Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:21:24.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incentive vs. Conventional Regulation of New Utility Construction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Joan K. Meyer
Joan K. Meyer*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University
Get access

Abstract

Major plant construction projects represent a large part of a typical utility's rate base and construction cost overruns are a perennial problem associated with these projects. The conventional approach to prevent overruns is direct regulatory oversight by a regulatory commission. Yet this approach fails to provide on-going incentives for the most cost effective decisions by the utility. This article contrasts an incentive method of regulation, which inversely relates the rate of return granted by the regulatory agency with the level of overruns incurred, with conventional rate regulation. A discounted cash flow simulation model is employed based on data from an electric generation project currently under construction in Central New York.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , April 1984 , pp. 103 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author is indebted to Robert Kalter, Richard Boisvert, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and assistance. Thanks also goes to NYSEG's staff for their efficient provision of data and information. All errors, however, are the responsibility of the author.

References

Bussing, Irwin. Public Utility Regulation and the So-Called Sliding Scale. New York: Columbia University Press, 1936.Google Scholar
Mead, Walter J.; Rogers, George W., and Smith, Rufus Z. Transporting Natural Gas from the Arctic. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1977.Google Scholar
Meyer, Joan K. “Incentive Regulation of Public Utility Construction: A Policy Simulation.” M.S. thesis, Cornell University. 1982.Google Scholar
Taylor, Bernard W. and North, Ronald M. “The Management of Economic Uncertainty in Public Water Resource Development.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(1976): 636–43.Google Scholar
Trebling, Harry M. “Toward an Incentive System of Regulation.” Public Utilities Fortnightly LXXI (1963): 22–28.Google Scholar
Tyner, Wallace E. and Kalter, Robert J. A Simulation Model for Resource Policy Evaluation, Ag. Econ. Staff Paper No. 77–28. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, 1977.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Steam-Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Expenses—1978. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Energy. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Incentive Regulation in the Electric Utility Industry, by Resource Consulting Group, Inc. RCG No. RA83-0143, July 1983.Google Scholar