President. – The next item is the report (A5­0320/2000) by Mrs Rothe, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on a European Parliament and Council directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (COM(2000) 279 – C5­0281/2000 – 2000/0116(COD)).

  Rothe (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report before us, as we have just heard, is about promoting electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. This is therefore the first legislative procedure in the field of renewable energy. Commissioner, I would like to express my appreciation to you and your colleagues in the Commission for presenting this legislative proposal.

The proposal for a directive is a logical consequence of the European Union's strategy to double the share of renewables in energy consumption by 2010. As you will see from the committee's report, we agree with the strategy presented in the proposal, which is not to undertake any European harmonisation of support schemes for the time being, but rather to let Member States decide upon support schemes on the basis of nationally set targets and objectives. However, the fact that we accept this strategy does not necessary mean that we accept all the detail. I believe that the committee's report proposes important and essential amendments to the proposed directive.

First, however, I would like to make some preliminary comments about promoting renewables. Many people think that this smacks of subsidies, aids, and financial support for development. In reality, however, support schemes for electricity generation from solar, wind and biomass, for example, are only necessary because at present we are still directly or indirectly subsidising other energy sources, subsidies, which in the energy sector in the past, chiefly benefited pollutant fossil fuels or hazardous nuclear energy, and which continue to be to paid to them to some extent. Such subsidies distort competition. This means that promoting renewables compensates for the external costs of other energy sources, takes into account the positive environmental effects of this type of energy production and, at the same, time makes up for existing distortions in competition.

As long as the external costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy are not internalised, and as long as other energy sources are subsidised, compensation schemes will be needed for renewables.

In the Commission's proposal and draft report, it is proposing indicative targets for the Member States. Binding individual targets for Member States are only envisaged if the interim reports indicate that compliance with the targets is not meeting the European Union's overall strategy. But we do not have that much time! We need binding targets right now. The European Union and all the Member States entered into commitments at Kyoto because they recognised the dramatic nature of climate change. In The Hague, the western industrialised nations are currently again being pilloried because they are only implementing those commitments half-heartedly. There is no doubt that renewables can make a vital contribution to meeting the binding reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions agreed in Kyoto.

If the commitments entered into were meant seriously, then why not also a commitment to mechanisms which would help to meet those commitments, as I, with the support of the committee, have, after all, built a bridge for the Council and the Member States? These binding national targets are to be worked out within one year, with the assistance of experts from the Member States. This makes it possible for Member States to determine the exact level of their respective contributions to meeting the EU's target, in accordance with the principles of burden sharing, and, in this area, also the sharing of opportunities.

A second important amendment we wish to see is this: the Commission envisages various different targets coexisting over five years. If we define a clear, binding framework for the Member States, then there should be a longer evaluation period for the various support systems required to satisfy these requirements. A 10-year period would put us in a very good position to judge which system is the most successful and efficient.

We want to convince people in Europe to switch to energy sources which nature renews afresh every day, which do not entail any environmental disruption or climate change, and which make a positive contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. So there should not really be any controversy about which types of energy production we mean and define as renewable. We do not therefore seriously want to have to tell the population of our respective regions that domestic waste, which nowadays contains an excessively high proportion of plastic waste, is regarded as a renewable energy source. Would we perhaps then have to call on the public to produce more and more of this waste, which would certainly enable us to meet the targets we have set ourselves? It goes without saying that this would discredit us and the European Union's policy.

I am not against waste incineration, indeed I have even called for a separate directive on this in my report. No, what I am opposed to, as is the committee, is playing with words in a piece of legislation. As you can see, the draft report refers to separated organic municipal waste, because it belongs there. As you can also see, untreated wood and cork waste is regarded as a renewable energy source. Even if only hydroelectric installations with a capacity below 10 MW are to be covered by the support schemes, all hydro will, of course, be regarded as a renewable energy source and will count towards achieving the target. And one more thing I want to make crystal clear: waste incineration is not a renewable energy source and cannot therefore be counted towards meeting the targets.

Another vital point that the committee agreed on was the problem of connection to the grid and access to the grid for renewables. There is no argument about the Commission's proposal to guarantee renewables priority access to the grid. I think that we are unanimous about that. The Commission's general text on the issue of cost sharing in the report makes matters substantially clearer. This is necessary because we can only create legal certainty and avoid disputes through clarification.

Those are the main points I wanted to mention today. I hope that tomorrow this House will take a step forward on the basis of this proposed legislation and our opinion on it, and that you will be able to state, on behalf of the Commission, that you can accept our amendments and that the Council will then be next in line to do its bit!

(Applause)

  Ayuso González (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the Sixth Conference of the Parties on Climatic Change is meeting at the moment in The Hague. This is a summit which intends to slow down climate change and at which the Kyoto Protocol will undergo its ordeal by fire. In addition, the latest conclusions reached by scientists on the intergovernmental panel on climate change alert us to its alarming effects.

Energy from renewable sources will not be a panacea that will solve this problem, but nobody doubts that it can contribute greatly to alleviating it and also to diversifying our sources of energy and reducing our dependence on hydrocarbons, which indeed would not be a bad thing.

I want to point out that the Commission and the Commissioner in particular have hit the mark in proposing this directive to promote renewable sources of electricity. We trust that the directive will help these as yet incipient forms of energy to develop and become competitive and that the Commission will soon present us with a similar proposal on biofuels. I also wish to recognise Mrs Rothe’s hard work and congratulate her on it.

Implicit in the report we are to vote on tomorrow is Parliament’s decisive support for this initiative, and I ask the Commissioner to transmit this support to the Members of the Commission because it is in that institution and not here in Parliament that this directive – and others that may follow in the same laudable vein – may find their principal detractor.

I am referring specifically to the proposed guidelines, i.e. aid for the environment. This document is unacceptable because of the way it proposes to treat operating aid for renewable energy sources and cogeneration, since it does not recognise the different degree of competitiveness between these renewable energy sources and conventional ones. Neither does it recognise the external costs that are avoided with these types of energy. In addition, it is inconceivable that the Directorate-General for Competition should move to regulate this kind of aid without taking into account the results of negotiations pertaining to the directive we have before us, and at the very least it can be seen as a snub to Parliament. Therefore, I wish to say that both documents need to be dealt with in conjunction with one another.

We consider that, if these guidelines are not modified, the environmental impact they will cause will be highly negative. In the specific case of my country, Spain, these guidelines would be responsible for an additional 225 billion tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere between now and 2010 and for our being unable to meet the Kyoto targets.

The directive on renewable sources of energy represents a belief in the future and an investment in the environment. Investments in the environment are neither cost-free nor do they come into the field of competition.

  McNally (PSE). – Mr President, I congratulate Mrs Rothe.

Renewable energy is by far the largest source of energy currently in use in the world. How else do we see where we are going during the day? More people use firewood than any other fuel. But tonight we are talking of extending the use of renewable energy.

I am going to repeat three of our demands. Clarity is essential as we put forward our point of view to the Council. We want: binding targets, not indicative cut targets; a rational definition of renewable energy – energy from waste, which is to be incinerated anyway, is a good idea. But mixed household waste; old paint brushes, polystyrene packaging and discarded plastic toys are not renewable energy. Another directive is needed for energy from waste, as Mrs Rothe suggests. Thirdly, we want a reasonable and therefore a longer period of certainty in which renewable energy can continue to receive compensation for the external costs to society which its use avoids.

Let me finish with one very startling fact. The United Kingdom could generate four times its power requirements from offshore wind alone – four times its power requirements! Colleagues, this directive makes sense. Commissioner, thank you for your efforts. I hope you will support ours.

  Beysen (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s proposal to create a framework enabling the proportion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the European Union to be considerably increased in the medium term, can only be welcomed. The lengths the rapporteur, Mrs Rothe, has gone to to make Parliament’s stance on this clear, therefore deserve our full recognition. After all, on the one hand, this directive is an important element in the series of measures taken to enable us to honour the commitment the EU entered into in Kyoto regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases and, on the other, it is a praiseworthy attempt to reduce the European Union’s dependence on the oil-producing countries. Under the present circumstances, it must be recognised that the renewable energy sources require some form of financial support, in order to create a level playing field. As I see it though, these subsidies should be no more than reasonable and only payable for a limited period. Needless to say, the controversial issue in this report is that to do with the stipulation of binding target figures. In fact the crux of the report is whether it makes any sense or not to have these binding target figures. I would advocate a realistic approach, an approach based on the knowledge that electricity production from renewable energy sources can never form a substantial element of total energy production. Stipulating realistic target figures can only increase public confidence in the energy policy to be pursued. If the target figures cannot be made binding then we will be creating false expectations, i.e. by pretending to strive for the improvement of the environment without being able to make it a reality. This would be to the detriment both of the environment and of the policy’s credibility in the eyes of the citizens.

Finally, Mr President, I would like to point out, on the subject of municipal waste processing, that if a switch is made to separated municipal waste collection, a switch can also be made to separated municipal waste processing, and the latter must certainly be regarded as a renewable energy source.

  Turmes (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Rothe, what we need is a clear definition of what is renewable. Plastic is not a renewable resource, nor is peat. We run the risk of losing the confidence of Europe’s citizens who want to buy green electricity if we sow confusion by coming up with ridiculous definitions. We need clear national objectives. I do not agree with Mr Beysen; a liberal should be in favour of the fewest possible distortions in the market. If we do not have clear objectives, there will be distortion between those countries which do something to promote renewable energies and those countries which do not do enough.

Let us now turn to the support instruments. The Commissioner agrees with Parliament’s position that it is too early to decide, at this stage, between the two instruments currently in place, i.e. firstly the system of green certificates and secondly the system of guaranteed prices. Since the plea by the Advocate-General before the Court of Luxembourg, there is now less risk of seeing guaranteed prices foiled by state-aid regulations. But there may still be a threat from seeking compatibility with the internal market.

I believe that a politician is someone who needs to anticipate problems. I do not want electricians to cause interference between the two systems and to sow confusion and doubt amongst investors in Europe by short-circuiting and manipulating the system of guaranteed prices. Not only must guaranteed prices be tolerated, they must be protected by the directive. That is what politics is all about: making competition possible between the two instruments by protecting guaranteed prices and harmonising certificate-related issues. Renewable energies is a subject which unites the citizens of Europe at a time when Europe is finding it difficult to get its citizens to support greater integration. I believe that a strong policy on renewable energies is a symbol of the Europe of tomorrow.

  Seppänen (GUE/NGL). – (FI) Mr President, the dependence of the Member States of the Union on imported energy is massive and is growing all the time. Reliance on fossil fuels is reliance on imported energy and the political decisions of foreign powers. Using renewable energy sources will increase the freedom and independence of nations and is in harmony with the principles of ecologically and socially sustainable development.

In preparing the report, a definition of what renewables actually are has been put forward. Without taking a stand on whether peat is a renewable energy resource, it must be able to be used as a fuel in the production of energy, preferably in the combined production of electricity and heat. Peat is important in the Nordic countries, and we must have the opportunity there to burn peat, as it is our own source of energy and it reduces the EU’s dependence on imports. Burning it produces carbon dioxide, but that is produced when fossil fuels are burned anyway. Those countries that burn oil or gas themselves should not prohibit us from burning peat. If we do not, we will burn oil or gas. We are not trying to deceive others into believing that carbon dioxide is reduced by burning peat, but it is our own fuel, while oil and gas are imported goods.

Waste is not a renewable natural resource, although there is more and more of it produced every day. Landfill site gas can be burned, but the volume of waste should not be increased just so that more gas can be burned than before.

  Belder (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, the Commission and the rapporteur are right to formulate long-term objectives for promoting electricity production from renewable energy sources, although what we need is a dynamic approach in these matters.

I also think we should give special attention to the effect that the anticipated competition from the candidate countries will have. They are at an advantage in terms of cost owing to lower labour costs and a lower standard of environmental protection. That could push energy prices down. So the logical step to take would be to increase the financing for the support measures for sustainable energy again.

In the meantime, it is absolutely essential, given the variety of energy sources, to establish a sound definition of sustainable energy. For example, waste incineration must not be called sustainable as a matter of course. After all, this process also releases harmful substances. Hence my amendment to maintain the strict emission standards of Annex 5 of the revised directive for waste incineration. Setting standards on the output side will foster innovation.

Finally, the European countries must demonstrate, via these agreements, that they will contribute to the realisation of the Kyoto objectives. I support this wholeheartedly because climate change poses a threat to the earth’s flora and fauna. Furthermore, it is unacceptable for a select group of rich countries to constantly plunder the resources in God’s creation.

  Kronberger (NI) . – (DE) Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe.

This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia's former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply.

Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.

  Chichester (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Commissioner, we warmly support the draft directive for electricity from renewable energy sources. We see it as building on the work of our colleague, Mr Mombaur, in advocating a greater share of electricity and energy in the European Union from these sources.

Clearly, the issues that divide the House are quite stark: the issue of the definition of renewable energy, for instance. Many of us feel that energy from waste should be included. It is a valuable resource and it certainly renews itself day-by-day, and that should qualify it to be included. It seems a pity to exclude any category which can contribute to the overall achievement of energy from waste – whether it is for small-scale projects or part of the overall calculation.

The key issue, however, that divides us is the question of the binding nature of the targets. We have grave reservations about this being in conflict with the principle of subsidiarity. We think our friends on the Left and the Greens are asking too much in this regard. It could scupper this directive, but we also think it is a matter of practicality. If you aim for these targets, there is a curious range of percentages between 6% and nearly 80% in different Member States. This seems a very curious way of going about it, so we think the Commission is right to aim for indicative targets.

The third point in issue here is the length of support programmes. We favour a shorter period followed by a review, and I would say to my colleague, Mrs McNally, that she paints a pretty picture of windmills in the sea, but I must tell her that the engineering difficulties and the costs involved make that technology, as with electricity from the sun, rather a long way off in the future. But I warmly support this proposal.

  Paasilinna (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Rothe for an excellent report, which revealed much understanding of the situation, We obviously have to support an increase in the use of electricity produced from renewable energy sources. The share should aim to be doubled in the next ten years; it could well be more than that. However, the Union’s dependence on imported energy is growing too fast at present. In twenty or so years’ time it will be as much as 70%. That will create uncertainty in our lives – in the economy as well as other areas. I think we not only need to develop renewable energy sources but a modern energy savings programme to run in parallel with that process, as this dependence is also starting to become a matter of security for us.

Peat grows continuously. The formation of peat by assimilation and the production of organic debris are the same as with other plant biomasses. Instead of a hundred years, as with wood, peat needs thousands of years to regenerate. We need peat especially in the eastern and northern parts of my own country, where all other fuels, apart from wood, have to be brought in from far away.

We do not wish to burn and be dependent just on coal and oil. For us an annual growth limit in peat is quite enough. It is a lot – too much. We Finns regard the forest and the marshes as almost sacred, and we know how to use them in compliance with the principle of sustainable development.

  Caveri (ELDR). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the use of sustainable renewable energy sources must be one of the principle objectives of a modern energy policy in Europe as well, but there must also be obligations and certainties, dictated by common sense, of course.

In this sense, hydroelectric power is important, and it has been both a burden and a blessing for the mountain peoples, for they have had to pay a very high price for their land and have watched local industrialisation processes spring up, associated precisely with the presence of this energy source. Now this resource – renewable energy par excellence – must be fully exploited: without further harm to the environment, of course, and along with the introduction of compensation and repossession mechanisms for the mountain peoples. This directive does, of course, take the desired line in that here, at last, is genuine exploitation of renewable energies.

  Ahern (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Rothe for an excellent report which is very timely this week when we are struggling with the crisis of climate change. Commissioner, we do have a problem: the provision of grid infrastructure to facilitate network access for renewables. There is a risk of renewables being stillborn or strangled at birth by the utilities that have a monopoly, if they can charge huge sums for grid access.

One farmer in my locality with a wind project was quoted over EUR 2 million for a connection and this is clearly a problem that I would like addressed. Also, I would like to inform the Commissioner that Ireland can be competitive in wind energy in a very short time. We believe that we can be competitive given the correct initial support, and those do include grid access.

I would like to inform Mr Chichester that off my own seashore there are already well advanced windmills in the sea, certainly a project that is going to be up-and-running within a short space of time, so I would like to invite him to come and see it when it does get-up-and-running. I am confident that he will appreciate it.

  Alyssandrakis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, increasing the proportion of electricity from renewable energy sources is a good move. The share of renewable energy sources proposed, 22% by 2010, compared with 13.9% now, is particularly ambitious and I am just wondering whether a directive which focuses on the market and makes no provision for parallel measures such as support for research will suffice in order to achieve it.

One very serious question is how to deal with the extra generation costs. The directive talks about support systems, basically a premium paid to companies which operate in this sector, and relies on so-called market mechanisms for the final solution. This basically means that workers will be subsidising both the company's costs and its profits and, of course, this would not happen if the energy generation and distribution industry were a nationalised industry, as we in the Communist Party of Greece insist that it should be, and if it had not been sold off to the private sector on the orders of bid business. We therefore believe that this directive will not achieve its intended purpose.

  Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Rothe for her valuable work in drafting this report. Promoting the use of electricity from renewable energy sources is a very worthwhile endeavour. The EU’s reliance on imported energy will, in any case, rise significantly in the next twenty years. Since, at the same time, the EU has to adhere to the climatic targets set at Kyoto, it is especially important that we invest more and more in research into renewables. I am satisfied that the new directive takes account of the importance of biomass, peat ands other wood-based raw materials, for example.

The debate on renewable energy sources must not become a form of populism against nuclear energy. We have to remember that only nuclear power in conjunction with renewable energy sources will enable the Kyoto Protocol obligations regarding climate to be fulfilled. The controversy over ending the use of nuclear power, for example in Sweden and Germany, has shown that without any visible energy alternatives produced at a competitive price and which are environmentally friendly, the debate is surely lacking something.

The total deregulation of the electricity markets is also one precondition of the increased use of renewables. The artificial barriers to, and restrictions on, trade upheld by the monopolies must be done away with. For example, the cheap energy produced in the Nordic countries in hydroelectric plants is still not freely available to the markets of Central Europe, as the situation stands at present.

  Corbey (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, you will all have heard how Don Quixote used to fight windmills. This fight represents a pointless or impossible struggle against all that we take for granted. Unfortunately, windmills are no longer things we can take for granted, but one of the things we can is the subsidisation of the fossil fuel sector. The fight against these subsidies appeared to be a hopeless task. But this time round, it is a fight for the windmills and that is why it will prove successful.

As social democrats, we feel that sustainable energy must be given a fair crack of the whip. Sustainable energy can contribute to fair distribution between countries. Consumers must be given fair choices. In addition, sustainable energy provides a solid basis for the economy. In other words, the fight for windmills is one where there are no losers. We could not have chosen a better moment for this debate. The climate conference has just started in The Hague. Our objectives in the field of sustainable energy are ambitious, yet still modest in the context of the climate problems we face. We need radical technological adaptation. So what we must not do is start fiddling with the definition of sustainable energy so as to be able to fulfil the objectives with minimum effort. Sustainable energy is often associated with small-scale solutions: solar panels on everyone’s roof and a windmill in every village. That would be marvellous, but sustainable energy also demands large-scale investments. We need commitment from the government if we are to get the funding together. We need a secure market for sustainable energy, because a non-binding approach will not suffice in this case. That is why Member States must have binding objectives. These must be consumption objectives, because sustainable energy may be imported and exported so that each country can use its advantages to optimum effect. In addition, target figures must be set for the production objectives, because that will give each Member State the incentive to exploit their whole potential.

Mr President, on a final note, I would very much like to thank the rapporteur for her worthwhile contribution to this topic.

IN THE CHAIR: MR GERHARD SCHMID
Vice-President

  Pohjamo (ELDR). – (FI) Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent work in connection with this report. A really excellent proposal has been produced, thanks to cooperation. The definition of renewable energy sources approved by the committee is a reasonably successful and all-embracing one. Peat must also be included in it, as many of my colleagues have argued with persuasion here. Increasing the use of renewable energy can reduce dependence on oil and also create jobs in sparsely populated regions. In addition, it is an important means of cutting greenhouse gases in the Community.

I think it is good that we are setting our sights high, but it is most important that we can agree common targets with credibility and, furthermore, with commitment, which is what the rapporteur referred to here earlier on. I think the principle whereby the directive can create a framework for the increased use of renewables in the production of electricity is a good one. Although it will be left to the Member States to decide on the promotional measures to be used and to implement them, we also need increased input from the Union.

  Wijkman (PPE-DE). – Mr President, let there be no doubt a combination of investments in renewables and energy efficiency is the only realistic way for the European Union to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol and reduce our heavy dependence on fossil fuels.

I congratulate the Commissioner for her initiative, as well as Mrs Rothe for her report. I only wish that this directive were part of a coherent long-term energy strategy of the Union. But it is not. Instead, proposals related to energy are submitted one at a time and without much consistency. This is not your fault, Commissioner. It is primarily caused by Member States. We will not be successful in our efforts to transform our energy system in the Union unless we make energy policy – including taxation – part of a common policy. The problem we have with different support systems in the Member States, referred to by Mr Chichester, is but one example of the need for a more common approach in this field.

Finally a word on costs. All new technologies are expensive in the beginning. But experience tells us from almost every possible field that every time demand increases by 100% costs come down by an estimated 10 to 15%. Renewable energy is no exception. I could show you figures and curves here demonstrating that for both wind energy and photovoltaics this mathematical formula applies. Hence, I am optimistic about the future potential for renewables provided the right incentives are put in place.

I wish you all possible success, Commissioner.

  Caudron (PSE). – (FR) Commissioner, our debate has come at an opportune time – as a number of us have said – as it coincides with the Hague Conference on Climate Change. Everybody is now well aware that the risk to humanity is not just an issue for future generations. We are already feeling the negative impact of the greenhouse effect, climatic upheavals, global warming, in short, a whole series of difficulties that are already on our doorstep and call for the adoption of urgent, stringent and firm measures. The good proposal that you have put forward, Commissioner De Palacio – and I should like to pay tribute to your realism as regards energy – and the excellent report by Mrs Rothe are a step in the right direction by promoting renewable energies.

Looking at this issue we see only interests, whether they be in the field of securing supplies, protecting the environment, combating the greenhouse effect or creating jobs. Of course, we must agree to finance environmental protection, and that is also where we see the limitations of the market. Free competition does not solve all the problems and, more especially, it does not settle the fight against the greenhouse effect or against waste. Member States must now accept the proposals that are being put forward. We must vote overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals from Mrs Rothe. I would like to conclude simply by mentioning three problems which have come up time and time again throughout this debate.

The first problem is that of peat, which is an important energy source: in my view, it is not a renewable energy. The second problem is that of household waste: strictly speaking it is not a renewable energy, but one must guard against sending a negative signal as regards the incineration of household waste. Finally, as far as the degree of constraint is concerned, I will simply say – because I do not have any more time – that an objective in itself is never constraining: it is an objective and everything must be done to achieve it. This is what we must do at a European level.

  Rübig (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, I would first like to thank Mrs Rothe for her careful and sensitive work on this subject. I believe that it takes great courage to keep renewable energy in the spotlight in the way she has managed to do. I have just come from an OPEC meeting, and the price of USD 30 for crude oil provides us with an opportunity to make totally new investments in this sector. Particularly in the field of research and development, it is important that, in future, we should pay more attention to renewable energy, and I especially have in mind gas from landfill sites and sewage treatment plants, for which there is a role in this regard.

But I also believe that we should not forget education, because energy efficiency and energy conservation are undeniably important subjects for the future, in just the same way as making use of an efficient infrastructure.

  Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, first of all I should like to congratulate Mrs Rothe on the excellent job she has done with this report and, what is more, on the spirit of consensus she has demonstrated. I am convinced that in all energy-related matters we should be aware that either we improve our sources or we shall leave the planet Earth uninhabitable within a few generations. In my opinion, it is fundamental that we should ensure support for these kinds of energy sources for a considerable period of time, thus allowing our industries to make decisive, long-term investments in this alternative energy. I believe a stable framework for energy from renewable sources needs to be guaranteed within ten years at least; this is a proposal we should all support.

With regard to our targets in this field, we have to listen to the people and go beyond the Commission’s proposal of 21%, which I think is very positive overall, and increase the renewable portion of the total electricity produced. Furthermore, for the sake of coherence, the targets I have mentioned when converted into national parameters must be binding or else the directive will lack content and substance. Indeed it is fundamental that they should be binding to demonstrate that in environmental matters, too, the European Union takes its international obligations seriously.

Lastly, I am aware that all this is easy to criticise and difficult to carry out, but if we do not act immediately, within a few generations we shall be in deep water, and that will lead us to disaster. So let us act together and leave an inhabitable world for our children.

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mrs Rothe on the magnificent work she has carried out, as well as all the Members who have spoken and who have, on many occasions, tabled amendments to the text proposed to Parliament and the Council.

This Commission proposal is being presented in circumstances which, while in many ways may be negative for many aspects of our economies and our lives, I believe are positive in terms of this particular initiative. A dramatic increase in the price of oil without doubt starkly highlights the problems relating to our dependence on energy from fossil fuels.

The strategic objective of the directive is to create a stable framework to enable the significant development, in the medium term, of electricity generated from renewable energy sources within the European Union, green electricity, and to provide access to it for the internal electricity market. However, it must be done in that order. Firstly, we must increase the production of green electricity and then we must deal with issues relating to the market.

This proposal offers a certain degree of legislative certainty and, at the same time, it respects the principle of subsidiarity, by providing the Member States with the degree of autonomy necessary to take account of their specific circumstances until such time as we can see, according to the way events progress, which is the best way to promote the installation of electricity sources.

I would like to thank Mrs Rothe for her support for these principles and all the speakers who have also shown such support.

As you know, the Commission intends shortly to adopt a Green Paper on the availability of energy supply and compliance with the Kyoto objectives and the commitments made there by the European Union. We believe that these are two fundamental aspects, of different types but equally important. The European Union, which flies the flag in the fight against climate change and in the reduction of emissions, must not be the first to fail to comply with its own objectives and its own commitments.

As a second issue, the availability of supply is a key element in guaranteeing economic development, the well-being of our countries and of the Union as a whole. In this Green Paper, we must talk about the role to be played by the various sources of energy. Firstly, energy saving. I would like to stress this – as some speakers have done – but I would also like to say that it is not a question of opposing any particular energy source or waging a war against it in favour of another. One of the key pillars in relation to compliance with Kyoto and for the future of the Union’s energy is the development and increase of the use of renewable energies.

In today’s document, the Commission intends to make it clear that the introduction of renewable energy sources does not currently enjoy the same facilities that other sources of energy had in their day, for example nuclear energy, coal and even oil, to mention but a few.

Aid for renewable energy sources is justifiable also because conventional energy sources do not pay in any significant way for some of the external costs generated by their use. Furthermore, renewable energy sources are a factor in the availability of supply, and we therefore have an enormous potential for production within the European Union.

With regard to the amendments that have been tabled, please let me tell you that their number is simply extraordinary and this demonstrates Parliament’s great interest in this issue. They also show that there are differing opinions on the best way to promote this type of electricity. Nevertheless, we all agree that in Europe we must speed up and intensify the production of this type of energy and that this requires effort.

In our fight to create a strong and dynamic green electricity market, the first thing we have to do is listen, so that we can learn from each other. I have noticed that there are two trends of opinion, with opposing approaches, on this issue. The first stresses the rapid introduction of market forces, while the second underlines the need to establish transitional periods and active public aid.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its proposal the Commission is trying to retain the best elements of these two approaches with the aim of producing a balanced text, but I must also make it very clear that a priority objective at the moment is the promotion and development of renewable energy. Therefore, issues concerning the market are of secondary importance. They are an objective which must not be forgotten but they are not the priority objective of this initiative, which is fundamentally the development and increased use of renewable energy sources.

Amendments Nos 1, 2, 8, 20 and 21 highlight the need for a policy favourable to green electricity and its many advantages and can be immediately accepted by the Commission. For the same reason we can accept Amendment No 3, in part, but not Amendment No 7, which is too technical to be included in the text of the proposal.

As for Amendment No 5, I am happy to tell you that, given the importance of this issue, the Commission is studying the possibility of presenting a new directive on biofuels generated from renewable energy sources, specifically from biomass, from agricultural products, which will simplify some of the problems which have been raised. When we start to talk about the targets for electricity generated from renewable energy sources, we first must agree on what we understand by renewable energy sources. This is of fundamental importance in order to lay the foundations for the future market and some of you have already mentioned this matter. This means that we can, to a large extent, follow the definition presented by the European Parliament in its Amendment No 27 but, when we talk about extending the use of biomass – even though, it could perhaps be accepted as it is presented – in no circumstance can it be accepted in relation to domestic waste. In the majority of cases that is not renewable energy.

Neither can the Commission accept peat, since it is clearly a fossil fuel, although it is generated more quickly, but it is fossil nonetheless. As I have said, we cannot take advantage of biomass in the case of unpolluted woods and we support Amendment No 24.

The reference to waste, with no other classification, as a source of renewable energy – as I said a moment ago – is inadequate and contrary to the policy of management of solid waste. The Commission rejects this part of Amendment No 27, Amendments Nos 11, 54, 55, 61 and Amendment No 57, which are all related to it.

The Commission also believes that all electricity generated from renewable energy sources and used in hybrid power plants must be considered as green electricity and not only that to be used as reserve power. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment No 28. The annex to the Commission’s proposal includes the indicative targets with regard to the national level of consumption of green electricity necessary for achieving the total quota of 22.1% for the whole of the European Union by 2010, in accordance with the objectives laid down in the White Paper of 1997.

In this context, I must point out two issues. Firstly, the importance of the targets being indicative. Ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to suggest mandatory targets but we have to be realistic and, although I regret this, I cannot, at this time, accept this suggestion that you have made, because it would be automatically rejected by the Member States.

This is the first time in a Union directive that national targets of this type are being considered. These are not obligations which must be fulfilled but national targets. Of course, we are giving this possibility our consideration but, in principle, because of the negotiations with the other party, that is, the Council, I cannot accept these amendments although I understand their approach and I have enormous sympathy for them. Therefore, I repeat that article 3(4) is of key importance. When the report which must be produced on compliance and the development of renewable energy in the various countries indicates that a certain country is clearly failing to comply with those targets, proposals will be made to Parliament and the Council to correct the situation. Those would evidently be mandatory targets for that State, so that it complies with them, so that in this way it complies with these targets, which are targets and not obligations.

The task we are taking on by means of this directive must be based on transparent measures, which increase confidence, but this process would probably never take off if we impose binding targets in its text. Some States do not even wish to accept the indicative targets, so there is no way they would accept targets if they were binding.

With regard to the calculation, our calculation of 22.1%, instead of the 23.5% established in 1997, is a response to issues of credibility. The figures we are presenting here are not arbitrary or mere whims but are instead a response to the real situation as we find it. For this reason, we cannot support the amendments which propose legally binding targets – the creation of the committee or the target of 23.5% – and therefore we must reject for the time being Amendments Nos 6, 9, 12, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 50, 51, 52, 67 and 68.

In relation to the support systems, this is the second group of amendments where the Commission considered it premature to propose a harmonised support system, but stated that, if necessary, it will present a proposal of this type in accordance with certain principles. It considers that many of the amendments proposed by Parliament strengthen the Commission’s pragmatic approach and, at the same time, clarify, improve and complement it. We therefore support Amendments Nos 36 and 56 and also certain aspects of Amendments Nos 4, 15 and 62, relating to the idea of internalising external costs and compensating for external costs which are not covered in favour of renewable energy sources.

However, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot accept the parts which prejudice the application of rules on state aid. Neither can we accept the part of Amendment No 37 which demands that the future harmonised support system satisfies the need for the internalisation of external costs, since this could only be done through fiscal harmonisation which exceeds the scope of the future proposal in this respect.

On the other hand, we could accept Amendments Nos 10 and 59, which state that investment aid to large hydroelectric plants would only be possible in the event that they contribute to improving the environment. Any other situation would prevent me from including large hydroelectric plants within the aid to green electricity. Large hydroelectric plants, in principle, are broadly viable in themselves and have very high environmental costs.

Amendment No 53 would mean excluding all competitive forms of renewable energy from the subsidies and other advantages and, therefore, the Commission cannot accept its wording.

With regard to the principles on which the future harmonised support system must be based, the Commission can accept the parts of Amendments Nos 37 and 38 which stipulate that such a system must take account of the environmental objectives of the Treaty, the experience acquired with the support systems, which have proven to be effective and positive, as well as geographical conditions. However, the Commission cannot accept parts of Amendments Nos 37 and 38 and Amendment No 39, insofar as they prejudge the type of system which must be applied or they require that there should be no distortion to the biomass market. For the same reason, we reject Amendment No 23.

The Commission can accept the need for the current support systems in the transitional systems already considered in article 4(d) of its proposal. However, while doing so, the Commission is very conscious that the terms used should not prejudice its right of initiative and must not be incompatible with the single market for electricity. The Commission can accept part of the combined Amendments Nos 17 and 18, insofar as this transitional period of ten years relates to maintaining the confidence of investors and not to the continuation of the support systems as such.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is good reason to feel optimistic. As some of you have just pointed out, wind energy is very close to becoming competitive, but we have to continue providing genuine support for the development of renewable energy. Others of you have referred to the fact that this support is going to create more demand, greater technological development and, therefore, greater competitiveness, and that is what we are putting our faith in. When the time comes, further down the line, we will have to gradually incorporate the market aspects which – as I have said – make up the second phase, since the first phase is to generate a sufficient quantity of renewable energy. Nevertheless, for reasons that I mentioned earlier, the Commission rejects Amendments Nos 13, 32, 40, 41, 63 and 64.

With regard to the amendments concerning market forces and competition, the Commission can accept the relevant parts of Amendments Nos 17 and 18 and Amendment No 22, which stress the need to create a market in ecological electricity, but rejects Amendment No 19, which demands harmonisation of national support systems. We must provide a broad definition of a support system and therefore cannot accept Amendments Nos 16 and 19.

With regard to technical measures and the guarantee of origin of ecological electricity, we cannot, unfortunately, support amendments seeking to extend this guarantee to all types of electricity or to electricity from third countries, since that exceeds the scope of the proposal. We reject Amendments Nos 14, 42, 43 and 44 and Amendment No 58, which seeks to achieve cross-border trading in electricity certificates. That is premature at this stage and cannot be accepted at the moment.

We cannot accept Amendment No 45, which would weaken the proposal by forcing Member States to revise the legal framework and nor can we accept Amendment No 46. We cannot accept Amendments Nos 26, 47 and 60 or Amendment No 65, which impose binding rules on the distribution of connection costs and other network costs at a European level.

In relation to Amendments Nos 48, 49 and 66, the Commission can accept that, when the time comes, the national targets for green electricity for 2010-2020 should be indicated, but cannot accept those parts of the amendments which could prejudice the application of the rules of competition law in the field of State aid.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry that I have spoken at such length but I believe that the debate warrants this degree of attention. I would like, once again, to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Rothe, and all of you for your work, and reiterate the absolute need for us, once and for all, to give real impetus to the use of renewable energy in the European Union. That is what we intend to do by means of this initiative.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.