On Thursday December 15, 2011, the European Commission adopted and published its Communication "Energy Roadmap 2050", together with a press release and press conference by commissioner Oettinger.
This modelling exercise by the Commission serves, above all, to provide a level of certainty to investors, steer the public debate and support the national governments in developing their own long-term energy strategies. It is therefore pivotal, that the document be read and interpreted in the way that it is meant to be read, and that its concept is well-understood.
From what I've extracted sofar from the articles in the papers, on news sites, blogs, twitter etc., I feel like that's not always the case... Satisfying my eagerness for correct information, I therefore summarize some key facts and contents of the RM 2050 and react to some popular comments.
The RM 2050 is not a forecast. Neither does it push forward any one or other policy option, nor does it intend to meddle in with the choice of energy mix for each member state, which is the soevereign competence of the national governments. What the Commission did, was developing five different scenario's, each representing different emphases in policy options for designing our future energy system, and assessing each time the impacts on several fields, social, economical, environmental etc. The five so-called "decarbonisation" scenario's are construed around a number of assumptions, the most important of which is that in each scenario, the target of achieving a 80-95% CO2 reduction in 2050 as compared to the 1990 level, set by the Council in 2007, is achieved. The Roadmap should thus be considered as a tool, an aid if you will, for national governments, showing them the different roads they can walk down, leading them towards this ambitious target on European level. Member states should use it as a basis, to keen out the most appropriate way for them to contribute to the common European 2050 target, based on the specific demographical, geographical, economical and social situation of their country. To make the story of the RM complete, the Commission also modelled a "reference" and a "current policy" scenario, reflecting the policies into place until March 2010 and April 2011 respectively. This to compare the effects in 2050 of taking action with new policies reflecting the decarbonisation scenarios, to the effects if we don't act and just look at the policies that currently exist.
Analysing the effects of all five scenarios, the Commission in its Communication identifies ten structural changes to our energy system by 2050. Those changes reflect the conclusions that can be derived from the projections made, and are common to all decarbonisation scenarios. In other words, they should not be seen as choices of the Commission or evolutions that the Commission wants to push for as such. They just result from the modelling work that has been done, they summarize what all scenarios show as unavoidable evolutions if we want to decarbonize and obtain the 2050 target, independent of which (combination of) scenario(s) the member states choose to base their strategies on. In the different comments on the RM 2050, this is often ignored or explained differently - consciously or not, I guess that depends on the speaking party's position. The RM 2050 is meant however as a broad basis for public discussion, and it is important that the public be correctly informed.
If the Communication thus states that electricity will play an increasing role, and electricity prices will rise in the next twenty years, it should be read in the right way. Electricity prices will rise anyway, that is true already and even for the largest part in the reference scenario, as we are facing the end of an investment cycle and a huge number of fully written-off infrastructure must be replaced anyway in the next twenty years. Better immediately to make the right investments then, i.e. in technologies that increase our domestic energy production and reduce our dependence on foreign resources. This basically means a shift from a high external energy fuel bill to higher capital costs of our energy system. But as investments are written off throughout the years, annual capital costs decrease again, while the benefits of a constantly decreasing energy fuel bill remain. This will cause electricity prices to drop again after 2030 in all scenarios (or at least rise at a decelerated rate in the scenario that sets the highest on renewables). This doesn't seem like such a bad deal, knowing that investments will have to be done and raise capital costs anyway, even in reference and current policy scenarios. Making the right decisions now will pay off after 2030, and it is exactly the intention of the Roadmap to enable that by providing these scenarios. It is not the Commission pushing for electrification and higher prices. The scenarios in the Roadmap only show how to get maximum benefit out of it in the long run. Therefore it is equally important to emphasize the conclusion that decarbonizing our economy is feasible, and in the long run potentially even less costly than a mere continuation of current policies. This message too often disappears into the shadow of the "rising electricity prices". Similarly, it has mistakenly been twittered and written that "Oettinger is pushing nuclear with his RM 2050". Again this indicates poor reading and understanding of the document. The Commission isn't pushing anything. It just concludes that, looking at the scenario's, nuclear will stay in the mix for the member states that choose to pursue it, to more or lesser extent depending on each scenario, with the largest share in case of delayed commercialization of carbon capture & storage (CCS), but even in that case it will be lower by 2050 than under current policies. The contribution of nuclear will depend on the speed at which it will phase out and the amount of countries deciding to do that. The sentence that nuclear will provide an important contribution therefore does not at all reflect a choice by the Commission for nuclear. It only recognizes that in the modelled decarbonisation scenario's, it remains present to some extent, depending on each member state, and therefore the EU must continue to ensure the highest safety and security standards.
There are two more popular and often heard comments that I'd like to react on.
The first is the claim by several people, including members of the Advisory Group that was installed to exchange views about the Roadmap, the Climate Action Network and several member states, that it is a pity that the Commission didn't model a scenario that combines high energy efficiency with high renewables penetration. This cannot be taken seriously if you look at the targets for energy savings that are very ambitious in every decarbonisation scenario. Primary demand is modelled to decline between 32% and 41% by 2050 as compared to 2005, depending on the scenario, and this with an anticipated doubling of GDP within the same timeframe. In the scenario with the highest penetration of renewables, the reduction in demand is still modelled at 38%, only 3% less than in the scenario that sets the highest on energy efficiency. It is clear from that, that realizing a high level of energy savings is common to all scenarios, and it is evident that a policy that pushes very high for renewables, must at the same time support more efficient production and consumption. The high renewables scenario can thus be seen in itself as a scenario that is characterized by policies promoting renewables penetration and energy efficiency at the same time.
My final comment relates to the loud call for 2030 targets. I am definitely not against them, but I do not see the reason why they should have been included already in the RM 2050. Concrete targets belong in a policy paper, in which choices are made to achieve them. The RM 2050 is not a policy paper, but a framework paper that shows the potential result of policies, without determining them. The greenhouse gas emission targets mentioned in it, have been taken from the Low Carbon Economy Roadmap adopted previously. However, the RM 2050 does emphasize the importance for investors of concrete milestones towards 2030. It can therefore be an instrument to start discussing such milestones in specific domains, which may then result in the formulation of 2030 targets in upcoming Communications on renewables, the internal market and energy efficiency, where effective policy incentives will be given.
With that, I am rounding up. I emphasize that this article represents my own views and opinions about the Energy Roadmap 2050 and some frequently read comments on it. It expresses in no way the official position of the Commission. I started by saying that the RM 2050 is an instrument for discussion and debate, so all comments are welcome.
External links:
Energy Roadmap 2050 (English version):
Press release:
Press conference:
Impact assessment:
Advisory group report:
Public consultation results:
Peer review on the PRIMES model:
All information on the Energy Roadmap 2050:
For an overview of reactions from different corners on the RM 2050, you could check de website of Euroactiv: http://www.euractiv.com
