|
|
|
|
|
PUC Staff Alleges "One-Sided" Contracts From Retail Supplier Violate Law
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Updated, 9/15
SunSea provided the following statement concerning the matter:
"All claims made by Puco staff are false.
SunSea Energy is prepared to defend and litigate its rights to the
highest court."
--- Statement from SunSea
Earlier:
Staff of the PUC of Ohio have issued a report concerning Staff's view of the compliance of SunSea Energy OH, LLC with Ohio's retail energy rules, following the initiation of an investigation by PUCO earlier this year
See background on the investigation here
The report contains allegations previously raised by Staff, and alleges additional or similar instances of such, as were more fully detailed in our prior story
Additionally, in the report, Staff alleged, "SunSea OH’s practice of contracting with residential customers under terms and
conditions that allow SunSea OH to charge excessively high variable rates for its CRES and CRNGS
services rises to the level of unconscionable behavior."
Staff alleged, "SunSea OH’s
variable rates are outliers by a large margin compared to other rates available in the Ohio
competitive market. When SunSea OH enters into contracts with consumers, SunSea OH knew
or should have known that the price was substantially in excess of the price at which similar CRES
and CRNGS services were readily available to Ohio consumers."
As an example, Staff alleged, "Based on information SunSea OH provided to Call Center investigators in response to
informal complaints, SunSea OH’s door-to-door sales agents were marketing a variable rate
natural gas product that started off at a rate of $0.799/CCF in the Columbia Gas of Ohio ('CGO')
service area. In April of 2024, consumers supposedly signed contracts and completed TPVs
authorizing the switch to SunSea OH with a starting variable rate of $0.799/CCF. The TPV
recordings stated that the contract was variable and could change from month-to-month based
on weather, supply, demand, and profit for natural gas with no guaranteed savings. In April 2024,
the same timeframe, the CGO’s default service rate was $0.3235/CCF. Under these
circumstances, Staff in unable to identify any benefit a consumer would receive from entering
into a contract with SunSea OH at that rate, which is almost double the default rate. In April
2024, there were residential variable rate offers posted on the Energy Choice Ohio website as
low as $0.299/CCF and fixed rate offers as low as $0.3578/CCF ... In addition to the high initial variable rate, the variable rates
charged by SunSea continued to increase significantly, some as high as $1.59/CCF."
As another example, Staff alleged, "The same is true for SunSea OH enrollments in Duke Energy Ohio’s territory. In PUCO Call
Center Case No. 00914647, the contracted rate for a December 2024 enrollment with a service
start date in February 2024 was $1.5499/CCF for natural gas and $0.2412/kWh for electricity. At
that time, SunSea OH’s posted rates on the Energy Choice Ohio website were $0.9499/CCF and
$0.1199/kWh, while the default service rate was $0.5383/CCF and $.0818/kWh. SunSea OH’s rate
is higher than the majority of the rates on the Energy Choice Ohio website in Duke’s territory,
including SunSea OH’s own posted rate, and is over 2.8 times higher than the default natural gas
rate and over 2.9 times higher than the default electric rate. To highlight the true impact SunSea
OH’s rates have on Ohio consumers, resolution of this informal complaint resulted in SunSea OH
rerating the consumer for five months of gas and electric service, which amounted to $997.84.
For this consumer’s first month of service with SunSea OH, the rerate amount was $385.32 – for
only one month. Even though SunSea OH’s contracts do not contain early termination fees, the
financial harm to Ohio consumers from their unconscionably high variable rates is significant."
Staff alleged, "In
Staff’s opinion, these rates are excessively high and offer no benefit to consumers."
Staff further alleged, "there are several examples of SunSea OH’s billed
rates being much higher than the average CRES and CRNGS rates posted on the Energy Choice
Ohio website, Ohio utilities‘ default service rates, and SunSea OH’s own rates posted on the
Energy Choice Ohio website."
Staff alleged, "Based on Staff’s review, there is no evidence that the rates charged by SunSea OH were
based on any actual market conditions."
Staff alleged, "At the time these contracts were allegedly entered into, SunSea
OH knew or should have known that its rates were substantially in excess of the price at which
competitive supply was readily available to residential customers."
Staff alleged, "SunSea OH’s contracts also fail to contain a 'clear and
understandable explanation' for the price variations, as required by Adm.Code 4901:1-21-12
(B)(7)(c) and 4901:1-29-11(J)(2)."
Staff alleged that SunSea OH’s contracts contain "excessively broad language," with Staff alleging that the contracts describe the
variable rates as follows:
"Variable Rates change at the Company’s discretion and may be higher or lower each
month based on business and market conditions. Variable Rates are set in the Company's
discretion and may vary based on several factors, including, the Company's assessment
of applicable market and business conditions, operation costs, historic and projected
supply and hedging costs, balancing costs, utility price to compare, ancillary services, ISO
costs, capacity costs, transmission costs, line loss costs, RMR costs, credit costs, balancing
costs, winter reliability costs, and costs associated with meeting any applicable renewable
portfolio standards, and a profit margin determined in the Company's discretion that may
vary from month to month.
Staff alleged, "This broad language does not make it clear to customers how SunSea OH will calculate the variable rates it charges each month. SunSea OH’s contract language also implies that the variable rates will be, at least partially, based on market conditions. Yet, based on Staff’s analysis, SunSea OH’s rates were outliers in the Ohio market."
Staff alleged, "SunSea OH required consumers
to enter into contract with terms SunSea OH knew were substantially one-sided in favor of
SunSea OH. The service SunSea OH is providing to consumers is not unique, and the terms of
SunSea OH’s agreements provide no benefit to the consumer. Therefore, Staff believes that
SunSea OH’s contract administration practices are in violation of the Commission’s rules and
Orders."
Staff also alleged an, "overall lack of managerial oversight" at SunSea OH
Staff alleged, "On many occasions, PUCO Staff investigators have found various violations with the
solicitation and enrollment practices of SunSea OH, including 'slamming' consumers. When
SunSea OH provides Staff with its rerate calculations as a result of these issues, the Call Center
investigators constantly have to correct SunSea OH’s calculations. There has not been a single
instance in which Staff found that the Company used the correct rate for the utilities’ default
service. This is greatly concerning because this information is publicly available. As a CRES and
CRGNS provider operating in this state, SunSea OH should be familiar with this information and
know how to perform basic rerate calculations."
Staff alleged, "Due to the egregious nature of the complaints received by Call Center Staff and the
Commission, and SunSea OH’s issues with responding to Staff and the Commission, the Notice [a notice of probable non-compliance sent on March 6, 2025]
directed SunSea OH to cease enrolling Ohio consumers. In response to the Notice, SunSea OH
assured Staff that it had done so; however, Staff found evidence that it had not. When alerted of
enrollment activity on May 9, 2025, Staff contacted Mr. Adigwe [SunSea president Jacob Adigwe]. In response, Mr. Adigwe stated
that SunSea OH 'had multiple vendors operating in Ohio' at the time they received the Notice
and on March 20, 2025, it instructed all vendors to cease all marketing. After receiving Staff’s
email, the Company 'questioned the vendor to determine why an enrollment was submitted
after they were instructed to stop marketing back in March.' The vendor informed SunSea OH
that 'the agent in question had been on leave at the time marketing was stopped and he returned
to the field to market. He was not informed that SunSea campaign had been suspended.'
However, Staff found that enrollments were processed from at least two different agents in
different parts of Ohio in April of 2025. The Company’s failure to cease marketing to Ohio
consumers after assuring Staff that it had demonstrates SunSea OH’s inability to manage its
representatives."
Staff alleged, "SunSea OH’s inability to provide authentic sales calls, uncontested signed
contracts, third-party verification’s ('TPV') completed by the customer of record or their
authorized representative, and competitive rates to support SunSea OH’s enrollments brings into
question not only SunSea OH’s integrity and managerial capabilities, but the authenticity of all of SunSea OH’s enrollments."
Staff alleged, "SunSea OH’s misleading and deceptive sales practices and inability to follow Commission
rules and orders indicates a systematic lack of managerial oversight or disregard for Ohio’s
regulation of CRES and CRNGS providers. SunSea OH’s issues are not related to one rogue agent
or one vendor. Staff believes these issues are company-wide, and a result of how the Company
is managed. Although the sales agents marketing door-to-door deceived Ohio consumers and
unlawfully enrolled Ohio consumers with SunSea OH, it is the management of SunSea OH that
set the unconscionable variable rates and contract terms used by SunSea OH."
In brief, other allegations from Staff include Staff's allegation that in several SunSea OH door-to-door
enrollment cases, the sales agent remained at the premises for part of, if not all, the verification
process, contrary to rule.
Staff alleged, "Additionally, SunSea OH’s TPVs do not contain the information required by the
Commission’s rules. For example, in the recordings, SunSea OH does not ask the consumer if the
sales agent has left the premises, does not obtain consent to send the terms and conditions
electronically, does not provide the utilities’ telephone number to rescind, does not request the
address and account number of the customer but instead provides this information to the
consumer, and does not provide the correct rescission period, as required under Adm.Code
4901:1-21-06 and 4901:1-29-06."
Staff recommended that PUCO:
• Should rescind,
conditionally rescind, or suspend SunSea’s certificate for the alleged violations identified in the Staff report,
as authorized under R.C. 4928.08(D), R.C. 4929.20(C)(1), Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-24-13,
and Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-27-13, after all customers are notified and credited.
• Order SunSea OH to pay a forfeiture of $900,000.
• To the extent SunSea OH has not already done so, order Sunsea OH to rerate all customers
back to the utilities’ default service rate who enrolled with SunSea OH from the time
period starting November 1, 2024 to present.
• Prohibit SunSea OH and any of its owners or principal officers from applying for
certification as a CRES or CRNGS provider in the state of Ohio for a minimum of five years.
Case 25-0713-GE-COI
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Staff Seeks $900,000 Penalty Against Supplier, Rescission Of Licenses
September 9, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
|
|
|
|
|