MISCELLANEOUS
RESEARCH MATERIAL

Post-2004 Working Papers (some since
published)

The Uselessness of Cost-Benefit/Kaldor-Hicks Evaluations in a General Framework.

Fixed Income for Retirement Saving: TIAA Traditional’s Lessons on Quality, Duration, Risk, and Gradual Withdrawals. A version with some minor wording changes, no use of color, and no URL's in the bibliography is forthcoming in the Journal of Retirement, 2020. Mathematica output in PDF form for the code underlying this paper is here, with brief investigations of the Sharpe Ratios here.

Constant-Duration Bond Portfolios' Initial (Rolling)
Yield Forecasts Return Best at Twice Duration and its associated
Excel spreadsheets for locally-flat
and for sloped yield curves; and brief
Mathematica output for the proof of
Proposition 5. (The first Excel worksheet in each file is a basic
summary, and contains the value of "F" to which all other worksheets
refer.)

The Hotelling Rule for Entropy-Constrained Economic
Growth. Forthcoming, Ecological Economics.

The Risk-Minimizing Portfolio when Planning to Buy a Fixed Immediate Annuity.

Other Work:

Agricultural Water Use, Hay, and Utah’s Water Future (working paper, first version September 2021)

The Lake Powell Pipeline (pro bono work):

- Lake Powell Pipeline Letter and Economic Analysis, and its associated Excel spreadsheet, Fall 2015. (Two September 2016 minor spreadsheet corrections change conclusions by less than 1%.)

- The Washington County Water Conservancy District's model. I corrected and extended their model here. The Economists' September 2016 letter critiquing the Washington County Water Conservancy District's model; the report accompanying that letter; and a slide presentation summarizing the issues. The January 2017 letter refuting the District's criticisms of our analysis.

- November 2017: my analysis of the Washington County Water Conservancy District's "2017 Regional Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan & Analysis."

- June 13, 2018: At the Utah Executive Water Finance Board's meeting, the Washington County Water Conservancy District's consultant made this slide presentation, and I made this slide presentation. Some preliminary remarks by me on the District's presentation are here. To show that Slide 85 of the District's presentation demonstrates that the District is still not planning on reimbursing the State for the entire present value of pipeline construction costs, compare the present value calculations I added in italics to the District's calculations of State payments (cell M25's $1,514,697,114 if the interest rate is 4%) to the present value calculations I added in italics to the District's calculations of the District's repayments (cell K45's $990,854,183 if the interest rate is 4%). According to those two figures, the District is only planning to repay 2/3 of the project cost's present value.

- July 2018: This explanatory document gives the derivations of the formulas which generate some of the entries in the LPP spreadsheet linked in the first bullet point. It also explains the formulas needed to derive an analogous spreadsheet for the case of the retail price being a constant pass-through over the wholesale price (instead of being a constant percentage markup over the wholesale price, which the earlier spreadsheet assumed).
- Here is a screen shot of the constant-markup spreadsheet's results for the case of a $1.3 billion construction cost, 4% interest rate, 10 initial payment-free years, and 75% of the cost burden put on Impact Fees versus 25% put on water rates. As the screen shot shows, the constant-markup model predicts prices (both wholesale and retail) must rise by a factor of 3.95 and impact fees must rise by a factor of 3.36, to $20,506 (in 2013 dollars).
- Here is a screen shot of the constant pass-through spreadsheet's results for the same scenario. The constant-pass-through model predicts that retail prices must rise by a factor of 1.70, wholesale prices by a factor of 2.60, and impact fees again rise to $20,506.
- By contrast the District, in its June 13, 2018 presentation, contemplates an increase in wholesale price from $0.45 per thousand gallons (Slide 104) to potentially as high as $3.45 (Slide 68), a factor of 7.6, and the District plans to raise the impact fee to approximately $17,000 in 2026 (this is $12,803 in 2017 dollars [which is 75% of $17,071, as explained on pp. 4--6 here; cf. p. 20 here], and about $12,000 in 2013 dollars).
- Since 2013, the price per thousand gallons of water charged by the City of St. George in the "15,000 to 20,000 gallons per month" tier has already increased from $1.00 to $1.50.

- late July 2018: Extension of the analysis to allow elasticities different from −1/2. Available are an explanatory document modeled after the above explanatory document for the "elasticity of −1/2" case; a spreadsheet for the constant-percentage-markup case; and a spreadsheet for the constant-dollar-pass-through case. In both of these spreadsheets, the elasticity is altered by putting the desired elasticity into Cell G31 of the 'Revenues and Expenses' tab.

- October 2018: As mentioned in the July 2018 bullet point, the District plans on increasing impact fees to approximately "$12,000 in 2013 dollars" by 2026. The District also claims it is putting 75% of the burden of paying for the Pipeline onto impact fees. This one-page analysis, based on the spreadsheets in the previous bullet point, shows that these two claims cannot both be true: if 75% of the burden of paying for the Pipeline is placed onto impact fees, impact fees have to be quite a bit higher than "$12,000 in 2013 dollars" (and retail water rates would have to rise somewhere between 60% and 300% from their 2013 level); and if the impact fee really is "$12,000 in 2013 dollars," then that is placing less than 37% of the burden on impact fees, and the resulting required retail water price hikes (from 2013 levels) are between 200% and 1300%. (The latter analysis requires applying of Excel's Solver routine in a way I have not built into the spreadsheets; screenshots of results are available for the low-cost constant percentage markup case, the high-cost constant percentage markup case, the low-cost constant dollar markup case, and the high-cost constant dollar markup case.) All of the price increases described in this paragraph are so large that no water from the Lake Powell Pipeline would actually be bought by anyone until some time after 2060.

The Bear River Development

Report, 2019

Slide Presentation, Nov. 2019

Excel Spreadsheet, Sept. 2019

Explanation of the Spreadsheet

Slide Presentation, Feb. 2020

Early 2020 Update of Report incorporating analysis of the State's October 2019 report; its supporting Excel file and Mathematica file in Wolfram notebook and PDF formats; and a slide presentation on this update.

Severance Taxes in Utah.

Some pre-2005 publications:

“Resource Depletion, National Income Accounting, and the Value of Optimal Dynamic Programs.” Resource and Energy Economics 17 (1995), 137–154.

“Entropy and the Economic Process.” A different version of this paper, including less bibliographic information and no footnotes, appears in Cutler J. Cleveland, ed., Encyclopedia of Energy, 2004, Volume 2, 471–478. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

LaTeX Macros:

A LaTeX macro
file modifying the JAMTimes package (expanded (widened)
Times-Roman-like fonts used by the *Journal
d'Analyse Mathématique*) in various ways, among them making
the width of plus and minus signs equal to each other. Boris
Veytsman, author of the JAMTimes package, saw some merit in this
macro file. (Original version 2015; current, greatly
simplified version April 2020, reflecting version 1.625 (2020/03/02)
of Michael Sharpe's newtxmath.sty
from the newtx package at the CTAN
archive.)