Self-inflicted harm

Bulgarian MEP Vladimir Urutchev asks why the EU has created an embarrassing situation in the Balkans but refuses to correct its own error

The introduction in 2003 of the emissions trading scheme(ETS) created a market mechanism which puts a cost on emitting carbon dioxide,but for energy intensive industries, this makes their operations more costly,and therefore less competitive in global markets. However, with the proposedadjustments to the EU-ETS, that disadvantage can be minimised – a good exampleof a problem created by the EU – with the best of intentions – and one that hassince been corrected.

But the EU does not always act so decisively to correct itsown problems – and it does not always have such good reasons for makingmistakes in the first place. I am referring to the growing energy crisis insouth east Europe caused in large part by the forced closure of four units ofthe Kozloduy nuclear power plant, one of the conditions of Bulgaria’sentry into the EU. This situation has a long and complicated history and I knowit very well: before becoming an MEP in May last year, I was the chief engineerof those closed Kozloduy units. In fact, a large part of my reason for enteringEuropean politics was to try to explain and correct this most terrible ofmistakes.

It is true that, in 1991, Kozloduy units one to fourreceived a damning report about their condition and some aspects of their operation.At that time, Kozloduy supplied around 50 per cent of Bulgaria’selectricity. It was also the moment of the first democratically electedgovernment - which faced being swiftly democratically unelected if they heededthe call to close these plants. Instead, with the support of the Europeancommission and the world association of nuclear operators, a programme ofsafety improvement was undertaken. It took a long time, and cost around half abillion euros, mostly from Kozloduy’s own earnings. This led to countlessindependent expert missions concluding that the plant was at least as good asothers in the EU. Even the European council’s atomic questions group of expertsconcluded, in 2003, that all safety issues for units three and four had beenaddressed and that no more monitoring was necessary.

However, in 1999, as a condition for the start of EUaccession talks, the Bulgarian government and vice-president Günther Verheugen(then the commissioner for enlargement) signed a memorandum of understanding(MoU) to close these units – two in 2002 and two by the end of 2006. Today,this MoU remains the evidence of the duress under which the then Bulgariangovernment signed away this national, regional and European asset. The claim atthat time by the commission was that the units were “not economicallyupgradeable” – despite the fact that they had been economically upgraded to thesatisfaction of all independent experts who visited, inspected, analysed andreported on the plant’s condition, operation and independent regulation.

So, Bulgariatook a decision under duress for which it will have to accept the consequences- but it is not as simple as that. In the five years up to the closure deadlineof 2006, Bulgariaexported electricity to every one of its neighbours – around 7.5 Terrawatthours per year, almost exactly the output from two of the closed units. As aconsequence of the closure, Bulgariacannot export electricity any more until a new plant comes on line in aroundsix years. These units could very easily fill that energy gap. In the Balkanregion, there is little alternative energy supply. What there is, is small,inefficient, based on environmentally damaging lignite and expensive. Somecountries are hurriedly developing gas plants that will use Russian gas. So ourelectricity is becoming more environmentally damaging, more expensive and moreexternally dependent – isn’t that exactly the opposite of what the EU demands?For most people, it means power cuts and the consequent damage to their economies,livelihoods and civil stability. In Albania alone, there have beentimes when electricity has been supplied for less than one hour per day and, asalways, the poorest people have been hit the hardest.

I am not calling for MoU to be overturned, but I do want itto be reviewed against all current criteria. This matter is in the hands of thecouncil, and the Slovenian presidency has made Balkan concerns its priority –they alone can reverse this self-inflicted harm.