Has anyone dealt with FirstEnergy doing consecutive estimates for commercial accounts? I've got a manufacturing client in Cleveland that was estimated from August through March - eight months! The meter was supposedly "inaccessible" but it's right next to the loading dock. Now they want $47,000 in back billing. The estimates were way low because they used prior year data that didn't account for expanded operations. How do I challenge this mess?
FirstEnergy estimated my client for 8 months straight - now what?
Frank, that's brutal but not uncommon with FirstEnergy. In Tennessee we see similar issues with TVA distributors. First thing - request all meter reading records and photos if they claim inaccessibility. Under Ohio regs, they're required to attempt actual reads at least every other month for commercial accounts. Eight consecutive estimates violates their own tariff. File a complaint with PUCO immediately. Also check if the meter was actually broken or if this was pure negligence on their part.
I'm in Columbus and dealt with similar FirstEnergy nonsense last year. The key is proving the estimates were unreasonable given the customer's actual usage pattern. Pull three years of historical data and show the deviation. If they expanded operations, get documentation of new equipment installs, employee count changes, anything that shows increased consumption was predictable. PUCO Staff usually sides with customers when utilities get this lazy with meter reading.
We had a similar case in Kansas with Westar Energy. Eight months of estimates, then a massive true-up bill. The trick was proving the utility had reasonable access to the meter the entire time. We got security camera footage from the client showing meter readers could have accessed it. Settlement was 40% of the back-billed amount. Frank, definitely push on the accessibility issue - utilities love to claim "inaccessible" when it's just inconvenient.
Thanks everyone. I've requested all the meter reading attempts and route sheets. Turns out they marked it "inaccessible" because the regular reader quit and the new guy didn't want to walk the extra 200 feet to the meter. No locked gates, no safety issues, just laziness. Eugene, good point about the security cameras - this client has them everywhere. PUCO complaint going in today. This is exactly why utilities need better oversight of their meter reading operations.
Frank, make sure you document everything about the expanded operations. In Pennsylvania, we've had success arguing that utilities should adjust estimates when they have notice of significant operational changes. If your client filed permits, hired staff, or installed equipment, the utility should have been on notice that historical usage wouldn't be accurate. PP&L has actually started proactively increasing estimates when they see construction permits for their commercial customers.
Eight months is ridiculous. Here in Louisville, LG&E would never get away with that. Kentucky regs require actual reads every third month maximum for commercial accounts over 500 kW. Frank, check Ohio's specific requirements - I think they're similar. The back-billing period might also be limited. In Kentucky, utilities can only back-bill for 24 months on estimates, and the customer gets payment plan options. Push for a reasonable settlement based on actual usage patterns, not their inflated true-up calculation.
Down in Texas, we see this with Oncor all the time. The solution is usually a combination of PUCT complaint and media pressure. Local news loves "utility company screws over local business" stories. Frank, if PUCO doesn't move fast enough, consider tipping off Channel 5 or the Plain Dealer. Amazing how quickly utilities find solutions when reporters start asking questions. Also, calculate interest on the overpayment - if they undercharged due to bad estimates, you're entitled to interest on any true-up amount.
Update on my Columbus case - PUCO ruled in our favor. FirstEnergy had to accept a settlement for 30% of the back-billed amount and install AMI meters at no charge. The key evidence was proving they had actual access and chose not to read. Frank, your case sounds even stronger since you have the security footage angle. Also request any internal communications about the route changes or staffing issues. Sometimes their own emails prove negligence better than anything we can argue.
Frank, one more angle to consider. In Missouri, we've successfully argued that excessive estimation periods constitute a failure to provide adequate service under utility commission rules. If FirstEnergy's own tariff requires reasonable efforts to obtain actual reads, eight months of estimates might violate their certificate of public convenience and necessity. That's a much bigger hammer than just a billing dispute. Consider asking PUCO to investigate their overall meter reading practices, not just your client's case.
Excellent advice from everyone. PUCO complaint filed, security footage pulled, and local news contacted. FirstEnergy called yesterday wanting to "discuss settlement options" - funny how that works! Eugene's suggestion about the broader service investigation is brilliant. I'm asking PUCO to look at their meter reading performance across all commercial accounts. This client shouldn't have to pay for FirstEnergy's operational failures. Will update as this develops. Thanks for all the strategic insights!