Meter is in a back alley behind a locked gate. Utility could not get to it for five months, estimated
every month, then finally got a read and issued a catch-up bill for 4,100.
Two problems with the catch-up. First, the entire true-up was billed in a single month, which pushed
that month's consumption into a higher tier on their rate. Second, and this is the one I care about,
the demand charge for the catch-up month was calculated on a demand reading that reflects one month
of actual use, but the energy charge covers six months. So the client got a full six months of energy
at the tier rate that a six-month consumption number qualifies for.
My position is the utility has to spread the true-up across the estimated periods and rebill each
month at that month's applicable tier. Most tariffs I have read have language supporting this but the
utility is resisting.
The access issue is real and partly the client's fault. Does that undercut the rebilling argument? I
do not think it should but I expect them to raise it.
every month, then finally got a read and issued a catch-up bill for 4,100.
Two problems with the catch-up. First, the entire true-up was billed in a single month, which pushed
that month's consumption into a higher tier on their rate. Second, and this is the one I care about,
the demand charge for the catch-up month was calculated on a demand reading that reflects one month
of actual use, but the energy charge covers six months. So the client got a full six months of energy
at the tier rate that a six-month consumption number qualifies for.
My position is the utility has to spread the true-up across the estimated periods and rebill each
month at that month's applicable tier. Most tariffs I have read have language supporting this but the
utility is resisting.
The access issue is real and partly the client's fault. Does that undercut the rebilling argument? I
do not think it should but I expect them to raise it.