"Switzerland cannot afford to be an island in terms of energy"

In Bern, the debate is becoming electric. For several weeks, notably since the presentation of the clauses of the electricity agreement envisaged between Switzerland and the European Union, criticisms have been pouring in against a text that is manifestly more controversial than expected.

At the heart of the current discord: market liberalisation. As parties begin to bicker about the issue, the occasion is ideal to probe the sector through a series of interviews with key players. We continue this series with the interview of Mauro Salvadori, head of public affairs at Alpiq.

First, what is your position on this agreement? Do you still consider it as essential for Switzerland's energy future?

Switzerland cannot afford to be an island in energy terms. Our country has 41 connection points to the European grid. It is only through an agreement that we will be able to fully take advantage of the benefits of this interconnection. An electricity agreement would strengthen our security of supply by allowing us to benefit from European capacities, especially in winter, while offering Europe the flexibility of our hydroelectric plants.

One source of discord concerns the liberalisation of the market which would be mostly profitable to producers and less to DSOs. Your reaction? 

Complete liberalisation of the electricity market benefits consumers, producers and distribution system operators (DSOs) alike, by reducing system costs and improving its efficiency. Consumers are no longer subject to a monopoly and can freely choose their supplier, while benefiting from a guaranteed basic supply if they so wish.

Producers gain access to competitive European capacities and can better valorise their production without having to overinvest in Switzerland. DSOs benefit from a more stable network and reduced costs for building up the winter reserve. Competition stimulates innovation and strengthens the overall performance of the electricity system. Finally, it dynamises the Swiss economy and offers more freedom to SMEs.

And how do you react to the multiple interventions by Pierre-Yves Maillard denouncing the agreement — interventions in which he mentions a risk of underinvestment in future electricity production capacities in Switzerland, but also excessive speculation, or even an agreement that would hinder "the fight against climate change"?

Alpiq is a European company whose headquarters and roots are Swiss. Our commitment to Switzerland is clear: the majority of our investments are made here. Since 2017, we have invested nearly 1.3 billion francs in security of supply and the energy transition, 80% of which in Switzerland.

In 2024 alone, 124 million francs were invested on national territory. Over the 2022–2024 period, this represents 365 million francs devoted to projects in Switzerland. We are notably carrying five major hydroelectric projects stemming from the Roundtable process. Their realisation does not depend on an international agreement, but rather on our collective ability to advance them within reasonable timeframes.

That is why we fully support the law on the acceleration of procedures, currently being debated in Parliament. Only this national framework will unlock the investments indispensable for the energy transition.

The agreement will have no effect on our willingness to invest in Switzerland. This willingness is clear and constant.

Isn't this agreement the open door to convince you — national producers — to go and invest more and more abroad rather than develop new production capacities in Switzerland?

No. The agreement will have no effect on our willingness to invest in Switzerland. This willingness is clear and constant. With our partners, we are moreover preparing nearly an additional billion francs to develop our capacities in renewables and storage. What determines our investments is the concrete feasibility of projects in Switzerland — not the electricity agreement with the European Union.

Doesn't this market opening risk leading to consolidation among suppliers, as well as the risk of facing large and powerful European competitors?

The market opening aims above all to offer greater freedom of choice to consumers, particularly SMEs, who today often have no alternative. Alpiq is not active in distribution: we do not supply small consumers, who will continue to benefit from the regulated basic supply. Any potential market consolidation would be a matter for local decisions, independent of the electricity agreement or market opening.

Would a commitment from the Confederation be needed to support the sector in order to maintain investments in the grid and more specifically in renewable energies?

The energy law currently in force provides for the development of renewable energies in Switzerland. The bill to accelerate procedures ("Beschleunigungserlass"), currently being examined by Parliament, aims to facilitate the extension of infrastructure and speed up procedures for wind, solar and hydroelectric projects. In addition, the "Netzexpress" bill aims to accelerate the approval of electricity network construction projects. These reforms are intended to ensure a more sustainable and more local electricity production.

In the event of no agreement, Switzerland would become a mere spectator and would no longer have a say in the planning and organisation of the European market.

The argument that this agreement would be necessary in the event of a new energy crisis in Europe — like in 2022 — is it really defensible? Because in the event of a major shortage, isn't the risk that each State will prioritise its own interests above all, whatever the agreements in force?

Certainly, Switzerland must strengthen its own winter production capacities, notably through the projects stemming from the Roundtable on hydroelectric energy. But energy self-sufficiency is neither realistic nor achievable. Thanks to its European integration, Switzerland can improve its import capacities in winter and better valorise its hydroelectric production, complementary to French nuclear, German renewables and Italian gas. An electricity agreement with the European Union is therefore indispensable to guarantee the continuation of cross-border exchanges.

How do you envisage the future in the event of a no-deal scenario for the future of the Swiss electricity grid?

In the event of no agreement, Switzerland would become a mere spectator and would no longer have a say in the planning and organisation of the European market. This situation would lead to energy transits that are difficult to control, because Switzerland would be excluded from capacity allocation mechanisms, which would limit the efficiency of the use of production means to manage congestions.

Moreover, a no-agreement would close access to European balancing energy platforms, essential for allowing Swissgrid to operate the grid not only more safely, but also more economically.

This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.