Paying a high price for energy infrastructure

The Commission’s list of potential infrastructure projects could lead to environmental damage.

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

Few would disagree that in order for Europe to move towards a sustainable, low-carbon energy system, Europe needs to invest in its energy infrastructure. This makes it all the more worrying that a list of projects considered to be contributing to this objective is being rushed through by the European Commission, disregarding principles of transparency, public consultation and participation, and existing environmental legislation. As a result, highly controversial projects have made it on a draft list that is currently being prepared for adoption by the Commission.

This could have easily been avoided. The regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure (TEN-E regulation), adopted earlier this year, sets out an improved and streamlined policy and legal framework to optimise energy network development at the European level by 2020 and beyond. It aims to ensure open and transparent dialogue to enhance public trust in and acceptance of the installations as well as support full compliance with EU environmental legislation.

It foresees the identification of ‘projects of common interest’ (PCIs), which will be considered as essential for the EU and as such entitled to preferential treatment in member states, including faster and more efficient permitting procedures, and under certain conditions being eligible for European subsidies. The European Commission, having recently received the political support of most member states, is now finalising the first list of PCIs. This represents a crucial first step in developing the energy network.

The Commission has, however, taken a rushed and non-transparent approach to selecting these projects. This is highly problematic for a number of reasons, but could also prove counter-productive in terms of improving public acceptability and accelerating delivery of essential infrastructure. It seems that at least some member states have taken advantage of the situation to put forward environmentally questionable projects, which face fierce local opposition and might not stand up to the scrutiny required under environmental law. Examples of such projects, some of which have already been challenged before different courts of law, are hydro-pumped storage in the Austrian Kaunertal and liquid natural gas terminals located near Paldiski in Estonia, between Tarbert and Ballylongford in Ireland, and in the Italian part of the northern Adriatic (Zaule). The Commission has a duty to ensure that regard is given to the need to protect the environment when developing and implementing the EU’s energy policy, which includes the preparation of the PCI list.

As well as such controversial projects being on the list, several other proposed projects are at such an immature stage that no details on their development can be given. It is impossible to ascertain whether such projects are necessary from an energy policy perspective. Awarding the PCI status to such projects, and thus labelling them as being in the public interest and eligible for EU funding, and later on, when it is established that they are not feasible nor necessary, take away their status, not only seems to run counter to the TEN-E regulation, but also does not appear to be an efficient use of EU money.

Lack of transparency in the selection process aggravates the situation. Environmental stakeholders were invited to participate only very late in the process, when it was no longer possible to substantively inform and contribute to the process. In addition, the little information that was provided about candidate projects was not sufficient to explain whether the criteria for the PCIs were indeed fulfilled.

The Commission is planning to adopt the first PCI list in early October, and still has time to uphold the TEN-E and Aarhus Convention legal requirements and restore the legitimacy of and public confidence in the process. It is only by doing this that the Commission can avoid the controversy over a few listed projects to taint the projects that truly deserve to be labelled as being in the interest of European citizens as well as a black-out of the sustainability objective of the EU’s energy policy.

Martina Mlinaric is senior policy officer – biodiversity, water and soil at the European Environmental Bureau.