On Wednesday 11 May, MEPs on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs debated restructuring the EU framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity.
Given the current geopolitical situation, “this file is complicated and politically sensitive”, stressed Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, Belgium), rapporteur for the European Parliament (see EUROPE 12938/16). Therefore, he decided to adopt “a technology-neutral approach”. “I remain convinced that this would be a sensible way of reforming the directive, limiting its social impact and avoiding double taxation”, he added.
More than 400 amendments have been tabled to the draft report for opinion, and “it is, therefore, a question of striking the right balance”, the rapporteur continued.
The debate concerned two main issues: avoiding double taxation and avoiding too many exemptions.
While there is a consensus on the fight against double taxation, parliamentarians do not agree on the method. At the request of some groups, Mr Van Overtveldt mentioned an assessment of the overall impact of the legislative proposal on the Fit for 55 package, including its duration and its link to the date of entry into force.
For Markus Ferber (EPP, Germany), “a high taxation rate on electricity runs counter to the idea of decarbonisation by electrification”. He argued for a zero minimum tax rate for electricity during the transition period and for the introduction of a maximum tax rate for electricity, “to ensure a strong harmonisation effect”. Ondřej Kovařík (Renew Europe, Czech Republic) said that “the current directive is too generous when it comes to exemptions”.
Joachim Schuster (S&D, Germany), for his part, put forward the idea of a proper certification system. “If electricity is not produced from renewable energy and is harmful to the environment, there is green electricity”, he noted. Claude Gruffat (Greens/EFA, France) supported maintaining the environmental classification.
The French environmentalist also insisted on price indexation: “We are entering a period of inflation. Prices are rising. It would be a mistake not to implement indexation, which was already a mistake in 2003, even if it means suspending it in the event of a crisis. Without indexation of rates, we will be back to square one in 5 years, when the minimum rates will be exceeded”.
However, Mr Van Overtveldt said it was “important that the Member States keep sufficient flexibility” and therefore suggested that automatic indexation be removed from the proposed rates.
Alfred Sant (S&D, Malta) was concerned about the introduction of the kerosene tax, fearing “a straight reduction in the economic competitiveness of islands and peripheral destinations”. “Beyond the cost impact on living standards, there will be a negative impact on competitiveness compared to other destinations in the EU, which is not fair”, he said.
To read the amendments to the draft report for opinion: https://aeur.eu/f/1ms (Original version in French by Anne Damiani)