Everyone loses except the oil and gas companies already cashing in
The 50-50 joint venture controls 14 GW of electricity generation assets across five European countries, with 12.5 GW from fossil gas plants—equivalent to Belgium, Denmark, Portugal and Sweden's combined gas capacity. Activists argue the CCGT technology used (87% of assets) is poorly suited for flexible backup, requiring sustained operation rather than rapid response, while the deal guarantees TotalEnergies a captive market for 2 million tons of LNG annually.
- Joint venture controls 14 GW of electricity capacity, with 12.5 GW from fossil gas plants—equivalent to Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, and Sweden's combined gas capacity
- 87% of TTEP's gas units use CCGT technology, poorly suited for rapid-response backup despite companies' claims
- Deal guarantees TotalEnergies a captive market for 2 million tons of LNG annually
- Over five years, gas imports could cost Europe €6.7–7.56 billion and generate emissions equivalent to Ireland's or Denmark's annual output
- More than half of TTEP's plants received €4.08 billion in capacity market subsidies between 2015 and 2024
A major partnership between TotalEnergies and Czech EPH creates Europe's largest flexible gas power producer, but critics warn it locks the continent into fossil fuel dependence rather than enabling energy security.
On April 29th, one of Europe's largest energy companies and a Czech industrial giant shook hands on a deal that would reshape the continent's electricity supply for years to come. TotalEnergies and EPH, controlled by Czech billionaire Daniel Křetínský, formed a joint venture giving the French oil major a 50 percent stake in EPH's flexible power generation portfolio across France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In exchange, EPH received roughly 5.1 billion euros in TotalEnergies shares, making it one of the company's largest shareholders. On paper, the partnership promised something Europe desperately needs: reliable backup power to keep the lights on when wind and solar production falter.
The joint venture, called TTEP, controls 14 gigawatts of electricity generation capacity, with 12.5 gigawatts coming from fossil gas plants. To put that in perspective, that's equivalent to all the gas-fired power capacity installed across Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, and Sweden combined. TotalEnergies marketed the deal as central to its "Clean Firm Power" initiative, framing gas plants as a necessary bridge fuel that would allow the company to supply industrial customers with round-the-clock low-carbon electricity by pairing intermittent renewables with flexible gas assets.
But environmental campaigners are sounding alarms. The advocacy group Beyond Fossil Fuels released a detailed report warning that the partnership could deepen Europe's dependence on expensive imported fossil gas, drive up electricity bills, and slow the continent's transition to clean energy. The concern runs deeper than simple opposition to gas itself. Of the 87 percent of TTEP's gas units that use combined-cycle gas turbine technology, or CCGT, most are poorly suited for the rapid-response backup role the companies claim to fill. CCGT plants are designed to run continuously at stable output for hours at a time, not to fire up and shut down repeatedly as renewable energy fluctuates. Research from the French nonprofit Reclaim Finance has shown that when CCGT plants are forced into this flexible role, their efficiency drops, their operating costs rise, and their carbon and air pollution emissions increase. Of all the operating plants in the joint venture, only two—Trapani in Sicily and Kilroot in the United Kingdom—use open-cycle gas turbines, the technology actually suited for rapid response.
The deal also serves TotalEnergies' core gas trading business in a way that raises eyebrows. The joint venture is expected to consume around two million tons of liquefied natural gas annually, effectively guaranteeing TotalEnergies a captive internal market for the gas it purchases globally. Rather than competing to sell that gas on the open market, the company can sell it directly to its own power plants, collecting revenue at both the supply and generation ends of the transaction. Beyond Fossil Fuels calculated that over five years, these imports could cost Europe between 6.7 and 7.56 billion euros—money that would primarily benefit fossil fuel industries in the United States and Russia. In that same period, the joint venture could generate greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to Ireland's or Denmark's entire annual output.
Europe's energy managers acknowledge that gas still plays a role in keeping the lights on. Natural gas consumption for electricity generation rose nearly eight percent across Europe in 2025, driven partly by periods of weak wind and hydroelectric output. The International Energy Agency confirmed the trend. ENTSO-E, the body representing Europe's grid operators, argues that flexible generation capacity is essential for a safe, efficient, and resilient electricity system as renewable energy's share grows. Yet even ENTSO-E's own November 2025 report concluded that energy storage, smarter grid management, and tapping the flexibility of renewables themselves offer the real long-term path to meeting climate goals while maintaining reliability.
What makes the TTEP deal particularly controversial is how it will likely be financed. European governments currently pay power producers "capacity payments" to keep plants available and ready to supply electricity when the grid is under stress. Between 2014 and 2024, Europe allocated roughly 90 billion euros in capacity payments, with more than half going to gas and other fossil fuel assets. Beyond Fossil Fuels found that more than half of TTEP's plants received capacity market subsidies between 2015 and 2024, totaling over 4.08 billion euros. In TotalEnergies' November 2025 investor presentation about the deal, the company specifically highlighted Italy's "attractive capacity remuneration mechanism" and the United Kingdom's "attractive capacity market." The implication is clear: TTEP will likely depend heavily on these public subsidies despite being poorly suited for the flexible role it claims to fill.
The timing of the announcement also raised questions about TotalEnergies' climate commitments. In October 2025, a Paris court ruled that the company's advertising claims of having "climate at the heart of its strategy" were misleading, given that TotalEnergies continues to expand its oil and gas production. The company plans to increase LNG output by three percent annually through 2030 and, measured by the number of countries where it operates, has the largest short-term fossil fuel expansion plans among major oil and gas companies. EPH, meanwhile, remains Europe's largest coal producer through its parent company, EP Group, though it has announced plans to exit coal by 2030. A 2025 investigation by the financial intelligence nonprofit FIND found that EPH has often transferred coal assets to a sister company rather than closing them, maintaining shared personnel, infrastructure, and financial ties.
Critics argue the deal fundamentally misdiagnoses Europe's energy security challenge. Rather than solving the continent's vulnerability to geopolitical disruption, the partnership simply swaps dependence on Russian pipeline gas for dependence on liquefied natural gas negotiated on global markets—equally exposed to geopolitical shocks and price volatility. Brigitte Alarcon, an activist with Beyond Fossil Fuels, put it bluntly: "In this deal, everyone loses except the oil and gas companies already cashing in. Far from steering Europe toward energy security, TotalEnergies and EPH are designing deeper dependence on fossil gas under the false pretense of adding flexible generation capacity." As European governments increasingly look toward energy futures that don't depend on gas imports, financial institutions face a choice about whether to support infrastructure designed to lock in that dependence for another decade.
Notable Quotes
Far from steering Europe toward energy security, TotalEnergies and EPH are designing deeper dependence on fossil gas under the false pretense of adding flexible generation capacity.— Brigitte Alarcon, Beyond Fossil Fuels activist
This alliance is designed to ensure these companies continue profiting from and prolonging Europe's dependence on fossil gas, fueling the climate crisis and destabilizing the economy.— Rémi Hermant, Reclaim Finance activist
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that these plants use CCGT technology instead of open-cycle turbines?
Because CCGT plants are built to run continuously, like a baseline power source. They're efficient that way. But when you need them to turn on and off repeatedly to match renewable fluctuations, they become inefficient, expensive, and actually emit more pollution. It's like using a long-haul truck for neighborhood deliveries.
So the companies are claiming to solve a problem they're not actually equipped to solve?
Exactly. They're marketing this as flexible backup power, but the technology is fundamentally mismatched to that job. And the financial incentive—capacity payments from governments—rewards them for simply existing, not for actually being useful.
What about the gas supply angle? Why does TotalEnergies care so much about owning these power plants?
Because it guarantees them a buyer for two million tons of LNG every year. Instead of competing on the open market, they sell gas to themselves at the power plant. They make money twice—once selling the gas, once generating electricity. It's a closed loop that locks in their profits.
Does Europe actually need this much gas capacity?
That's the real question. Grid operators say some flexible backup is necessary right now. But their own research says storage, smarter grids, and renewable flexibility are the real long-term answers. This deal extends the gas era by another decade, not because it's necessary, but because it's profitable.
What happens to the public money already spent on these plants?
That's the trap. Over ten years, Europe paid 90 billion euros in capacity subsidies, half of it to gas. TTEP's plants alone got over 4 billion euros. Now those plants are owned by a joint venture designed to keep them running as long as possible. The public already paid to build them. Now the public pays to keep them alive.
And if Europe tries to phase out gas faster?
Then these assets become stranded—worthless. But the companies have already locked in government support and guaranteed markets. They've made it politically and financially difficult to move away from gas, even if it's what climate goals require.