Utility Rate Setting for Cost Recovery and Conservation Summary of Research Support Services for the NC State Water Infrastructure Commission
|
|
- Jocelin Powell
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE CENTER AT THE UNC SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT Utility Rate Setting for Cost Recovery and Conservation Summary of Research Support Services for the NC State Water Infrastructure Commission JUNE 9 AUTHORS JEFFREY HUGHES MARY TIGER SHADI ESKAF
2 Summary In the summer of, the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 99, commonly known as the Drought Bill, into Session Law (SL) 13. Among other requirements, the law requires local governments and large community water systems to have full cost pricing in order to be eligible for state funds for water infrastructure. In addition to covering the costs of operations, maintenance, repair and debt service, the legislation further recommends that the water rate structures support water conservation efforts. In support of this legislation, the State Water Infrastructure Commission (SWIC) engaged the Environmental Finance Center at the UNC School of Government (EFC) to study the relationship between water rates and water use, as well as to provide recommendations on how state funders can evaluate utilities water rates and pricing in light of the legislation. This research was conducted between March 9 and the end of June 9 (see Appendix A for list of research products). This report is a summary of that study. Based on literature review and data analysis, the following report recommends that the North Carolina funders use the ratio of operating revenues to operating expenditures and debt service in order to determine if a utility has full cost pricing. The research also shows that the two most important rate setting practices a utility can do to decrease average residential water use are to increase the combined marginal price of water and sewer, and to increase billing frequency to monthly. Legal Background NC SESSION LAW (b) To be eligible for State water infrastructure funds from the Drinking Water Revolving Fund or the Drinking Water Reserve Fund or any other grant or loan of funds allocated by the General Assembly whether the allocation of funds is to a State agency or to a nonprofit organization for the purpose of extending waterlines or expanding water treatment capacity, a local government or large community water system must demonstrate that the system: (1) Has established a water rate structure that is adequate to pay the cost of maintaining, repairing, and operating the system, including reserves for payment of principal and interest on indebtedness incurred for maintenance or improvement of the water system during periods of normal use and periods of reduced water use due to implementation of water conservation measures. The funding agency shall apply guidelines developed by the State Water Infrastructure Commission in determining the adequacy of the water rate structure to support operation and maintenance of the system.
3 (5) Does not use a rate structure that gives residential water customers a lower perunit water rate as water use increases. NC HOUSE BILL 99 SECTION 17. The State Water Infrastructure Commission. shall develop guidelines for water rate structures that are adequate to pay the cost of maintaining, repairing, and operating the system, including payment of principal and interest on indebtedness incurred for maintenance or improvement of the water system. The guidelines shall also consider the effect of water rates on water conservation and recommend rate structures that support water conservation Methodology and Analysis Full cost pricing. The Environmental Finance Center has an extensive history of working with North Carolina utilities on financial issues, particularly on using industry best practices and full cost pricing. For this research, the EFC supplemented this background with a literature review and an examination of full cost pricing practices among utilities in the southeastern United States. In addition, the EFC used the North Carolina Department of the State Treasurer s Local Government Commission (LGC) data and worked with LGC staff to identify the most available and applicable financial data to measure cost recovery. The LGC collects audited financial statements from government owned utilities each year. The LGC database is the most complete centralized source of financial information on government owned utilities in North Carolina. Conservation oriented rates. The Environmental Finance Center, in collaboration with the North Carolina League of Municipalities (NCLM), collects annual data on water and sewer pricing from government owned and non profit utilities in North Carolina. The EFC/NCLM utility rates database contains pricing information for over 95 percent of these utilities. The EFC merged the rates data with utilities water use data collected by the Division of Water Resources (DWR) at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). DWR provided water use data from the 1997,, and 7 Local Water Supply Plans and the annual update in. The EFC cleaned the data, and merged them with utility pricing data and secondary data from multiple sources, listed below in the table. The EFC examined the relationship between systems average residential water use in 7 and against water pricing and several factors, using bi variate analyses and several multivariate regression models (in consultation with Professor Roger vonhaefen at NC State University). In the regressions, the EFC tested various structural models and confirmed the consistency of the results. While various models were used, the general specification of the pooled cross sectional model, weighted by the system size (i.e. number of connections), is as follows for system i and year t:
4 ln(avg. res. use) it = α + β 1 (price variable) it + β (% of time in restrictions, avg. temp., total prec., rate structure, rate structure price subsidy, % of time in different stages of drought, number of connections, billing frequency, connections/mile of pipe, % urban pop., avg. household size, median # of rooms in homes, median age of homes, % senior citizens, median household income, % poverty, % with income >$15k, % adults with Bachelor s degree, age of oldest meters, finished storage capacity, Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area cutback system) it Data Variable Source Demand Average residential monthly water use DWR: 7 Local Water Supply Plan (dependent and annual update variable) Conservation % of year in voluntary and/or mandatory restrictions DWR: Water conservation and measures % of year spent in drought stages drought water use weekly reporting Water marginal price or combined water and sewer marginal price at average usage or at 5, GPM Pricing Billing frequency Rate structure type (increasing block, uniform rate, etc.) EFC and NCLM annual rates survey Weather Average annual temperature Total annual precipitation NC State Climate Office System characteristics Demographics Housing characteristics Number of connections # of connections/miles of pipe Age of oldest meters Finished water storage capacity (MG) % urban population % senior citizens Median household income % poverty % of population with >$15, annual income % of adult population with Bachelor s degree or higher Average household size Median number of rooms in homes Median age of homes Public Water Supply Section at NC DENR: SDWIS database DWR: 7 Local Water Supply Plan and annual update Census Additional variables were used to correct for the endogenous effect of pricing on water use, although those variables are not included in the final model and therefore do not appear in the table above. Key findings Full cost pricing. Determining whether a utility employs full cost pricing begins with looking at how the systems operating revenues and operating expenditures compare. Operating revenues include the sale of water to customers and other services that are usually provided under standard rate schedules or by contractual agreements (e.g. interlocal agreements for the sale of bulk water). Operating expenditures are the costs of
5 operating and maintaining infrastructure, meter reading, billing, customer service, administration and other general expenses. Operating expenditures do not include capital or depreciation expenses. Operating expenses, however, include depreciation and is calculated using a different accounting technique. If a utility s operating revenues equal its operating expenditures, it is generally meeting its day to day needs with its rates (without consideration for paying off current debt or building reserves for future capital investments). If a utility s operating revenues are less than their operating expenditures, it is not recovering the day to day costs of running the system, and implies that the utility does not have high enough rates. The data from the Local Government Commission show that during Fiscal Year 7, the operating revenues of 3 local government utilities (1 percent) did not cover their operating expenditures. However, the Drought Bill requires a utility to cover the costs of debt service (principal and interest) for capital improvements and if necessary build up a reserve for future capital needs. Given that much of water and sewer infrastructure is not funded on a pay as you go basis or with grants, many communities turn to debt to finance their infrastructure. But that debt, of course, comes at a cost. Whether in the form of low interest state revolving funds or revenue bonds, long term USDA loans or general obligation bonds, nearly all forms of debt will carry interest as well as various transactional fees which the utility will have to cover. Including principal and interest as an expense will require revenues to balance the equation, but only for those systems with outstanding debt. The data collected from the NC Local Government Commission show that the operating revenues of 1 local government utilities (7 percent) did not cover their operating expenditures and principal and interest payments during Fiscal Year 7.
6 Conservation oriented rates. The research was designed to study the relationships between water usage for specific utilities and the following: pricing signals, rate structures, billing periods, the application of voluntary and/or mandatory watering restrictions, utility demographic data, climate data and other factors that are likely to influence usage. The analysis showed the total marginal price to be negatively correlated with average residential water use. The total marginal price is the price for the next 1, gallons for both water and sewer combined. Therefore, a utility that charges $./1, gallons for water and $5./1, gallons for sewer has a total marginal price of $7./1, gallons. The marginal price was computed both at 5, gallons per month ( gallons above the median residential water consumption in NC), and also at the average consumption point for each individual utility. Notably, while the total marginal price for water and sewer was negatively correlated with average residential water use (i.e.: the higher the price, the lower the average use), the marginal price of water alone was not. This is perhaps because most people are more aware of changes to their total bill, combining both water and sewer prices, rather than scrutinizing to find the amount they are paying for just water. Hence, utilities wishing to encourage water conservation through pricing should consider the marginal price of both water and sewer services, and not only one service at a time. The analysis shows that, in North Carolina, utilities with marginal prices that are 1 percent higher than other utilities had, on average, about 3 percent lower average residential water use, controlling for all other confounding factors. This price elasticity of.3 is in line with findings from the literature. While each utility is unique, this finding provides utilities a general reference point when estimating the likely effect on water use following a significant rate increase. As rates have increased over time, average water use has declined steadily from 1997 through. The price of water and sewer may have yet a more significant impact if customers could easily view the marginal price impact of water use and conservation. The Environmental Protection Agency recommends that utilities send a bill that is understandable and informative. Research shows that this type of price related information (e.g. showing the rate information or the customer s 1 month history of water use directly on the bill) will increase a customer s response to price by as much as 3 percent 1. Unfortunately, statelevel data on what is shown on utility bills were not available for this research. However, there is no reason to suspect that North Carolina would be an anomaly to this best practice. On a related note, the research shows that billing frequency is highly correlated with average residential water use. The results show that the more often that utilities bill their customers, the less their customers use, on average. This is more than likely the case because customers are more aware of their bills and water use and can respond more quickly to high utility bills when they are billed monthly as opposed to bimonthly or 1 Gaudin, S. () Effect of price information on residential water demand. Applied Economics, 3:,
7 quarterly. This is especially important in the midst of an irrigation season, where bimonthly bills may come well after the season has ended. Recommendations Full cost pricing. There are no universally accepted benchmarks for full cost pricing, and any benchmark belies the fact that there are major variations from one utility to the next. Nevertheless, the operating margin excluding depreciation (operating revenues less operating expenditures) provides a useful tool for determining an individual utility s financial position with respect to revenues and expenditures. Given this, the Environmental Finance Center recommends that the basic test to gauge whether utilities meet the baseline requirement of the Drought Bill should be whether they cover operating expenditures (not including depreciation or principal or interest) with operating revenues. If a utility does not meet this requirement, the most direct way to reach compliance would be to increase rates immediately. A utility may be able to reduce expenditures, but this would pose the significant risk that essential services were reduced therefore undercutting the intent of the drought bill. The legislation also calls for coverage of principal and interest, as well. In this case, a utility s operating revenues should meet or exceed the operating expenditures including principal and interest payments. The EFC recommends this ratio be a second degree revenue test for full cost recovery, with qualification. There are a number of legitimate reasons why in a given year a utility might not meet this requirement. They include, but are not limited to: Utility has significant capital reserves due to impact fees (which are not calculated in the operating revenues). Utility has very large reserves and is intentionally keeping rates low to prevent over charging customers and draw down the reserves. Utility is in start up phase and must pay for a lot of expenditures and debt upfront without serving a lot of customers. The local government has used utility service as an economic development incentive and has transferred money from the general fund to help pay for it and subsidize its rates. The utility has lost a major customer and a major source of revenue. If a utility is not able to cover debt service and operating expenditures with its operating revenues, one option is to allow the utility to produce documentation showing future revenue projections that will cover operating expenditures, principal and interest or a plan showing steps taken to assure the financial sustainability of the water system (e.g. approved multi year financial plan, existence of reserve funds or regionalization). If a utility is able to produce adequate justification, there could be a probationary period of three years to grow into full cost recovery.
8 None of the tests above take into consideration the fact that many utilities have relied significantly on grant funding or capital contributions (e.g. developer installed and financed facilities) to build their capital stock. In these situations, the ability to cover debt service will not be an accurate test of whether a utility s revenues are sufficient to cover capital needs. One of the most common accounting costs relating to capital other than debt service is depreciation expense. A test that includes depreciation would be an option for assessing the cost recovery status of utilities without significant debt service obligations. For example, a utility with revenues that cover all operating expenditures, but only 5% of depreciation could be instructed to submit documentation explaining their strategy for maintaining their capital. A utility that covers between 5% and 1% of depreciation could be required to recognize that they could have a problem. Establishing the depreciation funding target that qualifies as full cost pricing is difficult due to the inherent weakness of depreciation as an indicator of capital cost (older systems may have lower depreciation numbers, yet their capital needs are usually greater), however simply covering 1% of depreciation in most cases would not assure that revenues cover all aspects of capital. 13% or 15% is probably a more realistic threshold. As directed by NC (b) (1) (), to be eligible for state funding, utilities must be able to recover full cost of operations, maintenance, and debt even in times of water shortage restrictions. The state can evaluate how well a utility s finances can withstand restrictions on water use by applying the following conservation revenue vulnerability tests: Historic water usage A utility with a history of high irrigation time usage can suffer financially when drought time restrictions are implemented. Moreover, a utility with higher than average usage suggests water waste, and strong conservation messaging has the potential to bring water consumption down quickly and significantly. Utility managers should understand the historic water usage of the service area and use it predict how customers will respond to conservation messaging and restrictions. The State can review the annual updates to the Local Water Supply Plan data, collected by DWR, in which utility managers specify water use in each month. A utility has high irrigation time usage when the average water use between April and October exceed the average water use in the other months by at least 5 percent. Percentage of revenues generated from the base charge component If the vast majority of a utility s revenues are collected in variable rates, significant conservation by its customers can significantly reduce revenues. Utilities with higher base charges will ensure a more consistent supply of revenue. If the portion of the residential total water and sewer bill for 1, gallons/month that is attributed to the base charges is less than percent, then the utility s revenues may be vulnerable to significant conservation by its customers during watering restriction times. Fund reserve/days Cash on Hand Utilities rely on their reserves for many purposes ranging from rate stabilization to
9 emergency equipment replacement. One way the LGC assesses utility reserves is by calculating the days cash on hand, a ratio of unrestricted cash times 35 days divided by total operating expenditures. If reserves are ample, a utility can draw upon it during revenue shortfalls that result from lower than expected customer consumption or to phase in a major rate change. If used in this manner, the reserve can be called a rate stabilization fund. However, there is a risk to relying solely on fund reserves because the length of a drought can be unpredictable. A utility with fewer days cash on hand than the length of the billing period is vulnerable to financial insecurity, particularly during watering restriction times. Additionally, a utility must always have a large enough fund reserve to exceed the cost of the single most expensive asset (e.g.: the largest pump) so that a utility may immediately replace the asset in an emergency. Use of water shortage rate Temporary drought surcharges have been shown in the literature to provide a significant price incentive to encourage conservation during drought periods, while allowing the utility to recover lost revenue through lower sales, and avoid consequential permanent rate increases. There are additional implementation issues that need to be considered before explicitly requiring the measurements listed above for state funding that this research did not investigate. In some instances, a regional government or utility may be the applicant for funds for a project that primarily benefits citizens served by another utility. Similarly, some applications may be submitted for an interconnection between two or more utilities. It is not clear how tests should be conducted in these cases. As with any exacting policy, perverse incentives must be thought through and anticipated. For example, one way of assuring that revenues cover expenditures is for a utility to fire a number of their essential staff thereby reducing expenditures this clearly would have a negative impact on public health. And finally, there are some cases where exceptions to the requirement must be made. An example of such a case might include when a dire public health issue is at stake and a utility with contaminated wells needs funds to quickly connect to a safer source of water. Conservation oriented rates. The Drought Bill already prohibits local governments and large community water systems applying for state funds from charging their residential customers using decreasing block rate structures. One issue that must be resolved is the practice of some utilities that use a single decreasing block rate structure for all of their customers, but have set the first block at a high enough consumption level that all of the residential water use would actually be charged at a uniform rate while their nonresidential customers are being charged a decreasing block rate (an implied residential
10 uniform rate). This practice does not contradict the spirit of the Drought Bill in encouraging water conservation at the residential level. The EFC recommends that in order to comply with NC (b) (5) (), the following tests should be applied: Prohibition of a decreasing block rate structure for any rate structure (including irrigation rate structures) designed specifically for residential customers only, or Allowance for single block decreasing rate structures if the utility uses a rate structure for both residential and non residential customers and has set the block at a high enough level (normally, gallons per month) to avoid applying to residential use. Based on analysis from the EFC/NCLM rates survey, as of January 9, nine percent of the local government and non profit utilities in North Carolina were charging residential customers using less than 15, gallons/month a decreasing block rate structure. These utilities would have to change their rate structures to comply with NC (b) (5) () prior to applying for any State funding for infrastructure capital. The above is the only legislative requirement on conservation oriented rates. However, Section 17 of the Drought Bill specifies that these guidelines should also consider the effect of water rates on water conservation and recommend rate structures that support water conservation. Informed by the results of the analysis of water rates and usage, the EFC makes the following recommendations on designing rate structures that support water conservation. Set high marginal prices for water and sewer combined (or water alone for wateronly utilities) at the utility s average residential consumption level. Information about the range of marginal prices can be obtained from rates surveys, such as the EFC/NCLM annual statewide rate survey. The relative strength of the marginal price may be assessed against prices set by other utilities statewide. Design a rate structure such that will result in a significant bill decrease for a residential customer that reduces water consumption. This suggests using lower base charges, not including consumption allowances with the base charge, and setting high marginal prices wherever possible. However, encouraging conservation is only one objective of rates, and should not be used at the expense of recovering the full costs of service and providing revenue stability to the utility. Many utilities, particularly small ones, may find it necessary to charge high base charges and including a consumption allowance to ensure financial sustainability. Use a uniform rate structure with a high marginal price, or use an increasing block rate structure with at least three blocks within the first, gallons/month of use. The first block should be set near the wintertime average residential water use for the utility.
11 Utilities with residential increasing block rate structures must use substantial rate differentials between blocks (i.e.: rates should increase by at least 5 percent from one block to the next). Create a residential irrigation meter rate structure and charge a higher marginal price for irrigation water than for standard household water. For utilities with increasing block rate structures, irrigation rates should at least be as high as the most expensive block marginal price for the standard household use. Water use through irrigation meters are not usually charged sewer rates. Use a monthly billing period. Provide price and use information on customer s bills. Review and increase rates frequently (e.g.: once a year) to continue encouraging conservation through rates. Plan for and implement the use of drought surcharges that are tied to drought conditions, water storage levels and the water shortage response plans and water. Temporary drought surcharges have been shown in the literature to provide a significant price incentive to encourage conservation during drought periods, while allowing the utility to recover lost revenue through lower sales, and avoid consequential permanent rate increases.
12 Appendix A Final Deliverables to SWIC June 3, 9 Deliverable Status Status report on rate setting guidelines Completed January Summary tables of pricing signals and Completed See Web site rate structures pdfs/nclm_efc_annualw&wwratestables 9.pdf Summary tables of water demand data Completed Appendix B by system characteristics Summary of analysis of relationship Completed Appendix C between rates and demand Statistical regression between rates Completed Appendix D and usage controlling for other factors Draft rate setting guidelines Completed Appendix E Presentation of key findings to SWIC Completed June 19, 9 Presentation to stakeholders The EFC focused on presenting comprehensively to SWIC and SWIC members. The EFC presented monthly at SWIC meetings on many rate issues, including HUC, full costs pricing and conservation (see below for SWIC presentations). See Appendix F for more on HUC reports Preparation of presentation materials Completed Appendix G for use by SWIC Study report summarizing conclusions Completed Report
13 EFC Presentation to SWIC, SWIC members and SWIC Committees 1. SWIC HUC Committee March, 9 The EFC introduced a computation tool to evaluate the number of systems that would be included or dropped out a given HUC scenario.. SWIC Meeting March, 9 The EFC presented a report on the proportion of NC utilities that would meet various affordability criteria based on two alternatives (see Appendix F1): a. Single target: An upward adjustment in the existing % MHI target with an opt out provision based on percent of persons in poverty b. Sliding scale: Adoption of a sliding scale for % MHI based on community MHI 3. SWIC Meeting April 17, 9 The EFC presented a refined report on the proportion of NC utilities that would meet various affordability criteria based on two alternatives (see Appendix F): a. Single target: An upward adjustment in the existing % MHI target with an opt out provision based on percent of persons in poverty b. Sliding scale: Adoption of a sliding scale for % MHI based on community MHI. SWIC Meeting May 15, 9 The EFC presented SWIC members with a summary of usage and rates in North Carolina (see Appendix C) 5. SWIC Meeting June 19, 9 The EFC presented SWIC members with research and draft rate setting guidelines for
14 Research in the Relationship between Residential Water Use and Building Year of Homes Counties Economic Tier Homeownership Marginal Price of Water Median Household Income Population Density Poverty Precipitation Price of Water Rate Structure Type Regional Governments Riverbasins Savings from Behavior Change Senior Citizens System Size Temperature Urban Population Utility Type Use of Watering Restrictions In North Carolina for the years of 7 and
15 Building Year of Homes The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems, based on the average building year of homes in their service area. The data indicate that there is a weak relationship between the age of a system s housing stock and its average household water use. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) s 195s 19s 197s 19s 199s Building Year of Homes 7 Building Year of Homes in Service Area Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & # of systems in category 7 19s.5 (3). () 195s.7 (1).1 (35) 19s.9 (11).79 (13) 197s.5 (17).37 (1) 19s 5.1 (9).71 (5) 199s 5.3 ().59 (3) Sources of data: *Building Year of Homes: Census *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
16 7 Water Use and Building Year of Homes Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 y =.13x R² = E Median Building Year of Homes Water Use and Building Year of Homes Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 y =.1x R² = Median Building Year of Homes
17 Counties The following maps and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems in the state s 1 counties. 7 Source of data: *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
18 County Average residential water use (kgal/month)* County Average residential water use (kgal/month) * 7 7 Alamance.5 (). () Johnston 3.3 () 3.9 (9) Alexander 5.9 (3) 5. (3) Jones.71 (). (3) Alleghany 5.53 (1) No data Lee. (3) 3. () Anson.3 (7). (5) Lenoir.7 (5).5 () Ashe 7.37 ().5 () Lincoln.7 () 5. (1) Avery. (). () Macon.95 (1).5 (1) Beaufort 3.9 (7) 3. () Madison.1 (3) 5.1 () Bertie 3.75 () 3.9 (3) Martin.51 ().5 (7) Bladen.5 (7).7 (7) McDowell 3.71 (). (1) Brunswick. (9). (11) Mecklenburg. () 5.93 (1) Buncombe 5.17 (5).1 (5) Mitchell 5.1 ().1 (1) Burke 5. (7) 5.1 (7) Montgomery.53 (7) 3.9 (5) Cabarrus 5.31 () 5. () Moore.5 (1).5 (13) Caldwell.5 (). () Nash 3.9 () 3. (9) Camden 3.3 () 3.1 () New Hanover.39 () 5. () Carteret.1 (9) 3.33 () Northampton.1 (13).7 (11) Caswell 5.1 (1).9 (1) Onslow 5.3 () 5. () Catawba 5.3 () 5.1 () Orange.7 (3).7 (3) Chatham 5. (). (3) Pamlico 3.7 () 3.3 () Cherokee 3. ().9 () Pasquotank 3. ().1 () Chowan 5.3 () No data Pender.1 () 3.5 (3) Clay 5. (1) 5.37 (1) Perquimans.9 () 5.3 () Cleveland 5. (7).5 () Person No data.17 (1) Columbus 5.5 (11).7 () Pitt 5.7 ().59 () Craven.31 (). (1) Polk 5.79 (3).17 () Cumberland 5.1 (9).51 (7) Randolph.53 ().13 () Currituck 5.1 ().1 () Richmond 5.3 () 5. (3) Dare.5 (7).7 () Robeson.1 () 5. (7) Davidson 3.99 (5).5 (5) Rockingham.3 ().19 () Davie. ().37 (1) Rowan. (7).3 (7) Duplin.7 (11).7 (9) Rutherford. (7). (7) Durham.9 (1). (1) Sampson. (7) 5.1 () Edgecombe.71 () 5.1 () Scotland 5.19 () 5.51 (5) Forsyth 5.1 (1).95 (1) Stanly 5.1 (7) 5.7 () Franklin 3.9 (5) 3.71 (5) Stokes 5.5 (3) 3.51 (3) Gaston 5.19 (9). (11) Surry 3.3 (3) 3.1 () Gates.9 (1) 5.3 (1) Swain.1 (1) 3. (1) Graham 5.3 () 1.1 (1) Transylvania 3.93 (3) 3. (3) Granville No data 3.97 (3) Tyrrell. () 3.75 (1) Greene 5. (3).9 (3) Union 5.37 () 5.1 () Guilford.3 (). (3) Vance No data 5.7 (1) Halifax.15 () 5.93 () Wake 5.3 (5) 5.5 () Harnett 5.39 () 5. () Warren.31 () 5.1 () Haywood 3.97 ().5 (5) Washington.1 ().19 (3) Henderson.7 ().53 () Watauga.99 (3).71 (3) Hertford 5.7 (5) 5.7 (3) Wayne 5. ().1 () Hoke 3.3 (1).7 (1) Wilkes 5.9 (). () Hyde 3. (1) No data Wilson.7 ().59 () Iredell.15 () 5.3 () Yadkin 5.3 ().51 () Jackson. () 5.3 () Yancey 3. (1) No data * Number in parenthesis indicate the number of water systems
19 NC Economic Tiers The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for NC water utilities, based on the NC Department of Commerce designated Economic Tier. The data does not indicate a relationship between the economic tier and household water use. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Economic Tier 7 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & NC Economic Tier # of systems in category 7 1, Most distressed.77 (). (17).75 (19). (1) 3, Least distressed.77 (93). (7) Sources of data: *Economic Tier: NC Department of Commerce *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
20 This page initially left blank
21 Home Ownership The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems, based on the percentage of households that are renter occupied (vs. owner occupied). The data indicate a positive relationship between the percentage of renters that a service area has and its average residential water use. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) % % % % % of Service Population that Rented in 7 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & % of Households Occupied # of systems in category by Renters 7 % 5. (5). (53) %.5 (57). () % 5. (17).79 (115) %.9 ().7 (5) Sources of data: *Home ownership: Census *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
22 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Water Use and Renters y = 1.1x R² =.5 % 1% % 3% % 5% % 7% % % of Service Population that Rented in Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 Water Use and Renters y = 1.35x R² =.3 % 1% % 3% % 5% % 7% % % of Service Population that Rented in
23 7 Marginal Price Marginal Price at 5, gallons Water Use and at 5, gallons Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) y =.13x R² =.9 $ $ $ $ $ $1 Marginal Price These scatter plots summarize average residential water use for NC water systems based on the marginal price at 5k, 1k and 1k gallons of water use in one month. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 y =.71x +.1 R² =.7 $ $ $ $ $ $1 $1 Marginal price is the price of using Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 at 1, gallons y =.15x R² =.3 $ $ $ $ $ $1 $1 the next unit of consumption. For example, if a customer has used 5, gallons in a month, the marginal price is the cost of using an additional 1, gallons for a total of, gallons. The data indicate a weak negative relationship between a system s average residential water use and marginal prices at all three consumption Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 at 1, gallons y =.953x +. R² =.19 $ $ $ $ $ $1 $1 levels. at 1, gallons at 1, gallons 1 1 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 y =.173x R² =.3 $ $ $ $ $ $1 $1 Sources of data: *Marginal Price: EFC and NCLM Annual Rate Survey *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 y =.17x +.95 R² =.15 $ $ $ $ $ $1 $1
24 This page initially left blank
25 Median Household Income The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems, based on Median Household Income in. Although utilities with a MHI average of over $9, had a higher average residential water use in 7, when removed from the scatter plot, the data show no relationship between a community s MHI and average household water use. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Median Household Income 7 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & Median Household Income # of systems in category in 7 $1, $19,999. (1). (1) $, $9,999.7 (17).59 (1) $3, $39, (175).53 (15) $, $9, (1). (5) $5, $59,999.3 (1).5 (1) $, $9, (3). (3) $7, $79,999.1 (3).1 (3) >$9,.9 () 5.13 () Sources of data: * MHI: Census *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
26 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Water Use and Income y = 1E x +.77 R² = 5E 5 $ $1, $, $3, $, $5, $, $7, $, Median Household Income in Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 Water Use and Income y = 1E 5x +.91 R² =.59 $ $1, $, $3, $, $5, $, $7, $, Median Household Income in
27 Population Density The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems, based on population density. The data indicate a weak positive relationship between the population density of a service area and its average residential water use. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) , 1, 1,5 1,5, >, Population Density (ppl/sq mile) in 7 Population Density (ppl/sq. mile) Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & # of systems in category 7 5. (13).7 (1) 5 1,.9(13). (1) 1, 1,5. (13).7 (3) 1,5,. (37). (1) >, 5.3 (15) 5.33 (11) Sources of data: *Population density: Census *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
28 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Water Use and Population Density y =.x +.7 R² = Population Density (ppl/sq. mile of land) in Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 Water Use and Population Density y =.x +.1 R² = Population Density (ppl/sq.mile of land) in
29 Poverty The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems with varying degrees of poverty. The difference between the 7 and data implies that systems with lower percentages of poverty experienced more water conservation in. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) % 1 % 3% 3 % 5% % of Service Population in Poverty in 7 % of Service Population in Poverty Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & # of systems in category 7 1%.7 ().51 () 1 %.7(3).1 (19) 3%.9 (11).75 (1) 3 % 5.1 (3).77 (17) 5%. (). () Sources of data: *Poverty: Census *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
30 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Water Use and Poverty y =.117x +.73 R² = 3E 5 % 5% 1% 15% % 5% 3% 35% % 5% 5% % of Service Population in Poverty Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 Water Use and Poverty y = 1.51x +.37 R² =.5 % 5% 1% 15% % 5% 3% 35% % 5% 5% % of Service Population in Poverty in
31 Water Use and Precipitation These scatter plots summarize average residential water use for NC water systems and the total annual and irrigation seasonal precipitation. In all but one case, the data indicate a weak negative relationship between precipitation and average residential water use. Sources of data: *Precipitation: State Climate Office of North Carolina *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
32 This page initially left blank
33 7 at 5, gallons at 5, gallons Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) y =.35x R² =.31 $ $1 $ $3 $ $5 $ Water bill at 5, gallons Water Use and the Price of Water These scatter plots summarize average residential water use for NC water systems based on Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 y =.x R² =. $ $1 $ $3 $ $5 $ Water Bill at 5, gallons Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) at 1, gallons y =.1x R² =.3 $ $ $ $ $ $1 $1 Water bill at 1, gallons the water bill for 5k, 1k and 15k gallons of water use in one month. The data indicate that a system s a weak negative relationship between the price of water all three consumption levels and a system s average residential water use. They also indicate that this inverse relationship is stronger with higher water bills at 5k, than at Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 at 1, gallons y =.19x R² =.191 $ $ $ $ $ $1 $1 Water Bill at 1, gallons at 15, gallons 1k and 15k. at 15, gallons Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) y =.13x R² =.3 $ $5 $1 $15 $ Water bill at 15, gallons Sources of data: *Water Bill: EFC and NCLM Annual Rate Survey *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 y =.79x R² =.171 $ $ $ $ $ $1 $1 $1 $1 Water Bill at 15, gallons
34 This page initially left blank
35 Rate Structures The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems, based on their rate structure type. The data show that systems with uniform rates, systems experienced the largest range of usage. They also indicate that those systems with decreasing block rates did not experience a large change in median residential water use. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Rate Structure Type 7 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & Rate Structure Type # of systems in category 7 Increasing/Decreasing Block.1 (13).11 (1) Increasing Block.73 (7). (75) Uniform Rate.7 (171).51 (19) Decreasing Block 5.1 (51).97 (39) Implied Uniform Rate 5. (19).75 () Sources of data: *Rate Structures: EFC and NCLM Annual Rate Survey *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
36 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Rate Structure and Water Use Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Rate Structure and Water Use
37 Councils of Government The following maps and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems in the state s 17 regional governments, or Councils of Government. The data show that four regions out of the 17 experienced an increase in average residential water use from 7 to. Utilities in the High Country COG averaged the largest decrease of average residential water use, from. kgal/month to.. 7 Source of data: *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
38 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & NC Regional Government # of systems in category 7 Albemarle. (5).37 (19) Cape Fear 5.9 (9).5 (3) Centralina 5.31 (5).3 () Eastern.5 (9). (7) High Country. (). (15) Isothermal. (19).33 (15) Kerr Tar. (). (11) Land of Sky 5. (1).5 (11) Lumber River.77 (5).9 (3) Mid Carolina.71 (19).7 (13) Mideast.53 (3).33 (7) NW Piedmont.7 (13).1 (11) Piedmont Triad.5 (3).5 (31) Southwestern.5 (1).7 (1) Triangle J.1 (35). (33) Upper Coastal.7 (3).59 () Western Piedmont 5. () 5.15 ()
39 River Basins The following maps and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems in the state s 17 major river basins. Based on the data, four out of the 17 experienced an increase in 7 Source of data: *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
40 NC River Basin Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & # of utilities in category 7 Broad.95 (17).3 (1) Cape Fear.71 (91). (7) Catawba 5. (39) 5.5 (3) Chowan 5.1 (1) 5. (1) French Broad.7 ().7 (1) Hiwassee.3 (3) 5. (3) Little Tennessee 5.5 (5) 3.97 () Lumber 5.7 (33) 5.1 (7) Neuse.59 (53). (5) New 5. (5) 3. () Pasquotank.3 ().31 (17) Roanoke.55 (3).9 (9) Savannah No data No data Tar Pamlico.3 (37).35 (3) Watauga. (3) 3.93 (3) White Oak.35 (9) 3.1 (9) Yadkin PeeDee.97 (3).5 (55)
41 7 Water Use and Behavioral Bill Savings These scatter plots summarize average residential water use for NC water systems based on the marginal bill savings from behavior change. In this case, the behavioral marginal savings is the change in price from significantly altering water use behavior (i.e. moving from 1, gallons month to 5,, or more drastically from 15, gallons per month to 5,). The data indicate that the savings from this type of behavior change (i.e. significant conservation) is inversely related to average residential water use. Sources of data: *Price of Water: EFC and NCLM Annual Rate Survey *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates In dollars Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 In dollars Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 Change in water bill from 1, gallons to 5, gallons per month y =.33x R² =. $ $1 $ $3 $ $5 Change in water bill from 1k to 5k y =.13x R² =. $ $ $ $ $ $1 $1 Change in water bill from 15k to 5k Percent decrease Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 y = 1.9x R² =. % 1% % 3% % 5% % 7% Percent decrease Percent decrease in water bill from 1k to 5k Change in water bill from 15, gallons to 5, gallons per month Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 y = 1.95x R² =.13 % 3% % 5% % 7% % 9% Percent decrease in water bill from 15k to 5k
42 Water Use and Behavioral Bill Savings These scatter plots summarize average residential water use for NC water systems based on the marginal bill savings from behavior change. In this case, the behavioral marginal savings is the change in price from significantly altering water use behavior (i.e. moving from 1, gallons per month to 5,, or more drastically from 15, gallons per month to 5,). The data indicate that the savings from this type of behavior change (i.e. significant conservation) is inversely related to average residential water use. In dollars Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 In dollars Change in water bill from 1, gallons to 5, gallons per month y =.15x +.3 R² =.5 $ $1 $ $3 $ $5 $ Change in water bill from 1k to 5k Percent decrease Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Change in water bill from 15, gallons to 5, gallons per month 1 1 Percent decrease y = x R² =. 1% % 3% % 5% % 7% Change in water bill from 1k to 5k Sources of data: *Price of Water: EFC and NCLM Annual Rate Survey *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 y =.91x +.7 R² =.113 $ $ $ $ $ $1 $1 Change in water bill from 15k to 5k Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 y = 1.5x R² =.7 % 3% % 5% % 7% % 9% Change in water bill from 1k to 5k
43 Senior Citizens The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems with varying percentages of senior citizens. The scatter plots indicate a negative relationship between a service area s percentage of senior citizens and average residential water use. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) % 5 1% 1 15% 15 % 5% >5% Senior Citizens, as percentage of population, in 7 Senior Citizens, as a percentage of population Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & # of systems in category 7 5%.9 () 5.9 (3) 5 1% 5.1 (5).53 (13) 1 15%.79 (17). (11) 15 %.75 (19).71 () 5%.79 (71). () >5%.35 (3) 3.9 (5) Sources of data: *Senior Citizens: Census *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
44 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Water Use and Senior Citizens y = 1.5x R² =. % 1% % 3% % 5% % Senior Citizens, as a Percentage of Service Population in 1 Water Use and Senior Citizens Average Water Use (kgal/month) 1 y =.39x +.3 R² =.7 % 5% 1% 15% % 5% 3% 35% % 5% 5% Senior Citizens, as a Percentage of Service Population in
45 Utility System Size The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems, based on size of their system (i.e. # of service connections). The data indicate a weak positive relationship between system size and the average residential water use. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) < , 1, 3, 3, 5, 5, 1, 1,, >, # of service connections 7 # of Service Connections Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & # of systems in category 7 <5 3. (5) 3.7 (5) (). (57) 5 1,.7 (1).7 (9) 1, 3,.59 (1).1 (133) 3, 5,. (5).1 () 5, 1,.53 ().3 () 1,, 5. (1) 5. () >, 5.37 (). () Sources of data: *Service Connection Data: Public Water Supply Section of NC DENR (SDWIS database) *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
46 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Water Use and System Size y = 1E 5x +.73 R² =. 1,, 3,, 5,, 7,, 9, # of Service Connections* Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 Water Use and System Size y = 1E 5x +.99 R² =.5 1,, 3,, 5,, 7,, 9, # of Service Connections* * Systems with >1, and those that reported an average residential water use of were removed from scatter plot.
47 Water Use and Temperature These scatter plots summarize average residential water use for NC water systems and the average annual and irrigation seasonal temperature. The data indicate a weak positive relationship between temperature and average residential water use. Sources of data: *Temperature: State Climate Office of North Carolina *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
48 This page initially left blank
49 Urban Population The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for NC water systems with varying degrees of urban population. The data show a slight trend for more urban utilities to have a higher average residential water use. Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) % % % % 1% Urban Population, as a Percentage of Service Population, in 7 Urban Population, as a percentage of Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & # of systems in category service population 7 %.5 ().3 (17) %.3 (17). (15) %.7 (). (5) %.3 (3). () 1% 5. (17).7 (1) Sources of data: *Urban population: Census *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
50 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Water Use and Urban Populations y =.x +.57 R² =.157 % 1% % 3% % 5% % 7% % 9% 1% % Urban Population in Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) 1 1 Water Use and Urban Populations y =.95x +.31 R² =.199 % 1% % 3% % 5% % 7% % 9% 1% % Urban Population in
51 Utility Type The following graph and table summarize average residential water use for various types of NC water systems. 7 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) Authority County For Profit (statewide) Municipal Private not for profit Sanitary District Utility Type 7 Average Residential Water Use (kgal/month) & Utility Type # of systems in category 7 Authority 5.71 ().7 (5) County. (79). (73) For profit (statewide). (1) 5.3 (11) Municipal. (37).55 () Private not for profit.7 (3).3 () Sanitary District.31 (11).17 (11) Sources of data: *Utility Type: EFC and Local Government Commission *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
52 This page initially left blank
53 Water Use and Restrictions These scatter plots summarize average residential water use for NC water systems based on the percentage of the year the system spent in watering restrictions (both voluntary and mandatory) and in just mandatory restrictions. The data indicate a positive relationship between the implementation of restrictions and average residential water use across systems; this was especially the case in 7. Sources of data: *Restrict ion data: NC DWR Weekly Drought Reports *Average Residential Water Use: NC DENR, Division of Water Resources, Local Water Supply Plans and annual updates
54 Appendix C Preliminary Results on Residential Water Use in North Carolina and its Relationship to Rates Prepared by the Environmental Finance Center on May 1, 9 for the State Water Infrastructure Commission 1. Residential Water Use in NC Preliminary data from the Annual Update to the Local Water Supply Plans, and the 7, and 1997 Local Water Supply Plans, Division of Water Resources NCDENR Average Residential Water Use Over Time 1% 9% 9, 9,999 GPM Percent of Water Systems % 35% 3% 5% % 15% Average Residential Water Use in (n=3 active community water systems) 7% 3% % Percent of Water Systems that are Active Today % 7% % 5% % 3% % 1% % 1997 (n=) (n=57) 7 (n=5) (n=3),,999 GPM 7, 7,999 GPM,,999 GPM 5, 5,999 GPM,,999 GPM 3, 3,999 GPM,,999 GPM 1, 1,999 GPM 1% 5% % % 7% % 1% 1% Average residential water use has been declining over the years. The median in was, gallons/month. % 1, 1,999 GPM,,999 GPM 3, 3,999 GPM,,999 GPM 5, 5,999 GPM,,999 GPM 7, 7,999 GPM,,999 GPM 9, 9,999 GPM
55 . Seasonal Variation in Water Use in North Carolina Preliminary data from the Annual Update to the Local Water Supply Plans, and the 7, and 1997 Local Water Supply Plans, Division of Water Resources NCDENR Median Ratio of Monthly Total Use Over January's Total Use Median Seasonal Variation in Total Water Use During 1 Month Periods 1997 (n=3) (n=5) 7 (n=) (n=39) Between 1997 and 7, summertime to wintertime variation in use generally increased, meaning that water systems were facing more and more pressure in meeting their summertime demands. However, in, the trend reversed. There was generally less summertime to wintertime variation in use in than in 7.
56 1 3. Relationship between Residential Rates and Water Use in Preliminary usage data from the Annual Update to the Local Water Supply Plans, Division of Water Resources NCDENR Rates data from the NC League of Municipalities/Environmental Finance Center s Rates Survey for FY 7 ( Survey) Residential Water Rates and Water Use in (n=35) Average Residential Water Use (1, gallons/month) y =.3x R² =.1 $. $1. $. $3. $. $5. $. 9 Water Bill for 5, Gallons/Month Average Residential Water Use (1, gallons/month) Water use is slightly negatively correlated with water bills. However, combined water and sewer bills and prices are not correlated with use. Residential Combined Water & Wastewater Rates and Water Use in (n=3) y = 1E 7x R² =. $. $. $. $. $. $1. $1. Combined Water and Wastewater Bill for 5, Gallons/Month
57 1 Residential Water Rates and Water Use in (n=35) Average Residential Water Use (1, gallons/month) y =.75x +. R² =.1 1 $. $. $. $. $. $1. $1. Water Price for the Next 1, Gallons after 5, Gallons (Marginal Price) 9 Average Residential Water Use (1, gallons/month) The same applies with the volumetric rates (the marginal price $/1, gallons). Water use is negatively correlated with water volumetric rates, but not combined water and sewer volumetric rates. Residential Combined Water & Wastewater Rates and Water Use in (n=3) y = 1E 7x R² =. $. $. $. $. $. $1. $1. $1. $1. $1. $. Combined Water and Wastewater Price for the Next 1, Gallons after 5, Gallons (Marginal Price)
58 Appendix D Statistical regression between rates and usage ln(avg. res. use) it = α + β 1 (price variable) it + β (% of time in restrictions t, avg. temp., total prec., rate structure, rate structure price subsidy, % of time in different stages of drought, number of connections, billing frequency, connections/mile of pipe, % urban pop., avg. household size, median # of rooms in homes, median age of homes, % senior citizens, median household income, % poverty, % with income >$15k, % adults with Bachelor s degree, age of oldest meters, finished storage capacity, Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area cutback system) it Regressed on Log Average Residential Use in 1, Gallons/Month Two stage pooled cross sectional model for 7 and water system data, weighted by the system size (number of connections), using robust standard errors. Variable Coefficient Robust Standard Error Log Marginal Price for Water and Sewer at 5, Gallons/Month (Instrumented) ** Percent of Year with Either Voluntary or Mandatory Watering restrictions.3.5 Average Temperature in the Year (degrees F).1.1 Total Precipitation in the Year (inches).. Using an Increasing Block Rate Structure (versus Uniform Rates).13.7 ** Using a Decreasing Block Rate Structure (versus Uniform Rates).1.3 Price Subsidy of Block Rate Structure..1 Percent of Year in Drought Stage 1 (versus Stage ) Percent of Year in Drought Stage (versus Stage ).1. Percent of Year in Drought Stage 3 (versus Stage ).. Percent of Year in Drought Stage (versus Stage ).33.1 * System Size (Number of Service Connections).. Using Bimonthly Billing (versus Monthly)..5 Using Quarterly Billing (versus Monthly).1. * Service Population Density: Estimated Number of Accounts Per Mile of Pipe.. ** Percent Urban Population in.7. * Average Household Size in.39.1 ** Size of the Homes: Median Number of Rooms in Owner Occupied Homes in.1.7 * Median Age of Homes.. Percent of Population that is over 5 Years of Age in.11. Median Household Income in.. ** Percent of Population in Poverty in.9.7 Percent of Households with More than $15, Income in..97 ** Percent of Adult Population with at least a Bachelor's Degree.9. *** Age of the Oldest Water Meters.. Finished Water Storage Capacity in Million Gallons.. Is a Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area System with Cutback Requirements.1.11 Constant (Intercept) 1..9 n: 55. / F(7,97): 1.3 / R squared:.35 / Root MSE:. Notes: Number in parantheses is robust standard errors. *** statistically significant at 1% level, ** statistically significant at 5% level, * statistically significant at 1% level.
59 Appendix E Rate Design Guidelines per Drought Bill Draft Presented to SWIC by UNC Environmental Finance Center Cost Recovery NC SESSION LAW (b)(1) Has established a water rate structure that is adequate to pay the cost of maintaining, repairing, and operating the system, including reserves for payment of principal and interest on indebtedness incurred for maintenance or improvement of the water system during periods of normal use and periods of reduced water use due to implementation of water conservation measures. 1. Data sources Funders can use the following data sources to calculate revenue tests below. For many utilities, these reports are pre existing and prevent the creation of new reports. a. Last available audited financial report from the Local Government Commission database b. Last approved annual budget c. Approved multi year capital investment plan and/or budget d. Multi year financial plan. Definitions a. Annual operating expenditures Expenditures are necessary costs to operate and maintain treatment plants, wells, lines, pumping, transmission and distribution facilities, and the cost of customer service and administrative and general expenses. They are typically measured and reported on for a period of one year corresponding to the fiscal time period of the entity being reported on. Operating expenditures do not include capital and depreciation expenses and expenditures that would significantly extend the lives of the facilities beyond those initially contemplated, as well as taxes. b. Annual operating revenue Operating revenues include the sales of water to general customers and other services that are usually provided under standard rate schedules or by contractual agreements. Typical operating revenues include: Unmetered sales Metered sales Sales for resale (wholesale) Other special sales Private fire protection Public fire protection Miscellaneous service revenue Forfeited discounts Rents from water property Other water revenues DRAFT GUIDELINES Page 1
60 Operating revenues do not include merchandising and contract of services, tax revenues, gains or losses from the sale of property, rental of non operating property, interest income, transfers from the government entity general fund, and other items not usually directly related to the provision of water service. c. Annual interest payment The annual interest payment is the amount of money paid in interest on debt in a year. d. Annual principal payment The annual principal payment is the amount of money paid on the principal on debt in a year. e. Depreciation The loss in service value not restored by current maintenance as applied to depreciable capital assets, typically applied at a pre determined depreciation rate. The funds resulting from depreciation are available for replacements, improvements, expansion of the system, or for repayment of the principal portion of outstanding debt. Depreciation is not accounted for in operating expenditures (see above) f. Fund transfer A fund transfer is the movement of money from one fund to another, for example from a municipality s general fund into the water and sewer enterprise fund. A fund transfer from a general fund to an enterprise fund may occur if a utility is not recovering its costs with revenues, or may be payment for economic development services by the utility. g. Reserves This number provides an indication of the adequacy of a utility s unrestricted cash and investment balances. The LGC measures this with days cash on hand, a ratio of unrestricted cash times 35 days dived by total operating expenditures. If reserves are ample, a utility can draw upon it during revenue shortfalls that result from lower than expected customer consumption or to phase in a major rate change. If used in this manner, the reserve can be called a rate stabilization fund. However, there is a risk to relying solely on fund reserves because a drought can be unpredictable. h. Fixed cost These are expenses for a utility that do not fluctuate based on how much water the utility sells. Fixed costs include billing costs, operations and debt service. In many cases, fixed costs comprise the bulk of a utility s expenses. i. Variable costs These are expenses for a utility that fluctuate based on how much water the utility sells. Variable costs include power and chemicals. In many cases, variable costs comprise a relatively small percentage of a utility s expenses. DRAFT GUIDELINES Page
61 j. Asset management Asset management is a process for providing the public with cost effective service through the creation, acquisition, maintenance, operation, rehabilitation and disposal of assets for existing and future customers. It is focused on long term utility management and can minimize the life cycle cost of an asset or group of assets. 3. Revenue tests and corrective measures/justifications Primary Test: Are operating revenues greater than operating expenditures (not including depreciation or principal or interest)? The most direct way to reach compliance would be to increase rates immediately. A utility may be able to reduce expenditures, but this would pose the significant risk that essential services were reduced therefore undercutting the intent of the drought bill. Secondary Test: Are operating revenues greater than operating expenditures plus debt service (principal and interest)? If a utility is not able to cover debt service and operating expenditures with its operating revenues, one option is to allow the utility to produce documentation showing future revenue projections that will cover operating expenditures, principal and interest or a plan showing steps taken to assure the financial sustainability of the water system (e.g. approved multi year financial plan, existence of reserve funds or regionalization). If a utility is able to produce adequate justification, there could be a probationary period of three years to grow into full cost recovery. Tertiary Test: Are operating revenues more than operating expenditures, including depreciation? A test that includes depreciation would be an option for assessing the cost recovery status of utilities without significant debt service obligations. For example, a utility with revenues that cover all operating expenditures, but only 5% of depreciation could be instructed to submit documentation explaining their strategy for maintaining their capital. A utility that covers between 5% and 1% of depreciation could be required to recognize that they could have a problem. Establishing the depreciation funding target that qualifies as full cost pricing is difficult due to the inherent weakness of depreciation as an indicator of capital cost (older systems may have lower depreciation numbers, yet their capital needs are usually greater), however simply covering 1% of depreciation in most cases would not assure that revenues cover all aspects of capital. 13% or 15% is probably a more realistic threshold. DRAFT GUIDELINES Page 3
62 Conservation Oriented Rates 1. Data sources a. Rate structures b. Water shortage vulnerability i. Drought status ii. Safe yield iii. Unused water treatment capacity iv. Unused wastewater treatment capacity. Definitions a. Fixed charge b. Commodity charge c. Block structure i. Decreasing ii. Uniform iii. Simple Increasing iv. Seasonal v. Water budget d. Marginal price e. Average price f. Average bill g. Temporary water shortage rates (drought surcharge) 3. Anticipated conservation impact of rates tests a. Block structure b. Average price (5 K, 15 K for water only and combined water and wastewater) c. Price of next 1, gallons (marginal price) (5 K, 1K, 15 K) d. Percentage change in bill of next 1, gallons (5K, 1K, 15K) e. Price of next 5, gallons (5K to 1 K) f. Percentage change in bill of next 5, gallons (5K) g. Billing period h. Bill information. Measures a. Increase rates b. Reduce water productions c. Rate structure change d. Adoption of water shortage rate program 5. Conservation revenue vulnerability test a. Historic usage analysis b. Historic revenue analysis c. Percentage of revenues generated from fixed charge component d. Days cash on hand/fund reserve e. Operating Revenue/Operating Expenditures DRAFT GUIDELINES Page
63 Estimating the proporation of NC utilities that would meet various affordability criteria March, 9 Two alternatives are examined: Alternative 1 (Single Target): An upward adjustment in the existing % MHI target. Modification to Alternative 1 : Opt out provision based on percent of persons in poverty. Alternative (Sliding Scale): Adoption of a sliding scale for % MHI based on community MHI i.e.: more affluent communities face higher % MHI targets. Notes: All rates used are January 9 rates (source: NCLM EFC Rates Survey). Median Household Income is adjusted to levels using HUD/NC Commerce adjustment factors. Percent poverty is as reported in Census. Prepared by the Environmental Finance Center. Page 1 of
64 Alternative 1 (Single Target): Upward Adjustment in the Percent of Median Household Income (Adjusted to ) Target If the affordability target is adjusted up to >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for, GPM (ignoring utilities serving only water or only wastewater) 1 out of 33 rate structures would qualify: 7% If the affordability target remains at >= 1.5% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for, GPM (ignoring utilities serving only water or only wastewater) 9 out of 33 rate structures would qualify: 7% If the affordability target for water remains at >=.75% MHI for water bills alone for, GPM 353 out of 519 water rate structures would qualify: % Page of
65 Modification to Alternative 1 (Single Target): Opt out provision based on percent of persons in poverty Poverty Rate in Census Poverty Rate of the Served Community Number of water utilities (some also serve wastewater) % of utilities Cumulative > 1% poverty rate 197 % % 1. 1% 17 7% 9% 1.3% 11 % 9% Less than % 3 % 1% Total 7 1% As shown above, if the affordability target is adjusted up to >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills, 7% of the rate structures would qualify. What if the utilities that do not meet the >=.% MHI target can opt out of this requirement and qualify solely on their percent poverty? If the affordability target is >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for, GPM (ignoring utilities serving only water or only wastewater), or the utility's percent poverty is >1% 31 out of 33 rate structures would qualify: % If the affordability target is >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for, GPM (ignoring utilities serving only water or only wastewater), or the utility's percent poverty is >1.3% 9 out of 33 rate structures would qualify: 77% Page 3 of
66 Alternative (Sliding Scale): Adoption of a Sliding Scale for % MHI Targets Based on MHI (Adjusted to ) Instead of using a single % MHI affordability target for all utilities, this alternative uses targets that are on a sliding scale based on community's income levels (see graph). In this example, the affordability target for combined water and wastewater bills for, GPM would be: 1) starting at.75% for low income communities ) around.% MHI for middle income communities 3) starting at.5% MHI for high income communities The affordability target is based on an equation, which is a linear relationship with median household income, setting the lowest income communities at.75% MHI and the median income community at.% MHI. See graph. % MHI Affordability Targets on a Sliding Scale An Example I Affordability Target % MHI.% 7.%.% 5.%.% 3.%.% 1.% Lowest 5% of Communities Highest 1% of Communities.% $1, $, $3, $, $5, $, $7, $, $9, Community's Median Household Income (Adjusted to Latest Year) $1, If the affordability target is a sliding scale based on MHI as described above 13 out of 33 rate structures would qualify: 3% Page of
67 SECOND DRAFT Estimating the proportion of NC water systems that would meet various affordability criteria April 1, 9 Two alternatives are examined: Alternative 1 (Single Target): An upward adjustment in the existing % MHI target. Modification to Alternative 1 : Opt out provision based on percent of persons in poverty. Alternative (Sliding Scale): Adoption of a sliding scale for % MHI based on community MHI i.e.: more affluent communities face higher % MHI targets. Notes: All rates used are January 9 rates (source: NCLM EFC Rates Survey). Median Household Income is adjusted to levels using HUD/NC Commerce adjustment factors. Percent poverty is as reported in Census. Served population sizes are estimated from water system sizes in SDWIS, data. Actual population sizes may vary. Prepared by the Environmental Finance Center. Page 1 of
68 Alternative 1 (Single Target): Upward Adjustment in the Percent of Median Household Income (Adjusted to ) Target If the affordability target is adjusted up to >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for 5, GPM (ignoring water only systems) 13 out of 1 water systems would qualify: Qualified systems serve 55,3 out of the 5,5,333 individuals in the sample: 3% 1% If the affordability target remains at >= 1.5% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for 5, GPM (ignoring water only systems) out of 1 water systems would qualify: 7% Qualified systems serve 1,55,159 out of the 5,5,333 individuals in the sample: 33% If the affordability target for water remains at >=.75% MHI for water bills alone for 5, GPM 37 out of 553 water systems would qualify: 5% Qualified systems serve 1,7,5 out of the,5,771 individuals in the sample: 7% Page of
69 Modification to Alternative 1 (Single Target): Opt out provision based on percent of persons in poverty Poverty Rate in Census Poverty Rate of the Served Community Number of water systems (some also serve wastewater) % of utilities Cumulative > 1% poverty rate 5 1% 1% 1. 1% 1 5% % 1.3% 1 % 9% Less than % % 1% Total 553 1% As shown above, if the affordability target is adjusted up to >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills, 3% of the water systems would qualify. What if the utilities that do not meet the >=.% MHI target can opt out of this requirement and qualify solely on their percent poverty, as long as they meet a reduced target of 1.5% MHI? If the affordability target is >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for 5, GPM (ignoring water only systems), or >= 1.5% MHI with a >1% poverty customer base 199 out of 1 water systems would qualify: Qualified systems serve 1,,31 out of the 5,5,333 individuals in the sample: 7% 19% If the affordability target is >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for 5, GPM (ignoring water only systems), or >= 1.5% MHI with a >1.3% poverty customer base 37 out of 1 water systems would qualify: Qualified systems serve 1,37, out of the 5,5,333 individuals in the sample: 5% 3% Page 3 of
70 Alternative (Sliding Scale): Adoption of a Sliding Scale for % MHI Targets Based on MHI (Adjusted to ) Instead of using a single % MHI affordability target for all utilities, this alternative uses targets that are on a sliding scale based on community's income levels (see graph). In this example, the affordability target for combined water and wastewater bills for 5, GPM would be: 1) starting at.75% for low income communities ) around.% MHI for middle income communities 3) starting at.5% MHI for high income communities The affordability target is based on an equation, which is a linear relationship with median household income, setting the lowest income communities at.75% MHI and the median income community at.% MHI. See graph. % MHI Affordability Targets on a Sliding Scale An Example I Affordability Target % MHI.% 7.%.% 5.%.% 3.%.% 1.% Lowest 5% of Communities Highest 1% of Communities.% $1, $, $3, $, $5, $, $7, $, $9, Community's Median Household Income (Adjusted to Latest Year) $1, If the affordability target is a sliding scale based on MHI as described above 15 out of 1 water systems would qualify: Qualified systems serve 355,13 out of the 5,5,333 individuals in the sample: 3% % Page of
71 SECOND DRAFT Estimating the proportion of NC water systems that would meet various affordability criteria April 1, 9 Two alternatives are examined: Alternative 1 (Single Target): An upward adjustment in the existing % MHI target. Modification to Alternative 1 : Opt out provision based on percent of persons in poverty. Alternative (Sliding Scale): Adoption of a sliding scale for % MHI based on community MHI i.e.: more affluent communities face higher % MHI targets. Notes: All rates used are January 9 rates (source: NCLM EFC Rates Survey). Median Household Income is adjusted to levels using HUD/NC Commerce adjustment factors. Percent poverty is as reported in Census. Served population sizes are estimated from water system sizes in SDWIS, data. Actual population sizes may vary. Prepared by the Environmental Finance Center. Page 1 of
72 Alternative 1 (Single Target): Upward Adjustment in the Percent of Median Household Income (Adjusted to ) Target If the affordability target is adjusted up to >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for 5, GPM (ignoring water only systems) 13 out of 1 water systems would qualify: Qualified systems serve 55,3 out of the 5,5,333 individuals in the sample: 3% 1% If the affordability target remains at >= 1.5% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for 5, GPM (ignoring water only systems) out of 1 water systems would qualify: 7% Qualified systems serve 1,55,159 out of the 5,5,333 individuals in the sample: 33% If the affordability target for water remains at >=.75% MHI for water bills alone for 5, GPM 37 out of 553 water systems would qualify: 5% Qualified systems serve 1,7,5 out of the,5,771 individuals in the sample: 7% Page of
73 Modification to Alternative 1 (Single Target): Opt out provision based on percent of persons in poverty Poverty Rate in Census Poverty Rate of the Served Community Number of water systems (some also serve wastewater) % of utilities Cumulative > 1% poverty rate 5 1% 1% 1. 1% 1 5% % 1.3% 1 % 9% Less than % % 1% Total 553 1% As shown above, if the affordability target is adjusted up to >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills, 3% of the water systems would qualify. What if the utilities that do not meet the >=.% MHI target can opt out of this requirement and qualify solely on their percent poverty, as long as they meet a reduced target of 1.5% MHI? If the affordability target is >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for 5, GPM (ignoring water only systems), or >= 1.5% MHI with a >1% poverty customer base 199 out of 1 water systems would qualify: Qualified systems serve 1,,31 out of the 5,5,333 individuals in the sample: 7% 19% If the affordability target is >=.% MHI for combined water and wastewater bills for 5, GPM (ignoring water only systems), or >= 1.5% MHI with a >1.3% poverty customer base 37 out of 1 water systems would qualify: Qualified systems serve 1,37, out of the 5,5,333 individuals in the sample: 5% 3% Page 3 of
74 Alternative (Sliding Scale): Adoption of a Sliding Scale for % MHI Targets Based on MHI (Adjusted to ) Instead of using a single % MHI affordability target for all utilities, this alternative uses targets that are on a sliding scale based on community's income levels (see graph). In this example, the affordability target for combined water and wastewater bills for 5, GPM would be: 1) starting at.75% for low income communities ) around.% MHI for middle income communities 3) starting at.5% MHI for high income communities The affordability target is based on an equation, which is a linear relationship with median household income, setting the lowest income communities at.75% MHI and the median income community at.% MHI. See graph. % MHI Affordability Targets on a Sliding Scale An Example I Affordability Target % MHI.% 7.%.% 5.%.% 3.%.% 1.% Lowest 5% of Communities Highest 1% of Communities.% $1, $, $3, $, $5, $, $7, $, $9, Community's Median Household Income (Adjusted to Latest Year) $1, If the affordability target is a sliding scale based on MHI as described above 15 out of 1 water systems would qualify: Qualified systems serve 355,13 out of the 5,5,333 individuals in the sample: 3% % Page of
County Salaries in North Carolina 2014
Alamance n/a n/a n/a Alexander n/a n/a n/a Alleghany n/a n/a n/a Anson 4 54,415 84,343 61,500 39,154 60,689 39,154 water treatment plant superintendent 1 42,512 65,894 55,566 wastewater treatment plant
More informationWhat Could New Ozone Regulations Cost North Carolina?
$ What Could New Ozone Regulations Cost North Carolina? $35 Billion Gross State Product Loss from 2017 to 2040 12,919 Lost Jobs or Job Equivalents 1 per Year $260 Drop in Average Household Consumption
More informationPositive Peer Pressure. Kai Monast ITRE-NCSU (919)
Positive Peer Pressure Kai Monast ITRE-NCSU kcmonast@ncsu.edu (919) 515-8768 What is a Peer Someone who shares similar characteristics Why Use Peer Groups? To compare performance among transit systems
More informationBernard Allen Emergency Drinking Water Fund
Annual Report to the North Carolina General Assembly Bernard Allen Emergency Drinking Water Fund (July, 206 to June 30, 207) Division of Waste Management NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
More informationThis document outlines our policies for the services we provide. These policies allow us to ensure consistent and exceptional service.
Dear KCD Customer, This document outlines our policies for the services we provide. These policies allow us to ensure consistent and exceptional service. We ask that you review the information in this
More informationNorth Carolina s Private Drinking Water Well Program
North Carolina s Private Drinking Water Well Program Rules Governing Private Water Supply Wells in North Carolina 15A NCAC 2C.0100 NC Well Construction Standards. 15A NCAC 2C.0300 Rules for Permitting
More informationNC FAST Update JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. September 9, 2014
JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE NC FAST Update September 9, 2014 Joe Cooper, Chief Information Officer Angela Taylor, Office of NC FAST Wayne Black, Division of Social Services Sheila Platts, Division
More informationWater and Wastewater Rates and Rate Structures in North Carolina
Water and Wastewater Rates and Rate Structures in North Carolina Shadi Eskaf, David Tucker, Dayne Batten and Amy Patel: Environmental Finance Center Chris Nida: North Carolina League of Municipalities
More informationCOMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT TREND REPORT 12/31/16 EDITION COMPILATION AREA
COMPILATION AREA www.themarketedge.com PAGE 1 OF 8 SUMMARY OF ALL MARKETS # OF PERMITS PERMIT VALUE TOTALS PERMIT VALUE MAP ST MARKET 2011 2012 2013 2014 2014 2014 2015 A IN EVANSVILLE -- -- 409 633 672
More informationSCRAP TIRE MANAGEMENT REPORT FY
SCRAP TIRE MANAGEMENT REPORT FY 1998-99 PREPARED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SOLID WASTE SECTION James B. Hunt Jr. Governor
More informationNorth Carolina Division of Aging and Adult Services
TRANSPORTATION Alamance Alexander Alleghany Anson Ashe Avery Beaufort Bertie Bladen Brunswick ALAMANCE CO TRANSP AUTHORITY PO BOX 2746 BURLINGTON, NC 272162746 GREENWAY TRANSIT 1515 4TH STREET, SW CONOVER,
More informationDriving Efficiency Through Price
Driving Efficiency Through Price Is there a relationship between water rates and usage? In theory Utilities set rates based on projected use to recover costs As rates go up, water use goes down Does it
More informationNorth Carolina Energy Conservation Code: The Future of Residential Requirements
North Carolina Energy Conservation Code: The Future of Residential Requirements Margie Meares Mathis Consulting Company MC 2 Asheville, NC mmeares@gmail.com Conducted by: Jeff Tiller, PE, LEEDAP Appalachian
More informationThe Sto.te Alo.munoe Alexander Alleghany 66,523 5,933 18,371. 1, ,224 2, ,035 1, ?,464,,, ,303
STATISTICS FOR COUNTIES County Table.-NURSERY, GREENHOUSE, AND FOREST Item (For definitions o.nd explnnationa, see text) The Sto.te Alo.munoe Alexander Alleghany Anoon Ashe Avery Benufor Bertie IUnden,
More information2016 SOYBEAN PRODUCTION AND MOST EFFICIENT YIELD CONTESTS FOR NORTH CAROLINA (Rules and Regulations)
2016 SOYBEAN PRODUCTION AND MOST EFFICIENT YIELD CONTESTS FOR NORTH CAROLINA (Rules and Regulations) PURPOSES. The purposes of the N. C. Soybean Production and Most Efficient Yield (MEY) Contests are to
More informationNorth Carolina Division of Aging and Adult Services
TRANSPORTATION (MEDICAL) Alamance Alexander Alleghany Avery Bertie Bladen Buncombe Burke Caldwell Camden Carteret Chowan ALAMANCE CO TRANSP AUTHORITY PO BOX 2746 BURLINGTON, NC 272162746 GREENWAY TRANSIT
More informationWhite Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Plan October 2001 Prepared by: NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Water Quality Secion 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh,
More informationPROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS GENERAL BURNING RESTRICTIONS: (7-1-95) 200, 210, 215 SP2 R05
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS GENERAL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: The January 2012 North Carolina Department of Transportation Standards and Specifications for Roadways and Structures (NCDOT Standard Specifications)
More informationDistribution, Pest Status, and Research Programs for the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in the Southeastern US
Distribution, Pest Status, and Research Programs for the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in the Southeastern US Jim Walgenbach NC State University Mt Hort Crops Res & Ext Ctr Mills River, NC Additional Contributors
More informationWater and Wastewater Rates and Rate Structures in North Carolina
Water and Wastewater Rates and Rate Structures in North Carolina Alison Andrews, Annalee Harkins, Shadi Eskaf: Environmental Finance Center at the UNC School of Government Chris Nida: North Carolina League
More information2018 SOYBEAN PRODUCTION AND MOST EFFICIENT YIELD CONTESTS FOR NORTH CAROLINA (Rules and Regulations)
2018 SOYBEAN PRODUCTION AND MOST EFFICIENT YIELD CONTESTS FOR NORTH CAROLINA (Rules and Regulations) PURPOSE. The purpose of the N. C. Soybean Production and Most Efficient Yield (MEY) Contests are to
More informationNorth Carolina DHHS. 1. Introduction & Background... 1 Background... 2
April 3, 2008 Independent Evaluation of the Performance of Local Management Entities North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services/Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance
More informationBECKY TAYLOR Greenville. REGINALD KENAN Rose Hill. KEVIN D. HOWELL Raleigh. GREG ALCORN Salisbury. OLIVIA OXENDINE Lumberton
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION The guiding mission of the North Carolina State Board of Education is that every public school student will graduate from high school, globally competitive for work and postsecondary
More information1. INSTRUCTIONS AND AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
1. INSTRUCTIONS AND AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Read all information, instructions, and worksheets. Download Worksheets and FAQs as well as a PDF of this entire report at www.p2pays.org/epp/reports.asp
More informationCounty Name Address City, State, Zip Alamance Robert C Gilles PO Box 1469 Graham, NC Alexander Joel Harbinson 70 E Main Avenue Dr.
County Name Address City, State, Zip Alamance Robert C Gilles PO Box 1469 Graham, NC 27253 Alexander Joel Harbinson 70 E Main Avenue Dr. SW Taylorsville, NC 28681 Allegheny Fredrick Johnson PO Box 512
More informationNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Pat McCrory Governor Donald R. van der Vaart Secretary March 30, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMISSION The Honorable
More informationNORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2015 SESSION REPRESENTATION BY COUNTY
County of Residence NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2015 SESSION REPRESENTATION BY COUNTY COUNTY DISTRICT SEATS DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN UNAFFILIATED Alamance Senate 24 (1) -- Rick Gunn House 63 (1) -- Ross
More informationState of North Carolina s. Recommendation on Boundaries. of 8-Hour Ozone. Nonattainment Areas
State of North Carolina s Recommendation on Boundaries of 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas March 12, 2009 Governor Beverly Perdue (This Page Is Intentionally Blank) Table of Contents Introduction...1 Background...1
More informationSession Objective. Topics. Financial Capacity and Rates!
Financial Capacity and Rates! Jeff Hughes, Annalee Harkins, Shadi Eskaf UNC School of Government Environmental Finance Center, jhughes@unc.edu, aharkins@sog.unc.edu, eskaf@sog.unc.edu February 6, 2018
More informationHazus: Estimated Damage and Economic Losses. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, United States
Hurricane Florence Advisory 49, 11 September 2018 1100 EST (1500Z) Hazus: Estimated Damage and Economic es North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, United States Caution: Due to the level of uncertainty
More informationConnect NC Bond Status Report
Attachment FC 04 Connect NC Bond Status Report December 31, 2017 Submitted by the North Carolina Community College System Office to the: Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Capital Improvements, House
More informationVOTER REGISTRATION KIT
VOTER REGISTRATION KIT Voter registration is the necessary first step in making sure the voices of we the people are heard by our elected officials. With the right information, anyone can register voters!
More informationDesigning Water Rate Structures that Support Your Utility s Objectives
Designing Water Rate Structures that Support Your Utility s Objectives Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:00-2:00pm MT/3:00-4:00pm ET This program is made possible under a cooperative agreement with EPA. www.efcnetwork.org
More informationRates, Rates, and More Rates
Rates, Rates, and More Rates Jeff Hughes David Tucker February 10-11, 2015 Chapel Hill, NC www.efc.unc.edu Draft 2015* by the Numbers (Based on data submitted as of 2/1/15) Operating revenues collected
More informationJordan Lake Stormwater Load Accounting Tool User s Manual (Version 1.1 revised ) share.triangle.com
Jordan Lake Stormwater Load Accounting Tool User s Manual (Version 1.1 revised 11 29 11) share.triangle.com 1 Introduction This accounting tool was developed by North Carolina State University in coordination
More informationDELIVER TO: 40-IT BAFO 02 NCDPI Attn: Mike Beaver 301 N. Wilmington Street, Room B04 Raleigh, NC 27601
Instructions: Sealed offers, subject to the conditions made a part hereof, will be received at the address below, for furnishing and delivering the goods, software, and/or services as described herein.
More informationFinancial Tools for Small Drinking Water Systems
Financial Tools for Small Drinking Water Systems Stacey Isaac Berahzer Dover, DE May 3, 2016 This program is made possible under a cooperative agreement with EPA. Dedicated to enhancing the ability of
More informationSchool Calendar Information
2015-2016 School Calendar Information State County First Day Spring Break Last Day Georgia Kentucky New York Georgia Atlanta 8/5/2015 4/4/2016-4/8/2016 5/25/2016 Augusta 8/7/2015 4/4/2016-4/8/2016 5/27/2016
More informationSocial Services Regional Supervision and Collaboration Working Group. Aimee N. Wall
Social Services Regional Supervision and Collaboration Working Group Aimee N. Wall Plan Overview Your Charge Timelines Other Work Underway Overview S.L. 2017-41 (H 630) Your Puzzle Piece Stage One Once
More informationNorth Carolina Division of Coastal Management Sea Level Rise Scoping Survey
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Sea Level Rise Scoping Survey Final Report January 19, 2010 Prepared by Tancred Miller N.C. Division of Coastal Management N.C. Department of Environment and
More informationHow Did the Drought Affect Long-Term Residential Water Use in NC? Implications for Utility Financial Management
How Did the Drought Affect Long-Term Residential Water Use in NC? Implications for Utility Financial Management Shadi Eskaf Senior Project Director Environmental Finance Center at the UNC School of Government
More informationSTATE WATER SUPPLY PLAN
NORTH CAROLINA STATE WATER SUPPLY PLAN January 2001 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Michael F. Easley, Governor DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES William G. Ross Jr., Secretary DIVISION OF WATER
More informationThe Role of Asset Management in Rates and Finance of Small Drinking Water Systems
The Role of Asset Management in Rates and Finance of Small Drinking Water Systems 05/18/17 Dalton, GA www.efcnetwork.org This program is made possible under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. EPA. Generating
More informationTHE ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT REPORT 7
THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT REPORT 7 The Potential for Management Partnerships between Small and Large Local Government Water
More informationReassessing Our Rate Structures: Including Conservation Rates & How to Make it All Work
Reassessing Our Rate Structures: Including Conservation Rates & How to Make it All Work Andrew Westbrook westbrok@sog.unc.edu Environmental Finance Center University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 919
More informationLocal Food Systems (in 10 minutes!)
Go Wake County! Why the Growth in Local Foods What is a Food System? What is the Statewide Context in which Wake County is working? Don t forget it s a system Local Food Systems (in 10 minutes!) The Why
More informationAn Overview of NC Water Service Providers
An Overview of NC Water Service Providers By Richard Whisnant & Shadi Eskaf UNC School of Government & Environmental Finance Center For the NCGA Environmental Review Commission Nov. 13, 2013 Classifying
More informationWater and Sewer Rates and Rate Structures in Georgia December 2014
Water and Sewer Rates and Rate Structures in Georgia December 2014 This document details the results of a survey of water and sewer rates and rate structures conducted by the Georgia Environmental Finance
More informationELECTRIC COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN STUDY
DRAFT Report ELECTRIC COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN STUDY Navajo Tribal Utility Authority August 2007 DRAFT NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITY AUTHORITY ELECTRIC COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN STUDY Table of Contents
More informationRates, Rates, and More Rates
Rates, Rates, and More Rates Jeff Hughes Annalee Harkins Shadi Eskaf February 28-March 1, 2017 Chapel Hill, NC http://efc.sog.unc.edu www.efc.unc.edu @EFCatUNC Session Objectives Share experiences and
More informationMonitoring Water Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Resources STATUS REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON WATER SUPPLY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2009 Assuring a sustainable
More informationCompliance and Monitoring Plan
Compliance and Monitoring Plan Prepared for Kerr Lake Regional Water System February 2016 CH2M HILL, Inc. 3120 Highwoods Blvd, Ste 214 Raleigh, NC 27604 This document has been prepared in accordance with
More informationFrequently Asked Questions About Water and Wastewater Rates (FY )
Frequently Asked Questions About Water and Wastewater Rates (FY 2017-18) The City of Melissa receives a number of questions regarding the water and wastewater rates. This FAQ is provided to address the
More informationBenchmarking Utilities Rates and Finances for Decision and Policy Makers
Benchmarking Utilities Rates and Finances for Decision and Policy Makers Stacey Isaac Berahzer, Shadi Eskaf, Jeff Hughes Paper presented at the INTERNATIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION (IWA) 4 th LEADING EDGE CONFERENCE
More informationCITY OF ST. HELENA AD HOC REVENUE SOURCE TASK FORCE WATER & WASTEWATER RATE STUDY MEETING 2
CITY OF ST. HELENA AD HOC REVENUE SOURCE TASK FORCE WATER & WASTEWATER RATE STUDY MEETING 2 September 13, 2016 NOTE: Until the rate study is completed and approved by City Council, all information presented
More informationHow Much Does it Cost to Connect to a Water and Wastewater Utility in North Carolina? Residential Water and Wastewater Connection Fees as of January
How Much Does it Cost to Connect to a Water and Wastewater Utility in North Carolina? Residential Water and Wastewater Connection Fees as of January 2015 March 2015 About the Environmental Finance Center
More informationWATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY
WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY B&V PROJECT NO. 176244.0100 PREPARED FOR Camrosa Water District MARCH 20, 2013 Black & Veatch Holding Company 2011. All rights reserved. Camrosa Water District WATER AND
More informationWorkforce Development
NORTH CAROLINA COMMISSION F O R M E N TA L H E A LT H, D E V E L O P M E N TA L D I S A B I L I T I E S A N D S U B S TA N C E A B U S E S E R V I C E S a n d t h e NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF M E N TA
More informationDENR Funding Request. Recommended Loan Amounts for Sept Old Business. DENR Funding Request. Principal
North Carolina Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) - September 2013 Applications and Recommendations for Loans - OLD BUSINESS 1 Kings Mountain, Town of Joel E. Wood & Rehabilitate and expand the
More informationFuture of Pricing.
Future of Pricing Jeff Hughes Shadi Eskaf Austin Thompson https://m.salisburypost.com/2019/02/10/joshbergeronyears-later-bills-still-an-issue-in-landis/ www.efc.sog.unc.edu What not including depreciation
More informationWater System Revenues
Water System Revenues Glenn Barnes Environmental Finance Center The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 919-962-2789 glennbarnes@sog.unc.edu Session Objectives Understand how to pay for the costs
More informationWater and Wastewater Service Pricing in Arizona: Rates Survey Results
Water and Wastewater Service Pricing in Arizona: 2013-14 Rates Survey Results This document details the results of a survey of drinking water and wastewater rates and rate structures conducted by the Water
More informationCommunicating Revenuesheds: A User Guide
Communicating Revenuesheds: A User Guide Slides with Talking Points August 2012 Environmental Finance Center Knapp-Sanders Building, CB# 3330 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330 Tel:
More informationSenior Project Director Environmental Finance Center at the University of North Carolina
Mining data from billing records Shadi Eskaf Senior Project Director Environmental Finance Center at the University of North Carolina NCAWWA-WEA Finance and Management Committee Seminar: Billing & Collection
More informationCity Council Public Input Session Water / Sewer Rate Study. March 19, 2014
City Council Public Input Session Water / Sewer Rate Study March 19, 2014 Overview of Meeting Introduction of the Study Overview of Water and Sewer Systems FY14 Rate Study Work Accomplished and Presentations
More informationTASK IV: ANALYSIS OF MILLBROOK SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM CONSUMPTION CHARGES AND SEWER CAPITAL ASSESSMENTS
TASK IV: ANALYSIS OF MILLBROOK SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM CONSUMPTION CHARGES AND SEWER CAPITAL ASSESSMENTS PREPARED FOR: VILLAGE OF MILLBROOK, NY PREPARED BY: This document was prepared with funds provided
More informationFinal Report Rate, Charge, and Cost of Service Study. For: Parker Water and Sanitation District. December 2014
Final Report Rate, Charge, and Cost of Service Study For: December December 29, Steve Hellman Chief Financial Officer 18100 E. Woodman Drive Parker, Colorado 80134 On behalf of MWH Global, I d like to
More informationDrought Legislation Implementation Information Guide
Drought Legislation Implementation Information Guide WHAT? This information guide identifies resources to help you meet requirements of the 2008 drought preparedness and management law, S.L. 2008-143.
More informationWater Rates in Hawai i
Water Rates in Hawai i Glenn Barnes Environmental Finance Center The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 919-962-2789 glennbarnes@sog.unc.edu Session Objectives Become familiar with the features
More informationWATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY FEES REPORT PROPOSED
WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY FEES REPORT PROPOSED B&V PROJECT NO. 197551 Black & Veatch Holding Company 2015. All rights reserved. PREPARED FOR Town of Clayton, North Carolina 4 MAY 2018 Table of Contents
More informationIntroduction to Financial Management and Rate Setting
Introduction to Financial Management and Rate Setting DENR Washington Regional Office Water Operator Workshop November 7, 2013 Washington, NC efc.sog.unc.edu Housed at the UNC School of Government. Dedicated
More informationEconomic Impact Analysis of Clean Energy Development in North Carolina 2017 Update
Revised: October 2017 Economic Impact Analysis of Clean Energy Development in North Carolina 2017 Update Prepared for North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association 4800 Six Forks Rd Suite 300 Raleigh,
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 609
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 SESSION LAW 2011-374 HOUSE BILL 609 AN ACT TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS AND OTHER WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES, TO PROVIDE THAT FUNDS
More informationplants were built in NC Power's territory in the early to mid-1990 s (324.5 MW of coal and 165 MW of natural gas).
III. OTHER FUELS The Commission s Order requesting the Public Staff to investigate the availability and adequacy of the infrastructure in North Carolina to support future electric generation included a
More information5-Year Spending Plan for the Freight Rail and Rail Crossing Safety Improvement Program (FRRCSI) Sandra Stepney, Planning & Development Branch Manager
5-Year Spending Plan for the Freight Rail and Rail Crossing Safety Improvement Program (FRRCSI) Sandra Stepney, Planning & Development Branch Manager January 11, 2018 Session Law 2017-57 Sec. 34.23 GENERAL
More informationDepartment of Environmental Quality
Report on Pre-Regulatory Landfills April 13, 2016 Michael Scott, Acting Director Division of Waste Management NC Pre-Regulatory landfill program A pre-regulatory landfill is defined as any land area, whether
More informationWater Rate Structures and Revenue Resiliency
Water Rate Structures and Revenue Resiliency May 7, 2015, Fort Worth, TX Shadi Eskaf, UNC Environmental Finance Center eskaf@sog.unc.edu www.efc.sog.unc.edu Dedicated to enhancing the ability of governments
More informationGrowing Solar in North Carolina: Solar Power s Role in a Clean Energy Future
Growing Solar in North Carolina: Solar Power s Role in a Clean Energy Future Growing Solar in North Carolina: Solar Power s Role in a Clean Energy Future Written by: Siena Kaplan, Frontier Group Elizabeth
More informationUtilities Finance.
Utilities Finance Jeff Hughes Director, Environmental Finance Center School of Government University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 919 843-4956 jhughes@unc.edu www.efc.unc.edu www.efc.unc.edu Topics
More informationSmart Management for Small Water Systems.
Smart Management for Small Water Systems Rate Setting Georgia Rural Water Association Annual Conference Stacey Isaac Berahzer May 20th, 2013 Jekyll Island, GA 7/17/2013 Outline Introduction Types of Rate
More informationBY-LAWS. Triad Healthcare Preparedness Coalition ORGANIZATION
BY-LAWS ORGANIZATION The name of this organization shall be called serving the counties of Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Caldwell, Catawba, Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, Guilford, Iredell, Randolph, Rockingham,
More informationIntroduction to Public Enterprise Finance
Introduction to Public Enterprise Finance Jeff Hughes Director, Environmental Finance Center School of Government University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 919 843-4956 jhughes@unc.edu www.efc.sog.unc.edu
More informationNorth Carolina s. Forests, Mark J. Brown and James T. Vogt. Forest Service. Southern Research Station. Resource Bulletin SRS 205
United States Department of Agriculture North Carolina s Forests, 2013 Mark J. Brown and James T. Vogt Forest Service Southern Research Station Resource Bulletin SRS 205 About the Authors Mark J. Brown
More informationSetting the Right Rates for Your (Small) Water System
Setting the Right Rates for Your (Small) Water System Jeff Hughes Environmental Finance Center The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 919-843-4956 jhughes@unc.edu How you pay for it matters Supporting
More information1997 LWSP System Water Use from Basin (mgd) 1995 USGS Estimated Self-supplied Water Use in mgd. LWSP Population
BASIN 15 TAR - PAMLICO BASIN DESCRIPTION The Tar-Pamlico Basin is one of four basins that are entirely within North Carolina. It drains 5375 square miles between the Neuse and Roanoke basins. The basin
More informationA Partnership to Protect a Military Training Route and Conserve Rural Working Lands
A Partnership to Protect a Military Training Route and Conserve Rural Working Lands Todd Snelgrove Extension Program Specialist 13 December 2012 Military Need dark night skies and open space Readiness
More information2010 Annual Report on Interbasin Transfers from
2010 Annual Report on Interbasin Transfers from the Catawba River Basin North Carolina Division of Water Resources Department of the Environment and Natural Resources August, 2011 INTRODUCTION This report
More informationAugust 19, Subject: IBT Report for Dear Ms. Nimmer:
August 19, 2016 Ms. Kim Nimmer Water Supply Planning Branch N.C. Division of Water Resources 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 Subject: IBT Report for 2015 Dear Ms. Nimmer: We
More informationExecutive Summary. ES-1 Water Resources Infrastructure for Apex, Cary, Morrisville, and RTP South
Executive Summary Since the mid-1990s the Towns of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville, and Wake County have worked to develop and manage a flexible portfolio of water resources options. This approach is preferable
More informationSECTION OPEN BURNING
SECTION.1900 - OPEN BURNING 15A NCAC 02D.1901 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND PERMISSIBLE OPEN BURNING (a) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to control air pollution resulting from the open burning of combustible
More informationResidential Customer Water and Wastewater Sales Analyses and Profiles
Residential Customer Water and Wastewater Sales Analyses and Profiles Authors: Jeff Hughes, Shadi Eskaf, Christine Boyle at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill September 29, 2008 Abstract Studying
More informationDivision of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (DEMLR)
Rule Topic: Rule Citation: DENR Division: Agency Contact: Analyst: Definition of Gravel for Stormwater Rules 15A NCAC 02H.1002 Definitions Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (DEMLR) Julie
More informationInterbasin Transfer Annual Report Calendar Year 2016
Interbasin Transfer Annual Report Calendar Year 2016 Submitted by Kerr Lake Regional Water System 2/10/2017 This document has been prepared in accordance with the Kerr Lake Regional Water System s 2015
More informationWater Rate Study 2015
Water Rate Study 2015 Final Report May 20, 2015 BART LE WELLS ASSOCIATES Independent Public Finance Consultants 1889 Alcatraz Avenue Berkeley, California 94703 www.bartlewells.com Tel: 510/653-3399 TABLE
More informationElsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Drought Surcharge Study Final Report July 2, 2015 City of Thousand Oaks Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report This page intentionally left blank to facilitate
More informationWater and Wastewater Rates and Rate Structures in Alabama
This survey was funded by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). Additional support came from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water and Wastewater Rates and Rate Structures
More informationNORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 15A CHAPTER 2. SUBCHAPTER 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements SECTION.1900 OPEN BURNING
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 15A CHAPTER 2 SUBCHAPTER 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements SECTION.1900 OPEN BURNING 15A NCAC 02D.1901 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND PERMISSIBLE OPEN BURNING (a) Purpose.
More informationCURRENT WATER SUPPLY ISSUES 4-1
SECTION 4. CURRENT WATER SUPPLY ISSUES Almost all of the counties and river basins in the State have some water supply issues that are at least of local significance. However, there are numerous water
More informationChapter Above code programs. Deleted. Chapter 2
Chapter 1 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the North Carolina Energy Conservation Code as adopted by the North Carolina Building Code Council on March 11, 2008, to be effective January
More informationM A R C H 7, KC Water Cost of Service Task Force Meeting #10
M A R C H 7, 2 0 1 7 KC Water Cost of Service Task Force Meeting #10 Agenda Findings and Recommendations Recap Customer Assistance System Development Charges Adjusting Rates to Cover Costs Irrigation Charge
More information