Pete T. from San Jose. Frustrated with PG&E on a new construction project. Manufacturing facility that opened 6 months ago, they put the client on Schedule A-6 (Small General TOU) but the demand is running 220-280 kW consistently. Should obviously be on Schedule A-10 (Medium General Demand TOU) or possibly E-19 (Medium General Demand). PG&E is dragging their feet on reclassification saying they need more billing history. This is costing the client about $3,200/month in excess charges. Anyone had success getting PG&E to move faster on obvious misclassifications?
New Construction Wrong Rate from Day One - PG&E Schedule Confusion
Kim S. from Las Vegas. Not PG&E but similar situation with NV Energy last year. New construction, wrong rate from day one. What worked was getting the electrical contractor to provide the load calculations from the original service design. If the connected load clearly exceeds the rate schedule limits, that's hard evidence for immediate reclassification.
Nancy P. in Austin. Pete, the 6 months of billing history should be more than enough to establish the pattern. PG&E's tariff for A-6 has a 75 kW demand limit if I remember correctly. At 220+ kW they're way over. File a formal complaint with CPUC if they don't act within 30 days of your written request.
Randy Dawson here. Pete, this is unfortunately common with PG&E and new construction. The utility often defaults to lower rate schedules and waits for customers to request changes, even when it's obvious from the service size and load that they're on the wrong schedule. Nancy is correct about the A-6 limits - it's meant for customers under 75 kW demand. At 220-280 kW, your client should definitely be on A-10 or E-19. The difference is that A-10 has lower demand charges but higher energy rates, while E-19 has more complex TOU periods but better rates for high load factor customers. For a manufacturing facility, E-19 is probably better if they have consistent operations. Document everything and request retroactive billing adjustments back to service initiation - PG&E will resist but the CPUC supports retroactive corrections for utility classification errors.
Steven F. from Providence. Different utility but Pete, make sure you're comparing the right rate components. Sometimes the demand charges are lower on the higher-tier schedules but the customer charges or energy rates offset some of the savings. Run a full analysis on both A-10 and E-19 with their actual usage patterns.
Thanks everyone. Randy, I ran the numbers on both A-10 and E-19. E-19 would save about $2,800/month versus A-10 because of their high load factor (85%+ most months). Steven, good point on checking all components - the customer charge is higher on E-19 but the demand and energy savings more than offset it. Filed formal reclassification request with supporting load data last week.
Sandra P. from Richmond. Pete, what type of manufacturing? Some industrial processes might qualify for special industrial rates beyond the standard general service schedules. Worth checking PG&E's industrial rate options if it's heavy manufacturing.
Sandra, it's electronics manufacturing - clean rooms, testing equipment, some machining. Fairly steady load profile. I looked at the industrial rates but they seem geared toward much larger customers with 1000+ kW demands. E-19 still looks like the best fit for this size customer.
Vivian C. from Corpus Christi. Pete, any update from PG&E? Electronics manufacturing should be straightforward for rate classification - no special requirements like agricultural or religious institution rates.
Vivian, finally got approval for E-19 reclassification effective December 1st. PG&E agreed to 4 months retroactive adjustment back to August, saving the client about $11,200 in past billing corrections plus the ongoing monthly savings. Took way longer than it should have but persistence paid off. Thanks for all the advice, especially Randy's detailed guidance on the process and rate analysis.