Marcus T from Dallas, TX. Oncor territory. Client runs a large printing operation — three shifts, heavy press equipment. They have been on TOU-GSD-A for years, which had on-peak from 1pm to 7pm weekdays. Last June, Oncor filed a tariff revision that shifted on-peak to noon to 6pm. Nobody notified my client. Their production schedule was specifically designed around the old windows — they ran the big presses before 1pm and after 7pm to avoid peak charges. With the shifted windows, they have been running presses right through the new on-peak period for 14 months without knowing it. The overcharge is approximately $22,000 compared to what they would have paid if they had adjusted their schedule to the new windows.
TOU windows shifted and nobody told my client — $22K overcharge
Marcus, this is a common problem when utilities change TOU windows during rate cases. The utility is technically required to notify customers but in practice it is a line item in a 200-page rate case filing and maybe a small notice on the bill that nobody reads. The question is whether you can recover the $22K or whether this is considered the customer responsibility for not tracking tariff changes.
I had a nearly identical case with Duke Energy in North Carolina. TOU windows shifted by one hour and my manufacturing client got hit with about $16,000 in unexpected on-peak charges over 10 months. Duke refused to refund because the tariff change was publicly filed and technically the customer was notified. We ended up filing with the NC Utilities Commission and got a partial settlement — about $9,000 back plus Duke agreed to provide direct notification to TOU customers for future window changes.
Mike, that partial settlement is better than nothing. Did Duke argue that the tariff filing itself constituted notice?
Exactly. They pointed to the legal notice published in the newspaper and the rate case docket on the NCUC website. Our argument was that a commercial printing company cannot reasonably be expected to monitor PUC dockets for tariff changes that directly affect their operations. The commission agreed it was a gray area and brokered the settlement.
In Illinois, ComEd is required to send a separate written notice to every customer affected by a TOU window change at least 30 days before the new windows take effect. It is a specific provision in their tariff. I would check the Oncor tariff for similar notification requirements. If Oncor had an obligation to directly notify and failed, your case is much stronger.
Yuri, great lead. I pulled the Oncor tariff and found a general notification provision that says the company shall provide reasonable notice of material changes to rate schedules affecting the customer. A TOU window shift is arguably a material change. Going to use that language in my dispute.
Marcus, separate from the refund argument — have you helped the client adjust their production schedule to the new windows? Even if you recover the $22K, they need to restructure operations going forward or the overcharges will continue.
Nancy, yes. First thing I did was map their production schedule against the new TOU windows. We shifted the heavy press runs to start at 6:30am and stop by 11:30am, then resume at 6:15pm. That avoids the new noon-6pm peak entirely. Estimated savings going forward is about $1,600/month compared to their current unoptimized schedule.
One thing to consider — if Oncor shifted the windows to noon-6pm, that suggests they are seeing system peaks earlier in the day than before, probably due to solar generation pushing the net peak earlier. This trend is happening across the country. TOU windows are going to keep shifting as more solar comes online. Might be worth advising all your TOU clients to monitor tariff filings annually.
Frank, that is a really good observation about the solar-driven peak shift. I had not connected those dots but it makes perfect sense. The old 1-7pm window was based on traditional afternoon peaks. With solar flooding the grid midday, the net peak moves earlier. I am going to flag this trend for all my TOU clients.
Final update: filed the dispute with Oncor citing the reasonable notice provision. After two rounds of back and forth, Oncor agreed to credit $14,800 — roughly 8 months of the 14-month overcharge. They maintained the last 6 months were the client responsibility since they should have noticed the bill increase. Not perfect but $14,800 plus $1,600/month in go-forward savings makes this a very solid case. Total first-year value to the client: $34,000.
$34K in total value — $14.8K refund plus $19.2K annualized go-forward. That is the kind of case that builds a practice. Nice work Marcus.