Picked up a light-manufacturing client in Dundalk on BGE Schedule GL. They had one bad month last August - a heat wave plus a compressor that stuck on - and hit a billing demand of 412 kW against a normal running load around 240 kW. Because GL carries an 80% ratchet, that 412 kW set a floor of ~330 kW that they kept paying against every month afterward, even in winter when actual demand was down near 200. Nobody at the plant knew the ratchet existed. Ran the numbers and the ratchet inflated 11 consecutive bills by roughly $18,400 total before I got there. Anyone had luck getting BGE to reset a ratchet floor short of waiting out the 11-month window?
Member Community
Enter your email to read this discussion
You're reading the AAUBA Member Forum — where Certified Utility Bill Auditors share case studies, tariff strategies, and industry insights.
Free to read. Enter your email to continue.
No spam. We'll send you one welcome email about CUBA certification. Unsubscribe any time.
Ratchet clause on BGE Schedule GL blindsided a client - $18K over 11 months
Short answer: no, they won't just reset it. The ratchet is in the tariff, so it's 'correct' as billed - which means there's no refund to demand. The play is forward-looking. If the spike was a genuine one-off from equipment failure, document it (maintenance log, the compressor repair invoice) and you can sometimes get the account manager to note it, but the meter data is the meter data.
Yeah, I figured the ratchet itself wasn't recoverable since it's tariff-compliant. What I'm chasing instead is whether GL is even the right schedule for them. Their load factor is terrible - big swings - and I want to compare GL vs GS on a full 12-month rerate.
That's the right instinct. Ratchet pain is almost always a rate-classification symptom. Pull 12 months of interval data if BGE will give it to you, compute the load factor, and model both schedules. On a spiky manufacturer I did last year the ratchet made GL look punishing, but GS with its higher energy charge actually came out worse once you added the kWh back. Model it, don't assume.
One more angle: check whether the demand spike was even legitimately theirs. I've seen 'stuck compressor' months where the real story was a failed demand meter reading high. If you can get the raw interval file and the 412 kW shows up as a single 15-minute interval with nothing around it, that's a meter fault, not load - and THAT is refundable.
Pete, that's a great catch. Requested the interval data this morning. If the 412 is an island with normal readings on either side I'll open a meter dispute. Will report back.
Update for the thread: interval data came back. The 412 kW was NOT a meter fault - it's a clean ramp over about 40 minutes, consistent with the compressor plus HVAC stacking during the heat wave. So it's real load, ratchet stands. BUT the rerate paid off: GL vs GS over 12 months, GL is still their best rate, however I found they qualify for BGE's Rider that lets them curtail during declared peak events. Enrolling them cuts the billing-demand exposure going forward. Net win, just not a refund.
Good result and a clean writeup. That's the honest outcome on a lot of ratchet cases - no refund, but a real forward saving and a client who now understands their own bill. Nice work.
Late to this but bookmarking it. I've got a food-processor on GL heading into summer with a similar swingy profile. Vince, is the peak-event curtailment rider worth it if they can't actually shed much load? Their process runs continuous.
Hank - if they truly can't curtail, the rider's payment is thin and you risk penalties for failing to respond to an event. It only pays when there's real sheddable load (HVAC, non-critical pumps, battery). For a continuous process, focus instead on whether the ratchet is being set by a controllable spike vs. baseload. If it's baseload, rider won't help and you're back to rate selection.