Lloyd from Independence MO. Completed an engagement, submitted my findings, and then the client's accountant called them and said my rate class analysis was incorrect. The accountant had no utility billing background but spoke with confidence. Client got cold feet. I had to spend two additional hours documenting my analysis for the accountant before the client would proceed. Anyone dealt with interference from a client's other advisors?
Client's accountant flagged my findings as wrong — they weren't
Lewis from Omaha. Yes and it is frustrating. The solution is to be so well-documented that challenging your findings requires real effort. A clear audit trail from tariff language to your conclusion to the supporting data is hard to dispute without genuine expertise.
The accountant's specific objection was that the rate class I recommended required a demand of over 100 kW and my client only peaks at 94 kW. He was reading a different schedule than the one I cited. Two different schedules, similar names.
Lewis again. That kind of confusion happens with complex tariff schedules. When you present findings, always include the full schedule name, number, and effective date so there is no ambiguity about which schedule you are referencing.
Kevin from Mobile. I now send a brief one-page technical summary with every finding that spells out the schedule name, the eligibility criteria verbatim, and exactly how my client meets each criterion. Leaves no room for misreading.
Kevin that format would have prevented the whole situation. Adopting it immediately.