I've got a solar customer here in San Jose who was incorrectly billed under A-1 instead of NEM-2 for 18 months. PG&E is claiming they can only adjust back 12 months per their Rule 11. The error cost the customer about $8,400 in lost net metering credits. California law should allow us to go back further but I'm not finding clear precedent. Anyone fought this before?
PG&E limitation periods - anyone dealt with Rule 21 billing errors?
Paul, I had a similar case with Fresno Electric last year. California Civil Code 3287 allows 4 years for contract claims. The key is showing the customer relied on PG&E's representations about net metering eligibility. Did they have any documentation from PG&E about the interconnection process? CPUC Rule 11 can't override state contract law.
Yes, we have the original interconnection agreement showing NEM-2 eligibility and PG&E's acknowledgment of the system specs. The customer specifically asked about net metering rates during installation and was assured everything was set up correctly. Sounds like we have a good case for the full 18 months plus damages.
PPL up here in Pennsylvania tried similar games with a net metering customer. We filed with the PUC and they ordered full restitution back to the interconnection date. Document every communication about rate schedules and keep pushing. These solar billing errors are becoming more common as utilities try to limit net metering benefits.
Exactly right Sylvia. I've seen at least 6 similar cases in the last two years. Utilities are either incompetent with net metering billing or they're doing it deliberately. Either way, customers shouldn't pay for their mistakes. File a complaint with CPUC if PG&E won't cooperate - they take solar billing issues seriously these days.