Just wanted to share a war story that finally concluded last month. PECO had been billing a manufacturing client in Chester County using coincident peak demand instead of non-coincident for 3 straight years. The error was buried deep in their billing system and cost the client over $240,000 in overcharges. Took 18 months of disputes, meter testing, and regulatory filings to get it resolved. Anyone else dealt with PECO's demand billing errors recently?
PECO demand billing nightmare - $240K recovery after 3 year battle
Phil, that's a massive recovery! We had similar issues with Duquesne Light's demand billing a few years back but nothing close to $240K. What was the root cause of the coincident vs non-coincident error? Was it a system programming issue or human error in the rate setup? PECO usually has their act together on large commercial accounts.
Incredible recovery Phil! Down here with Entergy New Orleans we see demand billing errors but usually they're caught within a few months. Three years of overcharges suggests a systematic problem. Did you have to involve the Pennsylvania PUC to get PECO to acknowledge the error? That level of dispute usually requires regulatory pressure.
Walt and Juan - the root cause was a billing system conversion PECO did in 2015. During the migration, this account's demand calculation got switched from non-coincident to coincident peak without any notification. The client's actual peak demand rarely aligned with PECO's system peak, so they were paying demand charges based on much higher values. We had to provide 3 years of 15-minute interval data to prove the discrepancy.
Phil, did you end up going to the PUC or did PECO settle before that? AEP Ohio had a similar billing system issue after an upgrade and we had better luck working directly with their commercial billing department. Sometimes the regulatory threat is enough to get them moving. What rate schedule was the client on?
Eugene - we filed with the PUC after 8 months of getting nowhere with PECO directly. The regulatory filing got their attention and within 6 weeks they had assigned a senior engineer to review the case. Client was on Rate GS (General Service) with demand over 500kW. The coincident peak charges were adding about $6,800 per month compared to what they should have been paying.
That's a solid monthly impact Phil. PG&E here in California has had some billing system issues after their recent upgrades too. Question - did PECO pay interest on the refund or just the principal amount? Some utilities try to avoid interest payments on their own errors. Also, how did you initially identify the demand billing problem?
Pete - they paid full interest at the customer deposit rate, which was about 2.5% annually. Initially caught the problem during a routine bill analysis when I noticed the demand charges were consistently higher than what the interval data suggested they should be. The client's peak demand was typically in the early morning but PECO's system peak is usually late afternoon, so the charges never made sense.
Great detective work Phil! OG&E here in Oklahoma has been pretty reliable on demand billing but your case shows why we need to verify everything. Did the client have any operational changes during those 3 years that might have masked the billing error? Sometimes load profile changes can hide rate schedule problems until you dig into the details.
Outstanding work Phil! Duke Energy here in Cincinnati had a similar billing system conversion issue in 2017. Took us 6 months to sort out but the recoveries were worth it. Your case shows the importance of maintaining good interval data records. Without that 15-minute data proving the non-coincident peaks, PECO probably would have fought the claim much harder.
This is exactly the kind of case study we need more of. I'm also in PECO territory here in Pittsburgh and have seen some quirky billing issues since their system upgrade. Phil, would you be willing to share any specifics about the PUC filing process? I have a client with potential demand billing issues and your approach might be helpful. That $240K recovery is impressive work!