News Stories

Conclusion and Recommendation From Staff Report:

“Based on the Staff’s investigation and findings, Staff believes that the evidence shows that SunSea OH is in violation of the above-cited provisions; engaged in anticompetitive acts by misleading customers into enrolling with the Company; failed to comply with the state laws and rules designed to protect consumers in this state; and/or has otherwise engaged in fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, unconscionable, or unfair acts or practices.” 

Therefore, Staff recommends that the Commission: 

1. Find that SunSea OH has violated the provisions identified in the report.
2. The Commission should rescind, conditionally rescind, or suspend SunSea’s certificate for the violations identified above, 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. 
3. Order SunSea OH to pay a forfeiture of $900,000. 
4. 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. 
5. 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.

Excerpts from Staff’s Report:

“III. Staff’s Investigation and Analysis
Scope of Investigation 

“Staff reviewed the Company’s response times to informal and formal complaints between November 1, 2024, and September 5, 2025. During this same period, Staff also reviewed the marketing, sales, enrollment, and contract administration practices of SunSea OH and their responses to informal and formal complaints. The Call Center received seventy-five consumer contacts relating to SunSea OH’s provision of CRES and CRNGS and two consumers filed formal complaints with the Commission. These contacts were mainly from consumers solicited and/or enrolled with SunSea OH via door-to-door solicitation, but there were two related to telemarketing solicitation. Staff reviewed these consumer contacts and investigations to determine SunSea OH’s compliance with the Commission’s rules and orders.”

“The information Staff reviewed in its investigation into SunSea OH‘s compliance for the period of November 1, 2024 to September 5, 2025 included: consumer statements about door-to-door and telemarketing solicitations, the Company’s responses to consumer contacts, sales and third-party verification (“TPV”) call recordings, contract and administration practices, and Sunsea OH’s responses to specific Staff questions.”

Delayed, Incomplete, and Noncompliant Responses to Informal Complaints:

“Ohio Administrative Code (“Adm.Code”) 4901:1-21-08(B) and 4901:1-29-08(B) require CRES and CRNGS providers to investigate customer complaints and provide a status report to Staff within three business days following receipt of the complaint. If an investigation is not completed within ten business days, providers are required to submit status reports in three business day intervals until the investigation is completed, unless agreed to otherwise.”

“Between late 2024 and early 2025, SunSea OH routinely failed to meet these requirements. In late 2024, Staff identified a pattern of SunSea OH failing to respond to Call Center investigations of informal complaints in a timely manner. By late December of 2024, the Company completely stopped responding to Call Center investigators and supervisors. CSD Staff made multiple attempts to reach SunSea OH by email and phone with no success. RSAD Staff then reached out to the regulatory contact of SunSea OH, company president Jacob Adigwe, and expressed concern with the Company’s response time. On January 18, 2025, Mr. Adigwe informed Staff that, after meeting with his compliance team, he learned that the delay in responding to Call Center investigators was caused by a “cyber incident.”6 Mr. Adigwe informed Staff that the “cyber incident” would be resolved by the week of January 20, 2025, delay was caused by a technical issue, but assured Staff that responses to all outstanding informal complaints were forthcoming.”

“However, SunSea OH continued to either provide delayed responses to Staff or no responses at all, in violation of the Commission’s rules. Therefore, Staff issued the initial Notice to SunSea OH on March 6, 2025. At the time of the Notice, the Call Center had 21 open cases waiting for a response from SunSea OH: 13 cases with no initial response from SunSea OH and 8 cases waiting for additional information from SunSea OH.”

Unfair, Misleading, Deceptive and Unconscionable Practices
Unauthorized Switching of Service to SunSea OH

“In reviewing complaints, the Commission received from Ohio consumers and Sunsea OH’s responses, Staff identified a trend. Staff finds it very suspicious and highly unlikely that, when solicited door-to-door by a SunSea OH representative offering month-to-month variable rates much higher than the default service rates and many other variable and fixed rates posted on the Energy Choice website, a consumer given accurate information would agree to such a contract. After investigation, Staff believes that many consumers were switched to SunSea OH without their consent: at least one sales call was altered/fabricated, 14 consumer signatures on contracts were disputed by the consumers, and at least two consumers that appear to Staff to lack the necessary capacity to enter into a contract were enrolled by SunSea OH.”

“Several examples of informal complaints that Staff believes SunSea OH enrolled consumers without proper consent:

• PUCO Call Center Case No. 00886901—The sales call recording provided to Staff by Sunsea in response to Staff’s investigation of a consumer’s complaint is very suspicious. Staff believe the sales call recording was altered or fabricated. In the complaint, the consumer acknowledges that she enrolled and completed a third-party verification (“TPV”), but she contends that the rate the SunSea OH representative offered was a lot cheaper than what she was billed. PUCO Call Center Case No. 00899581- In reviewing the documentation SunSea OH provided in the informal complaint investigation, Staff found several pieces of information that calls into question the authenticity of the enrollment. Staff noted that the phone number used for the TPV is a temporary web phone number often used to mask the true number of the phone being called. Additionally, the phone used to complete the TPV is the same model and operating system as the sales agent’s phone. The IP address of the sales agent’s device and the consumer’s device are the same. Lastly, the consumer contends that the signature on the contract is not his and provided a writing sample. This informal complaint led to the consumer filing a formal complaint with the Commission in Case No. 25-0471-EL-CSS. 
• PUCO Call Center Case No. 00890361—SunSea OH claims that this consumer enrolled as a result of a door-to-door solicitation. After listening to the audio recording, it is apparent to Staff that the TPV provided by SunSea OH in this case was not completed solely by the consumer. There are two different voices answering the TPV questions on behalf of the consumer and the contract signature is very suspect. The consumer’s power of attorney, her daughter, claims that the consumer has dementia. 
• PUCO Call Center Case No. 00922166- Although there is a lot of background noise in the TPV recording SunSea OH provided to Staff, after review, it is clear to Staff that the person claiming to be the consumer is not in fact the consumer. When Staff played the TPV recording for the consumer, he stated that he does not know who the person on the recording is and does not recognize the voice. 
• PUCO Call Center Case No. 00892775- Consumer is a female. The voice on the audio recording of the TPV SunSea OH provided to Staff is clearly male.”

Unconscionably High Variable Rates
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. The majority of the consumers who contacted the Call Center to complain contested their enrollment with SunSea OH, claiming they did not authorize the enrollment and/or would not have agreed to pay such an excessive rate for service. The rates offered and billed by SunSea OH were excessively higher than other rates available in the market. 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.”

“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. In Staff’s opinion, these rates are excessively high and offer no benefit to consumers. In the AEP Ohio service territory in June 2024, the SunSea OH offer marketed by door-to door sales agents was a 100% renewable energy variable rate product which started at $0.1099/kWh. In comparison, the default service rate was $0.0768/kWh and the lowest 9 residential 100% renewal energy variable rate product posted on the Energy Choice website for the same period was $0.0659/kWh and the lowest fixed term contract for 100% renewal energy was $0.063/kWh. As the charts in Appendix A illustrates, 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, 15 Ohio utilities‘ default service rates, and SunSea OH’s own rates posted on the Energy Choice Ohio website. Based on Staff’s review, there is no evidence that the rates charged by SunSea OH were based on any actual market conditions. 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). 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. 

Third-Party Verifications
“After review of numerous TPV recordings for both door-to-door and telephonic enrollments, Staff identified several issues with SunSea OH’s TPVs. In several door-to-door enrollment cases, 22 the sales agent remained at the premises for part of, if not all, the verification process. However, the Commission’s rules require door-to-door sales agents to leave premises during the TPV process.”

“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 4901:1-29-06.24”

Overall Lack of Managerial Oversight
“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.” 

“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 directed SunSea OH to cease enrolling Ohio consumers.25 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. 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.”26 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 2025.27 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.”

“Finally, 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. These findings were discussed in greater detail in the “Unfair, Misleading, Deceptive and Unconscionable Practices” section of this report.” 

“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.”

Staff Report  (09/08/2025)
25-0713-GE-COI
(SunSea Energy OH LLC – COI-Commission Inquiry)