Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.9.3-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, a very good evening to you. I was in my seat in good time for the start. This evening’s debate, which we are holding in the cosy circle of insiders, revolves around a technology – cogeneration – which is a recognised environmental tool. Cogeneration can be used in many different ways, from district heating, mainly in northern Europe, to production plants, as in the ceramics and paper industries in other countries.
As I conclude, let me thank my co-rapporteurs, the shadow rapporteurs, all those colleagues who have contributed, and also the Commission. I think we worked well together. In our discussions I repeatedly emphasised my understanding of a compromise as a solution that is slightly painful to all sides. I hope everyone has suffered to the same degree, and I hope that when we adopt the compromise amendments tomorrow we will have a reasonable directive.
Cogeneration, involves the simultaneous production of electricity and heat in what is usually an energy-saving process. This directive focuses primarily on high-efficiency cogeneration, namely processes which offer energy savings of at least 10%. This is one of the main reasons why cogeneration is used as a means of increasing energy efficiency and why it contributes to greater security of supply. Last month’s blackouts have demonstrated that we need to do something to improve security of supply.
I would like to start by commenting on the way the Council deals with Parliament. This directive has been under discussion since September 2002 – nearly 18 months. The first reading in Parliament was very controversial. The second reading was much more consensus-oriented. Unfortunately, the Council common position accepted very few of the amendments proposed by this House. During the second reading, the Council again showed little flexibility and openness to our demands. As I see it, the Council adopted a ‘no can do’ position from the outset and we were repeatedly told that there was no scope for going beyond the common position. In my view, there were times when the way in which the negotiations were conducted was closer to a consultation procedure than to codecision. The compromise solutions were eventually adopted not because I as rapporteur was completely happy with the result, but rather because the Council put pressure on Parliament – there being no longer enough time for a conciliation procedure if the Council was to keep to schedule. More pressure was applied through the statements made by a number of delegations in the Council questioning the need for a directive promoting cogeneration, and making it clear that the directive would be blocked if Parliament requested anything beyond this support.
Let me now tell you what I think merits praise in this directive. The aim of the directive is to promote cogeneration technologies, which can help to improve energy efficiency and security of supply. Cogeneration is now on the European Union’s energy policy agenda. The directive means the Union now has a policy on cogeneration. Europe has a harmonised definition of cogeneration, meaning that there is now a common understanding of what cogeneration is. Classification as high-efficiency cogeneration is determined using a two-stage process as defined in Annexes II and III of the directive.
Firstly, cogenerated electricity is calculated using the Prothermo method as described in Annex II. Based on this method and taking into account the results from a CEN/CENELEC workshop currently in progress, the Commission is to devise a standard calculation for cogenerated electricity and the necessary guidelines for using it.
Secondly, in order to qualify as high efficiency cogeneration, the process must provide energy savings of at least 10%, as laid down in Annex III. The Commission will provide harmonised reference values for calculating the energy savings. This was an important step forward and an important demand on Parliament’s part. The order in which Annexes II and III are applied has not been harmonised. The alternative calculation methods will therefore remain valid, and these will, if necessary, be harmonised in a new draft Commission directive. A standard procedure for issuing certificates of origin has already been provided, which is important for cross-border trade and therefore for the single market.
The Member States are required to compile statistical data about national generation of electricity and heat using cogeneration. The Member States also have to assess the potential for using cogeneration and inform the Commission of their conclusions. The Commission is required to evaluate these reports and, if necessary, submit an action plan for developing cogeneration in the EU. National instruments and financial support should focus on primary energy savings. Legal and other barriers are to be removed. The directive establishes a definition of and a special status for micro-cogeneration. Under this directive, micro-cogeneration refers to installations with a maximum capacity of 50kWe. Micro-cogeneration operators may use certified values for calculation purposes, thus reducing their administrative burden. Member States can facilitate access to the grid for small installations and micro-cogeneration operators. Obviously we would have liked to see more on this subject.
So what does not appear in the directive that we would have liked to see included? There are no targets set for the EU or individual Member States, no special assistance, and insufficient support for micro-cogeneration installations, which unfortunately means there is no assistance for increasing market penetration over the next few years. There are no practical measures aimed at increasing cogeneration as a proportion of total electricity generation in Europe, and grid access for cogenerated electricity is not adequately regulated in terms of support measures. At the moment, existing calculation methods have not been harmonised – in fact, alternative methods are valid until 2010. Cogeneration powered by nuclear energy has not been excluded from the scope of the directive. The European Parliament would undoubtedly have wished for a more ambitious directive. But at least this directive establishes a common understanding of cogeneration and lays a foundation for the promotion of cogeneration in Europe. The course has been set for harmonising calculation methods for cogenerated electricity and primary energy savings. The Member States are going to have to consider the technology, because they have to evaluate the national generation capacities and potential then report to the Commission. The Commission is required to present an action plan for developing cogeneration if there is no increase in cogeneration usage.
This places cogeneration policy on the agenda at EU level, which represents a great success for the European Union. Let me close by challenging the Member States to report on the national potential for extending cogeneration as soon as possible, to make use of that potential, and to remove any and all barriers to increasing the share of cogeneration. I also say to the Commission that we need a new directive on European support schemes and total harmonisation of the energy market as soon as possible."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples