22.05.2026
During the Energy Club professional discussion “Public Procurement of Electricity: Legal Certainty, Retrospective Risks, and Energy Security,” held in Kyiv on May 11, market participants, lawyers, business representatives, and state institutions discussed the crisis situation in the field of public electricity procurement.
The retrospective application of new judicial practice approaches to past contracts, mass prosecutorial lawsuits, and differing interpretations of the Law “On Public Procurement” have created serious risks for suppliers and customers, as well as jeopardized the stability of electricity supply to critical infrastructure facilities.
Oleksandr Onyshchenko, Business Development Director at D.Solutions, responding to questions about the practical impact of the situation on the market, emphasized that the main consequence today is already a reduction in competition.
“I don’t think there will be a collapse. A solution will always be found. But the problem is that decisions are often made without assessing their consequences. And there is a risk that a separate privileged supplier will emerge, with zero questions asked. And that is a path toward market monopolization,” he noted.
According to Oleksandr Onyshchenko, the current situation could lead to cross-subsidization and the gradual displacement of the competitive environment, not only in the public procurement segment but also in other directions of the energy market.
“We have long stopped working with water utilities and district heating companies. If things continue this way, we might also stop working with hospitals, schools, and institutes. We will see what happens in the autumn. Every year I ask my lawyers: ‘Are we entering Prozorro again?’ And I don’t know what answer I will hear this year,” he stressed.
The Business Development Director at D.Solutions paid special attention to the problem of chaotic tender contract terms. According to him, even with recommendations in place, each customer forms documents in their own way, creating significant legal risks and complicating the work of suppliers.
“We have always advocated for transparent formula mechanisms and have never tried to make money on the ‘hidden pitfalls’ of supplementary agreements. But now our lawyers are forced to re-read hundreds of contracts on Prozorro because they can simultaneously write in price fluctuations, the Day-Ahead Market, and anything else. It’s just a waste of labor,” the speaker noted.
He supported the idea of introducing standard electronic contracts for specific categories of consumers, emphasizing that this could significantly simplify the procurement process and make it more transparent and understandable for both suppliers and customers.
Market participants are convinced that without clear and predictable rules, the state risks losing the competitive environment in the field of public electricity procurement. This means not only legal or financial consequences but also potential risks to the stable supply of electricity to critically important institutions and communities.
The current situation requires a systemic dialogue between the state, business, and the professional community to prevent further narrowing of competition and preserve the stability of the energy market.
