Need some advice here. TECO estimated bills for my client's hotel in Tampa during Hurricane Ian and the aftermath - September through December 2022. They claimed meter reading was impossible due to storm damage. Now they've done actual reads and want $18,000 in back billing! The estimates were way low because they used pre-hurricane usage when the hotel was closed for repairs. The hotel reopened in November with full occupancy. TECO wants payment in 30 days or they'll disconnect. Can they do this?
TECO estimated bills during Hurricane Ian - now demanding back payment
Kevin, FPL did similar during Ian here in Daytona Beach. Hotels and restaurants got hammered with catch-up bills. Florida PSC has rules about back-billing after natural disasters. Check Florida Admin Code 25-6.097 - utilities can't disconnect for estimated billing errors during declared emergencies without offering payment arrangements. TECO has to offer at least 12-month payment plan. File a complaint ASAP if they won't negotiate.
Mike, thanks for the code reference! TECO is claiming the emergency period ended in October, so normal rules apply. But the hotel couldn't reopen until November due to FEMA inspections and repairs. I'm arguing the estimates should account for business interruption. They used August 2022 usage (full operations) to estimate September-December when the building was empty or partially operational. Seems unfair to penalize the customer for their poor estimation methodology.
Kevin, Randy here. We dealt with similar issues after the 2021 winter storm in Memphis. MLGW estimated low during the crisis, then hit businesses with massive catch-up bills. Key argument is that utilities have obligation to make reasonable estimates based on known circumstances. If TECO knew the hotel was closed for repairs, their estimates should reflect that. Document everything about the closure, FEMA involvement, reopening timeline. That's your strongest defense against their collection efforts.
Had a similar case with NYSEG after Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Restaurant was closed for 3 months but they estimated based on pre-storm usage. $12,000 back-bill when they reopened. NY PSC ruled that utilities must use reasonable estimation methods considering known business disruptions. Take photos of the property damage, get copies of insurance claims, document the closure period. Show TECO had constructive notice the business wasn't operating normally.
Tom, that's exactly what I'm seeing. TECO estimated at 80% of pre-storm usage for a completely closed building. They had to know the hotel was shut down - it was in the news, had FEMA trailers in the parking lot, no guests for 2 months. I've got insurance adjuster reports, city inspection records, occupancy data showing zero guests September-October. Building this case methodically. Randy's right about documenting everything.
Kevin, also check if TECO filed for any storm cost recovery with the PSC. If they're claiming extraordinary costs for hurricane response, they can't turn around and demand customers pay catch-up bills for their inability to read meters during the same period. That's double-dipping. FPL tried that game and got slapped down. Use their own filings against them.
Mike makes an excellent point about storm cost recovery. Check TECO's recent rate case filings - they probably claimed millions in Ian-related costs. If they're asking ratepayers to fund storm response, they can't penalize individual customers for the same storm impacts. Classic utility double standard. This could be grounds for a broader complaint about their post-storm billing practices.
Update: TECO initially refused payment plan, wanted full amount in 30 days. I filed PSC complaint citing the emergency estimation rules and their storm cost recovery. They backed down within a week and offered 18-month payment plan with no interest or penalties. Still fighting the underlying amount, but at least no disconnection threat. Thanks for all the advice - having precedents from other states really helped build the case.
Great outcome Kevin! Post-disaster billing is becoming a specialty area unfortunately. Climate change means more storms, more extended outages, more estimation errors. I'm keeping a database of successful arguments and PSC rulings on disaster-related billing disputes. Share your final resolution if you get the underlying charges reduced - helps all of us build better cases.
Tom's database idea is brilliant. We should have a shared resource for disaster billing precedents. Kevin, document your settlement terms if possible. FPL has been more reasonable on post-Ian cases since the PSC started paying attention. Bad publicity from disconnecting storm victims isn't worth the collection hassle. Utilities are learning to negotiate rather than fight these cases.
Kevin, excellent work on this case. Your documentation strategy should be a template for post-disaster billing disputes. The key lesson: utilities have a duty to make reasonable estimates considering known circumstances. When they fail that duty, customers shouldn't bear the cost. This type of case is exactly why our profession exists - holding utilities accountable when they try to shift their operational failures onto customers.