I'm reviewing a large office building account with Portland General Electric and finding major discrepancies between the interval data and how TOU charges are being calculated. The 15-minute interval data shows clear usage patterns, but when I aggregate by TOU periods defined in Schedule 83, the kWh totals don't match what appears on the bills. Off-peak usage is showing up as on-peak and vice versa. Has anyone seen PGE billing system issues lately? This could be a $15,000+ annual impact.
Portland General Electric interval data doesn't match TOU billing
Wendy, that sounds like a significant billing error. CPS Energy down here in San Antonio had similar issues last year after a system upgrade. Are you certain you're using the correct TOU period definitions? Sometimes utilities have different periods for different customer classes even within the same rate schedule. Also check if they're using meter time vs. billing time - that can cause confusion.
Jorge, good point about customer classes. I triple-checked and this is definitely Schedule 83 for large general service. The tariff clearly states peak periods as 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM weekdays, off-peak nights and weekends. But the billing is showing weekend usage being charged at peak rates. I've documented about 8 months of this pattern. Time to contact PGE formally.
Weekend usage at peak rates is definitely wrong unless there's some special provision I'm not aware of. Here in Memphis with MLGW, weekends are always off-peak for commercial accounts. Have you tried reaching out to PGE's key account team first? Sometimes they can resolve billing errors faster than going through formal dispute processes. Document everything though - screenshots of interval data, calculations, tariff references.
This kind of systematic error suggests a programming issue in their billing system rather than isolated mistakes. Entergy down here in Mississippi had a similar problem after implementing new AMI systems. The interval data was good but the TOU categorization logic was flawed. Keep detailed records and consider asking for multiple months of corrected billing once they acknowledge the error.
Gerald makes a good point about systematic vs. isolated errors. I contacted PGE's commercial billing department and they initially denied any issues. But when I sent them a detailed analysis showing weekend kWh being charged at peak rates for 8 consecutive months, they opened a formal investigation. Waiting to hear back - this could affect a lot more customers than just mine.
Wendy, definitely push for a broader investigation if this is systematic. NV Energy here in Las Vegas had a similar issue that affected hundreds of commercial accounts. Once they acknowledged the problem, they proactively identified and corrected other affected customers. Could result in significant refunds across their territory if it's widespread.
Update: PGE acknowledged the billing error and confirmed it affected about 200 commercial accounts on Schedule 83. Apparently a software update in October 2019 corrupted the weekend/weekday logic for TOU calculations. They're issuing credits going back 8 months. My client is getting $18,400 back. Thanks everyone for the advice and encouragement to push this formally.
That's a great outcome Wendy! $18K credit is substantial, and identifying 200 affected accounts shows the value of thorough auditing. This is exactly why our profession exists - utilities aren't infallible and systematic errors can go unnoticed for months. Good work pushing through their initial denial.
Excellent work Wendy. This case should be a reminder to all of us to trust our analysis even when utilities initially deny problems. Cincinnati Gas & Electric tried to dismiss one of my TOU challenges last year until I provided irrefutable documentation. Sometimes persistence is the most important tool in our toolkit.
This thread should be pinned as a case study. Shows the importance of detailed interval data analysis, persistence when challenging utilities, and how one auditor's work can benefit hundreds of customers. Great job Wendy - that's $18K your client wouldn't have seen without professional auditing.