Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030602.7.1-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am an advocate of an integrated market in the network industries which will serve as the basis for a competitive European economy and for social inclusion, particularly by means of interconnection, but on two essential conditions: that the joint networks are treated as public goods and that we are capable of managing a common energy policy.
I endorse and welcome Mrs de Palacio’s work to this end. However, I can see that neither our states nor our institutions are taking on board the concept of public goods as yet, nor are they adopting the idea of a common policy. Moreover, the Treaties do not give them competence to do so and the outcome of the Convention with regard to this matter is extremely uncertain. The sectoral directives are undeniably seeking to move towards
public service obligations, focusing on universal service, the environment, interconnection and security of supply, but they are only recommendations to the states. As we are quite aware, we have no legislative authority to enforce a European right. Without a doubt, we are entering the realms of a regulation too, and by a regulation I mean a public measure allowing us not just to introduce genuine competition but also to bring it into line with public service obligations.
Basically, competition needs to be developed further. Some Members want to force this. It is easy to criticise dinosaurs, my dear Mr Turmes, and overlook the contribution made by historic operators and what they did for consumers. It is easy to call for ever-increasing ‘deintegration’, but absolutely nobody has any idea as yet how to regulate a ‘deintegrated’, multinational competition system properly. It is ten times more difficult than regulating a national integrated monopoly system. We have not taken into account the Californian experience, price volatility or the inadequacy of long-term contracts. We are not capable of securing development investment.
In particular, I noted the obligation, which I believe is premature, of separation in respect of distribution, with regard to which the Members are trying to outdo the Commission, for they want to go as far as separating ownership. We are not the only ones to want to create a retail market for household electricity supply. There is fierce debate in the United States and Canada. Do the gains offset the costs? What are the gains? Maybe the price of a pizza for an average household once a year. And the disadvantages? All the transaction costs and lack of security."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples