Electricity customers and industry are threatened with a burden of billions
The plans to introduce a capacity market are causing discussions: The Federal Association of the New Energy Industry (BNE) warns that such a model could cause enormous additional costs and steer the energy transition in the wrong direction. According to current calculations, the market mechanism could consume up to 435 billion euros over 15 years – paid for by consumers, companies and the entire economy. The criticism comes at a time when energy prices are already under pressure and many players in the industry are demanding more planning security.
1. More security or more costs?
A capacity market is intended to ensure that enough electricity is available even during peak load times. Power plant operators would be paid for keeping capacity available – regardless of whether they actually deliver. The idea: stability against uncertainty through weather-dependent feeders.
But according to BNE, this creates a costly parallel market that creates false incentives. Instead of promoting innovation, the outdated infrastructure is being continued to be financed. Such a step could backfire in the long term, both economically and in terms of climate policy. The result: a market with dual structures in which new solutions are thwarted and old technologies are artificially kept alive.
2. Billions in costs with long-term effects
The scenarios presented by the BNE paint a clear picture: a full capacity market would cause up to 435 billion euros in additional costs, divided over 15 years. Even a limited mechanism with selected capacities would still have a price tag of around 73 billion euros.
These sums would not only drive up the price of electricity for end consumers, but would also increase production costs for industry and medium-sized businesses. In times of economic stress, this could lead to a decline in investment and relocations. The BNE warns that this could also jeopardize the acceptance of the energy transition – because if costs explode, both households and companies will lose confidence in the ability of the energy market to reform.
The opinion of Robert Busch, the managing director of the BNE: “A capacity market relies on standstill instead of progress. What we need is a flexible, modern electricity market – not an expensive relic of old structures.”
3rd alternative: Flexible markets and technological openness
The BNE proposes to focus on flexible and market-oriented solutions. Instead of flat-rate payments for reserve power plants, storage, controllable consumers and intelligent grid infrastructure should be promoted. These technologies respond dynamically to demand and support grid stability without long-term cost traps.
According to the association, technological openness is particularly important: not a central solution, but a mix of innovations must secure the energy supply of the future. This also includes cross-sector approaches such as Power-to-X, intelligent charging infrastructure and demand-side management – all building blocks that would be difficult to integrate in a rigid capacity market.
4. Energy transition requires efficiency, not expensive detours
The debate about capacity markets comes at a crucial phase in the electricity market reform. The BNE calls on politicians to set the course for the future: away from keeping fossil reserves and towards a digitally controlled, grid-friendly and climate-friendly energy system.
It is feared that a capacity market would not only cost money – but also time, innovative strength and credibility in implementing the energy transition. Instead of creating new dependencies, market incentives are needed that enable investments in modern energy infrastructure. The right course could not only guarantee security of supply, but also strengthen Germany as a business location.