Phil N. from Philadelphia. Got a client in New Jersey with PSE&G service. Manufacturing facility, 680kW peak demand, but they're on Rate Schedule GS commercial instead of GP industrial. PSE&G installed 800:5 CT ratio when service was connected 5 years ago. Plant manager says they specified manufacturing use on original application. PSE&G claims no record of industrial designation and says current CT ratio is appropriate for commercial service. Load factor is 0.72 which screams industrial. Monthly bills averaging $28K on GS rate vs estimated $21K on GP rate. Anyone fought similar CT ratio documentation battles with PSE&G?
PSE&G Commercial vs Industrial - CT Ratio Issues
Randy D. here. PSE&G can be particularly difficult on manufacturing classifications. The CT ratio argument is interesting - 800:5 suggests they originally sized for industrial loads but may have defaulted the billing rate. Key documents to request: 1) Original service application and all engineering studies, 2) Load calculations used for transformer and CT sizing, 3) Internal correspondence about rate classification decision. Under New Jersey BPU rules, PSE&G must justify why manufacturing loads don't qualify for industrial rates. The 0.72 load factor and equipment sizing are strong evidence in your favor. Consider filing a BPU complaint if they won't provide documentation or reclassify voluntarily.
Ruth from Columbus. Not PSE&G but similar situation with AEP Ohio three years ago. What broke it open was finding the original engineering drawings that showed industrial-rated equipment sizing. Utility had 'lost' the manufacturing designation somewhere in their system conversion. Took 8 months and a PSC complaint but got 18 months retroactive recovery plus reclassification. The CT ratio mismatch was key evidence.
Randy, thanks for the roadmap. Ruth, 18 months retroactive sounds great - that would be about $60K for my client. PSE&G initially offered to 'review for prospective reclassification only' which tells me they know they screwed up. Requesting all the engineering docs now. Will update as this progresses.
Nancy P. from Austin. Phil, also check if they qualify for any of PSE&G's time-of-use industrial rates. Schedule GP-TOU or GP-RTP might offer additional savings beyond just getting off the commercial rate. Manufacturing operations often have load flexibility that can take advantage of TOU pricing.
Update: PSE&G found the original application documents after I threatened a BPU complaint. Sure enough, customer checked 'manufacturing' and provided NAICS code 332710 (machine shops). Utility error in their system setup. Approved for GP rate effective May 1st plus 12 months retroactive recovery. Nancy, looking at GP-TOU now - preliminary analysis shows another $800/month potential savings. Sometimes persistence pays off!
Howard J. from Des Moines. Congrats Phil! Quick question on the retroactive calculation - did PSE&G use actual bills or recalculate based on historical usage data? Iowa utilities sometimes try to shortchange the recovery by using simplified estimates.
Howard, they recalculated using actual interval data which was fair. Total recovery was $41,200 for 12 months. Could have been more but they had some low-demand months during a production shutdown last summer. Still a good outcome overall.
Victor T. from Baton Rouge. Phil, what was your total time investment on this case? Trying to decide if a similar PSE&G situation is worth pursuing for a smaller client (350kW demand, maybe $800/month potential savings).
Victor, probably 35-40 hours total over 8 months. Mix of document review, correspondence, analysis, and BPU complaint preparation (though didn't have to file it). For $800/month savings, that's $9,600 annually so definitely worth it even for a smaller case. The retroactive recovery potential makes it even more attractive.