IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Vertical separation of the energy-distribution industry; an assessment of several options for unbundling

  • Machiel Mulder
  • Victoria Shestalova


  • Mark Lijesen

The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs has proposed to replace the currently implemented structure of legal unbundling of the energy distribution industry by ownership unbundling. In this study we analyse the costs and benefits of this proposal. We compare the proposal�to the current situation and to two alternative options that strengthen legal unbundling. We identify four mutually-related categories of benefits: better performance of networks, more efficient regulation, improved effectiveness of competition, and benefits of privatisation; and three categories of costs: one-off transaction costs, loss of economies of scope and the risk of less investment in generation. The analysis highlights that the benefits depend on the future development in small-scale generation and on allocation of the management of transmission networks. Mainly because of the uncertainty about the future role of small-scale generation and the uncertainty about the magnitude of the one-off transaction costs related to cross-border leases, the net welfare effect of ownership unbundling at the distribution level is ambiguous. We identify an alternative route for achieving some of the benefits considered.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis in its series CPB Document with number 84.

in new window

Date of creation: Apr 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cpb:docmnt:84
Contact details of provider: Postal: Postbus 80510, 2508 GM Den Haag
Phone: (070) 338 33 80
Fax: (070) 338 33 50
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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. Paul Joskow & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Retail electricity competition," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(4), pages 799-815, December.
  2. Marcel Canoy & S. Onderstal, 2003. "Tight oligopolies: in search of proportionate remedies," CPB Document 29, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
  3. Economides, Nicholas, 1998. "The incentive for non-price discrimination by an input monopolist," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 271-284, May.
  4. Armstrong, Mark & Doyle, Chris & Vickers, John, 1996. "The Access Pricing Problem: A Synthesis," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 131-50, June.
  5. Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Tirole, Jean, 1992. "Access Pricing and Competition," IDEI Working Papers 19, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
  6. Kittelsen, S.A.C., 1993. "Stepwise DEA; Choosing Variables for Measuring Technical Efficiency in Norwegian Electricity Distribution," Memorandum 06/1993, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
  7. Paul L. Joskow, 2004. "Transmission Policy in the United States," Working Papers 0417, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
  8. Green, R., 2004. "Retail Competition and Electricity Contracts," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0406, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  9. Kira R. Fabrizio & Nancy L. Rose & Catherine D. Wolfram, 2007. "Do Markets Reduce Costs? Assessing the Impact of Regulatory Restructuring on US Electric Generation Efficiency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1250-1277, September.
  10. Mandy, David M, 2000. "Killing the Goose That May Have Laid the Golden Egg: Only the Data Know Whether Sabotage Pays," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 157-72, March.
  11. Pollitt, Michael, 2008. "Electricity reform in Argentina: Lessons for developing countries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 1536-1567, July.
  12. Oliver Hart & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, 1996. "The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1778, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
  13. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
  14. Joskow, P.L., 2003. "The Difficult Transition to Competitive Electricity Markets in the U.S," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0328, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  15. Burkart, Mike & Gromb, Denis & Panunzi, Fausto, 1997. "Large Shareholders, Monitoring, and the Value of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(3), pages 693-728, August.
  16. Tooraj Jamasb & Michael Pollitt, 2005. "Electricity Market Reform in the European Union - Review of Progress toward Liberalization & Integration," Working Papers 0503, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
  17. Domah, P. & Pollitt, M.G., 2000. "The Restructuring and Privatisation of Electricity Distribution and Supply Businesses in England and Wales: A Social Cost Benefit Analysis," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0007, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  18. Denis, David J & Denis, Diane K & Sarin, Atulya, 1997. " Agency Problems, Equity Ownership, and Corporate Diversification," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 135-60, March.
  19. M. Pollitt, 2004. "Electricity reform in Chile. Lessons for developing countries," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Intersentia, vol. 5(3), pages 221-263, September.
  20. Newbery, D., 2002. "Regulatory Challenges to European Electricity Liberalisation," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0230, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  21. Rob Aalbers & Victoria Shestalova & Sander Onderstal, 2004. "Better safe than sorry? Reliability policy in network industries," CPB Document 73, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
  22. Arie ten Cate & Mark Lijesen, 2004. "The Elmar model: output and capacity in imperfectly competitive electricity markets," CPB Memorandum 94, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
  23. Mark Lijesen, 2002. "End user prices in liberalised energy markets," CPB Discussion Paper 16, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
  24. Newbery, D., 2002. "Issues and Options for Restructuring Electricity Supply Industries," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0210, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  25. Jonathan M. Karpoff, 2001. "Public versus Private Initiative in Arctic Exploration: The Effects of Incentives and Organizational Structure," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(1), pages 38-78, February.
  26. repec:reg:rpubli:110 is not listed on IDEAS
  27. Matsusaka, John G, 2001. "Corporate Diversification, Value Maximization, and Organizational Capabilities," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(3), pages 409-31, July.
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:cpb:docmnt:84. 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: ()

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.