Brussels, 26/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - In response to the growing amount of criticism both from various capital cities, led by Berlin and Paris, and from the energy monopolies, European Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs gave a vigorous defence, on Friday 25 November, of his proposals for the unbundling of activities - production/supply and transport (gas pipelines or very high-voltage lines) - of the energy operators, which he put on the table on 19 September as part of the third legislative package for the liberalisation of the internal market (EUROPE 9505). “These proposals are more necessary than ever. At the end of the day they have only one objective; the interests of the EU's citizens; as energy customers and as employees of companies for which competitive energy prices are essential”, Mr Piebalgs stressed in a press release, continuing: “Our citizens have every right to expect that the prices they pay are set by effective competition and not by dominant companies operating in markets that they protect via their control of the network (…). The measures proposed by the Commission are vital in every EU country, and today many countries - particularly those dominated by vertically integrated companies - clearly suffer from a lack of effective competition. The effects on our citizens in these countries speak for themselves. Furthermore, although there are many reasons why companies' profits change, it is impossible to ignore that the profits of some of the EU's electricity and gas companies have doubled or more than tripled at a time when European citizens are facing higher bills. It is impossible not to raise the question of whether this would have been possible if these companies faced effective competition”. The impact assessment, which comes on top of the legislative proposals of the Commission, but which certain German energy groups and members of the European Parliament have expressed doubt over, “clearly lays down these facts and the reasons why the specific proposals are necessary”, the energy commissioner adds. Mr Piebalgs pointed out that this study was based on the work of the Council - the European Council of last March called for “additional measures” to complete the single energy market - and of the European Parliament, which last June pleaded in favour of ownership unbundling. The impact assessment shows that this preferred option of the Commission stimulates investment and reduces both market concentration and prices. It concludes that there is no element of evidence to prove that the solvency, the share prices of companies or relationship with the external providers would be influenced negatively. Lastly, it concludes that under the status quo (keeping in place current provisions on the legal and functional separation of the operators' activities), the dysfunctioning would subsist. In place of this option, the Commission has proposed an alternative, to consist of renting the transport network to an independent operator (ISO option). In the view of certain member states, which are in a position to put up a blocking minority to the first option, the ISO option appears preferable. These countries may draft a third option together. At the Energy Council of 3 December, the Portuguese president will invite them to submit their proposals in the very near future. (E.H.)