Europe is immersed in the search for solutions to the energy crisis. The magic formula does not exist and, aware of this, the bloc faces the challenge of finding effective measures for all. On the one hand, to alleviate market prices and, on the other, to find a new approach that works in the medium term.
The president of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has been forceful and has already put one of the electricity market on the table. To outline this new system, the Community Energy Ministers will meet on September 9. There are several options on the table and also different positions.
Precisely, one of the entry difficulties is the diversity between countries and the differences in their energy markets. This situation has surfaced since the beginning of the crisis and a clear example of this is Germany. The European locomotive has a great dependence on the , while countries like Spain or Portugal benefit from the gas that arrives by sea -the well-known energy island- and are less exposed to the flows of these gas pipelines. For this reason, the level of dependence on fossil fuels is one of the key issues to seek solutions and, also, the renewable capacity of each member.
One of the main problems is the rise in the price of gas and the role it plays in the electricity bill, which has opened the door to changing the configuration of the current market. According to von der Leyen, this model was designed under different circumstances and is now the most expensive energy resource. Therefore, one of the formulas that is being considered is putting a cap on that fuel, as is now the case in Spain and Portugal. Brussels could extend this casuistry to the whole although, in this case, it would remain to be determined how the subsidy is paid.
On the other hand, the European Union could also modify the way in which the price of electricity is calculated and, directly, take gas out of the equation. Thus, this fuel would have less impact on electricity and a way would be sought to account for energy separately: fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear.
Another option, which Italy is in favor of, is to limit the prices of purchases from Russia. Many member states doubt that this is an effective solution and that it can be carried out in practice. The president of the commission, von der Leyen, is going further and intends to cut all ties with Putin. So, you have to look for alternative providers that cover the Russian percentage.
On the other hand, another point of friction is how these measures are going to be financed. Another proposal, advocated by different countries, is to extend the so-called “benefits from heaven” of energy companies. In Spain and the United Kingdom and Germany contemplate it. In this case, the difficulty lies in defining what part of the income is “excess”.
In Europe, certain companies have benefited from high prices while others have been hurt by gas shortages. This is the case of Uniper, which needs state financing to be able to continue operating under current conditions.
The challenge of putting the first plant into operation and reducing gas consumption by 15% is still pending. This helps to alleviate demand, but it does not save Europe from a complete cut from Gazprom.
Finally, member states do not agree on where to invest and which projects to focus on. One of the examples is the reactivation of Midcat, the infrastructure to send gas from the Iberian Peninsula through France, which does not have the support of the French country, but which Germany or Spain, for example, do support. European solidarity is on trial.
Facebook Comments
Disqus