Hydraulic Arenh & Zonal Pricing: 2 New Electric Market Reforms
European Electricity Market faces New Regulatory Debates
Table of Contents
The European electricity market is in flux, grappling wiht fundamental questions about competition and cross-border energy flow. Among the key issues being debated are proposals for a “hydraulic ARENH” mechanism and the segmentation of national electricity markets.
Hydraulic ARENH: A Solution for Hydro Power?
Industrial consumers are seeking stable, low electricity prices. The increasing reliance on intermittent renewable energy sources has contributed to wholesale price volatility. Historically, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants, now largely depreciated, have provided a foundation for lower prices.
While reforms are planned for the pricing of historic nuclear power at the end of the ARENH (Accès Régulé à l’Énergie Nucléaire) in 2026, the future of hydroelectric power remains uncertain. The former president of EDF, France’s main electricity provider, suggested establishing a “hydraulic ARENH” to mitigate competition mandated by Brussels for hydraulic concessions in france. This competition,it is argued,could open access to auctions for all European players,potentially jeopardizing national energy independence.
A long-term regulated price for hydroelectricity could ensure consumers have access to affordable and relatively stable energy. Simultaneously, some advocate for extending the ARENH mechanism for existing nuclear plants, arguing that the system’s shortcomings stem from the non-recovery of its full value as 2012, rather than inherent flaws.
Combining these proposals could led to a revival of the ARB (regulated access to the base) mechanism, initially proposed by the Champsaur commission but abandoned in favor of ARENH.this would involve selling nuclear and hydroelectric power, which together account for approximately 80% of electricity production, at around 60 euros per megawatt-hour.
Consideration should also be given to new financing options, such as zero-interest loans or refundable advances, to support investments in new nuclear power plants, as the proposed price may not be sufficient to cover these costs. The 60 euros per megawatt-hour figure roughly corresponds to the level the ARENH should have reached in 2023, according to the CRE (commission de Régulation de l’Énergie), had its value been revalued as initially planned. An implementing decree of the 2010 Nome law, intended to specify the terms of indexing the ARENH as proposed by the CRE, has never been enacted due to disagreements with the European Commission.
Under such a system, the proportion of energy sold on the wholesale market at variable prices (gas and renewables) would decrease. A significant portion of electricity production (nuclear and hydro) would be sold at a regulated price based on average cost, with the remaining portion (renewables and fossil fuels) sold on the spot market based on short-term marginal cost. This marginal cost should include the cost of carbon emissions for fossil fuels and a standardized cost for backup or storage for intermittent renewables. ultimately, this trend toward increased regulation could lead to the implementation of a single buyer system.
Zonal Pricing: A Solution to congestion?
The liberalization of the european electricity industry aimed to converge wholesale electricity prices across member states, ultimately creating a single electricity market with near-uniform prices, despite variations in production costs. The advancement of transnational interconnections was seen as the key to achieving this goal.
However,the unintended consequences of these interconnections have become apparent. Overproduction or underproduction of intermittent renewable energy in one contry can disrupt the balance of networks in neighboring countries. These neighbors must then absorb or compensate for these imbalances, sometimes allowing excess electricity from the producing country to transit their territory due to congestion on its national transport network. This transit can include “loop flows,” were a transit country must transport electricity that the producing country cannot transport itself. German wind energy,for example,has been known to disrupt neighboring countries.
Several solutions exist to address these issues. One approach is to require the country responsible for the excess flows to reduce its electricity production (primarily from wind farms, such as offshore parks in the Baltic Sea in the case of Germany) and develop its internal transport network, even if costly and opposed by local populations. Some countries, like Poland, have installed “phase-shifting transformers” at their borders with Germany to prevent electricity transit.
the European regulator, ACER (agency for the cooperation of Energy Regulators), is encouraging countries responsible for these externalities to create multiple wholesale price zones to mitigate overflow effects.For example,Germany could have two zones: one in the north,where wind production often exceeds demand,and another in the south,where electricity production is frequently insufficient.
This approach would break the principle of spatial equalization of electricity prices. The rule would be: maintain a single wholesale price within a country when there is no internal congestion. In the event of congestion, and if network development is insufficient, create multiple price zones (“zonal pricing”) where the wholesale price varies.Prices would be low where production is high (relative to demand) and high where demand is strong (relative to supply). Industrial consumers could choose to locate where prices are low, and electricity producers would be incentivized to locate where wholesale prices are high.
Such zones already exist in some European countries: norway has five, sweden has four, Denmark has two, and Italy has six. ACER and the European Commission are considering generalizing this system to other EU countries, including France, where the electricity network is strongly interconnected and internal congestion is currently minimal.
Tho, zonal pricing is complex, requiring careful delimitation of zones and potentially leading to liquidity problems and price volatility in areas with limited exchange.It can also create disparities for end consumers,as prices vary significantly from one zone to another,as demonstrated by the Norwegian example. While some advocate for reducing the number of zones (a current debate in Norway), others propose generalizing the system across Europe. This would represent a departure from the principle of spatial equalization of electricity prices and a move away from the initial vision of a single European energy market.
These debates highlight the need for ongoing reforms as the electricity market evolves and new challenges emerge.
The European electricity market is currently undergoing notable changes, primarily driven by the increasing reliance on intermittent renewable energy sources. Several key challenges have emerged:
- Price Volatility: The fluctuating output of renewables contributes to instability in wholesale prices, creating uncertainty for industrial consumers.
- Cross-Border Flow Issues: Interconnections designed to facilitate a single market have led to congestion and imbalances. Overproduction in one country can disrupt the balance of neighboring networks, leading to operational challenges and potential costs.
- Need for Investment: The transition requires substantial investments in new infrastructure, including grid upgrades and storage solutions, to accommodate the changing energy mix.
- Balancing Affordability and Independence: Striking the right balance between providing affordable and stable energy to consumers and ensuring national energy independence is a complex task.
the “hydraulic ARENH” (Accès Régulé à l’Énergie Nucléaire) is a proposed mechanism focused on hydroelectric power. It is being considered as a potential way to ensure that industrial consumers and consumers have access to affordable and relatively stable energy.
Historically,nuclear and hydroelectric power plants have provided a foundation for lower prices. Current reform is planned at the end of the ARENH in 2026, however, the future of hydroelectric power remains uncertain.
The idea is to establish a mechanism similar to the existing ARENH, wich regulates the price of nuclear power. This would involve setting a long-term regulated price for hydroelectricity. Critics of the current system argue that shortcomings stem from the the non-recovery of its full value.
A regulated price for hydroelectricity, combined with potential extensions to the ARENH for existing nuclear power, could have several impacts:
- Price Stability: It could provide industrial consumers with more predictable and stabilized electricity costs.
- Reduced Wholesale Market Dependency: It would decrease the proportion of energy sold on the wholesale market. A significant portion of electricity production would be sold at a regulated price. This could possibly led to a single buyer system.
- Investment Incentives: Consideration would need to be given to incentives for investment in new resources to ensure a stable supply.
Zonal pricing is a system where a country is divided into multiple wholesale price zones. This is in response to the challenges faced by existing grid interconnections. This approach breaks from the principle of spatial equalization, to ensure it is indeed possible to manage congestion.
Under a single wholesale price, congestion on one country’s grid networks can disrupt the networks of neighboring countries. For example, German wind energy has been known to disrupt neighboring countries.
In zonal pricing, where congestion occurs, and where grid development is insufficient, multiple price zones would be created. Prices would be low where production is high for example the North of Germany, and high where demand is strong, for example the South.
Zonal pricing offers advantages and faces challenges:
Potential Benefits:
- Mitigating Congestion: It can definitely help manage grid congestion by reflecting supply and demand imbalances more accurately.
- Incentivizing Production and Consumption: It could incentivize electricity producers to locate in demand zones. This can avoid the need for costly solutions from external neighbors.
Potential Drawbacks:
- complexity: Implementing zonal pricing requires careful delineation of zones.
- Liquidity and Volatility: It can lead to liquidity problems and potentially increase price volatility in zones with limited exchange capacity.
- Price Disparities: Significant price differences between zones can emerge, as demonstrated by the Norwegian example, which can lead to uneven outcomes for consumers.
Zonal pricing is already in use in several European countries:
- Norway: 5 zones
- Sweden: 4 zones
- Denmark: 2 zones
- Italy: 6 zones
ACER (the agency for the cooperation of Energy Regulators) and the European Commission are considering generalizing this system to other EU countries, including France.
There is ongoing debate regarding zonal pricing. Some advocate for reducing the number of zones, while others propose generalizing the system across Europe. Discussion continues on how to balance the benefits of the system with its complexities and potential for consumer disparities. These debates highlight the need for ongoing reforms as the electricity market evolves and new challenges emerge.
Phase-shifting transformers are a measure being employed on borders, as an example the the border with Germany. These are being installed to address cross-border congestions for electricity transit.
The long-term vision for the European electricity market remains focused on creating a single energy market with near-uniform prices, achieved through transnational interconnections. However, the current debates around hydraulic ARENH, zonal pricing, and other regulatory adjustments indicate a shift towards a more flexible and adaptive approach. The goal is to balance competition, energy independence, and consumer affordability in a rapidly evolving energy landscape.