COMMENT
The outcome of the Competition Commission review of Bristol Water’s appeal against its price control may have lessons for future business plans and price setting now and in the future, says Suzanne Rab, counsel at Hogan Lovells legal practice
O
n 4 August 2010, the Competition Commission (CC) announced final findings on a challenge by Bristol Water
against the latest price control of the water service regulator, Ofwat. The CC decided that Bristol Water can increase the prices it charges its customers beyond the limits originally set by the water regulator, yet this increase falls short of what Bristol was seeking in its appeal. In the wake of this latest price control challenge, there are lessons water companies may take away from the appeal when planning future business, regulatory and investment strategies.
Final decision
In making its final decision, the CC had to consider a number of factors, balancing the desire to keep customer bills low, while taking account of extra expenditure by the regulated company to improve quality, which ultimately benefits consumers. The CC decided that Bristol Water is permitted to increase its bills to customers by an average of about 15% over the five year review period.
This is still considerably below the 29%
increase sought by Bristol Water over the control period yet above the 7% increase that Ofwat had originally determined. As a result, customers' bills will increase from £157 in 2009/10 to £180 by 2014/15. The CC group chairman, Laura Carstensen, justified the increase on customer bills by stating that: “Any decision to raise bills, even only modestly, should only be taken after very careful consideration. We have agreed to some of the extra expenditure, which will mean a small rise for customers above the price limits set by Ofwat, but equally we have also rejected several other projects, which would have further increased bills, as well as upholding Ofwat’s judgment in a number of other areas.” Looking beyond the immediate impact on bills, the CC’s decision provides some insights into the application of the methodology for water price controls, which may be relevant for business plans, financial ratios and prices going forwards. The CC confirmed its provisional view that the cost of capital should be 5%. This is actually slightly lower than the figures
put forward by Ofwat of 5.5% and Bristol Water itself (6.7%). In this instance, the final review
Bristol Review has implications for AMP5
body (the CC) ultimately took a more stringent approach than the original decision-maker (Ofwat) on this element. However, whether an appeal is worth pursuing may not hinge on any one element. It will tend to be a complex interplay between the importance of the legal or regulatory principle at issue for the relevant case and future cases, its (monetary and non-monetary) impact on the disputed decision, and the costs and timing in pursuing the appeal itself.
“The CC’s decision provides some insights into the application of the methodology for water price controls, which may be relevant for business plans”
12 Water & Wastewater Treatment September 2010
Further challenges While Bristol Water was the only water company to challenge Ofwat's determination it is still open to the regulated water companies to present further evidence to support an interim determination before the next five year control is determined. Such companies and their advisers will no doubt examine the CC’s report for insights to be gained on areas of Ofwat's reasoning and the application of the price control methodology which might be worth pursuing. Whether water companies will find cause to
return to Ofwat for a redetermination of their price controls in the event of significant future changes in their circumstances in the next price control period, remains to be seen. However, experience on recent appeals before the CC suggests that cases brought will need to be chosen carefully. In August 2009, for example, the CC rejected an appeal from Sutton & East Surrey Water to increase its prices to customers in 2009/2010.
Bristol Water
undertakes mains renewal work: the company saw
investment in the replacement of
essential pipes as key to meeting increasing demand at the lowest cost possible
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52