Organisation Name
BusinessEurope
InfluenceMap Query
Energy Efficiency Standards
Data Source
Main Web Site
 
 

Score for this Data / Query Cell

-1.35

InfluenceMap has researched and collated the following pieces of evidence associated with the data source and query indicated above. Extraordinary information is indicated by a coloured flag in the upper right corner. Evidence items in order of data inputted with exceptional items first.

 

Opposing energy efficiency targets

InfluenceMap Comment:

Advocating against EU energy efficiency targets in favor of a single GHG emissions reductions target (BusinessEurope, Position Paper, 'BUSINESSEUROPE reaction to the EU climate and energy package', February 2014)

Extract from Source:

The proposal to focus on a single greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target post-2020 is positive and needs to be confirmed by the Spring European Council. The single GHG target will provide a long-term perspective to business and investors and increase the predictability and consistency of the regulatory framework. EU targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources should not be continued after 2020 as they are not economically efficient. However, should an EU level renewable target be agreed, it must not be translated into a binding burden sharing at national level.

Created: 20/06/2016 Last edited: 20/06/2016

 

Opposing energy efficiency targets

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing separate binding target for enegy efficiency, whilst also oppsing any increased ambition in non-binding target (BusinessEurope, position paper on EU Energy Efficiency Directive, May 2016)

Extract from Source:

While more energy efficiency (as well as renewable energy sources) progress is absolutely necessary in the EU and not questionable, it is important to have in mind the strategic orientation given by the European Council on the overall architecture of the post-2020 climate and energy targets. As the only “real” binding one, the greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions reduction target has been set as the leading target. This approach is the most cost-efficient way to the low-emissions-society. Energy efficiency should therefore be seen as one of the measures to achieve that main target, and not as an objective in itself. [...] In terms of energy efficiency ambitions, in October 2014, the European Council agreed on the target of 27% (with possible review and increase to 30%), to take into account also the need for improving the security of energy supply. This level of ambition was reconfirmed in the conclusions of the European Council of March 2016. For the sake of legal certainty and predictability, it is important that the design of the EED for the post-2020 period reflects this level of ambition. Raising the level of ambition, might trigger more investments in energy efficient projects, but could also have an adverse impact on cost-competitiveness of a number of sectors, due to financial constraints and longer return on investments. [...] In particular, Article 7 of the current EED, with its binding obligation to reduce final energy sales by 1.5% annually, clearly overlaps with the EU ETS directive2 and, thereby, reduces the effectiveness of the trading scheme [...] Different member states have varying starting points and varying levels of potential for improving energy efficiency. Potential also differs from sector to sector. The annual target of 1.5% energy savings from final energy sales ignores these differences and/or the domestic contexts. The whole approach shall be reviewed in order to provide for more flexibility, to reflect better national circumstances and to improve energy efficiency in the cost-optimum way.

Created: 23/11/2017 Last edited: 23/11/2017

 

Not supporting energy efficiency targets

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing ambitious energy efficiency targets: supporting a 27% energy efficiency target against a more ambitious 30% target for energy efficiency (Corporate website, Press Release, November 2016)

Extract from Source:

“We support the Commission’s plan to further strengthen the functioning of the EU’s power market. The full integration of renewable electricity is essential. It is positive to put all energy sources on equal footing with clear responsibilities. We should get rid of distortions in the energy market caused by subsidies and decrease the energy costs for consumers.The increase of the energy efficiency ambition level to 30 per cent with binding nature weakens the EU’s efforts to strengthen the EU ETS system as the flagship of our decarbonisation goal.On top of that, comparing energy investments over the last decade with the Commission’s higher targets implies an increase in investments for the coming period by more than 400%. Such an approach is neither cost-effective, nor realistic”. The EU should further enhance the competitiveness of European industry globally. The average final energy price in the EU increased at an annual rate of 3% from 2008 to 2015. European industry ends up paying almost twice as much as its counterparts in the US. Affordable and secure energy supplies are a must for Europe.

Created: 13/03/2017 Last edited: 13/03/2017

 

Not supporting energy efficiency targets

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing ambitious energy efficiency targets: supporting a 27% energy efficiency target against a more ambitious 30% target for energy efficiency (Corporate website, Press Release, November 2016)

Extract from Source:

In terms of energy efficiency ambitions, in October 2014, the European Council agreed on the target of 27% (with possible review and increase to 30%), to take into account also the need for improving the security of energy supply. This level of ambition was reconfirmed in the conclusions of the European Council of March 2016. For the sake of legal certainty and predictability, it is important that the design of the EED for the post-2020 period reflects this level of ambition. Raising the level of ambition, might trigger more investments in energy efficient projects, but could also have an adverse impact on cost-competitiveness of a number of sectors, due to financial constraints and longer return on investments.

Created: 13/03/2017 Last edited: 13/03/2017