I need help figuring out FirstEnergy's solar billing in Ohio. My client has a 25kW commercial system and they're getting hit with demand charges even when the solar is producing more than they're consuming. Last month they had net export of 400 kWh but still got billed for 18kW demand charge at $11.50/kW. The meter shows peak demand occurred at 1:30pm on a sunny day when the solar should have been cranking. Something's not right here.
FirstEnergy solar billing - phantom demand charges
Jim, I'm also in Ohio dealing with FirstEnergy and their solar metering is screwy. They use separate meters for production and consumption instead of true net metering. The demand charge is based on gross consumption, not net consumption. So even if your solar covers all the energy usage, you still get hit with demand charges for whatever the building actually drew from the grid before solar offset it.
Frank's right about the separate metering. I'm in Pittsburgh with Duquesne Light and they do the same thing. The key question is whether Ohio allows true net metering or just net billing. If it's supposed to be net metering, then demand charges should be based on net consumption from the grid, not gross building consumption. Check the interconnection agreement and state regulations.
Walt, I looked up the Ohio net metering rules and it says demand charges should be based on the customer's net consumption during the billing period. But FirstEnergy is using instantaneous demand readings that don't account for solar production offset. Their billing system isn't sophisticated enough to calculate true net demand in real-time. This is costing my client an extra $200+ per month.
Jim, file a complaint with PUCO (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio). I had success with a similar case last year. FirstEnergy's position was that their meters can't calculate net demand so they use gross demand for billing. PUCO ruled that's the utility's problem, not the customer's, and ordered them to either upgrade their metering or estimate net demand mathematically.
This is a common issue with older utility billing systems. LG&E here in Louisville had the same problem until they upgraded their AMI meters. The interim solution was to install separate production meters and manually calculate net demand for billing. Not elegant but it worked until they could upgrade the infrastructure. Frank, do you have the PUCO case number for that ruling?
Jack, it was PUCO Case 12-2051-EL-CSS. The key finding was that utilities can't penalize customers for the utility's own metering limitations. If they can't measure net demand accurately, they have to use engineering estimates or upgrade their equipment. FirstEnergy ended up crediting about $3,500 in overcharges to that customer.
Thanks Frank, that case precedent is exactly what I needed. Filed the PUCO complaint last week and referenced Case 12-2051-EL-CSS. FirstEnergy's attorney called within two days wanting to discuss a settlement. They're now proposing to install a proper net meter and provide credits for the past 8 months of overbilling. Sometimes you just need the right legal ammunition.
Jim, what kind of settlement numbers are we talking about? I have a similar FirstEnergy case in Memphis... wait, that doesn't make sense, FirstEnergy isn't in Tennessee. Anyway, I'm dealing with MLGW on a similar demand charge issue and trying to figure out what kind of credits to push for. The principle seems the same regardless of utility.
Amir, the settlement was $2,840 in demand charge credits plus agreement to install proper net metering within 90 days. The calculation was 8 months × average 18kW overcharge × $11.50/kW demand rate. For your MLGW case, the key is documenting that solar production occurred during the same 15-minute interval as the peak demand reading. Get interval meter data to prove it.
Perfect, thanks Jim. MLGW has been resistant to providing interval data but I'll push harder now that I know what to look for. The 15-minute demand intervals are the key - if solar was producing during peak demand periods, the net demand should be lower. This whole thread has been incredibly helpful for building my case strategy.