Summary of the meeting of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy of the European Parliament, held in Brussels on 29 November 2011 - Montesquieu Instituut

 

-

COUNCIL OF

Brussels, 1 December 2011

THE EUROPEAN UNION

18025/11 -

PE 533 ENER 391 ENV 923 MI 639

-

NOTE

from:

General Secretariat of the Council

to: Delegations

Subject : Summary of the meeting of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

of the European Parliament, held in Brussels on 29 November 2011

The meeting was chaired by Mr Herbert Reul (EPP, DE), chairman of the Committee.

1.

Energy efficiency, repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC

2011/0172(COD), COM(2011)0370

Rapporteur: Claude Turmes (Greens/EFA, LU)

Opinions: ENVI, FEMM

Members inquired in particular about a clearer definition of energy efficiency as the Member States

refused to have obligatory energy efficiency objectives (Mr Pieper (EPP, DE)); the energy

efficiency target as expressed by either absolute, relative or energy intensity (Mr Pieper, Ms Hall

(ALDE, UK), Ms Ford (ECR, UK)); modelling, in particular the PRIMES model (Mr Reul,

Ms del Castillo (EPP, ES), Mr Turmes, Mr Karis (EPP, LV), Mr Pieper); analysis of costs and

benefits of eco-design, buildings and CHP (combined heat and power) directives (Mr Reul);

financing of energy efficiency from structural funds (Mr Pieper); the energy audit and exemption

for some companies (Mr Reul) and smart meters (Mr Reul).

The representative of the Commission reiterated that the purpose of the proposal was to put into

practice the figures agreed by the Council. The target was not therefore expressed as an energy

intensity target. On financing, he informed Members that EUR 17 billion would be ring-fenced for

energy efficiency and renewables under the new MFF. Regarding the costs and benefits of eco-

design and buildings, he referred to about 10 % in savings by 2020. However, he pointed out that

the effects of these measures were not strictly additional. As to CHP, he acknowledged it functioned

better in smaller cities. Concerning the energy audit, larger companies should, according to the

proposal, carry this out every three years and Member States should put in place a system allowing

those with exemptions to benefit from it. On modelling, he recalled that the baseline for the

PRIMES model would be updated. He clarified its use for this IA, as well as the use of other

specific models that were needed to take into account different perspectives.

Expert hearing on targets for energy efficiency in the framework of the proposed directive

Mr Wolfgang Eichhammer focused on how to define energy efficiency targets, the impact of the

During the discussion, Members raised a number of issues. Mr Turmes agreed with tightening the

cap while introducing energy efficiency measures. Mr Vidal Quadras (EPP, ES) said that greater

priority should be given to energy efficiency above absolute cuts in primary energy consumption,

even if the latter was easier to achieve during recession. Ms Hall expressed her concerns about the

possibility of a massive use of energy during the period of emerging from recession. Mr Jadot

(Greens/EFA, FR) acknowledged progress in energy intensity, but saw a need to cut energy

consumption as a whole and called for a binding objective by a set date. Mr Karis underlined the

need to focus on the energy intensity model of energy savings.

Mr Eichhammer advocated energy efficiency measures even during the economic slowdown,

pointing to the risk of a subsequent increase in energy consumption. Together with the measures

needed to meet the target directly, he highlighted the importance of the message that would be set

by the target. Against this background, he considered that an absolute figure was much clearer than

a relative target.

Mr Weimann clarified that the cap should be set from the outset, since by setting the cap, the policy

target was fixed and made binding. Thereafter, he saw a role for market incentives to ensure that the

cap was respected. He concluded by reminding those present of the fundamental problems - climate

change and resource issues.

2. Exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements between Member -

States and third countries in the field of energy

2011/0238(COD), COM(2011)0540

Rapporteur: Krisjnis Karis (EPP, LV)

Opinions: AFET, INTA

Members broadly welcomed the proposal and made several remarks. Mr Glante (S&D, DE), on

behalf of the shadow rapporteur Mr Lange (S&D, DE), and together with Mr Lamberts

(Greens/EFA, BE), called for compulsory scrutiny by the Commission. The latter added that the

Commission should be entitled to ask any Member State to renegotiate an agreement that did not

comply with EU legislation. Mr Vidal Quadras (EPP, ES) also supported the establishment of a

"filter", to avoid the risk of infringing Community legislation. Ms Kolarska-Bobiska (EPP, PL)

was concerned that a number of intergovernmental agreements would subsequently be classified as

commercial ones. Other issues raised were the transparency and protection of energy markets,

price-setting mechanisms, access of third countries to infrastructure and confidentiality.

The representative of the Economic and Social Committee also welcomed the proposed decision,

that would require information regarding all existing agreements. He agreed with the rapporteur that

the EU needed a united voice. However, he was concerned about the exclusion of commercial

agreements, regretted that the impact assessment was not carried out prior to the tabling of the

proposal, and believed that the interim evaluation would be conducted every two instead of four

years.

The representative of the Commission reiterated the objective of the proposal, to guarantee

transparency among Member States and to have an agreement compatible with EU energy

legislation. He clarified that prices and volumes were not dealt with in the proposal.

3. Date of the next meetings