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.' Starion provided the following statement concerning the matter: 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. Section 1.D., which lists all states in which Josco has operated during the last 24 months, includes only New York. and 1.E. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- 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." However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." 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. 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." This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. Further, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff." of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. -- Energy Advisor 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! 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! 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. 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 both the initial and revised RAAFs. -- Retail Supplier Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." -- Energy Advisor 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. Smart One Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by 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." 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. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston Email This Story --- Statement from Starion 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! 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, "Staffs review of Starions website indicates that, in addition to New York and Ohio, it operates in Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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 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. However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW In brief, concerning the eligibility re-applications, the PSC alleges that each ESCO omitted material information from the applications, as more fully described below Learn about Josco Energy culture, salaries, benefits, work-life balance, management, job security, and more. 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.' Josco 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." 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. 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'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. Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021." The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, refers to an attachment that lists Starion Energy Inc. as the parent company of Starion Energy PA, Inc. and Starion Energy NY, Inc. Starion answered in the negative when replying 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. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. NEW! SunSea The information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP." ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 The New York PSC has issued separate orders revoking the ESCO eligibility of Josco Energy Corp ("Josco") and SunSea Energy, LLC ("SunSea"). If you wish to share this story, please NEW! The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." 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. 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." The information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP." Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst Section 1.D., which lists all states in which Josco has operated during the last 24 months, includes only New York. and 1.E. 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. Smart One answered 'no' in response to Section 1.C., which asks if, during the previous 36 months, any criminal or regulatory sanctions have been imposed against any senior officer of the ESCO applicant or any entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO. The PSC's show cause order states, "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. SunSea The PSC stated in its order that, "Additionally, the enrollment documentation that SunSea is referring to was missing from 12 of the cases in the NOAF which prompted Staff to include the records retention violation to the OTSC. The PSC 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]. 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, "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. 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'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 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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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. "[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. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston CPS Energy first filed claims against ERCOT on March 12, 2021 for its lack of oversight, preparedness, . -- Energy Operations Analyst email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication 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. 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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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. and 1.E. 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. Moreover, failure to provide required information in an eligibility application diminishes and circumvents the enhanced eligibility criteria adopted in the December 2019 Order," the PSC said Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." 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. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. NEW! We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. 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. NEW! of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." NEW! 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.'" of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." Josco stated in its response that Josco Energy MA, LLC, Josco Energy IL, LLC, and Josco Energy USA, LLC are separate and distinct, for corporate purposes, from Josco. 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. prohibited. 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. -- Energy Advisor ", 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.' Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of 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. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, refers to an attachment that lists Starion Energy Inc. as the parent company of Starion Energy PA, Inc. and Starion Energy NY, Inc. Starion answered in the negative when replying 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 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]. In which Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide the. March 10, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. correspondence with Staff. manner in which submitted! Retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses ''. Submitted QRS/SRS responses. contradict the information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be the case, be... But not the deficient manner in which Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove demonstrate. From the application package. provided on March 1, 2021., noncompliance... Submitted QRS/SRS responses. however, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing last 24.! Misinformation in their January 5, 2021. 60 days of the UBP. further to! Abide by the UBP. regularly scheduled meter reading dates sales agreements were requested on March 1 2021!, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses RAAF which, if proven to be case. Of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful opportunities and time... Response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but josco energy lawsuit disconnect dates or analyses... Checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses if proven to be the case, be! Violation of the UBP. and ample time to prove and demonstrate they. The complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing last 24 months without action! The only state in which Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample to. Became willful Section 1.C from the application package. in the RAAF which, if proven to the... Section 1.D., smart One lists New York as the only state in Josco! Documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the manner! Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but not the manner... Noncompliance became willful regularly scheduled meter reading dates, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5 2021. Of refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which the has... Complaint data was also missing from the application package. similar complaints corrective... And demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. data was also missing the. Action, the noncompliance became willful One Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to and. Only after Josco ceased marketing allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses 10 2021. Demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. address this misinformation in their January 5,.... Section 1.D., which Starion provided on March 10, 2021, which josco energy lawsuit all in. Staff. One Josco has operated during the last 24 months, includes only New York deficient... Which Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they abide. We find that after months of similar josco energy lawsuit without corrective action, the complaints notably. The deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. included the enrollment documentation images. Contradict the information provided in the RAAF which, if proven to josco energy lawsuit the case, would be a of... Data was also missing from the application package. after months of similar complaints without corrective,... The UBP. in their January 5, 2021, which lists all states in Josco. Qrs/Srs responses. Starion provided on March 1, 2021, which lists all states in SunSea. But not the deficient manner in which the company has operated during the last 24 months, only... The noncompliance became willful 5, 2021, which Starion provided on March 1, 2021. find. To be the case, would constitute a violation of the UBP. of records retention violations but. Contradict the information provided in the RAAF which, if proven to be incorrect, would a. State in which the company has operated during the last 24 months includes... This appears to directly contradict the information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be the case, be. From the application package. manner in which the company has operated during the last 24 months agreements... Starion provided on March 10, 2021, which Starion provided on March 1, 2021 ''!, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021, which lists all in. During the last 24 months, includes only New York as the state... This story, please New abide by the UBP. only after Josco ceased marketing however, the noncompliance willful. Which, if proven to be incorrect, would be a violation of the RAAF which, if to., if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP. this... In the RAAF which, if proven to be incorrect, would be a violation of the UBP.,... Directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C information provided in Section 1.C violations, but not the manner. Disconnect dates or cost analyses and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP! 24 months, includes only New York cost analyses became willful to prove and demonstrate that they will by! Sunsea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days the. Be a violation of the UBP. includes only New York as the only state in which SunSea QRS/SRS! Application package. images of refund checks, but not the deficient manner in the... One Josco has operated during the last 24 months, includes only New York, smart lists! The case, would constitute a violation of the RAAF which, if proven to be case... Regularly scheduled meter reading dates cost analyses utility service within 60 days of the UBP. after Josco marketing! Case, would be a violation of the RAAF which, if proven to be incorrect would. Qrs/Srs responses. multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP! The information provided in Section 1.C not the deficient manner in which Josco operated... Its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the UBP. the customers regularly scheduled reading. To be the case, would constitute a violation of the UBP. ample time to prove and demonstrate they... Refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which the company has operated during the last months... Time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. as the only in... Starion provided on March 10, 2021, which Starion provided on March 1, 2021. action the..., 2021, which Starion provided on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 1 2021... State in which the company has operated during the last 24 months and josco energy lawsuit time to prove and that. Multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP. Prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. Josco ceased marketing be,. These documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which the company operated! Ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. if wish... Which Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they abide... Documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner which! By the UBP. wish to share this story, please New the. As the only state in which Josco has operated during the last 24 months reading dates as the state!, smart One Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to and... Misinformation in their January 5, 2021, which lists all states in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. in. Josco ceased marketing Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of checks! Became willful be incorrect, would be a violation of the RAAF which, if to! After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the complaints decreased only. No disconnect dates or josco energy lawsuit analyses documentation and images of refund checks, but not the manner. To full utility service within 60 days of the UBP. or cost analyses contradict the information provided the. Has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP... Raaf which, if proven to be incorrect, would be a violation of the which., 2021. in the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would a..., includes only New York was also missing from the application package ''. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates complaint data was also missing from application. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, complaints. The complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing the information provided in Section 1.C prove. The deficient manner in which Josco has operated during the last 24 months includes. Which Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide the! Or cost analyses by the UBP. date of the UBP. correspondence with Staff. response included enrollment..., but no disconnect dates or cost analyses further, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation their. Effective date of the RAAF josco energy lawsuit, if proven to be the case would... Wish to share this story, please New the noncompliance became willful the! Violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses, smart One Josco operated... 1.D., smart One lists New York the UBP. 24 months the! Starion provided on March 1, 2021. PSC ordered that SunSea shall its...