Retail Provider To Pay $60,000 Under Settlement With Texas PUC Staff

March 2, 2022

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Just Energy Texas, LP would pay $60,000 under a settlement with Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas to resolve alleged violations of 16 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §§ 25.475 and 25.485 and customer information disclosure requirements from 2014 through 2020.

The alleged violations stem from the alleged presence of a binding arbitration clause in Just Energy's residential and small commercial contracts from 2014 through 2020

The settlement states that Just Energy asserts that, despite the presence of the clause, Just Energy never actually required any residential or small commercial customer to pursue a dispute through alternative dispute resolution.

Just Energy provided the following statement concerning the matter:

"We are pleased to have reached a settlement that resolves this matter.”

-- Statement from Just Energy

Under 16 TAC § 25.485(c), a REP's TOS shall not require a residential or small commercial customer to engage in alternative dispute resolution, including requiring complaints to be submitted to arbitration or mediation by third parties.

Under 16 TAC § 25.475(c)(1)(A), all written, electronic, and oral communications distributed by a REP or aggregator shall be clear and not misleading, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, or anti-competitive, including the REP's TOS.

The settlement states, "Commission Staff is aware that for a period of approximately six years, from 2014 until 2020, Just Energy's residential and small commercial TOS included the following language under a section titled Disputes or Complaints. Binding Arbitration: 'We may request that you set out your billing dispute in writing. If, for any reason, you are dissatisfied with our response, you may contact the PUCT; and we can require you to submit to final, binding arbitration under American Arbitration Association Rules. Please refer to 'Your Rights as a Customer' for more information.'"

The settlement states, "Commission Staff asserts that for a period of approximately six years, from 2014 until 2020, Just Energy violated 16 TAC § 25.485(c) by stating in its residential and small commercial TOS that Just Energy could require residential and small commercial customers to submit to binding arbitration."

The settlement states, "Commission Staff asserts that for a period of approximately six years, from 2014 until 2020, Just Energy violated PURA §§ 17.004(a)(1) and 39.101(b)(6) and 16 TAC § 25.475(c)(1)(A) by providing residential and small commercial customers with a TOS that contained misleading language, which falsely stated that Just Energy could require residential and small commercial customers to submit to binding arbitration."

The settlement states that Just Energy asserts that Just Energy's inclusion of the alternative dispute resolution clause in its TOS was the result of oversight and was not a willful violation of PURA or the Commission's customer protection rules.

The settlement states that Just Energy promptly and independently changed the TOS to resolve the language at issue in its TOS once informed of Commission Staff's investigation of the matter, prior to the settlement being reached.

In August 2020, Just Energy began providing customers with a residential and small commercial TOS which removed any reference suggesting that Just Energy could require residential or small commercial customers to submit to binding arbitration as a means of dispute resolution.

Just Energy also agrees to make efforts to improve and maintain compliance with the Commission's customer protection rules.

The proposed administrative penalty of $60,000 represents $10,000 for each year that the arbitration clause was alleged to have been included in the TOS

The settlement states, "Commission Staff is not aware of any economic harm to property or the environment as a result of Just Energy's inclusion of the arbitration clause in its TOS. Just Energy asserts that it has never actually required any residential or small commercial customer in Texas to submit to binding arbitration in violation of the Commission's rules."

The settlement states, "Commission Staff has reviewed its investigation records and has not identified a pattern of previous violations that raise alarm or otherwise justify an enhanced penalty amount."

The settlement agreement represents a compromise of disputed claims and allegations, and the execution of the agreement does not admit the truth or accuracy of any such disputed claims or allegations.

Docket 53285

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Energy Markets Pricing Analyst
• NEW! -- Energy Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Digital Marketing Manager -- Energy Marketer

HOME

Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.