Common energy policy: the eternal mirage. In the EU, difficulties and uncertainties in the energy sector are becoming more numerous. As we are well aware, a common energy policy does not exist in the Treaties - its one of the gaps in the Community construction. The European Commission is trying hard - with the help of the European Parliament - to make better use of the general Community rules, but it can't replace what isn't there. It can be understood why Jacques Delors recommended a specific treaty which would give birth to a European Energy Community. But this is certainly not for tomorrow.
In the current situation, every member state has vast freedom of action. For example, Germany's sudden decision to renounce nuclear energy was learnt through the press - both by the other EU member states and by the Commission too. The national policies of member states respond to a few common rules, but they are in fact very largely autonomous. Long term European objectives have been established but each member state pursues them as it pleases.
As far as relations with third countries are concerned, they almost totally escape the competence of the EU. Each member state in practice has its own policy - sometimes it's businesses that define and manage the agreements with the third country suppliers; and we know that the import still covers the main part of European needs. Gunther Oettinger, the commissioner for energy, is trying hard to bring it about that national agreements with third countries respect the general Community rules, as much when they are concluded between governments as directly by businesses - but without much success.
For the moment, the current energy affairs are dominated by two files - that on shale gas and that on wind energy. They lie at the centre of member states' concerns. Let me attempt to take stock.
Wind energy: advantages and difficulties. As a gift of nature being able to replace nuclear energy and reduce imports of oil, wind energy is encouraged everywhere and it benefits from specific subsidies - which are even excessive in a few cases, or very harmful to nature. The number of candidates for subsidies has grown greatly leading to effects that are partly contested.
Let me give an example relating to the protection of nature. The authorities in the Italian region of Abruzzo have reacted against a wind power project comprising a set of generators that are 150 metres tall in an area where a species of bear and rare species of birds have lived for years - an area which is protected at European level. Another project is situated in a natural park which is considered untouchable.
The second problem with wind turbines concerns the obvious fact that wind can be neither permanent nor regular - which demands the parallel availability of alternative energy sources. The situations vary from one country to another. Germany - which as has already been said decided to renounce nuclear energy without informing the other member states or Community institutions beforehand - has no problem with regard to wind energy, which is in practice far from the coast where wind turbines are situated. However, the transport of the energy coming from sea wind to the industrial areas requires ad hoc installations as well as large-scale investment.
Technical or natural obstacles can provoke economic dramas. The Danish company Vestas - the main global manufacturer of wind turbines - is apparently on the verge of bankruptcy, and other producers - particularly in France and Spain - are meeting with serious difficulties because they had greatly increased their production capacity. A British wind turbine manufacturer has totally stopped its production.
The economic difficulties are accompanied by political differences. The Fédération environnement durable (FED) affirms that the wind industry - in France as elsewhere - is living on public subsidies, preferential tariffs and administrative protection. It is thus in the charge of public authorities. According to the FED, most public investment in this area in France has apparently been made at pure loss. Secret financial channels and even the penetration of Mafioso organisations have been talked about! The FED has called for an economic and fiscal audit entrusted to independent organisations. In a sentence, the situation is that sun and wind cannot be programmed.
Of course, the events cited above do not remove the need to reduce CO2 emissions. Commissioner Oettinger is calling for binding objectives for renewable energy for the EU by 2030. Yet the absence of a European energy policy makes the establishment of obligatory objectives - that should be imposed on all member states - difficult.
Shale gas: between differences of principle and environmental uncertainties. The second spectacular divergence in the EU (and at the same time internationally because it involves the United States) concerns shale gas and the oil from tar sands - and this is even more controversial. This column has already reported (see EUROPE 10730) on the conflicting positions between those who think that the EU is blessed by the gods because of its reserves of shale gas, and those who consider that, on the contrary, these reserves are an illusion or cheating. In any case several decades will be needed for the godly reserves to be transformed into usable energy, and thus to know whether the exploitation is real or illusory.
What is already certain is that to obtain a reply to this reality or illusion question, colossal investments will be needed that will change nothing in Europe's energy supply in the near future - even in the next decades. The member states concerned will have to confront their energy needs differently for the near future, while at the same time enriching the man who has obtained the rights to exploitation and to the studies that will precede the hypothetical rights of exploitation for shale gas. And they will have to take the consequences into account - which daily become more obvious - of is what is involved in the simple exploration of the territories where shale theoretically exists.
It is true that it is good to be daring, and that in energy domain we need the ability and the courage to look down the line. Yet this should be done taking account of all the aspects.
The European Parliament is looking for balance. Within the European Parliament debate is lively and the division between the pros and the cons for shale gas is, as a rule, radical. Three hours of lively debate took place on 20 November (see EUROPE 10734), and they ended up with compromise formulas based on the precautionary principle with a shared priority - defending the environment, while stressing that shale gas is to be considered as an industrial challenge and not necessarily as a threat (see EUROPE 10735).
As far as the European Commission is concerned, in the same debate the commissioner for the environment, Janez Potocnik, said that the degree of acceptance for shale gas should be assessed from the environmental point of view - in other words especially the consumption of water and the respect for nature. And he stated that the Commission will bring forward a communication next year that will indicate its position and its intentions for managing the risks, plugging the legislative loophole and bringing clarity. A tough job.
American perplexities? Let me stress that for the repercussion/clarity aspects, perplexities have arisen in the United States. By the title of Gasland, a film has been distributed that describes in a totally negative way the state of a place in the countryside where the underground search for shale gas has already started - everything has been destroyed, nature has been violated, and the description is staggering. It is important to be aware that the economic and political stakes are so colossal for the American energy future (including autonomy and radically reduced energy prices) that similar reactions going in both directions should be expected - both for and against shale gas. We have already been treated to a title in one newspaper that took up a whole page and said: “The Saudi America era is beginning: first global producer of gas in 2015, and of gas and oil in 2020”.
It can definitely be noted that in the domain of shale gas, Europe is not really party. Each member state is in the middle of defining it national policy. France took an officially negative position at first - on 15 September, the president of the republic affirmed that he would certainly not return to the position of his predecessor, and he forbade the use of a technology bearing risks for the environment. But currently a national debate on energy has just started, and the person in charge of this - Laurence Tubiana - has said: “Enough ideological posturing”, all the participants will express themselves freely. In the whole EU uncertainties and question marks persist. Things must be clarified before decisions are taken.
The essential part is elsewhere. Yet the two areas that were talked about yesterday - renewable energy and shale gas - don't necessarily represent the most significant aspects of the energy policy, and this must especially be taken into consideration. Energy savings, the effective control of consumption, the correction of wastage and other similar efforts are much more important in Europe. And positive signs exist - progress in certain areas has been achieved despite the lack of a Community energy policy. This column will come back on the overview. (FR/transl.fl)