Journal of Regulatory Economics

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 49–69 | Cite as

Decoupling in electric utilities

  • Timothy J. Brennan
Original Article


Distributing electricity to users has been covered through the charge per kilowatt-hour for electricity used. Conservation advocates have promoted policies that “decouple” distribution revenues or profits from the amount of electricity delivered, claiming that usage-based pricing leads utilities to encourage use and discourage conservation. Because decoupling separates profits from conduct, it runs against the dominant finding in regulatory economics in the last 20 years—that incentive-based regulation outperforms rate-of-return profit guarantees. Even if distribution costs are independent of use, some usage charges can be efficient. Price-cap regulation may distort incentives to inform consumers about energy efficiency—getting more performance from less electricity. Utilities will subsidize efficiency investments, but only when prices are too low. If consumers fail to adopt energy efficiency measures that would be individually beneficial, decoupling can increase welfare, but only if all energy revenues are separated from use, not just those associated with distribution.


Decoupling Price caps Electricity Energy efficiency Conservation 

JEL Classification

L51 L94 Q41 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baltimore Gas and Electric. (2007). “Demand Side Management Programs: Energy Efficiency/Conservation, Demand Response, Advanced Metering Infrastructure,” Stakeholders Meeting, Baltimore, MD, February 7, (2007). Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  2. Becker G. (1983) A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 98: 371–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan T. J. (1989) Regulating by ‘capping’ prices. Journal of Regulatory Economics 1: 133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brennan T. J. (1990) Cross-subsidization and cost misallocation by regulated monopolists. Journal of Regulatory Economics 2: 37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan T. J. (1996) Is cost-of-service regulation worth the cost?. International Journal of the Economics of Business 3: 25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan T. J. (2001) The California electricity experience, 2000–2001: Education or diversion?. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Brennan T. J. (2004) Market failures in real-time metering. Journal of Regulatory Economics 26: 119–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan, T. J. (2008a). ‘Night of the Living Dead’ or ‘Back to the Future’? Electric utility decoupling, reviving rate-of-return regulation, and energy efficiency. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 08-27.Google Scholar
  9. Brennan, T. J. (2008b). Generating the benefits of competition: Challenges and opportunities in opening electricity markets. Commentary 260, Toronto, ON: C.D. Howe Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Brennan, T. J. (2009a). Optimal energy efficiency policies and regulatory demand-side management tests: How well do they match? Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 08-46.Google Scholar
  11. Brennan, T. J. (2009b). Energy efficiency: Efficiency or monopsony. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 09-20.Google Scholar
  12. Brennan T. J., Boyd J. (1997) Stranded costs, takings, and the law and economics of implicit contracts. Journal of Regulatory Economics 11: 41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brennan T. J., Boyd J. (2006) Political economy and the efficiency of compensation for takings. Contemporary Economic Policy 24: 188–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Canine, C. (2006). California illuminates the world. OnEarth (National Resources Defense Council), Spring, 22–27. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  15. Carter, S. (2001). Breaking the consumption habit: Ratemaking for efficient resource decisions. Electricity Journal, 14, 66–74. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  16. Center for Energy, Economic, and Environmental Policy (CEEEP) (2005). Decoupling White Paper, no. 1, Strategic Issues Forum, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, October 25, 2005. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  17. Clinton, B. (2007). Plenary: Economic growth in the face of resource scarcity and climate change. Clinton Global Initiative, September 27, 2007. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  18. Crandall R. W., Waverman L. (2007) Talk is cheap: The promise of regulatory reform in North American Telecommunications. Brookings, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Darbee, P. (2007). Commentary: It’s time to rebalance America’s electricity strategy, Power, September 2007. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  20. Edison Electric Institute (EEI). (2007). Rate Case Summary. Q2 2007 (Quarterly Report). Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  21. Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON). (2007). Revenue decoupling. January 2007. Accessed August 8, 2008, from
  22. Gottron, F. (2001). Energy efficiency and the rebound effect: Does increasing efficiency decrease demand? CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Order Code RS20981, July 30, 2001. Accessed July 29, 2008, from .Google Scholar
  23. Griffin J. M. (1982) The welfare implications of externalities and price elasticities for telecommunications pricing. Review of Economics and Statistics 64: 59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirst E., Goldman C. (1990) Integrated resource planning for electric utilities. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 5: 1105–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). (2007). 2007 Ontario Market Outlook.
  26. ISO New England. (2006). Electricity Costs White Paper (June 1, 2006). Accessed May 18, 2009, from
  27. Kihm S. (2009) When revenue decoupling will work . . .and when it won’t. Electricity Journal 22(8): 19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laffont J.-J., Tirole J. (1993) A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. Maryland Energy Administration (MEA). (2008). Strategic Electricity Plan. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Energy Administration. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  30. Mufson, S., & Rein, L. (2007). Maryland adopts plan for energy efficiency. Washington Post, July 21, 2007: D01. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  31. Noël, E. (2007). Letter to the Editor, Office of the People’s Counsel, District of Columbia, July 24, 2007. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  32. Office of People’s Counsel (OPC). (2003). Initial comments in the matter of the electric service interruptions due to hurricane/tropical storm Isabel and the thunderstorms of August 26–28, 2003. Case No. 8977, Public Service Commission of Maryland, November, 2003. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  33. Peltzman S. (1976) Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics 19: 211–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perkins, J. R. (2007). Policy options for energy efficiency programs: Decoupling, incentives, and third-party administrators. NARUC (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions) Summer Meeting, New York, NY, July 17, 2007. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  35. Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP). (2005). Regulatory reform: Removing the disincentives to utility investment in energy efficiency, Regulatory Assistance Project Issues letter, September 2005, pp. 1–6. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  36. Sheshinski E. (1976) Price, quality, and quantity regulation in monopoly situations. Economica 43: 127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sotkiewicz, P. M. (2007). Advantages and drawbacks of revenue decoupling: Rate design and regulatory implementation does matter. Presented to the Florida Public Service Commission, Workshop on Energy Efficiency Initiatives, University of Florida, Public Utility Research Center, Tallahassee, FL, November 29, 2007. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  38. Spence A. M. (1975) Monopoly, quality and regulation. Bell Journal of Economics 6: 417–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. State of Maryland Public Service Commission (MDPSC). (2006). Ten Year Plan (2006–2015) of Electric Companies in Maryland. Prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Baltimore, MD: State of Maryland Public Service Commission, December 2006. Accessed July 29, 2008, from
  40. Tschirhart J. (1995) Incentives in utility conservation programmes. Pacific and Asian Journal of Energy 5: 175–186Google Scholar
  41. Weisman D. (2005) Price regulation and quality. Information Economics and Policy 17: 165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public Policy and EconomicsUniversity of MarylandBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Resources for the FutureWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations