 |
|
Case Examples Cotton Ginners - Electricity. Most of the California cotton ginning industry, 68 gins in all, hired UCM to bring a complaint case to the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) against PG&E. The ginners asserted that they should be served on agricultural rates instead of commercial rates, and that they should receive a corresponding refund. UCM handled all aspects of the PUC case, including discovery, briefing, direct and cross examination, and administrative appeals. The end result: The commission ordered PG&E to serve the ginners on agricultural rates and refund over $9 million in past charges. RV Park – Electricity. UCM obtained a refund of $11,744 for a Central California RV park by proving to PG&E that government regulations were ignored when our client signed up for electricity service. PG&E did not provide the park owners with information on available rate options as required by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and, as a result, electricity charges were higher than necessary. Condominium Complex – Water. In Stockton, our condominium client’s water bill was based on a use code that did not reflect the property’s current function. UCM was able to change the County Assessor’s classification to secure a water service refund of nearly $61,000 and future annual savings of $9,600. Apartment Complex – Garbage. A Fresno apartment property received a small credit from the city for a garbage service billing error that had occurred. UCM utilized the city’s microfiche records to document of $26,000 in additional overcharges that had occurred since 1982. Nonprofit Housing – Sewer. UCM was hired to provide utility analysis services for a non-profit entity that operated housing facilities. The facility itself was owned by a public university, which many years earlier had entered into an agreement with the city sewer department to pay an annual flat fee for sewer service. The client was not aware that this agreement existed, and the city sewer department was not aware that the facility was owned by the university. Through research at the county courthouse, we uncovered documents that brought out these facts, and established that the city had improperly charged the client over a seven-year period. As a result, we contended that our client was entitled to a refund for all overpayments during that period of time. The city initially agreed to stop charging the client the sewer fee and issued a refund for one year of improper charges. UCM was dissatisfied that only one of the seven years was refunded, and through UCM's continued efforts, the client eventually succeeded in obtaining a refund for five of the seven years. School District – Sewer. UCM successfully argued that a public school district should receive a refund of sewer charges that a city had imposed in order to finance an upgrading project. These charges were not itemized on the monthly bill, and therefore had gone unnoticed for over four years. The improper charges were brought to light only after UCM identified a suspicious increase in the rates, and through public records obtained the city’s financial statements. The financial statements confirmed the impropriety of the rate increase, and were the basis of a $104,000 refund on a 72% reduction in sewer charges on a going forward basis. Office Building – Gas & Electric. UCM eliminated certain “pass through” charges imposed by gas and electricity providers on a 600,000 square foot office building. UCM also obtained a refund of $96,000 on the grounds that the owner was exempt from the charges. There was nothing on the utility bills that would have alerted the client or the utility to the fact that the owner was exempt, but UCM unearthed the relevant data by public records searches, and promptly informed the client and the utility of its exempt status. City – Electricity. In 1998, UCM reviewed approximately 350 gas and electricity accounts serving the a Southern California city. UCM determined that more than 50 small electricity accounts were eligible for a special rate schedule because their load factor exceeded 90%. The utility disagreed, contending that none of the accounts met the requirements of the appropriate tariff. UCM eventually convinced the utility that its load factor calculations were incorrectly based on maximum demand readings, rather than peak period demand readings. The end result has thus far been over $37,000 in refunds paid to the City, with $40,000 in additional refunds possible in the future.
Poultry Processor – Electricity. In 1996, UCM reviewed over 300 utility accounts serving a large poultry processor. Total expenditures for the accounts being reviewed exceeded $5 million dollars annually. Only one billing error was discovered, the result of the electric utility's faulty assumptions in setting up the account. UCM visited the site and was able to disprove the utility's position, resulting in an $89,000 refund. Ongoing costs were also reduced by more than $80,000 per year. Hotel – Electricity. UCM analyzed the utility accounts for a 600,000 square feet hotel in downtown San Francisco. As part of its utility charges, the hotel paid a so-called "special facilities fee", which compensated the electric utility for the cost of installing and financing certain transformers needed to provide service. This fee was based on an agreement that was executed when the hotel initiated service in 1982. Under applicable regulations, the utility was permitted to charge interest for financing the special facilities, but the interest rate was supposed to fluctuate with market conditions. UCM discovered that the utility had allowed interest rates to remain fixed at 1982 levels, resulting in excessive interest charges. A substantial refund was recovered on this basis. Milk Processor – Electricity. In 1997, UCM was engaged by a milk processor to review the utility accounts at its production facility. The processor was being charged under commercial rates, rather than the more advantageous agricultural rates. The electricity provider argued that the process of pasteurizing, homogenizing, fortifying with vitamins, and extracting milk fat (for non-fat milk) made the customer ineligible for agricultural service. UCM took the matter to a formal hearing before the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and succeeded in reversing the utility's decision. UCM handled all aspects of the PUC hearing, from preparing witnesses, to presenting exhibits, to cross-examining utility representatives. UCM also filed all necessary briefs that explained why the utility had misinterpreted the tariffs. In a decision that favorably impacted dozens of customers up and down the state, the PUC held that agricultural rates were applicable to milk production facilities. UCM’s client obtained a refund of more than $1,000,000, and realized future savings of nearly $150,000 per year. University – Sewer. UCM reviewed the utility accounts for a public university and the 500,000 square feet student-occupied apartment building that it owned. UCM identified various billing errors, including a sewer overcharge of about $1,000 per month. By using the utility's microfiche records, we were able to document that the error first began in the early 1980's, and we eventually persuaded the utility that the client should receive a refund for the entire period. A refund of $167,000 was paid to the University, covering a 14-year period. In total, the University received more than $200,000 in refunds and reduced ongoing costs by $75,000 annually. Office Building – Electricity. UCM was hired by an owner of office buildings in 1997 to review accounts serving more than 90 locations. Several small billing errors were identified, and additional savings were generated by taking advantage of optional rate programs. In total, the client received $45,000 in refunds, and is saving $30,000 per year going forward. Raisin Processor – Electricity. In 1997, UCM was retained by a world leader in raisin production. At the time, the California production facility was considering an equipment upgrade that would require an investment of more than $200,000. UCM assisted the plant engineer in understanding how the new equipment would be affected by anticipated changes in electricity rate schedules. As a result, the client was able to work with utility authorities to ensure that its current rate classification would be maintained, and that its capital investment would be cost effective. Residential REIT – Electricity. From 1996 to 1998, UCM worked with more than 60 multi-family properties for a large REIT, comprising approximately 12,000 residential units. The properties were located all along the West Coast, from San Diego to Washington. Dozens of errors were identified, and the client has reduced its utility costs by $60,000 per year. Hospital – Electricity. A San Bernardino mental hospital asked UCM to review its $1.5 million annual utility budget in 1998. UCM discovered that two years earlier, in 1996, the utility had failed to code the account properly when converting it to primary voltage service. As a result of this error, overcharges of $152,000 had accrued. A refund was paid to the hospital within three months. |
Apartment
Building – Gas. At a San Francisco apartment building, UCM
secured a refund of $57,744 by convincing PG&E that the property was improperly
classified for gas service. The utility never considered that characteristics of the building made it eligible for a lower
commercial rate. On a going forward basis, our client’s gas cost will
be reduced by about $8,000 per year. 
|
Utility
Cost Management, LLC |
 |