Running into issues with PG&E up here in Northern California. We found they've been incorrectly applying the Agricultural rate schedule to a client's food processing facility - should have been on Industrial Schedule E-19. The error goes back about 4 years and represents roughly $95K in overcharges. PG&E is claiming California law limits billing adjustments to 2 years maximum. Anyone familiar with the actual statute? Their customer service manager cited some CPUC ruling but wouldn't provide the citation.
California law question - PG&E claiming 2 year limit
Dan, I've dealt with this exact issue down in Sacramento. California Public Utilities Code Section 739.5 does establish a 2-year limitation for billing adjustments, but there are important exceptions. If you can show PG&E had actual knowledge of the misclassification or if there was fraud involved, the limitation period can be extended. Also, check if your client ever notified PG&E about potential rate schedule issues - that can stop the clock.
The key in California is often the 'discovery rule' - the 2 years runs from when the error reasonably should have been discovered, not when it started. If PG&E's rate schedules are complex enough that a reasonable customer wouldn't catch the error immediately, you might be able to argue for a longer period. Document any confusion about rate classification or conflicting information from PG&E staff.
Thanks Jennifer and David. I found some emails where the client asked PG&E about their rate classification back in 2012, and PG&E confirmed they were on the 'correct agricultural rate.' If PG&E explicitly told them the rate was correct, that should extend the discovery period, right? The client reasonably relied on PG&E's representation that they were properly classified.
Dan, that email could be golden! If PG&E affirmatively told your client they were on the correct rate, that's estoppel - they can't now claim the client should have discovered the error earlier. California courts have held that utility representations can extend limitation periods. I'd cite that email prominently in any CPUC complaint and argue that PG&E is estopped from asserting the 2-year limit.
Dan, even though I'm in Arizona, I've researched California law for clients with multi-state operations. The CPUC has ruled that utility misrepresentations can toll the limitation period. Your 2012 email where PG&E confirmed the 'correct agricultural rate' should definitely extend your recovery period. File a formal complaint with the CPUC and make estoppel your primary argument - utilities can't benefit from their own incorrect advice.
Update: Filed the CPUC complaint last week citing the estoppel theory and PG&E's 2012 email confirmation. PG&E's attorney called yesterday wanting to discuss settlement. Sounds like they know the estoppel argument is strong. Thanks everyone for the advice - sometimes it just takes the right legal theory to break through their standard limitation defenses.