2015 Rate Design Application June 25, 2015/June 26, 2015 · 2015-09-15 · June 25, 2015/June 26,...

2015 Rate Design Application

June 25, 2015/June 26, 2015 Workshop Nos. 11a and 11b

Large General Service (LGS)

Medium General Service (MGS) Small General Service (SGS)

Rate Structures

BC Hydro Summary and Consideration of Participant Feedback

June 25, 2015/June 26, 2015 Workshop Nos. 11a and 11b LGS / MGS / SGS Rate Structures


2015 Rate Design Application (RDA)

Page i

Table of Contents

1 Rate Class Segmentation ................................................................................... 6

1.1 Participant Comments ............................................................................... 7

1.2 BC Hydro Consideration ........................................................................... 8

2 BC Hydro’s Rate Design Priorities .................................................................... 16

2.1 Participant Comments ............................................................................. 17

2.2 BC Hydro Consideration ......................................................................... 17

3 SGS Basic Charge ........................................................................................... 18



4 MGS Demand Charges .................................................................................... 24


4.1.1 MGS Demand Charge Structure ............................................... 24

4.1.2 MGS Demand Charge Cost Recovery ...................................... 25


4.2.1 MGS Demand Charge Structure ............................................... 27

4.2.2 MGS Demand Charge Cost Recovery ...................................... 30

5 LGS Energy Rate and Demand Charge Structures .......................................... 32


5.1.1 SQ versus Flat Alternatives, Energy and Demand; Demand Charge Cost Recovery ............................................................. 34

5.1.2 SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate and Baseline Rate Provisions ................................................................................. 38

5.1.3 LGS TSR-Like Rate .................................................................. 43


5.2.1 Preferred LGS Energy Rate and Demand Charge Structures .. 44

5.2.2 Response to Participant Comments ......................................... 51

6 MGS and LGS Transition Strategies ................................................................ 53



7 Minimum Charges (Demand Ratchet) .............................................................. 57



8 Voluntary Rate Options for GS Customers ....................................................... 65






Page ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: 4 Coincident Peak Costs .................................................................... 8

Figure 2: 4 Coincident Peak Costs – Aggregated Segments........................... 10

Figure 3: Cents per kWh Cost by Segment ..................................................... 11

Figure 4: Re-Merged MGS Bill Impacts ........................................................... 13

Figure 5: Re-Merged MGS Bill Impacts ........................................................... 14

Figure 6: Relationship of Load Factor and Coincidence Factor for Sample Subset of Public Entities compared to Sample ................................. 14

List of Tables

Table 1: BC Hydro Energy LRMC Range ......................................................... 5

Table 2: Three BC Hydro Prioritized Rate Design Criteria ............................. 16

Table 3: Alternative SGS Pricing - BC Hydro Preferred and Status Quo (F2017) ............................................................................................. 21

Table 4: F2016 Cost of Service Study Cost Classification ............................. 22

Table 5: Alternative MGS Pricing – SQ, BC Hydro Preferred and Demand Cost Recovery Sensitivity (F2017) ................................................... 28

Table 6: Alternative LGS Pricing– SQ, Simplified SQ, BC Hydro Preferred and Demand Cost Recovery Sensitivity (F2017) .............................. 46

Table 7: Cumulative Net Evaluated Conservation Savings: Gigawatt Hours per Year ........................................................................................... 47

Table 8: Summary of F2015 demand ratchet charges, MGS and LGS .......... 59

Table 9: Frequency distribution of total MGS and LGS demand ratchet charges, F2013-F2015 ..................................................................... 60

Table 10: MGS average annual ratchet charges and average % of total bills by site type, F2013-F2015 ................................................................ 61

Table 11: LGS average annual ratchet charges and average % of total bills by site type, F2013-F2015 ................................................................ 62

Table 12: Illustrative annual bill impact from 50% increase in demand ratchet charge to customers that incurred demand ratchet F2013-F2015 .... 63

Table 13: Illustrative annual bill impact from 50% increase in demand ratchet charge if customers had not incurred demand ratchet F2013-F2015 ............................................................................................... 64




Page iii

Attachments

Attachment 1 Workshop 11a and 11b Summary Notes

Attachment 2 Workshop 11a and 11b Feedback Forms and Written Comments

Attachment 3 Default General Service Charges and Optional Rates Survey – Canada

2015, and Expanded Canadian Jurisdictional Review of General

Service Segmentation

Attachment 4 MGS and LGS Preferred Rate Structures Phase-in Analysis

Attachment 5 Interpreting Sensitivity Analysis Outcomes




Page 1

This memo documents stakeholder feedback and BC Hydro’s consideration of this

input as concerning BC Hydro’s June 25, 2015 Workshop 11a and June 26, 2015

Workshop 11b, which addressed:

BC Hydro’s General Service (GS) customer segmentation analysis

(Workshop 11a);

BC Hydro’s preferred SGS rate structure and an alternative level of SGS basic

charge customer-related cost recovery (Workshop 11a);

BC Hydro’s preferred MGS energy rate structure, alternative MGS demand

charge structures and an alternative level of demand-related cost recovery

(Workshop 11a);

Alternative LGS energy rate structures and alternative LGS demand charge

structures (Workshop 11b);

GS Minimum Monthly Charges (referred to as ‘Demand Ratchet’) and

Transformer Ownership Discount (TOD) (Workshop 11b); and

GS voluntary rate options, including voluntary Time of Use (TOU) rates,

interruptible rates and optional demand charges to be assessed as part of RDA

Module 2 (Workshop 11b).

Workshops 11a and 11b were held in Vancouver, B.C. with customers also being

provided an opportunity to listen into the discussions remotely through a webinar.

Copies of Workshops 11a and 11b presentation slides can be found on the

BC Hydro website at www.bchydro.com/2015RDA.

Customer input was received at Workshops 11a and 11b as well as through

feedback forms and written comments submitted during a subsequent 30-day

comment period, which began with the posting of draft Workshop 11b summary

notes on July 13, 2015.

http://www.bchydro.com/2015RDA




Page 2

BC Hydro also references Workshop 12 analysis and stakeholder comments in a

number of places in this memo. Workshop 12 was held on July 30, 2015, at which

among other things BC Hydro identified its overall Bonbright rate criteria prioritization

(refer to section 2 of the memo), its preferred rate structure for the LGS rate class

and its preferred level of LGS demand charge recovery of demand-related costs

(discussed in section 5 of the memo).

The memo is structured as follows:

Section 1 addresses comments concerning alternative GS customer

segmentation methodologies and BC Hydro’s conclusion based on its analysis

that the Status Quo (SQ) GS segmentation between the SGS, MGS and LGS

rate classes remains appropriate for the purpose of Module 1 RDA GS rate

design. BC Hydro commits to examining as a RDA Module 2 topic a potential

rate class of large LGS customers (referred to as XLGS with demand greater

than 2,000 kilowatts (kW)) as part of its assessment of a potential rate similar to

Rate Schedule (RS) 1823 (LGS TSR-Like Rate) for such a class;

Section 2 describes BC Hydro’s overall Bonbright rate criteria prioritization in

response to British Columbia Utility Commission (BCUC or Commission) staff

requests that BC Hydro do so in the context of its preferred SGS, MGS and

LGS rates;

Section 3 addresses comments concerning the SGS basic charge and the level

of customer-related cost recovery through this charge;

Section 4 addresses comments concerning three MGS demand charge

structure alternatives, which are: MGS SQ Demand Charge (Three-step

Inclining Block); MGS Flat Demand Charge (single MGS charge); and MGS Two-step Inclining Block (zero Tier 1 charge and MGS Tier 2 charge).

BC Hydro identifies that its preferred alternative is the MGS Flat Demand

Charge.




Page 3

Section 4 also reviews comments concerning the appropriate level of demand-

related cost recovery through MGS demand charges and identifies BC Hydro’s

preference to increase the demand charge from its current level that recovers

approximately 15 per cent of demand-related costs to approximately 35 per

cent of demand-related costs;

Section 5 addresses comments concerning four LGS energy rate alternatives

and three LGS demand charge alternatives:

o The LGS energy rate alternatives are: SQ LGS energy rate (SQ LGS Energy Rate); a modified SQ LGS rate aimed at simplifying the LGS energy

rate while retaining the baseline (SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate);

flattening the LGS energy rate with no baseline (LGS Flat Energy Rate);

and segmenting the existing LGS rate class to create a new XLGS rate

class with the ability to define and adjust baselines annually through a LGS

TSR-Like Rate.

o The LGS demand charge structure alternatives are SQ (Three-step Inclining

Block); LGS Flat Demand Charge (single LGS charge); and LGS Two-step Inclining Block (zero Tier 1 charge and LGS Tier 2 charge).

Section 5 identifies BC Hydro’s preferred energy and demand alternatives,

which are easy to understand LGS Flat Energy Rate with LGS Flat Demand

Charge.

Section 5 reviews comments received on the existing provisions and

administrative rules associated with the SQ Part 2 baseline structure.

BC Hydro’s consideration is that the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate is

probably too complicated for many customers to understand and therefore its

acceptance is unlikely to improve much beyond the relatively low level of

understanding of the status quo design.

Section 5 also addresses comments concerning the appropriate level of

demand cost recovery through LGS demand charges and identifies BC Hydro’s




Page 4

preference to increase demand charges to a level that recovers approximately

65 per cent of demand-related costs, which would make it consistent with

demand-related cost recovery percentage through the RS 1823 demand

charge;

Section 6 reviews BC Hydro’s assessment of the recommended transition

strategies for implementation of its preferred MGS and LGS rate designs.

Based on its analysis BC Hydro identifies that on balance no phase-in period is

required for either class of customers.

Section 7 reviews comments concerning the MGS and LGS Demand Ratchets,

which is applicable at 50 per cent of peak monthly demand registered in the

most recent winter period (November to March); and

Section 8 concludes by canvassing comments concerning BC Hydro’s proposal

to address potential GS rate options such as interruptible rates, optional

demand charges and an efficiency rate credit during RDA Module 2. Section 8

also addresses further comments on optional TOU rates.

Participants to Workshop 11b raised issues for consideration of TOD and

transformer rentals, which will be evaluated in conjunction with BC Hydro’s

Distribution extension policy as part of RDA Module 2.

Attachment 1 includes the Workshop 11a and 11b summary notes, which provide a

more detailed description of issues (including questions and answers);

Attachment 2 contains the feedback forms received during the written comment

period;

Attachment 3 contains a summary overview of Canadian default GS charges and

optional rates and an expanded Canadian jurisdictional review of GS segmentation;

Attachment 4 contains BC Hydro’s modelling results concerning a potential three

year phase-in period for: (1) BC Hydro’s preferred MGS rate (MGS Flat Energy




Page 5

Rate, MGS Flat Demand Charge and a one-time increase in the MGS demand

charge recovery of demand-related costs from about 15 per cent to 35 per cent); and

(2) BC Hydro’s preferred LGS rate (LGS Flat Energy Rate, LGS Flat Demand

Charge and a one-time increase in the LGS demand charge recovery of demand-

related costs from about 50 per cent to 65 per cent);

Attachment 5 is a reference for interpreting the sensitivity analysis outcomes

presented in the corresponding tables in Section 1 and in Attachment 4.

For ease of reference, BC Hydro sets out in Table 1 its energy Long-Run Marginal

Cost (LRMC)-range for F2016 to F2019, adjusted for distribution loss and inflation.1

Table 1: BC Hydro Energy LRMC Range

Fiscal Year Lower End of Energy LRMC Range

Upper End of Energy LRMC Range

F2013 8.5 cents/kWh 10.0 cents/kWh

F2013 (Distribution loss 6%) 9.01 cents/kWh 10.60 cents/kWh







1 Section 9.2.12 of BC Hydro’s 2013 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) sets out the energy LRMC range of

$85 per megawatt hour (/MWh) to $100/MWh ($F2013); copy available at https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/meeting_demand_growth/irp/document_centre/reports/november-2013-irp.html. For rate making purposes BC Hydro factors in Distribution losses and uses a 2 per cent inflation assumption for F2016-F2019.

https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/meeting_demand_growth/irp/document_centre/reports/november-2013-irp.html

https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/meeting_demand_growth/irp/document_centre/reports/november-2013-irp.html




Page 6

1 Rate Class Segmentation In the Workshop 8a/8b consideration memo, BC Hydro reviewed the cost of service

(COS) analysis completed to date, consisting of individual customer sampling

(referred to as Method 1). The results of Method 1 were inconclusive.2 There is no

difference in dollars per kilowatt hour ($/kWh) energy costs between GS customers

and there is no pattern to suggest a breakpoint between different customer size on

the basis of dollars per kilowatt ($/kW) differences in 4-coincident peak (4CP)-

related costs or distribution non-coincident customer peak (NCP)-related costs.

BC Hydro reviewed the results of Method 1 at Workshop 11a.

BC Hydro committed to undertake additional COS analysis to assess the existing

LGS/MGS 150 kW breakpoint3 and for purposes of potentially creating a new XLGS

rate class. This additional COS analysis consisted of customers clustered by size

(referred to as Method 2) and was reviewed at Workshop 12. BC Hydro highlighted

at Workshop 12 that the results of Method 2 did not support a change to the existing

MGS/LGS breakpoint approved by BCUC Order G-110-10 as part of the 2009 Large

General Service Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA).

BC Hydro sought feedback on the two COS segmentation methodologies:

Method 1 sampled 1,000 customers from each of the SGS, MGS and LGS

classes and pooled and re-allocated assigned F2016 costs pro rata by

individual customer kWh, 4CP demand and NCP demand.

The results of Method 1 are not conclusive in that NCP allocation varies

depending on coincidence within the three rate classes. Coincidence is better

correlated with cost than customer size. Transformer cost may vary with size

but cost impact is small. 2 Section 1.2 of the Workshop 8a/8b consideration memo;

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/2015-06-19-bch-rda-wksp-8a-8b-gsrs.pdf.

3 The additional energy basis of 550,000 kWh for segmenting between LGS and MGS arose from the 2009 LGS Application NSA; see sections 3 and 4 of Appendix B to BCUC Order No. G-110-10; http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Orders/2010/DOC_25763_G-110-10_%20BCH-Large%20General%20Service%20Rate_Reasons-NSA.pdf

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/2015-06-19-bch-rda-wksp-8a-8b-gsrs.pdf


http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Orders/2010/DOC_25763_G-110-10_%20BCH-Large%20General%20Service%20Rate_Reasons-NSA.pdf

http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Orders/2010/DOC_25763_G-110-10_%20BCH-Large%20General%20Service%20Rate_Reasons-NSA.pdf




Page 7

Method 2 pooled and re-allocated assigned F2016 costs pro rata to clusters of

pre-assigned segments of customers, whereby customers were grouped by

size as opposed to evaluated individually.

The results of Method 2, as presented at RDA Workshop 12, suggest that

coincidence is somewhat correlated with customer size and that as coincidence

factor decreases, costs decrease on a $/kW basis.

1.1 Participant Comments

Commercial Energy Consumers Association of British Columbia (CEC) remarks that

cost allocation to customers appears not to be well accomplished with the existing

methodology, but that there appears to be no evidentiary basis to improve upon the

SQ. CEC concludes that SQ segmentation of GS rate classes should be maintained.

British Columbia Old Age Pensioners’ Organization et al (BCOAPO) suggests that to

ensure a fair recovery of costs between customers within a class, it would be ideal if

all customers in the class generally had: 1) a similar ratio between their billing

demand and their contribution to the class’s 4CP and NCP values, and 2) similar

load factors in recognition of the fact that not all demand and energy-related costs

are recovered respectively through demand and energy charges. BCOAPO is not

suggesting that these parameters should be used to classify individual customers,

as it agrees that more understandable factors such as size or service voltage should

be used for this purpose. BCOAPO is interested in understanding how these various

factors vary by customer size and to learn whether there are any obvious break

points to suggest points at which classes should be segmented.

Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union Local 378 (COPE 378) states

that the finding of coincidence correlating better with cost than customer size would

not appear to support the existing MGS/LGS segmentation. COPE 378 requests

analysis and implications of eliminating the existing MGS/LGS split and/or replacing

it with a very large LGS category. COPE 378 questions whether public entitites such

as municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals (referred to as the MUSH




Page 8

sector) are being fairly treated, especially those with a large number of sites.

COPE 378 suggests an analysis of each customer’s own account costs under the

GS rates and asks whether there is a COS or other justification for creating a

‘multiple account’ MUSH sector rate class.

1.2 BC Hydro Consideration

As suggested by BCOAPO, BC Hydro explored the load characteristics of its SGS,

MGS and LGS customers in an attempt to find “obvious break points”. BC Hydro

described in Workshop 12 that the clearest relationship that can be observed is

between size and coincidence factor, with costs declining with the size of a

customers’ peak coincident demand. However, even with this trend, it is difficult to

pinpoint a clear breakpoint where the trend changes. Refer to Figure 1, as presented

at Workshop 12.4

Figure 1: 4 Coincident Peak Costs

4 Workshop 12 presentation slide deck, slide 36; https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-

portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/01_2015-07-30-wksp-12-pres.pdf.

22.0% 26.2% 14.0% 8.3% 5.2% 6.7% 6.9% 5.7% 3.2% 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

14.80 14.66

14.50 14.67

14.51 14.62

14.45

14.21

13.70

14.03

12.59 12.60

13.20 13.33

11.52

13.33

92.6% 91.8% 90.9% 91.8%90.2% 91.1% 90.7%

89.1%86.5%

89.9%

81.5% 80.5%

84.7% 84.5%

74.4%

86.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

11.00

11.50

12.00

12.50

13.00

13.50

14.00

14.50

15.00

15.50

16.00

35-50 50-75 75-100 100-125 125-150 150-200 200-300 300-500 500-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 2000-2500 2500-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 over 5000

$/k

W

% of customers CP $/kW CF

> 98% of customers

MGS LGS

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/01_2015-07-30-wksp-12-pres.pdf






Page 9

As can be seen in Figure 1, as segment size decreases the costs assigned are very

sensitive to the coincidence factor (the green line) of the customers within the

segment. Coincidence factor is calculated as the relationship between the segment’s

contribution to system coincident peak compared to their non-coincident peak. Other

than the 1000-1500 kW segment, all segments to the right of the red line in Figure 1

have fewer than 100 customers as compared to an average of 2,000 customers for

segments to the left of the red line. The average number of customers in the

segments greater than 2000 kW is 33 (a total of 166 customers are in the segments

greater than 2000 kW). The behaviour of a small number of customers can have a

large impact since they account for a relatively large proportion of the segment. For

example, if a few customers in the smaller segments have an annual peak that is not

coincident with the system peak, the segment is consequently assigned less costs

associated with Generation and Transmission Demand costs. The same variability

would be observed if the lower ranges of customers were segmented to such an

extent that the number of customers was similarly small. For this reason, the smaller

segments of larger sized customers have been aggregated in Figure 2 to reduce the

variability of the results.




Page 10

Figure 2: 4 Coincident Peak Costs – Aggregated Segments

In Figure 3 below, BC Hydro supplements the analysis presented at Workshops

8a/8b and 12 with a graph comparable to one BC Hydro’s consultant Energy +

Environmental Economics prepared as part of the 2009 LGS Application’s

segmentation analysis5 showing full COS (energy, demand and customer costs)

allocated to the same segments but on a cents per kWh basis. This method

incorporates the load factor of customers in each segment and supports the

conclusion from Figure 2 that there is no reason to deviate from the 150 kW

breakpoint.

5 See Figure J-1 on page 9 of Appendix J of BC Hydro’s 2009 LGS Application;

http://www.bcuc.com/ApplicationView.aspx?ApplicationId=251.

14.80

14.66

14.56 14.52

14.21

13.81

13.49

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

13.00

13.50

14.00

14.50

15.00

15.50

35-50 50-75 75-150 150-300 300-500 500-1500 over 1500

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f C

ust

om

ers

in S

egm

en

t

$/k

W

Customer Size / NCP (kW)

% of customers

$/kW CP Costs

http://www.bcuc.com/ApplicationView.aspx?ApplicationId=251




Page 11

Figure 3: Cents per kWh Cost by Segment

BC Hydro concludes through Method 2 that there is no compelling evidence to

change the current 150 kW MGS/LGS breakpoint, and that there is a need to

undertake further analysis regarding a potential XLGS rate class. BC Hydro also

notes that no participant other than COPE 378 has suggested that the LGS and

MGS rate classes should be merged at this time; refer to BC Hydro’s assessment

below.

Potential XLGS Rate Class

While there is jurisdictional support for a potential XLGS rate class (refer to Table 3

in Attachment 3 of this memo, BC Hydro has not yet modelled the impact of creating

a new separate XLGS class of customers. BC Hydro will undertake additional

engagement with Association of Major Power Consumers of British Columbia

(AMPC) and individual customers for purposes of RDA Module 2. BC Hydro sees no

8.44

8.25

8.00

7.68

7.48 7.45 7.48

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

35-50 50-75 75-150 150-300 300-500 500-1500 over 1500

Pe

rce

nt

of

Cu

sto

me

rs in

Se

gme

nt

¢/kW

h

Customer Size / NCP (kW)

% of customers

cents/kWh




Page 12

point in creating a separate XLGS class at this time given that the conservation and

other potential benefits, and administrative burdens, associated with a LGS

TSR-Like Rate have not yet been thoroughly assessed. The potential for a LGS

TSR-Like Rate and the associated segmentation of a XLGS class will be assessed

through RDA Module 2.

Re-Merging LGS and MGS Rate Classes

BC Hydro is opposed to re-merging the LGS and MGS rate classes at this time.

BC Hydro considers it premature to re-merge the MGS and LGS rate classes given

the possibility of different rate structures for these two respective classes through the

Commission’s Module 1 decision, and the potential for a XLGS rate class as part of

Module 2.

No LGS or MGS customer favours re-merging the two classes at this time, and

several such customers oppose it; refer to the comments of Loblaws Companies

Limited and TransLink, both of which have LGS and MGS accounts, in section 1.1 of

the Workshop 8a/8b consideration memo. AMPC, which represents some LGS

customers, does not contest the existing MGS/LGS breakpoint. BC Hydro also notes

CEC’s comments in favour of the status quo MGS/LGS breakpoint. Given forecast

revenue neutrality for the LGS and MGS rates, and the recent amendment to

section 9 of Direction No. 76 prohibiting the Commission from setting rates for

BC Hydro for F2017-F2019 for the purpose of changing the R/C ratio of a class of

customers (Rate Rebalancing Amendment), there are no cost implications for

other rate classes if BC Hydro maintains the existing LGS/MGS breakpoint, and

accordingly BC Hydro gives more weight to the views of LGS and MGS customers

and associations representing such customers on this subject.

Regarding COPE 378’s request for analysis of re-merging the existing MGS and

LGS rate classes, BC Hydro undertook bill impact analysis consisting of comparing

the SQ F2016 LGS and MGS rates to a F2017 combined LGS-MGS rate as follows:

6 B.C. Reg. 140/2015, discussed at Workshop 12.




Page 13

The F2017 combined rate is based on BC Hydro’s preferred flat energy rate,

flat demand charge and demand charge cost recovery of 35 per cent for MGS

and 65 per cent and demand charge cost recovery for LGS; and

The pricing elements of the combined LGS-MGS rate are as follows: Demand

charge: $9.24/kW; Energy rate: 6.08 cents/kWh; Basic charge: $0.2347/day

(same as F2016 status quo MGS and LGS rates).

Eliminating the existing MGS/LGS split would lead to significant bill impacts for LGS

customers. Figures 4 and 5 below illustrate the bill impacts to MGS and LGS

customers respectively:

MGS customers: Other than the extremely low load factor, low consumption

customers, all other MGS customers have a bill impact less than the RRA rate

increase, or a much lower bill than otherwise. About 4,000 MGS accounts

(~20 per cent of MGS accounts) have F2017 bill impacts of 10 per cent or

greater.

Figure 4: Re-Merged MGS Bill Impacts7

LGS - Most customers sees a substantial increase in their bills. About 1,400

LGS accounts (~20 per cent of LGS accounts) have F2017 bill impacts of

10 per cent or greater.

7 Please refer to Attachment 5 of this memo for a reference to interpreting this form of bill impact table.

-13.0% 10,000 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 180,000 210,000 240,000 270,000 300,000 330,000 360,000 390,000 420,000 450,000 480,000

10% 82.9% 87.2% 37.7% 26.0% 20.8% 11.9% 4.3% 1.6% -0.4% -1.9% -3.0% -3.9% -4.7% -5.3% -5.8% -6.3% -6.7%

20% 23.8% 24.9% 25.2% 11.8% 5.8% 2.4% 0.6% 2.6% 4.1% 4.5% 2.6% 1.0% -0.2% -1.2% -2.1% -2.8% -3.5%

30% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% -1.7% -5.1% -7.0% -5.0% -3.4% -2.1% -1.1% -0.2% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3% -0.6% -1.4%40% -5.7% -6.2% -6.4% -6.4% -6.5% -9.6% -11.5% -9.4% -7.8% -6.5% -5.5% -4.6% -3.9% -3.2% -2.7% -2.2% -1.7%

50% -11.6% -12.5% -12.7% -12.8% -12.8% -12.8% -14.4% -12.4% -10.8% -9.5% -8.4% -7.5% -6.8% -6.1% -5.6% -5.1% -4.6%

60% -15.6% -16.6% -16.9% -17.0% -17.0% -17.1% -16.8% -14.5% -12.9% -11.6% -10.5% -9.6% -8.9% -8.2% -7.6% -7.1% -6.7%

70% -18.4% -19.6% -19.9% -20.0% -20.1% -20.1% -19.8% -16.3% -14.4% -13.1% -12.1% -11.2% -10.4% -9.8% -9.2% -8.7% -8.3%80% -20.5% -21.8% -22.2% -22.3% -22.3% -22.4% -22.1% -18.6% -15.8% -14.4% -13.3% -12.4% -11.6% -11.0% -10.4% -9.9% -9.5%

90% -22.1% -23.5% -23.9% -24.0% -24.1% -24.1% -23.9% -20.5% -17.8% -15.5% -14.3% -13.4% -12.6% -12.0% -11.4% -10.9% -10.4%

Consumption kWh

Load

Fac

tor




Page 14

Figure 5: Re-Merged MGS Bill Impacts

Potential MUSH Sector Segmentation

To respond to COPE 378’s request with respect to the MUSH sector, BC Hydro

compared a sample of 353 MUSH customers to a sample of 3,000 GS customers.

Figure 6 below shows the MUSH sample data used for BC Hydro’s analysis as

filtered to examine public entities (North American Industry Classification System

codes: Educational Services, Health Services, Municipal Pumping, Public Hospital,

Public School, and University/College).

Figure 6: Relationship of Load Factor and Coincidence Factor for Sample Subset of Public Entities compared to Sample

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Co

inci

de

nce

Fac

tor

Load Factor

SGS MUSH MGS MUSH LGS MUSH SGS MGS LGS

Low Load Factor, High Coincidence

Low Load Factor, Low Coincidence

High Load Factor, Low Coincidence

High Load Factor, High Coincidence

Low Load Factor, High Coincidence

Low Load Factor, Low Coincidence

High Load Factor, Low Coincidence

High Load Factor, High Coincidence

Consumption kWh

Load

Fac

tor 8.2% 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 2,200,000 2,400,000 2,600,000 2,800,000 3,000,000 3,200,000 3,400,000

10% -0.3% -2.3% -3.0% -3.3% -3.5% -3.7% -3.8% -3.8% -3.9% -3.9% -4.0% -4.0% -4.0% -4.0% -4.1% -4.1% -4.1%

20% -1.9% 3.7% 2.6% 2.1% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8%

30% -9.6% 7.8% 6.3% 5.6% 5.2% 4.9% 4.7% 4.6% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0%

40% -14.1% 4.0% 9.0% 8.2% 7.7% 7.3% 7.1% 6.9% 6.8% 6.7% 6.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.4% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3%

50% -17.1% 1.1% 9.2% 10.1% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 8.7% 8.6% 8.4% 8.3% 8.3% 8.2% 8.1% 8.1% 8.0% 8.0%

60% -19.2% -0.9% 7.2% 11.5% 11.0% 10.6% 10.3% 10.1% 9.9% 9.8% 9.7% 9.6% 9.5% 9.5% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3%

70% -21.3% -2.4% 5.8% 10.4% 12.1% 11.7% 11.4% 11.2% 11.0% 10.9% 10.7% 10.6% 10.6% 10.5% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4%

80% -23.6% -3.6% 4.6% 9.3% 12.3% 12.6% 12.3% 12.0% 11.9% 11.7% 11.6% 11.5% 11.4% 11.4% 11.3% 11.3% 11.2%

90% -25.3% -4.5% 3.7% 8.4% 11.4% 13.3% 13.0% 12.8% 12.6% 12.5% 12.3% 12.2% 12.2% 12.1% 12.0% 12.0% 11.9%




Page 15

As compared to the entire sample of 3,000 GS customers, the public entities tend to

have similar levels for coincidence factor, which drives demand cost allocation, but a

lower load factor. Given the comparison, BC Hydro concludes there is not a cost

basis to segment the MUSH sector.

In addition, there is no Canadian electric utility jurisdictional support for creating a

separate MUSH rate class. Based on the COS Canadian jurisdiction survey

discussed at Workshops 2 and 4, there is no Canadian electric utility that separates

the MUSH sector for COS or rate class purposes. At Workshop 2 participants

generally agreed that for COS purposes, BC Hydro should focus on utilities

operating in a similar market structure with similar features (e.g., winter peaking

and/or hydro-based). None of the following utilities have a MUSH rate class:

FortisBC; SaskPower; Manitoba Hydro; Hydro Quebec; New Brunswick Power; and

Nova Scotia Power.

Yukon Energy has separate rates for municipal and federal/territorial governments,

but they are typically equivalent to or higher than the corresponding non-government

GS rates.8

8 https://www.yukonenergy.ca/customer-centre/commercial-wholesale/rate-schedules/.

https://www.yukonenergy.ca/customer-centre/commercial-wholesale/rate-schedules/




Page 16

2 BC Hydro’s Rate Design Priorities In response to the request of Commission staff that BC Hydro set out its rate design

priorities (particularly with respect to the SGS, MGS and LGS rates), BC Hydro

confirmed at Workshop 12 that overall for the purpose of the 2015 RDA, it prioritizes

the three Bonbright rate design criteria as set out in the table below.

Table 2: Three BC Hydro Prioritized Rate Design Criteria

Rate Design Criteria Description

Customer understanding and acceptance / Practical and cost-effective to administer

Rates should be clear, transparent and cost-effective to implement.

Bill impacts are part of customer acceptance; Both the maximum and customer bill impact are assessed (per cent, including the 10 per cent bill impact test).

BC Hydro considers jurisdictional assessment as part of the Bonbright customer understanding and acceptance criterion

Stable rates for customers Overall, minimize unexpected changes that can be seriously adverse to existing customers:

If existing rates are understandable and generally accepted, and continue to be useful, they should not be replaced with new rates;

For those rates that do not meet the customer understanding and acceptance criterion and/or are no longer useful, replace or amend the rate so that the rate is simple, understandable with an anticipated high degree of acceptance

Fair apportionment of cost among customers

BC Hydro uses the fairness criterion tied to designing rates based on embedded cost of service.

The goal is partially constrained by the Rate Rebalancing Amendment, which prevents the Commission from setting rates for the purposes of changing the R/C ratio for a class of customers.




Page 17


Three participants submitted Workshop 12 written comments concerning BC Hydro’s

prioritization of the Bonbright rate criteria:9

Commission staff ask whether BC Hydro should have different rate priorities for

the different rate classes, and give an example involving the LGS and MGS rate

classes: if the demand response of these customers is low, does this suggest

that LRMC-based rate pricing should be given a lower priority?;

British Columbia Sustainable Energy Association and Sierra Club B.C.

(BCSEA) comments that while it believed that the Bonbright efficiency criterion

is important, it is evident that complex LGS and MGS rates are not achieving

the energy savings results predicted at the time of the 2009 LGS Application,

and accordingly BCSEA supports moving toward simplified LGS and MGS flat

energy rate structures to improve customer understanding of the rates;

AMPC agrees with BC Hydro’s prioritization, arguing that BC Hydro gave

excessive weight to the efficiency criterion without balancing the other seven

Bonbright criteria, offering the 2009 LGS Application as but one example.

AMPC suggests that of the three criteria prioritized by BC Hydro, fairness

should be accorded the most weight.


BC Hydro is prioritizing the Bonbright customer acceptance and understanding, rate

stability and fairness criteria over the efficiency criterion for purposes of the 2015

RDA Module 1:

A number of elements, including a change to the regulatory regime relating to

self-sufficiency10 and a lower load forecast, have reduced forecasted energy

and capacity need; and

9 These written comments are posted at the BC Hydro website at

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/stakeholdercomments.pdf.

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/stakeholdercomments.pdf

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/stakeholdercomments.pdf




Page 18

BC Hydro proposed and after Commission approval implemented a number of

new rate designs between 2005 and 2013, including the default Transmission

Service stepped rate (RS 1823), the Residential Inclining Block (RIB) rate, and

the MGS and LGS two part energy rates. These rate initiatives responded to

B.C. Government policy imperatives contained in the 2002 and 2007 Energy

Plans to among other things explore the use of rates to assist with achieving

aggressive conservation goals. In light of the reduced forecasted energy and

capacity need, and the various evaluations of these rate initiatives, this is an apt

time to take stock, and consolidate or simplify where appropriate (in BC Hydro’s

view, this applies to RS 1823 and the RIB rate) and amend where appropriate

(this is the case for the MGS and LGS two part energy rates).

BC Hydro will outline further reasons for this prioritization in the 2015 RDA.

3 SGS Basic Charge For the reasons articulated in section 2.2 of the Workshop 8a/8b consideration

memo and as discussed during Workshops 11a and 12, BC Hydro identified that the

SQ SGS Flat Energy Rate is its preferred rate structure for the SGS class. There is

no basis to depart from this rate structure and no viable alternative rate structures

have been identified.

Following the suggestion of Commission staff BC Hydro modelled and sought

participant feedback on increasing the SGS basic charge to a level comparable to

RIB rate basic charge fixed cost recovery, from the current 33 per cent level to

45 per cent. BC Hydro noted that increasing the SGS basic charge improves

10 The Electricity Self-Sufficiency Regulation, B.C. Reg. 315/2010, as amended by Order in Council No. 036

(B.C. Reg. 16/2012), requires BC Hydro to achieve self-sufficiency by 2016 and each year after that, assuming its Heritage hydroelectric resources are capable of producing no more than what they can produce under “average water conditions”; copy at https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/regu/bc-reg-315-2010/latest/bc-reg-315-2010.html. Until the 2012 amendments, the Electricity Self-Sufficiency Regulation required BC Hydro to plan for self-sufficiency based on an assessment of what the Heritage hydroelectric resources are capable of generating under the most adverse sequence of stream flows between October 1940 and September 2000, known as ‘critical water conditions’. The 2012 change in planning from critical water to average water conditions increases the combined reliance on the Heritage hydroelectric system non-firm energy back by market reliance in F2017 by about 4,100 GWh per year, thus reducing the need for new energy resources.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/regu/bc-reg-315-2010/latest/bc-reg-315-2010.html

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/regu/bc-reg-315-2010/latest/bc-reg-315-2010.html




Page 19

fairness because the 45 per cent of fixed cost recovery moves closer to full fixed

cost recovery. BC Hydro also highlighted that the resulting SGS energy rate remains

within BC Hydro’s energy LRMC range and without substantial bill impacts.


Commission staff note that the increase in the basic charge to 45 per cent recovery

has very low bill impacts and only small reductions in the energy rate. Commission

staff request that BC Hydro further explain its rate design priorities as between

stable recovery of costs versus price signals to encourage conservation.

Commission staff question that if the MGS demand charge cost recovery is to

remain below 35 per cent, should the SGS basic charge be increased from 35 per

cent to 45 per cent? Commission staff inquired as to what the “seams” implications

may be between BC Hydro’s preferred level of MGS demand charge cost recovery

versus SGS basic charge cost recovery.

CEC, AMPC and the First Nations Energy & Mining Council (FNEMC) agree that the

SGS basic charge should be increased to better match allocated costs. AMPC

suggests that less emphasis should be placed on the level of the energy rate relative

to BC Hydro’s energy LRMC, given the uncertainty of LRMC evaluation and its

variation over time. As discussed in section 5.1 below, AMPC emphasizes that the

energy LRMC, as a planning concept that changes as markets, technology and

legislation changes, is not known with the precision suggested in setting rate design

limits.

BCOAPO questions the relevance of comparing the RIB rate and SGS basic

charges given BC Hydro’s indication that these charges to each class recover both

demand and customer-related fixed costs. BCOAPO suggests that the relevant

measure of comparability should be only the percent of customer costs recovered

via the basic charge for each customer class. BCOAPO comments that another

relevant consideration, which would support increasing the SGS basic charge

recovery, is the fact that escalation by inflation (e.g., 2 per cent per year) of the




Page 20

F2016 LRMC upper bound of 11.10 cents/kWh would result in the SQ SGS energy

rate exceeding the upper end of the energy LRMC range by F2018.

BCSEA states that it is not clear what the benefits of increasing the SGS basic

charge would be, noting that increasing the level of the basic charge to 45 per cent

cost recovery would slightly reduce the energy rate and have a corresponding slight

reduction in natural conservation (at -0.5% elasticity BC Hydro uses for general rate

increase-related price responsiveness).

COPE 378 does not think it is advisable to increase the SGS basic charge because

of its impact on the energy rate, which, although relatively small, is directionally

counter to energy conservation. In the alternative, COPE 378 suggests that if

consistency with the rates to the Residential class is required, BC Hydro should

consider lowering the Residential basic charge to be comparable to the SQ SGS

basic charge fixed cost recovery.


BC Hydro’s preference is to increase the level of the SGS basic charge to about

45 per cent of allocated customer-related cost recovery; this improves fairness in

matching cost recovery with cost causation while maintaining a SGS flat energy rate

that provides both a simple and an efficient price signal that is both reflective of and

within BC Hydro’s energy LRMC range. As shown in the Workshop 11a materials,

the bill impacts of this change are not unreasonable to the majority of customers on

both a percentage and absolute basis. BC Hydro’s preferred SGS rate for F2017

would consist of the pricing elements (as compared to the SGS status quo rate) as

follows in the table below:




Page 21

Table 3: Alternative SGS Pricing - BC Hydro Preferred and Status Quo (F2017)

Pricing Element BC Hydro Preferred (Increase Basic Charge)

Status Quo

Energy rate (cents/kWh) 11.01 11.16

Basic charge ($/day) 0.3200 0.2347

BC Hydro will bring these two options forward in the 2015 RDA.

In response to feedback from BCOAPO, BC Hydro confirms that its prior references

in 2015 RDA engagement materials to SGS basic charge and RIB rate basic charge

fixed cost recovery should properly refer instead to customer-related cost recovery.

All referred-to percentages and modelling results are correct in reference to

customer-related cost recovery; the SGS and RIB basic charges do not recover any

demand-related costs. Demand-related costs are recovered through the respective

SGS flat energy rate and RIB rate Step 1 and Step 2 energy rates.

BC Hydro agrees with BCOAPO that customer-related costs are the relevant

measure of comparability as between Residential and SGS basic charges. The level

of the SGS basic charge is appropriately compared to the level of the RIB rate basic

charge, not the MGS demand charge; basic charges recover customer-related costs

while demand charges recovery demand-related costs.

At Workshop 12, BC Hydro presented the F2016 COS study cost allocation between

the seven existing rate classes11 and this is reproduced as Table 4 below as it

informs RIB rate and SGS rate basic charge cost recovery of customer costs. As can

be seen in Table 4, Residential and SGS customer cost allocation are similar, as are

energy and demand cost allocations.

11 Slide 18 of the Workshop 12 presentation slide deck;

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/01_2015-07-30-wksp-12-pres.pdf.






Page 22

Table 4: F2016 Cost of Service Study Cost Classification

Rate Class Energy (%) Demand (%) Customer (%)

Residential 35 52 13

SGS 38 50 12

MGS 43 52 5

LGS 50 49 1

Transmission 65 35 0

Irrigation 42 45 13

Street Lighting 30 47 23

BC Hydro concludes the RIB rate basic charge customer-related cost recovery level

is the appropriate reference. BC Hydro has not been able to determine the small

general service basic charge cost recovery of other surveyed Canadian electric

utilities.

Regarding the ‘seam’ between SGS and MGS, which concerns the difference in bills

between customers at the segmentation breakpoint (in this case, the 35 kW

SGS/MGS breakpoint), BC Hydro highlighted in the summary notes to Workshop

11a (Attachment 1 to this memo) that a transition from the SQ SGS energy rate to

MGS rates at the seam would result in lower bills under all MGS alternatives;

however, the degree to which the MGS bill is lower differs between alternatives.

BC Hydro reports these results in more detail in section 4.2 below.

BC Hydro is of the view that review of the design of the SGS SQ rate is an

opportunity to more fairly balance the recovery of fixed versus variable costs. There

are no trade-offs between increasing the basic charge to 45 per cent customer–

related cost recovery and leaving the basic charge cost recovery at its present

33 per cent: While increasing the amount of revenue collection through fixed

charges will improve revenue stability, the effect in this case will be small; the

predicted bill impacts of the increase to the basic charge are low; and the flat energy

rate remains priced within BC Hydro’s energy LRMC range. The basic charge is a




Page 23

relatively high percentage of the total bill for only a very small percentage of SGS

customers.

Concerning COPE 378’s suggestion that the SGS basic charge recovery of

customer costs should remain at about 33 per cent and the RIB rate basic charge

recovery of customer costs should be lowered from 45 per cent to 35 per cent,

BC Hydro does not agree that its proposal to increase the basic charge to 45 per

cent customer–related cost recovery is directionally counter to energy conservation.

There will be an imperceptible effect on natural conservation using the -0.05 default

elasticity assumption discussed above. COPE 378 has consistently prioritized the

Bonbright efficiency criterion above all other criteria in its RDA workshop comments,

and BC Hydro does not agree with this prioritization for purposes of 2015 RDA

Module 1 for the reasons discussed at Workshop 12 and summarized in section 2

above.

BC Hydro used the RIB rate basic charge cost recovery as a guide for the reasons

noted above. BC Hydro notes its jurisdictional assessment of residential Canadian

electric utility residential rate basic charge cost recovery presented at

Workshop 9a,12 which range between a low of 22 per cent (SaskPower) and a high

of 100 per cent (New Brunswick Power). The current RIB rate basic charge recovery

of 45 per cent is in the range of Canadian electric utility residential rate basic charge

cost recovery but at the lower end of the range; reducing RIB rate basic charge

recovery of customer costs from 45 per cent to 33 per cent would leave BC Hydro

with the second lowest residential basic charge cost recovery of the eight Canadian

electric utilities surveyed (SaskPower, Manitoba Hydro, Hydro Quebec, Nova Scotia

Power, Newfoundland Power, new Brunswick Power, ATCO Electric Yukon,

FortisBC).

12 Slide 28 of the Workshop 9a presentation; https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-

portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/2015-04-24-bch-apr-28-wksp-pres.pdf.

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/2015-04-24-bch-apr-28-wksp-pres.pdf






Page 24

4 MGS Demand Charges At Workshop 11a BC Hydro sought participant feedback on three alternative MGS

demand charge structures: 1) MGS SQ Demand Charge, 2) MGS Flat Demand

Charge, and 3) MGS Two-step Inclining Block Demand Charge. BC Hydro modelled

the bill impacts of (2) and (3) assuming the preferred MGS Flat Energy rate.

In response to stakeholder comment, BC Hydro also presented the modelling results

of, and sought further feedback on, increasing the MGS demand charge recovery of

demand-related costs from about 15 per cent to 35 per cent, assuming the MGS Flat

Demand Charge and the MGS Flat Energy Rate.

BC Hydro reviewed and sought feedback on two high-level transition strategies for

moving to a MGS Flat Energy Rate and MGS Flat Demand Charge: 1) a three year

phase-in, and 2) a 10 per cent bill impact cap. A summary of participant comments

on MGS transition strategies and BC Hydro’s consideration of transition strategies

on its preferred designs for both MGS and LGS rates are reported in Section 6 of

this memo.


4.1.1 MGS Demand Charge Structure

Commission staff summarize that BC Hydro identified that the MGS Flat Demand

Charge reflects cost causation better than an inclining block structure and has the

benefit of simplicity. Commission staff remark that if the MGS Flat Demand Charge

alternative best meets rate design objectives, the major remaining issues are: (a) the

ways to phase it in or otherwise deal with the customer bill impacts, and (b)

reconciliation of a zero demand charge for the SGS rate class and a full flat demand

charge for a small MGS customer.

CEC comments that the MGS SQ Demand Charge does not adequately and

appropriately allocate costs to customers and that a two-step inclining block demand




Page 25

charge would have similar problems. CEC remarks that the MGS Flat Demand

Charge may have less problems than other alternatives.

AMPC strongly prefer the MGS Flat Demand Charge and MGS Flat Energy Rate for

simplicity, ease of understanding, bill stability (as customer usage changes) and

comparability to rates of other utilities. AMPC notes that the principle of efficient use

is still met; simple flat energy and demand charges encourage efficiency by setting a

price on both demand and energy that encourages energy conservation and more

efficient use of existing and future infrastructure.

BCOAPO does not have a strong preference, but considers that the MGS Flat

Demand Charge and MGS Flat Energy Rate appear to be the most appropriate as

compared to the SQ, which is poorly understood and does not appear to be

achieving the efficiency and conservation objectives for which it was intended.

BCSEA and COPE 378 have similar views. BCOAPO notes that inclining demand

charges in other jurisdictions are frequently accompanied by declining energy rates,

which tend to have an offsetting effect on the total bill. BCOAPO suggests that the

need for an inclining demand charge is questionable if BC Hydro moves to a flat

energy rate for the MGS class.

FNEMC is alone in supporting the MGS Two-step Inclining Block Demand Charge

(with the MGS Flat Energy Rate). FNEMC notes that while the MGS Two-step

Inclining Block Demand Charge is not substantially different than the MGS SQ

Demand Charge, it considers the bill impacts of the MGS Two-step Inclining Block

Demand Charge to be more favourable in comparison to the MGS Flat Demand

Charge. FNEMC supports tiered demand charges to encourage conservation

behaviour.

4.1.2 MGS Demand Charge Cost Recovery

Commission staff note that an increase in the MGS demand charge to 35 per cent

demand cost recovery “moves the energy charge out of the LRMC range”.

Commission staff thus question what the rate design priority is for BC Hydro – cost




Page 26

recovery stability or LRMC energy pricing – and whether the objective of keeping the

energy charge in the LRMC range has less importance. Commission staff also

inquire into the tax deductibility of a commercial customer’s electricity bills and

whether this may: 1) have a major impact on commercial customers’ attitudes to

energy price conservation compared to Demand Side Management (DSM)

incentives, or 2) reduce the already very low MGS class elasticity of demand to

energy pricing to such a low level that even LRMC energy pricing will have a minimal

impact on commercial customer conservation.

CEC states that increased demand charge cost recovery might somewhat improve

appropriate cost allocation to customers. CEC is of the view that choosing a level of

demand charge based on the relationship of energy charge to LRMC is likely an

inappropriate logic for cost allocation decisions.

AMPC agrees that the MGS demand charge should be increased as it does not

adequately capture the full demand cost, and states that this is as much an

efficiency consideration as the level of energy cost recovery (for expansion of

AMPC’s comments in this regard, please refer to Section 5.1.1 below regarding LGS

rate structures). FNEMC supports increasing the MGS demand cost recovery to be

closer to full fixed cost recovery and more consistent with the two other rate classes

with demand charges – LGS and Transmission Service.

BCOAPO agrees with BC Hydro’s view that the correct level of demand charge cost

recovery cannot be targeted in isolation, commenting that in addition to fairness and

customer understanding and acceptance considerations there are also efficiency

considerations associated with the extent to which the resulting energy charge aligns

with the energy LRMC range. BCOAPO notes that increasing MGS demand charge

cost recovery appears to move the energy charge further below LRMC and with

consequent greater bill impacts. Thus, BOAPO states that on balance there appears

to be little merit in increasing demand charge cost recovery at this time. BCSEA is

also inclined to favour leaving the demand cost recovery rate at the current level of

about 15 per cent of demand costs on the basis that the energy rate would remain




Page 27

relatively higher and so provide a stronger signal for energy conservation.

COPE 378 also does not see merit to an increase in the per cent of demand costs

recovered in the demand charge due to the lower flat energy rate that results relative

to LRMC and as long as the demand charge is not based on system coincident

peak.


4.2.1 MGS Demand Charge Structure

For the reasons summarized in its Workshop 8a/8b consideration memo and as

discussed during RDA Workshops 11a and 12, BC Hydro identified that its preferred

energy rate structure for the MGS rate class is the MGS Flat Energy Rate, and that

the SQ MGS Energy Rate would be advanced in the 2015 RDA for comparison

purposes (as will the MGS SQ Demand Charge). There was a general consensus

that the MGS Flat Demand Charge is superior to the MGS SQ Demand Charge and

the MGS Two-step Inclining Block Demand Charge. Accordingly, BC Hydro will not

advance the MGS Two-step Inclining Block Demand Charge for the 2015 RDA.

Given that there was no general consensus among participants with respect to the

MGS demand charge cost recovery, BC Hydro will bring forward the MGS Flat

Demand Charge under both demand charge cost recovery scenarios (SQ 15 per

cent and preferred 35 per cent).

Thus the MGS rate alternatives brought forward into the 2015 RDA are as follows in

the table below.




Page 28

Table 5: Alternative MGS Pricing – SQ, BC Hydro Preferred and Demand Cost Recovery Sensitivity (F2017)

Pricing Element Status Quo

For Comparison Only

BC Hydro Preferred

(35% demand-related cost recovery)

Sensitivity on BC Hydro Preferred

(SQ demand-related cost recovery ~15%)

Energy rate (cents/kWh)

Part 1, Tier (T) 1: ....... 10.33 Part 1, T2: .................... 7.21 Part 2: ........................ 10.10

8.54 9.35

Demand charge ($/kW)

T1: ................................ 0.00 T2: ................................ 5.72 T3: .............................. 10.97

4.76 2.14

Basic charge ($/day)

0.2347 0.2347 0.2347

BC Hydro’s preferred demand charge structure for the MGS rate class is the MGS

Flat Demand Charge. A flat demand charge:

Simplifies the rate structure and will improve customer understanding and

acceptance. Customer acceptance will also be improved in that the MGS Flat

Demand Charge generally offsets the bill impacts associated with BC Hydro’s

preferred MGS Flat Energy Rate (and to a greater extent than the MGS Two-

step Inclining Block) as highlighted at Workshop 11a;

Aligns with the rate design practice of other Canadian electric utilities surveyed

for GS rate purposes that have a flat demand charge; the MGS SQ Demand

Charge with its three tiers is unique to BC Hydro;

Improves fairness between customers within the MGS class in two ways. First,

a flat demand charge design is better aligned with overall costs of service; the

cost to serve a GS customer’s peak demand is generally flat on a $/kW basis.

Second, increasing the demand charge recovery of demand-related costs is

also more reflective of BC Hydro’s demand costs because more demand-

related costs are recovered. This latter point is expanded upon below in

section 4.2.2.




Page 29

In response to Commission staff, BC Hydro considers there to be only a minor

seams issue between the SGS and MGS rate classes in respect a move from SGS

rates (assuming BC Hydro’s preferred increase to SGS basic charge customer-

related cost recovery) to MGS rates (assuming BC Hydro‘s preferred MGS Flat

Energy Rate and MGS Flat Demand Charge, including an increase to demand

charge cost recovery to 35 per cent). The impact at the seam affects mainly a small

segment of customers with very low load factors of less than about 25 per cent. A

MGS Flat Energy Rate and MGS Flat Demand Charge are expected to mitigate bill

impacts at the SGS/MGS seam to the greatest extent in comparison to the

alternatives:

Transitioning from SQ SGS to SQ MGS rates would result in a 8 per cent lower

bill at the seam;

Transitioning from BC Hydro’s preferred SGS rate to the preferred MGS Flat

Energy Rate and MGS Flat Demand Charge would result in a 3 per cent to

12 per cent lower bill at the seam, for low to high load factor customers,

respectively. The impacts are driven by both the different energy rate and a

demand charge now applicable to monthly demand less than 35 kW; and

Transitioning from BC Hydro’s preferred SGS to the MGS Two-step Inclining

Block Demand Charge and MGS Flat Energy Rate would result in a 16 per cent

lower bill at the seam. This is driven solely by the different energy charge.

In response to Commission staff requests that BC Hydro reconcile a zero demand

charge for the SGS rate class and a full flat demand charge for a small MGS

customer, BC Hydro’s proposed rates for the SGS and MGS rate classes are

relatively commonplace. BC Hydro’s jurisdictional review in Attachment 3 reveals

that there is no demand charge to small general service customers for low levels of

demand (e.g., <50kVa, <50kW, <20kW). BC Hydro observes that its SGS class is

comparable to most utilities in Canada in not charging for demand.




Page 30

4.2.2 MGS Demand Charge Cost Recovery

BC Hydro prefers to increase the level of demand cost recovery through the MGS

demand charge from the current approximate 15 per cent level to 35 per cent as this

better aligns with the Bonbright fairness and customer understanding and

acceptance (bill impacts) criteria:

An increase in the amount of demand costs recovered through demand

charges improves fairness as between customers within the class by improving

the alignment of charges with cost causation;

The specific effect of the increase in the level of demand cost recovery is to

more evenly offset and distributes the bill impacts of BC Hydro’s preferred MGS

Flat Energy Rate and MGS Flat Demand Charge among customers with

differing load factors and consumption levels. BC Hydro demonstrated through

its Workshop 11a presentation materials that under SQ demand cost recovery,

in terms of bill impacts, the weight of the benefit from a move to its preferred

MGS rate structures would tend toward low load factor and low consumption

customers while the weight of the burden would tend toward high load factor

and high consumption customers. Workshop participants questioned whether

this outcome would be fair and acceptable given that high load factor customers

make more efficient use of BC Hydro’s system.

In response to CEC, BC Hydro notes that the 35 per cent level was arrived at by

targeting an increase in demand cost recovery that (under forecast revenue

neutrality) would result in the MGS Flat Energy Rate generally reflective of the

energy LRMC range. BC Hydro agrees with the perspective of AMPC, as reviewed

with respect to LGS in section 5.1.1 of this memo, in expressing caution that the

LRMC be relied upon with a false precision when setting rate design limits. In prior

BC Hydro and FortisBC rate design-related decisions, the Commission has

commented that the LRMC for new supply is the appropriate referent for an efficient

price signal. Generally speaking, BC Hydro regards the MGS Flat Energy rate to still




Page 31

be reflective of LRMC even though the energy rate drops below the lower bound of

LRMC when the level of demand-related costs recovered through demand charges

is increased to 35 per cent. In BC Hydro’s view, there is no single “correct” level of

demand charge cost recovery. Nor can demand charge cost recovery be targeted in

isolation from other factors; the proposed 35 per cent level best balances the

competing Bonbright criteria.

In response to COPE 378, BC Hydro notes that MGS (and LGS) demand charges

recover embedded costs and are not intended to be charged only in the system

coincident peak period, as defined by 4CP; rather, the demand charge is charged

across all 12 months of the year. BC Hydro’s demand charges are not specifically

designed to signal avoided Generation demand, Transmission and/or Distribution

demand costs; they are intended to recover demand related costs. In this regard

BC Hydro’s proposed MGS demand charge is consistent with all other surveyed

Canadian electric utilities with one exception. Only Newfoundland Power has a

seasonal demand charge (with higher rates in the four winter months. BC Hydro also

notes the existence of the MGS (and LGS) monthly minimum charge (Demand

Ratchet) which is defined as follows:

50% of the highest maximum Demand Charge billed in any Billing Period wholly

within an on-peak period during the immediately preceding eleven Billing

Periods. For the purpose of this provision an on-peak period commenced on

1 November in any year and terminates on 31 March of the following year.

The Demand Ratchet is discussed in section 7 of this memo.

In response to Commission staff on its questions regarding tax deductibility,

BC Hydro has not heard from customers or through its customer accounts group that

tax deductibility reduces interest in DSM. BC Hydro has not estimated the impact of

tax deductibility on customer price elasticity. This would require a level of precision

that BC Hydro does not have concerning behavioural response to prices. Given the

immediate effect of prices on customer response versus the lagged effect of taxes,




Page 32

the effect of tax deductibility on price elasticity could be minimal. Price elasticity is

discussed in respect of LGS in section 5.2 below.

5 LGS Energy Rate and Demand Charge Structures In the Workshop 8a/8b consideration memo BC Hydro detailed four LGS energy rate

structure alternatives and three LGS demand charge alternatives to carry forward for

engagement:

Energy Rate Structure Alternatives

1. SQ LGS Energy Rate

2. SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate

3. LGS Flat Energy Rate

4. LGS TSR-like Energy Rate

Demand Charge Structure Alternatives

1. SQ Three-step Inclining Block demand charge

2. LGS Flat demand charge

3. LGS Two-step Inclining Block demand charge

BC Hydro did not identify a preferred LGS rate design, and at Workshop 11b it

further reviewed the performance of these alternatives against the Bonbright rate

design criteria. BC Hydro sought participant feedback on which of the alternatives

were preferred and why.

The question in respect of the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate is whether there are

changes to the design or mechanisms to the SQ baseline rate structure that would

yield material improvement in customer understanding and acceptance and/or

conservation behaviour. In its Workshop 8a/8b consideration memo and at

Workshop 11b BC Hydro set out its assessment of the various LGS rate provisions




Page 33

that accompany the baseline structure (set out below) and sought participant

feedback on its findings:

Flatten Part 1 Energy Rate;

Price Limit Band (PLB); not all of the difference between a Historical Baseline

(HBL) and monthly billed consumption is charged at the Part 2 energy rate.

PLBs limit a customers’ exposure to the Part 2 energy rate within a range of

80 per cent of the HBL to 120 per cent of the HBL. Put another way, only a

maximum of 20 per cent of HBL is subject to the part 2 energy rate; monthly

energy consumption outside the range would be charge the applicable Part 1

energy rate;

Anomaly rule, allowing up to four historic baselines to be adjusted per year.

When the lowest consumption month used in baseline calculation is less than

50 per cent of the second lowest month, the lowest month is excluded from

baseline calculation;

Formulaic growth rule (FGR), allowing baselines to be based on the most

recent two years of consumption history in the year (Y2) following a year (Yl) in

which energy consumption exceeded the previous year's (YO) energy

consumption by at least i) 30 per cent or ii) 4,000,000 kWh;

Prospective growth adjustment (Tariff Supplement (TS) 82), allowing LGS

customers that anticipate significant, permanent increases in energy

consumption to apply to BC Hydro to seek an increase in their baselines on a

prospective basis. "Permanent" means arising from a significant capital

investment in plant and "Significant" means increases in energy consumption

totaling at least 30%, or 4,000,000 kWh;

Application for exemption, allowing customers to apply to the BCUC for an

exemption from 2-part rate on the basis that they are electricity re-sellers under

regulated tariffs with conservation rates for their end-use customers; and




Page 34

New accounts pricing, specifying that for new accounts the last 15 per cent of

energy consumed in a monthly billing period will be charged at the Part 2 LRMC

Energy Rate rather than at the Part 1 Energy rate until a baseline level of

consumption is established one year hence.

BC Hydro also set out considerations for a LGS TSR-Like Rate, as suggested by

Viterra and AMPC, as a potential rate design for very high consumption LGS

customers (XLGS). BC Hydro’s consideration of this alternative was carried forward

for review and stakeholder feedback alongside the LGS Flat Energy Rate

alternative, which would be applicable to the remaining majority of LGS customers.

At Workshop 12, BC Hydro set out that its leading option for the default LGS rate

structure is the LGS Flat Energy Rate (no baseline) and the LGS Flat Demand

Charge. BC Hydro noted its corresponding commitment to explore the merits of a

LGS TSR-Like Rate through RDA Module 2. In response to the suggestion of

AMPC, at Workshop 12 BC Hydro presented the results of an increase in LGS

demand charge cost recovery from about 50 per cent to 65 per cent of demand-

related costs, a level that is consistent with RS 1823 demand charge recovery of

demand-related costs.


Based on the comments received and given BC Hydro’s analysis, BC Hydro

organized its summary of feedback and consideration of LGS rate design into

separate discussions of 1) SQ versus Flat Alternatives, Energy and Demand, 2) SQ

LGS Simplified Energy Rate, including a review of feedback received on possible

modifications to the provisions of the SQ structure, and 3) LGS TSR-Like Rate.

5.1.1 SQ versus Flat Alternatives, Energy and Demand; Demand Charge Cost Recovery

Commission staff note that based on customers’ feedback and BC Hydro’s

experience, the SQ energy and demand structures are complicated for almost all

except a few LGS customers, and this complication creates room for complaints,




Page 35

gaming, and/or the lack of ability to respond to the price signals. Commission staff

remark that if the only benefit realized is negligible conservation, then the SQ may

be considered to have failed to achieve the aggregate of the various rate design

objectives. Commission staff suggest that the discussion of the LGS Flat Energy

Rate would benefit from a prioritizing of BC Hydro’s rate design objectives and how

this rate structure achieves the objectives. In particular, Commission staff question

how important rate simplicity and customer understanding are compared to sending

a LRMC price signal.

CEC and AMPC prefer both the LGS Flat Energy rate and LGS Flat Demand

Charge. CEC remarks that the SQ LGS Energy Rate is unnecessary and that the

LGS Flat Energy Rate would likely provide the best opportunity for appropriate cost

allocation and the best platform going forward to allow consideration of other

approaches to improve conservation and efficiency, such as through CEC’s optional

Efficiency Rate Credit concept. As it expressed with respect to alternative MGS

demand structures, CEC expects that the Flat LGS Demand Charge may be more

appropriate for cost allocation than a three-step or two-step inclining block.

AMPC strongly prefers for the majority of LGS customers the LGS Flat Energy Rate

and the LGS Flat Demand Charge, with a LGS TSR-Like Rate (two tier energy rate)

for XLGS. AMPC notes that the LGS Flat Energy Rate and the LGS Flat Demand

Charge should be adopted for most LGS customers for the same reasons it is

recommended for MGS customers; that is, for simplicity, ease of understanding, bill

stability and comparability to rates of other utilities.

In addition to its Workshop 11a/11b written comments, in a letter dated July 27, 2015

(found at Attachment 2 to this memo), AMPC recommends increasing the LGS rate

demand charge cost recovery to a proportion consistent with Transmission

customers taking service under RS 1823, which will reduce the bill impacts

associated with the LGS Flat Energy Rate and the LGS Flat Demand Charge; AMPC

calls this a fair, pragmatic and stable outcome. AMPC adds that the effect also

would be to send a better efficiency and conservation signal by mitigating a




Page 36

disincentive to low load factor customers to make more efficient use of existing

infrastructure. AMPC remarks that high load factor customers respond to higher

demand charges by using existing facilities more efficiently and reduce the need for

future (marginal) facilities.

AMPC submits that the LGS Flat Energy Rate well below the lower end of the

energy LRMC (as would result under the LGS Flat Energy Rate alternative) is not a

significant detraction for the following reasons:

1. The LGS class is currently showing no significant conservation response –

even at the higher SQ LGS Energy Rate second tier energy rate;

2. Customers respond to the total bill rather than individual components such as

energy;

3. LRMC is not simply a variable cost that directly translates to an energy rate.

LRMC involves significant fixed costs. LGS demand charges are also too low;

and

4. LRMC is a planning concept that changes as markets, technology and

legislation changes, and is not known with the precision suggested in setting

rate design limits.

Whistler Blackcomb, a LGS customer, supports the LGS Flat Energy Rate because

it would simplify business forecasting, noting also that cost increases are enough of

an incentive for conservation. Whistler Blackcomb prefers the LGS Flat Demand

Charge, commenting that there is no need for two or three tiers. It uses one single

cost per kW for forecasting, which it believes is sufficient to signal demand costs.

Thrifty Foods, also a LGS customer, supports the SQ LGS Energy Rate. Thrifty

Foods comments that the SQ LGS Energy Rate allowed it to include credits under

the Part 2 energy rate in its business plans when considering energy conservation

projects, which has often made the difference in whether to proceed by reducing

payback periods by 25 per cent or more. Thrifty Foods is concerned that removal of




Page 37

the Part 2 credit will reduce the anticipated savings of its energy conservation

investments. Thrifty Foods questions whether customer growth has masked

conservation savings under the SQ LGS Energy Rate.13

BCSEA supports the LGS Flat Energy Rate as the means to simplify the SQ LGS

Energy Rate and it is inclined to support the LGS Flat Demand Charge as better

reflecting cost causality. BCSEA highlights that BC Hydro’s evaluation reports on the

SQ LGS Energy Rate establish that it does not achieve its primary purpose of

inducing DSM, and accordingly, there is no justification for retaining it. BCSEA also

remarks that the SQ LGS Energy Rate is more costly to administer and less

transparent and comprehensible to ratepayers. BCSEA encourages BC Hydro to

take advantage of any change in the LGS rate to promote customer awareness of

DSM.

BCOAPO does not see a basis for an inclining demand charge and it supports the

LGS Flat Energy Rate if it is not possible otherwise that simplification could

materially improve customer acceptance and understanding of the SQ LGS Energy

Rate. BCOAPO describes two critical concerns regarding the SQ LGS Energy Rate:

1) it is not achieving the desired nor anticipated conservation results, and 2) the rate

is difficult to understand such that customers cannot readily predict their bills or

budget. BCOAPO notes further that lack of conservation effect is, in itself, largely

attributable to the complexity and lack of understanding of the current rate design. In

BCOAPO’s view, it is a basic requirement that customers be able to understand the

rate structure being used to bill them and how its application will impact their bills

13 Please refer to Section 4.1 of BC Hydro’s Workshop 8a/8b Consideration memo for a summary of feedback

on LGS energy rate alternatives from LGS customers that did not provide feedback on Workshop 11a or 11b: TransLink does not favour any LGS alternative that would retain a baseline-based rate structure; Panorama Mountain Village Inc. and Toby Creek Utility prefer the LGS Flat Energy Rate; Vancouver Aquarium, Ivanhoe Cambridge and Peterson Commercial Property Management would retain

the SQ LGS Energy rate with consideration of modifications to the baseline-related provisions; and In separate customer review sessions, 14 of 22 customers with key account managers favour the LGS

Flat Energy Rate, with three preferring the SQ LGS Energy Rate and three favouring the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate.




Page 38

(regardless of whether or not it results in a conservation effect). Thus, BCOAPO

regards the SQ LGS Energy Rate structure as unsustainable.

COPE 378 sees merit in the LGS Flat Energy Rate and the LGS Flat Demand

Charge subject to consideration of other approaches to cost allocation and recovery.

COPE 378 suggests combining a flat energy rate with lower demand charge cost

recovery, especially if demand charges are not based on system coincident peak.

COPE 378 suggest that other measures such as seasonal or Low Load Hour

discounts or customer credits could provide appropriate incentives to conserve while

maintaining revenue neutrality.

FNEMC does not have any preferred LGS energy rate or demand charge at this

time.

5.1.2 SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate and Baseline Rate Provisions

Commission staff ponder what the rate design objective is of a declining block for

Part 1 energy rate since most customers quickly consume beyond the

14,800 kWh/month and mainly see Tier 2 of the Part 1 rate. Thus, Commission staff

question if the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate would address the real problems of

the SQ LGS Energy Rate other than nominal simplification.

AMPC remarks that changes to the provisions other than elimination of the baseline

will only make matters worse. For example, AMPC notes that the concept of a PLB

for the LGS rate class is too complex and that none of the administratively

burdensome procedures such as the FGR or anomaly rules are necessary if the

LGS rate is simplified so as to remove the baseline structure for the majority of LGS

customers.

Whistler Blackcomb would favour flattening Part 1 rates, but notes that the impact

would not be significant for LGS accounts. Thrifty Foods suggests that the SQ LGS

Energy Rate could be improved by flattening Part 1 of the Tier 1 energy rate, given

that the Part 1 Tier 1 energy rate is insignificant and adds complexity to the bill.




Page 39

Thrifty Foods would also support eliminating the 85/15 new account rule, which it

considers punitive.

CEC suggests that modifying the baseline provisions under SQ LGS Simplified

Energy Rate would only add complication to the SQ LGS Energy Rate.

BCOAPO comments that flattening the Part 1 energy rate under the SQ LGS

Simplified Energy Rate would only be acceptable if it was considered as part of an

overall package of changes aimed at improving customer acceptance and

understanding of the rate design. If it is not the case that the alternative would be

understandable then BCOAPO is of the view that there is little point in pursing it

further.

BCSEA is not convinced that flattening the Part 1 LGS energy rate while retaining a

Part 2 rate would increase conservation or simplify the rate structure enough to

overcome the complexity problem associated with the SQ LGS Energy Rate.

BCSEA is also not convinced that changing the baseline determination (e.g., from

monthly to annual, or from three-year to one- or five-year rolling average) or the

PLBs would improve the conservation results or achieve the necessary simplification

of a flat rate structure. BCSEA highlights that the LGS Flat Energy Rate eliminates

the need for the administrative rules of the SQ LGS Energy Rate.

Although FNEMC has not established its preferred LGS rate design it generally

supports flattening the Part 1 energy rate as the consumption threshold of

14,800 kWh/month is not material to most LGS customers and more customers

would be better off than worse off. Should BC Hydro maintain the baseline structure,

FNEMC supports that the various provisions be modified or removed based upon

the analysis presented by BC Hydro and customer feedback.

A summary of specific feedback received on the provisions of the SQ LGS Energy

Rate follows.




Page 40

Baseline determination

Commission staff note that one customer at the workshop claimed that a 5-year

rolling average baseline could pose a problem for estimating investment returns and

that if this limitation is true, then there may be additional disadvantages to 5- year

baselines rather than positive benefits. Commission staff comment that similarly, the

1-year baseline may result in business instability and thus the best approach would

be to maintain the 3-year average unless it can be demonstrated that there is

material improvement of rate design objectives from alternatives compared to the

3-year methodology.

CEC states that maintaining a 3-year rolling average ensures that the inadequate

economic price signal is maintained making it undesirable as a rate structure while

extending the baseline adjustment in the alternative could add other complications.

CEC remarks that there is no point to maintaining the SQ LGS Energy Rate as it is

not achieving a purpose, but if retained then options for changing the determination

of baselines should be explored to support achieving the purpose.

Whistler Blackcomb states that if the baseline structure is to be maintained it would

prefer annual baselines due to the winter fluctuations due to snowmaking, which

would also facilitate more simple communication to senior leaders.

PLB

CEC expects that there are no changes to PLBs that would materially change the

performance of the rate. Whistler Blackcomb considers that due to the size of LGS

accounts, changing the PLB is unlikely to have an impact on bills; increases or

decline in energy usage are unlikely to exceed 10 per cent.

FGR

Commission staff suggest that it is not clear that the FGR should be discarded.

Commission staff ask whether it would make sense to keep the FGR when it is




Page 41

beneficial to a customer so as to not punish growth, but to not apply the FGR if other

factors would otherwise result in higher bills with the FGR.

CEC comments that one of the problems with the SQ LGS Energy Rate is its

inability to distinguish productive growth from inefficient growth and/or use. CEC

states that if the SQ LGS Energy Rate is retained than the FGR provisions should

also be retained given the evidence that 76 per cent of customers that qualified for

the FGR benefitted from the its application. CEC considers that the 30 per cent

threshold increase in energy consumption is too high.

Whistler Blackcomb states that the thresholds are too high to allow consideration of

consumption increases due to growth. With the size of its accounts, “even a very

large addition to infrastructure would not meet the thresholds and therefore would be

subjected to conservation rate penalties.” Whistler Blackcomb states that if the

baseline structure is to be maintained there would need to be more consideration to

business growth. Whistler Blackcomb contemplates that this would further

complicate the process and BC Hydro would be unlikely to come up with a solution

for most businesses that would be feasible or fair; a flat rate would be a simpler way

to assess costs of new infrastructure and expanded operations.

Anomaly Rule

Commission staff comment that the anomaly rule seems to be achieving its intended

purpose of smoothing out anomalous months as defined in the negotiated settlement

agreement that introduced this rule.

CEC states that the anomaly rule should be eliminated if the SQ LGS Energy Rate is

retained to simplify the rate structure. CEC suggests that a move to annual

assessment of baselines would moderate some of the reasons behind the

implementation of the anomaly rule.




Page 42

Prospective Growth Rule

Commission staff suggest that with so few customers meeting the threshold this rule

could be discontinued. That said, Commission staff raise the possibility of modifying

the rule so as to still help fast growing customers and only applying the rule when it

is beneficial.

CEC comments that along with an FGR rule change to accommodate growth, the

Prospective Growth Rule should have relaxed thresholds and criteria to protect

productive growth from inappropriate impacts. Further, CEC suggests that

implementation of the rule should be automated if the SQ LGS Energy Rate is

retained to reduce BC Hydro’s administrative costs.

Whistler Blackcomb comments that the concerns it expressed with respect to the

formulaic growth rule are similarly applicable in respect of the Prospective Growth

Rule.

New Account Rule

Commission staff highlight that the issue of whether customers should continue to

be defined as an account is an outstanding issue for BC Hydro. Commission staff

question what the benefit from the 85/15 new account rule is given the estimated low

conservation savings and no evidence of gaming.

CEC comments that the prevalence of account changes and inappropriate bill

impacts means that this provision should be adjusted to enable continuity on

account transfers change and 100 per cent Part 1 pricing for new accounts with no

continuity.

Whistler Blackcomb states that a flat rate would take care of this issue, noting that

new accounts would be based on their consumption and demand usage. Presently,

if a large project is planned that could be on an existing account, Whistler

Blackcomb would strive to establish the project under a new account because of

LGS.




Page 43

5.1.3 LGS TSR-Like Rate Commission staff inquire what the source is of the very small conservation savings

from the SQ LGS Energy Rate; in particular, whether the limited savings come

mainly from the largest customers who may be considered for a LGS TSR-Like

Rate. Commission staff anticipate that if the savings were mainly from the largest

customers it would add support for the a LGS TSR-Like Rate for customers with

demand over a threshold of, for example, 1 or 2 megawatts, and justify a flattened

energy and demand charge with modified or no baselines for the remaining

customers. Commission Staff ask what BC Hydro’s current estimate is of LGS and

MGS energy price elasticity of demand based on the experience of the last few

years. Commission staff suggest that if the largest LGS customers are more likely to

respond to a LRMC type price for their marginal consumption, then a LGS TSR-Like

Rate may be quite effective in promoting some conservation.

AMPC notes that XLGS customers are significantly larger than typical LGS

customers, fewer in number and have more in common with the Transmission

Service rate class. AMPC describes that the 25 kilovolt voltage level of service

reflects an accident of geography rather than a significant difference in electrical

characteristics, and these are customers that tend to own their own substations.

AMPC is of the view that XLGS customers are large and sophisticated enough to

better respond to the two tiered energy price signal, if they also have the flexibility of

a Customer Baseline Load (CBL) rather than a rigid HBL determination as exists

with the SQ LGS Energy Rate. A number of XLGS customers are also Transmission

Service customers and sufficiently familiar with the tiered energy and CBL concept

to effectively respond to the efficiency signals that have been refined through the

RS 1823 CBL process for the last decade.

Whistler Blackcomb comments that for its LGS accounts, a simple flat rate structure

would be sufficient.

BCOAPO highlights that the major drawback to the LGS Flat Energy Rate is that the

resulting energy rate would be significantly below the LRMC, but notes that this




Page 44

issue would be addressed for at least some of the customers by a LGS TSR-Like

Rate. BCOAPO suggest that a LGS TSR-Like Rate should be considered for high

consumption LGS customers, provided application of such a rate design is

administratively practical and forecast revenue neutral.

FNEMC is supportive of a LGS TSR-Like Rate that that would encourage

conservation and customer DSM initiatives, and therefore would support BC Hydro

investigating further and entering into customer discussions as well as undertaking

further analysis.

COPE 378 believes that a LGS TSR-Like Rate is problematic because of the limited

conservation incentive it provides for customers operating at or near 90 per cent of

their CBL.


5.2.1 Preferred LGS Energy Rate and Demand Charge Structures

At Workshop 12 BC Hydro identified that its leading options for the LGS rate class

were the LGS Flat Energy Rate and LGS Flat Demand Charge structures. BC Hydro

remarked it would not identify its preferred LGS rate until it reviewed participant

feedback relating to Workshop 11b. BC Hydro now identifies the LGS Flat Energy

rate and LGS Flat Demand Charge as its preferred LGS rate structures, which is

generally supported by LGS customers and organizations representing such

customers, and most other stakeholders. BC Hydro also prefers to increase the LGS

demand charge recovery of demand-related costs from about 50 per cent to

65 per cent:

The SQ LGS Energy Rate will be brought forward for comparison purposes.

BC Hydro also notes that in contrast to the MGS rate where no identified MGS

customers prefer the SQ MGS Energy Rate, there are LGS customers such as

Thrifty Foods that prefer the SQ LGS Energy Rate to the LGS Flat Energy Rate.

BC Hydro notes that consideration of the SQ LGS Energy Rate would not

foreclose advancement of recommended changes to any particular provision,




Page 45

such as the current 85/15 new account rule. Potential changes to the SQ LGS

Energy Rate-related rules will be identified in the 2015 RDA;

There was a general consensus that the LGS Flat Demand Charge is superior

to the LGS SQ Demand Charge and the LGS Two-Step Inclining Block Demand

Charge. Accordingly, BC Hydro will not advance the LGS Two-Step Inclining

Block Demand Charge for the 2015 RDA;

There appears to be a general consensus among participants commenting on

LGS demand charge cost recovery that it should be increased. AMPC strongly

supports increasing the LGS demand charge recovery of demand-related costs.

So too does BCSEA as part of its Workshop 12 comments on the basis that the

increase will “blunt bill impacts of flattening the LGS energy charge”. Neither

BCOAPO nor COPE 378 commented on this topic in their Workshop 12 written

materials. Nevertheless, BC Hydro will bring forward the LGS Flat Demand

Charge under both demand charge cost recovery scenarios (SQ 50 per cent

and preferred 65 per cent) given that this topic arose late in the RDA

stakeholder engagement process.

Thus, the LGS rate alternatives brought forward into the 2015 RDA are as follows in

the table below.




Page 46

Table 6: Alternative LGS Pricing– SQ, Simplified SQ, BC Hydro Preferred and Demand Cost Recovery Sensitivity (F2017)

Pricing Element

Status Quo

For Comparison Only

Simplified SQ +

Flat Demand

(SQ demand-related cost

recovery ~50%)

BC Hydro Preferred

(65% demand- related cost recovery)

Sensitivity on BC Hydro

Preferred

(SQ demand-related cost

recovery: ~50%)

Energy rate (cents/kWh)

Part 1, T1: ....... 11.17 Part 1, T2: ......... 5.37 Part 2: ............. 10.10

Flat rate not modeled for F2017

but expected = ~5.98, subject to

Part 2 adjustments

Potential changes to the current LGS-related rules would

be considered under this alternative

5.37 5.98

Demand charge ($/kW)

T1: ..................... 0.00 T2: ..................... 5.72 T3: ................... 10.97

8.35

10.83 8.35

Basic charge ($/day)

0.2347 0.2347 0.2347 0.2347

Preferred LGS Flat Energy Rate

BC Hydro’s preferred LGS Flat Energy Rate prioritizes customer understanding and

acceptance by significantly simplifying the SQ LGS Energy Rate and aligning it with

how other similarly situated Canadian electric utilities structure GS energy rates

(predominantly flat energy rates).

The SQ LGS Energy Rate does not provide a clear and strong price signal for

conservation. What is clear from the September 2014 LGS/MGS customer focus

group sessions and related survey is that the design is overly complex and poorly

understood. It has been evaluated through the F2014 Evaluation of the Large and

Medium Service Conservation Rates report (F2014 LGS and MGS Evaluation Report) circulated to stakeholders prior to Workshops 8a/8b and the Evaluation of




Page 47

the LGS and MGS Conservation Rates – Calendar Years 2011 and 2012 report

(2011-2012 LGS and MGS Evaluation Report) posted to the RDA website14 to

have delivered lower than expected conservation savings with a declining

confidence in the persistence of the savings, as shown in the table below:

Table 7: Cumulative Net Evaluated Conservation Savings: Gigawatt Hours per Year

Year Level of Statistical Significance

80% 85% 90% 95%

Fiscal 2014 77 77 0 0

Calendar 2013 200 200 200 0

Calendar 2012 144 144 144 0

Focus group results15 confirm that the complexity of the SQ LGS Energy Rate is a

barrier to customer understanding of the price signal and customer ability to act

upon it. As a result, as discussed at Workshop 11a, BC Hydro cannot count on and

does not forecast any conservation savings from the SQ LGS Energy Rate on a

planning basis for future years.

BC Hydro notes the participant concern that the resulting flat energy rate under its

preferred alternative is below the lower end of the energy LRMC. BC Hydro

acknowledges that in contrast with the MGS Flat Energy Rate, this is something that

requires a trade-off between different design criteria. BC Hydro prioritizes the

Bonbright customer understanding and acceptance and fairness criteria at this time

above the economic efficiency criterion for the reasons set out in section 2 above.

BC Hydro also notes two additional considerations: First, maintaining the SQ LGS

Energy Rate would make improving the design and cost recovery of the LGS

demand charge untenable in light of the isolated bill impacts of its preferred LGS Flat

Demand Charge; Second, the sacrifice in perceived strength of the economic 14 https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-

documents/revenue-requirements/lgs-nsa-resp-g-110-10-c16.PDF. 15 The LGS/MGS customer focus group report is found at Appendix F to the F2014 LGS and MGS Evaluation

Report.

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/revenue-requirements/lgs-nsa-resp-g-110-10-c16.PDF

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/revenue-requirements/lgs-nsa-resp-g-110-10-c16.PDF




Page 48

efficiency signal seems to be a relatively small loss, given the difficulty many

customers had understanding the signal in the first place.

SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate

BC Hydro considered a SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate that would flatten Part 1 of

the energy rate (with nominal effect given typical LGS customer consumption) while

maintaining the baseline structure of Part 2 of the rate. This alternative would modify

the original tariff provisions of the baseline structure in an attempt to improve the

price signal and/or customer understanding and acceptance. The central issue is

that the SQ LGS Energy Rate and related provisions attempt to strike a balance

between sending an efficient price signal and addressing customers concerns with

respect to growth and expected bill impacts. The result is that it would difficult to

alter any one provision or group of provisions in an attempt to simplify the SQ LGS

Energy Rate.

On the basis of BC Hydro’s review and customer feedback, BC Hydro’s conclusion

is that the single change of simplifying the Part 1 energy rate that is embedded in the

SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate is not likely to substantially improve customer

understanding and acceptance nor improve the status quo in terms of providing an

efficient price signal:

Flatten Part 1 Rates – The substantive issues associated with the complexity of

and minimal conservation delivered under the LGS two-part rate is in large part

unrelated to the declining energy rate structure of Part 1. Most LGS customers

consume much beyond the monthly 14,800 kWh threshold between the Tier 1

and Tier 2 rates of Part 1; flattening these rates would result only in nominal

simplification and would not be expected to materially improve customer

understanding and acceptance of the overall energy rates, including the Part 2

energy rate.

Modify the PLB – Lowering the PLB could mitigate customer concerns that the

rate is a barrier to growing customers, but would diminish the strength of the




Page 49

price signal. Conversely, due to a relatively low frequency in customer

exceedance of the PLB, increasing the PLB (or removing it altogether while

keeping the Part 2 energy rate) would not be expected to materially impact

conservation, but would further exacerbate customer concerns that the rate is a

barrier to business expansion. BC Hydro concludes that short of eliminating the

PLB altogether, there are no feasible changes to the PLB that would improve

customer understanding and acceptance of the SQ LGS Energy rate.

Modify baseline determination – BC Hydro considered the possibility of annual

versus monthly determination of HBLs. As described in the 2009 LGS

Application, the monthly concept was regarded as achieving a balance,

conveying an efficient price signal with more frequent reinforcement compared

to a stepped rate using an annual CBL.

Modify FGR – The intent of the FGR is to minimize exposure of consumption to

LRMC through a higher baseline for customers who experience atypical one-

time growth in annual consumption. BC Hydro reviewed its FGR and concludes

that it is not entirely functioning as intended. As reviewed in the Workshop

8a/8b consideration memo: 1) few customers were able to reach the “significant

growth” thresholds to trigger the rule; 2) some customers’ baselines became

lower after an adjustment under the rule; and 3) customers that continued to

have significant growth in year four actually paid more under the higher

baselines as the 20 per cent PLB was larger with higher baselines. In

BC Hydro’s view, the challenges to be faced in revising the FGR would be not

unlike the challenges in designing the rule initially: how to design a relatively

simple formulaic method to offset significant growth situations while maintaining

balance with the Bonbright efficiency (price signal) objective.

Modify prospective growth applications (TS 82) – Very few customers have

applied under TS 82 due to the high qualification thresholds; 17 customers

have been on TS 82 since it was first introduced in March 2012 and 4

customers did not meet the threshold after 12 months and were removed from




Page 50

TS 82. BC Hydro determined that customers with lower consumption might

meet the threshold but won’t necessarily benefit from the modified pricing

structure. BC Hydro questions whether revisiting this rule would result in

material benefit to customer understanding and acceptance of the basic SQ

design.

Modify new account rule – As reviewed at Workshop 11b, BC Hydro will

propose modifying the new account rule by applying 100% Part 1 rates for new

accounts for one year.

Preferred LGS Flat Demand charge and Cost Recovery

BC Hydro’s preferred demand charge structure for the LGS rate class is the

LGS Flat Demand Charge; and

BC Hydro’s preference is to increase the level of demand charge recovery of

demand-related costs from the current approximate 50 per cent level to about

65 per cent.

A flat demand charge for the LGS class improves fairness by aligning cost recovery

with the pattern of cost causation to serve LGS customers. As noted above in

respect of MGS in section 4.2, the cost to serve a GS customer’s peak demand is

generally flat on a $/kW basis and a flat $/kW demand charge for LGS customers is

consistent with this observation. A flat demand charge also simplifies the rate

structure and will improve customer understanding and acceptance. As BC Hydro

reviewed in Workshop 11b and 12, a flat demand charge generally offsets bill

impacts associated with BC Hydro’s preferred LGS Flat Energy Rate (and to a

greater extent than a two-step inclining block structure). As compared to the SQ

LGS Demand Charge, the LGS Flat Demand Charge will also better reflect the rate

design practice of other utilities, which either have flat or two step demand charges.

AMPC requested that BC Hydro consider and model an increase in the LGS

demand charge recovery of demand-related costs; AMPC’s July 27, 2015 letter on




Page 51

this topic is included in Attachment 2 to this memo. As noted above, at Workshop 12

BC Hydro presented the results of an increase in LGS demand charge cost recovery

from about 50 per cent to 65 per cent of demand costs, a level consistent with

RS 1823 demand cost recovery. An increase in demand cost recovery will improve

fairness in cost causation. BC Hydro’s analysis highlights that the increase in

demand cost recovery to 65 per cent will further offset and generally level the bill

impacts to a reasonable level among LGS customers across size and load factor.

This is the same effect as described above in respect of BC Hydro’s preferred

increase to MGS demand charge cost recovery. BC Hydro agrees with AMPC that

this is a fair, pragmatic and stable outcome.

5.2.2 Response to Participant Comments

In response to Commission staff, BC Hydro believes that the complexity of the SQ

LGS Energy Rate is most likely the primary reason that minimal conservation has

been achieved. BC Hydro has not estimated the MGS or LGS energy price elasticity

of demand based on its experience of the last few years with the 2-Part baseline-

based rates:

As described in Workshop 8a and in BC Hydro’s Workshop 8a/8b consideration

memo, BC Hydro employed a randomized control trial research design to

estimate LGS customer response to the two-part baseline-based rates in both

the F2014 LGS and MGS Evaluation Report and the 2011-2012 LGS and MGS

Evaluation Report;

The randomized control trial approach employed in the two evaluation reports is

generally viewed as the most accurate method for estimating net impacts, and it

is widely accepted in the natural and social sciences as the gold standard of

research designs.16 However, the requirement to create a randomized control

trial creates a practical barrier to the use of this research design in many cases.

This is the case in most rate and pricing interventions, and for this reason 16 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Estimating Net Saving: Common

Practice September 2014, pages 14 & 15; http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62678.pdf.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62678.pdf




Page 52

elasticity-based methods are the most common rate impact evaluation method

used in the DSM evaluation industry;

The only estimate of the overall commercial customer price elasticity is -0.1

(consisting of rate structure induced conservation and natural conservation)

based on the jurisdictional assessment set out in BC Hydro’s 2008 Long-Term

Acquisition Plan.

The F2014 LGS and MGS Evaluation Report did not detect a statistically significant

response to the introduction of the SQ LGS Energy Rate under separate regression

modelling of a sample of 12 industrial key account LGS customers with dedicated

energy managers on staff. BC Hydro’s expectation was that these customers might

be particularly responsive to the LGS rate because they both consume considerable

amounts of electricity and have staff dedicated to energy management.

In response to CEC and COPE 378, and as BC Hydro set out in its Workshop 8a/8b

consideration memo, BC Hydro is in the process of moving forward items related to

developing efficiency ratings, measures or credits. This work is being informed by

BC Hydro’s Electricity Conservation and Efficiency Advisory Committee. Work in this

area will help establish the efficacy and level of credibility in efficiency ratings and

standards as well as the potential infrastructure required to implement them in

practice.17 These steps must occur before considering whether an Efficiency Rate

Credit can be designed in concept. BC Hydro has committed to considering CEC’s

Efficiency Rate Credit as part of RDA Module 2.

BC Hydro notes that optional demand charges will be reviewed as part of RDA

Module 2. BC Hydro refers to its jurisdictional assessment in Attachment 5 of its

Workshop 8a/8b consideration memo that it is unaware of any Canadian jurisdiction

that has implemented time-varying demand charges other than Newfoundland

Power.

17 The Workshop 11b slide deck at slide 61 sets out a number of building blocks to be established before

developing a credit potentially linked to efficiency ratings or measures.




Page 53

In response to Thrifty Foods, BC Hydro notes that it used a randomized control trial

research design to estimate the conservation savings of the MGS and LGS SQ

energy rates. This approach accounts for and does not mask the impact of customer

growth on conservation savings estimation.

6 MGS and LGS Transition Strategies At RDA Workshop 11a BC Hydro considered two high-level transition strategies for

moving to a MGS Flat Energy Rate and MGS Flat Demand Charge, assuming SQ

demand charge cost recovery of about 15 per cent of demand costs:

1. A three-year phase-in, which limits maximum bill impacts to below 10 per cent

for most customers except MGS small consumption, low load factor customers,

and

2. A 10 per cent bill impact cap, which would lengthen the phase-in period to over

15 years.

BC Hydro highlighted that it questioned the practicality of such a long phase-in

period under option (2), which would frustrate rate stability. BC Hydro sought

feedback on which of the two high-level strategies is preferred and why.

At RDA Workshop 12, BC Hydro commented that it would assess alternative

transition strategies for its preferred LGS rate design when confirmed. BC Hydro

commented that the phase-in may not be beneficial, as the offsetting effects of the

increase in demand cost recovery, flattening of the demand charge, and flattening of

the energy charge already helps mitigate bill impacts.


Overall, participants generally favour a defined period of transition over a 10 per cent

bill impact cap with uncertain term. AMPC, BCSEA and FNEMC prefer a three year

phase-in compared to a potentially long transition, with reasons cited including: ease

of administration, rate stability, and improved customer understanding and




Page 54

acceptance. FNEMC suggests that since small consumption, low load factor

customers may be the most adversely affected by the three-year phase-in,

BC Hydro could consider some measure of rate relief for hardship on a case-by-

case basis. CEC notes generally that a phase-in approach over a defined number of

years would enable a balance between fairer cost allocation and impact transition

fairness. Whistler Blackcomb suggests that that a 10 per cent bill impact would be

preferred for simplicity.

Commission staff raise questions of whether the analysis of bill impacts and

transition strategies should exclude impacts to, for example, the lowest and highest

5 percent of load factor customers so that the rate design is not limited by the

customers at the extremes. Commission staff question that if a 10 per cent bill

impact transition would take too long to implement, should BC Hydro consider an

extended implementation period of perhaps 5 to 7 years so that implementation is

still complete before the next rate design? Similarly, BCOAPO views 15 years as

being too long a period for transition, suggesting that a period slightly greater than

three years could be considered.


Rate design phase-in is typically implemented to soften the effect of implementation

where adverse bill impacts would be imposed on specific customer segments (such

as the largest 25 per cent of customers).

Subsequent to Workshop 12, BC Hydro assessed the need for phase-in periods for

its preferred MGS and LGS rate structures and demand charge recovery of demand-

related costs. BC Hydro understands that the bill impact test has in the past been

used to slow down the transition to rates that would improve future economic

efficiency. The benefits of more efficient rate design is that they would encourage

efficient customer behavior that would lower customer bills in the future and it made

sense that rates could transition to being more efficient to mitigate severe bill

impacts on a few customers for the benefit of all customers. In this case, BC Hydro




Page 55

is proposing to redesign rates that unfairly allocate fixed costs among customers and

have been doing so for some time now. Delays or lengthy transitions lengthen the

time that some customers are required to subsidize others.

Please refer to Attachment 4 for a summary of BC Hydro’s analysis, which

demonstrates that:

A three year phase-in period for BC Hydro’s preferred MGS rate may have

minor mitigation of bill impacts but the trade-off is a complex transition that will

not give MGS customers certainty; and

A phase-in period for the preferred LGS rate is not an effective bill impact

mitigation strategy. With a three year transition, BC Hydro estimates that about

3,200 accounts (just under half of all LGS accounts) will experience bill impacts

of 10 per cent or greater; the impacted customers are ‘typical’ customers as

well as low consumption, low load factor customers.

As a result, in the 2015 RDA BC Hydro will propose one-step transitions for both the

preferred MGS rate and the preferred LGS rate on April 1, 2017.

MGS Preferred Design: Flat Energy Rate & Flat Demand Charge (35 per cent

demand cost recovery)

BC Hydro will not propose a phase-in to its preferred MGS rate design.

Following Workshop 11a, BC Hydro updated its analysis of MGS phase-in to

incorporate its preferred increase in demand charge cost recovery to 35 per cent of

demand costs. The only phase-in method that offers any softening of bill impacts is a

three-year phase-in, although the impacts are marginal compared to not

implementing any phase-in at all. Furthermore, a three-year phase-in delays the

demand revenue recovery adjustment by three years. BC Hydro’s simulations

indicate that under the three-year phase-in customers who experience adverse bill

impacts greater than 10 per cent are limited to about 800 accounts, with less than

about 40 MWh/year of annual consumption and load factors of less than 10 per cent.




Page 56

Correspondingly, the absolute dollar impacts to these customers are expected to be

small. Refer to Attachment 4 to this memo.

The three-year phase-in method is highly complex and the amount of softening of bill

impacts is not substantive, with the key trade-off being a substantial decline in

customer understanding and bill predictability. Therefore, BC Hydro questions

whether phase-in would be worthwhile. For the majority of MGS customers the

phase-in will delay the offsetting effect of the flat energy rate, flat demand charge

and increasing demand cost recovery; the opposite of what a phase-in is intended to

accomplish.

LGS Preferred Rate Design: Flat Energy Rate & Flat Demand Charge (65 per cent

demand cost recovery)

BC Hydro will not propose a phase-in to its preferred LGS rate design.

Following Workshop 12, BC Hydro analyzed the implementation of a phase-in to its

preferred LGS rate structures and demand charge cost recovery. BC Hydro’s

simulations show that any form of phase-in is not advantageous to the LGS rate

class in managing the bill impacts of either “typical” customers (in terms of load

factor and annual consumption (around the medians of each of these measures)), or

of large customers with high annual consumption.

The effects of combining the changes in energy and demand charges alone offset

and soften the bill impacts to any set of LGS customers. A phase-in to the preferred

LGS rate structures would delay the offsetting benefits of its three elements, and

result in the opposite effect of what a phase-in is intended to accomplish. That is, for

most LGS customers a phase-in performs worse than no-phase-in. The key reason

is because the phase-in delays the benefits of the rate design changes (rather than

stretching out adverse impacts).




Page 57

7 Minimum Charges (Demand Ratchet) The minimum monthly charge for the MGS and LGS rates is based on 50 per cent of

peak monthly demand registered in the most recent winter period (November to

March). This demand ratchet ensures that customers with low consumption in a

particular billing period because of inconsistent demand or with low consumption in

non-winter billing periods due to seasonal usage pay a share of BC Hydro’s fixed

costs to maintain its infrastructure related to serving peak demand.


Commission staff state that more information is necessary to determine if the current

minimum charges are appropriate, suggesting that BC Hydro could survey some

high winter/low summer consumption customer bills to determine if their

contributions to infrastructure and peak supply commitments are appropriate, or if

the ratchet should be increased to the 75 per cent RS 1823 level.

AMPC also believes that there is insufficient information provided on the impact,

distribution, or effectiveness of various ratchet mechanisms, percentage levels or

waiver arrangements to provide any constructive feedback at this time. CEC

believes that the demand ratchet is an unnecessary complication that could be

appropriately handled in demand charge allocation approaches.

Whistler Blackcomb does not support an increase in ratchet charges; it is far busier

in winter than in summer and thus incurs these charges, in its words “penalties”.

Whistler Blackcomb comments that ratchet charges can be a disincentive for

conservation in the summer months if viewed as having been paid for anyway.

BCOAPO and FNEMC support increasing the demand ratchet to be consistent with

the Transmission Service rate class. BCOAPO comments on the important issue of

fairness involved, highlighting that given that cost causality is determined based on

peak demand, customers whose billing demands are materially lower in the off-peak

months (relative to the peak months) are likely not paying their “fair” share of costs.

Further, BCOAPO believes there should be consistency of treatment across rate




Page 58

classes. BCOAPO sees merit to including a review of the GS demand ratchet in

Module 2.

BCSEA agrees with the concept of having a minimum charge to ensure that all

customers pay a fair share of costs for system capacity, but seeks more information

of the effects of this rate before commenting further. COPE 378 generally supports

recovering more of the revenue requirements through efficient flat energy and

demand rates, which would suggest further reducing or eliminating the minimum

charges.


BC Hydro will not propose eliminating the MGS and LGS demand ratchets in the

RDA. BC Hydro believes that the demand ratchet is an important rate mechanism for

applying minimum billing to a customer for recovery of the fixed costs of serving

peak demand. Almost all jurisdictions surveyed have a form of minimum monthly

charge; refer to Attachment 3.

The demand ratchet was reduced from 75 per cent to 50 per cent in April 1980;

BC Hydro is researching the rationale for this and will report its findings in the 2015

RDA itself if available at the time of the filing.

In response to AMPC, BCUC staff and BCSEA requests for more information

concerning the MGS and LGS demand ratchet, BC Hydro offers the following.

To put the MGS and LGS demand ratchets in context, Table 8 below provides

summary information on MGS and LGS demand ratchet charges in F2015 (F2013

and F2014 data are comparable). Table 8 highlights that the number of MGS and

LGS customers incurring demand ratchet charges is relatively few in comparison to

the total number of customers in each class. Correspondingly, the amount of MGS

and LGS demand ratchet revenue is also relatively low in comparison to total MGS

and LGS class revenue.




Page 59

Table 8: Summary of F2015 demand ratchet charges, MGS and LGS

F15 Demand Ratchet Charge MGS LGS

Total Customers Incurring Demand Ratchet 211 213

% of Total Customers of Class ~ 1% ~ 3%

Total Demand Ratchet Revenue $122,744 $1,794,043

% of Total Revenue (F2015) ~ 0.04% ~ 0.2%

Table 9 below provides a frequency distribution of total MGS and LGS demand

ratchet charges in F2013 through F2015. This data highlights that relatively low

annual demand ratchet charges are more frequent than relatively high annual

demand ratchet charges across the entire range of annual demand ratchet charges

in the period.




Page 60

Table 9: Frequency distribution of total MGS and LGS demand ratchet charges, F2013-F2015

MGS Annual Ratchet Charge F2013-F2015 LGS Annual Ratchet Charges F2013-F2015

Amount (Bin) Frequency Percent Amount (Bin) Frequency Percent

$100 163 23.3% $1,000 196 30%

$200 150 21.4% $2,000 130 20%

$300 92 13.1% $3,000 76 12%

$400 73 10.4% $4,000 55 8%

$500 40 5.7% $5,000 36 5%

$600 30 4.3% $6,000 23 3%

$700 34 4.9% $7,000 18 3%

$800 19 2.7% $8,000 17 3%

$900 20 2.9% $9,000 10 2%

$1,000 20 2.9% $10,000 5 1%

$2,000 41 5.8% $20,000 45 7%

$3,000 8 1.1% $30,000 17 3%

$4,000 3 0.4% $40,000 11 2%

$5,000 4 0.6% $50,000 3 0%

$6,000 1 0.1% $60,000 2 0%

$7,000 1 0.1% $70,000 2 0%

$8,000 0 0.0% $80,000 1 0%

$9,000 0 0.0% $90,000 1 0%

$10,000 0 0.0% $100,000 3 0%

More: 2 0.3% More: 7 1%

Total: 701 100% Total: 658 100%

Tables 10 and 11 below report by site type the total MGS and LGS customers that

have incurred the demand ratchet charge between F2013 and F2015, their average

annual ratchet charge and their average annual demand charges as a percentage of

annual total bills. This information highlights that demand ratchet charges are

dispersed broadly across the MGS and LGS customer classes by type of customer.

This information also highlights that annual demand ratchet charges tend to be

relatively low in absolute and percentage terms, on average.




Page 61

Table 10: MGS average annual ratchet charges and average % of total bills by site type, F2013-F2015

Site Type Total Customers F2013-F2015

Average Annual Ratchet Charge

Average % of Total Bill

Agriculture 42 $505 11%

Apartment Common 4 $223 15%

Chemical - Other 5 $494 21%

Educational Services 1 $750 24%

Food Retail 3 $303 6%

Hotels 6 $180 4%

Industrial - Food & Beverages 18 $326 14%

Industrial - Heavy Manufacturing 29 $438 10%

Industrial - Light Manufacturing 43 $423 10%

Industrial - Other 28 $276 7%

Municipal Pumping 72 $520 8%

Non-Buildings 22 $189 6%

Non-Food Retail 26 $481 20%

Offices 141 $352 11%

Other Commercial 139 $543 5%

Public School 27 $419 3%

Restaurant 6 $257 17%

Transportation 23 $1,899 18%

University/College 5 $223 7%

Warehouses 16 $369 30%

Wood - Lumber 17 $519 12%

Wood - Other 17 $294 18%

Wood - Panel 2 $1,668 73%

Temporary Meter 9 $50 11%

Total: 701 $480 10%




Page 62

Table 11: LGS average annual ratchet charges and average % of total bills by site type, F2013-F2015

Site Type Total Customers F2013-F2015

Average Annual Ratchet Charge

Average % of Total Bill

Agriculture 52 $8,447 11%

Apartment Common 1 $2,160 2%

Chemical - Other 3 $1,965 13%

Educational Services 1 $4,349 8%

Food Retail 3 $5,586 26%

Hotels 3 $2,678 7%

Industrial - Food & Beverages 17 $4,225 7%

Industrial - Heavy Manufacturing 53 $9,567 14%

Industrial - Light Manufacturing 68 $9,197 33%

Industrial - Other 28 $4,461 7%

Irrigation 1 $21 0%

Municipal Pumping 79 $3,524 9%

Non-Buildings 22 $4,305 9%

Non-Food Retail 14 $3,692 21%

Nursing Home 1 $356 1%

Offices 66 $1,983 9%

Other Commercial 111 $13,941 10%

Public Hospital 1 $217 1%

Public School 44 $1,593 4%

Restaurant 1 $450 31%

Transportation 11 $7,678 11%

Warehouses 17 $1,709 16%

Wood - Lumber 31 $7,847 13%

Wood - Other 24 $4,875 9%

Wood - Panel 2 $15,186 32%

Temporary Meter 4 $3,443 18%

Total: 658 $6,835 13%




Page 63

Table 12 provides a simple estimation of the annual bill impacts to customers that

have incurred the demand ratchet charge between F2013 and F2015 as resulting

from a 50 per cent increase in demand ratchet charges; that is, had the GS demand

ratchet been 75 per cent of peak monthly demand in F2013 through F2015, as

opposed to 50 per cent. Median bill impacts to MGS and LGS customers that have

incurred demand ratchet charges are estimated to be 2 per cent and 3 per cent,

respectively. Bill impacts in the 90th percentile for MGS and LGS customers that

have incurred demand ratchet charges are estimated to be 13 per cent.

To estimate the impact of an increase in the demand ratchet to customers that have

not incurred a demand ratchet charge, Table 13 provides a corresponding estimation

of the annual bill impacts reported in Table 12, but assuming those customers had

not incurred demand ratchets previously in the period F2013-F2015. Table 13

illustrates that the result for customers that currently do not incur a demand ratchet

charge is a predicted three- to four-fold increase in estimated bill impacts compared

to customers that have incurred the demand ratchet charge.

Table 12: Illustrative annual bill impact from 50% increase in demand ratchet charge to customers that incurred demand ratchet F2013-F2015

Percentile MGS Annual Bill Impact LGS Annual Bill Impact

10th 0.4% 0.8%

20th 0.7% 1.2%

30th 1.0% 1.6%

40th 1.4% 2.3%

Median 2.0% 3.0%

60th 2.8% 3.7%

70th 4.2% 5.4%

80th 7.4% 7.6%

90th 13.3% 12.9%




Page 64

Table 13: Illustrative annual bill impact from 50% increase in demand ratchet charge if customers had not incurred demand ratchet F2013-F2015

Percentile MGS Annual Bill Impact LGS Annual Bill Impact

10th 1.2% 2.2%

20th 2.0% 3.5%

30th 3.0% 4.7%

40th 4.3% 6.7%

Median 6.1% 8.7%

60th 8.8% 11.2%

70th 13.7% 16.4%

80th 25.5% 24.8%

90th 51.7% 42.3%

BC Hydro observes that the current level of the MGS and LGS demand ratchet

charge is not a significant issue in terms of its overall impact on total BC Hydro MGS

and LGS revenue, but the charges are a major component of some customer bills.

Tables 12 and 13 illustrate that some customers would face very large bill impacts if

the level of the demand ratchet was increased. Customers that incur demand

ratchets and the level of their charges cannot be readily generalized on the basis of

site type.

BC Hydro recognizes that an increase in the level of the MGS and LGS demand

ratchets would improve fairness in customer contribution to the infrastructure costs

that BC Hydro incurs to serve the peak demand of its GS customers, as per the

purpose of the demand ratchet. Furthermore, an increase in the level of the demand

ratchet to 75 per cent of peak monthly demand would provide consistent rate

treatment between BC Hydro’s MGS and LGS classes and RS 1823 customers.

However, given that the level of the demand ratchet charge is not a major issue, at

this time BC Hydro prefers to maintain the level of the MGS and LGS demand

ratchets at the existing level of 50 per cent of peak monthly demand.




Page 65

8 Voluntary Rate Options for GS Customers As discussed at Workshops 11 and 12, BC Hydro will use 2015 RDA Module 1 to set

the default GS rate structures; it is imperative that the issues with the default rates

for LGS and MGS customers be addressed before optional rates for GS customers

are pursued.

At Workshop 11b BC Hydro advanced that it has no plan to proceed developing

voluntary Time of Use (TOU) Rates at this time for reasons set out in section 6.1 of

the Workshop 8a/8b consideration memo. BC Hydro proposed to assess a number

of potential voluntary rate options such as interruptible rates for GS customers,

demand charge options and the CEC’s efficiency rate credit concept as part of RDA

Module 2, after default GS rates are determined. BC Hydro sought participant

feedback on the options noted above and if there are any other GS rate options

BC Hydro should consider.


Commission staff highlight BC Hydro’s claim that a large differential of 3 to 4 times

the differential between Heavy Load Hour and Light Load Hour pricing is necessary

to induce customers to join a voluntary TOU rate and request BC Hydro to validate

this in support of its decision not to proceed with a voluntary TOU rate at this time. Commission staff also remark that interruptible rate options are likely to be of

interest to some customers and to BC Hydro. Commission staff suggest that issues

such as metering, entry and exit fees and the amount of interruption should be

clarified so that serious customer interest could then be assessed. Commission staff

state that a pilot program to introduce such new rate structures has been successful

in the past.

AMPC agrees with BC Hydro’s proposed approach in respect of GS rate options.

CEC and FNEMC suggest that as a matter of fairness freshet rate considerations

should be reviewed under GS options as well.




Page 66

BCOAPO and BCSEA agree with BC Hydro’s proposal not to proceed with the

development of an optional TOU rate at this time, citing that there appears to be no

cost justification for any material differential in peak/off-peak rates and the

considerable opportunity for free-riders. BCSEA and BCOAPO have reservations

about the suggested optional rates for GS customers, with BCOAPO noting that the

details will need to be given careful consideration to ensure that they do not have a

negative impact on other customers. BCSEA and BCOAPO are content to await

consideration of these options in RDA Module 2, although BCOAPO seeks to ensure

that there is sufficient time and resources available to comprehensively assess all

other issues also identified for review as part of RDA Module 2. BCSEA supports an

efficiency rate credit concept, subject to further development and understanding of

its details and implications.

COPE 378 recognizes that a mandatory TOU rate (which by its nature would be a

default rate) is currently prohibited by B.C. Government policy but it is of the view

that BC Hydro should be modelling such a TOU rate and seasonal rates and

discounts to present to stakeholders, the BCUC and the B.C. Government for

consideration. COPE 378 states that absent such a model it is difficult for parties to

appreciate whether these types of rate structures might be in the public interest.

Whistler Blackcomb supports exploration of the GS optional rates and would seek to

understand the impacts of the options on its business.


BC Hydro appreciates the feedback to date and notes broad agreement to consider

GS rate options during RDA Module 2.

In response to Commission staff, BC Hydro points to a few sources to support its

claim that a differential between peak and off-peak prices of between 3 and 4 to 1 is

necessary to induce a response to a TOU rate:




Page 67

1. As per the summary provided in the Workshop 5 consideration memo

concerning RS 1825 (the current voluntary TOU rate for Transmission Service

customers), BC Hydro set out that it understood from the work its consultant

Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) that the Canadian and U.S.

jurisdictions it sampled in 2010 had average commercial TOU ratios of peak to

off-peak of 3;

2. In 2010, the Ontario Energy Board commissioned The Brattle Group to study

about 50 TOU rates across North America and elsewhere, and reported that the

average ratio is about 4 to 1.18 The Brattle Group noted that, in comparison, the

Ontario Regulated Price Plan TOU price ratio is 1.9 to 1, a magnitude that will

provide modest incentives for load shifting and bill savings opportunities for

some customers. It also commented that the Ontario ratio is similar in

magnitude to that of a TOU rate offered by Puget Sound Energy in 2001, which

encountered significant customer acceptance challenges;

3. As per the summary provided in the RDA Workshop 8a/8b consideration memo,

BC Hydro considered its 2000 to 2001 voluntary TOU LGS pilot.19 The peak to

off-peak price differentials under this pilot were between 2 and 3 to 1. On an

aggregate basis, there was an estimated small reduction in winter peak usage

(1.3 per cent) and an increase in usage in winter non-peak usage

(1.5 per cent);

4. BC Hydro notes the Industrial Electricity Policy Review (IEPR) task force’s

questioning of how an industrial TOU in B.C. with its small differential between

on-peak and off-peak pricing could lead to significant peak shaving.20

18 A. Faruquai et al, “Assessing Ontario’s regulated Price Plan: A White Paper”, page 3; copy available at

http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/oeb/_Documents/EB-2010-0364/Report-Assessing%20Ontarios%20Regulated%20Price%20Plan.pdf.

19 Implemented pursuant to BCUC Order No. G-117-99; http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Orders/Orders99_2/G4_Orders/G117_99BCH.pdf.

20 IEPR Task Force, “Industrial Time of Use (TOU) Rates”; http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EPD/Documents/Task%20Force%20Issue%20Paper%20-%20Time%20of%20Use%20Rates%20FINAL.pdf.

http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/oeb/_Documents/EB-2010-0364/Report-Assessing%20Ontarios%20Regulated%20Price%20Plan.pdf

http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/oeb/_Documents/EB-2010-0364/Report-Assessing%20Ontarios%20Regulated%20Price%20Plan.pdf

http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Orders/Orders99_2/G4_Orders/G117_99BCH.pdf

http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EPD/Documents/Task%20Force%20Issue%20Paper%20-%20Time%20of%20Use%20Rates%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EPD/Documents/Task%20Force%20Issue%20Paper%20-%20Time%20of%20Use%20Rates%20FINAL.pdf




Page 68

BC Hydro has no plans to model mandatory default TOU rates given B.C.

Government policy. Furthermore, no GS customer has indicated a desire for a

mandatory default TOU rate. BC Hydro also has no plans to model a voluntary TOU

rate for GS customers or Residential customers at this time. BC Hydro notes

COPE 378’s opposition to a voluntary Residential TOU as provided in its feedback

concerning Workshop 3:

A voluntary program encourages self-selection, creating a situation where free riders (those who would otherwise be incented to conserve or those few who have the ability to shape their use beyond the ability of the majority of ratepayers to take advantage of the lowest rate) will be receiving a subsidy from the majority of ratepayers who cannot modify their usage and who do not have the time to determine how best to shape their usage patterns.

COPE 378 noted that a voluntary TOU does not incent energy conservation and is

likely to result in minimal capacity savings.

BC Hydro agrees with COPE 378’s concerns over the self-selection effects that are

present with a voluntary TOU rate, and in particular that if ‘structural winners’ with

favorable load shapes choose a voluntary TOU rate, there would be a cost shift to

other customers. Again, if this shift in costs is driven by a TOU rate with larger TOU

rate differentials than are currently justified by TOU period costs, then the rate

promotes neither an increase in equitable cost allocation nor an increase in

economic efficiency.

Consideration of a GS freshet rate in RDA Module 2 would be premature in advance

of the contemplated two year freshet pilot for RS 1823 customers. At the conclusion

of the pilot, BC Hydro will reassess which types of customers should be eligible for a

freshet rate if the freshet rate becomes a permanent offering.





Rate Structures


Attachment 1 Summary Notes

Draft BC Hydro Rate Design

Workshop

SUMMARY 25 JUNE 2015 9 AM TO 11.45 AM BCUC Hearing Room

1125 Howe Street, Vancouver

Page 1

TYPE OF MEETING RDA Workshop 11A

FACILITATOR Anne Wilson, BCH

PARTICIPANTS

Association of Major Power Consumers of British Columbia (AMPC); British Columbia Old Age Pensioners Organization (BCOAPO), BC Sustainable Energy Association and Sierra Club of Canada BC Chapter (BCSEA), BCUC staff, Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union Local 378 (COPE 378), Clean Energy BC/Weimer Consulting Inc., CLEAResult, Commercial Energy Consumers Association of British Columbia (CEC), First Nations Energy & Mining Council/Linda Dong Associates (FNEMC), FortisBC Inc. (Fortis), TransLink

BC HYDRO ATTENDEES

Gordon Doyle, Rob Gorter, Paulus Mau, Dani Ryan, Anne Wilson, Craig Godsoe, Jeff Christian (Lawson Lundell)

AGENDA

1. Welcome & Introductions 2. Overview of GS Rates, Stakeholder Engagement to Date and Issues Identified 3. GS Segmentation 4. SGS 5. MGS – Preferred Energy Rate and Demand Charge Structure Alternatives 6. MGS – Demand Charge Cost Recovery 7. MGS – Transition Options

MEETING MINUTES

ABBREVIATIONS

BCH ...... BC Hydro BCUC……BC Utilities Commission COS……..Cost of Service CP………..Coincident Peak DSM ...... Demand Side Management E3…………Energy + Environmental Economics, Inc. GS………..General Service GWh…….Gigawatt hour IPP ........ Independent Power Producer kW……….Kilowatt

kWh……..Kilowatt hour LGS………Large General Service LTAP…….Long-Term Acquisition Plan MGS…….Medium General Service NCP……..Non-Coincident Peak R/C……….Revenue to Cost ratio RDA……..Rate Design Application RIB……..Residential Inclining Block rate SGS……..Small General Service SQ……….Status Quo

1. Welcome and Introductions

Anne Wilson opened the meeting by reviewing the agenda set out in slide 2 of the Workshop 11A slide deck .

2. Presentation: GS Rate Overview

Gordon Doyle stated that BCH now has a preferred SGS rate structure, which is the SQ flat energy rate, and a preferred MGS energy rate structure, which is a flat energy rate with no baseline. Gord described the purpose of Workshop 11A, which is to solicit feedback on: (1) what additional GS rate class segmentation analysis should be conducted; (2) whether BCH should increase the SGS basic charge cost recovery; (3) what should the preferred MGS demand charge structure be; (4) whether BCH should increase the MGS demand charge cost recovery; and (5) what should the preferred MGS transition option be. Gord also reviewed stakeholder engagement on GS rates to date, including BCH’s GS jurisdictional assessment results and issues identified with the SQ MGS and LGS rates.

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

1. BCOAPO The basis of the LGS and MGS forecasted conservation savings is a commercial customer elasticity assumption of -


Workshop



Page 2

What is the basis of the LGS and MGS forecasted conservation savings shown on slide 8?

0.1 for rate structure conservation. The -0.1 elasticity assumption results from a jurisdictional and literature survey done by E3 as part of the BCH 2008 LTAP review. E3 focused on winter peaking jurisdictions, including Ontario, Illinois, Wisconsin and New York.1

2. BCOAPO

In BCH’s view, were the original commercial customer elasticity assumptions flawed or is the lack of LGS and MGS customer response to the SQ two-part baseline rates due to customers not understanding the price signals and therefore being unable to react?

As discussed at Workshop 8A, one common theory behind LRMC-priced rate structures is that awareness leads to understanding and understanding results in a conservation response. If awareness is low, as was found for the LGS and MGS rates, then understanding and conservation actions are also expected to be low.2

3. BCUC staff

-0.1 is a fairly low elasticity of demand; we may be spending too much time trying to get the price signal right for the diverse LGS and MGS rate classes instead of addressing what rate structure would work best for these classes.

3. Presentation: GS Segmentation

Dani Ryan described the two main GS segmentation issues raised by stakeholders as part of Workshop 8A/8B: (1) segment the existing LGS rate class to create a new class of larger LGS customers ( referred to as XLGS); and (2) possible re-merging of MGS and LGS rate classes. Dani discussed analysis BCH has done to date (jurisdictional assessment and COS analysis ‘Method 1’) and the additional analysis BCH is undertaking and targeting to discuss at the 30 July 2015 RDA wrap-up workshop (COS analysis ‘Method 2’, which is clustering analysis). Dani emphasized that to date, BCH is finding that no matter how the GS could be segmented, its heterogeneity would remain; there is no obvious breakpoint for segmenting the GS rate class beyond the current segmentation into SGS, MGS and LGS rate classes.

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

1. AMPC

On slide 13, BCH states that metering is one basis for the existing SGS rate class demarcation at 35 kW. AMPC would like an update on whether there is now increased metering capability.

There is increased metering capability. However, at Workshop 8A BCH described how about 45% of SGS customers have residential-type meters and these meters do not have Measurement Canada approved demand functions.3 Thus while demand can be calculated using interval data it cannot be used for billing. BCH’s jurisdictional assessment revealed that Canadian electric utilities surveyed have small GS classes which do not have demand charges, and that the current SGS 35 kW breakpoint is within the range of other Canadian electric utility breakpoints used for smaller GS (10 kW to 75 kW). Refer to slide 15.

1 The four non-residential studies E3 viewed as most comparable to B.C. report short-run elasticities of between 0.0 and -0.142, with

three of the four studies reporting short-run elasticities below -0.1. Refer to the Direct Testimony of Dr. Ren Orans, 2008 LTAP Appendix E, pages 19 and 20 of 28; http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2008/DOC_18928_B-1-1_APPENDICES.pdf.

2 Refer to the Workshop 8A/8B Consideration Memo, Attachment 1, page 3 of 29; http://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/2015-06-19-bch-rda-wksp-8a-8b-gsrs.pdf.

3 Per the Electricity and Gas Inspection Regulations, SOR/86-131; copy available at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-86-131/.

http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2008/DOC_18928_B-1-1_APPENDICES.pdf

http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2008/DOC_18928_B-1-1_APPENDICES.pdf

http://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/2015-06-19-bch-rda-wksp-8a-8b-gsrs.pdf




http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-86-131/





Workshop



Page 3

2. AMPC

AMPC agrees with BCH’s comment that it is general utility practice to have a small GS rate class with no demand charge.

3. AMPC

AMPC notes the prevalence of very large GS classes on slide 15 e.g., Toronto Hydro 5,000 kW breakpoint; Epcor 5,000 kW breakpoint. What is the number of BCH LGS accounts at 5,000 kW?

This information is set out at page 44 of the Workshop 8A/8B Consideration Memo: 5,000 kW: 37 accounts; 2,000 kW: 172 accounts; 1,000 kW – 437 accounts.

BCH is still investigating the COS basis for the creation of a XLGS rate class say above a 2,000 kW breakpoint. BCH will also explore whether E3’s other factors for segmentation - customer understanding and practicality of tariff administration – support different breakpoints, for example for a XLGS class.

4. BCOAPO

On slides 17 and 18, the issue that the analysis seems to miss is that the MGS and LGS customers are not billed using Energy/NCP/4CP – rather they are billed strictly on energy and their individual monthly NCP.

The other issue missed in the analysis is that the amount of dollars allocated to each class using energy is not equivalent to the dollars collected from customers through energy rates.

The implications of the first point are:

Ideally one would want to group in the same rate class customers whose ratio of Billing Demand is similar to 4CP;

Similarly one would want to group in the same rates class customers whose ratio of billing demand to NCP are similar.

The implications of the second point are:

Ideally one would want to group into the same rate class customers that have the same load factor (measured using NCP);

Similarly one would want to look at grouping customer into the same rate class that have similar load factors measured using 4 CP.

Based on these observations it would be interesting to see how each of the three ratios vary across individual customers when “plotted” against customer size (i.e. peak) in order to see if there are any obvious break points.

Slides 17 and 18 are looking at segmentation from a cost perspective alone, which E3 did in 2009. BCOAPO seems to be asking BCH to relate the costs to the revenue.

It is not apparent to BCH why one would calculate a load factor using 4 CP. The standard load factor calculation is already based on the customer’s peak demand or NCP.

The relationship between a customer’s Billing Demand and 4CP would be similar to the relationship between load factor and coincidence factor. It is not clear how this could be used for rate class segmentation.

The ratio of billing demand to NCP would be similar to load factor and there is no cost basis for grouping customers this way.

Load factor does not drive costs and should not be used as the basis for rate class segmentation.

While coincidence factor may predict cost causation, it is not a practical way of segmenting customers.

5. FortisBC

Has BCH done a statistical cluster analysis?

Not yet; as set out in the Workshop 8A/8B Consideration Memo, BCH will be doing a cluster analysis as part of Method 2 and anticipates being able to discuss the results with stakeholders at the 30 July 2015 workshop.


Workshop



Page 4

6. BCSEA

Is the Method 2 cluster analysis a COS method?

Yes.

7. BCSEA

Given the importance of coincidence factor, can coincidence factor be used as a basis for GS segmentation?

Coincidence factor is variable; there is no GS subset that is entirely coincident with system peak.

E3 stated as part of its 2009 GS segmentation analysis that customer accounts should be segmented using readily observable variables that can be easily understood, together with other factors such as customer understanding and practicality of tariff administration. BCH is not aware of any Canadian jurisdiction that uses coincidence factor to segment GS customers. BCH does not think that coincidence factor (or load factor) meets these requirements; instead, BCH agrees with E3 that BCH should continue to use kW demand intervals as the basis for GS class segmentation.

8. CLEAResult

The finding that load factor does not relate too strongly to cost is incredible. BCH may be able to do more rate innovation if coincident factor is really the main cost driver.

Load factor is the relationship of average use (measured in kWh) to peak use (measured in kW). A customer’s load factor is only related to cost to the extent that their peak use occurs coincidently with other customers ’ peak use, which is better expressed as coincidence factor. Load factor is more predictive of revenue impacts, especially when cost recovery is shifted between energy charges and demand charges.

9. CEC

There appears to be a relationship between low load factor and low coincidence factor on slide 20. Could this group be segmented?

If we just examine low load factor customers, some of these will have high coincidence.

BCH has concerns with using load factor to segment GS customers as this concept is not readily understood by customers and changes with the addition of equipment, for example. In BCH’s view, using load factor to segment does not meet either the customer understanding or practicality of tariff administration tests.

Instead, as will be described in Workshop 11B, BCH will review a demand charge option for low load factor, low coincidence customers (referred to as the Manitoba Hydro Limited Use of Billing Demand option).

4. Presentation: SGS Rate

Rob Gorter set out the reasons why BCH’s preferred SGS rate is the SQ SGS flat energy rate with a basic charge and no demand charge. Rob also discussed the results of increasing the SGS basic charge fixed cost recovery from about 35% to about 45%, which is the level of the RIB basic charge fixed cost recovery.

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

1. CEC The draft F2016 COS shows that BCH is over-recovering from the SGS rate class. Would rate-rebalancing cause BCH to reconsider the SGS rate structure?

BCH does not see possible rate-rebalancing causing BCH to consider a different SGS rate structure. An inclining block rate is not viable for this heterogeneous class and a two part baseline rate such as the SQ MGS rate is not appropriate for this class regardless of rate rebalancing.


Workshop



Page 5

2. COPE 378 What is the LRMC range for comparison to the SGS energy charge? How confident is BCH in the energy LRMC range?

This information is set out at page 7 of the Workshop 8A/8B Consideration Memo. For F2016, the energy LRMC range is 9.36 cents/kWh (lower end) and 11.01 cents/kWh (upper end). As shown on slide 24, the SGS energy charge in F2016 is 10.73 cents/kWh, which is within the energy LRMC range. The energy LRMC range results from the approved 2013 Integrated Resource Plan, which found that the two resources types required to fill the energy gap over the next ten years is DSM and IPP contract renewals, and this resulted in a range of 8.5 cents/KWh to 10.0 cent/kWh (F2013).

3. BCOAPO Did increasing the SGS basic charge result from stakeholder feedback?

Yes, as did the level of possible SGS basic charge increase to 45% fixed cost recovery.

4. BCOAPO What does BCH mean by ‘fixed costs’? Can BCH provide what % of customer costs are recovered by the SQ RIB basic charge and the SQ SGS basic charge?

On slide 27, fixed costs are demand- and customer-related costs. Both the SQ RIB basic charge and SQ SGS basic charge recover all customer costs and a portion of demand costs, with most demand costs being recovered through the respective energy charges.

5. BCSEA What is the effect on energy conservation if BCH were to increase the SGS basic charge fixed cost recovery to 45%?

As shown on slide 26, the resulting reduction in the SGS energy charge is very small – in F2017 from 11.16 cents/kWh to 11.01 cents/kWh. Applying the -0.05 elasticity assumption BCH has for natural conservation through rate increases, there may be a very small increase in energy consumption.

6. BCUC staff Any resulting increase in energy consumption would be so small as to be negligible.

7. BCOAPO BCH concludes that increasing the SGS basic charge fixed cost recovery to 45% would not result in ‘substantial’ bill impacts. How does BCH define substantial given the bill impact is over 10% for the first two percentile consumption categories on slide 26?

BCH continues to use the 10% bill impact test as an ‘amber signal’ rather than a stop or go constraint. This is particularly the case where, as in this case, the absolute dollar value of the increases is small.

8. CEC CEC agrees that absolute dollar value is an important part of the 10% bill impact test.


Workshop



Page 6

9. BCOAPO It would be useful to know how many SGS customers fall into each of the percentile consumption categories on slide 26.

The distribution on slide 26 illustrates bill impacts of the single account at each specified percentile, as opposed to the impact of a group of accounts in blocks of 10%. For example, the result for the 10th percentile shows the bill for the single account that represents the 10th percentile of consumption of accounts in the F2014 sample used for the analysis. The forecasted number of SGS accounts, which this distribution will apply to, for illustrative purposes are below.

Forecast year

Forecast number of accounts

10 percent of forecasted accounts

F17 181,698 18,170 F18 183,727 18,373 F19 185,817 18,582

5. Presentation: MGS Demand Charge Structure Alternatives

Paulus Mau reiterated that BCH’s preferred energy rate structure is a flat energy rate with no baseline. The MGS Flat Energy Rate would be very close to the lower end of the energy LRMC range, with an energy charge of 8.98 cents/kWh in F2016 as compared to the lower end of the energy LRMC of 9.36 cents/kWh ($F2016). Paulus identified and reviewed the BCH Bonbright assessment of three demand charge structure alternatives: the three step SQ Demand Charge; the Flat Demand Charge; and the Two Step Demand Charge, which retains the current zero Tier 1 and flattens Tier 2 and Tier 3 into a single Tier 2.

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

1. BCUC staff

It appears that the Two Step Demand Charge would be better from a SGS/MGS seams perspective; this is something BCH should consider.

Revised Response A transition from the Status Quo SGS energy rate to MGS at the seam (35 kW) would result in lower bills under all MGS alternatives; however, the degree to which the bill is lower differs between alternatives.

Under status quo rates, transitioning from SGS to MGS

would result in a 8% lower bill at the seam. Comparatively: Transitioning from SGS to the MGS alternative with

Flat Demand Charge, Flat Energy charge would result in a 3% to 12% lower bill at the seam, for low to high load factor customers, respectively. The impacts are driven by both the different energy charges and a demand charge at T1.

Transitioning from SGS to the MGS alternative with Two Step Demand Charge, Flat Energy charge would result in a 16% lower bill at the seam. This is driven by the different energy charge.


Workshop



Page 7

2. BCUC staff

Why does BCH not have a preference for the Two Step Demand?

BCH has no identified preferred demand charge structure at this time and is soliciting feed-back.

Both a Flat Demand Charge and a Two Step Demand Charge are used by other Canadian electric utilities. BCH is concerned that the Two Step Demand Charge does not have the same offset of bill impacts as the Flat Demand Charge for high load factor customers. In addition, a Flat Demand Charge better reflects costs which are flat.

3. BCUC staff

We see bill impacts as more of a transition issue and not a rate design issue.

BCH does not agree. Bill impacts have consistently been treated in rate design as a Bonbright customer understanding and acceptance rate design issue.

4. COPE 378

How are MGS customers charged for demand?

MGS customers are billed each month for the highest monthly peak. Individual MGS customer peaks may or may not be coincident with the system peak.

5. CEC

Is the demand charge monthly due to monthly billing?

The demand charge is expressed as $/kW/month and is billed monthly. The monthly demand reading is a reasonable proxy (and understandable for customers) for assigning customers their contribution of costs.

6. COPE 378

BCH should explore different demand charge approaches that better reflect contribution to coincident peak.

In Workshop 11B BCH will discuss a demand option like that of RS 1852 type demand charge with HLH concept which some have described as a Time of Use-like effect. In addition, BCH will be exploring demand ratchets.

7. AMPC

We caution that demand is not as simple as looking at a single coincident peak.

Agreed.

8. TransLink

Regarding slide 36, can BCH estimate the bill impacts for individual MGS customers?

At the May 2015 sessions described at page 4 of the Workshop 8A/8B Consideration Memo, BCH offered to estimate LGS and MGS customer bills for the SQ rates and alternatives using a simplified forecasting tool (the ‘bill estimator’). BCH has used the bill estimator for TransLink accounts.

9. BCSEA Does BCH have the absolute dollar impacts for illustrative bill impacts of both the Flat Demand and two Step Demand alternatives? Is it possible to produce graphs comparing cost causality and bill impacts? We ask because we want to know if the customers with bill impacts are those that drive demand costs.

Yes. This can be easily computed by applying the F2017 illustrative bills under status quo to the illustrative percentage variances of the alternative for each load-factor/annual consumption combination. The illustrative bills under status quo are located on slide 18 in the RDA Workshop 11 Appendix posted to the RDA website. No. The cost of service models and the rates models come from different and independent datasets, each drawn for their respective purposes. Note that costs are not simply driven by load factors and consumption of customer bills, but also by the coincidence factors. Since it is not practical to price rates using coincidence factors or load factors, there will naturally be some disparity between the annual allocators used to assign costs and the effectiveness of monthly customer bill determinants at revenue recovery.


Workshop



Page 8

10. COPE 378

Does BCH have an analysis with the number of customers impacted?

Yes; refer to the RDA Workshop 11 Appendix posted to the RDA website where the distribution is set out.

11. FNEMC

Is it possible to identify those low load factor customers that are worse off under the Flat Demand and Two Step Demand charge alternatives?

The impacted low load factor customers are very heterogeneous and include pumps, schools etc. Refer to the final slide of the RDA Workshop 11 Appendix posted to the RDA website, which has the SQ for each box for estimating bill impacts for these and other customers.

12. BCSEA

The very high load factor customers at the lower right hand side on slide 46 look like a separate population.

Would segmenting these customers offer a potential solution?

Yes; many of these customers are migrating to the LGS rate class. No. BCH rejects segmenting GS customers on the basis of load factor for the reasons discussed earlier [Refer to Part 3, BCH responses to Q.7 and Q.9]. There is no logical end point to an exercise of creating rate classes or sub-classes for the purpose of mitigating bill impacts arising from rate restructuring. Each adversely affected member of a rate class would have the same basis for a further division of the class, potentially ultimately leading to a rate class for every customer. E3 found as part of its 2009 segmentation analysis that five GS classes were the most BCH could administer.

13. CEC

Does BCH agree that high load factor customers use the BCH system more efficiently?

Yes.

14. BCUC staff

Is it fair to summarize the two demand charge alternatives as follows: (1) the two alternatives are viewed by BCH about equally; (2) the Flat Demand Charge is better at bill impact offsetting; and (3) the Two Step Demand Charge may be better from a SGS/MGS seams perspective?

Not necessarily. Please see the response to Q.1, Section 5 above.

6. Presentation: Increasing Demand Charge Cost Recovery

Paulus Mau discussed how stakeholders suggested that BCH investigate increasing the MGS demand cost recovery of demand-related costs from the current 15%, and the results of increasing cost recovery to 35% using the MGS Flat Energy Rate with the Flat Demand alternative for illustration. Increasing the MGS demand charge cost recovery reduces bill impacts on MGS high load factor customers.

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

1. BCOAPO

What is the basis for the LRMC pricing of the SQ MGS two part rate?

The F2006 Call for Tenders, inflated.4 F2016 MGS two-part baseline energy rate pricing is set out at page 25 of the Workshop 8A/8B Consideration Memo – the Part 2 LRMC based energy rate is 9.90 cents/kWh.

4 For a summary of LRMC application to BCH rate structures, refer to slide 13 of the ‘Introduction and Context’ slide deck for

Workshop 1; http://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/rate-design-application-workshop-presentation-may8-2014.pdf.

http://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-matters/rate-design-application-workshop-presentation-may8-2014.pdf





Workshop



Page 9

2. BCSEA

We are concerned with the impact on the resulting MGS Flat Energy Rate if MGS demand fixed cost recovery is increased to 35% as shown on slide 48; the impact is more significant than increasing the SGS basic charge fixed cost recovery to 45%.

Agreed that there could be an increase in consumption. There is a trade-off between the Bonbright efficiency criterion and the customer understanding and acceptance and fairness criteria. BCH is concerned with the impact of the MGS Flat Energy Rate on MGS high load factor customers, and one mitigation measure is to increase the demand charge fixed cost recovery, which also aligns with the fairness criterion (fair apportionment of costs among customers).

3. BCUC staff

Will BCH model increasing cost recovery to 35% using the MGS Flat Energy Rate with the Two Step Demand alternative?

Would BCH expect that increasing cost recovery to 35% using the MGS Flat Energy Rate with the Two Step Demand alternative would also soften the bill impacts on MGS high load factor customers?

Yes. BCH may be able to present these modelling results at the 30 July 2015 wrap-up workshop and/or the Workshop 11A/11B Consideration Memo. Yes.

7. Presentation: Two Potential MGS Phase-in Options

Paulus Mau introduced two high-level MGS phase-in options: (1) a 3-year period; and (2) using a 10% bill impact cap. BCH prefers the 3 year phase-in approach for the reasons set out in slide 54.

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

1. AMPC

What happens to revenues if the 10% bill impact cap is used? Is there lost revenue?

All designs are revenue neutral to the status quo rate. That is, all alternatives are priced to recover the same revenue as the status quo for each of the years simulated, including years during the phase-in period. That is, the rates will incrementally flatten so that the most adversely impacted customer will have a maximum bill impact of 10%, while remaining revenue neutral to the status quo.

2. BCOAPO On slide 57, how many customers have bill impacts over 10%? What is the maximum bill impact under the 3 year phase in option?

For F2017, BCH forecasts about 55 accounts with bill impacts greater than 10%. The customer with the highest bill Impact, calculated as the per cent bill difference between F2016 and F2017, is 31% ($150) The maximum bill impact customer, calculated as the 3-year cumulative per cent bill difference between F2016 and F2019, has a bill impact of 93% ($456).

3. FNEMC

For smaller MGS customers, what is the absolute bill impact under the 3 year phase in option?

Please refer to slide 18 of the RDA Workshop 11 Appendix posted to the RDA website, which has the SQ for each box for comparison; this allows readers to do their own calculations. For the most adverse customer with the highest bill impacts on a percentage basis, see response to BCOAPO above.

4. BCSEA

Does BCH have any customer input as to whether a quicker – say 1 year – phase-in period is preferred?

Phase-in requests have come from customers whenever a rate structure is changed. The 3 year period is consistent with 2007 RDA and 2009 LGS Application proposals.

5. BCOAPO

Has BCH investigated a ‘middle ground’ between the 3-year period phase-in and the 15+ years required under the 10% bill impact cap option?

Not to date. The 3-year period was chosen on the basis of the 2007 RDA and 2009 LGS Application proposals.


Workshop



Page 10

6. BCUC staff

Bill impacts alone should not drive rate design. Here we have about 350 customers, out of a total of about 17,000 for the MGS rate class, with 10% bill impacts.

7. COPE 378

If BCH pursues the MGS Flat Energy Rate, to what extent would it simply reverse the bill impacts arising from the 2009 LGS Negotiated Settlement?

The impacts are not comparable. There would be no reversing of effects if BCH pursues the MGS Flat Energy rate, as the energy rates were not flat prior to 2009 but rather were a declining block structure. Rate shaping of the Part-1 energy charges toward a flat rate was part of the 2009 LGS Negotiated Settlement, subject to a maximum bill impact of 5% above the class average rate change.

The 2009 LGS Negotiated Settlement resulted in a transition focused on introducing the two part energy rate with a baseline to the MGS class. Changes to the demand rate structure were not part of the 2009 LGS application.

8. Closing Comments

Anne Wilson thanked everyone for making the time to participate in the workshop and reminded participants that Workshop 11B addressing LGS rate issues would be held tomorrow, 26 June 2015. Meeting adjourned at 11.45 am.


Workshop

SUMMARY 26 JUNE 2015 9AM TO 2.30 P.M. BCUC Hearing Room


Page 1

TYPE OF MEETING RDA Workshop 11B

FACILITATOR Anne Wilson, BCH

PARTICIPANTS

Association of Major Power Consumers of British Columbia (AMPC); British Columbia Old Age Pensioners Organization (BCOAPO), BC Sustainable Energy Association and Sierra Club of Canada BC Chapter (BCSEA), BCUC staff, Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union Local 378 (COPE 378), Chemtrade, CLEAResult, Commercial Energy Consumers Association of British Columbia (CEC), First Nations Energy & Mining Council/Linda Dong Associates (FNEMC), FortisBC Inc. (Fortis), Ivanhoe Cambridge, Thrifty Foods, TransLink, Vancouver Aquarium, Viterra, West Fraser

BC HYDRO ATTENDEES

Shiau-Ching Chou, Allan Chung, Gordon Doyle, Rob Gorter, Paulus Mau, Anne Wilson, Bryan Hobkirk, Craig Godsoe, Jeff Christian (Lawson Lundell)

AGENDA

1. Welcome & Introductions 2. LGS Energy Rate Alternatives 3. LGS Demand Charge Alternatives 4. GS Voluntary Rate Options 5. Other GS Rate Issues – Demand Ratchet and TOD

MEETING MINUTES

ABBREVIATIONS

BCH ...... BC Hydro BCUC……BC Utilities Commission CBL……..Customer Baseline Load COS……..Cost of Service CP……….Coincident Peak DSM ...... Demand Side Management EC&E……BCH Electricity Conservation & Efficiency Committee FGR…….Formulaic Growth Rule GS………..General Service GWh…….Gigawatt hour HBL……..Historic Baseline HLH…….High Load Hours IPP………Independent Power Producer kW……….Kilowatt

kWh……..Kilowatt hour LGS………Large General Service LLH……..Light Load Hours LRMC…..Long-Run Marginal Cost MGS…….Medium General Service PLB…….Price Limit Bands RDA……..Rate Design Application RS………Rate Schedule SQ……….Status Quo TOD…….Transformer Ownership Discount TRC……..Total Resource Cost TS………Tariff Supplement TOU…….Time of Use rate UCA…….Utilities Commission Act

1. Welcome and Introductions

Anne Wilson opened the meeting by reviewing the agenda set out in slide 2 of the Workshop 11B slide deck.

Gordon Doyle stated that BCH does not yet have a preferred alternative for either the LGS energy rate or the LGS demand charge. Gord described the purpose of Workshop 11B, which is to solicit feedback on: (1) what should the preferred LGS energy rate be; (2) what should the preferred LGS demand charge be; (3) BCH’s position that GS voluntary rate options form part of RDA Module 2, and the potential options BCH has identified to date; and (4) BCH’s proposals for the review timing of the LGS/MGS demand ratchets and the TOD.

2. Presentation: LGS Energy Rate Alternatives

Rob Gorter and Paulus Mau reviewed the BCH Bonbright assessment of the four LGS energy rate alternatives:(1) SQ LGS Energy Rate; (2) SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate; (3) LGS Flat Energy Rate; and (4) a TSR-Like Rate for a new class of larger LGS customers (referred to as XLGS), which both BCH and AMPC would consider in the context of the LGS Flat Energy Rate alternative for the remainder of the LGS rate class.

Shiau-Ching Chou discussed a number of LGS rate provisions that could be modified or eliminated as part of the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate.


Workshop



Page 2

Allan Chung outlined BCH’s thinking to date regarding a TSR-Like Rate for a new XLGS rate class.

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

1. BCSEA While not advocating for this rate structure, is BCH constrained from examining a declining block energy rate for LGS?

BCH is not constrained, and did examine and then screened out a LGS declining block energy rate on the basis that it is inferior to the four LGS energy rate alternatives, particularly concerning the Bonbright efficiency criterion.

2. FortisBC

Is the 800 GWh/year energy conservation forecast number rate structure specific?

Yes; this forecasted number does not include natural conservation.

3. COPE 378

The general problem BCH is grappling with is the diversity of the LGS rate class. If there is consensus that the LGS Flat Energy Rate does not perform worse than the SQ LGS Energy Rate on conservation, and BCH is forecasting zero conservation from the LGS Flat Energy Rate, why not pursue the LGS Flat Energy Rate?

4. CEC

We are not sure the main problem is class diversity; there are elements of the SQ LGS Energy Rate that are problematic for conservation such as the three year rolling HBL average. Nonetheless, it seems to make sense to pursue the LGS Flat Energy Rate and then review voluntary rate options that may increase conservation and/or address economic cycle issues, etc.

5. AMPC

AMPC’s concern with SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate and the LGS Flat Energy Rate is the bill impacts on LGS high load factor customers. Yesterday BCH acknowledged that high load factor customers use the BCH system more efficiently. What are BCH’s proposals to mitigate these bill impacts?

BCH is exploring demand charge structure alternatives that among other things have the effect of offsetting some of the high load factor customer bill impacts. This is the subject of the next presentation at today’s workshop.

Another possibility is to increase the LGS demand charge demand cost-related recovery, which is currently about 50%. BCH has not modelled different levels of LGS demand charge cost recovery as the current cost recovery is not unreasonable when compared to the Transmission Service RS 1823 demand charge cost recovery of about 65%. BCH is open to feedback on why the LGS demand charge demand cost-related recovery should be increased, and to what level.

6. COPE 378

As a follow-up to AMPC’s comment, COPE 378 thinks it would be a mistake to impose a hard constraint such as ‘no adverse bill impacts to high load factor customers’. COPE 378 thinks the main inefficiency is coming from the level of the energy charge for big GS customers, and not the LGS demand charge level.


Workshop



Page 3

7. Vancouver Aquarium

The SQ LGS Energy Rate is flawed – it penalizes businesses that are in growth phase. The SQ LGS Energy Rate cost Vancouver Aquarium $80,000 triggered by an efficiency-related project but we also received $200,000 in DSM program incentives for the project. The SQ LGS Energy Rate PLBs do not incent conservation.

BCH should flatten the LGS energy rate and look to its DSM programs, which can be better targeted to individual businesses.

The SQ LGS rate was designed to influence decision making to support the efficient use of energy through a price signal that reflects BC Hydro’s marginal cost of energy. As a result customers who grow relative to their baseline will see higher bills and those that decrease consumption relative to their baseline will see lower bills. Rates designed to encourage conservation can impact growing customers due to higher energy charges for increased consumption.

8. CLEAResult

What is the cost of conservation versus DSM programs? The avoided cost of supply is market.

The avoided cost of supply is not market as a result of section 6 of the Clean Energy Act, which requires BCH to be self-sufficient. The avoided cost of supply is thus B.C.-based resources.

BCH uses the avoided cost of supply in the TRC test for DSM programs as described in the California Standard Practice Manual1 to screen DSM. The BCUC’s determination of DSM cost-effectiveness for purposes of DSM expenditure schedules submitted under section 44.2 of the UCA is guided by the Demand-Side Measures Regulation, which among other things contains modifications to the TRC test – the Regulation provides for a deemed value of natural gas savings and a deemed non-energy benefit adder of 15 per cent.

9. Thrifty Foods

Thrifty Foods has benefitted from the SQ LGS Energy Rate; we think the SQ LGS Energy Rate reduced the payback period for some projects as we received credits. We are concerned that with the LGS Flat Energy Rate there will be no more credits.

SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate

10. BCUC staff

Is the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate simply ‘flogging a dead horse’? Does BCH anticipate that the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate can deliver more conservation?

The SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate was brought forward in response to some LGS customer comments at Workshop 8B that it may be possible to simplify the SQ LGS Energy Rate and that BCH should review a number of the SQ LGS Energy Rate provisions such as TS 82, the prospective growth rule.

Nonetheless, the complexity flows from the baseline and the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate retains the baseline. It also debatable whether flattening the LGS Part 1 energy rate will make for a clearer price signal.

11. BCSEA

We echo BCUC staff’s comment; in the end, to the extent complexity is the reason for the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate poor conservation performance, SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate is not likely to solve the problem.

1 California Standard Practice Manual: Economic Analysis of Demand-Side Programs and Projects (October 2001); available at

California Energy Commission’s website at www.energy.ca.gov.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/

http://www.energy.ca.gov/


Workshop



Page 4

12. Viterra

The statement on slide 17 that moving to annual baselines may create cash flow problems at the end of the year for customers is a red herring. Business customers do annual budgeting and can plan out the cash flow fluctuation ahead of time.

BCH bases this statement from its experience with the 2005 Transmission Service Rate application, but recognizes that cash flow may not be an issue for all LGS customers. Customers who cannot cope with the bill fluctuation can set up the Equal Payment Plan (EPP).

13. BCOAPO

Could BCH make either TS 82 or the FGR optional for LGS customers, e.g., if there is a benefit, BCH would put the customer on the particular rule?

Customers’ consumption fluctuates throughout the year. BCH will not know whether a customer would benefit from the provisions until the end of the special adjustment (1 year for FGR and three years for TS82).

14. TransLink

The 30% threshold is too high for the FGR and TS 82.

15. Vancouver Aquarium

We echo TransLink’s concern that the 30% threshold for TS 82 and the FGR is very difficult to meet.

16. Ivanhoe Cambridge

Is the 30% increase in energy consumption over a one year period? If so, it cannot take into account projects that come in phases.

Yes, it is 30% increase in energy consumption over a one year period.

17. BCOAPO

Can BCH explain how higher baselines sometimes create higher bills?

When baselines are lower, the 20% price limit band (PLB) is smaller. Additional growth above the PLB is priced at the Part 1 rate. Higher baselines have larger 20% PLBs. Customers with significant growth are likely to have consumption exceeding baselines, even after their baselines are adjusted to be higher. With a larger 20% PLB, more kWhs are being priced at the higher LRMC rate, thus the bill is higher.

18. Thrifty Foods

While we are in favor of the SQ LGS Energy Rate, the new accounts 85/15 rate must be changed as it is unfair when there has been no change in operations. What was the reason for the 85/15 rate?

In its 2009 LGS Application, BCH originally proposed that new accounts would pay the Part 1 energy rate for billed consumption for the first 12 months of service with one exception: the last 10% of energy consumed in a monthly billing period would be charged at the Part 2 energy rate, the LRMC-based rate, rather than the Part 1 energy rate. The 2010 Negotiated Settlement Agreement resulted in the current 85/15 rate.

There were two reasons for the 85/15 rate – to prevent gaming to obtain a more favorable baseline and to ensure that new accounts were exposed to some sort of LRMC price signal.

BCH has heard that a number of LGS customers are concerned with the 85/15 rate for new accounts.

19. Ivanhoe Cambridge

We support the BCH proposal on slide 27 of applying 100% Part 1 energy rates to new accounts.


Workshop



Page 5

20. CEC

By Part 1 energy rates, BCH means both Tier 1 and Tier 2?

We agree that the 85/15 new accounts rate is problematic.

Yes.

LGS Flat Energy Rate

21. FortisBC

Would the LGS Flat Energy Rate address customer concerns that the SQ LGS Energy Rate ‘penalizes’ growth?

With the LGS Flat Energy Rate, there are no baseline-related rules, so a customer’s consumption relative to their past consumption history is not a factor in determining the energy portion of the bills. All energy consumed will be charged at the same rate.

22. Chemtrade

Chemtrade has two chemical plants located in Prince George, B.C. Chemtrade takes service under the LGS rate for the smaller of the two plants.

If the baseline is removed, LGS customers may do conservation projects that might not otherwise have done.

23. BCUC staff

It would be helpful if BCH for purposes of the RDA obtained more feedback from LGS customers as to impact of baselines on conservation projects.

The LGS Flat Energy Rate seems to look better than either of the SQ LGS Energy Rate or the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate. It also appears that the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate has many of the same problems as the SQ LGS Energy Rate with the baseline complexity still being there impeding conservation.

24. COPE 378

While the conservation goals have not been met through the SQ LGS Energy Rate, this is not a reason to drop the energy rate to about half the lower end of the LRMC range through the LGS Flat Energy Rate.

The energy rate of 5.94 cents/kWh (F2017) resulting from the LGS Flat Energy Rate is based on revenue neutrality and keeping the demand charge at its current cost recovery. Note that the energy LRMC range is set out at page 7 of the Workshop 8A/8B Consideration Memo, including for F2017 (lower end – 9.54 cents/kWh; upper end – 11.23 cents/kWh).2

BCH is not clear on what, if anything, COPE 378 is suggesting as an alternative. As set on slide 30, it is not possible to set the LGS Flat Energy Rate at the lower end of the LRMC range as BCH would need to credit customers for demand to maintain revenue neutrality.

2 https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/regulatory-

matters/2015-06-19-bch-rda-wksp-8a-8b-gsrs.pdf.






Workshop



Page 6

25. AMPC

We question the origin of the energy LRMC range. We have seen quotes for gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines of about 5 c/kWh.

There are differences of option as to whether gas-fired generation is on the margin.

As discussed yesterday, the energy LRMC range results from the approved 2013 Integrated Resource Plan, which found that the two resources types required to fill the energy gap over the next ten years are DSM and IPP contract renewals, and this resulted in a range of 8.5 cents/KWh to 10.0 cent/kWh (F2013).

Gas-fired generation is not on the margin for BCH given the section 2 Clean Energy Act’s 90% clean or renewable generation energy objective.

TSR-Like Rate

26. Viterra

Would BCH employ the concept of revenue neutrality for a XLGS rate class taking service under the TSR-Like Rate?

BC Hydro would review the application of revenue neutrality and bill neutrality to a XLGS rate class to ensure pricing principles are appropriate to the rate design.

27. BCOAPO

How does the number of accounts at a breakpoint of 2,000 kW compare to the RS 1823 number of about 140 accounts?

This information is set out at page 44 of the 8A/8B Consideration Memo for a number of peak demand breakpoints; a 2,000 kW breakpoint results in 172 LGS accounts.

28. CEC

Has BCH undertaken analysis of the 172 accounts using the 2,000 kW breakpoint?

Revised Response

The general sector classification of the 172 accounts is as follows in the table below:

Sector # % of Total

Transportation 14 8%

Commercial 18 10%

Government & Institution 26 15%

Property 25 15%

Industrial 35 20%

Wood 41 24%

Other Resource 13 8%

Total 172 100%

29. CLEAResult

Given that a TSR-Like Rate would have annual baselines, public institutions and municipal governments may have end of year cash flow problems.


Workshop



Page 7

30. COPE 378

A TSR-Like Rate may be a bad fit for public institutions. BCH should consider segmenting the LGS rate class and creating a new class of government and public institutions.

BCH does not see a cost of service basis for this kind of segmentation. Based on the jurisdictional analysis for GS segmentation discussed yesterday, BCH is not aware of Canadian electric utilities segmenting government and public institutions from the rest of the GS classes. However, Yukon Electric has separate GS rate schedules for the federal and territorial governments in its service area.3

31. BCOAPO

Regarding slide 33 and the potential conservation savings of about 200 GWh, what is the basis for the assumption of accounts consuming at 90%?

The assumption is based on RS 1823.

32. West Fraser

What is the LGS equivalent of the 2,020 GWh figure on slide 33?

We do not see the cash flow issue as a con as noted on slide 34; it can be a pro to pay at the end of the year.

It is about 19% of total LGS class load.

Noted. BCH’s main concern with the TSR-Like Rate is the administrative burden as outlined on slide 34.

33. Viterra

We don’t see the administrative issues as significant hurdle for the TSR-Like Rate, particularly if the TSR-Like Rate is extended to only 170 or so accounts.

34. CEC

Importing the concept of the RS 1823 dead-band may result in a loss of the LRMC signal. This issue is more complex than shown on slide 33.

BCH has only begun exploring a TSR-Like Rate in responses to comments from AMPC and Viterra provided in respect of Workshop 8B.

35. COPE 378

The LGS Flat Energy Rate energy price is too low, and in our view, this is the only reason for examining a TSR-Like Rate. However, there are problems with RS 1823 – it seems easy to save at 10%. The administrative issues look significant. BCH should explore if there other ways to induce conservation for LGS while pursuing the LGS Flat Energy Rate.

3 https://www.yukonenergy.ca/customer-centre/commercial-wholesale/rate-schedules/.




Workshop



Page 8

36. AMPC

Consumption at or around 90% of CBL does not mean RS 1823 is not working or delivering conservation.

AMPC proposed a TSR-Like Rate for large LGS customers with peak demand of 2,000 kW because: (1) it recognized that extending a TSR-Like Rate to all LGS accounts is not viable; (2) the 2,000 kW breakpoint limits the administrative issues – 170 accounts is comparable to the current RS 1823 140 or so accounts. In addition, many of the larger LGS customers are served by distribution due to ‘accidents of geography’ but are more akin to BCH Transmission Service customers. Finally, a TSR-Like Rate has the potential to incent conservation from those LGS customers most able to respond.

Note also that AMPC proposed a TSR-Like Rate to work with the LGS Flat Energy Rate for the remainder of the current LGS class.

Agreed that the overall administrative burden falls if the TSR-Like Rate is coupled with the LGS Flat Energy Rate. BCH would be opposed to a TSR-Like Rate together with either the SQ LGS Energy Rate or the SQ LGS Simplified Energy Rate.

37. Viterra

Note that with the coming to an end of the persistence of DSM projects, the RS 1823 Tier 2 rate will come back into play as customers begin to consume above 90% of CBL.

Agreed that going forward, more Transmission Service customers are like to see the RS 1823 Tier 2 rate due to DSM persistence.

38. BCUC staff

We heard in Workshops 8A/8B and this workshop that some LGS customers have conserved under the SQ LGS Energy Rate, but that a larger portion has not. How many of the LGS customers who stated that they have conserved would migrate to a TSR-Like Rate and continue with conservation?

BCH will seek this feed-back.

39. BCUC staff

It appears a TSR-Like Rate could address the problem of bill impacts to high load factor customers associated with the LGS Flat Energy Rate.

This is not clear to BCH at the present time. For example, BCH has not yet examined the bill impacts for the remainder of the LGS rate class under a LGS Flat Energy Rate after segmenting and creating a XLGS class and implementing a TSR-Like Rate.

3. Presentation: LGS Demand Charge Alternatives

Rob Gorter and Paulus Mau reviewed the BCH Bonbright assessment of the three LGS demand charge alternatives: (1) SQ Demand Charge; (2) Flat Demand Charge; and (3) Two Step Demand Charge, which retains the current zero Tier 1 and flattens Tier 2 and Tier 3 into a single Tier 2.

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

1. BCUC staff

In terms of pursuing a Flat Demand Charge, many of the high load factor accounts in the lower right of slide 42 would migrate to a TSR-Like Rate and this could be a mitigation measure.

BCH has not modelled the level of demand charge cost recovery or other aspects of the TSR-Like Rate and so is not able to conclude what its effects are.


Workshop



Page 9

2. CEC

Is it the Flat Demand Charge that is causing the high load factor customer bill impacts?

CEC wishes to engage with BCH to explore if there are additional ways to mitigate the high load factor customer bill impacts.

No, it is the flattening of the SQ LGS Energy Rate Part 1 energy rates which causes the high load factor customer bill impacts; the Flat Demand Charge somewhat offsets these bill impacts.

3. COPE 378

Has BCH considered using HLH/LLH concepts for a LGS demand charge which would better reflect the marginal cost?

Yes; one demand charge option that is the subject of the next presentation at today’s workshop is to charge customers for peak HLH only.

4. BCSEA

In BCH’s view, which of the Flat Demand Charge and the Two Step Demand Charge better reflects cost causality?

The Flat Demand Charge. Refer to section 5.2 of the Workshop 8A/8B Consideration Memo for additional details.

4. Presentation: GS Voluntary Rate

Rob Gorter set out BCH’s position that GS voluntary rate options should form part of Module 2, as BCH believes that the GS default rates need to be set first through Module 1 before customers can make decisions about voluntary rate options. Rob also outlined the four GS rate options BCH has considered to date in conjunction with CEC: (1) TOU rate; ( 2) interruptible rates; (3) Efficiency Rate Credit; and (4) three demand charge options.

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

1. COPE 378

Has BCH considered a default LGS rate which would have a significantly lower energy rate for LLH and a higher HLH rate?

In BCH’s view, this option is essentially a mandatory TOU rate which is contrary to B.C. Government policy.

2. FNEMC

Would BCH open up the optional Transmission Service freshet pilot to GS customers if the pilot is deemed a success?

Yes, this is something BCH would consider.

3. BCUC staff

BCH should consider testing GS interruptible rate options through pilots to see what actual take-up is.

4. CEC

We urge caution in using the pilot demonstration approach for interruptible rate options. GS customers will want some certainty for their investments.

It appears that the interruptible rate options will require separate metering.

GS customers will want to know what the probability is of interruption and for how long.

Not necessarily for option 3 on slide 58.

The timing and length of interruptions and other necessary design parameters are considerations that BC Hydro would review in RDA Module 2 in consultation with customers and stakeholders.


Workshop



Page 10

5. BCOAPO

Are the three interruptible rate options set out on slide 58 meant to address Transmission and/or Distribution constraints?

Yes with respect to Option 1; BCH is exploring a RS 1852-like option with CEC and to date has focused on Delta in the Lower Mainland as this is where GS greenhouse growers are located, which CEC advised are interested in interruptible rates. BCH does not see any Transmission constraints in the Delta area but is investigating if there are Distribution constraints.

Option 3 is more likely aimed at Generation capacity resource displacement and so the credit could be based on the avoided cost of Generation capacity resources such as Revelstoke Unit 6 or gas-fired Simple Cycle Gas Turbines.

6. CEC

CEC proposes to explore the Efficiency Rate Credit concept as part of Module 2 but slide 61 shows a timeline out to 2020-2030. CEC would like a discussion on what can be done before arriving at an efficiency-based price signal; CEC raised this same issue at the May 2015 EC&E meeting and this slide has not changed.

Slide 61 shows that a considerable amount of work is needed for an efficiency price signal. BCH will continue liaising with CEC at EC&E regarding this, and is proposing to explore CEC’s Efficiency Rate Credit as part of Module 2. As part of this, BCH wants to know what the advantage of a credit approach is as compared to DSM programs; in other words, the appropriate mechanism may not be a rate.

7. BCUC staff

We are interested in more information concerning Manitoba Hydro’s Limited Use of Billing Demand option.

Revised Response

Set out below is a link to Manitoba Hydro’s report to the Manitoba Public Utilities Board concerning its Limited Use of Billing Demand option for 2013/2014.4

Note that a key aspect of the option is that it is for low load factor customers with low coincidence.

8. CEC

We encourage BCH to explore demand charge options beyond those listed on slide 62 as we have heard from greenhouse growers in particular they have concerns with the current MGS and LGS demand charge structure.

BCH will discuss with CEC what other options CEC is thinking of, and what the rationale for those options may be.

9. CLEAResult

Since 4 CP is such a large BCH cost item, has BCH explored seasonally-based demand charges?

BCH found through its jurisdictional assessment that other Canadian electric utilities typically have flat or two step demand charges for larger GS customers. Nevertheless, a seasonally-based demand charge is close to the demand ratchet BCH will be discussing as part of the next presentation at today’s workshop.

5. Presentation: LGS/MGS Demand Ratchets and TOD

Rob Gorter outlined BCH’s proposals for examining the MGS and LGS demand ratchets as part of Module 1 as they are integral part of these default rates, and for reviewing the TOD as part of Module 2 as it more closely relates to Distribution extension policy.

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

1. FNEMC

The amount of revenue collected through demand ratchets. What is the rationale for demand ratchets?

Demand ratchets ensure a minimum contribution from those customers with high winter peak consumption and little consumption the rest of the year.

4 https://www.hydro.mb.ca/regulatory_affairs/electric/gra_2014_2015/pdf/appendix_6_12.pdf .

https://www.hydro.mb.ca/regulatory_affairs/electric/gra_2014_2015/pdf/appendix_6_12.pdf

https://www.hydro.mb.ca/regulatory_affairs/electric/gra_2014_2015/pdf/appendix_6_12.pdf


Workshop



Page 11

2. BCOAPO

Can the COS provide insight into the TOD?

The TOD represents the estimated capital cost of transformation that BC Hydro would incur if BC Hydro was responsible for providing transformation . The analysis of TOD is more of an avoided cost as opposed to embedded cost approach.

6. Closing Comments

Anne Wilson thanked everyone for making the time to participate in the workshop and reviewed the ways that feedback can be submitted to BC Hydro. The 30 day written comment period commences for both Workshop 11A and Workshop 11B with the posting of the Workshop 11B summary notes on July 13, 2015. Meeting adjourned at 2.30 PM.





Rate Structures


Attachment 2 Feedback Forms and Written Comments

6083332.06

Association of Major Power Customers of BC (AMPC)

Further Submissions re LGS Demand and Energy Charges

July 27, 2015

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this submission, AMPC provides additional comments on BC Hydro’s large general

service (LGS) “flattened” rate alternatives.

2. AMPC supports a flattened, no baseline alternative (“Flat Part 1 Energy + Flat Demand,

no baseline”) provided that the proportion of demand and energy charges is revised to recover a

substantially greater portion of demand related costs from demand charges. AMPC also

supports the “TSR-like rate” proposed by BC Hydro on June 26, for loads greater than 2 MW.

AMPC considers that option complementary, and not mutually exclusive, to this proposal.

3. AMPC’s proposal is pragmatic and consistent with RS 1823. It would moderate the rate

shock that BC Hydro’s proposed alternatives would create for some industrial customers.

II. BACKGROUND

4. Direction 19 in the 2007 Rate Design Application (RDA) Decision directed BC Hydro to

develop rates for existing LGS customers that would encourage conservation and not unduly

harm or benefit its customers. BC Hydro entered into a Negotiated Settlement Agreement

(NSA) in 2010 to meet these requirements, and established two part energy rates for LGS. BC

Hydro’s consultation materials explain BC Hydro’s current view, that the LGS rates were

complex, causing customers to have difficulty understanding them, and had only a limited

impact on conservation.1

5. BC Hydro examined four “Bonbright” criteria as part of its analysis when it concluded its

previous LGS rate approach was inadequate:

(i) economic efficiency, including a price signal that encouraged efficient use and

discouraged inefficient use;

(ii) fairness, including fair apportionment among customers and avoiding undue

discrimination;

1 BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application Workshop 11A Presentation dated June 25, 2015, slide 8.

(AMPC)

2

6083332.06

(iii) practicality, including customer understanding and acceptance; and

(iv) stability, including recovery of the revenue requirement, revenue stability and rate

stability.2

6. In AMPC’s view, the LGS rates established under the NSA did not follow the first and

third criteria because they had only a limited conservation impact and were difficult to

understand, by all but the most sophisticated customers.

7. In the current rate design process, two prominent BC Hydro alternatives include a flat

energy charge of $0.0576/kWh and a flat demand charge of $8.07/kW (one with a baseline

second calculation, and one without).3 BC Hydro identified a number of benefits to a no

baseline approach:4

(i) Customer understanding and acceptance because the approach is easier to

understand and less complex.

(ii) Fairness through a better reflection of demand costs and a more equitable

distribution of fixed costs among customers of different sizes.

(iii) Improved practicality through a significant reduction in time to manage bill

adjustments and information technology time.

8. However, BC Hydro also identified drawbacks to such an approach:

(i) Some customers will experience large bill impacts.

(ii) One-time administrative costs to change billing procedures.

(iii) Economic efficiency effects that may reduce conservation and cause the

marginal energy rate to be below the lower end of the long run marginal cost

(LRMC) range.

2 BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application, Session 1: Existing Rate Structures Presentation dated January 21, 2015, slide 65. 3 BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application, Session 2: Alternative Rate Structures dated February 11, 2015, slide 19. 4 BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application, Session 2: Alternative Rate Structures dated February 11, 2015, slides 20-21.

(AMPC)

3

6083332.06

III. PROPOSAL

9. AMPC generally supports BC Hydro’s use of flattened energy and demand charges with

no baseline. Such an approach is simpler, more transparent, easier to understand and more

efficient than the status quo and the other alternative rate options. Demand charges should, in

any event, always be single tier.

10. According to BC Hydro, LGS demand charge revenue only recovers about 50% of the

demand charge related costs as determined by the Fully Allocated Cost of Service (FACOS)

study. BC Hydro has not identified any principled basis for the current split in cost recovery

through the energy charge and the demand charge, and relies on its historic usage of this ratio

and the absence of participant objections to its use as its basis for the ratio’s continued usage.5

11. BC Hydro’s data demonstrates that maintaining the 50/50 split creates unfair

distributional impacts across LGS customers depending on load factor and annual

consumption.6 Many of the lowest load factor customers see bill decreases between 7 and 9%,

while the highest load factor customers see bill increases between 10 and 12%, despite there

being no principled basis to limit demand cost recovery by demand charges to 50%. Low load

factor customers whose use of facilities is relatively inefficient get a windfall relative to the status

quo rate option, at the expense of high load factor customers, who use the infrastructure more

efficiently.

12. AMPC disagrees with BC Hydro’s choice of energy and demand charges, and earlier

provided an illustrative industrial customer example with a reduced energy charge of

$0.0521/kWh and an increased demand charge of $10.075/kW (see Appendix A). That

structure better balances demand costs with demand rates and would reduce the negative

impact of the proposed rates, as well as better meet the Bonbright standard of efficiency.7

5 BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application, BC Hydro Summary and Consideration of Participant Feedback dated January 21, pp. 50-51. 6 BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application, Session 2: Alternative Rate Structures dated February 11, 2015, slide 64. 7 AMPC also earlier proposed a tiered (two part) energy structure for either a "Super Class" of LGS customers with loads at or above 2MW, or that a new rate class be established for that characteristic. In either case, the rate would feature a Customer Base Line (CBL) that is set and adjusted on an annual basis similar to the CBL process currently used for RS 1823 customers. AMPC continues to support that option, in addition to this proposal. Doing so would preserve a dynamic energy conservation signal for the largest general service customers familiar with the TSR/CBL procedures and most able to understand and respond to the sophisticated energy conservation price signal, and who have the potential to make the greatest conservation impact.

(AMPC)

4

6083332.06

13. Increasing the demand charge proportion of LGS rates better matches the demand

related costs identified in the FACOS study. It is also directionally consistent with the

Transmission Service Rate (TSR) customers’ demand charge cost recovery of approximately

65%.8

14. AMPC’s earlier illustrative $10.075/kW demand charge (Appendix A) would recover

roughly 60% of demand related costs, and is consistent with the demand charges in other

jurisdictions in Canada that BC Hydro has presented. It therefore fits within an appropriate

range.9 This is also the case if it is increased by about 10% further to recover ~65% of demand

related costs, consistent with TSR demand cost recovery.

15. AMPC submits that increasing the demand charge proportion for the flattened/no

baseline alternative better satisfies the four Bonbright criteria used by BC Hydro to evaluate the

status quo LGS rate, identified earlier. By reducing bill impacts the approach is more fair, more

pragmatic, and has no adverse effects on rate stability. For the reasons mentioned below, the

revision would also send a better conservation signal, and hence better satisfy the economic

efficiency criterion. .

16. A potential criticism of increasing the proportion of demand costs recovered by demand

charges is that the energy price would decline (e.g., by approximately 10% in the illustrative

example provided earlier in Appendix A), limiting the conservation signal that the energy rate

would send. In response, AMPC notes that (i) BC Hydro’s research shows that total bill impact

drives behaviour, rather than bill components,10 and (ii) a modest decline in the energy rate

would have little effect on its conservation signal in any event.

17. To the extent that bill components influence behaviours, in AMPC’s view demand

charges also transmit an important efficiency and conservation signal. Benefitting low load

factor users at the expense of high load factor users sends the wrong conservation signals to

customers and reverses any incentive to shift from low load factor usage to high load factor

usage, which over time increases the demand on the electric system as a whole to match peak

demand requirements. This increases the need for new infrastructure, and reduces the use of

infrastructure already in place.

8 BC Hydro Rate Design Workshop Summary Notes dated June 26, 2015, p. 2. 9 BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application Workshops 11A and 11B, Appendix dated June 25-26, 2015, pp. 2-3. 10 BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application, Session 1: Existing Rate Structures Presentation dated January 21, 2015, slide 48.

(AMPC)

5

6083332.06

18. In the planning process, long-run marginal costs expressed as unit energy costs ($/MWh

– presuming all the costs of development are variable) are frequently used to summarize the

comparative costs of alternative sources in a highly simplified manner for ranking of new

resource choices. In transferring this simplified unit energy cost concept to rate design, care

must be taken to not lose sight of the reality that most of the marginal costs of supply are fixed

costs and not variable costs. Demand charges are therefore an important price signal for

efficiency. They reflect the high proportion of marginal (as well as embedded) costs that do not

vary with hourly energy usage. High load factor customers responding to higher demand

charges not only use existing facilities more efficiently, but also reduce the need for future

(marginal) facilities. Marginal cost in rate design should not only focus on energy rates, and the

significance of demand rates in providing efficiency signals should not be neglected.

19. In summary, the rate system for LGS customers should send well-accepted signals, and

incentivize a shift from low load factor use to high load factor use. Under BC Hydro’s proposed

flattening options, this can only occur by varying the split in cost recovery between energy and

demand charges.

IV. CONCLUSION

20. For the reasons above, AMPC suggests that BC Hydro revise its LGS rate demand

charges to recover 65% of demand costs, to match the TSR proportion. This is directionally

consistent with the earlier example of proposed energy and demand rates of $0.0521/kWh and

$10.075/kW, respectively. AMPC’s proposal is superior to the alternatives proposed to date by

BC Hydro, having similar positive attributes but fewer negative attributes, and should be

adopted in the forthcoming Rate Design Application.

(AMPC)

6083332.06

APPENDIX A

BC Hydro has proposed a demand charge of $8.07 /kW and a commodity charge of

$0.0576/kWh for its “Flat Part 1 Energy + Flat Demand, no baseline” option. AMPC

suggests pricing the same scenario at a demand charge of $10.075/kW and a

commodity charge of $0.0521/kWh.

Based on a sample calculation for a customer with a 2 MW demand, 30-day month, and

75% load factor (i.e., 1,080 MWh consumed):

o BC Hydro’s proposed $8.07 /kW and $0.0576/kWh figures result in:

a cost increase of 2.59% for 75% load factor customers, relative to RS

1611; and

a cost decrease of 4.65% for 30% load factor customers, relative to RS

1611.

o Using AMPC’s proposed $10.075/kW and $0.0521/kWh figures result in:

no cost increase compared to RS 1611 for 75% load factor customers;

and

a cost decrease of 1.10% compared to RS 1611 for 30% load factor

customers.

(AMPC)

1

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

N

ame/

Org

aniz

atio

n : A

MPC

C

omm

ents

(Ple

ase

do n

ot id

entif

y th

ird-p

arty

indi

vidu

als

in

your

com

men

ts. C

omm

ents

bea

ring

refe

renc

es to

iden

tifia

ble

indi

vidu

als

will

be

disc

arde

d du

e to

priv

acy

conc

erns

).

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

A. C

ost

of

Ser

vice

An

alys

is:

Seg

men

tati

on

Met

ho

do

log

y ( S

lides

17

to 2

1 o

f Ju

ne

25, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

11A

Pre

sen

tati

on

). B

C H

ydro

dis

cuss

ed t

wo

met

ho

ds

of

seg

men

tati

on

:

Met

hod

1:

BC

Hyd

ro to

ok s

ampl

es o

f 1, 0

00 c

usto

mer

s fr

om e

ach

of S

GS

, MG

S a

nd L

GS

cla

sses

;

F16

For

ecas

t cos

ts a

ssig

ned

to G

S r

ate

clas

ses

pool

ed a

nd r

e-al

loca

ted

pro

rata

by

indi

vidu

al

cust

omer

kW

h, 4

Coi

ncid

ent P

eak

(CP

) de

man

d, a

nd N

on-C

oinc

iden

t Pea

k (N

CP

) de

man

d .

Res

ults

of m

etho

d 1

not c

oncl

usiv

e:

NC

P a

lloca

tion

varie

s de

pend

ing

on c

oinc

iden

ce w

ithin

cla

sse

s.

Coi

ncid

ence

is b

ette

r co

rrel

ated

with

cos

t tha

n cu

stom

er s

ize.

Tra

nsfo

rmer

cos

t may

var

y w

ith s

ize

but c

ost i

mpa

ct is

sm

all.

Met

hod

2:

Con

side

r co

st a

lloca

tion

base

d o

n pr

e -as

sign

ed s

egm

ents

of c

usto

mer

s . C

usto

mer

s w

ill b

e gr

oupe

d by

siz

e as

opp

osed

to e

valu

ated

indi

vidu

ally

– to

be

revi

ewed

at J

uly

30, 2

015

wra

p-up

w

orks

hop.

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k o

n w

hat

oth

er a

nal

ysis

of

seg

men

tati

on

sh

ou

ld b

e co

nd

uct

ed. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

gg

mm

cg

dd

gk

kk

fff N

oA

MN

oN

o

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

2

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

B.

SG

S –

SG

S B

asic

Ch

arg

e (S

lides

22

to 2

7 o

f Ju

ne

25, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

11A

P

rese

nta

tio

n)

BC

Hyd

ro w

as a

sked

to m

odel

incr

easi

ng th

e S

GS

bas

ic c

harg

e to

a le

vel c

ompa

rabl

e to

the

Res

iden

tial B

asic

Cha

rge

cost

rec

over

y, fr

om th

e cu

rren

t 35%

leve

l to

45%

.

Res

ults

:

Incr

easi

ng S

GS

bas

ic c

harg

e to

45%

of c

ost r

ecov

ery

is c

lose

r to

full

fixed

cos

t rec

over

y

Res

ultin

g en

ergy

rat

e re

mai

ns w

ithin

the

LRM

C a

nd w

ithou

t sub

stan

tial b

ill im

pact

s

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er B

C H

ydro

sh

ou

ld in

crea

se t

he

SG

S b

asic

ch

arg

e co

st

reco

very

co

mp

arab

le t

o R

esid

enti

al B

asic

Ch

arg

e co

st r

eco

very

. Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

The

SGS

basi

c ch

arge

sho

uld

be in

crea

sed

to b

ette

r mat

ch

the

allo

cate

d co

sts.

Le

ss e

mph

asis

sho

uld

be p

lace

d on

LR

MC

refle

ctin

g un

certa

inty

of L

RM

C e

valu

atio

n , it

s va

riatio

n ov

er ti

me,

and

its

app

ropr

iate

ness

as

a pu

rely

var

iabl

e ch

arge

.

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

3

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

C.

MG

S D

eman

d C

har

ges

1.

BC

Hyd

ro p

rese

nted

thre

e al

tern

ativ

es fo

r de

man

d ch

arge

s:

i. S

tatu

s Q

uo

ii.

Alte

rnat

ive

A -

flat

dem

and

char

ge +

flat

ene

rgy

rate

iii.

Alte

rnat

ive

B –

two

step

dem

and

char

ge +

flat

ene

rgy

rate

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

thre

e d

eman

d c

har

ge

stru

ctu

re a

lter

nat

ives

is

pre

ferr

ed (

wit

h r

easo

ns)

. Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

2.

Sta

keho

lder

s re

ques

ted

BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

incr

ease

d M

GS

dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery;

BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

ed in

crea

sing

the

MG

S d

eman

d co

st r

ecov

ery

of fl

at d

eman

d fr

om a

ppro

xim

atel

y 15

% to

35

% fo

r F

lat E

nerg

y R

ate/

Fla

t Dem

and

Cha

rge

Alte

rnat

ive

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

he

MG

S d

eman

d c

har

ge

cost

rec

ove

ry s

ho

uld

be

incr

ease

d, a

nd

if s

o t

o w

hat

leve

l (w

ith

rea

son

s). P

leas

e p

rovi

de

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

3.

BC

Hyd

ro c

onsi

dere

d T

rans

ition

Str

ateg

ies

for

mov

ing

to a

flat

ene

rgy

rate

, an

d fla

t dem

and

char

ge:

thre

e-ye

ar p

hase

–in

10%

bill

impa

ct C

ap

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

two

hig

h-l

evel

alt

ern

ativ

e M

GS

rat

e tr

ansi

tio

n

stra

teg

ies

is p

refe

rred

(w

ith

rea

son

s). P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

T

he fl

at d

eman

d ch

arge

and

flat

ene

rgy

char

ge

is s

trong

ly p

refe

rred

for s

impl

icity

, eas

e of

un

ders

tand

ing,

bill

stab

ility

(as

cust

omer

usa

ge

chan

ges)

and

com

para

bilit

y to

rate

s of

oth

er u

tiliti

es.

The

prin

cipl

e of

effi

cien

t use

is s

till m

et. S

impl

e fla

t en

ergy

and

dem

and

char

ges

enco

urag

e ef

ficie

ncy

by

setti

ng a

pric

e on

bot

h de

man

d an

d en

ergy

that

en

cour

ages

bot

h en

ergy

con

serv

atio

n an

d m

ore

effic

ient

use

of e

xist

ing

and

futu

re in

frast

ruct

ure.

The

MG

S de

man

d ch

arge

s sh

ould

be

incr

ease

d as

th

ey d

o no

t ade

quat

ely

capt

ure

the

full

dem

and

cost

. Th

is is

as

muc

h an

effi

cien

cy c

onsi

dera

tion

as th

e le

vel o

f ene

rgy

cost

reco

very

.

A th

ree

year

pha

se-in

is p

refe

rred

. Thi

s is

an

easi

ly

adm

inis

tere

d an

d co

mm

only

ado

pted

app

roac

h th

at

mee

ts th

e pr

inci

ples

of r

ate

stab

ility

and

cust

omer

un

ders

tand

ing/

acce

ptan

ce.

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

4

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

A.

Pre

ferr

ed L

GS

Rat

e S

tru

ctu

re (

Slid

es 9

to

54

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g s

take

ho

lder

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

fou

r en

erg

y ra

te s

tru

ctu

re

alte

rnat

ives

an

d t

he

thre

e d

eman

d c

har

ge

stru

ctu

re a

lter

nat

ives

are

pre

ferr

ed, a

nd

wh

y . P

lea

se

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

yo

u h

ave

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

En

erg

y ra

te a

lter

nat

ives

:

1.

Sta

tus

Quo

LG

S E

nerg

y ra

te (

reta

in b

asel

ine)

2.

Sim

plify

ene

rgy

rate

str

uctu

re (

reta

in b

asel

ine)

:

A.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1 E

nerg

y R

ate

B.

Con

side

r m

odify

Bas

elin

e R

ate

Pro

visi

ons:

i. D

eter

min

atio

n of

bas

elin

es (

mon

thly

ver

sus

annu

al v

ersu

s ro

lling

ave

rage

, et

c.)

ii.

Pric

e lim

it ba

nds

(PLB

s) to

add

ress

con

cern

s th

at r

ates

are

‘pun

itive

to

grow

ing

cust

omer

s’, a

nd/o

r to

en

cour

age

furt

her

cons

erva

tion

iii.

Gro

wth

rul

es to

mak

e le

ss r

estr

ictiv

e

iv.

New

acc

ount

rul

es

3.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e (r

emov

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure )

4.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e fo

r m

ajor

ity o

f LG

S c

usto

mer

s an

d cr

eate

TS

R-li

ke r

ate

with

in

divi

dual

ly a

dmin

iste

red

base

line

s fo

r se

gmen

t of v

ery

larg

e LG

S c

usto

mer

s

Dem

and

Ch

arg

e al

tern

ativ

es:

1.

Sta

tus

quo

incl

inin

g th

ree-

step

dem

and

char

ge

2.

Fla

t dem

and

char

ge

3.

Tw

o-st

ep d

eman

d ch

arge

A fla

t dem

and

and

flat e

nerg

y ra

te fo

r the

maj

ority

of

LGS

cus

tom

ers

with

a T

SR-li

ke tw

o tie

r ene

rgy

rate

fo

r ver

y la

rge

(gre

ater

than

2M

W) “

XLG

S” c

usto

mer

s is

stro

ngy

pref

erre

d (O

ptio

n 4)

. Th

e fla

t dem

and

and

flat e

nerg

y ra

te s

houl

d be

ad

opte

d fo

r mos

t LG

S cu

sto m

ers

for t

he s

ame

reas

ons

it is

reco

mm

ende

d fo

r MG

S cu

stom

ers.

C

onsi

sten

t with

its

earli

er s

epar

ate

subm

issi

on, A

MPC

re

com

men

ds in

crea

sing

the

dem

and

char

ge c

ost

reco

very

to a

pro

porti

o n c

onsi

sten

t with

the

TSR

rate

cl

ass.

X

LGS

cust

omer

s ar

e si

gnifi

cant

ly la

rger

than

typi

cal

LGS

cus

tom

ers,

few

er in

num

ber,

and

have

mor

e in

co

mm

on w

ith th

e TS

R c

lass

. The

25K

V vo

ltage

leve

l of

ser

vice

refle

cts

an a

ccid

ent o

f geo

grap

hy ra

ther

th

an a

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

i n e

lect

rical

ch

arac

teris

tics,

and

thes

e ar

e cu

stom

ers

that

tend

to

own

thei

r ow

n su

bsta

tions

. X

LGS

cust

omer

s ar

e la

rge

and

soph

istic

ated

eno

ugh

to b

ette

r res

pond

to th

e tw

o tie

red

ener

gy p

rice

sign

al,

if th

ey a

lso

have

the

flexi

bil it

y of

a C

BL ra

ther

than

a

rigid

HBL

det

erm

inat

ion.

Man

y X

LGS

cus

tom

ers

are

also

TSR

cus

tom

ers

and

suffi

cien

tly fa

milia

r with

the

tiere

d en

ergy

and

CBL

con

cept

to e

ffect

ivel

y re

spon

d to

the

effic

ienc

y si

gnal

s th

at h

ave

been

refin

ed

thro

ugh

the

TSR

CBL

pro

c ess

for t

he la

st d

ecad

e.

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

5

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

B.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1

En

erg

y R

ate

(Slid

e 16

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Fla

t Par

t 1 e

nerg

y ra

te w

ould

be

nom

inal

sim

plifi

catio

n, a

s P

art

1 co

nsum

ptio

n th

resh

old

of

14,8

00 k

Wh/

mon

th is

not

mat

eria

l to

mos

t LG

S c

usto

mer

s:

Mor

e cu

stom

ers

bette

r of

f tha

n w

orse

off,

hig

her

cons

umin

g cu

sto

mer

s ha

ve m

ore

adve

rse

bill

impa

cts

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n t

o f

latt

en P

art

En

erg

y R

ate.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

C.

Bas

elin

e R

ate

Pro

visi

on

s

(i)

Bas

elin

e d

eter

min

atio

n (

slid

e 17

of

26 J

un

e W

ork

sho

p 1

1B p

rese

nta

tio

n)

BC

Hyd

ro c

onsi

dere

d ba

selin

e de

term

inat

ion

on a

nnua

l bas

is v

ersu

s m

onth

ly

base

line

calc

ulat

ion,

and

Con

side

red

dete

rmin

ing

one-

year

and

five

-yea

r ro

lling

ave

rage

bas

elin

es, v

ersu

s st

atus

quo

det

erm

inat

ion

of th

ree

–yea

r ro

lling

ave

rage

mon

thly

bas

elin

es

Ann

ual b

asel

ine

coul

d cr

eate

cas

h flo

w b

urde

n fo

r m

any

cust

omer

s at

yea

r en

d. f

ive-

year

rol

ling

aver

age

base

lines

will

furt

her

incr

ease

the

com

plex

ity o

f the

rat

e; o

ne-y

ear

base

lines

cou

ld c

ause

bi

ll in

stab

ility

as

unus

ual c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

cann

ot b

e le

velle

d in

bas

elin

es.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed, B

C H

ydro

wo

uld

rec

om

men

d n

o c

han

ge

to s

tatu

s q

uo

th

ree-

year

ro

llin

g a

vera

ge

mo

nth

ly b

asel

ine

and

see

ks f

urt

her

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

s in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

(ii)

Pri

ce B

and

Lim

it (

PL

Bs)

(S

lides

18

to 1

9 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

res

enta

tio

n)

PLB

lim

its c

usto

mer

’s e

xpo

sure

to P

art 2

LR

MC

ene

rgy

rate

with

in a

ran

ge o

f 80

% o

f his

t oric

ba

selin

e (H

BL)

to 1

20%

of H

BP

(+

/ - 2

0%

). B

C H

ydro

mod

elle

d de

crea

sing

the

PLB

(i.e

. +/ -

10

%)

and

incr

easi

ng th

e P

BL

(i.e.

+/ -

30%

)

BC

Hyd

ro c

ontin

ues

to b

elie

ve th

ere

are

no c

hang

es to

PLB

s th

at w

ould

impr

ove

perf

orm

ance

of

stat

us q

uo L

GS

Ene

rgy

rate

i n r

espe

ct o

f con

serv

atio

n or

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

and

ac

cept

ance

, and

is s

eeki

ng fu

rthe

r fe

edba

ck.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

he

PL

B s

ho

ud

be

mo

dif

ied

an

d if

so

,ho

w. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

Anyt

hing

oth

er th

an a

sim

ple

flat d

eman

d an

d en

ergy

ch

arge

with

no

base

line

is to

o co

mpl

ex to

be

effe

ctiv

e fo

r mos

t of t

he L

GS

clas

s –

parti

cula

rly th

ose

belo

w

2MW

. Tho

se a

bove

2M

W a

re m

ore

effic

ient

ly a

nd

fairl

y se

rved

usi

ng a

ver

sion

of t

he T

SR tw

o tie

red

ener

gy ra

te w

ith C

BL, r

athe

r tha

n H

BL

dete

rmin

atio

ns.

HBL

was

ado

pted

for t

he G

S cl

ass

as it

wou

ld h

ave

been

adm

inis

trativ

ely

infe

asib

le to

impl

emen

t the

su

perio

r CBL

app

roac

h as

dev

elop

ed o

ver m

any

year

s fo

r the

TSR

. The

re a

re s

o f e

w X

LGS

cust

omer

s th

at th

e m

ore

adap

tive

CBL

app

roac

h be

com

es

adm

inis

trativ

ely

feas

ible

. Th

e co

ncep

t of P

BL is

too

com

plex

for t

he L

GS

rate

cl

ass

and

crea

tes

bill

inst

abilit

ies.

Cha

nges

oth

er th

an

elim

inat

ion

wou

ld o

nly

mak

e m

atte

rs w

orse

.

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

6

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

(iii)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

– F

orm

ula

ic G

row

th R

ate

(FG

R)

( Slid

es 2

0 to

21

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

The

Cus

tom

er H

BLs

for

the

upco

min

g 12

-mon

th p

erio

d w

ill b

e re

-det

erm

ined

by

BC

Hyd

ro b

ased

on

the

two

mos

t rec

ent y

ears

of c

onsu

mpt

ion

hist

ory

if th

e C

usto

mer

exp

erie

nces

sig

nific

ant g

row

th i.

e.,

follo

win

g a

year

(Y

3) in

wh

ich

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

exce

eded

pre

viou

s ye

ar’s

(Y

2) e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n by

at l

east

: (i)

30%

, or

(ii)

4,00

0,0

00 k

Wh.

Bill

ana

lysi

s sh

owed

24%

of a

ccou

nts

that

qua

lifie

d fo

r F

GR

in F

2015

end

ed u

p ha

ving

hig

her

bills

with

th

e ba

selin

e ad

just

men

t. F

utur

e bi

lls a

re u

npre

dict

able

due

to m

ultip

le v

aria

bles

invo

lved

in b

illin

g –

past

, cur

rent

and

futu

re c

onsu

mpt

ion.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

a ck

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e F

GR

pro

visi

on

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

Non

e of

the

adm

inis

trativ

ely

burd

enso

me

proc

edur

es

such

as

FGR

or a

nom

aly

rule

s ar

e ne

cess

ary

if th

e LG

S ra

te is

sim

plifi

ed to

rem

ove

the

two

tiere

d ap

proa

ch a

nd th

is is

rese

rved

for X

LGS

cust

omer

s ab

ove

2MW

.

(iv)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

- A

no

mal

y R

ule

(S

lides

22

to

23

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BLs

, ano

mal

ousl

y lo

w c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

from

pre

viou

s ye

ars

are

excl

uded

:

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BL

for

a pa

rtic

ular

mon

th, c

onsu

mpt

ion

in a

his

toric

al m

onth

that

is le

ss th

an h

alf

the

cons

umpt

ion

in th

e ne

xt lo

wes

t mon

th o

f all

mo

nths

oth

erw

ise

used

for

calc

ulat

ion

wou

ld b

e ex

clud

ed

Up

to fo

ur H

BLs

can

be

adju

sted

per

BC

H’s

fisc

al y

ear

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e A

nom

aly

Rul

e

Cus

tom

ers

will

alw

ays

end

up w

ith h

ighe

r ba

selin

es; h

owev

er, h

ighe

r ba

selin

es s

omet

imes

cre

ate

high

er b

ills

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e A

no

mal

y R

ule

pro

visi

on

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

7

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

(v)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

– P

rosp

ecti

ve G

row

th R

ule

(T

S82

) (S

lides

24

to 2

5 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Cus

tom

ers

who

ant

icip

ate

‘sig

nific

ant’,

‘per

man

ent’

incr

ease

s in

en

ergy

con

sum

ptio

n m

ay a

pply

to

BC

Hyd

ro fo

r m

odifi

ed p

ricin

g un

der

TS

82

that

may

red

uce

thei

r en

ergy

cos

ts. S

igni

fican

t mea

ns a

pr

ospe

ctiv

e fir

st y

ear

annu

al in

crea

se in

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

tota

ling

at le

ast 3

0% o

r 4,

000,

000

kWh

abov

e th

e hi

stor

ical

thre

e -ye

ar a

vera

ge a

nnua

l con

sum

ptio

n. P

erm

anen

t mea

ns a

risin

g fr

om a

si

gnifi

cant

cap

ital i

nves

tmen

t.

Ver

y fe

w c

usto

mer

s ha

ve a

pplie

d du

e to

hig

h th

resh

olds

Cus

tom

ers

with

low

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

mig

ht m

eet t

he 3

0% th

resh

old

but m

ay n

ot b

enef

it fr

om th

e m

odifi

ed p

ricin

g st

ruct

ure

Hig

h ad

min

istr

ativ

e co

st to

BC

Hyd

ro

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is

mai

nta

ined

, BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e P

rosp

ecti

ve G

row

th R

ule

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t

Plea

se s

ee a

bove

com

men

ts o

n si

mpl

ifica

tion

of th

e LG

S ra

te s

truct

ure.

(vi)

New

Acc

ou

nts

(85

/15)

(S

lides

26

to 2

7 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

85/1

5 ap

plie

s w

hen

a ne

w a

ccou

nt is

set

up

in B

C H

ydro

’s b

illin

g sy

stem

, reg

ardl

ess

of

whe

ther

ther

e w

ere

chan

ges

in c

usto

mer

s’ o

pera

tion

Firs

t 85

% o

f ene

rgy

cons

umed

in a

mon

thly

bill

ing

perio

d is

cha

rged

at t

he P

art

1 ra

te. L

ast

15%

of e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed in

a m

onth

ly b

illin

g pe

riod

is c

harg

ed P

art

2 LR

MC

rat

e

Est

ablis

hed

to p

reve

nt c

usto

mer

s fr

om ‘g

amin

g’ b

y op

enin

g ne

w a

ccou

nts

to r

eset

bas

elin

es

BC

Hyd

ro fo

und

no e

vide

nce

o f “

gam

ing”

in th

e LG

S T

hree

-Yea

r R

epor

t. C

usto

mer

s ra

ised

co

ncer

ns th

at 8

5/15

rat

e un

fairl

y pe

naliz

es c

usto

mer

s w

ho h

ave

no

chan

ge in

ope

ratio

ns d

urin

g ac

coun

t ow

ners

hip

tran

sfer

s.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro w

ou

ld r

eco

mm

end

ap

ply

ing

100

% P

art

1 ra

tes

for

new

acc

ou

nts

, an

d is

see

kin

g f

urt

her

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

Plea

se s

ee a

bove

com

men

ts o

n si

mpl

ifica

ti on

of th

e LG

S ra

te s

truct

ure.

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

8

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

D.

LG

S F

lat

En

erg

y R

ate

(No

Bas

elin

e) (

Slid

es 2

9 to

30,

Ju

ne

26, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Op

tio

n:

Fla

tten

LG

S E

ner

gy

rate

fo

r al

l co

nsu

mp

tio

n le

vels

Pro

s:

Elim

inat

es a

ll co

mpl

exity

from

ba

selin

e co

mpo

nent

of s

tatu

s qu

o L

GS

ene

rgy

rate

Eas

ier

and

mor

e ac

cura

te c

usto

mer

fore

cast

ing

Impr

oved

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

Alig

ns w

ith o

ther

Cdn

. Jur

isdi

ctio

ns

Con

s:

Ene

rgy

rate

is w

ell b

elow

low

er e

nd o

f ene

rgy

LRM

C

Obs

erva

tions

:

Littl

e to

no

bill

impa

cts

resu

lting

sol

ely

from

rem

oval

of b

asel

ine,

as

dem

onst

rate

d in

W

orks

hop

8b

The

re a

re b

ill im

pact

s fr

om fl

atte

ning

Par

t 1

Ene

rgy

rate

s; ty

pica

l cu

stom

ers

bette

r of

f

No

chan

ge in

con

serv

atio

n –

zero

fore

cast

for

plan

ning

pur

pose

s

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

This

is b

y fa

r the

pre

ferr

ed o

ptio

n, a

s lo

ng a

s an

X

LGS

rate

is c

reat

ed fo

r tho

se a

bove

2M

W o

f billi

ng

dem

and

as d

iscu

ssed

abo

ve. P

leas

e re

fer t

o AM

PC

's

earli

er s

epar

ate

subm

issi

on.

An e

nerg

y ra

te “w

ell b

elow

the

low

er e

nd o

f ene

rgy

LRM

C” i

s no

t a s

igni

fican

t det

ract

ion

for t

he fo

llow

ing

reas

ons:

1.

Th

e LG

S cl

ass

is c

urre

ntly

sho

win

g no

si

gnifi

cant

con

serv

atio

n re

spon

se –

eve

n at

th

e hi

gher

sec

ond

tier e

nerg

y ra

te.

2.

Cus

tom

ers

resp

ond

to th

e to

tal b

ill ra

ther

than

in

divi

dual

com

pone

nts

such

as

ener

gy.

3.

LRM

C is

not

sim

ply

a va

riabl

e co

st th

at d

irect

ly

trans

late

s to

an

ener

gy ra

te. L

RM

C in

volv

es

sign

ifica

nt fi

xed

cost

s. D

eman

d ch

arg e

s on

the

LGS

rate

are

als

o to

o lo

w.

4.

LRM

C is

a p

lann

ing

conc

ept t

hat c

hang

es a

s m

arke

ts, t

echn

olog

y, a

nd le

gisl

atio

n ch

ange

s,

and

is n

ot k

now

n w

ith th

e pr

ecis

ion

sugg

este

d in

set

ting

rate

des

ign

limits

.

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

9

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

E.

TS

R-L

ike

En

erg

y R

ate

(Slid

es 3

2 to

34

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 w

ork

sho

p P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Vite

rra

and

AM

PC

sug

gest

ed a

TS

R-li

ke r

ate

for

high

con

sum

ptio

n LG

S c

usto

mer

s

Rat

e m

ay h

ave

follo

win

g el

emen

ts b

ased

on

BC

Hyd

ro’s

exi

stin

g T

SR

– R

S 1

823:

Ava

ilabl

e to

larg

e LG

S a

ccou

nts

Ene

rgy

Rat

e (F

2017

) –

illus

trat

ive

bas

ed o

n R

S 1

823

90/1

0 sp

lit a

nd r

ate

neut

ral t

o LG

S F

lat

ener

gy r

ate:

5.48

cen

ts/k

Wh

appl

ied

to a

ll kW

h up

to a

nd in

clud

ing

90%

of C

usto

mer

Bas

elin

e lo

ad (

CB

L) in

ea

ch b

illin

g ye

ar

10.1

0 ce

nts/

kWh

appl

ied

to a

ll kW

h ab

ove

90%

of c

ust

omer

’s C

BL

in e

ach

billi

ng y

ear

Initi

al a

nnua

l CB

L de

term

ined

by

hist

oric

bas

elin

e ye

ar(s

)

Allo

wab

le a

djus

tmen

ts fo

r D

SM

, pla

nt c

apac

ity in

crea

ses

and

forc

e m

ajeu

re

Ann

ual C

BL

appr

oved

eac

h ye

ar b

y B

CU

C

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

This

is A

MPC

’s p

refe

rred

opt

ion

for r

easo

ns a

lread

y st

ated

abo

ve.

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

10

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

A.

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Op

tio

nal

Rat

es (

Sid

es 5

6 to

62

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p 1

1B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

1.

Vo

lun

tary

Tim

e o

f U

se R

ates

BC

Hyd

ro h

as n

o p

lan

to p

roce

ed d

evel

opin

g th

is o

ptio

n at

this

tim

e fo

r re

ason

s se

t out

in

sect

ion

6.1

of W

orks

hop

8A/8

B C

onsi

dera

tion

Mem

o

2.

Inte

rup

tib

le R

ates

BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

is o

ptio

n as

par

t of R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter

defa

ult G

S r

ates

de

term

ined

3.

Eff

icie

ncy

Rat

e C

red

it c

on

cep

t

BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

is o

ptio

n as

par

t of R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter

defa

ult G

S r

ates

de

term

ined

4.

Dem

and

Ch

arg

e O

pti

on

s

BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

ese

optio

ns a

s pa

rt o

f RD

A M

odul

e 2

, afte

r de

faul

t GS

rat

es

dete

rmin

ed

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

he

abo

ve p

rop

osa

ls, a

nd

als

o o

n p

relim

inar

y co

mm

ents

on

o

pti

on

s id

enti

fied

to

dat

e, a

nd

if t

her

e ar

e an

y o

ther

GS

rat

e o

pti

on

s B

C H

ydro

sh

ou

ld c

on

sid

er.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

AM

PC a

gree

s w

ith th

ese

prop

osal

s.

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

11

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

B.

Oth

er Is

sues

(S

lides

64

to 6

6 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

1.

Min

imu

m C

har

ges

(D

eman

d R

atch

et)

Exi

stin

g m

inim

um c

harg

e is

bas

ed o

n 50

% o

f pea

k m

onth

ly d

eman

d re

gist

ered

in m

ost r

ecen

t win

ter

perio

d (N

ovem

ber

to M

arch

)

Rat

chet

was

red

uced

from

75

% to

50%

effe

ctiv

e A

pril

1, 1

980

Bas

ed o

n F

14 d

ata:

MG

S m

inim

um c

harg

es: a

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

35,0

00 o

n to

tal r

even

ue o

f app

roxi

mat

ely

$329

mill

ion

(0.4

%)

LGS

min

imum

cha

rges

: app

roxi

mat

ely

$1.6

mill

ion

on a

bout

$76

4 m

illio

n, e

xclu

ding

rat

e rid

er

(0.2

%)

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

he

curr

ent

Dem

and

Rat

chet

. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in

the

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

Ther

e is

insu

ffici

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

prov

ided

on

the

impa

ct, d

istri

butio

n, o

r effe

ctiv

enes

s of

var

ious

ratc

het

mec

hani

sms,

per

cent

age

leve

ls o

r wai

ver

arra

ngem

ents

to p

rovi

de a

ny c

onst

ruct

ive

feed

back

at

this

tim

e on

this

rate

des

ign

issu

e.

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

12

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

2.

Tra

nsf

orm

er O

wn

ersh

ip D

isco

un

t (T

OD

) an

d T

ran

sfo

rmer

Ren

tals

TO

D r

ate

is $

0.25

per

mon

th p

er k

W o

f bill

ing

dem

and

if cu

stom

er s

uppl

ies

tran

sfor

mat

ion

from

prim

ary

pote

ntia

l to

seco

ndar

y po

tent

ial

Last

rev

iew

of $

0.25

/mon

th d

isco

unt w

as c

ompl

eted

in A

ugus

t 20

04

BC

Hyd

ro p

rop

ose

s to

eva

luat

e T

OD

in c

on

jun

ctio

n w

ith

Dis

trib

uti

on

Ext

ensi

on

Po

licy

as p

art

of

RD

A M

od

ule

2, a

nd

is s

eeki

ng

fee

db

ack

on

th

is r

eco

mm

end

ed a

pp

roac

h.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

F20

15 R

DA

to fi

rst s

et th

e R

esid

enti a

l def

ault

rate

, and

to c

onsi

der

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f an

EV

rat

e af

ter

the

2015

RD

A M

odul

e 1

deci

sion

.

Des

ign

Con

side

ratio

ns:

• A

t-ho

me

char

ging

(R

esid

entia

l)

• B

asis

on

whi

ch to

det

erm

ine

cost

of s

ervi

ce a

nd lo

ad im

plic

atio

ns f

or p

ricin

g –

diffe

rent

pat

tern

of

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

(bat

tery

sto

rage

of e

lect

ric p

ower

)

• M

echa

nism

to e

nfor

ce o

ff -pe

ak c

harg

ing

– tim

e va

ryin

g co

mpo

nent

(T

ime

of U

se; p

rice

diffe

rent

ial

is a

n is

sue;

ado

pt C

alifo

rnia

‘sup

er

off -

peak

’ con

cept

to e

ncou

rage

late

nig

ht to

ear

ly m

orni

ng

char

ging

?

• R

equi

rem

ent o

f a s

epar

ate

met

er?

• In

tera

ctio

n w

ith R

IB?

• O

ther

?

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k o

n r

ate

des

ign

co

nsi

der

atio

ns

pre

sen

ted

ab

ove

an

d t

he

tim

ing

of

any

futu

re E

V r

ate

pro

po

sal.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

As th

ese

issu

es h

ave

been

def

erre

d to

mod

ule

two

and

little

dat

a or

dis

cuss

ion

has

been

pre

sent

ed s

o fa

r, co

mm

ent w

ould

be

prem

atur

e.

A th

orou

gh re

view

of s

yste

m e

xten

sion

and

co

ntrib

utio

n po

licy

for t

rans

mis

sion

and

dis

tribu

tion

(incl

udin

g ow

ners

hip

of li

nes

and

third

par

ty a

cces

s) is

cr

itica

l to

supp

ort r

atio

nal a

nd e

ff ici

ent e

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t in

BC

. AM

PC lo

oks

forw

ard

to e

ngag

ing

in th

is d

iscu

ssio

n an

d sh

arin

g ou

r ext

ensi

on p

olic

y ex

perie

nce

and

idea

s ov

er th

e ne

xt fe

w m

onth

s.

EV c

harg

ing

wou

ld b

e an

end

-use

rate

that

mus

t be

desi

gned

to re

cove

r its

full

cost

of s

ervi

ce, i

nclu

ding

th

e pr

ovis

ion

of a

ny s

peci

fic e

quip

men

t suc

h as

hig

her

capa

city

di s

tribu

tion

faci

litie

s. T

here

is a

mpl

e tim

e pr

ior t

o m

odul

e tw

o of

the

RD

A to

dis

cuss

the

prec

ise

form

and

des

irabi

lity

of a

n EV

rate

, as

oppo

sed

to th

e R

IB o

r a g

ener

ic T

OD

rate

and

if it

wou

ld h

ave

a si

gnifi

cant

effe

ct o

n th

e ra

te o

f EV

pene

tratio

n. T

he

desi

rabi

lity,

impa

cts

and

cost

s of

“ele

ctrif

icat

ion”

in

orde

r to

redu

ce 3

rd p

arty

GH

Gs

is it

self

an is

sue

that

de

serv

es th

orou

gh d

iscu

ssio

n be

fore

the

desi

gn o

f fu

rther

end

-use

rate

s.

Add

ition

al C

omm

ents

:

(AMPC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

13

CO

NSE

NT

TO U

SE P

ERSO

NAL

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

I con

sent

to th

e us

e of

my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

by B

C H

ydro

for t

he p

urpo

ses

of k

e epi

ng m

e up

date

d ab

out t

he 2

015

RD

A. F

or

purp

oses

of t

he a

bove

, my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

incl

udes

opi

nion

s, n

ame,

mai

ling

addr

ess,

pho

ne n

umbe

r and

em

ail a

ddre

ss a

s pe

r th

e in

form

atio

n I p

rovi

de.

Sign

atur

e:__

__R

icha

rd S

tout

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_Dat

e: _

2015

:08:

17__

____

____

____

____

____

____

_ Th

ank

you

for y

our c

omm

ents

.

Com

men

ts s

ubm

itted

will

be u

sed

to in

form

the

RD

A Sc

ope

and

Eng

agem

ent p

roce

ss, i

nclu

ding

dis

cuss

ions

with

Gov

ernm

ent,

and

will

form

par

t of t

he o

ffici

al re

cord

of t

he R

DA.

You

can

retu

rn c

ompl

eted

feed

back

form

s by

:

Mai

l: BC

Hyd

ro, B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up –

“Atte

ntio

n 20

15 R

DA”

, 16th

Flo

or, 3

33 D

unsm

uir S

t. Va

n. B

.C. V

6B-5

R3

Fax

num

ber:

604-

623-

4407

– “A

ttent

ion

2015

RD

A”

Emai

l: bc

hydr

oreg

ulat

oryg

roup

@bc

hydr

o.co

m

Form

ava

ilabl

e on

Web

: http

://w

ww

.bch

ydro

.com

/abo

ut/p

lann

ing_

regu

lato

ry/re

gula

tory

.htm

l

Any

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

you

prov

ide

to B

C H

ydro

on

this

form

is c

olle

cted

and

pro

tect

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Fre

ed

om

of

Info

rmati

on

an

d

Pro

tecti

on

of

Pri

vac

y A

ct .

BC H

ydro

is c

olle

ctin

g in

form

atio

n w

ith t h

is fo

r the

pur

pose

of t

he 2

015

RD

A in

acc

orda

nce

with

BC

Hyd

ro’s

man

date

un

der t

he H

yd

ro a

nd

Po

wer

Au

tho

rity

Act ,

the

BC H

ydro

Tar

iff, t

he U

tiliti

es

Co

mm

issio

n A

ct a

nd re

late

d R

egul

atio

ns a

nd D

irect

ions

. If y

ou

have

any

que

stio

ns a

bout

the

colle

ctio

n or

use

of t

he p

erso

nal i

nfor

mat

ion

colle

cted

on

this

form

ple

ase

cont

act t

he B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up

via

emai

l at:

bchy

dror

egul

ator

ygro

up@

bchy

dro.

com

(AMPC)

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.bchydro.com/about/planning_regulatory/regulatory.html




1

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

N

ame/

Org

aniz

atio

n : B

C S

usta

inab

le E

nerg

y A

ssoc

iatio

n an

d Si

erra

Clu

b of

BC

– 2

9 Ju

ly 2

015

C

omm

ents

(Ple

ase

do n

ot id

entif

y th

ird-p

arty

indi

vidu

als

in

your

com

men

ts. C

omm

ents

bea

ring

refe

renc

es to

iden

tifia

ble

indi

vidu

als

will

be

disc

arde

d du

e to

priv

acy

conc

erns

).

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

A. C

ost

of

Ser

vice

An

alys

is:

Seg

men

tati

on

Met

ho

do

log

y ( S

lides

17

to 2

1 o

f Ju

ne

25, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

11A

Pre

sen

tati

on

). B

C H

ydro

dis

cuss

ed t

wo

met

ho

ds

of

seg

men

tati

on

:

Met

hod

1:

BC

Hyd

ro to

ok s

ampl

es o

f 1,0

00 c

usto

mer

s fr

om e

ach

of S

GS

, MG

S a

nd L

GS

cla

sses

;

F16

For

ecas

t cos

ts a

ssig

ned

to G

S r

ate

clas

ses

pool

ed a

nd r

e-a

lloca

ted

pro

rata

by

indi

vidu

al

cust

omer

kW

h, 4

Coi

ncid

ent P

eak

(CP

) de

man

d, a

nd N

on-C

oinc

iden

t Pea

k (N

CP

) de

man

d .

Res

ults

of m

etho

d 1

not c

oncl

usiv

e:

NC

P a

lloca

tion

varie

s de

pend

ing

on c

oinc

iden

ce w

ithin

cla

sse

s.

Coi

ncid

ence

is b

ette

r co

rrel

ated

with

cos

t tha

n cu

stom

er s

ize.

Tra

nsfo

rmer

cos

t may

var

y w

ith s

ize

but c

ost i

mpa

ct is

sm

all.

Met

hod

2:

Con

side

r co

st a

lloca

tion

base

d o

n pr

e -as

sign

ed s

egm

ents

of c

usto

mer

s. C

usto

mer

s w

ill b

e gr

oupe

d by

siz

e as

opp

osed

to e

valu

ated

indi

vidu

ally

– to

be

revi

ewed

at J

uly

30, 2

015

wra

p-up

w

orks

hop.

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k o

n w

hat

oth

er a

nal

ysis

of

seg

men

tati

on

sh

ou

ld b

e co

nd

uct

ed. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

BCSE

A-SC

BC d

o no

t hav

e an

y su

gges

tions

for

segm

enta

tion

met

hodo

logi

es th

at B

CH

sho

uld

exam

ine

in a

dditi

on to

Met

hod

1 an

d M

etho

d 2.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

2

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

B.

SG

S –

SG

S B

asic

Ch

arg

e (S

lides

22

to 2

7 o

f Ju

ne

25, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

11A

P

rese

nta

tio

n)

BC

Hyd

ro w

as

aske

d to

mod

el in

crea

sing

the

SG

S b

asic

cha

rge

to a

leve

l com

para

ble

to th

e R

esid

entia

l Bas

ic C

harg

e co

st r

ecov

ery,

from

the

curr

ent 3

5% le

vel t

o 45

%.

Res

ults

:

Incr

easi

ng S

GS

bas

ic c

harg

e to

45%

of c

ost r

ecov

ery

is c

lose

r to

full

fixed

cos

t rec

over

y

Res

ultin

g en

ergy

rat

e re

mai

ns w

ithin

the

LRM

C a

nd w

ithou

t sub

stan

tial b

ill im

pact

s

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er B

C H

ydro

sh

ou

ld in

crea

se t

he

SG

S b

asic

ch

arg

e co

st

reco

very

co

mp

arab

le t

o R

esid

enti

al B

asic

Ch

arg

e co

st r

eco

very

. Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

Incr

easi

ng th

e SG

S ba

sic

char

ge to

reco

ver 4

5%

(from

35%

) of c

osts

wou

ld s

light

ly re

duce

the

ener

gy

char

ge a

nd h

ave

a co

rres

pond

ing

slig

ht re

duct

ion

in

natu

ral c

onse

rvat

ion

(at -

0.5%

ela

stic

ity).

Whi

le th

is

nega

tive

impa

ct w

ould

be

smal

l, BC

SEA

-SC

BC a

re

not c

lear

wha

t the

ben

efits

of i

ncre

asin

g th

e ba

sic

char

ge w

ould

be.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

3

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

C.

MG

S D

eman

d C

har

ges

1.

BC

Hyd

ro p

rese

nted

thre

e al

tern

ativ

es fo

r de

man

d ch

arge

s:

i. S

tatu

s Q

uo

ii.

Alte

rnat

ive

A -

flat

dem

and

char

ge +

flat

ene

rgy

rate

iii.

Alte

rnat

ive

B –

two

step

dem

and

char

ge +

flat

ene

rgy

rate

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

thre

e d

eman

d c

har

ge

stru

ctu

re a

lter

nat

ives

is

pre

ferr

ed (

wit

h r

easo

ns)

. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

2.

Sta

keho

lder

s re

ques

ted

BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

incr

ease

d M

GS

dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery;

BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

ed in

crea

sing

the

MG

S d

eman

d co

st r

ecov

ery

of fl

at d

eman

d fr

om a

ppro

xim

atel

y 15

% to

35

% fo

r F

lat E

nerg

y R

ate/

Fla

t Dem

and

Cha

rge

Alte

rnat

ive

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

he

MG

S d

eman

d c

har

ge

cost

rec

ove

ry s

ho

uld

be

incr

ease

d, a

nd

if s

o t

o w

hat

leve

l (w

ith

rea

son

s). P

leas

e p

rovi

de

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

3.

BC

Hyd

ro c

onsi

dere

d T

rans

ition

Str

ateg

ies

for

mov

ing

to a

flat

ene

rgy

rate

, and

flat

dem

and

char

ge:

thre

e-ye

ar p

hase

–in

10%

bill

impa

ct C

ap

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

two

hig

h-l

evel

alt

ern

ativ

e M

GS

rat

e tr

ansi

tio

n

stra

teg

ies

is p

refe

rred

(w

ith

rea

son

s). P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

1. A

ltern

ativ

es fo

r MG

S de

man

d ch

arge

. BC

SEA-

SCBC

are

incl

inde

d to

favo

ur A

ltern

ativ

e A

(fla

t de

man

d ch

arge

) ove

r Alte

rnat

ive

B.

2. W

heth

er to

incr

ease

MG

S de

man

d ch

arge

cos

t re

cove

ry?

BCSE

A-SC

BC

are

incl

ined

to fa

vour

le

avin

g th

e de

man

d co

st re

cove

ry ra

te a

t the

cur

rent

~

15%

, on

the

grou

nd th

at th

at w

ould

leav

e th

e en

ergy

ra

te re

lativ

ely

high

er a

nd s

o pr

ovid

e a

stro

nger

sig

nal

for e

nerg

y co

nser

vatio

n.

3. T

rans

ition

Stra

tegi

es. B

CSE

A-SC

BC s

uppo

rt a

3 -ye

ar p

hase

-in p

erio

d, ra

ther

than

a 1

0% b

ill im

pact

ca

p, o

n th

e gr

ound

s th

at it

wou

ld b

e cl

eare

r to

cust

omer

s an

d si

mpl

er to

adm

inis

ter t

o ha

ve a

sho

rt,

fixed

term

tran

sitio

n, ra

ther

than

a p

oten

tially

long

tra

nsiti

on o

f unc

erta

in te

rm.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

4

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

A.

Pre

ferr

ed L

GS

Rat

e S

tru

ctu

re (

Slid

es 9

to

54

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g s

take

ho

lder

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

fou

r en

erg

y ra

te s

tru

ctu

re

alte

rnat

ives

an

d t

he

thre

e d

eman

d c

har

ge

stru

ctu

re a

lter

nat

ives

are

pre

ferr

ed, a

nd

wh

y. P

lea

se

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

yo

u h

ave

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

En

erg

y ra

te a

lter

nat

ives

:

1.

Sta

tus

Quo

LG

S E

nerg

y ra

te (

reta

in b

asel

ine)

2.

Sim

plify

ene

rgy

rate

str

uctu

re (

reta

in b

asel

ine)

:

A.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1 E

nerg

y R

ate

B.

Con

side

r m

odify

Bas

elin

e R

ate

Pro

visi

ons:

i. D

eter

min

atio

n of

bas

elin

es (

mon

thly

ver

sus

annu

al v

ersu

s ro

lling

ave

rage

, et

c.)

ii.

Pric

e lim

it ba

nds

(PLB

s) to

add

ress

con

cern

s th

at r

ates

are

‘pun

itive

to

grow

ing

cust

omer

s’, a

nd/o

r to

en

cour

age

furt

her

cons

erva

tion

iii.

Gro

wth

rul

es to

mak

e le

ss r

estr

ictiv

e

iv.

New

acc

ount

rul

es

3.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e (r

emov

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure)

4.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e fo

r m

ajor

ity o

f LG

S c

usto

mer

s an

d cr

eate

TS

R-li

ke r

ate

with

in

divi

dual

ly a

dmin

iste

red

base

line

s fo

r se

gmen

t of v

ery

larg

e LG

S c

usto

mer

s

Dem

and

Ch

arg

e al

tern

ativ

es:

1.

Sta

tus

quo

incl

inin

g th

ree-

step

dem

and

char

ge

2.

Fla

t dem

and

char

ge

3.

Tw

o-st

ep d

eman

d ch

arge

Ener

gy ra

te a

ltern

ativ

es. B

CSE

A-SC

BC s

uppo

rt si

mpl

ifyin

g th

e st

atus

quo

LG

S ra

te s

truct

ure.

The

y su

ppor

t a fl

at e

nerg

y ra

te s

truct

ure

for t

he L

GS

clas

s ,

with

no

base

line

or P

art 2

rate

stru

ctur

e (A

ltern

ativ

e 3)

. BC

Hyd

ro’s

repo

rt on

the

curr

ent L

GS

two -

part

rate

st

ruct

ure

esta

blis

hes

that

it d

oes

not a

chie

ve it

s pr

imar

y pu

rpos

e of

indu

cing

DSM

, and

acc

ordi

ngly

, th

ere

is n

o ju

stifi

catio

n fo

r ret

aini

ng it

. Mea

nwhi

le, i

t is

mor

e co

stly

to a

dmin

iste

r and

less

tran

spar

ent a

nd

com

preh

ensi

ble

to ra

tepa

yers

. BC

SEA

-SC

BC

enco

urag

e B

C H

ydro

to ta

ke a

dvan

tage

of a

ny

chan

ge in

the

LGS

rate

to p

rom

ote

cust

omer

aw

aren

ess

of D

SM.

BCSE

A-SC

BC’s

pos

ition

on

a TS

R-li

ke (c

usto

mer

ba

selin

e) e

nerg

y ra

te s

truct

ure

for a

new

ver

y la

rge

gene

ral s

ervi

ce c

lass

will

dep

end

on th

e de

tails

and

fu

rther

con

side

ratio

n .

Dem

and

char

ge a

ltern

ativ

es.

BCSE

A-SC

BC a

re in

clin

ed to

sup

port

a fla

t dem

and

char

ge (A

ltern

ativ

e 2)

, as

bette

r ref

lect

ing

cost

ca

usal

ity.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

5

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

B.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1

En

erg

y R

ate

(Slid

e 16

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Fla

t Par

t 1 e

nerg

y ra

te w

ould

be

nom

inal

sim

plifi

catio

n, a

s P

art

1 co

nsum

ptio

n th

resh

old

of

14,8

00 k

Wh/

mon

th is

not

mat

eria

l to

mos

t LG

S c

usto

mer

s:

Mor

e cu

stom

ers

bette

r of

f tha

n w

orse

off,

hig

her

cons

umin

g cu

sto

mer

s ha

ve m

ore

adve

rse

bill

impa

cts

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n t

o f

latt

en P

art

En

erg

y R

ate.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

C.

Bas

elin

e R

ate

Pro

visi

on

s

(i)

Bas

elin

e d

eter

min

atio

n (

slid

e 17

of

26 J

un

e W

ork

sho

p 1

1B p

rese

nta

tio

n)

BC

Hyd

ro c

onsi

dere

d ba

selin

e de

term

inat

ion

on a

nnua

l bas

is v

ersu

s m

onth

ly

base

line

calc

ulat

ion,

and

Con

side

red

dete

rmin

ing

one-

year

and

five

-yea

r ro

lling

ave

rage

bas

elin

es, v

ersu

s st

atus

quo

det

erm

inat

ion

of th

ree

–yea

r ro

lling

ave

rage

mon

thly

bas

elin

es

Ann

ual b

asel

ine

coul

d cr

eate

cas

h flo

w b

urde

n fo

r m

any

cust

omer

s at

yea

r en

d. f

ive-

year

rol

ling

aver

age

base

lines

will

furt

her

incr

ease

the

com

plex

ity o

f the

rat

e; o

ne-y

ear

base

lines

cou

ld c

ause

bi

ll in

stab

ility

as

unus

ual c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

cann

ot b

e le

velle

d in

bas

elin

es.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro w

ou

ld r

eco

mm

end

no

ch

ang

e to

sta

tus

qu

o

thre

e-ye

ar r

olli

ng

ave

rag

e m

on

thly

bas

elin

e an

d s

eeks

fu

rth

er s

take

ho

lder

fee

db

ack.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

ses

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

(ii)

Pri

ce B

and

Lim

it (

PL

Bs)

(S

lides

18

to 1

9 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

res

enta

tio

n)

PLB

lim

its c

usto

mer

’s e

xpo

sure

to P

art 2

LR

MC

ene

rgy

rate

with

in a

ran

ge o

f 80

% o

f his

toric

ba

selin

e (H

BL)

to 1

20%

of H

BP

(+

/ - 2

0%

). B

C H

ydro

mod

elle

d de

crea

sing

the

PLB

(i.e

. +/ -

10

%)

and

incr

easi

ng th

e P

BL

(i.e.

+/ -

30%

)

BC

Hyd

ro c

ontin

ues

to b

elie

ve th

ere

are

no c

hang

es to

PLB

s th

at w

ould

impr

ove

perf

orm

ance

of

stat

us q

uo L

GS

Ene

rgy

rate

in r

espe

ct o

f con

serv

atio

n or

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

and

ac

cept

ance

, and

is s

eeki

ng fu

rthe

r fe

edba

c k.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

he

PL

B s

ho

ud

be

mo

dif

ied

an

d if

so

,ho

w. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

BCSE

A-SC

BC a

re n

ot c

onvi

nced

that

flat

teni

ng th

e Pa

rt 1

LGS

ener

gy ra

te w

hile

reta

inin

g a

Par

t 2 ra

te

wou

ld in

crea

se c

onse

rvat

ion

or s

impl

ify th

e ra

te

stru

ctur

e en

ough

to o

verc

ome

the

com

plex

ity

prob

lem

. A fl

at e

nerg

y ra

te fo

r LG

S w

ould

hav

e th

e ad

vant

age

of b

eing

eas

ily u

nder

stoo

d.

Sim

ilarly

, BC

SEA-

SCBC

are

not

con

vinc

ed th

a t

chan

ging

the

base

line

dete

rmin

atio

n (e

.g.,

from

m

onth

ly to

ann

ual,

or fr

om th

ree -

year

to o

ne- o

r fiv

e -ye

ar ro

lling

aver

age)

or t

he p

rice

band

lim

it ru

les

wou

ld im

prov

e th

e co

nser

vatio

n re

sults

or a

chie

ve th

e ne

cess

ary

sim

plifi

catio

n of

a fl

at ra

te s

truct

ure.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

6

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

(iii)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

– F

orm

ula

ic G

row

th R

ate

(FG

R)

( Slid

es 2

0 to

21

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

The

Cus

tom

er H

BLs

for

the

upco

min

g 12

-mon

th p

erio

d w

ill b

e re

-det

erm

ined

by

BC

Hyd

ro b

ased

on

the

two

mos

t rec

ent y

ears

of c

onsu

mpt

ion

hist

ory

if th

e C

usto

mer

exp

erie

nces

sig

nific

ant g

row

th i.

e.,

follo

win

g a

year

(Y

3) in

wh

ich

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

exce

eded

pre

viou

s ye

ar’s

(Y

2) e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n by

at l

east

: (i)

30%

, or

(ii)

4,00

0,0

00 k

Wh.

Bill

ana

lysi

s sh

owed

24%

of a

ccou

nts

that

qua

lifie

d fo

r F

GR

in F

2015

end

ed u

p ha

ving

hig

her

bills

with

th

e ba

selin

e ad

just

men

t. F

utur

e bi

lls a

re u

npre

dict

able

due

to m

ultip

le v

aria

bles

invo

lved

in b

illin

g –

past

, cur

rent

and

futu

re c

onsu

mpt

ion.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e F

GR

pro

visi

on

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

BCSE

A-SC

BC fa

vour

mov

ing

to a

flat

ene

rgy

rate

st

ruct

ure

for t

he L

GS

clas

s. T

his

wou

ld e

limin

ate

form

ulai

c gr

owth

rate

adj

ustm

ent.

(iv)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

- A

no

mal

y R

ule

(S

lides

22

to

23

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BLs

, ano

mal

ousl

y lo

w c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

from

pre

viou

s ye

ars

are

excl

uded

:

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BL

for

a pa

rtic

ular

mon

th, c

onsu

mpt

ion

in a

his

toric

al m

onth

that

is le

ss th

an h

alf

the

cons

umpt

ion

in th

e ne

xt lo

wes

t mon

th o

f all

mon

ths

othe

rwis

e us

ed fo

r ca

lcul

atio

n w

ould

be

excl

uded

Up

to fo

ur H

BLs

can

be

adju

sted

per

BC

H’s

fisc

al y

ear

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e A

nom

aly

Rul

e

Cus

tom

ers

will

alw

ays

end

up w

ith h

ighe

r ba

selin

es; h

owev

er, h

ighe

r ba

selin

es s

omet

imes

cre

ate

high

er b

ills

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e

mo

dif

cati

on

s to

or

rem

ova

l of

the

An

om

aly

Ru

le

pro

visi

on

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t

As s

tate

d ab

ove,

BC

SEA-

SCBC

favo

ur m

ovin

g to

a

flat e

nerg

y ra

te s

truct

ure

for t

he L

GS

clas

s, w

hich

w

ould

elim

inat

e th

e gr

owth

miti

gatio

n an

omal

y ru

le.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

7

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

(v)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

– P

rosp

ecti

ve G

row

th R

ule

(T

S82

) (S

lides

24

to 2

5 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Cus

tom

ers

who

ant

icip

ate

‘sig

nific

ant’,

‘per

man

ent’

incr

ease

s in

en

ergy

con

sum

ptio

n m

ay a

pply

to

BC

Hyd

ro fo

r m

odifi

ed p

ricin

g un

der

TS

82

that

may

red

uce

thei

r en

ergy

cos

ts. S

igni

fican

t mea

ns a

pr

ospe

ctiv

e fir

st y

ear

annu

al in

crea

se in

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

tota

ling

at le

ast 3

0% o

r 4,

000,

000

kWh

abov

e th

e hi

stor

ical

thre

e -ye

ar a

vera

ge a

nnua

l con

sum

ptio

n. P

erm

anen

t mea

ns a

risin

g fr

om a

si

gnifi

cant

cap

ital i

nves

tmen

t.

Ver

y fe

w c

usto

mer

s ha

ve a

pplie

d du

e to

hig

h th

resh

olds

Cus

tom

ers

with

low

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

mig

ht m

eet t

he 3

0% th

resh

old

but m

ay n

ot b

enef

it fr

om th

e m

odifi

ed p

ricin

g st

ruct

ure

Hig

h ad

min

istr

ativ

e co

st to

BC

Hyd

ro

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e P

rosp

ecti

ve G

row

th R

ule

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t

BCSE

A-SC

BC fa

vour

mov

ing

to a

flat

ene

rgy

rate

st

ruct

ure

for t

he L

GS

clas

s. T

his

wou

ld e

limin

ate

the

pros

pect

ive

grow

th ru

le.

(vi)

New

Acc

ou

nts

(85

/15)

(S

lides

26

to 2

7 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

85/1

5 ap

plie

s w

hen

a ne

w a

ccou

nt is

set

up

in B

C H

ydro

’s b

illin

g sy

stem

, reg

ardl

ess

of

whe

ther

ther

e w

ere

chan

ges

in c

usto

mer

s’ o

pera

tion

Firs

t 85

% o

f ene

rgy

cons

umed

in a

mon

thly

bill

ing

perio

d is

cha

rged

at t

he P

art

1 ra

te. L

ast

15%

of e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed in

a m

onth

ly b

illin

g pe

riod

is c

harg

ed P

art

2 LR

MC

rat

e

Est

ablis

hed

to p

reve

nt c

usto

mer

s fr

om ‘g

amin

g’ b

y op

enin

g ne

w a

ccou

nts

to r

eset

bas

elin

es

BC

Hyd

ro fo

und

no e

vide

nce

of “

gam

ing”

in th

e LG

S T

hree

-Yea

r R

epor

t. C

usto

mer

s ra

ised

co

ncer

ns th

at 8

5/15

rat

e un

fairl

y pe

naliz

es c

usto

mer

s w

ho h

ave

no

chan

ge in

ope

ratio

ns d

uri n

g ac

coun

t ow

ners

hip

tran

sfer

s.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro w

ou

ld r

eco

mm

end

ap

ply

ing

100

% P

art

1 ra

tes

for

new

acc

ou

nts

, an

d is

see

kin

g f

urt

her

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

As s

tate

d ab

ove,

BC

SEA-

SCBC

favo

ur m

ovin

g to

a

flat e

nerg

y ra

te s

truct

ure

for t

he L

GS

clas

s, w

hich

w

ould

elim

inat

e th

e ne

ed fo

r spe

cial

rule

s fo

r new

ac

coun

ts.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

8

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

D.

LG

S F

lat

En

erg

y R

ate

(No

Bas

elin

e) (

Slid

es 2

9 to

30,

Ju

ne

26, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Op

tio

n:

Fla

tten

LG

S E

ner

gy

rate

fo

r al

l co

nsu

mp

tio

n le

vels

Pro

s:

Elim

inat

es a

ll co

mpl

exity

from

ba

selin

e co

mpo

nent

of s

tatu

s qu

o L

GS

ene

rgy

rate

Eas

ier

and

mor

e ac

cura

te c

usto

mer

fore

cast

ing

Impr

oved

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

Alig

ns w

ith o

ther

Cdn

. Jur

isdi

ctio

ns

Con

s:

Ene

rgy

rate

is w

ell b

elow

low

er e

nd o

f ene

rgy

LRM

C

Obs

erva

tions

:

Littl

e to

no

bill

impa

cts

resu

lting

sol

ely

from

rem

oval

of b

asel

ine,

as

dem

onst

rate

d in

W

orks

hop

8b

The

re a

re b

ill im

pact

s fr

om fl

atte

ning

Par

t 1

Ene

rgy

rate

s; ty

pica

l cu

stom

ers

bette

r of

f

No

chan

ge in

con

serv

atio

n –

zero

fore

cast

for

plan

ning

pur

pose

s

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

BCSE

A-SC

BC fa

vour

mov

ing

to a

flat

ene

rgy

rate

st

ruct

ure

for t

he L

GS

clas

s.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

9

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

E.

TS

R-L

ike

En

erg

y R

ate

(Slid

es 3

2 to

34

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 w

ork

sho

p P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Vite

rra

and

AM

PC

sug

gest

ed a

TS

R-li

ke r

ate

for

high

con

sum

ptio

n LG

S c

usto

mer

s

Rat

e m

ay h

ave

follo

win

g el

emen

ts b

ased

on

BC

Hyd

ro’s

exi

stin

g T

SR

– R

S 1

823:

Ava

ilabl

e to

larg

e LG

S a

ccou

nts

Ene

rgy

Rat

e (F

2017

) –

illus

trat

ive

bas

ed o

n R

S 1

823

90/1

0 sp

lit a

nd r

ate

neut

ral t

o LG

S F

lat

ener

gy r

ate:

5.48

cen

ts/k

Wh

appl

ied

to a

ll kW

h up

to a

nd in

clud

ing

90%

of C

usto

mer

Bas

elin

e lo

ad (

CB

L) in

ea

ch b

illin

g ye

ar

10.1

0 ce

nts/

kWh

appl

ied

to a

ll kW

h ab

ove

90%

of c

usto

mer

’s C

BL

in e

ach

billi

ng y

ear

Initi

al a

nnua

l CB

L de

term

ined

by

hist

oric

bas

elin

e ye

ar(s

)

Allo

wab

le a

djus

tmen

ts fo

r D

SM

, pla

nt c

apac

ity in

crea

ses

and

forc

e m

ajeu

re

Ann

ual C

BL

appr

oved

eac

h ye

ar b

y B

CU

C

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

BCSE

A-SC

BC re

serv

e ju

dgem

ent o

n a

TSR

-like

en

ergy

rate

for l

arge

LG

S cu

stom

ers,

pen

ding

mor

e de

taile

d in

form

atio

n an

d an

alys

is o

f suc

h a

rate

. In

gene

ral,

an in

clin

ing

bloc

k ra

te s

imila

r to

RS

1823

co

uld

indu

ce c

onse

rvat

ion;

how

ever

‘the

dev

il is

in th

e de

tails

,’ pa

rticu

larly

with

resp

ect t

o se

tting

and

am

endi

ng c

usto

mer

bas

elin

es.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

10

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

A.

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Op

tio

nal

Rat

es (

Sid

es 5

6 to

62

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p 1

1B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

1.

Vo

lun

tary

Tim

e o

f U

se R

ates

BC

Hyd

ro h

as n

o p

lan

to p

roce

ed d

evel

opin

g th

is o

ptio

n at

this

tim

e fo

r re

ason

s se

t out

in

sect

ion

6.1

of W

orks

hop

8A/8

B C

onsi

dera

tion

Mem

o

2.

Inte

rup

tib

le R

ates

BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

is o

ptio

n as

par

t of R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter

defa

ult G

S r

ates

de

term

ined

3.

Eff

icie

ncy

Rat

e C

red

it c

on

cep

t

BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

is o

ptio

n as

par

t of R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter

defa

ult G

S r

ates

de

term

ined

4.

Dem

and

Ch

arg

e O

pti

on

s

BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

ese

optio

ns a

s pa

rt o

f RD

A M

odul

e 2

, afte

r de

faul

t GS

rat

es

dete

rmin

ed

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

he

abo

ve p

rop

osa

ls, a

nd

als

o o

n p

relim

inar

y co

mm

ents

on

o

pti

on

s id

enti

fied

to

dat

e, a

nd

if t

her

e ar

e an

y o

ther

GS

rat

e o

pti

on

s B

C H

ydro

sh

ou

ld c

on

sid

er.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

1. B

CSE

A-SC

BC c

oncu

r with

BC

Hyd

ro’s

dec

isio

n no

t to

pro

ceed

with

vol

unta

ry ti

me

of u

se ra

tes

for g

ener

al

serv

ice

at th

is ti

me.

The

bas

ic p

robl

em w

ith a

vo

lunt

ary

TOU

rate

is th

at it

wou

ld a

ttrac

t mai

nly

‘free

rid

ers.

’ 2.

BC

SEA-

SCBC

are

cau

tious

abo

ut in

terr

u ptib

le

rate

s, b

ut a

re c

onte

nt to

aw

ait c

onsi

dera

tion

in M

odul

e Tw

o of

the

rate

des

ign

appl

icat

ion

proc

ess.

3.

BC

SEA-

SCBC

are

sup

porti

ve o

f the

effi

cien

cy ra

te

cred

it co

ncep

t, su

bjec

t to

furth

er d

evel

opm

ent a

nd

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

deta

ils a

nd im

plic

atio

ns. T

hey

are

cont

ent t

o ha

ve th

is a

ddre

ssed

in M

odul

e Tw

o.

4. B

CSE

A-SC

BC a

re c

onte

nt to

hav

e ge

nera

l ser

vice

de

man

d ch

arge

opt

ions

add

ress

ed in

Mod

ule

Two.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

11

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

B.

Oth

er Is

sues

(S

lides

64

to 6

6 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

1.

Min

imu

m C

har

ges

(D

eman

d R

atch

et)

Exi

stin

g m

inim

um c

harg

e is

bas

ed o

n 50

% o

f pea

k m

onth

ly d

eman

d re

gist

ered

in m

ost r

ecen

t win

ter

perio

d (N

ovem

ber

to M

arch

)

Rat

chet

was

red

uced

from

75

% to

50%

effe

ctiv

e A

pril

1, 1

980

Bas

ed o

n F

14 d

ata:

MG

S m

inim

um c

harg

es: a

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

35,0

00 o

n to

tal r

even

ue o

f app

roxi

mat

ely

$329

mill

ion

(0.4

%)

LGS

min

imum

cha

rges

: app

roxi

mat

ely

$1.6

mill

ion

on a

bout

$76

4 m

illio

n, e

xclu

ding

rat

e rid

er

(0.2

%)

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

he

curr

ent

Dem

and

Rat

chet

. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in

the

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

BCSE

A-SC

BC a

gree

with

the

conc

ept o

f hav

ing

a m

inim

um c

harg

e to

ens

ure

that

all

cust

omer

s pa

y a

fair

shar

e of

cos

ts fo

r sys

tem

cap

acity

. The

y re

serv

e ju

dgem

ent o

n th

e cu

rren

t rat

e, p

endi

ng re

ceip

t of

mor

e in

form

atio

n of

the

effe

cts

of th

is ra

te.

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

12

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

2.

Tra

nsf

orm

er O

wn

ersh

ip D

isco

un

t (T

OD

) an

d T

ran

sfo

rmer

Ren

tals

TO

D r

ate

is $

0.25

per

mon

th p

er k

W o

f bill

ing

dem

and

if cu

stom

er s

uppl

ies

tran

sfor

mat

ion

from

prim

ary

pote

ntia

l to

seco

ndar

y po

tent

ial

Last

rev

iew

of $

0.25

/mon

th d

isco

unt w

as c

ompl

eted

in A

ugus

t 20

04

BC

Hyd

ro p

rop

ose

s to

eva

luat

e T

OD

in c

on

jun

ctio

n w

ith

Dis

trib

uti

on

Ext

ensi

on

Po

licy

as p

art

of

RD

A M

od

ule

2, a

nd

is s

eeki

ng

fee

db

ack

on

th

is r

eco

mm

end

ed a

pp

roac

h. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

F20

15 R

DA

to fi

rst s

et th

e R

esid

entia

l def

ault

rate

, and

to c

onsi

der

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f an

EV

rat

e af

ter

the

2015

RD

A M

odul

e 1

deci

sion

.

Des

ign

Con

side

ratio

ns:

• A

t-ho

me

char

ging

(R

esid

entia

l)

• B

asis

on

whi

ch to

det

erm

ine

cost

of s

ervi

ce a

nd lo

ad im

plic

atio

ns f

or p

ricin

g –

diffe

rent

pat

tern

of

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

(bat

tery

sto

rage

of e

lect

ric p

ower

)

• M

echa

nism

to e

nfor

ce o

ff -pe

ak c

harg

ing

– tim

e va

ryin

g co

mpo

nent

(T

ime

of U

se; p

rice

diffe

rent

ial

is a

n is

sue;

ado

pt C

alifo

rnia

‘sup

er

off -

peak

’ con

cept

to e

ncou

rage

late

nig

ht to

ear

ly m

orni

ng

char

ging

?

• R

equi

rem

ent o

f a s

epar

ate

met

er?

• In

tera

ctio

n w

ith R

IB?

• O

ther

?

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k o

n r

ate

des

ign

co

nsi

der

atio

ns

pre

sen

ted

ab

ove

an

d t

he

tim

ing

of

any

futu

re E

V r

ate

pro

po

sal.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

BCSE

A-SC

BC a

re c

onte

nt fo

r the

TO

D to

be

revi

ewed

in M

odul

e 2,

alo

ng w

ith th

e D

istri

butio

n Ex

tens

ion

Polic

y.

BCSE

A-SC

BC a

gree

with

the

issu

es p

ropo

sed

for

cons

ider

ing

an E

V ra

te. I

n ad

ditio

n, o

f par

ticul

ar

rele

vanc

e w

ill be

the

cons

ider

atio

n of

gov

ernm

ent’s

en

ergy

goa

ls fo

r re d

ucin

g gr

eenh

ouse

gas

em

issi

ons

and

its p

olic

ies

to e

ncou

rage

peo

ple

to s

witc

h to

EVs

. Al

so, w

orth

con

side

ring

is th

e po

ssib

le d

esire

of

build

ing

owne

rs to

cha

rge

for t

he u

se o

f EV

char

ging

fa

cilit

ies,

bas

ed o

n en

ergy

pro

vide

d or

dur

atio

n of

the

use

of th

e ch

argi

ng s

ervi

ce.

Add

ition

al C

omm

ents

:

(BCSEA-SCBC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

13

CO

NSE

NT

TO U

SE P

ERSO

NAL

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

I con

sent

to th

e us

e of

my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

by B

C H

ydro

for t

he p

urpo

ses

of k

e epi

ng m

e up

date

d ab

out t

he 2

015

RD

A. F

or

purp

oses

of t

he a

bove

, my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

incl

udes

opi

nion

s, n

ame,

mai

ling

addr

ess,

pho

ne n

umbe

r and

em

ail a

ddre

ss a

s pe

r th

e in

form

atio

n I p

rovi

de.

Sign

atur

e:__

___

____

____

___

Dat

e: J

uly

31, 2

015

Than

k yo

u fo

r you

r com

men

ts.

Com

men

ts s

ubm

itted

will

be u

sed

to in

form

the

RD

A Sc

ope

and

Eng

agem

ent p

roce

ss, i

nclu

ding

dis

cuss

ions

with

Gov

ernm

ent,

and

will

form

par

t of t

he o

ffici

al re

cord

of t

he R

DA.

You

can

retu

rn c

ompl

eted

feed

back

form

s by

:

Mai

l: BC

Hyd

ro, B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up –

“Atte

ntio

n 20

15 R

DA”

, 16th

Flo

or, 3

33 D

unsm

uir S

t. Va

n. B

.C. V

6B-5

R3

Fax

num

ber:

604-

623-

4407

– “A

ttent

ion

2015

RD

A”

Emai

l: bc

hydr

oreg

ulat

oryg

roup

@bc

hydr

o.co

m

Form

ava

ilabl

e on

Web

: http

://w

ww

.bch

ydro

.com

/abo

ut/p

lann

ing_

regu

lato

ry/re

gula

tory

.htm

l

Any

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

you

prov

ide

to B

C H

ydro

on

this

form

is c

olle

cted

and

pro

tect

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Fre

ed

om

of

Info

rmati

on

an

d

Pro

tecti

on

of

Pri

vac

y A

ct .

BC H

ydro

is c

olle

ctin

g in

form

atio

n w

ith t h

is fo

r the

pur

pose

of t

he 2

015

RD

A in

acc

orda

nce

with

BC

Hyd

ro’s

man

date

un

der t

he H

yd

ro a

nd

Po

wer

Au

tho

rity

Act ,

the

BC H

ydro

Tar

iff, t

he U

tiliti

es

Co

mm

issio

n A

ct a

nd re

late

d R

egul

atio

ns a

nd D

irect

ions

. If y

ou

have

any

que

stio

ns a

bout

the

colle

ctio

n or

use

of t

he p

erso

nal i

nfor

mat

ion

colle

cted

on

this

form

ple

ase

cont

act t

he B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up

via

emai

l at:

bchy

dror

egul

ator

ygro

up@

bchy

dro.

com

(BCSEA-SCBC)







1

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n Ap

plic

atio

n (R

DA)

–

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

N

ame/

Org

aniz

atio

n: B

CO

A PO

et

al.

C

omm

ents

(Ple

ase

do n

ot id

entif

y th

ird p

arty

indi

vidu

als

in y

our c

omm

ents

. Com

men

ts

bear

ing

refe

renc

es to

iden

tifia

ble

indi

vidu

als

will

be

disc

arde

d du

e to

priv

acy

conc

erns

).

Wor

ksho

p 11

A: S

egm

enta

tion,

SG

S a

nd M

GS

A.

Cos

t of S

ervi

ce A

naly

sis:

Seg

men

tatio

n M

etho

dolo

g y

(Slid

es 1

7 to

21

of J

une

25, 2

015

Wor

ksho

p 11

A Pr

esen

tatio

n). B

C H

ydro

di s

cuss

ed tw

o m

etho

ds o

f se

gmen

t atio

n:

Met

hod

1:

BC H

ydro

took

sam

ples

of 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

from

eac

h of

SG

S,

MG

S an

d LG

S cl

asse

s;

F16

Fore

cast

cos

ts a

ssig

ned

to G

S ra

te c

las s

es p

oole

d an

d re

-allo

cate

d pr

o ra

ta b

y in

divi

dual

cus

tom

er k

Wh,

4 C

oinc

iden

t Pe

ak ( C

P) d

eman

d, a

nd N

on-C

oinc

ide n

t Pea

k (N

CP)

dem

and.

R

esul

ts o

f met

hod

1 no

t con

clus

ive:

NC

P al

loca

tion

varie

s de

pend

ing

on c

oinc

iden

ce

with

i n c

lass

es.

Coi

ncid

ence

is b

ette

r cor

rela

ted

with

cos

t tha

n cu

stom

er s

ize.

Tran

s for

mer

cos

t may

var

y w

ith s

ize

but c

ost

impa

ct is

sm

all.

Met

hod

2:

Con

side

r cos

t allo

catio

n ba

sed

on p

re-a

ssig

ned

segm

ents

of

cust

omer

s. C

usto

mer

s w

ill be

gro

uped

by

size

as

oppo

sed

to

eval

uate

d in

divi

dual

ly –

to b

e re

view

ed a

t Jul

y 30

, 201

5 w

rap -

up w

ork s

hop.

BC H

ydro

see

ks s

take

hold

er fe

edba

ck o

n w

hat o

ther

ana

lysi

s of

se g

men

tatio

n sh

ould

be

cond

ucte

d. P

leas

e pr

ovid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

If B C

H b

illed

all c

usto

mer

s on

the

sam

e ba

sis

as c

ost s

wer

e al

loca

ted

(e.g

. cus

tom

er, e

nerg

y, 4

CP

and

NC

P) a

nd th

e co

sts

reco

vere

d us

ing

each

of t

hese

billi

ng p

aram

eter

s w

ere

equi

vale

n t to

the

cost

s al

loca

ted

to

each

cla

ss, t

hen

cust

omer

seg

men

tatio

n w

ould

be

less

of a

n is

sue

and

wou

ld o

nly

need

to fo

cus

on g

roup

ing

cust

omer

s th

at u

se th

e sa

me

type

s of

faci

litie

s (e

.g. t

rans

mis

sion

cus

tom

ers

vs. p

rimar

y di

strib

utio

n cu

stom

ers)

and

hav

e si

mila

r cos

t cha

ract

eris

tics.

How

ever

, thi

s is

not

th

e ca

se.

As a

resu

lt, in

ord

er to

try

to e

nsur

e a

fair

reco

very

of

cos t

s be

twee

n cu

stom

ers

with

in a

cla

ss, i

t wou

ld b

e id

eal i

f all

the

cust

omer

s in

th

e cl

ass

gene

rally

had

:

A si

mila

r rat

io b

etw

een

thei

r billi

ng d

eman

d (w

hich

is u

sed

to c

olle

ct

cost

s) a

nd th

eir c

ontri

butio

n to

the

clas

s’s

4CP

and

NC

P va

lues

(w

hich

ar e

use

d t o

allo

cat e

cos

ts to

the

clas

s). O

ther

wis

e so

me

cust

omer

s w

ill be

pay

ing

mor

e an

d so

me

will

be p

ayin

g le

ss th

an

thei

r fai

r sha

re o

f dem

and

cost

s.

Sim

i lar l

oad

fact

ors

in re

cogn

ition

of t

he fa

ct th

at n

ot a

ll de

man

d an

d en

ergy

-rel

ated

cos

ts (a

s id

entif

ied

and

allo

cate

d us

ing

the

cost

of

se r

vice

) are

reco

vere

d re

spec

tivel

y th

roug

h de

man

d an

d en

ergy

ch

arge

s.

This

is th

e po

int t

hat B

CO

APO

was

atte

mpt

ing

to e

xplo

re th

roug

h in

the

GSR

Wor

ksho

p (s

ee F

eedb

ack

Sum

mar

y no

tes,

p. 3

, #4)

. It

was

not

m

eant

to s

ugge

st th

a t th

ese

para

met

ers

wou

ld a

ctua

lly b

e us

ed to

cl

assi

fy in

divi

dual

cus

tom

ers

– BC

OA P

O a

gree

s th

at m

ore

unde

rsta

ndab

le fa

ctor

s su

ch a

s si

ze o

r ser

vice

vol

tage

sho

uld

be u

sed

for t

his

purp

ose.

Rat

her t

he s

ugge

stio

n w

as to

look

at h

ow th

ese

vario

us

fact

ors

var y

by

cust

omer

siz

e an

d se

e if

ther

e an

y ob

viou

s br

eak

poin

ts

whi

ch w

ould

sug

gest

poi

nts

at w

hich

cla

sses

sho

uld

be s

egm

ente

d.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

2

Wor

ksho

p 11

A: S

egm

enta

tion,

SG

S a

nd M

GS

B.

SGS

–SG

S Ba

sic

Cha

rge

(Slid

es 2

2 to

27

of

June

25,

201

5 W

orks

hop

11A

Pres

enta

tion)

BC H

ydro

was

ask

ed to

mod

el in

crea

sing

the

SGS

basi

c ch

arge

to a

leve

l com

para

ble

to th

e R

esid

entia

l Bas

ic

Cha

rge

cost

reco

very

, fro

m th

e cu

rren

t 35%

leve

l to

45%

.

Res

ult s

:

Incr

easi

ng S

GS

basi

c ch

arge

to 4

5% o

f cos

t re

cove

ry is

clo

ser t

o fu

ll fix

ed c

ost r

ecov

ery

Res

ultin

g en

ergy

rate

rem

ains

with

in th

e LR

MC

an

d w

it hou

t sub

stan

tial b

ill im

pact

s

BC H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er B

C H

ydro

sho

uld

incr

ease

the

SGS

basi

c ch

arge

cos

t rec

over

y co

mpa

rabl

e to

Res

iden

tial B

asic

Cha

rge

cost

reco

very

. Ple

ase

prov

ide

any

com

men

ts in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

Dur

ing

the

Wor

ksho

p B

C H

ydro

cla

rifie

d th

at th

e 35

% a

nd 4

5% re

ferre

d to

th

e po

rtion

of d

eman

d an

d cu

stom

er c

osts

bei

ng re

cove

red

by th

e ba

sic

char

ges

to S

GS

and

Res

iden

tial c

usto

mer

s re

spec

tivel

y. It

is n

ot c

lear

to

BCO

APO

why

this

sho

uld

be th

e re

leva

nt m

easu

re o

f com

para

bilit

y as

op

pose

d to

look

ing

at th

e pe

rcen

t of c

usto

mer

cos

ts re

cove

red

via

the

basi

c ch

arge

for e

ach

cust

omer

cla

ss.

Anot

her r

elev

ant c

onsi

dera

tion,

whi

ch w

ould

sup

port

incr

easi

ng th

e SG

S ba

sic

cha r

ge r e

cove

ry, i

s th

e fa

ct th

at if

one

esc

alat

es th

e F1

6 LR

MC

upp

er

boun

dary

of 1

1.10

cen

ts/k

Wh

by in

flatio

n (e

.g. 2

%) b

y F1

8 th

e SQ

ene

rgy

rate

s w

ill ex

ceed

the

LRM

C v

alue

.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

3

Wor

ksho

p 11

A: S

egm

enta

tion,

SG

S a

nd M

GS

C.

MG

S D

eman

d C

harg

es

1.

BC H

ydro

pre

sent

ed th

ree

alte

rnat

ives

for d

eman

d ch

arge

s:

i. St

atus

Quo

ii.

Alte

rnat

ive

A -

flat d

eman

d ch

arge

+ fl

at e

nerg

y ra

te

iii.

Alte

rnat

ive

B –

two

step

dem

and

char

ge +

flat

en

ergy

rate

BC H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

hich

of t

he th

ree

dem

and

char

ge s

truct

ure

alte

rnat

ives

is p

refe

rre d

(with

reas

ons)

. Pl

ease

pr o

vide

any

com

men

ts in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

2.

Stak

ehol

ders

requ

este

d BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

incr

ease

d M

GS

dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery;

BC H

ydro

mod

eled

incr

easi

ng th

e M

GS

dem

and

cost

reco

very

of

f lat

dem

and

from

app

roxi

mat

ely

15%

to 3

5% f o

r Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e/Fl

at D

eman

d C

harg

e Al

tern

ativ

e

BC H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er t

he M

GS

dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery

shou

ld b

e in

crea

sed,

and

if s

o to

wha

t le

vel (

with

reas

ons)

. Ple

ase

prov

ide

com

men

ts in

the

colu

mn

to

the

right

.

3.

BC H

ydro

con

side

red

Tran

sitio

n St

rate

gies

for m

ovin

g to

a f l

at e

nerg

y ra

te, a

nd fl

at d

eman

d ch

arge

:

thre

e -ye

ar p

hase

–in

10%

bill

impa

ct C

ap

BC H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

hich

of t

he tw

o hi

gh-le

vel

alte

rnat

i ve

MG

S ra

te tr

ansi

tion

stra

tegi

es is

pre

ferr

ed (w

ith

reas

ons)

. Ple

ase

prov

ide

any

com

men

ts in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

h t.

1.

MG

S D

eman

d C

harg

e Al

tern

ativ

es

BCO

APO

doe

s no

t hav

e a

stro

ng p

refe

renc

e, b

ut A

ltern

ativ

e A

ap

pear

s t o

be

the

mos

t app

ropr

iate

.

As n

oted

, the

Sta

tus

Quo

app

roac

h is

poo

rly u

nder

stoo

d an

d do

es

not a

ppea

r to

be a

chie

ving

the

effic

ienc

y/co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

for

whi

ch it

was

inte

nded

. With

resp

ect t

o Al

tern

ativ

e B

, BC

OAP

O n

otes

th

at in

clin

ing

dem

and

char

ges

in o

ther

juris

dict

ions

are

freq

uent

ly

acco

mpa

nied

by

decl

inin

g en

ergy

rate

s, w

hich

tend

to h

ave

an

offs

e ttin

g ef

fect

for t

he to

tal b

ill. If

BC

H m

oves

to a

flat

ene

rgy

rate

fo

r the

MG

S cl

ass,

the

need

for a

n in

clin

ing

dem

and

char

ge is

qu

est io

nabl

e.

2.

MG

S D

eman

d C

harg

e C

ost R

eove

ry

BCO

APO

agr

ees

with

the

poin

t mad

e in

the

pres

enta

tion

that

the

corr

ect l

evel

of c

ost r

ecov

ery

cann

ot b

e ta

rget

ed in

isol

atio

n (S

lide

#33)

. As

wel

l as

the

cost

cau

satio

n an

d cu

stom

er a

ccep

tanc

e/

unde

rst a

ndin

g co

nsid

erat

ions

not

ed o

n Sl

ide

32, t

here

are

als

o ef

ficie

ncy

cons

ider

atio

ns (i

.e. t

he e

xten

t to

whi

ch th

e re

sulti

ng

ener

gy c

harg

e al

igns

with

LR

MC

). In

this

rega

rd, i

ncre

asin

g th

e de

man

d ch

a rge

cos

t rec

over

y ap

pear

s to

mov

e th

e en

ergy

cha

rge

furth

er b

elow

LR

MC

. In

crea

sing

the

dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery

also

app

ears

to le

ad to

gre

ater

bill

impa

cts

(in te

rms

of m

axim

um

impa

cts

– Sl

ide

49 a

nd S

lide

40 v

s. 5

1).

Fina

lly, i

f fix

ed c

osts

incl

ude

both

dem

and

and

cust

omer

cos

ts, w

e al

so q

uest

ion

the

use

of “f

ixed

cos

ts” a

s th

e re

leva

nt re

fere

nce

for

cost

cau

satio

n w

ith re

spec

t to

dem

and

cost

s. O

n ba

lanc

e, th

ere

appe

ars

t o b

e lit

tl e m

erit

in in

crea

sing

dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery

at th

is ti

me.

3.

Tran

sitio

n

BCO

APO

vi e

ws

15 y

ears

as

bein

g to

o lo

ng a

per

iod

for t

rans

ition

. Pe

rhap

s so

met

hing

slig

htly

gre

ater

than

3 s

houl

d be

con

side

red.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

4

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e S

truct

ure

A. P

ref e

rred

LGS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

(Slid

es 9

to 5

4 of

Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

BC H

ydro

i s s

eeki

ng s

take

hold

er fe

edba

ck o

n w

hich

of t

he fo

ur

ener

gy ra

te s

truct

ure

alte

rnat

ives

and

the

thre

e de

man

d ch

arge

st

ruct

ure

alte

rnat

ives

are

pre

ferre

d, a

nd w

hy. P

leas

e pr

ovid

e an

y co

mm

ents

you

hav

e in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

Ener

gy ra

te a

ltern

ativ

es:

1.

Stat

us Q

uo L

GS

Ener

gy ra

te (r

etai

n ba

selin

e)

2.

Sim

plify

ene

rgy

rate

stru

ctur

e (re

tain

bas

elin

e):

A.

Flat

ten

Part

1 E

nerg

y R

ate

B.

Con

side

r mod

ify B

asel

ine

Rat

e Pr

ovis

ions

:

i. D

eter

min

atio

n of

bas

elin

es (m

onth

ly v

ersu

s an

nual

ve

rsus

rol lin

g av

erag

e, e

tc. )

ii.

Pric

e li m

it ba

nds

(PLB

s) to

add

ress

con

cern

s th

at

rate

s ar

e ‘p

uniti

ve to

gro

win

g cu

stom

ers’

, and

/or t

o en

cour

a ge

furth

er c

onse

rvat

ion

iii.

Gro

wt h

rule

s to

mak

e le

ss re

stric

tive

iv.

New

acc

ount

rule

s

3.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e (re

mov

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure)

4.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e fo

r maj

ority

of L

GS

cust

omer

s an

d cr

eate

TSR

-like

rate

with

indi

vidu

ally

adm

inis

tere

d ba

selin

es fo

r se

gmen

t of v

ery

larg

e LG

S cu

stom

ers

Dem

and

Cha

rge

alte

rnat

ives

:

Stat

us q

uo in

clin

ing

thre

e -st

ep d

e man

d ch

arge

Flat

dem

and

char

ge

Two -

step

dem

a nd

char

ge

BCO

APO

und

erst

ands

that

ther

e ar

e tw

o cr

itica

l con

cern

s re

gard

ing

the

Stat

us Q

uo L

GS

rate

des

ign:

i) i

t is

not

achi

evi n

g th

e de

sire

d/an

ticip

ated

con

serv

atio

n re

sults

, and

ii)

the

rate

is d

iffic

ult t

o un

ders

tand

suc

h th

at c

usto

mer

s ca

nnot

re

adil y

pre

dict

t hei

r bills

or b

udge

t (Sl

ide

#12,

15

& 29

). Fu

rther

, lac

k of

con

serv

atio

n ef

fect

is, i

n its

elf,

larg

ely

attri

buta

ble

to th

e co

mpl

exity

and

lack

of u

nder

stan

ding

of t

he

curr

ent r

ate

desi

gn.

In B

CO

APO

’s v

iew

, it i

s a

basi

c re

quire

men

t tha

t cus

tom

ers

be a

ble

to u

nder

stan

d th

e ra

te s

truct

ure

bein

g us

ed to

bill

them

and

how

its

appl

icat

ion

will

impa

ct th

eir b

ills (r

egar

dles

s of

whe

ther

or n

ot it

resu

lts in

a c

onse

rvat

ion

effe

ct).

As

a re

sult,

it w

ould

app

ear t

o us

that

the

SQ ra

te s

truct

ure

is

unsu

stai

nabl

e. G

iven

this

con

text

, ene

rgy

rate

Alte

rnat

ive

#2

is o

nly

acce

ptab

le if

it tr

uly

lead

s to

a ra

te d

esig

n th

at

cust

omer

s ar

e ab

le to

und

erst

and.

It s

houl

d no

t be

purs

ued

as th

e “ p

refe

rred

opt

ion”

unl

ess

the

asso

ciat

ed p

ropo

sal h

as

been

fully

dev

elop

ed, c

anva

ssed

with

affe

cted

cus

tom

ers

and,

at

a m

inim

um, v

iew

ed to

be

wor

kabl

e. N

ote:

All

chan

ges

in

rate

des

ign

will

have

impa

cts

(favo

urab

le to

som

e cu

stom

ers

and

unfa

v our

able

to o

ther

s). T

he fi

rst c

ritic

al is

sue

for

cons

ider

ing

an A

ltern

ativ

e 2

rate

des

ign

prop

osal

is th

at it

be

unde

rst a

ndab

le.

If th

is is

not

the

case

, the

re s

eem

s to

littl

e po

int i

n pu

rsin

g it

furth

er.

The

maj

or d

raw

back

to A

ltern

ativ

e #3

is th

at th

e re

sulti

ng

ener

gy ra

te w

ould

be

sign

ifica

ntly

bel

ow L

RM

C.

This

issu

e w

ould

be

addr

esse

d fo

r at l

east

som

e of

the

cust

omer

s by

Al

tern

ativ

e 4

– w

hich

, as

a re

sult,

is p

refe

rabl

e to

Alte

rnat

ive

#3 –

if a

dmin

istra

tivel

y pr

actic

al w

ithou

t sig

nific

ant a

dditi

onal

co

sts.

With

resp

ect t

o de

man

d ch

arge

s, th

ere

does

not

app

ear t

o be

an

y ba

sis

for a

n in

clin

ing

dem

and

char

ge.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

5

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e S

truct

ure

B.

Flat

ten

Part

1 E

nerg

y R

ate

(Slid

e 16

of J

une

26, 2

015

Wor

ksho

p Pr

esen

tatio

n)

Flat

Par

t 1 e

ner g

y ra

te w

ould

be

nom

inal

sim

plifi

catio

n, a

s Pa

rt 1

cons

u mpt

ion

thre

shol

d of

14

,800

kW

h/m

onth

is n

ot m

ater

ial t

o m

ost L

GS

cust

omer

s:

Mor

e cu

stom

e rs

bette

r off

than

wor

se o

ff, h

ighe

r con

sum

ing

cust

omer

s ha

ve m

ore

adve

rse

bill

impa

cts

BC H

ydro

is s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

is o

ptio

n to

flat

ten

Part

Ener

gy R

ate.

Ple

ase

prov

ide

any

com

men

ts in

the

colu

mn

to th

e ri g

ht.

C.

Base

li ne

Rat

e Pr

ovis

ions

(i)

Base

line

dete

rmin

atio

n (s

lide

17 o

f 26

June

Wor

ksho

p 11

B pr

esen

tatio

n)

BC H

ydro

con

side

red

base

line

dete

rmin

atio

n on

ann

ual b

asis

ver

sus

mon

thly

bas

elin

e ca

lcul

atio

n, a

nd

Con

side

red

dete

rmin

ing

one -

year

and

five

-yea

r rol

ling

aver

age

base

lines

, ver

sus

stat

us

quo

dete

rmin

atio

n of

thre

e –ye

ar ro

lling

aver

age

mon

thly

bas

elin

es

Annu

al b

asel

ine

coul

d cr

eate

cas

h flo

w b

urde

n fo

r man

y cu

stom

ers

at y

ear e

nd. f

ive -

year

rollin

g av

erag

e ba

seli n

es w

ill fu

rther

incr

ease

the

com

plex

ity o

f the

rate

; one

-yea

r bas

elin

es c

ould

cau

se

bill

inst

abilit

y as

unu

sual

con

sum

ptio

n m

onth

s ca

nnot

be

leve

lled

in b

asel

ines

.

If t h

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

wou

ld re

com

men

d no

cha

nge

to s

tatu

s qu

o th

ree -

year

rollin

g av

erag

e m

onth

ly b

asel

ine

and

seek

s fu

rther

sta

keho

lder

feed

back

. Ple

ase

expl

ain

your

resp

onse

s in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

(ii)

Pric

e B

and

Lim

it (P

LBs)

(Slid

es 1

8 to

19

of W

orks

hop

11B

P res

enta

tion)

PLB

l imits

cus

tom

er’s

exp

osur

e to

Par

t 2 L

RM

C e

nerg

y ra

te w

ithin

a ra

nge

of 8

0% o

f his

tor ic

ba

selin

e (H

BL) t

o 12

0% o

f HBP

(+/ -

20%

). BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

led

decr

easi

ng th

e PL

B (i.

e. +

/ - 10

%)

and

incr

easi

ng th

e PB

L (i.

e. +

/ -30%

)

BC H

ydro

con

tinue

s to

bel

ieve

ther

e ar

e no

cha

nges

to P

LBs

that

wou

ld im

prov

e pe

rform

ance

of

stat

us q

uo L

GS

Ener

gy ra

te in

resp

ect o

f con

serv

atio

n or

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

and

ac

cept

ance

, and

is s

eeki

ng fu

rther

feed

back

.

If th

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er th

e PL

B sh

oud

be

mod

ified

and

if s

o,ho

w. P

leas

e ex

plai

n yo

ur re

spon

se in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

The

f latte

ning

of t

he p

art 1

ene

rgy

rate

sho

uld

only

be

cons

ider

ed a

s pa

rt of

an

over

all p

acka

ge o

f ch

ange

s ai

med

at i

mpr

ovin

g th

e ac

cept

abili t

y/un

ders

tand

abilit

y of

the

SQ r a

te d

esig

n (i.

e. e

nerg

y ra

te

alte

rnat

ive

2).

Ther

e w

ould

see

m to

be

littl

e m

erit

on c

hang

ing

just

this

as

pect

of t

he e

nerg

y ra

te d

esig

n.

Sinc

e th

e ke

y pu

rpos

e of

the

sugg

est e

d re

visi

ons

is to

impr

ove

the

unde

rsta

ndin

g (a

nd th

eref

ore

also

th

e “ c

onse

rvat

ion”

per

form

ance

) of

the

SQ ra

te d

esig

n, B

CO

APO

doe

s no

t ha v

e a n

y sp

eci fi

c vi

ews

or

sugg

estio

ns to

offe

r at t

his

time

and

is in

ter e

sted

(firs

t) in

se

eing

/con

side

ring

the

resp

onse

s fr o

m th

e cu

stom

ers

actu

ally

bille

d us

ing

the

rate

.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

6

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e S

truct

ure

(iii )

Gro

wt h

Miti

gatio

n –

Form

ulai

c G

row

th R

ate

(FG

R)

(Slid

es 2

0 to

21

of W

orks

hop

11B

Pres

enta

tion)

The

Cus

tom

er H

BLs

for t

he u

pcom

ing

12-m

onth

per

iod

will

be re

-det

erm

ined

by

BC

Hyd

ro b

a sed

on

the

two

mos

t rec

ent y

ears

of c

onsu

mpt

ion

hist

ory

if th

e C

usto

mer

exp

erie

nces

sig

nific

ant g

row

th i.

e., f

ollo

win

g a

year

(Y3)

in w

hich

en

ergy

con

sum

ptio

n ex

ceed

ed p

revi

ous

year

’s (Y

2) e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n by

at

leas

t: (i)

30%

, or (

ii) 4

,000

,000

kW

h.

Bill

anal

ysis

sho

wed

24%

of a

ccou

nts

that

qua

lifie

d fo

r FG

R in

F20

15 e

nded

up

hav

ing

high

er b

ills w

ith th

e ba

selin

e ad

just

men

t . Fu

t ure

bills

are

un

pred

icta

ble

due

to m

ultip

le v

aria

bles

invo

lved

in b

illing

– p

ast,

curr

ent a

nd

futu

re c

onsu

mpt

ion.

If t h

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er

ther

e sh

ould

be

mod

ifcat

ions

to o

r rem

oval

of t

he F

GR

pro

vis i

on a

nd if

so,

w

hat.

Plea

se e

x pla

in y

our r

espo

nse

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

(iv)

Gro

wt h

Miti

gatio

n - A

nom

aly

Rul

e (S

lides

22

to 2

3 of

W

orks

hop

11B

Pres

enta

tion)

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BLs,

ano

mal

ousl

y lo

w c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

from

pre

viou

s ye

ars

are

excl

uded

:

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BL fo

r a p

artic

ular

mon

th, c

onsu

mpt

ion

in a

his

toric

al

mon

th th

at is

less

than

hal

f the

con

sum

ptio

n in

the

next

low

est m

onth

of

all

mon

ths

othe

rwis

e us

ed fo

r cal

cula

tion

wou

ld b

e ex

clud

ed

Up

to fo

ur H

BLs

can

be a

djus

ted

per B

CH

’s fi

scal

yea

r in

acco

rdan

ce

with

t he

Anom

aly

Rul

e

Cus

tom

ers

will

alw

ays

end

up w

ith h

ighe

r bas

elin

es; h

owev

er, h

ighe

r ba

selin

es s

omet

imes

cre

ate

high

er b

ills

If th

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

u re

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er

ther

e sh

ould

be

mod

ifcat

ions

to o

r rem

oval

of t

he A

nom

aly

Rul

e p

rovi

sion

an

d if

so, w

hat.

Plea

se e

xpla

in y

our r

espo

nse

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

7

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e S

truct

ure

(v)

Gro

wt h

Miti

gatio

n –

Pros

pect

ive

Gro

wth

Rul

e (T

S82)

(Slid

es 2

4 to

25

of

Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

Cus

tom

ers

who

ant

icip

ate

‘sig

nific

ant’,

‘per

man

ent’

incr

ease

s in

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

may

app

ly to

BC

Hyd

ro fo

r mod

ified

pric

ing

unde

r TS

82

that

may

redu

ce t h

eir e

nerg

y co

sts.

Sig

nific

ant m

eans

a p

rosp

ectiv

e fir

st y

ear a

nnua

l inc

reas

e in

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

tota

ling

at le

ast 3

0% o

r 4,0

00,0

00 k

Wh

abov

e th

e hi

stor

ical

thre

e -ye

ar a

vera

ge a

nnua

l co

nsum

ptio

n. P

erm

anen

t mea

ns a

risin

g fro

m a

sig

nific

ant c

apita

l inv

est m

ent.

Very

f ew

cus

tom

ers

have

app

lied

due

to h

igh

thre

shol

ds

Cus

tom

ers

with

low

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

mig

ht m

eet t

he 3

0% th

resh

old

but m

ay n

ot

bene

fit fr

om th

e m

odifi

ed p

ricin

g st

ruct

ure

Hig

h ad

min

istra

tive

cost

to B

C H

ydro

If t h

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er th

ere

shou

ld b

e m

odifc

atio

ns to

or r

emov

al o

f the

Pro

spec

tive

Gro

wth

Rul

e an

d if

so, w

hat.

Plea

se e

xpla

in y

our r

espo

nse

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

(vi)

New

Acc

ount

s (8

5/15

) (Sl

ides

26

to 2

7 of

Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

85/1

5 ap

plie

s w

hen

a ne

w a

ccou

nt is

set

up

in B

C H

ydro

’s b

illing

sys

tem

, re

gard

less

of w

heth

er th

ere

wer

e ch

ange

s in

cus

tom

ers’

ope

ratio

n

Firs

t 85%

of e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed in

a m

onth

ly b

illing

per

iod

is c

harg

ed a

t the

Par

t 1

rate

. Las

t 15%

of e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed in

a m

onth

ly b

illing

per

iod

is c

harg

ed P

art 2

LR

MC

rate

Esta

blis

hed

to p

reve

nt c

usto

mer

s fro

m ‘g

amin

g’ b

y op

enin

g ne

w a

ccou

nts

to

rese

t bas

elin

es

BC H

ydro

f oun

d no

evi

denc

e of

“gam

ing”

in th

e LG

S Th

ree -

Year

Rep

ort.

Cus

tom

ers

rais

ed c

once

rns

that

85/

15 ra

te u

nfai

rly p

enal

izes

cus

tom

ers

who

hav

e no

cha

nge

in

oper

atio

n s d

urin

g ac

coun

t ow

ners

hip

trans

fers

.

If th

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

wou

ld re

com

men

d ap

plyi

ng 1

00%

Pa

rt 1

rate

s fo

r new

acc

ount

s, a

nd is

see

king

furth

er s

take

hold

er fe

edba

ck. P

leas

e pr

ovid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

8

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e S

truct

ure

D.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e (N

o B

asel

ine)

(Slid

es 2

9 to

30,

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

orks

hop

Pres

enta

tion)

Opt

ion:

Fla

tten

LGS

Ener

gy ra

te fo

r all

cons

umpt

ion

leve

ls

Pros

:

Elim

inat

es a

ll co

mpl

exity

from

bas

elin

e co

mpo

nent

of s

tatu

s qu

o LG

S en

ergy

rate

Easi

er a

n d m

ore

accu

rate

cus

tom

er fo

reca

stin

g

Impr

oved

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

Alig

ns w

ith o

ther

Cdn

. Ju r

isdi

ctio

ns

Con

s:

Ener

gy ra

te is

wel

l bel

ow lo

wer

end

of e

nerg

y LR

MC

Obs

erva

tions

:

Littl

e to

no

bill

impa

cts

resu

lting

sol

ely

from

rem

oval

of b

asel

ine,

as

dem

onst

rate

d in

Wor

ksho

p 8b

Ther

e ar

e bi

ll im

pact

s fro

m fl

atte

ning

Par

t 1 E

nerg

y ra

tes;

typi

cal

cust

omer

s be

tter o

ff

No

chan

ge in

con

serv

atio

n –

zero

fore

c ast

for p

lann

ing

purp

oses

BC H

ydro

is s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

is o

ptio

n. P

leas

e pr

ovid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

In B

CO

APO

’s v

iew

, thi

s is

the

pref

erre

d al

tern

ativ

e if

an a

ccep

tabl

e se

t of r

evis

ions

to

the

curr

ent r

ate

desi

gn (t

hat w

ould

cle

arly

im

prov

e bo

th u

nder

stan

dabi

lity

and

perfo

rman

ce) c

anno

t be

iden

tifie

d.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

9

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e S

truct

ure

E. T

SR-L

ike

Ene

r gy

Rat

e (S

lides

32

to 3

4 of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 w

orks

hop

Pres

enta

tion)

Vite

rra

and

AM

PC s

ugge

sted

a T

SR-li

ke ra

te fo

r hig

h co

nsum

pti o

n LG

S cu

stom

ers

Rat

e m

ay h

ave

follo

win

g el

emen

ts b

ased

on

BC H

ydro

’s

exis

ti ng

TSR

– R

S 18

23:

Avai

l abl

e to

larg

e LG

S ac

coun

ts

Ener

g y R

ate

(F20

17) –

illu

str a

tive

base

d on

RS

1823

90

/10

split

and

r ate

neu

tral t

o LG

S Fl

at e

nerg

y ra

te:

5.48

cen

ts/ k

Wh

appl

ied

to a

ll kW

h up

to a

nd

incl

udin

g 90

% o

f Cus

tom

er B

asel

ine

load

(CBL

) in

each

billi

ng y

ear

10.1

0 ce

nts/

kWh

appl

ied

to a

ll kW

h ab

ove

90%

of

cust

omer

’s C

BL in

eac

h bi

lling

year

Initi

al a

nnua

l CBL

det

erm

ined

by

hist

oric

bas

elin

e ye

ar( s

)

Allo

wab

le a

djus

tmen

ts fo

r DSM

, pla

nt c

apac

ity

incr

ease

s an

d fo

rce

maj

eure

Annu

al C

BL a

ppro

ved

each

yea

r by

BCU

C

BC H

ydro

i s s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

is o

ptio

n. P

leas

e pr

ovid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

The

T SR

-Lik

e en

erg y

rate

app

ears

to b

e w

ell u

nder

stoo

d by

the

trans

mis

sion

cus

tom

ers

it is

cur

rent

ly a

pplie

d to

and

wor

king

wel

l (bo

th in

te

rms

of p

erfo

rman

ce a

nd C

BL s

ettin

g).

In B

CO

APO

’s v

iew

a s

imila

r st

ruct

ure

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

for h

igh

cons

umpt

ion

LGS

cust

omer

s,

prov

ided

app

l icat

ion

of s

uch

a ra

te d

esig

n is

adm

inis

trativ

ely

prac

tical

. Th

e on

ly c

once

rn B

CO

APO

wou

ld h

ave

with

the

intro

duct

ion

of s

uch

a ra

te

desi

gn w

ith re

spec

t to

the

defin

ition

“rev

enue

neu

tralit

y” th

at w

ould

be

used

in

set

ti ng

the

rate

– w

hich

is s

imil a

r to

the

prev

ious

con

cern

s ex

pres

sed

by

BCO

APO

rega

rdin

g th

e cu

rren

t def

initi

on o

f rev

enue

neu

tralit

y us

ed fo

r the

TS

R.

Giv

en th

e co

ncer

ns e

xpre

ssed

by

inst

itutio

nal a

nd m

unic

ipal

gov

ernm

ent

cust

omer

s, it

may

be

usef

ul to

exp

lore

the

me r

its/d

raw

back

s of

intro

duci

ng

such

a ra

te o

n an

opt

iona

l bas

is.

This

may

be

mor

e w

orka

ble

than

tryi

ng

to “d

e fin

e” a

cla

ss/ty

pe o

f cus

tom

er th

at w

ould

be

exem

pt.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esi g

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

10

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: O

ptio

nal R

ates

and

Oth

er Is

sues

A. G

ener

al S

ervi

ce O

ptio

nal R

ates

(Sid

e s 5

6 to

62

of

June

26,

201

5 W

orks

hop

11B

P res

enta

tion)

1.

Volu

ntar

y Ti

me

of U

se R

ates

BC H

ydro

has

no

plan

to p

roce

ed d

evel

opin

g th

is

optio

n at

this

tim

e fo

r rea

sons

set

out

in s

ectio

n 6.

1 of

W

orks

hop

8A/8

B C

onsi

dera

tion

Mem

o

2.

Inte

rupt

ible

Rat

es

BC H

ydr o

pro

pose

s to

ass

ess

this

opt

ion

as p

art o

f R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

ft er d

efau

lt G

S ra

tes

dete

rmin

ed

3.

Effi c

ienc

y R

ate

Cre

dit c

once

pt

BC H

ydro

pro

pose

s to

ass

ess

this

opt

ion

as p

art o

f R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter d

efau

lt G

S ra

tes

dete

rmin

ed

4.

Dem

and

Cha

rge

Opt

ions

BC H

ydro

pro

pose

s to

ass

ess

thes

e op

tions

as

part

of R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter d

efau

lt G

S ra

tes

dete

rmin

ed

BC H

ydro

i s s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

e ab

ove

prop

osal

s, a

nd

also

on

prel

i min

ary

com

men

ts o

n op

tions

iden

tifie

d to

dat

e,

and

if th

ere

are

any

othe

r GS

rate

opt

ions

BC

Hyd

ro s

houl

d co

nsid

er. P

leas

e ex

plai

n yo

ur re

spon

se in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

BCO

APO

agr

ees

with

BC

Hyd

ro’s

pro

posa

l not

to p

roce

ed w

ith th

e de

velo

p men

t of a

n op

tiona

l TO

U ra

te a

t thi

s tim

e. T

here

app

ears

to b

e no

co

st ju

sti fi

catio

n fo

r any

mat

eria

l diff

eren

tial i

n pe

ak/o

ff -pe

ak r a

tes

and

cons

ider

able

opp

ort u

nity

for f

ree -

rider

s (W

orkS

hop 8

A/8B

Con

side

ratio

n M

emo,

pg .

56)

.

BCO

APO

has

rese

rvat

ions

abo

ut th

e ot

her s

ugge

sted

opt

iona

l rat

es fo

r G

ener

al S

ervi

ce c

usto

mer

s. T

hey

need

to b

e gi

ven

care

ful c

onsi

dera

tion

to

ensu

re th

at th

ey d

o no

t hav

e a

nega

tive

impa

ct o

n ot

her c

usto

mer

s.

In th

e ca

se o

f int

erru

ptib

le ra

tes

a nu

mbe

r of p

ossi

ble

appr

oach

es h

ave

been

i den

tifie

d. H

owev

er, e

ach

appe

ars

to b

e ap

plic

able

to a

diff

eren

t set

of

ci rc

umst

ance

s su

ch th

at th

e te

rms

and

cond

ition

s w

ould

be

an im

porta

nt

part

of th

e “ra

te”.

In th

e ca

se o

f the

“effi

cien

cy ra

te c

redi

t”, it

app

ears

to

BCO

A PO

that

con

side

rabl

e w

ork

is s

till r

equi

red

to fl

esh

out t

he d

etai

ls

and,

ind e

ed,

in th

is c

ase

the

“dev

il is

like

ly to

be

in th

e de

tails

”.

BCO

APO

vie

ws

RD

A M

odul

e 2

as a

reas

onab

le fo

rum

to c

onsi

der t

he

optio

nal r

ates

not

ed p

rovi

ded,

giv

en th

e ot

her i

ssue

s id

entif

ied

for M

odul

e 2,

ther

e is

suf

ficie

nt ti

me

and

reso

urce

s av

aila

ble

to c

ompr

ehen

sive

ly

asse

ss th

ese

optio

ns a

s w

ell.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esi g

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

11

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: O

ptio

nal R

ates

and

Oth

er Is

sues

B.

Oth

er Is

sues

(Slid

es 6

4 to

66

of W

orks

hop

11B

Pres

enta

tion)

1.

Min

imum

Cha

rges

(Dem

and

Rat

chet

)

Exis

t ing

min

imum

cha

rge

is b

ased

on

50%

of p

eak

mon

thly

de

man

d re

gist

ered

in m

o st r

ecen

t win

ter p

erio

d (N

ovem

ber t

o M

arch

)

Rat

chet

was

redu

ced

from

75%

to 5

0% e

ffect

ive

Apr

il 1,

198

0

Base

d on

F14

dat

a:

MG

S m

inim

um c

harg

es: a

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

35,0

00 o

n to

tal r

even

ue o

f app

roxi

mat

ely

$329

mill i

on (0

.4%

)

LGS

min

i mum

cha

rges

: app

roxi

mat

ely

$1.6

mill i

on o

n ab

out $

764

mill i

on, e

xclu

ding

rate

ride

r (0.

2%)

BC H

ydro

is s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

e cu

rrent

Dem

and

Rat

chet

. Ple

ase

expl

ain

your

resp

onse

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

BCO

APO

not

es th

at th

ere

is a

n im

porta

nt is

sue

of fa

irnes

s in

volv

ed.

Giv

en th

at c

ost c

ausa

lity

is d

eter

min

ed b

ased

on

peak

dem

and

(e.g

., 4C

P an

d N

CP)

, cus

tom

ers

who

se b

illing

dem

ands

are

mat

eria

lly lo

wer

in

the

o ff -p

eak

mon

ths

(rel

ativ

e to

the

peak

mon

ths)

are

like

ly n

ot p

ayin

g th

eir “

fair”

sha

r e o

f cos

ts. T

here

is a

lso

the

mat

ter o

f con

sist

ent t

reat

men

t ac

ross

cus

tom

er c

lass

es a

nd, i

n th

is c

onte

xt, i

t is

note

d th

at fo

r BC

H’s

TS

R c

usto

mer

s, th

e ra

tche

t is

curre

ntly

set

at 7

5% a

s co

mpa

red

to 5

0%

for L

GS

and

MG

S cu

stom

ers.

Ove

rall,

BC

OAP

O s

ees

mer

it to

i ncl

udin

g a

revi

ew o

f the

MG

S/LG

S de

man

d ra

tche

t in

Mod

ule

2.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esi g

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

12

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: O

ptio

nal R

ates

and

Oth

er Is

sues

2.

Tran

sfor

mer

Ow

ners

hip

Dis

coun

t (TO

D) a

nd T

rans

form

er R

enta

ls

TOD

rate

i s $

0.25

per

mon

th p

er k

W o

f billi

ng d

eman

d if

cust

omer

su

pplie

s t ra

nsfo

rmat

ion

from

prim

ary

pote

ntia

l to

seco

ndar

y po

tent

ial

Last

revi

ew o

f $0.

25 /m

onth

dis

coun

t was

com

plet

ed in

Au

gust

200

4

BC H

ydro

pro

pose

s to

eva

luat

e TO

D in

con

junc

tion

with

Dis

tribu

tion

Exte

nsio

n Po

licy

as p

art o

f RD

A M

odul

e 2,

and

is s

eek i

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

is

reco

mm

ende

d ap

proa

ch. P

leas

e ex

plai

n yo

ur re

spon

se in

the

colu

mn

to

the

r ight

.

F201

5 R

DA

to fi

rst s

et th

e R

esid

entia

l def

ault

rate

, and

to c

onsi

der t

he

deve

lop m

ent o

f an

EV ra

te a

fter t

he 2

015

RD

A M

odul

e 1

deci

sion

.

Des

i gn

Con

side

ratio

ns:

• At

-hom

e ch

argi

ng (R

esid

entia

l)

• Ba

sis

on w

hich

to d

eter

min

e co

st o

f ser

vice

and

load

impl

icat

ions

for

pric

ing

– di

ffere

nt p

atte

rn o

f ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

(bat

tery

sto

rage

of

elec

tric

pow

er)

• M

echa

nism

to e

nfor

ce o

ff -pe

ak c

harg

ing

– tim

e va

ryin

g co

mpo

nent

(T

ime

of U

se; p

rice

diffe

rent

ial i

s an

issu

e; a

dopt

Cal

iforn

ia ‘s

uper

of

f -pea

k’ c

once

pt to

enc

oura

ge la

te n

ight

to e

arly

mor

ning

cha

rgin

g?

• R

equi

rem

ent o

f a s

epar

ate

met

er?

• In

tera

ctio

n w

ith R

IB?

• O

ther

?

BC H

ydro

see

ks s

take

hold

er fe

edba

ck o

n ra

te d

esig

n co

nsid

erat

ions

pr

esen

ted

abov

e an

d th

e tim

ing

of a

ny fu

ture

EV

rate

pro

posa

l. Pl

ease

ex

plai

n yo

ur re

spon

se in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

Whi

le th

ere

is s

ome

linka

ge b

etw

een

the

TOD

and

the

Dis

tr ibu

tion

Exte

nsio

n Po

licy

in te

rms

of a

void

ed c

osts

, BC

OA P

O a

lso

sees

ther

e be

ing

a lin

kage

bet

wee

n th

e TO

D

and

the

Cos

t of S

ervi

ce S

tudy

. Th

e ra

tes

char

ged

to a

cu

stom

er c

lass

suc

h as

MG

S or

LG

S in

clud

es a

n al

loca

tion

of c

osts

for t

rans

form

ers

owne

d by

BC

Hyd

ro a

ttrib

utab

le to

th

ose

cust

omer

s in

the

clas

s th

at u

se B

C H

ydro

ow

ned

trans

form

ers.

Ide

ally

, the

se c

osts

sho

uld

only

be

reco

vere

d fro

m th

ose

cust

omer

s us

ing

BC H

ydro

-ow

ned

trans

form

ers.

O

ne w

ay to

ach

ieve

this

is to

pro

vide

a c

redi

t (eq

uiva

lent

to

estim

ated

em

bedd

ed c

ost o

f suc

h tra

nsfo

rmer

s) to

cu

stom

ers

in t h

e cl

ass

that

ow

n th

eir t

rans

form

ers

and

incl

ude

t he

cost

of s

uch

cred

its a

s pa

rt of

the

reve

nue

requ

i rem

ent a

ttrib

utab

le to

the

clas

s. A

s a

resu

lt, B

CO

APO

se

es m

erit

in c

onsi

derin

g th

e TO

D in

this

con

text

as

wel

l an

d th

eref

ore

in M

odul

e 2

– af

ter t

he C

ost o

f Ser

vice

m

etho

dolo

gy h

as b

een

revi

ewed

and

agr

eed

upon

.

BCO

APO

is n

ot to

tally

fam

iliar w

ith E

V ch

argi

ng te

chno

logy

an

d th

eref

ore

unce

rtain

whe

ther

ther

e m

ay a

lso

be is

sues

as

soci

ated

with

cap

abilit

y of

the

stan

dard

ser

vice

(i.e

. am

ps,

volts

, etc

.) pr

ovid

ed fo

r Res

iden

tial c

usto

mer

s to

han

dle

an

EV c

harg

ing

stat

ion

or w

heth

er, i

n so

me

case

s, s

ervi

ce

upgr

ades

may

be

requ

ired.

If t

his

is th

e ca

se, t

he tr

eatm

ent

of th

e as

soci

ated

cos

ts w

ould

als

o be

a re

leva

nt is

sue.

It ap

pear

s th

ere

are

a nu

mbe

r of i

ssue

s to

sor

t out

and

co

nsid

er in

the

desi

gn o

f fut

ure

EV

rate

s su

ch th

at it

may

be

prem

atur

e to

con

side

r EV

rate

s as

par

t of M

odul

e 2

give

n th

e o t

her i

ssue

s al

so to

be

cons

ider

ed.

(BCOAPO)

2015

Rat

e D

esi g

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

13

Add

ition

al C

omm

e nts

:

CO

NS E

NT

TO U

SE P

ERSO

NAL

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

I con

sent

to th

e us

e of

my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

by B

C H

ydro

f or t

he p

urpo

ses

of k

eep i

ng m

e up

date

d ab

out t

he 2

015

RD

A. F

o r p

urpo

ses

of

t he

abov

e, m

y pe

rson

al in

form

atio

n in

clud

es o

pini

ons,

nam

e, m

ailin

g ad

dres

s, p

hone

num

ber a

nd e

mai

l add

ress

as

per t

he in

form

atio

n I

prov

ide.

S i

gnat

ure:

____

____

___ _

___S

arah

Kha

n__ _

____

___

Dat

e: _

_ ___

__08

/13/

15_ _

____

____

_ T h

ank

you

for y

our c

omm

ents

.

Com

men

ts s

ubm

itted

will

be u

sed

to in

form

the

RD

A Sc

ope

and

Eng

agem

ent p

roce

ss, i

nclu

ding

dis

cuss

ions

with

Gov

ernm

ent,

and

will

form

pa

rt of

the

offic

ial r

ecor

d of

the

RD

A.

Y ou

can

retu

rn c

ompl

eted

f eed

bac k

form

s by

:

Mai

l: BC

Hyd

ro, B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up –

“ Atte

ntio

n 20

15 R

DA”

, 16th

Fl o

or, 3

33 D

unsm

uir S

t. Va

n. B

.C. V

6B-5

R3

Fax

num

ber:

604-

623-

4407

– “ A

tt ent

ion

2015

RD

A”

E mai

l: bc

h ydr

oreg

ulat

oryg

roup

@bc

hydr

o.co

m

Form

ava

ilabl

e on

Web

: htt p

://w

ww

.bch

ydro

.com

/abo

ut/p

lann

ing_

regu

lato

ry/re

gula

tory

.htm

l

A ny

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

you

prov

ide

to B

C H

ydro

on

this

form

is c

olle

cted

and

pro

tect

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Fre

ed

om

of

Info

rma

tio

n a

nd

Pro

tec

tio

n

of

Pri

va

cy

Ac

t. BC

Hyd

ro i s

col

lect

ing

info

rmat

ion

with

thi s

for t

he p

urpo

se o

f the

201

5 R

DA

i n a

ccor

danc

e w

ith B

C H

ydro

’ s m

anda

te u

nder

the

Hy

dro

an

d

Po

we

r A

uth

ori

ty A

ct,

the

BC H

ydro

Tar

iff, t

h e U

t ili

tie

s C

om

mis

sio

n A

ct a

n d re

late

d R

egul

atio

ns a

nd D

irect

ions

. If y

ou h

a ve

any

ques

tions

abo

ut th

e c o

llec t

ion

or u

se o

f the

per

sona

l inf

orm

atio

n co

llect

ed o

n th

is fo

rm p

leas

e co

ntac

t the

BC

Hyd

ro R

egul

ator

y G

roup

via

em

ail a

t: bc

hydr

oreg

ulat

oryg

roup

@bc

hydr

o.co

m

(BCOAPO)







2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

N

ame/

Org

aniz

atio

n:

C

omm

ents

(Ple

ase

do n

ot id

entif

y th

ird-p

arty

indi

vidu

als

in

your

com

men

ts. C

omm

ents

bea

ring

refe

renc

es to

iden

tifia

ble

indi

vidu

als

will

be

disc

arde

d du

e to

priv

acy

conc

erns

).

Wor

ksho

p 11

A: S

egm

enta

tion,

SG

S an

d M

GS

A. C

ost o

f Ser

vice A

nalys

is: S

egm

enta

tion

Meth

odol

ogy (

Slid

es 17

to 21

of

June

25, 2

015 W

orks

hop

11A

Pres

enta

tion)

. BC

Hydr

o di

scus

sed

two

met

hods

of

segm

enta

tion:

Metho

d 1:

BC H

ydro

took

samp

les of

1,00

0 cu

stome

rs fro

m ea

ch of

SGS

, MGS

and L

GS cl

asse

s;

F16 F

orec

ast c

osts

assig

ned t

o GS

rate

class

es po

oled

and r

e-all

ocate

d pro

rata

by in

dividu

al cu

stome

r kW

h, 4 C

oincid

ent P

eak (

CP) d

eman

d, an

d Non

-Coin

ciden

t Pea

k (NC

P) de

mand

. Re

sults

of m

ethod

1 no

t con

clusiv

e:

• NC

P all

ocati

on va

ries d

epen

ding

on co

incide

nce w

ithin

class

es.

• Co

incide

nce i

s bett

er co

rrelat

ed w

ith co

st tha

n cus

tomer

size

.

• Tr

ansfo

rmer

cost

may v

ary w

ith si

ze bu

t cos

t impa

ct is

small

.

Metho

d 2:

Cons

ider c

ost a

lloca

tion b

ased

on p

re-a

ssign

ed se

gmen

ts of

custo

mers.

Cus

tomer

s will

be

grou

ped b

y size

as op

pose

d to e

valua

ted in

dividu

ally –

to be

revie

wed a

t July

30, 2

015 w

rap-

up

works

hop.

BC H

ydro

seek

s sta

keho

lder

feed

back

on

what

oth

er an

alysis

of s

egm

enta

tion

shou

ld b

e co

nduc

ted.

Plea

se p

rovid

e any

com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

BC

Hyd

ro

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

A: S

egm

enta

tion,

SG

S an

d M

GS

B.

SGS

–SGS

Bas

ic Ch

arge

(Slid

es 22

to 27

of J

une 2

5, 20

15 W

orks

hop

11A

Pres

enta

tion)

BC H

ydro

was

aske

d to m

odel

incre

asing

the S

GS ba

sic ch

arge

to a

level

comp

arab

le to

the

Resid

entia

l Bas

ic Ch

arge

cost

reco

very,

from

the c

urre

nt 35

% le

vel to

45%

.

Resu

lts:

• Inc

reas

ing S

GS ba

sic ch

arge

to 4

5% of

cost

reco

very

is clo

ser t

o full

fixed

cost

reco

very

• Re

sultin

g ene

rgy r

ate re

mains

with

in the

LRMC

and w

ithou

t sub

stanti

al bil

l impa

cts

BC H

ydro

seek

s fee

dbac

k on

whet

her B

C Hy

dro

shou

ld in

crea

se th

e SGS

bas

ic ch

arge

cost

re

cove

ry co

mpa

rabl

e to

Resid

entia

l Bas

ic Ch

arge

cost

reco

very

. Plea

se p

rovid

e any

com

men

ts

in th

e col

umn

to th

e rig

ht.

BC H

ydro

sho

ws

on s

lide

26 th

at th

e in

crea

se in

bas

ic

char

ge to

45%

has

ver

y lo

w b

ill im

pact

s an

d on

ly s

mal

l re

duct

ions

in th

e en

ergy

cha

rge.

Is

it re

ason

able

to

conc

lude

that

thi

s im

plie

s th

at th

e fix

ed c

osts

of B

C H

ydro

ar

e re

lativ

ely

smal

l com

pare

d to

its

ener

gy c

osts

. It

will

be

info

rmat

ive

if BC

Hyd

ro fu

rther

exp

lain

ed th

e co

st

rela

tions

hip.

Al

thou

gh m

ovem

ent t

o 45

% p

rovi

des

com

para

bilit

y w

ith th

e R

IB b

asic

cha

rge

reco

very

, BC

Hyd

ro s

houl

d pr

ovid

e th

e co

ntex

t by

furth

er e

xpla

inin

g its

prio

ritie

s w

ithin

the

rate

de

sign

obj

ectiv

es s

uch

as th

e pr

iorit

y fo

r sta

ble

cost

re

cove

ry o

f fix

ed c

osts

vs

the

prio

rity

for p

rice

sign

als

to

enco

urag

e co

nser

vatio

n.

If th

e M

GS

Dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery

is to

rem

ain

belo

w 3

5% (1

5% c

urre

ntly

), sh

ould

the

SG

S Ba

sic

char

ge

be in

crea

sed

from

35%

to 4

5%?

If s

o, w

ould

ther

e be

any

‘s

eam

s’ i

mpl

icat

ions

bet

wee

n th

e M

GS

Dem

and

Cha

rge

and

the

SGS

Basi

c ch

arge

?

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

A: S

egm

enta

tion,

SG

S an

d M

GS

C.

MGS

Dem

and

Char

ges

1. BC

Hyd

ro pr

esen

ted th

ree a

ltern

ative

s for

dema

nd ch

arge

s:

i. St

atus Q

uo

ii. Al

terna

tive A

- fla

t dem

and

char

ge +

flat e

nerg

y rate

iii.

Alter

nativ

e B –

two s

tep de

mand

char

ge +

flat e

nerg

y rate

BC H

ydro

seek

s fee

dbac

k on

which

of t

he th

ree d

eman

d ch

arge

stru

ctur

e alte

rnat

ives i

s pr

efer

red

(with

reas

ons)

. Plea

se p

rovid

e any

com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

. 2.

Stak

ehold

ers r

eque

sted B

C Hy

dro m

odel

incre

ased

MGS

dema

nd ch

arge

cost

reco

very;

BC H

ydro

mod

eled i

ncre

asing

the

MGS

dema

nd co

st re

cove

ry of

flat d

eman

d fro

m ap

prox

imate

ly 15

% to

35%

for F

lat E

nerg

y Rate

/Flat

Dem

and C

harg

e Alte

rnati

ve

BC H

ydro

seek

s fee

dbac

k on

whet

her

the M

GS d

eman

d ch

arge

cost

reco

very

shou

ld b

e in

crea

sed,

and

if so

to w

hat l

evel

(with

reas

ons)

. Plea

se p

rovid

e com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

the

right

. 3.

BC H

ydro

cons

idere

d Tra

nsitio

n St

rateg

ies fo

r mov

ing to

a fla

t ene

rgy r

ate, a

nd fla

t dem

and

char

ge:

• thr

ee-ye

ar ph

ase–

in

• 10

% bi

ll imp

act C

ap

BC H

ydro

seek

s fee

dbac

k on

whi

ch o

f the

two

high

-leve

l alte

rnat

ive M

GS ra

te tr

ansit

ion

stra

tegi

es is

pre

ferre

d (w

ith re

ason

s). P

lease

pro

vide a

ny co

mm

ents

in th

e col

umn

to th

e rig

ht.

B

C H

ydro

iden

tifie

s th

at a

flat

dem

and

char

ge re

flect

s co

st c

ausa

tion

bette

r tha

n an

incl

inin

g bl

ock

stru

ctur

e, t

hat

it ha

s th

e be

nefit

of s

impl

icity

, and

that

it m

ay in

duce

som

e le

vel o

f con

serv

atio

n co

mpa

red

to th

e co

mpl

icat

ions

of t

he

exis

ting

rate

. If

the

flat D

eman

d ch

arge

bes

t mee

ts th

e ra

te

desi

gn o

bjec

tives

of B

C H

ydro

, the

maj

or re

mai

ning

issu

es

are:

(a) t

he w

ays

to p

hase

it in

or o

ther

wis

e de

al w

ith th

e bi

ll im

pact

s fo

r the

bul

k of

the

cust

omer

s, a

nd (b

) how

doe

s BC

Hyd

ro re

conc

ile th

e ze

ro d

eman

d ch

arge

for t

he <

35

kW S

GS

clas

s an

d a

full

flat d

eman

d ch

arge

for,

say

a 40

kW

MG

S cu

stom

er?

Slid

e 35

sho

ws

that

the

flat

dem

and

char

ge a

t the

ver

y lo

w

fixed

cos

t rec

over

y of

15%

is a

lso

very

low

but

the

incr

ease

to

35%

mov

es th

e en

ergy

cha

rge

out o

f the

LR

MC

rang

e.

Whi

ch is

the

rate

des

ign

prio

rity

for B

C H

ydro

– c

ost

reco

very

sta

bilit

y or

LR

MC

ene

rgy

pric

ing?

If B

C H

ydro

no

w b

elie

ves,

bas

ed o

n its

eva

luat

ion

repo

rts, t

hat e

nerg

y pr

icin

g ha

s on

ly m

inim

al im

pact

on

com

mer

cial

cus

tom

er

cons

erva

tion,

doe

s it

mea

n th

at t

he o

bjec

tive

of k

eepi

ng

the

ener

gy c

harg

e in

the

LRM

C ra

nge

has

less

impo

rtanc

e?

Doe

s th

e ta

x de

duct

abili

ty o

f a c

omm

erci

al c

usto

mer

’s

elec

trici

ty b

ills h

ave

a m

ajor

impa

ct o

n co

mm

erci

al

cust

omer

s’ a

ttitu

des

to e

nerg

y pr

ice

cons

erva

tion

com

pare

d to

DS

M in

cent

ives

? D

oes

tax

dedu

ctib

ility

redu

ce th

e al

read

y ve

ry lo

w e

last

icity

of d

eman

d to

ene

rgy

pric

ing

to

such

a lo

w le

vel t

hat e

ven

LRM

C e

nerg

y pr

icin

g w

ill ha

ve a

m

inim

al im

pact

on

com

mer

cial

cus

tom

er c

onse

rvat

ion?

In c

onsi

derin

g bi

ll im

pact

s an

d tra

nsiti

on s

trate

gies

, sho

uld

BC H

ydro

’s a

naly

sis

excl

ude

impa

cts

to, p

erha

ps, t

he

low

est a

nd h

ighe

st 5

per

cent

of l

oad

fact

or c

usto

mer

s so

th

at th

e ra

te d

esig

n is

not

lim

ited

by th

e cu

stom

ers

at th

e

extre

me

ends

? I

f the

10%

bill

impa

ct tr

ansi

tion

will

take

to

o lo

ng to

impl

emen

t, sh

ould

BC

Hyd

ro c

onsi

der a

n ex

tend

ed i

mpl

emen

tatio

n pe

riod

of p

erha

ps 5

-7 y

ears

so

that

impl

emen

tatio

n is

stil

l com

plet

e be

fore

the

next

rate

de

sign

?

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

A.

Pref

erre

d LG

S Ra

te S

truct

ure (

Slid

es 9

to 54

of W

orks

hop

11B

Pres

enta

tion)

BC

Hyd

ro is

seek

ing

stak

ehol

der f

eedb

ack o

n wh

ich o

f the

four

ener

gy ra

te st

ruct

ure

alter

nativ

es an

d th

e thr

ee d

eman

d ch

arge

stru

ctur

e alte

rnat

ives a

re p

refe

rred,

and

why.

Plea

se

prov

ide a

ny co

mm

ents

you

have

in th

e col

umn

to th

e rig

ht.

Ener

gy ra

te al

tern

ative

s:

1. St

atus Q

uo LG

S En

ergy

rate

(reta

in ba

selin

e)

2. Si

mplify

ener

gy ra

te str

uctur

e (re

tain b

aseli

ne):

A.

Flatte

n Par

t 1 E

nerg

y Rate

B.

Cons

ider m

odify

Bas

eline

Rate

Pro

vision

s:

i. De

termi

natio

n of b

aseli

nes (

mont

hly ve

rsus a

nnua

l ver

sus r

olling

ave

rage

, etc

.)

ii. Pr

ice lim

it ban

ds (P

LBs)

to ad

dres

s con

cern

s tha

t rate

s are

‘pun

itive t

o gr

owing

custo

mers’

, and

/or to

enco

urag

e fur

ther c

onse

rvatio

n

iii.

Grow

th ru

les to

mak

e les

s res

trictiv

e

iv.

New

acco

unt r

ules

3. LG

S Fla

t Ene

rgy R

ate (r

emov

e bas

eline

stru

cture

)

4. LG

S Fla

t Ene

rgy R

ate fo

r majo

rity of

LGS

custo

mers

and c

reate

TSR

-like r

ate w

ith

indivi

duall

y adm

iniste

red b

aseli

nes f

or se

gmen

t of v

ery l

arge

LGS

custo

mers

Dem

and

Char

ge al

tern

ative

s:

1. St

atus q

uo in

clinin

g thr

ee-st

ep de

mand

char

ge

2. Fla

t dem

and c

harg

e

3. Tw

o-ste

p dem

and c

harg

e

BC H

ydro

has

iden

tifie

d on

ly a

ver

y sm

all c

onse

rvat

ion

achi

evem

ent

from

the

exis

ting

LGS

rate

stru

ctur

e. D

oes

BC H

ydro

hav

e th

e so

urce

of t

hose

sav

ings

? A

re th

ose

limite

d sa

ving

s co

min

g m

ainl

y fro

m th

e la

rges

t cus

tom

ers

who

may

be

cons

ider

ed fo

r a T

SR li

ke ra

te?

If s

o it

wou

ld

add

supp

ort f

or th

e a

TSR

-like

rate

for c

usto

mer

s w

ith

dem

and

over

a th

resh

old

of, f

or e

xam

ple,

1 o

r 2 M

W.

Then

a

flatte

ned

ener

gy a

nd d

eman

d ch

arge

with

mod

ified

or n

o ba

selin

es fo

r the

rem

aini

ng c

usto

mer

s m

ight

be

just

ified

. Fr

om c

usto

mer

s’ fe

edba

ck a

nd fr

om B

C H

ydro

’s

impl

emen

tatio

n, th

e s

tatu

s qu

o en

ergy

and

dem

and

stru

ctur

e is

com

plic

ated

(i.e

., 3-

part

pric

ing,

bas

elin

es,

PLBs

, rul

es fo

r gro

wth

and

new

acc

ount

s) fo

r alm

ost a

ll ex

cept

a fe

w L

GS

cust

omer

s an

d th

e co

mpl

icat

ion

crea

tes

ro

om fo

r com

plai

nts,

gam

ing,

or s

impl

y th

e la

ck o

f abi

lity

to

resp

ond

to th

e pr

ice

sign

als.

If t

he o

nly

bene

fit th

at h

as

been

real

ized

is n

eglig

ible

con

serv

atio

n, th

en th

e st

atus

qu

o m

ay b

e co

nsid

ered

to h

ave

faile

d to

ach

ieve

the

aggr

egat

e of

the

vario

us ra

te d

esig

n ob

ject

ives

.

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

B.

Flat

ten

Part

1 Ene

rgy R

ate (

Slid

e 16 o

f Jun

e 26,

2015

Wor

ksho

p Pr

esen

tatio

n)

Flat P

art 1

ener

gy ra

te wo

uld be

nom

inal s

impli

ficat

ion, a

s Par

t 1 co

nsum

ption

thre

shold

of

14,80

0 kW

h/mon

th is

not m

ateria

l to m

ost L

GS cu

stome

rs:

• Mo

re cu

stome

rs be

tter o

ff tha

n wor

se of

f, high

er co

nsum

ing cu

stome

rs ha

ve m

ore a

dver

se

bill im

pacts

BC H

ydro

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

is op

tion

to fl

atte

n Pa

rt En

ergy

Rat

e. Pl

ease

pro

vide a

ny

com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

C.

Base

line R

ate P

rovis

ions

(i)

Ba

selin

e det

erm

inat

ion

(slid

e 17 o

f 26 J

une W

orks

hop

11B

pres

enta

tion)

• BC

Hyd

ro co

nside

red b

aseli

ne de

termi

natio

n on a

nnua

l bas

is ve

rsus

mon

thly

base

line c

alcula

tion,

and

• Co

nside

red d

eterm

ining

one-

year

and f

ive-ye

ar ro

lling a

vera

ge ba

selin

es, v

ersu

s sta

tus qu

o dete

rmina

tion o

f thre

e–ye

ar ro

lling a

vera

ge m

onthl

y bas

eline

s

Annu

al ba

selin

e co

uld cr

eate

cash

flow

burd

en fo

r man

y cus

tomer

s at y

ear e

nd. fi

ve-ye

ar ro

lling

aver

age b

aseli

nes w

ill fur

ther in

creas

e the

comp

lexity

of th

e rate

; one

-year

base

lines

could

caus

e bil

l insta

bility

as un

usua

l con

sum

ption

mon

ths ca

nnot

be le

velle

d in

base

lines

.

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o wo

uld

reco

mm

end

no ch

ange

to st

atus

quo

th

ree-

year

rollin

g av

erag

e mon

thly

base

line a

nd se

eks f

urth

er st

akeh

olde

r fee

dbac

k. Pl

ease

ex

plain

your

resp

onse

s in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

. (ii

) Pr

ice B

and

Lim

it (P

LBs)

(Slid

es 18

to 19

of W

orks

hop

11B

Pres

enta

tion)

PLB

limits

custo

mer’s

expo

sure

to P

art 2

LRMC

ener

gy ra

te wi

thin

a ran

ge of

80%

of hi

storic

ba

selin

e (HB

L) to

120%

of H

BP (+

/- 20

%).

BC H

ydro

mod

elled

decr

easin

g the

PLB

(i.e.

+/- 1

0%)

and i

ncre

asing

the P

BL (i.

e. +/

-30%

)

BC H

ydro

cont

inues

to be

lieve

ther

e are

no ch

ange

s to P

LBs t

hat w

ould

impr

ove p

erfor

manc

e of

status

quo L

GS E

nerg

y rate

in re

spec

t of c

onse

rvatio

n or c

ustom

er un

derst

andin

g and

ac

cepta

nce,

and i

s see

king f

urthe

r fee

dbac

k.

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o se

eks f

eedb

ack o

n wh

ethe

r the

PLB

shou

d be

m

odifi

ed an

d if

so,h

ow. P

lease

expl

ain yo

ur re

spon

se in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

Wha

t is

the

rate

des

ign

obje

ctiv

e of

a d

eclin

ing

bloc

k fo

r Par

t 1 ra

te?

Sinc

e m

ost c

usto

mer

s co

nsum

e th

e 14

,800

KW

h/m

onth

qui

ckly

, are

mos

t MG

S cu

stom

ers

cons

umin

g at

Tie

r 2 o

f the

Par

t 1 ra

te?

Doe

s th

e si

mpl

ified

ene

rgy

rate

add

ress

the

real

pro

blem

s of

th

e st

atus

quo

rate

oth

er th

an n

omin

al s

impl

ifica

tion

Feed

back

on

mov

ing

mon

thly

bas

elin

e to

ann

ual b

asel

ine:

O

ne c

usto

mer

at t

he w

orks

hop

clai

med

that

a 5

-yea

r ro

lling

aver

age

base

line

coul

d po

se a

pro

blem

for

estim

atin

g in

vest

men

t ret

urns

. If

this

lim

itatio

n is

true

, th

en th

ere

may

be

addi

tiona

l dis

adva

ntag

es to

5- y

ear

base

lines

rath

er th

an p

ositi

ve b

enef

its.

Si

mila

rly, t

he 1

yea

r bas

elin

e m

ay re

sult

in b

usin

ess

inst

abilit

y. P

erha

ps th

e be

st a

ppro

ach

wou

ld b

e to

m

aint

ain

the

3-ye

ar a

vera

ge u

nles

s it

can

be

dem

onst

rate

d th

at th

ere

is m

ater

ial i

mpr

ovem

ent o

f ra

te d

esig

n ob

ject

ives

from

alte

rnat

ives

com

pare

d to

th

e 3-

year

met

hodo

logy

.

Pric

e Ba

nd L

imit

N

o C

omm

ent.

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

(iii)

Grow

th M

itiga

tion

– For

mul

aic G

rowt

h Ra

te (F

GR) (

Slid

es 20

to 21

of

Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

The C

ustom

er H

BLs f

or th

e upc

oming

12-m

onth

perio

d will

be re

-dete

rmine

d by B

C Hy

dro b

ased

on

the tw

o mos

t rec

ent y

ears

of co

nsum

ption

histo

ry if t

he C

ustom

er e

xper

ience

s sign

ifican

t gro

wth i

.e.,

follow

ing a

year

(Y3)

in w

hich e

nerg

y con

sump

tion e

xcee

ded p

revio

us ye

ar’s

(Y2)

ener

gy co

nsum

ption

by

at le

ast: (

i) 30%

, or (

ii) 4,0

00,0

00 kW

h.

Bill a

nalys

is sh

owed

24%

of a

ccou

nts th

at qu

alifie

d for

FGR

in F

2015

ende

d up h

aving

high

er bi

lls w

ith

the ba

selin

e adju

stmen

t. Futu

re bi

lls ar

e unp

redic

table

due t

o mult

iple v

ariab

les in

volve

d in

billin

g –

past,

curre

nt an

d futu

re co

nsum

ption

.

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o se

eks f

eedb

ack o

n wh

ethe

r the

re sh

ould

be

mod

ifcat

ions

to o

r rem

oval

of th

e FGR

pro

visio

n an

d if

so, w

hat.

Plea

se ex

plain

your

resp

onse

in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

Alth

ough

BC

Hyd

ro b

elie

ves

that

the

FGR

is n

ot w

orki

ng a

s in

tend

ed, i

t is

also

not

cle

ar th

at it

sho

uld

be d

isca

rded

. W

ould

it m

ake

sens

e to

kee

p th

e FG

R w

hen

it is

ben

efic

ial

to a

cus

tom

er s

o as

to n

ot p

unis

h gr

owth

and

not

app

ly th

e FG

R if

oth

er fa

ctor

s re

sulte

d in

hig

her b

ills w

ith F

GR

?

In c

ases

whe

re th

e ye

ar 1

con

sum

ptio

n w

as s

igni

fican

tly

high

er th

an y

ear 2

con

sum

ptio

n B

C H

ydro

cou

ld c

onsi

der

that

it w

ould

not

app

ly th

e FG

R s

ince

this

mig

ht b

e co

nsid

ered

mor

e of

a m

arke

t flu

ctua

tion

than

a ra

pid

grow

th

scen

ario

.

(iv)

Grow

th M

itiga

tion-

Ano

maly

Rul

e (Sl

ides

22 to

23 o

f Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

In ca

lculat

ing H

BLs,

anom

alous

ly low

cons

umpti

on m

onths

from

prev

ious y

ears

are e

xclud

ed:

• In

calcu

lating

HBL

for a

partic

ular m

onth,

cons

umpti

on in

a his

torica

l mon

th tha

t is le

ss th

an ha

lf the

cons

umpti

on in

the n

ext lo

west

month

of al

l mon

ths ot

herw

ise u

sed f

or ca

lculat

ion w

ould

be

exclu

ded

• Up

to fo

ur H

BLs c

an be

adjus

ted p

er B

CH’s

fisca

l yea

r in ac

cord

ance

with

the A

noma

ly Ru

le •

Custo

mers

will a

lway

s end

up w

ith hi

gher

base

lines

; how

ever

, high

er ba

selin

es so

metim

es cr

eate

highe

r bills

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o se

eks f

eedb

ack o

n wh

ethe

r the

re sh

ould

be

mod

ifcat

ions

to o

r rem

oval

of th

e Ano

maly

Rul

e pr

ovisi

on an

d if

so, w

hat.

Plea

se ex

plain

your

re

spon

se in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

The

anom

aly

rule

see

ms

to b

e ac

hiev

ing

its in

tend

ed

purp

ose

of s

moo

thin

g ou

t ano

mal

ous

mon

ths

as

defin

ed in

th

e ne

gotia

ted

settl

emen

t agr

eem

ent t

hat i

ntro

duce

d th

is

rule

.

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

(v)

Grow

th M

itiga

tion

– Pro

spec

tive G

rowt

h Ru

le (T

S82)

(Slid

es 24

to 25

of

Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

Custo

mers

who a

nticip

ate ‘s

ignific

ant’,

‘perm

anen

t’ inc

reas

es in

ener

gy co

nsum

ption

may

apply

to

BC H

ydro

for m

odifie

d pric

ing un

der T

S 82

that

may r

educ

e the

ir ene

rgy c

osts.

Sign

ifican

t mea

ns a

pr

ospe

ctive

first

year

annu

al inc

reas

e in e

nerg

y con

sump

tion t

otalin

g at le

ast 3

0% or

4,00

0,000

kWh

abov

e the

histo

rical

three

-year

aver

age a

nnua

l con

sump

tion.

Perm

anen

t mea

ns ar

ising

from

a sig

nifica

nt ca

pital

inves

tmen

t.

• Ve

ry few

custo

mers

have

appli

ed du

e to h

igh th

resh

olds

• Cu

stome

rs wi

th low

er co

nsum

ption

migh

t mee

t the 3

0% th

resh

old b

ut ma

y not

bene

fit fro

m the

mo

dified

prici

ng st

ructu

re

• Hi

gh ad

minis

trativ

e cos

t to B

C Hy

dro

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o se

eks f

eedb

ack o

n wh

ethe

r the

re sh

ould

be

mod

ifcat

ions

to o

r rem

oval

of th

e Pro

spec

tive G

rowt

h Ru

le an

d if

so, w

hat.

Plea

se ex

plain

your

re

spon

se in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

The

purp

ose

of th

is o

ptio

n is

to ta

ke a

ccou

nt o

f lar

ge,

perm

anen

t gro

wth

impa

cts

and

30%

see

med

, at t

he ti

me

whe

n th

e ra

te w

as d

esig

ned,

a re

ason

able

leve

l to

set t

he

‘sig

nfic

ant’

thre

shol

d.

With

so

few

cus

tom

ers

mee

ting

the

thre

shol

d, p

erha

ps th

is

rule

cou

ld b

e di

scon

tinue

d al

thou

gh th

is P

rosp

ectiv

e G

row

th R

ule

wou

ld s

till h

elp

fast

gro

win

g cu

stom

ers.

Has

BC

Hyd

ro c

onsi

dere

d w

hat w

ould

be

an a

ccep

tabl

e nu

mbe

r of

cus

tom

ers

to a

pply

und

er th

is ru

le?

Sho

uld

the

rule

be

mod

ified

acc

ordi

ngly

? Si

mila

r to

Com

mis

sion

sta

ff co

mm

ents

und

er F

GR

on

page

7,

can

the

rule

app

ly o

nly

whe

n it

is b

enef

icia

l?

(vi)

New

Acco

unts

(85/1

5) (S

lides

26 to

27 o

f Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

• 85

/15 ap

plies

whe

n a ne

w ac

coun

t is se

t up i

n BC

Hydr

o’s b

illing

syste

m, re

gard

less o

f wh

ether

ther

e wer

e cha

nges

in cu

stome

rs’ op

erati

on

• Fir

st 85

% of

ener

gy co

nsum

ed in

a m

onthl

y billi

ng pe

riod i

s cha

rged

at th

e Par

t 1 ra

te. La

st 15

% of

ener

gy co

nsum

ed in

a mo

nthly

billin

g per

iod is

char

ged P

art 2

LRMC

rate

• Es

tablis

hed t

o pre

vent

custo

mers

from

‘gam

ing’ b

y ope

ning n

ew ac

coun

ts to

rese

t bas

eline

s

BC H

ydro

foun

d no e

viden

ce of

“gam

ing” in

the L

GS T

hree

-Yea

r Rep

ort. C

ustom

ers r

aised

co

ncer

ns th

at 85

/15 ra

te un

fairly

pena

lizes

custo

mers

who h

ave n

o cha

nge i

n ope

ratio

ns du

ring

acco

unt o

wner

ship

trans

fers.

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o wo

uld

reco

mm

end

appl

ying

100%

Par

t 1 ra

tes

for n

ew ac

coun

ts, a

nd is

seek

ing

furth

er st

akeh

olde

r fee

dbac

k. Pl

ease

pro

vide a

ny co

mm

ents

in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

The

issu

e of

whe

ther

cus

tom

ers

shou

ld c

ontin

ue to

be

defin

ed a

s an

acc

ount

see

ms

to b

e an

out

stan

ding

issu

e fo

r BC

Hyd

ro.

New

Acc

ount

s is

a tr

ansi

tion

mec

hani

sm u

ntil

a ba

selin

e is

es

tabl

ishe

d. S

ince

BC

Hyd

ro h

as n

ot e

stim

ated

any

si

gnifi

cant

con

serv

atio

n sa

ving

s fro

m th

e LR

MC

ene

rgy

pric

ing,

and

no

evid

ence

of g

amin

g ha

s be

en fo

und,

is

ther

e an

y b

enef

it fro

m th

e 85

/15

rule

com

pare

d to

the

prop

osed

100

% P

art 1

rate

s?

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

D.

LGS

Flat

Ene

rgy R

ate (

No B

aseli

ne) (

Slid

es 29

to 30

, Jun

e 26,

2015

Wor

ksho

p Pr

esen

tatio

n)

Optio

n: F

latte

n LG

S En

ergy

rate

for a

ll con

sum

ptio

n lev

els

Pros

:

• El

imina

tes al

l com

plexit

y fro

m ba

selin

e com

pone

nt of

status

quo L

GS en

ergy

rate

• Ea

sier a

nd m

ore a

ccur

ate cu

stom

er fo

reca

sting

• Im

prov

ed cu

stome

r und

ersta

nding

• Al

igns w

ith ot

her C

dn. J

urisd

iction

s

Cons

:

• En

ergy

rate

is we

ll belo

w low

er e

nd of

ener

gy LR

MC

Obse

rvatio

ns:

• Lit

tle to

no bi

ll imp

acts

resu

lting s

olely

from

remo

val o

f bas

eline

, as d

emon

strate

d in

Wor

ksho

p 8b

• Th

ere a

re bi

ll imp

acts

from

flatte

ning P

art 1

Ene

rgy r

ates;

typica

l cus

tomer

s bett

er of

f

• No

chan

ge in

cons

erva

tion –

zero

fore

cast

for pl

annin

g pur

pose

s

BC H

ydro

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

is op

tion.

Plea

se p

rovid

e any

com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

th

e rig

ht.

The

disc

ussi

on o

f thi

s ra

te o

ptio

n w

ould

ben

efit

from

a

prio

ritiz

ing

of B

C H

ydro

’s ra

te d

esig

n ob

ject

ives

and

how

th

is ra

te s

truct

ure

achi

eves

the

obje

ctiv

es.

For e

xam

ple,

is

send

ing

an L

RM

C p

rice

sign

al im

porta

nt if

BC

hyd

ro d

oes

not e

xpec

t any

sig

nific

ant c

onse

rvat

ion

from

that

hig

her

rate

?

How

impo

rtant

is ra

te s

impl

icity

and

cus

tom

er

unde

rsta

ndin

g co

mpa

red

to s

endi

ng a

pric

e si

gnal

rela

ted

to a

com

mod

ity th

at h

as s

uch

low

pric

e el

astic

ity?

Wha

t is

BC H

ydro

’s c

urre

nt e

stim

ate

of L

GS

and

MG

S en

ergy

pric

e el

astic

ity o

f dem

and

base

d on

the

expe

rienc

e of

the

last

fe

w y

ears

?

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

E.

TSR-

Like

Ene

rgy R

ate (

Slid

es 32

to 34

of J

une 2

6, 20

15 w

orks

hop

Pres

enta

tion)

Vi

terra

and A

MPC

sugg

ested

a TS

R-lik

e rate

for h

igh co

nsum

ption

LGS

custo

mers

Rate

may h

ave f

ollow

ing el

emen

ts ba

sed o

n BC

Hydr

o’s ex

isting

TSR

– RS

1823

:

• Av

ailab

le to

large

LGS

acco

unts

• En

ergy

Rate

(F20

17) –

illus

trativ

e ba

sed o

n RS

1823

90/10

split

and r

ate ne

utral

to LG

S Fla

t en

ergy

rate:

• 5.4

8 cen

ts/kW

h app

lied t

o all k

Wh u

p to a

nd in

cludin

g 90%

of C

usto

mer B

aseli

ne lo

ad (C

BL) in

ea

ch bi

lling y

ear

• 10

.10 ce

nts/kW

h app

lied t

o all k

Wh a

bove

90%

of c

ustom

er’s

CBL i

n eac

h billi

ng ye

ar

• Ini

tial a

nnua

l CBL

deter

mine

d by h

istor

ic ba

selin

e yea

r(s)

• Al

lowab

le ad

justm

ents

for D

SM, p

lant c

apac

ity in

creas

es an

d for

ce m

ajeur

e

• An

nual

CBL a

ppro

ved e

ach y

ear b

y BCU

C

BC H

ydro

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

is op

tion.

Plea

se p

rovid

e any

com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

th

e rig

ht.

If th

ese

larg

est c

usto

mer

s ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

resp

ond

to a

LR

MC

type

pric

e fo

r the

ir m

argi

nal c

onsu

mpt

ion,

then

the

prop

osed

new

rate

may

be

quite

effe

ctiv

e in

pro

mot

ing

som

e co

nser

vatio

n.

This

may

als

o be

app

ropr

iate

if th

e ba

selin

es fo

r rem

aini

ng

LGS

cust

omer

s ar

e to

be

term

inat

ed in

favo

ur o

f a fl

at ra

te.

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: O

ptio

nal R

ates

and

Othe

r Iss

ues

A.

Gene

ral S

ervic

e Opt

iona

l Rat

es (S

ides

56 to

62 o

f Jun

e 26,

2015

Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

1. Vo

lunt

ary T

ime o

f Use

Rat

es

• BC

Hyd

ro ha

s no p

lan to

proc

eed

deve

loping

this

optio

n at th

is tim

e for

reas

ons s

et ou

t in

secti

on 6.

1 of W

orks

hop 8

A/8B

Con

sider

ation

Mem

o

2. In

teru

ptib

le Ra

tes

• BC

Hyd

ro pr

opos

es to

ass

ess t

his op

tion a

s par

t of R

DA M

odule

2, af

ter de

fault G

S ra

tes

deter

mine

d

3. Ef

ficien

cy R

ate C

redi

t con

cept

• BC

Hyd

ro pr

opos

es to

ass

ess t

his op

tion a

s par

t of R

DA M

odule

2, a

fter d

efault

GS

rates

de

termi

ned

4. De

man

d Ch

arge

Opt

ions

• BC

Hyd

ro pr

opos

es to

ass

ess t

hese

optio

ns as

part

of RD

A Mo

dule

2, aft

er de

fault G

S ra

tes

deter

mine

d

BC H

ydro

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

e abo

ve p

ropo

sals,

and

also

on p

relim

inar

y com

men

ts o

n op

tions

iden

tified

to d

ate,

and

if th

ere a

re an

y oth

er G

S ra

te o

ptio

ns B

C Hy

dro

shou

ld co

nsid

er.

Plea

se ex

plain

your

resp

onse

in th

e col

umn

to th

e rig

ht.

BC H

ydro

cla

ims

that

a la

rge

diffe

rent

ial o

f 3 to

4 ti

mes

the

diffe

rent

ial b

etw

een

HLH

and

LLH

pric

ing

is n

eces

sary

to

indu

ce c

usto

mer

s to

join

a v

olun

tary

TO

U ra

te.

It w

ould

be

help

ful i

f BC

Hyd

ro c

ould

val

idat

e th

is a

sser

tion

in s

uppo

rt of

its

deci

sion

not

to p

roce

ed w

ith a

vol

unta

ry T

OU

rate

. Th

e in

terr

uptib

le o

ptio

ns s

how

n on

slid

e 58

are

like

ly to

be

of in

tere

st to

som

e cu

stom

ers

and

to B

C H

ydro

. Is

sues

su

ch a

s m

eter

ing,

ent

ry a

nd e

xit f

ees

and

the

amou

nt o

f in

terr

uptio

n sh

ould

be

clar

ified

so

that

ser

ious

cus

tom

er

inte

rest

cou

ld th

en b

e as

sess

ed.

The

pote

ntia

l for

a p

ilot

prog

ram

was

dis

cuss

ed a

nd th

is m

etho

d of

intro

duct

ion

of

new

rate

stru

ctur

es h

as b

een

succ

essf

ul in

the

past

.

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: O

ptio

nal R

ates

and

Othe

r Iss

ues

B.

Othe

r Iss

ues (

Slid

es 64

to 66

of W

orks

hop

11B

Pres

enta

tion)

1.

Mini

mum

Cha

rges

(Dem

and

Ratc

het)

Exist

ing m

inimu

m ch

arge

is ba

sed o

n 50%

of pe

ak m

onthl

y dem

and r

egist

ered

in m

ost r

ecen

t wint

er

perio

d (No

vemb

er to

Mar

ch)

Ratch

et wa

s red

uced

from

75%

to 50

% ef

fectiv

e Apr

il 1, 1

980

Base

d on F

14 da

ta:

• MG

S mi

nimum

char

ges:

appr

oxim

ately

$135

,000 o

n tota

l reve

nue

of ap

prox

imate

ly $3

29 m

illion

(0

.4%

) •

LGS

minim

um ch

arge

s: ap

prox

imate

ly $1

.6 mi

llion o

n abo

ut $7

64 m

illion

, exc

luding

rate

rider

(0

.2%

)

BC H

ydro

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

e cur

rent

Dem

and

Ratc

het.

Plea

se ex

plain

your

resp

onse

in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

The

purp

ose

of th

e m

inim

um c

harg

es is

to e

nsur

e th

at

cust

omer

s m

ake

an a

ppro

pria

te c

ontri

butio

n fo

r the

in

frast

ruct

ure

requ

ired

to s

erve

them

on

peak

. M

ore

info

rmat

ion

is n

eces

sary

to d

eter

min

e if

the

curr

ent

min

imum

cha

rges

are

app

ropr

iate

. Pe

rhap

s B

C H

ydro

sh

ould

sur

vey

som

e of

the

high

win

ter/l

ow s

umm

er

cons

umpt

ion

cust

omer

s’ b

ills to

det

erm

ine

if th

eir

cont

ribut

ions

to in

frast

ruct

ure

and

peak

sup

ply

com

mitm

ents

are

app

ropr

iate

, or i

f the

ratc

het s

houl

d be

in

crea

sed

to th

e 75

% T

SR le

vel.

(Commission Staff)

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: O

ptio

nal R

ates

and

Othe

r Iss

ues

2. Tr

ansf

orm

er O

wner

ship

Disc

ount

(TOD

) and

Tra

nsfo

rmer

Ren

tals

• TO

D ra

te is

$0.25

per m

onth

per k

W of

billin

g dem

and

if cus

tomer

supp

lies

trans

forma

tion f

rom

prim

ary p

otenti

al to

seco

ndar

y pote

ntial

• La

st re

view

of $0

.25 /m

onth

disco

unt w

as co

mplet

ed in

Aug

ust 2

004

BC H

ydro

pro

pose

s to

evalu

ate T

OD in

conj

unct

ion

with

Dist

ribut

ion

Exte

nsio

n Po

licy a

s par

t of

RDA

Mod

ule 2

, and

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

is re

com

men

ded

appr

oach

. Plea

se ex

plain

your

re

spon

se in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

F201

5 RDA

to fir

st se

t the

Resid

entia

l defa

ult ra

te, an

d to c

onsid

er th

e dev

elopm

ent o

f an E

V ra

te aft

er th

e 201

5 RDA

Mod

ule 1

decis

ion.

Desig

n Con

sider

ation

s:

• At

-hom

e cha

rging

(Res

identi

al)

• Ba

sis on

whic

h to d

eterm

ine co

st of

servi

ce an

d loa

d imp

licat

ions f

or pr

icing

– dif

feren

t patt

ern o

f en

ergy

cons

umpti

on (b

atter

y stor

age o

f elec

tric po

wer)

• Me

chan

ism to

enfor

ce of

f-pea

k cha

rging

– tim

e var

ying c

ompo

nent

(Tim

e of U

se; p

rice d

iffere

ntial

is an

issu

e; ad

opt C

alifor

nia ‘s

uper

off-p

eak’

conc

ept to

enco

urag

e late

nigh

t to ea

rly m

ornin

g ch

argin

g?

• Re

quire

ment

of a s

epar

ate m

eter?

• Int

erac

tion w

ith R

IB?

• Ot

her?

BC H

ydro

seek

s sta

keho

lder

feed

back

on

rate

des

ign

cons

ider

atio

ns p

rese

nted

abov

e and

the

timin

g of

any f

utur

e EV

rate

pro

posa

l. Plea

se ex

plain

your

resp

onse

in th

e col

umn

to th

e rig

ht.

No

com

men

t.

Add

ition

al C

omm

ents

:

(Commission Staff)

CO

NSE

NT

TO U

SE P

ERSO

NAL

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

I con

sent

to th

e us

e of

my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

by B

C H

ydro

for t

he p

urpo

ses

of k

eepi

ng m

e up

date

d ab

out t

he 2

015

RD

A. F

or

purp

oses

of t

he a

bove

, my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

incl

udes

opi

nion

s, n

ame,

mai

ling

addr

ess,

pho

ne n

umbe

r and

em

ail a

ddre

ss a

s pe

r th

e in

form

atio

n I p

rovi

de.

Sign

atur

e:__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Dat

e: _

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Than

k yo

u fo

r you

r com

men

ts.

Com

men

ts s

ubm

itted

will

be u

sed

to in

form

the

RD

A Sc

ope

and

Enga

gem

ent p

roce

ss, i

nclu

ding

dis

cuss

ions

with

Gov

ernm

ent,

and

will

form

par

t of t

he o

ffici

al re

cord

of t

he R

DA.

You

can

retu

rn c

ompl

eted

feed

back

form

s by

:

Mai

l: BC

Hyd

ro, B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up –

“Atte

ntio

n 20

15 R

DA”

, 16th

Flo

or, 3

33 D

unsm

uir S

t. Va

n. B

.C. V

6B-5

R3

Fax

num

ber:

604-

623-

4407

– “A

ttent

ion

2015

RD

A”

Emai

l: bc

hydr

oreg

ulat

oryg

roup

@bc

hydr

o.co

m

Form

ava

ilabl

e on

Web

: http

://w

ww

.bch

ydro

.com

/abo

ut/p

lann

ing_

regu

lato

ry/re

gula

tory

.htm

l

Any

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

you

prov

ide

to B

C H

ydro

on

this

form

is c

olle

cted

and

pro

tect

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Free

dom

of I

nfor

mat

ion

and

Prot

ectio

n of

Priv

acy

Act

. BC

Hyd

ro is

col

lect

ing

info

rmat

ion

with

this

for t

he p

urpo

se o

f the

201

5 R

DA

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith B

C H

ydro

’s m

anda

te

unde

r the

Hyd

ro a

nd P

ower

Aut

horit

y A

ct, t

he B

C H

ydro

Tar

iff, t

he U

tiliti

es C

omm

issi

on A

ct a

nd re

late

d R

egul

atio

ns a

nd D

irect

ions

. If y

ou

have

any

que

stio

ns a

bout

the

colle

ctio

n or

use

of t

he p

erso

nal i

nfor

mat

ion

colle

cted

on

this

form

ple

ase

cont

act t

he B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up

via

emai

l at:

bchy

dror

egul

ator

ygro

up@

bchy

dro.

com

(Commission Staff)







BC

hg

dro

m

FOR

GE

NE

RA

TIO

NS

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) -

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11,

Ses

sion

s A

(Ju

ne 25

~ 20

15)

and

B (

June

26,

201

5) F

eedb

ack

For

m

Na

me

/Org

an

iza

tio

n:

C0

mm

en

ts (P

leas

e d

o n

ot i

de

ntif

y th

ird

-pa

rty

ind

ivid

ua

ls in

yo

tir

com

men

ts.

Com

men

ts b

eari

ng r

efer

ence

s to

id

en

tifia

ble

ind

ivid

ua

ls w

ill b

e d

isca

rde

d d

ue t

o p

riva

cy

conc

err.

ls ) .

.__...,~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~---~-~~~~--~~ --~~~~~~----~~~~~~~

!

A.

Cos

t of S

ervi

ce A

naly

sis:

Seg

men

tatio

n M

etho

dolo

gy (S

lides

17

to 2

1 of

Ju

ne 2

5, 2

015W

orks

hop1

1A P

rese

ntat

ion)

. BC

Hyd

ro d

iscu

ssed

two

met

hods

of

segm

enta

tion:

Met

hod

1:

F16

Fore

cast

cos

ts a

ssig

ned

to G

S ra

te c

lass

es p

oole

d an

d re

-allo

cate

d pr

o ra

ta b

y in

divi

dual

cu

stom

er k

Wh,

4 C

oinc

iden

t Pea

k (C

P) d

eman

d, a

nd N

on-C

oinc

iden

t Pea

k ::N

CP)

dem

and.

R

esul

ts o

f met

hod

1 no

t con

clus

ive:

• N

CP

allo

catio

n va

ries

depe

ndin

g on

coi

ncid

ence

with

in c

l.ass

es.

• C

oinc

iden

ce is

bet

ter c

orre

late

d w

ith c

ost t

han

cust

omer

size

.

Met

hod

2:

Con

sider

cos

t allo

catio

n ba

sed

on p

re-a

ssig

ned

segm

ents

of c

usto

mer

s. C

usto

mer

s w

ill be

gr

oupe

d by

size

as

oppo

sed

to e

valu

ated

indi

vidu

ally

-to

be r

evie

wed

at J

uly

30, 2

015

wra

p-up

w

orks

hop.

BC H

ydro

see

ks s

take

hold

er fe

edba

ck o

n w

hat o

ther

ana

lysi

s· of

seg

men

tatio

n shou~d b

e co

nduc

ted.

Ple

ase

prov

ide

any

com

men

ts in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

The

co

sts

of s

erv

ice

an

aly

sis

pre

sen

ted

at

the

w

ork

sho

p a

nd,

in p

art

icu

lar,

th

e f

ind

ing

th

at

coin

cid

en

ce b

ett

er

corr

ela

tes

wit

h c

ost t

ha

n s

ize,

w

ou

ld n

ot a

pp

ea

r to

su

pp

ort

the

exi

stin

g M

GS

/LG

S

seg

me

nta

tio

n.

CO

PE

su

gg

est

s so

me

an

aly

sis

be

do

ne

o

n t

he

me

rits

an

d im

plic

ati

on

s o

f elim

ina

tin

g th

e

exi

stin

g M

GS

/LG

S s

plit o

r re

pla

cin

g it

wit

h a

ve

ry

larg

e L

GS

ca

teg

ory

. A

s a

se

pa

rate

ma

tte

r, t

he

Un

ion

su

gg

est

s th

ere

sh

ou

ld

be

so

me

an

aly

sis

of w

he

the

r pu

blic

en

titi

es

are

be

ing

fa

irly

tre

ate

d w

ith

in t

he

ge

ne

ral s

ect

or,

esp

eci

ally

th

ose

wit

h a

larg

e n

um

be

r o

f site

s, e

ach

wit

h it

s o

wn

a

cco

un

t co

sts

un

de

r th

e g

en

era

l ra

te s

erv

ice

an

d

wh

eth

er

the

re. is

co

st o

f se

rvic

e o

r o

the

r ju

stif

ica

tio

n

for

cre

ati

ng

a '

mu

ltip

le a

cco

un

t' p

ub

lic e

nti

ty ra

te

cla

ss.

--------'-----------------------·

(COPE)

2015

Rat

e D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

) -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5) F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

·

B.

SG

S-S

GS

Bas

ic C

harg

e (S

lides

22

to 2

7 of

Jun

e 25

, 201

5Wor

ksho

p11A

P

rese

ntat

ion)

BC H

ydro

was

ask

ed to

mod

el in

crea

sing

the

SGS

basic

cha

rge

to a

leve

l com

para

ble

to th

e R

esid

entia

l Bas

ic C

harg

e co

st re

cove

ry, f

rom

the

curre

nt 3

5% le

vel t

o 45

%.

Res

ults

:

• In

crea

sing

SG

S ba

sic c

harg

e to

45%

of c

ost r

ecov

ery

is cl

oser

to fu

ll fix

ed c

ost r

ecov

ery

• R

esul

ting

ener

gy ra

te r

emai

ns w

ithin

the

LRM

C a

nd w

ithou

t sub

stan

tial b

ill im

pact

s

BC H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er B

C H

ydro

sho

uld

incr

ease

the

SGS

basi

c ch

arge

cos

t re

cove

ry c

ompa

rabl

e to

Res

iden

tial B

asic

Cha

rge

cost

rec

over

y. P

leas

e pr

ovid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

The

un

ion

do

es

no

t th

ink it

ad

visa

ble

to

incr

ea

se t

he

S

GS

ba

sic

cha

rge

be

cau

se o

f its

imp

act

on

th

e e

ne

rgy

rate

. T

ho

ug

h t

he

imp

act

is r

ela

tive

ly s

ma

ll, i

t is

d

ire

ctio

na

lly c

ou

nte

r to

en

erg

y co

nse

rva

tio

n g

oa

ls.

If

con

sist

en

cy b

etw

ee

n t

he

re

sid

en

tia

l an

d S

GS

ba

sic

cha

rge

is r

eq

uir

ed

, w

e w

ou

ld r

eco

mm

en

d c

on

sid

eri

ng

lo

we

rin

g t

he

% c

ost r

eco

very

in t

he

re

sid

en

tia

l se

cto

r,

as

op

po

sed

to in

cre

asi

ng

it in

th

e g

en

era

l se

cto

r.

2

(COPE)

2015

Ra

te D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

} -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

20

15

) F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

C.

MG

S D

eman

d C

harg

es

1.

BC H

ydro

pre

sent

ed fh

r,ee

alte

mat

ives

for d

eman

d ,ch

arge

s.:

i. St

atus

Quo

ii. Al

tern

ativ

e A

· fla

t dem

and

char

g·e +

fat e

nerg

y ra

te

iii.

A te

mat

ive B

-tw

o st

ep d

eman

d ch

arge

+ fla

t ene

r.gy

rate

BC H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

hich

of t

he th

ree

dem

and

char

ge s

truct

ure

atte

mat

ives

is

pref

erre

d (w

ith r

easo

ns).

Plea

se p

rovi

de a

ny c

omm

ents

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

2.

Stak

ehol

ders

requ

este

d BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

incr

ease

d M

GS

dem

and

char

ge co

st re

cove

ry;

BC H

ydro

mod

eled

incr

easin

g th

e M

GS

dem

and

cost

reco

very

of f

lat d

eman

·J fro

m

appr

oxim

atel

y 15

% to

35%

for

Flat

Ene

rgy

Rat

e/Fl

at D

eman

d C

harg

e Al

tern

ative

BC H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er th

e M

GS

dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery

shou

ld b

e in

crea

sed,

and

if s

o to

wha

t lev

el (

with

rea

sons

). Pl

ease

pro

vide

com

men

ts in

the

colu

mn

to

the

right

.

3.

BC H

ydro

con

sider

ed T

rans

ition

Stra

tegi

es fo

r mov

ing

to a

flat e

nerg

y ra

te, a

nd fl

at

dem

and

char

ge:

• th

ree~year p

hase

-in

• 10

% b

ill im

pact

Cap

BC H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

hich

of t

he tw

o hi

gh-le

vel a

ltern

ativ

e M

GS

rate

tran

sitio

n st

rate

gies

is p

refe

rred

(with

rea

sons

). Pl

ease

pro

vide

any

com

men

ts in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

CO

PE

se

es

me

rit i

n p

urs

uin

g a

fla

t d

em

an

d a

nd

e

ne

rgy

cha

rge

. T

he u

nio

n d

oe

sn't

su

pp

ort

mo

vin

g t

o a

h

igh

er

de

ma

nd

co

st r

eco

very

to

th

e e

xte

nt t

ha

t ca

use

s th

e f

lat e

ne

rgy

rate

to

fa

ll fa

rth

er

fro

m t

he

LR

MC

an

d

as

lon

g a

s th

at d

em

an

d r

ate

is n

ot b

ase

d o

n s

yste

m

coin

cid

en

t pe

ak.

3

(COPE)

2015

Ra

te D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

) -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5) F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

A.

Pref

erire

d LG

S 'R

at·e

Stru

ctur

e (S

lides

9 to

54

of W

ori<

shop

11 B

PrH

enta

tion)

1

BC H

ydro

is s

eeki

ng s

take

hold

er fe

edba

ck o

n w

hich

of t

he fo

ur e

nerg

y ra

te s

truct

ure

alte

rnat

ives

and

the

thre

e de

man

d ch

arge

stru

ctur

e al

tern

ativ

es a

re p

refe

rred,

and

why

. Pl

ease

pro

vide

any

com

men

ts y

ou h

ave

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

Ene

rgiY

irate

alte

rnat

i1ves

.:

1.

Stat

LI!s

Quo

LG

S En

ergy

rate

{ re

taiin

bas

e·lin

e)

2.

Sim

pllify

ene

rgy

rate

· s~mcture

{reta

iin b

asel

_ine)

:

A.

F 'a

tten

Part

1 En

ergy

IAat

e

B.

Con

side

r mod

ffy B

asel

1ine

Rat

e Pr

ovis

!ons

:

i. D

eter

min

atio

n of

bas

elin

es (m

onth

ly v

ersu

s an

nual

ver

sus

rollin

g av

erag

e,

etc.

)

ii. Pr

ice li

mit

band

s (P

LBs)

to a

ddre

ss c

once

rns

that

rate

s ar

e 'p

unitiv

e to

gr

owin

g cu

stom

ers',

and

/or t

o en

cour

age

furth

er c

onse

rvat

ion

iii.

-Gro

wth

iru!e

s to

mak

e l·e

ss 1r

estri

ctiv

e

iv.

N·ew

acc

ount

rule

s

3.

lGS

1F1 a

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e (re

mov

e ba

sellin

e st

ruct

ure)

4.

LGS

Flat

Ene

rgy

Rate

for m

ajor

ity o

f LG

S cu

stom

ers

and

crea

te T

SR-li

ke ra

te w

ith

indi

vidu

ally

adm

inis

tere

d ba

selin

es fo

r seg

men

t of v

ery

larg

e LG

S cu

stom

ers

Dem

and

Cha

rge

aH.em

ativ

es:

1.

Sta

tus

quo

ind

in iin

g th

ree

step

dem

and

ch ar

g:e

2.

Flat

dem

and

char

g.e

3.

Two

step

dem

and

char

ge

In g

en

era

l, C

OP

E s

ee

s m

eri

t in

pu

rsu

ing

a f

lat d

em

an

d

an

d e

ne

rgy

rate

. H

ow

eve

r th

e u

nio

n w

ou

ld b

e

con

cern

ed

wit

h a

ra

te t

ha

t is

we

ll b

elo

w th

e L

RM

C.

We

sug

ge

st a

fla

t en

erg

y ra

te b

e c

om

bin

ed

wit

h lo

we

r d

em

an

d c

ha

rge

co

st r

eco

very

, e

spe

cia

lly if

the

d

em

an

d c

ha

rge

is n

ot b

ase

d o

n s

yste

m c

oin

cid

en

t p

ea

k, a

nd

oth

er

me

asu

res

such

as

sea

son

al o

r L

LH

d

isco

un

ts o

r cu

sto

me

r cr

ed

its

in o

rde

r to

pro

vid

e a

n

ap

pro

pri

ate

ince

nti

ve t

o c

on

serv

e w

hile

ma

inta

inin

g

reve

nu

e n

eu

tra

lity.

4

(COPE)

2015

Rat

e D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

) -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5) F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

B.

Flat

ten

Par

t 1 E

nerg

y R

ate

(Slid

e 16

of J

une

26:

2015

Wor

ksho

p P

rese

ntat

ion)

Flat

Par

t 1 e

nerg

y ra

te w

ould

be

nom

inal

sim

plific

atio

n, a

s Pa

rt 1

cons

umpt

ion

thre

shol

d of

14

,800

kW

h/m

onth

is n

ot m

ater

ial t

o m

ost L

GS

cust

omer

s:

• M

ore

cust

omer

s be

tter o

ff th

an w

orse

off,

hig

her c

onsu

min

g cu

stom

ers

have

mor

e ad

vers

e bi

ll im

pact

s

BC H

ydro

is s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

is o

ptio

n to

flat

ten

Par

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e. P

leas

e pr

ovid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

C.

Bas

elin

e R

ate

Pro

vis i

ons

(i)

Bas

elin

e de

term

inat

ion

{slid

e 17

of 2

6 Ju

ne W

orks

hop

11 B

pre

sent

atio

n)

• BC

Hyd

ro c

onsid

ered

bas

elin

e de

term

inat

ion

on a

nnua

l bas

is ve

rsus

mon

thly

base

line

calcu

latio

n, a

nd

• C

onsid

ered

det

erm

inir1

g on

e-ye

ar a

nd fi

ve-y

ear

rollin

g av

erag

e ba

selin

es, v

ersu

s st

atus

quo

det

erm

inat

ion

of th

ree-

year

rollin

g av

erag

e m

onth

ly ba

selin

es

Annu

al b

asel

ine

coul

d cr

eate

cas

h flo

w b

urde

n fo

r man

y cu

stom

ers

at y

ear e

nd. f

ive-

year

rollin

g av

erag

e ba

selin

es w

ill fu

rther

incr

ease

the

com

plex

ity o

f the

rate

; one

-yea

r bas

elin

es c

ould

ca

use

bill

inst

abilit

y as

unu

sual

con

sum

ptio

n m

onth

s ca

nnot

be

leve

lled

in ba

selin

es.

If th

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

wou

ld r

ecom

men

d no

cha

nge

to s

tatu

s qu

o th

ree-

year

rol

ling

aver

age

mon

thly

bas

elin

e an

d se

eks

furth

er s

take

hold

er fe

edba

ck.

Ple

ase

expl

ain

your

res

pons

es in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

(ii)

P

rice

Ban

d Li

mit

(PLB

s) (

Slid

es 1

8 to

19

of W

orks

hop

11 B

Pre

sent

atio

n)

PLB

limits

cus

tom

er's

expo

sure

to P

art 2

LR

MC

ene

rgy

rate

with

in a

rang

e of

80%

of h

isto

ric

base

line

(HBL

) to

120%

of H

BP (

+/-2

0%).

BC H

ydro

mod

elle

d de

crea

sing

the

PLB

(i.e.

+/-

10%

) and

incr

easin

g th

e PB

L (i.

e. +

/-30%

)

BC H

ydro

con

tinue

s to

bel

ieve

ther

e ar

e no

cha

nges

to P

LBs

that

wou

ld im

prov

e pe

rform

ance

of

sta

tus

quo

LGS

Ener

gy ra

te in

res

pect

of c

onse

rvat

ion

or c

usto

mer

und

erst

andi

ng a

nd

acce

ptan

ce, a

nd is

see

king

furth

er fe

edba

ck.

If th

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er th

e PL

B sh

ould

be

mod

ified

and

if s

o, h

ow. P

leas

e ex

plai

n yo

ur r

espo

nse

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

As s

tate

d a

bo

ve,

CO

PE

su

pp

ort

s m

ove

me

nt t

o a

fla

t ra

te a

s o

pp

ose

d to

ba

selin

e P

LB,

gro

wth

mit

iga

tio

n o

r o

the

r ad

just

me

nts

to

th

e e

xist

ing

tie

red

rate

.

5

(COPE)

1 (

2015

Ra

te D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

) -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5) F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

(iii)

G

row

th M

itiga

tion

-Fo

rmul

aic

Gro

wth

Rat

e (F

GR

) (S

lides

20

to 2

1 of

W

orks

hop

11 B

Pre

sent

atio

n)

The

Cus

tom

er H

BLs

for t

he u

pcom

ing

12-m

onth

per

iod

will

be r

e-de

term

ined

by

BC H

ydro

bas

ed o

n th

e tw

o m

ost r

ecen

t yea

rs o

f con

sum

ptio

n hi

stor

y if

the

Cus

tom

er e

xper

ienc

es s

igni

fican

t gro

wth

i.e.

, fo

llow

ing

a ye

ar (Y

3) in

whi

ch e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n ex

ceed

ed p

revio

us y

ear's

(Y2)

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

by a

t lea

st: (

i) 30

%, o

r (ii)

4,00

0,00

0 kW

h.

Bill

anal

ysis

show

ed 2

4% o

f acc

ount

s th

at q

ualifi

ed fo

r FG

R in

F201

5 en

ded

up h

avin

g hi

gher

bills

w

ith th

e ba

selin

e ad

just

men

t. Fu

ture

bills

are

unp

redi

ctab

le d

ue to

mul

tiple

var

iabl

es in

volve

d in

billi

ng-

past

, cur

rent

and

futu

re c

onsu

mpt

ion.

If th

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er th

ere

shou

ld b

e m

odifi

catio

ns to

or r

emov

al o

f the

FG

R pr

ovis

ion

and

if so

, wha

t. Pl

ease

exp

lain

you

r re

spon

se in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

(iv)

G

row

th M

itiga

tion-

Ano

mal

y R

ule

(Slid

es 2

2 to

23

of W

orks

hop

11 B

P

rese

ntat

ion)

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BLs,

ano

mal

ously

low

con

sum

ptio

n m

onth

s fro

m p

revio

us y

ears

are

exc

lude

d:

• In

calc

ulat

ing

HBL

for a

par

ticul

ar m

onth

, con

sum

ptio

n in

a hi

stor

ical

mon

th th

at is

less

than

hal

f th

e co

nsum

ptio

n in

the

next

low

est m

onth

of a

ll m

onth

s ot

herw

ise u

sed

for c

alcu

latio

n w

ould

be

exclu

ded

• Up

to fo

ur H

BLs

can

be a

djus

ted

per B

CH

's fis

cal y

ear i

n ac

cord

ance

with

the

Anom

aly

Rule

•

Cus

tom

ers

will

alw

ays

end

up w

ith h

ighe

r bas

elin

es; h

owev

er, h

ighe

r bas

elin

es s

omet

imes

cr

eate

hig

her b

ills

If th

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er th

ere

shou

ld b

e m

odifi

catio

ns to

or

rem

oval

of t

he A

nom

aly

Rul

e pr

ovis

ion

and

if so

, wha

t. Pl

ease

exp

lain

yo

ur re

spon

se in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht

6

(COPE)

2015

Rat

e D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

) -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5) F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

(v)

Gro

wth

Miti

gatio

n -

Pro

spec

tive

Gro

wth

Rul

e (T

S82)

(S

lides

24

to 2

5 of

W

orks

hop

11 B

Pre

sent

atio

n)

Cus

tom

ers

who

antic

ipat

e 'si

gnific

ant',

'per

man

ent'

incr

ease

s in

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

may

app

ly to

BC

Hyd

ro fo

r mod

ified

pric

ing

unde

r TS

82 t

hat m

ay re

duce

thei

r ene

rgy

cost

s. S

igni

fican

t mea

ns a

pr

ospe

ctiv

e fir

st y

ear a

nnua

l inc

reas

e in

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

tota

ling

at le

ast 3

0% o

r 4,0

00,0

00 k

Wh

abov

e th

e hi

stor

ical

thre

e-ye

ar a

vera

ge a

nnua

l con

sum

ptio

n. P

erm

anen

t mea

ns a

risin

g fro

m a

si

gnific

ant c

apita

l inv

estm

ent.

• Ve

ry fe

w c

usto

mer

s ha

ve a

pplie

d du

e to

hig

h th

resh

olds

• C

usto

mer

s w

ith lo

wer

con

sum

ptio

n m

ight

me.e

t the

30%

thre

shol

d bu

t may

not

ben

efit

from

the

mod

ified

prici

ng s

truct

ure

• Hi

gh a

dmin

istra

tive

cost

to B

C H

ydro

If th

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

see

ks fe

edba

ck o

n w

heth

er th

ere

shou

ld b

e m

odifi

catio

ns to

or r

emov

al o

f the

Pro

spec

tive

Gro

wth

Rul

e an

d if

so, w

hat.

Plea

se e

xpla

in

your

resp

onse

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

(vi)

N

ew A

ccou

nts

(85/

15) (

Slid

es 2

6 to

27

of W

orks

hop

11B

Pre

sent

atio

n)

• 85

/15

appl

ies

whe

n a

new

acc

ount

is s

et u

p in

BC H

ydro

's bi

lling

syst

em, r

egar

dles

s of

w

heth

er th

ere

wer

e ch

ange

s in

cust

omer

s' op

erat

ion

• Fi

rst 8

5% o

f ene

rgy

cons

umed

in a

mon

thly

billi

ng p

erio

d is

char

ged

at th

e Pa

rt 1

rate

. Las

t 15

% o

f ene

rgy

cons

umed

in a

mon

thly

billi

ng p

erio

d is

char

ged

Part

2 LR

MC

rate

• Es

tabl

ished

to p

reve

nt c

usto

mer

s fro

m 'g

amin

g' b

y op

enin

g ne

w a

ccou

nts

to r

eset

ba

selin

es

BC H

ydro

foun

d no

evid

ence

of "

gam

ing"

in th

e LG

S Th

ree-

Year

Rep

ort.

Cus

tom

ers

raise

d co

ncer

ns th

at 8

5/15

rate

unf

airly

pen

alize

s cu

stom

ers

who

hav

e no

cha

nge

in op

erat

ions

dur

ing

acco

unt o

wne

rshi

p tra

nsfe

rs.

If th

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

aint

aine

d, B

C H

ydro

wou

ld r

ecom

men

d ap

plyi

ng 1

00%

Par

t 1

rate

s fo

r ne

w a

ccou

nts,

and

is s

eeki

ng fu

rther

sta

keho

lder

feed

back

. Ple

ase

prov

ide

any

com

men

ts in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

7

(COPE)

2015

Rat

e D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

) -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5) F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

D.

LGS

Flat

Ene

rgy

Rat

e (N

o B

asel

ine)

(S

lides

29

to 3

0, J

une

26, 2

015

Wor

ksho

p P

rese

ntat

ion)

Optio

n: F

1latte

n LG

'S E

nerg

y ra

te fo

r all

cons

umpt

ion

lieve

l.s

Pros

:

• El

ll'min

ates

all

com

plex

ity fr

om b

asel

line

com

pone

nt o

f sta

tus

quo

LGS

s11ln

g1y

rate

• Ea

s1 ier a

nd m

me

accu

irate

cus

tom

er fo

reca

stin

g

• lm

prov

·ed c

usto

mer

und

erst

andi

ng

• Al

igns

with

oth

e Cd

11. J

rurisd

ictio

ns

Cons

:

• En

ergy

rate

is w

elll b

elow

low

er ·e

nd o

f ene

rgy

LRM

C

Obs

erva

tions

:

• Li

ttle

to n

o bi

ll im

pact

s re

sultin

g so

lely

from

rem

oval

of b

asel

ine,

as

dem

onst

rate

d in

Wor

ksho

p Bb

• llh

ere

a1re

bill

impa

cts

from

Hat

tenin

g1 Pa

1111

Ener

g1y ra

tes;

typi

cal c

us.ro

mer

s be

tter o

tt

• No

cha

nge

in o

onse

l'Vat

tcm -

zem

fore

cast

for p

fann

ing

purp

oses

BC H

ydro

is s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

is o

ptio

n. P

leas

e pr

ovid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in th

e co

lum

n to

th

e rig

ht.

CO

PE

su

pp

ort

s a

fla

t L

GS

en

erg

y ra

te c

om

bin

ed

wit

h

me

asu

res

as

dis

cuss

ed

ab

ove

pro

vid

ed

it is

do

ne

in

such

a w

ay

tha

t it

bri

ng

s th

e r

ate

clo

ser

to o

r w

ith

in

the

LR

MC

ra

ng

e

8

(COPE)

2015

Ra

te D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

) -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5} F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

E.

TSR

-Lik

e E

nerg

y -R

ate

(Sllid

es 3

2 to

34

of J

im.m

e 26,

201

5 w

orks

hop

Pres

enta

U01 n)

Vite

rra a

nd A

MPC

sug

gest

ed a

TSR

·lilke

rnte

for h

igh

cons

umpt

ion

LGS

cust

omer

s

Rat

e m

ay h

ave

follo

win

g: el

emen

ts b

ased

on

BC H

ydro

's e

xisU

ng T

SR -

RS 1

823:

• Av

aila

bile

to la

rgie

lGS

acoo

unts

• En

ergy

Rat

e (F

2017

) -illu

stra

tive

base

d on

RS

1823

90/

1 O sp

lit an

d ra

te n

eutra

l to

LGS

Fla

t en

ergy

rate

:

• 5 .

48 c

ents

/kW

h ap

plie

d to

all k

Wh

up to

and

incl

udin

g 90

% o

f Cus

tom

er B

asel

ine

load

(C

BL) i

n ea

ch b

illing

yea

r

• 1O

.1 O

cent

s/kW

h ap

plie

d to

aH

kWh

abov

e 90

% of

cus

tom

er's

CBL

in e

ach

billin

g ye

ar

• ln

iti1

al a

nnua

l CBL

det

erm

ined

by

hist

oric

lbas

ellin

e ye

ar(s

)

• Al

low

able

adj

ustm

ents

f.or

DSM

, pla

nt c

apac

ity in

crea

ses

and

forc

e m

aj,eu

re

• An

nual

CB

l ap

prov

ed e

ach

year

by

BCUC

BC H

ydro

is s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

is o

ptio

n. P

leas

e pr

ovid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in th

e co

lum

n to

th

e rig

ht.

CO

PE

be

lieve

s a

TS

R r

ate

is

pro

ble

ma

tic

be

cau

se o

f th

e li

mit

ed

co

nse

rva

tio

n in

cen

tive

it p

rovi

de

s fo

r cu

sto

me

rs o

pe

rati

ng

at o

r n

ea

r 90%

of t

he

ir C

BL.

9

(COPE)

2015

Ra

te D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

) -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5) F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

A.

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Opt

iona

l 'Rat

es (S

ides

56

to 6

·2 o

f Jun

e 26

, 2.0

15 W

orks

hop

11 B

P

rese

ntat

ion)

1.

Vol

unta

rry T

ime

of U

se R

ates

• BC

Hyd

ro h

as n

o pl

an to

pro

ceed

dev

elop

ing

this

opt

ion

at th

is ti

me

for r

easo

ns s

et o

ut in

se

ctio

n 6.1

of W

orks

hop

BA/B

B C

onsid

erat

ion

Mem

o

2.

lnte

nup.

Ubl

e R

ates

• BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

is o

ptio

n as

par

t of R

DA M

odul

e 2,

afte

r def

ault

GS

rate

s de

term

ined

3.

Effi

cien

cy R

ate

Cre

dit c

on,oe

,pt

• BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

is o

ptio

n as

par

t of R

DA M

odul

e 2,

afte

r def

ault

GS

rate

s de

term

ined

4.

Dem

and

Cha

rge

Opt

ions

• BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

ese

optio

ns a

s pa

rt of

RDA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter d

efau

lt G

S ra

tes

dete

rmin

ed

BC H

ydro

is s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

e ab

ove

prop

osal

s, a

nd a

lso

on p

relim

inar

y co

mm

ents

on

optio

ns id

entif

ied

to d

ate,

and

if th

ere

are

any

othe

r G

S ra

te o

ptio

ns B

C H

ydro

sho

uld

cons

ider

. P

leas

e ex

plai

n yo

ur r

espo

nse

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

CO

PE

re

cog

niz

es

tha

t a T

OU

rat

e is

cu

rre

ntl

y p

roh

ibit

ed

by g

ove

rnm

en

t bu

t w

e th

ink

BC

Hyd

ro

sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

elli

ng

TO

U a

nd

se

aso

na

l ra

te a

nd

d

isco

un

ts t

o p

rese

nt t

o s

take

ho

lde

rs,

the

BC

UC

, a

nd

g

ove

rnm

en

t fo

r th

eir

co

nsi

de

rati

on

. A

bse

nt s

uch

a

mo

de

l, it

is d

iffi

cult

fo

r p

art

ies

to a

pp

reci

ate

wh

eth

er

the

se t

ype

s o

f ra

te s

tru

ctu

res

mig

ht b

e in

th

e p

ub

lic

inte

rest

.

10

(COPE)

2015

Rat

e D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

} -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5} F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

B.

Oth

er ls

Hes

(Slid

es ·6

4 to

66

of W

orks

hop

118

Pre

sent

atio

n),

1.

Min

imum

Cha

rges

{Dem

and

!Rat

chet

)

Exist

ing

min

imum

cha

rge

is ba

sed

on 5

0% o

f pea

k m

onth

ly de

man

d re

gist

ered

in m

ost r

ecen

t win

ter

perio

d (N

ovem

ber t

o M

arch

)

Rat

chet

was

. redu

ced ~rom 7

S.%

to 5

0% e

ffect

ive

"'pril

1, 1

960

Base

d on

F14

dat

a:

·• M

GS

min

imum

cha

rges

: app

roxi

mat

ely

$135

,000

on

tota

l rev

enue

of a

ppro

xim

atel

y $3

29 m

illion

(0

.4%

) •

LGS

min

imum

cha

rges

: app

roxi

mat

ely

$1.6

milli

on o

n ab

out $

764

milli

on, e

xclu

ding

rat

e rid

er

(0.2

%)

BC H

ydro

is s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

e cu

rren

t Dem

and

Rat

chet

. Pl

ease

exp

lain

you

r re

spon

se

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

CO

PE

is g

en

era

lly s

up

po

rtiv

e o

f re

cove

rin

g m

ore

of

the

re

ven

ue

re

qu

ire

me

nts

th

rou

gh

eff

icie

nt f

lat e

ne

rgy

an

d d

em

an

d ra

tes.

Tha

t w

ou

ld.s

ug

ge

st fu

rth

er

red

uci

ng

or

elim

ina

tin

g th

e m

inim

um

ch

arg

es.

11

(COPE)

2015

Ra

te D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

) -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5) F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

2.

Tran

sfor

mer

Ow

ners

hi1p

Dis

coun

t (TO

D) a

:nd l

'rans

form

er R

enta

ls

• TO

D ra

te is

$0.

25 p

er m

onth

per

kW

of b

illing

dem

and

if cu

stom

er s

uppl

ies

trans

form

atio

n fro

m p

rimar

y po

tent

ial t

o se

cond

ary

pote

ntia

l •

Last

revie

w o

f $0.

25 /m

onth

dis

coun

t was

com

plet

ed in

Aug

ust 2

004

BC H

ydro

pro

pose

s to

eva

luat

e TO

D in

con

junc

tion

with

Dis

tribu

tion

Ext

ensi

on P

olic

y as

par

t of

RD

A M

odul

e 2,

and

is s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n th

is re

com

men

ded

appr

oach

. Ple

ase

expl

ain

your

resp

onse

in th

e co

lum

n to

the

right

.

F201

5 R

DA

to fi

rst s

et th

e R

esid

entia

l def

ault

rate

, and

to co

nsid

er th

e de

velo

pmen

t of a

n EV

rate

af

ter t

he 2

015

RDA

Mod

ule

1 de

cisio

n.

Des

ign

Con

side

ratio

ns:

• At

-hom

e ch

argi

ng (R

esid

entia

l)

• Ba

sis o

n w

hich

to d

eter

min

e co

st o

f ser

vice

and

load

impl

icat

ions

for p

ricin

g -

diffe

rent

pat

tern

of

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

(bat

tery

sto

rage

of e

lect

ric p

ower

)

• M

echa

nism

to e

nfor

ce o

ff-pe

ak c

harg

ing

-tim

e va

ryin

g co

mpo

nent

{Tim

e of

Use

; pric

e di

ffere

ntia

l is

an is

sue;

ado

pt C

alifo

rnia

'sup

er o

ff-pe

ak' c

once

pt to

enc

oura

ge la

te n

ight

to e

arly

mor

ning

cha

rgin

g?

• Re

·~ui

reme

nt o

f a se

para

te m

eter

?

• Int

erac

tion

with

RIB

?

• O

ther

?

BC H

ydro

see

ks s

take

hold

er fe

edba

ck o

n ra

te d

esig

n co

nsid

erat

ions

pre

sent

ed a

bove

and

th

e tim

i g

of a

ny fu

ture

EV

rate

pro

posa

l. Pl

ease

exp

lain

you

r res

pons

e in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht.

Ad

dit

ion

al C

omm

en

ts:

12

(COPE)

2015

Rat

e D

esi

gn

Ap

plic

ati

on

(R

DA

) -

Ge

ne

ral

Se

rvic

e R

ate

s W

ork

sho

p 1

1, S

ess

ion

s A

(Ju

ne

25,

201

5)

an

d B

(Ju

ne

26,

201

5) F

ee

db

ack

Fo

rm

CO

NS

EN

T T

O U

SE

PE

'RS

ON

AL

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

I c

on

sen

t to

the

use

of

my

pers

onal

inf

orm

atio

n by

BC

Hyd

ro f

or

the

pu

rpo

ses

of k

eepi

ng m

e up

date

d a

bo

ut t

he 2

01

5 R

DA

. F

or

pu

rpo

ses

of t

he a

bove

, o

rma

tion

inc

lude

s op

inio

ns,

nam

e, m

ailin

g ad

dres

s, p

ho

ne

nu

mb

er

and

emai

l ad

dre

ss a

s p

er

the

info

rmat

ion

I

oate

: AU

O J:i

. ao1

5""

Th

an

k yo

u fo

r yo

ur

com

men

ts.

Co

mm

en

ts s

ubm

itted

will

be

use

d t

o in

form

th

e R

DA

Sco

pe a

nd E

ng

ag

em

en

t pr

oces

s, i

nclu

ding

dis

cuss

ion

s w

ith G

over

nmen

t,

an

d w

ill f

orm

par

t of

the

off

icia

l re

cord

of

the

RD

A.

You

ca

n r

etur

n co

mpl

'ete

d fe

ed

ba

ck fo

rms

by:

Mai

l: B

C H

ydro

, B

C H

ydro

Re

gu

lato

ry G

rou

p -

"Att

entio

n 2

01

5 R

DA

", 1

61 h F

loor

, 3

33

Du

nsm

uir

St.

Van

. B

.C.

V6

B-5

R3

Fa

x n

um

be

r: 6

04-6

23 4

40

7 -

uAtte

ntio

n 2

01

5 R

DA

"

Em

ail: bchydror~gulat

oryqroup@bchydr

o.com

For

m a

va•la

ble

on W

eb

: ht

tp:/

/ww

w.b

chyd

ro.c

om

/ab

ou

t/p

lann

ing

reg

ulat

ory/

re9

ulat

orv.

htm

'I

An

y pe

rson

al i

nfor

mat

ion

you

prov

ide

to B

C H

ydro

on

this

for

m i

s co

llect

ed a

nd p

rote

cted

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith t

he F

ree

do

m o

f In

form

ati

on

an

d

Pro

tect

ion

of P

riva

cy A

ct.

BC

Hyd

ro is

col

lect

ing

info

rmat

ion

with

thi

s fo

r th

e pu

rpos

e of

the

201

5 R

DA

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith B

C H

ydro

's

man

date

und

er th

e H

ydro

an

d P

ow

er

Au

tho

rity

Act

, th

e B

C H

ydro

Tar

iff,

the

Uti

litie

s C

om

mis

sio

n A

ct a

nd r

elat

ed R

egul

atio

ns a

nd

Dire

ctio

ns.

If yo

u ha

ve a

ny q

uest

ions

abo

ut th

e co

llect

ion

or

use

of th

e pe

rson

al i

nfor

mat

ion

colle

cted

on

this

for

m p

leas

e co

ntac

t the

BC

Hyd

ro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up v

ia e

mai

l at:

bchy

dror

e,u

lato

rwro

u,.

@bc

hvdr

o.co

m

13

(COPE)

1

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

N

ame/

Org

aniz

atio

n : C

omm

erci

al E

nerg

y C

onsu

mer

s As

soci

atio

n of

BC

(CEC

)

C

omm

ents

(Ple

ase

do n

ot id

entif

y th

ird-p

arty

indi

vidu

als

in

your

com

men

ts. C

omm

ents

bea

ring

refe

renc

es to

iden

tifia

ble

indi

vidu

als

will

be

disc

arde

d du

e to

priv

acy

conc

erns

).

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

A. C

ost

of

Ser

vice

An

alys

is:

Seg

men

tati

on

Met

ho

do

log

y ( S

lides

17

to 2

1 o

f Ju

ne

25, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

11A

Pre

sen

tati

on

). B

C H

ydro

dis

cuss

ed t

wo

met

ho

ds

of

seg

men

tati

on

:

Met

hod

1:

BC

Hyd

ro to

ok s

ampl

es o

f 1, 0

00 c

usto

mer

s fr

om e

ach

of S

GS

, MG

S a

nd L

GS

cla

sses

;

F16

For

ecas

t cos

ts a

ssig

ned

to G

S r

ate

clas

ses

pool

ed a

nd r

e-al

loca

ted

pro

rata

by

indi

vidu

al

cust

omer

kW

h, 4

Coi

ncid

ent P

eak

(CP

) de

man

d, a

nd N

on-C

oinc

iden

t Pea

k (N

CP

) de

man

d .

Res

ults

of m

etho

d 1

not c

oncl

usiv

e:

N

CP

allo

catio

n va

ries

depe

ndin

g on

coi

ncid

ence

with

in c

lass

es.

C

oinc

iden

ce is

bet

ter

corr

elat

ed w

ith c

ost t

han

cust

omer

siz

e.

T

rans

form

er c

ost m

ay v

ary

with

siz

e bu

t cos

t im

pact

is s

mal

l.

Met

hod

2:

Con

side

r co

st a

lloca

tion

base

d o

n pr

e -as

sign

ed s

egm

ents

of c

usto

mer

s . C

usto

mer

s w

ill b

e gr

oupe

d by

siz

e as

opp

osed

to e

valu

ated

indi

vidu

ally

– to

be

revi

ewed

at J

uly

30, 2

015

wra

p-up

w

orks

hop.

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k o

n w

hat

oth

er a

nal

ysis

of

seg

men

tati

on

sh

ou

ld b

e co

nd

uct

ed. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

The

evid

ence

pro

vide

d by

BC

Hyd

ro s

how

s th

at

cost

allo

catio

n to

cus

tom

ers

is n

ot p

artic

ular

ly

wel

l acc

ompl

ishe

d w

ith th

e ex

istin

g m

e tho

dolo

gy.

The

CE

C d

oes

not s

ee fr

om th

e ev

iden

ce a

ny

parti

cula

rly u

sefu

l seg

men

tatio

n m

etho

dolo

gy th

at

wou

ld c

hang

e th

is a

nd c

oncl

udes

upo

n an

alys

is

that

seg

men

tatio

n is

bes

t lef

t as

is fo

r the

gen

eral

serv

ice

rate

s.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

2

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

B.

SG

S –

SG

S B

asic

Ch

arg

e (S

lides

22

to 2

7 o

f Ju

ne

25, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

11A

P

rese

nta

tio

n)

BC

Hyd

ro w

as a

sked

to m

odel

incr

easi

ng th

e S

GS

bas

ic c

harg

e to

a le

vel c

ompa

rabl

e to

the

Res

iden

tial B

asic

Cha

rge

cost

rec

over

y, fr

om th

e cu

rren

t 35%

leve

l to

45%

.

Res

ults

:

In

crea

sing

SG

S b

asic

cha

rge

to 4

5% o

f cos

t rec

over

y is

clo

ser

to fu

ll fix

ed c

ost r

ecov

ery

R

esul

ting

ener

gy r

ate

rem

ains

with

in th

e LR

MC

and

with

out s

ubst

antia

l bill

impa

cts

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er B

C H

ydro

sh

ou

ld in

crea

se t

he

SG

S b

asic

ch

arg

e co

st

reco

very

co

mp

arab

le t

o R

esid

enti

al B

asic

Ch

arg

e co

st r

eco

very

. Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

The

CE

C e

xpec

ts th

at e

vide

nce

supp

ortin

g an

in

crea

sed

basi

c ch

arge

wou

ld im

prov

e co

st

allo

catio

n to

cus

tom

ers.

The

CE

C h

as p

ropo

sed

exam

inin

g so

me

alte

rnat

ive

met

hodo

logi

es a

nd

was

ask

ed to

not

e th

ose

in a

n em

ail t

o B

C H

ydro

w

hich

the

CE

C d

id.

BC H

ydro

adv

ised

that

it

wou

ld a

rrang

e a

mee

ting

to d

iscu

ss th

ese

appr

oach

es b

ut h

a s n

ot to

dat

e do

ne s

o.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

3

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

C.

MG

S D

eman

d C

har

ges

1.

BC

Hyd

ro p

rese

nted

thre

e al

tern

ativ

es fo

r de

man

d ch

arge

s:

i. S

tatu

s Q

uo

ii.

Alte

rnat

ive

A -

flat

dem

and

char

ge +

flat

ene

rgy

rate

iii.

Alte

rnat

ive

B –

two

step

dem

and

char

ge +

flat

ene

rgy

rate

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

thre

e d

eman

d c

har

ge

stru

ctu

re a

lter

nat

ives

is

pre

ferr

ed (

wit

h r

easo

ns)

. Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

2.

Sta

keho

lder

s re

ques

ted

BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

incr

ease

d M

GS

dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery;

BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

ed in

crea

sing

the

MG

S d

eman

d co

st r

ecov

ery

of fl

at d

eman

d fr

om a

ppro

xim

atel

y 15

% to

35

% fo

r F

lat E

nerg

y R

ate/

Fla

t Dem

and

Ch

arge

Alte

rnat

ive

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

he

MG

S d

eman

d c

har

ge

cost

rec

ove

ry s

ho

uld

be

incr

ease

d, a

nd

if s

o t

o w

hat

leve

l (w

ith

rea

son

s). P

leas

e p

rovi

de

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

3.

BC

Hyd

ro c

onsi

dere

d T

rans

ition

Str

ateg

ies

for

mov

ing

to a

flat

ene

rgy

rate

, an

d fla

t dem

and

char

ge:

th

ree-

year

pha

se–i

n

10

% b

ill im

pact

Cap

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

two

hig

h-l

evel

alt

ern

ativ

e M

GS

rat

e tr

ansi

tio

n

stra

teg

ies

is p

refe

rred

(w

ith

rea

son

s). P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

The

CE

C e

xpec

ts th

at th

e S

tatu

s Q

uo 3

st

ep in

clin

ing

bloc

k do

es n

ot a

dequ

atel

y an

d ap

prop

riate

ly a

lloca

te c

osts

to c

usto

mer

s an

d th

at

a 2

step

dem

and

wou

ld s

imila

rly h

ave

prob

lem

s.

The

flat r

ate

may

hav

e le

ss p

robl

ems

than

oth

er

alte

rnat

ives

but

stil

l wou

ld b

e a

poor

m

etho

dolo

gy.

The

CE

C e

xpec

ts th

at th

e ev

iden

ce w

ould

sho

w

that

incr

ease

d de

man

d ch

arge

s m

ight

som

ewha

t im

prov

e ap

prop

riate

cos

t allo

catio

n to

cus

tom

ers.

The

CE

C e

xpec

ts th

at a

pha

se-in

app

roac

h ov

er

a pa

rticu

lar n

umbe

r of y

ears

wou

ld e

nabl

e a

bala

nce

betw

een

faire

r co s

t allo

catio

n an

d im

pact

tra

nsiti

on fa

irnes

s . T

he C

EC

is a

wai

ting

a m

eetin

g w

ith B

C H

ydro

to d

iscu

ss a

ltern

ativ

es it

ha

s pr

opos

ed w

hich

may

do

a be

tter j

ob o

f cos

t al

loca

tion

to c

usto

mer

s .

Cho

osin

g a

leve

l of d

eman

d ch

arge

bas

ed o

n th

e re

latio

nshi

p of

ene

rgy

char

ge to

LR

MC

is li

kely

an

inap

prop

riate

logi

c fo

r cos

t allo

catio

n de

c isi

ons.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

4

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

A.

Pre

ferr

ed L

GS

Rat

e S

tru

ctu

re (

Slid

es 9

to

54

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g s

take

ho

lder

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

fou

r en

erg

y ra

te s

tru

ctu

re

alte

rnat

ives

an

d t

he

thre

e d

eman

d c

har

ge

stru

ctu

re a

lter

nat

ives

are

pre

ferr

ed, a

nd

wh

y . P

lea

se

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

yo

u h

ave

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

En

erg

y ra

te a

lter

nat

ives

:

1.

Sta

tus

Quo

LG

S E

nerg

y ra

te (

reta

in b

asel

ine)

2.

Sim

plify

ene

rgy

rate

str

uctu

re (

reta

in b

asel

ine)

:

A.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1 E

nerg

y R

ate

B.

Con

side

r m

odify

Bas

elin

e R

ate

Pro

visi

ons:

i. D

eter

min

atio

n of

bas

elin

es (

mon

thly

ver

sus

annu

al v

ersu

s ro

lling

ave

rage

, et

c.)

ii.

Pric

e lim

it ba

nds

(PLB

s) to

add

ress

con

cern

s th

at r

ates

are

‘pun

itive

to

grow

ing

cust

omer

s’, a

nd/o

r to

en

cour

age

furt

her

cons

erva

tion

iii.

Gro

wth

rul

es to

mak

e le

ss r

estr

ictiv

e

iv.

New

acc

ount

rul

es

3.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e (r

emov

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure )

4.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e fo

r m

ajor

ity o

f LG

S c

usto

mer

s an

d cr

eate

TS

R-li

ke r

ate

with

in

divi

dual

ly a

dmin

iste

red

base

line

s fo

r se

gmen

t of v

ery

larg

e LG

S c

usto

mer

s

Dem

and

Ch

arg

e al

tern

ativ

es:

1.

Sta

tus

quo

incl

inin

g th

ree-

step

dem

and

char

ge

2.

Fla

t dem

and

char

ge

3.

Tw

o-st

ep d

eman

d ch

arge

The

CE

C e

xpec

ts th

at S

tatu

s Q

uo b

asel

ine

appr

oach

is u

nnec

essa

ry a

nd c

onse

rvat

ion

and

effic

ienc

y m

ay b

e be

tter a

ddre

ssed

thro

ugh

an

alte

rnat

ive

‘cre

dit’

mec

hani

sm. M

odify

ing

the

base

line

prov

isio

n ba

sed

on th

e ev

iden

ce B

C

Hyd

ro p

rese

nted

see

ms

only

to a

dd c

ompl

icat

ion.

A b

ase

f lat e

nerg

y ra

te w

ould

app

ear t

o ha

ve th

e

best

opp

ortu

nity

to p

rovi

de a

ppro

pria

te c

ost

allo

catio

n. A

dmin

iste

red

b ase

lines

are

cos

tly a

nd

may

not

impr

ove

cost

al lo

catio

n to

a d

egre

e

whi

ch w

ould

just

ify th

e pr

oces

s . T

he C

EC

expe

cts

that

a fl

at d

eman

d ch

arge

may

be

mor

e

appr

opria

te fo

r cos

t allo

catio

n th

an 3

or 2

ste

p

appr

oach

es.

The

CE

C is

aw

a itin

g a

mee

ting

with

BC

Hyd

ro to

disc

uss

alte

rnat

ive

appr

oach

es it

rais

ed d

urin

g

the

proc

ess.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

5

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

B.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1

En

erg

y R

ate

(Slid

e 16

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Fla

t Par

t 1 e

nerg

y ra

te w

ould

be

nom

inal

sim

plifi

catio

n, a

s P

art

1 co

nsum

ptio

n th

resh

old

of

14,8

00 k

Wh/

mon

th is

not

mat

eria

l to

mos

t LG

S c

usto

mer

s:

M

ore

cust

omer

s be

tter

off t

han

wor

se o

ff, h

ighe

r co

nsum

ing

cust

om

ers

have

mor

e ad

vers

e bi

ll im

pact

s

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n t

o f

latt

en P

art

En

erg

y R

ate.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

C.

Bas

elin

e R

ate

Pro

visi

on

s

(i)

Bas

elin

e d

eter

min

atio

n (

slid

e 17

of

26 J

un

e W

ork

sho

p 1

1B p

rese

nta

tio

n)

B

C H

ydro

con

side

red

base

line

dete

rmin

atio

n on

ann

ual b

asis

ver

sus

mon

thly

ba

selin

e ca

lcul

atio

n, a

nd

C

onsi

dere

d de

term

inin

g on

e-ye

ar a

nd fi

ve-y

ear

rolli

ng a

vera

ge b

asel

ines

, ver

sus

stat

us q

uo d

eter

min

atio

n of

thre

e–y

ear

rolli

ng a

vera

ge m

onth

ly b

asel

ines

Ann

ual b

asel

ine

coul

d cr

eate

cas

h flo

w b

urde

n fo

r m

any

cust

omer

s at

yea

r en

d. f

ive-

year

rol

ling

aver

age

base

lines

will

furt

her

incr

ease

the

com

plex

ity o

f the

rat

e; o

ne-y

ear

base

lines

cou

ld c

ause

bi

ll in

stab

ility

as

unus

ual c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

cann

ot b

e le

velle

d in

bas

elin

es.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed, B

C H

ydro

wo

uld

rec

om

men

d n

o c

han

ge

to s

tatu

s q

uo

th

ree-

year

ro

llin

g a

vera

ge

mo

nth

ly b

asel

ine

and

see

ks f

urt

her

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

s in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

(ii)

Pri

ce B

and

Lim

it (

PL

Bs)

(S

lides

18

to 1

9 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

res

enta

tio

n)

PLB

lim

its c

usto

mer

’s e

xpo

sure

to P

art 2

LR

MC

ene

rgy

rate

with

in a

ran

ge o

f 80

% o

f his

toric

ba

selin

e (H

BL)

to 1

20%

of H

BP

(+

/ - 2

0%

). B

C H

ydro

mod

elle

d de

crea

sing

the

PLB

(i.e

. +/ -

10

%)

and

incr

easi

ng th

e P

BL

(i.e.

+/ -

30%

)

BC

Hyd

ro c

ontin

ues

to b

elie

ve th

ere

are

no c

hang

es to

PLB

s th

at w

ould

impr

ove

perf

orm

ance

of

stat

us q

uo L

GS

Ene

rgy

rate

in r

espe

ct o

f con

serv

atio

n or

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

and

ac

cept

ance

, and

is s

eeki

ng fu

rthe

r fe

edba

ck.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

he

PL

B s

ho

ud

be

mo

dif

ied

an

d if

so

,ho

w. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

The

CE

C e

xpec

ts th

at a

flat

tene

d en

ergy

rate

wou

ld p

rovi

de b

ette

r cos

t allo

catio

n if

com

bine

d

with

alte

rnat

ive

appr

oach

es to

dem

and

char

ges.

Mai

ntai

ning

a 3

yea

r rol

ling

aver

age

ensu

res

that

the

inad

equa

te e

cono

mic

pric

e si

gnal

is

mai

ntai

ned

mak

ing

it un

desi

rabl

e as

a ra

te

stru

ctur

e. E

xten

ding

the

base

line

adju

stm

ent

perio

d pr

ovid

e s a

bet

ter e

cono

mic

sig

nal b

ut

adds

oth

er c

ompl

icat

ions

. The

re is

no

poin

t to

mai

ntai

ning

the

SQ

as

it is

not

ach

ievi

ng a

purp

ose

so if

ret a

ined

then

opt

ions

for e

xten

s ion

wou

ld n

eed

to b

e tri

ed to

det

erm

ine

if th

ey w

ould

achi

eve

the

purp

ose.

The

CE

C e

xpec

ts th

at th

ere

are

no c

hang

es to

pric

e ba

nd li

mits

that

wou

ld m

ater

ially

cha

nge

perfo

rman

ce o

f the

rate

. If

the

stru

ctur

e is

reta

ined

it s

houl

d en

able

ann

ual a

sses

smen

t as

the

mon

thly

app

roac

h is

too

com

plex

.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

6

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

(iii)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

– F

orm

ula

ic G

row

th R

ate

(FG

R)

( Slid

es 2

0 to

21

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

The

Cus

tom

er H

BLs

for

the

upco

min

g 12

-mon

th p

erio

d w

ill b

e re

-det

erm

ined

by

BC

Hyd

ro b

ased

on

the

two

mos

t rec

ent y

ears

of c

onsu

mpt

ion

hist

ory

if th

e C

usto

mer

exp

erie

nces

sig

nific

ant g

row

th i.

e.,

follo

win

g a

year

(Y

3) in

wh

ich

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

exce

eded

pre

viou

s ye

ar’s

(Y

2) e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n by

at l

east

: (i)

30%

, or

(ii)

4,00

0,0

00 k

Wh.

Bill

ana

lysi

s sh

owed

24%

of a

c co

unts

that

qua

lifie

d fo

r F

GR

in F

2015

end

ed u

p ha

ving

hig

her

bills

with

th

e ba

selin

e ad

just

men

t. F

utur

e bi

lls a

re u

npre

dict

able

due

to m

ultip

le v

aria

bles

invo

lved

in b

illin

g –

past

, cur

rent

and

futu

re c

onsu

mpt

ion.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e F

GR

pro

visi

on

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

One

of t

he p

robl

ems

with

the

rate

stru

ctur

e is

its

inab

ility

to d

istin

guis

h pr

oduc

tive

grow

th fr

om

inef

ficie

nt g

row

th a

nd/o

r use

. Stil

l if t

he ra

te is

reta

ined

an d

76%

ben

efit

form

FG

R p

rovi

sons

they

sho

uld

be re

tain

ed a

nd e

xten

ded

to o

ther

s

via

low

er th

resh

olds

. Th

e 30

% b

ar h

as p

rove

n

too

high

.

(iv)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

- A

no

mal

y R

ule

(S

lides

22

to

23

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BLs

, ano

mal

ousl

y lo

w c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

from

pre

viou

s ye

ars

are

excl

uded

:

In

cal

cula

ting

HB

L fo

r a

p art

icul

ar m

onth

, con

sum

ptio

n in

a h

isto

rical

mon

th th

at is

less

than

hal

f th

e co

nsum

ptio

n in

the

next

low

est m

onth

of a

ll m

onth

s ot

herw

ise

used

for

calc

ulat

ion

wou

ld b

e ex

clud

ed

U

p to

four

HB

Ls c

an b

e ad

just

ed p

er B

CH

’s fi

scal

yea

r in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Ano

mal

y R

ule

C

usto

mer

s w

ill a

lway

s en

d up

with

hig

her

base

lines

; how

ever

, hig

her

base

lines

som

etim

es c

reat

e hi

gher

bill

s

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e A

no

mal

y R

ule

pro

visi

on

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t

The

CE

C e

xpec

ts th

at th

e an

omal

y ru

le s

houl

d

be e

limin

ated

if th

e ra

te is

reta

ined

in o

rder

to

sim

plify

the

rate

stru

ctur

e. A

mov

e to

ann

ual

asse

ssm

ent o

f bas

elin

e w

ould

mod

erat

e so

me

of

the

reas

ons

behi

nd th

e im

p lem

enta

tion

of th

e

anom

aly

rule

.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

7

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

(v)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

– P

rosp

ecti

ve G

row

th R

ule

(T

S82

) (S

lides

24

to 2

5 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Cus

tom

ers

who

ant

icip

ate

‘sig

nific

ant’,

‘per

man

ent’

incr

ease

s in

en

ergy

con

sum

ptio

n m

ay a

pply

to

BC

Hyd

ro fo

r m

odifi

ed p

ricin

g un

der

TS

82

that

may

red

uce

thei

r en

ergy

cos

ts. S

igni

fican

t mea

ns a

pr

ospe

ctiv

e fir

st y

ear

annu

al in

crea

se in

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

tota

ling

at le

ast 3

0% o

r 4,

000,

000

kWh

abov

e th

e hi

stor

ical

thre

e -ye

ar a

vera

ge a

nnua

l con

sum

ptio

n. P

erm

anen

t mea

ns a

risin

g fr

om a

si

gnifi

cant

cap

ital i

nves

tmen

t.

V

ery

few

cus

tom

ers

have

app

lied

due

to h

igh

thre

shol

ds

C

usto

mer

s w

ith lo

wer

con

sum

ptio

n m

ight

mee

t the

30%

thre

shol

d bu

t may

not

ben

efit

from

the

mod

ified

pric

ing

stru

ctur

e

H

igh

adm

inis

trat

ive

cost

to B

C H

ydro

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e P

rosp

ecti

ve G

row

th R

ule

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t

Alo

ng w

ith F

GR

rule

cha

nge

to a

ccom

mod

ate

grow

th th

e P

GR

(TS

82) s

houl

d ha

ve re

laxe

d

thre

shol

ds a

nd c

riter

ia to

pro

tect

pro

duct

ive

grow

th fr

om in

appr

opria

te im

pact

s. T

he

impl

emen

tatio

n of

this

sho

uld

be a

utom

ated

if th

e

rate

is re

tain

ed in

ord

er to

redu

ce B

C H

ydro

’s

adm

inis

trativ

e co

sts.

(vi)

New

Acc

ou

nts

(85

/15)

(S

lides

26

to 2

7 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

85

/15

appl

ies

whe

n a

new

acc

ount

is s

et u

p in

BC

Hyd

ro’s

bill

ing

syst

em, r

egar

dles

s of

w

heth

er th

ere

wer

e ch

ange

s in

cus

tom

ers’

ope

ratio

n

F

irst 8

5%

of e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed in

a m

onth

ly b

illin

g pe

riod

is c

harg

ed a

t the

Par

t 1

rate

. Las

t 15

% o

f ene

rgy

cons

umed

in a

mon

thly

bill

ing

perio

d is

cha

rged

Par

t 2

LRM

C r

ate

E

stab

lishe

d to

pre

vent

cus

tom

ers

from

‘gam

ing’

by

open

ing

new

acc

ount

s to

res

et b

asel

ines

BC

Hyd

ro fo

und

no e

vide

nce

of “

gam

ing”

in th

e LG

S T

hree

-Yea

r R

epor

t. C

usto

mer

s ra

ised

co

ncer

ns th

at 8

5/15

rat

e un

fairl

y pe

naliz

es c

usto

mer

s w

ho h

ave

no

chan

ge in

ope

ratio

ns d

urin

g ac

coun

t ow

ners

hip

tran

sfer

s.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro w

ou

ld r

eco

mm

end

ap

ply

ing

100

% P

art

1 ra

tes

for

new

acc

ou

nts

, an

d is

see

kin

g f

urt

her

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

The

pre

vale

nce

of a

ccou

nt c

hang

es a

nd

inap

prop

riate

bill

impa

cts

mea

ns th

at th

is

prov

isio

n sh

oul d

be

adju

sted

to e

nabl

e co

ntin

uity

on tr

ansf

er c

hang

e an

d 10

0% P

art 1

for n

ew

acco

unts

with

no

cont

inui

ty. T

his

can

be

cont

rolle

d at

the

poin

t of a

ccou

nt s

et u

p by

qual

ifyin

g th

e re

ason

for t

he n

ew a

ccou

nt.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

8

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

D.

LG

S F

lat

En

erg

y R

ate

(No

Bas

elin

e) (

Slid

es 2

9 to

30,

Ju

ne

26, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Op

tio

n:

Fla

tten

LG

S E

ner

gy

rate

fo

r al

l co

nsu

mp

tio

n le

vels

Pro

s:

E

limin

ates

all

com

plex

ity fr

om b

ase

line

com

pone

nt o

f sta

tus

quo

LG

S e

nerg

y ra

te

E

asie

r an

d m

ore

accu

rate

cus

tom

er fo

reca

stin

g

Im

prov

ed c

usto

mer

und

erst

andi

ng

A

ligns

with

oth

er C

dn. J

uris

dict

ions

Con

s:

E

nerg

y ra

te is

wel

l bel

ow lo

wer

end

of e

nerg

y LR

MC

Obs

erva

tions

:

Li

ttle

to n

o bi

ll im

pact

s re

sulti

ng s

olel

y fr

om r

emov

al o

f bas

elin

e, a

s de

mon

stra

ted

in

Wor

ksho

p 8b

T

here

are

bill

impa

cts

from

flat

teni

ng P

art

1 E

nerg

y ra

tes;

typi

cal c

ust

omer

s be

tter

off

N

o ch

ange

in c

onse

rvat

ion

– ze

ro fo

reca

st fo

r pl

anni

ng p

urpo

ses

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

The

CE

C e

x pec

ts th

at th

e fla

t ene

rgy

rate

will

prov

ide

the

best

pla

tform

goi

ng fo

rwar

d an

d th

at

othe

r app

roac

hes

to p

rovi

ding

app

ropr

iate

pric

e

sign

als

will

be th

e m

ore

prod

uctiv

e ap

proa

ch to

getti

ng a

n op

timal

fit w

ith B

onbr

ight

crit

eria

.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

9

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

E.

TS

R-L

ike

En

erg

y R

ate

(Slid

es 3

2 to

34

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 w

ork

sho

p P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Vite

rra

and

AM

PC

sug

gest

ed a

TS

R-li

ke r

ate

for

high

con

sum

ptio

n LG

S c

usto

mer

s

Rat

e m

ay h

ave

follo

win

g el

emen

ts b

ased

on

BC

Hyd

ro’s

exi

stin

g T

SR

– R

S 1

823:

A

vaila

ble

to la

rge

LGS

acc

ount

s

E

nerg

y R

ate

(F20

17)

– ill

ustr

ativ

e b

ased

on

RS

182

3 90

/10

split

and

rat

e ne

utra

l to

LGS

Fla

t en

ergy

rat

e:

5.

48 c

ents

/kW

h ap

plie

d to

all

kWh

up to

and

incl

udin

g 90

% o

f Cus

tom

er B

asel

ine

load

(C

BL)

in

each

bill

ing

year

10

.10

cent

s/kW

h ap

plie

d to

all

kWh

abov

e 90

% o

f cus

tom

er’s

CB

L in

eac

h bi

lling

yea

r

In

itial

ann

ual C

BL

dete

rmin

ed b

y hi

stor

ic b

asel

ine

year

(s)

A

llow

able

adj

ustm

ents

for

DS

M, p

lant

cap

acity

incr

ease

s an

d fo

rce

maj

eure

A

nnua

l CB

L ap

prov

ed e

ach

year

by

BC

UC

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

The

CE

C w

ould

sug

gest

that

if B

C H

ydro

is g

oing

to p

ursu

e th

is it

be

an o

ptio

n an

d th

at it

be

cons

ider

ed in

Mod

ule

2. T

here

are

som

e

cons

eque

nces

of t

his

appr

oach

that

cou

ld b

e

inap

prop

riate

for s

ome

cust

omer

s an

d th

e co

sts

of th

e pr

oces

s ar

e lik

ely

not j

ustif

ied.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

10

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

A.

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Op

tio

nal

Rat

es (

Sid

es 5

6 to

62

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p 1

1B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

1.

Vo

lun

tary

Tim

e o

f U

se R

ates

B

C H

ydro

has

no

pla

n to

pro

ceed

dev

elop

ing

this

opt

ion

at th

is ti

me

for

reas

ons

set o

ut in

se

ctio

n 6.

1 of

Wor

ksho

p 8A

/8B

Con

side

ratio

n M

emo

2.

Inte

rup

tib

le R

ates

B

C H

ydro

pro

pose

s to

ass

ess

this

opt

ion

as p

art o

f RD

A M

odul

e 2

, afte

r de

faul

t GS

rat

es

dete

rmin

ed

3.

Eff

icie

ncy

Rat

e C

red

it c

on

cep

t

B

C H

ydro

pro

pose

s to

ass

ess

this

opt

ion

as p

art o

f RD

A M

odul

e 2,

afte

r de

faul

t GS

rat

es

dete

rmin

ed

4.

Dem

and

Ch

arg

e O

pti

on

s

B

C H

ydro

pro

pose

s to

ass

ess

thes

e op

tions

as

part

of R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter

defa

ult G

S r

ates

de

term

ined

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

he

abo

ve p

rop

osa

ls, a

nd

als

o o

n p

relim

inar

y co

mm

ents

on

o

pti

on

s id

enti

fied

to

dat

e, a

nd

if t

her

e ar

e an

y o

ther

GS

rat

e o

pti

on

s B

C H

ydro

sh

ou

ld c

on

sid

er.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

The

CE

C e

xpec

ts th

at G

S o

ptio

ns 2

,3 &

4 w

ill b

e

appr

opria

te a

nd u

sefu

l and

exp

ects

to fu

lly

parti

cipa

te in

thei

r dev

elop

men

t. Th

e C

EC

has

sugg

este

d t h

at a

s a

mat

ter o

f fai

rnes

s fre

shet

rate

con

side

ratio

ns s

houl

d be

ava

ilabl

e fo

r GS

optio

ns a

s w

ell.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

11

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

B.

Oth

er Is

sues

(S

lides

64

to 6

6 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

1.

Min

imu

m C

har

ges

(D

eman

d R

atch

et)

Exi

stin

g m

inim

um c

harg

e is

bas

ed o

n 50

% o

f pea

k m

onth

ly d

eman

d re

gist

ered

in m

ost r

ecen

t win

ter

perio

d (N

ovem

ber

to M

arch

)

Rat

chet

was

red

uced

from

75

% to

50%

effe

ctiv

e A

pril

1, 1

980

Bas

ed o

n F

14 d

ata:

M

GS

min

imum

cha

rges

: app

roxi

mat

ely

$135

,000

on

tota

l rev

enue

of a

ppro

xim

atel

y $3

29 m

illio

n (0

.4%

)

LG

S m

inim

um c

harg

es: a

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

.6 m

illio

n on

abo

ut $

764

mill

ion,

exc

ludi

ng r

ate

rider

(0

.2%

)

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

he

curr

ent

Dem

and

Rat

chet

. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in

the

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

The

CE

C e

xpec

ts th

at th

e de

man

d ra

tche

t is

an

unne

cess

ary

com

plic

atio

n w

hich

may

be

appr

opria

tely

han

dled

in d

eman

d ch

arge

allo

catio

n ap

proa

ches

.

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

12

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

2.

Tra

nsf

orm

er O

wn

ersh

ip D

isco

un

t (T

OD

) an

d T

ran

sfo

rmer

Ren

tals

T

OD

rat

e is

$0.

25 p

er m

onth

per

kW

of b

illin

g de

man

d if

cust

omer

sup

plie

s tr

ansf

orm

atio

n fr

om p

rimar

y po

tent

ial t

o se

cond

ary

pote

ntia

l

La

st r

evie

w o

f $0.

25 /m

onth

dis

coun

t was

com

plet

ed in

Aug

ust

2004

BC

Hyd

ro p

rop

ose

s to

eva

luat

e T

OD

in c

on

jun

ctio

n w

ith

Dis

trib

uti

on

Ext

ensi

on

Po

licy

as p

art

of

RD

A M

od

ule

2, a

nd

is s

eeki

ng

fee

db

ack

on

th

is r

eco

mm

end

ed a

pp

roac

h. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

F20

15 R

DA

to fi

rst s

et th

e R

esid

entia

l def

ault

rate

, and

to c

onsi

der

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f an

EV

rat

e af

ter

the

2015

RD

A M

odul

e 1

deci

sion

.

Des

ign

Con

side

ratio

ns:

• A

t-ho

me

char

ging

(R

esid

entia

l)

• B

asis

on

whi

ch to

det

erm

ine

cost

of s

ervi

ce a

nd lo

ad im

plic

atio

ns f

or p

ricin

g –

diffe

rent

pat

tern

of

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

(bat

tery

sto

rage

of e

lect

ric p

ower

)

• M

echa

nism

to e

nfor

ce o

ff -pe

ak c

harg

ing

– tim

e va

ryin

g co

mpo

nent

(T

ime

of U

se; p

rice

diffe

rent

ial

is a

n is

sue;

ado

pt C

alifo

rnia

‘sup

er

off -

peak

’ con

cept

to e

ncou

rage

late

nig

ht to

ear

ly m

orni

ng

char

ging

?

• R

equi

rem

ent o

f a s

epar

ate

met

er?

• In

tera

ctio

n w

ith R

IB?

• O

ther

?

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k o

n r

ate

des

ign

co

nsi

der

atio

ns

pre

sen

ted

ab

ove

an

d t

he

tim

ing

of

any

futu

re E

V r

ate

pro

po

sal.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

The

CE

C w

ill lik

ely

supp

ort r

evie

win

g ex

tens

ion

polic

y as

par

t of M

odul

e 2

and

wou

ld li

kely

be

satis

fied

to re

view

TO

D a

nd T

R a

t ath

at ti

me.

Th

e C

EC

will

likel

y su

ppor

t re v

iew

ing

EV

pol

icy

and

rate

des

ign

in M

odul

e 2.

The

use

of E

V is

lik

ely

very

sm

all

curre

ntly

and

not

like

ly to

ch

ange

sig

nific

antly

ove

r a y

ear o

r so.

The

refo

re

EV

pol

icy

and

rate

s ca

n ap

prop

riate

ly b

e co

nsid

ered

in M

odul

e 2.

All

of th

e co

nsid

erat

ions

no

ted

war

rant

atte

ntio

n at

that

tim

e.

Add

ition

al C

omm

ents

:

(CEC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

13

CO

NSE

NT

TO U

SE P

ERSO

NAL

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

I con

sent

to th

e us

e of

my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

by B

C H

ydro

for t

he p

urpo

ses

of k

e epi

ng m

e up

date

d ab

out t

he 2

015

RD

A. F

or

purp

oses

of t

he a

bove

, my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

incl

udes

opi

nion

s, n

ame,

mai

ling

addr

ess,

pho

ne n

umbe

r and

em

ail a

ddre

ss a

s pe

r th

e in

form

atio

n I p

rovi

de.

Sign

atur

e:__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Dat

e: _

Augu

st 1

4, 2

015 _

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

Than

k yo

u fo

r you

r com

men

ts.

Com

men

ts s

ubm

itted

will

be u

sed

to in

form

the

RD

A Sc

ope

and

Eng

agem

ent p

roce

ss, i

nclu

ding

dis

cuss

ions

with

Gov

ernm

ent,

and

will

form

par

t of t

he o

ffici

al re

cord

of t

he R

DA.

You

can

retu

rn c

ompl

eted

feed

back

form

s by

:

Mai

l: BC

Hyd

ro, B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up –

“Atte

ntio

n 20

15 R

DA”

, 16th

Flo

or, 3

33 D

unsm

uir S

t. Va

n. B

.C. V

6B-5

R3

Fax

num

ber:

604-

623-

4407

– “A

ttent

ion

2015

RD

A”

Emai

l: bc

hydr

oreg

ulat

oryg

roup

@bc

hydr

o.co

m

Form

ava

ilabl

e on

Web

: http

://w

ww

.bch

ydro

.com

/abo

ut/p

lann

ing_

regu

lato

ry/re

gula

tory

.htm

l

Any

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

you

prov

ide

to B

C H

ydro

on

this

form

is c

olle

cted

and

pro

tect

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Fre

ed

om

of

Info

rmati

on

an

d

Pro

tecti

on

of

Pri

vac

y A

ct .

BC H

ydro

is c

olle

ctin

g in

form

atio

n w

ith t h

is fo

r the

pur

pose

of t

he 2

015

RD

A in

acc

orda

nce

with

BC

Hyd

ro’s

man

date

un

der t

he H

yd

ro a

nd

Po

wer

Au

tho

rity

Act ,

the

BC H

ydro

Tar

iff, t

he U

tiliti

es

Co

mm

issio

n A

ct a

nd re

late

d R

egul

atio

ns a

nd D

irect

ions

. If y

ou

have

any

que

stio

ns a

bout

the

colle

ctio

n or

use

of t

he p

erso

nal i

nfor

mat

ion

colle

cted

on

this

form

ple

ase

cont

act t

he B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up

via

emai

l at:

bchy

dror

egul

ator

ygro

up@

bchy

dro.

com

(CEC)







1

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

N

ame/

Org

aniz

atio

n :

C

omm

ents

(Ple

ase

do n

ot id

entif

y th

ird-p

arty

indi

vidu

als

in

your

com

men

ts. C

omm

ents

bea

ring

refe

renc

es to

iden

tifia

ble

indi

vidu

als

will

be

disc

arde

d du

e to

priv

acy

conc

erns

).

Wo

rksh

op

11A

: S

eg

men

tati

on

, S

GS

an

d M

GS

A. C

ost

of

Ser

vice

An

alys

is:

Seg

men

tati

on

Met

ho

do

log

y ( S

lides

17

to 2

1 o

f Ju

ne

25, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

11A

Pre

sen

tati

on

) . B

C H

ydro

dis

cuss

ed t

wo

met

ho

ds

of

seg

men

tati

on

:

Met

hod

1:

BC

Hyd

ro to

ok s

ampl

es o

f 1, 0

00 c

usto

mer

s fr

om e

ach

of S

GS

, MG

S a

nd L

GS

cla

sses

;

F16

For

ecas

t cos

ts a

ssig

ned

to G

S r

ate

clas

ses

pool

ed a

nd r

e-al

loca

ted

pro

rata

by

indi

vidu

al

cust

omer

kW

h, 4

Coi

ncid

ent P

eak

(CP

) de

man

d, a

nd N

on-C

oinc

iden

t Pea

k (N

CP

) de

man

d.

Res

ults

of m

etho

d 1

not c

oncl

usiv

e:

NC

P a

lloca

tion

varie

s de

pend

ing

on c

oinc

iden

ce w

ithin

cla

sses

.

Coi

ncid

ence

is b

ette

r co

rrel

ated

with

cos

t tha

n cu

stom

er s

ize.

Tra

nsfo

rmer

cos

t may

var

y w

ith s

ize

but c

ost i

mpa

ct is

sm

all.

Met

hod

2:

Con

side

r co

st a

lloca

tion

base

d on

pre

-ass

igne

d se

gmen

ts o

f cus

tom

ers .

Cus

tom

ers

will

be

grou

ped

by s

ize

as o

ppos

ed to

eva

luat

ed in

divi

dual

ly –

to b

e re

view

ed a

t Jul

y 30

, 201

5 w

rap-

up

wor

ksho

p.

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k o

n w

hat

oth

er a

nal

ysis

of

seg

men

tati

on

sh

ou

ld b

e co

nd

uct

ed. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

No

com

men

t.

No

(FNEMC)

2015

Ra t

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

2

Wo

rksh

op

11A

: S

eg

men

tati

on

, S

GS

an

d M

GS

B.

SG

S –

SG

S B

asi c

Ch

arg

e (S

lides

22

to 2

7 o

f Ju

ne

25,

2015

Wo

rksh

op

11A

P

rese

nta

tio

n)

BC

Hyd

r o w

as a

sked

to m

odel

incr

easi

ng th

e S

GS

bas

ic c

harg

e to

a le

vel c

omp a

rabl

e to

t he

Res

ide n

tial B

asic

Cha

rge

cost

rec

over

y, fr

om th

e cu

rren

t 35%

leve

l to

45%

.

Res

u lts

:

Incr

easi

ng S

GS

bas

ic c

harg

e to

45%

of c

ost r

ecov

ery

is c

lose

r to

full

fixed

cos

t rec

over

y

Res

u ltin

g en

ergy

rat

e re

mai

ns w

ithin

the

LRM

C a

nd w

ithou

t sub

stan

tial b

ill im

pact

s

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er B

C H

ydro

sh

ou

ld in

crea

se t

he

SG

S b

asic

ch

arg

e co

st

reco

very

co

mp

ara b

le t

o R

esi d

enti

al B

asic

Ch

arg

e co

st r

eco

very

. Ple

a se

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

FN

EM

C s

uppo

rts

incr

easi

ng th

e S

GS

bas

ic c

harg

e to

be

com

para

ble

to

the

RIB

rat

e B

asic

Cha

rge

cost

rec

over

y an

d th

eref

ore

clos

er to

full

fixed

co

st r

ecov

ery

with

out s

ubst

atio

nal b

ill im

pact

s.

(FNEMC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

3

Wo

rksh

op

11A

: S

eg

men

tati

on

, S

GS

an

d M

GS

C.

MG

S D

eman

d C

har

ges

1.

BC

Hyd

r o p

res e

nted

thre

e al

tern

ativ

es fo

r de

man

d ch

arge

s:

i. S

tat u

s Q

uo

ii.

Alte

r nat

ive

A -

fla

t dem

and

char

ge +

flat

ene

rgy

rate

iii.

Alte

r nat

ive

B –

two

step

de m

and

char

ge +

flat

ene

rgy

rate

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

thre

e d

eman

d c

har

ge

stru

ctu

re a

lte r

nat

ives

is

pre

ferr

e d (

wit

h r

easo

ns)

. Ple

a se

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

en

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

2.

Sta

k eho

lder

s re

ques

ted

BC

Hyd

r o m

ode l

incr

ease

d M

GS

dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery;

BC

Hyd

r o m

odel

e d in

cre a

sing

the

MG

S d

eman

d co

st r

ecov

ery

of f l

at d

eman

d fr

om a

ppro

xim

atel

y 15

% to

35%

for

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e/F

lat D

eman

d C

harg

e A

ltern

ativ

e

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

he

MG

S d

eman

d c

har

ge

cost

rec

ove

ry s

ho

uld

be

incr

ease

d, a

nd

if s

o t

o w

hat

leve

l (w

ith

rea

son

s). P

lea s

e p

rovi

de

c om

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

3.

BC

Hyd

r o c

ons i

dere

d T

rans

ition

Str

ateg

ies

for

mov

ing

to a

flat

ene

rgy

rate

, an

d fla

t dem

and

char

ge:

thre

e-ye

ar p

hase

–in

10%

bill

impa

ct C

ap

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

two

hig

h-l

eve l

alt

ern

ativ

e M

GS

rat

e tr

ansi

tio

n

stra

t eg

ies

is p

refe

rred

(w

ith

rea

son

s). P

lea s

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

MG

S D

eman

d C

har

ges

FN

EM

C s

uppo

rts

Alt

e rn

ativ

e B

(tw

o st

ep d

eman

d ch

arge

+ fl

at e

nerg

y ra

te).

Giv

en th

e ev

alua

tion

resu

lts, t

he s

tatu

s qu

o en

ergy

rat

e st

ruct

ure,

is

po o

rly u

nder

stoo

d an

d do

es n

ot p

rovi

de a

cle

ar p

rice

sign

al fo

r co

nser

vatio

n. T

he tw

o st

ep d

eman

d ch

arge

is n

ot s

ubst

antia

lly d

iffer

ent

than

the

SQ

sin

ce fe

w M

GS

cus

tom

ers

have

dem

and

char

ges

at T

3;

how

e ver

, the

bill

impa

ct a

naly

sis

of th

e tw

o st

ep d

eman

d in

com

paris

on

to t h

e fla

t dem

and

char

ge in

dica

tes

that

mor

e cu

stom

ers

wou

ld b

e be

tter

off.

In a

dditi

on, F

NE

MC

sup

port

s tie

red

dem

and

char

ges

to e

ncou

rage

co

nser

vatio

n be

havi

our.

MG

S D

eman

d C

har

ge

Co

st R

eco

very

FN

EM

C s

uppo

rts

incr

easi

ng th

e M

GS

dem

and

cost

rec

over

y to

be

clos

er to

full

fixed

cos

t rec

over

y an

d m

ore

cons

iste

nt w

ith o

ther

cus

tom

er

rate

cla

sses

.

Tra

nsi

tio

n S

trat

egie

s

FN

EM

C s

uppo

rts

the

3-ye

ar p

hase

-in T

ran s

ition

Str

ateg

y ra

ther

than

the

10%

bill

impa

ct C

ap p

has e

-in s

ince

the

estim

ated

tran

sitio

n tim

e is

ove

r 15

yea

rs.

Sin

ce s

mal

l con

sum

ptio

n, lo

w lo

ad fa

ctor

cus

tom

ers

may

be

the

mos

t affe

cted

by

t he

3-ye

ar p

hase

-in, s

u gge

st B

C H

ydro

offe

r so

me

mea

s ure

of r

ate

relie

f for

har

dshi

p on

a c

ase

-by-

case

bas

is.

(FNEMC)

2015

Ra t

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

4

Cap

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: L

GS

Rate

Str

uctu

re

A.

Pre

ferr

ed L

GS

Rat

e S

tru

ctu

re (

Slid

es 9

to

54

of

Wo

rks h

op

11B

Pre

sen

tat i

on

)

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g s

tak e

ho

lder

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

fou

r en

erg

y ra

te s

tru

ctu

re

alte

rnat

ives

an

d t

he

thre

e d

eman

d c

har

ge

stru

ctu

re a

lter

nat

ives

are

pre

ferr

ed, a

nd

wh

y. P

lea s

e p

rovi

de

a ny

com

men

ts y

ou

hav

e in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

En

erg

y ra

te a

lter

nat

ives

:

1.

Sta

t us

Quo

LG

S E

ner g

y ra

te (

reta

in b

asel

ine)

2.

Sim

pli fy

ene

rgy

rate

str

uctu

re (

ret a

in b

asel

ine)

:

A.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1 E

n erg

y R

ate

B.

Con

s ide

r m

odify

Bas

e lin

e R

ate

Pro

visi

ons:

i. D

ete r

min

atio

n of

bas

elin

es (

mon

thly

ver

sus

annu

al v

ersu

s ro

lling

ave

rage

, et

c.)

ii.

Pric

e lim

it ba

nds

(PLB

s) to

add

ress

con

cern

s th

at r

ates

are

‘pun

it ive

to

grow

ing

cust

omer

s’, a

nd/o

r to

enc

oura

ge fu

rthe

r co

nser

vatio

n

iii.

Gro

wt h

rul

es to

mak

e le

ss r

estr

ictiv

e

iv.

New

acc

ount

rul

es

3.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e (r

emov

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

)

4.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e fo

r m

ajor

ity o

f LG

S c

usto

mer

s an

d cr

eate

TS

R-li

ke r

ate

with

in

divi

dua l

ly a

dmin

iste

red

base

lines

for

segm

ent o

f ver

y la

rge

LGS

cus

tom

ers

Dem

a nd

Ch

arg

e al

tern

ativ

es:

1.

Sta

t us

quo

incl

inin

g th

ree-

step

dem

and

char

ge

2.

Fla

t de m

and

char

ge

3.

Tw

o-st

ep d

eman

d ch

arge

FN

EM

C d

oes

not h

ave

any

pref

erre

d LG

S e

ner g

y ra

te o

r de

man

d ch

arge

alte

rnat

ives

, at t

his

time.

(FNEMC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

5

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: L

GS

Rate

Str

uctu

re

B.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1

En

erg

y R

ate

(Slid

e 16

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Fla

t Pa r

t 1 e

n erg

y ra

te w

ould

be

nom

inal

sim

plifi

catio

n, a

s P

art

1 co

nsum

ptio

n th

resh

old

of

14,8

00 k

Wh/

mon

th is

not

mat

eria

l to

mos

t LG

S c

usto

mer

s:

Mor

e cu

stom

ers

bette

r of

f tha

n w

orse

off,

hig

her

cons

umin

g cu

stom

ers

have

mor

e ad

vers

e bi

ll im

pact

s

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n t

o f

latt

en P

art

En

erg

y R

ate.

Ple

a se

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

e nts

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

C.

Bas

eli n

e R

ate

Pro

visi

on

s

(i)

Bas

e lin

e d

eter

min

atio

n (

slid

e 1

7 o

f 26

Ju

ne

Wo

rksh

op

11B

pre

sen

tati

on

)

BC

Hyd

r o c

onsi

dere

d ba

selin

e de

term

inat

ion

on a

nnua

l bas

is v

ersu

s m

onth

ly

base

line

calc

ulat

ion,

and

Con

s ide

red

dete

rmin

ing

one-

year

and

five

-yea

r ro

lling

ave

rage

bas

elin

es, v

ersu

s st

atus

quo

det

erm

inat

ion

of th

ree

–yea

r ro

lling

ave

rage

mon

thly

bas

elin

es

Ann

ual b

asel

ine

coul

d cr

eate

cas

h flo

w b

urde

n fo

r m

any

cust

omer

s at

yea

r en

d. f

ive-

year

rol

ling

aver

age

base

lines

will

furt

her

incr

ease

the

com

plex

ity o

f the

rat

e; o

ne-y

ear

base

lines

cou

ld c

ause

bi

ll in

s tab

ility

as

unus

ual c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

cann

ot b

e le

velle

d in

bas

elin

es.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed, B

C H

ydro

wo

uld

rec

om

men

d n

o c

han

ge

to s

tatu

s q

uo

th

ree-

year

ro

llin

g a

vera

ge

mo

nth

ly b

asel

ine

and

see

ks f

urt

her

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

s in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

(ii)

Pri

ce B

and

Li m

it (

PL

Bs)

(S

lides

18

to 1

9 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nt a

tio

n)

PLB

lim

its c

usto

mer

’s e

xpos

ure

to P

art 2

LR

MC

ene

rgy

rate

with

in a

ran

ge o

f 80%

of h

isto

ric

base

line

(HB

L) to

120

% o

f HB

P (

+/-

20%

) . B

C H

ydr o

mod

elle

d de

crea

sing

the

PLB

(i.e

. +/-

10%

) an

d in

crea

sing

the

PB

L (i.

e. +

/-30

%)

BC

Hyd

r o c

ontin

ues

to b

elie

ve th

ere

are

no c

hang

es to

PLB

s th

at w

ould

impr

ove

perf

orm

ance

of

stat

us q

uo L

GS

Ene

rgy

rate

in r

espe

ct o

f con

serv

atio

n or

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

and

ac

cept

ance

, and

is s

eeki

ng fu

rthe

r fe

edba

ck.

If t

he

bas

e lin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

he

PL

B s

ho

ud

be

mo

dif

i ed

an

d i f

so

,ho

w. P

lea s

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

ns

e in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1

En

erg

y R

ate

FN

EM

C s

uppo

rts

flatte

ning

the

Par

t 1 E

nerg

y R

ate

for

the

reas

ons

BC

H

ydr o

has

iden

tifie

d, s

peci

fical

ly:

- N

omin

a l s

impl

ifica

tion

as P

art 1

con

sum

ptio

n th

resh

old

of

14,8

00 k

Wh/

mon

th is

not

mat

eria

l to

mos

t LG

S c

usto

mer

s

- M

ore

cust

omer

s ar

e be

tter

off t

han

wor

se o

ff

Bas

e lin

e R

ate

Pro

visi

on

s

FN

EM

C h

as n

o co

mm

ent o

n B

asel

ine

Rat

e P

rovi

sion

s.

(FNEMC)

2015

Ra t

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

6

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: L

GS

Rate

Str

uctu

re

(iii)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

– F

orm

ula

ic G

row

th R

ate

(FG

R)

(Slid

es 2

0 to

21

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

t ati

on

)

The

Cu s

tom

er H

BLs

for

the

upco

min

g 12

-mon

t h p

erio

d w

ill b

e re

-det

e rm

ined

by

BC

Hyd

r o b

ased

on

the

two

mos

t rec

ent y

ears

of c

onsu

mpt

ion

hist

ory

if th

e C

usto

mer

exp

erie

nces

sig

nific

ant g

row

th i.

e.,

follo

win

g a

year

(Y

3) in

whi

ch e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n ex

ceed

ed p

revi

ous

year

’s (

Y2)

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

by a

t lea

st: (

i) 30

%, o

r (ii

) 4,

000,

000

kWh.

Bill

ana

lysi

s sh

owed

24%

of a

ccou

nts

that

qua

lifie

d fo

r F

GR

in F

2015

end

ed u

p ha

ving

hig

her

bills

with

th

e ba

selin

e ad

just

men

t. F

utur

e bi

lls a

re u

npre

dict

able

due

to m

ultip

le v

aria

bles

invo

lved

in b

illin

g –

past

, cur

rent

and

futu

re c

ons

umpt

ion.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e F

GR

pro

visi

on

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

lea s

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

Sho

u ld

BC

Hyd

ro m

aint

ain

the

base

line

stru

ctur

e, F

NE

MC

sup

port

s th

at

the

FG

R p

rovi

sion

be

mod

ified

or

rem

oved

bas

ed u

pon

the

anal

ysis

pr

esen

ted

from

BC

Hyd

ro a

nd c

usto

mer

feed

back

.

(iv)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

- A

no

mal

y R

ule

(S

lides

22

to

23

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BLs

, ano

mal

ousl

y lo

w c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

from

pre

viou

s ye

ars

are

excl

uded

:

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BL

for

a pa

rtic

ular

mon

th, c

onsu

mpt

ion

in a

his

toric

al m

onth

that

is le

ss th

an h

alf

the

cons

umpt

ion

in th

e ne

xt lo

wes

t mon

th o

f all

mon

ths

othe

rwis

e us

ed fo

r ca

lcul

atio

n w

ould

be

excl

uded

Up

t o fo

ur H

BLs

can

be

adju

sted

per

BC

H’s

fisc

al y

ear

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e A

nom

aly

Rul

e

Cus

t om

ers

will

alw

ays

end

up w

ith h

ighe

r ba

selin

es; h

owev

er, h

ighe

r ba

selin

es s

omet

imes

cre

ate

high

er b

ills

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e A

no

mal

y R

ule

pro

visi

on

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

lea s

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

ns e

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t

Sho

u ld

BC

Hyd

ro m

aint

ain

the

base

line

stru

ctur

e, F

NE

MC

sup

port

s th

at

the

Ano

mal

y R

ule

be m

odifi

ed o

r re

mov

ed b

ased

upo

n th

e an

alys

is

pres

ente

d fr

om B

C H

ydro

.

(FNEMC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

7

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: L

GS

Rate

Str

uctu

re

(v)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

– P

rosp

ect i

ve G

row

th R

ule

(T

S82

) (S

lides

24

to 2

5 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Cus

t om

ers

who

ant

icip

ate

‘sig

nif ic

ant’,

‘per

man

ent’

incr

ease

s in

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

may

app

ly to

B

C H

ydr o

for

mod

ified

pric

ing

und

e r T

S 8

2 th

at m

ay r

educ

e th

eir

ener

gy c

osts

. Sig

nific

ant m

eans

a

pros

pect

ive

first

yea

r an

nual

incr

ease

in e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n to

talin

g at

leas

t 30%

or

4,00

0,00

0 kW

h ab

ove

the

hist

oric

al th

ree

-yea

r av

erag

e an

nual

con

sum

ptio

n. P

erm

anen

t mea

ns a

risin

g fr

om a

si

gnifi

c ant

cap

ital i

nves

tmen

t.

Ver

y fe

w c

usto

mer

s ha

ve a

pplie

d du

e to

hig

h th

resh

olds

Cus

t om

ers

with

low

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

mig

ht m

eet t

he 3

0% th

resh

old

but

may

not

ben

efit

from

the

mod

if ied

pric

ing

stru

ctur

e

Hig

h a d

min

istr

ativ

e co

st to

BC

Hyd

r o

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e P

ros p

ecti

ve G

row

th R

ule

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

lea s

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

ns e

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t

Sho

u ld

BC

Hyd

ro m

aint

ain

the

base

line

stru

ctur

e, F

NE

MC

sup

port

s th

at

the

Pro

spec

tive

Gro

wth

Rul

e (T

S82

) be

mod

ified

or

rem

oved

bas

ed

upon

the

anal

ysis

pre

sent

ed fr

om B

C H

ydro

and

cus

tom

er fe

edba

ck.

(vi)

New

Acc

ou

nts

(85

/15)

(S

li des

26

to 2

7 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

85/1

5 ap

plie

s w

hen

a ne

w a

ccou

nt is

set

up

in B

C H

ydr o

’s b

illin

g sy

stem

, reg

ardl

ess

of

whe

t her

ther

e w

ere

chan

ges

in c

usto

mer

s’ o

pera

tion

Firs

t 85%

of e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed in

a m

onth

ly b

illin

g pe

riod

is c

harg

ed a

t the

Par

t 1 r

a te.

Las

t 15

% o

f ene

rgy

cons

umed

in a

mon

thly

bill

ing

perio

d is

cha

rged

Par

t 2

LRM

C r

ate

Est

a blis

hed

to p

reve

nt c

usto

mer

s fr

om ‘g

amin

g’ b

y op

enin

g ne

w a

ccou

nts

to r

eset

bas

elin

es

BC

Hyd

r o fo

und

no e

vide

nce

of “

gam

ing”

in th

e LG

S T

hree

-Yea

r R

epor

t. C

usto

mer

s ra

ised

co

ncer

ns th

at 8

5/15

rat

e un

fairl

y pe

naliz

es c

usto

mer

s w

ho h

ave

no c

hang

e in

ope

ratio

ns d

urin

g ac

coun

t ow

ners

hip

tran

sfer

s.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro w

ou

ld r

eco

mm

end

ap

ply

ing

100

% P

art

1 ra

t es

for

new

acc

ou

nts

, an

d is

see

kin

g f

urt

her

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k. P

lea s

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

Sho

u ld

BC

Hyd

ro m

aint

ain

the

base

line

stru

ctur

e, F

NE

MC

sup

port

s th

at

the

New

Acc

ount

s (8

5/15

) be

mod

ified

or

rem

oved

bas

ed u

pon

the

anal

y sis

pre

sent

ed fr

om B

C H

ydro

and

cus

tom

er fe

edba

ck.

(FNEMC)

2015

Ra t

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

8

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: L

GS

Rate

Str

uctu

re

D.

LG

S F

lat

En

e rg

y R

ate

(No

Bas

elin

e) (

Slid

es 2

9 t

o 3

0, J

un

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

Op

tio

n:

Fla

tten

LG

S E

ner

gy

rate

fo

r al

l co

nsu

mp

tio

n le

vels

Pro

s :

Elim

ina t

es a

ll co

mpl

exity

from

bas

elin

e co

mpo

nent

of s

tatu

s qu

o LG

S e

nerg

y ra

te

Eas

ier

and

mor

e ac

cura

te c

usto

mer

fore

cast

ing

Impr

oved

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

Alig

n s w

ith o

ther

Cdn

. Jur

isdi

ctio

ns

Con

s :

Ene

r gy

rate

is w

ell b

elow

low

er e

nd o

f ene

rgy

LRM

C

Obs

erva

tions

:

Littl

e to

no

bill

impa

cts

resu

lting

sol

ely

from

rem

oval

of b

asel

ine,

as

dem

onst

rate

d in

W

ork s

hop

8b

The

re a

re b

ill im

pact

s fr

om fl

atte

ning

Par

t 1 E

n erg

y ra

tes;

typi

cal c

usto

mer

s be

tter

off

No

c han

ge in

con

serv

atio

n –

zero

fore

cast

for

plan

ning

pur

pose

s

BC

Hyd

ro i s

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n. P

lea s

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o

the

rig

ht .

FN

EM

C d

oes

not h

ave

any

pref

erre

d LG

S e

ner g

y ra

te a

t thi

s tim

e.

(FNEMC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

9

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: L

GS

Rate

Str

uctu

re

E.

TS

R-L

ike

En

erg

y R

ate

(Slid

es 3

2 to

34

of

Jun

e 26

, 20

15 w

ork

sho

p P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Vite

rra

and

AM

PC

sug

gest

ed a

TS

R-li

ke r

ate

for

high

con

sum

ptio

n LG

S c

usto

mer

s

Rat

e m

ay h

ave

follo

win

g el

emen

ts b

ase d

on

BC

Hyd

r o’s

exi

stin

g T

SR

– R

S 1

823:

Ava

il abl

e to

larg

e LG

S a

ccou

nts

Ene

r gy

Rat

e (F

2017

) –

illus

trat

ive

base

d on

RS

182

3 90

/10

split

and

rat

e ne

utra

l to

LGS

Fla

t en

ergy

rat

e:

5.48

cen

t s/k

Wh

appl

ied

to a

ll kW

h up

to a

nd in

clud

ing

90%

of C

usto

mer

Bas

elin

e lo

ad (

CB

L) in

ea

ch b

illin

g ye

ar

10.1

0 ce

nts/

kWh

appl

ied

to a

ll kW

h ab

ove

90%

of c

usto

mer

’s C

BL

in e

ach

billi

ng y

ear

Initi

al a

nnua

l CB

L de

term

ined

by

hist

oric

bas

elin

e ye

ar(s

)

Allo

wab

le a

djus

tmen

ts fo

r D

SM

, pla

nt c

apac

ity in

crea

ses

and

forc

e m

ajeu

re

Ann

ual C

BL

appr

oved

eac

h ye

ar b

y B

CU

C

BC

Hyd

ro i s

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n. P

lea s

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o

the

rig

ht .

FN

EM

C is

su p

port

ive

of a

“T

SR

-like

” en

ergy

rat

e th

at th

at w

ould

en

cour

age

con

s erv

atio

n an

d cu

stom

er D

SM

initi

ativ

es a

nd th

eref

ore

wou

ld s

uppo

rt B

C H

ydro

inve

stig

atin

g fu

rthe

r an

d en

terin

g in

to c

usto

mer

di

scu s

sion

s as

wel

l as

unde

rtak

ing

furt

her

anal

ysis

.

(FNEMC)

2015

Ra t

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

10

Wo

rks h

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

A.

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Op

tio

nal

Rat

es (

Sid

es 5

6 to

62

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p 1

1B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

1.

Vo

lun

tary

Tim

e o

f U

se R

ates

BC

Hyd

r o h

as n

o pl

an to

pro

ceed

dev

elop

ing

this

opt

ion

at th

is ti

me

for

reas

ons

set o

ut in

se

ctio

n 6.

1 of

Wor

ksho

p 8

A/8

B C

onsi

dera

tion

Mem

o

2.

Inte

rup

t ib

le R

ates

BC

Hyd

r o p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

is o

ptio

n as

par

t of R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter

defa

ult G

S r

ates

de

term

ined

3.

Eff

i cie

ncy

Rat

e C

red

it c

on

cep

t

BC

Hyd

r o p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

is o

ptio

n as

par

t of R

DA

Mod

u le

2, a

fter

defa

ult G

S r

ates

de

term

ined

4.

Dem

a nd

Ch

arg

e O

pti

on

s

BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

ese

optio

ns a

s pa

rt o

f RD

A M

odu l

e 2,

afte

r de

faul

t GS

rat

es

dete

rmin

ed

BC

Hyd

ro i s

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

he

abo

ve p

rop

osa

ls, a

nd

als

o o

n p

relim

inar

y co

mm

ents

on

o

pti

on

s i d

enti

fied

to

dat

e, a

nd

if t

her

e ar

e an

y o

ther

GS

rat

e o

pti

on

s B

C H

ydro

sh

ou

ld c

on

sid

er.

Ple

a se

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

In a

dditi

on to

the

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Opt

iona

l Rat

es B

C H

ydr o

pre

s ent

ed,

FN

EM

C s

ugge

sts

BC

Hyd

ro a

lso

cons

ider

Fre

shet

Ene

rgy

Sal

es

depe

ndin

g up

on th

e e

xpe r

ienc

e of

the

TS

R p

ilot p

rogr

am.

(FNEMC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

11

Wo

rks h

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

B.

Oth

er I s

sues

(S

lid

es 6

4 to

66

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

1.

Min

imu

m C

har

ges

(D

eman

d R

atch

et)

Exi

stin

g m

inim

um c

harg

e is

bas

ed o

n 50

% o

f pea

k m

onth

ly d

eman

d re

gist

ered

in m

ost r

ecen

t win

ter

perio

d (N

ovem

ber

to M

arch

)

Rat

c het

was

red

uce

d fr

om 7

5% to

50%

effe

ctiv

e A

pril

1, 1

980

Bas

e d o

n F

14 d

ata:

MG

S m

inim

um c

harg

es: a

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

35,0

00 o

n to

tal r

even

ue o

f app

roxi

mat

ely

$329

mill

ion

(0.4

%)

LGS

min

imum

cha

rges

: app

roxi

mat

ely

$1.6

mill

ion

on a

bout

$76

4 m

illio

n, e

xclu

ding

rat

e rid

er

(0.2

%)

BC

Hyd

ro i s

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

he

curr

ent

Dem

and

Rat

chet

. Ple

a se

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

l um

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

FN

EM

C s

upp o

rts

BC

Hyd

ro m

akin

g ad

just

men

ts to

the

Dem

and

Rat

chet

su

ch th

at c

onsi

sten

cy is

mai

ntai

ned

betw

een

the

rate

cla

sses

.

(FNEMC)

2015

Ra t

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

12

Wo

rks h

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

2.

Tra

nsf

orm

e r O

wn

ersh

ip D

isco

un

t (T

OD

) an

d T

ran

sfo

rmer

Ren

tals

TO

D r

a te

is $

0.25

per

mon

t h p

er k

W o

f bill

ing

dem

and

if cu

stom

er s

uppl

ies

tran

sfor

mat

ion

from

prim

ary

pote

ntia

l to

seco

ndar

y po

tent

ial

Last

rev

iew

of $

0.25

/mon

th d

isco

unt w

as c

ompl

eted

in A

ugus

t 20

04

BC

Hyd

ro p

rop

ose

s to

eva

luat

e T

OD

in c

on

jun

ctio

n w

ith

Dis

trib

uti

on

Ext

ensi

on

Po

licy

as p

art

of

RD

A M

od

ule

2, a

nd

is s

eeki

ng

fee

db

ack

on

th

is r

eco

mm

end

ed a

pp

roac

h.

Ple

a se

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

s e in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

F20

15 R

DA

to fi

rst s

et th

e R

esid

entia

l def

ault

rate

, and

to

cons

ider

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f an

EV

rat

e af

ter

the

2015

RD

A M

odul

e 1

deci

sion

.

Des

ign

Con

side

ratio

ns:

• A

t-ho

me

char

ging

(R

esid

entia

l)

• B

asis

on

whi

ch to

det

erm

ine

cost

of s

ervi

ce a

nd lo

ad im

plic

atio

ns fo

r pr

icin

g –

diffe

rent

pat

tern

of

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

(bat

tery

sto

rage

of e

lect

ric p

ower

)

• M

ech a

nism

to e

nfor

ce o

ff-pe

ak c

harg

ing

– tim

e va

ryin

g co

mpo

nent

(T

ime

of U

se; p

rice

diffe

rent

ial

is a

n is

sue;

ado

pt C

alifo

rnia

‘sup

er o

ff-pe

ak’ c

once

pt to

enc

oura

ge la

te n

ight

to e

arly

mor

ning

ch

argi

ng?

• R

equ i

rem

ent o

f a s

epar

ate

met

er?

• In

tera

ctio

n w

ith R

IB?

• O

ther

?

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k o

n r

ate

des

ign

co

nsi

der

atio

ns

pre

sen

ted

ab

ove

an

d t

he

tim

i ng

of

any

fu

ture

EV

rat

e p

rop

osa

l. P

lea s

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

FN

EM

C s

uppo

rts

the

eval

uatio

n of

TO

D in

con

junc

tion

with

Dis

trib

utio

n E

xte n

sion

Pol

icy

as p

art o

f the

RD

A M

odul

e 2.

How

e ver

, the

re is

co

ncer

n as

to t h

e ex

tent

and

div

ersi

ty o

f iss

ues

that

are

bei

ng a

ddre

ssed

as

par

t of M

odul

e 2

and

may

be B

C H

ydro

mig

ht c

ons i

der

a M

odul

e 3

or

alte

r nat

e pr

oces

s.

FN

EM

C s

uppo

rts

BC

Hyd

ro d

evel

opin

g an

EV

Rat

e to

impr

ove

sust

aina

bilit

y in

BC

’s tr

ansp

orta

tion

sect

or.

Add

i tion

al C

omm

ents

:

FN

EM

C s

ubm

its th

ese

com

men

ts to

BC

Hyd

ro o

n a

with

out p

reju

dice

bas

is.

(FNEMC)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

13

CO

NS E

NT

TO U

SE P

ERSO

NAL

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

I co n

sent

to th

e us

e of

my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

by B

C H

ydr o

for t

he p

urpo

ses

of k

eepi

n g m

e up

date

d ab

out t

he 2

015

RD

A. F

or

purp

oses

of t

he a

bove

, my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

incl

udes

opi

nion

s, n

ame,

mai

ling

addr

ess,

pho

ne n

umbe

r and

em

ail a

ddre

ss a

s pe

r th

e in

form

atio

n I p

rovi

de.

Sig

n atu

re:_

___ _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

D

ate :

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

_ Th

ank

you

for y

our c

omm

ents

.

Com

men

ts s

ubm

itted

will

be u

sed

to in

form

the

RD

A S

cope

and

Eng

agem

ent p

roce

ss, i

nclu

ding

dis

c uss

ions

with

Gov

ernm

ent,

and

will

form

par

t of t

he o

ffici

al re

cord

of t

he R

DA

.

You

can

retu

rn c

ompl

eted

feed

back

form

s by

:

Mai

l : B

C H

ydr o

, BC

Hyd

r o R

egul

ator

y G

roup

– “A

tt ent

ion

2015

RD

A” ,

16th F

loo r

, 333

Dun

smui

r St.

Van

. B.C

. V6B

-5R

3

Fax

num

ber:

604-

623-

4407

– “A

tt ent

ion

2015

RD

A”

Em

ail:

bchy

dror

egul

ator

ygro

up@

bchy

dro.

com

Form

ava

ilabl

e on

Web

: http

://w

ww

.bch

ydro

.com

/abo

ut/p

lann

ing_

regu

lato

ry/re

gula

tory

.htm

l

Any

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

you

prov

ide

to B

C H

ydro

on

this

form

is c

olle

cted

and

pro

tect

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Fre

ed

om

of

Info

rma

tio

n a

nd

P

rot e

cti

on

of

Pri

va

cy

Ac

t. BC

Hyd

ro is

col

lect

ing

info

rmat

ion

with

this

for t

he p

urpo

se o

f the

201

5 R

DA

in a

cco r

danc

e w

ith B

C H

ydro

’s m

and a

te

unde

r the

Hyd

ro a

nd

Po

we

r A

uth

ori

ty A

ct,

the

BC H

ydro

Tar

i ff, t

he U

tilit i

es

Co

mm

iss

ion

Ac

t and

rela

ted

Reg

ulat

ions

and

Dire

ctio

ns. I

f you

ha

ve a

ny q

uest

ions

abo

ut th

e co

llect

ion

or u

se o

f the

per

sona

l inf

orm

atio

n co

llect

ed o

n th

is fo

rm p

leas

e co

ntac

t the

BC

Hyd

ro R

egul

a tor

y G

roup

vi

a em

ail a

t: bc

hydr

oreg

ulat

oryg

roup

@bc

hydr

o.co

m

(FNEMC)







1

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

N

ame/

Org

aniz

atio

n:

C

omm

ents

(Ple

ase

do n

ot id

entif

y th

ird-p

arty

indi

vidu

als

in

your

com

men

ts. C

omm

ents

bea

ring

refe

renc

es to

iden

tifia

ble

indi

vidu

als

will

be

disc

arde

d du

e to

priv

acy

conc

erns

).

Wor

ksho

p 11

A: S

egm

enta

tion,

SG

S an

d M

GS

A.

Cost

of S

ervic

e Ana

lysis:

Seg

men

tatio

n Me

thod

olog

y (Sl

ides

17 to

21 o

f Ju

ne 25

, 201

5 Wor

ksho

p 11

A Pr

esen

tatio

n). B

C Hy

dro

disc

usse

d tw

o m

etho

ds o

f se

gmen

tatio

n:

Metho

d 1:

BC H

ydro

took

sam

ples o

f 1,0

00 cu

stome

rs fr

om e

ach o

f SGS

, MGS

and

LGS

class

es;

F16 F

orec

ast c

osts

assig

ned

to GS

rate

class

es po

oled a

nd re

-allo

cate

d pro

rata

by in

dividu

al cu

stome

r kW

h, 4 C

oincid

ent P

eak (

CP) d

eman

d, an

d Non

-Coin

ciden

t Pea

k (NC

P) de

mand

. Re

sults

of m

ethod

1 no

t con

clusiv

e:

≠ NC

P all

ocati

on va

ries d

epen

ding o

n co

incide

nce w

ithin

class

es.

≠ Co

incide

nce

is be

tter c

orre

lated

with

cost

than c

ustom

er si

ze.

≠ Tr

ansfo

rmer

cost

may

vary

with

size

but c

ost im

pact

is sm

all.

Metho

d 2:

Cons

ider c

ost a

lloca

tion

base

d on

pre-

assig

ned s

egm

ents

of cu

stome

rs. C

ustom

ers w

ill be

gr

oupe

d by

size

as o

ppos

ed to

evalu

ated i

ndivi

duall

y – to

be re

viewe

d at

July

30, 2

015 w

rap-

up

works

hop.

BC H

ydro

seek

s sta

keho

lder

feed

back

on

what

oth

er an

alysis

of s

egm

enta

tion

shou

ld b

e co

nduc

ted.

Plea

se p

rovid

e any

com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

Whi

le th

e coi

ncid

ence

fact

or is

bet

ter c

orre

lated

with

dem

and

cost

th

an cu

stom

er si

ze, c

usto

mer

serv

ice si

ze is

bet

ter c

orre

lated

with

se

rvice

capi

tal c

ost a

nd O

MA co

st.

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n Ap

plic

atio

n (R

DA)

–

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

2

Wor

ksho

p 11

A: S

egm

enta

tion,

SG

S an

d M

GS

B.

SGS

–SGS

Bas

ic Ch

arge

(Slid

es 22

to 27

of J

une 2

5, 20

15 W

orks

hop

11A

Pres

enta

tion)

BC H

ydro

was

aske

d to m

odel

incre

asing

the

SGS

basic

char

ge to

a lev

el co

mpar

able

to th

e Re

siden

tial B

asic

Char

ge co

st re

cove

ry, fr

om th

e cur

rent

35%

leve

l to 4

5%.

Resu

lts:

≠ Inc

reas

ing S

GS ba

sic ch

arge

to 4

5% of

cost

reco

very

is cl

oser

to fu

ll fixe

d cos

t rec

over

y

≠ Re

sultin

g ene

rgy r

ate r

emain

s with

in the

LRM

C an

d with

out s

ubsta

ntial

bill im

pacts

BC H

ydro

seek

s fee

dbac

k on

whet

her B

C Hy

dro

shou

ld in

crea

se th

e SGS

bas

ic ch

arge

cost

re

cove

ry co

mpa

rabl

e to

Resid

entia

l Bas

ic Ch

arge

cost

reco

very

. Plea

se p

rovid

e any

com

men

ts

in th

e col

umn

to th

e rig

ht.

The

SGS

basi

c ch

arge

sho

uld

be th

e sa

me

as

the

Res

iden

tial B

asic

Cha

rge

for s

ingl

e ph

ase,

24

0VAC

ser

vice

s th

at a

re n

ot g

reat

er th

an 2

00A

. A

bove

200

A a

n ex

tra

dem

and

char

ge s

houl

d ap

ply.

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n Ap

plic

atio

n (R

DA)

–

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

3

Wor

ksho

p 11

A: S

egm

enta

tion,

SG

S an

d M

GS

C.

MGS

Dem

and

Char

ges

1. BC

Hyd

ro pr

esen

ted th

ree a

ltern

ative

s for

dem

and c

harg

es:

i. St

atus Q

uo

ii. Al

terna

tive A

- fla

t dem

and c

harg

e + fla

t ene

rgy r

ate

iii.

Alter

nativ

e B –

two s

tep d

eman

d ch

arge

+ fla

t ene

rgy r

ate

BC H

ydro

seek

s fee

dbac

k on

which

of t

he th

ree d

eman

d ch

arge

stru

ctur

e alte

rnat

ives i

s pr

efer

red

(with

reas

ons)

. Plea

se p

rovid

e any

com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

. 2.

Stak

ehold

ers r

eque

sted

BC H

ydro

mod

el inc

reas

ed M

GS de

mand

char

ge co

st re

cove

ry;

BC H

ydro

mod

eled i

ncre

asing

the

MGS

dema

nd co

st re

cove

ry of

flat d

eman

d fro

m a p

prox

imat

ely

15%

to 35

% fo

r Flat

Ene

rgy R

ate/F

lat D

eman

d Cha

rge A

ltern

ative

BC H

ydro

seek

s fee

dbac

k on

whet

her

the M

GS d

eman

d ch

arge

cost

reco

very

shou

ld b

e in

crea

sed,

and

if so

to w

hat l

evel

(with

reas

ons)

. Plea

se p

rovid

e com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

the

right

. 3.

BC H

ydro

cons

idere

d Tra

nsitio

n Stra

tegies

for m

oving

to a

flat e

nerg

y rate

, and

flat d

eman

d ch

arge

:

≠ thr

ee-ye

ar ph

ase–

in

≠ 10

% bi

ll imp

act C

ap

BC H

ydro

seek

s fee

dbac

k on

whi

ch o

f the

two

high

-leve

l alte

rnat

ive M

GS ra

te tr

ansit

ion

stra

tegi

es is

pre

ferre

d (w

ith re

ason

s). P

lease

pro

vide a

ny co

mm

ents

in th

e col

umn

to th

e rig

ht.

I sup

port

the

flat d

eman

d an

d en

ergy

ove

r a

3 ye

ar p

hase

-in.

The

PF

shou

ld b

e m

aint

aine

d ab

ove

0.95

. The

incr

ease

in th

e de

man

d ch

arge

shou

ld b

e su

ffic

ient

to fu

lly r

ecov

er th

e co

sts.

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

4

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

A.

Pref

erre

d LG

S Ra

te S

truct

ure (

Slid

es 9

to 54

of W

orks

hop

11B

Pres

enta

tion)

BC

Hyd

ro is

seek

ing

stak

ehol

der f

eedb

ack o

n wh

ich o

f the

four

ener

gy ra

te st

ruct

ure

alter

nativ

es an

d th

e thr

ee d

eman

d ch

arge

stru

ctur

e alte

rnat

ives a

re p

refe

rred,

and

why.

Plea

se

prov

ide a

ny co

mm

ents

you

have

in th

e col

umn

to th

e rig

ht.

Ener

gy ra

te al

tern

ative

s:

1. St

atus Q

uo LG

S En

ergy

rate

(reta

in ba

selin

e)

2. Si

mplify

ener

gy ra

te str

uctur

e (re

tain b

aseli

ne):

A.

Flatte

n Par

t 1 E

nerg

y Rate

B.

Cons

ider m

odify

Bas

eline

Rate

Pro

vision

s:

i. De

termi

natio

n of

base

lines

(mon

thly v

ersu

s ann

ual v

ersu

s roll

ing a

vera

ge,

etc.)

ii. Pr

ice lim

it ban

ds (P

LBs)

to ad

dres

s con

cern

s tha

t rate

s are

‘pun

itive t

o gr

owing

custo

mers

’, and

/or to

enc

oura

ge fu

rther

cons

erva

tion

iii.

Grow

th ru

les to

mak

e les

s res

trictiv

e

iv.

New

acco

unt r

ules

3. LG

S Fla

t Ene

rgy R

ate (r

emov

e ba

selin

e stru

cture

)

4. LG

S Fla

t Ene

rgy R

ate fo

r majo

rity o

f LGS

custo

mers

and c

reate

TSR

-like r

ate w

ith

indivi

duall

y adm

iniste

red

base

lines

for s

egme

nt of

very

larg

e LGS

custo

mers

De

man

d Ch

arge

alte

rnat

ives:

1.

Statu

s quo

incli

ning

three

-step

dem

and c

harg

e

2. Fla

t dem

and

char

ge

3. Tw

o-ste

p dem

and c

harg

e

For

the

maj

ority

of L

GS

cust

omer

s, I s

uppo

rt a

LG

S Fl

at

Ene

rgy

Rat

e an

d a

flat d

eman

d ch

arge

bas

ed o

n th

e m

axim

um a

nnua

l dem

and

with

the

cave

at th

at th

e PF

be

mai

ntai

ned

abov

e 0.

95.

For

the

very

larg

e L

GS

cust

omer

s, I s

uppo

rt th

e cr

eatio

n of

a

TSR

-like

rat

e w

ith o

r w

ithou

t bas

elin

es a

nd w

ith th

e ca

veat

th

at th

e PF

be

mai

ntai

ned

abov

e 0.

95.

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

5

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

B.

Flat

ten

Part

1 Ene

rgy R

ate (

Slid

e 16

of J

une 2

6, 20

15 W

orks

hop

Pres

enta

tion)

Fla

t Par

t 1 e

nerg

y rate

wou

ld be

nomi

nal s

impli

ficati

on, a

s Par

t 1 co

nsum

ption

thre

shold

of

14,80

0 kW

h/mon

th is

not m

ateria

l to m

ost L

GS cu

stome

rs:

≠ Mo

re cu

stome

rs be

tter o

ff tha

n wor

se o

ff, hig

her c

onsu

ming

custo

mers

have

mor

e ad

verse

bil

l impa

cts

BC H

ydro

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

is op

tion

to fl

atte

n Pa

rt En

ergy

Rat

e. Pl

ease

pro

vide a

ny

com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

C.

Base

line R

ate P

rovis

ions

(i)

Ba

selin

e det

erm

inat

ion

(slid

e 17 o

f 26 J

une W

orks

hop

11B

pres

enta

tion)

≠ BC

Hyd

ro co

nside

red b

aseli

ne d

eterm

inatio

n on

annu

al ba

sis v

ersu

s mon

thly

base

line

calcu

lation

, and

≠ Co

nside

red d

eter

minin

g on

e-ye

ar an

d five

-year

rollin

g ave

rage

base

lines

, ver

sus

status

quo

deter

mina

tion

of thr

ee–y

ear r

olling

ave

rage

mon

thly b

aseli

nes

Annu

al ba

selin

e co

uld cr

eate

cash

flow

burd

en fo

r man

y cus

tomer

s at y

ear e

nd. fi

ve-ye

ar ro

lling

aver

age b

aseli

nes w

ill fur

ther

incre

ase t

he co

mplex

ity of

the r

ate; o

ne- y

ear b

aseli

nes c

ould

caus

e bil

l insta

bility

as u

nusu

al co

nsum

ption

mon

ths ca

nnot

be le

velle

d in b

aseli

nes.

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o wo

uld

reco

mm

end

no ch

ange

to st

atus

quo

th

ree-

year

rollin

g av

erag

e mon

thly

base

line a

nd se

eks f

urth

er st

akeh

olde

r fee

dbac

k. Pl

ease

ex

plain

your

resp

onse

s in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

. (ii

) Pr

ice B

and

Lim

it (P

LBs)

(Slid

es 18

to 19

of W

orks

hop

11B

Pres

enta

tion)

PLB

limits

custo

mer’s

expo

sure

to P

art 2

LRMC

ener

gy ra

te w

ithin

a ran

ge of

80%

of hi

storic

ba

selin

e (HB

L) to

120%

of H

BP (+

/- 20

%).

BC H

ydro

mod

elled

dec

reas

ing th

e PLB

(i.e.

+/- 1

0%)

and i

ncre

asing

the P

BL (i

.e. +

/-30%

)

BC H

ydro

cont

inues

to b

eliev

e the

re ar

e no

chan

ges t

o PLB

s tha

t wou

ld im

prov

e pe

rform

ance

of

status

quo

LGS

Ener

gy ra

te in

resp

ect o

f con

serv

ation

or cu

stome

r und

ersta

nding

and

acce

ptanc

e, an

d is s

eekin

g fur

ther

feed

back

.

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o se

eks f

eedb

ack o

n wh

ethe

r the

PLB

shou

d be

m

odifi

ed an

d if

so,h

ow. P

lease

expl

ain yo

ur re

spon

se in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

Flat

ten

the

ener

gy r

ate

for

cust

omer

s who

con

sum

e le

ss th

an

14 M

Wh/

mon

th.

As t

he b

asel

ine

caus

es u

nnec

essa

ry c

ompl

icat

ions

for

thos

e w

ho c

onsu

me

less

than

14

MW

h/m

onth

, a fl

at r

ate

sim

ilar

to

RS

1827

is p

refe

rred

.

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

6

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

(iii)

Grow

th M

itiga

tion

– For

mul

aic G

rowt

h Ra

te (F

GR) (

Slid

es 20

to 21

of

Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

The C

ustom

er H

BLs f

or th

e up

comi

ng 12

-mon

th pe

riod

will b

e re-

deter

mine

d by

BC

Hydr

o ba

sed o

n the

two m

ost r

ecen

t yea

rs of

cons

umpt

ion h

istor

y if t

he C

ustom

er e

xper

ience

s sign

ifican

t gro

wth

i.e.,

follow

ing a

year

(Y3)

in w

hich e

nerg

y con

sump

tion e

xcee

ded

prev

ious y

ear’s

(Y2)

ener

gy co

nsum

ption

by

at le

ast: (

i) 30%

, or (

ii) 4,0

00,00

0 kW

h.

Bill a

nalys

is sh

owed

24%

of ac

coun

ts th

at qu

alifie

d for

FGR

in F

2015

end

ed u

p hav

ing hi

gher

bills

with

the

base

line a

djustm

ent. F

uture

bills

are u

npre

dictab

le du

e to

mult

iple

varia

bles i

nvolv

ed in

billi

ng –

pa

st, cu

rrent

and f

uture

cons

umpt

ion.

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o se

eks f

eedb

ack o

n wh

ethe

r the

re sh

ould

be

mod

ifcat

ions

to o

r rem

oval

of th

e FGR

pro

visio

n an

d if

so, w

hat.

Plea

se ex

plain

your

resp

onse

in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

No

base

line.

(iv)

Grow

th M

itiga

tion-

Ano

maly

Rul

e (Sl

ides

22 to

23 o

f Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

In ca

lculat

ing H

BLs,

anom

alous

ly low

cons

umpti

on m

onths

from

prev

ious y

ears

are e

xclud

ed:

≠ In

calcu

lating

HBL

for a

par

ticula

r mon

th, co

nsum

ption

in a

histo

rical

month

that

is les

s tha

n ha

lf the

cons

umpti

on in

the n

ext lo

west

month

of a

ll mon

ths ot

herw

ise u

sed f

or ca

lculat

ion w

ould

be

exclu

ded

≠ Up

to fo

ur H

BLs c

an b

e adju

sted p

er B

CH’s

fisca

l yea

r in a

ccor

danc

e wi

th the

Ano

maly

Rule

≠ Cu

stome

rs w

ill alw

ays e

nd up

with

high

er ba

selin

es; h

owev

er, h

igher

bas

eline

s som

etime

s cre

ate

highe

r bills

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o se

eks f

eedb

ack o

n wh

ethe

r the

re sh

ould

be

mod

ifcat

ions

to o

r rem

oval

of th

e Ano

maly

Rul

e pr

ovisi

on an

d if

so, w

hat.

Plea

se ex

plain

your

re

spon

se in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

No

base

line.

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

7

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

(v)

Grow

th M

itiga

tion

– Pro

spec

tive G

rowt

h Ru

le (T

S82)

(Slid

es 24

to 25

of

Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

Custo

mers

who

antic

ipate

‘sign

ifican

t’, ‘pe

rman

ent’ i

ncre

ases

in en

ergy

cons

umpti

on m

ay ap

ply to

BC

Hyd

ro fo

r mod

ified p

ricing

und

er T

S 82

tha

t may

redu

ce th

eir e

nerg

y cos

ts. S

ignific

ant m

eans

a pr

ospe

ctive

first

year

annu

al inc

reas

e in

ener

gy co

nsum

ption

total

ing a

t leas

t 30%

or 4,

000,0

00 kW

h ab

ove

the h

istor

ical th

ree-

year

ave

rage

annu

al co

nsum

ption

. Per

mane

nt me

ans a

rising

from

a

signif

icant

capit

al inv

estm

ent.

≠ Ve

ry few

custo

mer

s hav

e ap

plied

due

to hi

gh th

resh

olds

≠ Cu

stome

rs w

ith lo

wer c

onsu

mpti

on m

ight m

eet th

e 30%

thre

shold

but m

ay n

ot be

nefit

from

the

modif

ied pr

icing

stru

cture

≠ Hi

gh ad

mini

strati

ve co

st to

BC

Hydr

o

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o se

eks f

eedb

ack o

n wh

ethe

r the

re sh

ould

be

mod

ifcat

ions

to o

r rem

oval

of th

e Pro

spec

tive G

rowt

h Ru

le an

d if

so, w

hat.

Plea

se ex

plain

your

re

spon

se in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

No

base

line.

(vi)

New

Acco

unts

(85/1

5) (S

lides

26 to

27 o

f Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

≠ 85

/15 a

pplie

s whe

n a n

ew ac

coun

t is se

t up i

n BC

Hydr

o’s b

illing

syste

m, re

gard

less o

f wh

ether

ther

e wer

e cha

nges

in cu

stom

ers’

oper

ation

≠ Fir

st 85

% of

ener

gy co

nsum

ed in

a mo

nthly

billin

g per

iod is

char

ged

at th

e Par

t 1 ra

te. L

ast

15%

of en

ergy

cons

umed

in a

mon

thly b

illing

perio

d is

char

ged P

art 2

LRM

C ra

te

≠ Es

tablis

hed t

o pre

vent

custo

mer

s fro

m ‘ga

ming

’ by o

penin

g ne

w ac

coun

ts to

rese

t bas

eline

s

BC H

ydro

foun

d no

evid

ence

of “

gami

ng” i

n the

LGS

Thre

e-Ye

ar R

epor

t. Cus

tomer

s rais

ed

conc

erns

that

85/15

rate

unfa

irly pe

naliz

es cu

stome

rs w

ho h

ave

no ch

ange

in op

erati

ons d

uring

ac

coun

t own

ersh

ip tra

nsfer

s.

If th

e bas

eline

stru

ctur

e is m

ainta

ined

, BC

Hydr

o wo

uld

reco

mm

end

appl

ying

100%

Par

t 1 ra

tes

for n

ew ac

coun

ts, a

nd is

seek

ing

furth

er st

akeh

olde

r fee

dbac

k. Pl

ease

pro

vide a

ny co

mm

ents

in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

No

base

line.

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

8

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

D.

LGS

Flat

Ene

rgy R

ate (

No B

aseli

ne) (

Slid

es 29

to 30

, Jun

e 26,

2015

Wor

ksho

p Pr

esen

tatio

n)

Optio

n: F

latte

n LG

S En

ergy

rate

for a

ll con

sum

ptio

n lev

els

Pros

:

≠ El

imina

tes a

ll com

plexit

y fro

m ba

selin

e co

mpo

nent

of sta

tus qu

o LGS

ener

gy ra

te

≠ Ea

sier a

nd m

ore a

ccur

ate c

ustom

er fo

reca

sting

≠ Im

prov

ed cu

stome

r und

ersta

nding

≠ Al

igns w

ith ot

her C

dn. J

urisd

iction

s

Cons

:

≠ En

ergy

rate

is w

ell b

elow

lower

end

of e

nerg

y LRM

C

Obse

rvatio

ns:

≠ Lit

tle to

no b

ill im

pacts

resu

lting s

olely

from

remo

val o

f bas

eline

, as d

emon

strat

ed in

W

orks

hop 8

b

≠ Th

ere a

re b

ill im

pacts

from

flatte

ning

Part

1 Ene

rgy r

ates

; typic

al cu

stome

rs be

tter o

ff

≠ No

chan

ge in

cons

erva

tion

– zer

o for

ecas

t for p

lannin

g pur

pose

s BC

Hyd

ro is

seek

ing

feed

back

on

this

optio

n. P

lease

pro

vide a

ny co

mm

ents

in th

e col

umn

to

the r

ight

.

Flat

ten

LGS

Ener

gy ra

te fo

r all c

onsu

mpt

ion

levels

up

to 14

MW

h co

nsum

ptio

n.

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

9

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: L

GS

Rat

e St

ruct

ure

E.

TSR-

Like

Ene

rgy R

ate (

Slid

es 32

to 34

of J

une 2

6, 20

15 w

orks

hop

Pres

enta

tion)

Vi

terra

and

AMPC

sugg

este

d a T

SR-lik

e rat

e for

high

cons

umpt

ion L

GS cu

stome

rs

Rate

may h

ave f

ollow

ing e

lemen

ts ba

sed o

n BC

Hydr

o’s ex

isting

TSR

– R

S 18

23:

≠ Av

ailab

le to

larg

e LGS

acco

unts

≠ En

ergy

Rate

(F20

17) –

illus

trativ

e bas

ed o

n RS

1823

90/1

0 spli

t and

rate

neut

ral to

LGS

Flat

ener

gy ra

te:

≠ 5.4

8 cen

ts/kW

h app

lied t

o all

kWh u

p to a

nd in

cludin

g 90%

of C

ustom

er B

aseli

ne lo

ad (C

BL) in

ea

ch b

illing

year

≠ 10

.10 ce

nts/k

Wh

appli

ed to

all k

Wh

abov

e 90%

of cu

stome

r’s C

BL in

eac

h billi

ng ye

ar

≠ Ini

tial a

nnua

l CBL

dete

rmine

d by

hist

oric

base

line

year

(s)

≠ Al

lowab

le ad

justm

ents

for D

SM, p

lant c

apac

ity in

creas

es a

nd fo

rce m

ajeur

e

≠ An

nual

CBL a

ppro

ved e

ach

year

by B

CUC

BC H

ydro

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

is op

tion.

Plea

se p

rovid

e any

com

men

ts in

the c

olum

n to

th

e rig

ht.

TSR-

Like

Ene

rgy R

ate f

or th

ose t

hat c

onsu

me

mor

e tha

n 14

MW

h.

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n Ap

plic

atio

n (R

DA)

–

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

10

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: O

ptio

nal R

ates

and

Othe

r Iss

ues

A.

Gene

ral S

ervic

e Opt

iona

l Rat

es (S

ides

56 to

62 o

f Jun

e 26,

2015

Wor

ksho

p 11

B Pr

esen

tatio

n)

1. Vo

lunt

ary T

ime o

f Use

Rat

es

≠ BC

Hyd

ro ha

s no p

lan to

pro

ceed

dev

elopin

g this

optio

n at

this t

ime f

or re

ason

s set

out in

se

ction

6.1 o

f Wor

ksho

p 8A/

8B C

onsid

erati

on M

emo

2. In

teru

ptib

le Ra

tes

≠ BC

Hyd

ro pr

opos

es to

asse

ss th

is op

tion

as p

art o

f RDA

Mod

ule 2,

afte

r defa

ult G

S ra

tes

deter

mine

d

3. Ef

ficien

cy R

ate C

redi

t con

cept

≠ BC

Hyd

ro pr

opos

es to

asse

ss th

is op

tion

as p

art o

f RDA

Mod

ule 2,

afte

r defa

ult G

S ra

tes

deter

mine

d

4. De

man

d Ch

arge

Opt

ions

≠ BC

Hyd

ro pr

opos

es to

asse

ss th

ese

optio

ns a

s par

t of R

DA M

odule

2, af

ter de

fault

GS

rate

s de

termi

ned

BC H

ydro

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

e abo

ve p

ropo

sals,

and

also

on p

relim

inar

y com

men

ts o

n op

tions

iden

tified

to d

ate,

and

if th

ere a

re an

y oth

er G

S ra

te o

ptio

ns B

C Hy

dro

shou

ld co

nsid

er.

Plea

se ex

plain

your

resp

onse

in th

e col

umn

to th

e rig

ht.

No

Com

men

t

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n Ap

plic

atio

n (R

DA)

–

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

11

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: O

ptio

nal R

ates

and

Othe

r Iss

ues

B.

Othe

r Iss

ues (

Slid

es 64

to 66

of W

orks

hop

11B

Pres

enta

tion)

1.

Mini

mum

Cha

rges

(Dem

and

Ratc

het)

Exist

ing m

inim

um ch

arge

is b

ased

on 5

0% of

peak

mon

thly d

eman

d reg

ister

ed in

mos

t rec

ent w

inter

pe

riod (

Nove

mber

to M

arch

)

Ratch

et wa

s red

uced

from

75%

to 50

% ef

fectiv

e Apr

il 1, 1

980

Base

d on F

14 d

ata:

≠ MG

S mi

nimum

char

ges:

appr

oxim

ately

$135

,000 o

n tota

l reve

nue

of ap

prox

imate

ly $3

29 m

illion

(0

.4%)

≠ LG

S mi

nimum

char

ges:

appr

oxim

ately

$1.6

milli

on o

n abo

ut $7

64 m

illion

, exc

luding

rate

rider

(0

.2%)

BC H

ydro

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

e cur

rent

Dem

and

Ratc

het.

Plea

se ex

plain

your

resp

onse

in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

The m

inim

um ch

arge

is b

ased

on

50%

of p

eak m

onth

ly de

man

d re

gist

ered

in m

ost r

ecen

t win

ter p

erio

d (N

ovem

ber t

o Ma

rch)

. The

de

man

d ra

tche

t sho

uld

be se

t to

75%

of t

he an

nual

peak

dem

and

simila

r to

TSR.

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n Ap

plic

atio

n (R

DA)

–

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

12

Wor

ksho

p 11

B: O

ptio

nal R

ates

and

Othe

r Iss

ues

2. Tr

ansf

orm

er O

wner

ship

Disc

ount

(TOD

) and

Tra

nsfo

rmer

Ren

tals

≠ TO

D ra

te is

$0.2

5 per

mon

th pe

r kW

of b

illing

dem

and i

f cus

tomer

supp

lies

trans

forma

tion f

rom

prim

ary p

otenti

al to

seco

ndar

y pote

ntial

≠ La

st re

view

of $0

.25 /m

onth

disco

unt w

as co

mplet

ed in

Aug

ust 2

004

BC H

ydro

pro

pose

s to

evalu

ate T

OD in

conj

unct

ion

with

Dist

ribut

ion

Exte

nsio

n Po

licy a

s par

t of

RDA

Mod

ule 2

, and

is se

ekin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

is re

com

men

ded

appr

oach

. Plea

se ex

plain

your

re

spon

se in

the c

olum

n to

the r

ight

.

F201

5 RDA

to fir

st se

t the

Resid

entia

l def

ault r

ate, a

nd to

cons

ider t

he de

velop

men

t of a

n EV

rate

aft

er th

e 20

15 R

DA M

odule

1 de

cision

.

Desig

n Con

sider

ation

s:

• At

-hom

e cha

rging

(Res

ident

ial)

• Ba

sis o

n whic

h to

deter

mine

cost

of se

rvice

and

load

impli

catio

ns fo

r pric

ing –

diffe

rent

patte

rn of

en

ergy

cons

umpt

ion (b

atter

y sto

rage

of e

lectric

powe

r) •

Mech

anism

to e

nforc

e off-

peak

char

ging

– tim

e var

ying

comp

onen

t (Ti

me of

Use

; pric

e diffe

rent

ial

is an

issu

e; ad

opt C

alifor

nia ‘s

uper

off-

peak

’ con

cept

to en

cour

age l

ate ni

ght to

early

mor

ning

char

ging?

•

Requ

ireme

nt of

a sep

arate

mete

r?

• Int

erac

tion w

ith R

IB?

• Ot

her?

BC H

ydro

seek

s sta

keho

lder

feed

back

on

rate

des

ign

cons

ider

atio

ns p

rese

nted

abov

e and

the

timin

g of

any f

utur

e EV

rate

pro

posa

l. Plea

se ex

plain

your

resp

onse

in th

e col

umn

to th

e rig

ht.

Do n

ot su

ppor

t cha

nges

to T

rans

form

er O

wner

ship

Disc

ount

un

less c

ost r

ecov

ery i

s an

issue

. No

spec

ial co

nsid

erat

ion

shou

ld b

e give

n to

at h

ome E

V ch

argi

ng

othe

r tha

n TO

U ra

tes.

Add

ition

al C

omm

ents

:

(Donald Flintoff)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n Ap

plic

atio

n (R

DA)

–

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

13

CO

NSE

NT

TO U

SE P

ERSO

NA

L IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N

I con

sent

to th

e us

e of

my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

by B

C H

ydro

for t

he p

urpo

ses

of k

eepi

ng m

e up

date

d ab

out t

he 2

015

RD

A. F

or

purp

oses

of t

he a

bove

, my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

incl

udes

opi

nion

s, n

ame,

mai

ling

addr

ess,

pho

ne n

umbe

r and

em

ail a

ddre

ss a

s pe

r th

e in

form

atio

n I p

rovi

de.

Sign

atur

e:__

____

__D

onal

d Fl

into

ff__

____

____

____

____

___

Dat

e: _

_Aug

ust 1

2,20

15__

____

____

____

____

_ Th

ank

you

for y

our c

omm

ents

.

Com

men

ts s

ubm

itted

will

be

used

to in

form

the

RD

A S

cope

and

Eng

agem

ent p

roce

ss, i

nclu

ding

dis

cuss

ions

with

Gov

ernm

ent,

and

will

form

par

t of t

he o

ffici

al re

cord

of t

he R

DA.

You

can

retu

rn c

ompl

eted

feed

back

form

s by

:

Mai

l: BC

Hyd

ro, B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up –

“Atte

ntio

n 20

15 R

DA”

, 16th

Flo

or, 3

33 D

unsm

uir S

t. V

an. B

.C. V

6B-5

R3

Fax

num

ber:

604-

623-

4407

– “A

ttent

ion

2015

RD

A”

Emai

l: bc

hydr

oreg

ulat

oryg

roup

@bc

hydr

o.co

m

Form

ava

ilabl

e on

Web

: http

://w

ww

.bch

ydro

.com

/abo

ut/p

lann

ing_

regu

lato

ry/re

gula

tory

.htm

l

Any

per

sona

l inf

orm

atio

n yo

u pr

ovid

e to

BC

Hyd

ro o

n th

is fo

rm is

col

lect

ed a

nd p

rote

cted

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e Fr

eedo

m o

f Inf

orm

atio

n an

d Pr

otec

tion

of P

rivac

y A

ct. B

C H

ydro

is c

olle

ctin

g in

form

atio

n w

ith th

is fo

r the

pur

pose

of t

he 2

015

RD

A in

acc

orda

nce

with

BC

Hyd

ro’s

man

date

un

der t

he H

ydro

and

Pow

er A

utho

rity

Act

, the

BC

Hyd

ro T

ariff

, the

Util

ities

Com

mis

sion

Act

and

rela

ted

Reg

ulat

ions

and

Dire

ctio

ns. I

f you

ha

ve a

ny q

u est

ions

abo

ut th

e co

llect

ion

or u

se o

f the

per

sona

l inf

orm

atio

n co

llect

ed o

n th

is fo

rm p

leas

e co

ntac

t the

BC

Hyd

ro R

egul

ator

y G

roup

vi

a em

ail a

t: bc

hydr

oreg

ulat

oryg

roup

@bc

hydr

o.co

m

(Donald Flintoff)

BC Hydro Regulatory Group 16th Floor 333 Dunsmuir Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5R3

ATT: 2015 RDA

To Whom It May Concern,

2014 POWER SMARl

LEADER

July 9, 2015

ICbgdrOCI

powersmart

Thrifty Foods attended the recent Large General Service Rate Design Application Workshops and have reviewed the various proposed changes. We found the process very informative and transparent, and would like to offer the following comments;

In general we are in support of the current LGS rate structure. Since its implementation we have undertaken a rigorous program of energy conservation and have reduced the energy intensity at our stores by 20%. The current rate structure has allowed us to include the Part 2 savings in our business plans when considering energy conservation projects and this has often made the difference in whether to proceed by reducing the simple payback period by 25% or more.

Also, the ongoing Part 2 credits that result from the implementation of energy conservation projects serve to motivate both store management and our executive team to continue working toward further energy conservation savings. In this regard we are concerned that the removal of the Part 2 credit will reduce the savings that we anticipated when calculating the returns on our energy conservation investment. In fairness we feel that this must be considered before any changes are made to the current rate structure.

1

(Thrifty Foods)

Regarding the apparent lack overall of energy reduction within the LGS customer group, we wonder whether general growth has masked many of these savings. We have experienced this at some of our locations; however we realize that our energy conservation efforts have allowed us to avoid the penalty side of the equation. It would be interesting to study how companies that have implemented verified Power Smart projects have fared under this rate structure.

While we are in favour of the current rate structure we would like to suggest some possible improvements to the structure and to the current Power Smart Program in general;

1. Eliminate the Part 1, Tier 1 charge. It is insignificant and adds unnecessary complexity to the bill.

2. Simplify the bill and make it more readable - use it as an educational tool.

3. Make the Part 2 credits (and charges) more prominent. Celebrate the successes of those organizations that have received a credit and point out the costs to those that have received extra charges. In the case of large companies who are receiving electronic bills, there may be a need for special mailings or other forms of communication this message to the company decision makers.

4. Eliminate the 85/15 rule for new accounts that are simply undergoing a name change. This rule can be very punitive and undermines the spirit of energy conservation that BC Hydro is striving to foster.

5. Make Power Smart incentive appl ications simpler and less expensive for the consumer. Make incentive appl ications more prescriptive so that customers do not need to hire expensive consultants and endure long review periods in order to move forward with energy conservation measures.

6. Provide financial assistance to customers for on-site renewable energy. Thrifty Foods (and no doubt many other companies) are very interested in investing in on-site energy production technologies; however the costs are inhibiting our progress. We feel that British Columbia has fallen behind in this area, and that it is BC Hydro's responsibility to promote this technology by encouraging popular acceptance and thereby driving down costs

2

(Thrifty Foods)

Hiid Olllca 6649 Butler Crescen Saanlchton, BC V8M 1Z7 Tel: 250 <183 1600 Fax: 250 <183 1601 www.thrfftyfoods.c

In conclusion we would like to thank BC Hydro for the opportunity to be a part of this process and hope for a positive outcome. We have a long and strong business relationship with BC Hydro and hope to continue this relationship well into the future. Please feel free to contact me to discuss any of the issues brought forward in this letter.

Sincerely,

J rry Wyshnowsky Manager, Energy & Environment Thrifty Foods 100-6776 Oldfield Crescent Saanichton, BC V8M 2A3 [email protected]

3

(Thrifty Foods)

1

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

N

ame/

Org

aniz

atio

n :

Whi

stle

r Bla

ckco

mb

Com

men

ts (P

leas

e do

not

iden

tify

third

-par

ty in

divi

dual

s in

yo

ur c

omm

ents

. Com

men

ts b

earin

g re

fere

nces

to id

entif

iabl

e in

divi

dual

s w

ill b

e di

scar

ded

due

to p

rivac

y co

ncer

ns).

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

A. C

ost

of

Ser

vice

An

alys

is:

Seg

men

tati

on

Met

ho

do

log

y (S

lides

17

to 2

1 o

f Ju

ne

25, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

11A

Pre

sen

tati

on

). B

C H

ydro

dis

cuss

ed t

wo

met

ho

ds

of

seg

men

tati

on

:

Met

hod

1:

BC

Hyd

ro to

ok s

ampl

es o

f 1, 0

00 c

usto

mer

s fr

om e

ach

of S

GS

, MG

S a

nd L

GS

cla

sses

;

F16

For

ecas

t cos

ts a

ssig

ned

to G

S r

ate

clas

ses

pool

ed a

nd r

e -al

loca

ted

pro

rata

by

indi

vidu

al

cust

omer

kW

h, 4

Coi

ncid

ent P

eak

(CP

) de

man

d, a

nd N

on-C

oinc

iden

t Pea

k (N

CP

) de

man

d .

Res

ults

of m

etho

d 1

not c

oncl

usiv

e:

NC

P a

lloca

tion

varie

s de

pend

ing

on c

oinc

iden

ce w

ithin

cla

sse

s.

Coi

ncid

ence

is b

ette

r co

rrel

ated

with

cos

t tha

n cu

stom

er s

ize.

Tra

nsfo

rmer

cos

t may

var

y w

ith s

ize

but c

ost i

mpa

ct is

sm

all.

Met

hod

2:

Con

side

r co

st a

lloca

tion

base

d o

n pr

e -as

sign

ed s

egm

ents

of c

usto

mer

s . C

usto

mer

s w

ill b

e gr

oupe

d by

siz

e as

opp

osed

to e

valu

ated

indi

vidu

ally

– to

be

revi

ewed

at J

uly

30, 2

015

wra

p-up

w

orks

hop.

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k o

n w

hat

oth

er a

nal

ysis

of

seg

men

tati

on

sh

ou

ld b

e co

nd

uct

ed. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

Any

thin

g th

at m

akes

bill

calc

ulat

ions

and

fo

reca

stin

g ev

en m

ore

com

plic

ated

is n

ot

pref

erra

ble.

Ann

ual b

asel

ines

mig

ht b

e be

tter f

or W

hist

ler B

lack

com

b be

caus

e of

flu

ctua

tions

in s

now

mak

ing

prod

uctio

n in

w

inte

r mon

ths.

Met

hod

1 pr

efer

able

to

met

hod

2. E

limin

atio

n of

GS

rate

s pr

efer

able

ove

rall.

Ra t

es n

eed

to b

e si

mpl

ified

.

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

2

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

B.

SG

S –

SG

S B

asic

Ch

arg

e (S

lides

22

to 2

7 o

f Ju

ne

25, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

11A

P

rese

nta

tio

n)

BC

Hyd

ro w

as a

sked

to m

odel

incr

easi

ng th

e S

GS

bas

ic c

harg

e to

a le

vel c

ompa

rabl

e to

the

Res

iden

tial B

asic

Cha

rge

cost

rec

over

y, fr

om th

e cu

rren

t 35%

leve

l to

45%

.

Res

ults

:

Incr

easi

ng S

GS

bas

ic c

harg

e to

45%

of c

ost r

ecov

ery

is c

lose

r to

full

fixed

cos

t rec

over

y

Res

ultin

g en

ergy

rat

e re

mai

ns w

ithin

the

LRM

C a

nd w

ithou

t sub

stan

tial b

ill im

pact

s

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er B

C H

ydro

sh

ou

ld in

crea

se t

he

SG

S b

asic

ch

arg

e co

st

reco

very

co

mp

arab

le t

o R

esid

enti

al B

asic

Ch

arg

e co

st r

eco

very

. Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

45%

bas

ic c

harg

es th

at d

o no

t sho

w s

igni

fican

t bill

im

pact

s ar

e no

t an

issu

e fo

r us

on S

GS

acco

unts

. Ev

en o

n a

flat r

ate

for c

onsu

mpt

ion

beyo

nd th

e ba

sic

char

ge, o

ur c

onse

rvat

ion

effo

rts

will

be

refle

cted

in

savi

ngs

at th

ese

smal

ler l

ocat

ions

.

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

3

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1A

: S

eg

me

nta

tio

n, S

GS

an

d M

GS

C.

MG

S D

eman

d C

har

ges

1.

BC

Hyd

ro p

rese

nted

thre

e al

tern

ativ

es fo

r de

man

d ch

arge

s:

i. S

tatu

s Q

uo

ii.

Alte

rnat

ive

A -

flat

dem

and

char

ge +

flat

ene

rgy

rate

iii.

Alte

rnat

ive

B –

two

step

dem

and

char

ge +

flat

ene

rgy

rate

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

thre

e d

eman

d c

har

ge

stru

ctu

re a

lter

nat

ives

is

pre

ferr

ed (

wit

h r

easo

ns)

. Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

2.

Sta

keho

lder

s re

ques

ted

BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

incr

ease

d M

GS

dem

and

char

ge c

ost r

ecov

ery;

BC

Hyd

ro m

odel

ed in

crea

sing

the

MG

S d

eman

d co

st r

ecov

ery

of fl

at d

eman

d fr

om a

ppro

xim

atel

y 15

% to

35

% fo

r F

lat E

nerg

y R

ate/

Fla

t Dem

and

Cha

rge

Alte

rnat

ive

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

he

MG

S d

eman

d c

har

ge

cost

rec

ove

ry s

ho

uld

be

incr

ease

d, a

nd

if s

o t

o w

hat

leve

l (w

ith

re

aso

ns)

. Ple

ase

pro

vid

e co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

3.

BC

Hyd

ro c

onsi

dere

d T

rans

ition

Str

ateg

ies

for

mov

ing

to a

flat

ene

rgy

rate

, an

d fla

t dem

and

char

ge:

thre

e-ye

ar p

hase

–in

10%

bill

impa

ct C

ap

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

two

hig

h-l

evel

alt

ern

ativ

e M

GS

rat

e tr

ansi

tio

n

stra

teg

ies

is p

refe

rred

(w

ith

rea

son

s). P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

1.

Opt

ion

ii pr

efer

red.

To

sim

plify

rate

s fo

r fo

reca

stin

g of

ann

ual u

tiliti

es a

nd

oper

atio

nal/p

roje

ct c

osts

2.

In

crea

sing

cos

t rec

o ver

y in

MG

S is

pre

ferr

ed

to ta

ke b

urde

n fro

m L

GS

acco

unts

3.

10

% b

ill im

pact

cap

pre

ferr

ed fo

r sim

plic

ity

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

4

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

A.

Pre

ferr

ed L

GS

Rat

e S

tru

ctu

re (

Slid

es 9

to

54

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g s

take

ho

lder

fee

db

ack

on

wh

ich

of

the

fou

r en

erg

y ra

te s

tru

ctu

re

alte

rnat

ives

an

d t

he

thre

e d

eman

d c

har

ge

stru

ctu

re a

lter

nat

ives

are

pre

ferr

ed, a

nd

wh

y . P

lea

se

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

yo

u h

ave

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

En

erg

y ra

te a

lter

nat

ives

:

1.

Sta

tus

Quo

LG

S E

nerg

y ra

te (

reta

in b

asel

ine)

2.

Sim

plify

ene

rgy

rate

str

uctu

re (

reta

in b

asel

ine)

:

A.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1 E

nerg

y R

ate

B.

Con

side

r m

odify

Bas

elin

e R

ate

Pro

visi

ons:

i. D

eter

min

atio

n of

bas

elin

es (

mon

thly

ver

sus

annu

al v

ersu

s ro

lling

ave

rage

, et

c.)

ii.

Pric

e lim

it ba

nds

(PLB

s) to

add

ress

con

cern

s th

at r

ates

are

‘pun

itive

to

grow

ing

cust

omer

s’, a

nd/o

r to

en

cour

age

furt

her

cons

erva

tion

iii.

Gro

wth

rul

es to

mak

e le

ss r

estr

ictiv

e

iv.

New

acc

ount

rul

es

3.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e (r

emov

e ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure )

4.

LGS

Fla

t Ene

rgy

Rat

e fo

r m

ajor

ity o

f LG

S c

usto

mer

s an

d cr

eate

TS

R-li

ke r

ate

with

in

divi

dual

ly a

dmin

iste

red

base

line

s fo

r se

gmen

t of v

ery

larg

e LG

S c

usto

mer

s

Dem

and

Ch

arg

e al

tern

ativ

es:

1.

Sta

tus

quo

incl

inin

g th

ree-

step

dem

and

char

ge

2.

Fla

t dem

and

char

ge

3.

Tw

o-st

ep d

eman

d ch

arge

A.

Pre

fere

nce

for O

ptio

n 3

for e

nerg

y ra

tes.

Si

mpl

ify th

e ra

te.

Cos

t inc

reas

es w

ill be

en

ough

of a

n in

cent

ive

for c

onse

rvat

ion.

Si

mpl

ifies

fore

cast

ing.

Thi

s is

wha

t we

do

anyw

ay b

ecau

se c

urre

nt ra

tes

are

too

com

plic

ated

to e

xpla

in w

ithou

t fru

stra

tion

from

se

nior

lead

ersh

ip te

am.

We

take

tota

l cos

t di

vide

d by

num

ber o

f kW

h to

det

erm

ine

cost

pe

r kW

h.

Dem

and

Cha

rge:

Pr

efer

ence

for O

ptio

n 2.

To

sim

plify

. N

o ne

ed fo

r tw

o or

thre

e st

age

as fi

rst s

tage

s ar

e to

o sm

all t

o be

si

gnifi

cant

. W

e us

e on

e ba

sic

cost

per

kW

for

expl

anat

ion

and

fore

cast

ing.

Aga

in, r

ate

and

dem

and

cost

incr

ease

s ar

e en

ough

of a

n in

cent

ive

for d

eman

d m

anag

emen

t. D

eman

d ch

arge

s ev

en a

t a fl

at ra

te a

re

sign

ifica

nt e

noug

h on

LG

S ac

coun

ts to

war

rant

real

ef

forts

in d

eman

d m

anag

emen

t.

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

5

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

B.

Fla

tten

Par

t 1

En

erg

y R

ate

(Slid

e 16

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Fla

t Par

t 1 e

nerg

y ra

te w

ould

be

nom

inal

sim

plifi

catio

n, a

s P

art

1 co

nsum

ptio

n th

resh

old

of

14,8

00 k

Wh/

mon

th is

not

mat

eria

l to

mos

t LG

S c

usto

mer

s:

Mor

e cu

stom

ers

bette

r of

f tha

n w

orse

off,

hig

her

cons

umin

g cu

sto

mer

s ha

ve m

ore

adve

rse

bill

impa

cts

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n t

o f

latt

en P

art

En

erg

y R

ate.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

C.

Bas

elin

e R

ate

Pro

visi

on

s

(i)

Bas

elin

e d

eter

min

atio

n (

slid

e 17

of

26 J

un

e W

ork

sho

p 1

1B p

rese

nta

tio

n)

BC

Hyd

ro c

onsi

dere

d ba

selin

e de

term

inat

ion

on a

nnua

l bas

is v

ersu

s m

onth

ly

base

line

calc

ulat

ion,

and

Con

side

red

dete

rmin

ing

one-

year

and

five

-yea

r ro

lling

ave

rage

bas

elin

es, v

ersu

s st

atus

quo

det

erm

inat

ion

of th

ree

–yea

r ro

lling

ave

rage

mon

thly

bas

elin

es

Ann

ual b

asel

ine

coul

d cr

eate

cas

h flo

w b

urde

n fo

r m

any

cust

omer

s at

yea

r en

d. f

ive-

year

rol

ling

aver

age

base

lines

will

furt

her

incr

ease

the

com

plex

ity o

f the

rat

e; o

ne-y

ear

base

lines

cou

ld c

ause

bi

ll in

stab

ility

as

unus

ual c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

cann

ot b

e le

velle

d in

bas

elin

es.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed, B

C H

ydro

wo

uld

rec

om

men

d n

o c

han

ge

to s

tatu

s q

uo

th

ree-

year

ro

llin

g a

vera

ge

mo

nth

ly b

asel

ine

and

see

ks f

urt

her

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

s in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

(ii)

Pri

ce B

and

Lim

it (

PL

Bs)

(S

lides

18

to 1

9 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

res

enta

tio

n)

PLB

lim

its c

usto

mer

’s e

xpo

sure

to P

art 2

LR

MC

ene

rgy

rate

with

in a

ran

ge o

f 80

% o

f his

toric

ba

selin

e (H

BL)

to 1

20%

of H

BP

(+

/ - 2

0%

). B

C H

ydro

mod

elle

d de

crea

sing

the

PLB

(i.e

. +/ -

10

%)

and

incr

easi

ng th

e P

BL

(i.e.

+/ -

30%

)

BC

Hyd

ro c

ontin

ues

to b

elie

ve th

ere

are

no c

hang

es to

PLB

s th

at w

ould

impr

ove

perf

orm

ance

of

stat

us q

uo L

GS

Ene

rgy

rate

in r

espe

ct o

f con

serv

atio

n or

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

and

ac

cept

ance

, and

is s

eeki

ng fu

rthe

r fe

edba

ck.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

he

PL

B s

ho

ud

be

mo

dif

ied

an

d if

so

,ho

w. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

B.

Fav

our f

latte

ning

of p

art 1

as

it is

not

si

gnifi

cant

in L

GS

acco

unts

. C

. i)

Annu

al b

asel

ine

wou

ld b

e pr

efer

able

due

to

win

ter f

luct

uatio

ns d

ue to

sno

wm

akin

g an

d si

mpl

er e

xpla

natio

n to

Sen

ior L

eade

rs.

We

wou

ld h

ave

to p

repa

re fo

r cha

rges

that

may

co

me

at th

e en

d of

the

year

, but

whe

n w

e ar

e w

orki

ng to

war

d on

e ba

selin

e, w

e ar

e m

ore

easi

ly a

ble

to tr

ack

whe

re w

e ar

e at

. An

nual

ba

selin

e m

ight

mot

ivat

e m

ore

tow

ard

cons

erva

tion

beca

use

it is

one

targ

et th

at is

ea

sier

to e

xpla

in.

Anyt

hing

that

wou

ld fu

rther

co

mpl

icat

e th

is ra

te is

not

pre

ferr

ed.

If ba

selin

e st

ruct

ure

mai

ntai

ned,

wou

ld p

refe

r an

nual

bas

elin

e ba

sed

on th

ree -

year

rollin

g av

erag

e.

ii)

Bec

ause

of t

he s

ize

of L

GS

acco

unts

, ch

angi

ng th

e PL

B is

unl

ikel

y to

hav

e an

impa

ct

on o

ur b

ills.

Incr

e ase

s or

dec

lines

in e

nerg

y us

age

are

unlik

ely

to e

xcee

d ev

en 1

0%.

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

6

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

(iii)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

– F

orm

ula

ic G

row

th R

ate

(FG

R)

( Slid

es 2

0 to

21

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

The

Cus

tom

er H

BLs

for

the

upco

min

g 12

-mon

th p

erio

d w

ill b

e re

-det

erm

ined

by

BC

Hyd

ro b

ased

on

the

two

mos

t rec

ent y

ears

of c

onsu

mpt

ion

hist

ory

if th

e C

usto

mer

exp

erie

nces

sig

nific

ant g

row

th i.

e.,

follo

win

g a

year

(Y

3) in

wh

ich

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

exce

eded

pre

viou

s ye

ar’s

(Y

2) e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n by

at l

east

: (i)

30%

, or

(ii)

4,00

0,0

00 k

Wh.

Bill

ana

lysi

s sh

owed

24%

of a

ccou

nts

that

qua

lifie

d fo

r F

GR

in F

2015

end

ed u

p ha

ving

hig

her

bills

with

th

e ba

selin

e ad

just

men

t. F

utur

e bi

lls a

re u

npre

dict

able

due

to m

ultip

le v

aria

bles

invo

lved

in b

illin

g –

past

, cur

rent

and

futu

re c

onsu

mpt

ion.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e F

GR

pro

visi

on

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

iii) 3

0% o

r 4,0

00,0

00 k

Wh

is to

o hi

gh o

f a th

resh

old

for c

onsi

dera

tion

of c

onsu

mpt

ion

incr

ease

s du

e to

gr

owth

. W

ith th

e si

ze o

f our

acc

ount

s, e

ven

a ve

ry

larg

e ad

ditio

n to

infra

stru

ctur

e w

ould

not

mee

t the

th

resh

olds

for a

ny c

onsi

dera

tion

and

ther

efor

e w

ould

be

sub

ject

ed to

con

serv

atio

n ra

te p

enal

ties.

If L

GS

wer

e to

con

tinue

, the

re w

ould

nee

d to

be

mor

e co

nsid

erat

ion

to b

usin

ess

grow

th.

This

will

furth

er

com

plic

ate

the

proc

ess

and

BCH

wou

ld b

e un

likel

y to

co

me

up w

ith a

sol

utio

n fo

r mos

t bus

ines

ses

that

w

ould

be

feas

ible

or f

air.

A fl

at ra

te s

truct

ure

will

be a

si

mpl

er w

ay to

ass

ess

cost

s of

new

infra

stru

ctur

e an

d ex

pand

ed o

pera

tions

. Th

e tim

e an

d ef

fort

that

wou

ld

be re

quire

d fo

r fai

r ass

essm

ent o

f bus

ines

s in

frast

ruct

ure

addi

tions

wou

ld m

ake

the

LGS

busi

ness

ca

se e

ven

less

suc

cess

ful t

han

it ha

s be

en th

us fa

r.

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

7

(iv)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

- A

no

mal

y R

ule

(S

lides

22

to

23

of

Wo

rksh

op

11B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BLs

, ano

mal

ousl

y lo

w c

onsu

mpt

ion

mon

ths

from

pre

viou

s ye

ars

are

excl

uded

:

In c

alcu

latin

g H

BL

for

a pa

rtic

ular

mon

th, c

onsu

mpt

ion

in a

his

toric

al m

onth

that

is le

ss th

an h

alf

the

cons

umpt

ion

in th

e ne

xt lo

wes

t mon

th o

f all

mon

ths

othe

rwis

e us

ed fo

r ca

lcul

atio

n w

ould

be

excl

uded

Up

to fo

ur H

BLs

ca n

be

adju

sted

per

BC

H’s

fisc

al y

ear

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e A

nom

aly

Rul

e

Cus

tom

ers

will

alw

ays

end

up w

ith h

ighe

r ba

selin

es; h

owev

er, h

ighe

r ba

selin

es s

omet

imes

cre

ate

high

er b

ills

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e A

no

mal

y R

ule

pro

visi

on

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t

iv)

This

Ano

lmal

y R

ule

is u

nlik

ely

to e

ver a

pply

to u

s.

A fla

t rat

e w

ould

refle

ct c

ost r

educ

tions

for l

ess

cons

umpt

ion

and

ther

e w

ould

be

no im

pact

on

base

lines

, bec

ause

ther

e w

ould

be

no b

asel

ines

.

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

(v)

Gro

wth

Mit

igat

ion

– P

rosp

ecti

ve G

row

th R

ule

(T

S82

) (S

lides

24

to 2

5 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Cus

tom

ers

who

ant

icip

ate

‘sig

nific

ant’,

‘per

man

ent’

incr

ease

s in

en

ergy

con

sum

ptio

n m

ay a

pply

to

BC

Hyd

ro fo

r m

odifi

ed p

ricin

g un

der

TS

82

that

may

red

uce

thei

r en

ergy

cos

ts. S

igni

fican

t mea

ns a

pr

ospe

ctiv

e fir

st y

ear

annu

al in

crea

se in

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

tota

ling

at le

ast 3

0% o

r 4,

000,

000

kWh

abov

e th

e hi

stor

ical

thre

e -ye

ar a

vera

ge a

nnua

l con

sum

ptio

n. P

erm

anen

t mea

ns a

risin

g fr

om a

si

gnifi

cant

cap

ital i

nves

tmen

t.

Ver

y fe

w c

usto

mer

s ha

ve a

pplie

d du

e to

hig

h th

resh

olds

Cus

tom

ers

with

low

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

mig

ht m

eet t

he 3

0% th

resh

old

but

may

not

ben

efit

from

the

mod

ified

pric

ing

stru

ctur

e

Hig

h ad

min

istr

ativ

e co

st to

BC

Hyd

ro

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro s

eek s

fee

db

ack

on

wh

eth

er t

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

od

ifca

tio

ns

to o

r re

mo

val o

f th

e P

rosp

ecti

ve G

row

th R

ule

an

d if

so

, wh

at. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t

v) A

gain

, thi

s is

too

high

a th

resh

old

for m

ost c

usto

mer

s to

m

eet.

Eve

n w

ith s

igni

fican

t inf

rast

ruct

ure

addi

tions

, we

wou

ld n

ot m

eet t

hese

thre

shol

ds in

LG

S ac

coun

ts.

A fla

t ra

te s

truct

ure

will

mor

e ac

cura

tely

refle

ct th

e co

sts

of

grow

th a

nd h

elp

with

fore

cast

ing

of th

e tru

e co

sts.

With

su

ch a

hig

h th

resh

old,

we

will

alw

ays

be p

enal

ized

for n

ew

infra

stru

ctur

e ad

ditio

ns a

nd e

xten

ded

oper

atin

g ho

urs

due

to th

e po

sitiv

e gr

owth

of o

ur b

usin

ess.

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

8

(vi)

New

Acc

ou

nts

(85

/15)

(S

lides

26

to 2

7 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

85/1

5 ap

plie

s w

hen

a ne

w a

ccou

nt is

set

up

in B

C H

ydro

’s b

illin

g sy

stem

, reg

ardl

ess

of

whe

ther

ther

e w

ere

chan

ges

in c

usto

mer

s’ o

pera

tion

Firs

t 85

% o

f ene

rgy

cons

umed

in a

mon

thly

bill

ing

per

iod

is c

harg

ed a

t the

Par

t 1 r

ate.

Las

t 15

% o

f ene

rgy

cons

umed

in a

mon

thly

bill

ing

perio

d is

cha

rged

Par

t 2

LRM

C r

ate

Est

ablis

hed

to p

reve

nt c

usto

mer

s fr

om ‘g

amin

g’ b

y op

enin

g ne

w a

ccou

nts

to r

eset

bas

elin

es

BC

Hyd

ro fo

und

no e

vide

nce

of “

gam

ing”

in t

he L

GS

Thr

ee-Y

ear

Rep

ort.

Cus

tom

ers

rais

ed

conc

erns

that

85/

15 r

ate

unfa

irly

pena

lizes

cus

tom

ers

who

ha

ve n

o ch

ange

in o

pera

tions

dur

ing

acco

unt o

wne

rshi

p tr

ansf

ers.

If t

he

bas

elin

e st

ruct

ure

is m

ain

tain

ed,

BC

Hyd

ro w

ou

ld r

eco

mm

end

ap

ply

ing

100

% P

art

1 ra

tes

for

new

acc

ou

nts

, an

d is

see

kin

g f

urt

her

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

vi)

Stru

ctur

e a

flat r

ate

and

this

will

not b

e a

prob

lem

. N

ew

acco

unts

are

bas

ed o

n th

eir c

onsu

mpt

ion

and

dem

and

usag

e. C

usto

mer

s w

ill be

taxi

ng B

CH

reso

urce

s an

d in

frast

ruct

ure

plan

s in

an

effo

rt to

est

ablis

h ne

w a

ccou

nts.

If

we

have

a la

rge

cons

truct

ion

proj

ect p

lann

ed th

at c

ould

be

on

our e

xist

ing

acco

unt,

we

will

go

to g

reat

leng

ths

to

esta

blis

h a

new

acc

ount

bec

ause

of L

GS

. Th

i s m

eans

en

gagi

ng B

CH

sta

ff fo

r thi

s in

frast

ruct

ure

plan

ning

.

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

9

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

D.

LG

S F

lat

En

erg

y R

ate

(No

Bas

elin

e) (

Slid

es 2

9 to

30,

Ju

ne

26, 2

015

Wo

rksh

op

P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Op

tio

n:

Fla

tten

LG

S E

ner

gy

rate

fo

r al

l co

nsu

mp

tio

n le

vels

Pro

s:

Elim

inat

es a

ll co

mpl

exity

from

ba

selin

e co

mpo

nent

of s

tatu

s qu

o L

GS

ene

rgy

rate

Eas

ier

and

mor

e ac

cura

te c

usto

mer

fore

cast

ing

Impr

oved

cus

tom

er u

nder

stan

ding

Alig

ns w

ith o

ther

Cdn

. Jur

isdi

ctio

ns

Con

s:

Ene

rgy

rate

is w

ell b

elow

low

er e

nd o

f ene

rgy

LRM

C

Obs

erva

tions

:

Littl

e to

no

bill

impa

cts

resu

lting

sol

ely

from

rem

oval

of b

asel

ine,

as

dem

onst

rate

d in

W

orks

hop

8b

The

re a

re b

ill im

pact

s fr

om fl

atte

ning

Par

t 1

Ene

rgy

rate

s; ty

pica

l cu

stom

ers

bette

r of

f

No

chan

ge in

con

serv

atio

n –

zero

fore

cast

for

plan

ning

pu

rpos

es

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n.

Ple

ase

pro

vid

e an

y co

mm

ents

in t

he

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

D. I

thin

k th

e lis

t of p

ros,

con

s an

d ob

serv

atio

ns

spea

k fo

r the

mse

lves

. An

y fu

rther

inve

stm

ent i

n a

rate

stru

ctur

e th

at is

not

und

erst

ood

by c

usto

mer

s af

ter y

ears

of t

ryin

g an

d ha

s no

impa

ct o

n co

nser

vatio

n w

ould

be

fisca

lly ir

resp

onsi

ble.

The

ra

te is

not

del

iver

ing

the

inte

nded

resu

lts b

y an

y st

retc

h an

d it

is ti

me

to m

ove

on.

With

the

stat

istic

s on

the

succ

ess

of th

is ra

te, t

here

sho

uld

not e

ven

be a

ny q

uest

ion.

The

flat

teni

ng o

f the

ra

tes

shou

ld b

e in

evita

ble.

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

10

Wo

rks

ho

p 1

1B

: L

GS

Ra

te S

tru

ctu

re

E.

TS

R-L

ike

En

erg

y R

ate

(Slid

es 3

2 to

34

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 w

ork

sho

p P

rese

nta

tio

n)

Vite

rra

and

AM

PC

sug

gest

ed a

TS

R-li

ke r

ate

for

high

con

sum

ptio

n LG

S c

usto

mer

s

Rat

e m

ay h

ave

follo

win

g el

emen

ts b

ased

on

BC

Hyd

ro’s

exi

stin

g T

SR

– R

S 1

823:

Ava

ilabl

e to

larg

e LG

S a

ccou

nts

Ene

rgy

Rat

e (F

2017

) –

illus

trat

ive

bas

ed o

n R

S 1

823

90/1

0 sp

lit a

nd r

ate

neut

ral t

o LG

S F

lat

ener

gy r

ate:

5.48

cen

ts/k

Wh

appl

ied

to a

ll kW

h up

to a

nd in

clud

ing

90%

of C

usto

mer

Bas

elin

e lo

ad (

CB

L) in

ea

ch b

illin

g ye

ar

10.1

0 ce

nts/

kWh

appl

ied

to a

ll kW

h ab

ove

90%

of c

usto

mer

’s C

BL

in e

ach

billi

ng y

ear

Initi

al a

nnua

l CB

L de

term

ined

by

hist

oric

bas

elin

e ye

ar(s

)

Allo

wab

le a

djus

tmen

ts fo

r D

SM

, pla

nt c

apac

ity in

crea

ses

and

forc

e m

ajeu

re

Ann

ual C

BL

appr

oved

eac

h ye

ar b

y B

CU

C

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

his

op

tio

n. P

leas

e p

rovi

de

any

com

men

ts in

th

e co

lum

n t

o

the

rig

ht.

E. F

or o

ur L

GS

acco

unts

, a b

asic

flat

rate

stru

ctur

e w

ould

be

suffi

cien

t

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

11

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

A.

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Op

tio

nal

Rat

es (

Sid

es 5

6 to

62

of

Jun

e 26

, 201

5 W

ork

sho

p 1

1B

Pre

sen

tati

on

)

1.

Vo

lun

tary

Tim

e o

f U

se R

ates

BC

Hyd

ro h

as n

o p

lan

to p

roce

ed d

evel

opin

g th

is o

ptio

n at

this

tim

e fo

r re

ason

s se

t out

in

sect

ion

6.1

of W

orks

hop

8A/8

B C

onsi

dera

tion

Mem

o

2.

Inte

rup

tib

le R

ates

BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

is o

ptio

n as

par

t of R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter

defa

ult G

S r

ates

de

term

ined

3.

Eff

icie

ncy

Rat

e C

red

it c

on

cep

t

BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

is o

ptio

n as

par

t of R

DA

Mod

ule

2, a

fter

defa

ult G

S r

ates

de

term

ined

4.

Dem

and

Ch

arg

e O

pti

on

s

BC

Hyd

ro p

ropo

ses

to a

sses

s th

ese

optio

ns a

s pa

rt o

f RD

A M

odul

e 2

, afte

r de

faul

t GS

rat

es

dete

rmin

ed

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

he

abo

ve p

rop

osa

ls, a

nd

als

o o

n p

relim

inar

y co

mm

ents

on

o

pti

on

s id

enti

fied

to

dat

e, a

nd

if t

her

e ar

e an

y o

ther

GS

rat

e o

pt i

on

s B

C H

ydro

sh

ou

ld c

on

sid

er.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

1.

We

wou

ld li

ke to

see

wha

t Vol

unta

ry T

ime

of

Use

rate

s lo

ok li

ke a

s ou

r pea

k co

nsum

ptio

n tim

es a

re o

utsi

de o

f the

usu

al p

eak

times

2.

W

e w

ould

like

to s

ee th

at th

is w

ould

l ook

like

an

d if

it co

uld

be b

enef

icia

l for

us

and

for B

CH

3.

W

e w

ould

like

to s

ee h

ow th

is w

ould

impa

ct

our b

usin

ess

4.

We

wou

ld li

ke to

see

a fl

at ra

te o

n de

man

d an

d a

chan

ge in

ratc

het c

harg

e st

ruct

ure

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

12

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

B.

Oth

er Is

sues

(S

lides

64

to 6

6 o

f W

ork

sho

p 1

1B P

rese

nta

tio

n)

1.

Min

imu

m C

har

ges

(D

eman

d R

atch

et)

Exi

stin

g m

inim

um c

harg

e is

bas

ed o

n 50

% o

f pea

k m

onth

ly d

eman

d re

gist

ered

in m

ost r

ecen

t win

ter

perio

d (N

ovem

ber

to M

arch

)

Rat

chet

was

red

uced

from

75

% to

50%

effe

ctiv

e A

pril

1, 1

980

Bas

ed o

n F

14 d

ata:

MG

S m

inim

um c

harg

es: a

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

35,0

00 o

n to

tal r

even

ue o

f app

roxi

mat

ely

$329

mill

ion

(0.4

%)

LGS

min

imum

cha

rges

: app

roxi

mat

ely

$1.6

mill

ion

on a

bout

$76

4 m

illio

n, e

xclu

ding

rat

e rid

er

(0.2

%)

BC

Hyd

ro is

see

kin

g f

eed

bac

k o

n t

he

curr

ent

Dem

and

Rat

chet

. P

leas

e ex

pla

in y

ou

r re

spo

nse

in

the

colu

mn

to

th

e ri

gh

t.

B. 1

. We

do n

ot s

uppo

rt in

crea

se in

rach

et c

harg

es.

With

a b

usin

ess

that

is fa

r bus

ier i

n th

e w

inte

r tha

n in

th

e su

mm

er, w

e se

e su

mm

er ra

tche

t pen

altie

s. T

his

can

be a

dis

ince

ntiv

e to

con

serv

atio

n in

the

sum

mer

m

onth

s be

caus

e th

ere

is a

feel

ing

that

we

are

payi

ng

for i

t any

way

. M

aint

aini

ng a

con

serv

atio

n cu

lture

in

the

orga

niza

tion

requ

ires

ince

ntiv

e to

con

serv

e al

l ye

ar lo

ng.

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

13

Wo

rksh

op

11B

: O

pti

on

al R

ates

an

d O

ther

Issu

es

2.

Tra

nsf

orm

er O

wn

ersh

ip D

isco

un

t (T

OD

) an

d T

ran

sfo

rmer

Ren

tals

TO

D r

ate

is $

0.25

per

mon

th p

er k

W o

f bill

ing

dem

and

if cu

stom

er s

uppl

ies

tran

sfor

mat

ion

from

prim

ary

pote

ntia

l to

seco

ndar

y po

tent

ial

Last

rev

iew

of $

0.25

/mon

th d

isco

unt w

as c

ompl

eted

in A

ugus

t 200

4

BC

Hyd

ro p

rop

ose

s to

eva

luat

e T

OD

in c

on

jun

ctio

n w

ith

Dis

trib

uti

on

Ext

ensi

on

Po

licy

as p

art

of

RD

A M

od

ule

2, a

nd

is s

eeki

ng

fee

db

ack

on

th

is r

eco

mm

end

ed a

pp

roac

h.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

F20

15 R

DA

to fi

rst s

et th

e R

esid

entia

l def

ault

rate

, and

to c

onsi

der

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f an

EV

rat

e af

ter

the

2015

RD

A M

odul

e 1

deci

sion

.

Des

ign

Con

side

ratio

ns:

• A

t-ho

me

char

ging

(R

esid

entia

l)

• B

asis

on

whi

ch to

det

erm

ine

cost

of s

ervi

ce a

nd lo

ad im

plic

atio

ns f

or p

rici n

g –

diffe

rent

pat

tern

of

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

(bat

tery

sto

rage

of e

lect

ric p

ower

)

• M

echa

nism

to e

nfor

ce o

ff -pe

ak c

harg

ing

– tim

e va

ryin

g co

mpo

nent

(T

ime

of U

se; p

rice

diffe

rent

ial

is a

n is

sue;

ado

pt C

alifo

rnia

‘sup

er

off -

peak

’ con

cept

to e

ncou

rage

late

nig

ht to

ear

ly m

orni

ng

char

ging

?

• R

equi

rem

ent o

f a s

epar

ate

met

er?

• In

tera

ctio

n w

ith R

IB?

• O

ther

?

BC

Hyd

ro s

eeks

sta

keh

old

er f

eed

bac

k o

n r

ate

des

ign

co

nsi

der

atio

ns

pre

sen

ted

ab

ove

an

d t

he

tim

ing

of

any

futu

re E

V r

ate

pro

po

sal.

Ple

ase

exp

lain

yo

ur

resp

on

se in

th

e co

lum

n t

o t

he

rig

ht.

2 Th

e cu

rren

t stru

ctur

e w

orks

for o

ur p

urpo

ses

Add

ition

al C

omm

ents

:

(Whistler)

2015

Rat

e D

esig

n A

pplic

atio

n (R

DA

) –

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Rat

es W

orks

hop

11, S

essi

ons

A (J

une

25, 2

015)

an

d B

(Jun

e 26

, 201

5) F

eedb

ack

Form

14

CO

NSE

NT

TO U

SE P

ERSO

NAL

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

I con

sent

to th

e us

e of

my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

by B

C H

ydro

for t

he p

urpo

ses

of k

e epi

ng m

e up

date

d ab

out t

he 2

015

RD

A. F

or

purp

oses

of t

he a

bove

, my

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

incl

udes

opi

nion

s, n

ame,

mai

ling

addr

ess,

pho

ne n

umbe

r and

em

ail a

ddre

ss a

s pe

r th

e in

form

atio

n I p

rovi

de.

Sign

atur

e:__

__Al

lana

Willi

ams _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

Dat

e: _

_Sep

tem

ber 1

4, 2

015 _

____

____

____

____

____

____

_ Th

ank

you

for y

our c

omm

ents

.

Com

men

ts s

ubm

itted

will

be u

sed

to in

form

the

RD

A Sc

ope

and

Eng

agem

ent p

roce

ss, i

nclu

ding

dis

cuss

ions

with

Gov

ernm

ent,

and

will

form

par

t of t

he o

ffici

al re

cord

of t

he R

DA.

You

can

retu

rn c

ompl

eted

feed

back

form

s by

:

Mai

l: BC

Hyd

ro, B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up –

“Atte

ntio

n 20

15 R

DA”

, 16th

Flo

or, 3

33 D

unsm

uir S

t. Va

n. B

.C. V

6B-5

R3

Fax

num

ber:

604-

623-

4407

– “A

ttent

ion

2015

RD

A”

Emai

l: bc

hydr

oreg

ulat

oryg

roup

@bc

hydr

o.co

m

Form

ava

ilabl

e on

Web

: http

://w

ww

.bch

ydro

.com

/abo

ut/p

lann

ing_

regu

lato

ry/re

gula

tory

.htm

l

Any

pers

onal

info

rmat

ion

you

prov

ide

to B

C H

ydro

on

this

form

is c

olle

cted

and

pro

tect

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Fre

ed

om

of

Info

rmati

on

an

d

Pro

tecti

on

of

Pri

vac

y A

ct .

BC H

ydro

is c

olle

ctin

g in

form

atio

n w

ith t h

is fo

r the

pur

pose

of t

he 2

015

RD

A in

acc

orda

nce

with

BC

Hyd

ro’s

man

date

un

der t

he H

yd

ro a

nd

Po

wer

Au

tho

rity

Act ,

the

BC H

ydro

Tar

iff, t

he U

tiliti

es

Co

mm

issio

n A

ct a

nd re

late

d R

egul

atio

ns a

nd D

irect

ions

. If y

ou

have

any

qu e

stio

ns a

bout

the

colle

ctio

n or

use

of t

he p

erso

nal i

nfor

mat

ion

colle

cted

on

this

form

ple

ase

cont

act t

he B

C H

ydro

Reg

ulat

ory

Gro

up

via

emai

l at:

bchy

dror

egul

ator

ygro

up@

bchy

dro.

com

(Whistler)











Rate Structures


Attachment 3

Default General Service Charges and Optional Rates Survey – Canada 2015, and Expanded Canadian

Jurisdictional Review of General Service Segmentation

Inde

x of

Tab

les

Tabl

e 1:

Ove

rvie

w o

f Def

ault

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Cha

rges

– J

une

2015

– C

anad

a ....

......

......

......

......

.....

.....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

.. 2

Tabl

e 2:

Ove

rvie

w o

f Gen

eral

Ser

vice

/ co

mm

erci

al c

usto

mer

rate

opt

ions

– J

une

2015

– C

anad

a ...

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

5

Tabl

e 3:

Exp

ande

d C

anad

ian

Juris

dict

iona

l Rev

iew

of G

ener

al S

ervi

ce S

egm

enta

tion .

......

......

......

.....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

7

C

omm

ent

Tabl

es 1

and

2 w

ere

incl

uded

as

Atta

chm

ent 5

to B

C H

ydro

’s W

orks

hop

8a/8

b C

onsi

dera

tion

mem

o an

d al

so in

clud

ed a

s a

App

endi

x to

the

Wor

ksho

p 11

b pr

esen

tatio

n m

ater

ials

and

pos

ted

on th

e R

DA

web

site

.

o

Tabl

es 1

and

2 h

ave

been

upd

ated

to in

clud

e re

fere

nce

to H

ydro

Que

bec’

s ra

tes

for L

arge

Pow

er c

usto

mer

s

Tabl

e 3

belo

w w

as p

rese

nted

as

‘Tab

le 1

’ in

Sec

tion

1 of

BC

Hyd

ro’s

Wor

ksho

p 8a

/8b

Con

side

ratio

n m

emo.

o

Tabl

e 3

has

been

cor

rect

ed to

rem

ove

the

refe

renc

e un

der M

anito

ba H

ydro

that

def

ines

a s

mal

l gen

eral

ser

vice

cla

ss a

s 50

kVa.

The

Man

itoba

sm

all g

ener

al s

ervi

ce c

lass

is d

efin

ed b

y de

man

d <=

200

kVa

. Cus

tom

ers

with

in th

at c

lass

face

an

incl

inin

g bl

ock

dem

and

char

ge, b

ut fo

r dem

and

less

than

50k

Va

ther

e is

no

char

ge u

nder

that

stru

ctur

e.

o

Tabl

e 3

has

also

bee

n co

rrect

ed to

rem

ove

the

refe

renc

e un

der N

ewfo

undl

and

Pow

er th

at th

e sm

all g

ener

al s

ervi

ce c

lass

do

es n

ot p

ay a

dem

and

char

ge; r

athe

r, cu

stom

ers

face

a s

easo

nal d

eman

d ch

arge

as

repo

rted

in T

able

1.

The

corre

ctio

n no

ted

abov

e th

at M

anito

ba H

ydro

sm

all g

ener

al s

ervi

ce c

usto

mer

s w

ith d

eman

d le

ss th

an 5

0kVa

do

not p

ay a

de

man

d ch

arge

sug

gest

s an

impo

rtant

obs

erva

tion

to n

ote

on th

e co

mpa

rabi

lity

of th

e B

C H

ydro

sm

all g

ener

al s

ervi

ce (S

GS)

cla

ss

with

oth

er u

tility

sm

all g

ener

al s

ervi

ce c

lass

es a

nd w

heth

er d

eman

d ch

arge

s ar

e ap

plic

able

:

o

BC

Hyd

ro’s

SG

S c

lass

is d

efin

ed b

y de

man

d le

ss th

an 3

5 kW

, and

SG

S c

usto

mer

s do

not

face

a d

eman

d ch

arge

. o

Ta

ble

1 hi

ghlig

hts

that

ther

e is

no

dem

and

char

ge fo

r com

para

bly

low

leve

ls o

f dem

and

(e.g

. <50

kVa,

<50

kW, <

20kW

). o

Ta

ble

3 hi

ghlig

hts

that

oth

er s

urve

yed

utilit

ies

also

do

not c

harg

e fo

r the

dem

and

of s

mal

l gen

eral

ser

vice

cus

tom

ers.

o

Th

us, B

C H

ydro

obs

erve

s th

at it

s SG

S c

lass

is c

ompa

rabl

e to

mos

t util

ities

in C

anad

a in

not

cha

rgin

g fo

r dem

and.

Tabl

e 1:

Ove

rvie

w o

f Def

ault

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

Cha

rges

– J

une

2015

– C

anad

a

Can

adia

n U

tility

G

ener

al S

ervi

ce

Rat

e C

lass

D

efin

ition

of C

lass

+

Ener

gy C

harg

e D

eman

d C

harg

e M

inim

um B

ill

Sask

Pow

er

Sm

all

Com

mer

cial

C

omm

erci

al a

nd m

unic

ipal

load

s

<= 7

5 ki

lovo

lt am

pere

s (k

VA

) En

ergy

Cha

rge

= D

eclin

ing

2 St

ep

Incl

inin

g 2

Step

Fi

rst 5

0 kV

A/m

onth

= $

0 (U

rban

(U) &

Rur

al (R

)) B

alan

ce $

/kV

A =

13.

10 (U

) B

alan

ce $

/kV

A =

13.

41 (R

)

Bas

ic M

onth

ly C

harg

e (~

$27(

U),

~$37

(R))

p

lus

$4

.24/

kVA

of t

he m

axim

um re

cord

ed d

eman

d ov

er 5

0 kV

A o

ver t

he p

ast 1

1 m

onth

s

Sta

ndar

d N

on-r

esid

entia

l & n

on-fa

rm lo

ads

>

75 k

VA

Ener

gy C

harg

e =

Dec

linin

g 2

Step

Incl

inin

g 2

Step

Fi

rst 5

0 kV

A/m

onth

= $

0 (U

& R

) B

alan

ce $

/kV

A =

13.

40 (U

& R

)

Bas

ic M

onth

ly C

harg

e (~

$50

(U),

~$58

(R))

plu

s

$4.2

4/kV

A o

f the

max

imum

reco

rded

dem

and

over

50

kVA

ove

r the

pas

t 11

mon

ths)

Man

itoba

Hyd

ro

Sm

all

Non

-res

iden

tial l

oads

<=

200

kV

A En

ergy

Cha

rge

= D

eclin

ing

3 St

ep

Incl

inin

g 2

Step

Fi

rst 5

0 kV

A/m

onth

= $

0 B

alan

ce $

/kV

A =

$9.

09

Min

imum

mon

thly

bill

is th

e B

asic

Cha

rge

(~$2

8, 3

ph

ase)

+ D

eman

d C

harg

e

Med

ium

N

on-r

esid

entia

l loa

ds

> 20

0 kV

A En

ergy

Cha

rge

= D

eclin

ing

3Ste

p

Incl

inin

g 2

Step

Fi

rst 5

0 kV

A/m

onth

= $

0 B

alan

ce $

/kV

A =

$9.

09

Min

imum

mon

thly

bill

is th

e B

asic

Cha

rge

(~$2

9) +

D

eman

d C

harg

e D

eman

d C

harg

e is

app

lied

to th

e M

onth

ly B

illin

g D

eman

d de

fined

as

the

grea

ter o

f the

follo

win

g ex

pres

sed

in k

VA

: •

mea

sure

d de

man

d •

25%

of c

ontra

ct d

eman

d •

25%

of t

he h

ighe

st m

easu

red

dem

and

in a

ny

of th

e pr

evio

us 1

2 m

onth

s

Hyd

ro Q

uebe

c R

ate

G:

Sm

all P

ower

M

inim

um d

eman

d <

65 k

W

Ener

gy C

harg

e =

Dec

linin

g 2

Step

Incl

inin

g 2

Step

Fi

rst

50 k

W/m

onth

= $

0 B

alan

ce $

/kW

= $

17.1

9

Min

imum

billi

ng d

eman

d fo

r any

giv

en c

onsu

mpt

ion

pe

riod

is e

qual

to 6

5% o

f the

max

imum

pow

er d

eman

d

durin

g a

cons

umpt

ion

perio

d th

at fa

lls w

holly

in th

e w

inte

r pe

riod

incl

uded

in th

e 12

con

secu

tive

mon

thly

pe

riods

end

ing

at th

e en

d of

the

give

n co

nsum

ptio

n pe

riod

Rat

e M

: M

ediu

m P

ower

M

axim

um d

eman

d >

50 k

W a

t lea

st

once

in la

st 1

2 bi

lling

perio

ds

Ener

gy C

harg

e =

Dec

linin

g 2

Step

Flat

$1

4.37

/kW

Rat

e L:

La

rge

Pow

er

(indu

stria

l)

Min

imum

billi

ng d

eman

d >=

5M

W

and

prin

cipa

lly fo

r an

indu

stria

l ac

tivity

En

ergy

Cha

rge

= Fl

at

Flat

$1

2.87

/kW

Add

ition

al c

harg

e fo

r billi

ng d

eman

d in

exc

ess

of 1

10%

of

cont

ract

pow

er =

$7.

53/k

W p

er d

ay

Mon

thly

max

imum

cha

rge

= $2

2.59

/kW

Can

adia

n U

tility

G

ener

al S

ervi

ce

Rat

e C

lass

D

efin

ition

of C

lass

+

Ener

gy C

harg

e D

eman

d C

harg

e M

inim

um B

ill

Rat

e LG

: La

rge

Pow

er

(non

-indu

stria

l)

Min

imum

billi

ng d

eman

d >=

5M

W

and

prin

cipa

lly fo

r non

- ind

ustri

al

activ

ity

Ener

gy C

harg

e =

Flat

Flat

$1

3.05

/kW

The

min

imum

billi

ng d

eman

d fo

r any

giv

en c

onsu

mpt

ion

perio

d is

equ

al to

75%

of t

he m

axim

um p

ower

dem

and

durin

g a

cons

umpt

ion

perio

d th

at fa

lls w

holly

in th

e w

inte

r pe

riod

incl

uded

in th

e 12

con

secu

tive

mon

thly

per

iods

en

ding

at t

he e

nd o

f the

giv

en c

onsu

mpt

ion

perio

d.

Nov

a Sc

otia

Po

wer

S

mal

l C

omm

erci

al

Ann

ual c

onsu

mpt

ion

< 32

,000

kW

h En

ergy

Cha

rge

= D

eclin

ing

2 St

ep

No

Dem

and

Cha

rge

Com

mer

cial

A

nnua

l con

sum

ptio

n >=

32,

000

kWh

& re

gula

r billi

ng d

eman

d is

less

than

2,

000

kVA

or 1

,800

kW

En

ergy

Cha

rge

= D

eclin

ing

2 St

ep

Flat

$1

0.49

7/m

onth

/kW

max

imum

de

man

d

The

max

imum

cha

rge

per k

Wh

will

be

that

for a

billi

ng

load

fact

or o

f 10%

exc

ept t

hat t

he m

inim

um m

onth

ly b

ill sh

all n

ot b

e le

ss th

an $

12.6

5

Larg

e C

omm

erci

al

Con

sum

ptio

n fo

r any

use

exc

ept

indu

stria

l, w

here

the

regu

lar b

illing

de

man

d is

2,0

00 k

VA

or 1

,800

kW

an

d ov

er

Ener

gy C

harg

e =

Flat

Flat

$1

3.34

5/m

onth

/kV

A o

f max

imum

de

man

d of

the

curre

nt m

onth

Dem

and

char

ge a

pplie

d to

max

imum

act

ual d

eman

d of

th

e pr

evio

us D

ecem

ber,

Janu

ary

or F

ebru

ary

occu

rrin

g in

the

prev

ious

ele

ven

(11)

mon

ths

New

foun

dlan

d Po

wer

G

ener

al S

ervi

ce

< 10

0 kW

(110

kV

A)

Ener

gy C

harg

e =

Dec

linin

g 2

Step

Seas

onal

(h

ighe

r rat

es in

4 w

inte

r mo.

) $8

.68

per k

W o

f billi

ng d

eman

d in

the

mon

ths

of D

ecem

ber,

Janu

ary,

Fe

brua

ry a

nd M

arch

and

$6

.18

per k

W in

all

othe

r mon

ths.

~22/

mon

th (s

ingl

e ph

ase)

(Bas

ic)

~36/

mon

th (t

hree

pha

se)

11

0 kV

A (1

00 k

W) –

100

0 kV

a

Ener

gy C

harg

e =

Dec

linin

g 2

Step

Seas

onal

(h

ighe

r rat

es in

4 w

inte

r mo.

) $7

.54

per k

VA

of b

illing

dem

and

in

the

mon

ths

of D

ecem

ber,

Janu

ary,

Fe

brua

ry a

nd M

arch

and

$5

.04

per k

VA

in a

ll ot

her m

onth

s.

~50/

mon

th (B

asic

)

>

1000

kV

a En

ergy

Cha

rge

= D

eclin

ing

2 St

ep

Seas

onal

(h

ighe

r rat

es in

4 w

inte

r mo.

) $7

.12

per k

VA

of b

illing

dem

and

in

the

mon

ths

of D

ecem

ber,

Janu

ary,

Fe

brua

ry a

nd M

arch

and

$4

.62

per k

VA

in a

ll ot

her m

onth

s.

~85/

mon

th (B

asic

)

Can

adia

n U

tility

G

ener

al S

ervi

ce

Rat

e C

lass

D

efin

ition

of C

lass

+

Ener

gy C

harg

e D

eman

d C

harg

e M

inim

um B

ill

New

Bru

nsw

ick

Pow

er

Sta

ndar

d E

lect

ricity

use

oth

er th

an re

side

ntia

l, sm

all a

nd la

rge

indu

stria

l, st

reet

lig

htin

g or

unm

eter

ed c

ateg

orie

s En

ergy

Cha

rge

= D

eclin

ing

2 St

ep

Incl

inin

g 2

Step

Fi

rst

20 k

W/m

onth

= $

0 B

alan

ce $

/kW

= $

10.0

5

Bas

ic C

harg

e:

$21.

78 p

er B

illin

g P

erio

d

ATC

O E

lect

ric

Yuko

n

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

M

ultip

le E

nerg

y St

ruct

ures

1.

H

ydro

– G

ov. M

unic

ipal

2.

H

ydro

– G

ov. F

eder

al

3.

Hyd

ro –

Non

-Gov

ernm

ent

Flat

1.

$7.3

9/kW

/mon

th

2.

$12.

31/k

W/m

onth

3.

$7

.39/

kW/m

onth

1.

$3

6.95

/ m

onth

(5 k

W)

2.

$61.

55 /

mon

th (5

kW

) 3.

$3

6.95

/ m

onth

(5 k

W)

Fort

isB

C

Sm

all

Com

mer

cial

D

eman

d ge

nera

lly <

40

kW

Ener

gy C

harg

e =

Flat

Not

app

licab

le

Cus

tom

er C

harg

e $3

4.87

(6

0 da

y bi

lling

perio

d)

Com

mer

cial

D

eman

d >

40

kW, <

500

kW

En

ergy

Cha

rge

= D

eclin

ing

2 St

ep

Incl

inin

g 2

Step

Fi

rst

40 k

W/m

onth

= $

0 B

alan

ce $

/kW

= $

7.73

The

grea

test

of:

• 25

% o

f Con

tract

Dem

and

•

max

imum

Dem

and

in k

W (k

VA

Larg

e C

omm

erci

al)

• 75

% o

f the

max

imum

Dem

and

in k

W (k

VA

La

rge

Com

mer

cial

) reg

iste

red

durin

g th

e m

onth

s pr

evio

us e

leve

n m

onth

per

iod

Larg

e C

omm

erci

al

Dem

and

>= 5

00 k

W

Ener

gy C

harg

e =

Flat

Flat

$8

.25

/ kV

A

BC

Hyd

ro

Sm

all

Dem

and

< 35

kW

Ener

gy C

harg

e =

Flat

Not

app

licab

le

Bas

ic C

harg

e =

22.5

7 ce

nts

per d

ay

Med

ium

D

eman

d >=

35

kW, <

150

kW,

or e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n in

any

12

mon

th p

erio

d eq

ual t

o or

less

than

55

0,00

0 kW

h En

ergy

Cha

rge

= B

asel

ine

Rat

e

Incl

inin

g 3

Step

• Fi

rst 3

5 kW

= $

0 •

Nex

t 115

kW

=

$5.5

0/kW

/mo

• A

ll ad

ditio

nal k

W =

$10

.55/

kW

/mo

50%

of t

he h

ighe

st m

axim

um D

eman

d C

harg

e bi

lled

in

any

Bill

ing

Perio

d w

holly

with

in a

n on

-pea

k pe

riod

durin

g th

e im

med

iate

ly p

rece

ding

ele

ven

Billi

ng P

erio

ds

Larg

e D

eman

d >=

150

kW

, or

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

in a

ny 1

2 m

onth

per

iod

grea

ter t

han

550,

000

kWh

En

ergy

Cha

rge

= B

asel

ine

Rat

e

Incl

inin

g 3

Step

• Fi

rst 3

5 kW

= $

0 •

Nex

t 115

kW

=

$5.5

0/kW

/mo

• A

ll ad

ditio

nal k

W =

$10

.55/

kW

/mo

50%

of t

he h

ighe

st m

axim

um D

eman

d C

harg

e bi

lled

in

any

Bill

ing

Perio

d w

holly

with

in a

n on

-pea

k pe

riod

durin

g th

e im

med

iate

ly p

rece

ding

ele

ven

Bill

ing

Per

iods

Tabl

e 2:

Ove

rvie

w o

f Gen

eral

Ser

vice

/ co

mm

erci

al c

usto

mer

rate

opt

ions

– J

une

2015

– C

anad

a

C

anad

ian

Util

ity

Opt

ion

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

A

vaila

bilit

y

Sask

Pow

er

Not

ava

ilabl

e N

ot a

vaila

ble

Man

itoba

H

ydro

Li

mite

d U

se o

f Bill

ing

Dem

and

– Lo

wer

Dem

and

Cha

rges

& H

ighe

r Ene

rgy

Cha

rges

•

Cus

tom

ers

with

rela

tivel

y lo

w lo

ad fa

ctor

s (a

ppro

xim

atel

y 18

% o

r les

s) w

ill b

enef

it •

Dem

and

char

ge s

truct

ure

is th

e sa

me

as fo

r def

ault

, but

dem

and

char

ges

are

low

er

• A

com

para

tivel

y hi

gher

and

flat

ene

rgy

char

ge (s

truct

ure

is n

o lo

nger

3-ti

er d

eclin

ing

bloc

k)

All

Gen

eral

Ser

vice

dem

and

cust

omer

s

Surp

lus

Ener

gy P

rogr

am

• E

nerg

y C

harg

e va

ries

wee

k to

wee

k ac

cord

ing

to s

pot m

arke

t co

nditi

ons

• P

ossi

ble

leng

thy

inte

rrup

tions

; wor

king

alte

rnat

e ba

ck-u

p sy

stem

requ

ired

in m

ost c

ases

Con

nect

ed lo

ad >

200

kW

+ o

ther

elig

ibilit

y re

quire

men

ts

Hyd

ro Q

uebe

c Li

mite

d U

se o

f Bill

ing

Dem

and

• D

eman

d ch

arge

s ar

e lo

wer

•

Com

para

tivel

y hi

gher

and

flat

ene

rgy

char

ge (s

truct

ure

is n

o lo

nger

2-ti

er d

eclin

ing

bloc

k)

Med

ium

Pow

er -

not a

pplic

able

to d

eman

d th

at

neve

r exc

eeds

65

kW

Add

ition

al E

lect

ricity

Opt

ion

• C

onsu

me

a sm

all a

mou

nt o

f ele

ctric

ity in

exc

ess

of n

orm

al c

onsu

mpt

ion

durin

g of

f-pea

k ho

urs

to

mee

t sho

rt-te

rm o

r exc

eptio

nal n

eed

• D

esig

ned

for c

usto

mer

s w

ho a

re a

ble

to a

djus

t the

ir pr

oduc

tion

and

to m

anag

e th

eir e

lect

ricity

co

nsum

ptio

n un

der l

ower

rate

s w

hile

wor

king

aro

und

the

asso

ciat

ed c

onst

rain

ts

Med

ium

Pow

er

Larg

e Po

wer

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t Rat

e (e

nds

2024

) •

Initi

al 2

0% ra

te d

educ

tion,

to b

e re

duce

d by

5 %

poi

nts

a ye

ar o

ver t

he fi

nal 3

yea

rs, i

n or

der t

o en

sure

a g

radu

al tr

ansi

tion

to a

pplic

able

rate

s

• E

ligib

ility

: •

Bui

ld /

com

mis

sion

a n

ew fa

cilit

y w

ith a

pow

er d

eman

d of

at l

east

1,0

00 k

W o

r to

add

at le

ast 1

,000

kW

of d

eman

d to

an

exis

ting

faci

lity

• Fo

r an

exis

ting

faci

lity,

the

expe

cted

max

imum

pow

er d

eman

d of

the

new

equ

ipm

ent m

ust n

ot b

e le

ss th

an 2

0% o

f the

hig

hest

billi

ng d

eman

d du

ring

the

12 c

onsu

mpt

ion

perio

ds p

rece

ding

its

com

mis

sion

ing

• Fa

cilit

y’s

elec

trici

ty c

osts

mus

t acc

ount

for a

t lea

st 1

0% o

f ope

ratin

g ex

pens

es

• Th

e fa

cilit

y m

ust h

ave

sign

ifica

nt p

oten

tial f

or th

e ne

t add

ition

of n

ew lo

ads

with

in Q

uébe

c.

• E

ach

proj

ect e

valu

ated

als

o on

the

proj

ect’s

val

ue a

dded

and

its

econ

omic

ben

efits

to

Que

bec

Run

ning

-in o

f New

Equ

ipm

ent O

ptio

n •

Tem

pora

ry e

xem

ptio

n fro

m c

ondi

tions

that

app

ly c

ontra

ct p

ower

is e

xcee

ded.

•

Allo

ws

test

ing

of n

ew e

quip

men

t with

out h

avin

g to

pay

for t

he re

sulti

ng in

crea

se in

pow

er d

eman

d du

ring

the

runn

ing-

in p

erio

d

Med

ium

Pow

er

Larg

e Po

wer

Inte

rrup

tible

Ele

ctric

ity O

ptio

ns

• C

redi

ts in

exc

hang

e fo

r cur

tailin

g yo

ur e

lect

ricity

con

sum

ptio

n on

requ

est

Med

ium

Pow

er

Larg

e Po

wer

Can

adia

n U

tility

O

ptio

n G

ener

al S

ervi

ce

Ava

ilabi

lity

Nov

a Sc

otia

Po

wer

N

ot a

vaila

ble

Not

ava

ilabl

e

New

foun

dlan

d Po

wer

C

urta

ilabl

e Se

rvic

e O

ptio

n •

Cur

tailm

ent c

redi

t ava

ilabl

e an

d de

term

ined

bas

ed o

n w

heth

er:

1.

Cus

tom

er c

ontra

cts

to re

duce

dem

and

by a

spe

cific

am

ount

dur

ing

curta

ilmen

t per

iods

; or

2.

C

usto

mer

con

tract

to re

duce

dem

and

to a

Firm

Dem

and

leve

l whi

ch c

anno

t exc

eed

max

imum

dem

and

durin

g a

Cur

tailm

ent p

erio

d C

urta

ilmen

t per

iods

will

: 1.

N

ot e

xcee

d 6

hour

s du

ratio

n fo

r any

one

occ

urre

nce

2.

Not

be

requ

este

d to

sta

rt w

ithin

2 h

ours

of t

he e

xpira

tion

of a

prio

r Cur

tailm

ent p

erio

d 3.

N

ot e

xcee

d 10

0 ho

urs

dura

tion

in to

tal d

urin

g a

win

ter p

erio

d

For c

usto

mer

s or

110

-100

kV

A or

>10

00 k

VA

that

ca

n re

duce

thei

r dem

and

by b

etw

een

300

kW

(330

kV

A) a

nd 5

000

kW (5

500

kVA

) upo

n re

ques

t by

the

Com

pany

dur

ing

the

Win

ter P

eak

P

erio

d.

New

B

runs

wic

k Po

wer

Not

ava

ilabl

e N

ot a

vaila

ble

ATC

O E

lect

ric

Yuko

n

Not

ava

ilabl

e N

ot a

vaila

ble

Fort

isB

C

Tim

e of

Use

Opt

ions

•

Prim

ary

and

Sec

onda

ry v

olta

ge c

usto

mer

s.

• C

usto

mer

s re

quire

d sa

tisfa

ctor

y lo

ad fa

ctor

s, a

s de

term

ined

by

the

Com

pany

•

Ava

ilabl

e fo

r a m

inim

um o

f 12

cons

ecut

ive

mon

ths

and

will

con

tinue

, at t

he e

lect

ion

of th

e C

usto

mer

, to

be a

vaila

ble

for a

min

imum

of 3

6 co

nsec

utiv

e m

onth

s af

ter c

omm

ence

men

t of

serv

ice

Com

mer

cial

and

Lar

ge C

omm

erci

al

BC

Hyd

ro

Not

ava

ilabl

e N

ot a

vaila

ble

Tabl

e 3:

Exp

ande

d C

anad

ian

Juris

dict

iona

l Rev

iew

of G

ener

al S

ervi

ce S

egm

enta

tion

U

tility

/Num

ber o

f GS

Cus

tom

ers

Smal

l M

ediu

m

Larg

e Ex

tra

Larg

e

BC

Hyd

ro

~183

,000

cus

tom

ers

<35

kW

(160

,000

cus

tom

ers)

N

o de

man

d ch

arge

35-1

50 k

W

(16,

000

cust

omer

s)

>150

kW

(7

,000

cus

tom

ers)

Fort

isB

C

<40

kW

No

dem

and

char

ge

40-5

00 k

W

<500

kV

A

Fort

isA

lber

ta

~59,

000

cust

omer

s <7

5 kW

(5

1,00

0 cu

stom

ers)

75

kW

– 2

MW

(8

,000

cus

tom

ers)

>2

MW

(1

70 c

usto

mer

s)

Enm

ax

~35,

000

cust

omer

s <5

000

kWh

/mon

th

(24,

000

cust

omer

s)

No

dem

and

char

ge

<150

kV

A (9

,000

cus

tom

ers)

>1

50 k

VA

(2,0

00 c

usto

mer

s +

252

prim

ary)

Epco

r ~3

4,00

0 cu

stom

ers

<50

kVA

(28,

000

cust

omer

s)

No

dem

and

char

ge

50 –

150

kV

A (4

,000

cus

tom

ers)

15

0 kV

A –

5 M

VA

(2

,000

cus

tom

ers

+ 11

0 pr

imar

y)

>5 M

VA

(2

0 cu

stom

ers:

site

-spe

cific

rate

s)

Sask

Pow

er

~60,

000

cust

omer

s <7

5 kV

A

75

– 2

MV

A

>2 M

VA

Man

itoba

Hyd

ro

~69,

000

cust

omer

s <2

00 k

VA

>2

00 k

VA

(31

cust

omer

s)

Hyd

ro O

ne

~119

,000

cus

tom

ers

<50

kW

(111

,000

cus

tom

ers)

N

o de

man

d ch

arge

>50

kW

(8,0

00 c

usto

mer

s)

Hyd

ro O

ttaw

a ~2

7,00

0 cu

stom

ers

<50

kW

(24,

000

cust

omer

s)

No

dem

and

char

ge

50 –

150

0 kW

(3

,000

cus

tom

ers)

15

00 k

W –

5 M

W

(76

cust

omer

s)

>5 M

W

(11

cust

omer

s)

Toro

nto

Hyd

ro

~81,

000

cust

omer

s <5

0 kW

(6

9,00

0 cu

stom

ers)

N

o de

man

d ch

arge

50 –

100

0 kW

(1

2,00

0 cu

stom

ers)

1

– 5

MW

(4

40 c

usto

mer

s)

>5 M

W

(49

cust

omer

s)

Hyd

ro Q

uebe

c ~3

11,0

00 c

usto

mer

s <6

5 kW

(2

87,0

00 c

usto

mer

s)

>50

kW

(24,

000

cust

omer

s)

>5 M

W

(100

cus

tom

ers)

New

foun

dlan

d Po

wer

~2

2,00

0 cu

stom

ers

<10

kW

(12,

000

cust

omer

s)

<100

kW

(9

,000

cus

tom

ers)

11

0 –

1000

kV

A (1

,000

cus

tom

ers)

>1

000

kVA

(65

cust

omer

s)





Rate Structures


Attachment 4

MGS and LGS Preferred Rate Structures Phase-in Analysis

MGS: No phase-in F2017 Outcomes:

Demand: $4.92/kW Energy: 8.48c/kW Basic: $0.2347/day

Estimated about 2000 accounts will experience bill impact above 10%, which are generally

accounts with load factor of less than 20% with annual consumption less than 80 MWh. Maximum bill impact for typical customers (In blue circle) is estimated to be about 2.8% and of

larger customers is about 10.4% (red circle).

MGS: Phase-in:

Escalate Demand Tier 1 to be 1/3 of the equivalent flat rate for that year, while Tier 2 and Tier 3 are combined and residually calculated

Energy charge is flattened over 3 years Phase-in demand cost recovery over three years (F2017 at 22%) All else same as SQ

F2017 Outcomes:

Demand: Tier 1: $1.04/kW; Tier 2 and Tier 3: $6.42/kW Energy: Tier 1: 9.66c/kW; Tier 2: 7.71c/kW (Ratio of Tier 1/Tier 2 at 1.25; phase-into-flat over

3 years) Basic: $0.2347/day

Slight softening of bill impacts relative to “no phase-in, but it delays the demand revenue

recovery adjustment by three years Estimated about 800 accounts to experience adverse bill impacts of greater than 10%, which

are generally accounts with less than 40 MWh/year of annual consumption and a load factor of less than 10%

Maximum bill impact for typical customers (In blue circle) is estimated to be about 3.2% and of larger customers is about 8% (red circle); both of which are similar to the no phase-in scenario.

-0.8% 10,000 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 180,000 210,000 240,000 270,000 300,000 330,000 360,000 390,000 420,000 450,000 480,000

10% 50.1% 52.5% 12.0% 2.4% -1.8% -9.1% -15.3% -17.5% -19.1% -20.3% -21.2% -21.9% -22.6% -23.1% -23.5% -23.9% -24.2%

20% 18.6% 19.4% 19.6% 6.8% 1.0% -2.2% -3.9% -2.0% -0.6% -0.2% -2.0% -3.5% -4.7% -5.7% -6.5% -7.2% -7.8%

30% 8.1% 8.3% 8.4% 8.4% 2.4% -1.2% -3.1% -1.0% 0.6% 1.9% 3.0% 3.9% 4.7% 5.4% 4.5% 3.5% 2.7%40% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% -0.6% -2.7% -0.4% 1.3% 2.7% 3.9% 4.9% 5.7% 6.4% 7.0% 7.6% 8.0%

50% -0.3% -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% -0.6% -0.6% -2.4% -0.1% 1.8% 3.3% 4.5% 5.5% 6.4% 7.1% 7.7% 8.3% 8.8%

60% -2.4% -2.7% -2.8% -2.8% -2.9% -2.9% -2.5% 0.2% 2.1% 3.6% 4.9% 5.9% 6.8% 7.6% 8.3% 8.8% 9.4%

70% -3.9% -4.3% -4.4% -4.4% -4.5% -4.5% -4.1% 0.2% 2.4% 3.9% 5.2% 6.3% 7.2% 8.0% 8.6% 9.2% 9.8%80% -5.0% -5.5% -5.6% -5.6% -5.7% -5.7% -5.3% -1.1% 2.3% 4.1% 5.4% 6.5% 7.5% 8.3% 8.9% 9.6% 10.1%

90% -5.9% -6.4% -6.5% -6.6% -6.6% -6.6% -6.3% -2.1% 1.3% 4.1% 5.6% 6.7% 7.7% 8.5% 9.2% 9.8% 10.4%

1.7% 10,000 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 180,000 210,000 240,000 270,000 300,000 330,000 360,000 390,000 420,000 450,000 480,000

10% 11.5% 11.9% 8.2% 7.3% 6.9% 1.2% -4.4% -7.4% -9.6% -11.2% -12.5% -13.5% -14.3% -15.0% -15.6% -16.1% -16.6%

20% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 3.6% 4.8% 5.8% 5.7% 3.4% 1.6% 0.1% -1.2% -2.2% -3.1% -3.9%

30% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 3.5% 4.5% 5.4% 6.1% 6.6% 7.1% 7.6% 6.4% 5.3% 4.2%40% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 2.6% 3.8% 4.6% 5.4% 6.0% 6.5% 6.9% 7.3% 7.7% 8.0%

50% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2.1% 3.2% 4.2% 4.9% 5.6% 6.1% 6.5% 6.9% 7.3% 7.6%

60% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.7% 2.9% 3.8% 4.6% 5.2% 5.8% 6.3% 6.7% 7.0% 7.3%

70% 0.1% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.1% 1.4% 2.6% 3.6% 4.4% 5.0% 5.6% 6.0% 6.5% 6.8% 7.2%80% -0.2% -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.4% 1.2% 2.4% 3.4% 4.2% 4.8% 5.4% 5.9% 6.3% 6.7% 7.0%

90% -0.4% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.7% -0.7% -0.6% 1.0% 2.2% 3.2% 4.0% 4.7% 5.3% 5.7% 6.2% 6.5% 6.9%

LGS: No phase-in F2017 Outcomes

Demand: $10.34/kW Energy: 5.47c/kW Basic: $0.2347/day

Estimated about 200 accounts will experience bill impact above 10%, which are generally

accounts with load factor of less than 10% with annual consumption less than 150 MWh Estimated that the typical customers (In blue circle) will experience bill impacts of up to 6.7%,

while the larger customers up to about 5.3% (red circle). Given that CARC is 4%, the increase in bill impacts is not substantial

LGS Phase In:

Escalate Demand Tier 1 to meet flattened rates in 3 years while holding Tier 3 at the flattened rate and Tier 2 residually calculated

Energy charge is flattened over 3 years Phase-in Demand Revenue Recovery over 3 years All else same as SQ

F2017 outcomes:

Demand: Tier 1: $3.02/kW; Tier 2: $11.14/kW; Tier 3: $9.06/kW Energy: Tier 1: 9.31c/kW; Tier 2: 5.42c/kW (Ratio of Tier 1/Tier 2 at 1.72; phase-into-flat over

3 years) Basic: $0.2347/day

Phase-in produces inferior bill impact mitigation Results show that even typical customers will experience bill impacts of above 10%, which is

much worse than no-phase-in, while the larger customers up to about 4.8% (red circle), which is comparable to no-phase-in

4.3% 150,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 2,200,000 2,400,000 2,600,000 2,800,000 3,000,000 3,200,000 3,400,000

10% 12.1% 2.3% 1.6% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

20% -2.6% 4.9% 3.8% 3.2% 2.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

30% -12.3% 6.7% 5.2% 4.5% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 3.5% 3.4% 3.3% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9%

40% -18.0% 1.4% 6.3% 5.4% 5.0% 4.6% 4.4% 4.2% 4.1% 4.0% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6%

50% -22.0% -2.5% 5.2% 6.1% 5.6% 5.2% 5.0% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1%

60% -26.4% -5.2% 2.5% 6.7% 6.1% 5.7% 5.5% 5.3% 5.1% 5.0% 4.9% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5%

70% -29.5% -7.3% 0.5% 4.9% 6.5% 6.1% 5.8% 5.6% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.1% 5.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8%

80% -31.9% -8.9% -1.1% 3.3% 6.1% 6.4% 6.1% 5.9% 5.7% 5.6% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 5.1%

90% -33.7% -10.2% -2.4% 2.0% 4.8% 6.7% 6.4% 6.1% 6.0% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3%

-9.4% 150,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 2,200,000 2,400,000 2,600,000 2,800,000 3,000,000 3,200,000 3,400,000

10% 25.2% 2.4% -1.5% -3.3% -4.5% -5.2% -5.8% -6.2% -6.5% -6.7% -6.9% -7.1% -7.2% -7.4% -7.5% -7.6% -7.6%

20% 13.8% 12.3% 6.1% 3.1% 1.2% 0.0% -0.8% -1.5% -2.0% -2.4% -2.7% -3.0% -3.2% -3.4% -3.5% -3.7% -3.8%

30% 4.2% 19.0% 11.1% 7.3% 5.0% 3.5% 2.4% 1.6% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1% -0.2% -0.5% -0.8% -1.0% -1.2% -1.3%

40% -1.4% 13.7% 14.7% 10.3% 7.7% 6.0% 4.7% 3.8% 3.1% 2.5% 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 1.1% 0.8% 0.6% 0.5%

50% -4.9% 9.8% 14.8% 12.6% 9.7% 7.8% 6.5% 5.5% 4.7% 4.1% 3.6% 3.1% 2.8% 2.5% 2.2% 2.0% 1.8%

60% -6.1% 6.9% 11.9% 14.3% 11.3% 9.2% 7.8% 6.7% 5.9% 5.2% 4.7% 4.2% 3.9% 3.5% 3.3% 3.0% 2.8%

70% -7.1% 4.8% 9.7% 12.5% 12.5% 10.4% 8.9% 7.7% 6.9% 6.2% 5.6% 5.1% 4.7% 4.4% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6%

80% -7.8% 3.2% 8.0% 10.7% 12.5% 11.3% 9.7% 8.6% 7.7% 6.9% 6.3% 5.9% 5.4% 5.1% 4.8% 4.5% 4.3%

90% -8.3% 1.9% 6.6% 9.4% 11.1% 12.1% 10.5% 9.3% 8.3% 7.6% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.7% 5.3% 5.1% 4.8%





Rate Structures


Attachment 5 Interpreting Sensitivity Analysis Outcomes

INTE

RP

RE

TIN

G S

EN

SIT

IVIT

Y A

NA

LYS

IS O

UTC

OM

ES

Ann

ual

Con

sum

ptio

n kW

h –

Ran

ge t

hat e

ncom

pass

mos

t cus

tom

ers

in t

he c

lass

Load Factor

5.8%

200,

000

400,

000

600,

000

800,

000

1,

000,

000

1,

200,

000

1,

400,

000

1,

600,

000

1,

800,

000

2,

000,

000

2,

200,

000

2,

400,

000

2,

600,

000

2,

800,

000

3,

000,

000

3,

200,

000

3,

400,

000

10%

-18.6%

-4.6%

0.0%

2.3%

3.6%

4.5%

5.2%

5.6%

6.0%

6.3%

6.6%

6.8%

6.9%

7.1%

7.2%

7.3%

7.4%

20%

-30.5%

-10.9%

-3.6%

0.1%

2.2%

3.6%

4.7%

5.4%

6.0%

6.5%

6.9%

7.2%

7.5%

7.7%

7.9%

8.1%

8.2%

30%

-34.5%

-15.2%

-5.9%

-1.4%

1.3%

3.1%

4.3%

5.3%

6.0%

6.6%

7.1%

7.5%

7.8%

8.1%

8.4%

8.6%

8.8%

40%

-36.8%

-16.7%

-7.6%

-2.5%

0.6%

2.6%

4.1%

5.2%

6.0%

6.7%

7.2%

7.7%

8.1%

8.4%

8.7%

8.9%

9.1%

50%

-38.4%

-17.7%

-8.6%

-3.2%

0.1%

2.3%

3.9%

5.1%

6.0%

6.7%

7.3%

7.8%

8.3%

8.6%

8.9%

9.2%

9.4%

60%

-39.4%

-18.4%

-9.1%

-3.8%

-0.3%

2.1%

3.8%

5.0%

6.0%

6.8%

7.4%

7.9%

8.4%

8.8%

9.1%

9.4%

9.6%

70%

-40.3%

-19.0%

-9.5%

-4.1%

-0.6%

1.9%

3.7%

5.0%

6.0%

6.8%

7.5%

8.0%

8.5%

8.9%

9.3%

9.6%

9.8%

80%

-40.9%

-19.4%

-9.8%

-4.3%

-0.8%

1.8%

3.6%

4.9%

6.0%

6.9%

7.5%

8.1%

8.6%

9.0%

9.4%

9.7%

10.0%

90%

-41.4%

-19.7%

-10.0%

-4.5%

-0.9%

1.6%

3.5%

4.9%

6.0%

6.9%

7.6%

8.2%

8.7%

9.1%

9.5%

9.8%

10.1%

F15/

F16

illus

trat

ive

bill

impa

ct

Red

mea

ns B

ill Im

pact

hig

her t

han

Cla

ss

Ave

rage

Rat

e C

hang

es (C

AR

C) (

6%)

Mor

e in

tens

e gr

een

indi

cate

s hi

gher

bill

impa

ct(o

nly

posi

tive

impa

cts

are

colo

red)

Hig

hest

M

ax k

w(3

881

kW)

Low

est k

w(2

5 kW

)

Max

kw

(431

kW

)

(228

kW

)-18.6%

-4.6%

0.0%

2.3%

3.6%

4.5%

5.2%

5.6%

6.0%

6.3%

6.6%

6.8%

6.9%

7.1%

7.2%

7.3%

7.4%

-30.5%

-10.9%

-3.6%

0.1%

2.2%

3.6%

4.7%

5.4%

6.0%

6.5%

6.9%

7.2%

7.5%

7.7%

7.9%

8.1%

8.2%

-34.5%

-15.2%

-5.9%

-1.4%

1.3%

3.1%

4.3%

5.3%

6.0%

6.6%

7.1%

7.5%

7.8%

8.1%

8.4%

8.6%

8.8%

-36.8%

-16.7%

-7.6%

-2.5%

0.6%

2.6%

4.1%

5.2%

6.0%

6.7%

7.2%

7.7%

8.1%

8.4%

8.7%

8.9%

9.1%

-38.4%

-17.7%

-8.6%

-3.2%

0.1%

2.3%

3.9%

5.1%

6.0%

6.7%

7.3%

7.8%

8.3%

8.6%

8.9%

9.2%

9.4%

-39.4%

-18.4%

-9.1%

-3.8%

-0.3%

2.1%

3.8%

5.0%

6.0%

6.8%

7.4%

7.9%

8.4%

8.8%

9.1%

9.4%

9.6%

-40.3%

-19.0%

-9.5%

-4.1%

-0.6%

1.9%

3.7%

5.0%

6.0%

6.8%

7.5%

8.0%

8.5%

8.9%

9.3%

9.6%

9.8%

-40.9%

-19.4%

-9.8%

-4.3%

-0.8%

1.8%

3.6%

4.9%

6.0%

6.9%

7.5%

8.1%

8.6%

9.0%

9.4%

9.7%

10.0%

-41.4%

-19.7%

-10.0%

-4.5%

-0.9%

1.6%

3.5%

4.9%

6.0%

6.9%

7.6%

8.2%

8.7%

9.1%

9.5%

9.8%

10.1%

Low

est k

W

Hig

hest

kW

•F1

5/F1

6 ill u

stra

tive

bill

impa

ct s

how

n•

Com

pute

d by

ass

umin

g co

nsum

ptio

n an

d de

man

d is

iden

tical

for a

ll m

onth

s (i.

e. th

e sa

me

load

fact

or)

“Typ

ical

” cus

tom

ers

as d

efin

ed b

y kW

h an

d Lo

ad F

acto

r fal

l with

in th

e bl

ue o

val a

rea

The

dist

ribu t

ion

of c

usto

mer

by

kWh

and

load

fact

or m

ay n

ot fo

llow

the

sam

e tre

nd a

s th

e bi

ll im

pact

dis

tribu

tions

an

d co

mpa

rativ

e di

strib

utio

ns b

ecau

se:

•Th

e m

edia

n cu

stom

er a

s de

fined

by

kWh

and

load

fact

or is

diff

eren

t tha

n th

e m

edia

n cu

stom

er d

efin

ed b

y bi

ll im

pact

of

each

rate

des

ign,

dep

ende

nt o

n w

hich

rate

com

pone

nt is

cha

nged

•Th

e “m

iddl

e 60

%” o

f cus

tom

ers

in th

e kW

h/lo

ad fa

ctor

dis

tribu

tion

abov

e ca

n be

diff

eren

t tha

n th

e on

es in

the

bill

impa

ct o

f ea

ch ra

te d

esig

n, a

lso

depe

nden

t on

whi

ch ra

te c

ompo

nent

is c

hang

ed

2015 Rate Design Application June 25, 2015/June 26, 2015 · 2015-09-15 · June 25, 2015/June 26,...

Documents

Transcript of 2015 Rate Design Application June 25, 2015/June 26, 2015 · 2015-09-15 · June 25, 2015/June 26,...