19.06.2026
When Ukrenergo NPC tariffs are revised in Ukraine, it is not only the internal history of the energy market. The transmission tariff and dispatching tariff are built into the cost of electricity for business, industry, budget institutions and other market participants. For the household consumer, this impact is not always visible directly due to the effect of special obligations and fixed prices, but the economic cost does not disappear: it is transferred to tariffs, compensations, debts, budget decisions or prices of goods and services.
That is why the question cannot be reduced to a simple formula: “Ukrenergo needs money, so the tariff must be raised”. The question should sound different: what exactly are the costs included in the tariff, are they all justified, are the same problems not covered by other mechanisms and does the consumer see the full picture of what he is paying for.
The draft materials of the National Commission for the Regulation of Energy and Power Generation and Energy Services of Ukraine stipulate that from July 1, 2026, the tariff for electricity transmission services for the main category of system users may increase to UAH 903.53/MWh excluding VAT. The tariff for dispatching (operational and technological) management may increase to UAH 118.64/MWh excluding VAT. Together, this means an additional tariff burden of approximately UAH 169.23/MWh excluding VAT, or about 20 kopecks per kWh including VAT compared to current levels.
For a large consumer, this is no longer a technical trifle. For a consumption of 10 GWh per year, the total additional cost for these two components alone will be about UAH 2 million including VAT. For the economy as a whole, this means billions of hryvnias, which will be distributed among market participants and will ultimately affect the final price of electricity.
Briefly about the tariff changes
The current transmission tariff after the revision from April 1, 2026 is 742.91 UAH/MWh excluding VAT. The design level from July 1, 2026 is 903.53 UAH/MWh. This is an increase of 160.62 UAH/MWh, or 21.62%.
The current dispatch tariff is 110.03 UAH/MWh excluding VAT. The design level is 118.64 UAH/MWh. This is an increase of 8.61 UAH/MWh, or 7.83%.
At first glance, the main increase falls on transmission. But the analysis should separate these two tariffs. Transmission and dispatching cover different sets of costs, and the problem of the balancing market is directly related primarily to the dispatching tariff.
In public perception, the transmission tariff often looks like a fee for main networks: substations, power lines, repairs, operation and personnel. In fact, the tariff structure is much broader.
The largest items in the transmission tariff structure
In the design structure of the transmission tariff, the total required revenue of NPC Ukrenergo is UAH 80.617 billion. The largest item is the cost of fulfilling special obligations to ensure an increase in the share of electricity production from alternative sources. This is the PSO RES, for which UAH 32.736 billion is allocated. That is, more than 40% of the required income under the transmission tariff is not related to the physical transmission of electricity as such, but to the market mechanism for supporting renewable energy.
The second large item is compensation for technological losses of electricity in transmission networks. UAH 19.049 billion is allocated for it in the structure. This is indeed related to transmission: the operator must purchase electricity to compensate for losses in the network. But the size of this item directly depends on the forecast price of electricity purchases and on assumptions regarding the structure of purchases in the bilateral contracts market, the day-ahead market, and the balancing market.
Another UAH 8.109 billion in the transmission tariff are financial costs. Almost UAH 5 billion are costs for the service of reducing the load by RES producers. Approximately UAH 4.755 billion are expenses from profit, in particular for the repayment of loan funds and capital investments. Labor, repairs, material and other operating costs are taken into account separately.
This does not automatically mean that each of these items is unfounded. But it means something else: when a consumer is told about a “transmission tariff”, he actually pays a whole basket of network, debt, compensation and political and regulatory obligations. That is why such a tariff requires not a formal, but the most understandable explanation.
The dispatching management tariff has a different nature. It is associated with ensuring the operation of the unified power system in real time: balancing, frequency support, reserves, auxiliary services, system restrictions and the work of the settlement administrator.
The largest items in the dispatching tariff structure
In the design structure of the tare fu for dispatching the total required revenue is 21.102 billion UAH. The largest item is the cost of purchasing auxiliary services, 12.067 billion UAH. These are reserves and services required for the stability of the power system. Another 2.869 billion UAH are allocated to the settlement of system restrictions. 2.329 billion UAH are provided for the return of borrowed funds, 914.9 million UAH for cost adjustments, and 439.3 million UAH for financial expenses.
This is where the connection with the balancing market appears. Ukrenergo’s financial statements for 2025 indicate that the financial result on the domestic balancing market, excluding costs for system restrictions and interstate balancing, amounted to a loss of 4.2 billion UAH. For comparison: in 2024 this segment showed a profit of 3.8 billion UAH. That is, the deterioration is about 8 billion UAH. Additionally, the costs of regulating system constraints in 2025 amounted to UAH 4.6 billion.
The reporting directly states: financing the negative financial result of the balancing market is carried out at the expense of the dispatching management tariff. Therefore, when the dispatching tariff increases, it is not only about paying for the dispatching function as such. This tariff partially covers the consequences of distortions and deficits in the balancing market.
Ukrenergo does have a difficult financial position. The company operates in conditions of war, damage to the energy infrastructure, large debt obligations, problems with market settlements and significant receivables. According to the results of 2025, the group received a loss of UAH 10.7 billion.
But this is not enough for tariff analysis. It is important to look not only at the group’s overall financial result, but also at the segments. In the financial statements for 2025, the transmission system operator segment showed a positive financial result of about UAH 10.78 billion. On the other hand, the energy system balancing segment showed a negative result of about UAH 15.29 billion.
This is a fundamental point. If the financial problem is concentrated in the balancing market, it cannot be transferred without explanation to a general argument about the need to increase all tariffs. It is necessary to show: which problem is covered by the transmission tariff, which by the dispatching tariff, which by other mechanisms, and what balance should really be transferred to the consumer.
Formally, the NEURC publishes tariff structures. The documents contain tables, amounts, cost items, and project tariff levels. But this is not enough for the consumer or market participant to understand the full logic of the decision.
The problem is that there is no single public “tariff bridge” — a consolidated table that shows: what was included in the current tariff, what changed in the forecast, which costs increased, which decreased, which new regulatory decisions already affect the financial result, which old debts are covered, and which amounts really remain uncovered.
This is especially important for the dispatching tariff. In 2026, the National Commission for the Regulation of the National Energy and Power Sector of Ukraine (NEPREC) has already made amendments to military resolution No. 332, which allow not to take into account the REC indicator when determining the state of the system. In its financial statements, Ukrenergo notes that these changes should balance the revenues and expenses of the relevant market segment from April 1, 2026. If this decision truly eliminates the imbalance of the balancing market, its financial effect should be directly shown in the calculation of the dispatching tariff.
Otherwise, a key risk arises: the same problem may be partially solved by a regulatory change, but at the same time remain the basis for additional tariff coverage. This does not automatically prove that the tariff is overpriced. But it does mean that without a transparent consolidated calculation, the market cannot check whether the consumer is paying twice.
What is the essence of the problem
For household consumers, the transmission or dispatching tariff is not always reflected in the bill as a separate, understandable line. But this does not mean that it does not affect the economy. For businesses, these tariffs are part of the cost of electricity. For distribution system operators, they are part of the cost base. For producers, suppliers and traders, they affect the final price, commercial decisions and market liquidity.
When the transmission tariff includes RES PSO, technological losses, financial costs, RES restrictions and credit repayment, the consumer actually pays not only for the electricity transportation service. When the dispatching tariff includes coverage of the negative financial result of the balancing market, the consumer pays not only for dispatching management, but also for the consequences of market imbalances.
This can be justified in terms of ah war and crisis energy market. But justification cannot be replaced by general phrases about a difficult financial situation. An exact answer is needed: what exactly is being financed, why in such an amount, why precisely through this tariff and whether there are no alternative or already used sources of coverage.
Before increasing tariffs, the NEURC and Ukrenergo must show not only the final figures, but also the logic of the flow of funds. The minimum set of public explanations should include several elements.
First, a separate calculation of the deficit under the transmission tariff: how much is additionally needed due to technological losses, how much due to PSO RES, how much due to financial costs, how much due to restrictions on RES, how much due to loans and adjustments to past periods.
Second, separate calculation of the deficit in the dispatching tariff: what part is related to ancillary services, system constraints, balancing market debts, cost adjustments and financial costs.
Third, public reflection of the effect of REC and other regulatory changes. If from April 1, 2026, the change in the rules should already balance the revenues and costs of the balancing market, it is necessary to show how exactly this has reduced the need for tariff coverage.
Fourth, the distinction between old debts and current costs. The consumer should see what he is paying for today: for the current service, for past deficits, for the debt burden or for market political obligations.
Fifth, the mechanism for returning the surplus. If actual costs are lower than forecast or if regulatory changes have a greater effect, it should be clear how and when this will reduce future tariffs.
Questions the market should ask
Thus, Ukrenergo is a critically important company for the Ukrainian energy system. In a war situation, its costs cannot be ignored. Damage to infrastructure, deficits, the need for reserves, debts, RES-PSOs and balancing market problems are all real factors.
But that is why the decision to increase tariffs should be as transparent as possible. Society and the market should see not only the final tariff figure, but also the full logic: what problems the tariff solves, which are already solved by other mechanisms, which costs are temporary and which are permanent, and whether the same deficit is transferred to the consumer in several ways at the same time.
The key question is not whether Ukrenergo has costs. It does. The key question is whether it has been proven that this is the amount of additional funds that should be paid by the consumer through the tariff.
Until the NEURC and Ukrenergo show a single, understandable tariff bridge, the increase in tariffs will remain not only an economic but also a social issue. Because the consumer has the right to know: he is paying for a real service, for a justified deficit, or for an opaque basket of costs that no one has fully explained.
