Renegotiating authority in the Energy Union: A Framework for Analysis

TLDR: In this paper, the notion of authority in the European Union (EU) energy policy domain has been investigated in a context of multiple crises, and it is often identified as one of the few areas still exhibiting strong integration dynamics.

Abstract: In a context of multiple crises, European Union (EU) energy policy is often identified as one of the few areas still exhibiting strong integration dynamics. However, this policy domain is not exempt from contestation and re-nationalization pressures. This collection seeks to understand better the contradictory integration and fragmentation tendencies by problematizing the notion of authority. While authority lies at the heart of European integration theory, less attention has been given to explaining when and why previously conferred authority becomes contested and how authority conflicts are addressed. In framing this collection, we build on sociological approaches to examine systematically the conferral of authority (what counts as authority and how it comes to be recognized) and its contestation (the types of contestation and strategies for managing authority conflicts). We focus this analytical discussion on the Energy Union, being an example of ‘hybrid area’, which sits uncomfortably at the nexus of different policy areas.

Figures

Table 1. Summary of the analytical framework.

Full text

Renegotiating authority in the Energy Union
Citation for published version (APA):
Herranz-Surrallés, A., Solorio, I., & Fairbrass, J. (2020). Renegotiating authority in the Energy Union: A
Framework for Analysis. Journal of European Integration, 42(1), 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2019.1708343
Document status and date:
Published: 01/01/2020
DOI:
10.1080/07036337.2019.1708343
Document Version:
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Document license:
Taverne
Please check the document version of this publication:
• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can
be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record.
People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication,
or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.
• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.
• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page
numbers.
Link to publication
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright
owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these
rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.
If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above,
please follow below link for the End User Agreement:
www.umlib.nl/taverne-license
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:
repository@maastrichtuniversity.nl
providing details and we will investigate your claim.
Download date: 10 Aug. 2022

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=geui20
Journal of European Integration
ISSN: 0703-6337 (Print) 1477-2280 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geui20
Renegotiating authority in the Energy Union: A
Framework for Analysis
Anna Herranz-Surrallés, Israel Solorio & Jenny Fairbrass
To cite this article: Anna Herranz-Surrallés, Israel Solorio & Jenny Fairbrass (2020) Renegotiating
authority in the Energy Union: A Framework for Analysis, Journal of European Integration, 42:1,
1-17, DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2019.1708343
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2019.1708343
Published online: 11 Jan 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 669
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

ARTICLE
Renegotiating authority in the Energy Union: A Framework
for Analysis
Anna Herranz-Surrallés
a
, Israel Solorio
b
and Jenny Fairbrass
c
a
Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Political Science Department, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The
Netherlands;
b
School of Political and Social Sciences, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico
City, Mexico;
c
Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
ABSTRACT
In a context of multiple crises, European Union (EU) energy policy is
often identified as one of the few areas still exhibiting strong
integration dynamics. However, this policy domain is not exempt
from contestation and re-nationalization pressures. This collection
seeks to understand better the contradictory integration and frag-
mentation tendencies by problematizing the notion of authority.
While authority lies at the heart of European integration theory, less
attention has been given to explaining when and why previously
conferred authority becomes contested and how authority conflicts
are addressed. In framing this collection, we build on sociological
approaches to examine systematically the conferral of authority
(what counts as authority and how it comes to be recognized)
and its contestation (the types of contestation and strategies for
managing authority conflicts). We focus this analytical discussion
on the Energy Union, being an example of ‘hybrid area’, which sits
uncomfortably at the nexus of different policy areas.
KEYWORDS
Authority; contestation;
sovereignty; governance;
energy policy
Introduction
In the context of multiple crises that have had centrifugal effects on the European Union
(EU), energy policy is often identified as one of the few policy areas that continues to
exhibit strong integration dynamics, so much so that it has been labelled as a ‘catalyst’ for
European integration in dangerous times (Delors, Andoura, and Vinois 2015, 1). The
Energy Union initiative, one of the top priorities of Jean-Claude Juncker’s Commission
(European Commission 2015) and, more recently, a centre-piece of the European Green
Deal advanced by Ursula von der Leyen (European Commission 2019), encapsulates this
ambition. At the time of its launch in early 2015, the European Commission Vice-president
for the Energy Union referred to it as ‘undoubtedly the most ambitious European energy
project since the European Coal and Steel Community, some 60 years ago’ and one that
‘has the potential to boost Europe integration the way Coal and Steel did in the 1950s’
(Šefčovič 2015). Despite this optimism, however, unlike other recent ‘Union’ concepts
adopted within the EU, such as the Banking or Fiscal Union, the Energy Union has not, so
far, led to any additional transfers of competence from the member states to the EU level
CONTACT Jenny Fairbrass j.fairbrass@uea.ac.uk Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
2020, VOL. 42, NO. 1, 1–17
https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2019.1708343
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

or the development of new institutions. On the contrary, in some dimensions of EU energy
policy the efforts have been in the opposite direction, as member states strive to retain or
re-claim authority.
Consequently, EU energy policy seems to capture well the so-called ‘post-functionalist’
dilemma (Hooghe and Marks 2009). On the one hand, functional efficiency in the provi-
sion of public goods, such as financial stability, security or climate change mitigation,
requires more governance beyond the state. On the other hand, EU institutions and
policies are becoming more politicized and contested domestically. The latest wave of
integration theory has explicitly or implicitly attempted to understand better the extent
and consequences of this dilemma, by examining the role of crises (Ioannou, Leblond, and
Niemann 2015; Schimmelfennig 2017; Tosun, Wetzel, and Zapryanova 2014), politicization
(de Wilde, Leupold, and Schmidtke 2016; Costa 2018), or even theorizing (dis)integration
(Jones 2018, Vollaard 2014). What brings these approaches together is the conclusion that
EU governance is becoming more complex and unpredictable, giving rise to new battle-
lines and more hybrid institutional arrangements. So far, it has been unclear whether
integration endures against all odds, is receding, or is mutating into new forms.
The special issue introduced here engages with this complexity in a crucial sectoral
domain. It does so taking inspiration from global governance theory, which has long tried
to understand how societies resolve the tension between the imperative towards coop-
eration in a globalizing world and the contrary desire to maintain autonomy. Central to
those debates is the notion of authority beyond the state. Some global governance
studies have examined the different ways in which authority is migrating away from
states (Kahler and Lake 2004; Rittberger et al. 2008), why authority is conferred, and when
it becomes contested (Sending 2015; Zürn 2018). Terms such as ‘liquid authority’ (Krisch
2017) have recently been coined to capture the growing informal, complex, and unstable
relations in global governance.
Our focus is, therefore, on the renegotiation of authority in the EU. Anchoring the
discussion in global governance theory brings a number of advantages. First, the empha-
sis on authority allows not only an examination of the formal allocation of competences
(often the focus of integration theories) but also of how and why actors gain authority
beyond the formal boundaries set by the treaties. Second, it directs our attention to
questions about why authority conflicts emerge and how they are managed or mitigated.
Finally, it allows us to trace whether contestation leads to actual authority shifts, not only
in the vertical direction (upwards or downwards between the local, national and
European levels), but also horizontally (between public and private or majoritarian and
non-majoritarian actors).
Energy policy is a critical case with which to investigate the transformation of authority
patterns in the EU. As a starting point, given that the historical roots of European
integration lie in energy cooperation, this policy has a special symbolic weight.
Additionally, due to the fact that energy is an area that sits at the cross-roads of different
policy domains and areas of competence, ranging from EU exclusive competence (com-
petition policy), to shared competence (climate policy, single market) and intergovern-
mental domains (security of supply), and includes both an internal and external
dimension, it provides a wide range of examples to analyse the extent and consequences
of the post-functional dilemma. As a ‘fl agship initiative’ of the Juncker Commission and
a crucial pillar for the success of Von der Leyen’s European Green Deal, the Energy Union is
2 A. HERRANZ SURRALLÉS ET AL.

also a perfect test case for assessing how the EU executive manages this confluence of
integrationist and centrifugal pressures.
In framing this collection, this introductory piece aims to accomplish four main tasks.
First, it provides an overview of the potential and challenges facing the Energy
Union. Second, it develops a novel analytical framework. Third, it summarises the main
findings of the volume. Lastly, the article concludes with some forward-looking reflections
on EU energy policy and the broader implications for other areas of EU policy-making.
Energy Union: ‘saviour’ or ‘foe’ of European integration?
Despite the fact that European integration is rooted in the regional energy cooperation
that emerged in the 1950s, for decades, energy was considered as a ‘less European’ policy
area than others (Keay and Buchan 2015, 2). Whilst European energy regulation dates
back to the 1970s, it is generally accepted that until recently energy was a ‘matter of
minor importance on the EU agenda’ (Boasson and Wettestad 2013, 1). In fact, the EU did
not acquire formal competence concerning energy until the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon,
previously secured obliquely via competences associated with competition and environ-
mental policy (Tosun and Solorio 2011).
Over the past ten years, the growing functional necessity for increased cooperation has
gradually overcome some of the traditional resistance from national governments in ceding
their control over energy issues. Crucially, on theonehand,theenergysecuritycrisesoflate
2000s exposed the vulnerability of individual member states and sparked an EU-wide debate
on the need for energy di versification (Herranz-Surrallés 2016). On the other hand, the global
demand for urgent acti on on climate change and the EU’sambitiontobeaninternational
leader further compelled the need for coordinated action regarding energy among its
member states (Wurzel, Connelly, and Liefferink 2017). Moreover, competitiveness pressures
made the completion of the internal energy market a priority for the EU (Eikeland 2011).
Together these factors facilitated a ‘supranational turn ’ in energy policy, through the 2020
Climate and Energy Package and the Third Internal Energy Market Package adopted in 2009
(Wettestad, Eikeland, and Nilsson 2012, 67). Subseq uently, EU institutions have also gradually
acquired a central role in securing energy supply, previously a jealously guarded domain of
state sovereignty (Maltby 2013). As an example of the growing optimism around EU energy
policy, in 2010 Jerzy Buzek and Jacques Delors presented the idea of a European Energy
Community, conceived as ‘the next chapter in the history of European integration’ (Buzek and
Delors 2010,1).
However, despite the hope for a rapid consolidation of a comprehensive and coherent
EU energy policy, the initiatives above-mentioned also triggered a debate about the
degree of power transferred to the EU, emanating from the member states’ reluctance
to relinquish their central position with respect to core aspects of the policy (such as the
energy mix or relations with external suppliers). The pattern of contested authority claims
and counter-claims (i.e. reclamation) among and between member states and EU institu-
tions persists. This became evident during the discussions concerning the 2030 Energy
and Climate Framework in 2014, when some member states pressed for less ambitious
and less binding targets in comparison to those contained in the 2020 framework,
exposing the internal fissures within the EU and between its member states with regard
to the policy and its governance (Solorio and Bocquillon 2017,34–35; Szulecki and
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INTEGRAT ION 3

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "Renegotiating authority in the energy union: a framework for analysis" ?

This collection seeks to understand better the contradictory integration and fragmentation tendencies by problematizing the notion of authority. While authority lies at the heart of European integration theory, less attention has been given to explaining when and why previously conferred authority becomes contested and how authority conflicts are addressed. In framing this collection, the authors build on sociological approaches to examine systematically the conferral of authority ( what counts as authority and how it comes to be recognized ) and its contestation ( the types of contestation and strategies for managing authority conflicts ). The authors focus this analytical discussion on the Energy Union, being an example of ‘ hybrid area ’, which sits uncomfortably at the nexus of different policy areas. 

Q2. What have the authors stated for future works in "Renegotiating authority in the energy union: a framework for analysis" ?

A second paradox that emerges from this volume is that, while some of the developments in the Energy Union expose the reluctance of member states to cede further authority to the EU, and even reclaim some of it, public opinion seems to mobilise in the opposite direction. In this context, future studies could also focus on the impact of other rising sources of authority in EU energy policy not covered in this special issue, such as the recent wave of climate activism that has found particular resonance among the young, as well as the potential for local authorities and prosumer organisations in pushing the boundaries of EU energy policy. In that sense, EU energy policy suffers less from a post-functionalist dilemma, which assumes that the functional need for further integration clashes with a growing resistance from the public, and more from a ‘ paradox of sovereignty ’ ( McGowan 2009, 21 ), namely a situation where governments strive to retain their formal authority even though their de facto control and capacity to provide public goods is ever more restricted. The implementation of this grand political initiative will soon call for a revival of the debate about the degree of authority that the Commission enjoys and what strategies can best prevent or mitigate the contestation that the ambitious binding 2050 targets are likely to provoke. 

Q3. What is the main purpose of this special issue?

The overall objective of this special issue has been to better diagnose the simultaneous integration and re-nationalisation tendencies in EU energy policy, which due to its multi-sectoral nature, is a focused example of wider patterns of contestation in the EU. 

Q4. What is the role of the EU in the transition to renewable forms of energy?

In addition, the transition to renewable forms of energy is also changing the landscape of authority in the field, in that the possibility that households, co-operatives, and municipalities can produce their own energy is giving rise to new political actors and provoking demands for more decentralized forms of governing (Szulecki 2018). 

Q5. What was the strategy of choice for the Commission in addressing the particularly sensitive debate about RES?

On other occasions, the Commission opted for politicisation as a method to overcome sovereignty-based contestation and garner support for increasing EU authority. 

Q6. What is the common form of ambiguity in the allocation of competence?

Another form of eliminating ambiguity in the allocation of competence is through amending/adopting new legislation or Treaty provisions. 

Q7. What is the main advantage of the emphasis on authority in global governance theory?

the emphasis on authority allows not only an examination of the formal allocation of competences (often the focus of integration theories) but also of how and why actors gain authority beyond the formal boundaries set by the treaties. 

Q8. What was the main reason for the gradual development of an internal EU energy policy?

In this context, the European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, made the Energy Union a top priority on his agenda, widening the range of objectives to include negotiating powers vis-à-vis third countries, as proposed by Tusk, and developing a greater role for renewable energy (Juncker 2014). 

Q9. What is the main choice in dealing with authority conflicts?

The main choice in dealing with authority conflicts seems to be between strategies that aim for a delimitation of authority and strategies that enable its further diffusion. 

Q10. What is the structural cause of the EU’s quasi-sovereign powers?

The structural cause of this is that the EU can be said to have acquired quasi-sovereign powers, both in a formal and substantive sense: formally, through a gradual process of constitutionalization, setting principles such as the supremacy of EU law and direct effect; and substantively, through its everyday pre-eminence in a wide array of policy sectors (Ibid 2010). 

Q11. What is the main argument of the authors?

The authors argue that the standard power-sharing and depoliticisation strategies do not offer viable solutions given that the politicisation of the gas trade is the root of the problem, confronting the EU with a genuine dilemma. 

Q12. What did the EU do to promote a more coherent energy policy?

The gradual development of an internal EU energy policy also prompted intense political controversy and legal action among external actors, mainly the Russian Federation, which accused the EU of discriminatory actions and of seeking the extraterritorial application of its rules (Kuzemko 2014; Romanova 2016). 

Q13. What is the meaning of ‘bounded contestation’?

The author advances the idea of ‘bounded contestation’ to refer to the tempering of differences between institutional actors over external energy strategies. 

Q14. What is the effective strategy for dealing with authority conflicts?

The most direct way of delimiting spheres of authority, formal adjudication, reveals a largely unsuccessful strategy to deal with cases of deep-seated contestation. 

Q15. What is the main difference between the two approaches?

What brings these approaches together is the conclusion that EU governance is becoming more complex and unpredictable, giving rise to new battlelines and more hybrid institutional arrangements. 

Q16. What is the case of energy efficiency?

This is the case of energy efficiency, where Dupont (forthcoming) documents the various attempts by the Commission at (re)framing the issue as an ‘efficiency-first policy’, as part of a long game for solidifying EU competence in this domain.