The European Commission is likely to propose in January a 2030 emissions reduction target of a 40% reduction from 1990 levels, according to an impact assessment being prepared ahead of the communication.

A leaked draft of the assessment shows the Commission is considering six scenarios ranging from a 35% reduction to a 45% reduction. Commission sources say the proposal is likely to contain a figure in the middle at 40%. The UK has called for a 2030 target of 50%.

The impact assessment does not consider the possibility of setting an energy efficiency target for 2030. This may be done later in another assessment. The European Union currently has three targets for 2020 – 20% emissions reduction, 20% share of renewable energy and 20% increase in energy efficiency. But the third target has been met with resistance from member states.

The assessment does consider extending the renewables target. The most ambitious scenario looks at an emissions reduction target of 45% combined with a 35% share of renewable energy in the EU energy mix.

But environmental campaigners and some climate scientists say a cut of 60% by 2030 is necessary to keep global warming under 2 degrees by 2050. Scientists say anything above this temperature rise would have disastrous consequences.

The impact assessment explains that part of the reason higher reductions weren’t considered is that it could interfere with the functioning of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the EU’s main policy instrument for climate action. A higher target could “undermine the future relevance of the ETS”.

The Commission will most likely only propose an emissions reduction target in January, though it has held out the possibility of proposing continuations of the other two targets later. There is little appetite among member states for additional targets beyond an emissions reduction for 2030, partly over concern that the three 2020 targets have interfered with one another and with the ETS.

Some countries, such as Denmark, are pushing for a renewal of the three targets and possibly a fourth target for energy infrastructure for cross-border connections. Martin Lidegaard, Denmark’s energy minister, said at an energy infrastructure conference in Vilnius organised by the Lithuanian EU presidency earlier this week that axing the renewable energy target will remove certainty for investors.

“The Nordic experience where we have created a single market shows that it’s very difficult to plan your infrastructure if you don’t know how much renewables you will have,” he said. “If you want to have a well-functioning single energy market, I don’t think you can do that without knowing how many renewables you have to phase in…having just one target would make it very difficult for us to not over or under invest.”

“But there should be more logic between the different targets than we had the last time,” he conceded. However the other ministers on the panel at the conference from Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria and Croatia all disagreed, saying they preferred only one target.

“I don’t believe these forced targets are a solution for European energy efficiency,” said Juhan Parts, Estonia’s energy minister.

While the assessment does not consider an energy efficiency target, it does assume efficiency improvements of 22-33% driven by the other targets. However the campaign group Coalition for Energy Savings criticised the approach used by the impact assessment, saying it is based on an old scientific model called PRIMES which is flawed. This model has been updated but not yet published. The coalition said if the new model is used, the scenarios would only deliver 1-15% efficiency improvements.

Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership