Governor's Rate Design Presentation/Workshop
April 12, 2001
Following the presentation of the Governor's Rate Design Proposal, the following questions were raised and addressed.
Questions:
1. How is the "equal" increase (based on consumption) divided between residential and non-residential?
Requires follow-up.
2. How is residential revenue shortfall associated with consumption up to 130% of Baseline allocated?
It is allocated to the 3rd and 4th tiers of the residential rates.
3. How was the revenue requirement divided between TOU and non-TOU?
Used existing unbundled components of these classes and escalated the generation components for each equally.
4. What assumption, if any, was made for the expiration of the 10% rate decrease?
Assumed the discount has expired and the current 9% increase is permanent. Increase was added to the rates which include the 9% increase.
5. Basis for increase in steps for residential tiers
Conservation encouragement. Also considered demand elasticity and 20/20 rebate interplay.
6. What revenue requirement number was used for each utility?
For SCE/SDG&E they used the revenue requirement for the last nine months.
7. What hours were subject to increase in the TOU rates?
Used existing rate structure and allocated increases to peak and mid-peak for Summer and Winter.
8. Is the increase the same as the 3 c/kWh PUC proposed increase?
No. SCE 2.3 c/kWh, PG&E 2.8 c/kWh, SDG&E 2.9 c/kWh.
9. Increase over what rates, the rates including the 1 cent surcharge?
Yes, increase is over rates including 1cent surcharge.
10. If revenue requirement does not equal CPUC proposal, will the Governor's plan be changed? The Governor's proposal is intended to be an input into the PUC process.
11. How is the revenue increase broken down into "components"?
No response.
12. What UDC and generation rates were used (SDG&E)?
Used 6.5 cents for the generation for all classes, and existing rate levels for other components.
13. What is the timing for the rate increase?
Assumed April 1st but it is to be determined by the CPUC.
14. Does this apply to direct access customers?
Did not consider DA customers separately.
15. Does this apply to self gen customers?
Did not consider these customers separately.
16. Is the revenue increase intended to recover:
- TRA undercollection? Yes
- going forward procurement? Yes
- $1.5 billion transmission (from MOU)? No
- $3 billion distribution upgrades (from MOU)? No
17. Does this provide for switching to agricultural rates (industrial customers)?
Not addressed in proposal (policy issue).
18. What is the average increase for the residential class as a whole?
19.6% increase to total bill across all utilities.
19. What % of usage is agricultural?
Roughly 4%.
20. Please verify that rate changes/percent increases for SDG&E C&I are correct.
Requires follow-up.
21. How was 2000 data adjusted to reflect 2001 usage levels? Did you account for conservation effects in calculation of revenue?
Received 2001 data for commercial and assumed 4% conservation; For residentials assumed 2% annual growth rate over 2000 levels and 5% conservation.
22. Is there tiering for non-TOU commercial/industrial?
No.
23. Are there more detailed documents available?
Not currently.
24. What information from DWR was used for analysis and did this information reflect time-differentiated costs?
No information provided on what DWR data was used for analysis.
25. Does proposal take into account cost to serve each class?
Yes, to the extent that it is reflected in current rate structure.
26. Will hourly prices be available this summer for rate design?
No.
27. Clarify the assertion that a greater percentage of residential customers will not see a rate increase (compared to CPUC proposal), given the threshold of 130% of Baseline is the same. Approximately the same.
28. Are CARE customers excluded from the proposed increase?
Did not exclude CARE.
29. Where is money coming from for 20% rebate?
Through "DWR process".
