The EU must introduce more flexibility in its strategic gas storage targets to support its industry

Since 2022, the European Commission has introduced mandatory targets for filling gas storage facilities to 90% by November 1st of each year. It wishes to maintain this requirement until 2027, by which time the EU aims to have freed itself from Russian gas.

The reasons for this directive are legitimate because the war in Ukraine has disrupted deliveries through the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. The share of Russian gas in Europe has fallen from 40% to 14%. Additionally, filling the storage helps to avoid a price surge in the middle of winter, as happened in 2022 (+60% in March 2022, reaching 194 euros per megawatt-hour).

In 2024, this gas storage strategy was successful. 90% of the stocks were filled by August 20th, ensuring real energy security for the winter of 2024-2025 in Europe.

However, this storage success is not an economic success for European businesses. Firstly, the gas is bought at too high a price. Due to this known temporal and volumetric target, the risk of speculation on the gas markets is much higher for European countries. Secondly, tensions in the global gas market have led European operators to draw more from their stocks during the winter of 2024-2025 rather than importing more. Therefore, the risk of gas speculation during the spring refills is even higher this year, in 2025, especially with American LNG being more expensive than Russian gas.

In short, due to global gas demand and the 90% filling target by November 1st for Member States, the price of gas this year fluctuates between 40 and 50 euros per MWh compared to 34 euros last year for the TTF.

Faced with this price increase, several European countries are calling for a rapid modification of these targets. Poland has circulated a proposal to change the November 1st deadline to a broader range from October 1st to December 1st. Germany and France support it.

At Empower Europe, we believe that the Polish proposal goes in the right direction to avoid speculative risks on gas. It is balanced and realistic, unlike those who simply want to reduce the gas storage target, which risks creating much more expensive supply tensions in the long term.