Decoupling. 6.1.2.1 6.1.2.2 : r
Decoupling. As this is the first general rate case since the implementation of decoupling, the Settling Parties agree that this is an opportunity to clarify the process surrounding the decoupling mechanism and the associated tariff language. The Agreement consists of five points regarding decoupling:
Decoupling. The Settling Parties agree that the Company should implement a “full” decoupling mechanism that contains the following elements: (1) real-time weather normalization, calculated at the individual customer level; (2) revenue per customer design, with accrual calculations at the rate class level and billing rates aggregated into two rates – Residential and C&I; (3) Managed Expansion Program customers are subject to decoupling, but the expansion surcharge dollars (i.e., the 30% distribution premium) are excluded from the decoupling calculation; and (4) special contract customers are not subject to decoupling and will be excluded entirely from the decoupling calculation. The real-time weather normalization adjustment is calculated as the difference between actual distribution revenue billed to each customer in each billing cycle for each month, and what distribution revenue for each customer’s xxxx would have been based on normalized therm deliveries. The resulting charge or credit will be added to or subtracted from each customer’s xxxx at the time the xxxx is rendered (i.e., “real time”). The annual revenue per customer adjustment will be determined by calculating the difference between actual annual distribution revenue per customer and approved annual distribution revenue per customer for two groups of customers: (a) the residential classes and (b) the commercial and industrial classes. Approved annual distribution revenue per customer for each of these two groups will be based on the approved distribution revenues and test year average customer counts for each group. The difference in total distribution revenues is calculated using this revenue per customer variance multiplied times the actual average annual customer count. This amount will be recovered from or refunded to each group over the subsequent 12-month period through a uniform charge per therm for each group. The Settling Parties agree that the Company may recover up to $50,000 in costs incurred to upgrade its billing system and related software to implement this decoupling mechanism. Any costs above $50,000 will be absorbed by the Company. The Settling Parties agree that the decoupling mechanism shall take effect beginning on November 1, 2018. On that date, decoupling will replace the Lost Revenue Adjustment Mechanism established in Order No. 25,932 (Docket No. DE 15-137), and the Company will cease any and all recovery of lost revenues attributable to energy efficiency programs outside of the d...
Decoupling. In consideration that the Modified Schedule RE-TOU will become the default rate for all of Public Service’s residential customers, the Settling Parties agree that the approved revenue decoupling mechanism will apply to Modified Schedule RE-TOU during the Revenue Decoupling Adjustment (“RDA”) Pilot and Modified Schedule RE-TOU and Schedule R-OO will be included in the revenue decoupling calculation. The Company will revise its RDA Pilot tariff to accomplish this through an appropriate compliance filing, assuming the settlement agreement in this matter is approved by the Commission. The RDA Pilot terminates on December 31, 2023. The Company will continue collecting data on over/under-recovery of revenue after conclusion of the RDA pilot while the Commission and parties are reviewing the results of the pilot that terminates December 31, 2023.
Decoupling. Liberty shall implement a decoupling mechanism effective July 1, 2021. In return for Liberty agreeing to a later date to implement decoupling, the parties agree that Liberty shall be permitted to continue the Lost Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (LRAM) for calendar years 2019 and 2020. Final determination of the LRAM and SBC for billing will be made in DE 17-136, or subsequent energy efficiency dockets. The Settling Parties shall review and approve tariff language implementing the decoupling mechanism prior to Liberty’s submission of the decoupling tariff to the Commission in sufficient time for the scheduled July 1, 2021, implementation. The Company will make a reconciliation filing by September 1 following the completion of each decoupling year (July 1 to June 30), in which Liberty will calculate the rate increase or rate refund arising from the just completed decoupling year, and request approval for any adjustment to go into effect on November 1 for the following twelve months. Prior to the Year 1 decoupling filing of September 1, 2022, the Settling Parties shall informally discuss the preliminary reconciliation calculation of the July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022 (Year 1) decoupling year and attempt in good faith to reach agreement as to the treatment of any atypical consequences flowing from the COVID-19 pandemic. If an agreement is reached, the Company will present that agreement to the Commission as part of the Company’s September 1, 2022, filing for consideration and approval. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Settling Parties have the option to file testimony or technical statements by September 1, 2022, in conjunction with the Company’s decoupling filing, presenting their preferred method for handling the impact on decoupling of COVID-19. The Settling Parties agree that the extent of recovery of COVID 19 impacts through decoupling adjustments may be impacted by any other means or mechanisms the Commission may establish for addressing COVID 19 impacts. The decoupling mechanism will be implemented as described in the Company’s original filing, with the following amendments:
Decoupling. It is not established under this CONTRACT, a bond of any nature, including, but not limited to, labor, environmental, regulatory and fiscal liability of AMAGGI to PDB, nor PDB’s liability to AMAGGI (nor any commitments in this regard), other than the provision of services bond established herein. Each PARTY shall exclusively bear the responsibilities attributable to them by LAW, including labor responsibilities of their respective employees and their respective environmental, integrity, regulatory and tax responsibilities. No partnership, association, agency, consortium, mandate or joint and several liability is created by this CONTRACT between the PARTIES, and the PARTIES are expressly prohibited from entering into any legal transactions on behalf of the other PARTY.
Decoupling. In Oregon, we have a decoupling mechanism. Decoupling is intended to break the link between utility earnings and the quantity of gas consumed by customers, removing any financial incentive by the utility to discourage customers’ efforts to conserve energy. The Oregon decoupling mechanism was reauthorized and the baseline expected usage per customer was set in the 2012 Oregon general rate case. This mechanism employs a use-per-customer decoupling calculation, which adjusts margin revenues to account for the difference between actual and expected customer volumes. The margin adjustment resulting from differences between actual and expected volumes under the decoupling component is recorded to a deferral account, which is included in the annual PGA filing. In Washington, customer use is not covered by such a tariff.
Decoupling. It is not established under this CONTRACT, a bond of any nature, including, but not limited to, labor, environmental, regulatory and fiscal liability of HERMASA to PDB, nor PDB’s liability to HERMASA (nor any commitments in this regard), other than the provision of services bond established herein. Each PARTY shall exclusively bear the responsibilities attributable to them by LAW, including labor responsibilities of their respective employees and their respective environmental, integrity, regulatory and tax responsibilities. No partnership, association, agency, consortium, mandate or joint liability is created by this CONTRACT between the PARTIES.
Decoupling. The parties agree that Avista would implement electric and natural gas decoupling mechanisms for a five-year period beginning Jan. 1, 2015. Decoupling is a mechanism designed to break the link between a utility's revenues and a consumer's energy usage. The company's actual revenue, based on kilowatt hour and therm sales will vary, up or down, from the level set by the Commission. This could be due to changes in weather, conservation or the economy. Under the decoupling mechanisms, the company's electric and natural gas revenues will be based on the number of customers, rather than kilowatt hour and therm sales, which will provide more stability to the company's retail revenues. The difference between revenues based on sales and revenues based on the number of customers will result in either surcharges or rebates to customers in the following year. The decoupling mechanisms include an after-the-fact earnings test. At the end of each calendar year, an electric and natural gas "Commission Basis" earnings calculation will be made for the prior calendar year. These earnings tests will reflect actual decoupled revenues, normalized power supply costs, and other normalizing adjustments. If the company has a decoupling rebate related to the prior year, and earns more than a 7.32 percent rate of return (ROR), the rebate to customers would be increased by 50 percent of the earnings in excess of the 7.32 percent ROR. If the company earns less than 7.32 percent ROR, the full rebate to customers would be made. If the company has a decoupling surcharge for the prior year and earns in excess of 7.32 percent, the surcharge to customers would be reduced by 50 percent of the earnings in excess of 7.32 percent. If the company has a decoupling surcharge and earns less than the 7.32 percent, the full surcharge to customers would be made.
Decoupling. Last, we discuss the vertical stratification of the cloud-topped boundary layer. Wood and Bretherton (2004) used aircraft observations collected in cloudy boundary layers to calculate the difference in θL and qT between the cloud and subcloud layer. To quantify this difference they introduced a decoupling factor αq, q α = qT,cld − q T,sub (2) qT,zi+ − qT,sub αq with the subscripts 'cld', 'sub' and 'zi+' indicating the value of qT in the cloud layer, subcloud layer and just above the inversion, respectively. An analogous factor αθ was defined for θL. The factors are equal to zero if the boundary layer is vertically perfectly mixed. Wood and Xxxxxxxxxx found that the value for the decoupling parameter increased for deeper boundary layers. As can be seen from Figure 8, the LES models roughly follow the same trend with somewhat larger values for the decoupling factor for the total specific humidity than for the liquid water potential temperature. This difference might be explained from the fact that there are the surface moistening and entrainment drying will tend to enhance the vertical moisture gradient, whereas for heat a strong radiative cooling at the cloud top supports a more vertical well-mixed structure. It should be stressed that any models must be well capable of representing the decoupling factor, as deviations will result in an error in the liquid water content. For example, models have a too weak decoupling will tend to overestimate the liquid water content, and vice versa.
