“Affordable” Utility Service: What is Regulation’s Role? With all the nation’s economy stressed, politicians are pressuring regulators which will make utility service “affordable.” This picture has three problems. Wealth Redistribution is Not Regulation’s Department The regulator identifies prudent costs, computes a revenue requirement to cover those costs, then designs rates to produce the revenue requirement under embedded cost ratemaking. Rate design makes each customer category bear the expenses it causes. None of these cost that is steps—prudent, revenue requirement computation, cost allocation—involves affordability. Affordability becomes a factor only we lower rates for the unfortunate by raising rates for others if we jigger the numbers—if. Achieving affordability through rate design means cost that is compromising to redistribute wealth. It resembles taxation of one class to benefit another, using this exception: With taxation, citizens can retire representatives whose votes offend; but with utility service, captive customers are stuck with all the rates regulators set. In place of shifting costs between customer classes, regulators might redistribute wealth in another way: by “taxing” shareholders, for example., reducing shareholder returns below the otherwise level that is appropriate. But taxing shareholders is no more the regulator’s domain than is taxing some other clients. And it’s really likely unconstitutional: Having invested to serve the general public, shareholders expect “just compensation,” undiminished by a forced contribution for affordability. Moving money among citizens is essential to a fair society. Poverty is intolerable and charity that is private suffices, so government steps in. But helping the luckless ought to be done by political leaders, who must justify their actions into the electorate; not by professional regulators, whose focus needs to be industry performance. Affordability of any product—groceries, a Lexus, or utility service—depends on one’s income and wealth, as well as on the cost of other products. The poor could better afford utility service when we raised their income and increased their wealth. Or if we lowered their cost of housing, medical care, transportation, or education. However these initiatives are outside regulators’ authority. To help make regulators responsible for affordability is illogical. Cheap Energy is politics that are cheap Politicians who argue for affordability make the road that is easy. All efforts that increase costs, while commanding the regulator to make service “affordable,” is low-risk politics, responsibility-avoidance politics, cheap politics to legislate economic development, greenness, reliability, energy independence, and technology leadership. When politicians call for “lower rates,” the electorate feels entitled to get rather than encouraged to contribute. But no family, no congregation, no society that is civil thrives if its key verb is “take” rather than “give.” So when lower rates now result in higher costs later, citizens become cynical. Self-doubting, also, as they question their ability to tell apart pander from policy. These are the results when politicians avoid their responsibility for affordability. “Affordability” Undermines Regulation’s Responsibility Mathematician Carson Chow says he is found the reason for our obesity epidemic: low food prices. Studying 40 years of data, he spotted both correlation and causation between girth growth and value declines. He traced these trends to government farm policy shifts (from paying for non-production to stimulating production that is full and technology boosts (which lowered production costs). The low the price, the greater production; the more production, the greater (fast) food; the more food, the more calories available; the greater amount of calories available, the greater amount of calories consumed. See C. Dreifus, “A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity,” The New York Times (May 14, 2012). Our company is both over-consuming and under-appreciating: Dr. Chow discovered that “Americans are wasting food at a progressively increasing rate.” (Fairness point: Chow has his doubters. See Michael Moyer, “The Mathematician’s Obesity Fallacy,” Scientific American (May 15, 2012). What does food need to do with “affordable” utility service? A regulator’s job is to regulate—to performance that is establish, then align compensation with compliance. In this equation, affordability is certainly not a variable. To produce service affordable towards the unlucky, the commission would need to lower the price below cost. That leads to overconsumption, to Dr. Chow’s “waste.” This inefficiency hurts everyone. Economic efficiency exists when no further action can create benefits without increasing costs by a lot more than the huge benefits. Conversely, economic inefficiency exists once we forego some action that, if taken, can make someone best off without making anyone worse off. To over-consume, to waste, to do something inefficiently, to go out of an advantage on the table, makes everyone worse off. Underpricing when you look at the true name of affordability makes someone worse off, unnecessarily. How sensible is that? Actions for Affordability: The Proper Roles for Regulators Unless essential services are affordable, government shall not be credible. Regulators, being section of government, have to help. (A commission staff chief told me 25 years back, “Sometimes you need to put away your principles and do what’s right.”) Plus some statutes that are regulatory require the regulator to help make service “affordable.” (as it is the scenario, I am told, in Vanuatu, an nation that is 83-island the South Pacific.) Listed here are three straight ways, in keeping with economic efficiency, for regulators to handle affordability. Help the unlucky reduce usage. Regulators can advocate for affordability by pressing for policies that produce consumption less costly, like improved housing stock, “orbs” that signal high prices, and efficient lighting and appliances. Analogy: Doctors save lives not merely by treating gunshot wounds, but by advocating for gun safety. (American Academy of Pediatrics: “The absence of guns from children’s homes and communities is one of reliable and measure that is effective prevent firearm-related injuries. “) Interpret “affordability” as long-term affordability. Getting prices right and preventing overconsumption, no matter if it raises prices in the short run, reduces total costs in the long haul. Expose the dark side of under-pricing. As opposed to follow politicians down the low-price, low-risk, cheap politics path, regulators, like Dr. Chow, can talk facts: in regards to the real costs of utility service, the difficulty of overconsumption, the error of under-pricing. Due to their credibility rooted in expertise, regulators can pressure legislators to do something on affordability directly by enacting income-raising policies. Better education, housing, and health care—all these result in higher incomes, so that citizens are able utility service priced properly.

“Affordable” Utility Service: What is Regulation’s Role? With all the nation’s economy stressed, politicians are pressuring regulators which will make utility service “affordable.” This picture has three problems. Wealth Redistribution is Not Regulation’s Department The regulator identifies prudent costs, computes a revenue requirement to cover those costs, then designs rates to produce the revenue requirement […]