Sustainability Monitoring Russia
Sustainability Monitoring Russia
Sustainability Monitoring Russia
Sustainability Monitoring Russia Sustainability Monitoring Russia

The energy transition

The energy transition

Russia’s position in green energy underscores the country’s rich potential, although the scale of actual projects under way is still rather modest. The share of wind and solar power of Russia’s energy mix does not exceed 1%. At the same time, according to Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak at the International Financial Congress, Russia plans to increase the share of renewables in the energy balance by 10 times by 2040. Although calculations show that if the most ambitious plans are implemented, the share of renewables, without large hydro power plants, in Russia will reach only 2-2.5% by 2035. With the risk of foreign investors leaving the Russian energy sector (Enel Russia, Fortum, Unipro), the growth of renewables in the energy mix will slow down even more.

According to Rosstat, electricity generation reached 1,157 billion kWh in 2021. Thermal power plants were and still are the main supplier of electricity to the unified energy system of the country. Last year, the share of TPP generation was 62%. In 2016 it was 65%, and in 2011 it was 68%. HPPs produced 216 billion kWh of electricity in 2021. This is 19% of the country’s total electricity production. In 2016, the share of HPPs was 17%, and in 2011 it was 16%. The share of nuclear power generation increased from 16% in 2011 and 18% in 2016 to 19% in 2021. At the same time, in 2020, NPPs and HPPs – low-carbon energy sources – will each generate 20% of electricity. The Ministry of Energy noted during Russian Energy Week in 2021 that the share of nuclear power stations should increase to 24-25% by 2050, while the share of gas generation will remain at about the current level of just over 40%. At the same time, the share of coal-fired generation will gradually decline, reaching 4.5% of generation by 2050, with 22.2 GW of coal-fired TPP equipment to be decommissioned. Solar and wind power generation will increase from around 4.5% by 2035 and further to 12-12.5% by 2050-2060. As a result, the share of carbon-free and low-carbon generation, which is 41% today, will be around 47% by 2035 and 56.5% by 2050. Of this, 19% will come from hydroelectricity, 25% from nuclear power and 12.5% from renewables. Evgeny Gasho, expert consultant at the Analytical Centre under the Government of the Russian Federation, said the following: “Few countries can boast the energy mix that Russia has now. The share of low-carbon hydro and nuclear power in total electricity generation is over 40 per cent and a further 20 per cent in combined cycle power generation in thermal power plants. Russia’s specific carbon intensity is the lowest in the world, Denmark is slightly behind us, but the carbon intensity of other developed countries and global averages are not even comparable to ours.”

Energy sector readiness for the energy transition is determined not only by green or low-carbon kilowatts and the level of localisation of green technologies, but also by the level of energy efficiency of traditional energy subsectors, their technological sophistication and adaptability. Most enterprises in the sector have a technologically low share of electricity and heat consumption from external sources, as well as a low share of motor fuel consumption. This is a sector specific feature of energy utilities in the energy transition readiness ranking. On the other hand, in terms of energy efficiency dynamics, automation and adaptability, the enterprises are well placed in the ranking. Recall that these include holdings from outside the main ranking (hyperlink), subholdings and enterprises, which can be categorised in the table using a filter.

The energy transition

TPP
CHPP
HPP
NPP
Power Grids
Heating networks
Teploenergoservis
.

Position

Position

.

Name

1

Efficiency over 15 years

2

Importance of external infrastructure

3

Share of motor fuel

4

Energy revenue

5

Automation (benchmark)

6

Dynamics of Automation

7

Adaptability

Saratovskaia TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
High

Novomoskovskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Shaturskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
High

Samara TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Neryungri TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Sredneuralskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
High

Berezovskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
High

Gusinoozerskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Cherepetskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
High

Yakutsk State District Power Plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
High

South Kuzbass TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
High

Zainsk State District Power Plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
High

Nevinnomysskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Konakovskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Low

Urengoy TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Pskovskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
High

Sakhalin TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

TPP-3 by Klasson

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Yakutia TPP-2

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Serovskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
High

Smolensk TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Nizhnevartovsk TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Low

Yaivinskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Kashirskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Troitskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Kharanorskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
High

Surgutskaya TPP-1

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Kirishskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Belovskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
High

Yuzhnouralskaya TPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Yoshkar-Ola thermal power plant No. 1

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

CHPP-3 Ivanovo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
High

Magadan CHPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
High

Penza CHPP-1

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

CHPP-2 Ivanovo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Bereznikovskaya CHPP-2

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
High

Sormovskaya CHPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Ulyanovsk CHPP – 2

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
High

Marikommunenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Chukotenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
High

Vladimirsky

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Low

Kirovskaya CHPP-5

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Syzran CHPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Yakutsk combined heat and power plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Mordovian

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Norilskenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Boiler Arbekovo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
High

Ivanovsky

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

CHPP Volga Automobile Plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Novokuibyshevskaya CHPP-1

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Perm CHPP-6

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Balakovskaya CHPP-4

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Saratov CHPP-5

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Orenburg

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Izhevsk CHPP-1

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Mordovian

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Murmansk CHPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Generation of Buryatia

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Ulyanovsk CHPP-1

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Efremovskaya CHPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
High

Zagorskaya HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Votkinskaya HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Svetlinskaya HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
High

Sayano-Shushenskaya HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Low

Kamskaya HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Zeyskaya HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Volzhskaya HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Nizhny Novgorod HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Vilyuisky Cascade HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Cascade of the Kuban HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Cheboksary HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Low

Sunsky Cascade HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
High

Kolyma HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
High

Nizhnekamsk HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Narva HPP (HPP-13)

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Ladoga Cascade HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Volkhovskaya HPP №6 (HPP-6)

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Ust-Srednekanskaya HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Dagestan

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Vuoksa HPP Cascade (Cascade-1)

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Saratov HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Kemsky Cascade HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Volga Cascade HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Low

Tuloma Cascade HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
High

Bureyskaya HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Vygsky Cascade HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
High

Nivsky Cascade HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
High

Zhigulevskaya HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Paz Cascade HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
High

Novosibirsk HPP

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Bilibino Nuclear Power Plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Balakovo nuclear power plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Beloyarsk nuclear power plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
High

Kursk nuclear power plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Leningrad nuclear power plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Kalinin nuclear power plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Smolensk nuclear power plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Rostov nuclear power plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Novovoronezh nuclear power plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Kola nuclear power plant

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Gorelektroset

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
High

Municipal unitary enterprise of the city of Cherepovets “Electroset”

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Pyatigorsk electrical networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
High

Tyvaenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

SUE Stavropolkommunelectro

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

South Yakutsk Electric Networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Karelenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Electrical networks of the Jewish Autonomous Region

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Novgorodobleelectro

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Rosseti North Caucasus

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Oblkommunenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Tomsk Distribution Company

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Orenburgkommunelektroset

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Khabarovsk electrical networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Bashkir network company

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Buryatenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Amur Electric Networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Altaienergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Tula City Electric Networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Primorsky electric networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Khabarovsk city power grid

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Novgorod

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Smolenskenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Bryanskenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Bashkir distribution electrical networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Krymenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Circassian city electrical networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
High

Energy Technology

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Ivenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
High

State Unitary Enterprise of the Moscow Region Power Grid

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Extremely high

Municipal Unitary Enterprise of the City of Khabarovsk Heating networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Petrozavodsk utility systems

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Vilyui branch Teploenergoservis

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

TomskRTS

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Housing and communal services of the Chekhov region

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely high
Adaptability
Value
Low

Aldan branch Teploenergoservis

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Teploenergoservis

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Heating network

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

MUP of the Moscow Region Energetik

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Ural Heat Network Company

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Usinsk thermal company

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Municipal unitary enterprise of Domodedovo city district Teploset

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Ulyanovsk Municipal Unitary Enterprise City Heating Network

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Bashkir distribution heating networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Yugansktransteploservis

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Pskov heating networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Krasnoyarsk Heat and Power Company

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Regiongaz-invest

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Sevteploenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Low

Almetyevsk heating networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Orenburg heating networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

MUMP public utilities

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Energoneft Tomsk

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Ivgorteploenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Moderate
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Chita Energy Complex

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Smolenskteploset

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Astrakhan heating networks

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Engineering networks of the city of Dolgoprudny

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Surgut municipal unitary enterprise

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Smolenskteploset

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Tambov power supply company

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
High

Chuvash Energy Retail Company

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Moderate

Krasnoyarskenergosbyt

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
High
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Low

Saratovenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely high
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Mosenergosbyt

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Low
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Dagestan Energy Retail Company

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely high
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely low
Share of motor fuel
Value
Extremely high
Energy revenue
Value
Moderate
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Extremely low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Extremely low
Adaptability
Value
High

KMA-Energosbyt

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
High
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Extremely high
Share of motor fuel
Value
Low
Energy revenue
Value
Extremely high
Automation (benchmark)
Value
High
Dynamics of Automation
Value
Moderate
Adaptability
Value
Extremely low

Kuzbass Energy Sales Company

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
Moderate
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
High
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Moderate
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
Low

Energosbyt Sakhalinenergo

Efficiency over 15 years
Value
Extremely low
Importance of external infrastructure
Value
High
Share of motor fuel
Value
Moderate
Energy revenue
Value
Low
Automation (benchmark)
Value
Low
Dynamics of Automation
Value
High
Adaptability
Value
High

TPP

Saratov TPP looks the most ready for the energy transition. For example, a new block-type gas distribution station was commissioned in 2020. The project has improved the energy efficiency of the power plant. The energy facility is fitted with modern equipment and the latest remote control, monitoring and protection systems, which significantly increases the reliability and safety of the existing gas distribution system. The facility is also provided with an upgraded fire safety system and systems for controlling the safe operation of gas equipment. In addition to Saratov TPP, the top three in the category were Novomoskovskaya TPP and Shaturskaya TPP-5. Both plants operated more efficiently than their sub-sector counterparts, using less energy to produce the same amount of electricity. By the end of 2019, Novomoskovskaya TPP even became the leader in terms of electricity generation among all of Quadra’s production units.

CHPP

MUP Yoshkar-Ola CHPP-1 looks the most ready for the energy transition. In 2020, the company completed a large-scale reconstruction of the Gorodskaya substation; its capacity increased from 55 to 80 MVA. Now it is the most modern digital substation in the republic with a capacity reserve and the prospect of increased productive supply of electricity for further development of the regional capital. In addition, Yoshkar-Ola CHPP-1 is an active participant in national projects. In 2020, it overhauled the sections of heating networks that fell under the roadway under the “Safe and Quality Roads” national project, which reduced the number of accidents and losses. CHPP-3 of Ivanovo branch of PJSC T Plus and Magadanenergo branch of Magadanskaya CHPP were also in the top three in the CHPP category. In 2020, power engineers even identified a defect in the generating equipment of Ivanovo CHPP-3, and part of the heat load had to be switched to Ivanovo CHPP-2. But the last year for Ivanovo CHPP was rich in renovations and repairs: from installing a new trunk pipeline to dismantling the cooling tower, which was necessary to optimize the capacity of Ivanovo branch of T Plus. By the end of last year, an extended overhaul with super-typical works was completed at the boiler of TPP-3, which reduced the probability of abnormal situations during the heating season. From fourth to eighth place of the T Plus branches: Penzenskaya CHPP-1, CHPP-2 of Ivanovo branch, Bereznikovskaya CHPP-2 of Perm branch, Sormovskaya CHPP of Nizhny Novgorod branch and Ulyanovskaya CHPP-2 of Ulyanovsk branch. The last one is worth mentioning separately, because since 2020 Ulyanovsk has moved to the price zone for heat supply using the “alternative boiler house” method. In the price zone, 16 municipal UHSOs (unified heat supply organization) will be responsible for reliable and high-quality supply of the resource to consumers. This is done to continue the recovery of the city’s heat supply systems in large volumes. By 2029, 26 km of heat distribution networks of Teplocom and about 88 km of networks of Municipal Heating Service Company are to be renewed. Also, in the next few years, power engineers expect to switch to a closed DHW scheme and reconstruct 15 boiler plants of UMUP Municipal Heating Network.

HPP

Hydropower plants are a recognised source of low-carbon energy. Although hydropower plants do not directly produce emissions, they do have a tangible environmental effect on the rivers and the areas in which they are located. Mainly through the destruction of the natural hydrological regime, reproduction conditions and migration of aquatic organisms. At the same time, the plants themselves are ready for the energy transition to varying degrees. In the sub-sector, RusHydro’s plants are the leaders: the Zagorskaya HPP located on the Kunya River in the Moscow Region, the Votkinskaya HPP in the Perm Territory and the Karachaevo-Cherkessky branch of RusHydro. This is logical, given that the company owns almost all of Russia’s hydro facilities. Zagorskaya HPP differs from other hydroelectric power plants in technology of power generation, so it is not quite correct to compare it with other HPPs. It was built as a partial solution to the problem of a shortage of manoeuvring regulating capacity in the centre of European Russia. The pumped storage power plant is understandably characterised by an extremely high share of external power consumption, but it also has one of the weakest automation dynamics, which could be due to the peculiarities of its operation. Zagorskaya HPP is used to equalise the daily non-uniformity of the load schedule. At night, when demand is low, the pumped storage power plant pumps water into the upstream section of the reservoir, procuring cheap electricity. In the morning and evening, when electricity consumption peaks, the power plant discharges water from the upstream pool to the downstream pool, generates electricity and sells it at a higher price. The Votkinsk HPP, while relatively well rated, has relatively high margins due to the high water content of the Kama, but at the same time the energy efficiency of the HPP is declining.

NPP

NPPs are characterised by high margins relative to other energy enterprises, which is not surprising, since NPPs produce the cheapest energy, if the cost of capital construction of the plants is not taken into account. Bilibino NPP, Balakovo NPP and Beloyarsk NPP (part of Concern Rosenergoatom) are among the top three NPPs in terms of readiness for the energy transition. Unlike their sub-industry counterparts, these NPPs operated with greater efficiency, using less of their own energy to produce holiday energy. At the same time, each has its own weak link. For example, the energy efficiency of Bilibino NPP has been declining in recent years, Balakovo NPP is characterized by low rates of production automation and low adaptability to green technologies, and Beloyarsk NPP shows both lower energy efficiency and low adaptability. At Kursk NPP (fourth place), 27 measures to improve the safety and efficiency of electricity generation have been successfully completed. By the end of 2021, the plant had generated more than 25 billion kWh of electricity against a target of 22.8 billion kWh. This is 1.4 billion kWh more than the target level set by Rosenergoatom. And Leningradskaya NPP (fifth place) has been steadily increasing its share in the regional power system in recent years, increasing from 53.88% in 2017 to today’s 60-62%, helped both by record-breaking installed capacity utilisation rates (ICUF) at RBMK units and by the commissioning of VVER-1200 power units.

Power Grids

Grid companies, unlike all generators in the energy segment, have a high rate of energy use from external sources. This is their industry specificity. The companies in the top ten differ from the rest of the grid companies by their higher margins and flexibility. The leaders of the list are Gorelectroset JSC, Altaikrayenergo JSC and Cherepovets MUP Electroset JSC. But, unlike Gorelectroset and Altaikraienergo, Cherepovets MUE is significantly behind in the level of automation. In addition, in recent years, the rate of automation of the enterprise has not increased. In fact, this problem is observed in the following companies ranked 4-10: Pyatigorsk Power Grids, Tyvaenergo, VarieganEnergoNeft, GUP SK Stavropolkommunelektro, YuYAES branch of DRSK, Volgogradoblektro PJSC and Karelenergo of IDGC of North-West PJSC.

Heating networks

Khabarovsk Municipal Unitary Enterprise “Heating networks” is the leader in the ranking of the heating networks sub-sector. PKS-Teplovye Seti and the Vilyui branch of Teploenergoservis are ranked second and third. They share high margins, but their energy efficiency is declining, the level of automation has not been upgraded for a long time, and their adaptability potential is weak.

Teploenergoservis

Khabarovsk Municipal Unitary Enterprise “Heating networks” is the leader in the ranking of the heating networks sub-sector. PKS-Teplovye Seti and the Vilyui branch of Teploenergoservis are ranked second and third. They share high margins, but their energy efficiency is declining, the level of automation has not been upgraded for a long time, and their adaptability potential is weak.

Features of energy in the energy transition

The energy transition in Russia has a number of specific attributes shaped by industry development, geography, climate and economic factors. This is confirmed by Evgeny Gasho, an expert consultant at the Russian Government Analytical Centre. “We need more energy for the energy transition. We consume less than we should, given our climate – about 7-8 tonnes per person, when Canada consumes 16 tonnes. At the same time, it is important to increase the consumption of clean energy in the combined cycle and the share of electric energy. At the moment the energy balance is tilted towards heat, because we are a cold country. The energy sector in Russia shows strong potential. “Few countries can boast the energy mix that Russia has now. More than 40 per cent of its electricity comes from low-carbon hydroelectric and nuclear power stations and a further 20 per cent is produced by combined cycle power stations. Russia’s specific carbon intensity is the lowest in the world, Denmark is a bit behind, but the carbon intensity of other developed countries and the world average is not even comparable with ours,” Gasho said. The development of nuclear energy with an increased share of hydro and nuclear power plants will play a special role in equalising the balance. Modernisation of the latter will play an important role in the energy transition. “Nuclear power has a special branch – high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. They can be used to produce hydrogen, recover iron, and work with energy-intensive chemicals. And not a single kilogram of fuel would be burned. With the right efforts, such reactors can take 10% in the energy mix of the generation, and this is the energy that will go to energy-intensive industries,” Eugene Gasho explains. The turbine-free nuclear power plant technology with helium-fueled cooling of the fuel rods is undergoing an engineering phase. Their implementation in the medium term will make it possible to create both powerful and environmentally friendly nuclear power plants. Gas and coal-fired thermal power plants could also be included in the energy transition process. The first scenario is the transformation of CHP plants into combined heat and power plants, which would save the plant up to a third of its fuel. The second is the installation of electrostatic precipitators to reduce the amount of dust emitted. A technological solution is available, but production capacity does not allow for scalable upgrades: domestic plants need to ramp up production to several hundred filters per year.