Salespeople for U.S. Energy Savings Corp. falsely promised savings, circulated bogus petitions “to lower heating bills” and claimed to work for regulated utilities and the government to lure people into “some of the worst natural gas deals in Illinois history,” a consumer coalition charged in a complaint filed last week. The company, however, denied the allegations and said it will “vigorously defend the action.”
Falsely
Articles from Falsely
Consumer Group Again Targets Illinois Gas Marketer
Salespeople for U.S. Energy Savings Corp. falsely promised savings, circulated bogus petitions “to lower heating bills” and claimed to work for regulated utilities and the government to lure people into “some of the worst natural gas deals in Illinois history,” a consumer coalition charged in a complaint filed Monday. The company, however, denied the allegations and said it will “vigorously defend the action.”
Concord Energy, Traders Fined $1.6M for Bogus Price Reporting
Concord Energy LLC and two traders were ordered by a Colorado court last Tuesday to pay $1.6 million in penalties for falsely reporting natural gas information to published indexes in an attempt to manipulate natural gas prices.
Concord Energy, Traders Fined $1.6M for 2000-02 Bogus Price Reporting
Concord Energy LLC and two traders were ordered by a Colorado court Tuesday to pay $1.6 million in penalties for falsely reporting natural gas information to published indexes in an attempt to manipulate natural gas prices, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) said.
Landowners Seek Deadline for NE Contracts
Ohio and Pennsylvania landowners have called on FERC to impose adeadline by which the multi-state Independence Pipeline and ANRPipeline’s SupplyLink expansion must submit long-term contracts tojustify the need for their respective projects.
Correction:
A story that ran in NGI’s Daily Gas Price Index Oct. 14 falselyreported that a state court had ordered the break-up of ProLianceEnergy. It also contained several other inaccuracies. The decisionby the Indiana appellate court merely reversed an order by theIndiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) in which supplycontracts between ProLiance and affiliates Indiana Gas and CitizensGas Light & Coke were approved. The court ruled thatcontractual provisions relating to the use of published gas priceindexes required a different approval process. ProLiance “disagreeswith the court’s interpretation of the state statute and believesthat the IURC had full authority to approve the contracts under thestatutes cited in the IURC’s opinion.” The company intends toappeal the decision. The decision also does not require refunds tocustomers.