MEPs, meeting in plenary session in Strasbourg, are expected to approve the fourth list of projects of common interest (PCI) on Wednesday 12 February, despite the many criticisms which surround it (see EUROPE 12417/7).
Adopted by the European Commission on 31 October 2019 (see EUROPE 12361/12), this list contains 149 energy infrastructure projects which, in the event of a favourable vote on the list in plenary, will become eligible for EU funding under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).
Since it is contained in a delegated act, members cannot amend it, but simply have the choice of rejecting or approving it.
Positions of the different groups. According to information gathered by EUROPE, the official positions of the EPP, ECR and Renew Europe groups would be to vote against the motion to reject the list, tabled by the Greens/EFA group, and therefore to support the list.
Nevertheless, like the Hungarian Katalin Cseh, some members of Renew Europe will oppose the list. Slovak Martin Hojsik and Frenchman Pascal Durand are among the 103 signatories of the motion to reject.
The other signatories are the 68 members of the Greens/EFA, 10 members of the GUE/NGL, 12 Social Democrats (S&D) and 11 members of the Five Star Movement (who are not, for the moment, part of any group - see EUROPE 12419/10).
Like the Greens/EFA Group, the GUE/NGL Group has already decided to vote against the list.
The S&D is said to be very divided. If an official position had not yet been adopted at the time of going to press - the group is still to meet in the evening to discuss it - the German, Swedish, Dutch, Belgian and French delegations would be opposed to the list. The majority of the group should nevertheless support the 4th PCI list.
Contacted by EUROPE, the ID Group, for its part, was unable to communicate its position to us.
Two days before the vote, during a debate with the European Commissioner for Energy, Kadri Simson, the different groups had the opportunity to compare their arguments, most of which have already been detailed previously (see EUROPE 12417/7).
Returning to the third list raises questions. The Greens/EFA, GUE/NGL, as well as some Social Democrats and a minority of Renew Europe MEPs believe that the list is contrary to the objectives of the European Green Deal because of the 55 fossil fuel projects it contains.
As recent studies (see EUROPE 12407/21) have shown, they also consider that there is no need to invest in new gas projects to ensure the EU's security of energy supply in the context of transition. Allowing gas projects to become eligible for EU funds would therefore be an unnecessary waste of money.
"This list is scientific nonsense, an economic mistake and above all a political mistake", said Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, France) in the debate.
This position is shared by environmental NGOs such as Friends of the Earth Europe and Food&Water Europe, who have repeatedly called on MEPs to reject the list.
Among the supporters of the list, the arguments differ.
While Robert Roos (CRE, Netherlands) called it a "good investment for the future", stressing the importance of maintaining reliable and affordable energy through gas, Maria da Graça Carvalho (EPP, Portugal), Miriam Dalli (S&D, Malta) and Morten Petersen (Renew Europe, Denmark) were much less glowing.
Rather than support for the list, they mainly expressed their fears of a return to the third list, adopted in 2017, if the fourth list is rejected.
While this third list does indeed contain more fossil projects, most of them have been completed or abandoned, Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA, Germany) replied. In her view, a return to the third list would therefore be less harmful to the environment than the adoption of the new one.
Finally, it is important to specify that, while being on the list of CIPs is a precondition for receiving European funding, it is not a guarantee.
Therefore, and in the hope of reassuring MEPs, Ms Simson assured them that the European Green Deal will serve as the " background against which " projects that will actually receive EU funds will be selected.
But, according to Christophe Grudler (France), the Renew Europe group would like a written commitment. Some 20 of its members wrote a letter on Monday 10 February to Ms Simson and Green Deal Commissioner Frans Timmermans asking them to give a written commitment, before the plenary vote, to re-evaluate the projects included in the fourth list against the Green Deal. (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)