Duane Morris® BALTIMORE SINGAPORE WILMINGTON PHILADELPHIA F!RM and AFFIL!A1E OFFICES MIAMI CHICAGO BOCA RATON WASHINGTON, DC PITTSBURGH SAN FRANCISCO PHYLLIS J
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NEW YORK ATLANTA LONDON Duane Morris® BALTIMORE SINGAPORE WILMINGTON PHILADELPHIA F!RM and AFFIL!A1E OFFICES MIAMI CHICAGO BOCA RATON WASHINGTON, DC PITTSBURGH SAN FRANCISCO PHYLLIS J. KESSLER NEWARK SILICON VALLEY DIRECT DIAL: +l 212 4714713 LAS VEGAS SAN DIEGO PERSONAL FAX: +12122024717 CHERRYHILL SHANGHAI E-MAIL: [email protected] LAKE TAHOE BOSTON MYANMAR HOUSTON 1v1vw,duanemorris.com OMAN LOS ANGELES A GCC REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE HANOI OF DUANE MORRIS HO CHI MINH CITY MEXICO CITY ALLIANCE WITH MIRANDA& ESTAVILLO SRI LANKA ALLIANCE WITH March 28, 2016 GOWERS INTERNATIONAL Via Email Ms. Alicia Sullivan Appeals Unit, Supervisor Office of Consumer Services New York Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Re: Case No. 16-E-0124 (440805), 170 Broadway, New York, New York 10038 Dear Ms. Sullivan: Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional information or documentation to the Consumer Services Division of the Public Service Commission ("PSC" or "Commission") which has not been previously provided to the record in the above-referenced matter. We are submitting this letter, together with the reports of Keith Lane of Lane Coburn & Associates, LLC and Roman Kuzmicki of Cosentini Associates, to provide such information, documentation and analysis on behalf of our client, 170 Broadway NYC, LP ("Complainant"). We are providing the following additional information: 1. The timing of energizing and de-energizing of the 1200 ampere switch and associated CTs installed for use during construction for the period of renovation of the building; 2. Based on that information, an explanation of how the incorrect demand registration may have occurred; 3. Invalidity of Con Edison's CT Test; 4. Building demand during building usage after completion of renovations; DUANE MORRIS LLP 1540 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10036-4086 PHONE: +l 212 692 1000 FAX: +1 212 692 1020 DM2\6634627.2 Ms. Alicia Sullivan March 28, 2016 Page2 5. Failure of proof of theft of service and recent Commission order overturning informal hearing order finding theft of service; 6. New computation of amount of overcharge plus interest due. 1. The Dates of Energizing and De-energizing the 1200 Ampere Switch and Associated CTs Support the Conclusion that the Billed Demand During the Billing Period from February 1, 2013 through March 20, 2014 were Incorrect Recently, we learned the exact dates when the 1200 ampere switch and associated CTs were energized and de-energized from Rondulph Soogrim, the electrician from Pinnacle Electrical who oversaw the electrical work during the renovations at 170 Broadway. These dates, when compared with bills rendered by Con Edison, support the conclusion that the unexpected and unprecedented increase in billed demands was related to the installation of the 1200 ampere switchgear and CTs, which were energized on February 8, 2013. The 1200 ampere switch was installed, as stated in our February 24, 2016 letter to Secretary Burgess ("Appeal Letter"), Id. at 3, on a temporary basis so that the electrical room in the building could be updated and expanded during construction. According to an email recently found by Mr. Soogrim, the 1200 ampere switch and CTs, which had been previously installed by Pinnacle Electric, were energized on February 8, 2013, during a shutdown of power to the building by Con Edison. 1 See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 at 1. As stated in the Affidavit of Rondulph Soogrim, dated March 28, 2016, the connection between the CTs and the Con Edison meter was performed by Pinnacle Electric, the company Mr. Soogrim was employed by, rather than Con Edison. Id. at 2. After the CTs were energized on February 8, 2014, demand recorded on Con Edison's meter increased substantially. Demand for the billing period from January 2, 2013 through February 1, 2013 was 72 kW, while the demand in the next billing period (from February 1 to March 5, 2013) was 992 kW, up more than ten times above the demand recorded in the previous month. See Exhibit E from the Appeal Letter. The 1200 ampere switch and associated CTs were removed on March 8, 2014. On that date, Pinnacle shut down the power within the building in order to energize new switchgear and CTs for permanent service. See, Exhibit 2 at 2 and Exhibit 3. Significantly, the demand registered on the Con Edison meter for the next full billing period (March 20 to May 2, 2014) and for subsequent billing periods dropped back to a level that was in the range of what was expected. Con Edison shut down the power from the street at Pinnacle's request so that the building's electricians could move the end box, i.e., where the Con Edison service lateral from the street terminates in the customer's electrical room, from the ceiling to a wall in the electrical room. At the same time, the building's electricians installed the CT panel and the 1200 ampere switch. Exhibit 2 at 1-2. DM2\6634627 .2 Ms. Alicia Sullivan March 28, 2016 Page 3 Con Edison's tariff provides that the Company is responsible for proving the connection between the current transformer ("CT") and the meter pan(s) identified to the customer's service. See PSC No. 10-Electricity, General Rule 7.1, Leaf 64. It is apparent that there was an issue with the connection between the temporary CTs and the meter, as the timing of the increase in the billed demand relates to the energizing of the CTs and temporary switch in February 2013. Only after those CTs were removed and new CTs were energized in March 2014 did the billed demands return to normal levels. 2. Explanation of Cause of Excessive Recorded Demands During the informal hearing, Con Edison argued that the bills rendered to Complainant were correct because its meter inspections and the meter test showed that the meter was running properly. In addition, Con Edison claimed that it inspected the CTs and that they too were running properly. As explained in the Appeal Letter, Complainant was convinced that there was a problem, although unexplained, because the demand readings for the network transformers for the network that comprised 170 Broadway and other buildings were frequently lower than the demands recorded by the meter on Complainant's premises. Faced with this evidence, Con Edison did not choose to rebut it and failed to explain how such a discrepancy between the readings on the transformer network and the building's meter was possible. After becoming aware of the correlation of the increase in billed demands to the date for energizing the CTs and the 1200 ampere switch in February 2013, as well as the correlation between the drop in the billed demands after new CTs and permanent building switchgear were energized in March 2014, and hoping to get to the bottom of the discrepancy between the building's billed demand and the transformer network demand readings, as well as to provide an explanation to the Commission, Complainant decided to hire an expert electric engineer, Keith Lane of Lane Coburn Associates, LLC, to provide a report for this purpose and to hire Roman Kozmicki of Cosentini Associates, an independent engineering consultant to provide a separate report. A. Consultants' Findings Support Overcharge i. Lane Co burn Report. Mr. Lanes' s report confirms the earlier information provided by Demetrios Plessias (see Exhibit C and Exhibit D (at Exhibit 1) of the Appeal Letter) that there is no possible safe manner for 1200 ampere switchgear providing service at 208 volts, 3-phase to draw 4,208 MW of power from Con Edison, notwithstanding the demands recorded on the Con Edison meter for the billing period from March 5 through March 20, 2014. See Report of Lane Coburn & Associates, LLC. Exhibit 4 at 6. According to Mr. Lane, the maximum allowable NEC calculated load for the 1200 ampere switch is 367 kW, but the load on the demand meter is typically in a range between 20% and 70% of the maximum NEC calculated load. Therefore, the expected load should likely not DM2\6634627.2 Ms. Alicia Sullivan March 28, 2016 Page4 have exceeded 257 kW while the temporary 1200 ampere switch was powering the premises. Moreover, billing over 367 kW was not possible if installed per code and in a safe manner. Exhibit 4 at 7. Even after the permanent switchgear and CTs were installed, the 3500 ampere service lateral that provided power to the building could not draw over 1071 kW under NEC standards, and applying a 70% factor, would not likely be higher than 750 kW. Id. In the opinion of Lane Coburn & Associates, the most likely cause of the overbilling was incorrectly coordinating the actual meter CT ratio utilized in converting measured amperes to determine the amount of power used by the customer. Exhibit 4 at 8. ii. Cosentini Report. The report provided by Costentini Associations, authored by Roman Kuzmicki, (Exhibit 5) also finds that the erroneous readings from the Con Edison meter were due to incorrect installation of metering equipment and use of an incorrect multiplier for converting the current transformer (CT) values for calculating power demand and energy consumption. The readings used by Con Edison during the period when the temporary 1200 ampere switch was installed should be discounted, just as Con Edison discounted the reading of over 6000 kW in October 2014. Instead, the power usage estimates provided by EnergyWatch more closely reflects the probably energy consumption. Exhibit 5 at 2. Mr. Kuzmicki determined that the existing service lateral, which is limited to 3500 amperes, could provide no more than 1127 kW. Id. at 4. When the building was operating as a commercial building, he would have expected the maximum demand to be no more than 1000 kW.