An ambitious Energy Efficiency Directive, still possible after the informal discussions yesterday
The trialogue negotiations on the final text were supposed to start already, but they are delays due to the low level of ambition in the Council’s proposal. On the 20th of April the Ministries of Environment and Energy had an informal meeting where the Energy Efficiency Directive was re-discussed. A preliminary analysis made on the Council’s proposal by the European Commission had found that it would reduce consumption by only 58.1 million tones of oil equivalent (Mtoe). The Commission's version of the EED would reduce consumption by 151.5 Mtoe. However, we need a 202 Mtoe consumption reduction in order to reach the 20% target which could be achieved if the European Parliament will succeed to include in the final text their ambitious proposals.
The Council's changes reduced the amount of building renovation required of public authorities (3% yearly renovation, but only for buildings owned by central public authorities and only reaching the minimum energy performance requirements), eased energy-efficiency obligations and removed several obligations. Their proposed version was seen to be even weaker than the Energy Service Directive that is now in place and that is supposed to be replaced by the Energy Efficiency Directive.
However the results of yesterday's discussions seem promising. The Energy Commissioner Gunter Oettinger was optimistic and declared that the deal to deliver the 20% energy saving target is still possible. The Danish Ministry for Climate and Energy also declared that yesterday they had the most constructive discussions on this file. The Danish presidency has set the Energy Efficiency on top of its priorities and declared that it wants to achieve an agreement by the end of June.
More on what happened yesterday here.
European platform







Comments
Public sector supposed to be exemplar!
In all European countries the public sector is supposed to be exemplar. In France a Decree was bloqued for similar reasons, whrn private sector wished to go ahead with pragmatic measures.