The EU internal market - a stake or a tool in European-Russian gas relations. OSW Commentary No. 54, 2011-06-24

Since 2010 we have observed a new quality in EU energy policy. It is related to the European Commission’s more or less direct engagement in the bilateral gas relations of a part of the new member states – Poland, Bulgaria and Lithuania – with Russia. Although the long term outcome of this activity of the EC is as yet unclear it seems to be important for several reasons. Firstly it might increase the possibilities of the enforcement of the EU’s directives liberalising the internal gas market and specifically their implementation in individual gas agreements with suppliers from third countries (Gazprom). The consistency and determination of the EC in this field may be decisive for the future direction and depth of the liberalisation of the EU gas market. Furthermore, present developments may lead to an increase in EU and specifically EC competence in the field of energy policy, especially its external dimension. So what lessons can we draw from recent Commission activities on the following issues: – Implementing EU gas market 2nd and 3rd liberalisation packages and their main provisions – EU energy policy and its external dimension – recent developments and the EU’s role – EU-Russia gas relations – where Russian and EU interests diverge.

Economic Approaches of the Internal Market. Bruges European Economic Research (BEER) Papers 13/April 2008

What is ‘the’ EU internal market, as economists see it? The present BEER paper attempts to survey and help readers understand various ‘economic’ approaches to the internal market idea. The paper starts with a conceptual discussion of what ‘the’ internal market is (in an economic perspective). Six different economic meanings of the internal market are presented, with the sixth one being the economic benchmark in an ideal setting. Subsequently, the question is asked what the internal market (i.e. its proper functioning) is good for. Put differently, the internal market in the EU Treaty is a means, but a means to what? Beyond the typical economic growth objectives of the Rome Treaty (still valid today, with some qualifications), other Treaty objectives have emerged. Economists typically think in means-end relationships and the instrumental role of the internal market for Treaty objectives is far from clear. The ‘new’ Commission internal market strategy of 2007 proposes a more goal-oriented internal market policy. Such a vision is more selective in picking intermediate objectives to which ‘the’ internal market should be instrumental, but it risks to ignore the major deficits in today’s internal market: services and labour! The means-end relationships get even more problematic once one begins to scrutinise all the socio-economic objectives of the current (Amsterdam/Nice) Treaty or still other intermediate objectives. The internal market (explicitly including the relevant common regulation) then becomes a ‘jack of all trades’ for the environment, a high level of social protection, innovation or ‘Social Europe’. These means/ends relationships often are ill-specified. The final section considers the future of the internal market, by distinguishing three strategies: incremental strategies (including the new internal market strategy of November 2007); the internal market as the core of the Economic Union serving the ‘proper functioning of the monetary union’; and deepening and widening of the internal market as justified by the functional subsidiarity test. Even though the latter two would seem to be preferable from an economic point of view, they currently lack political legitimacy and are therefore unlikely to be pursued in the near future.

Interconnector Investment for a Well-Functioning Internal Market: What EU regime of regulatory incentives? Bruges European Economic Research (BEER) Papers 18/October 2010

Sufficient cross‐border electricity transmission infrastructure is a pre‐requisite for a functioning European internal market for electricity. Also, the achievement of the EU’s energy policy objectives – sustainability, competitiveness and security of supply – critically depends on adequate investment in physical interconnections between the member states. Mainly focusing on the “regulatory path”, this paper assesses different ways to achieve a sufficient level of interconnector investment. In a first step, economic analysis identifies numerous impediments to interconnector investment adding up to an “interconnector investment failure”. Reflecting on the proper regulatory design of an EU framework able to overcome the interconnector investment failure, a number of recommendations are put forward:  All congestion rents should be channeled into interconnector building. Unused rents should be transferred to a European interconnector fund supervised by an EU agency.  Even though inherently sub‐optimal, merchant transmission investment can be used as a means to put pressure on regulated transmission system operators (TSO) that do not deliver. An EU agency should have exclusive competence on merchant interconnector exemptions.  A European TSO organization should be entrusted with supra‐national network planning, supervised by an EU agency.  The agency should decide on investment cost reallocation for interconnector projects that yield strong externalities. Payments could be settled via a European interconnector fund.  In case of non‐compliance with the supra‐national network plan, the EU agency should have the right to organize a tender – financed by the European interconnector fund – in order to get the “missing link” built. Assessing the existing EU regulatory framework, the efforts of the 2009 “third energy package” to fill the “regulatory gap” with new EU bodies – ACER and ENTSO‐E – are acknowledged. However, striking holes in regulatory framework are spotted, notably with regard to the use of congestion rents, interconnector cost allocation, and the distribution of decision making powers on new infrastructure exemptions A discussion of the TEN‐E interconnector funding scheme shows that massive funding can be an interim solution to the problem of insufficient interconnection capacities while overcoming the political deadlock on sensible regulatory topics such as interconnector cost allocation. The paper ends with policy recommendations.