FirstEnergy Corp.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/12) */
Customer has had service at her location since 6/09/15 and Company has only received two payments.
Records show an amount of $3007.62 was transferred from customer's prior account 7/28/15. Not sure where the amount of $911.00 customer is...

referring to is coming from.
Customer has disputed the matter with the PUC numerous times and her cases have been dismissed.
Proper notices had been provided before service was disconnected. Customer's service was reconnected 10/14/15 with a medical certificate.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/04/01) */
The Customer, [redacted], obtained service at [redacted], [redacted] as of 5/15/2015.
The Customer did not contact Penn Power in November 2015 to discontinue electric service.
The Customer did contact Penn Power on...

1/29/2016 and indicated that she had called in November 2015 to discontinue service. The customer provided the phone number that she would have called from. The company researched all phone records from 11/1/2015 to 11/30/2015 and found no calls made to her account or from the phone number she supplied. The Company processed the order to take service out of the customer's name as of 2/1/2016 and was referred to discuss the service from November 2015 to current with their landlord. The Customer was advised that the security deposit would be applied to the final balance due and any refund would be mailed to the new address.
A final bill was issued on 2/22/2016, for service through 2/1/2016, for a final credit balance of $89.01. This was a result of the security deposit of $102.00 being applied to the final balance. A refund has been issued.
Penn Power records indicate that the customer did not contact the company until 1/29/2016 to discontinue service. If the Customer's landlord would call and take responsibility of service beginning November 2015 the company would correct the customer's account.

I am rejecting this response because:
CEI found no evidence the bill was incorrect because when we called in to complain they told us they could not research it as we had already paid the bill. So their only reasoning for saying the bill was correct is that it was paid by us. A meter reading doesn't make it correct as these can be wrong. However, note the following: 1) The house was empty - no appliances, gas water heater - since 1/21.2) Our Feb bill reflected this fact - it was also an actual reading3) Our March usage was almost as high as when people were living in the house4) As of April 8th, people were living in the house, and the April usage was still lower than March Clearly something is incorrect. We already paid the March bill, so it is what it is. But we don't want an *estimated* bill based on that bill and are asking for it to be based on the February bill.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/16) */
Mr. [redacted] contacted Potomac Edison November 4, 2015 to apply for service at [redacted], Cumberland, Maryland. Due to the status of the service at [redacted], Potomac Edison agent advised Mr. [redacted] that a notarized lease or...

proof of ownership was needed to confirm change in household for the location.
November 12, 2015, Potomac Edison received a copy of the deed, confirming Mr. [redacted] was the owner of the premise. A Potomac Edison agent contacted Mr. [redacted] November 12, 2015 to advise that the deed was received and approved, however Mr. [redacted] advised the agent he no longer wanted to proceed with his application for service.
November 13, 2015, Potomac Edison received the deed a second time. The same agent that spoke with Mr. [redacted] on November 12, 2015 attempted to contact him November 13, 2015 to determine if he wanted to proceed with his application for service. Mr. [redacted] was not available, therefore a message was left.
If Mr. [redacted] requests to proceed with connection of service at the location, he will need to contact Potomac Edison at [redacted] to complete his application for service.

CEI records show service at [redacted], [redacted] ion the name of [redacted] from February 14,
2014 – July 10, 2015. The final bill was
issued in the amount of $334.38, which has remained unpaid. A copy of the final bill is
attached. The debt will remain...

marked as unpaid on Ms. [redacted]’s credit report
until full payment is made.

The 12/18/17 billing detailed the
past due of $114.45 and the current of $51.42 due 01/02/18, totaling $165.87. A
disconnect notice of $114.45, due by 01/02/18, was also detailed.
 
It appears that on
01/02/18 the customer went through the company website four times;...

no
transactions were carried out. On 01/03/18, another contact through the company
website was made, no transactions were carried out.
 
On 01/03/18, [redacted] contacted the company on behalf of
the customer and spoke to a representative who processed a payment over the
telephone in the amount of $114.17.
 
On 01/04/18, the customer contacted the company, via the
web, and stated that she had been attempting to make a payment for the better
half of the afternoon and that the system would not allow the payment. Customer
stated that the system was infuriating for refusing to accept a payment on line.
Customer did not feel that the system should be blocking payments and that she
was told she would need to contact the company back during business hours to
make a payment.
 
On 01/04/18, the company responded back to the customer’s
email advising that when an account is in disconnect status, a payment cannot
be accepted online the date of or a date preceding the disconnect notice date.
The customer must speak to a representative and the payment will be processed over
the telephone and the disconnect stopped. The customer was attempting to make a
payment on the date of and the date preceding the disconnect notice, 01/02/18
and 01/03/18. The company also advised that anytime an account is in disconnect
status that a payment, via online, will not be accepted for less than the
disconnect notice amount and the payment will not be accepted/entered for a
later date. The company advised that additionally, a credit card payment cannot
be accepted, via online, if the disconnect notice date is within 3 business
days or has already passed. The company recommended that in the future if the
customer is in this situation, to contact the company and speak with a
representative so that the payment can be processed and disconnect stopped.
 
When reaching the company IVR,
customers are supplied with the average wait time and are offered the option of
a Virtual Hold call back. If the customer accepts the Virtual Hold call back,
the customer can disconnect the telephone call, will retain their number/spot
in line, and when they are next in line to speak to a company representative
the IVR will call the customer back and connect them to the company
representative.

I am rejecting this response because: The response from Potomac Edison is so dishonest it disgusts me. I reported them to State Of Maryland, Public Service Commission Office of External Relations as well as you, The Revdex.com. I received a letter from the State of Maryland 2-27-2018 and you are given very different information. I made "payments" to them because they been full of crap from the every start. My wife worked in collections and advised me to do this under the Federal Debt Collections Act. If you look over the account you will see "why" this was done. They need to be investigated for fraud, which we did report that as well to the fraud department under the state. I want restitution due to the "fact" this is done.

When a person has unauthorized
charges on their bank account, it is recommended that they contact their bank
to dispute the charges.  The address
listed in the complaint reflects billing in the name of [redacted]. The
complaint does not indicate the dates or amounts of payments...

in question to
compare to the payments made on that account. 
Mr. [redacted] contacted First Energy online and First Energy responded
that he should contact his bank to dispute the charges.  First Energy also advised if he would reply
to our email and attach a copy of his bank statement, First Energy would attempt
to research the situation further for him.

I am rejecting this response because:
Well I also stand by mine my lawyer will be in contact with the company in the next few days

The billing of the security deposit in question is applicable because of the lateness of payment on the customer's account. The deposit will be refunded when 12 months of bills are paid on time, or the customer finals the account.  Interest is applied monthly. The Company did attempt...

to explain and offer an installment plan but the records indicate the customer hung up. (10/30). Below are the applicable BPU ( Board of Public Utility) approved regulations. Deposit regulations:

Company's request for deposit is in compliance with NJAC 14:3-3.4 Deposits for service (d) and company tariff section 3.09.
(a) A utility may require a reasonable deposit as a condition of supplying service, in accordance with this section.
(d) A utility may require an existing customer to furnish a deposit or increase their existing deposit if the customer fails to pay a bill within 15 days after the due date printed on the bill. The deposit required shall be in an amount sufficient to secure the payment of future bills.

3.09 Guarantee of Payment: Where the credit of an Applicant for Service is impaired or not
established, or where the credit of a Customer has become impaired, a money deposit or other guarantee
satisfactory to the Company may be required as security for the payment of bills for Service before the
Company will commence or continue Service.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/06/03) */
Ohio Edison (OE) records reflect customer made a payment of $58.97 electronically on 5/20/16. OE processed the payment with the information provided by the customer. No agent was involved in the payment process as the payment was made...

electronically. The payment was returned by the bank as 'Account Not Found'. OE mailed the customer a letter 5/26/16 advising of the returned payment. The letter states, id the payment was made to avoid the loss of electric service or to reconnect service that it may be considered a fraudulent practice.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/06/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This company accused me of a criminal act which I do not take lightly. Everybody else cashed my paymentfrom this account. Obviously ohio edison translated account info wrong and is now adding additional fees to my account and accusing me of a criminal act
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/06/13) */
Ohio Edison stands by our original response. Ohio Edison processed the payment with the information provided by the customer.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2016/06/15) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This bill is paid. If I get any additional fess then I will do something additional at that time. I gave the correct info
Ohio edison inputted it wrong. Dont accuse me of fraud ever again. I take that accusation very serious.

The customer had paid the said debt on her then active electrical account, subsequently the active billing used the credit towards her electric usage at the time, leaving the previous debt unpaid and in the collection agency's hands. The customer has been advised, the error corrected, and the...

customer will pay the debt still owed within 30 days.  Jcpl has retracted the debt from the collection agency and corrected the credit report.

The company stands by the position that the bill is correct as rendered.  The customer requested the service end on 04/11/16 effective 04/12/16.  At that time, the account had a credit balance of $313.01.  The customer requested this credit be refunded.  The company refunded the...

credit at the customer's request.  The account had not issued a final bill.  When the final bill issued on 04/21/16, it included the usage up to 04/12/16, $70.44 which was due 05/05/16.  The customer made the payment of the balance and the account currently has a zero balance.

As
information:
[redacted]
[redacted], [redacted], [redacted]:
 
Actual
Readings are being obtained. The company's intentions and goals are to obtain an actual reading
every month; however, there are times when the company is not able to obtain an
actual reading and the...

billing is estimated. When estimated, if over or under
estimated, the usage is caught and corrected/billed with the next actual
reading. Since obtaining service, the company has missed one reading, 11/30/15.
 
There is not a way
for the company to tell a customer exactly where usage is coming from. Customer
is billed for what is used on the meter. The company can review a Customer
Billing Analysis (CBA) with customer in an effort to determine what all is
being used in the household and the potential monthly usage. The CBA is only as
beneficial and accurate as the information provided by the customer. If the
customer fails to provide all accurate information, the CBA will neither be
beneficial or accurate. The company can also recommend that the customer
perform a breaker test in an effort to determine what in the household is using
the most power. The breaker test is performed by momentarily shutting off each
breaker, one at a time, and watching to see whether the spinning wheel on meter
slows down drastically. This will pinpoint the breaker and circuit that are
drawing the most power.
 
Customer is also
enrolled with an Alternate Supplier and is responsible for their charges each
month as well.
 
The 05/27/16 to
06/27/16 billing issued with an actual reading of 29532 (1034 kwh) and current
charge in the amount of $135.40 (company and supplier charges) due 07/13/16.
 
On 06/28/16,
customer contacted the company because felt billing was high. The
representative reviewed the account and advised that the billing was an actual
read billing. The representative asked customer if would like to obtain a reading
from the meter and would compare to reading company obtained. Customer
declined. The representative reviewed a CBA with the customer and based on the
information provided by the customer, the customer has the potential to use
between 1,063kwh and 1,299kwh and between $116.28 and $142.12 monthly. Billing
is in line with if what customer supplied was being used in residence.
 
The 06/28/16 to
07/29/16 billing issued with an actual reading of 30581 (1,049kwh) and current
charge in the amount of $132.24 (company and supplier). The billing detailed a
past due in the amount of $100, current charge of $132.24 + $1.50 late fee,
totaling $233.74.
A disconnect notice
in the amount of $100, due 08/16/16, was also included on the bill.
 
On 08/02/16,
customer contacted the company regarding the billing, felt billing was high. States
nothing being used in the [redacted] unit. Actual readings are being taken. Felt
something was wrong with meter. Typically, when a meter begins to fail, the
usage/billing will begin to decrease, not increase, because the meter stops
registering all of usage flowing through the meter. The representative
processed an order to test meter.
 
On 08/03/16, the
meter was removed for testing. A reading of 30711 was obtained from the meter
when removed, confirming that the company reading of 30581 on 07/29/16 was
correct, the meter advanced.
 
On 08/05/16, the
meter was tested and tested at 100.15 percent. The meter was running
accurately.
 
Something within
this residence is using the service. Again, there is not a way for the company
to tell a customer where the usage is coming from. Customer is billed for what
is used on the meter.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/21) */
10-21-15
A review of company records indicates [redacted] contacted the company 8-9-11 and placed the electric service in his name at [redacted] in Morgantown, WV.
No other contact was received from the customer until...

1-16-12 when he contacted the company to cancel the service in his name. Mr. [redacted] advised the company he did not realize the account was in his name and he refused to provide a forwarding address. He was advised if the landlord contacted the company and took responsibility for the date he moved out, corrections could be processed.
The service was cancelled in Mr. [redacted]'s name as of 1-16-12 and the bill is due as rendered for 484.60.

4/19/17 - The Customer contacted the company regarding a termination notice issued 4/4/17 for the amount of $1393.17 scheduled on or after 4/18/17.  The customer was provided with all available options, including the Medical Certificate option.  The customer was provided with the...

information in order to file a Medical Certificate and was also provided the Medical Certificate guidelines, including the 30 day timeframe.  The Company representative also faxed the medical certificate paperwork to the customer's doctor.  The customer was unable to pay the amount needed to maintain service, the customer was provide with PA Dispute Rights and a new termination date of 5/1/17.4/20/17 - Medical Certificate #1 was received.  A 30 day hold was placed on the account until 5/20/176/2/17 - The Customer contacted the company to have the medical certificate paperwork faxed to a doctor.  The forms were faxed.6/22/17 - The Customer Contacted the company regarding a termination notice issued 6/6/17 for the amount of $1565.30 scheduled on or after 6/20/17.  The customer wanted to know why a new notice was received.  The Company Representative explained the Medical Certificate hold had expired and a renewal had not been received.  The customer was unable to pay to maintain service.  The customer was provided with all available options including the Medical Certificate option.  The Company Representative provided the information in order to the customer to file a Medical Certificate and was also provided with the Medical Certificate guidelines.  PA Dispute Rights were provided and the customer was given a new termination date of 7/4/17.6/23/17 - Medical Certificate #2 was received.  A 30 day hold was placed on the account until 7/22/17. [redacted]The Medical Certificate guidelines:The Regulations allow for one medical certificate with a limit of two (2) renewals, each at a maximum of a 30 day period.  The limitation refers to the entire household.Also, whenever service is restored or termination postponed under the medical emergency procedures, the customer shall retain a duty to make payment on all current undisputed bills or budget billing amount as determined under the Regulations.  The Customer is ineligible for an additional company payment plan.  The Customer is on PCAP.PCAP provides low-income residential business partners of Met-Ed, Penelec & Penn Power with the following:•  Monthly credits to assist them with lowering their energy costs.•  One time opportunity is given at the time of their initial enrollment into PCAP, to eliminate their past due balance through monthly debt reduction in recognition of in full consumption bill payments.As a participant in PCAP, the customer is obligated to pay the PCAP bill on time and in full each month - the Customer does not pay on time or in full.

I am rejecting this response because:
Well, MetEd has finally written a respectful, useful reply.  I appreciate that---and I particularly appreciate the written confirmation that the debt collection agency was called off.  From my perspective, however, it is much too little, too late.  It should not take three rounds of telephone calls and two messages to the Revdex.com (plus an informal complaint to the state utility commission) to be treated with respect.  If MetEd's treatment of me---at a time when I am grieving the loss of a close family member---is any indication, it has a routine practice of disrespecting its customers.  And now MetEd thinks it entirely appropriate not to have to reimburse a customer it has perpetually disrespected.  I disagree.  MetEd is a monopoly utility; the only way to incentivize it to treat customers well is to punish it when it fails to do so.  (This is not about the money to me:  I'd happily stipulate to give the amount of the bill to charity if it's reimbursed to me, and I'd also happily accept a resolution as part of which MetEd paid the amount of the bill directly to a non-MetEd related charity of its choice.)  In short, I will not---will never---agree to condone MetEd's apparent practice of routine, egregious disrespect of customers who have no choice but to use MetEd's service.

Potomac Edison has read the meter
every month in the past 24 months.  Each
billing cycle is based on actual usage from last actual reading. 
Current bill was issued on 02/28/18 for 1,884 kWh.  The bill included past due balance of $225.66
and current charges of $207.65...

due on 03/08/01, for a total amount due of
$433.31.  Actual charges for 1,884 kWh was
$203.24 or $0.107 per kWh.  Previous
months charges $225.66 included a credit for security deposit.  The actual charges for 2,090 kWh was $225.71
or $0.107 per kWh.  Statement of account
is attached. 
 
Usage comparison for the previous
24 months – colder this winter compared to last winter by 9 degrees for the months of December/January.
02/25/17 to 02/26/18 used 15,391 kWh in 367 days or 42 kWh per day average
- December/January average temperature was 29 degrees02/25/16 to 02/24/17 used 14,668 kWh in 366 days or 40 kWh per day
average - December/January last year average temp 38 degrees
 
Summer comparison actually decreased this year compared to
last year by 3 kWh per day. 
06/27/17 to 09/26/17 used 2,725 kWh in 92 days
or 30 kWh per day average – 72 degrees average06/25/16 to 09/23/16 used 2,982 kWh in 91 days
or 33 kWh per day average – 76 degrees average
 
An increase in the electric bill
does not necessarily indicate the bill is incorrect.  The utility is
responsible for the meter equipment and meter readings.  The
utilities responsibility ends with the meter.  The customer is
responsible for the efficient operation and maintenance of all household
appliances and equipment.  There are several conditions that can
impact customer usage.  For example, December, January and February
are traditionally higher gas and electric usage months due to customers heating
their homes.  Similarly June, July and August are high electricity
months due to the added use of air conditioning and fans to cool the
home.  Customer may want to perform a breaker tester or contact a
local electrician to have an energy audit completed on their home to assist in
determining what appliances or areas of the home is contributing to the most
usage.    
 
Company suggestions regarding high
bills:  Taking
action now can help customer reduce energy consumption for the remainder of the
winter. Visit Company website at www.firstenergycorp.com/help/saving_energy  for more tips and to learn
about energy saving programs in your state, or use our home energy analyzer (www.firstenergycorp.com/save_energy/home_energy_analyzer) to gain a better understanding of
how their household uses electricity.

Initial Business Response /* (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.

I am rejecting this response because: The letter I received from Penelec does not cite my specific payment history nor does it reference regulation 56.41 so that I could look into said regulation. This is UNLAWFUL.  I will now be submitting a complaint to the Public Ultilities Commission.  Neither Penelec nor First Energy will be getting any type of security deposit from me when they do not clearly state their case in the initial letter.  Again, THIS IS UNLAWFUL.  I will not be taken advantage of or bullied by this company any longer.  They are a disgrace and only concerned with making money.