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." of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." of both the initial and revised RAAFs. and 1.E. Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order ", "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. NEW! The PSC's show cause order states, "Staffs review of Starions website indicates that, in addition to New York and Ohio, it operates in Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." If you wish to share this story, please -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst NEW! 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. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Energy Advisor -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW ADVERTISEMENT .' 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 prohibited. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' Email This Story, These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 The list of all trade names used in other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked 'N/A.' 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.' of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. .' NEW! This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. 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. of both the initial and revised RAAFs. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." NEW! 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 Product Strategy and Development Sr. 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. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." Starion 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. Section 1.B. 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 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." Additionally, the Commission finds that SunSea engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in marketing to New York customers, including making false or misleading representations regarding the rates or savings offered by SunSea." Issues Show Cause Order To Two Other ESCOs Requiring Such ESCOs To Show Why Their New Applications For Continued ESCO Eligibility Should Not Be Denied 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. -- Retail Supplier 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]. SunSea 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. NEW! NEW! Section 1.B. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, refers to an Attachment that now lists Joscos affiliates as Josco Energy MA, LLC, Josco Energy IL, LLC, and Josco Energy USA, LLC. NEW! -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst -- Energy Operations Analyst Section 1.B. Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021. 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. ADVERTISEMENT 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, "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. 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: 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. 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. An incomplete response was also provided with respect to the complaint data, which only included the number of complaints each month for New York and Ohio." prohibited. NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: 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. 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. -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst 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. 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, "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. Starion -- Energy Advisor The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." "[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. SunSea .' 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. Section 1.B. HOME NEW! and 1.D. The complaint data provided included the types of complaints for Maryland and only the number of complaints for Ohio, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia." NEW! and 1.D. Section 1.B. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order 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. 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 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." 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 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. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. In the aftermath of an unprecedented winter storm that left millions of Texas residents without access to power for several days, one of the state's largest electricity retailer is facing a. This information suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C. 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. NEW! The lack of adequate responses to the QRS/SRS complaints from July 2019-November 2020 directly contradicts the statement regarding SunSeas handling of consumer inquiries and complaints. NEW! 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. NEW! Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." 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. Furthermore, SunSea has failed to comply with State laws related to sales or marketing as it continued to knowingly make unsolicited telemarketing sales calls during a declared State of Emergency." Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order NEW! New York PSC Revokes Eligibility Of Two ESCOs, Orders Return Of Customers To Default Service, Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. The PSC said that it found Sunsea's response to the 2020 show cause order "unconvincing" and stated in its new order that, " The Commission finds that SunSea has violated the consumer protection provisions of the UBP and moreover has not adequately remedied these violations in response to consumer complaints, Staffs investigation, nor the Commissions OTSC [order to show cause]. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston Additionally, the Commission finds that SunSea engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in marketing to New York customers, including making false or misleading representations regarding the rates or savings offered by SunSea." -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier 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." We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. NEW! Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. 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.' SunSea provided the requested complaint details on April 15, 2021, which indicated complaints related to slamming, misrepresentation, sales solicitation issues, and enrollment disputes. and 1.D. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." 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.' NEW! It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" --- Statement from Starion Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." NEW! 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 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." This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." NEW! The PSC stated in its order that, "Turning to the marketing provisions of the UBP, SunSea violated the UBP by failing to remove customers from its marketing database after the customers asked to no longer be called by SunSea. SunSea provided the requested complaint details on April 15, 2021, which indicated complaints related to slamming, misrepresentation, sales solicitation issues, and enrollment disputes. The information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP." 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 ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst 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. of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. 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. and 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. Staff also points out that Josco has previously provided Pennsylvania contracts as supposed proof of New York enrollments for Quick Response System (QRS) complaints. 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. 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. Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." 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. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston 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." These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier of both the initial and revised RAAFs. 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. Email This Story Gas-to-bitcoin flare mitigation company Crusoe Energy filed a lawsuit against the company Alkane Midstream on August 22, 2022. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication Section 1.B. That's what private electricity company Vistra seems to be alleging in litigation against Koch, one of its gas suppliers. 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 PSC's show cause order states, "On November 18, 2020, Josco filed an application, signed by the Vice President of Operations, seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW Cases 15-M-0127, et al. ADVERTISEMENT Josco energy is a Growth company you can start from the bottom and make your way to the top in no Time. If you wish to share this story, please 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. ESCOs wishing to continue to serve customers after the PSC's retail market reset order were required to file new applications for continued ESCO eligibility 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. Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021." ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 The lack of adequate responses to the QRS/SRS complaints from July 2019-November 2020 directly contradicts the statement regarding SunSeas handling of consumer inquiries and complaints. of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. 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. 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, 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. These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. 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." Email This Story -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier 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. -- Energy Advisor The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. 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." -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. NEW! Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. 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, "Josco refers to its 'demonstrated commitment to compliance and customer service' with regard to its complaints in New York. -- Retail Supplier If you wish to share this story, please 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. 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, "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. 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 also issued a separate order to show cause requiring Starion Energy NY, Inc. ("Starion") and Smart One Energy LLC ("Smart One") -- as well as Josco and SunSea -- to show cause why their eligibility applications for continued ESCO eligibility should not be denied. 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. 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. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston 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.'" 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. This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." ", "[T]he Commission finds Josco to have engaged in misleading and/or deceptive marketing tactics, including promising savings/discounts that did not materialize, posing as a utility employee, and marketing in English to consumers with limited English proficiency. The PSC 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 required complaint data was also missing from the application package." 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's show cause order states, "Staff notes that the answers indicating that Josco only operates in New York are contradicted by the Third Party Verification (TPV) script that was also submitted by Josco. 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 -- Retail Supplier HOME 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. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses.
Kim Kardashian: Hollywood Gabriel's Game Event,
Penfed Credit Card Limit Increase,
Mpow M30 Plus Manual,
Countries That Don't Eat Spicy Food,
Articles J
