CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
Any use of this material without specific permission of the European Climate Foundation is strictly prohibited
Roadmap 2050: A practical guide to
a prosperous, low-carbon Europe
Highlights
May, 2010
1111SOURCE: Team analysis
Key deliverables
A set of plausible and
visionary emissions
pathways with an 80%
reduction across the
EU-27 below 1990 levels
by 2050
Deep dive on the
decarbonization of the
power sector
Implications on strategic
options for the EU
A related set of policy
options highlighting poten-
tial decisions for the next
5 years
Political agenda
Post-Copenhagen political
agenda for the new
European Commission
June 2010
Commission to publish an “issues paper” on 2050 strategy and launch stakeholder consultation
November 2010
Commission to present European Infrastructure Package
Early 2011
Commission to present Communication on 2050 Energy Strategy
Commission to present Energy Action Plan 2011-2014
Overarching objective
Develop a fact based report
to support the European
Commission and Member
State policy-makers
to chart an energy strategy
for 2010-2014 consistent
with the EU’s 2050 climate
and energy security
commitments
The objective is to develop a fact based report that is supported by
key stakeholders and feeds in directly to EU decision making
2
Pathways must be reliable, technically feasible, have a
positive impact on the economy…and nearly zero carbon
Assessment criteria
Security of energy supply
and technology risk, e.g.,
self reliance, risk of technology
failure
Economic impact, e.g.,
cost of electricity, GDP,
capital requirements
Sustainability, e.g.,
greenhouse gas emissions,, resource depletion
System
reliability
SOURCE: Team analysis
Not assessed:
Public acceptance
National energy
policies
33SOURCE: Team analysis
ECF was supported by a broad set of specialized
consultants
Overall sponsor and funder
Final report will be ECF branded
KEMA (Technical grid
consultancy)
Grid design and investments, production capacity and costs associated with
providing a plausible, secure electricity system for each of the pathways
The Centre (Political
consultancy)
Manage contact to EU-commission and parliament and ensure alignment
with their needs. Participate in outreach to member states
Office of Metropolitan
Architecture – R. Koolhaas
Provide creative participation in the development of narrative. Provide
conceptual framing and visual communication
ESC (Energy Strategy
Centre)
Design the report launch communication strategy
Manage the launch of the report including holding presentations, meetings
ECF (Philanthropic European climate
foundation)
Overall content leadership, project management, data collection, analysis
Reach out to industries, workshop facilitationMcKinsey & Company
(Strategic consultancy)
Imperial College London In-depth modeling of system balancing requirements, reliability, optimization
of transmission and back-up investment
Oxford Economics (Macro-
economic consultancy)
Provide analysis of macro-economic impacts of decarbonization scenarios
ECN (Energy research
center)
Support on assumptions for technologies (lead on nuclear)
Policy development and recommendations based on analytics
RAP (Regulatory Assistance
Project)
Provide technical and policy input from their global experience
E3G Lead author of the Volume II policy report
Vo
lum
e I
Vo
lum
e II
Vo
l
III
Ou
tre
ac
h
44
Board of Advisors and different content review groups were
assembled to ensure broad stakeholder buy-in
Board of
Advisors
General
academic panel
Grid academic
panel
Deep dive
participants
Provided feedback Composition
Volume I Volume II Volume IIIOutreach
• Lord Stern
• Meglena Kuneva
• Avril Doyle
• H. J. Schellnhuber
• Graham Watson
• Jorma Ollila
• Marta Bonifert
• Lars Josefsson
• Leading academics in the areas of
• European Energy policy
• Energy Systems
• Electrical Engineering
• Leading academics in the areas of grid
engineering
Core Working
Group • See next slide
• Industry experts in the areas of
• Solar PV
• Solar CSP
• Nuclear
• Wind offshore
• Grids
5
Key stakeholders are involved by providing input and
reviewing results
SOURCE: Team analysis
Transmission
System
Operators
NGOs
Utilities
Manufacturers
Plus 40 more companies,
NGOs and research
institutes
Core Working Group participants Further outreach
Siemens
WWF
EU-27 total GHG emissions
SOURCE: McKinsey Global GHG Abatement Cost Curve; IEA WEO 2009; US EPA; EEA; Team analysis
Sector
Power
Road
transport
Industry
Buildings
Agriculture
Waste
Air & sea
transport
Forestry
Within
sector1, 2
>95%
20%
35% (CCS3)
45% (efficiency and new builds)
20%
100%
30%
Carbon sinks
Fuel shift
75% (electric
vehicles, biofuels
and fuel cells)
5% (heat pumps)
50% (heat pumps)
20% (biofuels)
Abatement
95% to 100%
95%
40%
95%
20%
100%
50%
-0.25 GtCO2e
1 Based on the McKinsey Global GHG Cost Curve
2 Large efficiency improvements are already included in the baseline, especially for industry
3 CCS applied to 50% of industry (cement, chemistry, iron and steel, petroleum and gas, not applied to other industries)
1.2
2050
abated
-0.3
0.6
2050
5.4
0.30.3
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
2030
5.3
0.40.3
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.2
2010
5.2
0.5
0.2
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.2
1990
-80%
GtCO2e per year
80% by 2050 only possible with zero-carbon power supply
4,800
Baseline
power
demand
2050
BuildingsPower
demand
2005
Power
demand in
decarbonized
pathways
2050
Industry3
200
Buil-
dings2
EVs in
transport1Power
genera-
tion
including
energy
efficiency
Industry
SOURCE: Team analysis
Efficiency
Fuel shift
EU-27 plus Norway and Switzerland power demand, TWh per year
1 Electrification of 100% LDVs and MDVs (partially plug-in hybrids); HDVs remain emitting ~10% while switching largely to biofuel or hydrogen fuel cells
2 90% of remaining primary energy demand converted to electricity (heating/cooling from heat pumps); assumed 4 times as efficient as primary fuel
3 10% of remaining primary energy demand for combustion converted to electricity (heating from heat pumps); assumed 2.5 times as efficient as primary fuel
Power generation will go down due to higher efficiency
and up due to additional demand from fuel shift
8
Billions of Km driven1 by type of energy sources
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Hydrogen
Biofuels
20502040203020202010
Battery
electric
vehicles
Fossil
fuels
HybridsPlug-in
hybrids
NOT A FORECAST, DIFFERENT
TECHNOLOGY MIXES MAY MATERIALIZE
1 Kilometers for heavy trucks normalized for a factor 4 higher fuel consumption per km
0.8% p.a.1
The decarbonized pathways assume a mix of electric
vehicles, biofuels and fuel cell vehicles
SOURCE: Team analysis
9
The pathways cover a wide range of technology mixes
SOURCE: Team analysis
1 Renewable energy sources
Decarbonization pathways
60% RES
20% Nuclear
20% CCS RES mix based on current deployment
(minimum), aim for a broad mix of
technologies and theoretical deployment
(maximum)
Equal shares for nuclear and thermal / CCS
40% RES1
30% Nuclear
30% CCS
RES share close to currently legally committed
by the EU and the IEA baseline
Sensitivities on a high nuclear share and a
high thermal / CCS share are included
80% RES
10% Nuclear
10% CCS
100% RES
Same shares for RES as the 80% pathway
Includes more potential for enhanced
geothermal and the use of CSP from Africa
10SOURCE: Team analysis
Power generation technologies included in
the pathways
Hydro
Geothermal
Biomass dedicated
Solar CSP
Non-
intermittent
RES
Intermittent
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
Solar PV
Type of generation Generation technologies
Fossil
Coal conventional
Coal CCS
Coal CCS retrofit
Gas conventional
Gas CCS
Gas CCS retrofit
Oil
Nuclear Nuclear
Regional clustering of EU-27 countries (including Switzerland and Norway)
Central Europe
Austria
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Slovenia
(Switzerland)
Iberia
Portugal
Spain
Benelux and
Germany
Belgium
Germany
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Poland and Baltic
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
South East
Europe
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Greece
Hungary
Romania
Italy &
MaltaFrance
UK and
Ireland
Nordel
Denmark
Finland
Sweden
(Norway)
Power generation technologies that are at least in late stage
development are included
11
Number plants built per decade
The annual construction of solar PV plants has
to increase three-fold compared to 2000-2010
SOURCE: BTM Consult ApS; team analysis
23,000
4,000
19,000
23,000
4,000
19,000
28,000
9,000
19,000
37,000
6,000
31,000
40,000
25,000
1 1990 to 2010 actual data taken from BTM Consult ApS; average size of new wind turbines for wind onshore: 2.5 MW until 2020 and 3.0 MW thereafter;
for wind offshore: 5.0 MW until 2020, 7 MW 2020 to 2030 and 10 MW thereafter
2 Average size of 20 MW per plant; buildup of 500 plants between 2005 and 2010 which leads to 1,000 plants for 2000 to 2010
3 In line with assumption of maximum annual growth per technology of 20%
Wind offshoreWind onshore
2040-2050
10,000
2030-2040
10,000
2020-2030
8,100
2010-2020
3,300
2000-2010
1,000
1990-2000
Wind
turbines1
Solar2
Actual 60% RES pathway
60% RES PATHWAY
However, the new wind
turbines are much larger
and partly off shore
12
Only 700 TWh of today’s existing and planned production
capacity is assumed to still be operating in 2050
SOURCE: Team analysis
Existing fossil
Existing nuclear
Existing RES1
Total power demand
30 40
4,200
202010
4,900
3,650
4,500
3,250
2050
830
700
Power supply by existing and currently planned power
plants and forecasted power demand, TWh
1Existing RES Production remaining in 2050 is nearly all from existing hydro
13
Renewable technologies are allocated to regions
based on the natural occurrence of the renewable source
SOURCE: Team analysis
Production (TWh per year), 2050
60% RES PATHWAY
Nordic
Wind
Nuclear
Hydro power +
geothermal
Solar
CCS and Biomass
175
90
250
15
130
South East Europe
Wind
Nuclear
Hydro power +
geothermal
Solar
CCS and Biomass
10
70
45
55
120
Italy & Malta
Wind
Nuclear
Hydro power +
geothermal
Solar
CCS and Biomass
45
55
65
120
125
Poland and Baltic
Wind
Nuclear
Hydro power +
geothermal
Solar
CCS and Biomass
45
45
5
25
100
Benelux & Germany
Wind
Nuclear
Hydro power +
geothermal
Solar
CCS and Biomass
245
130
30
70
340
Central Europe
Wind
Nuclear
Hydro power +
geothermal
Solar
CCS and Biomass
35
80
105
80
110
UK and Ireland
Wind
Nuclear
Hydro power +
geothermal
Solar
CCS and Biomass
250
70
10
25
140
Iberia
Wind
Nuclear
Hydro power +
geothermal
Solar
CCS and Biomass
90
60
60
365
130
France
Wind
Nuclear
Hydro power +
geothermal
Solar
CCS and Biomass
115
375
100
95
180
14SOURCE: Imperial College; KEMA
80% RES, 20% DR
Iberia
France
UK &
Ireland
Nordic
Benelux &
Germany
Italy &
Malta
South East
Europe
Central Europe
Poland &
Baltic
5GW
11GW20GW
47GW
4GW
9GW
9GW
12GW
13GW
15GW
4GW
748 (1)South East EU-Italy&Malta
127 (34)Total
0 (5)
7 (2)
0 (2)
12 (1)
7 (4)
3 (1)
0 (3)
0 (3)
12 (3)
14 (6)
46 (1)
5 (0)
4 (0)
10 (2)
Capacity addi-
tional (existing)
[GW]
69Central-Europe-Italy&Malta
85Nordic-Benelux&Germany
92France-Italy&Malta
89France-Central-Europe
77France-Benelux&Germany
74France-Iberia
81UK&Ireland-Benelux&Germany
76Central-South East EU
72Central-Europe-Poland&Baltic
82Benelux&Germany-Poland&Baltic
68Benelux&Germany-Central-EU
72Nordic-Poland&Baltic
90UK&Ireland-Nordic
78UK&Ireland-France
Annual utilization
[%]Interconnection
3GW
3GW 5GW
2GW
Centre of gravity
Total net transfer capacity requirements
GW (existing + additional)
Significant interconnecting transmission upgrades are
necessary
1515
To reach the required transmission grid length, the current rate of
construction has to increase by 25% for the 60% pathway
SOURCE: KEMA, team analysis
40% RES
1020001990
80% RES
60% RES
Baseline
2050403020
+70
+142
+19
1 Development of grid is assumed to be driven by the penetration of intermittent power sources (solar PV, wind onshore and
wind offshore)
2 This assumes a linear build up of grid capacity in thousand GW km between 1990 and 2010, starting at zero, although some
grid has been built even before 1990, i.e. UK-France and much of the Central European interconnections
20% DR
This graph is in GW km, accounting
for the length of grid to be built
Development of transmission grid capacity1, thousand GW km, EU-27 including Norway and
Switzerland
16SOURCE: KEMA; Imperial College; McKinsey
40% RES 30% CCS30% nuclear
80% RES 10% CCS10% nuclear
0%
20%
60% RES 20% CCS20% nuclear
0%
20%
0%
20%
Transmission & generation capacity requirements
Pathways DR Transmission Back-up and balancing
1 In percentage of total renewable energy production
RES
curtailment1
%
3
2
2
1
2
2
Baseline 0%
2050, GW
On top of the baseline, up to 165 GW of interregional transmission
and up to 255 GW of back-up capacity could be required
100% RES 0% CCS0% nuclear
0%
20%
5
2
17
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Example: Regional demand variation from average per hour on weekend day
*
*
*
*
*
*
Regional demand variation from average over the year
*
*
Combining regional demand curves reduces volatility
SOURCE: Imperial College; KEMA analysis
Percent
* EU-27
Individual regions
1818
A combination of solar and wind is more stable than wind
alone
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Ene
rgy
[TW
h]
Week
OCGT
Storage
Hydro
CSP
PV
Wind
Geothermal
Biomass
Oil
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Demand
1
Yearly energy balance, 20% DR, TWh per week
1 Storage included in the model relates to the existing hydro storage available across the regions
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
En
erg
y [
TW
h]
Week
OCGT
Storage
Hydro
CSP
PV
Wind
Geothermal
Biomass
Oil
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Demand
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Ene
rgy
[TW
h]
Week
OCGT
Storage
Hydro
CSP
PV
Wind
Geothermal
Biomass
Oil
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Demand
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Ene
rgy
[TW
h]
Week
OCGT
Storage
Hydro
CSP
PV
Wind
Geothermal
Biomass
Oil
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Demand
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Ene
rgy
[TW
h]
Week
OCGT
Storage
Hydro
CSP
PV
Wind
Geothermal
Biomass
Oil
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Demand
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Ene
rgy
[TW
h]
Week
OCGT
Storage
Hydro
CSP
PV
Wind
Geothermal
Biomass
Oil
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Demand
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
En
erg
y [
TW
h]
Week
OCGT
Storage
Hydro
CSP
PV
Wind
Geothermal
Biomass
Oil
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Demand-
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
En
erg
y [
TW
h]
Week
OCGT
Storage
Hydro
CSP
PV
Wind
Geothermal
Biomass
Oil
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Demand
40% RES pathway 60% RES pathway 80% RES pathway
20
Reserve sharing between regions reduces total reserve
requirements by ~40%
SOURCE: Imperial College, KEMA, team analysis
Region
UK & Ireland
France
Iberia
Nordic
Benelux & Germany
Central-Europe
Poland & Baltic
South East Europe
Italy & Malta
Total EU27
Maximal reserve requirement1, GW
Baseline 60% RES80% RES
Total with reserve sharing
between regions
1 Reserve refers to reserve required at four hour ahead of real-time. This is required to manage the larger changes in generation (due to plant outages
and expected uncertainty in intermittent output) expected over that four hour period that could require starting additional (or switching off) generation
183
98
281
40
18
18
29
44
20
40
31
42
-35%
125
191
27
12
12
20
28
15
27
21
28
66
-35%
42
2
20
2
7
3
13
2
2
2
22
-47%
Benefit of reserve sharing
80
5
8
32
10
10
10
10
9
15
48
4
-40%
40% RES
2424
205045403530252015100520001995
+134%
80% RES
60% RES
40% RES
Baseline
Annual capex development per pathway, € billions per year
Actual Future
GENERATION ONLY
A doubling of capital spent would be required over the next
15 years
SOURCE: Team analysis
25SOURCE: Team analysis
Delayed by 10 years, the annual capex would be up by
almost 200%
Annual capex development per pathway
EUR billions
Actual Future
403530252015100520001995 205045
+194%
GENERATION ONLY
80% RES
60% RES
40% RES
Baseline
26
The pathways require up to 70% more capex for all energy
sectors: efficiency investments and a shift away from oil & gas
6,915
Primary energy
Power
Non-power
Consumer
Decarbonized
pathway
1,415
2,900
Baseline
4,170
1,885
1,450
270
+66%
Cumulative capex 2010-50, EUR billions
SOURCE: IEA WEO 2009 (fossil fuel capex 2010-30, assumed constant 2030-50), McKinsey Global Cost curves, team analysis
NOTE Excludes additional capex for EV batteries and fuel cells for vehicles (in total approximately EUR 500 billion)
27
All pathways can deliver power with roughly the same cost
and reliability as the baseline with carbon price ≤ €50/tCO2
SOURCE: Team analysis
Capex2 Opex2
CCS transport and storage
Balancing3 Security4
832 2
851 3
831 4
772
1 Weighted average based on the CoE in each 10-year time frame (2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050)
2 Generation only
3 Cost related to non optimal plant use, system dispatch cost for secure operation, running backup plants, storage losses, reserve and response cost
4 Transmission and additional generation capex as well as fixed opex for transmission and backup
5 Grid not modeled by KEMA yet, impact estimated by interpolation from the other pathways
Baseline
60% RES 20% CCS20% nuclear
40% RES5
30% CCS30% nuclear
Average new built CoE from 2010 to 20501, EUR/MWh (real terms)
80% RES 10% CCS10% nuclear
2828
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
SOURCE: Team analysis
The cost of electricity is similar in the baseline and in the
decarbonized pathways
1 Based on a WACC of 7% (real after tax), computed by technology and weighted across technologies based on their production;
including grid. COE ranges are based on: Carbon price from €0 to 35 per tCO2e; Fossil fuel prices: IEA projections +/- 25%; Learning
rates: default values +/- 25%
Baseline
Average of decar-
bonized pathways
Ranges of the levelized cost of electricity of new builds1,
€ per MWh (real terms)
2929
NOTE: Energy prices are a weighted average of prices faced by consumers weighted by the shares of consumption of different fuels
Energy cost per unit of GDP output, € (real terms)
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Decarbonized
pathways
Baseline
205020402030202020102000
-25%
-15%
Lower energy cost in the
decarbonized pathways due to
improved productivity and less
GHG emissions which reduce
the impact of the carbon price
Energy cost decreases in the baseline, but even more so in
the decarbonized pathways
3030
The cost of the decarbonized pathways and the baseline are
likely to differ less than € 250 per year per household
30
3131
EU-27 GDP growth
SOURCE: Oxford Economics
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Percent
0.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
GDP growth rates are very similar in the baseline and the
low-carbon pathway
Baseline
Decarbonized pathways
Clean tech
exports push up
growth
Intervention
may mitigate
the effects of
higher
electricity costs
The economy is more
energy productive,
uses less oil and is
more resilient to fuel
price fluctuations
Annual growth (%)
32
In the “high RES” pathways, European imports of coal and
gas decline from 35% of final consumption to 7%
32SOURCE: IEA WEO 2009; World Nuclear Association; team analysis
Availabilities 2050: biomass: 90% EU-27, 10% Non-OECD; nuclear: 2% EU-27, 43% OECD, 55% Non-OECD; coal: 50% EU-27; 10% OECD, 40% Non-
OECD; gas: 16% EU-27, 0% OECD, 84% Non-OECD
TWh, 2050
80% RES
pathway
Non-OECD
fuel supply
640
316
OECD fuel
supply
Non-EU
fuel supply
880
342
EU fuel
supply
168
Total
demand
1,000
ROUGH ESTIMATES
Baseline2,05097
2,510
3,200
Nuclear
Coal and gas
• Step change in energy efficiency
• Technology commercialisation
• Creating strategic EU power network
• The future of ETS, complementary measures
and market reform
Key emerging challenges for the EU
Policy implications have been split between EU
wide and Member State specific level
34
EU power
network
ETS & comple-
mentary
measures
EU level MS level
Energy
Efficiency
• Create binding targets • Implement measures designed
to take advantage of local
circumstances
Technology
commerciali-
sation
• Request member state RES
& CCS deployment strategies
• Expand SET plan to include
deployment
• Consider deployment strategies
• Expand mandate of ENTSO-E
and ACER
• Create long-term view on EU
wide grid expansion
• Reform regulators’ mandates
• Create regionally integrated
planning / operations
• Execute smart grid pilots
• Develop complementary
measures on top of ETS
• Review market framework
to drive low carbon investment
and provide clear signals not to
invest in high carbon assets
Key policy implications NOT EXHAUSTIVENOT EXHAUSTIVE
Policy venue setting
35
European Commission Member States
• UK
• Germany
• France
• Spain
• Poland
• Hungary
• Netherlands
• Belgium
• Denmark
• Norway
• Portugal
• DG
• ENER
• MOVE
• CLIM
• Research
• Regio
• ECFIN
• Budget
• EC Cabinet
• Oettinger (energy)
• Hedegaard (climate)
• Geoghegan Quinn (Research)
• Kallas (transport)
• Almunia (competition)
• Potocnik (environment)
• Lewandowski (budget)
Industry
• Utilities
- individual companies
- including Eurelectric
• TSOs
- individual companies
- including ENTSO-e
- including Acer
• Manufacturers
- individual companies
- industry groupings
• Business platforms
- incl Business Europe, ERT
• Caucus groups
- Christian democrats key
- Socialists, Liberals, Greens
• President Buzek and staff
• ITRE and ENVI committees
• Globe, E-parlement,Grid group
European Parliament
Main policy
decisions to be
influenced:
• Energy action
plan
• Infrastructure
package
• EC 2050
vision
• New Platforms
- SEFEP
- R.G.I.
• Traditional partners
- E3G
- WWF
- In country NGOs
NGOs
Roadmap 2050 project budget – to dates
36
Grantee Total amount
(€ thousand)
McKinsey
The Centre
KEMA
Oxford Economics
E3G
OMA
ECN
Oko Institute
Production
Total
1,645
436
559
76
56
475
182
20
20
3,468
37
Parliamentary
advocacy
Member state
roll out
Roll out into
EU Policy
Financial
Community
Outreach
Secure support from EU
parliament through focused
advocacy by Brussels NGOs
In-country deep dives sessions,
Former Commissioner as envoy,
Sept informal ministerial council
Ongoing engagement with DGs
Secondment of project manager
Follow up regional projects
To inform the financial
community and build momentum
for required capital investment
EU parliament
Member state
policy makers
& politicians
European
Commission
EU Financial
community
New platforms:
SEFEP, RGI
Build a shared vision and drive
momentum among industry and
policy makers for deployment
Industry, MS
and EU policy
makers, NGOs
Ongoing effort post-launch focused on advocacy / outreach
Project Objective / description Venue