|
|
|
|
|
Texas PUC Chair Says Commission Should Reject Argument That Complaints Against REPs Require A "Live Controversy", Reiterates Recent Precedent On Motions To Dismiss
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Texas PUC Chair Thomas Gleeson and Commissioner Courtney Hjaltman have filed separate memos in advance of tomorrow's open meeting setting forth their views on the appeal, by a retail electric provider, of an ALJ's order which denied the REP's motion to dismiss a formal customer complaint filed at the PUC, with the Commission's ultimate position, once established, having broader implications in setting precedent for all complaints against REPs
The case involves a customer complaint against Express Energy (Docket 58743). Generally, the complainant alleges that Express Energy did not honor a deferred payment plan that the complainant alleges was offered on a phone call and accepted by the complainant.
Express Energy argues that the customer did not enter into a DPP on the call and did not complete the process for such. In a motion to dismiss, Express Energy has argued, among other things, that, as the customer has switched away from Express Energy to a different REP, the customer's sought relief -- the offering of a DPP from Express Energy -- is no longer available, and thus no relief is available to the complainant. Express Energy moved to dismiss for lack of available relief and, essentially, lack of a live controversy
As previously reported, an ALJ had rejected Express Energy's motion to dismiss under such grounds, as the ALJ cited recent PUC precedent which held that an order from the PUC finding that a violation of rule or law occurred is a form of relief available to complainants
Express Energy has appealed the ALJ's denial of dismissal
See more background on the issues here
Gleeson would deny the appeal, and in a memo stated, "Mr. Kelel [complainant] has alleged conduct, that if true, could entitle him to relief that the Commission has jurisdiction to grant. Specifically, Mr. Kelel is entitled to a decision as to whether legal violations occurred. And based on that decision, he may also be entitled to additional remedies from the Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction."
Gleeson also took aim at arguments that a "live controversy" is needed for the PUC to adjudicate formal customer complaints
"I believe the Commission should expressly reject the idea that 'a live controversy' is a requirement for the Commission to consider a complaint," Gleeson said in the memo
Gleeson wrote, "First, unlike a court, the existence of a 'live controversy' is not required by statute or Commission rule for the Commission to consider a complaint. Second, even if Mr. Kelel is no longer a customer of Express Energy, the complaint is not moot. The Commission has regulatory jurisdiction over the conduct of retail electric providers and could grant relief to Mr. Kelel in the form of a finding of violation consistent with that jurisdiction."
Hjaltman would also deny the appeal, and favored the development of an evidentiary record. Hjaltman generally noted that relief may be available to the complainant if the allegations are proven
However, Hjaltman did notably write in a memo that, "Order No. 3 [the ALJ's at-issue order] relies heavily on a previous statement by the Commission that a finding of a violation is itself a form of relief. While I agree with the ALJ that not all remedies are monetary in nature, I believe that the ALJ overstates the intention of our previous statement as it relates to the resolution of a complaint."
More specifically, Hjaltman wrote, "[R]elief could be granted for these [complainant's] claims, if proven. The Commission interprets pleadings so as to do substantial justice, which often requires us to carefully review the allegations of pro se parties to determine the underlying issues in a case. Order No. 3 relies heavily on a previous statement by the Commission that a finding of a violation is itself a form of relief. While I agree with the ALJ that not all remedies are monetary in nature, I believe that the ALJ overstates the intention of our previous statement as it relates to the resolution of a complaint. The Commission often has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a violation of our rules has occurred, which may be a critical condition precedent to ultimately resolving a dispute, as it was in the Brandt case. However, the most pertinent remedy depends on the nature of the complaint and whether the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and issues. Here, if Mr. Kelel was improperly billed or assessed excessive fees, he could be granted a refund; we may also find it appropriate to require strict compliance with a rule if a violation did occur or assess some other remedy. Regardless, I believe there is insufficient evidence at this time to dismiss the case and therefore recommend we deny the appeal, consistent with the ALJ's order, so the evidentiary record can be more fully developed."
Docket 58743
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 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
Another Commissioner Says ALJ "Overstates" Intent Of Recent PUC Rulings On Whether Violation Finding Is A Form Of Relief
January 14, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Account Executive (Commercial Retail Energy)
|
|
|
|
|