Water Online the Magazine gives Water & Wastewater Engineers and end-users a venue to find project solutions and source valuable product information. We aim to educate the engineering and operations community on important issues and trends.
Issue link: http://wateronline.epubxp.com/i/529674
Tomorrow's Sustainable City Starts With Sustainable Infrastructure Funding Six critical lessons are shared from a leading study on best practices for infrastructure investment. By Manju Chandrasekhar T o paraphrase the 2015 ARCADIS Sustainable Cities Index, there is no perfect, sustainable, utopian city. But that may not be the point. For populations around the world, the main question is: How are we going to deal with the hand we've been dealt? How will we manage to achieve the triple bottom line of social, environmental, and economic viability? Where do we start? Considering the critical role of water across that triple bottom line, upgrading water infrastructure should be job one; yet in most commu- nities, it's not even close to the top priority. The reason? It's easy to think the issue is money. But it may be more accurate to say that the problem lies in how the general public thinks about how water infrastructure is funded — or financed. In many cases, the population assumes that capital for water infrastructure comes only from public funding, grants, or endowments. The trouble is public sources aren't keeping up with municipal water infrastructure needs. Communities where public fund- ing falls short are facing some significant changes if they expect to enjoy a sustainable water supply. Why? To start with, nationally the sheer enormity of the funding gap is so huge, it calls for new ideas. For several decades now, and through the economic downturn and its aftermath, communities across the U.S. held back on maintaining or upgrading water infrastructure, leaving the mountain of needed improvements even more difficult to climb. Estimates for the cost of repairing and updating U.S. drinking water infrastructure alone range from the U.S. EPA $500 billion projection by 2022, to the American Water Works Association's (AWWA) estimate that the cost will top $1 trillion in the next 25 years. Sustainable Options Will Take Work With the stakes so high, U.S. utilities have two avenues to pay for needed infrastructure: 1) convince the public to pay for the true value of water and 2) embrace private financing strategies. On the one hand, water systems that depend on ratepayers and taxpayers for operating revenue haven't always elected to set rates in line with requirements to fund improvements. Those communities across the country now face a major hurdle: assessing what clean, safe, and efficient water supply and treatment are truly worth to the population, and demonstrating that value versus what ratepayers may be paying now. If funding is to come predominantly from public sources, planners will need to enhance users' perceptions of the value of their water treat- ment and supply. Changing public attitudes can take years, even under inspired leadership. As we all know, this exercise also can pit competing interests against each other, further complicating the effort. On the other hand, planners are not always fishing where the money is. Our public regulatory and institutional frameworks are not suffi- ciently well-structured to tap alternate capital pools, i.e., private financing sources. The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) primed the pump, infusing much-needed public funding to catalyze pri- vate investment, but with first-year spending capped at $40 million, it's clearly not the whole solution. The vision is that WIFIA credit assistance will generate $200 million in additional debt financing against private equity capital in the first year. Against a $500 billion need, it's easy to see that more resources outside of the public sector need to be brought in. A Fresh Eye On Private Financing Best Practices Despite being the beacon of free-market practices, in the eyes of private capital providers and project developers, the U.S. has unfortunately not been able to develop a successful and long-standing track record of using private investment or public-private partnerships (PPPs) to finance water infrastructure. But that doesn't mean the idea isn't viable. Several countries outside the U.S., such as Canada and the U.K., have struc- tured some good private financing models for infrastructure, including water projects, and we can benefit from their experience. A study of infrastructure investment worldwide — the ARCADIS Global Infrastructure Investment Index — points to several ideas that could be adapted for the U.S. Here are some important lessons gleaned from the report that should facilitate in attracting both private and public investment: Start Well To End Well: There's no avoiding undertaking a thorough financial analysis to identify how to structure an offer — from using debt and traditional borrowing to equity investments by special-purpose vehicles combined with capital market instruments. As with any invest- ment proposition, private investors are ultimately seeking stable, long- term, risk-adjusted returns in a business-friendly environment. But there are also risks that need to be addressed up front. To create oppor- tunity for private funding, the right political, financial, and regulatory conditions also need to be present. Connect Early On: Bringing all parties together to connect the built asset, the commercial issues, and the financial requirements up front should encompass the goal of achieving greater certainty of total life- cycle costs, both capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX), across the investment program. For example, when the U.K.'s Thames Water Utilities Ltd. needed to achieve a step-change in delivery of its capital spending programs during a five-year regulatory period, the utility attracted and secured the best organizations and people in the industry ahead of the market and brought its input into the regulatory business plan submission early on. Clarity Counts: Investors feel much more confident if the plan is clearly articulated, coupled with commitment to a defined program, timetable, and shortlists. The proposition should reduce uncertainty in every way possible, starting with a clear, accurate picture of the project's risks and opportunities. Put Risk Where It Belongs: Investors also respond more positively if they see risk has been spread appropriately and they are not expected to bear the entire burden. Assigning risks to the appropriate parties shows 8 wateronline.com ■ Water Innovations