Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
Iran Conflict 2026
22OCT

Spark stays negative, French edge erodes

4 min read
17:22UTC

TTF settled €62.4/MWh on 22 July and EUA carbon broke €83.20, both power-clearing inputs still rising as the France-Germany day-ahead discount compressed to €5.37.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

The negative German spark now holds across sessions, and France's day-ahead discount has shrunk to €5.37/MWh.

TTF settled €62.4/MWh on Wednesday 22 July and held €61.9 into Thursday 23 July⁠1, its highest since the US-Israel-Iran war began and up from €59.135 on 20 July. EUA carbon broke a fresh high of €83.20/tonne on 22 July⁠2, up from €80.14 on 16 July. Both inputs the 20 July inversion turned on are still climbing.

German day-ahead had reached €156 on 16 July, and the spark turned briefly positive; a week on, gas and carbon have pushed back past it. At roughly 0.2 tonnes of CO2 per MWh, EUA at €83 alone adds about €16.6/MWh to a CCGT's marginal cost before the gas leg, so carbon, not gas alone, drives the inversion this week. The spark reverses only if German day-ahead rises to meet the gas-and-carbon stack, and the 21 to 23 July tape does not show it.

That same German gas-set stack compressed the France-Germany day-ahead spread to €5.37/MWh on 23 July, Germany clearing €117.65 against France's €112.28⁠3. On 30 June the spread held around €71.50 even after French output cuts; three weeks of gas-and-carbon strength have closed almost all of it. EDF's reactors are running, yet TTF at €62 plus EUA at €83 lifts the German marginal price above France's nuclear-set floor. The German stack, not the French fleet, sets continental clearing this week.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

European power stations that burn gas have to pay two separate costs: the gas itself, and a permit for every tonne of carbon dioxide they release, called an EUA (EU Allowance). The EU deliberately makes fewer of these permits available each year to push emissions down, so their price tends to rise over time regardless of what else is happening in energy markets. This week both costs, gas and carbon, hit fresh highs on the same day. Most coverage focuses on gas, driven by tension near the strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping route for Middle Eastern oil and gas. But the carbon permit price is climbing for its own separate reason, a long-planned EU policy to squeeze supply, and that part of the story would keep pushing power costs up even if the Hormuz situation calmed down tomorrow.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The EU ETS cap contracts on a fixed annual schedule set by the Fit for 55 package, roughly 4.3% a year through the current phase, independent of any single week's gas news. That mechanical tightening means EUA has been drifting toward higher clearing levels across 2026 regardless of the Hormuz situation, and 22 July's fresh high sits on that pre-existing trend rather than being caused by the same shipping risk moving TTF.

The two legs are correlated in this instance mainly because both cleared on the same trading session under the same general risk-on tone, not because carbon markets are structurally exposed to a Gulf chokepoint. Treating the €83.20 print as confirmation of gas-driven contagion into carbon risks missing the cap-tightening trend that predates 20 July entirely.

What could happen next?
  • Meaning

    EUA's contribution to negative spark economics is running on the ETS's own multi-year cap-reduction schedule, not on Hormuz shipping risk, so the two drivers can diverge even though they moved together this week.

    Immediate · Reported
  • Consequence

    A Hormuz de-escalation that brings TTF down would not automatically restore a positive spark spread if EUA continues climbing on its scheduled cap trajectory.

    Medium term · Reported
  • Risk

    Desks reading the spread as a pure gas-risk trade may be under-hedged against the carbon leg's independent structural rise.

    Short term · Reported
First Reported In

Update #29 · Germany's caverns stop buying gas

investing.com· 23 Jul 2026
Read original →
Different Perspectives
Wang Yi
Wang Yi
China's foreign minister and Djibouti's issued a joint communique on 21 October saying the war should not reach the Horn of Africa and stressing free navigation through Bab al-Mandeb. The text names neither Iran nor the Houthis, and Djibouti hosts China's only overseas military base, opposite the Yemeni coast.
Ministry of External Affairs
Ministry of External Affairs
India's foreign ministry called the attacks on Saudi civilian and energy sites "unacceptable" on 22 October and said they must stop at once. An Indian died at Dammam, Indians were injured there and at Shaybah, and about 4,000 Umrah pilgrims remain stranded by one MP's count.
Iraq
Iraq
Iraq closed the al-Sheeb crossing with Iran to travellers and trucks from 21 October and said other crossings would close gradually. Unlike September's closure, which ended on a staged timetable, this one has none, and Iran's interior ministry said it received no notice.
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
Egypt's president said on 21 October that Cairo's support would "defend Saudi territory, and does not include an attack on Yemen". Araghchi warned that Egyptian involvement would further complicate the situation, and Cairo's limit matches the one Ankara set on 8 October against attacking another state's soil.
UK Ministry of Defence
UK Ministry of Defence
The MoD said on 20 October that RAF Typhoons over Saudi Arabia will not strike the Houthis, but extended tanker support to Saudi operations including against Houthi targets in Yemen. The tanker line sets no limit on strikes, so British aircraft may now refuel Saudi jets on bombing runs.
Turkey
Turkey
Ankara sent the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement to parliament around 20 October, and its published text treats an attack on one party as an attack on all. Article 16 brings it into force only on the last ratification, so the 5 October invocation in Riyadh could not yet bind Turkey.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.