On July 2 2009 the PUC unanimously denied the original petition which sought uniform market wide protections for some of the most vulnerable consumers in the deregulated Texas retail electric market. Denying the Petition the Commissioners indicated they felt that current PUC rules were working well.
Statement by Representative Sylvester Turner:
These voluntary programs are fine. I appreciate continued efforts by companies such as Reliant and TXU to be ahead of the curve in the industry and offer additional customer protections. However these programs are voluntary and there appears to be little that can or will be done for companies who dont follow through on their word. It looks good on paper and in the press but it is not the uniform market wide protections we are seeking. If all the companies dont participate people will continue to fall through the cracks and that is unacceptable.
In lieu of the original denial of the petition we listened to what the Commissioners said went back to the drawing board and came back with what we believed to be a modest request. If we want these consumers to heed the advice of Chairman Barry Smitherman and shop the market we need to help them. Many of these people are on fixed incomes and simply cannot pay the hundreds of dollars for cancellation fees and deposits that can occur when switching providers. Its just not a feasible option. The amended petition seeks to waive penalties for early cancellation of customer contracts and requires companies to better inform their customers of possible discount programs.
One of the biggest problems my office experiences with voluntary programs is the fact that customers are simply unaware of them. People call my office after their electricity is turned off. We work with them and their provider to get their lights back and then find out they were qualified all along for the programs. This is after they have already gone through the stressful and sometimes costly dilemma of having their electricity shut off.
We are trying everything we can to help consumers and we seem to be hitting brick walls. Just this week after my office had informed numerous constituents about level and average billing as a way to help them mitigate their higher summer bills we discovered numerous companies in what appears to be blatant violations of current PUC rules regarding this billing option. The PUC rule clearly states that the only requirement for a customer to be able to request a level or average billing option is that they must be current on their account and have no outstanding balance. Upon review of close to 30 companies product offerings in my district at least eight are in clear violation of the rule having additional requirements in their Terms of Service Contracts. If the PUC is not enforcing their own rules where will they be when it comes to voluntary programs.
There are good players and bad players in the market. This is not to punish the good players it is to seek unified regulatory protection across the board. Voluntary programs are just that and they place the PUC totally on the sideline with no ability to enforce the rules.
The PUC has the responsibility to protect consumers. I hope todays press statements were not intended to send a signal to the general public that the amended petition will also be denied.
On July 2 2009 the PUC unanimously denied the original petition which sought uniform market wide protections for some of the most vulnerable consumers in the deregulated Texas retail electric market. Denying the Petition the Commissioners indicated they felt that current PUC rules were working well.
Statement by Representative Sylvester Turner:
These voluntary programs are fine. I appreciate continued efforts by companies such as Reliant and TXU to be ahead of the curve in the industry and offer additional customer protections. However these programs are voluntary and there appears to be little that can or will be done for companies who dont follow through on their word. It looks good on paper and in the press but it is not the uniform market wide protections we are seeking. If all the companies dont participate people will continue to fall through the cracks and that is unacceptable.
In lieu of the original denial of the petition we listened to what the Commissioners said went back to the drawing board and came back with what we believed to be a modest request. If we want these consumers to heed the advice of Chairman Barry Smitherman and shop the market we need to help them. Many of these people are on fixed incomes and simply cannot pay the hundreds of dollars for cancellation fees and deposits that can occur when switching providers. Its just not a feasible option. The amended petition seeks to waive penalties for early cancellation of customer contracts and requires companies to better inform their customers of possible discount programs.
One of the biggest problems my office experiences with voluntary programs is the fact that customers are simply unaware of them. People call my office after their electricity is turned off. We work with them and their provider to get their lights back and then find out they were qualified all along for the programs. This is after they have already gone through the stressful and sometimes costly dilemma of having their electricity shut off.
We are trying everything we can to help consumers and we seem to be hitting brick walls. Just this week after my office had informed numerous constituents about level and average billing as a way to help them mitigate their higher summer bills we discovered numerous companies in what appears to be blatant violations of current PUC rules regarding this billing option. The PUC rule clearly states that the only requirement for a customer to be able to request a level or average billing option is that they must be current on their account and have no outstanding balance. Upon review of close to 30 companies product offerings in my district at least eight are in clear violation of the rule having additional requirements in their Terms of Service Contracts. If the PUC is not enforcing their own rules where will they be when it comes to voluntary programs.
There are good players and bad players in the market. This is not to punish the good players it is to seek unified regulatory protection across the board. Voluntary programs are just that and they place the PUC totally on the sideline with no ability to enforce the rules.
The PUC has the responsibility to protect consumers. I hope todays press statements were not intended to send a signal to the general public that the amended petition will also be denied.
