Retail Supplier Agrees To $16,000 Forfeiture Under Settlement With PUC Staff; Alleged Violations Stem From Sales Call To PUC Staff Member -- EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Retail Supplier Agrees To $16,000 Forfeiture Under Settlement With PUC Staff; Alleged Violations Stem From Sales Call To PUC Staff Member

March 23, 2022

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Josco Energy USA, LLC has agreed to a forfeiture of $16,000 under a settlement with Staff of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to resolve alleged violations contained in a Staff Notice of Probable Non-Compliance dated November 4, 2021

The settlement notes that, "Following the discovery of unauthorized activity by one of its vendors, Josco ceased all marketing in Ohio on September 29, 2021 , and has not yet resumed it." Josco also returned all customers enrolled by such vendor to default service

In addition to the forfeiture, Josco agrees to calculate and issue refunds to all customers enrolled by the specific vendor, based on the difference between Josco's supply charges to the customer and what the customer's charges would have been for supply at the utility's price to compare. The total estimated amount of all refunds being approximately $114.57 for natural gas supply, and $3,957.40 for electricity supply

Josco will also inform customers how to request a reimbursement for any switching fee or early termination fee incurred as a result of their enrollment with Josco

Staff's prior Notice of Probable Non-Compliance had alleged that the alleged violations were identified as a result of an investigation into PUCO Case No. 00717354, which involves a marketing call to a member of PUCO Staff

"According to the customer, who is a member of Staff, he received a call from what appeared to be a local telephone number on July 29, 2021. The call started as an automated recording stating, 'If you have not received any payment for electric you are eligible to receive a $50.00 gift card. Press one to redeem rewards.' After pressing 1, a sales representative came on the line and spoke with the customer about saving money on his electric bill. Towards the end of the call, the representative instructed the customer to repeat words and phrases such as: 'I want new supply services from AEP. Can you help me?'; 'Nope, I don’t have no email.'; 'Hold on.'; and 'Sounds good.' The representative requested that the customer hold while he applied the discounts to his electric account. After being placed on hold for some time, the customer was disconnected," Staff alleged

"The customer stated that he did not complete a TPV and that the sales representative failed to disclose the company he was representing or the purpose of the solicitation. The customer was unaware of who the supplier was until he received the 'welcome packet,' postmarked September 10, 2021," Staff alleged

"Staff reviewed the enrollment documentation provided by Josco and determined that it is not sufficient to show compliance with the above-mentioned rules. Josco submitted a telemarketing sales call and TPV to Staff. The customer listened to both recordings Josco provided and stated that the sales call recording was not accurate, and he never completed a TPV, although that was his voice responding to the questions. Additionally, the customer did not contact the company as it represented to Staff and the contact occurred five days prior to the date the company claimed the enrollment took place," Staff alleged

Staff notes that upon bringing these issues to the company’s attention, Josco stated that it immediately contacted the sales vendor responsible for the sale, and demanded an explanation for the complaint. Due to not receiving a satisfactory answer, such vendor was immediately terminated by Josco, and Josco is exploring legal options against such vendor for this unauthorized activity.

Josco stated, in total, this vendor enrolled 215 customers on their behalf in Ohio.

Due to the issue raised in the complaint in question, Josco decided to cancel these enrollments and return the customers to the utility’s standard offer service.

Among other things, Staff's prior Notice of Probable Non-Compliance had alleged that Staff determined that Josco is in probable non-compliance with the following Ohio Adm.Code provisions:

• Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-21-05(C)(8)(h) prohibits advertising or marketing offers that lead the customer to believe that the CRES provider is soliciting on behalf of or is an agent of an Ohio electric utility when no such relationship exists. "During the sales call for PUCO Case No. 00717354, the sales representative instructed the customer to ask about new AEP Ohio services," Staff alleged
• Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-21-06(C) states that CRES providers are prohibited from enrolling potential customers without their consent and proof of that consent as delineated in paragraph (D) of such rule. "Staff’s investigation of PUCO Case No. 00717354 determined that Josco failed to provide an authentic third-party verification ('TPV”') for that enrollment," Staff alleged
• Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-21-06(D)(2)(b)(i) states that, within one business day, a supplier shall send the customer a written contract that details the terms and conditions summarized in the telephone call and the generation resource mix and environmental characteristics information pursuant to rule 4901:1-21-09 of the Administrative Code. Such contract shall in no way alter the terms and conditions to which the customer agreed in the telephone call. "Staff found that Josco did not provide a written contract that details the terms and conditions within one business in PUCO Case No. 00717354," Staff alleged

Email This Story

HOME