Just wrapped up a case that took 18 months but was worth every hour. Manufacturing client in Fresno had been getting hammered on Schedule E-19 demand charges since 2008. PG&E was applying the wrong coincident peak methodology and double-billing transmission access charges. Initial audit showed $340K in overcharges, but once we dug deeper into the TOU periods and ratchet calculations, total recovery hit $2.8 million going back to 2006. Client is ecstatic and I'm pretty proud of this one. Anyone else seen demand billing errors this systematic?
$2.8M recovery from PG&E - largest demand billing error I've seen
Holy cow Jennifer, that's massive! Congrats on the recovery. I've seen TVA make similar mistakes with coincident peak calculations but nothing close to that dollar amount. The biggest I've caught was around $680K from a cement plant getting charged GSA-1 instead of GSA-3 rates. What tipped you off initially that something was wrong with their demand methodology?
Incredible work Jennifer! That's exactly why we do what we do. I had a similar case with Alabama Power a few years back - paper mill was getting killed on Schedule LPM when they should have been on Schedule PL. $420K recovery over 4 years. The key was understanding their actual load factor versus what AP was using for rate classification. Did you have to go through formal dispute process or did PG&E settle once you presented the evidence?
Terry - what caught my attention was their summer bills being 40% higher than comparable facilities. When I pulled 5 years of interval data and compared it to their tariff, the math just didn't add up. Brenda - PG&E initially pushed back hard but once I showed them their own methodology documents from 2006, they knew they were wrong. Took 8 months of back-and-forth but they eventually cut the check without formal proceedings.
Outstanding recovery! Duke Energy here in the Carolinas has been pretty clean on demand billing lately, but I caught them red-handed on a hospital's backup generator testing charges. $180K over 3 years because they were treating scheduled maintenance as emergency usage under Schedule LGS. Sometimes the biggest wins come from understanding the fine print that even utility billing departments miss.
Jennifer, was this under the old E-19 schedule or the current version? I've got a Seattle manufacturing client on PSE Schedule 40 that I suspect has similar issues with their demand calculations. Your case gives me hope that the investment in detailed interval data analysis will pay off. Did you use any specific software tools for the load profile analysis or was it all Excel work?
David - this was under the pre-2010 E-19 schedule, which actually worked in our favor because the methodology documentation was clearer back then. I used a combination of Excel and custom SQL queries to analyze 6 years of 15-minute interval data. The key was proving their coincident peak algorithm was using wrong baseline periods. If you suspect similar issues with PSE, definitely worth the deep dive into their interval data.
Fantastic work! APS here in Arizona has been pretty good about demand billing accuracy, but I did catch them miscalculating power factor penalties on a data center. $95K recovery because they were using monthly averages instead of the required 15-minute intervals for PF calculations under Schedule E-32. These cases really show the value of understanding tariff language better than the utility's own billing department sometimes.
Jennifer, did you have to deal with any statute of limitations issues going back to 2006? Entergy here in Louisiana typically only allows 2-3 years for billing disputes unless there's clear utility error. I'm working on a similar case with a petrochemical plant but worried about recovery period limitations.
Juan - California has a 5-year lookback period for utility billing errors under CPUC regulations, which definitely helped. PG&E tried to argue for shorter period but their own tariff language supported the full recovery timeframe. You might want to check Entergy's filed tariff - sometimes the actual language is more generous than what customer service claims.
Update on my PSE case - you were right Jennifer! Found $340K in demand billing errors going back to 2010. They were incorrectly applying transformer losses to the demand calculation under Schedule 40. PSE settled within 90 days once I showed them the tariff language. Thanks for the inspiration to dig deeper!