Robust Water Infrastructure Is Essential to Customer Satisfaction; Water Quality and Reliability Are Critical, Says Inaugural J.D. Power Water Study
California Water Service, Illinois American Water, Miami-Dade County and Monroe County Water Authority Rank Highest in Water Utility Customer Satisfaction in their Respective Regions
LOS ANGELES, May 18, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Considering the high stakes of public health associated with residential water delivery and quality, the state of a water utility's infrastructure is critical to customer satisfaction and, therefore, to a utility's ability to garner support from customers and other stakeholders for improvements, says the J.D. Power 2016 Water Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction Study,SM released today.
In the most comprehensive Voice of the Customer study of its kind, the inaugural study measures satisfaction among residential customers of 84 water utilities each delivering water to a population of at least 400,000 people and reported in four geographic regions: Midwest, Northeast, South and West. Overall satisfaction is measured by examining 33 attributes within six factors (listed in order of importance): delivery; price; billing and payment; conservation; communications; and customer service. Satisfaction is calculated on a 1,000-point scale.
Bad Taste and Smell of Water Impact Satisfaction the Most: Infrastructure that is not maintained can cause residential delivery interruptions or create water quality problems such as bad taste and bad smell, the two issues that impact satisfaction the most. Delivery satisfaction among the 9% of customers experiencing problems with water taste (646) and among the 6% of customers experiencing smell issues (636) is more than 100 points lower than among those not experiencing any issues (785). More than one-third (34%) of customers indicate having experienced some sort of residential water delivery or quality issue within the last 6 months: the most common issue was low pressure, and the least common was mineral content, including poisonous lead.
According to Regulatory Research Associates,1 it is estimated that over the next 20 years, investments between $385 billion and $1.3 trillion will be required to make the infrastructure improvements necessary to maintain the highest quality of water and residential delivery.
"Delivering water that is safe to use and drink is the top priority for water utilities. However, many utilities are facing the decay of century-old infrastructures with insufficient funds necessary to make improvements," said Andrew Heath, senior director of the utility and infrastructure practice at J.D. Power. "When facing the need for multi-billion dollar investments, it's no longer good enough to just focus on the water system; it is imperative that water utilities also focus on understanding their customers, who can often be their most effective advocates when it comes to building up support for necessary improvements."
Location Does Not Determine Satisfaction: Study findings show that satisfaction is not driven by location, but rather is driven by the quality of the service they receive from their water utility. Both high- and low-performing utilities are found throughout the United States and throughout each region in the nation. Customer satisfaction is driven less by a utility's location and more by the quality of the product they deliver and how well that utility focuses on their customers.
Following are additional findings of the 2016 study.
- Price by Region: One-fourth (25%) of customers are not aware of the cost of their monthly water utility service. The customer-reported average monthly cost by region is $79—West; $75—Northeast; $63—South; and $60—Midwest.
- E-Bill Satisfaction Higher than Paper Bill: Billing and payment satisfaction among the 31% of customers who receive their bill electronically is much higher than among those who receive a paper bill (792 vs. 746, respectively).
- Communication Recall Builds Satisfying Relationships: Water utilities that communicate with their customers are more likely to build a satisfying customer relationship. Overall satisfaction is higher when a customer recalls a communication in the last 6 months from their water utility than when they don't recall a communication (737 vs. 675, respectively).
- Awareness of Infrastructure Investment Increases Satisfaction: When customers are aware of their utility's efforts to improve or replace the old infrastructure, conservation satisfaction is 734, compared with 650 when they are not aware. The same holds true when customers are familiar with their utility's efforts to improve water quality (749 vs. 599, respectively).
- Answering Customers' Questions on First Contact: One key to achieving high customer service satisfaction is answering a customer's question the first time they make contact, compared with making two or more contacts. Among those contacting by phone, satisfaction is 134 points higher when the customer's question is answered on the first contact, compared to when two or more calls are required for an answer (831 vs. 697, respectively). Similarly, when contacts are made online, satisfaction is 91 points higher when questions are answered on the first contact, compared to when two or more contacts are required (827 vs. 736, respectively).
Study Rankings by Region
The following utilities rank highest in customer satisfaction in their respective regions. Notably, two of the utilities are investor owned and two are publicly owned.
- Midwest: Illinois American Water (investor owned)
- Northeast: Monroe County Water Authority (publicly owned)
- South: Miami-Dade County (publicly owned)
- West: California Water Service (investor owned)
The 2016 Water Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction Study is based on more than 20,000 responses, representing more than 83 million residential customers of the 84 largest water utilities across the United States. The study was fielded in March 2016.
Overall Customer Satisfaction Index Scores |
|
(Based on a 1,000-point scale) |
|
Midwest Region Customer Satisfaction Index Ranking |
|
Illinois American Water |
723 |
Citizens Energy Group |
713 |
Missouri American Water |
713 |
Aqua-Midwest |
709 |
Saint Paul Regional Water Services |
703 |
Louisville Water |
701 |
Indiana American Water |
700 |
Milwaukee Water Works |
692 |
Detroit Water and Sewerage Dept |
686 |
Midwest Average |
686 |
Greater Cincinnati Water Works |
681 |
City of Chicago |
676 |
Metropolitan Utilities District (Omaha) |
676 |
City of Cleveland |
642 |
City of Columbus |
642 |
Northeast Region Customer Satisfaction Index Ranking |
|
Monroe County Water Authority |
736 |
Aquarion Water Company |
735 |
NYC Environmental Protection |
732 |
Erie County Water Authority |
719 |
New Jersey American Water |
718 |
Aqua-Northeast |
703 |
Northeast Average |
703 |
Boston Water and Sewer Commission |
702 |
Pennsylvania American Water |
699 |
Suffolk County |
699 |
WSSC |
691 |
New York American Water |
690 |
Philadelphia Water Department |
683 |
Suez (United Water) |
670 |
DC Water |
667 |
Regional Water Authority (Connecticut) |
655 |
City of Baltimore |
615 |
South Region Customer Satisfaction Index Ranking |
|
Miami-Dade County |
765 |
Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) |
757 |
Gwinnett County |
736 |
San Antonio Water System |
731 |
Charlotte Water |
725 |
The Cobb County Water System |
725 |
Palm Beach County |
719 |
City of Dallas |
715 |
City of Fort Worth |
714 |
Metro Water Services (Nashville) |
713 |
MLGW |
712 |
Fairfax Water |
707 |
JEA |
706 |
South Average |
705 |
City of Raleigh |
702 |
City of Oklahoma City |
699 |
City of Newport News |
695 |
El Paso Water Utilities |
693 |
Aqua-South |
691 |
City of Atlanta |
687 |
City of Tampa |
687 |
City of Houston |
685 |
Birmingham Water Works |
684 |
Manatee County |
684 |
Baton Rouge Water Company |
679 |
Pinellas County |
669 |
City of Virginia Beach |
668 |
Austin Water |
654 |
DeKalb County |
645 |
Tulsa Water |
642 |
West Region Customer Satisfaction Index Ranking |
|
California Water Service |
729 |
Colorado Springs Utilities |
728 |
Long Beach Water Dept |
721 |
Anaheim Public Utilities |
718 |
Denver Water |
717 |
California American Water |
716 |
City of Phoenix |
716 |
Eastern Municipal Water District |
713 |
San Gabriel Valley Water Company |
713 |
Las Vegas Valley Water District |
711 |
SFPUC |
709 |
Seattle Public Utilities |
706 |
San Jose Water Company |
705 |
Portland Water Bureau |
695 |
West Average |
693 |
Tucson Water |
691 |
East Bay Municipal Utility District |
682 |
Mesa Water Resources |
682 |
City of San Diego |
681 |
Golden State Water Company |
680 |
City of Sacramento |
674 |
Water Utility Authority (Albuquerque) |
671 |
L. A. Dept. of Water & Power |
662 |
City of Fresno |
654 |
Board of Water Supply (Honolulu) |
653 |
Award-Eligible Water Utilities Included in the Study |
|||
Company |
Executive Name |
U.S. Address |
|
Anaheim Public Utilities |
Dukku Lee |
Anaheim, Calif. |
|
Aqua-Midwest |
Christopher H. Franklin |
Bryn Mawr, Pa. |
|
Aqua-Northeast |
Christopher H. Franklin |
Bryn Mawr, Pa. |
|
Aquarion Water Company |
Charles V. Firlotte |
Bridgeport, Conn. |
|
Aqua-South |
Christopher H. Franklin |
Bryn Mawr, Pa. |
|
Austin Water |
Marc A. Ott |
Austin, Texas |
|
Baton Rouge Water Company |
Patrick Kerr |
Baton Rouge, La. |
|
Birmingham Water Works |
Mac Underwood |
Birmingham, Ala. |
|
Board of Water Supply (Honolulu) |
Ernest Y. W. Lau |
Honolulu, Hawaii |
|
Boston Water and Sewer Commission |
Henry F. Vitale |
Boston, Mass. |
|
California American Water |
Robert MacLean |
Coronado, Calif. |
|
California Water Service |
Martin A. Kropelnicki |
San Jose, Calif. |
|
Charlotte Water |
Barry M. Gullet |
Charlotte, N.C. |
|
Citizens Energy Group |
Jeffrey Harrison |
Indianapolis, Ind. |
|
City of Atlanta |
David Cockrell |
Atlanta, Ga. |
|
City of Baltimore |
Rudolph S. Chow |
Baltimore, Md. |
|
City of Chicago |
Thomas H. Powers |
Chicago, Ill. |
|
City of Cleveland |
Robert L. Davis |
Cleveland, Ohio |
|
City of Columbus |
Tracie Davies |
Columbus, Ohio |
|
City of Dallas |
A.C. Gonzalez |
Dallas, Texas |
|
City of Fort Worth |
David Cooke |
Fort Worth, Texas |
|
City of Fresno |
Bruce Rudd |
Fresno, Calif. |
|
City of Houston |
Dale A. Rudick |
Houston, Texas |
|
City of Newport News |
James M. Bourey |
Newport News, Va. |
|
City of Oklahoma City |
James D. Couch |
Oklahoma City, Okla. |
|
City of Phoenix |
Ed Zuercher |
Phoenix, Ariz. |
|
City of Raleigh |
Ruffin L. Hall |
Raleigh, N.C. |
|
City of Sacramento |
John F. Shirey |
Sacramento, Calif. |
|
City of San Diego |
Scott Chadwick |
San Diego, Calif. |
|
City of Tampa |
Chuck Weber |
Tampa, Fla. |
|
City of Virginia Beach |
Dave L. Hansen |
Virginia Beach, Va. |
|
Colorado Springs Utilities |
Jerry Forte |
Colorado Springs, Colo. |
|
DC Water |
George S. Hawkins |
Washington, D.C. |
|
DeKalb County |
Lee N. May |
Decatur, Ga. |
|
Denver Water |
Jim Lochhead |
Denver, Colo. |
|
Detroit Water and Sewerage Dept |
Gary Brown |
Detroit, Mich. |
|
East Bay Municipal Utility District |
Alexander R. Coate |
Oakland, Calif. |
|
Eastern Municipal Water District |
Paul D. Jones II |
Perris, Calif. |
|
El Paso Water Utilities |
John E. Balliew |
El Paso, Texas |
|
Erie County Water Authority |
Robert Gaylord |
Buffalo, N.Y. |
|
Fairfax Water |
Charles M. Murray |
Fairfax, Va. |
|
Golden State Water Company |
Robert J. Sprowls |
San Dimas, Calif |
|
Greater Cincinnati Water Works |
Harry Black |
Cincinnati, Ohio |
|
Gwinnett County |
Ron Seibenhener |
Lawrenceville, Ga. |
|
Illinois American Water |
Bruce Hauk |
Belleville, Ill. |
|
Indiana American Water |
Deron Allen |
Greenwood, Ind. |
|
JEA |
Paul McElroy |
Jacksonville, Fla. |
|
L. A. Dept. of Water & Power |
Marcie L. Edwards |
Los Angeles, Calif. |
|
Las Vegas Valley Water District |
John J. Entsminger |
Las Vegas, Nev. |
|
Long Beach Water Dept |
Chris Garner |
Long Beach, Calif. |
|
Louisville Water |
Spencer Bruce |
Louisville, Ky. |
|
Manatee County |
Ed Hunzeker |
Bradenton, Fla. |
|
Mesa Water Resources |
Chris Brady |
Mesa, Ariz. |
|
Metro Water Services (Nashville) |
Scott Potter |
Nashville, Tenn. |
|
Metropolitan Utilities District (Omaha) |
Scott L. Keep |
Omaha, Neb. |
|
Miami-Dade County |
Lester Sola |
Miami, Fla. |
|
Milwaukee Water Works |
Sharon Robinson |
Milwaukee, Wis. |
|
Missouri American Water |
Cheryl Norton |
St. Louis, Mo. |
|
MLGW |
Jerry Collins |
Memphis, Tenn. |
|
Monroe County Water Authority |
Nicholas A. Noce |
Rochester, N.Y. |
|
New Jersey American Water |
William M. Varley |
Voorhees, N.J. |
|
New York American Water |
Brian Bruce |
Merrick, N.Y. |
|
NYC Environmental Protection |
Emily Lloyd |
New York, N.Y. |
|
Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) |
Kenneth Ksionek |
Orlando, Fla. |
|
Palm Beach County |
Jim Stiles |
West Palm Beach, Fla. |
|
Pennsylvania American Water |
Kathy L. Pape |
Hershey, Penn. |
|
Philadelphia Water Department |
Debra A. McCarty |
Philadelphia, Penn. |
|
Pinellas County |
Mark S. Woodard |
Clearwater, Fla. |
|
Portland Water Bureau |
Michael Stuhr |
Portland, Maine |
|
Regional Water Authority (Connecticut) |
Larry L. Bingaman |
New Haven, Conn. |
|
Saint Paul Regional Water Services |
Steve Schneider |
St. Paul, Minn. |
|
San Antonio Water System |
Robert R. Puente |
San Antonio, Texas |
|
San Gabriel Valley Water Company |
Michael L. Whitehead |
West Covina, Calif. |
|
San Jose Water Company |
W. Richard Roth |
San Jose, Calif. |
|
Seattle Public Utilities |
Hoffman, Ray |
Seattle, Wash. |
|
SFPUC |
Harlan L. Kelly, Jr |
San Francisco, Calif. |
|
Suez (United Water) |
Eric Gernath |
Paramus, N.J. |
|
Suffolk County |
Jeffrey W. Szabo |
Oakdale, N.Y. |
|
The Cobb County Water System |
McCullers, Steve |
Marietta, Ga. |
|
Tucson Water |
Michael Ortega |
Tucson, Ariz. |
|
Tulsa Water |
Clayton Edwards |
Tulsa, Okla. |
|
Water Utility Authority (Albuquerque) |
Mark S. Sanchez |
Albuquerque, N.M. |
|
WSSC |
Carla A. Reid |
Laurel, Md. |
|
Media Relations Contacts
John Tews; J.D. Power; Troy, Mich.; 248-680-6218; [email protected]
For information about the 2016 Water Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction StudySM, visit http://www.jdpower.com/resource/us-water-utility-residential-customer-satisfaction-study
See the online press release at http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2016-water-utility-residential-customer-satisfaction-study
About J.D. Power and Advertising/Promotional Rules http://www.jdpower.com/about/index.htm
1 Regulatory Research Associates is a group within S&P Global Market Intelligence.
Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130605/LA26502LOGO
SOURCE J.D. Power
Related Links
WANT YOUR COMPANY'S NEWS FEATURED ON PRNEWSWIRE.COM?
Newsrooms &
Influencers
Digital Media
Outlets
Journalists
Opted In
Share this article