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