By highlighting the European Union’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels, Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine is forcing the EU to rethink its energy system. In the European Parliament, some political groups are changing their positions in ways that would have been unimaginable a few weeks ago, in the middle of negotiations on the ‘Fit for 55 package’.
This is particularly the case for the EPP. On Thursday 3 March, the political group announced that it wants to raise the target for renewable energy in the EU’s gross final energy consumption to 45% by 2030 (compared to 40% in the Commission’s original proposal - see EUROPE 12762/8), subject to confirmation by impact assessments by the Parliament and the European Commission.
“The Russian invasion of Ukraine calls for a reshaping of our European energy policy. We need now an accelerated expansion of renewable sources of energy to bring about energy autonomy and security in Europe”, explained Markus Pieper (EPP, Germany), the Parliament’s rapporteur for the revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (2018/2001) (RED II).
This is a substantial change to his draft report tabled in mid-February (see EUROPE 12891/5).
“My amendments (to the Commission’s proposal) were tabled prior to the war (...), but the attack by Russia is a wake-up call for energy policy”, Mr Pieper also said on Thursday when presenting his draft report to the Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE).
While the shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups mostly welcomed the increased ambition, the S&D, Renew Europe, Greens/EFA and The Left groups all criticised the proposal to extend the scope of the RED II directive to “low carbon” energy.
“Let's be more ambitious, but let's not take the wrong course. This is about promoting only renewables, not other types of fuel”, said Nicolás González Casares (S&D, Spain).
Christophe Grudler (Renew Europe, France), Ville Niinistö (Greens/EFA, Finland) and Sira Rego (The Left, Spain) all agreed.
“RED should focus solely on its purpose: renewable energies”, said Mr Grudler, while recalling that there is already a specific text proposal for the gas package (see EUROPE 12854/11).
Criticising Mr Pieper’s proposal to develop a strategy for importing non-biological renewable fuels and low-carbon hydrogen, the Frenchman also stressed the need to “limit all forms of energy imports, whether they are produced from fossil sources, notably from Mr Putin, or whether they are produced from renewable sources”.
Mr Niinistö added that the EU’s 2030 renewable energy target could even be increased to 51%, according to an “expert analysis” commissioned by the group and to be published in the coming weeks.
For her part, Ms Rego expressed her desire to make all the targets set for Member States and sectors binding.
Enhancing energy efficiency
But the RED II directive is not the only piece of legislation in the ‘Fit for 55’ package where negotiations could be affected by the war in Ukraine.
“I think there will be further impacts on all the measures that can push us away from dependence on Russian gas and oil, including the revision of the Energy Efficiency Directive, the revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (see EUROPE 12854/13), the revision of CO2 standards for new cars and vans (see EUROPE 12869/11) and, of course, Taxonomy (a dossier that is not part of the ‘Fit for 55’ – see EUROPE 12882/1)”, a Parliament source told us.
When presenting his draft report to the ITRE Committee, the Parliament’s rapporteur on the revision of the Energy Efficiency Directive (2018/2002), Niels Fuglsang (S&D, Denmark), began his speech by stressing the need for the EU to move away from energy dependence on Russia.
“We need to increase energy efficiency. We need to save energy to become less dependent on Russian energy, but, of course, also to mitigate climate change and to save on energy bills”, he said.
In his draft report, Mr Fuglsang proposes to increase the EU’s energy efficiency target to at least 43% for final energy consumption and 45.5% for primary energy consumption by 2030 (see EUROPE 12894/6).
Peter Liese, the EPP group coordinator in the Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), called for an increase in the target comparable to that proposed by his colleague Markus Pieper for renewable energy.
“We need to become more independent as soon as possible (...) In the medium and long term, the expansion of renewable energies and more energy efficiency is the only right solution”, the statement said.
The Renew Europe group’s shadow rapporteur on the dossier, Nicola Danti (Italy), said that the target proposed by Mr Fuglsang was unrealistic.
While the Greens/EFA shadow rapporteur Jutta Paulus (Germany) welcomed the rapporteur’s proposal to make energy efficiency targets binding on Member States, she said that “the current crisis requires us to be even more ambitious”.
She added: “Each additional percentage in energy efficiency saves us 2.6% of gas imports”.
Towards a rejection of the list of PCIs?
The Russian invasion of Ukraine could also have consequences for the Parliament’s vote on the delegated act establishing the fifth list of priority cross-border energy infrastructure projects in the EU, known as ‘projects of common interest’ (PCIs), as it contains gas projects.
While the ITRE Committee did not oppose the adoption of the list (see EUROPE 12883/31), a request to reject the delegated act will be put to the vote in the Parliament’s plenary session on Wednesday 9 March, and may meet with more support than in ITRE.
This will be the Parliament’s first formal decision on energy issues since the start of the war in Ukraine, said ENVI Committee Chair Pascal Canfin (Renew Europe, France) on Thursday in an online press briefing.
In his view, MEPs should reject the delegated act for two reasons.
The first is that the list “does not take into account the Green Deal and climate issues at all, since the test of coherence between these projects and the Climate Law has not been carried out”.
The second, geopolitical, is that the list contains projects that in no way “free us from our dependence on Russian gas”.
“The situation has changed, so the list must change”, summarised Mr Canfin.
See the objection proposal: https://aeur.eu/f/md (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)