New actors and instruments to enhance key energy technologies in the EU

Transcription

1 Forschungszentrum für Umweltpolitik/ Environmental Policy Research Centre Dr. Maria Rosaria Di Nucci berlin.de New actors and instruments to enhance key energy technologies in the EU Climate Policy after Fukushima Schloss Leopoldskron Salzburg, 29 August 2 September 2011

2 Content Challenges & policy drivers for energy research and innovation Europe 2020 and the Common Strategic Framework The European RD&D programme and the SET PLAN roadmap on low carbon energy technologies New instruments : technology platforms, Joint undertakings, European Industrial Initiatives New instruments : The case of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU) Strategic objectives, activity fields and functioning of the FCH JU Effectiveness of the FCH JU activities in comparison to German initiatives Lessons learnt from the first interim evaluation. Is the JU an apt instrument to meet the challenges facing fuel cells and hydrogen technologies? Environmental Policy Research Centre, Dr. Maria Rosaria di Nucci 2

3 Challenges and policy drivers Challenges To achieve a resource efficient, low carbon economy meeting the needs of a growing population whilst maintaining the present levels of well being, keeping global warming below 2 C and enabling society to adapt to environmental and climate change. To provide options for effective (multilevel)governance Policy drivers Europe 2020 strategy (smart growth, inclusive growth, sustainable growth) Innovation Union & Resource efficiency A roadmap for moving to a low carbon economy in 2050 (Communication) Committment towards Green Economy worldwide (OECD, UNEP etc.) 3

4 Grand challenges difficult to master due to: their scale and level of complexity the interconnection (technologically, spatially, socially) They are a.o.: Demographic problems (Ageing, migration, poverty and exclusion, health) Green economy (RES, energy efficiency, transport) Galileo, GMES, smart management systems Energy Major societal challenges Climate change Loss of biodiversity/loss of ecosystem Evolution of urban and rural environment Post industrial demography Environmental impacts on health Social preparedness Climate Policy challenges Post Cancun emission gap requiring industrialised nations to achieve more Need for long term, cost efficient financing solutions Resource Efficient Europe Competition from China and the USA 4

5 Policy challenges (short medium run) How to use limited public finance to influence private sector investments How to ensure that the Common Agricultural Policy contributes to further emission reductions and increased absorption How to ensure the achievement of 20% energy efficiency target by 2020, and in this context examine the need for an allowance set aside in the ETS How to enhance long term investments, especially in ETS sectors define policy framework Roadmap gives direction for: sectoral policies national and regional low carbon strategies long term investments SET Plan implementation ( 50 billion ) 5

6 S&T policy drivers: Programmes replacing the 7FP The proposed FP for Research and Innovation planned for the period (next EU budget) will build upon the current FP for Research (FP7), the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). Aim is to maximise the contribution of EU funded research and innovation to sustainable growth and jobs and to tackling the grand challenges facing Europe (e.g. climate change, energy, food security, health and ageing population). Simplification of procedures and rules are envisaged Creation of a coherent set of of funding instruments, along the whole "innovation chain (from basic research to market uptake) and also supporting non technological innovation (e.g. in design and marketing). 6

7 The Common Strategic Framework (CSF) The CSF needs to address the following issues: How to enhance Innovation with Key enabling technologies such as nano technologies Need to broaden R&D definitions. RD&D activities need to cover the whole innovation value chain, from science and technology to products and production. Remove the barriers re. the transfer of R&D results to products, services and to European industry, in particular, to SMEs and to society/market under the FP. Improve coordination between EU and National innovation programmes (reduce present fragmentation of R&D activities). Reduce unnecessary duplication of R&D priorities within the various sub programmes of the FP through better coordination (of the calls). 7

8 Consultation on a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for EU research and innovation funding How to make EU research and innovation funding easier to access, increase its scientific and economic impact and provide better value for money? A public consultation was launched on the basis of the Green Paper on CSF Response: Over organisations, scientists, entrepreneurs and other individuals. The results of theconsultationhavebeen discussed at a conference in June These will be incorporated into the development of the Commission s proposals for R&D and innovation spending under the future EU budget (post 2013). These proposals will be presented at the end of

9 Common Strategic Framework (CSF)/ Selected stakeholder views Simplification of rules & procedures is a priority for increasing industrial participation in EU RD&D programmes and would be particularly beneficial for SMEs. Bringing research and innovation closer together will enhance the impact of EU funding EU funding for research and innovation needs to respond to societal challenges EU policy objectives should focus on areas such as climate change, energy security and efficiency, demographic ageing or resource efficiency There should be continuity as regards the elements of the current programmes which are considered to be the most successful The EU should support all stages in the innovation chain, with the appropriate instruments fit for purpose. All SMEs with innovation base should be able to benefit from EU RD&D funding. The CSF needs agenda driven activities but it should be also curiosity driven. More bottom up approaches should be pursued. 9

10 The SET PLAN roadmap on low carbon energy technologies Seven roadmaps are proposed, built around a vision that by 2020 the European energy system will have started its transition to a low carbon economy. These roadmaps put forward concrete action plans The main sectoral targets are: Up to 20% of the EU electricity will be produced by wind energy technologies by Up to 15% of the EU electricity will be generated by solar energy in If the DESERTEC vision is achieved, the contribution of solar will be higher, especially in the longer term. The electricity grid in Europe will be able to integrate up to 35% renewable electricity and operate along the "smart" principle, effectively matching supply and demand by At least 14% of the EU energy mix will be from cost competitive, sustainable bio energy by CCS technologies will become cost competitive by Nuclear technologies will provide c 30% of EU electricity in the next decades, the first Generation IV nuclear reactor prototypes will be in operation by 2020, allowing commercial deployment by European cities will be at the forefront of the transition to a low carbon economy by 2020 (Smart cities). 10

11 New instruments: European Technology Platforms (ETPs) ETPs are industry led organisations providing a framework for stakeholders to define research priorities and action plans on a number of technological areas where major research and technological progress in the medium to long term are required ETPs are generally seen as an apt tool in ensuring that industrial priorities are well reflected in EU funding programmes as they foster PPP. ETPs are apt vehicles to improve synergies by avoiding duplication and by fostering poles of excellence and best practices. Some ETPs are loose networks, others have legal structures and areactivein setting agendas of research priorities for their sector. Since agendas are developed through dialogue among industrial and public researchers and national governments, they also contribute to create consensus and to improve alignment of investment efforts. There are ETPs in Energy, ICT, Bio based economy, Production and processes, Transport Present energy ETPs: Biofuels, smart grids, Wind, PV, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants ZEP, SNETP (sustainable nuclear TP), RHC (renewable hearting & cooling). 11

12 From ETPs to Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) JTIs have been developed to meet the particular needs of some ETPs In these ETPs, objectives scale and scope are such that co ordination throughetpsand support through the FP programme are insufficient. Effective implementation requires a dedicated mechanism that enables the necessary leadership and coordination to achieve the research objectives. JTIs are a new instrument for performing research at EU level. They are long term PPPs and are managed within dedicated structures. Up to date there are 6 initiatives Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)" "Embedded Computing Systems (ARTEMIS)" "Aeronautics and Air Transport (Clean Sky)" "Nanoelectronics Technologies 2020 (ENIAC)" "Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Initiative (FCH)" "Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES)" 12

13 Rationale for Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI) Inadequacy of existing instruments to achieve the objective, Scale of the impact on industrial competitiveness and growth, Added value of European level intervention, Financial and resource commitment from industry, Importance of the contribution to broader policy objectives incl. benefit to society, Capacity to attract additional national support and leverage current and future industry funding. 13

14 FCH JU Objectives Strategic objectives The positioning of Europe at the forefront of FC H technologies enabling their market breakthrough by supporting RTD in a coordinated manner with a focus on market applications, encouraging increased public and private RTD investment in FCH in MS and Associated Countries. Specific objectives Hydrogen Help delivering robust hydrogen supply developed to the point of commercial launch Reduce time to market for H by 2 5 years Automotive sector breakthroughs in bottleneck technologies and to enable industry to take the large scale commercialisation decisions necessary to achieve mass market growth in the time frame Stationary FCl systems (domestic and commercial) and portable applications provide the technology base to initiate market growth from

15 Rationale for FCH JU Overcoming barriers to deployment: many technical and non technical barriers to overcome before FCH technologies are commercially viable. A concentrated effort of all players is necessary, because the RD&D needed is so complex that no single company or (public) research institution can perform it alone. Pooling together resources: Better coordination of funding can bring economic and efficiency gains. The pre defined budget of sufficient critical mass c 1 billion and a 6 year timetable of the FCH JU will raise confidence and allow public and private investors to make long term plans. MS and regions are also expected to align their efforts with the agenda of the JU. Market focus: Without a consumer market, no technology can have a major impact. Industry's leading role pushes the agenda focus on market introduction of FCH technologies. Tackling the market failure: Before FCH can become competitive, investment is needed, not only in R&D, but also in transport, storage and refuelling infrastructures. No single company has the resources to make the transition alone, because mass market volumes and ROI are too distant. This represents a market failure that prevails until a critical mass of RTD and infrastructure investment creates the conditions for a competitive consumer market to emerge. 15

16 Structure of the FCH JU Members are: the European Community the JTI Industry Grouping, a not for profit organisation which brings together the sector s industrial key players and which is open to any private legal entity sharing the objectives of the FCH JU The JTI Research Grouping, representing research organisations, universities and research centres, etc. JU was created as a Community Body in 5/2008 and became autonomous in 11/ In this period it was managed by the European Commission. Its present governance structure comprises: Two executive bodies (the Governing Board and the Executive Director & Programme Office) and three advisory bodies ( Scientific Committee, States Representatives Group and Stakeholders' General Assembly) 16

17 FCH JU Activity fields The FCH JU supports long term and breakthroughorientated research RD&D support actions, including prenormative research The FCH JU Multi Annual Implementation Plan is divided into four main application areas and cross cutting issues such as socioeconomic studies The agenda comprises the entire cycle of research, technological development and demonstration including support actions. 17

18 FC H support in Germany Financially solid FCH programme (Ministry of Economics & Technology) Instruments: CEP (Clean energy partnership) which started in 2004 and is supported by the National H FC Technology Innovation Programme (NIP). The Government supports the development and introduction of FCH technologies through targeted funding (additional 500 million backing has been allocated for this technology over the next ten years) under the NIP. The NOW (Nationale Organisation Wasserstoff und Brennstoffzellentechnologie) is a valorisation agency, 100% owned by the government, using a similar approach as the FCH JU. The work of NOW includes integrating the existing/new initiatives in the Bundesländer and other publicly funded research programmes on H FC technology with the NIP and exploit existing synergies. NOW is responsible for the implementation of the NIP and the programme Model Regions Electric Mobility. Striking difference with the JU: NOW procedures are simpler and funding rates are more attractive. 18

19 Market situation in Germany The mobile sector is making good progress. For FC, visible products are essential, otherwise thorny discussions about the future of the technology will take place and it might get difficult to get political support and funding. Early market issues are paramount. In Germany there is a large number of actors from various fields with strength in mobile applications, and a strong participation of the car industry. A main issue is the infrastructure. This is an issue for EU cooperation. There are common interests between H and FC at least in the mobile applications. They need each other and they need a H infrastructure. In the case of stationary FC, the synergetic elements between H and FC are less significant. 19

20 Effectiveness of the FCH JU activity in comparison to German initiatives /Stakeholders views JU s effectiveness is lower than in some national programmes ( e.g. NOW). In Germany the procedures length of the selection mechanisms are less complicated. In Germany for some topics where national programmes could not solve problems (H distribution, grid, etc.), EU cooperation is felt essential. Activities running within the JU are to be considered complementary. The bundling of research and industry interests is considered important. But whilst for the mobile area there are clear goals, in the stationary field the objectives are not so clear and the existing fragmentation penalises this area. Mobile is a success, stationary is lagging behind. Differences between mobile and stationary applications: In stationary FC, research still predominates. Pre normative research is also paramount from German point of view; here there is again a real European dimension and is considered a field for EU cooperation. German stakeholders feel that the JU should concentrate on large projects with a clear EU dimension. International cooperation e.g. with USA, Japan, Canada, etc. should be pursued only if mutual benefits are coming from this endeavour. Areas for cooperation are RCS and exchanges of best practices. The goal, however, is first to achieve a real European dimension and then to approach international issues. 20

21 Results of the first interim FCH JU review The evaluation focused on criteria such as efficiency, effectiveness and quality. A number of recommendations were made on changes to improve the operation and effectiveness of the FCH JU The overall technical objectives of the FCH JU as defined in the Multi Annual Implementation Plan (MAIP) remain ambitious and competitive in comparison with efforts world wide. The JU approach is generally regarded as a good means to enhance public private activities in technology development and demonstration. The FCH JU is perceived by reviewer and participants as overall an improvement to the RD&D landscape, with strong stakeholder representation. In some areas it is also perceived as providing welcome stability for the R&D community given the cyclic nature of political interest and visibility: its presence is a reassuring constant. Lessons learned here could be applied to any future Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) or EIIs. In particular the uncertainty of funding rates is a material failing and must be addressed. Recommendations 1. Reinforce portfolio management 2. Ensure high agility of operations and adaptability to changing competitive forces 3. Improve visibility, communication and outreach 4. Improve collaboration and alignment with Member States 5. Ensure high efficiency of operations 21

22 Lessons learnt: Is the JU an apt instrument to meet the challenge facing FC and H technologies? (SWOT) Strengths Mobilisation and pooling of resources and expertise Valid instrument to achieve alignment on strategies and efficient use of resources. Strong stakeholder participation Ensuring a steady industry led development towards longer term Evidence of influencing national programmes Weaknesses Burdensome administrative rules and regulations Excessive resources dedicated to administration Project funding rates inferior to FP rates, due to the Industry 'matching' requirement Lack of clear strategy for stationary applications Lack of coordination with national programmes Low visibility Lack of international dimension A strong industrial leadership in projects is not visible Opportunities Create EU lead in emerging fields Catalyser of innovation/ valorisation agency for developments/ influencer of political agenda Common vision building and communication to participants and beneficiaries Real alignment with regional and national initiatives Large cohesive effort increasing visibility Improve international collaboration and learning from developments elsewhere. Coordinated system optimisation/cost reduction Threats Performance of and opportunities for the technology do not attract necessary investments Technical obstacles, especially for subsystem performance & cost bases Failure in transport sector (due to failing infrastructure, costs) Failure of BEV promises prejudicing other uses Asian technology breakthrough/eu lagging behind. Failing political/policy support for FCH Failing acceptance by end users due to incapability to communicate benefits to society 22

23 Thank you for your attention! dinucci[at]zedat.fu berlin.de 23