The agreement on the first reform of the European electricity market in more than 20 years is within reach, assured the third vice president of the Government, Teresa Ribera, in an interview with La Vanguardia held on Monday shortly after the European energy ministers they were about to establish their negotiating position with a view to the talks with the European Parliament.
Although the Spanish government initially criticized the European Commission’s lack of ambition, Ribera considers that the text has improved and represents a “profound reform” that “will give peace of mind and stability to investors and anticipate the benefits of renewable energy for consumers”. , although some issues still have to be resolved to avoid distortions, he says regarding the demands of France on nuclear energy or Germany on support for the industry. The final stretch of the negotiation will be the task of Spain, which on July 1 assumes the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, although today it is impossible to know if it will be its government or an alliance of the PP with Vox who will take the reins, a perspective that according to Ribera “worries” many European partners. Spain, he says, is the last “containment barrier” against the entry of the extreme right into European governments; if it falls, European balances “would be profoundly altered”.
The negotiation has once again exposed the divergences between Germany and France on their energy model. How does this affect European decisions?
I don’t like that anyone thinks that the European regulation is to solve the problems of two large countries. The European interest has to be above that. It is not valid to solve the problem of France and Germany, and generate distortion in the rest. It is very important to cover the general interest of the Twenty-seven. And perhaps it is where it was most noticeable that the text presented by the Swedish presidency was not yet mature, we could not say emphatically that it offered a coherent image of the different aspects of the EU’s economic, industrial or innovation policy, while it did collected solutions to the problems of some states.
Consumers will wonder if the reform will help contain or lower the price of electricity.
That is the intention, which is why it is so important that the possibility of using contracts for difference be reflected in a general way and explain how they should work. If I introduce them into a system where, depending on the technology, I can count on a different price than what the market sets, as we proposed, it is very likely that the new technologies with low operating costs will offer prices for that contract below the usual price. in the market and that the system compensates or covers the difference that may exist at some point, but generating a price reduction for consumers.
Then, the question is whether that saving is distributed equally within the system or if some groups or others can be selected, which is part of the debate with Germany. With vulnerable domestic consumers there is no conflict. With the industrialists, it begins to pose a problem, why some yes and others not? This has to be resolved. There are no irreconcilable differences in either aspect of the design of this regulation, but it must be worked out in a way that makes us all comfortable.
Does Spain accept that France use these contracts in nuclear?
We have to look carefully at what France wants, and that is why we have asked it to present concrete proposals for the wording of the agreement. France has a very high percentage of electricity that comes from a state-owned (nuclear) company that has had a special regime to facilitate the emergence of competitors. How do you establish a contract for differences for such a high percentage of electricity when there is no real competition with third parties? At this time, what France is asking is how to undertake an investment in the renovation of its entire nuclear park and how to cover the cost of this large-scale renovation. We want to understand exactly what you want and make sure it doesn’t create distortions in the old market.
And then there is the request from Poland to be able to continue subsidizing coal…
Poland claims exceptional treatment through capacity market mechanisms. We believe that capacity markets -which have been tested for a long time, that is, I pay you for being available- are a good instrument to facilitate storage. They think that it is a good instrument to guarantee security of supply and they link their security of supply not to clean technologies but to the use of coal. In other words, skipping what has been the construction of carbon emission thresholds in recent years in Europe.
It is an obviously sensitive issue and an exceptional measure because of the war in Ukraine, but then treating it as an exceptional measure, with conditions and limits, this has been the other great debate. None of the issues is an unsolvable issue. I think it is very significant and very positive that in the Council, a project of this magnitude, presented in March, we are in a position to resolve it in such a short time and be able to enter into the debate with Parliament immediately afterwards.
The Swedish presidency wants to close the agreement this month at the ambassadorial level. If it fails, will Spain convene an extraordinary meeting of ministers?
Yes. If an agreement is reached between ambassadors and there is no problem, we will have a mandate to discuss with the European Parliament as soon as it is ready. And if there is any pending issue where the intervention of the ministers is important, it would be perfectly justified to convene an extraordinary council of ministers during the first week of July.
How does Spain face the debate on the directive for the restoration of natural spaces? It promises to be one of the most contentious of this end of legislature.
The reaction of some political groups has been very surprising. It gives the impression that right now Spain is a kind of containment barrier against denialism or the regression that is being experienced in some European countries or political sensibilities such as the right and the extreme right, who confuse the message with the messenger.
The degradation of biodiversity and ecosystems is a great threat to agriculture, the countryside, the health of people and the economic activities from which our resources arise, therefore, it will be important to work so that it does not degrade or to restore the degraded To think that this is some kind of hidden agenda to attack people whose well-being depends on the quality of natural resources is absurd.
But it does not seem just an electoral strategy of the EPP and the extreme right, in some countries there are very deep social debates about it and the European agrarian employers have positioned themselves very harshly against the proposal.
All this requires a lot of explanation and a lot of accompaniment so as not to generate injustices. It is very difficult to carry out a major transformation if there are no measures that accompany the people most closely linked to that transformation, as we have seen with coal or agricultural transformation. It is very difficult to explain what the challenges are and you have to do it clearly and honestly, not misleading people.
Within a month there are elections and there is the possibility that another government will lead the turn of the European presidency of Spain. Have you had contacts with the PP about these dossiers?
The truth is, no. Obviously, I am convinced that the best option for Spain and for Europe is a government led by Pedro Sánchez with the double mandate of reducing inequalities between people and urban and rural areas, but also modernizing the economy, the productive fabric and the way in which which we understand well-being on a basis of Europeanist cooperation. There have been no contacts because there are no references with whom to talk about these issues in the PP or in Vox, where what we have is a case of shameful denialism. What we are seeing these days is dramatic, but the worst thing is that, in the face of this, the PP is silent and identifies ghosts as the elements to beat associated with Pedro Sánchez.
Another great concern is the clamorous, scandalous silence around the country’s great problems in the medium and long term, not being aware of desertification, climate change, lack of water, the need to change energy and the opportunities that this offers, or the change in our energy system. Of this is that nothing is heard. It is impossible to talk about this. It is hugely disappointing. Has anyone heard a word about what Alberto Núñez Feijóo thinks of the protection of nature or climate or energy policies? No. And sometimes from afar, vagueness or banner messages linked to the interests of a few companies are heard.
It seems tremendous to me, because it puts the economic viability of the country at risk and even, in many cases, the living conditions of people in a good part of the country. Not only because of the lack of definition, but also because of the lack of awareness and anticipation. I can’t say that I don’t like these problems for the world, I need to get them down. It is that this continues to progress. Have you made a diagnosis? No. Do you have any proposals? None. What makes me think this? That in reality there are proposals and he does not count them. In other words: either it is ignorance and then it is tremendous, because it would be immensely irresponsible, or there is a hidden agenda to protect large agribusiness corporations and large energy corporations.
Who is your interlocutor in the PP for all these issues?
I have no interlocutor. There are a few deputies who from time to time intervene in a more polite or more aggressive tone. Yes, I have maintained a cordial relationship and exchange of impressions with Mr. Arias Cañete, to whom I believe that his time at the European Commission allowed him to see the great strategic weight of these issues and the great opportunities that lie behind them. In some things we agree and in others we disagree, but we know what we are talking about. In the rest of the Popular Party he has not found another interlocutor.
From an institutional point of view, there have been conversations with those responsible in the autonomous communities, many of them from the PP, for example when working on issues related to the obligations to reduce consumption last summer.
Then I found that the same day that we approved the decisions, the president of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Ayuso, came out to blow them up. Are you dynamiting Feijóo or the need to have climate policies or energy policies? We have to choose if we want Budapest or Brussels, if we want to anticipate and prevent problems from materializing or if we are willing to have the train run over us and we’ll see what’s next.
He was citing Budapest… Hungary is one of the reactionary governments of the EU which, due to its clash with European policies and values, has seen tens of billions of euros in aid frozen.
This is a deep and very real concern. I am very grateful for the messages and the interest shown these days by many colleagues, due to the expectations that exist regarding the Spanish presidency and the confidence that there is in the Government of Pedro Sánchez but also with concern for the feeling of emptiness. What is the alternative? What are they thinking? Why do they do these things? How can they ally with Vox? They have raised it openly with me, of course. Because if you have a party in government that openly questions Europe or if you rely on a parliamentary force that openly questions Europe and that reminds you, and we have seen how this week Vox leaders do what a care because if they don’t they will force new elections or they will not enter the government, how is it not going to generate an immense general concern?
They would not be alone either, right now there are several governments in the EU that work or rely on the extreme right: Sweden, Finland, Italy…
That assumption would profoundly alter the balance in the next Commission and in the next electoral period, which is why it is a very important concern for many. It is evident that there is a fundamental movement and Spain is a very important containment dam against this regressive and reactionary current. We are one of the four big countries, both in terms of votes and in economic and demographic weight, and if there were a change of government in favor of a PP government with Vox that would buy its regressive agenda, that would mean a change in the majorities in Europe. It would mean that instead of continuing to build Europe, we run the risk of returning to national vetoes and an imaginary that nothing helps stability at such a critical moment in the world.
Spain is one of the most Europeanist countries in the EU. What has happened for a growing percentage to sympathize with an anti-European party like Vox?
There is a serious problem in the rules and principles of public debate. Too often in these months and years the limit of what I would describe as ethical has been played. You cannot be questioning the legitimacy of the Prime Minister from day one, calling him a usurper, criticizing him for making use of the official means that all previous presidents have used, logically.
They have all done it but around that they have tried to transfer the image of being a gentleman without a soul and absolutely taken advantage of. For what purpose? The facts are in the results of employment, professional minimum wage and social coverage, but nevertheless they have wanted to distort deliberately. Not everything goes. The same thing happens with Europe. The majority of Europeans continue to feel enormously European and yet there is no in-depth reflection on what the things proposed by Vox represent and how much of that is going to be bought by the PP.
Another very worrying element is how we can ensure that there is a capacity for analysis of problems and how to solve problems, how to overcome a vote that must have a lot of emotional content but in such a way that it is also a responsible exercise of how we see each situation. moment reality. That clearly we have not done well.
What has gone wrong?
We have not been able to explain why it is worth stabilizing the achievements of all these years. We will have to continue working on it, because it is taken for granted that this is the case and it did not necessarily have to be. We have also seen it in many other things. Fortunately, the situation in Catalonia today has nothing to do with the situation five years ago, when it was the main problem for the Spanish people. Today we are in a completely different situation. Let’s think that twelve years ago the main problem for the Spanish was what was happening with ETA terrorism. Today we are in a completely different situation, however we continue to stir up ghosts.
There is very little left until the elections to reverse that climate of opinion that he says.
That is where we are, working intensely, trying to explain what we have done, why it is worth preserving, consolidating and moving forward. This does not mean fast-paced changes every day, but it requires a calm consolidation in which we do not waste time because we have to throw away a few months, as Feijóo proposes, thinking about how to undo what we have done but not diagnosing problems or solving them, only undoing . It is a mistake because what has been done in my opinion is extraordinary, it should not be undone and we need to consolidate and move in this direction.
Could a new government undo all this legacy?
In these years we have learned that if we think that something we have conquered and won is consolidated forever, we are wrong. We can go back, there are the examples of Bolsonaro and Orbán. If you appreciate something, go out and defend it, because there may be setbacks. And in this context I insist, I have not heard a single word or a single proposal. I have heard nonsense. I see very few proposals, very irrelevant and very little solvent. That is what is intended, not to debate, not to propose, not to say anything, to ask for an emotional blank check. For me it would be a deep disappointment. From time to time things like this happen, but I think not that it is not what we deserve.
