Just wrapped up an audit for a 200-room hotel in Orlando and found they've been incorrectly charged FPL's storm hardening rider on their irrigation and pool systems. These meters should be classified as non-essential load under Schedule GSLD-1 and exempt from the infrastructure rider per tariff section 4.2.8. FPL has been billing the full rider rate of $0.00385/kWh for 18 months totaling $127,000 in overcharges. Anyone else caught similar misclassifications with FPL's newer riders?
FPL infrastructure rider - $127k overcharge on hotel account
Rosemary, that's a huge catch! I've seen similar issues with Duke Energy's grid modernization rider here in Cincinnati. The key is understanding how they define "critical" versus "non-essential" loads. For hotels, typically only the main building systems would qualify for rider charges, not amenity loads like pools and landscaping. Did FPL fight you on the reclassification or acknowledge the error right away?
Great work on that audit. Alabama Power has a similar infrastructure rider and I've found they often default to applying it to all meters without proper load classification review. The utilities seem to take a "charge first, ask questions later" approach with these new riders. Document everything and demand they show you exactly which tariff section justifies charging pools and irrigation for storm hardening.
Cecilia, FPL initially pushed back claiming the meters were part of the "campus" so all loads qualified for rider charges. Complete nonsense obviously. I had to cite their own tariff language back to them and threaten regulatory involvement. They finally agreed to reclassify after three weeks of back and forth. Albert, you're absolutely right about the "charge first" mentality. These infrastructure riders are pure profit centers for utilities.
Rosemary, did they agree to refund the full $127k or try to limit it to a certain time period? Entergy here in Arkansas has been fighting refunds on their storm recovery rider, claiming they'll only go back 12 months even when the error was their fault. The hotel client is lucky you caught this - that's serious money we're talking about.
I audit several hospitality clients in Pennsylvania and seeing similar infrastructure rider confusion with PPL and PECO. The problem is these riders are relatively new and utility billing staff don't fully understand the tariff exemptions. Helen makes a good point about refund limitations - always check if there's a statute of limitations on billing corrections in your state. Pennsylvania allows up to 4 years for customer-initiated refund requests.
Helen, they agreed to the full 18-month refund after I cited Florida PSC Order 2014-087 which requires utilities to correct billing errors for the entire period they occurred, not just 12 months. The refund check came through last week. Sylvia's point about utility staff not understanding their own tariffs is spot on. I think they implement these riders without properly training billing departments on the exemptions and special cases.
Excellent work Rosemary. I've been tracking infrastructure riders across multiple states and Florida seems to have some of the most complex exemption criteria. Ameren Missouri just implemented their storm hardening rider and I'm already seeing classification errors. The utilities are rushing these riders to market without adequate controls. Your case is a perfect example of why detailed audits are so valuable for commercial customers.
Just wanted to add that DTE Energy in Michigan has been super aggressive with their infrastructure rider applications. I found similar hotel pool/irrigation overcharges totaling $31k last month. The key is getting the load survey data from the original service application to prove which systems are truly "essential" versus amenity loads. Great catch on the $127k - that's a career-making audit right there!
Rosemary, did FPL provide any additional documentation showing how they're supposed to classify different load types? OG&E here in Oklahoma just started their grid modernization rider and I want to get ahead of potential issues. Having the utility's own classification guidelines would be helpful for future audits. Might be worth sharing if you're comfortable doing so.
Susan, FPL provided a two-page memo outlining load classifications but it's pretty vague. Basically anything that supports "essential building operations" gets rider charges while "comfort and convenience" loads are exempt. The problem is they leave it up to billing staff to interpret what fits where. I can share the memo if you email me directly - might help with your OG&E audits. These utilities really need clearer guidance on rider applications.
Outstanding audit work Rosemary! This thread is a perfect example of why infrastructure riders require such careful scrutiny. The classification errors you're all finding suggest utilities are implementing these riders without adequate internal controls. I've seen similar issues with MLGW's recent infrastructure investments here in Memphis. The key is understanding that just because a meter is on the same property doesn't automatically make it subject to all riders and surcharges.