DOCSLIB.ORG

Competition in Upstream Sewage and Sludge Markets (PROC/01/0166)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Competition in Upstream Sewage and Sludge Markets (PROC/01/0166) Competition in upstream sewage and sludge markets (PROC/01/0166) Final Report Ofwat Prepared by London Economics 1 Contents Page Glossary v 1 Introduction 6 1.1 Overall aims 6 1.2 Background 6 1.3 Approach 8 1.4 Structure of this report 8 2 Market definition 9 2.1 Sector overview 9 2.2 Overall approach to market definition 12 2.3 Precedents 14 2.4 Market definition – upstream sewage and sludge 16 3 ‘Traditional’ sewage treatment 25 3.1 Background 25 3.2 Potential for and barriers to competition 28 4 Sewage treatment for individual households and small communities 32 4.1 Description of the market(s) 34 4.2 Scope for competition 37 4.3 Enabling further competition 39 5 Sludge treatment and disposal 41 5.1 Background 41 5.2 Description of the market 45 5.3 View of competition 51 5.4 Potential competition 55 5.5 Potential measures to increase competition 58 5.6 Conclusions 58 6 Sludge transport 60 6.1 Description of the market 60 6.2 Other factors 61 6.3 Conclusion 61 7 Pre‐treatment and recycling of wastewater 62 7.1 Description of the market 62 7.2 Competition in the market 62 London Economics February 2010 ii Contents Page 7.3 Barriers to entry 63 7.4 Scope for more competition 63 7.5 Domestic and commercial wastewater recycling 64 8 Overview of scope and options for increasing competition 66 References 71 Annex 1 Summary of responses to Ofwat consultation July 2007 72 Annex 2 ‘Alternative’ sewage treatment processes 74 Annex 3 Indicators of commercial activity 79 Annex 4 Services Sydney Case 85 London Economics February 2010 iii Contents Page Table 1: Market definition summary 24 Table 2: Large works – details 27 Table 3: Alternative systems for domestic sewage treatment 33 Table 4: The different steps of sludge treatment 47 Table 5: Companies active in elements of the upstream sewage and sludge sector in England & Wales 80 Table 6: ‘Sewage treatment’ companies in FAME, other than the ten main undertakers 81 Table 7: Number of Public tenders in 2009 84 Figure 1: Overview of upstream sewage and sludge activities 10 Figure 2: Proportion of works by works’ size – using number and loads received 26 Figure 3: Proportions of volumes treated 2008/09 (%) 28 Figure 4: Alternative treatment solutions for domestic sewage 35 Figure 5: The market for sludge 42 Figure 6: The market for sludge treatment and disposal 43 Figure 7: The market for raw sewage sludge 44 Figure 8: The sludge treatment sequence 48 Figure 9: Sludge disposal and recycling routes for sewage sludge 49 Figure 10: Sludge disposal processes 49 Figure 11: Anaerobic digestion and CHP 50 Figure 12: A potential market for sludge treatment? 57 Figure 13: Examples of cesspool and septic tank 75 Figure 14: Example of a drainage field 75 Figure 15: Examples of package treatment plants 76 Figure 16: Example 1 ‐ Airflow AF14 77 Figure 17: Example 2 ‐ Clereflo MBR 78 London Economics February 2010 iv Glossary Glossary Terminology Sewerage undertaker: The 10 regulated water and sewage companies that undertake sewage treatment in England and Wales. Sewerage: The pipeline infrastructure for transporting sewage from source to treatment. Sewage: The physical material (biological). Abbreviations STW: Sewage treatment works EA: Environment Agency OFWAT: Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) WaSCs: Water and sewerage companies London Economics February 2010 v Section 1 1BIntroduction 1 Introduction This final report has been produced by London Economics and is submitted to Ofwat under contract PROC/01/0166. The research was undertaken over a relatively short period between late November 2009 and January 2010. 1.1 Overall aims The main aim of the research is to provide Ofwat with an independent assessment of: 1) the level of competition that already exists in the upstream sewage and sludge sector; 2) an assessment of the scope for increasing competition in the sewage and sludge markets; and, 3) some options for further developing upstream competition in sewage and sludge markets. By ‘upstream sewage and sludge’ Ofwat mean the treatment and disposal of sewage and sludge and by ‘competition’, Ofwat are referring to ‘in‐the‐market’ competition only. In consequence, the research does not consider benchmarking or franchising approaches to competition or sewerage network activities such as collection and transport of sewage (except insofar as they are relevant to the assessment of in‐the‐ market competition for sewage and sludge treatment and disposal services). The work has not involved the collection of primary data and has been restricted to surveying existing information. Given the short timescales our analysis is not as complete or as comprehensive as a much fuller competition analysis could be, involving the use of tailored industry surveys and so on, but we believe that it should provide Ofwat with a reasonable and sensible basis for taking the policy process forward. 1.2 Background In 2007 and 2008, Ofwat undertook a review of competition in the water and sewerage sector in England and Wales. Whilst the review focussed mainly on competition in water services, consideration was also given to competition in sewerage services. Following consultation in July 2007, Ofwat proposed in December 2007 that the Government should introduce retail competition in sewerage services under the Water Supply Licensing regime and that Ofwat would further explore the scope for combined sewerage competition.1 More than half of respondents to the 1 Ofwat reached similar conclusions in the second report on their review, published in May 2008. 'Combined competition' is a term from the legislation and means a licence which allows an entrant to compete in retail and common carriage competition. London Economics February 2010 6 Section 1 1BIntroduction consultation did not agree that combined sewerage competition should be explored further citing costs and lack of benefits to consumers.2 In 2008 and 2009, Professor Martin Cave undertook a review of competition and innovation in the Water sector in England and Wales. The review made a number of recommendations. Those related to the sewerage sector included: the introduction of retail competition for sewerage services alongside water services; a step by step approach to introducing more competition, starting with the introduction of a ‘market‐like framework’ that includes: o an economic purchasing obligation (for both water and sewerage services); o Unbundling the current combined supply licence to allow more specialisation; o The creation of an upstream sewerage and sludge licence alongside the upstream water supply licence created by unbundling the combined supply licence. o Raising the transparency of water and sewerage supply costs at different stages in the value chain; o Introducing an ex ante access pricing framework based on forward‐ looking long run avoidable costs at the water resource zone level.3 for the longer term (post 2015) consideration should be given to the introduction of an independent contracting entity to buy water and wastewater services from suppliers and sell them on to retailers; the review suggested that the advantage of measures to encourage in the market competition would vary across the country and across the value chain, but suggested that at present the risk‐return ratio is too uncertain to proceed further. The aim of our research is to consider what initial steps Ofwat might take in order to increase the scope for in the market competition in the long term, indicating which markets are most likely to be amenable to this type of competition. We have not made any direct assessment of the costs and benefits of upstream in the market competition in our research. Instead we have focussed on assessing the level of existing competition and on options for increasing the level of in the market competition. In order to assist Ofwat, we have made the assumption, for the purposes of this analysis, that competitive arrangements for retail sewerage services will be introduced, as will the extension of revised common carriage arrangements for sewerage as proposed in the Cave Review. 2 Ofwat’s summary of these responses is included in Annex 1. 3 The review does not refer to sewerage costs specifically here, but it may be more appropriate for sewerage costs to be estimated at the sewerage network level. London Economics February 2010 7 Section 1 1BIntroduction 1.3 Approach Following an initial review of the main activities and processes that make up the upstream sewage and sludge sector we reviewed the literature relevant to competition in this area, searching in particular for precedents for market definitions and competition analysis; and we also used the FAME database and other methods, such as web searches, to obtain an indication of the range of companies active in these markets. We also reviewed stakeholder responses to the various consultation papers that have been issued in respect of competition in the water sector in England and Wales and had telephone conversations to clarify specific questions with one of the water and sewerage undertakers and with the Environment Agency. Using the evidence we gathered, we defined markets in the sector and then assessed the level of competition in each of those markets and considered the options for improving competition in those markets. Our approach to market definition and competition assessment was based on the standard approaches used in competition cases. For each market we consider whether the suppliers of goods or services in that market are likely to have any market power with respect to purchasers, or whether purchasers are likely to have any market power with respect to suppliers. Nevertheless, because many of the activities are vertically related, effective competition in some of the markets may not mean that the final consumer of sewerage services directly benefits from that competition.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thames Water's Experiences of Moving from Public
    30 Years of Technical and Organisational Development in the UK Water Sector: Thames Water’s Experiences of moving from Public to Private Sector Tony Rachwal, Research and Development Director Thames Water, United Kingdom Abstract This paper highlights for an international audience, the major technical, socio- economic and political changes that the UK water industry has faced over the period 1974 – 2006. The author also provides a personal experience of the technical and environmental challenges met by Thames Water in this period. The formation of publicly owned Water Authorities to implement integrated river basin water management is discussed. Government drivers for privatisation and the formation of water industry regulators are reviewed. Privatisation has had impacts on improved water quality and customer service, higher capital investment and changes to pricing mechanisms. A wide range of public and private ownership and service delivery models are now used in the UK water industry. Key Words: privatisation, Thames Water, regulation, customer, water, technology Introduction – Early Private and Public Ownership Models The concept of public or private ownership and operating models for water and wastewater services is not new. Roman and Greek civilisations 2000 years ago developed large-scale public funded aqueducts and also developed smaller private estate, water and wastewater assets and operations. In the UK, a notable private- funded water supply venture was completed in 1613. This was the 50km New River project to supply London with freshwater from distant groundwater springs. An entrepreneur named Sir Hugh Myddelton and merchant adventure partners raised a shareholding of £18,000 to form the Company of the New River.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Recycling in Australia (Report)
    WATER RECYCLING IN AUSTRALIA A review undertaken by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering 2004 Water Recycling in Australia © Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering ISBN 1875618 80 5. This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction rights should be directed to the publisher. Publisher: Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering Ian McLennan House 197 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3052 (PO Box 355, Parkville Victoria 3052) ph: +61 3 9347 0622 fax: +61 3 9347 8237 www.atse.org.au This report is also available as a PDF document on the website of ATSE, www.atse.org.au Authorship: The Study Director and author of this report was Dr John C Radcliffe AM FTSE Production: BPA Print Group, 11 Evans Street Burwood, Victoria 3125 Cover: - Integrated water cycle management of water in the home, encompassing reticulated drinking water from local catchment, harvested rainwater from the roof, effluent treated for recycling back to the home for non-drinking water purposes and environmentally sensitive stormwater management. – Illustration courtesy of Gold Coast Water FOREWORD The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering is one of the four national learned academies. Membership is by nomination and its Fellows have achieved distinction in their fields. The Academy provides a forum for study and discussion, explores policy issues relating to advancing technologies, formulates comment and advice to government and to the community on technological and engineering matters, and encourages research, education and the pursuit of excellence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Privatizing Water Services : in Theory and Practice
    THE POLITICS OF PRIVATIZING WATER SERVICES: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Political Science in the University of Canterbury by Victoria Treliving University of Canterbury 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ................................................................................. IV ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. VI INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 - PRIVATIZATION: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE ................................ 5 1.1 THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE DISTINCTION ............................................................................. 6 1.2 PRIVATIZATION IN THEORY ......................................................................................... 9 1.2.1 Privatize 'what'? ............................................................................................... 10 1.2.2 Direction of privatization movement ................................................................ 13 1.2.3 Principles for privatizing ................................................................................... 14 1.2.4 Sovereignty ........................................................................................................ 15 1.2.5
    [Show full text]
  • The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another (Respondents) V United Utilities Water Plc (Appellant), the Manchester Ship Ca
    Trinity Term [2014] UKSC 40 On appeal from: [2013] EWCA Civ 40 JUDGMENT The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and another (Respondents) v United Utilities Water Plc (Appellant) The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd (Respondent) v United Utilities Water Plc (Appellant) before Lord Neuberger, President Lord Clarke Lord Sumption Lord Hughes Lord Toulson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 2 July 2014 Heard on 6-7 May 2014 Appellant Respondent Jonathan Karas QC Robert McCracken QC Julian Greenhill Rebecca Clutten Richard Moules (Instructed by Bircham James McCreath Dyson Bell LLP) (Instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) Intervener Intervener (The Middle Stephen Tromans QC Level Commissioners) Catherine Dobson Charles Morgan (Instructed by Canal and Laura Elizabeth John River Trust) (Instructed by Taylor Vinters) Intervener Douglas Edwards QC Richard Honey (Instructed by Anglian Water Services Limited) LORD SUMPTION (with whom Lord Clarke and Lord Hughes agree) Introduction 1. The question at issue on this appeal is whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their owners. 2. Discharge into a private watercourse is an entry on the owner’s land, and as such is an unlawful trespass unless it is authorised by statute. It is common ground that no express statutory right is conferred by the Water Industry Act. The question is therefore whether it should be implied. A statutory right to commit what would otherwise be a tort may of course be implied. But since this necessarily involves an interference with the rights of others, the test has always been restrictive.
    [Show full text]
  • Report by Castalia
    Subject: LGNZ release of Castalia reports, context and response Dear Members We’ve had requests from you to share the Castalia reports LGNZ commissioned at the start of the Three Waters Reform process. We are of course happy to do so (please see attached), but it is important to read these reports in the context in which they were commissioned including the timing and the subsequent responses to this work. In essence, the Castalia reports were done under tight constraints, commissioned by LGNZ outside of Steering Committee work programme with only publicly available information... They were extremely valuable at a point of time in shaping LGNZ’s thinking and ensuring our focus was directed to the key parts of the policy development process that needed attention. Throughout the reform process a range of external expertise informed analysis and the Castalia reports proved useful as policy has been developed. Some of the issues they raised are outlined below. Context As LGNZ engaged in the very early stages of the Three Waters Reform work we sought independent guidance from economic water experts to advise us what parameters to consider when assessing water service delivery models. In addition, we commissioned a high-level scan of different policy options available to decision-makers (options analysis), and a review of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland’s (WICS) Phase 1 modelling. That advice is summarised as follows: • Parameters for evaluating water service delivery models: An overview of what parameters and institutional setting
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF 990.4 KB
    Breathing New Life into the Mersey. Water Quality and Fisheries in the Mersey Estuary: a historical perspective. P. D. Jones. Senior Scientist. Marine & Special Projects Group. Environment Agency, Warrington, Cheshire. WA4 1HG. e-mail [email protected] Abstract. The Mersey estuary was once a prolific fishery but in the aftermath of the industrial revolution water quality and fisheries declined and the Mersey became infamous as one of the most polluted rivers in Europe. Until relatively recently, almost all industrial and domestic effluents were discharged with no treatment whatsoever resulting in abominable fouling of the shoreline, and long anoxic reaches in the upper estuary during the summer. In addition, there were unknown biological impacts resulting from a complex mixture of dangerous substances present in the river. Over £1000 million has been spent to remedy this situation and there is unequivocal evidence that this has had the desired effect. Dissolved oxygen is generally >60%, salmon are now found at the tidal limit and the estuary is becoming evermore popular for sea angling. The river is no longer an embarrassing liability but is now perceived as an important asset in the economic regeneration of this region of the United Kingdom. Key words. Mersey estuary, sewage, dissolved oxygen, contaminants, fish Introduction. Although the pollution of the Mersey was giving cause for concern in Liverpool over 150 years ago (Jones, 2000), it is only over the last two decades that positive action has been taken to resolve this long-standing problem. In the mid-1800s the population of the city was growing rapidly as the port and manufacturing industry expanded (Porter, 1973).
    [Show full text]
  • PRIMER Water Efficiency in the Public Sector the Role of Social Norms Kevin Grecksch & Bettina Lange Authors Dr
    PRIMER Water efficiency in the public sector The role of social norms Kevin Grecksch & Bettina Lange Authors Dr. Kevin Grecksch Dr. Bettina Lange Research assistance, Primer layout and design Jessica Holzhausen (www.jessicaholzhausen.com) Contact address Centre for Socio-Legal Studies University of Oxford Manor Road Building Manor Road Oxford OX1 3UQ Email [email protected] [email protected] © May 2019 recommended citation: Grecksch, Kevin; Lange, Bettina (2019). Water efficiency in the public sector – The role of social norms. Oxford: Centre for Socio-Legal Studies. Acknowledgements This research is part of the multidisciplinary ENDOWS (ENgaging diverse stake- holders and publics with outputs from the UK DrOught and Water Scarcity) project; (www.aboutdrought.info) funded by the UK Natural Environment Re- search Council (NERC). This Primer Document and the workshop were funded by NERC and the Oxford University ESRC Impact Acceleration Fund. The authors would like to express their gratitude to all workshop participants, Fiona Lobley (Environment Agency), Paul Kelson (Bristol Water) and David Brugman (Brookes University Oxford) and those who provided written com- ments and feedback on the draft Primer document: Tracey Dunford (Natural Resources Wales) and Kristian James, an environmental public health specialist in Wales. 2 Contents 1. A different way of building water efficiency campaigns: 5 harnessing social norms 1.1 Water efficiency at the heart of water resources management 6 1.2 The power of social norms 7 1.3 The gap: public sector and large organisations 11 1.3.1 What water companies are already doing 13 1.3.2 What regulators are already doing 14 1.3.3 What the public sector itself is already doing 15 1.4 Legal duties in relation to water efficiency 16 1.5 Data, methods and scope 20 2.
    [Show full text]
  • E/Cnmc/07/19 Study on Urban Water and Wastewater Services in Spain
    E/CNMC/07/19 STUDY ON URBAN WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES IN SPAIN 30th January 2020 1 www.cnmc.es Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 5 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 9 2. LEGAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 12 2.1. European regulations .......................................................................... 12 2.2. National legislation .............................................................................. 14 2.2.1. Full urban water cycle ............................................................................. 14 2.2.2. Division of responsibilities involving the full urban water cycle .......... 15 2.2.3. Public water domain and river basin authorities ................................... 17 2.3. Regional regulations ............................................................................ 18 2.4. The “price” of urban water services ..................................................... 20 2.4.1. Local prices and rates of urban water services ..................................... 20 2.4.2. Tariffs and levies on local tariffs for urban water services ................... 22 3. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISATION ......................................................... 24 3.1. Characterisation of the demand in the sector ...................................... 24 3.1.1. Demand for supply services ..................................................................
    [Show full text]