We have a major manufacturing client in Akron who got a new AMI meter installed in July. The nameplate shows 400:1 CT but FirstEnergy has been billing with a 200:1 multiplier on their Schedule GS-2 rate. That's essentially half billing for three months running about $18,000 per month underbilled. When I contacted them they're claiming the CTs are correct and their system shows 200:1. Lloyd P. here - anyone dealt with FirstEnergy on CT ratio disputes before?
Wrong CT ratio on new AMI install - utility denying responsibility
Lloyd, this is exactly why we always recommend photographing the nameplate and CT specs immediately after any meter installation. Randy here from Memphis. FirstEnergy has been problematic on CT issues in Ohio - I've seen this pattern before. You need to demand a meter test under Ohio's tariff provisions and document everything. What does their install work order show for the CT specs? Also check if they have the three-phase setup correct - sometimes they program single-phase multipliers on three-phase services.
Kevin W. in Dayton here. I had the exact same issue with FirstEnergy last year on a Schedule GS-3 account. Took four months to get them to admit the error and another two months for the billing adjustment. The key was getting their field supervisor out to physically verify the nameplate versus their billing system. Document everything and escalate to PUCO if they keep stonewalling. Kevin here.
Mike from Cleveland chiming in. FirstEnergy's AMI programming has been a mess since the rollout. I've seen wrong multipliers, missing phases, and even cases where they had the right CT but programmed it as a different service type entirely. Always demand the field verification - don't let them just check their computer records. The field techs usually know what's wrong but the billing department won't listen until you force the issue.
Cheryl B. here from Indianapolis. Had similar issues with AES Indiana on CT ratios. One thing that helped was getting the original work order from the contractor who installed the CTs. Sometimes the utility specs one thing but the contractor installs another, then nobody catches it until months later. Lloyd, do you have access to any installation documentation from July?
Thanks everyone. Kevin W., I'm going to follow your approach and push for field verification. Cheryl, I'll try to track down the installation work order. Randy, you're absolutely right about documenting everything - I've got photos of the nameplate and meter face now. The client's consumption patterns clearly show they should be using way more power than what's being billed. Will update after I hear back from FirstEnergy's field supervisor. Lloyd P.
Pete A. from Louisville here. One more thing to check Lloyd - make sure they didn't just swap the CTs but leave the old multiplier in the billing system. I've seen utilities do maintenance work, upgrade the CTs, then forget to update the billing parameters. Sometimes the field crew does their job right but the data doesn't make it back to billing. Worth asking specifically if any work was done on the CTs themselves versus just the meter.
Update: Finally got FirstEnergy's field supervisor out there yesterday. You were all right - the CTs are definitely 400:1 but their billing system had 200:1 programmed. Apparently there was a data entry error when they set up the new AMI meter in July. Now fighting for the historical adjustment back to the install date. They want to only go back 30 days but I'm pushing for the full three months. Lloyd P.
That's great news Lloyd! On the historical adjustment, Ohio tariff typically allows corrections back to the date of the error or 12 months, whichever is shorter. Since you can prove the error started in July, you should get the full adjustment. Don't let them give you the runaround on the 30-day limit - that's for estimated bill disputes, not meter errors. Kevin W. in Dayton.
Excellent work Lloyd. This is a textbook case of why persistence pays off with CT ratio errors. The $54,000 or so in underbilling over three months makes this a significant case. Make sure FirstEnergy provides you with detailed calculations showing how they arrived at the adjustment amount. Sometimes they get the correction period right but mess up the calculation methodology. Keep us posted on the final resolution. Randy Dawson, Memphis.
Final update: Got the full adjustment back to July install date. Total credit of $51,847 on next month's bill. FirstEnergy also agreed to flag the account for annual verification to prevent future issues. Thanks to everyone who shared their experience - Kevin W.'s advice about field verification was spot on. Lloyd P. in Akron.