TVA territory here in Knoxville. Local utility (KUB) is claiming they can backbill beyond Tennessee's 2-year limit because of "customer tampering" but the evidence is pretty weak. It's really just a loose meter connection that could have been utility equipment failure. Has anyone successfully challenged the tampering exception? Customer is a restaurant that's been struggling since COVID and a $12,000 backbill would finish them off.
Tennessee 2-year rule - any exceptions?
Gary, I'm down in Nashville and see this all the time. The tampering exception requires clear evidence of intentional customer action to bypass the meter. A loose connection isn't tampering unless they can prove the customer loosened it deliberately. Demand they provide forensic evidence and timeline showing when the connection became loose. Most utilities can't meet that burden.
Similar case in South Carolina with SCE&G (now Dominion). They claimed loose meter jaws were tampering but we proved it was normal wear and tear from thermal cycling. The key was getting an independent electrical engineer to examine the connection and testify it showed no signs of deliberate manipulation. Cost about $1,500 but saved the client $18,000 in backcharges.
In Texas we see utilities overplay the tampering card constantly. The legal standard is intentional act to defraud, not just equipment that allows underbilling. Document the meter location, accessibility, any utility maintenance history. If they serviced that meter or connection in the past 2 years and didn't note tampering, that hurts their case.
Great points everyone. Found KUB's own records showing they replaced the meter socket 18 months ago due to "aging connections" but now claim it was customer tampering. Pretty obvious contradiction. Filing TN PUC complaint this week. The restaurant owner is relieved we found ammunition to fight this.
That's the kind of evidence that wins cases! Here in Mississippi we've had success getting utilities to withdraw backbill claims when their own records contradict the tampering allegation. Document everything and make them prove their case with real evidence, not speculation.
Idaho has similar 2-year rule with tampering exception. The burden of proof is on utility and it's a high bar - they need clear evidence of deliberate bypass attempt. Sounds like you've got good grounds to challenge. Keep us updated on how the PUC rules.
Washington state auditor here - we see Pacific Northwest utilities try similar tactics. The inconsistency in their own records is powerful evidence. Good luck with the complaint, Gary. These COVID-era small businesses need all the help they can get.
Any update on the PUC complaint? These cases set important precedents for how strictly utilities have to prove tampering allegations.
PUC ruled in our favor! They found no credible evidence of tampering and limited backbill to 24 months per Tennessee statute. KUB tried to argue equipment failure doesn't count as "utility error" but PUC said their own maintenance records proved it was their responsibility. Client owes about $4,800 instead of $12,000. Much more manageable for the restaurant.
Excellent outcome Gary! That PUC ruling should help other Tennessee members facing similar situations. The precedent that utility equipment failure triggers the 2-year limit even when it causes underbilling is important. Thanks for sharing the details - always valuable to know how different state commissions interpret these rules.