Abstract
This paper was developed to evaluate the effectiveness of energy efficiency policies recently launched in the Russian Federation. Pilot applications in 2011–2013 of the energy efficiency and energy savings accounting system in Russia and energy consumption growth decomposition analysis developed in this paper have shown that (1) its creation is possible even when using a noncomprehensive statistical database; (2) its application provides nontrivial results and shows that the impressive GDP energy intensity decline in the period 2000–2012 was mostly (to 64 %) driven by structural and other factors with limited contribution of technological ones failing to bridge the technological gap with advanced economies. Facing slowing economic growth in years to come, the federal policy to improve energy efficiency is to be focused on providing incentives for more dynamic penetration of energy-efficient technologies to improve the Russian economy, competitiveness, and energy security.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Cahill and Ó Gallachóir (2011) demonstrated how physical and economic output data when fully available may be jointly used in decomposition analysis to reflect the interplay of both energy efficiency indicators based on physical units and those based on value added.
\( \mathrm{EPI}=\frac{{\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^n{E}_i^T}}{{\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^n{A}_i^T\times {I}_i^0}}=\frac{1}{{\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^n{w}^T\times \frac{I_i^T}{I_i^o}}} \)
Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency calls this factor “service level,” but calling it “amenities,” “equipment,” “well-being,” or “comfort” factor might be more accurate.
As GDP is expressed in constant prices, the GDP energy intensity evolution was hardly affected by oil and gas price growth in those years.
Specific energy consumption for space heating is usually defined as the ratio of energy consumption per 1 m2 per degree-day of the heating season. Degree-days for the whole of the Russian Federation were assessed as the average for 20 Russian regions.
Voigt et al. (2014) conducted a decomposition analysis for Russia (among 40 countries) over the 1995–2007 time horizon. Total energy use was split to 34 economic activity sectors. Impacts of only two factors—structural changes and technological improvements (using as proxy energy intensity per unit of value added)—were assessed. The study concluded that Russia’s energy intensity decline over 1995–2007 was mostly driven by structural shifts, which is very much in line with this paper conclusion. The approach used accounts shifts towards lower energy-intensive products within every value added sectors as energy efficiency improvement, while the approach applied in this paper accounts them as structural shifts. Voigt et al. estimates of the technological factor contribution are higher comparing with our findings due to the following: (a) smaller number of sectors used in decomposition; (b) less factors considered, and (c) different approach to energy use split and energy efficiency indicators evaluation. Comparison of results illustrates that using product, works, and services energy use split along with more factors in the decomposition analysis allows for better reflection of technological progress impact on GDP energy intensity evolution.
Those statistical forms are developed by Rosstat (http://www.gks.ru), but very limited amount of information from those forms is published.
Very much like in the European Union
References
ADEME. (2009). Energy efficiency trends and policies in the household & tertiary sectors in the EU 27. Paris: ADEME Editions.
Ang, B. W., & Choi, K. H. (1997). Decomposition of aggregate energy and gas emission intensities for industry: a refined Divisia index method. The Energy Journal, 18(3), 59–73.
Ang, B. W., & Choi, K. H. (2010). Accounting frameworks for tracking energy efficiency trends. Energy Economics, 32(2010), 1209–1219.
Ang, B. W., & Choi, K. H. (2012). Attribution of changes in Divisia real energy intensity index—an extension of index decomposition analysis. Energy Economics, 34(2012), 171–176.
Ang, B. W., & Liu, F. L. (2001). A new decomposition method: perfect in decomposition and consistent in aggregation. Energy, 26, 537–548.
Ang, B. W., & Su, B. (2011). Structural decomposition analysis applied to energy and emissions: some methodological developments. Energy Economics, 34(2012), 177–188.
Bashmakov, I.A. (2004a). Housing and utility reform: are we doing wrong what we intended, or have we intended wrong what we are doing? Energosberezheniye, no. 5 and 6, 2004.
Bashmakov, I.A. (2004b). Thresholds of residents’ ability and willingness to pay their municipal utilities bills. Voprosy ekonomiki, no. 4, 2004.
Bashmakov, I.A. (2007). Three laws of energy transitions. Energy Policy, July 2007.
Bashmakov, I.A. (2013). Evaluation of target indicators of Russia Federal energy efficiency program. Energosberezheniye, no. 4, 2004, pp. 10–18.
Bashmakov, I. A., & Bashmakov, V. I. (2012). Comparison of Russia industrial energy efficiency measures with measures implemented in developed countries. Promyshlennaya Energetika, 11, 2–11. http://cenef.ru/file/comparison.pdf (in Russian).
Bataille, C., Nyboer, J. (2005). Improvements of the OEE/DPAD decomposition methodology. M.K. Jaccard and Associates for Natural Resource Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE). March 25, 2005.
Boyd, G. A., & Roop, J. M. (2004). A note on the Fisher ideal index decomposition for structural change in energy intensity. The Energy Journal, 25(1), 87–101.
Boyd, G. A., McDonald, J. F., Ross, M., & Manson, D. A. (1987). Separating the changing composition of US manufacturing production from energy efficiency improvements: a Divisia index approach. The Energy Journal, 8(2), 77–96.
Cahill, C., & Ó Gallachóir, B. P. (2010). Monitoring energy efficiency trends in European industry: which top-down method should be used? Energy Policy, 38(11), 6910–6918.
Cahill, C., & Ó Gallachóir, B. P. (2011). Combining physical and economic output data to analyse energy and CO2 emissions trends in industry. Energy Policy, 49, 422–429.
Cahill, C., Bazilian, M., & Gallachóir, B. P. Ó. (2010). Comparing ODEX with LMDI to measure energy efficiency trends. Energy Efficiency, 3, 317–329.
Champion, T., Lehtonen, M., Sorrell, S., Stapleton, L., Pujol, J. (2008). Energy use in UK road freight: a decomposition analysis. July 2008. Sussex Energy Group, SPRU, University of Sussex. Toby Champion Associates.
Divisia, F. (1925). L’indice monetary et la theorie de la monnaie. Revue d’Economie Politique, 1925(2), 109–135.
Enerdata. (2013). Global energy statistical yearbook (free online interactive application) http://yearbook.enerdata.net/.
Schipper, L., Unander, F., Marie-Lilliu, C. (2000). The IEA energy indicators effort: increasing the understanding of the energy/emissions link. IEA Public Information Office, 9 rue de la Federation, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, http://www.iea.org/envissu/cop6/eneinl.pdf. Accessed Apr 2012.
Vartia, Y. O. (1976). Ideal log-change index numbers. Scandinavian Statistics, 3, 121–126.
Voigt, S., et al. (2014). Energy intensity developments in 40 major economies: structural change or technology improvement? Energy Economics, 41, 47–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper is a short version of a report with the same title prepared with the support from the Prosperity Fund of the British Embassy in Moscow. The participation of the British Embassy should not be considered as either agreement or disagreement of the paper’s content.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bashmakov, I., Myshak, A. Russian energy efficiency accounting system. Energy Efficiency 7, 743–759 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-014-9252-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-014-9252-z