2009 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
2009 PERFORMANCE MEASURES Strategic Positions Q1
Provide Excellent Customer Service
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Billing Error Rate
Electronic Payments
Service Order Process
Karen Miller
Paula Ball
Paula Ball
Paula Ball
Rick Dunn
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Operating Reserves Level
Days Cash On Hand
Costs per kWh v. COSA
O&M/Capital
O&M Costs per Customer
Collections
Janet White
Janet White
Jon Meyer
Jon Meyer
Jon Meyer
Paula Ball
Q1
Deliver Value through Power Supply Management
Q4
Telephone Service Level
Ensure Employee Excellence
Provide Competitive, Reliable, Efficient Delivery Systems
Q3
Customer Satisfaction
Q1
Ensure a Fiscally Sound Organization
Q2
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Safety
Training and Development
Hiring Efficiency
Steve Hunter
Allison Walsh
Allison Walsh
Q1
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Broadband Network Reliability
Energy Loss Percentage
Electric System Outages
Reliability Indices
Rates
AMI Installation
Rich Nall
Rick Dunn
Rick Dunn
Rick Dunn
Chris Johnson
Rick Dunn
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Average Unit Price - Sales for Resale
Day Ahead Power Price vs. ICE
Dan Bickford
Dan Bickford
Optimize Community Infrastructure and Resources
Be a Public Power Advocate
Be a Steward of the Environment
Legend The color assigned for each measure is a subjective evaluation of both the quarterly results as well as the outlook for the calendar year compared to established targets. The legend below provides general guidance for assigning colors. Positive performance - positive year-end outlook and/or exceeding quarterly expectation Improvement needed - concern about year-end outlook and/or less than quarterly expectation Adverse performance - negative year-end outlook and/or negative quarterly performance Data not available and/or no activity during the quarter Under construction
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Indicator Title YTD Performance
1/20
Performance Measure Title
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Customer Satisfaction
Year to Date
Definition Track overall customer satisfaction and assess interaction with and use of services provided by Benton PUD with customer satisfaction.
How Performance Measure is Computed Surveys - questions are answered on a 7 point scale. The % measurement is the % of respondents who were satisfied overall (responding of 5 or above).
Goal Green - 70% and above, Yellow - 55% to 70%, Red - Below 55%. Based on overall satisfaction and satisfaction with services. Goal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual 70 70 70 70
% % % %
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
N/A % 79.6 % % %
Quarterly Performance Summary The District recently received the results of the survey administered during the first quarter.
Customer Satisfaction Customer Survey Results
2004 - 2009 100 89.3
90
85.3
80
79.4
78.2
76.4 72.7
70
77.2
74.4 71.3
87.6
86.1
85.7 79.8
77.3
79.3
79.6
70.6
67.0
60
86.4
82.0
Goal 70% 62.7
50
Responsible Manager:
Karen Miller
Data Provider:
Karen Miller
Report Date:
7/29/2009
2/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Telephone Service Level (Customer Service Queue)
Year to Date
Definition Measure service level in the customer service queue, achieving a minimum of 65% of all calls answered within 30 seconds or less and 90% of calls answered in 120 seconds or less. This measure captures the timeliness of answering calls routed to the customer service queue, and the effectiveness of the department staff in terms of managing and monitoring the call queue.
How Performance Measure is Computed Service level reporting capabilities were provided with the Cisco phone system. The system measures the speed of answering all incoming calls and maintains that data in a log that can be queried via the Cisco reporting application on an ad-hoc basis. The performance measure will report the percentage of incoming calls to Customer Service that are answered within 30 seconds and 120 seconds for the quarter. The goal will be rated on a rolling average with data beginning October 1, 2008. After one year's worth of data is accumulated, it will be based on a rolling 12 month average.
Goal Answering at least 65% of incoming calls within 30 seconds or less and 90% of calls within 120 seconds or less, based on a rolling 12-month performance period beginning October 1, 2008. A green rating will be achieved if both goals are met, a yellow rating if one goal is met and a red rating if neither goal is met on a rolling 12-month service level period.
Calls Answered Within 30 Seconds
Rating B th goals Both l mett One goal met Neither goal met
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Calls Answered Within 120 Seconds
Number of Calls
Goal
Quarterly Performance
Rolling 12-months Performance
Goal
Quarterly Performance
19,244 18 996 18,996
65% 65%
81% 83%
82% 82%
90% 90%
95% 96%
Rolling 12-months Performance
95% 95%
Quarterly Performance Summary In Q2, both the 30 second and 120 second performance measures are rated green. Customer Service exceeded the goal of answering 65% of calls within 30 seconds with an 83% service level. The performance measure of 90% of calls answered within 120 seconds was also exceeded, with a 96% service level.
Calls Answered within 30 Seconds by Customer Service
Calls Answered within 120Seconds by Customer Service
100%
100%
83% 82%
81% 82%
75%
Goal Quarterly Performance Rolling 12-Months
96% 95%
95% 95% 90%
90%
Goal Quarterly Performance Rolling 12-Months
75%
65%
65%
50%
50%
25%
25%
0%
0% Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Responsible Manager:
Paula Ball
Data Provider:
Paula Ball
Q2
Q3
Report Date:
Q4
7/29/2009
3/20
Performance Measure Title
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Billing Error Rate (BER)
Year to Date
Definition This performance measure reflects the accuracy of electric bills to our customers based on the error level in obtaining meter reads. Reading errors are evaluated as to whether they are over or under the actual meter register. This data also may be used as a basis for identifying potential employee training or performance issues.
How Performance Measure is Computed A quarterly report will be issued with the total number of meter reading errors made by type (over or under). The number of reading errors will be compared to the total number of meter reads during the reporting period to determine a billing error rate percentage.
Goal A green rating will be assigned if the billing error rate is less than or equal to .10%; a yellow rating will be assigned if the billing error rate is greater than .10% up to and including .15%; a red rating will be assigned if the billing error rate is greater than .15%. Quarter Reporting: Total Errors Not-to-Exceed Goal Actual BER Total Meters Read
Q1
Q2
83 0.10% 0.06% 145 595 145,595
Q3
107 0.10% 0.08% 137 712 137,712
0.10% 0.00% -
Q4 0.10% 0.00% -
Quarterly Performance Summary The meter reader error rate during the second quarter was well within the goal of .10%, therefore, this measure is rated green.
Billing Errors
Billing Error Rate (BER) 0.15%
175
Actual BER
Read Errors - Under
Read Errors - Over
150 125
0.10% Not to Exceed Goal = .10%
100
Not to Exceed Goal = 138
8
75 0.05% 0.08%
50
0.06% 0.00%
0.00%
Q3
Q4
0.00% Q1
Q2
Responsible Manager:
Paula Ball
Data Provider:
Jon Meyer
99
25 0 Total Billing Errors
Report Date:
07/20/09 4/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Electronic Payments
Year to Date
Definition This measures the percentage of total payments made to the District by electronic means, i.e. customer using either Power Pay, auto pay, and credit card payments by phone. Increasing the number of electronic payments can lower costs by reducing the manual processes required to post payments to accounts (from applying the payment to processing the bank deposit) and can also reduce errors associated with manual processes.
How Performance Measure is Computed The number of payments processed through ACH Auto Pay, online payments through Power Pay, and credit card payments by phone will be compared to the total number of payments processed during the quarter. A green rating will be assigned if 31% or more of total payments are made by electronic methods during the quarter; yellow rating for 26-30%, and red rating if the number of electronic payments is less than 26% of total payments during the quarter. This rating criteria may be refined as more history is developed and penetration levels are identified from similar utilities.
Goal Minimum of 30% of total payments will be made by electronic methods.
Electronic Payments
Type of Payments
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Total Payments
Electronic Payments
111,518 105,281
41,430 40,474
Percentage Electronic
37.2% 38.4%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Auto Pay 18,188 18,201
Power Consolidator Payments Pay 13,087 10,155 12,349 9,924
Rating 31% + 26-30% < 26
Quarterly Performance Summary A total of 105,281 payments were processed during the second quarter. The number of monthly automated consolidator payments continues to grow since its implementation during the fourth quarter of 2006. Payments made via Power Pay (including Internet and phone payments) also continue to increase. The District replaced its previous Internet and phone payment systems at the end of August 2007 and has seen continued strong use of the applications. The percentage of payments made by electronic methods through Auto Pay, Power Pay, Phone Pay and consolidator payments was 38.4% resulting in a green rating for the quarter.
Customer Electronic Payments 50.0% 40.0% 29.4% 30.7% 30.0%
33.4%
33.7%
35.3%
36.4% 38.3%
37.2%
38.4%
24.1% 19.4% 20.5%
20.4% 20.9%
20.0%
Goal increased to 31% at Q1 2009 Goal 30%
10.0% 0.0%
Responsible Manager:
Paula Ball
Data Provider:
Jon Meyer
Report Date:
7/1/2009 5/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year to Date
Performance Measure Title
Service Order Time Tracking Definition Once a new or altered service is eligible for energization*, the following items will be measured: 1) Length of time it takes the Operations Center to energize a new service once Engineering has transitioned the electronic service order to them in the Work Flow Management system (WFM), after the customer has met the criteria described by the * below. 2) Length of time it takes to set up the customer account in the PeopleSoft Enterprise Revenue Management (ERM) system for billing after Operations transitions it over to them from the WFM system. *Eligible for energization is based on the customer meeting the following criteria: trench has been inspected on an underground service, fees have been paid, L & I state approval has been received, and customer is ready for power. The District has no control over the time span to energize a new or altered service until the criteria has been met.
How Performance Measure is Computed - 1st Chart 1) After Engineering has released all holds in the WFM system, it is transitioned to Operations. Performance is measured from the date received by Operations in WFM and the completion date of when the meter was set (energized). 2) The second part of the performance is measured by the Operations completed date to the date it was transitioned to CIS for customer account set-up. These queries are run from the Oracle database within the WFM system. How Performance Measure is Computed - 2nd Chart The performance is measured by the date CIS receives the electronic Service Order from Operations, to the date CIS transitions the electronic service order to GIS. This shows how many days it took for CIS to set-up the customer account in ERM before transitioning it to the GIS department.
Goal The goal is to energize new services and transition it to Customer Service within an average of 10 days after customer criteria has been met and new accounts set up in PeopleSoft ERM within an average of one week (7 days) after being transitioned from Operations to Customer Service. Operations
Customer Service
10 days or less
7 days or less
Both green
11 - 12 days
8 - 9 days
Either is yellow
> 12 days
> 9 days
Either is red
Rating Criteria:
Goal
Q1 Actual
10 7
Connection (days) ERM System (days) New services count
Goal
6 4 91
Q2 Actual
10 7
Goal
2 4 148
Combined Rating
Q3 Actual
Q4 Goal Actual
10 7
10 7
Quarterly Performance Summary During the second quarter, it took 2 days, on average, for a new service to be energized once the customer had met all of the requirements. Additionally, it took four days for the Service Order to be processed and transitioned to Customer Service for setup of the new account in the ERM system. The number of days it took on average for set-up in ERM was four days.
Days from New Service Accounts set-up in PeopleSoft ERM System to GIS
Days for Meter Connection and Days from Meter Set to Customer Service 12
12 Meter Set to Cust Svc Meter Set (days)
Customer Service to ERM Set-Up Goal ( 10 days)
9
Days
Days
9
6 3
Goal (7 days)
6
4
3
3 3
4
4
Q1
Q2
2
0
0 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Rating
Responsible Manager: Rick Dunn Data Providers: Patty Sunford and Sally Gale
Q3
Report Date:
Q4
Rating
7/27/2009
6/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Operating Reserves Level
Year to Date
Definition Level of Operating Reserves (excluding designated reserves such as the Rate Stabilization Account) at month-end as reported to the Commission in the monthly Treasurer's Report. Maintain Operating Reserve levels above Minimum Cash Balances as defined in the Commission approved Financial Policies.
How Performance Measure is Computed Compare against approved annual budget operating reserve balances as projected at quarter-end levels. Compare to Financial Policies minimum and maximum cash balances as projected for year-end.
Goal Maintain Operating Reserves above the Minimum Cash Balance as defined by the District’s Financial Policies. A green rating will be assigned if Operating Reserves are above 125% of the Minimum Cash Balance level. A yellow rating will be assigned if Operating Reserves are between 125% and 100% of the Minimum Cash Balance level and below the Budget planned cash levels without the expectation of recovery by year-end. A red rating will be assigned if Operating Reserves are below the Minimum Cash Balance level or expected to fall below the Minimum Cash Balances level without the expectation of recovery by year end or if any borrowings of cash are utilized to cover operating expenses.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Minimum $16.544 $16.544
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Budget $29.805 $27.703
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual $30.192 $27.873
Quarterly Performance Summary The Operating Reserve balance as of December 31, 2008 was lower than planned as result of the BPA ERE credit not being received until January 1, 2009. With that catch-up, operating reserves are tracking close to target. Note: This performance measure will be updated for the third quarter to reflect changes in the District's Financial Policies approved on July 28, 2009 defining requirements for minimum Unrestricted Reserve levels.
Operating Reserves - 2009 34 30
($ Millions)
26 22 18 14 10
Plan
Actual
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Financial Policy Minimum
125% of Financial Policy Minimum
Janet White Dale Pryor
7/29/2009 7/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Days Cash on Hand
Year to Date
Definition Days Cash on Hand measures the number of days an enterprise can cover its operating expenses using unrestricted cash and investments and assuming no additional revenue is collected. Unrestricted cash includes Operating and Designated Reserves, including the Rate Stabilization Account. This ratio is useful for measuring the relative strength of a utility's financial liquidity. It must be evaluated in conjunction with identified immediate risks to cash flow and compared to the number of days it takes for the utility to raise its rates and begin to receive additional revenues.
How Performance Measure is Computed Days Cash on Hand is computed by multiplying the total unrestricted cash and investments by 365 and then dividing that result by the total operating expenses (excluding depreciation and amortization) on a rolling twelvemonth basis.
Goal The goal is to maintain a minimum of 82 Days Cash on Hand which is the median for electric distribution systems with A2 rated debt by Moody's Investors Service for fiscal year 2006 (the latest information available). A green rating will be assigned if the measure is 82 days or greater; a yellow rating will be assigned if the measure is 7081 days; a red rating will be assigned if the measure is below 70 days. Goal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
82 82 82 82
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual 108 107
Quarterly Performance Summary The strong performance of 107 days cash on hand results from the lower power cost for the year and the peak of cash reserves from operations which generally occurs in the spring.
Days Cash on Hand 120 100 80 60
108
103 40
82
107
82
77
20 ‐ Moody's Median 2006 (A2)
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Actual 2006
Actual 2007
Actual 2008
Q1 2009
Q2 2009
‐
‐
Q3 2009
Q4 2009
Janet White Patty Hawkey
Report Date:
7/27/2009
8/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Actual Costs per kWh and COSA Comparison
Year to Date
Definition The Net Power Costs per kWh and COSA Comparison is a comparison of the actual net power cost per kWh and the net power cost per kWh as used in the COSA model. The Other Costs per kWh and COSA Comparison is a comparison of other costs and revenues per kWh and other costs and revenues per kWh as used in the COSA model. The COSA used in the calculation is the model that current rates are developed from. Components of other costs include operation and maintenance expenses, taxes (excluding municipal occupation taxes), net capital, debt service and miscellaneous revenues, and exclude depreciation. These comparisons serve as validation of the assumptions used in the COSA model which contributes to more accurate rate projections.
How Performance Measure is Computed The Net Power Cost per kWh and COSA Comparison is computed by taking the 12-month rolling net power cost and dividing by the 12-month rolling billed retail kWh as reported in the District's financial statements. The Other Costs per kWh and COSA Comparison is computed by taking the 12month rolling other costs and dividing by the 12-month rolling billed retail KWh as reported by District financial statements. In addition, actual year-todate calculations are provided for both comparisons.
Goal For a green rating, total costs per kWh on a rolling 12-month basis should be no higher than 5% of the COSA model. A yellow rating would be assigned if total cost variances were between 6% - 10%; and a red rating would be assigned if total cost variances were in excess of 10% from the COSA model. Net Power Costs per kWh (cents) Other Costs per kWh (cents) Total Costs per kWh (cents) Rolling 12Months to COSA
2008 Rolling 12- YTD COSA Months Actual
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
3.107 3.107
2.654 2.473
2008 COSA
1.447 -14.6% 1.817 -20.4%
2008 COSA Net Power Cost 2008 COSA Other Costs
Q1 2.237 Q2 2.237 Q3 Q4
Rolling 12- YTD Months Actual
1.996 2.130
$50,459,102 $36,325,445
Rolling 12Months to COSA
2008 COSA
2.145 -10.8% 2.238 -4.8%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2008 COSA Total Costs 2008 COSA Retail kWh
Rolling 12- YTD Months Actual
5.344 5.344
4.650 4.603
Rolling 12Months to COSA
3.592 -13.0% 4.055 -13.9%
$86,784,547 net of $2.6M reserve drawdown 1,623,888,020
Quarterly Performance Summary At the end of the second quarter, total costs per kWh on a rolling 12-month basis are less than the COSA model by 13.9%. The rolling 12-month net power costs of 2.473 cents per kWh are 20.4% less than the COSA model attributable to lower power costs. The rolling 12-month other costs of 2.13 cents per kWh are 4.8% less than the COSA model. This measure is rated "green" because actual performance was better than projected in the COSA model. The 2008 COSA continues used as the benchmark for this performance measure since it is the basis for current rates.
Total Costs per kWh and COSA Comparison Total Costs per kWh (cents)
7
2008 COSA
YTD Actual
Rolling 12-Months
6 5 4 3 2
5.34
5.34 4.65 3.59
4.05
4.60
1 Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Q3
Q4
Jon Meyer Davene Martin
Report Date:
7/27/2009
9/20
Performance Measure Title
2009 Status
O&M / Net Capital
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year to Date
Definition This indicator measures the District's actual O&M expenses vs. budget and the actual net capital expenditures vs. budget on a year-todate basis. O&M expenses include transmission, distribution, broadband and all District internal costs and exclude power supply costs, taxes, depreciation, interest expense and other non-operating expenses. O&M and capital expenditures are a subset of all expenditures incurred by the District. While all costs are controllable by the District in the long-term, management has more direct control of these costs over the short-term and may more immediately impact District financial results through decisions in these areas.
How Performance Measure is Computed The official budget that is approved by the Commission for the calendar year will represent the standard against which actual results are measured. The original budget may be amended by the Commission during August of each year. Year-to-date O&M expenses and net capital expenditures will be compared to budget at each quarter-end.
Goal Meet the year-to-date budget projections. in millions
O&M YTD YTD Budget Actual $4.515 $4.122 $9.030 $8.852
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Net Capital YTD YTD Budget Actual $4.246 $1.775 $9.132 $5.800
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Quarterly Performance Summary Actual O&M expenses of $8.9 million through the first six months of 2009 are below budget by $178,000 or 2%, and net capital expenditures of $5.8 million through June are below budget by $3.3 million or 36%. This measure was rated green because year-todate financial performance for the first quarter is favorable compared to budget.
O&M Actual vs. Budget
Net Capital Actual vs. Budget
$20
$12 YTD Actual
YTD Budget
$15
Expenses (in millions)
Expenses (in millions)
YTD Budget
$10 9.0
8.9
$5 4.5
YTD Actual
$9 9.1
$6 5.8 $3
4.2
4.1 1.8
$0
$0 Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Q3
Jon Meyer Patty Hawkey
Q4
Q1
Q2
Report Date:
Q3
Q4
7/29/2009 10/20
Performance Measure Title
2009 Status
O&M Costs per Customer
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year to Date
Definition This performance measure will track the District’s non-power operating and maintenance (O&M) costs per customer, excluding broadband and reimbursable mutual aid costs and including bad debt expense. O&M expenses are a subset of all expenditures incurred by the District. While all costs are controllable by the District in the long-term, management has more direct control of O&M costs over the short-term and may more immediately impact District financial results through decisions in these areas.
How Performance Measure is Computed Actual O&M expenses, excluding broadband and reimbursable mutual aid costs and including bad debt expense, as reported in the financial statements will be divided by the average number of active service agreements on a rolling 12-month basis. Results at the end of each quarter will be compared to the 2009 target of $375 per customer. The 2009 target was developed from the 2009 budget of $371 per customer incremented by $200,000 or $4 per customer to allow for variations in the level of internal labor charged to capital projects v. expense. A rating of green will be assigned if the O&M costs per customer are within 2% of the target; a rating of yellow will be assigned if the O&M costs per customer are more than 2% but less than 3% higher than the target; a rating of red will be assigned if the O&M costs per customer are more than 3% higher than the target.
Goal Maintain or decrease the O&M costs per customer as compared to the 2008 target of $368 per customer. O&M 2009 2009 Target Actual $375 $354 $375 $361
Q1 Q2 Q Q3 Q4
Information Only Benton PUD - CY 2008 Actual* Benton PUD - CY 2009 Budget* ( g) Benchmark Studyy (2007 Avg.) APPA - 2006 West median (2) APPA - 2007 West median (2)
Stated Year Dollars
(1) 2009 Dollars
$349 $375 $ $372 $381 $408
$359 $375 $ $395 $416 $433
* includes bad debt expense (1) Escalated at 3% per year (2) Selected Financial and Operating Ratios of Public Power Systems survey (Note: accounting for payroll taxes and benefits may vary among utilities)
Quarterly Performance Summary Actual O&M costs per customer on a rolling 12-month basis at the end of the second quarter of 2009 are $361 or 4% lower than the not-to-exceed target of $375. This performance measure was rated green indicating positive performance since the results exceeded the goal.
O & M Costs per Customer $400 2008 Target
2008 Actual - Rolling 12 Months
$375 $375
$375 $361
$350
$354
$325
$300 Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Q3
Q4
Jon Meyer Patty Hawkey
Report Date:
7/29/2009
11/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Accounts Receivable Collections
Year to Date
Definition Percentage of accounts receivable that are paid within 60 days after billing.
How Performance Measure is Computed The percentage is calculated by dividing the amount of accounts receivable under 60 days by the total amount of accounts receivable for electric customers. This measure does not include miscellaneous accounts receivable, such as power billings or cost reimbursements.
Goal The goal is to increase the percentage of accounts receivable under 60 days to a level of 90% or more of the total accounts receivable. A green rating will be achieved if the actual results are at 90% or higher; a yellow rating will be assigned if the actual results are between 85% to 90%; a red rating will be assigned if the actual results are below 85%. Goal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
90% 90% 90% 90%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual 95% 96%
Quarterly Performance Summary At the end of the second quarter, 96% of the accounts receivable balance was less than 60 days from the billing date. This measure was rated green because the goal of 90% was exceeded.
Percentage of Accounts Receivable Under 60 Days 2004 - 2009 100% % under 60 days
95% 90% Goal - green rating
85% Limit - yellow rating
80% 75%
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Paula Ball Davene Martin
Report Date:
7/12/2009
12/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Safety
Year to Date
Definition The measure benchmarked will be reportable injuries or illnesses as recorded on the OSHA 300 log. The summary will specify incidents and we will look for trends and opportunities to correct by means including training, retraining, work procedure changes, engineering controls or other reasonable actions to address.
How Performance Measure is Computed We will use the OSHA Form 300A "Summary of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses" for safety benchmarking against the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers published each year. The basic requirement for recording an illness or injury is if it results in any of the following: death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness, or a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional. The incidence rates are calculated according to the following formula: (N/EH) x 200,000 where N = number of incidents for the previous 12 months and EH = total hours worked by all employees during the same 12 month period. The 200,000 is the constant for 100 full-time workers working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year.
Benchmark (not to exceed) The benchmark is to be less than the Total Recordable Cases as published annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This figure changes annually as a result of OSHA 300 log reports. This measure will be rated green if BPUD calculated reportable incidents are at 80% or below the benchmark, yellow if they are between 80%-120% of the benchmark, and red if they are over 120% of the benchmark or as a result of a serious injury and/or Labor and Industries citation.
Benchmark 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
BPUD 5.2 3.9
Quarterly Performance Summary The following 6 incidents were reported on the OSHA 300 form in the last 12 months (July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009): - 01.20.09 - Meter Reader suffered injury to elbow after a fall on the ice - 12.06.08 - Lineman suffered a dog bite - RX provided - 11.03.08 - Meter Reader suffered a dog bite - RX provided - 08.31.08 - Lineman injured his lower back when pulling elbow off LBC resulting in 33 days lost time - 08.13.08 - Meter Reader suffered a dog bite - RX provided - 07.28.08 - Network Support Specialist injured lower back lifting printer resulting in 7 days lost time and 30 days restricted time
SAFETY 10 Benchmark
BPUD
Limit ‐ red rating
INCIDENT RATE
8 6
Limit ‐ yellow rating
4 6.2
5.2
6.2
3.9
6.2
6.2
2 0 Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Q3
Q4
Steve Hunter Diane Schlekewey
Report Date:
7/29/2009
13/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Training & Development Plan Attendance
Year to Date
Definition This performance measure reflects the results achieved in meeting the training and development attendance goals for the quarter. The training plan includes those Leadership and Workforce courses approved by the Leadership Team. Underutilization wastes the resources of the learning staff member (LSM) (preparing for courses that are not delivered), causes rework (having to facilitate make up classes) and wastes the purchase of participant materials. The goal is to ensure the majority of scheduled participants attend the training, while allowing flexibility for those on approved medical leave of absence. Lack of meeting the attendance goals may reflect other legitimate schedule conflicts, ineffective course frequency or length, priority-setting improvements needed of participants and/or their managers, or other factors that may interfere with the training plan for the quarter.
How Performance Measure is Computed The target is derived each quarter based on the District Leadership and Workforce training plans approved by the Leadership Team. It is the percentage of learning hours completed against the planned learning hours, with the goal minimum set at the 90.00% of the required training participants' learning hours to achieve a green rating. A yellow rating reflects attendance at 80.00 - 89.99% of required participants, and a red rating reflects below 80% of required participants.
Goal Achieve 90% of training plan minimum (required attendees).
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year Total:
Training Goal
Training Hours Completed
% to Goal
598 231
563 231
94% 100%
Color Rating 90% + 80.00-89.99%
Over 105%
< 80% 829
793
96%
Quarterly Performance Summary 1) The District held Situational Leadership training, which is the 1st session of a series of courses needed to obtain certification in NWPPA's Frontline Leadership Program. Sixteen employees who are new to supervisory/leadership roles at the District were invited to participate in this Leadership Development Program, of the 16 invited, 14 attended. 2 employees were absent from this session due to a misunderstanding, the 2 vacancies were filled that morning with other attendees and the hours calculation adjusted as 100% attendance for this portion of the metric. 2) 12 of 13 employees in the Meter Reading group were trained on the District's Records Management Program Policy, the absent employee was an On-call Meter Reader who was not available to attend on the date the training was offered. (Rounded to 100% attendance) 3) Also included is time taken during New Employee Orientation to review and discuss 9 District policies related to discipline, performance and acceptable practices, of which 3 out of 3 new employees at the District completed this orientation.
Training & Development Learning Hours District Training Plan
Training Hours Completed
750 675 600 525
598
563
450 375 300 225
231
150
231
75 0
Q1
Q2
Responsible Manager:
Allison Walsh
Data Provider:
Jody George
Q3
Report Date:
Q4
7/29/2009 14/20
Performance Measure Title
Broadband Network Reliability
3 - 9s
5 - 9s
99.9=G 99.8=Y 99.5=R
99.999=G 99.980=Y 99.950=R
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
All Green= Any Yellow= Any Red=
Year To Date
Definition We will be measuring four areas of network reliability: Backbone, Ethernet, Wireless, Upstream to NoaNet. The measure of value and performance of a network is determined by the reliability of the network and at the extent to which it can maintain an adequate level of "up" time and service to the end users. The District's Broadband network consists of four segments and each of these segments will be measured independently as a part of the total network reliability. The measurements and tracking process will allow the Broadband technical and management staff to determine the level of service and value of the network to the Retail Service Providers and the end users they serve. The results of the measurements will be part of the rate setting structure, level of service guarantees provided to RSPs and performance of staff.
How Performance Measure is Computed Target performance for backbone and upstream to NoaNet is to operate at 5-9's reliability, laterals at 4-9's reliability, and wireless at 3-9's reliability.
Goal Maintain and adequate level of "up" time and service to end users. Wireless NoaNet
Goal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
99.90% 99.90% 99.90% 99.90%
Goal
Actual
99.999% 99.999% 99.999% 99.999%
100.000% 100.000%
Actual 99.94% 99.85%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
SONET
Ethernet
Goal
Goal
Actual
99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99%
100.00% 100.00%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual
99.999% 99.999% 99.999% 99.999%
100.000% 100.000%
Quarterly Performance Summary Wireless goals were not met due to extended power outages in the Badger Canyon area and on Clearwater Avenue. Total down time was just over 3 hours. Action will be taken to increase battery capacity in these areas.
Goal
Actual
Wireless
Goal
110%
110%
95%
95%
80%
80%
65%
65%
50%
NoaNet
50%
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Goal
99.90%
99.90%
99.90%
99.90%
Actual
99.94%
99.85%
Goal
Actual
Actual
Ethernet
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Goal
99.999%
99.999%
99.999%
99.999%
Actual
100.000%
100.000%
Goal
110%
110%
95%
95%
80%
80%
65%
65%
Actual
SONET
50%
50%
Q1
Q2
Goal
99.99%
99.99%
Actual
100.00%
100.00%
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q3 99.99%
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Goal
99.999%
99.999%
99.999%
99.999%
Actual
100.000%
100.000%
Q4 99.99%
Rich Nall Shawn Rose
Report Date:
7/28/2009 15/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Energy Loss Percentage
Year to Date
Definition Energy Loss Percentage is the ratio of energy losses within the electrical system to total load as reported by BPA. This ratio measures how much energy is lost in the District's electrical system and is an indicator of the efficiency of the electrical system. It represents the percentage of electrical energy that is bought or generated by the utility, but is not available to be sold to customers. Losses include both physical losses that occur in the distribution system and metering and billing losses.
How Performance Measure is Computed This measure is computed by dividing the excess of BPA reported load over billed retail kWh on a rolling 12 month basis. The Agrium load will be eliminated from the calculation to prevent distortion since there is no load loss in its delivery.
Goal Industry Standard: The industry standard of 4.06% represents the median for 57 utilities with 20,000 to 50,000 customers in the 2007 APPA survey "Selected Financial and Operating Ratios of Public Power Systems" published in March 2009. The previous industry standard of 3.98% was based on the median for 53 utilities with 20,000 to 50,000 customers in the 2006 APPA survey. Using the median as our benchmark provides a stable and relevant reference given the diversity of BPUD's distribution system and the fact we serve both urban and rural areas. Rating: A green rating will be assigned if actuals are at or below the Industry Standard. A yellow rating will be assigned if actuals are 5% above the Industry Standard, and a red rating will be assigned if actuals are 10% above the Industry Standard.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Industry Standard 4.06% 4.06%
Actual 3.35% 3.29%
Quarterly Performance Summary This measure is rated green because the actual energy loss percentage of 3.29% is below the industry median for utilities in our customer size class. Note: The source of data was changed during the fourth quarter of 2008 to be the final BPA transmission bills and the entire year was restated for consistency.
Energy Loss Percentage
8 6% Energy Losses (%)
Industry Standard
Actual
5% 4% 3% 4.06% 2%
4.06% 3.35%
3.29%
1% Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Q3
Q4
Rick Dunn Davene Martin
Report Date:
7/27/2009 16/20
2009 Status Q1
Performance Measure Title
Q2
Q3 Q4
Year to Date
Electric System Outages Definition To monitor electric power outages which includes the following: 1. Total outages on electric system. 2. Squirrel related outages. 3. Underground primary cable failure related outages.
How Performance Measure is Computed Work Flow Management (WFM) system tracking is done on the Oracle database.
Goal To track actual outages compared to goals and determine if action is needed.
Squirrel UG Primary Total Outages
Q1 Goal Actual
Q2 Goal Actual
Q3 Goal Actual
Q4 Goal Actual
10 15 60
20 20 80
10 40 90
20 25 70
8 6 77
20 13 85
Quarterly Performance Summary For the second quarter, the total number of outages exceeded the quarterly goal. The primary drivers for the total outage count were the "other" and "unknown" causes. Since the goals for the number of squirrel caused and underground primary cable outages were met and no particular trend has developed, we are rating the measure as yellow. This recognizes that our total outage count was exceeded but that no immediate action is needed to correct a particular problem that has emerged emerged. Current Quarter History 120
Squirrel
UG
Total Outages
105
100
87
86
85
81
77
80 60 40 20
20
16
13
10
16
9
4
20
18 11
13 5
0 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Annual History 375
2009
Squirrel
UG
Total Outages
356
336
342
331
315
300 225 162
150 88
75
35
40
56
49
38
55
59
61
45 28
19
0 2004
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Rick Dunn Patty Sunford
Report Date:
7/27/2009
Performance Measure Title
2009 Status
Rate Comparisons
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year to Date
Definition This indicator compares an average monthly bill for the District's current rates for Residential and Large General Service to other utilities in the Northwest. A benchmarking base amount of 1,400 kWh is used for Residential customers. Large General Service customers energy use is 150,000 kWh and demand of 400kW.
How Performance Measure is Computed Gather current rates from multiple utilities throughout the Northwest and graph BPUD in relation to these utilities. Utilities selected for comparisons must purchase 60% or more of their power from BPA.
Goal Performance will be measured based on a quarterly rate comparison. A green rating will be assigned if the District's average monthly bill is below the median monthly bill, a yellow rating will be assigned if the District's average monthly bill is in the quartile above the median, and a red rating will be assigned if the District's average monthly bill is in the highest quartile. Residential Average Monthly Bill
Goal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
$102 $102
Large General Service Average Monthly Bill
Goal
Actual $90 $90
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual $7,075 $7,075
$8,146 $8,146
Quarterly Performance Summary During the 2nd quarter of 2009, the District's rates were below the median of comparable utilities so a green rating was retained for both Residential & Large General Service (LGS). For the Residential class Mason PUD had a 2.6% increase and Snohomish PUD had a 4.5% increase. For LGS Mason PUD had a 2.1% increase, Snohomish PUD had a 2.7% and Umatilla had a 6.4% reduction
Large General Service
Residential $12,000
$140
Goal
Goal
Actual
$120 $102
$102 $100
Actual
$10,000 $90
$8,146 $8,000
$90
$8,146
$7,075
$7,075
$80 $6,000 $60 $4,000 $40 $2,000
$20
$0
$0 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Responsible Manager:
Chris Johnson
Data Provider:
Tom Schumacher
Q1
Q2
Report Date:
Q3
Q4
6/30/2009 18/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Average Unit Price - Sales for Resale
Year to Date
Definition Measures the average price obtained for kilowatt hours sold to other utilities, brokers, and power marketers during the fiscal quarter. The measure evaluates the effectiveness of the District in managing power supply risk through the use of long term contracts, forward sales, and financial derivatives. Wholesale revenue earned from sales for resale is a critical element of the District's net power costs.
How Performance Measure is Computed For each quarter, divide the total revenue from sales for resale by the total wholesale kWh sold.
Goal Achieve an actual average unit price per MWh equal to or greater than the quarterly goal. A green rating will be assigned if actual average unit price is above budget or less than 10% below budget; a yellow rating if price is 15% 19% below budget; a red rating if price is 20% or more below budget.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Annual
Goal $52.69 $34.82 $47.55 $51.13 $46.55
Actual $64.38 $38.93
$51.92
Quarterly Performance Summary The average unit price of $38.93 per MWh for sales for resale is 12% above the second quarter goal of $35 per MWh. This measure is rated green as meeting quarterly expectations because the actual average unit price per MWh of sales for resale exceeds the target for the quarter.
Average Unit Price
Goal
Actual
$80
Dollars per Mwh
$64 $60 $53 $40
$48 $35
$51
$52 $47
$39
$20
$0 Q1
Responsible Manager: D Data t P Provider: id
Q2
Q3
Q4
Year-to-Date
Dan Bickford Jon J Meyer M
R Report tD Date: t
7/29/2009 19/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Day Ahead Power Price vs. ICE Index
Year to Date
Definition Measures the difference between the daily weighted average unit price for actual purchase and sale transactions and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) Firm Mid-Columbia Price Index for the same day. This measure evaluates the effectiveness of the District in executing transactions relative to the average market price for all transactions for a particular day. The ability to transact at close to the daily ICE index price is important for the District. The District from time to time enters into financial transactions that contain settlement provisions based upon ICE index prices. The efficacy of hedging with financial transactions is diminished if the District is unable to execute transactions near the index price. Additionally, the District is required to compensate the other Packwood purchasers for non-firm energy production at a price indexed to the daily ICE index price.
How Performance Measure is Computed A single $/MWh figure will be calculated for each calendar quarter that reflects the difference between the actual weighted average price of all transactions executed by the District and the weighted average price if all transactions had been priced at the daily ICE Index prices. Purchase and sale transactions will be melded into this single figure. Purchases made at less than index, and sales made at greater than index, will be treated as positive values. Purchases made at greater than index, and sales made at less than index, will be treated as negative values. If the weighted average price of all District transactions during a calendar quarter exactly equals the weighted average ICE index price, the performance measure will equal $0/MWh. To the extent the District sells energy above index or purchases energy below index, the performance measure will be greater than $0/MWh. To the extent the District sells energy below index or purchases energy above index, the performance measure will be less than $0/MWh.
Goal Unit prices equal to daily ICE price index. A green rating will be assigned if actual unit price is above index or less th $ 10 b l i d ll ti if actual t l is i below b l i d by b $.11 $ 11 - $.30; $ 30 a red d rating ti if actual t l is i more than th $.30 $ 30 than $.10 below index; a yellow rating index below index.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Annual
Goal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Actual $0.18 $0.39
$
0.27
Quarterly Performance Summary Ending the quarter above index by a weighted average of $0.39 results in a green rating for this performance measure.
Variance in Day Ahead Power Price ($/MWh)
Performance vs. ICE Index $1.10
Actual
$0.90 $0.70 $0.50 $0.30
$0.39 $0.18
$0.10
$0.00
$0.00
($0.10) ($0.30) ($0.50) Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Dan Bickford TEA
Q3
Q4
Report Date:
7/31/2009 20/20
Provide Excellent Customer Service
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Billing Error Rate
Electronic Payments
Service Order Process
Karen Miller
Paula Ball
Paula Ball
Paula Ball
Rick Dunn
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Operating Reserves Level
Days Cash On Hand
Costs per kWh v. COSA
O&M/Capital
O&M Costs per Customer
Collections
Janet White
Janet White
Jon Meyer
Jon Meyer
Jon Meyer
Paula Ball
Q1
Deliver Value through Power Supply Management
Q4
Telephone Service Level
Ensure Employee Excellence
Provide Competitive, Reliable, Efficient Delivery Systems
Q3
Customer Satisfaction
Q1
Ensure a Fiscally Sound Organization
Q2
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Safety
Training and Development
Hiring Efficiency
Steve Hunter
Allison Walsh
Allison Walsh
Q1
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Broadband Network Reliability
Energy Loss Percentage
Electric System Outages
Reliability Indices
Rates
AMI Installation
Rich Nall
Rick Dunn
Rick Dunn
Rick Dunn
Chris Johnson
Rick Dunn
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Average Unit Price - Sales for Resale
Day Ahead Power Price vs. ICE
Dan Bickford
Dan Bickford
Optimize Community Infrastructure and Resources
Be a Public Power Advocate
Be a Steward of the Environment
Legend The color assigned for each measure is a subjective evaluation of both the quarterly results as well as the outlook for the calendar year compared to established targets. The legend below provides general guidance for assigning colors. Positive performance - positive year-end outlook and/or exceeding quarterly expectation Improvement needed - concern about year-end outlook and/or less than quarterly expectation Adverse performance - negative year-end outlook and/or negative quarterly performance Data not available and/or no activity during the quarter Under construction
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Indicator Title YTD Performance
1/20
Performance Measure Title
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Customer Satisfaction
Year to Date
Definition Track overall customer satisfaction and assess interaction with and use of services provided by Benton PUD with customer satisfaction.
How Performance Measure is Computed Surveys - questions are answered on a 7 point scale. The % measurement is the % of respondents who were satisfied overall (responding of 5 or above).
Goal Green - 70% and above, Yellow - 55% to 70%, Red - Below 55%. Based on overall satisfaction and satisfaction with services. Goal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual 70 70 70 70
% % % %
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
N/A % 79.6 % % %
Quarterly Performance Summary The District recently received the results of the survey administered during the first quarter.
Customer Satisfaction Customer Survey Results
2004 - 2009 100 89.3
90
85.3
80
79.4
78.2
76.4 72.7
70
77.2
74.4 71.3
87.6
86.1
85.7 79.8
77.3
79.3
79.6
70.6
67.0
60
86.4
82.0
Goal 70% 62.7
50
Responsible Manager:
Karen Miller
Data Provider:
Karen Miller
Report Date:
7/29/2009
2/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Telephone Service Level (Customer Service Queue)
Year to Date
Definition Measure service level in the customer service queue, achieving a minimum of 65% of all calls answered within 30 seconds or less and 90% of calls answered in 120 seconds or less. This measure captures the timeliness of answering calls routed to the customer service queue, and the effectiveness of the department staff in terms of managing and monitoring the call queue.
How Performance Measure is Computed Service level reporting capabilities were provided with the Cisco phone system. The system measures the speed of answering all incoming calls and maintains that data in a log that can be queried via the Cisco reporting application on an ad-hoc basis. The performance measure will report the percentage of incoming calls to Customer Service that are answered within 30 seconds and 120 seconds for the quarter. The goal will be rated on a rolling average with data beginning October 1, 2008. After one year's worth of data is accumulated, it will be based on a rolling 12 month average.
Goal Answering at least 65% of incoming calls within 30 seconds or less and 90% of calls within 120 seconds or less, based on a rolling 12-month performance period beginning October 1, 2008. A green rating will be achieved if both goals are met, a yellow rating if one goal is met and a red rating if neither goal is met on a rolling 12-month service level period.
Calls Answered Within 30 Seconds
Rating B th goals Both l mett One goal met Neither goal met
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Calls Answered Within 120 Seconds
Number of Calls
Goal
Quarterly Performance
Rolling 12-months Performance
Goal
Quarterly Performance
19,244 18 996 18,996
65% 65%
81% 83%
82% 82%
90% 90%
95% 96%
Rolling 12-months Performance
95% 95%
Quarterly Performance Summary In Q2, both the 30 second and 120 second performance measures are rated green. Customer Service exceeded the goal of answering 65% of calls within 30 seconds with an 83% service level. The performance measure of 90% of calls answered within 120 seconds was also exceeded, with a 96% service level.
Calls Answered within 30 Seconds by Customer Service
Calls Answered within 120Seconds by Customer Service
100%
100%
83% 82%
81% 82%
75%
Goal Quarterly Performance Rolling 12-Months
96% 95%
95% 95% 90%
90%
Goal Quarterly Performance Rolling 12-Months
75%
65%
65%
50%
50%
25%
25%
0%
0% Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Responsible Manager:
Paula Ball
Data Provider:
Paula Ball
Q2
Q3
Report Date:
Q4
7/29/2009
3/20
Performance Measure Title
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Billing Error Rate (BER)
Year to Date
Definition This performance measure reflects the accuracy of electric bills to our customers based on the error level in obtaining meter reads. Reading errors are evaluated as to whether they are over or under the actual meter register. This data also may be used as a basis for identifying potential employee training or performance issues.
How Performance Measure is Computed A quarterly report will be issued with the total number of meter reading errors made by type (over or under). The number of reading errors will be compared to the total number of meter reads during the reporting period to determine a billing error rate percentage.
Goal A green rating will be assigned if the billing error rate is less than or equal to .10%; a yellow rating will be assigned if the billing error rate is greater than .10% up to and including .15%; a red rating will be assigned if the billing error rate is greater than .15%. Quarter Reporting: Total Errors Not-to-Exceed Goal Actual BER Total Meters Read
Q1
Q2
83 0.10% 0.06% 145 595 145,595
Q3
107 0.10% 0.08% 137 712 137,712
0.10% 0.00% -
Q4 0.10% 0.00% -
Quarterly Performance Summary The meter reader error rate during the second quarter was well within the goal of .10%, therefore, this measure is rated green.
Billing Errors
Billing Error Rate (BER) 0.15%
175
Actual BER
Read Errors - Under
Read Errors - Over
150 125
0.10% Not to Exceed Goal = .10%
100
Not to Exceed Goal = 138
8
75 0.05% 0.08%
50
0.06% 0.00%
0.00%
Q3
Q4
0.00% Q1
Q2
Responsible Manager:
Paula Ball
Data Provider:
Jon Meyer
99
25 0 Total Billing Errors
Report Date:
07/20/09 4/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Electronic Payments
Year to Date
Definition This measures the percentage of total payments made to the District by electronic means, i.e. customer using either Power Pay, auto pay, and credit card payments by phone. Increasing the number of electronic payments can lower costs by reducing the manual processes required to post payments to accounts (from applying the payment to processing the bank deposit) and can also reduce errors associated with manual processes.
How Performance Measure is Computed The number of payments processed through ACH Auto Pay, online payments through Power Pay, and credit card payments by phone will be compared to the total number of payments processed during the quarter. A green rating will be assigned if 31% or more of total payments are made by electronic methods during the quarter; yellow rating for 26-30%, and red rating if the number of electronic payments is less than 26% of total payments during the quarter. This rating criteria may be refined as more history is developed and penetration levels are identified from similar utilities.
Goal Minimum of 30% of total payments will be made by electronic methods.
Electronic Payments
Type of Payments
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Total Payments
Electronic Payments
111,518 105,281
41,430 40,474
Percentage Electronic
37.2% 38.4%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Auto Pay 18,188 18,201
Power Consolidator Payments Pay 13,087 10,155 12,349 9,924
Rating 31% + 26-30% < 26
Quarterly Performance Summary A total of 105,281 payments were processed during the second quarter. The number of monthly automated consolidator payments continues to grow since its implementation during the fourth quarter of 2006. Payments made via Power Pay (including Internet and phone payments) also continue to increase. The District replaced its previous Internet and phone payment systems at the end of August 2007 and has seen continued strong use of the applications. The percentage of payments made by electronic methods through Auto Pay, Power Pay, Phone Pay and consolidator payments was 38.4% resulting in a green rating for the quarter.
Customer Electronic Payments 50.0% 40.0% 29.4% 30.7% 30.0%
33.4%
33.7%
35.3%
36.4% 38.3%
37.2%
38.4%
24.1% 19.4% 20.5%
20.4% 20.9%
20.0%
Goal increased to 31% at Q1 2009 Goal 30%
10.0% 0.0%
Responsible Manager:
Paula Ball
Data Provider:
Jon Meyer
Report Date:
7/1/2009 5/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year to Date
Performance Measure Title
Service Order Time Tracking Definition Once a new or altered service is eligible for energization*, the following items will be measured: 1) Length of time it takes the Operations Center to energize a new service once Engineering has transitioned the electronic service order to them in the Work Flow Management system (WFM), after the customer has met the criteria described by the * below. 2) Length of time it takes to set up the customer account in the PeopleSoft Enterprise Revenue Management (ERM) system for billing after Operations transitions it over to them from the WFM system. *Eligible for energization is based on the customer meeting the following criteria: trench has been inspected on an underground service, fees have been paid, L & I state approval has been received, and customer is ready for power. The District has no control over the time span to energize a new or altered service until the criteria has been met.
How Performance Measure is Computed - 1st Chart 1) After Engineering has released all holds in the WFM system, it is transitioned to Operations. Performance is measured from the date received by Operations in WFM and the completion date of when the meter was set (energized). 2) The second part of the performance is measured by the Operations completed date to the date it was transitioned to CIS for customer account set-up. These queries are run from the Oracle database within the WFM system. How Performance Measure is Computed - 2nd Chart The performance is measured by the date CIS receives the electronic Service Order from Operations, to the date CIS transitions the electronic service order to GIS. This shows how many days it took for CIS to set-up the customer account in ERM before transitioning it to the GIS department.
Goal The goal is to energize new services and transition it to Customer Service within an average of 10 days after customer criteria has been met and new accounts set up in PeopleSoft ERM within an average of one week (7 days) after being transitioned from Operations to Customer Service. Operations
Customer Service
10 days or less
7 days or less
Both green
11 - 12 days
8 - 9 days
Either is yellow
> 12 days
> 9 days
Either is red
Rating Criteria:
Goal
Q1 Actual
10 7
Connection (days) ERM System (days) New services count
Goal
6 4 91
Q2 Actual
10 7
Goal
2 4 148
Combined Rating
Q3 Actual
Q4 Goal Actual
10 7
10 7
Quarterly Performance Summary During the second quarter, it took 2 days, on average, for a new service to be energized once the customer had met all of the requirements. Additionally, it took four days for the Service Order to be processed and transitioned to Customer Service for setup of the new account in the ERM system. The number of days it took on average for set-up in ERM was four days.
Days from New Service Accounts set-up in PeopleSoft ERM System to GIS
Days for Meter Connection and Days from Meter Set to Customer Service 12
12 Meter Set to Cust Svc Meter Set (days)
Customer Service to ERM Set-Up Goal ( 10 days)
9
Days
Days
9
6 3
Goal (7 days)
6
4
3
3 3
4
4
Q1
Q2
2
0
0 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Rating
Responsible Manager: Rick Dunn Data Providers: Patty Sunford and Sally Gale
Q3
Report Date:
Q4
Rating
7/27/2009
6/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Operating Reserves Level
Year to Date
Definition Level of Operating Reserves (excluding designated reserves such as the Rate Stabilization Account) at month-end as reported to the Commission in the monthly Treasurer's Report. Maintain Operating Reserve levels above Minimum Cash Balances as defined in the Commission approved Financial Policies.
How Performance Measure is Computed Compare against approved annual budget operating reserve balances as projected at quarter-end levels. Compare to Financial Policies minimum and maximum cash balances as projected for year-end.
Goal Maintain Operating Reserves above the Minimum Cash Balance as defined by the District’s Financial Policies. A green rating will be assigned if Operating Reserves are above 125% of the Minimum Cash Balance level. A yellow rating will be assigned if Operating Reserves are between 125% and 100% of the Minimum Cash Balance level and below the Budget planned cash levels without the expectation of recovery by year-end. A red rating will be assigned if Operating Reserves are below the Minimum Cash Balance level or expected to fall below the Minimum Cash Balances level without the expectation of recovery by year end or if any borrowings of cash are utilized to cover operating expenses.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Minimum $16.544 $16.544
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Budget $29.805 $27.703
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual $30.192 $27.873
Quarterly Performance Summary The Operating Reserve balance as of December 31, 2008 was lower than planned as result of the BPA ERE credit not being received until January 1, 2009. With that catch-up, operating reserves are tracking close to target. Note: This performance measure will be updated for the third quarter to reflect changes in the District's Financial Policies approved on July 28, 2009 defining requirements for minimum Unrestricted Reserve levels.
Operating Reserves - 2009 34 30
($ Millions)
26 22 18 14 10
Plan
Actual
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Financial Policy Minimum
125% of Financial Policy Minimum
Janet White Dale Pryor
7/29/2009 7/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Days Cash on Hand
Year to Date
Definition Days Cash on Hand measures the number of days an enterprise can cover its operating expenses using unrestricted cash and investments and assuming no additional revenue is collected. Unrestricted cash includes Operating and Designated Reserves, including the Rate Stabilization Account. This ratio is useful for measuring the relative strength of a utility's financial liquidity. It must be evaluated in conjunction with identified immediate risks to cash flow and compared to the number of days it takes for the utility to raise its rates and begin to receive additional revenues.
How Performance Measure is Computed Days Cash on Hand is computed by multiplying the total unrestricted cash and investments by 365 and then dividing that result by the total operating expenses (excluding depreciation and amortization) on a rolling twelvemonth basis.
Goal The goal is to maintain a minimum of 82 Days Cash on Hand which is the median for electric distribution systems with A2 rated debt by Moody's Investors Service for fiscal year 2006 (the latest information available). A green rating will be assigned if the measure is 82 days or greater; a yellow rating will be assigned if the measure is 7081 days; a red rating will be assigned if the measure is below 70 days. Goal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
82 82 82 82
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual 108 107
Quarterly Performance Summary The strong performance of 107 days cash on hand results from the lower power cost for the year and the peak of cash reserves from operations which generally occurs in the spring.
Days Cash on Hand 120 100 80 60
108
103 40
82
107
82
77
20 ‐ Moody's Median 2006 (A2)
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Actual 2006
Actual 2007
Actual 2008
Q1 2009
Q2 2009
‐
‐
Q3 2009
Q4 2009
Janet White Patty Hawkey
Report Date:
7/27/2009
8/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Actual Costs per kWh and COSA Comparison
Year to Date
Definition The Net Power Costs per kWh and COSA Comparison is a comparison of the actual net power cost per kWh and the net power cost per kWh as used in the COSA model. The Other Costs per kWh and COSA Comparison is a comparison of other costs and revenues per kWh and other costs and revenues per kWh as used in the COSA model. The COSA used in the calculation is the model that current rates are developed from. Components of other costs include operation and maintenance expenses, taxes (excluding municipal occupation taxes), net capital, debt service and miscellaneous revenues, and exclude depreciation. These comparisons serve as validation of the assumptions used in the COSA model which contributes to more accurate rate projections.
How Performance Measure is Computed The Net Power Cost per kWh and COSA Comparison is computed by taking the 12-month rolling net power cost and dividing by the 12-month rolling billed retail kWh as reported in the District's financial statements. The Other Costs per kWh and COSA Comparison is computed by taking the 12month rolling other costs and dividing by the 12-month rolling billed retail KWh as reported by District financial statements. In addition, actual year-todate calculations are provided for both comparisons.
Goal For a green rating, total costs per kWh on a rolling 12-month basis should be no higher than 5% of the COSA model. A yellow rating would be assigned if total cost variances were between 6% - 10%; and a red rating would be assigned if total cost variances were in excess of 10% from the COSA model. Net Power Costs per kWh (cents) Other Costs per kWh (cents) Total Costs per kWh (cents) Rolling 12Months to COSA
2008 Rolling 12- YTD COSA Months Actual
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
3.107 3.107
2.654 2.473
2008 COSA
1.447 -14.6% 1.817 -20.4%
2008 COSA Net Power Cost 2008 COSA Other Costs
Q1 2.237 Q2 2.237 Q3 Q4
Rolling 12- YTD Months Actual
1.996 2.130
$50,459,102 $36,325,445
Rolling 12Months to COSA
2008 COSA
2.145 -10.8% 2.238 -4.8%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2008 COSA Total Costs 2008 COSA Retail kWh
Rolling 12- YTD Months Actual
5.344 5.344
4.650 4.603
Rolling 12Months to COSA
3.592 -13.0% 4.055 -13.9%
$86,784,547 net of $2.6M reserve drawdown 1,623,888,020
Quarterly Performance Summary At the end of the second quarter, total costs per kWh on a rolling 12-month basis are less than the COSA model by 13.9%. The rolling 12-month net power costs of 2.473 cents per kWh are 20.4% less than the COSA model attributable to lower power costs. The rolling 12-month other costs of 2.13 cents per kWh are 4.8% less than the COSA model. This measure is rated "green" because actual performance was better than projected in the COSA model. The 2008 COSA continues used as the benchmark for this performance measure since it is the basis for current rates.
Total Costs per kWh and COSA Comparison Total Costs per kWh (cents)
7
2008 COSA
YTD Actual
Rolling 12-Months
6 5 4 3 2
5.34
5.34 4.65 3.59
4.05
4.60
1 Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Q3
Q4
Jon Meyer Davene Martin
Report Date:
7/27/2009
9/20
Performance Measure Title
2009 Status
O&M / Net Capital
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year to Date
Definition This indicator measures the District's actual O&M expenses vs. budget and the actual net capital expenditures vs. budget on a year-todate basis. O&M expenses include transmission, distribution, broadband and all District internal costs and exclude power supply costs, taxes, depreciation, interest expense and other non-operating expenses. O&M and capital expenditures are a subset of all expenditures incurred by the District. While all costs are controllable by the District in the long-term, management has more direct control of these costs over the short-term and may more immediately impact District financial results through decisions in these areas.
How Performance Measure is Computed The official budget that is approved by the Commission for the calendar year will represent the standard against which actual results are measured. The original budget may be amended by the Commission during August of each year. Year-to-date O&M expenses and net capital expenditures will be compared to budget at each quarter-end.
Goal Meet the year-to-date budget projections. in millions
O&M YTD YTD Budget Actual $4.515 $4.122 $9.030 $8.852
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Net Capital YTD YTD Budget Actual $4.246 $1.775 $9.132 $5.800
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Quarterly Performance Summary Actual O&M expenses of $8.9 million through the first six months of 2009 are below budget by $178,000 or 2%, and net capital expenditures of $5.8 million through June are below budget by $3.3 million or 36%. This measure was rated green because year-todate financial performance for the first quarter is favorable compared to budget.
O&M Actual vs. Budget
Net Capital Actual vs. Budget
$20
$12 YTD Actual
YTD Budget
$15
Expenses (in millions)
Expenses (in millions)
YTD Budget
$10 9.0
8.9
$5 4.5
YTD Actual
$9 9.1
$6 5.8 $3
4.2
4.1 1.8
$0
$0 Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Q3
Jon Meyer Patty Hawkey
Q4
Q1
Q2
Report Date:
Q3
Q4
7/29/2009 10/20
Performance Measure Title
2009 Status
O&M Costs per Customer
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year to Date
Definition This performance measure will track the District’s non-power operating and maintenance (O&M) costs per customer, excluding broadband and reimbursable mutual aid costs and including bad debt expense. O&M expenses are a subset of all expenditures incurred by the District. While all costs are controllable by the District in the long-term, management has more direct control of O&M costs over the short-term and may more immediately impact District financial results through decisions in these areas.
How Performance Measure is Computed Actual O&M expenses, excluding broadband and reimbursable mutual aid costs and including bad debt expense, as reported in the financial statements will be divided by the average number of active service agreements on a rolling 12-month basis. Results at the end of each quarter will be compared to the 2009 target of $375 per customer. The 2009 target was developed from the 2009 budget of $371 per customer incremented by $200,000 or $4 per customer to allow for variations in the level of internal labor charged to capital projects v. expense. A rating of green will be assigned if the O&M costs per customer are within 2% of the target; a rating of yellow will be assigned if the O&M costs per customer are more than 2% but less than 3% higher than the target; a rating of red will be assigned if the O&M costs per customer are more than 3% higher than the target.
Goal Maintain or decrease the O&M costs per customer as compared to the 2008 target of $368 per customer. O&M 2009 2009 Target Actual $375 $354 $375 $361
Q1 Q2 Q Q3 Q4
Information Only Benton PUD - CY 2008 Actual* Benton PUD - CY 2009 Budget* ( g) Benchmark Studyy (2007 Avg.) APPA - 2006 West median (2) APPA - 2007 West median (2)
Stated Year Dollars
(1) 2009 Dollars
$349 $375 $ $372 $381 $408
$359 $375 $ $395 $416 $433
* includes bad debt expense (1) Escalated at 3% per year (2) Selected Financial and Operating Ratios of Public Power Systems survey (Note: accounting for payroll taxes and benefits may vary among utilities)
Quarterly Performance Summary Actual O&M costs per customer on a rolling 12-month basis at the end of the second quarter of 2009 are $361 or 4% lower than the not-to-exceed target of $375. This performance measure was rated green indicating positive performance since the results exceeded the goal.
O & M Costs per Customer $400 2008 Target
2008 Actual - Rolling 12 Months
$375 $375
$375 $361
$350
$354
$325
$300 Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Q3
Q4
Jon Meyer Patty Hawkey
Report Date:
7/29/2009
11/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Accounts Receivable Collections
Year to Date
Definition Percentage of accounts receivable that are paid within 60 days after billing.
How Performance Measure is Computed The percentage is calculated by dividing the amount of accounts receivable under 60 days by the total amount of accounts receivable for electric customers. This measure does not include miscellaneous accounts receivable, such as power billings or cost reimbursements.
Goal The goal is to increase the percentage of accounts receivable under 60 days to a level of 90% or more of the total accounts receivable. A green rating will be achieved if the actual results are at 90% or higher; a yellow rating will be assigned if the actual results are between 85% to 90%; a red rating will be assigned if the actual results are below 85%. Goal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
90% 90% 90% 90%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual 95% 96%
Quarterly Performance Summary At the end of the second quarter, 96% of the accounts receivable balance was less than 60 days from the billing date. This measure was rated green because the goal of 90% was exceeded.
Percentage of Accounts Receivable Under 60 Days 2004 - 2009 100% % under 60 days
95% 90% Goal - green rating
85% Limit - yellow rating
80% 75%
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Paula Ball Davene Martin
Report Date:
7/12/2009
12/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Safety
Year to Date
Definition The measure benchmarked will be reportable injuries or illnesses as recorded on the OSHA 300 log. The summary will specify incidents and we will look for trends and opportunities to correct by means including training, retraining, work procedure changes, engineering controls or other reasonable actions to address.
How Performance Measure is Computed We will use the OSHA Form 300A "Summary of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses" for safety benchmarking against the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers published each year. The basic requirement for recording an illness or injury is if it results in any of the following: death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness, or a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional. The incidence rates are calculated according to the following formula: (N/EH) x 200,000 where N = number of incidents for the previous 12 months and EH = total hours worked by all employees during the same 12 month period. The 200,000 is the constant for 100 full-time workers working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year.
Benchmark (not to exceed) The benchmark is to be less than the Total Recordable Cases as published annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This figure changes annually as a result of OSHA 300 log reports. This measure will be rated green if BPUD calculated reportable incidents are at 80% or below the benchmark, yellow if they are between 80%-120% of the benchmark, and red if they are over 120% of the benchmark or as a result of a serious injury and/or Labor and Industries citation.
Benchmark 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
BPUD 5.2 3.9
Quarterly Performance Summary The following 6 incidents were reported on the OSHA 300 form in the last 12 months (July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009): - 01.20.09 - Meter Reader suffered injury to elbow after a fall on the ice - 12.06.08 - Lineman suffered a dog bite - RX provided - 11.03.08 - Meter Reader suffered a dog bite - RX provided - 08.31.08 - Lineman injured his lower back when pulling elbow off LBC resulting in 33 days lost time - 08.13.08 - Meter Reader suffered a dog bite - RX provided - 07.28.08 - Network Support Specialist injured lower back lifting printer resulting in 7 days lost time and 30 days restricted time
SAFETY 10 Benchmark
BPUD
Limit ‐ red rating
INCIDENT RATE
8 6
Limit ‐ yellow rating
4 6.2
5.2
6.2
3.9
6.2
6.2
2 0 Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Q3
Q4
Steve Hunter Diane Schlekewey
Report Date:
7/29/2009
13/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Training & Development Plan Attendance
Year to Date
Definition This performance measure reflects the results achieved in meeting the training and development attendance goals for the quarter. The training plan includes those Leadership and Workforce courses approved by the Leadership Team. Underutilization wastes the resources of the learning staff member (LSM) (preparing for courses that are not delivered), causes rework (having to facilitate make up classes) and wastes the purchase of participant materials. The goal is to ensure the majority of scheduled participants attend the training, while allowing flexibility for those on approved medical leave of absence. Lack of meeting the attendance goals may reflect other legitimate schedule conflicts, ineffective course frequency or length, priority-setting improvements needed of participants and/or their managers, or other factors that may interfere with the training plan for the quarter.
How Performance Measure is Computed The target is derived each quarter based on the District Leadership and Workforce training plans approved by the Leadership Team. It is the percentage of learning hours completed against the planned learning hours, with the goal minimum set at the 90.00% of the required training participants' learning hours to achieve a green rating. A yellow rating reflects attendance at 80.00 - 89.99% of required participants, and a red rating reflects below 80% of required participants.
Goal Achieve 90% of training plan minimum (required attendees).
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year Total:
Training Goal
Training Hours Completed
% to Goal
598 231
563 231
94% 100%
Color Rating 90% + 80.00-89.99%
Over 105%
< 80% 829
793
96%
Quarterly Performance Summary 1) The District held Situational Leadership training, which is the 1st session of a series of courses needed to obtain certification in NWPPA's Frontline Leadership Program. Sixteen employees who are new to supervisory/leadership roles at the District were invited to participate in this Leadership Development Program, of the 16 invited, 14 attended. 2 employees were absent from this session due to a misunderstanding, the 2 vacancies were filled that morning with other attendees and the hours calculation adjusted as 100% attendance for this portion of the metric. 2) 12 of 13 employees in the Meter Reading group were trained on the District's Records Management Program Policy, the absent employee was an On-call Meter Reader who was not available to attend on the date the training was offered. (Rounded to 100% attendance) 3) Also included is time taken during New Employee Orientation to review and discuss 9 District policies related to discipline, performance and acceptable practices, of which 3 out of 3 new employees at the District completed this orientation.
Training & Development Learning Hours District Training Plan
Training Hours Completed
750 675 600 525
598
563
450 375 300 225
231
150
231
75 0
Q1
Q2
Responsible Manager:
Allison Walsh
Data Provider:
Jody George
Q3
Report Date:
Q4
7/29/2009 14/20
Performance Measure Title
Broadband Network Reliability
3 - 9s
5 - 9s
99.9=G 99.8=Y 99.5=R
99.999=G 99.980=Y 99.950=R
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
All Green= Any Yellow= Any Red=
Year To Date
Definition We will be measuring four areas of network reliability: Backbone, Ethernet, Wireless, Upstream to NoaNet. The measure of value and performance of a network is determined by the reliability of the network and at the extent to which it can maintain an adequate level of "up" time and service to the end users. The District's Broadband network consists of four segments and each of these segments will be measured independently as a part of the total network reliability. The measurements and tracking process will allow the Broadband technical and management staff to determine the level of service and value of the network to the Retail Service Providers and the end users they serve. The results of the measurements will be part of the rate setting structure, level of service guarantees provided to RSPs and performance of staff.
How Performance Measure is Computed Target performance for backbone and upstream to NoaNet is to operate at 5-9's reliability, laterals at 4-9's reliability, and wireless at 3-9's reliability.
Goal Maintain and adequate level of "up" time and service to end users. Wireless NoaNet
Goal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
99.90% 99.90% 99.90% 99.90%
Goal
Actual
99.999% 99.999% 99.999% 99.999%
100.000% 100.000%
Actual 99.94% 99.85%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
SONET
Ethernet
Goal
Goal
Actual
99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99%
100.00% 100.00%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual
99.999% 99.999% 99.999% 99.999%
100.000% 100.000%
Quarterly Performance Summary Wireless goals were not met due to extended power outages in the Badger Canyon area and on Clearwater Avenue. Total down time was just over 3 hours. Action will be taken to increase battery capacity in these areas.
Goal
Actual
Wireless
Goal
110%
110%
95%
95%
80%
80%
65%
65%
50%
NoaNet
50%
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Goal
99.90%
99.90%
99.90%
99.90%
Actual
99.94%
99.85%
Goal
Actual
Actual
Ethernet
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Goal
99.999%
99.999%
99.999%
99.999%
Actual
100.000%
100.000%
Goal
110%
110%
95%
95%
80%
80%
65%
65%
Actual
SONET
50%
50%
Q1
Q2
Goal
99.99%
99.99%
Actual
100.00%
100.00%
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q3 99.99%
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Goal
99.999%
99.999%
99.999%
99.999%
Actual
100.000%
100.000%
Q4 99.99%
Rich Nall Shawn Rose
Report Date:
7/28/2009 15/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Energy Loss Percentage
Year to Date
Definition Energy Loss Percentage is the ratio of energy losses within the electrical system to total load as reported by BPA. This ratio measures how much energy is lost in the District's electrical system and is an indicator of the efficiency of the electrical system. It represents the percentage of electrical energy that is bought or generated by the utility, but is not available to be sold to customers. Losses include both physical losses that occur in the distribution system and metering and billing losses.
How Performance Measure is Computed This measure is computed by dividing the excess of BPA reported load over billed retail kWh on a rolling 12 month basis. The Agrium load will be eliminated from the calculation to prevent distortion since there is no load loss in its delivery.
Goal Industry Standard: The industry standard of 4.06% represents the median for 57 utilities with 20,000 to 50,000 customers in the 2007 APPA survey "Selected Financial and Operating Ratios of Public Power Systems" published in March 2009. The previous industry standard of 3.98% was based on the median for 53 utilities with 20,000 to 50,000 customers in the 2006 APPA survey. Using the median as our benchmark provides a stable and relevant reference given the diversity of BPUD's distribution system and the fact we serve both urban and rural areas. Rating: A green rating will be assigned if actuals are at or below the Industry Standard. A yellow rating will be assigned if actuals are 5% above the Industry Standard, and a red rating will be assigned if actuals are 10% above the Industry Standard.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Industry Standard 4.06% 4.06%
Actual 3.35% 3.29%
Quarterly Performance Summary This measure is rated green because the actual energy loss percentage of 3.29% is below the industry median for utilities in our customer size class. Note: The source of data was changed during the fourth quarter of 2008 to be the final BPA transmission bills and the entire year was restated for consistency.
Energy Loss Percentage
8 6% Energy Losses (%)
Industry Standard
Actual
5% 4% 3% 4.06% 2%
4.06% 3.35%
3.29%
1% Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Q3
Q4
Rick Dunn Davene Martin
Report Date:
7/27/2009 16/20
2009 Status Q1
Performance Measure Title
Q2
Q3 Q4
Year to Date
Electric System Outages Definition To monitor electric power outages which includes the following: 1. Total outages on electric system. 2. Squirrel related outages. 3. Underground primary cable failure related outages.
How Performance Measure is Computed Work Flow Management (WFM) system tracking is done on the Oracle database.
Goal To track actual outages compared to goals and determine if action is needed.
Squirrel UG Primary Total Outages
Q1 Goal Actual
Q2 Goal Actual
Q3 Goal Actual
Q4 Goal Actual
10 15 60
20 20 80
10 40 90
20 25 70
8 6 77
20 13 85
Quarterly Performance Summary For the second quarter, the total number of outages exceeded the quarterly goal. The primary drivers for the total outage count were the "other" and "unknown" causes. Since the goals for the number of squirrel caused and underground primary cable outages were met and no particular trend has developed, we are rating the measure as yellow. This recognizes that our total outage count was exceeded but that no immediate action is needed to correct a particular problem that has emerged emerged. Current Quarter History 120
Squirrel
UG
Total Outages
105
100
87
86
85
81
77
80 60 40 20
20
16
13
10
16
9
4
20
18 11
13 5
0 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Annual History 375
2009
Squirrel
UG
Total Outages
356
336
342
331
315
300 225 162
150 88
75
35
40
56
49
38
55
59
61
45 28
19
0 2004
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Rick Dunn Patty Sunford
Report Date:
7/27/2009
Performance Measure Title
2009 Status
Rate Comparisons
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year to Date
Definition This indicator compares an average monthly bill for the District's current rates for Residential and Large General Service to other utilities in the Northwest. A benchmarking base amount of 1,400 kWh is used for Residential customers. Large General Service customers energy use is 150,000 kWh and demand of 400kW.
How Performance Measure is Computed Gather current rates from multiple utilities throughout the Northwest and graph BPUD in relation to these utilities. Utilities selected for comparisons must purchase 60% or more of their power from BPA.
Goal Performance will be measured based on a quarterly rate comparison. A green rating will be assigned if the District's average monthly bill is below the median monthly bill, a yellow rating will be assigned if the District's average monthly bill is in the quartile above the median, and a red rating will be assigned if the District's average monthly bill is in the highest quartile. Residential Average Monthly Bill
Goal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
$102 $102
Large General Service Average Monthly Bill
Goal
Actual $90 $90
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Actual $7,075 $7,075
$8,146 $8,146
Quarterly Performance Summary During the 2nd quarter of 2009, the District's rates were below the median of comparable utilities so a green rating was retained for both Residential & Large General Service (LGS). For the Residential class Mason PUD had a 2.6% increase and Snohomish PUD had a 4.5% increase. For LGS Mason PUD had a 2.1% increase, Snohomish PUD had a 2.7% and Umatilla had a 6.4% reduction
Large General Service
Residential $12,000
$140
Goal
Goal
Actual
$120 $102
$102 $100
Actual
$10,000 $90
$8,146 $8,000
$90
$8,146
$7,075
$7,075
$80 $6,000 $60 $4,000 $40 $2,000
$20
$0
$0 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Responsible Manager:
Chris Johnson
Data Provider:
Tom Schumacher
Q1
Q2
Report Date:
Q3
Q4
6/30/2009 18/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Average Unit Price - Sales for Resale
Year to Date
Definition Measures the average price obtained for kilowatt hours sold to other utilities, brokers, and power marketers during the fiscal quarter. The measure evaluates the effectiveness of the District in managing power supply risk through the use of long term contracts, forward sales, and financial derivatives. Wholesale revenue earned from sales for resale is a critical element of the District's net power costs.
How Performance Measure is Computed For each quarter, divide the total revenue from sales for resale by the total wholesale kWh sold.
Goal Achieve an actual average unit price per MWh equal to or greater than the quarterly goal. A green rating will be assigned if actual average unit price is above budget or less than 10% below budget; a yellow rating if price is 15% 19% below budget; a red rating if price is 20% or more below budget.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Annual
Goal $52.69 $34.82 $47.55 $51.13 $46.55
Actual $64.38 $38.93
$51.92
Quarterly Performance Summary The average unit price of $38.93 per MWh for sales for resale is 12% above the second quarter goal of $35 per MWh. This measure is rated green as meeting quarterly expectations because the actual average unit price per MWh of sales for resale exceeds the target for the quarter.
Average Unit Price
Goal
Actual
$80
Dollars per Mwh
$64 $60 $53 $40
$48 $35
$51
$52 $47
$39
$20
$0 Q1
Responsible Manager: D Data t P Provider: id
Q2
Q3
Q4
Year-to-Date
Dan Bickford Jon J Meyer M
R Report tD Date: t
7/29/2009 19/20
2009 Status Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Performance Measure Title
Day Ahead Power Price vs. ICE Index
Year to Date
Definition Measures the difference between the daily weighted average unit price for actual purchase and sale transactions and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) Firm Mid-Columbia Price Index for the same day. This measure evaluates the effectiveness of the District in executing transactions relative to the average market price for all transactions for a particular day. The ability to transact at close to the daily ICE index price is important for the District. The District from time to time enters into financial transactions that contain settlement provisions based upon ICE index prices. The efficacy of hedging with financial transactions is diminished if the District is unable to execute transactions near the index price. Additionally, the District is required to compensate the other Packwood purchasers for non-firm energy production at a price indexed to the daily ICE index price.
How Performance Measure is Computed A single $/MWh figure will be calculated for each calendar quarter that reflects the difference between the actual weighted average price of all transactions executed by the District and the weighted average price if all transactions had been priced at the daily ICE Index prices. Purchase and sale transactions will be melded into this single figure. Purchases made at less than index, and sales made at greater than index, will be treated as positive values. Purchases made at greater than index, and sales made at less than index, will be treated as negative values. If the weighted average price of all District transactions during a calendar quarter exactly equals the weighted average ICE index price, the performance measure will equal $0/MWh. To the extent the District sells energy above index or purchases energy below index, the performance measure will be greater than $0/MWh. To the extent the District sells energy below index or purchases energy above index, the performance measure will be less than $0/MWh.
Goal Unit prices equal to daily ICE price index. A green rating will be assigned if actual unit price is above index or less th $ 10 b l i d ll ti if actual t l is i below b l i d by b $.11 $ 11 - $.30; $ 30 a red d rating ti if actual t l is i more than th $.30 $ 30 than $.10 below index; a yellow rating index below index.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Annual
Goal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Actual $0.18 $0.39
$
0.27
Quarterly Performance Summary Ending the quarter above index by a weighted average of $0.39 results in a green rating for this performance measure.
Variance in Day Ahead Power Price ($/MWh)
Performance vs. ICE Index $1.10
Actual
$0.90 $0.70 $0.50 $0.30
$0.39 $0.18
$0.10
$0.00
$0.00
($0.10) ($0.30) ($0.50) Q1
Responsible Manager: Data Provider:
Q2
Dan Bickford TEA
Q3
Q4
Report Date:
7/31/2009 20/20
