Remove the ARENH
Revisit distorted electricity pricing mechanisms that undermine rational long-term energy policy.
Arguments For
Better funding for long-term investment
A mechanism that sells part of output at a capped price can limit the margins needed for heavy investment. Revising it would aim to better remunerate the existing fleet and fund its renewal. The stake is ensuring the sustainability of a production tool essential to decarbonisation.
Reducing market distortions
An administered price disconnected from real costs can send misleading signals to producers and suppliers alike. Removing it would bring prices closer to economic and technical fundamentals. This would clarify incentives to produce, invest and consume more rationally.
Rethinking a transitional tool that became permanent
Designed to accompany market opening, this kind of mechanism is meant to evolve with the context. Keeping it indefinitely freezes old trade-offs against new challenges, such as electrification and security of supply. A review allows its relevance to be reassessed in light of current needs.
Arguments Against
A risk of higher prices for consumers
This kind of mechanism aims partly to let consumers benefit from electricity produced at a controlled cost. Removing it without a protective replacement could expose households and businesses to more volatile prices. The question of consumer protection must be addressed first.
Weakened supplier competition
Regulated access to baseload output lets alternative suppliers offer competitive deals. Removing it could strengthen the incumbent's position and reduce the diversity of offers. The competitive balance of the retail market is at stake.
A reform with high transition risk
Changing a pillar of the electricity market without a clear substitute can create uncertainty for all actors. Wholesale price volatility makes the transition especially sensitive. Success depends entirely on the quality of the mechanism that would take over.
Better funding for long-term investment
A mechanism that sells part of output at a capped price can limit the margins needed for heavy investment. Revising it would aim to better remunerate the existing fleet and fund its renewal. The stake is ensuring the sustainability of a production tool essential to decarbonisation.
Reducing market distortions
An administered price disconnected from real costs can send misleading signals to producers and suppliers alike. Removing it would bring prices closer to economic and technical fundamentals. This would clarify incentives to produce, invest and consume more rationally.
Rethinking a transitional tool that became permanent
Designed to accompany market opening, this kind of mechanism is meant to evolve with the context. Keeping it indefinitely freezes old trade-offs against new challenges, such as electrification and security of supply. A review allows its relevance to be reassessed in light of current needs.
Nuance & Verdict
The debate is less about whether a pricing mechanism should exist than about its ability to reconcile investment funding with consumer protection. Revising a transitional tool that became permanent is legitimate, since the energy landscape has changed profoundly. But removing it without a credible replacement would pose real risks to prices and to retail competition. The reasonable path is to define the successor mechanism first, aiming for a clear balance between the sustainability of the production fleet and stability for users.