recent rate requests have been substantial - law seminars m parmesano... · hethie parmesano of...
TRANSCRIPT
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 1
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Inter-Class Clashes Over Rising Revenue Requirements: Revenue Requirements: Economic Issues
Presented at:Utility Rate Cases: Current Issues and StrategiesA Law Seminars International Conference
Dr. Hethie S. ParmesanoSenior Vice President
Las Vegas
February 8, 2008
Recent rate requests have been substantial
Utility Percent Amount Reason for the IncreaseFiling Date
Southern California Edison 6.2% $726m To to replace aging distribution infrastructure and business systems, meet regulatory requirements for generation and procurement, increased O&M expenses and employee
Nov-07
Requested Increase
Otter Tail Power Co. 11.0% $14.5m Fuel cost increase, new network investment and rate base growth.
Oct-07
Central Illinois Light 14.49% $30.9m To keep up with $900 million of planned system investments through 2010
Nov-07
Idaho Power 10.35% $63.9m Increased generation and network investment and O&M expenses
Jun-07
Pacificorp (WY) 9.50% $36.1m Increased fuel and purchased power costs and recent infrastructure investments
Jun-07
Northern States Power (MN) 13.95% $20.5m Recent infrastructure investments and increased operating costs.
Dec-07
1
Tucson Electric Power (AZ) 23.0% $158.2m End of 10-year rate freeze Jul-07
Oklahoma Gas & Elec 8.8% $5.4m Increased O&M expenses and investment in the McClain power plant and the Centennial wind farm facility.
Jul-06
Kansas City Power & Light 6.4% $28m To support a 5-year resource expansion plan including pollution control equipment; 100 MW of new wind generation; $42 million intransmission and distribution infrastructure; and demand response programs.
Mar-07
Public Service Co. (CO) 12.7% $107m To support investment in a coal-based power plant. Apr-06
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 2
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Utility Revenue Requirements are Growing
Ramped up construction programs are a major causecause
New generation requirements, including renewables
Preparation for carbon trading program
New transmission (some with rate of return adders)
2
Long-overdue distribution system upgrades
Investment in advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)
Utility Revenue Requirements are Growing
Construction cost inflation is mind-boggling:
Handy-Whitman Price Indices for Selected Electric Utility Components (North Atlantic Region)
250
100
150
200
ndex
(199
8=10
0)
Total Transmission Plant
Total Distribution Plant
Overhead Conductors &Devices
Pad Mounted Transformers
3
0
50
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
In Pad Mounted Transformers
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 3
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Utility Revenue Requirements are Growing
Other factors contribute to rising revenue requirements:requirements:
Catch-up after rate freezes
Incentive payments for DSM activities
Higher energy costs (and market prices)– Rising fuel prices
4
Rising fuel prices
– Increased use of expensive fuel and reduced use of cheap (dirty) fuel
Rising fuel prices
U.S. Natural Gas Price to Electricity Generators
$3$4$5$6$7$8$9
Dol
lars
per
MC
F
5
$0$1$2
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: EIA
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 4
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Rising electricity market prices
Day-Ahead Wholesale Energy Prices by Hub[annual weighted averages]
9
2345678
ice
in C
ents
per
kW
h
NepoolCinergyEntergy
6
01
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Source: Based on EIA Averages of Trades on Intercontinental Exchange
Pri
Utility Revenue Requirements are Growing
Big increases in total revenue requirements mean louder arguments about revenue gallocation among customers:
Should small residential customers be protected (and does “small” mean “needy”?
Should residential customers in general (continue to) be protected because they are voters?
7
Should small businesses be protected because they have few options?
Should major employers be protected to increase or save jobs?
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 5
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Settling these arguments requires defining and prioritizing ratemaking objectives
Typical objectives include:
Revenue adequacy
Cost-based rates (avoidance of cross-subsidies)
Equity
Gradualism (avoidance of unacceptable bill changes)
8
Economic efficiency
Promotion of other societal goals (e.g., reducing carbon emissions)
Existing Cross-Subsidies in Many Jurisdictions Complicate the Task
Generically: a cross-subsidy exists when a portion of the cost associated with one group’s service is recovered from another group.g p
The revenue allocations inherent in current rates may not reflect current costs:
– when specific policies (that may no longer make sense) called for cross-subsidies,
– in cases where rates have not been changed for years, or
9
– when a series of across-the-board rate adjustments have been made.
But what is the proper measure of “cost”?
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 6
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Alternative notions of “cost” for use in quantifying cross subsidies
1. Embedded costs allocated to the class
Equal rates of return on allocated investment imply no b idi d thi hcross-subsidies under this approach.
HOWEVER,
Embedded cost studies yield widely varying results, depending on the classification and allocation methods used.
10
The use of embedded costs to define class revenue requirements may be inconsistent with other ratemaking objectives such as economic efficiency.
Alternative notions of “cost” for use in quantifying cross subsidies
2. Marginal cost revenues of the class
Under this approach, no class is receiving a cross b id if it t l t th i l t f i itsubsidy if it pays at least the marginal cost of serving it
(marginal cost per unit times number of units).
HOWEVER,
Charging rates set equal to marginal costs for each class may not cover the total revenue requirement.
11
Charging rates set equal to marginal cost for each class may produce too much revenue.
There may be a (positive or negative) marginal cost revenue gap.
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 7
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Alternative notions of “cost” for use in quantifying cross subsidies
3. Marginal cost revenues of the class, adjusted efficiently to close the revenue gap
Under this approach, no class is receiving a cross subsidy if it pays at least the marginal cost of serving it plus an efficient share of the revenue gap.
An efficient allocation of the revenue gap requires making adjustments to marginal cost prices that create minimal di t ti i ti d t h i
12
distortions in consumption compared to charging marginal costs as rates. (Ramsey pricing or a similar approach.)
This is the cost test I prefer to use to evaluate cross subsidies.
Example of cross subsidies
A mid-western utility with no rate case for two decades would require wildly different rate increases to bring all classes to full embedded cost.
Percent Rate Increase Required to Match Embedded COS
Irrigation
Large General Service
General Service
Farms
Residential
All Classes
13
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Off-Peak Service
Interruptible Service
Controlled Water Heating
Other Public Authorities
Lighting
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 8
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Heavy weight on “gradualism” objective may mean permanent cross-subsidies
In 2006, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court rejected transmission and distribution rates approved by the PA pp yPUC for PPL Electric Utilities Corporation because of excessive emphasis on gradualism (keeping total bill increases under 10%):
“[W]hile permitted, gradualism is but one of many factors to be considered and weighed by the Commission in determining rate designs, and principles of gradualism cannot be allowed to trump all other valid ratemaking
14
cannot be allowed to trump all other valid ratemaking concerns and do not justify allowing one class of customers to subsidize the cost of service for another class of customers over an extended period of time.”
Lloyd v. Pa PUC, 904 A2d 1010, 1020
Increasingly, customers providing subsidies have options
Move the facility (or shift production) to a jurisdiction with y ( p ) jlower rates.
Invest in self-generation (which may be economically efficient, but is more likely to constitute uneconomic bypass if rates include subsidies).
Agitate for retail competition (or buy from a competitive
15
retailer, if this is already permitted).
Cross-subsidies cannot be maintained if the subsidizing customers have an escape route.
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 9
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
What can be done?
Three approaches for managing the coming battles:
Reduce the total revenue requirement.
Help customers adjust to new higher rates.
Reconsider what constitutes “too large” a bill increase
16
increase.
Strategies for reducing the revenue requirement
Securitize new debt.
Reduce volatility of costs and revenue requirement by reducing risk.
17
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 10
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Securitization[This example shows use in stranded cost recovery.]
Use of Proceeds- retire debt- buy back equity- fund new investment
True-up
Utility InvestorsSPECTC
Proceeds
Rights to CTC
Principal + Interest
Proceeds
Rights to CTC
CTC in
18
True upas needed
Customers Government
AuthorizesCTC in
electricity bill
CTC = Competition Transition Charge
SPE = Special Purpose Entity
Examples of Securitization
Transmission line between Northern Ireland and Scotland
Pa P&L’s 2002 “synthetic sale” of the local distribution utility
Renewable energy purchase power agreements in many countries, including Italy
19
Storm damage costs in Florida
Environmental upgrades (e.g., scrubbers on coal plants) in Wisconsin and West Virginia
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 11
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Other Mechanisms to Reduce Volatility of Costs (and Revenue Requirement)
Obtain pre-approval from regulatory commission for major investment. [The Western Governors Assoc. in 2006 recommended this approach for certain generation
j t id d tiliti t d i k ]projects, provided utilities manage costs and risks.]
Begin cost recovery as facilities are constructed. [This also spreads out cost recovery.]
Negotiate turn-key arrangements. [This shifts risk to the builder, which may or may not reduce revenue
i t ]
20
requirements.]
Build with partners. For example, PPL is looking for a partner for its proposed 1,600-MW nuclear project.
Use insurance products.
Insurance Examples[from MMC Securities Corp.]
Power Price Protection – an outage contingent call option on power Used to either protect revenue or replacementon power. Used to either protect revenue or replacement cost of power.
Power Demand Protection – a weather and/or demand contingent call option on power. Used when demand is greater than forecast.
21
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 12
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Strategies for helping customers adjust to higher rates
Give warning of coming increases.
Offer optional rates that allow customers to control their billbills:
– Time-of-use rates
– Critical-peak pricing
– Real-time pricing
– Interruptible programs
Push energy efficiency measures to cut consumption
22
Push energy efficiency measures to cut consumption.
Promote budget billing.
Emphasize the benefits of reduced consumption on the environment.
Reconsider what is too high an increase
Acceptable increases vary depending on the customer.
– Rethink best way to provide help to needy familiesUse a needs test, so the help is targeted.Give a fixed credit on the monthly bill, rather than percentage discount or low-cost first block that distorts the price signal.Subsidize weatherization and more efficient appliances to reduce consumption by low-income customers.
23
– Business customers complain about utility rate increases, but they deal with even higher increases in other costs; e.g., transportation, environmental, health care. (In the case of utility costs, they have someone to whom to address their complaints.)
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 13
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Rate design within classes is an issue when there are big increases for the class
If rate increases are driven by rising peak loads, lack of time-of-use rates may be penalizing customers whose y p gpercentage of use on peak is below the class average.
The relationship between demand and energy charges in current rates may need to be altered to reflect a new cost structure.
Current block structures may make the problem worse.
24
y p
Effect of Across-the-Board Increase (20%) on Steeply Inverted Rate Structure
Rates and Costs Before and After 20% Across-the-Board Increase
18
20
8
10
12
14
16
18
ce p
er k
Wh
in b
lock
Old Cost
New Cost
Old rate
New rate
25
0
2
4
6
kWh per month
Pric
50 kWh 300 kWh
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 14
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Effect of Across-the-Board Increase (20%) on Steeply Inverted Rate Structure
Change in Monthly Cross-Subsidy Received (Provided) by Customer
-$4
-$2
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8Subsidy per month
Under Old RateUnder New Rate
26
-$12
-$10
-$8
-$6
A (50 kWh) B (250 kWh) C (600 kWh)
Monthly kWh Use by Customer A, B, C
Conclusions
Establish explicit ratemaking objectives and be specific about definition and acceptable levels of cross-subsidies.
Higher prices will have elasticity effects – reducing the rate of growth in demand (and the timing of new capacity
Look for ways to control the size of overall rate increases.
Look for ways to help customers control their own bill increases.
27
g ( g p yadditions) as well as customers bills (compared to a bill based on old use times new rates).
The silver lining – given growing concern about global climate change and energy use’s contribution to the problem, higher electricity prices may help make a dent in the growth of carbon emissions.
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 15
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
About Our Firm
The Company Overview
About Our Firm
NERA Economic Consulting is an international firm of economists who understand how markets work.
NERA economists devise practical economic advice related to highly complex business and legal issues arising from:
– Competition, regulation, public policy, strategy, finance, and litigation
We create strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy recommendations that:
– Reflect our specialization in industrial and financial economics – Build upon our more than 45 years of practical experience
29
We are widely recognized for our independence – Our clients come to us expecting integrity and the unvarnished truth – We commit to deliver unbiased findings
NERA Economic Consulting was founded in 1961 as National Economic Research Associates.
Hethie Parmesano of NERA Economic Consulting Speaker 15: 16
Law Seminars International | Utility Rate Cases | 02/08/08 in Las Vegas, NV
Visit www.nera.comSubscribe to the NERA Weekly
Learn More About Us
Complimentary weekly newsletter that features our latest thinking
Updates on new publications, events, and client case/project work on our website
Subscribe now online at / kl
30
www.nera.com/neraweekly.asp
Contact UsContact Us
Hethie S. Parmesano
Senior Vice PresidentLos Angeles, CAg ,+1 213 346 [email protected]
© Copyright 2008National Economic Research Associates, Inc.
All rights reserved.