EAP Consumer Services Conference – CAP & Shopping

PECO Experience

1

2EAP Consumer Services Conference – CAP Shopping

PECO has been evaluating different CAP Discount plans to improve affordability• In that evaluation, we have been looking at how different discount

plans work with CAP shopping Key elements to address in CAP design, with CAP

shopping• Design must promote shopping• Shopping decisions must impact the individual choosing the offer,

not impact the non-CAP funding (Shortfall)- CAP discounts are funded by non-CAP residential customers

• Design must promote energy efficiency

3EAP Consumer Services Conference – CAP Shopping

PECO currently uses a Percentage discount plan• Depending on federal poverty levels and their energy burdens, a

CAP customer receives a percentage discount off their total bill to achieve affordability

• That discount would be applied to their total bill, including supplier charges with 2 options to structure that portion of the discount

1. Apply the percentage discount to the supplier charges. For example, if the Supplier charges would be higher than PECO’s Price to Compare (PTC), that CAP customer would get a larger discount (% * higher bill). • That would result in a Shortfall increase

2. Apply the percentage discount on kWh used and PECO’s PTC• This would fix the discount to not vary based on Supplier

rates and impact the CAP customer rather than the shortfall

• For example, if a CAP customer received a lower Supplier rate than the PECO PTC, that customer would benefit from their shopping decision

4EAP Consumer Services Conference – CAP Shopping

PECO also evaluated a Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP)• Depending on federal poverty levels and their energy burdens, a

CAP customer receives a fixed bill designed to meet affordability • Our opinion is that a PIPP does not promote shopping as well as

other designs- If a customer is receiving a fixed bill, the impact of their

shopping decision is not immediately felt. And if they don’t immediately see the savings, the incentive to shop is not strong

• Also in a PIPP fixed bill environment, changes between the PTC and the shopping rate would impact the shortfall, not the customer

5EAP Consumer Services Conference – CAP Shopping

PECO also evaluated a Fixed Credit Option (FCO)• Depending on federal poverty levels and their energy burdens, a

CAP customer receives a fixed credit designed to meet affordability

• In an FCO, you look at the previous 12 months of undiscounted bills, calculate what they can afford to pay, and the difference is set as their Fixed Credit

• In an FCO, the fixed credit doesn’t change. Therefore differences between the PTC and the shopping rate would impact the CAP customer, not the shortfall

• Also we believe this plan continues to provide incentives for energy efficiency and conservation

PPL Electric Utilities

OnTrack (CAP) ProgramShopping Trends

Wednesday September 17, 2014

Energy Association of Pennsylvania (EAP) Conference

OnTrack Bill SampleRecently Added Shopping Information On Bill…

7

New for 2014

New for 2014

Active Members in ProgramActive Program Members & Number of Shoppers

8

Shopping Decisions & PTC TrendOnTrack Customers with an Alternate Supplier

9

What Did Our Shoppers Pay?Average Price Paid Over 18 Month Period

10

What Did Our Shoppers Pay?Average Price Paid Over 18 Month Period (shown as % above or below the PTC)

11

What Did Our Shoppers Use?Average Monthly Usage for the 2 Groups, Over The 18 Month Period

12

Can We Estimate The Impact?Decisions Translated To Dollars…

Estimate the impact, based on averages & 18 months of data…

13

1. Average number of customers each month where the price paid was above the PTC = 10,449.

2. For those customers above the PTC, average price paid = $0.11351.3. Average usage per month for customers above PTC was 1,338 KWH.4. The average PTC across this timeline was $0.08298.

5. Average monthly bill you could have paid if on PTC = $111 (1,338 x $0.08298)

6. Average monthly bill you did pay = $152 (1,338 x $0.11351)

7. Difference (each month) = $41

8. The (monthly) difference for all customers above the PTC = $426,7319. The impact over 12 months = $5,120,775 10.The impact over 18 months = $7,681,162

CommentsQuestions

14

OnTrack Removal (2 main ways to get removed)Customers Being Removed

15

OnTrack Shopping DecisionsData Table

16

Universal Service Rider

17

Universal Service Rider

18

2014 OnTrack Focus

19

1. Sustainable GrowthA. Last year (2013) we targeted and achieved a substantial growth rate of 10%.B. The 2014 enrollment target represents a 5% increase, compared to last year.C. Recent PUC report showing percent change in members (2012 vs. 2013).

2. Improve RetentionA. It’s not as simple as enroll more people. Have to…enroll, retain, train/educate.

3. Implement New Three Year PlanA. Five IT projects will need to be completed in 2014.B. Communication/training for PPL reps, caseworkers, managers.

How Did We Do?Finding People (Referrals)

20

How Did We Do?Active Members in OnTrack

21

OnTrack: How Do We Affect Revenue Operations? (very high level look)

22

Taking a customer out of “normal collections” and into OnTrack…

1. Collection activity costs are avoidedA. Letters we send, calls we make, field trips for cuts, etc. are not undertaken for an

OnTrack customer….but those are partially offset by the cost to enroll the customer in OnTrack plus other things we send to the customer while in the program.

2. Can we affect the reserve requirement? (for overdue accounts receivable)A. Reserve requirement = overdue AR / write offsB. Different amounts (%) for each “aged bucket”…

3. Financial benefit of getting a customer into OnTrack…A. Normal collections could lead to write-offs OnTrack = recovery of overdue moneyB. More people in OnTrack Lowers the reserve requirementC. High confidence: The overdue dollars associated with OnTrack accounts will go down

in timely fashion…due to the debt forgiveness design of the program.

CAP AggregationColumbia Gas of Pennsylvania

Open enrollment since 1996 AFFORDABLE payment plan based on ability

to pay Arrearage forgiveness

Customer Assistance Program

CAP customers are grouped together, for the purpose of obtaining lower cost gas from a marketer/supplier who is contracted to deliver agreed upon volumes to the aggregate. Columbia serves as the appointed agent for CAP customers, acting in their best interest.

Began in 1997

Aggregation Defined

Each CAP customer agrees that Columbia will purchase gas on their behalf as part of the CAP intake application

An RFP is sent out quarterly if a current supplier does not exist

Bids can be a flat discount or a percentage discount off the actual PTC

Bids are evaluated by a team and selected based on the lowest projected cost

Process

Benefits◦ Guaranteed payment – purchase receivables at

100%◦ No customer solicitation required◦ No Billing fees◦ No customer interaction◦ Daily delivery is a fixed number for a calendar

year Drawbacks

◦ RFP requires supplier to bid against an unknown future PTC that changes quarterly.

Suppliers

Benefits◦ AFFORDABLE payment plan◦ No shopping required◦ No risk of higher bill (if poor shopper)◦ Seamless after intake acceptance◦ No interaction with supplier

Drawbacks◦ No reduction in bill if aggregation creates savings

CAP customers

Benefits◦ Reduced CAP shortfall which reduces rate payer

costs◦ From July, 2011 thru August 2014, Rate payers

have saved $6,220,023◦ Historically better savings than individual CHOICE

participants◦ Low Administrative costs

Drawbacks◦ ?????

Rate Payers

◦“ [customers] Resoundingly indicated that they want to continue to deal with Columbia Gas. No one objects to the concept of Columbia purchasing gas from a marketer and most feel that if Columbia can save some money by doing so, that it is only right since Columbia is helping them out. Customers are not interested in choosing their own provider, whether or not, CAP benefits continue.” – Deb Steckel

CAP Customer Survey 1998

“Columbia’s Gas Transportation component is a timely innovation that should, if possible, be continued in further program cycles. [It] takes advantage of the operation of both a particular tax situation, and of the competitive market for transportation supply. It does not entail any new risks, has no downside, and provides a way for low income payment troubled customers to participate in modalities of current reform. In particular, it provides a means of market participation for customers who cannot take on additional financial risk.” - Gil Peach

CAP Impact Assessment- 1999

“The Columbia CAP aggregation model proves to be a successful alternative to traditional CHOICE. CAP customers benefited from the economies of scale gained through the aggregation of their volumes into the larger CAP group by $1,695,108 over the last five years. The company and customers benefit from the CAP aggregation since it serves to reduce customer shortfall and write-off costs” -Melanie Popovich

USECP Evaluation - 2004