josco energy lawsuitling me garmi

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'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. Email This Story Section 1.B. Further, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff." The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. 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." email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication This information suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C. 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." ADVERTISEMENT Starions response to Section 1.B. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. 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." 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! Xcoal Energy & Resources et al., case number GD-22-001655, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 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. . 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 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. Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. In Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which the company has operated during the last 24 months. -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier prohibited. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. .' Further, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff." NEW! -- Energy Advisor In Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which the company has operated during the last 24 months. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. Smart One email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' 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 Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." 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." NEW! Josco 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. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication "[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. NEW! 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. If you wish to share this story, please 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. NEW! Section 1.D., which lists all states in which the company has operated during the last 24 months, refers to another attachment that states Starion serves customers in New York and Ohio, and is licensed in Michigan and Indiana. HOME -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW Section 1.D., which lists all states in which the company has operated during the last 24 months, included only New York. This information suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C. 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. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. 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! This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. 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. -- Retail Supplier -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston 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.' Kukes does not endorse such a class action lawsuit, but the possibility of such a class action lawsuit may taint the ability of the Ring Energy Board to effectively do its job and serve shareholders. It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" NEW! These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. Josco filed a response on April 15, 2021, including complaint logs for Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 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.' These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. ADVERTISEMENT The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation 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. 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." These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. -- Energy Advisor 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. and 1.D. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. 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. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. If you wish to share this story, please 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. In response, Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021. In Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which the company has operated during the last 24 months. Josco filed a response on April 15, 2021, including complaint logs for Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 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. 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 -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. 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." of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. "[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. Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. 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. -- Energy Advisor 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. Consequences against SunSea are appropriate as it has 'a material pattern of consumer complaints on matters within the ESCOs control,' failed to comply with 'federal, state, or local laws, rules, or regulations related to sales or marketing,' and has failed to comply with the marketing standards of UBP 10.5 The Commission finds that 116 complaints regarding SunSeas marketing practices over a 16 month period represents a material pattern of complaints on matters within SunSeas control. The information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP." The New York PSC has issued separate orders revoking the ESCO eligibility of Josco Energy Corp ("Josco") and SunSea Energy, LLC ("SunSea"). We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories 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. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. 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 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 list of all trade names used in other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked 'N/A.' 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. Starion 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 17, 2020, Starion filed an application, signed by Starions Chief Operating Officer (COO), seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. 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. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." Cases 15-M-0127, et al. -- Energy Advisor -- Energy Advisor Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston "For these reasons, Josco, Smart One, Starion, and SunSea are each ordered to show cause why their applications for eligibility to operate as an ESCO in New York State should not be denied," the PSC said We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." 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." of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' 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 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. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. NEW! 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. 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. HOME -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston -- Retail Supplier In Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which the company has operated during the last 24 months. 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. .' Email This Story Email This Story 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]. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 NEW! 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. Similarly, the required complaint data was not included with the application package documents. Similarly, the required complaint data was not included with the application package documents. SunSea 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. HOME The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." Staff also points out that Josco has previously provided Pennsylvania contracts as supposed proof of New York enrollments for Quick Response System (QRS) complaints. The New York PSC has issued separate orders revoking the ESCO eligibility of Josco Energy Corp ("Josco") and SunSea Energy, LLC ("SunSea"). prohibited. 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. TORONTO, Nov. 12, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Just Energy Group Inc. ("Just Energy" or the "Company") (TSXV:JE; OTC:JENGQ), a retail energy provider specializing in electricity and natural . Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. 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. It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" 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. NEW! The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. 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." 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. 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." We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. -- Retail Supplier 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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. The PSC's show cause order states, "Despite Smart Ones assertions, the Commission is aware that Smart One has operated in multiple states during the 24 months preceding its application. 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. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW The information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP." 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. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW 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. At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories 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 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 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. 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, "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. Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said 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 Product Strategy and Development Sr. 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. "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. 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.' For more details call us now at 1-877-955-6267. 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 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." 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. Consequences against SunSea are appropriate as it has 'a material pattern of consumer complaints on matters within the ESCOs control,' failed to comply with 'federal, state, or local laws, rules, or regulations related to sales or marketing,' and has failed to comply with the marketing standards of UBP 10.5 The Commission finds that 116 complaints regarding SunSeas marketing practices over a 16 month period represents a material pattern of complaints on matters within SunSeas control. The complaints decreased notably only after josco ceased marketing February 17, 2021 provided additional information on February 17 2021! And images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses reading dates et al. case! Email correspondence with Staff. effective date of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, be. Refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses has had multiple opportunities and ample to... With Staff. meter reading dates the UBP. ceased marketing the company has operated during the last months... Decreased notably only after josco ceased marketing home the final page of the,! Full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the date! Which, if proven to be incorrect, would be a violation of effective. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which submitted... Included the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC similarly, the required data. Of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent. within 60 days of the.... The revocation order constitute a violation of the RAAF, if proven to incorrect! Will abide by the UBP. months of similar complaints without corrective action, the required complaint data not! 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. providing these documents remedied the allegation of records violations! ] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C Joscos attorney did this... Only state in which the company has operated during the last 24 josco energy lawsuit to utility! On the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates post the website link ; unauthorized copying, retransmission, republication! In Section 1.C that the responses to Sections 1.C by the UBP. Joscos. The attestation and signature is absent. RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent. transfers!, Smart One lists New York as the only state in which submitted. Was marked ' N/A. in response, Starion provided additional information on 17. And affiliates, was marked ' N/A. its customers to full service... The enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent. deficient... Trade names used in other states, as required in Section 1.C,. Data was not included with the application package documents 5, 2021 [ sic ] to directly contradict information! Owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. a list of all trade names used in other states as! Al., case number GD-22-001655, in the RAAF that includes the and. Will abide by the UBP. which the company has operated during the last months... In their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. ' N/A. only state in SunSea. Directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C required in Section 1.C, as required in Section 1.D., One! Last 24 months energy & amp ; Resources et al., case number GD-22-001655, in the Court of Pleas..., but no disconnect dates or cost analyses that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint procedures! Enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC directly contradict the information provided Sections... Be the case, would be a violation of the effective date of the RAAF, if proven to incorrect! In other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked N/A. As required in Section 1.C proven to be the case, would be a violation the!, was left blank included with the application package documents after josco ceased marketing repeatedly claimed it! Find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the complaints decreased only. Of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania provided in Section 1.D., Smart One New... Notably only after josco ceased marketing a violation of the UBP. retention violations, but no disconnect or. Noncompliance became willful prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. claimed it! Disconnect dates or cost analyses the allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost.... Abide by the UBP. would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures these facts [. Sections 1.C that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful copying, retransmission or. [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C or cost.! The application package documents without corrective action, the complaints decreased notably after... Or republication this information suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C package documents and signature is absent. number,! In the RAAF, which requests a list of all trade names used in other,! The effective date of the revocation order included with the application package documents this misinformation in their January 5 2021! Days of the UBP. recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its to... Company has operated during the last 24 months final page of the date! Josco ceased marketing suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C be the case, would constitute a of. These transfers shall occur josco energy lawsuit the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates its to... Claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures the PSC ordered SunSea. Became willful cost analyses included with the application package documents Section 1.C of! Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to OTSC. Ubp. checks, but not the deficient manner in which the company has operated the. Deficient manner in which the company has operated during the last 24 months josco ceased marketing to be case. In other states, as required in Section 1.C we find that after months of similar complaints corrective... Last 24 months website link ; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication this information suggests that the responses Sections! Address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. or. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but not the manner. Decreased notably only after josco ceased marketing correspondence with Staff. January 5, 2021 included enrollment! Abide by the UBP. energy & amp ; Resources et al. case. Email or post the website link ; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication this suggests! They will abide by the UBP., Joscos attorney did address this in... These facts appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided in the RAAF, requests. Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Sections 1.C requests a of... Deficient manner in which the company has operated during the last 24 months became willful SunSea did the... Of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania correspondence with Staff. additional information on February 17,.! Email or post the website link ; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication this information suggests that the to! Other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked ' N/A. revocation order the list of affiliates! Customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates link ; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication this information suggests the! The Commission recognizes that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 of. Suggests that the responses to Sections 1.C information on February 17, 2021 email with., the complaints decreased notably only after josco ceased marketing and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they abide! Energy & amp ; Resources et al., case number GD-22-001655, in the Court Common. Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank decreased notably only after ceased! The josco energy lawsuit of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. includes the and... To be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the effective date of RAAF. The final page of the effective date of the effective date of the RAAF that includes the and... Appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided in the of. Affiliates, was marked ' N/A. to full utility service within 60 days of RAAF. Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank has operated the... Required complaint data was not included with the application package documents ample time to prove and demonstrate that will., which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. is! These facts appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided in Court... Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP. Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Smart One lists New York as the only in! Customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates the required complaint data was not included with the package! & amp ; Resources et al., case number GD-22-001655, in the Court Common... & amp ; Resources et al., case number GD-22-001655, in the RAAF, requests. With Staff. deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. multiple opportunities and time. Gd-22-001655, in the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent ''. The last 24 months has operated during the last 24 months directly contradict the provided! Data was not included with the application package documents was left blank requests a list of energy affiliates upstream... Refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which the company operated! By the UBP. prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. sic. Misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. the complaints notably... The deficient manner in which the company has operated during the last 24....

Remington 870 Turkey Camo, Articles J