FirstEnergy Corp.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2016/04/20) */
Customer on defaulted agreement.
On 03/23/16, a termination notice was issued dated 04/07/16 in the amount of $1,574.41. Last payment 02/03/16. A 72-hour contact was attempted by phone at 9:27am on 03/31/16 (left message) and at 5:05pm on...

04/01/16 (left message).
On 04/07/16, service was terminated for non-payment.
On 04/07/16, the customer contacted the company regarding the restoration of service. The customer's financial information was updated. The customer was supplied with all payment options; agency referrals, PFA information, Medical Certification information. The company representative advised the customer to pay $1,606.41 ($1,574.41 a/r + $32 rec fee) to have the service restored. The customer was advised of the appropriate reconnection process. Customer was satisfied.
On 04/08/16, customer contacted the company and inquired what he would need to do to get back on the PCAP program (removed 12/17/12 when moved from prior address). The representative advised that he would need to pay his account balance off because balance would not be re-deferred again. Account balance at that time, $2,274.92. Assistance office information provided. Verbal rights provided.
On 04/11/16, customer made a payment over the telephone of $1,106.41. Still needed $500 to have service restored.
On 04/14/16, customer contacted company stating that DEF is to pay remaining $500 to restore. The representative advised no contact at that point. Once pledge/payment received, the order to restore can be processed. Verbal rights provided.
On 04/18/16, customer contacted the company and requested to know why service has not be restored. The representative advised that until DEF contacts the company with pledge of $500, the order to restore will not be processed. After further discussion/review of account, the representative agreed to accept the $1,106.41 and set the customer up on a lower restoration agreement. The order to restore the service was processed. Customer was unsatisfied that the representative could not give exact time that service would be restored. Verbal rights provided.
On 04/18/16, service was restored.

A bill was issued on 09/16/16.  The bill included past due balance of $247.61
and current charges of $175.70 due on 10/06/16, for a total amount due...

of
$423.31.                                    ...⇄
10/04/16 - A termination notice was issued in the amount of
$807.83 scheduled on or after 10/18/16.    
Customer posted a payment of $250 to incorrect account on
10/22/2016.
10/24/16 @ 12:12 PM  -
The Company attempted to contact the Customer by phone.  A message was left.          
10/25/16 @ 05:06 PM  -
The Company attempted to contact the Customer by phone.  A message was left.          
Service was terminated for nonpayment on 11/1/2016.
Customer contacted the company on 11/1/2016 after service
was terminated and stated that she had made a payment.  The company reviewed the account and
determined that a payment of $250 had posted to an old account of the
customer's.  The Company transferred the
amount of $250 and advised the customer that they would need to pay an  amount of $567.83 to restore service.  The Customer was advised that bills that have
been issued to the customer have the active account number.  The Customer was not satisfied and dispute
rights were issued.  Customer requested
to speak with a supervisor and a callback was placed.
The supervisor attempted to contact the customer on
11/1/2016 and a message was left.
11/1/2016 - Customer's husband, contacted the company and
spoke with a supervisor.  He was upset
because his wife had made a payment on the account.  The Customer was advised that he has had
service at this location since March with a new account number and payment was
posted to the incorrect account.  It was
determined this is not company error and the payment of $567.83 was needed for
service to be restored.  The Customer
began to curse and say racial slurs to the representative and the call was
ended.  Dispute rights were issued. 
The Customer's uncle contacted the company on 11/2/2016 and
paid the requested amount of $567.83 to restore service.  The order was printed and service was
restored on 11/2/2016. 
The Customer has had service at the location since
3/15/2016.  All bills have been mailed to
the service address and the bills have included the customer's new account
number, [redacted].  The Customer
should ensure that they are using their new account number when making any
future payments. 
Tell us why here...

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

The customer is on a Company payment agreement, due to being
past due. The 12-month payment agreement was set up on 3/28/2017, with the
balance at that time of $1152.56 being split into monthly payments of $96.00. The
payment agreement cannot be lowered. The payment agreement consists of...

the
monthly budget amount, which is currently $177.00, and $96.00 towards the past
due balance that was originally set up on the payment agreement. The budget amount
is based on the average monthly bill at the property. This budget amount is reviewed
quarterly, and adjusted, if needed.
 
The customer is not making monthly payments and when
payments are made, it is not for the amount due, which caused a past due
balance. Because of the past due balance, a residential disconnection notice
was issued on 7/11/2017 in the amount of $1217.68 for 7/26/2017.
 
On 7/17/2017, the customer called and was provided all
options to stop the disconnection. His income information was updated and he
was referred to an assistance agency for PCAP. The minimum amount needed to
stop the disconnection is $394.43. The customer will call us back on 7/21/2017 to make this
payment.
 
On 7/24/2017, the customer called stating he is not able to
pay the amount needed to stop the disconnection. He was provided with verbal PUC
dispute rights and a was given a new disconnection date of 8/07/2017.
 
On 7/28/2017, the customer paid $394.43 via check over the
phone. This amount stopped the current disconnection, however, the account was
still past due, which resulted in another disconnection notice being issued on 8/15/2017
in the amount of $1011.34 for 8/29/2017.
 
Company position:
The customer was charged a deposit of $348.00 on 5/20/2016,
which he paid. The deposit was released and credited back to the account on
1/12/2017. See attached bill showing it being credited to the balance.
 
There is no active deposit being held on the account at this
time and the customer has not been charged a deposit at this time, however, if
the account continues to be past due and/or monthly payments are being made
late, a deposit will be charged to the account. The deposit is based on 2 times
the average monthly bill at the property.

This service was on scheduled for and completed on 11/29/16. The required electrical inspection was received on by CEI on
11/17/16.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/26) */
The Customer was issued a bill on 5/20/2015 for an amount due of $217.76. The total charges for usage were for an amount of $411.38 which included $156.79 Penn Power charges and alternate supplier charges of $254.34. The customer is enrolled...

in the Equal Payment Plan (budget). The bill included $2.48 credit from prior bill, and current charges of $114 budget amount for Penn Power, $183 budget amount for FirstEnergy Solutions minus $79.24 PCAP credit for an amount of $215.28 due 5/20/2015. The total account balance is $711.43.
The Customer contacted the Company on 5/1/2015 wanting to know why the bill is so high. The customer was advised that they are enrolled on the budget and it increased from $78 to $297 due to the usage increasing. The Customer was not satisfied and dispute rights were issued.
The Company obtained an actual meter reading on 3/30/2015 that followed an estimated bill. The estimated bill for service from 1/29/2015 to 3/2/2015 billed the customer for 2834 kWh or an amount of $252.60. This bill was underestimated and when the company obtained an actual meter reading on 3/30/2015 it billed the customer for any unbilled usage. The average usage for these two billing periods was for 3772 kWh per month or an amount of $332.00.
The Customer's budget, Equal Payment Plan, increased due to the usage increasing. The Equal Payment Plan is a program for residential customers requesting monthly budget billing. The Equal payment plan is designed to make Residential Customer's monthly payments consistent throughout an entire year, leveling out seasonal highs and lows. The amount is evaluated every three months and increases or decreases depending on the customer's usage. This is done to prevent the customer from having a large balance come due during the true up/anniversary billing month. The true up month is the month that the customer was enrolled and results in any under or over billed amount coming due or credited to the account. The full amount is due at this time.
The customer is enrolled in PCAP and receives a monthly credit amount of $80.00. The customer has PCAP catch up amount of $725.55 past due as of 8/19/2015.
The customer's bills are correct.

The Company received and applied
the grant of 460.00 to your account on 6-30-16.  This credit is funded and
governed by the state was paid to account [redacted], therefore the Company
is unable to transfer the credit.
 
The Company did transfer the
debit from account...

[redacted] to account [redacted], where the credit has
posted.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/06/10) */
The customer did not have multiple accounts for different locations with the company. The customer did have a different account number each time service was taken in and out of his name at this location. Customer first had service at this...

location from 10/21/08 to 02/16/10. Service was cancelled from his name 02/16/10 due to a new occupant applying service at this location. Paul requested to put service back into his name 06/26/12 and has had service at this location since then. In July 2013 the service was disconnected for nonpayment. The customer made required payment and service was restored but in error his account was not reactivated. The account was reactivated to his name in January 2015 and the customer was billed for the consumption used on the meter from July 2013 to January 2015. The customer was given a new account number when reactivated.
The customer is enrolled in the Equal Payment Plan, aka budget. The Equal Payment Plan is a budget program for residential customers. The budget is available to residential customers as a way to ease the budgeting of their utility bill. This plan allows the customer to pay approximately the same amount each month in an effort to level out the high/low seasonal billings and also so the customer will not have to pay the total bill amount at that time. The budget amount is calculated based off of the recent twelve month usage history and may adjust during periodic review (typically every three months) or during the customer's end of year true-up period (the end of the budget year/actual amount due). On these reviews the EPP amount may increase, decrease or stay the same depending on the difference between the EPP amount and the actual amounts of your electric bills. The bills will include the actual account balance. The longer the customer is at the residence, the more the budget will reflect the customer's usage. If the customer uses more, the budget may raise. If the usage lowers, the budget may lower. When the customer is on the budget, the customer is responsible for paying the budget amount, not the actual account balance/actual usage at that time. At the end of the year during the true up period for the budget, the remaining actual account balance (difference from being on the budget) becomes due at that time.
There was no consumption used on the meter from July 2014 to January 2015, the budget calculates based off the previous 12 months of consumption therefore the budget was adjusting more due to the service being off for part of the previous 12 months the budget amount was calculating based on. From April 2015 to October 2015 the budget amount was $39. The budget increased to $59 from October 2015 to December 2015. The budget increased to $125 from January 2015 to March 2016. April 2016 was the budget true up and the budget amount adjusted to $72.00. There is now a full 12 months of consumption history therefore the budget amount should not adjust as much now. The customer is now on a PUC agreement to pay the monthly budget amount + $23 a month which will start with next bill to issue on 06/17/16.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/28) */
0n 1/29/15 - A deposit warning letter was sent to the customer.
On 11/05/15 - A deposit for $216.00 billed to account.
On 12/14/15 - Customer contacts company regarding deposit. Customer advised that, although customer makes payments...

they are not always on time and/or in full. The deposit is valid. Customer offered installment on deposit.
[redacted]
Company records reflect partial payments were made, regardless if an actual or estimated bill was received.
Company is following 56.41 regulation regarding assessment of security deposit.
In addition, Per 56.12 (2) regulation- If a utility bills on a monthly basis, it may estimate usage of service every other billing month, so long as the utility provides a ratepayer with the opportunity to read the meter and report the quantity of usage in lieu of the estimated bill. The customer does have options to estimated bills. The customer may provide readings via our automated system at [redacted] or the internet at [redacted] ([redacted]).
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/01/05) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am not even sure what this means. Are they still requiring the security deposit, even though their bills are inaccurate 50% of the time? The ONLY thing I am doing is increasing the monthly amount I pay from my automatic payment every month. I do not think asking for accurate bills 100% of the time is unjustified. If they are "estimated" than my "estimated" payments are fine. It isn't like I am not paying, so there is no reason to do anything except change the way they bill.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/01/13) */
As previously noted, The company may estimate usage every other month. Per Regulation 56.12 (2) - If a utility bills on a monthly basis, it may estimate usage of service every other billing month, so long as the utility provides a ratepayer with the opportunity to read the meter and report the quantity of usage in lieu of the estimated bill. The customer does have options to estimated bills. The customer may provide readings via our automated system at [redacted] or the internet at [redacted] ([redacted]).
The estimations are accurate within company guidelines and PUC Regulations. The company expects payment in full and on time regardless of the type of meter reading. As noted above, the customer has the option to provide a meter reading. Furthermore, the customer does have the option to call to discuss payment options and the Company's budget billing program. The company's budget billing or the Equal Payment Plan (EPP) is a program for Residential Business Partners 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. This customer may want to consider this option.
Due to late payments, the deposit was billed to the account. The company maintains the position that the deposit request is valid. The deposit will not be removed.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2016/01/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
When a company inflates their "estimated" charges to unreasonable amounts, then charges late fees on estimated charges that are not even close to accurate, and then use these late fees as a reason to require security deposits, it is dishonest. Why can they estimate their bill by a large amount? I will not be satisfied until the bills ARE 100% accurate.
I DO NOT WORK FOR THE ELECTRIC COMPANY. Stop telling me I have the "option" to do YOUR JOB FOR YOU!!! - Learn how to send a person out monthly to read a meter accurately. Pretty simple and It can't be that hard to do, since you are trying to get the homeowner to read the meter for you.
This type of billing practice, then inflating estimates to impose larger late fees, which lead to security deposits, all the while the customer (me) has not missed a single payment, (since it is automatically paid from my checking account(. It is unreasonable to expect people not to by unhappy about these types of practices.
Please tell me how I can switch my electric company and I will happily pay my current balance in full and LEAVE! - Oh that's right, you have a monopoly and I have no choice on the matter. BUT you can make up charges to whatever benefits you, so the late fees and required security deposit go into your account so you can gain interest on it.
this type of thing is unlawful IMO. AGAIN, tell me how I can switch companies????
It is not unreasonable to get 100% accurate bills, without beinfg asked to do someone else's jobs. Would I get paid for doing this? Will I see a credit on my bill for my time?
I will not be happy until the bills are 100% accurate and I do not feel like I am being screwed through inflated estimates, that lead to inflated late charges, then extortion to get a security deposit from me. At no time did I agree to paying a security deposit.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/01) */
The bills are in line with history and are correct as rendered.
On 07/07/15, customer contacted the company to request the Security Deposit to be waived. Security deposit was waived on one time basis. Customer was also advised that the most...

recent bill was estimated. When estimated, if over or under estimated, the usage is caught and billed or corrected with next actual reading billing. Customer was also advised of the past due in the amount of $165.84. Customer made payment of $165.84 same day.
On 07/20/15, customer contacted the company regarding billing, felt bill in the amount of $275.20 was high. The representative reviewed the account and history with the customer and advised that the billing was in line with the previous year's usage during this timeframe and that the rate had increased by approximately .1 cents per Kilowatt hour. Customer was also provided information to shop for an Alternate Supplier if she wished.
On 08/24/15, customer contact the company regarding billing, felt bill was high. The representative reviewed the account and history with the customer and advised that the billings are in line with the previous usage. An Account Billing statement was sent to the customer detailing the usage/billing history for the past two years.
On 10/20/15, a Security Deposit in the amount of $228 was added to the account due to untimely payment history.
On 10/28/15, customer contacted the company to request the Security Deposit to be waived. Customer was advised the Security Deposit would not be waived a second time.
On 10/29/15, the budget plan was added to account at $175.00 per month, via the self-service website.
On 10/29/15, customer contacted the company via Twitter. Customer felt like they were being ripped off and stated that they got a $300 fee.
On 10/29/2015, the company responded to the customer twitter contact, via E-mail. The company explained that the bills for this address/meter are in line, and consistent with previous years. The bill for the month of September was estimated in the amount of $342.60, based on usage from the previous month/August. The October bill in the amount of $18.79 was an actual meter reading. The low October bill, indicates that the September bill was over estimated. The two months averaged together, equal approximately $180 per month. The customer was guided to try out the Home Energy Analyzer that is available on the website to help find out what might be using the most energy in her home. The Security Deposit requirement was explained. One Security deposit wavier had already been granted in July, 2015. As a result, the deposit would not be waived a second time. The company offered the option to obtain a guarantor in lieu of paying the security deposit. An Account Billing statement was also sent to the customer detailing the usage/billing history for the past two years.
On 11/02/15, customer contacted the company via email. The customer thanked the company for reaching out and stated that she finds the website confusing. Customer stated that she had previously been told there was a 5 day grace period for paying her bill and that she is looking for another provider as we speak.
On 11/02/15, the company responded via email, thanking the customer for responding and that the company regrets to hear of dissatisfaction. The company again explained why the Security Deposit would not be waived a second time. The Account Statement issued to the customer details that from 07/16/15 through 10/21/15, payments were not paid on time and none of the payments had been received within 5 days of the due date.
On 01/22/16, customer contacted the company to inquire about the account actual balance. Customer wanted to know the difference between the amount due and the actual account balance. The representative reviewed and also explained how the budget works. Customer requested to be removed from the budget and a new bill was generated reflecting the budget removal.
On 01/25/16, customer contacted the company via Twitter. Customer felt bills were ridiculously high. Customer is comparing her bills to the neighbors, stating she has been billed over $4100 in the last year.
On 1/25/16, the company responded and explained that there are two main components to bill, one is delivery and the other is generation. The price per Kilowatt hour listed on the bill is for the generation portion of the bill only. That is the price to compare. It was further explained that she is able to shop for an Alternate Supplier for the generation portion of her bill. The company again recommended to utilize the Home Energy Analyzer tool that the company offers online, which offers a very in depth look at what is being used in the home, and what items are using the most, and ways to save. The company also explained further that heating and cooling elements, or pumps, or motors, use the most electricity. These items along with space heaters and humidifiers, can use a significant amount of power. The customer's statement of paying over $4,100 was also addressed. The usage for 2015 was $2,034.89.
Customers cannot compare their usage/billing to a neighbor's usage/billing, as there are many different factors that create usage such as square footage, insulation, appliance, household size, usage habits, etc.
On 01/25/16, customer contacted the company regarding bill, felt bill was high. The account/amount due/payments were reviewed. Customer was advised that the entire bill was not being paid on time and in full. As a result, a balance is carrying over from bill to bill. Customer again compared her bill to the neighbor's bill and rate. The representative again attempted to explain usage, the bill and various charges. The bills are in line and cannot compare to neighbor's bill. The representative suggested that she reach out to an electrician to see if there is something not running efficiently in her home if she felt bill was high and something was wrong.
On 01/25/16, customer contacted the company via Twitter, stating she looked at Account Statement sent to her and the billing added up to $2,034.89. Customer stated that she had spoken to a representative, who discussed every aspect of her bill, and this issue. Customer stated that it boils down to, "my neighbor is paying half the price" and makes zero sense to her as to why.

On 01/27/16, a company representative contacted and spoke to the customer. The representative went over all appliances that the customer stated was using in the home. Based on the history, the summer bills are highest and most likely due to central air. Customer stated she has been using a dehumidifier year round. Customer stated that she is going to stop using it during the winter and see how it affects her bill. The representative recommended that the customer go back on the budget in order to avoid the seasonal highs and lows in her bills. The budget was set up at $172 per month. The representative explained that she cannot compare her bills to the neighbor's bills because everyone uses electric differently, from number of people in home, insulation, appliances, etc. The representative emailed brochure on ways to save electricity.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/08) */
04/16/14, company mailed a security deposit intent letter advising the customer if payments continue to be made after the due date a security deposit could be required.
06/11/14, payments continued to not be made in a timely manner and a...

security deposit was billed.
08/15/14, customer contacted the company concerning the deposit billed on the account. The customer requested the deposit be waived. The company advised that a waiver on the deposit is not available, but it can be broken down into installments. The deposit was broken into four installments due with the bills for the September, October, November and December billings.
The company's position:
The company billed a security deposit on the account due to late payments. This is not a late payment charge, it is to secure the account due to payments not being made in a timely manner.
The Company may require a security deposit:
If two consecutive bills have not been paid in full, or payment arrangements not made within five days of the due date in the past 12 months or if three or more bills were not paid within five days of the due date in the preceding 12 months. If the customer does not comply with the terms of a payment agreement.
When a deposit is required from an existing customer, the Company will first send a deposit warning letter to give the customer written notice of its intent to request a deposit if current and future bills continue to be paid after the due date. The due date for payment of a deposit (other than a deposit required as a condition for the reconnection of service) is at least 20 days from the date of mailing of the bill sent to the customer.

As information:
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.
 
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.

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 given that Penelec will be giving me a bill credit every month of $11.52 based on the 3% monthly interest rate taken on the $384 deposit.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/03) */
The customer has been advised to contact the Board of Public Utilities and advise them of potential slamming Constellation would be the Company to answer this inquiry or complaint.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/03/28) */
[redacted] obtained service at this address on 02/07/11. At that time, Ms. [redacted] provided a separate mailing address of [redacted]. Since the initial bill, the billings/correspondence has been sent to the mailing...

address with no return mail.
The company routinely evaluates the credit standing and financial stability of the company's customers. As a result of the analysis, the company determined that the customer's account was not adequately secured.
In the past year, a prior balance has carried over to the next billing on the 12/26/14, 02/25/15, 03/25/15, 08/21/15, 09/23/15, 10/21/15, 11/20/15, 12/21/15, 01/22/16, 02/23/16 and 03/24/16 billings.
In the past year, a termination notice was issued on 03/25/15, 11/20/15, 01/22/16, 02/23/16 and 03/24/16.
On the 12/21/15 billing, a security deposit intent/warning message was included on the billing advising a security deposit would be requested if payments are not paid in a timely manner.
The security deposit in the amount of $68 was requested on the 01/22/16 billing. The 01/22/16 billing detailed the past due in the amount of $131.01 and the current of $198.79 (included $68 security deposit) due 02/05/16, totaling $329.80.
On 01/25/16, customer contacted the company to inquire if security deposit could be waived. Customer was advised that due to credit history the security deposit would not be waived.
On 01/26/16, a payment in the amount of $68 was received and payment applied towards security deposit. The $68 security deposit is now being held on the account.
On 03/10/16, customer again contacted the company to inquire if security deposit could be waived/returned. Customer was advised that deposit would not be waived/returned. Customer stated bills not going to correct address. The customer confirmed the mailing address of [redacted], which is where the bills/mailings have been sent to all along. Company has also not received any return mail. Mailing address correct.
The security deposit requirement is valid, customer is paying in an untimely manner.
As of the recent 03/24/16 billing, customer has a past due in the amount of $96.64 and a current of $101.90 due 04/07/16, totaling $198.54.

I am rejecting this response because:
I stand by my original response.