Frustrated with FPL here in Tallahassee. Working with a 420-unit apartment complex that wants to convert from master metering to individual unit meters. Property is currently on Schedule GSLD-1 with monthly bills averaging $52,000. FPL engineering keeps rejecting sub-meter applications saying the existing electrical infrastructure can't support individual metering. Anyone fought this battle with FPL before?
FPL refusing sub-meter approval for 400+ unit complex
Rosemary, we've seen similar pushback from PG&E in California. The utility often claims infrastructure issues when they really don't want to lose large customer revenue. What specific objections is FPL engineering raising? Is it transformer capacity, service entrance limitations, or something else? The devil is in the technical details.
Pete, they're claiming the existing pad-mount transformers don't have enough capacity for 420 individual services. Current setup has 6 transformers serving the complex through 4 master meters. FPL says they'd need to upgrade transformers and run new primary cable at property owner's expense - estimated at $180,000. Seems excessive for what should be internal wiring changes.
That transformer excuse sounds fishy. Entergy tried the same thing in New Orleans until we got an independent electrical engineer to review their calculations. Turned out the existing transformers had 40% excess capacity. FPL might be using conservative diversity factors to inflate the upgrade requirements. Get a third-party load study done.
Juan's right about the load study. We had PG&E make similar claims in Sacramento until we hired our own PE to review their work. The utility was using 100% diversity factor instead of the standard 50-60% for residential loads. Cost us $8,000 for the independent study but saved $120,000 in unnecessary upgrades. FPL probably has similar calculation errors.
Jennifer, that's exactly what I suspected. The property electrical contractor thinks the existing transformers are adequate based on actual load measurements. FPL won't share their calculation methodology, just keeps insisting upgrades are required. I'm going to recommend the property owner hire an independent PE for a load analysis.
Rosemary, also check Florida PSC regulations on utility obligations for sub-metering conversions. In Texas, CPS Energy has to provide reasonable accommodation for customer-requested service changes. There might be regulatory pressure you can apply if FPL is being unnecessarily obstructive. The PSC doesn't like utilities blocking legitimate customer requests.
Angela brings up a good point about regulatory options. Georgia Power tried similar tactics until we filed a complaint with the Georgia PSC. Suddenly their engineering objections disappeared and they found a way to approve the sub-metering with minimal upgrades. Sometimes you need regulatory pressure to get utilities to be reasonable.
Derek's experience matches what we've seen in Oklahoma. OG&E initially wanted $95,000 in upgrades for a 200-unit conversion. After PSC inquiry, they approved it with $12,000 in minor modifications. Utilities hate regulatory attention on customer service issues. File the complaint sooner rather than later.
Great advice everyone. Property owner hired Burns & McDonnell to do an independent load study. Preliminary results show existing transformers have 35% excess capacity even with 100% occupancy. We're preparing a formal complaint to the Florida PSC citing unreasonable engineering requirements. I'll keep you posted on FPL's response.
Rosemary, Burns & McDonnell is solid choice for the engineering study. We used them for a Duke Energy dispute in Charlotte and their analysis was bulletproof. FPL will have to take their calculations seriously. The PSC complaint combined with independent engineering usually forces utilities to negotiate reasonably.
Update: FPL engineering reviewed the Burns & McDonnell study and suddenly found a way to approve the sub-metering with only $28,000 in upgrades (mostly new meter bases and service entrance modifications). Amazing how quickly they became reasonable when faced with independent engineering analysis. PSC complaint is on hold pending final approval.
Rosemary, excellent outcome and thanks for sharing the resolution. This is a perfect example of why independent engineering analysis is worth the cost when utilities make questionable technical claims. From $180k to $28k in required upgrades - that's quite a difference in engineering judgment! Other folks dealing with similar utility pushback should take note of this approach.