Empire Electric here in Missouri has had their fuel adjustment clause running negative for six months straight. That used to mean customers got credits, but now they're calling it a "fuel cost under-recovery" and still charging us. The math doesn't add up - if their actual fuel costs are below the base rate assumption, shouldn't that be a customer credit? Has anyone else seen this kind of creative accounting with FAC calculations?
Member Community
Enter your email to read this discussion
You're reading the AAUBA Member Forum — where Certified Utility Bill Auditors share case studies, tariff strategies, and industry insights.
Free to read. Enter your email to continue.
No spam. We'll send you one welcome email about CUBA certification. Unsubscribe any time.
Empire Electric fuel adjustment - something weird happening
Elmer, that sounds like they're playing games with the true-up mechanism. Duke Energy tried something similar in the Carolinas but the regulators caught it quickly. A negative fuel adjustment should definitely result in customer credits unless there's some kind of cumulative under-recovery from previous periods. Did you check their quarterly FAC filings to see how they're calculating the balance?
Derek, I looked at their last three quarterly filings and the numbers are confusing. They seem to be carrying forward a balance from 2011 that keeps growing instead of being resolved. Maybe they're deferring the credits indefinitely? This needs more investigation but I don't have enough Empire customers to justify a deep dive. Might need to partner with other auditors in Missouri.