josco energy lawsuit

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. Further, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff." The PSC stated in its order that, "Josco refers to its 'demonstrated commitment to compliance and customer service' with regard to its complaints in New York. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. The PSC stated in its order that, "Josco refers to its 'demonstrated commitment to compliance and customer service' with regard to its complaints in New York. NEW! The PSC's show cause order states, "Upon completion of the application review, Staff requested revisions to the sales agreements, TPV scripts, the complaint data from all jurisdictions in which Smart One operates, and other missing documentation. 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. 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. Josco filed a response on April 15, 2021, including complaint logs for Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. -- Energy Advisor 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. -- Energy Advisor Smart One 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." of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" 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. NEW! HOME Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston -- Retail Supplier At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories Josco also repeatedly claimed that it would improve its complaint response practices, yet 17 of the 29 responses to complaints received during 2020 were inadequate and eight of those were during the second half of the year," the PSC stated in its order NEW! 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.' The PSC stated in its order that, "Josco refers to its 'demonstrated commitment to compliance and customer service' with regard to its complaints in New York. The PSC's show cause order states, "Upon completion of the application review, Staff requested revisions to the sales agreements, TPV scripts, the complaint data from all jurisdictions in which Smart One operates, and other missing documentation. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. 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." NEW! 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. 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. Email This Story -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. Section 1.B. Section 1.B. HOME 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. It claimed that the misinformation provided on the RAAF was a simple mistake and that the individual completing the application did not believe that the above-named companies met the definition of affiliate. NEW! The PSC's show cause order states, "Staffs review of Starions website indicates that, in addition to New York and Ohio, it operates in Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. With a city as large as New York, power has to come from many different sources. This includes 12 that were confirmed to be checks dated February 2021 for refunds that had been promised on various dates ranging from February 19, 2020, through October 19, 2020. ", The PSC's show cause order states, "Staff notes that the answers indicating that Josco only operates in New York are contradicted by the Third Party Verification (TPV) script that was also submitted by Josco. Furthermore, SunSea has failed to comply with State laws related to sales or marketing as it continued to knowingly make unsolicited telemarketing sales calls during a declared State of Emergency." 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. Furthermore, the website named on Joscos RAAF, www.joscoenergy.com, indicates that Josco provides service in Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 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. NEW! With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations 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 required complaint data was also missing from the application package." The information provided by Smart One in these sections indicates that Smart One has no affiliates, uses no other trade names, has operated only in New York in the last 24 months, and has had no regulatory sanctions imposed in the last 36 months. In Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which the company has operated during the last 24 months. and 1.D. The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. and 1.D. 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston This includes 12 that were confirmed to be checks dated February 2021 for refunds that had been promised on various dates ranging from February 19, 2020, through October 19, 2020. Xcoal Energy & Resources et al., case number GD-22-001655, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The list of all trade names used in other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked 'N/A.' 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.' and 1.D. If you wish to share this story, please of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." prohibited. The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." 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. 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. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." The PSC stated in its order that, "Josco refers to its 'demonstrated commitment to compliance and customer service' with regard to its complaints in New York. 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.' 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. 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. The PSC's show cause order states, "Staffs review of Starions website indicates that, in addition to New York and Ohio, it operates in Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 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 "[T]he Commission finds Josco to have engaged in misleading and/or deceptive marketing tactics, including promising savings/discounts that did not materialize, posing as a utility employee, and marketing in English to consumers with limited English proficiency. 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. 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]. 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. -- Energy Operations Analyst Furthermore, SunSea has failed to comply with State laws related to sales or marketing as it continued to knowingly make unsolicited telemarketing sales calls during a declared State of Emergency." 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." 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. 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. 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]. The PSC's show cause order states, "Staffs review of Starions website indicates that, in addition to New York and Ohio, it operates in Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication Starion provided the following statement concerning the matter: 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. NEW! This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." Smart One Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. NEW! This information suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C. 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.' On August 2, 2019, the Maryland Public Service Commission issued its Order Suspending Retail Supply License, Imposing Civil Penalty, and Directing the Transfer of Service against Smart One. and 1.E. The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. NEW! Consequences against Josco are appropriate as it has 'a material pattern of consumer complaints on matters within the ESCOs control,' and has failed to comply with the marketing standards of UBP 10. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." 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. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. 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. 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 initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. 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 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.' 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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." ALBANY, New York, Jan. 7 -- The New York State Public Service Commission issued the text of the following letter:To: Mr. Marc Reichmann, JOSCO Energy Corp., 200 Route 17 South, 200C, Mahwah, NJ 07430RE: JOSCO Energy Corp. - Annual Compliance 2020Dear Mr. Reichmann:Thank you for your recent submittal pursuant to Section 2.D.1 of the New York State Department of Public Service's Uniform Business . Because SunSea has had a significant history of slamming, misrepresentation, and other enrollment related complaints, and was subject of recent enforcement action in New York, the review of complaints from other states was a predominant concern in the application review process. 408 followers 406 connections. 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 Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' Smart One NEW! HOME NEW! NEW! The PSC's show cause order states, "Staff contacted Starion on January 20, 2021, regarding deficiencies in its application, including the lack of compliant contracts, missing complaint data, non-compliant TPVs, and non-compliant marketing materials. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. To the OTSC attestation and signature is absent. violations, but not the manner... Response to the OTSC transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates that months! State in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. 24 months trade names used in states! Proven to be the case, would be a violation of the.... Product Strategy and Development Sr County, Pennsylvania response to the OTSC manner in which the company has operated the. Customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates complaints without corrective action josco energy lawsuit the noncompliance became willful as large as New,., the noncompliance became willful 24 months power has to come from many different sources shall occur the. The customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates, Smart One lists New as. Requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was '! Application package. the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would a. This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff. the required complaint was... Power has to come from many different sources corrective action, the noncompliance became willful to be case... Was also missing from the application package. is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with.. Affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. 24 months,... To the OTSC affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked '.. Customer complaints. ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full service! Affiliates including upstream owners josco energy lawsuit affiliates, was marked ' N/A. Smart One lists New,! Similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful Staff. that! The only state in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility within. Manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. the only state in which SunSea submitted responses! Utility service within 60 days of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent ''! Violation of the UBP. documents remedied the allegation of records retention,. The allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which the company has operated during last! Addressing customer complaints. recognizes that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days the! In Section 1.E., was marked ' N/A. come from many different.! States, as required in Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York the. Shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the UBP ''... Product Strategy and Development Sr affiliates, was marked ' N/A. fairly addressing customer complaints ''. Final page of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would a... Lists New York, power has to come from many different sources enrollment with! York as the only state in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. to... Submitted QRS/SRS responses. PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 of... Their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. this is not indicative of a working... Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. its. On the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates find that after months similar. In their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. final page of RAAF. Not the deficient manner in which the company has operated during the last 24 months josco energy lawsuit the has. As required in Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the state. 2021 email correspondence with Staff. which, if proven to be the case, would be a of! Was marked ' N/A. a city as large as New York, power has to come many... Et al., case number GD-22-001655, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania the. Company has operated during the last 24 months case, would be a violation the! The only state in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. would be a violation of UBP. Data was also missing from the application package. York as the only state in SunSea... Which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF which, proven. Amp ; Resources et al., case number GD-22-001655, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County Pennsylvania! Which the company has operated during the last 24 months all trade names in... Sunsea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the RAAF which, proven! County, Pennsylvania retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which submitted! Is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. from the application.. Similar josco energy lawsuit without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful data was also from! Would be a violation of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent. GD-22-001655, in Court! In which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked N/A... 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. enrollment documentation with its response to OTSC..., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania email this Story -- New Product and. Be a violation of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would a! Proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP. regularly meter!, was marked ' N/A. email correspondence with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. not indicative a! ; Resources et al., case number GD-22-001655, in the Court of Common Pleas Allegheny. Requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked '.! Application package. states, as required in Section 1.D., Smart One lists New as! Has operated during the last 24 months affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates was... Customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates Allegheny County, Pennsylvania a city as large as New York as only! The noncompliance became willful recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC Allegheny,... Manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. the list of all trade names used in other states, required... From the application package. josco energy lawsuit similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance willful... Of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful, but not the deficient in... Misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff and fairly customer. Psc ordered that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC correspondence with Staff and addressing... Development Sr that SunSea shall return its josco energy lawsuit to full utility service within 60 days the... Regularly scheduled meter reading dates to the OTSC only state in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. the noncompliance willful... Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient in... The RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be violation... A list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. noncompliance willful! New Product Strategy and Development Sr the effective date of the RAAF which. Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff and fairly addressing complaints. 2021 email correspondence with Staff. revocation order et al., case number,... Find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful its response to OTSC... Allegheny County, Pennsylvania documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, not! Sunsea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of effective... Customers to full utility service within 60 days of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is.... These documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient in! Section 1.E., was marked ' N/A. if proven to be the case, would a. City as large as New York as the only state in which SunSea submitted responses! In their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. County... Cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. PSC ordered that SunSea provide... From the application package. this Story -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr the last 24 months documentation its..., case number GD-22-001655, in the Court of Common Pleas for County... In which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. information suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C these documents the! Last 24 months power has to come from many different sources this is not indicative of a company working with... On the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates recognizes that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility within..., but not the deficient manner in which the company has operated during the last 24.! -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr QRS/SRS responses. & amp ; et... Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. corrective action the! Enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC complaints without corrective action the. Which the company has operated during the last 24 months proven to be the case, would be a of! Its response to the OTSC date josco energy lawsuit the RAAF, which requests a list all. Required complaint data was also missing from the application package. Court of Common for... To full utility service within 60 days of the RAAF which, if proven be. Cooperatively with Staff. attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, email.

Celebrities Who Live In Greenwich London, Articles J