Article 15-bis and GSE compensations
Summary of the compensation mechanism and its business impact.
The mechanism
Article 15-bis of Decree-Law 4/2022 introduced a two-way compensation mechanism on the price of electricity injected into the grid by certain renewable plants.
The Committee aims to assess whether the application of such compensations adequately considers business continuity, investment protection and the difference between small producers and large industrial or financial groups.
Core point
Revenue is not profit. Producers must finance plant operations, maintenance, debt, taxes and regulatory obligations.
Which plants are affected
- Photovoltaic plants above 20 kW receiving fixed Conto Energia premiums independent of the market price.
- Plants above 20 kW from solar, hydro, geothermal and wind sources, not incentivised, that entered service before 1 January 2010.
The Gestore dei Servizi Energetici (GSE), Italy's energy services operator, manages the related information flows and financial settlements; every position must be checked against plant data, energy fed into the grid and the notices received.
A European dimension, still open
Article 15-bis is Italian law, but it operates in a European context. The EU adopted Regulation 2022/1854 during the 2022 energy price emergency, capping the market revenue of certain producers with its own scope, timing and safeguards. Italy's Article 15-bis was designed separately, with different dates, reference prices and criteria, and Law 197/2022 later coordinated the two frameworks — so the two measures are not simply the same levy under a different name.
That difference in design is exactly what is now under judicial review. Whether Italy's mechanism is proportionate, non-discriminatory and adequately protective of the investments made by producers are open questions central to the Secab ruling of the EU Court of Justice and to the subsequent referral by Italy's Council of State — not yet a settled matter, in either direction.
The Committee's position is that this uncertainty itself is a problem: investors committed capital under one regulatory framework, and now operate under a different, retroactively adjusted one, while the compatibility question remains unresolved in the courts.