Skip to main content
Log in

Welfare effects of unbundling under different regulatory regimes in natural gas markets

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Portuguese Economic Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we develop a theoretical model that enriches the literature on the pros and cons of ownership unbundling vis-à-vis lighter unbundling frameworks in the natural gas markets. For each regulatory framework, we compute equilibrium outcomes when an incumbent firm and a new entrant compete à la Cournot in the final gas market. We find that the entrant’s contracting conditions in the upstream market and the transmission tariff are key determinants of the market structure in the downstream gas market (both with ownership and with legal unbundling). We also study how the regulator must optimally set transmission tariffs in each of the two unbundling regimes. We conclude that welfare maximizing tariffs often require free access to the transmission network (in both regulatoy regimes). However, when the regulator aims at promoting the break-even of the regulated transmission system operator, the first-best tariff is unfeasible in both regimes. Hence, we study a more realistic set-up, in which the regulator’s action is constrained by the break-even of the regulated firm (the transmission system operator). In this set-up, we find that, for a given transmission tariff, final prices in the downstream market are always higher with ownership unbundling than with legal unbundling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that gas transportation is often subject to strong economies of scale. This is explained by: (i) the huge costs associated with investments in transmission infrastructure; and (ii) technical factors like the pipeline diameter or resource indivisibility. For an evaluation of the impact of regulation on the investment in the gas transmission and distribution in the EU, see Soares and Magalhaes (2012).

  2. According to Cavaliere (2007), other important aspects of the liberalization process are, for instance, the promotion of third party access to essential facilities (including transmission networks); and the reduction of consumers’ switching costs when they want to change gas supplier.

  3. Growitsch and Stronzik (2014) refer that ownership unbundling is “the strictest regulatory regime of vertical disintegration, the company that owns and operates the transmission assets is fully separated from the rest of the system, meaning that it does not participate in further business activities in retail or production and import.

  4. In the case of legal unbundling, gas transportation and gas supply are assured by legally separated entities but they may be part of the same economic corporation. As a result, when legal unblunding is allowed, the natural gas markets tend to reflect an historically developed structure with a national (or sub-national) transport operating system, which often dominates natural gas supply in the downstream market (see Cavaliere2007).

  5. For example, Lowe et al. (2007) refer that: “at a time when very large investments are needed to promote market integration and ensure security of supply, the way the current unbundling is set up, leads to worrying distortions of investment incentives. In many Member States it is currently left to the vertically integrated incumbents to invest in the additional transmission capacity that could bring more competition to their own supply business: such a setting is unlikely to yield socially optimal investment decisions. There is little doubt that a coordinated European response is required.” (p. 24)

  6. Growitsch and Stronzik (2014) refer that France has a lighter unbundling framework (in comparison with ownership unbundling). Some other countries had chosen not to completely separate transmission from other activities in the natural gas chain, as it is the case of USA, where legal unbundling is frequently found (Ascari 2011; Growitsch and Stronzik 2014).

  7. The legal unbundling framework often relies on the Independent Transmission Operator (ITO), in which the TSO may “remain part of a vertically integrated undertaking. However, numerous detailed rules are provided in order to ensure effective unbundling. The ITO has to be autonomous. In Article 17(1) Electricity and Gas Directives it is made clear that the ITO must be equipped with all financial, technical, physical and human resources necessary to fulfil its obligations and to carry out the activity of electricity or gas transmission.” For more detailed information, please see European Commission (2010).

  8. This reflects a policy of “pricing at the margin”, as we assume that all the transmission system are fixed, yielding zero marginal cost. In a model with positive and constant marginal transmission costs, our results would remain qualitatively valid but our first-best results concerning transmission tariff would have to reinterpreted as a mark-up over marginal cost.

  9. Gas release programs require the dominant firm to sell a fraction of its supply in order to guarantee that there is effective competition in the market. The implementation of these programs is limited in time. They only help competitors in expecting development of hubs or new investments in import infrastructures. Gas release programs were firstly applied in 1992 in UK and, more recently, in Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria and France. For example, in Spain the law requires each firm to supply less than 70 % of total demand.

  10. By regulating the market through capacity investment, the regulator creates incentives to the investment in pipelines to promote imports.

  11. Howell et al. (2010) emphasize the role of transaction costs in the context of electricity markets (costs of frequent transactions, costs associated with the restriction of contractual incompleteness and costs associated with bounded rationality). The authors refer that “Now, where it has been permitted to, vertical integration is rapidly re-emerging, as a response to transaction costs”.According to the authors, the contracting failures arising in a regime of ownership unbundling “have manifested themselves into poor wholesale price and quantity risk management, problems of adverse selection and strategic bargaining in the presence of asymmetric information and market power, forestalled investment (undermining security supply)”. Although Howell et al. (2010) specifically address the electricity and the telecommunication sectors, their arguments regarding transaction costs apply as well to the natural gas markets, where asymmetric information issues and hold-up problems are very relevant.

  12. If firm i was able to produce natural gas, this assumption could be easily adapted by considering that firm i s marginal production cost would be given by c = p g .

  13. For the sake of simplicity, we are ruling out storage issues. The analysis of the dynamic aspects behind storage decisions is beyond the scope of our static model and it constitutes an interesting topic for future research.

  14. The price p e could either be the natural gas spot price or the price fixed in long term contracts at the moment of entry. Analogously to p g , we assume p e is the full price at the entry of the national transmission system (meaning that it includes all the transportation costs incurred before the gas enters the national system). Clearly, in the particular case p e = p g , the contracting conditions would be the same for both firms.

  15. T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y w a s a l s o c o n s i d e r e d i n C h a t o n e t a l.(2012).T h e q u a l i t a t i v e n a t u r e o f t h e r e s u l t s(c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e t w o u n b u n d l i n g r e g i m e s)w o u l d r e m a i n u n c h a n g e d i f w e r u l e d o u t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y.

  16. We are assuming that, if the prices in the foreign and in the domestic markets are equal, the entrant buys all the gas from the incumbent firm.

  17. Alternatively, we could say that the incumbent firm will charge a price higher than p e , making the entrant unwilling to buy the gas from the incumbent.

  18. To obtain, the expression for profits, we must also take into consideration that p i = p e when \(\ p_{g}\leq p_{e}\leq p_{g}+\frac {\mu -t}{2}.\)

  19. This is, for example, the case of the Portuguese regulator, Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos (ERSE), which aims to “ensure the existence of conditions which allow, for the regulated activities, the obtaining of an economic and financial balance”. See ERSE website: http://www.erse.pt/eng/naturalgas/codes/Paginas/default.aspx. Access date: 26th September 2013.

  20. In the context of a regulatory framework based on legal unbundling, all the previous results would remain valid if firms maximize their own individual profits despite being part of an economic corporation (i.e. ownership unbundling and legal unbundling would be equivalent, which is not often the case).

  21. We are assuming that the magnitude of F does not depend on whether the transmission network is owned by the incumbent corporation or by a third independent party.

  22. Under legal unbundling, the incumbent downstream firm must also pay the transmission tariff to the TSO. However this does not affect the profit of the incumbent corporation (the cost of the downstream firm is offset by the corresponding TSO’s revenue).

  23. Calculations were ommitted since the procedure to obtain these results is completely analogous to the one that was used in the baseline model with ownership unbundling.

  24. In a regime of legal unbundling, the incumbent gas retailer and the TSO are part of the same economic corporation but they are legally separated entities. In order to avoid cross-subsidization issues, the transmission tariff set by the regulator must only take into account the profits associated to the transmission activity (i.e. the TSO’s profit).

  25. The solutions are available from the authors upon request.

  26. See Lapuerta and Moselle (2002), Alonso et al. (2010) or Brandão et al. (2014) for more information on the characteristics of these tariff systems.

References

  • Alonso A, Olmos L, Serrano M (2010) Application of an entry-exit tariff model to the gas transport system in Spain. Energy Policy 38(9):5133–5140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascari S (2011) An american model for the EU gas market?, EUI working papers No. 2011/39 Robert schuman centre for advanced stidies. Florence School of Regulation, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouzarovski S, Bradshaw M, Wochnik A (2015) Making territory through infrastructure: The governance of natural gas transit in europe. Geoforum 64:217–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandão A, Soares I, Sarmento P, Resende J, Pinho J (2014) Regulating international gas transport: Welfare effects of postage stamps and entry-exit systems. Energy 69:86–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavaliere A (2007) The liberalization of natural gas markets: regulatory reform and competition failures in Italy. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies

  • Chaton C, Gasmi F, Guillerminet M-L, Oviedo J-D (2012) Gas release and transport vapacity investment as instruments to foster competition in gas markets. Energy Econ 34:1251–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clastres C, David L (2009) The impact of asymmetric regulation on surplus and welfare: the case of gas release programmes. OPEC Energy Review 33:97–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremer H, Gasmi F, Laffont J-J (2003) Access to pipelines in competitive gas markets. J Regul Econ 24:5–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremer H, Laffont J-J (2002) Competition in gas markets. Eur Econ Rev 46:928–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De V, Arthur S, Walls W (1999) David Price dynamics in a network of decentralized power markets. J Regul Econ 15:123–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doane MJ, Spulber DF (1994) Open access and the evolution of the US spot market for natural gas. J Law Econ 37:477–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doane MJ, McAfee R, Nayyar A, Williams MA (2008) Preston interpreting concentration indices in the secondary market for natural gas transportation: the implication of pipeline residual rights. Energy Econ 30:807–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorigoni S, Graziano C, Pontoni F (2010) Can LNG increase competitiveness in the natural gas market? Energy Policy 38:7653–7664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010) Interpretative note on directive 2009/72/ec concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and directive 2009/73/ec concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas -the unbundling regime. Commission Staff Working Paper, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanchard J-M, Hallack M, Vasquez M (2014) Gas network and market diversity in the US, the EU and Australia: A story of network access rights, EUI working papers No. 2011/33 Robert schuman centre for advanced stidies. Florence School of Regulation, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasmi F, Laffont J-J, Oviedo J (2004) Impact of regional market power on natural gas transport network size, working paper

  • Gasmi F, Oviedo JD (2005) Regulation of regional monopolies in natural gas markets, mimeo, Toulouse School of Economics (IDEI)

  • Gasmi F, Oviedo J (2010) Investment in transport infrastructure, regulation, and gas-gas competition. Energy Econ 32:726–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Growitsch C, Stronzik M (2014) Ownership unbundling of natural gas transmission networks: Empirical evidence. J Regul Econ 46:207–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höffler F, Kranz S (2011) Legal unbundling can be a golden mean between vertical integration and vertical separation. Int J Ind Organ 29(5):576–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell B, Meade R, O’Connor S (2010) Structural separation versus vertical integration: Lessons for telecommunications from electrivity reforms. Telecommun Policy 34:392–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffont J-J, Tirole J (1994) Access pricing and competition. Eur Econ Rev 38:1673–1710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapuerta C, Moselle B (2002) Convergence of non-discriminatory tariff and congestion management systems in the European gas sector. Technical Report. The Brattle Group

  • Lowe P, Pucinskaite I, Webster W, Lindberg P (2007) Effective unbundling of energy transmission networks: lessons from the Energy Sector Inquiry. Competition Policy Newsletter 1:23–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbery DM (2000) Privatization, restructuring, and regulation of network utilities. MIT, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey P, Tirole J (2007) A primer on foreclosure. In: Armstrong M, Porter P (eds) Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol III, North Holland, pp 2145–2220

  • Soares I, Magalhaes S (2012) Regulation and investment in the EU natural gas sector: a panel data analysis. In: 9th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM) Proceedings, 1-8

  • Stronzik M (2012) The european natural gas sector – between regulation and competition. PhD Thesis, Jacobs University, Bremen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Joana Pinho acknowledges financial support from University of Porto, Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia and FEDER (SFRH/BPD/79535/2011). The authors acknowledge financial support from CEF.UP University of Porto and FCT.

This work was financed by FEDER, through the Operational Program for Competitiveness Factors (COMPETE), and by National Funds, through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, through projects PTDC/IIM-ECO/ The authors thank the Editor, Prof. Odd Rune Straume and two anonymous referees for their suggestions and insights on a previous version of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joana Resende.

Appendix Proof of Proposition 3

Appendix Proof of Proposition 3

The expression for total surplus, W(t) is given by

$$W(t)=\pi_{e}(t)+\pi_{i}(t)+CS(t)+\pi_{T}(t) $$
  1. 1.

    If 0≤p e <p g μ + t:

    $$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} W(t)&=&\frac{(p_{g}-p_{e}+\mu -t)^{2}}{4}+0+\frac{(p_{g}-p_{e}-t+\mu )^{2}}{8}+t\times \frac{p_{g}-p_{e}+\mu -t}{2}-F\\ &=&\frac{1}{8}(p_{g}-p_{e}+\mu -t)(3p_{g}-3p_{e}+3\mu +t)-F\\ \end{array} $$
    (20)

    Notice that, for p e <p g (which is holds in the domain we are considering), we have that total welfare is strictly decreasing in t, \( \frac {dW}{dt}=\frac {p_{e}-p_{g}-t-\mu }{4}<0.\) Thus, for this domain of p e , a regulator that does not care about the economic viability of the transmission operator, will optimally set t =0, and total surplus would be \(W^{\ast }=\frac {3}{8}(p_{g}-p_{e}+\mu )^{2}-F\)

  2. 2.

    If p g μ + tp e <p g :

    $$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} W(t)&=& \frac{(2p_{g}-2p_{e}+\mu -t)^{2}}{9}+\frac{(p_{g}-p_{e}-\mu +t)^{2}}{9}+\frac{(p_{g}-p_{e}+2\mu -2t)^{2}}{18}\\ &&+t\times \frac{p_{g}-p_{e}+2\mu -2t}{3 }-F \\ &=& -\frac{2}{9}t^{2}-\frac{p_{g}-p_{e}+2\mu }{9}t+\frac{ 11(p_{g}-p_{e})^{2}+8\mu (p_{g}-p_{e}+\mu )}{18}-F \end{array} $$
    (21)

    with \(\frac {dW}{dt}=-\frac {p_{g}-p_{e}+2(\mu +2t)}{9}<0.\) Thus, for this domain of p e , the regulator will optimally choose the lowest possible tariff in this domain, i.e. t =0 and total surplus will be:

    $$W^{\ast }=\frac{11(p_{g}-p_{e})^{2}+8\mu (p_{g}-p_{e}+\mu )}{18}-F $$
  3. 3.

    If \(p_{g}<p_{e}\leq p_{g}+\frac {\mu -t}{2}\):

    $$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} W(t)&=& \frac{(2p_{g}-2p_{e}+\mu -t)^{2}}{9}+\frac{ -5{p_{e}^{2}}+5p_{e}(2p_{g}+\mu -t)-5p_{g}(p_{g}+\mu -t)+(\mu -t)^{2}}{9}\\ && +\frac{(p_{e}-p_{g}+2t-2\mu )^{2}}{18}+t\times \frac{p_{g}-p_{e}+2\mu -2t}{ 3}-F \\ &=& -\frac{2}{9}t^{2}-\frac{2(p_{e}-p_{g}+\mu )}{9}t+\frac{\mu (4\mu -p_{e}+p_{g})}{9}-\frac{(p_{e}-p_{g})^{2}}{18}-F \end{array} $$
    (22)

    Again, \(\frac {dW}{dt}=-\frac {2(p_{e}-p_{g}+2t+\mu )}{9}<0.\) Thus, for this domain of p e , the regulator chooses the lowest possible tariff, t =0 and total surplus is equal to:

    $$W^{\ast }=\frac{(2\mu -p_{e}+p_{g})(4\mu +p_{e}-p_{g})}{18}-F. $$
  4. 4.

    Finally, if \(p_{e}>p_{g}+\frac {\mu -t}{2}\):

    $$W(t)=0+\frac{(\mu -t)^{2}}{4}+\frac{(\mu -t)^{2}}{8}+t\times \frac{\mu -t}{2} -F=\frac{(\mu -t)(3\mu +t)}{8}-F $$

As \(\frac {dW}{dt}=-\frac {\mu +t}{4}<0\), we conclude that W is also decreasing in t for \(p_{e}>p_{g}+\frac {\mu -t}{2}\). When t=0, the previous condition writes as \(p_{e}>p_{g}+\frac {\mu }{2},\) implying 2p g + μ−2p e <0. Thus, also for this price domain, the regulator chooses the lowest possible value of t =0 and the (maximum) overall welfare is \(W^{\ast }=\frac {3}{8}\mu ^{2}-F.\)

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brandão, A., Pinho, J., Resende, J. et al. Welfare effects of unbundling under different regulatory regimes in natural gas markets. Port Econ J 15, 99–127 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-016-0114-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-016-0114-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation