Multiple services to same property

[kwired]

To take the position to the extreme, if I have 1000 acres and I place structures at opposite ends of the property, would the POCO still force me to cross the entire property for power, since I own the entire plot of land?

Not so extreme in farming country.

1 square mile = 640 acres. Same farm might own the entire section and possibly has 4 center pivot irrigation machines and wells on four different services, in the corners of each quarter where the center pivot doesn't reach they may have additional services for various things. Maybe grain storage bins in one location, a shop and/or storage buildings in another location, maybe the owner lives on one corner and his house is on another service. If they are livestock people, maybe there is service to another area within that 640 acres with livestock operation facilities on it. All those different locations on different service even if all under same customer name.

Add to that maybe the old house is still present in another area and is rented out or even used to house hired hand(s) and on yet another service.

Keep in mind same POCO generally has higher monthly service fee for these rural services than they have for services within the towns/villages they happen to serve. For 200 amp or less single phase service it may only be 5 or 10 dollar difference on the monthly minimum fee.

 

[Hv&Lv]

I thought that too initially, but the POCO rep even admitted that the 167kVA is too small to support everything properly. They just have this thing about multiple services of the same voltage to the same property. If there's a property line involved, it's apparently fine. Even the POCO doesn't know why the rule exists. I've also heard that this a rule most POCOs follow for some reason.


SceneryDriver

It's not all POCOs.
We have one large business campus with about 85 meters on it.

We also have an area like you describe with 6 meters. One for the theater and the other three do multiple shops and cabins.

 

[kwired]

It's not all POCOs.
We have one large business campus with about 85 meters on it.

We also have an area like you describe with 6 meters. One for the theater and the other three do multiple shops and cabins.

Are they all in same customer name or is there about 85 different customer names on the billings?

The POCO OP is dealing with likely has no problem with multiple occupants and multiple "services", which for billing sort of means each meter is a service though they also likely would prefer to serve as many of these meters as possible from as few transformers as possible within some limits. Like maybe they rather supply a couple 300 or 500 kVA transformers at opposite ends of a larger multi occupancy than to supply one 1000+ kVA unit.

If OP is having difficulty maybe client needs to divide the loads served and apply for service under two names, even if they have same billing address. As long as usage of the second service is not so low they will get minimal return in energy sold there isn't much difference than two other entities wanting service with same load patterns. And if this POCO wants at least some reimbursement for the line construction costs - they aren't really losing much anyway.

 

[Hv&Lv]

Are they all in same customer name or is there about 85 different customer names on the billings?

The POCO OP is dealing with likely has no problem with multiple occupants and multiple "services", which for billing sort of means each meter is a service though they also likely would prefer to serve as many of these meters as possible from as few transformers as possible within some limits. Like maybe they rather supply a couple 300 or 500 kVA transformers at opposite ends of a larger multi occupancy than to supply one 1000+ kVA unit.

If OP is having difficulty maybe client needs to divide the loads served and apply for service under two names, even if they have same billing address. As long as usage of the second service is not so low they will get minimal return in energy sold there isn't much difference than two other entities wanting service with same load patterns. And if this POCO wants at least some reimbursement for the line construction costs - they aren't really losing much anyway.

The ones in my post are all in the same name.
Trailer parks are a large campus area but as everywhere else, all the 400-500 meters there are in separate individuals names.

 

[hillbilly1]

I did work at one golf course where they had one meter, it was on the high line that looped through the entire course. Multiple transformers.

 

[jaggedben]

...

To take the position to the extreme, if I have 1000 acres and I place structures at opposite ends of the property, would the POCO still force me to cross the entire property for power, since I own the entire plot of land?
...

Not so extreme in farming country.
...

Exactly this. The POCO's rule, if it's really about property lines, is just plain stupid. And it's not done that way everywhere. There is no legitimate reason for them to be concerned about whether the buildings served are on a single property or multiple properties.

I would ask to see the rule in writing as referenced in their published book of regulations and (especially if I didn't get a prompt response) perhaps casually mention that I'm going to contact the public utilities commission for information about whether that is a valid rule and what the basis for it would be.

 

[jaggedben]

Poco’s don’t like large single phase services because it unbalances their lines. ...

No reason they can't supply two single phase transformers from different phases of a 3-phase circuit on their network.

 

[hillbilly1]

No reason they can't supply two single phase transformers from different phases of a 3-phase circuit on their network.

But in my case, it was only one service, not multiples like the op’s. A lot of places that use a large single phase service, is because three phase is not available.

 

[SceneryDriver]

No reason they can't supply two single phase transformers from different phases of a 3-phase circuit on their network.

After more discussions yesterday, it turns out that the POCO has no problem with two services (meters) on the same property. They have a problem with multiple transformers at the same address feeding the same property. It still makes no sense, but at least we know more.

We have a new plan:
The theater owns an adjacent property on the cross road. It's a farmhouse they use as summer housing for actors. It currently has its own transformer and meter, as it is/was a separate property with a separate address before the theater bought it several years ago. The POCO is apparently fine with upgrading the house's transformer, and is fine if we feed the other buildings on the property from that service. I can't even begin to make sense of their logic, but at least we have a way forward.

The new plans come with some increased benefits as well - namely, cleaning up the overhead feeder mess that currently exists. It also means we can do this in two phases (no pun intended): Upgrade the transformer at the theater this spring and continue to use it to feed the theater and the other buildings, and then re-feed the other buildings from the separate service in another year.


SceneryDriver

 

[Hv&Lv]

After more discussions yesterday, it turns out that the POCO has no problem with two services (meters) on the same property. They have a problem with multiple transformers at the same address feeding the same property. It still makes no sense, but at least we know more.

We have a new plan:
The theater owns an adjacent property on the cross road. It's a farmhouse they use as summer housing for actors. It currently has its own transformer and meter, as it is/was a separate property with a separate address before the theater bought it several years ago. The POCO is apparently fine with upgrading the house's transformer, and is fine if we feed the other buildings on the property from that service. I can't even begin to make sense of their logic, but at least we have a way forward.

The new plans come with some increased benefits as well - namely, cleaning up the overhead feeder mess that currently exists. It also means we can do this in two phases (no pun intended): Upgrade the transformer at the theater this spring and continue to use it to feed the theater and the other buildings, and then re-feed the other buildings from the separate service in another year.


SceneryDriver

That really makes no sense..
How many trailer parks are they serving with the same address for each mobile home? Only the lot numbers are different..

 

[kwired]

That really makes no sense..
How many trailer parks are they serving with the same address for each mobile home? Only the lot numbers are different..

Investor owned POCO with profits being a big decision maker for most everything they do I'd guess. Not long term profits, short term profits and a get what you can while you can kind of approach.

The publicly owned POCO that serves where I live I just read is not raising energy rates again this year. They have not raised rates for about 10 years according to the article. And during that time they have upgraded many things and made their operation more efficient as well. On top of that same organization has given back to the communities they serve in different projects. Part of how they do this is what they call "operation round up". You can decline this if you want, but they round up your electric bill each month to next whole dollar amount and use those funds for the mentioned community projects.

 

[hillbilly1]

Probably some government restriction.

 

[SceneryDriver]

That really makes no sense..
How many trailer parks are they serving with the same address for each mobile home? Only the lot numbers are different..

I didn't say it made any sense. But it's what the POCO said. They will do multiple services (meters) to a single address, but not multiple transformers. It's in Illinois if it matters.


SceneryDriver

 

[jaggedben]

Around here PG&E just makes up addresses when the city isn't clear about them. E.g. 123 1st Street Upper and 123 1st St Lower, when a two story house got split into apartments without the city registering a new address.

Had a crazy situation a number of years back where we struggled to interconnect a solar system because the house was on the corner of two streets and the building permit was for the proper address on the street with the front door, but the PG&E bill was under a made up address on the perpendicular street where the service drop was.