HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit RC 89 - Moody's Rating MethodologyExhibit RC 89
DEEEI•tli 1. 15. 2014
PUBLIC FINANCE
MOODY'S
INVESTORS SERVICE
RATING METHODOLOGY US Municipal. Utility Revenue Debt
Table of Contents:
FACTOR 1: SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
(30%)
FACTOR 2: FINANCIAL STRENGTH
(40%)
FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT (20%)
FACTOR 4: LEGAL PROVISIONS (10%)
APPENDIX A: MUNICIPAL UTILITY
REVENUE BOND SCORECARD
Analyst Contacts:
9
12
15
17
21
NEW YORK +1.212.553.1653
Edward Damutz +1.212.553.6990
Vice President- Senior Credit Officer
edward.damutz@moodys.com
Timothy Blake +1.212.553.0849
Managing Director - Public Finance
timothy.blake@moodys.com
Alfred Medioli +1.212.553.4173
Vice President- Senior Credit Officer
alfred.medioli@moodys.com
Jennifer Diercksen +1.212.553.4346
Analyst
jennifer.diercksen@moodys.com
Dan Seymour, CFA +1.212.553.4871
Analyst
dan.seymour@moodys.com
SAN FRANCISCO +1.415.274.1708
Matthew A. Jones +1.415.274.1735
Senior Vice President
matthew.jones@moodys.com
Patrick Liberatore +1.415.274.1709
Analyst
patrick.liberatore@moodys.com
contacts continued on the last page
This methodology explains how Moody's evaluates the credit quality of essential service US
municipal utility revenue bonds. The approach described in the methodology applies to six
basic categories of municipal utilities': water distribution, gas distribution, electric
distribution, sanitary sewerage, stormwater disposal, and solid waste disposal.
The primary factors that drive our credit analysis for these types of utilities are the size and
health of the system and its service area, the financial strength of its operations, the legal
provisions governing its management, and the strength of its rate management and regulatory
compliance.
We intend for this methodology to help investors, municipalities, utilities, and other interested
market participants understand how key quantitative and qualitative risk factors are likely to
affect ratings in the municipal utility sector. This document does not offer an exhaustive
treatment of all factors that are reflected in our ratings, but should enable the reader to
understand the considerations that are usually most important for ratings in this sector.
This methodology updates and replaces two methodologies governing our municipal utility
revenue ratings: the Analytical Framework for Water and Sewer System Ratings, August 1999,
and US Public Power Electric Utilities, April 2008. While reflecting many of the same core
principles that we have used in assigning ratings to this sector for years, this updated
methodology introduces a scorecard that quantifies several factors that we previously evaluated
in qualitative ways. A modest number of ratings are expected to change as a result of the
implementation of this methodology.
The purpose of the scorecard is to provide a reference tool that market participants can use to
approximate most credit profiles within the US municipal utility sector. The scorecard
provides summarized guidance for the factors that we generally consider most important in
assigning ratings to these issuers. However, the scorecard is a summary that does not include
every rating consideration. The weights the scorecard shows for each factor represent an
approximation of their importance for rating decisions. In addition, the scorecard was built
based on historical results, while our ratings are based on forward-Iooking expectations. As a
result, we would not expect the scorecard -indicated rating to match the actual rating in every
case.
is THIS REPORT WAS REPUBLISHED ON 12/16/2014 REMOVING REFERENCES TO RATINGS THAT HAD BEEN
WITHDRAWN.
r The methodologies used to assign ratings to municipal utility districts, global regulated water utilities, regulated electric and gas utilities, electric generation and
transmission cooperatives, and waste -to -energy projects can be found in the methodology index on moodys.com.
J.
moony. II&VtSTORS SE4Lv cE
This publication does not announce
a credit rating action. For any
credit ratings referenced in this
publication, please see the ratings
tab on the issuer/entity page on
www.moodys.com for the most
updated credit rating action
information and rating history.
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Introduction
This methodology covers debt secured by the revenues generated by US municipal utilities providing
monopolistic services essential to public health and functional economies.
The security for a municipal utility revenue bond is typically defined in a bond resolution or a trust
indenture, which acts as a contract between the utility and its bondholders. The resolution or
indenture most often identifies the bond's security as a lien on the net revenues of the system after the
payment of regular operating and maintenance expenses.
The sector is varied and fragmented. US municipal utilities provide many different services whose rates
or fees can secure debt. The utilities rated under this methodology mostly fall into one or more of six
basic categories:
1) Water utilities take water from the ground, a river, a lake, or in special cases the ocean, treat it to a
potable standard, and distribute it to customers for drinking, cleaning, and commercial, industrial,
or agricultural uses. These utilities can be involved in any or all of the functions of water supply:
water treatment, long-distance transmission, and retail water distribution. Some water utilities
have no treatment capacity and purchase potable water wholesale.
2) Gas utilities take natural gas from a wholesale2 pipeline, odorize it for safety detection, and
pressurize it and deliver it to customers through a pipe network for uses such as heating, cooking,
or commercial and industrial applications. Some municipal gas systems may encompass their own
natural gas supplies.
3) Electric utilities purchase electricity3 from wholesale suppliers and deliver it to residential,
commercial, and industrial customers for a wide range of power uses.
4) Sanitary sewer utilities collect and treat wastewater, discharging it into a waterway or injecting it
underground, and landfilling or incinerating the residual sludge. Some sewer utilities with no
treatment capacity gather wastewater and transmit it to another utility that treats it.
5) Stormwater utilities collect and treat rainwater before discharging it into a body of water such as
an ocean or a river. While every city or county addresses stormwater drainage as an integral
element of its streets and highways, the stormwater systems that require capital markets financing
are typically large in scale and are necessary to avert flooding from heavy seasonal rainfall in hilly
areas.
6) Solid waste utilities collect residential or commercial refuse and dispose of it through landfills,
waste -to -energy plants, or other waste -disposal processes. A solid waste system can be complete or
collection -only, relying on another municipal or private entity for long -haul removal and disposal
through landfill or incineration.
2 This methodology covers gas distribution utilities. These utilities purchase Their supply from providers covered under the Regulated Electric and Gas Utilities
methodology, or other providers.
3 Only those municipal electric utilities that generate less than 20% of their own power are covered by this methodology. For more information on bow we rate electric
generation utilities, see US Public Power Electric Utilities with Generation Ownership Expostrye and US Municipal Joint Action Agencies
2 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
N1OODY'S INVESTORS SERVIC
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Defining the municipal utility universe
This methodology covers essential -service utilities that operate as departments, boards, or independent
authorities of US states or focal governments. We rate approximately 1,100 utilities in this category
(see Exhibit 1). More than 80% of these utilities are water and/or sewer systems. Many of these are
distribution or collection systems with no treatment capacity of their own.
EXHIBIT 1
Municipal Utility System Overview
; _ # of Moodys-rated systems
400
363
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
321
Water & Sewer Water
Source: Moody's Investors Service
709
141
31
5 3
Sewer Electric Stormwater Solid Waste Gas
States and subdivisions of states, such as counties and cities, often issue bonds secured by the net
revenues generated by a system operated directly under their auspices, such as a city water department.
Other times, states or state subdivisions create an independent authority or special purpose district that
operates the system and issues the bonds. This distinction is usually unimportant for rating purposes,
although in some cases a separate authority has beneficial management expertise.
This methodology focuses on revenue bonds for essential -service functions. Other types of public
utilities issue bonds backed by revenues charged for services such as telephone, cable television, or
parking. These services are typically competitive and subject to greater elasticity in pricing and
utilization. Bonds secured by revenues generated by these services are not rated under this
methodology. Also not rated under this methodology are utility revenue bonds whose rating is
ultimately based on a General Obligation guaranty. Lastly, the electric utilities covered under this
methodology are retail distributors of electricity mostly generated elsewhere. Electric generation
utilities, municipal waste -to -energy facilities, and US municipal joint action agencies are rated under
separate methodologies.
The credit quality of essential -service utility revenue bonds is generally quite strong. The median rating
for this sector is Aa3 (see Exhibit 2), and with very few exceptions these bonds have strong investment
grade ratings. More than 85% of essential -service revenue bonds are rated Al or higher.
3 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
EXHIBIT 2
Municipal Utility Rating Distribution
350
300
250
200
150
100
:i_I_I_11..
Aaa Aa1 Aa2 Aa3 Al A2 A3 Baal Baa2 Baa3 Bai Bat Ba3 B1 B2 B3
Source: Moody's Investors Service
The generally high ratings of the sector are a testament to numerous fundamental strengths, including:
1) The provision of essential services, usually in a government -protected monopoly
2) Typically unregulated and independent rate -setting authority
3) The ability to discontinue service to delinquent accounts and in many cases to put a lien on the
property for nonpayment
4) Utility cost burdens that are typically low relative to household income and to tax burdens
5) A generally strong federal and state regulatory framework that is designed to keep utilities
functioning in order to protect public health and achieve environmental goals
6) A "special revenue" designation that may insulate a utility from a parent's bankruptcy
A sparse history of default, bankruptcy, and serious financial distress helps to underpin the high ratings
in this sector. Since 1970, only four Moody's-rated essential -service utility systems have defauked4.
EXHIBIT 3
Rated Municipal Utility Defaults Since 19705
Default Type of System Year of default Recovery
Washington Public Power Supply System Electric Generation 1983 40%
Vanceburg, KY Electric Generation 1987 100%
Jefferson County, AL Sewer 2008 54%
Oakdale, CA Water and sewer 2012 94%
Source: Moody's Investors Service
The HarrisburgAuthority, PA's Resource Recovery Facility bonds defakaoxl in 2009. We did not rate these as revenue bonds, but as General Obligation (GO) bonds
backed by the City of Harrisburg's GO pledge. Similarly, a City of Menasha, WI default on a steam plant project was rated as a GO credit and not as a municipal utility.
Detroit's water and sewer bonds have not defaulted, though as of this writing the city's Chapter 9 bankruptcy exit is still pending.
5 As electric generation utilities, the Washington Public Power Supply System and Vanceburg electric revenue bonds would not have been rated under the current
methodology.
4 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVI
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
We see each of these default situations as unusual and idiosyncratic, with limited relevance to the
sector as a whole. We expect the very low rate of default in die sector to continue. For more
information, see US Municipal Bond Defaults and Recoveries, 1970-2013.
The Relationship Between General Obligation (GO) and Utility Revenue Bond Ratings
A municipality's GO credit quality may directly affect the strength of its associated utility systems.
This section outlines the broad principles that apply when assessing the credit linkages between a
municipality's GO and utility debt. These broad principles are meant to enhance transparency around
our view of the relationship between related ratings and explain why, in most cases, the ratings of GO
and associated utility revenue debt are and will remain relatively close.
Municipal utility debt is generally exposed to similar credit strengths and pressures as the GO and can
thus expect to experience simultaneous credit improvement or deterioration. Examples of credit
linkages between the GO and utility debt include:
» Economy: Utility systems usually rely on a coterminous or overlapping economic base and service
area.
» Legal structure: Utility bond indentures sometimes contain events of default tied to the
bankruptcy or insolvency of the general government.
» Finances and Debt: Cash can often flow between the two entities, sometimes with a formal
funding mechanism. Debt and other long-term liabilities are often paid by the same group of
constituents. GO and utility issuers may also be exposed to the same pension plan.
» Management and Governance: Management of the city and the utility may be the same or have
close ties. For instance, city management may appoint the board of the utility or have the power
to affect enterprise rates.
» Capital Markets: The GO and the utility issuer may need to access the same capital markets for
funding.
Because of these linkages, in most cases, ratings of a municipality's utility debt will be within two
notches of its GO rating. Our current rating distribution highlights this relationship, with few utility
ratings departing from their respective GO ratings by more than two notches (see Exhibit 4).
5 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY; US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
EXHIBIT 4
Relationship Between Municipal Utility and General Government GO Ratings
(Negative means utility rating is lower than the GO, positive means it is higher; not ail rated utilities are associated with rated
general governments)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-6 -5 -4
Source: Moody's Investors Service
-3
-2
-1
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
There are, however, cases where a utility's credit strength may be sufficiently independent from its
associated GO rating to justify a larger notching difference. We expect these cases to be rare, and they
would likely include several of the following characteristics:
» An unusually weak GO rating which is driven by idiosyncratic factors less relevant to the utility's
credit strength.
» A non -coterminous service area, so that utility revenues are derived from a larger and more
diversified base.
» A closed loop flow of funds, wherein the GO issuer is unable to access utility revenues.
» A strict separation of accounts and assets.
» The absence of rating triggers tied to the GO credit quality in utility financings
» Separation of management and governance.
An example of a utility rated more than two notches above its parent government is the Detroit Water
and Sewer Department, which benefits from a much larger and more diverse service area than the city
of Detroit, has separate accounts, and has a bond indenture that precludes distributions of excess cash
flow to the city's general fund.
Conversely, a utility rating more than two notches below its associated GO generally has one or more
of the following characteristics:
» An unusually weak utility rating which is driven by factors less relevant to the general
government's credit strength.
» A utility service are that is narrower and less diverse than the municipality as a whole
» A lack of expectation that the general government would transfer funds to assist a utility
experiencing financial distress.
» A strict separation of accounts and assets.
» The absence of rating triggers tied to the utility credit quality in GO financings.
DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
U5 ruaLrc FINANCE
» Separation of management and governance.
An example of a utility revenue bond rated more than two notches below the parent's GO is the
St. George Electric Enterprise, UT (Baal negative). While the City of St. George (Aa3) holds healthy
reserves and has demonstrated steady operating performance, the electric distribution system has
exhibited an unwillingness to raise electric rates fast enough to keep up with rising power supply costs.
The electric system maintains narrow Iiquidity and has failed to generate enough net revenues to cover
debt service in multiple years, justifying a significantly lower revenue rating than the related GO. We
did, however, downgrade the city from Aa2 in 2013 partially because of the relationship to the utility
funds, illustrating that these relationships are important even in cases when a wider disparity between
GO and utility ratings is warranted.
Essential service revenue bonds in bankruptcy
An important property of public utility revenue bonds is that they enjoy a potential moat from a 1
general government's bankruptcy. Under Chapter 9 of the US bankruptcy code, a lien on "special
revenue" bonds remains valid and enforceable even if the issuer is granted bankruptcy protection_
The potential survival through bankruptcy of a lien on the net revenues of a utility system is a key
strength. When a debtor is granted bankruptcy protection, its unsecured assets are subject to an
automatic stay, which freezes outflows unless approved by the bankruptcy judge.. An asset secured by
a lien that is not subject to the automatic stay enjoys a credit advantage over a related General
Obligation credit that is subject to the stay.
Further, a special revenue bond is less susceptible to adjustment in bankruptcy if its lien leads to an
interpretation of the bonds as enjoying secured status.
Although the bankruptcy code establishes these strengths of a special revenue bond, Chapter 9
remains largely untested. Case law offers few precedents, and only .a handful of examples to support
the assertion that a special revenue designation protects revenue bonds in bankruptcy.
The political reality is that utility systems are often major cash -generating assets that other
stakeholders frequently would like to bring into bankruptcy negotiations. Moreover, bankruptcy
judges in some cases have allowed the cash flows generated by special revenue systems to pay the
legal costs of related parents in bankruptcy.
It is premature to conclude that utility revenue bonds are completely insulated from Chapter 9
bankruptcies, and the risks and costs of a general government bankruptcy remain considerable.
For more information, please refer to our Special Comment, Key Credit Considerations for
Municipal Governments in Bankruptcy
The Scorecard
The municipal utility scorecard (see Exhibit 5) is a tool providing a composite score of a utility's credit
profile based on the weighted factors we consider most important, universal and measurable, as well as
possible notching factors dependent on individual credit strengths and weaknesses. The scorecard is
designed to enhance the transparency of our approach by identifying critical factors as a starting point
for analysis, along with additional considerations that may affect the final rating assignment.
7 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
r1OODY'S INVESTORS SE RVMINIMMEL
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
The scorecard is not a calculator. Its purpose is not to determine the final rating, but rather to provide
a standard platform from which to begin viewing and comparing municipal utility credits. It therefore
acts as a starting point for a more thorough and detailed analysis.
The scorecard -indicated rating will not match the actual rating in every case, for a number of reasons
including the following:
» Our methodology considers forward -looking expectations that may not be captured in historical
data.
» The scorecard is a summary that does not include every rating consideration.
» In some circumstances, the importance of one factor may escalate and transcend its prescribed
weight in this methodology.
EXHIBIT 5
Municipal Utility Scorecard Factors
Broad Scorecard Factors Factor Weighting Scorecard Subfactor Subfactor Weighting
System Characteristics
30% Asset Condition (Remaining Useful Life)
10%
Service Area Wealth (Median Family Income) 12.5%
System Size (O&M) 7.5%
Financial Strength
40% Annua[ Debt Service Coverage 15%
Days Cash on Hand 15%
Debt to Operating Revenues 10%
Management
20% Rate Management 10%
Regulatory Compliance and Capital Planning 10%
Legal Provisions
10% Rate Covenant 5%
Debt Service Reserve Requirement 5%
Total
100% Total 100%
We intentionally limited our scorecard metrics to major rating drivers that are common to most
issuers. Outside of these drivers, we may adjust the grid score for a variety of "below -the -line"
adjustments, which are more idiosyncratic factors that are likely not to apply to all issuers, but that can
impact credit strength. The scorecard score is the result of the "above -the -line" score based
quantitatively on the above -the -line factors, combined with any "below -the -line" notching
adjustments. The scorecard score is a guideline for discussion, but does not determine the final rating.
The rating is determined by a committee, which considers, but is not bound by, the scorecard score.
8 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: U5 MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE
1.1.5 PLi3tIC FIrIAUCE
Discussion of Key Scorecard Factors
To arrive at a scorecard -indicated rating, we begin by assigning a score for each subfactor. We've
chosen measures that act as proxies for a variety of different service area characteristics, financial
conditions, and governance behaviors that can otherwise be difficult to measure objectively and
consistently. Based on the scores and weights for each subfactor, a preliminary score is produced that
translates to a given rating level.
We may then move the score up or down a certain number of rating notches based on additional
"below -the -line" factors that we believe impact a particular utility's credit quality in ways not captured
by the statistical portion of the scorecard. This is where analytical judgment comes into play. We may
also choose to make adjustments to the historical inputs to reflect our forward -looking views of how
these statistics may change.
The scorecard score, combined with below -the -line notching, then provides an adjusted score. This
adjusted score is not necessarily the final rating. Because some utilities' credit profiles are idiosyncratic,
one factor, regardless of its scorecard weight, can overwhelm other factors, and other considerations
may prompt us to consider final ratings that differ from the scorecard -indicated rating.
Below, we discuss each factor and subfactor, as well as the below -the -line adjustments and other
considerations we analyze within each category of the methodology.
Factor 1: System Characteristics (30%)
EXHIBIT 6
System
Characteristics
(30%)
Aaa
Aa A Bea Ba B and Below
Asset Condition Net Fixed > 75 years 75 years a n 25 years > n 12 years a n 9 Years a n s 6 Years
(10%) Assets/Annual > 25 years > 12 years > 9 years > 6 Years
Depreciation :
System Size Water and/or sewer / O&M > $65M a $30M a $10M a $3M a O&M O&M s
(7.5%) Solid Waste: $65M O&M > O&M > O&M > $3M > $1M $1M
$30M $10M
Stormwater: O&M > $30M a $15M a $8M a O&M $2M a O&M O&M s
$30M O&M > O&M > $8M > $2M > $750K $750K
$15M
Gas or Electric: O&M > $100M ? $50M a $20M ? $8M a O&M O&M 5
$100M O&M > O&M > O&M > $8M > $3M $3M
$50M $20M
Service Area
Wealth (12.5%)
>150%of 150%aUS 90%>US 75%a US 50%>_US s40%of
US median median > median > median > median > US median
90% 75% 50% 40%
Why it matters
This factor on the scorecard measures a utility's capacity to fund its operations and capital needs based
on the health of its capital assets, the size and diversity of its operations, and the strength and resources
of its service base.
9 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: U5 MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY''S NVESTORS SERVIC€
U.5 PL LLC FINANCE
The scope of this factor is broad. Each of the subfactors contributes to an analysis of what magnitude
of expenditures is necessary to keep the system functioning, and how large, diverse, and flexible are the
resources available to meet those expenditures.
Subfactor la: Asset condition (10%)
Input: Net fixed assets divided by most recent year's depreciation, expressed in years
The condition of a utility's capital assets determines its ability to comply with environmental
regulations and continue delivering adequate service with existing resources.
Depreciation is an accounting concept that acts as a proxy for the rate at which a utility's plant and
equipment are aging. Central to our analysis of capital adequacy is an assessment of how utilities 'find
depreciation," meaning make capital replacements and repairs to address aging plant and equipment.
The consequences of failing to fund depreciation can be costly. Implicit in this measure is die concept
of deferred capital investment. Utilities that delay investing in their systems, replacing aging plant and
equipment, and modernizing their facilities often find it more expensive to do so later. Capital
investments are ordinarily more expensive when deferred.
Further, systems whose facilities deteriorate often run afoul of environmental regulations. The failure
to fund depreciation, which will manifest as a declining useful remaining life, can lead to sewage
overflows, inflow and infiltration problems, or non -compliant wastewater discharges, resulting in civil
fines, litigation, or regulatory consent decrees. These are usually more expensive than funding
depreciation through a prudent multi -year capital plan that replaces assets as they deteriorate or break
down.
The inherent differences between types of utilities are manifested in their component parts, which can
have very different useful lives. Because a solid waste utility is largely automotive -based, with
collection vehicles and earthmoving equipment at the landfill, the useful life of its assets will be well
under 20 years, compared to a water utility whose distribution mains and reservoir have useful lives of
40 to 100 years. We generally acknowledge and address these differences below the line.
For utilities whose asset condition ratios are not determinable, such as utilities that utilize cash
accounting and do not report net fixed assets or depreciation, we are likely to assess the sufficiency of
capital assets based on other available information.
Subfactor 1b: Service area wealth (12.5%)
Input: Median family income of the service arca, expressed as a percentage of the US median
Most of the costs of operating a utility and maintaining its capital assets are borne by ratepayers. The
income of the residents of the service base conveys the capacity of its ratepayers to bear higher rates to
fund operations and capital upgrades. The median family income breakpoints in this scorecard are
aligned with the ones in our US Local Government General Obligation Debt methodology.
Utilities that serve lower -income ratepayers may have more difficulty implementing higher rates, if
utility costs consume a considerable share of residents' budgets. The US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) considers wastewater costs exceeding 2% of median household income to be a heavy
burden, for example, a threshold that would be reached more quickly for a utility serving lower -
income ratepayers.
10 DECEMBER 15, 2014
RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVIG-
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
We believe MFI is the best proxy for the wealth of a service base, but other indicators such as the
poverty rate, unemployment, home foreclosures, per capita income, and median home value
supplement our analysis of ratepayer capacity.
Subfactor lc: System size (7.5%)
Input: Most recent year operations and maintenance expenditures, expressed in dollars
Larger systems tend to be more diverse and enjoy economies of scale. The size of a system implies the
flexibility and resilience not only of its operations, but of its service base.
Small systems present a number of risks. They are less likely to have redundancies, which allow a
system to shut down some of its operations in an emergency or to make repairs without interrupting
service. Small standalone water or sewer systems will typically depend upon a single supply of water or
a single sewage treatment plant. They are more likely to be exposed to a concentrated customer base.
They are more susceptible to the departure of a single large customer. An unexpected capital need is
likely to be more costly relative to its annual budget. The collective engineering and scientific expertise
is likely to be Iess robust than a larger system's.
We use different breakpoints for different types of systems in this subfactor, recognizing that not all
types of utilities have the same cost structure. For instance, an electric distribution system is more
expensive to run than a stormwater system. A distribution -only water system is likely to have a Iower,
more predictable cost base, but also depend on an external system for water supply and pay prices
largely out of its control.
Utilities that are wholesalers to municipal government customers may exhibit operating stability not
captured by size or service area wealth. Many of a utility's risks may be shifted to its municipal
customers if their service contracts prevent these customers from switching providers or decreasing
payments. If service contracts are so strongly worded and unconditional that municipal customers
would have to pay the utility's debt service under any circumstances, then the utility's bonds may
effectively represent a claim on the combined credit quality of the municipal governments.
For utilities that are exclusively wholesalers to municipal customers, we assess the customers'
("participants") credit quality, using our methodologies for general obligation bondslease revenue
bonds, or other appropriate methodology determined by the nature of the participants' pledge to the
utility. For bonds secured by a utility's net revenue pledge, we incorporate the strength of the
municipal customers' credit quality as an important factor in the utility's revenue base. For utilities
whose pledges are essentially a pass -through of the municipal customers' underlying pledges, we may
rate their bonds using the Public Sector Pool Financings methodology, recognizing that bondholders
enjoy a direct claim on the underlying municipalities' ability and willingness to pay.
Below -the -line adjustments
Additional service area economic strength or diversity: We would use this adjustment, up or down, if the
MFI statistic incompletely or inaccurately depicts that capacity of the service base to bear higher rates.
Significant customer concentration: A large exposure to a single user or industry, or a small number of
users, poses substantial risks that might not be captured in MFI. We may adjust the scorecard rating
down if a large share of a utility's revenues comes from one or a small number of customers, or from a
single industry. We would be more likely to use this adjustment for volatile, unpredictable, and mobile
industries than for longer -standing, more stable ones. We are less likely to consider a wholesale
customer as a factor contributing to concentration, as it is purchasing on behalf of end -users.
11 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Revenue per customer greatly over/under regional average: Revenue per customer conveys additional
information about users' capacity for higher rates that might not be captured in MFI. We might adjust
the above -the -line rating, up or down, if revenue per customer implies higher or lower ability to
increase rates than MFI suggests.
Exposure to weather volatility, extreme conditions or market fluctuations Large amounts of rain that
infiltrate pipes or storms that destroy equipment are examples of credit risks that could result in below -
the -line adjustments. Weather can also affect the prices that distribution systems pay third -party
providers for electricity or natural gas.
Resource vulnerability. Water, gas, and electric distribution utilities sell a product whose availability can
be limited or expensive in some cases. For instance, a water provider in a drought -stricken region may
have to purchase expensive third -party water, and see declines in billable flow due to conservation
efforts. We may adjust the scorecard rating down if the availability ofwater, an adequate gas supply, or
a dependable source of electricity is vulnerable or in doubt.
Sizeable or insufficient capacity margin: Our useful remaining life calculation is designed to assess the
quality of existing capital assets, but it does not measure the adequacy of a system's capacity relative to
demand. Areas that are growing need more water, gas, and electricity, and place greater demands on
wastewater and trash disposal utilities. Systems that are close to capacity may face greater capital costs
to expand in the future, suggesting larger debt burdens and posing additional risks that we may adjust
the scorecard downward for. Alternately, systems with ample capacity may be notched up, given the
lack of capital spending requirements implied by the excess capacity. Further, excess capacity can
sometimes imply a revenue -generating opportunity, since utilities can often sell their product or service
to other parties. We are less likely to view excess capacity as a positive if it is caused by a declining user
base.
Unusual depreciation practices relative to industry norms: Utilities typically have some flexibility to
determine the depreciation schedules of their assets. Utilizing unreasonably long useful lives or
employing other practices that distort depreciation schedules would also distort our remaining useful
Iife calculation. We may notch a score down if an unreasonable depreciation schedule is inflating a
utility's remaining useful life. Likewise, we may notch a score up if an unusually rapid depreciation
schedule understates remaining useful life.
Factor 2: Financial Strength (40%)
EXHIBIT 7
Financial Strength (40%) Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B and Below
Annual Debt Service Coverage (15%) > 2.00x 2.00x a n > 1.70x z n > 1.25x a n > 1.00x a n > s 0.70x
1.70x 1.25x 1.00x 0.70x
Days Cash on Hand (15%)
> 250 250 Days ? n 150 Days a n 35 Days ? n > 15 Days a n > s 7 Days
Days > 150 Days > 35 Days 15 Days 7 Days
Debt to Operating Revenues (10%) < 2.00x 2.00x < n a 4,00x < n s 7.00x < n s 8.00x < n 9.00x
4.00x 7.00x 8.00x 9.00x
Why it matters
The financial health of a utility determines its flexibility to respond to contingencies, its resilience
against potential short-term shocks, and its cushion against a long-term unfavorable trend.
12 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILRY REVENUE DEBT
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
We measure utilities' financial health by looking at cash and other liquid reserves, the burden that debt
places on operations, and the magnitude by which revenues are sufficient to meet expenditures.
Subfactor 2a: Annual debt service coverage (15%)
Input: Most recent year's net revenues divided by most recent year's debt service, expressed as a multiple
Debt service coverage is a core statistic assessing the financial health of a utility revenue system. The
magnitude by which net revenues are sufficient to cover debt service shows a utility's margin to tolerate
business risks or declines in demand while still assuring repayment of debt. Higher coverage levels
indicate greater flexibility to withstand volatile revenues, unexpected outflows, or customer resistance
to higher rates.
Utilities usually enter into a rate covenant under which they pledge to achieve a given level of debt
service coverage each year. The covenant ensures that the utility utilizes its assets to generate sufficient
income to pay bondholders.
The analysis of a utility system's debt service coverage demands ample context. If debt service escalates
in future years, then the utility's current net revenues may be sufficient to cover debt service this year,
but not in the future. Systems with greater revenue stability can operate comfortably at lower coverage
levels. Systems with greater capital needs are likely to incur more debt, which will lead to increased
debt service and decreased coverage. The debt service coverage calculation is the basis for a
comprehensive analysis of a utility's financial flexibility and trend over the long term.
Rate covenants define a calculation method. These calculation methods vary, for example in the
inclusion or exclusion of connection fees. Our coverage calculation will frequently differ from the
coverage utilities report for purposes of complying with their rate covenants. Frequently, our analysis
will consider several types of coverage, including maximum annual debt service (MADS) coverage,
annual debt service coverage, coverage with and without connection fees, and coverage as calculated
for the rate covenant. For entry on the scorecard, we include connection fees (when pledged) in
revenues, recognizing that these are pledged revenues that are usually generated annually and are an
important source of funding for expansion. If connection fees are particularly volatile, or if they
represent an inordinate share of revenues, we may adjust below the line.
Subfactor 2b: Days cash on hand (15%)
Input: Unrestricted cash and liquid investments times 365 divided by operating and maintenance expenses,
expressed in days
Cash is the paramount resource utilities have to meet expenses, cope with emergencies, and navigate
business interruptions. Utilities with a lot of cash and cash equivalents are able to survive temporary
disruptions and cash flow shortfalls without missing important payments. A large cash balance can also
partially compensate for the lack of a debt service reserve fund. A low cash balance indicates poor
#'legibility to manage contingencies.
We include in this measure any cash or cash -equivalent that is both unrestricted and liquid. The
measure does not include cash held in a debt service reserve fund, unspent bond proceeds, or cash that
is restricted for capital.
13 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERV{c
U.S. PUBLIC E=1N/NCE
Subfactor 2c: Debt to operating revenues (10%)
Input. Net debt divided by most recent year's operating revenues, expressed as a multiple
A utility's debt profile determines its Ieverage and fixed costs. Systems that carry a lot of debt have less
ability to reduce costs if demand shrinks, and are generally more challenged to achieve higher debt
service coverage.
A greater debt burden may also prohibit a utility from funding necessary capital upgrades, if a
covenant prevents the issuer from incurring the debt necessary to fund those upgrades.
"Net debt" is a utility's long-term debt subtracted by debt service reserve funds.
Below -the -line adjustments
Debt service coverage (annual or MADS) below key thresholds: A debt service coverage ratio below 1.
times is an important threshold, because coverage below 1 times indicates the utility is not fully
covering debt service with income generated from operations. If a utility fails to achieve 1 times
coverage, we may adjust the score down to reflect the financial imbalance of the utility's operations.
Another key threshold that would likely prompt us to adjust the score down is if coverage were to fall
below the utility's coverage covenant, even if that covenant is higher than 1 times. Management's
willingness and ability to operate the system for bondholders' benefit is a crucial credit consideration,
and a breach of covenant calls that willingness and ability into question. A coverage level that impedes
the issuance of additional bonds under the utility's additional bonds covenant could also prompt us to
adjust the score down, if we think it would prevent the utility from funding necessary capital upgrades.
Constrained liquidity position due to oversized transfers: It is common for utilities to transfer cash to their
general governments regularly, either to share overhead costs, make payments in lieu of taxes for
occupied property, or to help fund shared infrastructure. It is also common for parent governments to
tap utilities' cash to fund General Fund operations. We may notch a utility's score down if these types
of transfers are large and begin to strain its own liquidity. We are more likely to make this adjustment
if the general government is operationally reliant on utility transfers and has the authority to increase
them, particularly if the general government is struggling financially. Even if a utility has never
transferred cash to its parent, such transfers remain a possibility6, one of the reasons for the
relationship between a revenue rating and the GO rating of its general government.
Outsized capital needs: A utility with significant capital needs will likely need to incur additional debt
not communicated in the existing debt metric. We may adjust the score downward for utilities under
regulatory consent decree, or otherwise with great capital needs, that are likely to increase their debt
levels.
Oversized adjusted net pension liability relative to debt, or significant actuarial required contribution
underpayment. Employees of public utilities are usually members of a municipal pension plan. Most
utilities either sponsor their own plan or participate in another entity's plan, and are responsible for
funding their share of the plan's pension liabilities. We may adjust the score down if this liability is
especially large, or if the utility has underfunded its contributions.
Significant exposure to puttable debt and/or swaps, or other unusual debt structure: The risks of a debt
portfolio can be magnified if it is significantly composed of puttable debt. Utilities generally set rates
with the intention of covering operating expenses and debt service in the current year. A debt put,
accelerated amortization under a term -out, or other unexpected rails on a utility's resources can impose
6
Unless the utility's flow of funds is closed -loop. A closed -loop flow of funds is stronger than an open one for this reason.
14 DECEMBER 15, 2014
RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
immediate and substantial, unbudgeted cash outflows and upend that intention. We may notch a
score down, potentially by several notches, if the composition of a debt portfolio, or cash -flow
demands or unfavorable valuation of a swap, communicates a greater degree of risk than the existing
debt metric. The lesson of Jefferson County, Alabama, which defaulted on puttable sewer warrants in
2008 when they were tendered to their liquidity banks, applies here.
Factor 3: Management (20%)
EXHIBIT 8
Management (20%) Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B and Below
Rate Management Excellent rate- Strong rate- Average rate- Adequate rate- Below average Record of
(10%) setting record; setting record; setting record; setting record; rate -setting insufficiently
no material little political, some political, political, record; political, adjusting rates;
political, practical, or practical, or practical, or practical, or political,
practical, or regulatory regulatory regulatory regulatory practical, or
regulatory limits on rate limits on rate impediments impediments regulatory
limits on rate increases increases place material place obstacles
increases limits on rate substantial prevent
increases limits on rate implementation
increases of necessary
rate increases
Regulatory Fully compliant Actively Moderate Significant Not fully Not addressing
compliance and OR proactively addressing violations with compliance addressing compliance
capital planning addressing minor adopted plan to violations with compliance issues; No
(10%) compliance compliance address issues; limited issues; Limited capital planning
issues; issues; Maintains solutions or weak capital
Maintains Maintains manageable 5- adopted; planning
sophisticated comprehensive year Capital Maintains single
and and Improvement year Capital
manageable manageable Plan Improvement
Capital 10-year Capital Plan
Improvement Improvement
Plan that Plan
addresses more
than a 10-year
period
Why it matters
If the legal provisions establish the minimum level of financial margin at which a utility must be run,
the utility's management determines the actual level at which it is run.
Utility management refers to the dynamics of setting rates, planning for capital spending, budgeting
for annual expenditures, and complying with environmental regulations. All of these factors interplay
with one another to determine the credit strength of a utility system.
The scorecard captures two crucial aspects of management: rate -setting and capital planning. These
two aspects encompass most of what is important in running a utility: keeping the system in good
working order, and paying for it.
15 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVIC
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Subfactor 3a: Rate management (10%)
User rates are the primary, and sometimes only, mechanism utilities employ to pay for their
operations.
Ideally, rates increase marginally and steadily, rather than choppily. It is common for utilities to split
their rates into a "base' charge (flat rate charged to all users) plus a "volumetric" charge (per unit costs
based on flow/usage). Utilities funded to a greater extent by the volumetric charge face greater risks,
since volume can be economically sensitive or decline because of a shift in consumption patterns.
Management's track record at setting rates appropriately and increasing them when necessary drives
this score. We tend to give higher scores to utilities that set rate structures under which increases are
automatic, and do not require annual approval for implementation.
Embedded into this factor is the length of time required to implement a rate increase. Many public
utilities enjoy the authority to set their own rates, and can enact a rate increase in short order by
majority vote of the governing board. Some utilities must give the public a few weeks or months notice
before increasing rates, or choose to do so by policy or practice. Some utilities require state approval to
increase rates. Utilities that need state approval often have to file a rate case subject to public objection,
and in some cases the state takes a long time to approve them or denies the full rate increase.
The longer it takes a utility to implement a rate increase, the less flexibility it has to quickly generate
new revenues when faced with cash flow shortfalls.
Subfactor 3b: Regulatory compliance and capital planning (10%)
The public utility sector is heavily regulated. Most public utilities are regulated by federal as well as
state agencies.
The EPA enforces the Safe Drinking Water Act for water distribution utilities, the Clean Water Act
for sanitary sewer and stormwater utilities, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for solid
waste disposal systems, and the Clean Air Act for electric utilities. These statutes, and the methods
employed to enforce them, are continually evolving, often intensifying over time. Additionally, many
states have passed their own environmental regulations and are active enforcers.
This scorecard factor assesses utilities' compliance with relevant regulations and their plans for the
capital expenditures required to comply in the future.
In addition to achieving environmental compliance, proper capital planning ensures the continued
delivery of the product or service and the ongoing generation of revenues.
During our reviews, we look for indications of potential compliance gaps, such as environmental
litigation, a delay in renewing a permit, or a consent decree with a state or federal enforcement body.
Below -the -line adjustments
Unusually strong or weak capital planning. Continued violations of environmental laws and the
associated litigation can impose extraordinary costs on utilities. We may notch the score down if these
costs threaten to overwhelm a system's resources, in the form of a large consent decree, lawsuit, or
other costs. Alternately, we may notch the score up if a utility's capital planning is particularly
sophisticated or forward -looking. More sophisticated and forward -looking capital management is more
important for systems facing resource vulnerability or extreme weather volatility.
16 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERV
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Factor 4: Legal provisions (10%)
Legal Previsions (10%)
Aaa Aa A Bea Ba B and Below
Rate Covenant
(5%)
> 1.30x
zn1.30x>
1.20x
>n1.20x>1.10x an1.10x>1.00x s1.00x
Debt Service Reserve
Requirement
(5%)
DSRF funded DSRF funded at DSRF funded at
at MADS lesser of less than 3-prong
standard 3- test OR springing
prong test DSRF
NO explicit DSRF; OR funded with
speculative grade surety
Why it matters
The legal provisions of a public utility revenue bond form the backbone of its security.
When a municipality assigns its General Obligation pledge to a bond, it has promised to do whatever
it has to do to cover debt service, in most cases from any revenues or resources at its disposal.
A utility revenue bond enjoys no such open-ended pledge, making the legal edifice of the bond critical
to bondholder security. Most commonly, the legal security for municipal utility revenue bonds is a lien
on the net revenues of the system. Occasionally, bondholders enjoy a lien on the gross revenues of a
system. We ordinarily do not consider a gross revenue pledge as materially stronger than a net revenue
pledge, because systems need to pay operating and maintenance costs in order to remain functional.
The linchpin of a bond's legal structure is its covenants: the legal compulsions the municipal utility
agrees to when issuing the bonds.
Utilities abide by many different types of covenants. We consider three to be the most important: the
rate covenant, the additional bonds test, and the debt service reserve fund. Also crucial in the analysis
of a revenue bond's legal structure is whether the flow of funds is open -loop (accessible by another
government entity) or closed.
Strong covenants bind the utility to utilize its assets to benefit bondholders by operating with a
comfortable financial margin, not taking on too much debt, and maintaining adequate cash available
to pay debt service. Weak or nonexistent covenants allow the utility to operate on a thin margin or
even at a net loss, incur a lot of leverage, transfer its money to other government entities, or maintain
inadequate cash, in ways that are detrimental to bondholders.
Covenants specify the minimum factors management must legally abide by. Utilities frequently exceed
the minimum. Many of our ratings represent the expectation of performance at levels that exceed the
covenants.
Subfactor 4a: Rate covenant (5%)
Input: Covenant governing net revenues (operating revenues minus operating expenditures net of depreciation)
divided by annual debt service, expressed as a multiple
The rate covenant is a legal pledge to set rates such that net revenues will be sufficient to cover debt
service at a prescribed level. For example, a covenant may bind a utility to ensure that net revenues
17 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: Us MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVIdE
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
cover debt service by 1.2 times. If net revenues fall short of this covenant in one year, the utility must
raise rates to achieve a compliant coverage level the following year.
The rate covenant takes many forms. Some utilities pledge for net revenues to cover current year
annual debt service by a given level, others pledge to cover average annual debt service throughout the
life of the bonds at that level. A strong coverage requirement would be for net revenues to cover
maximum annual debt service (MADS) by a certain level.
Some rate covenant formats are materially weaker than this. Some utilities allow a "rolling"
calculation, which includes outstanding cash from prior years' surpluses as part of the resources
available to cover debt service. Many rate covenants allow connection fees to be included in available
operating revenues.
The above -the -line coverage factor assumes the covenant is an annual debt service coverage calculation.
We can adjust for any departures from this format below the line, up or down.
Subfactor 4b: Debt service reserve requirement (5%)
Input: Debt service reserve requirement
Many issuers agree to hold a specified amount of cash or other resources in a debt service reserve fund
(DSRF), which the trustee can tap to pay debt service in the event that net revenues are inadequate.
The DSRF covenant ordinarily requires the utility to replenish any draws from the DSRF.
The DSRF protects bondholders by assuring the payment of debt service even if net revenues fall short
in one year.
DSRF funds can be funded with cash, or with surety policies from an insurer. We generally consider
cash to be superior to a surety, although this is unlikely to materially affect the rating as long as the
surety provider is rated investment grade.
One commonly used DSRF requirement is known as the "three -pronged test." Under tax law, the
Internal Revenue Service limits the earning of interest on proceeds of a tax-exempt bond unless the
invested proceeds comply with the three -pronged test. Under that test, the DSRF must be the lesser of
10% of principal, MADS, or 1.25 times average annual debt service. A DSRF set at the three -pronged
test is usually weaker than one funded at MADS.
Recent years have seen a trend of revenue bonds issued without a DSRF. This has resulted in a number
of utilities with some bonds secured by a DSRF and other parity bonds secured by the same lien but
no DSRF. We have rarely distinguished ratings between these parity bonds. The DSRF is a last -resort
security measure, and most utilities comply with their coverage covenants and never have to tap their
DSRF. We are most likely to distinguish between DSRF-secured bonds and bonds with no DSRF if
the system holds narrow liquidity. A system operating with abundant liquidity can use its operating
cash to meet debt service shortfalls, effectively executing a similar function to the DSRF. The
combination of narrow liquidity and no DSRF exposes bondholders to greater risks of interrupted
debt service payments, and is therefore more likely to be reflected in ratings.
1B DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOOA�+'s INVE51 1RS 5E4Vi:E
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
For a utility whose debt is mostly, but not all, secured by a DSRF, we will still enter the DSRF
requirement into the scorecard. For a utility whose debt is mostly not secured by a DSRF, we will
adjust the DSRF entry downward'.
Below -the -line adjustments
Coverage covenant other than annual debt service: Our input for the coverage covenant assumes the
coverage refers to net revenue coverage of annual debt service. A "rolling" coverage covenant that
includes outstanding cash, or some other modification that weakens the meaning of the covenant, may
prompt us to notch the score down. Conversely, a MADS coverage covenant may prompt us to notch
the score up.
Structural enhancements/complexities: The scorecard is designed to capture covenants as they are most
commonly constituted, but cannot account for the myriad structures and complexities that arise in
bond transactions throughout the sector. Enhancements such as a lock -box structure for debt service
may lead us to notch the score up. Other shortcomings, such as a weak additional bonds test or the
indusion of cash in a coverage covenant, may lead us to notch the score down. Any characteristic of
the legal provisions of a bond transaction may lead us to conclude that the scorecard does not
adequately capture its risk profile.
7 For example, if 1/3 of a utility's debt is secured by a DSRF funded at MADs and 2/3 is not secured by a DSRF at all, we may enter the DSRF requirement as a Boa.
19 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MO0DY`5 INVESTOli5'SERVICE
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Moody's Treatment of Different Liens on a US Municipal Utility's Net Revenues
It is common for utilities to issue debt secured by different liens on their net revenues. Senior bonds
are secured by a first lien on net revenues, and subordinate bonds or loans secured by a subordinate, or
junior, lien. Sometimes, utilities will issue debt secured by a third lien or lower.
Our practice is to evaluate the likelihood of default and the expected recovery in the event of default for
each lien independently.
This will most commonly result in a rating distinction of one notch for each lien of subordination. In other
words, if a municipal utility's senior lien is iated Aa3, its subordinate lien will most likely be rated Al and
the third lien will most likely be rated A2.
The reason for the typical one -notch -per -lien distinction is that subordinate liens are marginally more likely
to default than senior liens, and subordinate liens' expected recovery in the event of default would be lower
Senior liens are typically afforded stronger legal protections under utilities' indentures, senior -hen debt
service is usually paid earlier in the flow of funds, and the first hen would likely enjoy a better claim m
bankruptcy
For most investment grade municipal utilities, the probability of default for any lien is small, and so the
notching distinction is driven prunarily by a greater expected loss severity in the unlikely event of a default
This is comparable to our approach for rannes distinctions for different debt lasses of investment grade
corporations, where ratings distinctions are driven by differences in expected loss severities. In contrast to
corporates, however, there often is not an explicit cross -default of senior municipal debt in the event of a
subordinate payment default.
In some instances, we may condude that an investment grade municipal utility's subordinate lien has a
default probability and expected loss seventy that is nearly as low or just as low as the senioi lien (in which
case we may not make a ratings distinction), or a default probability and expected loss severity that is
materially higher than the senior lien (in which case we may make a ratings distinction of more than one
notch)
Such a conclusion would be based on the municipal utility's management of its system with respect to its
liens, and the characteristics of the legal framework governing the liens: rate covenants, additional debt
provisions, and cross -default and acceleration provisions in a senior hen's variable rate debt resulting from a
default on the subordinate hen, for example. If a utility has only a very small amount of senior hen debt, we
may choose not to distinguish between hens
The distinctions among a municipal utility's liens become more stark when it faces a material likelihood of
default or bankruptcy. For these situations, the different characteristics of the liens are likely to drive greater
disparities in default probabilities and expected recoveries for disparate liens. Thus, we are more likely to
employ ratmgs distinctions other than one notch for speculative grade municipal utilities' different liens as
the Loss Given Default approach drives more of the analysis
In nearly all instances, the ratings on the different liens of the same utility will remain closely related. The
reason for this is that municipal utilities are actively managed enterprises that continually need to generate
net revenues sufficient not only to cover debt service but to fund capital needs. Even if senior lien coverage
is strong, a utility that is unable to pay its junior lien debt service is not generating excess funds for capital
investment and does not have capacity for capital borrowing. Thus, while subordinate liens face greater
default probability and higher loss expectations based on their first -loss positions, an increased likelihood of
default on a subordinate lien implies an increased likelihood of insolvency for the utility as a whole
For this reason, we enter the debt -oriented inputs into the scorecard on a consolidated basis For the debt to
revenues factor, we enter total debt (senior and junior) For the debt service coverage factor, we enter total
debt service coverage. It's the municipal utility's ability to cover all of its debt service with net revenues that
determines its viability as a gouig concern. Even for a senior lien with a large coverage factor by net
revenues, a narrow coverage of all debt service implies pressure to maintain healthy operations and generate
j funds sufficient for capital reinvestment
2D DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METKODOLOGY: U5 MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Appendix A: Municipal Utility Revenue Bond Scorecard
EXHIBIT 10
Aaa Aa
A Baa
Ba
B and Below
Numerical
score 0.5 to 1.5 1.5 to 2.5
2.5 to 3.5 3.5 to 4.5 4.5 to 5.5
5.5 to 6.5
System Characteristics (30%)
Asset
Condition
(10%)
Net Fixed
Assets/Ann ual
Depreciation :
> 75 years 75 years a n > 25 25 years a n > 12 12 years a n > 9
years
years years
9Years an>6
Years
s 6 Years
Service Area 150% a US median > 90% z US median 75% z US median > 50% z US median >
Wealth (12.5%) > 150% of US median 90% > 75% 50% 40% s 40% of US median
System Size
(7.5%)
Water and/or
Sewer/ Solid
Waste:
O&M > $65M
$65M a O&M >
$30M
$3OMaO&M > $10MaO&M > $3M a O&M > $1M
$10M $3M
O&M s $1M
5tormwater:
O&M > $30M
$30M a O&M >
$15M
$15MzO&M > $8MaO&M > $2M $2MaO&M >
$8M $750K
O&M s $750K
Gas or Electric:
O&M > $100M
$100M a O&M >
$5OM
$50M a O&M > $20M a O&M > $8M a O&M > $3M
$20M $BM
O&M s $3M
Financial Strength (40%)
Anrual Debt Service Coverage
(15%)
> 2.00x
2.00x a n > 1,70x
1.70xan>1.25x 1.25x>n>1.00x 1.00xzn>0.70x
s 0.70x
Days Cash on
Hand (15%)
> 250 Days
250 Days a n > 150 150 Days a n > 35 35 Days a n > 15
Days Days Days
15Days an>7
Days
s 7 Days
Debt to
Operating
Revenues
(10%)
<2.00x 2.00x < n s 4.00x 4.00x < n s 7.00x 7.00x < n s 8.00x 8.00x < n s 9.00x
a 9.00x
Management (20%)
Rate
Maragement
(10%)
Excellent rate -setting
record; no material
political, practical, or
regulatory limits on
rate increases
Strong rate -setting
record; little political,
practical, or
regulatory limits on
rate increases
Average rate -
setting record;
some political,
practical, or
regulatory limits on
rate increases
Adequate rate -
setting record;
political, practical,
or regulatory
impediments place
material limits on
rate increases
Below average rate -
setting record;
political, practical,
or regulatory
impediments place
substantial limits
on rate increases
Record of insufficiently
adjusting rates;
political, practical, or
regulatory obstacles
prevent
implementation of
necessary rate
increases
Regulatory
Compliance
and Capital
Planning (10%)
Fully compliant OR
proactively addressing
compliance issues;
Maintains sophisticated
and manageable
Capital Improvement
Plan that addresses
more than a 10-year
period
Actively addressing
minor compliance
issues; Maintains
comprehensive and
manageable 10-year
Capital Improvement
Plan
Moderate violations
with adopted plan
to address issues;
Maintains
manageable 5-year
Capital
Improvement Plan
Significant
compliance
violations with
limited solutions
adopted; Maintains
single year Capital
Improvement Plan
Not fully addressing
compliance issues;
Limited or weak
capital planning
Not addressing
compliance issues; No
capita! planning
Legal Provisions (10%)
Rate Covenant
(5%)
> 1.50x
1.3Ux z n > i.ttx
1.tUxan>1.1Ox
1.1Ux z n > 1.UUx
s 1.00x"
Debt Service
Reserve
Requirement
(5%)
DSRF funded at MADS DSRF funded at lesser DSRF funded at less
of standard 3-prong than 3-prong test
test OR springing DSRF
NO explicit DSRF; OR funded with speculative grade surety'
Scores as a Ba.
9 Scores as a Baa
21 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: U5 MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICF
U,S, PUBLIC FINANCE
Adjustments/Notching Factors
Factor 1: System Characteristics
Additional service area economic strength or diversity
Significant customer concentration
Revenue -per -Customer greatly over/under regional average
Exposure to weather volatility or extreme conditions
Resource vulnerability (1/3 or greater)
Sizable or insufficient capacity margin
Weak depreciation/reinvestment practices relative to industry norms
Other analyst adjustment to System Characteristics (Specify)
Factor 2: Financial Strength
Debt Service Coverage (Annual or MADS) below key thresholds: Additional Bonds Test and 1.00x
coverage
Constrained liquidity position due to oversized transfers
Outsized capital needs
Oversized ANPL relative to debt or significant ARC under -payment
Significant exposure to puttab[e debt and/or swaps or other unusual debt structure
Other analyst adjustment to Financial Strength factor (Specify)
Factor 3: Legal Provisions
Structural Enhancements/Complexities
Other analyst adjustment to Legal Provisions factor (Specify)
Factor 4: Management
Unusually strong or weak operational or capital planning
Other analyst adjustment to Management factor (Specify)
Other
Credit Event/Trend not yet reflected in existing data set
22 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVI t
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Indicated Rating
Overall Weighted Score
Aaa
0.5to1.5
Aal
1.5 to 1.83
Aa2
1.83 to 2.17
Aa3
2.17 to 2.5
Al
2.5 to 2.83
A2
2.83 to 3.17
A3 3.17 to 3.5
Baal 3.5 to 3.83
Baal 3.83 to 4.17
Baa3 4.17 to 4.5
Bal 4.5 to 4.83
Ba2 4.83 to 5.17
Ba3 5.17 to 5.5
B1 5.5 to 5.83
B2 5.83 to 6.17
83 6.17 to 6.5
22 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: 115 MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERA(
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Outlier Discussion
Out of approximately 1,080 municipal utilities rated under this methodology, there are eight
significant outliers (defined as two broad rating categories, or six notches) when comparing the grid -
indicated rating to the actual rating. Of these, seven are rated two broad categories higher than the
grid -indicated rating and one is rated two broad categories lower. Most of these ratings have been
placed under review at this time.
We expect outliers on single subfactors in our grid to appear frequently, as the grid is meant to capture
a large and fragmented universe with many sectors and issuers with idiosyncratic properties. For most
subfactors, we would not expect a single outlier score to play an outsize role in determining the rating.
For certain subfactors (e.g., debt service coverage, cash on hand, and debt to revenues), single -factor
outliers may represent significant credit pressure that could play a substantial role in determining the
final rating. Indeed, 49 ratings have been placed under review at this time due to outlier scores on one
or more of these factors.
The following are some comments on the frequency and effect of outliers in our subfactor scores:
Asset condition ratio
Approximately 2% of our rated municipal utilities score as outliers on this subfactor, with the majority
of those scoring significantly Iower than their actual rating. One factor that may skew this score is the
use of disparate depreciation schedules, a practice we will address below the line. We would not expect
single -factor outliers for this subfactor by itself to significantly drive ratings.
Size
Approximately 28% of our rated municipal utilities score as outliers on this subfactor, with nearly all
of those scoring significandy lower than their actual rating. Although many utilities score as outliers on
this subfactor, the subfactor scores lead to a generally close fit for grid -indicated ratings overall. We
would not expect single -factor outliers for this subfactor by itself to significantly drive ratings.
Median family income
Approximately 2% of our rated municipal utilities score as outliers on this subfactor, with the majority
of those scoring significantly lower than their actual rating. We would not expect single -factor outliers
for this subfactor by itself to significantly drive ratings.
Coverage
Approximately 7% of our rated municipal utilities score as outliers on this subfactor, with the majority
of those scoring significantly lower than their actual rating. This is one subfactor that we would expect
to significantly drive ratings for single -factor outliers, to the downside. Consistently narrow debt
service coverage represents a credit pressure that is unlikely to be fully offset by other positive factors.
Cash on hand
Approximately 5% of our rated municipal utilities score as outliers on this subfactor, with those
roughly split between positive and negative outliers. This is another subfactor that we would expect to
significantly drive ratings for single -factor outliers, to the downside. A narrow cash position represents
credit pressure that may not be fully offset by other positive factors.
24 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: U5 MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
F.1 DO YES SEkV1LE
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Debt to operating revenues
Approximately 6% of our rated municipal utilities score as outliers on this subfactor, with those
roughly split between positive and negative outliers. This is the third subfactor that we would expect to
significantly drive ratings for single -factor outliers, to the downside. An inordinately heavy debt
burden may represent credit pressure that may riot be fully offset by other positive factors.
Rate covenant
Approximately 7% of our rated municipal utilities score as outliers on this subfactor. Nearly all of
these are utilities with either sum sufficient rate covenants or without rate covenants requiring sum
sufficient coverage. In some cases, such as utilities with sum sufficient coverage covenants or weaker,
this factor may significantly drive ratings.
Debt service reserve requirement
Approximately 9% of our rated municipal utilities score as outliers on this subfactor. Most of these are
utilities without a debt service reserve requirement, or with a debt service reserve fund funded by a
speculative grade surety. We would not expect single -factor outliers for this subfactor by itself to
significantly drive ratings.
25 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVIr
U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
u contacts continued from page I
Analyst Contacts:
DALLAS
+1.214.979.6800
Gera M. McGuire +1.214.979,6850
Vice President - Senior Analyst
gera.mcguire@moodys.com
John Nichols +1.214.979.61351
Analyst
john.nichols@moodys.com
CHICAGO
Andrea Stenhoff
Analyst
andrea.stenhoff@moodys.com
+1.212.553.1653
Kathryn Gregory
Analyst
kathryn.gregory@moodys.com
+1.312.706.9958
+1.312.706.9962
Report Number. 177321
Author
Dan Seymour, CFA
Senior Production Associate
Sarah Warburton
Associate Analyst
Brady Olsen
® 2014 Moody's Corporation, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Moody's Analytics, Inc. and/or their Licensors and affiliates (collectively, "MOODY'S"). All rights reserved.
CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. ("MIS") AND ITS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF
ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT -LIKE SECURITIES, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ("MOODY'S
PUBLICATIONS") MAY INCLUDE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT -LIKE
SECURITIES. MOODY'S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY
ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET
VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR
HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL -BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY
PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ANALYTICS, INC. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND
CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER
CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY'S ISSUES ITS CREDIT
RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY
AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.
MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO CONSIDER
MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS IN MAKING ANY INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER
PROFESSIONAL ADVISER.
ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN 15 PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR
OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH
PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other
factors, however, all information contained herein is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a
credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third -party sources. However, MOODY'S is not an auditor
and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing the Moody's Publications.
To the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect,
special, consequential, or incidental Losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information,
even if MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, Licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not
limited to: (a) any Loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by
MOODY'S.
To the extent permitted by Law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or
damages caused to any person or entity, including but not Limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt,
by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the controt of, MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or
suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information.
NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING
OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION 15 GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.
MIS, a wholly -owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Corporation ("MCO"), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipat bonds,
debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MIS have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MIS for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees
ranging from S1,500 to approximately S2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS's ratings and rating processes. Information
regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an
ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading "Shareholder Relations —Corporate Govemance— Director and Shareholder
Affiliation Policy."
ForAustratia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financiat Services License of MOODY'S affiliate, Moody's Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61
003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody's Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to "wholesale clients"
within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY'S that you are, ar are accessing the
document as a representative of, a "wholesale client" and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to "retail clients"
within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY'S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity
securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail clients. It would be dangerous for "retail clients" to make any investment decision based on MOODY'S credit rating. If
in doubt you should contact your financial or other professionat adviser.
MOODY'S
INVESTORS SERVICE
26 DECEMBER 15, 2014 RATING METHODOLOGY: US MUNICIPAL UTILITY REVENUE DEBT