Reference models and incentive regulation of electricity distribution networks : An evaluation of Sweden's Network Performance Assessment Model (NPAM)

Electricity sector reforms across the world have led to a search for innovative approaches to regulation that promote efficiency in the natural monopoly distribution networks and reduce their service charges. To this aim, a number of countries have adopted incentive regulation models based on efficiency benchmarking. While most regulators have used parametric and non-parametric frontier-based methods of benchmarking some have adopted engineering-designed "reference firm" or "norm" models. This paper examines the incentive properties and related aspects of the reference firm model--NPAM--as used in Sweden and compares this with frontier-based benchmarking methods. We identify a number of important differences between the two approaches that are not readily apparent and discuss their ramifications for the regulatory objectives and process. We conclude that, on balance, the reference models are less appropriate as benchmarks than real firms. Also, the implementation framework based on annual ex-post reviews exacerbates the regulatory problems mainly by increasing uncertainty and reducing the incentive for innovation.

[1]  Paul H. L. Nillesen,et al.  Strategic behaviour under regulatory benchmarking , 2004 .

[2]  Thomas P. Tangerås,et al.  Yardstick Competition and Quality , 2009 .

[3]  Dag Morten Dalen,et al.  Yardstick Competition and Investment Incentives , 1998 .

[4]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  Benchmarking and incentive regulation of quality of service: an application to the UK electricity distribution networks , 2005 .

[5]  C. A. Knox Lovell,et al.  The managers versus the consultants , 2003 .

[6]  P. Joskow,et al.  Incentive Regulation in Theory and Practice: Electricity Distribution and Transmission Networks , 2005 .

[7]  M. Pollitt,et al.  Benchmarking and regulation: international electricity experience , 2000 .

[8]  Massimo Filippini,et al.  Regional differences in electricity distribution costs and their consequences for yardstick regulation of access prices , 2001 .

[9]  L. Olsson,et al.  EBR - successful technical co-operation between companies in sweden and the influence of deregulation , 2001 .

[10]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  JEL classification: L43, L51, L94BENCHMARKING AND REGULATION OF ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION UTILITIES: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE , 2000 .

[11]  Ralph Turvey On network efficiency comparisons: Electricity distribution , 2006 .

[12]  Dennis L. Weisman,et al.  Efficiency as a Discovery Process: Why Enhanced Incentives Outperform Regulatory Mandates , 2003 .

[13]  I. Dyck,et al.  Cost Reductions, Cost Padding, and Stock Market Prices: The Chilean Experience with Price-Cap Regulation , 2002 .

[14]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  Incentive regulation of electricity distribution networks : Lessons of experience from Britain , 2007 .

[15]  D. Sappington Regulating Service Quality: A Survey , 2005 .

[16]  Michael G. Pollitt,et al.  The restructuring and privatisation of the electricity distribution and supply businesses in England and Wales: a social cost-benefit analysis , 2005 .

[17]  Gary D. Ferrier,et al.  Consistency Conditions for Regulatory Analysis of Financial Institutions: A Comparison of Frontier Efficiency Methods , 1998 .

[18]  Dan R. Twaddle,et al.  Price-Cost Margins and Profit Rates in New Zealand Electricity Distribution Networks Since 1994: the Cost of Light Handed Regulation , 2005 .

[19]  Michael G. Pollitt,et al.  The role of efficiency estimates in regulatory price reviews: Ofgem's approach to benchmarking electricity networks , 2005 .

[20]  William W. Hogan,et al.  Cost Reductions, Cost Padding, and Stock Market Prices: The Chilean Experience with Price-Cap Regulation , 2008 .

[21]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  Gaming the Regulator: A Survey , 2003 .

[22]  M. Pollitt,et al.  Electricity Market Reform in the European Union: Review of Progress toward Liberalization &Integration* , 2005 .

[23]  Sander Onderstal,et al.  Better safe than sorry? Reliability policy in network industries , 2004 .

[24]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  Long-term Framework for Electricity Distribution Access Charges , 2005 .

[25]  H. Rudnick,et al.  DEA efficiency for the determination of the electric power distribution added value , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[26]  M. Pollitt,et al.  Future electricity technologies and systems , 2006 .