Nashville folks - desperate for help here. Large auto parts manufacturer got switched to NES Schedule GP-4 TOU in January and their bills have gone absolutely insane. February bill was $47,000 vs $31,000 average on the old GP-2 flat rate. Plant manager is breathing down my neck. Their production runs 5am-3pm Monday-Friday which should align well with off-peak and shoulder periods but somehow they're getting hammered with peak charges. NES customer service has been useless - just keeps saying "winter peak periods are different." Anyone dealt with GP-4 TOU transitions recently? The demand charges alone jumped from $12/kW to $18.50/kW peak.
NES General Power Rate Schedule GP-4 TOU disaster - need advice ASAP
Paula that's rough. MLGW doesn't offer TOU for industrial accounts so I can't help with NES specifics, but $16K monthly increase suggests either massive rate structure change or billing error. First thing - get the actual interval data from NES and verify when their peak periods are defined. Winter TOU schedules often have different windows than summer. Also check if they're hitting coincident peak penalties on top of the regular demand charges. That combo can destroy manufacturing budgets quickly.
Paula check NES Tariff GP-4 section 3.2 - winter peak hours are 6am-10am and 5pm-9pm Monday-Friday. Your 5am start time puts them right into morning peak which is brutal for manufacturing loads. Summer peak is different - 1pm-7pm weekdays. If they switched in January they got hit with the worst possible timing. Can the plant shift production to 10am-6pm? That would avoid both peak windows. Otherwise you might want to calculate if staying on GP-2 flat rate makes more sense despite higher base rates.
Juan's right about winter peak timing being killer for early shift manufacturing. We see similar issues in ERCOT territory when clients don't understand seasonal TOU variations. Paula what's their actual peak demand and load factor? If they're pulling 800+ kW consistently with low load factor, GP-4 TOU will massacre them during winter months. NES designed those rates to discourage peak period usage but manufacturing plants often can't shift schedules easily. Document the rate impact analysis and present alternatives to plant management.
This is exactly why we always model TOU impacts before recommending rate changes. Entergy Arkansas has similar winter peak windows that crush early-shift manufacturers. Paula can you get 12 months of interval data and back-calculate what GP-4 would have cost historically? That analysis might show seasonal patterns and help justify either staying on GP-2 or shifting production schedules. Also verify if NES offers any industrial TOU alternatives besides GP-4. Some utilities have multiple TOU options with different peak definitions.
Helen makes excellent point about historical modeling. Here in Missouri we learned that lesson the hard way with Ameren TOU schedules. Paula what you really need is NES's load research data that justified their GP-4 peak periods. Those 6am-10am winter peaks target residential heating loads, not industrial customers. If your client's load pattern doesn't align with system peaks, you might have grounds for requesting rate schedule exception or returning to GP-2. Document the operational constraints that prevent schedule shifting.
Elmer's suggestion about rate exceptions is smart but NES rarely grants them. Paula have you calculated the break-even point where production schedule changes would offset TOU penalties? Auto parts manufacturing often has supply chain constraints but 4-hour morning peak window is manageable if they can shift to 10:30am-6:30pm. The $16K monthly increase you're seeing could fund significant operational changes including overtime premiums for afternoon shifts. Sometimes rate structure forces beneficial operational improvements.
Greg's operational analysis approach is good but Paula needs immediate relief for current billing. Up here with Idaho Power we've seen utilities reverse TOU applications when customers can prove they weren't properly notified about seasonal peak variations. NES should have provided detailed rate impact modeling before the GP-4 transition. If they didn't, you might have grounds for returning to GP-2 retroactively. Document all communications about the rate change approval process and timeline.
Thanks everyone - really helpful insights. Warren that's interesting about notification requirements. NES did provide rate comparison but it was based on summer TOU periods, not winter. We're documenting that discrepancy. Juan you're absolutely right about the 6am-10am peak window - plant is drawing 650kW during startup which hits right in that window. Meeting with plant manager tomorrow to discuss operational changes vs rate alternatives. Will update thread with results of our analysis.
Paula how did the operational changes discussion go? We deal with similar manufacturing schedule constraints up here in Montana with NorthWestern Energy TOU rates. Sometimes the answer is hybrid approach - shift some production to avoid peak windows while negotiating partial return to flat rate structure. The key is proving to utility that customer's load pattern doesn't contribute to system peak. If auto parts plant draws steady 650kW during morning peak but system peak is residential heating, that's a compelling argument for rate exception.
Wendell makes good point about load pattern vs system peak analysis. Paula I see you're in Nashville - been working with several NES commercial accounts lately and their GP-4 TOU structure definitely favors certain load profiles over others. Auto parts manufacturing with consistent daytime loads often gets penalized unfairly by residential-focused peak periods. Happy to review your interval analysis if you want to send details offline. NES has been more flexible on rate exceptions recently, especially when customers provide solid technical justification.