Wanted to share a major victory for Kentucky cases. Just settled with Louisville Gas & Electric for $312,000 covering 10 years of incorrect demand billing. Case involved industrial customer incorrectly classified under Rate Schedule IS when they should have been TOD-8. LG&E argued 5-year Kentucky statute but we successfully extended to 10 years based on utility's own tariff language requiring "periodic review" of customer classifications.
LG&E 10-year statute success story
Jack, that's fantastic! The tariff-based statute extension is brilliant strategy. What specific language in the LG&E tariff supported the 10-year claim? Georgia Power has similar "review" language that we've never tested for statute purposes. This could be applicable across multiple utilities.
Outstanding result Jack! Virginia utilities have similar tariff review provisions. The key question is whether the utility actually performed the required periodic reviews. If they failed to review and correct obvious misclassifications, that could toll the statute. Did LG&E have records of conducting the required reviews?
Rachel, the tariff stated LG&E would conduct annual reviews of industrial customer rate classifications. Phil, when we requested their review records, they couldn't produce any documentation of annual reviews for this customer from 2003-2013. Their own tariff created a contractual obligation they failed to meet, which extended the statute of limitations.
Jack, the lack of review documentation is devastating to their statute defense. Here in Indiana, AEP has similar review requirements. This precedent could apply broadly - if utilities commit to periodic reviews in their tariffs but don't perform them, they can't claim statute protection. Brilliant legal strategy.
This is huge for the industry! Duke Energy Carolina has nearly identical tariff language about reviewing large customer classifications. We've never thought to use their own tariff commitments to extend statute periods. What was the difference in rates between IS and TOD-8 schedules?
Karen, the TOD-8 schedule had significantly lower demand charges during off-peak hours. This manufacturing client ran heavy equipment during night shifts but LG&E was billing full demand charges 24/7 under IS schedule. The annual difference was about $31,000, hence the large 10-year recovery amount.
Jack, did LG&E fight the classification change or admit the error once confronted? ComEd here in Chicago often argues that customers should have known about alternative rate schedules. The tariff review obligation seems to shift that burden back to the utility where it belongs.
Yuri, they initially fought it claiming the customer should have requested rate analysis. But once we showed their tariff required annual reviews and they had no records of performing them, their position collapsed. The utility can't claim customer should have acted when they failed to meet their own tariff obligations.
This strategy could revolutionize statute limitations arguments. MLGW has similar review commitments in their industrial tariffs. The beauty is using the utility's own promises against them. Did you have to go through Kentucky PSC or was this direct settlement with LG&E?
Amir, we started with direct negotiations but had to file PSC complaint to get their attention. Once the PSC saw the tariff violation and missing review records, they pushed LG&E toward settlement. The regulatory pressure was essential - utilities take these cases more seriously when regulators are watching.
Jack, can you share what specific tariff section contained the review language? I want to check if Georgia Power has similar provisions. This could be the key to extending recovery periods for long-term billing errors that should have been caught in utility reviews.
Rachel, it was in Section 4.3 of LG&E's industrial tariff - "Annual Classification Review." The exact language was "LG&E will conduct annual reviews of industrial customer rate classifications to ensure optimal rate application." Pretty clear contractual commitment that they completely ignored for 10 years.
Perfect - that language is nearly identical to what AEP uses in Indiana. This precedent should apply across multiple utility territories. The combination of contractual breach and statute tolling is powerful. Thanks for sharing the specific tariff section reference, Jack!