New York PSC Office Alleges ESCO Has "Failed" to Correct Marketing Practices in Response to Show Cause Order

The New York PSC's Office of Consumer Policy has alleged that an ESCO has "failed" to correct marketing practices in response to show cause order, and warned the ESCO that the continued receipt of customer complaints would constitute grounds for a recommendation that consequences, previously described in the show cause order, should be imposed.

Specifically, the Office of Consumer Policy sent a letter to Family Energy, Inc. alleging that:

"We note that there is some evidence that Family Energy has failed to correct its marketing practices since the April 22 issuance of the Commission's Order to Show Cause, as demonstrated by new marketing complaints since that date. In addition, we also must advise you that, in the event we receive further complaints of deceptive marketing against Family Energy based on Family Energy practices conducted on or after five business days from the date of this letter, Department Staff will consider that both additional and independent evidence of Family Energy's inability or unwillingness to cure and, therefore, grounds to recommend to the Commission that consequences, as described in the Order to Show Cause, should be imposed."

Family Energy provided the following statement to EnergyChoiceMatters.com:

"Family Energy has responded to the allegations in the Public Service Commission’s Order to Show Cause. As demonstrated by its submissions, the Company takes the PSC’s allegations very seriously and is committed to working with the agency to resolve its concerns. Family Energy is dedicated to exceeding the standards required by the agency, representing itself with transparency, and providing value to its many customers in the State of New York."

The April show cause order had directed Family Energy to show why the Commission should not revoke the company's eligibility to enroll new customers or to offer services as an energy services company in New York, given what the PSC said was, "the company's pattern of apparent marketing violations and numerous customer complaints."

Case 13-M-0139