The agreement on the first reform of the European electricity market in more than 20 years is close at hand, assures the third vice-president of the Central Government, Teresa Ribera, in an interview with La Vanguardia held on Monday shortly after the European Ministers of Energy were about to set its negotiating position for the talks with the Eurochamber.
Although the Spanish Government initially criticized the European Commission’s lack of ambition, Ribera believes that the text has improved and represents a “weighty reform” that “will give investors peace of mind and stability and anticipate the benefits of renewables to consumers”, although some issues still need to be resolved to avoid distortions, he says in relation to the demands of France on nuclear energy or Germany on support for 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 nowadays it is impossible to know whether it will be its Government or an alliance of the PP with Vox who will take over the kingdoms, a perspective that, according to Ribera, “dismays” many European partners.
The negotiation has once again exposed the differences between Germany and France over their energy model. How does this affect European decisions?
I don’t like anyone thinking that European regulation is to solve the problems of two big countries. The European interest must be above this. 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 this is where it was most noticeable that the text presented by the Swedish presidency was not yet mature, we could not say with certainty that it offered a coherent picture of the various aspects of the EU’s economic, industrial or innovation policy, while it did collect solutions to the problems of some states.
Consumers will be asked if the reform will help contain or reduce the price of light.
This is the intention, which is why it is so important that the possibility of using contracts for differences 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 have a different price than the market set, as we proposed, it is very likely that the new technologies with low operating costs will offer prices for that contract below the ‘usual of the market and that the system is reimbursing or covering the difference that there may be at some point, but generating a reduction in the price for consumers. Then the question is whether this saving is distributed equally within the system or whether specific groups can be selected, which is part of the debate with Germany. With vulnerable domestic consumers there is no conflict. With the industrialists, there is starting to be a problem, why some yes and others not? This needs to be resolved. There are no irreconcilable differences in either aspect of the design of this regulation, but it needs to be resolved in a way that we are all comfortable with.
Does Spain accept that France use these nuclear contracts?
It is necessary to look carefully at what France wants, which is why we have asked it to present concrete proposals for the drafting of the agreement. France has a very high percentage of electricity that comes from a (nuclear) company owned by the State and that has enjoyed 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 the moment what France is considering 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 it wants and make sure it won’t create distortions in the previous market.
Sweden wants to close the agreement this month. If he does not succeed, will Spain choose to call an extraordinary meeting of ministers?
Yes. If an agreement is reached between ambassadors and there are no problems, we will have a mandate to debate with Parliament as soon as it is ready. And if there is any outstanding issue in which the intervention of ministers is important, it would be perfectly justified to convene an extraordinary council of ministers in the first week of July.
How does Spain deal with the debate on the restoration of natural areas directive? It promises to be one of the most contentious of this end of the legislature.
The reaction of some political groups has been very surprising. It seems that right now Spain is a kind of containment barrier against the denialism or regression that is being experienced in some European countries or political sensitivities such as the right and the extreme right, which 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 what has been 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 to be just an electoral strategy of the EPP and the extreme right, in some countries there are very deep social debates on this issue and the European agricultural employers have taken a very strong position against the proposal.
All this requires a lot of explanation and a lot of support so as not to generate injustices. It is very difficult to make a transformation of great depth if there are no measures that accompany the people most linked to that transformation, as we have seen with coal or agricultural transformation. There is a lot of difficulty in explaining what the challenges are and you have to do it in a clear and honest way, without misleading people.
In a month there will be elections and there is the possibility that another Government will pilot the European presidency. Have you had contact with the PP about these files?
The truth is no. There have been no contacts because there are no references with whom to talk about these matters in the PP or Vox, where what we have is a case of shameful denialism. It is dramatic what we are seeing these days, but the worst thing is that, in the face of this, the PP is silent and identifies ghosts as the elements to defeat associated with Pedro Sánchez.
