Focusing on gas, this article explores the role of the European Commission in the process of European Union energy security policy development, and the extent to which the policy area is becoming increasingly supranational. Situating the article within the literature on agenda-setting and framing, it is argued that a policy window was opened as a result of: enlargement to include more energy import dependent states, a trend of increasing energy imports and prices, and gas supply disruptions. From the mid-2000s, the Commission contributed to a shift in political norms, successfully framing import dependency as a problem requiring an EU-level solution, based on the institution’s pre-existing preferences for a diversified energy supply and internal energy market. Whilst Member States retain significant sovereignty, the Commission has achieved since 2006 creeping competencies in the internal, and to a lesser extent external, dimensions of EU energy policy.

Fears about the security of supplies have been central to debates about the development of an integrated EU energy policy over the past decade, leading to claims that energy has been 'securitised'. Previous analyses have found, however, that although shared security concerns are frequently used as a justification for further integration, then can also serve as a rationale for Member States to resist sharing sovereignty. Transcending this apparent paradox would require not just agreement about whether energy supplies are security concerns, but also agreement about what kind of security concern they are. In this article, we examine whether such an agreement could emerge through a comparative analysis of constructions of gas security in the UK and Poland. Utilising a framework that draws from both the philosophical and sociological wings of Securitisation Studies, we demonstrate that although gas has been elevated on the security agendas of both states, the specific logic of insecurity -securitisation or riskificationunderpinning these constructions differs substantially, and is conditioned by

No abstract

The on-going transition towards low-carbon forms of energy provision (frequently termed 'energy transitions') has triggered far-reaching material, economic and institutional reconfigurations at the global scale. There is evidence to suggest that energy transitions increase the social vulnerability of actors involved in and affected by them, including entities operating at different scales, from individual households to entire states. However, the link between energy vulnerability and energy transitions remains poorly understood. We aim to formulate an explicitly geographical perspective on this relationship. The paper is based on an analysis of documentary evidence and 170 expert interviews undertaken between April 2013 and March 2015. This research took place in the post-communist states of Central and Eastern Europe where systemic change has fundamentally altered the institutional landscape of the energy sector since the early 1990s. Our findings point to the need for understanding energy vulnerability as an evolving socio-spatial phenomenon embedded in multiple layers of institutional change and organizational practice. We identify urban landscapes as the primary site for the geographic expression and articulation of domestic energy deprivation. ARTICLE HISTORY

This article examines the impact of enlargement on European Union (EU) performance in energy and climate change policies. It looks at process-driven performance, focusing especially on agenda-setting, negotiation dynamics and institutional changeas well outcome-driven performance, looking at policy objectives and their implementation. The empirical analysis is based on qualitative, comparative case studies of EU climate change and energy security policies. We argue that, although recent enlargements have not led to permanent institutional deadlock or a stable Eastern coalition, they have contributed to bringing some issues back to the top of the European agendasuch as the security of gas suppliesas well as to fuel old debatesin particular the issue of burden sharing in climate change negotiations. In terms of outcome, enlargement has not prevented the adoption of relatively ambitious climate legislation, although Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) have been able to obtain significant concessions. Besides, CEECs have made a positive, although limited, contribution to improving EU security. However, their impact may further increase as the paper points to their renewed assertiveness in both energy security and climate policy in recent years.