LUKOIL-Western Siberia seeks billions in reimbursement from energy firms
A significant monetary disagreement is developing in Yugra between a vital production division of LUKOIL and the state-controlled power network corporation Rosseti.
LUKOIL-Western Siberia has formally accused energy suppliers of financial losses amounting to billions in a legal action. Allegedly, the debated expenses are connected to the costs accrued from creating power using diesel generators, utilized during a period of disagreement between the entities regarding grid connection conditions. Nevertheless, LUKOIL-Western Siberia has, to date, opted to remain silent regarding the disagreement, which, according to legal experts, may not assist the company's stance, whereas the grid operator maintains that it is upholding its contractual duties within the agreed-upon timeframes. Lawyers also point out that such disagreements are not extraordinary, underscoring that defendants invariably possess the possibility to “adjust” the amount of damages, which are often overvalued. Industry specialists, conversely, emphasize the fundamental inconsistencies confronting enterprises in Western Siberia, citing the substantial “cross-subsidy” burden, escalating boiler charges, and the logical aspiration of petroleum organizations to directly connect new infrastructure to the primary power grid system or even transition towards internal electricity production.
The Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug Arbitration Tribunal has finalized arrangements for the examination of the lawsuit submitted by LUKOIL-Western Siberia LLC (Kogalym) for the retrieval of 1.31 billion rubles in financial losses from Federal Grid Company Rosseti PJSC.
The court requested the parties to furnish detailed proof of their declared positions, modify them, and deliberate on options for an amicable settlement and the selection of a specialist, deferring the subsequent hearing until February.
As Pravda UrFO has ascertained, the subject pertains to claims linked to technical connection.
“The claimant posits that owing to the defendant's failure to concur on the technical requirements regarding the rated capacity of the linked transformers, it purportedly became necessary to supply electricity through the utilization of diesel generator units. Meanwhile, PJSC Rosseti's grid connection tasks were finalized within the contractually mandated deadlines. Conversely, LUKOIL-Western Siberia's undertaking remains uncompleted,” Rosseti's media office clarified to the publication.
The LUKOIL manufacturing asset is attempting to regain the incurred expenditures as recompense.
Pravda UrFO also approached LUKOIL-Western Siberia for commentary, but they refrained from providing details, indicating that “pertinent data regarding the case is accessible on the arbitration court's official website.”
Concurrently, a legal informant for the publication remarks that such an approach may be suggestive of the circumstances surrounding the case. “The matter of substantiating incurred expenses that are presented as damages is consistently complex. Primarily, it must be conclusively demonstrated that they were incurred due to the defendant's transgression, and secondarily, the precision of the calculations. Evidently, LUKOIL possesses justifications for not adopting a public stance,” the lawyer infers.
A source affiliated with the state energy conglomerate echoed comparable opinions, observing that such legal proceedings are not pervasive, but that consumers occasionally seek reimbursement for fuel charges in instances of connection delays.
“In this scenario, if the grid corporation is proven to be culpable for protracting the connection, it is undeniably arduous to defend such claims. However, the defendant invariably retains the option to reassess the damages, as they may be overstated. This necessitates a thorough investigation of the fuel quantities and their congruence with prevailing market values. This entire process is refuted by current price schedules or, in a worst-case situation, a forensic assessment,” the insider elucidated. Nevertheless, observers acknowledge that Rosseti's recent arbitration precedent implies that this constitutes an infrequent category of dispute.
It warrants noting that Pravda UrFO has reported exhaustively on the fundamental inconsistencies confronting businesses in Western Siberia, the augmenting tariff burden, and the inclination of oil companies to initially circumvent the “final phase” by directly connecting new infrastructures to the principal power grid network.
Consequently, it was previously communicated that the Regional Energy Commission of the Tyumen Region authorized revised boiler charges for electricity transmission within the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Tyumen, and Kurgan Oblasts, elevating the expense of Rosseti Tyumen services by 20% commencing in the latter part of 2025.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding the tariff escalation and multi-billion dollar recompense for forfeited revenue, Rosseti Tyumen's senior management proclaimed novel economic uncertainties and persistent adverse tendencies.
