DSpace Repository

Asset Stranding is Inevitable: Implications for Optimal Regulatory Design

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Evans, Lewis
dc.contributor.author Guthrie, Graeme
dc.date.accessioned 2015-02-11T21:38:47Z
dc.date.accessioned 2022-07-06T22:37:37Z
dc.date.available 2015-02-11T21:38:47Z
dc.date.available 2022-07-06T22:37:37Z
dc.date.copyright 12/11/2003
dc.date.issued 2003
dc.identifier.uri https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/18978
dc.description.abstract The irreversibility of much infrastructure investment means that some assets will stop earning revenue before the end of their physical lives; they will be stranded. Under traditional rate of return regulation firms are guaranteed the ability to recover the costs of investment insulating them from the consequences of asset stranding. Under modern incentive regulation firms are allowed to earn revenue just sufficient to cover the costs of a hypothetical efficient firm which provides services at minimum cost exposing them to the risk of asset stranding. By actively encouraging competition regulators increase this risk. We suggest two conditions applicable to both regimes which must be met if regulation is to be "reasonable": the regulated firm must not lose value from investment and it cannot collect more revenue than would the lowest cost alternative provider. This implies that regulated firms should be allowed to earn the riskless rate of return on the historical cost of their assets under rate of return regulation and a different (generally higher) rate of return on the replacement cost of their assets under incentive regulation. The risk premium depends on both the systematic and unsystematic risk of demand shocks. Since customers bear the risk of asset stranding under rate of return regulation and shareholders bear this risk under incentive regulation welfare is higher under incentive regulation as long as customers are more risk-averse than shareholders. We show that when there is a choice between reversible and irreversible technology there is no price specification under rate of return regulation that will induce the firm to choose the efficient bundle of technology while under incentive regulation the firm will choose the efficient mix of technologies. That is incentive regulation allocates the risk of asset stranding efficiently and also gives firms the incentive to reduce this risk to efficient levels. Finally incentive regulation has less demanding information requirements than traditional rate of return regulation. en_NZ
dc.format pdf en_NZ
dc.language.iso en_NZ
dc.publisher Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington en_NZ
dc.rights Permission to publish research outputs of the New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation has been granted to the Victoria University of Wellington Library. Refer to the permission letter in record: https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/18870 en_NZ
dc.title Asset Stranding is Inevitable: Implications for Optimal Regulatory Design en_NZ
dc.type Text en_NZ
vuwschema.contributor.unit New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation en_NZ
vuwschema.contributor.unit Victoria Business School: Orauariki en_NZ
vuwschema.subject.anzsrcfor 149999 Economics not elsewhere classified en_NZ
vuwschema.type.vuw Working or Occasional Paper en_NZ
vuwschema.subject.anzsrcforV2 389999 Other economics not elsewhere classified en_NZ


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account