New to the forum but dealing with a major backbilling issue here in Grand Rapids. DTE Energy is claiming they can backbill my manufacturing client for 7 years of underbilled electricity totaling $340,000. They say there was meter tampering but won't provide specific evidence. Michigan statute 460.557 limits backbilling to 2 years maximum. DTE is citing some exception for fraud but their evidence is weak. Has anyone successfully fought DTE on extended backbilling claims?
Michigan backbilling rules - DTE claiming 7 years
Tina, welcome to the forum. I've dealt with similar cases in Ohio and the key is making the utility prove actual fraud occurred, not just underbilling. Michigan's 2-year limit is pretty strong unless there's clear evidence of deliberate customer action. Demand copies of all inspection reports, photos, and maintenance records. DTE has burden of proof on fraud claims.
Tina, Michigan Public Service Commission has been pretty customer-friendly on backbilling cases lately. If DTE can't produce physical evidence of tampering or documentary proof of customer knowledge, stick to that 2-year statutory limit. We see similar overreach from TVA here in Tennessee but solid documentation usually beats them back.
Welcome Tina! Oregon has similar 2-year limits and PGE tries the same tactics. The fraud exception requires clear and convincing evidence, not just suspicion. Get an independent electrical inspection of the meter installation and demand DTE explain exactly what tampering they're alleging occurred.
Thanks everyone. DTE provided some photos showing loose meter connections but nothing that proves deliberate tampering. The connections could have loosened over time due to normal thermal cycling. I'm demanding they prove intentional customer action versus equipment failure. Their fraud claim seems pretty thin.
Tina, loose connections are almost always thermal expansion/contraction issues, not tampering. Alabama Power tried this same argument with a client and we got an electrical engineer to testify that loose connections develop naturally over years of use. Judge agreed and limited backbilling to discovery date forward.
Tina, Georgia Power uses identical tactics. Photos of loose connections mean nothing without proof of customer access and intent. Most customers never even look at their meters, much less tamper with them. Make DTE explain how and when the alleged tampering occurred.
Tina, CPS Energy in San Antonio pulled similar nonsense with loose meter connections. We hired a forensic electrical engineer who testified the connection degradation was consistent with normal aging, not tampering. Cost $3,000 for the expert but saved the client $85,000 in backbilling. Worth every penny.
Jorge, that's exactly what I'm thinking. The potential savings justify hiring an expert witness. DTE keeps saying the connections were 'obviously' tampered with but can't explain how they know it wasn't natural deterioration. Getting quotes from electrical engineers now.
Tina, also check DTE's maintenance records for that meter location. FPL got caught in a case where they hadn't inspected a meter in 12 years then claimed recent tampering. If DTE has poor maintenance documentation, it supports the natural deterioration argument.
Good point Manny. Utilities love to blame customers for their own maintenance failures. If DTE can't show regular inspections and proper maintenance, their tampering claim gets much weaker.
Update: DTE's maintenance records show they hadn't inspected this meter in 9 years! Hard to claim recent tampering when they ignored the installation for nearly a decade. My expert engineer says the connection deterioration is completely consistent with age and thermal cycling. Filing formal complaint with Michigan PSC next week.
Tina, that maintenance gap is huge. Xcel Energy in Colorado got slammed by the PUC for similar neglect. Nine years without inspection strongly suggests utility negligence, not customer fraud. You should be able to get this knocked down to the 2-year statutory limit easily.
Tina, excellent work documenting DTE's maintenance failures. Michigan PSC has consistently ruled that utilities can't claim fraud when their own negligence contributed to the problem. With 9 years of no inspections, you have a strong case for limiting this to discovery date forward, not the full 2-year statutory period. The maintenance gap essentially proves they can't distinguish between tampering and normal deterioration.