Search

Returns and findings from three strategies of data collection are compared. Each strategy contains personal interviews, telephone interviews, and mail questionnaires in different combinations--one mainly personal, one mainly telephone, and one mainly mail. All three strategies are based on area probability samples of households in Alameda County, California. The test was made on two separate studies, with identical questionnaires used in all strategies within each study. The responses from the three strategies were found to be highly comparable. Rate of return and rate of completeness of questionnaires were high for all three; substantive findings were virtually interchangeable; and there was little difference in validity. The only important difference was cost per interview which varied considerably by strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence of an absence of regulatory concern for profit performances of publicly owned utilities was provided initially by William G. Shepherd. In a sample of publicly-owned electric utilities, there was an indication of significant inter-utility variances in earnings on net utility plant and in numerous cases profit rates very similar to those earned by investor-owned, firms. Marshall R. Colberg found publicly-owned utility profits to be an important source of municipal revenue in Florida cities; in contrast, Jack Hirshleifer, James C. De.Haven, and J. W. Milliman found in many Southern California. cities that water services, by being priced below average supply costs, were subsidized by property taxes. The interpretation of public utility rates of return in the context of allocative and technical efficiency must be conditioned by several considerations. Rate of return calculations will vary with both the rate base and the earnings measurement. Thus one can obtain multiple rates of return from the same set of financial statistics. Judicial arid commission regulation has not generated a definite standard for determining the excessiveness or inadequacy of utility rates of return. For example, relatively low rates of return in some cases may defer the adoption of cost-saving technology while in others they may induce the replacement of obsolescent production and distribution techniques.