1 / 30

electricity

Multi-sectoral regulation of services of general interest aspects of electronic communications sector: the Latvia’s experience. communications. public transport. Prof. Edvins Karnitis Public Utilities Commission Latvia. post. gas. water. electricity. district heating.

Download Presentation

electricity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Multi-sectoral regulation of services of general interest aspects of electronic communications sector: the Latvia’s experience communications public transport Prof. Edvins Karnitis Public Utilities Commission Latvia post gas water electricity district heating

  2. Usage of SGEI and payments for them (2008)

  3. SGEI: market concentration in Latvia by HHI (2008)

  4. Multi-sectoral model: harmonized regulation • component of the national strategic issues: consistence with economy, state intervence level, social policy, etc.; • unified essence: provision of services of general economic interest, transition to competition; • service providers – multi-utility companies, strong investors; • consumers – users of various services; • knowledge management: unified strategy, methodology, principles and instruments, adoption of methods and experience considering sectoral peculiarities; • small country factor: analogous environment on whole territory, effective resource utilization – human, financial; • strong independent regulatory body; • convergency of services;

  5. Latvia’s case: multi-sectoral two-level regulatory model till 2010 PUC • electricity supply • gas supply • cogeneration • electronic communications • postal services • railway infrastructure • rail passenger transport Municipal regulators • boiler houses • district heating: supply • water supply • sewerage • waste management Basic idea: to draw regulation nearer to residents (consumers)

  6. Divided regulation of unified process

  7. Two-level principle: the major weakness of the Latvia’s regulatory system in the past • consolidation on a large scale (15 unified municipal regulators), the anticipated benefit has not been achieved; • lack of co-ordination among municipal regulators, mutual disconnection, lack of common management, unconnected with the PUC; • dependence: municipal institution is a subject to strong local pressure and parochialism; • lack of awareness and skills to develop competent regulatory systems in small territories; • increasing municipal regulatory costs (0,4% vs 0,2% of turnover); • interlinked processes and/or businesses of the same company is regulated by two regulatory bodies;

  8. Unified microlevel regulatory procedures • Regulations on issuing licenses for provision of services and general registration; • Regulations on information submission by service providers; • Provisions on cooperation and consultation with service providers and consumers • Procedure for acquaintance with tariff projects; • Unified methodological principles for determination of tariffs for services; • Regulations on dispute solving;

  9. Multi-sectoral model: current functional imperfections • lack of technological regulatory instruments in framework of the PUC: • railway; • energy; • communications; • decreasing functionality: • railway cargo transportation; • frequency and numbering planning; • energy tariffs setting; Tendency in ministries: to perform regulatory functions

  10. Multi-sectoral model: potential discussions • lower quality of regulation, regulator cannot concentrate to problems of one sector; • politically elected decision makers are not experts in regulated sectors; • regulation costs are not fully adequate to sectoral contributions; • different level of sector liberalization, harmonization problems; Coordination problems between sectoral regulation are much higher

  11. The PUC: independence • independence of decision-makers; • financial independence (0,17% of utilities’ turnover); • supervision, lack of any direct pressure or influence on PUC; • supervision problems: • involvement in current activities non-related to regulation; • braking normative initiative: long process, approach of the ME; • conformity with national policy, annual reports to Parliament; cancellation of decisions by court; • unachievable for sectoral regulator level of real independence, growing authority; • higher level – changes in the Satversme (Constitution);

  12. PUC and its interlinkage

  13. Implementation: combined structure of the PUC Board Electronic communications and Post Department Municipal services and railway Department Energetics Department Economic Analysis Department Legal Department • sectoral support • unification of decisions

  14. Actors in the regulatory process • every inhabitant is using electricity, post and passenger transport services; • district heating, water supply, waste management are wery popular services; • fixed penetration rate – around 28%; • mobile telephone penetration rate of actual users exceeds 105%; • 40% of households use natural gas in their kitchens; • more than 600 providers have been registered in elcom sector; • 53 companies provide postal services; • near 370 licenses have been issued in various energetics segments;

  15. Strong balanced regulation: to keep equal distance from all involved parties

  16. Participation and information • all regulatory decisions and their substantiations, licence data, annual public reports are available in printed and electronic forms; • public communications: PUC’s WWW page, national and regional printed and electronic mass media, sectoral editions; • information regarding tariff proposals is published in the official/regional newspaper; any provider/end-user can submit PUC his suggestions in defined time period; • public hearings have been chosen as the procedure that gives the possibility for everybody to express his attitude and propose motions; • Client Compass is created and maintained on the WWW page; • regular consultations with service providers, special consulting papers are regularly published;

  17. Services of general economic interest: not a conjunctive term only • they are fundamental for health, even for life itself of every citizen as well as for elimination of his/her social exclusion; • theyare essential for business, backbone of the national economy; • general availability of qualitative services is of great importance for equalization of life quality in the whole territory; service providers have a limited interest in general provision of qualitative services (low income consumers, remote and sparsely populated areas, unprofitable services) for affordable tariffs; Universal service is a real instrument for general availability and affordability of various services across the whole country

  18. Unified Regulator – unified universal service model • priority – liberalized sectors: • electronic communications; • postal services; • electricity; • opened for district heating, water, gas, waste; Unified: principles, methodology, procedures, management Sector specific: services, indicators, financing

  19. Policy of the EU related to US: aiming at unified approach • Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community; Protocol on services of general interest; Lisbon, 13 December 2007; • Services of general interest, including social services of general interest: a new European commitment; COM(2007)725; • White Paper on services of general interest; COM(2004)374; • sectoral Directives: • electronic communications and post; • electricity and gas;

  20. Set of the US: post • minimum facilities have been adopted by Directive; • service oriented, technologically neutral; • clusters of US users: • expensive (remote, sparsely populated) areas – uniform tariffs; • vulnerable individuals (low-income households, invalids) – electronic communications, electricity; not actual in postal market; • all users throughout the national territory – to guarantee service, to decrease uniform tariffs (electronic communications, post); • processing and delivery of postal items (including registered and insured items) weighing up to 2 kg; • processing and delivery of postal packages weighing up to 20 kg; • delivery of subscribed periodicals;

  21. Set of the US: electronic communications • minimum scope – Directive 2002/22/EC; • restriction on fixed location only has been annulled – technological development since 2000; • access will be combined with special support for vulnerable users; easy general access is guaranteed in practice: 92% of customers evaluate as easy access to mobile network and 77% – access to fixed network (Eurobarometer 2007);

  22. Liberalized market: necessity for new US model Market opening abolish any potential cross-subsidy. US obligations cannot be put on incumbent only. All companies have to be included.

  23. US financing: principles Sectoral separation. Efficiency, market equilibrium, sustainability …

  24. US financing: implementation • budget financing (taxes): not related to sector, support of cream skimmers; • sectoral contribution – the base: fair dealing, market is not distorted; • general participation, equal rate of duty;de minimis exemptions (for newcomers and small providers) – not purposeful; • combined financing – budget partnership max 10% of total funding (motivation of contributors); • compensation of real expenditures for really provided/used services (post factum); • customer-oriented – financing of US provider, uniform process, use of standard billing system;

  25. Compensation of the net cost: algorithm • calculation of the US compensation – according to audited annual report of the US provider; • methodology for calculation of intangible benefits (scale effect, marketing, branding, ...); • minimum unfair burden exemptions – not purposeful, distort the market; • participation of all providers of the sector, proportionality (equal rate of duty);

  26. Compensation of the net cost: principles • compensation of real expenditures for really provided / used services (post factum): • company-oriented – compensation to customers, for personalized services only, significant delay, hard administration; • customer-oriented – financing of US provider, uniform process, use of standard billing system;

  27. Compensation of the net cost: roadmap Reports of service providers on year n-1 turnover and prognoses on year n Decision of the CoM on year n-1 and framework for years n and n+1 Payments into US Fund for year n-1 Audited annual reports of US providers on year n-1 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul Year n-1 Year n • annual decision on contribution rate and budget co-financing (CoM), framework for next 2 years (compensation, sector turnover); • unutilized or unavailable funding – included in next year calculation;

  28. Provider of the US: • any sectoral service provider (standard of quality) have a chance to become the US provider; • selection of the US provider – principles of efficiency, objectivity, transparency, non-discrimination, proportionality and equality; duty of the Regulator; • one or more US providers? (small country and small market); desig-nation • for personalized services (vulnerable consumers) – choice of US customer (standard of quality!); • tendering (beauty contest) on state aid: efficiency, quality, experience, reliability, trust… ; • periodicity – every third year; • if no acceptable applications – obligation on incumbent (LP);

  29. US: socio-economic concept of national significance • Public Utilities Commission: • management of the US scope and quality standard; • tendering procedures; • control of expenditures and net cost; • Ministry of Transportation (MoT) – sector policy; • Ministry of Finance (MoF): administration of US Fond; • Ministry of Welfare (MoW) – vulnerable people; • Local governments – formalize low-income households; • implementation – ???; Strong, independent, fair-dealing Regulator – a crucial issue

  30. Court verdicts on PUC’s decisions (2002–2009)

More Related