Got into it with Georgia Power's legal department over a tariff interpretation. The tariff says the demand ratchet applies to "the highest billing demand recorded in the preceding 11 months." I found that a one-time demand spike caused by a construction crane temporarily connected to my client's meter drove the ratchet for the next 11 months. I argued the crane was not the customer's load and should be excluded. Georgia Power's lawyer says the tariff says "recorded" demand, period — doesn't matter what caused it. Who's right?
Tariff interpretation dispute — my reading vs the utility's lawyer
The utility lawyer has the stronger literal reading. If the tariff just says "recorded demand" without any exception for temporary or non-customer loads, then whatever the meter records is the billing demand. However, you have an equitable argument. If you can prove the crane was a temporary construction connection that was separately metered or should have been, you might argue the demand should have been recorded on a temporary service account, not the permanent meter. Did the contractor pull a temporary service permit?
Phil raises a good practical point. The tariff interpretation favors the utility on a plain reading, but the circumstances may give you an argument that the demand was improperly recorded. If the crane should have been on temporary service, the high demand reading is an error in meter assignment, not a legitimate demand reading. Check whether the contractor was supposed to have their own temporary service drop. If so, the demand that got recorded on your client's meter was never supposed to be there. That changes the argument from tariff interpretation to metering error, which is much stronger ground.
I had a similar situation in Ohio where a tenant's construction contractor caused a demand spike on the building owner's meter. Ohio Edison initially refused to adjust but when I showed that the contractor should have had a separate temporary service account per the utility's own construction service policy, they removed the spike from the ratchet calculation. Saved my client $4,800 over the next 11 months. The key was proving the demand should never have been on that meter in the first place.
Checked and the contractor did NOT pull a temporary service permit. They just plugged into the building's panel. I'm going to argue this was an unauthorized connection that caused an erroneous demand reading. Building my case with the permit records now. This is exactly the angle I needed.