An ethics question that comes up in portfolio work and does not have an obvious answer.
Situation: a client holds ten accounts with one utility. Three of them are billed at a favorable rate or carry an exemption that the other seven do not. Nothing is wrong with the three. They are correct and the client is benefiting.
Those three accounts are also the single best evidence that the other seven are being handled inconsistently. Same utility, same customer, comparable premises, different treatment. That comparison is worth far more in a dispute than any argument from the tariff text alone.
The problem is that raising the comparison puts the favorable accounts in front of the utility. If they look closely and conclude the three are the ones in error rather than the seven, the client loses on all ten.
My position, for what it is worth: quantify both sides before deciding. If the recoverable amount on the seven substantially exceeds the exposure on the three, the comparison is worth making. If it does not, leave it alone entirely and find another route.
And this is a client decision, not yours. Lay out both numbers, explain the mechanism honestly, and let them choose. An auditor who creates exposure the client did not agree to accept has a real problem, regardless of how the finding turns out.
Situation: a client holds ten accounts with one utility. Three of them are billed at a favorable rate or carry an exemption that the other seven do not. Nothing is wrong with the three. They are correct and the client is benefiting.
Those three accounts are also the single best evidence that the other seven are being handled inconsistently. Same utility, same customer, comparable premises, different treatment. That comparison is worth far more in a dispute than any argument from the tariff text alone.
The problem is that raising the comparison puts the favorable accounts in front of the utility. If they look closely and conclude the three are the ones in error rather than the seven, the client loses on all ten.
My position, for what it is worth: quantify both sides before deciding. If the recoverable amount on the seven substantially exceeds the exposure on the three, the comparison is worth making. If it does not, leave it alone entirely and find another route.
And this is a client decision, not yours. Lay out both numbers, explain the mechanism honestly, and let them choose. An auditor who creates exposure the client did not agree to accept has a real problem, regardless of how the finding turns out.