Continue Reading

Login or register for unlimited FREE access.

Login Register

WWT: Ofwat now seems to have a warmer relationship with the water industry

than under your predecessor. Do you think this is a matter of substance or style?

I think it makes sense for each of us to acknowledge all of our respective

roles. And while it is not my job to manage the industry, it is my job to regulate

it in the interest of customers and I do not think there is any difference between

me and Ian Byatt on that.

But it is also important to recognise the achievements of the industry since

privatisation, on which all of us will build for the future of the regulatory


WWT: So you think we are now in a period when things are a bit easier?

PF: That is a part of it but again, it is in all of our interests that regulatory

certainty should be a firm part of the picture, so the [water] companies, the

customers, all the stakeholders, and the investors and lenders have a very clear

picture of how the regulator interacts. I have been making it my business of

course to talk to the companies, but also go out there and talk to those who

are already or might be investors or lenders – and their representatives – to

make quite sure they understand how the regulator approaches the task and there

is no confusion which could add to the cost of the capital, the borrowing.

That is not to say the regulator can ever be completely certain, to do the

job I have got to take appropriate action in response, but where I am taking

action in anticipation I look to consult on it, I look to give signals in advance

so that I am not deliberately or as far as possible inadvertently causing the

markets unnecessary concern.

WWT: Is there a greater level of dialogue than existed previously between

Ofwat and financial institutions?

PF: Yes, I think that probably is so. It is the right time to be doing it,

in the period before the next periodic review, both as a means of consultation

and as a means of making sure that people do not get the wrong end of the stick.

If I could just take the example of the cost of capital, which is vital for

water companies given the £3Bn per year they are investing, there was

an impression in some quarters that the cost of capital set by Ofwat was very

different to that set by other regulators in different contexts. In fact, given

we are regulating different sectors and there are some differences, the cost

of capital we are working with is very similar to that used by Ofgem or by the

Competition Commission when they have pronounced on cost-of-capital issues.

It is that sort of thing which you can help sort out by dialogue.

WWT: So do you think things are moving together with more of a sense of

common purpose?

PF: Yes. To give you another example, we are about to consult on publishing

prospective regulatory capital values. Companies are free to publish now but

only Welsh and Severn Trent have chosen to do so. We will be consulting on the

way in which we might publish this information across the water companies, to

help create greater certainty and understanding across the board.

WWT: Do you think the information you are putting out now goes far enough.

Is Water UK, for example, still seeking greater openess?

PF: This is one of the tensions. Yes they would like more and there are various

areas where we have promised to give more. For example we are developing the

financial model in readiness for the next periodic review in such a way that

will enable us to share it with the industry. Things will start on a much more

common understanding and I hope that will make the review a little bit easier

than it would otherwise have been.

There is also the issue of how much information we collect from the companies.

I do not want us to collect more than we strictly need for the purpose of regulation.

But there is always a feeling from the companies that it is too much, we do

not need all of it and we do not really study what we get. I think that we do,

but we also need to focus on whether we are collecting something because it

would be nice to have the information or because we really need it to regulate


WWT: The development of competition has been glacial. Do you think customers’

interests would be better served by greater levels of competition?

PF: The threat of competition has been quite significant in the way the companies

approach their largest customers, those most vulnerable to going elsewhere.

It is my impression, both from talking to customers and the companies, that

utilities have been paying a lot more attention to the needs of these customers.

Of course it is also my job to ensure they do not give big customers a good

deal at the expense of other users.

But I agree with you that the development of price competition has been very

slow, we have not even had a new inset appointment in my time at Ofwat. Common

carriage is quite slow to develop too. This is not confined to the water sector,

if you are looking for cases under the Competition Act, all the regulators have

found the initial process has been slow in developing case work and understanding

issues, so that should not worry us.

I do think it is going to be fairly difficult to get price competition really

working in the water sector in advance of new legislation. That is where Michael

Meacher’s announcement at the end of March comes in, with the indication the

government would look for secondary licences for the production and retail functions,

leaving the distribution network as monopoly, and I think that sort of an approach

will meet some of the difficulties we have got at the moment.

We are launching another consultation on common carriage and access. We have

been building on current access codes to look for best practice, which we will

use as our guidelines for considering action under the Competition Act. It could

be the foundation for a national code at some stage. To give water regulators

the assurances they need, secondary licences which clarify the accountability

and leave no doubt that a licensed entrant will be fully accountable for what

they do would be very helpful.

WWT: A recent Utility Buyers’ Forum (UBF) survey found 90% of respondents

wished to change water supplier but did not feel able to because it was too

difficult. Does that surprise you?

PF: It does not greatly surprise me. Of course it will vary, if you are looking

at a sample you are not looking at many of the large exceptions who are in a

position to choose. A Water Bill with a significant and properly-integrated

competition element I believe will be the way of helping to take this forward.

WWT: Another point which came out in our talking with the UBF was that although

the threat of competition had improved standards, delays in passing the Water

Bill could see these improvements lost.

PF: I do not have quite such a pessimistic view. I think there are some benefits

in the government taking its time to come up with what hopefully will be a carefully

thought through, really integrated bill. Presumably the earliest this could

be is autumn 2002, but that gives them time to put it all together.

One of the issues I hope further thinking will help on is integrating the competition

regime with the abstraction control regime, where the government has already

got the proposals they have consulted on, but where competition introduces a

set of new elements which need to be brought into line with the legislation

on abstraction. If the price of a year’s delay is a much better integrated statutory

framework, I think it is worth paying.

WWT: The Better Regulation Task Force made it clear that its criticisms

of regulatory culture could be applied to all economic regulators, not just

Oftel, Ofgem and the CAA. Are you aware of a ‘game-playing, cat-and-mouse’ mindset

at Ofwat?

PF: I think the task force was addressing sectors which already had a substantial

amount of competition so not all their findings were applicable to water. I

think that water was not to be covered initially, but they picked up some things

as they went along which looked relevant more generally.

All of us would like to reduce the gaming that occurs around the periodic reviews.

When we come to the next one I would like to ensure that as far as is possible

we are focussing on real issues and not playing games. That said, there will

be points where the water companies and I disagree, perhaps strongly. My hope

would be that we could do that and still come up with an appropriate answer

in terms of the price limits, which everybody should be focussing on.

Large parts of the report will be fairly common ground. I want to move, within

the legislation as it stands, towards the report’s notion that rather than having

individual regulators, things should be focussed on a board approach. There

is a lot to be said for that, although I think there is a lot to be said for

the single regulator in terms of flexibility and speed of manouvre, but I can

understand those who argue a board would be better. Although I can not change

the single regulator set-up because it is primary legislation, I can recruit

non-executive advisory directors and I intend to set about that.

WWT: The back-end loading of AMP3 work has led to some quite grim predictions

of work not getting done, or costing more than the water companies have budgeted

for. How far do you share these concerns?

PF: The first point is that within the context of the last review, we were

conscious of the rollercoaster profile that had come in the mid-1990s, and we

wanted to seek to minimise it as far as possible. We are not being starry-eyed

about it, there is a period of uncertainty around the periodic review and it

would be hard for the [water] companies to ensure there was no blip over that

period, but we wanted to keep the blip to a minimum.

We did various things designed to that end. We gave water companies a protocol

on the timing of investment, we have very definitely not back-end loaded the

investment for AMP3. We are looking for an even profile with some small peaks

in years two and three.

Now what has happened? In the first year of AMP3 the spend has been significantly

lower, 20% lower – still not as big a fall as we saw in the mid-1990s – but

bigger than I am entirely comfortable with, in the interests of efficiency.

There is still full time for the companies to deliver the objectives of AMP3

to which they effectively signed-up when the majority of them chose not to refer

the issues to the Competition Commission at the last periodic review.

There have been a number of particular factors, we had a very difficult winter

last time round, so I am not going to get too upset about the position in the

first year. Also, there were issues around quality, and still are, which are

being thoroughly thought through. There is no point in saying you must do precisely

what we thought right two, three, four, five years ago, because it may no longer

be the most efficient way of doing it. And if it turns out, at least to a degree,

that spending on plumbosolvency treatment delivers the outputs required better

or as well as a huge pipe replacement programme, then it does not make sense

to press on with pipe replacement just because that is what you thought of in

the first place.

WWT: But from the supply chain we hear genuine concerns that the capacity

will not exist to complete the work by the end of the period to the costs agreed.

PF: Water is only one sector in a much bigger picture. Water has been consistently

a significant element, especially since privatisation, in the construction and

civil engineering business. Accepting there were more significant dips than

we wanted to see around the last review and the one before that, none-the-less

we have seen a level of investment – twice the pre-privatisation level, 3Bn

per year going in – which will continue, so there is a measure of certainty

up until 2005. As a result I am not sure I buy the argument that the programme

is so uncertain as to mean contractors have no basis on which to take their

proper business decisions.

WWT: The impression we get is not that the work is not there, but there

is too much work and too little time.

PF: On the whole that is what the market is used to dealing with. Of course

major construction, major engineering needs proper planning, the lead-in time

is often a very significant part of the whole project, and that is why it is

very important the [water] companies get on with the AMP3 business and start

to get the signals in place for AMP4 when they sensibly can. But I believe the

contractors have shown that they are up to the challenge and I hope and believe

they will continue to be up to the challenge as we go forward.

I accept that it is up to the water companies themselves, whose programmes

we are talking about, and to the regulators behind them to help as far as they

can to ensure the certainty is there to give the market the confidence to make

the necessary decisions.

WWT: So you do not feel the timescale and costings agreed are under threat?

PF: Obviously I listen to them, but I think there is still plenty of time for

the companies to succeed in completing their AMP3 programmes in the timetable

we have set.

I am not saying it is not challenging, but with the will and the element of

clarity and certainty we have so far provided the potential is there to achieve

the goals.

© Faversham House Ltd 2022 edie news articles may be copied or forwarded for individual use only. No other reproduction or distribution is permitted without prior written consent.

Action inspires action. Stay ahead of the curve with sustainability and energy newsletters from edie