Meany Lodge

Subject: Electrical power system

Date: June 23, 2019

This document is in response to you via Chuck for information about the electrical loads at Meany (monthly energy and demands) with an eye to adding renewable generation (wind/solar) to the Meany electrical system. This is a good thought, but I do not see as practical at this time for the reasons I will outline below.

First this addition will likely require a meter change out to one that will record in both directions (i.e. run backwards when the load at the lodge is insufficient to consume the generation). Second the financials would have a recovery in approximately 10 years and lastly the maintenance required (especially wind) would strain the Lodge maintenance resources (it appears to be stretched thin at this point with all the equipment needing maintenance now).

This does not mean however that someone like you with an interest in the power system cannot make improvements to it and save revenue and perhaps a lot of revenue. There is a looming problem with the power demand at the lodge and that is exceeding the 50-kW limit in the rate schedule. We are very likely close currently, if not over it.

I am attaching to the transmitting email what load data I have. Most of it is old at this point, but I think is something that you can work with. But first perhaps a little history of the power system is in order to understand how we got where we are.

Commercial power first came to the Lodge in the early ‘60s via the BN railroad at (RR) 2400 volt. The power came from the vicinity of the RR tunnel and ran to the Lodge on a Mountaineer installed and maintained power line. The power cost a flat rate of $35/year and there was no meter. The load limit was 5-kW which we quickly exceeded and then also picked up the tow hut and later the Zoo/Cat House loads.

This worked out fine until there was a power outage in 1980 and someone called the RR and informed them that our power was out and please fix it. This prompted a response “Who are you and by the way the RR does not serve non-RR loads”. The local RR management did not know they were serving us.

This resulted in converting our electrical load to PSE in the summer of 1981 by building a power line from the BPA transmission line right of way to the Lodge. PSE had a 7200-volt line on the BPA R/W. A primary meter (7200 Volt) was determined to be needed because of the distance to the lodge and the distributed loads that we had (i.e. the Tow Hut, Zoo/Cat House and the Lodge itself). This presented a rate schedule problem as we should have been placed on Rate Schedule 31 (high voltage service) with very draconian cost issues. Personal contacts with PSE senior management resolved the issue by agreeing to place us on Rate Schedule 24 (low voltage service with an energy only billing determinate).

The next event was a PSE meter changeout that resulted in a metering errors and an assignment to Rate Schedule 25 because the indication was that we exceeded the 50-kW limit (still low voltage service but with a demand charge added). A billing dispute took place at this point which we finally prevailed with a $13,000 plus rebate and movement back to Rate Schedule 24 where we are today. Sometime after the billing dispute was settled PSE turned off the recording of the demand function at the meter and it is still off today but could be restored, at any time, most likely remotely from their office.

The next event was to add the 50 HP motor load to the system by replacing the gas motor in the Tow Hut with the electric motor at the State Inspector’s insistence. Load studies were done and actions to reduce loads were taken but I do not know at where we wound up on demand as I do not have any good data on Tow Hut Demands with the 50hp motor in operation.

Lastly the power line was rebuilt a couple of years ago from the PSE power line to the Lodge as the existing poles had rotted off.

My fear is that an event will get PSE to looking closely at our service and find we are exceeding the 50-kW limit. They may then just assign us to Rate Schedule 25 which would not be all that bad but could also determine that we should be on Schedule 31 which would have significant financial impact on the Lodge operations. At that point we would be had as I doubt we have any influence with PSE at this point. It is best to stay below the 50-kW limit.

I believe there are actions that you could take that will further reduce the demand (and energy consumption) at the Lodge and would encourage you do so. I think more importantly someone at the Lodge should understand the demand problem (know where the Lodge currently stands on demand) and be able to analyze the proposed addition of new loads for impact.

For your use I am attaching several documents to the transmitting email.

An actual PSE invoice
Comparison of rate schedules 24, 25,31 using 2010-2013 load data. You may want to update this with the current rates.
Billing data from the time of the billing dispute 2005-2006
Load survey 2012. This was done for the new motor addition to determine where we were at that point
2008/2009 billing data
Other data