The Experts below are selected from a list of 279 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
William E Boyd - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
just price Public Utility and the long history of economic regulation in america
Yale Journal on Regulation, 2018Co-Authors: William E BoydAbstract:This Essay investigates the history of “just price” and its influence on the concept and practice of Public Utility regulation in the United States. It begins with a discussion of the Scholastic understanding of just price and its relationship to commutative justice, with particular attention to the problem of coercion in economic exchange. The Essay then discusses the centrality of just price to broader ideas of moral economy and to economic thought and regulation in colonial America and the early United States. The heart of the Essay shows how the idea of just price influenced Public Utility regulation as it took shape during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As the Essay demonstrates, received understandings of just price were fundamental to the Public Utility idea and were at the heart of battles over the proper approach to Utility valuation and rate regulation during the first half of the twentieth century. The Essay concludes with a discussion of efforts to restructure formerly regulated industries during the last quarter of the twentieth century, with particular attention to the challenges faced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as it seeks to ensure that prices in restructured natural gas and electricity markets are just and reasonable. Although much of the Essay’s purpose is descriptive, several larger points emerge from this study. First, the history of just price reveals that relations of reciprocity and fairness in exchange are at the very core of the Public Utility idea. When seen from this perspective, Public Utility represents an important experiment in translating abstract principles of economic justice and fair pricing into working rules for governing key systems of provisioning in a modern industrial society. Second, the history of just price reminds us that prices are more than signals; that they are also relationships and that price relationships can be coercive. At root, the economics of just price is an economics of coercion and, as such, an economics that resonates quite strongly with efforts by Progressive lawyers, legal realists, and institutional economists to develop an approach to law and economics (and economic regulation) that would put coercion at its center. Third, the history of just price shows that competitive markets, when functioning properly, can be powerful instruments for protecting consumers and facilitating fairness in exchange. But it also underscores the importance of taking individual markets on their own terms and recognizing that some markets, and the mechanisms of price formation at their center, are more vulnerable to disruption and manipulation than standard economic models suggest. Finally, at the most general level, the history of just price reminds us that for a very long time—far longer than the lifespan of classical and neoclassical economics—ethical and social concerns have been intimately bound up with conceptions of economy, economic life, and the provision of necessities.
-
Public Utility and the Low Carbon Future
UCLA Law Review, 2014Co-Authors: William E BoydAbstract:Substantial reductions in global power sector emissions will be needed by midcentury to avoid significant disruption of the climate system. Achieving these reductions will require greatly increased levels of financing, technological innovation, and policy reform. In the United States, the scale and complexity of the overall challenge have raised important questions regarding prevailing regulatory and business models, with much scrutiny directed at the traditional practice of Public Utility regulation. Recognizing the many valid criticisms leveled against Public Utility regulation and the important questions raised about the viability of traditional Utility business models, particularly in the face of substantial growth in distributed energy resources, this Article argues that a revitalized and expanded notion of Public Utility has a critical role to play in efforts to decarbonize the power sector in the United States. In making this argument, the Article looks back to an earlier, more expansive concept of Public Utility as articulated by Progressives, legal realists, and institutional economists in the early twentieth century. This earlier concept of Public Utility contains valuable insights for dealing with the current challenges of decarbonization. The Article shows how this broader concept of Public Utility was substantially diminished by a confluence of external challenges and a sustained intellectual assault mounted by economists and lawyers starting in the 1960s. The narrowed understanding of Public Utility that resulted, it is argued, has distorted our views regarding the role of markets and disruptive technologies in the sector. In fact, basic Public Utility principles continue to govern a significant amount of activity across the power sector, including in both wholesale and retail electricity markets. And there are important unrealized possibilities embedded within the Public Utility concept that hold considerable promise for reforming current regulatory and business models in the face of rapid technological change and growing decarbonization imperatives. Such principles and possibilities are particularly important in ongoing efforts to increase renewable energy and finance large low-carbon generation projects. They also hold great promise for ongoing efforts to plan for and optimize the integration of increasingly large amounts of distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar, demand response, and energy storage. Indeed, when one looks at the overall scale, complexity, and sequencing of investments needed to decarbonize the power sector over the coming decades (however it comes to be organized), it is clear that the broad concept of Public Utility offers essential tools for planning and coordinating such investments over the long time horizons contemplated and for managing a system of increasing complexity. In all of these areas, a more expansive notion of Public Utility that draws from earlier understandings of the concept provides a normative foundation for efforts to govern a power system that is increasingly complex, participatory, and intelligent, and for managing the sustained, collective effort to channel investment and behavior in a manner necessary to realize a low-carbon future.
-
Public Utility and the Low-Carbon Future
UCLA Law Review, 2014Co-Authors: William E BoydAbstract:Substantial reductions in global power sector emissions will be needed by midcentury to avoid significant disruption of the climate system. Achieving these reductions will require greatly increased levels of financing, technological innovation, and policy reform. In the United States, the scale and complexity of the overall challenge have raised important questions regarding prevailing regulatory and business models, with much scrutiny directed at the traditional practice of Public Utility regulation. Recognizing the many valid criticisms leveled against Public Utility regulation and the important questions raised about the viability of traditional Utility business models, particularly in the face of substantial growth in distributed energy resources, this Article argues that a revitalized and expanded notion of Public Utility has a critical role to play in efforts to decarbonize the power sector in the United States. In making this argument, the Article looks back to an earlier, more expansive concept of Public Utility as articulated by Progressives, legal realists, and institutional economists in the early twentieth century. This earlier concept of Public Utility contains valuable insights for dealing with the current challenges of decarbonization. The Article shows how this broader concept of Public Utility was substantially diminished by a confluence of external challenges and a sustained intellectual assault mounted by economists and lawyers starting in the 1960s. The narrowed understanding of Public Utility that resulted, it is argued, has distorted our views regarding the role of markets and disruptive technologies in the sector. In fact, basic Public Utility principles continue to govern a significant amount of activity across the power sector, including in both wholesale and retail electricity markets. And there are important unrealized possibilities embedded within the Public Utility concept that hold considerable promise for reforming current regulatory and business models in the face of rapid technological change and growing decarbonization imperatives. Such principles and possibilities are particularly important in ongoing efforts to increase renewable energy and finance large low-carbon generation projects. They also hold great promise for ongoing efforts to plan for and optimize the integration of increasingly large amounts of distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar, demand response, and energy storage. Indeed, when one looks at the overall scale, complexity, and sequencing of investments needed to decarbonize the power sector over the coming decades (however it comes to be organized), it is clear that the broad concept of Public Utility offers essential tools for planning and coordinating such investments over the long time horizons contemplated and for managing a system of increasing complexity. In all of these areas, a more expansive notion of Public Utility that draws from earlier understandings of the concept provides a normative foundation for efforts to govern a power system that is increasingly complex, participatory, and intelligent, and
Richard A. Michelfelder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
decoupling impact and Public Utility conservation investment
Energy Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Richard A. Michelfelder, Pauline M Ahern, Dylan DascendisAbstract:Abstract Public utilities and regulators are implementing various forms of regulatory mechanisms that decouple revenues from commodity sales to remove a disincentive or create an incentive for utilities to invest in and encourage consumers to conserve electricity, natural gas and water. A major question is whether such regulatory mechanisms affect investor-perceived risk, the cost of common equity and the Utility rates of such commodities. This is an important question as regulators in the US are and have been considering the impact of decoupling on investment risk and therefore the cost of common equity in rate proceedings. This matter is also important for regulators globally as they consider decoupling as a policy initiative in setting rates and rate of return. Currently, decoupling is primarily a US ratemaking policy for energy and water utilities as are price caps in Europe. Empirical testing, based on the available data in the US, consistently demonstrates that decoupling has no statistically measurable impact on risk and the cost of common equity. Therefore, at this juncture, policy is moving ahead, at least in the US, without empirical evidence on whether it does have impact on risk and return.
-
Public Utility Beta Adjustment and Biased Costs of Capital in Public Utility Rate Proceedings
The Electricity Journal, 2013Co-Authors: Richard A. Michelfelder, Panayiotis TheodossiouAbstract:The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is commonly used in Public Utility rate proceedings to estimate the cost of capital and allowed rate of return. The beta in the CAPM associates risk with estimated return. However, an empirical analysis suggests that the commonly used Blume CAPM beta adjustment is not appropriate for electric and electric and gas Public Utility betas, and may bias the cost of common equity capital in Public Utility rate proceedings.
Mohammed A Alghafly - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
delay in Public Utility projects in saudi arabia
International Journal of Project Management, 1999Co-Authors: Mohammed Alkhalil, Mohammed A AlghaflyAbstract:Abstract This paper presents a survey research to investigate three components of delay in the construction of water and sewage works in Saudi Arabia. The components are (1) the frequency of delayed projects, (2) the extent of delay, and (3) the responsibility for delay. The research is intended to shed some light on the issue of construction delay in order to avoid, or better manage, delay situations. The results of the survey showed that a high proportion of projects were subject to delay. The frequency of delayed projects seems to be associated with the contractor classification grade but not with the region where the project is constructed. It was also found that the extent of delay was severe and that it was associated with the original project duration. Project owners and consultants assigned the major responsibility for delay to the contractors while contractors believed that the owner is mostly responsible.
Elżbieta Broniewicz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Energy Self-Sufficient Public Utility Building—Concept
Proceedings, 2020Co-Authors: Karolina Dec, Elżbieta BroniewiczAbstract:In this study, the idea of an energy self-sufficient Public Utility building was presented, as well as its energy balance components and the possibility of powering it with renewable sources. The annual energy consumption profile of the building was analyzed. Current data concerning the production of electricity from Renewable Energy Systems (RES) were presented. The applicable provisions of the Directive of the European Parliament and the EU Council on energy efficiency were discussed.
Paul R Schulman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
rethinking risk assessment for Public Utility safety regulation
Risk Analysis, 2019Co-Authors: Carl Danner, Paul R SchulmanAbstract:To aid in their safety oversight of large-scale, potentially dangerous energy and water infrastructure and transportation systems, Public Utility regulatory agencies increasingly seek to use formal risk assessment models. Yet some of the approaches to risk assessment used by utilities and their regulators may be less useful for this purpose than is supposed. These approaches often do not reflect the current state of the art in risk assessment strategy and methodology. This essay explores why utilities and regulatory agencies might embrace risk assessment techniques that do not sufficiently assess organizational and managerial factors as drivers of risk, nor that adequately represent important uncertainties surrounding risk calculations. Further, it describes why, in the special legal, political, and administrative world of the typical Public Utility regulator, strategies to identify and mitigate formally specified risks might actually diverge from the regulatory promotion of "safety." Some improvements are suggested that can be made in risk assessment approaches to support more fully the safety oversight objectives of Public regulatory agencies, with examples from "high-reliability organizations" (HROs) that have successfully merged the management of safety with the management of risk. Finally, given the limitations of their current risk assessments and the lessons from HROs, four specific assurances are suggested that regulatory agencies should seek for themselves and the Public as objectives in their safety oversight of Public utilities.