HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPA Data on Revenue per Kilowatt-hour 1993‘ Pea ' Te J 2
April 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Officials of Public Power Systems
FROM: Larry Hobart, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 1993 Data on Revenue per Kilowatt-hour
As an APPA member service, I am enclosing a summary of 1993 revenue per kilowatt-hour
for utilities in your state. The summary shows average revenue per kilowatt-hour for
residential, commercial, and industrial consumer classes. In addition, the report provides
average “Rev/kWh,” all classes; and “adjusted” average “Rev/kWh,” all classes. The
“adjusted” average corrects for compositional differences in the customer classes served by
the respective sectors. The data is summarized for the United States and for your state by
type of ownership. In addition, revenue per kilowatt-hour is listed individually for each
utility in your state.
Revenue per kilowatt-hour was calculated by APPA from 1993 data reported by each utility
to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration on Form EIA-861.
These calculations can help you compare your average rate level with other utilities in your
state. If you have any questions, call Scott Choate, Manager, Statistics at (202) 467-2969.
SC:cb
Enclosure
AVERAGE REVENUE PER KWH, 1993
Cin cents)
UNITED STATES AND ALASKA
ALL CLASSES
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CLASSES ADJUSTED *
REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH
U.S. UTILITIES
Publicly Owned 6.6 6.8 4.9 6.0 6.1 Investor-Owned 8.8 7.9 5.0 7.2 7.2
Cooperative Tf. 7.4 4.6 7-0 6.6
ALASKA
Publicly Owned 10.4 8.8 Sat 9.2 9zo
Investor-Owned ATE? 1s29, 8.1 12.4 1525
Cooperative Ties) 9.6 8.0 10.1 10.1
ALASKA
Publicly Owned : :
Ketchikan City of 8.3 7.6 6.9 LL 7-8.
Sitka City of & Borough of 7.9 8.6 725 Bae, 8.2 Wrangell City of 10.2 9.5 3.8 62 9.1
Petersburg City of 10.0 O21 8.0 ELV 9.3
Metlakatla Power & Light o:5 9.4 13.6 11.1 CK)
Seward City of 11.0 11.6 7.8 9.8 10.9
Nome Joint Utility Systems 17.6 Sar 11.5 15.2 15.9
Unalaska City of 20.9 18.2 11.9 15.7 18.5
Galena City of 31.5 33.3 11.6 16.1 30.0
Nightmute Power Plant See. 41.5 n/a 41.5 n/a
Anchorage City of 9.7 7.9 0.0 8.2 (a)
Atmautluak City of 46.9 48.3 0.0 47.3 (a)
Birch Creek Village Elec Util 60.0 60.0 0.0 60.0 (a)
Chignik City of 28.0 28.1 0.0 28.0 (a)
Chefornak City of 34.1 30.7 0.0 33.4 (a)
Coffman Cove Utilities 22.3 28.0 0.0 23.6 (a)
Eagle Village Energy Systems 68.3 0.0 0.0 68.3 (a)
Elfin Cove Utility Commission 2252, 22.3 0.0 22.3 (a)
Fairbanks City of 9.7 10.5 0.0 10.3 (a) Igiugig Electric Company 58.8 50.0 0.0 53.6 (a)
Ipnatchiag Electric Company 38.8 36.6 0.0 37.6 (a) Klukwan Indian Village 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 (a) King Cove City of 20.1 19.9 0.0 20.1 (a) Kotlik City of 36.7 81.2 0.0 49.0 (a) Kokhanok Village Council 55.9 56.3 0.0 56.0 (a) Kwig Power Co 47.6 50.0 0.0 47.7 (a)
Larsen Bay City of 12.8 22.4 0.0 16.2 (a) Ouzinkie City of 27.7 28.1 0.0 27.8 (a) Pedro Bay Village Council 61.9 56.4 0.0 59.8 (a) Native Village of Perryille 53.3 83.5 0.0 69.0 (a) St Paul City of 32.7 27.1 0.0 30.1 (a) Tenakee Springs City of 33.4 36.1 0.0 BS (a) Thorne Bay City of 25.1 25.0 0.0 25.0 (a) City of White Mountain 38.1 38.4 0.0 38.3 (a)
AVERAGE REVENUE PER KWH, 1993
Cin cents)
UNITED STATES AND ALASKA
ALL CLASSES
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CLASSES ADJUSTED *
REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH
Akutan City of 37.2 36.2 0.0 37.0 (a)
Manokotak City of 37.8 38.4 0.0 38.0 (a)
North Slope Borough of 246.2 23.9 0.0 24.0 (a)
ALASKA
Investor -Owned
Alaska Electric Light&Power Co 8.6 7.8 6.6 8.1 8.0
Pelican Utility Co 15.4 15.0 12.9 1so7 16.9
Haines Light & Power Co Inc 17.1 15.9 15.1 16.3 16.3
G & K Incorporated 36.3 38.0 36.2 arco ice
Tatitlek Electric Utility 39.1 38.6 42.9 39.0 5925
Egegik Light & Power Co 50.4 50.3 26.8 41.6 47.6
Bettles Light & Power Inc : 47.8 55.2 52.2 52.4 52.0
Alaska Power & Telephone Co 18.7 16.5 0.0 WU) (a)
Andreanof Electric Corp S527 33.3 0.0 33.5 (a)
Bethel Utilities Corp Inc 26.1 19.3 0.0 20.8 (a)
Chitina Electric Inc 42.4 38.8 0.0 40.2 (a)
Aniak Light & Power Co Inc 45.5 42.4 0.0 43.7 (a)
Far North Utilities 42.9 42.1 0.0 42.2 (a)
Gustavus Electric Co Inc 49.6 47.1 0.0 48.6 (a)
Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Co 28.4 elss) 0.0 24.3 (a)
Hughes Power & Light Co 30.8 43.7 0.0 40.1 (a)
Kuiggluum Kallugvia aul Sac 0.0 28.2 (a)
Manley Utility Co Inc 72.6 70.0 0.0 71.2 (a)
McGrath Light & Power Co 34.5 2o5) 0.0 30.8 (a)
Napakiak Ircinaq Power Co 55.6 58.9 0.0 56.9 (a)
Northway Power & Light Inc 12.7 31.6 0.0 26.5 (a)
Tanana Power Co Inc 40.5 37.8 0.0 39.0 (a) Teller Power Co 55.3 54.6 0.0 54.9 (a) Yakutat Power Inc 22.8 19.8 0.0 20.8 (a)
ALASKA
Cooperative
Chugach Electric Assn Inc 9.4 7.5 5.8 8.4 8.1 Golden Valley Elec Assn Inc 10.1 9.4 7.4 Sue 9.5 Homer Electric Assn Inc 11.9 10.3 5.3 9.3 10.3 Kodiak Electric Assn Inc 15.4 14.6 13.4 14.1 Copper Valley Elec Assn Inc 18.4 15.8 10.9 15.4 6.2 Nushagak Electric Coop Inc 20.0 19.9 18.0 19.2 BT. Nelson Lagoon Elec Coop Inc 49.3 41.5 29.4 46.7 43.1 Akiachak Native Comm Elec Co 50.5 50.9 0.0 50.7 (a) Alaska Village Elec Coop Inc 42.3 36.2 0.0 40.7 (a) Arctic Utilities Inc 0.0 14.0 0.0 14.0 (a) Barrow Utils & Elec Coop Inc 8.5 6.1 0.0 6.6 (a) I-N-W Electric Coop Inc 42.6 47.0 0.0 45.1 (a) Kotzebue Electric Assn Inc 20.7 18.8 0.0 19.6 (a) Mataruska Electric Assn Inc 10.8 8.6 0.0 10.0 (a)
AVERAGE REVENUE PER KWH, 1993
(in cents)
UNITED STATES AND ALASKA
ALL CLASSES
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CLASSES ADJUSTED *
REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH
Middle Kuskokwim Elec Coop Inc 58.3 54.8 0.0 56.4 (a)
Naknek Electric Assn Inc otst" 21.8 0.0 21.8 (a)
Tlingit & Haida Region El Auth 30.3 24.2 0.0 27.0 (a)
Tuntutuliak Comm Svc Assn 46.2 46.4 0.0 46.2 (a)
Paxson Lodge Inc 21.4 20.7 0.0 20.8 (a)
Cordova Electric Coop Inc 22.5 18.9 0.0 20.0 (a)
Unalakleet Valley Elec Coop 25.0 23.1 0.0 23.8 (a)
* This is a standardized average that adjusts for compositional differences in the customer classes
served. for each utility, the average is calculated by multiplying the average rev/kwh for each
class by the average proportion of sales for that class for the state (for the nation for U.S.
averages) and then summing the results.
(a) Adjusted total not computed unless sales in all customer classes are greater than zero.
Source: Prepared April 1995 by the American Public Power Association, Department of Statistical Analysis,
using data from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861.
268°39bd WWLOL *x KOK Tue Bono Buyer Friday, April 28, 1995
Groups Say Poll Shows Power Agencies’ Sale Unpopular
By Heather Ann Hope
WASHINGTON — Consumers are opposed to the sale of the five fed-
eral electric power marketing agen-
cies, according to a survey commis-
sioned by the American Public Power
Association and the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association.
The nationwide poll, released yes-
terday, reported that 65% of the
1,000 registered voters surveyed
April 10 to 16 said the federal gov-
ernment should retain the power mar-
keting agencies, while 23% favored
selling them.
“American consumers are obvi-
ously aware of the detrimental con-
sequences of sejling the [federa)
power agencies]. They know it would raise electricity costs and the prices
of goods and services, as well as
eliminate a reliable source of revenue
now being paid to the U.S. Treasury,”
said Glenn English, executive vice
president of the National Rural Elec-
tric Cooperative Association and for-
mer Democratic congressman from
Oklahoma.
However, the polling data suggests
that many of those surveyed were un-
familiar with the power marketing agencies before being contacted by
the polling firm. When first asked
whether the federal government
should sell the power agencies to pri-
vate utility companies, only 30%
thought the federal government should keep them.
It was only “afler a thorough dis-
cussion of this issue, the present sit-
uation, and the proposed sale” that opposition to the sale increased to
nearly 3 to 1, according to the poll
taken by the Washington. polling firm
of Hamilton & Staff.
The American Public Power As-
sociation and the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association,
which represent municipal-and con-
sumer-owned nonprofit electric util-
ities, respectively, oppose the sale of
any of the five federal power mar-
keling associations for various rea-
sons, including the fear of increased
utility rates.
The survey was released (wo weeks after the Edison Electric In-
stitute released @ study claiming that
the federal government could gener-
ate up to $9 billion from the sale of
the power agencies. The Edison Elec-
tric Institute represents privately
owned electric utility companies.
The Clinton administration has
proposed selling off the Southeast-
em, Southwestern, and Western pow- er administrations. The sale was pro- posed in Clinton's fiscal 1996 budget
and is part of an administration pro- posal to streamline the Department
of Energy.
The sale of a fourth agency, the Alaska Power Administration, is a!-
ready under negotiation, and Clinton has proposed completing that sale
before the beginning of the next fis-
cal year on Oct. |. Clinton proposed
that a fifth agency, the Bonneville Power Administration, be converted into a government-sponsored corpo-
ration.
Although selling the agencies would be profitable for the federal
government, it is still unclear
whether Congress will approve the sale because lawmakers representing
areas served by the agencies may ob-
ject. For example, Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., who has advocated
privatizing many public agencies,
said yesterday that he was “strongly opposed to the sale” of the power
marketing agencies.
Consumers who were polled ex- pressed a number of concerns with
selling the power marketing agen-
cies, including the fear of increased
utility costs, loss of environmental protections, and less cost-cutting competition among electricity sup-
pliers,
In other poll results:
* 54% believe the country would be harmed by giving private compa- nies the right to make a profit from public resources such as rivers, fed- erally owned Jand, mineral rights, air rights, or forests and parks. 29% polled believes it benefits the coun- try.
* 80% believe it is a good idea to have three kinds of electric utilities — privately owned, profit making; municipal-owned, not-for-profit; and cooperatively owned, not-for-profit — so that no one kind of utility will become a monopoly. Q
1) CY