On total customer cost per customer ActewAGL appears to have high costs relative to Powercor. These results are consistent with our economic benchmarking, which account for factors such as scale and customer density. As a result, these operating environment factors only explain a part of the cost differential between ActewAGL and Powercor. Table A.8 below compares ActewAGL's total customer cost per customer to Powercor's. Table . Comparison of ActewAGL's average total customer cost per customer to Powercor's for 2009 to 2013 ($2013) Difference in total customer cost per Service Provider Cost Implied efficiency score customer to Powercor ActewAGL $870 $332 62% Source: Economic Benchmarking RIN and AER Analysis. Total opex This metric measures the opex cost per customer of providing core 'network services'. As with the total customer cost metric, have excluded the costs associated with other services such as connections, metering and public lighting to prevent classification of services from influencing results. This measure does not include a capital component because it measures opex only. However, we can compare the results to Figure A.8 to ensure capitalisation approaches are not materially influencing the results. Figure . Average annual opex for 2009 to 2013 against customer density ($2013–14) Source: Economic benchmarking RIN data. Consistent with total user cost per customer, ActewAGL appears to have high costs relative to Powercor (and most other less dense service providers). These results are consistent with our economic benchmarking and the total cost PPI. When we consider capitalisation, comparison between Figure A.7 and Figure A.8 shows ActewAGL appears is relatively higher on the opex PPI than the total customer cost PPI. This suggests ActewAGL may allocate more of its costs to opex than capex. Table A.9 compares ActewAGL's opex per customer to Powercor.
On total customer cost per customer ActewAGL appears to have high costs relative to Powercor. These results are consistent with our economic benchmarking, which account for factors such as scale and customer density. As a result, these operating environment factors only explain a part of the cost differential between ActewAGL and Powercor. Table A.8 below compares ActewAGL's total customer cost per customer to Powercor's. Table . Comparison of ActewAGL's average total customer cost per customer to Powercor's for 2009 to 2013 ($2013) Service Provider Cost Difference in total customer cost per customer to Powercor Implied efficiency score ActewAGL $870 $332 62% Source: Economic Benchmarking RIN and AER Analysis. Total opex This metric measures the opex cost per customer of providing core 'network services'. As with the total customer cost metric, have excluded the costs associated with other services such as connections, metering and public lighting to prevent classification of services from influencing results. This measure does not include a capital component because it measures opex only. However, we can compare the results to Figure A.8 to ensure capitalisation approaches are not materially influencing the results. Figure . Average annual opex for 2009 to 2013 against customer density ($2013–14) Source: Economic benchmarking RIN data. Consistent with total user cost per customer, ActewAGL appears to have high costs relative to Powercor (and most other less dense service providers). These results are consistent with our economic benchmarking and the total cost PPI. When we consider capitalisation, comparison between Figure A.7 and Figure A.8 shows ActewAGL appears is relatively higher on the opex PPI than the total customer cost PPI. This suggests ActewAGL may allocate more of its costs to opex than capex. Table A.9 compares ActewAGL's opex per customer to Powercor.
AER%20draft%20decision%20ActewAGL%20distribution%20determination%20-%20Attachment%2007%20-%20Opex%20-%20November%202014.DOCX