FortisBC Inc. (FBC) and FortisBC Energy Inc. (FEI) Applications for Approval of a Multi-Year Performance Based Ratemaking Plan for 2014 through 2018

Transcription

1 C2-14 FORTISBC ENERGY INC. (FEI) AND FORTISBC INC. (FBC) INFORMATION REQUEST NO.1 ON INTERVENER EVIDENCE TO CANADIAN OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAl EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL 378 FortisBC Inc. (FBC) and FortisBC Energy Inc. (FEI) Applications for Approval of a Multi-Year Performance Based Ratemaking Plan for 2014 through Reference: Exhibit C4-9, Customer Satisfaction Index, Page Ms. Alexander rejects the use of customer satisfaction index (which includes a number of customer service components) and recommends using a Recent Call Center Transaction to measure Customer Satisfaction. 1.1 Does Ms. Alexander believe that contact centre interaction is the only type of customer interaction? No. Ms. Alexander agrees that there are other customer interactions that impact customer satisfaction. However, Ms. Alexander does not agree that "customer satisfaction" in general should be tracked in the SQI as proposed in the index method by FBC/FEI If no, then please explain why you believe that call centre interaction is the only reasonable measure of customer satisfaction. Ms. Alexander has not opined that the call center interaction is the only reasonable measure of customer satisfaction. Ms. Alexander has selected the answer to that question on the Customer Satisfaction survey because, as she stated in her testimony on p. 23, the FBC/FEI proposed methodology captures too many issues and responses in its proposed "index," thus diluting the impact of any customer response to a particular area of interaction. It is Ms. Alexander's recommendation that the SQI reflect a more focused and targeted response to a particular interaction. It would be possible to separately include the answers to all the

2 response areas that are reflected relating to customer satisfaction with the call center and another question relating to customer satisfaction with a field (on premise) appointment. Finally, Ms. Alexander generally considers actual performance more important to measure in the SQI compared to customer opinion asked in survey questions. As a result, she has selected the one aspect of the proposed "index" that she considers most appropriate to include in the SQiin FBC/FEI's proposed Customer Satisfaction Index, but that would require a separate performance standard for each item and, as a result, this area would be more heavily represented in the overall SQI than is necessary. Ms. Alexander notes that the SQI applicable to Central Maine Power Co. in Maine includes a question 2.0 Reference: Exhibit C4-9, Telephone Service Factor, Page Ms. Alexander proposes that Telephone Service Factor (non-emergency calls) for both FEI and FBC be changed to 80% of calls answered within 30 seconds. 2.1 Does Ms. Alexander agree that her proposal to increase the TSF all else equal, will require higher staffing levels, resulting in higher cost for the company? No, Ms. Alexander does not necessarily agree that additional employees will be required, although that may be the case. However, the staffing levels of a call center can vary by time of day, day of the week, and time of the year. These staffing levels can be adjusted to achieve any desired level of call center call performance on an annual basis. These adjustments may not require new staff, but the use of current staff (full time and part time) in an effective and targeted manner. 2.2 In Ms. Alexander's view, on relative terms, is faster service more important to customers or keeping low rates? Please explain your answer. Ms. Alexander does not understand how this question is relevant to her testimony. Customers obviously want the lowest possible rates, but they also want their utility to implement its revenues (and allowed profit) in a manner that delivers reasonable service quality and customer service performance. It is not necessary that modest improvements in call center performance to result in higher rates since utility management has a good deal of discretion in its management priorities and expenses. Ms. Alexander recommends that the best practice standard of answering 80% of calls within 30 seconds be required for calls from both FEI and FBC customers. 2

3 2.3 Please provide the source (or sources) that Ms. Alexander relies upon to conclude that it is best practice standard to answer 80% of calls within 30 seconds. A number of utilities report performance at this level and others are required to do so as follows: Ms. Alexander compiled the following information in 2011 and can confirm that it continues to be representative of current performance. Based on the reports published by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, its electric utilities have reported the following performance in answering calls within 30 seconds:' Pennsylvania Electric Distribution Co First Energy: 81% 78% 80% PPL Electric 76% 81% 79% UGI-Eiectric 87% 80% 78% Duquesne 80% 78% 77% PECO 80% 81% 77% Allegheny 58% 60% 66% The Maine PUC approved SQI for Central Maine Power Co. requires the call center to perform at the 80% in 30 seconds level. Xcel Energy in Minnesota is required to perform at the 80% in 20 seconds level. 2 Puget Sound Energy is required to meet a standard of answering 75% of calls within 30 seconds, but reported in 2012 that its actual performance was at the 79% level. Michigan electric utilities must perform at an average call answer time of 90 seconds.' NSTAR, a large Massachusetts electric utility, and Bay State Gas, a Massachusetts natural gas utility, have a performance requirement of answering 80% of calls within 30 seconds. 1 Pennsylvania PUC, Customer Service Performance Report for 2012, EDC Percent of Calls Answered within 30 Seconds, at page 9, available at: reports/pdf/quality Of Service Rpt 12.pdf 2 Xcel tariffs, Section 6, Section 1.9 (Service Quality), available at: Section 6.pdf 3 les/admincode/ AdminCode.pdf 3

4 3.0 Reference: Exhibit C4-9, SAID! and SAIFI, Page 31 "I recommend that the benchmark performance standard for SAIFI be established at 7.64 (expressed as events), a significant improvement compared to the average of 2.24." 3.1 What factors has Ms. Alexander considered in determining the proposed benchmark of 1.64 (expressed as events)? Please identify and explain how each of the factors have been incorporated including the sources. See COPE's Response to BCUC IR Reference: Exhibit C4-9, Kept Appointments, Page 34 "My proposed $25 customer compensation credit is typical of U.S. jurisdictional utilities, but I defer to the Commission for a reasonable compensation amount for Canadian customers." 4.1 Please provide a list of Canadian gas and or electric utilities where a customer compensation credit for missed appointments is provided? Ms. Alexander does not have such a list. As examples of U.S. gas and electric utilities that offer a credit for a missed appointment, Ms. Alexander offers the following based on information readily available: As part of its original Service Quality Performance Standards requirements adopted in 2002, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities required that utilities make a $25 payment to any customer whose appointment was missed under normal circumstances. Later, on November 26, 2011, this fee was raised to $50 by D.T.E A. Puget Sound Energy in Washington provides a $50 credit for a missed service appointment. Rocky Mountain Power (PacifiCorp) in Idaho provides a customer credit for the failure to meet a number of service guarantees, including keeping appointments. See Tariff Sheet 25R, available at: puc. idaho.gov/fi leroom/tariff/e lectri dpacificorp% 20d ba% 20 Rocky% 2OM tn%20power%201d%20rules.pdf While not related to missed appointments, Michigan electric and natural gas utilities are required to provide customer credits for certain service quality failures: R Penalty for failure to restore service after an interruption due to catastrophic conditions. 4

5 Rule 44. Unless an electric utility requests a waiver pursuant to part 5 of these rules, an electric utility that fails to restore service to a customer within 120 hours after an interruption that occurred during the course of catastrophic conditions shall provide to any affected customer that notifies the utility of the interruption with a bill credit on the customer's next bill. The amount of the credit provided to a residential customer shall be the greater of $25.00 or the customer's monthly customer charge. The amount of the credit provided to any other distribution customer shall be the customer's minimum bill prorated on a daily basis. R Penalty for failure to restore service during normal conditions. Rule 45. Unless an electric utility requests a waiver pursuant to part 5 of these rules, an electric utility that fails to restore service to a customer within 16 hours after an interruption that occurred during normal conditions shall provide to any affected customer that notifies the utility of the interruption a bill credit on the customer's next bill. The amount of the credit provided to a residential customer shall be the greater of $25.00 or the customer's monthly customer charge. The amount of the credit provided to any other distribution customer shall be the customer's minimum bill prorated on a daily basis. R Penalty for repetitive interruptions of the same circuit. Rule 46. (1) Unless an electric utility requests a waiver pursuant to part 5 of these rules, a customer of an electric utility that experiences and notifies the utility of more than 7 interruptions in a 12 -month period due to a same circuit repetitive interruption shall be entitled to a billing credit on the customer's next bill. The amount of the credit provided to a residential customer shall be the greater of $25.00 or the customer's monthly customer charge. The amount of the credit provided to any other distribution customer shall be the customer's minimum bill prorated on a daily basis. (2) Following provision of the billing credit to a customer experiencing more than 7 interruptions in a 12-month period due to a same -circuit repetitive interruption, the electric utility's interruption counter shall be reset to zero to ensure that another credit to the customer will be processed only after the occurrence of another 8 interruptions in a 12? month period. 5.0 Reference: Exhibit C4-9, Customer Compensation, Page 38 "As a result, I propose to attach $50,000 for each percentage point of deterioration in performance for any of the SQJ metrics for FBC and $250,000 for each percentage point of deterioration for any of the SQJ metrics for FE/." 5.1 Please provide the supporting calculations and/or evidence for the recommended penalties of $50,000 and $250,000 for each of FBC and FE/ respectively. See COPE's Response to BCUC IR

6 6.0 Reference: Exhibit C4-9, Incentive Payments, Page 41 "The standards reflect appropriate and reasonable expectations, the costs for which are also reflected in the Company's revenue requirement embedded in the PBR plan." 6.1 Please explain on what basis Ms. Alexander concludes that the costs for improvement of service quality are reflected in the Company's revenue requirement under the PBR Plan. Ms. Alexander's statement is a reflection of its filing for PBR that describes its infrastructure investment plans and customer service improvement initiatives in its Application. 6