Archives: Press Releases

Environmental groups challenge EU support for 30 fossil gas projects

Categories

Fossil Fuels

ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth Europe, Food & Water Action Europe and CEE Bankwatch Network are starting legal action to end support to 30 EU-backed proposed gas projects. They say the EU Commission has given these climate-destructive projects VIP status, in contradiction of its legal obligations.

  • Four environmental groups are starting legal action against the EU’s gas infrastructure priority list.
  • The organisations deem the inclusion of 30 proposed gas projects on the list unlawful and say the EU Commission breached its own climate and energy laws when approving the list. 
  • The cost of all the gas projects amounts to €13 billion. Their collective CO2 and methane output have not been calculated by the Commission or project owners but can be expected to be sky-high.

Every other year, the EU Commission draws up a list of priority energy infrastructure projects deemed beneficial to the whole bloc. Infrastructure on the “Projects of Common Interest” list gain fast-tracked permits and eligibility for EU funds.

Billions of euros are bound to be wasted on 30 major pieces of gas infrastructure like the EastMed pipeline – a €7 billion, 1,900km gas pipeline that will connect Eastern Mediterranean offshore gas fields from Israel and Cyprus to Italy via Greece.

The groups have been able to commence legal action through a request for internal review – a mechanism now open for use by NGOs and the public after a major reform of EU access to justice laws last year.

The four organisations request the EU Commission to review the decision that approved the PCI list and gave 30 proposed gas projects priority status. If the Commission refuses to amend its decision, the organisations will be able to ask the Court of Justice of the EU to rule.

ClientEarth lawyer Guillermo Ramo said: “This list amounts to a VIP pass for fossil gas in Europe, when we should be talking about its phase-out. The Commission did not consider the impact of methane emissions derived from gas infrastructure projects – in spite of evidence that these are substantial. That’s unlawful as it directly clashes with the EU’s own climate laws and its legal obligations under the Paris Agreement.”

Methane is the main component of fossil gas, with a global warming potential over 85 times higher than that of CO2 over 20 years. Yet, its impact when planning gas infrastructure is not taken into account. 

The environmental organisations argue the EU’s decision to support gas infrastructure puts the EU’s climate and energy goals under threat. Experts have clearly said no new gas or other fossil fuel developments should be built if we are to limit warming within 1.5C. The list also comes as Europe faces a gas price crisis, caused in part by over-reliance on price-volatile gas.

Despite this, the EU Commission’s REPowerEU strategy plans to unleash another €10 billion in new fossil gas infrastructure.

Some studies point out that the EU can end imports of all Russian fossil gas by 2025 – two years earlier than the European Commission’s current target of 2027 – without building new gas infrastructure or delaying the phase-out of coal.

Natasa Ioannou, climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth Cyprus said: “The EastMed pipeline is a disaster for communities and the climate. It is not in the interests of local people in the region who will bear the costs of fossil fuel lock-in, and the harm to the ecologically-sensitive Mediterranean Sea. All along the route of the EastMed pipeline people are saying no to new fossil fuel infrastructure and yes to climate justice and to peace. EU funding must focus on supporting projects that implement just, fair, safe, and renewable energy solutions.”

The European Commission now has up to 22 weeks to reply. The end result could be a judgement clarifying how the EU should take the climate impacts of infrastructure into account.

Notes to editors

What is the Projects of Common Interest list?

In November 2021, the EU Commission published a list of priority energy infrastructure – as it does every two years – which includes 30 fossil gas infrastructure projects. This list entered into force in April 2022.

  • These projects can receive streamlined environmental impact assessment, a fast-tracked permitting procedure and are eligible for EU funding.
  • They are aimed at facilitating gas transport, storage or import. They include pipelines and LNG terminals such as the EastMed pipeline, the Melita Transgas pipeline, the Cyprus LNG import terminal, the Baltic Pipe, the Poseidon pipeline, etc.
  • The cost of all gas projects on the list is estimated at €13 billion. But this doesn’t include the cost on nature, human health and climate.

The list is governed by the Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) Regulation which was revised recently. Despite initial intentions to get rid of fossil fuel projects in TEN-E, the EU Council and Parliament have proposed loopholes that would still leave considerable room for gas projects on future editions of the priority list. The process of establishing the list has been repeatedly criticised for lack of transparency and for being heavily influenced by vested fossil gas industry interests.

What is the legal procedure used in this case?

ClientEarth has fought a decade-long battle to improve access to justice rights at EU level. In 2021, a landmark reform of EU access to justice laws was approved. This has lifted the main barriers preventing NGOs and people from challenging environmental wrongdoings in court.

Environmental NGOs now have the right to ask EU institutions and bodies – in this case the European Commission – to review one of their own decisions for contravening EU law related to the environment. The Commission must officially reply to such a request within 16 weeks, a deadline that can be extended up to 22 weeks. If the claimants find that the Commission’s reply does not fix the legal violation, the claimants can sue the Commission in the Court of Justice of the European Union.

What are the climate impacts of gas and methane?

Gas extraction and transportation not only emits huge amounts of CO2, it is also a big emitter of potent and poisonous greenhouse gas methane. The drilling and extraction of gas from wells and its transit through pipelines results in emissions of methane – its primary component, which is a whopping 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in storing heat over 20 years. Beyond climate, methane also has devastating impacts on human health – via air pollution – and ecosystems.

Both the IEA and the IPCC have clearly said no new oil and gas extraction projects  should be built if we are to keep warming within 1.5C. Additionally, a recent study found that nearly half of existing fossil fuel production sites need to be shut down early if 1.5C is to be achieved.

New survey of fossil gas companies shows gas industry climate strategies are business as usual

Categories

Fossil Fuels

Brussels, 18 May 2022 – There is no doubt that meeting global climate goals will require a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. This task – already a monumental challenge – is complicated by the fact that the fossil gas industry is advancing  false solutions that seem primarily designed to preserve their  business models.

A new market survey from two German NGOs, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) and urgewald, reveals a shocking lack of knowledge among fossil gas companies about their own methane emissions, and massive inconsistencies in industry climate strategies that rely on pseudo-solutions such as fossil hydrogen to extend fossil gas use.

While all 12 responding companies proclaim a desire to become climate neutral by 2050 at the latest, there is little to no awareness that fossil gas consumption needs to be radically reduced in the short-term, and that the power and heating sectors must shift to clean alternatives. Instead of credible plans to move out of fossil gas, company climate strategies present measures such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and gradual replacement with green and low-carbon gases as ways to make gas “clean” in the long term. Many are even planning to shift from coal to fossil gas as part of their climate strategies.

The industry is pinning particularly high hopes  on hydrogen, which is a risky bet. Available hydrogen quantities will be too limited for a large-scale use, and using hydrogen for heat and power generation is among the most inefficient uses of the fuel.

Four companies are also actively pursuing fossil hydrogen, such as ‘blue’ or ‘turquoise’ hydrogen, which is linked to the extraction and processing of fossil gas. 1.7 GW of total blue hydrogen capacity is already in the pipeline among surveyed companies. Fossil hydrogen plans are industry’s smokescreen for more fossil fuel use, to the detriment of the planet, climate and people. While turquoise hydrogen is still in the experimental stages and highly expensive, studies show that blue hydrogen produced from fossil fuels may be more climate-damaging than burning coal or fossil gas. The CCS technology associated with blue hydrogen production, which promises to capture fugitive CO2 emissions, is not only expensive and inefficient, but it is also unable to effectively stop methane leaks and requires huge amounts of electricity.

The survey indicates that nine companies have plans to expand their electrolysis capacity, up to 10GW by 2030, but only two companies will focus on 100% renewable-based hydrogen projects. Only green hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water and using electricity from renewable sources has a real climate benefit. However, its application needs to be limited to priority uses, and not the “blending” projects where small amounts of green hydrogen are injected into existing fossil gas pipelines. Such plans would only maintain operational the fossil gas network.

That very fossil gas network represents a key climate problem. Methane is the main component of fossil gas and a super-potent greenhouse gas (GHG). Methane leakages occur along the entire fossil gas value chain, including during fossil hydrogen production, and the survey shows that companies do not control these emissions effectively. Only four of the surveyed companies were able to provide details on detected methane leaks from their own infrastructure, while leak detection and repair campaigns are conducted at most annually, if at all.

Although climate science is clear about the need to transition away from fossil fuels altogether, only two companies have set a clear timeline for phasing out fossil gas by 2040. Additionally, none of the fossil fuel producing companies surveyed envisages targets to halt extraction activities. This is in clear disagreement with the latest IPCC report on mitigation of climate change, which reminds us that greenhouse gas emissions need to peak before 2025 to limit global warming below 1.5°C.

As the EU is under pressure to cut Russian energy imports, the fossil industry is desperate to keep fossil gas in the future energy mix. Fossil companies distract people by investing in pseudo-solutions, while they leave the door open to fossil gas after 2030 and 2035. This is further encouraged by some Member States, such as Germany, which are ready to implement new projects to transport blue hydrogen and are pursuing massive LNG expansion plans.

It is clearly not enough to rely on voluntary industry commitments to achieve the kinds of pollution reductions that are necessary. Strong government regulations are needed to prevent the global phase-out of coal from leading to the increased use of fossil gas and to ensure that energy companies comply with the Paris climate target rather than undermining it by betting on fig-leaf solutions.

—
Contact:

Enrico Donda, [email protected]
Julian Schwartzkopff, [email protected]

 

US, European Green Groups Urge Leaders to Reject Fossil Fuel Expansion Schemes

Categories

Fossil Fuels

For immediate release: April 14 2022 — Expanding dirty energy to counter Russian invasion will doom international climate action 

Hundreds of groups in the United States and across Europe sent a letter to President Joe Biden and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen today urging them not to build new fossil fuel infrastructure projects in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The groups expressed their concerns that the March 25 US/EU Joint Energy Security announcement could encourage the construction of new fracked gas infrastructure, including export facilities and pipelines, and that the drive to replace Russian gas will increase fracking in the United States. As the letter states, “we urge you to direct the Energy Security Task Force to develop a plan that ensures no new financing, exploration licenses, or permits for coal, oil or gas extraction, expansion of exports, imports and infrastructure, and to develop a plan to transition the EU and US off all fossil fuels by 2035.”

While fossil gas companies are pushing to expand the buildout of export terminals, the groups argue in their letter that “redirecting existing LNG exports, combined with energy efficiency measures and an all-out mobilization to renewable energy, could immediately address Europe’s current reliance on Russian gas.” 

Further, the letter points out that long term fossil fuel investments are contrary to the recommendations laid out in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report: “Any expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in the United States and Europe will rob us of our last chance to avert climate chaos, and continue the decades of harm done to frontline communities living near fracking wells and LNG infrastructure, including pipelines and export and import terminals.”

The letter comes just days after nearly 300 scientists wrote a letter to President Biden urging him to stop plans to increase fossil fuel production or to build new dirty energy infrastructure.

“The answer to a crisis brought on by dirty, expensive fossil fuels cannot be to do more of the same and expect a different result,” said Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh. “It would be a climate disaster to double down on fossil fuels when we have all the available technologies to jumpstart a rapid shift towards clean renewable energy. We urge all world leaders to pursue policies that end the fossil fuel era once and for all.”  

“The energy dilemma facing Europe is similar to that facing the Delaware River Watershed in our struggle to stop the production and export of Liquefied Natural Gas. The solutions to both lie in switching from the deadly dependence on fossil fuels to developing truly clean, renewable energy sources that benefit the consumer and allow for self-sufficiency and independent economic control. We are united with our allies to end the tyranny of fossil fuels, the only choice to avert climate catastrophe and more suffering,” said Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director, Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

“President Biden’s plans to increase gas exports are in direct contradiction to his commitment as the environmental president, to environmental justice and climate action,” said John Beard, founder and CEO of the Port Arthur Community Action Network. “Fast-tracking new gas infrastructure would only add insult to injury for communities in the Gulf coast that have been overburdened with the toxic impacts of the fossil fuel industry for generations; over-exposed to the frequent storms and disasters driven by climate change. I invite him to come to Port Arthur, and other impacted cities, and see for himself. Instead of doubling down with more dirty energy, he should be doing everything he can to invest in a just recovery and an equitable transition from fossil fuels.” 

“This plan would have disastrous implications for communities in Texas and across the Gulf coast. Our region is already overburdened with decades of pollution from oil and gas operations, and dozens of new projects are proposed. President Biden’s plans to increase gas exports would require more fracking and would lock us into decades of pollution and would exacerbate the climate crisis. We need clean energy policies that protect our communities, keep our air and water clean, and provide real support for working families,”said Melanie Oldham, Citizens for Clean Air and Water in Brazoria County. 

“An exclusively economic and short-term view cannot prevail in the face of the magnitude of the challenges we face,” said Marina Gros, Gas Campaigner at Ecologistas en Acción in Spain. “Most fossil fuels must remain in the ground. However, the EU is facing a false dilemma of increasing dependence on fracking gas from the US, which causes high impacts on communities and the climate. It is a false dilemma, because with an adequate and rapid energy transition, based on reducing energy demand and changing the production and consumption system, external dependencies could be reduced and the development of new and expensive gas infrastructures would not be needed.“

—
Contact: Peter Hart, [email protected] 

MEPs fail to end Europe’s fossil fuel dependency, locking Europe into further gas volatility

Categories

Fossil Fuels

BRUSSELS, 9TH MARCH 2022 – Today, Members of the European Parliament voted to approve a list of priority energy projects, including 30 cross-border gas mega projects

Most MEPs voted in favour of the so-called fifth Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list, giving the 30 cross-border gas infrastructure projects faster permitting procedures and the opportunity to access EU public funds [1].  

Eilidh Robb, Fossil Fuel Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe commented: 

“Today MEPs have voted to pour yet more public money into fossil fuel infrastructure that will lock households into a dirty energy system that people and planet simply cannot afford.  Parliamentarians have failed to break the cycle of destruction and to speed-up the transition we desperately need away from fossil fuels and to warm homes and clean, secure, renewable energy.”

Frida Kieninger, Director of EU Affairs at Food & Water Action Europe states: 

“The dark times we live in show clearer than ever that Europe’s fossil fuel dependence brings harm, energy poverty and insecurity. The answer to this must not be creating more fossil gas dependence through 30 massive fossil gas pipelines and LNG projects worth €13 billion. The answer must be putting all possible support behind 100% renewable energy and energy efficiency.”

***

Notes to Editor: 

Please note that MEPs were asked whether or not they wanted to vote in support of the motion of rejection, or against the motion of rejection.This means that a + vote is a vote to reject the 5th PCI list and a – is a vote to accept the 5th PCI list as it stands.

 

[1] 5th PCI List Plenary Vote Resolution B9-0137/2022: 696 total votes, 497 against the motion for rejection, 177 in support of the motion for rejection, 22 abstained. 

4th PCI List Plenary Vote Resolution B9-0091/2020: 648 total votes, 443 against the motion for rejection, 169 in support of the motion for rejection, 36 abstained. 

 

Relevant Links: 

Motion for Rejection of 5th PCI List 

5th Projects of Common Interest List 

FAQ on Rejecting the 5th PCI List

 

Contact:
Eilidh Robb (EN) +32 (0) 493 93 50 79, [email protected]

Frida Kieninger (EN, DE, ES, FR) +32 (0) 487 24 99 05, [email protected] 

EU Methane Regulation – the lack of ambition will fail climate goals

Categories

Fossil Fuels

15th DECEMBER 2021

BRUSSELS: Methane emissions resulting from the petrochemical industry’s extraction and production of coal, gas and oil are responsible for 25 per cent of overall global warming – but a new Methane Regulation unveiled today by the European Commission is a half-hearted step back from EU climate goals.

Campaigners from the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Brussels- based Food & Water Action Europe (FWAE) and Berlin-based Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) warned the Regulation is letting fossil fuel imports off the hook.

Methane emissions are 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide and tackling the energy sector has been identified as the most cost effective way of reducing them.

The Commission’s Regulation puts in place a framework with obligations on measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), leak detection and repair (LDAR) and a ban on routine venting and flaring (BRVF) of gases, which are the three main pillars of effective methane emissions mitigation.

Despite numerous calls from European policymakers and recommendations from leading NGOs, the Regulation lacks a key element – extending the framework to all oil, gas and coal consumed in the EU, imports included, and to the petrochemical sector.

The EU imports more than 80 per cent of the fossil gas, 90 per cent of the crude oil and 40 per cent of the coal it consumes, long after methane has been emitted outside EU borders.

EIA Climate Campaigner Kim O’Dowd said: “The Commission is hiding behind excuses. With this regulation, the EU will continue to drive global methane emissions in other countries, turning a blind eye to its role.

“In the context of the Global Methane Pledge to take action on these emissions –launched and adopted by the US, EU and others at the UN CoP26 climate change summit in November – the EU should be irreproachable, but this proposal sends completely the wrong message, effectively saying it’s okay for the EU and other countries to pledge and pontificate at the podium and then dally and dither at home.”

Any methane reduction initiative not linked to a phase-out of fossil fuels falls dangerously short of the necessary climate action. In October, MEPs asked, in a resolution on the EU strategy to reduce methane emissions, to phase-out all fossil fuels as soon as possible, but today’s proposal ignores the Parliament’s position.

As a major importer of fossil gas and oil, the EU must work on cutting methane emissions along the whole supply chain and, in the meantime, implement phase-out plans to get rid of oil, fossil gas and coal.

There is no way the EU can cut methane emissions fast enough and promote a sustainable energy transition while still investing in climate-harming fossil fuels.

Fossil gas consists almost entirely of methane, pollutes air and water with numerous hazardous substances and contributes to environmental destruction on top of inherently leading to methane emissions. While cutting methane emissions is important to reduce the climate impact of fossil fuels, it risks being used to support false sustainability claims by the oil and gas companies.

Food & Water Action Europe Campaigner Enrico Donda said: “Fossil gas, even with reduced methane emissions, is neither clean nor a ‘bridge fuel’ and the Commission proposal fails to make this clear. All gas infrastructure is prone to leaks and a serious methane law should stop the development of new fossil gas infrastructure such as pipelines and LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) terminals, used to reception and unload gas from the cargo shipped mainly from the US, Qatar and Russia”.

The European Parliament must now protect the ambition it showed in its own initiative report on the Methane Strategy, which called for extending the framework across the supply chain and to the petrochemical sector.

Members of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union now have the opportunity to improve the proposal.

Pictures. Monday 13 Dec, local anti-gas activists TegenGas and the Gastivists Collective projected slogans and infrared images of methane leakage from around Europe to criticize the lack of ambition in EU methane Regulation. More high-quality images here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/192587475@N02/albums/72157720207985773

CONTACTS FOR MEDIA

  • Tim Grabiel, EIA Senior Lawyer, timgrabiel[at]eia-international.org
  • Enrico Donda, FWAE Gas Campaigner, edonda[at]fweurope.org
  • Paul Newman, EIA Senior Press & Communications Officer, press[at]eia-international.org
  • Neal Huddon-Cossar, [email protected], +39 345 44 70 749

 

EDITORS’ NOTES

  1. The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) investigates and campaigns against environmental crime and abuses. Our undercover investigations expose transnational wildlife crime, with a focus on elephants, pangolins and tigers, and forest crimes such as illegal logging and deforestation for cash crops such as palm oil; we work to safeguard global marine ecosystems by tackling plastic pollution, exposing illegal fishing and seeking an end to all whaling; and we address the threat of global warming by campaigning to curtail powerful refrigerant greenhouse gases and exposing related criminal trade.
  2. Food & Water Action Europe (FWAE) is the European programme of Food & Water Watch, a non-profit organisation based in the US. FWAE works to create a healthy future for generations to come – a world where all people have the resources they need, including wholesome food, clean water and sustainable energy. We campaign for a 100 per cent sustainable energy transition, this implies ending EU and national fossil fuels subsidies and drastically cutting GHG emissions. This requires organising people from all over the world to engaging in a large movement with the political power to make our democratic process work for us all.
  3. Environmental Action Germany (Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V.- DUH) was founded in 1975. The organisation is politically independent, recognised as a non-profit organisation, entitled to bring legal action and it campaigns mainly on a national and European level. Environmental Action Germany supports all sustainable ways of life and economic systems that respect ecological boundaries. At the same time, the organisation fights for the preservation of biological diversity and the protection of natural assets as well as for climate protection. DUH is convinced that only energy supplies based on efficiency and regenerative energies, sustainable mobility, the respectful handling of our natural resources and the avoidance of waste will secure life on our planet.

EU COMMISSION SLAMMED FOR BACKING GAS MEGAPROJECTS DURING COP26

Categories

Fossil Fuels

New list of 30 priority energy projects worth €13 billion a danger to climate and people say NGOs

***

Brussels, 10 November 2021 – Environmentalists have slammed as “dangerous and dirty” a European Commission decision, due to be presented to MEPs tomorrow, to back 30 fossil gas mega-projects worth €13 billion.[1] Even as international climate talks continue in Glasgow – where Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said “it is our duty to act now” – the new edition of the Commission’s list of priority energy infrastructure developments sees EU backing given to mega-projects that lock Europe into fossil fuel dependency and exacerbate climate change.[2]

This fifth edition of the “projects of common interest” (PCI) list lends EU support to controversial gas projects like the EastMed pipeline, the Baltic Pipe, Gdansk LNG, and the Cyprus2EU LNG terminal. Projects featured on the list gain fast-track permitting privileges and the opportunity to receive EU funding via its Connecting Europe Facility.

The Commission had promised to deliver a list in line with the European Green Deal with less room for gas projects. Yet rather than stopping subsidies for fossil fuels, this fresh list will see renewed support and taxpayers’ money given to unnecessary and climate-damaging fossil fuels for the next two years and potentially much longer.[3]

The list also comes as Europe faces a gas price crisis, caused in part by over-reliance on unreliable gas, which is expected to tip millions of people into fuel poverty this winter.[4]

Colin Roche, climate justice coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said:
“This list is a dangerous and dirty disgrace. Continuing to back fossil gas is completely out of step with the reality of the climate emergency already devastating lives around the world. Gas is holding people hostage to fuel poverty this winter – building yet more gas pipelines will only exacerbate the problem. Billions of euros have already been wasted when this cash is needed now for rolling out clean, renewable solutions and efficient warm buildings.”[5]

The PCI list process has been challenged by NGOs as lacking in transparency – with multiple EU Ombudsman enquiries [6] questioning the Commission’s decision making process, and an influential role for gas transmission companies in drawing up the list.[7]

Frida Kieninger, campaign officer at Food & Water Action said:
“We’re in the middle of a gas crisis and UN climate talks, yet the Commission’s ‘priority’ today is to increase reliance on fossil gas! These mega gas projects serve the interests of fossil fuel corporations, not the common interest of Europeans. The whole process has lacked transparency and independent oversight, with the fossil fuel industry even given a core role in the decision.”

Friends of the Earth Europe and Food & Water Action Europe are calling on the European Parliament to reject this list of gas projects. They call on the Parliament and Council to deliver a revised Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) regulation – the EU law that governs the PCI list – that is free from fossil fuels.[8] And they call for a firewall to prevent fossil fuel lobbyists influencing climate decision-making.

Frida Kieninger continued:
“The next energy infrastructure law needs to finally end support for fossil fuel projects and remove fossil lobbyists from the privileged role they currently enjoy.”

***

For more information, contact:

Frida Kieninger, senior campaigner, Food & Water Action Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)487 249 905

Colin Roche, climate justice coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)489 598984

Robbie Blake, communications team, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)491 290096

***

NOTES

[1] The PCI list was shared with Food & Water Action Europe and is available here https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/European-Commission-5th-PCI-list.pdf

The NGO also calculated the number of fossil gas projects on the list and their value based on ENTSOG data in https://www.entsog.eu/tyndp#entsog-ten-year-network-development-plan-2020

[2] Earlier this year the International Energy Agency found that, to have a chance of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees, no new fossil investments must take place, and existing use of fossil fuels must be phased out. https://www.iea.org/news/pathway-to-critical-and-formidable-goal-of-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-is-narrow-but-brings-huge-benefits

[3] Since 2013, the EU has poured nearly €5 billion of taxpayers’ money into expanding Europe’s network of gas pipelines and import terminals. https://www.globalwitness.org/wastedgascash/

40 percent, or €1.5 billion, of the Connecting Europe Facility’s funds have been awarded to fossil gas projects. https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/how-gas-lobby-infiltrates-eu/

[4] https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/22/energy-prices-are-skyrocketing-it-s-game-over-for-gas-view

[5] €440 million of EU taxpayers’ money has been wasted on PCI gas projects which have been or are likely to be cancelled. https://www.globalwitness.org/wastedgascash/

[6] EU Ombudsman case on sustainability assessment for gas projects on the current List of Projects of Common Interest: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/135095 ; EU Ombudsman case on assessing the sustainability of gas projects on the list of ‘projects of regional significance’ of the ‘Energy Community’ https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/opening-summary/en/140685 ; Complaint to EU Ombudsman regarding the sustainability assessment criteria in the fifth Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWAE_FOEE_GW_Fifth-PCI-List-Complaint_22072021.pdf

[7] On The Inside: How the gas lobby infiltrates EU decision making https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/how-gas-lobby-infiltrates-eu/

[8] The Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) regulation which governs the PCI list, is currently being revised – prompted in part by the inclusion of controversial gas projects in the Commission’s previous 2019 PCI list.

The Commission framed its proposed reforms as a way to exclude gas projects from future PCI lists and align with the goals of the EU Green Deal. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2020)824&lang=en

Yet both the EU Council and Parliament have proposed loopholes that would still leave considerable room for gas projects on future editions of the priority list. Specifically, the Parliament put forward a “grandfathering” clause that would allow all projects on the fourth and fifth list to continue to apply for PCI status, while the Council proposed derogations for the Melita Pipeline and EastMed. https://friendsoftheearth.eu/press-release/meps-fail-to-end-support-for-climate-damaging-gas/