Pushing administrative EU integration: the path towards European network codes for electricity

ABSTRACT

The expansion of the European Union's (EU's) administrative capacity could ultimately strengthen the influence of EU bodies at the expense of national governments. Recent scholarship has focused on the establishment of executive-administrative capacity beyond the European Commission, as in the form of EU agencies or networks. Previous research has identified interest constellations and existing transnational networks as important explanations, showing how the interests of national- and EU-level organizations have tended to group along a national–supranational axis. In 2009, the EU adopted a procedure for making binding EU legislation (network codes), delegating substantial tasks to a new EU energy agency (ACER), a new private European association (ENTSO-E) and to the Commission. Prior to the procedure's adoption, however, ‘intra-sectoral’ divisions overshadowed national–supranational divergence. Enquiring into the causes, this article finds that complementary use of perspectives can deepen our understanding of why and how the ‘European administrative space’ emerges.

KEY WORDS:

• Agencies
• delegation
• European administrative space
• institutionalism
• network codes
• regulation

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Tor Håkon Inderberg, Åse Gornitzka and Per Ove Eikeland for invaluable support in this work, as well as the anonymous reviewers for constructive comments.

Notes

1 More information about network codes can be found at http://www.entsoe.eu.

2 An earlier version was published as Jevnaker (2012).

3 Other variants are more attentive to norms and slow-moving shifts in culture (see Hall and Taylor [1996] for an overview).

4 Historical institutionalism also emphasizes change caused by external shocks, but no such event was identified as having a causal effect on the NC procedure. The blackouts in 2003 and 2006 that affected much of Europe could be categorized as external shocks, but did not affect the structuring of actors or alter the direction of their interests – although the 2006 blackout did strengthen the already-held preference of the Commission for more comprehensive cross-border co-operation among TSOs (Commission interview; van der Vleuten and Lagendijk 2010). Seen in a longer perspective, the NC procedure fits better in the category of gradual rather than dramatic institutional change.

5 Another obstacle is insufficient physical capacity on cross-border networks.

6 A first Electricity Regulation was introduced with the second energy market package; its annex contained common ‘guidelines’ on cross-border networks that could be revised by a regulatory committee of national representatives (comitology) (EU 2003b). However, the Regulation did not specify procedures for harmonizing these.

7 Mandatory ownership unbundling, and conditions for third-country ownership of transmission networks (Eikeland 2011).

8 However, representatives from the electricity sector noted in interviews that this would probably be the case, because cross-border networks are connected to national networks, so EU decision-making on cross-border networks through network codes would affect national sovereignty over how national networks would be regulated.

9 Distribution system operators operate the distribution network; TSOs operate the transmission network. The latter is used for transmitting bulk electricity over longer distances, also across national borders; the former is used to distribute electricity from transmission networks locally.

10 Once adopted, however, the NC procedure would allow the Commission to carry out tasks on behalf of sector actor organizations ACER and ENTSO-E if they did not deliver input on time. Referred to as a ‘shadow of hierarchy’ within the governance literature, such a threat has been expected to affect the influence the behaviour of actors engaging in negotiations (Börzel 2010), and could thus ensure a higher pace in harmonizing legislation on these issues as compared to previous arrangements.

Additional information

Biographical note: Torbjørg Jevnaker is a research fellow at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway.