Tag Archives: energy

Social Services and Energy Distribution: The Treatment of Surpluses and Profits in Pseudo Markets

Arising from neoliberalism’s obsession to not just analyse the world in market terms, but to make the world into a market, governments in Australia and elsewhere have privatised or outsourced a range of services which had previously been provided by government departments or authorities. South Australia followed this ideological venture in a range of areas, but in this post I simply want to focus on two examples: social service provision and the electricity distribution network.

While the two industries are obviously different, in both cases there was an attempt to mimic or impose market discipline where there was no competition and no real market. Social services are a government monopsony where service users are not the customers so the theoretical link between utility, market demand and price is broken, while energy distribution networks are a natural and legislated monopoly.

Much could be written about the structures and regulation of the “markets” that were established, but I want to focus on just one aspect: the inconsistency in the treatment of profit. This treatment has consequences for social service delivery and energy prices, and ultimately therefore, for equality.

Social Services

The provision of social services, such child and family support, financial counselling, community health, housing and homelessness support, addiction help, and disability services are an essential part of a government’s role in a modern society. But the neoliberal vision and the potential to cut costs by outsourcing services to organisations with lower pay or less regulation led to the creation of pseudo-markets where charities and not-for-profit (NFP) organisations (and some private companies) periodically bid for government tenders to provide services. The successful tenderer is then contracted to provide services at the agreed price, with the government apparently happy in the knowledge that the competition between tenders has ensured value for money.

Heading text from SA government contracts for social services. The terms prevent surplus accumulation.

There are some good reasons for government outsourcing of some social services (and much hubris in relation others), but the treatment of the cost of services and profit in the South Australian government contracts is curious. The government holds most of the cards in any contract negotiation, and generally does not allow for an operational surplus in a contract price. Further, given that the government pays for service provision in advance, it wants to ensure that the money is spent on the services it paid for. And so, the standard SA government contract with NFP service providers has a clause (10) allowing the government to require repayment of any advanced funding which has not been expended in a given year. While there is flexibility for the government not to require repayment, some departments aggressively pursue such repayment.

At best this is a lop-sided contract, with one party (the government) agreeing a price for the provision of a service, and then reducing that price if the service provider manages to make savings – even though the service has been provided as agreed. Despite government rhetoric of outcome-based approaches, the clawing back of unexpended funds is completely input-focused.

However, the ramifications are broader because the lack of operational surpluses and the claw-back of funding means that NFPs struggle to find surpluses to build robust balance sheets and invest in organisational sustainability and development. It is then no surprise that the sector is characterised by an under-investment in technology (as reported in multiple annual surveys) and by short-horizons with a reliance on the next government contract to maintain staff and services.

To be clear, the fact that organisations are not-for-profit does not mean that they can’t lawfully or shouldn’t make a surplus on any service or in any year – it simply means that any surplus has to be put back in to the organisation and can’t be allocated to members as a dividend or other profit distribution. However, the contractual limitations on building and keeping such operational surpluses is detrimental to the sustainability of NFPs and stops them providing more and better services to the people who rely on them.

Electricity Distribution

The pseudo-market created in energy distribution is quite different. By contrast to the government monopsony in social services, the energy companies who bought the privatised energy networks operate in a more standard business framework with the cost of services being paid for by energy consumers (accounting for about 40% of energy bills). However, because the networks have monopoly power, their operations are regulated by laws which limit the aggregate revenue they can get from consumers.

As I have noted in a previous post, the calculation of this aggregate is complex and contested, but it is theoretically based on the cost of service provision, including an agreed rate of return on capital (i.e. profit) – with the regulator determining what costs and profit rates are appropriate.

This allowance of a return on capital contrasts to social service provision in that an agreed rate of profit is viewed as a normal cost of service provision – a cost not usually allowed in NFP contracting (noting that, in theory at least, both have separate allowances for administrative overheads). The result of this is that these private companies can accumulate profit to re-invest to build the company and to distribute to shareholders in a way that NFPs can’t.

However, the difference does not stop there. As I have reported previously, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has produced reports highlighting the “supernormal” profits energy distribution companies have made when their actual costs have come in below the costs agreed by the regulator. In 2022, this amounted to $199m for SA Power Networks and around $2bn across all network providers nationally. While the differences in estimated and actual costs may be factored into future regulatory determinations, this money is not immediately clawed back by the regulator or consumer – indeed, there is a whole incentive scheme built in to the cost calculation to encourage such cost-savings.

A Modest Proposal

There is no doubt that NFP service providers would love to be able to keep their operational savings and surpluses to reinvest in their organisation and services, or even to have an incentive system which mirrored that which enables energy networks to benefit from cost savings.

For governments to be consistent, they should either allow NFP service providers to retain profit (i.e. money not spent when they have provided the agreed services) as per the energy regulation, or force energy networks to refund to customers the above-regulated profits when their costs of service provision are lower than the regulated amount. Energy network owners would still be better off than social service NFPs as the former would still get their guaranteed return on capital, but in relation to the unexpected savings and surpluses, it is a simple proposition that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But such outcomes are about power (of the political economic kind), not policy, and I suspect in this case it is energy consumers who will continue to be plucked.

3G Phones, Energy Smart Meters and the Neoliberal Fantasy

Below is a link to an Opinion piece I ghost wrote and which was published today in Adelaide’s online news site, InDaily. It is a critique of the narrowness of industry initiatives and regulatory responses to the impending closure of the 3G mobile network and the roll out of energy smart meters. The response is based almost exclusively around the need to fully inform consumers, rather addressing the fuller needs of consumers and the consequences for people dealing with the technology changes.

While the piece finishes with some implications for how we provide essential services, in a short piece it was impossible to draw out any broader theoretical concerns. However, in the back of my mind was always a critique of neoliberalism.

It is neoliberal ideology that posits people as consumers, makes essential services into commodities and imagines oligopolies as markets. It was in the neoliberal moment of Australian history that energy and telecommunication networks were privatised, and pseudo markets were constructed with rules that reflected the economic fantasy that if consumers are fully informed they will shop around and that this will deliver optimum outcomes. As the article shows,  we are still paying the price for that delusion.

Read the opinion piece here: https://www.indaily.com.au/opinion/2024/04/17/consumers-bear-the-cost-of-essential-service-changes

Image of InDaily page with Opinion piece "Consumers bear the cost of essential service changes"

Revisiting Energy Supernormal Profits – A Tale of Two Graphs

In a previous post I highlighted the work of Simon Orme and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) exposing the supernormal profits reaped by monopoly energy networks. They define supernormal profits as the actual profits made by these statutory monopolies over and above that which was allowed for under regulation. (Under national energy laws, the Australian Energy Regulator [AER] regulates the total amount of revenue that can be collected by energy transmission and distribution networks to avoid profiteering from their monopoly position).

Supernormal Profits

The context and how supernormal profits are realised is highlighted in the earlier post, which was based on IEEFA’s 2022 report. They have now published a new report which updates and refines the first report and includes figures for the 2022 financial year. The headline finding is that in the last year the energy networks reaped a massive $2bn in supernormal profits (on top of and eclipsing their regulated “allowed” profit of $1.4bn). This was a significant increase on the approximate $800m supernormal profits across the networks in 2021 and brings the total supernormal profits reaped since 2014 to over $11bn. Overall, this added an average of $185 per customer to energy bills in 2022, although there were significant differences between states and network providers.

The industry attacked the report, claiming the IEEFA analysis is flawed because it treats every variation from the AER’s allowance as a potential supernormal profit, and because consumers benefit from the incentive schemes which contribute to the extra profits. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the industry critique, but I also have a different approach to that of the IEEFA.

As per my previous post, I think this work on supernormal profits is really important. It is a welcome focus on and quantification of profit-levels, particularly when the issue of profit-taking is largely ignored in energy debates dominated by prices, reliability and emissions. However, I also suggested that, despite the industry reaction, the IEEFA approach is fairly conservative – a critique (deliberately) from within the regulated monopoly framework which utilises a neoclassical concept of profit that is limited and problematic.

Two Graphs – Two Theories of Normal Profit[i]

This neoclassical conception of profit as a normal and unobjectionable cost of production (and hence the target of attack being “supernormal” profits) is clearly evident in the graph below from the 2023 IEEFA report.

Figure 6 from IEEFA report showing FY22 network cost and profit outcomes, on two lines: 1. Revenue = $8.7bn cost + $1.4bn profit + $2bn supernormal profit. 2. Cost = $8.7bn cost base + $1.4bn profit

The second line of the graph clearly includes the normal profit allowed by the regulator as a standard part of the cost. Indeed, the fact that they use the same cost base for both actual revenue and allowed costs is a nod to what it theoretically should cost in a properly regulated (perfect?) market.

The detail of the report goes further in allowing up to a 30% increment on allowed profits before the supernormal profits are viewed as “excessive”. This is to allow for the asymmetry of information (where the regulator has less information on network costs than the network businesses). In this context, I pity the poor consumer advocates in underfunded NGOs being asked to comment on billions of dollars of expenditure and financial engineering! The concern around lack of information reflects traditional economic literature on imperfect markets, a concept which not only implies and centres a “perfect market”, but also adopts the orthodox economic interpretation of profit as a cost of production. Indeed, the distinction drawn between normal and supernormal profits inevitably normalises a certain level of profit as a return on capital.

However, it is possible to draw the graph differently using the same IEEFA data, but with a different theoretical starting point.

Alternative model of the IEEFA data on network costs and profits, showing two lines of the same length: 1. Allowed = $10.7bn costs + $1.4bn normal profits 2. Actual = $8.7bn costs + $3.4bn profits.

This graph more clearly shows that in both the projected (allowed) and actual cases, the customers are paying the same ($12.1bn), and that $3.4bn of that is going in profits to the network owners. I argue that this is a better reflection of the dynamics at play because the goal of any capitalist enterprise is to maximise profit. With total revenue set, the only way to grow or maximise profit is to cut costs – which is clearly shown in the second line of my graph. In this sense, IEEFA’s “supernormal profits” are simply the outcome of normal business operation.

Side note: given this normal business operation, there appears little justification for the additional funding provided to network providers under efficiency incentive schemes. Those schemes cost rather than benefit consumers, and are unnecessary when the networks already have normal business incentives to improve efficiency/cut costs. I note that the IEEFA report (pg 26) comes to the same conclusion, despite the differences in our theoretical frameworks.

Conclusions

Again, there are caveats to the above discussion (see endnote), but the differences in the two graphs reflect not just different theories of profit, but different purposes and outcomes.

The IEEFA analysis is an argument for better regulation, so the analysis of supernormal profits in the first graph shows a revenue-take and profit above a theoretical optimum cost-base that would apply if regulation had been better.

By contrast, my graph, based on the same data, draws attention to the overall cost to consumers of the privatisation (or corporatisation) of these natural monopolies. In this context, I note that some energy networks remain in public hands, but the regulation and mode of operation of such government businesses is the same – with the important distinction that what energy consumers pay in profits to state enterprises has benefits in lower taxes or better public services. This is not the case for private companies. But either way, the quantum impact is clear: this network model added $3.4bn in total to energy consumers’ bills in 2022.

Economic orthodoxy and business interest would suggest that this cost to consumers would be more than balanced by the greater efficiencies of capitalist production which result in lower prices in the long term. However, this is ideology rather than analysis. The data shows that very little of the increased profit is driven by improved technology and processes.

According to AER data, in 2022 capital structures and cost of debt were the two biggest contributors to cost savings, while the IEEFA report (pg 26) explicitly rejects the idea that increased productivity is the source of supernormal profits. It points out that networks with average and even below-average productivity have still been getting very substantial supernormal profits.

Given this, and the $3.4bn cost last year for the privilege of privatised/corporatised energy network provision, I again wonder if it is time to think about whether there are better ways to supply energy.

Endnote

[i]              The depiction in the graphs is obviously over-simplified. In reality, the picture of energy profits is more complicated than either of the graphs above. The total revenue figure is more flexible than shown as projections for allowed revenue will inevitably be imprecise even if all assumptions are correct, and the amount of revenue allowed to be collected each year is varied by the regulator to take account of some financial changes (e.g. interest rates and inflation), allowed cost pass-throughs and other factors. Allowed revenue is also reset every 5 years, based in part on previous outcomes.

Further, as the IEEFA report (Appendix 1) notes, there are limitations on the AER’s published data, and definitive profitability data for each of the 18 network providers is not publicly available. Partly this is because these regulated networks often operate as part of larger financial entities with regulated and unregulated revenues and expenditures. In this context, I am grateful to IEEFA for piecing together the available data and providing both data and analysis that is accessible and understandable by “energy outsiders” like me.

Beyond Neoliberal Energy – A Thought Experiment

This is a follow-up to my previous post in response to the IEEFA report on the $10bn supernormal profits reaped by energy network providers within the National Energy Market. In that post I suggested that neoliberal ideal of energy provision via the regulation of monopoly energy transmission and distribution networks reflected neoclassical economic orthodoxy. Other schools of economic thought would give rise to different approaches to regulating the energy market, with different methods of analysing returns on investment and hopefully different outcomes of revenue and pricing determinations.

However, all that discussion was still within the parameters of a regulated market. The commentary was relevant (though slightly different) regardless of whether the monopoly owner of the network was publicly or privately owned. In this post, I want to extend the analysis, not with further economic theory, but with a thought-experiment going beyond neoliberal energy frameworks.

Imagine if energy transmission and distribution was delivered the way we provide most school education – by a government department with a goal of service provision rather than profit. This is not simply government ownership of a business enterprise (though who owns and reaps the profits of such enterprises is an important question), but rather de-commodifying energy transmission and distribution.

Imagine a government department running the network. It might be the same engineers, tradespeople and staff providing the service, but without the same need for value-capture (and the restrictions and investments that that requires). Each year (or five) the department would put up budget bids for government funding of new infrastructure required to maintain, upgrade or expand the network (much as the current network providers put proposals to the AER).

The energy network would be paid for by a (hopefully still) progressive tax system, rather than the current customer base which sees disproportionate impacts on poorer households.

Imagine – I wonder if you can?

Of course, such a proposal of government provision of energy would bring howls of “inefficiency!” from neoclassical economists, right-wing pundits and those who simply can’t imagine any other options beyond neoliberalism (which incidentally has delivered economic growth rates over the last 30 years well below those of pre-neoliberal period – but that is another story).

However, as I noted in my previous post, the current regulatory regime does not and cannot imitate market disciplines and alleged efficiencies. But even if it did reflect a real market, would the alleged “market efficiencies” make up for the $25bn of profit/costs (including $10bn “above the reasonable costs”) quantified in the IEEFA report?

That is an empirical question. Any claim of public inefficiency without an analysis of relative in/efficiencies is simply ideology and/or vested interest.

Doubtless though, at the thought of a government department providing energy network services, energy system analysts would also tell us the electricity grid and economics is all very technical and complicated, and too important for pricing and investment decisions to be left to government departments and politicians without the expertise or discipline of the market.

Granted, politicians do have limited time-horizons by virtue of our electoral cycle, and the mathematical models for determining costs and revenue are truly complex. But at the base level, is the flow of electrons down a wire really more complicated than the development of the human mind, with all the complexities of childhood learning and social contexts? The education of the next generation is certainly no less important than the provision of energy. Yet the market is an attachment (and often a parasitic attachment) to the education system in Australia. It is not its centrepiece and regulatory mechanism.

In Governomics, an excellent book published a few years ago, Ian McAuley and Miriam Lyons set out arguments and criteria for when a good or service is best provided by public service provision, and when best provided in the market. On their criteria, as a natural monopoly it is a no-brainer that energy networks should not be privatised. However, as energy is a saleable commodity, even where public ownership has been retained the default has been to a government-owned business model – publicly-owned corporations mimicking private corporations selling to retailers or consumers. The same model was adopted for the NBN, for the same reasons.

But my thought experiment here challenges us to leave the market and neoliberal energy behind altogether. It is hard, because we have been so socialised into neoliberal ways of thinking, we are losing the ability to think of different possibilities. And yet, direct government service provision is how we provide much large-scale education, health and other services.

Of course, the universal government provision of energy is not going to happen in the foreseeable future – although in a SACOSS submission to a parliamentary committee, I did argue for an iterative approach of government investment in new energy initiatives. And there are hopeful signs here. The previous Labor government in South Australia brought new emergency energy production online via publicly-owned generators (although later sold off), but on a much bigger scale we have just seen the Federal, Victorian and Tasmanian governments announce public funding for a huge new electricity transmission project across the Bass Strait, albeit through a publicly-owned corporate entity model.

More importantly though in the context of this argument, even to contemplate government provision opens a new window on the current neoliberal energy model which is failing on so many fronts. Profits from energy transmission and distribution are ripped out of the system (and the country), environmental impacts remain an externality, equity and social justice outcomes are morphed into narrow consumer rights issues, prices are increasing, and those who can afford to are bailing out via solar and non-grid options.

We need to imagine alternatives.

Blowing the Whistle on Energy Network Supernormal Profits

A recent report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) blows the whistle on energy network owners in Australia who have reaped $10bn in supernormal profits from 2014 to 2021. “Supernormal” profit refers to the profit made over and above the return on investment the energy regulator determined was necessary to provide reliable electricity network services.

Context

Energy network service providers are the companies (public and private) who get electricity or gas from its point of production to consumers. In most states they operate in the National Energy Market, a governing mechanism established by legislation at the height of neoliberal faith in the market. However, these transmission and distribution networks are natural monopolies (as it is inefficient to duplicate expensive network infrastructure). To ensure that they do not exert unfair pricing power, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) regulates and must approve the total revenue that the network providers can receive. This revenue amount is set in a complex determination process that is meant to ensure that networks charge consumers only what is required to cover the costs of investing in, building, maintaining and operating the networks, plus a reasonable profit to ensure compensation for investors.

Sources of Supernormal Profits

The IEEFE report analyses the difference between the profits built in to the regulatory determinations and the actual profits made by electricity network providers (gas network data was not available). The following graph from the report summarises the key contributions to these “supernormal profits”.

Graph showing $15bn normal profits and $10bn supernormal profits, from $1.9bn gearing, $3.5bn interest rates, $1.1bn Opex, $1.2bn Capex, $0.5bn tax, $0.7bn other.
Source: Simon Orme, “Regulated Electricity Network Prices are Higher than Necessary“, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, October 2022.

As can be seen, the biggest single factor was interest rates, where companies were able to source finance at below the interest rates factored into the regulatory model. (This was not just falling rates, but also some dubious assumptions about risk and credit ratings). However, the system also allowed for supernormal profits arising from “gearing” different mixes of debt and equity finance (with different rates of return), as well as under-spending on operating and capital expenditures and, in the early years, paying significantly less tax than was factored into the regulatory model.

The issue that has caused most controversy is the profits from incentive schemes to reward savings made from productivity improvements. The report suggests the regulatory model is overly generous in the proportion of productivity improvements allowed to be retained as profit. I don’t have a view on this, but simply note that even if the profit retained is reasonable and not “supernormal”, it only accounts for 15% of the supernormal profits identified in the report.

Implications of Supernormal Profits for Equality

The IEEFA report focuses on the implications of supernormal profits on electricity prices for consumers, and whether the regulator is fulfilling its key objective to ensure “consumers pay no more than necessary for the safe delivery of reliable electricity and gas network services”. While this is important, my interests are a bit different.

It is well-established that energy expenditure is regressive, that is, energy accounts for a greater proportion of the expenditure of low-income households than of those with higher incomes. Accordingly, the supernormal profits reaped from inflated consumer prices represent an economic flow from consumers to capital, with disproportionate impacts on low-income consumers. Where energy networks are private companies, the owners of that capital will be wealthier people – meaning that money is being syphoned from the poor to the rich. Even in the case of government-owned utilities, this flow of supernormal profits is the equivalent of a regressive tax borne disproportionately by the poor – the sorts of taxes usually opposed by those interested in equality.

Solutions and Limitations

Given these implications, this is a really welcome report – more so because the issue of profit-taking is largely ignored in energy debates dominated by prices, reliability and emissions.

Inevitably, energy market insiders with interests to protect will attack the report (often on technical detail without addressing the key question of whether the actually achieved profit-levels are acceptable). Equally inevitably, regulators will to try to ignore or resist the report’s conclusions.

However, despite that, the report itself is fairly conservative. It is very much a critique from within the system. It accepts most of the neoliberal framework of the purpose and role of the national energy market and is simply concerned with how that is being done. Indeed, the author, energy consultant Simon Orme, and presumably the IEEFA, accept some level of supernormal profit above the regulated rate, but believe that the current magnitude is unacceptable.

Further, in response to my questioning, the author and IEEFA did not believe a change to include social equity as one of the legislated objectives of the market regulation was needed, despite regressive impacts identified above. This was based on a confidence in the effectiveness of the technical proposals put forward. Yet even if that were true in theory, I am not sure that changes which would cost dominant market players millions of dollars will happen without political pressure. And in this context, a requirement for the regulator to take account of social equity outcomes would add to the arguments to implement the very technical fixes the report is calling for.

A market which operates without political context or interference, and where social outcomes are externalities beyond market logic (and regulation), is a hallmark (and failing) of neoliberalism, but perhaps the most obvious place where the theoretical framework underlies and limits the report’s analysis is in the theory and categorisation of profit.

Theory of Profit

The IEEFA report utilises a neoclassical theory[1] of profit as a cost of production, one cost among many factored into the market supply price. This is orthodox microeconomics based on an idealised market, and it is the logic behind how the national energy market is set up. The report works within this paradigm, but simply disagrees with the amount of the profit.

However, there are different schools of economic thought which start from premises other than a perfect market. As I understand it, Kalecki and Post-Keynesians incorporate monopoly and imperfect competition into theories of profit – arriving at some form of higher-than-perfect rate of profit as “normal”. That suggests to me that when the AER benchmarks energy networks’ rates of return on investment using the standard returns of energy or other uncompetitive industries (rather than an economy-wide normal rate of return), it incorporates a monopoly mark-up into its regulated rate of return. Accordingly, even energy network “normal” profit includes some economic rent above “reasonable costs”.

From a different perspective, classical political economy views profit in a capitalist economy as the purpose of production rather than a cost, and it is an appropriation of income after the fact of production, not a cost in the process of production. Investment decisions are based on expectations of profit (rather than actual profit – although there is a messy interaction between expectations and reality), but profit is not guaranteed and the rate of return on investment is inevitably contested in power struggles between capital and labour, and in real competition in the market (see Anwar Shaikh’s monumental reframe of classical economics).

One thing to draw from this is that the regulated a priori rate of return for energy network providers does not and cannot replicate market processes, disciplines and efficiencies. Indeed, where any approved investment is guaranteed a profit, there is an incentive to over-invest as investment size rather than efficiency/effectiveness becomes the base for earning profit. Even a regulator’s most technically proficient calculation of a market rate of return is based on a false premise.

However, a broader point can also be drawn from the classical tradition. If profit is by definition a capture of revenue that has been generated by production, rather than a cost of that production, then the arguments above about the regressive impacts of supernormal energy profits also apply to “normal” profits. They too are a flow of funds from consumers to capital (or in the case of publicly-owned utilities, to a government revenue stream) which places a disproportionate burden on the poor.

In summary, while the magnitude of the flow of profits is important, the Kaleckian and Post-Keynesian theories question the distinction of normal and supernormal profits in practice, and classical political economy suggests it is unnecessary in theory – and also arguably unhelpful in practice as it hides a key dynamic of the “normal” operation of the system.

Conclusion

Of course, in a capitalist economy, profit is required (though not guaranteed) as without it there would be no investment and production – no capitalism. This inevitably means there will be flows of income to those who own capital wealth. It is simply the price of capitalist production and in this context, the extraction of profit from energy transmission and distribution is not a surprise.

However, the differences in the various economic theories remind us that even a privatised monopoly could be regulated with a different set of assumptions and possibly different outcomes. What that might look like in the national energy market is beyond both my competence and the scope of this post, but once we move beyond the framework of neoliberalism and neoclassical economics, we open up alternatives to a model which is fundamentally failing – in ways beyond simply supernormal profit-making.

In that sense, while the IEEFA report is really useful in focusing on and quantifying profit-levels, it is also limited in its ambition and framework.

[1]              To be clear on definitions, by neoclassical economics, I am referring to the body of orthodox economics stemming from the work of Marshall, Jevons and Walras in the late 19th and early 20th century (Thesis Ch 1) and which proceeds from a founding assumption of autonomous rational actors in a perfect market. Neoliberalism is the political project which attempts to actively apply that market logic to understandings of economic policy, the state and society.