At the initiative of Greens/EFA MEPs Marie Toussaint (France) and Bas Eickhout (the Netherlands), a motion calling for the rejection of the fourth list of projects of common interest (PCIs) will be put to the vote at the 10-13 February plenary session. This is an opportunity for EUROPE to detail the reasons why this list is so controversial.
A list contrary to the climate objectives? This is the main criticism levelled at the list by many NGOs such as Food & Water Europe or Friends of the Earth Europe, as well as by some MEPs.
As it includes fossil fuel projects, which will become eligible for EU funding under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the list is, according to its opponents, totally contrary to the EU’s climate commitments and, in particular, the new European Commission’s Green Deal.
“The ecological crisis is now, and the rejection of the 4th list is urgent so that the Commission might finally propose a list consistent with the climate objectives of the Green Deal”, Ms Toussaint told EUROPE.
Of the 149 projects included in the list (the Commission had announced 151 but has since revised its accounting), 55 reportedly deal with fossil fuels.
It is important to point out that some defenders of the list, on the other hand, put forward the figure of 38 fossil projects (32 gas projects and 6 oil projects), as indicated on the Commission’s website.
This difference in figures is due to the way in which projects are posted. Thus, for the opponents of the list, the Commission’s figures do not reflect reality, since, according to the Commission’s calculation method, several infrastructure elements are grouped together in a single project.
Contacted by EUROPE, the Commission has so far been unable to tell us whether it refutes the number of 55 fossil projects put forward by environmental NGOs.
In any event, in response to criticism of the presence of fossil projects on the list, the Commission points out that the number of gas projects has fallen from 53 to 32, a 40% drop compared with the previous list. In its view, this represents “a clear downward trend in gas projects”. But the argument fails to convince NGOs and environmentalist MEPs.
The NGOs base their concerns in particular on a recent opinion of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) published on 25 September 2019, about a month before the adoption of the list by the Commission. Evaluating the gas projects applying for the 4th list of PCIs, this opinion states that “the contribution of the PCI candidate projects to sustainability in general and to meeting the climate change policy goals of the European Union in particular, is not quite clear”.
“The absence of a sound assessment of the projects’ contribution to sustainability leads to great uncertainty and doubts about the viability of (or even the need) for the projects in the long run”, the Agency is furthermore concerned.
Contacted by EUROPE on the reasons for the inclusion of 32 gas projects in the list, the Commission explained that these remaining projects “[are] considered important for energy security, for diversifying supply sources and for connecting Member States and markets for the benefit of EU businesses and citizens”.
In addition, the institution has repeatedly stated that it considers gas as a “transitional energy source”, which is supposed to help the exit from coal, for the next 10 years.
Energy security.
As regards energy security, the Commission’s argument is undermined in particular by an E3G study published in 2015 which shows that the EU tends to overestimate its gas demand. This climate think tank is concerned that some of the CEF funds may be directed to uneconomic projects due to overestimated gas demand projections.
A more recent study, published on 20 January by Artelys, a consultancy firm active in the energy sector, comes to a similar conclusion. According to this document, most of the gas projects included in the list represent an unnecessary over-investment from the point of view of the EU’s security of energy supply (Artelys estimates the combined cost of the 32 gas projects at €29 billion, part of which would be borne by the EU) (see EUROPE 12407/21).
Moreover, both studies consider that such investments risk tying the EU to gas for decades and decades, thus ensuring a strong future for this fossil energy rather than a transitional role, as the Commission wishes.
“Overinvestment in gas infrastructure can also create ‘lock in’ to levels of gas consumption that are in conflict with EU decarbonisation goals”, warns E3G.
The issue of renewable gases. Another point that is regularly raised in defence of gas projects is that the new gas infrastructure that will be built with EU support can be used in the future to transport cleaner gas than natural gas.
“To ensure the gradual transformation of our energy system, the gas projects on the list should be compatible also with hydrogen in order to future-proof the infrastructure”, insists MEP Christian Ehler (EPP, Germany).
Opponents of the list, for their part, believe that renewable gases will require a radically different infrastructure from the current fossil gas infrastructure. While stressing the uncertainty surrounding the future development of renewable gases, they also argue that it is not true that some of the gas projects on the list, clearly linked to fossil gas extraction, will one day be suitable for the transport of renewable gases.
The question of returning to the third list. Like Mr Ehler, some supporters of the list believe that it is in fact the rejection of the list that would harm the objectives of the Green Deal.
“Should the list not be approved, the old list from 2017 that includes more gas projects will continue”, Mr Ehler said.
Since none of the previous three lists was rejected, it is rather difficult to predict exactly what would happen if the majority of MEPs decided to vote against the list at the February plenary.
According to information gathered by EUROPE, the third list would effectively remain in force. The Commission should then propose a new one in 2021, i.e., 2 years after submitting the fourth one, as provided for in the procedure.
Nevertheless, in the eyes of Marie Toussaint, a temporary return to the 3rd list has more advantages than disadvantages. “Many of the gas and fossil projects on the 3rd list have been blocked for years and for good reason: they do not correspond to real demand and are causing local populations to reject them”, she explained to EUROPE.
A lack of transparency. In addition to criticising this list for being inconsistent with the Green Deal, some also denounce the lack of transparency that surrounds how it is drafted.
This is a shortcoming already highlighted by ACER in the case of the previous lists.
And its assessment of the gas projects on the fourth list was no exception. Among the shortcomings identified by the Agency, the document points out “the complete lack of transparency of the needs and methods of the evaluation of the projects”.
This opacity in the process of preparing the list was also pointed out by MEPs when it was presented to Parliaments Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) (see EUROPE 12351/11). Several MEPs also deplored the lack of involvement of the European Parliament in this process, such as Nicolás González Casares (EPP, Spain).
For its part, the Commission states that the list “was prepared following a rigorous, open, transparent and inclusive process involving numerous organisations”.
Adopted by the Commission on 31 October 2019 (see EUROPE 12361/12), the fourth list of projects of common interest (PCIs) was broadly approved on Wednesday 22 January by the members of the ITRE Committee (see EUROPE 12409/10).
The 4th list of PCIs: https://bit.ly/2PA3JWl
The motion to dismiss: http://bit.ly/36UrxcG
ACER’s opinion: https://bit.ly/38WYzdz
The E3G study: https://bit.ly/2vzvBlv
The Artelys study: https://bit.ly/2udhIsP (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)