The energy ministers of the European Union have failed this Monday in their first attempt for closing a political agreement on European electricity market reformproposed last March by the European Commission to curb the volatility and the dependence of gas electricity prices, protect consumers from price spikes and establish a clear framework for investors in renewable energy. “The negotiations show that there are different points of view that are difficult to marry& rdquor;, he admitted after a “long and difficult& rdquor; negotiating day the Swedish minister Eba Busch that it has not reached the necessary consensus. Yes, they have managed to close a political agreement on two elements that were on the table: the directive of improved market layout and the regulation to improve protection against market manipulationeither.
“It has been a very useful meeting from the point of view of identifying where the problems are and what are the issues that we have to be able to resolve to approve the reform,” explained the third vice president and minister of ecological transition, Teresa Ribera, after the meeting held in Luxembourg. “Despite the expressed will, it has not been possible in relation to three or four points that are still open,” he added, confirming that the file will now be returned to the table of the permanent ambassadors of the Twenty-seven (Coreper) to try to close an agreement still under the Swedish presidency of the EU. “I am optimistic about finding common ground among all but in fact today I was not mature enough to be able to reflect it (…). Hopefully an agreement will be reached in the coming days. If not, the Spanish presidency will work so that this agreement can achieved as soon as possible& rdquor ;, said Ribera.
“We need a little more time. We hope that the Coreper (Permanent Representatives Committee) can resolve the pending issues. Reaching an agreement is very important so that our sector is more resilient in the face of any new shock”, recalled the Commissioner for Energy, kadri simson. Between the obstacles that have stalled the negotiation and have impeded the agreement include the use of contracts for difference (CfD) in the long term, with a price ceiling that protects the consumer and a threshold that protects the investor, in order to access public aid. Income above the cap would be reimbursed to consumers and businesses. The Twenty-seven differ on how to redistribute that revenue and its applicability to existing electricity production facilities.
In March, Brussels proposed that they could only be used for investments in renewable energy. The Swedish presidency proposed that they can also be used to extend the capacity or lifetime of nuclear facilities. A transfer to France to which countries such as Germany and Luxembourg have said a resounding no, considering that they represent a “distortion of the market & rdquor ;. His minister Claude Turmes has warned that this change would mean 120,000 million in additional benefits for the French giant EDF.
income distribution
Flexibility in the redistribution of income does not generate consensus either. revenue from contracts for difference which worries the vast majority of Member States. In the proposal he presented in March, Simson proposed redirecting the money to lower consumer bills. In its compromise, the Swedish Presidency proposed more flexibility so that Member States would have a greater margin of decision. “We need more flexibility because otherwise there will hardly be any relief for consumers or industry,” the German minister recalled. robert habeck during the discussion.
Related news
The last element of friction that has ended up upsetting the plans of the Swedish presidency of the EU has been a proposal introduced at the last minute to satisfy Poland: the possibility of maintaining the capacity mechanism grants for the plants of coal-fired power generation beyond 2025 so that they can keep sufficient power capacity in reserve and guarantee security of supply in the event of blackouts. “They have taken us by surprise,” admitted Ribera, who has advocated for a solution that does not undermine climate objectives as well as a solution that “comfort & rdquor; to Warsaw.
This is a position shared by many other delegations who consider a blow to the EU’s right-wing policy as Germany, Austria or Luxembourg. “I do not see that it is the moment to allow an additional subsidy for coal,” recalled the Luxembourger Claude Turmes that he has attacked the “attempt & rdquor; to allow through the “back door & rdquor; carbon subsidies. “It is unacceptable & rdquor ;, the Belgian has joined Tinne van der Straeten. “In Belgium we already have in our national legislation the obligation to achieve climate neutrality and drastically reduce emissions by 2030 and 2040. So it is something that we cannot accept,” he said about the commitment. “(We still) need coal-fired power plants, but giving them higher subsidies is a mistake incompatible with climate objectives,” Habeck recalled.