Detailed summary of Conference presentations
"Energy futures and civil society in the EU - building a low carbon alliance"
EESC, 20 June 2012
On 20 June 2012, a conference entitled Energy futures and civil society in the EU - Building a
low carbon alliance was held at the EESC. Anna Maria Darmanin, EESC vice-president,
opened the conference and stated the importance of dialogue for a better energy future.
The EESC had initiated a public debate on energy at the European, national, local and
regional levels with very ambitious targets that took cultural considerations into account.
There was a need to work together to take full advantage of the energy mix. Debate was
necessary for democratic reasons. Dedicated public measures should be taken and a
communication and participation process set up. Public debates should be lively, realistic,
transparent and comprehensible. She concluded that the objective of the event was to give
a good overview of the debate in the EU, to see whether citizens were well-equipped and
ready for change, and to formulate recommendations.
The second speaker was Ferdinando Riccardi, publishing editor and leader writer at Agence
Europe. Mr Riccardi mentioned Europe's dependence on the outside world for its energy
sources, giving examples of bilateral meetings at the national level (e.g. Berlusconi-Putin). At
the EU level, there was no policy sharing between the external relations and energy
commissioners, leaving the EU with little scope for initiative and negotiating leverage (take
for instance the example of Germany's unilateral decision to give up nuclear energy and its
impact on the whole Union). Sometimes, even within a country, there was no common
policy, with disagreements between companies and governments. The next speaker,
Monique Goyens, director general of the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC),
pointed out that the term 'post-carbon' is more effective than 'low carbon' for changing
mindsets. She emphasised the importance of engaging with people and using smart meters
to save money since a demand-response model could lead only partly to consumer
behaviour change. There was also a need to analyse consumers' actual behaviour and not
just what they said. Consumers found energy boring, there was therefore a need to inform
them and make energy management simple, fun and financially worthwhile.
The Q&A session focused on the lack of international efforts, simplicity, enforcement
mechanisms, budget and door-to-door teaching. Furthermore, it was argued that it was the
upper classes that did less and not the uneducated. Finally, working at the grassroots level
was deemed essential. The speakers replied that Europe's energy came from outside and
that a political basis for EU negotiations was indeed crucial. One participant mentioned the
lack of attention given to the social/health/environmental cost of supplying energy and
referred to the Court of Justice decision on air quality while another participant expressed
concerns regarding the risk related to energy futures. Even if citizens did not understand the
technical aspects, they wanted to be informed about the future benefits they would receive
if they took a risk today. Mr Riccardi agreed on the last point; while Ms Goyens indicated
1
that a commitment by society and a change in corporate business models could minimise
the risk.
Session 1 was a presentation of the Transition Movement Network by Filipa Pimentel and
Chris Rowland. The Transition Movement started in the UK in 2006. There were now 1 000
initiatives registered all over the world including 500 in Europe. Each project was different
and dependent on the nature of the community that adopted it, focusing on aspects such as
education, energy, food, etc. They all however constituted small scale responses to global
challenges. One of the projects was in Lewes, England, and involved a transition from
centralised to decentralised power. It was set up in response to climate change, economic
crisis, peak oil, and dreams of a fairer world. Transition Town Lewes (TTL) projects included a
local currency, draught-busting workshops, etc., and OVESCO (the Ouse Valley Energy
Services Company), which generated local empowerment and employment, grants and
loans. It registered installers of microgeneration devices, and provided help with the feed-in
tariff, the Renewable Heat Incentive and insulation (Green Deal). In Harvey's brewery (PV
power station and first project) the surplus profit was given to future projects, building a
portfolio of local renewable energy projects. Companies benefited from free electricity in
return for leasing roof space for 25 years.
The questions that followed touched on the issue of participatory versus representative
democracy, the size of the project and the obstacles for scaling it up and the cost of
retrofitting the heat produced. The speakers replied that in general local councils were
cooperative and the success of the projects made them even more so and that the transition
was still experimental. Concerning the scale, there were 16 000 people in Lewes and many
more in Bristol (successful examples), but the important thing was to plan from the
beginning, not just consult along the way, in order to make people feel that the project
belonged to all of them. As for heat, it was not financially viable and not well-developed in
the United Kingdom. Finally, the consumer association in the UK was well-organised and was
an inspiration for other organisations to emulate.
Gérard Magnin, executive director of Energy Cities, took the floor and touched upon
technical solutions on the supply side and people's daily life. Energy Cities (1 000 towns and
cities from 30 countries) was an association of local authorities inventing their energy future.
The Covenant of Mayors was the mainstream European movement of local and regional
authorities voluntarily committing to energy efficiency. With around 4 000 signatories it sent
a strong political signal, but a multi-level, multi-sector, multi-stakeholder approach was
needed (EU Roadmap 2050, industry's and cities' visions combined). The benefits of a crosssectoral approach included a high quality of life for all, the management of resources and
geopolitical security. In an open and participatory process, the 30 energy cities' proposals
referred to energy transition, and the interface capacity between public authorities and civil
society. Mr Magnin concluded with his hope for a potential Covenant of Mayors 2050. The
next two speakers, Paul Dorfman from the University of Warwick and Simon Burall from
Involve UK, put the grassroots initiatives into a broader context. Mr Dorfman distinguished
2
between local energy involvement (Transition Network, European Sustainable Energy
Communities, Albert Climate Dialogue, EUROCITIES, International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), Energy for Mayors, Cities for Inclusive Action, Imagine,
Engage and Energy Cities and national energy involvement (Danish Board of Technology, UK
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), European multi-stakeholder forum on
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) , Smart Energy Dialogue, Engaging Civil Society in Low
Carbon Scenarios (ENCI LOWCARB) and the pilot Spanish Energy Mix Forum. We still had to
channel this diffuse involvement and expertise, as the landscape was diverse and the public
values and attitudes different. Mr Burall posed the question of how we should move from
grassroots to stakeholder forums and he differentiated between citizens (permanent
residents and full members of the political community that had a stake in issues but
nevertheless did not identify themselves) and stakeholders (groups or individuals with an
interest in an issue). The policy cycle involved all stakeholders, a proper framing of the
matter, and a clear understanding of what was being done, why and by whom. To conclude,
the rule for engaging people to reach an outcome was: purpose +context +people +process
structure=outcome.
The participants' questions mainly revolved around government structure and the
ambiguous relationships between local authorities and people, the technical as well as social
aspects of the issue, network managers' involvement and infrastructure and funding. The
speakers replied that distributors also needed to be involved in local initiatives; that there
was a need to exchange good practice (e.g. Scandinavian countries); and that there was a
variety of funding sources, with some initiatives belonging to governments.
The second session began with Miranda Schreurs, director of the Environmental Policy
Research Centre, professor at Freie University and Member of the German Advisory Council
on the Environment. Ms Schreurs agreed that 20-20-20 by 2020 and Roadmap 2050 were
good EU initiatives, but that we needed some good federal/state initiatives and dialogue
between levels. Moreover, we needed an integrated system (renewables (RES), storage),
grid technology (centralised-decentralised, inter-connectivity) and public debate. She
presented the plans of some major energy companies (Desertec, off-shore wind in the North
Sea, the solar park outside Berlin, pump storage in Norway, the hydrogen full storage facility
in Brandenburg) and their impact (job creation, feed-in tariff costs, the success of
photovoltaics).
The Q&A session focused on consumer reaction to the high cost, Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS), more information on German pilot programmes, funding and technological
developments. The replies were that so far the increased RES had not increased the cost so
much; storage capacity was essential for the transition; methane was a good, pivotal idea;
research on CCS was ongoing, as well as on other resources; and, finally, that we needed to
rethink tax incentives and finance mechanisms. Energy efficiency was crucial; retrofit was
key; resources needed to be divided between supply and demand policy; and stakeholder
3
involvement was essential. Finally, concerning technological developments, we were at an
early stage and creativity was needed to develop and discover more.
After the lunch break, Søren Hermansen, director of Samsø Energy Academy in Denmark,
presented Samsø's more practical than visionary perspective, which included many meetings
with stakeholders (even before cost or technology considerations), as it was difficult and
costly to change a system without persuading the people involved. According to him, real
investment came from citizens and businesses and not from the EU. Samsø had established
a new model, but we needed to educate people more and bring responsibility to the
citizens, since they had the right to co-own and be responsible for their development. The
audience asked whether Samsø's practices were followed in other parts of Denmark or other
countries (for example Sweden) and the reply was affirmative. Brian Meaney, Member of
the ENVE Commission, CoR, referred to SERVE (Sustainable Energy for the Rural Village
Environment) and the County Clare Integrated Strategy on Energy and Climate Change
projects. The objective was to formalise the low carbon economy and society and attract
investment. Furthermore, it was necessary to monitor the situation, do research, train
people and retrofit existing buildings, as well as building new housing and in general
developing expertise from the local region. These were all objectives of the SERVE project.
Coordination was difficult, administration was costly and energy efficiency had to be seen as
an investment. To conclude, SERVE was a success due to local action and information,
cooperation with pioneers, and good economic opportunities. David Pratt of the Scottish
Government talked about Marine Scotland, formed in 2009, and involving national, regional
and sectoral marine plans. Marine Scotland had mapped four scenarios: an on-shore
operation and monitoring base, an off-shore platform, an off-shore mothership and
operation and monitoring base/mothership. The last speaker was Adam Janczak, energy
advisor for the Permanent Representation of Poland to the EU. He explained that the low
carbon scenario in Poland was understood to mean a drop in CO2 emissions of 30% by 2050,
in comparison with 2010. He mentioned that emissions were rising due to economic growth,
reaching the highest level in Europe and he also referred to full deployment of CCS. Civil
society's perspective depended on CCS acceptance, thus EUR 4.6 million were earmarked for
awareness and information campaigns in local communities. Campaigns also included
nuclear energy, as it was an essential component of low carbon programmes.
Questions included the nuclear concern and the fact that market players were to decide on
the preferred mix. Mr Janczak said that only a policy framework was possible and that no
national referendum would take place in Poland on nuclear energy. The public did not care
about the CO2 balance, but about the risk of a nuclear accident. A nationalistic approach to
nuclear energy did not make sense, since we were all interconnected and the danger was
pan-European (risk without benefit). EU coordination was essential, as information was
localised and consultation should become common practice to take all views into account.
During the closing session, Pierre-Jean Coulon, EESC rapporteur for the Energy Roadmap
2050, claimed that the energy issue could be summed up by solidarity. He suggested
4
promoting complementarity instead of competition, a minimum level of information
exchange, dialogue and cooperation with EU institutions, solidarity in networks between
consumers and SMEs, as well as a permanent European civil society forum. Finally,
Mechthild Wörsdörfer, head of unit for Energy Policy and Monitoring of Electricity, Gas, Coal
and Oil Markets at the European Commission's Energy DG, set out the Commission's goals:
security of supply, sustainability, competitiveness and affordable prices. The ways to achieve
a cut in CO2 emissions were energy efficiency, a less carbon intensive energy supply (RES,
CCS, nuclear), a market driven approach, complemented by targeted support policies and a
31%-41% emissions reduction. RES should be widely deployed, investment should be made
in storage, grid infrastructure and power generation, leading to decarbonisation that might
actually be less costly than current policies in the long run. Public acceptance was also
essential to the transformation of the energy system. Future steps included fulfilling 2020
strategy, three no-regrets options (efficiency, renewable energy, more and smarter
infrastructure) and the 2012 initiatives of RES, CCS and the internal market communication
and nuclear safety package, as well as defining the 2030 framework.
The final questions concerned consistency between different energy mixes, facilitation of
investment in distribution and transmission, future market structure, an exchange of views,
solidarity, the roadmap as a means of promoting discussion, the RES and biomass issue,
prices and accessibility, as well as the key issue of energy poverty avoidance (at European,
national and regional level).
Richard Adams, member of EESC, remarked during the closing session that we needed to
learn from each other, adopt common policies and exchange best practices. No country was
self-sufficient. Citizens had to be involved and to feel they owned the projects. We had to
scale up good initiatives, but keep in mind that each project reflected local circumstances.
The financial aspect of the issue was an important one, as well as the decisions made by
countries, since global events could have a local impact. Finally, decarbonisation was
achievable, but dialogue, solidarity and subsequent coordinated action were needed at all
levels.
5