220 likes | 314 Views
Better Regulation Expenditure Forecast Assessment Guideline. 12 February 2013. Agenda. Overall program and AER objectives. Work program and AER Objectives. Guidelines general techniques and information requirements Annual reporting monitoring of NSP efficiency
E N D
Better Regulation Expenditure Forecast Assessment Guideline 12 February 2013
Work program and AER Objectives • Guidelines • general techniques and information requirements • Annual reporting • monitoring of NSP efficiency • transparency of NSP performance vs expenditure • early identification of issues for network determinations • Network determinations • refine and use techniques to set allowances
Expenditure assessment approach Expenditure assessment guideline Framework and Approach RINs/RIOs RINs/RIOs Benchmarking Regulatory determinations reports Work program
Working group meetings • Frank and ‘off the record’ discussion – detailed minutes will not be taken, just key outcomes • Material considered by working group will be published • Not here to make decisions but consensus may be possible • Pending availability and importance of topic, may be chaired by AER board member otherwise senior AER staff • In addition to, and informed by, written submissions once received
AER Experience • Current practice • Revealed cost methodology (incentive tools of economic regulation, taking historic costs as the base) • Bottom-up engineering review • Limited use of benchmarking • Limitations • Response to incentives? • Technical appraisal and information asymmetry • Data integrity
AER’s objectives • Improve our approach to expenditure assessments under revised NER • Move from detailed, bottom up approach to overall reasonableness assessments • Greater focus on benchmarking • Open and transparent approach to regulation • Recognition of data limitations and forecasting error • Implementation costs have to be ‘worth it’
This is the first step in a process • Benchmarking is a big step • Continual refinement as better data become available • Gradual shift from current techniques • Flexibility provided in framework and approach • Guidelines subject to future revisions
Recap of issues paper Purpose • Objective – new benchmarking techniques • Principles for how to select techniques • Consultation approach (to be discussed next) • Request feedback
General considerations • Assessing efficiency as well as future circumstances (forecasting) • Identification of assessment techniques • Those that have worked well • Others that are new or we wish to improve • Potential for “first pass” model and more targeted assessments • Relationship with incentive arrangements
Two detailed work streams • Economic benchmarking • employs economic theory on the behaviour of firms to estimate relative efficiency and how this changes over time (TFP, DEA & SFA) • Category analysis • approach to the assessment of expenditure categories
Economic benchmarking • Holistic approach • Focus on data requirements • Outputs: what are they? • Inputs: how should they be measured? • Environmental factors: what else should be taken into account?
Category analysis • Categories matching factors that influence or explain costs – “driver” based approach • Focus on benchmarking and trend analysis • eg cost per connection, per km of line • Largely a continuation of existing reporting categories • New national definitions will require some change • Questions about level of detail required • Recognition of differences between NSPs • Are these quantifiable and supported by evidence? • How/ when should they be accounted for?
Implementation issues • Transition from existing reporting templates • Annual reporting concurrently with determinations • Different reporting years (calendar and financial years) • Different cost allocation methods • stakeholder engagement (guideline) • NSP forecasting methodologies
Break Recommence at 3pm
Forward work program • Timing of workshops • How to deal with dependencies • Treatment of gas, distribution and transmission • Workshop plan for economic benchmarking • Are the three phases appropriate? Are the individual workshop topics appropriate? • Forward work program for category analysis • Are the four phases appropriate? Are the individual workshop topics appropriate?