1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Something for everyone? The European Commission’s Winter “Clean Energy” Package on Energy Union (November 2016)

On 30 November 2016, the European Commission officially unveiled the latest instalment of its ongoing Energy Union initiative, which will reform some of the central pieces of EU energy legislation.  Referred to in advance as the “Winter Package” (not to be confused with the rather more limited package released in February 2016), it has been published as the “Clean Energy for all Europeans” proposals and is the most significant series of proposals yet to emerge under the Commission’s “Energy Union” brand.  It will have far-reaching implications within and potentially beyond the existing EU single energy market.

There is a lot to consider in these proposals, and we will return to some of the issues they raise in more depth and from other perspectives in future posts. What follows is an overview and some initial thoughts from a predominantly UK-based viewpoint.

Important though it is, many of the Winter Package’s proposed reforms are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.  Some could even be criticised for lacking ambition.  The Commission’s proposals certainly provide opportunities for newer technologies such as storage and demand side response and for those seeking to make use of newer commercial models such as aggregation or community energy schemes, but all these groups are still likely to need to work hard in many cases to exploit the leverage that the new rules would give them.  It is interesting that what has been picked up most in early news reports of the Winter Package is the Commission’s move to end subsidies for coal-fired plant.  This is a significant step, but it is only one part of a complex and multi-layered set of draft legislative measures, and is one of the few instances in those measures of a provision that overtly tilts the playing field in favour of or against a particular technology in a new way.

The story so far

Let’s begin by reminding ourselves what Energy Union is about. The project is said to have five “dimensions”.  These are:

  • Security, solidarity & trust: the buzz-words are “diversification of supply” and “co-operation between Member States” – all informed by anxieties about over-dependence on Russian gas.
  • A fully-integrated internal energy market: going beyond the 2009 “Third Package” of gas and electricity market liberalisation measures (and their ongoing implementation through the promulgation of network codes) to achieve genuine EU-wide single gas and power markets.
  • Energy efficiency: using less energy can be hard, but it is the best way to meet environmental objectives and it can also be a significant source of new jobs and economic growth.
  • Climate action – decarbonising the economy: signing and ratifying the Paris CoP21 Agreement was the easy bit.  How is the EU going to achieve deep decarbonisation of not only its power but also its heat and transport sectors so as to meet its UNFCCC obligations?
  • Research, innovation & competitiveness: can European businesses still take the lead in developing technologies that will save the planet, and also make money out of commercialising them?

In other words, Energy Union is about everything that matters in EU energy policy.  To date, at least in relation to electricity markets, the initiative has involved a lot of consultation but not many concrete legislation proposals.  The new Winter Package goes a long way towards redressing this balance, but it shows there is still a lot of work to do.

What is in the Winter Package?

The documents published by the Commission (all available from this link) include legislative proposals and a range of explanatory and background policy documents.  The legislative proposals are for:

We comment below on what seem to us at this stage to be the most interesting points in these, and also on the Communication on Accelerating Clean Energy Innovation (the Innovation Communication).

The Revised IMED

Overall impressions

The legislative elements of the Winter Package are all inter-related, but the Revised IMED is as good a place to start as any.  Its early articles include two programmatic statements:

  • National legislation must “not unduly hamper cross-border flows of electricity, consumer participation including through demand-side response, investments into flexible energy generation, energy storage, the deployment of electro-mobility or new interconnectors”.
  • Electricity suppliers must be free to determine their own prices.  Non-cost reflective power prices should only apply for a transitional period to vulnerable customers, and should be phased out in favour of other means of support except in unforeseeable emergencies.

In some ways, this sets the tone for the more specific provisions that follow.  It often seems that the Commission never loses an opportunity to put forward legislation in the form of a directly applicable Regulation rather than in the form of a Directive that by definition requires Member States to take implementing measures in order fully to embed its effect within national regulation.  However, the revised IMED, like its predecessor, stands out as a classic old-school Directive, in which EU legislators tell Member States lots of results to be achieved, but do not prescribe many of the means by which this is to happen.  Moreover, even the expression of those objectives is (inevitably) qualified: in other words, get rid of the barriers to the Commission’s vision of Energy Union, except the ones you can justify.  Of course, that is slightly unfair: as noted below, there are at least one or two eye-catching points in the revised IMED, and there are significant changes proposed in other parts of the Winter Package that should further the objectives of the revised IMED, but it arguably demonstrates less willingness to get to grips with some of the most difficult of the longer-term and more fundamental changes in the market than the call for evidence on moving towards a smart, flexible energy system that was published on 10 November by the UK government and GB energy regulator Ofgem (although admittedly the UK authorities are only asking questions, not proposing solutions at this stage).

A market for consumers (and prosumers)

The revised IMED would enhance the rights of consumers generally in a variety of ways.  For example:

  • Price increases are to be notified and explained in advance, giving them the opportunity to switch before an increase takes effect.  Switching must take no longer than three weeks.
  • Termination fees may only be charged where a fixed term contract is terminated prematurely, and must not exceed the direct economic loss to the supplier.
  • All consumers are to be entitled, on request, to a “dynamic electricity price contract” which reflects spot market price fluctuations at least as frequently as market settlement occurs.  They will of course need smart meters to make this work (see further below).
  • All consumers are to be entitled to contract with aggregators, without the consent of their supplier, and to end such contracts within three weeks.

In addition, special consideration is given to two newly defined categories of persons.

  • “Active consumers” are defined as individuals or groups “who consume, store or sell electricity generated on their premises, including through aggregators, or participate in demand response or energy efficiency schemes”, but who do not do so commercially / professionally.
  • “Local energy communities” are defined as organisations “effectively controlled by local shareholders or members, generally non-profit driven or generally value rather than profit-driven…engaged in local energy generation, distribution, aggregation storage, supply or energy efficiency services, including across borders”.

Active consumers are to be:

  • entitled to undertake their chosen activities “in all organised markets” without facing disproportionately burdensome procedures or charges; and
  • encouraged to participate alongside generators in all organised markets.  Obviously in most cases they will do this through aggregators, who are to be treated “in a non-discriminatory manner, on the basis of their technical capabilities”.  For example, they are not to be required to pay compensation to suppliers or generators (contrary to some of the suggestions in the UK call for evidence referred to above).

Local energy communities:

  • are similarly not to be discriminated against;
  • may “establish community networks and autonomously manage them” and “purchase and sell electricity in all organised markets”;
  • must not make participation in a local energy community compulsory, or limit it to those who are shareholders in or members of the community; and
  • will be subject to the unbundling rules for distribution system operators if they are DSOs.

As in the original Directive 2009/72/EC, there are provisions requiring improvements to customer billing and encouraging the rollout of smart meters.

  • Customers should receive bills once a month where remote reading of the meter is possible.
  • Where a Member State has decided not to mandate smart meters for cost-benefit reasons, they are to revisit their assessment “periodically” and report the results to the Commission.
  • The draft Directive sets out functionalities that smart meters must include where a Member State mandates their rollout.  In such cases, the costs of smart metering deployment are to be shared between all consumers.  In other cases, every customer is entitled, on request, to receive a smart meter that complies with a slightly reduced set of functionalities.
  • The implementation of smart metering must encourage active participation of consumers in the electricity supply market (although this may be qualified by a cost-benefit analysis).
  • There are a number of provisions reflecting both concerns about cybersecurity and the importance of making useful data securely available to legitimate market participants.

DSOs (and EVs)

There has been no shortage of recent commentary on how the shift towards decentralised generation of electricity, combined with the potential for storage and more active consumer behavior, may require changes in the role of the 2,400 market participants that the IMED has always called distribution system operators, but which in many jurisdictions have historically not had, even within their own networks, the kind of “system operator” responsibilities of a transmission system operator.  The recent UK call for evidence on flexibility appears at least prepared to contemplate some significant realignment of the respective functions of DSOs and TSOs.  There is nothing so fundamental in the revised IMED, but there are a number of new provisions about DSOs.

  • DSOs are to be allowed, and incentivised, to procure services such as distributed generation, demand response and storage in order to make their networks operate more efficiently.  DSOs will be paid for this, and must specify standardised market products for these services.
  • Every two years, DSOs must update five to ten year network development plans for new investments, “with particular emphasis on the main distribution infrastructure which is required…to connect new generation capacity and new loads including re-charging points for electric vehicles”, as well as demand response, storage, energy efficiency etc.
  • DSOs serving isolated systems or fewer than 100,000 consumers can be excused from this requirement, but note that in general, those operating “closed distribution systems” are to be subject to the same rules as other DSOs under the revised IMED.

However, although DSOs are to facilitate the adoption of new technologies, such as storage and EVs, they are not encouraged to diversify into actually providing them to end users themselves.

  • Member States are to facilitate EV charging infrastructure from a regulatory point of view, but DSOs may only “own, develop, manage or operate” EV charging points if the regulator allows them to after an open tender process in which nobody else expresses an interest in doing so.  And even then, the service taken on by the DSO must be re-tendered every five years.
  • Similar rules would apply to the development, operation and management of storage facilities by either DSOs or TSOs.  For TSOs, there would be an additional requirement that the storage services or facilities concerned are “necessary” to ensure efficient and secure operation of the transmission system, and are not used to sell electricity to the market.

What makes these provisions significant is that until now, with the IMED in its original form silent on the subject of storage, the operation of storage facilities had been seen as potentially falling within the categories of generation or supply.  This appeared to make the involvement of DSOs or TSOs in storage projects (at least as investors) subject to the general unbundling restrictions, and so has tended to inhibit the progress of energy storage initiatives in a number of cases.  The proposed new rules are restrictive in some respects, but bring a degree of clarity and at least recognise storage as a distinct category.

The Revised Market Regulation

General organisation of the electricity market

Like the revised IMED, the Revised Market Regulation begins with firm statements of purpose: enabling market access for all resource providers and electricity customers, enabling demand response, aggregation and so on.  It goes on to list 14 “principles” with which “the operation of electricity markets shall comply” – starting with “prices are formed based on demand and supply” and finishing with “long-term hedging opportunities allow to hedge parties against price volatility risks”.

Entirely in keeping with these principles, the first specific provision is that all market participants are to be responsible for (or to delegate to a responsible third party) the consequences of any imbalance they create in the electricity system as a result of importing or exporting to or from the grid at a given time more or less than they had said would be the case at that time in previous notifications to the system operator.  This much-trailed provision may be a significant change for renewable generators in some jurisdictions (though not in GB, where imbalance charging reforms are already being implemented).  In an earlier draft, the Revised Market Regulation only permitted sub-500kW renewables or high-efficiency CHP to be exempted from this requirement.  In the published version, this exemption has been broadened to include RES projects that have received state aid that has been cleared by the commission and that have been commissioned before the Revised Market Regulation enters into force.  It also requires that “all market participants” are to have access to the balancing market on non-discriminatory terms, either directly or through aggregators.

There are a number of quite detailed provisions on the overall organisation of electricity markets. We pick out a few of the more notable ones below.

  • There is a shift from a national to a regional approach.  As the explanatory memorandum to the draft Directive puts it: “In certain areas, e.g. for the EU-wide ‘market coupling’ mechanism, TSO cooperation has already become mandatory, and the system of majority voting on some issues has proven to be successful…Following this successful example, mandatory cooperation should be expanded to other areas in the regulatory framework.  To this end, TSOs could decide within ‘Regional Operational Centres’…on those issues where fragmented and uncoordinated national actions could negatively affect the market and consumers (e.g. in the fields of system operation, capacity calculation for interconnectors, security of supply and risk preparedness).”.  Functions to be carried out at a regional level include “the dimensioning of reserve capacity” and “the procurement of balancing capacity”.
  • As far as possible, the organisation of markets is to avoid any rules that could restrict cross-border trading or the participation of smaller players.  So, for example, trades are to be anonymous and in a form that does not distinguish between bidders within and outside a bidding zone.  The minimum bid size is not to exceed 1 MW.
  • Market participants are to be able to trade energy as close to real time as possible, with imbalance settlement periods being set to 15 minutes by 1 January 2025.
  • Long-term (firm, and transferable) transmission rights or equivalent measures are to be put in place to enable e.g. renewable generators to hedge price risks across bidding zone borders.  Such rights are to be allocated in a market-based manner through a single allocation platform.
  • As a general rule, there must be no direct or indirect caps or floors on wholesale power prices, other than a cap at the value of lost load and a floor of minus €2000, or during a 2-year transitional period when a transitional maximum and minimum clearing price may be allowed.  Defined as “an estimation in €/MWh of the maximum electricity price that consumers are willing to pay to avoid an outage”, the value of lost load is to be defined nationally and updated at least every five years.  This concept will evidently need refinement, as there is a difference between what individual consumers may be prepared to pay and the kind of price spikes that it is reasonable for wholesale markets to bear for short periods of time.
  • Dispatching of generation and demand response is to be market-based.  Priority dispatch for renewables is to be brought to an end subject to certain exceptions (these are summarised in the section on the revised RED below).  On the other hand, where redispatch (changing generator output levels) or curtailment is imposed by the system operator other than on market-based criteria, the draft Regulation imposes restrictions on when RES, high-efficiency CHP and self-generated power can be redispatched or curtailed.
  • There is to be a review of the bidding zones within the single electricity market, so as to maximise economic efficiency and cross-border trading opportunities while maintaining security of supply.  In other words, the market coupling process should allow customers to benefit from the availability of lower-priced wholesale power in adjacent markets, but the bidding zone boundaries need to take account of “long-term structural congestion” in the network infrastructure for this to be workable and without adverse side-effects.  TSOs are to participate in the review, but the final decisions are to be taken by the Commission.
  • A significant piece of work is to be undertaken by ACER on “the progressive convergence of transmission and distribution tariff methodologies”.  This is to include, but not be limited to, some issues that have recently proved contentious in the GB context, including the respective shares of tariffs to be paid by those who generate and those who consume power; locational signals (how much more should generators pay if they are located a long way from where the power they generate used); and which network users should be subject to tariffs (would this, for example, open up the question of whether generators connected to the distribution network should pay a share of transmission network charges?).
  • Separately, the draft Regulation sets out some general principles about network charges and restricts both the circumstances in which revenue can be generated from congestion management and the uses to which such revenue can be put.

Resource adequacy (a.k.a. Capacity Markets)

The growth in the share of installed generating capacity in many Member States represented by intermittent renewable generators and the unattractive economics of new large-scale combined cycle gas-fired plant has left many governments in the EU concerned about security of power supply and turning to various forms of capacity market subsidy in order to ensure that the lights stay on.  The Commission has been concerned that capacity markets dampen the price signals that should drive new investment and potentially introduce new barriers to cross-border power flows.  A number of national capacity market regimes have been investigated by the Commission’s DG Competition; both the UK and French approaches to the problem have received state aid clearance.

The starting point of the draft Regulation in this area is an annual assessment of “the overall adequacy of the electricity system to supply current and projected demands for electricity ten years ahead”.  This European-level assessment will form the yardstick against which national proposals to introduce a capacity mechanism are to be judged.  If it has “not identified a resource adequacy concern, Member States shall not introduce capacity mechanisms” and no new contracts shall be concluded under existing capacity mechanisms.  Where capacity mechanisms are introduced, they must not distort the market unnecessarily; interconnected Member States should be consulted; and other approaches, such as interconnection and storage, should be considered first.

The draft Regulation prescribes common elements which capacity mechanisms must contain, including that they must be open to providers in interconnected Member States (unless they take the form of strategic reserves) and that the authorities of one country must not prevent capacity located in their territory from participating in other countries’ capacity mechanisms.  Those participating simultaneously in more than one capacity mechanism “shall be subject to two or more penalties if there is concurrent scarcity in two or more bidding zones that the capacity provider is contracted in”.  Maybe that will help to dampen industry’s appetite for capacity markets.

Finally, the draft Regulation sets an emission limit of 550 gCO2/kWh for plant on which a final investment decision is made after the Regulation enters into force.  Such plant must have emissions below this limit if it is to be eligible for capacity mechanism support.  The draft Regulation goes on to state that generation capacity emitting at this level or higher is “not to be committed in capacity mechanisms 5 years after the entry into force of this Regulation”.  These provisions may be motivated by laudable decarbonisation objectives, but they must at the very least risk precipitating a rush to take final investment decisions in new coal-fired generating capacity over the next two years.  It is possible, but unlikely, that they might stimulate further investment in carbon capture and storage (to bring the emissions of coal-fired plants below the threshold).  Previous experience with emissions limit rules also suggests that much will depend on how emissions are measured – the usual trick of polluting plant being to argue that they should be counted not per hour of generation, but averaged out over time so as to allow for plant to run above the limit for short periods.  This is bound to be an area for lively negotiations between Member States and in the European Parliament.

The Commission’s proposals in relation to capacity markets need to be read alongside DG Competition’s final report on its investigation and the accompanying Staff Working Paper.  We will look in more detail at this aspect of the proposals and how it might affect existing Member State initiatives in a future post.  For now, it is sufficient to note that although this part of the Winter Package is entirely consistent with the logic of the evolving single electricity market, for some, it may simply appear to be an unacceptable blow to the principle of Member States’ self-determination of their own generating mix.

Institutions

In addition to its existing roles, the TSO umbrella body, ENTSO-E, will acquire new responsibilities for the European resource adequacy assessment and in relation to the Regional Operational Centres, including adopting a proposal for defining the regions which each will cover, and generally monitoring and reporting on their performance.  A parallel umbrella body for DSOs, with consultative functions, is also to be set up.

The draft Regulation devotes a number of articles to the Regional Operational Centres. They will be limited liability companies established by TSOs (with adequate cover for potential liabilities incurred by the impact of their decisions).  Their role is to complement TSO functions by ensuring the smooth operation of the interconnected transmission system, but apparently from the perspective of planning and analysis rather than real-time  operational control.  Specific areas of their work (listed under 17 headings) include outage planning coordination, calculating the minimum entry capacity available for participation of foreign capacity in capacity mechanisms, and much else besides.

This area of the draft Regulation will need careful development and implementation if the proliferation of new bodies and functions is not to result in confusion and a lack of accountability.  However, the question of whether to grant Regional Operational Centres binding decision-making powers in relation to some of their potential functions is left to be decided by the national regulatory authorities of a system operating region.

The Revised RED

Target for 2030

The existing Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) sets out the binding national targets for each Member State to achieve a specified proportion of its energy consumption to be obtained from renewable energy sources (RES) by 2020, contributing to an EU-wide goal of 20% of final energy from RES.  The revised RED starts from a slightly different point, since EU leaders decided in 2014 to move away from legally binding national RES targets imposed at EU level but to set a goal of achieving at least 27% of energy from RES across the EU by 2030.  The starting point of the revised RED, therefore, is that “Member States shall collectively ensure” that the 27% target is achieved by 2030, whilst, individually, ensuring that they continue to obtain at least as high a proportion of final energy from RES as they were obliged to achieve by 2020.

At this point, you may ask what the enforcement mechanism is for meeting the new EU-wide target.  An answer (of sorts) is to be found in the Governance Regulation – see below.

Power (plus)

With reference to subsidies for RES, the revised RED builds on the principles set out in the Commission’s 2014 guidelines on state aid in the energy and environmental sectors: competitive auctions in which all technologies can compete on a level playing field are to be the norm, with traditional feed-in tariffs limited to small projects.

The revised RED also makes provision on two points that have led to disputes in connection with RES subsidies.  First, picking up on a point that has in the past given rise to litigation under general EU Treaty principles, it would set quotas for the proportion of capacity tendered in RES subsidy auctions that each Member State must throw open to projects from other Member States.  Second, with an eye to the numerous cases brought against Member States either under domestic constitutional / administrative law or under the Energy Charter Treaty, the revised RED attempts to outlaw retrospective reductions in support for RES once that support has been awarded, unless these are required because a state aid investigation by the Commission has found the subsidy received by a project is unduly generous.  Note that while the first of these rules appears to relate only to RES electricity subsidies, the second is expressed in a way that suggests that it relates to all RES projects.   An additional measure of reassurance for investors is a requirement to consult on and publish “a long-term schedule in relation to expected allocation for [RES] support” looking at least three years ahead.

Other points of interest in the draft Directive in connection with RES power include:

  • In a magnificently brief reference to one of the most important market trends in the renewable power sector, the revised RED would require Member States to “remove administrative barriers to corporate long-term power purchase agreements to finance renewables and facilitate their uptake”.
  • The process of applying for permits to build and operate new RES projects is to be streamlined, with a single point of contact co-ordinating the permitting process (including for associated network infrastructure) and ensuring that it does not last longer than three years.  This provision would confers on all RES projects (again, the current language of the draft Directive does not limit this to power sector projects) a benefit currently only conferred at EU level under the Infrastructure Regulation on those projects singled out as Projects of Common Interest – although in its current form it is questionable if it would give a developer thwarted by slow decision-making in a given case a useful remedy.
  • The permitting procedures for repowering of existing projects are to be “simplified and swift” (i.e. not to last more than 1 year), although this may not apply if there are “major environmental or social” impacts.  If you were hoping to be able to demand fast-track treatment for applications to repower existing wind farms with fewer, taller turbines generating more power, don’t hold your breath.
  • The existing RED rules on priority dispatch for RES generators are to be abolished.  This point is reiterated in the Revised Market Regulation.  However, that draft Regulation provides for “grandfathering” of priority dispatch rights for existing RES (and high efficiency CHP) generators until such time as they undergo “significant modifications”.  Exceptions are also permitted for innovative technologies and sub-500kW installations (from 2026, sub-250kW), if no more than 15% of total installed generating capacity in a given Member State benefits from priority dispatch (beyond that level, the threshold is 250kW or 125kW from 2026).
  • The revised RED likes prosumers, or as it calls them, “renewable self-consumers”.  They are to be entitled to sell their surplus power “without being subject to disproportionate procedures and charges that are not cost reflective”, to receive a market price for what they feed into the grid, and not to be regulated as electricity suppliers if they do not feed in more than 10MWh (as a household) or 500MWh (as a business) annually (Member States may set higher limits).
  • The revised RED also likes “renewable energy communities”.  The draft definition of these is a little complicated, but essentially they are locally based entities that are either SMEs or not for profit organisations, which are to be allowed to generate, consume, store and sell renewable electricity, including through PPAs.

Heat, cooling and transport

The revised RED seeks to “mainstream” RES in heating and cooling installations, and in the transport sector.  The means by which it seeks to achieve this are not, at first sight particularly dramatic, given the acknowledged scale and difficulty of the challenge of decarbonising these sectors.

In relation to heat and cooling, Member States are to identify “obligated parties amongst wholesale or retail energy and energy fuel suppliers” and require them to increase the share of RES in their heating and cooling sales by at least 1 percentage point a year.  The obligation should be capable of being discharged either directly or indirectly (including by installing or funding the installation of highly efficient RES heating and cooling systems in buildings).  This does not seem hugely ambitious.  Mention is made of “tradable certificates” – it feels a bit like a combination of the Renewables Obligation, but applied to heat and cooling, and the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol.  It is also relevant in this context that the revised RED envisages that renewable guarantees of origin (REGOs or GoOs) will in future be available for the production and injection into the grid of renewable gases such as biomethane.

The rules aimed at the transport sector are also based on mandatory requirements on fuel suppliers – in this case to incorporate both a minimum (annually increasing) percentage of certain kinds of RES fuel, waste-based fossil fuel and RES electricity into the transport fuel they supply and to ensure that the parts of that supply that take the form of advanced biofuels and biogas from specified sources (which must constitute a certain part of the overall RES percentage) contribute to an increasing reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  The provisions for calculating the various percentages are quite complex, involving as they do an element of lifecycle emissions calculation (e.g. considering the emissions from the generation of electricity used to produce advanced biofuels).

On district heating and cooling, the revised RED takes a three-pronged approach.

  • Member States are to ensure that authorities at local, national and regional level “include provisions for the integration and deployment of renewable energy and the utilisation of unavoidable waste heat or cold when planning, designing, building and renovating urban infrastructure, industrial or residential areas and energy infrastructure, including electricity, district heating, and cooling, natural gas and alternative fuel networks”.
  • The efficiency of district heating systems is to be certified.  Providers of such systems must grant access to new customers where they have the capacity to do so (unless they are new and meet exemption criteria based on efficiency and use of renewables).  Customers of systems that are not efficient may disconnect from them in favour of their own RES heat and cooling, but Member States may restrict this right to those who can demonstrate that the customer’s own heating or cooling solution is more efficient.
  • There is to be regular consultation between operators of district heating and gas / electricity networks about the potential to exploit synergies between investments in their respective networks.  Electricity network operators must also assess the potential for using district heating and cooling networks for balancing and energy storage purposes.

This is all unobjectionable.  It is not clear that in itself it will be enough to cause a major expansion of district heating and cooling where it does not already exist, or to significantly increase the take-up of RES heat and cooling options, but perhaps this is the kind of area where an effective policy push can only be delivered at national, or indeed municipal level.

Biomass

Following a trend that has been evident for some time in UK subsidies for RES electricity, the revised RED would appear to prohibit “public support for installations converting biomass into electricity” unless they apply high efficiency CHP, if they have a fuel capacity of 20 MW or more.  However, the precise words setting this out have been moved from the operative provisions of the draft Directive into a recital, which also clarifies that this would not require the termination of support that has already been granted to specific projects, but that new biomass projects will only be able to be counted towards renewables targets if they apply high efficiency CHP.

What is clear is that the revised RED would tighten the sustainability criteria applicable to biofuels and bioliquids at various points in the energy supply chain, with greenhouse gas emissions – for example those arising from land use to grow the raw materials that become biofuels – being designated as a distinct impact to be measured.  If you dig up soil with a high carbon content to grow something that will become biofuel, you may end up increasing rather than reducing overall GHG emissions, so this is obviously to be avoided.

The Governance Regulation

The Governance Regulation is meant to hold everything together.  In particular, it aims to give credible underpinning to the commitments on climate change that the EU as a whole has made under the Paris Agreement (but which must ultimately be delivered by Member State action) and to bridge the gap left by having an EU level 2030 renewables target but no correspondingly increased Member State level targets.  It also gives legislative expression to the EU’s Union-level energy and climate targets to be achieved by 2030, which are:

  • a binding target of at least 40% domestic reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions as compared with 1990;
  • a binding target of at least 27% for the share of renewable energy consumed in the EU;
  • a target of at least 27% for improving energy efficiency in 2030, to be revised by 2020, having in mind an EU level of 30%;
  • a 15% electricity interconnection target for 2030.

In outline, the Regulation works as follows.

  • Every 10 years, starting in 2019, each Member State is to produce an integrated national energy and climate plan covering a period of ten years, two years ahead (so e.g. the 2019 plan covers 2021 to 2030, and so on).  The plan is to set out, in relation to each of the five dimensions of the Energy Union, the current state of play in the relevant Member State; the national objectives and targets, policies and measures they have adopted; and their projections (including in relation to emissions) going forward to 2040.  The draft Regulation sets out in considerable detail the information which is required to be included.
  • In relation to RES and energy efficiency, Member States are expressly required to take into account the need to contribute towards achieving the relevant EU level targets, and to ensure, collectively, that they are met.  In relation to RES policies, they are also to take into account “equitable distribution of deployment” across the EU, economic potential, geographic constraints and interconnection levels.
  • The draft Regulation states that Member States must consult widely on the plans and suggests that there may also be a need for the preparation of and consultation on a strategic environmental assessment of the draft plans in some cases.
  • Every two years (starting in the first year to which the plans apply), Member States are to report to the Commission on the status of implementation of their plans; on GHG policies, measures and projections; on climate change adaptation and support to developing countries; on progress in relation to renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy security; on internal market benchmarks such as levels of interconnectivity; and on public spending on relevant research and innovation projects.  In addition, the draft Regulation specifies how Member States are to report annually on GHG inventories for UNFCCC purposes.
  • The plans and drafts are to be updated if necessary after five years (with the first draft update in 2023 and the first update in 2024), using the same procedures.  Updates cannot result in Member States setting themselves lower targets.
  • The plans are first to be submitted to the Commission for comment one year in advance, in draft (i.e. first draft by 1 January 2018).  Either at this point or in its annual State of the Energy Union reports, the Commission may make recommendations to individual Member States, for example about “the level of ambition of objectives and targets” in its draft plan, and Member States “shall take utmost account” of these when finalising the plan.  Member States are obliged to issue annual progress reports on their plans and these must include an explanation of how they have taken utmost account of any Commission recommendations and how it has implemented or intends to implement them.  Any failure to implement the Commission’s recommendations must be justified.
  • Member States whose share of RES falls below their 2020 baseline must cover the gap by contributing to an EU-level fund for renewable projects.  If it becomes clear by 2023 that the 2030 RES target is not going to be met, Member States must cover the gap in the same way, or by increasing the percentage of RES fuel to be provided by heat and transport fuel suppliers under the revised RED, or by other means.  Action may also be taken by the Commission at EU level.

The answer to the question of how the 2030 targets are enforced is therefore – and perhaps inevitably – somewhat incomplete.  Whilst one may doubt the usefulness, under the current RED, of the prospect of the Commission taking infraction proceedings against a Member State that fails to reach the required percentage of RES energy by 2020, there is arguably nothing in the Governance Regulation that has even this degree of legal bite when it comes to pushing recalcitrant Member States into action from the centre.  However, ultimately the whole edifice of the Paris Agreement, of which this is effectively a supporting structure, will only work on the basis of a combination of the economic attractions of better energy efficiency, cheaper renewables and other technological advances, and stakeholder pressure, including through democratic and judicial processes.  The Governance Regulation, like the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 with its system of carbon budgets, certainly provides some scope for interested parties to challenge national authorities who are, for example, failing unjustifiably to implement Commission recommendations.

The Risk Regulation

The Risk Regulation exists to provide “a common framework of rules on how to prevent, prepare for and manage electricity crisis situations, bringing more transparency to the preparation phase and…ensuring that electricity is delivered where it is needed most”.  A common approach to identifying and quantifying risks is seen as essential to building the necessary “trust” and “spirit of solidarity” between Member States.  The draft Regulation would replace the rather less ambitious existing Directive 2005/89/EC.

ENTSO-E is tasked with developing a common risk assessment methodology, on the basis of which it is to draw up and update regional crisis scenarios such as extreme weather conditions, natural disasters, fuel shortages or malicious attacks.  Provision is made for emergency planning at both national and regional levels, with the Regional Operational Centres playing a significant role at various points.  As throughout the Winter Package, emphasis is laid on using market measures wherever possible, so that forced disconnections, for example, should be response of last resort, and Member States facing a crisis should not automatically seek to curtail outbound cross-border power flows.

The ACER Regulation

It comes as no surprise that the Winter Package proposes conferring more powers on ACER.  So, for example, the methodologies and calculations underlying the European resource adequacy assessment will require the approval of, and may be amended by, ACER – since, as one of the recitals to the draft Regulation notes, “fragmented national state interventions in energy markets constitute an increasing risk to the proper functioning of cross-border electricity markets”.  But the draft Regulation is far from representing a major transformation of ACER into an EU energy super-regulator.

The Innovation Communication

The Innovation Communication picks up on a number of the themes emphasised in the various legislative proposals.  It builds on existing initiatives, for example within the framework of the EU’s Horizon 2020 funding programme, for which it includes some new money.  The need to leverage more private sector investment in innovative energy-related technologies is noted, with some examples of where this has already been achieved.  The Communication also states that the Commission, with Member States, will take a leading role in two of the workstreams identified by the international Mission Innovation Initiative.

Four particular priorities are singled out as technology focus areas for EU innovation funding:

  • Energy storage solutions, including the (perhaps not unambitious) objective of “re-launching the production of battery cells in Europe”.
  • Electro-mobility and a more integrated urban transport system, which amongst other things will include tackling “fragmentation in the developing market of low-emission transport”.
  • Decarbonising the EU building stock by 2050: going beyond “today’s nearly zero-energy designs” to include e.g. the application of circular economy principles.
  • Integration of renewables: reducing the costs of existing established technologies; promoting new technologies like building-integrated photovoltaics; and intensifying efforts to integrate renewables through storage and the transport sector.

Energy Efficiency

Last but not least, energy efficiency. The two draft Directives on this make less wide-ranging changes to the existing legislation.

Under the revised Energy Efficiency Directive, Member States will be obliged to deliver the equivalent of 1.5% of annual energy sales (by volume) to final consumers over the period 2021-2030 – but with scope to determine how those savings are phased.

As regards the Energy Performance of Buildings Directives, there is an emphasis on encouraging the use of smart technologies.  There is also a requirement, when building or carrying out major renovations of buildings with more than 10 car parking spaces, to install one alternative fuel re-charging point for every 10 spaces in a non-residential context and to put in pre-cabling for re-charging points for EVs in all spaces in a residential context.  In the non-residential context at least, the re-charging point must be “capable of starting and spotting charging in relation to price signals”.  There are also some new requirements to monitor the energy efficiency of non-residential buildings, presumably in the hope that if their owners become aware of how much inefficiencies of design or operation are costing them, they will invest in improvements.

At the same time, the Commission has issued an ecodesign working plan for 2016-2019, reminding us as it does so that EU ecodesign and energy labelling deliver “energy savings equivalent to the annual consumption of Italy” and “save almost €500 per year” on household energy bills, as well as delivering approximately €55 billion extra revenue for industry.

Brexit

One of the many energy-sector questions raised by the UK’s decision to leave the EU is on what terms participants in the electricity markets in GB and Northern Ireland (and indeed the Republic of Ireland, until such time as it has a direct interconnection with Continental Europe) may be able to continue to participate in the EU’s single electricity market in a post-Brexit world.  Possible models for this include membership of the European Economic Area (as an EFTA, rather than an EU state) or joining the Energy Community (many of whose members are candidates for EU membership, but disputes within which are resolved by a political Association Council without reference to the Court of Justice of the EU).

The Winter Package in its published form casts no direct light on this subject.  However, in a version of the main legislative proposals that was leaked only a couple of weeks before they were published, a number of the draft measures (such as the draft revised IMED) included a couple of articles that appeared to offer some grounds for hope – if continued UK membership of the single EU electricity market is the sort of prospect that makes you hopeful.

  • Like the EU itself, the Energy Community is currently operating on (or is working towards) the version of the single electricity and gas markets set out in the Third Package of EU liberalisation measures adopted in 2009.  The leaked draft revised IMED set out a process for the Energy Community and the Commission to incorporate the revised Directive into the Energy Community’s legislative framework.  So if the UK was happy with the final form of the Winter Package legislation, the option of continuing to be subject to and getting the benefit of it as a member of the Energy Community would be a possible option.
  • On the other hand, once the UK ceases to be an EU Member State, and assuming it does not opt for EEA membership, it will simply become a “third country” (with or without the benefit of a bespoke EU / UK free trade agreement).  The leaked draft revised IMED suggested that third countries may participate in the single electricity market provided that they agree to adopt, and apply, “the main provisions” of the Winter Package legislation; EU state aid rules; the REMIT rules on wholesale energy market integrity; “environmental rules with relevant for the power sector”; and rules on enforcement and judicial oversight that require it to submit either to the authority of the Commission and the CJEU or “to a specific non-domestic enforcement body and a neutral non-domestic Court or arbitration body which is independent from the respective third country”.

Reading these provisions in the UK, it was hard not to see them as drafted with Brexit in mind.  Of course, the EU is, or aspires to be, physically connected to power systems in other non-EU countries as well (such as the potential solar energy exporters of North Africa), so it would be wrong to see them entirely in that light.

How the absence of such provisions, or the prospect of their potential reinsertion, will affect the dynamics of the UK’s participation in negotiations on the Winter Package (which is likely to take place while the UK is still a Member State) is another question.  In our view, the UK and its electricity industry stakeholders should in any event try to play a leading and constructive role in the whole of the negotiations on the Winter Package, as they have in negotiation on past internal energy market measures.

Maybe, in one sense, it is better that the draft provisions on third country participation have not been included at this stage.  Similar provisions could be negotiated on a standalone basis later, and include the gas as well as electricity single markets, for example.  By leaving them out of the Winter Package (for whatever reason), the Commission may have prevented the UK team from being unduly distracted from the main subject of the legislative proposals, or expending its negotiating capital on their Brexit dimension.

Provisional conclusions

The Winter Package covers a lot of ground, but then it needs to do so, since the next ten years are acknowledged to be crucial to the success of global efforts to avoid dangerous climate change.  It may not be as radical as some would like, but then whilst some of its requirements are already more or less met by a number of Member States, for others they may represent a considerable challenge.  In one sense it is a timely reminder of both the scope and the limitations of the European project.

There are a lot of links between the individual pieces of draft legislation.  There are also a number of areas where the drafting suggests that some key concepts have not yet been absolutely fully thought out.  Steering negotiations so as to result in a clear and coherent legal framework will be difficult.  The risks of (calculated or inadvertent) lack of clarity in the final texts may be higher than is usual with EU legislation, leading to wrangles with regulators and before the courts down the line – or simply having a chilling effect on what could be useful activity.  However, since the need for action is urgent, waiting for perfect legislation is not a luxury the EU can afford.  So it is vital that those with an interest in making Energy Union work scrutinise the parts of the Winter Package that matter to them carefully, and tell their national governments or MEPs where they find it wanting.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Something for everyone? The European Commission’s Winter “Clean Energy” Package on Energy Union (November 2016)

Energy Brexit: initial thoughts

In the energy sector, as elsewhere, it is far too early to give any definitive view on the effects of the UK electorate’s vote to leave the EU, or to offer a comprehensive analysis of the merits of the options now facing the UK Government. Here we offer some initial thoughts on these subjects.  Further posts will follow in the coming weeks, months and years.  No doubt some of what we say here and subsequently will turn out in retrospect to have been wide of the mark, but this is an occupational hazard of providing current commentary in a fast moving area.

This is a rather long post. We hope that those that follow will be shorter.

  • We begin by looking briefly at the relationship between EU and UK energy policy to date.
  • We then consider the EEA as a possible model for developing that relationship post Brexit.
  • After glancing at the anomalous position of nuclear power, we move on to consider how the UK could reinvent parts of its energy policy if it were free of EU / EEA law constraints.

Overall, our conclusions are not surprising.

  • EU and UK energy policies are in many ways closely aligned.  Yet EU membership undoubtedly constrains UK policy choices in a way that some find detrimental to UK business and/or consumer interests.
  • Most of those constraints would remain if the UK were to leave the EU but remain a member of the European Economic Area (EEA).  But even this limited change would bring with it a need, or at least the opportunity, to re-evaluate quite a large number of (in some cases fairly significant) pieces of law and regulation.
  • If the UK were to seek its fortune outside both the EU and the EEA, Government would be able, at least from a legal point of view, to introduce some very radical changes to current energy policies – and in some cases it might well be tempted to do so (although it would still face some international law constraints and would no doubt need to factor in the effect of doing so on the terms that could be negotiated with other states and the tariffs that might be imposed as a consequence).
  • There will be no substitute, as energy Brexit unfolds, for keeping a close eye on what is proposed in relation to each policy area (even if it is not presented directly as a response to Brexit).  Even if “this country has had enough of experts”, Government will need clear advice from the energy industry more than ever over the next few years.

Putting things in perspective

This Blog will focus on how Brexit affects energy law and policy. We recognise that for many with interests in the UK energy sector, the most immediate concerns may well be about other aspects of Brexit: for example, how it affects their willingness to invest in Sterling assets; whether there will be positive adjustments to the UK’s tax regime; how it could affect the employment status of their non-British workers; or how the post-referendum ferment will simply delay key Government and business decisions.  We are happy to discuss any of those issues with you, but for now, an analysis of Brexit in areas of law and policy specific to the energy sector seems as good a place as any to start to appreciate the complexities opened up by the result of the 23 June 2016 referendum.

Common ground and policy continuity?

A few days after the referendum, Amber Rudd, then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, began a speech by saying: “To be clear, Britain will leave the EU”, and then went on to itemise at some length why this should not mean any big shifts in UK energy policy.  As she put it: “the challenges [securing our energy supply, keeping bills low and building a low carbon energy infrastructure] remain the same.  Our commitment also remains the same”.

It is not hard to find examples of the fundamental objectives of EU and UK policy being aligned.

  • The UK has been a leading advocate since the 1980s of the kind of liberalisation of electricity and gas markets that is now fundamental to the EU’s internal energy market rules.
  • EU and UK policy has favoured open and transparent markets in which free competition is promoted as a way of delivering lower prices and other benefits to consumers.
  • Both the EU and UK have sought to control the adverse environmental impacts of energy industry activities.  More recently, the threat of dangerous climate change has given added impetus to efforts to promote decarbonisation, renewables and energy efficiency.
  • In practical terms, the UK has been the most open of EU markets to the ownership of energy sector assets by foreign companies (although the most notable cases have involved acquisition rather than simply EU companies relying on freedom of establishment).
  • The UK can claim to have been promoting electricity generation from renewable sources for some time before the EU had an effective renewables policy.
  • The UK, having adopted the first national scheme of “legally binding” greenhouse gas emissions targets in the Climate Change Act 2008, played a leading role in developing the EU’s position on the CoP21 agreement reached in Paris in December 2015.

The first tangible indication of post-Brexit policy continuity came with the Government’s announcement on 30 June 2016 that it would implement the independent Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation for the level of the Fifth Carbon Budget, covering the period 2028-2032.  (It would perhaps be uncharitable, in the circumstances, to suggest that on a strict view of the Climate Change Act 2008, the relevant Order should have been debated by Parliament and made by 30 June 2016, and not simply laid before Parliament for approval by that date.)

Sources of irritation

Broad principles are one thing and the detail of regulation is another. There are plenty of examples of tension between EU energy sector policy and regulation and UK preferences.  We are not aware of any poll data on how many of those who voted to leave the EU had energy policy on their minds, but there have certainly been times when EU regulation has not developed as the UK Government would have wished.  At other times, the existence of EU law requirements of one kind or another as a constraint on freedom of action by the UK authorities has given some ammunition to those who argue that as it is a national Government’s function to “keep the lights on” (at a reasonable price) and choose the fuel mix, the EU’s energy policies have impermissibly eroded an aspect of UK sovereignty.

  • The UK was a strong proponent of the enlargement of the EU into Central and Eastern Europe, but the accession to the EU of countries such as Poland may well have helped to ensure that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has never set as tight a cap on emissions, and therefore as high a price on CO2 emissions, as the UK would like in order to drive decarbonisation of the power sector and industrial energy use.
  • Various EU rules on environmental, state aid, renewables and single market matters can arguably be blamed for fatally increasing the power costs of UK energy intensive industries to a point where the UK has hardly any steel or aluminium producers left.
  • EU Directives on industrial (non-CO2) pollution have driven a cycle of closures of coal-fired generating stations which some would see as having prematurely diminished the UK’s security of energy supply and limited its ability to benefit from cheap US coal prices.
  • Opposition to the granting of planning permission for onshore wind farms in many parts of the UK (or at least England and Wales) was probably materially intensified by developers arguing (supported by Labour Government policy) that planning authorities were under a duty to grant permission so as to facilitate the achievement of Renewables Directive targets.
  • Since the UK (unlike Germany, for instance) has no domestic PV manufacturing interests that it wishes to protect, it would prefer not to pursue the current EU policy of imposing a “minimum import price” on Chinese solar panels (thus helping the UK solar industry to come to terms more quickly with the Government’s decision to curtail subsidies to it).
  • Generally, as the body of EU energy regulation has grown in strength and reach, and as UK Government energy policy has involved increasing amounts of intervention in the market (for example so as to promote low carbon generation), EU law has become a significant constraint on how the UK Government achieves its objectives, even when those objectives are consistent with EU objectives.
  • The tension between EU and UK policies can be seen in the case of Capacity Markets.  The European Commission, which has no voters worried about “the lights going out” to answer to, sees these as essentially unwarranted interferences with market mechanisms which threaten artificially to partition the EU single market for electricity.  DG Competition is reviewing Capacity Markets in a number of EU Member States (not including the UK, whose regime it has approved under state aid rules already).  It is ironic that the Commission’s work at several points highlights the UK’s approach as a model of good practice, when many in the UK consider that its Capacity Market has failed in some of its primary objectives, and partly blame decisions taken to secure clearance from the Commission for the regime’s defects.
  • There is also a lingering suspicion that the UK sometimes makes matters worse for itself by taking a more conscientious approach to the implementation of EU law requirements (even those it does not entirely support) than some other Member States.

No doubt the UK is not the only Member State dissatisfied with aspects of EU energy policy and regulation. But for now, no other EU Member State has set itself on the course of withdrawal from the EU.

It is unlikely that energy policy will determine the UK Government’s Brexit implementation strategy. However, focusing just on this one area, if one assumes that the UK will not radically change the overall direction of its energy policies and will remain committed to tackling all three challenges of the familiar security-decarbonisation-affordability trilemma referred to by Amber Rudd, how might the UK Government and others seek to maximise the opportunities opened up by Brexit?

Back to the future?

We must begin by considering the “EEA option(s)” – putting to one side, for present purposes, the question of whether a way can be found to preserve existing free trade arrangements with the EU without continuing to allow all EEA nationals their current rights of free movement into the UK.

In 1972 the UK left the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) to join the European Economic Community, forerunner of the EU.  Subsequently, the remaining members of EFTA entered into bilateral trade agreements with the EU, many joining the EU.  The European Economic Area (EEA) was formed by an agreement concluded in 1993 between the European Community (not yet officially the EU), its Member States, and three of the four remaining EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein – Switzerland remained outside the EEA).  What would it mean for the UK to leave the EU and become a party to the EEA as an EFTA state once more?

First, consider the other members of the club that the UK would be (re-)joining.

  • In 2015, the UK had a population of 65 million and a nominal GDP of $2,849 billion.  The four current EFTA states had a combined population of less than 14 million (more than half of which is made up by non-EEA Switzerland) and GDP of just over $1,000 billion (of which, again, Switzerland accounted for more than half).
  • In 1992, Switzerland voted by a 0.3% margin not to join the EEA in 1992 and Norway voted by a 2.8% margin not to join the EU.  Iceland dropped its bid to join the EU in 2015: fisheries policy (not covered by the EEA Agreement) was a sticking point, not for the first time.
  • Norway is the EU’s second largest supplier of both oil and natural gas.  It accounts for almost 30% of EU gas imports, as compared with Russia’s 39%.  But virtually all of its electricity is generated from renewable sources (overwhelmingly hydropower).
  • Market structures in the energy sectors of EFTA States are somewhat different from those in the UK.  Norway and Iceland are both characterised by a degree of state ownership than has not been familiar in the UK for many years.  Switzerland’s power sector is highly fragmented.
  • Both Norway and Iceland could export considerable amounts of power via interconnectors.  For potential importers such as the UK, this is attractive because, unusually, most of these countries’ renewable power output, being hydropower or geothermal, is “despatchable” on demand rather than being a “variable” source of supply like wind or solar power.
  • Switzerland has electricity interconnection capacity approximately equal to its peak power demand.  It exports and imports power equivalent to more than half its total consumption to and from its EU Member State neighbours.  The UK is making progress on interconnection, but is still some way from meeting a 2005 EU target of 10% of installed capacity.
  • Norway, although not subject to the EU legislation that underpins the EU’s electricity cross-border “market coupling” regime, nevertheless manages to participate in it.  (Note that Switzerland is reported to have been excluded from the same mechanism after its referendum vote against “mass migration” – i.e. free movement of people.)

Next, consider how the EEA works legally.

  • The EEA Agreement sets out the basic “free movement” rules as they were in the EC Treaty in 1993 so as to create an extended free trade area.  This does not extend to all the goods covered by the EU single market, and it only applies to products originating in the EEA.  Most importantly, it does not include the provisions which create the EU customs union, so that the EFTA states are not obliged to maintain the same tariffs in respect of products from third countries as the EU does under its “common commercial policy”.
  • If the UK were within the EEA, other EEA states would not be able to discriminate against energy products which the UK exported, provided that they “originated” in the UK.  That would cover, for example, power generated in the UK and exported over an interconnector. The implications of the rules on origination for trading in oil and gas extracted in non-EEA countries but entering the EEA in the UK would need to be considered (along with applicable WTO rules) if the EU were to raise its tariffs for those products from its current level of zero.
  • Most EU legislation is comprised of Directives and Regulations.  These are proposed by the European Commission, negotiated by representatives of the EU Member States (the European Council), with amendments typically being proposed in parallel by the European Parliament and a political compromise being reached between Council, Parliament and Commission on a final text in the so-called “trilogue” procedure.   Once they have been adopted in this way, Regulations in principle do not require national implementing measures, because they are directly applicable throughout the EU, whereas Directives generally require Member States to enact specific legislation to implement them.
  • EEA law is meant to correspond to EU law within the scope of the EEA Agreement.  All EEA law originates from the EU legislative process described above and the EFTA States only have the right to be consulted on its terms – they have no representation in the European Council or Parliament, and they have no vote on the final text.
  • However, EU legislation does not have any effect in the EFTA States just by being adopted at EU level.  Once an EU Directive or Regulation has been adopted, it must first be determined whether it falls within the scope of the EEA Agreement.  The EFTA Secretariat leads this work, which is not always straightforward.  For example, the EEA Agreement essentially takes (parts of) the EC Treaty as it was after the Single European Act but before the Maastricht, Nice Amsterdam or Lisbon Treaties.  As such, it does not include a provision equivalent to Article 194 TFEU, which has formed the legislative base for a number of measures in the energy sector.  This immediately makes it harder to determine whether any Article 194-based measure is within EEA scope.
  • If a measure is in scope, Article 102 of the EEA Agreement states that it is to be adopted by the EEA Joint Committee “to guarantee the legal security and homogeneity of the EEA”.  In most cases, measures are adopted in their entirety with no substantive amendments.  However, amendments are possible if it is agreed that they do not affect “the good functioning” of the EEA Agreement.  Adoption, and any amendment, is recorded by making entries in the various topic-based Annexes to the EEA Agreement.  Energy is dealt with in Annex IV (which can be compared with the European Commission’s list of measures covered by its DG Energy), but Annex XX (Environment) and others are also relevant.  There is a helpful online facility for tracking what point a given piece of EU legislation has reached in the process of EEA adoption – or otherwise.
  • The EEA Joint Committee takes decisions “by agreement between the [EU], on the one hand, and the EFTA States speaking with one voice, on the other”.  Article 102 is in effect an “agreement to agree”.  Absent such agreement, it allows the relevant part of the relevant Annex to the EEA Agreement to be “suspended” – so far, apparently, an unused mechanism.
  • In order for an adopted measure to take effect within the laws of all the individual EFTA States, national implementing legislation is required.  Note that this is the case regardless of whether the original EU measure is a Directive or a Regulation, since Norway and Iceland apparently could not accept, as a matter of constitutional law, a process by which Regulations automatically take effect in their jurisdictions without national implementation (and the Norwegian and Icelandic legislatures do not appear to have been able to find a solution to this problem along the lines of the UK’s s.2(1) European Communities Act 1972).
  • Compliance with EEA laws that are brought into force in this way is enforced both by national courts in EFTA States and by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA), whose position is analogous to that of the European Commission in that respect.  Amongst other things, the ESA performs the function of determining whether cases of state aid are compatible with the EEA Agreement just as the Commission does in respect of EU law.
  • Finally, the EFTA Court is there to hear cases brought by EFTA States against each other or by or against the ESA as regards the application of the EEA Agreement.  As in the case of EU law, failure by a Member State to implement EEA requirements can result in infringement proceedings before the Court.
  • Although the EEA legislative process is somewhat slower than that of the EU (see below), both the ESA and the EFTA Court tend to process cases more quickly than their EU counterparts (but then, so far, they have also had notably lighter workloads).

The EEA Agreement in action

The way in which some familiar pieces of EU legislation have been processed for the purposes of the EEA Agreement provides some interesting examples of how the EEA works in practice.

It can take a long time to adopt some measures.

  • The EU adopted its “Third Package” of electricity and gas market liberalisation measures in 2009 and they came into force in the EU in 2011: the process of EEA adoption has not progressed beyond submission of a draft decision to the European Commission (in 2013).
  • The REMIT Regulation on energy market transparency, adopted and in force in the EU since 2011 is still “under scrutiny” by EFTA.  Neither of the general Directives on energy efficiency, 2006/32/EC and 2012/27/EU, yet appears close to being adopted.
  • The EU Emissions Trading Scheme Directive of 2003 and the Industrial Emissions Directive of 2010 had to wait until 2007 and 2015 respectively for adoption into the EEA Agreement.  However, in the latter case, the process could at least package the adoption of the Directive itself with that of a large number of implementing measures taken under it at EU level.

Other EU energy measures have been considered to fall outside the scope of the EEA.

  • The Directives on security of gas or oil supply, such as the Oil Stocking Directive, 2009/119/EC do not form part of the EEA Agreement.
  • Since tax harmonisation falls outside the scope of the EEA Agreement, the Energy Products Taxation Directive has not been adopted by the EFTA States.
  • The EU’s continuing sanctions measures against Iran (those adopted “in view of the human rights situation in Iran, support for terrorism and other grounds”), like other EU Common Foreign and Security Policy measures, are not part of EEA law.

How flexible is the application of EU law in the EEA?

  • In some cases, adoption of EU measures has included significant derogations, such as for Iceland in relation to the energy performance of buildings and geothermal co-generation, and for Liechtenstein in relation to rules on renewable energy.  Derogations and other amendments involve a more protracted process of approval on the EU side, since they are a matter for the Council and not just for the Commission.
  • There have been a number of ESA proceedings in respect of alleged state aid of various kinds.  As is the case with European Commission decisions, these sometimes exhibit rigorous application of economic principles, and sometimes, to a cynical eye, could be thought to carry a slight hint of political expediency.

How would the UK fit in to the EEA / EFTA energy sector?

If the UK were to become an EFTA / EEA State tomorrow, it would find itself, by virtue of its generally fairly scrupulous past compliance with its obligations as an EU Member State, considerably ahead of its EFTA peers in implementing EEA law.

As in every other area of policy, legislating for Brexit at UK level involves, at least in theory, a large number of choices. Any domestic legislation that implements a Directive could in principle either be left as it is, amended or repealed.  The Government would also have to decide whether to legislate, if only on a transitional basis, to preserve (with or without amendment) the application of each EU Regulation that currently has effect in the UK without any implementing domestic legislation.

In some cases (such as the Regulations which impose the minimum import price for Chinese solar panels in the UK), allowing such Regulations to cease to have effect on Brexit would be an easy choice. In other cases (for example REMIT, or the various Regulations made under the Energy-using Products Directive that impose labelling requirements on electrical goods based on their energy efficiency), there could be a strong case for preserving their effect as a matter of domestic law even as they ceased to apply as a matter of EU law.

But for a Government of Ministers who have long harboured ambitions of doing more to “get rid of red tape”, Brexit is likely to be too good an opportunity to pass up. In so many previous attempts to shrink the statute book, Ministers have had to accept – however reluctantly in some cases – that measures which implemented EU law were untouchable.  This time, there will be pressure to get rid of some of those.  In each case where a straight repeal is contemplated, the consequences of having a regulatory vacuum in the relevant area should be carefully considered and the views of relevant stakeholders taken into account.  Business may need to be alert to what is proposed and ready to engage fully at short notice whenever this process takes place – which could either be in parallel with Brexit negotiations or after they are concluded.  It would make sense for the default position at the start of the UK’s EU-non membership to be one in which the effect of pre-Brexit Directives and Regulation is preserved, at least for an initial transitional period, by a widely-drafted general saving clause in the legislation that undoes s.2(1) of the European Communities Act.

However, if the Government plans to join the EEA as an EFTA State, the task of sifting through decades of EU legislation on this “pick ‘n’ mix” basis should arguably only be a priority in relation to two classes of measure: (i) those that fall outside the scope of the EEA Agreement; and (ii) those that have yet to be adopted at EEA level, to the extent that there would be a clear UK advantage in disapplying them or modifying their effect on a temporary basis.

In the first category (measures outside EEA scope) it is not clear there would be many “quick wins”.

  • One possible example is the suggestion made by Brexit campaigners during the referendum that leaving the EU would enable the Government to abolish VAT on domestic energy bills – a move that would help to offset the increases in electricity bills driven by levies on suppliers to pay for the cost of renewable electricity generation subsidies.
  • In other areas highlighted above as falling outside the scope of the EEA Agreement, it is less clear what would be gained by an immediate move away from the existing EU-based law.  For example, on the whole UK levels of taxation on energy products exceed the minima set out in the Energy Products Taxation Directive – although it may help to have additional room for manoeuvre in reforming business energy taxation.  As regards sanctions against Iran, the factors to be taken into account probably go well beyond energy policy considerations.  It is possible that increased flexibilities from the removal of Oil Stocking Directive requirements would assist the struggling UK refineries sector, but the UK would still remain subject to the parallel requirements of the International Energy Agency’s International Energy Program Agreement.  Refineries might benefit more from the removal of rules implementing the Industrial Emissions Directive (but, as noted above, this is part of the EEA Agreement, and so unlikely to be disapplied if the plan is to join the EEA).

In the second category (candidates for possible temporary disapplication), there may be more scope for opportunistic (de-)regulation, but it is not obvious what the overall strategy would be.

  • Pragmatically, the disapplication of a requirement based on EU law that the UK authorities do not like may be an unnecessary step to take in some cases.  For example, if the UK has left or is about to leave the EU and it looks as if the target set for reducing the energy consumption of public sector buildings in Regulations implementing the Directive 2012/27/EU is not met in 2020, and the Directive has not yet been adopted into the EEA Agreement, would the Government bother to repeal the Regulations, or simply do nothing?  That said, it is too early to be sure that the European Commission will abandon or slow-track any infringement proceedings against the UK for non-implementation of EU law: after all, it might, for example, be part of the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal that, where the UK was subject to infringement proceedings at the time of leaving the EU – particularly in respect of failure to implement a measure that is also part of the EEA Agreement – those proceedings could be carried on to their conclusion, whether by the EU or EFTA authorities.
  • Similarly with Directives which have been adopted at EU level, and may be required to be implemented before the UK leaves the EU: the UK could take the view that it need not implement them unless and until they are included in the EEA Agreement.  The Medium Combustion Plant Directive, with a transposition date of 19 December 2017, could perhaps safely be included in this category – although there have been indications that in order to prevent undue exploitation of the Capacity Market and other incentives for distributed generation by diesel-fired plant, the Government may actually wish to implement this early.
  • Timing is everything in this context.  EU Regulation 838/2010 imposes a cap of €2.5/MWh on average electricity transmission charges in the UK.  This has been implemented in a provision of National Grid’s Connection and Use of System Code, which previously split the charges 27:73 between generators and suppliers, but now requires suppliers to pay a >73% share and is also the subject of some dispute because of the artificiality of imposing an ex ante Euro-denominated cap on a market that operates in Sterling.  After Brexit, the cap could simply be removed (at least until the Regulation becomes part of the EEA Agreement), but unless the current modification processes move very slowly or the Brexit negotiations move very fast, Ofgem is likely to have to grapple with the issues that it raises sooner than that.  Incidentally, this example illustrates two further points about implementation: (i) that it is sometimes necessary or appropriate to make provision in domestic law to give effect to an EU Regulation; and (ii) that (in the energy sector at least) it is not just the conventional categories of statute law (Orders and Regulations) that need to be combed when reviewing the implementation of EU law: licence conditions, industry codes and other regulatory documents are also part of the picture.

Another important question in this scenario, and one which there is not space to pursue in any depth here, is the impact of Brexit on the EU’s Energy Union project.  Some elements of the proposed Energy Union package may well fall outside the scope of the EEA Agreement, which will no doubt please those who were concerned that “UK business gas supplies could be diverted to households in Europe, under EU crisis plan” (referring to the proposed new principle of “solidarity” in the Commission’s gas security of supply proposals).  Other elements are likely to result in what would amount to a Fourth Package of internal electricity and gas market measures – parts of which the UK might wish to implement before the other EFTA States have  implemented the Third Package, but in the negotiation of which, even if it is completed during the time of the UK’s remaining EU membership, it is hard to see the UK playing a decisive role.  Amongst other things, Energy Unions is likely to confer more power on ACER, the collective body of EU energy regulators.  Yet there is no guarantee that Ofgem would retain its position within this body if the UK were no longer an EU Member State (even if it were an EEA State, unless and until the EEA adopted the new rules).

Confused? You won’t be alone.  But note in passing that one difference between the Second and Third Packages is that only the latter imposes an obligation to roll out smart meters to 80% of customers by 2020 (subject to a positive cost-benefit analysis).  Surely nobody would use the UK leaving the EU, and thus (even if temporarily) not being obliged to follow this requirement as a reason to repeal or not enforce Condition 39.1 of the Standard Licence Conditions of Electricity Supply Licences, which implements it in UK law?

For the avoidance of doubt, if the UK were to join the EEA as an EFTA state, it would remain subject to EU state aid rules, under which state aid which distorts competition is unlawful and liable to be repaid if it is not first cleared by the European Commission / ESA. Many of the UK’s key current energy policies, such as the Capacity Market and Contracts for Difference (CfDs), involve an element of state aid.  State aid clearance for them by the European Commission has been very carefully negotiated, and the need to seek clearance for any significant changes to them has been a constraint on recent policy development.  The ESA has adopted guidelines on state aid for energy and environmental protection that are effectively identical to those of the Commission and it is likely to take a similar view of UK energy policies involving state aid.

In the field of climate change, the UK would no longer be represented by the EU at future UNFCCC conferences. Like the other EFTA States, it would be required to submit its own nationally determined contribution (NDC) towards the achievement of the goals of the CoP21 Paris Agreement, rather than coming under the umbrella of the general EU-wide NDC.  The mechanisms of the Climate Change Act 2008 should provide a sound basis for this.

In short, in the “EEA scenario”, the energy sector is unlikely to see big changes from the UK side as a result of Brexit, but as there may be a sustained effort by Ministers to make the most of even temporary flexibilities, the industry will need both to be alive to the detail of proposed changes and prepared to advise the Government on how the inherent flexibilities described above can best be used in UK policy changes. It is also possible that the arrival of the UK would put some aspects of the way that the EEA operates under strain, both within EFTA itself and in its relations with the EU.  One can imagine the UK sometimes being impatient at the slowness of EEA adoption of some EU law and at other times wanting to push the boundaries of EFTA independence further than the EEA Agreement will easily tolerate.  Inevitably, a recalcitrant UK would be a bigger problem than a recalcitrant Liechtenstein.

Nuclear options?

It is a fair bet that very few voters on 23 June were asking themselves whether a vote to “leave the EU” was meant to suggest to the Government that it should cease to be a party to the Euratom Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. For what it is worth, in strict legal terms, Brexit should not necessarily imply leaving Euratom, since it, alone of the three original “European Communities” has not been terminated or submerged in the EU.  (It also forms no part of the arrangements between the EU and EFTA States in the EEA Agreement.)

The UK Government may feel that these subtleties are not to be relied on in implementing the “will of the people”.  “Article 50” notices of an intention to withdraw could presumably be served in respect of both Euratom and the EU Treaties (relying on Article 106a Euratom as to Euratom).  Would leaving Euratom be a problem?  The UK had a nuclear industry (arguably a more successful one) before it joined the EEC in 1972, and for many years some of the key international safety, liability and other industry-specific rules were to be found only in the relevant IAEA Convention and not in any European Directive.  Ceasing to be party to Euratom would not affect those.

However, it is hard not to see leaving Euratom as a backward step for a country whose Government has strong nuclear aspirations.   For example, the ability to continue to participate in European nuclear research projects, including on nuclear fusion, is something that the Government would presumably want to safeguard, but beyond the next few years, it would not be guaranteed outside Euratom.  An alternative (if it was felt to be too politically uncomfortable for the UK to stay in Euratom) might be for the UK to suggest to the remaining Euratom States that they make use of Article 206 Euratom to conclude an association agreement with the UK (if that is politically acceptable to all parties) – although this could presumably have the disadvantage of the UK being obliged to follow rules and policies which it would not have input into on an equal footing.

Meanwhile, only time will tell whether French Government support for EDF’s proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station will survive Brexit. At this stage it is hard to say that there is any legal reason for the project not to go ahead if the UK is no longer an EU Member State, but Brexit could provide an excuse for either Government if they wanted to terminate the project for other reasons.  EDF’s Chinese partners, may, of course, have a view about that.

The Energy Community

Unlike in some other sectoral areas of law affected by Brexit, energy has the benefit of a ready-made multilateral precedent for the EU and non-EU states to enter into a “single market” agreement which does not (at least explicitly) involve free movement of persons. The Energy Community was formed in 2005 by a treaty between the European Community and a number of Balkan states.  It now comprises the EU, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine.  Georgia is in the process of joining; Armenia, Norway and Turkey are observers.

Some, but not all of these countries are candidates for EU membership and/or have signed up to forms of EU association agreement that commit them to comply with core single market rules, but with only limited provision for the free movement of persons. The Energy Community Treaty and associated Legal Framework commit the Contracting (non-EU) Parties to implement a number of key EU law energy provisions, including the Third Package, security of gas and electricity supply rules, the Renewable Energy Directive, energy efficiency rules, the Oil Stocking Directive, competition and state aid rules and key air pollution and environmental impact assessment rules.  Although supervision of the implementation of Contracting Parties’ obligations is by a Ministerial Council rather than an independent regulatory agency or court, there are sanctions for persistent and serious non-compliance (suspension of Treaty rights).

If energy was our only industry and the UK Government wanted to spare itself the pain of taking decisions on what to do with all current EU energy law applicable in the UK, the Energy Community might be a more attractive club to join than the EEA. But in practice, that option may not be available and other industries may rank higher in terms of political priority in negotiating Brexit.

Freedom and sovereignty

Those who campaigned for Brexit had relatively little to say specifically about energy matters.  But their general pitch to voters was that Brexit would give businesses operating in the UK freedom from unduly burdensome regulation and that it would restore to UK voters, or at least the UK Government, power to determine the UK’s economic and industrial policies.

Given the constraints that EEA membership would impose on the UK Government’s freedom of action in many areas of energy policy, it is necessary to consider what use it could make of the additional freedom or “sovereignty” it could acquire in energy matters if it chose, or was obliged, to forego the ready-made packages of the EEA Agreement and Energy Community for a non-EU law-based model.

Here are some changes that it would probably only be possible to make in a non-EEA UK.  We are not here speculating on whether the Government would be inclined or likely to follow any of these approaches: they are discussed only to illustrate the extent of the potential flexibility that may be available to change current policy.

  • The Government could abandon any further attempt to stimulate private sector investment in new renewable electricity generating capacity, or the uptake of other forms of renewable energy, on the basis that it would no longer have a 2020 target to meet and that it would be better for the UK to wait until renewable technologies have become cheaper by virtue of wider deployment elsewhere in the world.  It could impose a moratorium on all new consents for such projects and suspend or abolish all remaining subsidies for new projects (and it would not have to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment before doing so, as EU law would currently require).  Before taking this line, which would help to deliver lower increases in consumer bills over time, the Government would have to weigh carefully: the impact on UK jobs; the potential damage to the UK’s reputation as a place with a stable and supportive regime for energy infrastructure investment (arguably already damaged by the politically driven abolition of onshore wind subsidies and cancellation of support for the commercialization of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)); damage to the UK’s reputation as a leader on climate change issues; and the prospect of objectors being able to construct a successful legal challenge to one or more of the steps taken in pursuit of such a policy by arguing that it would make it impossible to keep within one or more of the UK’s carbon budgets, so breaching the Climate Change Act 2008.  (Although note that if a future Government were to wish to repeal that Act, it could do so whether the UK was in or out of the EU / EEA, if it was prepared to live with the resulting  damage to its international reputation.)
  • If the Government was content to carry on subsidising renewable power to some extent, it could – free from EU state aid rules – adopt a less even-handed approach to the allocation of CfDs to new projects.  This may make it easier for the Government to follow what may in any event be its natural inclination to make subsidies available only for offshore wind farms and a few much less established technologies.  Equally, it could choose to subsidise a further coal-to-biomass conversion at Drax even if the Commission’s current state aid scrutiny finds that the existing CfD terms offered to Drax are too generous to be given state aid clearance.  And it may be more able than it is under EU law to give substantial weight to “UK content” in the plans put forward by developers when awarding CfDs.  On the other hand, it could adopt a simpler form of CfD for smaller projects, rather than subjecting 5 MW generating stations to a form of contract much of which was developed for a 3.2 GW nuclear facility.
  • On the other hand, Government could take the view that the low carbon option that really needs subsidising is heat networks, and it could divert all funds notionally earmarked for renewable electricity generation into the provision of heat network infrastructure instead –  subsidising it to a degree that would not be given state aid clearance in order to give a real boost to a market that has been slow to develop for a long time.
  • A different approach would be to focus subsidy entirely on energy storage, with a view to enabling as much variable generating capacity as possible to become, in effect, despatchable.  This is arguably the next frontier for wind and solar power and by boosting demand for storage it could help to reduce its costs in the same way as subsidies have helped to do for solar panels in particular.  That much could possibly be achieved within the EU rules, but it might also help, in such a scenario, to make storage a regulated utility function, and to allow National Grid to invest in storage capacity in a way that EU unbundling rules at present may either not allow, or make it unduly difficult for it to do (if storage is classed as “generation”).
  • It seems unlikely that Brexit would constitute a Qualifying Change in Law (QCiL) for the purposes of the standard terms of CfDs, such that it would entitle the CfD Counterparty to terminate any CfD which has already been entered into solely because of Brexit, because a QCiL must, in essence, have an effect on a particular project, rather than all or most projects, or the whole economy.
  • Government has been disappointed, from an energy security point of view, at the failure of the Capacity Market auction system to produce a clearing price that can serve as the basis for financing large-scale CCGT power stations.  However, in its proposals to change the approach to be taken in the next two auctions, it did not feel able to go as far as to suggest an auction just for CCGT capacity, as this would be incompatible with the existing state aid clearance for the Capacity Market (which is subject to legal challenge).  With no state aid rules to follow, Government could choose to hold a CCGT-only auction.  Other more radical variants on the current rules could include separate auctions for CHP plant (or handicaps in the auction process for non-CHP generating units).
  • Without the constraints of the Industrial Emissions Directive, it might be possible for Government to allow coal-fired plants to follow a gentler path towards closing by 2023/2025 (as its current policy envisages that they will) in which they were allowed to run for a longer period of time without adapting to tighter emissions limits.  However, this might militate against new CCGT development (as well as carbon budget targets).
  • Unconstrained by state aid rules, Government could allow and encourage National Grid to develop an offshore pipeline system to distribute carbon dioxide to potential permanent storage sites under the North Sea, as part of its regulated business, so as to kick-start a CCS industry.
  • Government could escape the flawed EU ETS with its apparently inevitably too-low carbon price and join an emissions trading scheme that delivers a higher carbon price.  There is an increasing number to choose from internationally, from California to China.
  • If Government were to take the view that establishing some form of state-backed entity was the best way to make the decommissioning regime in the North Sea oil and gas industry work effectively, or to ensure that there was a “buyer of last resort” for strategically vital assets whose current owners lack the incentive to carry on running and maintaining them, this is something that would be easier outside the EU / EEA state aid rules.
  • Finally, if the Competition and Market’s Authority’s current proposals for a limited price cap for some domestic energy supply contracts, which were to some extent constrained by EU law, prove inadequate, future regulatory action could go further in this direction.

Depending on which horn of the energy / climate change trilemma you think is most inadequately served by current UK Government policy, you may find any of the above, or other steps that an EU / EEA UK could not take, very attractive. What we would emphasise here, though, is that removing the constraints of EU / EEA law could lead to significantly more volatile energy policy-making in the UK, and greater politicisation of energy regulation.  Note that even Ofgem’s independence is currently underpinned by requirements of EU law, as well as fairly consistent UK tradition.  If the UK were to go down the out-of-EU-and-EEA route, we would suggest that the Government, however radical any departures it decides to take from current energy policies may be, should take steps to ensure that they develop within a stable overall framework, in which business can plan sensibly for the long term.  It may be necessary to impose some more home-grown constraints (like carbon budgets) to make up for the EU ones which would have been shaken off.

A special deal with the EU?

There may be some who dream of the UK reaching a form of accommodation with the EU (going beyond the energy sphere) which is sui generis and somehow the best of all possible worlds.  Leaving aside the question of whether that is politically feasible, it is important to bear in mind that the Commission and the Governments of the other EU Member States may not be the only people to whom such a deal would have to be sold.  On other occasions where the EU has departed from established legal norms it has found itself having to deal with the unsolicited and not necessarily positive input of the Court of Justice of the EU: indeed in the case of the EEA, parts of its founding Treaty had to be renegotiated to accommodate the Court’s concerns.  This may complicate matters.

Non-EU / EEA law constraints imposed by international law

A non-EU / EEA UK would not be constrained by EU / EEA law, but it would not be free of other international law constraints that have a bearing on regulation of the energy sector. We will consider this topic in more detail in a later post, but for now, note the following examples.

  • If the UK were to negotiate and become party to a free trade agreement with the EU / EEA other than the EEA Agreement, it is likely that (as other such agreements have), it would include requirements to enforce competition law and a prohibition on state aid.  Accordingly, all the non-EU / EEA UK energy policy options referred to above which would be contrary to EU state aid rules could be the subject of disputes under a UK-EU / EEA free trade agreement if they were implemented.  If, on the other hand, the UK were not to negotiate such a bespoke free trade agreement and were to rely instead on WTO rules, such measures may still fall foul of the WTO rules against subsidies.
  • The decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure is regulated by the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (more familiarly known as the OSPAR Convention), one of a number of international conventions relevant to the environmental aspects of the energy industry.
  • The Energy Charter Treaty and bilateral investment treaties to which the UK is a party may offer protection for those who invest in the UK energy sector, and cause the Government to refrain from taking action that would create claims against it under them.

More generally, if the UK were to follow this path, it is possible that any radical departures in energy policy could affect the terms of trade deals that could be negotiated with other states, and any tariffs imposed by them.

Co-operating with EU / EEA countries outside the EU / EEA

It is to be hoped that Brexit will not mean the end of useful co-operation on energy matters between the UK and other EU / EEA States acting individually. We note in this context that the UK did not sign up to the recent political declaration by North Sea countries regarding their initiative on co-operation to develop a more co-ordinated approach to the development of offshore electricity transmission infrastructure in the North Sea (known as NSCOGI), despite having previously supported this initiative.  No doubt the fact that the document was signed less than three weeks before the June 23 referendum did not help, but given the potential strength of the UK’s offshore wind industry and the savings that could be made by developing offshore links on a “hub and spoke” rather than “point to point” pattern, it would be a pity if the UK were to drop out of NSCOGI.

Closer to home

This Blog, like many similar publications, has talked in bland terms about “the UK”. This overlooks:

  • the possibility that Scotland will ultimately leave the UK rather than the EU;
  • the fact that the devolved government in Northern Ireland has (nominally) complete and (practically) very extensive powers to make its own rules on energy matters;
  • the existence of a Single Energy Market across the island of Ireland and a single set of electricity trading arrangements (BETTA) across England, Wales and Scotland; and
  • the fact that post-Brexit the Republic of Ireland will be the only EU Member State whose connection to the EU single market in gas runs entirely through non-EU territory.

There will be more to say on these points, and on other intra-UK energy Brexit issues, in later posts.

On a practical level, businesses would do well to review those parts of their key existing contracts (and any important contracts under negotiation) that contain provisions where rights and obligations could be triggered by the occurrence of Brexit: obvious examples include provisions on force majeure, change in law, material adverse change, hardship and currency-related matters. Again, more on this to follow.

(Provisional) conclusions

EU and UK energy regulation have become so intertwined over the years, and the energy industry is so international in a variety of ways that it is inevitable that Brexit will affect all parts of the UK energy sector to some degree. And those parts of it that are arguably not so directly affected are themselves subject to other massive regulatory interventions at present in any event (notably the energy supply markets in the wake of the Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation).

What will change in the energy sector as a result of the UK electorate voting to leave the EU? At this stage, it is tempting to say simply: “If we stay in the EEA, nothing will really change.  If we try to go it alone, who knows?  The only certainty is years of uncertainty”.  We hope that the preliminary observations in this post have shown that the position is rather more complex and dynamic, and the range of issues to be addressed and possible outcomes is wider than is sometimes supposed.

For now, we would suggest that it is important to follow the details closely, because unless you believe that the result of the referendum will somehow not be implemented, there is no more justification for complacency about the ultimate consequences of Brexit for the energy sector than – if one supported remaining in the EU – there was about the result of the referendum itself.

If you have questions about the issues raised in this post, or about other aspects of Brexit as it relates to your business, please get in touch with the author or your usual Dentons contact.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Energy Brexit: initial thoughts

Christmas to come late(r) for those seeking UK renewables CfDs

Two more milestones in the implementation of UK Electricity Market Reform (EMR) have been passed in the last 24 hours (15/16 December 2014): the first EMR Capacity Market auction began, and it became clear that the first auction of EMR Contracts for Difference (CfDs) has been postponed until February 2015.

The Capacity Market aims to secure the availability of 48.6GW of reliably despatchable generating plant from the autumn of 2018.  This is being procured by means of a series of bidding rounds in a “descending clock” auction which must be completed by 19 December 2014.  The auction pits existing coal, nuclear, CCGT and peaking plant against each other and against new build gas and diesel generators, but only new build plant and existing plant spending £125/kW or more on refurbishment can act as “price makers” in the bidding process (see further National Grid’s Auction User Guide).

According to the previously advertised timetable, the first CfD auction should already have taken place in early December, with results being notified to applicants between Christmas and the New Year.  Instead, the revised version of the Low Carbon Contracts Company’s GB Implementation Plan for CfDs, published on 15 December 2014, states that those seeking CfDs will be invited to submit their bids on 17 February 2015 (if, at that point, demand for CfDs exceeds supply under the allocation round budget).

The delay has been driven by appeals against decisions on the eligibility of applications.  The Implementation Plan notes that a longer delay is possible if “Tier 2” appeals are not completed by 6 February 2015.  It is interesting that DECC has chosen to delay the CfD auction rather than make use of the mechanism (provided for in Part 8 of the Allocation Regulations and Rule 21 of the Allocation Framework) that allows an auction to go ahead with disputed applications still “pending”.

While we await the eventual outcome of these two first-of-a-kind auctions, we can start to compare and contrast the CfD and Capacity Market processes.

One striking difference is in terms of transparency.  The Capacity Market prequalification process results in publication and regular updating on the EMR Portal of a full list of applicants (both successful and unsuccessful) and their plants.  By contrast, there is no published list of applications for CfDs or the decisions that have been made as to their eligibility to be allocated a CfD.  In some ways this mirrors the bidding processes themselves: the successive rounds of the Capacity Market auction are rather more interactive and offer bidders some (albeit limited) visibility of each other’s behaviour; in the CfD auction, applicants must effectively put everything into their initial sealed bid.

A second major difference is in the scrutiny to which applicants’ claims to have fulfilled the criteria that make them eligible to bid are subjected.  For example, under the CfD legislation, applicants’ claims to have the necessary planning permission for their generating stations have to be substantiated by submitting copies of the relevant documents, which will then be checked by National Grid (albeit possibly in a fairly mechanical way).  By contrast, compliance with the parallel obligations to have any requisite planning permission before bidding in the Capacity Market auction is simply self-certified.

No doubt there will be further debate about these and other design features during 2015.  Already, Ofgem is consulting on possible changes to the Capacity Market Rules.  It has identified as priority areas for consideration the possible streamlining of the prequalification process, price maker memoranda, and rules about demand side response.  Meanwhile, alleged discrimination against the demand side has prompted Tempus Energy to challenge the European Commission’s decision that the Capacity Market is compatible with EU state aid rules.

, , ,

Christmas to come late(r) for those seeking UK renewables CfDs

CfDs: not unduly distorting the market, but not best value for money?

The European Commission’s state aid decision clearing the UK’s “enduring regime” of renewables contracts for difference (dated 23 July, published on 2 October 2014) confirms the CfD regime as a model example of the kind of renewables support scheme that the Commission wants to encourage, as described in its April 2014 Guidelines on state aid for environmental protection and energy.

The decision is littered with cross-references to the Guidelines, reflecting the fact that key details of the CfD regime were effectively developed in dialogue with the Commission.  Among the key points in favour of the regime as far as the Commission is concerned are that the strike price mechanism limits the ability of generators to benefit from very high prices; that “the strike price paid will be established via a competitive bidding process”; and that it cannot be higher than the administratively set strike price, which is based on “the levelised costs of eligible technologies and reasonable hurdle rates”.  Other points to note include future measures to ensure that generators do not have an incentive to generate electricity when prices are negative and details of the treatment of biomass conversions and imported renewable electricity.

Given the Commission’s emphasis on the benefits of strike price competition, it is interesting to note the parallel clearance for the award of early “FID-enabling” CfD “investment contracts” – outside the enduring regime, and with no competition on strike prices – to five UK offshore wind farms (Walney, Dudgeon, Hornsea, Burbo Bank and Beatrice).  For the Commission, the award of these contracts was justified because “the Commission was able to verify that the amount of aid for each project is limited to what would be necessary to allow the project to reach a reasonable rate of return” and “the Commission further notes that…the notified projects are all reaching an IRR below the central value of the hurdle rates considered by the UK”.  However, as if DECC needed to be reminded that it cannot please everybody all the time, within a day of the release of the two state aid decisions, the Public Accounts Committee published a report that criticised the investment contracts as poor value for money, repeating a number of points first made in a National Audit Office report in June.

The PAC’s headline criticism is that the investment contracts will consume up to 58% of the total funds available for renewable CfDs to 2020/2021 – without accounting for a correspondingly large proportion of the new renewable generating capacity that is to be funded by CfDs.  They argue that committing so much of the overall CfD budget to the five offshore wind projects and three biomass projects (which have yet to receive state aid clearance) was both unnecessary (because the 2020 targets for renewables deployment could have been met in any event) and represents poor value for consumers, because the enduring regime, with its more competitive allocation processes, can be expected to deliver more MW of renewable power per £ of subsidy.  Ultimately, as both the PAC and NAO acknowledge to some extent, the effect of the investment contract regime may have been to ensure the continuing healthy development of the offshore wind industry in the UK, albeit potentially at the cost of support for some later offshore wind (and possibly other) projects.

Whilst there may be a wider political context to the line taken by each of the Commission and the PAC, their different appraisals of the investment contracts regime also reflect their different functions.  The Commission, in reviewing proposed state aid measures, is properly concerned only with their impact on competition within the EU internal market.  It is not in the business of telling Member States that one renewable technology or project is better or worse value than another for UK consumers, provided that neither is being given more aid than is strictly necessary to remedy the market failure that inhibits its development in the absence of aid.  If gaining state aid approval were simply a matter of comparing the level of subsidy per MW of new generating capacity, the investment contracts for the biomass conversions at Drax and Lynemouth (with an estimated CfD level of support of £2.6m/MW and an assumed load factor of 64.5%) would not still be awaiting clearance when the aid to the five offshore wind farms (with estimated CfD levels of support of between £3.4m/MW and £4.4m/MW and an assumed load factor of 37.7%) has been approved.

 

, , , , , ,

CfDs: not unduly distorting the market, but not best value for money?

Worth the wait? DECC responds to RO / CfD consultations

In July and November last year, DECC consulted on the transition period between the introduction of the Contracts for Difference (CfD) regime under Electricity Market Reform (EMR) later this year and the closure of the Renewables Obligation (RO) to new generating capacity at the end of March 2017.  The response to these consultations was published earlier this week, just as Spring came to London.  Some of the policy decisions it sets out will already have been apparent to careful students of the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2014 that was published and laid before Parliament last month with an accompanying  written ministerial statement, but the response provides an opportunity to see DECC’s approach to RO / CfD transition issues in the round, with a fuller set of explanations.

Botticelli’s “Spring”: spot the connections between the picture and this post!

The transition period

The transition period begins once the CfD regime is live.  No firm date is given for this, but the response refers to 31 October 2014 as the date when CfD applications are expected to open.  It also says Government does not expect applications for CfDs to be open in advance of State Aid clearance. 

Choice of scheme

During the transition period, developers will be able to apply for accreditation under the RO or for a CfD or Investment Contract (if they meet the relevant eligibility criteria).  When they make their applications, they will be required to make various declarations: for example, if they are applying for a CfD, to declare that they are not supported under the RO.  A developer who is unsuccessful in relation to an application under one scheme will be able to apply under the other. 

A developer whose Investment Contract is terminated for certain reasons relating to State Aid, or to possible amendments to the Investment Contract in the light of the standard terms for CfDs will be able to apply for RO accreditation.  But a developer who withdraws an RO or CfD application or refuses a CfD or RO accreditation will not be able to apply under the other scheme: so, you cannot, for example, bid for a CfD, decide that you don’t like the strike price (e.g. in a “pay as clear” regime), and decide to retreat to the perceived safety of the RO instead. 

The level of the RO (i.e. the extent of the obligation on electricity suppliers to purchase ROCs) will continue to be set by 1 October, rather than being pushed back to being decided by 1 February.  Whilst effectively acknowledging that the likely launch of the CfD regime in the later part of this year will complicate the task of setting the RO level at the same time, Government has been persuaded that moving to a February deadline would mean that suppliers had to rely on their own internal RO forecasts when pricing supply contracts, resulting in the addition of a risk premium which would increase consumer bills.  The status quo was therefore preferred.

Dual Scheme Facilities

Additional capacity added to an RO accredited project will be eligible for registration under the RO if no application for a CfD has been made in respect of the project.  However, additional capacity of 5MW or less added to RO accredited stations after 31 March 2017 will not be eligible for RO or FiT support.  On the basis of the representations made to it, DECC does not seem to believe that there is a significant class of potential ≤5MW extensions to existing RO-accredited projects which would not be able to go ahead without an extension of the RO deadline (or FiT support) beyond March 2017. Although, between 2006 and 2012, 131MW of the 190MW of additional capacity accredited in respect of existing projects was ≤5MW, 103MW was for landfill and sewage gas sites: analysis of this sector suggests that existing sites have added most of the extra capacity they can, and DECC do not expect many new sites to be developed under the RO.  Finally, increases in capacity resulting from station refurbishment or unit replacement after the closure date will not be eligible for support under the RO.

On the other hand, projects which are developed in phases may find themselves with part of their capacity accredited under the RO and part being the subject of a CfD.  In such cases there will need to be separate metering and fuel data collection for the two parts of the project, so as to make sure that plants do not claim ROCs / CfD payments in respect of capacity which is not entitled to them.  As DECC puts it, “preventing arbitrage opportunities between the two schemes and ensuring accuracy, is crucial to minimise the impact on consumer bills”.  DECC also take the view that the dual scheme arrangements should not be available to RO-accredited projects which wish to add less than 5MW of extra capacity funded by a CfD, as it would give rise to an “unjustified” and “disproportionate administrative impact in relation to the amount of additional generation produced”.

Grandfathering

The July consultation included some proposals about grandfathering, with particular reference to biomass co-firing.  The response reports “widespread misunderstanding” of these proposals, which DECC concludes “were too confusing and administratively complicated to take forward” and “would have had little genuine impact in terms of budgetary stability”.  Further proposals in this area may be consulted on “later in the spring or summer”.

Grace periods

The grace periods are a set of four exceptions to the rule that the RO closes to new capacity on 31 March 2017: projects which reach the stage at which RO accreditation could have been given within a certain period after that date will be allowed to be accredited in certain circumstances.  A project that is in a position to benefit from two or more of these exceptions will only be permitted to benefit from one, but (subject to the eligibility rules) has a free choice in deciding which one it will benefit from.

  • New or additional capacity which is delayed by a failure to resolve issues with radar or to establish a grid connection will have a 12 month grace period.  In the case of grid delays, there must be evidence of a grid connection offer made and accepted and a network operator having set a date before April 2017 for connecting the project.
  • There will be a 12 month grace period for any project that is awarded a FID Enabling Investment Contract if that contract is terminated either for reasons relating to state aid or because the developer exercises a right to terminate when changes are made or proposed to it in the light of the CfD standard terms.   
  • A 12 month grace period will be available to a class of ACT or offshore wind projects which are scheduled to commission close to 31 March 2017 and have been identified as at risk of investment hiatus.  These projects are expending funds but are unwilling to commit to the CfD regime because elements of it are still uncertain.  The deadline for applications for this grace period will be 31 October 2014 – i.e. about the time when applications for CfDs are expected to open.  DECC rejected suggestions of a later deadline “as it could give projects which could have applied for a CfD shortly after applications open an incentive to enter the RO instead”.  Of course, it may be that by requiring developers to apply for the grace period before the outcome of the first CfD allocation round is apparent, DECC will simply guarantee that they opt for the RO, but DECC’s thinking seems to be partly that it is targeting projects that ought to be commissioned before 31 March 2017 and making sure that this happens by giving them the confidence to proceed, in the knowledge that the grace period provides them with a safety net.  By way of evidence that they are sufficiently advanced to be eligible for this grace period, developers will have to produce a grid connection offer, a letter from the network operator indicating that connection will take place before April 2017, planning consent (the conditions of which need not have been discharged) and land use rights or an option to acquire them.  They will also have to produce a director’s certificate confirming that the developer will have sufficient resources to commit to the project and that it is expected to commission before April 2017.  Various forms of more detailed evidence of “substantial financial commitment” towards the project were considered and rejected as “too restrictive, too unclear or too sensitive”. 
  • DECC begins discussion of the final grace period by observing that “dedicated biomass projects have in some cases been delayed while detailed Government policy arrangements in relation to the 400MW cap were put into place”.  Dedicated biomass projects allocated an unconditional place within the cap will therefore be offered an 18 month grace period, regardless of whether they are CHP or not.  However, this grace period will not be available for additional capacity.

Further measures for biomass

Generating stations which co-fire biomass and are RO-accredited but have never claimed ROCs under the biomass conversion support band will be permitted to apply for a CfD or Investment Contract as biomass conversions, and leave the RO if they are successful.  If the operator gets cold feet about its CfD before reaching the CfD “Start Date”, it will be able to revert to the RO.  However, DECC has not yet decided whether an operator which finds itself in this position with respect to only some of the units in a generating station would still be entitled to claim ROCs at the conversion band for units in respect of which it has not previously fired or claimed this level of support.

Biomass co-firing stations which are supported by the RO will be permitted to bid into the EMR Capacity Market, leaving the RO if they are successful in their bid.

Offshore wind

Offshore wind projects accredited under the RO when it closes will be permitted to commission their remaining phases under (i) the RO, (ii) the CfD or (iii) both regimes, provided that they “inform Ofgem by 31 March 2017 “whether they intend to take up the RO option” in relation to any of those phases.  Option (iii) is expected to be a minority interest.  RO and CfD phases “will need to be on entirely separate strings of turbines”, with no connection that enables electricity generated by one string to be exported on another.  

Replacement of ROCs with Fixed Price Certificates

The July consultation opened up the possibility that the transition from the current ROC regime to a system of fixed price certificates (FPCs) might be brought forward to coincide with the closure of the RO to new capacity in 2017 rather than taking place in 2027 as originally proposed.  However, DECC intends to stick to the original plan, because consultees did not persuade it that ROC values are likely to fall below the buyout price or that a significant oversupply of ROCs is likely to occur.  

What next?

The implementation of most of these policies will be spread across the RO (Amendment) Order mentioned above (intended to come into fore on 1 April 2014) and the RO Closure Order (due to be laid before Parliament in May and come into fore in July 2014).  “Some remaining transition policy issues, such as those relating to interaction between the RO and the Capacity Market” will be dealt with in an RO Consolidated Order to be made “later in 2014/15”.

Comments

In a world where there is no perfect answer and the most important thing is for developers to know where they stand, DECC’s consultation response is to be welcomed.  It bears the hallmarks of  evidence-based policy making and shows a proper degree of engagement with what consultees had to say as well as a willingness to interrogate critically the representations that they made.  

Overall, the response appears to take a slightly tougher line than is sometimes found on what DECC evidently sees as unjustified special pleading in some areas.  This, and a recurrent emphasis in the response on controlling costs, make sense both in domestic political terms and from the point of view of clearing these policies with the European Commission under the state aid rules.  

The response is perhaps a little more favourable on balance to biomass developers than some of DECC’s publications on biomass of last year, whilst emphasising its transitional status.

DECC has tried to keep things simple at a number of points.  However, the detail of what must be done in order to be eligible to make particular choices is inevitably quite intricate.  Developers will need to think carefully about how to integrate transition and grace period decision-points and criteria, as well as the various steps in RO and CfD procedures, into their own project plans.

As ever with EMR, some big questions remain.  Perhaps the biggest in this case is whether the flexibility to move between the RO and CfD regimes will encourage those who are able to choose either regime to opt for a CfD in preference to the RO.  If it does not, there must be a risk that the RO’s share of Levy Control Framework funding (see the table below, based on DECC figures) will continue to dominate UK renewables subsidies to a greater extent and for a longer period than to be comforably consistent with either the ultimate goals of EMR or the European Commission’s policies on state aid for renewables schemes.

£m 2011/2012 prices 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019
  £ % £ % £ % £ %
Levy Control Framework Cap: RO + FIT + CfD 4,300 100 4,900 100 5,600 100 6,450 100
Committed FIT expenditure(estimated) 760 18 760 15 760 14 760 12
Committed RO expenditure(estimated) 2,900 67 2,790 57 2,790 50 2,790 43
Projected new FIT expenditure 40 1 130 3 200 4 260 4
Renewables Investment Contracts (maximum) 260 6 450 9 720 13 1,010 16
New RO projects, other CfDs 340 8 770 16 1,130 20 1,630 25

 

, , , , , ,

Worth the wait? DECC responds to RO / CfD consultations

State aid for Hinkley Point C (3): What hope for “no aid” arguments?

This post is the third in a series on the European Commission’s initial assessment of the package of measures by which the UK Government proposes to provide financial support for the proposed new nuclear generating station at Hinkley Point (HPC) by NNB Generation Company Limited (NNBG).  In this post we focus on the Commission’s analysis of the UK Government’s arguments that its support for HPC does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and that HPC would be performing a service of general economic interest (SGEI), effectively meaning that it fell outside the state aid rules (for a summary of the overall framework of the Commission’s appraisal, click here).

As noted in the previous post, any “no aid” decision, or categorisation of the HPC as an SGEI, effectively turns on the application of the so-called Altmark criteria.  The quality of the Commission’s arguments in this strategically important area is variable. 

The Commission begins by making the point that it sees a service of general economic interest (SGEI), such as the Government claims would be provided by NNBG, as a service which an undertaking would not supply if it were considering its own commercial interest, and which serves a general economic interest.  In the context of HPC, the Commission’s starting point is that NNBG’s service would be to supply (baseload) electricity; yet that, the Commission says, is “normally considered a commercial activity and a market in which competition takes place”.  It suggests that nuclear generation is no exception to this principle, noting the “nuclear plants which are operated commercially” in the UK by NNBG’s parent EDF, and the “UK’s own assessment” that “private investors [would]…invest in nuclear energy in the UK by 2030 at the latest.  Finally, if the service which would not be provided without aid is the construction of HPC by an earlier date than the private sector would otherwise build new nuclear capacity, the Commission suggests that the UK has not made a convincing case for such early construction being in the general economic interest on security of supply or decarbonisation grounds.  

Almost every assertion that the Commission makes in the two pages or so which it takes to reach these provisional conclusions on “the existence of a SGEI” is questionable in terms of its accuracy or its relevance.  Electricity generation is indeed a commercial activity.  That does not mean that the construction of a new nuclear reactor is a service that will be provided without state aid.  Nor does the existence of the UK’s legacy nuclear fleet help the Commission’s case, constructed as it was by the CEGB in the days of nationalisation.  The Commission’s dismissal of security of supply and decarbonisation as interests served by the putative service of constructing and operating HPC is similarly one-sided.  For example, it effectively denies that there is any benefit in securing decarbonisation sooner if you think the market will decarbonise a few years later, and it ignores the effects on both security of supply and decarbonisation in both the longer and the shorter term which assurance about the viability of HPC (in the form of state aid clearance) could have.

The first Altmark criterion (which is also key to any attempt to justify a measure under Article 106(2)) is that the beneficiary be entrusted with a public service obligation (PSO).   The Commission argues that provisions of the CfD which limit the return which NNBG can make on its investment in HPC or penalise it for late delivery of the project are not capable of being PSOs.  The best claim that the CfD has to being regarded as placing NNBG under an obligation is that if it does not build HPC (or delivers it late), it will receive no money (or less money) under the CfD.  The Commission appears to be suggesting that in order to be a PSO, an obligation (e.g. to commission HPC by a certain date) has to be “enforceable” by some means other than the payment or non-payment of aid.  If the Commission is right about this, it may have implications for the design of the CfD contract terms more generally.  However, the Commission only engages very briefly with the case of Fred Olsen, which appears to offer some support to the UK Government’s view.  In that case, which concerned ferry services, the Court of First Instance remarked that the fact that an operator “unilaterally abandoned or altered the conditions for the operation of some maritime routes indicates at most” that it “failed to honour some of the obligations imposed on it by the provisional arrangements”, and seems to have found that not even the fact that an operator was subsidised at its own request prevented it from satisfying the first criterion.   

Looking beyond the particular circumstances of HPC, what the Commission seems to be saying here could have implications for the financing of other CfD-subsidised schemes.  If the Altmark criteria do truly require the state to have the means of enforcing compliance with requirements, such as the construction of HPC, that go beyond the stimulus provided by the absence of CfD revenues if no electricity is generated, it may not be possible to construct bankable CfDs which satisfy those criteria.  Elsewhere, in the analysis of Article 106(2) arguments, the Commission suggests that the absence of a true PSO is what excuses the UK from having to comply with the public procurement rules in respect of letting a CfD in respect of HPC, and that, conversely, if the requirements imposed on NNBG could be shown to constitute a PSO, the UK Government would have failed in its alleged obligation to follow the public procurement rules.

The Commission broadly accepts that the second Altmark criterion is satisfied – i.e. that the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated are established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.  However, when it comes to the third criterion, that the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in the discharge of the PSO, its assessment is much less favourable.  Moreover, some of the arguments which emerge here also read across into the Article 106(2) and Article 107(3) analysis.

The Commission is concerned, firstly, that the Government does not appear to have a firm view of what the costs of discharging the PSO are (making the level of compensation by definition hard to assess); secondly, that the level of profit that NNBG can expect to earn over the lifetime of the CfD was negotiated with NNBG rather than being “established by reference to the rate of return on capital that would be required by a typical undertaking considering whether or not to provide the alleged SGEI”; and thirdly, that because the 35 year lifetime of the CfD is shorter than the 60 year lifetime of HPC, NNBG could earn super-normal profits in years 36 to 60. 

It is hard to comment on the first two of these points as far as HPC is concerned without access to the UK’s submissions to the Commission, although in response to the second one might ask: what is a “typical undertaking” considering whether or not to build HPC, let alone (as the Commission goes on to elaborate) “the average cost structure of efficient and comparable undertakings in the sector under consideration” – none of which have been built under exactly the same regulatory regimes as HPC would be built and operate under?  Moreover, for much of the period during which the Government was negotiating with NNBG, it was simply the only undertaking willing to contemplate any form of investment in new nuclear build in the UK.  On the other hand, prospective recipients of aid under enduring CfD regime for renewables in mind regime may take some comfort in this context from the fact that their strike prices will not be the result of bilateral negotiations. 

But the Commission’s point about the duration of the comparative lifetimes of the CfD and the generating station is something on which we can comment in the HPC context.  The strike price, we are told, has been set at a level which is designed to ensure that NNBG covers the costs of construction and operation and makes a return of 9.87% on the project as a whole over its lifetime (in post-tax, nominal terms).  Yet, as the Commission points out, once the CfD expires, the profitability of the plant is uncertain because the level of revenue accruing to the operator from the sale of electricity is no longer controlled by the strike price mechanism.  This makes it harder for the Commission to rule out the possibility of overcompensation during the post-CfD period of the plant’s operation.  The Commission suggests two ways of dealing with this problem: making the CfD coterminous with the life of the plant, or providing some means for the state to recover any overcompensation within the CfD itself (effectively a gain-share provision for the period when the strike price mechanism no longer applies).  One problem with the first of these, if taken in isolation, is that it is not possible to predict the lifetime of a plant with certainty when the strike price is initially calculated.  

In principle, it would seem that this arguments is not unique to the case of HPC and could be applied to the wider CfD regime.  The differences are that the periods of time involved – both CfD durations and plant lifetimes – are shorter for non-nuclear projects, so that the calculations are less dependent on very long range predictions of electricity prices; and that there is more comparative data on which to assess technology costs.  Whether the Commission will consider these differences to be sufficient for it to take a more favourable view of this aspect of the wider CfD regime than it has so far in the case of the HPC package remains to be seen.  In this context it is curious that the Commission states that “nuclear production, which requires very high levels of capital for the investment in the construction and hence before revenues can be generated, while also being characterised by a relatively low level of operating costs once the plant has been built, has few, if any, equivalents in commercial activities”: the CfD regime as a whole is surely predicated on the assumption that all the technologies it covers (renewable, nuclear, CCS) have in this sense a similar cost profile.

The fourth Altmark criterion is that where the undertaking which is to discharge a PSO is not chosen through a public procurement process, the level of compensation must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical, well run, undertaking would have incurred.  Here again, the problem is in finding the appropriate comparator.  Unsurprisingly, the Government has commissioned a review of NNBG’s cost estimates to determine whether they are “reasonable”.  The Commission says that this is not what the Altmark criterion requires.

The final sections of the Commission’s analysis of the UK’s “no aid” arguments deal with the credit guarantee and the proposal to compensate NNBG in the event of a “political shutdown” of HPC.  On the credit guarantee, the Commission essentially reserves judgment owing to the lack of detail available.  However,  it does lay down a marker when it observes that the guarantee “seems to differ from ordinary debt guarantees in that it would be drawn before equity, apart from equity already spent…It would therefore appear that [it] might diminish the risks borne by equity holders”.  The Commission appears prepared at this stage to accept the UK’s argument that political shutdown proposals do not constitute state aid, subject to the provision of more information “on whether this compensation…would also be available to other market operators placed in a similar situation”.  This is intriguing.  It is presumably possible that the UK Government would be prepared to offer a similar deal on political shutdown to another nuclear operator, but such a deal is clearly not on the table for operators of renewable technologies, for example, and whilst a political shutdown of UK wind farms may be a more remote possibility than something like the German reaction to Fukushima, will that point be sufficient to satisfy the Commission that the enduring regime for renewables should not in this respect be “levelled up”, to confer on its beneficiaries the additional protection offered to NNBG?

It is clear that the Commission is highly reluctant to reach a finding that there is “no aid” in the HPC package, or to find that there is an SGEI within the meaning of Article 106(2).  It does not want to treat nuclear power as a special case.  Yet unless it is prepared to recognise that nuclear power is not just another source of baseload electricity, how could the Commission find that there is no aid (or that there is a SGEI) in a CfD negotiated directly between a Government and the beneficiary undertaking which includes a generous strike price, a 35 year term and investor protection in the event of political shutdown – and still realise its ambition of cutting back on subsidies for renewables? 

To go by the evidence of the Commission’s initial assessment, the Government would – rightly or wrongly – have to do a lot more work both in terms of scheme design (including changing some features of the currently proposed CfD arrangements) and in terms of arguing its corner with the Commission if it is to persuade the Commission that there is “no aid” to NNBG.  It is possible that the Court of Justice might be more sympathetic to the Government on some of these points, but EU litigation would not help the timeliness of the delivery of EMR objectives.

, , , , ,

State aid for Hinkley Point C (3): What hope for “no aid” arguments?

State aid for Hinkley Point C (2): Outline of the Commission’s analysis

This is the second in a series of posts on the European Commission’s initial assessment of the package of measures by which the UK Government proposes to provide financial support for the proposed new nuclear generating station at Hinkley Point (HPC): click here for the first in the series.  The text of Commission’s letter is now also available in the Official Journal of the European Union: interested parties have one month from the date of its publication (7 March 2014) to comment.   

In this post we summarise the Commission’s analysis of the HPC support package.  This consists chiefly of a proposed Contract for Difference (CfD) and a credit guarantee conferred by participation in HM Treasury’s UK Guarantees Scheme: both are conveniently summarised in the opening paragraphs of the Official Journal notice.

Introduction: the state aid rules

It is worth beginning by reminding ourselves of the key EU Treaty provisions on state aid.  Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) states:

1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.

Article 107(2) then lists certain types of aid which fall within Article 107(1) but which “shall” be considered compatible with the internal market.  These relate to aid having a social character or relating to natural disasters, economic crises or German unification and can therefore be disregarded for present purposes.  Article 107(3) contains a further list of types of aid which “may” be considered compatible with the internal market.  Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU state:

2. If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article 107, or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission.

If the State concerned does not comply with this decision within the prescribed time, the Commission or any other interested State may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 258 and 259, refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union direct…

3. The Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article 107, it shall without delay initiate the procedure provided for in paragraph 2. The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision.

Secondary legislation has established an administrative framework for dealing with state aid cases (for further detail, click here).  Measures that are put into effect without having been notified and approved under Article 108(3) are “unlawful aid”.  If the Commission finds unlawful aid is incompatible with the internal market, it may require Member States to recover it from the beneficiaries.

To gain the Commission’s approval for the HPC package, the UK Government must therefore persuade the Commission either that its support for HPC does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1), or that such support is compatible with the internal market.  The Government has identified three possible ways to avoid a finding of incompatibility, as set out below.

The “no aid” arguments

Any claim that a measure does not constitute state aid depends on showing that one of the elements of aid set out in Article 107(1) – state origin of the aid, conferral of a “selective advantage”, impacts on intra-EU trade and competition – is not present.  We take each of these in turn below as they have been applied to the HPC support package.

  • Apparently, the UK authorities “do not contest” that the CfD is financed from resources under the control of the state.  The Commission points out that the CfD will be administered by a Counterparty body essentially controlled, and potentially underwritten, by the Secretary of State.
  • As regards distortion of competition and an effect on intra-EU trade, the Commission observes: “As in this case the notified measures will enable the development of a large level of capacity which might otherwise have been the object of private investment by other market operators using alternative technologies from either the UK or other Member States, the notified measures can affect trade between Member States and distort competition.”.
  • That leaves as the key battleground the question of whether the support package confers a “selective advantage” on HPC.  Would HPC be getting a deal that will give it an advantage in the market and that is not open to its competitors?  In order to show that this element of the definition of aid is made out, the Commission has to engage with the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in the case of Altmark.  In that case, the Court found that in certain circumstances compensation provided to undertakings entrusted with a public service function would not constitute state aid.  The Commission considers the Altmark criteria (discussed in the Commission’s 2012 Communication on compensation for the provision of services of general economic interest (SGEI)) in some detail.  Overall, the Commission finds it hard to see that HPC would be entrusted with the kind of public service obligation (PSO) that the Altmark criteria envisage.  It also inclines to the view that the compensation which HPC stands to receive under the CfD would be more than the Altmark criteria permit. 

The “aid is compatible” arguments

The Government argues that if the HPC package is considered to be state aid, its contribution to the common EU objectives of decarbonisation, security of supply and diversity of electricity generation, and addressing related market failures, outweighs its negative impact on the internal market.  The Commission is not persuaded by these arguments in favour of a finding of compatibility under Article 107(3).  For example, it is sceptical of claims about decarbonisation on the basis that support for HPC could crowd out investment in other low carbon technologies; and it queries claims about security of supply on the grounds that the most immediate concerns about the adequacy of the UK’s electricity generation capacity relate to the current decade, not the 2020s when HPC would be commissioned.

But the Commission’s scepticism about the objectives of the HPC support package is only the beginning of its concerns from an Article 107(3) point of view.  Even if it were prepared to accept that the HPC package is aligned with one of the “common EU objectives”, the Commission queries whether state aid – in the combined form of the proposed CfD and credit guarantee – is needed to enable HPC to achieve these objectives.  Overall, the Commission suspects that the level of protection from ordinary market risks which the support package provides is excessive: more or less every aspect of the package, from the duration of the CfD to the way in which it has been negotiated, is viewed in sceptical terms, so that the Commission concludes by saying that it doubts “whether it effectively addresses a market failure”; questions “whether [it] can be deemed…to be proportionate”; and is “concerned about its distortive effects on competition”.

A “service of general economic interest”?

In between the “no aid” and “compatible aid” limbs of its case, the Government argues that the HPC package with the internal market, fulfils the conditions of the Framework which the Commission has put in place for determining whether larger SGEI schemes fall within Article 106(2) TFEU.   Article 106(2) states:

2. Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.

Article 106(2) is in some ways the ultimate derogation provision.  It says, in effect, that certain undertakings will be exempt from the requirements of EU competition and state aid law if the application of that law would “obstruct the performance” of a service of general economic interest entrusted to a particular undertaking.  The meaning of Article 106(2) has therefore been the subject of many arguments between the Commission and Member States.

The Commission has, for example, argued that Article 106(2) “authorizes measures contrary to the Treaty only to the extent to which they are necessary to enable the undertaking concerned to perform its task of general economic interest under acceptable economic conditions and, therefore, only if they are necessary for the financial equilibrium of the undertaking itself”.  But the Court of Justice, whilst acknowledging that Article 106(2), like all derogations, must be interpreted strictly, has found that it “seeks to reconcile the Member States’ interest in using certain undertakings, in particular in the public sector, as an instrument of economic or fiscal policy with the Community’s interest in ensuring compliance with the rules on competition and the preservation of the unity of the common market”.  Moreover, Member States “cannot be precluded, when defining the services of general economic interest which they entrust to certain undertakings, from taking account of objectives pertaining to their national policy or from endeavouring to attain them by means of obligations and constraints which they impose on such undertakings”.  As a result, “for the Treaty rules not to be applicable to an undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest under Article 90(2) of the Treaty, it is sufficient that the application of those rules obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the special obligations incumbent upon that undertaking. It is not necessary that the survival of the undertaking itself be threatened”.  (See Case C-157/94, Commission v Netherlands.)

                                                   

                                                A service of general economic interest

The Commission’s analysis in response to the UK’s SGEI arguments overlaps to a large extent with what it says in relation to the Altmark criteria and/or the Government’s Article 107(3) arguments.  It concludes that the Commission doubts whether the HPC package qualifies as an SGEI within the meaning of Article 106(2) and the Framework, and that even if it did so qualify the Commission doubts that it would comply with the Framework.

Overall characteristics of the Commission’s analysis

In future posts we will examine some of the Commission’s arguments in more detail.  For now, it is worth noting some more general features of the Commission’s appraisal.

  • There is a degree of unevenness about the Commission’s analysis.  It makes some extremely good points and some decidedly weak ones. 
  • There are a number of points when the Commission appears to help the UK by indicating possible ways of correcting what it sees as deficiencies in the HPC package in state aid terms.  Whether these potential “escape routes” are in practice open to the UK Government is another matter.
  • The Commission – intentionally or otherwise – draws attention to a number of places where the HPC package is different from the rest of the CfD regime (or at least the enduring regime for renewables).  Sometimes this is to the latter’s advantage, but not always.  In an ideal world, the whole of the CfD regime would have been worked out in full before being notified together, but it so happens that the first part of the regime that the Commission examines in detail is not entirely typical or representative of the regime as a whole.
  • Inevitably, much of the analysis is somewhat tentative, because details of almost all parts of the package still remain to be fully worked out.

Behind everything lurks the question: how much (or how little) freedom do the EU state aid rules allow Member States to have as regards ensuring that a certain proportion of their electricity generating capacity belongs to a specified technology type? 

 

, , , , ,

State aid for Hinkley Point C (2): Outline of the Commission’s analysis

State aid for Hinkley Point C (1): the context of the Commission’s letter of 18 December 2013

On 18 December 2013, the European Commission announced that it was opening an in-depth state aid investigation into the Government’s package of financial support for the proposed Hinkley Point C (HPC) new nuclear generating station.  On 31 January 2014 the Commission published a version of the letter setting out its reasons for launching a detailed investigation and the points on which it requires to be persuaded of before giving state aid clearance to the package.

What does the letter tell us?  It is a fairly closely-argued 67 pages, so it will take more than one post to cover it.  Today, we begin by setting the scene. 

The potential of HPC – an image from gov.uk

The critical tone of parts of the Commission’s analysis has been noted in a number of reports, but this is perhaps not the most surprising feature of the letter if one considers its context.

  • The package of support for HPC inevitably treats new nuclear as to some extent a “special case”.  State aid policy is administered on the principle that free markets are best and that claims that a particular industry is somehow “special” are to be treated with scepticism – even if that industry is one in which there is already massive state intervention in various forms. 
  • The European Commission’s decision-making on state aid cases has sometimes been criticised for being too politically expedient.  Here we have a case where the UK Government has invested huge political capital and the aid is going to a subsidiary of a company 84% owned by the French state.  Even if the Commission is ultimately minded to approve the HPC support package it cannot afford to be seen to have given it anything less than an economically rigorous evaluation.
  • In 2007, the Commission ruled on alleged state aid for the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear plant, to be built in Finland with French technology.  The issue was whether a guarantee given by the French state gave Areva an unfair competitive advantage over other potential suppliers.  The guarantee was found to have been given on market terms, so that there was no aid under the state aid rules.  However, the proceedings still lasted three years and the Commission went through an in-depth investigation before reaching a final decision. 
  • In 2006, the Commission approved the arrangements for setting up the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).  Although the Commission acknowledged that the purposes behind the creation of the NDA were fully in line with the objectives of the Euratom Treaty, it was also very concerned about potential distortions of competition arising from it.  For example, notably tight controls were set on the pricing of electricity sold by the UK’s Magnox nuclear plants, to be run by the NDA, for the few remaining years of their life.
  • Most recently, the Commission decided that aid granted by Slovakia in relation to nuclear decommissioning was compatible with the state aid rules.  In doing so, the Commission emphasised that the aid related to plants that had already been shut down; that it did not subsidize current electricity production; and that it was “strictly limited to what is necessary to cover the costs of decommissioning historic nuclear facilities, for which no adequate provisions were created in the times of a centrally-planned economy”.  Moreover, the Slovak scheme was unlike “the numerous schemes of compensation for stranded costs, public service obligations and support schemes for renewable electricity, where the Commission has found that the financing of the support scheme through a levy has a protective effect of national electricity production”.
  • The HPC support package is the kind of arrangement that is intrinsically harder for the Commission to get itself comfortable with than the Okiluoto or NDA measures.  It explicitly and intentionally provides, under the Contract for Difference (CfD) mechanism, a guaranteed level of price for electricity and therefore a degree of revenue security which the market would not provide.  It can therefore be characterised as “operating aid” (as opposed to “investment aid”), which the state aid regime regards as particularly problematic – since it shields operating businesses from normal market risks.
  • Although there is an entire EU Treaty devoted to the promotion of nuclear power, it is politically controversial within the EU, and there are those who will take any opportunity to put the case, whether in administrative or judicial proceedings, against the adoption or approval of any measure that brings a “nuclear renaissance” in the EU closer.
  • There are undoubtedly some features of the support package for HPC which, at least at first sight and taken in isolation, appear very generous.
  • The Commission is in the process of “modernising” the state aid framework and has just published draft Guidelines on environmental and energy aid.  The Guidelines do not cover nuclear projects, but take a notably tough line on e.g. support for renewables, even though the deployment of renewables is mandated by EU law in a way that nuclear power is not.  Anything other than a searching approach to scrutiny of the HPC package would be out of keeping with the general thrust of current Commission policy in this area.
  • Whatever the ultimate outcome of the Commission’s evaluation of the HPC support package, the final decision can only be robust against potential challenge if it has clearly stated the potential objections to what the UK Government is proposing.

The UK public may have been encouraged to think that the hard part of HPC was over once development consent, a nuclear site licence, marine licence and other environmental permits were granted, and agreement on the strike price had been reached.  But obtaining state aid clearance in this case was always going to be a challenge.  And for all sorts of reasons, it is not surprising if at this stage the Commission has stated the “case for the prosecution” in clear and strongly worded terms.  In future posts, we will examine some of the Commission’s arguments a little more closely, consider the possible outcomes of the Commission’s investigation into the HPC support package, and look at what the Commission’s letter indicates about the prospects for state aid clearance of the rest of the Electricity Market Reform (EMR) package.

, , ,

State aid for Hinkley Point C (1): the context of the Commission’s letter of 18 December 2013

Contracts for difference: established technologies must compete for strike prices

Only a few weeks ago, DECC announced the “final” strike prices that were to apply to contracts for difference (CfDs) for the various eligible renewable technologies under Electricity Market Reform (EMR) (see our earlier post on this).  But things move fast in the world of EMR.  On 16 January 2014, DECC announced that for those technologies considered “established”, there would be no guarantee of securing strike prices at the level of the figures fixed in December 2013. 

The group of “established” technologies for these purposes consists of onshore wind (>5MW), solar PV (>5MW), energy from waste with CHP, hydroelectric (>5MW and <50MW), landfill gas and sewage gas.  For these technologies, it is proposed that strike prices will be set by a process of competitive bidding for which the December figures will function as a cap.  For the “less established” technologies (offshore wind, wave, tidal stream, advanced conversion technologies, anaerobic digestion, dedicated biomass with CHP and geothermal) the December strike prices will apply.  A decision has yet to be made about strike prices for biomass conversion and Scottish islands projects.

Moreover, all technologies will have to apply for their CfDs through allocation rounds – i.e. at specified times, rather than whenever it is most convenient for them to do so.  There will be no initial period of “First Come, First Served” allocation of CfDs.  The draft CfD allocation framework, originally scheduled for publication in January 2014, will not now be published until March 2014.

The DECC announcement is cast as a consultation, but the key points look fairly firm.  Although the document lists a number of factors that have been taken into consideration, it is clear that the European Commission’s draft state aid guidelines have played a big part in DECC’s thinking (see our earlier post on the draft guidelines).  The draft guidelines place a heavy emphasis on the desirability of competition for subsidies to renewable generators.  

There can be no doubt that the change of approach on strike prices ought to improve the chances of gaining state aid clearance from the Commission for the CfD regime.  But what will be the practical and wider impacts of more projects having to compete on strike prices sooner? 

How “technology-specific” will each auction be?  How frequently will auctions take place? Some questions will have to wait for an answer until we have seen the allocation framework.  For some time now, it has been clear that the allocation framework will be a hugely important document.  Assuming that DECC sticks to its overall timetable, there will not be very much time to consult on the first allocation framework before the package of EMR secondary legislation that requires Parliamentary approval is laid before Parliament.

In the meantime, it is a fair bet that some projects which might have applied for a CfD will now opt for the more predictable support mechanism provided by the Renewables Obligation (RO) instead (as they will be able to do until 2017).  Many of these projects are not large and the process of competing on strike price can only add to the costs of a CfD application.  But if more opt for the RO from the outset, how will that affect the budget available for CfDs under the Levy Control Framework?  And what will be the implications for any state aid analysis of the RO if projects that fail to win CfDs in the auction process can go on and claim what turns out to be a higher level of support under the RO?

, , , , , , ,

Contracts for difference: established technologies must compete for strike prices

EU renewable generators: time to wean them off “overcompensating” subsidies?

The European Commission has published draft state aid guidelines on environmental and energy aid for 2014-2020 for consultation.  According to the accompanying press release, these would “facilitate the decarbonisation of energy supply and the integration of the EU internal energy market”.  A less charitable reader might detect in the draft guidelines some tensions between the EU’s competing goals of promoting free competition and completing the EU internal energy market on the one hand and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure security of energy supply on the other.

The draft guidelines follow the policy outlined in the Commission Communication on delivering the internal electricity market and making the most of public intervention, published with accompanying  staff working papers in November: the suspicion that, notwithstanding “the challenges of the climate change agenda”, some national subsidy regimes for renewables are “overcompensating” what are now “mature” technologies; that new schemes designed to ensure security of supply may end up supporting plants that are unnecessary or inefficient; and that Member States too readily opt for subsidies rather than pursuing demand reduction options or the potential for EU market integration.

There is considerable emphasis on the use of competitive bidding processes.  The draft thresholds for determining whether a technology is “deployed” and subsidies to it therefore require to be subject to more rigorous criteria may be set quite low (between 1 and 3 per cent of production at EU level).  For each technology / kind of aid, the draft guidelines list specific anti-competitive pitfalls to be avoided and/or ways to monitor for, and correct, possible overcompensation.  And it is envisaged that the guidelines will apply not just to new schemes, but also to existing ones which are amended after the guidelines come into force – unless the only amendment is the publication of a new tariff, or the beneficiary has received confirmation that it will benefit for a predetermined period.

In some ways, none of this should be surprising.  By definition, even aid that has been cleared by the Commission remains susceptible to further examination in the light of changing market conditions – which may lead to something that was originally found compatible with the internal market subsequently being found to be incompatible.  It remains to be seen whether the draft Guidelines will lead to this happening more often, or whether they will change much as a result of this new consultation (the third on this subject).  One thing that is certain is that there is no shortage of high-profile cases to which the Commission can apply its current thinking.  On the same day as the draft guidelines were published the Commission announced an in-depth investigation into a German scheme reducing renewables surcharges to energy-intensive users and into the UK’s proposed aid to EDF’s Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.

All of which comes as a reminder that the low carbon investment support and security of supply elements of the UK Government’s flagship programme of Electricity Market Reform (EMR) require – and have yet to be granted – state aid clearance from the Commission.  The same is true of the proposed exemption for energy intensive industrial users from the increases in supply charges that will fund EMR.  It is not surprising that recent DECC announcements have stressed the possibility of e.g. moving to competitive bidding for EMR contracts for difference (rather than setting the “strike price” administratively) sooner rather than later.  Fortunately, the EMR regime has been designed in such a way as to accommodate a lot of adjustments both before and after it goes live later this year.

, , ,

EU renewable generators: time to wean them off “overcompensating” subsidies?