|
|
|
|
|
Texas Retail Provider Appeals Judge's Order Requiring Reconnection Of Customer, Alleges Order Is Inconsistent With Rule
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
BKV-BPP Retail LLC has appealed an interim order from a Texas PUC Administrative Law Judge which had ordered the reconnection of service to a customer which had filed a formal complaint against the REP, as BKV-BPP Retail said that the order is inconsistent with the applicable rule
The customer's complaint generally alleges that BKV-BPP Retail disconnected the customer at various points, and alleges that BKV-BPP Retail did not properly document, memorialize in writing, or provide notice of amounts included or excluded from a deferred payment plan, allegedly contrary to rule. The customer's complaint also generally alleges that disconnections have occurred without "meaningful" notice
The complainant did specifically seek as relief reconnection, as well as, "a full audit of all charges, payments, fees, disconnect notices, deferred payment plans, and account activity from the inception of service to present."
In a procedural order requiring BKV-BPP Retail to respond to the complaint, a PUC ALJ noted that the complaint concerns alleged disconnection violations, and the ALJ ordered, for "good cause" under 16 TAC § 22.242(h), BKV-BPP Retail to continue to provide service to the complainant during the complaint proceeding, and to reconnect the customer as needed to accomplish such
§ 22.242(h) provides, "In any case in which a formal complaint
has been filed and an allegation is made that a person is threatening to discontinue a customer’s service,
the presiding officer may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, issue an order requiring the person
to continue to provide service during the processing of the complaint. The presiding officer may issue such an order for good cause, on such terms as may be reasonable to preserve the rights of the parties
during the processing of the complaint."
BKV-BPP Retail has complied with the reconnection order
However, BKV-BPP Retail appealed the reconnection order, arguing that the order is not authorized by § 22.242(h)
First, BKV-BPP Retail argued that 22.242(h) applies when a REP is "threatening" to disconnect service after a formal complaint has been filed. In this case, BKV-BPP Retail said that disconnection already occurred prior to the filing of the formal complaint
"This rule does not give the ALJ authority to order the restoration of service disconnected prior to
the filing of the complaint," BKV-BPP Retail said
Second, BKV-BPP Retail argued that § 22.242(h) only allows a reconnection order, "after notice and opportunity for hearing."
BKV-BPP Retail said that the ALJ's order was issued without conducting a hearing
BKV-BPP Retail argued that the company would be exposed to irreparable harm under the order to continue to provide service to the complainant, with BKV-BPP Retail
citing the complainant's alleged usage and past bills, and alleging that the complainant, "paid for very little of the energy he has consumed this year".
Orders for a REP to reconnect a customer during a complaint were previously rare. However, they have become more common as the PUC takes a new tack towards formal complaints
ECM can only recall one example, a recent order (from September 2025 in Docket 58743), in which reconnection was specifically ordered (as opposed to the continuation of service pending resolution of the complaint where no disconnection has yet occurred)
Of note, orders for continued service to a customer, especially a non-paying customer, now potentially impose a greater impact on REPs, given recent previously reported changes in how the PUC is treating formal complaints
Prior to recent PUC orders, formal complaints against REPs usually did not survive a motion to dismiss, because most complaints sought relief akin to damages, which is not a form of relief that the PUC is empowered to grant. As such, the complaints were dismissed during preliminary stages of the formal complaint process
However, as previously reported, the PUC has changed its tack in how it treats the relief available to complainants. The PUC has now affirmed that a finding from the PUC that a violation occurred is a form of relief which can be granted by the PUC. Moreover, the PUC has ruled that complainants need not have specifically sought such a finding of a violation in order for complaints to survive a motion to dismiss
See more background on this change in how complaints are addressed here
In brief, the PUC's recent precedent means that REP formal complaints, most of which were previously disposed of within weeks due to the complaint not surviving a motion to dismiss, may now take many months, if not longer, to be resolved through the formal complaint process, including a potential referral to SOAH for a hearing
Thus, continued service to a complainant during the complaint proceeding, especially a non-paying or partially paying complainant, has the potential to impact a REP much more largely than previously
Of note, in the separate Docket 58743 proceeding, a hearing was not held prior to the issuance of a reconnection order to the REP. However, in 58743, the disconnection did occur after the filing of the formal complaint (though apparently prior to receipt of notice of the complaint by the REP), distinguishing the 58743 order from the BKV-BPP Retail case, where disconnection occurred prior to the filing of the complaint
Although not explicit, PUC Staff, which in 58743 had sought a reconnection order from the ALJ, had in 58743 recited 16 TAC § 22.242(h) as separate sentences, rather than reciting the entire provision as a single paragraph. It was not clear if Staff did such to indicate a belief that the rule's statement that, "The presiding officer may issue such an order [reconnection] for good cause..." is independent from the earlier sentence requiring a hearing, and that the "good cause" sentence grants an ALJ authority to issue a reconnection order solely on the basis of good cause, not subject to the prior sentence's provision requiring a hearing
Docket 59122
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
December 19, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Account Executive (Commercial Retail Energy)
|
|
|
|
|