In the European Parliament plenary session debate on the energy security of the EU on Wednesday 23 November, several MEPs criticised the Commission’s handling of issues on the German-Russian gas pipeline project, Nord Stream-2, and the OPAL gas pipeline operation in Germany, attacking it for its ambivalent attitude towards Russian gas company Gazprom.
Krisjanis Karins (EPP, Lithuania) said that what the Commission is doing is incomprehensible: on the one hand, the EU may investigate Gazprom, which has long abused its dominant market position and now the Commission could look at not imposing sanctions on Gazprom. He went on to say that the Commission argues that the Nord Stream-2 project must comply with EU law but that is not the case, in his view. Finally, he railed, the increase in the operating capacity of the OPAL gas pipeline, enjoyed by Gazprom, which is not something that responds to EU energy security objectives.
The decision on OPAL is every bit as controversial as the Nord Stream-2 project, stated Jerzy Busek (EPP, Poland), arguing that it harms the energy security of Eastern Europe by favouring one supplier and works against the interests of Ukraine. His fellow countryman Janusz Lewandoswki (EPP) also spoke of his questions over the management of these two issues.
Does the 3rd energy package not seek to end monopolies rather than encourage them, wondered Gunnar Hokmark (EPP, Sweden). He said that Nord Stream-2 had too many contradictions: on the one hand, there is a political line consisting of dividing and undermining cooperation in the EU and, on the other, the project will transform the architecture of the energy market, allowing Gazprom to consolidate its domination, he argued. The Commission cannot, he went on, say that greater unity and cooperation are needed in the EU and at the same time undermine the energy security of some member states.
The Commission’s decision on OPAL brought us a step back from Nord Stream-2 but the result is that Gazprom has improved its position and is now absolutely dominant, stated Anna Elzbieta Fotyga (ECR, Poland). Poland, she said, had already strongly protested and Ukraine is just as badly affected. The decisions taken, she argued, are contrary to European law and the solidarity that we owe to Ukraine and other countries.
Responding on behalf of the Commission, Transport Commissioner Violeta Bulc tried to offer some assurances. The Nord Stream-2 project cannot comply only with Russian law, she stated: it must also be in line with the 3rd package and public procurement rules. She acknowledged that Nord Stream-2 would increase Russian gas transport capacities which are already 50% under-utilised. The commissioner also gave assurances that the OPAL decision would mean better use of the OPAL gas pipeline, improve access to undistorted competition and strengthen the integration of the Czech and German gas markets. (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)