| To paraphrase a famous Leninist phrase, the formula for Russian prosperity could be presented as “economic growth plus electrification.” To bring the Russian economy to the planned 5-5.5% growth, it will be necessary to significantly increase the production and extraction of all energy resources - oil, gas, coal... But the country will have the greatest need for electricity.
As follows from Russia’s energy strategy until 2020, recently approved by the government, its production needs to be almost doubled, reaching 1.62 trillion kWh in 20 years. The task is extremely difficult, especially considering the deplorable state this industry is in today: wear and tear fixed assets reaches 60%, and the situation is getting worse.
As is known, several months ago RAO UES of Russia proposed a plan for its restructuring, which, according to its authors, should lay the foundations for the investment attractiveness of the electric power sector. Quite a few copies have been broken about this. As a result, in my opinion, at least three positions have become completely clear.
First: restructuring is really necessary. At the same time, it is important to highlight the so-called natural monopoly component (transportation and dispatch), strengthening the role of the state in controlling it and, at the same time, transferring the potentially competitive sphere, which covers the generation of electricity and its sales, to market principles. How exactly to do this is another matter.
Second: although we habitually call the upcoming reform “restructuring of RAO”, “Chubais plan”, etc., in reality we are talking not about the fate of one, even a very large company, but about a complex set of issues in which interests are intertwined and the state, and regions, and thousands of business entities, and millions of our citizens. Consequently, the issue is beyond the competence of RAO UES alone.
In general, the problems of the electricity market in the country should not be resolved at shareholder meetings. Mere government approval of a plan put forward by a reputable company is not enough. The public must receive a holistic concept for reforming the Russian electric power industry on behalf of the government itself. In this case, of course, it is necessary to take into account all the best from the concept of RAO itself. As, indeed, everything reasonable that is currently being proposed by other parties.
Third position: it is fundamentally important that, even before the start of reforms in the energy sector, fundamental laws are adopted that lay down clear and fair rules of the game in the future electricity market. For now, everything revolves mainly around the ownership structure of future network, generating and sales companies. Needless to say, the issue of ownership is extremely important and very delicate. On the one hand, it is necessary to provide the state with the most reliable levers of influence on the electricity sector (I agree with German Gref - he must own at least 75% of the shares in a network company). On the other hand, it is necessary not to scare away, but, on the contrary, to attract investors and create a vibrant competitive environment that stimulates the development of the industry. Without fearing the widespread attraction of private, including foreign, capital.
It should not be forgotten that there are many examples of the absolute inefficiency of enterprises of any property - state, private, mixed - in cases where the appropriate mechanisms for their effective operation have not been created and there is no proper legal framework.
Is it possible to think through how it will be regulated before the actual launch of the electricity market? Is it possible to decide on a system for exchange trading in electricity, issues of dispatching and balancing of energy capacities, access to power grids for sellers and consumers, pricing, protection of the rights of private investors, etc.? Quite possible. Creating legislation that addresses these and other questions should be the first step in the reform plan.
We should take a close look at the experience of all foreign countries that have reformed their electric power industry in one way or another - Great Britain, Germany, Spain. And not only to positive moments, but also to negative ones. Let's say, the experience of Kazakhstan. Opponents of reforms, by the way, often refer to the problems that the people of Kazakhstan experienced, where at one time an investor who bought up power plants, in response to tariffs and non-payments that did not suit him, simply stopped energy production.
The best preventive measure against this, in my opinion, would be the law “On Energy Security,” which should spell out restrictions for participants in the electricity market, regardless of their form of ownership, and their responsibility for supplying consumers with electricity and heat. By the way, this responsibility should include responsibility for quality indicators. So that after the restructuring it does not turn out that some are responsible only for generation, others only for transportation or sales. And who is responsible for maintaining the required frequency of electric current in the all-Russian network is unknown.
If we start to launch the market mechanism without understanding the powers, the situation will become completely confused. If I’m not mistaken, since 1995 the government has been talking about the need to develop a law “On Federal Energy Systems.” Alas, he never entered the Duma. And in general, today there are quite a lot of ambiguities about what in the energy sector falls under federal jurisdiction, what falls under the jurisdiction of federal subjects, etc. This law is also necessary in order to remove unnecessary suspicions about the closeness and opacity of RAO UES. Let's be honest: such suspicions exist. They distract people from the essence of the matter, leading them away from energy problems proper to political problems. The adoption of the law “On Federal Energy Systems” would be a landmark event.
In my opinion, the law “On Municipal Energy” is also extremely necessary. Housing and communal services enterprises have huge debts to energy workers for fuel and energy resources. But many state-owned enterprises financed from the budget also owe them huge sums. However, the forces of public utilities and their influence on debtors cannot be compared with the forces of RAO UES. And it turns out that they often turn out to be extreme.
It seems that the state does not have the right to remove itself from the troubles of this troublesome industry, leaving it entirely to the local government. The same lessons from the crisis in Primorye are convincing: much here needs to be coordinated at the federal level. Perhaps it would be advisable to create a government committee on problems of housing and communal services, which would include both the heads of regional housing and communal services, mayors of the largest cities, and representatives of the largest energy companies. And in terms of restructuring our electric power industry, the interests of utility companies must certainly be taken into account.
The bills necessary for successful reform can be listed further. This should also include those that are not directly related to the electric power industry, but are extremely necessary for creating a competitive environment in the future energy market. For example, the law “On state support of small and medium-sized oil and gas enterprises.” It is clear: the greater the competition among energy suppliers, including by favoring small and medium-sized businesses, the easier it will be to keep their tariffs at an acceptable level. This, in turn, will avoid sharp jumps in electricity tariffs.
In general, in the near future we need to create an energy code that would, in its entirety, without contradictions and inconsistencies, regulate all the rules of the game in the energy sector.
The electric power industry is too sensitive an industry for Russia to allow market trading here. We need a market; the whole system lives and develops, strictly obeying the law. Vladimir KATRENKO, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Energy, Transport and Communications
|
