1 / 23

Seattle City Light Rate Design Outreach

______ ___ ____ ___ _____ _______. November 1, 2013. Seattle City Light Rate Design Outreach. Summary of Online Survey Results 11/1 Review Panel Discussion. Outreach Objectives. Better understand customer knowledge and perspectives re: rate design

crete
Download Presentation

Seattle City Light Rate Design Outreach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ______ ___ ____ ___ _____ _______ November 1, 2013 Seattle City LightRate Design Outreach Summary of Online Survey Results 11/1 Review Panel Discussion

  2. Outreach Objectives • Better understand customer knowledge and perspectives re: rate design • Gather feedback for Seattle City Light and the Review Panel • Identify issues or concerns • Inform communications

  3. Methodology • Online survey (SurveyMonkey) • Administered by City Light • Fielded Oct. 18-29 (Data analysis period: Oct. 18-25) • Emailed to random list of business and residential customers • 1177 respondents • Number of respondents (n) noted on slides

  4. Survey Limitations • Not appropriate to make statistical inferences • Non-blind, may be biased towards those with a stronger relationships/opinions • Businesses underrepresented – important to conduct additional outreach

  5. Background

  6. More than 9 in 10 respondents represented the residential perspective.

  7. Business Respondents: Geography

  8. Real estate and manufacturing companies were among the top business respondents.

  9. 62% of business respondents reported 100 or more employees. 62%

  10. 92% of business respondents are involved in business decisions that affect electrical use.

  11. Residential Respondents: Geography

  12. 53% of residential respondents report paying electric bills between $50 and $150.

  13. Key Findings

  14. A majority of customers feel their City Light electric bill is a fair price.

  15. 57% of business customers do not see rate design as much of a problem. Currently, non-residential customer bills are mostly based on how much electricity is used-- there is no fixed charge for basic services. As a result, some customers may not be paying for their full cost of being connected to the electrical grid, while other customers may be paying more than their true cost. How much of a problem do you think this is for Seattle City Light customers? (Business, n=85) 57%

  16. Most residential customers (66%) don’t see rate design as much of a problem. Currently, residential customers have a low fixed charge of $4.71 per month, and then the rest of the bill is based on how much electricity is used. The fixed charge is designed to be very low. As a result, some customers may not be paying for their full cost of being connected to the electrical grid, while other customers may be paying more than their true cost. How much of a problem do you think this is for City Light customers? (Residential, n=985) 66%

  17. Prices are a stronger factor in motivating conservation for businesses than for residential customers. City Light is committed to encouraging energy conservation, and is concerned that reducing the price of energy might send the wrong price signal to customers. Do you feel that the price that City Light charges you for electricity is a factor in motivating you to conserve energy? (All, n=1050; Residential, n=965, Business, n=85)

  18. Across all respondents, continued conservation and environmental programs is a top priority.

  19. However, businesses and residential customers differ in their top priorities.

  20. Businesses prioritize predictability over conservation and environmental programs. PRIORITY RATINGS, BASED ON AVERAGE SCORE, TOP 3

  21. 232 respondents shared suggestions about rate design. Open-ended comment themes: • Concerns/fears about rate increases and economic hardship • Both concerns and compliments about policies (concern: social engineering. compliment: incentives) • Many mentions of “fairness” • Confusion and questions about “rate design” and “pricing signals” • Several specific suggestions re: design and messaging

  22. Overall Themes/Implications • Most don’t believe there’s a rate design problem. • Rate design is viewed as code for rate increases. • City Light is seen as offering a fair price for services. • Messages that describe fixed costs as “too low” are not likely to be believed. • Environmental and conservation initiatives are highly valued – particularly by residential customers. Rate design shouldn’t undercut these achievements.

  23. Seattle City LightRate Design Outreach Summary of Online Survey Results

More Related