Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-15-Speech-3-293"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001115.12.3-293"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mrs Rothe on the magnificent work she has carried out, as well as all the Members who have spoken and who have, on many occasions, tabled amendments to the text proposed to Parliament and the Council.
With regard to the amendments that have been tabled, please let me tell you that their number is simply extraordinary and this demonstrates Parliament’s great interest in this issue. They also show that there are differing opinions on the best way to promote this type of electricity. Nevertheless, we all agree that in Europe we must speed up and intensify the production of this type of energy and that this requires effort.
In our fight to create a strong and dynamic green electricity market, the first thing we have to do is listen, so that we can learn from each other. I have noticed that there are two trends of opinion, with opposing approaches, on this issue. The first stresses the rapid introduction of market forces, while the second underlines the need to establish transitional periods and active public aid.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its proposal the Commission is trying to retain the best elements of these two approaches with the aim of producing a balanced text, but I must also make it very clear that a priority objective at the moment is the promotion and development of renewable energy. Therefore, issues concerning the market are of secondary importance. They are an objective which must not be forgotten but they are not the priority objective of this initiative, which is fundamentally the development and increased use of renewable energy sources.
Amendments Nos 1, 2, 8, 20 and 21 highlight the need for a policy favourable to green electricity and its many advantages and can be immediately accepted by the Commission. For the same reason we can accept Amendment No 3, in part, but not Amendment No 7, which is too technical to be included in the text of the proposal.
As for Amendment No 5, I am happy to tell you that, given the importance of this issue, the Commission is studying the possibility of presenting a new directive on biofuels generated from renewable energy sources, specifically from biomass, from agricultural products, which will simplify some of the problems which have been raised. When we start to talk about the targets for electricity generated from renewable energy sources, we first must agree on what we understand by renewable energy sources. This is of fundamental importance in order to lay the foundations for the future market and some of you have already mentioned this matter. This means that we can, to a large extent, follow the definition presented by the European Parliament in its Amendment No 27 but, when we talk about extending the use of biomass – even though, it could perhaps be accepted as it is presented – in no circumstance can it be accepted in relation to domestic waste. In the majority of cases that is not renewable energy.
Neither can the Commission accept peat, since it is clearly a fossil fuel, although it is generated more quickly, but it is fossil nonetheless. As I have said, we cannot take advantage of biomass in the case of unpolluted woods and we support Amendment No 24.
The reference to waste, with no other classification, as a source of renewable energy – as I said a moment ago – is inadequate and contrary to the policy of management of solid waste. The Commission rejects this part of Amendment No 27, Amendments Nos 11, 54, 55, 61 and Amendment No 57, which are all related to it.
The Commission also believes that all electricity generated from renewable energy sources and used in hybrid power plants must be considered as green electricity and not only that to be used as reserve power. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment No 28. The annex to the Commission’s proposal includes the indicative targets with regard to the national level of consumption of green electricity necessary for achieving the total quota of 22.1% for the whole of the European Union by 2010, in accordance with the objectives laid down in the White Paper of 1997.
In this context, I must point out two issues. Firstly, the importance of the targets being indicative. Ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to suggest mandatory targets but we have to be realistic and, although I regret this, I cannot, at this time, accept this suggestion that you have made, because it would be automatically rejected by the Member States.
This is the first time in a Union directive that national targets of this type are being considered. These are not obligations which must be fulfilled but national targets. Of course, we are giving this possibility our consideration but, in principle, because of the negotiations with the other party, that is, the Council, I cannot accept these amendments although I understand their approach and I have enormous sympathy for them. Therefore, I repeat that article 3(4) is of key importance. When the report which must be produced on compliance and the development of renewable energy in the various countries indicates that a certain country is clearly failing to comply with those targets, proposals will be made to Parliament and the Council to correct the situation. Those would evidently be mandatory targets for that State, so that it complies with them, so that in this way it complies with these targets, which
targets and not obligations.
This Commission proposal is being presented in circumstances which, while in many ways may be negative for many aspects of our economies and our lives, I believe are positive in terms of this particular initiative. A dramatic increase in the price of oil without doubt starkly highlights the problems relating to our dependence on energy from fossil fuels.
The task we are taking on by means of this directive must be based on transparent measures, which increase confidence, but this process would probably never take off if we impose binding targets in its text. Some States do not even wish to accept the indicative targets, so there is no way they would accept targets if they were binding.
With regard to the calculation, our calculation of 22.1%, instead of the 23.5% established in 1997, is a response to issues of credibility. The figures we are presenting here are not arbitrary or mere whims but are instead a response to the real situation as we find it. For this reason, we cannot support the amendments which propose legally binding targets – the creation of the committee or the target of 23.5% – and therefore we must reject for the time being Amendments Nos 6, 9, 12, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 50, 51, 52, 67 and 68.
In relation to the support systems, this is the second group of amendments where the Commission considered it premature to propose a harmonised support system, but stated that, if necessary, it will present a proposal of this type in accordance with certain principles. It considers that many of the amendments proposed by Parliament strengthen the Commission’s pragmatic approach and, at the same time, clarify, improve and complement it. We therefore support Amendments Nos 36 and 56 and also certain aspects of Amendments Nos 4, 15 and 62, relating to the idea of internalising external costs and compensating for external costs which are not covered in favour of renewable energy sources.
However, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot accept the parts which prejudice the application of rules on state aid. Neither can we accept the part of Amendment No 37 which demands that the future harmonised support system satisfies the need for the internalisation of external costs, since this could only be done through fiscal harmonisation which exceeds the scope of the future proposal in this respect.
On the other hand, we could accept Amendments Nos 10 and 59, which state that investment aid to large hydroelectric plants would only be possible in the event that they contribute to improving the environment. Any other situation would prevent me from including large hydroelectric plants within the aid to green electricity. Large hydroelectric plants, in principle, are broadly viable in themselves and have very high environmental costs.
Amendment No 53 would mean excluding all competitive forms of renewable energy from the subsidies and other advantages and, therefore, the Commission cannot accept its wording.
With regard to the principles on which the future harmonised support system must be based, the Commission can accept the parts of Amendments Nos 37 and 38 which stipulate that such a system must take account of the environmental objectives of the Treaty, the experience acquired with the support systems, which have proven to be effective and positive, as well as geographical conditions. However, the Commission cannot accept parts of Amendments Nos 37 and 38 and Amendment No 39, insofar as they prejudge the type of system which must be applied or they require that there should be no distortion to the biomass market. For the same reason, we reject Amendment No 23.
The Commission can accept the need for the current support systems in the transitional systems already considered in article 4(d) of its proposal. However, while doing so, the Commission is very conscious that the terms used should not prejudice its right of initiative and must not be incompatible with the single market for electricity. The Commission can accept part of the combined Amendments Nos 17 and 18, insofar as this transitional period of ten years relates to maintaining the confidence of investors and not to the continuation of the support systems as such.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is good reason to feel optimistic. As some of you have just pointed out, wind energy is very close to becoming competitive, but we have to continue providing genuine support for the development of renewable energy. Others of you have referred to the fact that this support is going to create more demand, greater technological development and, therefore, greater competitiveness, and that is what we are putting our faith in. When the time comes, further down the line, we will have to gradually incorporate the market aspects which – as I have said – make up the second phase, since the first phase is to generate a sufficient quantity of renewable energy. Nevertheless, for reasons that I mentioned earlier, the Commission rejects Amendments Nos 13, 32, 40, 41, 63 and 64.
With regard to the amendments concerning market forces and competition, the Commission can accept the relevant parts of Amendments Nos 17 and 18 and Amendment No 22, which stress the need to create a market in ecological electricity, but rejects Amendment No 19, which demands harmonisation of national support systems. We must provide a broad definition of a support system and therefore cannot accept Amendments Nos 16 and 19.
The strategic objective of the directive is to create a stable framework to enable the significant development, in the medium term, of electricity generated from renewable energy sources within the European Union, green electricity, and to provide access to it for the internal electricity market. However, it must be done in that order. Firstly, we must increase the production of green electricity and then we must deal with issues relating to the market.
With regard to technical measures and the guarantee of origin of ecological electricity, we cannot, unfortunately, support amendments seeking to extend this guarantee to all types of electricity or to electricity from third countries, since that exceeds the scope of the proposal. We reject Amendments Nos 14, 42, 43 and 44 and Amendment No 58, which seeks to achieve cross-border trading in electricity certificates. That is premature at this stage and cannot be accepted at the moment.
We cannot accept Amendment No 45, which would weaken the proposal by forcing Member States to revise the legal framework and nor can we accept Amendment No 46. We cannot accept Amendments Nos 26, 47 and 60 or Amendment No 65, which impose binding rules on the distribution of connection costs and other network costs at a European level.
In relation to Amendments Nos 48, 49 and 66, the Commission can accept that, when the time comes, the national targets for green electricity for 2010-2020 should be indicated, but cannot accept those parts of the amendments which could prejudice the application of the rules of competition law in the field of State aid.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry that I have spoken at such length but I believe that the debate warrants this degree of attention. I would like, once again, to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Rothe, and all of you for your work, and reiterate the absolute need for us, once and for all, to give real impetus to the use of renewable energy in the European Union. That is what we intend to do by means of this initiative.
This proposal offers a certain degree of legislative certainty and, at the same time, it respects the principle of subsidiarity, by providing the Member States with the degree of autonomy necessary to take account of their specific circumstances until such time as we can see, according to the way events progress, which is the best way to promote the installation of electricity sources.
I would like to thank Mrs Rothe for her support for these principles and all the speakers who have also shown such support.
As you know, the Commission intends shortly to adopt a Green Paper on the availability of energy supply and compliance with the Kyoto objectives and the commitments made there by the European Union. We believe that these are two fundamental aspects, of different types but equally important. The European Union, which flies the flag in the fight against climate change and in the reduction of emissions, must not be the first to fail to comply with its own objectives and its own commitments.
As a second issue, the availability of supply is a key element in guaranteeing economic development, the well-being of our countries and of the Union as a whole. In this Green Paper, we must talk about the role to be played by the various sources of energy. Firstly, energy saving. I would like to stress this – as some speakers have done – but I would also like to say that it is not a question of opposing any particular energy source or waging a war against it in favour of another. One of the key pillars in relation to compliance with Kyoto and for the future of the Union’s energy is the development and increase of the use of renewable energies.
In today’s document, the Commission intends to make it clear that the introduction of renewable energy sources does not currently enjoy the same facilities that other sources of energy had in their day, for example nuclear energy, coal and even oil, to mention but a few.
Aid for renewable energy sources is justifiable also because conventional energy sources do not pay in any significant way for some of the external costs generated by their use. Furthermore, renewable energy sources are a factor in the availability of supply, and we therefore have an enormous potential for production within the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples