Memorandum by Mr Giles Chichester MEP
1. QUESTION 1
1.1 Both the 20% EU (European Union) and
15% UK (United Kingdom) targets for the renewable energy share
of final energy supply are extremely ambitious. They are only
achievable by 2020 if money is no object and planning constraints
are set aside. Nor is past performance encouraging that burden
sharing will succeed.
2. QUESTION 2
2.1 These proposals are coherent in the
context of two of the three pillars of EU energy policy, namely
security of supply and sustainability. The third energy package,
not to be confused with the more recent climate and energy package,
should, if anything, improve the prospect of achieving the targets
by making energy markets more open, flexible and competitive.
3. QUESTION 3
3.1 By definition renewable energy is an
internal resource, so in theory, the greater share of final energy
it provides the less dependence on imported fuels. However current
rates of increase in renewable energy supplies are not fast enough
or great enough to make a significant difference.
4. QUESTION 4
4.1 There does not appear to be much evidence
to show what effect 2007/77/EC has had on encouraging grid access
for renewable energy generators. National policies and fundamental
factors such as cost and engineering feasibility remain dominant.
5. QUESTION 5
5.1 Considerable.
6. QUESTION 6
6.1 Use of system charging and priority
access are obviously factors but probably feed in tariffs and
generous support schemes can over-ride difficulties.
7. QUESTION 7
7.1 Probably not much impact but this is
a question better answered by TSOs (Transmission System Operators).
8. QUESTION 8
8.1 Further co-ordination of NRAs (National
Regulatory Authorities) is desirable in the overall context of
consistent, even-handed regulation of energy markets to promote
competition and efficiency but in the context of 27 MS (Member
States) operating different support schemes for renewables it
is a moot point whether it would be better to leave well alone
or push for full harmonisation.
9. QUESTION 9
9.1 Difficult to quantify by comparison
with cost factors but the European Commission has identified administrative
obstacles as a barrier to be overcome along with inadequate distribution
channels, inappropriate building codes and lack of market information.
10. QUESTION
10
10.1 Interestingly the European Commission
has identified four reasons why it is currently inappropriate
to harmonise. First because different instruments or schemes have
the same economic efficiency and can be designed in conformity
with existing internal market rules.
10.2 Second because imposing one harmonised
system would create disruption and short-term uncertainty in the
market for renewables, especially where it involves abolishing
existing well-established schemes.
10.3 Third because of the difficulty in
differentiating between the costs of different techniques in different
MS which might discriminate against fledging technologies.
10.4 Fourth because national support schemes
are often designed to promote regional development in one member
state which might not be appropriate in another.
11. QUESTION
11
11.1 Clearly schemes must have had a positive
impact as demonstrated by the increases in renewables share of
final energy. However, results are patchy and it seems difficult
to identify a successful formula although feed in tariffs have
helped for some technologies in some countries.
12. QUESTION
12
12.1 This question invites the counter question
of which cross-border markets had you in mind? At present the
challenge and the obstacles are essentially at the MS level. Once
the renewables have been converted into electricity then it becomes
a matter of physical energy flows across borders which are subject
to congestion or capacity constraints and relative pricing, ie
matters the third energy package seeks to address.
13. QUESTION
13
13.1 Not, provided benchmarking or mutual
recognition of standards are in place.
14. FINAL THOUGHT
14.1 I believe we are at risk of mistaking
the end with the means as well as pre-judging which solution is
appropriate to our climate change challenge. If the objective
is a low carbon economy as characterised by a 60 2050 objective,
ie 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, why do we
close off our options by focussing on 20 20 20, or 20% share of
final energy from renewables by 2020.
14.2 This seems to me a case of missing
the wood for the trees. Set the ultimate target and challenge
the MS to meet it, leaving how to them to decide.
14.3 Personally I liked 60 20 20 when I
proposed it back in 2005, 60% of electricity from ultra low carbon
emitting technologies by 2020 ie 20% renewables 40% nuclear.
21 April 2008
| 
