Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-17-Speech-2-282"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080617.38.2-282"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The energy situation in Europe and throughout the world is forcing us to seek new effective solutions for a secure supply in the Member States at reasonable prices, subject to further liberalisation of the energy markets, greater market transparency and non-discrimination.
I welcome the European Commission’s effort to achieve progress, to create a space for clear-cut rules and relations between the relevant parties within the energy markets. On the one hand, this should lead to the creation of a better competitive environment, and on the other hand it should create an effective regulation mechanism capable of preventing crisis situations.
However, intentions and reality are two different things altogether. Although it has been the subject of many debates and compromise proposals, the energy package still gives rise to many question marks and uncertainties. We all know very well that the biggest stumbling block is the Commission’s proposal regarding ownership unbundling of production from transmission within the framework of vertically integrated companies.
Is this really the most effective model to ensure more competition, less discrimination, lower prices and higher investment? The numerous analyses that are supposed to confirm these benefits are matched by a number of counter-arguments that cast objective doubts over these benefits.
My opinion is rather simple but backed up by discussions with both the supporters and the opponents of ownership unbundling. Those Member States that have other models in place must surely be able to make a choice. Eight of them suggested the so-called third way, which I suggested as draftsman of the opinion of the ECON Committee, as an alternative to the ownership unbundling model.
Indeed, the above-mentioned committee has already adopted this proposal. Before reaching the final conclusions, we should ascertain whether each proposed model is functional, provides a continuous energy supply, is transparent and non-discriminatory, and whether its transparency and non-discriminatory character can or cannot be achieved through more effective regulation.
We also have to clearly establish whether or not the proposed solution represents a breach of the right of private ownership. In this context, I think that compromise Amendment 166, tabled by 40 Members, which enables the application of the so-called third way, represents an optimal solution under the given circumstances and respects the demands of a significant number of Member States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples