Thomas A. Edison Will Finally Smile: The Pricing Of Energy .
Thomas A. Edison Will Finally Smile: The Pricing ofEnergy Services, Not Kilowatt-HoursWilliam LeBlanc, Barakat & Chamberlain, Inc.Now that demand-side management (DSM) has emerged as a realistic option to selling only electricity, the conceptof energy service as a utility’s end product can be realized. Energy services, not electricity per se, are whatThomas A. Edison originally intended to sell. Customers want light, heat, cooling, and entertainment; utilities (orthird parties) can sell these services directly to customers while maintaining the equipment. When utilities sellenergy services, customers receive convenience and save on their electric bills. This significant change in howutilities provide services to customers can put DSM on a truly level playing field with supply alternatives of allkinds, provide superior customer value, and maximize economic efficiency. This change will also allow Edison tofinally smile.This paper will describe the technical, logistical, competitive, marketing, and pricing hurdles to enacting energyservice pricing programs. Details of the following will be included in the paper:Major hurdles: Appropriate pricing levels, pricing bundled or unbundled services, developing a baseline,contract development, measurement of energy service level delivered, metering requirements, brokering ofpower and gas, appliance replacement and ownership, price escalation rates.Competition: Energy service pricing in regulated and non-regulated environments, competition among utilitiesand ESCOS, barriers to entry.Marketing approaches: Defining the product (e.g. lumen levels on work surfaces, air temperature andhumidity, air quality, power quality, etc.), approaching appropriate market niches (customers with highmargins, low interest in energy, willing to contract services, etc.), coordination with trade allies and utilities.The paper will finish by developing a sample case study of how a utility or other company might enact an energyservice pricing program. This paper is valuable in that it brings a host of customer, DSM, supply-side, andcompetitive issues together into a coherent package, and describes a scenario that is highly likely to emerge in thenear future.IntroductionSince the start of the centralized electric utility system,power has been sold by the kilowatt and the kilowatt-hour.Typically, utilities allow customers to purchase as muchpower as they want, then bill them monthly. Regulatedelectric utility pricing spreads large capital expendituresover long periods of time. Historically, customers sawtheir rates actually decline as new power plants were built.In recent years, however, these supply-side economies ofscale have disappeared. Still, rates have increased slowlybecause of the long amortization periods of power plantsand the wide diversity in investment time horizons.Traditional ratemaking and regulation have tended toencourage customers to accept as a given that utilities andregulators make good decisions about large capital investments for energy production. The form that electricitypayments have taken under traditional regulation—average, monthly, retroactive payments—encouraged customers to underinvest in their own capital expenditures forenergy-efficient appliances. Therefore, in the long runthey have paid more than they needed to for energy services. This overpayment is sometimes referred to as the“payback gap” but it is also referred to as a market
LeBlanc — 6.128barrier. Other market barriers have also led to underinvestment in energy-efficient end-use technologies. Theseother barriers have included:The desire of both buyers and builders to keep thepurchase price of homes and buildings low eventhough customers pay the cost of inefficiency over along period of time;Lack of suitable information about the energy consumption and cost of each end use;Lack of information about how well technologieswork; andLack of availability of appropriate technologies.In essence, DSM has attempted to overcome these andother barriers that were created by an electric utilitysystem that for years concentrated on the supply side.Energy Services Versus ElectricityTo fully understand the breadth of opportunities forimproving the electric delivery system, one must understand the concept of energy services as an end product.Electricity is a derived demand; that is, it is somethingconsumed to obtain some other product or service. Consumers purchase electricity to keep warm or cool, to lighttheir homes or buildings, to process goods, or to facilitatesome other function. Consumers would accept other fuelsources or means of meeting their end-use goals if theresulting service is equivalent to or better than the serviceprovided by electric utilities and the cost is the same orlower. In some states, regulators have encouraged utilitiesto change their product orientation to the energy servicemarket by providing DSM regulatory incentives. Traditional regulation, by contrast, tends to reward increases inelectricity sales.To make a truly economically efficient decision, acustomer must look at the energy service in question asthe ultimate product. Customers can achieve an end-useobjective through the joint use of capital and energy. Thecustomer can optimize the mix of these two goods bylooking at the total costs of the various combinations thatmeet the end-use objective.ExampleAssume electricity rates of 8 /kWh. A residential customer needs to buy a new refrigerator. He knows that arefrigerator uses electricity, but he is unsure of how muchit uses or how much it costs per year to operate. Withoutmuch thought, he concludes that the cost of running therefrigerator is relatively insignificant, especially since heonly pays for it a little each month. Since the running costof the refrigerator is not separated out on his monthlyenergy bill, which has no end-use information, the customer has no easy way to ascertain what the actual cost ofrunning the refrigerator is.At the store, many models are available with a variety ofenergy efficiencies. The customer likes two models best,one with a price of 900 and one with a price of 700.When he asks the salesperson about the price difference,the salesperson astutely replies that the 900 model ismore energy efficient. They cannot quite figure out whatthe yearly savings would be, even with the benefit of theyellow appliance label, but the customer decides that itmust take a long time to recuperate the 200 cost difference, so he buys the less-expensive unit, happy that he hasmade a wise economic choice.AnalysisThe more efficient refrigerator uses about 25% lessenergy than the other model, which equals a monthlysavings of 3, or 36 per year. These savings make thepayback period approximately six years. Given that theaverage customer does not want to tie his money up forlong periods of time, the customer in our example actuallymade a logical decision. However, from the perspective oflife-cycle cost, the energy-efficient model has much lowercosts, saving about 500 over its 20-year life.The SolutionTo make the optimal life-cycle decision for the purchaseof the refrigerator, costs must be analyzed on an equivalent basis. I use two simple methods to illustrate this typeof analysis. (Neither method factors in discount rates orinflation.) The first method assumes hat because a refrigerator is typically paid for in a lump sum, the energy todrive the refrigerator is also paid for in a lump sum at thetime of purchase. In essence, the customer is faced withtwo choices: (1) buy the inefficient refrigerator ( 700)along with the “energy package” (think of it as a batterypack that lasts as long as the appliance) needed to run it( 2,880) for a total of 3,580, or (2) buy the efficientrefrigerator ( 900) and its energy package ( 2, 160) for 3,060. This decision is much easier for the customer thistime. He opts for the efficient unit.Although the first method is useful to demonstrate howpurchase and payment methods can alter investmentdecisions, the second method provides a more likelyscenario. Under the second method, we assume that whenthe refrigerator purchase is made, the cost of the refrigerator and the energy it uses is “bundled” together. Thecustomer cannot buy one without the other. The sellerprovides the refrigerator on a monthly cost basis over its
Thomas A. Edison Will Finally Smile: The Pricing. — 6.129useful life, much like a lease. However, the customer notonly pays for the equipment but for the entire energyservice, including the energy cost. If we ignore inflationand other carrying costs, the inefficient unit costs 14.92/month, whereas the efficient unit costs only 12.75/month, a 15% savings. The customer wouldchoose the bundled energy service package that has thelower cost per month and a 520 lifetime savings. Theenergy service level he would receive from the efficientmodel would be equivalent to that of the inefficient model.The energy service business is risky for smallercompanies, as the savings for customers can be highlyuncertain.Eliminating Market BarriersThe potential for energy savings has not been large inthe past because of the relatively low cost of energyand the relatively narrow band of efficiency thatcharacterized typical competing appliances. Recently,with electricity prices rising in many areas, profitmargins for businesses narrowing, and many companies pushing for more efficient appliances, the economic savings potential has risen dramatically. Thus,the stage is set for more parties to take advantage ofdemand-side arbitrage.In each method described above, both the supply (electricity) and the demand (appliance) decision is balanced andoptimized from the customer’s perspective. The secondmethod is energy service pricing: selling customers an enduse for a periodic fee. The vendor packages the technology and the energy as a single product.Most of the other market barriers to high-efficiencyinvestment also disappear under the second method.Information and availability barriers are more likely to beadeptly handled by third parties whose job it is to analyzeenergy life-cycle costs and make the best technologiesavailable.From the perspective of a utility that earns its money byselling more kilowatt-hours, the decision to offer energyservice pricing would be suboptimal for its financial wellbeing. However, as market barriers to demand-side investments fall, utilities will enter this competitive arena.Energy service costs would likely be competitive giventhat a number of vendors would be competing to providethe best package of services and value for the cost. Thisvalue could easily include nonenergy benefits, such asmaintenance services and productivity improvements.Why have third-party firms, like energy service companies(ESCOs), not taken advantage of this DSM “arbitrage”opportunity? It appears that third parties could easily takea large part of the profits from the differential in life-cyclecosts and pass some of the savings on to customers. Thereare several reasons why third parties have not yet builtlarge businesses from this opportunity:Some companies have taken advantage of this opportunity through shared savings arrangements, but thesetypes of agreements are not common or large inscope.For historical reasons, public utilities typically have ahigh level of credibility as energy providers comparedto third parties. The energy service market is thus atough one to enter.Historically, energy analysis and measurement techniques have not been highly effective or accurate.However, over the past several years many newtechniques and models have been developed to betterassess the energy use patterns of buildings andequipment.Thus, the energy service market could expand dramatically in upcoming years, especially with access to a varietyof retail electricity suppliers.The Strategic Benefits of EnergyService PricingThe benefits of energy service pricing (ESP) can be significant for both the utility and the customer. As competition becomes more intense between energy serviceproviders, ESP can be a significant competitive tool thathelps utilities to offer a variety of value-added servicesalong with their electricity sales. Most value-added opportunities lie in using electricity more effectively. ESP canfacilitate the capture of these opportunities. Also, ESP canfacilitate the creation of strong long-term relationshipsbetween a utility and its customers. Long-term energyservice contracts can help utilities retain customers byproviding a wider variety of services. These services mayeven include the use of alternative fuels, if those applications are profitable. Finally, ESP allows a utility toidentify and pursue market niches that are mutuallybeneficial for the customer and utility.Some potential service options include:Maintenance servicesInstallation and removal of equipmentSystem optimizationPower quality enhancementsBackup generationInformation about customer energy useReal-time monitoring
LeBlanc — 6.130Productivity or comfort enhancementsEngineering and technical assistanceWith their additional bundled services, utilities would beable to charge more for added value while still offeringlow-cost basic services.Customers will be interested in ESP because it will givethem the ability to lower their overall cost of energyservices or increase the value of their energy servicesthrough some of the mechanisms outlined above. Someservices will replace existing services. Other services willmake businesses more productive. ESP will be the vehiclefor delivering the added value.The relationship between DSM and ESP is important.DSM programs that are selected because they pass theTotal Resource Cost Test have tended to increase ratesand bills for nonparticipants compared to the alternativesupply-side option. Many DSM programs provide up-frontrebates to participating customers to overcome the marketbarriers to investment. A pure ESP program would nothave the same effect, as each customer would be anindependent investment that does not directly affect therates of the other customers. Market barriers would beovercome through positive cash flow and bundled serviceattributes rather than by rebates and cross-subsidies.to the customer on a periodic basis. The utility mightbundle other services with the basic energy services; itmight also provide information on energy use.Pure ESP, partial services. Another arrangementwould entail contracting for select end uses within abuilding. For example, the utility could contractseparately for lighting, air comfort level, refrigeration, or other end uses of interest.Retrospective ESP. This arrangement would be similarto the shared savings that some energy service companies and utilities offer. Customers would pay theirelectricity and gas bills, but the utility would identifythe savings attributed to the new energy-efficient technologies that they had installed. The customer wouldshare some portion of the identified savings with theutility through a separate debit method.Energy service charge. Utilities might offer someenergy-saving technologies to customers, then place anadditional, separate energy service charge on theirmonthly bill for a period of time. In concept, thisarrangement is similar to shared savings with predicted, as opposed to measured, energy savings. Theintent is to avoid the up-front cost for the customerwhile assuring positive cash flow from the first monthof installation.The Current MarketplaceDeveloping the ContractTo understand how ESP would work in practice, it is useful to lay out how the marketplace currently works andhow that might change with ESP. I assume here that autility will be the provider of the ESP program (thisassumption will be discussed in more detail later),although it could be another third party provider. Table 1demonstrates how the current marketplace would bealtered by ESP.One of the most important and difficult tasks of an ESPprogram will be to develop a contract that ensures anincrease in value for the customer and profits for theutility. Many technical and analytical skills will berequired to ensure that the contract is sound. The contractmight consist of the parts listed in Table 2.Building, Technology, and Cost AnalysisUnder ESP, conflict could potentially arise between theutility and traditional providers, such as retailers, distributors, contractors, and engineering firms. Customers mayalso have a difficult time understanding ESP given theirlong history with traditional methods. I return to theseproblems later.Pricing Options for ESPSeveral different pricing arrangements can be envisionedwithin an ESP framework.Pure ESP, whole building. Under this arrangement,the customer would not receive an electricity or gasbill. The utility would contract for all energy servicesfor a given building and send a bill for those servicesA great deal of analysis will be required to determine howto design the optimal energy service program for a givencustomer. This analysis will be simpler for a new buildingin the design stage and more complex for existing buildings with complicated processes.A complete audit of the customer facility must be conducted to develop a model of the building’s energy use. At thesame time, all available information on energy usepatterns should be gathered including energy bills, energymanagement system documentation, and load shapes. Withthis information, the building and its equipment should beanalyzed with a building simulation model, then calibratedto actual load data.
Thomas A. Edison Will Finally Smile: The Pricing. — 6.131Once the baseline energy service level and costs have beenestablished, the analysis of cost-effective new technologiescan be conducted. This step could become time consumingif a high level of optimization is conducted. In essence,the analysis should identify the trade-offs in costs betweenincrementally more efficient technologies and the energycost savings. Although this type of analysis is a complextask, with experience these analyses should be fairlyaccurate over a large number of applications. Also, inrecent years more end-use load data and more advancedtechniques and models for both predicting and measuringenergy use patterns have become available. As time goeson, analysis costs will drop significantly.The ESP program will help overcome many marketbarrier costs. Specifically, ESP will: Eliminate customer up-front costsGuarantee positive cash flow without a loss of servicequalityEliminate search costs and economic analysis costs forthe customerAlleviate fears of technology failureLower ongoing operating costsPricing TermsThe pricing terms in the contract will determine theattractiveness of the ESP program to the customer and thepotential profitability to the utility or energy serviceprovider. The utility will be providing several services ofvalue, even with its basic energy service pricing program.Given these benefits, one could anticipate that any level ofmonetary savings would be attractive to customers as longas the ESP program truly eliminates their market barriercosts. However, the greater the savings, the greater thenumber of customers that will participate. The particularpricing terms must be determined using the specific
LeBlanc — 6.132customer profiles, their rate structures and load shapes,the technologies involved, and the potential energysavings. The following steps will probably be needed todetermine the price terms:1.Determine the costs of purchasing and installing thenew cost-effective equipment. Amortize these costsover the contract life at the utility’s discount rate todevelop a cash flow on the cost side.2.Determine the costs of operating and maintaining theequipment over the life of the contract. These costsare added to the equipment costs. Also add any marginal administrative costs that would apply.3.Determine the utility cost savings of the new equipment versus the old equipment. These savings are notthe same as the potential bill savings at the customers’current rates, as reduced rates and reduced utilitycosts are not synonymous.4. Develop the net savings cash flow on a monthly basisby subtracting costs from savings.5. Create a price to the customer for the energy servicethat will yield a net savings compared to what theywould have paid under conditions of normal serviceoperations and rates. The remainder will be left asprofit for the utility or returned to ratepayers. Theprice will be set by either regulation or market forces,depending on the umbrella under which the utility isworking.
Thomas A. Edison Will Finally Smile: The Pricing. — 6.133PerformanceSpecificationandMonitoringA highly innovative and unique feature of an ESP program will be the specification of the energy service levelsthat will be delivered to the customer. At present, feworganizations around the country have experience withenergy service delivery. Some end uses will be fairlystraightforward to specify, but others will be more difficult. In the early stages of experience with ESP, utilitiesmust work closely with customers to ensure that they arecomfortable with the contract agreement. Table 3 lists theend uses illustrating the performance specifications thatcould be included in the contracts.The energy service contract must specify the level andrange of end-use service and the methodology for actuallymeasuring and documenting the end uses of interest.Although many different methods are available to measureand monitor the energy use characteristics of an end-usetechnology, the addition of other service attributes cancomplicate the issue.For example, most inexpensive lighting monitors measurethe length of time the lights are on, and another device isneeded to measure the power draw of the set of lights.This protocol normally used for assessing DSM lightingimpacts would not be adequate in ESP. The assessmentwould require more comprehensive measurement thatwould include measuring the lumen level throughout thecustomer’s building and assessing the color rendering.These measurements could be obtained during a walkthrough or a “mini-commissioning” of the facility. Theimportant thing is that the customer must be pleased withresulting design.For HVAC applications, it would be necessary to gobeyond the measurement of the energy use of the technologies, which is the normal procedure for DSM evaluation.The ESP measurement would need to include ongoingmonitoring of temperature, humidity, air flow, and airmakeup. Documentation would also be necessary to ensurethat the contract terms were met.Liability IssuesAn ESP program will expose the sponsoring utility to newforms of risk. The utility will be able to reduce some ofthese risks through appropriate contract language andthrough experience with ESP programs. The risks thatutilities must address include:Underperformance of the equipmentUnexpected fuel price changes (electricity or other)Unexpected weather changesQuality problems with the end-use productMisrepresentation of the end-use productMajor changes in customer building and equipmentuseThe utility must decide which of these risks they will bearand which they will put on the customer. Those risks thatare likely to be taken by the utility are equipment failure,quality problems, and misrepresentation. The risks that
LeBlanc — 6.134might be borne by either party or shared include weatherchanges (which could be adjusted by degree-day normalization), fuel price changes (which could be linked to anindex), and changes in equipment.One of the selling points of a complete ESP program willlikely be that the customer will bear virtually no risk. Alarge group of customers would probably choose to pay apremium in exchange for eliminating yearly or monthlyfluctuations in energy costs, having the utility makeequipment purchase decisions, or taking care of operationand maintenance.Identifying Target MarketsCertain customer groups will be more inclined than othersto participate in ESP programs. Commercial customersare the most likely target markets initially, but residentialcustomers may become more attractive in the future.Characteristics of likely target customers might be asfollows:Not interested inoperationsmanaging their own energyConcerned about overall operating costsEarn moderate to low profit marginsWish to upgrade quality of energy operationsOther forms of segmentation may also be appropriate fortargeting ESP services. Needs-based segmentation is ofparticular interest. EPRI’s CLASSIFY program dividescommercial customers into nine different needs-based segments, each of which has its unique business strategy,business operations, energy operations, and end-useapplications. Although five of the nine segments facemajor barriers to traditional DSM programs, it appearsthat only two segments face significant barriers under anESP program.Needs-based segmentation can assist in the marketing ofESP in two key ways. First, it can help identify thosebusinesses with a high potential for purchasing ESPprogram services. Second, it can help relate key ESPprogram attributes to the persons in the target organizationwho are important decision makers. For example, thechief financial officer may be most interested in thecontracted cost of the energy services, but the buildingmanager may be most interested in the end-use technicalspecification of the contract.Ownership and Financing IssuesThe ownership of the equipment used in an ESP programwill probably be a complex and important issue. In somecases, existing equipment will be taken over by the utilityor possibly leased from the customer to the utility (leaseback). In other cases, the utility will own the equipmentand lease it to the customer. Variations on these optionsare possible if third parties are involved.Trust utilities more than trade alliesAvoid hassles whenever possiblePlace a premium on environmental benefitsLarge industrial customers tend to manage their ownenergy operations and have dedicated personnel for operation and maintenance. These customers are more inclinedto look for the lowest electricity price rather than purchaseenergy. services. Commercial customers that use a moderate amount of energy tend to concentrate on their primarybusiness. Thus, retail stores are most interested in sellingtheir products, restaurants are most interested in cateringto their customers’ tastes for food and ambience, and professional offices are most interested in emphasizingemployee comfort and productivity. Although these customers are not primarily interested in energy or energycosts, they appear to offer a great opportunity for enhanced energy services. Many customers may be willingto pay more for better services or to reduce the hasslesthey have to deal with.See Table 4 for potential target markets for an ESPprogram.Financing will also take on many different characteristics,and it will often be connected to the ownership issue.Loans from the utility or a third party could be used tofinance customer-owned equipment. -Alternatively, if theequipment is owned by the utility, the utility could selffinance or finance through third-party lenders.Customers typically either own their own equipment orlease it as part of their overall building lease. The ESPprogram may need to alter this relationship. The optionsfor doing so include:Financial lease. In this arrangement, the lessor extends credit to the lessee and transfers all responsibilities of ownership, including maintenance, insurance,taxes, etc., for a period close to the economic life ofthe leased equipment. At the end of the lease, thelessee has the option to buy the equipment at not lessthan fair market value or to return the equipment.Financial leases are similar to mortgage-type loans. Asale and leaseback arrangement is one type of financial lease.
Thomas A. Edison Will Finally Smile: The Pricing. — 6.135Operating or service lease. This type of lease includesboth financing and maintenance and usually applies tooffice equipment and vehicles. This lease often appliesfor periods much shorter than the useful life of theequipment (either periods less than full amortizationare prescribed or periods are cancelable). This type oflease is especially valuable to lessees that upgradeequipment frequently.Utility ownership. In this arrangement, the utilityowns the equipment and simply sells the output of theequipment. It is not clear how this arrangement wouldwork from an accounting or tax perspective.Customer ownership. In this arrangement, the customer would retain ownership and lease back the equipment to the utility.Addressing Concerns of Trade AlliesESP programs will require utilities to move into a marketnormally addressed by trade allies, including engineeringfirms, electrical contractors, distributors and retail sellers,energy service companies, and lending institutions.Although we have seen that utilities will want to beinvolved with these aspects of energy service delivery, itis not a foregone conclusion that utilities will take on allthe responsibilities themselves. The utility could act as theorganizer and manager of the ESP operation, subcontracting the work out to existing trade allies.It is likely that a large-scale ESP program would accelerate the change-out of equipment, expand OtkM operations,and require substantial amounts of capital. Thus, an ESPprogram could be a boon for local trade allies. Utilitieswanting to appease trade allies would emphasize thisaspect of the program.Trade allies may protest that the utility has unfair marketpower due to its long-standing monopoly presence. Regulators will have to address this issue, and utilities must besensitive to the use of traditional labor pools. Ultimately,the trade ally issue will be largely driven by the businessstrategy decisions of the utility. As with DSM programstoday, different utilities rely on trade allies to differentdegrees depending on their in-house capabilities, theirrelationships with trade allies, and their customer se
Thomas A. Edison Will Finally Smile: The Pricing of Energy Services, Not Kilowatt-Hours William LeBlanc, Barakat & Chamberlain, Inc. Now that demand-side management (DSM) has emerged as a realistic option to sel
Edison Portal Fundamentals Course Page 13 Step Action 20. Click the Favorites button. Step Action 21. Click Edison in your Favorites list. 22. You have successfully navigated to the Edison Portal. You also created a Desktop Shortcut and a Favorite to open the Edison Portal more easily next time. End of Procedure. Logging into Edison for the .
Thomas Edison State University was established as Edison College in 1972by the State of New . degree program in nursing is accredited by the New Jersey Board of Nursing , PO Box 45010, Newark, NJ 07101, (973) 504-6430, through 2022. Thomas Edison State University's Master of Arts in Educational Leadership Program, which is designed to .
Utility and affiliate companies: Southern California Edison, an Edison International company, is an electric utility. Edison International's non-utility companies are considered affiliates under . Edison International Employee Code of Conduct .
This is Edison, the programmable robot. What is a robot? A robot is a machine that can be made to do a task on its own. There are many types of robots. Different robots can do different things. What do you think of when you imagine a robot? What can you do with Edison? We can do a lot of different things using Edison! This is because Edison can be
Edison’s invention of the incandescent light bulb, in 1940 he also moved one wooden barn from Edison’s relatively less well-known vast industrial complex, the remnants of which are now known as the Thomas Edison National Historical Park in West Orange, NJ. Originally constructed around
Thomas Edison State College provides flexible, high-quality, collegiate learning opportunities . School of Nursing baccalaureate and master's programs are accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE) through June 2024. . Thomas Edison State College's associate degree program and undergraduate certificate in
Edison: The Wizard of Menlo Park Study Guide Face to Face Productions 7Page of 13 Science Connection: Invention Research In Edison: The Wizard of Menlo Park, only a few of Edison’s inventions are presented: Phonograph Incandescent lamp Electric generator Kinetograph (motion picture camera) Kinetoscope (motion picture projector) Have your students resea
Studi Pendidikan Akuntansi secara keseluruhan adalah sebesar Rp4.381.147.409,46. Biaya satuan pendidikan (unit cost) pada Program Studi Akuntansi adalah sebesar Rp8.675.539,42 per mahasiswa per tahun. 2.4 Kerangka Berfikir . Banyaknya aktivitas-aktivitas yang dilakukan Fakultas dalam penyelenggaraan pendidikan, memicu biaya-biaya dalam penyelenggaraan pendidikan. Biaya dalam pendidikan .
