In the ever-shifting landscape of European energy, the recent partnership between TotalEnergies and EPH has sparked a heated debate. The deal, which promises 'flexible' power generation, is being hailed as a response to Europe's need for backup energy. However, critics are quick to point out the potential pitfalls, warning that this move could lock the continent into another decade of fossil fuel dependence. This article delves into the intricacies of this deal, exploring its implications, and offering a critical perspective on its impact on Europe's energy security and the climate crisis.
A Deal for 'Flexible' Power
The partnership between TotalEnergies and EPH, finalized on April 29, marks a significant development in Europe's energy sector. By acquiring a 50% stake in EPH's flexible power generation portfolio, TotalEnergies gains access to 14 GW of operational and under-construction power assets, with a substantial portion (12.5 GW) being fossil gas-fired. This move is positioned as a strategic response to Europe's need for 'flexible' power, which can be swiftly activated when renewable energy sources like wind and solar output fluctuate.
However, the devil is in the details. The Beyond Fossil Fuels (BFF) report sheds light on the unsuitability of the joint venture's portfolio. The majority of the gas units, 87%, utilize combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) technology, which is designed for sustained, efficient 'baseload' energy generation rather than rapid response. This technology is less flexible and more suitable for running at relatively stable output over extended periods, which may not align with the dynamic nature of Europe's energy demands.
The Role of Gas in Europe's Power Mix
Gas still holds a significant role in European grid management. With renewable energy sources like wind and solar being subject to uncontrollable dips, gas-fired plants can quickly ramp up to bridge gaps in supply. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that natural gas consumption for power generation rose nearly eight percent in Europe in 2025, driven by periods of low wind and hydro output. This highlights the importance of gas as a reliable backup source, especially during times of renewable energy scarcity.
ENTSO-E, the body representing European grid operators, acknowledges the value of flexible generation in ensuring a secure, efficient, and resilient power system. However, it also emphasizes the long-term need for storage, smarter grid management, and unlocking flexibility from renewables themselves. This suggests that while gas has a role to play, it should not be the primary focus, and Europe should strive for a more sustainable and diverse energy mix.
The Cost of the Deal
The TotalEnergies-EPH joint venture, named TTEP, is expected to rely heavily on 'capacity' subsidies, which are offered to power producers to keep plants available during grid stress. BFF's research reveals that approximately €90 billion was allocated to capacity payments in Europe between 2014 and 2024, with over half going to gas and other fossil fuel assets. This raises concerns about the potential for further fossil fuel expansion and the continued reliance on gas imports, which are subject to geopolitical disruptions and price volatility.
The deal also serves TotalEnergies' core gas trading business. By consuming around two million tonnes of LNG per year, the joint venture effectively creates a guaranteed internal market for gas sourced globally. This allows TotalEnergies to sell gas to its own power plants, collecting revenue at both the supply and generation ends of the chain. BFF campaigner Brigitte Alarcon warns that this deal will further entrench Europe's dependence on fossil gas, benefiting the oil and gas companies at the expense of the environment and energy security.
Climate Ambitions and Misleading Claims
Questions have been raised about both companies' stated ambitions. In October 2025, a Paris court found TotalEnergies' climate advertising illegal, ruling that its claims to have 'climate at the heart of its strategy' were misleading, given the company's continued expansion of oil and gas production. TotalEnergies plans to increase LNG production by three percent per year until 2030 and has the largest short-term fossil fuel expansion plans among major oil and gas companies. This raises concerns about the credibility of their climate commitments and the potential for greenwashing.
EPH, controlled by Czech billionaire Daniel Křetínský, remains the largest coal producer in Europe through its parent company, EP Group. While EPH has committed to exiting coal by 2030, there are questions about the sincerity of this commitment, as many of its coal assets have been transferred to a sister company, EP Energy Transition, maintaining shared personnel, infrastructure, and financial links. This suggests a potential delay in the transition away from coal and a need for greater transparency and accountability.
The Broader Implications
The TotalEnergies-EPH deal has broader implications for Europe's energy security and the climate crisis. BFF argues that it deepens rather than resolves Europe's energy insecurity, substituting dependence on Russian pipeline gas for dependence on globally-traded LNG, which is equally subject to geopolitical disruptions and price volatility. This alliance between EPH, Europe's leading gas power developer, and TotalEnergies, Europe's biggest LNG importer, is designed to ensure these companies continue to profit from and prolong Europe's dependence on fossil gas, fueling the climate crisis and destabilizing the economy.
Reclaim Finance campaigner Rémi Hermant emphasizes the need for banks to exclude financial support for TTEP and companies developing new gas-fired power plants. As governments increasingly look towards a more secure energy future that does not rely on gas imports, the warning lights should be flashing for the banks. This deal raises important questions about the role of fossil fuels in Europe's energy transition and the need for a more sustainable and diverse energy mix.
Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity?
In conclusion, the TotalEnergies-EPH deal presents a complex picture. While it may offer some flexibility to Europe's power grid, it also raises concerns about the continued reliance on fossil fuels and the potential for greenwashing. The deal serves the interests of the oil and gas companies, potentially at the expense of Europe's energy security and the climate crisis. As Europe navigates its energy transition, it is crucial to critically evaluate such partnerships and prioritize sustainable and diverse energy solutions. This deal serves as a reminder of the challenges and trade-offs inherent in the pursuit of a more secure and sustainable energy future.
