The latest decree aiming to tackle high power prices in Italy has caused uncertainty and concern among market participants, energy supplier Alpiq Italia's vice-president, Massimiliano Bignami, told Argus on the sidelines of the Key Energy Expo in Rimini on Thursday. Edited highlights of the interview follow:
Italy has approved measures worth over €3bn to cut energy bills in a package that has shaken the power market. What is your reaction?
It worries us because it will certainly have an impact on the Italian market, but also cross-border energy flows from Switzerland to Italy and vice versa. These are issues that go beyond Italy's borders.
We are particularly concerned about the uncertainty it is generating, because the legislator has decided to take actions, some of which are subject to EU approval. At the moment, we do not really know how things will end, even though the market has already shown some movement, and therefore there are opposing dynamics. We will do our best to limit the impact on our customers.
Could you elaborate on Italy–Switzerland flows?
At the moment, Italy has a slightly higher power price than Switzerland, so Switzerland typically exports to Italy. But if the differential were reversed, these flows would change and the way we manage and approach our portfolio would change. Regarding the uncertainty, the legislator would not want this benefit to spill over beyond our borders, otherwise it would mean subsidising foreign countries.
Rome plans to strip out EU ETS costs by offering gas-fired plants compensation for emissions costs they would otherwise pass on to final users in bills. Market participants have criticised the measure, even highlighting the potential for market manipulation. Do you share that view?
It's a complicated issue because the fact Italy has slightly higher prices on average than the rest of Europe is pretty much a given... We have a price disadvantage, but also many regulatory opportunities to mitigate this situation. I believe the government has tried to reduce prices by, in some way, throwing the ball to the other side for now, particularly to Brussels.
I don't think this amounts to market manipulation, as long as the rules remain the rules. I do have some doubts that the decree, as it stands, will be approved by Brussels — unless it triggers a domino effect with other countries revising the ETS mechanism. Indeed, the mechanism was introduced when gas-fired generation was more abundant... Today, fossil fuel-based generation is significantly lower because of the expansion of renewables, so perhaps with such a heavy cost burden, it might make sense to revisit it practically without losing sight of the ultimate objective.
The decree also proposes a controversial mechanism designed to eradicate Italian gas hub PSV's long-standing premium to the TTF benchmark. What are your thoughts on this?
I think it is, in some respects, a reasonable measure. However, I believe anything that tends toward over-regulating and in some way constraining the market goes against the concept of a free market that we are trying to pursue. So we must be careful that these measures, although they have a noble and positive intent, do not end up creating a market that is no longer free.
Gas makes up the main share of Italy's generation mix, but how do you think this situation will evolve?
I believe thermal generation is essential for system security and adequacy, and I think this is not just my opinion but also a fact confirmed, for example, by Terna introducing mechanisms like the capacity market to ensure system adequacy. I believe a long-term core of very efficient and flexible plants will remain, with a likely trend toward being dispatched but producing less and less over the next 10–15 years. I see a phase-out that will not be particularly fast.
Energy minister Gilberto Pichetto Fratin is working towards a new legal framework to resume nuclear output using small third and fourth-generation reactors by the end of this year. How does nuclear fit into the mix?
I think it was a mistake for our country to give up this form of energy 40 years ago. There was a referendum, and today we are paying the price of not having this type of generation, which has probably led to an unbalanced mix and higher prices. This is a structural weakness of our portfolio. I believe it is an important and essential technology that has a future, especially with the third and fourth-generation reactors. But it has very long timelines — particularly in our country, which made a different choice in the past. It will require significant effort and a cultural shift to reach acceptance of this technology.
