The revision of the Posted Workers Directive: towards a sufficient policy adjustment? EPC Discussion Paper, 20 April 2016

Labour mobility within the European Union continues to be a limited phenomenon. This concerns both long-term intra-EU mobility and more temporary forms of mobility such as posting of workers, i.e. workers posted to another member state in the framework of cross-border service provision. Yet, despite the limited nature of posting, this topic is far from being absent from the public and political debates. Several factors contribute to this. Firstly, a surge in the number of posted workers has been noticed over the recent years and increased attention has therefore been paid to this issue. Quite a few economic sectors, including construction, manufacturing, and social work, are very concerned by this trend. Secondly, several types of abuses have been recorded such as letter-box companies, bogus self-employment and exploitation of the posted workers' vulnerable situation. Thirdly, questions have been raised as to whether the balance struck by the EU legislator in 1996 (when adopting the Posted Workers Directive) between the freedom to provide crossborder services and the workers' social rights is still valid today. These elements highlight the need for a policy adjustment in order to preserve the legitimacy of the citizens' and workers' freedom to move and, to a certain extent, of the social dimension of the European project. In this context, the European Commission published a proposal to revise the 1996 Directive in order to strike a better balance between economic and social rights. But is this proposal sufficient to ensure a level playing field between economic actors and equal treatment between workers? How will this proposal affect the implementation of other EU initiatives aiming to tackle fraud and abuse? What else is needed to address the tensions between the Single Market principles and the EU's social objectives? This discussion paper, published in the context of the Dutch Presidency and the ongoing negotiations of a revised Directive on posted workers, focuses on these questions while proposing some concrete solutions for a fairer policy framework.

Electricity without borders: a plan to make the internal market work. Bruegel Blueprint Series 20, 5 September 2013

The most straightforward European single energy market design would entail a European system operator regulated by a single European regulator. This would ensure the predictable development of rules for the entire EU, significantly reducing regulatory uncertainty for electricity sector investments. But such a first-best market design is unlikely to be politically realistic in the European context for three reasons. First, the necessary changes compared to the current situation are substantial and would produce significant redistributive effects. Second, a European solution would deprive member states of the ability to manage their energy systems nationally. And third, a single European solution might fall short of being well-tailored to consumers’ preferences, which differ substantially across the EU. To nevertheless reap significant benefits from an integrated European electricity market, we propose the following blueprint: First, we suggest adding a European system-management layer to complement national operation centres and help them to better exchange information about the status of the system, expected changes and planned modifications. The ultimate aim should be to transfer the day-to-day responsibility for the safe and economic operation of the system to the European control centre. To further increase efficiency, electricity prices should be allowed to differ between all network points between and within countries. This would enable throughput of electricity through national and international lines to be safely increased without any major investments in infrastructure. Second, to ensure the consistency of national network plans and to ensure that they contribute to providing the infrastructure for a functioning single market, the role of the European ten year network development plan (TYNDP) needs to be upgraded by obliging national regulators to only approve projects planned at European level unless they can prove that deviations are beneficial. This boosted role of the TYNDP would need to be underpinned by resolving the issues of conflicting interests and information asymmetry. Therefore, the network planning process should be opened to all affected stakeholders (generators, network owners and operators, consumers, residents and others) and enable the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) to act as a welfare-maximising referee. An ultimate political decision by the European Parliament on the entire plan will open a negotiation process around selecting alternatives and agreeing compensation. This ensures that all stakeholders have an interest in guaranteeing a certain degree of balance of interest in the earlier stages. In fact, transparent planning, early stakeholder involvement and democratic legitimisation are well suited for minimising as much as possible local opposition to new lines. Third, sharing the cost of network investments in Europe is a critical issue. One reason is that so far even the most sophisticated models have been unable to identify the individual long-term net benefit in an uncertain environment. A workable compromise to finance new network investments would consist of three components: (i) all easily attributable cost should be levied on the responsible party; (ii) all network users that sit at nodes that are expected to receive more imports through a line extension should be obliged to pay a share of the line extension cost through their network charges; (iii) the rest of the cost is socialised to all consumers. Such a cost-distribution scheme will involve some intra-European redistribution from the well-developed countries (infrastructure-wise) to those that are catching up. However, such a scheme would perform this redistribution in a much more efficient way than the Connecting Europe Facility’s ad-hoc disbursements to politically chosen projects, because it would provide the infrastructure that is really needed.

Exploring a Regional Approach to EU Energy Policies. CEPS Special Report No. 84, 15 April 2014

Regional approaches to EU energy policies have been termed the ‘Schengenisation’ of energy, making reference to the Schengen Convention eliminating intra-European border controls. They aim to hone the effectiveness of EU energy policy objectives through enhanced policy coordination at the regional scale. Typically, this includes energy market integration while accounting for member states’ continued deployment of national-level policy instruments regarding the appropriate energy mix and the security of energy supply, which is foreseen in the EU Treaty. This report explores the potential for such regional approaches. It assesses lessons from existing initiatives, regional energy arrangements such as the Danube Energy Forum, the Mediterranean Energy Forum, the Pentalateral Energy Forum, the North Seas Countries’ Offshore Grid Initiative and the Nordic Co-operation partnership, to determine whether regional energy initiatives are an efficient, effective and politically acceptable approach toward reaching three EU energy policy objectives: competitiveness, supply security and sustainability. Regional approaches could possibly play an important role for governing EU renewables policy, which the European Commission has identified in the 2030 climate and energy framework as an important element for governance.

Exploring a Regional Approach to EU Energy Policies. CEPS Special Report No. 84, April 2014

Regional approaches to EU energy policies have been termed the ‘Schengenisation’ of energy, making reference to the Schengen Convention eliminating intra-European border controls. They aim to hone the effectiveness of EU energy policy objectives through enhanced policy coordination at the regional scale. Typically, this includes energy market integration while accounting for member states’ continuing deployment of national-level policy instruments regarding the appropriate energy mix and the security of energy supply, which is foreseen in the EU Treaty. This report explores the potential for such regional approaches. It assesses lessons from existing initiatives, regional energy arrangements such as the Danube Energy Forum, the Mediterranean Energy Forum, the Pentalateral Energy Forum, the North Seas Countries’ Offshore Grid Initiative and the Nordic Co-operation partnership, to determine whether regional energy initiatives are an efficient, effective and politically acceptable approach toward reaching three EU energy policy objectives: competitiveness, supply security and sustainability. Regional approaches could possibly play an important role for governing EU renewables policy, which the European Commission has identified in the 2030 climate and energy framework as an important element for governance.