|
|
|
|
|
Update: Texas Court Confirms Order Directing Removal Of REP's Switch Hold, Grants Temporary Injunction
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
After hearing from parties, a Harris County (Texas) District Court (127th Judicial District), confirmed its prior temporary restraining order which had directed BKV-BPP Retail LLC (BKV Energy) to remove a switch hold that had previously been placed on the ESI ID of a customer, with the court now granting a temporary injunction
BKV Energy confirmed in a March 4 court filing and a March 5 Texas PUC filing that BKV Energy had removed the switch hold on February 24, the day that the court had ordered such, contrary to later-filed allegations from the complainant Billy Sorrells, III that the switch hold had not been removed (discussed further below). In a court filing, BKV Energy 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 BKV Energy's court pleading.
As more fully detailed in our prior story, the switch hold had been applied to customer Billy Sorrells, III (complainant or Plaintiff) due to alleged non-payment. Sorrells has 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 full background on the complaint in our prior stories here
Among the court's findings of facts in granting the temporary injunction is, "Defendant [BKV Energy] will suffer no monetary damages or competitive injury from releasing the
switch hold, as Defendant has already terminated service to Plaintiffs and the requested
relief merely permits Plaintiffs to enroll with an alternative retail electric provider."
The court further said in a finding of fact that, "The harm to six minor children and one elderly person from continued deprivation of electric service vastly
outweighs any potential harm to Defendant from being required to release the switch
hold."
The court also reiterated prior reasons for ordering the removal of the switch hold as had been stated in granting the prior temporary restraining order, including a finding that the Plaintiff had no administrative remedy at the PUC because a PUC ALJ had, in the court's words, "disclaimed" authority to order reconnection or removal of the switch hold, and due to the lack of action by the PUC's executive director in response to such disclaiming of authority (see full discussion here)
The court acknowledged that BKV Energy, "has confirmed compliance with releasing switch hold."
The temporary injunction shall remain in effect during the pendency of the court case and PUC complaint case (PUC Docket No. 59122), unless modified by the court or upon final judgment in the court case. The switch hold may not be re-applied during such pendency
The complainant's case at the PUC continues through the PUC process, with the case still at the Commission (no referral to SOAH has yet been issued)
As previously reported, in a Feb. 27 PUC filing, complainant Sorrells had alleged that BKV Energy had not complied with the court's temporary restraining order which had required removal of the switch hold
BKV Energy in a March 5 PUC filing stated that BKV Energy released the switch hold on the complainant's ESI ID on February 24, 2026, on the same day that the Temporary Restraining Order was ordered by the Harris County District Court. BKV Energy said in a court filing that BKV Energy received on February 24, 2026 confirmation from CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric that the switch-hold on complainant Sorrells’ ESI ID had been removed, attaching to BKV Energy's court pleading a copy of the confirmation from the TDU.
BKV Energy said that the switch hold was released two [sic] days prior to complainant filing a motion to compel at the PUC in which complainant had alleged that the switch hold had not been removed
BKV Energy alleged that such allegation at the PUC, that the switch hold had not been removed, further demonstrates bad faith from the complainant.
BKV Energy reiterated its allegation that complainant Sorrells' filings at the PUC reflect, "reckless and deliberate use of artificial intelligence ... [which] clog[s] the docket with frivolous, inaccurate filings, all to unnecessarily increase the time and money associated with this complaint."
EnergyChoiceMatters.com previously reported BKV Energy's allegations that the complainant's PUC filings had included "artificial intelligence hallucinations". See full story here
BKV Energy's latest PUC filing included a significant list of alleged fictitious or otherwise incorrect legal citations which have been included in complainant Sorrells' PUC filings
BKV Energy alleged in a PUC filing that a PUC filing from complainant Sorrells which had cited a Texas Supreme Court case, "even includes a quote that does not appear in the case cited."
BKV Energy alleged in a PUC filing that a PUC filing from complainant Sorrells cites a quote that does not appear in 16 TAC § 22.141(a) and cites a quote that does not appear in TRCP 194.5.
BKV Energy sought sanctions against complainant, alleging, "Complainant’s behavior is incredibly inappropriate and lacks any regard for the Commission and its ALJs. Without a doubt, his behavior constitutes grounds for sanctions as both (1) filing a motion or pleading that was brought in bad faith, for the purpose of harassment, and for any other improper purpose, such as to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of the proceeding, and (2) abusing the discovery process in making discovery."
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
March 6, 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)
|
|
|
|
|