Supplemental topic modules covering service delivery, transfer stations, landfill closure, special waste, route optimization, regulatory process, and full cost accounting.
The cost structure of a solid waste system depends fundamentally on how the service is delivered. Three dominant models shape the financial framework: municipal (city-operated), franchise (exclusive agreement with a private hauler), and contract (competitive bid from private providers). Understanding how each model affects cost allocation and revenue requirement is critical for accurate rate-setting.
Who operates: City or county government owns trucks, employs drivers, manages routes directly.
Revenue model: Full cost recovery through solid waste rates.
Key costs: Labor (drivers, mechanics, supervisors), fuel, equipment depreciation, maintenance, tipping fees, administration.
COS consideration: The utility funds all operational costs directly. No private profit margin. Test year reflects actual municipal budget.
Who operates: Private company holds exclusive agreement to provide service. City grants franchise rights for defined territory.
Revenue model: Ratepayers pay a franchise fee (rate) to the operator. Operator recovers allowable costs plus negotiated profit margin (typically 7–15%).
Key costs: Operator’s documented collection, disposal, and administrative costs, plus profit.
COS consideration: Study focuses on what costs are "allowable" under franchise agreement and what profit margin is reasonable. Less flexibility in cost recovery.
Who operates: City competitively bids collection and/or disposal services. Multiple providers can compete.
Revenue model: City negotiates lump-sum or unit-price contracts. Costs are fixed by contract terms, not by the operator’s actual expenses.
Key costs: Whatever the winning bid specifies — often more competitive than cost-plus approaches.
COS consideration: COS study reflects the competitive contract rate, not the operator’s internal costs. Rates are market-based, not cost-justified.
The foundation for rates differs significantly depending on service delivery model:
Revenue Requirement = Full Cost Recovery
Municipal utilities must recover 100% of operating costs through rates. Budget + adjustments = test year = revenue requirement.
Example: Revenue requirement = sum of collection, disposal, and administrative costs, all documented from the municipal budget.
Revenue Requirement = Allowable Costs + Profit Margin
Franchise operator recovers documented allowable costs plus negotiated profit. City scrutinizes costs but operator earns return.
Example: Allowable costs plus negotiated profit margin (typically 7–15%) = total revenue requirement.
Revenue Requirement = Winning Bid Price
Market competition determines price. May be lower than cost-of-service if competition is robust; may include vendor profit, risk contingency.
Example: Competitive bid yields a contract rate the city pays regardless of what municipal operation would cost.
Revenue Requirement = Mix of Models
Many cities operate residential collection in-house (municipal) while franchising or contracting commercial collection or disposal. Rates reflect blended approach.
Example: Municipal residential collection costs + franchise commercial collection costs + contracted disposal costs, each analyzed separately.
Hybrid Delivery Models Are Common: Many cities run residential collection in-house with municipal crews but franchise or contract out commercial collection or entire disposal operations. This creates a mixed COS study: residential costs come from municipal budget, commercial from franchise/contract agreement. Rate design must account for both cost streams separately. Hybrid models offer operational flexibility — a city can control residential service quality while leveraging private-sector expertise or economies of scale for commercial or disposal services.
Emerging: Open Market & Subscription Models: A growing number of jurisdictions are moving away from exclusive franchises toward open-market models where customers can choose their waste hauler. This shifts the financial model: instead of the city rate-setting a single provider, competition sets prices. Some municipalities also experiment with subscription-based curbside service where customer volume determines what they pay. These models complicate COS study methodology because the traditional "cost per billing unit" framework breaks down when customers can switch providers or scale service dynamically.
| Aspect | Municipal | Franchise | Contract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who operates? | City government | Private exclusive operator | Competitive bidders |
| Price basis | Full cost recovery | Allowable cost + profit | Market bid |
| City control | Full (direct operation) | Medium (franchise terms) | Low (contract terms only) |
| Rate predictability | Medium (budget-driven) | High (negotiated profit margin) | High (fixed contract price) |
| COS methodology focus | Actual budget + adjustments | Allowable cost definition + audit | Market benchmarking |
| Typical profit/margin | N/A (cost recovery only) | 7–15% | Embedded in bid (typically 5–12%) |
Next: Understanding where waste goes after collection is key to understanding disposal costs.
Transfer stations are the critical nexus in the solid waste system. They consolidate waste from collection routes, allow for material recovery and screening, and feed waste onward to disposal or processing facilities. Understanding transfer station economics is essential because they represent a major cost center whose efficiency directly impacts the revenue requirement.
Collection vehicles (which hold 15–30 tons) dump into larger transfer trailers (typically 20–25 tons payload, constrained by the federal 80,000-lb gross vehicle weight limit). A single transfer trailer makes one long-haul trip to the landfill, replacing multiple truck trips from individual collection vehicles. This reduces long-haul fuel, labor, and equipment costs per ton.
Modern transfer stations may include scales to track tonnage, visual screening to remove hazardous or oversized items, separation of recyclables or organics if not done at curbside, and baling or compaction equipment to optimize truck space. These functions improve downstream processing efficiency and add value to collected waste.
Transfer stations serve as the operational base for collection routes. Drivers start and end their shifts there, vehicles are fueled and maintained, and the facility coordinates schedules and dispatch. This centralized hub reduces idle time and improves route efficiency.
Building/structure upkeep, utilities, insurance, environmental compliance, stormwater management, odor control, dust suppression.
Equipment operators (front-loaders, scales, compactors), supervisors, yard workers, administrative staff, training & development, benefits.
Depreciation of heavy equipment, scale systems, trailers, compactors, forklifts. Repair & maintenance of equipment.
Long-haul transport contracts (if not operated in-house), landfill tipping fees, optional material processing contracts (recycling baling, organics composting).
A key COS decision: does it make economic sense to build a transfer station, or should collection vehicles haul directly to the landfill?
Setup: Collection trucks haul directly to landfill (no transfer station).
Cost components per ton:
Collection labor + fuel
Equipment depreciation
Direct haul fuel (distance-dependent)
Landfill tipping fee
Works best when landfill is close (<30 miles) and collection volume is low.
Setup: Collection trucks dump at transfer station; haul contractors move consolidated trailers to landfill.
Cost components per ton:
Collection labor + fuel
Equipment depreciation
Transfer station operations
Long-haul transport (contracted)
Landfill tipping fee
Adds transfer and long-haul costs but reduces collection vehicle drive time. Break-even point is typically 40–60 miles from landfill. High-volume systems see better economics.
Regional Transfer Agreements & Host Community Fees: Municipalities often negotiate agreements with neighboring jurisdictions or private transfer operators to use existing facilities, avoiding the capital cost of building their own. In return, they pay a negotiated per-ton fee plus tonnage-based disposal. Additionally, the jurisdiction hosting the transfer station may demand a host community benefit fee — an annual payment to offset environmental impacts. These agreements reduce capital investment but add contractual costs that must be factored into the revenue requirement.
Throughput Scaling & Capacity Planning: Transfer station economics improve with volume — fixed facility costs (rent, utilities, supervision) are spread across more tons. A facility designed for 100 tons/day has the same basic overhead whether it processes 80 or 100 tons/day, so efficiency gains come from increasing volume. Conversely, if collection volume drops (due to economic slowdown or waste reduction programs), per-ton transfer costs rise, forcing up rates. Multi-year COS projections should model volume sensitivity.
Next: For utilities that own disposal facilities, long-term closure obligations are a critical cost element.
Landfills don't last forever. When a landfill reaches capacity, it must be closed in compliance with RCRA Subtitle D and state regulations. But closure is not the end of the financial obligation — post-closure care extends 30 years and beyond, requiring financial assurance mechanisms that must be funded through tipping fees. For landfill-owning utilities, these long-term obligations represent a significant portion of the revenue requirement.
Final Cover System: Cover the entire landfill surface with multi-layer engineered cap (typically 2 feet of soil, geomembrane, drainage layer, topsoil). Costs vary significantly by landfill size and site conditions.
Grading & Drainage: Slope the final surface to shed water, install perimeter controls, establish stormwater management.
Vegetation: Stabilize the cover with vegetation to prevent erosion.
Closure costs scale with landfill acreage and can represent a multi-million-dollar obligation for mid-sized facilities.
Groundwater Monitoring: Semi-annual or quarterly groundwater sampling at downgradient monitoring wells. Annual costs depend on well count and analytical requirements.
Leachate Management: Monitor and manage leachate collection system, ensure proper treatment and disposal.
Landfill Gas Monitoring: Measure methane emissions, operate gas collection/flaring systems if needed.
Post-closure care represents a significant annual cost obligation extending 30 years or more.
Geotechnical studies, cap design, permitting, environmental review.
Soil, geomembrane, drainage aggregate, haul to site, placement labor, compaction.
Grading, swales, perimeter berms, retention structures, outfalls.
Native plants, seeding, erosion blankets, slope stabilization.
EPA and states require proof that closure and post-closure costs will be funded. Four mechanisms are commonly used:
City dedicates a reserve account funded by monthly deposits from tipping fees. Funds are segregated and managed by a trustee. Most common for municipally-owned landfills.
Advantage: Funds stay under city control. Drawback: Requires discipline to avoid raiding reserve.
Insurance company pledges to pay for closure if the landfill owner cannot. Owner pays annual premiums (typically 1–3% of total estimated closure cost per year).
Advantage: Third-party guarantee. Drawback: Ongoing premium cost; issuer may become insolvent.
Bank issues irrevocable letter of credit for closure/post-closure costs. City maintains letter as evidence of financial ability.
Advantage: Bankable guarantee. Drawback: Bank fees; requires strong credit rating.
Liability insurance covers unforeseen closure-related costs or environmental claims (e.g., contamination discovered during closure).
Advantage: Protects against unknowns. Drawback: May not cover full closure cost.
Financial Assurance & the Revenue Requirement: Closure and post-closure costs are not optional — they are mandated by federal and state law. Landfill-owning utilities must include the present value of these costs in their revenue requirement. The calculation follows a straightforward formula: estimated closure cost + present value of annual post-closure care over 30+ years = total obligation. That total obligation is then spread over the landfill’s projected remaining life and tonnage throughput to determine a per-ton set-aside that is added to operational tipping fees.
The Uncertainty of Landfill Life & Cost Escalation: A landfill’s closure date depends on actual waste volume, which varies with population growth, economic conditions, and waste reduction programs. If waste arrives slower than projected, closure is delayed, extending the time to accumulate closure funds. Conversely, if volume exceeds projections, closure arrives sooner. Additionally, closure cost estimates prepared today may be low when closure actually occurs (inflation, regulatory changes, site conditions). COS studies should include sensitivity analysis: what if closure costs 20% more than estimated? What if closure is delayed 5 years? These scenarios affect tipping fee sufficiency.
Next: Beyond routine collection, solid waste systems provide a range of supplemental services that need their own cost recovery.
Beyond routine weekly trash collection, most solid waste utilities offer or operate specialized services: bulk item pickup, yard waste programs, household hazardous waste collection, e-waste, drop-off centers. These services address specific waste streams and customer needs. In a COS study, decisions about which services to offer, how to fund them (embedded in base rates or separate fee?), and how much to charge directly affect the revenue requirement.
What it includes: Furniture, appliances, mattresses, large items that don’t fit in carts.
Cost drivers: Collection labor is high (manual handling), disposal cost is variable (some items have salvage value, others are landfilled).
Funding: Often embedded in base rates for a limited number of pickups per year, or offered as a per-pickup fee.
What it includes: Leaves, grass clippings, branches, food waste (where mandated).
Cost drivers: Collection costs plus composting or processing fees. Growing cost pressure from SB 1383 and similar organics diversion mandates.
Funding: May be embedded in base rates, offered as optional service, or mandated with a separate monthly fee.
What it includes: Paint, batteries, electronics, chemicals, oils, pesticides.
Cost drivers: Specialized handling and disposal make HHW one of the most expensive per-household service categories. Often limited to 1–2 collection events per year or permanent drop-off facility. HHW cannot go to landfill.
Funding: Almost always funded separately via city general fund or HHW collection fees. Not embedded in base trash rate.
What it includes: Lumber, drywall, concrete, metals, roofing from construction/remodeling.
Cost drivers: Disposal costs are often higher per ton than MSW due to specialized handling and markets for separated materials.
Funding: Usually a separate per-load fee at drop-off. Often not part of residential utility rates.
What it includes: Self-haul facilities where residents drop off trash, recycling, yard waste, bulky items, C&D, e-waste.
Cost drivers: Staff, equipment, and tipping fees represent a significant annual operating budget. Participation is optional; generates revenue from fees.
Funding: Usually per-load fee to recover operating and disposal costs, or free/low-cost with embedded cost in base rates.
What it includes: Computers, monitors, TVs, phones, printers — materials containing precious metals, glass, and hazardous substances.
Cost drivers: Varies widely by device type and market for recovered materials. Some manufacturers (via take-back programs) absorb cost; others require collection fees.
Funding: Often free to residents via manufacturer take-back programs or city-organized collection events. When funded locally, typically a per-unit fee or free through convenience center.
Household Hazardous Waste Programs — Cost Per Household Served: HHW collection is essential for environmental protection but expensive. Typical participation rates for quarterly collection events are 10–15% of households served. Event costs include facility rental, staff, equipment, transportation, and disposal. When spread across all households (not just participants), the per-household cost is modest, but the per-participant cost is substantial. Permanent drop-off facilities cost more to operate annually but offer year-round access and improve participation rates.
Construction & Demolition Debris Pricing & Tipping Fee Disparity: C&D tipping fees are typically higher per ton than MSW because of sorting/processing requirements and market volatility for recovered materials (metals, wood). Some C&D processors operate at break-even or loss depending on commodity markets. When a city operates or contracts a C&D drop-off, it must budget for landfill/transfer tipping and processing overhead. Per-load fees must be set to recover costs across expected volume levels, with margin built in for volume fluctuations.
Federal and state laws increasingly require manufacturers (not municipalities) to fund the end-of-life management of electronics they produce. Many manufacturers operate take-back programs: customers mail devices to the manufacturer or visit retail partners for free recycling. This shifts e-waste cost from municipalities to producers. However, non-participating manufacturers and customer convenience concerns keep many cities offering local e-waste collection. COS studies should account for manufacturer program participation rates — if 60% of e-waste is handled via manufacturer take-back, only 40% becomes a municipal cost.
Next: Operational data from the field drives the accuracy of every allocation in the COS study.
Costs don’t appear out of thin air. They are driven by operational realities: how many stops are on a route, how long does each stop take, how much waste is collected per route, what is the utilization of the truck? These metrics are the foundation of collection cost allocation in the COS study. Reliable operational data is critical for building defensible cost estimates and ensuring rates are neither too high nor too low.
How many collection points (homes or businesses) does a truck service per shift? Typical: 200–400 residential stops, 40–80 commercial stops per route.
Implication: More stops/route = lower cost per stop.
Minutes to service one location. Residential: 0.75–1.5 min/stop (varies with automation). Commercial: 3–8 min/stop (more variable).
Implication: Faster stops = more stops/route = better utilization.
Total material collected per truck per shift. Typical: 12–16 tons/route for residential, 8–15 for commercial.
Implication: More tons/route = fewer routes needed.
Percentage of truck capacity actually used. If truck holds 20 tons and typical route is 14 tons, utilization = 70%.
Implication: Low utilization (<60%) signals opportunity to consolidate routes or resize fleet.
Total collection cost ÷ stops serviced. Includes labor, fuel, vehicle overhead, supervision.
Implication: Lower cost/stop = better efficiency = defensible rates.
Total collection cost ÷ tons collected. Varies significantly by service type, geography, and operational efficiency.
Implication: Benchmark against peer systems; if higher, investigate inefficiency.
Modern collection trucks equipped with GPS log every movement: stops, dwell time, idle time, speed. Telematics systems track fuel consumption, engine performance, driver behavior. Data feeds into route analysis software showing stop counts, times, and efficiency metrics in real time.
Cost: Modest per-truck annual investment for hardware + software. Benefit: Precise data, real-time optimization.
Dedicated observer rides routes and manually records time per stop, delays, system breakdowns. Typically 5–10 routes are sampled across different geographies (urban, suburban, rural) and service types (residential, commercial).
Cost: Moderate one-time investment for comprehensive study. Benefit: Detailed, validated data.
Manual or system-based count of collection points per route. Combined with billing system data (how many accounts per route) to cross-check accuracy. Reveals routes that are understaffed vs. overstuffed.
Cost: Low (internal staff). Benefit: Quick assessment of route balance.
Scale house records at transfer stations or landfills show total tonnage by route or day. When matched with customer accounts and billing data, reveals tons per account, tons per route, density patterns by geography.
Cost: Minimal (existing infrastructure). Benefit: Validates tons/stop and capacity utilization.
Equipment choice directly impacts labor and efficiency:
Hydraulic arm on truck grabs and empties cart from curbside. One operator, minimal labor per stop.
Time per stop: 0.6–0.9 min (fastest)
Labor cost: Low (single operator)
Equipment cost: Higher truck cost plus higher maintenance due to hydraulic arm complexity
Best for: Dense urban/suburban areas with uniform carts.
Two workers manually dump cans into truck hopper. Labor-intensive but flexible and lower equipment cost.
Time per stop: 1.2–2.0 min (slower)
Labor cost: High (driver + helper = roughly 2x the labor cost of automated)
Equipment cost: Lower truck cost and simpler maintenance
Best for: Rural areas, variable cart types, uphill terrain.
Route Efficiency & Right-Sizing: A well-balanced route operates at 80–90% of truck capacity. When route data shows trucks operating at <70% capacity, it signals overstaffing — the system can consolidate routes and reduce crew count. Conversely, when routes regularly exceed 90% capacity, overloading occurs, forcing second trips or skipped collections. The solution: data-driven route redesign. Many utilities discover that 10–15% of routes are inefficiently configured and can be rebalanced without service cuts. This translates directly to lower cost per stop and therefore lower rates.
Automation Cost Trade-Off: Automated side-load equipment can cut time per stop roughly in half — a significant productivity gain. However, automated trucks have higher capital costs. The break-even depends on route density: higher-density routes (more stops per shift) justify the equipment investment through labor savings, while lower-density routes may be more cost-effective with manual collection. COS studies should analyze the optimal collection method mix for different geography types by comparing labor savings against incremental equipment and maintenance costs.
Next: Solid waste rates must navigate regulatory requirements and public process.
A COS study is a technical product, but rates are a policy decision. Cities and counties must follow state law, federal regulations, and local processes to set legally defensible rates. Understanding the regulatory landscape and public hearing requirements is essential for anyone guiding a rate-setting process. A technically perfect COS study can fail if the legal and political process is mishandled.
Government-Owned Utilities: Most states require public notice and hearing before rates are raised, but approval process is simpler than investor-owned utilities. Governing body (city council, county commissioners) sets rates based on findings presented in study.
Investor-Owned/Private Utilities: Many states require Public Utility Commission (PUC) approval. PUC reviews cost justification, may hold hearings, may allow rate-of-return regulation (fixed profit margin).
Advance Notice: Most states require 7–30 days written notice to all affected ratepayers before hearing. Notice must include proposed rate schedule, reason for increase, date/time of hearing.
Hearing Format: Public hearing where customers can comment. City must respond to public comments (can be in writing or at follow-up session).
Record & Findings: City must document the record, including COS study, public comments, and council findings justifying the rates.
Protest Threshold: Varies by state. California Prop 218 (for most jurisdictions) requires majority protest (>50% of affected customers by account count) to block rates. Other states allow rate protests but do not necessarily require majority threshold to continue process.
Protest Hearing: If threshold is met, city must hold additional hearing to consider protests. Can result in rate adjustment or reaffirmation of original proposal.
Authority: City or county ordinance sets rates. City council votes to approve.
Process: COS study → staff recommendation → public hearing → council vote.
Legal basis: State law requires due process (notice & hearing) but typically no PUC review.
Implication: City has flexibility to adjust rates, but must follow public process & be prepared to defend in court if challenged.
Authority: PUC (Public Utility Commission) sets rates. May require rate-of-return regulation (fixed % profit margin).
Process: COS study → filing with PUC → PUC review & hearings → order approving rates.
Legal basis: State statute granting PUC authority to regulate investor-owned utilities.
Implication: More regulatory scrutiny but also more predictability. PUC precedent guides rate design.
Proposition 218 (California) & Similar State Statutes: California’s Prop 218 (1996) established one of the nation’s strictest rate approval processes: utilities must provide written notice to all affected properties, hold a public hearing, and secure majority approval from property owners/customers (by count, not by dollar). A single property owner who represents >50% of affected properties can protest and block a rate increase. Many other states have adopted similar frameworks. For COS studies in Prop 218 jurisdictions, the study must be exceptionally clear and defensible because the bar for customer approval is high. Cities must be prepared to clearly explain the “why” behind rates, not just the “what”.
A strong public communication plan translates technical COS findings into language that council members and customers understand:
5–10 page plain-language summary: what is a COS study, why this city needs a rate increase, what happens to the money, what the new rates are, timeline for implementation. Use charts, not tables. Avoid jargon.
Visual presentation showing: current cost drivers, comparison to peer cities, consequences of not raising rates (service reductions, infrastructure decay), proposed rate schedule, phasing plan. Q&A prepared for anticipated objections.
Anticipate common questions: “Why do rates have to go up?” “Are we wasting money?” “Is the study biased?” Prepare clear, concise answers. Have staff present findings, not consultants (builds trust).
Post study findings, rate tables, FAQs, and bill impact examples on city website. Make the study accessible: not buried in a 200-page technical document, but linked from prominent location with plain-language summary.
Next: Looking beyond traditional budgeting, full cost accounting provides a comprehensive view of true service costs.
A traditional COS study captures current operating costs: collection, disposal, recycling, administration. But it often misses past costs and future costs. Full Cost Accounting (FCA), a framework promoted by EPA and sustainability advocates, expands the lens to include historic environmental liabilities, future post-closure obligations, and environmental externalities. For many utilities, FCA reveals that customers are paying less than the true total cost of waste service.
Old landfill closure: Final capping, drainage, vegetation of closed facility. Costs scale with acreage and site complexity.
Environmental remediation: Cleanup of contaminated groundwater, soil from historical disposal practices. Costs vary enormously by site conditions.
Legacy debt: Bonds issued in prior years to fund infrastructure, still being repaid.
These costs appear as ongoing annual debt service or one-time cleanup project expenditures.
Collection: Labor, vehicles, fuel, maintenance — typically the largest cost category.
Disposal: Landfill tipping fees, transfer station operations.
Administration: Staff, utilities, equipment, overhead.
This is the standard COS — what traditional rate studies measure.
Post-closure care: 30-year obligation for groundwater monitoring, leachate management, gas monitoring — significant annual costs.
Equipment replacement: Fleet trucks depreciate over 10–15 years; reserve funding must match the replacement cycle.
Capacity expansion: New landfill or expanded transfer facility projected in 10–20 years — a major capital project.
Present-value analysis captures these long-term obligations, which often dwarf annual operating costs.
Hidden Subsidies & Who Really Pays: Many solid waste utilities are funded partially by general fund or property tax subsidy, in addition to solid waste rates. When this occurs, customers are not paying the full cost of service — taxpayers are subsidizing waste collection. FCA framework makes this visible: if total full-cost obligations exceed rate revenue, the gap is being subsidized by the city general fund. This cross-subsidy may be intentional policy (city council decides waste service is a public good worthy of tax support) or unintentional (city hasn’t updated rates to reflect true cost). FCA study should calculate and disclose the subsidy amount so council can make informed decisions about whether it’s sustainable long-term.
Environmental Externalities & Unpriced Costs: While FCA focuses on monetary costs, it also provides framework for disclosing environmental impacts not fully captured in rates. Landfills generate greenhouse gases (methane, CO2 from decomposition and equipment); leachate poses groundwater contamination risk; collection vehicles emit particulates and NOx. Some FCA frameworks calculate monetized environmental cost (e.g., social cost of carbon) and disclose alongside traditional rate cost. This is not required by law but provides transparency: customers can see that waste management has hidden environmental costs that may not be reflected in the rate they pay. As climate and environmental regulations tighten, more cities are adopting FCA-style disclosure.
Illustrative framework showing how costs are layered in a full cost accounting analysis:
| Cost Category | Illustrative Share of Full Cost | Typically Funded By |
|---|---|---|
| PAST COSTS | ||
| Old landfill closure (ongoing) | ~3–5% | General fund or rates |
| PRESENT COSTS | ||
| Collection labor, vehicles, fuel | ~45–50% | Waste rates (primary) |
| Disposal (tipping + transfer) | ~18–22% | Waste rates |
| Administration | ~8–12% | Waste rates |
| FUTURE COSTS (Annual Reserve Accrual) | ||
| Post-closure financial assurance | ~10–14% | Waste rates (tipping fee component) |
| Equipment replacement reserve | ~6–10% | Waste rates |
| TOTAL FULL COST | 100% |
When current rates recover less than 100% of full cost, the gap is funded by general fund subsidy or deferred to future ratepayers. FCA makes the size of this gap transparent to decision-makers.
You’ve completed the supplemental modules. Return to the main COS training for the core cost of service workflow.
Every rate study tells a story — about your community, your infrastructure, and the services your residents and businesses depend on. We help you tell that story with clarity, confidence, and defensible analysis.
We’ve guided utilities of every size through cost of service studies — from small municipal solid waste operations to large multi-service systems. That experience means we know what works.
Our recommendations are built on rigorous methodology that holds up under scrutiny — whether in a city council chamber or before a public utility commission.
Your route data, tonnage records, and fleet metrics hold the answers. We help you unlock insights from your own operations to build smarter rate structures.
Every state and governing body has its own regulatory landscape. We understand the nuances and tailor our approach so your rate case fits your jurisdiction.
Long-term partnerships with utilities who return to us study after study. We don’t just solve today’s rate case — we help you build a framework for the challenges ahead.
Great analysis means nothing if you can’t communicate it. We help you translate complex rate studies into clear narratives for every audience.
Ready to start the conversation?
Connect With NewGen →