Full-scale war has transformed energy resilience from a technical issue into a matter of fundamental community survival. Systematic attacks on power generation and transmission networks, prolonged power cuts, damage to infrastructure and fuel shortages have made the self-sufficiency of critical facilities a prerequisite for the functioning of schools, hospitals, water supply and heating during the cold season. A study covering 133 communities across 24 regions provides an insight into the state of energy self-sufficiency from the communities’ own perspective. The picture that emerges from the responses highlights systemic vulnerabilities at several levels: infrastructure, governance and resources.
The sample is balanced across community types, with over two-thirds of participants being communities with up to 20,000 residents. Such communities have limited budgets, few staff and are most dependent on external funding.
Stability depends on the diesel engine, not on the system
Back-up power supplies in Ukrainian communities are effectively synonymous with generators: 97% of communities have them. All other solutions lag far behind. Only 36.1% of communities have solar panels with storage systems, 21.8% have uninterruptible power supplies, whilst cogeneration plants remain few and far between. Generators are an affordable and easy-to-implement solution to the problem, but they are directly dependent on fuel supply and prices (41.4% of communities complain of fuel shortages) and do not address the issue of long-term self-sufficiency.
Back-up power coverage remains uneven: in roughly one in three communities, the majority of critical facilities still lack it. The presence of a generator in a community does not, in general, mean that every key facility is energy-independent. This is the area of greatest risk. The low proportion of energy storage systems indicates that the transition from ‘a generator for a few hours’ to sustainable self-sufficiency is still ahead for most of the communities surveyed.
Weak management and human resources framework
Almost 60% of local authorities still do not have a single formalised energy sustainability plan, whilst only 21.8% have an approved document. There is a clear gradient in terms of capacity: amongst urban communities, a plan exists in 31.7% of cases, whilst amongst rural communities, it exists in only 13.2%. The smaller and weaker the administrative community, the lower the likelihood of formalised planning, and the greater the need for external methodological support.
Unfortunately, the situation regarding digital energy management is no better. 85% of local authorities do not use any digital energy management systems, which makes it impossible to manage demand, detect faults at an early stage and carry out evidence-based optimisation. Only 10.5% of local authorities have a dedicated energy manager. Without a strategy, objective data (energy audits in over 80% of local authorities are either non-existent or merely token gestures) and dedicated specialists, even the available funds are spent haphazardly, constantly reacting to new challenges.
Funding – the main and quantitatively confirmed barrier
A funding shortfall is by far the most common obstacle: 91% of the communities surveyed cited this as a problem. This is not a subjective perception, but a fact backed up by figures – almost 70% of communities report a critical shortfall, with available funding covering less than a quarter of their needs for energy efficiency measures. The main source of funding remains the local budget (70.7%), followed by international technical assistance (40.6%), whilst market-based and service-based mechanisms such as public-private partnerships and ESCO contracts are hardly utilised at all.
Pragmatic priorities and readiness on the brink
Despite a lack of resources, communities clearly understand which facilities should be prioritised for backup power supplies. Schools and nurseries (75.2%) and water supply pumping stations (72.2%) were identified as the most vulnerable, followed by hospitals (58.6%). Unsurprisingly, the ‘hospital + school + water utility’ cluster is cited as the priority model for a community’s resilience island, with 72 hours set as the target benchmark for self-sufficiency.
The average self-assessment of readiness for the next heating season stands at 3.3 points on a five-point scale – ‘satisfactory, but with no margin for error’. It is also worth noting that greater capacity does not always translate into greater confidence: urban communities that rely on more complex centralised heating systems rate their readiness more cautiously than rural communities with individual heating systems. For smaller communities, the key issue regarding preparedness is not heating itself, but the reliability of the electricity supply, on which the operation of automation systems, pumps and control systems depends.
Motivation comes before ability
Despite the lack of in-house power generation, surplus energy and clear legal frameworks, almost three-quarters of communities expressed a high level of interest in the energy community model (49.6% rated it the maximum 5 points, whilst a further 24.8% rated it 4). The contrast is striking: the barrier lies not in motivation, but in resources and conditions. This means that investment in building communities’ capacity will be met with guaranteed demand.
What follows from this
The study paints a consistent picture: communities are surviving on generators in the absence of a proper system, administrative and human resource capacity is weak, and funding is the main barrier. The practical focus of support stems directly from the communities’ own requests: firstly, access to funding and grants (requested by 86.5% of communities); secondly, a strategic framework in the form of resilience plans and horizontal exchange of experience between communities; and thirdly, the development of human and technical capacity: staff training and engineering expertise.
It makes sense to prioritise investment in essential services – education, water, healthcare and heating – with a target self-sufficiency of 72 hours and a gradual transition from generators to hybrid solutions incorporating energy storage and digital monitoring. Communities are not asking for ‘equipment for the sake of equipment’, but for capacity: money, strategy, knowledge and people.
Source: Study on the energy sustainability of Ukrainian communities (133 communities, 24 regions), prepared by the Centre for Innovation Development, 2026.
Funded by the European Union. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or the European Executive Agency for Health and Digital Technologies. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.