Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Panel discussion   catherine dermody
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Panel discussion catherine dermody

  • 9,164 views
Published

 

Published in Business , Economy & Finance
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
9,164
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Infrastructure: Investment & RegulationConferenceThe investment landscape and the regulatory response:Panel presentationCatherine DermodyPartnerOctober 2011
  • 2. The commercial / regulatory divide• What are the key investment characteristics and criteria for investors in respect of highly regulated infrastructure?• Areas of key concern / focus for investors: – stability of the regulatory regime – ability to understand and interpret the regime – predictability of likely regulatory outcomes – confidence in guidance given by regulatory bodies – access to review of decisions• Is the framework delivering on these?20469938_1.PPT | Infrastructure: Investment & Regulation Conference | October 2011 page | 2
  • 3. Merits review• “Review of merits review” in the context of: – has it favoured any particular parties, is there evidence of “gaming” – cost implications for governments and parties – effectiveness of information disclosure and evidence restrictions – extent to which energy users and consumers have been able to participate – whether the Tribunal has acknowledged the expert knowledge of the primary decision-makers by remitting appropriate matters – whether additional modifications are necessary to achieve MCE’s objectives (accountability, regulatory certainty, conditions for regulator to make correct initial decision; achieving best decisions possible; ensuring all stakeholder interests taken into account; minimising risk of gaming; and time delays and cost) – whether the legislative framework for merits review could be improved, whether it should be abolished leaving judicial review20469938_1.PPT | Infrastructure: Investment & Regulation Conference | October 2011 page | 3