Public Utility CommissionAnnual Performance Progress Report

Reporting Year 2016

Published: 8/12/2016 3:19:28 PM

KPM # Approved Key Performance Measures (KPMs)

1 Water Utilities - Percentage of rate regulated water companies with rate designs promoting efficient use of water resources.

2 Price of Electricity - Average price of electricity for residential users from Oregon Investor Owned Utilities as a percent of the national average price.

3 Electric Energy - Percentage of business customers’ electric energy usage supplied by alternative suppliers.

4 Utility Pricing - Number of new utility pricing programs.

5 Electric Utility Operations - Effectiveness of staff audits in preventing injuries caused by electric utility operations per 100,000 utility customers.

6 Unsafe Acts - Effectiveness of Utility and PUC promoted education in preventing injuries from unsafe acts per 100,000 utility customers.

7 Natural Gas Operations - Personal injuries related to Natural Gas Operations per 100,000 utility customers.

8 Switched Access Lines - Percent of total switched access lines provided by competitive local exchange carriers, statewide.

9 Evidentiary Record - Percent of Consumer Complaint Orders issued within 30 days of close of evidentiary record.

10 Oregon Telephone Assistance Program - Percentage of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients participating in the Oregon Telephone Assistance Program.

11 Access to Telephone Services - Percentage of disabled senior citizens (65 years and older) with access to the Telecommunications Devices Access Program.

12 Complaint Investigation - Percent of complaint investigation cases open 50 days or less.

13 Customer Service - Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency’s customer service as “good” or “excellent” in overall customer service, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise and availability of information.

14 Best Practices - Percent of total best practices met by the Board of Maritime Pilots.

15 Vessel Incidents - The number and severity of incidents involving vessels under the direction of licensees, and as a percentage of total vessels piloted annually.

16 a. Extent to which the Energy Trust of Oregon meets 12 of 14 established internal performance measures. - Met 12 of 14 established internal performance measures

16 b. Extent to which the Energy Trust of Oregon meets the established internal performance measures - Obtaining an annual unqualified financial audit.

16 c. Extent to which the Energy Trust of Oregon meets the established internal performance measures - Keep administrative and programs support costs below 9 percent of annual revenue.

16 d. Extent to which the Energy Trust of Oregon meets the established internal performance measures - Reporting the benefit/cost ratio for conservation programs based on utility system societal perspective.

16 e. Extent to which the Energy Trust of Oregon meets the established internal performance measures - Reporting significant mid-year changes to benefit/cost performance as necessary in quarterly reports.

Green Yellow Red

= Target to -5% = Target -6% to -15% = Target > -15%

Summary Stats: 75% 15% 10%

redgreenyellow

KPM #1 Water Utilities - Percentage of rate regulated water companies with rate designs promoting efficient use of water resources.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% Rate Reg. Water Co. w/ Efficiency Enhancing Rate Des.Actual 95% 95% 95% No Data 95%Target 92% 93% 94% 95% 95%

How Are We DoingThe PUC has been effective in encouraging non-metered systems to install meters and providing timely recovery of such costs. There are only two companies without meters of the current 37companies that are rate regulated.

Factors Affecting ResultsThe timing of general rate filings by non-metered water systems is typically outside the control of the PUC. As non-metered, rate regulated companies file for a rate review, they are moved to ametered system. Other factors affecting the results are new companies being rate regulated or companies that are no longer rate regulated.

actual target

KPM #2 Price of Electricity - Average price of electricity for residential users from Oregon Investor Owned Utilities as a percent of the national average price.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Ave. Price of Elec. for Res. Users from OR Investor-Owned Util. as a % of the Nat. Ave. PriceActual 89% 89% 91% No Data 91%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 92%

How Are We DoingThe 2015 performance was slightly under target. On a national level, wholesale market prices for electricity have recently declined due to the economic recession and to decreases in the price ofnatural gas used to fuel electricity generating plants.

Factors Affecting ResultsAs new generating resources are added to meet load growth and Oregon Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS - 50% by 2040), hydroelectric resources now comprise a smaller percentage of theInvestor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) resource mix. This effect tends to progressively move Oregon’s residential electricity rates towards the national average.

actual target

KPM #3 Electric Energy - Percentage of business customers’ electric energy usage supplied by alternative suppliers.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% of Bus. Cust. Elec. En. Usage Supplied by Alt SuppliersActual 7.40% 9.40% 9.40% No Data 9.50%Target 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

How Are We DoingThe slow economy reduced the number of business customers pursuing market-based pricing options. However, beginning in 2013, the amount of load served by Energy Service Suppliers startedto increase.

Factors Affecting ResultsPacifiCorp recently expanded its direct access program by addiing a Commision-approved option for 2016, with a five-year fixed transition adjustment. Additionally, with an improving economy, theresults continue to improve as well.

actual target

KPM #4 Utility Pricing - Number of new utility pricing programs.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of New Utility Pricing ProgramsActual 11 14 14 No Data 14Target 11 12 13 14 14

How Are We DoingIn 2015, PUC enacted a direct load control pricing pilot for Portland General Electric. A critical peak pricing program was discohntinued for Pacific Power as it did not produce the anticipatedresults. In addition, a number of existing programs were refined to provide better benefits to participants and ratepayers.

Factors Affecting ResultsThe number of new pricing programs should increase with the use of advanced metering technology and demand response strategies. Both Portland General Electric and Idaho Power Companyhave completed installation of advanced meters in their service territories, and PacifiCorp is planning to implement smart meters.

actual target

KPM #5 Electric Utility Operations - Effectiveness of staff audits in preventing injuries caused by electric utility operations per 100,000 utility customers.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Effec. of Staff Aud. in Prev. Inj. Caused by Elec. Oper. per 100,000 Utility CustomersActual 0.21 0.10 0.26 No Data 0.10Target 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

How Are We DoingAccidents in the field typically result in serious injuries or fatalities and are tragic. Any incidents are unacceptable. Staff’s audits address many, but not all of the factors that can lead to injuries. However, there have not been any reportable incidents related to violations found and subsequently corrected as a result of staff’s field inspections. Staff continues to discuss these issues inindustry safety forums to focus attention on robust training programs.

Factors Affecting ResultsThe Oregon Public Utility Commission’s Electric Safety Unit conducts ongoing audit safety inspections and investigations, as well as safety training statewide to ensure compliance with Oregonsafety regulations. Unfortunately, the audit investigations may not always detect anomalies before an incident may happen. There are many variables that could affect the network withoutknowledge of the operator and staff’s annual audit inspections. However undesirable incidents do occur. Staff will continue to diligently conduct its audit inspections with the goal of helping preventinjuries related to electric utility facilities and operations.

actual target

KPM #6 Unsafe Acts - Effectiveness of Utility and PUC promoted education in preventing injuries from unsafe acts per 100,000 utility customers.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Effec. of Util. and PUC Promoted Ed. in Prev. Inj, from Unsafe Acts per 100,000 Util. Cust.Actual 0.45 0.30 0.33 No Data 0.15Target 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

How Are We DoingThe incident rate has been at or below the threshold value of 0.45 incidents per 100,000 customers since 2008. In an effort to drive the rate lower, Staff will continue to work with utilities on publiceducation programs. Every month during the Oregon Utility Safety Committee (OUSC) meetings, staff presents the number of incidents for discussion with the operators. Education and informationregarding safety with all operators, builders, contractors, and the population at large is a priority for staff. We will make use of every means available to get the safety message across to helpmitigate the number of incidents caused by unsafe acts.

Factors Affecting ResultsStaff works with the operators on their safety education programs, encourage TV and Radio advertisements, shares incident information at the OUSC meetings, and conducts audits of the IOUs bi-annually on all their programs and activities, of which safety education is a key component. Staff investigates all incidents to ascertain the root cause and address future prevention measures.

actual target

KPM #7 Natural Gas Operations - Personal injuries related to Natural Gas Operations per 100,000 utility customers.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Personal Injuries Related to Nat. Gas Oper. per 100,000 Utility Cust.Actual 0 0 0 No Data 0Target 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10

How Are We DoingIn 2016, we had no equipment failures with people getting injured, giving our program an index of zero incidents per 100,000 gas customers.

Factors Affecting ResultsThe Oregon Public Utility Commission’s Gas Safety Unit conducts ongoing safety inspections and investigations, as well as safety training statewide to ensure compliance with Federal pipelinesafety regulations. Unfortunately, the audit investigations may not always detect anomalies before an incident may happen. There are too many variables that could affect the network withoutknowledge of the operator, and Staff’s annual audit inspections. However undesirable incidents do occur. Staff will continue to diligently conduct its audit inspections with the main goal of helpingprevent network system failures.

actual target

KPM #8 Switched Access Lines - Percent of total switched access lines provided by competitive local exchange carriers, statewide.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% of Total Switched Acc. Lines Prov. by Comp. Local Ex. Carriers StatewideActual 27.80% 25.60% 24.30% No Data 47.70%Target 28% 29.80% 31.60% 33.40% 34%

How Are We DoingThe actual performance measure for Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) market share in 2015 is 45.6%, compared to 31.6% forecast (target). CLEC market share has increased from41.7% of switched access lines in 2014. The PUC study follows closely the competitive telecom market, the study results reflects market reality, provides an overview of telecom competitiondevelopments in Oregon, and effectively reaches its goal.

Factors Affecting ResultsA combination of factors driven by fundamental shifts in the telecommunications industry is affecting the results. The large gap between the actuals and the forecast is due to the inclusion of theresults of CLEC companies using Voice-over Internet Protocal (VoIP) technology. The earlier forecast did not include those companies.

actual target

KPM #9 Evidentiary Record - Percent of Consumer Complaint Orders issued within 30 days of close of evidentiary record.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% of Cons. Comp. Orders Issued within 30 Days of Close of Evid. Rec.Actual 100% 100% 85% No Data 90%Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

How Are We DoingIn 2015 we missed the target. We held 10 consumer complaint hearings in 2015, and issued decisions within 30 days for all but one docket.

Factors Affecting ResultsIn creating this KPM, we recognized that some factors beyond the reasonable control of the Administrative Hearings Division may cause delays in processing of cases. These include the complexityof the issues, and availability of other Commission employees.

actual target

KPM #10 Oregon Telephone Assistance Program - Percentage of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients participating in the Oregon Telephone Assistance Program.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Percentage of SNAP Recipients Who Receive OTAP BenefitsActual 13% 18% 20% No Data 16%Target 23% 23% 24% 25% 26%

How Are We DoingThe number of OTAP recipients declined steadily in the mid-2000s, due to a customer shift towards wireless and Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services provided by companies that did notparticipate in the program and because one OTAP provider left the market. However, the number of OTAP recipients began to increase in 2011 after the PUC approved a wireless provider to offerOTAP services without contracts along the I-5 corridor from Portland to Eugene, which was a new type of service not previously available to customers. In 2012, the PUC approved two prepaidwireless service providers to offer, for the first time since the program’s inception in 1987, free Lifeline service. This brought an unprecedented record of rapid OTAP customer growth. In 2015, twowireless carriers exited the OTAP market, but did so as part of a national strategy across most states, resulting in a further decrease in the number of customers.

Factors Affecting ResultsFactors impacting the penetration rate of OTAP among eligible SNAP recipients include the Oregon economy, the number of SNAP recipients who also have service with a participatingtelecommunications provider, and the outreach efforts of telecommunications providers and DHS.

actual target

KPM #11 Access to Telephone Services - Percentage of disabled senior citizens (65 years and older) with access to the Telecommunications Devices Access Program.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Percentage of TDAP participants who are 65 years and olderActual 64% 68% 70% No Data 70%Target 50% 50% 52% 54% 56%

How Are We DoingPUC has consistently achieved its goal of providing TDAP services to the senior and aging population of Oregon. The upward trend is likely to continue and is attributed to ongoing outreach effortsto the aging baby boomer population increasingly needing specialized telephone equpment as a result of acquired disabilities.

Factors Affecting ResultsOur upward trend is aided by Oregon’s commitment to offering a wider selection of adaptive telecommunications equipment to seniors with various needs.

actual target

KPM #12 Complaint Investigation - Percent of complaint investigation cases open 50 days or less.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Percent of Complaint Invest. Cases Open 50 Days or LessActual 78% 82% 76% No Data 69%Target 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%

How Are We DoingIn 2015, 69% of investigations were completed in 50 days or less, missing our target.

Factors Affecting ResultsCase cycle time directly effects the achievement of this goal. For 2014, case cycle time increased to an average of 30 days. This was due to several factors, including the retirement of two long-timeexperienced staff members, a unit reorganization which resulted in the loss of one FTE, and the lost productivity experienced while training two new employees. It takes fully 12 months for a newemployee to become fully competent and productive. These factors continued to affect the results in 2015, which also saw a significant uptick in the number of complaints received. All of thesefactors contibuted to an increase in case cycle time to 32 days,

actual target

KPM #13 Customer Service - Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency’s customer service as “good” or “excellent” in overall customer service, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness,expertise and availability of information.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

HelpfulnessActual 84% 83% 83% No Data 85%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 86%Availability of InformationActual 80% 77% 76% No Data 72%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 80%OverallActual 84% 80% 81% No Data 80%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 84%AccuracyActual 84% 80% 81% No Data 78%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 84%ExpertiseActual 86% 79% 83% No Data 80%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 83%TimelinessActual 86% 86% 82% No Data 85%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 86%

How Are We Doing

actual target

The base year report was conducted in 2006. Starting in 2008, results showed a steady year-to-year increase in customer satisfaction, until 2012. This was followed by a decline in 2013 and aleveling off through 2015. While 2014 results were slightly below target, this was a slight improvement over the prior year. For 2015, some individual measures improved while others declinedresulting in a slight overall decline from 2014.

Factors Affecting ResultsThe main reason for the 2014 results missing targets was that we reorganized the unit in 2014, eliminating a position and operating the entire year with two fewer staff than necessary. Two new staffwere finally added in early 2015, but the learning curve for these positions is about two years. As a result, new staff will not have a significant impact on caseloads and case cycle times until mid-2016. The overall customer satisfaction ratings in 2015 were lower than 2014, primarily due to a significant increase in the number of complaints received in 2015 compared to the prior year.

KPM #14 Best Practices - Percent of total best practices met by the Board of Maritime Pilots.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Percent of Yes ResponsesActual 87% 71% 87% No Data 87%Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

How Are We DoingThe Board has implemented more stringent requirements to medical fitness standards for licensees and applicants; pilot selection, training and continuing education; incident investigations andcommunication between state pilotage authorities. The Board has hired an Executive Director to help with policy-making decisions and relieve public members of a significant workload. We havealso adopted a number of internal performance measures used to generate an annual report.

Factors Affecting ResultsThe Board has limited resources, that affect results, but the Legislature has given the Board additional significant resources to improve their oversight role.

actual target

KPM #15 Vessel Incidents - The number and severity of incidents involving vessels under the direction of licensees, and as a percentage of total vessels piloted annually.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Incidents Since 1980Actual 6 4 7 No Data 6Target 0 0 4 4 4

How Are We DoingIn 2015, we saw two Category I incidents (these are more serious) and four Category II incidents. The first Category I incident involved a slip/trip on deck resulting in an injury to the pilot, and thesecond involved damage to a vessel during docking, and a resulting small/moderate oil spill. Of the four Category II incidents, two were due to a mechanical failure on the vessel, one was due tovessel steering difficulties, and one was due to pilot misjudgment.

Factors Affecting ResultsAs is typical in years past, the majority of incidents occur due to some mechanical failure or handling on the vessel, weather or hydrological conditions that are beyond the pilot's ability to prevent orpredict.

actual target

KPM #16 a. Extent to which the Energy Trust of Oregon meets 12 of 14 established internal performance measures. - Met 12 of 14 established internal performance measuresData Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Met 12 of 14 established internal performance measuresActual No Data 14 14 No Data 14Target TBD 12 12 12 12

How Are We DoingThe Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) has met 14 of 14 performance measures during 2015. Meeting targets is a combination of strong and focused program management by the ETO and effectiveoversight of the ETO by the PUC.

Factors Affecting ResultsCustomer interest in energy efficiency and small renewable projects is strong. The ETO is continuously finding means to ensure customer energy savings; increased energy efficiency in PGE,Cascade Natural Gas, NW Natural, and PacifiCorp territories; and cost-effective development of small renewable energy projects. Market conditions that are outside the control of Energy Trust canalso impact results. Things like unexpected changes to tax credits, unexpected changes to natural gas prices, and unexpected new energy efficiency breakthrough technologies, can impact EnergyTrust’s ability to acquire conservation and/or to develop renewable energy projects. These factors need to be monitored along with Energy Trust’s performance.

actual target

KPM #16 b. Extent to which the Energy Trust of Oregon meets the established internal performance measures - Obtaining an annual unqualified financial audit.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Unqualified Financial AuditActual No Data 1 1 No Data 1Target TBD 1 1 1 1

How Are We DoingEnergy Trust has completed an unqualified financial audit every year since this requirement has been put in place.

Factors Affecting ResultsThe key factor affecting results is whether or not Energy Trust has an audit performed. In the audit, there may be recommendations for areas of improvement. PUC Staff will review therecommendations and follow up on them in subsequent years. Accordingly, once the annual audit is obtained, another factor affecting results is PUC Staff’s follow-through on areas identified in theaudit.

actual target

KPM #16 c. Extent to which the Energy Trust of Oregon meets the established internal performance measures - Keep administrative and programs support costs below 9 percent of annualrevenue.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Administrative and program support below 9 percentActual No Data 4% 4.60% No Data 5.50%Target TBD 9% 9% 9% 9%

How Are We DoingEnergy Trust consistently comes in well below this nine percent target. Energy Trust regularly reports administrative and program support costs at or below six percent, substantially below the ninepercent target.

Factors Affecting ResultsFactors affecting administrative and program support costs include things like turnover of key employees, implementation of new computer systems that require additional staff time to get up andrunning, complexity of efficiency programs, and the amount of management and administration time required to achieve savings.

actual target

KPM #16 d. Extent to which the Energy Trust of Oregon meets the established internal performance measures - Reporting the benefit/cost ratio for conservation programs based on utility systemsocietal perspective.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Benefit/cost ratio for conservation programsActual No Data 1 1 No Data 1Target TBD 1 1 1 1

How Are We DoingEnergy Trust has consistently provided this reporting to the Commission Staff.

Factors Affecting ResultsFactors affecting results are whether or not Energy Trust reports the utility and societal benefit/cost ratios.

actual target

KPM #16 e. Extent to which the Energy Trust of Oregon meets the established internal performance measures - Reporting significant mid-year changes to benefit/cost performance as necessary inquarterly reports.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Metric 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Reporting changes in quarterly reportsActual No Data 1 1 No Data 1Target TBD 1 1 1 1

How Are We DoingEnergy Trust is doing well on this performance measure and it regularly provides very detailed and timely quarterly reports to the Commission.

Factors Affecting ResultsFactors affecting results are whether or not Energy Trust provides appropriate information to the Commission and Commission Staff in its quarterly reports.

actual target