Energy ministers shun efficiency targets
Call for more flexibility, concern at possible costs.
Energy ministers meeting in Brussels today expressed dissatisfaction with efficiency targets for energy suppliers and public buildings contained in a European Commission’s proposal for an energy efficiency directive.
Ministers including those from Finland and the Czech Republic complained that an obligation for energy suppliers to ensure their customers save 1.5% on electricity annually needs to be more flexible to avoid hurting competitiveness.
Ministers also objected to a binding target for 3% of public buildings to receive energy efficient renovations each year. They want a target of 1.5% instead. The Polish presidency noted that finance ministries are objecting to the upfront costs involved in efficiency measures.
Speaking to journalists after the meeting, Günther Oettinger, the European commissioner for energy, indicated that he was willing to compromise on the target. “It’s a question of whether there is wiggle room given to member states,” he said. “I don’t mind if it’s 1.5% or 3%; what’s important is that measures are taken to achieve the objective.” The headline target of 20% energy efficiency savings is not binding under the Commission’s proposal.
The most forceful defender of the proposal was Martin Lidegaard, Denmark’s energy minister, who said the directive should be adopted because it would lead to the EU being less reliant on fossil fuels. “We must maintain the level of ambition,” he said, “but we can be flexible as to the actual architecture.”
Some binding targets in key areas were put in the directive after member states signalled they did not want an overall binding target. But the European Parliament may call for binding national energy savings targets to be made part of the directive. Claude Turmes, a Green MEP from Luxembourg who is drafting the EP’s opinion on the directive, has called for this in his report, saying it would give member states the flexibility they are asking for. The issue remains controversial. Some 1,800 amendments have been put forward in the Parliament.
Separately, member states adopted conclusions on strengthening the external dimension of EU energy policy, responding to a communication put out by the Commission in September. The conclusions support the Commission’s idea to develop a database of member states’ energy deals with external countries, but stress that sensitive data must be protected.
A paragraph regarding the synchronisation of energy systems was removed from the original draft at the insistence of Latvia, which thought it suggested that a gas terminal would not be located in that country. Latvia has insisted the terminal for a connection to Sweden should be located in their country because they have no gas links to any EU country. This has been a source of dispute among the Baltic states.
Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey
Ministers also discussed the commission’s proposal for an overhaul of the trans-European energy infrastructure (Ten-E). ‘Energy island’ states such as Cyprus, Ireland and Latvia were keen to stress the importance of connecting peripheral states to the grid.
But core states showed more scepticism about the expenditure. Jochen Homann, Germany’s deputy energy minister, complained that criteria for projects that can receive EU funding are too vague. Eric Besson, France’s energy minister, stressed that any EU funding used should go to truly cross-border projects that would not otherwise be profitable. “Procedures for authorisation of projects of common interest must respect subsidiarity,” he added. “A single EU model for organisation cannot be imposed on member states.”