The European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) largely rejected (54 votes against, 17 in favour and 2 abstentions) on Wednesday 22 January a motion to object to the fourth list of projects of common interest (PCIs), thus approving the list as proposed by the European Commission (see EUROPE 12361/12) and ignoring criticism from NGOs.
This result was welcomed by the EPP group, which believes that keeping gas projects on the list is necessary for the energy transition. “Gas is, so to speak, a bridging technology on the way to achieving our ambitious CO2 reduction targets by 2030”, said Christian Ehler (Germany), EPP spokesman in the ITRE Committee.
The MEP also recalled that, compared to the previous list of projects dating from 2017, the number of gas projects has changed from 51 to 32.
Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, France), who had initiated the motion of objection, and Marc Botenga (GUE/NGL, Belgium), on the other hand, regretted the outcome of the vote.
“This list is incompatible with our climate commitments [...] We will continue to fight to convince and bring together what we hope will be a majority in plenary in February”, Mrs Toussaint reacted on Twitter.
“It's against the common good, against the planet. What we need is renewables”, Mr Botenga said of the result of the vote.
According to information gathered by EUROPE, the 17 MEPs who voted against the list - and therefore in favour of the motion of objection - would be the 8 MEPs from the Greens/EFA, the 4 MEPs from the GUE/NGL and 5 other MEPs from the Renew Europe and S&D groups.
A criticised list. This vote was eagerly awaited, particularly by NGOs. The day before, more than 80 civil society organisations had called on the members of the ITRE Committee to vote against the list because they felt it contained too many new fossil fuel projects (55 out of 151) (see EUROPE 12408/23).
Specifically, for opponents of the list, allowing such projects to receive the ‘PIC label’ and thus be eligible for EU funding under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) is totally contrary to the EU's climate commitments.
“Fossil gas is [...] incompatible with the fossil-free future promised in the European Green Deal. More unnecessary gas infrastructure will become a stranded asset, and consumers and the climate will pay the price”, said Frida Kieninger, member of the Food & Water Europe NGO, ahead of the vote.
A study published two days before the vote also showed that most of the gas projects included in the list represent unnecessary over-investment from the point of view of the EU's security of energy supply (see EUROPE 12407/21).
Finally, it is important to note that this list could still be rejected by parliamentarians (they cannot, however, modify it, as it is contained in a delegated act). Indeed, it is likely that a motion to reject will be put to a vote by the whole of the European Parliament at the February plenary. Like Friends of the Earth Europe, several organisations have already called on Members to vote against the adoption of the list. (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)