Total Residential Utility Burden

Similar documents
Rates as of May Current rates may be different. Wastewater Residential rate structure

Wildlife Ad Awareness & Attitudes Survey 2015

Rates as of July Current rates may be different. Buford. Note: "Commercial" rates may also be applicable to other non-residential users.

B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N White Book

RESULTS OF THE 2017 INDUSTRY DATA SURVEY

U.S. Residential Hot Tub Market (YE2016) P age 1. U.S. Residential Hot Tub Market Report 2017, P.K. Data, Inc.

Rates as of May Current rates may be different. Liberty Utilities-Litchfield Park, Avondale, Glendale, Goodyear

Proposed Sewer & Water Rates. City of Placerville, California February 13, 2018

Copper vs Stainless Steel. Test Results Show Impact on Performance and Costs

Summary of NWA Trail Usage Report November 2, 2015

Rates as of January Current rates may be different. Two Rivers Utilities (Gastonia)

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE SEVENTH REGULAR SESSION August 2011 Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia

Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations APPENDIX C TRANSIT STATION ACCESS PLANNING TOOL INSTRUCTIONS

Potential Load Forecast Enhancements

Rates as of January Current rates may be different. Morganton. Note: "Commercial" rates may also be applicable to other non-residential users.

Rates as of July Current rates may be different. Villa Rica

U.S. Commercial Swimming Pool Market Year Ending 2015

Rates as of July Current rates may be different. Clayton County Water Authority

The National Citizen Survey. Bowling Green, KY. Technical Appendices

SCAG EMERGING REGIONAL ISSUES: GOMONROVIA OVERVIEW. City of Monrovia

U.S. Hot Tub Market YE 2017

MUR 200 (at CBRD) Signed Certificate of Incorporation MUR 300 USD 9

Advanced Pump Control for Irrigation Applications

Bowling Green, KY Technical Appendices

Energy Efficiency in California Some Possible Lessons for Ontario 20 March 2006

Gamblers Favor Skewness, Not Risk: Further Evidence from United States Lottery Games

The 2001 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in MISSOURI. Prepared by:

Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences

Title VI Fare Change Equity Analysis

Sport Fishing Expenditures and Economic Impacts on Public Lands in Oregon

CBRE Seminar. 30 th March Creating Shareholder Value. Budgeting Operational Expenses Commercial

Bike Share Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods

SECTION 1. The current state of global road safety

Orange County MPA Watch A n n u a l R e p o r t

Undeveloped Zoning Inventory February 2004

Potential MBTA Fare Changes in SFY 2017

The Impact of TennCare: A Survey of Recipients 2009

Water & Sewer Rate Study

APPENDIX 3: EAGLECREST MASTER PLAN PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS

Complete streets serve the 1/3 of Hoosiers who do not drive.

U.S. Swimming Pool and Hot Tub Chemical Market Report Year Ending 2015

Water Rates Online Survey. January 2018

MATH AND MAINTENANCE FOR PUMPS AND BLOWERS TRAINING SEMINAR

Potential MBTA Fare Changes in SFY 2017

St. Augustine, FL Trends over Time

Interface Pressure Mapping (IPM) Clinical Use of the Literature

2009 New Brunswick Gambling Prevalence Study

The 2006 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in TEXAS. Prepared by:

Proposed Upland Game Bird Regulations

Marin County, CA. Key Findings The NCS is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA

Tournament Operation Procedures

North Carolina Apple School 2018

proprietary betting tools, including Price Boost, Backup, Fluc-Up, Jump Off, (collectively referred to herein as the Promotional Tools ).

Smart Growth: Residents Social and Psychological Benefits, Costs and Design Barbara Brown

McLAUGHLIN & ASSOCIATES ANZALONE-LISZT RESEARCH FLORIDA STATEWIDE SURVEY TABLE OF CONTENTS NOVEMBER 4, 2010 TABLE # TABLE TITLE

The 2006 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in NORTH CAROLINA. Prepared by:

a) List and define all assumptions for multiple OLS regression. These are all listed in section 6.5

Evaluating Roundabout Capacity, Level of Service and Performance

SOCIAL LICENSE TO OPERATE RANKING KEY FINDINGS

LAKE WASHINGTON SOCKEYE SALMON STUDIES. Richard E. Thorne and James J. Dawson

SUBJECT: I-82 Existing Conditions I-84 Boardman to Ontario Corridor Management Plan P

City of Ekurhuleni Cost of Electricity Supply Study

Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Texas Housing Markets: Metropolitan vs. Border Communities. September 22, 2014

WELCOME. City of Greater Sudbury. Transportation Demand Management Plan

Increased Onboard Bicycle Capacity Improved Caltrain s Performance in 2009

More Snow for Less Energy: Is It Real?

TECHNICAL COMMERCIAL OFFER TURBOGENERATOR UNITS «TURBOSPHERE»

Madison County Equine Industry Research 2013

Student Population Projections By Residence. School Year 2016/2017 Report Projections 2017/ /27. Prepared by:

Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Certification of AMS acc. EN 15267, Part 3 - Overview and First Experience -

Bleacher Bum Economics:

Orange County MPA Watch 2016 A n n u a l R e p o r t

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

Feasibility Study of Central Regulators in. Hong Kong s Residential Projects

Real-Time Electricity Pricing

Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment A Business Case

WOMEN IN THE NWT - SUMMARY

Rates as of July Current rates may be different. Hiawassee - above booster

CITY OF COCONUT CREEK IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC CALMING

Please read this document of Terms and conditions carefully so that you fully understand our responsibilities and your commitments.

Assessing Equity in Transit Pricing: An Analysis of Triangle Transit. Adam Crowther Sanford School of Public Policy Duke University April 22, 2011

SIZING OF WATER PIPING SYSTEM

NATIONAL QUALIFYNG SERIES HIGHLIGHTS

TRILOGY RESIDENT GOLF OPTIONS

Dynamic Operation of a 4 K Pulse Tube Cryocooler with Inverter Compressors

TRILOGY RESIDENT GOLF OPTIONS

MONITORING AND CONTROLS. BENEFITS OF VARIABLE FREQUENCY CONVERTERS (VFDs)

2017 Northwest Arkansas Trail Usage Monitoring Report

Comparing Generalized Variance Functions to Direct Variance Estimation for the National Crime Victimization Survey

15, 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

U.S. Residential Swimming Pool Market

A Comparison of Highway Construction Costs in the Midwest and Nationally

The Corporation of the City of Sarnia. School Crossing Guard Warrant Policy

TOWN OF WINDSOR LOCKS WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014

Global Milking Robots Industry Report 2015

Rider Satisfaction Survey Total Market 2006

Utility Debt Securitization Authority 2013 T/TE Billed Revenues Tracking Report

U.S. Formula 5000 Revival Races Rules & Regulations Updated 1/1/2015

Transcription:

Total Residential Utility Burden Benchmark Analysis October, 2012 Prepared by: Mark Morgan, MPA Assistant to the City Manager City of Hermiston (541) 567-5521 mmorgan@hermiston.or.us

Executive Hermiston residents enjoy one of the lowest utility burdens in eastern Oregon. 1 This report provides an apples to apples comparison of the cost of electric, solid waste, water, and sewer services available to residents of cities of comparable size to Hermiston (Baker City, La Grande, Ontario, Pendleton, & The Dalles). Because of differences in billing, services provided, and units of measurement, a legitimate comparison can often be difficult. The various sections of this report explain the methodology of reaching the costs shown herein. The Total Utility Burden discussed in this report is the sum of all utility costs that an average resident can expect to pay within a jurisdiction. While some jurisdictions feature low costs for one utility, residents still have to pay for all utilities, so in looking at affordability of a community, it s important to look at utilities as a whole. Hermiston residents bear the lowest total utility burden of any of the cities surveyed in this report. Water: Solid Waste: Sewer: Electricity: Cheapest Cheapest- tie 2 nd cheapest 2 nd cheapest Total Monthly Utility Burden Mix Solid Waste Electric Water Sewer $29.05 $18.00 $35.30 $52.06 $34.52 $41.85 $20.14 $36.24 $40.69 $42.94 $40.51 $62.38 $69.80 $88.52 $81.30 $99.52 $88.52 $60.68 $16.00 $16.00 $21.15 $26.00 $21.25 $22.80 Hermiston Baker City Ontario Pendleton La Grande The Dalles 1 All rates included in this analysis were current as of 10/25/2012, with the exception of Hermiston s solid waste rate, where the rate used includes the 11% increase which takes effect 1/1/2013. City of Hermiston: Total Residential Utility Burden Page 2

Electricity Hermiston residents 2 generally enjoy the second-lowest monthly electricity bills of the surveyed areas 3. Base Rates Most every electric utility charges a Base Rate, which is automatically billed every month, regardless of usage. The base rate for Hermiston is $6.50 for a residential customer. All of the other cities surveyed feature higher base rates, as high as $18 per month in Baker City and La Grande. A high base rate is viewed as a regressive fee because it applies to all customers, regardless of usage. Energy Charges The remainder of an electricity bill comes from the charges for usage, measured in kilowatt-hours (Kwh). A commonly accepted usage for residential customers is 1,000 Kwh per month. This usage amount can then be used to compare costs across different utilities. Hermiston s usage rate of $0.0633/Kwh is lower than all of the other utilities surveyed, with the exception of The Dalles, which uses a tiered system based on usage. Base Rates by City City Base Rate Hermiston $6.50 The Dalles $7.50 Ontario $8.00 Pendleton $9.00 Baker City $18.00 La Grande $18.00 Energy Charges by City City Energy Charge Hermiston $0.0633 The Dalles TIERED Ontario $0.0733 Pendleton $0.0905 Baker City $0.0705 La Grande $0.0705 (Right): Monthly electric bills calculated for a residential customer using 1,000 Kwh per month. $120.00 $100.00 $80.00 $60.00 $69.80 $88.52 $81.30 $99.52 $88.52 $60.68 $40.00 Hermiston Baker City Ontario Pendleton La Grande The Dalles Monthly Electric Bill 2 This analysis only takes into account Hermiston Energy Services, and does not include Umatilla Electric Co-op. 3 Utilities surveyed: The Dalles North Wasco County PUD; Ontario Idaho Power; Pendleton Pacific Power; Baker City Oregon Trail Electric Co-Op; La Grande Oregon Trail Electric Co-Op. City of Hermiston: Total Residential Utility Burden Page 3

Solid Waste Hermiston residents tie for paying the lowest rates for solid waste services among all of the cities surveyed, at $16 per month for standard service. The standard service is not uniform among the various cities. When services are adjusted to reflect a true per-gallon rate, Hermiston residents pay at least 32% less than residents of the other cities. Standard Service Standard Service Charges by City City Service Charge The Standard service for Hermiston is a 90-Gallon cart emptied Hermiston 4 $16.00 once per week. This is considered standard because it is the most Baker City 5 $16.00 popular service among residential customers. Because other cities Ontario 6 $21.15 may use different sizes for their standard service, comparing La Grande 7 $21.25 straight-across service costs may introduce bias into the survey. The Dalles 8 $22.80 For example, residents of Hermiston and Baker City both pay $16 Pendleton 9 $26.00 per month, but Baker City residents receive 75% of the service for the same price, therefore making them not truly comparable services. Service Value A better way to compare services between different cities is to look at the service value, or cost on a per-unit basis. By determining the per-gallon charge of all of the surveyed cities, it is possible to determine what the value would be in the other cities for an identical 90 gallon service, which is used in Hermiston. This process shows that Hermiston residents enjoy a much higher value for their rates than residents of the other cities surveyed. Adjusted Charges for 90 Gal. Service City Service Charge Hermiston $16.00 Baker City $21.18 Ontario $21.15 La Grande $31.88 The Dalles $22.80 Pendleton $24.38 $35.00 $31.88 (Right): Monthly charge on a pergallon basis converted to a 90 gallon equivalent to show the true value compared to Hermiston. $30.00 $25.00 $15.00 $10.00 $16.00 $21.18 $21.15 $24.38 $22.80 $5.00 4 Hermiston: 90 Gallon Cart 5 Baker City: 68 Gallon Cart 6 Ontario: 90 Gallon Cart 7 La Grande: 60 Gallon Cart 8 The Dalles: 90 Gallon Cart 9 Pendleton: 96 Gallon Cart Monthly Charge Converted to 90 Gal. Service City of Hermiston: Total Residential Utility Burden Page 4

Water Hermiston residents generally enjoy the lowest monthly water bills among the surveyed cities. Base Charge Most water utilities charge a base charge, which applies to all customers regardless of actual water usage. Higher base charges can reduce the marginal benefit that customers see in their bills through conservation efforts, and can disproportionately impact lower-income customers. Utilities which charge a lower base charge may be more susceptible to revenue fluctuations through variations in water usage (i.e. a wet spring means less water is used for landscaping, which reduces the amount of water purchased). Hermiston features the second-lowest base charge among the surveyed cities. Usage Charges The remainder of a water bill is tied to actual water usage. Different utilities use many different units to measure usage, but predominantly use is measured in either gallons, or cubic feet. Hermiston measures usage based on gallons, and this analysis uses a monthly average 10 for residential customers of 24,400 gallons. Utilities use different thresholds for usage that they tie into their base-rates. In Hermiston, the base rate includes the first 3,000 gallons, but this threshold is different depending on the city, so it is difficult to yield a comparable pergallon charge. Therefore, this $70.00 analysis simply identifies an $60.00 average monthly use, and $50.00 compares the final result. $40.00 $36.24 Through this method, Hermiston is at least 12% cheaper than any $30.00 of the other surveyed cities. (Right): Monthly water bills for a customer using 24,400 gallons as a seasonally adjusted monthly consumption rate. $10.00 $40.69 $42.94 Base Water Charges by City City Base Charge Ontario $10.00 Hermiston $14.65 La Grande $15.08 Pendleton $16.50 Baker City $29.80 The Dalles $43.52 Seasonally Adjusted Bill by City City Monthly Bill Hermiston $36.24 La Grande $40.51 Baker City $40.69 Ontario $42.94 Pendleton $52.06 The Dalles $62.38 $52.06 $40.51 Seasonally Smoothed Monthly Water Bill $62.38 10 Average smoothed for seasonal variations in usage, and seasonal discrepancies between utilities in meterreading practices. City of Hermiston: Total Residential Utility Burden Page 5

Sewer Hermiston residents enjoy the second-lowest monthly sewer bills among the surveyed cities. Comparison Sewer rates are much more simple to compare across jurisdictions because most cities simply charge one base rate for residential units, irrespective of usage. Therefore, a straightacross comparison is possible. Hermiston residents pay 11% more than residents of Baker City for sewer service, but pay at least 44% less than residents of any of the other surveyed cities. Monthly Sewer Charges by City City Monthly Charge Baker City $18.00 Hermiston $20.14 Pendleton $29.05 La Grande $34.52 Ontario $35.30 The Dalles $41.85 $45.00 $41.85 $40.00 $35.00 $30.00 $35.30 $29.05 $34.52 $25.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $20.14 $18.00 Hermiston Baker City Ontario Pendleton La Grande The Dalles Monthly Sewer Bill City of Hermiston: Total Residential Utility Burden Page 6

Total Utility Burden The Total Utility Burden is a measure of how much residents pay for all of their utility services combined. When viewed separately, some cities compare favorably with Hermiston, but when all of the services are combined, which is what residents must account for in their real-life budgets, it is clear that Hermiston residents enjoy all of the necessary utilities at a much lower rate than any of the other surveyed cities. Total Burden By adding together the costs of the four utilities analyzed in this report (electricity, solid waste 11, water, & sewer), we can see what an average household pays each month, and annually, for utilities in each of the surveyed cities. Comparison When comparing the annual bill for all utilities against what residents of Hermiston pay, the real savings begin to materialize. Total Utility Burden by City City Monthly Bill Annual Bill Hermiston $142.18 $1,706 Baker City $163.21 $1,959 Ontario $180.69 $2,168 La Grande $184.80 $2,218 The Dalles $187.71 $2,253 Pendleton $206.63 $2,480 Total Utility Burden vs. Hermiston City Cost vs. Hermiston Annually Paid More than Hermiston Hermiston 100% $0 Baker City 115% $252 Ontario 127% $462 La Grande 130% $511 The Dalles 132% $546 Pendleton 145% $773 Methodology Due to differences in billing practices between jurisdictions, which account for variances in services offered, units of measurement, and pricing through tiered rates, comparisons of utility rates can often be suspect when trying to apply a comparison to a specific rate payer s circumstances. Therefore, this analysis simply presents an average user (1,000 Kwh per month of electricity, most popular solid waste service offered, 24,400 gallons per month of water usage, and base sewer rates) and consistently applies those parameters in each jurisdiction. Adjusting these parameters may result in slight variations in how each jurisdiction s final costs relate to each other. 11 The Total Utility Burden uses the actual rates charged for the most comparable service available in each of the surveyed cities, not the adjusted per-gallon rates discussed on pg. 4. City of Hermiston: Total Residential Utility Burden Page 7