Hey everyone, Craig P. here in Portland. We've got a manufacturing client on Pacific Power Schedule 49 Large General Service who's been getting hammered with bills averaging $47,000/month when historical usage suggests it should be around $23,000. Finally got out to read the CT nameplate and found 400:1 stamped clear as day, but their billing system shows multiplier for 200:1. Utility claims the work order from 2023 meter changeout specified 200:1 but the techs installed 400:1 CTs. Anyone dealt with Pacific Power on historical adjustments for this kind of screw-up?
CT Ratio 400:1 vs 200:1 - Pacific Power Billing Wrong for 18 Months
Craig, Randy Dawson here. This is a classic case and unfortunately more common than utilities want to admit. First thing - document everything with photos of the CT nameplate, the meter configuration, and get copies of all work orders from the changeout. Pacific Power typically limits historical adjustments to 24 months under their tariff, but when it's their installation error you can often push for the full adjustment period. The key is proving the CTs were wrong from day one of installation, not something that changed later. Have you gotten them to acknowledge the discrepancy in writing yet? Also request a formal meter test - they'll resist but you're entitled to it. What's the actual demand reading vs what you'd expect with correct multiplier?
Thanks Randy. Actual peak demand showing around 840 kW but with 400:1 CTs it should be reading 420 kW for the same load. Everything makes sense once you double the multiplier. I've got photos of everything and requested copies of the work orders. They're dragging their feet on the meter test request. The facility manager swears the usage patterns haven't changed since before the meter swap.
Scott H. in Denver - dealt with similar issue on Xcel Energy. Make sure you get the original pre-changeout bills to establish the baseline usage pattern. If the jump in consumption happened right after the meter change, that's your smoking gun. Also check if they have any estimated reads mixed in that might be masking when the error actually started.
Derek H. here from Atlanta. Had this exact scenario with Georgia Power three years ago on a Schedule TOU-GSD-8 account. The historical adjustment took 14 months to process and required two formal complaints to the PSC. Document every phone call and email. What really helped was having an independent electrical contractor verify the CT installation and provide a written report. Cost $800 but saved us $180,000 in overbilling adjustments.
Isaac M. from Montgomery. Quick question - are these digital AMI meters or the old mechanical ones? Sometimes the AMI programming can be corrected remotely but the historical data might need manual recalculation. Alabama Power had to go back and reprocess 22 months of billing data when they found a similar error on one of our industrial clients.
These are digital AMI meters, Isaac. Randy, update on the work orders - Pacific Power finally sent them over and it's even worse than I thought. The work order clearly specified 200:1 CTs but someone in engineering should have caught that the load would require 400:1. The original CTs that were replaced were also 400:1, so they basically downgraded the CT ratio and doubled the billing. This has to be gross negligence on their part.
Craig, now you've got them dead to rights. When the utility's own work order specifies the wrong equipment for the actual load, that moves this from billing error to engineering negligence. I'd recommend getting your client's electrical engineer to provide a written analysis of why 400:1 CTs are required for this service size. Also pull the original service application and load calculations. Pacific Power will likely try to settle this quickly once they realize the liability exposure. Don't accept their first offer - they'll lowball hoping you'll take it to avoid the hassle.
Nancy P. in Spokane. We've had good luck with Avista on similar issues but Pacific Power seems more difficult. Make sure you're calculating interest or carrying charges on the overbilled amounts. Some utilities will try to just credit the principal without the time value of money component. What's the total dollar amount you're looking at for recovery?
Nancy, we're looking at roughly $432,000 in overbilling over the 18 month period, plus carrying charges should add another $38,000 or so. Pacific Power initially offered to credit back $290,000 with no interest, claiming some of the usage increase was legitimate. We rejected that and are pushing for full restitution plus interest. The client is considering legal action if they don't come up with a fair settlement soon.
Steve B. from Tulsa. Document everything and don't let them wear you down. PSG&E tried the same tactics on us - partial credit with no interest. We filed a complaint with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and suddenly they found a way to approve the full adjustment with carrying charges. Sometimes you have to play hardball with these utilities.
Final update - Pacific Power agreed to full restitution of $487,000 including interest and carrying charges. They also replaced the engineering supervisor who approved the original work order. Took four months of back and forth but persistence paid off. Thanks for all the advice, especially Randy's guidance on documentation and Derek's tip about the independent contractor report.