HEB Grocery San Antonio NW: utility double-billing case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $16,400 in utility double-billing: electricity and HVAC billed in CAM despite direct-pay obligations verified via CPS Energy records.
What happened
HEB's Marbach Road lease assigns electricity and HVAC maintenance costs directly to the tenant, excluding them from CAM. Cross-referencing HEB's direct CPS Energy payment records with the 2022 CAM reconciliation confirmed double-billing: $12,600 in electricity and $3,800 in HVAC maintenance both appeared in CAM despite the direct-pay obligation.
Findings from the pipeline
Rule 11: Utility Overcharge
medium confidence
$12,600
Utility item 'Electricity (Building and Premises)' appears in CAM but lease requires tenant to pay electricity directly to CPS Energy. Double-billing detected.
Lease evidence
Tenant shall be solely responsible for, and shall pay directly to CPS Energy, all charges for electricity consumed within the Premises. These costs are excluded from Operating Expenses. Section 10.3.
Section 10.3, page 24
Math proof
item_confidence=0.90, weight=1.0, score=0.765, direct_pay_provisions=set
Statement references
- Electricity: Building & Premises
Rule 11: Utility Overcharge
medium confidence
$3,800
Utility item 'HVAC Maintenance & Service Contracts' appears in CAM but lease requires tenant to pay HVAC costs directly. Double-billing detected.
Lease evidence
Tenant shall be solely responsible for all costs for HVAC service, maintenance and repair within or exclusively serving the Premises. These costs are excluded from Operating Expenses. Section 10.3.
Section 10.3, page 24
Math proof
item_confidence=0.88, weight=1.0, score=0.748, direct_pay_provisions=set
Statement references
- HVAC Maintenance & Service Contracts
Lease evidence
- Tenant pays electricity directly to CPS Energy (Section 10.3).
- Tenant pays HVAC maintenance costs directly (Section 10.3).
- Both excluded from Operating Expenses.
Why this matters for your firm
The cross-reference with utility payment records is what makes this case compelling. It transforms an advisory flag into a confirmed double-billing. Tenants who keep records of their direct utility payments can use those records to challenge CAM statements definitively.
Correction package excerpt
Request for Cooperative Review of Certain Line Items. The automated review flagged $16,400 in utility charges billed in CAM against Tenant's direct-pay obligations under Section 10.3, confirmed by cross-reference with CPS Energy payment records.
Frequently asked questions
What findings did CAMAudit surface in the HEB Grocery Company LP case?
CAMAudit flagged 2 findings with an apparent overcharge of $16,400. Each finding cites the specific detection rule, dollar amount, and the lease provision that grounds the dispute.
Can my firm reproduce these findings on a live client engagement?
Yes. Your firm uploads the lease and CAM bill. CAMAudit checks them against the same rule set. Your firm reviews the findings. Then your firm sends the branded report to the client.
Is Retail a common property type for CAM audit engagements?
CAMAudit handles all commercial property types: retail, office, industrial, mixed-use, and specialty. The detection rules apply wherever a tenant pays CAM or operating expenses under a lease with specific definitions, caps, or exclusion lists.
What is a correction package and does CAMAudit generate one?
A correction draft is a factual starting point that specifies each overcharge by rule, dollar amount, and lease provision. CAMAudit generates a draft grounded in the specific audit findings for advisor and counsel review.
Run these same detection rules on your client engagements
Upload a client lease and CAM bill. CAMAudit applies the same rule set used in this case study. Your firm reviews the findings and sends the branded report to the client.
Book a partner walkthroughPublic-record note
This page summarizes public-record documents and CAMAudit output for educational and marketing purposes. It does not imply endorsement by HEB Grocery Company LP or any third party. Readers should review the underlying lease, statement, and dispute timeline for their own facts.