ILNews

Pashos: Is cost-of-service regulation relevant in today's world?

February 26, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

“No task more profoundly tests the capacity of our government ... than its share in securing for society those essential services which are furnished by public utilities. Our whole social structure presupposes ... dependence upon private economic enterprise. To think of contemporary America without the intricate and pervasive systems which furnish light, heat, power, transportation, and communication is to conjure up another world.” (Felix Frankfurter)

For over a century, Indiana’s public utility rates have been established by governmental agencies, acting as a replacement for a competitive marketplace. The “regulatory compact” under which such regulation takes place holds that public utilities should be given exclusive territories in which to provide these important services so as to avoid a duplication of facilities; in return, public utilities should provide adequate and reliable service to all customers in such territories, at reasonable rates determined by the government. Under this regulatory compact, public utilities submit to regulation and give up the potential upside of substantial profits that other competitive enterprises seek, and customers give up the ability to choose their utility providers.

pashos Pashos

The linchpin of regulated ratemaking has been “cost of service” – rates set based on an estimate of the utility’s reasonable and prudent costs of providing utility services to customers going forward, plus a fair return for investors who supply the utility with needed capital. Cost-of-service regulation provides utilities with an opportunity, but not a guarantee, that they will recover their actual costs of providing service along with a fair return for their investors.

The traditional cost-of-service ratemaking model seeks to ensure that investors continue to provide needed capital and customers continue to receive near universal service at reasonable rates. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “the rate-making process ... i.e., the fixing of just and reasonable rates, involves a balancing of the investor and the consumer interest.” Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591 (1944).

Today, public utilities are experiencing significant cost increases, due to issues such as federal environmental and other mandates, and the need to upgrade decades-old infrastructure. These cost pressures, combined with fast-paced technology, market changes and other states’ experimentation with retail deregulation, are causing policymakers and others to ask whether cost-of-service regulation remains relevant or whether deregulation might be a preferable alternative.

Given the very recent history of relatively low and stable natural gas and wholesale power prices, deregulation may appear to be an attractive replacement for cost-of-service regulation. But a more in-depth analysis of other states’ retail deregulation experiences indicates that retail deregulation may present more risk than reward.

A principal motivation behind retail deregulation has been the theory that competition would produce lower prices for consumers. A historical comparison of the electricity prices and price changes in regulated and deregulated states, however, indicates that retail deregulation does not impact electricity prices in any significant way. Rather, the price of electricity is determined by numerous other factors upon which deregulation has little to no impact (for example, fuel proximity and prices, wholesale power prices, construction costs, and government renewable policy requirements). Moreover, the distinct possibility exists that retail deregulation is unlikely to produce price reductions except possibly during periods of low natural gas prices, low wholesale power prices, and generating capacity surpluses. Deregulated Electricity in Texas, supra at 63. Retail Electric Rates in Deregulated and Regulated States: 2012 Update, American Public Power Association, April 2013, available at http://www.publicpower.org/files/PDFs/RKW_Final_-_2012_update.pdf. Kenneth Rose, State Retail Electricity Markets: How Are They Performing So Far?, ElectricityPolicy.com (June 2012). Mathew J. Morey and Laurence D. Kirsch, Retail Rate Impacts of State and Federal Electric Utility Policies, Christensen Associates, The Electricity Journal. Vol. 26, Issue 3 (April 2013).

Even if the price benefits were long term and persuasive, there are risks associated with deregulation that must be considered. These risks include price volatility, reliability of supply, complexity of deregulation, and loss of state jurisdiction.

Electricity is considered to be the most volatile commodity in the world, and natural gas is a volatile commodity, as well. Under regulation, utility customers are largely protected from this price volatility because the utility has “iron in the ground” assets and contracts to hedge against spot market price changes. But in deregulated environments, customers bear more price volatility themselves.

The construction of new-generation assets to ensure the availability of electricity and adequate reserves is a very real issue in deregulated markets. Deregulated markets have struggled to effectively incentivize sufficient construction of new generation, as is illustrated by brownouts and blackouts that have occurred in deregulated markets in Texas and California. Deregulated Electricity in Texas: A History of Retail Competition, Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, December 2012, available at http://tcaptx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SB7-Report-2012.pdf. The Western Energy Crisis, the Enron Bankruptcy, and FERC’s Response, available at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/wec/chron/chronology.pdf.

Retail deregulation legislation must necessarily address numerous complicated issues, many of which can produce unintended consequences (such as the California energy crisis in the early 2000s). As just a few examples of such issues: How will deregulation take place? Will incumbent utilities be required to divest their generating assets? How will “stranded costs” be calculated? How will stranded costs be recovered from customers? Should incumbent utilities be required to act as a “provider of last resort?” How should incumbent utilities be compensated for acting as a provider of last resort?

Finally, when states embark upon retail deregulation, they cede a significant amount of jurisdiction over generation and generation pricing to the federal government. Once a state deregulates, the construction of generating facilities and the pricing of electricity generation will, for the most part, take place at the federal, wholesale level, leaving states without much ability to oversee the adequacy of generation supply or the pricing of such supply to retail customers, as experienced in Maryland and New Jersey.

While Indiana may want to explore deregulation as an alternative to cost-of-service-based regulation, the complexity and risks associated with deregulation should not be ignored or underestimated. Similarly, Indiana should not ignore or underestimate the continued usefulness and possible beneficial evolution of cost-of-service regulation.•

__________

Kay Pashos is a partner in the Indianapolis office of Ice Miller LLP. She practices in the area of energy and utilities law, advising and representing energy and utility companies before state and federal regulatory agencies in a variety of cases. The opinions expressed are those of the author.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT