Appraisal of electric cooperatives is a complex undertaking due to lack of market transactions. The presentation looks at current practice in Texas and highlights some areas of debate.

1. Wild,Wild, West……Appraisal of Electric
Cooperatives inTexas
Bwembya Chikolwa
PropertyTax Assistance Division
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Bwembya.chikolwa@cpa.state.tx.us
512-475-5677
29th National Conference of UnitValuation States
Hilton Garden Inn, Austin, TX
October 29 – 31, 2013

2.  The statements made or opinions expressed by the
author/presenter in this presentation or related materials do not
necessarily represent a policy position of theTexas Comptroller
of Public Accounts’ PropertyTax Assistance Division.
 As such, the presented material should not be quoted without
prior consent of the author/presenter.
2

3. 1. What Are Electric Cooperatives?
2. Characteristics of ElectricCooperatives
3. Legislative Background
4. Historical Background to Methodology
5. Texas Appraisal Methodology
6. Case Study 1:Valuation of Pedernales Electric Cooperatives
7. Case Study 2:Valuation of Brazos Electric Cooperative
8. Controversies & Open Discussion
9. Appraisal Methodology:Other States
10. Data Sources
3

4.  Electric cooperatives are democratic, tax-paying, not-for-profit
businesses governed by member-elected boards of directors. As member-
owned utilities, the distribution systems are self-regulating. In addition to
providing electricity and other products and services to their member-
consumers, electric co-ops adhere to a proud tradition of community
service.
 Cooperatives bring electricity to rural and suburbanTexas, turning on the
lights and improving quality of life –Texas Electric Cooperatives
 NRECA:The Electric Cooperative Story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tenKnIx4ouY
4

5. Characteristics:
 Larger investment in distribution facilities required per customer:
- Low density per customer
- Seasonal demand
 Types of customers:
- Electric Coop’s: rural customers
- IOU’s: Commercial & industrial customers
 Non-profit organizations:
- Rates set to cover O&M and debt service
- Operating margin/net income is very small & doesn’t provide market rate of
return-on-capital
 Few comparable sales/market data.
5

6. Federal Statutes:
- The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 with amendments
- Federal Power Act and major amendments
- Energy Policy Act of 2005
Texas Statutes:
- Public Utility Regulatory Act (Chp. 41) and Electric Cooperative
Corporation Act (Chp. 161), under the Texas Utilities Code
- Public Utility Commission (PUC) rules (Chapter 25 – Electric) under
Texas Administrative Code,Title 16, Part II.
6

7. “…the evolution of a ‘generally accepted’ appraisal methodology required a
concerted effort by all parties involved. In essence, to avoid costly litigation, the
valuation methodology should be not only legally valid but also developed and
supported by both the taxpayer and the appraisal authority”.
Source: Smith, M. & Nabors, W. (1994),The Appraisal of Telephone and Electric Distribution Cooperatives
inTexas, Proceedings of the 1994 Public UtilitiesWorkshop Appraisal: Communications, Energy
andTransportation Properties for AdValoremTaxation, July 24-28, 1994, Kansas, Wichita. pp. 86-
91.
 1979: Inception of the “standards” method as the “generally
accepted” methodology.
 1993: A task force was assembled to analyze the “standards” method
problem and formulate a new valuation methodology. No
alternative valuation methodology was endorsed widely and
various concerns were raised.
 2009 to date: Various inconclusive meetings held by the PTAD/
Industry Electric Coop Sub-committee on revising valuation
methodology.
7

8.  Since Coops are nonprofit organizations and rarely sell; it is difficult to perform an
income approach or gather market derived information for use in their valuation.
 The General Appraisal Manual (GAM) concludes that market data or comparable
sales approach is very difficult to perform due to scarcity of sales and that the cost
approach is the only one which is readily applicable.
 The cost approach can best be described as net-book less economic obsolescence.
- Assumptions under which Coops can be compared to IOU’s:
1. IOU’s operating under good conditions will be worth net book since this
is the theoretical earnings base.
2. Several measures of operating efficiency will provide “standards”
against which all companies can be compared.
3. “Standards” will be operating factors which are representative of
utilities operating efficiently and under good conditions.
8

9.  Measures of operating efficiency provide comparative measures of “standards”.
9
Standard Operating Efficiency Measure
MWH / Customer Density or volume of business
MWH / Net Distribution Plant Cost efficiency
MWH / M &O Expense less Power Expense Efficiency of operations
MWH / Distribution M &O Expense Efficiency of operations
Customers / Net Distribution Plant Density or volume of business

10.  Ten major differences between IOU’s and Coops:
1. Density of customers
2. Volume of power sold
3. Types of customers
4. Predictability of load
5. Sources of funding
6. Accounting methods
7. Ownership
8. Line loss
9. Purpose
10. Profit motivation
10

11. Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc. is a not-for-profit electric cooperative
corporation serving approximately 247,000 members and has 17,453 miles of line.
PEC purchases its electrical power from generating source suppliers and delivers
service to consumers through its transmission and distribution systems. Pedernales
serves 24 counties in the centralTexas region.
 Income & cost approaches used; most weight given to cost approach.
 Standards used:
 IOU’s: CenterPoint Houston; Oncor Electric;Texas-New Mexico Power;
Southwestern Electric Power; Southwestern Public Service.
11
PEDERNALES
1 MWH / Customer
2 MWH / Net Distribution Plant
3 MWH / M & O Expense less Power Expense
4 MWH / Distribution M & O Expense
5 Customers / Net Distribution Plant

12. Cost Approach:
12
APPRAISAL CALCULATIONS
% Good Calculation
IOU Standards
% GOOD 1 (MWH/CUST/ 47.68614517 ) = 0.419394723
% GOOD 2 (MWH/NDTP/ 0.0255648 ) = 0.205925563
% GOOD 3 (MWH/OPEX/ 0.102041313 ) = 0.456626128
% GOOD 4 (MWH/DTEX/ 0.547690141 ) = 0.197791421
% GOOD 5 (CUST/NDTP/ 0.000540611 ) = 0.486914057
AVG % GOOD 0.353330378
PERSONAL PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION W/O SUBS.
987,498,245 LESS 169,861,492 = 817,636,753
PER POLE MILE = 47,678
PER METER = 3,299
PERSONAL PROPERTY TRANSMISSION W/O SUBS.
38,092,756 LESS 6,445,436 = 31,647,320
PER TRANS. MILE = 104,103
PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBSTATIONS
137,928,893 LESS 14,127,367 = 123,801,526
44,366,667 LESS 7,848,734 = 36,517,933
PER KVA = 1
CWIP 39,621,497 = 39,621,497
SITUS PERSONAL PROPERTY
89,837,514 LESS 44,164,828 = 45,672,686
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 20,908,875 = 20,908,875
Net Book Value = 1,115,806,590
LESS: Economic Obsolescence (1 - 0.35333) 721,558,225
Indicated Value 394,248,365

13. Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.’s facilities include generation, transmission,
distribution, and general plants. All sales are to customers who re-sell the
electricity to ultimate users and are primarily other cooperatives.
 Income & cost approaches used. Most weight given to income approach.
 Standards used:
 IOU’s: Southwestern Electric Power; Southwestern Public Service; AEPTexas
North
13
BRAZOS
1 MWH (T)/OC Transmission
2 MWH (T)/Transmission M & O
3 MWH (P)/NPIS
4 Adj. Operating Revenues/NPIS
5 (Operating Revenues/T MWH) x 1000
6 Return to NPIS
7 Load Factor*

14.  Pedernales Electric Power Cooperative: Most weight given to cost approach.
 Brazos Electric Power Cooperative: Most weight given to income approach.
14
Is quisnam adveho in justicia must adveho per tersus manuum.

15.  Some controversies and points of discussion:
1. Determination of capitalization rate.
2. Exclusion of common carrier IOU’s located in the ERCOT system (i.e. they
are prohibited from buying and selling power).
3. “Second adjustment factor” - obsolescence factor should be adjusted by the
average level of the market value to net book ratios of the IOU’s.
4. Only Standards 1-3 are pertinent as they offer meaningful results:
- Stnd 4 is actually accounted for in Stnd 3.The whole essence of making
this adjustment is to account forT&D only, rendering Stnd 4 irrelevant.
- Stnd 5 has some serious correlation issues with Stnds 1 and Stnd 2,
hence the absurd unexplainable result. Stnd 5 is circular as it combines
elements of Stnd 1 and Stnd 2 and is ultimately captured in Stnds 1 & 2
The fact that we’re averaging these IOU Stnds to get Avg % Good, muddles
our result. We should, thus, strive for independent uncorrelated Stnds.
15

16.  Cont’d. Some controversies and points of discussion :
5. Is adopting Avg % Good using IOUs technically right when we’ve 71 electric
coops inTX to compare with? These two electric sectors have very different
risk-return profiles. Electric coops benefit from having a different rate
regulation regime and are availed with high cost assistance.
6. RUS Reports present some interesting ratios, which with aggregation can
be another route to coming up with Stnds.The following ratios can be
useful:
- Ratio 31: Plant Revenue Ratio OneYear
- Ratio 33:Total Operating Revenue Per KWH Sold (Mills)
- Ratio 35:Total Operating Revenue Per Customer
- Ratio 57:Total Margins Per Customer
16

17.  February 2012 PTAD other states survey results:
17
State Methodology Allocation Comments
WA Data from 2 IOU's to
devlp. rates & ratios
Agreed weightinng to
determine assessed
values.
Agreement with Rural
Electric Coop
Association.
OR 4% of gross revenue
from T&D operations
minus cost of power
Real MV - 85% of HCLD
and 15% Income
Approach. L & B
removed & billed
seperately.
Valued under statutues
that use gross revenue
tax (ORS 308.805)
UT Income, cost & stock
and Debt Approaches.
Contibutions-in-aid of
construction and
Deferred Taxes not in
cost approach.
Administrative Rule R
884-24p (Rule 62).
Valuation of state
assessed unitary
properties Pursuant to
Utah.
MT Primary weight on cost
approach. HCLD 50% +
Income Approach 50%.
Intangible assets
deducted: software,
copyrights, licences,
patenst, franchises,
goodwill, stocks, bonds
& notes, operating lease
adjustment.

18.  USDA Rural and Community Development, Utility Services:
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=UTILITY_SERVICES&navtype
=RT&parentnav=RURAL_DEVELOPMENT
 USDA Rural Development, Cooperatives:
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/LP_CoopPrograms.html
 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview.asp
 Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange
http://www.federatedrural.coop/
 Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC)
http://www.cooperativefinancecorporation.net/
 National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation
https://www.nrucfc.coop/content/cfc.html
 Public Utility Commission ofTexas
http://www.puc.texas.gov/
 Electric Reliability Council ofTexas
http://www.ercot.com/
 Texas Electric Cooperatives
http://www.texas-ec.org/
18