The corrective mechanism for gas prices, proposed by the European Commission, has created a fresh split among energy ministers across the European Union. They will discuss for the first time this Thursday the legislative proposal put forward by the Commission. Governments that have long demanded such a tool greeted the concept with skepticism, deeming it unrealistic, insufficient, and difficult to implement unless there is a market collapse and significant infrastructure damage.
Teresa Ribera, the minister and third vice president for Spain’s Ecological Transition, dismissed the proposal as not serious, calling it a joke. A French colleague, Agnes Pannier-Runacher, warned that the text does not meet the mandate from October and fails to address the state of gas prices. She urged the Commission to present a coherent, workable text, noting that a purely political stance could lead to adverse or negligible effects. French sources from the Ministry of Energy Transition echoed the concern that implementation would be impossible without a market disruption.
ignited souls
“Imposed conditions make commissioning possible or nearly impossible, and that is not what the 16 countries seeking caps on gas want,” commented the Malta minister, quoted by Miriam Dalli.
The Twenty-Seven, with a keen focus on their energy strategy, prepared for a fourth extraordinary Council Meeting of Energy Ministers. Convened by the Czech EU presidency since July, the goal is to secure a political agreement on an energy emergency framework. A second framework would include joint gas purchases, solidarity in crises, and other commitments, alongside a plan to accelerate renewable energy deployment. The progress of the gas cap, if it becomes explosive, could jeopardize both files reaching approval.
“We had a problem because the Commission could not bid. Now we have another issue because it is absent. I have repeated my position: I am ready to convene as many extraordinary councils as needed to seek common ground,” said Czech minister Jozef Sikela upon arrival.
serious differences
The debate will center on the Brussels proposal to limit gas prices. This preliminary discussion, held among ambassadors on Wednesday to set the stage for ministers, revealed clear differences among the Twenty-Seven about the concept and the parameters chosen by the Commission. Some voices from the Netherlands stated they still oppose a cap, arguing concerns over supply risk despite the Commission’s stance remaining unchanged in substance.
Diplomatic sources stressed that while any element could be examined, it cannot be pursued at any cost. One analysis notes that the Commission’s proposal for the Netherlands might threaten supply security. The prevailing view is that the real, durable solution lies in saving energy and shifting the energy mix. Estonia expressed willingness to negotiate, proposing a measure that is temporary and applicable only amid extreme price spikes, so as not to jeopardize supply security, according to Riina Sikkut upon arrival at the Council.
Conditions
The proposal does not set a hard ceiling. Instead, it creates a corrective mechanism triggered by two events: extraordinary price spikes. The first condition requires the gas price to exceed 275 euros per megawatt hour for two weeks on the TTF futures market, the Dutch reference where most European trades occur. The second condition compares liquefied natural gas prices in international markets, which would need to surpass a 58 euro differential.
These two triggers would still not guarantee activation, even in August when prices touched peaks around 350 euros per megawatt hour. The mechanism also includes safeguards allowing automatic disabling or giving the Commission authority to pause if the stability of financial markets or the security of supply is judged at risk. The Netherlands remains hesitant about adopting the mechanism.
In the end, the key topic is not merely the price cap but how to balance supply reliability with market interventions. Several ministers emphasize that any plan must preserve energy security while offering reasonable protection against sudden price swings. The set of safeguards is designed to ensure that intervention does not destabilize the broader energy market, a concern shared by northern European states who worry about broader interruptions in supply and market volatility.