Leigh Hancher's guest appearances

Leigh Hancher

FSR Energy & Climate

Massimo Tavoni

Martin Weitzman

Josh Roberts

Guy Turner

Kristian Ruby

Jonathan Stern

Annabelle Lee

Ian Parry

Matthew Daus

Dan Roberts

Steven Weissman

Thierry Lepercq

Joe Perkins

Scott Weiner

Jan Marc Schwidtal

OwlTail

In this podcast, Leigh Hancher discusses the recent non-binding opinion (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-594/18%20) of Gerard Hogan, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, with regard to a decision on state aid to the nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C in the UK. In Hogan’s opinion, EU judges should dismiss an appeal by Austria aimed at overturning the approval of UK state aid to support the construction of the nuclear plant. Hogan stated, “it is clear that the development of nuclear power is, as reflected in the Euratom Treaty, a clearly defined objective of EU law”.In 2014, after several agreed changes to the plans, the European Commission approved the UK’s plans to give state aid to support the construction of two EPR reactor units at Hinkley Point C, deeming it compatible with EU state aid guidelines and thus the internal market. At the time, it was considered by the Commission that the aid was justified as there was a “lack of market-based financial instruments and other contracts to hedge against the substantial investment risks in the project”. The project is a joint venture between EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation, with the latter holding a 33.5% stake. The planned plant, which would be the first new nuclear power station to be built in the UK in almost twenty years, would account for approximately 7% of the UK’s electricity supply.Austria first launched an appeal to this decision in 2015 on the basis that approval of the scheme contradicted EU policy to support renewable energy. The then Austrian chancellor Werner Faymann argued that nuclear power “is not an innovative technology and is therefore not worthy of a subsidy”. He added that “[State] aid is there to support new and modern technologies that are in the general interest of all EU countries. This is in no way true of nuclear power.” The case divided Member States. In the course of proceedings, Luxembourg intervened in support of Austria while France, Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and the UK intervened in support of the Commission.In July 2018, the General Court dismissed the action brought by Austria. However, in September 2018, Austria appealed against the decision before the European Court of Justice. In his opinion of 7 May 2020, Hogan stated that, by accepting the objectives of the Euratom Treaty, all Member States have “clearly signified their unqualified acceptance in principle of the right of other Member States to develop nuclear power plants in their own territories should they wish to do so.” He also notes that EU law (according to Art 194 TFEU) has given each Member State the right to determine its own energy mix.Hogan comments that, according to its wording and the position of the provision in the TFEU, aid, in order to be compatible with the Treaty, neither has to pursue an ‘objective of common interest’ nor an ‘objective of public interest’. It only has to ‘facilitate the development of certain economic activities’ and it must not ‘adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’As Hogan noted, “This case can be described as the legal side of a dispute between Member States that are in favour of nuclear power and those that are not. Both sides claim that they pursue their course with a view to protecting the environment”.While a decision on this appeal is still pending, Hogan’s opinion will be taken into account when the European Court ultimately rules on Austria’s appeal. In the podcast, Leigh Hancher shares her thoughts on the opinion.

In this podcast, Leigh Hancher discusses the recent non-binding opinion (<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-594/18%20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-594/18%20</a>) of Gerard Hogan, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, with regard to a decision on state aid to the nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C in the UK. In Hogan’s opinion, EU judges should dismiss an appeal by Austria aimed at overturning the approval of UK state aid to support the construction of the nuclear plant. Hogan stated, “it is clear that the development of nuclear power is, as reflected in the Euratom Treaty, a clearly defined objective of EU law”. In 2014, after several agreed changes to the plans, the European Commission approved the UK’s plans to give state aid to support the construction of two EPR reactor units at Hinkley Point C, deeming it compatible with EU state aid guidelines and thus the internal market. At the time, it was considered by the Commission that the aid was justified as there was a “lack of market-based financial instruments and other contracts to hedge against the substantial investment risks in the project”. The project is a joint venture between EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation, with the latter holding a 33.5% stake. The planned plant, which would be the first new nuclear power station to be built in the UK in almost twenty years, would account for approximately 7% of the UK’s electricity supply. Austria first launched an appeal to this decision in 2015 on the basis that approval of the scheme contradicted EU policy to support renewable energy. The then Austrian chancellor Werner Faymann argued that nuclear power “is not an innovative technology and is therefore not worthy of a subsidy”. He added that “[State] aid is there to support new and modern technologies that are in the general interest of all EU countries. This is in no way true of nuclear power.” The case divided Member States. In the course of proceedings, Luxembourg intervened in support of Austria while France, Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and the UK intervened in support of the Commission. In July 2018, the General Court dismissed the action brought by Austria. However, in September 2018, Austria appealed against the decision before the European Court of Justice. In his opinion of 7 May 2020, Hogan stated that, by accepting the objectives of the Euratom Treaty, all Member States have “clearly signified their unqualified acceptance in principle of the right of other Member States to develop nuclear power plants in their own territories should they wish to do so.” He also notes that EU law (according to Art 194 TFEU) has given each Member State the right to determine its own energy mix. Hogan comments that, according to its wording and the position of the provision in the TFEU, aid, in order to be compatible with the Treaty, neither has to pursue an ‘objective of common interest’ nor an ‘objective of public interest’. It only has to ‘facilitate the development of certain economic activities’ and it must not ‘adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’ As Hogan noted, “This case can be described as the legal side of a dispute between Member States that are in favour of nuclear power and those that are not. Both sides claim that they pursue their course with a view to protecting the environment”. While a decision on this appeal is still pending, Hogan’s opinion will be taken into account when the European Court ultimately rules on Austria’s appeal. In the podcast, Leigh Hancher shares her thoughts on the opinion.

State Aid to Hinkley Point: An Update | Leigh Hancher

Director of the Energy Law and Policy Area, Professor Leigh Hancher (EUI, Tilburg University) opens the podcast series by discussing recent case law and developments concerning national price regulation, especially the regulation of retail price markets. While wholesale price regulation has been explicitly forbidden since the Directives from the Second Package of 2003, retail price regulation remains rather unclear. This podcast examines the recent ruling following the infringement procedure issued by the Commission against the Polish government on their system of regulating gas prices, which restricted the free setting of gas prices by the market, and the interpretation of the Public Service Obligation Provision, in Article 3 Paragraph 2 of the current gas directive under the Third Energy Package of 2009. This case is considered alongside the Federutility case of 2010, an important precedent, which concerned an Italian regulation, introduced in July 2007. The regulation imposed a price reference system on the very same day that national authorities were supposed to implement complete liberalisation of the gas market under the directives of the second package to allow all consumers to choose their supplier. In its ruling, the Court of Justice of the European Union introduced four conditions of state intervention which subsequently had implications for the Polish case. Finally, Professor Hancher looks to a pending case, in which the Courts of Justice of the European Union are facing the complex task of determining retail tariff regulation, following the request for guidance from the Conseil d’État on a french measure which provides for a system of regulated gas tariffs, the ruling on which may prove to be very significant for retail price regulation.

Retail Market Price Regulation | Leigh Hancher

Janez Kopač

The Vienna Forum is a joint initiative between the Florence School of Regulation and the Energy Community Secretariat and is designed to highlight issues topical both for the EU and the Energy Community.This year’s Forum is divided into 3 sessions. In the first session, representatives from the Commission, the Energy Community and academia discuss the newly created EU’s Energy Union, its future role and its relevance to the Energy Community. The second session centers on decarbonisation and renewable policies. In particular, we discuss the optimal design of RES support schemes and national experiences with certificate markets. The third session addresses law enforcement in the Energy Community. The seminar closes with a roundtable discussion “Ukraine – an Energy Hotspot” bringing together energy regulators, investors, and experts in foreign affairs, diplomacy and the EU-Ukraine energy relations.00 Welcome and introduction00a Dirk Buschle | Energy Community Secretariat00b  Keynote speech, The Energy Community – the new pan-European energy governance, Helmut Schmitt von Sydow | University of Lausanne01 Session 1 Energy – The State of the Union. Chair: Leigh Hancher | Florence School of Regulation/EUI, Tilburg University, Allen &amp; Overy LLP01a Energy Union and Energy Community – What is the difference?01a Janez Kopač | Energy Community Secretariat01b A vision for an Energy Union, Sami Andoura | College of Europe01c Discussion02 Session 2 Decarbonisation and Renewables – What Is the Masterplan?02a Chair: Birgitte Jourdan-Andersen | EFTA Surveillance Authority02b The design of support schemes: Are auctions the future? Christoph Riechmann | Frontier Economics02c RES in Poland – new opening., Jan Rączka | Regulatory Assistance Project02d White certificates: the French experience, Liliana Eskenazi | Allen &amp; Overy LLP 02e  Italian photovoltaic legislation: A green success story? Saverio Massari | University of Bologna02f Making gas part of the EU energy future means making a green gas market: The need for EU recognised green gas certificates , Søren Juel Hansen | Energinet.dk02g Discussion03 Session 3 Law Enforcement in the Energy Community03a Chair: Andreas Gunst | DLA Piper LLP03b What is wrong with Energy Community law enforcement? Rozeta Karova | Energy Community Secretariat03c Is a regional court an option? Nikolaus Pitkowitz | Graf &amp; Pitkowitz03d Discussion04 Roundtable Ukraine – An Energy Hotspot04a Chair: Irina Paliashvili | Ukrainian Legal Group04b An intensive year for energy diplomacy, Vsevolod Chentsov | Ministry of Foreign Affairs04c What went wrong in 2014? Andrey Belyy | University of Tartu04d Ukraine and the Internal Energy Market, Walter Boltz | E-Control04e An intensive year for energy diplomacy, Walter Tretton | EU Delegation04f Discussion 04g Conclusions , Adrien de Hautecloque | Florence School of Regulation/EUI

The Vienna Forum is a joint initiative between the Florence School of Regulation and the Energy Community Secretariat and is designed to highlight issues topical both for the EU and the Energy Community. This year’s Forum is divided into 3 sessions. In the first session, representatives from the Commission, the Energy Community and academia discuss the newly created EU’s Energy Union, its future role and its relevance to the Energy Community. The second session centers on decarbonisation and renewable policies. In particular, we discuss the optimal design of RES support schemes and national experiences with certificate markets. The third session addresses law enforcement in the Energy Community. The seminar closes with a roundtable discussion “Ukraine – an Energy Hotspot” bringing together energy regulators, investors, and experts in foreign affairs, diplomacy and the EU-Ukraine energy relations. 00 Welcome and introduction 00a Dirk Buschle | Energy Community Secretariat 00b Keynote speech, The Energy Community – the new pan-European energy governance, Helmut Schmitt von Sydow | University of Lausanne 01 Session 1 Energy – The State of the Union. Chair: Leigh Hancher | Florence School of Regulation/EUI, Tilburg University, Allen &amp; Overy LLP 01a Energy Union and Energy Community – What is the difference? 01a Janez Kopač | Energy Community Secretariat 01b A vision for an Energy Union, Sami Andoura | College of Europe 01c Discussion 02 Session 2 Decarbonisation and Renewables – What Is the Masterplan? 02a Chair: Birgitte Jourdan-Andersen | EFTA Surveillance Authority 02b The design of support schemes: Are auctions the future? Christoph Riechmann | Frontier Economics 02c RES in Poland – new opening., Jan Rączka | Regulatory Assistance Project 02d White certificates: the French experience, Liliana Eskenazi | Allen &amp; Overy LLP 02e Italian photovoltaic legislation: A green success story? Saverio Massari | University of Bologna 02f Making gas part of the EU energy future means making a green gas market: The need for EU recognised green gas certificates , Søren Juel Hansen | <a href="http://Energinet.dk" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Energinet.dk</a> 02g Discussion 03 Session 3 Law Enforcement in the Energy Community 03a Chair: Andreas Gunst | DLA Piper LLP 03b What is wrong with Energy Community law enforcement? Rozeta Karova | Energy Community Secretariat 03c Is a regional court an option? Nikolaus Pitkowitz | Graf &amp; Pitkowitz 03d Discussion 04 Roundtable Ukraine – An Energy Hotspot 04a Chair: Irina Paliashvili | Ukrainian Legal Group 04b An intensive year for energy diplomacy, Vsevolod Chentsov | Ministry of Foreign Affairs 04c What went wrong in 2014? Andrey Belyy | University of Tartu 04d Ukraine and the Internal Energy Market, Walter Boltz | E-Control 04e An intensive year for energy diplomacy, Walter Tretton | EU Delegation 04f Discussion 04g Conclusions , Adrien de Hautecloque | Florence School of Regulation/EUI

Vienna Forum 2015 01a Leigh Hancher| FSR /Janez Kopač | Energy Community Secretariat