Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools
Sections
You are here: Home Members Climate Answers - Stephen Tindale European Commission's new energy strategy

European Commission's new energy strategy

11 November 2010, 17:12 CET
— filed under: , ,

Yesterday the European Commission presented its proposals for a new energy strategy for the next decade. In Brussels jargon this is known as the Energy Action Plan. The EU is good at plans, less good at action, so the Commission has wisely named this document simply Energy 2020.

The lack of action is not primarily the fault of the Commission.  The Commission is usually good at coming forward with proposals (which is after all part of its raison d'etre – it is the only institution permitted to initiate EU legislation).  Most of these proposals are blocked or substantially watered down by national governments in the Council of Ministers and/or by Members of the European Parliament.

However, Energy 2020 is pretty disappointing.  It starts on a high note:

"The price of failure is too high.  Energy is the life blood of our society.  The well-being of our people, industry and economy depends on safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy.  At the same time, energy related emissions account for almost 80% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions.  The energy challenge is thus one of the greatest tests which Europe has to face."

All of which is true.  The reader might then expect some radical policy proposals to follow.  But there aren't any.  This document identifies priority areas, including energy efficiency (which is to be welcomed), but specific proposals will have to wait.  First the strategy has to be agreed by national governments at a summit in February.  If it is, the Commission will propose concrete legislative initiatives in the next 18 months.

What should the Commission have proposed?  Many things, including the measures to increase energy efficiency suggested in my article on energy efficiency ( http://climateanswers.info/2010/10/how-to-deliver-energy-efficiency-in-the-eu/).  To pick just one example, the use of combined heat and power (CHP, which the Commission calls cogeneration), should be made compulsory whenever fuel is burnt to generate electricity.  In its draft Energy Efficiency Action Plan (which wasn't even adopted as a plan, let alone leading to any action) in 2009, the Commission said the use of heat as well as power should be a "prominent criteria" in the decision by public authorities about whether to grant planning consent. Yesterday's document strengthens this slightly:

"Energy efficiency, in the production as well as in the distribution, should become an essential criterion for the authorisation of generation capacities and efforts are needed to substantially increase the uptake of high efficiency cogeneration, district heating and cooling."

'Essential criterion' is better than 'prominent'.  It could be interpreted as meaning that without CHP, consent will be refused.  But it could also be interpreted in another, much weaker ways: 'CHP is a good idea – have a think about it.'  The EU's existing directive on CHP can be summed up in this way.  The Commission should come forward with proposals to make CHP compulsory whenever anything is burnt to generate electricity.

One area where the Commission is doing much better – or at least trying to do so – is ending fossil fuel subsidies.   The International Energy Agency published its 2010 World Energy Outlook this week.  This states that fossil fuels got subsidies of $312 billion in 2009, while renewable energies got just $57 billion. A blog on the European Wind Energy Association's website (http://blog.ewea.org/) says that the IEA report "should finally stamp out the myth that renewable energies are dependent on subsidies"  and that

"renewables got just $1 for every $5-6 given to fossil fuels last year.The IEA goes on to forecast that government support for renewables will go up to $205 billion in 2035. That is still – a quarter of a century in the future – less than two-thirds of the sum being doled out to fossil fuels today."

The Commission has proposed that European governments' subsidies to hard coal should be phased out by 2014.  But this has to be agreed, and then implemented, by national governments.  Spain, Germany and Romania give out most of the €3 billion in European coal subsidies each year.  The Spanish government actually wants to increase the subsidies to coal (see http://climateanswers.info/2010/11/comment-5-november-2010-courts-block-spanish-coal-subsidies/).  The German government has indicated that it isn't very happy with the Commission's proposal, and Germany is notably less communitaire  (happy to act against its own interest to help strengthen the EU) than it was before the financial crisis.  So there is no guarantee that the Commission will win this argument.

To make matters worse, this week the industry committee of the European Parliament called for the phase out to be extended to 2020.  The Parliament doesn't have the power to block the Commission on this, and the industry committee isn't even the lead committee on this issue (that's the economic committee).  But this gives the governments a perfect excuse for refusing to do what the Commission proposes.  'We're only doing as the MEPs advised.'

By Stephen Tindale

Document Actions
Climate Answers
climate answers

Climate change is the most serious issue ever to have faced humanity. Rightly, it is now high on the public, political, media and business agendas. However, too much of the discussion is still about what we should not be doing or what we should be against. There is not enough discussion or information on solutions - what we can and should do to minimise dangerous climate change, and what should be done to make us not only safer and more secure, but also richer and happier.


Stephen Tindale photoStephen Tindale (writer and co-founder) is a climate and energy consultant, who has worked on climate change for the last 20 years. His current portfolio includes work for npower renewables and for the Centre for European Reform. He is also a Visiting Fellow at the Policy Studies Institute. Stephen lives in London.