89 / 150
THE EUROPEAN ENERGY UNION: SPURNING INTEGRATION OR BUSINESS AS USUAL?
89
the field of energy efficiency is perceived as an
admirable tool by the member states is ques-
tionable but definitely a last resort, if the goals
are not achieved.
None of the above-mentioned instruments
have been yet spelled out. There is need for
more clarification on the specific design of in-
struments (e.g. member state contribution to
the fund) and measures that apply in case of
underplanning and underperformance. How
will EU measures be selected after failure to
meet targets? Which rights do member states
have in this process? The Commission’s propos-
als fall short of addressing the key challenges of
European Energy Policy and follows a business
as usual approach, thereby shying away from a
clear commitment to structure a common en-
ergy policy for the future.
Governance and planning
The inherent governance weaknesses of the EU
ETS (notably the fact that it brought together
too many sectors and countries with very di-
verse starting points) have led to a very weak
and volatile carbon price in Europe, which does
not provide sufficient certainty to allow invest-
ments in the energy sector. We are thus more
and more moving away from a market-driven
approach, towards a policy framework based on
public planning and regulated investments,
both at European level (notably through the re-
newable and energy efficiency targets) and na-
tional level (with national targets, renewable
support schemes and capacity mechanisms).
Such an energy policy based on more public
planning is not necessarily a problem in itself
(provided the planning is efficient), but this real-
ity must be acknowledged so that the appropri-
ate governance framework can be put in place
accordingly. Instead the Commission continues
to follow its market-oriented stance by focus-
sing on competitiveness issues and the strength-
ening of market instruments in an increasingly
regulated environment.
Hence, the Commission’s proposals on the
Energy Union governance, which should have
been the political core of the package, are very
much lacking ambition and vision. The
Commission is dispersing the attention on very
technical issues, also giving ground to criticism
of centralised overregulation and neglecting
subsidiarity. More and more investments in the
energy system and in particular the electricity
system are based on public planning – notably
with the development of renewables and the
associated investments in the electricity grid –,
and many of them can have significant cross-
border impacts. There is thus a crucial need to
improve the coordination of national planning
exercises on which those investments are based.
Unfortunately, although some of the
Commission’s initiatives are welcomed (such as
the proposal to open national renewable sup-
port schemes to producers from other European
countries, thereby incentivising member states
to design their support schemes in closer coop-
eration), the issue is insufficiently addressed.
The proposed Governance framework mainly
focuses on reporting obligations from member
states to the Commission, but does not create
the conditions for proper cooperation between
member states themselves, neither at political
nor at technical level.
On the contrary, a political cooperation
framework should be devised at European level
with the creation of a “European Parliamentary
Platform on Energy”. This platform could en-
sure exchange and debate between European
and national parliamentarians of the member
states involved in energy policy and interrelated