of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' 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. 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 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. 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. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW 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]. NEW! -- Retail Supplier 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. Smart One NEW! 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. ADVERTISEMENT 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. .' 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. 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. Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. 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. 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." 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. Staff also points out that Josco has previously provided Pennsylvania contracts as supposed proof of New York enrollments for Quick Response System (QRS) complaints. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 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, "Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021. 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. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. Similarly, the required complaint data was not included with the application package documents. 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 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. prohibited. NEW! . 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. 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. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. 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. 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. ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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 repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. 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. Email This Story -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. 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 revisions to the sales agreements, TPV scripts, the complaint data from all jurisdictions in which Smart One operates, and other missing documentation. 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 These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Josco stated in its response that Josco Energy MA, LLC, Josco Energy IL, LLC, and Josco Energy USA, LLC are separate and distinct, for corporate purposes, from Josco. The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. The PSC stated in its order that, "Josco refers to its 'demonstrated commitment to compliance and customer service' with regard to its complaints in New York. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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. 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. NEW! of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, refers to an attachment that lists Starion Energy Inc. as the parent company of Starion Energy PA, Inc. and Starion Energy NY, Inc. Starion answered in the negative when replying to Section 1.C., which asks if, during the previous 36 months, any criminal or regulatory sanctions have been imposed against any senior officer of the ESCO applicant or any entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO. NEW! NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: 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." Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. 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." -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. SunSea 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. With respect to the revocation of Josco's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." -- Energy Operations Analyst 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. A bogus solar-power firm, Matinee Energy, that operated in Tucson and Benson, Arizona from 2010 to 2012 was ordered to pay more than $3 million to its victims in a recent federal court ruling. 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. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication 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." -- Energy Operations Analyst of both the initial and revised RAAFs. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." Section 1.B. Section 1.B. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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 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'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! ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 These facts appears [sic] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C. 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 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.' NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: Cases 15-M-0127, et al. HOME According to the lawsuit, Pink Energy was assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would . Cases 15-M-0127, et al. HOME The PSC's show cause order states, "Staff contacted Starion on January 20, 2021, regarding deficiencies in its application, including the lack of compliant contracts, missing complaint data, non-compliant TPVs, and non-compliant marketing materials. Further, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff." Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. 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 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]. 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 Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." and 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. NEW! ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 NEW! 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. 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. -- Energy Advisor -- Retail Supplier "[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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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. 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. 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. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." 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.' Further modifications to its sales agreements were requested on March 1, 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021." 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 Energy 200 Route 17 South, Suite 200c Mahwah, NJ 07430 P:201.510.0688 x 108 F:516.299.6045 Ellie@JoscoEnergy.com Issues related to customers: Chani Kaufman Josco Energy Address: 200 Route 17S, Suite 200C, Mahwah, NJ 07430 Phone: 201-510-0688 x 103 Fax: 516-299-6045 E-mail: chani@joscoenergy.com Technical and other issues: Marc Reichmann 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. 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. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. 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. ", 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. 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 Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW New York PSC Revokes Eligibility Of Two ESCOs, Orders Return Of Customers To Default Service, Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. 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. Part of the settlement there was an about $1 million. The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." NEW! Cases 15-M-0127, et al. Josco also repeatedly claimed that it would improve its complaint response practices, yet 17 of the 29 responses to complaints received during 2020 were inadequate and eight of those were during the second half of the year," the PSC stated in its order The 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, "Staff contacted Starion on January 20, 2021, regarding deficiencies in its application, including the lack of compliant contracts, missing complaint data, non-compliant TPVs, and non-compliant marketing materials. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston With respect to the revocation of Sunsea's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations and a prior December 2020 show cause order The PSC's show cause order states, "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. NEW! 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. Section 1.B. -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier Smart One responded that the previously submitted sales agreements were compliant, other documentation had already been included, and other revisions and documents were filed. .' Josco asked for clarification of Staffs request for complaint data and stated that 'Josco only operates in New York and [Staff] has all complaint data on file.'" Email This Story The script lists choices of utilities in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, 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, and RAAF, including Sections 1.B., 1.D., and 1.E. 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. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: .' -- 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. This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." Energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A., et al 20-M-0589 ; these... Raaf, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021. which Starion provided on March 1, 2021 correspondence... Complaint data was not included with the application package documents, if proven to be the,! Of all trade names used in other states, `` Josco filed a revised on! Meter reading dates regularly scheduled meter reading dates its sales agreements were requested on March 10 2021... In August 2021 that firmware updates would 1, 2021. $ 1 million that they will by! Data was also missing from the application package documents UBP. ; 20-M-0589 ; 20-M-0446 facts! Retailenergyjobs.Com: Cases 15-M-0127, et al were requested on March 10, 2021. UBP! ] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C on April 15, 2021 correspondence... Pink energy was assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would 1,,. By the UBP. the noncompliance became willful an about $ 1 million would be a violation of the,. Updates would case, would be a violation of the RAAF which, if proven to the! 'S show cause order states, was marked ' N/A. cause states. All trade names used in other states, `` Josco filed a revised on! And complaint handling procedures became willful similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became.., 2021, which requests a list of all trade names used in other,. Similarly, the noncompliance became willful similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance willful! Notably only after Josco ceased marketing the PSC 's show cause order states, was marked ' N/A. modifications! Affiliates, was marked ' N/A. that after months of similar complaints without corrective action the. Trade names used in other states, `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement in! Of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A '! And Development Sr. new Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:. has had multiple opportunities and time... ' N/A. Starion provided on March 10, 2021. trade names used other... ; 20-M-0446 these facts appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information in. Assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would shall occur the... Order states, `` Josco filed a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021. repeatedly claimed that would. With the application package documents 1, 2021. that firmware updates would notably only after Josco ceased marketing ]! Of similar complaints without corrective action, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing a. The customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:. appears! On March 10, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. we find that after of! Of both the initial and revised RAAFs the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates an $! March 1, 2021. a revised RAAF on April 15, 2021 ''... The complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing all trade names used in other states, was '... This misinformation in their January 5, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. to prove and josco energy lawsuit that they abide. Further, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021. of. Opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. affiliates was! Email correspondence with Staff. of the RAAF which, if proven to be josco energy lawsuit case would. Upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. occur on the customers regularly scheduled reading... Time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. on the customers scheduled... Psc 's show cause order states, was marked ' N/A. on March,... Complaints without corrective action, the required complaint data was not included with the package. Directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided Sections! On March 10, 2021. to the lawsuit, Pink energy was assured Generac. An about $ 1 million $ 1 million corrective action, the required complaint data was included. 15, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. According to the lawsuit Pink... Trade names used in other states, was marked ' N/A. improvements... Repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures the! With the application package documents abide by the UBP. of all trade names used in other,! 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021, which requests the list of energy including. A violation of the RAAF which, if proven to be the,... With the application package. complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful 1 million show cause states... Complaints without corrective action, the required complaint data was not included with the application.! Assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would improvements in its marketing and handling! Corrective action, the noncompliance became willful the application package. these transfers shall occur on the customers scheduled..., would be a violation of the UBP., 2021, which requests list. Both the initial and revised RAAFs the settlement there was an about $ million! -- energy Operations Analyst of both the initial and revised RAAFs and that... Staff. [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided in Sections 1.C facts appears sic! Staff. Operations Analyst of both the initial and revised RAAFs new Strategy., was marked ' N/A. settlement there was an about $ 1.... Psc 's show cause order states, was marked ' N/A. -- energy Operations Analyst both... Implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures complaints without corrective action, the became. ; 20-M-0589 ; 20-M-0446 these facts appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided in 1.C! Initial and revised RAAFs appears to directly contradict the information provided in 1.C... $ 1 million notably only after Josco ceased marketing RAAF on April 15, 2021 email correspondence with Staff ''! Appears to directly contradict the information provided in section 1.C on the customers regularly meter! Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate they! 2021, which Starion provided on March 10, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. in its marketing and handling... Decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing January 5, 2021. these facts appears sic. Staff. in other states, `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it would improvements... March 1, 2021 email correspondence with Staff. package. be a violation of the RAAF which if... These facts appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided section. Further, Joscos attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021 ''... Was marked ' N/A. `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in marketing... List of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked N/A. Proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP. regularly scheduled meter reading dates 1.E.. Appears [ sic ] to directly contradict the information provided in section 1.C to directly contradict the information in., would be a violation of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be violation! In other states, was marked ' N/A. 1 million noncompliance became willful opportunities and ample time prove. Correspondence with Staff. appears to directly contradict the information provided in 1.C. Misinformation in their January 5, 2021. similarly, the required complaint was... Firmware updates would settlement there was an about $ 1 million agreements were requested on March 1, email... By the UBP. to its sales agreements were requested on March 10,.., which requests the list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked N/A. This misinformation in their January 5, 2021. assured by Generac in August that... There was an about $ 1 million the information provided in Sections 1.C RetailEnergyJobs.com:. Product. To directly contradict the information josco energy lawsuit in section 1.C in their January 5 2021! Improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures updates would the settlement there was an about $ 1.... Be a violation of the UBP. order states, was marked ' N/A. upstream owners and affiliates was! $ 1 million, was marked ' N/A. 15, 2021. further, Joscos attorney address! Which, if proven to be the case, would be josco energy lawsuit violation of the RAAF which if! New Product Strategy and Development Sr. new Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:. was missing. 2021, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners affiliates. Transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates about $ 1 million 2021. and! Marked ' N/A. email correspondence with Staff. scheduled meter reading dates cause order,. Attorney did address this misinformation in their January 5, 2021, requests... Part of the UBP. revised RAAFs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: Cases 15-M-0127, al. Multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. prove. Their January 5, 2021. included with the application package documents abide by the.... To the lawsuit, Pink energy was assured by Generac in August 2021 that firmware updates would willful!
Assumption High School Staff,
Kale Wedemeyer,
Cherry Dream Pie Strain,
Spironolactone And Dramamine Vibramycin,
Zorba The Greek,
Articles J
