Electric Utility Business Customer Satisfaction Reaches 8-Year High in J.D. Power Study

Improved Customer Communications, Corporate Citizenship and Price Satisfaction Drive Gains; Six of Eight Highest-Ranked Providers New to Top of the Rankings

News provided by

J.D. Power

Jan 13, 2016, 08:00 ET

J.D. Power corporate logo

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif., Jan. 13, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Business customer satisfaction with their electric utility is up substantially year over year, with significant improvements in communications, corporate citizenship and price satisfaction, according to the J.D. Power 2016 Electric Utility Business Customer Satisfaction Study^SM released today.

The study, now in its 17^th year, measures satisfaction among business customers of 102 targeted U.S. electric utilities, each of which serves more than 25,000 business customers. In aggregate, these utilities provide electricity to more than 12 million customers. Overall satisfaction is examined across six factors (listed in order of importance): power quality and reliability; corporate citizenship; price; billing and payment; communications; and customer service. Satisfaction is calculated on a 1,000-point scale.

Overall satisfaction among electric utility business customers is 704 in 2016, a significant increase from 677 in 2015 and the highest level in eight years. Performance improvement in 2016 is driven by a sharp year-over-year rise in satisfaction with communications (+55 points), corporate citizenship (+45) and price (+43).

"Communication and corporate citizenship are important to businesses," said John Hazen, director of the energy practice at J.D. Power. "Providers are doing a better job of proactively communicating with their business customers not only during an outage, but also on a regular basis to keep them informed of things such as energy programs offered, and to gather customer feedback."

Hazen noted that corporate citizenship demonstrates that a provider is an active business partner in the community. "Business customers like to see their provider giving back, whether it's through charities and civic organizations or through economic development such as buying locally and creating jobs," said Hazen. "Price is important to business customers, but not as critical as it is to residential customers."

Study Rankings
Within each of the four geographic regions included in the study, utility providers are classified into one of two segments: large (serving 85,000 or more business customers) and midsize (serving between 25,000 and 84,999 business customers).

Among the eight providers that rank highest in their respective regions, only two—Omaha Public Power District in the Midwest region's midsize utility segment and SRP (Salt River Project) in the West region's large utility segment—also ranked highest in 2015.

"There are 53 ranked providers with an overall satisfaction score above 700 this year," said Hazen, who noted that in 2014 only four providers achieved scores of 700 or higher. "This clearly demonstrates that when providers make an investment in customer satisfaction and put in the effort, they can improve their customers' experiences."

The following utilities rank highest in business customer satisfaction in their respective regions:

East Large: Con Edison
East Midsize: Met-Ed
Midwest Large: Ameren Missouri
Midwest Midsize: Omaha Public Power District
South Large: Entergy Arkansas
South Midsize: JEA
West Large: SRP
West Midsize: SMUD

KEY FINDINGS

A Partner in Power: Overall satisfaction among businesses with an assigned account manager at their utility is more than 100 points higher than among those that do not have an account manager.
Billing Alerts Avoid the Blues: Billing and payment satisfaction averages 708 among the 37% of businesses that indicate they do not receive billing and payment alerts from their utility provider. Satisfaction is 776 when providers send an alert when a bill is due or overdue and jumps to 798 when they send customers confirmation that their payment was received.
Twice the Contact, but Lower Resolution: Regardless of the contact channel, twice as many business customers contact their electric utility provider twice as often as residential customers, yet their rate of problem resolution is lower than residential customers. For example, 48% of business customers contact their provider via telephone, compared with 23% of residential customers; however, the problem resolution rate over the phone is only 67% among businesses, compared with 71% among residential customers.
Awareness of Product and Services Important to Satisfaction: The more utility products and services customers are aware of, the higher their overall satisfaction. Overall satisfaction among customers who are aware of 10 or more products and services is 768 and drops to 704 among those who are aware of only four or five. When customers are not aware of any of their provider's offerings, satisfaction plummets to 603.

The 2016 Electric Utility Business Customer Satisfaction Study is based on responses from more 21,000 online interviews with business customers who spend at least $200 monthly on electricity. The study was fielded from March through June 2015 and July through November 2015.

Overall Customer Satisfaction Index Scores
(Based on a 1,000-point scale)

East Region: Large Segment
Con Edison	728
PPL Electric Utilities	726
PSE&G	702
PECO	689
East Large Average	689
Jersey Central Power & Light	687
BGE	683
Appalachian Power	680
NYSEG	679
National Grid	670
Eversource Energy	655
PSEG Long Island	631

East Region: Midsize Segment
Met-Ed	720
Pepco	711
Delmarva Power	707
Duquesne Light	707
Penelec	704
Central Maine Power	693
East Midsize Average	685
West Penn Power	680
Rochester Gas & Electric	663
United Illuminating	651
Atlantic City Electric	644

Note: Included in the study, but not ranked due to insufficient sample size is Central Hudson Gas & Electric,
Green Mountain Power, Mon Power, Orange & Rockland and Potomac Edison.


Midwest Region: Large Segment
Ameren Missouri	723
KCP&L	722
DTE Energy	719
Xcel Energy - Midwest	714
Ameren Illinois	709
Duke Energy-Midwest	708
We Energies	707
Ohio Edison	703
Midwest Large Average	702
MidAmerican Energy	701
ComEd	698
Alliant Energy	697
AEP Ohio	675
Consumers Energy	664

Midwest Region: Midsize Segment
Omaha Public Power District	746
Kentucky Utilities	728
Indianapolis Power & Light	721
The Illuminating Company	715
WPS	711
Louisville Gas & Electric	703
Midwest Midsize Average	697
Dayton Power & Light	682
Westar Energy	682
NIPSCO	671
Indiana Michigan Power	642

Note: Included in the study, but not ranked due to insufficient sample size is Kentucky Power,
Otter Tail Power and Toledo Edison.


South Region: Large Segment
Entergy Arkansas	752
Alabama Power	746
Florida Power & Light	743
Duke Energy-Carolinas	728
South Large Average	723
Georgia Power	718
OG&E	709
South Carolina Electric & Gas	709
Dominion Virginia Power	708
Entergy Louisiana	706
Duke Energy-Progress	703
Duke Energy-Florida	690

South Region: Midsize Segment
JEA	754
NES	734
OUC	734
CPS Energy	722
Entergy Mississippi	721
Entergy Texas	717
Gulf Power	712
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma	708
South Midsize Average	705
Tampa Electric	696
MLGW	671
Austin Energy	669
Southwestern Electric Power	645

Note: Included in the study, but not ranked due to insufficient sample size is Cleco Power,
Middle Tennessee EMC, Mississippi Power, Santee Cooper and Xcel Energy-South.


West Region: Large Segment
SRP	747
Rocky Mountain Power	736
Puget Sound Energy	735
Pacific Power	722
Portland General Electric	720
Southern California Edison	715
APS	713
West Large Average	713
Pacific Gas and Electric	709
San Diego Gas & Electric	703
NV Energy	702
Xcel Energy - West	698
L. A. Dept. of Water & Power	693

West Region: Midsize Segment
SMUD	754
Seattle City Light	738
West Midsize Average	700
Avista	691
NorthWestern Energy	680
Idaho Power	677
PNM	676
Tucson Electric Power	666

Note: Included in the study, but not ranked due to insufficient sample size is Colorado Springs Utilities,
El Paso Electric and Snohomish County PUD.


Award-Eligible Electric Utility Providers Included in the Study
Company Name	Executive Name	Company Headquarters
AEP Ohio	Nicholas Akins	Columbus, Ohio
Alabama Power	Mark Crosswhite	Birmingham, Ala.
Alliant Energy	Patricia Kampling	Madison, Wis.
Ameren Illinois	Richard J. Mark	St. Louis, Mo.
Ameren Missouri	Michael L. Moehn	St. Louis, Mo.
Appalachian Power	Nicholas Akins	Columbus, Ohio
APS	Donald Brandt	Phoenix, Ariz.
Atlantic City Electric	David Velazquez	Newark, Del.
Austin Energy	Larry Weis	Austin, Texas
Avista	Scott Morris	Spokane, Wash.
BGE	Calvin Butler	Baltimore, Md.
Central Maine Power	Sara Burns	Augusta, Maine
ComEd	Anne Pramaggiore	Chicago, Ill.
Con Edison	John McAvoy	New York, N.Y.
Consumers Energy	John Russell	Jackson, Mich.
CPS Energy	Paula Gold-Williams	San Antonio, Texas
Dayton Power & Light	Tom Raga	Dayton, Ohio
Delmarva Power	David Velazquez	Newark, Del.
Dominion Virginia Power	Thomas Farrell	Richmond, Va.
DTE Energy	Gerard Anderson	Detroit, Mich.
Duke Energy-Carolinas	Lynn Good	Charlotte, N.C.
Duke Energy-Florida	Lynn Good	Charlotte, N.C.
Duke Energy-Midwest	Lynn Good	Charlotte, N.C.
Duke Energy-Progress	Lynn Good	Charlotte, N.C.
Duquesne Light	Richard Riazzi	Pittsburgh, Pa.
Entergy Arkansas	Leo Denault	New Orleans, La.
Entergy Louisiana	Leo Denault	New Orleans, La.
Entergy Mississippi	Leo Denault	New Orleans, La.
Entergy Texas	Leo Denault	New Orleans, La.
Eversource Energy	Thomas May	Springfield, Mass.
Florida Power & Light	Eric Silagy	Juno Beach, Fla.
Georgia Power	Paul Bowers	Atlanta, Ga.
Gulf Power	Stanley Connally	Pensacola, Fla.
Idaho Power	Darrel Anderson	Boise, Idaho
Indiana Michigan Power	Nicholas Akins	Columbus, Ohio
Indianapolis Power & Light	Kenneth Zagzebski	Indianapolis, Ind.
JEA	Paul McElroy	Jacksonville, Fla.
Jersey Central Power & Light	Charles Jones	Akron, Ohio
KCP&L	Terry Bassham	Kansas City, Mo.
Kentucky Utilities	Victor Staffieri	Lexington, Ky.
L. A. Dept. of Water & Power	Marcie L. Edwards	Los Angeles, Calif.
Louisville Gas & Electric	Victor Staffieri	Louisville, Ky.
Met-Ed	Charles Jones	Akron, Ohio
MidAmerican Energy	William Fehrman	Des Moines, Iowa
MLGW	Jerry Collins	Memphis, Tenn.
National Grid	Steven Holliday	London, England
NES	Decosta Jenkins	Nashville, Tenn.
NIPSCO	Jimmie Stanley	Merrillville, Ind.
NorthWestern Energy	Robert Rowe	Sioux Falls, S.D.
NV Energy	Paul Caudill	Las Vegas, Nev.
NYSEG	Robert D. Kump	Binghamton, N.Y.
OG&E	Peter Delaney	Oklahoma City, Okla.
Ohio Edison	Charles Jones	Akron, Ohio
Omaha Public Power District	Timothy Burke	Omaha, Neb.
OUC	Kenneth Ksionek	Orlando, Fla.
Pacific Gas and Electric	Anthony F. Earley, Jr.	San Francisco, Calif.
Pacific Power	Stefan Bird	Portland, Ore.
PECO	Craig Adams	Philadelphia, Pa.
Penelec	Charles Jones	Akron, Ohio
Pepco	Joseph Rigby	Washington, D.C.
PNM	Patricia Vincent-Collawn	Albuquerque, N.M.
Portland General Electric	James Piro	Portland, Ore.
PPL Electric Utilities	Gregory Dudkin	Allentown, Pa.
PSE&G	Ralph Izzo	Newark, N.J.
PSEG Long Island	Ralph Izzo	Newark, N.J.
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma	Nicholas Akins	Columbus, Ohio
Puget Sound Energy	Kimberly Harris	Bellevue, Wash.
Rochester Gas & Electric	Robert D. Kump	Rochester, N.Y.
Rocky Mountain Power	Cindy Crane	Salt Lake City, Utah
San Diego Gas & Electric	Jeffrey Martin	San Diego, Calif.
Seattle City Light	Jim Baggs	Seattle, Wash.
SMUD	Arlen Orchard	Sacramento, Calif.
South Carolina Electric & Gas	Kevin Marsh	Cayce, S.C.
Southern California Edison	Pedro J. Pizarro	Rosemead, Calif.
Southwestern Electric Power	Nicholas Akins	Columbus, Ohio
SRP	Mark Bonsall	Tempe, Ariz.
Tampa Electric	John Ramil	Tampa, Fla.
The Illuminating Company	Charles Jones	Akron, Ohio
Tucson Electric Power	David Hutchens	Tucson, Ariz.
United Illuminating	Robert D. Kump	New Haven, Conn.
We Energies	Gale Klappa	Milwaukee, Wis.
West Penn Power	Paul Evanson	Greensburg, Pa.
Westar Energy	Mark Ruelle	Topeka, Kan.
WPS	Gale Klappa	Milwaukee, Wisc.
Xcel Energy - Midwest	Benjamin Fowke	Minneapolis, Minn.
Xcel Energy - West	Benjamin Fowke	Minneapolis, Minn.