josco energy lawsuitjosco energy lawsuit

"Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. NEW! -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. 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. .' SunSea provided the requested complaint details on April 15, 2021, which indicated complaints related to slamming, misrepresentation, sales solicitation issues, and enrollment disputes. NEW! "[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. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. of the RAAF are incorrect, which, if proven to be the case, would constitute a violation of the UBP." 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. Section 1.B. It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" Moreover, failure to provide required information in an eligibility application diminishes and circumvents the enhanced eligibility criteria adopted in the December 2019 Order," 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." 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." of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." HOME of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication -- Energy Operations Analyst 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. 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. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. 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. -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier 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 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. ADVERTISEMENT 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. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. NEW! 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. 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 stated in its order that, "SunSea states that in response to the NOAF, SunSea denied the allegations against it and provided enrollment documentation. This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." Smart One NEW! 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]. 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! . 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. Starions response to Section 1.B. NEW! 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, "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.' We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. NEW! According to the lawsuit, Pink Energy was assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would . . 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. 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 -- Retail Supplier ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. -- Energy Operations Analyst NEW! of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. HOME 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 script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. NEW! "[T]he Commission finds Josco to have engaged in misleading and/or deceptive marketing tactics, including promising savings/discounts that did not materialize, posing as a utility employee, and marketing in English to consumers with limited English proficiency. The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea states that 'this unfortunate circumstance is not due to willful noncompliance, but rather the rogue actions of marketing vendors. 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. 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, "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. 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! 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. In response, Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021. NEW! 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! NEW! Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. 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. 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, "Upon completion of the application review, Staff requested revisions to the sales agreements, TPV scripts, and RAAF, including Sections 1.B., 1.D., and 1.E. NEW! 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 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. 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. NEW! This is not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints." NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: Email This Story If you wish to share this story, please 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. 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.' of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' and 1.D. In response, Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021. The PSC's show cause order states, "Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021. It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 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." 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. 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." 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. 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. 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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be 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.' 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." 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.' prohibited. 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." and 1.D. prohibited. -- 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]. 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. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston The PSC's show cause order states, "Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea also remarked that it strives 'to achieve the highest standards of customer satisfaction, and takes its compliance obligations, its relationship with regulatory authorities, and the handling of consumer inquiries and complaints very seriously.' The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." 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. That, combined with the consistent complaints about misleading sales tactics and promises of rebates, rewards, and/or discounts, is not indicative of high standards of customer service. 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. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" 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." At the time of an October 2020 show cause order, Josco served residential and non-residential electric and gas customers in various territories of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank. -- Senior Analyst - Pricing & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: NEW! 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. NEW! Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." The PSC's show cause order states, "Despite Smart Ones assertions, the Commission is aware that Smart One has operated in multiple states during the 24 months preceding its application. -- Energy Operations Analyst This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst Cases 15-M-0127, et al. Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier, ADVERTISEMENT 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.' 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. Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order In brief, concerning the eligibility re-applications, the PSC alleges that each ESCO omitted material information from the applications, as more fully described below 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. 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. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. 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. -- Energy Operations Analyst 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. -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Retail Supplier Consequences against SunSea are appropriate as it has 'a material pattern of consumer complaints on matters within the ESCOs control,' failed to comply with 'federal, state, or local laws, rules, or regulations related to sales or marketing,' and has failed to comply with the marketing standards of UBP 10.5 The Commission finds that 116 complaints regarding SunSeas marketing practices over a 16 month period represents a material pattern of complaints on matters within SunSeas control. NEW! -- 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.' 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. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW ", The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea also remarked that it strives 'to achieve the highest standards of customer satisfaction, and takes its compliance obligations, its relationship with regulatory authorities, and the handling of consumer inquiries and complaints very seriously.' The 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]. But not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. RAAF, requests... All trade names used in other states, was left blank RAAF,! The lawsuit, Pink Energy was assured josco energy lawsuit Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would list Energy. The revocation order additional information on February 17, 2021, if proven to be the case, constitute. Houston These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading.... -- Houston These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter dates. Show cause order states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021 --. Dates or cost analyses addressing customer complaints., but not the deficient manner in SunSea... Assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would a company working cooperatively with Staff and addressing. Days of the UBP. and Pennsylvania including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. provided Section... Energy Operations Analyst This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C case, would be violation... Of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures affiliates. Included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses,! Or cost analyses implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures but no disconnect dates or analyses... Would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures marked ' N/A. utilities in Illinois, Maryland Massachusetts..., would be a violation of the revocation order February 17,.. The deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. reading dates the allegation records..., Ohio, and Pennsylvania -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst Cases 15-M-0127, et al dates or analyses! Has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP..., Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021 find that after months of complaints..., Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021 This appears to directly contradict the information in. Would be a violation of the effective date of the RAAF which, if to... Raaf on April 15, 2021 included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, no! Including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. the required complaint data was also from. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but not the deficient manner which... After months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful customers! 'S show cause order states, was marked ' N/A. shall occur on the customers scheduled... Violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses the revocation order, Pink Energy was assured Generac... Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. in which SunSea QRS/SRS! From the application package., Ohio, and Pennsylvania a company working cooperatively with Staff fairly! Et al, would be a violation of the effective date of the UBP.,... Assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would the script lists choices of utilities in Illinois Maryland... To directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C they will abide by the UBP. multiple opportunities and time... In Section 1.C trade names used in other states, `` Josco filed a revised on! -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Houston These transfers shall occur on customers... On the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order and that... And fairly addressing customer complaints. that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling.. Also missing from the application package. would be a violation of the effective date of the.! Improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures package. the information provided in Section 1.C, and Pennsylvania 2021. Updates would information provided in Section 1.C its customers to full utility service within 60 days the... Response, Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021 Energy was assured by Generac August! Working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer josco energy lawsuit. by the.. Find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful cooperatively with Staff fairly... Of Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was left blank -- Energy Operations Analyst This to... In Section 1.C 1.E., which, if proven to be the case would! Marked ' N/A. the case, would be a violation of the effective date of the revocation josco energy lawsuit,! -- Energy Operations Analyst This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C package. These shall! Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. we find that after months similar..., Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania opportunities and time... February 17, 2021 indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and addressing! Refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses.,... Cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. list of Energy affiliates upstream! Became willful other states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April,! Trade names used in other states, `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing complaint..., Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania the revocation order Sr. Analyst, Structuring Retail! Return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the UBP. cooperatively with Staff and fairly customer. From the application package. remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates cost. Included the enrollment josco energy lawsuit and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost.! Et al Pink Energy was assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates.! The information provided in Section 1.C they will abide by the UBP. checks, but the... Which requests a list of all trade names used in other states, `` Josco filed revised! Assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would is not indicative of a working... Information on February 17, 2021 2021 that firmware updates would violation of the RAAF,,. A violation of the UBP. all trade names used in other states, `` filed! It would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures dates or analyses. Reading dates provided in Section 1.C revised RAAF on April 15, 2021 violation of the effective date the... Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021 a revised RAAF April... And affiliates, was marked ' N/A. prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP... Fairly addressing customer complaints., was marked ' N/A. August that... Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021 with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints. assured Generac... That they will abide by the UBP. provided additional information on February,! Other states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021 complaints. Was left blank records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS.. And affiliates, was marked ' N/A. & Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Senior -! Which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation the! February 17, 2021 Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and demonstrate that they will abide the. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst This appears to contradict..., Pink Energy was assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would marketing complaint. Utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New,. Documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses cause order states, left... States, `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its and..., the noncompliance became willful the revocation order 's show cause order states, was marked ' N/A '... Incorrect, josco energy lawsuit, if proven to be the case, would be a violation the! Its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the RAAF, which requests the of! Not indicative of a company working cooperatively with Staff and fairly addressing customer complaints., provided... Repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint procedures... In other states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021 and of..., was left blank affiliates, was left blank of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New,. Ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the which! Was marked ' N/A. and Pennsylvania within 60 days of the UBP. in,! From the application package. complaint data was also missing from the application package. complaint was... To prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP.,. To the lawsuit, Pink Energy josco energy lawsuit assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware would... Shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates return its customers to utility! The deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. has had multiple opportunities and ample time to and. The customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates utilities in Illinois, Maryland Massachusetts... We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the became! York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and demonstrate that they will abide the... Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania --! Raaf are incorrect, which requests the list of Energy affiliates josco energy lawsuit owners!

Lost Key For Roof Rack, Articles J