Dealing with a messy situation involving PPL Electric here in Pennsylvania. They changed TOU peak periods for large commercial customers effective July 2016, shifting from 8:00 AM-8:00 PM to 12:00 PM-8:00 PM during summer months. Customer claims they never received proper notification and continued operating under the old peak avoidance schedule. Now facing $23,000 in unexpected peak charges. PPL says notification was mailed in May. Anyone dealt with similar notification disputes? What's the legal requirement for advance notice of TOU changes?
PPL Electric TOU rate changes - customer notification issues
Sylvia, that's a significant change to spring on customers. In Ohio, utilities are required to give 60 days notice for rate schedule changes, but TOU period changes might fall into a different category. Check Pennsylvania's utility code - it should specify notification requirements for tariff modifications. Also ask PPL for proof of mailing and copies of the actual notices sent. If they can't provide documentation, you might have grounds for relief.
Good points Cecilia. I requested proof of notification and PPL provided a copy of a letter they claim was mailed to all affected customers. But the letter is pretty vague - just says 'TOU periods are changing' without specific old vs. new times. Customer says they never received it, and there's no certified mail receipt. This feels like inadequate notification for such a significant operational change.
Sylvia, check if PPL published the changes in local newspapers as required by most state utility regulations. Duke Energy here in the Carolinas has to publish tariff changes in papers of general circulation. Also look at whether PPL filed the changes with the Pennsylvania PUC and if there was a public comment period. If they didn't follow proper procedures, the changes might not be legally enforceable.
This sounds like a case for the Pennsylvania PUC complaint process. Idaho Power had a similar issue where they changed TOU periods without adequate notice. Customer filed a complaint and the PUC ruled that the utility had to honor the old peak periods until proper notification was provided. Cost about $500 to file but saved the customer $30K in improper peak charges.
Warren, that's encouraging precedent. I've been researching Pennsylvania PUC rules and it looks like utilities must provide 'adequate notice' for changes that substantially affect customer bills. Shifting 4 hours of peak period definitely seems substantial. I'm preparing documentation for a formal complaint. The customer's energy management system was programmed for the old peak periods and they have logs showing load shifting that would have been effective under the previous schedule.
Sylvia, that energy management system data could be powerful evidence. Shows the customer was actively trying to avoid peak charges under what they reasonably believed were the correct TOU periods. FirstEnergy usually gives 90 days notice for significant TOU changes here in Ohio. Anything less than 60 days seems unreasonably short for commercial customers who need time to adjust operations.
This case highlights why we always advise clients to monitor utility websites and tariff filings regularly. But realistically, most customers rely on utilities to provide adequate notification of changes. If PPL only sent a vague letter 60 days before implementation, that seems insufficient for a change this significant. ComEd typically provides detailed comparison charts showing old vs. new periods.
Update: Filed the PUC complaint last week with full documentation including the customer's energy management logs, PPL's vague notification letter, and analysis showing $23K in charges that wouldn't have occurred under proper notification. PPL has 30 days to respond. Their initial reaction was defensive but I'm hoping they'll be more reasonable in their formal response.
Good for you filing the complaint Sylvia. Even if this particular case doesn't result in full relief, it puts PPL on notice that their notification procedures are being scrutinized. Utilities need to understand that significant operational changes require clear, timely, and detailed customer communication. Keep us posted on how the PUC responds.
PPL responded to the complaint and they're taking a hard line - claiming their notification was adequate and the customer is responsible for staying informed of tariff changes. But they did reveal some interesting information. Apparently they sent the notification letters via standard mail with no tracking, and they acknowledge some customers may not have received them due to 'postal delivery issues.' That seems to undercut their position.
PPL acknowledging postal delivery issues is a significant admission. If they're aware that some customers didn't receive notification, how can they claim adequate notice was provided? That's like saying 'we tried to notify everyone but we know some people didn't get the message, too bad.' Xcel Energy up here uses certified mail for significant rate changes precisely to avoid these disputes.
Hank, exactly! Their own admission that notification may have failed seems to support our case. The PUC hearing is scheduled for February. I'm preparing testimony focused on the inadequacy of standard mail notification for changes this significant to commercial operations. Will also argue that the letter content was too vague to constitute proper notice even if it had been received.
Sylvia, this is a great case study for the whole profession. Commercial customers shouldn't be penalized for utility notification failures, especially when they can demonstrate they were actively managing load under the previously announced schedule. PG&E out here in California learned this lesson after several similar PUC cases. Good luck with the hearing - this could set important precedent.