Real state of market disproves myth of Energoatom's "lost billions"

The information wave with accusations against Energoatom regarding the allegedly low electricity sale price and "lost UAH 2 billion " has finally crashed against the actual market indicators. The price dynamics as of January 26 completely refutes the thesis that the auction held by the company on January 14 was unprofitable.

The criticism was based on the assumption that after the administrative increase in price caps, the market price of electricity would remain stable at peak levels of over UAH 12,500 per MWh. Opponents argued that by selling the resource under bilateral contracts earlier, the company lost the opportunity to make excessive profits. However, the market is a living organism, not a mathematical model of critics. After a short-term situational spike, prices on the market went down. As of January 26, the price on the day-ahead market dropped to UAH 7,309 per MWh (7.3 UAH/kWh).

This means that the average price of about 7,600 UAH/MWh, which Energoatom recorded at the auction on January 14, is even higher than the current spot quotes. If the company had followed the logic of its critics and abandoned long-term contracts in favor of day-to-day trading, it would now be receiving less money. Against this backdrop, the position of DTEK, which announced the termination of its electricity purchase agreements with Energoatom, is particularly revealing. Given that the current market prices are lower than on the day the contracts were signed, it seems that this is not about "protecting interests" but about the desire to gain additional financial gain by revising the previously agreed terms.

It is also worth recalling the chronology once again: Energoatom held the auction on January 14, guided by the official position of the Regulator on the invariability of tariffs. The decision to revise the price caps was made by the authorities only two days after the auction. However, as the situation as of January 26 shows, even if the auction had been held later, it would not have guaranteed a higher price, as the market had stabilized at a level comparable to or below the contract price. Thus, the accusations of manipulation or preferences for certain financial and industrial groups are economically unfounded and refuted by the market itself.

To request a correction, please send an email.