Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

PUC To Audit FirstEnergy Solutions' Handling Of Customer Complaints

January 21, 2016

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-16 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio said that it will audit FirstEnergy Solutions' handling of customer complaints

In an order on a complaint case brought by an individual customer, PUCO said that, "we direct Staff of the Commission's Reliability and Service Analysis section to audit FES's procedures and practices concerning handling of customer complaints."

"In addition, Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-21-06(E) requires that if an EDU rejects a customer from enrollment, the CRES provider must notify the customer, within five business days of the EDU's rejection, that the customer will not be enrolled or enrollment will be delayed, along with the reason for the rejection or delay. Therefore, we also direct Staff to review FES's records to determine reasons why EDUs have rejected attempts to enroll with FES, the steps FES follows after such a rejection or delayed enrollment, and whether additional information is necessary to help FES better identify why rejection or delay occurs," PUCO directed

In the individual complaint case, the complainant, located in the Dayton Power & Light service area, alleged that FES agreed to provide a rate of $.0536/kWh. FES said that such rate was only available at Duke Energy Ohio, and that the customer incorrectly entered information in their enrollment.

The customer initially received confirmation of the enrollment through the online sign up process, but when FES sent the enrollment to Duke it was subsequently rejected due to an incorrect account number (as the customer was located at DP&L).

The customer and FES communicated several times concerning the rejected enrollment, and it was not initially realized that the account number was being rejected as incorrect because the customer resides at DP&L.

Eventually, FES determined the nature of the problem, and informed the customer that the rate of $.0536/kWh was not available at DP&L, but that FES could offer a rate of $.0594/kWh. FES believed that the customer agreed to this offer during their conversation, and enrolled the customer onto this rate. The customer alleged that they did not agree to such service.

PUCO found that the complainant met their burden of proof on two counts.

First, PUCO found that the complainant met his burden of proof for his allegation that FES did not provide a status report on the customer's complaint within three business days after receiving the complaint.

FES argued that initial contact from the customer did not constitute a complaint, as the customer was investigating a rejected enrollment.

However, PUCO stressed that the complainant's communications were not only about the rejected enrollment.

"It is not merely the rejection of Complainant's application that constitutes his complaint; rather, it is Complainant's repeated calls attempting to determine why he had not been enrolled at $.0536/kWh, and FES's failure to provide updates after repeated resubmission of the application. When Complainant contacted [FES's] Ms. Ison on July 29, 2013, he contended that, following his May 31, 2013 discussion with [FES's] Mr. Hogan, he should have been enrolled at $.0536/kWh. Although Ms. Ison indicated that she would re-contact Complainant 'if there's a problem,' she did not do so, despite her correction to the spelling of Mrs. Snyder's name and resubmission of the application. Next, after Ms. Jennings' conversation with Complainant on August 5, 2013, Ms. Jennings did not ensure that Complainant received a follow-up call, despite her statement that she would investigate compensation for Complainant's lost savings, in addition to obtaining $.0536/kWh for him (Tr. at 183-185). Finally, in response to Mr. Snyder's informal complaint to the Commission, Mr. Maurer called Complainant on August 16, 2013, offering $.0594/kWh and stating that he would investigate possible compensation, but he did not re-contact Complainant to finalize such details before enrolling Mr. Snyder at $.0594/kWh," PUCO said

PUCO also ruled that the complainant met his burden of proof in contending that FES improperly enrolled him at $.0594/kWh.

"We disagree with FES's contention that [FES's] Mr. Maurer's discussions with Complainant were an effort to finalize his internet enrollment, given that [complainant] Mr. Snyder had attempted to enroll at a rate only available to Duke EDU customers, and Mr. Snyder had indicated during discussions with [FES's] Mr. Hogan and Ms. Jennings his interest in $.0536/kWh. In addition, the record indicates that, during their final August 16, 2013 conversation, Mr. Maurer said to Complainant 'I'll do my best to get you compensated fairly,' and '$.0594/kWh is the best we can get you on, and then we'll see if we can compensate you elsewhere, but I'll see what I can find for you,' to which Mr. Snyder replied 'Okay.' Mr. Maurer then added 'Well - we'll make it right as best we can, sir'; Mr. Snyder replied 'Okay.' Although FES asserts that the preceding conversation indicates Complainant's agreement to $.0594/kWh, the Commission notes Complainant's contention that he was only agreeing with Mr. Maurer's remark to be re-contacted. Indeed, because Mr. Maurer left unresolved the matter of compensation during their final conversation, it is doubtful whether Mr. Maurer's offer of $.0594/kWh was actually accepted by Mr. Snyder. Finally, Mr. Maurer did not communicate to Complainant, or receive Complainant's acceptance of, information regarding the length of the contract term, approximate service commencement date, or contract termination date, as is required for telephonic enrollment," PUCO said

In response to a confirmation letter regarding the enrollment at $.0594/kWh, the complainant contacted FES to cancel the enrollment, and FES immediately cancelled the enrollment at $.0594/kWh and complainant was never billed at that rate. As such, PUCO's order did not grant the complainant any monetary relief, as there were no charges to refund, and PUCO had previously determined in the case that it was not empowered to award damages.

Case No. 13-2031-EL-CSS

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
NEW! -- Channel Marketing Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Marketing Assistant -- Retail Provider -- Houston
NEW! -- Financial Controller -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Sr. Energy Analyst -- Texas
NEW! -- Structuring Analyst -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Manager, Commercial Client Services -- Retail Supplier -- Houston/DFW
NEW! -- Account Coordinator

Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2010-16 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