“Switzerland is at the heart of the European electricity system... without really being part of it. This paradox risks costing us more and more,” warns Dominique Rochat, Energy & Infrastructure Project Manager at Economiesuisse.
There is the Star Wars saga and, in Switzerland, that of the electricity market. For more than twenty years, two camps have clashed over how to manage “the electric force”: those wishing to leave it to the market’s supposedly dark power and those convinced of the innate benevolence of the public sphere.
A new episode has just begun with the conclusion of the electricity agreement between Switzerland and the European Union. And as in Star Wars, non-initiates can quickly lose track of the story. It is therefore useful to shed light on the central issues of this debate. The main one: the long-term maintenance of security of supply in Switzerland.
Is Switzerland the last European country resisting the electricity market?
On the surface, yes — but only on the surface. The people had rejected full market opening in 2002 and the Federal Council's attempts to relaunch the file all failed. Nevertheless, the market is already largely open.
All customers whose consumption exceeds a certain threshold (100 MWh) can already freely choose their supplier. Two thirds of them have opted for this freedom, representing a total of 80% of the electricity consumed by this category of customers as indicated by Elcom's report for 2023.
The roughly 600 electricity distributors in Switzerland — all publicly owned — have clearly managed this partial opening without losses or drama. Moreover, they themselves buy the bulk of their electricity on the market, since only one third of them produce it directly. In short: only small consumers do not have a choice, and remain captive to their local distributor.
The average price rose from 21 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2020 to 29 cents currently, placing Switzerland among the most expensive countries in Europe.
The scare of a price increase for small consumers is regularly brandished by opponents of a full market opening. Yet, captive customers in Switzerland saw their bills jump after Russia's aggression against Ukraine. The average price rose from 21 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2020 to 29 cents currently, placing Switzerland among the most expensive countries in Europe. The absence of a market clearly did not protect them.
Let us recall that electrons — in other words, the energy market itself — represent only about a third of the bill. The rest corresponds to transmission costs and taxes, two components that have risen sharply in recent years, both in Switzerland and in Europe.
In reality, small consumers risk nothing from a market opening. Quite simply because they will always have the choice between staying in their local supplier's basic supply, on controlled terms, or freely opting for another provider.
The agreement negotiated with Europe provides for this and many EU countries already apply this model. A dose of competition would clearly benefit customers, as it would encourage suppliers to improve their service, develop their offerings and curb the temptation to inflate prices for their captive customers.
Switzerland is located at the heart of the European electricity system… without really being part of it. This paradox risks costing us more and more.
Our European neighbours chose to interconnect their power grids via a common market — not out of love for liberalism, but to strengthen the security of supply for everyone. This choice proves more than judicious as a war rages on Europe's doorstep and international insecurity is growing dangerously. Some hoped the market would not survive the 2022 energy crisis. The opposite happened, with an adjustment of its rules to make it more robust.
Switzerland is located at the heart of the European electricity system… without really being part of it. This paradox risks costing us more and more. The managers of the Swiss grid, as well as electricity producers, are now practically excluded from the steering of the European grid. This situation disrupts the operation of our own grid and requires costly interventions to maintain its balance.
Staying apart will also increase the cost and complicate the imports we desperately need in winter. Indeed, from this year our neighbours are giving priority to their own exchanges on their networks. Furthermore, our producers cannot fully monetise their production on the European market.
In this context, it is not surprising that the sector's players — AES and Swissgrid foremost among them — are calling for full participation in the European electricity system. All things considered, this would require only minimal and perfectly manageable regulatory adjustments. It would be a small step for Switzerland… but a giant step for its security of supply.
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"For SMEs and micro-enterprises, which make up a large majority of the Swiss economic fabric, the transition is no longer a mere environmental option, but a strategic necessity to ensure our prosperity," says Christophe Barman, national co-president of the FSE.
"If we want to succeed in the energy transition, we must also accept financing it. That requires clear and reliable rules capable of guaranteeing sufficient incentives for investment," explains Michael Frank, director of AES.
Responding to a recent survey conducted by Comparis on Swiss real estate, Sascha Nick, a researcher at EPFL's Laboratory of Environmental and Urban Economics, says that "Switzerland is not suffering from a housing shortage."
"Launched for reasons that are more electoral than ecological, the call for a climate fund that would absorb between 5 and 10 billion francs each year appears unnecessary, absurd, costly, centralizing and poorly conceived," says Pierre-Gabriel Bieri, policy manager at the Centre Patronal.
