|
|
|
|
|
Texas PUC Staff File Corrective Statement of Position In Complaint Against REP, Which Implicates Agent Representations
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Staff of the Texas PUC have filed a "corrective" statement of position in the customer complaint case against Reliant Energy Retail Services, LLC ("Reliant") reported by ECM on July 24 (Docket 59602), which implicates representations made by REP sales agents and CSRs during enrollment, and the ability of such to bind REPs
In brief, the complainant generally alleges that a Reliant CSR allegedly informed the complainant at enrollment that the complainant would be able to switch to a cheaper plan during their term if such a plan became available. During the complainant's term, the complainant alleges that Reliant initially would not offer to move the complainant to a plan open to new customers only, which complainant alleges is contrary to the alleged representation made by a CSR at enrollment (as noted in our prior story, Reliant after escalation did offer such new customer plan to the complainant, but with the new plan including an ETF for any future plan change during the term, with the complainant declining to enroll)
See full details in our prior story included below
Staff's corrective statement of position generally reaches the same conclusion (recommending dismissal of the complaint) and generally contains the same analysis of the relevant allegations and law, but strikes and adds certain language
In brief, Staff in the corrective filing still states that, "The Reliant representatives did not state that Complainant may switch to any and all electricity plans, regardless of enrollment eligibility."
Staff in the corrective filing still states that, "Reliant’s Terms of Service (TOS) for Complainant’s 2024 plan and 2026 plan expressly state that (1) the TOS contains the complete understanding of the agreement and supersedes all other written and oral communications and representations and that (2) no sales agent or any other representative has binding authority to modify the contract."
However, Staff's corrective statement of position strikes the phrase, "Even if such representations were made," which had, in the original filing, immediately preceded the above-quoted language beginning with, "Reliant’s Terms of Service (TOS) for Complainant’s 2024 plan and 2026 plan expressly state..."
Staff's corrective statement of position also adds language stating that, "While 16 TAC § 25.475(c)(1)(A) expressly contemplates that all communications, whether written or oral, by the REP be clear and not misleading, Staff did not find evidence that Complainant was made verbal representations that Reliant later failed to adhere to."
Original story from 7/24:
Texas PUC Staff Recommend Dismissal Of Customer Complaint Against REP, Which Alleges Misrepresentation By CSR During Prior Enrollment After Later Sought Switch To New Customer Plan Was Initially Denied, Due To Terms Of Service Provision Stating Agents Do Not Have Binding Authority To Modify The Contract
Note: Text removed in Staff's corrective filing is shown in In a statement of position, Staff of the Texas PUC have recommended dismissal of a formal customer complaint against Reliant Energy Retail Services, LLC ("Reliant") in which the complainant alleges, among other things, misrepresentation due to the alleged statement by a Reliant customer service representative (CSR) during enrollment that the customer would be able to switch to a cheaper plan, "if there is a lower price."
The complainant alleges rule violations because the complainant, during their existing Reliant plan term, was initially not offered the complainant's sought enrollment onto a plan for new Reliant customers that had a cheaper rate than other available Reliant offers, which complainant alleges is contrary to the representations made during the prior enrollment by a CSR (as further discussed below, after escalation, Reliant did offer to enroll the customer onto the new customer plan, subject to an ETF for any future plan switch, with the complainant declining the new customer plan at such time)
Staff said that, "The Reliant representatives did not state that Complainant may switch to any and all electricity plans, regardless of enrollment eligibility."
Staff further said
The complaint produced an audio recording alleged to be their enrollment from 2024, in which the Reliant CSR allegedly states, at one point, in response to the complainant's question about being able to switch to a cheaper plan if one is found online, "if I do the switch right now, you will be able to change, if there is a lower price, yes, but we need to keep this plan at least one month."
The complainant allegedly again asks if the complainant would be able to switch to a cheaper plan and the CSR again allegedly states, without qualifier, "Yes, yes, if it comes up, yes."
The genesis of the complaint is that, in early 2026, the complainant sought to switch to a Reliant plan which was limited to new customers
A Reliant CSR allegedly informed the complainant that the CSR could not, themself, switch the customer to the new customer plan, but that the CSR would escalate the issue to a manager
Reliant states in a response to the complaint that, after escalation, Reliant did offer to enroll the complainant on the sought new customer plan. However, Reliant alleges that the customer declined such enrollment because the CSR would not agree to a waiver of the new plan's early termination fee (ETF) in the electricity
facts label (EFL) in the event that the complainant wanted to switch to a different Reliant plan at a
future date which was before the expiration of the contract term for the new customer plan
Regardless of Reliant's later offering of enrollment onto the new plan, complainant alleges a violation based on the initial refusal to move the customer to the new customer plan
Although not specifically cited by complainant until a reply filing, complainant alleges Reliant's initial refusal to offer migration to the new customer plan, when during the enrollment the ability to switch to cheaper plans was stated, violated 16 TAC § 25.475(c)(1)(A), which provides that, "All written, electronic, and oral communications, including advertising, websites, direct
marketing materials, billing statements, terms of service, EFLs, YRACs, and, if
applicable, PDSs distributed by a REP or aggregator must be clear and not misleading,
fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, or anti-competitive."
Complainant also alleged violations of PURA § 17.004 which grants to customers, "protection from fraudulent, unfair, misleading, deceptive, or anticompetitive practices[.]"
In an answer to the complaint, Reliant states, among other things, that CSR statements about the general ability to switch plans cannot make the customer eligible for a plan for which the customer is not eligible, such as a plan limited to new customers.
In an answer to the complaint, Reliant stated, "Reliant was not required by contract or rule to offer an existing customer
a plan marketed for new customers."
Reliant stated, "There is no Commission rule that requires all potential plans
to be available to all customers, and Complainants had the opportunity to shop for plans offered by other REPs. Accordingly, the facts alleged in the complaint do not give rise to any potential
rule violation and Complainants were not without a remedy because they had the option to switch
providers."
Reliant stated, "the allegations
are largely based on an incorrect assertion that Reliant was contractually obligated to permit
Complainants to change to any other Reliant plan at any time even if Complainants did not satisfy
the terms for enrollment in the plan."
"Complainants' allegations
regarding past conversations with call agents about the potential opportunity to change plans
during the contract term without incurring an ETF do not address the fact that they did not satisfy
the enrollment terms of the [new customer] Reliant Power On 12 plan," Reliant said
Reliant said that the TOS, "expressly states that the contract contains the complete understanding
and supersedes all other written or oral communications and representations," and Reliant said that the TOS specifies that, "no
sales agent or any other representative has binding authority to modify this contract and any such
changes shall not be binding on Reliant."
Reliant further stressed that, "it was ultimately Complainants' choice not to enroll on the [new customer] plan," once it was offered
Concerning representations made by CSRs, and the binding of such, the complainant said, "If Reliant does not like
what their customer representatives say and do, and who binds them to legal contracts every day. [sic] They should do a better job of training or get rid of that option altogether, not blame the customer for their
poor training[.]"
In a statement of position, PUC Staff said, "Staff ... finds that Complainant misconstrued Reliant’s representations."
Staff stated, "The Reliant representatives did not state that Complainant may switch to any and all electricity plans, regardless of enrollment eligibility."
Most notably, Staff said that the TOS provision supersedes any CSR statements
Staff stated, "
Staff stated, "Staff finds that Complainant’s prior enrollment history has no bearing on his current ineligibility for the [new customer] Power On 12 plan. Reliant was under no obligation to enroll Complainant into previous plans offered only to new customers. Complainant was a Reliant customer of over thirty years when he requested enrollment in the Power On 12 plan. In the March 3, 2026, call, the Reliant representative noted that the 2026 plan was also only offered to new customers but that Complainant’s enrollment would be approved as an exception. As such, Staff recommends that Reliant has not violated PURA § 17.004(a)(1) and 16 TAC § 25.475(c)(1)(A)."
The complainant makes various other allegations concerning their switch to another Reliant plan other than the new customer plan, and the start date for such, which do not implicate, as broadly, market-wide precedent
Of note, however, is that Staff says that the complainant received a lower rate due to Reliant's actions concerning the other new plan's start date, with Staff finding that no violation occurred
The complainant also generally sought compensation for alleged losses, but, as related to the start date of the new plan ultimately provided to the complainant, Staff said that the complainant suffered no losses, due to the new plan's lower rate
Staff described complainant's sought compensation for being initially denied the new customer plan as being a request for, "speculative damages ... for contract terms that were never agreed upon and thus never executed."
"In sum, Staff finds that Complainant failed to establish alleged violations of PURA § 17.004(a)(1) and 16 TAC § 25.475(c)(1)(A) because no contractual breach or monetary loss occurred," Staff said
"It is Staff’s position that Complainant will not be able to prove that the alleged violations occurred or that he is entitled to any form of relief he alleges to stem from this complaint. Therefore, Staff recommends that this complaint be dismissed," Staff said
Docket 59602
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
July 27, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
strikethrough
that even if a representation was made by an agent during an enrollment call that the customer could switch to any and all electricity plans, regardless of enrollment eligibility, dismissal of the complaint is warranted because Reliant’s Terms of Service (TOS) for the complainant’s 2024 plan and 2026 plan expressly state that (1) the TOS contains the complete understanding of the agreement and supersedes all other written and oral communications and representations, and that (2) no sales agent or any other representative has binding authority to modify the contract.
Even if such representations were made, Reliant’s Terms of Service (TOS) for Complainant’s 2024 plan and 2026 plan expressly state that (1) the TOS contains the complete understanding of the agreement and supersedes all other written and oral communications and representations and that (2) no sales agent or any other representative has binding authority to modify the contract."
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|