Sugar Creek doesn’t operate its own water utility, which makes this proposal a little different from other privatization proposals. Sugar Creek buys water from the Independence municipal utility (which should also be privatized along with the Independence electric utility, but that’s another story).

Privatization, however, is still a very good idea for the residents of Sugar Creek. The main problem with public utilities is that customers are also voters, and politicians are hesitant to raise rates on their voters. This leads to an underinvestment in the system. As the City of St. Louis said in 2024 when it finally increased water rates:

Major I-64 Water Main Break Highlights Need for Long Overdue, Much-Needed Investment in City’s Water System

This was the city’s own water system it was talking about! Cheap rates have harmful consequences down the line.

Beyond that problem, studies have demonstrated that private utilities are generally more efficient than municipal utilities. In 2000, economist B. Delworth Gardner of Brigham Young University determined that private water utilities in Utah charged lower rates for water than comparable public utilities despite the large advantages in taxation and regulation that government utilities have. A recent comparison of public and private electric utilities in Florida concluded that private utilities outperformed public utilities in nine of 14 categories.

Missouri American Water is offering $5 million for the system and has promised to invest $8 million in upgrades over five years. The equipment would also go onto the tax rolls, expanding the property tax base for Sugar Creek. Most importantly, it would put water services in Sugar Creek in the hands of a more efficient private operator, which is closely regulated by the Missouri public service commission. The idea that Missouri American Water could use its monopoly power to keep raising rates is incorrect.

This policy change would be a very good move for the people of Sugar Creek.

The post The Salad Days in Sugar Creek appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Independence has struggled to maintain its own power generation as the environmental and financial costs of coal plants has [sic] pushed many other energy firms into renewables. While many say IPL provides exceptional service and reliability, city officials note that their customers pay higher electricity rates than those served by for-profit companies in other parts of the region.

The utility is also facing financial headwinds: Its cash reserves will drop below the utility’s target of $25 million by 2025, officials said. And those reserves will drop to a negative $97 million by June 2032 as the costs to maintain the utility’s infrastructure mount.

“The problem we have, as we sit here today is that IPL is on a course to a financial train wreck, due to what I believe to be questionable decisions in the past,” said Councilman Jared Fears. “So clearly something has to change.”

It bears repeating that Independence utility customers pay more than those using for-profit utilities in the region. This is despite the advantages in taxation and regulation that municipal utilities have over private utilities. There have been several water utility privatizations in Missouri in recent years, but not many electrical utility privatizations. The case for electrical privatization is probably even stronger, as one does not have to deal with the typical “how do you privatize something that falls from the sky?” argument. Unless you make extensive use of your home lightning rod, someone is artificially generating the electricity you use. Eureka and Arnold are just two of the larger cities that have privatized their water or sewer systems in recent years. From the Post-Dispatch story:

Arnold sold its sewer system to Missouri American in 2015 for $21 million. “The system was not in good shape. It was not well maintained,” said City Administrator Bryan Richison. “And city council members were running on not raising rates, so it put us in a bad position.”

As electric vehicles ramp up the electrical power needs of our communities, it is time for Independence, Columbia, Kirkwood, and (most of all) Springfield to get out of the utility business. Private, regulated utilities are much better positioned to provide the necessary services to these communities. These cities should privatize their assets via an open, transparent process and use both the sale price and the future tax revenues to provide better overall public services for their communities.

The post Prudent Pundit Ponders Independence Power Privatization Proposal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These privatization deals are a wonderful thing that should be encouraged and expanded in Missouri, including for our largest cities and their water divisions. More stringent health, environmental, and other regulations (both necessary and not) are making it harder for local communities to operate their water and sewer systems properly. The Post-Dispatch article mentions right at the start how bad the water in Eureka is currently: “It’s the worst water I’ve ever tasted in my life,’ said Eureka resident Thomas Ferrari.”

The main complaint about privatization is that rates will increase. Yes, they often do, and that is typically a necessary thing. Municipal utilities frequently underprice water, electric, and gas rates because those pricing decisions are made by politicians who want to keep voters happy. That may help with re-election, but it makes necessary system investments more difficult. From the Post-Dispatch story:

Arnold sold its sewer system to Missouri American in 2015 for $21 million. “The system was not in good shape. It was not well maintained,” said City Administrator Bryan Richison. “And city council members were running on not raising rates, so it put us in a bad position.”

The water in the City of St. Louis may taste great (it does), but the city water division there has done a poor job of reinvesting in its system and incorporating new technology into service. As astounding as it may be, the City of St. Louis water division has still never installed water meters in most homes to measure water usage and bill accordingly. You get charged for water based on a variety of physical factors, so if you want to water your lawn for 12 hours a day you pay no more than your neighbors. That’s terrible public policy and results in inefficient, wasteful use of water.

Water and wastewater privatization is very good public policy that we need more of in Missouri. Private utilities adopt technology more quickly, expand the tax base, invest in their systems more reliably, and are regulated by the state’s public service commission on their rates. More municipalities with their own water, electric, and gas utilities should follow Eureka and Arnold’s lead and privatize for everyone’s benefit.

The post Eureka Water Privatization Is a Very Good Thing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The usual problems with water in St. Joseph, Missouri relate to having too much of it all at once. But properly getting rid of the water you have used—through your sewer system—is also a complex issue. More stringent water quality requirements from state and federal regulators have made it more difficult for many municipal utilities to operate. Often, they simply do not have the resources to meet the higher water-quality and sewage-control standards. Even large cities have had trouble dealing with revised Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sewage guidelines. For instance, Kansas City reached an agreement with the EPA in 2010 to upgrade its sewer system at a cost of $2.5 billion over 25 years, and cities like Kansas City have more resources to deal with sewer infrastructure than communities like St. Joseph.

Sewer rates in St. Joseph are already a matter of complaint. A June 2019 article in the News-Press detailed concerns among the area’s business community that high municipal sewer rates were harming the region’s economic environment. Whatever the price, St. Joseph’s sewer issues aren’t going away anytime soon. The city reached an agreement with the EPA to improve the sewer system years ago. During the Trump administration, the EPA gave St. Joseph additional time and flexibility to complete those required system improvements. Under that revised agreement, the city will be upgrading the system until at least 2036, and during that period will continue to periodically release untreated sewage into the Missouri River during major storm events. While the agreement and time extension with the EPA may be justified, the fact is that St. Joseph has another option to consider: privatization. Water in St. Joseph has long been provided by private utilities, and the city should once again—as it has previously—carefully consider privatizing its sewer system.

Indianapolis outsourced its sewer systems to private operators in 1994, and the cost savings were even greater than had been estimated. The city saved $72 million over the first five years of the contract, and those savings allowed the region to invest in major repairs to its aging sewer system. On a smaller scale, communities across Missouri have realized that the best thing for their residents is to privatize their water and sewer systems. Within just the past two years, voters in Bolivar, Eureka, Taos, Trimble, Purcell, Hallsville, and Garden City have approved privatization of their municipal water and/or sewer systems to either Missouri-American Water or Liberty Utilities. Those communities—mostly small towns spread around the state—realized that maintaining these systems was going to be an enormous burden on city governments not properly equipped to manage them. Privatizing them—for amounts ranging from $200,000 to $28 million—was a way for each city to guarantee proper operation of their water and sewer services by a regulated, privately-operated utility. The cities can use (and have used) the money to pay down debts, invest in other municipal needs, or do whatever the city wants to prioritize.

Arnold, Missouri, is probably the best guide for St. Joseph. Arnold, a suburb of St. Louis with approximately 21,000 residents, was having trouble keeping up its sewer system as it grew in population. In 2015, city voters approved a plan to sell its sewer system to Missouri-American Water for $13.2 million. Since that sale, Missouri-American has completed several promised system upgrades, while Arnold used the money to pay down municipal debt and expand its park system. As a larger city than Arnold, St. Joseph could expect substantially more money in any privatization effort.

Private utilities in Missouri are regulated. Just as Missouri-American Water cannot raise water rates in St. Joseph without approval from the public service commission, no private company could take over the sewers and raise rates further without going through the same approval process. The fact is that running a sewer system under current rules and regulations is expensive and beyond the capacity of many communities. However, it is well within the capacity of larger, private utilities like Missouri-American Water, Veolia, and Liberty Utilities. As the Indianapolis public works director said about the private contractors they hired to operate the sewer system, “It’s just a different league. These guys have resources our guys could only dream of.”

St. Joseph should take advantage of that expertise and seek bids from several private utilities to either outsource the management and operations of their sewer system or—better yet—purchase and operate it. That is the best way that city officials can address the sewer system needs of St. Joseph for the benefit of everyone in the community.

The post St. Joseph Should Privatize Its Sewer System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the last couple months, we have written how privatizing the wastewater treatment facilities will be able to leverage the expertise and capital available in the private sector to provide better services and keep prices down. The sale price, $13.2 million, can be spent to retire debt and to create a rainy-day fund.

But as with all privatizations, effecting a sale should not be the end of public engagement. Arnold residents must ensure that the money from the sale is spent or saved in a wise manner. They also must ensure that city officials hold the private company, Missouri American Water, responsible for providing safe and efficient services.

Should the city be diligent in these areas, the privatization of Arnold’s sewer system has the opportunity to become an example to Missouri of how water treatment, like many public services, can be effectively provided through the private sector.

The post Arnold Residents Vote to Privatize Sewer System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Increasing budget constraints and needed upgrades have pushed many cities to privatize public systems in recent decades. A Saint Louis-area example is the privatization of water services in Florissant in 2002. The city divested its water services to Missouri American Water for a total of $14.5 million. The results, as a Show-Me Institute case study on privatization in Missouri noted, were positive:

Florissant took its $14.5 million and immediately budgeted $2,758,000 for street repairs, police projects, and public works projects. It deposited $10 million into a newly created special reserve fund, which served the city for several years after the sale of the water division. The remainder was placed into the city’s existing reserve fund. According to a 2007 city memorandum, “The timing of the sale of the water distribution system was extremely fortuitous and gave the city the cushion necessary to work through the dramatic drop in revenue without correspondingly dramatic service cuts.”

Florissant officials have been satisfied with the service, and Missouri American Water continues to provide water services to large parts of Saint Louis County.

While a wastewater privatization deal has not occurred in the Saint Louis area, many cities nationally have privatized this type of utility. A nearby example is in Mount Vernon, Ill., which contracted with a private company to design, build, and operate a wastewater treatment plant for 20 years in 1986. At that time, Mount Vernon did not have the resources to upgrade its aging treatment plan, thereby running afoul of environmental protection laws and preventing new industry from locating in the city. Environmental Management Corporation (EMC) entered into a deal with the city to build a new treatment plant in return for operating the system for 20 years, retaining and even retraining the existing employees. The city has since extended the agreement to 2023.

As these cases show, privatization of water and wastewater systems can be an effective way of providing public services in fiscally constrained cities.

The post Wastewater Privatization: Case Studies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Believe it or not, the same may be said of the sewers serving the 20,000-plus residents of Arnold, Missouri, located on the southern edge of the Saint Louis Metropolitan Area at the confluence of the Meramec and Mississippi rivers.

Missouri American Water has offered to purchase the Arnold sewer system for a total of $13.2 million. This is a win-win proposition for the city and its residents.

The deal not only would provide Arnold with the funds to pay off $8 million in sewer bonds, but it also would supply $5 million in additional revenue. At the same time, the arrangement with Missouri American Water would guarantee timely improvements to the sewer system and lower utility costs for residents.

Arnold currently operates its sewer system as a public utility and charges residents $24.33 per month for up to 5,000 gallons of wastewater. However, like many municipalities around the country, Arnold is not charging residents what it needs to keep the system up to date, especially with increasingly stringent EPA and Clean Water Act requirements coming into force. According to one report, by 2016 the city would need to charge $34.50 per month to provide the same services.

Facing very similar pressures, cities across the country have turned to partial or full privatization of their water and wastewater systems. Deals with private companies typically result in an upfront payment to the city, a commitment by the company to make investments in the water or sewer system, agreement on pricing, and often a stipulation that the private company must retain the existing utility staff. The vast majority of these privatizations have been successful, with more than 90 percent of cities renewing privatization contracts and 94 percent recommending privatization as a method of water and sewer system management.

To cite one example, the city of Florissant in Saint Louis County sold its municipal water utility to Missouri American Water for $14.5 million in 2002. The city spent part of the proceeds on immediate needs and put the rest in a reserve fund. More than a decade later, the privatization is still a success. The lesson from Florissant and other cities is clear: When governments set the standards and carefully manage the privatization process, private operators deliver better, cost-effective service.

If Arnold accepts the deal with Missouri American, it will reap other benefits as well. Public services, like the school district, will benefit from this proposal via the expansion of the property tax base when the assets of the sewer system go on the tax rolls after Missouri American takes control. Residents will benefit from low utility fees, as Missouri American Water has stated that they will not increase rates until 2016. Even after that date, they project they will only charge residents $30 a month, which is less than what the city is likely to charge absent privatization.

While privatization of the sewer system makes sense, Arnold must be cautious on how it crafts and implements a final deal. The city must hold Missouri American Water accountable for the quality of service and the implementation of agreed-upon improvements. Furthermore, Arnold would be wise to follow the example of Florissant by carefully spending its windfall profits.

As long as local officials perform their due diligence, Arnold has much to gain and little to lose from privatizing its sewer system. Come November, residents should not let this opportunity slip down the drain.

The post Arnold Wastewater Privatization: Don’t Waste the Opportunity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Criticism: Privatized water systems mean higher rates for residents. Many cities that have privatized water or sewer systems, including Florissant, Missouri, have seen rates rise, usually faster than inflation.

Proponent response: Wastewater and water system privatizations often occur because cities are faced with expensive, necessary upgrades to sewer infrastructure. Cities that charge a utilities fee that is too low to generate enough funds for large upgrades are forced to decide between a large tax increase or subsidies from the general fund. In the case of Arnold, the city claims it will have to increase rates should privatization not occur. Luckily, Missouri American Water reports that its rate increases will be less than those the city would implement, even with necessary capital improvements.

Criticism: Cities are selling city assets in order to receive short-term cash infusions. This short-term gain will result in high utility fees in the long-term.

Proponent response: Just because cities could spend sales money foolishly, does not mean they will do so. In Florissant, the city spent a portion of the sales proceeds on immediate needs and put $10 million in a rainy day fund. Arnold plans to use proceeds to pay off existing debt, but beyond that residents should ensure that the city does not spend wastefully.

Criticism: Some cities with privatized water systems have seen the drinking water become unsafe. Companies looking to make a profit might cut corners and provide lower service.

Proponent response: Private water and wastewater management has a proven track record in the United States. The vast majority of municipalities that privatize their water or wastewater system end up renewing the contract. Like municipally owned water utilities, in individual cases private companies fail to meet safety standards, but this is not the norm. Also, the issue of water quality is less important under a wastewater system privatization than a water system privatization, for obvious reasons.

The residents of Arnold should carefully consider these questions surrounding the planned wastewater privatization deal, and whether both the funds the city will receive and benefits of private management outweigh the risks of selling a public asset.

The post Arnold Wastewater Privatization: The Policy Breakdown appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, the city could raise a large amount of money through the sale of its sewer system — possibly millions of dollars. This could be used to pay down debt, invest in needed public services, or lower taxes. The city of Florissant used the revenue from the 2002 sale of its water utility to finance several public improvements and establish a $10 million reserve fund.

Second, privatization would turn the sewers into a taxable asset. This means additional revenue for the municipality, possibly easing the tax burden on existing residents and businesses.

Third, privatization often results in lower costs, higher efficiency, and better service. For instance, Oklahoma City partnered with Veolia Water for wastewater treatment in 1984, and by 2001 had reduced treatment plant costs from $14 million to $11 million dollars. As long as efficiency gains such as those in Oklahoma City are passed on to consumers, lower costs can lead to customer savings. And although government regulations tend to erode efficiency gains over time, the immediate benefits should not be ignored. 

Make no mistake: Arnold’s wastewater system is aged and in need of extensive overhaul and repair. Privatization will not change that. Over the next few years, a significant portion of the sewer system will reach the end of its usable life. When this happens, significant costs will be incurred to renovate the system. These costs will occur whether or not the sewer system is privatized, but privatization could help keep renovation costs as low as possible. Sewer user-fees have gone up twice in the last three years – and that is with government ownership of the system. 

Private utility ownership is common throughout Missouri. In neighboring Saint Louis County, almost every resident purchases water, gas, and electricity from private companies. Although sewer privatization is less common, it is not unheard of; Missouri American Water, for instance, has several thousand sewer system customers throughout the state. 

The possibility of public repossession of the sewer system is an important option to remember. In the sale contract, Arnold can reserve the right to take the sewers back if certain standards are not met. Such a provision can protect residents from the danger of quality degradation and monopolistic fees. Another protection is the Missouri Public Service Commission, which regulates fees charged by private utility companies.

Arnold’s privatization option appears to be an opportunity for comparatively lower sewer rates and additional city revenue. The city will have more money, sewer costs will be handled more efficiently, and any concern about the quality and price of service can be addressed in the sale contract. Selling the sewers appears to be a situation where both the government and the people it serves can benefit.

Bruce Stahl is a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Selling the Sewers: The Sweet Smell of Success appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From the article:

Under the proposed new law, rate hike cases could last no more than six months, meaning utilities could file two requests each year.

That’s not just two rate hike cases for each electric company, including AmerenUE. It also means extra rate cases for water companies, including Missouri American Water, which is seeking a 21 percent rate hike, and for gas companies, including Laclede Gas, which has a $52.6 million rate hike request before utility regulators.

Last year, when AmerenUE raised its rates by 8 percent after a 12.1-percent increase the previous year, the utility’s president justified it in order to continue “maintaining reliable electric service.” He also said:

“Much of the increase covers the costs of projects initiated to improve the reliability of our electric system, the costs of environmental and efficiency improvements at our generating plants, and the costs of fuel for those plants.”

It is hard to evaluate the validity of these claims without a field of competitors providing greater incentives for efficiency and cost reduction. That competition doesn’t exist, though, because utilities are generally viewed as a natural monopoly, an industry that requires economies of scale so large that it is most efficient to have a single supplier. As a result, municipalities generally restrict entry into utility markets. In The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, economist David Henderson pointed out that this restriction is probably unnecessary:

Economists tend to oppose regulating entry. The reason is as follows: If the industry really is a natural monopoly, then preventing new competitors from entering is unnecessary because no competitor would want to enter anyway. If, on the other hand, the industry is not a natural monopoly, then preventing competition is undesirable. Either way, preventing entry does not make sense.

In “The Myth of the Natural Monopoly,” Loyola University economics professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo cited economist Walter J. Primeaux’s findings from more than 20 years of studying electrical utilities and competition:

• Contrary to natural monopoly theory, costs are actually lower where there are two firms operating;
• Contrary to natural monopoly theory, there is no more excess capacity under competition than under monopoly in the electric utility industry;
• The theory of natural monopoly fails on every count: competition exists, price wars are not “serious,” there is better consumer service and lower prices with competition, competition persists for very long periods of time, and consumers themselves prefer competition to regulated monopoly;

If a utility is providing the lowest price, a competitor’s challenge will not be a serious threat. Competition itself — or the potential for competition — can keep prices low. Regulatory boards, on the other hand, historically have not been successful in lowering prices, as DiLorenzo noted:

In one of the first statistical studies of the effects of rate regulation in the electric utilities industry, published in 1962, George Stigler and Claire Friedland found no significant differences in prices and profits of utilities with and without regulatory commissions from 1917 to 1932. Early rate regulators did not benefit the consumer, but were rather “captured” by the industry, as happened in so many other industries, from trucking to airlines to cable television.

If barriers to entry are low enough, the potential for competition can increase efficiency and cost reduction in existing utilities. Instead of a focus on how often a utility company can change its rates, Missouri residents would benefit more from lowered regulatory barriers to entry in utility markets. In that case, future rate increases — like the recent decision to increase rates by 3 percent in order to promote energy efficiency — will be weighed against the possibility of a competitor attracting market share through lower prices.

The post Monopolies Seek Further Rate Hike Legislation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.