Financial Stability of Electricity Companies in the Context of the Macroeconomic Instability and the COVID-19 Pandemic

The electricity sector is an important part of any country’s economy as it holds a cross-sectoral importance and produces a socially signifi cant product for residents and industries. Economically, the sector is less vulnerable during world crises, receiving many variations of the state support. Both world electricity consumption and electricity generation have grown steadily over 2007-2019, with China, USA, India, Russia, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Germany, Brazil and France being world market leaders. This article analyzes the current state and the main trends of the development of the electricity industry as a whole and the fi nancial stability of its companies. The United States and Russia, with similar functioning market models, were chosen to assess. The analysis of the fi nancial stability of PJSC Inter RAO and Exelon Corp, two electricity giants in Russia and in the United States, has shown that they demonstrate stable results: Exelon Corp is more profi table while PJSC Inter RAO is less dependent on fi nancing from creditors. Overall, electricity companies and the industry as a whole should not suff er much from the COVID-19 pandemic: many fi nancial support measures have been developed in both countries, helping the sector to recover to 2019 levels by 2021.


INTRODUCTION
The electricity market in the past 50 years has gone through signifi cant changes: starting off as a completely regulated market with vertically integrated state-controlled electricity companies, for many countries it has transformed into one with many competitive aspects. In Russia, similar to the United States, the electricity market updated its legislative framework, which led to new regulative relationships and companies being divided into activity-specifi c businesses (Palamarchuk, 2016). This led to a signifi cant increase in industry investments, resulting in positive economic outcomes for both countries.
closely tied with the commercial sector. What is more, it has been shown that along with a relationship with natural indicators, there is also signifi cant correlation between important fi nancial indicators of electric power companies and GDP growth (Kalugina et al., 2019). Keeping up a high level of fi nancial stability of electricity companies should also be seen as a main priority on the government level as the electricity market is one with high market concentration (Kuzmin et al., 2019). A failure to do so could lead to market degradation in terms of competitiveness.
With industry forecasts predicting a growth of energy demand by 1.4% per year until 2035, it is also important for countries to consider expanding energy supply through developing renewable energy sources. This could further increase electricity consumption, which is benefi cial for driving economic growth (Chi Hoang, 2021). On top of that, trends for developing renewable energy sources have been driven by numerous global, national and regional initiatives that set standards for corporate performance in terms of how they aim for a low-carbon economy.
Increased interest in analyzing how electricity companies function specifi cally in Russia and in the United States is due to the fact that Russia's tactic used to reform the market was borrowed from the experience of the United States (Suslov and Mel'tenisova, 2012). As a result, both countries have electricity fi rms that work in very similar mezzoeconomic conditions. However, it is important to note that the American electricity market is far more developed than in Russia, although Russia's electricity market is developing at a quicker pace. These factors can indicate and defi ne diff erences in the fi nancial stability of the country's electricity companies.
The world electricity market is expected to decrease in 2020 due to a sharp decrease in commercial consumption, which could lead to electricity companies worsening their fi nancial results. During previous crises, decreases in energy output was mainly due to a decrease in investment in fi xed assets, decline in economic activity of industrial production as a whole (Savchina et al., 2017). These factors can also be present for the year of 2020, as many power plants completely stopped working due to businesses shutting down.
The COVID-19 pandemic poses serious challenges to the global economy due to the growing economic, fi nancial and medical response to the pandemic. It is of particular interest to study the response of the energy sector to the COVID-19 outbreak (Kamran et al., 2020). Risk factors in the current conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic that can cause negative eff ects on electricity companies include falling electricity prices, a higher share of non-payments from both industries and households and diffi culties of new investment projects. On top of that, the decrease of demand in industrial sectors has resulted in an inter-fuel struggle for leadership, where nonrenewable sources are inferior to renewables (Gimadi, 2020).

DYNAMICS OF THE WORLD ELECTRICITY MARKET IN 2007-2019
In 2007-2019, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of the world electricity consumption was higher than the CAGR of the world electricity generation by +0.4%: the CAGR of the world electricity consumption amounted to +2.8%, of the world electricity production -to +2.4% ( Figure 1). Chain growth rates during this period were mostly positive, achieving a maximum of +6.6% for electricity consumption in 2008 and +6.9% for electricity production in 2010. In 2009, during the global fi nancial crisis, chain growth rates for electricity consumption and generation were both negative: -0.6% and -0.3% accordingly. However, the fall in the electricity consumption and generation was much lower than the fall of the global GDP during the global fi nancial crisis of 2008-2009: the chain growth rate for this economic indicator in 2009 was -1.7% (The World Bank, www). These kinds of tendencies can characterize the electricity market as one that is more stable during the global crisis: the main indicators of the market do not fall sharply and recover fast: by 2010, electricity consumption and generation were not only higher than 2009 levels by +7.2% and +6.9%, but also higher than 2008 and 2007 levels: by +6.7%, +13.7% and +6.5%, +8.7%, accordingly.
The Top-10 leaders in the electricity generation and consumption have not changed in 2019 in comparison to 2007: China, USA, India, Russia, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Germany, South Korea and France make up this list ( Figure 2). However, over 2007-2019 the positions of these countries have changed: when looking at the electricity consumption, four countries have improved their rankings: China held the second position in 2007 and by 2019 has become the leader in electricity consumption; South Korea increase its' position from the tenth spot to the seventh; Canadafrom the seventh spot to the sixth; India -from the fi fth position to the third. Two countries had no changes in positions over this period: Brazil holds the ninth position while Russia is stable at the fourth. The other four countries have lowered their positions on the world electricity consumption market: the ranking of France lowered by two spots from the eighth to the tenth; of Japan -from the third to the fi fth; of Germany -from the sixth to the eighth and of the USA -from the fi rst to the second.
As for the electricity generation, the only country that remained its' position amongst the Top-10 leaders was Russia at fourth place ( Figure 3). As with electricity consumption, Germany, France, Japan and the USA worsened their rankings in the electricity generation: Germany now holds the eighth place instead of the sixth, France -the tenth instead of the eighth, Japan -the fi fth instead of the third and the USA -the second instead of the fi rst. Brazil, India, Canada, China and South Korea all bettered their positions: Brazil rose from the ninth place to the seventh, Indiafrom the fi fth to the third, Canada -from the seventh to the sixth, China -from the second to the fi rst and South Korea -from the tenth to the ninth.
The structure of the energy generation by source over the past 13 years has considerably changed. This is due to multiple global, national and regional initiatives that set standards for corporate performance in the context of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were the main driving force into such a transition. Electricity generation by coal, oil and nuclear sources in 2019 has decreased by 5 percentage points (p.p.), 2 p.p. and 4 p.p., accordingly. The share of renewable "green" energy sources, such as biofuels, solar PV, wind and hydroelectricity has increased by 0.9 p.p., 2.5 p.p., 4.4 p.p. and 0.4 p.p., accordingly ( Figure 4).
Most countries in the world depend on imports of electricity, which can be illustrated by the dynamics of the electricity imports and exports worldwide ( Figure 5). On average, electricity imports were higher than electricity exports by 2%. Furthermore, EU countries are faced with certain policy concerns relating to the security of energy supplies (Eurostat, www), as they have a high dependency on energy imports. In 2018, more than half (58.2%) of the EU's gross available energy came from imported sources (Eurostat, www). In each year from 2008 to 2018 the EU's net imports of energy have been greater than its primary production, which results in a high dependency rate of more than 50%.
In conclusion, the world electricity market can be described by three main trends and characteristics: the fi rst being is that it is less vulnerable to economic crises -generation and consumption levels did decrease, but not as much as the economy did overall. The second -due to global, national and regional initiatives implementing environmental factors aimed towards a low-carbon economy, the structure of electricity generation has changed over the past 13 years. With the appearance of more "green" trends in the global economy, it is expected that this structure will change even more. The last trend is the problem of energy dependency, especially in the EU countries, with more than half of their energy needs being met only thanks to imports.  To identify the fi nancial stability of electricity companies, the authors have chosen organizations of two countries -Russia and the USA. Both of these countries are not only leaders of the world electricity market (the USA holds the second place by electricity generation and consumption, while Russia holds the fourth place by these indicators), but also because both countries have similar market models, being predominately competitive markets. In the last 20 years, the electricity industry has signifi cantly changed towards deregulation and competition with the goal of improving economic effi ciency (Ventosa et al., 2005). The competitive model of the electricity market means that the state carries out centralized control over the functioning of the industry's assets, however the generation and sale segments of electricity are completely deregulated.
In the USA the electricity market model is a mix of competitive and regulated models, as states decide themselves whether or not to deregulate their electricity market or keep it unreformed and regulated. In 2018, 27 states have regulated electricity markets, while the other 24 have formed a competitive model. Today, there are over 3200 electricity companies in the United States, with the Top-20 of them making up 14% of the overall electricity generation (Reuters, www).
By the end of 2010, Russia was still quite behind other countries in implementing competitive market principals to its electricity sector. During that time, the Russian electricity market had the IPP model (independent power producer), as only the generation segment of this market was made competitive, while transmission and distribution sectors, traditionally also made competitive as a result of market reform, were still under the control of the state. Further development of the electricity market was defi ned by the General layout scheme of power facilities until 2020 (Ministry of Energy of Russia, www). To achieve the goals defi ned in this document, capacity to contracts were implemented, with investors guaranteeing their execution. Earning control over electricity generating companies, investors had to fulfi ll obligations that had to do with building a certain amount of generating capacity in a set time. Increased consumer payments guaranteed investors a good level of ROI (return on investment), however if investors were to violate the terms of commissioning, they were faced with penalties.
As a result, about 43 GW of new electricity capacities were commissioned. In 2019 the Russian government approved a new strategic document on capacity contracts. The main aim of this document is to modernize the available thermal power plants, which will lead to a further increase of the electricity capacity equal to 41 GW by 2031 (Ministry of Energy of Russia, www). The result of these reforms formed the Russian electricity market as a market with a competitive model. However, like the USA, the liberalization of this market is not present across the whole country. In remote regions with isolate power supply systems and weak network connections with a single power system, a noncompetitive market model is still functioning (such as the Russian Far East, Komi Republic, Arkhangelsk Oblast and Kaliningrad Oblast). However, there are still many problems facing the electricity market in Russia, with the most evident one being that of cross subsidization, when higher prices are charged to one type of consumers to artifi cially lower prices for another group. The Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation has estimated that by 2018, the cross subsidization losses have amounted to 220 billion rubles (FAS, www).
Looking The structure of the electricity generation in the United States over the past 13 years has drastically changed: electricity generated by coal has seen a 24.5 p.p decrease, oil -a 1.0 p.p. decrease (Figure 7). The decrease in these two sources is a result of a sharp increase in electricity generated by natural gas -by 16.4 p.p. and an increase in electricity generated by renewable sources -such as Wind, Solar PV and Hydro -by 6.2 p.p., 2.1 p.p. and 0.5 p.p, accordingly. The rise in the share of renewable sources in electricity generation is due to the state support of such sources -in 2016, over 45% of federal subsidies to the electricity sector were related to renewable energy sources (U.S. Energy Information Administration, www).
In Russia, the structure of the electricity generation has not yet made the switch to implementing renewable sources -the decrease in coal, oil and natural gas by 0.9 p.p., 0.6 p.p. and 1.5 p.p. was mostly compensated by 2.9 p.p. increase in the electricity generated by nuclear sources. The only renewable sources that had a slightly signifi cant increase were Solar PV -by 0.1 p.p. (Figure 8). Even though there are also many forms of the state support for the development of the renewable energy segments, investors are still not to keen in helping to fi nance such projects and initiatives.
As for the electricity consumption, compound growth rates were higher in Russia than the United States by 0.7 p.p.   Exports and imports of the electricity of these two countries show that the United States is a clear net electricity importer, contrasting Russia as a net exporter (Figures 10 and 11). Russia's role as one of the main electricity exporters on the global market is evident: for example, in the EU energy imports as a share of the total imports to the EU from Russia have only increased in the last few years by 3.2 p.p. -61.4% in 2016 versus 64.6% in 2020 (EU imports of energy products -recent developments, www).
To sum up, the electricity markets of Russia and the United States have gone through several reforms that have led them to adapt principles of a competitive model market, with Russia adapting such a market structure much later. On top of that, these two countries are similar in that some states in the United States and some regions in Russia still have a fully government regulated electricity market.
The dynamics of the United States electricity market can be classifi ed by three main trends: decreases in consumption and generation, a share rise of electricity generate by renewable energy sources and a sharp decline in imports since 2015, reducing the risks that come with energy dependency. The Russian electricity market can be defi ned as one with stable growth in the electricity consumption and generation, a stagnating electricity consumption structure, with renewables still not playing an important enough role and saving the status of being one of the worlds' top electricity exporters.
Analyzing the state of the industry that companies work in is a necessary step that helps further understand the main tendencies and changes in their fi nancial stability. Trends on the mezzo, industry level should directly refl ect what goes on in the microlevel, which will further be assessed.

METHOLODGICAL APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OF THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF COMPANIES' ACTIVITY
There are many methods that can be implied to assess the fi nancial stability of a company. A tool that is frequently used for doing so is by calculating groups of fi nancial indicators (ratios). Financial ratios are used for internal and external comparisons. The fi rst type of comparison is used to compare a present ratio with past and expected future ratios for the same company. This is used to determine whether a company has improved their fi nancial condition or, on the contrary, failed to do so. So, it is important to calculate these fi nancial indicators over a certain period -only then is it possible to rate fi nancial stability of a companies' activity. External comparisons are done to give an insight of the relative fi nancial condition and performance of an organization. In this article, an external assessment of the fi nancial stability of two companies will be done -of the one electricity giant in Russia and one in the United States.
The method that will be used to perform such an assessment will be that of James C. Van Horne and John M. Wachowicz, Jr. (Van Horne and Wachoeicz, Jr., 2008). This method includes calculating the main groups of fi nancial ratios using a company's balance sheet and income statement. The groups of fi nancial ratios that will be assessed are as following:  Liquidity ratios: current ratio and acid-test (quick ratio)  Financial leverage (debt) ratios: debt-to-equity ratio and debtto-total-assets ratio  Coverage ratios: interest coverage ratio  Activity ratios: receivables activity, receivable turnover in days, payables activity, payable turnover in days, inventory activity, inventory activity in days, operating cycle, cash cycle and total asset turnover  Profi tability ratios: gross profi t margin, net profi t margin, return on investment, return on equity.
So, a total of 18 fi nancial ratios over the course of 10 years will be analyzed for electricity companies in Russia and in the United States, allowing an external comparison to be performed and fi nancial stability to be defi ned.

ASSESSMENT OF THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN ELECTRICITY COMPANIES IN 2010-2019
The choice of the electricity companies to assess the fi nancial condition of them was based on the 2020 S and P Global Platts The time chosen to analyze the fi nancial stability of these two companies is shorter than the time that was used to analyze the state of the Russian and American (Exelon Corp., www) electricity markets as a whole -this is due to a shortage of available fi nancial data (balance sheets, fi nancial statements) that correspond with the IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards). So, a total of  10 years will be assessed -from 2010 to 2019. This will show how these two companies managed to recover after the world fi nancial crisis of 2008-2009, and how much PJSC Inter RAO suff ered from economic sanctions that were put into place in 2014-2015, which caused a new economic crisis, specifi c for Russia.
The fi rst group of fi nancial ratios that will be assessed is liquidity ratios, which are used to measure a company's ability to cover short-term obligations (Tables 2 and 3). These ratios give an insight into the present cash solvency of the analyzed companies and how they remain solvent in the event of adversity. It is important to note that this group of fi nancial ratios is standardized. For PJSC Inter RAO, the current ratio almost always lied within the normal limits (which is from 1 to 2), the only exception was 2013, when the current ratio was even higher than the normhowever, this is not always good, as it is important to see what type of current assets are predominate, as, for example, inventories are not as liquid as cash or nonoverdue receivables. For Exelon Corp, this ratio was always in the normal limits, except for 2016 and 2019 when it was a bit below 1 -0.92 and 0.85, accordingly. This was due to a sharp decrease in cash -by 90.2% in 2016 and 56.5% in 2019. The next ratio in the group of liquidity ratios is the acid-test ratio (quick asset ratio), which considers the liquidity of the individual components of the current assets (Tables 2 and 3). This ratio allows us to assess the more liquid current assets -cash, securities, and receivables. PJSC Inter RAO over 2010-2019 had a very high acidtest ratio -which indicates that the company has a higher share of more liquid current assets than it does inventories. The same could be said for Exelon Corp -if not higher than the norm, the company demonstrated values that are in the norm from 0.8 to 1. In conclusion, we can say that both companies do not have problems meeting their current obligations and have high levels of liquidity.
The next group of fi nancial indicators that will be assessed are fi nancial leverage (debt) ratios, which show the extent to which a company is using borrowed money instead of its' own. The fi rst ratio is the debt-to-equity ratio -for PJSC Inter RAO, an average of 49 cents were provided by creditors for each $1 being provided by shareholders, while for Exelon Corp this number was signifi cantly higher -$2.84 from creditors for each $1 by shareholders. This means that PJSC Inter RAO primarily fi nances itself, while Exelon Corp is much more dependent on creditors.
To further assess the importance of debt fi nancing to these two companies we can calculate the debt-to-total-assets ratio, which shows the percentage of a fi rm's assets that is fi nanced by creditors. For PJSC Inter RAO, this ratio is quite low -the average over 2010-2019 equaled to 0.32, which means only 32 % of assets are fi nanced with debt. For Exelon Corp, it is much higher -0.74, which is 42 p.p. higher than PJSC Inter RAO. We can conclude that PJSC Inter RAO has a low dependency on creditors, while Exelon Corp is highly dependent on them.
Moving on to coverage ratios, which show a company's ability to cover its' fi nancial charges, we can assess the interest coverage ratio, which can be calculated by dividing earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) and interest expenses (Tables 2 and 3). It can indicate a fi rm's ability to cover its interest payments and avoid bankruptcy. For PJSC Inter RAO, the company had problems with covering its' fi nancial charges only twice -in 2012 and 2013, when it was faced with losses. On average, it had the ability to cover annual interest 4.6 times with operating income. Exelon Corp was never met with losses so could always cover its' fi nancial interest, however the average over 2010-2019 was a bit lower -4.45.
To measure the effi ciency of how electricity companies are using their assets, we have calculated turnover ratios (Tables 2 and 3). The fi rst fi nancial ratio that will be assessed is the receivable turnover, which allows us to analyze the quality of a company's receivables and how fast it can collect them. For PJSC Inter RAO, receivables turned over at an average of 9.05 times during 2010-2019, which is 44% higher than for Exelon Corp with a receivable turnover average of 6.28. This means that Exelon Corp's receivables turn over considerably slower than PJSC Inter RAO's. The average collection period for PJSC Inter RAO 47 days, for Exelon Corp -58 days, which are both quite high.
To assess how the level of promptness of payment to suppliers of a company, we can calculate the payable turnover ratio (Tables 2   and 3). For PJSC Inter RAO, this indicator average to 7.47 over 2010-2019, while Exelon Corp's ratio was 21.6% higher and amounted to 9.08. In days, the payable turnover for these two companies average to 51 and 41 days, accordingly. This means that Exelon Corp covers its' payables quicker and more often in a year than PJSC Inter RAO does.
The effi ciency of inventory management can be calculated using the inventory turnover ratio. This ratio shows how often inventory is turned into receivables through sales during a fi scal year. For PJSC Inter RAO, the average value of this ratio during 2010-2019 amounted to 49.52, which is almost 3 times higher than for Exelon Corp, with a value of 18.3. For both companies, this indicator is quite high, which could indicate high effi ciency management. However, sometimes high inventory turnover can lead to frequent stockouts. In days, the inventory turnover for PJSC Inter RAO on average equated to 9, for Exelon Corp -to 20.
Using inventory, receivable and payable turnover in days, we can calculate the operating and cash cycle for these two companies (Tables 2 and 3). The operating cycle shows us the time between purchasing raw materials and receiving cash after the fi nish goods have been sold. For PJSC Inter RAO, this indicator had an average value of 55 days, for Exelon Corp receiving money for its' goods sold was much slower -79 days on average during 2010-2019. If we subtract the payable turnover in days from the operating cycle, we can calculate the cash cycle for these two fi rms. During 2010-2019, the cash cycle for PJSC Inter RAO was more often negative than positive, which means the company took longer to pay back loans that to receive them. For Exelon Corp, the company gave back money more often than it received money, as its' cash cycle for 2010-2019 averaged to 38 days. This could be the result of Exelon Corp having more obligations to creditors than PJSC Inter RAO has.
To fi nish off the group of turnover ratios, we have calculated the total asset (or capital) turnover. The average values for 2010-2019 for PJSC Inter RAO and Exelon Corp equated to 1.25 and 0.32, accordingly (Tables 2 and 3). We can conclude that PJSC Inter RAO generates more sales revenue per dollar of asset investment than Exelon Corp does. This means that PJSC Inter RAO has a higher effi ciency of utilizing its total assets to generate sales than Exelon Corp. Overall, PJSC Inter RAO has a higher level of asset management effi ciency that Exelon Corp does over the period of 2010-2019.
The fi nal group of fi nancial ratios is profi tability ratios. They can be divided into two subgroups -those that show profi tability in relation to sales and those that show profi tability in relation to investments. Over 2010-2019, Exelon Corp was always profi table, while PJSC Inter RAO was not profi table in 2011-2013. This was a result of an increase in operating expenses due to impairment of the fi xed assets. On average, almost all profi tability ratios of Exelon Corp were higher than those of PJSC Inter RAO, except for return on investment. Gross profi t margin, net profi t margin and return on equity were 13.3 p.p., 5.3 p.p. and 4.5 p.p. higher for Exelon Corp than PJSC Inter RAO, while return on investment for PJSC Inter RAO was 1.3 p.p. higher than for Exelon Corp. In conclusion, we can say that Exelon Corp manages to have a much higher profi tability rate than PJSC Inter RAO does.
The assessment of the fi nancial condition of two electricity giants in Russia and in the United States -PJSC Inter RAO and Exelon Corp -has shown that in dynamics, both companies show stable results. However, they are met with issues of their own -for Exelon Corp, these problems are highlighted by a high dependency on fi nancing from creditors and a slower asset turnover rate. For PJSC Inter RAO, problems lie within low profi tability rates, with the company occasionally having net losses over some fi scal years. However, both companies can be characterized as companies with relatively high liquidity ratios. Overall, we can conclude that Exelon Corp has a more profi table business, while PJSC Inter RAO has a high level of asset management and aims to be less fi nancially dependent on loans than Exelon Corp does.

DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS OF THE ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MACROECONOMIC INSTABILITY AND THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
In the fi rst 10 months of 2020, electricity generation in the United States has decreased by 3.3%. Negative trends were observed even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit in January of this year, electricity generation decreased by 5.5% in comparison to January 2019. This was a continuation of the negative dynamics of 2019 for the country. The sharpest decrease was evidenced in May, when electricity generation dropped by 7.7% due to COVID-19 restrictions. However, soon after some of them were lifted and business activity started to recover, electricity generation had positive trends in June and July of 2020: it increased by 0.4% and 0.3%, accordingly ( Figure 12).
Electricity consumption in the United States faced similar to electricity generation trends. May 2020 recorded the sharpest decrease -7.6%. Positive chain growth rates for electricity consumption, however, were only present in July 2020, when this indicator increased by 0.2%. Overall, in the fi rst 10 months of 2020 the electricity consumption fell by 3.2%, which is 0.1 p.p. lower than the electricity generation ( Figure 13).
In Russia, the overall growth rates were quite similar to those of the United States: the electricity generation for the fi rst 10 months of 2020 decreased by 3.6% (0.3 p.p. more than the United States), while electricity consumption fell by 2.9% (0.3 p.p. less than the United States). For all the months during the COVID-19 pandemic, chained growth rates year-to-year were all negative. Positive trends were only observed in pre-COVID-19 February, when the electricity generation and consumption grew by 0.5% and 1.4%, accordingly (Figures 14 and 15).
Overall, the electricity markets of the United States and Russia have suff ered from the COVID-19, but not to the extent that other markets have -especially those to do with the tertiary sector of the economy. However, for the electricity industry in order to overcome the current COVID-19 crisis and return to the growth there is a set of the state support measures implemented by both countries.
It has been noted that for Russia, the current coronavirus crisis has not aff ected the security and reliability of the energy system, as the industry's companies have demonstrated stable results (Grabchak, 2020). The Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation has developed three scenarios of the development under the conditions of a decrease in electricity consumption: optimistic, pessimistic and shock-scenario. For now, the electricity industry is heading towards the optimistic scenario, with it recently being corrected towards better-expected results. This means that serious fi nancial support from the state will not be necessary, electricity generation and consumption should be back to 2019 levels by 2021. However, a certain level of support has been developed.
Weekly monitoring of the fi nancial state of the Russian electricity companies done by the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation (Analytical Center of the Government Administration of Moscow, www) shows that they have worsened their overall fi nancial stability due to a decrease in revenues from sales. To   Subsidies to reimburse the costs of production and provision of services  Deferrals for tax payments and advanced payments for taxes  Government guarantees for loans and bonded loans for main production activities and capital investments  Repayment of loans given for production or capital investment support  Loans with preferential interest rates set by the Central Bank of Russia.
In the United States there are similar trends: although there is a decline in the electricity consumption, especially in the commercial sector, it is compensated by a rise in consumption in the residential sector. However, many electricity companies are faced with a fi ne amount of losses. An insight from the Congressional Research Service (Congressional Research Service, www) highlights four main trends of COVID-19's potential impacts on the electric power sector:  Reduced electricity demand led to lower electricity prices: prices in most wholesale electricity markets declined between 22% and 37% between mid-February and mid-April. This results in even more power plants becoming unprofi table, a trend that was present even pre-COVID-19 (Inside Climate News, www). Some states have come up with financial mechanisms to allow utilities to close their plants with minimal fi nancial losses. One instrument that is being used is subsidizing the plants that remain open (Financial Times, www)  Increased reliability risks due to workforce disruptions, potential supply chain disruptions and increased cybersecurity risks  An increase of electricity customers unable to pay their electricity bills due to a loss in income. This has led most states suspend shutoff s as part of their COVID-19 response. However, Congress has yet to address problems that can occur with suspending shutoff s (such as utility revenue loss). It is assumed that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act may reduce cases of utility bill nonpayment (U.S. Department of the Treasury -CARES act, www)  Extension of the tax credit eligibility deadlines for wind, solar and carbon capture projects -this measure is used to further support the transition to renewable energy sources and to support industry investment activity (U.S. Energy Information Administration, www).
In conclusion, the electricity sector in Russia, the United States and the world has been met with negative chained growth rates, which is a common trend under the current macroeconomic conditions due to the spread of COVID-19. Although these negative trends will have an eff ect on the US and the Russian electricity markets, forecasts show that with minimal, yet necessary, state support, they will gradually recover to pre-COVID-19 levels by 2021.

CONCLUSION
The Russian and U.S. electricity markets both hold top positions in the world, with the United States being the second in the electricity production and consumption, and Russia being the fourth. Both of these electricity markets have similar market structures: the United States has regulated and deregulated states, and Russia has regulated and deregulated regions. During 2007-2019, the United States electricity generation by source has been gradually making the change in favor of renewable sources. The start of this change is not yet present in Russia. Overall, the Russian electricity market is growing at a faster pace than the U.S. electricity market, which is the result of these countries having diff erent levels of overall development and Russia starting its electricity market reform later than the United States.
The assessment of the financial stability of top electricity companies in Russia and in the United States has shown that both PJSC Inter RAO and Exelon Corp in 2010-2019 demonstrated high fi nancial results and stability, though through diff erent indicators. Exelon Corp had higher levels of profi tability than PJSC Inter RAO; however, PJSC Inter RAO is less dependent on external fi nancial resources, making it less prone to risk. Both companies demonstrate stable and healthy levels of liquidity.
The analysis of how the COVID-19 pandemic and crisis have aff ected the electricity sector has shown that both electricity generation and consumption in Russia and in the United States has decreased, but not by much. It is expected that the industry will fully recover by 2021. And government support measures in the form of subsidies, deferrals, government guarantees for loans, repayment of loans, loans with preferential interest rates, suspending electricity shutoffs and extensions of tax credit eligibility, will help the sector in doing so.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper has been supported by the RUDN University Strategic Academic Leadership Pr ogram.