employee
Lugansk, Russian Federation
UDC 338
Introduction. Contemporary concepts of energy security and systems for assessing its level have evolved towards multidimensionality. However, as practice shows, various aspects of energy security often conflict with each other, meaning that a policy ensuring one aspect can negatively affect others. This necessitates the development and application of a comprehensive methodology for assessing the state’s level of energy security. The model must encompass multidirectional aspects, and a functional framework developed on the basis of such a comprehensive concept can become a useful tool for practical assessment of the country’s energy security level. Objective. To conduct a systematic analysis of energy security assessment concepts in order to identify basic and supplementary factors influencing the sustainable development of the state’s energy infrastructure and to develop an adequate model that accounts for necessity of conducting a comprehensive and holistic assessment of the country’s energy security level. Methods. A comparative analysis was employed to examine existing energy security assessment methodologies. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) mathematical toolkit was used to model the energy security level of the Russian Federation. Results. It is proven that the use of hierarchical assessment models allows for the expansion of the traditional set of indicators characterising the level of energy security to include the following dimensions: energy reserves, energy import and consumption, technologies, and the environment. The availability of a multidimensional assessment model enables a comprehensive and holistic evaluation of the country’s energy security level. For the Russian Federation, this model will comprise three levels: the first is overall security, which holistically reflects the state of Russia’s energy security; the second level includes four factors: resources, import, market, and other; the third level contains specific indicators, each assigned corresponding criterion-based score values.
energy, sustainable development, energy efficiency, security
1. Anikin, Vladimir I. [ye fd,]. 2015. “E`nergeticheskaya bezopasnost` kak osnova nacional`noj bezopasnosti Rossii v sovremenny`x usloviyax” [“Energy Security as the Basis of Russia's National Security in the Current Conditions”] (In Rus.). Nacional`naya bezopasnost` [National Security] 37, no. 2 (April):161–76. https://doi.org/10.7256/2073-8560.2015.2.13117
2. Kaveshnikov, Nikolay Yu. 2011. “Mnogolikaya e`nergeticheskaya bezopasnost`” [“Multifaceted Energy Security”] (In Rus.). Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn` [International Life], no. 12 (November):88–103.
3. Senderov, Sergei M., and Victor I. Rabchuk. 2022. “E`nergeticheskaya bezopasnost` segodnya i osnovny`e metodiki ee obespecheniya” [“Energy Security Today and the Main Methods of Ensuring It”] (In Rus.). E`nergeticheskaya politika [Energy Policy] 177, no. 11 (November):56–69. https://doi.org/10.46920/2409-5516_2022_11177_56
4. Fortov, Vladimir E., and Alexey A. Makarov, Tatyana A. Mitrova. 2007. “Global`naya e`nergeticheskaya bezopasnost`: problemy` i puti resheniya” [“Global Energy Security: Problems and Solutions”] (In Rus.). Vestnik Rossijskoj akademii nauk [Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences] 77, no. 2 (February):99–107.
5. Frolova, Olga V., and Lyudmila V. Donchevskaya. 2025. “E`nergeticheskaya bezopasnost` v sisteme e`konomicheskoj bezopasnosti strany`” [“Energy Security in the System of Economic Security of the Country”] (In Rus.). Estestvenno-gumanitarny`e issledovaniya [Natural and Humanitarian Research] 59, no. 3 (June):540–43.
6. Shestopalov, Pavel V. 2012. “E`nergeticheskaya bezopasnost`: opredelenie ponyatiya i sushhnost`” [“Energy Security: Definition of the Concept and Essence”] (In Rus.). Problemy` e`konomiki i yuridicheskoj praktiki [Problems of Economics and Legal Practice], no. 5 (October):200–1.
7. Azzuni, Abdelrahman, and Christian Breyer. 2018. “Definitions and dimensions of energy security: a literature review.” Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Energy and environment 7, no. 1 (January):e268. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.268
8. Kisel, Einari [et al.]. 2016. “Concept for energy security matrix,” Energy Policy 95, no. 2 (August):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.034
9. Månberger, André, and Bengt Johansson, Lars J. Nilsson. 2014. “Assessing energy security: An overview of commonly used methodologies.” Energy, no. 73 (August):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.073
10. Mara, Daniel [et al.]. 2022. “The place of energy security in the national security framework: an assessment approach.” Energies 15, no. 2 (January):658. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020658
11. Sovacool, Benjamin K. 2010. “Introduction: Defining, measuring, and exploring energy security”. In: Sovacool B. K. (ed.) The Routledge handbook of energy security 42. London, UK : Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834602
12. Strojny, Jacek [et al.]. 2023. “Energy security: A conceptual overview.” Energies 16, no. 13 (June):5042. https://doi.org /10.3390/en16135042
13. Thaler, Philipp, and Benjamin Hofmann. 2022. “The impossible energy trinity: Energy security, sustainability, and sovereignty in cross-border electricity systems.” Political Geography 11, no. 94 (April):102579 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102579
14. Wang, J. 2001. “The current status and future aspects in formal ship safety assessmen.” Safety Science 38, no. 1 (June): 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00052-7
15. Winzer, Christian. 2012. “Conceptualizing energy security.” Energy policy 46 (July):36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.067
