Regulatory valuation of public utilities: A case study of the twentieth century

References

• Abel, J. R.The Performance of the State Communications Industry Under Price-cap Regulation: An Assessment of the Evidence NRRI 0014. The National Regulatory Research Institute, Ohio State University, Ohio, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Ai, C., and D. E. M.Sappington. “The Impact of State Incentive Regulation on the US Telecommunications Industry.” Journal of Regulatory Economics22, no. 2 (2002): 133–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Jurisprudence., pp. 138–172. 1972 (2nd edn) Volume 64, Public Utilities, Rate Base Sections.
   Google Scholar
• Ashworth, W.The State in Business, 1945 to the Mid-1980s. London: Macmillan, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Averch, H., and L.Johnson. “Behavior of the Firm under Regulatory Constraint.” American Economic Review52, no. 5 (1962): 1052–1069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, J. “Recent Decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States on Valuation and Rate Making.” American Economic Review14, no. 2 (1924): 254–282, with discussion by R. L Hale and W.L. Ransom.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, J. “Rate Base for Effective and Non-speculative Railroad and Utility Regulation.” Journal of Political Economy34, no. 4 (1926): 479–513, with reply by H.G. Brown and Bauer's rejoinder.
   Google Scholar
• Bluefield WaterWorks v. Public Service Commission. 1923 262 U.S. 679.
   Google Scholar
• British Telecom Share Prospectus. 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Bonbright, J. C. “Railroad Valuation with Special Reference to the O'Fallon Decision.” American Economic Review18, no. 1 (1928): 181–205, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bonbright, J. C. “Major Controversies as to the Criteria of Reasonable Public Utility Rates.” American Economic Review30, no. 5 (1941): 379–389, Papers and Proceedings of the Fifty-third Annual Meeting of American Economic Association.
   Google Scholar
• Chantler, P.The British Gas Industry: An Economic Study. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1938.
   Google Scholar
• Demet, F. J., and M. M.Demet. “Legal Aspects of Rate Base and Rate of Return in Public Utility Regulation.” Marquette Law Review42, no. 3 (1959): 331–345.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Trade and Industry. Licence granted to British Telecommunications under Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Digest of US Supreme Court Reports. Vol. 11B, Public Utilities, B18 – B25.
   Google Scholar
• Economic Regulation of Privatised Water Authorities. 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Eiteman, D.K. “Interdependence of Utility-Base Type, Permitted Rate of Return and Utility Earnings.” Journal of Finance17, no. 1 (1962): 38–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. 320 U.S. 591 (1944).
   Google Scholar
• Foster, C. D.Privatization, Public Ownership and the Regulation of Natural Monopoly. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Foreman-Peck, J., and R.Millward. Public and Private Ownership of British Industry 1820–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Garside, L., P. A.Grout, and A.Zalewska. “Does Experience Make You ‘Tougher’? Evidence from Competition Law.” The Economic Journal123, no. 568 (2013): 474–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Georgia Railway and Power Co. v. Railway Commission. 262 U.S. 625 (1923).
   Google Scholar
• Grout, P. A., and A.Zalewska. “On the Undervaluation of Privatized Companies.” Economics Letters86, no. 2 (2005): 215–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grout, P. A., A.Jenkins, and A.Zalewska. “Privatisation of Utilities and the Asset Value Problem.” European Economic Review48, no. 4 (2004): 927–941.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadley, A. T. “The Meaning of Valuation.” American Economic Review18, no. 1 (1928): 173–180, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hannah, L.Electricity Before Nationalisation. London: Macmillan, 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Helm, D.Energy, the State and the Market: British Energy Policy Since 1979. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Hausman, W. J., and J. L.Neufeld. “How Politics, Economics, and Institutions Shaped Electric Utility Regulation in the United States: 1879–2009.” Business History53, no. 5 (2011): 723–746.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huneke, W. F.The Heavy Hand: The Government and the Union Pacific, 1862–1898. New York: Garland Pub, 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Kuznets, S.Capital in the American Economy: Its Formation and Financing. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.
   Google Scholar
• Littlechild, S. C.Economic Regulation of Privatised Water Authorities: Report Submitted to the Department of Environment. London: HMSO, 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Los Angeles Gas and Electric Corp. v. Railroad Commission of California. 289 US 287 (1933).
   Google Scholar
• McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Co. 272 US 400 (1926).
   Google Scholar
• Megginson, W. L.The Financial Economics of Privatisation. USA: OUP, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Monopoly and Mergers Commission (Sept 1993). Gas and British Gas plc, vol 2, Cm 2316.
   Google Scholar
• Monopoly and Mergers Commission. Portsmouth Water plc, June 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery, R. H. “Judicial Fair Value and the Price Level.” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly12, no. December (1931): 221–237.
   Google Scholar
• National Audit Office. The Sale of the Twelve Regional Electricity Companies. London: HMSO, 14 May 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Office of Electricity Regulation, The Distribution Price Control: Proposals (Aug 1994)
   Google Scholar
• Office of Electricity Regulation, REC Price Controls (7 March 1995)
   Google Scholar
• Office of Electricity Regulation, Statement on REC Price Controls (24 March 1995)
   Google Scholar
• Office of Electricity Regulation, The Distribution Price Control: Revised Proposals (July 1995)
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Rail Regulator, The Periodic Review of Railtrack's Access Charges, a Proposed Framework and Key Issues: A Consultation Document (Dec 1997)
   Google Scholar
• Office of Telecommunications, BT's Cost of Capital (Jan 1992)
   Google Scholar
• Office of Telecommunications, Pricing of Telecommunications Services (June 1996)
   Google Scholar
• Office of Water Services, Future Charges for Water and Sewerage (July 1994)
   Google Scholar
• Parker, D. “Price Cap Regulation, Profitability and Returns to Investors in the UK Regulated Industries.” Utilities Policy6, no. 4 (1997): 303–315.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, D.The Official History of Privatisation, Volume I: The Formative Years 1970–1987. London: Routledge, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, D.The Official History of Privatisation, Volume II: Popular Capitalism 1987–1997. London: Routledge, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, H. C. “An Empirical Test of Regulatory Effects.” Bell Journal of Economics6, no. 1 (1976): 111–126.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, C. F.Regulation of Public Utilities: Theory and Practice., 3 edVirginia: Public Utilities Reports, 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, J. R. “The “Hope” Case and Public Utility Valuation in the States.” Columbia Law Review54, no. 2 (1954): 188–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singleton, J.“Labour, the Conservatives and Nationalisation.” in Millward, R., and J. Singleton (eds.)The Political Economy of Nationalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• St Louis & O'Fallon Railway Co v. United States. 279 U.S. 461 (1929).
   Google Scholar
• Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission. 262 U.S. 276 (1923).
   Google Scholar
• Stuart, F. “Rate Base versus Rate of Return.” Public Utilities Fortnightly170 (1962): 395–399.
   Google Scholar
• The Water Share Offers Prospectus. November 1989; Department of the Environment, Instruments of Appointment, August 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Troesken, W. Regime. “Regime Change and Corruption: A History of Public Utility Regulation, in E L Glaeser and C Goldin.” Corruption and Reform: Lessons from America's Economic History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 212 U.S. 19 (1909).
   Google Scholar
• Williams, T. I.History of the British Gas Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Whittington, G. “Current Cost Accounting: Its Role in Regulated Utilities.” Fiscal Studies15, no. 4 (1994): 88–101.
   Google Scholar