Everything still to be done. The intention to lay the foundations for a European energy policy is progress in itself but the obstacles are enormous (see this column in the previous edition of EUROPE). The statements in principle from the European Council are just a starting point - virtually everything still remains to be done. Some developments could even complicate the situation in domains that go beyond energy.
Agreements to be revised with the member states? Here is an example. The American policy, which is largely founded on the development of shale gas, could have repercussions on the project for trade and industrial union between the EU and USA. The cost of energy for American industry will be far below that with which European industry is supplied - electricity in Europe will cost twice as much as in the USA.
In these conditions, the Euro-American project - negotiations for which are due to begin next month - might require further reflection. The European Parliament gave its support to this project last Thursday by a wide majority (460 voted yes, 105 voted no) while expressing several wishes - like the exclusion of the cultural sector from the negotiation. However, it did not raise the issue of the cost of energy (see EUROPE 10851). And yet the question has to be asked about the possibility of shale gas changing the whole of American foreign policy. The United States plans to export this shale gas gradually to Asia and elsewhere, reducing the debt and trade deficit with China and influencing the situation in Japan, India, South Korea and the European Union.
Areas that would be affected are: (i) oil exports from the Gulf (they have already largely lost the American market and will soon do so totally); (ii) exports from Russia, especially to the EU.
Of course, such an enormous storm would be progressive - it's only in 2020 that the USA would become a net exporter of gas, and the installations needed for massive exports still do not exist. Yet in Washington they are looking to the long-term future - shale gas will become an instrument of American foreign policy. The Turkish prime minister, Mr Erdogan, is supposed to have said during his recent visit to the USA: “I would be glad to buy gas from the United States rather than Iran”.
It's therefore a long-term project but one which in coming weeks could influence the Euro-American negotiation on the total mutual liberalisation of trade and investment.
In the EU, it's each to his own. Faced with this situation, it would be illusory to consider the member states as a whole. In fact, in the energy domain, the member states are not a whole at all. In foreign relations especially, each acts on its own account - often in competition with its neighbour. It's hard to forget the periodic meetings in a small Russian country house between Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi (the then Italian prime minister), privately defining Italo-Russian relations on energy. What is more, the European Treaties do not provide for a common energy policy - powers are shared between the member states and the EU as it stands, with unanimous or majority voting depending on the issue. Each member state maintains the right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy sources, as well as the general structure of its supply. Italy has said no to nuclear but is supplied with nuclear energy produced in France - a few kilometres from its border. And the cost of electricity varies considerably from one member state to the next.
Discontent. This chaotic situation is accompanied by protests and even recourse to justice from economic or social categories. An example? The French sustainable environment federation has reviewed the situation of onshore wind energy turbines in France - there are 4,500 of them, which should correspond to 7,500 MW. Indeed, at 12.15pm on 7 May, they “produced 5% of electricity, which highlights their total under-performance and the uselessness of a completely counterproductive €11 million investment”.
For their part, industries rue the absence of a “precise regulatory framework and sufficient investment for infrastructure”. Each tries to develop energy which can bring it advantages. As far as shale gas is concerned, a European position is non-existent.
This confused situation led Jacques Delors to propose a European Community of energy - but Delors is usually much too far ahead of his time. The development of the situation in Europe is only just beginning.
(FR/transl.fl)