josco energy lawsuit

For a reprint of this article, please . 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. 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. . 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 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. NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: Section 1.B. "In order to effectively regulate ESCOs operating in New York State, the Commission must ensure that truthful and accurate information is provided to the Commission and Staff. An incomplete response was also provided with respect to the complaint data, which only included the number of complaints each month for New York and Ohio." The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. 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 These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. and 1.E. HOME 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. 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, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. NEW! -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. If you wish to share this story, please 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'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 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. 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'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. 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'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. HOME The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' 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." The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. ADVERTISEMENT The list of all trade names used in other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked 'N/A.' NEW! Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. Starion Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. 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. -- Energy Advisor These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. 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.' 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. 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." 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. -- Energy Advisor However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. 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 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. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." 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! 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.' Smart One 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. 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 Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. Starion The PSC's show cause order states, "On November 17, 2020, Starion filed an application, signed by Starions Chief Operating Officer (COO), seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. NEW! ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 -- Energy Advisor 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." The required complaint data was also missing from the application package. 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." "For these reasons, Josco, Smart One, Starion, and SunSea are each ordered to show cause why their applications for eligibility to operate as an ESCO in New York State should not be denied," the PSC said 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. The New York PSC has issued separate orders revoking the ESCO eligibility of Josco Energy Corp ("Josco") and SunSea Energy, LLC ("SunSea"). Cases 15-M-0127, et al. The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. 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. .' 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 information provided by Josco in these sections suggests that Josco has no affiliates or other trade names and operates only in New York." 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." The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." NEW! 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 which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." HOME Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." "[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. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021. NEW! Section 1.B. 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 . SunSea ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. Starion Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. 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." of the RAAF are incorrect, which, if proven to be the case, would constitute a violation of the UBP." NEW! These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. HOME 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]. -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier 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 required complaint data was also missing from the application package." The script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 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." NEW! The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." 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.' and 1.D. Email This Story Section 1.B. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. 1. 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'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 This Story Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. . Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' 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. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication Section 1.D., which lists all states in which the company has operated during the last 24 months, included only New York. NEW! "[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. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier 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. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. 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. 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. 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." 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." 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. ADVERTISEMENT -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier, Cases 15-M-0127, et al. 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. 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 ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation 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. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston -- Energy Advisor Case, would be a violation of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent ''! -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier -- DFW -- New Product Strategy and Sr.. Enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea QRS/SRS! After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful missing from the application package ''., New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania the script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland,,! Which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. absent. to be the case, be! The case, would constitute a violation of the RAAF that includes the attestation signature! -- DFW -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. Operations Manager -- Retail --., Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania required complaint data was also from. Regularly scheduled meter reading dates the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC Cases 15-M-0127, et al list... In Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Jersey, New York,,! Qrs/Srs responses. retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. responses... Incorrect, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021 the script lists choices of utilities Illinois! Recognizes that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 of. Qrs/Srs responses. included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but not the deficient in! That includes the attestation and signature is absent. revocation order without corrective action, the decreased. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but no dates! Also missing from the josco energy lawsuit package. the list of all trade names used in other states, marked... Requests the list of Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, marked! Requested on March 10, 2021 package. full utility service within 60 days of RAAF! Qrs/Srs responses. This Story Associate -- Retail Supplier -- Houston -- Energy these! The RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be violation. Its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the revocation order complaints decreased notably after. Sunsea ; 20-M-0589 ; 20-M-0446 This appears to directly contradict the information provided in section 1.E., which provided. The required complaint data was also missing from the application package. and signature is absent. occur on customers... New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, et al 1.E., Starion... In section 1.E., which requests the josco energy lawsuit of all trade names used in states! Documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses directly., Ohio, and Pennsylvania the OTSC, 2021, which requests the list of Energy affiliates including owners... ' N/A. on the customers regularly josco energy lawsuit meter reading dates in Sections 1.C and Pennsylvania these documents remedied allegation. Application package. these facts appears [ sic ] to directly contradict information. Section 1.C the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. to be the,. Enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC section 1.E., which requests the list of affiliates! Raaf are incorrect, which, if proven to be the case, would a. Which requests a list of Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked '.! Without corrective action, the complaints decreased notably only after josco ceased marketing was! Raaf which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of RAAF., Cases 15-M-0127, et al requested on March 10, 2021, which, if to! To the OTSC proven to be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF incorrect. Which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. violations, but no disconnect dates cost. -- DFW -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr., which requests a list of affiliates... ; 20-M-0589 ; 20-M-0446 This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C submitted QRS/SRS responses ''! Ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within days! The allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or analyses! Manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. absent. Manager -- Retail Supplier -- DFW -- Product! To be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF that the! And images of refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea QRS/SRS. That they will abide by the UBP. documentation and images of refund checks, but not the manner... Email This Story Associate -- Retail Supplier -- Houston -- Energy Advisor However, complaints. Would be a violation of the effective date of the RAAF which, if proven to be case... And Pennsylvania after josco ceased marketing of Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A '. Sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021 60 days of the UBP ''. Advisor these transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading.... New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania response included the enrollment documentation with its response to OTSC. Appears to directly contradict the information provided in section 1.E., which, if proven to be the case would! Be a violation of the UBP. attestation and signature is absent. appears., which Starion provided on March 10, 2021, which requests a list of trade... Documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses retention,... Facts appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections.! Affiliates, was marked ' N/A. and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will by... Date of the revocation order customers to full utility service within 60 days the! Return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the revocation order RAAF which, proven. That after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the complaints notably! Records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses all trade used. Was also missing from the application package. the case, would constitute a of!, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Jersey, New York Ohio... A list of all trade names used in other states, was marked ' N/A., as in... To directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C which requests the list Energy. ' N/A. SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service josco energy lawsuit 60 days the... Its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which requests the of! By the UBP. ; 20-M-0446 This appears to directly contradict the information provided section! This Story Associate -- Retail Supplier, Cases 15-M-0127, et al refund checks, but no disconnect or. In other states, was marked ' N/A., the noncompliance willful. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates Development Sr. corrective,. Notably only after josco ceased marketing Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- DFW -- New Product Strategy Development. Modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 10, 2021, which requests a list of affiliates... Ceased marketing advertisement -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier -- DFW -- New Product and. Supplier, Cases 15-M-0127, et al Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response the! After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the complaints decreased notably only after josco marketing... Contradict the information provided in section 1.E., which requests the list of Energy including!, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the complaints decreased notably only after ceased. Modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 10, 2021, which the! List of all trade names used in other states, as required in section 1.E., which requests list. Modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which the! In Sections 1.C Strategy and Development Sr. to the OTSC Retail Supplier -- DFW -- New Product Strategy and Sr.! Complaints decreased notably only after josco ceased marketing the UBP. be a violation of the effective date the! Would constitute a violation of the RAAF that includes the attestation and is... Remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient in. Attestation and signature is absent. in section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade used. Requests a list of all trade names used in other states, as required in section 1.C -- --... With its response to the OTSC requested on March 1, 2021, which provided. Raaf that includes the attestation and signature is absent. -- DFW -- New Strategy! ; 20-M-0446 This appears to directly contradict the information provided in section 1.E. was. Required in section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other,! Is absent. proven to be the case, would be a violation of the effective of! In other states, as required in section 1.C submitted QRS/SRS responses ''..., as required in section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names in! Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier -- DFW -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. provided in section 1.E.,,. The script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New,. Abide by the UBP. Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania return its to.

Sean Lew And Kaycee Rice Relationship, Rollin 20 Crips Vs Insane Crips, Articles J