— from Chris Thomerson, Incumbent Candidate —
You probably have already voted, if not, please vote and encourage others to vote. Here is why it matters.
A special interest group is trying to manipulate OPALCO by using malicious innuendo and bad arithmetic. Self-serving agendas have no place in our Cooperative.
My three top goals as a Board member for OPALCO:
1. To ensure OPALCO delivers the cleanest electricity, at lowest cost, when you need it, and, fairly allocates the costs of doing so.
2. To create specific programs to relieve member financial distress, promote energy efficiency and local renewable generation, that are fact based, at sensible cost, and with measurable benefits.
3. To continue working for reliable internet, emergency and cell communications county-wide. I will ensure Electric rates do not subsidize Broadband.
I appreciate your support, both in voting for me and circulating this call to vote as you see fit.
Dear Chris Thomerson,
Sorry to hear that a special interest group is trying to manipulate OPALCO. I have been working to bring transparency and quantitative analysis to issues surrounding OPALCO’s difficult situation of rising expenses and controversial rate design. If you provide specific examples of the groups’ malicious innuendo and bad math I’ll look into it. Your assessment of their self-serving agenda would be useful as well. Given that our cooperative does not benefit from regulatory oversight from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, an informed electorate is essential.
Regarding your stated goals as a board member, can you offer clarification on the following questions?
1. One of your goals is to “promote energy efficiency”. You voted to approve the new OPALCO rate structure — with a facilities charge rising from $28.60 per month in 2014 to $77.70/month in 2019, while keeping energy (per kWh) charges essentially the same. Can you explain how this is compatible with promoting energy efficiency? High facilities charges are seen by energy regulatory authorities as being antithetical to the realization of conservation goals.
2. You state “I will ensure Electric rates do not subsidize Broadband.” In November 21, 2013, you voted in favor of an OPALCO directive to “accelerate expansion of … high-speed data infrastructure to provide Internet…to our members. Deployment will be supported and funded by OPALCO assets, including equity and rates.” This directive appears to be the financial lynchpin for the business plan of OPALCO’s for-profit broadband subsidiary. Are you saying you support revoking this directive?
3. In 2014 Project PAL provided assistance of approximately $150/recipient/year to 279 members. About 10.8% of SJC’s 16,015 residents are below poverty level according the US census (https://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53055.html). That’s roughly 860 households assuming US census estimate of 2.01 persons per household also applies to poverty level households. Those that are eligible for PAL’s “200% of poverty level” are likely quite a bit more in number than households at poverty level. Considering that residential household electricity bills will be $589/year higher in 2019 compared to 2014 through increases in facilities charges alone, PAL will have to expand considerably to insulate vulnerable households from impacts of rising bills. Even considering only households below poverty level, Project PAL would need 860 * $589 = $506,540 in 2019 alone to protect these households against rising facilities charges compared to 2014. For 2015, OPALCO allocated $25,000 from general funds. In light of these numbers, what are your plans to “relieve member financial distress”?
Interesting. “Can you explain…” (how something not directly relevant…); “… are seen by authorities…” (which authorities? why? what does it have to do with OPALCO’s situation?); “… appears to be the lynchpin…” (indeed – how does it appear? why? what is the actual objection, i.e. injury?); “In light of these numbers, what are your plans…” – finally a legit question.
I’ve seen an innuendo or two in my day, and this is the real deal.
Hi Chris –
You’ve written that you work to bring quantitative analysis to issues, which I applaud – it’s difficult to argue with facts. However, I find that there is much quantitative information missing, mis-stated, or just plain wrong in what you wrote in your note to Chris Tomerson:
in point 1 of your response to Chris, you inaccurately state the facilities charge as rising from $28.60 per month to $77.70 per month. In fact you are silently combining two separate rates and only mentioning one of five member classes without specifying which one. An accurate statement is that the residential facilities rate is budgeted to increase from $28.60 in 2014 to $74.70 in 2019. You might note that an additional $3.00 demand rate exists in 2019 that did not exist in 2014.
Having described the facilities rate changes inaccurately to the level of detail of the penny, you then state that the kWh charges remain “essentially the same”, which is neither quantitative nor how I would characterize a kWh rate change (comparing 2019 to 2014) having a range of $-0.0032/kWh to $+0.0298/kWh. These may be small numbers, and expressing the change as a percentage adds clarity to observing the change in kWh rates from 2014 to 2019 for residential members: minimum change is minus (-)3.8% for members consuming < 1500 kWh/month during the summer and winter, and the maximum change is +35% for residential members consuming between 3000 and 5000 kWh/month during the summer. Instead, you maintain that this change is "essentially the same", which I disagree with. Note that OPALCO Rate Change Materials 1/22/2105 Rate Detail table does not define 'summer' and 'winter' months, clearly an omission in the Rate Table.
To interpret quantitative data requires that one understand the provenance of the data.
in point 3 of your response to Chris you incorrectly state the provenance and then use the values incorrectly to produce poor results. You are mixing 2014 population estimates with numbers calculated from 2010 actual values, and do not point this out. Had you provided the data provenance correctly the reference to the "16015 residents" should be stated as an estimate for year 2014 population provided by the US census, not the actual 2014 population. The measured population is 15769 for year 2010. You then incorrectly state that the US Census estimates 2.01 persons per household – this is not an estimate, this is a calculation based on 2009-2013 count of households and 2010 population. Lastly you then mix the 2014 estimates with 2010 actual values and calculations to produce poor results: you calculated 860 households as below the poverty level by using the incorrect population count (following your approach, 847 households is the answer when using appropriate values). And you're making a significant assumption to attempt to generate a count of poverty households from US Census data when starting with "persons below poverty level"; one cannot directly correlate a person below poverty with a household (read the note on how Persons below poverty is calculated by the US Census, and how this relates to household – if it all).
You further discuss a possible (but unknown and unexplained) count of 200% of poverty households and posit that this must be 'quite a bit more'. That's pure conjecture and not quantitative. And again, you silently combine the residential demand rate with the facility rate to incorrectly state that 'residential household' (should read 'residential member') will see $589/year (should be $553.20/year) higher in 2019 compared to 2014 through increases in facilities charges alone (it's not through facilities charges alone).
You then run a calculation using your incorrect values, producing an incorrect result:
860*589 = 506,540- should read 847 * $553.20 = $468,560.40 – if you can make this leap of faith from persons in poverty to households in poverty at all.
So please, when you perform a quantitative analysis, do it accurately, precisely, completely, and provide data provenance. It sure helps when trying to follow along.
As an aside, you supplied to me (privately) the depersonalized 2009 residential and commercial meter kWh readings from OPALCO, and I cannot replicate the graph you prepared and presented on the Salish Rocks Townhall. I asked you privately for an explanation of how you calculated the graphed deciles, and which months you considered winter, and I have not heard back from you – so I am asking you again, publicly – can you provide details on how you produced the publicly-posted graph generated from the dataset? I would like to replicate that graph from the same dataset.
Thanks much.
– Rob Macfarlane III
references:
OPALCO 2015 Rate Change Materials 1/22/2015
https://www.opalco.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Rate-Change-Materials-1-22-15.pdf
US Census state & county quick facts for San Juan County, Washington
https://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53055.html
Chris Greacen's graph on Salish Rocks:
https://chrisgreacen.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/decile-rate-impact-color-salishrocks.png
Dear Robert,
Thanks for your efforts at a thorough criticism of my comment to Chris Thomerson’s letter to Orcas Issues. You raise a couple good points, as well as many criticisms that I disagree with. But none fundamentally change the basis for the questions I was asking Chris Thomerson.
The questions (with slight rewordings) are:
* How is the new tariff with a base rate rising to $77.70/month is compatible with energy efficiency? (This question is valid whether we’re talking $74.70/month or $77.70 per month – either way it’s high).
* How will the PAL program will address “relieve member financial distress” in light of the roughly half a million dollars or more annually that would be required to insulate low income households from the impact of rising electricity bills considering that it is currently funded at an order of magnitude less? (This remains valid over reasonable estimate of households below poverty in San Juan County).
I have prepared a detailed response to your criticisms of my calculations, located at:
https://chrisgreacen.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/detailedresponserobmacfarlaneiiiorcasissues4may15.pdf
in which:
* I explain why $77.70/month is a more appropriate figure to use for the monthly base charge that residential members pay before using a single kWh. (Summary: $3.00/month “demand” charge is, for all practical purposes, the same as a facilities charge and thus can be added together with the facilities charge – confirmed via telephone by OPALCO head office.)
* I address your criticism of my characterizing energy charge as “essentially staying the same”. (Summary… it was arguably an overstatement that energy charges “essentially stay the same” but increases in energy charges are small compared to the 171% increase in the base charge).
* I address your criticism of me mixing 2010 and 2014 census data (Summary: actually I wasn’t using 2010 data. US Census data cited was 2013 estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey – which collects data annually — combined with 2014 population estimate.)
* To address your (valid) concerns of me using Census estimates of individuals in poverty to make estimates of household poverty I redid the census analysis (using all 2013 estimates) using household poverty data. (Summary: my new calculations based on household income data yield estimates of households below poverty consistent with my original estimate.)
I appreciate your attention to detail and efforts in expanding the sphere of volunteer analysis on our islands’ power system. I encourage you to use more discretion in choice of words such as “pure conjecture” “poor results” and “just plain wrong”, or at least to be very sure that you yourself are correct when you use them. I also think it would be more productive for you to provide your own calculations if you feel mine are inadequate — rather than focusing entirely on criticizing mine.
In that vein, on the issue of reproducing the decile graphs, with the load data and OPALCO rates you’ve got all you need. Simply divide all residential customers into groups of equal numbers and – based on usage data – calculate bills using OPALCO’s projected 2019 rates and compare to what bills would be for the same consumption using 2014 rates. To simplify calculations we applied winter rates to all months, but it would be more accurate to redo the analysis including winter (Nov-April) and summer (May-Sep) rates. Can I suggest you do this and get back to me with results?
Best regards,
Chris Greacen, Ph.D.
references:
OPALCO 2015 Rate Change Materials 1/22/2015
https://www.opalco.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Rate-Change-Materials-1-22-15.pdf
US Census state & county quick facts for San Juan County, Washington
https://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53055.html
US Census Bureau “American Fact Finder” for San Juan County, Washington
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
US Census Bureau American Community Survey Estimates (2009-2013)
https://www.census.gov/acs/www/
Hi Chris –
I read your note with interest; to walk through a couple of points quickly:
I find it odd that you would have provided a reference/link to the US Census Bureau San Juan County Quick Facts page when it appears you’re saying that you didn’t actually use that reference when preparing your comment to Chris Thommerson – instead you state you were referencing U.S. Census Bureau 2009-2014 5-Year American Community Survey. That was unfortunate, as accurate references are important. Thank you for providing the correct reference. I know that my criticisms of your quantitative analysis are correct based on the reference originally supplied; perhaps given the correct reference your work will stand. I will check out the new reference and see how it correlates with what has been learned.
As regards the kWh rates remaining essentially the same, if you want to revise your writeup to draw a comparison between energy charges (kWh rates) and “base charge” ( a term you like to use, which does not exist in the OPALCO 2015 budget), you can do that. It’s unfortunate that you didn’t indicate you were performing a comparison in your initial note, to which I was responding.
As regards the assertion that the total number of households below 200% poverty level must be quite a bit more than those below 100% poverty level – which I termed pure conjecture: if there’s no data to support the count of households above 100% poverty level and below 200% poverty level then it’s a pure conjecture to assume there are any households in that population at all. You didn’t provide any support for your statement, yet drew a conclusion from the missing data. If we want to concoct data sets I can easily create a dataset that says everybody is either below 100% poverty level or above 300% poverty level . Of course I have no data to support such an assertion – it would be pure conjecture to assume there is anyone within that range. Just as you provided no backup for you assertion. So please don’t create data, reference it.
You suggested that it might be beneficial for me to provide some of my own calculations, and I’ve been looking at some information.
My first interest is to see how OPALCO scales when compared to the five electric utilities mentioned in your opinion letter published in Orcas Issues (published April 27, 2015), which indicates each utility’s facilities/base rate and points out the base rates are lower than those budgeted for by OPALCO. It is certainly true these five utilities have a lower base rate per member; I’d like to know that it’s reasonable to draw a comparison between a large investor-owned for-profit electric utility and our small co-operative electric uility.
A metric I’ve seen used by the rural electric utilities and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA, of which OPALCO is as member) for ‘sizing’ a utility is the customers (or electric meters) per mile of distribution line, which might demonstrate that sparse populations served by rural utilities have low customers per mile and dense populations served by investor-owned or municipal utilities have higher customers per mile. For the five utilities, plus OPALCO, the numbers work out to (the following is supposed to be a table of four columns and seven rows, I do not know how it will appear in an Orcas Issues comment):
utility name count of customers or meters miles of distribution line customers/mile distribution line
PacifiCorp 1,800,000 62,930 28.6
Avista 680,000 18,000 37.8
Southern California Edison 14,000,000 90,401 154.9
Pacific Gas & Electric 5,400,000 141,215 38.2
Eversource 3,110,000 72,000 43.2
OPALCO 14,745 1,328 11.5
Note that some utilities specify ‘circuit miles’ of distribution line, which apparently means that the physical miles (also known as ‘pole miles’) may be less. Data sources are the individual utility’s websites, typically the ‘about us’ pages.
The low value of customers/mile tells me that OPALCO serves a sparse population, and each of us connected to to OPALCO’s electrical grid shoulders a larger proportion of the grid cost than exists in a more densely served area (the stand-out case is Southern California Edison – they have 154.9/11.5 = 13.5 times more customers financially supporting each mile of distribution line than we do here in the San Juans). This does suggest that it’s not necessarily straightforward nor reasonable to compare our situation with few members financial supporting the distribution line as compared to large utilities with more members supporting each mile of wire.
Do you have any thought as to the relevance of customers/mile of distribution line as a comparative metric for electric utilities? And i’d be interested to learn more about what other metrics would support the notion that a comparison of OPALCO to the five utilities you mentioned is a reasonable comparison.
Thanks much.
– rob