Accuracy / The risk of soaring energy costs for consumers

Without substantial answers regarding the recognized high costs that the energy transition brings for consumers over the next several years, but also regarding the changes in the markets caused by the new condition of the increasing penetration of RES that also affect electricity prices, the new reality in the energy sector.

At the Power & Gas Forum energy conference, which concluded yesterday’s work, representatives of the government, authorities and market players raised all the challenges for the markets, the ambitious plans for Greece as a hub and ultimately an energy exporter, the strengthening of investments in RES, storage, interconnections, etc., without however a specific plan for the burdens that all this entails for end consumers. The special adviser on energy issues of the Prime Minister N. Tsafos declared that he was very optimistic – “we are doing very well” – and pointed out as the main issues how the market will work and under what conditions the energy will be paid for, and in particular the compensation of the excess of energy (as a total of 35 GW of green generation must be imported into a market that currently consumes 5.5 GW), and of turning the country into a hub and exporter-producer of energy, talking about “interconnections everywhere”. He spoke of deindustrialization, which he attributed to fossil fuels – not to the green transition -, admitting that “we gave a shitload of money to natural gas”, which the government of N.D. is known to have subsidized even during the energy crisis. He referred to the transition triangle “fast, cheap, domestic”, saying in general that we want all three and he insisted that we should be careful where we put money (e.g., from the Recovery Fund) because “you can spend a lot and get nothing.”

Risk of cost overruns

The secretary general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Aristotelis Aivaliotis, referred to the high cost of the ESEK, which amounts to 190 billion by 2030, and to the very ambitious goals that have been set, noting that “we should be more careful”, while about 2 trillion. they will only be needed in new networks by 2040. He said that Greece was one of three countries that recently expressed their objection to the Commission’s proposal to cut emissions by 90% by 2040, pointing out that it needs to be redesigned and that the this position goes hand in hand with a skepticism, as the new Commission must face the problems in a more creative way so that the Green Deal does not lose popular acceptance and consensus. He referred, however, to the decline of industrial activity in Europe due to competition with countries that are not quick enough to integrate the costs caused by the green transition. He admitted that all these investments in the end add to network usage fees and make electricity more expensive, noting, however, that we must be careful not to inflate costs to the extent that social unrest can be caused: “We have to choose a balanced way and a balance.” .

The representative of the electricity producers (ESAH) V. Papakonstantinou pointed out that the energy transition has a cost, that it is not right to hide it neither from ourselves nor from the citizen-consumers and that we all admit that the cost will be paid by ourselves , the taxpayer and the final consumer. So, he concluded, we need to make sure that this cost is as low as possible.

Risk of deindustrialization

Will we reach decarbonization through deindustrialization? This is what the president of Industrial Consumers (EBIKEN) Antonis Kontoleon asked, referring to the recent alarming “withdrawals” of the historic Giula glassworks and the Ancore paper factories, while the country’s steel mills are particularly affected. He noted that “doing PPAs” (bilateral green contracts) is not a solution in itself, since, apart from the price, the agreement must also contain the time when the green energy they promise will be available, in fact, at the moment when the industries took the risk. He characterized the change in the prioritization of RES projects as an absolute reversal with the recent amendment and pointed out that the government must prove that this amendment was not made just to satisfy some projects of the big player.

The ELAPE deficit is being fixed

Besides, G. Jarentis, head of the RES Administrator (DAPEEP), assured that all measures have been taken so that the closing of the Special RES Account (ELAP) of 2024 is balanced and that there is no concern for RES producers. This will be achieved, as the 200 million from the Recovery Fund have returned (while they were going to be directed elsewhere, because initially there was a surplus in the account), while the increase in this year’s percentage from pollutants to ELAPE (14.6% of 3.8%).