Just wanted to alert everyone that California Assembly Bill 1999 extends our backbilling limit from 2 years to 4 years effective January 1, 2024. This applies to all IOUs - PG&E, SCE, SDG&E. The utilities lobbied hard claiming AMI data shows more historical inaccuracies. TURN and other consumer groups fought it but lost. We're now dealing with cases where utilities can reach back 4 full years. Anyone else seeing immediate impacts?
California AB 1999 - New 4-year backbill limit starting 2024
Grace, that's disappointing but not surprising. Alaska doesn't have statutory limits - it's up to the RCA case by case. But I've been watching the lower 48 trends and this 4+ year push is everywhere. The utilities coordinate these efforts through EEI and other trade groups. They share legal strategies and economic arguments across state lines.
This is exactly what we feared when AMI rollouts started. Utilities claimed smart meters would improve accuracy, but now they're using the data to justify longer backbill periods. It's a bait and switch. Better metering should mean fewer errors going forward, not more opportunities to reach into the past. California setting 4 years gives cover to every other state considering extensions.
Randy, you're spot on about the AMI angle. SDG&E is already pulling 4-year histories on demand billing discrepancies. Had one case last week where they found a CT ratio error from 2020 and want $89,000 back. Under the old 2-year rule, customer would owe maybe $45,000. The utilities are definitely using this aggressively right out of the gate.
Oklahoma is still at 3 years but OG&E has been testing the waters with "voluntary payment plans" for older errors. They can't legally backbill beyond 3 years but they'll offer payment arrangements for amounts going back 5-6 years. Customers think they have to accept it. It's a sneaky way around statutory limits.
The voluntary payment scam needs more attention. Utilities present it as "helping" the customer when it's really circumventing legal protections. Most customers don't know they can refuse payments for time-barred amounts. We should educate clients about this tactic - it's becoming standard practice nationwide.