Fellow CUBA members, I need some guidance on a complex ethical situation. During a routine audit of MLGW bills for a Memphis manufacturing client, I discovered what appears to be a systematic billing error that has been undercharging them by approximately $180,000 over three years. The error stems from misapplication of their industrial rate schedule - they should be on Schedule I-2 but have been billed under I-1. My client is thrilled and wants me to keep quiet about it, but I'm concerned about the ethical implications. Do I have an obligation to notify MLGW about their billing system error?
Discovered major billing error favoring client - ethical dilemma
Reggie, this is a tough one. Your primary duty is to your client, not to the utility. If MLGW made an error in their favor, that's MLGW's problem to discover and fix. Georgia Power has made billing errors in both directions over the years, and I've never felt obligated to point out their mistakes when they favor my clients. However, I would document everything carefully in case questions arise later.
I disagree with Janice here. While your loyalty is to your client, knowingly concealing a billing system error that affects rate classification could have broader implications. If other customers are similarly misclassified, MLGW needs to know to fix their systems. This isn't just about your one client - it's about the integrity of the rate structure. I'd suggest consulting with CUBA's ethics committee before making a decision.
Dan raises valid concerns, but I'm with Janice on this one. ComEd makes billing errors all the time, and it's not our job to audit the utility's processes. Your client is paying you to find opportunities in their favor, not to play watchdog for the utility. If MLGW has systematic problems, their internal auditors or regulators will eventually catch them. Stay focused on serving your client's interests.
This reminds me of a situation we had with Chugach Electric up here a few years ago. The key question is whether actively concealing known systematic errors crosses an ethical line. If this were just a one-time meter reading mistake, I'd say keep quiet. But if it's a rate schedule classification error that affects multiple customers, there might be broader professional obligations to consider. Have you reviewed CUBA's professional standards on this specific scenario?
Thanks for all the input. I've been digging deeper into the CUBA standards and it's still not entirely clear. The error appears to be in MLGW's automated rate assignment system - several other industrial customers in similar usage profiles are likely affected. My client wants me to focus on protecting their position, but Patty's point about systematic issues bothers me. Maybe there's a middle ground?
Reggie, one approach might be to suggest your client contact MLGW's key accounts team to "confirm" their rate schedule classification, without specifically mentioning the billing error. This way you're not actively concealing information, but you're also not throwing your client under the bus. Let MLGW figure out their own system problems while protecting your client's interests.
Angela's suggestion is clever but feels like splitting hairs to me. Here in Nevada, NV Energy has made plenty of errors over the years in both directions. When they overcharge clients, they expect us to catch it. When they undercharge, why should we be their collection agents? Your duty is to your paying client, not to the utility's revenue protection department.
I think we're overcomplicating this. The fundamental question is whether you discovered something that legally belongs to your client or something that was erroneously given to them. If MLGW's tariff clearly states they should be on Schedule I-2, then the current billing is incorrect regardless of how long it's been happening. Your client is essentially receiving service at the wrong rate, which isn't sustainable long-term anyway.
Terry makes a crucial point about sustainability. Even if you keep quiet now, MLGW will eventually discover this error through their own auditing processes or rate reviews. When they do, your client could face a large back-billing situation. It might be better to address it proactively and negotiate a reasonable resolution while your client has some goodwill from reporting the issue themselves.
Eddie and Terry have convinced me that this situation is unsustainable long-term. I'm going to recommend that my client work with MLGW to resolve the rate classification issue proactively. Better to control the narrative and timing than wait for MLGW to discover it during their next comprehensive rate review. Sometimes protecting a client means helping them avoid bigger problems down the road.
Reggie's taking the right approach here. I've seen similar situations where clients thought they were getting away with something, only to face massive back-billing and penalties later. Proactive resolution usually gets better treatment from utilities than waiting for them to discover errors on their own. Document your recommendation thoroughly - this shows you're acting in your client's long-term best interests.
This thread highlights why ethical dilemmas in our profession are rarely black and white. Reggie handled this exactly right - sought input from peers, considered multiple perspectives, and ultimately chose the path that best serves his client's long-term interests while maintaining professional integrity. The fact that he wrestled with the decision shows good ethical judgment.
Excellent discussion, everyone. This case study should be required reading for CUBA ethics training. Reggie's approach demonstrates that ethical practice isn't just about following rules - it's about using professional judgment to navigate complex situations in ways that serve clients' best interests while upholding industry standards. The willingness to seek peer input and think beyond short-term gains is exactly what separates professional auditors from mere bill reviewers.