Control Number: 34520
l llI Ill IIll l
Item Number: 3
Addendum StartPage: 0
DOCKET NO. 34520
FORMAL COMPLAINT OF
RODNEY UNDERWOOD
AGAINST DIRECT ENERGY
6
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMWION
; 53
§
6
OFTEXAS
4
-*\
”,
5%-
4t-
’$3
C&
q
3
%*
e
“
.
‘
9
4
* k
..e+#
3
”cf
.f c
.b=I
.*:I
&?
i
$L
p:
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT OF RODNEY UNDERWOOD
t
L
L
AGAINST DIRECT ENERGY
On July 19, 2007, the Public Utility Commission (“Commission”) issued Order No. 1
requiring Direct Energy to file a response on or before August 7, 2007. The complete response
of Direct Energy follows.
Jurisdiction
Pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule 522.242 (e)(l), Rodney Underwood has not properly
invoked the Commission’s jurisdiction because he has not presented his complaint to the City of
Houston, or requested waiver of the requirement to do so or plead good cause for waiver. Mr.
Underwood’s complaint also fails to include all of the information required by P.U.C. Procedural
Rule $22.242 (e)(2). If the Commission determines that it has jurisdiction over this complaint,
notwithstanding Mr. Underwood’s failure to present his complaint to the City of Houston, then
Direct Energy responds to the remaining issues listed in Order No. 1 below.
Allegations
On July 17, 2007, Rodney Underwood filed a formal complaint (the “complaint”) alleging
that Direct Energy “merged his electric accounts without complete documentation of usage,
established dummy accounts to disguise usage and misapplied and/or failed to apply payments to
his accounts.” Unfortunately, Mr. Underwood failed to provide specific detail of the accounts in
dispute.
3
On February 12,2007 and April 12,2007, Mr. Underwood filed informal complaints with the
Commission’s Customer Protection Division (“CPD”) against Direct Energy, raising these same
issues. Although Direct Energy is sympathetic to the frustrations Mr. Underwood expresses in
his formal complaint, both Direct Energy’s internal review of Mr. Underwood’s concerns, as
well as the CPD’s previous investigations of his informal complaints determined the billing of
Mr. Underwood’s usage to be true and correct. As documented in the resolution of informal
complaints CP20070 1 1258 and CP200703 1961, the CPD issued findings of “no violation.”
Direct Energy has demonstrated to the Commission, through its records, that Mr.
Underwood’s electric service was billed correctly. Mr. Underwood currently has four active
accounts with Direct Energy and several finalized accounts.
Underwood requested the transfers of account balances.
On several occasions, Mr.
In an effort to accommodate Mr.
Underwood’s requests for combined billing, Direct Energy has transferred several account
balances. Detailed account documentation is available and has been provided to Mr. Underwood
and the Commission on numerous occasions that verify the billing accuracy of each account.
Furthennore, detailed explanations have been provided to Mr. Underwood on several occasions
during conference calls involving Mr. Underwood, Direct Energy and the CPD Staff.
Mr. Underwood alleged that “payments have been misapplied or not credited.” Mr.
Underwood has provided bank statements containing the alleged misapplied payments. Direct
Energy has reviewed each statement provided by Mr. Underwood and confirmed that all
payments in question were, in fact, received and correctly applied to Mr. Underwood’s accounts.
These findings have been communicated to Mr. Underwood on several occasions.
Again, Mr. Underwood has not provided any specific information regarding what he
believes to be wrong with his accounts. However, Direct Energy’s internal investigation into Mr.
Underwood’s billing indicates that Direct Energy has complied with P.U.C. Substantive Rule
$25.479, relating to Issuance and Format ofSills, as Direct Energy provided timely, correct and
detailed billing statements to Mr. Underwood. Additionally, Direct Energy has complied with
P.U.C. Substantive Rule 525.480, relating to Bill Payments and Adjustments, as customer
payments and necessary adjustments were correctly applied to Mr. underwood’s various
2
accounts. CPD also performed several informal investigations and found Direct Energy to be
compliant with P.U.C. Rules.
Conclusion
Direct Energy respectfully requests that the Commission deny Mr. Underwood's
complaint against Direct Energy for lack of merit.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Kelle 'Mullinnix
Manager, Government & Regulatory Affairs
221 West Sixth Street, Suite 2030
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: (5 12) 542-7802
Fax: (5 12) 480-8073
Email: [email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on all parties
of record in this proceeding by hand delivery, courier, overnight delivery, certified mail (return
receipt requested), registered mail, facsimile, electronic mail, or United States first class mail on
this 7th day of August, 2007.
3