Ukraine’s potential solution to reduce power outages this winter

Lana Zerkal thinks Ukraine could have had more light during the hot months of June and July 2024 if the Minister of Energy of Ukraine had solved a simple problem: how to reduce the duration of power outages using the available capabilities and resources.

This issue will become particularly relevant this winter. Therefore, I will try to suggest a solution publicly. This option is evident and can be reached using only information from open sources.

This is important because while we are catching our breath (the improvement is temporary), we should think about what can be changed even with the resources we currently have, as we still have to get through the winter.

The task conditions are as follows:

Currently, there is an import of 1.7 gigawatts per hour. A light analysis of open sources (namely, the Entso-E platform for advanced users or data from Dixi Group or Forbes for humanities majors) shows that during the period of the greatest energy deficit, we never utilized 100% of the available import volume. 

For example, on July 17, when the air temperature in Kyiv was 36 degrees Celsius during the day, the import was 61% of the possible amount for that day. 663 megawatts per hour were not used. This is one disconnection queue for household consumers in the country. On this day, most of the country was without electricity for 15-18 hours. The additional volume of electricity would definitely not have been superfluous.

The next component of the task is the money for imports, which theoretically should not have been a problem. Because since June 1, we have all been paying at an increased rate. Thanks to this, “Energoatom,” according to Dixi Group experts, received an additional 52 billion hryvnias per year. Given the obligations imposed on “Energoatom” to cover the difference between the cost of electricity and our tariff, this additional money should have been used to cover the difference between the cost of imports and the tariff. And not to be spent on the “construction” of two additional units at the Khmelnytskyi NPP, the feasibility of which even the Minister of Energy cannot explain to the deputies. This spending is so irresponsible and meaningless that the corresponding bill even received a negative conclusion from the Parliament’s anti-corruption committee.

The third component is who should purchase imported electricity for the population? According to the government resolution regulating the import regime, these are “electricity suppliers.” For example, the state trader JSC “ECU,” 100% of whose shares are owned by the state. Or “universal service providers,” some of which are state-owned, and to which “Energoatom” compensates for the difference between the cost of electricity and our tariff.

And now, the question of our task. Given the three components: unused business import volumes, the money we have paid, and the existing electricity suppliers, the decision to improve the supply to the population at the expense of imports is obvious. The only question is why it has not yet been made.

And will this decision be made to improve the situation in the winter? If the Minister of Energy stops spending money on nuclear units, for which the Verkhovna Rada has not given permission for construction, he will be able to significantly improve the situation with the population’s energy supply in winter. 

And if he also fulfills the old promise of increasing import capabilities, he will be able to demonstrate to people an entire additional gigawatt.

Data on import volumes for professionals can always be found here and for humanities majors here.

Ukraine Front Lines

Tags: Business economy Russia russia ukraine war Ukraine