Hold your pockets! The government is preparing another reform
The government did not have time to make us happy with pension reform, as another “ingenious” idea came to our ministers' head - now it wants to introduce a social norm of electricity consumption. And if the government succeeds, then in 2019, we will pay more for electricity.
According to our reformers, the so-called “social norm of electricity consumption” will be introduced for the population. It will be 300 kWh per household and will be paid at the so-called base rate. That is about the same, which is now.
If the base tariff in the range from 300 kWh to 500 kWh is exceeded, the kWh will have to pay extra on the “increased” tariff. And those who go beyond that, expect an “economically sound” tariff.
How big are these numbers? To make it easier to navigate, let us say at once: the majority of households in Russia consume, within 200, kWh. However, the situation can vary greatly depending on the number of family members or the area in which she lives. For example, for a village such a norm looks very low - if a rural family has at least some kind of farm, a greenhouse or a greenhouse, it is almost impossible for it to stay within the social norms.
If a modern, more or less productive personal computer consumes about five hundred watts of electricity, in ten hours its consumption will be 5 kWh. This month is half the social norm proposed by the government. Yes, not all PC owners have it turned on ten hours a day. But if there are several children in the family, the head likes to play an online game after work, and the spouse often hangs in social networks, then on average there will be more.
The power of the washing machine can reach 4 kWh. Most, of course, are weaker, but it is possible to predict the consumption of more than one kWh for almost any modern automatic washing machine. And if you have a complete family with at least two children, washing will also have to be considered as one of the important elements of energy consumption.
It is better not to remember about the electric stove, and it consumes a lot and is loaded often and for a long time. Happy owners of gas stoves can exhale, but the rest will have to be on their guard and go on a raw foods diet and salad. Of course, you can offer everyone, without exception, to switch to gas, but the trouble is that in the gas superpower, which we are, not all regions are gasified.
And for the sake of completeness, let us recall the refrigerator that runs 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. According to some estimates, refrigerators account for up to 30% of household energy consumption, that is, with the 300 kWh standard, this will amount to just under a hundred kilowatts.
The result is quite expected: the innovation hardly touches the bachelors or those who have only one child. And that provided that the family lives in the city. To meet the norm can, probably, those whose housing is gasified. But large families, villagers and residents of many Siberian and Far Eastern regions, where gasification has not yet been heard (and they will not hear for decades, because we are driving gas to Europe and China, because it is more profitable), we will have to save a lot.
Of course, it can be assumed that low-income and large families will be able to compensate part of their expenses with the help of subsidies for the payment of utility bills. But if they can compensate for everything, the question arises: why make a garden? Just transfer subsidies from one pocket to another, creating extra administrative positions and additional payment channels? But isn't it better, as now, to directly subsidize generating companies without creating an additional army of officials sitting on the streams?
Or is it just that it will not work out to compensate for everything and families will have to pay some of the funds from their own pockets? Well, then, in this reform, even a petty, disgusting, but at least some logic is visible. As for the poor and those with many children, when did this embarrass our ministers? That's right - never. They are probably not confused by the new presidential “May decree”, where demography is one of the first points.
The terminology used by our reformers is also quite interesting. In particular, it is not very clear what the “economically sound” tariff means.
If we did not live in the economic looking glass, everything would be clear - this is the cost plus a small margin. However, in Russia economic justification may be completely different, as we have seen quite recently on the example of gasoline prices.
As you remember, our oil giants justified the rise in gasoline prices by the fact that it is more profitable to export oil (!) Than to supply it to Russian refineries. Therefore, they say, it is necessary to raise the price of fuel so that the margin from oil refining is comparable to the margin from the export of crude oil!
And the government heard the arguments of the “rapidly impoverished” oil industry workers: instead of simply raising the export duty on crude oil, it began to subsidize oil refining! As a result, Rosneft and LUKoil still received our money, but not directly, taking it from our pockets, but from the budget, even before they reached our pockets.
Probably, few of us will be surprised if it turns out that the “economically feasible” tariff is just such a cost for the consumer, for what kind of electricity they sell, for example, to China. And in principle, no “cost + margin” is out of the question - we, in general, have long forgotten what it is.
And this means that the “economically sound” tariff can turn out to be really very high, differing from the base one at times. And it will most likely hit the village - rural households and small farmers. What ultimately will have an impact on the price of products has been such a thing more than once, so we will not be surprised either.
The most striking thing about all this stories the fact that a similar experiment was conducted in Russia recently, in 2013-2014. Then, in several areas, the “social tariff” was already introduced, and this did not lead to anything good. In the Vladimir region, where the “social norm” was only 100 kWh, the experiment caused a great disturbance. And in Rostov, where it was at the level of 200 kWh, the reform simply turned out to be ineffective, since its administration required almost more expenses than it was possible to save in the end.
When you read these newsIt is difficult to get rid of the idea that someone purposefully “merges” GDP. Either retirement, or “in Russia, they will prohibit selling salt”, or the price of motor fuel, or another insane government initiative like this. Or is it the GDP itself that squeezes the last juices out of Medvedev and his “eagles”, forcing them to push through unpopular reforms before retirement?
But what is the point specifically in this reform? Making the population consume less electricity so that you can export more of it? Dubious benefits, given the importance of electricity for economic development. Or is it themselves the owners of generating capacity push for themselves more comfortable conditions?
The latter, by the way, is very likely. Some are lobbying, others, realizing that they will soon be finally dispersed, are happy to “listen” to lobbyists, hoping to earn themselves a couple of “golden parachutes” in the envelope.
And somewhere there, high up, Putin’s candidate of economics is sitting and thinking: what is this (further obscene) going on? Where are the ratings ?! Where is the growth of the economy ?! Where are the “May decrees” ?!
Yes, all the same, Vladimir Vladimirovich. In the empty heads and bottomless pockets of your ministers.
According to our reformers, the so-called “social norm of electricity consumption” will be introduced for the population. It will be 300 kWh per household and will be paid at the so-called base rate. That is about the same, which is now.
If the base tariff in the range from 300 kWh to 500 kWh is exceeded, the kWh will have to pay extra on the “increased” tariff. And those who go beyond that, expect an “economically sound” tariff.
How big are these numbers? To make it easier to navigate, let us say at once: the majority of households in Russia consume, within 200, kWh. However, the situation can vary greatly depending on the number of family members or the area in which she lives. For example, for a village such a norm looks very low - if a rural family has at least some kind of farm, a greenhouse or a greenhouse, it is almost impossible for it to stay within the social norms.
If a modern, more or less productive personal computer consumes about five hundred watts of electricity, in ten hours its consumption will be 5 kWh. This month is half the social norm proposed by the government. Yes, not all PC owners have it turned on ten hours a day. But if there are several children in the family, the head likes to play an online game after work, and the spouse often hangs in social networks, then on average there will be more.
The power of the washing machine can reach 4 kWh. Most, of course, are weaker, but it is possible to predict the consumption of more than one kWh for almost any modern automatic washing machine. And if you have a complete family with at least two children, washing will also have to be considered as one of the important elements of energy consumption.
It is better not to remember about the electric stove, and it consumes a lot and is loaded often and for a long time. Happy owners of gas stoves can exhale, but the rest will have to be on their guard and go on a raw foods diet and salad. Of course, you can offer everyone, without exception, to switch to gas, but the trouble is that in the gas superpower, which we are, not all regions are gasified.
And for the sake of completeness, let us recall the refrigerator that runs 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. According to some estimates, refrigerators account for up to 30% of household energy consumption, that is, with the 300 kWh standard, this will amount to just under a hundred kilowatts.
The result is quite expected: the innovation hardly touches the bachelors or those who have only one child. And that provided that the family lives in the city. To meet the norm can, probably, those whose housing is gasified. But large families, villagers and residents of many Siberian and Far Eastern regions, where gasification has not yet been heard (and they will not hear for decades, because we are driving gas to Europe and China, because it is more profitable), we will have to save a lot.
Of course, it can be assumed that low-income and large families will be able to compensate part of their expenses with the help of subsidies for the payment of utility bills. But if they can compensate for everything, the question arises: why make a garden? Just transfer subsidies from one pocket to another, creating extra administrative positions and additional payment channels? But isn't it better, as now, to directly subsidize generating companies without creating an additional army of officials sitting on the streams?
Or is it just that it will not work out to compensate for everything and families will have to pay some of the funds from their own pockets? Well, then, in this reform, even a petty, disgusting, but at least some logic is visible. As for the poor and those with many children, when did this embarrass our ministers? That's right - never. They are probably not confused by the new presidential “May decree”, where demography is one of the first points.
The terminology used by our reformers is also quite interesting. In particular, it is not very clear what the “economically sound” tariff means.
If we did not live in the economic looking glass, everything would be clear - this is the cost plus a small margin. However, in Russia economic justification may be completely different, as we have seen quite recently on the example of gasoline prices.
As you remember, our oil giants justified the rise in gasoline prices by the fact that it is more profitable to export oil (!) Than to supply it to Russian refineries. Therefore, they say, it is necessary to raise the price of fuel so that the margin from oil refining is comparable to the margin from the export of crude oil!
And the government heard the arguments of the “rapidly impoverished” oil industry workers: instead of simply raising the export duty on crude oil, it began to subsidize oil refining! As a result, Rosneft and LUKoil still received our money, but not directly, taking it from our pockets, but from the budget, even before they reached our pockets.
Probably, few of us will be surprised if it turns out that the “economically feasible” tariff is just such a cost for the consumer, for what kind of electricity they sell, for example, to China. And in principle, no “cost + margin” is out of the question - we, in general, have long forgotten what it is.
And this means that the “economically sound” tariff can turn out to be really very high, differing from the base one at times. And it will most likely hit the village - rural households and small farmers. What ultimately will have an impact on the price of products has been such a thing more than once, so we will not be surprised either.
The most striking thing about all this stories the fact that a similar experiment was conducted in Russia recently, in 2013-2014. Then, in several areas, the “social tariff” was already introduced, and this did not lead to anything good. In the Vladimir region, where the “social norm” was only 100 kWh, the experiment caused a great disturbance. And in Rostov, where it was at the level of 200 kWh, the reform simply turned out to be ineffective, since its administration required almost more expenses than it was possible to save in the end.
When you read these newsIt is difficult to get rid of the idea that someone purposefully “merges” GDP. Either retirement, or “in Russia, they will prohibit selling salt”, or the price of motor fuel, or another insane government initiative like this. Or is it the GDP itself that squeezes the last juices out of Medvedev and his “eagles”, forcing them to push through unpopular reforms before retirement?
But what is the point specifically in this reform? Making the population consume less electricity so that you can export more of it? Dubious benefits, given the importance of electricity for economic development. Or is it themselves the owners of generating capacity push for themselves more comfortable conditions?
The latter, by the way, is very likely. Some are lobbying, others, realizing that they will soon be finally dispersed, are happy to “listen” to lobbyists, hoping to earn themselves a couple of “golden parachutes” in the envelope.
And somewhere there, high up, Putin’s candidate of economics is sitting and thinking: what is this (further obscene) going on? Where are the ratings ?! Where is the growth of the economy ?! Where are the “May decrees” ?!
Yes, all the same, Vladimir Vladimirovich. In the empty heads and bottomless pockets of your ministers.
Information