Utah Office of Consumer Services EBA Rate Spread November 2nd, 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Rate Plan. Value Story When asked, our customers identify the following topics as ways MidAmerican Energy provides value – Emergency Response.
Advertisements

Jefferson County PUD 1 Presented by: Gary Saleba, President EES Consulting, Inc. A registered professional engineering and management consulting firm with.
1 Northeast Public Power Association Electric Utility Basics Electric Rates and Cost of Service Studies.
California Energy Commission Resource Adequacy Demand Forecast Coincidence Adjustments R Resource Adequacy Workshop January.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ANSI/EIA-748-B Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) 32 Guidelines ANSI/EIA-748-B Earned Value.
GENFLEX TARIFF AND INCOPORATION OF THE MEC INTO THE NMD RULES
ANSI/EIA -748 EVMS 32 Guidelines National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
A Framework for Financial Statement Analysis Chapter 11.
M ICHIGAN P UBLIC S ERVICE C OMMISSION Cost of Service Ratemaking Michigan Public Service Commission Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
Overview – Non-coincident Peak Demand
RETAIL RATE REVISIONS August 1, 2015 Presented By:
1 Overview of Allocating Revenue Requirements Based on Shares of Marginal Costs May, 2012.
Utah Schedule 37 Update June 25, Schedule 37 Background Schedule 37 – Published rates for standard power purchase agreements with qualifying facilities.
Costs of Ancillary Services & Congestion Management Fedor Opadchiy Deputy Chairman of the Board.
Working together. Achieving results. CPUC Recycled Water OIR (R ) Workshop 3: Recycled Water Costs/Rates Water IOU Panel General Principles January.
Cost of Service Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) presented by Nick Phillips Brubaker.
Strategic Pricing Plan Central District Power Accountants Association Franklin, Tn. March 19, 2015.
Limited Proceedings Water & Wastewater Reference Manual1.
Slide 2.1 Accounting and Reporting on an Accrual Accounting Basis Chapter 2.
The Utility Push to Increase Customer Charge: What’s Wrong With It and How to Respond to It NASUCA Midyear Meeting Philadelphia, PA June 7-9, 2015 Kira.
Technical Conference on Net Metering Load Research Study November 5, 2014.
Utah Cost of Service and Rate Design Task Force
EHV generation charging methodology change Harvey Jones.
Net Metering Technical Conference Docket No PacifiCorp Avoided Costs October 21, 2008 Presented by Becky Wilson Executive Staff Director Utah.
1 WPL Regulatory Update Scott R. Smith Director, Regulatory Affairs.
Transmission Planning Informational Workshop Montpelier, VT September 19, 2005 Allocating the Cost of New Transmission in New England Stephen J. Rourke.
M ICHIGAN P UBLIC S ERVICE C OMMISSION Energy Optimization Plans 2011 Biennial Review Pre-Filing Update Rob Ozar, Manager Energy Optimization Section March.
Presentation to the Chancellor’s Cabinet October 14, 2013 Inspiration. Innovation. Graduation. Presented by Mr. Roy Stutzman, RvStutzman Consulting.
THE FOSTER GROUP TFGTFG City of Detroit Water and Sewerage Department Wholesale Customer Rates Meeting Water Supply System Meeting #3 – Allocated FY
R “Postage Stamp Rates” OIR LIOB Meeting – January 2012 CPUC – Division of Water and Audits.
PD-34: Capital Models OSFI Guidance Canadian Institute of Actuaries General Meeting Ottawa November 2009.
Elk Grove Water District – Finance Meeting Water Rate Update and Connection Fees Habib Isaac – Principal Gregg Tobler – Task Manager January 30, 2013.
Southern California Edison SM Southern California Edison Company Proposed AB920 Net Surplus Compensation Rate [NSCR] July 9, 2010.
Rocky Mountain Power - Utah Workgroups I and II Load Research and Peak-Hour Forecasting Presented by UTAH INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS Salt Lake City, Utah.
ODEF Capital Enterprise A Wisconsin Limited Liability Company 2008 Financial Statements.
NARUC SUMMER COMMITTEE MEETINGS Committee on Water Agenda California Regulatory Initiatives Case History – California American Water B. Kent Turner – President.
Chapter 3 The Adjusting Process
NASUCA Annual Meeting Austin, Texas November 10, 2015 Scott J. Rubin, Attorney + Consultant 333 Oak Lane + Bloomsburg, PA Office: (570)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SM Southern California Edison Company’s Proposal to Participate in Convergence Bidding August 23, 2010.
Advanced Metering Rule Christine Wright Public Utility Commission of Texas June 6, 2007 Retail Market Workshop COMET WG Meeting.
Rate Policy Discussion Presentation to Review Panel November 1, 2013.
Philippine Feed-In Tariff System Implementation 1.
Review of PUC Discussion on Nodal Market Adoption Technical Advisory Committee September 7, 2005.
Solar Profiling Interstate Renewable Energy Council presentation to the ERCOT Profiling Working Group Jan. 22, 2008.
Presented to the City of Dover, Delaware June 6, 2006 Revenue Requirements, Cost of Service and Rate Adjustments for the Electric Utility.
Alternative Rate Structure Paul Smith Vice President, Rates Duke Energy Ohio June 20, 2006.
1 Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461 ERCOT Commercial Market Operations June 27, 2012 – ETWG Meeting.
Presentation by Qulliq Energy Corporation 1. Presentation Overview  Corporate Overview  General Rate Application  Who Participates in a GRA?  Phase.
Local Government Street Light Discussion Process Overview Version 1 May 2014.
Cost of Service Studies April 14,  Used to reasonably allocate costs (revenue requirement) incurred by utility amongst customer classes  2 Types.
HORSE CREEK WATER SERVICES INC GENERAL RATE APPLICATION.
City of Fernley, Nevada – 164 th Ave. NE, Suite 300, Redmond, WA April 18, 2007 Rate Study Findings Water and Sewer Utility Rates.
Kansas City Power & Light and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations – Suggestions for Chapter 22 Revisions Missouri Public Service Commission Meeting Aug 31,
1 Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461 ERCOT Commercial Market Operations November 2, 2012 – RCWG Meeting.
Mainline Service and Pricing Settlement Presentation to the TTF April 6, 2001.
Residential demand charges
Interim Fuel Factor Adjustment and Surcharge for Under-Recoveries
Calculation of BGS-CIEP Hourly Energy Price Component Using PJM Hourly Data for the PSE&G Transmission Zone.
The New Texas Wholesale/Retail Market
Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461
Revised Electric Rate Scenarios:
Northern States Power Companies (NSP-MN & NSP-WI)
May 2018 Proposed Electric Rate Increase - First Public Hearing
Calculation of BGS-CIEP Hourly Energy Price Component Using PJM Hourly Data for the PSE&G Transmission Zone.
Resource Adequacy Demand Forecast Coincidence Adjustments
Narragansett Rate Settlement
Northern States Power Companies (NSP-MN & NSP-WI)
Retail Rate Design & Administration
Calculation of BGS-CIEP Hourly Energy Price Component Using PJM Hourly Data for the PSE&G Transmission Zone.
Beartooth Electric Cooperative Rate Design Analysis
Presentation transcript:

Utah Office of Consumer Services EBA Rate Spread November 2nd, 2011

2 Background RMP initial EBA filing used an energy (kWh) allocator to spread the EBA balance to rate schedules. Rate Spread (PSC EBA Order): (1) Principle – Collection or refund of EBA balance must be based on COS (EBA Order, pg. 80); (2) Approach – PSC rejected use of energy allocator and ordered use of 2011 GRC revenue spread for spreading deferred EBA balance to rate schedules (EBA Order. Pg 78 & 80)

3 Other States Idaho and Wyoming have EBA-type mechanisms similar to Utah’s EBA account. Each state uses a different approach for spreading accrual amounts among rate schedules. (1) Idaho – The ECAM accrual balance is spread to rate schedules based on an energy (kWh) allocator. (2) Wyoming – Transitioning from PCAM to ECAM; details are still being worked out. It appears any accrual balance will be proportionately spread to rate schedules based on the prior GRC rate spread.

4 Issue Is the Company’s interpretation of the Commission’s EBA Order for the purpose of spreading EBA balances consistent with the Commission’s principle that the spread or collection of revenue must be based on COS? The Office submits that the Company’s interpretation is inconsistent with COS as it relates to NPC. This occurs for two reasons: (1) The GRC rate spread deals with the total increase associated with all revenue requirement components (cost of capital, rate base, OMAG, NPC, etc.) whereas an EBA rate spread should only be concerned with the more narrow NPC component of rates. (2) The Company’s interpretation fails to consider how the NPC amount in the last GRC is spread to classes in the Company’s COS model.

5 Rate Spread Comparison The next slide is a spreadsheet comparing three EBA spread approaches. These include: (1) The class rate spread percentages from the last GRC; (2) The composite NPC spread in the COS model per the Company’s requested NPC in the last GRC; (3) The “Idaho” approach using a simple energy (kWh) allocator.

6 Rate Spread Comparison (cont.) ABCDEF Last GRC Rate Spread Composite NPC Allocator Diff. (B-C) Energy NPC Allocator 2 Diff. (C-E) Customer Class %%% 1Residential (Schs. 1, 2, 3) 39.13%29.96%9.17%29.84%0.12% 2General Service (Schs. 6, 6A, 6B) 24.86%27.29%-2.44%27.12%0.18% 3General Service > 1 MW (Sch. 8) 8.67%9.54%-0.88%9.60%-0.05% 4Lighting (Schs. 7,11,12) 0.00%0.35%-0.35%0.38%-0.03% 5 General Service - High Voltage (Schs. 9, 9A) 15.63%18.72%-3.09%18.86%-0.14% 6Irrigation (Schs. 10, 10 TOD) 0.74%0.79%-0.05%0.76%0.03% 7Metered Outdoor Lighting (Sch. 15) 0.00%0.02%-0.02%0.02%0.00% 8Traffic Signals (Sch. 15) 0.03%0.07%-0.04%0.07%-0.01% 9Electric Furnace (Sch. 21) 0.02%0.00%0.02% 10General Service - Small (Sch. 23) 6.57%6.21%0.36%6.16%0.06% 11Mobile Home Park (Sch. 25) 0.00%0.05%-0.05%0.05%0.00% 12 Back-Up, Maint., & Suppl. Service (Sch. 31) 0.05%0.00%0.05% 13 Security Area Lighting Contracts (PTL) 0.00% 14Street Lighting Contracts (77) 0.00% 15Contract Customer % 16Contract Customer %1.01%-1.01%1.03%-0.01% 17Contract Customer %3.68%-0.04%3.76%-0.08% 18Contract Customer %2.29%-1.63%2.35%-0.06% 19AGA/Revenue Credit 0.00% 20Total Utah %100.0% [1] This allocator represents energy-only allocations weighted by month, without demand elements. It is based on the Company’s CCOS numbers from the last GRC. The calculation is (Class Energy-Only NPC)/(Total Energy-Only NPC).

7 Composite NPC Allocator The Composite NPC Allocator reflects all energy and demand accounts included in NPC. The Composite NPC is split into energy (94%) and demand (6%) components in the COS model. Thus, NPC are predominantly spread to customer classes on the basis of energy. However, the Composite NPC Allocator does include demand elements, which differentiates it from a simple energy allocator and appropriately incorporates all NPC elements.

8 Observations from Spread Comparison From a cost causation standpoint, either a composite NPC or simple energy allocator are better approaches for spreading EBA balances. These approaches appropriately target the NPC components of rates compared to a more general approach that encompasses all revenue requirement elements, many of which are not included in NPC. The selection of a spread approach has a significant impact – a 9.17 percentage point difference -- on a single class of customers, residential customers. Thus, inter-class fairness is another reason why it is important to implement the Commission’s EBA decision consistent with sound COS principles.

9 Precedent – MPA Case In the MPA Case, the Commission initially directed parties to use the non- uniform rate spread from the prior GRC ( ) to guide rate spread proposals. In that case, parties negotiated a settlement that relied on a much more limited F-10 plant allocation factor in the COS model to spread a distinct set of generation and transmission costs among customer classes. The Commission recognized the more limited and distinct set of costs as being more representative of the costs in the MPA docket and approved a stipulation involving a compromise on the F-10 allocation factor. The spread of EBA accrual balances parallels that of the MPA Case. As with the MPA case, the Commission and parties are dealing with a distinct set of costs –NPC in this instance – that require an allocator that better fits the category of costs at issue in EBA proceedings.

10 Conclusion The Office believes that either a composite NPC allocator or a simple energy allocator are superior approaches for spreading accrual balances in the EBA account among rate schedules. These approaches better reflect the distinct set of NPC costs that will spread to customers in EBA cases.