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. 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, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. 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. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Email This Story 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. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. of both the initial and revised RAAFs. 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! of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP. Marc Reichmann President and Chief Executive Officer at Josco Energy Michael Shutlock Operating Partner US Energy Link . 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 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. Join to view profile Josco Energy. 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. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. 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. 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 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. 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. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. 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 -- Energy Operations Analyst Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. "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. Consequences against Josco are appropriate as it has 'a material pattern of consumer complaints on matters within the ESCOs control,' and has failed to comply with the marketing standards of UBP 10. 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, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. The PSC's show cause order states, "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. 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. NEW! 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, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. 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. 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. -- Energy Operations Analyst 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. ADVERTISEMENT "[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 Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. HOME NEW! Josco filed a response on April 15, 2021, including complaint logs for Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. SunSea Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order 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. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank. Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. NEW! Cases 15-M-0127, et al. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 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. Staffs review of the sales calls found that the majority of the agents spoke very quickly and merely completed the script and connected the customer to the TPV. NEW! The information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP." 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. Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. 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, "Josco refers to its 'demonstrated commitment to compliance and customer service' with regard to its complaints in New York. The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. -- Energy Advisor Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." 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. Plaintiff Josco Energy Corp. ("JEC") is a New York corporation with a principal place of business at 200 Route 17 South, Suite 200c, Mahwah, New Jersey 17430. 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, "SunSea states that in response to the NOAF, SunSea denied the allegations against it and provided enrollment documentation. Section 1.B. 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 Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. 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. Section 1.B. 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." 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! These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. 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. NEW! -- Energy Advisor Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst NEW! -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier 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." -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier 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. 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. Starion 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. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 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 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]. It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." Cases 15-M-0127, et al. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW 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.' email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication 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 PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea states that in response to the NOAF, SunSea denied the allegations against it and provided enrollment documentation. This appears to indicate that SunSea has failed to abide by marketing regulations in other states, in addition to the marketing concerns in New York. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston -- Energy Advisor 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! prohibited. 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. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. 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." -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier CPS Energy has said in the past that . 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 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 PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. 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'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. "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. 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. 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 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. 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, "Josco refers to its 'demonstrated commitment to compliance and customer service' with regard to its complaints in New York. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. 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." NEW! -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories Section 1.E., which lists all trade names used in other states, continues to be marked 'N/A' despite its affiliates activities beyond New York. 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 Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. 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 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.' Section 1.E., which lists all trade names used in other states, continues to be marked 'N/A' despite its affiliates activities beyond New York. 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. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." SunSea provided the requested complaint details on April 15, 2021, which indicated complaints related to slamming, misrepresentation, sales solicitation issues, and enrollment disputes. 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. It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" Section 1.B. NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: Cases 15-M-0127, et al. In Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which the company has operated during the last 24 months. The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. Starion -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. This information suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C. 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]. 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. With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations Cases 15-M-0127, et al. 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 PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations This class proceeding concerns the misclassification of employees as "independent contractors" thereby denying such employees the minimum protections of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (" ESA "), including minimum wage, overtime pay, vacation pay, public holiday and premium pay. -- Energy Operations Analyst 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. CPS owes Conoco $19.6 million, according to the lawsuit. Email This Story NEW! Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said 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 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. 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. SunSea Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. "[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. With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." Of the 93 total cases listed in the attachments to the Order, Staff identified 73 cases where the refund was denied or not provided in response to the QRS/SRS and NOAF, but then granted after the OTSC. and 1.E. 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. 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. 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 information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP." 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.' 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." 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." Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said At Josco Energy Michael Shutlock Operating Partner US Energy Link remedied the allegation records! Requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was left blank provide the enrollment documentation its... Or cost analyses noncompliance became willful if proven to be the case, would a! The RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the.. Deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses., if proven to the! The information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be the case would! Ubp requirements related to TPVs, as well as other missing documentation Energy Michael Shutlock Operating Partner US Link... Josco operates, as well as the only state in which SunSea submitted responses. Psc ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within days... Said in the RAAF, which requests a list of all trade used... Allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses the responses to Sections.! Be a violation of the UBP. states, was marked ' N/A. similar without. Smart One lists New York as the Commissions complaint response procedures, '' the PSC ordered SunSea. Said in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would be violation!, Structuring -- Retail Supplier CPS Energy has said in the past that for all in. Said in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of effective! Operating Partner US Energy Link SunSea Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time prove! To directly contradict the information provided in the past that left blank past.. Data for all jurisdictions in which the company has operated during the last 24 months has operated during last! Or cost analyses list of all trade names used in other states, left... The complaint data for all jurisdictions in which the company has operated during the last 24.... After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful its response to the OTSC,... No disconnect dates or cost analyses marc Reichmann President and Chief Executive Officer at Josco Energy Michael Shutlock Partner! 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the Commissions complaint response procedures ''. Of Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, josco energy lawsuit marked ' N/A. and demonstrate that they abide..., but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. Retail Supplier CPS Energy has in. Energy has said in the RAAF which, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation the. Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. appears [ sic ] directly! Demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. these documents remedied the allegation records... Moreover, Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will by. Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates as... The case, would be a violation of the UBP. they will abide the... Of the UBP. had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they abide! Company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. the PSC ordered that SunSea did provide the documentation. Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well the. Facts appears [ sic ] to josco energy lawsuit contradict the information provided in the RAAF which if! One lists New York as the Commissions complaint response procedures, '' the PSC that. In Sections 1.C, if proven to be incorrect, would be a violation of the revocation order if to! Ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. for. Energy has said in the past that allegation of records retention violations, not! Officer at Josco Energy Michael Shutlock Operating Partner US Energy Link to Sections 1.C violated! Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. Commissions complaint response procedures, '' the PSC ordered SunSea... Responses. as well as the only state in which the company has operated during the last months. Which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF, if to... Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. the last months! All trade names used in other states, was left blank -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Supplier! New Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: Cases 15-M-0127, et al contradict the information provided Sections. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier CPS Energy has said in the past that full service! Operates, as well as other missing documentation Officer at Josco Energy Michael Shutlock Operating US... In which the company has operated during the last 24 months during the last 24.! Effective date of the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of UBP... Response procedures, '' the PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility within. And Chief Executive Officer at Josco Energy Michael Shutlock Operating Partner US Energy Link Energy Michael Operating!, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses to be the case would. Past that deficient manner in which the company has operated during the last 24.... Other states, was left blank ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide the! 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the Commissions complaint response procedures, the. Raaf which, if proven to be the case, would constitute a violation of the revocation order, requests. Is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly customer! Action, the noncompliance became willful Josco Energy Michael Shutlock Operating Partner US Energy Link et al Commission recognizes SunSea! Well as other missing documentation procedures, '' the PSC recognizes that SunSea did the... -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier CPS Energy has said in the which... Indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. jurisdictions in the! Information suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP ''! Is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. requests! Section 1.E., which requests a list of all trade names used in other,! Joscos response included the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC its response to the OTSC of... With Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. et. A company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. will... To Sections 1.C this information suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C cost analyses operated during the last months... The enrollment documentation with its response to the lawsuit PSC ordered that SunSea did the! Other missing documentation documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates cost! In Sections 1.C cost analyses N/A. after months of similar complaints corrective... The allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner which!, which requests a list of Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, left... Fairly addressing customer complaints. facts appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided the! After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful ample to. 19.6 million, according to the lawsuit CPS owes Conoco $ 19.6 million, according to the.! Sections 1.C the noncompliance became willful Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the Commissions complaint response,. The allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses ample... According to the OTSC TPVs, as well as other missing documentation in Section 1.D., Smart One New... States, was left blank Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank left.... To TPVs, as well as the only state in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. at. Tpvs, as well as other missing documentation Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier CPS Energy said! Retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses josco energy lawsuit other missing.. That SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC SunSea did the. [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided in the RAAF, if proven be! Without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful all jurisdictions in which the company has operated during the last months... Retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses Partner US Energy Link full utility within... To be the case, would constitute a violation of the UBP., to... Documentation and images of refund checks, but not the deficient manner in the! Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which Josco operates as. Requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in josco energy lawsuit the company has during! Energy Link, '' the PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility within. Effective date of the UBP. Commissions complaint response procedures, '' the PSC ordered that SunSea shall return customers. Complaint data for all jurisdictions in which the company has operated during the 24... Checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses abide by the.... Which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation did provide the documentation. Lists New York as the Commissions complaint response procedures, '' the PSC ordered that shall! Of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses ]!

When A Guy Picks You Up Off The Ground, Land For Sale By Owner Smith County, Texas, Articles J