If yes, click here to login.
BBB Accredited Business sinceAdditional Locations
BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
Request a Quote
A BBB Accredited Business since
BBB has determined that EnergyLogic meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.
BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.
Reason for Rating
BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.
Factors that raised the rating for EnergyLogic include:
- Length of time business has been operating
- Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
- Response to 1 complaint(s) filed against business
- Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business
Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details
|Complaint Type||Total Closed Complaints|
|Problems with Product/Service||0|
|Total Closed Complaints||1|
Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews
|Customer Experience||Total Customer Reviews|
|Total Customer Reviews||0|
Type of Entity
Business ManagementMr. Steve Byers, CEO Ms. Wynne Maggi, President Mr. Will Lorey, COO Mr. Robby Schwarz, Director of Builder Relations
Energy Management and Conservation Construction Companies Environmental, Conservationist & Ecol Org Energy Audits Software Developers Construction Management Companies
What is a BBB Business Review?
About BBB Business Review Content & Services:
Some Better Business Bureaus offer additional content & services in BBB Business Reviews.
The additional content & services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release.
Not all enhanced content & services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.
Types of Complaints Handled by BBB
BBB handles the following types of complaints between businesses and their customers so long as they are not, or have not been, litigated:
- Advertising or Sales
- Billing or Collection
- Problems with Products or Services
- Guarantee or Warranty
We do not handle workplace disputes, discrimination claims or claims about the quality of health or legal services.
BBB Complaint Process
Your complaint will be forwarded to the business within two business days. The business will be asked to respond within 14 days, and if a response is not received, a second request will be made. You will be notified of the business's response when we receive it (or notified that we received no response). Complaints are usually closed within 30 business days.
What is BBB Advertising Review?
BBB promotes truth in advertising by contacting advertisers whose claims conflict with the BBB Code of Advertising. These claims come to our attention from our internal review of advertising, consumer complaints and competitor challenges. BBB asks advertisers to prove their claims, change ads to make offers more clear to consumers, and remove misleading or deceptive statements.
What government actions does BBB report on?
BBB reports on known government actions that are relevant to the business's marketplace dealings with the public.
BBB Reporting Policy
As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.
Additional Email Addresses
- - Communication/Mass Email
- - eQuote
Complaint Trends - Last 3 Years
Customer Review Trends
BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview
BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.
|Customer Review Experience||Value|
|Positive Review||5 points per review|
|Neutral Review||3 points per review|
|Negative Review||1 point per review|
BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
BBB Letter Grade Scale
Star Rating scale
BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.
Read Complaint Details
Complaint: Energy Logic wa sterminated as a supplier of energy ratings to our Company. They have sent us unauthorized and unsubstantiated billing. 11/30/2012 invoice XXXXXQ from Energy Logic in the amount of $540.30 was supposidly sent to *** and we did not recieve this real invoice information until March 1st 2013. Energy Logic falsely created an invoice and claims we owe them this invoice after their termination was made. Energy Logic claims the invoice is for cancelled trip costs that they are unwilling to supply us with information on who approved and set up this travel. The termination of our agreement was impossible to create travel agreements as we had no communication with Energy Logic. They are using a clooection agency to try to force unlawfull clams and payments.
Desired Settlement: agreement that we do not owe them any funds
Business Response: Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/03/29) */ 1 - P a g e March 29, 2013 Ms. ***** ***** Better Business Bureau Serving Northern Colorado and Wyoming 8020 South County Road 5, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO XXXXX RE: Case #XXXXXXXX: Complaint from Mr. ****** ****** EnergyLogic appreciates the opportunity to respond to this complaint. We value our customers and take all issues of dissatisfaction seriously. We always attempt to reach an equitable solution prior to an issue becoming a complaint, but in some cases it becomes difficult to reach agreement. In this case, it is our position that the complainant (via their employee) was under contractual obligation with us for the services rendered. We believe they created this situation in order to avoid mandatory quality assurance inspections required by our industry (detailed below). Further, the complainant's assertion that they had no knowledge of this prior to 1 March 2013 is completely false as shown in the attached email directly from the complainant on 11 December 2012 when dispute of this invoice began and other emails from prior to this date from the complainant's employee. Failure of the complainant to manage their employee does not dismiss them from their obligation to pay legitimate invoices. EnergyLogic will be filing a formal ethics complaint against the complainant with ******, our industry oversight organization, and will ask them to rule as to whether or not it was our responsibility to attempt to perform field quality assurance even after the rater switched Providers. A more detailed explanation of the situation is provided below. Background: The complainant performs energy ratings on new homes under national standards set by the *********************************** (******). At the time of the situation in question, the complainant's employee (i.e. "Rater") was certified by EnergyLogic (their "Provider") to be able to deliver new home ratings to builders. These ratings are used for several purposes, the most important being financial rebate incentives from Federal, State and local government as well as utility providers for meeting certain levels of rating. The job of the Provider is to follow the ****** standards and assure the Rater is providing accurate ratings - this is an essential component of the program not designed to add unnecessary financial burden to the Rater, but to maintain the credibility of the rating industry. The national requirement from ****** is that 1% (or at least one) of all annual ratings done by the Rater receives on-site quality assurance review. This requires the Provider's certified 2 - P a g e ************************** (***) to physically duplicate a job done by the Rater on site. Every Rater in the country is required to have a Provider to perform this service - it's a part of maintaining your certification to provide ratings. Timeline of events: 12 Oct 2012 (email attached - ENCL 1): EnergyLogic sends notification to the Rater of planned trip set for 7 Nov 2012 as part of a multi-leg itinerary; Rater confirms. Days prior to arrival and while *** is already en route: Rater notified the EnergyLogic *** via text message that he was changing Providers (no explanation given). Changing Providers does not relieve the Rater from having to receive the required amount of Quality Assurance nor does it relieve the Provider from having to perform the inspections. The reason for this is so that Raters don't "Provider Hop" in order to avoid receiving the required annual field Quality Assurance. However, standard practice is for the existing Provider to try and work out an equitable hand-off with the new Provider when possible. The *** attempted to contact the Rater to get the new Provider information, but attempts to contact were not returned. Since tickets had already been purchased as part of a multi-leg inspection and EnergyLogic felt the inspection had to occur regardless, we made the decision to proceed with the planned trip. Side Note: Our Provider Agreement with the Rater (copy attached -- ENCL 2) clearly states, "Termination of this agreement does not release either party from obligations to comply with all of the standards, ****** and others that are included in this agreement". This was signed by the Rater who was the employee of the complainant. 7 Nov 2012: The EnergyLogic *** arrived at the location as planned but was not granted access to any of the residences in order to perform the required inspection. 15 Nov 2012 (email copy attached - ENCL 3): EnergyLogic notified the complainant that their Rater was suspended from performing ratings due to being out of compliance with ******'s annual QA requirements. In the same notification, they were informed they would be billed for the trip. The complainant responded that they had "fired" EnergyLogic and would be sending a letter of complaint; no letter was received. 31 Nov 2012: The complainant (Rater's employer) was invoiced for their portion of the trip despite the inspection not being able to be performed. It should be noted that this was done at cost - there was no mark-up or inflation and EnergyLogic doesn't profit from these trips. The trip did in fact occur despite the claim by the complainant that EnergyLogic falsely created an invoice. 11 December 2012 (email copy attached - ENCL 4): Complainant was emailed the invoice; however they claimed they did not owe anything due to EnergyLogic being terminated as their Provider. Mid-Jan 2013: During a call regarding a separate invoice, the EnergyLogic billing official requested status of the disputed invoice; the billing official was verbally told it would not be paid. 29 Jan 2013: EnergyLogic turned the invoice over to our collections agency. 3 - P a g e At some point after this date, it appears the collection agency contacted the complainant and the complainant was sent a copy of the invoice again from EnergyLogic. 7 Mar 2013 (attached copy email - ENCL 5): Complainant contacts EnergyLogic stating this is the first they have heard of this invoice and that they cancelled their relationship with us. Clearly the claim that this is the first they are aware of this is false as previous emails show clear contact on this issue. The complainant wants to know who agreed to the inspection and where was the Purchase Order. We explain that no purchase order was required as we had a standing contract and requirement to perform the inspection. Again, the Complainant should be fully aware of who was involved because they received notification in November of the issue. Complainant further states they plan to file a complaint with ******. We inform them this is their right but that the invoice is now with our collections agency. 25 Mar 2013: Letter received from BBB with complaint We appreciate the mediation provided by the BBB in this case. We will remove our request to our collection agency if the BBB believes we mishandled this situation, but feel strongly that the Complainant failed to manage their employee and is now making false claims of being unaware of the situation when we have several emails proving otherwise. The funds involved in this case are not the primary issue for us - our reputation and standing with other clients and the BBB is much more important. EnergyLogic's Desired Resolution: Complainant to withdraw complaint and remit funds owed. Sincerely, ****** ****** - President/EnergyLogic ENCLOSURES: 1 - Trip confirmation email, 12 Oct 2012 2 - Rater Agreement 3 - Suspension notice of Rater, 15 Nov 2013 4 - Original email of invoice to complainant, 11 Dec 2012 5 - Complainant email, 7 Mar 2013 Northern Colorado ïï¿½ï¿½ Denver ïï¿½ï¿½ Colorado Springs