Distribution vs. Transmission: Comparing Tariffs

Larger industrial and commercial building owners can restructure their electric service to best take advantage of the deregulated environment. The end-user can select a preferred generation source, and, in effect, use the electric transmission system as a common carrier to get energy to his facility, bypassing altogether the local utility's distribution system.

11/01/2000


Larger industrial and commercial building owners can restructure their electric service to best take advantage of the deregulated environment. The end-user can select a preferred generation source, and, in effect, use the electric transmission system as a common carrier to get energy to his facility, bypassing altogether the local utility's distribution system.

The decision to bypass the distribution system is primarily economic. Transmission service is generally much less expensive, and having choice implies competition on price.

However, to have access to the interconnected utility grid and multiple generation providers, the end-user's electric service must migrate from the serving utility's distribution system to the transmission system. Also, the industrial facility must assume all of the design and operational responsibilities traditionally handled by the utility.

To assist in determining whether the additional work is worth the savings, it helps to quantify them. The attached tables, which compare the distribution and transmission tariffs from a large Midwestern utility, show a typical industrial load using both tariffs, as well as the percentage savings for sample load ranges and load factors.

Table 1 - Typical Tariffs and Industrial Load Calculations


TYPICAL TARIFFSDistribution serviceTransmission service


Service charge


$10.00


$100.00


Demand charge


First 1,000 kW: 12.11 per kW


First 50,000 kVA: 10.53 per kVA


Additional demand: 10.51 per kW


Additional demand: 8.19 per kVA


Energy charge


Demand times 300: 0.01905 per kWh


Demand times 300: 0.0085 per kWh


Additional kWh: 0.00720 per kWh


Additional kWh: 0.0067 per kWh


INDUSTRIAL EXAMPLE


Distribution service


Transmission service


Service charge


$10.00


$100.00


Demand charge


1,000 kW X $12.11 = $12,110.00


3,500 kW X $10.53 = $368,550.00


34,000 kW X$10.51 = $357,340.00


Energy charge


35,000 X 300 = 10,500,000 X 0.01905 = $200,025.00


35,000 X 300 = 10,500,000 X 0.0085 = $89,250.00


(17,885,000-10,500,000) X $0.0072 = $53,172.00


(17,885,000-10,500,000) X $0.0067 = $49,479.00


Total


$622,657


$507,379


Transmission tariffs from a large Midwestern utility show that they are generally much cheaper than distribution rates. An industrial facility with a 35,000-kW load and a monthly energy consumption of 17,885,000 kWh-and a load factor of 70 percent-will have the charges shown above (fuel charge excluded) at 100-percent power factor.

Table 2 - Savings


Load (Kw)Savings (%)


10,000


19.0


20,000


18.7


30,000


18.5


40,000


18.5


50,000


18.5


60,000


18.4


70,000


18.4


80,000


18.4


90,000


18.4


100,000


18.4


Using the tariffs shown in Table 1, potential savings were calculated over a broad range of demands, showing a consistent level of savings. Another major variable to consider is load factor, which is found by dividing the total annual energy consumed by the demand, multiplied by 8,760 hours per year. The lower values shown represent peak loads.

Table 3 - Load Factor


Load Factor (%)Savings (%)


0.5


19.2


0.55


19.1


0.6


18.9


0.65


18.7


0.7


18.5


0.75


18.3


0.8


18.2


0.85


18.0


0.9


17.9


0.95


17.7


1


17.6





No comments
Consulting-Specifying Engineer's Product of the Year (POY) contest is the premier award for new products in the HVAC, fire, electrical, and...
Consulting-Specifying Engineer magazine is dedicated to encouraging and recognizing the most talented young individuals...
The MEP Giants program lists the top mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineering firms in the United States.
Combined heat and power; Assessing replacement of electrical systems; Energy codes and lighting; Salary Survey; Fan efficiency
Commissioning lighting control systems; 2016 Commissioning Giants; Design high-efficiency hot water systems for hospitals; Evaluating condensation and condensate
Solving HVAC challenges; Thermal comfort criteria; Liquid-immersion cooling; Specifying VRF systems; 2016 Product of the Year winners
Driving motor efficiency; Preventing Arc Flash in mission critical facilities; Integrating alternative power and existing electrical systems
Putting COPS into context; Designing medium-voltage electrical systems; Planning and designing resilient, efficient data centers; The nine steps of designing generator fuel systems
Designing generator systems; Using online commissioning tools; Selective coordination best practices
As brand protection manager for Eaton’s Electrical Sector, Tom Grace oversees counterfeit awareness...
Amara Rozgus is chief editor and content manager of Consulting-Specifier Engineer magazine.
IEEE power industry experts bring their combined experience in the electrical power industry...
Michael Heinsdorf, P.E., LEED AP, CDT is an Engineering Specification Writer at ARCOM MasterSpec.
click me