StarTex Power Connects Morton Ranch Residents to Green Energy Source

Local business provides eco-friendly power to save money, reduce carbon footprint

HOUSTON, July 14, 2009 – StarTex Power, a leading provider of retail electricity in Texas, announced today that it will offer green electricity to each home in Morton Ranch-Section 3, a revolutionary new home development in Katy, Texas. The newest addition to the Morton Ranch communities offers a series of newly constructed homes that offer custom features, increased energy efficiency and enhanced equity, allowing residents to enjoy all the perks of modern living while reducing their impact on the environment.

We’re pleased to connect the new U-Build-It residents of Morton Ranch-Section 3 and customers throughout Houston with a green energy alternative that can help reduce their impact on our environment and natural resources,” said Preston Ochsner, vice president of sales, StarTex Power. “Our work with various builders, developers and other environmentally-conscious suppliers in the Morton Ranch community will result in high quality, energy efficient homes in one of Houston’s most rapidly-growing areas.

In addition to a green energy alternative, StarTex provides its customers with the “Power to Connect” to the customer service and competitive rates they’d expect from Houston’s fastest growing woman-owned business. Serving over 100,000 customers, StarTex Power is one of Houston’s leading retail electricity providers with a reputation for quality, service and proven success.

StarTex Power was chosen by Houston-based Choice Energy Services, an over-the-counter energy broker, to power the Morton Ranch-Section 3 development. The company was selected from an elite group of retail electricity providers for its ability to provide competitively-priced green power during development and upon completion of construction, as well as for its unique ability to meet customer service needs with precision, speed and expertise.

At Choice Energy Services, we only do business with the top-tier retail electricity companies in the state, and StarTex Power is one of those companies,” said John Elias, energy broker/consultant, Choice Energy Services. “Both Choice Energy Services and StarTex Power have an unwavering commitment to customer service and industry excellence, making this a natural partnership for both companies.

Morton Ranch construction will be overseen by a partnership between U-Build-It and Wallace-Bajjali Development Partners, a Houston-based real estate development corporation. The result of this partnership and their work with companies like StarTex Power is an attractive, energy efficient option for today’s homebuyers interested in building energy efficient, cost-saving homes.

To connect with StarTex Power and learn about fixed-rate plans, green energy alternatives and much more, visit Startex Power

About StarTex Power

StarTex Power is a Texas-based and Texas-owned Retail Electric Provider. Our management team has over 60 years of experience in the deregulated utility industry. At StarTex Power we are committed to establishing the highest standards in the industry with competitive prices, easy to understand billing, as well as superior customer service. To find out more information on StarTex Power visit Startex Power’s website.

TXU Wholesale Energy (Luminate) PUCT Fine Explained

Meeting Date: Dec 18, 2008
Date Delivered: Dec 18, 2008
Agenda Item No.: 18
Caption: Docket No. 34061 – Notices of Violation by TXU Corporation, et al., of PURA 39.157 (a) and P.U.C. Subst. R. 25.503(g)(7).
In this docket, the Commission is asked to approve a $15 million dollar settlement between the Commission and Luminant regarding
the accusation that Luminant engaged in “market power abuse” as that term is defined in PURA and our substantive rules. I will vote
to approve this settlement, the largest in the history of the PUCT, but would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think
such a settlement is appropriate.
By way of review, the Notice of Violation (NOV) initially arose out of the “ERCOT 2005 State of the Market Report,” prepared by
Potomac Economics (Potomac), which at that time was serving as “advisor” to the Wholesale Market Oversight group within the PUCT.
This report was published in July 2006. In Chapter V, “Analysis of Competitive Performance,” Potomac avaluated whether any electric
power suppliers had engaged in either “physical withholding” or “economic withholding.” According to Potomac, physical withholding
occurs when a particpant makes resources unavailble for dispatch that are otherwise physically capable of providing energy and that
are economic at prevailing market prices. Potential economic withholding is evaluated by calculating an “output gap”. The output
gap is defined as the quantity of energy that is not being produced by in-service capacity even though the in-service capacity is
economic by a substantial margin, given the balancing energy price. A participant can economically withhold resources, as measured
by the output gap, by raising the balancing energy offers so as to be dispatched or by not offering unscheduled energy in the
balancing energy market.
Potomac concluded, wth regard to physical withholding, that they did not find evidence of physical withholding and that there were
positive indicators that the largest suppliers did not engage in physical withholding, but “that firm conclusions would require a
more detailed examination.” With regard to economic withholding, Potomac was concerned that Company C (TXU) began offering energy
in the last week of June (2005) at prices far in excess of generic costs–that being more than $50 per MWh above generic short run
marginal costs. This activity therefore led to an additional investigation by Potomac. Subsequently, Potomac, now in their new role
as ERCOT Independent Market Monitor, conducted an “Investigation of the Wholesale Market Activities of TXU from June 1 to September
30, 2005.” That report was filed in March 2007.
In assessing the report of March 2007, it is important to note a couple of things. First, during the period analyzed by Potomac,
there was no definition of “market power.” PURA section 39.157 (a) defines “market power abuse” as “practices by persons possessing
market power that are unreasonably discriminatory or tend to unreasonably restrict, impair, or reduce the level of competition,
including practices that tie unregulated products or services to regulated products or services or unreasonably discriminate in the
provision of regulated services. For purposes of this section, market power abuses include predatory pricing, withholding of
production, precluding entry, and collusion.” However, PURA does not define “market power”. In PUC substantive rule 25.504, which
became effective on September 13, 2006, the Commission defined “market power” to be “The ability to control prices or exclude
competition.” Because there was no definition of market power during the June 1 to September 30, 2005 time period, Potomac created
its own definition of market power as “the ability for a market participant to profitably raise prices above competitive levels.”
Second, in its analysis, Potomac excluded un-offered capacity from online units. In other words, there were other suppliers of
power that could have provided power but shose not to offer energy into the balancing energy market (BES). (To some degree, I
believe this was caused by $300 “shame” cap which the Commission has subsequently done away with.) Had those other suppliers
offered energy into the BES market, then TXU would have been the pivotal supplier less of the time.
Third, TXU’s offers during the study period were designed to cover the “full costs of owning, operating, and maintaining units
expected to be needed to satisfy the forecasted load. This amount includes the initial investment costs and other fixed costs such
as leasing arrangements for gas turbines.” Potomac rejected this approach claiming that in a competitive market, there is no basis
for an entity to take into account sunk costs [when designing a bidding strategy]. According to Potomac, TXU’s strategy should be
the same “regardless of whether TXU won the units in a lottery or TXU paid a large sum to buy the units.” In other words, according
to Potomac, TXU should have been bid its generation units either at or near its short run marginal costs.
I have been and continue to be skeptical of all three of Potomac’s above enumerated positions. The Commission’s definition of
market power is different and I believe better that the one used by Potomac. In any competitive market, one or more participants
may have the ability to raise prices above “competitive levels” for a limited period of time. However, in a market, the response to
high prices from one producer is that other competitors, both existing and new, will eventually begin to offer prices below your
prices and soon take away your market share and your profits. I don’t know why other generators didn’t offer power into the BES
market during the study period (perhaps it was the fear of the $300 shame cap), but we know that had they done so, TXU would have
been pivotal less of the time and therefore TXU’s offers would have set the price less frequently. Therefore, it is unclear to me
why TXU should be punished for the inactions of others.
In a previous memo by me, filed on May 11, 2005, in Project No. 30513, which was a “staff investigation into the Wholesale Market
Activities of TXU” during the fall of 2004 (and which resulted in a determination that TXU did not engage in market power abuse
during that time frame), I took exception to Potomac’s previous analysis. In that memo (a copy of which is attached), I said, “It
seems perfectly rational to me that a generator would attempt to recover a return on and of capital investment through its BES
offers. I think it a bit theoretical to assert that generators in ERCOT are acting rationally only when they offer at short-run
marginal cost. If generators are unable to recover long-run marginal costs, then I fear we run the risk of discouraging additional
generation at a time when it appears that we are really beginning to need it.” I still believe this to be the case. As a report on
Capacity, Demand and Reserves (CDR) recently released by ERCOT demonstrates (page attached), ERCOT’s reserve margins have
dramatically improved since May of 2007 when they were projected to be below 12.5% as early as 2009. I am unconvinced that the
ERCOT region would have experienced such a robust new generation build were we to limit generators to recovering only their short
run marginal costs.
In Order No. 26, issued in this docket on July 21, 2008, ALJs Harvel and Walston opined on the issue of the maximum penalty that
could be assessed against TXU if the alleged violation(s) of market power abuse was found to be true. Staff argued for $171
million, Luminant argued for $610,000 or $7.930 million, in the alternative. According to the judges, there is no way to justify
staff’s proposed penalty of $171 million. Using the most generous calculation available-3,085 alleged seperate bid curves times the
maximum penalty of $5,000 per violation (which was the previous maximum dollar amount but has subsequently been raised to $25,000),
the total maximum penalty would be $15.525 million. The ALJs said, “In this case, Staff’s proposed trebling of Luminant’s alleged
damage to the market would result in an adminstrative penalty that would greatly exceed the penalty cap contained in section 15.023
(of PURA). Staff has not provided any legal authority to authorize such a penalty.”
Because I believe it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law that Luminant’s bidding behavior in the BES market during
the study period was an abuse of market power, and because the proposed settlement is at the high end of the highest probably
recovery if Luminant were actually found guilty, I propose that we accept the settlement.From: Julio Bejarano [juliobejarano@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, December 19 2008 8:41 AM
To: Smitherman, Barry
Subject: TXU fine

barry

As expected! As I look at your picture I could not see the ring around your head from you having your head stuck up Perry’s or Craddick’s Ass. You came in after your predecessor oked the fine two hundred million for stealing from us usurers. We payed double for our electricity and now you let TXU off the hook for stealing from us. Go big business! When you were appointed by the governor I wrote you at the time and called you out on this exact chess move. I consider as big a thief as the other two above mentioned crooks. I plan to run a full page ad in the paper reminding everyone of the Governor’s big business protective practices. He is going down! I can only hope so are you ass sniffer.
Julio Bejarano
juliobejarano@sbcglobal.net
972-735-0444
You can read in more detail about this case against TXU on the PUCT website when searching for control number: 34061From: Julio Bejarano [juliobejarano@sbcglobal.net]

Luminate which is a subsidiary company of Energy Future Holdings and is the power generation side of their business was fined by the PUCT for approximately 15 Million around December of 2008 for what the PUCT called “market power abuse”. Energy Future Holdings bought TXU Corp which included Luminate, Oncor, and TXU Energy and is now a new company although still uses the same brand names. After looking into the issue further it appears PUCT Commissioner Barry Smitherman has some valid points that the $15 million penalty that was pushed by the staff at the PUCT may have been the wrong decision against TXU which now goes by Energy Future Holdings and whose power generation side is actually known as Luminate. After reviewing the commissioners detailed notes about what caused the MCPE balancing energy markets prices to spike in the summer of 2005 it looks like Luminate’s dominant position in the wholesale energy market in Texas created a bias against TXU simply because Luminant happened to be one of the biggest participants in the wholesale energy market. By having what the PUCT commissioner and others refer to as a “shame cap” it likely hindered other wholesale generation companies from bidding into this market which would have kept prices down. You can read what an uneducated consumer believes to be the truth and then we recommend you read the facts for yourself below which has more to do with unnecessary government regulation over the Texas energy market.

Sent: Friday, December 19 2008 8:41 AM

To: Smitherman, Barry

Subject: TXU fine

barry

As expected! As I look at your picture I could not see the ring around your head from you having your head stuck up Perry’s or Craddick’s @ss. You came in after your predecessor oked the fine two hundred million for stealing from us usurers. We payed double for our electricity and now you let TXU off the hook for stealing from us. Go big business! When you were appointed by the governor I wrote you at the time and called you out on this exact chess move. I consider as big a thief as the other two above mentioned crooks. I plan to run a full page ad in the paper reminding everyone of the Governor’s big business protective practices. He is going down! I can only hope so are you @ss sniffer.

Julio Bejarano

juliobejarano@sbcglobal.net

972-735-0444

PUCT Commisioner Barry Smitherman Explains The Problems With This Penalty Against Luminate

You can read in more detail about this case against TXU on the PUCT website when searching for control number: 34061

Meeting Date: Dec 18, 2008

Date Delivered: Dec 18, 2008

Agenda Item No.: 18

Caption: Docket No. 34061 – Notices of Violation by TXU Corporation, et al., of PURA 39.157 (a) and P.U.C. Subst. R. 25.503(g)(7).

In this docket, the Commission is asked to approve a $15 million dollar settlement between the Commission and Luminant regarding the accusation that Luminant engaged in “market power abuse” as that term is defined in PURA and our substantive rules. I will vote to approve this settlement, the largest in the history of the PUCT, but would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think such a settlement is appropriate.

By way of review, the Notice of Violation (NOV) initially arose out of the “ERCOT 2005 State of the Market Report,” prepared by Potomac Economics (Potomac), which at that time was serving as “advisor” to the Wholesale Market Oversight group within the PUCT. This report was published in July 2006. In Chapter V, “Analysis of Competitive Performance,” Potomac avaluated whether any electric power suppliers had engaged in either “physical withholding” or “economic withholding.” According to Potomac, physical withholding occurs when a particpant makes resources unavailble for dispatch that are otherwise physically capable of providing energy and that are economic at prevailing market prices. Potential economic withholding is evaluated by calculating an “output gap”. The output gap is defined as the quantity of energy that is not being produced by in-service capacity even though the in-service capacity is economic by a substantial margin, given the balancing energy price. A participant can economically withhold resources, as measured by the output gap, by raising the balancing energy offers so as to be dispatched or by not offering unscheduled energy in the balancing energy market.

Potomac concluded, wth regard to physical withholding, that they did not find evidence of physical withholding and that there were positive indicators that the largest suppliers did not engage in physical withholding, but “that firm conclusions would require a more detailed examination.” With regard to economic withholding, Potomac was concerned that Company C (TXU) began offering energy in the last week of June (2005) at prices far in excess of generic costs–that being more than $50 per MWh above generic short run marginal costs. This activity therefore led to an additional investigation by Potomac. Subsequently, Potomac, now in their new role as ERCOT Independent Market Monitor, conducted an “Investigation of the Wholesale Market Activities of TXU from June 1 to September 30, 2005.” That report was filed in March 2007.

In assessing the report of March 2007, it is important to note a couple of things. First, during the period analyzed by Potomac, there was no definition of “market power.” PURA section 39.157 (a) defines “market power abuse” as “practices by persons possessing market power that are unreasonably discriminatory or tend to unreasonably restrict, impair, or reduce the level of competition, including practices that tie unregulated products or services to regulated products or services or unreasonably discriminate in the provision of regulated services. For purposes of this section, market power abuses include predatory pricing, withholding of production, precluding entry, and collusion.” However, PURA does not define “market power”. In PUC substantive rule 25.504, which became effective on September 13, 2006, the Commission defined “market power” to be “The ability to control prices or exclude competition.” Because there was no definition of market power during the June 1 to September 30, 2005 time period, Potomac created its own definition of market power as “the ability for a market participant to profitably raise prices above competitive levels.”

Second, in its analysis, Potomac excluded un-offered capacity from online units. In other words, there were other suppliers of power that could have provided power but shose not to offer energy into the balancing energy market (BES). (To some degree, I believe this was caused by $300 “shame” cap which the Commission has subsequently done away with.) Had those other suppliers offered energy into the BES market, then TXU would have been the pivotal supplier less of the time.

Third, TXU’s offers during the study period were designed to cover the “full costs of owning, operating, and maintaining units expected to be needed to satisfy the forecasted load. This amount includes the initial investment costs and other fixed costs such as leasing arrangements for gas turbines.” Potomac rejected this approach claiming that in a competitive market, there is no basis for an entity to take into account sunk costs [when designing a bidding strategy]. According to Potomac, TXU’s strategy should be the same “regardless of whether TXU won the units in a lottery or TXU paid a large sum to buy the units.” In other words, according to Potomac, TXU should have been bid its generation units either at or near its short run marginal costs.

I have been and continue to be skeptical of all three of Potomac’s above enumerated positions. The Commission’s definition of market power is different and I believe better that the one used by Potomac. In any competitive market, one or more participants may have the ability to raise prices above “competitive levels” for a limited period of time. However, in a market, the response to high prices from one producer is that other competitors, both existing and new, will eventually begin to offer prices below your prices and soon take away your market share and your profits. I don’t know why other generators didn’t offer power into the BES market during the study period (perhaps it was the fear of the $300 shame cap), but we know that had they done so, TXU would have been pivotal less of the time and therefore TXU’s offers would have set the price less frequently. Therefore, it is unclear to me why TXU should be punished for the inactions of others.

In a previous memo by me, filed on May 11, 2005, in Project No. 30513, which was a “staff investigation into the Wholesale Market Activities of TXU” during the fall of 2004 (and which resulted in a determination that TXU did not engage in market power abuse during that time frame), I took exception to Potomac’s previous analysis. In that memo (a copy of which is attached), I said, “It seems perfectly rational to me that a generator would attempt to recover a return on and of capital investment through its BES offers. I think it a bit theoretical to assert that generators in ERCOT are acting rationally only when they offer at short-run marginal cost. If generators are unable to recover long-run marginal costs, then I fear we run the risk of discouraging additional generation at a time when it appears that we are really beginning to need it.” I still believe this to be the case. As a report on Capacity, Demand and Reserves (CDR) recently released by ERCOT demonstrates (page attached), ERCOT’s reserve margins have dramatically improved since May of 2007 when they were projected to be below 12.5% as early as 2009. I am unconvinced that the ERCOT region would have experienced such a robust new generation build were we to limit generators to recovering only their short run marginal costs.

In Order No. 26, issued in this docket on July 21, 2008, ALJs Harvel and Walston opined on the issue of the maximum penalty that could be assessed against TXU if the alleged violation(s) of market power abuse was found to be true. Staff argued for $171 million, Luminant argued for $610,000 or $7.930 million, in the alternative. According to the judges, there is no way to justify staff’s proposed penalty of $171 million. Using the most generous calculation available-3,085 alleged seperate bid curves times the maximum penalty of $5,000 per violation (which was the previous maximum dollar amount but has subsequently been raised to $25,000), the total maximum penalty would be $15.525 million. The ALJs said, “In this case, Staff’s proposed trebling of Luminant’s alleged damage to the market would result in an adminstrative penalty that would greatly exceed the penalty cap contained in section 15.023 (of PURA). Staff has not provided any legal authority to authorize such a penalty.”

Because I believe it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law that Luminant’s bidding behavior in the BES market during the study period was an abuse of market power, and because the proposed settlement is at the high end of the highest probably recovery if Luminant were actually found guilty, I propose that we accept the settlement.

June 2009 Highest Priced Residential Electric Providers

To see a list of the most expensive Texas electric service providers selling residential energy please click on the below link.

Click Here to See the Highest Priced Texas Electric Providers

If you need to see the cheapest residential electric companies you can use the chart below.

These are Some of the Cheapest Dallas and North Texas Area Residential Electric Providers

All fees and charges are included in the below chart and all the electric companies in the chart are reputable stable residential energy companies in Texas. There are no hidden fees or fuel surcharges in these electric rates.

Electric Rates in all deregulated cities in Texas have come down quite a bit since last summer. Last summer a typical low cost electric rate at this time was around 16 cents a kWh for residential home owners and apartments. Now electric rates in the North Texas and East Texas area are priced at 10 – 11 cents per kWh for a 1 year fixed rate term. This is a very low price cosidering when last summer a residential electric rate in Dallas or Houston would cost anywhere from 16 – 31 cents per kWh. First Choice Power had a rate of 31 cents per kWh with some customers. We saw only a few months ago where Nueces Electric Coop was charging one of their customers 34 cents per kWh. We want to encourage residential Texas electric customers to not fall for a too good to be true rate offer but also to sign up for an exbortantly inflated electricity rate. Right now the name brand electric companies most Texas energy consumers are familiar with like TXU or Reliant are charging some of the highest prices in Texas. First Choice Power has come down from their high at 31 cents per kWh but they are still charging a lot when comparing their electric rate with several reputable discount electric companies.

A Quick Warning About Unbundled Too Good to be True Electric Rate Offers

Something to pay close attention to when deciding on a Texas electric rate is if the provider is hiding additional charges they do not make you aware of when quoting you a rate. For instance, Liberty Power advertises on the internet a residential Texas electricity rate that does not have the TDSP charges included in the energy price. We called Liberty Power to confirm what their energy price was on the phone and they did not disclose to us that there would be an additional 4 cents per kWh that would be added to the rate in the form of TDSP charges. We had to specifically ask them after the sales call if there would be an additional TDSP charges tagged on to the rate. Liberty Power also did not make us aware of a monthly service fee when quoting their residential electric rate to us. Their rate at the time that they were quoting was in the 7 cents per kWh range. Imagine thinking you were locking in at 7 cents per kWh to than get your first months bill that also contained 4 cents on top of that rate making the rate 11 cents per kWh and then add the monthly fee of $8.99 to that you have a rate in the 11.5 cents per kWh range.

It would be better for Liberty Power to just disclose to people what their rate is as well as what the customer can expect to pay in TDSP charges since most residential electric customers will pay about the same TDSP charge. Most residential electric companies in Texas will fix the TDSP charges and bundle them into their advertised electric rate. This means that most residential electric providers in Texas make their customers aware of all charges in an “all-in” quoted rate instead of just quoting the “energy only” portion of the rate. We hope this explanation can help you avoid signing up with an electric company that does not disclose all charges in their advertised price.

We visited Liberty Power’s site and they had no hard evidence of what their advertised residential electric rate is although you can sometimes find it on a Google or Yahoo ad that is just the “energy only” price. They had a quote form to fill out but no prices displayed anywhere on their site. We are very curious why they do not provide this pricing evidence on their website? A quick glance on another too good to be true offers shows that “Trickster Energy” (name hidden because of legal) is advertising a “fixed rate” at 7.5 cents per kWh with a $4.95 monthly service fee in their facts label and displays what appears to be a total bundled rate at 10.1 cents per kWh for the Oncor Utility area which is Dallas, Fort Worth, North Texas, and parts of East Texas. When reading their facts label which most customers pass on reading we find that their total bundled rate is really not the 10.1 cents per kWh that it shows. I called Trickster Energy and asked them what their rate was including TDSP charges and they said that the Oncor area rate is 10.1 cents per kWh but does not include the TDSP charges. She also went on to say she has “no idea what those charges are”. The issue is that providers know aproximately what those TDSP charges are for residential energy consumers and can easily give a close aproximate by saying 3 – 4 cents per kWh. Based on this conversation with this Trickster Energy sales lady the rate would be 10.1 + 4 cents in TDSP charges = 14.1 cents per kWh. It doesn’t matter that these additional charges are coming from the TDSP company. The issue is full price disclosure on the main advertised splash page for the residential electric price. The customer should have a clear front page example of the total “bundled rate” that includes all fees and charges including the TDSP charges.

Take a look at a Tricksters facts label as of June 8 2009. You will see that they have a charge showing 7.5 cents per kWh for the Oncor Electric Utility area but then at the top for Oncor they show 10.1 cents per kWh. Now you would assume that the total bundled electric rate is 10.1 since you have a low fee of 7.5 cents per kWh in the document at the bottom but a few cents higher at the top where it says 10.1 cents per kWh. This would be a great all in bundled residential electric rate right now. Now we call Trickster Energy and ask them if the 10.1 cent per kWh rate includes all charges. The lady on the phone says that the rate will be 10.1 cents per kWh but does not include the TDSP charges. She goes on to say that she has no idea what the TDSP charges will be? Even though it is an easy average to tell the customer she claims to not know. If you are a Trickster Energy customer let me finish the sales call correctly. Customer: “So what is the total bundled rate including TDSP Charges?” Sales Agent: “The total charges if when adding an aproximate TDSP charge of 4 cents per kWh will be 14.1 cents per kWh.” Customer: “Why is it that almost all Texas electric providers that sell residential electric service offer a total bundled residential rate in their advertisement that includes TDSP charges but your company does not?” Sales Agent: “Well we know our bosses know what the average cost of these TDSP charges will be but we have been told to state that we have no idea what these charges are.” Customer: “Doesn’t this allow the customer to assume that the rate will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 – 11 cents per kWh when in reality it will raise the electric rate several cents higher?” Sales agent: “No comment!”

Highest Priced Texas Electric Companies

These are the highest priced residential electric providers in the Dallas, Fort Worth, North Texas and parts of East Texas area. This comparison will also serve for showing who is pricing the highest in the Houston area as well although prices will typically be a little higher in Houston than in the Dallas Fort Worth area. The electric companies in the below list are reputable stable energy companies but happen to be offering electric rates at much higher prices than several other residential electric companies. There are also some electric providers in Texas that are advertising much lower rates than these providers but have hidden fees and charges they do not readily disclose on their websites or over the phone. We need to hear from consumers who have been tricked into what appeared to be a low rate but is really much higher.

Click here to see the Cheapest Available Residential Texas Electric Rates

Have You Been Surprised By Undisclosed Fees and Charges on Your Electric Bill?

If you have signed up at a higher electric rate than you were advertised by a Texas electric company than please fill out this form and let us know. There have been several complaints by Liberty Power and Trickster Energy customers that they were locked into an electric service rate much higher than what they were initially told. You may have been misled into an electric rate by one of these electric companies or possibly a different one we do not know about. Please feel free to let us know by filling out this quick form with your information.

Last Summer (2008) Some People Signed up at 15 Cents per kWh

Last summer a company by the name of Just Energy which also goes by the name of US Energy Savings Corp signed up many electric service customers to 5 year fixed residential electricity agreements. The reason so many Texas electricity customers signed up with Just Energy at 15 cents per kWh was because this was the cheapest rate when comparing 1, 2, and 3, and 5 year fixed electric rates.

Many did not realize that the summer of 2008 were some of the highest electricity prices in the Texas electric service markets history. By signing up for 5 years many Just Energy customers had locked themselves in at the highest time in the Texas energy market. Just Energy was not to blame for offering a 5 year fixed electricity agreement but consumers who decided to sign up for this long were strongly recommended by Electricity Bid to sign up for 6 months to 1 year even though the rate would be higher because it was our companies opinion that electricity rates would be coming back down. The summer of 2009 Texas saw some of the cheapest electricity rates we have seen but as of June it looks like the markets are heading back up again. We recommend 1, 2 and 3 year fixed rates at this time while prices are still low.

TXU Energy in Dallas and Houston

Electric rates in Dallas and Houston have started coming back up the last couple of weeks although today energy prices are back down a little. This trend up represents the possible beginning of a new trend back up. The summer is approaching and if anyone remembers what electric rates were doing last summer you would be wise to lock into an electricity rate now.

Since Texas electricity rates are still quite low as of today (May 20 2009) I wanted to see what Reliant Energy and TXU Energy were offering for residential electric service in some of the larger cities like Houston and Dallas Texas. I first went out to the powertochoose website to see what the government was showing for TXU Energy’s 12 month fixed electric rate. They are showing that TXU Energy is advertising a rate of 14.7 cents per kWh. This is very high when you compare it with the cheapest reputable electric provider in the bunch. The cheapest provider in Dallas that is a quality company is with Champion Energy. They are currently showing an electricity rate at 9.2 cents per kWh with a $4.95 monthly service fee. This is multiple times cheaper then TXU Energy and you can learn more about this residential electric rate in the Dallas and North Texas area by clicking on the link below.

 

We also checked to see what TXU Energy’s closest competitor was offering in the Dallas Texas area. Right now Reliant Energy is working very hard via radio and billboard ads to take residential electric service customers away from TXU Energy in TXU’s territory. Reliant has a cheaper electric rate plan then TXU Energy in TXU’s own backyard. The Reliant Energy rate is also 20% renewable energy which offers a feel good factor for those wanting to save the environment from the pollution of coal fired power plants. One issue with the wind energy plan is that it may be energy that has been produced in another state so Texas doesn’t benefit from the environmental clean energy. Reliant Energy’s rate is 14.1 cents per kWh for their 12 month fixed rate. So we see that Reliant Energy beats TXU but Champion Energy beats both Reliant and TXU on price by several cents. If you compare the 14.1 and the 14.7 cent rate next to 9.2 cents per kWh with a $4.95 monthly service fee you end up saving several hundred dollars over the course of the year by signing up with a wholesale provider like Champion Energy.

You can learn more about Champion Energy by visiting their link and see for yourself why Champion Energy is a better choice over TXU Energy and Reliant Energy.

 

The Reliant and TXU Energy rates when compared in the Houston and Harris county area are similar in price difference with Champion Energy in that area as well. If you live in the Houston Texas area and would like to compare electric rates with multiple energy providers then please click on the comparison link below to learn more.

Houston Electric Rate Comparison

Richardson Electric Rates in Comparison to TXU Energy

When choosing a Richardson electric rate you want to make sure you are signing up with a reputable Richardson energy company that does not have a track record for adding in hidden fees and charges. A residential Richardson energy provider should bundle all fees and charges in their electric rate they are advertising. If the rate is not bundled they should list any additional fees right below the electric rate being advertised so there is no question about what you are agreeing to. There is nothing that I hate more then to be tricked by a US company. We have enough regulations and rules to prevent an energy company from deceiving a customer but Richardson electricity companies will still do this from time to time. Not all Richardson electric providers are dishonest or expensive. We have a comparison of rates from multiple Richardson electric companies below. We also have Reliant and TXU Energy in our electricity comparison chart below.

TXU and Reliant No Longer the Price Leaders

You may notice in this May 2009 Richardson Texas electricity rate chart that TXU Energy and Reliant Energy have very expensive electric rates in comparison to the cheapest providers at the top. You may also see that Trickster Electric Company (name withheld be legal) has a cheap rate but we do not recommend them at this time as we continue to receive an excessive amount of complaints from their customers saying their electric rate is much higher once you receive an electric bill from them.

Electricity Bid helps you find an electric rate and provider to save you money and keep life simple.

Get in touch with us!