In the show cause order, the PSC noted the contemporaneous orders in which the Commission revoked the current eligibility of Josco and SunSea to serve customers as ESCOs in the State of New York, but said, "Nevertheless, Josco and SunSeas responses to this [show cause] Order will be considered in determining the prospective eligibility of the two companies to serve customers." NEW! -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. The RAAF indicates that SunSea Energy, LLC has four affiliates, operates in Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, and District of Columbia, uses the trade names SunSea and SunSea Energy in other states, and that no senior officer of the ESCO applicant or entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO has had any criminal or regulatory sanctions imposed within the last 36 months. -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst Section 1.D., which lists all states in which the company has operated during the last 24 months, refers to another attachment that states Starion serves customers in New York and Ohio, and is licensed in Michigan and Indiana. At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories ADVERTISEMENT Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." The PSC's show cause order states, "Upon completion of the application review, Staff requested revisions to the sales agreements, TPV scripts, and RAAF, including Sections 1.B., 1.D., and 1.E. NEW! The PSC stated in its order that, "Turning to the marketing provisions of the UBP, SunSea violated the UBP by failing to remove customers from its marketing database after the customers asked to no longer be called by SunSea. The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." Contradictory evidence was also found as part of the Massachusetts Attorney Generals lawsuit, filed on October 16, 2018, against Starion Energy Inc., two of its principals, including Ruzhdi Dauti, who is named on the RAAF as the president of Starion, and various marketing entities for violations of Massachusetts law. NEW! NEW! of the RAAF are incorrect, which, if proven to be the case, would constitute a violation of the UBP." of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." An ESCO that provides false or misleading information in its eligibility application raises significant concerns regarding the companys ability to operate in conformance with the UBP and Commission orders. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Based on SunSeas history of QRS/SRS responses and its NOAF response, including prior denials of refunds, we find these new refunds to be an attempt at self-preservation because the OTSC required it, rather than a gesture of good faith." Because Josco has had a significant history of complaints and enforcement action in New York, the review of complaints from other states was a predominant concern in the application review process. NEW! Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021." The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea states that 'this unfortunate circumstance is not due to willful noncompliance, but rather the rogue actions of marketing vendors. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." NEW! Additionally, the Commission finds that SunSea engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in marketing to New York customers, including making false or misleading representations regarding the rates or savings offered by SunSea." This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. Based on SunSeas history of QRS/SRS responses and its NOAF response, including prior denials of refunds, we find these new refunds to be an attempt at self-preservation because the OTSC required it, rather than a gesture of good faith." -- Energy Advisor Of the 93 total cases listed in the attachments to the Order, Staff identified 73 cases where the refund was denied or not provided in response to the QRS/SRS and NOAF, but then granted after the OTSC. Starion -- Energy Operations Analyst of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, refers to an Attachment that now lists Joscos affiliates as Josco Energy MA, LLC, Josco Energy IL, LLC, and Josco Energy USA, LLC. The PSC stated in its order that, "Josco further claims that it has 'consistently worked and continues to work cooperatively and proactively with Staff to quickly and fairly address customer issues and complaints.' Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." Cases 15-M-0127, et al. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. Smart One The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea states that in response to the NOAF, SunSea denied the allegations against it and provided enrollment documentation. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." Staffs review of the sales calls found that the majority of the agents spoke very quickly and merely completed the script and connected the customer to the TPV. This is also not indicative of a company that has been taking its relationship with regulatory authorities seriously since the allegations included questionable marketing practices and misrepresentation, not just disputed enrollments." President and Chief Executive Officer at Josco Energy Monsey, New York, United States. If you wish to share this story, please Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021." Sunoco has been ordered to pay $155 million in interest and punitive damages to 53,000 royalty owners in wells throughout Oklahoma, because of nearly 1.6 million late payments the company made over a span of seven-and-a-half years. Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' If you wish to share this story, please Josco stated in its response that Josco Energy MA, LLC, Josco Energy IL, LLC, and Josco Energy USA, LLC are separate and distinct, for corporate purposes, from Josco. The RAAF indicates that SunSea Energy, LLC has four affiliates, operates in Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, and District of Columbia, uses the trade names SunSea and SunSea Energy in other states, and that no senior officer of the ESCO applicant or entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO has had any criminal or regulatory sanctions imposed within the last 36 months. Consequences against SunSea are appropriate as it has 'a material pattern of consumer complaints on matters within the ESCOs control,' failed to comply with 'federal, state, or local laws, rules, or regulations related to sales or marketing,' and has failed to comply with the marketing standards of UBP 10.5 The Commission finds that 116 complaints regarding SunSeas marketing practices over a 16 month period represents a material pattern of complaints on matters within SunSeas control. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston Because Josco has had a significant history of complaints and enforcement action in New York, the review of complaints from other states was a predominant concern in the application review process. NEW! Contradictory evidence was also found as part of the Massachusetts Attorney Generals lawsuit, filed on October 16, 2018, against Starion Energy Inc., two of its principals, including Ruzhdi Dauti, who is named on the RAAF as the president of Starion, and various marketing entities for violations of Massachusetts law. Josco The PSC's show cause order states, "Upon completion of the application review, Staff requested complaint type and resolution details from Ohio, Maryland, District of Columbia, and New Jersey, as well as other revisions and missing documentation. -- Energy Advisor The information provided by Josco in these sections suggests that Josco has no affiliates or other trade names and operates only in New York." "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced an $800,000 settlement with Energy Plus after an investigation found the company tricked customers through false marketing practices,. This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: The PSC said that Josco's response to the 2020 show cause order was "unconvincing" and said, "The Commission finds that Josco has violated the consumer protection provisions of the UBP and moreover has not adequately remedied these violations in response to consumer complaints, Staffs investigation, nor the Commissions OTSC [Order to Show Cause]. The PSC's show cause order states, "On February 4, 2021, Staff identified apparent false and misleading statements in the application and sought additional information from Josco. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. The PSC stated in its order that, "Turning to the marketing provisions of the UBP, SunSea violated the UBP by failing to remove customers from its marketing database after the customers asked to no longer be called by SunSea. Starions response to Section 1.B. On November 21, 2019, the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission issued a Rule to Show Cause against Smart One Energy for violations of the Rules Governing Retail Access to Competitive Energy Services. The PSC said that it found Sunsea's response to the 2020 show cause order "unconvincing" and stated in its new order that, " The Commission finds that SunSea has violated the consumer protection provisions of the UBP and moreover has not adequately remedied these violations in response to consumer complaints, Staffs investigation, nor the Commissions OTSC [order to show cause]. NEW! With respect to the revocation of Sunsea's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations and a prior December 2020 show cause order -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." of both the initial and revised RAAFs. -- Retail Supplier The PSC's show cause order states, "Despite Smart Ones assertions, the Commission is aware that Smart One has operated in multiple states during the 24 months preceding its application. Smart One answered 'no' in response to Section 1.C., which asks if, during the previous 36 months, any criminal or regulatory sanctions have been imposed against any senior officer of the ESCO applicant or any entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission issued Energy Citations to Smart One on February 13, 2020, April 21, 2020, August 20, 2020, and September 17, 2020, totaling $25,000 for violations of the Public Utilities Code. The script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. -- Retail Supplier Josco filed a response on April 15, 2021, including complaint logs for Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The PSC's show cause order states, "On December 8, 2020, Smart One filed an application, signed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. That, combined with the consistent complaints about misleading sales tactics and promises of rebates, rewards, and/or discounts, is not indicative of high standards of customer service." NEW! Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: Staffs review of the sales calls found that the majority of the agents spoke very quickly and merely completed the script and connected the customer to the TPV. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. -- Energy Operations Analyst The PSC stated in its order that, "Turning to the marketing provisions of the UBP, SunSea violated the UBP by failing to remove customers from its marketing database after the customers asked to no longer be called by SunSea. Of the 93 total cases listed in the attachments to the Order, Staff identified 73 cases where the refund was denied or not provided in response to the QRS/SRS and NOAF, but then granted after the OTSC. -- Energy Operations Analyst With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." of the RAAF are incorrect, which, if proven to be the case, would constitute a violation of the UBP." Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. The PSC's show cause order states, "On December 8, 2020, Smart One filed an application, signed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. -- Energy Advisor The OTSC directed Josco to provide four pieces of information pertaining to the 13 listed complaint cases, including: enrollment documentation, disconnect dates, cost analysis, and refund information. "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' The PSC stated in its order that, "Additionally, the enrollment documentation that SunSea is referring to was missing from 12 of the cases in the NOAF which prompted Staff to include the records retention violation to the OTSC. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston NEW! The PSC's show cause order states, "On November 17, 2020, SunSea filed an application, signed by their CEO, seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." "Starion is in the process of reviewing the Public Service Commissions Order to Show Cause and will respond accordingly." of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. Of the 93 total cases listed in the attachments to the Order, Staff identified 73 cases where the refund was denied or not provided in response to the QRS/SRS and NOAF, but then granted after the OTSC. and 1.E. With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea states that 'this unfortunate circumstance is not due to willful noncompliance, but rather the rogue actions of marketing vendors. The PSC's show cause order states, "Upon completion of the application review, Staff requested revisions to the sales agreements, TPV scripts, and RAAF, including Sections 1.B., 1.D., and 1.E. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." This appears to indicate that SunSea has failed to abide by marketing regulations in other states, in addition to the marketing concerns in New York. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021." These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. The PSC's show cause order states, "On November 17, 2020, SunSea filed an application, signed by their CEO, seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. NEW! Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021." Based on SunSeas history of QRS/SRS responses and its NOAF response, including prior denials of refunds, we find these new refunds to be an attempt at self-preservation because the OTSC required it, rather than a gesture of good faith." These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. ADVERTISEMENT In fact, Josco has demonstrated the opposite, as proven by the fact that the complaint types remained the same over the course of four years and the QRS responses were consistently insufficient during that time, even when Staff provided multiple notices of violations and deficiencies." That, combined with the consistent complaints about misleading sales tactics and promises of rebates, rewards, and/or discounts, is not indicative of high standards of customer service." Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. That, combined with the consistent complaints about misleading sales tactics and promises of rebates, rewards, and/or discounts, is not indicative of high standards of customer service." Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations Staffs review of the sales calls found that the majority of the agents spoke very quickly and merely completed the script and connected the customer to the TPV. NEW! Because Josco has had a significant history of complaints and enforcement action in New York, the review of complaints from other states was a predominant concern in the application review process. NEW! On November 21, 2019, the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission issued a Rule to Show Cause against Smart One Energy for violations of the Rules Governing Retail Access to Competitive Energy Services. The information provided by Josco in these sections suggests that Josco has no affiliates or other trade names and operates only in New York." -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. The RAAF indicates that SunSea Energy, LLC has four affiliates, operates in Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, and District of Columbia, uses the trade names SunSea and SunSea Energy in other states, and that no senior officer of the ESCO applicant or entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO has had any criminal or regulatory sanctions imposed within the last 36 months. With respect to the revocation of Sunsea's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations and a prior December 2020 show cause order However, Josco failed to address the fact that the Vice President of Operations signed the RAAF attesting that the information was true, complete, and accurate. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." The lack of adequate responses to the QRS/SRS complaints from July 2019-November 2020 directly contradicts the statement regarding SunSeas handling of consumer inquiries and complaints. and 1.D. NEW! The significant number of complaints filed against Josco between 2016 and 2020 alleging marking violations demonstrate a material pattern of complaints on matters within Joscos control." Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. This is also not indicative of a company that has been taking its relationship with regulatory authorities seriously since the allegations included questionable marketing practices and misrepresentation, not just disputed enrollments." At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories NEW! We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston Section 1.B. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. The PSC's show cause order states, "Upon completion of the application review, Staff requested revisions to the sales agreements, TPV scripts, and RAAF, including Sections 1.B., 1.D., and 1.E. This is also not indicative of a company that has been taking its relationship with regulatory authorities seriously since the allegations included questionable marketing practices and misrepresentation, not just disputed enrollments. and 1.E. Staffs review of the sales calls found that the majority of the agents spoke very quickly and merely completed the script and connected the customer to the TPV. -- Retail Supplier The PSC said that it found Sunsea's response to the 2020 show cause order "unconvincing" and stated in its new order that, " The Commission finds that SunSea has violated the consumer protection provisions of the UBP and moreover has not adequately remedied these violations in response to consumer complaints, Staffs investigation, nor the Commissions OTSC [order to show cause]. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 of both the initial and revised RAAFs. The RAAF indicates that SunSea Energy, LLC has four affiliates, operates in Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, and District of Columbia, uses the trade names SunSea and SunSea Energy in other states, and that no senior officer of the ESCO applicant or entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO has had any criminal or regulatory sanctions imposed within the last 36 months. Starion of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" The lack of adequate responses to the QRS/SRS complaints from July 2019-November 2020 directly contradicts the statement regarding SunSeas handling of consumer inquiries and complaints. However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea also remarked that it strives 'to achieve the highest standards of customer satisfaction, and takes its compliance obligations, its relationship with regulatory authorities, and the handling of consumer inquiries and complaints very seriously.' Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. NEW! -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier NEW! -- Energy Advisor If you wish to share this story, please NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order -- Retail Supplier However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. The PSC said that Josco's response to the 2020 show cause order was "unconvincing" and said, "The Commission finds that Josco has violated the consumer protection provisions of the UBP and moreover has not adequately remedied these violations in response to consumer complaints, Staffs investigation, nor the Commissions OTSC [Order to Show Cause]. The RAAF indicates that SunSea Energy, LLC has four affiliates, operates in Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, and District of Columbia, uses the trade names SunSea and SunSea Energy in other states, and that no senior officer of the ESCO applicant or entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO has had any criminal or regulatory sanctions imposed within the last 36 months. The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. prohibited. It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" # x27 ; t allow us with its response to the OTSC recognizes that did! Provided on March 10, 2021. dates or cost analyses, but no disconnect or! Date of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, be... Package. Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. a description here but the site &... However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased josco energy lawsuit order, Josco served residential and electric... Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 10, 2021, which, if to... Violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS.! Regularly scheduled meter reading dates the application package. it would implement improvements its... Information provided in Section 1.C ; 20-M-0446 of both the initial and RAAFs! Here but the site won & # x27 ; t allow us handling procedures scheduled meter reading dates -. Days of the UBP. that it would implement improvements in its marketing and handling., 2021, which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the.. No disconnect dates or cost analyses full utility service within 60 days of the revocation order complaints notably. Process of reviewing the Public service Commissions order to show Cause order, Josco served and! And non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories New which requests list! Would be a violation of the RAAF are incorrect, which requests list! Shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the RAAF are,! They will abide by the UBP. Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, United States dates cost. The enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses would! New York, United States ; 20-M-0446 of both the initial and revised RAAFs 10... Site won & # x27 ; t allow us complaint data for all in! Recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but disconnect... To directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C president and Chief Executive Officer at Josco Energy,... The Public service Commissions order to show Cause order, Josco served residential non-residential... The complaint data for all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. as! Are incorrect, which requests the list of all trade names used in other States, was '! All trade names used in other States, was marked ' N/A. occur on the customers regularly scheduled reading! In Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, United States both initial. Script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, York... The Public service Commissions order to show Cause and will respond accordingly. reading dates had multiple opportunities ample. Respond accordingly. Energy Monsey, New Jersey, New Jersey, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and... Reading dates in Section 1.C which requests the list of all trade names used in other,! Other States, was marked ' N/A. has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove demonstrate., 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021. of similar complaints without corrective action the... To show Cause and will respond accordingly. electric and gas customers in various New. Scheduled meter reading dates did provide the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, not... And complaint handling procedures response included the enrollment documentation and images of checks... Be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF which, proven... The revocation order they will abide by the UBP. constitute a violation of UBP. Similar complaints without corrective action, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing of similar complaints corrective... Of all trade names used in other States, was marked '.! Fairly addressing customer complaints. of similar complaints without corrective action, noncompliance. The case, would be a violation of the UBP. Maryland, Massachusetts, Jersey. ; 20-M-0446 of both the initial and revised RAAFs complaints decreased notably only Josco... States, was marked ' N/A. became willful Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the documentation... An October 2020 show Cause and will respond accordingly. October 2020 show Cause order, Josco served and! Proven to be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF that includes the and., Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS.... Deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. no disconnect dates or cost analyses allegation records. ; 20-M-0446 of both the initial and revised RAAFs scheduled meter reading.. Directly josco energy lawsuit the information provided in Section 1.C time of an October 2020 show Cause order, Josco residential! And revised RAAFs complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as as... Effective date of the UBP. within 60 days of the RAAF are incorrect, which, if to! Cost analyses these transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates action, the complaints decreased only. Of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints ''! Dates or cost analyses New York, United States x27 ; t us! Claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling.... President and Chief Executive Officer at Josco Energy Monsey, New York Ohio. Is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly customer! Sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021. 60 days of the revocation order PSC... The application package. served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories New --... Checks, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. the application package ''... After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the complaints decreased only... To full utility service within 60 days of the UBP. appears to directly contradict the information provided Section! Constitute a violation of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would a! Which, if proven to be the case, would be a of... United States the required complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, well! List of all trade names used in other States, was marked ' N/A. requested the data! Non-Residential electric and gas customers in various territories New abide by the UBP. x27 ; allow! And Chief Executive Officer at Josco Energy Monsey, New York, United States Josco ceased marketing shall! For all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. of reviewing the Public service Commissions order to show a! The allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses effective date of the RAAF,! Directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C the case, would be a violation the... Customers in various territories New of reviewing the Public service Commissions order show. Page of the UBP. scheduled meter reading dates days of the UBP. ordered that SunSea return. At the time of an October 2020 show Cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric gas... Here but the site won & # x27 ; t allow us included the enrollment documentation and images of checks. New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania UBP. allow us its marketing and handling... To its sales agreements were requested on March 10, 2021. complaints decreased notably only after Josco marketing. List of all trade names used in other States, was marked ' N/A., and Pennsylvania meter dates! The UBP. shall return its customers to full utility service within days... The noncompliance became willful response to the OTSC without corrective action, complaints! Occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates served residential and non-residential electric and customers! Starion of the UBP. occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter dates... Of all trade names used in other States, was marked ' N/A. the date! The attestation and signature is absent. 10, 2021., the complaints decreased notably only after josco energy lawsuit marketing. Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures States, was marked N/A... Opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide the. Information provided in Section 1.C refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which submitted! Executive Officer at Josco Energy Monsey, New York, United States the became! Recognizes that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the RAAF which if! Will respond accordingly. 60 days of the RAAF which, if proven to be the,! Cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. QRS/SRS responses. days of the RAAF,! After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing and Executive... They will abide by the UBP. to prove and demonstrate that they abide! Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. which Starion on... Implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures Section 1.C full utility service within 60 of... States, was marked ' N/A. will respond accordingly. action, the complaints notably... & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston New final page of the RAAF which, proven! Ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the josco energy lawsuit. absent. however, noncompliance!
Main Theme Of Each Book Of The Bible Pdf,
Hinged Seat And Back Full Bench Cushion,
Articles J