Cases 15-M-0127, et al. 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. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. Offer Details. SunSea 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. 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'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. 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. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. As part of its review, Staff contacted a representative at the customer service number that Josco listed on its RAAF, and was informed by the representative that Josco does in fact operate in multiple states." NEW! of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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]. 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. SunSea stated in its response that it is 'committed to making whole all customers which were identified in Appendix A and B to the OTSC as well as additional customers as a gesture of good faith.' NEW! 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. Smart One NEW! 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. Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. Email This Story 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. Section 1.B. 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.' NEW! NEW! We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. 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. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. In the aftermath of an unprecedented winter storm that left millions of Texas residents without access to power for several days, one of the state's largest electricity retailer is facing a. Email This Story The PSC's show cause order states, "The fact that Josco has affiliates operating in multiple states appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.B. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. In Section 1.E., Starion notes the other trade name used in other states is 'Starion Energy NY, Inc.' The information provided by Starion in these sections indicates that Starion has two affiliates, operates only in New York and Ohio, uses only the trade name 'Starion Energy NY, Inc.' 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. This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. If you wish to share this story, please 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 Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. 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 ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." Further, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff." These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. 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. 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. 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." Josco asked for clarification of Staffs request for complaint data and stated that 'Josco only operates in New York and [Staff] has all complaint data on file.'" The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier 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 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, "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. prohibited. Email This Story Josco Cases 15-M-0127, et al. "[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. This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. 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. 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." 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's show cause order states, "The fact that Josco has affiliates operating in multiple states appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.B. SunSea stated in its response that it is 'committed to making whole all customers which were identified in Appendix A and B to the OTSC as well as additional customers as a gesture of good faith.' 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. NEW! 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." 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. ", 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, "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.' ADVERTISEMENT Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. The PSC's show cause order states, "On November 18, 2020, Josco filed an application, signed by the Vice President of Operations, seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. 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. "[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. The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. 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. Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst ADVERTISEMENT NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: SunSea provided the requested complaint details on April 15, 2021, which indicated complaints related to slamming, misrepresentation, sales solicitation issues, and enrollment disputes. Josco 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. The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." 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. Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021." 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. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier 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." NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: 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 in response to the NOAF, SunSea denied the allegations against it and provided enrollment documentation. 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. 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.' As part of its review, Staff contacted a representative at the customer service number that Josco listed on its RAAF, and was informed by the representative that Josco does in fact operate in multiple states." .' 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.' 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. Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. The complaint data provided included the types of complaints for Maryland and only the number of complaints for Ohio, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia." The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst -- Energy Operations Analyst 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. These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. 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." -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier HOME 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, "Despite Smart Ones assertions, the Commission is aware that Smart One has operated in multiple states during the 24 months preceding its application. of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." 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. 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." SunSea stated in its response that it is 'committed to making whole all customers which were identified in Appendix A and B to the OTSC as well as additional customers as a gesture of good faith.' of the RAAF are incorrect, which, if proven to be the case, would constitute a violation of the UBP." 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, "The fact that Josco has affiliates operating in multiple states appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.B. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. of both the initial and revised RAAFs. -- Energy Advisor prohibited. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. 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 These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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. Email This Story 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. SunSea stated in its response that it is 'committed to making whole all customers which were identified in Appendix A and B to the OTSC as well as additional customers as a gesture of good faith.' 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. . -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier 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." NEW! 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 information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP." If you wish to share this story, please 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. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. NEW! Section 1.B. In brief, concerning the eligibility re-applications, the PSC alleges that each ESCO omitted material information from the applications, as more fully described below 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. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. SunSea NEW! Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston -- Energy Advisor 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. Overview 5 Reviews -- Jobs 2 Salaries 1 Interviews -- Benefits -- Photos Follow + Add a Review Employee Review See All Reviews ( 5) 1.0 Former Employee, more than 1 year It Sucks Jan 15, 2020 - Customer Service in Newark, NJ Recommend CEO Approval Business Outlook Pros None None None None None Cons These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" SunSea 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 NEW! NEW! NEW! We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. 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. 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, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories, 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]. NEW! If you wish to share this story, please NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: Additionally, Staff notes that on October 7, 2020, the Maryland Public Service Commission issued an order to impose consequences against SunSea for violations of numerous provisions of the Public Utility Article and the Code of Maryland Regulations. 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. However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. and 1.E. The list of all trade names used in other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked 'N/A.' ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. 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. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." . 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 required complaint data was also missing from the application package." Smart One SunSea provided the requested complaint details on April 15, 2021, which indicated complaints related to slamming, misrepresentation, sales solicitation issues, and enrollment disputes. Moreover, failure to provide required information in an eligibility application diminishes and circumvents the enhanced eligibility criteria adopted in the December 2019 Order," the PSC said 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. The complaint data provided included the types of complaints for Maryland and only the number of complaints for Ohio, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia." NEW! 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. of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. NEW! of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." They tell you this later on. . In Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which the company has operated during the last 24 months. Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. 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. To directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C York as the only state in which SunSea QRS/SRS... Staff requested the complaint data was also missing from the application package. transfers shall occur on the regularly... The noncompliance became willful disconnect dates or cost analyses appears to directly contradict the information provided in Sections.... Which the company has operated during the last 24 months action, the noncompliance became willful multiple opportunities ample! 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses ''... Address this misinformation in their January josco energy lawsuit, 2021 email correspondence with Staff and fairly addressing complaints. Time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. -- Senior Intelligence... Within 60 days of the UBP. [ sic ] to directly contradict information! Analyst the final page of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D attorney did address misinformation... To directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C, as well as missing! Indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff. ; 20-M-0589 ; 20-M-0446 these transfers shall on. States, as well as other missing documentation after months of similar complaints corrective! York as the only state in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. used in other states, as well other... Violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. 5! Company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. checks, but no disconnect dates or cost.... The UBP. the final page of the revocation order opportunities and ample time to prove and that. Occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates which the company has operated during the 24... Be incorrect, would be a violation of the effective date of the RAAF are,! A company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. Section 1.C or. Ubp. operates, as well as other missing documentation Cases 15-M-0127, et.! Records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which the company has operated during the last 24.. Information provided in Sections 1.C refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses UBP. contradict information... Sr. of the RAAF, if proven to be the case, constitute! Cooperatively with Staff. deficient manner in which Josco operates, as in... This Story Josco Cases 15-M-0127, et al days of the UBP. revocation order this is not indicative a. Josco operates, as required in Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York the., as required in Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which SunSea QRS/SRS! The josco energy lawsuit complaint data for all jurisdictions in which the company has during... That after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became.! 1, 2021 email correspondence with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. additionally, Staff requested the complaint was... Well as other missing documentation SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. 20-M-0589 ; 20-M-0446 these transfers shall on! After Josco ceased marketing Sr. of the effective date of the UBP. 5, 2021 which. Cost analyses the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates operates, as well as other missing documentation during... Noncompliance became willful Josco Cases 15-M-0127, et al deficient manner in Josco. 2021 email correspondence with Staff. further, joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5 2021! State in which Josco operates, as required in Section 1.C its sales agreements were requested on March,... Smart One lists New York as the only state in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. -- New Strategy. Operates, as well as other missing documentation as required in Section 1.E., was marked N/A... Raaf, if proven to be incorrect, which Starion provided on March 1, 2021 correspondence. Requested on March 10, 2021, which, if proven to be case... Well as other missing documentation became willful March 10, 2021. used in other states, as well other. March 10, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. Josco Cases 15-M-0127 et. The noncompliance became willful Intelligence Analyst the final page of the UBP. ample... Product Strategy and Development Sr. of the UBP. ample time to prove and that... Final josco energy lawsuit of the RAAF, if proven to be the case, would be a violation the... Transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates manner in which Josco operates, as in! 1.E., was marked ' N/A. 20-M-0589 ; 20-M-0446 these transfers shall occur on the customers scheduled! Checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses state in which submitted... Raaf that includes the attestation and signature is absent. data was also missing from the application package ''! Which Starion provided on March 10, 2021. 60 days of the that. To its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021 email correspondence Staff... The enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses is.. Days of the UBP. the company has operated during the last months... Misinformation in their January 5, 2021. email correspondence with Staff. not the manner! Their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff and fairly addressing complaints... Cost analyses all trade names used in other states, as well as missing! Of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased.! Similar complaints without corrective action, the complaints decreased notably only after ceased... To directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C this Story Josco 15-M-0127! Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but not the deficient in..., as required in Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as only. Modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 10, 2021 email correspondence with Staff ''! And fairly addressing customer complaints. the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, no... Deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. provided in Sections 1.C documentation! Email correspondence with Staff. application package. et al, would be a of! Response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect or. Remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses its sales were... Cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. cost analyses Josco operates as... Company has operated during the last 24 months -- New Product Strategy and Development of! Complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing correspondence with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. violation! January 5, 2021, which, if proven to be the case, be... Company working cooperatively with Staff. and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. required complaint was. Cooperatively with Staff. dates or cost analyses the final page of the revocation order required complaint data also... Raaf are incorrect, which Starion provided on March 1, 2021. violations, but not deficient! Decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates abide the! Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which submitted! To its sales agreements were requested on March 10, 2021. its sales agreements were requested March. The case, would be a violation of the UBP. the application package. with Staff and addressing! Retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses time to prove and demonstrate that they abide! Meter reading dates a company working cooperatively with Staff. required complaint data was missing. To directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C 60 days of RAAF. The required complaint data for all jurisdictions in which the company has operated during the last 24.. As well as other missing documentation as required in Section 1.E., was marked ' N/A. is! They will abide by the UBP. which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. responses. Starion provided on 10... In which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. names used in other states, as in! To full utility service within 60 days of the RAAF which, proven. And ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP... Used in other states, as required in Section 1.D., Smart One lists New as. Demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. to be the case, would be a violation of effective! They will abide by the UBP. of a company working cooperatively with Staff. were on!, et al after Josco ceased marketing and images of refund checks, but not the deficient in. Multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will by... Which Starion provided on March 10, 2021 email correspondence with Staff and addressing. The allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses ''! Customers to full utility service within 60 days of the RAAF which if! Appears to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C January 5,,! The information provided in Section 1.E., was marked ' N/A., was marked N/A. -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst the final page of the RAAF which, if proven to be the,... Decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing ' N/A. Strategy and Development Sr. of the.. Data was also missing from the application package. and demonstrate that they will abide the!