25.09.2026
Ukraine’s energy storage market is already developing several legal models, ranging from a standalone storage operator and an active consumer to third-party equipment placement and energy storage as a service. Maksym Fedotov, lawyer, CEO and founder of FEDOTOV&PARTNERS, discussed monetisation opportunities, licensing, contractual structuring and legislative inconsistencies during the Energy Club forum “Energy Freedom: Resilience and New Opportunities in Ukraine’s Energy Storage Market,” held in Kyiv on 17 September.
At the beginning of his presentation, Maksym Fedotov explained that FEDOTOV&PARTNERS is a highly specialised law firm operating exclusively in the energy sector. The company advises installers, energy storage operators, gas-engine generation projects, electricity suppliers and traders. Based on the firm’s practical experience, BESS projects can be divided into two main categories: an energy storage system operating as a standalone market facility and storage integrated into a company’s energy infrastructure. “In principle, the energy storage business can be divided into two broad categories: storage as a standalone facility and storage as part of an enterprise,” Maksym Fedotov explained.
A standalone storage system operates as an independent market participant and can be used for price arbitrage and participation in the balancing and ancillary services markets. Maksym Fedotov also identified electricity imports and exports as potential monetisation options. According to him, a separate licence is not required for an energy storage facility with an electricity output capacity of up to 5 MW. “The question we are asked most frequently concerns licensing. If the storage facility’s output capacity does not exceed 5 MW, a licence is not required,” he said.
The number of requests concerning the accreditation of energy storage operators and legal support for their market activities is already growing. One of the new areas encountered by the firm immediately before the forum involved advice on importing and exporting electricity using energy storage systems.
Maksym Fedotov identified the introduction of flexible grid connection arrangements and the possibility of combining generation and storage within a single configuration among the latest legislative developments.
However, even after the adoption of the necessary secondary legislation, legal complications continue to arise during project implementation. As an example, he described a client that operated an existing solar power plant and constructed an energy storage system next to it. From an engineering perspective, the equipment was connected correctly, but the solar plant and storage system were commissioned as two separate facilities. When the client subsequently submitted its documents to NEURC, it was informed that the facilities in this configuration could not be added to the licensed places of business activity. “The problem in this case can be resolved, and there is nothing critical about it. However, it demonstrates that even in situations that appear straightforward, close attention must be paid to documentation and commissioning procedures,” Maksym Fedotov stressed.
Another new model involves connecting an energy storage system and a consumer at the same connection point. According to the speaker, this configuration allows the storage operator to sell electricity directly to that consumer without obtaining an electricity supply licence. “This creates another monetisation opportunity for the energy storage operator and an additional option for operating in the market,” he said.
Maksym Fedotov also discussed connection charges and a legal inconsistency he had identified. From 1 September, a double payment was expected to apply, with separate charges for the storage system’s electricity output and withdrawal capacities.
At the same time, the legislation introduced the possibility of postponing this double payment until 1 January 2027, provided that certain conditions were fulfilled. The problem lies in a contradiction between two provisions of the relevant resolution. One clause states that a storage operator must satisfy one of three listed conditions to qualify for the relief. The following clause allows the distribution system operator to recalculate the charge if the market participant has failed to meet at least one of those conditions. “The first clause says that only one requirement must be fulfilled. However, the next clause effectively permits the charge to be recalculated unless all three have been fulfilled. This is a legal inconsistency that could create problems for market participants in the future,” the lawyer explained.
FEDOTOV&PARTNERS has prepared proposed amendments to the wording of the resolution so that its text reflects the purpose for which the relief was introduced.
If an energy storage system is installed exclusively for a company’s own needs, without the company acquiring active consumer status, the legal model is relatively straightforward. The system can be used for internal arbitrage, backup power and consumption optimisation.
The principal legal task in these projects is to establish the appropriate contractual arrangements within the facility, particularly when it is a commercial complex with several tenants.
Maksym Fedotov noted that, among the firm’s more than 150 clients, only a few had requested advice on storage systems used exclusively for their own needs without active consumer status.
A larger number of enquiries relate to the active consumer model. This allows a company not only to use electricity for its own needs but also to inject it into the grid and sell it to its electricity supplier. For this model to operate, the contract must regulate the purchase and sale prices of electricity, settlement and netting procedures, and other commercial terms. “An active consumer can conduct external arbitrage and sell electricity to its supplier. However, this activity must be structured correctly through contractual arrangements,” Maksym Fedotov said.
According to him, an active consumer may generally inject electricity equivalent to up to 50% of its permitted connection capacity. This volume may be increased if the consumer obtains an additional connection service.
A more complex model involves an energy storage system owned by a third party and installed at the premises of an active consumer. This format has recently attracted considerable interest from shopping and business centres, logistics hubs and large industrial facilities with numerous tenants. If tenants do not have separate commercial metering points, the owner of the complex will normally charge them compensation for the electricity consumed. Legally, such compensation should correspond to the cost of the electricity.
At the same time, the owners of commercial properties want to reflect the electricity supplier’s price in these settlements and obtain an economic benefit from the installed equipment. To structure this model legally, a separate company may be established to install the storage system as a third party within the active consumer’s network and sell electricity to that active consumer. The active consumer then settles with its tenants and electricity supplier in accordance with the relevant contracts. “This structure makes it possible to implement the property owner’s intention to work with the supplier’s electricity price in a legally correct manner while also minimising tax risks,” the founder of FEDOTOV&PARTNERS explained.
Maksym Fedotov described energy storage as a service as one of the most interesting models. Under this arrangement, the owner of the storage system installs the equipment at a company’s premises but does not buy or sell electricity to that company.
Instead, the contract covers the provision of power and energy capacity reserves. When developing this contractual model, the lawyers partly drew on NPC Ukrenergo’s reserve service agreements and adapted their principles to relations between private companies. “The operator that installs the energy storage system effectively receives an indexed rental payment for giving the company access to the battery’s power and energy capacity,” Maksym Fedotov said.
The owner of the system receives a predictable cash flow that may be linked to the euro. The company, in turn, obtains energy independence without having to purchase expensive equipment itself. “This is a win-win model. The party that purchases and installs the energy storage system receives payment, while the company obtains energy independence and simpler electricity accounting,” he emphasised.
This structure also allows a company whose core business is not energy-related to avoid complex electricity purchase and sale operations, the need to acquire additional market statuses and the restructuring of its internal accounting processes.
During the discussion, Maksym Fedotov confirmed that the law firm can provide full support for licensing, contractual structuring, obtaining the necessary documents and other legal and selected operational aspects of a project.
Equipment supply is not part of FEDOTOV&PARTNERS’ core business, but the company can recommend technical partners.
“Our approach is to take responsibility for the legal and certain operational issues so that company owners can focus on developing their core business,” Maksym Fedotov concluded.
