摘要:There is much to agree with in Darryl Biggar's comments on my article. Nonetheless, it does demand the examination of a number of issues.First of all, it is illusory to think preventing firms from recouping investments prudently incurred can protect the interests of consumers — the opposite is true. For example, if the regulator, confronted with an adverse cost shock, shifts the burden of that shock on to investors in the regulated business, thus stranding investments prudently made, the effect is simply to increase the risk premium those investors will demand in future. In the long run, that higher premium must be reflected in increased supply costs and so in prices or subsidies, affecting consumers, taxpayers or both