Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
�
Practices for Financial Viability” (Presentation #39755): Defining a Resilient Business Model for Water Utilities
Water Research Foundation #4366 ACE 2013 DENVER
Tues; 1:30 – 4:30PM
Jeff Hughes, Environmental Finance Center at UNC
Efc.unc.edu
Project Title(s)
• Water Research Foundation Project #4366
• Defining a Resilient Business Model for Utilities
• Assessing Financial Trends and Developing Strategies and Practices to Address Challenges
• If it is Broke, Maybe you Should Fix it…
TUE01: Defining a Resilient Business Model for Water Utilities
Rates, Revenues and Resiliency: Current and Major Problems Facing Utilities: What Do the Numbers Say?
Strategies and Practices: What IS (and IS NOT) Working in Addressing the Financial Problems Utilities are Facing?
Emerging Strategies and Practices: What MIGHT Work in Addressing the Financial Problems Utilities are Facing?
Team: Environmental Finance Center at UNC
Jeff Hughes Principal Investigator
Stacey Isaac Berahzer Outreach Coordinator
Mary Wyatt Tiger Project Manager
Shadi Eskaf Technical Lead
Sarah Royster Technical Support
Team: Raftelis Financial Consultants
Peiffer Brandt Co-Principal Investigator
Alexis Warmath Utility Liaison
Doug Bean Project Advisor and Liaison
Catherine Noyes Technical Support
Rocky Craley Technical Support
Project Advisory Committee
• Nick Dugan, US Environmental Protection Agency
• Amber Halloran, Louisville Water Company
• Scott Haskins, CH2M Hill
• Myron Olstein, Independent Consultant
Water Research Foundation Project #4366 EPCOR
NEOMSD
Aqua America
Loveland
Denver
Austin
Water Research Foundation Project #4366 – Utility Partners
Presentation
• Non-pricing practices supporting revenue resiliency
Industry Revenue Roller Coaster
One Utility’s Experience
And Another’s
Newport News Waterworks’ Drop in Demand
Rethinking Rate Models, Projections, and Cash flow Plans
• More conservative
• Rate models with less (or no) dependence on revenues from high volume or high block sales
• “Excess” revenues transferred to reserve funds or used for increased pay as you go cash capital funding
Internal Financial Performance Targets (E.g. Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities)
• Debt service coverage ratio minimum 1.80
• Fund balance to be maintained at level equal to 100% of the operating expenses for the current budget for the operating year
• The City’s goal is a 40-60% mix of PAYGO to financing within next 2 years
15
Internal Financial Performance Targets (E.g. EBMUD)
EBMUD Financial Indicator Target
Working capital reserve ≥ 3x monthly net O&M expenses
Self-insurance reserve 1.25x expected annual costs
Contingency/rate stabilization reserve 20% of annual water volume revenues
Debt service coverage ratio ≥1.6x coverage
Debt-funded capital ≤65% of total CIP spending over 5 year planning period
Alternative Rate Adjustment Procedures
• “Beginning October 1, 2008 and on the first day of October of each year thereafter, the water and sewer rates in effect as of September 30th, 2008 and each year thereafter shall be increased by 5 percent. The 5 percent rate increase shall be computed each year by increasing the previous year's rates by 5 percent. Said rates shall remain in effect until modified, amended or terminated by the Authority.”
Types of affordability programs
Options facing payment-troubled customers
Percent N
Payment plan to allow customer to pay amount over time 76% 231
Customer referral to private, nonutility agency 54% 163
Customer referral to a local gov. agency for assistance 49% 149
Education 35% 105
In-home conservation assistance 25% 76
Special billing arrangements 21% 64
Change in the rate customer is charged 8% 24
Other 8% 24
One-time bill credit from utility funds 3% 8
2010, Best Practices in Customer Payment Assistance Programs, Water Research Foundation #4404
1 2 3 4 5
0%
20%
3%
53%
23%
On a scale of 1 -5, how well would affordability programs work with your utility or the utilities you work with?
1. Very well
2. Pretty well
3. Maybe so, maybe not
4. Not well
5. Dreadfully
Source: Informal Survey Administered by EFC/RFC at ACE 2012 Session
Product Diversity
• Pricing and selling fire protection
• Customer line repair programs
– Self administered
– Third party
• Selling services to other enterprises
– Meter reading and billing
– Project management
Fire Protection Pricing (e.g. EPCOR – Edmonton)
• Fire Hydrant Service fee charged to the City of Edmonton; the City of Edmonton’s Fire Rescue Service Budget
Line Protection Programs
OWASA Screen Shot
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS?