Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

PUC Staff Seeks Revocation of Retail Supplier's License, $639,000 Fine

August 25, 2014

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-14 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The Pennsylvania PUC's Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement has filed a formal complaint against Respond Power LLC seeking a $639,000 fine and asking that Respond Power's authority to do business as an EGS in Pennsylvania be rescinded, as I&E Staff alleged that Respond Power engaged in various unfair and deceptive practices.

Staff alleged that Respond Power or its representatives slammed six customers by switching customers without their consent. Such acts of slamming were alleged by Staff to include, "forging customer signatures on sales agreements, obtaining signatures from persons not authorized on the account, and switching customers when the Third-Party Verification (TPV) and/or Sales Agreement indicate(s) confusion by the customer and/or explicit instructions not to switch."

Staff also alleged that Respond Power or its representatives engaged in unfair, fraudulent or deceptive marketing acts by representing to three customers during door-to-door sales that the salesperson was from the customers' Electric Distribution Company (EDC) or a government program and/or failing to properly identify themselves as being with Respond Power

Staff further alleged that Respond Power or its representatives engaged in unfair, fraudulent or deceptive marketing acts by representing to 47 customers that Respond Power's rates would be competitive or always be lower than or equal to the EDCs rates (Price to Compare (PTC)). "Other tactics employed for the purposes of inducing a customer to switch to Respondent include guaranteeing savings over the PTC or guaranteeing a savings of up to 10%. All of these customers subsequently received bills for Respondent's generation supply anywhere from two to four times (or more) that of the PTC," Staff alleged.

Staff alleged that Respond Power or its representatives engaged in unfair, fraudulent or deceptive marketing acts to 86 customers by failing to disclose material terms and conditions of service. "These acts include, failing to specify whether the customer is signing up for a fixed or variable rate, including vague conditions of variability in its disclosure statement, and having no limit on price variability in its disclosure statement," Staff alleged.

Staff alleged that Respond Power or its representatives engaged in unfair, fraudulent or deceptive marketing acts to nine customers by not disclosing to the customer whether the rate was fixed or variable. "In some instances, neither 'fixed' nor 'variable' are checked on the sales agreement. Other instances include 'altered' sales agreements where boxes are checked after the customer signs the sales agreement, and/or the sales agreements are filled out with ink for the customer information, and marker for the check boxes, sometimes both ink and marker are used," Staff alleged.

Staff alleged that for 14 customer accounts, Respond Power billed a generation rate on the customer's initial invoice that did not reflect the price agreed upon in the written enrollment materials.

Staff alleged Respond Power did not utilize good faith, honesty and fair dealing with 11 residential customers by failing to adequately staff its call centers, provide reasonable access to company representatives for the purposes of submitting complaints, failing to properly investigate customer disputes, failing to timely cancel accounts, and failing to notify customers of the results of the company's investigation into a dispute.

Staff proposed that Respond Power pay a civil penalty of $1,000 for each of the alleged 639 counts set forth in this complaint for a total civil penalty of $639,000.

Staff also proposed that Respond Power provide a refund to each of the affected customer accounts to which a refund has not already been provided, consisting of the difference between the amount each customer was billed and the customer's respective price to compare charged by their local EDC.

Staff further proposed that Respondent's authority to do business as an EGS in Pennsylvania be rescinded.

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
NEW! -- Channel Manager, Residential Field Sales -- Retail Provider
NEW! -- Manager of Sales and Marketing -- Retail Provider
NEW! -- Executive Director -- Retail Provider
NEW! -- Manager, Business Analytics and Development -- Retail Provider
NEW! -- Energy Sales -- DFW
NEW! -- Manager of Billing -- Retail Supplier -- New York
NEW! -- Manager, Billing -- Retail Provider
NEW! -- Contract and Data Specialist -- Retail Supplier -- New York
NEW! -- Billing Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- New York
NEW! -- Energy Sales Executive -- DFW
NEW! -- Senior Supply Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Customer Care Manager -- Retail Supplier -- New York
NEW! -- Pricing Analyst- Electricity and Natural Gas -- Retail Supplier -- New York

Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2010-13 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.

 

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search