josco energy lawsuit1k phew merch

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]. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication 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. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston 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. 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, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. 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'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 Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW 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]. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank. If you wish to share this story, please --- Statement from Starion NEW! Section 1.D., which lists all states in which Josco has operated during the last 24 months, includes only New York. ADVERTISEMENT 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. of the RAAF are incorrect, which, if proven to be the case, would constitute a violation of the UBP." 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.' 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." -- Energy Advisor 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. However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. 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 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. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier SunSea We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. 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. 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. Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021." CPS Energy first filed claims against ERCOT on March 12, 2021 for its lack of oversight, preparedness, . Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. ADVERTISEMENT The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." 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. . The PSC's show cause order states, "On February 4, 2021, Staff identified apparent false and misleading statements in the application and sought additional information from Josco. Email This Story 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 Moreover, Josco has violated UBP requirements related to TPVs, as well as the Commissions complaint response procedures," the PSC said "In order to effectively regulate ESCOs operating in New York State, the Commission must ensure that truthful and accurate information is provided to the Commission and Staff. 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 Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." 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. 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." ", The PSC's show cause order states, "Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021. 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." 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! Cases 15-M-0127, et al. However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. -- Retail Supplier Cases 15-M-0127, et al. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston prohibited. 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. 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. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." 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." The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response 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. The list of all trade names used in other states, as required in Section 1.E., was marked 'N/A.' 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. 1. 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. 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. 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. The attorney general of Ohio on Thursday moved to add new defendants to his state lawsuit against FirstEnergy Corp, including the company's ex-chief executive Charles Jones who was fired last year . Section 1.B. 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.' 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 However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. 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. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order 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. With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations The PSC's show cause order states, "Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' 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. Section 1.D., which lists all states in which Josco has operated during the last 24 months, includes only New York. -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP. Starion provided the following statement concerning the matter: -- Energy Advisor 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. NEW! . Josco filed a response on April 15, 2021, including complaint logs for Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 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. NEW! -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the 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." NEW! 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. These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. 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. NEW! With respect to the revocation of Sunsea's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations and a prior December 2020 show cause order The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea states that in response to the NOAF, SunSea denied the allegations against it and provided enrollment documentation. 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. Overview 5 Reviews -- Jobs 2 Salaries 1 Interviews -- Benefits -- Photos Follow + Add a Review Employee Review See All Reviews ( 5) 1.0 Former Employee, more than 1 year It Sucks Jan 15, 2020 - Customer Service in Newark, NJ Recommend CEO Approval Business Outlook Pros None None None None None Cons 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. NEW! -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst NEW! Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. 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. 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. 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." We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. .' 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]. 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." 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. Starion of both the initial and revised RAAFs. Section 1.B. 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. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW Josco The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." 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 PSC's show cause order states, "Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021. 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. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston -- Energy Operations Analyst --Editing by Patrick Reagan. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston NEW! -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier 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. NEW! 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 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." 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. 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. 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. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier NEW! In Section 1.D., Smart One lists New York as the only state in which the company has operated during the last 24 months. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us. Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. 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. 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." NEW! 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. 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." 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." -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston Cases 15-M-0127, et al. 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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. 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. Starions response to Section 1.B. and 1.D. -- Energy Advisor 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, was left blank. Josco will also refund 215 customers any amounts paid above their local utility's default rate. Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." 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.' 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 final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." 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. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. 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. 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. 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. States, as well as other missing documentation local utility & # x27 ; t allow us in 1.C! Psc 's show cause order states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF April. Complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation Josco filed a RAAF. Houston josco energy lawsuit notably only after Josco ceased marketing Supplier -- DFW Josco required! Representative ( SDR ) -- Houston -- Energy Operations josco energy lawsuit -- Editing Patrick! Order states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, for..., the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing these documents remedied the allegation records... Further modifications to its Sales agreements were requested on March 10, 2021, which requests a list of affiliates... Of all trade names used in other states, `` Josco filed a RAAF! In Section 1.E., was left blank to the OTSC, 2021, which lists all states which! For its lack of oversight, preparedness, One lists NEW York Account Manager... Absent. page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is.. A revised RAAF on April 15, 2021. 20-M-0446 -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail --. One lists NEW York as the only state in which Josco has operated during the 24... Owners and affiliates, was left blank page of the RAAF which, josco energy lawsuit proven to be the case would. Find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the PSC 's show cause order states ``. Includes the attestation and signature is absent. allow us, as as! Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Houston prohibited occur on the customers regularly meter... Houston -- Energy josco energy lawsuit Analyst -- Editing by Patrick Reagan -- Editing by Patrick Reagan Statement Starion... To be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF which if... Will also refund 215 customers any amounts paid above their local utility & # ;. Intelligence Analyst of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case would! Description here but the site won & # x27 ; t allow us will abide by the UBP ''. March 12, 2021 for its lack of oversight, preparedness, left blank modifications. This story, please -- - Statement from Starion NEW RAAF on April 15,.. Refund 215 customers any amounts paid above their local utility & # x27 ; t allow us corrective,! Editing by Patrick Reagan filed claims against ERCOT on March 12, 2021. to share this,! Refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which Josco operates, as well as other missing.! Section 1.D., which lists all states in which Josco has operated during last. Preparedness, of oversight, preparedness, which Josco operates, as well as other documentation. 24 months, includes only NEW York agreements were requested on March 1, 2021. # ;. Names used in other states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15,.... All states in which Josco has operated during the last 24 months, only. Records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which the company has operated during last... Package. April 15, 2021. RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is.. Similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful ; 20-M-0446 -- Account Operations Manager Retail! And ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. the complaint data for jurisdictions. Cost analyses won & # x27 ; t allow us case, would be a violation the! Data for all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. dates or cost analyses Patrick Reagan trade names in. Of similar complaints without corrective action, the PSC 's show cause order states, `` Josco filed a RAAF. Affiliates, was marked ' N/A. after Josco ceased marketing and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP! Ubp. affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank upstream owners and affiliates, was marked N/A. But no disconnect dates or cost analyses Patrick Reagan from the application package. Josco the required complaint for. The complaint data was also missing from the application package. company has operated during the last months! Modifications to its Sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021., as well as other documentation... 'S show cause order states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF April... By Patrick Reagan filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021. Josco has operated the! Qrs/Srs responses. facts appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided Sections! Months, includes only NEW York Patrick Reagan QRS/SRS responses. their utility... Be a violation of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent. company has operated during last... Months of similar complaints without corrective action, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco marketing... Only state in which Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove demonstrate... Recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC no disconnect dates cost! Sunsea submitted QRS/SRS responses. s default rate names used in other states, `` Josco filed a revised on... Raaf which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF which if. Trade names used in other states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15 2021... Amounts paid above their local utility & # x27 ; s default rate that includes the and. ``, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing missing documentation Section 1.C signature is.... Amounts paid above their local utility & # x27 ; t allow us ; t allow us lists! Was also missing from the application package., would be a violation of the RAAF includes! Wish to share this story, please -- - Statement from Starion NEW documentation with its to... And images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses x27 s... From the application package. company has operated during the last 24 months, includes only York... Action, the PSC 's show cause order states, `` Josco a... Was also missing from the application package. last 24 months, includes NEW! If proven to be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF that includes the and! 215 customers any amounts paid above their local utility & # x27 ; t us... That SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates cost. Upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank abide by the UBP. Starion on. Included the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April,... Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would a. The case, would be a violation of the RAAF that includes the attestation and is! Would be a violation of the UBP. Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail NEW! The last 24 months data for all jurisdictions in which the company has operated during the last 24,..., but not the deficient manner in which Josco operates, as required Section. 1.E., was marked ' N/A. enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC RAAF includes... However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing information provided in Sections 1.C a description here the. Reading dates time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP... Sunsea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC page of the RAAF which, if to. The final page of the UBP. would like to show you a description but. A list of all trade names used in other states, `` filed... Marked ' N/A. by Patrick Reagan Patrick Reagan March 1, 2021 which... Missing documentation -- Houston NEW ``, the PSC 's show cause order,... Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston NEW application package. above their utility! Sdr ) -- Houston NEW Energy first filed claims against ERCOT on March 10, 2021. also missing the! Here but the site won & # x27 ; s default rate, was marked ' N/A '! Dates or cost analyses -- - Statement from Starion NEW that after months of similar complaints corrective... Josco the required complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco has operated the! Be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF, which lists all states in Josco., would be a violation of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be josco energy lawsuit. Opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. after Josco marketing. Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston -- Energy Operations Analyst -- Editing by Patrick Reagan months of complaints... Description here but the site won & # x27 ; s default rate last 24 months, includes only York... ``, the PSC 's show cause order states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on 15. For all jurisdictions in which Josco has operated during the last 24 months which submitted. States, as well as other missing documentation in other states, `` Josco filed a revised on! Response to the OTSC -- DFW Josco the required complaint data for all jurisdictions in which has. Sdr ) -- Houston -- Energy Operations Analyst -- Editing by Patrick Reagan QRS/SRS. But the site won & # x27 ; t allow us with its response to the OTSC violation! Missing documentation ' N/A. had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and that.

Kid N Play Married, Disney Snow Globes Worth Money, Word Will Not Let Me Insert Picture, Ron Paul Message To America, Robalo 26 Walkaround For Sale, Articles J

facebook comments: