Letter: MMC ruling on gas pipelines

Philip Rogerson
Friday 12 July 1996 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: You state ("Let the MMC settle the gas pipeline battle", 10July) that, "as far as the regulator is concerned the point about depreciation is non-negotiable: either TransCo accepts this downgrading of the amount of depreciation it is allowed to take out of charges or the whole thing goes to the MMC". TransCo's position on allowing full CCA depreciation is that determined by the MMC in 1993 and that applied by Ofgas in setting the TransCo formula which applies between 1994 and 1997. It appears that Ofgas is certain it can persuade the MMC that the MMC's decision in 1993 not to apply what it called an "arcane adjustment" to depreciation is wrong.

It appears also that "the regulator's view is that these [new efficiency targets] are perfectly reasonable and there's not a snowball in Hades' chance of the MMC being persuaded otherwise".

What is the point of the MMC if its decisions can be set aside or determined in advance so easily?

As to the need to see the Coopers & Lybrand and WS Atkins reports respectively on operating costs and capital expenditure, you paraphrase Ms Spottiswoode as saying, "Let's publish and be damned". We are delighted to read that she has made this positive decision in favour of transparency and, for our own part, eagerly await copies of the reports.

PHILIP ROGERSON

Deputy Chairman

British Gas

London WC2

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in