- 1 -
European Economic and Social Committee
CES7284-2013_00_00_TRA_TCD
- 2 -
REPORT OF SEMINAR ON
A 2030 Framework for energy and climate policies: promoting civil society's involvement
24 October 2013
Panel 1: Energy and climate policy framework : objectives, targets and instruments
o Philip Lowe, Director-General for Energy, EC:
The situation has dramatically changed since the economic crisis (2008) and the Fukushima accident, which has an impact on addressing the EU's energy challenges. The 2050 Energy Roadmap sets out no regrets options (RES[1], energy efficiency and upgrading the grids). However, this is not enough to create certainty and bring about the necessary investments. Even though they will need investments, the RES are not necessarily more expensive than fossil fuels because they are subsidised by the national governments.
The EU is a price taker for fossil fuels. So, RES is the only way to produce indigenous energy without nuclear and to reduce the EU importations' bill. At the same time, the EU is no longer at the vanguard internationally on low carbon technologies (RES) and energy efficiency.
Outcomes of the EC public consultation: most of the replies come from the industry associations (41%). Relating to the "20-20-20" three binding targets, the Member States and utilities and oil and gas companies are in favour of one or two targets. The citizen's position is in favour of two targets. The industrial associations support only one target (or not at all) contrary to the RES companies and NGOs which support the three targets. The local and regional authorities and trade unions are in favour of two or three targets. However any EU target has to make sense both unilaterally and internationally.
The instruments include: guiding principles for 2030: stability, predictability and coherence; the ETS and the internal energy market; a more cost-effective approach (what is the acceptable government support for RES); and innovation.
o Laura Cozzi, Deputy Head of the Office of the Chief Economist, International Energy Agency:
Energy represents 2/3 of GHG emissions, so the efforts have to be made in this sector. The USA and China, which represent respectively 16% and 25% of global GHS emissions, develop other strategies to adapt to energy challenges. Thus a global consensus and action is essential. The main concern is about energy prices – higher than in the USA – because of fossil fuel prices, taxes and investments in renewables.
The citizens are very concerned as they spend 10 % of their budget for their energy needs but their voice is not heard enough (they are not representative enough in the public consultation replies). There is a need to decouple energy costs and energy prices. Also network costs are high in the EU. The consumers but also the utilities are affected by the energy prices' increase and the former lose money because of economic crisis, RES policy and therefore need for redesigning the internal energy market.
o Michael Nielsen, General Delegate in Brussels, International Road Union:
It is important to have achievable objectives and to act in the three aspects: environmental, social and economic (sustainable development) for a holistic approach.
The IRU committed to green at-source is taken through its “3 i” strategy: innovation; incentives; and infrastructure. Its "30-by-30 Resolution" consists in reducing CO2 emissions from HDVs by 30% by 2030. Indeed, there are few incentives available for transport operators to invest in viable clean technology and even constraints to innovation in energy use reduction and climate friendly concepts. It is necessary to do cost–benefit analysis before spending public money.
o Stefan Scheuer, Secretary-General, Coalition for Energy Savings:
The EU should have a binding 40% energy savings target for 2030 to tap the cost-effective economic potential. Indeed, a GHG target only approach would fail to trigger additional energy savings. More energy would still be wasted and the EU trade deficit on energy would not be addressed. Economic instruments, such as the EU-ETS, are not appropriate to tackle the non-economic barriers to energy efficiency. Moreover, this energy binding objective will increase productivity and boost competitiveness.
Panel 2: Delivery challenges and opportunities: competitiveness, affordability, civil society's role
o Jos Delbeke, Director-General for Climate Action, EC:
All the DG of the EC are working together on the framework for 2030 in energy and climate. The current question is the definition of the new objectives to ensure the competitiveness of the EU economy and the security of energy supply. Moreover, the EU has to deal with the differing capacities of the Member States.
Lessons learned from the public consultation:
- the ETS effectiveness is undermined by the economic crisis and international credits;
- need to better integrate RES;
- need to avoid regulatory fragmentation and reduce administrative burdens.
It will be important to focus on cost-efficient instruments to address problems such as the cost. Increased prices may be partially linked to investments in RES. However, in the transition to a low-carbon energy system, prices may increase in the short term but energy may become cheaper in the longer term due to reduced energy imports and the resilience of EU industry may rise.
Consensus of the stakeholders on 3 aspects:
1) international action is key;
2) competitive pressure is increasing;
3) auction revenues should be used for industrial innovation
30 % of the new EU budget will be spent on actions related to climate change.
o Koen Coppenholle, Chief Executive, CEMBUREAU (European Cement association):
Costs of the capital, workforce and energy are high in Europe. Consequently, the European economy is not competitive comparing to the USA or China. It is necessary to involve all the stakeholders (such as the companies) in this European debate. The EU regulation should be predictable and stable for the investors in order to lead to an efficient energy and climate policy. For instance the cement industry is promoting the use of alternative fuels and aims for a 32% reduction in GHG by 2030 and also the use of concrete for more energy efficiency. However these efforts (innovation) should be matched by: an integrated and cost-effective approach at EU level and the predictability of the EU legal framework, more convergence in all the European policies and a level playing field internationally.
o Stephen Boucher, Programme Director "EU climate Policies", European Climate Foundation (ECF):
The EU faces two challenges: global warming and its major consequences; and the definition of the new framework for 2030. However, the EU succeeded in one aspect: it is a model of governance for the world (e.g. similar project for an Asian Economic Community). So, the EU should turn these challenges into opportunities, such as innovation in smart technologies.
Concerning the affordability, maybe this is the moment to switch the subsidies from fossil fuels and its huge bill (i.e. 600 billion euros per year) towards renewables.
ECF supports a stronger a strong voice for civil society. Civil society represents common interests and it should be heard by the decision-makers, because it represents only 8% in the EC public consultation. Its role is very important to make sure that the science on climate change is heard in the definition of the 2030 package and to change the EU political orientation.
o Benjamin Denis, Adviser, ETUC (European Trade Union):
Energy shouldn't be only a question of competitiveness (compared to e.g. China) because this can decrease the level of environmental regulation and of labour and social law in Europe. It is necessary to conduct a deep and lucid analysis to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the European economy. The trade unions work also on climate change because it implies solidarity and concerns the youth.
The decision-makers have to think on the long term (2050). The more we wait to take decisions on climate change, the more unaffordable the financial burden will be for future generations. Thus, ETUC proposes a "Fair transition" in 4 priorities:
1) ensuring a high number of qualified jobs in the EU;
2) greening the economic sectors and the professional competences by maintaining a high budget for education and training;
3) involving the workers in this reflection (they can propose new ideas) and organising the social dialogue
4) defining an ambitious investment plan to finance these actions
o Richard Adams, EESC member:
The EU and national policies should take into account what is technically and economically possible and at the same time what is politically feasible and socially acceptable to stakeholders. Energy transition is not a priority in some Member States. Moreover, there is no proper framework in place for a citizen/stakeholder dialogue about the energy mix and climate issues in most of the MS. However, it is vital to integrate the EU policy into national debates to convince key stakeholders.
The EESC therefore advocates a European Energy Dialogue, putting in place an ambitious, co-ordinated programme of public engagement, involvement and action; and raising the level of debate and understanding among the general public should be priorities. It aims to converge and integrate at the EU level a "total energy system" approach to discuss conflicts and trade-offs in the energy mix supply, distribution and demand. The essential features will be trust, independence and reliability as a recognised social brand.
______
CES7284-2013_00_00_TRA_TCD …/…
[1] RES : renewable energy sources.