Survey: Public Utilities' Orientation Procedures

With my orientation completed, the next step in my research was to conduct a survey of other public utilities in order to discern how Gainesville Regional Utilities' (GRU) orientation process and board composition compared.  I developed a two-part survey and underwent the University of Florida's Institutional Review Board process (IRB202201689).   

The first survey was created using Qualtrics and a link to the survey was shared in a series of outreach emails sent by American Public Power Association (APPA) staff to their "governance" listserv.  This listserv is open to any APPA member organizations.  Per Lindsey Buttel, APPA Manager for Research & Statistics, "There are 407 subscribers to that Listserv, though I cannot say for certain how many of those subscribers are from the same utility" (personal correspondence, April '23).

Within the first survey, respondents were asked if they would be willing to share details of their Board orientation procedures.  Overall, I received valid responses from staff, board members, and legal counsel representing 31 different utilities.  Those that responded affirmatively and shared their contact information were sent a follow-up email offering to complete a second survey, either via email or over the phone/zoom.  

Here is a link to the complete list of questions for both surveys as well as the informed consent statements for my research study.

It is also worth noting here that in March 2021, the APPA completed its 10th Governance Survey.  Their survey was sent to nearly 1,900 publicly owned utilities nationwide.  They received responses from 295 utilities.  So clearly, this was a much more robust survey than mine.  At the same time, 82% of the APPA survey respondents represented utilities with less than 20,000 customers, whereas my results were more evenly spread across differently-sized utilities, with only 45% of my respondents having 20,000 or less customers.  Where their questions and results relate to my own, I have included details.

What follows are my responses to the first survey as a GRU Advisory Board member along with a review of the survey results that I received.  The results from my follow-up interviews will be discussed in the "Analysis" section of this report. 

1. Name of your utility

Gainesville Regional Utilities

My respondents represented utilities from here in my home state of Florida to Belmont, Massachusetts, as far west as California and as far north as Lewis County, Washington, plus many throughout the Midwest.  As my results below will show, this was a diverse sampling of utilities providing a wide variety of services to customers across many different demographics.

2. Services provided to your customers: electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater, internet, other

GRU offers electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater, and telecommunications services.  GRU is an unusually comprehensive utility in terms of the range of services that it offers.  Many utilities are much more limited in scope, as the results of my survey below demonstrate.  

The table on the left holds the results from my survey.  All 31 of the respondents offered electricity, but less than 1/2 offered water, and even fewer offered wastewater, internet, and gas.  However, only 9 utilities solely offered electricity, so it is common for them to offer more than one service.

On the right are the results from the APPA Governance Survey.  As with mine, 100% of their respondents offered electricity, though they generally had a much higher proportion of respondents that offered other services.  48% of my respondents offered water versus 90% of theirs; 29% offered wastewater versus 64%; and 13% offered gas versus 20%.  This part of the survey showed the greatest divergence between our results and was most surprising.  Since their survey skewed toward smaller utilities, I would have expected the opposite, with more of my respondents offering a wider range of services.

In follow-up correspondence with Steve VanderMeer (a recently-retired consultant with Hometown Connections) on this topic (July 2023), he noted the following: "I would speculate, with some confidence, that this difference reflects the trend that larger utilities tend to have independently governed utilities, which are frequently electric-only, or that those city council-governed large utilities also split out their operations into discrete departments. Even though these latter municipalities may offer water, wastewater, etc., survey respondent may be speaking only on behalf of their department. Smaller municipalities tend to share resources, buildings and staff much more than large ones, so culturally, they are more likely to view these services together. "

3. Approximate number of customers

From GRU's website: "Gainesville Regional Utilities, known as GRU, is a multi-service utility owned by the City of Gainesville. We are the 5th largest municipal electric utility in Florida.  Our combined services make us the most comprehensive utility service provider in the state. We serve approximately 93,000 retail and wholesale customers in Gainesville and surrounding areas."  

As my results below show, GRU is also larger than average nationally, approaching the highest bracket (>100,000 customers), which was only occupied by 1/6th of the utility respondents.

4. Does your utility have an appointed or an elected governance board?

GRU's Board, as of summer 2023, is the elected City Commission of Gainesville, Florida, though that is likely due to change based on some unprecedented legislation passed in the 2023 Florida legislature and signed by Governor Desantis in June which hands near complete control of the utility's governance to an "Authority" appointed by the Governor.  

 Below is the distribution for the utility respondents on this question.  The table on the left holds the results from my survey.  It is a relatively close split between elected versus appointed boards across most of the utility sizes.  In hindsight, one question I would have liked to have asked for the appointed boards is who appoints them.  My hunch, based on research and my personal experience with public utilities in Florida, is that the municipal officials play a large role in making these appointments.  Per the APPA Governance Survey (pg. 1), "City councils play a large part in determining the makeup of appointed utility boards, as in most cases they either appoint or approve the board."

The table on the right is from the APPA Governance Survey.  The focus of their question was somewhat different: independently governed versus city/county/town council governance.  But the two tables do show some similarities.  Smaller utilities appear to have a higher proportion of elected rather than appointed boards in both surveys.  Our results differ more significantly in the mid-range utilities (approx. 5,000-20,000 customers), then converge again for the larger utilities (>50,000 customers), where there is a much closer split between appointed versus elected boards.

5. In addition to a governance board, is there a separate non-governing citizen or advisory board?

The Board that I serve on, the Utility Advisory Board (UAB), advises our City Commission on matters related to GRU.  

Six out of 31 (19%) survey respondents stated that they also utilized non-governing advisory boards.  Of those, only four of the boards were specific to utility concerns.  All four of those that had utility advisory boards were larger, with three of them having >100,000 customers and one in the 40,000-100,000 range.  Some of the responsibilities of these advisory boards included: recommendations related to rate activity as well as general rules and policies for the utility.

The APPA Governance Survey showed somewhat similar results, as seen on Table 6 below.  The only class of survey respondents that reported a >20% likelihood of having an advisory board was the larger (>50,000 customers) utilities. 

6. Is an orientation provided to any or all members of your board/s?

Yes.  The orientation that is provided to the Gainesville City Commission is very similar to that provided to members of the UAB.  

Twenty-five of the survey respondents stated that orientations are also provided to their board members.  Five said orientations were not provided and one did not answer this question.  

7. If yes, would you be willing to provide further information about the content of this orientation?

I was able to complete follow-up interviews, either via email, phone, or zoom, with nine of the survey respondents to learn more about the specifics of their utility board orientation.  The results from my follow-up interviews will be discussed in the "Analysis" section of this report.  

8. Are some or all members of your board/s offered opportunities for continuing education (e.g., attendance at APPA conferences)?

Yes, as detailed in my Review of GRU's Board Orientation.  

Twenty-eight of the survey respondents stated that board members were offered opportunities for continuing education.  Two said that they were not and one did not respond to this question.  

9. If yes, please describe these opportunities. 

These were detailed in my Review of GRU's Board Orientation.

Some of the continuing education opportunities mentioned by survey respondents included conferences, events, and educational meetings/classes/webinars put on by industry organizations such as the American Public Power Association (APPA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA), Electric Power Research Institute, Florida Municipal Electric Association (FMEA) & the Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA), Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities (IAMU), Iowa League of Cities, Iowa Rural Water Association, Iowa Utilities Board, Midwest Electric Consumers Association, Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin (MEUW), Northeast Public Power Association (NEPPA), North Iowa Municipal Electric Cooperative Association, Northwest Public Power Association (NWPPA), Public Power Council (PPC), Tennessee Valley Public Power Association, Texas Public Power Association (TPPA), US Department of Energy (DOE), Washington Public Utility Districts Association (WPUDA), Western Area Power Agency, & WPPI Energy.  

Another respondent mentioned board attendance at legislative events, and a few mentioned in-house trainings on governance and legal issues, though these sorts of opportunities will be discussed more thoroughly in the "Analysis" section of this report. 

One respondent mentioned that continuing education events were put on hold this year as a cost-cutting measure due to extremely high fossil gas prices.  Something similar happened for the GRU Advisory Board and we unfortunately had to miss the APPA's summer conference this year.