Client in Fargo just got hit with Xcel's demand ratchet after their 200-ton chiller startup created a 245 kW spike in February. Under Schedule A-15, they're now stuck paying for that demand level for the next 11 months even though normal operation is only 140 kW. Looking at about $18,000 in extra charges over the year. Has anyone successfully appealed demand ratchets based on equipment malfunction? The chiller contractor bypassed the soft-start during maintenance and forgot to reconnect it.
Xcel Energy demand ratchet after chiller startup - need advice
Anita, I've had mixed results with Kentucky Utilities on similar appeals. The key is proving the spike was due to contractor error, not normal operation. You need documentation showing the soft-start was functional before maintenance and evidence it was improperly bypassed. Photos of the wiring before/after, work orders, anything showing the contractor's mistake. KU approved one appeal last year but only after we provided a detailed timeline and sworn affidavit from the building engineer.
Here in Vegas with NV Energy, they've been more receptive to ratchet appeals lately. Had a hotel client avoid a $12,000 ratchet after proving their BAS system malfunctioned during a software update. The trick is filing the appeal immediately - don't wait for the second bill. NV Energy has a 30-day window from the spike date, not the bill date. Also helps to propose corrective measures as part of the appeal. They like seeing proactive steps.
Kim's right about the timing. Eversource in Connecticut has similar policies but you have to be fast. I've found that having the contractor accept liability in writing strengthens the appeal significantly. Had a case where the HVAC contractor agreed to pay the ratchet penalty if the utility denied the appeal - Eversource approved it within two weeks once they saw the contractor's admission of fault.
Don't forget to check if your client has interval metering data showing the exact duration of the spike. Duquesne Light approved an appeal for one of my clients because we could prove the 280 kW spike lasted only 18 minutes - clearly abnormal compared to their typical 45-minute startup curve. The granular data made all the difference. If Xcel has AMI meters, request the 15-minute interval data for that day.
Walt makes a good point about interval data. MLGW here in Memphis has been much more willing to consider appeals when you can show abnormal load patterns. Had a medical facility avoid a ratchet by demonstrating their normal chiller startup takes 20 minutes but the malfunction caused instantaneous full load. The data visualization really helps - create graphs showing normal vs. abnormal startup curves. Makes it obvious something went wrong.
In Texas with CPS Energy, we've had success getting temporary ratchet relief while appeals are pending. They'll hold the demand charge calculation if you file within 15 days and provide preliminary evidence. Even if the full appeal takes months, it prevents the ratchet from kicking in immediately. San Antonio has been pretty reasonable about equipment malfunction cases - approved about 60% of the ones I've submitted.
Angela's experience with CPS sounds better than what we see in Georgia. Georgia Power rarely grants full ratchet relief but they sometimes offer partial adjustments. Had a client get 50% reduction on a demand spike penalty - still saved them $8,000. The key was showing they immediately installed additional safeguards after the incident. Utilities like seeing corrective action, not just excuses.
Thanks everyone for the advice. I'm gathering all the documentation now - maintenance work order, photos of the bypassed soft-start, and interval meter data. The contractor is being cooperative and willing to sign an affidavit admitting the error. Will file with Xcel tomorrow and propose installing a backup demand limiting system as corrective action. Hoping for at least partial relief on that $18K hit.
Anita, let us know how it goes with Xcel. I've got a similar case brewing in Rapid City with Black Hills Energy - 150-ton chiller soft-start failed during startup and created a 190 kW spike. Haven't seen many ratchet appeals in this territory so your experience could help. The contractor here is being less cooperative unfortunately, claiming the soft-start was "defective" rather than admitting they bypassed it incorrectly.
Update on my Black Hills case - they denied the ratchet appeal but offered a payment plan to spread the penalty over 12 months instead of applying it all at once. Not ideal but better than a huge spike in one bill. Sometimes utilities are more flexible on payment terms than actual penalty relief.