FirstEnergy Corp.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/03/18) */
On 03/03/2016, the customer called to discuss the bill for the period of 02/02/2016 - 02/29/2016 for the amount of $360.52(the bill include a past due of $186.92 for a total of $547.44). After reviewing the account, usage history and meter...

readings, the company representative explained the bill was based on an actual meter reading and explained that the prior reading was estimated, thus some usage may have carried over from the prior month. The representative offered to complete a Customer Billing Analysis, however, the customer declined. The customer wanted the company to re-read the meter. The company representative explained the option for the customer to supply a meter reading, however, the customer was unable to read the meter. The caller requested a Supervisor. The caller was transferred.
The Supervisor explained that a low estimate from the prior month may have resulted in high actual bill. The Supervisor advised electric heat and hot water are a high consumers of energy and this bill is reflective of that (the Apartment does have electric heat/hot water); the Supervisor further explained a 500 sq. foot apt can use 1000 kWhs in electric heat alone. The customer requested an additional meter reading to confirm usage. The Supervisor complied and created an order for an additional actual reading. The Supervisor explained that the company would notify the customer of the results of the new reading via letter.
On 03/04/2016, company personnel obtained an additional actual reading.
The reading confirmed the usage.
On 03/07/2016, a letter was issued to explain that on 03/04/2016, FirstEnergy obtained a company read of 94308 indicating the meter advanced and that the bill was considered correct.
[redacted]
The following readings have validated the usage.
11/25/2015 - 89841(actual)
12/02/2015 - 89993(estimation)
12/29/2015 - 90968(actual)
02/01/2016 - 92041(estimation)
02/29/2016 - 94121(actual)
On 03/04/2016 the company obtained an additional meter reading of 94308. The usage has been validated.

The company is unable to identify the specific cause of the increased electrical usage; however, as noted above, the electric heat is most likely to root cause of the high usage during the colder months.
The bill is considered correct.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/21) */
Customer called 12/04/15 regarding a high estimated bill. Customer stated the place was vacant. The representative explained the estimate was based off of last year usage and advised he would rebill the account for zero usage. Customer was...

advised she would have a $9.99 customer charge. Customer disconnected the call and a dispute letter was issued. (It appears the account was backed out for a rebill but usage amount was not changed. Customer was issued another bill for same amount of $193.46).
Customer called back 12/11/15 regarding the high estimated bill. Customer advised she could not obtain a reading because she was not at location. The representative explained our policy was to estimate every other month and advised that the meter would be read on 12/30/15. When a customer's meter is estimated, the usage will adjust out with the next actual meter reading. Customer refused to listen to representative. Verbal rights were provided. Customer disconnected the call.
As part of the Company's billing process, we will read the meter every other month. If customer wishes to have all actual readings, he is invited to submit his own reading during the months the bill is scheduled to be estimated.
When a customer's meter is estimated, the usage will adjust out with the next actual meter reading. If a meter is under estimated, it would cause the next actual bill to be higher. If the meter is over estimated, the next actual bill would be lower.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept their response because they DID NOT issue a new bill with zero usage. They re-issued the same bill. When Penelec issues a bill representative of their promise, then we will issue check for payment.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/01/05) */
Records indicate that Company obtained an actual reading on 12/29/15 of 99874 indicating from customer's last actual reading of 98511 obtained 10/28/15, the customer used 1363 kWh. Which would be an average of 681 kWh or $106.87 for customer's prior two bills (billing period 10/29/15-11/30/15 and 12/01/15 - 12/29/15).
Unfortunately, as stated previously as part of the Company's billing process, we will read the meter every other month. If customer wishes to have all actual readings, he is invited to submit his own reading during the months the bill is scheduled to be estimated. If customer is not at property and they receive an estimated bill - he can contact the Company to request we obtain an actual reading instead of waiting until the next scheduled read date.
When a customer's meter is estimated, the usage will adjust out with the next actual meter reading. If a meter is under estimated, it would cause the next actual bill to be higher. If the meter is over estimated, the next actual bill would be lower.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2016/01/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The attached bills do not reflect their response.

On 02/14/18, company personnel contacted and spoke to [redacted], who explained that they missed the 02/03/18 date, due to weather. [redacted] indicated they had contacted Ms. [redacted] and she understood this. [redacted] has reduced Ms. [redacted]’s invoice due to the...

inconvenience. [redacted] stated the weather is breaking so they should be able to perform the
work during the week of 02/19/18-02/23/18 and will again let Ms. [redacted] know
this.
 
On 02/16/18, company personnel spoke with [redacted] and
the job is scheduled for completion on 02/17/18.

The company stands by the original position. The Price to Compare (PTC) is the price per kilowatt-hour (kWh) the Company will charge for the generation portion of electric service. The PTC values are updated quarterly (March/June/September/December). Customers have the option to shop to save money if they purchase electricity from an electric generation supplier for less than their Price to Compare. The PTC is listed on the customer bill each month. The company does not know what kind of contact (fixed or variable rate) the customer has with the alternate supplier. The company must comply with the Pennsylvania Electric Competition law.

Company records reflect the customer's service was terminated for non payment on 4/26/2017  - all notices were issued in accordance to Regulation.On 5/5/2017, the Customer contacted the company regarding the terminated service.  The amount the customer was quoted for restoration of service...

included the past due balance of $2982.17 plus a $36.00 reconnection fee for a total amount of $3018.17. [redacted]The customer has not recently contacted the company to discuss the concerns of high billings.  The company has not had the opportunity to discuss with the customer the account usage history, payment history, the billing time frame comparison, the weather factor, etc.  The customer also has not had the opportunity to review an appliance list with the customer in order to determine the potential monthly usage. The customer has used 3 Medical Certificates to postpone termination or reconnect after termination, the customer has not met the payment obligation for an additional Medical Certificate Customer has poor payment history; only 7 payments (of $50.00 each) have been received in the last 24 months.  The customer's high balance is due to poor payment history and accumulated arrears. The company considers the disconnection valid and requests the customer pay the requested amount noted above.

I am rejecting this response because:
it is common sense that the bill will increase with increased use. The issue has been and still is the fact that I have not used that amount of electricity. I have not been in the apartment for over half of the billing period so it is a no brainer this bill should have been cut in half. Ohio Edison is not even attempting to check the meter and make sure it is being used correctly. I am being taken advantage of by Ohio Edison and I am completely helpless. Everything has been checked inside of my home. Every time I speak to someone from Ohio Edison they immediately and repeatedly say it is something in my home not working properly. Everything has been checked multiple times. The only other option I have is to sit in the dark with no heat on at all. I am truly disgusted by this company and I have no choice but to use them

The customer called to request service at the location 4-25-17.  Connection timeframes for service are 1 to 3 business days.  The service was be connected 4-28-17.

The company stands by the final position however, as a good customer service gesture the company has waived the $36 reconnect fee.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/12/01) */
As a matter of background, the customer is on the company's budget billing program or Equal Payment Plan. The Equal Payment Plan (EPP) is a program for Residential Customer requesting monthly budget billing. The EPP is designed to make...

Residential Customer's monthly payments consistent throughout an entire year, leveling out seasonal highs and lows.
Customer's budget amount is based on a 12 month average bill that is reviewed during the 3rd, 6th and 9th month and adjusted as needed. An adjustment in customer's monthly amount could be the result of a change in customer's usage, a change in the rates, or extreme weather conditions.
Once a year, the customer will receive an anniversary bill. This bill will be for the difference between what the customer has paid during the previous 11 months and the actual cost of the energy the customer used for that period.
[redacted]
On 11/10/2014, the customer's account was set up on the EPP being at $304.00. The customer was also on a company payment plan to pay $100.00 toward a back balance.
On 3/5/2015, the customer called in regard to the usage at the property. A company representative reviewed the account, usage history, meter readings and offered to complete a Customer Billing Analysis to help identify the primary consumers of electricity in the house; however, the customer declined the Customer Billing Analysis. The customer claimed the meter was spinning rapidly; the company representative explained the option of a meter test; however the customer declined and wanted to speak with a Supervisor.
The Supervisor also reviewed the account, usage history, meter readings and offered to complete a Customer Billing Analysis to help identify the primary consumers of electricity in the house; however, the customer declined the Customer Billing Analysis. The Supervisor explained the budget amount of $304.00 was in line with the average monthly Bill amounts ($303.00). The Supervisor explained the high usage is typically in the summer (or warmer) months. The customer claimed the meter was spinning rapidly; the Supervisor reiterated the option of a meter test; however the customer declined. The Supervisor also review monthly usage and payments. Furthermore, the Supervisor offered energy savings information, however, the customer declined the information as well.
On 10/22/2015, the customer called to further discuss the usage at the property. The company representative reviewed the account, usage history and meter readings. The customer wanted to know if the company could determine what was using the electricity. The company representative explained the company cannot visit the home; however, the representative did explain the customer could perform a breaker test (the breaker test was explained) to help determine what item(s) could be consuming the most electricity. The company representative attempted to educate the customer by offering energy savings information (two brochures: Understanding Electricity Usage/Cost and More than 100 Ways to Improve Your Electric Bill); however, the customer declined. The customer was also referred to the company's online Energy/Billing Analyzer at [redacted].
On 11/5/2015, the customer called to further discuss the usage at the property. The customer wanted the company to determine what the primary consumer of electricity was in the home. The company representative explained the company could not go into home to test customer's owned equipment and or appliances. The company representative confirmed that a meter test could be done, since the meter is company owed; however, the customer declined and requested a Supervisor. It appears the customer disconnected the call before speaking with a Supervisor.
[redacted]
Additional calls have been collections related.
The company has offered to complete a Customer Billing Analysis to help identify the primary consumers of electricity in the home; however, the customer declined.
The customer was offered energy efficiency and savings information; however, the customer declined.
The customer was offered a meter test; however, the customer declined.
The customer would need to contact the company to complete a Customer Billing Analysis (CBA) and/or discuss the option for a meter test.

The Company issues a statement each month showing the past due amount, current amount due and total amount due.  In addition, if an account is due to be disconnected for non-payment, a notice is issued.  A termination notice issued 5-15-17 for 365.81 with a termination date on or...

after 5-22-17.  Payment was not received and the service was disconnected for non-payment 5-31-17; 9 days after the original disconnect date. The account was on a payment plan that was set up for the customer 2-10-17 to break the past due amount into installments when the customer was not able to make payment in full.  Attached is a copy of the notice mailed the customer and a copy of the installment plan letter mailed to the customer 2-13-17.  Both letter advise the customer that not paying the bill in full could result in termination without personal contact. The requested restoral amount was received 6-5-17 and the Company restored the service the same day.

03/24/17, customer contacted the company concerning
recertification into the PIPP program. 
Company advised that no payment is due to recertify for the
program.  The customer would need to
verify income and have the agency send over the reverification for the...

program.
03/29/17, customer contacted the company to advise that the
state of Ohio has a lock on the account due to an audit.  The reverification for PIPP cannot be sent
over.  Company advised that the account cannot
be enrolled in PIPP until the reverification is received.
06/21/17, PIPP reverification received from the agency.  PIPP default of $376.26 is due prior to
reverification into the program.
08/30/17, customer contacted the company concerning a
disconnect notice.  Customer was advised
a payment of $1540.44 would be needed to stop the disconnection of
service.  A payment of $714.26 is needed
to recertify for the PIPP program. 
Customer advised that $300 will be submitted 08/30/17.  The remaining $414.26 for the PIPP
recertification will be paid on 09/03/17.
Company position:
The customer was removed from PIPP due to no being current
with PIPP payments on 01/12/17.  Customer
was advised in March 2017 that no payment was needed to recertify but the
income will need to be verified and a re-enrollment will need to be received by
the company.  An enrollment was not
received until 06/21/17.  When the
enrollment was received, payments were needed prior to recertification.  The
customer will need to contact the agency with a dispute about their
process.  Currently, a payment of $523
would now be needed to recertify for the program.  As bills issue and come due, the amount
needed will change.

Customer called on 12/08/2017 to end service with a stop
date of 01/03/2018 and had no forwarding address at that time.
 
A final bill was issued on 01/12/2018, the amount due
$106.59 by 02/01/2018.
 
The Company was notified by the postal service on 01/15/2018
of an...

address change. The mailing address was updated to [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]. 
 
The address was updated after the final bill had already
been sent. 
 
The following payments were received after the account
closed: 01/30/2018 $25.00, 03/13/2018 $10.00, and 03/20/2018 $10.00.
 
The account balance is $61.59 and payments can be made
directly to the Company. 
 
The account is not being reported to an outside collection
agency at this time.

The Company's claims department reviewed the customer's case again and will be in direct contact with the customer the week of 11-7-16.  Thank you.

The interaction between
Mr. [redacted] and the Company IVR was pulled and reviewed.  The IVR
advised Mr. [redacted] that it matched his telephone number to his account. 
The IVR asked Mr. [redacted] to confirm his address began with [redacted] and Mr
[redacted] confirmed this.
 
Both accounts have the same telephone number listed ([redacted]) and
they both have the same address.  The Company IVR is designed to look for
the Premise Number (address number) and tie that to an Active Account, if the
customer does not enter an account number, which the account number was not
entered. The customer’s telephone number is listed in the Premise Number field
on account [redacted] and because that account was the active account at the
time of the call, the Company IVR matched the call to that account.  The Company
IVR worked as designed.
 
The Company stands by its position.

Revdex.com received consumer rebuttal response over the phone. Consumer says she feels that they are responsible to pay her $237, money she doesn't have to spend on their negligence. They were working on a house across the street [redacted] and the employee caused a surge. The surge effected her even though she wasn't even the person they were doing the work for. From what she can gather it sent a surge through her neighbors house as well, but it only knocked out his surge strip. She feels that she should be reimbursed for her furnace. She said the letter we received makes it sound like the business came out to work on her house for an equipment failure, but she never called them and they weren't even working on her house. They might have worked to repair equipment, but it was equipment across the street. She spoke with Todd Leslie on the phone and said he was rude. Then he sent a letter that made it sound like she initiated a call, but she did not. Consumer would like to be reimbursed for the furnace the Illuminating Company damaged.

As information:
[redacted] set up temporary service at [redacted]
[redacted], [redacted] on 04/14/17 and was given an account number of
[redacted]. Mr. [redacted] ended the temporary service on 08/25/17. The
final bill for temporary service was issued on 08/30/17 in the amount...

of
$53.15, due 09/20/17. Bill is attached.
 
[redacted] set up permanent service at [redacted]
[redacted], [redacted] on 08/23/17 and was given an account number of
[redacted].
 
On 09/07/17, a payment of $53.15 was received on account
number [redacted], giving a credit on that account. Payment of $53.15 was
paid through the company IVR. This was not a mailed payment, nor a payment
processed by a company representative, but was made by the customer through the
company IVR.
 
The 10/06/17 billing for account number [redacted]
detailed the current bill of $61.64 minus the credit of $53.15 sitting on the
account, leaving a balance of $8.49 due 10/20/17.
 
On 10/24/17, the final bill of $53.15 on account number
[redacted] remained unpaid. When an account remains unpaid, the balance is
sent to collections. On 10/24/17, the outstanding balance of $53.15 was sent to
collection.
 
On 10/31/17, Mr. [redacted] contacted the company on the outstanding
balance of $53.15 on the final account that was sent to collections. Mr.
[redacted] paid the $53.15 over the telephone with the representative,
clearing the final outstanding balance.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/05/25) */
Mr. [redacted] moved into [redacted] on 12/16/15. Initial bill issued 12/30/15 in the amount of $46.32 (439 kWh) actual read service from 12/16 to 12/28/15 (13 days) due 01/19/16. The next two bills (12/29/15 to...

01/28/16 and 01/29/16 to 02/26/16) were estimated from prior month usage. January 2016 scheduled read was missed due to weather.
Mr. [redacted] contacted Potomac Edison regarding bill issued 03/29/16 in the amount of $747.54 (7437 kWh) actual read service from 02/27 to 03/25/16 due 04/18/16. Company representative attempted to explained previous two bills were under estimated and actual read was correcting those bills. Mr. [redacted] provided a read from the meter at 59264; which actually confirmed company read at 57637 to have been correct. Representative issued a corrected bill 04/11/16 in the amount of $619.63 (5714 kWh) prorated from customer read service from 02/27 to 03/25/16 due 05/02/16.
Potomac Edison obtained next actual read on 04/26/16 at 60042. Bill issued 04/28/16 in the amount of $1011.45 (4128 kWh) actual read service from 03/26 to 04/26/16 and previous balance $562.33 due 05/18/16. Mr. [redacted] contacted Potomac Edison regarding bill; however hung up while representative was reviewing the account. Representative issued an order to confirm read at 60042 was correct. 05/12/16 check read obtained 60775 which confirms previous read to have been correct.
Mr. [redacted] states he was using space heaters to assist with heating this location. Actual reads obtained 03/25/16 at 57637 and 12/28/15 at 49865 was 7772 kWh in 88 days for 88 kWh per day average.
Meter was exchanged 05/12/16 and replaced with a digital meter. Customer admitted to heating with space heaters and estimated bills were corrected with actual reads. No adjustments will be made to the account as actual reads have been obtained.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/06/03) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I don't agree but I'll agree to disagree and I will bewriting down, photographing and monitoring all future days. The digital meter now seems to be giving me the real reading and for the record space heaters were used when it was cold not the last 2 months when it was 60 degrees as why would need to be.
However I am finished worrying about it and will be in touch if future problems occur.
Thank you

I am rejecting this response because:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/23) */
A tree fell across a cross arm causing it to break. The also caused a blown fuse and damaged conductors. The company discovered this was a right of tree, which makes the claim payable. Mr. [redacted] has been contacted by the company to resolve to...

his claim.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/10/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I have not had a response from the company as of 10/4/2015
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/10/08) */
The company left a message for Mr. [redacted] on 9-30-15 requesting details to file and complete his claim. On 10-6-15 the company made another attempt to reach Mr. [redacted] and is currently working to resolve his claim.

Please be advised as I had provided on my initial response the Company is willing to provide the customer with a 2 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 2/3/2017 - 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 2 year billing statement he should contact customer service at [redacted] for this request.  Thank You,