The European Parliament Environment and Employment Committees adopted, on Wednesday 18 May, their position on the Social Climate Fund by 107 votes to 16 with 15 abstentions. The European Parliament rapporteurs had already found common ground on 12 May (see EUROPE 12951/34) on the main elements of this fund, which is intended to help consumers most exposed to the consequences of the energy transition.
Wednesday’s vote also confirms the initially disputed link between the Fund and the ETS2, although the exact amounts for the start-up of the Fund are subject to negotiations on the scope of the ETS2.
New features compared to the Commission text include a definition of fuel poverty and transport poverty.
Energy poverty thus affects “vulnerable households whose energy expenditure represents a significant proportion of disposable income, particularly due to poor housing quality, utility bill arrears due to financial difficulties or limited access to essential and affordable energy services”.
Mobility poverty is poverty that affects households “in the lowest deciles, including those in the lower middle income group, who have a high share of mobility expenditure in relation to disposable income or limited access to affordable public or alternative modes of transport required to meet basic socio-economic needs”.
In both cases, a reference is added to “households living in rural, island, peripheral, mountainous, remote and less accessible areas or in less developed regions or territories, including less developed peri-urban areas and the outermost regions”.
The Commission will have to see how the Member States apply these definitions and may make more binding suggestions to them.
These definitions will also have a concrete application in the social climate plans that Member States will have to submit after “consultation with local and regional authorities, but also with socio-economic partners and civil society”, as MEPs had also added that they wanted these plans to be drawn up as close to the ground as possible.
On the question of direct aid to households, for example, or to the most vulnerable consumers, in particular via reductions in taxes or energy charges, the idea is to limit the scope and to concentrate the Fund on more sustainable or structural investments.
Such direct support would be limited to a maximum of 40% of the total estimated cost for each national plan for the period 2024-2027 and phased out by the end of 2032.
The share of investments would go to building renovation and renewable energy and would support the shift from private to public transport or to carpooling, carsharing and the use of active modes of transport such as cycling. Measures could include financial incentives, vouchers, grants or interest-free loans.
On the co-financing rule, the 50/50 ratio between the EU and the national level is not modified, except for direct aid which will be 60% on the shoulders of the Member States. This share would be reduced to 40% for the least wealthy member countries.
A conditionality linked to the Rule of law was also added by MEPs, who include a reference to the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty. The text also introduces a reference to gender mainstreaming in the actions supported by the Social Climate Fund.
What place for SMEs?
Officially, SMEs are not covered by the Social Climate Fund, but a reference to micro-enterprises was finally adopted in a surprise amendment, a source told us. The plenary will have to determine, definitively, the situation of SMEs.
Links to the adopted text and amendments: https://aeur.eu/f/1pi (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)