Elmer R from Springfield, MO. City Utilities of Springfield territory. My first client was a feed mill that a friend owned. I was so eager to impress that I rushed the analysis, skipped the tariff verification, and told him I found a $16,000 demand charge error. He was thrilled. I filed the dispute with the utility. Two weeks later City Utilities responded: the demand charges were correct. I had been reading the tariff wrong — I confused the generation demand charge with the distribution demand charge and double-counted the credit. There was no error. I had to call my friend and tell him I was wrong. Most humiliating phone call of my career.
First client was a complete disaster — and it made me a better auditor
Elmer, every auditor has a story like this. The ones who succeed are the ones who learn from it and never make the same mistake twice. What specifically went wrong in your analysis?
Randy, the CU Springfield tariff has a two-part demand structure: generation demand at $8.40/kW and distribution demand at $5.60/kW. The bill shows both on separate lines. I saw the generation demand charge, calculated what I thought it should be, and found a $16,000 discrepancy. But I was comparing the generation demand charge to the TOTAL demand rate ($8.40 plus $5.60 = $14.00) instead of just the generation component. Basic reading error. If I had taken an extra hour to walk through the tariff line by line against the bill, I would have caught my mistake before embarrassing myself.
Elmer, I made a similar mistake early on with Westar Energy. Confused the billing demand (which includes the ratchet) with the measured demand (which is the actual peak). Filed a dispute saying the billing demand was wrong when it was actually the ratchet doing exactly what the tariff said it would do. The utility rep was not kind about it.
Floyd, at least misunderstanding the ratchet is a more sophisticated error. I literally misread a two-line tariff. But you are right — the common thread is not verifying every assumption against the tariff language before filing.
Elmer, did the friendship survive?
Ken, it did. I was upfront about the mistake, apologized, and told him I would come back and do a proper audit at no charge. Went through the bills again — slowly this time, with the tariff open on my desk. Found a legitimate meter multiplier error worth $4,200. Not the $16,000 I had promised but a real finding. He got his refund and I got my dignity back. Partially.
The redemption audit is a nice touch. You turned a credibility disaster into a demonstration of integrity. Admitting the mistake, coming back, and finding a real error showed the client that you are honest and persistent. Those qualities matter more long-term than getting it right the first time every time.
Randy, the friend actually became one of my best referral sources. He tells people: Elmer screwed up his first audit for me, admitted it, came back and found the real error, and saved me $4,200. If a guy will own his mistakes like that, you can trust him with your bills. Best testimonial I have ever gotten.
My process now: before I tell ANY client about a finding, I verify it three times. Once when I first spot it, once the next day with fresh eyes, and once with the tariff open to the specific provision. If it survives all three checks, I present it. I have not had a false finding since that feed mill.