A small firm with large results - 20 million dollars in refunds

Since its inception, URAC has secured over twenty million dollars in overcharges made on its clients’ bills.

Apartment Management Associates v. NGRID-Metro et. al (PSC Case 10-G-0527, February 24, 2014)

The PSC found that URAC was correct and that NGRID-Metro was not properly applying its tariff. Consumers were being overcharged and refunds were directed. The PSC also began another case to find out exactly how many consumers were over-billed and to decide whether or not these non-URAC customers were also entitled to refunds.

Cross_County_Savings_v._Keyspan (PSC Case 07-G-0480, October 21, 2008)

The PSC agreed with URAC that Keyspan’s procedure for assigning rate 1 or rate 2 under Service Classification 2 was discriminatory. It concluded that URAC was correct and that Cross County Savings along with 71 other utility consumers were over-billed.

Hotels/Motels,_et_al,_v_LILCO (PSC Case 94-G-0077)

PSC denied LILCO’s request to change rate code 151 prohibiting hotels on the rate. They concluded URAC was correct and that hotels were entitled to this lower rate.

Bronxwood_Home_for_the_Aged_v._Con_Edison (PSC Case 90-E-0996)

The PSC decided that the utility has the responsibility to assist a consumer to optional rates once approached.

Westledge_Nursing_Home_v._Con_Edison (PSC Case 26358)

The PSC concluded that the regulated entity has the duty to adhere to its tariff schedules and, even if a charge is assessed because of errors or negligence on the part of the consumer or the utility employees, the full rate can be recovered.

Queens_Jewish_Center_v._Brooklyn_Union_Gas_Company (PSC Case 26358)

The PSC sustained the long practice of allowing a six-year refund to recover any over-billing. This further cemented the six-year statute, which is constantly challenged by the utilities.

NGRID Ordered to give refunds to consumers (PSC Case 14-G-0091)

URAC fought and won a case against National Grid regarding migration of gas accounts between a heating and non-heating rate. NGRID battled hard presenting story after story. However, the PSC saw through their ill fated attempts to avoid refunds. After ruling in URAC’s favor, the PSC then did something remarkable. They directed NGRID to review all their accounts and issue refunds to anyone else that was affected. Click here to read Newsday article.

PSEG has no exit clause – LIPA’s Manager

PSEG admits it is overcharging consumers because of a “no exit” clause in its tariff. URAC began the fight to retrieve overcharges on Smthtown Central School District’s bills because the District had three accounts being billed on LIPA’s highest rate – in error. LIPA through its Manager PSEG denied any refunds and just as bad refused to correct the rate claiming there was “no exit” clause. The accounts had to remain on the higher rates. Click here to read Newsday article.

These are the most publicly known URAC represented cases. Commonly referred to in filings at the PSC. The listing of any more might give our competitors information of which they are unaware.