Panel discussion   catherine dermody
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Panel discussion catherine dermody

on

  • 7,901 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
7,901
Views on SlideShare
6,489
Embed Views
1,412

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 1,412

http://www.nextevent.com.au 1243
http://nextevent.com.au 167
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Panel discussion   catherine dermody Panel discussion catherine dermody Presentation Transcript

    • Infrastructure: Investment & RegulationConferenceThe investment landscape and the regulatory response:Panel presentationCatherine DermodyPartnerOctober 2011
    • 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
    • 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