92-052 RESOLUTION NO. 92R- 52
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ANENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AHD
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO.
71R-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. 91R-336.
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim maintains an electric
generation and distribution system for the furnishing of
electricity to residents and inhabitants of the City of Anaheim
and has adopted Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations for the
sale and distribution of electricity; and
WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Board held a public hearing on
March 5, 1992 and evidence was presented in connection with
proposed revisions of Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Hearing was published as follows:
1. On February 24, 1992, notice of the public hearing on
electric rates was published in the Anaheim Bulletin
and proof thereof is on file with the Secretary of the
Public Utilities Board.
2. On February 25, 1992, notice of the public hearing on
electric rates was published in the Orange County
· Register and proof thereof is on file with the
Secretary of the Public Utilities Board.
3. On February 24, 1992, notice of the public hearing on
electric rates was published in the Orange County
Edition of the Los Angeles Times and proof thereof is
on file with the Secretary of the Public Utilities
Board.
WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Board considered the
California Environmental Quality Act and made the findings set
forth in the record of the public hearing, including the finding
that the establishment of these rates is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
21080(b) (8) of the Public Resources Code; and
WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Board considered the proposal
of the Public Utilities Department and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, and has made findings with respect to the
need for changes to the Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations
which findings have been provided to the city Council; and
WHEREAS, based on its findings, the Public Utilities Board
has recommended to the City Council that the Council adopt the
changes to the Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations as shown in
Appendix C; and
WHEREAS, the city Council has considered the evidence
presented at the public hearing and the findings of the Public
Utilities Board.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby makes the
following findings with respect to the need for changes to
the Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations:
a. Section 1221 of the City Charter provides that utility
rates charged to a class of customers shall be uniform
within the class and shall be based on cost of service
revenue requirement for the class.
b. It is appropriate to perform cost-of-service studies in
order to determine the allocated revenue requirement for
the following customer classes: Residential; Small
Commercial; Large Commercial; Industrial; Agricultural and
Pumping; Street Lights; and Municipal.
c. It is appropriate to establish for the Industrial rate
class a voltage discount which compensates participating
customers for costs the utility avoids in serving these
customers.
d. In developing the voltage discount amount, it is
appropriate to give consideration to both cost of service
and the retail rates of Southern California Edison and
other utilities that have developed voltage discounts.
e. It is appropriate to recognize the benefits the Anaheim
Public Utilities Department will realize through customer
use of Thermal Energy Storage systems, and that these
benefits are shared with Thermal Energy Storage customers
through revised rates.
f. It is appropriate to decrease the Electric Utility revenue
from sales budget for 1991/92 from $204,644,000 to
$204,534,000.
2. The changes to the Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations as
shown in Appendix C are hereby adopted by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the city
Council of the City of Anaheim on this 17th day of March ,
1992 ·
F THE CITY O~AHEIM
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JACK L. WHITE. CITY ATTORNEY
~ ~_ .~_~.~ ~. ~.,~.z~.~.~.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, ANN M. SAUVAGEAU, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 92R-52 was introduced and adopted at
a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council held on the 17th
day of March, 1992, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER certify that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said
Resolution No. 92R-52 on the 18th day of March, 1992.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
City of Anaheim this 18th day of March, 1992. ~
ASSISTANT CITY~TY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
I, ANN M. SAUVAGEAU, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 92R-52 duly passed
and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim on March 17, 1992.
APPENDIX A
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS
CITY OF ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA
Public Utilities Department
DATE: February 24, 1992
TO: Public Utilities Board
FROM: Public Utilities General Manager
SUBJECT: Electric Utility Rate Action
RECOMMENDATION
That the Public Utilities Board recommend that the City Council, by
Resolution, adopt certain changes to the Rates, Rules and
Regulations for electric services provided to voltage discount
customers and Thermal Energy Storage customers served by the City
of Anaheim; and that the Public Utilities Board recommend that the
City Council approve the proposed Thermal Energy Storage rebate of
up to $200/kw.
DISCUSSION
In January of this year, the Department retained the utility
consulting firm of Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. (BCI) to:
1) review and update the Department's primary (12 kV) and.
transmission (69 kV) voltage discounts;
2) review the Thermal Energy Storage program rate schedule
and rebate incentive levels; and,
3) prepare a report of Demand Side Management (DSM) options
for Commercial and Industrial customers.
The Department felt the BCI study was necessary to maintain
competitive rates. Also, the Department believed the BCI study
would provide key components for the Department's efforts to
develop a package of utility services to retain and attract
business to Anaheim.
This study is an interim measure and the results, if approved, will
remain in effect until the Department completes a marginal cost-of-
service study and refines these results. The marginal cost-of-
service study is expected to Be incorporated in the January 1993
Rate Case.
Attached to this staff report as appendix B is the report prepared
by BCI. Based on the recommendations of BCI, the Department is
proposing to:
1) revise the current voltage discount for customers taking
(714) 254-5100
P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, Califomia92803
Currently 34 customers receive this discount: seven of them at the 3% level, 27 at
the 4% level, and 0 at the 5% level. The City is expecting to serve a customer at
the 69 kv level, so they would receive a 5% discount under the currein rates. This
discount is applied to the customer's demand and energy charge. The total annual
discount for all of these customers amounts to approximately $1,300,000.
All of these customers are taking service on the GS-2 rate; in addition
approximately 300 smaller industrial customers are on this schedule but are not
receiving any discount. The voltage discount is the only price distinction between
any of these types of industrial customers.
Historically, simple voltage discounts were calculated based on the energy and
demand losses (line losses) that were avoided by taking service at a higher voltage
level. By taking service at a higher voltage level, the company avoids the system
losses that would have occurred had service been taken at the distribution level,
These reductions to system losses are then passed on to the customers in the form
of a percentage discount.
Table 1.1, shown at the end of this chapter, develops the City of Anaheim's
discounts due to the savings in line losses at two voltage levels, 12 kv and 69 kv.
These savings are 3.73% for 12 kv and 4.5% for 69 kv, and approximate the
current voltage discounts of 4.0% and 5.0%, respectively.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND ASSOCIATED EXPENSES
The City of Anaheim uses an embedded cost of service study to set rates for all
customer classes. In designing rates for the industrial class, the Cost of Setwice
(COS) Study has not made any distinction between the cost of providing service to
the various industrial customers. This means that all industrial customers, across
all voltages, are being charged the same rates.
Higher voltage customers (11 kv and above) take service from either a
transmission line or a 12 kv feeder line. The City has little or no distribution
expenses or investment at this level. The COS study that the current GS-2 rates
are based upon allocates distribution costs to higher voltage customers. Thus, the
2
SECI'ION 1
VOLTAGE DISCOUNT
INTRODUCTION
Almost all electric investor-owned utilities and many municipals offer adjustments
or discounts to electric rates that recognize the difference in the cost of providing
service at varying voltage levels. There are two main sources of cost differences,
(1) line losses and (2) capital investment and associated expenses. The first is a
discount that is tied into the line losses that are saved by taking service at a
higher voltage level. The second cost difference is the capital and expense savings
that are associated with serving these customers. These customers take service at
the transmission or near transmission level, and so they do not use the distribution
system as would a residential or commercial customer.
These cost differences can be applied to the customer's bill in two different
fashions. The first is in the form of a voltage discount, which is applied as a
percentage discount to the customer's entire bill. The City already uses this
method for its discounts. The second is usually in the form of a new rate schedule
that has lower rates for both the demand and energy charges. The voltage
discount method is the preferred method because of its ease of use, The City's
Utilities Department has picked this method to set the price differences for these
customers.
BACKGROUND
Barakat & Chainberlin has been asked to review the 11 kv and above voltage
discounts. The City of Anaheim currently offers a voltage discount for those
electric customers who take power above the 2 kv level, and they vary by voltage
level:
· 2 to 10 kv: 3% discount
· 11 to 50 kw: 4% discount
· Above 50 kv: 5% discount
CONTENTS
SECTION 1: VOLTAGE DISCOUNT .............................
Introduction ............................................. 1
Background ............................................. 1
Line Losses ............................................. 2
Capital Investment and Associated Expenses .................... 2
Summary ............................................... 3
Examples of Voltage Discounts Offered by Electric Utilities .........3
SECTION 2: THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE RATE ................ 7
Introduction ............................................. 7
Background ............................................. 7
TES System Investments ................................... 8
New TES Rate .......................................... 8
TES Paybacks ........................................... 9
TES Contract and Rebate .................................. 9
Summary .............................................. 10
APPENDIX B
BARAKAT AND CHAMBERLIN, INC. REPORT
a. Section 1221 of the City Charter provides that utility
rates charged to a class of customers shall be uniform
within the class and shall be based on cost-of-service
revenue requirement for the class.
b. It is appropriate to perform cost-of-service studies in
order to determine the allocated revenue requirement for
the following customer classes: Residential; Small
Commercial; Large Commercial; Industrial; Agricultural
and Pumping; Street Lights; and Municipal.
c. It is appropriate to establish for the Industrial rate
class a voltage discount which compensates participating
customers for costs the utility avoids in serving these
customers.
d. In developing the voltage discount, it is appropriate to
give consideration to both cost of service and the retail
rates of Southern california Edison and other utilities
that have developed voltage discounts.
e. It is appropriate to recognize the benefits the Anaheim
Public Utilities Department will realize through customer
use of Thermal Energy Storage systems, and that these
benefits are shared with Thermal Energy Storage customers
through revised rates.
f. It is appropriate to decrease the Electric Utility
revenue from sales budget for 1991/92 from $204,664,000
to $204,534,000.
7. Recommendations to the City Council.
Based on the findings hereinabove made, the Public Utilities
Board of the City of Anaheim recommends to the City Council
that the Council adopt the findings of the Public Utilities
Board with respect to the matters contained herein and adopt
the electric rates as presented.
Secretary, Public Utilities Board
ANAHEIM PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ANAHEIM
CONCERNING PROPOSED ELECTRIC RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
On February 24, 1992, the General Manager of the Public Utilities
Department filed with us an application for revision of electric
rates for electrical service provided by the City of Anaheim. In
addition, at the Board meeting of February 20, 1992, we established
March 5, 1992, at 3:30 p.m. in the Anaheim City Council Chambers as
the time and place where evidence would be presented in connection
with the proposed revision of electric rates.
There was notice given through advertisements on February 24, 1992
in the Anaheim Bulletin and the Orange County edition of the Los
Angeles Times and on February 25, 1992 in the Orange County
Register on the time, place, date, and purpose of the hearing to
consider revision of the electric rates.
A hearing was held on March 5, 1992 before this Board and evidence
was presented in connection with the proposed revision of electric
rates. We have reviewed the record, considered the testimony given
at the public hearing on this matter, and we make the following
findings:
1. California Environmental Quality Act.
a. The establishment of these rates will ensure retention
and attraction of Industrial customers to Anaheim,
thereby protecting revenues necessary to meet operating
expenses.
b. The matters covered in this hearing come within Section
21080 (b) (8) of the Public Resources Code of the State of
California. Thus, the establishment of these rates is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. Notice of Hearing and Proof Thereof.
a. On February 24, 1992, notice of the public hearing on
electric rates was published in the Anaheim Bulletin and
proof thereof is on file with the Secretary of the Public
Utilities Board.
b. On February 25, 1992, notice of the public hearing on
electric rates was published in the Orange County
Register and proof thereof is on file with the Secretary
of the Public Utilities Board.
c. On February 24, 1992, notice of the public hearing on
electric rates was published in the Orange County Edition
of the Los Angeles Times and proof thereof is on file
with the Secretary of the Public Utilities Board.
3. Proposed Electric Rates.
Public Utilities Board
Page 2 of 3
February 24, 1992
service at voltage levels between 11 kV and 50 kV from 4%
to 6% in rate schedules GS-2 (General Service) and TOU
(Time-Of-Use);
2) revise the current voltage discount for customers taking
service at voltage levels above 50 kV from 5% to 15% in
rate schedules GS-2 (General Service) and TOU (Time-Of-
Use); and,
3) revise rate schedule TES (Thermal Energy Storage) and
revise the Thermal Energy Storage rebate incentive from
$60/kw to $200/kw.
The effective date of these changes will be April 1, 1992.
Attached to this report as appendix A are a resolution and findings
for the Board to review and adopt.
A report discussing DSM options for Commercial and Industrial
customers is not included. The Department is reviewing information
prepared by BCI which will be presented to the Board at a later
point in time.
Also attached are revised tariff Dages and bill comparisons as
appendices C and D, respectively.
The justification for increasing the 12 kV and 69 kV voltage
discounts are contained in the consulting engineer's report. The
increase in voltage discounts more adequately compensates customers
for the investment in equipment.
The Department currently has 27 customer accounts that would be
affected by the proposed changes. The Department is anticipating
that one new customer will elect service at 12 kV and that two
existing customers will convert service to 12 kV. The Department
does not have any 69 kV customers but does anticipate the
possibility of a 69 kV customer within the next 5 years.
The Department currently has 7 customer accounts that take service
at 4 kV. The current discount for these customers is 3%. BCI did
not review the 4 kV voltage discount. These customers will remain
at the 3% discount level and this issue will be reviewed in the
January 1993 Rate Case.
The changes to Schedule TES aNd the TES rebate incentive levels are
the result of an economic evaluation of the costs and benefits of
the Thermal Energy Storage program. Using a capacity/energy
exchange contract as a proxy, the TES rate and rebate were revised
to provide equivalent benefits to the Department while providing
substantial economic benefits to potential customers. Instead of
entering into a contract with another utility to provide on-peak
capacity in exchange for off-peak energy, the Department can make
an offer to potential TES customers that is similar in economic
value.
Public Utilities Board
Page 3 of 3
February 24, 1992
IMPACT ON THE RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN
The revision to the 12 kV voltage discount rate will reduce
revenues in fiscal year 1991/92 by $110,000. This revenue loss
will be offset by on-going cost reductions in the Utilities
Department which have resulted from the implementation of the
management audit findings.
The Department does not currently have any TES customers so the
proposed rate schedule change will have no revenue impact in fiscal
year 1991/92. Funds are available in Program 468 to provide for
TES rebates in fiscal year 1991/92.
Respectfully,~itted,
Edwa~/~. aghjayan
Publl~/Utilities General Manager
Attachments
c: Finance Director
Utilities Assistant General Managers
Utilities Division Managers
Financial Requirements Manager
Financial Requirements Staff
Central Files
CITY OF ANAHEIM
PUBLIC HEARING
ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE MATTERS
The Public Utilities Board of the City of Anaheim will
hold a Public Hearing on proposed changes to the City's
12,000 volt and 69,000 volt commercial and industrial electric
rates, and Thermal Energy Storage rates on Thursday, March
§, 1992.
The hearing will be conducted in the City Council Cham-
ber, First Floor of the Civic Center, located at 200 S. Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim California. The hearing will begin at
3;30 p.m. Public participation and comment is encouraged. '
The hearing will be for the purpose of considering a
proposal by the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department
to improve the discount for service to customers at 12,000
volts and 69,000 volts, and change the existing Thermal En-
ergy Storage rate structure.
Information willbe available February 25,1992, regarding
these proposed rate changes along with information regard-
ing the Public Utility Board's rules for participation or formal
intervention in the hearing process. All of the above informa-
tion will be available at the office of the City Clerk, on the
second floor of the Civic Center at the address indicated
above, the main library and each branch library in the City of
Anaheim.
CITY OF ANAHEIM PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
COMPARISON OF ELECTRIC BILLS PAGE 1
PERCENT
PROPOSED
CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED ANAHEIM
ANAHEIM ANAHEIM PERCENT SCE LESS THAN
EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE INCREASE EFFECTIVE (GREATER THAN)
INDUSTRIAL: NO VOLTAGE DISCOUNT 1-1-92 4-1-92 (DECREASE) 1-20-92 SCE WT'D AVG
DEMAND CONSUMPTION SUMMER WINTER
200 KW; 30% L.F. 43200 KWH 4,380.93 4,380.93 0.0 7,713.03 3,926.45 15.6
200 KW; 40% L.F. 57600 KWH 5,307.90 5,307.90 O.O 8,795.69 4,9~8.65 14.6
200 KW; 50% L.F. 72000 KWH 6,234.88 6,234.88 0.0 9,878.35 5,930.85 14.0
200 KW; 60% L.F. 86400 KWH 7,161.86 7,161.86 0.0 10,961.01 6,933.05 13.5
200 KW; 70% L.F. 100800 KWH 8,088.83 8,088.83 0.0 12,043.67 7,935.24 13.1
300 KW; 40% L.F. 86400 KWH 7,961.86 7,961.86 0.0 13,D48.61 7,248.05 13.3
30D KW; 50% L.F. 106000 KWH 9,352.32 9,352.32 0.0 14,672.60 8,751.34 12.8
300 KW; 60% L.F. 129600 KWH 10,742.78 10,742.78 0.0 16,296.59 10,254.64 12.4
300 KW; 70% L.F. 151200 KWH 12,133.25 12,133.25 0.0 17,920.58 11.757.94 12.2
500 KW; 50% L.F. 182500 KWH 15,748.13 15,748~13 0.0 24,449.06 14,566.33 11.8
500 KW; 60% L.F. 219000 KWH 18,097.76 18,097.76 0.0 27,193.30 17,106.63 11.6
500 KW; 70% L.F. 255500 KWH 20,447.39 20,447.39 0.0 29,937.54 19,646.93 11.4
500 KW; 80% L.F. 292000 KWM 22,797.01 22,797.01 0.0 32,681.78 22,187.22 11.2
750 KW; 50% L.F. 270000 KWH 23,38D.80 23,380.80 O.D 36,246.72 21,443.59 11.4
750 KW; 60% L.F. 324000 KWH 26,856.96 26,856.96 0.0 40,306.69 25,201.83 11.2
750 KW; 70% L.F. 378000 KWH 30,333.I2 30,333.12 0.0 44,365.67 28,960.08 11.0
750 KW; 80% L.F. 432000 KWM 33,809.28 33,009.28 0.0 48,426.54 32,718.33 10.9
1000 KW; 50% L.F. 360000 KWH 31,174.40 31,174.40 0.0 48,232.34 28,494.83 11.1
1000 KW; 60% L.F. 438000 KWH 36,195.52 36,195.52 0.0 54.096.75 33,923.41 11.0
1000 KW; 70% L.F. 510000 KWH 40,830.40 40,830.40 0.0 59,510.05 38,934.41 10.8
1000 KW; 80% L.F. 584000 KWH 45,594.03 45,594.03 0.0 65,073.71 44,084.60 10.7
5000 KW; 50% L.F. 1800000 KWH 155,872.00 155,872.00 0.0 240,002.31 141,314.76 10.5
5000 KW; 60% L.F. 2190000 KWM 160,977.60 180,977.60 0.0 269,324.34 168,457.66 10.4
5000 KW; 70% L.F. 2555000 KWH 204,473.87 204,473.87 0.0 296,766.76 193,860.62 10.4
5000 KW; 80% L.F. 2920000 KWH 227,970.13 227,970.13 0.0 324,209.17 219,263.59 10.3
7000 ~; 60% L.F. 3066000 KWH 253,368.64 253,368.64 0.0 376,938.14 235,724.78 10.4
7000 KW; 70% L.F. 3577000 ~H 286,263.41 286,263.41 0.0 415,357.52 271,288.93 10.3
7000 KW; 80% L.F. 4088000 ~H 319,158.19 319,158.19 0.0 453,776.90 306,853.09 10.3
CiTY OF ANAHEIM PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
COMPARISON OF ELECTRIC BILLS PAGE 2
PROPOSED
CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED ANAHEIM
ANAHEIM ANAHEIM PERCENT SCE LESS THAN
EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE INCREASE EFPECTIVE (GREATER THAN)
INDUSTRIAL: 12KV VOLTAGE DISCOUNT 1-1-92 4-1-92 (DECREASE) 1-20-92 SCE WT'D AVG
DEMAND CONSUMPTION SUMMER WINTER
200 KW; 30% L.F. 43200 KWH 4,205.69 4,118.07 (2.1) 7,386.50 3,697.28 16.4
200 KW; 40% L.F. 57600 KWH 5,095.59 4,989.43 (2.1) 8,450.11 4,682,99 16.0
200 KW; 50% L.F. 72000 KWH 5,985.48 5,860./9 (2.1) 9,513.73 5,668.70 15.7
200 KW; 60% L.F. 86400 KWM 6,875.38 6,732.14 (2.1) 10,577.34 6,654.41 15.4
200 KW; 70% L.F. 100800 KWH 7,765.28 7,603.50 (2.1) 11,840.96 7,640.13 15.3
300 KW; 40% L.F. 86400 KWH 7,643.38 7.484.14 (2.1) 12,530.09 6,879.41 14,6
300 KW; 50% L.F. 108000 KWH 8,978.23 8,791.18 (2,1) 14,125.52 8,357.98 14.5
300 KW; 60% L.F. 129600 KWH 10,313.07 i0,098.22 (2.1) 15,720.94 9,836.55 14.4
300 KW; 70% L.F. 151200 KWH 11.647.92 11,405.25 (2.1) 17,316,36 11,315.11 14.3
SO0 KW; 50% L.F. 182500 KWH 15,118.21 14,803.25 (2.1} 23,533.75 13,907.87 13.5
500 KW; 60% L.F. 219000 KWH 17,373.85 17,011.89 (2.1) 26,229.72 16,406.17 13.6
500 kq~; 70% L.F. 255500 KWH 19,629.49 19,220.54 {2.1) 28,925.69 18,904.67 13.6
500 KW; 80% L.F. 292000 KWH 21,885.13 21,429.19 (2.1) 31,621.66 21,403.17 13.6
750 KW; 50% L.F. 270000 K'WH 22,445,57 21.977.95 (2.1) 34,878.57 20,459.73 13.0
750 KW; 60% L.F. 324000 KWM 25,782.68 25,245.54 (2.1) 38.867.13 24,156.14 13.1
750 KW; 70% L.P. 378000 KWH 29,119.80 28.513.13 (2.1) 42,855.69 27,852.56 13.2
750 KW; 80% L.F. 432000 IO~H 32,450.91 31,780.72 (2.1) 46,844.25 31,548.97 13.3
1000 KW; 50% L.F. 360000 KWH 29,927.42 29,303.94 (2.1) 46,408.04 27,182.92 12.8
1000 KW; 60% L.F. 438000 KWH 34,747.70 34,023.79 (2.1) 52,169.29 32,522.19 12.9
1000 KW; 70% l.F. 510000 KWH 39,197.18 38,380.58 (2.1) 57,487.37 37,450.74 13.0
1000 KW; 80% L.F. 584000 KWH 43,770.27 42,858.39 (2.1) 62,953.17 42,516.20 13.1
5000 KW; 50% L.F. 1800000 KWH 149,637.12 146,519.68 (2.1)230,879.51 134,754.00 12.2
5000 KW; 60% L.F. 2190000 Kq~H 173,738.50 170,118.94 (2.1)259,685.87 161,450.34 12.4
5000 KW; 70% L.F. 2555000 k%~H 196,294.91 192,205.43 (2.1}286,645.57 186,435.37 12,6
5000 KW; 80% L.F. 2920000 KWH 218,851.33 214,291.93 (2.1)313,605.27 211,420.40 12.7
7000 KW; 60% L.F. 3066000 KWH 243,233.89 238,166.52 (2.1)363,444.16 225,914.41 12.4
7000 KW; 70% L.F. 3577000 KWH 274,812.88 269,087.61 (2.1)401,187.74 260,893.45 12.5
7000 KW; 80% L.F. 4088000 KWH 306,391.86 300,008.70 (2.1)438,931.32 295,872.50 12.7
APPENDIX D
BILL COMPARISONS
GS-2 rates include a distribution cost provision for those customers that are taking
service at the 11 kv and above level. To properly reflect the costs associated with
these customers, Barakat & Chamberlin revised the COS study.
In order to revise the COS study, Barakat & Chamberlin had to separate
industrial customers into one of three groups: (1) below 11 kv, (2) 11 kv to 50 kv,
and (3) above 50 kv. We also expanded the allocation factors to reflect these
changes. The revised study reallocates the investment and expenses for these new
industrial classes.
Table 1.2 shows the results of the revised Cost of Service Study for the Industrial
class at two voltage levels, 11 kv to 50 kv and above 50 kv. It shows that
additional savings of 1.97% for 11-50 kv and 10.09% for above 50 kv customers
should be passed on.
Barakat & Chamberlin believes this revised study to be an accurate estimate of
the COS savings for large industrial customers. However, these estimates will be
refined following a marginal cost study performed during the next Electric Utility
Rate Action.
SUMlVlARY
By combining the two savings mentioned above (line loses and capital investment)
Barakat & Chamberlin recommends that the voltage discount be raised for 11 kv
to 50 kv and above 50 kv customers in the following amounts:
Culrcnt : Proposed I
-11-50 kv 4.00% 6.00%
Above 50 kv 5.00% 15.00%
EXAMPLES OF VOLTAGE DISCOUNTS OFFERED BY EI JECTRIC
UTII.ITIES
We have surveyed the voltage discounts of other utilities in California and other
parts of the United States and Canada.
3
These utilities include:
Southern California Edison Company
San Diego Gas & Electric
Pacific Gas & Electric
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Hydro Quebec, Canada
Florida Power Corporation
The survey showed that the larger the voltage level, the larger the voltage
discount. We have also found that the voltage discount levels being proposed here
are well within the range of acceptable values used by other utilities.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Table 1.1
Line Losses 12kV and 69kV
Demand Energy Average
System Losses 1) 8.60% 4.20%
Transmission Losses 2)
Winter 1.16% 1.06%
Summer 1.86% 1.32%
Average 12 kV Transmission Losses 1.51% 1.19%
12 kV Voltage Discounts 3) 6.98% 2.97%
Substation Losses (estimate) 0.75% .0.75%
Average 69 kV Transmission Losses 4) 0.76% 0.44%
69 kV Voltage Discounts 3) 7.78% 3.74%
12 kV Average Discount Calculation
Load Factor 70.00%
Demand (kW) 1,000
Energy (kWh) 511,000
Charges (GS-2) $8.00 $0.068
Total Bill $8,000 $34,748 $42,748
12 kV Discount $559 $1,034 $1,593
Percent Discount 6.99% 2.98% 3.73%
69 kV Average Discount Calculation
Load Factor 70.00%
Demand (kW) 5,000
Energy (kWh) 2,555,000
Charges (GS-2) $8.00 $0.068
Total Bill $40,000 $173,740 $213,740
69 kV Discount $3,112 $6,504 $9,61'6
Percent Discount 7.78% 3.74% 4.50%
1) 1990 Load Research Report
2) 1990 Monthly Load Research Report. Transmission losses are those losses
associated with power incoming at Lewis Sub to the Low side of the B-banks at the
12 KV level.
3) Discounts are calculated lmsed upon percentage difference between system losses
and transmission losses.
4) Average 12 kV transmission losses minus substation losses.
C:\123R22\WORK~ELECTR IC'~dqAHEIIvI~LI NELOSS.WK 1
21 - Feb - 92
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Table 1.2
Development of 12kV Discount
Revenues at Present Rates
GS-2 Rate Rates Billim~ Determinants Revenues
Demand Charge
All kW $8.00 839,613 $6,716,904
Energy Charge
All kWh $0.06800 407,979,000 $27~742,572
$34,459,476
Voltage Discount 4.00% ($1.378,379)
$33,081,097
Current Revenue Requirement $32,430.372
Percentage Discount 1.97%
Total 12kV Discount 5.97%
Development of 69kV Discount
Revenues at Present Rates
GS-2 Rate Rates Billim~ Determinants Revenues
Demand Charge
All kW $8.00 60,000 $480,000
Energy Charge
All kWh $0.06800 29,346,000 $1,995,528
$2,475,528
Voltage Discount 5.00% {$123,776)
$2,351,752
Current Revenue Requirement $2,114,441
Percentage Discount 10.09%
Total 69kV Discount 15.09%
SECTION 2
THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE RATE
INTRODUCTION
A thermal energy storage (TES) device is one that replaces a traditional air
conditioner shifting the peak load to off-peak and shoulder periods. TIES systems
accomplish this by producing ice or chilling water during off-peak periods and
storing the ice or chilled water to use for building cooling needs during the
following peak period.
TES is one of the best devices for the shifting of peak load to the off-peak. This
shifting of load is ve~ important for the City of Anaheim. The City has large
investments in base load plants which means that it also has extra power in the
off-peak periods. Any additional use of this off-peak power, especially if it is
coming from the on-peak periods, helps not only the customer that uses the
power, but all electric customers. Ideally, the City would like to have all of their
new customers mirror their base load plants, This means having a usage pattern
that is consistent around the clock. TES systems is ideal for this type of load
building.
BACKGROUND
The City of Anaheim currently offers a TES rate for those electric customers with
TES systems. The TES rate only applies to the TES load, not to the entire
building load. This rate has been experimental for two years and currently no
customers are taking service under it.
The TES rate schedule dosely mirrors the existing time-of-use (TOU) rate
schedule. The TES off-peak periods are slightly longer than the TOU off-peak
periods in order to take advantage of the nonpeaking characteristics of the TES.
The TES rate differentials between the different time periods are also slightly
larger than those of the TOU rates. Both these factors help promote TES systems
and shorten the payback time for TES investments.
7
TES SYSTEM INVESTMENTS
Costs of investing in a TES system can vary drastically based on the design, size,
and location of a TES system and whether it is integrated into an existing cooling
system. New TES systems tend to be slightly more expensive than new traditional
air conditioning units. This means that for a slightly larger investment the
customer will shift a major portion of their peak load. Over the past ten years the
improvements in TES technology have reduced the gap in these investment
differences. Now, almost all new major construction includes a study of potential
TES designs. When installing a TES system in a new building, the payback of the
investment can be very short, from one to three years, based on the incremental
costs over and above what would have normally been spent on a traditional air
conditioning unit.
Retrofitting an existing cooling system with TES may be cheaper than a new TES
system if it will be possible to use some existing equipment in the new system.
However, when retrofitting a building with a TES system, all costs are considered
to be incremental, so the payback period can be as long as ten years.
Another cost factor is whether the TES system is a full or partial storage system.
A full TES system is designed to shift 100% of cooling load to nonpeak periods.
A partial TES system only shifts enough load from the peak period to keep the
load constant over a 24-hour period. Partial systems are smaller and cost less than
full systems. For new building construction, full TES systems are usually
recommended. When retrofitting a building for cooling needs, a partial system is
often used because of its lower initial investment and faster payback.
NEW TES RATE
The proposed TES rate has been designed to take advantage of the City of
Anaheim's off-peak power costs. Off-peak power is provided by the city's interest
in coal plants located in Utah and New Mexico. The incremental energy cost for
this power is currently at 3¢/kWh. The 3¢/kWh is the minimum cost of power
during the off-peak periods and so it is used as the off-peak energy charge for this
rate schedule. The incremental demand cost for these coal plants is zero, because
they are already running, and so there is no off-peak demand charge for the TES
rate. The on- and mid-peak rates do not change.
8
Present Proposed
S~mrner I Winter Snmmer I Winter
Demand ($/kW)
On-peak $14.20 N/A $14.20 N/A
Mid-peak $ 5.00 $4.50 $ 5.00 $4.50
Off-peak $ 3.00 $3.00 $ 0.00 $0.00
Energy (¢/kWh)
On-peak 7.70¢ N/A 7.70¢ N/A
Mid-peak 5.40¢ 5.80¢ 5.40¢ 5.80¢
Off-peak 3.80¢ 3.50¢ 3.00¢ 3.00¢
When designing the TES rates we looked at keeping the payback periods as small
as possible. The shorter the payback the easier it is to convince builders to install
TES. Table 2.1 shows that for a full TES system, equivalent to 485 kW of shifted
load, the payback is approximately 4.23 years.
We believe that paybacks greater than three years are not enough incentive for
companies to invest in TES. We also believe that it is best if the utility provides
an additional incentive for this type of investment.
TES CONTRACT AND REBATE
This section discusses a long-term contract that will help ensure that both the
utility and its customer receive the maximum benefits from a TES investment.
The customer and utility would enter into a ten year contract that would
guarantee a one-time rebate to the customer, up to a maximum of $200 per kW
of shifted load. This level of rebate would reduce the payback for a full TES
system from 4.23 years to ..~'~ears. By having such a contract for ten years, the
utility is also assured of p~per load shifting and a long-term investment, much
like in a power contract. ~.
Table 2.1 shows the revised paybacks for this proposed rebate.
SUMMARY
To further promote the development of thermal energy storage, we recommend
that the existing TES rate be modified to reflect the City of Anaheim's current
purchases of off-peak power. This change in the TES rate will help provide
savings to the customer for the life of the project. Because initial TES investments
can be expensive, a long-term contract with a $200/kW rebate is proposed. This
type of contract will shorten the payback period for the customer and help ensure
proper utility resource allocation. This rate change along with the offer of a one-
time rebate will help promote thermal energy storage for both new construction
and existing buildings.
Table 2.1
Thermal Energy Storage vs Traditional Air Conditioning
Chillers and Thermal Energy Storage Characteristics
Current Chiller Load 650 H.P. 485 kW
New Load characteristics Full TES Load
Shifted Peak Load 485 kW
Annual Chiller Energy Sales 1,484,629 kWh
Projected TES Energy Sales 1,633,092 kWh
Tariff Savings for TES
GS-2 Rate :: Rates : : :Billing Determinants
~ Annual
Bill
Demand Charge ($/kW)
First 200kw $1,600.00
All Excess Kw per kw $8.00 5,820 $46,560.00
Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.06800 1,484,629 $100,954.78
Total Bill $147,514.78
TES - Rate i~ :: if: Billing Determinants
:~:Summct~: Winter : :::i::::Summcr ::: Winter Bill
Demand Charge ($/kW)
On-peak $14.20 $0.00 0 0 $0
Mid-peak $5.00 $4.50 0 0 $0
Off-peak $0.00 $0.00 2,231 4,462 $0
Total Demand Charges $0
Energy Charge ($/kWh)
On-peak $0.077 $0.000 0 0 $0
Mid-peak $0.054 $0.058 0 0 $0
Off-peak $0.030 $0.030 816,546 816,546 $48,993
Total Energy Charges 1,633,092 $48,993
Total Bill $48,993
Tariff Savings for TES Rate $98,522
Investment Costs for TES
Estimated Installed Costs for TES $860.00/kW of shifted load
Installed Costs $417,100
Paybacks and Rebates of TES
Annual Tariff Savings for TES $98,522
Investment and Installation Costs $417,100
Simple Payback 4.2.3
Net Present Value of 10 Year Program (10% Discount Factor) $226,193
Contract 'YES Rebate (S/Shifted kW) $200.00 $97,000
Annual Savings and One Time Rebate $195,522
Simple Payback ~
Net Present Value of 10 Year Program (10% Discount Factor) $314,375
21-Feb-92
APPENDIX C
CHANGES TO RATES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
CITY OF ANAHEIM ELECTRIC RATES, RULES
Utilities Financial Services AND REGULATIONS
200 $. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805 Page No.
RATES. RULES AND REGULATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EFFECTIVE
TITL~ DATE PAGE NO.
Title 10-01-89 i
Table of Contents 01-01-92
. . 01-01-92 iii
. . 01-01-92 iv
,, ,, 01-01-92 v
Electric Utility Policy 11-14-71 1-0.1
Rate Schedules 10-01-89 2.0.1
Schedule PCA Power Cost Adjustment 10-01-89 2.0.2.1
. ,, . . . 10-01-89 2.0,2.1.1
,, · . . . 10-01-B9 2.0.2.2
Schedule D: Domestic Service 01-01-92 2.1.1
. . . ,, 01-01-92 2.1.2
,, ,, . . 01-01-92 2.1.3
. . ,, . 06-01-79 2.1.4
,, . ,, ,, ,, 2.1.5
. . . · 11-03-82 2.1.6
Schedule No. GS-i: General Service 01-01-92 2.2.1
,, . . . . 10-01-89 2.2.2
Schedule No. GS-2: General Service 01-01-92 2.3.1
. ,, ,, · ,, 04-01-92 I0 01 S9 2.3.2
Schedule No. TOU: Time-of-Use 01-01-92 2.4.1
. . . . 01- 01- 91 2.4.2
. . . . 04-01-9~ 01 n. n~ 2.4.3
. . . . 01-01-91 2
Schedule No. TES: Thermal Energy Storage 04o01-92 01 01 92 2.5.1
. . ,, . . 01-01-92 2.5.2
. . ,, . . 04-01-92 .... '~*' 2 5 4
(Continued)
ISSUED BY
Ed Aghjayan Effective 04~)1-92 By Resolution No. 92R- Dated__
General Manager Superceding Resolution No. 91R-336 Dated 12-17~91
CITY OF ANAHEIM ELECTRIC RATES, RULES
Utilities Financi~ Se~ic¢s AND REGULATIONS
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805 Page No. a. ~
SCHEDULE NO. GS-2
GENEP~L SERVICE
(Continued)
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued)
C. Power Factor Adjustment:
The charges will be adjusted each month for the power factor as follows:
The charges will be decreased by 20 cents per kilowatt of measured maximum
demand and will be increased by 20 cents per kilovar of reactive demand.
However, in no case shall the kilorare used for the adjustment be less than
one-fifth the number of kilowatts.
The kilovats of reactive demand shall be calculated by multiplying the
kilowatts of measured maximum demand by the ratio of the kilovat-hours to be
kilowatt-hours. Demands in kilowatts and kilorare shall be determined to
the nearest unit. A rachet device will be installed on the kilovat-hour
meter to prevent its reverse operation on leading power factor.
D. Voltage Discount:
The charges before Dower factor and power cost adjustments will be reduced
by 3% for service delivered a~d metered at voltages of from 2 to 10~V; by 4-%
6% for service delivered and metered at voltages of from 11~V to 50KV; and
by ~-% 15% for service delivered and metered at voltages from 50k'V; ~v-cp~
that whcn only onc transform~tion from a transmiscion voltagc lcvcl ~e
involvcd, a customer normally cntitlcd to a 3% diccount will bc cntitlcd to
a ~ discount. customer equipment and metering per Department standards.
E. Temporary Discontinuance of Service:
Where the use of energy is seasonal or intermittent, no adjustment will be
made for a temporary reduction of load. Any customer who resumes service
within twelve months must pay all charges that would have been billed had
service been continuous.
F. Power Cost Adjustment:
The rates above are subject to adjustment as provided for in Schedule PCA.
The applicable power cost adjustment billing factor set forth therein will
be applied to all kilowatt-hours billed under this schedule.
G. X-Ray Installation
Where the City installs the standard transformer capacity requested by a
customer to service separately an X-ray installation, the customer charge
will be increased by $1.00 per kva of transformer capacity requested.
ISSUED BY
Ed Agl~'~yan Effective 04-01-92 By Resolution No. 92R- Dated
General Manager Superceding Resolution No. 89R-392 Dated 09-27-89
CITY OF ANAHEINI ELECTRIC RATES, RULES
Utilities Financial Services AND REGULATIONS
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805 Page No. :2 ¢.2
SCHEDULE NO. TOU
TIME-OF-USE
(continued)
SPECI~Ju CONDITIONS (continued)
Billing demand shall be determined to the nearest KW. Where the demand is
intermittent or subject to violent fluctuations, the maximum demand may be
based on a shorter interval.
D. Power Factor Adjustment
The charges will be adjusted each month for the power factor as follows:
The charges will be decreased by 20 cents per kilowatt of measured maximum
demand and will be increased by 20 cents per kilovar of reactive demand.
However, in no case shall the kilovars used for the adjustment be less than
one-fifth the number of kilowatts.
The kilovars of reactive demand shall be calculated by multiplying the
kilowatts of measured maximum demand by the ratio of the kilovar-hours to be
kilowatt hours. Demand in kilowatts and kilovars shall be determined to the
nearest unit. A rachet device will be installed on the kilovat-hour meter to
prevent its reversal operation on leading power factor.
E. Voltage Discount
The charges before power factor and power cost adjustments will be reducedby
3% for service delivered and metered at voltages of from 2 or 10 KV; by 4-% 6%
for service delivered and metered at voltages of from 11KV to 50KV; and by ~-%
15% for service delivered and metered at voltages above 50KV; c~ccpt that
whe~-only onc tranDformation from a transmission voltagc lcvcl iD involved,
a cuDtomcr normally cntitlcd to a 3% diDcount will bc cntitlcd to a 4%
diocount. customer equipment and metering per Department standard.
Continued
ISSUED BY
Ed Aghjayan Effective 04-01-92 By Resolution No. 92R- Dated__
Gener~4~ffnager Superceding Resolution No. 91R-336 Dated 12-17-91
CITY OF ANAHEIM ELECTRiC RATES, RULES
Utilities Financial Se~'ices AND REGLT~%TIONS
200 S. Anaheim Blvd,
Anaheim, CA 92805 Page No. 2. ~. ~
SCHEDULE NO. TES
THERMAL E~ERGY STO~AGE
APPLICABILITY
Applicable to three-phase electric service for thermal ener~E; storage equipment
which is metered separately from other lighting and equipment load.
AVAILABILITY
A customer meeting the requirements set forth above and desiring service on this
schedule, or currently served on this schedule and desiring service on a different
schedule, shall notify the City in writing at least ninety (90) days in advance
of his intended change in service schedule (unless meter availability allows less
notice). A customer will be retricted from exercising the option to switch
schedules more than once in any twelve-month period.
Service under this schedule is subject to meter availability.
RATES ( ) Per Meter Per Meter
Summer Winter
Demand Charge:
All on-peak billing demand, per KW $14.20 N/A
Plus all mid-peak billing demand, per KW $ 5.00 $4.50
Plus all off-peak billing demand, per KW $ 3.00 n/a $~.00 n/a
Energy Charge (added to Demand Charge)
All on-peak energy, per KWh 7.70¢ N/A
Plus all mid-peak energy, per KWh 5.40¢ 5.80¢
Plus all off-peak energy, per KWh ~.~0~ 3.00~ ~.50~ 3.00¢
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. Service voltage per rules and regulations.
(Continued)
ISSUED BY
Ed Agile. an Effective 04-01-92 By Resolution No. 92R- Dated__
Gener~l'lVI~nager Superceding Resolution No. 91R-336 Dated 12-17-91
CITY OF ANAHEIM ELECTRIC RATES, RULES
Utilities Financi~ Seroices AND REGULATIONS
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805 Page No. :. 5.3
SCHEDULE NO. TES
THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE
(continued)
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (continued)
Billing demand shall be determined to the nearest k'W. Where the demand is
intermittent or subject to violent fluctuations, the maximum demand may be based
on a shorter interval.
D. Power Factor Adjustment
The charges will be adjusted each month for the power factor as follows:
The charges will be decreased by 20 cents per kilowatt of measured maximum
demand and will be increased by 20 cents per kilovar of reactive demand.
However, in no case shall the kilovars used for the adjustment be less than
one-fifth the number of kilowatts.
The kilovats of reactive demand shall be calculated by multiplying the
kilowatts of measured maximum demand by the ratio of the kilovar-hours to be
kilowatt hours. Demand in kilowatts and kilovats shall be determined to the
nearest unit. A rachet device will be installed on the kilovat-hour meter to
prevent its reversal operation on leading power factor.
E. Voltagc Discount
Thc chargco bcforc powcr factor and powcr coot adjuctmcnts will bc rcduccd by
3% for ocrvlco dclivcrcd and mctcrcd at ¥oltagcs of from 2 or 10 KV; by 4%
for ~crvicc dclivcrcd and mctcrcd at voltagco of from 11KV to $0KV; and by 5%
for ocrvlcc dclivcrcd and mctcrcd at voltagcs above 50KV; cxccpt that when
only onc transformation from a transmi0sion voltagc lcwcl is involvcd, a
customcr normally cntitlcd to a 3% discount will bc cntitlcd to a ~%
discount.
(Continued)
ISSUED BY
Ed Agh.~fy'tm Effective 04-01-9:2 By Resolution No. 92R- Dated__
General Manager Superceding Resolution No. 90R-349 Dated 09-11-90
CITY OF ANAHEIM ELECTRIC RATES, RULES
Utilities Financial Services AND REGULATIONS
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805 Page No. * e 4
SCHEDULE NO. TES
THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE
(continued)
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (continued)
F~.E. Temporary Discontinuance of Service
Where the use of energy is seasonal or intermittent, no adjustment will be
made for a temporary reduction of load. Any customer who resumes service
within twelve months must pay all charges that would have been billed had
service been continuous.
Power Cost Adjustment
The rates above are subject to adjustment as provided for in Schedule PC_A.
The applicable power cost adjustment billing factor set forth therein will be
applied to all kilowatt-hours billed under this schedule.
ISSUED BY
Ed Agh. hy3n Effective 04-01-92 By Resolution No. 92R- Dated__
General I~aTa~er Superceding Resolution No. 90R-349 Dated09-11-90