Just got word that the New Mexico PRC amended Rule 17.5.410.15 to extend backbilling from 3 years to 5 years for "meter errors and billing adjustments." This is a huge setback for customer protection. PNM was pushing hard for this change after they had several large underbillings they couldn't recover. Effective January 1, 2018. Anyone else hearing about similar changes in their states?
New Mexico PRC just changed backbill rules - now 5 years!
That's terrible news Ruben. Texas utilities have been lobbying for the same thing here but PUCT has held firm on 3 years. Five years is way too long - most businesses don't keep detailed records that far back. Did any consumer groups oppose this change? Seems like it would have generated significant pushback.
Georgia PSC is considering something similar. Georgia Power has been complaining about "lost revenue" from meter reading errors and wants to go from 2 years to 4 years. The utilities always frame it as "fairness" but it's really about shifting their operational failures onto customers. We need to organize opposition to these changes before they spread.
Greg, the NM Consumer Advocate did oppose it but got steamrolled. PNM claimed they had $2.3 million in "unrecoverable" underbillings from the past 5 years due to the 3-year limit. The commission bought their argument about "cost recovery" affecting all ratepayers. It's a slippery slope - if utilities can't manage their own billing systems, why should customers pay the price?
South Dakota is still at 2 years under SDCL 49-34A-26 and Black Hills Energy hasn't pushed for changes yet. But I'm seeing more "audits" where they go back exactly 2 years to the day. They're definitely testing the limits. The 5-year trend is worrying - it gives utilities way too much leverage over customers.
Ohio is 3 years under ORC 4933.81 but AEP Ohio has been lobbying PUCO for extensions. They claim AMI systems are revealing "historical inaccuracies" that need longer recovery periods. It's nonsense - if their old meters were that bad, they should eat the cost of their own incompetence. These extended periods are really about intimidating customers into not challenging bills.
Kevin makes a great point about intimidation. A 5-year backbill can bankrupt a small business even if it's wrong. Most customers will just pay rather than fight a legal battle. PNM knows this - it's about leverage, not fairness. We need to track these rule changes nationally and coordinate opposition before every state extends their limits.
I'm starting a spreadsheet of state backbill limits and recent changes. Will share with the group once it's complete. We should also track which utilities are pushing for extensions and their stated justifications. Pattern recognition might help us prepare better arguments against these changes.
Excellent idea Greg. I can provide details on the New Mexico case including PNM's filing and the Consumer Advocate's response. The more data we have, the better we can fight these utility power grabs. Five years is just the beginning - wait until they start pushing for 7 or 10 years.
Texas Railroad Commission is reviewing similar changes for gas utilities. They want to extend from 4 years to 6 years for "measurement errors." The same playbook - claim operational failures justify longer customer liability. We need a coordinated national response to this trend.
Count me in for the coordinated response. Ohio's hearing is scheduled for February 2018. Having data from other states about negative impacts would be incredibly valuable. These utility arguments sound identical everywhere - almost like they're sharing strategies and talking points.