News Stories

“Due to the pervasive nature of SunSea’s conduct, Staff has serious concerns about SunSea’s managerial capabilities. Staff requests that the Commission open a formal proceeding to review SunSea’s compliance with the Commission’s rules and laws, pursuant to Adm.Code 4901:1-23-05(A) and Adm.Code 4901:1-34-06(A). Staff also requests the Commission provide Staff with sixty calendar days to file its written report of investigation under Adm.Code 4901:1-23-05(C) and Adm.Code 4901:1-34-06(B).”

From Staff recommendation letter:

“On March 6, 2025, Staff of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s (“Commission”) Reliability and Service Analysis Division (“Staff”) sent a Notice of Probable Non-Compliance (“Initial Notice”) to SunSea Energy OH, LLC (“SunSea” or the “Company”) for SunSea’s failure to respond to Staff’s investigation of informal complaints. In the Initial Notice, Staff found that SunSea was in probable non-compliance with several sections of the Ohio Administrative Code (“Adm.Code”) and proposed corrective actions to resolve the violations.

On May 1, 2025, and May 8, 2025, Staff learned that SunSea failed to respond to two formal complaints filed with the Commission by Ohio consumers. (Case Nos. 25-0388-GA-CSS and 25-0471-EL-CSS, respectively). On June 5, 2025, due to SunSea’s repeated failure to respond adequately and on time to consumer complaints, its noncompliance with the Commission’s rules, and its egregious conduct, Staff issued an Amended Notice of Probable Non-Compliance (“Amended Notice”) to SunSea.

After discussion, SunSea and Staff were unable to resolve the issues raised in the Amended Notice. Staff continues to have concerns regarding SunSea’s compliance, as outlined in the Amended Notice. For the reasons set forth in the attached Amended Notice, Staff asks the Commission to initiate a proceeding to address SunSea’s compliance with the Commission’s rules and laws.”

From Staff’s Review:
“SunSea has a history of noncompliance and non-responsiveness to both Staff and the Commission. On March 30, 2022, Staff issued a Notice of Probable Non-Compliance to SunSea for the Company’s failure to timely respond to Staff’s investigations of informal complaints received by the Commission’s Consumer Services Division (“CSD”) (“2022 Notice”). 5 On April 24, 2023, Staff and SunSea resolved the 2022 Notice by entering into a Stipulation that required SunSea to implement corrective actions to provide timely responses to customer complaints and Staff’s requests for information and pay a $9,000 forfeiture (“SunSea Stipulation”).

However, approximately five months later, SunSea failed to timely file an answer to another formal complaint filed against it in Case No. 23-0865-GE-CSS. The formal complaint raised serious allegations against SunSea, including slamming, altering telephone recordings provided to Staff, and charging high variable rates. Although SunSea never filed a response with the Commission, the case appears to have been ultimately resolved as the Complainant requested that the case be dismissed, with prejudice, as the parties had resolved all issues.

In late December 2024, Staff noticed an issue with getting timely responses to requests for information and records from SunSea while investigating consumer complaints and inquiries. The CSD received 39 contacts related to SunSea between November 1, 2024, and March 6, 2025. As of March 6, 2025, 18 of those contacts remained unresolved because SunSea did not respond to Staff. SunSea stopped responding to CSD’s inquiries in December 2024. Staff reached out to SunSea in mid- January expressing concern and SunSea committed to providing timely responses going forward. Although a few responses were received after that communication, CSD did not receive responses from SunSea on any investigation from January 29, 2025, to March 6, 2025. As a result of SunSea’s failure to respond to Staff’s investigations of informal complaints, Staff issued the Initial Notice to SunSea.

In early May 2025, Staff noticed that SunSea failed to file answers to two formal complaints filed with the Commission by Ohio consumers, in violation of Adm.Code 4901-9-01. (Case Nos. 25-0388-GA-CSS and 25-0471-EL-CSS, respectively). Both formal complaints raise serious allegations against SunSea, including slamming, unfair and deceptive marketing and enrollment practices, and charging unconscionably high variable rates. Under the Commission’s rules, SunSea should have filed an answer to the formal complaint in Case No. 25-0388-GA-CSS by May 1, 2025. On May 12, 2025, the administrative law judge ordered SunSea to file an answer or other responsive pleading by June 1, 2025. On May 23, 2025, SunSea filed a document with a document type of “AF-Answer.” However, the document does not provide admissions or denials to the allegations in the complaint, does not assert any defenses, is not signed, and does not comply with several other Commission procedural rules. In Case No. 25-0471-EL-CSS, SunSea was required to file an answer to the formal complaint by May 8, 2025. On June 13, 2025, SunSea filed a document with a document type of “AF-Answer.” However, the unsigned document does not admit, deny, or assert any defenses to the allegations in the complaint, and violates several other Commission procedural rules. Therefore, Staff considers both of these instances to be further evidence that SunSea lacks the managerial capability to comply with the Commission’s rules.

Most recently, Staff was made aware that SunSea was the only active CRNGS provider in Duke’s territory that did not respond to repeated request by Duke Energy to attest to certain actions per Case No. 21- 903-GA-EXM. Only after Staff mentioned to SunSea that it had not responded to Duke, did SunSea respond to Duke Energy.

As Staff reviewed the responses SunSea finally provided in response to Staff’s investigations of several informal complaints after the issuance of the Initial PNC, Staff became concerned with the allegations made by consumers and SunSea’s responses. Many of the complaints are related to door-to-door solicitations and enrollments and involved slamming allegations and other deceptive and misleading practices. Staff found numerous compliance issues with the third-party verification (“TPV”) recordings SunSea provided, and Staff believes that at least two TPV recordings were altered.”

Staff Letter (07/01/2025)
25-0713-GE-COI (07/01/2025)
(COI-Commission inquiry – SunSea Energy OH LLC)
See also:
19-1809-EL-CRS
20-1268-GA-CRS