CRE consultation (21 pages in French, PDF) on electricity distribution (ERDF) and transmission (RTE) price controls from 1 January 2009. CRE has also released a draft (24 pages in French, PDF) of the price control rules that would be imposed as a result of its proposals.

The companies were seeking substantial tariff increases — up to 20 per cent (comparing a 2009-2012 average to a 2006-2007 average) according to CRE. The CRE's proposals would lead to increases of up to 10 per cent (measured on the same basis).

The CRE's proposed allowed return on capital is 7.5 per cent nominal gross of tax, compared to the companies' proposals of 7.75 per cent (RTE, subject to protection against volume risk) and 8 per cent (ERDF).

The CRE proposes to accept ERDF's plans for additional spending on quality of supply.

Responses by Monday 15 September 2008. CRE is planning to make recommendations to ministers (who make the decision) in October 2008.

Ofgem consultation (40 pages, PDF) on its approach to pension costs in setting electricity distribution price controls from 2010.

Responses by Friday 26 September 2008.

Ofgem notice (2 pages, PDF) of the likely level of the UK renewables obligation schemes for the financial year 2007/2008.

The total cost to customers of the scheme (excluding VAT and administration costs) was £873 million (the cost of a notional total buy-out, which is spent anyway due to the "recycling" arrangements), up by 21 per cent on 2006/2007.

The effective subsidy rates for generators will depend on the amount of qualifying power generated, which the notice does not disclose. Ofgem's database suggests that the total qualifying volume was 15.9TWh (up 7 per cent), implying a subsidy rate of £54.7/MWh.

The effective tax rate for residential customers in Great Britain was 0.28 p/kWh (including 5 per cent VAT), or £9.40 a year for a 3,300 kWh household.

Ofgem decision (5 pages, PDF) to prohibit the implementation by SP Energy Networks of its proposals for changing its method for calculating charges to independent distribution networks connected to its SP Distribution and SP Manweb networks.

Ofgem's stated rationale for its decision to prohibit and its decision that the proposed changes would not better achieve the relevant objectives specified in the distribution licences rests on three points:

• According to Ofgem, the proposed changes would not improve cost-reflectivity of charges in terms of some relevant capital costs on SP Energy Networks' LV network avoided when an IDNO provides a connection. Ofgem's criticism of the proposed method is that it does not resolve an issue with the existing method, and that it “does not better meet” the relevant objective.
• Ofgem considers that the proposed application of day/night tariffs to all IDNOs (irrespective of whether the end customers are on day/night tariffs or not) could prevent competition for some new housing developments. This part of Ofgem's decision does not compare the alleged anti-competitive effects of the proposed method with those of the existing method.
• Ofgem considers that the absence in the proposals of a tariff for IDNOs with non-residential load on their network could prevent competition for some developments, and “fails to better meet” the relevant objective of taking account of developments in the distribution business.

Responses (14 PDF files) to Ofgem's consultation on SP Energy Networks' G3 proposals for the determination of electricity distribution use of system charges.

This includes a Reckon LLP response (22 pages, PDF), which argues that Ofgem is not in a position to make a reasoned decision that the proposal would not better achieve the relevant objectives. If so, Ofgem has no power under the relevant licence conditions to prohibit the proposal.

Several of the other responses decline to address the issues raised, referring instead to Ofgem's consultation to scrap the current process. For example, British Gas wishes that SP Energy Networks would withdraw its proposal, and RWEnpower finds it “inconceivable that Scottish Power could adopt a new methodology to be replaced rapidly by a methodology common across all DNOs”.

Update, later on Thursday: number of responses updated from 13 to 14 — a response from David Tolley and Furong Li was added to the list.

Report (64 pages, PDF) and evidence (591 pages, PDF) of a select committee of the UK House of Commons on energy prices.

On the idea of a windfall tax to take the profits that generators have made as a result of the introduction of carbon pricing without auctioning of permits, the report says:

We recommend that the Government now conducts and publishes a rigorous analysis, estimating the value of any windfall profits which companies have gained, and the use to which they have been put, or are planned to be put. It is only on this basis that the Government can then decide if there is a case for reallocating some of this windfall ...

We recognise the claims made by the generators about the way in which they have used the ‘windfall gains’ under Phase 2 of the EU ETS, and we understand the danger that regulatory uncertainty could delay investment plans. However, given the apparent size of the gain (something we have already asked Ofgem to examine more carefully), and the extreme need of many households, we believe there is a compelling rationale for at least a modest, one-off top-slicing of these gains to help fund action to reduce the energy bills of vulnerable families in the long term. However, we also note the windfall gains accruing to HM Treasury, and believe it too must make its contribution in these exceptional circumstances.

Ofgem consultation (4 pages, PDF) on draft regulations (14 pages, PDF) to govern its award of offshore electricity transmission licences. Responses by Friday 5 September 2008.

Ofgem consultation (2 pages, PDF) on the results of consumer research (114 pages, PDF) (and 154-page PDF annex) ahead of the electricity distribution price control review.

The main result from the consumer research is a set of stated-preference estimates of willingness to pay for specific improvements of service by electricity distribution companies, or additional obligations that might be imposed on them. This includes an estimate that customers are willing to pay £5.43 a year (residential) or 2.1 per cent of their total electricity bill (business) for their electricity distribution company to “replace 10% mobile generation equipment and vehicles per year with those using less polluting fuels”.

Responses by Monday 8 September 2008.