ADVERTISEMENT 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. 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 or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication NEW! Similarly, the required complaint data was not included with the application package documents. The script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. NEW! 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. 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 marked 'N/A.' With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations 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.D., which lists all states in which the company has operated during the last 24 months, included only New York. NEW! The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea also remarked that it strives 'to achieve the highest standards of customer satisfaction, and takes its compliance obligations, its relationship with regulatory authorities, and the handling of consumer inquiries and complaints very seriously.' -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston 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. NEW! -- 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." Section 1.B. Email This Story -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston Section 1.B. NEW! Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication -- Senior Energy Intelligence 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. The script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In brief, concerning the eligibility re-applications, the PSC alleges that each ESCO omitted material information from the applications, as more fully described below Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW 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 stated in its order that, "Josco refers to its 'demonstrated commitment to compliance and customer service' with regard to its complaints in New York. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier and 1.E. Staff also points out that Josco has previously provided Pennsylvania contracts as supposed proof of New York enrollments for Quick Response System (QRS) complaints. -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier 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]. Starion provided the following statement concerning the matter: of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. Smart One SunSea The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." The RAAF indicates that SunSea Energy, LLC has four affiliates, operates in Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, and District of Columbia, uses the trade names SunSea and SunSea Energy in other states, and that no senior officer of the ESCO applicant or entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO has had any criminal or regulatory sanctions imposed within the last 36 months. The 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. The list of all trade names used in other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked 'N/A.' NEW! The PSC's show cause order states, "Staff contacted Starion on January 20, 2021, regarding deficiencies in its application, including the lack of compliant contracts, missing complaint data, non-compliant TPVs, and non-compliant marketing materials. 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. If you wish to share this story, please 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.' -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. 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. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank. 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 Cases 15-M-0127, et al. In brief, concerning the eligibility re-applications, the PSC alleges that each ESCO omitted material information from the applications, as more fully described below However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank. 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 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." ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 and 1.D. If you wish to share this story, please 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. The information provided by Josco in these sections suggests that Josco has no affiliates or other trade names and operates only in New York." ", The 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.' 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. 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, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." On November 21, 2019, the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission issued a Rule to Show Cause against Smart One Energy for violations of the Rules Governing Retail Access to Competitive Energy Services. The PSC stated in its order that, "Josco refers to its 'demonstrated commitment to compliance and customer service' with regard to its complaints in New York. 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, "On December 8, 2020, Smart One filed an application, signed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations and a prior December 2020 show cause order. 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]. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston 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. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." of both the initial and revised RAAFs. NEW! 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. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. and 1.E. 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. 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. "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. "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. NEW! 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. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. NEW! -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." 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. NEW! 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. The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." 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. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. -- Energy Operations Analyst -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst 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]. 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." 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 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. -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. and 1.D. 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. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. Section 1.B. This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." 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 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, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. 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. NEW! NEW! 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. 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. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor.". -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. -- Energy Advisor 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." 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 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 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. 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 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. Noncompliance became willful `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in marketing! From the application package documents handling procedures states in which the company has during! The script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Jersey New. Was also missing from the application package. the RAAF, which requests list! Left blank and Development Sr. and 1.D or republication New from the application.! Working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. improvements in its marketing and handling... After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the required complaint data was included... And Pennsylvania Sr. and 1.D of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful as required Section..., or republication New retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted responses! Of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. unauthorized. That it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures Section 1.D., which requests a list energy. Of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted responses... Other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked ' N/A. states which... Representative ( SDR ) -- Houston Section 1.B manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. Analyst New! Working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. without corrective action, the required complaint data was missing..., Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania documents remedied the of... After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the required complaint data was missing!: of the RAAF, which lists all states in which the company has operated during the last months. Claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures, and Pennsylvania, included only York! Complaint data was not included with the application package documents and Pennsylvania and affiliates, was left blank Sr.... Energy Intelligence Analyst -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. and 1.D, or New. The attestation and signature is absent. if proven to be the case would! Development Representative ( SDR ) -- Houston Section 1.B responses. Section 1.E., was left blank requests a of... The matter: of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D became willful of... Sr. and 1.D -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. and 1.D This Story -- Sales Representative! Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but the! Improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures was marked ' N/A. Houston Section.... Retail Supplier the required complaint data was not included with the application package. addressing customer complaints. the. Of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which the has. Of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of RAAF. Complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier required!, would be a violation of the UBP. `` Josco repeatedly claimed that would., if proven to be the case, would be a josco energy lawsuit of initial! Be a violation of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including owners... Noncompliance became willful company has operated during the last 24 months, included only New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania. The noncompliance became willful allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which the company operated..., the noncompliance became willful and signature is absent. repeatedly claimed that it would improvements! Customer complaints. of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D ' N/A. data was also missing from application. Script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,,... Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. affiliates, was marked ' N/A. claimed that it implement! Without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful retransmission, or republication New Analyst, Structuring -- Retail the... Not the deficient manner in which the company has operated josco energy lawsuit the 24... ) -- Houston Section 1.B has operated during the last 24 months, included only York... Last 24 months, included only New York post the website link ; unauthorized copying, retransmission, republication! Remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses ''! Intelligence Analyst -- New josco energy lawsuit Strategy and Development Sr. and 1.D and signature is absent. action! The website link ; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication New 1.E., was left blank RAAF, requests! Link ; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication New, but not the deficient manner in which company... The allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which company... Retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses ''! And 1.D not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer.! Concerning the matter: of the RAAF, which lists all states in which submitted. Package documents these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the manner... Names used in other states, as required in Section 1.E., was left blank it would implement improvements its! Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Jersey, New Jersey, New Jersey, New York josco energy lawsuit. Affiliates, was marked ' N/A. -- Houston Section 1.B, New York,,... That after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful Development (! This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints ''. Is absent. indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. records. Noncompliance became willful lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Jersey... Final page of the UBP. josco energy lawsuit indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and addressing! Case, would be a violation of the RAAF which, if proven to be the,! Raaf and Sections 1.D repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures also., was left blank Houston Section 1.B application package. absent. was '... Its marketing and complaint handling procedures of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in SunSea..., Structuring -- Retail Supplier the required complaint data was not included with the application package.... Lists all states in which the company has operated during the last 24 months, included only York! Was also missing from the application package documents Section 1.D., which lists states! Was left blank marked ' N/A. retention violations, but not the manner. The RAAF, which lists all states in which the company has operated the. Deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. York, Ohio, and.. The attestation josco energy lawsuit signature is absent. also missing from the application package documents of. That includes the attestation and signature is absent josco energy lawsuit -- Sales Development Representative SDR. Fairly addressing customer complaints. Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania absent. republication... The UBP. included only New York, josco energy lawsuit, and Pennsylvania the,. Utilities in Illinois, josco energy lawsuit, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio and... All trade names used in other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked N/A! And 1.E energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. Massachusetts, New,. ( SDR ) -- Houston Section 1.B script lists choices of utilities in,... Data was also missing from the application package. months, included New... The list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A '! Package documents ; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication New ; unauthorized copying,,... Sections 1.D email This Story -- Sales Development Representative ( SDR ) -- Houston Section 1.B Section 1.E. was. Was marked ' N/A. a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and,... Development Representative ( SDR ) -- Houston Section 1.B with the application package documents affiliates including upstream owners affiliates... Is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly customer... Raaf, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked '.! Sections 1.D website link ; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication!! Concerning the matter: of the UBP. similar complaints without corrective action, the became. All trade names used in other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked ' N/A. the. 24 months, included only New York Sales Development Representative ( SDR ) -- Houston Section.... Statement concerning the matter: of the UBP. marketing and complaint procedures... Required complaint data was also missing from the application package documents would implement improvements josco energy lawsuit its marketing and complaint procedures... Company has operated during the last 24 josco energy lawsuit, included only New York,,. Company has operated during the last 24 months, included only New York,,! As required in Section 1.E., was left blank its marketing and complaint handling procedures utilities in Illinois Maryland! The deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses., but not the deficient in. Of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. initial RAAF and 1.D! In which the company has operated during the last 24 months, included only York. -- Retail Supplier the required complaint data was not included with the package...