Streamlining Consumer Complaints At The PUC
by Danielle Lam
For many years, the complaint process before the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) has often been a long and resource-intensive process for the complainant, the regulated entity, the PUC, and the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). But that is expected to change after October 21, 2026. After months of rulemaking and public comments from consumers, regulated entities, and the Office of Public Utility Counsel, the PUC recently amended its rules in hopes of creating a simple, inexpensive, and expeditious complaint process for all entities under the PUC’s jurisdiction. The changes, reflected in 16 Texas Administrative Code § 22.242 (procedural rules relating to Complaints), § 24.153 (water and sewer substantive rules relating to Customer Relations), § 25.485 (electric substantive rules relating to Customer Access and Complaint Handling), and § 26.30 (telecommunications substantive rules relating to Complaints), are effective on October 21, 2026.1
The Old Complaint Process
The old complaint process generally started with the filing of an informal complaint which must be resolved by the PUC’s Consumer Protection Division (CPD) within 35 days. During this time, the regulated entity would be given an opportunity to respond, then CPD would issue a closing letter that would reflect its findings and notify the complainant that they could file a formal complaint if they were not satisfied.
If the complainant was not satisfied with the CPD’s closing letter, they could file a formal complaint at the PUC, obtain a Docket number, and all documents in the proceeding would be filed on the PUC’s Interchange (a public database). The parties would include the complainant, the regulated entity, and the PUC Legal Division who represents the public interest. The PUC would establish a list of issues and the matter would be referred to SOAH for a contested case hearing. Following the hearing on the merits, the SOAH Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) would issue a Proposal for Decision (PFD) and remand the case to the PUC for the Commissioners to issue a Final Order by adopting or modifying the PFD. This contested case hearing process could take months, if not years, and could include mediation, discovery, pre-filed written testimony, a hearing, post-hearing briefing, and various motions and pleadings—steps that would cost all participants a lot of time and resources.
The New Complaint Process
The new complaint process is largely the same for informal complaints, but the formal complaint process has been replaced with potential investigation and enforcement action by the PUC’s Division of Compliance and Enforcement (DICE). So if the complainant is not satisfied at the conclusion of the informal complaint, the complainant’s new recourse is to take action in court since the closing letter shows they have exhausted their administrative remedies. Additionally, if the Office of Consumer Assistance (OCA) (the new name for the CPD) identifies a violation during the informal complaint process, the OCA can refer the informal complaint to DICE for investigation. DICE may investigate the regulated entity and use its discretion to pursue a separate enforcement action, which will be a contested case and follow similar steps to the old formal complaint process.2
However, there are many important differences between a DICE investigation and the formal complaint process. DICE’s investigation may look into additional violations by the regulated entity and is not restricted to the scope of the informal complaint. DICE is also not restricted to the relief requested by the original complainant, and DICE may seek license revocation, disgorgement, or administrative penalties. DICE may also monitor compliance over time and seek escalating penalties if the regulated entity has recurring violations. Lastly, the original complainant does not participate in the DICE investigation or enforcement action. The parties to this proceeding are just DICE and the regulated entity.
What Happens Next
Any informal complaints that are filed after or still pending as of the effective date of the rule change will fall under the new complaint process, meaning the complainant will no longer be able to file a formal complaint after OCA provides its closing letter. Any formal complaints properly filed before the new rule’s effective date will still proceed as a contested case. However, in some Dockets the PUC ALJs have been giving complainants the option to either proceed with their contested case or withdraw their formal complaint and refer the matter to DICE.3
Potential Impacts
The new streamlined complaint process should help reduce the burden on the PUC and SOAH’s resources by giving DICE discretion to pursue an investigation or enforcement action. However, these changes are still very new and there is no clear pattern of how DICE will use its discretion. On the one hand, DICE may choose not to investigate an informal complaint. This may be a boon for the regulated entity, but the consumer complainant could still file a petition in court to pursue its claims against the regulated entity, costing both parties significant time and resources. On the other hand, DICE may decide to investigate and may seek enforcement action. This could lead to the regulated entity expending more resources to defend itself from alleged violations beyond the scope of the informal complaint. The regulated entity may also have to defend itself from the consumer complainant’s court action in parallel to DICE’s enforcement action. Further, the new rules do not establish any deadlines for DICE to conclude an investigation or enforcement action, so once initiated, the proceedings may take just as long as formal complaint proceedings. In conclusion, it is still too early to tell whether the new complaint process will be a more simple, inexpensive, or expeditious process for consumers and regulated entities.
1Streamlined Complaint Process, Project No. 59557, Order Adopting Amendments to§ 22.242, § 24.153, § 25.485, and § 26.30 (Oct. 1, 2026).
2Records of a DICE investigation are not available on the PUC’s Interchange, and a Docket number is not assigned unless DICE files an enforcement action.
3See, e.g., Complaint of Nachae L. Sylvain Against Green Mountain Energy Company and Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, Docket No. 60326, Order No. 1 (Sept. 25, 2026); Complaint of Marshia M. Lloyd Against TXU Energy Retail Company, LLC, Docket No. 60240, Order No. 1 (Sept. 15, 2026); Complaint of Rogelio Ramirez Against Windmill Water Supply Corporation, Docket No. 60145, Order No. 2 (Sept. 25, 2026).
Danielle Lam is a Prinicpal in the Firm’s Districts, Water, and Energy and Utility Practice Groups. If you have questions or would like additional information related to this article or other matters, contact Danielle at 512.322.5810 or dlam@lglawfirm.com.