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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT