Reducing energy demand is synonymous with reducing energy dependency. Will the Ukrainian crisis finally get the attention it deserves in Europe?
Russia invaded Ukraine. Sanctions imposed by NATO members and allies risk being retaliated by an unpredictable Vladimir Putin. So far, these sanctions have not affected energy flows. After all, Europe receives 40% of its natural gas imports from Russia. Some say Russia can still turn off the gas taps despite oil and gas making up a significant portion of its revenue, warning that now more than ever the EU must live up to its “energy efficiency first” slogan.
By clicking the “Download Free Whitepaper” button, you accept the terms and conditions and acknowledge that your data will be used in accordance with the GlobalData Privacy Policy and you can contact you directly for information about your products and services. Please see our Privacy Policy to learn more about our Services, how we use, process and share your personal information, including information about your rights with respect to your personal information, and how to unsubscribe from future marketing communications. messages. Our service is for business subscribers and you warrant that the email address you provide is your work email address.
The situation is reminiscent of the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. At the time, Russia also supplied about 40 percent of its natural gas imports to Europe and 53 percent of its total energy supplies. “It’s like the same thing but on steroids,” said Brooke Riley, head of EU affairs for insulation maker Rockwool Group.
The 2014 crisis sparked discussions about how EU member states can reduce their dependence on the former Soviet superpower and put forward a European energy security strategy.
One of the recommendations is to pay more attention to energy efficiency as a tool to improve energy security. The idea is simple: the more energy efficient Europe is, the less energy it needs. This directly translates into a reduction in energy imports, providing consumers with more comfortable homes and lower energy bills.
“By reducing [consumption] of energy, you actually bring additional benefits to citizens, for example, increase comfort by renovating houses,” explains Arianne Vitali, Secretary General of the Brussels Energy Conservation Union. “A clear plan to reduce energy consumption is useful [on many levels], and not just as a response to geopolitical problems.”
The energy efficiency campaign was launched in 2014. The European Commission noted that every 1% energy saving means a 2.6% reduction in gas imports, and then EU Energy Commissioner Günter Oettinger insisted that the energy efficiency goal be less than 30%. baseline in 2007.
The 30 percent figure is considered ambitious, but has been criticized by NGOs and think tanks that want to reach the 40 percent target. Ironically, the European Commission itself has calculated that a 40% target would more than quadruple GDP by 30%. The European Council (Member States) later lowered the target to 27% and said it would revisit the issue in the future.
Since 2014, Europe’s dependence on natural gas imports has increased. Even without the Nord Stream 2 project, the EU is still more than 40% dependent on Russia for gas supplies. “EU member states should have taken steps a few years ago,” Vitaliy said. “[We saw this in 2014 and now again we are really seeing that we are late in reducing energy consumption in the construction industry […].”
“It was a disaster and we didn’t act at the time because we really knew what was going on,” said Nils Fuglsang, the Danish environment ministry that led the revision of the energy efficiency directive in the European Parliament. “Europe is clearly not up to the task when it comes to importing gas from Russia. It’s not just about business, it’s about security strategy. I think that this time everything will change, because the situation in Ukraine is the biggest security threat for Europe since the Cold War.”
“It’s not that support for building retrofits and renewables didn’t exist in 2014, but it was downplayed by concerns about high costs and a sense that gas diversification was somehow easier,” Riley recalls. “Now people want to make up for lost years and everyone sees that the euro invested in energy efficiency is one euro less than the funding for the invasion.”
This time around, natural gas diversification remains inevitable. Commission Chair Ursula von der Leyen said the EU’s gas contingency plan calls for gas purchases from other countries (Norway, Japan, Qatar and the US). However, the idea of replacing natural gas with more natural gas seems like a missed opportunity to many. They argue that now is the time to accelerate the transition to net zero, especially since the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change details the harmful effects in the future.
“It’s funny to see comments addressing the potential of Europe’s west coast LNG imports when it was a concern a few years ago, meaning gas imports from Trump’s US, in addition to gas, are having a huge impact on oil. The oil monarchy [should] be a major geopolitical issue, said Yves Marignac, spokesman for négaWatt, an energy transition think tank.
There is hope for those who support energy efficiency. In July 2021, the European Commission proposed amending the EU Energy Efficiency Directive as part of its “Fit 55″ package to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030. The committee has set itself ambitious, binding new targets of nearly doubling energy efficiency. Limit annual end-use savings requirements and significantly increase the need for public building upgrades. He wants each member state to upgrade at least 3% of the total area owned by public entities annually to a near-zero energy standard. At the same time, the revised Energy Efficiency in Buildings Directive should introduce the first EU minimum standard for energy efficiency in buildings.
The directive must now be agreed upon by Member States and MEPs. “Negotiations can be very contentious,” Vitaly said. “Member states are very reluctant to increase their ambition and they may see the committee’s proposal as a ceiling [and MEPs may want to go further].”
“The situation has changed since the proposal of the European Commission last summer, both in terms of the crisis in Ukraine and the rise in energy prices,” Fuglsang said. “I think colleagues recognize this. I hope we can find a majority [in favor of] more ambition than the proposal.”
On February 21, Fuglsang released a draft report on the revision of the Energy Efficiency Directive. In it, he proposed a 43 percent increase in energy use, up from the committee’s original 36 percent. “We need binding targets and provision for immediate action,” he said. “We need milestones – not just targets for 2030 – but milestones for 2025 and 2027 so Member States can take immediate action.” I hope colleagues will agree with me that we need to raise the ambitions of the European Commission. ”
Riley also made a case for her ambition. “If you assume that business as usual is to some extent acceptable, then it looks difficult. But if you reject “business as usual”, it means rampant climate change (which has been clear for many years) and dependence on extremely unpredictable and dangerous gas imports, then [higher ambitions] look more attractive.”
The Italian Super Eco Dividend program is an example of a revolutionary energy efficiency policy. Homeowners receive a 110% tax credit in exchange for home improvements that improve the building’s energy efficiency. To qualify, candidates must complete at least one “drive project”, such as increased insulation. Riley recommends raising the stakes with programs like Ecobonus: “We can set up an incentive system so people are encouraged to do deeper repairs, which means stopping gas. All of a sudden you’re seeing some pretty impressive results [in] years.”
As energy security once again puts the focus on energy efficiency, there is also a need for energy sufficiency, which calls into question the fundamental way of life and consumption. Nega Watt has been advocating for a reappraisal of these habits for some time now. The think tank asked the question: “In urban areas, do we really need a one-ton vehicle to transport a person over short distances? Do we need bigger and bigger TV screens? Can we do something different and at the same time, can you do something else? still live a comfortable life?”
“[We need] structural changes in our mobility, use of buildings and over-consumption of goods that can [first] reduce the demand for energy services,” Marignac said.
By clicking the “Download Free Whitepaper” button, you accept the terms and conditions and acknowledge that your data will be used in accordance with the GlobalData Privacy Policy and you can contact you directly for information about your products and services. Please see our Privacy Policy to learn more about our Services, how we use, process and share your personal information, including information about your rights with respect to your personal information, and how to unsubscribe from future marketing communications. messages. Our service is for business subscribers and you warrant that the email address you provide is your work email address.
Post time: Sep-01-2022