In search of warmth without worry

Two MEPs consider the future of EU energy policy

Saving energy: it’s a no-brainer; you shouldn’t even need half a brain to recognise that it makes sense.

Concerned about CO2 emissions leading to global warming? Save energy and produce less of the gas. Anxious about Europe’s energy security? Save energy so foreign sources become less important. Want to cut bills and increase profits? Save energy.

It’s simple stuff. The technology is already there so all that should be needed is for industry and householders to make the calculation. How long will it take to get a payback on the investment? Sometimes the results can be spectacular and in almost all cases the return by way of savings in energy costs is likely to prove better than any bank interest rate.

Yet progress is painfully slow. The EU is aiming to achieve 20% energy savings by 2020. It’s hardly an ambitious goal but should there even be a need to set targets? Surely member states should be falling over themselves in their rush to cut energy bills? But most of us still seem determined to allow the hot air we produce to escape. Maybe the aim is to keep the birds and the fish warm because no-one else benefits!

Making good use of the waste heat from power generation can more than double the energy output. Back in 1981 the UK government invited major cities to compete to become the first in Britain to develop Combined Heat and Power (CHP) on a large scale and I became chairman of Liverpool City Council’s working party. It came to nothing; the government let the idea fall by the wayside. "What a wasted opportunity," I reflected as I stood in a Helsinki street earlier this year looking through an inspection hatch at the maze of hot water pipes running beneath the pavement. How different the situation might be in my country if we had used the last 26 years to develop CHP networks with the same ease that cable television came to our towns. We have a lot of catching up to do.

Huge potential for greater energy efficiency lies within the buildings sector. It accounts for 40% of EU energy requirements and research suggests that savings of one-fifth could be achieved within five years. Such legislation as we have, the energy performance of buildings directive for example, does not go far. There are subsidiarity issues here and member states should be setting their own standards in building regulations, but energy audits of all leased properties should become mandatory, with landlords required to inform their tenants annually of the savings that could be achieved if one or the other took action to improve energy efficiency. We already label the energy efficiency of some household appliances, why should it not be mandatory information for all property transactions?

Private householders could make a big difference but improved arrangements are needed if the gains are to be realised on the scale required. I set a very poor example myself. I have not yet had an energy audit of my home. The stone walls of my house rule out cavity insulation and I already have double glazing and roof insulation, but I can imagine the need for better draught proofing, changes in light fittings, the possible installation of a heat pump to send warm air near the roof back to the ground floor and a more efficient hot water boiler.

The money isn’t really a problem, it’s just that I can’t find the time to organise these things. What I need, like millions of other people, is a one-stop shop that will tell me what should be done and that will find me trustworthy tradesmen to do the work at a reasonable price. There is a vast business opportunity here for energy service companies, but there is also a need for public sector involvement to provide consumer information and regulation to guarantee standards.

• UK Liberal Democrat Chris Davies is a member of the European Parliament’s committee on environment, public health and food safety.

The question of energy efficiency must be tackled urgently and not just because of exploding energy prices caused by diminishing resources, the problems of realising the Kyoto Protocol and an insecure supply.

What really hinders the achievement of a cost- and energy-efficient policy is the lack of incentives, a lack of information and a lack of suitable financial instruments.

The Commission’s Green Paper on Energy suggests numerous measures. They range from tax steering measures, incentives in the field of procurement and financial support funds to measures of a planned economy such as intensified application of existing guidelines and additional publicity campaigns.

The three energy targets of the Green Paper - environmental impact, competitiveness and security of supply - have to be given equal importance. While we cannot ignore the importance of climate issues in Europe, the recent gas dispute in Ukraine has shown that we cannot continue focusing solely on climate protection, as this means neglecting the importance of security of supply, which is the motor of prosperity in the European Union. Moreover an energy policy which only takes climate protection into consideration would easily consume €100 billion by 2020; not to mention that the exclusive use of renewables could lead to bottlenecks in the energy supply.

Furthermore, the EU should adapt to an internal energy policy by making as many energy resources available as possible. Regional, climatic and geographic particularities within Europe show that setting one objective or one target for sustaining renewables for the whole of Europe cannot be the solution. We should not dictate the energy mix to member states but should open our minds to an unbiased debate on energy resources completely free of ideology. Emotional discussions do not help to evaluate a balanced EU energy market. Formerly doomed putatively environment-damaging energy resources such as coal and lignite should be seen in a more innovative context. By means of new carbon-free technology these energy resources should find a stable and important position within Europe’s energy mix. Similarly, we cannot afford to neglect nuclear power. Nuclear energy has to be taken into account because of its availability, its technological future and its environmental advantages.

As an example, let us look at the energy situation from a German point of view. In 15 years, when Germany’s envisaged end to the use of nuclear power and the dismantling of nuclear power plants materialises, half the energy currently produced by Germany as a whole, will be lost. There will be a gap of 60 gigawatts which as yet no one knows how to fill. On top of that Germany would have to face costs of up to €86 billion. If, however, we decided to postpone the abandonment of the use of nuclear power by a further 60 years and supported a common European energy market, we would only have to face costs of €68bn.

In today’s dynamically changing energy markets, it is vital for the EU to broaden its competency. The question of how to do this is more difficult to answer.

The Commission is considering the creation of a European regulator but has been met with opposition from all sides. From my point of view a European regulator as an independent authority is neither realistic nor enforceable. Instead, we should ask for an alternative model and evaluate how we can improve the already existing structure of national regulators. My proposal would be first to set minimum standards in order to make competency and equipment compatible and secondly to enhance and intensify co-operation.

The Commission is also thinking about a new centre of energy networks for co-operation and transparency reasons. I am critical of the establishment of new institutions. Of course, adapting networks and organising co-operation is necessary for the EU’s energy market. But instead of building up a centre of energy networks, the Union’s first step should be to enhance the number of interconnections and implement a grid code. The EU should also support investment in regional networks behind the interconnection.

If answers can be found to the questions posed we could make headway towards a real EU-wide energy strategy.

• German Christian Democrat Herbert Reul is a member of the European Parliament’s committee on industry, research and energy.

Two MEPs consider the future of EU energy policy

• Primary Source