This document summarizes the benefits of retail electric competition in Texas. Key points include:
- Electric prices today are lower than one year ago and substantially lower than before competition began, even as fuel costs have risen.
- Texas prices compare favorably to other states highly dependent on natural gas.
- Prices have fallen 33% on average since 2006 while national prices outside Texas rose 21%.
- Assistance programs help low-income customers with summer electricity costs.
Questions and answers on current electric issues, including the retail market, wholesale investment, customer protections and smart meter implementation in Texas.
Electric utility primer john chowdhury 2012 finalJohn Chowdhury
A comprehensive analysis of US electric utility industry. Understand US Electric Industry
Regulatory Landscape
Key Utility Processes
How Smart Grid can Benefit the Industry
Example Components
Questions and answers on current electric issues, including the retail market, wholesale investment, customer protections and smart meter implementation in Texas.
Electric utility primer john chowdhury 2012 finalJohn Chowdhury
A comprehensive analysis of US electric utility industry. Understand US Electric Industry
Regulatory Landscape
Key Utility Processes
How Smart Grid can Benefit the Industry
Example Components
In the late 1990s, many states began to usher in retail choice for customers of investor-owned utilities. During this same time period, the wholesale markets in a number of regions were restructured and prices were deregulated. These restructured wholesale markets, operated by Regional Transmission Organizations, generally overlap with the retail choice states. The intent of both the retail and wholesale restructuring was to reduce electricity rates through competition.
However, after nearly two decades of retail and wholesale electric market restructuring, the promise of reduced rates has failed to materialize. In fact, customers in states with retail choice programs located within RTO-operated markets are now paying more for their electricity.
In 1997, the retail electric rate in deregulated states — the ones offering retail choice and located within an RTO — was 2.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) higher than rates in the regulated states with no retail choice. The gap has increased over the last two decades. In 2014, customers in deregulated states paid, on average, 3.3 cents per kWh more than customers in regulated states.
The details are in a new report, 2014 Retail Electric Rates in Deregulated and Regulated States, issued by the American Public Power Association. The report examines how retail rates have been affected by the restructuring of the wholesale markets.
Proponents of the restructuring of retail and wholesale electricity markets in the 1990s claimed that competition would create incentives for greater efficiencies in generation and lower retail electricity rates.
APPA’s report compares average retail electric rates paid by residential, commercial, and industrial end users in deregulated and regulated states. In the deregulated states, the investor-owned utilities no longer own generation and must buy power from the RTO-operated markets. Alternative suppliers also purchase from these markets. Public power utilities purchase from these markets to the extent they do not own generation, and their contracts for power are often influenced by RTO market prices. Customers in these deregulated states are therefore exposed to the prices from the RTO markets. In the regulated states, the utilities continue to be vertically integrated and much less power is purchased from the wholesale markets. States without retail access are included in this category regardless of whether they are located in an RTO.
APPA’s report reveals that in 2014, states in the deregulated category had an average retail electricity rate of 12.7 cents per kWh, while regulated states had an average rate of 9.4 cents, a 3.3 cent difference. In 1997, at the start of deregulation, the differential was 2.8 cents and has since increased by 0.5 cents.
Read more: http://blog.publicpower.org/sme/?p=547
Economic Development Rates For UtilitiesJohn Wolfram
Economic Development Rates are experiencing a bit of a renaissance. Why should utilities offer Economic Development Rates? What are the common features of these special rate structures aimed at attracting and retaining industry to the region? The purpose of this paper is to introduce the basic concepts and typical parameters of Economic Development Rates approved by state regulators in the U.S.
The American Public Power Association’s “Rate Design for Distributed Generation” report examines rate design options for solar and other distributed generation (DG), using public power utility case studies. The report discusses how utilities have educated customers about new rates, and how DG
and non-DG customers responded. While the rate design options have some drawbacks, and might not be technically feasible for all utilities, they offer the industry new models that account for the rate impacts of distributed generation.
The use of DG, particularly rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV), is growing fast. As of October 2014, just under 8,000 megawatts (MW) of solar capacity was installed on residential and business rooftops across the United States (U.S.).1
The growth of DG has been spurred by environmental concerns and economic considerations. Federal and state tax incentives are a driving force behind solar PV installations
and can together cover up to 70 percent of the total cost of solar panels in some states.2 Declining solar panel prices have also fueled growth in rooftop solar. Utility rate structures for distributed generation have provided a significant benefit to solar customers.
As DG becomes more widespread, rate analysts and researchers are developing new rate designs to help ensure that utilities recover their cost of service, encouraging while providing appropriate incentives for rooftop solar deployment.
Utilities can no longer afford to take a wait and see approach in rate design for DG, nor should they assume that old rate designs adopted before the escalation in DG installations will work in the future.
Most utilities in the U.S. use net metering to measure and compensate customers for the generation they produce. However net metering has several shortcomings and results in non-DG customers subsidizing DG customers.
Utilities have options other than traditional net metering. Many public power utilities have adopted new rate designs to serve DG customers. Some of these rate designs supplement net metering by recouping more of their fixed costs through fixed charges, while other designs provide comprehensive alternatives to net metering.
Utility rate setters must balance between simplicity and accuracy, align costs and prices, support environmental stewardship, and ensure that rate designs are well suited to customers. Customer communication and engagement are essential components of the rate-setting process.
This report does not examine every rate design option, nor does it suggest a single best option. It offers alternatives
to traditional net metering, with case studies. Utilities
can consider how they can adapt rate designs to suit their community’s needs, factoring in market structure, state policies, and other considerations.
Richard Cowart - Delivering Energy Efficiency on a Large Scale: Challenges an...noe21
http://www.managing-energy-demand.org
This seminar held on november 4 ‘09 in Bern, Switzerland, hosted international specialists in managing energy demand, mainly electric energy. Presentations concentrated on best cases in demand side management and regulation easing the way for DSM programs. The event was organised by noe21, a Geneva based NGO.
In the late 1990s, many states began to usher in retail choice for customers of investor-owned utilities. During this same time period, the wholesale markets in a number of regions were restructured and prices were deregulated. These restructured wholesale markets, operated by Regional Transmission Organizations, generally overlap with the retail choice states. The intent of both the retail and wholesale restructuring was to reduce electricity rates through competition.
However, after nearly two decades of retail and wholesale electric market restructuring, the promise of reduced rates has failed to materialize. In fact, customers in states with retail choice programs located within RTO-operated markets are now paying more for their electricity.
In 1997, the retail electric rate in deregulated states — the ones offering retail choice and located within an RTO — was 2.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) higher than rates in the regulated states with no retail choice. The gap has increased over the last two decades. In 2014, customers in deregulated states paid, on average, 3.3 cents per kWh more than customers in regulated states.
The details are in a new report, 2014 Retail Electric Rates in Deregulated and Regulated States, issued by the American Public Power Association. The report examines how retail rates have been affected by the restructuring of the wholesale markets.
Proponents of the restructuring of retail and wholesale electricity markets in the 1990s claimed that competition would create incentives for greater efficiencies in generation and lower retail electricity rates.
APPA’s report compares average retail electric rates paid by residential, commercial, and industrial end users in deregulated and regulated states. In the deregulated states, the investor-owned utilities no longer own generation and must buy power from the RTO-operated markets. Alternative suppliers also purchase from these markets. Public power utilities purchase from these markets to the extent they do not own generation, and their contracts for power are often influenced by RTO market prices. Customers in these deregulated states are therefore exposed to the prices from the RTO markets. In the regulated states, the utilities continue to be vertically integrated and much less power is purchased from the wholesale markets. States without retail access are included in this category regardless of whether they are located in an RTO.
APPA’s report reveals that in 2014, states in the deregulated category had an average retail electricity rate of 12.7 cents per kWh, while regulated states had an average rate of 9.4 cents, a 3.3 cent difference. In 1997, at the start of deregulation, the differential was 2.8 cents and has since increased by 0.5 cents.
Read more: http://blog.publicpower.org/sme/?p=547
Economic Development Rates For UtilitiesJohn Wolfram
Economic Development Rates are experiencing a bit of a renaissance. Why should utilities offer Economic Development Rates? What are the common features of these special rate structures aimed at attracting and retaining industry to the region? The purpose of this paper is to introduce the basic concepts and typical parameters of Economic Development Rates approved by state regulators in the U.S.
The American Public Power Association’s “Rate Design for Distributed Generation” report examines rate design options for solar and other distributed generation (DG), using public power utility case studies. The report discusses how utilities have educated customers about new rates, and how DG
and non-DG customers responded. While the rate design options have some drawbacks, and might not be technically feasible for all utilities, they offer the industry new models that account for the rate impacts of distributed generation.
The use of DG, particularly rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV), is growing fast. As of October 2014, just under 8,000 megawatts (MW) of solar capacity was installed on residential and business rooftops across the United States (U.S.).1
The growth of DG has been spurred by environmental concerns and economic considerations. Federal and state tax incentives are a driving force behind solar PV installations
and can together cover up to 70 percent of the total cost of solar panels in some states.2 Declining solar panel prices have also fueled growth in rooftop solar. Utility rate structures for distributed generation have provided a significant benefit to solar customers.
As DG becomes more widespread, rate analysts and researchers are developing new rate designs to help ensure that utilities recover their cost of service, encouraging while providing appropriate incentives for rooftop solar deployment.
Utilities can no longer afford to take a wait and see approach in rate design for DG, nor should they assume that old rate designs adopted before the escalation in DG installations will work in the future.
Most utilities in the U.S. use net metering to measure and compensate customers for the generation they produce. However net metering has several shortcomings and results in non-DG customers subsidizing DG customers.
Utilities have options other than traditional net metering. Many public power utilities have adopted new rate designs to serve DG customers. Some of these rate designs supplement net metering by recouping more of their fixed costs through fixed charges, while other designs provide comprehensive alternatives to net metering.
Utility rate setters must balance between simplicity and accuracy, align costs and prices, support environmental stewardship, and ensure that rate designs are well suited to customers. Customer communication and engagement are essential components of the rate-setting process.
This report does not examine every rate design option, nor does it suggest a single best option. It offers alternatives
to traditional net metering, with case studies. Utilities
can consider how they can adapt rate designs to suit their community’s needs, factoring in market structure, state policies, and other considerations.
Richard Cowart - Delivering Energy Efficiency on a Large Scale: Challenges an...noe21
http://www.managing-energy-demand.org
This seminar held on november 4 ‘09 in Bern, Switzerland, hosted international specialists in managing energy demand, mainly electric energy. Presentations concentrated on best cases in demand side management and regulation easing the way for DSM programs. The event was organised by noe21, a Geneva based NGO.
Why enincon‟s report upon “ Power Distribution Tariffs in India 2018”?
With power distribution reforms gained momentum soon after the application of EA 2003 (where it was believed to be coined in mid 90‟s) , Indian power distribution utilities came along way since then. With, introduction of reforms and multiple cognitive steps undoubtedly the power distribution sector stands improved by leaps from the erstwhile levels. Having said that, it indeed still represents the weakest link of the power generation, transmission and distribution chain
Understanding User Needs and Satisfying ThemAggregage
https://www.productmanagementtoday.com/frs/26903918/understanding-user-needs-and-satisfying-them
We know we want to create products which our customers find to be valuable. Whether we label it as customer-centric or product-led depends on how long we've been doing product management. There are three challenges we face when doing this. The obvious challenge is figuring out what our users need; the non-obvious challenges are in creating a shared understanding of those needs and in sensing if what we're doing is meeting those needs.
In this webinar, we won't focus on the research methods for discovering user-needs. We will focus on synthesis of the needs we discover, communication and alignment tools, and how we operationalize addressing those needs.
Industry expert Scott Sehlhorst will:
• Introduce a taxonomy for user goals with real world examples
• Present the Onion Diagram, a tool for contextualizing task-level goals
• Illustrate how customer journey maps capture activity-level and task-level goals
• Demonstrate the best approach to selection and prioritization of user-goals to address
• Highlight the crucial benchmarks, observable changes, in ensuring fulfillment of customer needs
Putting the SPARK into Virtual Training.pptxCynthia Clay
This 60-minute webinar, sponsored by Adobe, was delivered for the Training Mag Network. It explored the five elements of SPARK: Storytelling, Purpose, Action, Relationships, and Kudos. Knowing how to tell a well-structured story is key to building long-term memory. Stating a clear purpose that doesn't take away from the discovery learning process is critical. Ensuring that people move from theory to practical application is imperative. Creating strong social learning is the key to commitment and engagement. Validating and affirming participants' comments is the way to create a positive learning environment.
Kseniya Leshchenko: Shared development support service model as the way to ma...Lviv Startup Club
Kseniya Leshchenko: Shared development support service model as the way to make small projects with small budgets profitable for the company (UA)
Kyiv PMDay 2024 Summer
Website – www.pmday.org
Youtube – https://www.youtube.com/startuplviv
FB – https://www.facebook.com/pmdayconference
Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit and TemplatesAurelien Domont, MBA
This Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit was created by ex-McKinsey, Deloitte and BCG Management Consultants, after more than 5,000 hours of work. It is considered the world's best & most comprehensive Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit. It includes all the Frameworks, Best Practices & Templates required to successfully undertake the Digital Transformation of your organization and define a robust IT Strategy.
Editable Toolkit to help you reuse our content: 700 Powerpoint slides | 35 Excel sheets | 84 minutes of Video training
This PowerPoint presentation is only a small preview of our Toolkits. For more details, visit www.domontconsulting.com
Recruiting in the Digital Age: A Social Media MasterclassLuanWise
In this masterclass, presented at the Global HR Summit on 5th June 2024, Luan Wise explored the essential features of social media platforms that support talent acquisition, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok.
[Note: This is a partial preview. To download this presentation, visit:
https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations]
Sustainability has become an increasingly critical topic as the world recognizes the need to protect our planet and its resources for future generations. Sustainability means meeting our current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. It involves long-term planning and consideration of the consequences of our actions. The goal is to create strategies that ensure the long-term viability of People, Planet, and Profit.
Leading companies such as Nike, Toyota, and Siemens are prioritizing sustainable innovation in their business models, setting an example for others to follow. In this Sustainability training presentation, you will learn key concepts, principles, and practices of sustainability applicable across industries. This training aims to create awareness and educate employees, senior executives, consultants, and other key stakeholders, including investors, policymakers, and supply chain partners, on the importance and implementation of sustainability.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Develop a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental principles and concepts that form the foundation of sustainability within corporate environments.
2. Explore the sustainability implementation model, focusing on effective measures and reporting strategies to track and communicate sustainability efforts.
3. Identify and define best practices and critical success factors essential for achieving sustainability goals within organizations.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Key Concepts of Sustainability
2. Principles and Practices of Sustainability
3. Measures and Reporting in Sustainability
4. Sustainability Implementation & Best Practices
To download the complete presentation, visit: https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations
Personal Brand Statement:
As an Army veteran dedicated to lifelong learning, I bring a disciplined, strategic mindset to my pursuits. I am constantly expanding my knowledge to innovate and lead effectively. My journey is driven by a commitment to excellence, and to make a meaningful impact in the world.
Organizational Change Leadership Agile Tour Geneve 2024
Electricity 101: Retail Update
1. Electricity 101:
Retail Update
October 27, 2011!
Legislative advertising paid for by: John W. Fainter, Jr. • President and CEO Association of Electric Companies of Texas, Inc.
1005 Congress, Suite 600 • Austin, TX 78701 • phone 512-474-6725 • fax 512-474-9670 • www.aect.net
2. AECT Principles!
• AECT is an advocacy group composed of member companies committed to:
- Ensuring a modern, reliable infrastructure for the supply & delivery of
electricity.
- Supporting efficient competitive markets that are fair to customers and
market participants.
- Supporting consistent and predictable oversight and regulation that will
promote investment and ensure the stability of Texas’ electric industry.
- Promoting an economically strong and environmentally healthy future for
Texas, including conservation and efficient use of available resources.
• AECT member companies remain dedicated to providing Texas customers with
reliable service and are committed to the highest standards of integrity.
The Association of Electric Companies of Texas, Inc. (AECT) is a trade organization of investor-
owned electric companies in Texas. Organized in 1978, AECT provides a forum for member
company representatives to exchange information about public policy, and to communicate with
government officials and the public. For more information, visit www.aect.net.
2
3. AECT Member Companies!
Within ERCOT!
Retail Electric Providers
Transmission and Distribution Utilities
Generation Companies
3
4. AECT Companies!
Outside of ERCOT!
SERC Reliability Corporation
Southwest Power Pool (SPP)
Western Electricity Coordinating
Council (WECC)
4
5. The ERCOT Competitive Retail Electric
Market is Providing Strong Customer
Benefits!
Key Takeaways
– Price offers are lower than they were one year ago, and, when adjusted for
inflation, substantially lower than prices available just before competition
began.
– Retail electric price offers have improved, despite the increased price of
energy commodities, such as gasoline, crude oil, natural gas and coal.
– Among states, like Texas, that depend heavily on natural gas for power
generation, Texas prices compare favorably, with even lower prices available
to those in the competitive market.
– From January 2006 to July 2011, the average fixed offer price in the
competitive market has fallen by 33 percent, while the average U.S. electric
price outside Texas has risen by 21 percent.
– The System Benefit Fund (SBF) provided benefits for low-income Texans
during the summer. Several retailers, including AECT member companies,
also offer additional low-income customer assistance programs, so customers
should also contact their REP to learn more about the options that might be
available to them.
5
6. Competitive Market Bringing
Sustained Lower Price Offers
Prices in the
competitive
market have
remain low
over the
past year
Source: www.powertochoose.org; prices are a simple average among service territories. 6
7. Lower Prices Available Today than
Before Competition Began
Sources: PUC Historical Data, Bureau of Labor and Statistics, www.powertochoose.org offers as of October 27, 2011 7
8. Competitive Residential Electric Price Offers !
Have Fallen Since Just Before Full
Competition Began in January 2007!
Texas-New Mexico Power Co.
AEP Texas North
Service Territory
Service Territory
Change in Average
Change in Average
1yr Fixed-Price Offer: 1yr Fixed-Price Offer:
35% decrease 29% decrease
Oncor
Service Territory
Change in Average
1yr Fixed-Price Offer:
37% decrease
CenterPoint Energy
Service Territory
AEP Texas Central Change in Average
Service Territory 1yr Fixed-Price Offer:
35% decrease
Change in Average
1yr Fixed-Price Offer:
39% decrease
Since December 2006, competitive price offers for
residential customers have fallen in every service area.
Source: http://www.powertochoose.org (12/31/06 & 10/27/11) 8
9. Texasʼ National Price Ranking Has
Improved Since 2001
18
2001 State Ranking (Pre-Competition)
16
¢/kWh
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
KY
WA
WV
WY
MT
MO
OK
MS
GA
VA
WI
MI
AZ
IA
TX
PA
AK
MA
VT
ME
ID
OR
TN
NE
UT
IN
AL
SD
CO
MN
KS
MD
SC
AR
LA
OH
FL
DE
IL
NM
NV
NJ
CT
CA
RI
NY
HI
ND
DC
NC
NH
July 2011 State Ranking (Latest Available)
Average lowest Average lowest 12-
available offer in month fixed price
competitive offer in competitive
market in market in
July 2011: July 2011:
5.1/kWh 8.8¢/kWh
¢/kWh
Source: EIA average annual residential rates for 2001 and July 2011 monthly data (latest available information). Average lowest available price from
powertochoose.org Web site as of 7/30/11 for a residential customer using an average of 1,000 kWh per month.
9
10. Every Competitive Area in ERCOT Has
Variable and 1-Year Lock Offers Available
that are Lower than the National Average Price
Sources: PowerToChoose.org offers as of July 30, 2011,
U.S. Energy Information Administration, latest available data
10
11. Texas Generation Mix Compared to U.S.
Average!
Texas U.S. Average
Renewable
Petroleum Other (Mostly Petroleum)
Energy (MWh)
(Mostly Wind) Renewable
5.6% (Mostly Hydro) 0.9%
0.4%
Natural Gas
Nuclear 10.1%
10.5% 23.3%
Nuclear
47.6% 20.2%
35.0%
Natural Gas
44.5%
Coal
Coal
Renewable
Petroleum Other (Mostly
Summer Capacity (MW)
(Mostly Wind)
9.9% Petroleum)
7.7% Natural Gas
Nuclear 4.8% 0.2%
Renewable
(Mostly Hydro)
12.4%
39.1%
19.7% Nuclear 9.9%
Coal
64.9%
30.7%
Natural Gas
Coal
Note: Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Source: EIA (2009 Data) 11
12. Texas Market Compares Favorably to Other
States Utilizing Natural Gas as the Primary
Generation Source!
Average Lowest Available 12-
Month Fixed Price Offer in
ERCOT Competitive Market
(July 2011): 8.8¢/kWh
Sources: Energy Information Administration (data as of July 2011); EIA natural gas-intensive states;
powertochoose.org as of 7/30/11.
Note: Texas statewide average price includes prices from both competitive and regulated areas of the state.
12
13. Since January 2007, Texasʼ Prices Have
Fallen While Others Have Risen
Residential Price Changes (%) - Jan 2007 - July 2011
70
Restructured
60 States
US Average (excl. TX)
50 (excl. TX) 22%
21%
40
Gas-Dependent
States (excl. TX)
30 5%
20 Texas
-6%
10
0
ME
NH
AR
MS
NC
US (-TX)
OR
DC
NJ
MN
MD
OH
ND
NV
DE
NY
SC
KY
SD
KS
NE
TX Competitive
TX Statewide
RI
IN
ID
HI
Natural Gas States (-TX)
CT
UT
AL
TN
AZ
VT
WA
WY
WV
MO
Restructured States (-TX)
IL
FL
WI
MA
NM
CO
OK
GA
MI
CA
MT
AK
IA
LA
PA
VA
-10
Lowest Competitive
-20 Offer Prices in Texas
-34%
-30
Source: EIA average annual residential rates for January 2007 and July 2011 (latest available data), powertochoose.org for
January 2, 2007 and July 30. 2011 13
14. Benefits for Qualified!
Customers: REP Programs!
• Several retail electric providers across the state also provide additional, voluntary
programs to assist low-income customers.
– The Care to Share Fund provides bill payment assistance to eligible First Choice Power residential
customers in need of emergency funding. Customers can donate to the Care to Share Fund and assist
residential customers who need a little extra help.
– In 2011, nearly $800,000 in bill payment assistance was committed to Reliant's CARE program. Non-
profit social service agencies review customer cases and qualify customers CARE funds based upon
the agency's designated hardship criteria. In addition, more than a dozen Beat the Heat Centers were
offered by Reliant in Corpus Christi, Dallas and Houston to provide heat relief in high-need areas.
– Below is information on several programs offered by TXU Energy.
– TXU Energy operates TXU Energy Aid, the largest bill-payment assistance program among
electricity companies in the nation. The company committed $25 million over 5 years (through
2012) to this program which has helped over 390,000 Texas families since 1983.
– TXU Energy also works collaboratively with ~1,000 agencies across the state to assist customers
in need.
– In addition, TXU Energy uniquely provides a self-funded, year-round low-income customer
discount of ~10 percent. The company committed $125 million over 5 years (through 2012) for
this program which assisted over 150,000 customers this summer. Since 2008, the company
has also helped 18,000 low income households reduce their energy consumption through grants
invested in energy efficiency improvements.
– Since September 2006, several REPs have participated in the low-income credit program resulting from
CenterPoint Energy’s 2006 rate case settlement. This program is currently providing a credit of $7.68
per month to eligible customers.
• Texans can check their electric provider’s Web site or call their provider to see
what other programs are available. 14
15. Web: AECT.net
Blog: AECTnet.wordpress.com
Twitter: twitter.com/AECTnet
Facebook: Association of Electric Companies of
Texas, Inc.
Email: info@aect.net
15!