Tax Issues Raised for Rural Electric Cooperatives by the Advent of the Non-Bypassable Charge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, rural electric cooperatives (electric cooperatives) have a growth rate at the present time that is nearly three times that of investor-owned utilities; serve approximately eleven percent of the nation's population; account for close to eight percent of the kilowatt hours sold in the United States; and own and maintain nearly half the electrical distribution lines in the country (covering three-quarters of the nation's land mass). It is therefore not surprising, given the magnitude of the electric cooperative market, that the ongoing deregulation of the electric industry is raising novel tax issues for many electric cooperatives. This Article explores some of those issues. Part II of this Article describes the special rules that apply taxable electric cooperatives and that give rise to many of the issues addressed in the remainder of this Article - that is, the ability of such cooperatives to deduct the patronage-sourced profits (or margins) which they allocate to their members. Part III of the Article uses a series of tables to demonstrate how tax consequences to a taxable G&T cooperative may depend not only on the timing but also the character (as patronage or non-patronage) of both the non-bypassable charge and the recovery (vis depreciation) of the associated stranded costs, and concludes that a mismatch in timing. Finally, Part IV turns to the precedents that bear upon the characterization of non-bypassable charges and the related recovery of cooperative's stranded costs (as patronage or non-patronage), and argues that non-bypassable charges are best characterized as patronage-sourced income (and, in all events, should be characterized as such and if and to the extent the associated depreciation of the stranded costs has previously been treated as a patronage sourced deduction expense).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".