|
|
|
|
|
Retail Supplier To Pay $300,000 Under Settlement With PUC Staff
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Eligo Energy OH, LLC (Eligo) would make a $300,000 donation to an energy bill payment assistance fund as part of a stipulation with Staff of the PUC of Ohio and the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel to resolve "numerous" alleged issues with Eligo’s sales calls and enrollments.
Michael Osowski, CEO of Eligo Energy, LLC and Eligo Energy OH, LLC, provided the following statement concerning the matter:
"Eligo Energy strives to provide value, good service, and fairness to our customers in Ohio and elsewhere. We will do what is needed to fulfill our duty to our customers. Eligo Energy has cooperated fully with PUCO Staff and OCC to both address potential issues and to strengthen our operations going forward."
--- Statement from Michael Osowski, CEO, Eligo Energy, LLC and Eligo Energy OH, LLC
The alleged behavior addressed by the stipulation is detailed further below. All corrective actions listed below are with respect to Ohio customers
Under the stipulation, Eligo agrees to continue its suspension of all residential outbound telemarketing and telephonic enrollments in Ohio for a period of thirty (30) months from when Eligo ceased new enrollments in response to a notification from Staff, which was March 26, 2024.
Eligo agrees to contact residential consumers that were enrolled with Eligo through outbound telemarketing from May 1, 2023 to March 26, 2024, as well as certain residential customers who disputed their enrollment regardless of enrollment method, informing customers of their ability to (1) cancel their service with Eligo without any early termination fee (ETF), with a return to default service or selection of another retail supplier, or (2) remain with Eligo
For customers who receive the notice, Eligo agrees to re-rate customers if the customer contacts Eligo disputing their enrollment with Eligo within one year of receiving Eligo’s notice. The re-rate will reflect the difference between the default service rate and Eligo's rate for the applicable prior period of service
Any past residential customers who enrolled telephonically with Eligo from May 1, 2023 to March 26, 2024, and who cancelled or ended service with Eligo, and who were charged an ETF, will be credited the ETF that was charged.
Eligo agrees to amend its Ohio contract terms and conditions, enrollment documents, marketing materials, and telemarketing sales scripts to reflect that it does not charge ETFs to residential customers.
The settlement notes that Eligo has developed and implemented a program for auditing all third-party telemarketing companies that Eligo uses. Eligo agrees to provide all information and documentation on its auditing program to Staff and OCC.
Under the stipulation, Eligo agrees to make a one-time donation of $300,000 to the Dollar Energy Fund.
Eligo also agrees to pay a civil forfeiture of $14,600 to the State of Ohio
The stipulation remains subject to PUCO approval
The stipulation states that, "This Stipulation is to be used for settlement purposes only and is not intended for use by any third party in any other proceeding and is not intended, and should not be construed, as an admission of guilt of noncompliance or violation of law or the Commission’s rules, and cannot be used against Eligo in the future as such. No action taken by the Signatory Parties in connection with this Stipulation shall be deemed or construed to be an admission of the truth or falsity of any fact, allegation, or legal conclusion asserted by Staff in PNC Letter, or otherwise in this proceeding with regard to Ohio Consumers. The Signatory Parties further agree that by entering into this Stipulation, neither the Stipulation nor any payment of money or other actions taken pursuant to this agreement shall constitute or be deemed an admission of liability or guilt on the part of any Signatory Party."
As alleged in a notice of probable non-compliance from PUCO Staff dated March 6, 2025, a PUCO Staff member was solicited via phone to enroll with Eligo. The Staff member felt that the call was "misleading" but enrolled with Eligo to further investigate Eligo’s marketing practices. The Staff member recorded that call for a personal record of the call. The Staff member filed a complaint with PUCO concerning the allegedly misleading call
As alleged in the Staff notice of probable non-compliance, "The PUCO call center investigated this issue, and it was determined that the information and recordings provided by the Company were not the same as the original call recorded by the Staff member."
As alleged in the Staff notice of probable non-compliance, "The sales agent’s voice in the Staff member’s recording of the call and the sales agent’s voice in the call provided from the Company are clearly different voices."
Staff in the notice of probable non-compliance stated, "This raised serious concerns about the authenticity of information Eligo was providing to Staff in response to call center investigations. As a result, Staff began an investigation into the marketing and enrollment practices of Eligo."
Staff had alleged, "The ... investigation resulted in additional suspected altered call recordings (E.g., PUCO Case Nos. 00812687) and numerous issues with Eligo’s sales calls and enrollments. In one case, Eligo marketed to a 94-year-old consumer at least three different times. The elderly consumer required her son’s help to intervene and stop future attempts of Eligo to enroll the account (PUCO Case No. 00832098.)"
Staff alleged that Staff's investigation identified additional instances of allegedly misleading and deceptive behavior, including, as alleged by Staff:
• "During sales calls, Eligo sales agents implied to consumers that they were with the local utility company or some other entity"
• "During sales calls, Eligo agents made misleading statements about customer choice, savings, and information on the current customer bill that the agent does not have access to review and comment on"
• "Eligo sales agents misled consumers in government aggregation programs"
• "Eligo sales agents failed to disclose the early termination fee ('ETF') in the sales call"
• "Eligo sales agents referenced an initial call to the consumer or referenced previous contact with the consumer with a vague and misleading reference to a notice or information on their energy bill. These initial calls were not provided to Staff"
• "Eligo sales agents provided unclear short-term rate explanations to consumers"
• "Eligo sales agents spoke on behalf of the consumer during third-party verification calls, including providing the consumer’s utility account number instead of the consumer stating the information themselves, as required by Adm.Code"
Staff's notice of probable non-compliance lists the specific rules which such alleged behavior is alleged to have violated
Apart from broad prohibitions against misleading or deceptive practices, notable alleged rule violations include, among others, alleged violations of rules requiring a "clear and understandable explanation" of the factors that will cause a variable rate to vary, and which require that a variable rate be based on "verifiable factors.
Specific rule violations include, among others:
• Adm.Code 4901:1-21-05(A)(3) “Each competitive retail electric service (CRES) provider that offers retail electric generation service to residential or small commercial customers shall provide, in marketing materials that include or accompany a service contract, sufficient information for customers to make intelligent cost comparisons against offers they receive from other CRES providers. Offers shall at a minimum include: (3) For variable rate offers, a clear and understandable explanation of the factors that will cause the price to vary, including any related indices, and how often the price can change.”
• Adm.Code 4901:1-21-05(B)(8)(f) “No CRES provider may engage in marketing, solicitation, or sales acts, or practices which are unfair, misleading, deceptive, or unconscionable in the marketing, solicitation, or sale of a CRES. Such unfair, misleading, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices include, but are not limited to, the following: (8) Advertising or marketing offers that: (f) Offer a variable price for competitive retail electric service that is not based on verifiable factors.”
• Adm.Code 4901:1-29-06(E)(1)(j) “Telephonic enrollment (1) To enroll a customer telephonically, a retail natural gas supplier or governmental aggregator, shall make a date- and time-stamped audio recording of the sales portion of the call, if the customer is enrolled, and before the completion of the enrollment process, a date- and time- stamped audio recording by an independent third-party verifier that verifies, at a minimum, the following: (j) A verbal request for and the customer's provision of the customer's natural gas company's account number.”
With regard to Adm.Code 4901:1-29-06(E)(1)(j) (and the similar electricity counterpart), as noted previously, Staff takes the position that the customer must recite (provide) their account number. A TPV in which the number is read to the customer, for the customer to respond yes/no, does not comply with the rule, Staff says. See more discussion here
Staff's March 2025 notice of probable non-compliance had initially proposed a forfeiture of $314,600
Case 25-0989-GE-UNC
ADVERTISEMENT 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
Genesis For Investigation Was Sales Call To PUC Staffer
October 20, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Account Executive (Commercial Retail Energy)
|
|
|
|
|