Billing Methodology Alternatives SAG Alternatives Evaluation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
NEW Water - Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District Billing Methodology Alternatives SAG Alternatives Evaluation Workshop July 10, 2014 Todays Agenda Meeting Purpose and Goals Current Project Status Recap from Workshop #1
NEW Water - Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District
2
3
4
5
Key Meeting Dates Date NEW Water Kick-off Meeting (#1) April 23, 2014 All Customers Issues Meeting (#2) April 24, 2014 1st SAG Workshop: Scoring Criteria (#3) June 19, 2014 2nd SAG Workshop: Alternatives Evaluation (#4) July 10, 2014 Added SAG Workshop: Alternatives Evaluation (#5) July 23, 2014 1 GBMSD Commission Meeting July 24, 2014 1 3rd SAG Workshop: Cost Analysis (#6) August 1, 2014 4th SAG Workshop: Recommendations (#7) August 28, 2014 All Customer Meeting (#8)
GBMSD Commission Meeting (#9) October 22, 2014 1) The original July 23rd Commission Meeting replaced with a second Alternatives Evaluation Workshop; and Commission Meeting rescheduled to July 24th with NEW Water to present Updates.
Least Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important Most Important 1 2 3 4 5
Criteria Attributes
Accuracy of Billing Methodologies that maximize the accuracy of the bills taking into account confidence of measured units and the equitable allocation/distribution of those units to customers. Methodologies that are subject to interpretation or estimates or conditions outside the control of the customers or NEW Water are deterred. Equitable Allocations Maintains a fair and equitable allocation of costs across customers based on usage characteristics and standard cost allocation principles established by the industry and EPA. Cost Effective/ Efficient Methodology is efficient and appropriately balances cost/benefits. Does not require substantial capital investment, does not substantially increase operating costs, does not place additional burden on staff or resources, has potential to decrease operating costs, potential cost recovery risks are well defined and accounted for. Institutional Acceptance Does not require significant public education and/or changes in practices. Methodology is easily understood – simpler is better. It can be implemented within the next budget cycle and is compatible with current rate structure. It is consistent with Wisconsin CMOM goals. Quality Assurance/ Control Accounts for variation in metering/sampling requirements, includes definitive resolution process for potential bad samples/data. Minimizes requirements for manual quality assurance and control checking. Minimizes potential for errors. Maintains accuracy/applicability under changing conditions. Predictable/ Stable Customers can, within reasonable accuracy, estimate or predict monthly bills and annual costs for budgeting purposes. Customers have potential to control monthly variations.
9
and Rank
Financial Criteria Implementation Criteria Total Weighted Score Billing Methodology Alternatives Equitable Allocation of Cost Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency Accuracy of Billing Institutional Acceptance/ Transparency Quality Assurance and Control Predictability and Stability Criteria Weight
5 5 5 3 4 3
IMPROVED STATUS QUO ALTERNATIVE #1 : ALTERNATIVE #2 : ALTERNATIVE #3 : Rating System (1-5) where a high score represents high compliance with attributes
Poor Not So Good Good Very Good Excellent 1 2 3 4 5
as a “system” cost. Some include surcharges for abnormal strength
size charge or a monthly service availability fee.
Water Reclamation District, and the Bergen County Utilities Authority) use billing methodologies similar to NEW Water where they have separate charges for loadings with one of the four using what could be considered a hybrid method.
measured loadings and many do not conduct any system wide
administrative costs, than complexity and precision.
develop methodologies that balances their highest priorities, which often times means striking a balance between level of complexity, cost allocation precision, and administrative burden.
Wastewater Agency Wholesale Billing Methodology Austin Water Utility, TX Customer fixed fee of $10 per bill plus a volumetric charge per 1,000 gallons based on wastewater
(which is based on a water consumption average) or actual metered water consumption, whichever is
Bergen County Utilities Authority, NJ Industrial user flow contribution and loadings quantified and deducted from plant flow and loadings; remaining plant flow and loadings then allocated to wholesale customers based on metered wastewater flow. Customers then billed based on metered wastewater flow plus industrial users within their service area. I/I is accounted for through use of metered wastewater flow. Greater Cincinnati Water Works/Metropolitan Sewer District Customers billed a volumetric charged based on metered water use. Some sewer services also include an additional charge for “Effluent” (surcharge levied against users to recover the costs of rendering wastewater treatment system service for discharges whose strength is in excess of normal strength). Rates per ccf for wastewater exceeding “normal” concentrations established for BOD, SS and NOD (nitrogenous oxygen demand). However, to the extent the strength of any of these pollutants is less than eighty percent (80%) of the corresponding value for normal strength sewage, a credit is allowed as an offset against surcharge otherwise due. I/I is treated as “system” cost and included in the volumetric rate. Metropolitan Utilities District, City of Omaha, NE About half of the customers are billed a volumetric charge based on wastewater flow plus a customer charge (monthly fixed fee). The other half is billed a volumetric charge based on metered water consumption plus a customer charge that includes an I/I component. The I/I component is based on a comparison of plant flows vs. billed loadings. Industrial customers have discharge permits and billed based on water use, plus high strength (as applicable) plus a meter size charge. El Paso Water Utilities Board, TX Wholesale volumetric charge based on metered wastewater flow with no surcharges. Industrial customers, however, are billed a minimum charge based on water meter size plus a volumetric charge based either on wastewater or metered water for normal strength. Surcharges for excess strength BOD and SS based on El Paso sampling analysis in accordance with their Rules and Regulations. I/I is treated as “system” cost and included in the volumetric rate.
Wastewater Agency Wholesale Billing Methodology Madison Metropolitan Sewer District, WI Quarterly charge based on: a) wastewater flow and b) two quarter rolling average of sampled loadings (BOD, SS, TKN and P), plus c) a fixed per customer fee per year, plus d) a water meter equivalency fee per year (a 5/8” water meter represents 1 equivalent unit). Agency sends an estimate to customers regarding bill for ensuing year based on previous year actuals and projected adjustments. Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, CO Annual charge based on metered and sampled wastewater flow and loadings for BOD, SS, and TKN, plus a Customer Equivalent Connection Units (CECU) which represents the amount of metering and sampling done by District personnel. I/I is a system cost included in the volumetric rate. Some qualifying customers may receive I/I credit if they host more than .5 miles of interceptor sewers. The credit for qualifying customers is fixed at 400 gallon per inch diameter mile. Metropolitan Sewer District, OH Volumetric charge based on metered water use. I/I is treated as “system” cost and included in the volumetric rate Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, WI Establishes an equivalent residential unit (ERU) flow and loading charge annually. ERU established: a) Flow: 57 gallons per capita per day (excluding I/I), b) BOD: 0.165 lbs/capita/day and c) TSS of 0.197 lbs/capita/day. Flow and loading initially established based on metering and sampling in six study
MMSD verification, detailing the number of residential units, commercial units, industrial units and non- metered units using eight schedules (Schedules A through G). Charges based on charge for metered wastewater flow, metered water flow, or a charge is assessed based on the SIC code. I/I is allocated to flow and connections as a percentage of each to the totals (cost net of revenues). San Antonio Water System, TX Wholesale customers outside the City limits are billed a monthly service availability fee plus a volumetric charge based on average winter metered water use for residents and metered water use for General Class. General class includes apartments, commercial industrial and municipal. Industrial customers may be subject to surcharge if BOD and TSS exceed allowable limits. Wholesale customers inside the City limits are only billed the volumetric charge. Williamsport Sanitary Authority, PA Bills all customers based on a volumetric charge per ccf of metered water use. Tributary wholesale customers are billed based on metered wastewater flow and measured pounds of BOD and TSS based on quarterly average BOD and TSS concentrations.
13
WORKSHOP EXERCISE: Worksheet No. 1: Improved Status Quo (See Handout)
14
Rate options in order
numerical scale Selected Option - Pick One
A.1.1 Continue with Proxy Meters but provide more frequent updates of Approved Allocations. Need to define criteria. For example, have updates triggered if there is more than a +/- 5%. change in annual proxy meter data. A.1.2 Select different proxy areas and/or increase/decrease number of proxy meters and/or use plant averages. A.1.3 Use EPA published values in lieu of proxy meter data. A.1.4 Set limits based on projected values for an average 30.5 annual rainfall amount and data from the 10-yr regression analysis. A.1.5 Fix mass loading amount based on average 30.5 annual rainfall amount and annually adjust flow component based
A.1.6 Change from allocation based on lateral connections to one based on population served and/or WI DOA density per lateral or metered water use. A.1.7 Other?
A.2.1 Establish same theoretical inch-diameter mile rate regardless of pipe age. A.2.2 Replace theoretical I/I with measured infiltration including adjustment for lateral infiltration contribution. A.2.3 Eliminate I/I distribution charge. A.2.4 Other?
A.3.1 Instead of 12 month rolling average of loadings, use current year-to-date actuals and estimates for remaining months in year. A.3.2 Establish fixed average monthly value based on previous year data and conduct true-up at end of year based on actuals. A.3.3 Use parameter average mass loading (lbs per day) vs. parameter concentration (lbs/gal) to allocate loadings. A.3.4 Update sampling locations based on findings of hydraulic modeling and after further invesitgation of meters which exhibit high variations. A.3.5 Increase sampling frequency for any meters where further investigation of large coefficient of variations is not easily explained or predicted. A.3.6 Other?
Comment: Comment: Comment:
A.1 Tweaks for Unmetered/Unsampled Areas (under the assumption cannot technically be metered/sampled) A.2.Tweaks for I/I Distribution A.3.Tweaks for Sampling Averages IMPROVED STATUS QUO - After tweaking for Unmetered/Unsampled Protocol, I/I Distribution and Sampling Protocol
WORKSHOP EXERCISE: Worksheet No. 2: Alternatives (See Handout)
15
Equitable Allocation of Cost Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency Accuracy of Billing Institutional Acceptance/ Transparency Quality Assurance and Control Predictability and Stability
5 5 5 3 4 3
Base
A. IMPROVED STATUS QUO - After tweaking for Unmetered/Unsampled, I/I Distribution and Sampling Protocols. B. Allocation Based on Metered Wastewater and Average Plant Loading after Accounting for SIUs B.1 Pick One: B.2 B.3 B.4 C. Allocation Based on Metered Wastewater, Average Residential Plant Loading, plus Surcharge for SIUs. C.1 Pick One: C.2 C.3 C.4 D. All Tributary Areas Metered and Sampled Daily D.1 Pick One: D.2 E. Flow Based on Metered Wastewater and Fixed Per Unit Loadings E.1 Pick One: E.2 Comment: F. Flow Based on Metered Wastewater and Loadings Based on Mass F.1 Pick One: F.2 Comment: D Estimated Annual Charge with True-Ups D.1 Pick One: D.2 D.3 F. Plant Loading Rolled into Volumetric Charge F.1 Pick One: F.2 F.3 G. G.1 G.2 Billing Methodology Alternatives
Implementation Criteria Total Weighted Score Criteria Weight
Estimate of current year charge based on historic and information provided by customer than billed in monthly billing increments with a year end true-up. rolled into following year estimate Same as D.1 with true-up credit or charge rolled into following year estimate. Change monthly billing to quarterly and use average current quarter loadings vs. 12 month rolling averages.
Increased Sampling Metered Wastewater and New Loading Allocation
Same as C1 except give credit for lagoon contributions that demonstrate loadings less than averages. Similar to Improved Status Quo, however, all locations sampled daily and cost of sampling allocated evenly to loading parameters. Measured mass is used vs. concentration. Similar to Improved Status Quo, however, use rolling average mass loadings per day in lieu of parameter concentration (lbs/gal) to allocate loadings. Similar to Improved Status Quo, however,(add idea to address TSS - which is the one parameter that shows higher variability). All SIUs separately metered and sampled. Non-SIU based on metered wastewater and Plant loading averages after backing out SIUs. Customer contribution based on sum of SIU and non-SIU. Same as B.1, except only sample large SIUs. Criteria needs to be determined. Example: separately sample SIU if contribution greater than 1%, or greater than $100,000 per year or has loading concentrations that exceed Plant averages by more than 5 or 10%, etc. Same as B2, but treat the meters that measure flow from lagoons as if they were an SIU. Same as B1, except use per capita or household or lateral or other equivalent residential unit, etc. to assign residential loadings vs. measured flow contribution. Average residential plant loadings established and rolled into volumetric charge. All SIUs separately metered and sampled and those with loadings greater than average surcharged for their excess load contribution. . Customer contribution based on voumetric charge plus SIU surcharge. Same as C1 except rely on SIU reporting data to establish loading surcharges vs. NEW Water conducting sampling. Same as C1 except use SIC codes to establish surcharges for non-residential contribution.
Methodology Based on Annual True- Loadings Rolled into Volumetric Charge
Other? Single volumetric charge that includes annuql average plant parameter loading concentrations (blended rate) and billed based on metered wastewater. Similar to F.1, however, customers which exhibit monthly loadings signficantly above plant averages are surcharged for excess strength waste. Similar to F.2, however, establish a maximum "allowable" monthly limit to account for potential seasonal variations that would need to be exceeded before triggering surcharge. Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Similar to D.1 (daily sampling of loadings), however, cost of sampling allocated based on a Customer Equivalent Connection Unit similar to Metro Wastewater Reclamation District in OH. Use metered wastewater and EPA Published Values for residential per capita loading discharges and establish measured values for non-residential based on SIC Code. Customers to submit a municipal user data transmission sheet, subject to NEW Water verification, detailing the number of units. Similar to E.1 except use an analysis of historic average loading values for customers taking into account differences between residential, commercial and industrial loading contributions and establish a fixed loading allocation based on historic data in lieu of EPA Published Values.
I/I?
Customer Customer Customer Customer Customer
Fox River I/I ? M E M M M M M I/I ?
Metered Water
Metered Water
Industrial Users Residential Loadings Irrigation, hydrants, pool, etc.
E Estimated M Metered
17