Challenges with the public policy of measuring assets to set tariffs in the electricity sector: should someone benefit and someone be sacrificed?

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper contributes by encouraging discussions about the public policy of setting tariffs for public services based on the value of the investment made by the providers of these services. The purpose of this study was, in an unprecedented way and by combining theories of equity valuation and finance, to identify the asset valuation method that can lead to a fair value and balance between an affordable price for the consumer and an adequate return on investment for the concessionaires. The value assigned to these assets affects the tariff in two ways: (i) via depreciation/amortization, which affects the cost of service; (ii) via the return on investment, which is the portion that corresponds to the investor’s profit. We analyzed the Brazilian electricity sector, in which the rates set by the Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency (ANEEL) currently use the new replacement value (NRV) approach. We carried out empirical tests using data available on the ANEEL website from the second cycle periodic tariff review and information obtained in financial statements from 1995 onwards. The analysis included the NVR and restated historical cost (RHC) methods, the latter being updated by the extended consumer price index (IPCA). After the descriptive and statistical analyses, we used the test of means to verify the differences between the variables in terms of NRV vs. RHC. The first conclusion was the absence of a significant difference between the NRV and RHC methods; that is, on average, the replacement price showed no significant difference to what would be the pure and simple restatement of assets. But this was found to hide something relevant, the fact that this average is derived from two main groups: that of the consumers who are paying more for energy services than they should, which constitutes a visible benefit to investors and loss for these consumers, and that of the consumers who are paying less than they should, which benefits them but harms investors.