The Repatriation of Competences in Climate and Energy Policy after Brexit

The 2020 Climate and Energy Package saw the EU become an increasingly important actor in climate and energy policy.  It set the legal and regulatory framework within which governments at every level across the 28 member states have developed their own policies. The EU has promoted and financed low carbon transition, including by setting binding targets for renewables and GHG emissions reductions, and targets for greater energy efficiency. It has embarked upon the ambitious project of building an Energy Union, by integrating markets and increasing the physical interconnection of European electricity networks. 
 
Climate and energy policies within the UK have been shaped by the EU. The binding renewables targets have committed successive UK Governments to increasing the amount of energy from renewable sources. UK electricity market reform was designed to complement EU market integration. The UK has been a leader in its own right in emissions reductions, surpassing obligations imposed on it by EU legislation. The 2008 Climate Change Act was the first comprehensive national climate legislation in the world. However, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has been central to the delivery of the ‘carbon budgets’ set by that legislation. 
 
Climate change and low carbon energy policies have risen up the agenda of the devolved institutions since their establishment.  In Scotland, in particular, successive governments have been keen to demonstrate leadership in renewables and have capitalised on the policy and financial incentives introduced by the EU. The ‘world-leading’ 2009 Climate Change (Scotland) Act has been supported heavily by the emissions reductions guaranteed by the EU ETS. The drive towards EU market integration has helped to support the development of the Single Electricity Market (SEM) on the island of Ireland. 
 
The impact of Brexit on the multi-level governance of climate and energy policy in the UK is difficult to anticipate, especially when the meaning and scope of Brexit remains deeply uncertain. If the UK leaves after implementing a withdrawal agreement, the transition period would ensure legal and (to a lesser extent) financial continuity at least until December 2020. Although the decision of the UK parliament to retain most EU law should provide short-term legal continuity whatever form Brexit takes, a No Deal Brexit can be expected to generate considerable disruption, especially in cross-border trade, mobility and investment.
 
The Northern Ireland backstop, annexed to the current draft Withdrawal Agreement, would keep the whole of the UK part of a single customs territory with the rest of the EU, and ensure a soft border could be maintained on the island of Ireland. If implemented, the backstop would require Northern Ireland to remain compliant with some EU Single Market law, including those regulations and directives that support the SEM. It would also keep Northern Ireland within the ambit of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, but the Protocol does not envisage Northern Ireland being bound or incentivised by EU Renewables, Energy Efficiency or many other climate-focused policies and programmes. 
 
The process of negotiating Brexit has generated an unprecedented intensification of intergovernmental relations between the UK Government and the devolved governments, including new inter-ministerial fora such as the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations). Yet despite the extent of engagement, the devolved governments have been largely marginalised from the Brexit process, with little opportunity to shape the UK’s negotiating position. Both Edinburgh and Cardiff have opposed strongly the UK Government’s stated aims of leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. 
 
The repatriation of EU competences has sparked debate over the need, or otherwise, for UK common frameworks to replace EU frameworks. An analysis carried out by the Cabinet Office suggested that in most areas of climate and energy policy where devolved and EU policies intersect, non-legislative common frameworks (such as a Memorandum of Understanding) may be sufficient. The current Withdrawal Agreement suggests that common standards may be required to establish a level playing field in environmental law, as well as UK-wide emissions reduction and state aid regimes. These could constrain devolved competence, and the legislative commitment of the Scottish Government to ‘keep pace’ with EU law. They also raise questions about the scope for shared governance within the UK after Brexit. 
 
In the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved governments directly and indirectly, may also result in lost opportunities fostered by the EU’s new legislative framework in climate and energy policy.
 
This research has been supported by the Economic and Social Research Council, as part of the UK in a Changing Europe programme. The full project title is: The Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution (grant reference: ES/R001308/1).   The full report can be read here;  https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/paper...
 
 

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Latest blogs

  • 19th February 2019

    Over the course of the UK’s preparations for withdrawing from the EU, the issue of the UK’s own internal market has emerged as an issue of concern, and one that has the potentially significant consequences for devolution. Dr Jo Hunt of Cardiff University examines the implications.

  • 12th February 2019

    CCC Fellow Professor Daniel Wincott of Cardiff University examines how Brexit processes have already reshaped territorial politics in the UK and changed its territorial constitution.

  • 7th February 2019

    The future of agriculture policy across the United Kingdom after Brexit is uncertain and risky, according to a new paper by Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change. Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over recent years have shifted the emphasis from farming to the broader concept of rural policy. As member states have gained more discretion in applying policy, the nations of the UK have also diverged, according to local conditions and preferences.

  • 4th February 2019

    In our latest report for the "Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution" project, Professor Nicola McEwen and Dr Alexandra Remond examine how, in the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of European Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved nations may also result in lost opportunities.

  • 1st February 2019

    The outcome of the various Commons votes this week left certain only that the Government would either secure an amended deal and put it to a meaningful vote on Wednesday 13 February, or in the overwhelmingly likely absence of this make a further statement that day and table another amendable motion for the following day, the Groundhog Day that may lead to a ‘St Valentine’s Day Massacre’ for one side or the other. Richard Parry assesses the further two-week pause in parliamentary action on Brexit

Read More Posts