The Council of the European Union has come under fire since the political agreement (‘general approach’) on the revision of the EU regulation (347/2013) on Trans-European energy networks (TEN-E), reached on Friday 11 June, during a meeting of the Member States’ Energy Ministers.
Environmental NGOs, but also other stakeholders, are particularly critical of the introduction of a transitional period for existing gas assets retrofitted to transport a predefined mix of hydrogen with natural gas or biomethane, known as ‘blending’ (see EUROPE 12739/1). This provision was not included in the European Commission’s original proposal (see EUROPE 12623/3, 12618/9).
According to the EU Council’s general approach, cross-border energy infrastructure projects linked to ‘blending’ could be eligible until 31 December 2029 for ‘project of common interest’ (PCI) status, allowing them to potentially benefit from European funding.
In order to reach an agreement (eleven Member States were particularly opposed to this idea - see EUROPE 12731/9), the EU Council nevertheless decided to set 31 December 2027, which corresponds to the end of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027, as the deadline for financing these projects.
Far from being convinced by this compromise, Elisa Giannelli, a member of the think tank E3G, described the EU Council’s position as “extremely short-sighted”. “There is no room for temporary solutions, especially not temporary solutions requiring and diverting public subsidies”, she told EUROPE.
In a statement issued together with six other NGOs (https://bit.ly/3gmtNBB ), CAN Europe also criticised the general approach. According to these organisations, it is likely that fossil gas will continue to dominate new projects given the lack of definition of the percentages of each gas that can be transported and given the significantly higher costs of producing and transporting hydrogen.
Another criticism concerns the part of the text dealing with electrolysers and smart gas networks. “The final text emphasised renewable energy sources, but still includes many references to ‘low carbon’”, said Ms Giannelli. For her, this “is confusing” and is “inconsistent” with the EU’s climate objectives.
Speaking on Twitter following the announcement of the agreement, Luxembourg’s Minister for Energy and Spatial Planning, Claudes Turmes, said that there was still “too much uncertainty” on the issue of ‘blending’.
“This is why Germany, Spain, Austria and Luxembourg could not support the general approach”, he said, calling on the European Parliament to “improve the text”.
The latter has not yet decided on its position. According to our information, negotiations between the different political groups to reach compromise amendments on the draft report by Polish MEP Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR) are relatively slow (see EUROPE 12697/14). (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)