DOCSLIB.ORG

While a Rural Water District Or a Municipal System Is a Public System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
While a Rural Water District Or a Municipal System Is a Public System By Elizabeth Dietzmann, JD ccording to a recent article in water utilities in Kansas and they are AUSA Today, American Water, all small systems ranging from which operates in 35 states, is While a rural water between 100 to 1,000 connections. So discussing deals with 75 municipalities Kansas is not in danger of being taken and other entities – the most in at least district or a municipal over by private water companies! In four years – to purchase their water and system is a public system fact, large private water companies wastewater systems. Aqua America, and also a non-profit often purchase these small private which operates in 14 states, sent letters systems themselves. That is what to thousands of cities in the past year system, it should still happened in Pekin, Illinois, in 1982. I and is negotiating with approximately make money. understand that the city of Caldwell, 40 of them. Aqua America expects to Kansas in extreme south-central part of acquire about 20 public water systems the state is in negotiations to purchase this year. This should be no surprise. the assets of Caldwell Utilities, which Privatization of water and wastewater can cause the administrative or provides water to the city of Caldwell. systems has occurred with large-scale physical collapse of the system. This But before we get into the story of systems for many years. In the past can range from losing key personnel to Pekin, Illinois, it is important to several years, large cities like a catastrophic infrastructure failure. So understand the terminology that gets Milwaukee and Atlanta both have it is no surprise that tight budgets, tossed around and can be quite entered into agreements with private falling revenues and increased confusing. The following statement companies to sell and or operate their government regulation are driving must be clearly understood. While a water and wastewater systems. more and more small towns and rural rural water district or a municipal However, the trend is now for smaller systems to consider selling their water system is a public system and also a towns and rural water districts to sell and wastewater systems to private non-profit system, it should still make off their systems, to enter into long- companies. Is this good? Well it all money. Now, what does that mean? It term management agreements or to depends. But having an understanding is a public system because it is owned lease their systems. Several cities in of the differences between non-profit by the public – that is, by all the users. Kansas have been involved. systems and for-profit private systems The users elect a city council or a water As we all know, small towns and and also knowing the alternatives to a district board to govern the system. If rural water and wastewater systems are sale are important steps to making this this sounds like a 7th Grade civics often the hardest hit by rising costs and decision. Now in order to make it clear, lesson – well it kind of is! When unfunded government mandates Aqua America and American Water do people do not understand these basics, concerning water quality standards. not currently own or operate any it becomes impossible to make a clear Often, these utilities are poor at raising systems in Kansas. The do operate in decision on selling a system. Public rates and setting aside funds for states all around Kansas as do other systems provide representative emergencies. And as I have discussed smaller, investor-owned utilities. In democracy where all the people within in earlier articles, unless the governing fact, according to the Kansas a legally designated area, such as the bodies of small systems are extremely Corporation Commission, there are city limits or the water district proactive, they may face a crisis that only four investor-owned (private) boundaries, have the right to elect a THE KANSAS LIFELINE July 2010 103 To sell or not to sell board/council. This means that the emergency funds. The profit is the users of the system do not have a direct amount of money that is left after all “one person one vote system” for The best way is to think the ordinary operations and managing every day activities. The maintenance costs are covered and elected board handles these decisions of each system user as a either held in reserve or used to make or delegates them to hired employees. shareholder, and system improvements. Public utilities For some large decisions, such as imagine making as owe it to their users to operate in the selling the system, issuing bonds, black and set money aside – i.e., to adding land to the legal boundaries, or much money as you can make a profit. This is the fiduciary dissolving the system, by law all the for the shareholders. responsibility that an elected users do retain their right to vote board/council owes to its customers. individually. Now this is where it gets This is the single largest difference confusing. These public or municipal between a public, non-profit utility and systems are also non-profit systems. running the utility just like a for-profit a private, for-profit utility like This means that they are not taxed on private company, then they will face American Water or Aqua America. the income they make, like a private financial disaster when they are unable Both of them should operate in the corporation or you and me. This does to make long-term infrastructure black and make a “profit”. The NOT mean that they cannot make improvements, hire necessary staff and question is – who gets the profit? money. This is one of the biggest meet regulatory standards. The best Another name for these private utilities misconceptions that small utility way is to think of each system user as a is “investor-owned” and this is a big boards have. I can’t tell you the shareholder, and imagine making as clue as to who gets the profit. These number of times that I have heard much money as you can for the companies have shareholders who DO boards and city councils state that they shareholders. The difference is that expect to be paid dividends which is are not in business to make money and unlike a for-profit, private company, no another name for the profit. And, an then refuse to raise rates. This is dividends will ever be paid. The investor-owned utility cannot pay WRONG! Public utilities can and “profit” that a public utility makes is dividends unless it makes a profit on should make money. If they don’t just another name for reserve funds, top of what it charges its customers for make money by raising rates and capital improvement funds or service. So an investor-owned utility will have to charge enough to cover all the operations and maintenance just like a public utility, plus set aside the money for funding the same reserve accounts and making improvements just like a public utility, PLUS pay dividends to its shareholders. The customers of an investor owned utility DO NOT get to vote on any aspect of the utility operations. But the investors, also known as the shareholders, DO! They vote at an annual meeting to elect the board of directors of the investor- owned utility and in turn, the board hires a president and all the other staff to operate the utility. If this makes you wonder whom the board answers to, it should be clear by now. The board of an investor-owned utility answers to its shareholders – the people who “invested” in the company when they bought stock in it. The board does not answer to the actual utility users and the utility users do not have any say in how the utility is run. They do not get to vote directly on electing the board the way customers do in a rural water 104 THE KANSAS LIFELINE July 2010 district or municipal system. This lack of ability to vote means that the customers of an investor-owned utility are technically called “disenfranchised”. Investor-owned utilities are not automatically “bad”. They just have a different priority than public utilities, which are directly answerable to their customers, as anyone who has attended a board or council meeting during a rate increase review knows. The priority of an investor-owned utility is to push for higher rates and maximize the profit. Because customers in investor-owned utilities do not have a “vote”, each state is responsible for protecting the interests of the customers. States do this by regulating the investor-owned utilities. The state public service commission or some similar state agency in each state regulates the geographic area in which Graphic by Linda Windler an investor-owned utility can serve as well as the rates that can be charged. In investor-owned utility. Why would an compliance or staffing issues. In some Kansas, private water companies must investor-owned utility want to buy a cases, when investor-owned utilities file rate changes with the Kansas struggling public utility? Because it has contract for the operations, or purchase Corporation Commission (KCC). The an established and guaranteed client a system outright, they simply retain all KCC or similar agencies in other base, that's why. Municipal systems are the present staff and assume states, have a formula, which varies also often attracted to the prospect of management. However, the existing from state to state, that determines how not having to deal with regulatory staff are almost always required to much profit the utility is allowed to make, on top of the amount the utility gets to charge for operations and maintenance and reserve accounts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Economic Regulation of Utility Infrastructure
    4 Economic Regulation of Utility Infrastructure Janice A. Beecher ublic infrastructure has characteristics of both public and private goods and earns a separate classification as a toll good. Utilities demonstrate a Pvariety of distinct and interrelated technical, economic, and institutional characteristics that relate to market structure and oversight. Except for the water sector, much of the infrastructure providing essential utility services in the United States is privately owned and operated. Private ownership of utility infrastructure necessitates economic regulation to address market failures and prevent abuse of monopoly power, particularly at the distribution level. The United States can uniquely boast more than 100 years of experience in regulation in the public in- terest through a social compact that balances and protects the interests of inves- tors and ratepayers both. Jurisdiction is shared between independent federal and state commissions that apply established principles through a quasi-judicial pro- cess. The commissions continue to rely primarily on the method known as rate base/rate-of-return regulation, by which regulators review the prudence of in- frastructure investment, along with prices, profits, and performance. Regulatory theory and practice have adapted to emerging technologies and evolving market conditions. States—and nation-states—have become the experimental laborato- ries for structuring, restructuring, and regulating infrastructure industries, and alternative methods have been tried, including price-cap and performance regu- lation in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Aging infrastructure and sizable capital requirements, in the absence of effective competition, argue for a regula- tory role. All forms of regulation, and their implementation, can and should be Review comments from Tim Brennan, Carl Peterson, Ken Costello, David Wagman, and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy are greatly appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 61 Public Utility Regulation Chapter 1
    TITLE 61 PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION CHAPTER 1 PUBLIC UTILITIES LAW -- APPLICATION AND DEFINITIONS 61-101. Title and application. This act shall be known as "The Public Utilities Law" and shall apply to the public utilities and public services herein described and to the commission herein referred to. 61-102. Commission. The term "commission" when used in this act means the Idaho public utilities commission. 61-103. Commissioner. The term "commissioner" when used in this act means one of the members of the commission. 61-104. Corporation. The term "corporation" when used in this act includes a corporation, a company, an association and a joint stock association, but does not include a municipal corporation, or mutual nonprofit or cooperative gas, electrical, water or telephone corporation or any other public utility organized and operated for service at cost and not for profit, whether inside or outside the limits of incorporated cities, towns or villages. 61-105. Person. The term "person" when used in this act includes an individual, a firm and a copartnership. 61-106. Transportation of persons. The term "transportation of persons" when used in this act includes every service in connection with or incidental to the safety, comfort, or convenience of the person transported and the receipt, carriage and delivery of such person and his baggage. 61-107. Transportation of property. The term "transportation of property" when used in this act includes every service in connection with or incidental to the transportation of property, including in particular its receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer, switching, carriage, ventilation, refrigeration, icing, dunnage, storage, and handling, and the transmission of credit by express corporations.
    [Show full text]
  • NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0
    NIST Special Publication 1108 NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0 Office of the National Coordinator for Smart Grid Interoperability NIST Special Publication 1108 NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0 Office of the National Coordinator for Smart Grid Interoperability January 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce Gary Locke, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Patrick D. Gallagher, Director Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 7 1 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................. 13 1.1 Overview and Background............................................................................................. 13 1.2 How This Report Was Produced.................................................................................... 16 1.3 Key Concepts ................................................................................................................. 18 1.3.1 Definitions............................................................................................................... 19 1.3.2 Applications and Requirements: Eight Priority Areas............................................ 20 1.4 Content Overview .......................................................................................................... 21 2 Smart Grid Vision..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Pucs for State Environment and Energy Officials – May 20, 2010 2 Adopted IRP Requirements
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency State Climate and Energy Technical Forum Background Document An Overview of PUC s for State Environment and Energy Officials May 20, 2010 Public utility commissions (PUCs) regulate electric, gas, telecommunications, water and waste water utilities. In most states a single agency will regulate these sectors; however, in some states these functions may be split between more than one agency. Commissioners are typically appointed by the governor and generally serve 4 to 6 year terms, although in approximately one quarter of the states commissioners are elected. As a general rule, utility commissions are charged with assuring that utilities provide reasonable, adequate and efficient service to customers at just and reasonable prices. Utility regulation takes many forms, including price regulation, resource planning and acquisition, reliability and quality of service regulation. PUCs typically regulate all investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in their state. Municipal and cooperative utilities are often exempted from PUC regulation or have limited regulation. Focusing on electric utility regulation, this document will explore the responsibilities of PUCs, their decision making processes, how their decisions can affect clean energy1 and air quality. Background Electric Utility Market Structure Throughout most of the 20th century, electric utilities were regulated monopolies, with utility companies owning the generation, transmission and distribution assets for their service territory (this model is referred to
    [Show full text]
  • What the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Regulates
    What the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Regulates The PUC has jurisdiction over 11 electric distribution companies who serve the majority of the Commonwealth. Rural electric cooperatives and most utilities owned and operated by cities, boroughs or townships are not regulated by the Commission. For information on these, contact the electric co-op, Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association, or your municipality. The PUC has jurisdiction over 25 gas utilities. It does not have jurisdiction over bottled propane gas, and most utilities owned and operated by cities, boroughs, or townships. For information on these, contact your local municipality or the state Attorney General’s Office. The PUC has jurisdiction over intrastate, local, toll and access telephone services and providers. The Commission does not regulate broadband, wireless, or cable TV companies. For more information on these, contact your local municipality about cable TV problems or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The PUC regulates motor carriers that transport property, passengers and household goods such as taxis, moving companies, limousines. It also conducts motor vehicle, railroad facility, and track inspections. The Commission also regulates Transportation Network Companies such as Uber and Lyft. Note: Taxis, limousines and Transportation Network Companies operating in Philadelphia are regulated by the Philadephia Parking Authority, not the PUC. The PUC’s Pipeline Safety Division conducts inspections on pipelines operated by public utilities that fall under PUC jurisdiction and ensures compliance with state and federal safety regulations. The PUC enforces federal and Commission pipeline safety regulations as they apply to public utilites providing natural gas distribution and intrastate transmission service, and public utilities providing intrastate transmission of hazardous liquids.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina's Public Utility Infrastructure & Regulatory Climate
    North Carolina’s Public Utility Infrastructure & Regulatory Climate Presented by NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION www.ncuc.net January 2020 NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION Dobbs Building, 430 North Salisbury Street 27603-5918 4325 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4300 www.ncuc.net Phone: 919-733-4249 Fax: 919-733-7300 Commissioners Charlotte A. Mitchell, Chair ToNola D. Brown-Bland Kimberly W. Duffley Lyons Gray Jeffrey A. Hughes Daniel G. Clodfelter Floyd B. McKissick Jr. 22 Commissioner Brown-Bland Commissioner Gray Commissioner Clodfelter Chair Mitchell Commissioner Duffley Commissioner Hughes Commissioner McKissick 3 The Public Staff – North Carolina Utilities Commission • Established in the Commission is the Public Staff, an independent agency created in 1977 by legislation (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-15) • Represents the Using and Consuming Public of the State’s investor-owned public utilities and intervenes on their behalf in all Commission proceedings affecting rates or service Christopher J. Ayers, Executive Director Dobbs Building, 430 North Salisbury Street 27603-5918 4326 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4300 ■ ■ ■ www.publicstaff.nc.gov Consumer Services Division (Consumer Complaints) Phone: 919-733-9277 Toll-Free: 1-866-380-9816 43 Regulation of Public Utilities Regulation of Public Utilities • Purpose: protect the public’s interest in receiving adequate service at reasonable rates • Traditional regulatory bargain: utilities exchange benefit of monopoly franchised service territory for obligation to provide adequate service at reasonable rates • Commission’s regulatory obligation: to be fair and reasonable to public utilities and their customers • Commission’s regulatory tools: ― certification of new facilities ― rate establishment or review ― service quality oversight • Recent trends: regulation of certain utility industries and services by the Commission has become more complex due to changes in State and Federal laws and rules, and industry trends.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Grid 101 Presentation
    The Smart Grid is a compilation of concepts, technologies, and operating practices intended to bring the electric grid into the 21 st century. Smart Grid concepts and issues are difficult to address because they include every aspect of electric generation, distribution, and use. While the scope of smart grid covers the entire utility system from generation to how customers use energy, the three chapters in this portion of the tutorial primarily focus on the intersection between the distribution grid and customer. All elements of smart grid include important engineering, economic , and policy issues. However, with the exception of alternative generation options, the generation and transmission segments are less uncertain and more dominated by engineering economics than the distribution and customer segments. This Smart Grid 101 tutorial is divided into chapters that address significant individual technical and policy areas. Each chapter attempts to isolate and define technical and policy issues relevant to state regulators. Our objective is to more clearly define the components of Smart Grid, identify how these components interact, and then present information to clarify policy and decision options. Smart Grid is often considered confusing because it covers not only the entire electric infrastructure but also new technologies, customer interaction, legal, and regulatory issues. To address this problem, each chapter addresses a limited scope of issues derived principally from meetings with regulators, industry literature, and project team professional judgment. This set of chapters address metering, rate design, and demand response. 1 Advanced meters and Smart Meters are the most visible and tangible signs of the Smart Grid. They are installed on and affect every single customer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Utility Idea and the Origins of Modern Business Regulation
    CHAPTER 4 Th e Public Utility Idea and the Origins of Modern Business Regulation WILLIAM J. NOVAK Th is essay concerns one of the more remarkable innovations in the history of democratic attempts to control the American corporation. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries— aft er the series of impor tant changes in corporation law described in previous essays in this collection1— lawyers, economists, legislators, and demo cratic reformers pieced together a new regime of modern business regulation. At the center of that proj ect was the idea of the “public utility” or “public ser vice” corporation. While most legal- historical accounts of government- business relations in this period trumpet the overriding signifi cance of antitrust or antimonopoly policy,2 the legal invention of the public ser vice corporation and the public utility was to some extent even more signifi cant for the future democratic control of the American corporation. For, in many ways, the modern Amer- ican administrative and regulatory state was built directly on the legal foun- dation laid by the expanding conception of the essentially public ser vices provided by corporations in the dominant sectors of the American economy: for example, transportation, communications, energy supply, water supply, and the shipping and storage of agricultural product. In law, the original architects of the administrative state, the authors of the very fi rst casebooks, and the teachers of the fi rst classes on administrative and regulatory law— people like Bruce Wyman, Felix Frankfurter, and, ultimately, James Landis— basically cut their teeth on the legal, po liti cal, and economic prob lems posed by public ser vice corporations and public utilities per se.
    [Show full text]
  • Water System Partnership: STATE
    WATER SYSTEM PARTNERSHIPS: STATE PROGRAMS AND POLICIES SUPPORTING COOPERATIVE APPROACHES FOR DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS Office of Water (4606M) EPA XXX X XX XXX XXXX 2017 Office of Water (4606M) EPA 816-S-17-002 August 2017 CONTENTS About This Guide ........................................................................................................................................................1 Drinking Water Systems Challenges ...........................................................................................................................2 Types of Partnerships .................................................................................................................................................2 State Drinking Water System Partnerships Summary ................................................................................................4 Commonly Used Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................5 Alabama ......................................................................................................................................................................6 Alaska ..........................................................................................................................................................................7 Arizona ........................................................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Utility Infrastructures: the U.S. Experience
    CriticalCritical UtilityUtility Infrastructures:Infrastructures: TheThe U.S.U.S. ExperienceExperience Robert M. Clayton III Commissioner, Missouri Public Service Commission Chairman, NARUC Committee on International Relations EU-US Energy Regulators Roundtable December 5-6, 2007 Athens, Greece OverviewOverview I. WhatWhat isis “Critical“Critical Infrastructure?”Infrastructure?” II. ExamplesExamples ofof CriticalCritical InfrastructureInfrastructure andand disasterdisaster preparationpreparation fromfrom thethe UnitedUnited StatesStates III. CriticalCritical InfrastructureInfrastructure inin thethe 2121st CenturyCentury 2 I.I. WhatWhat IsIs CriticalCritical Infrastructure?Infrastructure? A. ElectricityElectricity B. NaturalNatural GasGas C. TelecommunicationsTelecommunications D. EconomicEconomic FunctionFunction E. PoliticalPolitical GoalsGoals 3 A.A. WhatWhat IsIs Critical?Critical? ElectricityElectricity When there is an outage, the productivity losses to commercial and industrial customers can be tremendous, ranging from thousands to millions of dollars for a single event. The cost to manufacturing facilities can be even higher. More and more commercial and industrial customers are purchasing or renting generators to provide backup power in case their electric service is interrupted. Today, even voltage dips that last less than 100 milliseconds can have the same effect on industrial process as an outage that lasts several minutes or more. ⇒ High Quality electricity deliverydelivery is a critical need, and the infrastructure needed
    [Show full text]
  • The New Utilities: Private Power, Social Infrastructure, and the Revival of the Public Utility Concept
    THE NEW UTILITIES: PRIVATE POWER, SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE REVIVAL OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY CONCEPT K. Sabeel Rahman† From the renewed controversies over financial regulation and the problem of too-big-to-fail (TBTF) financial firms, to the clash over the Federal Communications Commission (FCC’s) “net neutrality” regulations on internet service providers, and more recent questions about Google, Facebook, and online platforms, we are in the midst of a larger policy and political debate about how to regulate modern-day forms of private power. Encompassing different areas of law and policy, the underlying issue in this debate is the following: how should we conceptualize and regulate new forms of concentrated private power, particularly when these firms control the terms of access to vital services—such as finance, broadband internet, or information— upon which many communities, constituencies, and economic actors depend? Drawing on historical Progressive Era concepts of private power and public utility, as well as current debates in financial regulation and net neutrality, this Article † Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. Fellow, Roosevelt Institute. A great many colleagues have contributed generous feedback over the course of this Article. I am especially grateful to: Martha Minow; John Manning; Bill Novak; William Boyd; Frank Pasquale; Spencer Weber Waller; Saule Omarova; Aziz Rana; Morgan Ricks; Jim Rossi; Jon Michaels; Laura Phillips Sawyer; Brett Frischmann; Prasad Kirshnamurthy; David Grewal; Kent Greenfield; Usha Rodrigues; Roberta Romano; Elizabeth Pollman; Julie Suk; Ajay Mehotra; Ted Janger; Jocelyn Simonson; Ken Mack; Liz Schneider; Minor Myers; David Reiss; Maryellen Fullerton; Steve Dean; Julian Arato; Greg Mark; Ted De Barbieri; Natalie Chin; Cynthia Godsoe; Eun Hee Han; Maria Termini; Laurent Sacharoff; Prithvi Datta; Emma Saunders- Hastings; and Adam Lebovitz.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 CCR Final
    2017 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 CONTENTS 04 06 08 09 11 Mission Statement Superior Water Introduction MPU Services MPU Board System of Trustees 13 15 17 19 23 General Information Drinking Water Contaminants Water Treatment Water Testing Source Process Process 25 27 31 35 36 Understanding your MPU Water Quality Definitions Water Loss Cost of Water CCR Results 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 37 39 40 41 43 MPU Board Reading your Bill Reuse Water Protecting our AMI Water Meters of Trustees Environment 45 47 51 53 54 Water Testing Flushing Lines Backflow Watermark Awards Outreach Water Kids Club Process 55 57 59 60 61 Cost of Water Our Heart Customer Relations Contact Us Social Media Your Staff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Water Meters Your Staff 03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 MISSION STATEMENT McAllen Public Utility is dedicated to providing clean, safe drinking water for many generations to come. We are committed to consistently providing quality services and quality of life to all who live, work and visit the city of McAllen. We are working hard to educate the public on the issues surrounding water use and conservation. 04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I am pleased at the opportunity to briefly communicate our passion here at McAllen Public Utility for providing safe, affordable, high quality drinking water to all our McAllen residents and rate payers alike.
    [Show full text]