Commission's Energy Roadmap 2050 - What Direction for EU's Climate Change Policy?
On 15 December 2011, the European Commission published its “Energy Roadmap 2050” in the form of a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.(1) The Roadmap should be read in light of the fourth meeting of the Advisory Group on Energy Roadmap 2050 whose minutes were published on DG ENER’s website on 16 January 2012.(2)
In the Roadmap, the Commission confirms EU’s 2050 commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95% compared to 1990 levels.(3) It also outlines five decarbonisation scenarios: (i) a high level of energy efficiency; (ii) diversification in the supply technologies; (iii) a high share of renewable energy sources in gross final consumption of energy; (iv) delayed Carbon Capture and Storage (‘CCS’); and (v) a low level of nuclear energy.(4)
In all decarbonisation scenarios, the Commission calls for “very significant energy savings”. More concretely, the Roadmap aims at a 32 to 41% energy efficiency increase by 2050 based on 2005-2006 levels.(5) This demanding energy efficiency target for 2050 can be contrasted with the pessimistic observations which Philip Lowe (Director-General for Energy at the European Commission) formulated at the Roundtable on “The Future of the European Energy Policy, Energy Efficiency and European Energy Independence” that took place on 14 September 2011 at the European Economic and Social Committee in Brussels.(6) Philip Lowe argued on that occasion that, although the EU was well on its way in achieving the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target and renewable energy targets, it was still stagnating with respect to its 2020 20% energy efficiency objective. Philip Lowe underlined that Member States were very much opposed to the idea of having binding targets formally imposed upon them in the field of energy efficiency: they would instead mark a strong preference for indicative targets.(7) Philip Lowe also pointed out that only 4% of small companies and 20% of large corporations established in the Union would already have a policy on energy efficiency.
The Commission also calls for the share of renewable energy to reach 55% of the Union’s gross final consumption of energy by 2050.(8) As regards renewable electricity more specifically, the Commission, in two of its decarbonisation scenarios, calls for a share of 60-65% and of 97% of renewable energy sources in the gross final consumption of electricity to be reached by 2050.(9) The Roadmap insists on the essential role of renewable heating and cooling in the Union’s move towards decarbonisation: the Commission urges for energy consumption to be directed at “low carbon and locally produced energy sources (including heat pumps and storage heaters) and renewable energy (e.g., solar heating, geothermal, biogas, biomass)”.(10) In the transport sector, the Commission points to a mixture of alternative fuels as a necessary substitute for oil, biofuels remaining the most viable alternative to oil for aircrafts, long-distance road transport, and railways (when they cannot turn to electricity). The biofuels relied upon ought to be sustainable: they must help diminish demand for food production land and improve the level of net greenhouse gas savings.(11)
Stimulation of local production of renewable energy presupposes the emergence of smarter distribution grids with a view to accommodating variable generation from multiple sources of distribution (e.g., solar photovoltaic) and a growing demand for renewable energy.(12)
The Commission, in its Roadmap, is realistic about the fact that public support schemes, in particular in the form of energy subsidies, will still be needed after 2020 in order to further stimulate green technologies. These support schemes ought to be specific in their scope, foreseeable and proportionate. They should be suppressed once the underlying “market failures are resolved” and the maturation of these technologies arrived at.(13)
As regards the future of CCS, the Roadmap suggests that it is contingent on its acceptance by the public and on the adequacy of carbon prices. CCS, if deployed by 2020 and widely used by 2030, is expected to have a significant impact on the decarbonisation of many heavy industrial infrastructures. The combination of CCS and of biomass could result in “carbon negative values”.(14)
The Roadmap’s proposed energy system presupposes the achievement of a “fully integrated market” for 2014,(15) the definition of “2030 milestones” for the promotion of renewable energy sources, more consistency with a common approach to international energy policy, and a substantial increase in energy efficiency (amongst other factors).(16)
Philip Lowe at the fourth meeting of the Advisory Group on Energy Roadmap 2050 and the Commission as a whole through its Roadmap have announced that their next priority would be the elaboration of a 2030 energy policy framework.(17)
[1] European Commission, “Energy Roadmap 2050”, COM(2011) 885/2, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/com_2011_8852_en.pdf
[2] Minutes of the fourth meeting of the Advisory Group on Energy Roadmap 2050, Brussels, 12 December 2011: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/energy_roadmap2050_advisory_group_minutes_2011_12_12.pdf
[3] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 2.
[4] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 4.
[5] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 7.
[7] This position is somewhat reflected in the Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on Energy Efficiency formally issued in June 2011. This generic Directive, if adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, would refrain from imposing binding national targets in the implementation of EU’s 2020 20% energy efficiency target. Instead, Member States would have to fix in advance indicative national energy efficiency targets in the form of absolute levels of primary energy consumption (i.e., gross inland consumption) in 2020. The Commission would have to determine by 30 June 2014 whether the EU is capable of reaching its 20% energy efficiency target. If not, the Commission may want to propose another EU legislative act that would make national energy efficiency targets formally binding upon Member States: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, COM(2011) 370 final, Brussels, 22 June 2011 (Article 3).
[8] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 7.
[9] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 6-7.
[10] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 11.
[11] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 11.
[12] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 15.
[13] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 17.
[14] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 12.
[15] In order to help foster an EU integrated energy market, the European Economic and Social Committee (an advisory and interinstitutional body of the EU in charge of representing employers, employees and civil society more generally) has been in favour of instituting a “European Energy Community” so as to promote a “joint approach to energy production, transmission and consumption”. This would start with the establishment of “regional energy blocks” where Member States and operators would have the opportunity to align their strategic positions concerning network development and energy mix. See Press Release of 18 January 2012, CES/12/2:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=CES/12/2&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
[16] Energy Roadmap 2050, pp. 19-20.
[17] Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 20.
If Not Yucca, where?
There has been vigorous debate on the future of nuclear energy both domestically and abroad since Japan’s earthquake and tsunami. Regardless of whether the Japan crisis tempers supports for nuclear energy, U.S. policy makers will have to confront the challenges posed by the management and disposal of nuclear waste. Japan’s nuclear crisis could spur new momentum for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository due to heightened concerns among the pubic and politicians related to the current storage of spent fuel at U.S. nuclear power plants. Currently, the majority of nuclear waste is stored at cooling pools that are similar to those at the Fukushima Daiichi facility in Japan, and this fact is sparking debate on the safety of these pools.
In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) that established the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management within the DOE and charged it with identifying a deep geological repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. In 1987, Congress amended the NWPA to restrict DOE’s repository site studies to Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Prior to leaving office, the Bush Administration submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a license approval for the Yucca Mountain site. Last year, the Obama Administration withdrew that license application, arguing that “Yucca Mountain is not a workable option.” Instead, the Obama Administration appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission to study alternatives to Yucca Mountain for managing and disposing of nuclear waste.
Prior to Japan’s earthquake and tsunami, the decision to close Yucca Mountain already faced significant bipartisan opposition that included notable Democrats like Senator Patty Murray (WA) and Representative Norm Dicks (WA), the Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee. Concerns over the current storage of spent fuel in on-site pools could cause other lawmakers to reconsider their opposition to using Yucca Mountain as a long-term storage repository. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals also heard oral arguments this week in a lawsuit by industry and several states challenging the Obama Administration’s decision to close Yucca Mountain.
It has been nearly 30 years since Congress first called for the establishment of a long-term repository for nuclear waste, yet continued political opposition and parochial concerns have kept the federal government from meeting this goal. In the wake of the Japan crisis, the Obama Administration will face increased pressure to defend its decision to close Yucca Mountain and articulate a viable alternative for managing and disposing of our nation’s nuclear waste. Simply appointing a Blue Ribbon Commission to study and report on the issue will no longer be sufficient unless the Administration demonstrates that it is serious about addressing long-term disposal issues.
Support for nuclear persists but will the Japanese crisis instead kill negotiations over a clean energy standard?
Amidst the unfolding nuclear crisis in Japan, the Obama Administration and key Congressional leaders continue to express their support for nuclear energy. Energy Secretary Steven Chu testified this week that the Administration opposes a halt in licensing for nuclear plants, and he also reiterated support for the White House’s budget request of $36 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. At a National Energy Resources Organization luncheon, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Ranking Member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, stated that it is “too premature to suggest the nuclear renaissance is dead.” Other key Congressional leaders, including House Energy and Natural Resources Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), have issued statements over the past several days signaling their continuing support for nuclear energy.
These statements suggest that the political support on Capitol Hill is unlikely to erode for nuclear. That being said, opposition among environmentalists to nuclear expansion will undoubtedly increase over the coming weeks and months. Such opposition poses significant political hurdles for any chance that the Senate could pass legislation establishing a clean energy standard (CES). This proposal also faces political challenges due to concerns regarding the standard’s potential effect of electricity rates and ideological opposition among conservatives to anything resembling a federal mandate. Support among even moderate Senate Republicans for a CES remains questionable with key Republicans, such as Murkowski and Senator Richard Lugar (IN), declining thus far to support President Obama’s proposal. Environmental groups were already less than thrilled by President Obama’s inclusion of nuclear, along with clean coal, as part of eligible resources in a CES, and the Japan crisis would seem to confirm to them the danger of promoting nuclear energy.
In her remarks yesterday, Senator Murkowski stated that it is hard to see a CES moving that does not include nuclear. Senator Murkowski’s comments likely reflect what will be necessary to get a least several Republicans signed on. Without environmentalists onboard, it is difficult, however, to see how a CES gains support among Senate Democrats necessary to pass.
