FirstEnergy Corp.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/11) */
In review of account, the customer did not make a payment in August, 2015. As a result, has been carrying past due since.
The 09/01/15 billing detailed the past due in the amount of $184.66 and the current of $145.52 due 09/15/15, totaling...

$330.18. A disconnect notice in the amount of $184.29, due 09/15/15, was also included on the bill.
On 09/22/15, service was disconnected. Customer paid $219.29 ($184.29 past due + $35 rec fee) to have the service restored. Customer paid the minimum amount to restore, not the total amount due as detailed above ($330.18). From the $219.29 payment, $184.29 posted towards the $330.18 balance, leaving the $145.52 that was due on 09/15/15, but not included in the disconnect amount.
On 10/01/15, customer went through billing again. A disconnect notice was also issued 10/01/15 in the amount of $145.54, due 10/15/15. Customer had a total amount due of $382.42; however, $145.54 to avoid disconnect. This was detailed on the bill issued 10/01/15.
On 10/15/15 customer paid $145.54 to avoid termination. Customer made this electronic check payment through the IVR.
On 10/17/15, customer was advised that her account is not coded as restricted or cash only. As a result, she would be able to use checking or savings account to make payments. The check payment of $145.54 was processed.
On 10/29/15, customer went through billing again. The 10/29/15 billing detailed the past due in the amount of $236.88 ($382.42 - $145.54 payment on 10/15/15 = $236.88) and a current of $140.04 due 11/12/15, totaling $376.92. A disconnect notice in the amount of $224.55, due 11/12/15, was also included on the bill.
Customer can pay the minimum of $224.55 to avoid termination or pay the $376.92, which would bring the account current. Customer will go through billing again on 12/01/15.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Legal representation has been retained.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/11/13) */
The company position remains the same.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/13) */
Honeywell (a vendor) did not receive a rebate application from this customer, nor had record of her telephone calls.
A company representative contacted and spoke with the customer. Based on the telephone conversation with the customer, it...

sounds as though the customer had submitted the application with her bill, which explains why Honeywell had no record of her application. The customer also sent in follow up inquiries with her bill. The payment/bill address is a different address than the rebate processor. As a result, Honeywell did not receive this follow up.
The customer is now sending the rebate information directly to the company representative and if the product qualifies, the application will be processed.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/20) */
7/28/14, a deposit warning letter was issued advising customer if he continued to pay late a deposit would be required.
9/29/14, the deposit amount of $950.00 was applied on the account.
Documentation does not indicate customer called to...

dispute the deposit.
3/10/15, Customer called about a high bill of $980.07 for billing period 1/30/15-3/03/15. A customer billing analysis was completed which indicated the customer had the potential of 8664 kWh monthly. The representative advised the prior bill had been estimated, any unbilled usage would show with actual reading. The customer billing analysis shows bill was correct. Customer was satisfied.
(Information obtained from prior case [redacted])
The Customer's service was terminated on 6/4/2015. The Customer was set up on a payment agreement on 6/17/2015 after being terminated for the balance of $9,383.03. The balance was broken into 24 month installments of $390.96 plus budget bill. This was offered in error on 6/12/2015 but the company accepted a payment of $486.49 for service to be restored and the remaining was billed in installments. The customer was advised that there is a security deposit due of $950 and the customer was encouraged to contact the company after service was restored to see if it could possibly be waived. The Customer accepted terms of the agreement and was satisfied. The Customer's service was restored on 6/16/2015.
7/17/2015, The Customer contacted the Company stating that he did not agree to the agreement set up on the account. The customer stated that he thought he was set up on a payment agreement for $500 and not $800. The representative advised that he is paying $452 plus payment agreement amount of $390.96. The customer was advised that his arrears are $10336.43. The Customer was advised that the prior call would be reviewed but the company would not offer a 24 month plan for the customer. The Customer was satisfied.
A termination notice was issued on 7/21/2015 scheduled for any time on or after 8/4/2015 for past due balance of $9884.95.
7/28/2015 10:45 a.m. - the Company attempted contact via telephone for the purpose of personal notice of disconnection. Message was left.
7/29/2015 5:03 p.m. - the Company attempted contact via telephone for the purpose of personal notice of disconnection. Message was left.
Service was terminated on 8/5/2015.
The Customer contacted the Company on 8/5/2015 after service was terminated and stated that he was told not to pay anything until the payment agreement was worked out. The Customer requested to speak with a supervisor. The customer was advised of medical certificate and PFA information. The customer stated that he was set up on a payment agreement. The supervisor reviewed the account and determined that the customer was offered and set up on a payment agreement of $390.96 plus budget amount. The customer was advised that this would have been the minimum amount offered to the customer. The Customer stated that he called the company on 7/17/2015 and was advised to not make any payments until the agreement was reviewed. The Customer was advised that the call would be reviewed. The customer was satisfied.
PUC case [redacted] dismissed 8/25/15.
10/19/15, a residential termination notice was issued for an amount of $11741.19 with disconnection date of 11/02/15.
10/27/15, Personal notice of disconnection posted at property. No contact with customer.
11/02/15, Doctor's office contacted the Company for a medical certificate. The representative advised the customer was not eligible for another one.
11/02/15, Service was disconnected due to nonpayment of bill. Post termination notice was given to customer.
Later that day, Customer called regarding disconnection of service. The representative provided options and advised past due amount of $12137.83. Customer was satisfied.
The Customer has had two or more defaulted payment agreements and is not eligible for lower restoral terms. The customer was previously enrolled in PCAP and removed on 5/31/2014 for failure to recertify. The Customer's balance includes PCAP arrears of $627.19.
Documentation does not indicate the customer disputed his bill and/or deposit after then 3/10/15. Prior case [redacted] was dismissed.
The customer needs to pay $10893.90 ($10861.90 + $32.00 rec fee) to restore service.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/28) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Disputes were made with company,we had asked penelec to review recorded audio and we even provided reps names with whom we had spoke with, penelec claims our calls did not get recorded....which is odd bc they always record calls but cant find ours? We have 4 kids total.ages are 5,11,15,16 . Our son and daughter need their breathing machines and nebulizers which the dr faxed to penelec papers stating of medical emergency and penelec ignored
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/12/10) */
Company does not supply actual calls to customers. Our records are proof of the contact. As stated in the original response, the Company accepted payment of $486.49 to restore service then established a 24 month agreement of budget + $390.96. Upon further review the agreement amount quoted on 6/12/15 was budget + $413.19 which was high than agreement amount established 6/17/15.
Customer has had three medical certificates (4/08/15, 8/13/15, 9/14/15) and is not eligible for another medical certificate until balance is paid to zero.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/12/07) */
According to the Company records the above addressed customer had electric service in her name from 12/3/2009 to 10/18/2015. Service was removed from her name due to a new customer's application for service effective 10/19/2015.
The company...

records do not reflect that the customer ever called us to dispute the amount of her bills or to discuss any of her estimated bills.
The Company records reflect the Company is following the bi-monthly meter reading process with the exception of 2/20/2015 (estimate caused by temperature extremes - Weather) and 8/21/2015 (estimate caused by staffing issued coded as Misc.). Attached is a 2 year bill statement which also shows after an actual meter reading was obtained on 9/22/2015 the customer's account was rebilled from 7/22/2015 to 9/22/2015 accordingly.
Please note - Due to enhancements to our billing system after August 2015 when re billings are completed the prior read type code is no longer visible on the statement. The bill issued 9/24/2015 was based on an actual meter reading of 33,156. The read type codes are reflected on the customer's bills.
Customer's bills are correct as rendered. Please advise the customer to contact Met-Ed's customer service department at [redacted] to discuss any billing issues regarding her finalled account.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2015/12/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Met Ed stated that I have only been a customer of theirs from 2009 on. This is true, to some extent, I moved into [redacted] on Dec 2009. Prior to this I lived at [redacted] 18045 from Dec 2001 to sometime in 2008. Prior to this, I had First Energy, a affiliate of Met Ed, at [redacted] and at [redacted] from 1993-2001.All of the above mentioned were under the name [redacted], including [redacted]. I re-married in 2011 and changed my last name to [redacted]. As far as my estimated readings for Feb/March 2015. In Feb I mailed Met Ed a letter stating there was always a cleared path to the meter and the propane tank located about 4' FROM THE ELECTRIC METER, AND THAT THE BACK YARD WAS CLEARED FOR OUR DOGS. They were informed how to get from said path from the front sidewalk of the single wide mobile home instead of going through the back yard like they normally do. They chose to ignore my letter and provided me with another estimated bill for march.As far as August 2015, their mics staffing issues are not my problem, there was no reason the meter was not read. It also doesn't change the fact that in 9 months I received 2 actual readings, as proven by their attachment and also mine. This is far from Bi-Monthly. As of today, Dec 14, 2015 I have still not received a final bill. I have not done a address change at the post office yet, so there is no reason to not have gotten said bill, and I have never once not gotten a bill or had one lost in the mail. I would also like to add the new owners of [redacted] are still waiting for a first bill from Met Ed and had to call Met Ed several times in regards to this. Again on August 30, 2015 Myself and my husband read our meter and the numbers were 30,173. My husband is a Electrician and a Contractor and we both know how to read a electric meter.On June 19,2015 our actual read meter reading was 28,571. So for July and August we used 1602 KWH, about 801 KWH pr month.What Met Ed is claiming is we consumed 2983 KWH from August 30 to Sept 24, 2015. They are claiming from June-Sept 4585 KWH were consumed, about 1529 pr month. How can this be? We did not run the central air or furnace, we changed all our light bulbs to LED bulbs in the beginning of 2015. Our appliances are 3 years old and I had a timer on the fridge, it ran for 2 hours every 6 hours. Plus we purchased our new home on June 29 2015 and have mostly been there working on it and not at [redacted] much. None of my actual read bills this year were anywhere near this amount and on my Aug 2015 bill it states the average monthly usage for 2015 was 1,094 and that we used 13,133 in 12 the last 12 months. My only conclusion is that in Sept 2015, Met Ed hacked or tampered with my meter.Attached is the following, a duplicate check from my account written to Met Ed on 7-5-2005 to show I have been a customer much longer than 2009. Older duplicates can be provided if needed. Pictures of my last actual read bill in June 2015 showing my meter numbers and KWH used, and plainly states that my average monthly usage was 1,074 KWH not 1592. And a photo of my Dec 2015 PPL bill showing my actual usage of 808 KWH used in 32 days. This is before we installed all LED light bulbs and we have been doing construction on the new home. Please advise Met Ed that I will not be contacting them by phone, and they can mail correspondence to [redacted]. [redacted]. I will get it one way or another. Again, I feel that Met Ed willnot be able to provide me a actual and honest final bill. Even their own attachments they show the 4 estimated bills they sent me, one dated Sept 22, 2015 and one dated Oct 18,2014. Please notice the meter numbers are 30,809 for Sept and 31.064 for Oct 2015. And none are the actual reading I provided them in August of 30,173.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2015/12/17) */
After a review of my response I noticed that I incorrectly stated the final reading the Company obtained for the rebilling performed. The final reading of the meter at this property was obtained on 10/22/2015 at read of 31,104. However the statement provided reflect the rebilling performed on 10/27/2015 was correct at the final bill reading was 31,064 which is based on the reading obtained on 10/22/2015 prorated back to the move out date of 10/18/2015. I apologize for the initial incorrect information however the billing statement that was attached shows that the customer's bills are correct and the rebilling of her account was completed correctly.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 18, 2015/12/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
One, I never received a final bill, only the 4 estimated bills. From how I see it on the billing statement provided by met ed, even though their estimates exceeded my actual usage, I am being billed again for July and August. And it was stated by them in their rebuttal that on September I was given a actual read bill and it shows on their statement that they put my meter reading at 33,156. So this was not just a mistake, this was them trying to over charge me. This is why a smart meter needs to be installed at [redacted] Ms [redacted] finally received her first bill from met ed, October was a actual read bill, Nov was estimated and they are scheduled for another estimated bill in Dec. This is their first home, and they've never had electric service prior. They are a young couple with a small child & should not have to go though the same as me with this company. So again, I'd like a actual final bill, and a smart meter installed at [redacted]in [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: they reneged on their initial offer and won't even stick the bill for [redacted] Road back into collections where it belongs. I was hoping for a little more compassion.  If the bill continues to be $164 a month, I won't be able to pay it, so my electricity will end up being cut off.  So my options are (1) live without electricity, heating, etc, or (2) let the mortgage company take the house.  Cheers

Mr. Rubins concerns have been noted and notifications for the work require have been created. [redacted], Prior orders for this light had to be rescheduled do to emergency work.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/10/15) */
Ohio Edison investigation confirms [redacted] living at this address since 11/2014. OE has agreed to grant her service effective 11/12/14. She would need to pay $4369.30, which includes usage from 11/12/14 to current ($1711.85) + $2657.45...

which is her PIPL default/gap total or she
can wait until 10/19/15 and use the $175 winter reconnect rule to get service transferred into her name and have the remaining $4,194.30 billed.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/04/25) */
02/09/16 - [redacted] contacted Penelec to request service to [redacted] as of 02/10/16. Service was removed from [redacted] name and the final bill was mailed to the Mineral Point address for both final and...

Ms. [redacted]'s bills. [redacted]'s final bill was issued in the amount of $899.28 due 03/03/16. Penelec was notified on 04/18/16 by outside collection agency that [redacted] was deceased.
07/23/15 - [redacted] contacted Penelec to request mailing address be changed for the location at [redacted] to [redacted]. Company representative updated mailing address and ALL future bills have been mailed to that address.
Penelec obtains an actual read every other month the off month is read is estimated on previous year history. When a meter is estimated, the usage will adjust out with the next actual meter reading. This location is vacant. The estimated read is higher than the actual read and required a corrected bill to be issued.
04/12/16 - [redacted] contacted Penelec as she was confused with the billing for [redacted]. Company representative confirmed the account was billed on the equal payment plan (budget) and payments have caused a credit on the account. Ms. [redacted] requested the budget to be removed and credit transferred to her other account in Mineral Point. However there was a payment agreement for budget + $53 and the agreement was not removed from the account prior to credit being transfer. This left an account balance of $559.27 due on Johnstown address.
Corrections have been made to leave a credit of $4.84 on [redacted]. New bill mails 05/19/16 due 06/08/16.The account at [redacted] correction were made and account balance is $0 due. New bill mails 05/09/16 due 05/30/16.
If Ms. [redacted] is requesting to clear the final bill for [redacted]'s in the amount of $899.28 she will need to contact Penelec, assume responsibility of the bill and request the transfer or she can pay the balance.

I am rejecting this response because:The same company with a different name should be reporting the information the same with both credit agencies or they must remove it.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/06/20) */
The service request was completed on 6/10, and a letter confirming the completion was mailed to the requested address. The customer has the right to file a Claim with our Claims Department if applicable.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/12) */
Contact Name and Title: Patricia S[redacted]
Contact Phone: [redacted]
Contact Email: [redacted]
The customer enrolled with FirstEnergy Solutions, via the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC), Community Savings Program. The offer...

was for 6% off of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI), price to compare (PTC), through the January, 2017 meter read. The offer included a $25 ETF.
On July 26, 2013 Opt- Out Letters were mailed to all eligible customers. Should the customer wish not to enroll they were to return to the Opt-Out Letter by August 16, 2013. Having not received the customer's opt out letter power flow started on December 27, 2013.
Attached please find a copy of the Opt-Out Letter, and the Terms and Conditions of the agreement. As a one-time courtesy FES, will waive the $25 ETF.

I confirmed with customer she has received her refund from Citibank. She thanked me for checking.

As a matter of background: Service at the address of [redacted]
[redacted] was established in [redacted]'s name effective
9/30/09. (Please note: records indicate that [redacted] and [redacted] called
to establish service in his name). He was enrolled in PCAP 7/30/10. He was
removed...

from PCAP 11/29/10 due to not providing proof of no income. [redacted]
then was re-enrolled 4/28/11 and remained in the program until 4/25/12 when his
account at [redacted] was finalized. (Service had been
disconnected due to nonpayment of bill). His final balance was $10,975.33.
 
On 2/24/16, [redacted] called to apply for service at the
address of [redacted]. During the application process the
Company discovered an outstanding balance at the address of [redacted],
Erie PA for the amount of $10,975.33. His application was denied pending full
payment.
 
Later that day, a representative reviewing the account
decided to establish service in [redacted]'s name at the address of 2101
Liberty St 1fl, Erie PA and transferred the balance of $10,975.33 to his new
account. (A 30 day hold was placed on the account). The representative
attempted to reach [redacted] by phone to advise however the phone number
provided had been invalid. A call me letter was issued to Mr. [redacted].
 
On 2/24/2016, Penelec received a PUC complaint for [redacted]
[redacted], which was filed due to the denial of service.
 
On 4/26/2016, the customer called stating he is waiting for the
PUC to investigate the identity theft. He was provided with the Federal Trade
Commission’s (FTC) phone #, and advised to call us back with the FTC
confirmation number. Mr. [redacted] was also advised to file a police report for
identity theft and provide us with a copy.
 
On 4/29/2016, the customer called and provided his
confirmation number from the FTC.
 
On 7/21/2016, the PUC closed/dismissed the customer’s
complaint. The customer contacted the FTC, but the Company never received a
copy of the police report, therefore the identity theft could not be
investigated by our Revenue Operations department. The customer was PCAP
enrolled at this location from 7/30/2010 to 11/29/2010 and again from 4/28/2011
through 4/25/2012. The customer would have had to apply for PCAP with the local
PCAP agency, showing proof of income, etc…
 
Company position - Documentation does not appear that
[redacted] disputed the balance when he spoke with the representative
on 2/24/16.  Records indicate that [redacted]
and [redacted] called to establish service in his name and that he had been
enrolled in PCAP at the address he is disputing. The Company’s position is that
the customer is responsible for the balance in question. The customer was placed
on a Company payment agreement.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/20) */
Customer was issued a disconnect notice with her 6/11/15 bill in the amount of $689.13 for 6/25/15. Payment was not received. New bill issued 7/14/15, which included a reminder of the past due balance and disconnect notice. Payment was not...

received, resulting in disconnection of service 8/3/15. Total to reconnect was $749.13, which included reconnect fee.
New disconnect notice was included in current bill, issued 8/12/15. Payment of $562.81 required by 8/26/15 to prevent disconnection.
Customer is not eligible for a payment plan because she is currently on a 12 month payment plan, which was granted to customer after she defaulted on a prior payment plan.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/08/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
they are not being honest no disconnect was on
the bill on 7-14 I can provide a copy of it and it does not have a disconnect on it. I was informed that my service was being disconnect and they stuck me on a plan that I did not agreee to.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/04/12) */
Company records reflect Mr. [redacted] called CEI 1/19/16 and advised he would have ex-wife call to have service put in her name at [redacted]. He did not request service to be canceled, therefore service remained on and billed in his...

name.
The service taken out of his effective 3/4/16 when a new person contacted CEI and applied for service at [redacted].
The final account balance of $70.57 was transferred from [redacted] to his current address?
CEI has no record of receiving a letter requesting service be canceled until 3/4/16, at which time there was already a pending order to cancel his service.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/04/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I sent two different letters notifying them to cancel my account and change over to the new owner. First letter written Defb 24, second letter written march 24. They made no response to my letters. I have copies attached.
The first rep I spoke with at the ill co. said she had a record of my letters.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/04/19) */
CEI stands by our original response. CEI has no record of receiving a letter in February requesting service be canceled. The first request CEI received was the letter received 3/4/16, at which time there was already a pending order to cancel his service.

The company stands by its position. The service at this
address has been in Stacey Gantt’s name since 04/26/13. Stacey Gantt is
responsible for the service/billing at this address as long as the service is
in their name.
 
As previously stated, the customer’s meter had been
registering zero usage since approximately 08/23/16. As a result, customer was
being billed the minimum charge of $4.26 monthly. A meter can register zero
usage if location is vacant and service rarely being used or is meter is
stopped/dead.
 
A zero usage letter was mailed to the customer, advising
the customer to contact the company. Customer did not respond to letter. The
customer’s billings went from normal usage/billing down to no usage/$4.26,
while they were residing at this home, and never contacted the company to
inquire about the decrease, nor contacted the company regarding the zero usage
letter issued.  
 
On 09/27/17, the company installed a new meter. On 10/26/17,
the company obtained a reading of 589 from the new meter. The prior removed
meter had stopped, thus the reason for the zero usage.  
On 11/10/17, the company billing department rebilled the
customer’s account for the time frame of 12/22/16 to 09/25/17 to bill for some
timeframe of the stopped meter.  
 
On 11/16/17, a payment agreement of $71 monthly + current
charge was set up on the balance of $863.95.
 
Customer is responsible for the rebilling from when the
meter was stopped.

I am rejecting this response because: Someone has to be responsible for what happened to our stuf!

The lights in question are fed underground.  The Company sent a Troubleman to investigate the streetlight outages on 9/12.  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 9/19.  If the repair requires wire replacement under the street additional time will be needed.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/06) */
This is a non-residential service.
After reviewing the history at this location the meter at this location has been stopped at this location since approximately July 2011.
The reading obtained 09/24/15 was 00120 which was an average of 12...

kWh per day. A check read was obtained on 11/5/15 00629 demand 6.036, from 09/24/15 to 11/05/15 is an average of 13.6 kWh per day. The new meter is working accurately and confirms the previous meter was stopped. This customer has been on service since 11/19/11 and has been billed zero consumption since then. The company re-billed for the stopped meter starting in September 2013.
09/14/15 - the stopped meter was replaced. The customer was re-billed for service from 09/24/13 to 09/14/15 based on a average of 12 kWh per day. From 09/24/13 to 10/23/14, original bill was $174.27, re-billed amount would be $605.27. A manual adjust of $431.00 was given to cover the bill adjustment from 09/24/13 to 10/23/14. From 10/24/14 to 09/14/15 the original bill was $181.12, the company cancelled these bills and re-billed for that time which was a total of $599.61.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 12, 2016/03/31) */
11/4/15 email received about his budget (EPP) balance increasing during the slowest month for electric and requested a detailed reason why. The company responded advising the EPP amount increased in order to cover the remaining actual account...

balance and future charges. You are coming up on your EPP annual review in January. At that time, you will be required to bring the account balance to 0.
11/5/15 email received asking why this isn't in the message center as this should be fully disclosed and not hidden. The company replied stating we are unsure of your current request and asked for more information in regard to this request.
11/6/15 email received stating we didn't put the correct reason on his bill but simply put reviewed bill and raising it. But your rep says its close of the year and the balance needs to be 0. You need to put this on the bill instead of hiding it. And if you kept a true balanced EPP I'd not owe extra. Estimations are off compared to actual usage. The company replied Our original reply states that your annual review is in January and your account balance will be brought to 0. This will be reflected under a line item Payment Plan Balance. This past month was simply a quarterly review and it was determined that your EPP amount would be raised just as the message on your bill stated. You have the option to cancel the EPP if you are unhappy with it and pay your actual usage instead.
11/9/15 email received stating he never said he was unhappy with the EPP and wants to know why the bill does not fully disclose the real reason why the rate went up. The company replied The EPP is designed to make a customer's monthly payments consistent throughout the year rounding out seasonal highs/lows. The EPP amount is based on the past billing periods of the premise and is reviewed quarterly and adjusted accordingly. Customers are notified of the change the month prior to the increase/decrease. On your 10/29/15 bill in the Messages section it states that the account has been reviewed and your payment amount has been adjusted to better match your actual usage. In your case the EPP amount increased. The Actual Account Balance is listed on each bill under the Amount Due. If you are unable to determine the reason for the increase/decrease please contact us so we can provide a detailed explanation.
11/10/15 email received stating I understand how EPP works. I'm not happy about the way it's listed on the bill vs the way you make it sound. You over estimate the estimated months compared to last year causing the overage vs actual usage. The company replied You can remove the EPP at anytime and account balance would become due on next bill.
11/12/15 email received asking Why he gets the same answers. The email was forwarded to a supervisor due to the back and forth who tried to contact the customer and left her direct number for a return call. An email was sent advising The PAPUC approved a rate increase effective 5/13/15 and can be seen on the June invoice. The EPP increase was due to the difference what we actually billed while on EPP and the actual consumption used. Your contract with FirstEnergy Solution's ended; however, this had no bearing on our rate increase May '15.
1/12/16 email received advising that he is paying his bill in protest of the company EPP policy, the way estimation is completed, the failure of a supervisor to call him back, and the overall horrible communication. The customer talks about the Cleveland Browns sponsorship. He continues to write that his EPP was raised to cover the usage, however, the EPP was not kept normal throughout the year. He feels the over estimation is causing his bill to be increased and he has no control over it. He is expecting a quick response and resolution that is favorable as poor customer service is starting to be the company pillar. A company supervisor replied advising that she personally called and provided him her direct number in November '15 and emailed him back addressing his concerns. She stated that she feels his concerns were addressed and accurate information was provided. She offered to discuss his account with him and provided her direct number again. The supervisor also called and left a message for the customer.
1/14/16 email received advising since his questions still linger than the supervisor failed to do her job. He states he did call her back and she never returned his call. He feels he is getting the short end of the stick and customer service department has failed and asked for his email be elevated higher than the supervisor. The supervisor replied advising that the customer confirmed that he understands how the EPP works and we understand that he is not satisfied with how it is listed on his bills. His concerns will be escalated but we need exact questions and to better serve him we should discuss this over the phone to make sure we are on the same page. The supervisor asked him to reply with the best contact number and time.
1/18/16 email received advising that customer service 101 is not to blame the customer or try to use anything against the customer. He states his concerns are about how the company uses the estimation on the off months vs the actual usage. Second he feels that he wants this escalated as he feels that his questions are not being answered and the supervisor is just trying to fill the situation with hot air. He advised he will reply with exact questions to another department above supervisor. He also said he is at a deadlock with the customer service department about issues and horrible customer service provided. He asked for a formal request for help from the executive office and the information/address for the CEO. The information was forwarded to Corporate Customer Advocate. She reached out to the compliance department as there was a PUC complaint on the account to obtain the information for the complaint. The information was provided as requested. The corporate representative called the customer and a message was left. A 2nd call was made and a woman answered and said that she does not know the customer. The supervisor also replied to the email advising that his concerns were forwarded to our Corporate Office and they attempted to contact him but was unsuccessful. They asked to verify the number we have for him and provided the mailing address as requested.
1/21/16 email received asking why he had not been responded to. The supervisor replied advising his information was forwarded to the corporate customer advocate.
2/23/16 the customer called back in response to the 2/3/16 message the corporate customer advocate left to discuss the billing statement sent per his request. He insists our EPP procedure is wrong and expects us to correct it. Tried going over his bills from November 2014 forward but he interrupts and raises his voice demanding that we correct our EPP. Explained the EPP reviews but he stated we are reviewing several times in a quarter. He said he is going to call or write the president and ended the call.
2/24/16 email received advising the payment just made is being made under protest due to the lack of concern the customer service team and understanding by the Customer Advocate. He hopes someone above the Customer Advocate would care to listen to his concerns without using horrible customer service tactics. The supervisor advised the customer since he filed a PUC Complaint he should contact them.
3/1/16 email received asking the supervisor not to reply to his emails since his complaint is about her. This information was forwarded to the corporate customer advocate.
3/4/16 email received about his EPP amount changing without any comments in the message box. He would like a complete sound answer and not from the supervisor.
The company does attempt to read all meters as scheduled and does do bi-monthly planned estimates. The customer does have options to avoid estimated bills by providing readings. When the customer is on the EPP, they will pay their monthly EPP amount no matter if the bill is estimated or actual for that month. When estimated the next actual reading will reflect the over/under estimate form the month prior if it was out of line. Being on the EPP the customer still pays the same amount over the 12 month period as he would if he was not on the EPP.
The company has attempted numerous times to discuss with the customer however he wants the company to change the way the EPP works and the estimation process and will not be satisfied until that is done. The company is not changing the way these items work at this time. His concerns have been sent to the proper departments who review these processes. The customers EPP is reviewed quarterly and adjusted accordingly like all other PA customers who are enrolled in EPP.
The customer did file a complaint with the PAPUC. His case was dismissed as the company is allowed to estimate the bills and adjust the EPP amount as necessary.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 14, 2016/04/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept the response from First Energy. As you can see with a period of emails over months, they still do not feel that customer service is their pillar of their organization.
Several times I have attempted to discuss my concerns with SUpervisors with-in this company, but I get the same people time in and time out. I have requested several times for different people to hear my concerns and address them accordingly. Time after time they refuse to provide this information.
I am asking for the Revdex.com to provide a resolution in this to create a channel for me to discuss my issues with Penelec with someone who is not the Customer Advocate and not a supervisor.
The way the company does the EPP and billing is very skewed as it states above.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2016/04/18) */
The company has attempted to contact the customer numerous times and have not been successful. Messages have been left for the customer with a direct dial phone number. The customer returned a call and asked to be contacted on 04/18/2016 on his cell phone at 2:30pm. Meanwhile he called back earlier in the day and left messages asking to be called back on 04/19/2016 between 8am and 9am. Another message was left by the company advising that the person who has been trying to contact them will not be available during that time period and that someone else would be contacting him.
The company will make a final attempt to address the company position with the customer. The company position is not going to change. The process for our billing and budget plans are being followed as regulated.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 20, 2016/04/20) */