Client in Rochester is questioning a ConEd charge called 'infrastructure investment recovery' on their March bill. Shows up as $245 line item with reference to 'PSC Case 18-E-0138' but when I look up that case, it's about something completely different. Bill shows they're being charged 0.82% of total usage costs. Anyone familiar with this charge or successfully challenged it? Seems like another creative revenue grab.
ConEd 'infrastructure investment recovery' - anyone challenged this?
Dana, that PSC case reference is definitely wrong if it doesn't match the charge description. ConEd has been notorious for citing incorrect cases to make charges look legitimate. Demand they provide the correct tariff leaf and case documentation. OPPD tried similar tactics until we called them on it.
ConEd's infrastructure charges are usually legitimate but they have to reference the correct PSC case. If they're citing the wrong case number, that's grounds for challenging the entire charge. File with the New York PSC - they don't tolerate utilities playing games with case references.
Had similar issues with SCE&G where they were referencing old PSC cases that had been superseded. Turned out they were using outdated tariffs to justify current charges. Always verify the case numbers and make sure the tariff is still in effect.
Thanks everyone. I dug deeper and PSC Case 18-E-0138 was actually about ConEd's AMI deployment, not infrastructure investment. Filed a complaint with NY PSC yesterday pointing out the incorrect case reference. ConEd can't just make up case citations to justify charges.
Good catch Dana! Georgia Power tried the same trick - citing cases that didn't authorize the charges they were billing. The PSC came down hard on them for misleading customers. These utilities think we won't fact-check their case references.
This is why we need to verify every PSC case reference. Duquesne Light was citing a 2015 case to justify 2019 charges until we proved the case had expired. Utilities count on customer ignorance about regulatory proceedings.
Dana, any update from the NY PSC on your complaint? We're seeing similar questionable case references from RG&E here in Rochester. Wondering if this is a systematic problem with New York utilities or just sloppy billing practices.
Leo, PSC opened an investigation into ConEd's billing practices. Turns out they've been using incorrect case references for months on multiple charge types. This could affect thousands of customers. Will update when I hear more from the investigation.
Excellent work Dana! This is exactly the kind of systemic billing fraud we need to expose. FirstEnergy got nailed for similar case reference games in Ohio. These utilities think regulatory citations are just window dressing that no one will verify.
The fact that it's affecting multiple charge types shows this wasn't accidental. ConEd was deliberately misleading customers with bogus case references. Hope the PSC throws the book at them - this kind of deceptive billing needs serious consequences.
This case should be a template for how to challenge utilities on improper case citations. Document everything, verify every reference, and don't let them get away with regulatory citation fraud. Great work exposing this Dana.
Final update: NY PSC ordered ConEd to refund all charges billed with incorrect case references - over $2.3 million in customer refunds! They also got fined $500,000 for deceptive billing practices. This shows the power of challenging these utilities when they play games.
Outstanding result Dana! This is exactly why our work matters - catching utilities in systematic billing fraud and getting real consequences. The $2.3 million in refunds shows how widespread these deceptive practices had become. Well done exposing ConEd's games.