On Thursday 8 March, a debate organised by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) was held with a view to an opinion on the subject prepared by Baiba Miltovica of Latvia (Group III/Various Interests) and which should be adopted during the plenary session on 18-19 April. At that debate, reservation was expressed by various stakeholders about the amendment proposed by the European Commission to the 2009 gas directive to clarify the regulatory framework for gas pipelines entering the EU from third countries.
The aim of the amendment to the gas directive, which mainly aims to frame the controversial Russian Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline project (see EUROPE 11900), is to clearly point out that the main fundamentals of EU law in the energy sector (access by third parties to the network, tariff rules, disassociation of ownership structures and transparency) will apply to all gas pipelines to and from third countries as far as the boundaries of the EU.
Given the EU’s growing dependence on gas imports, this change raises political and economic questions, mainly concerning the implications for current and future investment, the regulatory burden weighing upon national authorities, and member state autonomy in the conduct of external energy policy.
“This amendment proposed by the Commission is a (...) precondition for our energy security and independence; it will create a level playing field among all actors involved and facilitate free competition”, stressed Jerzy Buzek (EPP, Poland), who chairs the energy committee of the European Parliament.
However, the representatives of several civil society organisations stressed concerns in the legal, commercial and environmental sectors.
Ana Stanic, Director of E&A Law Limited, pointed out that the proposed amendment would not resolve the unclear legal state of play but would create further conflict and result in additional uncertainty, as it would be in breach of some provisions of international law.
Christian Schwarck, Deputy Director of EU Affairs at the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP), suggested that the policy should focus more on developing gas hubs rather than gas infrastructure. This would be more flexible and resilient, he said, and would provide a neutral playing field for the markets to operate efficiently, whereas gas storage obligations may distort the market.
Antoine Simon, speaking for the environmental NGO Les Amis de la Terre Europe, expressed doubt about the compatibility of the EU gas policy with the aims of the international Paris agreement on climate, saying that gas was not a low-carbon fossil fuel.
Baiba Miltovica, who will take the above contributions into account in her opinion, underlined the importance of better coordinating rules concerning external suppliers, and of ideally reaching a single regulatory framework so that energy is supplied according to the same rules everywhere. (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)