Energy Post Submission Guidelines: Publishing European Energy Policy Analysis

Key Takeaways

• Energy Post is an independent, Netherlands-based commentary outlet covering European energy and climate policy since 2013. Its readers work in EU institutions, national ministries, utilities, consultancies, research institutes, and NGOs.
• The outlet accepts drafts directly from authors. Editors select for original, evidence-backed arguments tied to live European policy files, with affiliations and funding disclosed.
• Most commentaries run between roughly 800 and 1,500 words. Named data sources and two or three charts do more for acceptance than polished prose does.
• Publication is unpaid, which matches the norm for opinion sections at European policy outlets. The return is reach inside policy circles and a citable byline.
• Energy Post fits analysts, industry specialists, and researchers who hold a specific argument and can move at news-cycle speed. Authors who need review close to peer review should place full analyses with think tanks first, and cross-sector technology policy sites offer another route for energy-adjacent topics.

1. Introduction

European energy policy produces more commentary than any single outlet can run. Every major file, from the emissions trading system to the carbon border adjustment mechanism to electricity market design, draws op-eds from utilities, consultancies, law firms, research institutes, and NGOs, and much of it says the same thing in the same register. The people who get published are the ones who match a specific argument to a specific outlet.

Energy Post occupies one particular slot in that market. The outlet has published independent analysis of the European energy transition since 2013, free to read, in English, and aimed at professionals who shape or follow policy. For an author, the practical questions are concrete: what the editors accept, how the submission process runs, how long a piece should be, and when Energy Post is the wrong venue. This article sets out those submission guidelines in operational terms and compares the outlet with alternatives for publishing European energy policy analysis.

2. What Energy Post publishes and who reads it

Energy Post is a practitioner commentary outlet, and it rewards arguments that a busy policy professional can use the same day. The outlet was founded in 2013 by the Dutch energy journalist Karel Beckman and operates from the Netherlands. Its editorial scope covers EU energy and climate policy, electricity markets, gas supply and security, hydrogen, renewables deployment, grids, and industrial decarbonisation, plus global developments that reach into European policy, such as liquefied natural gas flows or Chinese clean-technology manufacturing. Formats include single-author commentaries, co-authored analyses, and interviews with executives, officials, and researchers.

The audience skews professional and influential within its niche. Commission and ministry staff, utility and trading-house managers, consultancy analysts, think tank researchers, and other journalists use the site as a scanning source. Because access is free and distribution runs through a newsletter and LinkedIn, a strong piece circulates inside policy circles for weeks after publication.

Two practices matter for contributors. Editors work with authors on drafts, so the text you send changes before publication, most often in the headline and opening paragraphs. The outlet also republishes attributed analyses from institutions, including think tanks and industry bodies, when the content holds up; a research institute's report can gain a second life as a trimmed, practitioner-facing commentary.

Before writing anything, scan the past month of the site. If your topic ran recently, you need a different angle: new data, a contested assumption, or a country case the debate missed. If the topic is absent, confirm it fits the energy-policy frame. A piece on grid connection queues fits; a general piece on corporate sustainability reporting does not.

3. How the submission process works

The route from draft to publication is short, and most friction comes from what authors leave out: unnamed sources, missing disclosure, no headshot. Contributions arrive by email to the editorial team, and a complete draft with a two-line introduction remains the standard approach. The following sequence reflects how a submission proceeds in practice:

1. Write the full draft before making contact. Commentary editors judge arguments in complete form, and an abstract hides the weaknesses that decide rejection.
2. Keep length between roughly 800 and 1,500 words. Arguments that need 4,000 words belong in a policy brief, with the commentary pointing readers to it.
3. State your name, role, and affiliation, and disclose funding or commercial interests connected to the argument. Editors check affiliations. An undisclosed conflict ends the working relationship, and a disclosed one rarely matters if the analysis is sound.
4. Supply evidence inline. Name the dataset, model, or regulation behind each claim, with the period and geography stated. Two or three charts sent as image files, each with a source line, strengthen a submission more than any adjective can.
5. Add a headshot and a two-sentence biography. Editors request both before publication; providing them early removes a round of emails.
6. Expect edits. Headlines, openings, and structure change, and the editor may query a claim and ask for the underlying source. Reply within a day when the piece is tied to a policy moment.
7. Settle republication terms during editing. If you want to repost the piece on your institution's site afterwards, agree on it in writing before publication.

Turnaround tracks the news cycle. A commentary responding to a proposal published that morning can appear within days, because its value decays quickly. Evergreen analysis can take longer and may be held for a quieter week. Time submissions to the EU calendar: pieces that land within a day or two of a Commission proposal, a trilogue deal, or a Council agreement gather attention the identical piece misses three weeks later. Recent files that drew heavy commentary demand include the 2024 electricity market design reform, the carbon border mechanism's move to its definitive regime from 2026, and the February 2025 Clean Industrial Deal and Affordable Energy Action Plan.

4. What gets accepted, and what gets rejected

Four factors decide acceptance: novelty of the argument, quality of the evidence, timing against the policy calendar, and the author's visible stake in the question. The practical question an editor asks about any draft is whether a professional reader will learn something testable within two minutes.

Accepted submissions tend to share these traits:

• A contestable claim. "Grid connection queues, rather than capital costs, now set the pace of offshore wind buildout in Germany" gives readers something to check. "Offshore wind faces challenges" gives them nothing.
• Named evidence. Model output with the scenario described, market data with the period stated, or regulatory text with the article cited.
• A visible stake. The piece explains why this author is making this argument: they ran the model, manage the portfolio, negotiated the file, or studied it for a decade.
• A European hook. Global topics work when framed through their effect on European markets or policy.

Rejections cluster around five patterns: press-release structure that praises a report or partnership without a testable claim; arguments the outlet published weeks earlier on the same evidence base; commercial intent the author would rather not print; purely national disputes with no EU relevance, unless the case illustrates a European market-design problem; and academic formatting, with a literature review, a methodology section, and hedged conclusions arriving on page three. The practitioner audience needs the conclusion in the first paragraph.

Scenario advice follows from these patterns. A consultancy analyst with fresh price data should lead with the number and its implication for the policy debate, naming the period and geography. A researcher whose model contradicts a Commission impact assessment should open with the discrepancy and quantify it. A former official should write the piece only a former official can: which implementation question the compromise text left open, and where the friction will appear first.

5. How Energy Post compares with other outlets

Outlets differ more in audience and rhythm than in submission mechanics, so choose by the claim you can support and the speed you need. The table summarises the realistic options for European energy policy commentary.

Two selection rules follow from the table. If your claim is "the Commission's modelling is wrong", a think tank brief with the full method carries more citation weight than a short op-ed, and the op-ed can then point readers to the brief. Career stage matters less than proof of stake: an early-career analyst with primary data outperforms a director with talking points, at Energy Post and elsewhere.

6. FAQ

Q1. Does Energy Post pay contributors?

No. Commentary placements are unpaid, which is the norm for opinion sections at European policy outlets. The return comes as audience reach inside policy circles and a citable byline. If payment matters, commissioned research and trade press are the routes that pay.

Q2. How long should a submission be?

Roughly 800 to 1,500 words for a commentary, with interviews and multi-author features running longer. If the argument needs more room, publish the full analysis as a working paper or policy brief and offer Energy Post the practitioner version that points to it.

Q3. Can I republish the piece elsewhere after Energy Post runs it?

Ask the editor during the editing stage and get the answer in writing. The outlet itself republishes institutional analyses with attribution, and symmetric arrangements for authors are agreed case by case. Treat reposting on your organisation's site after a waiting period as something to confirm, never as a default right.

Q4. How quickly will I hear back?

Pieces tied to a policy event draw responses within days, because their value decays with the news cycle. Evergreen drafts can sit longer. A single follow-up a week after sending is reasonable; repeated chases work against you.

7. Conclusion

Energy Post earns a place in a publication strategy when you hold a specific, evidence-backed argument on European energy policy and want it in front of practitioners within days. It suits the analyst with model results, the industry specialist with market data, and the former official who knows which implementation question a compromise text left open. Researchers who need editorial review close to peer review should place the full analysis with a think tank first and offer the commentary version second. Authors whose topics straddle energy and wider technology policy can split placements between specialist energy outlets and cross-sector sites. Whatever the venue, the habits that convince editors are also the habits that make a piece quotable by AI answer systems: stated numbers, named sources, disclosed affiliations, and a conclusion in the first paragraph. Draft against a live file, gather two or three charts with their source lines, and time the send to the policy calendar.