5.3. ERMUSR 12-15-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~: TABLE 2 IUet Payments and Contributions as Percent of Electric Operating Revenue, 2006 -Publicly Owned Utilities by Region- Number First Third Reason of Utilities Median Quartile Quartile Northeast ................... ........ 40............. .......... 3.1........... ...........1.7........... ........... 6.1 Atlantic ....................... ........ 35............. .......... 5.6........... ........... 2.7........... ..........10.4 East North Central ...... ........ 57............. .......... 2.9........... ........... 2.1 ........... ........... 4.7 East South Central ..... ........44............. .......... 5.8........... ........... 5.5........... ........... 6.7 West North Central.... ..._..114..._ ....... ........... 4.9.......... ...........2.8......._.. ........_. 8.3 West South Central ... ........28 ............. .......... 7.1........... ...........3.2........... ..........12.1 Mountain .................... ........18 ............. .......... 7.2 ........... ........... 3.9 ........... ..........10.7 Pacific Northevest ...... ........32............. .......... 5.3........... ...........3.0........... ........... 6.1 Pacific Southwest ...... ........14............. ..........3.6........... ...........2.5........... ........... 6.8 TOTAL 382 5.0 2.6 7.2 Net Payments and Contributions as Percent of Electric Operating Revenue, 2006 Publicly Owned Utilities by Region e +• =F ~. a.o% i.o% 1992-2004) because the utilities included in each year's report are not identical. In addition, in previous reports APPA included information collected from the U.S. Energy Administration Administra- tion's Form EIA-412. However, EIA hers discontinued that form, so payment and contribution data are now collected ex- clusivelyfrom the APPA survey. Thus the number of public power utilities included has fallen from 5 i 3 in the 2002 report to 382 in the 2006 report. II. Payment and Contribution Rates by Revenue Size Class Net payments and contributions as a per- cent of electric operating revenue are wwwAPPAnet.org ~.t~ ~.zx _ _..lif summarized for seven revenue classes. Medians by revenue class range from 4.1 percent to 5.6 percent, compared to the national median of 5.0 percent. (see Table 1). The median is defined as that value where 50 percent of the utilities had pay- ment and contribution rates greater than the median and 50 percent contributed less than the median. Quartiles are another common tool used in analysis. By definition, one-half of utilities fall between the first and third quartiles. For example, 50 percent of the 382 systems in this report made payments and contributions between 2.6 percent and 72 percent of electric operating revenue. III. Payment and Contribution Rates by Region Regional variations in median net pay- ments and contributions range from 2.9 percent in the East North Central to r.2 percent in the iYlountain Region. (See Table 2). IV. Comparison with Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs1 In 2006, investor-owned distribution utili- ties paid a mediae of 4.2 percent of electric operating revenues in taxes and fees to state eurd local govenunents. The 50 per- cent of utilities in the middle range made payments r~mging from 3.1 to 5.9 percent. In comparison, publicly owned distribution utilities paid a median of 5.0 percent in net p~vments and contributions as a percent of electric operating revenue, with a middle range of 2.6 to r .2 percent. In this study, most IOUs (91 percent) had more than $100 million in operating revenues while most of the publicly owned systems had less than X100 million (90 per- cent). The median values of taxes paid by IOUs and tax pa}nnents and contribution by publicly owrred systems (as a percen. age of electric operating revenue) vary by utility size and are summarized below: Investor- Publicly Owned Owned Large Utilities (over $100 Millionl........ 4.4% .......5.7% Small Utilities (under $100 Million)......3.1 % .......4.9% The median value for investor-owned utilities was the largest in the Atlantic <md West North Central regions, and small- est in the East South Central and Pacific Northwest. Table 3 presents data grouped by geographic region for investor-owned utilities. The number of investor-owned utili- ties has fallen from 144 in the 2000 study to 122 in the 2006 study. This is primarily the result of mergers and the elimination of several utilities in r~Iaine and Texas that no longer report sales to consumers. Retail choice laws in those two states change how utilities account for sales. American Public Power Association • 2009-10 Annual Directory & Statistical Report 41