It’s a Matter of Time: Analyzing the Effects of Dynamic Rate Designs on Low-Income and Senior Electricity Consumers

4.2 Million Smart Meters By the end of 2018, nearly all ComEd residential customers will have smart meters. This extends access to dynamic rate options to 70% of Illinois residents. https://www.comed.com/DoingBusinessWithUs/Pages/RegionalDemographics.aspx

Continuing Dynamic Pricing Investigation Applying previous RTP analysis to 2017 data, including a TOU analysis Revised Low Income methodology, Age Cohort analysis

Refined Geographic Matching Using Lat/Long coordinates, matched postal Zip+4 codes with Block Group-level census data Smallest tabulation level for many census data Between 600 – 3,000 people

Refined Geographic Matching New methodology allows for more precise demographic estimates Income (median, income buckets) Age cohorts Building stats Age Bedrooms Units

Usage Differences – Income Low income communities use significantly less, with flatter load profiles and higher load factors

Rate Design Comparison 2016 – SFNH Flat-Rate RTP TOU - Peak M-F, 10-7p TOU - Off-Peak M-F, 7p-10p TOU - Super-Off M-F night, S-S Fixed $14.22 $14.61 Delivery (¢/kWh) 3.632 7.12 - Energy (¢/kWh) 6.98 Market 3.263 2.238 Capacity 3.22 $/kW 3.2 ¢/kWh Trans. (¢/kWh) 1.34 1.36 3.5 Total Variable 11.952 4.992 + lmp 13.883 10.383

Findings – RTP Significant Savings Opportunity 2017 RTP results confirm 2016 findings, many customers would save vs. flat rate 86-91% of customers save in a 2017 month, vs. 93-97% in 2016 Fewer savers under TOU, though opportunity is there 52-60% savers in a given month during both years

Findings – Income and Demographics In urban/suburban areas, low-income areas averaged 1% higher total bill savings with RTP, with lower average usage Likely due to better load shape, lower usage Areas with higher proportions of elderly averaged slightly higher RTP savings ($8 higher annually for areas with 20% or more 65+)

Findings – Flat Rate Price Insurance Insurance premium in flat-rate energy pricing appears to still be significant in 2017 Usage-weighted premium in 2016 estimated to be 93% Unweighted flat rate energy down 5%, unweighted LMP up 3%

Conclusions Dynamic Pricing does not appear to hold special risk for low-income or senior populations TOU carries lower risk/reward for all customers Flat-rate energy pricing continues to carry significant insurance premium