, p. 5. The Agreement defined the 'ISO Published Index-Rate' as
'ERCOT's applicable, published Real-Time Index rate.' Ex. A, Schedule A, p. 3 (emphasis
Plaintiff alleged, "In April 2020, prior to the expiration of the rate plan per the Agreement, Direct
Energy Business sent a reminder email to AEHD of the upcoming expiration. In the last line of the
email, with the smallest font, Direct Energy Business stated, 'If your rate plan expires before you
renew, Direct Energy Business will continue to serve you on a monthly variable rate.' Ex. B,
Renewal Notice. Direct Energy Business did not provide any further explanation of the change."
Plaintiff alleged, "On April 1, 2021, nearly a month after the winter storm, AEHD received Direct
Energy Business's February 2021 invoice. AEHD was charged a total of $276,905.41. Ex. D,
February 2021 Invoice. For the billing period, Direct Energy Business applied a market-based rate
of $2.820873 per kWh to 87,900 kWh of usage."
Plaintiff alleged, "The service plan offered to AEHD from Direct Energy Business did not appreciate
the risk entailed with it, particularly when an index rate was to be applied after nonrenewal. AEHD
had not comprehended the type of exposure, liability, and risk. If it had understood the service
plan, it would have shopped around and reassessed the plan's competitiveness. Additionally,
Direct Energy Business did not provide adequate notice before, during, or after the storm to inform
its index rate customers of price spikes."
Plaintiff alleged violations of Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)
Plaintiff alleged, "DTPA §§ 17.46(b)(2), (5), (7), (9), and (12) prohibit Direct Energy from: causing
confusion as to the source of services; representing services have characteristics, uses, benefits or
quantities that it does not have; representing services are of a particular standard if they are of
another; advertising services with the intent not to sell as advertised; and representing an
agreement confers rights, remedies, or obligation that it does not have."
Plaintiff alleged, "Direct Energy represented and led AEHD to believe its service plan consisted of an
energy solution that met its dealership's needs. The plan would be reliable, easy and simple to
understand, meet budgetary constraints, offer competitive pricing, and reflect a reasonable price
range, i.e., not be subject to severe fluctuations. Direct Energy, through its advertising and
marketing, misled AEHD when it failed to disclose the true risks of its plan that passed through
excessive electricity prices. Instead, Direct Energy charged AEHD inflated and excessive prices
during and because of the winter storm."
Plaintiff alleged, "DTPA § 17.46(b)(24) prohibits failing to disclose information concerning a
service, which was known at the time of the transaction, if intended to induce the consumer into a
transaction into which the consumer would not have entered."
Plaintiff alleged, "To acquire AEHD as a customer, Direct Energy advertised and marketed its service
plan as offering unique and reliable solutions and competitive pricing to meet AEHD's needs. Had
it understood Direct Energy's pricing scheme and the possibility of inflated and excessive prices,
AEHD would not have agreed to Direct Energy's services."
Plaintiff alleged, "DTPA § 17.46(b)(27) disallows price gouging during a disaster. It prohibits taking
advantage of a disaster, as declared under Chapter 418 of the Texas Government Code, by:
(A) selling or leasing fuel, food, medicine, lodging, building materials, construction
tools, or another necessity at an exorbitant or excessive price; or
(B) demanding an exorbitant or excessive price in connection with the sale or lease
of fuel, food, medicine, lodging, building materials, construction tools, or another
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46(b)(27)."
Plaintiff alleged, "Direct Energy price gouged AEHD when it excessively raised electricity prices.
AEHD did not anticipate such increases to its electricity services. It relied on Direct Energy's
electricity supply to its detriment, particularly amidst a disastrous winter storm."
Plaintiff alleged, "Negative Option Marketing. The Federal Trade Commission has identified
negative option marketing features on the Internet to be an unfair or deceptive act or practice unless
the person: (1) clearly and conspicuously discloses terms prior to obtaining billing information,
(2) obtains express informed consent before charging the consumer, and (3) provides a simple
means by which to stop recurring charges. 15 U.S.C. § 8403. Direct Energy has not met the
requirements to automatically switch rates for AEHD upon the expiration of the renewal date. A
nonrenewal cannot be equated to an acceptance of an index rate."
Plaintiff alleged, "Direct Energy had the ability, capacity, and contractual right to prevent charging
AEHD excessive prices and costs during the disaster. Direct Energy controlled its services and
platform and oversaw pricing and contracting and may alter its electricity pricing.
Direct Energy did not exercise ordinary care and comply with existing standards of
care when it charged AEHD excessive electricity prices and failed to properly detect and react to
the electricity market volatility and price increases.
Given the foreseeability of excessive prices during the winter storm, a reasonable
electricity provider in Direct Energy's position would have implemented measures to prevent
AEHD from being charged excessive prices and taken aggressive steps to prevent it. Direct Energy
did not do so, and instead, responded in an ineffective manner."
The suit seeks an injunction to prevent Direct Energy from billing and collecting payment for what the suit alleges are excessive prices, and demands the forgiving of any late or unpaid bills.
AEHD seeks monetary relief of $1 million
The suit is Wilpwr Rides LLC d/b/a American Eagle Harley Davidson v. Direct Energy et al, No. 2021-26741, filed in the 295th District Court in Harris County, Texas.