EU ministers call for national flexibility on electricity grid tariffs; Council targets position in December

Energy ministers from the European Union called at their meeting in Luxembourg on 29 October 2026 for future rules on electricity grid-use tariffs to give member states greater freedom in setting national methodologies. Although there is broad support for reducing system costs and making more efficient use of existing infrastructure, the debate did not conclude with the adoption of a Council position. The Irish presidency is seeking to secure a general approach at the meeting of energy ministers on 10 December.

In brief — 29 October 2026. Energy ministers supported reducing electricity grid costs and making more efficient use of existing infrastructure, but called for greater flexibility in national tariff methodologies. 24–29% of household bills. This was the average share of network tariffs in recent years, according to historical data cited by the European Commission. The indicator does not represent an identical share in all member states or for every consumer. 17 July 2026. The Commission presented proposal COM(2026) 600, which seeks tariffs that better reflect costs, smarter use of infrastructure, digitalisation and reduced pressure on bills. Taxation remains controversial. The proposal provides that excise duties on electricity should not be higher than those on natural gas. According to Euronews, 13 countries, including Romania, called for this provision to be removed. 10 December 2026. The Council aims to reach a general approach on the regulation. This would represent its position for legislative negotiations, not the definitive adoption of the new rules. The European Parliament has not yet adopted its position. File 2026/0203(COD) is before the ITRE committee, with MEP Bruno Tobback as rapporteur. No change to bills follows automatically from the 29 October debate. The draft proposes smart meters for 50% of final customers by the end of 2030 and 75% by the end of 2033. Countries with coverage below 30% when the regulation enters into force would have the deadlines extended to 2031 and 2034.

The ministers’ discussion concerns a component of the electricity bill distinct from the price of the energy consumed. Network tariffs cover transmission and distribution costs, including infrastructure maintenance, operation and modernisation. In the explanatory memorandum to the legislative proposal, the European Commission states that these tariffs accounted, on average, for between 24% and 29% of household electricity bills in recent years. The share can nevertheless vary considerably between states, depending on the system structure, the investments required and how costs are allocated.

On 17 July, the Commission presented a proposal to amend Regulation (EU) 2019/943, with the aim of reducing total electricity-system costs and encouraging electrification. An important direction is to build tariffs that give consumers and operators clearer signals about the costs of using the grid. For example, shifting consumption outside peak hours can reduce pressure on infrastructure and the need for additional investment if the tariff methodology effectively rewards this flexibility. The benefit for consumers nevertheless depends on the rules applied and on their practical ability to adapt consumption.

The proposal also seeks greater transparency and comparability between national methodologies. It includes the possibility of tariff signals linked to when and where the grid is used, as well as a common framework for establishing tariff principles. It was precisely this harmonisation dimension that prompted reservations among member states. According to the official results of the meeting, ministers generally agreed that existing infrastructure must be used more efficiently, but called for national methodologies to be able to reflect the specific characteristics of each electricity system.

Differences between grids explain some of the divergences. A state with extensive interconnections, decentralised generation and a large number of smart meters may have different needs from one that must rapidly expand infrastructure or eliminate local bottlenecks. An overly rigid methodology could limit the adaptation of tariffs to these situations. On the other hand, the Commission believes that more coherent principles at European level can encourage efficient use of grids and reduce costs borne by users.

Before the meeting, the Irish presidency had prepared two revised versions of the compromise texts following comments made by member states in the energy working group. The guidance note of 16 October identified two main issues for the political debate: tariff structure and electricity taxation. The outcome of the 29 October meeting provides guidance for continuing technical negotiations without yet establishing the final wording of the provisions.

The tax dispute is distinct from the calculation of network tariffs, but forms part of the same legislative proposal. The Commission wants a framework that favours the use of electricity and provides that excise duties applied to it should be no higher than those for natural gas. The aim is to ensure that tax policies do not cancel out the benefits sought through improved grid efficiency. The proposal also includes the possibility of reducing excise duties for certain energy-intensive large enterprises, under the conditions laid down in applicable legislation.

This component has faced opposition. Euronews reports that Germany, Italy, Malta, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Finland, Romania, Croatia, Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Hungary were among the states that called for the tax provision to be removed. The report also indicates objections to extending European powers over tariff methodologies. The official results published by the Council confirm that taxation was debated and that national flexibility was requested, but do not provide an individual list of the positions of all delegations.

There is also a legal controversy behind these positions. The Presidency note states that numerous member states consider that the tax provisions should be based on Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which requires unanimity in the Council. The Commission’s proposal was instead submitted under the ordinary legislative procedure, on the basis of Article 194(2), concerning energy policy. The divergence concerns the appropriate legal basis and the method for adopting tax measures; it was not definitively resolved by the 29 October debate.

The proposal also provides for the installation of smart meters for at least 50% of final customers by 31 December 2030 and for 75% by 31 December 2033. For states where coverage is below 30% when the future regulation enters into force, the proposed deadlines are 31 December 2031 and 31 December 2034, respectively. These are objectives in the Commission’s draft, not new obligations that have already been adopted.

In the European Parliament, the proposal is being examined by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), where the rapporteur is Belgian MEP Bruno Tobback from the S&D group. The Parliament’s legislative observatory indicates that the file is still awaiting a decision in the responsible committee. The Council and Parliament therefore do not yet have final legislative positions that would allow the procedure to be concluded.

For households and businesses, the reform’s impact will depend on the final form of the regulation, national implementation rules and consumption patterns. Tariffs designed to reduce grid demand at peak times may generate savings for certain categories of users, but do not guarantee lower bills for all consumers. The next political milestone is the Energy Council meeting on 10 December, when the Irish presidency hopes to secure a general approach. Even if this objective is achieved, the regulation will still have to go through the necessary stages for adoption by the co-legislators.