Texas Staff Recommend Dismissal of Complaint That Implicated REPs' Responsibility to Communicate Changes in TDU Charges

Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas have recommended that a complaint filed against Ambit Energy, which implicated the responsibility of retail electric providers to notify customers of changes in TDU charges and when new charges could be collected, be dismissed.

The complaint centers on a customer whose delivery schedule was changed by CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric after installation of an in-line pole to power a cricket field. The customer has disputed Ambit's pass-through of charges related to the reclassification

The complaint is notable because Staff had opposed summary dismissal of the case earlier, stating, "The REP shall inform the customer of the product or service being offered, including all associated charges, and explicitly inform the customer that the associated charges for the product or service will appear on the customer's electric bill before including any charges on the customer's electric bill." Staff said a footnote in the Ambit contract regarding changes in TDU charges was not sufficient to meet this requirement of "explicit" notice.

Background:

Texas Staff: REPs Have Duty to Inform Customers of Distribution Charges (Footnote on Pass-Through Does Not Meet 'Explicit' Disclosure Required By Rule)

Texas REPs Concerned With Precedent From Texas Customer Complaint Case, SOAH Order Concludes Duty of REPs to Provide Advance Notice, Obtain Consent for Changes in TDU Pass-Throughs

However, now that the complainant has filed the specific relief being sought, Staff supported dismissal of the complaint, on procedural grounds. Such dismissal would mean the precedential question of REPs' responsibility for communicating TDU charges would not be addressed or altered.

Specifically, the complainant's requested relief is $200,000 in damages, which Staff said is beyond the Commission's jurisdiction.

"Staff recommends that this case be dismissed against all parties pursuant to P.U.C. PROC. R. 22.181(a)(1)(A) for lack of jurisdiction because the Commission cannot award [complainant] Mr. Isa the relief that he seeks. Although Staff previously questioned the equity in assessing tariffed charges to an individual without express notice given of such charges, Mr. Isa has recently requested relief ($200,000 in damages) that is not available to him as a matter of law. It is well-established law that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to assess damages because there is no 'statute authorizing the Public Utility Commission to fix or adjudicate claims for damages,'" Staff said.

Staff noted that the Commission is limited to ordering a refund of overcharges or unauthorized charges, and cannot award damages.

"In accord with this legal framework, CenterPoint's demand charges are the only charges that could qualify as 'overcharges' or 'unauthorized charges' pursuant to PURA § 17.157. Staff estimates the total amount of these demand charges to be about $6,600," Staff said.

Docket 42111