In dramatic scenes
today in the European Commission, the
Deputy Director of DG Energy, Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, at a meeting of
the Committee
on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) told Ireland MEP Ciaran Cuffe
that Shannon
LNG cannot stay on the PCI List if the Irish Member State opposes it.
Ireland has until
October 23rd to inform the Commission that it no longer
supports the importation of US Fracked gas through the proposed Shannon
LNG
terminal.
So, it is now unequivocal. It is still an Irish decision and not a
Commission
Decision to make, to remove Shannon LNG from the PCI List and the
country still has time
to make it. And now is the time to do just that.
Shannon
LNG's planning permission has expired. So
has the permission for its pipeline. Sweden
has shown the way when the Gothenburg LNG terminal had to be taken off
the PCI
List when Sweden withdrew its support for the project 2 weeks ago on
Climate
grounds.
The European
Commission broke the law when it refused to
assess emissions when it was deciding on which projects to keep on the
list.
And even Deputy Director General Borchardt admitted as much today. You couldn't make it up.
Ireland
thought it was finished with the PCI process for the
project once it approved Shannon LNG getting on the Regional Draft List
on
October 4th. Of course it huffed and puffed a bit about the Commission
not having
done any assessments of the fugitive methane leakages from fracked gas
but was
assured by the Commission stating that it would carry them out for the
next
round of PCI projects in 2 years time. We would all just have to turn a
blind
eye to the current proposed list. So much for a rules-based system. But
then, one of the
world's top scientists in the area
of the Methane Life Cycle, Professor Robert Howarth from Cornell
University in
New York, gave expert witness testimony to the Oireachtas Joint
Committee on
Climate Action, telling the Irish parliamentarians from all parties,
and none,
that importing US fracked gas via the Shannon LNG project was 44% more
damaging
to the Climate than COAL. And
to think
that this is still going to get overriding public interest status.
But here is the
funny bit. The Commission has now told the
world that it is still Ireland's decision to
make to keep or remove Shannon LNG from the
list of projects of Common Interest.
And
the Deputy Director General even went a step further
when he agreed that these projects can lead to a 50 year fossil fuel
lock in and
that the developers love them because they set the framework for an
accelerated
permitting process of 3 and half years maximum.
Well that's the next high court
challenge off to a fine start there
since the grounds for deciding if a project requires public
consultation and a
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), which this decision never
had, is if
it is a decision which sets the framework for future development
consent.
All
of this for the EU-US trade plan of July 25th, 2018 to
flood the EU with filthy fracked US gas in a blatant move of trade over
climate.
You
really couldn't make it up. All of us to pay massive carbon
taxes and drive electric
cars from power stations fuelled with US fracked gas that must be built
in the
national interest.
What
a joke it would be if it wasn't so serious.
Time
to act, dear
decision makers out there. No more excuses. Science
and the Commission have spoken. Do you know what the Precautionary
Principle means?
References: 1. Click
here to view the European Commission replies to Ciaran Cuffe MEP,
saying it is up to Member State to take Shannon LNG off the List,
Explains PCI Process, Explaining the advantages for Developers of the
PCI procees (Framework for Development Consent), Admitting the Climate
Impact of Importing Fracked Gas has not been assessed by the Commission
and Admitting to 50 year fossil fuel lock in ... .Unbelievable. 2. Email from DG Energy setting the October 23rd Deadline for Ireland to remove Shannon LNG from the PCI List.:
From: AMILHAT Jane (ENER) Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:16 PM To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'wolfgang.di[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: REUNIONS COMMISSION / EXPERTS NATIONAUX (EP) <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; ENER B1 PROJECTS <[email protected]> Subject: 4th PCI list - draft delegated act and accompanying staff working document Importance: High Dear Madam/ Sir, Following
discussions with experts from your Member State in the context of the
Regional Groups as laid down in Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 on
guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and, in line with
the commitments undertaken by the Commission in light of the
Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Legislation, we are consulting
you on the final draft Commission
Delegated Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 347/2013 as regards the
Union list of Projects of Common Interest and the accompanying final
draft Commission staff working document. The
attached draft delegated act includes the 4th list of PCIs as adopted
by the High-level decision making body of the Regional Groups. Please
note that, in line with article 3(4) of the above mentioned Regulation “the
Commission shall ensure that the Union list is established every two
years, on the basis of the regional lists adopted by the
decision-making bodies of the Groups as established in Annex III.1(2),
following the procedure set out in paragraph 3 of this Article”. Also
in accordance with the above Regulation, representatives of the Member
States, national regulatory authorities, transmission system operators,
ACER, ENTSO-G and ENTSO-E have been involved in the drawing up of the
4th list of PCIs. Several consultations have been carried out during
the process. Regional Group meetings have been webstreamed and open to
a broad range of stakeholders, including consumer and environmental
organizations. Should you have any final comments to the attached draft delegated act, please let us know by 23 October 2019. Yours sincerely, Jane Amilhat Acting Head of Unit Networks and regional initiatives
3:
Transcripts
of what Klaus-Dieter Borchardt Deputy
Director General of DG Energy said at the
meeting of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) on October
17th, 2019:
"There was a question of the Shannon. Thank you for
that. It's a good example where our problems lay today. Also for the
Commission. Because you have to understand that the PCI Process in the first
place is in the hands, as I said, it's bottom up, of Member States, of what
they want to have. And then it goes to
regional groups, et cetera. So we as a Commission when it comes to us, we have
to follow some clear rules. We cannot
keep a project on the list if One Member State opposes it. And we have had these cases this time. On the other hand, if there is no opposition,
and we are doing a Cost Benefit Analysis and it shows a positive social welfare
ratio, then we are, at this moment in
time, obliged to take it. And that is
also as Mister Peterson has raised. And
I take that, that here is a missing link in our system. That we should have,
for future projects , a real scrutiny, a real assessment on the climate policy compatibility
of these projects. ...
Now, why is there such a keen interest to get on this PCI
list. And there are mainly three reasons
for that. The first is that our regulation, the TEN-E Regulation foresees
that the PCI has to undergo an
accelerated permit-granting procedure and it is said that the whole permit
granting - all permit s, by the way, should
go through a one-stop shop - have to be delivered within three and a
half years.
The second is that PCIs are under a special regulatory
framework which also facilitates the implementation . For instance, we also
have the prerequisite that the hosting countries, at least
two Member States, they have to
agree on such an infrastructure project, which already takes away all the risk that there are some political
implications that
could hamper the development of a project. That is already cleared through the
PCI process.
And then last, but not least, and for the developers of
course, the most important one, is the EU
Financial assistance. And here, we have
a direct connection between the PCI and the Connecting Europe Facility. Because
we can only accept a project for funding under the Connecting Europe Facility
if, it has previously been taken on the
list for PCI. [...]
And also, to discuss, what you have claimed, rightly so,
where is the sustainability or Climate
Impact Assessment. Unfortunately, we are not doing it . This is
certainly a missing link that is in our current catalogue of criteria which need to be added . And the Commission
knows it .
[...]
Because the danger is there.
If you are putting today such a pipeline into the water it stays there
for the next 50 years. And that is certainly something where we also have, if
you look into the future, the problem."
|