Leaked draft of EU’s single electricity market plan

Posted: July 8, 2015 by oldbrew in Energy, Politics
Tags: ,

[credit: green lantern electric]

[credit: green lantern electric]

StollmeyerEU reports on a sighting of the EU’s energy ‘master plan’, due to be unveiled next week (July 15th):

The new framework is to deliver 3 market arrangements:

‘To move towards an interconnected EU-wide electricity market providing clear price signals for new investments and facilitating the further development of renewables;
To promote regional cooperation and coordination on energy policies, new generation, support schemes to renewables and interconnections;
To provide a truly European dimension to security of supply.’

Stollmeyer comments: All the talk about new renewables investment being driven by the market is useless unless the divestment issue is tackled head on. A market that doesn’t need new capacity investment (because of oversupply) won’t drive new investment in anything – renewables or otherwise. Considering how much new renewables investment is needed to reach EU’s 2020 and 2030 climate and energy targets, it is unclear how the market will drive that level of investment without a deliberate program of (early) retirement of existing resources, targeting those that do not add to the flexibility of the system or are incompatible with established environmental objectives. Perhaps the German ‘climate levy’ for old lignite-fired power plants can serve as an example of how to address the divestment issue.

Leaked document here.

Full report Leaked: draft EU Communication on New Electricity Market Design | @StollmeyerEU.
Get ready for the one-size-fits-all EU energy policy.

  1. oldbrew says:

    The EU’s own ‘European Energy Union’ blarney is here.

  2. Andrew says:

    While we’re on the subject of energy, Osborne has been cutting the “green crap”

  3. oldbrew says:

    The Guardian calls it ‘blue crap’! Reality bites 😉

    What Stollmeyer is saying is the EU will have to enforce a policy of getting rid of serviceable power generation plants to make way for more renewables, otherwise they won’t be needed.

  4. michael hart says:

    From the Stollmeyer link
    “The idea is that this ‘will […] enable full participation of consumers in the market notably through demand response.’”

    Hmm… I was under the impression that consumers already do participate in a market demand response every time they flick a light switch. I’m curious to know what changes they have in mind.

  5. oldbrew says:

    MH: it’s probably code for ‘we’ll charge more at peak times’ once they’re using smart meters :/

    Already happens in parts of California for example.

  6. M Simon says:

    I asked at the G – “If wind farm energy is so cheap, why does it need a subsidy?”

  7. michael hart says:

    OB, yes, I suspected as much too.

    But it doesn’t sound quite the same as “When the wind doesn’t blow our plan is simply to cut off the poor people who can’t afford to pay through the nose for the limited amount of coal/gas/nuclear that is still allowed to operate all the time so the wealthy people are guaranteed their supply”, does it?

  8. oldbrew says:

    M Simon: they probably gave you some waffle about fossil fuel subsidies (which are mostly in oil and/or gas producing ‘third world’ countries but they don’t mention that).

    MH: trying not to be too cynical, there might be some benefit to being offered a cheaper rate outside the peak times (something like 5-8pm on weekdays). The California system offers various tariffs, but you’d probably have to be a genius crystal-ball gazing maths wizard mind-reader to figure out the best one for you.

    Oops, getting cynical again 😦

  9. Fanakapan says:

    Looks like a German wheeze to be able to ‘Dump’ all that off peak juice ?

    I live in hope that other nations will recognise the German ‘Umwelt’ obsession for the nonsense it is 🙂

  10. M Simon says:


    That is exactly what happened. I pointed out that the subsidy per KWh for wind is huge. The subsidy per KWh for gas is small. I added that being a fair person I was in to cutting all subsidies. It will be interesting to see if I get any replies to that.

  11. oldbrew says:

    M Simon: Well, how did I guess? Nothing to do with being an ex-commenter at the G of course 😎

    Fanakapan: the Poles and Czechs have had to wise up as the Germans are overloading their power grids as they transfer surplus wind power to Bavaria and Austria.

  12. M Simon says:


    Well I got “non-market abatement costs” as the next salvo. So I replied:

    Ah yes. Abating Plant Food. If we can reduce the amount of Plant Food in the atmosphere sufficiently we can greatly reduce (to near zero) all plant and animal life on Earth. An abatement of that magnitude is surely worth quite a bit and would go a LONG way to making renewables LOOK affordable.

    It would have the added benefit of killing off rather a lot of low income people from fuel poverty. And that should be added to the benefit side of the ledger. The more dead the greater the benefit. What is not to like?

    BTW I was wondering. Not being a history buff and all – did the socialists actually win WW2? You know the ones I mean. The ones who thought the question of the day was lebensraum.

    [reply] their mods won’t like that much >:D

  13. michael hart says:

    OB, “trying not to be too cynical, there might be some benefit to being offered a cheaper rate outside the peak times (something like 5-8pm on weekdays).”

    That sounds like a very generous interpretation of “under my plan electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket”. The prospect of cheap power at off-peak times becomes irrelevant if it is dark, winter, and a very very cold, still air mass has crept out of Russia to cover Western Europe.