Skip to content
  • Investors
  • Developers & Partners
  • Contact Us
  • Investors
  • Developers & Partners
  • Contact Us
Search
  • Our Companies
    • Middlesex Water Company (including Fortescue System)
    • Tidewater Utilities, Inc.
    • Pinelands Water and Wastewater Company
    • Utility Service Affiliates (Perth Amboy), Inc.
    • Utility Service Affiliates (Avalon)
    • Utility Service Affiliates, Inc. (Highland Park)
  • Our Companies
    • Middlesex Water Company (including Fortescue System)
    • Tidewater Utilities, Inc.
    • Pinelands Water and Wastewater Company
    • Utility Service Affiliates (Perth Amboy), Inc.
    • Utility Service Affiliates (Avalon)
    • Utility Service Affiliates, Inc. (Highland Park)
Middlesex Water Company
  • About Us
  • Tips & Tools
  • News Room
  • Careers
  • Alerts
  • About Us
  • Tips & Tools
  • News Room
  • Careers
  • Alerts
PAYMENT OPTIONS

Op-Ed: What’s fair about this method of determining ‘fair-market-value’ of public utilities?

  • July 27, 2021
  • No Comments

Where’s the Fairness in “Fair Market Value?”

Artificially Inflated System Valuations Will Cost Ratepayers Even More

PEGGY GALLOS, DENNIS W. DOLL | JULY 23, 2021 | OPINION

As the co-authors of this article, we disagree concerning the costs and benefits of private versus public ownership and operation of water and wastewater utilities. The emergence, however, of the so-called “Fair Market Value” approach to determining the value of a public utility, and its detrimental impact in our view on both the ratemaking authority of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) and ultimately customers, is so concerning that despite our different views, we are aligned in our opposition to this approach, which in recent years has gained, and continues to gain, traction in New Jersey.

Some context – New Jersey’s Water Infrastructure Protection Act (WIPA) was enacted in 2015 and allows municipal water and wastewater utilities to enter into a long-term lease or outright sale of the utility assets to a capable owner and operator of a private (investor-owned), or public (government-owned) utility system. WIPA eliminated the requirement for a public referendum for the lease or sale of a municipal utility system if one of five “emergent conditions” is met, as certified by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. WIPA is a version of so-called “Fair Market Value (FMV)” legislation. This legislation allows non-traditional methods for valuing utility systems which artificially inflates the value of these systems to the detriment of customers. FMV legislation has been enacted in some form in recent years in numerous states around the country and it merits closer review from the lens of the customer.

As FMV legislation has emerged in more states, it has received increased scrutiny from legislators, consumer advocates and others as the true financial impact of these transactions on utility customers is becoming more widely understood. WIPA, in particular, comes with serious consequences for utility regulators and for utility customers themselves. The law limits regulators’ ability to set traditionally just and reasonable rates and that, in turn, means potentially higher costs for the utility customers themselves.

Public entities sell their utilities for a variety of reasons. Some have to do with the utility itself, and they are all pretty standard. Selling is seen as a way to address 1) a need for significant investment in aging utility infrastructure, 2) compliance with current and anticipated water quality laws and regulations and other operational needs, 3) an aging workforce and the need for qualified employees and/or 4) mounting costly regulatory violations. Elected leaders may be unwilling to commit to managing and funding their utility because they lack the political “courage” to take the necessary steps to fund these challenges or because they simply don’t know they can pursue other approaches. Well-managed, well-funded utilities can also be sold because elected leaders who control them want to use the infusions of cash that come with these transactions to address other, more visible non-utility needs such as roads, municipal facilities, or pension funding. They may wish to eliminate municipal debt. Monetizing the utility assets may be an attractive solution to avoid dramatic increases in the near term in user fees or property taxes, which may be politically unpalatable.

So where does FMV come into the picture? Take the case of an acquisition of a publicly-owned system by a private entity. The NJBPU regulates and approves the rates charged to customers of privately-owned utilities under a “regulatory compact” which balances the needs of both the customers and the privately-owned utility. This compact is considered necessary because utilities are “natural monopolies” and don’t operate in a competitive market. Under this NJBPU-enforced regulatory compact, private entities generally cannot recover the excess cost of acquiring a public system – the “acquisition premium” — in their customers’ rates, except in narrow circumstances. This premium is typically an amount paid over and above the Original Cost of the assets Less Depreciation (OCLD). The ultimate “market value” of an acquired system is therefore traditionally based exclusively on the level of revenues the NJBPU, in its discretion, awards below, at or above OCLD. It’s a pretty simple concept.

WIPA turns this dynamic completely on its head. It relies on an appraisal of the assets using methods such as the Income Method, the Market Method and Discounted Cash Flow (DCF). These methods are commonly used for valuing businesses other than investor-owned or publicly-owned utilities which operate in competitive markets. Unlike the OCLD method used for traditional utility valuation, these methods can result in a valuation far higher than what would be derived using the traditional OCLD method. In effect, WIPA threatens to curtail the NJBPU’s regulatory authority by requiring it to award revenues to the acquiring utility based on this higher, artificially-inflated appraised value, as compared to the traditional OCLD approach.

The result is clear. Both the buyer and the seller have a vested financial interest in the purchase/sale price being the highest amount possible, in direct contrast to a traditional negotiation between a buyer and a seller. Under FMV legislation such as WIPA, the utility regulator now has far less discretion in determining the amount of revenue to award the acquirer. The regulator must rely on the appraisals in determining the acquirer’s utility rate base and consequently, its revenue award which gets passed on to customers in the form of artificially-inflated user fees.

Proponents of the FMV approach claim this is largely about consolidating a fragmented water utility industry for the benefit of customers. Although on its face this sounds like a noble goal, the fact that the acquiring utility is potentially able to close more transactions with more willing sellers, and obtain higher returns for its owners than might be possible absent FMV legislation, is a reality not readily disclosed to the public at-large. Another detail also not readily apparent is the question of who will ultimately pay for the artificially-inflated purchase price in addition to the often sorely-needed additional investments in the acquired utility’s infrastructure. The answer is: it could be the broader customer base of the acquiring private utility, the customers of the acquired municipal utility or both.

The bottom line is that the FMV model generally only works financially for the private acquirer and the acquired municipal utility if the inflated purchase price and the additional infrastructure investments can be spread across the acquiring utility’s broader existing customer base, as opposed to putting those costs solely on the rates of the customers of the acquired utility. But where is the equity there? While we the co-authors disagree on the issues surrounding private versus public ownership and operation of water and wastewater utilities, we do agree that saddling an acquiring utility’s existing customer base, or an acquired municipal utility’s smaller customer base, with these additional inflated costs is simply and egregiously unfair. As FMV starts to gain more traction in New Jersey, this potentially growing problem deserves increased scrutiny.

Peggy Gallos, Executive Director, Association of Environmental Authorities

Dennis W. Doll, President & CEO, Middlesex Water Company

 

Like this article?

Previous Looking Out for Your Interest | New Jersey Water Systems: Taking Action to Reduce Lead in Drinking Water Next
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Linkdin
Share on Pinterest

Leave a comment

Middlesex Water Company

Middlesex Water Company
485C Route 1 South, Suite 400
Iselin, NJ 08830

Contact Us >

Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in
MY H2O SMARTPAY

Important Links

  • Water Quality Reports
  • Emergency Repair Plans
  • Water for Tomorrow Program
  • Water Quality Reports
  • Emergency Repair Plans
  • Water for Tomorrow Program

News Room

  • Press Releases
  • Press Releases

About Us

  • Corporate Profile
  • Our Services
  • Leadership Team
  • Corporate Sustainability
  • Corporate Profile
  • Our Services
  • Leadership Team
  • Corporate Sustainability

Careers >

Investors >

Developers & Partners >

Customer Care

  • Payment Options
  • Customer Assistance
  • Getting the Lead Out
  • Start, Stop or Transfer Service
  • Report Change of Address
  • Sign Up for DirectAlert
  • Customer Bill of Rights
  • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
  • Customer Communications
  • BPU Benchmarking Program
  • Rate Information
  • Regulatory Filings
  • Payment Options
  • Customer Assistance
  • Getting the Lead Out
  • Start, Stop or Transfer Service
  • Report Change of Address
  • Sign Up for DirectAlert
  • Customer Bill of Rights
  • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
  • Customer Communications
  • BPU Benchmarking Program
  • Rate Information
  • Regulatory Filings

Tips & Tools

  • Use Water Wisely
  • Prepare for Water Emergencies
  • Call Before You Dig!
  • Use Water Wisely
  • Prepare for Water Emergencies
  • Call Before You Dig!

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Social Media Guidelines

© 2025 Middlesex Water Company, Inc.  All rights reserved.

MATERIALS VERIFICATION TEST

The Materials Verification Test below can help you figure out if you have a lead, galvanized steel, copper, or plastic service line on the portion of the service line you own. When you have completed the visual inspection, please submit your results using the following survey link. If you have a lead or galvanized steel service line, Middlesex Water will contact you to confirm the results and schedule your service line replacement.

What you need:

  1. House key or coin
  2. Strong refrigerator magnet

Steps to check your service line:

  1. Find the water meter in your basement or outside your home and look at the service line that enters the water meter.
  2. Use the house key or coin to carefully scratch the pipe surface.
  3. Compare the scratched area to the following descriptions:
    • If it looks shiny and silver, the pipe is made of lead. A magnet will not stick to a lead pipe.
    • If it is a dull gray color with no noticeable scratch on the surface, the pipe is galvanized steel. A magnet will stick to a galvanized steel pipe.
    • If it is the same color as a penny, the pipe is copper. A magnet will not stick to a copper pipe.
    • If it is smooth and red, blue, white, or black, the pipe is plastic. A magnet will not stick to a plastic pipe.
  4. Report your service line material in this SURVEY

ENTERPRISE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

THE MIDDLESEX WATER ENTERPRISE WILL:

• Comply with, or produce results better than, applicable laws and regulations set forth by state utility commissions and government environmental regulatory agencies.

• Include the consideration of environmental impact in all business strategies, initiatives and project plans.

• Work to ensure a reliable source of water supply.

• Promote respect for the environment as part of our Company’s culture among employees and our suppliers in their daily operations.

• Focus on reducing the amount of water lost (non-revenue) in our distribution system and employ leak detection and other available technology to achieve this goal.

• Prevent pollution, reduce waste and minimize the consumption of resources to minimize risks to the environment.

• Continually work to educate customers about the importance of protecting and preserving our natural resources and the importance of wise water use.

• Educate, train and motivate employees to carry out tasks in an environmentally responsible manner.

• Build in system resiliency to mitigate effects of climate change and other short and long-term climate related challenges.

• Use efficient practices that save fuel, energy and water.

• Work with our industry and legislative representatives to shape public policy and legislation that supports water objectives and helps ensure safe drinking water.

• Invest prudently in our systems for infrastructure stability, operational resiliency and continued sustainability utilizing sound asset management planning.

• Engage with our community to ensure responsiveness to local needs and interests.

• Work in collaboration with our communities, local municipal officials and our vendors to ensure a clean, safe, reliable and resilient water supply.

  • Español
  • हिंदी
  • 中文 (简体)
  • ગુજરાતી