pec all-member survey cooperative summary · 2017-12-07 · the survey was launched on january 28,...

PEC ALL-MEMBER SURVEYCOOPERATIVE SUMMARY

SUBMITTED TOPedernales Electric Cooperative

May 4, 2015

1

Table of Contents

PEC ALL-MEMBER SURVEY, COOPERATIVE SUMMARY .................... 2 SECTION ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................... 3 SECTION TWO: MEMBER SATISFACTION, RATES, AND FEE QUESTIONS ...... 7 SECTION THREE: RATE DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS ....................................... 13 SECTION FOUR: LINE EXTENSION AND FEE QUESTIONS ............................... 22 SECTION FIVE: RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM QUESTIONS ...................... 31 SECTION SIX: OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS ........................................................... 35

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 36

PEC All-Member Survey 2

PEC ALL-MEMBER SURVEY, COOPERATIVE SUMMARYAs part of its cost-of -service and rate design study (COSS), Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC) contracted with Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell) to provide public engagement support which included a member survey. Burns & McDonnell, in coordination with PEC, created a membership survey that sought feedback in the areas of member satisfaction, rates and fees, dynamic rate options, and renewable energy. With the assistance of PEC, the survey questions were developed using feedback previously gained through member focus groups and forums. The intent of the questions was to gather information specific to the COSS process while taking into account regional and service area considerations.

In all, 7,735 surveys were submitted to the study team. 7,703 surveys were completed through the online survey portal, and 32 hard copy surveys were received. If compared to PEC’s membership count of 225,084 (as of February, 2015), the survey total represents a response of approximately 3.5 percent. For the purposes of evaluating public understanding and supporting the COSS, Burns & McDonnell considers this a sufficient sample size.

The survey was launched on January 28, 2015, and closed on February 28, 2015. The survey was promoted through two membership-wide email blasts, a postcard, bill insert, and a bill message sent by PEC’s communications team. The survey was also promoted on PEC’s website, their social media platforms, office posters, and a telephone hold message.

In order to provide anonymity, individuals participating in the survey were not required to enter their account numbers for verification purposes. Also, survey participants were not required to answer every question. For accuracy, the survey was designed to allow only one response per computer. This was achieved through the online survey application placing a cookie on the survey respondent’s internet browser. While it was possible for survey respondents to block or clear cookies from their browsers, Burns & McDonnell searched through the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of respondents for duplications. Using the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), Burns & McDonnell could determine if repeated IP addresses were generated from a residential or corporate location. Those generated from a residence were examined for consistency of response. In all, 20 survey submissions were identified as questionable, and 3 were removed from the aggregated results.

SURVEY BY THE NUMBERS

7,703 online surveys

+ 32 hard copy surveys

= 7,735 individuals took the survey

PEC ALL-MEMBER SURVEY, COOPERATIVE SUMMARY (continued)


Through the survey mechanism, Burns & McDonnell was able to monitor feedback daily and provide updates to PEC on the number of surveys submitted.

SECTION ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS The first six questions of the survey were developed to provide an understanding of the overall respondent demographics. The following summary will review the six questions from the survey that assessed respondent demographics.

Question One “What does your electric meter serve?”

Exhibit 1, below, shows a breakdown of the responses. As shown in the exhibit, nearly 92 percent responded that the meter served a single-family home.

Exhibit 1: Responses to Demographics Question One

Answer Choices Responsea Total Responses

Single-family home 91.6% 6,573

Small business 2.0% 142

Large business 0.13% 9

School, church, or municipality 0.2% 14

Mobile home, modular home, or trailer 5.2% 376

Apartment, duplex, townhouse, or condominium 5.5% 392

Barn 5.0% 358

Detached garage/detached workshop 9.8% 704

Water well 11.8% 849

Area light 4.3% 307

Total Responses to Question One 7,177

(a) Responses do not total up to 100 percent because respondents were asked to select all that applied.

Question Two “Would you describe your PEC service location as:”



When asked to describe their PEC service locations, 34 percent of respondents indicated “Rural,” 23 percent indicated “Small Town,” 37 percent selected “Suburban,” and 5 percent chose “Urban.”

Question Three “Are you the person in this household or business who is primarily responsible or shares responsibility for paying the electricity bill?”

More than 99 percent of survey respondents identified themselves as the person in their household or business who was primarily responsible for paying their electric bills.

Question Four “How long have you been a member/customer of PEC?”

Exhibit 2, below, shows the breakdown of the responses. As shown in the exhibit, there is a high degree of variability in member tenure. The largest group, at 25 percent, was those members who had been with the cooperative for 1 to 5 years. Less than 1 percent of respondents were uncertain of the length of their involvement with PEC.



Exhibit 2: Responses to Demographics Question Four

Question Five “On average, how much is your monthly bill for your electric service?”

The responses to question five are shown in Exhibit 3. The largest grouping of respondents, 27 percent, fell within the $101 to $150 category.



Exhibit 3: Responses to Demographics Question Five

Question Six “Which of the following categories includes your age?”

The responses to question six are shown in Exhibit 4. Less than 1 percent identified themselves as ages 18 to 24, 6 percent reported that they were between the ages of 25 and 34, 14 percent reported ages from 35 to 44, 19 percent reported ages from 45 to 54, 27 percent reported ages from 55 to 64, and 33 percent reported ages 65 or older.



Exhibit 4: Responses to Demographics Question Six

SECTION TWO: MEMBER SATISFACTION, RATES, AND FEE QUESTIONS The second section of the PEC COSS survey was comprised of questions related to PEC’s rates, fees, and operations.

All scaled questions in this section use a five-point Likert scale where five represents “strongly agree,” one represents “strongly disagree,” and three represents “undecided.” Using this scale, a weighted average greater than three represents general favorability.



Question One “How satisfied are you with PEC?”

Exhibit 5 shows the responses to question one. Overall respondent satisfaction skewed strongly in PEC’s favor. The breakdown of responses was: Very Satisfied – 28 percent, Satisfied – 46 percent, Undecided – 14 percent, Dissatisfied – 9 percent, and Very Dissatisfied – 4 percent.

Based on the survey, PEC is highly regarded within its service community. Nearly three-fourths of respondents indicated they were “Very Satisfied” or “Satisfied” with PEC. Many survey takers commented that they believed strongly in the cooperative model and were supportive of PEC’s operations. Based on this information and our experience with community engagement, alterations to PEC’s rates and fees, as well as new dynamic rate options introduced as a result of the COSS, should be well-received by most members when coupled with dynamic, education-based outreach plans.

Exhibit 5: Responses to Member Satisfaction Question One



Related Part i cipant Comment s ► “I'm happy with the options we have. I would like PEC to continue focusing on providing low cost

power to all of the members.” ► “I’d like to see my rates lowered. My bill last month was over $400. I’ve lived here going on 15 years

and have never had my bill be that high. Between taxes and utilities, it's getting to where I can't afford to live in Comal County. I’m a good person who pays my debts every month and of [sic.] time. Why am I being punished?”

► “Very pleased so far!” ► “You need to deregulate and allow outside competition.” ► “I think PEC is doing a good job.”

Question Two “Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements concerning your electric cooperative.”

Question two included six sub-questions that focused on the perception of survey respondents with regards to the cooperative’s operations and rates. Exhibit 6 shows the questions and breakdown of responses.

Each sub-question resulted in a favorable response overall. However, the sub-questions also generated high “Undecided” responses, which may indicate that many survey takers are unaware of PEC’s position relative to each specific inquiry. Two questions that returned high “Undecided” results are: “Is [PEC] doing more to control rising prices than other companies you use?” and “Is [PEC] committed to using a balanced energy supply, including renewable energy resources such as wind or solar?” Both questions required a specialized insight, such as knowledge of PEC’s energy portfolio or a model for comparing PEC to “other companies.” Survey respondents are unlikely to seek out this information independently, so PEC may have an opportunity to increase awareness regarding PEC’s energy sources and the value PEC provides relative to other, similar companies.



Exhibit 6: Responses to Member Satisfaction Question Two

Statements Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total Responses

Weighted Average

Has a goal to provide electricity at the lowest possible cost

11.59% 31.99% 29.47% 16.54% 10.41% 7,637 3.18

Is doing more to control rising prices than other companies you use

10.97% 25.55% 39.61% 15.02% 9.04% 7,602 3.14

Provides a good value for the money you spend

12.39% 39.03% 24.42% 16.77% 7.39% 7,628 3.32

Has reasonable rates 10.32% 36.24% 23.03% 19.91% 10.50% 7,626 3.16 Helps you learn to manage your electricity use

12.99% 44.38% 25.20% 12.97% 4.45% 7,634 3.48

Is committed to using a balanced energy supply, including renewable energy resources such as wind or solar

9.54% 31.34% 45.17% 9.09% 4.86% 7,611 3.32

Question Three “How much do you agree with the following statements?”

In question three, respondents again were asked how much they agreed with a series of PEC-related statements. These sub-questions were randomized to prevent order bias. By varying the order in which each survey respondent received the questions, the COSS team was able to prevent priming–a phenomenon that occurs when questions presented early on in a survey may establish a standard of comparison that guides the interpretation of later questions. In the case that priming is present in



individual responses due to a randomized order bias, that effect is rendered null due to the arbitrary organization across the 7,735 surveys.

Exhibit 7 shows the statements and breakdown of responses. By using a five-point scale where 3 represents a neutral or “undecided” return, weighted averages below 3 represent an unfavorable response from survey takers. Four of the responses resulted in unfavorable weighted averages.

Exhibit 7: Responses to Member Satisfaction Question Three


Strongly Disagree

Total Responses

Weighted Average

I am familiar with PEC’s electric rates and service fees

13.77% 55.46% 18.15% 10.44% 2.18% 7,609 3.68

There are things I could do to use electricity more efficiently

11.65% 50.95% 16.32% 16.88% 4.21% 7,606 3.49

I have a responsibility along with PEC to control electricity costs

35.26% 53.63% 6.31% 3.10% 1.71% 7,624 4.18

I am familiar with PEC’s rate for purchasing electric energy from renewable resources

4.62% 20.30% 33.27% 33.79% 8.02% 7,596 2.80

PEC should consider offering special rates to organizations like churches and schools

9.74% 24.87% 25.07% 25.49% 14.83% 7,611 2.89

PEC should consider offering discounts to attract local businesses and jobs

7.76% 20.01% 30.24% 27.33% 14.66% 7,586 2.79




Strongly Disagree

Total Responses

Weighted Average

PEC should allow me to round up my electric bill to the nearest whole dollar and have the difference ($0.01 to $.99) help fund local community charitable organizations

7.97% 20.61% 27.72% 25.12% 18.58% 7,616 2.74

PEC should offer a lower rate to residents below the federal poverty level

16.42% 27.64% 25.14% 19.74% 11.06% 7,620 3.19

PEC should install advanced meters that could help reduce late payment and reconnection fees

15.74% 28.61% 35.08% 13.22% 7.35% 7,609 3.32

PEC has a responsibility to use renewable energy resources that benefit the environment

30.40% 40.39% 17.23% 6.97% 5.01% 7,608 3.84

PEC should meet my electricity needs through a mix of energy efficiency, renewable energy and traditional power sources

27.52% 49.19% 15.33% 4.64% 3.31% 7,605 3.93

PEC should provide members rebates for installing energy efficient equipment

37.92% 42.86% 9.62% 5.46% 3.14% 7,616 4.08

PEC should provide members rebates for installing renewable generation like solar panels and wind turbines

37.08% 38.22% 13.64% 6.40% 4.67% 7,625 3.97




Strongly Disagree

Total Responses

Weighted Average

PEC should offer a rate for electric vehicle and/or batter storage charging/discharging systems that would allow members to access a charging rate and sell surplus electricity to PEC

16.69% 28.33% 37.05% 11.30% 6.73% 7,605 3.37

PEC should offer a bill credit for members who choose paperless billing

31.55% 39.98% 14.63% 9.84% 4.00% 7,629 3.85

Related Part i cipant Comment s ► “I would like to see PEC offer a lower rate for senior citizens. It’s really tough sometimes to pay

when you are on Social Security.” ► “Encourage solar, wind and electric vehicles in any way possible.” ► “How about offering rebates for customers that have always paid their bills on time and actively

reduce utility’s administrative costs; like on line pay and billing.” ► “I feel there should be special rates for schools but I think churches don’t pay their way now - so they

should get no special favors.” ► “Offer a rebate for purchasing energy efficient thermostats (Ex: Nest) and a rebate for solar power

installation.”

SECTION THREE: RATE DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS This portion of the COSS survey asked survey takers to consider dynamic rate options that have been identified by PEC and Burns & McDonnell as potentially viable for future implementation. The questions provided a description of each option with examples of how that option would impact rates and usage.



Question Four “How interested would you be in participating in a rate program that varies the price of electricity based on whether the demand for electricity is high or low? For example, you could save on your monthly bill by cutting your electric use during high-use periods like hot summer afternoons or cold winter mornings.”

Exhibit 8 shows the responses to this question. A majority of respondents answered “Very Interested” or “Interested.”

Exhibit 8: Responses to Rate Development Question Four

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “I would be interested in being able to monitor my own usage in real-time with historical charts and

comparisons.” ► “I'm willing to install control devices to shift my usage based on real time prices.”



Question Five “How interested would you be in a rate program that breaks your average bill into three rate blocks? The electric rate for the first block of energy is lower than you pay today. The electric rate for the second block is about the same as you pay today, and the electric rate for the final block is higher than you pay today. Members with lower than average use would see their bills go down, and members with higher than average use would see their bills go up. You could save money by conserving energy and keeping your electric use at modest levels.”

Exhibit 9 shows the responses to this question.

Exhibit 9: Responses to Rate Development Question Five

As shown in Exhibit 9, more than half of the individuals responding to the survey indicated they were “Interested” or “Very Interested” in this rate program, which provides the opportunity to save money by conserving energy. The breakdown of responses was: Very Interested – 15 percent, Interested – 39 percent, Undecided – 24 percent, Uninterested – 13 percent, Very Uninterested – 10 percent.



The “Undecided” return of 24 percent is three points higher than that of the previous question. Question five was longer and more complex, and as such, respondents may have been unable to determine how they would be impacted were they to enroll in this option. Still, the feedback overall favors the consideration of a block rate program.

Though question five shows participant interest in this rate program, few open-ended comments were submitted regarding the proposed block rate.

Question Six “How interested would you be in participating in a program that lets you buy all of your energy from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, or energy generated from landfill gas or other biomass?”

In their responses to question six, nearly a third of COSS survey takers responded “Undecided.” The breakdown of responses was: Very Interested – 13 percent, Interested – 30 percent, Undecided – 31 percent, Uninterested – 15 percent, Very Uninterested – 11 percent.

Though the “Very Interested” response was smaller and the “Undecided” quotient grew relative to question five, there is still an overall preference for this rate option among survey takers. The ratio of respondents who indicated they were “Uninterested” or “Very Uninterested” remained similar to that of question five.

While the responses to question six suggest that 43 percent of those individuals who took the COSS survey are “Very Interested” or “Interested” in this program, the “Undecided” response had the largest percent of responses (at 31 percent). Similar to the responses to question two, the undecided answers may indicate that the question required specialized knowledge of renewable energy sources, rather than the respondents’ opposition to this rate option. This conclusion is supported by the responses to question three. COSS survey respondents returned a favorably weighted average of 3.84 when asked in question three if “PEC has a responsibility to use renewable energy resources that benefit the environment”; this indicates the survey population is generally in favor of using renewable resources. The combined responses to questions two, three, and six suggest that the majority of PEC members consider the use of renewable energy sources important, but may not be familiar with the costs, benefits, and policies associated with renewable energy.




Exhibit 10: Responses to Rate Development Question Six

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “Explore partnering with school districts and PV leasing and installation companies to install solar

arrays on school building roof top [sic.]. This is a Win/Win idea: Schools use site generated power during peak energy use times, lower their energy costs, help educate youngsters on the coming reality of renewable energy and transition from carbon based fuels.”

► “[I want the] ability to choose all traditional energy sources and not pay the extra cost of renewable sources.”

► “I do salute the dependability of service we receive, and strongly encourage any move toward the use of renewable resources. Any transition in that direction will make me feel my money is well spent.”

► “I am not convinced that renewable energy (except hydroelectric) are [sic.] cost effective. I am concerned that the long term cost for operation and maintenance of wind turbines and solar panels may significantly exceed the cost of traditional power sources.”



Question Seven “How interested would you be in participating in a time-differentiated rate program that rewarded you for using energy during non-peak hours when the prices PEC pays its wholesale power producers are lower (e.g. 6 p.m. to 10 a.m. in the summer)? This type of rate would help you save on energy costs if you’re able to adjust the times in which you use the most electricity, like doing laundry or running machinery.”


Exhibit 11: Responses to Rate Development Question Seven

In their responses to question seven, survey takers indicated a strong preference for this rate program. The breakdown of responses was: Very Interested – 21 percent, Interested – 46 percent, Undecided – 18 percent, Uninterested – 10 percent, Very Uninterested – 5 percent.

Compared to the other dynamic rate option questions contained within this survey, question seven received the highest level of interest. Question seven also had the fewest “Undecided” responses from the survey takers. The high level of interest may be due to the fact that the 92 percent of survey



respondents identified as a single-family home; those individuals might be able either to monitor their energy use during daytime peak periods or would be working away from their homes and thereby consume less energy during these periods.

For commercial and industrial utility users, there may be less opportunity to realize savings through a time-differentiated rate as many of them may have difficulty reducing peak energy consumption due to staffing and mechanical limitations or to operational requirements. The following participant statements show the breath of related comments that were submitted through the final, open-ended comment question at the end of this survey.

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “I have tried to conserve electricity but it seems the more i [sic.] try to save, the higher the kWh cost.

I have tracked my costs with PEC for years and my rate per kWh is cheaper if i use more electricity. That seems to defeat the very idea of conserving.”

► “Time of use is very important for managing peak load demands.” ► “The rate should be kept flat and not change based on usage. Many homeowners are dependent on

electric heating and cooling and have little control of usage during coldest/hottest months. Punitive rate system is unfair to many in this circumstance. I think increasing supply vs. reducing demand is the solution.”

► “Mainly interested in peak/off-peak rates to encourage conservation and encourage use of low rates at night to charge electric vehicles.”

► “I do like the idea of a Time-of-Use program. Adjusting what we use, and when, is easy enough for lowering our electric costs.”

Question Eight “How interested would you be in participating in a pre-paid method of purchasing electricity? You would choose the amount and time that you paid, and then be able to monitor your energy and account balance information. When your account starts to run low, you could simply purchase more electricity.”

In their responses to question eight, survey respondents indicated their lack of support for this rate program. The breakdown of responses was: Very Interested – 4 percent, Interested – 14 percent, Undecided – 29 percent, Uninterested – 35 percent, Very Uninterested – 18 percent.




Exhibit 12: Responses to Rate Development Question Eight

More than any other dynamic rate option question, survey respondents expressed a lack of interest in the pre-paid rate option. It is worth noting that the question did not reference the possibility of eliminating deposits or reducing late fees. Through industry knowledge and Burns & McDonnell experience with other utility companies, pre-paid rate options have shown high satisfaction rates among pre-paid users. Therefore, the benefits of this program would need to be clearly communicated to members who would benefit most from the rate, were it to be made available.

Though more survey respondents than not were uninterested in this rate option, there were very few open-ended comments submitted regarding pre-paid rate options.



Question Nine “How interested would you be in receiving a bill credit if PEC is able to help the electric grid remain reliable and efficient by controlling your thermostat and programmable appliances during periods of peak use, like a hot summer day?”


Exhibit 13: Responses to Rate Development Question Nine

In the responses to question nine, 22 percent of respondents were “Undecided” and the remaining respondents were evenly split between interested and uninterested (39 percent on both sides). The breakdown of responses was: Very Interested – 10 percent, Interested – 29 percent, Undecided – 22 percent, Uninterested – 20 percent, Very Uninterested – 19 percent.

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “I am very much against PEC controlling home thermostats and other electrical use remotely. Far too

intrusive. A co-op should trust its members to be responsible--incentives work better.”



► “A peak demand / load factor rate for residential customers in which they decide which appliances they cycle off versus allowing the coop to turn off their a/c in the hottest part of the day would be interesting.”

► “Anything to keep costs as low as possible without being invasive. I want to control the temperature of my house. I do not support PEC controlling it.”

SECTION FOUR: LINE EXTENSION AND FEE QUESTIONS This section of the survey asked for feedback on existing PEC fees and policies.

Question Ten “PEC’s line extension policy (used when a line is built to a location without existing electric facilities) calls for a fee of $200 for extending service to a new location. PEC also estimates the total cost of all construction for building lines. There is no charge to the member for the first $2,000, but the member pays any additional amount for the line extension related to clearing land plus engineering and constructing the new line. Would you say that the charges for building a new line are …?”

In their responses to question ten, survey takers generally responded that the charges are reasonable. The breakdown of responses was: Very Reasonable – 11 percent, Reasonable – 42 percent, Undecided – 35 percent, Unreasonable – 8 percent, Very Unreasonable – 4 percent.

While only 12 percent of respondents found the line extension policy “Unreasonable” or “Very Unreasonable,” there were many open-ended comments submitted that addressed this question. For many participants, including but not limited to, commercial and residential developers, as well as farmers and ranchers, the line extension policy can be seen as a hindrance to their operations. The 35 percent “Undecided” response suggests that a large contingent of those individuals who submitted a survey may be unaware of the policy or has not considered its impact. Despite being in the minority of those who submitted an answer to question ten, the bulk of open-ended comments came from individuals who are not positively inclined to the fee.




Exhibit 14: Responses to Line Extension Question Ten

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “$2000 will not even cover a new transformer installed at PEC. The entire line extension policy needs

to be reviewed and adjusted to provide more options to members. Payment plans, increased credits, member attraction, and reimbursement programs need to be implemented.”

► “The fees for line extension are too low. The person requesting this should pay more of the cost of the extension.”

► “PEC should incorporate a reasonable cost for the line extension policy when a customer needs additional or relocation of a service line. I have requested that PEC relocate my electrical line, from one street pole to another. This request was so my mobile home will not sit under the line. PEC quoted me an enormous price ($2500.00).”

► “It is too costly for line extensions for a permanent residence and commercial extensions. All fees should be lowered.”



Question Eleven “PEC’s service availability charge of $22.50 is a fixed minimum charge included on each bill. The fee recoups a portion of the cost of installing, operating and maintaining the distribution grid connected to your location. Other costs included in the availability charge include meter reading, billing, and additional administrative expenses. Would you say that the service availability charge is …?”


Exhibit 15: Responses to Service Availability Charge Question Eleven

The breakdown of responses was: Very Reasonable – 4 percent, Reasonable – 37 percent, Undecided – 26 percent, Unreasonable – 24 percent, Very Unreasonable – 9 percent.

The percent of respondents who found the service availability charge “Very Reasonable” or “Reasonable” was only 7 percent greater than the percent who found the charge “Unreasonable” or “Very Unreasonable.” Through the survey, PEC received many comments stating that the $22.50 service availability charge was an unnecessary burden or was distributed unfairly. In the COSS focus groups



held during summer 2014 and the regional member forums held during February 2015, some PEC members expressed that they were unaware of the reason or need for the service availability charge. In the future, increased communication, whether via bill inserts or online marketing, explaining the purpose and necessity of the charge, might increase the reasonable-to-unreasonable ratio.

Of the open-ended comments that were submitted regarding the service availability charge, few were complimentary of the fee.

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “I think the [minimum charge] of 22.50 is excessive. I should only be charged if I use electricity. I

have a barn with a separate rate meter- have been a customer for over 25 years have never been late on a payment and use very little electricity. Both my meters are auto read, so where is the cost to PEC?”

► “I think the $22.50 fee should be increased to cover more of the fixed costs of running PEC.” ► “I would like to see the Service Availability Charged dropped to the amount of electricity you use.

For someone who uses little electricity the service amount is sometimes more than the actual cost of electricity. More you use, more the fee, if you use less, your service fee is less. Maybe a 3 tiered program from 10 to 20 to 30 dollars. Thank you!”

► I would like to see the service availability charge of $22.50 be applied per member or per address, NOT per meter as it currently stands.”

Question Twelve “PEC requires a $150 refundable deposit for each new residential account and a $300 refundable deposit for each new commercial account. A deposit will accrue interest and is credited to the account after 12 months of satisfactory payment history or when the account is closed. Would you say that these deposits are…?”

Survey takers generally responded in support of this deposit policy. The breakdown of responses was: Very Reasonable – 19 percent, Reasonable – 61 percent, Undecided – 9 percent, Unreasonable – 8 percent, Very Unreasonable – 3 percent.

Only a small percentage (11 percent) of individuals found these refundable deposits to be unacceptable. Based on open-ended responses that addressed this policy, those who indicated that this policy is



unreasonable are likely lower income members for whom capital deposits of this nature are a burden. Though the majority of respondents signified that they found the refundable deposits acceptable, the majority of open-ended comments regarding this question were negatively inclined.


Exhibit 16: Responses to Refundable Deposit Question Twelve

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “Refundable deposits are too low, though accommodations in the amount should be made for lower

income individuals.” ► “I've paid all my bills on time for 13 yrs. How about refunding the $150 fee?” ► “I think the deposits are outrageous. I have been through a tough financial pinch the last couple years.

When I have to give grocery money to get lights back on, it’s gone too far.” ► “Lower late fees, lower reconnect fees, lower deposits.”



Question Thirteen “A late payment processing fee of $20 is assessed when payments are not received by the due date shown on the bill. Would you say that the late payment processing fee is …?”


Exhibit 17: Responses to Late Payment Fee Question Thirteen

The breakdown of responses was: Very Reasonable – 12 percent, Reasonable – 48 percent, Undecided – 12 percent, Unreasonable – 20 percent, Very Unreasonable – 8 percent. More than twice as many respondents felt the late payment fee was “Very Reasonable” or “Reasonable” than felt it was “Unreasonable” or “Very Unreasonable.” While positive responses outweighed negative responses by a ratio of more than two-to-one, the majority of open-ended responses on the matter were from individuals who feel that the $20 late payment processing fee is unreasonable.

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “Helping those in need with late payments is important, whether it be lowering payments or a

payment plan. Exhaust all options before cutting off electricity to a family who is experiencing financial hardship.”



► “PEC needs to get rid of its ridiculous late payment policy of being only 24 hours after the bill’s due date that a bill is late. That is taking advantage of customers. Most all other service providers allow a grace period of 7-10 days.”

► “Late payment fees should be a percentage not a flat fee.”

Question Fourteen “A collection fee of $75 is charged if PEC dispatches a service representative to visit a location to collect payment on a delinquent bill. Would you say that the collection fee is …?”


Exhibit 18: Responses to Collection Fee Question Fourteen

The breakdown of responses was: Very Reasonable – 15 percent, Reasonable – 42 percent, Undecided – 17 percent, Unreasonable – 19 percent, Very Unreasonable – 7 percent. More than twice as many respondents felt the collection fee was “Very Reasonable” or “Reasonable” than felt it was “Unreasonable” or “Very Unreasonable.”



Question Fifteen “A fee of $100 is charged to reconnect electric service during business hours once an account has been disconnected for nonpayment. This fee is in addition to deposits and payment of the past due balance. Would you say that the reconnect fee is …?”


Exhibit 19: Responses to Reconnection Question Fifteen

The breakdown of responses was: Very Reasonable – 12 percent, Reasonable – 37 percent, Undecided – 17 percent, Unreasonable – 25 percent, Very Unreasonable – 9 percent. About half of respondents felt the reconnection fee was “Very Reasonable” or “Reasonable.”

Though survey takers responded in support of the reconnection fee, a large majority of the comments submitted on the topic were in opposition to the fee.



Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “Does it really cost so much more to reconnect a non-payment member? Most people do not pay an

electric bill if they have no money, not just to cause a disconnect to be contrary.” ► “The reconnect fee needs to consider income level. This fee only serves to put lower income folks

into a deeper hole whereas higher income folks are in a better position to afford the fee. This policy could take into account the number of times this happens within some designated time period and the cost increases based on the frequency in the previous 12 months.”

Question Sixteen “PEC’s same-day service connect fee of $250 is charged if a new member asks that the meter at an existing location be connected the same day the application for electric service is completed. This fee is in addition to payment of a membership fee, deposits, and any other required fees. Would you say that the same-day service connect fee is …?”


Exhibit 20: Responses to Same-Day Connection Question Sixteen



Though close in response, more respondents than not found the same-day service connect fee to be unreasonable. The breakdown of responses was: Very Reasonable – 8 percent, Reasonable – 30 percent, Undecided – 22 percent, Unreasonable – 29 percent, Very Unreasonable – 11 percent. There were few open-ended comments submitted on the topic of the same-day connection fee. Those respondents who did comment on the fee were not positively inclined to it.

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “Does it really cost $250.00 to connect on the same day plus all the other fees associated with a

connection? Everything is in place. Connection is not that difficult and does not take more than a couple of minutes.”

► “To clarify: $250 rush fee is way too high. $20 late fee is way too low.”

SECTION FIVE: RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM QUESTIONS The questions from the COSS survey represented in this section asked PEC members to signify their interest in solar energy systems and related programs.

Question Seventeen “Imagine you could participate in a community solar energy project, which allowed you to offset your electricity use with the solar energy you produced. How interested would you be in this program?”




Exhibit 21: Responses to Community Solar Question Seventeen

Survey respondents strongly support the idea of participating in a community solar energy project that would allow them to reduce costs. The breakdown of responses was: Very Interested – 32 percent, Interested – 41 percent, Undecided – 15 percent, Uninterested – 8 percent, Very Uninterested – 4 percent.

When paired with survey takers’ favorable responses when asked in question three if “PEC has a responsibility to use renewable energy resources that benefit the environment,” this feedback supports the findings that a significant number of PEC members value solar initiatives and are interested in their cost-savings features.

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “More ways to use Solar from your side and from the consumer side. I think we all win if we could

all use solar.” ► “I'd really like to see more effort put into all facets of solar.”



Question Eighteen “Imagine you could lease a solar energy system for your rooftop or property, allowing you to offset your electricity use with the energy it produces. How interested would you be in this program?”

More than two-thirds of respondents indicated an interest in this renewable energy program. The breakdown of responses was: Very Interested – 29 percent, Interested – 39 percent, Undecided – 17 percent, Uninterested – 10 percent, Very Uninterested – 5 percent.

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “I want to use 100% renewable energy. I don’t care if I’m the one who owns the solar panels or not.

But if I have to lease them, whoever owns them should take care of them, and the lease should be less than my average electricity bill or it wouldn’t be worth it.”

► “Offer rebates and assistance so that I can use solar power.”


Exhibit 22: Responses to Renewable Energy Question Eighteen



Question Nineteen “Imagine you could have PEC help you with a rooftop or ground mounted solar energy system or wind turbine on your property. How interested would you be in this program?”

Nearly three-fourths of respondents were “Very Interested” or “Interested” in receiving help from PEC in developing renewable energy on their properties. The breakdown of responses was: Very Interested – 35 percent, Interested – 39 percent, Undecided – 14 percent, Uninterested – 8 percent, Very Uninterested – 4 percent.


Exhibit 23: Responses to Renewable Energy Question Nineteen

Related Part i cipant Stat ement s ► “Getting help with adding solar or wind-turbine options to our property would be a HUGE deal. We

are very interested in doing this but are just so unsure of the cost of such a project and potential savings. Would love info from such a trusted source.”



► “I would prefer you not rebate people’s solar or wind systems unless there is a benefit for all members, and not just telling us to feel good because we’re helping the environment and helping our neighbors get a lower bill. I’m also worried that he [sic.] lease option would not be priced right and the maintenance would hurt rates.”

SECTION SIX: OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS An open-ended question concluded the survey.

Question Twenty “Are there any additional rate options or programs that you would like to see PEC offer?”

Of the 7,743 respondents to the survey, 2,701 responded to this optional, open-ended question. Though the variety in response was great, a text analysis shows that the following topics were mentioned most often by respondents: solar panels, wind generation, lower rates and high energy bills, energy rebates, PEC operations and procedures, renewable energy, online payments, senior citizen discounts, and the delivery charge.

PEC ALL-MEMBER SURVEY, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (continued)


CONCLUSION ► Overall, survey respondents indicated a high level of satisfaction with PEC. This bodes well for the

cooperative as they continue their COSS efforts and look to communicate policy and rate changes to members.

► As evidenced by the 45 percent of survey respondents who identified their length of association with PEC as 10 years or fewer, PEC’s membership is experiencing strong growth. The COSS survey response also shows that 60 percent of respondents identified themselves as being over the age of 55. This demographic information, coupled with the positive reception to the time-of-use and variable price rate options, suggests a subset of retired, or near-retirement age individuals within the PEC service area who are interested in dynamic rate options that would provide them with cost savings opportunities.

► Survey Takers responded positively to dynamic rate options that would reward them for being more efficient with their energy usage.

► Survey respondents recognize and support the need for energy conservation, both on a personal and system-wide basis.

► Though many survey respondents were unaware of PEC’s renewable energy portfolio and associated policies, they indicated that the use of renewable energy sources is important and expressed a strong interest in solar energy programs.

► There is an opportunity to provide PEC members with additional information about the need and function of specific rates and fees.

► In addition to a vocal contingent of survey participants who expressed interest in increased renewable energy options, there were a number of respondents who voiced their concern or disinterest in “green” energy due to increased cost and subsidization.

► Though survey respondents are unsure about allowing PEC control of their thermostats or the benefits of a pre-paid method of purchasing electricity, they responded favorably to proposed dynamic rate options that offer potential cost savings through energy conservation.

pec all-member survey cooperative summary · 2017-12-07 · the survey was launched on january 28,...

Documents