Disagreement over fuel value caps threatens the EU’s plan for the power disaster

The European Union’s plan to answer the power disaster has been referred to as into query because of differing opinions among the many bloc’s members on whether or not to use a value cap on pure fuel imports and, if that’s the case, what that utility ought to seem like. Whereas EU officers attempt to valiantly educate and ship constructive indicators solely to the general public, the sheer variety of EU members and their vastly totally different power wants and priorities are elements vital sufficient to make reaching settlement on such an essential situation troublesome at finest.

As soon as these two elements are added and the open criticism of a number of members towards the thought of ​​a value cap for pure fuel imports, the scenario turns into much more sophisticated, and an settlement is tougher to succeed in.

“The dialogue is extraordinarily sophisticated as a result of there are merely totally different views.” . .[but]we wish to work laborious within the remaining days to succeed in an settlement,” Jozef Sikela, the Czech power minister, stated final week as quoted by the Monetary Instances.

EU members have been negotiating a disaster administration bundle for months, with an settlement on the higher fuel value no nearer than firstly of the negotiations, when 15 EU members requested it.

The European Fee has additionally been skeptical concerning the potential advantages of capping fuel costs, however as a result of variety of EU members who wished it, the Fee put ahead a proposal for a cap final week. From a sure perspective, it could be higher if it wasn’t.

The proposal set the potential cap at €275 per megawatt-hour: a value the Fee stated ought to be in place two weeks earlier than the cap takes impact. He additionally mixed this situation with one other: fuel costs in Europe ought to be 58 euros per MWh greater than the common value for LNG on the spot marketplace for ten consecutive days in these two weeks.

The response was fast and got here from all sides. Merchants and exchanges stated the proposal may trigger critical and irreversible injury to EU power markets because of its focus solely on futures within the first months. Excessively excessive margin within the OTC market, the place merchants can be compelled to commerce beneath a cap, was one main concern. Further change prices had been one other.

Nevertheless, merchants and inventory market operators weren’t the one critics. Politicians from a number of EU member states have additionally declared their opposition to the cap too excessive. Certainly, observers notice that even when fuel costs in Europe had been at their highest this yr, at over €300 per MWh, they by no means stayed at €275 per MWh for a full two weeks. The extent proposed by the Fee is, due to this fact, thought of unrealistically excessive for the restrict to be efficient.

Spain’s Power Minister Teresa Ribera advised the FT that “nations will probably be killed” in the event that they must put up with fuel costs at that degree for thus lengthy and referred to as the Fee’s proposal a “tasteless joke”. That is proper did Poland’s Minister of Power Anna Moskva.

“The fuel value restrict that’s at the moment within the doc doesn’t fulfill any nation.” It is type of a joke for us,” Moscow stated final week, in line with CNBC. One unnamed EU official referred to as the cap proposal a “false value ceiling”.

EU power ministers meet once more on December 13 to attempt to attain some type of settlement on the cap and different measures. From the most recent indicators, this will probably be removed from simple within the absence of an alternate proposal to handle the fuel value.

Associated: These nations have the world’s oldest nuclear reactors

Because of this discussions will proceed till members agree on a watered-down model of the unique proposal, as is often the case with many of the Fee’s controversial proposals. A watered-down model of the worth cap would do little to enhance the EU’s power safety throughout its worst winter in many years.

In the meantime, EU members should already be fascinated with subsequent winter. For now, fuel provides have been secured because of regular Russian flows within the first half of the yr, report LNG imports to the US and a longer-than-usual storage filling season. Subsequent yr, nevertheless, the circulation of Russian oil will probably be a lot weaker than this yr, and there are not any extra US LNG provides to fill the hole.

It might be stated that EU power ministers ought to give attention to that as an alternative of a value cap that the Fee clearly doesn’t wish to implement, and neither do members like Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. Nevertheless, the fuel drawback is rather more urgent for many governments in Europe, therefore its place within the focal point.

The problem is more likely to stay entrance and heart for the foreseeable future, no matter EU power ministers handle to agree on in December — if they will agree on something in any respect. Because the climate turns colder throughout Europe, it’s critical for politicians to be seen to be doing one thing about power costs. Persons are already indignant about their electrical energy payments.

By Irina Slav for

Extra high reads from

About the author


Leave a Comment