EU stößt Kampf um milliardenschwere Energiefinanzierung an[en] 

On 23 January 2008, the European Commission proposed to revise the EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS; see EurActiv LinksDossier) for the period 2013-2020, setting out the EU's main instrument to meet its objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.

The proposal, part of a wider climate and energy 'package' of legislation, suggested capping emissions to 21% below 2005 levels by 2020, and expanding the scheme to include more industrial sectors.

Under the revised scheme, electricity producers will need to buy 100% of their CO2 emission permits at auction by 2020, for example.

But heavy industry, including the cement, steel, aluminium and chemical sectors, argue that a tightened ETS would inflate their costs to such an extent that they would be forced to move their factories and jobs beyond the EU's borders, leading to a 'leakage' of CO2 emissions without any environmental benefits (see EurActiv LinksDossier).

Up to 300 million allowances would be made available from the new entrants' reserve until the end of 2015 to subsidise the construction of 12 carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration plants and support projects on innovative renewable energy technologies (EurActiv 12/12/08).

Money could also go to giant wind turbines, made of space-age composites, nearly as tall as the 300-metre-high Eiffel Tower and three times more powerful than today's biggest.

The report lays out the principles the European Commission will use for dividing 300 million emissions permits to companies testing new technologies that slash CO2 emissions from power generation and gives the first list of eligible technologies. 

Under the EU's emissions trading scheme (EU ETS), polluters must pay for allowances to be able to emit greenhouse gases. The free allocations under the reserve are therefore effectively a subsidy.

The report could kick off a battle between Europe's nascent green industries, backed by environmentalists, and the giant utilities that back carbon capture and storage (CCS).

"We think the majority should be earmarked for renewables," said Greenpeace renewables campaigner Frauke Thies. "CCS is risky and we don't know if they can deliver. But we know renewables can deliver and there is so much more potential."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown played a key role in securing the funding during last year's EU climate negotiations, but the big winners from CCS are utilities such as Germany's E.ON and engineers like Alstom of France.

CCS, essentially burying harmful gases, is seen by some as a potential silver bullet to curb emissions from coal-fired power plants, which are multiplying rapidly worldwide and threaten to heat the atmosphere to dangerous levels.

Sharing the technology with China and India could also prove critical in securing their commitment to a new global deal on fighting climate change at talks in Copenhagen in December.

Bias towards clean coal

While the technologies exist, utilities are reluctant to build CCS power stations without public funding, because the CCS component adds about one billion euros to the cost of each plant.

The European Parliament last year proposed billions of euros to help kick-start CCS, but could only get member states to back the proposal if the money was shared with new green technologies such as geothermal energy and concentrated solar.

Environmentalists argue that the companies lobbying for CCS in the EU made profits of over 90 billion euros last year and support is unjustified.

The current drafts indicate that CCS projects would receive at least 75% of the New Entrants Reserve. This comes on top of the €1 billion allocated to the technology under the European Economic Recovery Plan (EurActiv 07/05/09), which has led the supporters of renewables to cry foul against the Commission's bias in favour of clean coal.

Many renewables on the list of eligible projects, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday, are at the very cutting edge, such as so-called concentrated solar power systems using lenses and mirrors to eke the most energy out of the sun's rays.

"The principle is that the extra funding is distributed proportionately between CCS and renewables, but departures from this can be justified by a lack of suitable candidate projects," said the report.

Environmentalists fear the fragmented renewables industry will fail to compete against utilities that have proposed clearly defined CCS projects, many of which received recognition in a recent EU economic recovery plan.

"The Commission is not saying how much funding is going into CCS and how much into renewables, and we think they should define that at the start," said Thies of Greenpeace.

The EU plans 10-12 CCS demonstration projects by 2015 to kickstart the industry. Operators will not be able to keep the knowledge gained in the pilot projects for their own commercial advantage, but must share it freely.

(EurActiv with Reuters.)

Green MEPs Claude Turmes (Luxembourg) and Caroline Lucas (UK) criticised the proposals for pumping yet again public funds into coal-fired power plants at the expense of renewable energy. They argued that the New Entrants Reserve should focus on technologies that best deliver the emissions reduction goal of the EU ETS.

"The European Council's original support for using the New Entrants Reserve in this way was conditional on it being available to renewable energy as well as CCS, and there are new emerging renewable energy technologies which offer much greater potential for emissions reductions, as well as energy independence. Unfortunately, the Commission has once again succumbed to the fossil fuel lobby. The EU will never achieve the necessary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 if it continues to support outdated, dirty fossil fuels," they said. 

"The Commission's proposals manipulate the selection and award process for the reserve, ensuring CCS would receive at least 75% of the 300 million allocated emissions permits. The Commission also severely restricts the range of renewable energy project types that are eligible for inclusion, so that many of the most urgent and strategically important possibilities would be excluded," Turmes and Lucas added.