Just completed a major audit for a food processing facility in Fresno and found systematic errors in how PG&E was calculating delivery charges under Schedule E-19. They were applying demand charges to reactive power instead of just real power demand, resulting in overcharges of $3,200/month for over two years. Total recovery will be around $78,000. The scary part is this error pattern could affect thousands of E-19 customers. Anyone else seeing similar issues with PG&E demand charge calculations?
PG&E delivery charge calculation errors - massive overcharges found
Dan, that's a huge find! Reactive power demand charges should definitely be separate from real power delivery charges under E-19. Have you contacted the CPUC about this systemic issue? With PG&E's customer base, this could be a massive settlement if it's affecting other customers. Did they acknowledge the error or are they fighting it?
Randy, PG&E acknowledged the error pretty quickly once I showed them the tariff language. They claim it was a billing system configuration issue that started in early 2022. They're supposedly reviewing other E-19 accounts now. I'm definitely filing a complaint with CPUC to make sure they do a comprehensive review and notify affected customers.
This is exactly why detailed tariff analysis is so important. Even though I'm in Washington with PSE, I've seen similar billing system errors where complex rate schedules get misconfigured. Dan, did you use any specific methodology to identify the reactive vs real power charge allocation error?
Willa, the key was analyzing the interval data and comparing actual kW demand peaks versus what they were billing. I noticed the demand charges were consistently higher than they should be based on the real power peaks. Then I dug into the tariff and realized they were including reactive power (kVAR) in the demand calculation when E-19 specifically states it should be real power (kW) only.
Dan, excellent detective work. This reminds me of issues I've seen with APS here in Arizona where complex rate schedules create opportunities for billing system errors. The fact that PG&E acknowledged it quickly suggests they knew there was a problem. Any word on when they'll complete their review of other affected accounts?
Linda, they told me 90 days for the comprehensive review, but given PG&E's track record, I'm not holding my breath. The good news is that once the CPUC gets involved, they usually move faster. I'm advising all my California clients on E-19 to request detailed billing reviews going back to early 2022.
This thread is a great example of why we need to really understand the technical aspects of rate schedules, not just the basic math. Dan, do you think this type of error is more common with utilities that have complex industrial rate structures? I'm wondering if I should be looking more carefully at Ameren's industrial schedules here in Missouri.
Brett raises a good point about complex rate structures. Up here in Washington, our industrial rates are pretty straightforward, but I can see how more complex tariffs create more opportunities for billing system errors. Dan, this case study will definitely make me more suspicious when demand charges seem too high relative to actual usage patterns.