Content uploaded by Israel Solorio
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Israel Solorio on Feb 28, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
JCER
396
Solorio, I. (2011). ‘Bridging the Gap between Environmental Policy Integration and the EU’s Energy
Policy: Mapping out the ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance’,
Journal of Contemporary
European Research
. Volume 7, Issue 3, pp. 396-415.
Available at: http://www.jcer.net/ojs/index.php/jcer/article/view/284/293
Bridging the Gap between
Environmental Policy Integration and
the EU’s Energy Policy: Mapping out
the ‘Green Europeanisation’ of
Energy Governance
Israel Solorio
Autonomous University of Barcelona
Abstract
The Europeanisation of energy policy has occupied a remote place in the European integration
literature to date. However, current developments such as the Energy Policy for Europe launched in
2007 and the Lisbon Treaty Title XXI on Energy have given greater prominence to this policy area
within the integration process. Hence, there are several indications that the Europeanisation of
energy policy is already taking place, even though the understanding of this process is still weak.
And indeed, European studies are just beginning to shed light on this policy area. Against this
backdrop, this article examines the EU environmental performance, supported by the
Environmental Policy Integration (EPI), as a driver for energy governance during the process of
Europeanisation. Its main argument is that EPI is not only a variable for explaining the governance
changes at the EU level concerning energy – defined here as ‘green Europeanisation’–, but also a
useful instrument for pursuing coherence within the emergent EU energy policy.
Keywords
Europeanisation; Energy policy; Climate change; Renewable energy
THE EUROPEANISATION OF ENERGY POLICY HAS OCCUPIED A REMOTE PLACE IN THE
European integration literature to date. Paradoxically, even though energy policy provided
an early impetus for European integration, this policy has largely remained state-centered,
and the integration process has not been capable of laying down the foundations for a
fully fledged and coherent Common Energy Policy (CEP). In fact, energy has been
considered one of the weakest areas of integration and has been neglected by EU analysts,
perhaps with the exception of deregulation policy. However, current developments, such
as the Energy Policy for Europe (EPE) launched in 2007 or the Lisbon Treaty Title XXI on
Energy, have given more prominence to this policy within the integration process. Energy
Commissioner Günter H. Oettinger recently stated that, nowadays, “there is a chance to
achieve what the Founding Fathers had envisaged some 60 years ago […] with the
European Coal and Steel Community and shortly afterwards the Euratom Treaty”
(Oettinger 2010a). Overall, there are several indications that the Europeanisation of energy
policy is already taking place
(Oettinger 2010a, 2010b), even though the understanding of
this process is still weak. And indeed, European studies are just beginning to shed light on
this policy area (Buchan 2009; Oberthür and Pallemaerts 2010; Morata and Solorio
forthcoming). Against this background, it is fundamental to acknowledge that energy
The ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance
397
JCER
policy has been invariably considered a particularly unusual case of policy-making at the
European level, especially due to the pronounced conflicts between the development of
common policies, on the one hand, and divergent national policies, on the other hand
(Andersen 2000). This was the main reason behind the ban imposed on the EU in this area
before the Lisbon Treaty broke down the barriers that hindered action by Brussels.
Nevertheless, despite having only recently been recognised as a formal EU policy area, it
has been under the influence of Brussels for several years, particularly since the 1990s,
when the Commission forged links between energy issues and its formal areas of
competence, such as the external relations, the environment and the internal market
(Matláry 1997). This dynamic has led to a
de facto
construction of a very limited and sector-
based energy policy at the European level (Zapater 2009).
In the past years, the emergence of pressing issues, such as climate change and energy
security, at the top of the EU political agenda has made the development of a
comprehensive EU energy policy even more indispensable (European Commission 2006,
2007). In fact, the EU has a significant record of trying to respond to these challenges by
moving towards a sustainable, secure, and competitive energy future (Damro
et al.
2008;
Piebalgs 2009; Buchan, 2009; Oberthür and Pallemaerts 2010). Thus, the new EPE is based
on the objective of achieving a so-called ‘EU energy trinity’, firstly by increasing security of
supply; secondly, by ensuring the competitiveness of European economies and the
availability of affordable energy; and finally, by promoting environmental sustainability
and combating climate change (European Commission 2007; European Council 2007).
Perhaps more significant is the fact that the energy chapter of the Lisbon Treaty emerged
with the task of coordinating overall EU action in this field; that is, to give the new EPE a
truly transversal character, instead of a sector-based one. Nevertheless, at the moment,
there are hardly any indications of the mode of action to reach this paramount goal.
Generally, there is a lack of a systematic understanding of the EPE and the wider
Europeanisation of energy policy.
This article examines the EU environmental performance, supported by the Environmental
Policy Integration (EPI) as a driver for energy governance during the process of
Europeanisation. This article intends to answer the following questions regarding this
process:
How has the EU environmental performance, supported by EPI, influenced the EU
energy policy and what is the relative importance of the
green driver
against the
other elements of the energy trinity?
What are the emergent governance patterns in this process and its perspectives for
further development?
The article begins by contextualising the debate on the EPE in the Europeanisation
framework. Subsequently, the article develops a categorisation of EPI of energy, arguing
that there are identifiable EPI phases that have influenced the EPE as it is known nowadays.
Next, it analyses the overall green contribution to the energy governance of
Europeanisation against the other EPE components and reviews the nature of this process.
Later, it studies the perspectives of change for energy policy. Finally, the conclusion
summarises the debates about the energy governance of Europeanisation, the
development of the EPE, and further challenges to be confronted in this policy field. The
main argument of the article is that EPI is not only a variable capable of explaining the
governance changes concerning energy – defined here as ‘green Europeanisation’–, but
also a useful instrument for pursuing coherence within the emergent EU energy policy.
398
Solorio
JCER
Energy Europeanisation: state-of-the-art
The Europeanisation agenda has received considerable attention in European studies,
driven mainly by the greater dynamics of the integration process triggered by the Single
European Act in 1986 and reinforced by successive Treaty revisions (Bulmer 2007). Thus,
the studies on the effects of European integration gained prominence in a period where
the EU competences increased notably (Haverland 2007), gradually spanning a wide range
of policy areas. Not surprisingly though, energy has played a very paradoxical role in this
process. In fact, even if the last decade has seen a growing interest in energy issues in EU
policy-making (Natorski and Herranz 2008; Braun 2009; Buchan 2009; Oberthür and
Pallemaerts 2010; Morata and Solorio forthcoming), this area of public policy has been
excluded from the Europeanisation research agenda.
It can be acknowledged that numerous elements of energy policy have been examined
during these years of expansion of the Europeanisation research agenda. However, they
have frequently been limited to a sector-based perspective, and have by no means
covered the broader picture of energy policy. In other words, if this sector-based
perspective is required given the nature of energy in European integration, these studies
have yet to succeed in expanding the Europeanisation approach to overall energy policy
due to their research foci. In this context, the research focused on the Europeanisation of
the internal energy market has attracted most attention (McGowan 2008). It is possible to
find earlier examples, such as the study by Andersen (1999) on natural gas liberalisation,
the work of Eising and Jabko (2001) on the changing objectives of the French energy
policy as a result of the market liberalisation negotiations, the well-known publication by
Levi-Faur (2002) on the Europeanisation of the electric and telecommunications regime,
and the research by Humphreys and Padgett (2006) on globalisation, EU and domestic
governance, as well as other relevant works (Jordana
et al.
2005; Barttle, 1999, 2002).
At the same time, the agenda that focuses on the EU’s external activities has also been
further developed by Escribano’s study (2006), which analysed the European
Neighborhood Policy and its impact on the Mediterranean. Studies such as those by
Escribano (2010) and Herranz and Zapater (2010) have analysed how the EU promotes its
energy interests beyond its frontiers, a perspective that is gradually growing. Similarly,
Natorski and Herranz (2008) have investigated the way in which the securitisation of
energy policy has failed to mobilise support for a CEP. Oddly though, despite major
political attention being dedicated to climate change in the EU (Damro
et al.
2008), it is
hard to find studies linking the environmental performance of the EU to the
Europeanisation of energy policy (Solorio 2009). It is therefore an emerging research
agenda, which requires conceptual clarification in order to grasp this process under the
Europeanisation framework. The next section aims to develop a comprehensive analytical
framework in order to systematically map out the ‘green Europeanisation’ of energy policy.
‘Green Europeanisation’: the transformation of energy governance
The construction of a framework rooted in the Europeanisation literature is imperative in
order to trace the impact of environmental performance on energy governance. However,
this task involves considerable risks inherent to the application of the Europeanisation
framework. One of the main challenges is that this concept has been “contested as to its
usefulness for the study of European politics” (Vink and Graziano 2007: 3). Thus, perhaps
the most useful approach to defining this concept is to draw the line with related
concepts. A basic assumption for our research is the separation between the concepts of
Europeanisation and political integration. Basically, the difference is that, while the latter
involves “the understanding of a process in which countries pool sovereignty”, the former
is concerned with “what happens once EU institutions are in place and produce their
The ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance
399
JCER
effects” (Radaelli 2000: 6). However, the boundary between both can become blurred due
to the fact that Europeanisation has a dual function “as an independent variable in
domestic politics” and “as the processes by which domestic structures adapt to European
integration” (Caporaso 2007: 27). In this article, we are interested in the first function,
and it
is therefore imperative to keep in mind the aforementioned differentiation.
Once the initial difficulties related to the application of the Europeanisation framework
have been overcome, the following step is to clearly identify the domain of interest. In this
sense, it is crucial to recall that the Europeanisation research scope is not restricted to
changing policy domains, but also includes the wider policy and politics dimensions
(Börzel and Risse 2000). However, each of these domains again includes a vast universe of
sub-units that can easily vary upon reference in the literature (
e.g.
Radaelli 2000). Since this
research focuses on the Europeanisation of energy policy governance, we are actually
approaching the policy domain in order to understand its governance changes. In fact,
Europeanisation is a process that involves the gradual erosion of national sovereignty,
modifying the governance practices of the Member States (Risse
et al.
2001: 2). In this
context, the article adopts the definition of Risse
et al.
(2001: 2) on Europeanisation, which
describes it as the “emergence and the development at the European level of different
structures of governance”. In other words, our task is to analyse how the EU governance
system has centralised many policy-making activities regarding energy in Brussels, whilst
relying on national administrative actors for implementation (Knill and Lenschow 2005).
Therefore, we identify
political institutionalisation
– as a process that involves the
development of formal and informal rules, procedures, norms, and practices governing
politics at the EU level (Risse
et al.
2001: 2) – as the parameter guiding our research on the
Europeanisation of energy governance.
As already mentioned, the research topic distinguishes itself from other policy fields since
the Europeanisation of energy governance has been mainly driven by related areas of
competences. For that reason, the empirical core of this analysis involves how much the
incorporation of the environmental variable into energy has facilitated the shift of energy
governance towards the European arena, particularly regarding the implemented EPE.
Hence, a three-step model of ‘green Europeanisation’ for energy policy is proposed as a
tool for explaining the Europeanisation of energy governance, the main driver of which is
the EPI. The model attempts to illustrate how energy governance was Europeanised
before the formal competence was granted by means of environmental performance
(Solorio 2009). It is argued here that, firstly, the EU’s institutional flexibility paved the way
for Brussels to exert greater influence in energy governance. As a second step, the growing
awareness of the environmental impact of the energy chain, particularly related to climate
change, facilitated the integration of both policies. And finally, this process guided by EPI
was a main catalyst for the Europeanisation of energy governance.
Before introducing the EU environmental performance impelled by EPI as the
independent variable, it is crucial for the objective of this research to underpin the
analytical framework in order to appreciate the emergent patterns of governance. In
consequence, this research relies on Knill and Lenschow’s (2003) categorisation of the
modes of regulation in EU governance to supplement our understanding of the impact of
‘green Europeanisation’ in energy governance. It enables a two-level of analysis that
adequately captures the range of EU patterns of governance. In general terms, the
type of
regulation
level considers the distribution of responsibilities across regulatory centres
(such as the EU, national executives or non-state actors) and the level of discretion they
grant to decentralised actors in the implementation process, while the
steering
mechanism
level implies the different mechanisms of policy adaptation at the national
level (Knill and Lenschow 2003: 2-3).
In view of this framework, the
type of regulation
level distinguishes between four patterns
400
Solorio
JCER
of action. First, “the
substantive and procedural regulatory standards
fit the image of the
EU regulatory state”; second, “the
new instruments
are a mixed bag of regulatory tools
[and] what they have in common is a more indirect approach towards achieving
behavioral change”; third, “the self-regulatory model is based on private actors devising
concrete regulatory standards in the shadow of the state”; and finally, the
Open Method of
Coordination
(OMC) refers to cases where “certain policy benchmarks are set for the
Union, national responses are formulated independently without the threat of formal
sanctions and the EU merely provides a context for enabling cooperation and learning
among national policy makers” (Knill and Lenschow 2003: 3). In addition, the
steering
mechanisms
level distinguishes between three general mechanisms through which
regulators might seek to affect the behavior of the regulated. first, “they may be coerced to
comply with the regulation”; second, ”they may be ‘tempted’ to change their behavior due
to incentive effects of the regulation”; and finally “they may learn, i.e. redefine their
interests on the basis of new knowledge gathered due to the regulatory context and
subsequently adapt their behavior” (Knill and Lenschow 2003: 4).
The application of this double-level analysis can be helpful in order to map out the
predominant mechanisms in practice within energy policy regarding ‘green
Europeanisation’. Thus, it is a required step in order to recognise the “potential for national
institutional change and cross-national convergence” (Knill and Lenschow 2005). The task
in the subsequent sections will be to test the effectiveness of this analytical toolkit against
the empirical developments in this policy field.
Energy and the environment: towards a mutually supportive relationship?
It is undeniable that it is necessary to take into consideration the environmental impact of
energy policy-making in order to limit its ecological impact. Together with the
liberalisation of the internal energy market (MacGowan 2008), this premise has been the
most prominent path for the EU to influence energy policy (Damro
et al.
2008; Solorio
2009). But how has the relationship between energy and the environment developed? It is
worth recognising that a considerable part of this process has been well-documented by
Ute Collier in her publications on EPI within energy (
e.g.
Collier 1994, 1997, 2002). However,
perhaps because of the obviousness of the energy-environment relationship, there is a
‘black hole’ in the Europeanisation literature with regard to understanding how the
increasing proximity between both policies has contributed to the Europeanisation of
energy policy. This article undertakes the task of bridging the gap between EPI
development and the Europeanisation of energy policy governance.
Against this backdrop, we adopt the definition put forward by Collier (1994), which
regards EPI as a concept aiming at “achieving sustainable development and preventing
environmental damage; removing contradictions between policies as well as within
policies; and realizing mutual benefits and the goal of making policies mutually
supportive” (Collier 1994: 36). Certainly, this definition has been criticised by other EPI
authors (Persson 2004: 13-14) because of its lack of normative character. However, a
positive aspect of this definition is its flexible nature that permits its application to the
long-term relationship between the environment and policies. Thus, from the perspective
advocated in this article, the ideal-case scenario is to reach
policy coherence
as a manner
in which both policies “go together”, gradually sharing “a set of ideas or aims” (Mickwitz
et
al.
2009: 19). Therefore, the goal is to enable a process where ‘win-win’
situations can be
determined. The hypothesis guiding the analysis of our independent variable is that there
is a direct relationship between the development of the environmental policy impelled by
EPI and the Europeanisation of energy governance. The following section will present an
EPI categorisation showing that there are identifiable phases in the relationship with
energy that have influenced the EPE as it is known nowadays. This section intends to
The ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance
401
JCER
unveil as exhaustively as possible the EPE’s environmental component, while at the same
time addressing the development of the EPI.
Phase 1: Environmental awakening
From the beginning, European integration has demonstrated a propensity to react to
emergent problems (Jordan
et al.
1999). Thus, with the growing concern for environmental
issues in the 1970s, the Community did not hesitate to focus on the ecological impact of
the energy chain (Damro
et al.
2008: 183). The Commission’s reflections, as well as the
Council’s resolutions, reflected the reality of increasing environmental awareness (
e.g.
Commission of the European Communities 1972, 1974; European Council 1974, 1975).
Therefore, institutional flexibility enabled environmental issues to become one of the
earliest and most remarkable targets for the free movement of goods policy (Pollack 1994:
124). However, the oil crisis of the 1970s contributed to making energy security one of
Europe’s paramount policy goals (Natorski and Herranz 2008). Nevertheless, this scenario
increased the necessity to formulate and to develop policies together in order to tackle
energy problems. Specifically, regarding the environment, the Council (1975) provided the
following statement:
[i]t is the duty of the Communities and the Member States to: (a) take environmental
protection requirements into account in all energy policy strategy by taking effective
measures […] (Council of the European Communities 1975).
The recognition of EPI as a policy objective was translated into a considerable number of
environment-related measures and recommendations. On the energy efficiency side, there
were numerous acts, such as the action programme on the rational utilisation of energy,
the recommendation on the energy consumption of road vehicles, as well as on the
rational use for electrical household appliances. Moreover, resolutions were adopted on
the setting of a short-term target for the reduction of oil consumption and for energy
savings. On the other hand, the development of renewable energy was delayed given the
immediate need to solve the supply problems (Twidell and Brice 1992). Thus, Community
activities were limited to the granting of financial support for projects to exploit alternative
energy sources.
This first phase of the EPI was characterised by an increasing awareness of environmental
issues within Europe and the initial reactions in this regard. Against this backdrop, EPI
began to be recognised as a policy objective in energy policy-making, and the Community
adopted a considerable body of legislation consisting of EPI-related instruments years
before the Single European Act (SEA). In this context, the main success for the Commission
was to bring back energy issues onto the European agenda, and to trace a path that, in the
following years, appeared to be a useful driver for the evolution of energy governance: the
environmental policy.
Phase 2: Environmental formal competence
1986 was a meaningful year for European integration, as well as for EPI issues. The main
shift with the SEA arrival came through the internal market performance (McGowan 2008),
but also by means of the institutionalisation of other significant areas, such as
environmental policy. Thus, the new environmental policy emerged with the task of
protecting the environment “through the prudent and rational utilization of natural
resources”, such as oil products, natural gas and solid fuels (article 191 with the Lisbon
Treaty revision). Against this background, the Community environmental policy was
supported from the beginning by two particular features: first, its success in terms of
expansion and second, its efforts for integration in other policies, mainly in the energy
402
Solorio
JCER
field.
Regarding its expansion, this can be measured given the number of legislatives acts
adopted as well as the successive governance modifications in the following Treaty
revisions. With regard to integration, it is worth remarking that the new competence
emerged almost in parallel with the fourth Action Programme (1987-92), which declared
that the “integration of the environmental dimension in other major policies will be a
central part of the Commission’s efforts” (Owens and Hope 1989: 97). Paradoxically, the
initial years of environment competence were characterised by a lack of remarkable results
in energy policy, perhaps with the exception of the large combustion plant directive.
However, climate change emerged as a hot topic on the international level, which proved
beneficial for the relationship between energy and environment (Damro
et al.
2008). Thus,
since the first EU target for stabilising carbon dioxide emissions was adopted by the Joint
Council of Energy and the Environment in October 1990 (Skjaerseth 1994), the European
climate policy has become increasingly intertwined with energy policy. In short, this
second phase of EPI led to the institutionalisation of environmental policy as a path to
intervene in the energy field. The results of this became more evident in the following
years.
Phase 3: Formal integration
EPI was legally codified the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and incorporated into Article 6 TEC
(article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty), which contains the integration principle as a core EU
objective (Lenschow 2002). It recognised that the “environmental protection requirements
must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union’s policies and
activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development”. In parallel with
these governance changes, climate change placed more pressure on the integration
process of both policies. While this issue has moved into the mainstream of the
international political agenda, Europe has also accelerated efforts to reduce global
warming, thus improving its energy consumption practices (Henningsen 2008; Solorio
2009). Hence, with the intention of presenting the European Community negotiators with
strong arguments for the Rio Conference in 1992, the Commission proposed for the first
time a ‘Climate Package’ that included a directive proposal on renewable electricity,
regulatory measures in the field of efficiency and energy savings, as well as a tax on
energy-using products (Skjaerseth 1994). However, this package was diluted by the
Council, which ultimately adopted pilot programs such as ALTENER and SAVE and
excluded the possibility of taxation on energy use and a regulatory framework for
renewable electricity (Collier 1997). Nevertheless, this involved the development of the
first Community strategy to fight climate change in the early 1990s, the emergence of the
climate policy at the core of the EU agenda and the creation of a new stage for EPI issues
(Andersen 2000).
Given the growing awareness of climate change, it is understandable that limiting carbon
dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency was a significant step forward.
Consequently, the SAVE Directive – closely related to the homonymous programme –
emerged with the intention of drawing up and implementing programmes related to
energy efficiency. Regarding renewable sources of energy, the Commission decided to
boost their development with the Green Paper of 1996 on renewable sources of energy, a
document that provided the basis for the White Paper in this area.
The initiation of the so-called ‘Cardiff Process’ in 1998 represented a step forward for the
practical application of EPI, calling to Council formations to prepare strategies and
programs focused on integrating the environmental considerations in its own policies.
Regarding energy, the Commission argued that “given the important impact on the
The ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance
403
JCER
environment, environmental integration cannot be achieved without adapting energy
policy” (Commission 1998: 3). In this way, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources
came to form the cornerstone of a sustainable energy system (Collier 2002). Soon, new
environmental measures were adopted at the EU level such as the renewable electricity
directive, and the biofuels directive. Moreover, once the Kyoto Protocol was ratified in
2002, the adoption of concrete measures to combat climate change was accelerated. Soon
after, the directive establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
within the Community was adopted and a consensus was even reached to adopt measure
restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and
electricity. Overall, the EPI’s third phase was characterised by a double impetus to its
integration within energy. On the one hand, the consolidation of environmental
governance facilitated its influence on energy. On the other hand, climate change as a
remarkable issue in international and in European politics sped up this process (Damro
et
al.
2008).
Phase 4: EPE emergence
In 2005, the EU began a new stage in its climate change programme to prepare a mid- and
long-term strategy to confront this challenge (European Commission 2005). In this context,
the European Council perceived “the need to demonstrate that the EU’s commitment to
meet Kyoto […] is practical and not just a paper one”
(Piebalgs 2009: 2). In response, the
Commission began pushing forward the energy debate with the paramount goal of laying
down the foundations of a new EPE of global character as an indispensable step towards
effectively tackling climate change (European Commission 2006, 2007). The first step was
the Green Paper on ‘A European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy’,
in which the Commission put forward concrete proposals for implementing a European
energy policy (European Commission 2006). In 2006, the Commission launched a strategic
review of the current energy challenges as a guide to Europe’s energy policy, in which the
threefold twenty - renewable energy, energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions
reductions - were specified as a necessary target to limit climate change. In this document,
the Commission argued that “[m]eeting the EU's commitment to act now on greenhouse
gases should be at the centre of the new European Energy Policy” (European Commission
2007).
As a turning point, the 2007 spring European Council enhanced the Action Plan (2007-
2009) Energy Policy for Europe “as a milestone in the creation of an Energy Policy for
Europe and as a springboard for further action” (Council of the European Union 2007: 13).
Overall, an imperative goal was set to achieve
integration
between climate and energy
policies (Council of the European Union 2007: 11). Along the same lines, the European
Council recognised the importance of EPI by stating that “a substantive development of
energy efficiency and of renewable energies will enhance energy security, curb the
projected rise in energy prices and reduce greenhouse gases emissions” (Council of the
European Union 2007: 20).
Responding to the Council’s move, the Commission launched the Communication ‘20 20
by 2020: Europe's climate change opportunity’ in January 2008. In this context, the
Commission proposed a set of measures “designed in a way so that they are mutually
supportive”, in order to translate “political direction into action” (European Commission
2008). The economic crisis was certainly an added obstacle during the legislative process.
However, after the hard inter-governmental negotiations, the ‘Climate and Energy
Package’ became law in early 2009. The package comprises four main measures: first, a
revision of the Emissions Trading System (EU ETS); second, an 'Effort Sharing Decision’
governing emissions from sectors not covered by the EU ETS, such as transport, housing,
agriculture and waste; third, binding national targets for renewable energy; and finally a
404
Solorio
JCER
legal framework to promote the development and safe use of carbon capture and storage.
With all the above-mentioned measures, it represents the most concrete expression of EPE
and the most convincing proof that the ‘win-win’ solutions between energy and
environment are more than possible.
The last phase of EPI not only involved the EPE official emergence, but also was the key to
understanding two basic characteristics of the evolution EPI. First, there is a clear
continuity in the environmental component of the EPE as a result of sector-specific actions
within energy, encouraged mainly in the framework of the European fight against climate
change. Additionally, the wider concept of EPI has been, at least within energy policy,
centered on the environmental sub-sector of climate policy. All in all, after this historical
review it remains clearer the link between the environmental policy development
impelled by EPI and the Europeanisation of energy governance.
From EPI re-evolution to energy Europeanisation
With all the above-mentioned developments in mind, the former Commissioner on Energy
Andris Pielbags seems to have been correct in defining the EU’s shift in energy policy as
the “third industrial revolution” (Pielbags 2009: 5). However, when bridging EPI
development with the Europeanisation of energy governance, several questions arise from
this process. First of all, it would be enlightening to bear in mind the wider energy policy
picture as a useful exercise in determining the relative contribution of each of the drivers
of the political institutionalisation of EU energy policy. Moreover, even if we were able to
capture the significance of the energy governance as ‘green Europeanisation’, it is still
uncertain what the main patterns of governance of this process are. The following section
will deal with these issues in order to better reflect on the ‘green Europeanisation’ energy
governance.
Europeanisation of energy governance: how green is it really?
Following the adopted definition of Europeanisation, the main undertaking of this article is
to measure the political institutionalisation of energy policy by means of the related
competences. In this sense, and given the unusual nature of Europeanisation in this policy
area, the EU has now a considerable legislative body to draw upon when executing the
EPE. Nonetheless, analysing the EU legislative record in energy policy can be a very
deceitful exercise. For example, a simple research in EUR-Lex for the current legislation in
force in this policy area reveals a surprising figure of 471 acts (last accessed 18 on
November 2010), which is far beyond the image of energy as a weak policy at the
European level. However, looking at these acts in more detail, one might be disappointed
that almost 50 percent of this figure corresponds to nuclear energy acts (214), which are
under the Euratom umbrella.
Undoubtedly, in-depth research in the EUR-Lex database could reveal more energy-related
legislation. However, this practice involves the risk of inflating the data of legislative acts
which are actually important for the EPE in practice. Therefore, it is indispensable to define
a systematised procedure for coping with the Europeanisation of energy policy
governance. For that reason, since we are actually interested in the development of formal
and informal rules, procedures, norms, and practices that nowadays govern the EU energy
policy, this study will be based on the ‘Summaries of EU legislation’ as the database to be
explored in order to map out the political institutionalisation, while the ‘Climate and
Energy Package’ measures will also be added. The use of the selected database has two
advantages. First of all, it presents up-to-date coverage of current EU legislation on a range
of themes; secondly, it excludes legal decisions of only temporary interest, such as
decisions on grants. Thus, even if it does not present the entire picture of energy policy
The ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance
405
JCER
institutionalisation, this database is useful for gaining an overall picture of the EU
instruments currently in practice in the EPE. Table 1 presents a systematised vision of our
findings without taking into consideration the Euratom1-related legislative acts.
Table 1: Energy policy institutionalisation
Europeanisation driver Instruments
General objectives 5
Green dimension 41
Internal Energy Market 20
Security of Supply and external
dimension
13
Energy Policy institutionalisation 79
Source: Author’s own elaboration, data from ‘Summaries of EU legislation’, last accessed on
18 November 2010.
At first glance, there is a clear predominance of the green dimension as a driver of the
institutionalisation of energy policy. This is in line with the previous analysis of the EPI
development and its persistent rapprochement with energy policy. Nevertheless, it is also
important to observe the role of the internal energy market dimension, which has been a
noticeable key driver for the Europeanisation of energy governance as well. This is even
more the case when we consider the interplay between both drivers – reinforced with the
EPI process – and the fact that the internal energy market is ultimately the context in
which the green dimension mainly takes place.
In this scenario, another factor is the poor performance of the security of supply and
external dimension driver. This finding, besides agreeing with Natorski and Herranz’s
(2008) analysis, also shows that there is a considerable distance between its contribution
to the political institutionalisation of EPE in comparison with the formerly analysed drivers.
Thus, the green dimension and the internal energy markets are certainly consolidated as
the mains drivers for the Europeanisation of energy governance. However, it still blurs the
significance of ‘green Europeanisation’ for the internal energy market. Hence, it becomes
necessary to clarify this exercise with a more qualitative analysis. Figure 2 presents an
analysis of the institutionalisation of energy policy, taking into consideration the
distinction between preparatory legislative acts, such as Commission’s Communications,
and the legislation in force, for example, decisions, directives, and regulations.
1 Hence, the existence of Euratom has led to a different process of Europeanisation in this policy area. For work
on the role of the Euratom as an instrument for the EU energy policy, see Barnes (2008).
406
Solorio
JCER
Figure 1: Analysis of the institutionalisation of energy policy
Source: Author’s own elaboration, data from EUR-Lex and Summaries of Legislation, last
accessed on 18 November 2010.
Accordingly, the picture is considerably different. This variation occurs because there are
many preparatory legislative acts or ‘soft law’ instruments on the green dimension of
energy policy, something that inflates the data with regard to its political
institutionalisation. This responds to the fact that “the Commission is increasingly using
non-legislative or ‘soft law’ such as Green Papers and Communications as tools of policy-
making” (Braun 2008: 430). Table 2 reflects this reality within the green dimension of
energy policy. Thus, when analysing the data regarding the legislation actually in force,
there is only a slight variation between both (16 acts regarding the internal energy market
vs. 23 acts regarding the green dimension of energy policy).
Table 2: Green dimension institutionalisation: key measures
* Formal Legislative acts
1 Council Directive 92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on efficiency requirements for new hot-water boilers fired
with liquid or gaseous fuels
2 Council Directive 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling and standard product
information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances
3 European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/55/EC of the 18 September 2000, on energy efficiency
requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting
4 Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the
promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market
5 Commission Decision 2001/546/EC, of 11 July 2001, setting up a consultative committee to be known as
the "European Energy and Transport Forum"
6 Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy
performance of buildings
7 Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of
the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport.
8 Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council
Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their
combinations
The ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance
407
JCER
9 Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a
scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council
Directive 96/61/EC
10 Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the
taxation of energy products and electricity
11 Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the
promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending
Directive 92/42/EEC.
12 Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use
efficiency and energy services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC.
13 Decision 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a
Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013).
14 Council Decision 2006/1005/EC of 18 December 2006 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement
between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the
coordination of energy-efficiency labelling programmes for office equipment
15 Directive 2008/101/EC to include aviation into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) published in the
Official Journal on 13 January 2009.
16 Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of
Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas
emission reduction commitments up to 2020.
17 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion
of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives
2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC
18 Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive
2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the
Community
19 Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of CO2 entered into force. The Directive establishes a
legal framework for the environmentally safe geological storage of CO2 to contribute to the fight against
climate change.
20 Directive 2009/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion
of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles
21 Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a
framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products
22 Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on type-
approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and
on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007
and Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing Directives 80/1269/EEC, 2005/55/EC and 2005/78/EC
23 Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on
the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters
* Soft-Law or Non legislative Acts
1 Communication from the Commission of 14 October 1998: Strengthening environmental integration
within Community energy policy
2 Commission Communication of 15 May 2001 ‘A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union
Strategy for Sustainable Development’ (Commission proposal to the Gothenburg European Council)
408
Solorio
JCER
3 Commission Green Paper, 22 June 2005, "Energy Efficiency - or Doing More With Less"
4 Communication from the Commission of 7 December 2005 – Biomass Action Plan
5 Commission Communication of 13 December 2005 on the review of the Sustainable Development
Strategy – A platform for action
6 Commission Communication of 8 February 2006 entitled "An EU Strategy for Biofuels"
7 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 6 October 2006:
"Mobilising public and private finance towards global access to climate-friendly, affordable and secure
energy services: The Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund"
8 Communication from the Commission of 19 October 2006 entitled: Action Plan for Energy Efficiency:
Realising the Potential
9 Communication from the Commission, of 10 January 2007, entitled: "Limiting Global Climate Change to 2
degrees Celsius - The way ahead for 2020 and beyond"
10 Commission Communication of 10 January 2007 "Sustainable power generation from fossil fuels: aiming
for near-zero emissions from coal after 2020"
11 Commission Communication of 10 January 2007: "Renewable Energy Road Map. Renewable energies in
the 21st century: building a more sustainable future"
12 Communication from the Commission of 13 November 2008 - Energy efficiency: delivering the 20%
target
13 Commission Green Paper of 28 March 2007 on market-based instruments for environment and related
policy purposes
14 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 23 January 2008 entitled: "Supporting early
demonstration of sustainable power generation from fossil fuels"
15 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 13 November 2008 – ‘Offshore Wind Energy:
Action needed to deliver on the Energy Policy Objectives for 2020 and beyond’
16 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 12 March 2009 on mobilising Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to facilitate the transition to an energy-efficient, low-carbon
economy
17 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Investing in the Development of Low Carbon
Technologies (SET-Plan)
18 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European
Economic and Social Committee of 28 April 2010 - A European strategy on clean and energy efficient
vehicles
Source: EUR-Lex and Summaries of Legislation, last accessed 18 November 2010.
Overall, it can be concluded that a basic characteristic of ‘green Europeanisation’ has been
its capacity to activate the debate at the EU level on the need to have a coherent EU
energy policy, and its ability to facilitate the consensus between the Member States and
the EU institutions around energy issues. Hence, in a complex terrain such as energy policy
and with a limited capacity to exert hierarchical authority, the Commission has reconciled
itself to “the position of a strategic node in EU network governance” in order to facilitate
The ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance
409
JCER
agreements (Braun 2009: 431). The next section will focus on the emergent patterns of
governance within this process.
‘Green Europeanisation’: the emergent patterns of governance
Now that we have focused on the relative contribution of the ‘green Europeanisation’ of
energy policy, the next step consists in analysing its emergent patterns of governance.
Hence, its importance relies on an understanding of the deployed EU regulatory force at
the moment of promoting the so-called ‘third industrial revolution’. Before presenting our
findings, it is worth noting that this outline corresponds to the analytical objective of
clarifying the energy governance of ‘green Europeanisation’. However, the empirical
reality is even more complex. Table 3 merely represents an exercise of simplification of the
modes of governance of ‘green Europeanisation’.
Table 3: Steering mechanisms and types of regulation
Regulatory Standards New Instruments Self-regulation OMC
Coercion
Legally binding
standards
(2)
Framework and
procedural rules
(5)
Shadow of
hierarchy
(3)
Reporting and
monitoring
(2)
Incentive
structures
x
Changes of procedural
and/or material
opportunities
(3)
Private actors
influence
Regulatory
standards
(4)
Peer pressure
(2)
Learning
x
x
Communication in
private networks
(1)
Best practice models
(1)
Hierarchy model:
power of coercion
Public delegation
model: traditional
subsidiarity
Private delegation
model
Radical subsidiarity
model: public
learning approach
*The number inside each box corresponds to the legislative acts that can be situated
within the predominant patterns of EU governance in our analysis.
Source: Author’s own classification, based on Knill and Lenschow 2003
As noted, there is a wide range of governance patterns involved in the ‘green
Europeanisation’ of national energy policies. However, unsurprisingly, the new
environmental instruments are the predominant type of regulation. Thus, as a mode to
overcome the Member States’ reluctance on the EU regulatory performance in energy
policy, flexible instruments with a mixed bag of regulatory tools have emerged in order to
promote national change. This result exposes the delicate distribution of responsibilities
between the EU and its Member States in the green dimension of energy policy. In this
sense, it seems the EU will continue using these new modes of governance to become
more involved in emerging policy areas such as energy policy (Braun 2009). With regard to
the steering mechanisms, this table also shows the variety of Europeanisation mechanisms
410
Solorio
JCER
used for the green dimension of energy policy. Moreover, it calls the attention to the fact
that in a more in-depth analysis most of the instruments are characterised by a mixture of
Europeanisation mechanisms as a way to counterbalance the EU regulatory limits on
energy policy. Thus, in order to promote national change, the EU has been increasingly
committed to develop a wide range of instruments looking for institutional adaptation,
transforming domestic opportunity structures, as well as for altering beliefs and
expectations of domestic actors (Knill and Lehmkuhl 2002).
Certainly, it is possible to extract much more information from Table 3. However, with our
limited goal of mapping out the ‘green Europeanisation’ of energy policy, it is worth
mentioning the two main limitations of this process when promoting change at the
domestic level. First, it requires, in most cases, a consistent national commitment. Hence,
the attainment of the energy trinity, even though it is an area that is increasingly regulated
at the EU level, relies fundamentally on the Member States. Secondly, the nature of this
process is problematic for the convergence between the adaptation forms at the national
level. Although it establishes common goals, it does not necessarily facilitate the
homogenisation of national energy policies. Such a result could have direct implications
for the purpose of laying down the basis for the establishment of a CEP with global
character. To sum up, if this is an experimental exercise in mapping out the emerging
patterns of governance in the ‘green Europeanisation’ of energy governance, we must
bear in mind the highlighted scope and limits of this process.
Winds of change for energy
The above analysis is a simplified, but useful, picture of the ‘green Europeanisation’ of
energy policy, which shows the backdrop from which the EPE has evolved and is currently
emerging. However, there are two particular features that forecast winds of change for
energy policy in the near future: the revision of the Energy Action Plan and the Lisbon
Energy Chapter.
First of all, it is worth remarking that a very particular characteristic of the EPE is its
flexibility. In fact, “the Energy Action Plan will be kept under regular review within the
context of an annual examination by the European Council” (European Council 2007: 14).
In parallel, the Council called on the Commission to implement the elements contained in
the Action Plan and to put forward an updated Strategic Review to serve as basis for the
new Action Plan (European Council 2007). In its Second Strategic Review the Commission
remarked that the “EU's
new energy and environment policy
agreed by the European
Council in March 2007 establishes a forward-looking political agenda to achieve the
Community’s core energy objectives of sustainability, competitiveness and security of
supply” (European Commission 2008, emphasis added). Overall, the Action Plan will be
revised soon against the background of the economic crisis and is expected to place a
greater focus on security and competitiveness objectives (see European Commission
2010).
In addition, the Lisbon Treaty brought significant novelty for energy policy, namely its
inclusion in the formal competences of the EU. Thus, energy governance was
strengthened with the establishment of a catalogue of exclusive and shared competences
between the EU and its Member States, whereas the TFEU recognises energy within the
last category, together with other related areas such as the internal market, environment
or transport policy (TFEU, Article 4). In this way, this novel chapter closes the circle in the
relationship between Europeanisation and political integration, as this case exposes the
manner in which Member States have pooled a certain level of sovereignty in energy
policy only after the EU institutions had begun influencing this policy area by means of
institutional flexibility - a phenomenon that clearly needs further investigation. In fact, the
The ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance
411
JCER
inclusion of the energy chapter simply implied the recognition of the work that the EU has
been undertaking through all these years by means of other policies (
e.g.
environment,
internal market and external relations). However, the Lisbon Treaty is expected to bring
some changes to this scenario because the EU ultimately has an explicit energy
competence. It is worth stating, thus, that the Lisbon Treaty offers a new clear legal basis
for pursuing EU ambitions regarding the energy trinity.
Regarding its decision-making process, the new energy article has been accompanied by
the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 194 TFEU, Paragraph 2). Therefore, after years of
having to revert to related competences or to the flexibility clause in order to develop
energy legislation, the mere existence of this procedure as the ordinary decision-making
system for energy is positive for the development of EPE (Zapater 2009). Nevertheless, the
renewed legal framework was accompanied by a relevant counterbalance for the EU’s
regulatory capacity. Accordingly, an exception in Article 194 stipulates that the adopted
measures “shall not affect a Member State’s right to determine the conditions for
exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the
general structure of its energy supply” (Article 194 TFEU, Paragraph 2). Certainly, the
reservations of the Member States place limitations on the EU’s energy activities and limit
the degree of pooled sovereignty pooled. However, it is worth remarking that the current
institutional set-up permits, more than ever, improvements in the coordination of national
energy policies and among the different EU policies concerning energy.
Conclusion
This article has highlighted the fundamental role of the green contribution to the
Europeanisation of energy governance, where the environmental path relieved for years
the competence limit of the Community/EU in the energy field. In this context, our ‘green
Europeanisation’ model has proved to be a useful tool in order to explain changes in the
governance of EU policy-making regarding energy. Moreover, the EPI trajectory has
demonstrated that climate change has been a major driver for setting the framework of
the new EPE and for breaking down the barriers that have traditionally hindered the
activities of Brussels in the energy field. Hence, there is clearly a direct relationship
between the development of the environmental policy impelled by EPI and the
Europeanisation of energy governance as our hypothesis suggested. Secondly, this article
has exposed the way in which the formulation of the EPE was directly related to the
incorporation of the environmental/climate variable. Thus, it is clear that coherence is a
significant challenge to the further development of the EPE. In general, the formal energy
competence certainly facilitates increased policy coherence, necessary to reduce the
trade-offs between the related policies. It is therefore a path towards reaching an ideal-
case scenario in which ‘win-win’ solutions are developed within the emergent EPE. Against
this background, the policy integration approach could again be the most suitable
pathway for developing energy policies in a ‘mutually supportive’ way. Overall, this article
has demonstrated that EPI is not only a variable capable of explaining the governance
changes in EU energy policy – ‘green Europeanisation’ –, but also a useful instrument for
pursuing coherence for the realisation of the energy trinity.
As an early attempt to map out this process, there are clearly further challenges for future
research on the EU energy policy, which this article has only partially examined. First of all,
the green driver has clearly not been the only key to push forward the energy-related
activities of Brussels. The influence of energy security and competitiveness must also be
taken into consideration. Particularly, it is necessary to shed more light on the interplay
between the internal market and the green driver as a facilitator of the Europeanisation of
energy governance. Secondly, the above-presented simplification of the emergent
patterns of governance has a lot more of ‘squeezable’ information regarding the emergent
412
Solorio
JCER
EU energy policy. Therefore, it is a question that significantly requires more attention. And
thirdly, this article has clearly traced a relationship between the Europeanisation of energy
policy and political integration. It is therefore a phenomenon that needs further study
based on neofunctionalist theory in order to better understand it.
***
References
Andersen, S. (1999). ‘European Integration and the Changing Paradigm of Energy Policy:
The case of natural gas liberalization’,
Arena Working Papers
, 99 (12). Available at
http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-
publications/workingpapers/, last accessed 18 November 2010.
Andersen, S. (2000). ‘EU Energy Policy: Interest Interaction and Supranational Authority’,
Arena Working Papers
, 00 (5). Available at
http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-
publications/workingpapers/, last accessed 18 November 2010.
Barnes, P. (2008). ‘Security of Energy Supply in the New Europe: A Role for the European
Atomic Energy Community in the European Union´s Neighborhood Policy?’,
Journal of Contemporary European Research
, Volume 4 Issue 2 June 2008, 107-129.
Bartle, I. (1999). ‘Transnational Interests in the European Union: Globalization and
Changing Organization in the Telecommunications and Electricity’,
Journal of
Common Market Studies
, 37 (3), 363-383.
Bartle, I. (2002). ‘When Institutions No Longer Matter: Reform of Telecommunications and
Electricity in Germany, France and Britain’,
Journal of European Public Policy,
22: I,
1-27.
Börzel, T. and Risse, T. (2000). ‘When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic
Change’,
European Integration online Papers (EIOP)
, 4 (15). Available at
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-015a.htm, last accessed 18 November 2010.
Braun, J.F. (2009). ‘Multiple Sources of Pressure for Change: The Barroso Commission and
Energy Policy for an Enlarged EU’,
Journal of Contemporary European Research
.
Volume 5, Issue 3. pp. 428- 451. Available at:
http://www.jcer.net/ojs/index.php/jcer/article/view/194/168, last accessed 18
November 2010.
Buchan, D. (2009). ‘Energy and Climate Change: Europe at the crossroads’. OUP/Oxford
Institute for Energy Studies.
Bulmer, S. (2007). ‘Theorizing Europeanization’ in P. Graziano and V. Vink (eds.),
Europeanization: New Research Agendas
, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 3-20.
Caporaso, J. (2007). ‘The Three Worlds of Regional Integration Theory’ in P. Graziano & V.
Vink (eds.),
Europeanization: New Research Agendas
, Palgrave Macmillan, New
York, 23-34.
Collier, U. (1994). ‘Energy and Environment in the European Union’. Aldershot: Avebury.
Collier, U. (1997). ‘Prospects for a Sustainable Energy Policy in the European Union’,
EUI
Working Paper
, RSC No. 97/29.
Collier, U. (2002). ‘EU Energy Policy in a Changing Climate’ in A. Lenschow (ed.).
Environmental Policy Integration greening sectoral policies in Europe
, Earthscan
Publications Ltd, UK, USA, 175-92.
Commission of the European Communities (1972). Necessary progress in community
energy policy. Com (72) 1200, October 4, 1972. Supplement to Butlletin of the
European Communities, No. 11, 1972.
Commission of the European Communities (1974). Towards a new energy policy strategy
for the European Community, COM (74) 550 final/2, Brussels, 26 June 1974.
The ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance
413
JCER
Council of the European Union (2007). ‘Action Plan (2007-2009) An Energy Policy for
Europe’, Presidency Conclusions, Brussels March 8-9 2007. Available at:
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st07/st07224-re01.en07.pdf, last
accessed November 18 2010.
Damro, C., Hardie, I. and MacKenzie, D. (2008). ‘The EU and Climate Change Policy: Law,
Politics and Prominence at Different Levels’,
Journal of Contemporary European
Research
, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.179-192. Available
at:http://www.jcer.net/ojs.index.php/jcer/article/view/110/103, last accessed 18
November 2010.
Eising, R. and Jabko, N. (2001). ‘Moving Targets: National Interests and Electricity
Liberalization in the European Union’,
Comparative Political Studies
, 34, 742-767.
European Council (1974). Council Resolution of 17 December 1974 on a Community action
programme on the rational utilization of energy. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/en/legis/latest/chap121010.htm, last accessed November 18 2010.
European Council (1975). Council Resolution of 3 March 1975 on energy and the
environment. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/en/legis/latest/chap121010.htm, last accessed November 18 2010.
European Commission (1998). Communication from the Commission of 14 October 1998:
Strengthening environmental integration within Community energy policy.
Available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&
type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1998&nu_doc=571, last accessed November 18 2010.
European Commission (2006). Green Paper of 8 March 2006: "A European strategy for
sustainable, competitive and secure energy. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&
type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2006&nu_doc=105, last accessed November 18 2010.
European Commission (2007). Communication from the Commission to the European
Council and the European Parliament of 10 January 2007, "An energy policy for
Europe". Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&
type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=1, last accessed November 18 2010.
European Commission (2008a). Communication from the Commission to the European
parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions - Second Strategic Energy Review: an EU energy security
and solidarity action plan. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008DC0781:EN:HTML:NOT,
last accessed November 18 2010.
European Commission (2008b). Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions – 20 20 by 2020 - Europe's climate change opportunity.
Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008DC0030:EN:HTML:NOT,
last accessed November 18 2010.
European Commission (2010). Communication "Energy 2020 - A strategy for competitive,
sustainable and secure energy". Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0639:EN:HTML:NOT,
last accessed November 18 2010.
European Union (2008). Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the
Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, Brussels, 30 April 2008.
Escribano, G. (2006) ‘Europeanisation without Europe? The Mediterranean and the
Neighbourhood Policy’,
EUI Working Paper,
RSCAS No. 2006/19. Available at:
http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/WP-Texts/06_19.pdf, last accessed 18 November 2010.
Escribano, G. (2010). ‘Convergence Towards Differentiation: The Europeanization of
Mediterranean Energy Corridors”,
Mediterranean Politics
, 15(2).
414
Solorio
JCER
Haverland, M. (2007). ‘Methodology’, in Graziano, P. & V. M. Vink (eds.),
Europeanization:
New Research Agendas
, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 59-70.
Henningsen, J. (2008). ‘EU energy and climate policy – two years on’,
EPC Issue Paper
, num.
55. European Policy Centre, September 2008.
Herranz, A. and Zapater, E. (2010, in press). ‘A toda luz y a medio gas: Relaciones
energéticas entra la Unión europea y su entorno próximo’, in
La Unión Europea
más allá de sus fronteras ¿Hacia la trasnformación del Mediterráneo y Europea
oriental?,
Madrid, Tecnos.
Humphreys, P. and Padgett, S. (2006). “Globalization, the European Union, and Domestic
Governance in Telecoms and Electricity”,
Governance: An International Journal of
Policy Administration and Institutions
, Vol. 19, No. 3, 383-406.
Jordan, A., Brouwer, R. and Noble, E. (1999). “Innovative and responsive? A longitudinal
analysis of the speed of EU environmental policy-making, 1967-97, J
ournal of
European Public Policy
, 6: 3, September, 376-98.
Jordana, J., Levi-Faur, D. and I., Puig (2005). ‘The Limits of Europeanization: Regulatory
Reforms in the Spanish and Portuguese Telecommunications and Electricity
Sectors’,
European Integration online Papers (EIOP)
, 9(10). Available at:
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2005-010a.htm, last accessed 18 November 2010.
Knill, C. and Lehmkuhl, D. (2002) “The national impact of the European Union regulatory
policy: Three Europeanization mechanism, European Journal of Political Research,
41: 255-280.
Knill, C. and Lenschow, A. (2003). ‘Modes of Regulation in the Governance of the European
Union: Towards a Comprehensive Evaluation’,
European Integration online Papers
(EIOP)
, 7(1). Available at: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2003-001a.htm, last accessed
18 November 2010.
Knill, C. and Lenschow, A. (2005). ‘Compliance, Competition, and Communication: Different
Approaches of European governance and their Impact on National Institutions’,
Journal of Common Market Studies,
Volume 43, Number 3, pp.583-606.
Lenschow, A. (2002). ‘Greening the European Union: An Introduction’, in A. Lenschow (ed.).
Environmental Policy Integration: greening sectoral policies in Europe
, Earthscan
Publications Ltd, UK, USA, 3-21.
Levi-Faur, D. (2002). ‘On the ´Net Impact´ of Europeanization. The EU´s telecoms and
electricity regimes between the global and the national’,
European Integration
online Papers (EIOP)
, 6(7). Available at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002-007a.htm,
last accessed November 18 2010.
McGowan, F. (2008). ‘Can the European Union´s Market Liberalism Ensure Energy Security
in a Time of Economic Nationalism?’,
Journal of Contemporary European Research
,
Volume 4 Issue 2 June 2008, 90-106.
Matláry, J. (1997).
Energy Policy in the European Union
. Nueva York, San Martin´s Press.
Mickwitz, P., Aix, F., Beck, S., Carss, D., Ferrand, N., Görg, C., Jensen, A., Kivimaa, P., Kuhlicke,
C., Kuindersma, W. , Máñez, M., Melanen, M., Monni, S., Pedersen, A., Reinert H., and
van Bommel, S. (2009). “Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance,
PEER Report
, No. 2.
Morata, F. and Solorio, I. (eds).
European Energy Policy: the Environmental Dimension
.
Barcelona, IUEE, Forthcoming.
Natorski, M. and Herranz, A. (2008) ‘Securitizing Moves to Nowhere? The Framing of the
European Union’s Energy Policy’
. Journal of Contemporary European Research
,
Volume 4 Issue 2 June 2008, 71-89.
Oberthür, S. and Pallemaerts, M. (2010). ‘The EU's Internal and External Climate Policies: an
Historical Overview’ in S. Oberthür & M. Pallemaerts (Eds.),
The
New Climate Policies
of the European Union: Internal Legislation and
Climate Diplomacy
. Brussels: VUB
Press.
Oettinger, G. (2010a). "Europeanisation of energy policy" Speech of Commissioner
Oettinger at the Dinner Debate with the European Energy Forum Strasbourg, 19
The ‘Green Europeanisation’ of Energy Governance
415
JCER
October 2010. Available at:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/573&format
=HTML&aged=0&language=EN, last accessed 18 November 2010.
Oettinger, G. (2010b). ‘Energy challenges of the next ten years – the need for a European
common policy’ Speech at Stakeholder Conference on preparation of Energy
Strategy 2011-2020 Brussels, 30 September 2010. Available at:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/504, last
accessed 18 November 2010.
Owens, S. and Hope, C. W. (1989). “Energy and environment: The challenge of integrating
European policies”,
Energy Policy
, April 1989, 97-102.
Persson, Å. (2004). ‘Environmental Policy Integration: An Introduction. PINTS –Policy
Integration for Sustainability Background Paper’. Stockholm Environment Institute.
Available at: http://sei-
international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Policy-
institutions/pints_intro.pdf, last accessed 18 November 2010.
Piebalgs, A. (2009). ‘How the European Union is preparing the “third industrial revolution
with an innovative energy policy’.
EUI Working Papers
, RSCAS 2009/11. Available at:
http://www.dauphine.fr/cgemp/masterindustrie/cours%20geopolitics/cours%20ge
opolitics%202009/Commeau%20Yanoussis/Article%20de%20Piebalgs.pdf, last
accessed 18 November 2010.
Pollack, M. (1994). ‘Creeping Competence: The Expanding Agenda of the European
Community’,
Journal of Public Policy
, 14, 2, 95-145.
Radaelli, C. M. (2000). ‘Whiter Europeanization? Concept stretching and substantive
change’,
European Integration online Papers (EIOP)
, 4(8). Available at:
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-008a.htm, last accessed 18 November 2010.
Risse, T., Green Cowles, M. and Caporaso, J. (2001). 'Europeanization and Domestic Change:
Introduction' in Green Cowles et al, Transforming Europe: Europeanization and.
Domestic Change Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 1-20.
Skjaerseth, J. (1994). ‘The Climate Policy of the EC: Too Hot to Handle’,
Journal of Common
Market Studies
, Vol. 32, No.1, 25-42.
Solorio, I. (2009). ‘La construccion de la política energética europea desde el area
medioambiental’, in in F. Morata (Coord.).
La Energía del Siglo XXI: Perspectivas
europeas y tendencias globales
, Institut Universitari d'Estudis Europeus, Barcelona,
99-118, available at
http://iuee.eu/publicacions.asp?parent=13&ap=14&s=19&pub=3&id=167, last
accessed 18 November 2010.
Twidell, John and Brice, R. (1992). Strategies for implementing renewable energy. Lessons
from Europe,
Energy Policy
, may, pp. 464-479.
Vink, M. and Graziano, P. (2007). ‘Challenges of a New Research Agenda’, in Graziano, P. and
V. M. Vink (eds.),
Europeanization: New Research Agendas
, Palgrave Macmillan, New
York, 3-20.
Zapater, E (2009). ‘La seguridad energética de la Unión Europea en el contexto de la nueva
política energética y el tratado de Lisboa’, in in F. Morata (Coord.).
La Energía del
Siglo XXI: Perspectivas europeas y tendencias globales
, Institut Universitari
d'Estudis Europeus, Barcelona, 49-79, available at
http://iuee.eu/publicacions.asp?parent=13&ap=14&s=19&pub=3&id=167, last
accessed 18 November 2010.
***
