Texas extended-stay four-coincident-peak scenario

Which Texas tariff is this hypothetical example using?

This illustration selects an invented extended-stay hotel account served at secondary voltage by Oncor. Assume its account has previously established a non-coincident peak of 850 kW and falls under the selected Secondary Service Greater Than 10 kW schedule. There is no actual customer, building, event response, or invoice. The unusually large assumed load is a worksheet input, not a typical load for extended-stay hotels.

Oncor’s retail delivery tariff, Sheet 1.3 effective June 1, 2026 and reviewed October 12, 2026, specifies 4CP treatment for Rider TCRF for premises that have established at least 700 kW NCP in a previous billing month or were already billed on 4CP under the stated provision. Verify the actual account’s classification and history; this is not a rule for every Texas hotel.

Here, four-coincident-peak average means the customer’s average integrated 15-minute demand at the selected four monthly ERCOT system peaks under that tariff. The readings come from June, July, August, and September of the previous calendar year. They are not simply the hotel’s four largest peaks. The bills hub provides the broader distinction among energy, demand, and transmission determinants.

Which inputs are assumed for the calculation?

Assume the customer readings at those four system peaks are 750, 800, 700, and 850 kW. Assume a teaching transmission component price of $3.80 per 4CP kW per month for all 12 modeled months. This price is invented, not Oncor’s actual TCRF factor, a retail offer, or a forecast. Other riders, energy, distribution, taxes, and fees outside this isolated component are excluded.

Assume the operating team can investigate selected controllable loads, but has not yet established an approved response or measured result. Guest cooking, common laundry, room conditioning, and shared systems may have constraints. The example’s alternative readings are assumed outcomes only. They do not establish what equipment could actually be changed at a property.

ERCOT’s 4CP data page provides system peak records. A real worksheet needs those records, correctly timestamped customer intervals, and the utility-issued determinant. An alert suggesting a possible peak is not the final system peak record, and an operational diary cannot replace metered evidence.

How does the baseline average become a cost component?

Add the assumed readings: 750 + 800 + 700 + 850 = 3,100 kW across the four observations. Divide by four to obtain a 775 kW average. Multiply 775 kW × $3.80 per kW-month = $2,945 for each modeled month. Across 12 months, the isolated component is $35,340. No division by 1,000 is needed because the price is stated per kW-month, not per MW-day.

The selected Oncor provision updates the average effective January 1 and keeps it fixed through that calendar year. Its stated new-history treatment also needs separate review for an account lacking prior 4CP data. This illustration assumes the required history exists. It does not move a summer response into the current month’s bill or claim that a newly opened hotel has the same determinant.

What if all four assumed responses occur?

The second row assumes a 100 kW reduction at each selected system peak. Its sum is 2,700 kW and its average is 675 kW. At the unchanged invented price, the monthly component is 675 × $3.80 = $2,565. The 12-month component is $30,780. Relative to baseline, the arithmetic differences are $380 monthly and $4,560 annually.

These are scenario differences, not project savings. The model assumes the response affects exactly the intervals ultimately selected for 4CP and that no other adjustment changes the determinant. A real plan could act on several candidate periods that are not selected. Record all operating actions and evaluate them against final system peak information before attributing a determinant change to the plan.

If the hotel’s response occurred only outside the selected intervals, its final 4CP could remain unchanged even though energy use changed on those days. The operating effort and the billing result are different evidence levels. A worksheet should preserve that possibility rather than presenting every alerted event as a successful transmission-cost action.

What happens when one peak is missed?

The third row assumes the first three readings fall by 100 kW but September rises to 900 kW instead of the baseline 850. The sum is 2,850 kW and the average is 712.5 kW. Its monthly component is $2,707.50, and its 12-month component is $32,490. The annual difference from baseline is $2,850, smaller than the all-response scenario’s $4,560.

The missed interval might represent an assumed operating constraint or an inaccurate candidate-period prediction. No actual event is claimed. Its purpose is to test the owner’s decision against imperfect execution. A budget relying on all four reductions should identify that assumption and the consequence of failing to achieve it.

There is also an adverse component-price scenario. At an invented $4.50 per kW-month, the 675 kW average produces $3,037.50 monthly and $36,450 annually. That exceeds the original baseline dollar component despite the lower determinant. Price sensitivity and physical response sensitivity therefore belong in separate columns; a reduced 4CP does not independently establish a lower future bill.

How are energy consumption and other demand charges kept separate?

An assumed 100 kW reduction lasting one 15-minute interval corresponds to 25 kWh, because 15 minutes is 0.25 hours. Four such intervals would equal 100 kWh if no energy is shifted or recovered elsewhere. This calculation does not mean the response plan lasts only 15 minutes or reduces annual electricity by that amount. Actual actions and recovery can occur over a longer period.

DOE’s utility-rate evaluation guidance supports reviewing each determinant against the applicable rate structure. The Oncor tariff includes separate distribution-demand provisions. A 4CP change should not automatically be applied to those charges. A monthly NCP, a distribution billing determinant, and a 4CP average can be different numbers on the same account.

For a hotel-level ratio, retain the whole energy boundary and matching room nights before allocating costs. This example models transmission only. It cannot be labeled total electricity cost per occupied room, and a lower component should not be credited again inside a supply rate that already includes the same cost.

What operating and contract review comes before a response plan?

DOE’s demand-response and time-variable pricing guidance describes several response and pricing mechanisms. A 4CP management plan is not automatically enrollment in a paid demand-response program. Any separate program needs its own eligibility, measurement, performance, and payment review. Keep modeled tariff effects distinct from possible program revenue.

Identify the equipment engineering and operations can control safely. Guest kitchens and laundry access may be promised services, while room and environmental systems require approved settings and recovery time. Test an authorized sequence, record overrides, and retain the ability to stop when service or technical conditions are affected. An energy objective is not operating permission.

Where brokerage compensation enters a supply comparison, disclose whether it is embedded or separate and include it once. The isolated transmission illustration does not include a separate brokerage charge. Review the supplier’s actual coverage before adding it to a broader procurement model.

What makes the worksheet reviewable?

1. Confirm Oncor service class, qualifying history, and the actual governing tariff sheets.
2. Match final ERCOT peak timestamps with verified customer intervals.
3. Calculate the four-reading average in kW and retain the source data.
4. Use the correct actual component units and period when replacing assumed prices.
5. Test missed intervals, changed prices, technical constraints, and recovery effects.
6. Reconcile the utility-issued determinant and subsequent invoice without duplicating costs.

The PJM capacity-tag example uses another obligation mechanism. The Maryland ratchet example uses a demand floor, while the Connecticut laundry example tests schedule coincidence. Their formulas should remain separate from this selected Oncor 4CP calculation.