Where the grid hits hardest: Energy distribution costs across Europe compared
Energy bills are a major part of living costs. Energy prices vary widely across Europe. Bills include not just energy costs, but also taxes and distribution fees.
The share of electricity and gas bills that goes to distribution, essentially what you pay to use the grid, also differs from country to country.
So, how much of your energy bill goes to distribution companies in Europe? And which countries pay the most for distribution? Also known as network charges, this portion of the bill mostly includes both transmission and distribution costs.
The Household Energy Price Index (HEPI), compiled by Energie-Control Austria, MEKH, and VaasaETT, provides a detailed breakdown of residential end-user electricity and gas prices. The breakdown includes four components: energy, distribution, energy taxes, and VAT.
As of April 2024, the share of distribution in household electricity prices ranged from 11% in Nicosia to 65% in Budapest, closely followed by Amsterdam (60%). However, in Amsterdam, the distribution share would drop to 39% if the tax refund were not considered.
The capital cities of Hungary and the Netherlands stand out as clear outliers, with more than half of the electricity bill going to distribution.
The EU-27 average was 28%. Other high-share cities include Luxembourg City (46%), Podgorica (43%), and Bucharest (42%).
Many Central and Eastern European cities such as Kyiv, Vilnius, Riga, Zagreb, Belgrade, and Warsaw have distribution shares well above the EU average. Western cities like Paris (35%) and Lisbon (34%) also fall into the higher group.
The Nordic capitals (Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen) tend to have lower shares (between 17%–23%).
Southern Europe shows some of the lowest distribution shares, including Athens (15%) and Rome (15%).
Cities like Berlin (29%), Vienna (30%), Tallinn (29%), Dublin (30%), and Prague (31%) are close to the EU average, showing moderate distribution cost impact.
Among the capitals of Europe's top five economies, London and Madrid had the lowest distribution share at 18%.
On average across the EU capital cities, the distribution share is slightly lower in gas prices (23%) than in electricity prices (28%).
The distribution share in residential end-user gas prices ranged from 10% in Kyiv to 43% in Bern.
In addition to Bern, the distribution share exceeded one-third of gas bills in Sofia (37%) and Bratislava (34%). In Dublin, it came close to that level at 32%.
Among the EU capitals, Amsterdam had the lowest distribution share at 13%, followed by Zagreb and Tallinn, both at 15%.
The variation in gas distribution shares among Europe's top five economies is smaller compared to electricity. London and Madrid had the highest shares at 22%, slightly below the EU average, followed by Rome at 21%. In Paris and Berlin, the shares were even lower—17% and 16%, respectively.
Rafaila Grigoriou, HEPI project manager & head of VaasaETT's Greek office, and Ioannis Korras, senior energy market analyst at VaasaETT explained that network costs are determined based on local requirements and national strategies for the development and upgrading of distribution and transmission networks. A significant portion of national network investment costs is passed on to end-user bills through network charges.
'Disparities among markets are primarily driven by their investment plans and are related to electrification demand, level of RES penetration, distributed generation, the age of the network infrastructure etc.' Grigoriou and Korras told Euronews.
VaasaETT experts also noted that the comparison of network cost shares in total bills between countries may not always accurately reflect the true significance of network costs in some cases. This is especially true in cases where regulations or support schemes affect the energy component of the bill.
Cities like Budapest and Bucharest clearly illustrate this effect. In Budapest, the electricity distribution share is 65%, equal to 5.94 c€/kWh. In contrast, Bucharest has a lower distribution share of 42%, but the actual cost is higher at 6.75 c€/kWh. This is due to differences in end-user electricity prices: 9.1 c€/kWh in Budapest versus 16.1 c€/kWh in Bucharest.
The same pattern applies to gas distribution in these cities as well.
The breakdown of energy bills can vary over time or during extraordinary situations, depending on the country. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is a clear example of such a disruption, which led to sharp changes in energy prices.
'Since the beginning of the energy crisis, there has been a significant number of temporary support measures that involved the reduction or abolishment of network charges or taxes in European countries,' Rafaila Grigoriou told.
'Those have affected both electricity and gas bills and a small number of those are in fact still active in some markets. Slovenia is an example of this for residential electricity customers.' she added.
While this article does not aim to analyse or compare final consumer energy prices across Europe in depth, providing these figures still offers valuable context.
As of April 2025, household end-user electricity prices ranged from 9.1 € cents per kWh in Budapest to 40.4 c€/kWh in Berlin according to the HEPI. The EU-27 average was 24.7 c€/kWh.
Among EU capital cities, gas prices in the same period ranged from 2.5 c€/kWh in Budapest to 34.1 c€/kWh in Stockholm, with an EU average of 11.1 c€/kWh.
Euronews compared and analysed residential end-user electricity and gas prices across Europe as of January 2025, examining both nominal prices and those adjusted for purchasing power.
The article entitled 'Electricity and Gas Prices Across Europe' also explores the factors driving the differences in energy prices across European countries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
7 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Canada-Europe security and defence pact to be signed Monday in Brussels
OTTAWA - A security and defence partnership pact Prime Minister Mark Carney will sign with European leaders in Brussels on Monday will be among the most wide-ranging agreements with a third country Europe has ever reached, a senior EU official said on Friday. Carney is flying to Europe Sunday for a Canada — EU Summit, planned for Monday evening with European Council President António Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. At the G7 summit in Alberta on Monday von der Leyen confirmed that the agreement will be signed on Monday in Brussels, calling Canada a 'key partner.' 'This is also a moment where we can strengthen Canada's role in Europe's rapidly evolving defence architecture,' said Von der Leyen on June 16. In a briefing to Canadian and European reporters on Friday, a senior European official said there will be two main outcomes from the summit — a joint statement that expresses views on global issues, such as conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the signing of the 'EU Canada Security and Defence Partnership Agreement.' 'This is an ambitious one,' the official said. 'And actually we've had this with a number of global partners, but the one with Canada would be one of the most far reaching of its kind that the EU has ever signed with a third country. It will open up new avenues for joint work on crisis management, military mobility, maritime security, cyber and cyber threats, and defence industrial co-operation.' Carney has been clear that he intends to expand Canada's ties with Europe as its relationship with the United States strains under the weight of tariffs and threats of annexation. Within two days of being sworn in as prime minister in March Carney flew to Europe, meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London. It was during those meetings that he seriously began talking about signing on to Europe's new defence procurement plan known as ReArm Europe. In the throne speech on May 27, Carney's government pledged to join that program, and he told the CBC in an interview that same day he expected Canada to do that by July 1. On June 9, Carney announced a massive investment in Canada's defence budget to push Canada above the two per cent of GDP NATO target this country has promised — and failed — to meet for more than a decade. Joining ReArm Europe is part of that plan, with Carney repeatedly saying Canada can no longer put all its defence spending into the U.S. 'We are in close discussions with our European partners to join ReArm Europe,' he said on June 9. 'That will be an element of diversification. That's just smart. It's better to be diversified. It's better to have options. It's better to have different supply chains and broader partners.' The agenda for the summit posted by the European Council says the security and defence procurement agreement will allow Canada to join a European loan program for joint defence projects. That 150-billion euro program — called Security Action for Europe, or SAFE — is part of the ReArm Europe initiative. The EU official said on Friday that once the procurement agreement is in place, Canada will have to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the European Commission to begin discussions with member states about procurement opportunities. Leaders at the EU-Canada summit are also expected to discuss global trade and the wars raging in Ukraine and the Middle East. They will also commit to fully ratifying the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the Canada-Europe free trade agreement known as CETA. Fen Hampson, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University, said Carney also should put the 'pedal to the metal' on ratifying CETA. The deal entered into force provisionally in 2017, but several EU member states still need to ratify CETA at the national level. 'The real challenge there is to get Canadian businesses and also European businesses to take it up … and to start doing more business across the Atlantic, but that also requires political leadership,' Hampson said. 'It hasn't been fully ratified but that's something (Carney) can perhaps impress upon the Europeans.' After Brussels, Carney will travel to The Hague for the NATO leaders' summit, where discussions are expected to push forward on increasing the NATO members' defence spending target as high as five per cent of GDP, from the current two per cent. — With files from Kyle Duggan, Dylan Robertson and The Associated Press This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 20, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Forbes
10 hours ago
- Forbes
Leadership Falters As Climate Costs Soar And Time To Act Runs Out
CHARLEVOIX, CANADA - JUNE 9: In this photo provided by the German Government Press Office (BPA), ... More German Chancellor Angela Merkel deliberates with US president Donald Trump on the sidelines of the official agenda on the second day of the G7 summit on June 9, 2018 in Charlevoix, Canada. Also pictured are (L-R) Larry Kudlow, director of the US National Economic Council, Theresa May, UK prime minister, Emmanuel Macron, French president, Angela Merkel, Yasutoshi Nishimura, Japanese deputy chief cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, Japan prime minister, Kazuyuki Yamazaki, Japanese senior deputy minister for foreign affairs, John Bolton, US national security adviser, and Donald Trump. Canada are hosting the leaders of the UK, Italy, the US, France, Germany and Japan for the two day summit. (Photo by Jesco Denzel /Bundesregierung via Getty Images) London Climate Action Week is set to start, showcasing what urgent, inclusive climate action looks like when cities, financiers, and citizens unite. But the energy and innovation on display in London are being overshadowed by growing inaction from global leaders. Just days after the G7 failed to deliver any meaningful policy progress, and as the EU backpedals on its green regulation agenda, a troubling gap is emerging between local ambition and failures of international leadership. This retreat is happening at the worst possible moment. Climate damage costs are skyrocketing, climate science is sounding red alerts, and economic evidence points to a clear win: green investment can grow economies, create jobs, and protect communities. The world's most powerful leaders are not just missing an opportunity, they are magnifying a crisis. To grasp its scale, we need to look at the growing economic cost of inaction. The Price Of Delay And The Need For Leadership Bloomberg Intelligence has estimated that in the year to May 2025, the U.S. incurred close to $1 trillion (or around 3% of GDP) in direct climate-related costs from floods, wildfires, infrastructure damage, and insurance losses. Globally, heatwaves, droughts, and extreme weather are disrupting supply chains, inflating food prices, and undermining financial stability. Insurers have seen annual catastrophe losses surge tenfold since the 1980s. Premiums have skyrocketed, and coverage has shrunk, especially in wildfire and storm prone regions, exacerbating economic disruption and housing unaffordability. At the same time, the European Union appears to be shelving the Green Claims Directive, retreating under political pressure precisely when markets are demanding clear, consistent regulation to guide sustainable investment. This uncertainty discourages capital and undermines momentum. These setbacks comes as the OECD's 2025 Green Growth report shows that climate action could unlock $7.4 trillion per year in investment and job creation if scaled by 2030. Yet rather than harnessing this opportunity, many leaders are hesitating. Nowhere is this hesitancy more evident than in the recent action, or inaction, of the G7, whose decisions ripple far beyond their border G7 Paralysis And The Global Ripple Effect The G7's latest Chair's Summary reaffirms familiar goals, like limiting warming to 1.5°C but offered no timelines, targets, or tools to achieve it. 'Once again, the G7 chose safe, business-as-usual declarations over the bold, future-proof action we urgently need,' said Daniela Fernandez, CEO of Sustainable Ocean Alliance. 'The G7's latest climate commitments reflect a deeper issue,' added Ibrahim AlHusseini, managing partner of climate investor FullCycle. 'Global leaders are increasingly distracted by immediate geopolitical crises, and climate, still perceived as a medium to long-term risk, has slipped down the agenda. But this is a dangerous miscalculation.' He added: 'Delay is not neutral, it's an accelerant of future instability,' with direct consequences for supply chains, migration, and global financial systems. And it's not just experts calling for change. According to the 2024 People's Climate Vote, 80% of people globally want their countries to strengthen climate commitments, and over two-thirds support a fast transition from fossil fuels. Other surveys echoes this: 89% of people across 125 countries support stronger government action, yet many mistakenly believe they are in the minority. This public mandate for bold climate action stands in sharp contrast to the political hesitancy now on display. As political will may be stalling, another sector is responding. What was once viewed as an environmental issue is now a pressing financial risk. Climate Risk Becomes Financial Risk Inaction is not just costly, it is destabilizing. The financial consequences are already unfolding across insurance markets and beyond. "We have already seen residential and commercial insurance premiums rise and availability drop in recent years, in response to growing insurer losses," warns Tom Sabetelli-Goodyer, vice-president of climate risk at FIS. They are early signs of a broader, systemic threat. As climate impacts intensify, they are cascading through the financial system, affecting asset valuations, credit risk, and the stability of entire markets. Regulators around the world have begun to integrate climate risk into their frameworks, but last week, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the global standard-setter for financial regulation, added its voice with a new framework for the voluntary disclosure of climate-related financial risks. While non-binding, the guidance marks a significant step and reinforces a clear message: climate risk is no longer just environmental, it's financial. As Julia Symon, head of research and advocacy at Finance Watch put it: 'Without clear, consistent data, supervisors are flying blind, unaware of the real risks building up on balance sheets.' The Climate Clock Is Ticking Scientific indicators confirm the urgency and the danger of delay. The 2024 Indicators of Global Climate Change report shows that the average global temperature from 2015 to 2024 reached 1.24°C above pre-industrial levels, with human activity responsible for nearly all of it. In 2024 alone, global temperatures spiked to 1.52°C, temporarily crossing the critical 1.5°C threshold. More troubling still, human-induced warming is accelerating at an unprecedented rate of 0.27°C per decade, the fastest rate ever recorded. At current emissions levels, the remaining carbon budget for staying below 1.5°C could be fully exhausted within just two to five years, depending on assumptions. Scientists also point to a growing Earth energy imbalance and early signs of amplifying climate feedback loops, such as ocean heat uptake and ice melt, which could further lock in extreme changes. The window for keeping global heating within safe limits is narrowing quickly. Yet even as time runs short, the economic case for prompt action continues to strengthen. Green growth offers a rare convergence of climate responsibility and financial return. Green Growth: A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity The OECD Green Growth report emphasizes that investing in clean energy and green infrastructure is not just responsible, its smart economics. Clean energy investment now outpaces fossil fuels, and 90% of global GDP is covered by net-zero targets. The report outlines how aligning financial systems with climate goals could unlock $7.4 trillion annually in investment by 2030. 'Green growth is an approach that seeks to harmonize economic growth with environmental sustainability and helps to deliver broader development benefits,' explains Jennifer Baumwoll, head of climate strategies and policy at UNDP. Far from hindering development, the green transition can generate resilient jobs, improve productivity, and enhance long-term competitiveness. In short, the report argues that climate action is not a cost but a catalyst for growth. Countries like Mongolia and Lao PDR are already demonstrating what this looks like in practice. In Mongolia, a green finance strategy, backed by the Central Bank and a new SDG-aligned taxonomy, has mobilized $120 million in climate-aligned investment, including the country's first green bond. Green lending is targeted to grow from 2% to 10% of all bank lending by 2030. Meanwhile, Lao PDR is advancing a national circular economy roadmap to reduce waste and resource use while unlocking economic opportunity. If fully implemented, it could create 1.6 million jobs and add $16 billion to GDP by 2050. These pragmatic, investment-ready models of climate action deliver real development gains. Their progress underscores a growing global divide: while emerging economies embrace opportunity, many developed nations are falling behind, precisely when their leadership is most needed. A Shrinking Window And Defining Test Of Leadership 2025 marks a critical juncture. Countries are expected to submit new national climate plans (NDCs 3.0) ahead of COP30 in Belém this November. Yet as of late June 2025, four months after the February deadline, only a small fraction had done so. Intended to reflect increased ambition following the Global Stocktake, most submissions remain overdue, and the ambition gap continues to widen. The UN expects a surge of last-minute filings, but tardiness isn't the only concern. Most existing plans fall short of aligning with the 1.5°C target, and the policy frameworks to deliver them at scale are still lacking. The challenge is not technical though but political. Instead of advancing, many major economies are retreating, weakening targets, delaying regulations, and rolling back commitments just as the case for bold action becomes stronger. Evidence shows that a well-managed transition can boost growth, reduce inequality, and build resilience. Yet that potential is being squandered. What's needed now is not just political courage, but real leadership, capable of driving structural reform and aligning finance with planetary boundaries. Decisive action today isn't only about avoiding catastrophe, it's about exercising leadership that can shape a more stable, equitable, and liveable world. The responsibility lies with those in power to act—not later, but now.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Iran hasn't yet made the Strait of Hormuz central in its fight with Israel. Here's how that could change.
Iranian threats to block energy shipments through the Straight of Hormuz and the fate of the nation's own oil and natural gas production efforts have been anxiously watched since the beginning of its conflict with Israel. So far, both fronts have been on the sidelines, with observers closely monitoring what changing war dynamics could signal about the ultimate economic consequences of this conflict. Oil futures have risen over 10% since the fighting started; the sense among analysts is that price pressures could ease if the war remains contained. But things could quickly go sideways — for oil markets and the global economy — if the coming weeks bring concrete signs of escalation around the Strait of Hormuz. "Should this key economic chokepoint be closed, that kind of disruption would send the price of oil toward $100 per barrel, or even above that," wrote Joe Brusuelas, the chief economist for RSM US, in a Friday note. Analysts at JPMorgan Chase have echoed these worries, calling a blocking of the Strait the "worst-case scenario" and suggesting the result could be to push inflation in the US to 5%. That's because this narrow waterway is where about 20% of the world's oil and seaborne natural gas shipments pass between oil-producing Gulf states — not just Iran, but Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and others — and the rest of the world. Iran has only made noise so far about closing the Strait, but at least one Iranian leader has reportedly said the US military getting involved could increase the odds. Ali Yazdikhah, an Iranian lawmaker, was quoted by the country's semi-official Mehr news agency as saying, "If the United States officially and operationally enters the war ... it is the legitimate right of Iran in view of pressuring the US and Western countries to disrupt their oil trade's ease of transit." Meanwhile, President Trump offered a move toward diplomacy in recent days, saying he will decide in the next two weeks about US action but also pushing back on notions he's taking threats of force off the table. As he told reporters recently, "I may do it, I may not do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do." Noam Raydan, who studies energy and maritime risks at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, notes that plenty of Iranian oil moves through the Hormuz passageway, so "there's no reason for Tehran at the moment to block the Strait unless it really wants to shoot itself in the foot." How that changes, she notes, is if Iran's oil infrastructure is severely damaged. "Iran will shut the Strait once it cannot export — this is my simple answer," Raydan said. But that scenario is a long way off for now, with Israel apparently focusing most of its attacks away from fossil fuel facilities. Indeed, oil disruptions in Iran have been minimal despite fears that followed one Israeli strike on an oil refinery in Tehran. This has left the world, including Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, in a sort of wait-and-see mode. "We're watching like everybody else is," the central banker told reporters this past week, though Powell suggested an easing of economic pressure is likely unless tensions in the region spike to levels not seen in nearly 50 years. What also could emerge to rattle markets — though perhaps less dramatically — are other measures Iran has at its disposal. These range from terrorist attacks to the seizing of some commercial ships. Experts note that Iran has a variety of other means to disrupt the world economy if its military situation gets more desperate. Suzanne Maloney, the director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, noted in a recent analysis that Iran could run out of existing countermeasures soon and that a further escalation may include things like small-scale terrorist attacks and cyberattacks in addition to threats to the Strait of Hormuz. But, she noted, these are options that "all entail risky tradeoffs, especially the prospect of precipitating US military intervention, which Tehran would prefer to avoid." The Washington Institute's Raydan offered another possible disruption to watch, noting that "Iran is known for seizing commercial ships in the region in retaliation to US actions ... so I'd say ship seizures are something to watch, and Iran has experience in that." Possible attacks on shipping were also brought up in a recent Capital Economics analysis that laid out the effects of four potential scenarios in the weeks ahead, ranging from a short conflict to regime change. Perhaps the most economic uncertainty could come with a scenario of "long-lasting conflict with no off-ramp," which, the group noted, could include regular attacks in the months ahead on shipping and energy transit from both Iran and its proxies. That's a scenario, they wrote, that "might result in a long-lasting higher oil price in the range of $130-$150 [per barrel], lift inflation in advanced economies by 2-2.5%-pts by end-2025 and would be a major risk-off event in markets." But the bottom line, the economists added, is that "we may not know the endgame for some time." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
