Nuclear-scale conflict: Why there's opposition in the Rada to the completion of the Khmelnytsky Nuclear Power Plant.

The topic of blocking the completion of the energy units at the Khmelnytsky Nuclear Power Plant is actively being discussed in parliament. In particular, this is being demanded by representatives of the "Voice" party. They are also initiating the dismissal of the Minister of Energy. The bifurcation point is approaching - according to the deputies, the Rada will decide on the permission to purchase reactors from Bulgaria as early as the beginning of February. More details are in the RBC-Ukraine material.

Public Dispute

On January 10, during the question hour for the government, responding to a question from "Servant of the People" deputy Dmytro Mikysha regarding plans to complete two energy units at the Khmelnytsky NPP, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal informed about the agreement with the American company Westinghouse, whose fuel is used in all nine nuclear units under Ukraine's control.

In response to this statement, "Voice" deputy Inna Sovsun stated that members of the parliamentary energy committee received messages from representatives of the European Commission delegation and from the American embassy, who are concerned that information is appearing in the public domain suggesting that both parties support this project. In reality, such support does not exist. To this, Shmyhal emphasized once again that all Ukrainian nuclear units were switched to American-made fuel a year and a half before the full-scale invasion and asked the Minister of Energy to provide details.

In turn, Minister Herman Halushchenko confirmed that there is a provision in the law stating that these units will operate on American fuel. He accused Sovsun of "running around embassies and slandering our energy sector and our state." After an exchange of emotional remarks, the deputy submitted a draft resolution for the minister's dismissal.

Nuclear Stalemate

The discussions about completing the two nuclear units at the Khmelnytsky NPP have been ongoing for over a year. Following the occupation of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, the Zaporizhzhia NPP, only nine energy units remain under the control of "Energoatom" at three operational power plants: South Ukrainian, Rivne, and Khmelnytsky. Throughout 2023, these three nuclear power plants collectively generated 52.4 billion kWh. This currently allows them to meet half of Ukraine's electricity needs, but only because consumption has drastically decreased due to the war.

Moreover, the units that are still operational are hard to call young – it is impossible to endlessly extend their operational life. Compensating with other types of generation is not feasible because coal-fired power plants have been almost destroyed (which is why today Ukraine has a record 3 million tons of coal in storage), and hydropower has been significantly damaged.

In such a pessimistic context, resuming the construction of two suspended units at the Khmelnytsky NPP appears to be a justified option. The construction stages vary – from 25% for the fourth unit to 75% readiness for the third. Moreover, Bulgaria has agreed to sell the necessary equipment at dumping prices. This means that the commissioning should happen faster and cheaper than starting from scratch.

However, the project faces criticism from some politicians. The loudest voices come from the deputies of the "Voice" faction. And, of course, the reason is definitely not what Inna Sovsun accused Halushchenko of. The European Union cannot have a unified position on the development of nuclear energy in Ukraine due to... the absence of a common approach to nuclear energy development within Europe itself. Some countries, such as Germany, have fundamentally rejected nuclear energy, while others, like France, derive over 70% of their electricity from it.

On January 16, the VR committee on energy and housing and communal services supported a draft law allowing NAEC "Energoatom" to purchase equipment from Bulgaria necessary for the construction of blocks No. 3 and No. 4 at the Khmelnytsky NPP during its meeting. However, the vote did not reach the session hall of the Rada; the draft law was removed from the agenda, and its consideration was postponed until February.

Versions

So what could be the real motives behind the criticism of the completion of the energy units at the Khmelnytsky NPP? Sources in parliament discuss at least two versions, which may be interconnected.

Economic. The reality of the energy sector today is that Russia is striking major generating and distributing electricity facilities. The cost of each missile strike amounts to millions of dollars, so the result the enemy seeks corresponds accordingly. An objective exit from this situation is the accelerated development of distributed generation, primarily gas-based. After all, if electricity is generated not at individual large stations but by many small ones, it becomes difficult to hit them, and the impact on system stability is minimal. The government has initiated entire incentive programs to stimulate this segment. This is interesting to businesses, and such projects are being actively implemented.

However, this presents a certain paradox – what is beneficial now in the moment may become a liability in the future. The cost of electricity from distributed generation is high. Currently, the issue of electricity prices is secondary; its physical availability is more important, even if it is expensive imports. In the post-war period, when traditional generation stations recover and the electricity market fully operates, distributed generation risks failing to withstand price competition. It is clear that with the completion of new blocks at the Khmelnytsky NPP, the risk of losses for owners of small gas-generating stations increases. Lobbyists for energy investors are present in all factions of the Rada, and some deputies have vested interests in such businesses. Therefore, the first version is precisely a lobbying attempt to legislatively block a major competitor.

Political. The "Voice" party entered parliament barely crossing the 5% threshold with a result of 5.82%. Since then, the smallest faction in the Rada has experienced a series of scandals, the self-elimination of recognizable leaders, and the outflow of some deputies. The party's rating now, according to sociological research, hovers around zero. Therefore, it is quite logical to seek a loud topic on which to build an electoral comeback.

However, if this is the case, then the choice of both the topic and the timing for its launch was extremely unfortunate. When electricity becomes a vital value for society, public opposition to the construction of new energy facilities hardly resembles a political springboard. Rather, it seems like a nail in the coffin of a political career.