OREGON PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT INTRODUCTION LETTER January 16, 2004 Re: Annual Performance Report Oregon Public Utility Commission Following is a summary of Our Performance Measure updates. The Annual Performance Report, consisting of Part I Managing for Results, and Part II Key Measure Analysis of Progress, is attached. Performance accomplishments and Agency influence on the Oregon Benchmarks and High-level Outcomes: Oregon Benchmark #74 "Percentage of low income households spending more than 30 of their household income on housing (including utilities)." Two of our accomplishments affected this benchmark. Performance measure #1 shows that although Oregon consumers experienced relatively high electricity costs due to poor hydroelectric conditions and the western United States energy crisis in 2001 and 2002, the average residential electricity rates in Oregon for 2002 were still well below the national average. Performance measure #2 shows telephone assistance benefits increased to 15% of food stamp recipients in 2002, up from 12% in 2001. Oregon Benchmark #58 "Percentage of seniors living independently." Our efforts had a positive influence. Performance measure #3 shows that 32% of Oregon's seniors, who are Deaf or hard of hearing, received telecommunication devices from the PUC in 2002, up from 12% in 1998. High-level Outcomes (PUC Mission Statement) Ensure that safe and reliable utility services are provided to consumers at just and reasonable rates through regulation and promoting the development of competitive markets. Performance measure #5 measures our natural gas operations safety. Safety is a priority, and accident injuries have remained at zero for the last five years, meeting target expectations. Since 1998, Oregon has zero fatalities or hospitalization injuries related to the operations of the intrastate natural gas pipelines by Oregon's 20 natural gas pipeline utilities and operators. Performance measure #7 relates to the development of competitive markets. Our 2002 figures show that the total number of electricity service suppliers certified and aggregators registered in Oregon rose to 16 suppliers; slightly higher than our target of 15 suppliers, and that 11% of total switched access lines were provided by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers statewide as compared to 9% in 2001.
Future Challenges: We continue to work toward preserving the benefits of the region's low cost resources, and providing all Oregonians reasonable and equitable access to essential energy and telecommunications products and services. To accomplish this we must: Continue our involvement in BPA issues to ensure all eligible Oregonians receive a fair allocation of federal system benefits. Work closely with the Department of Human Services to ensure that food stamp case workers are aware that their clients qualify for telephone assistance benefits. Work with alternate suppliers and utilities to identify barriers as well as rule and tariff changes needed to facilitate direct access. Work with the parties to craft solutions that facilitate switching to other suppliers without shifting costs to the customers. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Sandy Berger at 503-373-0044. Sincerely, Rick Willis, Executive Director Oregon Public Utility Commission
Section 2. Recommended Performance Measure Budget Instructions ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT PART I, MANAGING FOR RESULTS Agency: Public Utility Commission Contact: Sandy Berger Phone: 503-373-0044 Alternate: Vikie Bailey-Goggins Phone: 503-378-6366 The following questions shed light on how well performance measures and performance data are leveraged within your agency for process improvement and results-based management. 1 How were staff Staff developed the performance measures. Stakeholders were not and stakeholders involved with the process for measure #1 and #4 through #7, but were kept involved in the informed. Comments were considered when finalizing the measures. The Telecommunication Devices Access Program Advisory Council and the development of OTRS Industry Advisory Group reviewed measures #2 and #3. Both the agency s groups of stakeholders support the performance measures. Several performance advisory groups such as Services for Disabled and Seniors Division measures? (SDSD) and Triple-A a senior advocacy group also gave input. Local agencies and organizations for deaf and hard of hearing people such as Oregon Association of the Deaf and Self Help for the Hard of Hearing received an opportunity for input as well. 2 How are performance measures used for management of the agency? The measures are used to detect where the agency needs to focus its efforts. For example, increases in a type of accident related to utility operations would lead to increased inspection and enforcement to prevent them from occurring. Measures 2 and 3 help us determine and manage how much outreach is necessary to ensure that low income individuals, especially seniors, are given information on how to contact us and enroll in services. 3 What training has staff had in the use performance measurement? 4 How does the agency communicate performance results and for what purpose? Jeff Tryens of the Progress Board gave a Performance Measure workshop at the PUC to key staff members. We have also taken advantage of the various meetings and work shops offered by the State. We have placed the Agency performance measure information on our Web-site at http//www.puc.state.or.us to keep the public and stakeholders informed. The results are presented in the agency's budget document. When performance measures 2 and 3 results are completed each year, we distribute the information to the TDAPAC and OTRS Industry Advisory Committees to inform them of our progress and obtain feedback on how we can increase the effectiveness of our measurements (i.e., gather ideas on how to do outreach).
5 What important changes have occurred in the past year? We have developed measures related to the level of competition in the electricity and telecommunications industries. We saw an increase in low-income telephone assistance through our Oregon Telephone Assistance Program (OTAP). This was due to an increase in Food Stamp eligibility, which is one of the criteria for participation in our program. As of October 2003, there were over 206,000 food stamp households, up approximately 20,000 households from the previous year. OTAP recipients have increased, but not quite as dramatically. Future outreach efforts may bring our numbers closer to food stamp roles. Our Telecommunication Devices Access Program (TDAP) made changes in the types of phones available to the Deaf and hard of hearing. The number of seniors using our services increased because of these changes. We now offer Captioned Telephones (CapTel), which are amplified phones that also have a screen to read text messages. These devices are used with a relay service that allows the Deaf or hard of hearing caller to use what hearing they have available to understand the other party. They also receive their response back through text that is automatically captioned by an obscure relay communication agent. The agent repeats the information into a voice recognition system. CapTel users are able to use their own voice to communicate directly with the other party, instead of typing out the messages for relay agents to voice for them. Most seniors who have gradually lost their hearing are not comfortable with the idea of a third person (relay agent) involved in the telephone communication. In traditional relay, the agent is heard or has involvement with both parties. With CapTel, the agent's participation is minimized and rarely noticed, making seniors more comfortable with using telephone communication through this venue."
86000-01. Average price of electricity for residential users from Oregon Investor-Owned Utilities as a of the national average price. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 71 73.8 74.4 75.7 80.6 75.0 75.0 Goal #1: Preserve for Oregonians the benefits of the region's low-cost resources. This performance measure shows the extent to which Oregon residential customers rates remain below the national average, largely due to the region s retention of federal power system benefits and other hydroelectric resources. 75.0 75.0 75.0 The 2002 actual performance did not achieve the target. However, average residential rates for electricity were still well below the national average. The variance is due in large part to IOUs rates in 2002 including excess power supply costs experienced in 2001. - Add any explanatory information needed by the external reviewer to fully understand the data. In 2002, Oregon customers experienced relatively high costs of electricity due to poor hydroelectric conditions and the western United States energy crisis. The Commission participates in BPA proceedings to help ensure equitable allocation of low-cost federal power supply system hydro benefits among all Oregon citizens, including residential and small farm customers of IOUs. The Commission will continue its involvement in BPA issues to ensure all eligible Oregonians receive a fair allocation of federal system benefits, as required under the Regional Power Act. Annual Reports from electric utilities and Energy Information Administration. 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 98 99 00 01 02 00 01 02 03 04 05
86000-02. Percentage of food stamp recipients who receive Oregon Telephone Assistance Program (OTAP) benefits. s 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 15 23 13 12 15 19 21 18 20 22 24 Goal #2: Provide all Oregonians reasonable and equitable access to essential energy and telecommunications products and services. The performance measure focuses on Oregonians who 10% are low-income and in need of assistance toward their 5% telephone bill. Oregon takes the approach that there should be access to affordable phone service by all 0% Oregonians. Since all food stamp recipients are eligible for OTAP services, it seems prudent to ensure that we do adequate outreach to food stamp recipients to increase their awareness of another service enabling their access to telephone service. The goal for 2002 was to increase the age of food stamp recipients who receive OTAP services to 18%. The actual performance was 15%. Although this was less than the target goal, in actuality, there was an increase over the performance of 2001 (12%). There are several reasons why there is still a discrepancy between the target goal and the actual performance. One reason is the fact that often field workers for AFS are not aware of OTAP services or how to refer the food stamp consumer to OTAP. This can be due to staffing factors (i.e., staff turnover or not enough staff to adequately cover the cases). In addition, while there have been an increase of OTAP recipients overall, and in particular food stamp recipients receiving OTAP benefits, the growth has not been as rapid as the overall increase of food stamp household recipients. In 2001, there was an average of 147,995 food stamp households. In 2002, there was an average of 184,273 households receiving food stamps, increasing by 36,739 recipients. In contract, the overall average of OTAP recipients in 2001 was 35,145, increasing to an average of 42,789 in 2002, which represents a smaller age of an increase than with food stamp recipients. Often food stamp recipients find out about OTAP benefits several months after they receive their food stamp benefits, so there is a delay in time between getting approved for food stamps and applying for OTAP benefits. However, most of the time, food stamp recipients are unaware of the availability of OTAP benefits. 30% 25% 20% 15% 98 99 00 01 02 00 01 0 2 03 04 05
- Add any explanatory information needed by the external reviewer to fully understand the data. PUC runs a monthly breakdown by telephone company and type of public assistance program from the Department of Human Services (DHS) that the OTAP recipient qualifies under. This information was used to compile the data on the number of food stamp recipients who receive OTAP benefits. To obtain the information about the number of food stamp households, OTAP staff downloads DHS reports from the DHS website on the number of food stamp recipients for each month in 2002. The data was compiled and averaged for the year for both food stamp households and food stamp recipients who receive OTAP benefits. PUC advertised OTAP benefits in the OTRS Newsletters, provided outreach through consumer advocacy groups such as Citizen Utility Boards, as well as telephone companies. PUC needs to work closely with DHS to ensure that food stamp case workers are aware that their consumers qualify for OTAP benefits. One recent activity that was done in October 2003 was to work with DHS to include OTAP applications in the required paperwork for each food stamp recipient. PUC will be watching monthly database reports to determine if there is an increase as a result of this activity. In addition, PUC is looking at putting the OTAP application on the website to make services more consumer friendly. OTAP BizApps reports, Statewide Food Stamp Activity Reports for the State of Oregon.
86000-03. Percentage of Telecommunication Devices Access Program (TDAP) participants who are 65 years and older. s 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 12 13 20 26 32 16 18 28 29 30 31 Goal #2: Provide all Oregonians reasonable and equitable access to essential energy and telecommunications products and services. This performance measure targets senior citizens who 10% have hearing, speech or mobility impairments. As our 5% population ages, the chances of becoming disabled due 0% to accidents, health factors and genetic diseases increases. As our senior citizen population grows, the assistive devices that TDAP distributes should reflect the current population in Oregon. TDAP has increased services to senior citizen beyond our target. We have increased our senior population from 12% of the TDAP recipients in 1998 to 32% in 2002. TDAP has made changes in equipment distribution to include devices that are more compatible with senior citizens. For example, Legislators approved a statutory change that would allow TDAP to purchase amplified phones, which were cheaper and more appropriate for seniors and other hard of hearing people who are able to use their voice and residual hearing. As a result of advertising the availability of new equipment in the OTRS newsletter, a Senior Outreach Campaign conducted by OTRS subcontractors in 2000-2001, and by word of mouth in the community, more people became aware of TDAP. - Add any explanatory information needed by the external reviewer to fully understand the data. The data used was from the PUC designed Biz-Apps program which retrieves data based on the ages of the recipients. A monthly report is then printed and analyzed, with the results calculated into the annual age for this performance measure. One example of outreaching to the senior population was through a recent Captioned Telephone trial. This Captioned Telephone (CapTel) allows people to use their hearing and voice while using the relay service. Ultratec and Sprint, whom PUC subcontracted with to provide the trial, advertised the availability of the trial phone to organizations and their members who are traditionally not users of the relay service because they tend to find traditional relay too cumbersome. These populations were Self Help for the Hard of 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 98 99 00 01 02 00 01 02 03 04 05
Hearing members, Association of Late Deafened Adults members and members of Alexander Graham Bell (an oral-only membership organization). Such a device appealed to many seniors and as a result, many of these seniors contacted TDAP to be placed on a waiting list, and in contacting the TDAP program, they became more aware of other services that TDAP offered, such as amplified phones and voice carry over phones. We have surpassed our expectations for increasing services to seniors. We will continue to explore new devices that are appropriate for this population. PUC s Biz-App program obtained information on the age of seniors we provide services to, and compared it to the overall numbers of consumers we are serving.
86000-04. Personal injuries related to electric operations (per 100,000 utility customers). s 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005.64.58.67.45.59.50.50.50 0 0 0 Goal #3: Protect the health and safety of Oregonians. Accident injuries related to electric utility operations for the last five years, on average, are slightly above target thresholds. This indicates the injuries related to electric utility operators are too high at this time. Injuries/100,000 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 Since 1998, Oregon has had several fatalities/hospitalization injuries a year related to the operation of electric utilities. It should be emphasized that the vast majority of the injuries are a result of unsafe actions by the public and not unsafe conditions by our electric utilities. - Add any explanatory information needed by the external reviewer to fully understand the data. Although the trends may be higher for the last five years, overall, the trend for last twenty years shows decreasing injuries. The PUC s Electric Safety Unit conducts ongoing (1) safety inspections and investigations, and (2) safety training to ensure compliance with National Electrical Safety Code. Continue to meet agency inspection and education targets related to the PUC electrical safety mission. Continue working with utility associations and other state agencies on accident prevention issues. PUC internal records and statistics of accidents reported by Oregon electric utilities. 0.1 98 99 00 01 02 00 01 02 03 04 05
86000-05. Personal injuries related to natural gas operations (per 100,000 utility customers). s 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Goal #3: Protect the health and safety of Oregonians. Accident injuries related to natural gas pipeline operations have remained zero for the last five years, meeting target expectations. Since 1998, Oregon has zero fatalities or hospitalization injuries related to the operations of intrastate natural gas pipelines by Oregon s 20 natural gas pipeline utilities and operators. There is no variance; Oregon has maintained an excellent safety record for natural gas. - Add any explanatory information needed by the external reviewer to fully understand the data. Although our record is outstanding, one incident could result in multiple fatalities and catastrophic property damage. Consequently, continued oversight of pipeline safety compliance is vital. The PUC s Gas Safety Unit conducts ongoing: (1) safety inspections and investigations; and (2) safety training to ensure compliance with the Federal pipeline safety regulations. Continue to comply with FDOT requirements and guidelines in carrying out pipeline safety inspection and education activities. PUC internal records and statistics of accidents reported by Oregon natural gas utilities and operators. Injuries/100,000 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 98 99 00 01 02 00 01 02 03 04 05
86000-06. Total number of electricity service suppliers certified and aggregators registered by the OPUC (New). Actual 2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 16 15 20 25 30 Goal #4: Promote the development of competitive markets to help ensure fair and reasonable rates to Oregon's citizens. This measure indicates the number of certified suppliers available to offer pricing and service options to nonresidential electricity consumers and the number of registered aggregators available to facilitate direct access. The 2002 actual performance of 16 suppliers is slightly higher than the target of 15 suppliers. No substantial variance exists at this time. - Add any explanatory information needed by the external reviewer to fully understand the data. The Commission needs to ensure that suppliers continue to be able to participate in the Oregon market. Evaluate a proposed tariff change to ensure the tariff facilitates development of a competitive market. Work with alternate suppliers and utilities to identify rule and tariff changes needed to facilitate direct access (buying power from other suppliers and having it delivered by the local utility). The Commission maintains lists of certified suppliers and registered aggregators. Number of Suppliers & Aggregators 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 02 02 03 04 05
86000-07. Percent of total switched access lines provided by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLEC), statewide (standard dial-tone service). s 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 4 6 6 9 11 --- --- 11 12 14 16 Goal #4: Promote the development of competitive markets to help ensure fair and reasonable rates to Oregon's citizens. This performance measure directly measures the degree to which the telecommunications competition is developing. The actual performance met the target exactly. There was no variance. - Add any explanatory information needed by the external reviewer to fully understand the data. None is required. The agency reviews and approves interconnection agreements between competitive carriers and incumbent carriers. Nothing in particular needs to be done as a result of this analysis, Federal and State law give clear policy direction to promote competition in Oregon s telecommunications market. 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 The PUC s annual competition survey of certified telecommunications carriers. 98 99 00 01 02 00 01 02 03 04 05