A few days ago, I published an article on Filenews entitled "The Competitive Electricity Market is not a matter of opinion – it is a matter of numbers", in which I cited an analysis of official data from six months of market operation and argued that the public debate on electricity should be based on factual analysis and not on general characterizations.
Chrysanthos Manolis, assistant editor-in-chief of the newspaper Fileleftheros, chose to respond with his own article, questioning not the data - which he expressly accepts - but their relevance for the household consumer. This article is my answer.
The column begins with a remark that "technocrats are not fully understood when they address the general public". But the problem is not communication, it is that we are used to accepting claims without data, general reports without numbers, and slogans without documentation. Data is the only reliable guide, and avoiding it, whatever the cause, does not serve anyone. Not understanding is not always the author's problem. Sometimes it is also a reading problem for those who will disagree anyway.
Also, the claim "even the knowledge drawn from Mr. Prokopiou's articles does not prove to be enough to differentiate the general impression in public opinion" is not supported by any evidence – neither research, nor a poll, nor any measurable indication. It is simply the opinion of Mr. Manolis, presented as a finding. The same applies to the reference to the "central view of many technocrats": which technocrats? In what published analysis?
"No meaning" – but for whom exactly?
The central position of the column in response to my article was clear: "for households without photovoltaics and small businesses, the competitive market does not exist. It doesn't concern them." And when asked about the meaning of the weighted average price for these consumers, the column's answer is "No meaning."
This position is wrong – and for a specific reason.
Every supplier operating in Cyprus, including the EAC as the Dominant Supplier, purchases energy from the Ante-Day Market. When the price there, even for the hours of sunshine, is lower than the cost of expensive conventional production, this benefit can also be passed on to households, exactly those that the column says "the market does not concern them".
But let's put it differently. Would you write the same about wholesale in food? In fuel? In agricultural products? The cost of wholesale trade is always passed on to the retail trade, and therefore to the consumer. Electricity is no exception. The contradiction is obvious: the column is concerned about the cost of the household consumer, but is indifferent to a mechanism that determines part of this very cost.
The Importance of the Pre-Day Market
The column refers to the "stock market" (Pre-day Market) as "a minimal portion of the total market." The data say the opposite: in the first six months of operation of the Competitive Market, the Pre-Day Insurance cleared 1,255 GWh out of a total of 2,251 GWh – i.e. 55.8% of the total. It is not small. It is the heart of the market. The problem is that it is flooded with conventional energy – with renewables being generated in only 10% of the total of the Pre-Day.
And yet, this 10% says something very important: it is cleared at low (and often zero) prices, squeezing down the weighted average price of the entire market. Even with such a limited share, renewables prove in practice that they lower prices. Imagine what it would mean for the consumer if their volume were double or triple.
But it can't be done – not because the market doesn't allow it, but because the system has structural barriers that prevent it. Expensive must-run units accounting for 34.4% of the total market enter regardless of prices, and the complete absence of energy storage prevents the transfer of surplus from peak solar hours to peak demand hours. These are the problems that need to be solved – and solving them is in everyone's interest, including the household consumer.
Invoking anonymous opinions is not enough
The column claims that "the central view of many technocrats" is that the competitive market, "as applied in Cyprus of electrical isolation and the absence of cheaper conventional fuels compared to fuel oil and diesel, does not lead to a reduction in costs for the huge mass of household consumers".
Electrical isolation and dependence on fuel oil and diesel are real parameters – no one disputes them. But these parameters existed even before the competitive market. So the question is not whether Cyprus has structural disadvantages – it does. The question is: does the competitive market exacerbate these disadvantages, or does it create mechanisms to address them?
This is not answered by reference to anonymous technocrats. It is answered with studies, with data, with a documented before and after comparison. If there are such studies that prove that the competitive market increases costs for the household consumer, let them be published. Let them be discussed. Let them be compared with the official market data. This is the debate Cyprus needs – not the appeal to views that are not accompanied by any numbers.
"We have to wait for the summer"
The claim that "even these elements cannot be reliably exploited at this stage. We have to wait for the summer", it is not documented. The data I have listed covers six full months of market operation: October 2025 to March 2026. Six months of data, per time period, with a full detailed breakdown of prices and volumes, is not a sample. It's half the year.
In research methodology, refusing to evaluate existing data on the grounds that it takes "more time" – while at the same time implying which period would be "most representative" – has a specific name in statistical analysis and is called selection bias. From my research experience, this is one of the most common errors in data analysis: the choice of when to measure is determined not by the methodology, but by the desired result.
And in the summer, when it comes, it will have its own analysis – with its own data. What does not change is the methodology: the market is evaluated on the basis of a weighted picture of prices and volumes – not by a selective reading of the time that is convenient. And as I have done since day one of the market's operation, I will be here to do this analysis – factually and objectively.
And to close...
The column's answer ends with a reference to Professor Zachariadis and the question of how "the benefits of the green transition can be diffused more widely in society". It is an important question and I share it. But it cannot be answered correctly if we ignore the way the market works, or if we choose when the data "concerns us" and when not. And it certainly cannot be answered by appealing to opinions without numbers, regardless of whether they come from politicians, journalists or technocrats.
Data doesn't choose sides – but avoiding it does. And it "cuts us" friend Chrysanthos, and a lot of it.
- The opinions expressed are personal.
- Former Senior Researcher in the field of Smart Grids, University of Melbourne and researcher at Électricité de France R&D in France
