Central Europe Energy Partners, AISBL (CEEP), welcomes the priority status granted to the Energy Union by the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, and actions undertaken in this regard by the Commission Members. This is fully in line with the recommendations made by Mr. Jacques Delors, Mr. Jerzy Buzek in 2010, and the plan presented last year by the then Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland, Mr. Donald Tusk. The discussion so far shows a willingness to put energy in the global context and to end ‘deceptive silo’ approaches. What we all need is to give a wider vision of energy policy based on this global context. The process has to be gradual – but persistent - moving from existing European Energy Policy to the Energy Union. It has to be inclusive, and provide the notion of European solidarity with a new, wider context. The initiative could not be better timed. Right now, the political climate is there to set the Energy Union in motion. The Commission – but first of all – we, the EU Member States, have to use it to our best advantage. The current geopolitical situation on the EU’s eastern border – however unfortunate in itself – has pushed all energy issues, especially Europe's energy security, even higher up the agenda. The Commission’s Energy Union initiative, therefore, has to be seen in its widest possible context – the 5 dimensions reflect a holistic approach across many policy areas, from transport, over competition and agriculture to industrial policy. Just as a reminder these are (as presented by Mr. Maroš Šefčovič – Vice-President for [...]
CEEP Member's Position Paper The Polish Electricity Association, a Central Europe Energy Partners member, is of the opinion that the Market Stability Reserve will have significant economic consequences and faces serious legal question marks. Economic aspects Higher carbon prices due to the enforcement of the MSR will drive electricity prices up. High CO2 prices are not necessary to drive low-carbon investment. The carbon price by 2030 in a scenario with the MSR is estimated at 55 EUR/t versus ca. 35 EUR/t without the MSR – over 60% increase. Although the MSR proposal is volume-based, it is clear that its main objective is to increase carbon prices in order to stimulate investment in low-carbon technologies. However, such investments are already taking place today in Europe without high carbon prices. In 2012, there were over 20 GW of renewable capacity installed despite a fairly low carbon price due to support schemes. Higher energy prices for industry and households. The adoption of the MSR, therefore, will decrease competitiveness of European industry and income for households by increasing electricity prices, without further benefiting low-carbon development, which is taking place anyway through other instruments. This price increase will be most significant in MS with higher carbon intensity of power generation – Poland, Germany, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Estonia. MSR’s main effect will be an increase of natural gas imports to Europe as it will mainly render gas-fired power plants more profitable than coal-fired installations fuelled mostly by domestic resources. We estimate that this increase by 2030 will be approximately 200 billion cubic meters – equivalent to 2 years of natural gas consumption for [...]
Energy consumption (fuel) in the EU’s transport sector is falling (over the past 5 years, the overall demand has declined by 13%), thus decreasing GHG emissions in the transport sector. However, to achieve the objective as outlined in Art.7a FQD, this drop in GHG emissions is not included. To achieve the goals of art 7a, the fuel supplier has to reduce GHG emissions by per unit of energy contained in the fuel. Frankly speaking, the expected further decrease of energy consumption (fuel) by another 15% by 2020, will cover all expectations connected with decreases in GHG emissions, and as a result of this situation, art. 7a should be withdrawn, as over five years ago, when FQD entered into force, nobody expected a decrease of energy consumption in terms of fuels, and especially so fast. Moreover, to achieve the 7a objective, the substantial increase in the usage of biofuels has to be planned. The excessive use of biofuels is discussed very often in the EU, and is seen as causing environmental problems (ILUC issue). One should not forget that biofuels components are more much expensive than crude oil fuels. This is very painful, especially in the situation whereby the crude oil price has dropped by almost 30%, which means that the price ratio of biofuels to fuels will be raised. The Impact Assessment prepared by the European Commission on the calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Article 7a of FQD, shows that introducing art.7a, according to the EC’s concept, will influence the price of fuels by 0.3 euro cents only per litre, which is simply not realistic, and by [...]
In a few words
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.