here - Jeffpud.org
Download
Report
Transcript here - Jeffpud.org
Jefferson County PUD
Preliminary Cost of Service and Rate Design Results
December 9, 2014
Presented by:
Gary Saleba, President
EES Consulting, Inc.
A registered professional engineering corporation with offices in the
Seattle and Portland metropolitan areas
Telephone (425) 889-2700 Facsimile (425) 889-2725
[email protected]
EES Consulting
EES
Agenda
Objectives
Review of Rate Setting Process
Electric Rate Study Assumptions
COSA Results
Electric Rate Design Policy Input Needed
COSA Results and Proposed Rate Options
Specific Electric Rate Design Proposals
Summary of Electric Rate Study Policy Issues
EES Recommendations
Pole Attachment Rate
Water/Wastewater Results
Water/Wastewater Recommendations
Questions / Answers
2
Objectives
Review Equity of Current Cost of Service Analysis (COSA) and Rate
Design
Goal is every customer pays fair share
Cost allocations driven by usage, density and delivery voltage
Rate Restructuring
Simplify current rate schedule structures and administration
Make rates PUD-specific
Address local concerns
3
Objectives (cont’d)
Traditional Rate Setting Principles/Bonbright Principles
Rates should meet revenue requirement
Rates should be cost based
Rates should be easy to understand and administer
Rates and the cost allocation process should conform to generally
accepted rate setting techniques
Rates should provide revenue stability to the utility and rate stability
to the consumer
RCW Legal Requirements (80.28.005)
Fair, just, reasonable and sufficient
4
Review of Rate Setting Process
Step 1 Aggregate
Revenue
Requirement
(How much?)
Step 2 Perform Cost
of Service
Study (Who
should pay?)
Step 4 Implement
Rates
Step 3 - Design
Rates (How to
collect?)
5
Electric Rate Study Assumptions
June 2013 –May 2014 Actual Loads
Calendar Year 2015 Test Period/Budget
Revenues Calculated Using Current Rates and Billing Determinants
Forecast O&M Expenses per 2015 Budget
Power Supply and Production Expenses Based on BPA
Rates/Projected Loads
Debt Service Assuming No New Debt
Capital Improvement Projects per the Budget and Funded by Rate
Revenues and Reserve Fund
6
COSA Results
Summary of Revenue Requirement
Revenues
2015
2016
2017
2018
$30,126,902
$30,781,403
$31,049,687
$31,409,098
$617,573
$636,100
$655,183
$674,839
$30,744,475
$31,417,503
$31,704,870
$32,083,937
Generation
$14,838,505
$16,085,205
$16,437,055
$17,315,982
Transmission
$1,344,426
$1,384,759
$1,426,302
$1,469,091
Distribution
$3,198,066
$3,294,008
$3,392,828
$3,494,613
$800,000
$824,000
$848,720
$874,182
Administration and General
$1,809,579
$1,863,866
$1,919,782
$1,977,376
Capital Projects
$3,892,000
$4,757,000
$2,637,500
$2,447,500
Taxes
$2,103,500
$2,166,605
$2,231,603
$2,298,551
Interest and Debt Service
$5,800,000
$5,800,000
$5,800,000
$5,800,000
Total Expenses
$33,786,076
$36,175,443
$34,693,790
$35,677,294
Surplus (Deficiency) in Funds
-$3,041,600
-$4,757,940
-$2,988,920
-$3,593,358
Fund Balance (prior to rate increase)
$9,365,275
$4,607,335
$1,618,415
-$1,974,942
9.9%
15.1%
9.4%
11.2%
Present Rate Revenues
Other Income
Total Revenues
Expenses
Customer Accounts and Services
Total Required Increase (Decrease)
7
Electric COSA Results
Revenue to Cost Ratios
Revenues at Current
Rates
Adjusted Ratio
Minimum System
Adjusted Ratio
100% Demand
$18,754,671
89.1%
88.9%
477,348
75.7%
89.4%
General Service (24)
4,070,992
165.0%
192.9%
Small Demand (25)
1,891,428
146.5%
132.3%
Large Demand (26)
675,410
149.1%
134.5%
Primary (31)
915,562
134.2%
113.3%
Irrigation (29)
7,472
26.7%
21.0%
Interruptible Schools 43
460,912
77.2%
65.3%
Street & Hwy Lighting
187,204
71.3%
81.5%
2,685,903
100.7%
100.7%
$30,126,902
100.0%
100.0%
Residential (7)
Farm Service (8)
PTP
TOTAL
Accurate to +/- 10%
8
Electric Rate Design Policy Input Needed
Determine Overall Rate Adjustment
Determine Method for Allocating Rate Increase Across Classes
How much and when to adjust rates
May want small increase over multiple years or one time increase
Timing depends on policy direction and software upgrades
Across-the-board
COSA based
Move toward +/- 10 percent
Develop Proposed Rates
PSE rates do not reflect JPUD costs
Appropriate to simplify and combine some rate schedules
Evaluate size of customer charge
Consider eliminating block rates and seasonal differentials
What to do about net metering and senior, disabled and/ or low income
discounts
New large single load policy
9
COSA Results and Proposed Rate Options
Residential
Comparison of Rates to Unit Costs
Basic Charge ($/day)
Energy Charge ($/kWh)
Present
Minimum System
$7.49
$0.08511 (1st 600 kWh)
$0.103589 (over 600 kWh)
$29.63
100 Percent
Demand
$9.03
$0.0961
$0.1174
Proposed Rate Options
COSA indicates above-average rate increase
Increased customer charge justified by COSA and comparable utility rates
Implement minimum bill?
Remainder of increase to energy charge
Move to flat energy rate, or reduce block rate differential to be consistent
with flat rates for BPA purchases and comparable utility rates?
Schedule 8 not needed if Schedule 7 moves to flat rate
10
Specific Electric Rate Design Proposals
Commercial/Industrial
Existing Rates
Schedule 24 – No demand charge, seasonal energy charge
Schedule 25 – Seasonal demand charge >50 kW, seasonal and declining block
energy charge
Schedule 26 - Seasonal demand charge >50 kW, flat energy charge
Schedule 31 - Seasonal demand charge >50 kW, flat energy charge
Proposed Rate Options
COSA indicates below-average rate increase
Establish 2 rates – with and without demand charge
Schedule 24 customer charge increased and consider eliminating or reducing
seasonal energy differential to better match BPA costs
Schedule 25/26/31 – consider having demand charge cover all kW (not just
amount over 50 kW), consider eliminating or reducing seasonal differences,
eliminate declining block structure
Handle primary service through discount to demand and energy charges rather
than separate rate
11
Specific Electric Rate Design Proposals
Other Classes
Irrigation
Current rates are complicated with declining block energy rates and
seasonal for both demand and energy
Consider move to general service rate
Interruptible Schools
Less benefit of interruption to JPUD than to PSE
Only paying 65% -75% of Costs
Consider move to general service rate
12
Specific Electric Rate Design Proposals
Other Classes (cont’d)
Lighting
Simplify rates with each rate reflecting a range of usage rather than one rate
for each type of light
Differentiate rates based on who owns the pole
Comparable utility rates
0 100W
= $10/month
100W
= $15/month
Pole
= $ 5/month
Port Townsend street lights
Put on same schedule as above
Monthly charge for balance of City-related lighting costs
Port Townsend Paper
Pass through of BPA charges plus admin fees and taxes
Apply standard % rate increase to administrative fees
Need to re-evaluate when Clallam PUD transaction finalized
13
Specific Electric Rate Design Proposals
Other Classes (cont’d)
Net Metering
Historical practice – 100 kW cap/ .5%of peak load or 500 kW total
Current issues with net metering
Options for going forward
Discounts
Disabled/senior existing
Low income possible
$500K to $1M in discounts
$3 to $6 per month to recover from others
Staff addition at 1 FTE to administer
$.50 per month
Consider forgiving the customer charge as the crediting mechanism
New Large Single Loads
Less than 10 MWa
Issues with BPA-tiered rates
Options
Other PUD precedents
14
Summary of Electric Rate Study Policy Issues
Revenue Requirement
COSA
Size of increase – one time or multiple increases
Timing of increases
Move towards COSA results
Go across the board
Rate Design
Simplify/consolidate/eliminate
Size of customer charge/minimum bill
Blocking
Seasonality
Net metering
Discounts
Street lights
New large single load rate
15
EES Recommendations
Revenue Requirement
10% one time increase
Implement in CY 2015
COSA
Go across the board next year
Move to +/- 10% of COSA in subsequent years where rate design changes
are revenue neutral
16
EES Recommendations (cont’d)
Rate Design
Increase all customer charges
Commercial/Industrial
Break at 100W
Special contract with City
Discounts
0 – 50 kW without demand meter
Greater than 50 with demand meter
Discount for primary metering
Eliminate farm, irrigation and school rates
No blocking or seasonality
Lighting rate with and without pole
Residential to $15 - $20/month
Minimum bill an option at $25/month
Policy call on who/how much
Like waiving customer charge as method of crediting
Should implement new large single load policy before PUD needs it
Net metering
Policy call
Current policy generous for those using it
17
Pole Attachment Rate
Methodology
Follows Washington State Regulations (RCW 54.04.045)
Based on PSE records for number of poles and plant values
Average gross plant per pole times carrying cost
Assignable space divided by average 3 contacts per pole
Resulting Rates
Current rate of $12 per attachment
RCW based rate equals $25.03 per attachment
Added revenues of $152,000
Recommendation
Raise rate to $15 - $20 per attachment
Refine needed input data
Raise rate to full RCW rate next year
18
Water/Wastewater Results
Summary of Water/Wastewater 2015 Budget
Converted to Cash Basis
Present Rate Revenues
$1,961,506
Other Charges
$32,473
Interest Income
$2,000
Total Operating Revenues
$1,995,979
Purchased Water
$16,000
Operations
$450,000
Maintenance
$360,000
Customer Accounts
$118,853
Customer Service
$130,000
Admin & General
$107,184
Maintenance Gen Plant
$60,000
Capital funded from rates
$90,000
Long-term debt cost
$451,796
Taxes
$95,545
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
$1,878,378
$115,601
19
Water/Wasewater Recommendations
No Rate Increase Needed to Cover Cash Basis
Work Towards Eliminating Customer Charge Difference Between
Systems
Quimper=$21.50, Group A=$17.50, Group B=$20.00
Option 1: change all to $20.00 right away, reduces revenues roughly $20,000
Option 2: Raise Group A to $19.50 and Group B to $21.50, adds roughly $30,000
and raise Group A again the following year
Consumptive Rates and Commercial Rates are the Same for All
Systems, No Changes Needed
Continue to Keep Different SDC’s by System Due to Historic Basis for
the Charge
No Change to Wastewater Rate of $26
20
Questions / Answers
21