Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-04-Speech-1-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020204.8.1-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca on his excellent work on the proposed directive concerning the energy performance of buildings. I should also like to thank the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy for its thorough and thoughtful discussions and to express my satisfaction with the way in which the debate in Parliament has sharpened the focus of the proposal and strengthened it. It will very likely be one of our most important means of meeting the European Union's Kyoto commitment and of improving our security of supply.
As has been pointed out, the buildings sector accounts for over 40% of all EU final energy consumption. It also has a very large cost-effective savings potential. This proposal may lead to a significant improvement in the energy performance of buildings by promoting better minimum standards in Member States and in their building codes and by requiring more frequent updating and wider application of these codes. Not only would this apply to new buildings but, as has been said this evening, even more importantly to many existing buildings when they undergo major renovations. That is where the real potential for improvement lies.
The Commission welcomes Parliament's report and the proposed changes that will serve to improve, clarify and strengthen the proposal. Many amendments do this by enhancing the technical and financial definitions, giving concrete examples and defining the proposal's scope and implementation more exactly. For example, Amendments Nos 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36 and 37 are amendments the Commission can accept, many as they are, some with minor redrafting. Amendments Nos 3 and 6 encourage the use of subsidy schemes and incentives to promote the implementation of the proposal, taking into account socio-economic implications, and are thus also acceptable. Amendments Nos 7 and 22, on individual metering and billing and authorisation of inspectors respectively, can also be accepted if their financial and legal implications are illuminated more clearly in the text.
Mr Adam mentioned Amendment No 15. That is a comprehensive amendment, parts of which are acceptable to the Commission. The setting of efficiency levels at Community level is, however, not yet feasible. Amendments Nos 18 and 20 are also acceptable in parts, bearing in mind the need to allow CO2 indicators to remain optional.
Amendments Nos 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 27 are not acceptable to the Commission for technical and definitional reasons, including the degree of detail or because of related problems of subsidiarity that would result for example from the setting of efficiency levels at Community level. Because of the heterogeneous nature of the building sector as a result of differences in climate, culture and building traditions, subsidiarity and flexibility for Member States are important in the implementation of this directive.
The Commission feels that the most effective way to improve energy performance requirements in Member States is to provide methods to encourage them to improve their own building codes, set their own performance levels and ensure full application and regular revision of those.
While methods of calculation, many norms and a number of standards can be established at Community level, the actual efficiency level of energy performance of buildings should remain a Member State matter. Most of the amendments proposed take these principles into account.
Another important point is with regard to the threshold for upgrading the energy performance of existing buildings when they undergo major renovation. Upgrading existing buildings is an important part of this proposal. For many Member States it represents a new area of endeavour which will require new performance standards, new resources and substantial investment. We feel that the proposed threshold of 1 000 m2 for upgrading is therefore the best possible compromise attainable at this early stage.
Finally, as regards the period for transposition of this directive we feel that it is important to underline that we should avoid an unnecessarily long period if we are to meet the target date for Kyoto which is usually set at between 2008 and 2012."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples