After more than half a year in the drawer, the Congress of Deputies Ecological Transition Commission moved to push two government-approved bills forward before the summer recess. The aim is to reform how electricity costs are recovered by using two channels: reducing extraordinary profits when gas and CO2 emission rights rise, and shifting some fixed electricity bill costs toward gas and fuel oil consumption.
The commission’s chair, Juan López de Uralde of United We Can, said the bills are in their final discussion stage and expected to be approved in June. The plan is to present the changes on June 21 and send them to the Senate the following week after committee approval. Implementation would then follow in the autumn. Both measures seek to lower household electricity bills by about 15 percent, with large consumers facing a roughly 5 percent reduction, though current market disruptions could alter these projections.
The first project establishes a shared standard rooted in a royal decree law that stays in place until year’s end. It reduces extraordinary revenues for electricity companies when natural gas prices rise. At the same time, it lowers extra revenues for non-emitting plants, such as hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear, as CO2 emission rights grow. In past years, average carbon prices climbed from 5.83 euros per tonne in 2018 to 53.55 euros in 2021 and 83.20 euros in 2022. Unlike gas, the CO2 increase is expected to stay aligned with Europe’s decarbonisation targets for 2050.
Within the rule, about forty-three article changes are being debated. The main players include the Partido Popular, PNV, Ciudadanos, Bloque, and PDeCat. There is tension over plants with fixed bilateral contracts, an issue Endesa president José Bogas addressed after a similar rule reduced revenue when gas prices surged. Weeks after ratifying the decree, the government had to amend it amid industry turmoil led by Iberdrola president Ignacio Sánchez Galán.
On the revenue side, the government initially projected a 1.0 billion euro impact, later recalibrated to 625 million euros. Without fixed contracts, the effect would be smaller. In a parallel regulation affecting gas, the law requires an eight-month implementation window, though neither the government nor the CNMC has disclosed precise income figures. Companies tout that the policy does not degrade their financials.
A second change proposed by the same coalition bloc would affect renewables and other energy players. It would reduce aid for renewable plants installed before 2000 but not older than 2003, aligning with Europe’s emissions trading framework. Diego Gago of the PP noted that emissions trading began in Europe around 2003, following early warnings from investors who knew a Green Paper would shape policy.
The second bill has drawn more controversy as it targets both electricity companies and gas and oil firms. The proposal would gradually fund a National Fund for Electric System Sustainability by distributing roughly 7 billion euros in premiums across the energy sector over five years, at an annual rate of about 20 percent. The fund would be financed mainly by energy suppliers. The draft’s analysis assigns roughly 43.7 percent of the burden to oil companies, 31.5 percent to electricity firms, and 24.8 percent to gas suppliers.
Utilities would pass the costs onto customers. Oil industry sources warned a fuel price rise of around 7 cents per litre could occur after five years. Some observers argue the first year would show minimal price changes, while others anticipate noticeable shifts in fuel costs before consumers see any relief on electricity bills amid ongoing price pressures.
The proposal includes nearly 70 changes to the fund’s framework. Critics from the PP, JxCat, and PDeCat argue that the scheme would translate costs into higher company expenses. The bill’s stated goals include ensuring visible, stable, and predictable signals to energy markets, though ERC representatives contend the measure may blur those targets.
Industry officials express mixed views. Some believe a revived policy avoids the worst outcomes, while others worry it could saddle the sector with burdensome costs or shift risk to the broader economy. Independent marketers and energy traders have questioned how quarterly charges would be calculated if customers were not billed a fixed amount, suggesting the system could transfer risk to producers and distributors.
In sum, the two bills under discussion aim to recalibrate how energy costs and incentives are distributed across the electricity, gas, and oil sectors. Proponents argue the reforms would curb consumer bills and strengthen Europe’s decarbonisation drive, while opponents warn of unintended consequences for energy reliability, market competition, and price volatility. The debates continue as lawmakers seek a balance between affordability and the necessary structural shifts toward cleaner energy.