Strategies for Addressing Fixed Cost Recovery Issues Dan Hansen Christensen Associates Energy Consulting August 2014 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Achieving Price-Responsive Demand in New England Henry Yoshimura Director, Demand Resource Strategy ISO New England National Town Meeting on Demand Response.
Advertisements

Gender Perspectives in Introduction to Tariffs Gender Module #5 ITU Workshops on Sustainability in Telecommunication Through Gender & Social Equality.
Efficient Pricing of Energy Conservation and Load Management Programs. August 9 th,2006 Kansas Corporation Commission Staff.
1 Conservation Program Cost-Effectiveness Tests Presentation to the: Florida Public Service Commission Workshop on Energy Efficiency Initiatives November.
Decoupling Utility Revenues and Sales: Anti-consumer...anti-poor Presented by: Roger D. Colton Fisher, Sheehan & Colton Public Finance and General Economics.
Time-of-Use and Critical Peak Pricing
Rate Plan. Value Story When asked, our customers identify the following topics as ways MidAmerican Energy provides value – Emergency Response.
Jefferson County PUD 1 Presented by: Gary Saleba, President EES Consulting, Inc. A registered professional engineering and management consulting firm with.
Strategies for Addressing Fixed Cost Recovery Issues Dan Hansen Christensen Associates Energy Consulting October
EIUG – Wheeling Methodologies
An Overview of Revenue Decoupling Mechanisms Dan Hansen Christensen Associates Energy Consulting August 2012.
California Water Revenue Decoupling Pilot Programs Lisa M. Bilir, Senior Policy Analyst, Division of Ratepayer Advocates NASUCA 2010 Mid-Year Meeting.
A Summary of Revenue Decoupling Evaluations Dan Hansen Christensen Associates Energy Consulting July
Breaking Down Barriers to Energy Efficiency Utility Revenue Decoupling and other Revenue Stabilization Tools Jim Lazar, RAP Senior Advisor Presented to:
Connecticut’s Energy Future Removing Barriers to Promote Energy Sustainability: Public Policy and Financing December 2, 2004 Legislative Office Building.
1 Managing Revenues in Regulated Industries Rate Design May 2008 Richard Soderman Director-Legislative Policy and Strategy.
Time-Varying Retail Electricity Prices: Theory and Practice by Severin Borenstein.
Revenue Decoupling: A proposed solution to the utilities’ traditional incentive to encourage wasteful energy use Christopher Grubb
NARUC Energy Regulatory Partnership Program The Georgian National Energy Regulatory Commission and The Vermont Public Service Board by Ann Bishop Vermont.
Value of Solar Tariff Will it work in Washington State? Ahlmahz Negash
Welcome and Introductions CoServ Presentation & Member Input.
1 Overview of Allocating Revenue Requirements Based on Shares of Marginal Costs May, 2012.
Fortis’ Residential Conservation Rate (RCR) How Rural Customers Are Subsidizing Lower Rates For Urban Customers.
Incentive Regulation Topics Scott A. Struck, CPA Financial Analysis Division Public Utilities Bureau Illinois Commerce Commission.
NASUCA 2015 MID-YEAR MEETING The Utility Push To Increase Customer Charge: What’s Wrong With It and How To Respond To It. Glenn A. Watkins, CRRA Senior.
Rate Design June 23, 2015 Laurie Reid. 2 Overview 1.A little bit of physics 2.The Ratemaking Process 3.Generally Accepted Ratemaking Principles 4.What’s.
Revenue Decoupling: New York’s Experience & Future Directions NARUC 2007 Summer Committee Meetings July 17, 2007 James T. Gallagher Director, Office of.
Managing Retail Rate Changes Presented by Walter Haynes, Sr. Project Manager, Patterson & Dewar Engineers Central District Power Accountants Association.
Incorporating an Affordability Rate Cap Into a Florida RPS Florida Public Service Commission July 26, 2007 Kim Owens, P.E. JEA Clean Power Coordinator.
Cost of Service Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) presented by Nick Phillips Brubaker.
Rate and Revenue Considerations When Starting an Energy Efficiency Program APPA’s National Conference June 13 th, 2009 Salt Lake City, Utah Mark Beauchamp,
Contributions In-Aid and Development of Fees Utility Financial Solutions Mark Beauchamp, CPA, CMA, MBA President
Highlights of Commission Activities Little Rock ASHRAE Monthly Meeting October 12, 2011 Presented By: John P. Bethel.
Presentation to the: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Demand-Side Response Working Group December 8, 2006 Gas Utility Decoupling in New Jersey A.
Sonny Popowsky KEEA/PBI Energy Efficiency Conference Harrisburg, PA October 1, 2013.
Energy Efficiency and Utility Finance: Decoupling and Incentive Mechanisms Presented to the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group November 6, 2008.
An Overview of Revenue Decoupling Mechanisms Dan Hansen Christensen Associates Energy Consulting November 2007.
Rate Design: Options for addressing NEM impacts Utah NEM Workgroup 4 1 July 8, 2015 Melissa Whited Synapse Energy Economics.
Distributed Energy Resources The Energy Challenge of the 21 st Century.
CFC: Created and Owned by America’s Electric Cooperative Network Electric Rate Concepts In an Era of Change Oregon Statewide Directors Workshop Rod Crile.
2 nd ACC Workshop June 20, 2014 The SSVEC Perspective David Bane, Key Account Manager
1  The IPM model projects increases in electricity prices as a result of the RGGI policy scenarios which, by themselves, would increase the household.
Designing Utility Regulation to Promote Investment in Cost-Effective Energy Efficiency Dale S. Bryk Natural Resources Defense Council Pennsylvania.
“Demand Response: Completing the Link Between Wholesale and Retail Pricing” Paul Crumrine Director, Regulatory Strategies & Services Institute for Regulatory.
Rate Design Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) presented by Nick Phillips Brubaker &
Opportunities for Natural Gas Efficiency in Pennsylvania Presented to Keystone Energy Efficiency Alliance September 20, 2011 Steven Nadel American Council.
EEI Energy Efficiency Initiative Eric Ackerman ( Senior Manager, Regulatory Policy April 23, 2007.
RESIDENTIAL DEMAND CHARGES: A CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE Barbara R. Alexander Consumer Affairs Consultant 83 Wedgewood Dr. Winthrop, Maine (207)
Electric Capacity Market Performance with Generation Investment and Renewables Cynthia Bothwell Benjamin Hobbs Johns Hopkins University Work Supported.
The Impact of Retail Rate Structure on the Economics of Commercial Photovoltaic Systems in California Ryan Wiser, Andrew Mills, Galen Barbose & William.
2010 NASUCA Mid-Year Meeting NASUCA 2010 Mid-Year Conference Presented by: Lee Smith Senior Economist and Managing Consultant Presented to: June ,
1 Modeling Distributed Generation Adoption using Electric Rate Feedback Loops USAEE Austin, TX – November 2012 Mark Chew, Matt Heling, Colin Kerrigan,
2015 Fall PR-MR & Marketing Meeting October 16, 2015 Fairo Mitchell Energy Policy Director, Public Utility Division Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
Demand Response
Presented to the City of Dover, Delaware June 6, 2006 Revenue Requirements, Cost of Service and Rate Adjustments for the Electric Utility.
Revenue Decoupling Mechanism (RDM) H. Gil Peach, PhD H. Gil Peach & Associates LLC █
Cost of Service Studies April 14,  Used to reasonably allocate costs (revenue requirement) incurred by utility amongst customer classes  2 Types.
R Comments on the Straw Proposal. Straw Proposal Scorecard Positives Attempt to reconcile rate structure and cost structure Focus on marginal.
Economic Regulation of Distributed Energy Resources: Experience in USA/Lessons to Be Learned Fundacão Getulio Vargas Centro de Estudos em Regulação e Infraestrutura.
BGE Smart Grid Initiative Stakeholder Meeting September 17, 2009 Wayne Harbaugh, Vice President, Pricing and Regulatory Services.
1. 2 Residential Solar Valuation Project SPI 2012: Solar Energy's Positive Impacts on the Electric System Karl R. Rábago Rábago Energy LLC.
Smart Grid Tariff Changes
Interim Fuel Factor Adjustment and Surcharge for Under-Recoveries
Fuel Cost Components in the Fuel Adder
Time-of-Use Options.
Collecting Allowed Revenues When Demand is Declining
Homework Ch 12 Electricity Regulation
Rate-of-Return Regulation
2015 UNS Rate Case – DG Trends in Action
Commissioner Anne C. George
Presentation transcript:

Strategies for Addressing Fixed Cost Recovery Issues Dan Hansen Christensen Associates Energy Consulting August

2 Outline  Overview of issue  Regulatory strategies  Revenue decoupling  Forecast test years  Lost fixed cost recovery mechanisms  Riders / Cost Trackers  Rate design solutions  Higher fixed charges  Declining block rates  DG rates (access charges, buy all / sell all)  Time-differentiated rates

August Utility Fixed Cost Recovery Issues  Traditional regulated rates recover fixed costs through volumetric rates  This leads to utility revenue attrition when sales decrease, without a corresponding reduction in costs  Some incentive issues are also created:  Utility disincentive to promote conservation and energy efficiency  Utility incentive to increase customer usage  Subsidy to distributed generation (DG) customers  Incorrect price signals to customers, compared to marginal cost to serve (caveat: environmental externalities)

August Sources of Utility Fixed Cost Under-recovery  Distributed generation (residential solar)  Conservation and energy efficiency  “Naturally” occurring or based on customer initiative – Improved appliance efficiency – Phasing out incandescent light bulbs – Building standards  As caused by conservation mandates  Poor economic conditions  Mild weather conditions Stakeholders will not necessarily want to treat all of these causes equally

August Consequences of Utility Fixed Cost Under-recovery  In the absence of other solutions, the utility will likely file a rate case to increase rates in order to mitigate under-recovery going forward  Does not allow the utility to recover lost revenues in between rate cases  In some situations, cross-subsidies may be created – Non-solar customers subsidizing solar customers – Non-conserving customers subsidizing conserving customers – There is disagreement on the extent to which such cross-subsidies occur, if at all  Rate cases may be filed more frequently

August Potential Solutions for Utility Fixed Cost Under-recovery Issues  The following slides present a variety of potential solutions to the issue described here  Each is summarized in terms of how it addresses the following issues:  Conservation-induced sales reductions  Sales lost to distributed generation  Sales changes due to economic conditions  Sales changes due to weather conditions  Effect on low-use customers, who some believe are more likely to be low-income customers  Discussion, as applicable, of whether cross-subsidies are affected (created or removed)

Regulatory Solutions August

8 Forecast Test Year Description  Using a forecast test year (as opposed to an historical test year) can allow the expected effects of conservation or DG generation to be incorporated into rates  Expected effects will likely differ from actual effects  It does not affect rate structure or incentives (utility or customer) once in place  Even with a forecast test year, the utility is better off if it underachieves the conservation forecast (barring other penalties)

August Future Test Year Scorecard  Conservation  Does not remove the utility’s disincentive to promote conservation  Does not affect customer-level incentive to conserve  Distributed Generation  Makes utility whole for expected (not actual) net metering revenue losses  Does not end cross-subsidies to DG customers  Economy  No effect  Weather  No effect  Low-use customer effect  No effect

August Revenue Decoupling Description  Revenue decoupling is intended to remove the link between sales and utility revenues  This link exists because some fixed costs are recovered through volumetric (e.g., $ per kWh) rates  By removing the link, the utility is made indifferent to customer usage levels  Does not provide the utility with an incentive to promote conservation  A separate mechanism can do that, if desired

August Basic Decoupling Concept  Basic concept of revenue decoupling (RD): RD Deferral = Allowed Revenue – Actual Revenue  A positive number means the utility under- recovered, and will lead to a future rate increase  A negative number means the utility over- recovered, and will lead to a future rate decrease

August Basic Decoupling Concept (2)  Typically every 6 or 12 months, the RD deferral is rolled into rates as follows: Rate change from RD = RD Deferral / E(Usage)  Revenue is usually “re-coupled” to other (non-sales) factors, such as  The number of customers served (called revenue per customer decoupling, or RPCD)  Allowed revenue can be linked to inflation factors, which can incorporate performance-based regulation components

August Decoupling Scorecard  Conservation  Removes the utility’s disincentive to promote conservation  Does not affect customer-level incentive to conserve  Distributed Generation  Makes utility whole for net metering revenue losses  Does not end cross-subsidies to DG customers  Economy  Surcharges following recessionary years, rate reductions following expansionary years  Weather  May or may not be included (varies by mechanism)  Low-use customer effect  Only if they are less likely to conserve

August Lost Revenue Adjustment Mechanisms (LRAMs) Description  LRAMs compensate the utility for lost revenues due to utility-sponsored conservation programs  Fixed amount per kWh conserved, as measured in the program evaluation process  LRAMs are more narrow in focus than decoupling  Do not adjust revenues for weather, economic factors  Does not address the utility’s incentive to increase sales  Cannot lead to a rate reduction  Utility may not want to promote programs for which the effects are not easily measured  Can be significant disputes regarding kWh savings estimates

August LRAM Scorecard  Conservation  Addresses revenue loss from utility-sponsored programs  Does not otherwise affect conservation / load growth incentives  Distributed Generation  No effect  Economy  No effect  Weather  No effect  Low-use customer effect  Bill increase for low-use customers who do not participate in conservation programs (because they pay the LRAM adder)

August Riders / Cost Trackers: Description  Riders may be used to track specific costs and recover them through rates, without the need to file a rate case  E.g., commonly applied to fuel costs  In the context of this discussion, a rider could be used to track revenue attrition from net metering (if DG is separately metered) for recovery across all sales  Decoupling is a form of a rider  Because riders can vary so much, we do not provide a scorecard

Rate Design Solutions August

August Higher Fixed Charges: Description  The fixed cost recovery issue is caused by the recovery of fixed costs through volumetric rates  The problem can be mitigated or eliminated by increasing the amount of revenue recovered through fixed charges  Straight-fixed variable (SFV) pricing: recover all fixed costs through the monthly customer charge  Substitute for decoupling  Can lead to very large % bill impacts for low-use customers  Graduated facilities charges (GFCs): the monthly customer charge varies with usage (e.g., based on the 12-month average)  Can allow for an increase in the average customer charge while mitigating the effect on low-use customers

August Higher Fixed Charges: Example Bill Impacts

August Higher Fixed Charges Scorecard  Conservation  Removes the utility’s disincentive to promote conservation  Reduces the customer-level incentive to conserve  Distributed Generation  Removes DG subsidy  Removes utility revenue loss from net metering  Economy  Utility fixed-cost revenue (and customer bills) do not vary with economic conditions  Weather  Utility fixed-cost revenue (and customer bills) do not vary with weather conditions  Low-use customer effect  Potential for very high % bill impacts unless GFCs are employed

August Declining Block Rates: Description  The rate decreases as usage increases, for example:  0 to 300 kWh/mo = 10 cents/kWh  301 to 600 kWh/mo = 8 cents/kWh  Over 600 kWh/mo = 6 cents/kWh  Recovers fixed costs in the initial pricing block, in which all customers consume energy  For higher-use customers, the marginal price more closely reflects the marginal cost to serve  Compared to a flat rate:  Reduces customer-level incentive to conserve for high-use customers  Increases customer-level incentive to conserve for low-use customers  Inclining block rates are more fashionable because of the conservation incentives

August Declining Block Rate Scorecard  Conservation  Reduces the utility’s disincentive to promote conservation  Customer-level incentive effects vary by usage level  Distributed Generation  Reduces DG subsidy  Reduces utility revenue loss from net metering  Economy  Utility fixed-cost revenue (and customer bills) vary less with economic conditions  Weather  Utility fixed-cost revenue (and customer bills) vary less with weather conditions  Low-use customer effect  Potential for high % bill impacts

August DG Rates: Description  Some rates may be targeted toward DG customers  Access charge: a $ per month fee based on the DG capacity  Buy all / sell all: DG customers purchase all of their electricity at standard rates, sell DG to the utility at a different rate (that presumably excludes fixed costs)  These can be characterized as discriminatory toward DG customers, since the charges do not apply to all customers  Not true of SFV pricing or declining block rates  Prices may not account for environmental benefits of DG  How to quantify those benefits?  If that benefit is paid to DG customers, the cost must be paid by other ratepayers

August DG Rate Scorecard  Conservation  Not applicable  Distributed Generation  Reduces or eliminates DG subsidy  Reduces or eliminates utility revenue loss from net metering  Economy  No effect  Weather  No effect  Low-use customer effect  May reduce low-use customer bills if they are less likely to have DG and a cross-subsidy is removed

August Time-differentiated Rates: Description  Some rate designs include rates that vary by time  Static: rates are known in advance, but vary by time of day or season  Time-of-use (TOU) rates  Dynamic: rates vary with system conditions  Real-time pricing  Critical peak pricing  Time-differentiated rates tend to be focused promoting the efficient use of existing resources, or preventing the need to add generating resources (or transmission capacity) in the future  They are not typically focused on addressing conservation or DG issues (so we omit the scorecard)

August Summary  Decoupling:  Addresses fixed cost recovery issues due to conservation in a way that minimizes bill impacts (relative to SFV pricing)  Makes the utility whole for revenue loss from DG net metering, but does not address cross-subsidies (still a death spiral!)  LRAMs  Address fixed cost recovery issues from utility-sponsored conservation programs  Is not intended to address DG issues  SFV Pricing  Addresses fixed cost recovery issues due to conservation and DG  Removes DG cross-subsidies  Can have very large bill impacts (bill increase for low-use customers, bill decrease for high-use customers)  DG rates  Can address DG cross-subsidies and utility fixed cost recovery issues  Not intended to address conservation issues

August Questions?  If you have questions, please contact Dan Hansen at