Energy is one of the most complex issues of our time. It's not just about production and consumption. It is simultaneously linked to security of supply, costs for households, infrastructure investments, climate commitments and geopolitical stability.
That is why every discussion on energy policy seems to be pulling in many directions at the same time. Others see the bill at the end of the month. Others focus on new production units. Some are concerned about emissions and others about strategic autonomy. Complexity is not a detail. It is the core of the problem.
In the case of Cyprus, this complexity becomes even greater. The country is an island system without, for the time being, interconnections. It relies to a very high degree on imported fuels, has commitments for decarbonization and at the same time there is a discussion about the exploitation of hydrocarbons in the Eastern Mediterranean. Nevertheless, Cyprus has not yet drawn up a truly comprehensive and long-term energy strategy that answers a fundamental question: Who will make the decisions that will bind the energy system for the coming decades and with what logic will they do so?
The vertices of the triangle
Imagine a triangle, where energy is at its center. It is the commodity that keeps our homes warm, drives the economy and largely determines who will have power in the world of tomorrow. At the three vertices of the triangle are three different forces. Each one pulls in its own interests. The goal of a serious energy strategy is simple to formulate but extremely difficult to do. The sides of the triangle should stay as equal as possible. When a top is excessively strengthened, the system ceases to serve the citizens and becomes a tool of narrow interests.
To make the complexity of the energy strategy visible, it is enough to look at three different triangles as a detailed map. Each illuminates a different side of the same issue. All together they show why energy remains one of the most difficult fields of balance in politics. The same tensions have surfaced over and over again in the energy crises of the past decade, from reducing emissions to costing vulnerable households.
But in order to really understand the problem, the three triangles must be seen as a single framework. So it seems that energy strategy is a complex balancing exercise, where three different languages ultimately describe the same problem.
The power
The first is the triangle of power. At its peak are consumers, politicians and investors. These are three bodies with radically different priorities and with completely different time horizons. The consumer looks at the electricity bill at the end of the month. The politician is looking at the next elections. At the same time, it is aware that there are climate commitments for 2030 and 2050. The investor looks at the return on capital over the next twenty years. It assesses whether the regulatory environment will remain stable.
When these three carriers are not in balance, the results are painful. In the European energy market, there have been cases where large energy companies have taken advantage of the lack of real competition. They maintained high prices and burdened consumers.
In other countries, populist governments froze tariffs. Consumers were temporarily relieved. But investors were exhausted and underinvestment in critical infrastructure became a permanent problem.
These phenomena explain why the European Union has created a coherent system for supervising energy markets, with organisations such as ACER and with regulatory frameworks such as REMIT. The aim is to protect energy as a commodity accessible to all, with a reliable supply and a fair price.
Economy, society, environment
The second triangle moves at a different level of resolution. He does not ask who decides. He asks what value we are deciding on. At its peaks are the Economy, Society and the Environment. Together they make up the triangle of sustainable development.
It is the language of the United Nations, the Sustainable Development Goals and the European Green Deal. The issue is clear. We need an energy policy that is cost-effective, socially just and environmentally sustainable.
The wording seems simple. But the practice is difficult. The experience of recent years has highlighted a persistent tension. Aggressive decarbonization policies, when not carefully planned, can drive up energy costs for lower incomes. The so-called green inequality is not a theoretical hypothesis.
In many European countries, the increase in electricity prices due to the integration of renewable energy sources has placed a disproportionate burden on vulnerable households. This happened every time there were no targeted protection measures.
On the other hand, the protection of industrial competitiveness cannot become a permanent excuse for slowing down decarbonisation. When this happens, the climate costs are passed on to future generations. Future generations have no voice in today's decisions. The apparent breath in energy costs for the present turns into multiple costs in the future.
Technical decisions
The third triangle is the tool of those who make technical decisions. This is where engineers, market analysts, and regulatory bodies meet. In this context, questions such as the following are asked:
* How many natural gas plants should be closed and in what time horizon?
* Where and when should a new electrical interconnection be built?
* How should electricity pricing be formulated?
At the peaks of this triangle are Reliability, Cost, and Emissions. This is the well-known Energy Trilemma, which has been highlighted by the World Energy Council. It is perhaps the most widely recognized energy systems assessment framework internationally.
The deeper contradiction in this triangle is mainly technical in nature. Renewable energy reduces emissions. At the same time, wind and solar energy are intermittent. They do not produce when there is no wind or sun. This poses risks to the reliability of the network. The answer is to invest in smart grids, backup units, and energy storage systems. All of these solutions, however, increase the overall cost. This is how the dynamics of the triangle become apparent. Improving one side creates pressure on the other two.
So we have three triangles and three languages, but one common problem. Herein lies the real complexity. The three levels of analysis are not independent of each other. Every decision on one level directly affects the other two. This is not an abstract theory. It can be seen in every price crisis, in every conflict around renewable energy projects, in every national plan for the climate transition that causes political tension.
The analysis shows that the vertices of the three triangles correspond to each other with impressive accuracy. This becomes clear when we consider the consolidation of the three frameworks of the energy strategy. We can imagine a single triangle with Energy Security, Fairness and Sustainability at the tops. It's not just a matter of formatting. Each vertex simultaneously condenses three different analysis languages. This is why energy policy decisions are so difficult and so often misunderstood in the public debate.
Decisions by independent energy experts
A serious answer to the question "Who draws up an energy strategy for Cyprus?" it must be clear. The strategy needs to be designed by independent energy experts. These people must possess technical competence and institutional memory. They cannot be replaced by occasional political balances and opportunistic alliances. Cyprus needs an integrated, long-term and sustainable energy strategy.
Today, such a coherent framework is missing. It must be based on scientifically documented, cross-party agreements and not on fragmentary decisions of each government cycle.
On a practical level this means a design process led by a team of experts. This group must be able to see all three triangles at the same time. Who decides and with what institutional framework. What value does the system serve and how does it balance between the economy, society and the environment. What technical sacrifices or trade-offs are necessary in terms of reliability, cost and emissions. The role of the political leadership is not to substitute technical judgment. It is to commit to incorporating the recommendations of the experts into a stable and long-term plan. This plan should not change every five years. If this does not happen, Cyprus will continue to operate without a real strategy and will remain trapped in an uneven energy triangle.
Increases in electricity prices and their dimensions
When electricity or fuel price increases are announced, the public debate usually focuses only on cost. In the background, however, there are many other dimensions. Some increases are linked to investments in networks that enhance reliability.
Others help finance renewable energy sources and reduce emissions. At the same time, decisions are made on how the burden is distributed among different income groups. If the public debate is limited to the slogan of expensive energy, the spontaneous solution will be the freezing of tariffs. This move can provide temporary relief.
At the same time, however, it can silently exacerbate all other problems. Something similar is happening on the investor side. An investor who designs a natural gas plant and only evaluates the return on capital, without taking into account the future pricing of carbon dioxide emissions, is doing wrong business planning. Reality will prove him wrong sooner or later.
The central position of energy in this single triangle is not accidental. Energy is not a simple product. It is the basis on which all other goods and services are based. Without reliable and affordable energy, hospitals and schools do not function. Food production, industry and digital services are at risk.
This reality makes the energy unique. The weaknesses in its governance are not just economic issues. They are both social and political problems. The European experience of recent years, from the 2022 gas crisis to the difficulty of achieving the 2030 climate targets, shows something very clear. When the triangle loses its balance, the cost is too high. This cost is not paid first by investors or politicians. Consumers pay for it first.
* Professor of Energy Systems
Frederick University
