Critical utility companies extend pricing
The recent decision of the authorities to extend the pricing scheme does not solve the essential problem of the gap between the moment when the suppliers apply the discounts and the one in which the state performs the settlements, warns the Federation of Energy Utility Companies (AUCUE).
« Since the beginning of the energy crisis, the suppliers have been obliged by law to implement the support measures, which protected the consumers. The suppliers took over the burden of financing this scheme, pretending the price reductions and ensuring payments on the supply chain, with significant financial costs. However, the state has not created an effective compensation mechanism for the differences between applied ceilings and real purchase costs, and the delay of payments caused the suppliers a major deficit of liquidity, with significant risks for the clients and for the whole system, ”Acue statement said.
Although the state continues to legislate price reductions, these measures are also implemented by transferring the financial burden on energy suppliers, an unsustainable approach, which seriously affects the stability and functioning of the energy sector, attract the attention of the representatives of the federation.
« Instead of ensuring a clear and predictable settlement mechanism, the authorities resort to administrative and bureaucratic solutions that generate uncertainty and significant financial risks for economic operators, » according to Acue.
According to the quoted source, the experience of the year 2024 demonstrated the negative impact of this approach for the implementation of the ceiling, which blocked the settlement process and affected the entire energy supply sector. Or a legislative framework that prevents the normal functioning of an economic sector cannot be considered functional. And in this situation, the problem is not to the economic operators, but to the regulations imposed by the authorities. « The new decision only perpetuates the problem, instead of solving it efficiently, » points out.
In the opinion, a concrete example is the modification of the provisions regarding the payment of the amounts due to the suppliers. By replacing the phrase 'within the limits of the available funds' with an ambiguous formulation – « the date from which the Ministry of Finance transfers the funds » Conditions are introduced over which the suppliers have no control. In the context in which the budget allocation is insufficient, this mention denotes a concern for the protection of civil servants than a real support for the energy sector.
« If the law requires the price ceiling, then the state has the correlative obligation to ensure the compensation of the suppliers. If the state creates a legal obligation for the private sector, it must finance it in full, without depending on the availability of funds at any time or the date on which the Ministry of Finance makes payments to a principal authorizing officer, ”the source quoted.
At the same time, maintaining provisions that generate financial losses for providers and contravene national and European legislation is unacceptable and require urgent review.
In this context, Acue transmits that it is imperative that the authorities adopt responsible measures, which will ensure a balance between consumer protection and the sustainability of the energy industry.
