Andrey Gerus: The government is not obligated by Rada to purchase reactors for nuclear power plants in Bulgaria; it is their right to decide.

In an interview with RBC-Ukraine, the chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Fuel and Energy Complex, Andriy Gerus, discussed the completion of the energy blocks at the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant, the return of the Zaporizhzhia NPP under Ukraine's control, the launch of the station, as well as the increase in electricity tariffs for the population and the transit of gas and oil from Russia.

On Tuesday, February 11, the Verkhovna Rada took a step towards starting the project to complete two blocks of the Khmelnytskyi NPP, effectively allowing the government to purchase reactors of Russian manufacture from Bulgaria. This fact, along with the project itself, has sparked considerable debate not only among energy experts but also in political circles. After President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly supported the completion, the Rada eventually gave the green light to this initiative. The corresponding bill received 269 votes from deputies.

However, the decision to purchase energy equipment for the completion of the two blocks of the Khmelnytskyi NPP could have been made independently by the government, says the head of the relevant committee, Andriy Gerus. Yet, due to the project's scale, it was ultimately decided to conduct it through Parliament. In an interview with RBC-Ukraine, the deputy assured that the prospects for the actual completion of the energy blocks will depend on the feasibility study of the construction, which needs to be revised. The conversation took place last week, before the vote in the Rada regarding the approval for purchasing the reactors.

Gerus also believes that at the Zaporizhzhia NPP, if liberated from Russian occupiers, two of the six existing energy blocks could be operational within a year. He is convinced that the transit of Russian energy resources through Ukraine should be stopped, but in a way that genuinely reduces Russia's oil and gas export volumes.

- Recently, President Zelensky urged deputies to support the bill for purchasing equipment from Bulgaria for the completion of two energy blocks at the Khmelnytskyi NPP. Is the Rada prepared to consider this bill, and will there be enough votes?

- The Rada is ready to consider this bill. As for the votes, I cannot say; apparently, there should be votes not only from our faction. Today, there are two bills - one for the purchase of reactors and the other for the completion of the blocks themselves. They have passed the committee and are ready for consideration in the hall.

On the completion of new blocks at the Khmelnytskyi NPP

- Have you determined your position regarding the vote?

- We'll see what bill is presented in the hall. There is still a question regarding the feasibility study to understand the project's cost. This is an important point. It’s one thing if the cost of electricity from a new block is $500 per MW, then it looks cheap and economically attractive. It’s another matter if it’s $10,000 per MW - then it’s expensive. This is a crucial point. We don’t want to build generation at any cost; we want to find an effective solution that would be optimal in terms of the money spent and the resulting generating capacity.

- There are old calculations for the cost of completing the blocks at the Khmelnytskyi NPP, but everything needs to be recalculated based on the current situation. Who should do this - "Energoatom," the Ministry of Energy?

- These calculations need to be updated. The algorithm is as follows - "Energoatom" updates the calculations, revises the feasibility study. Then the Ministry of Energy reviews it and submits it to the Cabinet, which approves it. The new feasibility study is attached to the bill, and then the document is voted on in the Rada. There is a norm that the bill must be submitted to the Rada along with the feasibility study.

- So, the first bill regarding the purchase of equipment from Bulgaria can be voted on as is, while the feasibility study is relevant for the second bill?

- A separate conciliatory council of Parliament was convened on this matter, and as far as I know, such a decision was made. One bill allows the government to make a decision on purchasing the reactor, while the other is already with the updated feasibility study specifically about the construction of the blocks.

- If the first bill is passed, but based on the preparation of the second, it becomes clear that building new blocks is expensive or for some other reasons unfeasible, what will happen to the equipment that will be purchased?

- I do not know what the calculations will be. From comments from the Ministry of Energy, which currently exist, this is relatively cheap construction. But this is only based on statements that need to be confirmed by the feasibility study.

- Is there a possibility that we buy the equipment and then do not know what to do with it?

- If we are talking about the bill for purchasing reactors, it does not obligate anyone to purchase anything. It gives the right to analyze the situation and, if deemed appropriate, the government can make a decision. After that, it is the government’s competence - it can exercise this right or not. There is also the Bulgarian side, which has its own political processes. We will see how it all ends. But in this case, the bill gives the government the right to address the issue and does not obligate it in any way. The government will have the authority to independently decide what to do in this situation.

- Is there any point in bringing the bill for consideration if the feasibility study is not prepared and the deputies do not see the final figures?

- There is an agreement that the bill on construction will be brought with the updated feasibility study. Regarding the purchase of reactors - the ministry and the government are given the right to make the corresponding decision. This will be their authority. Although there is an opinion that they already have the right to make this decision without the approval of the Rada.

- This seems like a dilution of responsibility.

- Purchasing a reactor is a major transaction, which is why it was decided that this should be mentioned in the legislation. But again, I say - there is no obligation to purchase in the law. It only grants the right. And even if the government decides not to go this route, it will not violate anything.

- So, they went through the Rada because of the large sum?

- Legislation states that construction must go through the law. When we talk about purchasing reactors, it seems that this is an integral part of construction and the amount is significant. I believe that is why it was decided to apply this approach.

- Critics of this initiative say that the money used to purchase reactors in Bulgaria comes from the funds accumulated through last year's tariff increases for the population. Is it correct to say that the purchase is planned due to the tariff increases?

- We cannot assert this definitively yet, as we do not see how it will be implemented. However, we hear that there are plans to attract loans for this and some donor assistance is anticipated. But I don't know from whom exactly - the EU has already stated that they do not allocate money for this.

- Bank loans? State banks, EBRD, or someone else?

- So far, there has not been any specificity regarding which loans might be taken. These reactors cost 600 million euros. If the loan funds are not secured, the purchase will have to be made from the company's funds ("Energoatom" - ed.). Considering that the company sells part of its electricity on the free market and part under the PSO for the population, this indeed includes funds from tariffs. Then it would be fair to say that tariff funds are being used for this. But today we hear about loan funds. We will see how it turns out.

- When the tariffs were increased, it was stated that this was due to a lack of funds for restoring the damaged energy infrastructure. Were these funds actually directed towards restoration efforts? Has the goal of raising tariffs been achieved?

- If we say that all these funds went towards restoring some generation, the answer is probably no. Because these funds went to those companies that have been entrusted with the PSO to keep the tariffs for the population lower. These are two companies - "Energoatom" and "Ukrhydroenergo," in proportion - 85% to "Energoatom" and 15% to "Ukrhydroenergo." Accordingly, they are supposed to cover the difference between the tariff for the population and the market price.

In "Ukrhydro," there were damages, so they are in the process of recovery. Fortunately, "Energoatom" did not sustain damages from the shelling, so the funds did not go toward restoration. If we speak indirectly, then, perhaps, the tariff increases somewhat helped the energy system, since "Energoatom" previously lagged in fulfilling its obligations under the PSO and there were debts to energy suppliers for the population. However