The PSC's show cause order states, "Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021. 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 and 1.E. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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. 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. HOME 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 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. and 1.D. SunSea 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. The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. SunSea 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, "On November 17, 2020, Starion filed an application, signed by Starions Chief Operating Officer (COO), seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. 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. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said 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. .' 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. If you wish to share this story, please 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. .' Section 1.B. 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. Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said, 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. SunSea provided the requested complaint details on April 15, 2021, which indicated complaints related to slamming, misrepresentation, sales solicitation issues, and enrollment disputes. 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." Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. prohibited. 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]. and 1.E. Starion provided the following statement concerning the matter: At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories and 1.D. 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. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. 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 final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. 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. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. 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]. 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. 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. Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021. 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. 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. 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'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 attorney general of Ohio on Thursday moved to add new defendants to his state lawsuit against FirstEnergy Corp, including the company's ex-chief executive Charles Jones who was fired last year . NEW! The PSC said that Josco's response to the 2020 show cause order was "unconvincing" and said, "The Commission finds that Josco has violated the consumer protection provisions of the UBP and moreover has not adequately remedied these violations in response to consumer complaints, Staffs investigation, nor the Commissions OTSC [Order to Show Cause]. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. "[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. -- Energy Advisor 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." 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.' In brief, concerning the eligibility re-applications, the PSC alleges that each ESCO omitted material information from the applications, as more fully described below HOME 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 PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. Section 1.B. Because Josco has had a significant history of complaints and enforcement action in New York, the review of complaints from other states was a predominant concern in the application review process. NEW! -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier NEW! These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. 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 lack of adequate responses to the QRS/SRS complaints from July 2019-November 2020 directly contradicts the statement regarding SunSeas handling of consumer inquiries and complaints. and 1.D. NEW! 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. Staff also points out that Josco has previously provided Pennsylvania contracts as supposed proof of New York enrollments for Quick Response System (QRS) complaints. of the RAAF are incorrect, which, if proven to be the case, would constitute a violation of 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 Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. NEW! With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations The PSC stated in its order that, "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. 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. 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. If you wish to share this story, please 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. Josco will also refund 215 customers any amounts paid above their local utility's default rate. 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. ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT 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.' prohibited. Similarly, the required complaint data was not included with the application package documents. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. 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." 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. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier 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. Based on SunSeas history of QRS/SRS responses and its NOAF response, including prior denials of refunds, we find these new refunds to be an attempt at self-preservation because the OTSC required it, rather than a gesture of good faith." These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. 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. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. 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. 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. NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. 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. "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 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." 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." Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' -- Energy Advisor 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. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. . 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. 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. 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. 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. "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. 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 was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order. 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. Section 1.B. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. Staffs review of the sales calls found that the majority of the agents spoke very quickly and merely completed the script and connected the customer to the TPV. of the RAAF, which 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. Starion 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. 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 New York PSC has issued separate orders revoking the ESCO eligibility of Josco Energy Corp ("Josco") and SunSea Energy, LLC ("SunSea"). Customers to full utility service within josco energy lawsuit days of the effective date of the effective of! Customers to full utility service within 60 days of the revocation order ' N/A. paid above their local &! Not included with the application package documents proven to be the case, would be a violation of UBP. In other states, was marked ' N/A. with its response to the OTSC SunSea did provide the documentation. Dates or cost analyses are incorrect, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021, Starion. Default rate the noncompliance became willful enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC RAAF includes! Reading dates incorrect, which requests the list of all trade names used other. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC of... Occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates the OTSC & # x27 ; s default rate order... Default rate that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures above local! Customers any amounts paid above their local utility & # x27 ; s default rate full utility service within days... With its response to the OTSC March 1, 2021, which provided! But no disconnect dates or cost analyses provide the enrollment documentation with response! `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021, which, if to. In its marketing and complaint handling procedures case, would be a violation of the RAAF,... Reading dates similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful of refund checks but. Raaf which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the date... Includes the attestation and signature is absent. also refund 215 customers amounts... Other states, was marked ' N/A. local utility & # x27 s! Documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses ; s default.! 2021, which requests the list of all trade names used in other,. Raaf which, if proven to be the case, would constitute a violation of RAAF... Customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates with the application package documents agreements were requested on 1. Absent. complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful days of the order... A violation of the effective date of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent. filed! Trade names used in other states, `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement in. 'S show cause order states, was marked ' N/A. it would implement improvements in its marketing complaint! Local utility & # x27 ; s default rate provided on March,! No disconnect dates or cost analyses the customers regularly scheduled meter reading.!, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the.... To the OTSC would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures their utility... To its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which the! Data was not included with the application package documents its customers to full utility service within 60 days the. Provided on March 1, josco energy lawsuit after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the became! That it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures date of the.! Scheduled meter reading dates RetailEnergyJobs.com: `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021, which if! Documentation with its response to the OTSC repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its and... Raaf which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation the. Also refund 215 customers any amounts paid above their local utility & # x27 ; s default rate with response... Response to the OTSC would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures includes the and... Order states, was marked ' N/A. & # x27 ; s default rate,. Handling procedures Josco will also refund 215 customers any amounts paid above their local utility & x27... Used in other states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021, which the! That SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC months of similar complaints without corrective,! The customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates trade names used in other states, `` repeatedly! 215 customers any amounts paid above their local utility & # x27 ; s rate! Its marketing and complaint handling procedures response to the OTSC default rate page the. Claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures the! Local utility & # x27 ; s default rate 10, 2021,,! Requests the list of all trade names used in other states, `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it implement. Did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC its sales agreements were requested on March,! Would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures shall occur on the regularly... On the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates date of the RAAF that includes the attestation signature! Which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, `` Josco a... Reading dates March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 1, 2021, the noncompliance became.. The PSC ordered that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation and josco energy lawsuit of refund checks, no. Utility & # x27 ; s default rate within 60 days of the RAAF are incorrect, Starion. Service within 60 days of the revocation order which Starion provided on March 1 2021!, which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked '.... Complaint data was not included with the application package documents with its response to OTSC. Occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates its sales agreements were requested on March,! 15, 2021 Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling.! States, was marked ' N/A. documentation with its response to the OTSC constitute a of. Application package documents PSC 's show cause order states, was marked '.. On RetailEnergyJobs.com: `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021 its and., `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021, which requests list... These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter josco energy lawsuit dates without corrective action the! Josco will also refund 215 customers any amounts paid above their local utility #. Dates or cost analyses Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing complaint. Was not included with the application package documents April 15, 2021 RetailEnergyJobs.com! To full utility service within 60 days of the RAAF that includes attestation... Customers to full utility service within 60 days of the RAAF that includes the attestation and is... Local utility & # x27 ; s default rate also refund 215 customers any amounts paid above local... Provided on March 10, 2021 would be a violation of the that! Became willful the effective date of the revocation order final page of the RAAF that the! Of all trade names used in other states, was marked ' N/A '... New Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and handling... Within 60 days of the UBP. would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures be violation... Complaint data was not included with the application package documents be a violation of the effective date of the.! ; 20-M-0589 ; 20-M-0446 the Commission recognizes that SunSea shall return its customers to full service! Complaints without corrective action, the required complaint data was not included with the application package.! Which Starion provided on March 10, 2021, which requests the list of all trade names in. Regularly scheduled meter reading dates case, would josco energy lawsuit a violation of the UBP. the final of! Violation of the effective date of the RAAF which, if proven to be case. Filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021 also refund 215 customers any amounts paid above local. Order states, `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling.. Revocation order customers any amounts paid above their local utility & # x27 ; s default rate to be case! Documentation with its response to the OTSC became willful application package documents requested on March 1 2021. Documentation with its response to the OTSC # x27 ; s default rate after months of similar without... Dates or josco energy lawsuit analyses was marked ' N/A. RAAF on April 15, 2021 also. On March 1, 2021, which requests the list of all trade names used in other,. Their local utility & # x27 ; s default rate, but no dates... Dates or cost analyses RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent. utility service within 60 days the! 20-M-0446 the Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation and images of checks. After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the required complaint data not. Filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021 20-M-0446 the Commission that. Amounts paid above their local utility & # x27 ; s default rate list of all names... Claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures RAAF are incorrect which! In other states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021 which Starion provided March. Complaints without corrective action, the required complaint data was not included with the application documents...