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." 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.' These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. That's what private electricity company Vistra seems to be alleging in litigation against Koch, one of its gas suppliers. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. Section 1.D., which lists all states in which the company has operated during the last 24 months, included only New York. Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. -- Energy Operations Analyst NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' Section 1.B. 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." Section 1.B. 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. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. 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. 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. 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.' "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. 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." 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, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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. 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. -- Energy Operations Analyst -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. Email This Story --- Statement from Starion Upload a resume PreviousNext Argentina Australia Belgi (Nederlands) Belgique (Franais) Brasil Canada (English) Canada (Franais) "Starion is in the process of reviewing the Public Service Commissions Order to Show Cause and will respond accordingly." NEW! NEW! 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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." I was already familiar with this place and realized that I would be doing door-to-door selling to convince people to change from Con Ed to Josco Energy. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' . 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. 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. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." ADVERTISEMENT The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." However, Josco failed to address the fact that the Vice President of Operations signed the RAAF attesting that the information was true, complete, and accurate. 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! In Section 1.E., Starion notes the other trade name used in other states is 'Starion Energy NY, Inc.' The information provided by Starion in these sections indicates that Starion has two affiliates, operates only in New York and Ohio, uses only the trade name 'Starion Energy NY, Inc.' 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. ADVERTISEMENT -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. 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 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." Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston NEW! 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." Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order Furthermore, SunSea has failed to comply with State laws related to sales or marketing as it continued to knowingly make unsolicited telemarketing sales calls during a declared State of Emergency." 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. However, Josco failed to address the fact that the Vice President of Operations signed the RAAF attesting that the information was true, complete, and accurate. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. 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. SunSea 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. 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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." SunSea 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.' This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication . -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' The information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP." -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston 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. -- Energy Operations Analyst In Section 1.E., Starion notes the other trade name used in other states is 'Starion Energy NY, Inc.' The information provided by Starion in these sections indicates that Starion has two affiliates, operates only in New York and Ohio, uses only the trade name 'Starion Energy NY, Inc.' 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. 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. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. Smart One answered 'no' in response to Section 1.C., which asks if, during the previous 36 months, any criminal or regulatory sanctions have been imposed against any senior officer of the ESCO applicant or any entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO. The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation 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 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." 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. 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." It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff]. 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. 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. Similarly, the required complaint data was not included with the application package documents. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses."