Now, in fact, the companies have had technical procedures: submission of documents to the NKREC, consideration and approval of tariffs under the new methodology. If all conditions are met (such as the absence of debt to the Wholesale Market), there are no formal obstacles to switching to RAB before them.
However, a week ago, the Cabinet issued a statement in which it supported the RAB-regulation, but criticized the methodology of tariff setting proposed by the NCRECU. And although the government has no right to influence the independent regulator, it has created political pressure on him, the consequences of which are still difficult to predict. What's wrong with this story?.
Ideology of RAB-regulation Let's start with the fact that RAB-regulation is already a standard practice of tariff formation for power distribution companies in Europe. Many of them switched to this method in the 90's, part - in the 2000s. Ukraine began to implement it in 2013. , but for various reasons this process lasted for 5 years.
The inefficiency of the current "cost +" methodology in our country is of no doubt to anyone. With it, the profit of oblenergos is calculated as a percentage of the costs incurred. It is clear that in such circumstances each company is interested in inflating costs and it does not make sense to work more efficiently.
Whereas with RAB-regulation the profit of oblenergo is a percentage of the money invested by the company in the modernization of electric networks. That is, more invested - more received. Thus, the company is interested in reducing power losses in networks, introducing new efficient technologies.
Claim # 1: rate of return And the first subject of discussion - how should this percentage be. Initially, NKREC proposed to establish it at the level of 19.11%, based on the weighted average cost of capital (eng. weighted average cost of capital, WACC). This is a European practice that guarantees the attractiveness of investments in oblenergos.
However, such proposal was criticized by the NKREC - they say that the rate is too high and will lead to an increase in tariffs for consumers. The regulator went on the occasion and lowered the rate to 12.5% ??- equating it to the NBU discount rate. However, the disputes around the rate still did not abate.
The Cabinet insists that the rate of return for existing and new assets should not be the same. The same opinion expert Andrey Gerus, who argues that for old assets, the rates need to be made minimal (1-3%), and for new ones - one can even raise.
The US will help us The question of the most appropriate RAB methodology became the subject of research conducted by the authoritative American consulting company IHS Energy. In 2016 year. it was presented in Ukraine by the former ambassador of the USA, and now - the senior vice-president of IHS Energy Carlos Pascual. In general, he supported the methodology of the NKREC.
The study states that "the EU has no tendency to distinguish between existing and new assets and reflects the fact that such a difference does not affect both commercial risks and the benefits of services associated with the exploitation of the asset. Thus, the same rate of return applies to both new and existing assets in the EU regulatory system ".
The only exception, according to IHS research, is municipal enterprises in Germany that work at a differentiated rate. The report also mentions the experience of Russia, which first took the path of two different rates for new and old assets. But after a few years, however, its traditional "special path" had to be replaced with the accepted European practice of a single rate RAB-tariff.
One-sided compromise There is also a Polish expert Krzysztof Rogulsky who says that there are only single rates of return in Europe.
"And in the old, and in the new base, you must invest the same money. For example, you need to change the transformer at one of the substations. Will it cost less than if you bought it for a new substation? No, the same money, "- said the expert.
If we continue with the example of a transformer, another nuance arises. For example, if it is old, then at different rates it will be considered an "old" base. And improvements made with it - "new". But both in the accounting department oblenergos will be listed under one inventory number. And this - the opacity and the path to abuse.
A relatively low, but single rate market participants consider the "golden mean", while more simple to administer.
"The proposed option can be considered a compromise - between the interests of owners of assets and end-users," - says Natalia Kostyshen, adviser to the head of the board of Lvivoblenergo.
Claim # 2: tariff growth But not the rates themselves are an end in themselves of the Cabinet, and their consequence is a possible increase in tariffs. The government believes that RAB-regulation will lead to "an increase in tariffs for industry, which will directly affect consumers because of rising prices for goods and services".
That the tariff for the industry will grow - neither market participants, nor the NCRECU, nor experts argue. But they say that the alternative is even worse. If the current "cost +" system is maintained in the long term, the growth of tariffs will be even greater. Because the electrical networks continue to wear out, and consumers will pay more for the loss of "light".
With RAB-regulation, on the contrary, companies will be able to significantly upgrade their networks within 3-4 years, and therefore the cost of electricity should decrease. And behind it - and tariffs for consumers.
"RAB-regulation makes it possible for the company to make its own economy for five years, to optimize the operation of the power grid and at the same time to ensure the reliability of electricity supply, that is, services, comfort for the consumer," says ex-Energy Minister Alexander Svetelyk.
The UK as an example of IHS in its study cites the example of Great Britain - one of the pioneers of RAB regulation. There, the share of the electricity distribution tariff in the overall electricity price structure has more than halved since the mid-1990s. At the same time, investments in energy have doubled, and service reliability has also improved.
"After the introduction of RAB-regulation, the costs of the entire system began to decrease. They were quite low throughout the 21 years after the implementation of the reform. And investments grew. The ability of the system to function without loss also increased. And this is what any country in the world wants to receive, "stressed Carlos Pascual.
Krzysztof Rogulsky predicts that in parallel with the reduction in prices, a decrease in the number of power outages can be expected. In Ukraine, interruptions occur 4-5 times more often than in the EU. While, for example, in Italy for 10 years, RAB allowed to reduce the number of outages from 163 minutes to 50 minutes (per year per person).
Elections all the fault?.
Why does the Cabinet not pay attention to the successful cases of other countries, but focuses on short-term risks? According to Vladimir Evdokimov, the head of the Project Office for the Introduction of a New Electricity Market, NKRECU did not fully fully inform the government about the economic consequences of its decision.
"The government does not see the consequences. Well, the government does not know what the consequences will be in this or that field. Because if, for example, 6 or 11 companies move, what will happen? In these areas, the tariff for the industry will simply increase. Then there can be problems, distortions. And the government wants to understand and see the big picture, "Evdokimov said..
The second option may be a policy. Energy expert Yuri Korolchuk believes that the issue of RAB-regulation is excessively politicized. And the government simply fears responsibility for any consequences in the short term, so its statement simply decided to protect itself.
Foreign countries require action Meanwhile, the international community, as always, requires the authorities to take decisive, reformatory actions. So, back in 2016. international donors (Energy Community, EU Delegation to Ukraine, World Bank, EBRD) in a joint letter to the Prime Minister called on him to implement RAB.
Karel Hirman, Slovak expert on energy of the group of strategic advisers to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, also speaks about world practice and calls for a balanced approach.
"This is not a lottery, it's not a stock exchange, it's not a matter of opinion - it's a question of exact calculations and costing. This should be the subject of discussions among specialists, "he said..
At the same time, the process of introducing RAB-regulation has already "overridden", according to expert Andrei Perevertaev. Now the country is already at the home stretch in this matter. What will be the outcome?.
Source: comments. ua.