|
|
|
|
|
Texas PUC Staff: There Is, "No Mechanism Under State Law Or Commission Rules That Would Grant ETSWD The Right To Petition The Commission For The Implementation Or Renewal Of A Retail [Choice] Pilot Program," At SWEPCO
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Staff of the Texas PUC said in a PUC filing that, "there is no mechanism under state law or Commission rules that would grant ETSWD [East Texas Salt Water Disposal Company] the right to petition the Commission for the implementation or renewal of a retail [electric choice] pilot program [at SWEPCO], and no party has provided any support for this proposition."
Staff's filing was made in the docket (52308) addressing a previously reported 2021 petition from ETSWD that had requested that the PUC initiate a project to "renew" the retail competition pilot project associated with the Southwestern Electric Power Company ("SWEPCO") service territory, which had been initiated in 2000.
See background here
PUC Staff had not previously taken a position on ETSWD's specific petition for a "renewal" of the SWEPCO choice pilot in Docket 52308
In a separate proceeding with a distinct legal question (namely could ETSWD take service under SWEPCO's 2000 retail choice pilot tariff, Docket 51257) Staff had in briefing argued that the pilot tariff remained in effect, but Staff had said that the PUC should rule that participation in the pilot could only commence if the PUC either found that all of the statutory requirements for choice at SWEPCO under PURA § 39.503(b) have been met, or if the PUC held that the activation of the pilot is deemed to constitute the first step in a transition to retail choice at SWEPCO
However, in Docket 51257, the PUC ultimately held that SWEPCO's retail choice pilot project and associated tariff were no longer in effect (full story here)
That prompted ETSWD's new Docket 52308 petition for a new choice pilot or "renewal" of a pilot, as part of the required steps for the transition to competition under PURA § 39.503(b), given that the PUC had said that the 2000 pilot was no longer in effect
In Docket 52308, nothing substantive has been filed since ETSWD's July 27, 2021 reply to SWPECO's initially filed opposition to the petition. It should be noted that ETSWD is the last party to have substantively filed a pleading in the docket (thus having filed an answer any objections), and no procedural schedule or similar mechanism was ever established for consideration of the petition, or which obligated ETSWD to make any further filings.
However, Staff said that the inaction in the docket should be seen as failure to prosecute
"Since [July 27, 2021], no party has made any substantive filing, argued any position, or requested any relief or action by the Commission. A five-year failure to file anything of substance should be deemed to be a failure to prosecute," Staff said
Staff moved that ETSWD's petition be dismissed without prejudice
Note that while Staff said that no authority exists for a customer to petition for implementation of a retail choice pilot at SWEPCO, the PUC did, in the Docket 51257 order, find that creation of a pilot is within the Commission's authority.
Specifically, the PUC had said in Docket 51257 that PURA § 39.503(c)(1) expressly grants the
Commission authority to initiate a new customer-choice pilot project in SWEPCO's service area
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 9, 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)
|
|
|
|
|