CMUA 2004 Statewide Survey of California Residential Customers Served by Municipal Utilities City of...
34
CMUA 2004 Statewide Survey of California Residential Customers Served by Municipal Utilities City of Palo Alto Public Utilities April 2005
Transcript of CMUA 2004 Statewide Survey of California Residential Customers Served by Municipal Utilities City of...
CMUA 2004 Statewide Survey of California Residential Customers
Served by Municipal Utilities
City of Palo Alto Public UtilitiesApril 2005
Project Goal
Obtain updated measurement of residential
customer satisfaction with municipal utilities
Other Objectives
Compare against most recent CMUA reading - yearend 2002
Compare against ratings given to IOUs by their customers
Update previous CPAU reading, 2002
Methodology
Study commissioned by CMUA members
Done twice before - yearend 2001 and yearend 2002
Sample drawn using RDD (random digit dial) technique
Interviews conducted from November 18 - December 13, 2004
Average interview: 22 minutes; sponsors not disclosed
CPAU provided customer lists; sponsorship revealed
Final Sample
Total of 604 telephone interviews conducted:
501 served by municipal utilities
200 in Northern California
301 in Southern California
103 served by California IOUs
CPAU oversample - 151 interviews
7.07.9
6.8
6.8 7.45.7
Muni CPAU IOU
20022004/2005
Value Rating Comparison: 2002 vs. 2004/2005
7.3
6.9
7.6
7.4
7.9
7.0
Total U.S.
Western region
NCPA 2004
CPAU 2002
CPAU 2005
Total Muni
2004 Value Rating Comparison
Value Rating by Key Dimensions
Total CA Muni 7.0
Type of Service Purchase
Purchase only electricity 7.4
Purchase multiple services 6.7
Budget plan 7.1
Green Energy Option
Aware 7.5
Aware and participate 7.9
Not aware 6.5
ValueRating*
*Average score on a 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) scale
Recent Contact with Utility
Had contact 6.9
Called 6.3
E-mail/web 7.4
No contact 7.1
Public Benefits Program
Aware and participate 7.3
Homeowner Status
Own 7.2
Rent 6.9
ValueRating*
*Average score on a 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) scale
Value Rating by Key Dimensions (continued)
52%
40%36%
28%32%
47%*
7.36.26.1
6.46.26.8*
0%
20%
40%
60%
Muni 2004 Muni 2002 CPAU 2005 CPAU 2002 NCPA 2004 IOU 2004
0
2
4
6
8
10% Price is high* Mean
Pricing Perceptions: Percent Calling Price High+ (Q10a)
*Significantly higher than 2002 at the 95% level of confidence+Percent responding 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 (price is low) to 10 (price is high) scale
25%
54%
39%
34%
IOU 2004
CPAU 2002
CPAU 2005
Muni 2004
Utility Works Hard to Keep Prices Down (Q10b)
Percent responding 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 (does not work hard) to 10 (works very hard) scale
48%
63%57%
64%
55%54%
7.07.3 7.2
7.9 7.4 7.9
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Muni 2004 Muni 2002 CPAU 2005 CPAU 2002 NCPA 2004 IOU 2004
0
2
4
6
8
10% excellent * Mean
Perceived Value of Electrical Service (Q10c)
*Percent responding 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent) scale
52%
72%
74%
58%
7.48.4
8.06.9
0%
30%
60%
90%
Muni 2004 CPAU 2005 CPAU 2002 IOU 2004
0
2
4
6
8
10% Very satisfied* Mean
Overall Satisfaction with Utility (Q2)
*Percent responding 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied) scale
Had Contact with Utility (Q8a)
30% 29%
51% 51%
34%37%
Muni 2004 Muni 2002 CPAU 2005 CPAU 2002 NCPA 2004 IOU 2004
67%75%
57%
63% 63%
42%
Muni CPAU IOU
20022004/2005
Overall Satisfaction with Contact Experience:Percent “Very Satisfied” (Q8e)
Percent responding 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied) scale
8.06.1
8.37.9
8.58.2
8.48.4
8.2
8.5
8.48.5
Inform how toconserve energy
Demonstrate you'recared about
Convince you yourconcerns were heard
Knowledgeablyanswer questions
Tell action taken
Complete withoutsupervisor
Muni 2004
CPAU 2005
Customer Service Rep Assessment* (Q8d)(Base: Called or Visited Utility and Spoke with Rep)
*Average score on a 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent) scale
20%
20%
5%
18%
3%
11%*
IOU 2004
NCPA 2004
CPAU 2002
CPAU 2005
Muni 2002
Muni 2004
Visited Utility Website in Past Year (Q8a)
*Significantly higher than Muni 2002 at the 95% level of confidence
Reliability (Q4a,b)
1.5
2.5
0.81.3
1.6
2.8
2.2
4.4
31%
48%
42%
20%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Muni 2004 CPAU 2005 CPAU 2002 IOU 2004
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Average outages Average interruptions Zero outages
6.7
6.5
6.1
8.8
8.78.4
8.6
8.38.2
7.9
8.47.9
Informing whenpower will be
restored
Working hard to keepoutages down
Manintaining poles,wires, equip.
Restoring servicequickly
Muni 2004CPAU 2005NCPA 2004
Rating on Aspects of Reliability (Q5a-d)
Mean rating on a 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent) scale
Image Assessment
Delivering what they promise 8.1 8.3 8.4 7.5
Working hard to satisfy customers 7.9 8.5 8.3 7.5
Honest in dealing with customers 7.9 8.6 8.5 7.4
Working in best interest of customers 7.5 8.2 8.3 6.7
Providing energy conservation information 7.7 8.5 8.1 7.6
Providing access to utility rep 24/7 7.6 8.4 7.9 7.4
Communicating effectively with customers 7.6 8.1 8.0 7.0
Being involved in local community 7.2 7.9 8.6 6.6
Concern for the environment 7.2 8.6 8.0 7.5
Muni CPAU NCPA IOU2004 2005 2004 2004
38%
40%
42%
44%
34%
26%
48%
37%
Via bank website
Via utility website
Auto bank deduction
Credit card
Muni 2004
CPAU 2005
Appeal of Payment Options (Q11a)
Percent calling option “appealing”
Awareness and Participation inPublic Benefit Programs (Q13a/b)
Audits 53 42 37 47 8 16 8 12
Incentives - efficient appliance 80 70 59 73 45 40 28 39
Incentives - renewables 48 70 67 25 7 3 3 ---
Assisted programs 11 5 14 75 4 9 16 10
CPAU NCPA CA Muni IOU CPAU NCPA CA MuniIOU
2005 2004 2004 2004 2005 2004 20042004 % % % % % % % %
Aware Participate
6.5
6.9
6.5
6.86.9
6.7
6.0
6.0
6.4
Make customersaware of benefits ofrenewable resources
Provide practical,useful information
Help customerslower energy costs
Muni 2004CPAU 2005CPAU 2002
Effectiveness of Public Benefit Programs (Q13c)
Mean rating on a 0 (completely ineffective) to 10 (extremely effective) scale
36%
29%
26%
74%
23%
35%
Muni 2004 CPAU 2005 CPAU 2002
Awareness
Participation
Awareness and Participation inUtility’s Green Energy Program (Q14a)
38%
67%
52%
42%51%
6.87.77.2* 6.8
7.2
0%
25%
50%
75%
Muni 2004 Muni 2002 CPAU 2005 NCPA 2004 IOU 2004
0
2
4
6
8
10% very effective Mean
Communication Effectiveness (Q15a)
Rating on a 0 (very ineffective) to 10 (very effective) scale*Significantly higher than 2002 at the 95% level of confidence
Water Quality (Q11c.a-f)
Clarity 76 8.3 8.0
Smell 73 8.2* 7.6
Safety for drinking 71 8.1* 7.3
Taste 66 7.7* 6.6
Lack of mineral content 51 7.8* 6.4
Pressure throughout your home 81 8.4 8.1
% SayingExcellent Mean Mean
Palo Alto 2005 Total CA
*Significantly higher than Total CA Muni at the 95% level of confidence
41%
31%
6.76.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
CPAU 2005 Total CA Muni 2004
0
2
4
6
8
10% saying "price is high"* Mean
Perception of Price Pay for Water Today
*Rate 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 (price is low) to 10 (price is high) scale
15%
4%*
61%
83%̂
62%
30%*
Water cooler tanks
Use tap water
Usually drinkbottled water
CPAU 2005
Total CA Muni
Drinking Water Preferences (Q11d)
*Significantly lower than Total CA Muni at the 95% level of confidence ^Significantly higher than Total CA Muni at the 95% level of confidence
4%6%
30%
26%
33%
4%5%
19%
26%
46%
CPAU 2005 (Base 46) Total CA Muni (Base 308)
Always
Frequently
Sometines
Not often
Hardly ever
Frequency of Drinking Bottled Water (Q11e)
Base: Purchase bottled water for drinking
Water Management Performance (Q11f.a-g)
Provide reliable, adequate water supply 8.3 9 8.1
Make water clean and safe 8.1 9 7.8
Teat wastewater before releasing it 8.4 35 7.7
Balance needs of business and consumers 7.8 48 7.6
Encourage water conservation 7.7 5 7.4
Find new water supplies 7.4 48 7.2
Use recycled water for irrigation 7.4 41 7.0
Mean Not Sure MeanRating % Rating
Palo Alto 2005 Total CA
Support of Plans to Increase Water Supply (Q11g.a-b)
Desalination plant 46 6.7 6.7
Recycled water for irrigation 58 7.3 7.0
Using groundwater to supplement water supply during drought 39 6.3 NA
% Mean Mean
Palo Alto 2005 Total CA
Summary
This survey finds CPAU’s performance top tier on both power and water
Customer Satisfaction (Value Rating) often betters NCPA-members average
On almost every other measure, CPAU betters its 2002 performance
CPAU betters statewide averages on water dimensions
CPAU Recommendations
Continue to do your knitting - the formula for success is in place and needs continuity
Look into power delivery - particularly power quality incidents
Public benefits programs should be reviewed
Continue to recognize unique customer base in Palo Alto and their specialized wants and needs
Statewide Recommendations
Website becoming an effective communications tool - take advantage of this trend
Green energy is a winner - make it work for you
Promote alternative payment options - without a fee
Communicate benefits provided by municipal utilities
