Understanding the European Council deal on Energy and Climate From 2030 to TwentyDirty
Key points: . This is much more a TwentyDirty deal than a 2030 deal. . The European Parliament should exploit all legal and political means to reject the idea introduced by Heads of States to get veto power over co-decision notably in the fields of energy efficiency, interconnections. . The European Parliament and the new EU Commission should dismiss and largely ignore this scandalously weak outcome imposed by Poland, UK but also France and move forward with progressive and responsible legislative proposals on a high efficiency, high renewables, and high interconnectivity EU energy union. . The proposed levels of ambition on renewables and energy efficiency are ridiculously low. But even the worst political decisions cannot stop technological progress and developments in favour of renewables and energy efficiency.
The latest version of the draft conclusions of the Council on energy and climate, as accessed on 23 October 2014, puts into question the whole credibility of the 2030 climate and energy Policy Framework through the following elements. 1. Decision-making process: unacceptable institutional putsch against Commission and Parliament
"Substantial progress has been made towards the attainment of the EU targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction, renewable energy and energy efficiency, which need to be fully met by 2020. (...) The European Council will keep all the elements of the framework under review and will continue to give strategic orientations as appropriate, notably with respect to consensus on ETS, non-ETS, interconnections and energy efficiency".
The new provisions intend to keep under review of the European Council all elements related to non-ETS greenhouse gases emissions reductions, interconnections, and energy efficiency. This represents an institutional coup undermining European Commission's right of initiative as well as side-lining the European Parliament. This coup was organised by Poland and the UK, with the support of France: while the UK secures its right to veto any ambition on energy efficiency (energy efficiency being an EU answer to Putin's blackmail), Poland secures a veto on ETS, and France secures a veto on interconnections. This means that the Energy Union is dead before it is born. The Greens will work with the President of the European
Parliament, Martin Schulz, and other political groups to revert this putsch against co-decision and defend the rights of the European Parliament. The only positive sentence is the one making it clear that EU 2020 targets must be fully met, hereby rejecting British and Polish attempts to undermine the 2020 legislative framework already in place. This means that existing ambitions on renewables and energy efficiency will be fully implemented and contribute within the next five years to the energy transition and fight climate change. 2. Free allocations and ETS revenues: multiple gifts to Polish coal
"Member States with a GDP per capita below 60% of the EU average may opt to continue to give free allowances to the energy sector (...). A new reserve of 2% of the EU ETS allowances will be set aside to address particularly high additional investment needs in low income Member States (GDP per capita below 60% of the EU average). (...) The reserve will serve to establish a fund which will be managed by the beneficiary Member States (...)".
These provisions represent another gift to Poland through the continuation of free allocation of GHG emission credits to its dirty coal-based electricity generation system. All the rhetoric about a functioning internal market is vain if Visegrad countries' power plants get an unfair competitive advantage over power producers in other EU countries. Another gift to Poland are the provisions making sure the management of the fund gathering the several hundred thousand millions worth extra 2% ETS revenues would not comply with CCS or environmental criteria for coal power plants unless the European Investment Bank is maintained in the game, something to be checked in the future.
How can Western EU countries accept that money taken from their emission credits is awarded to Poland to take measures aggravating the climate change problem? 3. Renewables and efficiency: ridiculously low EU ambitions, the beginning of national policies on efficiency and renewables
"An EU target of at least 27% is set for the share of renewable energy consumed in the EU in 2030. This target will be binding at EU level. It will be fulfilled through Member States contributions guided by the need to deliver collectively the EU target without preventing Member States from setting their own more ambitious national targets (...) An indicative target at the EU level of at least 27% is set for improving energy efficiency in 2030 compared to projections of future energy consumption based on the current criteria".
The deal shows a 27% target on energy efficiency and a 27% on renewable energy sources. Such weak objectives, if eventually achieved, mean the following. 
These objectives represent a huge slowdown for renewables, resulting in halving the effort compared to current pace to 2020 in a moment were wind and large-scale PV are much cheaper.

These objectives represent a completely scandalous halting of all energy efficiency efforts beyond 2020. This is definitely a major victory for Putin, as a 40% efficiency target would have reduced EU gas imports by more than 40% (more than the whole Russian gas imports). De facto,
Cameron and EU Heads of States are helping Putin to continue his leverage on EU foreign policy. This scam outlines a rarely seen contradiction between the need of a strong EU "speaking with one voice" and the decision to abandon the most promising instrument to halt Putin's gas weapon. 
These objectives, "not to be translated into nationally binding targets" are the result of an obvious deal between Merkel and Cameron. On the one hand, the sole element Merkel was interested in is to guarantee the freedom to develop renewables in Germany as Germany wishes. In order to follow this purely national approach, she gives up the possibility of a consistent EU policy on renewables and energy efficiency and she accepts to destroy the likelihood of a strong convergence of EU energy policy after 2020.
Finally, these conclusions from the European Council are a major blow to the idea of an Energy Union based on three options: efficiency, renewables, interconnection. They will probably force countries in favour of renewables and energy efficiency to go for enhanced cooperation at macroregional level, a tendency which will further fragilise the EU internal market.
4. Governance: a cynic approach
"The European Council recalls its goal to build an Energy Union aiming at affordable, secure and sustainable energy, as stated in its Strategic Agenda, and will keep the implementation of this goal under regular review."
This sentence is the most counter-factual and cynical in the whole conclusions. However even the worst political decisions will not stop technological development and social progress. If the EU doesn't move forward, citizens, regions, cities and Member States will take the lead and create "enhanced cooperation" and possibly new treaties to promote energy efficiency, renewables, and interconnections.
5. Winners and losers Winners: Putin, Magritte Group, Business Europe, Cameron Losers: Citizens, Parliament, Climate
Brussels, 24 October 2014 Claude Turmes, Member of the European Parliament Contact: +352 691 504 290