Texas regulators levied $300,000 in penalties on retail electricity providers for attempting to disconnect customers during extreme weather events and overcharging.
Fort Worth-based retail electricity provider Young Energy, which operates Payless Power, was found to have violated customer safeguards related to disconnection of service during extreme weather events. The company offers “flexible prepaid and traditional electric plans” through partnerships with Onor, CenterPoint Energy, AEP Central, and AEP North.
Young Energy disconnected 1,819 customers located in counties affected by extreme weather emergencies for non-payment between Nov. 1, 2020, and Sept. 1, 2022, according to Public Utility Commission of Texas documents. Extreme weather emergencies were declared for 60 days in counties served by Young Energy.
PUCT did not specify when individual disconnections occurred. However, the period outlined by the commission includes Winter Storm Uri in 2021 as well as the summer of 2022. Dallas-Fort Worth recorded 47 days over 100 degrees in all of 2022.
PUCT said the disconnection attempts occurred during The Dallas-Fort Worth area recorded 8 days with 47 days with high temperatures surpassing 100 degrees in 2022.
While all of the disconnections were to be completed during the extreme weather events, Young Energy’s transmission and distribution utility partners did not carry out the authorizations.
PUCT also found Young Energy did not file necessary documentation before authorizing the disconnection of service for non-payment and did not affirm that the company understood and trained personnel on the commission’s disconnection and reconnection requirements.
“When a (retail electricity provider) fails to file a required affidavit attesting to compliance with certain Commission rules, the REP bypasses one of the Commission’s mechanisms for ensuring compliance with such rules,” PUCT wrote in the settlement agreement. “A REP authorizing disconnection of service to retail customers during an extreme weather emergency causes a hazard or potential hazard to the health and safety of the public by putting customers at risk of exposure to extreme temperatures.”
As part of a settlement with PUCT, Young Energy did not admit or deny the findings by the commission. Young Energy agreed to pay a fine of $100,000 and donate $100,000 to the City of Fort Worth’s Community Action Partners, a customer bill payment assistance program.
PUCT said Young Energy cooperated with its investigation and is taking steps to prevent the release of disconnection requests during weather moratoriums.
Young Energy upgraded its customer information system in 2020 to incorporate National Weather Service advisories and utility disconnection moratorium information. The company also dedicated an employee to oversee the process for “establishing weather moratoriums in its systems, reporting on the status of systems going into a disconnection cycle, and immediate reconnection if any mistakes are made,” PUCT said.
Young Energy isn’t the only retail electricity provider under PUCT’s microscope.
Pogo Energy was fined $100,000 for overcharging 35,047 customers from Jan. 1 to May 31, 2023. Because Pogo issued bill credits of $1.12 million over 5 months, the company disputed the conclusion that it had violated customer protection rules.
PUCT said retail electricity providers are required to disclose a price on its electricity facts label for prepaid service to a residential customer that is equal to or lower than the maximum “provider of last result” in the corresponding transmission and distribution service territory.
The commission found 58 instances when prices listed on Pogo Energy’s electricity facts label were higher than those listed for the same usage levels on the corresponding provider of last result label.
In response to the PUCT findings, Pogo Energy ceased billing energy rates higher than the provider of last result rates and has taken steps to ensure its electricity facts label price is equal to or lower than the maximum rate.
PUCT concluded that Pogo Energy “created a real-time financial burden on its customers,” adding that “refunding the difference at the end of the month meant that customers did not have access to funds to which they would have otherwise had access.”
