IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

International benchmarking of electricity transmission by regulators: A contrast between theory and practice?

  • Haney, Aoife Brophy
  • Pollitt, Michael G.

Benchmarking of electricity networks has a key role in sharing the benefits of efficiency improvements with consumers and ensuring regulated companies earn a fair return on their investments. This paper analyses and contrasts the theory and practice of international benchmarking of electricity transmission by regulators. We examine the literature relevant to electricity transmission benchmarking and discuss the results of a survey of 25 national electricity regulators. While new panel data techniques aimed at dealing with unobserved heterogeneity and the validity of the comparator group look intellectually promising, our survey suggests that they are in their infancy for regulatory purposes. In electricity transmission, relative to electricity distribution, choosing variables is particularly difficult, because of the large number of potential variables to choose from. Failure to apply benchmarking appropriately may negatively affect investors’ willingness to invest in the future. While few of our surveyed regulators acknowledge that regulatory risk is currently an issue in transmission benchmarking, many more concede it might be. In the meantime new regulatory approaches – such as those based on tendering, negotiated settlements, a wider range of outputs or longer term grid planning – are emerging and will necessarily involve a reduced role for benchmarking.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151300685X
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Policy.

Volume (Year): 62 (2013)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 267-281

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:62:y:2013:i:c:p:267-281
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Jamasb, Tooraj & Nillesen, Paul & Pollitt, Michael, 2004. "Strategic behaviour under regulatory benchmarking," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 825-843, September.
  2. Jamasb, Tooraj & Pollitt, Michael, 2003. "International benchmarking and regulation: an application to European electricity distribution utilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(15), pages 1609-1622, December.
  3. Per J. Agrell & Mehdi Farsi & Massimo Filippini & Martin Koller, 2013. "Unobserved heterogeneous effects in the cost efficiency analysis of electricity distribution systems," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 13/171, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
  4. Jamasb, T. & Pollitt, M., 2000. "Benchmarking and regulation: international electricity experience," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 107-130, September.
  5. Haney, Aoife Brophy & Pollitt, Michael G., 2011. "Exploring the determinants of “best practice” benchmarking in electricity network regulation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7739-7746.
  6. Bauer, Paul W. & Berger, Allen N. & Ferrier, Gary D. & Humphrey, David B., 1998. "Consistency Conditions for Regulatory Analysis of Financial Institutions: A Comparison of Frontier Efficiency Methods," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 85-114, March.
  7. Pollitt, M.G., 2008. "The Future of Electricity (and Gas) Regulation," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0819, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  8. Yang, H. & Pollitt, M., 2007. "Incorporating Both Undesirable Outputs and Uncontrollable Variables into DEA: the Performance of Chinese Coal-Fired Power Plants," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0733, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  9. Philipp Geymueller, 2009. "Static versus dynamic DEA in electricity regulation: the case of US transmission system operators," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 397-413, December.
  10. Jamasb, T. & Pollitt, M.G. & Triebs, T., 2008. "Productivity and Efficiency of US Gas Transmission Companies: A European Regulatory Perspective," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0812, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  11. Brophy Haney, A. & Pollitt, M.G., 2009. "Efficiency Analysis of Energy Networks : An International Survey of Regulators," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0926, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  12. Greene, William, 2005. "Reconsidering heterogeneity in panel data estimators of the stochastic frontier model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 269-303, June.
  13. Doucet, Joseph & Littlechild, Stephen, 2009. "Negotiated settlements and the National Energy Board in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4633-4644, November.
  14. Sanyal, Paroma & Bulan, Laarni T., 2011. "Regulatory risk, market uncertainties, and firm financing choices: Evidence from U.S. Electricity Market Restructuring," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 248-268, June.
  15. Kuosmanen, Timo, 2012. "Stochastic semi-nonparametric frontier estimation of electricity distribution networks: Application of the StoNED method in the Finnish regulatory model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 2189-2199.
  16. Jiro Nemoto & Mika Goto, 2006. "Measurement of technical and allocative efficiencies using a CES cost frontier: a benchmarking study of Japanese transmission-distribution electricity," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 31-48, March.
  17. Per J. Agrell & Peter Bogetoft, 2010. "Network Regulation under Climate Policy Review," RSCAS Working Papers 2010/67, European University Institute.
  18. Littlechild, Stephen C. & Skerk, Carlos J., 2008. "Transmission expansion in Argentina 4: A review of performance," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 1462-1490, July.
  19. Llorca, Manuel & Orea, Luis & Pollitt, Michael, 2013. "Efficiency and Environmental Factors in the US Electricity Transmission Industry," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1318, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  20. Morana, Claudio & Sawkins, John W, 2000. "Regulatory Uncertainty and Share Price Volatility: The English and Welsh Water Industry's Periodic Price Review," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 87-100, January.
  21. Francis Cronin & Stephen Motluk, 2007. "Flawed Competition Policies: Designing ‘Markets’ with Biased Costs and Efficiency Benchmarks," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 43-67, August.
  22. Pollitt, Michael, 2005. "The role of efficiency estimates in regulatory price reviews: Ofgem's approach to benchmarking electricity networks," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 279-288, December.
  23. Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul W., 2007. "Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 31-64, January.
  24. Pollitt, Michael G., 2012. "Lessons from the history of independent system operators in the energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 32-48.
  25. Vogelsang, Ingo, 2001. "Price Regulation for Independent Transmission Companies," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 141-65, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:62:y:2013:i:c:p:267-281. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.