The EU heads of state and government had argued over high energy prices over a long lunch on Thursday when Council President Charles Michel decided to interrupt the debate for the time being.

The positions of the chefs were too far apart to be able to sweeten the “Bûche de noël aux chataignes” - a typical Belgian-French Christmas cake -.

Hendrik Kafsack

Business correspondent in Brussels.

  • Follow I follow

Michel hadn't set expectations too high anyway.

According to the draft conclusions, the bosses should only state that the high prices are still a cause for concern.

They should also ask the Commission to follow up on market developments and postpone the next summit in spring.

Points of contention: nuclear power and emissions trading

But that was not enough for many heads of state and government. They wanted more concrete results. Two issues in particular caused a dispute, said Michel during the night after the bosses failed to agree on a common position at the second attempt: nuclear energy and emissions trading. Nuclear proponents among the bosses - a clear majority, led by French President Emmanuel Macron - stress the important role of nuclear power in the fight against climate change and high prices. To the end, Poland and the Czech Republic insisted that the summit mention taxonomy in the conclusions.

Behind the complicated name “taxonomy” hides a regulation that defines which energy sources the EU classifies as sustainable. That sounds technical, but it's about a lot of money. After all, more and more investors are withdrawing from financing unsustainable projects. EU countries such as France, but now also the Netherlands, want to invest a lot of money in the expansion and maintenance of nuclear power in the service of their climate goals in the coming years.

Germany, Luxembourg and Austria, however, wanted to keep taxonomy and nuclear power out of the conclusions for fundamental reasons. After the summit, Chancellor Olaf Scholz tried to downplay the divergences. "The question is completely overstated," he said. Although it is important for those who want to invest money, it should not be overestimated. In the end, the individual countries decide which way they want to go. "Taxonomy is a small topic in a very big question."

In fact, the point should soon be over.

The EU Commission plans to present its proposal on taxonomy as early as next week.

It is considered certain that it classifies the nuclear power therein as "sustainable".

The states still have to accept the proposal.

But - as Macron emphasized in the joint press conference with Scholz after the summit - because the taxonomy is a delegated legal act, a qualified majority of states must vote against it in order to block it.

The numerous nuclear supporters in the EU can easily prevent this.

Fundamental debate about the CO2 price

The long-term debate about the high prices in CO2 emissions trading is likely to be more delicate. In the past week, the price of one tonne of CO2 exceeded the threshold of 90 euros for the first time. Poland and the Czech Republic insist that the price will be driven up by speculators. The EU Commission, on the other hand, emphasizes that the economic recovery after the Corona crisis is primarily responsible for the increase in energy prices. The authority puts the share of emissions trading in the high energy prices at just 10 percent. A recent report by the EU stock exchange regulator Esma also found no evidence of speculation on the market for emission rights.

Even before the summit, the Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki had emphasized in a guest contribution for the FAZ that the CO2 certificates had become financial instruments in the hands of wealthy investors. He called for "an end to the uncontrolled trade in CO2 emissions". Emissions trading is a means of diverting money from the poor to the rich, he added on Thursday, according to information from diplomatic circles. He was alluding to Poland's high costs, because the country continues to rely heavily on coal-fired electricity.

Poland was by no means alone in suspecting that energy prices are also being driven by speculation on the market for emission rights. France, Spain and Hungary also expressed doubts as to whether the assessment by the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission was correct. Heads other than Morawiecki had also spoken out in favor of political intervention in the market, it was said after the summit. Macron said, for example, that users need to be protected from prices fluctuating too much.

The French president had also repeated his demand - supported by various countries in southern and eastern Europe - that emissions trading should at least not be extended to buildings and traffic. This is exactly what the European Commission proposed in the summer. The expansion is a core element of the climate package, with which it aims to reduce emissions by 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and to virtually zero by 2050.

A fundamental debate on emissions trading is therefore the last thing the Commission needs now.

This is probably one of the reasons why Commission President Ursula von der Leyen preferred not to comment on the topic at all after the summit.

She should have the opportunity to do so again by March at the latest.

Then the debate should continue, as Michel announced.

That’s the case, even if there was no other word on energy prices in the conclusions at the end.