#NotMyTaxonomie: this hashtag trended on Twitter yesterday following the EU Parliament’s approval to classify gas and nuclear power as sustainable. Many now see the credibility of taxonomy in danger, no reputable bank will trust the seal, the Greens said. Leonie Düngefeld reports on the memorable vote.
Will Russian gas really start flowing to Germany again after the regular maintenance work on Nord Stream 1? And when push comes to shove, will the agreements that some member states have concluded with each other help? Will this mean that countries will have to put their own industry at risk in order to keep their homes warm in the neighboring country? Many unanswered questions, but the EU Commission is trying to find answers, writes Manuel Berkel.
Fourteen British ministers resigned yesterday in protest against Prime Minister Boris Johnson – but, at least up to press time, not Boris Johnson himself. He would only resign if there was a withdrawal of confidence in him, he said Wednesday evening. Read more in the news.
Laurence Boone has secured her post. She replaces Clément Beaune as Secretary of State for European Affairs in France. Our correspondent Tanja Kuchenbecker portrayed the economist.
There was applause yesterday in Parliament only for a group of activists who stood up and protested loudly after the vote. Otherwise, there was disillusionment on the faces of many members of parliament. Until the very end, members of almost all parliamentary groups had campaigned together for a veto of the legislation, which is supposed to classify investments in nuclear power and natural gas as sustainable. In the end they failed because of a conservative and liberal majority.
An absolute majority (353 votes) would have been required for Parliament to veto the Commission’s taxonomy proposal. Only 278 MEPs voted in favor of the veto. 328 voted against, 33 abstained. 66 MEPs were not present, among others because of several COVID-19 cases.
The German deputies of the Greens, SPD, and Left voted unanimously in favor of the objection, as did most of the CDU/CSU. FDP deputies abstained, which counted as a no for the vote. The position of many conservatives had been unclear until the EPP’s internal vote on Tuesday evening. Eventually, however, a majority against the veto was evident. In the French-dominated Renew Group, support for the legislation had been foreseeable; from the S&D Group, only the Finnish and Romanian delegations voted against the objection.
Opponents of the legislation spoke yesterday of a “bitter day”, a step backwards for European climate and environmental policy. “Europe’s eco-label for the financial sector has become a case for the dustbin,” said MEP Michael Bloss (Greens/EFA). “No serious bank will trust this seal.” The European Parliament missed the chance to put the EU Commission in its place, said Joachim Schuster (S&D): “The conservative majority in the plenary participates in the greenwashing of the Commission and some member states. If these political forces in Europe continue to assert themselves, the EU will miss its goal of a climate-neutral economy by 2050.”
“With gas in the taxonomy, the European Union has missed its chance to set a gold standard for sustainable finance,” said Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation. “Instead, it has set a dangerous precedent.” The EU taxonomy now misses its original goal of preventing greenwashing in the financial system. Investors, businesses, and consumers will now look elsewhere for science-based clarity and credibility.
Thierry Philipponnat, chief economist at the NGO FinanceWatch, sees the credibility of not just the taxonomy, but also the entire EU sustainable finance agenda and green deal, at risk. “Calling gas sustainable, even as a ‘transitional’ fuel, will not convince climate-conscious investors,” he told Europe.Table. The taxonomy will lose its usefulness as a tool for directing capital flows toward sustainable economic activities, he added. “Most importantly, the taxonomy will then no longer be suitable for assessing the transition plans of EU companies towards a carbon-neutral economy,” Philipponnat said.
The legislation also demonstrates a lack of understanding of how financial markets work, Philipponnat said: “It’s a pipe dream to think that adding gas and nuclear to the taxonomy will make it easier to finance these activities.”
The consequence on the financial market could be that we now see more investments in nuclear power and gas, explained Christoph Bals, political director of Germanwatch. There is a risk, he said, that the EU’s decision could also prompt other countries to label nuclear power or natural gas as sustainable. A downward spiral could then ensue. South Korea added natural gas to its national taxonomy when the EU’s plans became known. “The EU has a pacesetting role here,” Bals said. “Other regions could follow.”
Supporters of the legislation, on the other hand, see energy supply secured by the inclusion of gas and nuclear energy in the taxonomy. “The clear vote of the European Parliament is an important step for a successful energy transition with security of supply at affordable energy prices,” commented Markus Pieper, one of the CDU/CSU MEPs who voted against the objection yesterday.
“We think the European Parliament’s decision to classify gas as sustainable for a limited period of time makes sense,” said the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI). “In the transition phase to climate neutrality, it increases the urgently needed security of supply, especially for natural gas.” Finance Commissioner Mairead McGuinness had also stressed during the debate in Parliament that nuclear energy and natural gas are merely transitional technologies on which some member states rely.
Until July 11, the European Council could also still object to the Delegated Act, but there is no majority against the taxonomy proposal there either. The way is thus clear, the regulation can enter into force on January 1, 2023 and will also apply from then on.
“Investors are definitely in for a long period of legal uncertainty,” explained Christoph Bals of Germanwatch, because it is clear that there will be various legal disputes. Michael Bloss announced a lawsuit from within the Parliament, which is primarily aimed at the lack of a legal basis for the Delegated Act. “There is very good evidence for a lawsuit,” Bloss said. “The strongest one is that the Commission, through a Delegated Act, can only regulate non-essential areas of policy, but cannot decide this debate.”
On the side of the member states, Austria and Luxembourg had already announced legal action in January. They argue that the European Commission is exceeding its powers. An expert opinion commissioned by the Austrian government calculated that the chances of a lawsuit were good (Europe.Table reported). The Austrian climate protection minister Leonore Gewessler confirmed this intention yesterday. Austria will file an already prepared action for annulment at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as soon as this “greenwashing program” enters into force, said the Green minister. Luxembourg had promised to support the action. Austria will use the coming months to win further allies for this, Gewessler said.
“It is our very clear expectation that the German government will join this lawsuit,” demanded Sascha Müller-Kraenner of Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH). He said there were many other arguments that would be decisive in court. The Commission’s proposal contains strong contradictions in terms of content; for example, the promotion of natural gas infrastructure would compete with the expansion of renewable energies and violate the “Do No Significant Harm” principle of the taxonomy. The precautionary principle established in the European treaties would also be violated. DUH and other environmental associations announced yesterday that they would also examine legal remedies.
Many people in politics and business have probably marked July 21 in their calendars. Starting at 6 a.m., gas is supposed to start flowing through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline again after the annual maintenance work, which begins next Monday. However, warnings are becoming increasingly strident that deliveries, which have been curtailed for weeks, will stop completely after that. “We have to prepare for further interruptions of gas supply from Russia, even a complete termination,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told Parliament yesterday. She said it was clear that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was using energy as a weapon. Several announcements followed to show Brussels’ resolve.
On July 20, Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans will present the plans to prepare for the winter, a Commission spokesman confirmed upon request. On July 26 – a few days after the deadline for Nord Stream – the energy ministers of the member states will meet for an extraordinary session, the Czech Council Presidency announced yesterday.
Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson had already named the six core topics of the winter preparedness action plan after the last Council of Energy Ministers at the end of June. Yesterday, von der Leyen said that the focus of the EU-wide emergency plan should be on reducing consumption, on the one hand, and on solidarity in the even distribution of gas, on the other. In the event of a complete supply disruption from Russia, remaining gas flows would have to go where they were needed most.
“We must ensure European solidarity. And we must protect the internal market and industry supply chains,” von der Leyen said. She added that it was important not to forget the bitter lesson learned at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Egoism, protectionism, closed borders, and export bans had led to disunity and fragmentation.
EPP leader Manfred Weber also called for a coordinated EU-wide approach. In an interview last Sunday, the CSU politician called for an energy summit to decide on binding measures for fair gas distribution. In the event of a gas shortage, the EU states would have to support each other if some of them were no longer able to supply their protected customers with gas.
However, it is not only questionable whether individual countries will really shut down entire branches of industry so that citizens in other countries do not freeze. The summit at the end of July would also have to regulate in more detail which restrictions a state seeking help would first have to impose itself. Would their budgets be allowed to heat as much as they wanted? Or would the donor countries be allowed to touch “their” reservoirs only when their neighbors are content with 18-degree homes? Unusually pithy words came yesterday from the Green Party’s parliamentary group in the Bundestag.
She is a little worried when the talk is primarily about how gas is distributed fairly in the EU, energy policy spokeswoman Ingrid Nestle told MDR, apparently seeing Germany in a pioneering role. “We must of course already ensure that if a country succeeds in consuming little gas, in really saving, in developing other energy sources, this country then also has the chance – I say this quite crassly – to save its industry in winter – and not say’ but there are still protected customers abroad and they are happily heating out the window and that’s where our gas is going now,” was the tough message of the Green MP. Successes in saving gas must be worthwhile.
That may be hubris or a drastic appeal – in the event of a gas shortage, arguably no EU state can be sure of its supply. “If all Russian gas supplies to the EU were to be cut off, the scale of the crisis would be far more significant than what EU lawmakers had in mind when they passed the SoS regulation in 2017,” Katja Yafimava, senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, tells Europe.Table.
“Such a disruption would affect several member states – especially Germany and Central and Eastern Europe – in quick succession and could lead to these countries applying for solidarity measures one after the other. There would be a domino effect,” the researcher fears. However, the Commission would probably not be able to force the member states to reduce the consumption of industrial customers as a precautionary measure in order to store gas.
The operators of the European gas transmission network could also use more legal certainty. So far, there are only six solidarity agreements between neighboring states in the event of a gas shortage. The lack of such agreements would not prevent aid from being triggered in the event of solidarity, says a spokeswoman for the Association of Transmission System Operators (FNB Gas). “But the agreements do create legal certainty.”
Technical and financial ambiguities and open liability issues would be resolved by the agreements. “The German government should continue its efforts to conclude further solidarity agreements,” the spokeswoman said. European grid operators plan to present their updated Winter Supply Outlook in October, ENTSOG said in response to a request. It could be a topic at the next regular meeting of energy ministers on Oct. 25.
Austria, which has so far only filled just under half of its large storage capacities, does not want to lose any more time. The regulatory authority has initiated a procedure to reallocate Gazprom’s capacities at the Haidach storage facility, Energy Minister Leonore Gewessler said yesterday. The Russian company has not used its shares in the storage facility to fill it for months, just as it has not done with the Dutch storage facility Bergermeer.
This was promptly followed by a smug reply from Moscow. On its Twitter account, Gazprom pointed out that the largest shares in Haidach belonged to companies that are now under the trusteeship of the Federal Network Agency in Bonn.
However, there is one very practical problem: under the EU’s new gas storage regulation, Germany and Austria are jointly responsible for filling the Haidach and 7-Fields storage facilities. Although both are located in Austria, they are also connected to the German network. Who must fill which portions and bear the costs? A legislative statement from Berlin on Tuesday says: “The exact relationship and scope of this responsibility is to be regulated in a bilateral agreement between Germany and Austria.” By dpa, rtr
Laurence Boone, an internationally renowned economist, is appointed Secretary of State for European Affairs in France. She will work under Foreign and European Affairs Minister Catherine Colonna.The 53-year-old Boone was previously chief economist and, since January, deputy secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
She knows exactly how the EU works because she used to be ex-President François Hollande’s personal Europe envoy. As an economist, she understands the economic challenges that will become increasingly important in the EU this year. Inflation and concerns about gas supplies will keep Europe busy.
The choice of an economist for the post is rather unusual, but fits the times. Up to now, it was rather political experts who were responsible for Europe, from Michel Barnier to Pierre Moscovici to Bruno Le Maire. Boone’s predecessor was Clément Beaune, who was previously Macron’s European advisor and skillfully portrayed Europe and Macron’s commitment to it in the media. He was even frequently called “Monsieur Europe.”
Boone has big shoes to fill. But for some time now, Parisian circles have been saying that Beaune wants to do something different from Europe and is therefore now responsible for transportation. At least when it comes to the pronunciation of the last name, you don’t have to change much in Europe, many joked on Twitter and in France’s media.
Boone is seen in France as someone who is hard-working, diplomatic and educational, plus pragmatic and realistic. She shares with Macron a commitment to a strong Europe. Experts have no doubt that Boone is suitable for the post. Paul Maurice of the Ifri Research Institute for International Relations told Europe.Table, “She has a similar profile to Beaune, both were European advisers. The situation is just slightly different. For Macron, the Europe issue was important in the election campaign; Beaune had to highlight it. Boone now has to get a handle on the Ukraine crisis.” Choosing an economist was the right thing to do, he said, because “economic issues like inflation and the budget will become more important in Europe in the future.”
Nicolas Véron of the Bruegel Institute also stressed to Les Echos : “She is well prepared for the role because she has done many different things.” She is experienced in economic analysis at major banks, in international relations through the OECD and European policy alongside Hollande. She should have no difficulties on the international stage, she speaks perfect English, studied economics in London at the London School of Economics and in Nanterre near Paris.
Born in Boulogne-Billancourt near Paris, the mother of two has worked as chief economist for Europe at Barclays Capital France and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. She was at insurance company Axa before joining the OECD in 2018. She has also made a name for herself in politics. She became economic advisor to Hollande in 2014 – when she replaced Emmanuel Macron, who became economy minister.
From that time, she knows Macron well, who, like her, was also previously employed in the banking sector. The two remained in close working contact after that. Hollande also appointed her as his special advisor for European affairs, and she remained at the Elysée Palace for almost two years. She had campaigned for Greece to remain in the eurozone, opposing Germany and Angela Merkel. Boone is considered a representative of social-liberal policies and told “Le Monde” at the time that she had “left-wing political leanings.”
Boone takes office at a difficult time, in the pandemic and Ukraine crisis. Energy security, a Europe of defense, EU enlargement, budget policy will be the priorities of Europeans in the near future. In the fall, the EU will discuss the Stability Pact. France is in favor of weakened budget rules to ensure more investment, such as in digital. Boone will have to defend France’s position in the EU together with Economy and Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire.
“She does not share Germany’s obsessions with a balanced budget,” commented the daily Liberation. She is in favor of more financial solidarity in the EU between the eurozone states, as started with the 2020 European Recovery Plan. According to the newspaper, she also gave up the post with Hollande because she found him too “pusillanimous” toward Germany.
Yet it’s not only in Brussels that it must become active. In France, too, there will be work to be done to convince people about Europe, because the right-wing extremists in the National Assembly under Marine Le Pen and the leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who has forged the Nupes alliance, are skeptical about Europe and could oppose European projects. Tanja Kuchenbecker
#NotMyTaxonomie: this hashtag trended on Twitter yesterday following the EU Parliament’s approval to classify gas and nuclear power as sustainable. Many now see the credibility of taxonomy in danger, no reputable bank will trust the seal, the Greens said. Leonie Düngefeld reports on the memorable vote.
Will Russian gas really start flowing to Germany again after the regular maintenance work on Nord Stream 1? And when push comes to shove, will the agreements that some member states have concluded with each other help? Will this mean that countries will have to put their own industry at risk in order to keep their homes warm in the neighboring country? Many unanswered questions, but the EU Commission is trying to find answers, writes Manuel Berkel.
Fourteen British ministers resigned yesterday in protest against Prime Minister Boris Johnson – but, at least up to press time, not Boris Johnson himself. He would only resign if there was a withdrawal of confidence in him, he said Wednesday evening. Read more in the news.
Laurence Boone has secured her post. She replaces Clément Beaune as Secretary of State for European Affairs in France. Our correspondent Tanja Kuchenbecker portrayed the economist.
There was applause yesterday in Parliament only for a group of activists who stood up and protested loudly after the vote. Otherwise, there was disillusionment on the faces of many members of parliament. Until the very end, members of almost all parliamentary groups had campaigned together for a veto of the legislation, which is supposed to classify investments in nuclear power and natural gas as sustainable. In the end they failed because of a conservative and liberal majority.
An absolute majority (353 votes) would have been required for Parliament to veto the Commission’s taxonomy proposal. Only 278 MEPs voted in favor of the veto. 328 voted against, 33 abstained. 66 MEPs were not present, among others because of several COVID-19 cases.
The German deputies of the Greens, SPD, and Left voted unanimously in favor of the objection, as did most of the CDU/CSU. FDP deputies abstained, which counted as a no for the vote. The position of many conservatives had been unclear until the EPP’s internal vote on Tuesday evening. Eventually, however, a majority against the veto was evident. In the French-dominated Renew Group, support for the legislation had been foreseeable; from the S&D Group, only the Finnish and Romanian delegations voted against the objection.
Opponents of the legislation spoke yesterday of a “bitter day”, a step backwards for European climate and environmental policy. “Europe’s eco-label for the financial sector has become a case for the dustbin,” said MEP Michael Bloss (Greens/EFA). “No serious bank will trust this seal.” The European Parliament missed the chance to put the EU Commission in its place, said Joachim Schuster (S&D): “The conservative majority in the plenary participates in the greenwashing of the Commission and some member states. If these political forces in Europe continue to assert themselves, the EU will miss its goal of a climate-neutral economy by 2050.”
“With gas in the taxonomy, the European Union has missed its chance to set a gold standard for sustainable finance,” said Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation. “Instead, it has set a dangerous precedent.” The EU taxonomy now misses its original goal of preventing greenwashing in the financial system. Investors, businesses, and consumers will now look elsewhere for science-based clarity and credibility.
Thierry Philipponnat, chief economist at the NGO FinanceWatch, sees the credibility of not just the taxonomy, but also the entire EU sustainable finance agenda and green deal, at risk. “Calling gas sustainable, even as a ‘transitional’ fuel, will not convince climate-conscious investors,” he told Europe.Table. The taxonomy will lose its usefulness as a tool for directing capital flows toward sustainable economic activities, he added. “Most importantly, the taxonomy will then no longer be suitable for assessing the transition plans of EU companies towards a carbon-neutral economy,” Philipponnat said.
The legislation also demonstrates a lack of understanding of how financial markets work, Philipponnat said: “It’s a pipe dream to think that adding gas and nuclear to the taxonomy will make it easier to finance these activities.”
The consequence on the financial market could be that we now see more investments in nuclear power and gas, explained Christoph Bals, political director of Germanwatch. There is a risk, he said, that the EU’s decision could also prompt other countries to label nuclear power or natural gas as sustainable. A downward spiral could then ensue. South Korea added natural gas to its national taxonomy when the EU’s plans became known. “The EU has a pacesetting role here,” Bals said. “Other regions could follow.”
Supporters of the legislation, on the other hand, see energy supply secured by the inclusion of gas and nuclear energy in the taxonomy. “The clear vote of the European Parliament is an important step for a successful energy transition with security of supply at affordable energy prices,” commented Markus Pieper, one of the CDU/CSU MEPs who voted against the objection yesterday.
“We think the European Parliament’s decision to classify gas as sustainable for a limited period of time makes sense,” said the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI). “In the transition phase to climate neutrality, it increases the urgently needed security of supply, especially for natural gas.” Finance Commissioner Mairead McGuinness had also stressed during the debate in Parliament that nuclear energy and natural gas are merely transitional technologies on which some member states rely.
Until July 11, the European Council could also still object to the Delegated Act, but there is no majority against the taxonomy proposal there either. The way is thus clear, the regulation can enter into force on January 1, 2023 and will also apply from then on.
“Investors are definitely in for a long period of legal uncertainty,” explained Christoph Bals of Germanwatch, because it is clear that there will be various legal disputes. Michael Bloss announced a lawsuit from within the Parliament, which is primarily aimed at the lack of a legal basis for the Delegated Act. “There is very good evidence for a lawsuit,” Bloss said. “The strongest one is that the Commission, through a Delegated Act, can only regulate non-essential areas of policy, but cannot decide this debate.”
On the side of the member states, Austria and Luxembourg had already announced legal action in January. They argue that the European Commission is exceeding its powers. An expert opinion commissioned by the Austrian government calculated that the chances of a lawsuit were good (Europe.Table reported). The Austrian climate protection minister Leonore Gewessler confirmed this intention yesterday. Austria will file an already prepared action for annulment at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as soon as this “greenwashing program” enters into force, said the Green minister. Luxembourg had promised to support the action. Austria will use the coming months to win further allies for this, Gewessler said.
“It is our very clear expectation that the German government will join this lawsuit,” demanded Sascha Müller-Kraenner of Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH). He said there were many other arguments that would be decisive in court. The Commission’s proposal contains strong contradictions in terms of content; for example, the promotion of natural gas infrastructure would compete with the expansion of renewable energies and violate the “Do No Significant Harm” principle of the taxonomy. The precautionary principle established in the European treaties would also be violated. DUH and other environmental associations announced yesterday that they would also examine legal remedies.
Many people in politics and business have probably marked July 21 in their calendars. Starting at 6 a.m., gas is supposed to start flowing through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline again after the annual maintenance work, which begins next Monday. However, warnings are becoming increasingly strident that deliveries, which have been curtailed for weeks, will stop completely after that. “We have to prepare for further interruptions of gas supply from Russia, even a complete termination,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told Parliament yesterday. She said it was clear that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was using energy as a weapon. Several announcements followed to show Brussels’ resolve.
On July 20, Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans will present the plans to prepare for the winter, a Commission spokesman confirmed upon request. On July 26 – a few days after the deadline for Nord Stream – the energy ministers of the member states will meet for an extraordinary session, the Czech Council Presidency announced yesterday.
Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson had already named the six core topics of the winter preparedness action plan after the last Council of Energy Ministers at the end of June. Yesterday, von der Leyen said that the focus of the EU-wide emergency plan should be on reducing consumption, on the one hand, and on solidarity in the even distribution of gas, on the other. In the event of a complete supply disruption from Russia, remaining gas flows would have to go where they were needed most.
“We must ensure European solidarity. And we must protect the internal market and industry supply chains,” von der Leyen said. She added that it was important not to forget the bitter lesson learned at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Egoism, protectionism, closed borders, and export bans had led to disunity and fragmentation.
EPP leader Manfred Weber also called for a coordinated EU-wide approach. In an interview last Sunday, the CSU politician called for an energy summit to decide on binding measures for fair gas distribution. In the event of a gas shortage, the EU states would have to support each other if some of them were no longer able to supply their protected customers with gas.
However, it is not only questionable whether individual countries will really shut down entire branches of industry so that citizens in other countries do not freeze. The summit at the end of July would also have to regulate in more detail which restrictions a state seeking help would first have to impose itself. Would their budgets be allowed to heat as much as they wanted? Or would the donor countries be allowed to touch “their” reservoirs only when their neighbors are content with 18-degree homes? Unusually pithy words came yesterday from the Green Party’s parliamentary group in the Bundestag.
She is a little worried when the talk is primarily about how gas is distributed fairly in the EU, energy policy spokeswoman Ingrid Nestle told MDR, apparently seeing Germany in a pioneering role. “We must of course already ensure that if a country succeeds in consuming little gas, in really saving, in developing other energy sources, this country then also has the chance – I say this quite crassly – to save its industry in winter – and not say’ but there are still protected customers abroad and they are happily heating out the window and that’s where our gas is going now,” was the tough message of the Green MP. Successes in saving gas must be worthwhile.
That may be hubris or a drastic appeal – in the event of a gas shortage, arguably no EU state can be sure of its supply. “If all Russian gas supplies to the EU were to be cut off, the scale of the crisis would be far more significant than what EU lawmakers had in mind when they passed the SoS regulation in 2017,” Katja Yafimava, senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, tells Europe.Table.
“Such a disruption would affect several member states – especially Germany and Central and Eastern Europe – in quick succession and could lead to these countries applying for solidarity measures one after the other. There would be a domino effect,” the researcher fears. However, the Commission would probably not be able to force the member states to reduce the consumption of industrial customers as a precautionary measure in order to store gas.
The operators of the European gas transmission network could also use more legal certainty. So far, there are only six solidarity agreements between neighboring states in the event of a gas shortage. The lack of such agreements would not prevent aid from being triggered in the event of solidarity, says a spokeswoman for the Association of Transmission System Operators (FNB Gas). “But the agreements do create legal certainty.”
Technical and financial ambiguities and open liability issues would be resolved by the agreements. “The German government should continue its efforts to conclude further solidarity agreements,” the spokeswoman said. European grid operators plan to present their updated Winter Supply Outlook in October, ENTSOG said in response to a request. It could be a topic at the next regular meeting of energy ministers on Oct. 25.
Austria, which has so far only filled just under half of its large storage capacities, does not want to lose any more time. The regulatory authority has initiated a procedure to reallocate Gazprom’s capacities at the Haidach storage facility, Energy Minister Leonore Gewessler said yesterday. The Russian company has not used its shares in the storage facility to fill it for months, just as it has not done with the Dutch storage facility Bergermeer.
This was promptly followed by a smug reply from Moscow. On its Twitter account, Gazprom pointed out that the largest shares in Haidach belonged to companies that are now under the trusteeship of the Federal Network Agency in Bonn.
However, there is one very practical problem: under the EU’s new gas storage regulation, Germany and Austria are jointly responsible for filling the Haidach and 7-Fields storage facilities. Although both are located in Austria, they are also connected to the German network. Who must fill which portions and bear the costs? A legislative statement from Berlin on Tuesday says: “The exact relationship and scope of this responsibility is to be regulated in a bilateral agreement between Germany and Austria.” By dpa, rtr
Laurence Boone, an internationally renowned economist, is appointed Secretary of State for European Affairs in France. She will work under Foreign and European Affairs Minister Catherine Colonna.The 53-year-old Boone was previously chief economist and, since January, deputy secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
She knows exactly how the EU works because she used to be ex-President François Hollande’s personal Europe envoy. As an economist, she understands the economic challenges that will become increasingly important in the EU this year. Inflation and concerns about gas supplies will keep Europe busy.
The choice of an economist for the post is rather unusual, but fits the times. Up to now, it was rather political experts who were responsible for Europe, from Michel Barnier to Pierre Moscovici to Bruno Le Maire. Boone’s predecessor was Clément Beaune, who was previously Macron’s European advisor and skillfully portrayed Europe and Macron’s commitment to it in the media. He was even frequently called “Monsieur Europe.”
Boone has big shoes to fill. But for some time now, Parisian circles have been saying that Beaune wants to do something different from Europe and is therefore now responsible for transportation. At least when it comes to the pronunciation of the last name, you don’t have to change much in Europe, many joked on Twitter and in France’s media.
Boone is seen in France as someone who is hard-working, diplomatic and educational, plus pragmatic and realistic. She shares with Macron a commitment to a strong Europe. Experts have no doubt that Boone is suitable for the post. Paul Maurice of the Ifri Research Institute for International Relations told Europe.Table, “She has a similar profile to Beaune, both were European advisers. The situation is just slightly different. For Macron, the Europe issue was important in the election campaign; Beaune had to highlight it. Boone now has to get a handle on the Ukraine crisis.” Choosing an economist was the right thing to do, he said, because “economic issues like inflation and the budget will become more important in Europe in the future.”
Nicolas Véron of the Bruegel Institute also stressed to Les Echos : “She is well prepared for the role because she has done many different things.” She is experienced in economic analysis at major banks, in international relations through the OECD and European policy alongside Hollande. She should have no difficulties on the international stage, she speaks perfect English, studied economics in London at the London School of Economics and in Nanterre near Paris.
Born in Boulogne-Billancourt near Paris, the mother of two has worked as chief economist for Europe at Barclays Capital France and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. She was at insurance company Axa before joining the OECD in 2018. She has also made a name for herself in politics. She became economic advisor to Hollande in 2014 – when she replaced Emmanuel Macron, who became economy minister.
From that time, she knows Macron well, who, like her, was also previously employed in the banking sector. The two remained in close working contact after that. Hollande also appointed her as his special advisor for European affairs, and she remained at the Elysée Palace for almost two years. She had campaigned for Greece to remain in the eurozone, opposing Germany and Angela Merkel. Boone is considered a representative of social-liberal policies and told “Le Monde” at the time that she had “left-wing political leanings.”
Boone takes office at a difficult time, in the pandemic and Ukraine crisis. Energy security, a Europe of defense, EU enlargement, budget policy will be the priorities of Europeans in the near future. In the fall, the EU will discuss the Stability Pact. France is in favor of weakened budget rules to ensure more investment, such as in digital. Boone will have to defend France’s position in the EU together with Economy and Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire.
“She does not share Germany’s obsessions with a balanced budget,” commented the daily Liberation. She is in favor of more financial solidarity in the EU between the eurozone states, as started with the 2020 European Recovery Plan. According to the newspaper, she also gave up the post with Hollande because she found him too “pusillanimous” toward Germany.
Yet it’s not only in Brussels that it must become active. In France, too, there will be work to be done to convince people about Europe, because the right-wing extremists in the National Assembly under Marine Le Pen and the leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who has forged the Nupes alliance, are skeptical about Europe and could oppose European projects. Tanja Kuchenbecker
