Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mr. Yokoyama earned his B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from Nagoya University.
At the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), he has been chief of the Minami-Aiki
Construction Office, Kanagawa Hydropower Office, and, most recently, Deputy Manager for the
Affiliated Companies Department, which is responsible for evaluating new businesses of TEPCO
and its subsidiaries. Between 2001 and 2003, he served as a researcher at the Institute for Policy
Sciences, a non-profit think tank, where he examined issues related to energy, environment, and
regional economic development. While at Harvard, Mr. Yokoyama explored business
diversification strategies in the United States and Japan.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
16
25
Conclusion
28
Figures
31
Bibliography
46
LIST OF FIGURES
31
31
32
32
33
34
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
ABBREVIATIONS
CRIEPI
EEI
EPAct
ERO
EWG
FEPC
FERC
IOU
Investor-owned utility
IPP
KEPCO
M&A
PURPA
RTO
TEPCO
INTRODUCTION
Since the deregulation of electric utilities in 2000, Japanese electric power companies
have been trying to expand their business activities to other fields. In other words, they are
making efforts to diversify. I think Japanese electric power companies have a wealth of
management resources including customer bases, technology, corporate brands, and financial
power. Some of their non-electric businesses, however, do not seem to have prospered.
On the other hand, in general, large Japanese firms drastically diversified during the years
of Japans economic bubble at the start of the 1980s. Since the collapse, most of them have been
restructuring and applying thorough selection and concentration in their core field. Nonetheless,
it is said that even when business selection and concentration were important management
challenges, diversification was an essential strategy for corporations whose main businesses had
slowed down. 1
As many U.S corporations diversified in the 1960s and 1970s, considerable research on
corporate strategy and business diversification was conducted on such firms to examine their
performance. At present, it seems that conclusions from such research vary widely depending
on who is doing the analysis and on the issues being addressed. Much of the research to date has
been conducted in pursuit of an unequivocal conclusion that business diversification is either
universally profitable or universally unprofitable. 2
Hideaki Miyajima et al., Ministry of Finance, Report of the Research Committee on the Diversification of
Japanese Companies and Corporate Governance, 2003, 20 November 2006,
<http://www.mof.go.jp/jouhou/soken/kenkyu/ron063_pr20030206.pdf>.
2
David J. Collis and Cynthia A. Montgomery, Corporate Strategy: A Resource-Based Approach (New York:
McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2005) 98.
In this paper, I will examine the business diversification of electric utilities in the United
States and Japan considering the relevant business circumstances. As a first step, I will attempt to
organize and arrange the theoretical framework of diversification. I will begin by defining
diversification and asking why firms embark on this path. After that, I will examine the
differences in business diversification between U.S. and Japanese electric utilities. Finally, I will
try to identify some implications from my findings.
My hypotheses are follows:
Under deregulation, major Japanese electric power companies, such as Tokyo Electric
Power Company (TEPCO), with their management resources, would have the potential
to expand their business fields outside of electricity.
There will be a certain amount of trial and error before achieving a favorable outcome.
There should be something to learn from past lessons as well as experiences with
diversification both in the United States and Japan.
I would like to clarify the possibilities, describe the strengths and weaknesses in the
industry, and explore them by examining various resources.
In Chapter 1, the reasons why firms diversify and the framework of diversification will
CHAPTER 1
WHY DO FIRMS DIVERSIFY? WHAT CAN BE LEARNED FROM PAST LESSONS?
Before examining the business diversification strategies in electric utilities, the growth of
the firms and diversified expansion should be discussed. This chapter begins by defining
diversification and trying to clarify the reason why firms diversify.
H. Igor Ansoff, Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965) 103-128.
Hideki Yoshihara et al., Nihon Kigyo no Takakuka Senryaku Keiei Shigen Apurohchi (Tokyo: Nihon Keizai
Shinbunsha, 1979) 9.
7
Masayuki Yajima et al., Denryoku Jiyuuka ni Kachinuku Keiei Senryaku: Denki Jigyo no Kinmirai,
(Tokyo: Energy Forum, 2005) 22.
Ansoff 129-130.
Edith T. Penrose, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (London: Basil Blackwell, 1959) 65-87.
10
As external inducements, slow growth in the demand for electricity, regional monopolies
(in the case of Japan as will be described in detail below), and deregulation and tough
competition in the electricity market.
As internal inducements, effective utilization of unused management resources, such as
human, goods, capital, and information resources. In Japanese electric power companies,
in particular, decrease of the investment in the electric power business brings some cash
flow under deregulation.
12
Michael E. Porter, From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy, Harvard Business Review
(May-June 1987).
13
14
CHAPTER 2
DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGIES OF JAPANESE ELECTRIC POWER COMPANIES
This chapter covers diversification strategies of Japanese electric power companies,
including major gas firms. First of all, an outline of Japans electric power industry and electric
retail deregulation will be given as a background of diversification. Second, the progress of
diversification in electric power companies will be discussed.
15
The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC), Electricity Review Japan 2005-2006, 6
November 2006 <http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/erj/all.pdf>.
16
17
Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, Report by the Subcommittee to Evaluate System Reforms,
22 May 2006, 23 November 2006
<http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/denkihp/bunkakai/seidokaikaku_hyoka/060907-syouihoukoku.pdf>.
10
According to the Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun, TEPCO lost market share corresponding to
2200 million watts and Kansai Electric Power Company (KEPCO) lost 580 million watts since
the liberalization of retail electricity sales in 2000. 18 Both firms have a strong sense of crisis
about this situation.
18
19
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Heisei 18 Nendo Denryoku Kyokyuu Keikaku No Gaiyo,
March 2006,18 January 2007 <www.meti.go.jp/press/20060330013/denryokukyoukyuukeikaku-set.pdf >.
11
In its management plan, TEPCO set a goal of pursuing development in four strategic
business areas (information and telecommunications, energy and environment, living
environment and lifestyle, and overseas) by applying selection and concentration and
undertaking strategic development focused on fields associated with energy. 20
Commonly observed features are that most of the companies are conducting
energy-related, IT and communications, and living environment-related businesses. Some
companies are also embarking on nursing, home security, personnel services, housing
evaluations and guarantees, and real estate, as can be seen in Figure 9.
The Progress of Diversified Businesses in Terms of Financial Data (2002 versus 2005)
Figures 10 and 11 show the progress of the revenues and operation profits from sales in
diversified businesses in terms of financial data between 2002 and 2005. As a general trend, both
sales from diversification and the number of consolidated subsidiaries increased sharply during
that period. According to company financial reports, TEPCO, for example, had 140 consolidated
subsidiaries in 2005 versus 58 in 2002.
Operation profits from sales of diversified businesses, however, have not improved
drastically compared to fiscal 2002, except for a few companies. It may be possible to construe
the following reasons for this:
The sales of most start-up businesses that have been established since 2000 are relatively
small in scale.
Some diversified firms prosper in business, though, because of their limited sales, they
make only a small contribution to overall business performance.
20
12
Some information and telecommunications businesses are now gradually improving their
corporate earnings.
On the other hand, the operating revenues and net incomes in the electric power business
of the 10 privately owned regional electric power companies between fiscal 1995 and 2005
exhibited wavelike fluctuations, as shown in Figures 12 and 13. This reflected not only the
stagnant economy and moderate temperatures, but also the influence of the reduction in
electricity rates. For reference, the operating revenue and net income of TEPCO are also shown.
Gas companies, such as Tokyo Gas and Osaka Gas, on the other hand, feature higher
profit/earning ratios in diversified businesses than other electric power companies. In addition,
the component ratios of diversification businesses in consolidated sales account for more than 30
percent in gas companies. Comparatively, they tend to focus on core-related businesses, such as
sales of electric appliances for gas instruments, etc. As noted, gas companies have diversified
into related business fields. Consequently, they attain almost the same profit/earning ratios as
their core businesses, as shown in Figure 14.
With the progress of deregulation in the electricity market, most electric utilities have
diversified into non-electric and unregulated businesses. The ratio of operating profits to sales in
diversified businesses in each electric power company, however, is relatively low.
It seems that Japanese electric utilities are seeking for ways to expand their businesses
into non-electric fields using their resources under deregulation and stagnation in demand for
electricity.
13
21
Yajima 22-67.
22
Business plans, annual reports, corporate brochures and other literature from Japanese electric power
companies are cited in this section.
14
Among the 10 Japanese electric utilities, TEPCO, KEPCO, Chubu Electric Power
Company, and Kyushu Electric Power Company have set concrete sales volume goals for
diversified businesses. TEPCO and KEPCO also set profit goals and are especially active in
diversification activities.
As noted previously in this chapter, the portions of diversified activities in consolidated
sales are relatively small. Based on segmental financial data, there has already been great
improvement in the degree of dependence on the parent firms, i.e., a lessening of the dependence
of the diversified activities on inter-company transactions. Sales volume goals in diversified
businesses are almost below 10 percent of the consolidated sales because of the huge size of the
core businesses. Diversified activities in Japanese electric power companies are in the process of
trial and error before they achieve a favorable outcome. To some degree or another, they have
been expanding their business fields for several years and have seemed to learn a number of
things. As the result of their explorations over the next few years, I think they will be able to a
find better ways to diversify their businesses depending on their corporate strategies.
15
CHAPTER 3
DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGIES OF U.S. ELECTRIC UTILITIES
This chapter covers diversified business activities among U.S. investor-owned electric
utilities. First of all, an outline of investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and electric retail deregulation
in the United States is briefly given as a background of diversification. Secondly, the progress of
diversification in various electric power companies is discussed.
23
DOE/EIA, Electric Power Annual 2000 Volume II, 2002, 29 November 2006,
<http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/electricity/0348002.pdf>.
16
There are more than 3,000 electric utilities (excluding power marketers) in the United
States. In terms of number, there are more than 200 investor-owned electric utilities, 2,000
publicly owned electric utilities, some 900 consumer-owned rural electric cooperatives, and 10
federal electric utilities.24 Even though IOUs represent less than 10 percent of the total U.S.
number, they generate almost 60 percent of the electricity produced by U.S. electric utilities. The
characteristics of U.S. electric utilities are shown in Figure 15.
24
26
DOE/EIA, The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry 2000: An Update, 22 January 2007
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/chg_stru_update/update2000.pdf >.
17
The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978, which was designed
primarily to encourage the use of renewable energy for electricity production, demonstrated that
generation of electricity is not a natural monopoly through the growth in non-utility power
producers and IPPs. PURPA established the groundwork for deregulation and competition by
opening wholesale power markets to non-utility power producers. This was due to the rise in
prices for electricity primarily caused by increases in fuel costs. 27
Liberalization in the electricity market began with the enactment of the Energy Policy Act
(EPAct) of 1992 as a turning point. EPAct meant that the electric power industry would evolve
from a regulated monopolistic sector to a less regulated, more competitive one. The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued Orders 888 and 889, requiring utilities to file
open access transmission tariff. In 1999, FERC also issued Order 2000 calling for the creation of
regional transmission organizations (RTOs), independent entities that control and operate
transmission grids free of any discriminatory practices. These orders substantially forced utilities
to restructure the electric industry. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)
assigned the responsibility for overseeing operations, energy efficiency, and conservation, as well
as for enforcing mandatory rules in the electric power industry to an electricity reliability
organization (ERO) under FERC. 28, 29
27
DOE/EIA,Wholesale Competition in the U.S. Electric Power Industry Fact Sheet 22 January 2007
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets/wholesale.html>.
28
18
Potomac Electric Power leased Boeing 747s to KLM and Singapore Airlines.
30
19
Pinnacle West invested in Merabank, Arizonas largest saving and loan association.
32
Tomas Jandik and Anil K. Makhija, "Can Diversification Create Value? Evidence from the Electric Utility
Industry" 17 December 2004. Charles A. Dice Center Working Paper No. 2005-7, 23 January 2007
<http://ssrn.com/abstract=679039>.
33
Edison Electric Institute, Diversified Business Activities of Investor-Owned Electric Utilities (Washington
D.C: EEI, 1996) 1.
20
Until about 1980, utility diversification mainly focused on the need for guarantees on the
supply of fuel for companies power plants. These activities relied mainly on vertical integration
and the sales of excess natural resources to other utilities. In the 1980s, as mentioned above,
utilities focused on acquisitions outside their core businesses. This means that they invested in
financial services, real estate development, insurance companies, telecommunications, and cable
TV. Then, in the early 1990s, there seems to have been a tendency to go back to basics. After the
passage of EPAct in 1992, competitive pressure increased, and diversification was more
core-related. A remarkable increase in the number of subsidiaries with core- and energy-related
businesses was observed at this stage.
EEI studies showed new subsidiaries/divisions engaged in diversified activities among 96
investor-owned electric utilities between 1992 and 1996. About 80 percent of the 175 new
subsidiaries/divisions were in core-related products and services. Since EPAct went into effect,
they have also been busy acquiring international businesses. Other activities have been directed
towards core-related areas including the sales and servicing of heating and cooling equipment,
domestic exempt wholesale generation (EWG) and cogeneration facilities, environmental and
engineering consulting, and electricity/gas brokering and marketing activities. Utility firms have
taken advantage of their expertise in their core businesses and will likewise keep seeking ways to
do so in non-regulated markets. As of 1996, they had accelerated global expansion and such
deals had been getting larger. There were no signs of abatement at that point. As the background
of global expansion, the slow growth rate and increasing competition in the domestic electricity
market made the electric utilities pursue foreign opportunities so that they could utilize their
experience and expertise in managing privately owned utilities. 34
34
EEI, Diversified.
21
35
EEI, Business Profiles and Activities of Shareholder-Owned Electric Utilities, (Washington DC: EEI,
2004).
36
22
Second, in the 1990s, most U.S. IOUs had positively accelerated global expansion in
South America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. With the slow growth rate of demand for electricity
and increasing competition, they invested in power plants and distribution companies to utilize
their experience and know-how in managing privately owned utilities. Since 2003, however, they
have begun to divest their overseas businesses or narrow down the target countries for
investment to improve their balance sheets and focus on their domestic core businesses.
Third, concerning business diversification, electric utilities are continuing to exit from
non-core businesses with great rapidity. As a result of examinations of business diversification
trends among shareholder-owned electric utilities, which generate about 60 percent of the
electricity produced by U.S. electric utilities, most of them had non-core businesses such as
telecommunications or real estate. Over the past several years, most such companies have
continued to divest their non-core assets and refocus on their core businesses.
Business diversification strategies in U.S. electric utilities can be summarized as follows:
Most of the electric utilities strongly recognize energy and energy-related businesses
as their core businesses and are trying to establish business platforms for growth and
to improve their balance sheets by selling non-core assets and reducing expenses.
Though most electric utilities expanded their overseas operations actively to pursue
opportunities for attractive growth in the face of the slow increase in demand for
electricity and greater competition in the 1990s, over the past several years they have
been continuing to exit or narrow down their overseas activities to focus on their
domestic core businesses.
23
In order to cut expenses, some electric utilities tried to reduce the cost of benefits and
the number of employees. At the same time, the firms wanted to pursue market power
and increase the scale and scope of business, so the number of M&As peaked around
2000 and has stabilized since then.
24
CHAPTER 4
LESSONS FROM PAST EXPERIENCES
This chapter summarizes diversification activities in U.S. IOUs and Japanese electric
utilities. To put it simply, there might be two main choices: diversification into non-core
businesses or back to basics. As discussed in the previous chapter, generally speaking, U.S.
IOUs have been opting for the latter alternative over the past decade or so.
This trend can be explained as follows.
There was diversification into non-electric businesses in the 1980s, while, in the
1990s, the targets began to shift to energy-related businesses with the increase of
competitive pressure as a result of EPAct in 1992.
In the 1990s, in particular, the utilities diversified into energy-related and overseas
businesses to utilize existing resources in view of the slow growth in domestic
demand for electricity.
Around 2000, M&As were active, and the number of utilities in the EEI index group
of electric utilities declined more than 30 percent, from 98 in 1995 to 65 in 2005.
Most M&As were undertaken to increase the scale and the scope of business.
Since 2002, across the board, most utilities have accelerated their exits from non-core
businesses and begun to eliminate energy-related overseas businesses and/or narrow
down target countries to improve their financial strength in the competitive market.
25
U.S. investor-owned electric utilities were fast-moving, early entrants into growth
markets. Many of them exited their less successful businesses, cutting losses early.
Joint ventures were common; projects were undertaken with experienced operators.
They made careful appraisals of their new subsidiaries true strengths, weaknesses,
and capabilities.
37
26
They meticulously matched those skills and capabilities with joint venture partners
and suppliers, venders, or other parties needed to excel in the new market.
They also undertook in-depth assessments of the purpose and role of diversification
vis--vis core businesses, considering the financial aspects, any human resource
issues, and synergies or future value imparted to core businesses for having entered
into the venture.
We should examine whether incorporating new diversified units would mean that the
corporation is better off. The new unit should bring some advantages to the corporation or the
corporation should offer significant advantages to the new unit. The corporation should examine
this issue properly before embarking on the new venture. It appears that some companies fail to
do this adequately, and this is one of the reasons that corporate strategies fail.
38
Porter.
27
CONCLUSION
Business diversification is an essential corporate strategy for firms that have few
prospects for growth. In particular, it seems natural to me that Japanese electric power companies
would try to explore diversification into non-electric businesses given the slow growth in
demand and the progress of deregulation. It should be remembered, however, that U.S.
investor-owned electric utilities in an advanced stage of diversification have a tendency to focus
on their energy-related businesses, and most of them have attempted to exit from non-core
businesses to strengthen their core business platforms and improve their balance sheets. Also,
over the past several years, they have accelerated their exit from overseas businesses or narrowed
down the target countries.
It is said that Japanese electric power companies have recently been absorbed in
diversification into non-electric businesses. These operations, however, are small in scale as
compared with their electric utility businesses, and about half of their operations are intra-group
transactions. More recently, I think these companies have been exploring better ways to expand
business fields into information technology and telecommunications, living environment,
overseas businesses, and energy-related fields, with a central focus on the electric utility
business.
At present, they classify their business fields into three to five segments, and this division
is relatively similar among most Japanese electric power companies. It does not seem to me that
there are definite prioritizations among segmentations. While some electric power companies
advocate the importance of finding common interests with local communities, they are seeking
business opportunities overseas to utilize their experience in management of utilities. This seems
to be paradoxical, but I think these movements mean transition in firms.
28
For the past several years under deregulation, most Japanese electric power
companies have been exploring better ways to diversify into non-electric businesses
with their management resources.
At present, they are in transition and need to identify synergizing businesses that they
can hold for more than five years to give them a chance to grow.
Based on the business diversification strategy, the gap in business performance might
widen and distinctive features might be observed among electric power companies.
I hope that, for the next several years, these companies could identify some business
fields as synergizing businesses and reexamine the effect of the incorporation of the
new diversified units into the parent firm. The diversified firms should bring some
advantages to the parent firm or the parent firm should offer some advantages to the
new firms.
Some implications from past lessons show that business diversification should create
values for the firms. Business diversification would surely offer valuable lessons for
utility managers, and experiences in new units/entities would provide a fresh impetus
for a firms growth.
29
From a long-term perspective, I think one of the strengths of Japanese electric utilities
would be intangible assets such as the corporate brand that is fostered with their
customers based on stable electric supply over a number of years, as well as
management skills of private utilities. Hereafter, under deregulation I believe
customer satisfaction will become a more important factor than ever.
Whatever the case may be, I think the performance of diversification in electric utilities
depends on the quality and quantity of management resources. The electric power sector is a key
industry and is confronting various different issues, such as the aging society and energy security.
At the same time, I believe that it is important to enhance a firms value through business
diversification, and these activities can, in the end, contribute to the quality of life.
30
Product
PRESENT
NEW
PRESENT
Market
Penetration
Product
Development
NEW
Market
Development
Diversification
Mission
Product
PRESENT
NEW
Mission
PRESENT
Expansion
NEW
Diversification
31
Core business
Closely related business
Increasingly unrelated
business
Upstream
Vertical
Dimension
Network
Business
Downstream
Retail
Business
Domestic
Horizontal
Dimension
Neighbor
Countries
Foreign
Countries
32
Benefits
Drawbacks
Speed
Cost of acquisition
Incremental
Slow
Encourages intrapreneurship
Lack of control
Speed
Internal Development
Internalizes learning
Alliances
33
800
700
(TWh)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Fiscal Year
34
2003
2004
2005
35
Classification
Electric Power
Company
Gas
Company
Housing
Personel
Real Estate Evaluation and
Service
Gurantee
Business
Business
Business
Electric
Power
Gas
EnergyRelated
Communication
Nursing
Care
Business
Home
Security
Business
CompanyName
Source: Corporate plans of Japanese electric power companies and major gas companies
36
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Comopany Name
2002 FY
2005 FY
37
500
Figure 11. The Progress of Operation Profits from Sales in Diversified Businesses
Between 2002 and 2005
UnitBillion Yen)
-
10
15
20
25
30
35
Comopany Name
2002 FY
2005 FY
38
40
Figure 12. Changes in Operating Revenue for 10 Japanese Electric Power Companies
18,000
TEPCO
10 Electric Power Companies Total
16,000
14,000
Billion Yen
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Fiscal Year
39
2003
2004
2005
Figure 13. Changes in Net Income for 10 Japanese Electric Power Companies
800
700
TEPCO
10 Electric Power Companies Total
600
Billion Yen
500
400
300
200
100
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Fiscal Year
40
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2005FY
CompanyName
Consolidated Consolidated
Operating
Operating
Revenue
Income
Diversified
Business
Operating
Revenue
Diversified
Business
Operating
Income
5,255
576
360
7%
0%
2,579
327
220
26
9%
8%
2,151
332
109
15
5%
5%
537
65
24
5%
8%
1,660
100
168
21
10%
21%
481
55
15
3%
5%
1,040
100
76
7%
8%
567
53
53
9%
2%
1,402
171
90
6%
4%
157
20
14
9%
8%
1,267
112
368
23
29%
20%
1,066
101
458
38
43%
38%
Source: Financial data of Japanese electric power companies and major gas companies
41
Major Characteristics
Earn a return for investors; either distribute their profits to stockholders as dividends or
reinvest the profits.
Are granted service monopolies in specified geographic areas.
Have obligation to serve and to provide reliable electric power.
Are regulated by State and Federal governments, which in turn approve rates that allow
a fair rate of return on investment.
Most are operating companies that provide basic services for generation, transmission,
and distribution.
Power not generated for profit and publicly owned utilities, cooperatives, and other
nonprofit entities are given preference in purchasing from them.
Owned by members, provide service mostly to members, incorporated under state law
and directed by an elected board of directors which, in turn, selects a manager.
The Rural Utilities Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture was established under
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 with the purpose of extending credit to co-ops to
provide electric service to small rural communities and farms where it was relatively
expensive to provide service.
Source: DOE/EIA The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry 2000: Updates
42
20
15
10
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Fiscal Year
43
Figure 17. Comparison of Major Electric Utilities in the United States and Japan
Country
Sales of Electricity
(TWh)
29
CompanyName
Consolidated Edison
USA
Japan
Total Assets
(Billion $)
25
Peco Energy
37
10
Duke Energy
103
55
289
113
147
55
131
48
(2005 or at the end of 2005)
44
Item
United States
Japan
200 (Shareholder-owned)
10
(Total 3000)
Small
Large
(compared to Japan)
2 percent
1 percent
----------
Scale of Operation
18 States activate
Deregulation
Other Events
45
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. Report by the Subcommittee to Evaluate System
Reforms, 22 May 2006, 23 November 2006
<http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/denkihp/bunkakai/seidokaikaku_hyoka/060907-syouihou
koku.pdf>.
Ansoff, H. Igor. Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and
Expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Chubu Electric Power Company. Annual Report 2006 10 February 2007
<http://www.chuden.co.jp/english/investor/ir/pdf/annual06.pdf>.
---. Heisei 18 Nendo Kessan Tanshin (Renketsu) 10 February 2007
<http://www.chuden.co.jp/corpo/ir/shiryo/pdf/h18tan.pdf.>.
---. Keikei Keikaku 10 February 2007 <http://www.chuden.co.jp/corpo/ir/plan/index.html.>.
Chugoku Electric Power Company. Annual Report 2006 10 February 2007
<http://www.energia.co.jp/e/report/ar_06.pdf>.
---. Heisei 18 Nendo 3 Gatsuki Kessan Tanshin (Renketsu) 10 February 2007
<http://www.energia.co.jp/ir/kessan/h18_3renketu_a.pdf>.
---. Keisei Hoshin Keiei Keikaku 10 February 2007
<http://www.energia.co.jp/ir/keiei/index.html>.
Collis, David J., and Montgomery, Cynthia A. Corporate Strategy: A Resource-Based Approach.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI). Business Profiles and Activities of Shareholder-Owned
Electric Utilities, Washington DC: EEI, 2004.
---. Diversified Business Activities of Investor-Owned Electric Utilities. Washington D.C: EEI,
1996.
---. 2005 Financial Review Plus 2006 Developments. 30 January 2007
<http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/finance_and_accounting/finance/research_and_analy
sis/financial_review/FinancialReview.pdf>.
The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC). Electricity Review Japan
2005-2006. 6 November 2006 <http://www.or.jp/english/erj/all.pdf>.
Hokkaido Electric Power Company. Heisei 17 Nendo Kessan Yoshi. 10 February 2007
<http://www.hepco.co.jp/corporate/ir/settlement/pdf/h17_kessan.pdf>.
46
---. Electric Power Annual 2000 Volume II, 2002. 29 November 2006
<http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/electricity/0348002.pdf>.
---. Electric Power Annual 2005, November 2006. 23 January 2007
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa.pdf>.
---. Electric Power Industry Overview. 22 January 2007
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/toc2.html>.
---. Electric Power Industry Restructuring Fact Sheet. 29 November 2006
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets/restructuring.html>.
---. Wholesale Competition in the U.S. Electric Power Industry Fact Sheet. 22 January 2007
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets/wholesale.html>.
Wikipedia. Electricity Market. 23 January 2007
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_market>.
Yajima, Masayuki et al. Denryoku Jiyuuka ni Kachinuku Keiei Senryaku: Denki Jigyo no
Kinmirai, Tokyo: Energy Forum, 2005.
Yoshihara, Hideki et al. Nihon Kigyo no Takakuka Senryaku Keiei Shigen Apurohchi.Tokyo:
Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha, 1979.
49