Mitchell from Amarillo. Client's tariff specifies demand measured in 15-minute intervals. The utility has been billing demand based on 30-minute intervals. In months with brief demand spikes this distinction matters because a 15-minute spike spread across a 30-minute average looks smaller. Found this only because the client happened to have a logger recording at 15-minute resolution. Has anyone else found interval granularity errors?
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.
Demand charge dispute — 15-minute vs 30-minute interval granularity
Walt. This is a real error and the billing should follow the tariff. If the tariff says 15-minute intervals the utility must use 15-minute intervals regardless of their legacy billing system configuration.
The utility's response was that their meters only record at 30-minute intervals for this account class and that the tariff language refers to the measurement capability of the billing period not the actual interval resolution.
Mike D. That is a creative but weak argument. The tariff language specifying 15-minute intervals exists precisely to limit demand to actual 15-minute peaks. If their meters cannot measure 15-minute intervals for this account class they need to upgrade the meters.
Derek. File a formal complaint with the PUC citing the tariff language. The utility's meter configuration limitations are their problem to solve, not a reason to override tariff language in their favor.
Filed the complaint. PUC agreed the tariff was clear and ordered the utility to replace the meters with 15-minute capable units and recalculate demand for the prior 18 months using reconstructed 15-minute data where available.