COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and repealing Regulation (EU) No 994/2010
Date: 2016-02-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, action programme, gas, gas industry, gas pipeline, gas supply, security of supply, self-sufficiency in energy, third country

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.2.2016  SWD(2016) 26 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and repealing Regulation (EU) No 994/2010  {COM(2016) 52 final} {SWD(2016) 25 final}  
 
 
Impact  assessment  on  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  concerning 
measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and repealing Regulation (EU) No 994/2010. 

Executive Summary Sheet 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? Maximum 11 lines 

A. Need for action 

While  the  EU  has  improved  its  overall  security  of  supply  level  with  the  implementation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
994/2010, recent analysis (i.e. stress test exercise carried out in summer 2014, COM(2014) 654 final) shows that 
it  still  remains  vulnerable  to  major  disruption  of  gas  supplies.  There  are  a  number  of  drivers  behind  this 
vulnerability  such  as  Member  States'  behavioural  biases,  a  lack  of  proper  consideration  of  external  risks, 
technical issues and a limited scope of application of the current Regulation. The Impact Assessment explains in 
detail  what  the  extent  of  these  problems  is  and  why  they  appear.  Furthermore,  the  Impact  Assessment 
concludes that, in the absence of further action, the EU's preparedness and capacity to respond effectively to a 
gas supply crisis would be limited. Strengthening the EU's resilience to absorb the impacts of a gas disruption is 
at the heart of EU energy policy and it is a key objective of the EU's Energy Union, which in its first dimension, 
"energy security, solidarity and trust", announces a revision of the EU's Gas Security of Supply Regulation (EU) 
No 994/2010 as a concrete action.  

What is this initiative expected to achieve? Maximum 8 lines 

The central objective is to boost security of gas supply through better prevention on the one hand and improved 
mitigation actions on the other, while ensuring that these targets are achieved at the least possible cost for EU 
consumers.  In  order  to  achieve  these  goals,  the  revised  Regulation  specifically  seeks  to  enhance  regional 
cooperation, improve the assessment and consideration of external risk factors, improve the obligations related 
to gas infrastructure and enlarge its geographic scope by including the Energy Community.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level? Maximum 7 lines  

The necessity of EU action is based on the evidence that the risk of a major gas supply disruption to the EU is 
not  confined  to  national  boundaries  and  could  directly  or  indirectly  affect  several  Member  States.  Additionally, 
the  increasing  interconnection  of  the  EU  gas  markets  requires  a  coordination  of  measures.  In  the  absence  of 
such coordination, measures implemented at national level are likely to jeopardize other Member States or the 
security of supply at EU level. The stress tests exercise has furthermore shown that through proper coordination 
the effects of a supply disruption can be more effectively mitigated and the impacts reduced. Action at EU level 
could also be needed under certain situations (e.g. Union and regional emergency) where the security of supply 
in the EU cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone. Transnational aspects. Limits of Member 
States action.] 

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why? Maximum 14 lines  

In  order  to  achieve  the  desired  objectives,  up  to  4  options  have  been  assessed  ranging  from  an  enhanced 
implementation of the existing Regulation (non-legislative option) to a full harmonisation at EU level of a set of 
principles and measures to be applied by Member States, including the existing standards.  Each option consists 
of  a  package  of  measures  combining  existing  tools,  possibly  updated  and  improved,  and  new  tools.  In  broad 
terms, options can be presented as follows: 

   Option 0: No further action at EU level (baseline scenario) 
   Option 1: Enhanced implementation and soft law measures (non-legislative option) 
   Option 2: Enhanced coordination with an increased scope for tailor made solutions (legislative option) 
   Option 3: Enhanced coordination with some principles/standards set at EU level (legislative option) 
   Option 4: Full harmonisation at EU level (legislative option) 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All options are assessed in the Impact Assessment and compared against the baseline scenario (Option 0: No 
further action at EU level) and among each other. As a result of this analysis, option 3 features as the preferred 
option as it proves to be the most effective in achieving the desired objectives and, given its impacts, also the 
most efficient as well as consistent with other policy areas. 

Who supports which option? Maximum 7 lines  

The  various  options  and  ideas  are  based  on  a  weighing  of  the  options  and  arguments  brought  forward  by  all 
relevant  stakeholders  in  the  public  consultation  and  other  fora  (e.g.  workshops).  The  Impact  Assessment 
provides  concrete  references,  particularly  in  the  section  on  the  description  of  the  options,  of  stakeholders' 
support  to  the  different  options  and  even  to  particular  measures  within  each  option.  Most  supported  options, 
across the whole gas sector (including public authorities), are 2 and notably 3. Overall, the support for option 4 is 
limited and a majority of stakeholders, notably industry but also a number of Member States, advocate against it. 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines                                       

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

The preferred option (option 3) takes account of the fact that major gas crises are most likely to affect several 
Member States and consequently, of the need to discuss possible disruption scenarios and measures to prevent 
and mitigate them in a cross-border context. It will create an appropriate framework for exploiting synergies, for 
the early identification of measures that could jeopardize the security of supply of a certain area or the EU as a 
whole and for solidarity among Member States in the case of a gas crisis, all of which will result in an increased 
level of protection of all EU gas consumers. 

Option  3  also  contains  mechanisms  to  improve  the  exchange  of  information  and  ensure  an  appropriate 
consideration  of  external  risks  in  the  overall  assessment  of  risks  and  in  the  design  of  measures.  Moreover,  it 
provides for a concrete framework for the cooperation between the Energy Community Contracting Parties and 
EU Member States. 

Finally,  option  3  improves  the  legislative  framework  regarding  infrastructures  with  more  precise  and  more 
effective obligations to allow for the appropriate consideration of all benefits and costs at stake. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines                                       

Overall,  the  cost  of  the  policy  tools  proposed  under  the  preferred  option  (3)  will  be  very  limited.  While  some 
measures could entail higher costs  than options  1 and  2 (e.g. reverse flow  obligations), these will still be very 
limited.  Most  of  the  measures  are  of  an  administrative  nature and  are  based  on  increased cooperation by  the 
involved  stakeholders.  Therefore,  the  costs  are  also  of  an  administrative  nature  and  not  very  significant. 
Moreover, some of the proposals (e.g. regarding the supply standard) even aim at avoiding unnecessary costs 
and exploiting synergies in the security of supply measures, which should reduce the overall costs of the security 
of supply framework for all consumers. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? Maximum 8 lines 

The preferred option should overall have a positive impact on all market participants and consumers, including 
here  non-household  consumers.  It  contains  provisions  to  ensure  that  a  number  of  provisions  (e.g.  the  supply 
standard) are complied with in a transparent and cost-efficient manner, as requested by industry.  

SMEs  will  continue  to  be  part  of  the  "protected  customers"  if  a  Member  State  so  decides,  and,  as  such,  this 
option  will  not  have  a  negative  impact  on  them.  However,  they  will  not  necessarily  be  covered  under  the 
solidarity  principle.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  latter  is  designed  to  address  very  extreme  situations  in 
which the supply to households and essential social services (e.g. hospitals), which is a necessary priority, is at 
stake. This is thus a last resort mechanism in a case of extreme need that the whole revised Regulation aims at 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
avoid but for which we nevertheless need to be prepared. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? Maximum 4 lines 

Impacts in terms of costs and burden will remain very limited. Although a number of provisions require a much 
more significant regional cooperation, exercises already carried out (e.g. stress test) have paved the way for this 
enhanced cooperation and a number of accompanying measures are also proposed to compensate and mitigate 
the possible increase in administrative burden (e.g. templates, longer revision period for the update of Plans). 

Will there be other significant impacts? Max 6 lines  

No 

When will the policy be reviewed? Maximum 4 lines  

D. Follow up 

The  results  of  the  overall  implementation  will  be  assessed  six  years  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  revised 
Regulation. The proposed timing will ensure a complete picture of the implementation based, in particular, on the 
assessment of two full cycles of security of supply plans (Preventive Action Plan and Emergency Plan). 

4