|
|
|
|
|
PUC Staff Says TPVs In Which Account Number Is Read To Customers For Affirmation, Rather Than Customer Providing Number In Response To Request, Do Not Comply With Rules
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Staff of the PUC of Ohio have said in testimony that third party verifications in which certain information -- including the customer's account number -- are stated by the TPV agent (or automated prompt, etc) for a yes/no confirmation by the customer, rather than verbally asking the customer to provide the relevant information, do not comply with the PUC's rules for TPVs
Staff's position was filed as part of pre-filed testimony in a previously reported investigation into SunSea Energy OH, LLC ["SunSea OH"], in which Staff has alleged that SunSea OH has, "[e]ngaged in unfair, misleading, deceptive and/or
unconscionable activities during the marketing, solicitation,
sale, provision, or administration of contracts for CRES
and/or CRNGS [retail energy service]."
In response to a Staff report issued on September 8, SunSea OH on September 12 had 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."
Staff's pre-filed testimony largely seeks to support the previously reported allegations detailed in our prior story
See our prior story for full details on the allegations
However, one novel issue raised by Staff's pre-filed testimony is Staff's application of the electric and natural gas TPV rules
Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(D)(1)(h) provides that retail electric providers conducting contract sales to residential customers through door-to-door solicitation shall provide for independent third-party verification (TPV) to ensure the validity of the enrollment prior to submission to the electric utility
Among the requirements for a TPV under Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-21-06(D)(1)(h) [with the rule citing to and applying these requirements as they also appear for a telephonic sale] are that the TPV must include:
• "If applicable, a verbal request for and the customer's provision of the customer's electric utility account number."
• "A verbal request for and the customer's provision of the customer's mailing address."
The gas rules at Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-29-06 contain essentially identical language (aside from replacing "electric utility" with "natural gas company" etc)
Staff's testimony alleges that TPVs which include an automated or other reading of the account number and/or mailing address by the TPV system or TPV agent, in which the customer does not state the specific information but rather only replies yes/no, do not comply with the requirement that the TPV include a "verbal request for" the information and that the customer must provide the information
Staff alleged that, "SunSea uses an automated TPV system. The automated script fails to ask for the customer’s account number."
Staff alleged that, in certain TPVs used by SunSea OH, "the
system did not ask the customer for their account number as required by
Adm.Code sections 4901:1-21-06 and 4901:1-29-06."
Staff alleged, "Instead, the automated
TPV system provides the customer with the customer’s account number and
asks the customer if that number is correct."
Staff alleged, "The requirement that the
customer provide their account number is an important part of the TPV
process, as it ensures that the customer is consenting to enroll their utility
account. It requires the customer to take the additional action of locating
their utility account number on their bill and reading it for the TPV."
For the same reason, Staff alleged that a TPV which does not ask for
the customer’s mailing address, but which rather states an address and only asks the customer if such stated address is correct, does not comply with the rules
Staff alleged, "the rules require the customer to provide their address for a reason --
it provides additional assurance that the customer understands what they are
agreeing to, consents to the enrollment, and makes it more difficult to alter
a recording by requiring the customer to speak more."
Staff's testimony also sought to support Staff's previously reported allegation that SunSea OH's contracts were, "substantially one-sided," and thus violate law
See our prior story for full details on this allegation
Staff alleged, in one instance, for six months of service, SunSea OH billed a customer variable
rates around $0.7990/CCF with the last month of service doubling to
$1.5989/CCF. Staff alleged that, for context, in March 2024, when this enrollment
took place, the default rate in CGO's territory was $0.3415/CCF. Staff alleged further instances in which Staff alleged that SunSea OH's rates were "unconscionabl[y]" higher than both default service rates and rates from other retail suppliers
Staff alleged that SunSea OH, "Knew at the time the supplier contract was entered into of the
inability of the consumer to receive a substantial benefit from
the subject of the consumer transaction, as the terms of the
contract were substantially one-sided in favor of SunSea OH."
Staff alleged that, "It is apparent to Staff that
SunSea OH preyed on consumers’ lack of knowledge and
understanding of the competitive market and/or deceived consumers
to sign up for their product. These contracts were completely one5 sided and offered no benefit to Ohio consumers. The rates offered
and billed were much higher than most of the offers listed on the
Energy Choice website for similar products and continued to
increase exponentially over time."
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
September 25, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
|
|
|
|
|