FirstEnergy Corp.

On 08/10/17 [redacted] contacted the company and requested to cancel service effective 08/14/17. On 08/11/17 [redacted] contacted the company and requested to cancel his request to cancel service on 08/14/17.  A new customer applied for service at this location effective 08/17/17 due to a system error...

the account for [redacted] did not cancel effective 08/16/17.  The company is in the process of making corrections to the account. [redacted]'s service end date is being changed to 08/16/17.

Customer originally enrolled into PCAP effective 2/8/2011 - PCAP credit of $42.62 - Total deferred arrears = $76.68 with monthly deferred arrears forgiveness of $2.13.  All deferred arrears were forgiven as of 2/20/2012 and the customer was removed from PCAP on 3/6/2012 for failure to...

recertify.  Re Enrolled into PCAP effective 7/24/2012 - PCAP credit of $36.90 however all deferred arrears had already been satisfied.    Customer's balance was $59.81.  The customer called on 8/27/2015 to dispute current bill amount of $77.74 and all options were provided regarding a billing investigation however customer declined all offers other then offer to place customer on budget/EPP to levelize usage.  Customer budget amount was $46.00 and customer was advised to pay budget minus PCAP credit.  Customer satisfied.  Most recent quarterly recalculation of PCAP credit was on 8/14/2016, PCAP credit was $37.47.  The Company records reflect the customer called on 8/29/2016 regarding bill for $85.02 which was based on actual meter reading.  Representative explained to the customer this bill shows is annual budget review amount owing of $118.57 to catch up on prior budget.  Explained current budget amount is $88.00.  Explained budget billing program and granted customer an additional 6 months to catch up on PCAP.  Customer requested Budget removal and was advised due to being on PCAP budget/epp is required.  Representative offered to complete a CBA to determine usage at property and offered energy saving brochures which were provided via email address.  Customer declined CBA or meter test which was explained and process reviewed including meter test.  At the conclusion of this contact the customer was satisfied. Attached is a billing statement for this customer.  Customer is on PCAP which is best program the Company offers.  Budget billing/plan is a requirement of PCAP.     Customer service representative gave the customer an additional 6 months to catch up on her PCAP agreement.  Request dismissal.

Our signage in stores and on our rebate application does
indicate an ‘up to’ amount for the rebate and specifies that the highest
incentive level is for most efficient units “Earn a rebate of up to $75 when you purchase a qualified
energy-efficient refrigerator: $25 rebate for standard ENERGY...

STAR-certified
models, $50 for CEE Tier 2 models and $75 for CEE Tier 3 models.”
 
The customer’s rebate was paid in accordance to the model
she purchased. The customer did call into Honeywell (who is the vendor
hired to implement this program) back in December and said Lowe’s told her it
was a $75 rebate. The Honeywell employee did apologize for the inconvenience
and offered to send her a check for the difference in rebate amount. The check
was sent to the customer on 1/3/18. Honeywell also followed up with the Lowe’s
appliance department staff to emphasize the importance of clear communication
re: the varied rebate levels in regards to customer expectations.
 
Recordings of the calls showed the reps followed procedure and
were pleasant on the call.

Inspection card received, Notification order number [redacted] was completed on 3/23. The contact with our Company will be reviewed and the representative will be coached as applicable.

Dear [redacted],The bill for $168.30(with a total balance of $232.74 noted) was invoiced on 12/15/2016; company records do not reflect the customer contacted the company to discuss this invoice.  During recent contact, the company has not had the opportunity to discuss with the customer the account usage history, payments received, the billing time frame comparison, the weather factor, etc.  The company also has not had the opportunity to review an appliance list with the customer in order to determine the potential monthly usage. The Company has not yet received an appeal or a formal complaint from the PUC.With all due respect, the company has reviewed the customer's concerns in regard to billing, meter reading and found our position has not changed.  Please advise the customer to contact the company to complete a billing inquiry in regard to the bill invoiced on 12/15/2016.The Company is unable to address any complaint with Colombia Gas.  The Company has not received any additional LIHEAP credit for the amount of  $66.00.As noted previoulsy,  the customer is on the PCAP program.  The customer was recently recertified on 1/3/2017; the  monthly PCAP credit was calcauled to be  $80.00 (effectvie 12/13/2016).  The bill for $168.30 was for the billing period of 11/11/2016 to 12/12/2016; the PCAP credit would not apply to this bill(even thought it issued on 12/15/2016).  The customer received a PCAP credit of $-78.12 on the 12/15/2016 invoice; the customer would not be eligible for an additon credit on this invoice.  The $80.00 PCAP credit will appear on the next invoice scheduled to bill on/about 1/13/2017.  The company did review the call where Mr [redacted] spoke with a PCAP representative -  the representatiive did tell the customer the $80 credit would go towards the  current bill(which was a mistake). A Supervisor tried to contact the customer to apologize for the incorrect information given, but Mr [redacted]’s phone rang and rang - the Supervisor was unable to leave a message. In regard to WARM program.   The WARM program works with the customer - in a partnership with the customer - in an attempt to reduce their elecgrib bill to the average listed on the attacment(the customer provided).  The WARM program attempted to work with Mr [redacted] to lower the electric bill to the average - it is an average - the amount cannot be a ganeeted amount due to extenuing circumstances(i.e. weather).  The WARM program cannot further assist the customer given the location and some structional issue(which would be the  property owner's reponsiblity).  WARM contractors typically set the goal at approximately 10% of a customer’s monthly bill.  That is not a guarantee that every month Mr. [redacted] will see this reduction on his bill.  It merely is a goal to work towards over time.  Some months extenuating circumstances can undermine the customer’s attempts to reach this goal, i.e.; one primary reason could be the weather.  Very cold or very hot temperatures can cause an increase in energy use that can interfere with the customer’s attempts to conserve in some areas and offset the savings of measures installed by the program.  Customers also receive estimated bills that can mean that one month they pay more than what they actually used but the following month an “actual” meter reading will be done and they will be charged an amount to level out their billing.Furthermore:The WARM program contractor provides energy education based on the customer’s usage and bills that exist when they visit the home for the audit.They discuss ways that both the customer and the WARM contractor via installation of WARM energy saving measures and energy education can work together to attempt to reduce electric energy usage.  An Energy Strategy plan is created.  And also an Energy Conservation Partnership Agreement is created (the document Mr. [redacted] forwarded).   The Partnership Agreement to written to outline the purpose for the WARM visit and to set a “goal” for energy savings for the customer and the contractor to work towards.Again, the amount noted in the attachment is an average.  Additionally, PCAP amounts are recalculated every three months.  The amounts customers are responsible to pay fluctuates depending on usage.  It is not unrealistic, that over the course of a year, a customer may hit their goal established on the Partnership Agreement; however, this may not happen every month.  WARM does not set billing amounts for the customer to pay each month.  The purpose of WARM is to work with the customer to attempt to lower the amount of electric usage they are responsible each month.

Company records do not indicate the customer called to cancel the service at the location on 7-2-16.  The account was closed on 10-20-16 when the customer called on 10-19-16 to cancel the service. The property owner has the option to contact the Company and take responsibility for the electric...

service as of 7-2-16.  Corrections can then be processed on the account to end service in the customer's name as of the date if the property owner takes responsibility. Thank you,

The service was disconnected for non-payment under the previous
customer’s name on 7/31/2017.
 
On 8/03/2017, the applicant called to apply for service.
During the application process, the Company discovered an outstanding balance
at the property she is applying for service at. Her...

application for service was
denied for a copy of her lease, to determine if she is responsible for any of
the unpaid premise balance.
 
On 8/07/2017, the applicant called stating she sent us her
lease on 8/03/2017. The lease was reviewed and found to be unacceptable, as the
signature page was missing and there was a signature on the first page. Also, there
were no effective dates on the lease, and the landlord information was missing.
 
 
On 8/07/2017, the Company received another lease from the
applicant. She was advised that the lease would need to be reviewed. The lease
and her application for service were reviewed. The applicant is listed as an
occupant of the home on the previous customer’s income update for the life of
the account. Service was previously in 2 different family member’s names at
this location and the family members are listed as occupants on each other’s
income updates. It appears that the service is being transferred into each
family member’s name to avoid paying the debit. The applicant is responsible
for the outstanding premise balance. A message was left for her to contact the
Company.  
 
On 8/08/2017, the applicant called and was advised that she
is responsible for the outstanding premise balance. She was advised that a
payment of $168.21 needs to be paid to have service restored in her name. Then,
the remaining premise balance would be transferred to her account and placed on
a Company payment agreement. She paid $168.21 via check over the phone. The remaining
premise balance was transferred to her account and was set up on a 24 month payment
agreement of Budget Bill + $154.00. An order was issued to restore service on
8/09/2017. The call became disconnected on customer’s end. Dispute rights were
mailed to the customer.
 
Based on the above information, the applicant is responsible
for the premise balance. The service has since been turned on in her name and
the premise balance was transferred to her account and placed on a Company payment
agreement.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/04) */
Service at [redacted] was disconnected for non-payment. Ohio Edison (OE) discovered tampering and unauthorized usage. Multiple people applying for service. New occupant is relative of customer who was disconnected for...

non-payment. Mr. [redacted], owner of the property provided inconsistent information regarding occupancy of the premise and timeframe that prior occupant moved. OE advised until tampering and unauthorized usage was paid, service would not be reconnected at the premise. Mr. [redacted] called OE 10/8/15 and paid $400.66 for tampering and unauthorized usage. Service was reconnected to the premise for new tenant effective 10/12/15.

On 12/7/17 the complex in question experienced an outage due
to an underground cable failure.  The trouble man was able to temporarily
restore power to all customers by switching out the failed cable, however, this
did leave the complex vulnerable to an extended outage if another section...

of
cable failed. 
 
During the repairs on 12/29/17, the decision was made to
also replace a transformer due to its condition. This was done to avoid causing
an unplanned future outage to these customers.  Our Line Crew did knock on
the doors of the affected customers to notify them that they would experience
an interruption in service.   An adjustment to the billing is not warranted.

Potomac Edison is not able to confirm what consumed 502 kWh at this location.  Actual reads were obtained of [redacted] and [redacted] for a difference of 502 kWh.  No corrections to be made on the account as the bill is correct as rendered.

I am rejecting this response because:
  Weeds were taken down and disposed of same day letter was received. The complaint was not started by me but I am owed money from overpaying. Ohio Edison had had several people here and investigated this matter. Every time I call for an update I am told it is not done which is untrue if they have been here. I've talked to them personally. Ohio Edison has lied from the start of this. This is a mix up from Ohio Edison not by a customer. If a customer is owed money you expect payment immediate. But you drag it in when you owe a customer money. I've spoke with an attorney regarding this.

Customer started service at this location effective 12/23/15.   On 06/13/16 the company replaced the analog meter with a Smart Meter.  Per PUC approved ACT 129 company required to install Smart Meters at all homes. The smart Meter installed was tested before installed, tested accurate...

Light Load 99.98 % and Full Load 100.02%.  01/23/17 Customer contacted the company concerning the bill for $239.22 for service from 12/22/16 to 01/19/17. The company advised billed to an actual reading (read 5954). The company explained this actual reading followed the previous scheduled estimated billing. The company explained this bill would pick up any difference from the previous estimate.  Customer insisted on having the meter tested. The company advised of the $20 meter test fee. Meter removed 01/24/17 with a read of 6192 and sent to be tested.  Meter read of 6192 confirms previous company read on 01/19/17 of 5954 is correct.  Consumption from 01/19/17 to 01/24/17 total of 238 kWh for 5 days/ average of 48 kWh per day.  Meter tested on 01/27/17 and tested accurate Light Load 99.91% and Full Load 99.96 %.   A another Smart Meter was installed on 01/24/17 when meter sent to be tested. The new meter set was tested prior to being installed.  This meter also tested accurate Light Load 100.01% and Full Load 100.03%. Meters within FirstEnergy territory are scheduled to be read one month and estimated the following. The company has read the meter bi-monthly as scheduled. The company utilizes two methods of estimation to calculate usage when the meter is not read. One method is Linear Weighting estimation, which is based off of the usage from the same period the prior year and the next method is Enhanced estimation, which is based off of the usage the prior year "or" the prior month, plus a weather correcting factor. Most residential customers are calculated with Enhanced estimation. The method chosen is an automated process. If under or over estimated, the usage is caught and billed/corrected with the next actual reading. The customer has the option of contacting the company with a customer reading on the estimated billing months. As a result, the customer would be billed one month using the company actual reading and one month using the customer's actual reading. There is a statement on each bill detailing when the next bill will be issued and whether or not that bill will be an actual or estimated billing month. If the next billing is scheduled to be an estimated billing month, then a time frame is given as to when the customer should contact the company with the customer reading. The company is willing to accept and does encourage customers to provide the company with a customer reading when the bill is estimated. This will even out the customer's billings by eliminating the estimation. This is the customer first full winter at this location.  The 01/19/17 billing appeared higher ($239.22) due to picking up any difference from the previous estimated bill ($51.09).  From 11/21/16 to 01/19/17 actual read, total consumption 2644 kWh for 59 days/ average of 45 kWh per day. Consumption from 01/19/17 to 01/24/17 total of 238 kWh for 5 days/ average of 48 kWh per day. The customer bills are correct as rendered. The meters tested accurate and the company read on 01/24/17 confirm previous read was correct. Statement of account is attached. Tell us why here...

I am rejecting this response because:I have already stated my case and will not be paying any amount for any time that I did not live in the residence since I followed the company's protocol and it is not my fault if they didn't record when I called and spoke to a rep. This company clearly lacks ethics and integrity in how they charged multiple people for one residence when I wasn't even living there

The Company position stands as initially responded.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.Thank you for your assistance.  [redacted].

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/04/11) */
Customer had also filed a complaint with the NJ Board of Public Utilities regarding the same issue. Customer submitted a medical certificate on 3/24/16 to maintain service. Customer was set up on two payment arrangements. The second was...

deactivated after a missed payment. Company is following regulations in the handling of this account and has afforded the customer all options within his rights.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/04/20) */
Gentlemen:
The last letter and request I had faxed to you was dated 4/11/16 regarding the above account; the balance due, a payment arrangement plan, usage and faxing to my doctor a medical certificate to stop interruption of service.
On Saturday March 16, 2016 my septic had overflowed... come to find out from the electrician and the local septic company that the pump itself was shot. It had been running constantly for who knows how long, working overtime and in very much water that on Saturday, it finally tripped the breakers in the house. I was still not aware of this because the septic alarm was not hooked up so I had no idea.
The electrician, [redacted], [redacted] in Newton, NJ confirmed that this is the reason for the outrageous electric bills. Who knows how long it had been going on but over time, maybe months it would add up he said. You are more than welcome to confirm this with him. I am just so grateful that this happened because I never would have found out otherwise what the problem was since no one at your end ever offered to review or help me in any way the difference in usage from one year to the next.
I am asking for one last time your company to work with me and set up a payment plan for the past due amount. Now that the problem is resolved the current usage will be normal and so will the bills. I can pay $275.00 per month on the old balance along with whatever the current
amount will be. As I have said my husband is just back to work, hopefully steady and we will be able to stay with this. My landlord and I have also discussed her reimbursing me the difference from when the usage changed and increased.
I am requesting possibly a transaction history of both last year and this year so I can see what the difference was and forwarded them to my landlord for reimbursement. I would need from November 2014 thru May 2015 and then November 2015 thru current.
There is an amount that was forwarded over that was part of a Chapt 7 bankruptcy in the amount of $984.71 that also needs to be credited to the balance on this account.
I am more than willing to resolve this issue as you can see. I am also forwarding a copy of the letter and my request to the Revdex.com since the complaint I filed is still active and pending.
I need to have the histories from both years ASAP and I will start the payment arrangements for May 10th, 2016 and the 10th of each month after.
[redacted] and [redacted]
CC: Revdex.com..Complaint id#[redacted]
Emailed to: [redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2016/04/25) */
Another message left. 50% of arrears needed to continue service based on prior broken arrangements. A medical certificate is available if applicable. All rules a regulations set down have been applied. Any internal issue would need to be ref to owner of premise.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 18, 2016/05/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Thank you...this is what I needed to have for my landlord. The electrical problem has been corrected by my landlord and [redacted] Electricians in Newton, NJ.
I want to resolve this and get back to paying my bill. I still have not received credit for the amount transferred over to this account that was included in our Chapt 7 from 921 Upper drive, Newton, NJ.
Also when I reviewed the usage on the document you sent, there are two separate transferred balances from the same account number #[redacted] for $1010.45 on 8/14/14 and $914.17 in 11/2015; where are these from??
the only other account I had was the 921 Upper Drive which was included in the chapt 7.
Something is definitely not right here and no one is looking into this.
I will resume payment arrangements for May 10 2016 by paying $200 per month plus the current bill. It is all we can do until [redacted] is back to work.
I will forward a copy of this email to Revdex.com in reply to their email to me so they know this is not resolved.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/03) */
On 9/8/15 a 9 month deferred payment plan was created after customer paid $50.00. $50.00 = 1/9th of $457.90 ($130.00 included in $457.90 amount). Term of plan was current bill + $36.00 for 9 months. $50.00 payment applied to $130.00 security...

deposit. Remaining $80.00 for security deposit appeared on customer's bill, past due. It is an amount that was originally due 7/7/15. Security deposit and fees are not included in deferred arrears payment plans.
Customer was issued a disconnect notice in the amount of $79.95 due by 10/6/15. Company granted 10 day extension on 10/2/15, hold was thru 10/12/15. Customer paid $79.95 10/12/15.
Total account balance is $505.68, of which $134 is past due and $135.84 is current bill due 11/4/15. Customer was issued another disconnect notice in the amount of $133.83 due by 11/4/15. Payment of $133.83 required to guarantee service.

Company records do not indicate a contact from the customer
to cancel service.  Per the West Virginia
Commission rule 4.7 it is the customer’s responsibility to notify the Company
to cancel service.
Service was cancelled in [redacted]’s name as of
8-31-16. 
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.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/11) */
This customer has not contacted the company to file a damage claim. The customer must contact the company and speak to a representative in order to have the damage claim filed so that the company Claims Department can...

investigate/review.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/18) */
Revdex.com Spoke with consumer over the phone. Below is word for word what the consumer asked Revdex.com to write as the consumer response.
Consumer cannot help but feel her electric outlets have been sabotaged. After filing a complaint, the electrical outlets by her door suddenly went out. Consumer cannot help but feel the Illuminating Company is involved with another insidious entity which is a store chain that starts with the letter "T." Consumer knows there is corruption involved.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 17, 2015/11/24) */
Business rebuttal from 11/19/2015
As stated in the Company's previous response, the customer must contact the company and speak to a representative in order to have the damage claim filed so that the company Claims Department can investigate/review.

The customer called the Company on 10/16/2017 to apply for
service. She is listed as the customer contact on the current customer of
record’s account at this location. Her application was denied at that time for
a copy of her lease, due to the past due balance at the...

property.
 
The Company received the customer’s lease on 10/18/2017,
which shows she is responsible for the usage from 8/11/2017 to current. (The dates
on the lease are 8/04/2017 to 7/31/2018). The premise balance at that time was
$395.94. The Company did not require a payment up front. Service was placed
into her name as of 8/11/2017. The Company attempted to call the customer, but received
a busy signal. A letter was sent to the customer to call the Company.
 
On 11/02/2017, the customer called the Company to question
the date that service was placed into her name, which was effective as of the next
actual reading date after the start date on her lease (8/11/2017). She said her
fiancé moved out. She was advised that because she lived there and benefited
from the service, she is responsible for the balance. The call was transferred to
a supervisor per the customer’s request. The supervisor advised her of the same
information. The customer said she had an oral agreement between her and her fiancé.
The supervisor advised her that this is between her and her fiancé. She
benefited from the service, making her equally responsible for the usage.
 
The Company’s position is that the effective date on the
customer’s lease is 8/04/2017. The customer benefited from the service, making her responsible
for the usage as of 8/11/2017. The customer can call for payment arrangements,
if needed.