HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/11/2017 - ELECTRIC RESIDENTIAL TIME-OF-USE IMPLEMENTATIONDATE:
STAFF:
July 11, 2017
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Electric Residential Time-of-Use Implementation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss the timeline and customer outreach plan to implement a residential electric
time-of-use (TOU) rate in March 2018 or October 2018. Staff is recommending a standard TOU rate, rather than
the TOU with tier option, be implemented for residential customers, including residential tiered, demand and solar
net metering customers.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council wish to consider a time-of-use electric rate in the third or fourth quarter of 2017, with a launch date
of March 1, 2018, or October 1, 2018?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Residential customers are currently billed under tiered electric rate, where tier 1 consumption is lower than the
cost-of-service and a progressively higher step charge per kWh for tier 2 and tier 3 consumption (see first graph
below).
In 2014, staff identified two TOU rate structures to test for possible future implementation (see two TOU graphs
below). During a January 2015 work session, an ad hoc committee was formed (Councilmembers Campana and
Cuniff with Kevin Gertig, Lisa Rosintoski and Lance Smith from Utilities) to review the specific rate details of the
TOU pilot study. Council approved the ordinance in July 2015 to launch the pilot.
Staff conducted a 12-month pilot study on two separate TOU rates structures from November 2015 to October
2016. The results were presented to Council at the February 28 Work Session. On May 3, prior to the Council
Retreat, a follow-up memo, along with a more detailed written report on the pilot study, was provided to Council to
allow for discussion on the topic. The detailed timeline is reflected below:
January 2015 Council Ad Hoc Committee formed to review TOU rate structures
July 2015 Council approved Ordinance 078, 2015 for the TOU pilot study
November 2015 12-month pilot study began
July 11, 2017 Page 2
October 2016 Pilot study ended and survey sent
December 2016 Statistical analysis performed and best-bill credits applied
February 2017 Presented results at February 28 Work Session
March – May 2017 Presented results to boards with unanimous support of TOU
Customer Outreach
The memo submitted in May 2017 (Attachment 3) outlined proposed timelines and the TOU Rates
Communication Plan, that recognized the following needs:
Develop messaging, look and feel of campaign
Design outreach and education materials
Consult community boards and groups prior to City Council action
Provide thorough customer engagement prior to effective date
Ongoing outreach and communications engagement after effective date
During the pilot study, customers were sent postcards with graphics similar to what is shown below to help
educate them around seasonal changes in on-peak hours and costs that included the specific rates. Based on
the TOU pilot study feedback, staff would provide similar outreach upon full rollout. Examples may include
postcards, letters, utility bill inserts, refrigerator magnets, etc.
As it is not recommended that a new rate structure be deployed during the summer peak season to support a
focused customer outreach experience, the suggested deployment is either March or October 2018. These
proposed date options allow for time and resources to best create communication and community engagement
plans and outreach tools that will be needed for overall mass communication, as well as more specific targeted
communication to reach the many smaller customer segments within the broader residential customer class. In
addition, key stakeholder groups have been identified to make formal presentations to as part of their regularly
scheduled meetings.
Strategies for mass communication, targeted communication and stakeholder collaboration have also been
developed.
Staff is considering two timelines for implementation, as shown below.
Option 1 Option 2
Resolution / Ordinance to Council 3rd Quarter 2017 4th Quarter 2017
Customer Communications 6 months 11 months
TOU Effective Date March 1, 2018 October 1, 2018
TOU and Low-income Customer Considerations
Over the past two years, staff worked on developing an income-qualified rate. Having this in place would allow
customers that qualified through the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) to receive a discount on
their utility services. It would also allow this group to receive key messaging on ways to conserve and further
July 11, 2017 Page 3
lower their bills through education and available utility programs that provide customer rebates on energy efficient
appliances, bulbs, shower heads, etc.
The pilot income-qualified rate was presented to City Council in 2016, with Council deciding to table the
discussion indefinitely. Staff continues to support a separate low-income (income-qualified) rate pilot to collect
data on reaching this segment and property owners more effectively, as has been demonstrated in other cities
across the nation.
Based on census block data, there is some correlation between income and consumption. For every three low-
income customers that may benefit by adding a tiered component to the TOU rate structure, one will be negatively
impacted. These are low-income customers with higher than average consumption that may not have the means
to invest in energy efficient measures.
Therefore, any inclusion of a tiered component in a rate structure solely to address low-income concerns does not
appear to be the most effective way to support these households and the cost of utility challenges they may face
based on their needed lifestyle. Alternatively, an income-qualified rate would provide a benefit to all qualified
customers, and still provide a time-based, energy conservation signal, thus sending the message of two options in
managing utility costs, both time-based and consumption-based.
There are low-income customers that have above average consumption needs for reasons mostly out of their
control. They may:
live in an inefficient home with poor quality insulation or windows, which they may not own or be able to
afford upgrades
have inefficient appliances and may not be able to benefit from upgrades even though utility rebates may
be available
having a large family in one dwelling unit, that may still be more efficient on a per person basis, but not on
a per dwelling basis
The graph below compares the average cost between the two TOU rates. The crossover between the average
costs is ~950 kWh. The cumulative density function (CDF) represents the monthly kWh consumption, as a
percentage on the secondary axis, and relates cost differences between the TOU and TOU w/tier customers in
the pilot study.
From the CDF, we can see that about 90 percent of bills are for 950 kWh or less, which shows about 90 percent
of customers pay more on the plain TOU rate, as compared to the TOU w/tier. Based on this data, TOU sends a
larger price conservation signal than TOU w/tier for the majority of our customers.
July 11, 2017 Page 4
The graph below shows bill distributions for customers on the TOU rate during the pilot study in the lower-third,
middle-third, and upper-third income groups. Low-income customers would be impacted roughly the same as
other higher income customers.
The graph below shows bill distributions for customers on the TOU w/tier rate during the pilot study in the lower-
third, middle-third, and upper-third income groups. Low-income customers would be impacted slightly less, on
average, than other middle- and upper-income customers.
July 11, 2017 Page 5
Under the current tiered rate structure, approximately 70 percent of residential customers pay less than the full
cost of serving them. The 30 percent of the residential customers who use the most energy each month, for any
variety of reasons, are subsidizing the rest of the rate class. The TOU rate structure removes this subsidy. The
TOU w/tier keeps part of this subsidy in place. Any subsidy undermines the effectiveness of providing a
conservation price signal.
TOU and Climate Action Goal Impacts
Due to the fact there is not an organized energy market in our region we cannot calculate the marginal generation
emissions at any given time, which means calculating the exact Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts from the piloted
rate study is not possible. If Fort Collins customers use less energy, Platte River Power Authority does not
reduce electricity production. Instead, any reduction in energy consumption increases the excess electricity
available to sell on the market. These additional sales from Platte River replace sales from another (the marginal)
generation source on the regional electric system, and the reduction in emissions from the marginal generator is
the emission savings from the reduction in use in Fort Collins. Thus, reduced energy use within Fort Collins
requires less energy to be generated regionally, but the emission savings is from a peaking facility owned by
another utility.
We can, however, put bounds on the GHG savings by calculating a worst-case scenario. Given the measured
shift in the portion of energy consumed on-peak to off-peak of 0.4 percent, and the overall reduction in
consumption for TOU customers of 2.5 percent, we can calculate the worst-case scenario for GHG savings. If all
of the marginal resources on-peak are zero emissions (an overly conservative assumption), and all of the off-peak
emissions come from coal generators, then the GHG savings amounts to 2 percent at minimum. Note, this worst
case scenario is unrealistic, but it gives a lower bound for savings. Using a more likely on-peak emissions factor
from the EPA’s eGRID resource suggests that the GHG savings are likely to be at least 2.3 percent for the TOU
rates. The takeaway is that the overall reduction in energy consumption outweighs a shift in when energy is
consumed, and therefore, does provide a reduction in GHG emissions of at least 2 – 2.3 percent.
TOU also incentivizes electric vehicle (EV) owners to charge during off-peak hours at lower rates, allowing them
to avoid higher costs from any form of tiered charges, therefore supporting the City’s climate action goals.
Implementing a TOU w/tier would result in a higher cost for EV ownership.
TOU and On-Peak Hour Considerations
The on-peak hours were established based on historical analysis of Platte River’s hourly system peaks.
Generally, system peaks occur during early afternoon to early evening hours in the summer months, and in the
evening hours during the non-summer months. The higher demands during peak hours require use of more
July 11, 2017 Page 6
expensive generation resources, including peaking units; therefore form the cost-based reason for implementing a
TOU rate.
Finding a balance in the size of the on-peak window is the goal, taking into consideration that a window that is too
broad doesn’t allow customers to shift their usage patterns and a window too narrow may not adequately capture
the system peaks and require future changes to the on-peak hours. Staff determined that the hours established
in the table below, with a 4-hour window during the non-summer months and a 5-hour window during the summer
months, are the shortest peak windows that still capture the majority of the system peaks, based on 10 years of
historical data. These windows are also consistent with industry guidance around the proper number of peak-
period hours to encourage conservation and demand reduction.
Since there is a noticeable difference between the seasonal coincident peak times, staff set different on-peak
hours for each season. Expanding the on-peak hours to be from 2-9 p.m., so customers could become accustom
to one on-peak window was considered, but staff felt it was too broad for customers to be able to react to in terms
of conservation and demand shifts. It also doesn’t seem reasonable because summer peaks never occur at 9
p.m. and non-summer peaks never occur at 2 p.m. If these hours were to be excluded and a shorter peak
window was adopted year-round, the rate would not correctly capture the costs driven by the peak hour demands
and charged at the wholesale level by Platte River.
\
Impacts of Tiered Rates and Adding a Tiered Component to TOU
Utilities rolled out the residential tiered rate in February 2012 to residential customers. One of the main drivers of
moving to the tiered rate from the flat rate is that such a structure was believed to promote energy conservation.
To understand the impacts, analysis was done to compare 2013 residential consumption data (on tiered rates) to
2011 data. The data was weather-normalized and adjusted for increases in customer counts, etc. The results
showed essentially no reduction in energy consumption.
Under a tiered rate, roughly 65 percent of the energy sales are in tier 1, which is at a rate lower than the average
cost-of-service. Studies have shown that the discount given to tier 1 customers may actually increase overall
consumption in total, the opposite effect of the intended results. This is only partially offset by higher tier 2 and
tier 3 charges. Due to the nature of a not-for-profit utility, the tier 1 charge must be set below cost-of-service
levels to ensure the utility does not over collect in total due to the higher tier charges.
July 11, 2017 Page 7
In the TOU pilot study, both of the rates showed a 2.5 percent reduction in energy consumed over the current
tiered rate. Adding a tier to the TOU rate did not result in additional consumption reductions beyond the 2.5%
seen with the standard TOU rate.
Tiered rates also create more volatility for both the customer and the utility due to fluctuations in consumption
driven by high temperatures (increased air conditioning load), cold temperatures (increased electric heating), the
addition of an electric vehicle, larger families, etc., which could push their total usage into a higher cost per kWh
tier.
For reference, see https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/winners-and-losers-from-flattening-tiered-
electricity-prices/
This link describes the “Winners and Losers from Flattening Tiered Electricity Rates”
Paraphrasing from the link above on arguments for tiered pricing -
Increasing-block pricing yields conservation.
o While in theory this could happen, the best empirical work on this subject, by Professor
Koichiro Ito, shows that it is likely to have about zero effect on overall consumption. It does
encourage high-consumers to consume less, but it also encourages lower-using households
to consume more. Professor Ito shows that the net effect is no reduction in overall
consumption.
Supplying electricity to high-use households is more expensive per kWh on average, because they
consume more at peak times.
o Research has shown the difference is so small that it would justify less than a one-cent
differential in price between high-use and low-use customers.
Higher-use customers are on average higher-income customers.
o That’s true, as shown in research, however, most states have a separate tariff for the lowest-
income customers. Is tiered pricing built into the standard residential rate an effective way to
help low-income households?
TOU and Solar Customer Impacts
Following the staff presentation of TOU pilot results to the Energy Board in March 2017, questions arose about
impacts to net-metered customers relative to PUC and statutory standards for calculating net-metering credits.
While the City is generally exempt from PUC regulations and rate-setting statutes, moving to a TOU rate structure
will more closely align the City’s net-metering compensation formula with benchmark PUC requirements for non-
municipal public utilities. The proposed TOU rate will allow the Utility to better offset a net-metered customer’s
consumption by its generation than is possible with a tiered rate structure. Net-metered customers will experience
a more uniform and transparent credit/compensation process under a TOU rate.
Moving solar net metering customers to a TOU rate sends the same time and price signal to those with rooftop
solar as the rest of the residential customers. Since the current tiered rate does not have a time-based
component built in, there is a slight negative impact to solar customers on a TOU rate of $2.82 per customer per
month, which takes into account solar production occurring earlier in the afternoon than when the system peaks
occur. These customers do receive the retail rate credit at the associated on-peak and off-peak times and rates.
The graphs below show the average production curves of solar during a summer and non-summer month. The
solid gray blocks represent the on-peak hours during the season, based on Platte River’s system peaks. Solar
production, on a clear day, always peaks between noon and 2 p.m. Most of the negative financial impact to these
customers occurs during the non-summer months, as essentially no solar production is occurring during the on-
peak hours, so all excess production is credited at the off-peak rate. This is mostly offset during the summer
months, where there is a better alignment of solar production and on-peak hours, so the customer receives the
higher on-peak credit during those hours.
Alternatively, while the impacts to solar customers on the TOU w/tier rate are essentially zero on average, as
compared to the current tiered rate, staff does not recommend putting these customers on the TOU w/tier rate
structure because costs for energy efficiency programs are being recovered through this additional tier
July 11, 2017 Page 8
component, instead of the on-peak and off-peak charges. Due to the offset of their solar production, these
customers would not be contributing funds to support energy efficiency programs at the same level as another
residential customer with the same household consumption, and yet may have received benefit of solar rebates,
etc, that are funded by such programs. As more and more residences adopt solar within our community, those
residences that can’t afford to adopt solar or are rental properties will bear more and more of the cost of the solar
programs.
TOU and Residential Demand (Electric Heat) Customers
Staff recommends moving residential demand customers (homes that are all-electric) to the TOU rate structure.
This sends the same time-based price signal to these customers as the rest of the residential class during on-
peak hours. These customers do not currently have an incentive to reduce on-peak consumption. Due to their
higher electric consumption overall (no natural gas consumption offset), adding a tier component to the TOU rate
would negatively impact these customers more than the standard TOU rate, in particular during the non-summer
months. Moving them to the TOU w/tier rate would create an intra-class subsidy, so staff does not recommend
the tiered option for this customer group.
BOARD OUTREACH
Results of the pilot study were presented to the Energy Board on March 9, 2017, and to the Air Quality Board on
May 15, 2017, with both boards voting unanimously in support of implementing a residential TOU rate structure as
recommended by staff.
July 11, 2017 Page 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes implementing a standard TOU rate as a default rate to all residential customers, including those on
the current tiered rate, demand rate and net metering rate, effective either March 1, 2018, or Oct 1, 2018, based
on the following:
• Considered by staff and the industry to be a more “fair and equitable” rate structure than a tiered rate (i.e.
less intra-class subsidy than either tiered rate)
• Creates a 2.5 percent reduction in energy consumption, as compared to the tiered rate
• Allows customers to shift demands during the day, providing an additional way to save on their bill
• Better aligns benefits of solar production with costs than a tiered rate
• Encourages use of electric vehicles, consistent with community climate goals
• Reduces GHG emissions by 2 percent or more, as compared to the tiered rate
Staff does not recommend a mid-year implementation, when higher summer season rates are in effect.
Why staff does not recommend a TOU w/tier rate?
It does not provide an additional energy conservation signal over the standard TOU rate
Customers on the TOU rate had a larger behavioral response and shifted their usage away from the peak
period more often than customer on TOU w/tier rate, and it appears customers on the TOU w/tier rate
were less likely to shift when they used energy on a daily basis.
It impacts residential demand customers more financially by adding a tier, due to their higher
consumption needs for electric heat
May help some low-income customers with lower bills, but it will also create higher bills for some low-
income customers (more than the standard TOU rate)
o Staff believes low-income should be addressed through a separate rate such as the income-
qualified rate that staff presented as a pilot to Council in 2016, which will help support specific,
qualified households.
Provides an additional subsidy to solar net metering customers
Discourages electric vehicle charging, as higher consumption will force them into a higher per kWh
charge
Creates additional challenges with messaging to customers and their understanding of a rate structure
Option 2 (low data resolution) and Option 3 (non-radio) Customers
Those customers concerned with privacy, and therefore provided with a low data resolution option (a single
number reflecting total energy consumption for the month), are referred to as “Option 2” customers and those who
opted for a non-radio meter, and require a manual meter reading each month, are referred to as “Option 3”
customers. There are approximately 426 customers combined in these two groups.
Staff recommends eliminating Option 2 due to special meter configuration challenges and additional expenses.
Customers would be able to select between the default setup or move to Option 3, which require an additional
monthly fee for manually collecting meter readings, that will need to be modified going forward. Under either TOU
rate, two monthly consumption numbers will be manually collected for Option 3.
NEXT STEPS
If Council supports implementing a TOU rate, staff will return with a resolution or ordinance for Council
consideration prior to beginning the public outreach process. This provides staff time for proper outreach and
education to inform all residential customers of TOU rates ahead of deployment.
July 11, 2017 Page 10
ATTACHMENTS
1. Review of Time-of-Use Electric Rate Pilot Study (PDF)
2. Work Session Agenda Item Summary, February 28, 2017 (PDF)
3. Council memo, May 3, 2017 (PDF)
4. Energy Board minutes, March 9, 2017 (PDF)
5. Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, May 15, 2017 (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Review of the Time-of-Use
Electricity Rate Pilot Study
Justin Fields | Randy Reuscher
4/25/2017
This document provides an overview of the Time-of-Use Pilot Study, summarizes the results pertaining
to the four objectives identified prior to the study, and addresses additional concerns related to low
income customers and greenhouse gas emissions.
ATTACHMENT 1
1
Table of Contents
Review of the Time-of-Use Pilot Study ......................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Overview of Pilot ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Study Design ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Regression Model ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Consumption ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Demand ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Question 1: Rate Understanding........................................................................................................... 9
Question 2: Customer Engagement .................................................................................................... 10
Question 3: Objective of Rate Structure ............................................................................................. 10
Question 4: Behavioral Energy Use ..................................................................................................... 11
Revenue Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Tiered Rate Customers ........................................................................................................................ 12
Electric Heat Customers ...................................................................................................................... 13
Net Metering – Rooftop Solar Customers........................................................................................... 14
Low-Income Customers ...................................................................................................................... 16
Other Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 20
Greenhouse Gas Impacts .................................................................................................................... 20
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
2
Review of the Time-of-Use Pilot Study
Introduction
Residential demand for electricity varies during the course of a day. The graph below illustrates this
variance for an average residential customer in the month of July.
In this example, the minimum demand occurs at 4 a.m. and the maximum demand is around 6-7 p.m.
It’s important to note that the maximum demand is approximately three times higher than the
minimum demand. This is notable because if the demand were flat at the average level of demand
throughout the day the cost to provide electric service would be less than the current state where the
peak demand is substantially more than the minimum demand.
The increased cost is attributable to two factors –
The infrastructure required to meet peak demand is greater, requiring more investment in
infrastructure.
The generation sources are economically deployed, which means those used to produce
electricity during peak periods cost more to operate than the generation sources that provide
the base load, or minimum demand.
For Fort Collins Utilities, this means that if we are able to flatten our load curve to better align with the
average demand, we should see a reduction in costs of infrastructure required to serve each residential
customer and a lower wholesale invoice from our power supplier, Platte River Power Authority.
3
Our current tiered rates do not reflect the difference in cost to provide electricity throughout the day,
nor do they reflect the fact that higher peak demands also require additional infrastructure. With tiered
rates, customers do not receive a price signal that corresponds to these higher costs, and as a result,
there is not an incentive to conserve energy during periods of peak demand.
Time-of-use rates (TOU) are designed to send a price signal that better aligns retail charges with the cost
to generate and deliver electricity and also encourages conservation during peak periods. The result is
that customers who use more energy during peak periods and consequently cost more to serve, will pay
more, and customers who cost less to serve will pay less. In this regard a TOU rate is more equitable
than a tiered rate structure. In addition, if customers respond to the TOU rates by using less energy on-
peak, then there are tangible cost and energy savings that can be passed along.
Overview of Pilot
The TOU pilot studied two different rate structures over a full year. The first TOU rate, referred to as
standard TOU, charged a higher price for electricity during on-peak periods and a lower price during off-
peak periods. The second TOU rate, referred to as TOU w/tier, also had on-peak and off-peak pricing
but added a tier for consumption over 700 kilowatt hours (kWh). The on-peak and off-peak times
occurred during the same hours for each of these rates, however, the prices changed slightly.
The following table shows the 2015 standard TOU prices.
Season Months On-Peak Rate Off-Peak Rate
Non-Summer Oct - Apr 19.08 cents/kWh 6.53 cents/kWh
Summer May - Sep 22.49 cents/kWh 6.70 cents/kWh
The next table shows the 2015 pricing for the TOU w/tier.
Season Months On-Peak Rate Off-Peak Rate
Non-Summer Oct - Apr 18.61 cents / kWh 6.07 cents / kWh
Summer May - Sep 22.02 cents / kWh 6.24 cents / kWh
*Energy consumption over 700 kWh per billing cycle will be billed an additional 1.63 cent /kWh.
The pilot was intended to compare these two TOU rates with the current tiered rate for residential
customers.
4
The following table provides the 2015 pricing for the tiered rate.
Season Months
Tier 1
(0-500 kWh)
Tier 2
(500-1,000 kWh)
Tier 3
(over 1,000 kWh)
Non-Summer Sep - May 8.30 cents / kWh 8.72 cents / kWh 9.66 cents / kWh
Summer June - Aug 8.94 cents / kWh 10.67 cents / kWh 14.15 cents / kWh
Prior to the start of the pilot, four objectives, or areas of comparison were outlined, including:
1. Determine energy conservation impacts of the TOU rates.
2. Measure potential demand reductions from the TOU rates.
3. Acquire customer feedback though a post pilot study survey.
4. Ensure revenue requirements were met.
This review will focus on the statistical methodology for analyzing the first and second objectives, energy
conservation and demand reduction impacts.
Study Design
Six groups of 1,200 customers each were randomly sampled to be in the opt-out study. After opt outs
and customer attrition from those who moved out during the study period, approximately 850 customer
remained in each group at the end of the study. Utilities had over a year of data available for these
customers prior to the start of the study that allowed for a comparison of their energy consumption and
demand before and during the study.
Each of the six groups sampled had a different combination of rate treatments. These treatments
included information about the study, peak period information, best-bill guarantee, peak period pricing,
and a tier component.
Breakdown per group:
The study control group was notified that they were a part of the study only.
The peak information control group was notified that they were a part of the study and were
given information about the peak period.
5
Two groups remained on tiered rates but were given a best-bill guarantee when being
compared to each of the respective TOU rates (these customers also received the study and
peak information treatments).
The TOU group was switched from tiered rates to standard TOU and received all of the previous
mentioned treatments.
The TOU with a tier group received all of the treatments with the addition of a tiered
component to their TOU rate.
Additionally, there was a group of customers who were sampled at random that had no
information about the study at all.
The table below summarizes the components of the study faced by each group.
This design allowed for the isolation of each component, or treatment, of the study that might influence
consumer behavior. As an example, the difference between the study and peak information control
groups is due to the peak information since these customers were sampled at random (and other
control variables were included as discussed later). Also, the difference between the TOU and TOU with
Tier groups is due to the tier component. These differences are analyzed by using a linear regression
model to determine the effect of each treatment on consumption and demand.
Regression Model
The regression is designed to determine the effects of the components on electricity consumption. In
order to identify the effects associated with these rate components, the regression also controls for the
effects of the weather, heating and cooling demands, as well as the amount of daylight, which accounts
for lighting loads. The particular regression specification used also controls for differences between
customers that typically do not vary over the short time frame of the study, such as the size of a home,
the efficiency of the home, or a customer’s individual preferences about heating or cooling. Loosely
speaking, this is accomplished by subtracting out these time invariant components either by subtracting
the mean of the data or by subtracting the data from the previous time period. These approaches are
commonly employed in policy analysis since they yield unbiased estimates of the effects of a policy
change under fairly general assumptions.
6
Results
Consumption
The following graph shows the point estimates as well as the 95% and 99% confidence intervals for the
impacts of the study treatments on consumption. The 95% confidence intervals are the shorter thicker
bars, and the 99% intervals are the thinner longer bars.
The graph conveys the same information as a statistical hypothesis test. If a confidence interval
contains zero, we can conclude that the result is not statistically different from zero at that level of
significance, however, if the confidence interval does not contain zero then the result is significant at
that level of significance1.
From the graph, we can see that the TOU rate structure, labeled as “tou treatment”, reduced
consumption by 2.5% on average and is significant at the 1% level, while adding a tier to the TOU
structure, labeled as “tou tier treatment,” does not have a statistically significant impact on
consumption. To summarize, if TOU was implemented, we would expect to see a 2.5% reduction in
consumption over the tiered rates. Adding a tier to the TOU rate did not result in additional
consumption beyond the 2.5% seen with the standard TOU rate.
1 The level of significance is calculated as 100% - percentage of confidence interval. If we are working with a 95%
confidence interval then the level of significance is 100% - 95% = 5%. A smaller level of significance is a higher
threshold for proof that a treatment had an effect, thus a result that is significant at a 1% level is more convincing
than a result at a 5% level of significance.
7
Demand
Demand was analyzed using two different frameworks. First the demands during the coincident peak
hour were analyzed, and secondly, the probability that a customer’s daily peak occurred during the peak
period was analyzed. The first analysis provides a measure of the system impact since the system has to
be sized to meet these peak coincident demands and rates are intended to recover costs associated with
each rate class. The second is a measure of the change in customer behavior.
The graph below shows the impacts on demand during the summer coincident peak hour.
Like the previous graph with the consumption results, this graph shows the point estimates and the 99%
and 95% confidence intervals. The TOU structure reduced peak demand by 8% and this result is
significant at the 5% level. The other treatments had no statistically significant impact on demand
during the coincident peak hour.
Furthermore, none of the treatments had a significant impact on coincident peak demands during the
non-summer months. It is worth noting, however, that non-summer system demands are much less
frequent than summer demands. This means that a demand savings in the winter does not reduce the
amount of infrastructure needed to serve customers since adequate infrastructure must already be
installed to meet the higher summer demands. In other words, even though TOU doesn’t reduce peak
demands in the non-summer months, there still is the potential for infrastructure savings from the
reduction in the summer peak demands.
8
The graph below illustrates savings during the summer by showing the load curves for customers on the
TOU rate versus customers not on a TOU rate during a peak summer day. The peak period is framed by
the vertical bars at 2 and 7pm. This period was designed to capture when coincident peaks occur, based
on 10 years of historical data, thus a reduction in usage during this period will typically result in a
reduction of the coincident peak. We can see from the chart that TOU customers did reduce their
consumption during this period and in turn provided a benefit to the system by reducing their peak
demand.
The second analysis, measuring the change in probability that a customer’s daily peak occurred during
the peak period, showed significant results for both piloted rate structures. The TOU customers reduced
the probability that their peak occurred during the peak period by 8% while the customers on the TOU
w/tier rate only reduced their probability by 3%. Both of these results are significant at the 1% level.
These results suggest that standard TOU is more effective at promoting customers to reduce their
electricity consumption during peak periods and/or shift their electricity consumption away from peak
periods.
9
Survey Results
Question 1: Rate Understanding
This question was stated as, “Select the description which you think best explains the price you pay for
electricity,” and was designed to gauge the customers’ general understanding of their electricity rate.
These responses were compared to the customer’s actual rate and we observed that only 25% of
customers correctly identified their rate structure. This could have been due to a poorly worded
question or general lack of understanding of the specifics of electricity rates. It also suggests there is an
opportunity to educate our customers on rate drivers and structures.
10
Question 2: Customer Engagement
This question was stated as, “Select the description which best describes how frequently you seek out
information about your energy consumption.” The purpose of this question was to see how often
customers retrieve information about their consumption. From the point of view of rate analysis, this is
important if we want to know what prices customers consider when making electricity consumption
decisions. Do customers respond to marginal prices based on how much energy they have consumed
during the month, or do they respond to the price they see on their bill every month? Given the survey
responses from this question, it seems unlikely that customers respond to tiered marginal prices based
on consumption during their billing cycle, since most customers seek out their consumption information
on a monthly basis or less infrequently.
Question 3: Objective of Rate Structure
This question was stated as, “In your view, what should be the primary objective of electricity rates
(please choose one).” We asked this question to better understand what objectives are important to
our customers when designing a rate structure. Most customers, about 42%, want electricity rates to
balance fair cost recovery with environmental concerns. This was followed by simply recovering costs in
an equitable manner at 33%. Lastly, 21% of customers said environmental concerns, answers A and B,
should be the primary drivers of electric rate design. Taken in total, 67% of customers want a rate
design to, at least in part, take into account environmental concerns.
11
Question 4: Behavioral Energy Use
This question was stated as, “During the last 18 months, did you respond to your electricity bill by
(choose all that apply).” This question shows that a vast majority of customers, 67%, took deliberate
actions to conserve energy. While only 22% of respondents were conscious of when they used energy,
half of the respondents that said they were conscious of when they used electricity were on one of the
TOU rates, suggesting the pilot TOU rates did make customers more conscious about when they used
energy2.
2 Customers on one of the TOU pilot rates made up about 20% of the total number of survey respondents. If the
rate structure had no influence on when customers used energy we would expect about 20% of the customers
who said they were conscious of when they used energy to be on one of the pilot rates. Since we actually saw 50%
of these respondents on one of the pilot rates that suggests the pilot rates did influence customers’ choices about
when to use electricity.
12
Revenue Impacts
Customers on three different rate structures, including the tiered rate, the residential demand rate, and
the solar net metering rate, were included in the pilot study. Customers from each of these rate classes
were randomly selected and after the opportunity to opt-out of the study, were moved to one of the
TOU rates being tested (either the standard TOU rate or the TOU w/tier rate).
Both TOU rate structures, like the tiered rate structure, were designed to pass through the full
wholesale generation and transmission charges and to collect adequate revenue to maintain the
distribution system. One of the objectives of the pilot study was to verify that adequate revenues were
collected under each TOU rate structure.
Tiered Rate Customers
As shown in the table below, the tiered rate customers who moved to the TOU rate paid 1.6% less on
average, or $1.14 less per month. The tiered rate customers who moved to the TOU w/tier rate paid
1.9% less on average, or $1.38 less per month.
Original Rate Pilot Study Rate Count
%
Difference
on TOU Rate
Avg $ Change
per Month
Tiered Rate TOU 880 1.6% less ($1.14)
TOU w/tier 851 1.9% less ($1.38)
13
In total, these customers paid $26,000 less than they would have under the tiered rate. This reduction
in revenue is mostly offset by a reduction in the coincident peak charge and energy charge paid to Platte
River on a monthly basis.
Electric Heat Customers
A sample of electric heat customers (residential demand) were included in the pilot study. While the
monthly impacts vary due to the higher electric usage during the winter months, the overall impact was
a higher bill for these customers, even though they saved during the summer months. These customers
are not being compared to the tiered rate, but rather the RD rate.
As shown in the graphs below, customers on the TOU rate paid 1.8% more on average throughout the
year, or $2.44 more per month. Customers on the TOU w/tier rate paid 7.9% more, or $10.27 per
month. Electric heat customers consume more electricity than the average residential customer (who
typically have a natural gas offset) and therefore implementing any tier overlay on top of the TOU rate
would impact them greater.
Because of this impact, staff recommends implementing the standard TOU rate rather than the TOU
w/tier, which helps align the customer’s consumption patterns with higher on-peak costs. This is the
same reason those customers are not currently on a tiered rate. The current demand rate does not
distinguish when that increased demand occurs. A TOU rate structure could encourage energy
efficiency improvements by providing a price signal that recognizes when heating is primarily done.
This increase in revenue is appropriate for this rate class and suggests there may be some interclass rate
subsidy with the standard tiered residential rate that hasn’t been identified previously. The increased
revenue in this rate class also offsets some of the reduced revenue for the tiered rate customers.
14
Original Rate Pilot Study Rate Count
%
Difference
on TOU Rate
Avg $ Change
per Month
Residential Demand
(all-electric homes)
TOU 18 1.8% more $2.44
TOU w/tier 16 7.9% more $10.27
Net Metering – Rooftop Solar Customers
A small sampling of solar net metering customers was included in the pilot study. The overall impacts to
the customers moved to the TOU rate was they paid 12.4% more on an annual basis, or $2.82 per
month, on average. The customers who were on the TOU w/tier rate paid essentially the same on an
annual basis as they would have paid on a tiered rate, with the difference being only $0.07 per month.
The difference stems from these customers benefitting from the lower per kilowatt-hour charge and not
being impacted by the tier.
15
Both TOU rates better align with the marginal cost of electricity than the current tiered rate structure.
Either TOU rate would reduce the compensation to net-metering customers for energy pushed back
onto the distribution system in the off-peak hours of the early afternoon. A TOU rate would encourage
configuring solar arrays to generate more energy when the community needs it the most.
Original Rate Pilot Study Rate Count
%
Difference
on TOU Rate
Avg $ Change
per Month
Solar Net Metering TOU 5 12.4% more $2.82
TOU w/tier 9 0% $0.07
As shown in the graphs below, the financial impacts during the winter and shoulder season months were
greater for customers on a TOU rate. This is mainly due to there being little or no solar production
occurring during the on peak hours from 5 - 9 p.m. during the winter months. In the summer months,
solar production better aligns with the on-peak hours, and these customers paid less on the TOU rate.
16
Staff compared hourly data of all 360 net metering customers to help understand impacts of every net
metering customer on the system, because of the small sample size in the study. While the effects of
being in the study itself could not be measured, the financial comparison shows that most customers
would pay more on a TOU rate, without any behavior change, than on the tiered rate. On average, they
would pay $4.39 more per month per customer. The maximum amount that a customer in this sample
would pay is $27.66 more per month, while a few customers could save as much as $81.26 per month.
See table below for summary.
TOU Rate Tiered Rate $ Difference % Difference
Avg Annual Bill $ 425.36 $ 372.73 $ 52.63 14%
Avg Monthly Bill $ 35.45 $ 31.06 $ 4.39 14%
Low-Income Customers
Distribution of Impacts on Low-Income Customers
Low income customers were identified as the lower third of incomes based on income data from the
Census. Data from the best bill guarantees was used to show the differences in costs to low income
customers between what they paid on the piloted TOU rates and what they would have paid under the
tiered rate.
The following histogram shows the average difference in monthly bills when comparing the piloted rates
to the tiered rate. A negative difference indicates that customers paid less on the piloted rate than they
would have on the tiered rate, assuming they would have had the same consumption with the tiered
rate. As shown by the histogram, customers tended to save more on the TOU w/tier rate than the
standard TOU rate, though the differences are typically around a few dollars a month or less.
17
The table below shows summary statistics for the average monthly cost differences. The maximum
savings on the TOU rate is about $60 a month, while the maximum savings on the TOU w/tier rate is
about $90 a month. The maximum increase was about $8 a month for the TOU rate and $6 a month for
the TOU w/tier rate among low-income customers. The median customer on the TOU rate paid an
additional $0.77 per month, while the median TOU w/tier saved $0.80 per month.
Monthly Cost moving to TOU from Tiered rate
Low-Income Customers
Rate Min Cost Max Cost Average Cost Median Cost
TOU -$59.37 $8.07 -$0.56 $0.77
TOU w/tier -$90.47 $5.73 -$1.79 -$0.80
18
Impacts by Income Groups
The following graphs show the distributions of the differences realized under the TOU rate compared to
the tiered rate for the three income groups. Once again, a negative difference indicates that customers
paid less on the piloted rate than they would have on the tiered rate.
This plot shows the empirical probability density (pdf) for the standard TOU rate. We can see that most
customers, regardless of income, paid slightly more on the standard TOU rate as opposed to the tiered
rate. This was expected as most customers pay slightly less than their full cost of service under the
tiered rate and the TOU rate was designed to cover the full cost of service.
The next graph is the empirical cumulative density function (cdf). This graph tells us the percentage of
customers who had an average difference less than or equal to a certain amount. In particular, we can
see the percentage of customers who had an average difference less than or equal to zero (percentage
of customers who paid less on TOU compared to the tiered rate). About 34% of the low-income group,
40% of the middle-income group, and 37% of the upper-income group saved on the electricity bills
under TOU. It is important to note, however, that the percentage of customers better off in each
income group are not statistically different from one another, i.e., the differences we have observed
could be attributed to randomness in the data rather that a systematic difference in monthly electricity
bills.
19
The next set of graphs show the distribution of best bill data for the customers in the TOU w/tier pilot
group. Here we see that most customers save on the TOU w/tier rate when compared to what they
would have paid on the current tiered rate.
The empirical cdf below confirms that most customers are better off on the TOU w/tier as well. The
middle- and upper-income groups had 56% and 59% percent of customers saving on their electricity
20
bills. The low income group had 74% of customers saving on the TOU w/tier rate, and this difference in
percentages is statistically significant.
It should be noted that while low-income customers save on the TOU w/tier, electric heat customers,
who are predominantly middle- and low-income customers, face significantly higher bills under a TOU
w/tier rate, as discussed later. In addition, a TOU w/tier is not an optimal rate for electric vehicle
customers, as charging is necessary throughout the month and has the potential to create higher
electricity bills as a result of the tier. Thus, staff does not recommend implementing a TOU w/tier as the
default rate for residential customers.
Other Considerations
Greenhouse Gas Impacts
Since there is not an organized energy market in our region we cannot calculate the marginal generation
emissions at any given time. Thus, calculating the exact Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts from the
piloted rate study is not possible. If Fort Collins customers use less energy, Platte River Power Authority
does not reduce electricity production. Instead, any reduction in energy consumption increases the
excess electricity available to sell on the market. These additional sales from Platte River replace sales
from another (the marginal) generation source on the regional electric system and the reduction in
emissions from the marginal generator is the emission savings from the reduction in use in Fort
Collins. Thus, reduced energy use within Fort Collins requires less energy to be generated regionally, but
the emission savings is from a peaking facility owned by another utility.
We can, however, put bounds on the GHG savings by calculating a worst-case scenario. Given the
measured shift in the portion of energy consumed on-peak to off-peak of 0.4%, and the overall
21
reduction in consumption for TOU customers of 2.5%, we can calculate the worst-case scenario for GHG
savings. If all of the marginal resources on-peak are zero emissions (an overly conservative assumption),
and all of the off-peak emissions come from coal generators, then the GHG savings amounts to 2.0% at
minimum. Note that this worst case scenario is unrealistic, but it gives a lower bound for savings. Using
a more likely on-peak emissions factor from the EPA’s eGRID resource suggests that the GHG savings are
likely to be at least 2.3% for the TOU rates. The takeaway is that the overall reduction in energy
consumption outweighs a shift in when energy is consumed, and therefore, does provide a reduction in
GHG emissions.
Summary
Staff recommends making the TOU rate the default rate for the residential customer class. It is relatively
simple compared to the tiered and TOU w/tier rates, making it easier to educate customers about the
structure of the rate.
It provides two ways for customers to control their electricity bill, through total electricity consumption
and when electricity is consumed, as compared to the tired rate where customers can only control their
bill through total consumption.
The TOU rate can be used for electric heat and electric vehicle customers, simplifying the rate offerings
by Fort Collins Utilities. The TOU rate also helps align incentives to net metering customers by offering
larger incentives when electricity is in higher demand.
Lastly, the TOU rate is more equitable than the current tiered rate and reflects the differences in the
cost of providing electricity throughout the day.
DATE:
STAFF:
February 28, 2017
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Residential Electric Time of Use Pilot Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present the results of the 12-month residential electric time of use (TOU) pilot study.
The study showed that when compared to the current tiered rate structure both TOU rate structures reduced
energy use by 2.5% and load was shifted from the on peak periods to the off peak periods, thereby reducing our
community’s contribution to the Platte River Power Authority’s (PRPA) coincident peak. The additional complexity
of the tiered TOU rate over the basic TOU rate did not provide any statistically significant difference from the basic
TOU. Based on the pilot staff is recommending that Council consider adopting a TOU rate without the tier for all
residential customers.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council support a time of use rate structure implementation plan?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council passed Ordinance No. 078, 2015 in July 2015 to pursue a 12 month residential time of use pilot
study. Customer outreach began and an open house was held in August and September of 2015. The official
pilot study kicked off in November of 2015 and concluded in October of 2016. At that time a survey was sent to
all participants and the best bill guarantee analysis and customer notification was completed ahead of any credits
being applied to the customer’s bill in December 2016. Results from the pilot study were presented to the Council
Finance Committee on January 23, 2017 (attached).
The purpose of the pilot study as outlined in Ordinance No. 078, 2015 was to assess if a TOU rate structure could
better achieve each of the following objectives than the current tiered rate structure:
Objective 1 - Determine energy conservation impacts
Objective 2 - Measure potential demand reductions
Objective 3 - Gauge customer preference for different rate structures
Objective 4 - Ensure revenue requirements are met
Two time-of-use rate structures were considered during the pilot study. The first TOU was a time of use rate
structure with an on-peak window when electricity costs more and a much wider off-peak window when electricity
costs substantially less than the current tiered rate. In this TOU rate structure all of the expenses associated with
energy efficiency programs and PRPA’s demand charges were included in the on-peak window. The second rate
structure, labeled below as TOU w/Energy Efficiency (TOU_EE), was very similar, with the same on-peak and off-
peak hours, but rather than including the costs associated with the energy efficiency programs in the on-peak
charge, these costs were collected through an additional tiered component.
ATTACHMENT 2
February 28, 2017 Page 2
For the pilot study, 1,200 customers were randomly selected to be on each rate. Roughly 10% of the customers
opted out at the beginning of the pilot study. After removing any customers that moved households during the 12
month study period, approximately 850 customers remained throughout in each study group.
Objective 1 - Energy Conservation
Based on the rigorous statistical analysis, both TOU rate structures effectively encouraged energy conservation
better than the current tiered rate structure.
The TOU rate realized a 2.5% reduction in energy consumption.
The TOU_EE rate structure did not provide any additional energy conservation over the TOU rate without a
tier.
Objective 2 - Potential Demand Reductions
The statistical analysis also showed both TOU rate structures reduced the probability that a residential customer’s
daily peak occurred in the “on peak” window.
The TOU rate structure without a tier showed an 8.5% reduction in the probability that a customer’s daily peak
occurred in the “on peak” window.
The TOU_EE rate structure showed a 2.8% reduction in the probability that a customer’s daily peak occurred
in the “on peak” window.
This shift of the customer’s daily peak reduced the contribution from the residential rate class as a whole to the
system coincident peak hour used in the assessment of PRPA’s wholesale demand charges each month.
Specifically, looking at the single coincident peak hour during the summer months,
The TOU rate showed a 7.5% reduction in the contribution to the system coincident peak.
The TOU_EE did not show any additional reduction.
Objective 3 - Gauge Customer Preference
A survey was sent to all participants at the end of the pilot study. In total, 1,450 customer surveys were received
out of 7,000 sent (20% return rate). Below is a summary of the responses from each of the four survey questions.
Attached is another document which captures the additional comments provided by customers.
February 28, 2017 Page 3
Question 1 - Select the description which you think best explains the price you pay for electricity.
From the results of Question 1, where customers were asked to identify their rate structure, it is clear that most
customers do not understand how they are being charged for electric use. As such, an extensive public outreach
effort is recommended before any rate structure changes are made.
Question 2 - Select the description which best describes how frequently you seek out information about your
energy consumption
February 28, 2017 Page 4
Question 3 - In your view, what should be the primary objective of electricity rates (please choose one)
Question 4 - During the last 18 months, did you respond to your electricity bill by (choose all that apply)
Objective 4 - Revenue Adequacy
Both TOU rate structures, like the tiered rate structure, were designed to pass through the full wholesale
generation and transmission charges and to collect adequate revenue to maintain the distribution system. Both
TOU rate structures resulted in less revenue than the current tiered rate structure. However, because 30% of
wholesale energy charges are determined by Fort Collins Utility’s contribution to the system coincident peak and
that contribution was reduced, adequate revenues were still generated to meet the cost of service for the
residential rate class. Below is a table summarizing the revenue impacts separating out the impact to those
residential customers who either have all electric heat and are on the Residential Demand (RD) rate or have
rooftop solar installed (Net Metering customers):
Original Rate Pilot Study Rate Count % Difference on TOU
Rate
Avg $ Change per
Month
Tiered Rate TOU 880 1.6% less ($1.14)
TOU w/ EE 851 1.9% less ($1.38)
All Electric Homes TOU 18 1.8% more $2.44
TOU w/ EE 16 7.9% more $10.27
Net Metering TOU 5 12.4% more $2.82
TOU w/ EE 9 0% $0.07
February 28, 2017 Page 5
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Rate Structure Impacts (utility perspective) (check mark shows more favorable option)
Rate Structure
Tiered TOU TOU w/tier
Revenue Requirements Met
Promotes Energy Conservation No 2.5% 2.5%
Promotes Load Shifting No 8% 3%
Considered Equitable (cost-basis) No
Benefits Low Income Households
Net Metering None
Electric Heat No No
Addresses Electric Vehicle Charging No
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes implementing the standard TOU rate as a default rate to all residential customers, including current
tiered rates customers, demand rate customers, and net metering customers.
There are many considerations in proposing the standard TOU rate, which is ultimately considered a fairer and
equitable rate structure. The pilot study shows this rate provides a reduction in the probability that a customer’s
peak happens during the on peak hours, and also realized energy conservation over the current tiered rate
structure. In general, a TOU rate structure is easy for customers to understand, as well as react to. A TOU rate
also encourages the use of electric vehicles and provides an incentive to charge during off peak hours, which is in
line with the City’s climate goals.
A TOU rate structure would negatively impact those customers who are on the Residential Demand rate
financially ($2.44 / customer / month on average), but it better aligns the costs of generation and this customer
group’s demands for electricity. This rate structure is available only to customers in all electric housing and is
intended to recognize the increased electric demand of such housing. The current demand rate does not
distinguish when that increased demand occurs. A TOU rate structure could encourage energy efficiency
improvements by providing a price signal that recognizes when heating is primarily done.
Both TOU rates better align with the marginal cost of electricity than the current tiered rate structure. Either TOU
rate would reduce the compensation to net-metering customers for energy pushed back onto the distribution
system in the off peak hours of the early afternoon. A TOU rate would encourage configuring solar arrays to
generate more energy when the community needs it the most.
The study shows that adding the energy efficiency tier to the standard TOU rate structure does not statistically
improve the energy conservation and load shifting objectives. Thus, staff is recommending the standard TOU
rate structure without the additional tiered component.
NEXT STEPS
If Council supports implementing a TOU rate, staff would begin developing an implementation plan and a
communication outreach plan for all residential customers. Staff would then return to Council in the fall to discuss
these efforts and to seek further direction on when the rate structure change would be brought forward for Council
consideration. The 2018 rate Ordinances will be considered by Council in November or December of 2017,
allowing this rate structure change to a residential TOU rate to be implemented in early 2018.
Further consideration will be needed to implement TOU to a small group of customers that opted out of the AMI
implementation, referred to as “option 2” customers (those that don’t want the utility to see 15-minute data) and
“option 3” customers (those that don’t want a meter which transmits monthly reads via radio frequency). There
are approximately 426 customers combined in these two groups.
February 28, 2017 Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
1. Finance Committee Agenda Item Summary, January 23, 2017 (PDF)
2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
700 Wood Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax
970.224.6003 – TDD
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 3, 2017
TO: Mayor Troxell and Councilmembers
FROM: Randy Reuscher, Utilities Rate Analyst
Justin Fields, Utilities Rate Analyst
Lance Smith, Utility Strategic Finance Director
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
RE: Time-of-Use Pilot Study Analysis – Deliverables from Feb 28, 2017 Work
Session
Staff presented the results of the residential time-of-use pilot study to the Mayor and Council at
the work session on February 28th. Mayor Troxell, Mayor Pro Tem Horak and Councilmembers
Campana, Cunniff, Martinez, Overbeck and Stephens were present.
Staff was directed to provide more in-depth feedback to Council on the following topics ahead of
the Council strategic planning session in May:
x A written statistical analysis of the TOU pilot study
x A written report on GHG emissions under a TOU rate compared to the current tiered rate
x A written analysis on the realized billing impacts of TOU on all participants in the pilot
x A written analysis on the impact a TOU rate would have on rooftop solar customers
x A timeline for the customer outreach plan
Attached to this memo is a written report that helps explain the first four topics above pertaining
to the pilot study results. Below, as part of this memo, is a summary of the timeline for the
customer outreach plan.
Staff believes the time-of-use rate is a more fair and equitable rate structure for the residential
class than the current tiered rate. The time-of-use rate structure provides two ways a customer
can reduce their electric bill; by using less energy or by using it at different times of the day.
Additionally, the results of the pilot study showed a 2.5% reduction in energy consumption over
the existing tiered rate, along with a 7.5% reduction in demand during the coincident peak hour,
both of which support the City’s climate goals.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CA88A3E-8265-47C5-8498-C5FD2B954E72
ATTACHMENT 3
Based on Council support, staff is seeking direction from Council to implement a time-of-use
rate as the default residential rate structure in 2018. Ahead of rollout, staff recommends a 6-
month lead time to fully inform and educate the community on the new rate structure.
Proposed Timeline - Time-of-Use Rates Customer Outreach
Staff will be presenting City Council with options for the effective date of Time-of-Use (TOU)
rates at the June 13 work session, as well as the pros and cons of each date. The options will
include an effective date of March 1 or October 1, 2018, in order to efficiently educate and
engage customers on this rate change structure. The proposed timeline includes the following
key outcomes:
x Develop messaging, look and feel of campaign
x Design outreach and education materials
x Consult community boards and groups prior to City Council action
x Provide thorough customer engagement prior to effective date
x Continue engagement after effective date
These two effective date options allow time and resources to create communications for a broad
audience, mass communications, as well as target specific residential segments. In addition, key
stakeholder groups have been identified to make formal presentations as part of their regularly
scheduled meetings.
Mass Communication
To reach all residential customers with TOU information, staff will utilize these general
methods, as well as other tactics and tools:
x Utility bill inserts
x Brochures
x Social media, including Nextdoor
x Website
Targeted Communication
Staff will engage specific sectors of the residential customer class, including:
x Electric heat low-income/medical assistance
x Multi-family
x Utilities program participants
x Solar/electric vehicles
x Stay-at-home/work-at-home
Stakeholder Staff will consult Collaboration with these community groups on how to best deliver the message to the
audience:
x Boards and commissions
x Nonprofits that support low income
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CA88A3E-8265-47C5-8498-C5FD2B954E72
x Homeowner associations
x Larimer County Conservation Corps
x Poudre School District
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions or need additional information.
Attachment: Review of the Time-of-Use Electric Rate Study Pilot
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CA88A3E-8265-47C5-8498-C5FD2B954E72
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
4
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
pattern survey; the first year focuses on residents’ travel patterns, and the second year will focus on
employee travel patterns, which should capture the commuting patterns of Fort Collins’ surrounding
communities.
Board members also commented that it is difficult to access or use the transit system effectively, or get
around safely as a pedestrian or a bicylist, in Southeast Fort Collins. Mr. Sizemore said a lot of the
infrastructure in that area was put in place at a time when the City wasn’t really thinking about complete
streets, or how residents would get around those areas without getting in their cars. He agreed Southeast
Fort Collins has been, and will continue to be, one of the challenge areas in the City.
Board member Baumgarn asked about the timeline of the plan updates. Mr. Mounce explained that they
haven’t started yet, but hope to select a team of consultants very soon and then begin public kickoff and
engagement events later this spring. Overall, they expect it to be an 18-24 month process once kickoff
begins.
Time of Use Pilot Study
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
Justin Fields, Utility Rate Analyst
(attachments available upon request)
Mr. Reuscher compared the City’s current tiered rates to the Time of Use (TOU) tiered rates used in the
pilot study. The off-peak hours on TOU came out less than the current Tier 1 rate.
Board members commented that the public might view the on-peak hour charges as a way to upcharge
rate-payers in the middle of summer when rates are highest. Mr. Reuscher explained on-peak hours are
framed around historical peaks, and they didn’t want to make the window too wide in order to allow
customers to have the opportunity to adjust their energy usage behavior, or to shift outside of the peak
window. Board member Braslau mentioned the City should be creating any rate structure that incents
people to conserve, and one that will help the City meet its goals, whatever those goals are, as long as the
overall revenue corresponds to the costs. Mr. Smith also explained the proposed rates for residential
customer rate class’ portion of the Platte River demand charge is in the on-peak charge, the energy
efficiency cost is also put into the on-peak charge, and the rest of the distribution facilities and energy
cost are within both the on-peak and the off-peak.
Board member Becker noted there should be some educational technology available to rate payers, and he
thinks he would enjoy being on this structure because he’d like to make an impact on his bill.
Chairperson O’Neill said it would also be appropriate to roll out a new demand response program in
conjunction with the roll out of TOU rates to enable customers to change their usage patterns accordingly.
The pilot study ran for 12 months, beginning in November 2015. At the conclusion of the study, a survey
was sent to participants, and at the end of 2016 the City began a statistical analysis. The study had four
objectives: determine energy conservation impact, measure potential demand reductions, gauge customer
preference for different rate structures, and ensure revenue requirements are met. There were 1,200
customers on two different TOU rate structures: the first model was a standard on-peak and off-peak
charge, and in the second model the energy efficiency dollars were removed from the on-peak and off-
peak charges and rolled that into a tiered overlay. The study also included four control groups, awareness
of study, peak pricing info, weather normalize, and best bill guarantee. There were 7,200 customers in
the control groups and 1200 opted out right away, which left about 850 customers per each control group.
ATTACHMENT 4
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
5
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
Since institution in 2012, the current tiered rate structure showed no reduction in energy consumption. In
the TOU pilot study, customers on the TOU rate structure reduced their energy consumption by an
average of 2.5% annually; however, adding a tier to TOU rate had no statistical impact on energy
consumption. During an on-peak window on a summer day, customers on a TOU rate averaged a 7.5%
energy usage reduction; however, the TOU group also used slight more energy during off-peak hours.
The Customer Survey was sent to all 7,200 participants (including everyone who opted out) and they had
roughly 1,450 responses (20%). The survey showed that 47% of customers infrequently or never seek out
energy consumption information, but 51% seek information when they receive their monthly bill. 42% of
customers agree rates should balance equitable cost recovery with environmental concerns. 25% of
customers can accurately identify their rate structure. 38% of customers are conscious of their energy
usage, 8% of customers had no concern for cost, and 31% use energy efficient bulbs and/or appliances.
Vice Chairperson Michell asked if the Utility could distribute mailers to show ratepayers how much
energy they used during peak and off peak hours. Mr. Reuscher agreed that the Utility could utilize the
Opower reporting to circulate key messages like that.
On the TOU and TOU tiered rates, most residential customers reduced their energy consumption, so they
saw a slight savings each month. Both all-Electric and Solar Net Metering customers saw increases on
their monthly bills on the TOU and TOU tiered rate structures.
Staff recommends transitioning to a standard TOU rate structure for all residential customers, including
residential demand and solar net metering customers. The standard TOU rate saw an overall reduction in
energy consumption (2.5%), and better aligns benefits of solar production with costs. TOU also
encourages the use of electric vehicles and charging during off-peak hours, which is consistent with the
community’s climate goals. Staff also considers this to be a more fair and equitable rate structure.
Council would like to reconvene with Staff in May, and Staff is hoping for their approval to kick off a
six-month rollout and public outreach campaign.
Board member Becker commented that it’s natural for people to not understand, but with the right
education it will be easy to coach ratepayers to make decisions about their usage. Mr. Becker encouraged
Staff to give the Utility the flexibility to evolve with peak-time energy usage, especially as solar becomes
more prevalent. Mr. Smith advised they looked at 10 years of historical data to determine the peak and
off-peak windows, and reiterated they wanted a window that was narrow enough to shift behaviors and
flatten the load curve. Mr. Becker inquired if there will be an opt-out plan, and Mr. McCollough advised
there is no recommendation for an opt-out program. Board members commented that this is the
beginning of a more intelligent metering system.
Chairperson O’Neill moved the Chairperson write a letter to Council in support of a residential
Time-of-Use rate structure and would like Staff to develop a detailed education and implementation
plan to bring to the Board at a future meeting.
Board member Baumgarn seconded the motion.
Discussion of the Motion:
Board member Moore asked if single-metered customers in multifamily dwellings are also on TOU rates.
Staff advised that they are on a different structure based on demand, but that is not considered normal and
is a very small service group.
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
6
Energy Board Minutes
March 9, 2017
Vote on the Motion: It passed unanimously, 6-0, with 2 absent
Board Member Reports
The Energy Board Expanded Roles memo was received by Ross Cunniff. Chairperson O’Neill is on the
interview panel for the Strategic Asset Manager.
Board member Braslau mentioned that the City’s current projections show we will come up short on the
Climate Action Plan goals.
Future Agenda Review
Mr. McCollough reminded the Board that the April Board meeting will be held at 117 N Mason in the
Board Room. He also advised Reliability and Asset Management discussion should be delayed until the
new Strategic Asset manager has been on boarded.
Board member Braslau asked about Broadband; Mr. McCollough explained that until Council decides
what is happening with a third-party option, it will not actively be discussed at the Board. If Broadband
goes underneath the City as a Utility, it may or may not be under the purview of the energy board.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
Approved by the Energy Board on April 13, 2017
________________________________ ______________
Board Secretary, Christie Fredrickson Date
Page2
AGENDA ITEM 1: Board Administration Updates
Christine Macrina, Boards and Commissions Coordinator, presented a brief overview regarding the new
volunteer time tracking database and a summary of the results of the Boards and Commissions Participation
Questionnaire.
Christine introduced Engage, a new volunteer management system being implemented by the City. After
each AQAB meeting, 2.5 hours will be logged for Board members and an email notification will be sent.
Engage will allow users to see time changes in meetings and events, accrued hours, anniversaries, and more.
Christine also showed the results from the Boards and Commissions Participation Questionnaire. The
purpose of the survey was to assess the diversity of members on the City’s boards and commissions
(B&C’s). The questionnaire was completed by 48% of B&C members. Results of the questionnaire show
nearly equal representation of men and women in B&C’s. Members are 92.5% white, and most members
have an income over $100k/yr. Over half of B&C members have been residents of Fort Collins for 20 years
or longer. 88% of members have a bachelor’s degree or higher. The City would like to create a mentorship
program for incoming or potential members to encourage more diversity.
Discussion
x The survey asks how long you have been a resident – what if you move away and move back? What
is the intent of that question?
o Intended to figure out if long-term residents have more community involvement. Mirrored
the demographic questions in the census, so results can be readily compared to other places.
x What are your diversity improvement methods? Collaboration with schools, HOAs?
o Have not targeted HOAs. In-person visits. Knocked on doors in underrepresented areas.
Figuring out the challenges, such as commute distance. Looking at future generations as well.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Time of Use Electric Rates
Randy Reusher, Utility Rate Analyst, provided an update regarding the 12-month residential electric time-of-
use (TOU) pilot study. The Board considered a recommendation to Council regarding next steps.
Randy presented the results of a Time-of-Use (TOU) electric rate pilot study conducted last Fall. Objectives
of pilot study:
1) Determine energy conservation impacts. The TOU rate showed a 2.5% reduction in energy consumption.
2) Measure potential demand reductions. There was a 7.5% reduction in coincident peak-hour demand during
summer, and a 0.4% shift in demand.
3) Gauge customer preference for different rate structures. Utilities surveyed 7,200 people, with four
questions about energy consumption, rate structure and knowledge, and energy conservation.
4) Ensure revenue requirements are met. There were three different customer groups with measured revenue
impacts, including all-electric homes and solar net-metering groups. Randy showed a graph listing the cost
savings for customer groups with TOU versus tiered rate systems.
Staff recommendations: Transition to a standard TOU rate for residential customers, including residential
demand rate and solar-net metering customers. Upcoming timeline includes a June 13th (this has now been
moved to July 11th) work session followed by a 6-month outreach/communication plan. Aiming for TOU
deployment to all residential customers in 2018.
Discussion
x Do the impacts describe Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) reduction, and not Fort Collins
usage/consumption?
ATTACHMENT 5
Page3
o Yes. Looking at regional production because it is difficult to track which power plant is
reducing its emissions.
x What other cities in Colorado use a TOU rate structure?
o Nearly a third of cities in Colorado offer a TOU rate. Nationwide, over 4 million households.
Colorado Springs offers it, maybe Gunnison. Xcel and Poudre Valley REA offer it.
x How do the reported reductions line up with Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 goals?
o Reducing GHG emissions, promoting electric vehicle use. Expecting a 2.5% reduction in
residential energy consumption, which accounts for 40% of total load in Ft. Collins. This
equates to about a 1% reduction in total energy use overall city-wide.
o CAP 2020 projections did not consider TOU. This could be an addition.
x Are the peak hours fixed?
o Yes. Summer hours (May-September) are 2-7pm. Winter hours (October-April) are 5-9pm.
x Is there a way to increase savings?
o For tiered rates, reduce energy use. For TOU, reduce overall energy consumption AND avoid
use during peak hours.
x Is there a base, fixed energy use, even when a customer isn’t home?
o Yes, refrigerators, and similar appliances contribute to base use. The average Fort Collins
citizen uses 700 kWh/month.
x Do people know how much they consume and how they can conserve?
o Higher energy users can be incentivized through rebates and other programs. Online
customer tips are available to educate customers.
x Would the tiered system be more fair and equitable than TOU? If you have a large home or if you
choose to have more kids, you should pay a higher rate.
o Conversely, the more people in a household, the more efficient on a per-person basis. People
in an inefficient house may not be able to afford more kWh.
x Once implemented, will there be further study about a different pricing structure?
o Could adjust prices later, and peak hours may shift.
Chris moved and Greg seconded a motion stating that:
The AQAB supports the TOU rate structure and would encourage additional outreach so that customers are
well-informed about their opportunities to reduce their energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
Board Updates
x Mark attended the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
o June 28th Pitch Night Innovate Fort Collins
x Mark attended The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting
o State of Colorado redefined electric bicycles and the BAC may explore how will this affect
the City’s policies
x Mark attended the Energy Board meeting
x Vara attended the organics recycling town hall. She said she was expecting them to announce action,
but it was just more research. She wondered what barriers are preventing them from moving forward.
o Council directed them to come up with options, not a decision or program.
o Vara argued that the City isn’t involved enough.
Staff Updates
x Staff updated the AQAB on the Issues Index topics, and Board priorities were discussed in relation to
updating the 5-year Air Quality Plan.
o It was determined that the issue index was not a good measure of Board priorities, but rather
a place to track topic updates and involvement.
o Mark indicated that he is not comfortable making too many topics high priority for the Board.
1
Residential Time-of-Use Rate Implementation
Randy Reuscher, Utilities Rate Analyst
Lisa Rosintoski, Utilities Customer Connections Manager
July 11, 2017
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Direction
2
Time-of-Use Ordinance / Resolution
• 3rd
Quarter OR
• 4th
Quarter 2017
Time-of-Use Effective Date
• March 1, 2018 OR
• October 1, 2018
Timeline to Date
3
JUL
2015 Ordinance 078, 2015
NOV
2015 12-month pilot study began
OCT
2016
DEC
2016
Statistical analysis performed
and best-bill credits applied
Pilot study ended and
survey sent
FEB
2017
Presented results at
Council Work Session
MAR
2017
Presented results
to boards
JAN
2015
Council Ad Hoc Rate Committee
Deliverables
February Work Session
4
Pilot study
statistical
analysis
GHG
emissions
report
Billing
impacts
Rooftop
solar
customer
impacts
Customer
outreach
timeline
Staff Recommendation
5
• Considered to be more “fair and equitable”
(less intra-class subsidy)
• 2.5% reduction in energy consumption
• Creates demand shifts during the day, providing additional
savings
• Better aligns solar production with costs than a tiered rate
• Encourages use of electric vehicles
• 2% (or more) reduction in GHG emissions
Implement a standard TOU rate for residential customers,
including demand and solar net metering customers
Metering Options
Staff recommends eliminating Option 2, allowing those customers to
select between the Option 1 (standard) and Option 3 (manual-read)
• Privacy Option (Low data resolution, or Option 2) ~130 customers
• Not feasible under TOU
• Manual-Read Option (non-radio, or Option 3) ~230 customers
• Requires replacement of existing meters to accommodate TOU
6
TOU Rate Overview
7
Weekend and holiday hours are off-peak
8
TOU Rate Comparison
TOU TOU w/ Tier
Electric Heat
Provides a time-based signal
to shift demand
Electric heat forces a higher
per kWh charge w/ tier
Low-income
Staff recommends addressing low-income through a separate rate
to reach all that qualify for assistance
Rooftop Solar
Better aligns solar production credits with
system peak costs
Provides additional intra-class subsidy
Electric Vehicles Encourages off-peak charging
EV charging forces a higher
per kWh charge w/ tier
Conservation Signal
2.5% reduction as compared
to current tiered rate
2.5% - no additional reduction
than standard TOU
Peak Demand Impacts 8% reduction 3% reduction
Customer Messaging
Easier to understand messaging
of on-peak / off-peak hours
Creates complexity in
customer understanding
Rate Class Equity
More equitable than
current tiered rate
Slightly more equitable (tier includes ~5%
energy efficiency expenses)
9
Solar & Peak Hours
Customer Groups
10
Community Outreach
Mass Communication
• Utility bill inserts
• Brochures
• Social media
(Nextdoor)
• Website
Targeted Communication
• Electric heat
• Low-income
• Multi-family
• Net metering – Solar
• Electric vehicle charging
• Stay-at-home/
work-at-home
Stakeholder Collaboration
• Boards/commissions
• Low-income nonprofits
• HOAs
• Larimer County
Conservation Corps
• Poudre School District
11
12
January
• Annual
Rate
Increases
Effective
April
• Winter
Quarter
Average
Effective
June
• Seasonal
Rates
Effective
October
• Non-
Seasonal
Rates
Effective
November
• Rate
Ordinance
Rates Communication
Bulk of Rates Communications
13
Timeline Options
Option 1 Option 2
Ordinance to Council 3rd
Quarter 2017 4th
Quarter 2017
Customer Communications 6 months 11 months
TOU Effective Date March 1, 2018 October 1, 2018
Council Direction
14
Time-of-Use Ordinance / Resolution
• 3rd
Quarter 2017 OR
• 4th
Quarter 2017
Time-of-Use Effective Date
• March 1, 2018 OR
• October 1, 2018
Staff Recommendation
Implement a standard TOU rate for
residential customers in 2018.
15
20
hours
/day
19
hours
/day
4
hours/
day
5
hours/
day
TOU Rates
17
Low-Income Affordability
18
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A.M. P.M.
January
Non-
Summer
Off-Peak
On-Peak
(4-hour
window)
Off-Peak
February
March
April
May
Summer Off-Peak
On-Peak
(5-hour window)
Off-Peak
June
July
August
September
October
Non-
Summer
Off-Peak
On-Peak
(4-hour
window)
November Off-Peak
December
On-Peak and Off-Peak Hours
Study Design
19
Opt-out study with 1,200 customers
randomly assigned to each group
~ 850 customers in each group after
opt-outs and customer turnover
Study design allows us to measures
components of study and rates
separately
Controlled
factors in
pilot study
Awareness
of study
Peak
pricing
information
Best bill
guarantee
Weather
Normalize
Objective 2
Demand Reductions
20
Air
conditioning
Heating
Lighting Appliances
Higher
demands
• 7.5% reduction in
coincident peak hour
during summer
• 0.4% shift in demand
• 2 – 2.4% GHG
emissions reduction
Objective 4
Revenue Requirements
21
Original Rate Pilot Study Rate Count
%
Difference
on TOU Rate
Avg $ Change
per Month
Tiered Rate
TOU 880 1.6% less ($1.14)
TOU w/ EE tier 851 1.9% less ($1.38)
All-Electric Homes
TOU 18 1.8% more $2.44
TOU w/ EE tier 16 7.9% more $10.27
Solar
Net Metering
TOU 5 12.4% more $2.82
TOU w/ EE tier 9 0% $0.07
Low-income Groups
22
Low-income Groups
23
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
$12,323
$17,885
$21,667
$21,888
$23,563
$26,923
$27,639
$29,559
$30,500
$31,905
$34,167
$35,147
$36,625
$37,372
$39,107
$39,924
$40,694
$42,159
$42,535
$42,712
$43,661
$49,554
$51,250
$52,560
$54,964
$56,118
$57,411
$57,500
$59,173
$60,313
$62,596
$63,365
$66,000
$68,056
$70,365
$71,125
$74,263
$74,712
$75,405
$76,300
$78,326
$81,346
$81,836
$85,571
$86,563
$88,929
$93,113
$99,179
$100,486
$115,313
$129,922
kWh per Month
Income (based on Income Block Group)
Usage by Income Block Group
Min of kWh Max of kWh Average of kWh Linear (Average of kWh)