Dealing with a weird situation in Irvine where SDG&E has been issuing 22-25 day billing cycles for the past 6 months. The short cycles are causing artificially inflated demand charges because the peak demand gets applied to fewer days. Customer's monthly demand charges jumped from $1,800 to $2,400 even though actual usage is flat. SDG&E claims this is "within acceptable variance" but their tariff says standard cycle is 30 days +/- 2. Anyone know if there's a legal remedy for systematic short billing?
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.
SDG&E short billing periods causing inflated demand charges
Joe, that's definitely outside the acceptable variance if they're running 22-25 day cycles consistently. MLGW had similar issues here in Memphis and we got them to pro-rate demand charges retroactively. The California PUC has pretty strict rules about billing period consistency. File a complaint with CPUC - they take systematic billing errors seriously, especially when it's clearly inflating customer charges.
Randy's right about CPUC being strict on this. Also check SDG&E's published service standards - they might have internal policies about billing cycle consistency that they're violating. The $600/month difference in demand charges over 6 months is $3,600 in potential overcharges. That's significant money and definitely worth pursuing through formal channels.