Folks, I need help with a massive CenterPoint Energy backbill situation here in Houston. They're claiming meter tampering and want to recover $89,000 going back to 2019. Client is a small manufacturer who swears they never touched the meter. Texas doesn't have a statutory limit that I can find - is this just contract law? CenterPoint's tariff says they can go back indefinitely for theft but this seems excessive.
Texas backbill nightmare - CenterPoint going back 5 years
Vivian, Texas is tough because there's no specific statutory limit like other states. It does fall under general contract law - usually 4 years. But the key issue is proving actual tampering versus equipment failure. Have you demanded their investigation report and evidence? CenterPoint needs to show intentional customer action, not just unexplained usage variations.
In Nevada we see NV Energy try similar tactics. The burden of proof is on the utility to demonstrate tampering with clear evidence - photos, witness statements, physical evidence of bypass equipment. Usage anomalies alone aren't sufficient. Also check if they followed proper investigation procedures and notification requirements.
Ohio experience: Duke Energy pulled similar stunt claiming 7 years of theft on industrial account. We demanded all their investigation documentation and found they had no actual evidence of tampering - just usage changes that could have been explained by production variations. PUCO sided with us when we showed their "investigation" was just desk analysis.
Randy, I've requested all investigation materials but CenterPoint is stalling. They keep saying "ongoing investigation" but they've already issued the backbill demand. Can they have it both ways? Either the investigation is complete enough to bill or it's still ongoing. This feels like harassment tactics.
That's a good point about investigation timing. In Ohio, if they bill you, they're claiming they have sufficient evidence to support the charges. You can demand immediate disclosure of all evidence they're relying on. File a complaint with PUCT about the discovery delays - regulators don't like utilities playing games with evidence.
New Mexico angle: PNM tried the stall tactic on us too. We filed an emergency motion with PRC demanding immediate evidence disclosure since they were demanding immediate payment. Can't have immediate payment obligations without immediate access to supporting evidence. Texas PUCT should have similar discovery protections.
Arkansas case law point: If the utility delays providing evidence while demanding payment, courts have found that to be bad faith conduct that can void the backbill entirely. Document every request for information and their delays - this creates a pattern of unreasonable conduct that PUCT reviewers will notice.
Update: Filed PUCT complaint yesterday demanding immediate evidence disclosure. CenterPoint's attorney called this morning wanting to "discuss settlement." Funny how quickly things change when regulators get involved. They're now offering to reduce the amount by 60% and spread payments over 2 years. Still feels excessive but progress.
That settlement offer suggests they know their case is weak. If they had solid tampering evidence, they wouldn't be cutting the amount by more than half. Keep pushing for full evidence disclosure before agreeing to anything. A 60% reduction implies 60% of their claim was bogus from the start.
Also remember that accepting any settlement might be seen as admitting some wrongdoing by your client. If this is truly equipment failure or utility error, push for complete dismissal rather than partial payment. The precedent matters for future cases and your client's reputation.