Here in Pittsburgh we've been dealing with Duquesne Light on some older cases. Client has bills going back to 2005 but utility claims 4-year statute applies under PA law. Anyone know if the tariff language overrides state statute? Schedule GP-1 has some vague language about "billing adjustments" but nothing specific on timeframes. We're looking at potentially $47,000 in overcharges on demand billing errors.
Duquesne Light 7-year statute question
Walt, I've seen similar issues with Georgia Power down here. In Georgia the statute is generally 4 years but we've successfully argued that ongoing billing errors constitute continuing violations. The key is proving the utility had actual knowledge of the error. What type of demand billing error are you dealing with? Ratchet clause problems or transformer loss calculations?
Pennsylvania follows the 4-year rule pretty strictly from what I've seen with Virginia utilities. Dominion Energy tried the same argument here in Richmond. The tariff language rarely extends the statutory period - it usually just governs the utility's internal procedures. Did Duquesne provide any written acknowledgment of the billing error during the period in question?
Rachel, it's transformer loss factor errors. They were using 1.02 multiplier when tariff Schedule E-6 clearly states 1.015 for our voltage class. Phil, no written acknowledgment but we have email correspondence from 2007 where their engineer questioned the multiplier but apparently never followed through. Would that constitute knowledge?
That email could be gold, Walt. Here in Indiana with AEP we used similar documentation to extend recovery back to the point of utility knowledge. Courts often view internal questioning as constructive notice. Make sure you can authenticate that email and identify the engineer's authority level within the company.
Just dealt with this exact scenario at Duke Energy Carolina last month. The 2007 email definitely helps establish knowledge. In NC we've had success arguing that systematic billing errors toll the statute until discovery by the customer. Document everything about when your client first became aware of the error versus when the utility should have known.
Karen's right about the discovery rule. Georgia courts have been favorable on this. The transformer loss factor error is particularly strong because it's an objective tariff violation, not a subjective rate interpretation. Push hard on that 2007 email - if their own engineer flagged it, they can't claim ignorance for the next few years.
Thanks everyone. We're moving forward with the full 7-year claim. The email shows their engineer calculated the correct 1.015 factor in 2007 but somehow it never got implemented. Will keep you posted on how Duquesne responds. This could set good precedent for PA cases.