# **5. DATA**

We work with two unique databases. In terms of performance, we use the Electricity Benchmarking data (World Bank, 2007). This benchmarking initiative contributes primarily with the collection and analysis of detailed data for 26 countries and 250 utilities that represent 88 percent of the electricity connections in the Latin American and Caribbean region. Through in-house and field data collection, this work compiled data on the electricity distribution sector based on accomplishments in output, coverage, labor productivity, input, operating performance, service quality, and tariffs. Based on the results of these performance indicators, the World Bank (2007) benchmarks the performance of electricity distribution at the regional, country, and utility-level. Among the utilities in this database we selected those utilities that had a change in ownership and/or present a regulatory agency. Out of the 250 utilities 216 were retained. The definitions of the variables selected for this report can be found in Annex 1.

For the data on regulatory governance we used the one collected in our previous work Andres _et al._ (2007). As previously stated, we designed a survey that was distributed to all electricity regulatory agencies in the region, including not only national but also provincial or state regulators (particularly in the cases of Argentina and Brazil). The questionnaire was composed of 97 questions (for the full version of the survey, see Appendix 1 in Andres _et al._ 2007b) reflecting the 4 variables of agencies’ governance and both formal and informal aspects of their functioning. We also included a general section aimed at capturing characteristics of electricity markets such as the methodology for tariff calculation, the degree of market liberalization, and social tariffs. We received responses from 43 electricity regulatory agencies, whose coverage in terms of electricity consumers exceeds 90 percent of the region. Annex 2 presents the list of the national regulatory agencies with some selected characteristics.

Each country or state was represented by its own regulatory agency, with the exception of Colombia and Chile, for which we assigned unique values since they each have two different agencies with regulatory functions. In both Colombia and Chile, regulatory responsibilities are shared between a National Energy Commission in charge of the main regulatory aspects (tariffs, approval of contracts) and an Oversight Electricity Agency (in the case of Chile, the _Superintendencia de Electricidad y Combustibles_ and in the case of Colombia, the _Superintendencia de Servicios Públicos_ ) in charge of the sector’s oversight (service quality, sanctions’ enforcing, consumer complaints). Considering that both agencies perform different tasks that in other countries are undertaken by only one regulator, we “merged” both administrative bodies and assigned a unique value for the country. For those institutional aspects that should be reflected in both agencies, such as the independence of their decision-making ( _e.g._ . the appointment of directors) or the transparency of their management ( _e.g._ account audits), we assigned the country an average score calculated from both agencies’ scores on the same question. For instance, if the _Comisión Nacional de Energía_ of Chile was assigned 0 for not auditing its accounts and the _Superintendencia de Electricidad y Combustibles_ was assigned 1 for auditing its accounts, then Chile would obtain 0.5 in that question. In those aspects where the agencies had separate responsibilities ( _e.g._ the regulation of tariffs by the _Comisión Reguladora de la Energía_ of Colombia and the reception of consumers’ claims by the _Superintendencia de Servicios Públicos_ ), we assigned the country the score achieved by the agency with responsibility in that issue, regardless of the score obtained by the other agency for the same issue. Table 2 presents the summary statistics.

- 13 -