Brussels, 11/03/2013 (Agence Europe) - The Commission is likely to make concessions at the Council on its strategy for green fuels. At an initial exchange of views on the subject at the "Transport" Council of Monday 11 March, the European ministers admitted that they had a few problems over the funding of this strategy, the deadlines laid down and the number of refuelling points for the various alternative fuels (electric, hydrogen, natural gas) retained by the Commission.
The European delegations are behind the Commission's general approach to breaking oil dependency, making transport less polluting and making the Union a serious competitor to the United States and Japan as regards alternative fuels. But they may well feel that the European Commission's initiative is too ambitious (communication defining a strategy and directive for the deployment of the infrastructure). The Member States would prefer not to have the restrictions of binding plans, preferring flexibility and a largely indicative strategy.
Timetable. On the one hand, there is the question of the timetable; the Commission is laying down a certain number of refuelling points for each country and type of energy, by 2020. A number of delegations would prefer instead to look at 2030, thereby combining this cut-off date with that of the trans-European transport network (central network). France argues that "the timetable appears optimistic to the point of being unrealistic".
Costs. European ministers are also concerned about the possible costs of implementing appropriate infrastructure. Possible mechanisms such as the Connecting Europe Facility were also discussed. As Portugal pointed out, economic sustainability will be required.
Subsidiarity. Several delegations are demanding that national specificities are particularly taken into account. Countries such as Germany, Austria, France and Italy have already developed national plans in this connection. Lithuania underlined the fact that the Commission's forecasts for its territory are 3 to 8 times greater than the optional figures forecast by the country. France also regretted the fact that it had not been consulted with regard to the choice of standards for electricity recharging outlets, “in contradiction with our existing infrastructure or that currently being developed”. Germany summed up the situation by calling for greater flexibility in the transposition of the directive.
Technological neutrality. Other countries, such as Britain and Sweden, were also worried about the lack of technological neutrality. The British said that they did not want barriers created on the market and the Swedes said they wanted to leave the door open to renewable energies. The Belgian delegation highlighted the fact that, “the best fuel is the one that isn't consumed” and suggested that they study modality concepts and urban transport.
Commission ready to discuss matters. After having attended the exchange of views between European ministers, the European commissioner for transport, Siim Kallas, admitted that there was room for greater flexibility and that he was prepared to discuss specific objectives in connection with local specificities. Although he acknowledged that they had to perfect the details, he repeated the fact that they would, above all, need to agree on a ceiling so that they could send out a single message to the industry. He also attempted to provide reassurances to the delegations by explaining that the proposal as it stood, “is not calling for additional public funds but for investment to be made by the private sector”. (MD/trans/fl)