Derek from Charlotte. Wanted to share this one because even I was surprised by the size of it. Manufacturing client, 3 locations, had been on a general service rate for 11 years. Should have been on an industrial rate the entire time. Utility agreed and issued a retroactive refund of $47,200. The key was pulling the original service application from 1999 which clearly showed the connected load at installation. That document made the dispute airtight.
Member Community
Enter your email to read this discussion
You're reading the AAUBA Member Forum — where Certified Utility Bill Auditors share case studies, tariff strategies, and industry insights.
Free to read. Enter your email to continue.
No spam. We'll send you one welcome email about CUBA certification. Unsubscribe any time.
$47,000 refund from a single rate class error — here's how
Lucille from Pine Bluff. That is a remarkable find. How did you know to pull the original service application? Most people would never think to go back that far.
I had a similar case two years earlier where the utility tried to claim the rate was correctly assigned at setup. Once I learned to pull the original paperwork I started doing it on every industrial case. Takes an extra hour and has paid off more times than I can count.
Linda from Dayton. Did the utility push back at all? Eleven years of retroactive billing is a lot for them to swallow.
They pushed back hard initially. Claimed the statute of limitations limited recovery to 3 years. I had to file a formal complaint with the state PUC citing the specific tariff language that allowed full retroactive correction when the error originated at the utility. Took 14 months total but the full amount came through.
Phil from Tampa. That PUC complaint route is something a lot of auditors avoid because it sounds confrontational. But it sounds like it was the only real path here.
It was. Some utilities will not move without regulatory pressure. The complaint does not have to be hostile — it is just a formal mechanism that requires the utility to respond on the record. Very different dynamic than an informal dispute.
Cases like this are exactly why I never skip the rate-class verification step, even when the account looks routine. A single misclassification compounding over years is where the real money hides. Great writeup.
Following up on this — when I hit a recovery this size I always pull the full billing history before filing, because the utility's first response is usually to dispute the lookback period. Documentation wins these.