Hi everyone, Meredith C. here from Raleigh. I've got a manufacturing client on Duke Energy Schedule SGS (Small General Service) pulling 180 kW demand consistently. They should be on Schedule LGS which has much better demand charges. The facility has been misclassified for 3 years. Duke is pushing back on retroactive billing adjustments. Has anyone had success with Duke on industrial reclassifications beyond 12 months? The potential savings are around $18,000 total.
Duke Energy Commercial vs Industrial Classification - $18K Recovery Possible?
Karen W. here - I've seen this exact scenario with Duke multiple times. Their threshold is 100 kW for LGS qualification and they're notorious for keeping customers on SGS longer than necessary. You'll need 36 months of interval data showing consistent demand above threshold. File a formal complaint with NCUC if they won't cooperate on retroactive adjustments. I got 24 months recovery on a similar case last year.
Randy Dawson here. Meredith, this is a classic Duke Energy issue we see repeatedly. Karen is absolutely right about the NCUC complaint route. However, first document everything - get copies of all monthly bills, demand readings, and most importantly Duke's own tariff Schedule LGS eligibility requirements. The key is proving the customer qualified for LGS during the entire dispute period. Duke's standard position is 12 months maximum retroactive adjustment, but the NCUC has ruled in favor of longer periods when utility error is demonstrated. Also check if your client has any seasonal variations that might have dropped them below 100 kW - Duke will use that against you.
Brenda S. from Chattanooga - dealt with similar issue with TVA industrial accounts. Even though different utility, the principle is same. Get a rate analysis printout showing exactly what they would have paid on correct schedule. Present it as utility billing error, not customer request. Makes a big difference in their response. Also check your service agreement - sometimes the rate class is specifically stated there.
Randall O. here. Had a Duke Energy case in Missouri territory few years back (before they sold). The magic words are "utility administrative error" not "rate reclassification request." Makes it sound like their mistake rather than customer trying to game the system. Also, if your client had any facility modifications or load additions during the period, Duke will claim those triggered the higher usage, not misclassification.
Karl J. from California - different utility but same principle applies with SCE. When you say 180 kW demand consistently, how many months of data do you have? Utilities often require 6-12 consecutive months above threshold before they'll consider reclassification. If your client had any months below 100 kW, that's going to be Duke's argument against retroactive adjustment.
Thanks everyone, especially Randy for the detailed response. Karl, I have 38 months of data with only 2 months below 100 kW (one was a shutdown for maintenance, other was December holiday period). Both were still above 85 kW. Karen, I'm definitely going the NCUC route based on your success. The service agreement just says "applicable general service rate" so that's not helpful. Will document everything per Randy's advice and present as utility error.
Carla M. from Phoenix - APS has similar thresholds. One thing that helped in my cases was getting the original service application. Sometimes customers actually requested the higher rate class but utility put them on wrong schedule anyway. That's pure utility error and they can't argue it. Worth checking your client's original paperwork.
Ray C. from Louisville - LG&E territory. Just want to add that you should also check if Duke has any seasonal rate variations within LGS. Some utilities have summer/winter demand thresholds that are different. Could affect your retroactive calculation. Good luck with NCUC!
Update for everyone - filed the NCUC complaint last week. Duke's initial response was standard "12 month maximum adjustment" but the NCUC staff seems interested in the case. They asked for additional documentation on the maintenance shutdown month which is encouraging. Will keep everyone posted on outcome. This forum has been incredibly helpful!