Energy reform is fundamentally about reforming the administrative system

China Energy Storage Network: Reform of economic ownership forms cannot be called institutional reform, and the ills brought about by institutional problems are not something that enterprises can overcome. In recent years, many experts, scholars, and government officials have racked their brains to plan energy development reforms, but the results have generally been poor. The reason is that they lack the courage to face up to practical difficulties and institutional problems. Administrative system reform is the government "operating" on itself, and it must have the courage to "cut off one's arm". This is not a declaration of war on the political system, but just a hope that it will be more efficient, more honest, more fair, and more transparent.

my country's economic growth has been slowing down since 2010, and it has been more than five years. The most outstanding performance during this period is the energy industry. From insufficient supply to oversupply, the roller coaster feeling makes the energy industry feel lost. The energy industry is highly relevant and highly concerned. In recent years, it has also been controversial. These controversies have prompted government officials and experts and scholars to continuously explore energy reform. Some energy experts and scholars have successively proposed major plans such as mixed economic ownership, electricity, oil and gas reform plans, and the so-called supply-side structural reform. Some of these academic achievements have blossomed but not borne fruit, some have only seen the sound of stairs but no one came down, and some have changed the reality into a fashionable statement. When energy reform seems to be moving forward according to this idea, the author cannot help but say "it's off track!" This is not to deny the current academic achievements without basis, but these academic achievements are really not linked to the current reality. What is the crux of the problem that academic achievements cannot be converted into reform achievements? We should seriously reflect on it.

Administrative system reform is the foundation of energy reform

Energy reform is also called energy system reform. The reform plan currently proposed cannot be considered as "system" reform. The system is the administrative structure established to realize the system and the normative system for managing various aspects of social affairs. How can it be considered as a system revolution if it does not involve these two aspects? The purpose of administrative system reform is to make government functions better serve energy development. The current discussions and plans only focus on the superficial phenomena or formal problems in the energy industry, and do not touch on the substantive issues.

After decades of reform and opening up, my country's economy has gone from high-speed growth to low-speed decline. This is due to the global economic downturn, but also to our own reasons. The biggest problem is the constraints of the administrative system. It cannot be said that administrative system reform is a "panacea" for all economic development, but without administrative system reform, energy reform will be difficult to carry out. The reason why the current energy reform has achieved little effect is that it has carried out a "putting the cart before the horse" reform. For example, the government advocates the supply side to provide high-quality, efficient, clean and environmentally friendly energy, and also strongly supports it from the national finance. However, water, light and wind abandonment occur from time to time, and distributed energy is also difficult to move forward due to poor economic efficiency and strong seasonality of heat-to-electricity.

The core of administrative system reform is the reform of approval and supervision system

my country's current administrative system still follows the planned economic thinking, which is characterized by heavy approval and light supervision. Things that should be decided by the market are decided by the government, and things that should be supervised by the government are not supervised. This is particularly typical in the approval and supervision systems of energy projects.

For example, some large energy projects have already started construction and even run trials, but the approval process has not been completed for several years; the approval and review of a small gas station, who to approve, who not to approve, and when to approve are all "particular", and there is no lack of power rent-seeking, and the approval system has become a source of corruption. A filling facility with a simple process flow, very few equipment, and a clean production process is managed by more than 10 departments, and reviewed and reviewed again and again (of course, the review of matters such as fire safety is necessary). The competent departments have exerted their power to the fullest, even exceeding the limit, causing enterprises to waste time, labor, and increase costs. Some projects even missed the best construction period, resulting in the project not being able to go ahead.

For some monopoly industries, almost no one cares about the supervision after approval. For example, regarding issues such as price fairness and service quality that are commonly reported by the people, the supervisors and the supervised are like "cats and mice in the same nest". For example, the electricity and heating fees for residents were raised every time the coal price rose in the past. Now the coal price has dropped significantly, but the electricity and heating fees have not been reduced. The cost of electricity is now also a heavy burden for enterprises; for example, the industry with franchise rights charges an initial installation fee, which is said to be used for upstream construction, but is this fee reasonable? Who will invest in the upstream facilities after collecting the initial installation fee, and will the users participate in the dividends? The supply and installation of user distribution facilities can only be the responsibility of the power supply bureau, otherwise it will not provide power supply. Some enterprises have closed down, but the power supply bureau still collects huge electricity subsidies.

The energy management system of the United States is worth learning from

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for formulating and implementing federal energy policies and energy strategic security; responsible for energy industry administration; responsible for oil and gas import management; responsible for the research and development and promotion of new technologies and equipment in the energy field. Although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is located in the Department of Energy, it operates independently. The chairman of the commission is nominated by the president and approved by Congress. There are 5 commissioners in total. It has 6 professional regulatory offices and more than 1,200 professional and technical personnel of various types. All decisions of FERC are reviewed by the federal courts, not by the president and Congress. Main responsibilities Formulate energy regulatory policies within the scope of the federal government's authority and implement regulatory functions in accordance with the law, such as the approval and operation management of intercontinental water, electricity, gas, and oil pipelines; responsible for approving and licensing liquefied natural gas receiving station projects; responsible for price supervision; responsible for accepting complaints and administrative penalties. The United States has successively formulated various energy policies and regulatory policies and regulations, such as the Natural Gas Act, the Natural Gas Policy Act, and the antitrust regulations "Sherman Antitrust Act". DOE comprehensively manages administrative management in accordance with the law, and FERC strictly regulates the market in accordance with the law. It is not that the "moon is rounder" in the United States, but that "the moon is indeed incomplete" in my country. Learning from the American experience, formulating laws and regulations on energy development and energy management, simplifying administrative approvals, and paying attention to market supervision should be the direction of my country's energy reform.

Although my country has established a National Energy Commission headed by the Prime Minister and with ministers of important functional ministries as members, the National Energy Commission should be understood as a macro-policy guide that performs neither administrative functions nor market supervision functions. The various energy departments often act on their own, resulting in chaos in my country's energy policy.

The first step is to have the courage to face reality

In recent years, many experts, scholars and government officials have racked their brains to plan energy development and reform, but the results are generally poor. One of the reasons is that they lack the courage to face the real difficulties and institutional problems. First, they cannot correctly treat domestic economic difficulties. They say that "economic difficulties" are "the economy has entered a new normal". This statement is like saying that "the body is sick" is "the body has entered a new normal". How can this cure the disease? Second, government officials, experts and scholars are "silent" about administrative system reform. Experts and scholars may be afraid of getting burned by saying the wrong thing. Government officials are certainly afraid that the revolution will happen to them. Vested interests are afraid of losing their territory. The resistance to administrative system reform is very stubborn. From top to bottom, some officials fooled the central government, simplified administration and delegated power to avoid the important and trivial, and no substantive power was released. For example, the cancellation of "registration of professional qualifications for foreign lightning protection projects" and the cancellation of "qualification certification for baristas, confectioners, and flower arrangers" can tell the extent of power-loving and the difficulty of delegating power from these two "decentralizations".