1 / 10

May 30, 2011

Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on Compensation Cost Benchmarking Study. May 30, 2011. Facilitator’s Remarks – Bob Betts. Introductions Facilitator, Bob Betts & OPTIMUS | SBR support team Meeting Facilities Safety Review Note taking process Participant Introductions. Agenda.

posy
Download Presentation

May 30, 2011

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. Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on Compensation Cost Benchmarking Study May 30, 2011

  2. Facilitator’s Remarks – Bob Betts • Introductions Facilitator, Bob Betts & OPTIMUS | SBR support team • Meeting Facilities • Safety Review • Note taking process • Participant Introductions

  3. Agenda • 9:30 AM – Welcome • Allan Cowan, Director, Major Applications, Hydro One Networks • 9:40 AM – Introductions, Background on Compensation Cost Benchmarking Study and Key Points of Agreement from February 10th Stakeholder Session • Bob Betts, Facilitator, Optimus |SBR • 10:00 AM – Approach to Compensation Cost Benchmarking Study & Facilitated Discussion • Iain Morris, Mercer • Bob Betts • 10:45 AM – BREAK

  4. Agenda Cont’d • 11:00 AM – Approach to Compensation Cost Benchmarking Study & Facilitated Discussion • Iain Morris • Bob Betts • 11:45 AM – Next Steps and Closing Remarks • Bob Betts/ Allan Cowan • 12:00 PM – Adjourn

  5. Meeting Process • Mobile phones “Off” or “Silenced” • Avoid side discussions while others speaking • All questions are good ones • Materials and notes will be posted on Hydro One’s Regulatory Website: www.HydroOne.com/RegulatoryAffairs

  6. Compensation Cost Study Background • Board Direction to do a study in 2007/2008 TX • Mercer Study filed in 2009/2010 TX • Board Directed update in 2011/2012 TX • The Board directs Hydro One to revisit its compensation cost benchmarking study in an effort to more appropriately compare compensation costs to those of other regulated transmission and/or distribution utilities in North America. • More robust evidence on initiatives to achieve a level of costs per employee closer to market value. • Compensation increases to be matched with demonstrated productivity gains. • Hydro One to consult with stakeholders about how the Mercer study should be updated and expanded to produce such analyses.

  7. Feb. 10, 2011 Consultation- Key Points of Agreement (1) • Principle objective - to revisit the Mercer Study to appropriately compare HONI compensation costs to those of regulated Transmission and Distribution utilities in North America. • Keep it simple to entice survey participants • Be independent, testable, repeatable and market‐based • Provide participants with the assurance that their information could not be attributable to them

  8. Feb. 10, 2011 Consultation- Key Points of Agreement (2) • Be based on the groups surveyed in the Mercer study and expanded as deemed appropriate by the consultant • Mirror the scoping in the Mercer study for peer selection, job classes, etc, changed as deemed appropriate by the consultant • Enable reasonable comparison to the last Mercer study and provide trending analysis for Hydro • Consider median, or the mean, or both.

  9. Feb. 10, 2011 Consultation- Key Points of Agreement (3) • Consider adjustments to reflect regional costs of living amongst the study participants • No attribution of data to particular participant • Request data about pension as a percentage of total benefits, and benefits as a percentage of compensation • Rely on the expertise of the selected consultant to recommend appropriate changes in methodology and assumptions. • Consultant to recommend productivity metric or metrics that can be used for internal comparisons using readily available internal data

  10. The May 30, 2011 Consultation Task To provide further input on the proposed approach the consultant will undertake in the study.

More Related