The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/27/1969 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission . „ 1 i • j ELECTRIC POWER ENGINEERS, INC. • ' ' 336 Jersey St. tiaksssgcxasaoomcoommx ..' , • COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS'77040 ' ' ' , • ', , •••, , , ,, , r . � May 2 , •1969 . b. City Commissioners . . 11 City of College Station ' j : College Station, Texas i { . Gentlemen: In 1966 I prepared a study of the electric rates of the City which led to the adoption of new rate schedules for all classes of customers. These schedules put the electric rates for the various classes of customers more • ' nearly in line with the costs of serving each class of customer. As a result ` ' of these changes, the monthly electric bills of the larger churches increased . ' ' markedly. You will recall that there was considerable discussion on this matter. Since discussion centered around the fact that it was thought That the churches had their peak usage at times when other customers were creating small loads and thus, that they did not create the same need for primary line ' capacity, nor was their demand directly reflected in higher demand charges on the City's wholesale bill. • It was readily agreed by all that if the churches, or for that matter any customer, created his maximum demand at times when other customers were creating . light demand (that is, if the churches peak demand came' during off-peak hours) ' they were properly due a discount. To establish this, the City personnel read and reset the demand meters on ' t two of the larger churches each Friday evening and each Monday morning during all of last summer. Using this data, the attached study has been made. • Two possible rate changes were explored. One involves waiving the 507 . minimum demand clause in the rate structure. On one church this would result in : ..: a $134.40 annual reduction (3%) . On the other, this would result in a $163.20 ' • ' annual reduction (4.4%) . While this rate change results in a savings to these customers, it is not related to the realities of the costs of providing service . and should not properly be extended to other type customers. • ' The second rate change is related to the costs of providing service and, if adopted, could properly be made available to all customers on the large power , rate schedules. This change recognizes that the demand charge is designed to recover for the City the fixed charges of providing service. These fixed charges • result from the demand char¢@ on the wholesale bill, the primary line requirements, and the transformer and metering equipment at the customer. The first two of these are related to the time the peak load occurs. The latter is independent of•' • ' when the peak load occurs. Thus, for customers who create their peak demand in . off-peak tires, it is pt'oper to consider the first two of these to be sere:, .5•• �• l.9 I '• ', • •I ,• • • . 1 • ' . : . • • . City Commissioners •2• May 27, 1969 • • .'' . .'.:: . . ' ': . 6 . The Engineer estimated that the fixed costs due to the transformer bank • and metering make up about 50% of the total. Thus, an' off-peak rider to the large power rate structures is proper and is often found in the rate structures of other electrical energy suppliers. ' ' r Our normal demand meters do not indicate the time of demand. To obtain ' this data, a recording meter costing in the range of $300 to $500 would be required. It is proper to require the customer to make this investment in order to obtain the off-peak schedule. The Engineer recommends adoption of the attached off-peak rider to both rate schedules LP1 and LP2. This would define the customers billing demand as his demand created on-peak plus one half the difference in his off-peak demand • and his on-peak demand, or, his on-peak demand. Whichever of these is highest by . would be the billingdemand. For instance, inJuly • of 1968, the Methodist Church created a demand during the week (on•peak) of 56 KW. The weekend demand ' (off-peak) was 172. Under the present rate structure the demand charge would be based on 172 KW. Under the proposed charge, it would be 56 * h (172-56) - 114 KW. If this rider is adopted, it will not need be a special rate for one class of customers, but can properly be 'a part of the rate structure applicable to . ' any customer whose peak demand occurs offwpeak, and thus could justify the investment in a recording meter. ; This would reduce the two example churches bills for one year by $501.60 • • (11.1%) and $312.00 (8.4%) respectively. Attached hereto is a tabulation that shows how each monthly bill of these would be affected by either of the discussed , : changes. • • • ,::' ' X will be pleased to prepare any- other analyses on this matter that you may •':.,• •:' require. ' • Your very trul N . , .. 4 .....„......„...044. , ,, . , . , • .:•,-•.,„.,,.•.... :.!4';*144.', •. • • ••••.•-•, -..-. •'A� ' Electric Power Engineers, Inc. ' : " 'r -',• John S. Denison, President • :r: t • JSD/m .. 1 - . Sacs. ' • • / ' . * ' ': . . . ' • PROPOSED OHP-PEAR RIDERS TO RATE SCHEDULES LP1 AND LP2 ' , CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS ' • • ' OFP•PEAX RIDER: Where the customer reimburses the City for the cost . • •. ; ; ' of purchasing and installing a recording demand meter • ' • •• ,1 as selected by the City, this off-peak • • .rider will apply. ' '' ' ' • Under this rider, the demand for billing purposes shall ' • •' • .. ': be the highest of the following. Cl) • The peak demand measured during the period ,t' defined as the on-peak period, or '' ` (2) The peak demand measured during the period •• ' ' • ' • - , • : :. '�• ' + defined as the on-peak period plus one half , ':i . ;• '1. . ...,.,. " '• • the amount the peak demand measured during '' 4, . • the off-peakperiod exceeds thepeak demand ... 'i' ' i .• '.; • •y , ..•• ,'•' • . ' , measured during the on-peak period. In no case shall the billing demand in any , ' month be less than 502 of the billing demand • for the previous eleven billings. ' ' • , OFF"PEAR PERIOD! ' The off-peak period shall`•be defined as the period between • ' • f '• the hours of 11 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on any day, and the .'. ' .. - - • s, • .'' ;•1•. ' ' period' between11 p.m..:Pridayt and 6:00 a.m. Monday. • .• ' • • 1. •. .�. �. :,, ' �� .. .' •:•. - •� ;,'..* A l •, .!�.f.'' /' ' •, '3 '! / .. - 1 '.4.1 I . • . , . .. • . . . , • . , , . ..-...I.F.GE STATI.C.3, TZ-Z.:•,..:. • .. .•_,.... ._... . . . „. ._,.. . . •-•,-• - 1.-PI RATE WITii507,---.---- .**'. LP1 MITTM 1•17,‘Iv7-1 TeTA-rreF,D PROPOS-F.0 _....,.......,..... . ... .. _______.....,_ .. nth P,:'....,.'..... C.::: 1-J.,-:.:..."... I. Bi1l2Lr.13 • 1::-.2..72,2nd lot .1 Billing D 7.r, e:IC . .. .-....1.F...-..1 Y ' 1 Da d Charge Fail''. Demand 33.0 . ?99.„2"-..1.--143.80. 12-62...., 89.6 • y 68 14',.0 63.2 ' 7. . ....;t5 - 1 '44.0-'-' 216.00.,: 40 ).... ;'... 1:03.6 .. '.... t..2.68 1.5.:7.,0 120.0 ,.',-.-."' . . '.):0 156.8 235,20 490.,'..?„1 '08.4 • '''. *68 112....) - 5'5,1 . . 1 -.-, D<.'i 172.0 256.00 520,6'3 114.0 6.3 1.''.5. --.*,.', -BO. 7.) 3: , „, : .17:2 18.5.6 278.40' ' 506.32 132.8 7,..:68 15.5:7.1 153.5 .. - . -. . .64 155.2 20 .80 4t.S7..,-.7.4 154.4 t.68 12.6.:-7:. - ,, '5.5'1% :2 6 4 139.60 36c.E.'!". 77.2 , 7.63 120.0 - - ., .. . - ,r.10 .1,20.0 130,00 32,S.,..0 77.2 1. t.68 76.0 - '....v";!:. 76.0 114.00 2,55.84 77.2 t.67 C'..,';') - .2.4:-." 6.%0 S6.0C.; 24;%T.: 77.2 • .7„..59 7).4'). - • . . .. ,.:-..,(..; 71.2 1,Y.3., 0 261, 5, 77.2 .69 • 7-:.:, 1:: . .. .1 7 .4. 117. ..0. 21 ' •=;.'..,; 77.2 irN..o•T - i'.'• 3.. 2,161.20 z'-; '; ;.,-,,4,...i, 1, • , . • _ _ . .. . . . . ... .. ., . , . ..._ •••-..., .„, ' . „, .- - - .. -1 _ . . . . . . . _. . • . - .0 2... .i,...7/? 90.4 1. • C3 I.. ..'.."-', ', :'...1.-,). 177-'7; 2`..71' .',.J 2 .:2 136.8 2 . ,.:.,:-...:3 1 ' ,-,..,•, i , : . , , 1 .'')3',6 2 ,40 3)3.0 128, 1 . y'...3 ..,..", ..,....', . . . "',, 37 172,--; 25•,,. ''.t„.1 ...''..‘..3-.i * 164. : 2 • ..6.1 1.2.;,: . 1.„ , ' • . z' P ts•• 1:74.4 2:GI. . "1 •''''.•':,.41. 131.2 1 t.-63 1 1. ' ...-.; 1 . , . ;.-,, -.. : ' ''..1.5.7.3 ,10 21.2,.; ....) ./.16..2.3 157.6 4 .,;33 -12_ , •':,?:"... 12 .0 192„,....) 36-!,..!.`-'.., 82.4 1 ,..?...8 S2... „, ' - -• S'.7" .7.- 12t.i."-.... 231.0:1 82.4 1 7, ;i:.- - Ei.00 14/:, 82.4 1 .• -..... .0. -.. 5':!..2 8.;.).1:1;'.) 15:./.0 82.4 IA 67.j.r, '.' 1.'', . ;.--..3 03.3 - Si..20 11..Cn 82.4 1.. . ,.- ....2 f...' ,(..' . ';', 17; ",' .) . . 56.0 - .....l_f!......, . _1 66. 0_ 82.4 14 ri.:\L . .,--;,:,..,-/3 .' 2010/... .:0 3,-7-17()..:::: 1 9 $. . . . - ... - ---- • - . . . . ,. . . . . . . . • • •.- . - .-- - • • . . . _. - , . . .• - . . . - . . . „. EI-711C1::',..0 :.-J :.:',.. : : - Es, NC. ' Mf..,:d. 1. ':.:I.,4 . , aw......), •