A Houston consumer’s complaint (CP2026060929) shows how a 14-year billing error was handled, and why the consumer now doubts other Texans would get proper help.
Summary
On June 8, 2026, a Houston consumer noticed that the meter number on their electric statement did not match the meter installed at their home. They reported it to CenterPoint Energy that day. The problem went unresolved for 21 days, so on June 29 the consumer filed a complaint with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT). The next day, CenterPoint replaced the meter. Usage was recalculated back to June 15, 2012, a period of 14 years.
The PUCT Consumer Protection Division closed the complaint on July 17, finding that CenterPoint “acted consistently with applicable Tariff sections.” Also, when asked whether Centerpoint has to pay interest, the investigator wrote on August 6 that CenterPoint “is not required to pay interest on cross meter issues.”
This article reviews two questions:
- Why does the PUCT’s conclusion not reflect what the consumer experienced from June 8 onward?
- Why did the investigator reach a different conclusion on interest than the utility and the retail electric providers, who had already been calculating it?
It also records the doubt this experience left the consumer with: if a consumer with complete records got this result, what happens to a consumer without them?
What is a cross-meter error?
A cross-meter error occurs when a home’s electric meter is associated with another address in the utility’s records. One customer is billed for another’s usage, and the reverse. Correcting it requires the utility to rebill affected accounts and send corrected usage data to each retail electric provider (REP) that billed the customer.
The timeline
| Date (2026) | Event |
| June 8 | Consumer finds the statement’s meter number does not match the installed meter. Reports it to their REP, which refers them to CenterPoint. Reports it to CenterPoint and receives Case 40215786. |
| June 9 | CenterPoint technician visits. According to the consumer, he says he will enter the correct number into the system, then leaves. That afternoon, the consumer is told the database still shows the wrong number. |
| June 11 | Consumer reports again. The representative first says the number is correct, then, after the consumer objects, agrees to a recheck and opens Case 40248270. |
| June 11–29 | According to the consumer, no action is taken on the second case, about 18 days. |
| June 29 | Consumer files a complaint with the PUCT. |
| June 30 | CenterPoint finds the meter is associated with another service address and replaces it. |
| July 17 | PUCT closes the complaint. The consumer files a formal objection the same day. |
| August 6 | The investigator emails that no interest is required on cross meter issues. |
The consumer opened a case number on day one, followed up after the technician’s visit, opened a second case, and escalated only after 21 days without a fix.
Question 1: Why is the June 8–29 experience missing from the conclusion?
The PUCT’s July 17 closure letter says it reviewed three things: CenterPoint’s response, CenterPoint’s tariff, and PUCT rules. The consumer’s own records are not on that list, and the only attachment is CenterPoint’s response.
The letter’s summary of the company’s response says the June 9 inspection found the meter number matched CenterPoint’s records. The consumer’s account is the opposite. The technician said he would correct the number, and follow-up calls confirmed nothing was corrected. CenterPoint’s own account also shifts. On June 30, it says the installed meter did not match its records and was tied to another address. According to the consumer, the meter was not replaced until June 30, so the same physical meter may have been described as matching on June 9 and mismatched on June 30. The letter does not explain how those statements fit together.
The letter does not mention:
- the June 8 report and the two case numbers,
- the technician’s statement on June 9 and the follow-up call that day,
- the June 11 escalation and the roughly 18 days without action that followed.
The letter relies on Tariff Section 4.8.3, “Adjustments to Previously Transmitted Data.” As the letter describes it, the section requires the utility to correct data once it learns of a cross-meter issue. The letter does not say how the 21-day response was evaluated. It was also issued before the rebill was finalized, using future tense for the step of sending corrections to the providers.
This article does not claim the investigator knew of the consumer’s experience and ignored it. The documents show only that the closure letter and the August 6 email do not address it.
Question 2: Why a different conclusion on interest?
Under P.U.C. Subst. R. 25.28(c), as the consumer reads it, overbilling that is not corrected within three billing cycles of the error generally carries interest on the overcharge. This case involves 14 years of corrected billing.
CenterPoint told the PUCT it would apply “any applicable interest” after calculating the corrected billing. According to the consumer, the utility calculated and paid the interest itself.
The investigator’s August 6 email said otherwise, in two sentences:
“CenterPoint Energy acted consistently with its approved Tariff on file with the Public Utility Commission. CenterPoint Energy is not required to pay interest on cross meter issues.”
The email does not identify a tariff provision, does not explain how the position fits with Rule 25.28(c), and does not say why this 14-year correction is treated as an exception.
| Party | Position on interest |
| Consumer | Interest applies to 14 years of overbilling |
| Utility (CenterPoint) | Calculated |
| PUCT‘s investigator | No interest required on cross meter issues |
The utility that owed the money calculated and paid interest. The regulator overseeing the utility said none was required. The investigator’s conclusion was more favorable to the company than the company’s own conduct. That does not show the investigator favored the company, but it makes the “the investigator simply relayed the company’s answer” explanation hard to sustain.
Five possible explanations offered by the consumer
The consumer does not claim to know what the investigator was thinking. These are unproven possibilities:
- Heavy workload. The investigator may have been handling many complaints at once.
- Time pressure. A short processing window, which the consumer estimates at about 17 days, may have pushed toward quick closure.
- A narrow view of the role. The investigator may have seen the job as relaying the company’s answer.
- Lack of attention. The interest question may not have received the scrutiny it warranted.
- Gaps in rule knowledge or judgment. The applicable rules may not have been fully applied.
The fact that the utility had already calculated interest weakens some of these. A relay role would have carried the utility’s interest position forward. Workload and deadlines can explain speed, but not why the conclusion pointed in a different direction.
Another possibility is that an unverified practice, “cross-meter issues don’t carry interest,” was applied as a default. If so, the problem is procedural rather than personal: a different investigator would reach the same result.
The consumer’s doubt
This consumer received interest, but because the utility calculated and paid it, not because of the regulator’s conclusion.
The consumer kept two case numbers, call times, and dated records. They objected to the closure the day it was issued and followed up two weeks later. They still received a closure letter that did not address June 8 onward, and an email stating that no interest was required.
The consumer’s doubt is this: if a consumer with a full record and knowledge of the process received this result, would a consumer without those advantages get proper help from the PUCT?
This is the consumer’s view. One case cannot establish how the PUCT handles complaints generally, and this article does not claim otherwise. The reasons for the doubt can be checked against the documents:
- The closure letter’s list of reviewed materials did not include the consumer’s records.
- The company’s and consumer’s accounts of June 9 conflict, and the letter does not resolve the conflict.
- The June 8–29 experience does not appear in the conclusion.
- The interest conclusion differed from what the utility itself did.
Questions that remain
These are questions, not conclusions:
- Do PUCT complaint reviews include a step to consider the consumer’s own records?
- When a company’s account and a consumer’s account conflict, is there a step to reconcile them?
- Must closure letters identify the specific rule and reasoning behind the decision?
- If a consumer does not object, does a conclusion without stated reasoning become final?
Public records requests under the Texas Public Information Act could help answer these, including complaint-handling statistics, closure letter templates, and review procedures.
Bottom line
Interest was paid in this case, but by the utility that made the error, not because of the regulator’s conclusion. The consumer’s experience from June 8 and the question of interest were both treated differently by the regulator than by the other parties. The consumer protected the outcome through documentation and persistence. Whether a consumer without those tools would fare as well is the question this case leaves open. Whether that is a matter of one investigator’s judgment or of the process itself cannot be determined from one case.
The case above prompts us to reflect on where efforts to enhance the functionality of the PUCT should begin.
5 of the Houston CenterPoint Energy Cross-Meter Billing Series
CenterPoint Energy Cross-Meter read previous article
Peter Yang