What is assumed about this Connecticut laundry operation?
This illustration uses a hypothetical hotel in Eversource’s Connecticut service area. There is no client, laundry trial, tariff quote, or measured result. Assume its approved laundry process adds a 40 kW average electric load for four hours on 20 working days per month. That is an invented aggregate load, not a machine rating or a typical hotel laundry requirement.
Assume the same process also uses 800 therms of dryer gas and 500 therms of water-heating gas, or 1,300 therms monthly. These quantities are independent teaching assumptions rather than estimates derived from the electric load. The example does not change cleaning settings or quantity processed. Production, sanitation, equipment, hot-water, and staffing requirements remain fixed constraints.
A schedule-coincidence test evaluates how the timing of an otherwise unchanged operating process affects the account’s measured peak. The bills hub explains the separate energy and demand quantities. A schedule can change peak exposure without changing total energy, and a different tariff may treat timing in another way.
Which prices and tariff method are assumed?
Assume a flat electric energy component of $0.10 per kWh, a simple demand component of $14 per kW-month, and a gas component of $1.20 per therm. Every price is invented and is not an Eversource tariff, current supplier quote, or gas-utility price. Assume the demand determinant is the month’s highest coincident load with no ratchet or other adjustment. The actual account method must be verified separately.
Assume each listed energy component contains any embedded brokerage compensation, with no separate modeled fee. A real comparison needs the written amount or method and whether compensation is embedded or separate. Include it once. Delivery items, taxes, riders, fixed charges, maintenance, and other unlisted costs remain outside the isolated component calculation.
Connecticut PURA’s supplier-choice guidance, reviewed October 12, 2026, supplies the state shopping context. Verify the actual commercial account, utility class, agreement, and available supply arrangements. The page does not establish the worksheet’s invented prices or make every hotel account subject to the simplified demand rule.
How do the unchanged energy quantities reconcile?
The assumed laundry electricity is 40 kW × four hours × 20 days = 3,200 kWh. Its energy component is 3,200 × $0.10 = $320. The modeled gas component is 1,300 therms × $1.20 = $1,560. Together those energy components are $1,880. This does not include the hotel’s other electricity or gas use.
Moving the same process to another period leaves these quantities unchanged under the assumptions. A real operating trial could change runtime, water use, or equipment performance, but that would require its own measurement. Do not claim an energy reduction merely because the demand calculation improves. Keep electricity and gas records separate even when the laundry uses both fuels.
DOE’s water-intensive process guidance discusses commercial laundry practices. It supports investigating equipment and operating requirements, not prescribing this hypothetical hotel’s cleaning settings. Any proposed process adjustment needs the responsible operator’s approval and the actual manufacturer’s instructions and sanitation requirements.
What does the original daytime schedule cost in demand?
In Scenario A, assume the hotel’s other load is 160 kW while laundry adds 40, producing 200 kW. Assume another interval without laundry reaches 190 kW. The modeled monthly peak is therefore 200 kW. At the invented $14 component, demand costs $2,800. This is the whole account’s isolated demand component, not a claim that laundry independently causes all 200 kW.
The laundry’s incremental effect relative to the assumed 190 kW competing peak is 10 kW, or $140 for that component. Adding the entire 40 kW to the bill would incorrectly attribute the full process draw as incremental billing demand. The relevant comparison uses the highest account interval with and without the proposed schedule.
| Hypothetical schedule | Laundry draw and duration | Other load during laundry | Combined load | Competing peak | Monthly maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A: Original | 40 kW for 4 hours | 160 kW | 200 kW | 190 kW | 200 kW |
| B: Shifted | 40 kW for 4 hours | 140 kW | 180 kW | 190 kW | 190 kW |
| C: Staggered | 20 kW for 8 hours | 140 kW | 160 kW | 190 kW | 190 kW |
How much does a shifted schedule change the result?
Scenario B moves the four-hour process to an assumed period when the rest of the hotel draws 140 kW. Laundry brings that interval to 180 kW, but the separate 190 kW interval remains. Billing demand under the simplified method becomes 190 kW, costing $2,660. The component difference from the original schedule is $140, not $280.
For a second load-profile sensitivity, assume the separate competing peak were only 175 kW. The shifted schedule’s 180 kW interval would then control, costing $2,520. Relative to the original 200 kW case, its difference is $280. These are alternative assumptions, not two savings amounts that can be added together.
DOE’s utility-rate evaluation guidance supports reviewing load and tariff structure together. A ratchet, time period, or adjusted determinant could produce another result. Confirm actual demand rules before assigning the simple maximum model to an Eversource account or attributing a first-invoice change to scheduling.
Does a longer staggered process improve the demand case?
Scenario C assumes the same 3,200 kWh can be delivered as 20 kW for eight hours on the same 20 days. The arithmetic is 20 × 8 × 20 = 3,200. This assumes an operationally feasible equivalent production process, which would need verification in practice. At 140 kW other load, combined demand is 160 kW; the 190 kW competing peak still controls.
Demand remains $2,660, giving no further modeled reduction beyond Scenario B. If the eight-hour arrangement instead requires four additional staffed hours per working day, assume a teaching incremental labor cost of $25 per hour. Additional monthly cost is four × 20 × $25 = $2,000. This amount is invented, not a Connecticut wage, overtime rule, or actual staffing contract.
Under those assumptions, the extra labor exceeds the $140 electrical component difference. The owner should therefore evaluate total operational consequences. A lower equipment peak can look appealing on a graph while adding expense and failing to change the controlling account demand. Feasibility, actual lawful labor arrangements, and production requirements must remain in the decision.
What should an operating trial measure?
DOE’s energy information system guidance describes capabilities for performance tracking and investigation. Pair the account’s intervals with laundry cycles, production, hot-water operation, and staff schedules. Confirm timestamps and record other equipment that could create a replacement peak. A single selected day is not proof of a full-month billing effect.
Track cleaning output and service readiness as well as energy. If the shifted process delays room readiness, adds overtime, or causes equipment recovery outside the intended period, the original assumptions no longer describe the operation. Stop or revise the trial through the responsible operating team rather than treating procurement’s preferred timing as a mandatory setting.
Keep gas quantities visible. A gas-fired dryer can still have electric motors and associated equipment, while hot-water production may run on its own schedule. The electrical coincidence result does not determine the gas component or justify claiming the unchanged 1,300 therms as avoided consumption.
What should the final decision record contain?
- Verified account class, tariff method, current agreement, and actual energy components.
- Equipment and production evidence supporting the proposed process and schedule.
- Monthly electricity and gas quantities reconciled separately.
- Account intervals showing both process coincidence and competing peaks.
- Cleaning, staffing, service, and equipment constraints with authorized trial review.
- Invoice reconciliation and compensation treatment without duplicated energy or demand credits.
The Maryland ratchet example changes the demand formula, while the Pennsylvania charging example tests a guest dwell-time constraint. The New York water-heating example changes the fuel balance. Their insights can help frame questions, but this laundry worksheet requires its own approved process and metered account evidence.