Brussels, 13/01/2010 (Agence Europe) - The debate on the energy infrastructure package at the December Energy Council highlighted divisions between member states, particularly on the question of the €1000 billion for funding capacity and network modernisation up to 2020. The first exchange of views at the energy committee on Thursday 13 January also suggests that bitter discussions will take place at the European Parliament.
The rapporteur, Francisco Sosa Wagner (Spain, NI) also focused on the question of funding and warned that “we need strong political will and massive investment. We need the courage to outline the necessary infrastructure and work out the criteria for projects of European interest. We also need to identify shortcomings, priority regions and corridors, and guarantee project implementation within reasonable time frames, as well as tackle questions involving authorisation procedures. This will not be easy”.
On behalf of the Social Democrats, Teresa Riera Madurel, from Spain, mentioned the necessity of strengthening interconnections, the EU's weak point in the energy field. She also said that they need to tackle the isolation of certain regions by providing optimum interconnection, which would produce both economic and social dividends. On the question of licences, Riera Madurel supports the idea of a single one-stop shop to reduce project completion deadlines. The Spanish MEP also underlines the question of unblocking Community funds and the challenge of integrating renewable energies. Her colleague from Lithuania, Zigmantas Balcytis, is appealing for a “volontarist approach”
Speaking for the Greens, Yannick Jadot from France, advocates coherence between the package and the EU's long-term targets. He insisted that “in this dossier, we are involved in the future of Europe for a period of at least 60 years”. He therefore regrets that in this context, the European Commission is admitting in its underlying proposals that the EU will not achieve the energy-saving target of 20% by 2020. The French MEP asserts that “energy efficiency improvement of 20% is the equivalent of 15 Nabucco projects” in energy savings but also in money that is not invested in major projects. He also expressed doubts about the financial rationale for projects on carbon storage and transport.
Conservative, Giles Chichester, considers that it is necessary to find the right balance between project selection and projects that instead of having significant commercial benefits have a significant strategic importance. The British MEP also questioned the interventionism advocated by the Commission and some of his colleagues. He wants the marketplace to play a greater role. As well as the problem of funding, Chichester is also highlighting the issue of public support for projects. His colleague Andris Gyor (EPP, Hungary) underlined the importance of the market and said that the biggest challenge was to overcome national interest in the context of cross-border projects.
Swedish Liberal, Lena Ek, emphasised “the danger of not allowing the market to play its role”. She concluded that energy companies “have made enormous projects, even during periods of crisis, and it should therefore not be the taxpayer who has to pick up the bill”. (E.H./transl.fl)