The system sells volatility

This article is part of In conversation about sustainable finance & emission reduction systems, a new series by Diego Balverde. You're reading volume six of the Energy Shock. Here is volume five

Part of my upcoming book on how wars, gas, electricity and infrastructure are redrawing the global economy

Prologue

The dominant myth of the current period is that volatility is an unwanted side effect. It is not. In an energy system governed by congestion, route risk, thin balancing capacity and financially priced constraint, volatility becomes a product. It is generated, distributed, absorbed socially and monetized privately. 

That is why so many markets appear unstable without actually triggering a redesign proportional to the damage. The system is not only suffering from volatility. In many layers, it is selling it.

Volatility is not an accident; it is a revenue model 

Once price is set by constraint rather than by resource abundance, instability becomes profitable. 

LNG repricing during disruptions, electricity spikes above €200/MWh, negative pricing in oversupplied nodes, freight jumps of more than 100% under corridor stress and storage spreads widened by timing asymmetries are not merely symptoms of disorder. They are monetizable conditions. They create income for whoever controls optionality. 

Traders, storage operators, funds, route-sensitive logistics actors and infrastructure owners do not merely survive these episodes. They can outperform through them.

That is the point many public debates still miss. 

Volatility does not just harm the system. It rewards specific positions inside the system.

The market pays a premium for friction

Friction has become one of the most underappreciated pricing variables in the global economy. Delays, congestion, route disruption, balancing scarcity, terminal limits and transmission bottlenecks all generate premiums. 

The market pays to avoid them, to hedge them, or to monetize them. 

The problem is that these premiums rarely appear in public debate as explicit system costs. They appear as higher bills, lower margins, wider spreads and risk premiums embedded in contracts. That makes friction politically invisible but financially powerful. The system can therefore keep pricing inefficiency without being forced to name it as such. 

And once that happens, underinvestment itself becomes part of the business model.

Public money absorbs losses, private capital captures upside

This is where the system becomes most revealing. Governments repeatedly spend large sums to cushion the social and industrial effects of energy instability. Subsidies, tariff protections, emergency support and fiscal measures absorb a portion of the downside. But the upside created by friction is not socialized. It is captured by actors positioned close to the bottleneck. Public balance sheets soften the political cost while private balance sheets keep the volatility premium. In that sense, the state often stabilizes the demand side while leaving the monetization side largely intact. 

This does not mean markets should not exist. 

It means the architecture is biased toward pricing instability rather than eliminating it.

Reducing friction is now the real business

The real business opportunity is no longer simply generating more energy. It is reducing friction faster than competitors and monetizing the resulting improvement in system behavior. This is where a BalGreen-type model stops being a climate narrative and becomes a financial proposition. 

Fast modular deployment, mathematically optimized panelization, execution capacity built through training, storage integrated with revenue logic and grid-aware system design together form a method of converting system efficiency into cash-flow visibility. 

NatureAlpha adds intelligence around exposure and environmental fit. 

StoneX adds trading discipline and hedge logic. BlackRock and Standard Chartered bring financing scale and institutional architecture. Gold Standard strengthens monetization of verifiable emissions performance. Put together, that is not just a decarbonization strategy. It is an anti-friction strategy. And in the current cycle, anti-friction is not only of technical value. It is a premium value.

Analysis

If volatility keeps generating strong returns for the actors closest to the bottleneck, who is truly motivated to remove it?

If public money keeps absorbing the pain of higher prices, who keeps the gain?

If friction creates hidden premiums across storage, logistics and contracts, why is underinvestment still tolerated?

If markets keep paying for congestion, delay and imbalance, is the system trying to solve instability or preserve it?

If negative prices and extreme prices can coexist in the same architecture, is the market efficient or just fragmented enough to remain profitable?

If reducing friction can create more value than producing more supply, why is policy still so often centered on output announcements?

And if anti-friction infrastructure becomes the best financial position in the next cycle, who is building it fast enough to matter?

Conclusion

My conclusion is that the system sells volatility because instability has become embedded in the pricing logic of modern energy. This is not simply a market flaw. It is a structural feature of an underintegrated, financially layered, infrastructure-sensitive system. The actor that wins from here will not be the one that merely predicts volatility better. It will be the one that builds a model capable of reducing friction, capturing the value of stability and turning system performance into bankable income. 

That is where the next energy premium will be earned.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.