What is assumed about this Pennsylvania charging project?
This is a hypothetical hotel in PECO’s Pennsylvania service area considering four Level 2 charging ports on its existing hotel meter. There is no real client, charging project, tariff quote, or measured result. Assume each port can draw 7.2 kW, giving 28.8 kW combined. Assume the existing hotel billing peak is 160 kW before charging. Those loads are invented worksheet inputs, not typical hotel or charger utilization.
Assume charging requires 240 kWh of metered electricity daily for 30 days, or 7,200 kWh monthly. This is electricity measured at the modeled charging boundary, not energy received by vehicle batteries. Charger losses and battery receipt would require a separate efficiency measurement. Assume an energy component of $0.09 per kWh and an incremental demand component of $12 per kW-month; both are hypothetical.
An charging-coincidence scenario compares when charging power occurs relative to the rest of the property’s load. The bills hub explains why kW and kWh answer different billing questions. Here the simplified demand determinant is the maximum coincident load for the month, with no assumed ratchet or additional adjustment. A real account must use its actual tariff method.
What does PECO tariff context establish and leave unresolved?
PECO’s electric tariff effective September 1, 2025, reviewed October 12, 2026, includes an EV-FC provision with a stated 2026–2029 period for dedicated direct-current fast-charging service. That dated document provides a specific tariff distinction. This illustration does not assume its Level 2 equipment on a shared hotel meter receives that treatment.
Before a real installation, verify the current tariff supplements, applicable service class, electrical capacity, and meter arrangement with the utility. A dedicated charging meter and a shared hotel meter create different account boundaries. Neither configuration should be chosen solely from this worksheet. Retain engineering and provider confirmation of the actual connection and billing arrangement.
DOE’s charging-operation guidance identifies energy, maintenance, networking, and demand-related considerations. The worksheet isolates energy and one demand component, leaving capital, maintenance, networking, payment processing, and driver revenue outside its result. Those omissions should remain visible in any investment discussion.
How does unmanaged peak coincidence affect the assumed bill?
In Scenario A, assume all four ports draw 28.8 kW during the hotel’s 160 kW monthly peak. Combined demand is 188.8 kW. The existing modeled demand component is 160 × $12 = $1,920; with charging it becomes 188.8 × $12 = $2,265.60. The incremental demand component is $345.60 for the month.
Charging energy costs 7,200 kWh × $0.09 = $648. Add the assumed incremental demand component to obtain $993.60 of modeled incremental operating components. Dividing by charging energy gives $0.138 per kWh. That is a scenario allocation, not a retail offer or a complete charging price. It excludes all the other project costs already identified.
| Assumed scenario | Hotel load during charging | Charging power | Modeled monthly peak | Incremental demand component |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A: Charging at hotel peak | 160 kW | 28.8 kW | 188.8 kW | $345.60 |
| B: Lower overnight load | 100 kW | 28.8 kW | 160 kW remains elsewhere | $0 |
| C: Higher overnight load | 145 kW | 28.8 kW | 173.8 kW | $165.60 |
The assumptions hold charging power constant to make coincidence visible. Actual chargers may not reach that level in the relevant demand interval, and the hotel’s peak may occur on another day. Measure the account rather than treating nameplate addition as a demonstrated demand increase.
What happens if the same energy is charged overnight?
Scenario B assumes charging occurs when the rest of the hotel draws 100 kW. Combined load is 128.8 kW, below the unchanged 160 kW peak occurring elsewhere. Under the simplified assumed tariff method, billing demand remains 160 kW and incremental demand cost is zero. The charging energy still costs $648. Scheduling has changed coincidence, not the 7,200 kWh requirement.
At a constant 28.8 kW, delivering the assumed daily 240 kWh requires 240 ÷ 28.8 = 8.333 hours, or eight hours and 20 minutes. Assume the guest-parking window is ten hours and that all required vehicle and equipment conditions permit that modeled operation. The arithmetic fits within the assumed window, but it does not demonstrate actual session performance.
If the window shrinks to eight hours, maximum energy at the same power is 28.8 × 8 = 230.4 kWh. The shortfall is 9.6 kWh daily against the assumed requirement. The hotel would need a different service promise, schedule, or technically feasible design. The lower-demand result should not be presented without this delivery constraint.
What if the hotel’s overnight load is higher than expected?
Scenario C assumes the hotel itself draws 145 kW during charging. Adding 28.8 produces 173.8 kW, which exceeds the prior peak by 13.8 kW. The incremental demand component is 13.8 × $12 = $165.60. Combined with the unchanged $648 energy component, modeled charging operation costs $813.60, or $0.113 per kWh.
That result sits between the unmanaged and lower-overnight cases. It could represent an assumed laundry shift, electric water-heating cycle, or other operation occurring overnight. The example does not claim one of those activities caused a real peak. Its purpose is to test whether a proposed schedule depends on an unrealistically low background load.
DOE’s utility-rate evaluation guidance supports matching the load profile with the actual rate structure. Review representative busy and quiet days, timestamps, and other equipment schedules. If an actual tariff has time-based demand, a floor, or another adjustment, incorporate it explicitly rather than assuming the simple maximum rule used here.
How should a supplier offer and compensation enter the charging review?
Pennsylvania PUC supply-price guidance distinguishes pricing structures. Use it as shopping context and verify the actual commercial agreement. Adding charging can change both monthly consumption and load timing. A fixed unit component does not itself fix the quantity or utility delivery-demand exposure.
For the illustration, the $0.09 energy component is assumed to include any embedded brokerage compensation. No separate brokerage fee is added. In an actual comparison, obtain the amount or method and identify whether compensation is embedded or separate. Count it once, using the same charging and hotel quantities for each offer.
Ask how a supply agreement treats new charging load, a delayed installation, or a separate meter. Keep the existing hotel baseline and the post-project scenario distinguishable. An equipment purchase date is not proof that charging consumption begins on that date. Installation, utility approval, commissioning, and actual availability determine the relevant operating record.
What should be checked before using the result in a project decision?
- Confirm the electrical design, meter boundary, utility class, and current tariff supplements.
- Use actual hotel intervals and charging session requirements rather than a category average.
- Reconcile charging kW, available hours, and required metered kWh.
- Test coincidence, higher background load, and shorter guest dwell time.
- Add capital, maintenance, networking, payment, and any verified incentive assumptions separately.
- Review supply volume treatment, compensation, commissioning, and first-invoice evidence.
The New Jersey solar-and-storage example examines another behind-the-meter change. The Connecticut laundry example tests equipment scheduling, and the Maryland ratchet example shows why a different demand method can change the result. Preserve this project’s actual charging requirements when combining those questions.
Keep a charging-session log with arrival, departure, energy delivered, and any interrupted service. Compare that log with property interval meter records before deciding whether the charging schedule actually changed the billed peak.