This document summarizes a survey conducted by East Carolina University on economic development practices of public utilities. The survey received 257 responses and identified best practices through case studies. Key findings include that cooperation is more common than competition, and that reliability, competitive prices and infrastructure capacity are most important for attracting businesses. Special rates are less widely used. Case studies highlight practices like comprehensive recruitment plans, separate accounts for large customers, web presence, partnerships, and offering multiple utility services.

1. Haley Thore and Carmine Scavo, Ph.D.
Master of Public Administration Program
Department of Political Science
East Carolina University
with
Todd Rouse, P.E., Greenville Utilities Commission
Olga Smirnova, Ph.D., ECU
Building Community
APPA Economic Development Best Practices
Preliminary Survey Results and Lessons Learned

2. Introduction
 Purpose of project
 Survey of APPA member agencies to determine what they are
doing to foster economic development
 Develop case studies to identify best practices in economic
development
*Funded by APPA DEED grant

3. Project Timeline
Activities 2015
Initial interviews (12)
Develop survey questions
January-February
APPA members survey
(257 respondents)
March-May
Case studies June-September
APPA Conference presentation October
Final Report November

4. Survey Design
 Initial interviews
 Survey (Qualtrics)
 Population is 1604 public utilities who are APPA members
 Survey contact made with 1321 APPA member agencies
 Received 257 usable returns for response rate of 19.5%
 Case-studies
 Selected by at least 2 –3 respondents in the survey
 Attempted to ensure geographical coverage and customer size
 Includes interviews with economic development personnel and analysis of agency websites

5. Survey Design Economic Development Focus
Governing Board
Economic Development Initiatives
Attraction and Retention
Infrastructure Investment
Coordination of Effort
Outreach Efforts

6. Survey Findings
• Competition/cooperation
• Special rates/competitive prices
• Stage of involvement
• Elected board
• Size budget

7. Expectations:
Competition
Cooperation
Low High
Low Low n High n
High High n Low n
Cooperation and Competition
Competition
Cooperation
Low High
Low
10.4%
(22)
9.9%
(21)
High
25.9%
(55)
53.8%
(114)
Findings:
“Please indicate the level of competition (cooperation) in economic
development initiatives in your area”

8. Competition and Cooperation
Competition
Cooperation
Low High
Low 12.6% 10.9%
High 23.4% 53.1%
Competition
Cooperation
Low High
Low 0.0% 5.6%
High 36.1% 58.3%
One or Two Other Agencies Involved
in Economic Development
N = 175
Three or More Agencies Involved
in Economic Development
N = 36
Pattern holds regardless of whether there are few or many
other agencies in the area involved in economic development

9. In your experience, what have been the most
important factors for attraction of companies?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
very important
important
somewhat important
Not important
Reliability
System
Capacity
Available
Connections
Competitive
Prices
Access to
Key
Personnel
Account
Mgt
Special
Rates

10. Special rates are not as important for the attraction of
companies as competitive prices or reliability
0
50
100
150
200
250
Reliability of utility service Competitive prices Special rates
not important somewhat important important very important

11. But special rates are important for those
companies that are actually able to use them
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
never rarely sometimes often always not
applicable
specialratesareimportantforattractingcompanies
very important
important
somewhat important
not important

12. Use of special rates
(by governing structure)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
local government public auth.,
elected board
public auth.,
appointed board
public auth.,
combined board
joint-action
agency
other
not applicable
never
rarely
sometimes
often
always

13. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
elected appointed other
not applicable
never
rarely
sometimes
often
always
Use of special rates
(by governing structure)

14. Why do not use special rates
Not available Cannot use because of other limitations Choose not to use
28%
44%
28%

15. Do not use special rates
(by governing structure)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Local
Government
PA Elected PA Appointed PA Mixed Other
Not available Cannot use because of other limitations Choose not to use
38%
45%
56%

16. Size and budget:
“Please indicate which line-items you permanently
have in your budget.”
Large = more than 100,000 customers; includes joint-action agencies.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Medium and small
Large

17. What outreach methods do you use?
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cold Callings
Targeting Specific Industires
Advertising
Trade Shows
Headquarter Visits
Conferences
Other
None
9.9%
23.6%
36.3%
7.4%
40.8%
37.4%
32.0%
31.5%

18. What advertising methods do you use?
Total Respondents = 75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
National magazines and journals
Newspapers
Broadcast media
Your website
Online advertisements
Other
45.3%
46.7%
28.0%
97.3%
33.3%
20.0%

19. Stage of involvement
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
33.5%
49.5%
57.0%
33.9%
28.2%
9.7%

20. Case Studies
 Selection process
 List of case studies by size
 Components of case studies
 Name of Organization
 Location
 Residential and Commercial/Industrial Customers
 Economic Development Initiatives
 Keys to Success
 Unique Project Features
 Website Address

21. Sample of Case Studies

22. Loup River Public Power District
 Public Authority with Elected Board
 Some 15,000 residential and 4,100 commercial/industrial
customers, headquartered in Columbus NE
 At this time, solely hydroelectric generator but getting into wind
generation
 Contributes power to Nebraska Public Power District and has full
requirements contract to buy power from them
 New Nebraska state law allows Loup to buy power from privately
funded Creston Ridge Wind Farm
 25 year contract with Blue Stem stabilizes rates

23. Central Lincoln Peoples
Utility District
 Public Authority with Elected Board
 Located in Newport, OR on the Pacific coast
some 140 miles southwest of Portland
 Some 33,000 residential and 5,500
commercial/industrial customers
 Provides both electricity and broadband service

24. Orlando Utilities Commission
• Public Authority with Elected Board
• 16th largest publically owned utility in US and
second largest in Florida
• Nearly 185,000 residential and 44,000 commercial/
industrial customers
• Provides both electricity and water
 Began provision of chilled water in 1990s
 Chilled water revenues will surpass water revenues this year

25. Santee Cooper
 Public Authority with Appointed Board
 South Carolina Public Service Authority, largest
public utility in South Carolina and one of the largest
in the nation
 Provides both electricity and water
 More than 700,000 residential, 29,000 commercial
and 29 large industrial customers
 Mission “to be the state’s leading resource for
improving the quality of life for the people of South
Carolina”

26. Fayetteville Public Works Commission
 Public Authority with Appointed Board
 Some 71,000 residential and 16,500
commercial/industrial customers
 Provides electricity, water, and sewer services

27. Preliminary Lessons from Case Studies
1.Have a comprehensive plan for
recruiting and retaining businesses
 Opposite of “Shoot anything that flies; claim anything that
falls”
2.Separate Key Accounts
 Assign staff to work with large customers
3.Create a strong Web presence
 Survey showed Web was most widely used method of
advertising
 However, many interviewees complained about quality of
website

28. Preliminary Lessons from Case Studies
4.Organize and actively participate in
partnerships for economic development
 Chamber of Commerce; City and County Departments;
Downtown Development Groups; etc.
 Fayetteville PWC invests in Fayetteville Economic
Development Alliance which operates as part of Chamber of
Commerce
 Other contributors are City of Fayetteville, Cumberland County,
and the privately-funded Linda Lee Allan Fund.
 Alliance has more operating freedom in economic development
than PWC does on its own

29. Preliminary Lessons from Case Studies
5. Get involved early in economic
development decisions
6. Publicize your achievements
 Santee Cooper, for example, cites creating some $800 million in
private sector investment in South Carolina and creation of 7,500
jobs
 New Volvo automobile manufacturing plant in eastern SC that may
reach $1 billion in investment, create 4,000 jobs and produce
100,000 cars per year
 Low rates and high reliability are worthy of publicizing!
7. Use your environment to your advantage
 OUC’s provision of chilled water to Orlando customers makes
eminent sense; reduces AC usage by customers
 Loup River’s investment in wind power makes sense in Nebraska

30. Preliminary Lessons from Case Studies
8.Think big
 Santee Cooper’s success in getting Volvo to invest in SC
partially is based on SC developing a cluster of automobile-
related industries
 Santee Cooper secured 4,000 acres abutting the Ridgeville
Volvo site to be used by other companies associated with
Volvo or who might want to locate near a large automobile
facility—like what happened with BMW near Spartanburg
 SC has been in top ten in automotive manufacturing strength
rankings published by Business Facilities magazine

31. Preliminary Lessons from Case Studies
9. There are advantages to offering more
than electrical services
 PWC offers water and sewer for certain in-fill customers who
take their electrical service
 Central Lincoln invested in a fiber optic network in the 1990s
to manage its electrical operations. That network had
sufficient bandwidth that broadband could be offered to the
public (CoastNet)
 OUC’s provision of chilled water reduces electrical demand
for AC

32. Thank you!
 Please contact us with questions and comments at:
 appaecondev@ecu.edu