FirstEnergy Corp.

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/09/03) */ Ms. [redacted] contacted Potomac Edison to request service to be taken out of her name as of August 13, 2015. An order was issued to obtain a read for the move out request. Potomac Edison obtained a reading on August 18, 2015 at 94507; this... reading was used to calculate her off reading on August 13th to 94267. The bill issued August 20th for service July 22 to August 13, 2015. The security deposit in the amount of $214 and $30 payment was applied toward $28.99 previous bill leaving a credit of $215.01. The bill amount $116.57 - $0.02 security deposit interest = $116.55 deducted from credit $215.01 leaving a remaining credit $98.46. This credit will be mailed to 22500 Fitzgerald Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20882. Potomac Edison obtain an actual read 06/22/15 at 93060 and 08/18/15 at 94507. Ms. [redacted] stated in her dispute that work was performed at the location during this timeframe. July bill was estimated and August actual read corrected the under estimated bill period. Ms. [redacted] is responsible for 52 days from 06/22/15 to 08/13/15 and billed 1207 kWh or 23 kWh per day average.

Company records do not indicate a contact from the customer to cancel service Per the West Virginia Commission rule it is the customer’s responsibility to notify the Company to cancel service Service was cancelled in [redacted] ’s name as of 8-31- If a new occupant has been living at the location, the new occupant may contact the Company and take responsibility for the service as of the move in date Documentation on the account indicates a family member of [redacted] has been living at the location

I am rejecting this response because:I requested an old meter be put back on, it was replaced with another smart meter and not what was requested

The Company was not able to read the customer's meter for several months in a row due to mulitple dogs in the area, therefore several billings were estimated On 12-1-16, a meter technician installed a remote read meter that will allow the serviceman to read the meter safely from a near by location without exiting the vehicle By error, the customer's meter was billed to a nearby account Corrections have been processed.This error, along with several previous estimates, caused a high balance due on the account Customer will be receiving a letter from the Company regarding the rebilling Also, the Company would offer the customer an installment plan to pay the balance over the next several months if neededAny inconvenience to the customer is regretted by the Company

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/01/25) */ Dear Mr [redacted] : We recommend you check with your contractor on the status of the application paperwork for your solar system The New Jersey Administrative Code N.J.A.C14:8-(Interconnection of Class Renewable Energy Systems) outlines a review process for the Utility that involves a series of applications, inspections and documents to be submitted by the contractor/customer to the utility before a meter is changed to a bi-directional meter in support of an interconnection solar system There are two steps involved with the approval process of a solar system, (Part & Part 2), before the bi-directional meter can be installedEach Part requires the contractor/customer to submit applications to the utility along with specific related documentation Part application is an "Approval to Install" which allows the contractor to install the solar equipmentRECEIVED Part application is an "Approval to Operate" which allows the contractor to turn on the solar system, and at this time JCP&L will automatically schedule the installation of the bi-directional meterNOT RECEIVED As of this writing our records show we have only received PART of the approval process, please contact your contractor and have them submit the additional required paperworkNOTE: If your installed solar system is currently running please turn it off immediately until we receive the appropriate documentation, electrical inspection and the "approval to operate" letter has been issued Mrhas been advised Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2016/01/26) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I have contacted the NJ State CleanEnergy Office and they are 13-weeks behind schedule The answer to my complaint did not respond to my complaint of poor customer relationsI can't phathom why I should be contacting the STATE when it should be JCP&L as well as Trinity Solar Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2016/02/03) */ NJ State Clean Energy is the correct State Regulated EntityWe do apologize for Mr [redacted] 's delay however this is not an issue that JCPL would correct for himWe are following proper procedure for installation and billing of solar devices, and had advised the customer accordingly Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (4200, 11, 2016/02/05) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) It's the old adage "it's not our fault"

Mr [redacted] 's bills are considered accurate and correct, the actual reading taken on 3/was confirmed and would of caught up any unbilled usage from the prior estimated billingThis was a very cold winter,? weather, and additional need for heating may of contributed to the higher billing.? ? Average bill for the two months was $456.? A meter test could be requested through the toll free customer service number if further confirmation of accuracy is needed.? ? ?

The security deposit of $was billed to the account due to the customer's payment/credit history in accordance with Mon Power's tariffThe deposit was paid in full with the 11/28/payment of $The Company has issued termination notices in the last months on 1/26/17, 2/23/17, 6/22/and 7/20/On 7/18/a bill issued for a total of $which included a past due of $and a current bill amount of $due 8/7/This bill included a bill message advising a security deposit would be required if bills continued to be paid late8/17/a bill issued for $budget amount due 9/6/9/14/a bill issued for $budget amount due 10/4/No payment received10/18/a bill issued for $which included $past due + budget + late fee due 11/7/Payment of $received 11/2/11/16/A bill issued for $which included $budget + security deposit due 12/6/A payment of $was received 11/28/The account is current with no payment due at this time The next bill issues 12/19/

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/10/01) */ On 07/28/2015, the customer called to apply for serviceDuring the application process, the Company discovered a large past due balance at the property she is signing for service atThe customer stated she moved into the property months prior However she previously applied for service at this location on 06/26/and 05/11/and she is listed on the financial information for the current ratepayerHer application was denied for a copy of her lease/deed for the address applied for service, due to large premise balance, to see if applicant has any responsibility for premise balance Denial of service letter issuedShe was advised that service can be turned off on or after 08/11/if she doesn't comply to the terms of the applicationCustomer satisfied On 09/01/the customer called for the fax number/email address to send her lease tothe customer was satisfied Later that day the customer called to say her power as turned off and that she emailed her lease The company representative advised that the lease was received however it was incomplete and therefore unacceptableThe company representative also advised that her comply by date was 08/11/and that service could not be guaranteed after that time The customer asked if she could have an emergency restore The company representative advised that service will not be restored until requirements are met The customer said that the landlord turned off the service, the company representative advised it was our meter department who turned it off The customer was satisfied On 09/02/the customer called to resubmit the lease The company representative reviewed the new lease and again it was incomplete and therefore not acceptable Based on the information that the company has already received and public records the application for service was denied due to the occupancy not changing at the locationThe customer was advised that the balance at the premise needs to be addressed before application is accepted The customer was satisfied The company position is that the balance at the premise needs to be paid prior to accepting an application for service and having power restored

Please be advised as I had provided on my initial response the Company is willing to provide the customer with a year billing statement of his usage however we do not have any type of graph of billing usage other than the graph that is located on the customer's bill each month. Additionally I have just been made aware on 2/3/2017 the customer filed another complaint with the BCS # [redacted] regarding these same issues. Again I supply the following information regarding the contact with the Company on 2/2/2017. The customer wanted a graph billing statement which the customer service representative advised the Company does not have any type of graph billing statement and offered a billing statement. The customer did not want the statement and requested to speak to a supervisor and was placed on hold until one could be reached. The customer then disconnected the call before the representative returned to the customer. Due to this a written utility report was issued. In the prior response I advised of the 12-month usage history graph which is included on all customers bills however it appears the customer is not satisfied with this information. As stated above, the customer filed another BCS complaint on 2/3/- BCS # [redacted] . Per my prior response Penelec regional management will continue to monitor the reliability of the customer's circuit. If the customer would like a year billing statement he should contact customer service at [redacted] for this request. Thank You,

Customer's complaint concerns an outage that occurred in Tionesta on Saturday 2017-07-at 12:The Tionesta area is serviced by Penelec’s Oil City districtThere were multiple outages affecting the Oil City district on Saturday 2017-07-29; outages occurred between 2017-07-at 08:and 2017-07-at 00:00, including calls from local dispatch and multiple outages involving broken poles/equipment and trees on Penelec lines, requiring additional resources to address the outagesThe outages were prioritized in accordance with protocal to address outages involving hazardous situations with priority over nonhazardous outagesEstimated Times of Restoration for the Strandberg outage would have been updated to account for the other outagesPrior to the outage affecting customer, on 2017/07/at 10:an outage had been reported in the Cranberry area that involved a tree on primary wires and a broken cross armThe line operations troubleman responded and determined that a crew was needed for repairs and notified the supervisorThe Cranberry outage required tree and line crews for repair The troubleman was then dispatched to the Tionesta area to respond to an outage that was identified on 2017/07/at 11:08, which was reported by a dispatcher concerning a tree burning on a primary wireThe troubleman performed switching, removed trees and restored at 14:The outage affecting Customer in Tionesta was identified on Saturday 2017-07-at 12:37.The troubleman was directed to investigate the outage affecting Customer since he was already in the Tionesta area.The troubleman was dispatched to investigate the outage and arrived at 15:11.The troubleman identified that a transformer had failed, that a crew and parts were needed for repair, and informed the supervisorAlso, on 2017/07/at 11:an additional outage had been reported in the Clintonville areaThe troubleman left the Tionesta (Strandberg) outage site, and proceeded to respond the Clintonville outage; restored at 17:In addition, an outage was reported in Titusville by Crawford County at 16:The outage involved safety forces on site, broken poles and Penelec live wires downThe troubleman was dispatched from Clintonville to the Titusville outage and arrived at 19:The outage required crews for repairAn additional outage was reported in Oil City on 2017-07-at 17:The troubleman responded to the outage and made repairs; restored 2017-07-at 22:Another outage was reported in Sandycreek at 18:01; the troubleman was dispatched to that outage; restored at 23:The troubleman was then dispatched back to the outage affecting Customer on 2017/07/at 23:with additional crew and made repairs for that outage; repairs completed on 2017/07/at 02:25.Company position is the outages were prioritized in accordance with protocal to address outages involving hazardous situations with priority over nonhazardous outagesEstimated Times of Restoration for the Strandberg outage would have been updated to account for the other outages

Customer makes online payments with her banking institution M&T Bank in Sioux Falls SD A payment was submitted on 07/26/in the amount of $189; however was mailed to MN 5th, PO Box 16001, Reading, PA This payment is then forwarded to the actual payment processing center in Akron OH Payment was received on 08/02/and processed on the account 08/03/at 1:15pm after service had already been terminated Customer will need to update her banking institution M&T Bank with the correct address to submit payments The correct address is listed on her bill as MET-ED, PO Box 3687, Akron, OH 44309-

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/09/22) */ The Company signed a voucher on 8/and returned it to the Social Service AgencyPayment of the voucher has not been received, and can not be reissued according to the Agency for daysMrhas been advised of his account balance, issued a disconnect notice in accordance with State regulations, will need to return our call and make payment and arrangements on the past due billingA detailed message has been left to continue to assist the customer, and secure continuation of electric service

Company records show the February bill was $and March billing was $Both billings were billed based on an actual readingCompany records show the customer called 4/4/to request move-out 4/7/Per Ohio Admin Code [redacted] If the meter has been read within the thirty-two calendar days immediately preceding the initiation and/or termination of service, the electric utility may estimate usageActual reading was obtained 4/19/ and the final bill was estimated to a reading of ***The final bill amount is $

On 01/06/17, customer contacted the company inquiring about enrolliing the account in direct debitThe representative advised that customer service does not enroll accounts and provided the website that the customer would need to go to in order to enroll the account in direct debit On 01/12/17, the customer’s account enrolled in direct debitCustomer provided his credit card/debit card information for direct debit purposes On 01/23/17, bill was issued with a past due in the amount of $and a current of $due 02/06/17, totaling $ On 01/30/17, $was deducted from the customer’s account On 01/30/17, customer contacted the company upset that the payment came out of his account on 01/30/The representative explained that when the customer signed up for direct debit through the website, there are terms and agreement that explains that payment will be deducted from the account no sooner than (5) days after the “billing date”, that must be clicked/selected prior to enrollment confirmationThe representative explained that there is not a way to manually set the account up to be taken out on the due date of the billCustomer requested a Supervisor On 01/30/17, a Supervisor returned the customer’s call and left a message to contact the company back is wished to discuss furtherIf customer wishes to be enrolled in direct debit, as explained in the terms and agreement when enrolling, the payment will be deducted from account no sooner than (5) days after the “billing date” (01/23/17, as detailed above) For the reason detailed above, the company will not reimburse fees charged to the customer by the customer’s bank

The lights in question are fed underground The Company sent a Troubleman to investigate the streetlight outages on 9/ He reported a bad underground feed A markout has been called in and must be completed (by a contractor) prior to any digging The repairs are scheduled for 9/ If the repair requires wire replacement under the street additional time will be needed

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/11/16) */ The following information has been provided by Honeywell (outside vendor) regarding Mr [redacted] 's complaint Per Honeywell: Please see response below for [redacted] complaint: Timeline: June - Rebate Received, missing serial number July - Serial number received, record picked for QA inspection Aug - QA Inspection performed (Never passed in system, so record time out, decline letter sent 9/25) Sept - customer calls call center, escalation is created and resolved by expediting check Oct - Check issued, Cal notified customer - has not been cashed Reason for Escalation: The QA inspection was completed but the transfer of a 'Pass' result failed so the record timed out and was declined The customer received a decline letter and not his rebate check The customer is unhappy with the customer service provided and states he was not contacted by the program throughout his experience Plan going forward: We were aware of a few cases of this that occurred during the same time period (September) and they were resolved by expediting the rebate check to the customer Follow up action plan: I left a voicemail with the customer 11/9/to apologize and verify if he has received the check If he has not received it we will reissue and expedite its delivery The customer was notified of missing information and had communications with our field rep, Cal T [redacted] , as well as the call center, throughout the process Customer cashed check on 11/

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 12, 2016/03/29) */ Revdex.com spoke with Jersey Central Power/First EnergyThe business has said the consumer is not a customer of theirsIt's possible the consumer could be a First Energy Solutions customer or a PSE&G customer

Company records show [redacted] , current customer of record (COR) was issued a disconnect notice for non-paymentThe COR requested a cancellation of service effective 9/6/The same day [redacted] applied for service in her husbands name, [redacted] Due to the large account balance and disconnect activity pending on the account, she was advised the company would require verification of change of householdAccurint also placed the current COR as still a member of the household She was advised to provide a notarized lease from the landlord [redacted] later called back and said she didn't have a lease or deed to the property because it belonged to her father-in-law who passed away in MarchShe was advised without verification of change in household, the company would not grant service to another partycurrent COR called the same day and cancelled her request for cancellation of service current COR then called 9/8/and set up a payment plan on the account and made a payment of $Company records show the household has not changed, therefore service was denied in the name of [redacted]

The Company received and applied the grant of to your account on 6-30- This credit is funded and governed by the state was paid to account [redacted] , therefore the Company is unable to transfer the credit The Company did transfer the debit from account [redacted] to account [redacted] , where the credit has posted

12/29/Customer called to see why his payment did not auto deduct on 12/22/like it was supposed to Customer was advised the late payment charge would be reversed and an order would be sent to have this looked intoAccount is noted that customer would like a call back or a written advising of issue and what will happen with balance dueCustomer was satisfied 01/04/the department who handles the auto payments replied to the order advising that a transfer posted to the account on 12/22/2016, the same day the payment was to come out, causing a differentiation in the amount invoiced and actual allowed amount to be deducted This caused the auto payment to not proceed 01/05/a call me letter was issued to the customer as we were not able to reach him over the phoneA written utility report was also issued to the customer advising of what the issue wasA hold was placed on the account until 01/25/to allow time for the customer to receive the company position and dispute if needed 01/10/the customer called about the letters he received He was advised that the amount will be pulled form his bank on 01/19/Customer was satisfied 01/23/Customer called about his payment not being pulled He was advised he should make his payment another way and then next month it will pull out like it normally would or he can let it all go and it will all come out next month Customer made a payment over the phoneCustomer was satisfied 02/16/Customer called and requested to be removed from budget billing A new bill was sent to the customer They also requested to be removed from paperless billingCustomer was satisfied 02/22/Customer called about waiving the late payment charge This was waived Customer was satisfied 02/24/Customer called back about having the late payment charges reversed He was advised they are reversed 03/02/customer called after hours and was advised to call back Customer was satisfied 03/03/Customer called to say that he was told on 02/22/that the late payment fees would be waivedCustomer was advised fees are not waived in the credit department Customer was satisfied 03/06/customer sent an email to the company in regard to the late payment feesHe mentioned he has called several times to have this corrected and to have the late payment fees reversedHe has made the payments we requested of him and still the fee is there Customer requested that all fees be waived and a credit of $be credited to his account for his time and stressThe company replied back advising that they see they have spoken with customer service and this issue has been resolved They were also provided direction on how to enroll in automatic payments Later that day, the customer called and verified the amount due and due date Customer was satisfied The company position is that all late payment charges have been waivedThe payment did not pull originally due to the account balance being different than what the customer was told on their monthly invoice Then each time the customer called in about it a lock was placed on the account to prevent any termination notices from being issued However, this also prevented payments from being deducted as well The account has been paid current and the next bill is due 03/24/ The customer is no longer on autopay and therefore needs to pay the bills in another wayThe customer has also filed a complaint with the PaPUC