1 / 34

CMUA 2004 Statewide Survey of California Residential Customers Served by Municipal Utilities

CMUA 2004 Statewide Survey of California Residential Customers Served by Municipal Utilities. City of Palo Alto Public Utilities April 2005. Project Goal. Obtain updated measurement of residential customer satisfaction with municipal utilities. Other Objectives.

chakra
Download Presentation

CMUA 2004 Statewide Survey of California Residential Customers Served by Municipal Utilities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CMUA 2004 Statewide Survey of California Residential Customers Served by Municipal Utilities City of Palo Alto Public Utilities April 2005

  2. Project Goal Obtain updated measurement of residential customer satisfaction with municipal utilities

  3. Other Objectives • Compare against most recent CMUA reading - yearend 2002 • Compare against ratings given to IOUs by their customers • Update previous CPAU reading, 2002

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Value Rating Comparison: 2002 vs. 2004/2005

  7. 2004 Value Rating Comparison

  8. Value Rating by Key Dimensions Value Rating* 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 *Average score on a 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) scale

  9. Value Rating by Key Dimensions (continued) Value Rating* 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 *Average score on a 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) scale

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Perceived Value of Electrical Service (Q10c) *Percent responding 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent) scale

  13. Overall Satisfaction with Utility (Q2) *Percent responding 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied) scale

  14. Had Contact with Utility (Q8a)

  15. 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

  16. Customer Service Rep Assessment* (Q8d)(Base: Called or Visited Utility and Spoke with Rep) *Average score on a 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent) scale

  17. Visited Utility Website in Past Year (Q8a) *Significantly higher than Muni 2002 at the 95% level of confidence

  18. Reliability (Q4a,b)

  19. Rating on Aspects of Reliability (Q5a-d) Mean rating on a 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent) scale

  20. Image Assessment Muni CPAU NCPA IOU 2004 2005 2004 2004 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

  21. Appeal of Payment Options (Q11a) Percent calling option “appealing”

  22. Awareness and Participation in Public 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 Aware Participate CPAU NCPA CA Muni IOU CPAU NCPA CA Muni IOU 2005 2004 2004 2004 2005 2004 2004 2004 % % % % % % % %

  23. Effectiveness of Public Benefit Programs (Q13c) Mean rating on a 0 (completely ineffective) to 10 (extremely effective) scale

  24. Awareness and Participation inUtility’s Green Energy Program (Q14a)

  25. Communication Effectiveness (Q15a) Rating on a 0 (very ineffective) to 10 (very effective) scale *Significantly higher than 2002 at the 95% level of confidence

  26. Water Quality (Q11c.a-f) Palo Alto 2005Total CA 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 % Saying Excellent Mean Mean *Significantly higher than Total CA Muni at the 95% level of confidence

  27. Perception of Price Pay for Water Today *Rate 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 (price is low) to 10 (price is high) scale

  28. 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

  29. Frequency of Drinking Bottled Water (Q11e) Base: Purchase bottled water for drinking

  30. Water Management Performance (Q11f.a-g) Palo Alto 2005Total CA 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 Mean Rating % Rating

  31. 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 Palo Alto 2005Total CA % Mean Mean

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

More Related