CEEP and EPC invite You to the online policy dialogue: Friday 29 May 2020 - 13.00-14.30 Jerzy Buzek Member of the European Parliament Anna Wagner Deputy Head of Unit, Policy Development & Economic Analysis, DG REGIO European Commission Hubert Strauss Lead Economist, Projects Directorate – Regional Development Division, EIB Radu Dudau Co-founder and Director, EPG Leszek Jesień Chairman of the Board of Directors, CEEP Sofía López Piqueres Policy Analyst, European Policy Centre (Chair) As discussions on recovery strategies from the coronavirus crisis intensify, now is the time to ensure that the measures taken will lead to a sustainable and climate-neutral economy, while providing regions and sectors with the support they need in the transition. The COVID-19 crisis with its economic repercussions also casts a new light on the European Commission’s proposal for a Just Transition Mechanism (JTM), and the Just Transition Fund, which have been promoted as instruments to assist those regions and sectors that are most affected by the energy transition. With the economic slowdown and re-opening of the multi-annual financial framework shaking up the original plans, this Policy Dialogue will discuss the role of JTM, and especially the Just Transition Fund, in facilitating the transition to a climate-neutral economy that will leave no one behind. Register: [...]
The European energy sector has been changing rapidly in recent years and one of the driving forces of this process is innovation. Most of energy companies recognised the importance of investments in new technologies which bring substantial economic and environmental benefits and allow to adapt to the new market realities. In Central Europe, though not a forefront region when it comes to innovation, companies are increasingly devoted to developing and transforming their businesses, using new technologies and innovations. The efforts are tangible and Central European countries are more and more advanced in the process of energy transition. National governments have started to promote sustainable energy, innovation and new technologies in energy systems. Energy companies across the region adapt their business models, develop new-tech expertise and offer innovative solutions. Sector of energy-focused start-ups is developing rapidly, while scientific institutes engage in numerous research projects. All of these developments pass largely unnoticed by the majority of external observers. Although countries do not introduce spectacular R&D policies, there are few eye-catching examples of technological breakthroughs coming from the region. What is happening in Central Europe is more similar to a quiet revolution—a number of steady changes in policies, businesses and academia, which taken together trigger innovation and improve functioning of energy systems. This paper aims to briefly present major issues on energy innovation development in Central and Southeastern Europe (referred further as EU-11). The concept of energy innovation is blurred and inclusive and it is difficult to determine its real boundaries. So, we treat this topic widely, showing the general changes that lead to modernisation of the energy systems. The paper is [...]
The negotiations on the shape of the EU ETS post-2021 are coming to an outcome and Central Europe Energy Partners wants to seize the momentum and underline that the energy transition should be pursued in a cost-effective manner and according to the technology neutrality principle. This will allow different market participants to find sustainable business models and reconcile climate and economic objectives. The negotiations should be finalised swiftly to provide a sufficient degree of certainty for all market participants. We took note of the fact that the Council and the Parliament decided to double the in-take ratio of Market Stability Reserve (MSR) from 12% to 24%. Hence, with a doubled MSR in-take ratio and an increased linear reduction factor (LRF), the power sector of Central European Member States will have to bear additional substantial compliance expenses (i.e. Croatia EUR 1 bln, Estonia, EUR 1.7 bln, Poland EUR 65 bln, Romania EUR 15 bln). Moreover, combined with the new environmental standards imposed by BAT conclusions for large combustion plants, it will inevitably translate into soaring costs for the power and energy-intensive sectors in Central Europe. To achieve a fair energy transition, an increase of climate ambitions should go hand in hand with the mitigation of higher costs for lower GDP countries. This must be the core principle of the EU ETS reform. Therefore, we call for: Increasing the Modernisation Fund sourcing from 2% to 4% as well as the application of the simplified decision-making process (laid down in the Article 10d(1a) of the Council’s amendments to the proposal) also to the highly efficient cogeneration plants and during the early adaptation [...]
Central Europe Energy Partners’ members and guests discussed about the links between security of supply, regional cooperation and interconnections in the European electricity system, during a dinner debate organized onthe 3rd of October 2017, in the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, with the participation of MEPs. Under the title “Securing energy supply with trans-border electricity flows: the view of Central European electricity TSOs”, the participants expressed their reservations on Clean Energy Package’s proposal of a target model for Regional Operational Centres (ROCs) and discussed how to effectively strengthen regional cooperation of electricity flows. Recent difficulties of the French electricity system in assuring adequate generation under tougher weather conditions were just another call for drawing appropriate lessons. With potential impacts in all regions of the EU, these lessons and challenges need to be looked at jointly, including partners from Central Europe, where weather conditions affect large synchronous areas of the electricity system. CEEP fully supports enhanced cooperation between different TSOs, however we do not share the view of the Commission that the establishment of ROCs is a suitable measure to guarantee this. Taking into account the current development of electricity markets in Europe, the delegation of the competencies to ROCs is unjustified. Limiting the role of national TSOs by splitting the decision-making in power system operation in different timeframes between TSOs and ROCs will lead to conflicting responsibilities and cause operational security threats. It should be underlined that in the current state of development of the electricity markets in Europe the regional coordination of TSOs in the form of Regional Security Coordinators, is the proper model for operational coordination, especially because [...]
While analysing the relation between Nord Stream 2 (NS2) and European policy making, the reference point should be the statement of the German Vice-Chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, who, during a bilateral meeting with President Vladimir Putin in October 2015, declared, regarding NS2, that Germany will “ensure that all this remains under the competence of the German authorities” and that “external meddling will be limited”[1]. Such opening of the investment process, unambiguously demonstrates that from the very beginning, this project has not been “purely commercial”, as Gazprom and its European affiliates (Engie, OMV, Shell, Uniper, Wintershall) claim. On the contrary, since its inception, it has been treated as a political priority in bilateral relations between Germany and Russia and enjoyed high-level political support which was recently re-confirmed back in June by the statements of Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany and Chancellor of Austria, following the US Senate vote on tightening US sanctions against Russia which will hit NS2 project. These recent developments, highlight the need for more clarity about the position of the European Institutions towards NS2 and instruments they possess to adjust it to both the EU legal framework and the objectives of the Energy Union. The aim of this article is to briefly present the current state of play regarding this divisive investment project and speculate about potential developments, particularly taking into account the ongoing process of negotiating mandate for the European Commission, allowing the establishment of a hybrid legal regime applicable to NS2. Author argues that in the current circumstances, intergovernmental agreement seems to be the most rational option to ensure that NS2 will not be constructed [...]
1. Introduction The Paris Agreement has shown that the EU’s proposal to decrease CO2 emissions by 40% by 2030, from 1990 levels, was the most ambitious pledge made at the Summit. This means that the other industrialised countries, such as the US, Canada and Australia, are lagging behind the EU’s ambitions, as well as the emerging powers, notably China and India. If we translate the pledges into emissions per tonne per capita, then in 2030, we can expect below 5.0 tonnes in the EU, whilst in the US nearly 12 tonnes. Why should we be so ambitious and accept a constant loss of competitiveness and not fulfill one of the basic principles of the Lisbon Treaty, which states, that the EU should implement policies ensuring advances in economic integration? As Eurostat shows, the distance between the EU-15 and EU-11 (GDP per capita), has practically not changed during the last 10 years. As figures indicate , a 1% increase of GDP per capita in the EU-15 is equal to 3.1 % in the EU-11. If the ratio is 1% to 4%, the chance to catch-up will take 40 years. This is our real European problem requiring immediate attention, as new investments are desperately needed in the EU-11. The revision of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is highly important for the Central European energy-intensive industries ( steel, chemical, refining, etc) and crucial in determining how the EU aims to combine its agenda on growth, jobs and investments with climate and environmental policies. For example, in its current form, the proposal puts at risk the viability of the steel industry in [...]
We represent the widely understood Central Europe energy sector (electricity generation, distribution and transmission, renewables, gas, oil, heat generation and distribution, chemical industries, etc.), universities and scientific institutions.
