|
|
|
|
|
Updated, 3/5 The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Updated, 3/5
This story has been updated based on filings from BKV Energy on March 5 in which BKV Energy stated that BKV Energy released the switch hold on complainant's account on February 24, 2026 pursuant to the Temporary Restraining Order as ordered by the Harris County District Court, which BKV said was two days prior to complainant filing a motion to compel with the PUC in which complainant had alleged that the switch hold had not been removed, with BKV alleging that such allegation and motion at the PUC further demonstrates bad faith from the complainant.
In a court filing, BKV said that on February 24, 2026, BKV Energy received confirmation from CenterPoint
Energy Houston Electric that the switch-hold on complainant Sorrells’ ESI ID had been removed, attaching a copy of the confirmation from the TDU to its pleading.
Feb. 27:
A Texas district court has ordered, via a temporary restraining order (TRO), the removal of a switch hold placed by a retail electric provider on a customer's ESI ID, on an emergency basis without conducting a hearing.
The TRO issued by the Harris County (Texas) District Court (127th Judicial District), which ordered BKV-BPP Retail LLC (BKV Energy) to remove the switch hold, had been sought by complainant Billy Sorrells, III, who previously filed a formal complaint against BKV-BPP Retail LLC at the Texas PUC, with such complaint currently still working through the PUC process (and not yet referred to SOAH)
As previously reported, the complainant generally alleges that BKV-BPP Retail previously 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 complainant also generally alleges that disconnections have occurred without "meaningful" notice
See background on the complaint in our prior stories here
Of note, a Texas PUC ALJ in the PUC proceeding had originally ordered BKV-BPP Retail LLC to reconnect service to the complainant. However, such action was ordered without notice and opportunity for hearing as required by rule. BKV-BPP Retail had further argued that while PUC rules prohibit disconnection during the pendency of a complaint, the relevant DNP occurred prior to the filing of a formal complaint, and the rule does not allow the PUC to order reconnection for disconnections which did not occur while a complaint was pending.
A different Texas PUC ALJ rescinded the reconnection order.
Based on allegations from the complainant, it appears that BKV-BPP Retail subsequently disconnected the customer at some point after the reconnection order was rescinded
A switch hold was also applied to the account at some point
Complainant, in seeking the TRO, alleged that no active service contract exists between complainant and BKV-BPP Retail (such allegation appears to be based on a rollover to a month to month contract and the DNP)
The district court found that the switch hold, "constitutes an ongoing deprivation
of an essential utility service necessary for human health and safety."
In granting the TRO, the district court recited that, "Plaintiffs [complainant] have shown a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury," from the switch hold, with the district court further reciting that, "Six (6) minor
children -- including S.S. (age 2) who previously suffered hypothermia and an eye injury,
and A.S. (age 10) who suffered a head injury -- and one elderly household member
requiring medical equipment are currently without utility electric service and relying on a
portable generator, creating ongoing risks of carbon monoxide poisoning and fire ... The home's heating system and hot water heater are inoperable."
The district court found that the PUC ALJ, "expressly disclaimed authority to order
reconnection", as the district court further stated, "The PUC Executive Director has taken no
action in thirty-three (33) days. Plaintiffs have no adequate administrative remedy." (the ALJ had cited the ALJ's limited authority to grant reconnection, and had stated that the request for emergency relief was being
directed to the PUC's Executive Director for consideration).
The district court said, "The balance of equities favors Plaintiffs [complainant]. The harm to six minor children and one elderly
person from continued deprivation of electric service vastly outweighs any potential harm
to Defendant [BKV-BPP Retail] from being required to release the switch hold."
The district court said, "It clearly appears from specific facts shown by the verified complaint that immediate and
irreparable injury will result to Plaintiffs before notice can be served and a hearing had
thereon, as required by TRCP 680."
The district court ordered the immediate release of the switch hold
The district court ruled that the release of the switch hold may not be conditioned on any payment from the complainant of any disputed charges, the release of claims or withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant, or the entry into a settlement by the complainant
Under the TRO, BKV-BPP Retail is enjoined from reimposing any switch hold during the pendency of the district court case and the PUC complaint docket
The district court will hold a hearing on the TRO on March 5. The TRO expires after 14 days absent further order from the district court
In a February 27 PUC filing, the complainant alleged that BKV-BPP Retail has not complied with the district court's TRO. It could not immediately be determined based on Harris County and state appeals court records if any appeal of the TRO has been filed. BKV-BPP Retail declined any comment on the matter. * 3/5 update: BKV Energy stated that BKV Energy released the switch hold on Feb. 24, see update at top of story
In a February 3 PUC filing, BKV-BPP Retail offered the following in response to complainant's request to remove the switch hold. BKV-BPP Retail had alleged that as the complainant has defaulted under his
deferred payment plan, BKV-BPP Retail is not required to reconnect complainant (absent him paying)
or to offer him a new deferred payment plan. BKV-BPP Retail had said that, nevertheless, BKV-BPP Retail has offered the complainant something which BKV-BPP Retail called, "even more favorable":
Option 1: Complainant pays $867.91 and BKV Energy will reconnect the complainant. BKV-BPP Retail said that this is "far less" than
the roughly $2,000 initial payment that complainant Mr. Sorrells would be required to post under
a new deferred payment plan. BKV-BPP Retail said that, under this option, complainant Mr. Sorrells could continue to
litigate this proceeding while receiving service from BKV Energy.
Option 2: Complainant signs a release of complainant's PUCT claims in exchange for (i) a release of the
switch-hold (ii) forgiveness of the roughly $4,000 complainant Mr. Sorrells owes BKV Energy,
and (iii) an additional payment of $5,164 (an amount equal to 100% of the payments
complainant has made to BKV Energy). Under this option, BKV-BPP Retail said that complainant Mr. Sorrells could continue to
pursue his personal injury claims in district court.
In a Feb. 3 PUC filing, BKV-BPP Retail had alleged that filings from the complainant, "continue to misstate facts, the Commission’s rules, and even
create rules that do not exist."
BKV-BPP Retail had further alleged that the complainant was abusing the discovery process, citing duplicative requests, and alleged misstatements of discovery rules and deadlines
BKV-BPP Retail had alleged, "[Complainant] Mr. Sorrells’s requests for disclosure, admission, and contention are nothing
more than requests for information, which are almost entirely duplicative of the ones he has already
filed. Given he has already filed 70 discovery requests in this proceeding and BKV Energy has
already answered the relevant requests in full, BKV Energy respectfully requests that it be relieved
of having to object to or respond to further requests for information in this proceeding."
BKV-BPP Retail had alleged, "BKV Energy respectfully renews its request for sanctions given [complainant] Mr. Sorrells’s continued
abuse of the discovery process. Mr. Sorrells is demanding exorbitant amounts from BKV Energy,
as he reasons that it would be cheaper for BKV Energy to pay him $90,000 than to continue to
litigate this case. Mr. Sorrell’s behavior in this case merits sanctions under 16 TAC § 22.161(c)(2),
as he is intentionally trying to force BKV Energy to settle by running up the bill. This is a violation
of both 16 TAC §§ 22.1(b)(1)-(2). Further, it is grounds for dismissal under 16 § 22.181."
Complainant has alleged that BKV-BPP Retail, "has weaponized the switch hold -- a mechanism designed to protect REPs from
losses on legitimate unpaid balances -- as an instrument of entrapment and coercion to force
Complainant to abandon his regulatory complaints and release all legal claims."
Harris County District Court Docket: 202611413
Texas PUC Docket: 59122
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
Texas Court Orders Retail Provider To Remove Switch Hold From Customer's Account, Without Hearing
Switch Hold, "Constitutes Ongoing Deprivation Of Essential Utility Service Necessary For Human Health & Safety", Court Says
February 27, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW / Refreshed 2/24/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Billing Analyst - Retail Supplier
• Refreshed 2/2/26 -- Account Executive (Commercial Retail Energy)
|
|
|
|
|