Advertisement

Lost economies of scope and potential merger gains in the Norwegian electricity industry

  • Ørjan Mydland
Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

In 2016, the Norwegian Parliament amended the Energy Act, with changes taking effect from 2021. The amended legislation will introduce strict separation of all generation and distribution companies within the electricity industry in Norway. Economies of scope studies from Norway show evidence of large economies of scope. Further, the companies in the industry could utilize the economies of scale potential if they merged. In this paper, we perform merger analysis to investigate potential merger gains in the Norwegian electricity distribution industry. By providing a method of testing for optimal mergers, we can present the best merger combination to the Norwegian electricity industry.

Keywords

Potential merger gains Energy Policy Energy Act Lost economies of scope Optimized mergers 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work in this study is a part of the project Benchmarking for Regulation of Norwegian Electricity Networks (ElBench). Participants in the project are Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, Energy Norway and six electricity companies in Norway (BKK Nett, Eidsiva Nett, Hafslund Nett, Helgeland Kraft, Lyse Elnett and Skagerak Nett).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Agrell P, Teusch J (2016) Merger incentives under yardstick competition: theory and evidence from Norway. (Unpublished manuscript). http://www.cresse.info/uploadfiles/2016_pa3_pa4.pdf. (Accessed 29 Sep 2016)
  2. Amundsveen R, Kvile HM (2016) Balancing incentives: the development and application of a regulatory benchmarking model. In: Greene WH, Khalaf L, Sickles RC, Veall M, Voia M-C (Eds.) Productivity and efficiency analysis. Springer proceedings in business and economics, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagdadioglu N, Price CW, Weyman-Jones TG (2007) Measuring potential gains from mergers among electricity distribution companies in Turkey using a non-parametric model. Energy J 28:83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnum DT, Gleason JM (2008) Bias and precision in the DEA two-stage method. Appl Econ 40:2305–2311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogetoft P, Otto L (2010) Mereger analysis. In: Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R. Springer, New York, p. 282Google Scholar
  6. Bogetoft P, Wang D (2005) Estimating the potential gains from mergers. J Product Anal 23:145–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Çelen A (2013) The effect of merger and consolidation activities on the efficiency of electricity distribution regions in Turkey. Energy Policy 59:674–682.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kumbhakar SC, Amundsveen R, Kvile HM, Lien G (2015) Scale economies, technical change and efficiency in Norwegian electricity distribution, 1998–2010. J Product Anal 43:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuosmanen T, Saastamoinen A, Sipiläinen T (2013) What is the best practice for benchmark regulation of electricity distribution? Comparison of DEA, SFA and StoNED methods. Energy Policy 61:740–750.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kwoka J, Pollitt M (2010) Do mergers improve efficiency? Evidence from restructuring the US electric power sector. Int J Ind Organ 28:645–656.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2010.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mayo JW (1984) Multiproduct monopoly, regulation, and firm costs. South Econ J 51:208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mydland Ø, Haugom E, Lien G (2018a) Economies of scale in Norwegian electricity distribution: a quantile regression approach. Appl Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1450481 Google Scholar
  13. Mydland Ø, Haugom E, Kumbhakar SC, Lien G, Amundsveen R, Kvile HM (2018b) Economies of scope and scale in the Norwegian electricity industry. In: Working paper. Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences and Norwegian School of Economics, LillehammerGoogle Scholar
  14. Robusto CC (1957) The cosine-haversine formula. Am Math Mon 64(1):38–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Saastamoinen A, Bjørndal E, Bjørndal M (2017) Specification of merger gains in the Norwegian electricity distribution industry. Energy Policy 102:96–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inland School of Business and Social Sciences, Department of Business AdministrationInland Norway University of Applied SciencesLillehammerNorway

Personalised recommendations