Municipalization

Last updated
Primary barriers to municipalization Costs to Municipalization.png
Primary barriers to municipalization

Municipalization is the transfer of private entities, assets, service providers, or corporations to public ownership by a municipality, including (but not limited to) a city, county, or public utility district ownership. [1] The transfer may be from private ownership (usually by purchase) or from other levels of government. It is the opposite of privatization and is different from nationalization. The term municipalization largely refers to the transfer of ownership of utilities from Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) to public ownership, and operation, by local government whether that be at the city, county or state level. While this is most often applied to electricity it can also refer to solar energy, water, sewer, trash, natural gas or other services. [2]

Contents

Between 2006 and 2016, there have been 13 different communities in the United States that have successfully switched from an IOU to a municipal utility. Most of these communities consisted of 10,000 people or less. Although proponents of municipalization have attempted to municipalize via ballot initiatives, many have failed. [3]

Motivations

The key motivation for municipalization stems from a difference in priorities and goals of the community members and the incumbent utility. While incumbent IOUs have the objective of reliable and safe electricity that can provide a competitive profit for the investors, municipalized utilities are free from the need to provide for private profits and can focus on the pursuit of other policy goals, especially sustainability measures and experimentation with alternative energy policy. [2] Efforts to municipalize often begin with the sentiment that the IOU is not managed primarily for the benefit of the citizens and that by undertaking municipalization of electricity services, a city government can exercise greater control over electricity generation and distribution (also often tying this process to sustainability measures). [4] There is also a neoliberal argument stemming from the historical formation of utility conglomerates. The transition from direct current (DC) systems to alternating current (AC) systems in the early twentieth century allowed for greater access to electricity for Americans and enabled the electricity industry to shift to a larger scale. The economies of scale associated with providing a utility created natural monopolies and the associated consolidation of different types of electrical service in urban areas: street lighting, building lighting, industrial machinery, and streetcars. [5] The recent efforts to municipalize electricity represent a return to municipalization as a mechanism to curb monopoly power and corruption. It is also important to acknowledge that the monopoly power of many incumbent utility providers means that they have strong financial and political resources to resist municipalization. [5] Additionally there is always a legal factor with municipalization and state laws governing municipalization vary widely across the country sometimes making the process impossible. [2]

Services

There have been two main waves of municipalization in developed countries. The first took place in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when municipalities in many developed countries acquired local private providers of a range of public services. The driving reason in most cases was the failure of private providers to sufficiently expand service provision outside wealthy parts of urban areas.

The second wave took place in the early 1990s, when after the end of the communist states in eastern Europe state-owned companies in many public service sectors were broken up and transferred to municipal control. This was typical in sectors such as water, waste management, and public transport, although not in electricity and natural gas.

Such regional companies either remained under municipal control, or were privatized. Privatization was done variously: by selling them to investors, by giving a concession or a management contract. Examples include the water sector in the Czech Republic, over half of which has been privatized.

Governments

In the United States, municipalization often refers to incorporation of an entire county into its municipalities, leaving no unincorporated areas. This generally ends de facto the county's own home rule, which in most states allows it to act as the municipal service provider in those unincorporated areas. The county is left offering only those services mandated of it by the state constitution, which are generally only extensions of state government like courts and sheriff departments. As with utilities, the county's assets usually end up being distributed among the cities, though this is less likely if the process is gradual rather than all at once.

One example of municipalization is the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, or SMUD, of Sacramento, California. In another, larger example, Fulton County, Georgia, which includes the city of Atlanta, is currently undergoing full municipalization. For a more complete discussion of this process in the Fulton County context, see the "Politics" section of the Fulton County article.

Examples

While municipalization is quite rare in the United States over the past few decades ("of these 900 municipal-owned utility firms, only 2 percent have completed municipalization since 1990") [2] there are a few key, and recent, examples that are often cited.

Long Island, New York

Basic Information: "The Long Island Power Authority territory consists of New York's Nassau and Suffolk counties and part of Queens, New York City, including the JFK International Airport." [2]

Key motivating factors: The effort to municipalize Long Island's electricity was primarily motivated by rising (and high) prices and bad reliability.

Timeline of Significant Events:

1980s: The investor-owned Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) faces near bankruptcy catalyzing the effort to municipalize led by then Governor Mario Cuomo. Despite public support for municipalization the effort faced strong opposition from LILCO. [2]

1985: The Long Island Power Authority Act passes which established Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). LIPA was charged with taking over the Shoreham plant and its debts, as well as controlling electricity costs. [2]

1998: Governor George Pataki led the effort to take over LILCO's entire system due to customers still facing high utility prices. The takeover was financed through public bond offerings and over the next few years customers experienced reduced rate. [2]

2012: Hurricane Sandy hits Long Island significantly damaging the power system and causing extensive outages. LIPA faces intense criticism for its response. [2]

2013: In an effort led by Governor Andrew Cuomo, the LIPA Reform Act of 2013 which reorganized LIPA, placing the day-to‐day operations under PSEG was approved by the state legislature. [2]

Results: The effort has been largely successful given that customer approval has improved to over 90 percent satisfaction level and LIPA's rates are no longer the highest in the New York Metro Area. This reflects that the key motivating factors were addressed.

Boulder, Colorado

Key Motivating Factors: The effort in Boulder were motivated by having greater autonomy and customer choice so that the city could more directly meet its Clean Energy goals. This effort was primarily motivated by sustainability concerns.

Timeline of Significant Events:

2002: The Boulder City Council passed Resolution 906, committing the community to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to the target established by the Kyoto Protocol. [6]

2005: In response to having difficulty meeting the goals of Resolution 906 and wanting more energy decision-making control the city created a task force to explore municipalization as an option for faster innovation capacity. [2]

2005: "The feasibility study found that munipalization would increase renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gases, maintain reliability, and reduce rates for customers. The study also found that this would make the utilities more aligned with the needs of the community and would allow any excess energy revenue to be reinvested in Boulder." The study was, however, all predictive and acknowledged many uncertainties. [2]

2017: "The City of Boulder, along with 14 other parties, signed a stipulation filed with the Public Utilities Commission, which gave the commission the opportunity to evaluate a Colorado Energy Plan Portfolio during the pending Electric Resource Plan proceeding." [2]

Results: The municipalization effort's most significant expenses have been from delays and regulatory roadblocks. In the last four years, Boulder has been involved in legal proceedings with Xcel at the local and state levels, and courts have ruled both in favor of and against municipalization. [2] As of 2/26/18 Boulder has "two agreements done" — the interim cost agreement and the easement agreement — and are "working on a final agreement on costs" in the process of the city's negotiations with Xcel Energy. [7]

San Francisco

Key Motivating Factors: The California energy crisis spiked public support for publicly owned and controlled municipal utilities. [8]

Timeline of Significant Events:

1990s: Angered by power outages and rate hikes San Franciscans engaged in various attempts to municipalize their electricity. [4]

2001: Two ballot propositions which would have enabled the city to municipalize its electricity faced strong opposition from the incumbent utilities. Both ballot propositions were defeated, one by a narrow margin of 500 votes. [4]

2002: Advocates tried ballot measures once more but were outspent by the incumbent utilities, which spent over $2 million. [4]

Results: This is a key example of a place where several attempts to municipalize have failed giving evidence to the importance of the transaction costs associated with municipalization.

Cost-benefit analysis

Political/transaction costs

The costs of municipalization tend to both front loaded and high. The largest costs come from the process of passing a ballot measure and acquiring the utility company. Although these many seem simple at face value these steps are often extremely costly and difficult because of the financial and political power that incumbent utilities possess. Still it is much more cost effective to purchase existing infrastructure in fact all processes of municipalization since the 1980s have purchased the incumbent utility assets. [2] And the cost to the acquisitions has not been cheap, "most public power takeovers are in the vicinity of 140% of book value." [2] Once the utilities have been acquired, local governments face the steep costs of financing the transition and developing the expertise to run a comprehensive system of electricity distribution as well as, in some cases, generation and transmission. [5] The transaction costs are high, because cities must borrow to pay the IOUs for the power lines, they must develop the expertise and ability to manage a LTS, and they often face years of battles in courts and in elections due to challenges from the IOU. [4] A study done by the Bay Area Economic Forum found that the key cost components that determine whether a new MU's rates will be higher or lower than the incumbent IOU's rates are: 1) "the combination of the income tax exemption and debt-only capital structure, both of which lower MU rates relative to IOU rates;" [8] 2) "the premium over book paid for the distribution assets, which will increase MU rates relative to IOU rates;" [8] and 3) "the MU's cost of generating or purchasing power, which is a wild card that could increase or decrease relative MU/IOU rates." [8]

Potential benefits

There are, however, benefits to this process as discussed in the motivation section above. Municipal bonds "typically have lower interest rates than investor‐owned utility bonds, resulting in lower costs." [2] Municipal utilities also do not pay dividends to investors which can help reduce costs. Additionally, "municipal utilities are exempt from federal taxes." [2] There is also potential for Economic development benefits to occur when municipalized utilities "promote economic development in their community by offering special rates or discounted connection fees for large customers or new businesses." [2] There are also flexibility options in complementary policies such as offer" rebates, feed-in tariffs, and other programs to support increased" distributed solar energy programs. [4] Since "Electricity rates not only recover costs, but also provide customers with price signals that influence how customers use electricity and whether to make investments in distributed energy resources, electric vehicles, or other technologies," [2] there are potential sustainability benefits to having increased control over electricity pricing. One example of such pricing is the introduction of time varying rates which are designed to reduce peak demand they are a type of demand response policy. Time‐varying rates can have considerable impact by "encouraging many customers to make small adjustments to the timing of their energy consumption, resulting in a flatter load curve for the entire system." [2]

Potential downfalls

According to a report on municipalization prepared for the District of Columbia: [1]

On the other hand, municipal utilities face challenges that can result in higher costs. The acquisition cost for the municipalized infrastructure was in some cases significantly higher than what was being recovered by the IOU, putting immediate and long‐lasting upward pressure on rates. Operationally, IOUs often have economies of scale that can lead to lower legal, management, and purchasing costs per unit of energy. Municipal utilities are not typically monitored closely by a public service commission, and inadequate auditing can allow poor utility practices to continue unchecked. Finally, the incumbent IOUs had a single, focused objective: safe, reliable power at least cost. Municipal utilities, on the other hand, also focused on the pursuit of other policy goals, which can result in higher electricity costs.

Alternatives to municipalization

Collective Private Ownership: This refers to communities coming together to take collective ownership of a utility. [9] One example is the community shares program used in Ellensburg, Washington. In this case electricity customers may buy shares in a solar field which was initially financed through the public utility and in turn receive a proportional rebate applied through their electricity billing. [5] Customers also have the option of selling or giving away their shares to non profits or other customers.

Privatization: A process by which the for-profit private sector supplants the public sector's provision of goods and/or services. There are a number of methods of privatization including the transfer of ownership from public to private entities, the displacement of public spending by private financing, or private entities assuming management and operational responsibilities of public services. [10]

Nationalization: Nationalization is a similar process to municipalization but shifts ownership and operational control towards the government at a national or federal level. There is often an assumed tradeoff between the promised equality under nationalization and the promised efficiency of privatization. [11]

Notes

  1. 1 2 Vitolo et al. (2017), p. 6.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Vitolo, Thomas; et al. (30 September 2017). An Analysis of Municipalization and Related Utility Practices (PDF) (Report).
  3. ↑ "Boulder, Xcel Energy square off over city's energy future". The Denver Post. 2011-09-10. Retrieved 2018-04-23.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hess, David J. (2013-10-01). "Industrial fields and countervailing power: The transformation of distributed solar energy in the United States". Global Environmental Change. 23 (5): 847–855. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.01.002. ISSN   0959-3780.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Hess, DJ (2011). "Electricity Transformed: Neoliberalism and Local Energy in the United States". Antipode. 43 (4): 1056–1077. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00842.x.
  6. ↑ "Boulder Municipalization History". Empower Our Future. Retrieved 2018-03-07.
  7. ↑ "City of Boulder - Climate Action Plan Fund". United States Department of Energy. Retrieved 2018-03-07.
  8. 1 2 3 4 "The Economics of Electric System Municipalization" (PDF). Bay Area Economic Forum. October 2002.
  9. ↑ Nelson, Robert H. (2000). Collective Private Ownership of American Housing: A Social Revolution in Local Governance (PDF). University of Maryland, Competitive Enterprise Institute. p. i.
  10. ↑ Mercille, Julien; Murphy, Enda (May 2017). "What is privatization? A political economy framework". Environment and Planning A. 49 (5): 1040–1059. doi:10.1177/0308518X16689085. ISSN   0308-518X. S2CID   151977394.
  11. ↑ Chang, Roberto; Hevia, Constantino; Loayza, Norman (July 2009). "Privatization and Nationalization Cycles". Rutgers and the World Bank.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public utility</span> Organization which maintains the infrastructure for a public service

A public utility company is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service. Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation ranging from local community-based groups to statewide government monopolies.

Electricity retailing is the final sale of electricity from generation to the end-use consumer. This is the fourth major step in the electricity delivery process, which also includes generation, transmission and distribution.

A utility cooperative is a type of cooperative that is tasked with the delivery of a public utility such as electricity, water or telecommunications to its members. Profits are either reinvested for infrastructure or distributed to members in the form of "patronage" or "capital credits", which are dividends paid on a member's investment in the cooperative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Net metering</span> Type of billing of electricity generated from renewable sources

Net metering is an electricity billing mechanism that allows consumers who generate some or all of their own electricity to use that electricity anytime, instead of when it is generated. This is particularly important with renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which are non-dispatchable. Monthly net metering allows consumers to use solar power generated during the day at night, or wind from a windy day later in the month. Annual net metering rolls over a net kilowatt-hour (kWh) credit to the following month, allowing solar power that was generated in July to be used in December, or wind power from March in August.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Southwestern Power Administration</span>

The Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Energy. Southwestern's mission was established by Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. The agency is a power marketing administration responsible for marketing the hydroelectric power produced at 24 United States Army Corps of Engineers multipurpose dams. By law, the power and associated energy are marketed to publicly held entities such as rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities. Southwestern has over one hundred such "preference" customers which ultimately serve over 10 million end use customers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Long Island Lighting Company</span>

The Long Island Lighting Company, or LILCO [ "lil-co" ], was an electrical power company and natural gas utility for the communities of Long Island, New York, serving 2.7 million people in Nassau, Suffolk and Queens Counties. LILCO was the power utility for Long Island from 1911 until 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Long Island Power Authority</span>

Long Island Power Authority is a municipal subdivision of the State of New York that owns the electric transmission and electric distribution system serving all of Long Island and a portion of New York City known as the Rockaways. LIPA was originally created under the Long Island Power Act of 1985 to acquire the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO)'s electric and natural gas infrastructure after the cancellation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. LIPA acquired LILCO's transmission system in May 1998, while the remainder of LILCO's natural gas-related infrastructure merged with Brooklyn Union Gas to form KeySpan Energy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Public Utilities Commission</span> State government agency of California

The California Public Utilities Commission is a regulatory agency that regulates privately owned public utilities in the state of California, including electric power, telecommunications, natural gas and water companies. In addition, the CPUC regulates common carriers, including household goods movers, passenger transportation companies such as limousine services, and rail crossing safety. The CPUC has headquarters in the Civic Center district of San Francisco, and field offices in Los Angeles and Sacramento.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Enmax</span> Calgary, Alberta municipal energy utility

Enmax Corporation is a vertically integrated utility with operations across Alberta, Canada, and in Maine, U.S. Through its subsidiaries, ENMAX Power Corporation and Versant Power, ENMAX owns and operates transmission and distribution utilities that deliver electricity to customers in Calgary, Alberta, and northern and eastern Maine. Through ENMAX Energy Corporation, ENMAX owns and operates power generation facilities and offers electricity and natural gas products and services to residential, commercial and industrial customers across Alberta.

The Texas electricity market is deregulated, meaning that there is competition in the generation and distribution of electricity. Power generators in the Texas Interconnection, managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, participate in an energy-only electricity market and are compensated only for the electricity they produce. The wholesale generation market was deregulated in 1995 and the distribution market in 1999, with Texas Senate Bill 7. This replaced the prior system in which power was generated and consumed locally by the same utility with one in which retail providers contracted with generators across the state.

Nova Scotia Power Inc. is a vertically integrated electric utility in Nova Scotia, Canada. It is privately owned by Emera and regulated by the provincial government via the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB). Nova Scotia Power Inc provides electricity to 520,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in Nova Scotia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Community Choice Aggregation</span> Alternative energy supply system

Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), also known as Community Choice Energy, municipal aggregation, governmental aggregation, electricity aggregation, and community aggregation, is an alternative to the investor-owned utility energy supply system in which local entities in the United States aggregate the buying power of individual customers within a defined jurisdiction in order to secure alternative energy supply contracts. The CCA chooses the power generation source on behalf of the consumers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Smart grid</span> Type of electrical grid

A smart grid is an electrical grid which includes a variety of operation and energy measures including:

Richard M. Kessel is a power industry executive who was formerly President and chief executive officer of the New York Power Authority, the largest state-owned public utility company in the United States. Kessel started as a consumer advocate who led the opposition to the construction and operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant constructed by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO). He was appointed as chief executive and later chairman of the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), which oversaw the public takeover of LILCO in 1998 and the decommissioning of the Shoreham plant. Kessel has been variously described by The New York Times as someone who started out as a "constant noodge, attacking perceived wrongs and demanding changes" who later became an "exuberant executive with a hands-on approach".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Net metering in the United States</span>

Net metering is a policy by many states in the United States designed to help the adoption of renewable energy. Net metering was pioneered in the United States as a way to allow solar and wind to provide electricity whenever available and allow use of that electricity whenever it was needed, beginning with utilities in Idaho in 1980, and in Arizona in 1981. In 1983, Minnesota passed the first state net metering law. As of March 2015, 44 states and Washington, D.C. have developed mandatory net metering rules for at least some utilities. However, although the states' rules are clear, few utilities actually compensate at full retail rates.

An electric utility is a company in the electric power industry that engages in electricity generation and distribution of electricity for sale generally in a regulated market. The electrical utility industry is a major provider of energy in most countries.

Utility ratemaking is the formal regulatory process in the United States by which public utilities set the prices they will charge consumers. Ratemaking, typically carried out through "rate cases" before a public utilities commission, serves as one of the primary instruments of government regulation of public utilities.

Net metering in Arizona is a public policy and political issue regarding the rates that Arizona utility companies pay solar customers sell excess energy back to the electrical grid. The issue has two political sides: utility companies that to pay solar customers the "wholesale rate" for their excess electricity, and solar panel installers and solar customers who want utility companies to pay the "retail rate".

Net metering in New Mexico is a set of state public policies that govern the relationship between solar customers and electric utility companies.

Bethpage Energy Center is a power station in Bethpage, New York, United States, consisting of two combined cycle plants opened in 1989 and 2005, and one gas turbine peaking plant opened in 2002. The original plant was commissioned by Grumman Aerospace for its Bethpage complex because it was deemed more cost-effective than purchasing power from electric utilities. It was acquired by Calpine in 1998, which expanded the facility with two more plants.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.