Texas REP Files Complaint Against TDU, Seeks Disconnection Of Critical Care Customer & Payment By TDU Of Customer's Unpaid Energy Charges

March 2, 2023

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 VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Spark Energy, LLC (Spark) filed at the Texas PUC a formal complaint against CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC ("CEHE" or "CenterPoint") for what Spark alleged, is CEHE's, "refusal to disconnect a critical care customer served by CenterPoint."

Spark alleged, "The customer in question has not paid his electric bill for the past five years, did not sign a deferred payment plan when such plans have been offered to him, and has not been in communication with Spark despite Spark’s numerous attempts to contact the customer."

Spark alleged, "Although Spark has requested disconnection of the customer ... CenterPoint has refused to disconnect the customer in violation of the Commission’s rules and CenterPoint’s tariff."

Spark said, "Spark seeks an Order from the Commission requiring CenterPoint to disconnect the customer (outside of a weather emergency) unless all outstanding bills are paid or a deferred payment plan is signed and an initial payment is made. Spark also requests that the Order make clear that if a deferred payment plan is entered into and the customer fails to comply with that plan, CenterPoint is ordered to disconnect service to that customer. In addition, Spark seeks to recover the unpaid energy portion of the customer’s invoices from CenterPoint for the period from when CenterPoint should have originally disconnected the customer to the present."

In a statement of relief sought, Spark also cited movement of the customer to POLR, rather than disconnection (POLR wasn't cited by Spark in the above-quoted excerpt elsewhere from Spark's filing): "Spark requests that the Commission issue an Order requiring CenterPoint to disconnect the customer (outside of an extreme weather moratorium) unless all outstanding bills are paid or a deferred payment plan is signed and an initial payment is made by the Customer. Spark also requests that the Order make clear that if a deferred payment plan is entered into and the customer fails to comply with that plan, CenterPoint is ordered to disconnect service to that customer or move that customer to the Provider of Last Resort in the area. In addition, Spark seeks to recover the unpaid energy portion of the customer’s invoices from CenterPoint from the date of the original disconnection request to the present."

Spark alleged, "The customer in question ... first signed on with Spark on January 17, 2017. Since that time, the account has been active, but no payments have ever been made on the account nor has the customer entered into a deferred payment plan. Spark has tried repeatedly to contact the customer since 2019 and, although the customer is out of contract with Spark and should be on a month-to-month plan, Spark has moved the customer to the lowest fixed-rate plan it has available. Although CenterPoint stopped charging Spark for transmission and distribution charges, the customer’s energy charges are still unpaid and are accruing daily."

Spark alleged, "In 2019, the account in question was noticed by Spark’s then new Director for Collections and Customer Care. Spark then tried to contact the customer every day for a period of time with no response. In addition, Spark made attempts to offer the customer a deferred payment plan or to refer them to a pledge or government assistance program but was not successful. Subsequent to not being able to establish contact with the customer, Spark initiated a wellness check with CenterPoint in December 2019 whereby CenterPoint would send CenterPoint personnel to the service address to check on the customer and ensure they actually reside at the residence and still require life support. CenterPoint stopped charging Spark for transmission and distribution charges after that visit, but the customer’s energy charges are still unpaid and accruing daily."

Spark alleged, "The customer has not met the requirements of 16 TAC § 25.483(g)(1) which requires a critical care customer to do the following each time the customer seeks to avoid disconnection under that section: have a medical professional contact the REP to confirm that the customer is a Critical Care Residential Customer; have the customer’s attending physician submit a written statement to the REP confirming that the customer is a Critical Care Residential Customer; and enter into a deferred payment plan."

Spark alleged, "The applicable rule to this case -- 16 TAC 25.483(g)(1) -- states that “Each time a Critical Care Residential Customer seeks to avoid disconnection of service under this subsection, the customer shall accomplish all of the following by the stated date of disconnection…” (emphasis added [by Spark]). The three requirements are that the Critical Care Residential Customer: (A) Have a medical professional contact the REP to confirm that the customer is a Critical Care Residential Customer; (B) Have the person’s attending physician submit a written statement to the REP confirming that the customer is a Critical Care Residential Customer; and (C) Enter into a deferred payment plan. The Critical Care Residential Customer at issue in this case has not fulfilled any of the three requirements."

Spark alleged, "Much like the critical care customer must meet the requirements of 16 TAC 25.483 to avoid disconnection, CenterPoint is required to take certain actions under that rule, which states after the TDU delays the disconnection and promptly communicate the critical care information to the REP, “The TDU shall disconnect such customer if it subsequently receives a confirmation of the disconnect notice from the REP.” (emphasis added [by Spark]). This is not a permissive action where CenterPoint may disconnect, it is a duty imposed by the rule and CenterPoint shall disconnect the customer. In not disconnecting the customer, CenterPoint violated 16 TAC 25.483(g)."

Spark alleged, "The Commission’s critical care rule does not relieve, and has never waived, critical care customers of their payment obligations."

Spark noted the PUC's prior finding that, "critical care customer status does not remove the customer’s payment obligations and that the protections given under §25.483(h) can be exercised when a pending disconnection will cause serious harm."

Docket 54711

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Channel Sales Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Business Development Manager
• NEW! -- Operations Manager/Director -- Retail Supplier -- Texas
• Senior Scheduler -- Retail Supplier
• Channel Sales Manager -- Retail Supplier (Houston)

HOME

Copyright 2010-23 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.