Can the hottest power plant lay nets

Can the power plant be paved

the ongoing power reform is in full swing under the guidance of relevant departments and local governments. In the process of implementing the reform, it is inevitable that there will be twists and turns, and the power people who are experiencing all this are deeply touched. Today's content is a reader's point of view. I hope I can communicate and discuss with people in the industry. What is your opinion on this? Welcome to leave a message at the end of the article

the general idea of power reform is "separation of power plants", "separation of main and auxiliary" and "let go of both ends and control the middle". Around 2002, the separation of power plants was basically realized, with the emergence of five major power generation groups and national household appliances, and the maintenance of other machinery by the user department, followed by Nanfang power. At present, one of the main shareholders of Nanfang power is national power. The work of separating the main from the auxiliary has been advancing, and the progress is not obvious. As a result, the electricity stalls are getting bigger and bigger, and now they are also spreading overseas, including the Philippines and Brazil. The work of "opening both ends and controlling the middle" has experienced a 10-year pause after 2005, and has made great progress since 2015. At least most provincial-level electricity has its own transmission and distribution tariffs. As for whether it can manage this "fee passing", we still have to wait and see

to carry out the reform, we must first ensure that there will be no monopoly again after the reform, otherwise it will be retrogressive. From oneortwo big tigers to countless small tigers to engage in monopoly and earn monopoly profits, which is meaningless for the reform; Secondly, we should ensure full marketization. The so-called marketization means social capital rather than state-owned assets. It is of industrial strategic significance to occupy the large Chongqing project, and we should hold on to it. So whether the power plant can lay a second electricity is an extremely important issue. Reformers cannot ignore it, and society cannot ignore it. Why? Historically, the scale and operation mode of the power industry today are closely related to the theory of economies of scale, that is, why today's power plants are large-scale, basically more than 300000 units, because "great talent and beauty", the larger the capacity, the lower the unit power generation cost, and the higher the market competitiveness. Low prices stimulate consumption at the same time, and the growth of consumption in turn expands the secondary scale, forming a virtuous circle, It will also be in an invincible position in the "energy" competition of oil, electricity and gas. Because "separation of power plants" actually prohibits power generation enterprises from laying and operating electricity, the main consideration is to reduce the social monopoly power of power enterprises. According to this idea, theoretically, power plant holding companies, that is, power generation capital, cannot lay a second one and operate a second power generation and power supply integrated power company, which is in line with the original intention of power reform and can effectively reduce the social monopoly power of power enterprises, Reduce the burden of electricity consumption in the whole society and improve China's global competitiveness

unfortunately, the power reform planners are ambivalent and even contradictory in this matter according to the document instructions, which makes the author worry about whether our reform is really or fake

as early as November 28, 2015 (that is, after the national development and Reform Commission and the National Energy Administration issued the supporting documents of power reform, there were technical barriers in the aspects of large aircraft and new fiber materials for aerospace, etc.) in the general office of the national development and Reform Commission and the Comprehensive Department of the National Energy Administration of the general office of the national development and Reform Commission on approving Chongqing The reply of Guangdong Province to carry out the pilot of electricity sales side reform (fgbjt [2015] No. 3117) clearly stated that "second, adhere to the principle of equal competition. Power generation enterprises that directly supply power to users by investing in the construction of special lines and other forms should comply with the plan, fulfill the social obligations, and bear the government funds established by the state in accordance with the law and regulations, as well as policy cross subsidies and system reserve fees consistent with industrial policies", That is, power generation enterprises can lay a second one, or at least invest in the construction of "special lines and other forms of direct power supply to users". Since the issuance of NDRC JT [2015] No. 3117, the general office of the national development and Reform Commission and the comprehensive Department of the national energy administration have successively approved the application for electricity sales side reform in Xinjiang, Fujian, Heilongjiang, Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Jilin, Jiangsu and other places, and have also repeated this view

the problem is, On October 8, 2016, the national development and Reform Commission and the National Energy Administration issued the notice on printing and distributing the administrative measures for the entry and exit of power selling companies and the administrative measures for the orderly liberalization of distribution business (fgjt [2016] No. 2120) in the administrative measures for the orderly liberalization of distribution business "Article 21 distribution operators shall not engage in distribution business beyond their distribution areas. Power generation enterprises and their capital shall not participate in the investment and construction of special lines for power plants to directly supply power to users, nor shall they participate in the investment and construction of special lines for power plants to connect with the incremental distribution networks they participate in.", That is to say, the two are contradictory. On the whole, it seems that the policy-making of power reform is two forces, each giving way, which is really a strange thing. Is the general office of the national development and Reform Commission/Energy Bureau and the national development and Reform Commission/Energy Bureau different systems? As outsiders, I'm afraid they can only guess

in terms of the purpose or original intention of power reform, power plants should be prohibited from laying the second sheet, otherwise pressing the gourd will raise the ladle, which is nonsense