<div><p>I'd neglected to look at this but I think I should weigh in before it gets promoted.</p>
<p>The Public Utility District type just feels rather conflated.</p>
<p>The idea of a <strong><a href="http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/base/infrastructure/infrastructural_municipality" rel="nofollow">Public Utilitity District</a></strong> - a single point of call for energy, refuse, clean water and waste water - just doesn't exist in the UK, as it's divided between hundreds of organisations.  Even the services which may fall under the scope of a local authority/public body (such as refuse collection) are, in most cases, subsequently contracted out to private companies.  I'd propose splitting the type into <strong>Landfill Operator</strong>, <strong>Energy Distribution Network Operator</strong> (this could be further split into Gas and Electricity), <strong>Power Plant Operator</strong>, <strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_water_companies" rel="nofollow">Potable water undertaker</a></strong> (aka Potable Water Supplier), and <strong>Waste water undertaker</strong> (aka Waste water infrastructure operator).</p>
<p>Focusing on energy distribution, I think the Public Utility District is somewhat similar to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_Network_Operator" rel="nofollow">Distribution Network Operator</a> in the UK.  However, the schema is very simplified and omits the role of the <strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_system_operator" rel="nofollow">Transmission System Operator</a></strong> - they're the organisations which sit between the power plant and the Distribution Network Operators and operate the long distance, high voltage lines.</p>
<p>Some other points of interest which might not necessarily affect the current schema: in the UK, at least, the end consumer does not have to purchase from the Distribution Network Operator, they can purchase energy from any of the dozens of consumer-facing companies.  These companies operate all the consumer side of things (energy metering, billing, marketing etc.) and will pay a fee to the Distribution Network Operator for the use of their infrastructure.  It's interesting to note that the company from which a consumer purchases electricity does not have to own or operate any infrastructure!   Also omitted is the role of the market operator, an organisation in the UK, <a href="http://www.elexon.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">Elexon</a>, balances energy supply with demand and settles payments between suppliers and distributors either internally or internationally.</p>
<p>Focusing on Water undertakers, the schema could/should be expanded to incorporate the reservoirs they operate, water recycling plants, desalinisation plants, pipelines etc..</p>
<p>The name <strong><a href="http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/base/infrastructure/landfill" rel="nofollow">Landfill</a></strong> is slightly confusing.  Landfill is itself a waste-treatment method.  I think a better name for the Landfill type would be <strong>Refuse Treatment Facility</strong> - this is more generic and allows for the type to be used on Waste-to-energy plant topics, Recycling centres etc..</p>
<p>The <strong><a href="http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/base/infrastructure/animal_slaughtering_and_processing_facility" rel="nofollow">Animal slaughtering and processing facility</a></strong> should have a property linking to the facility operator.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/base/infrastructure/radioactive_waste_dump" rel="nofollow">Radioactive Waste Dump</a></strong> should link to the operator of the site.</p></div>