Transmission line costs worry business leaders

Minnesota Electric Cooperatives are driving grid innovation with smart meters, time-of-use pricing, demand response, and energy storage, including iron-air batteries, to manage peak loads, integrate wind and solar, and cut costs for rural members.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities piloting load management, meters, and storage to integrate wind and solar, cutting peak demand.

✅ Time-of-use pricing pilots lower bills and shift peak load.

✅ Iron-air battery tests add multi-day, low-cost energy storage.

✅ Smart meters enable demand response across rural co-ops.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have quietly emerged as laboratories for clean grid innovation, outpacing investor-owned utilities on smart meter installations, time-based pricing pilots, and experimental battery storage solutions.

“Co-ops have innovation in their DNA,” said David Ranallo, a spokesperson for Great River Energy, a generation and distribution cooperative that supplies power to 28 member utilities — making it one of the state’s largest co-op players.

Minnesota farmers helped pioneer the electric co-op model more than a century ago, similar to modern community-generated green electricity initiatives, pooling resources to build power lines, transformers and other equipment to deliver power to rural parts of the state. Today, 44 member-owned electric co-ops serve about 1.7 million rural and suburban customers and supply almost a quarter of the state’s electricity.

Co-op utilities have by many measures lagged on clean energy. Many still rely on electricity from coal-fired power plants. They’ve used political clout with rural lawmakers to oppose new pollution regulations and climate legislation, and some have tried to levy steep fees on customers who install solar panels.

Where they are emerging as innovators is with new models and technology for managing electric grid loads — from load-shifting water heaters to a giant experimental battery made of iron. The programs are saving customers money by delaying the need for expensive new infrastructure, and also showing ways to unlock more value from cheap but variable wind and solar power.

Unlike investor-owned utilities, “we have no incentive to invest in new generation,” said Darrick Moe, executive director of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association. Curbing peak energy demand has a direct financial benefit for members.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have launched dozens of programs, such as the South Metro solar project, in recent years aimed at reducing energy use and peak loads, in particular. They include:

Cost calculations are the primary driver for electric cooperatives’ recent experimentation, and a lighter regulatory structure and evolving electricity market reforms have allowed them to act more quickly than for-profit utilities.

“Co-ops and [municipal utilities] can act a lot more nimbly compared to investor-owned utilities … which have to go through years of proceedings and discussions about cost-recovery,” said Gabe Chan, a University of Minnesota associate professor who has researched electric co-ops extensively. Often, approval from a local board is all that’s required to launch a venture.

Great River Energy’s programs, which are rebranded and sold through member co-ops, yielded more than 101 million kilowatt-hours of savings last year — enough to power 9,500 homes for a year.

Beyond lowering costs for participants and customers at large, the energy-saving and behavior-changing programs sometimes end up being cited as case studies by larger utilities considering similar offerings. Advocates supporting a proposal by the city of Minneapolis and CenterPoint Energy to allow residents to pay for energy efficiency improvements on their utility bills through distributed energy rebates used several examples from cooperatives.

Despite the pace of innovation on load management, electric cooperatives have been relatively slow to transition from coal-fired power. More than half of Great River Energy’s electricity came from coal last year, and Dairyland Power, another major power wholesaler for Minnesota co-ops, generated 70% of its energy from coal. Meanwhile, Xcel Energy, the state’s largest investor-owned utility, has already reduced coal to about 20% of its energy mix.

The transition to cleaner power for some co-ops has been slowed by long-term contracts with power suppliers that have locked them into dirty power. Others have also been stalled by management or boards that have been resistant to change. John Farrell, director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Energy Democracy program, said generalizing co-ops is difficult. 

“We’ve seen some co-ops that have got 75-year contracts for coal, that are invested in coal mines and using their newsletter to deny climate change,” he said. “Then you see a lot of them doing really amazing things like creating energy storage systems … and load balancing [programs], because they are unique and locally managed and can have that freedom to experiment without having to go through a regulatory process.”

Great River Energy, for its part, says it intends to reach 54% renewable generation by 2025, while some communities, like Frisco, Colorado, are targeting 100% clean electricity by specific dates. Its members recently voted to sell North Dakota’s largest coal plant, but the arrangement involves members continuing to buy power from the new owners for another decade.

The cooperative’s path to clean power could become clearer if its experimental iron-air battery project is successful. The project, the first of its kind in the country, is expected to be completed by 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Five Nations Energy Transmission Line connects remote First Nations to the Ontario power grid, delivering clean, reliable electricity to Western James Bay through Indigenous-owned transmission infrastructure, replacing diesel generators and enabling sustainable community growth.

Key Points

An Indigenous-owned grid link providing reliable power to Western James Bay First Nations, replacing polluting diesel.

✅ Built by five First Nations; fully Indigenous-owned utility

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

For the Indigenous communities along northern Ontario’s James Bay — the ones that have lived on and taken care of the lands as long as anyone can remember — the new millenium marked the start of a diesel-less future, even as Ontario’s electricity outlook raised concerns about getting dirtier in policy debates. 

While the southern part of the province took Ontario’s power grid for granted, despite lessons from Europe’s power crisis about reliability, the vast majority of these communities had never been plugged in. Their only source of power was a handful of very loud diesel-powered generators. Because of that, daily life in the Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations involved deliberating a series of tradeoffs. Could you listen to the radio while toasting a piece of bread? How many Christmas lights could you connect before nothing else was usable? Was there enough power to open a new school? 

The communities wanted a safe, reliable, clean alternative, with Manitoba’s clean energy illustrating regional potential, too. So did their chiefs, which is why they passed a resolution in 1996 to connect the area to Ontario’s grid, not just for basic necessities but to facilitate growth and development, and improve their communities’ quality of life. 

The idea was unthinkable at the time — scorned and dismissed by those who held the keys to Ontario’s (electrical) power, much like independent power projects can be in other jurisdictions. Even some in the community didn’t fully understand it. When the idea was first proposed at a gathering of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations, one attendee said the only way he could picture the connection was as “a little extension cord running through the bush from Moosonee.” 

But the leadership of Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations had been dreaming and planning. In 1997, along with members of Taykwa Tagamou and Moose Cree First Nations, they created the first, and thus far only, fully Indigenous-owned energy company in Canada: Five Nations Energy Inc., as partnerships like an OPG First Nation hydro project would later show in action, too. 

Over the next five years, the organization built Omushkego Ishkotayo, the Cree name for the Western James Bay transmission line: “Omushkego” refers to the Swampy Cree people, and “Ishkotayo” to hydroelectric power, while other regions were commissioning new BC generating stations in parallel. The 270-kilometre-long transmission line is in one of the most isolated regions of Ontario, one that can only be accessed by plane, except for a few months in winter when ice roads are strong enough to drive on. The project went online in 2001, bringing reliable power to over 7,000 people who were previously underserved by the province’s energy providers. It also, somewhat controversially, enabled Ontario’s first diamond mine in Attawapiskat territory.

The future the First Nations created 25 years ago is blissfully quiet, now that the diesel generators are shut off. “When the power went on, you could hear the birds,” Patrick Chilton, the CEO of Five Nations Energy, said with a smile. “Our communities were glowing.”

Power, politics and money: Five Nations Energy needed government, banks and builders on board
Chilton took over in 2013 after the former CEO, his brother Ed, passed away. “This was all his idea,” Chilton told The Narwhal in a conversation over Zoom from his office in Timmins, Ont. The company’s story has never been told before in full, he said, because he felt “vulnerable” to the forces that fought against Omushkego Ishkotayo or didn’t understand it, a dynamic underscored by Canada’s looming power problem reporting in recent years. 

The success of Five Nations Energy is a tale of unwavering determination and imagination, Chilton said, and it started with his older brother. “Ed was the first person who believed a transmission line was possible,” he said.

In a Timmins Daily Press death notice published July 2, 2013, Ed Chilton is described as having “a quiet but profound impact on the establishment of agreements and enterprises benefitting First Nations peoples and their lands.” Chilton doesn’t describe him that way, exactly. 

“If you knew my brother, he was very stubborn,” he said. A certified engineering technologist, Ed was a visionary whose whole life was defined by the transmission line. He was the first to approach the chiefs with the idea, the first to reach out to energy companies and government officials and the one who persuaded thousands of people in remote, underserved communities that it was possible to bring power to their region.

After that 1996 meeting of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, there came a four-year-long effort to convince the rest of Ontario, and the country, the project was possible and financially viable. The chiefs of the five First Nations took their idea to the halls of power: Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the provincial power distributor Hydro One (then Ontario Hydro). 

“All of them said no,” Chilton said. “They saw it as near to impossible — the idea that you could build a transmission line in the ‘swamp,’ as they called it.” The Five Nations Energy team kept a document at the time tracking how many times they heard no; it topped out at 37. 

One of the worst times was in 1998, at a meeting on the 19th floor of the Ontario Hydro building in the heart of downtown Toronto. There, despite all their preparation and planning, a senior member of the Ontario Hydro team told Chilton, Martin and other chiefs “you’ll build that line over my dead body,” Chilton recalled. 

At the time, Chilton said, Ontario Hydro was refusing to cooperate: unwilling to let go of its monopoly over transmission lines, but also saying it was unable to connect new houses in the First Nations to diesel generators it said were at maximum capacity. (Ontario Hydro no longer exists; Hydro One declined to comment.)

“There’s always naysayers no matter what you’re doing,” Martin said. “What we were doing had never been done before. So of course people were telling us how we had never managed something of this size or a budget of this size.” 

“[Our people] basically told them to blow it up your ass. We can do it,” Chilton said.

So the chiefs of the five nations did something they’d never done before: they went to all of the big banks and many, many charitable foundations trying to get the money, a big ask for a project of this scale, in this location. Without outside support, their pitch was that they’d build it themselves.

This was the hardest part of the process, said Lawrence Martin, the former Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a member of the Five Nations Energy board. “We didn’t know how to finance something like this, to get loans,” he told The Narwhal. “That was the toughest task for all of us to achieve.”

Eventually, they got nearly $50 million in funding from a series of financial organizations including the Bank of Montreal, Pacific and Western Capital, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (an Ontario government agency) and the engineering and construction company SNC Lavalin, which did an assessment of the area and deemed the project viable. 

And in 1999, Ed Chilton, other members of the Chilton family and the chiefs were able to secure an agreement with Ontario Hydro that would allow them to buy electricity from the province and sell it to their communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One Account Customization lets Ontario customers pick billing due dates, enable balanced billing, get early high usage notifications, monitor electricity consumption, and receive outage alerts, offering flexibility during COVID-19.

Key Points

A flexible toolkit to set due dates, balance bills, get usage alerts, and track electricity.

✅ Pick your billing due date for better cash flow

✅ Balanced billing smooths seasonal usage spikes

✅ Early high usage and outage alerts via text or email

Hydro One announced it is providing its customers with the flexibility to customize their account. Customers can choose their own billing due date, flatten usage spikes from temperature fluctuations through balanced billing and the Ultra-Low Overnight Price Plan, and monitor their electricity consumption by signing up for early high usage notifications.

Research shows that Ontario electricity customers want more choice and flexibility (CNW Group/Hydro One Inc.)
"Being in-tune with our customers' needs is more important than ever. As we continue to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic, customers tell us that choice and flexibility, alongside electricity relief, will help them during this difficult time," said Jason Fitzsimmons, Chief Corporate Affairs and Customer Care Officer, Hydro One. "As a customer-driven organization, we have an important responsibility to support customers with relief, flexibility and choice."

According to recent research conducted by Angus Reid, 78 per cent of Ontario electricity customers said balanced billing would help them better manage their finances, even as peak hydro rates remained unchanged for many self-isolating customers. Balanced billing flattens out the spikes in electricity usage that commonly occurs in the summer due to air conditioning use and in the winter due to heating.

The research also found that 72 per cent of customers would like to pick their own due date to better manage their finances. This feature is now included in Hydro One's new customization bundle, which will be shared with customers through an awareness campaign. Other customization tools include alerts when electricity usage falls outside of the customer's normal pattern, the ability to report outages online and the ability to receive text messages or emails when outages occur. Customers can visit www.HydroOne.com/Choice to learn more.

"Customers can pick and choose the tools that work best for them. We are now able to offer a suite of features built for any lifestyle as our employees support Ontario's COVID-19 response across the province," said Fitzsimmons.

In addition to these customization options, Hydro One has also developed a number of customer support measures during COVID-19, including a Pandemic Relief Fund to offer payment flexibility and financial assistance to customers. The company is also extending its ban on electricity disconnections to ensure that no customer is disconnected at a time when support is needed most. More information about Hydro One's Pandemic Relief Program can be found at www.HydroOne.com/PandemicRelief. Customers can continue to contact Hydro One to determine individual payment plans and determine financial assistance programs available to meet their needs, especially as disconnection pressures can arise for some households.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

San Juan Generating Station eyed for $1 coal-plant sale, as Farmington and Acme propose CCS retrofit, meeting emissions caps and renewable mandates by selling captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery via a nearby pipeline.

Key Points

A New Mexico coal plant eyed for $1 and a CCS retrofit to cut emissions and sell CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.

✅ $400M-$800M CCS retrofit; 90% CO2 capture target

✅ CO2 sales for enhanced oil recovery; 20-mile pipeline gap

✅ PNM projects shutdown savings; renewable and emissions mandates

One dollar. That’s how much an aging New Mexico coal plant is worth. And by some estimates, even that may be too much.

Acme Equities LLC, a New York-based holding company, is in talks to buy the 847-megawatt San Juan Generating Station for $1, after four of its five owners decided to shut it down. The fifth owner, the nearby city of Farmington, says it’s pursuing the bargain-basement deal with Acme to avoid losing about 1,600 direct and indirect jobs in the area amid a broader just transition debate for energy workers.

We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical

Acme’s interest comes as others are looking to exit a coal industry that’s been plagued by costly anti-pollution regulations. Acme’s plan: Buy the plant "at a very low cost," invest in carbon capture technology that will lower emissions, and then sell the captured CO2 to oil companies, said Larry Heller, a principal at the holding group.

By doing this, Acme “believes we can generate an acceptable rate of return,” Heller said in an email.

Meanwhile, San Juan’s majority owner, PNM Resources Inc., offers a distinctly different view, echoing declining coal returns reported by other utilities. A 2022 shutdown will push ratepayers to other energy alternatives now being planned, saving them about $3 to $4 a month on average, PNM has said.

“We could not identify a solution that would make running San Juan Generating Station economical,” said Tom Fallgren, a PNM vice president, in an email.

The potential sale comes as a new clean-energy bill, supported by Governor Lujan Grisham, is working its way through the state legislature. It would require the state to get half of its power from renewable sources by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045, even as other jurisdictions explore small modular reactor strategies to meet future demand. At the same time, the legislation imposes an emissions cap that’s about 60 percent lower than San Juan’s current levels.

In response, Acme is planning to spend $400 million to $800 million to retrofit the facility with carbon capture and sequestration technology that would collect carbon dioxide before it’s released into the atmosphere, Heller said. That would put the facility into compliance with the pending legislation and, at the same time, help generate revenue for the plant.

The company estimates the system would cut emissions by as much as 90 percent, and the captured gas could be sold to oil companies, which uses it to enhance well recovery. The bottom line, according to Heller: “A winning financial formula.”

It’s a tricky formula at best. Carbon-capture technology has been controversial, even as new coal plant openings remain rare, expensive to install and unproven at scale. Additionally, to make it work at the San Juan plant, the company would need to figure out how to deliver the CO2 to customers since the nearest pipeline is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) away.

Reducing costs

Acme is also evaluating ways to reduce costs at San Juan, Heller said, including approaches seen at operators extending the life of coal plants under regulatory scrutiny, such as negotiating a cheaper coal-supply contract and qualifying for subsidies.

Farmington’s stake in the plant is less than 10 percent. But under terms of the partnership, the city — population 45,000 — can assume full control of San Juan should the other partners decide to pull out, mirroring policy debates over saving struggling nuclear plants in other regions. That’s given Farmington the legal authority to pursue the plant’s sale to Acme.

At the end of the day, nobody wants the energy

“We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical,” Farmington Mayor Nate Duckett said by email. Ducket said he’s in better position than the other owners to assess San Juan’s importance “because we sit at Ground Zero.”

The city’s economy would benefit from keeping open both the plant and a nearby coal mine that feeds it, according to Duckett, with operations that contribute about $170 million annually to the local area.

While the loss of those jobs would be painful to some, Camilla Feibelman, a Sierra Club chapter director, is hard pressed to see a business case for keeping San Juan open, pointing to sector closures such as the Three Mile Island shutdown as evidence of shifting economics. The plant isn’t economical now, and would almost certainly be less so after investing the capital to add carbon-capture systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nova Scotia Integrated Resource Plan evaluates NSPI supply options, UARB oversight, Muskrat Falls imports, coal retirements, wind and biomass expansion, transmission upgrades, storage, and least-cost pathways to decarbonize the grid for ratepayers.

Key Points

A 25-year roadmap assessing supply, imports, costs, and emissions to guide least-cost decarbonization for Nova Scotia.

✅ Compares wind, biomass, gas, imports, and storage costs

✅ Addresses coal retirements, emissions caps, and reliability

✅ Recommends transmission upgrades and Muskrat Falls utilization

Maintaining a viable electricity network requires good long-term planning and, as a recent grid operations report notes, ongoing operational improvements. The existing stock of generating assets can become obsolete through aging, changes in fuel prices or environmental considerations. Future changes in demand must be anticipated.

Periodically, an integrated resource plan is created to predict how all this will add up during the ensuing 25 years. That process is currently underway and is led by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and will be submitted for approval to the Utilities and Review Board (UARB).

Coal-fired plants are still the largest single source of electricity in Nova Scotia. They need to be replaced with more environmentally friendly sources when they reach the end of their useful lives. Other sources include wind, hydroelectricity from rivers, biomass, as seen in increased biomass use by NS Power, natural gas and imports from other jurisdictions.

Imports are used sparingly today but will be an important source when the electricity from Muskrat Falls comes on stream. That project has big capacity. It can produce all the power needed in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), where Quebec's power ambitions influence regional flows, plus the amount already committed to Nova Scotia, and still have a lot left over.

Some sources of electricity are more valuable than others. The daily amount of power from wind and solar cannot be controlled. Fuel-based sources and hydro can.

Utilities make their profits by providing the capital necessary to build infrastructure. Most of the money is borrowed but a portion, typically 30 per cent, usually comes from NSPI or a sister company. On that they receive a rate of return of nine per cent. Nova Scotia can borrow money today at less than two per cent.

The largest single investment of that type is the $1.577-billion Maritime Link connecting power from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia. It continues through to the New Brunswick border to facilitate exports to the United States. NSPI’s sister company, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML), is making nine per cent on $473 million of the cost.

There is little unexploited hydro capacity in Nova Scotia and there will not be any new coal-fired plants. Large-scale solar is not competitive in Nova Scotia’s climate. Nova Scotia’s needs would not accommodate the amount of nuclear capacity needed to be cost-effective, even as New Brunswick explores small reactors in its strategy.

So the candidates for future generating resources are wind, natural gas, biomass (though biomass criticism remains) and imports from other jurisdictions. Tidal is a promising opportunity but is still searching for a commercially viable technology. 

NSPI is commendably transparent about its process (irp.nspower.ca). At this stage there is little indication of the conclusions they are reaching but that will presumably appear in due course.

The mountains of detail might obscure the fact that NSPI is not an unbiased arbiter of choices for the future.

It is reported that they want to prematurely close the Trenton 5 coal plant in 2023-25. It is valued at $88.5 million. If it is closed early, ratepayers will still have to pay off the remaining value even though the plant will be idle. NSPI wants to plan a decommissioning of five of its other seven plants. There is a federal emissions constraint but retiring coal plants earlier than needed will cost ratepayers a lot.

Whenever those plants are closed, there will be a need for new sources of power. NSPI is proposing to plan for new investments in new transmission infrastructure to facilitate imports. Other possibilities would be additional wind farms, consistent with the shift to more wind and solar projects, thermal plants that burn natural gas or biomass, or storage for excess wind power that arrives before it can be used. The investment in storage could be anywhere from $20 million to $200 million.

These will add to the asset burden funded by ratepayers, even as industrial customers seek discounts while still paying for shuttered coal infrastructure.

External sources of new power will not provide NSPI the same opportunity: wind power by independent producers might be less expensive because they are willing to settle for less than nine per cent or because they are more efficient. Buying more power from Muskrat Falls will use transmission infrastructure we are already paying for. If a successful tidal technology is found, it will not be owned by NSPI or a sister company, which are no longer trying to perfect the technology.

This is not to suggest that NSPI would misrepresent the alternatives. But they can tilt the discussion in their favour. How tough will they be negotiating for additional Muskrat Falls power when it hurts their profits? Arguing for premature coal retirement on environmental grounds is fair game but whether the cost should be accepted is a political choice. 

NSPI is in a conflict of interest. We need a different process. An independent body should author the integrated resource plan. They should be fully informed about NSPI’s views.

They should communicate directly with Newfoundland and Labrador for Muskrat power, with independent wind producers, and with tidal power companies. The UARB cannot do any of these things.

The resulting plan should undergo the same UARB review that NSPI’s version would. This enhances the likelihood that Nova Scotians will get the least-cost alternative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine Electricity Exports resume to the European grid, starting with Moldova and expanding to Poland, Slovakia, and Romania, signaling energy security, grid resilience, added megawatts, and recovery after Russian strikes with support and renewables.

Key Points

Ukraine Electricity Exports are resumed sales of surplus power to EU neighbors, reflecting grid recovery and resilience.

✅ Initial deliveries to Moldova; Poland, Slovakia, Romania to follow.

✅ Extra capacity from repairs, warmer demand, and renewables.

✅ Exports may vary amid ongoing Russian strikes risk.

Ukraine began resuming electricity exports to European countries on Tuesday, its energy minister said, a dramatic turnaround from six months ago when fierce Russian bombardment of power stations plunged much of the country into darkness in a bid to demoralize the population.

The announcement by Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko that Ukraine was not only meeting domestic consumption demands but also ready to restart exports to its neighbors was a clear message that Moscow’s attempt to weaken Ukraine by targeting its infrastructure did not work.

Ukraine’s domestic energy demand is “100%” supplied, he told The Associated Press in an interview, and it has reserves to export due to the “titanic work” of its engineers and international partners.

Russia ramped up infrastructure attacks in September, when waves of missiles and exploding drones destroyed about half of Ukraine’s energy system. Power cuts were common across the country as temperatures dropped below freezing and tens of millions struggled to keep warm.

Moscow said the strikes were aimed at weakening Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, and has also moved to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant through new power lines, while Western officials said the blackouts that caused civilians to suffer amounted to war crimes. Ukrainians said the timing was designed to destroy their morale as the war marked its first anniversary.

Ukraine had to stop exporting electricity in October to meet domestic needs.

Engineers worked around the clock, often risking their lives to come into work at power plants and keep the electricity flowing. Kyiv’s allies also provided help. In December, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $53 million in bilateral aid to help the country acquire electricity grid equipment, and USAID mobile gas turbine plant support, on top of $55 million for energy sector support.

Much more work remains to be done, Halushchenko said. Ukraine needs funding to repair damaged generation and transmission lines, and revenue from electricity exports would be one way to do that.

The first country to receive Ukraine’s energy exports will be Moldova, he said.

Besides the heroic work by engineers and Western aid, warmer temperatures are enabling the resumption of exports by making domestic demand lower, even as Germany’s coal generation shapes regional power flows.

Renewables like solar and wind power also come into play as temperatures rise, taking some pressure off nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

But it’s unclear if Ukraine can keep up exports amid the constant threat of Russian bombardment, with any potential agreement on power plant attacks still uncertain.

“Unfortunately now a lot of things depend on the war,” Halushchenko said. “I would say we feel quite confident now until the next winter.”

Exports to Poland, Slovakia and Romania are also on schedule to resume, he said.

“Today we are starting with Moldova, and we are talking about Poland, we are talking about Slovakia and Romania,” Halushchenko added, noting that how much will depend on their needs.

“For Poland, we have only one line that allows us to export 200 megawatts, but I think this month we will finish another line which will increase this to an additional 400 MW, so these figures could change,” he said.

Export revenue will depend on fluctuating electricity prices in Europe, where stunted hydro and nuclear output may affect recovery. In 2022, while Ukraine was still able to export energy, Ukrainian companies averaged 40 million to 70 million euros a month depending on prices, Halushchenko said.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News