Working with a manufacturing client in San Jose currently on PG&E Schedule A-10 (Medium General Demand-Metered TOU). They're served at 12kV primary voltage but I'm questioning whether they should be on E-20 (Primary General Demand-Metered TOU) instead. The rate structures look similar but E-20 has voltage discounts that A-10 doesn't seem to offer. The account averages 1,200kW demand and $52,000 monthly bills. Client owns their transformers and all secondary distribution equipment. Anyone familiar with the differences between these two PG&E schedules and how voltage level affects the rate selection?
PG&E A-10 vs E-20 - Voltage Level Impact on TOU Rates
Pete, I think you're looking at an older version of the tariffs. PG&E restructured their schedules a few years back. A-10 is typically for secondary voltage customers while E-20 is specifically for primary voltage. If your client is truly served at 12kV, they should definitely be on E-20. The voltage discount alone could save them 2-3% on distribution charges. That's potentially $1,000-1,500 monthly on a $52K bill. I'd contact PG&E's Key Account team and request a rate analysis to confirm the proper schedule.
Jennifer, thanks for the clarification. I've been using tariff sheets from 2016 and you're right, they've changed significantly. I found the current E-20 tariff and it clearly states it's for primary voltage service. The distribution rates are indeed lower than A-10. What I'm unclear on is whether there are any differences in the time-of-use periods or demand charge structures between the two schedules. The client operates 24/7 so TOU period definitions could impact the overall savings calculation.
Pete, the TOU periods should be identical between A-10 and E-20 - PG&E standardized those across most commercial schedules. The big difference is in the distribution component and any applicable voltage discounts. One thing to watch for is the power factor requirements. E-20 typically has stricter power factor provisions since it's targeting larger primary voltage customers. Make sure your client's power factor is consistently above 90% or they could face penalties that offset the voltage discount savings.
This is a good reminder for everyone to periodically review rate schedule eligibility, especially after utility tariff restructurings. I've found several clients over the years who were grandfathered onto older schedules that were no longer optimal. Pete, definitely push PG&E for that rate analysis - they're usually pretty good about running comparisons if you ask. And David's point about power factor is crucial. I've seen voltage discount savings completely wiped out by power factor penalties on manufacturing accounts with lots of motor loads.
Update: I got the rate analysis from PG&E and you guys were absolutely right. E-20 would save this client approximately $18,000 annually compared to A-10. The voltage discount is 2.1% on distribution charges plus slightly lower demand rates. Power factor has been consistently 92-95% so no issues there. PG&E is processing the schedule change effective next month. Thanks everyone for pointing me in the right direction!
Pete, excellent result! $18K annual savings is solid work. This case study would be great for the AAUBA newsletter if you're willing to write it up. It demonstrates the importance of staying current with utility tariff structures and regularly reviewing rate schedule eligibility. I bet there are dozens of similar situations across different utility territories where customers are on suboptimal schedules simply because they haven't been reviewed in years.
Marcus is right about the broader implications. Here in Idaho, Idaho Power went through a major tariff restructuring in 2017 and I found at least six clients who needed schedule changes. The utilities don't always proactively notify customers about better rate options, so it's up to us auditors to stay on top of these changes. Pete's case is a perfect example of why regular tariff reviews should be part of every ongoing audit relationship.
This thread is gold - just saved it for reference. I'm dealing with a similar situation here in Spokane with Avista. Customer is on Schedule 25 (General Service) but might qualify for Schedule 31 (Large General Service Primary). The voltage discount could be significant but I need to verify they actually own their transformers. Sometimes the ownership documentation isn't clear, especially on older industrial facilities where transformer ownership may have changed hands over the years.
Larry, transformer ownership verification is critical. I've seen cases where customers thought they owned equipment that was actually utility property, or vice versa. Georgia Power maintains detailed records of transformer ownership, but you have to specifically request it. I'd recommend getting a formal letter from Avista confirming transformer ownership status before pursuing any rate schedule changes. That documentation could be important if there are ever disputes about maintenance responsibilities or service classifications.
Great discussion everyone. This touches on a key principle - voltage discounts should reflect the utility's actual avoided costs when serving at higher voltages. If a customer owns their transformers and receives primary voltage, the utility saves on secondary distribution infrastructure, maintenance, and losses. Those savings should be passed through as discounts. The challenge is many utilities don't transparently publish their avoided cost calculations, making it difficult to verify discount accuracy. Pete's $18K savings demonstrates these discounts can be substantial when properly applied.