Blog Post

The EU 2030 Climate and Energy Framework: Keeping up the pressure on governance structures

The Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council on 26 November should indicate a clear way forward.

By: and Date: September 17, 2015 Topic: Green economy

In 2009 the EU adopted three targets (see chart) to meet its energy policy objectives of developing a sustainable, secure and competitive energy system. The targets were translated into nationally binding legislation in 2009 (A revised ETS, Effort Sharing Decision, Renewable Energy Directive) and in 2012 (Energy Efficiency Directive).

These measures have had a substantial impact on the EU energy system;the share of renewable energy in EU gross energy consumption reached 15.3% in 2014, and the majority of member states are expected to meet their 2020 renewable energy targets.

In the run-up to the Paris climate conference, and in order to provide guidance to the industry, in 2014 the European Commission proposed a new 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework, which was endorsed -with slight adjustments – by the European Council of October 2014 (see chart).

Simone_Georg_17-09-15

The most controversial aspect of this new 2030 Framework is that, unlike in the previous 2020 Package, the new EU targets will not be translated into national binding targets through EU legislation. Following the approval of the European Council, the European Commission (EC) initially proposed to implement the 2030 Framework at the end of February 2015. The proposals, set out in the Energy Union Package, aim to provide a coherent approach to climate change, energy security and competitiveness, and to achieve the goals agreed under the 2030 Framework.

Officially this is due to the willingness to leave “greater flexibility for member states” in line with the provisions set out in Article 194(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on the issue of national control over the energy mix.

However in reality member states do not share a common vision on how the EU energy market should be organized. Therefore they seek maximum flexibility in order to conduct their national energy policies. For instance, the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic suggest that the new Framework “should only be sufficient to enable an assessment of collective progress, and should be significantly less prescriptive than is currently the case under the 2020 climate and energy package”.

This situation raises questions on how the new 2030 Framework will be implemented, and consequently brings the issue of governance into the spotlight.

A lack of strong EU policies is allowing member states to pursue policies that fragment the internal energy market. The lack of binding national targets carries the risk that national efforts will not add up to the EU aggregate commitments.

In the absence of binding obligations for member states, only a solid governance structure can guarantee that the 2030 targets will be achieved.  In particular, investors’ confidence could be undermined without a strong and reliable governance system.

Anticipating this problem, the EC has proposed a potential governance scheme based on national plans for competitive, secure and sustainable energy in the 2030 framework communication. It structured the scheme on three key steps: i) “Detailed guidelines to be prepared by the EC on the content of national plans”; ii) “Preparation of Member State plans through iterative process”; iii) “Assessment of the Member States’ plans and commitments” (if insufficient, “a deeper iterative process would take place between the EC and the Member State to reinforce the plan’s content”).

The October 2014 European Council meeting took a much more vague stance on the issue,  and calling for the establishment of a “reliable and transparent governance system without any unnecessary administrative burden”, to be built on “existing building blocks” such as national climate, renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.

The issue of the governance of the 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework thus continues to remain largely unresolved. On September 1, 2015 the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU sent a note to the delegations with the Draft Council Conclusions on the Governance System of the Energy Union prepared for the forthcoming Transport, Telecommunication and Energy (TTE) Council that will be held in Luxembourg on November 26, 2015.

In line with the concepts already developed by the EC, the document outlines a governance system based on national energy and climate plans followed by progress reports on the implementation of the same plans, with “aspirational and iterative Dialogue and Monitoring based inter alia on key performance indicators”. According to the document, the “governance cycle will also serve as an ‘early warning system’ by enabling early identification of possible risks and shortfalls as regards all EU energy policy objectives and agreed climate and energy targets.”

Notwithstanding the document’s numerous (and highly bureaucratic) statements, it is still not clear how the proposed governance system would work and in particular how the EC could intervene if a member state didn’t comply with its National Energy and Climate Plan. Unless these crucial issues are clarified before the TTE Council of November, another opportunity to provide real substance to the theoretical 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework will be lost.

The authors would like to thank Mark Johnston for helpful comments. They assume responsibility for all errors.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

REPowerEU: will EU countries really make it work?

By acting together, the European Union can optimise it’s response to the energy crisis in all scenarios but each country will have to make concessions.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Green economy Date: May 18, 2022
Read article
 

Blog Post

The EU needs transparent oil data and enhanced coordination

The EU lacks the coordination structure and transparent data necessary to most effectively navigate an embargo on Russian oil.

By: Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Ben McWilliams and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: May 16, 2022
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

[Cancelled] Shifting taxes in order to achieve green goals

[This event is cancelled until further notice] How could shifting the tax burden from labour to pollution and resources help the EU reach its climate goals?

Speakers: Niclas Poitiers and Femke Groothuis Topic: Green economy, Macroeconomic policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 12, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

For Europe, an oil embargo is not the way to go

Even at this late hour, the European Union should consider taking a different path.

By: Simone Tagliapietra, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 9, 2022
Read article
 

External Publication

The Global Quest for Green Growth: An Economic Policy Perspective

A review on green growth and degrowth arguments.

By: Klaas Lenaerts, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: May 5, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

A tariff on imports of fossil fuel from Russia

A tariff on imports of Russian fossil fuels would allow Europe to hit Russia's energy sector without great suffering.

By: Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 2, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

External Publication

How to weaken Russian oil and gas strength

Letter published in Science.

By: Ricardo Hausmann, Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Axel Ockenfels, Ulrich Schetter, Simone Tagliapietra, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 2, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

A phase out of Russian oil may be less effective than a tariff at reducing Putin’s rents

A punitive tariff on all energy imports from Russia would be a better choice than a gradually phased-in embargo on selected fuels.

By: Simone Tagliapietra, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 2, 2022
Read article
 

Blog Post

How a European Union tariff on Russian oil can be designed

The European Union should apply a tariff on imports of Russian oil; it can be accompanied by a quota for a gradual, conditional phase-out of all Russian oil imports.

By: David Kleimann, Ben McWilliams and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 29, 2022
Read article
 

Opinion

EU risks letting Putin’s gas divide-and-rule strategy win

The 2 May meeting of EU energy ministers should deliver strong and common EU action. Failing to do so would undermine Europe’s unity, energy security and foreign policy.

By: Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Simone Tagliapietra and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 29, 2022
Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

Europe must get serious about cutting oil and gas use

As energy security risks increase, European governments must stop subsidising oil and gas, and ask people to consume less.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 29, 2022
Read article Download PDF
 

Working Paper

Cutting Putin’s energy rent: ‘smart sanctioning’ Russian oil and gas

The most efficient way for Europe to sanction Russian energy would not be an embargo, but the introduction of an import tariff that can be used flexibly to control the degree of economic pressure on Russia.

By: Ricardo Hausmann, Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Axel Ockenfels, Simone Tagliapietra, Ulrich Schetter, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 28, 2022
Load more posts