European Parliament : Debates - Monday, 15 January 2018 - Strasbourg - Provisional edition

Miguel Arias Cañete,Member of the Commission.- Mr President, I would like to take this first opportunity in plenary to start by expressing my appreciation for the very constructive role that the Parliament delegation played in securing political agreement at the last trilogue meeting on the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive (EPBD), and to the rapporteur, Bendt Bendtsen, and all the shadow rapporteurs involved. Thanks to the strong position taken by the European Parliament, we saw a political agreement that allowed us to maintain the ambition of the Commission's original proposal on most aspects and even went further than them on many points.

Turning to the three proposals being debated here today, I would first like to address the proposal on governance. It is clear that strong governance rules will be a crucial for ensuring a resilient Energy Union with ambitious energy and climate policies and for making sure that the whole Clean Energy Package sticks together. We need a reliable approach to governance at European level, notably to ensure the effective achievement of the European Union's 2030 targets for energy and climate. It is essential to provide a solid system that allows progress to be assessed at European Union level, to put in place specific measures to identify shortcomings at an early stage, and to respond adequately in order to close any potential gap. This will be vital in securing the necessary public and private investment. The Commission welcomes the European Parliament's ambitions to establish effective and reliable governance for the Energy Union. The report adopted by the joint ITRE/ENVI Committee contains several positive elements that will help to keep such an ambitious approach when trilogues with the Council start.

Coherence is one of the central assets of the Clean Energy Package, and it is of paramount importance to continue paying particular attention to this in the work ahead. In this regard, the Commission welcomes your decision to set sectoral targets in sectoral legislation but, nevertheless, the mechanisms securing target achievement should remain in the governance proposal. At the same time, the Commission welcomes the latest proposal tabled on the trajectories to be followed by Member States to reach their 2030 national renewables targets and trusts that it will be supported across the House.

We believe that it will be a very positive step forward, laying the ground for a solid agreement in the negotiations with the Council, which has made a major step by accepting the introduction of a third reference point, in 2027, on the trajectory towards the 2030 renewables target. Finding a common ground on this will be an essential element showcasing our commitment towards achieving the energy transition.

To keep a coherent and integrated approach, a single Energy Union Committee for the implementation of the regulation, across all dimensions, is also essential. Co-existence of two separate committees would not be the optimal solution because of the many linkages between energy and climate, and it would blur clarity about competence. A single committee would create the necessary synergies and ensure a more coherent and integrated framework. It is in line with better regulation principles, streamlines structures and cuts red tape. We further encourage the European Parliament to keep an ambitious position on the deadlines for the draft national plans, which are important to guarantee the effectiveness of the iterative process, to convey early investment signals to the markets and investors, as well as for the Facilitative 'Talanoa' Dialogue under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Citizens are at the centre of the clean energy transition. Consumers are becoming the real drivers of this energy transition, and this is well reflected in the emphasis put by the Parliament on the role of citizens and civil society in taking part in the process leading to the definition of climate and energy policies.

Finally, we also need to promote additional efforts to tackle energy poverty in Europe. The Clean Energy Package proposes several measures contributing to the alleviation of energy poverty, but I welcome that the European Parliament has recognised the importance of this by strengthening the efforts to be made by Member States to reduce energy poverty.

Let me turn now to the proposed revisions to the Renewable Energy Directive. The aim of our regulatory framework is to ensure a continuous flow of investments into renewable sectors and to ensure its competitive development for the benefit of our citizens and our industry. The Commission welcomes the progressive position of the European Parliament, which is generally reinforcing the overall ambition of the proposal, including on such key aspects as consumer empowerment, administrative simplification and investor stability and predictability.

Overall, I believe the text adopted in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy is a reasonable compromise which takes into account the different positions across the European Parliament and reinforces the proposal for a directive. However, specifically regarding the amendments that have been tabled to plenary, I see some merits on those tabled in relation to the cap on conventional biofuels, which establish national caps instead of a Union cap. This could be a compromise in a very divisive issue that brings the text closer to the balanced approach that the Commission initially proposed.

Another issue is the harmonisation of the sustainability criteria for bioenergy, where the text adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety would lead to contradictory interpretations, potentially opening the door to the introduction of national criteria. We need to make sure that we keep the European Union harmonisation of these criteria, which already exists under the current Directive, so that there is no detrimental effect for the internal market.

Finally, I would like to underline our concern regarding the amendment tabled to exclude roundwood and stumps from bioenergy raw material. Excluding these feedstocks by default is neither environmentally desirable nor practical, as it would require all forest biomass used in the energy sector to be certified. We count on the Parliament to support an ambitious report on Wednesday and to work with us for the best outcome on the proposal, considering the general approach adopted by Council in December.

Let me now address the Energy Efficiency Directive. It is crucial that Parliament maintains its position on an ambitious energy efficiency level, including the binding character of the European Union target and the strong Article 7. These are key elements, not only for reducing key energy consumption, improving competitiveness, strengthening our energy security, improving air quality and quality of life, and reducing energy poverty, but also in the context of achieving our climate objectives.

I am glad to see a compromise emerging around a high ambition level, supported by a strong Article 7. It is a comfortable position for the European Parliament in view of entering into interinstitutional negotiations. Indeed, analyses show that the majority of measures under Article 7 - aims of the renovation of buildings through energy efficiency obligation schemes, fiscal incentives or financing schemes - will deliver real benefits to the consumer in the form of reduced energy bills. Without maintaining a strong Article 7, many profitable energy savings will not take place in the next decade.

I would like to warn against two specific proposals. First, even if it is decided politically to introduce an 'adjustment factor' for the level of the European energy efficiency target, this factor should certainly not be linked to the level of renewable energy consumption. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are partners, not rivals.

Second, we will not be able to maintain a strong Article 7 if we allow excess energy savings from the current period to be carried forward after 2020. This would open a significant loophole and would force the Commission into a position where it would need to intrusively monitor the details of implementation in Member States.

Finally, you also proposed to amend a number of other articles which are not part of the Commission proposal. Opening new articles without a proper assessment by the Commission and without the Council taking position entails the risk of significantly delaying the negotiations and sending the wrong signal to stakeholders.

I look forward to this debate on these two different proposals but, before we start, let me remind you again that these are part of a bigger package and, while considering these proposals individually, it is vital that you do not lose sight of the need for coherence and maintaining a high level of ambition. I encourage you now to move forward as soon as possible in debating and voting on the market design proposals in order to complete the whole package.