Sharing a win because the penalty was buried. Client is a plastics shop, ~600 kW, on a Pepco schedule with a power-factor adjustment. Their PF was sitting at 0.82, and the tariff penalizes anything below 0.90 by adjusting billed demand upward. The kicker: the penalty wasn't a separate line item - it was folded into the billed-demand figure, so the client had no idea they were being dinged. Once I flagged it, they installed a capacitor bank, PF came up to 0.96, and the corrected billing dropped their demand charge meaningfully. On the back-billing side I got Pepco to true up 6 months where they'd misapplied the adjustment factor - $9,340 back.
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.
Missed power-factor penalty on a Pepco account - recovered $9,340 after correction
Wait - you got a refund on power factor? I always thought PF penalties were airtight since they're just measuring what the customer's equipment does. What was the misapplication?
The penalty itself was legit - they really were at 0.82. The refund came from HOW Pepco calculated the adjustment. The tariff formula uses (0.90 / actual PF) as the multiplier on billed demand. Pepco's billing system was using measured PF from a single monthly snapshot instead of the average PF the tariff specifies. When I recomputed using the tariff-defined average, the multiplier was smaller. Six months of the wrong multiplier = the $9,340.
This is the kind of thing that separates a real audit from a rate-shopping exercise. Nobody catches a formula input error by eyeballing the bill - you have to read the tariff's exact definition of the PF term and then verify the utility computed it that way. Karen, did you have to escalate past first-line billing to get them to accept the recompute?
Yep. First-line said 'the penalty is correct' - which was true but not the point. Had to write it up citing the specific tariff section defining average PF, show my recomputation side by side, and send it to the account rep. Took about three weeks and one follow-up call, then they issued the credit. Lesson: never argue whether the penalty applies, argue how the input was measured.
Saving this whole thread. I've walked past PF adjustments a dozen times assuming they were untouchable. The 'audit the input, not the penalty' framing is going straight into my checklist. Thanks for laying out the exact tariff term, Karen.