Regulated Utility Negotiated Agreements: A Utah Case Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Investor-Owned Utilities: A Regulatory Contract
1.2. Research Question
2. Case Study Background
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Theoretical Research Framework
3.2. Methodological Approach
4. Results
4.1. Coalition Existence
4.2. Negotiated Agreement Prescriptions
4.3. Negotiated Agreement Observations
- Timing
- 2.
- Multiple settlements (agreements), not just one
- 3.
- Policy positions mirror the electric utility policy subsystem in the same territory
- 4.
- Some positions held constant throughout the deliberation
- 5.
- General coalition driving policy change
- 6.
- One aspect of the proposal gathered more controversary than the other
- 7.
- Coalition against the policy proposal never attacked the concept of the proposal but the empirical evidence
5. Conclusions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Payne, H. Game Over: Regulatory Capture, Negotiation, and Utility Rate Cases in an Age of Disruption. Univ. San Fr. Law Rev. 2018, 52, 75–114. [Google Scholar]
- Alt, L. Utility Energy Rate Setting; Lulu: Morrisville, NC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Doucet, J.; Littlechild, S. Negotiated settlements: The development of legal and economic thinking. Util. Policy 2006, 14, 266–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiorino, D. Regulatory Negotiaton as a policy process. Public Adm. Rev. 1988, 48, 764–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDermott, K. Cost of Service Regulation in the Investor-Owned Electric Industry: A History of Adaption; Edison Electric Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Direct Testimony of George Compton. 2006.
- Bonbright, J. Principles of Public Utility Rates; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Glatt, S. Natural Gas Revenue Decoupling Introduction; Energy.gov: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
- Jones, J. Conservatives Greatly Outnumber Liberals in 19 U.S. States; The Gallup Organization: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Application of Questar Gas Company for a General Increase in Rates and Charges. Report and Order 2000.
- Questar Gas Company Increase in Rates and Charges. Direct Testimony of David Nichols 2002.
- Geller, H.; Bumgarner, J.; Dent, D. The Utah Story: Rapid Growth of Utility Demand-Side Management Programs in the Intermountain West; American Council for an Energy Economy: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Questar Gas Company Increase in Rates and Charges. Pre-Filed Rebuttal Testimony of Barrie L. McKay 2002.
- Questar Gas Company Increase in Rates and Charges. Prepared Surrebutal Testimony of Alan J. Walker 2002.
- Questar Gas Company Increase in Rates and Charges. Report and Order 2002.
- Questar Gas Company Increase in Rates and Charges. Natural Gas DSM Advisory Report 2005.
- Approval of the Conservation Enabling Tariff Adjustment Option and Accounting Orders. Order 2007.
- Maffly, B. Salt Lake City’s air quality is nation’s 7th worst among large metro areas. The Salt Lake Tribune, 31 January 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Mintrom, M.; Vergai, S. Advocacy Coalitions: Policy Entrepreneurs, and Policy Change. Policy Stud. J. 1996, 24, 420–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabatier, P.; Weible, C. The Adcocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Classifications. In Theories of the Policy Process; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Babon, A.; McIntyrle, G.; Gowae, C.; Gallemore, R.; Carmenta, M.; Brockhaus, M. Advocacy Coalitions, REDD+, and forest governance in Papua New Guinea: How likely is a transformational change. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jenkins-Smith, H.; St. Clair, G. The Politics of Offshore Energy: Empirically Testing the Advocacy Coalition Framework. In Policy Change and Learning; Sabatier, P., Jenkins-Smith, H., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1993; pp. 149–175. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S. Irresolvable cultural conflicts and conservation/development arguments: Analysis of Korea’s Saemangeum project. Policy Sci. 2003, 36, 125–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingold, K. Network Structures within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Stud. J. 2011, 39, 435–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zafonte, M.; Sabatier, P. Short-term verus long-term coalitions in the policy process: Automotive pollution control, 1963–1989. Policy Stud. J. 2004, 32, 75–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weible, C.; Sabatier, P. Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. Policy Stud. J. 2005, 33, 181–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenkins-Smith, H.; Nohrstedet, D.; Weible, C.; Sabatier, P. The advocacy coaltion framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In Theories of the Policy Process; Sabatier, P., Weible, C., Eds.; Westview: Boulder, CO, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins-Smith, H.; Nohrstedet, D.; Weible, C.; Ingold, K. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Overview of the Research Program. In Theories of the Policy Process; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
- Overbeck, S. Questar to push but customers will pay for it. The Salt Lake Tribune, 9 July 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Public Service Commissioner (State Executive Office). Available online: https://ballotpedia.org/Public_Service_Commissioner_(state_executive_office) (accessed on 22 July 2021).
- Approval of the Conservation Enabling Tariff Adjustment Option and Accounting Orders. Direct Testimony Artie Powell 2006.
- Conservation Enabling Tariff Adjustment Option and Accounting Orders. Position Statement on Settlement Stipulation Roger J. Ball 2006.
- Conservation Enabling Tariff Adjustment Option and Accounting Orders. Direct Testimony of Elizabeth Wolf 2006.
- Overbeck, S. Utah Public Service Commission Hears Proposal to Save Energy. The Salt Lake Tribune, 2 August 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Questar Gas Company Increase in Rates and Charges. Post-Hearing Brief of the UAE Intervention Group 2002.
- Conservation Enabling Tariff Adjustment Option and Accounting Orders. Direct Testimony of Kevin C. Higgins 2006.
- Overbeck, S. Questar to push but customers will pay for it. The Salt Lake Tribune 2006.
- Conservation Enabling Tariff Adjustment Option and Accounting Orders. UAE Settlement Position Statement 2006.
- ENERGY STAR. Partner List Results. Available online: https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=estar_partner_list.showPartnerResults&s_code=ALL&partner_type_id=HOREPS&cntry_code=US&award=Y&award_search=N (accessed on 27 January 2021).
- Nevius, M.; Eldridge, R.; Krouk, J. The State of the Energy Efficiency Program Industry: Budgets, Expenditures, and Impacts; Consortium for Energy Efficiency: Boston, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Gheewala, S. 2018 Natural Gas Efficiency Programs Report; American Gas Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Cleveland, M.; Dunning, L.; Heibel, J. State Policies for Utility Investment in Energy Efficiency; National Conference of State Legislatures: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Source | Count | Description |
---|---|---|
Newspaper Source Plus | 13 | An online Newspaper database. Articles came from Utah local newspapers. |
Docket 02-057-02 | 21 | Regulatory docket considered as a Utah natural gas general rate case preceding the utility energy efficiency proposal. Includes testimony, commission orders, and hearings relating to an energy efficiency utility program proposal. |
Docket 05-057-05 | 111 | Regulatory docket entailing the proposal for the start of the energy efficiency programs. Includes testimony, commission orders, and hearings. |
Organizational Player | Type | Description |
---|---|---|
| For-profit | Natural gas investor-owned utility serving customers in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming |
| State | A state designed to promote public interest in utility regulation with the goal to assure that all utility customers have access to safe, reliable service at reasonable price |
| Non-profit | Private non-profit dedicated to advancing clean and renewable energy in the state of Utah |
| Non-profit | Public interest organization dedicated to advancing energy efficiency as a means of promoting both economic prosperity and environmental protection in the six states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming |
| State | State agency standing as a utility consumer advocate, representing residential, small commercial, and agricultural consumers of natural gas, electric and telephone service before the Utah Public Service Commission |
| Individual | An individual customer, former director of the Committee of Consumer Services, who uses natural gas for space and water heating in his home |
| Non-profit | A private non-profit community-based organization that addresses the needs of low-income people through service delivery and advocacy n the Salt Lake Metropolitan Area |
| For-Profit | A large industrial customer in Utah. |
| Non-profit | Group representing large industrial users |
| Non-profit | Non-profit organization consisting primarily of large energy consumers in the State of Utah |
| Non-profit | Non-profit organization dedicated to environmental protection. |
Grouping | Number of Groups | Description |
---|---|---|
| 18 | Collective groups who are speaking in the data could be Commission, organization, state agency, Advisory Group, utility, or special interest group |
| 21 | Individuals in the data representing themselves and various organizations |
| 9 | Identifying in the text Sabatier and Weible ([20], pp. 206–207) nine prescriptions of a negotiated agreement. |
| 9 | Related topics in the case documents. Topics may include background, rate design issues, material self-interest, market pressures. |
| 6 | Statement position on the energy efficiency programs. Could be against, for, neutral, settlement, stipulation, or the approval |
Quotation | Actor | Coalition Stance | Negotiated Prescription? | Other Topics? | Time Stamp? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
“With natural gas use expected to increase significantly over the next 15 years, it is important to have utilities on board and doing what they can to encourage conservation” [29]. | Howard Geller/Utah Clean Energy/SWEEP | FOR | N/A | N/A | 7 July 2006 |
# | Prescription | Presence in Case? |
---|---|---|
1 | Hurting stalemate | In the request, the utility and its co-filers describe the situation as undesirable along with the need to make the change to promote energy efficiency/few argue against the merits of programs but about the costs and how they are allocated. |
2 | Broad representation | Fairly defined in utility regulation—actors must intervene in a regulatory docket for consideration which makes them part of the mix. Task force aimed for maximum participation. |
3 | Leadership by neutral mediators | Three Commissioners appointed by governor must come from both political parties. Act as arbitrator and judge. Leadership in task force assumed by utility and state. |
4 | Consensus decision rules | The task force from the 2002 rate case aimed to include all “interested parties” |
5 | Funding for negotiations from diverse actors | In this formalized case study, the funding is already built-in to the case construct; it is omnipresent whereby state taxpayers fund state agencies; private funding takes care of utility, and separate non-profit funding. |
6 | Commitment by actors | Task force meeting leading up to the proposed filing encompassed three years |
7 | Empirical issues | Situation really drawn to empirical issues; collection problem for utility with usage per customer going down and utility losing out on revenue, so there is no incentive to push for energy efficiency programs |
8 | Trust | These constituents in utility regulation are consistent from rate case to rate case so imperative to maintain trust, otherwise settlements not possible. |
9 | Lack of alternative venues | In utility regulation, these regulatory proceedings act as the primary method of grievance for constituents, parties, and the like such that the venue is more conducive to settlement. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Peterson, T.C. Regulated Utility Negotiated Agreements: A Utah Case Study. Businesses 2022, 2, 19-32. https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses2010002
Peterson TC. Regulated Utility Negotiated Agreements: A Utah Case Study. Businesses. 2022; 2(1):19-32. https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses2010002
Chicago/Turabian StylePeterson, Ted C. 2022. "Regulated Utility Negotiated Agreements: A Utah Case Study" Businesses 2, no. 1: 19-32. https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses2010002