Report - UNDP Russia

Report - UNDP Russia Report - UNDP Russia

12.07.2015 Views

affordability of rising prices for housingutilities will continue to be ensured throughthe system of social support.Attraction of investments remains thekey problem of the housing utility sector.Federal Law No.210, ‘On basic principles fortariff regulation in housing and communalservices’, passed in 2004, took transparencyand predictability as its guiding principles. Butamendments to the Law in 2005 allowedfederal regulation of housing utility tariffgrowth through limiting indexes in order tocurb inflation, making housing utilities moredependent on the budget and swelling debtsof housing utility providers. Positive changesin the sector slowed down in 2006 and the rateof breakdowns in the sector rose 12 (based ongovernment statistics and calculations byS.Sivayev, the Institute for Urban Economics).Maintenance of the limiting indexes is thebiggest obstacle to long-term direct andtransparent tariff regulation and the start offull-scale investment programmes.To conclude this review of householdspending on housing utilities, the fact thatRussians spend a relatively small share of theirincomes on these services should entail scopefor price growth. However, the real situation isthat the existing system of housing utilitypayments already stretches personal incomecapacities.3.4. Household consumptionof electricityWhat are the trends and what impact isthe crisis likely to have on use of electricity in thehousehold sector? Economic growth sawincrease of overall power consumption in Russiaby 16% from 2000 to 2007, while household userose by only 9% in the same period (Figure 3.8).The share of power consumed by the householdsector fell as a result from 12.3% in 2000–2001 to11.5-11.6% in 2004–2007, so that growth of itspower use in absolute terms looks insignificant.Growth of personal incomes andchanges in the structure of consumerexpenditures have boosted the construction,retail, public catering and other servicesegments in Russia. Places where economicgrowth is concentrated now have a newlifestyle model, involving power-intensiverecreation outside the home, so that differencesFigure 3.8Annual power consumption by households, million KWh1200000100000080000060000040000020000002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Consolidated power consumptionHousehold power consumptionSource: Calculated using National Energy Statistics12Economy of the Transition period. Essays on economic policy of post-communist Russia. Economic growth 2000-2007 – M, Delopublishing house. Academy of National Economy, 2008.66 National Human Development Report in the Russian Federation 2009

in power use between regions now depend oneconomic development and householdincomes as well as climate conditions. While thenational average share of power use byhouseholds in 2000–2007 was 11.9%, figures forMoscow, St.Petersburg and Krasnodar Territory(where Black Sea resorts are concentrated) weremuch higher at 23.5%, 19.9% and 22.2%,respectively. The household share in Rostovregion, which also has a Black Sea 13 coastline,was also high at 18.7%. These regions should beviewed as trendsetters, with service economiesand high population density. By contrast, thelowest household shares in power use are inmain raw-material regions of Siberia, where theeconomy is industry-focused: KrasnoyarskTerritory, 5.8%; Kemerovo Region, 7.3%; IrkutskRegion, 7.5%. The household power share isalso low (8%) in Russia’s main oil producingarea, Tyumen Region with its autonomousdistricts. Large and relatively well-developedregions with diversified economies andregional capitals with over one millioninhabitants are in a middle position, eitherequal to or slightly below the national average:Samara Region, 12%; Sverdlovsk Region, 10%;Chelyabinsk region, 9.8%; Republic of Tatarstan,9.7%. Two regions in the European part ofRussia, with cities of more than one millionpeople and a mixture of initial processing 14 andimport-substitution industries – NizhnyNovgorod and Volgograd – are on oppositesides of the national average with indicators of13.1% and 9.3%, but are closer to the ‘middleclass’regions. Moscow Region (13.8%) andLeningrad Region (9.8%) are in roughly thesame situation.Strong growth of power consumptionby the housing sector makes installation ofnew generating capacity an urgent task insome regions. The share of powerconsumption by households in MoscowRegion has risen from 12.2% to 17.0% (Figure3.9), closely approaching the four regions,which have shown highest shares ofhouseholds in total power (the cities ofMoscow and St.Petersburg, Krasnodar Territoryand Rostov Region). Peak loads related tohousehold consumption are becoming aserious problem for these regions.The trends, which emerged during theperiod of economic growth, will remaindominant. The 10% increase of householdpower tariffs planned for 2010 will raise theshare of household spending on housingutilities in a context of declining real incomes,but the impact for low-income groups will bemitigated by social support. Better-offFigure 3.9Share of households in total power consumption in Moscow and Moscow Region25.023.6 23.0 23.9 23.9 23.8 22.823.4 23.920.015.014.012.5 12.2 12.3 12.514.9 15.117.010.012.3 12.3 12.1 11.8 11.5 11.6 11.5 11.65.00.02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Russian Federation Moscow Region MoscowSource: Calculated using National Energy Statistics13Classification of Russia’s regions is in accordance with the Special Atlas of Russia’s Regions, N.Zubarevich,http://atlas.socpol.ru/typology/index.shtml.14Industries producing semi-products: metallurgy, chemistry, forestry and paper-milling.67

affordability of rising prices for housingutilities will continue to be ensured throughthe system of social support.Attraction of investments remains thekey problem of the housing utility sector.Federal Law No.210, ‘On basic principles fortariff regulation in housing and communalservices’, passed in 2004, took transparencyand predictability as its guiding principles. Butamendments to the Law in 2005 allowedfederal regulation of housing utility tariffgrowth through limiting indexes in order tocurb inflation, making housing utilities moredependent on the budget and swelling debtsof housing utility providers. Positive changesin the sector slowed down in 2006 and the rateof breakdowns in the sector rose 12 (based ongovernment statistics and calculations byS.Sivayev, the Institute for Urban Economics).Maintenance of the limiting indexes is thebiggest obstacle to long-term direct andtransparent tariff regulation and the start offull-scale investment programmes.To conclude this review of householdspending on housing utilities, the fact that<strong>Russia</strong>ns spend a relatively small share of theirincomes on these services should entail scopefor price growth. However, the real situation isthat the existing system of housing utilitypayments already stretches personal incomecapacities.3.4. Household consumptionof electricityWhat are the trends and what impact isthe crisis likely to have on use of electricity in thehousehold sector? Economic growth sawincrease of overall power consumption in <strong>Russia</strong>by 16% from 2000 to 2007, while household userose by only 9% in the same period (Figure 3.8).The share of power consumed by the householdsector fell as a result from 12.3% in 2000–2001 to11.5-11.6% in 2004–2007, so that growth of itspower use in absolute terms looks insignificant.Growth of personal incomes andchanges in the structure of consumerexpenditures have boosted the construction,retail, public catering and other servicesegments in <strong>Russia</strong>. Places where economicgrowth is concentrated now have a newlifestyle model, involving power-intensiverecreation outside the home, so that differencesFigure 3.8Annual power consumption by households, million KWh1200000100000080000060000040000020000002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Consolidated power consumptionHousehold power consumptionSource: Calculated using National Energy Statistics12Economy of the Transition period. Essays on economic policy of post-communist <strong>Russia</strong>. Economic growth 2000-2007 – M, Delopublishing house. Academy of National Economy, 2008.66 National Human Development <strong>Report</strong> in the <strong>Russia</strong>n Federation 2009

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!