The members of the European Parliament’s Committees on the Environment (ENVI) and on Energy (ITRE) expressed, on Thursday 14 January during debates with the European Commission services, their concerns about the impact of potential significant divergences between the climate and energy policies of the European Union and those of the United Kingdom.
Climate
Several members of the ENVI Committee, including Pascal Canfin (Renew Europe, France), discussed how to combine the carbon pricing systems of both parties in the future and the consequences in the event of significant differences (see EUROPE 12632/10).
While the EU and London have undertaken to seriously examine the possibility of establishing a link between the two systems through the conclusion of an agreement which, according to the Commission, “is to be negotiated separately in the future and where the EU parliament will have to give its consent”, the institution did not provide more details at this stage.
“ What happens if plan A (...) is not working and we end up in 3 or 6 months with real divergences of prices between the UK (carbon) market and the EU market”, Mr Canfin wondered.
Following in his footsteps, Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Netherlands) expressed concern that the post-Brexit agreement does not mention the fact that the EU may soon extend its carbon pricing system (ETS) to the maritime sector. “What impact does that have if the UK is not doing so as well?”, he then asked.
In addition, the Dutchman questioned the Commission on the concrete meaning of the “rebalancing measures” and the “non-regression clause” provided for in the agreement. While the former are intended to address significant impacts on trade or investment between the Parties resulting from differences, in particular on environmental or climate issues, the latter are intended to ensure the commitment of both Parties to at least maintain the level of climate protection in force from 31 December 2020.
The Commission, for its part, argued that the current analysis of the new UK carbon pricing scheme shows that it is “pretty much in line” with that of the EU, as the “activities covered are the same”.
It further stressed that the agreement “contains strong binding and enforceable safeguards to ensure that the level of climate protection will be maintained as the UK has agreed to a non regression principle” which applies in particular to carbon pricing.
Judging the Commission’s answers as “very poor”, Mr Canfin finally said he would ask to send the MEPs’ questions in writing to the Commission and to Michel Barnier, the EU negotiator for the future relationship with the UK.
Energy
On the energy front, many MEPs’ questions have also remained unanswered at this stage, notably on nuclear power.
Greens/EFA MEPs Jutta Paulus (Germany) and Ciarán Cuffe (Ireland) both expressed their fears that more and more electricity from British nuclear power stations would be “transported to the other side of the Channel”.
Ms Paulus also regretted that the related agreement on the safety and peaceful use of nuclear energy was concluded within the framework of Euratom, which deprives the Parliament of any power over this agreement.
For his part, Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR, Poland) discussed how to put the principle of energy solidarity into practice in a crisis situation and the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU’s internal energy market on energy prices. While the Commission says it believes that energy trade between the parties will now be less efficient, it has not yet provided a quantified estimate of the impact on prices.
Finally, the question by Morten Petersen (Renew Europe, Denmark) on the functioning and composition of the specialised committee in the field of energy and the role of the European Parliament vis-à-vis this committee also remained unanswered. (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)