Procedure : 2013/2079(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0430/2013

Texts tabled :

A7-0430/2013

Debates :

PV 13/01/2014 - 17
CRE 13/01/2014 - 17

Votes :

PV 14/01/2014 - 5.9

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2014)0009

REPORT     
PDF 212kDOC 100k
4 December 2013
PE 516.832v02-00 A7-0430/2013

on implementation report 2013: developing and applying carbon capture and storage technology in Europe

(2013/2079(INI))

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Rapporteur: Chris Davies

Rapporteur for the opinion (*):

Vicky Ford, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

(*) Associated committee – Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure

AMENDMENTS
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (*)
 RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on implementation report 2013: developing and applying carbon capture and storage technology in Europe

(2013/2079(INI))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (the CCS Directive)(1),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 27 March 2013 on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe (COM(2013)0180),

–  having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 27 March 2013 entitled ‘A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies’ (COM(2013)0169),

–  having regard to the EU climate and energy package of December 2008,

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2012 on a Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050(2),

–  having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0430/2013),

A.  whereas Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a promising technology that may be the only means of achieving significant CO2 reductions from industrial sources and has the potential to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants, yet requires investment and industrial-scale demonstration to promote innovation, secure cost reductions, and confirm its environmental safety;

B.  whereas the International Energy Agency predicts that fossil fuels will continue to provide 75 % of the global energy mix by 2030, suggests that CCS is necessary to deliver almost 20 % of the CO2 reductions needed by 2050, and claims that if CCS is not deployed, an additional 40 % in electricity investment will be needed to prevent a temperature rise in excess of 2°C;

C.  whereas CCS is the only technology able to provide significant CO2 reductions from major industrial sectors including steel, cement, and chemicals and oil refineries, and in conjunction with the use of biomass for electricity generation has the potential to promote a net reduction in CO2 emissions;

D.  whereas based on current usage levels of fossil fuels and future projections for the use of the same, CCS would seem to be essential to achieving the target of keeping the rise in global temperatures below 2°C;

E.  whereas the development of CCS should be regarded as a strategy that is complementary to the development of renewables in the transition to a low-carbon economy;

F.  whereas in 2007 EU heads of government aspired to have up to 12 CCS demonstration plants in operation by 2015, but as their financial viability depended on there being a high carbon price these ambitions cannot now be realised;

G.  whereas development of this technology should not serve as an incentive to increase the share of fossil fuel power plants;

H.  whereas the EU is losing its technological lead in CCS and – with only one project still being considered for NER300 funding, and European Energy Programme for Recovery projects having been terminated or suspended – now has no effective policy to promote development of CCS flagship projects;

I.  whereas the general public should always receive a full and clear picture of the advantages of and possible threats from CCS before any projects are developed at commercial scale;

Raising ambitions

1.  Recognises that CCS deployment has the potential to allow the EU to meet its 2050 low-carbon aspirations at least cost and that it is necessary in particular for decarbonising high CO2 emitting industries; believes that it may also contribute to the diversity and security of energy supplies while maintaining and creating employment opportunities; affirms the urgent need to develop a range of full-chain CCS flagship projects so as to identify the best and economically most advantageous solutions, and calls on the Commission to set goals for the achievement of this objective; appreciates that, given the substantial investment required, instruments in addition to the EU emissions trading system (ETS) are needed to foster research and the technical and safe application of CCS;

2.  Believes that although CCS might offer part of the solution to reach the goals for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, it would be even better if the Member States could reach these goals without the use of CCS;

3.  Calls on the Commission to encourage CCS deployment not only in connection with coal and gas power generation but also in a range of industrial sectors such as chemicals, metallurgy, iron and steel, cement and refineries; insists that the Commission should address the issue of CCS deployment within the 2030 climate and energy framework, and should bring forward proposals for promoting the early construction of CCS flagship projects;

4.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt far-reaching measures to foster international cooperation and to promote the use of technologies for mitigating the effects of climate change, in order to point expanding economies in the direction of developmental alternatives including, for example, CCS, which are less carbon intensive;

5.  Believes that the Steel Action Plan should make specific reference to the need to develop CCS flagship projects within this sector;

Leading role of Member States

6.  Recognises that CCS deployment cannot take place without support from Member States and private investors, and that the former have an absolute and sovereign right to encourage or prevent its application; notes that while certain Member States have indicated that they do not expect CCS to play a role in their emissions reduction strategies, this should not to deter initiatives by those who consider that technology can play an effective role in their transition to a low-carbon economy;

7.  Reminds the Commission that Parliament has called for legislation to require every Member State to produce a 2050 low-carbon strategy; suggests that these national roadmaps should be updated at five-yearly intervals; expects them to indicate whether and how CCS is to be deployed by the Member States concerned;

8.  Calls on the Commission to propose that Member States should be required to prepare and publish national low-carbon roadmaps prior to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in 2015;

9.  Emphasises that, in the absence of a high carbon price, Member States that wish to promote deployment of CCS have the key role to play in providing a transparent revenue stream and such other financial support as may be necessary to secure the construction and operation of flagship projects, while enabling operators who face high first-mover costs to secure a return on their investment; notes that appropriate regulatory arrangements may also be required if CCS is to be deployed on a commercial basis; recognises the necessity of environmental safety standards being met;

EU regulation and funding

10.  Calls on the Commission to consider creating an EU industrial innovation investment fund to support the development of innovative climate-friendly technologies including CCS flagship projects, other innovative low-carbon technologies, and measures to reduce CO2 emissions from energy-intensive industries and their processes; suggests that this could be financed from the sale of allowances from the EU ETS; underlines that this should not lead to a new demand on the EU budget; recognises that in framing the parameters for the use of such a fund, account should be taken of experience gained from the limitations and inflexibility of the NER300 funding mechanism;

11.  Believes that CCS policies and strategies should only be framed on the basis of sound evidence of the positive impact that they will have on the environment, on the stability of EU industry, on employment in the EU and on the affordability of energy prices for the public and for industry;

12.  Believes that longer-term CCS support should be derived principally from an appropriate CO2 price signal, but suggests that any interim financial support required from Member States or the EU would best be derived from the production and import of the fossil fuels mainly responsible for CO2 emissions; suggests that the Commission should facilitate debate on possible options by carrying out an analysis of systems requiring the purchase of CCS certificates proving the CO2 emissions avoided, through storage or treatment, in proportion to the CO2 embedded within the fossil fuels placed on the market;

13.  Requests that the Commission prepare guidelines for Member States with regard to the various financial and other mechanisms which they could deploy to support and incentivise CCS development, and to access support funds from within the EU budget;

14.  Notes the decision of the European Investment Bank to prohibit lending for the construction of coal power plants that would emit more than 550g CO2/kWh; emphasises that without the financial support to develop CCS, the introduction of stringent emissions performance standards will be essential;

15.  Suggests that the Commission should consider how use could be made of the EU Coal and Steel Research Fund to support CCS pre-commercial demonstration in these industrial sectors;

16.  Appreciates the encouragement given by the Norwegian Government to CCS projects within the EU and expresses the wish that in negotiating the next programming period a request be made for funding support for CCS flagship projects;

17.  Requests that the Commission assess the benefits of adopting and developing the Ciuden CCS pilot project in Spain, which has received some EUR 100 million in support funding from EU sources, as a European test facility for capture technologies and inland CO2 storage;

Transport and storage sites

18.  Acknowledges that significant financial savings can be made by establishing CCS clusters of industrial installations served by shared pipelines or other CO2 transport systems; suggests that plant operators cannot generally be expected to take into account the future requirements of other installations, and that major investments such as trunk pipelines intended eventually to carry CO2 from multiple sources could be developed through public-private sector partnerships; emphasises that Member States seeking the deployment of CCS may have a direct role to play in ensuring the provision of CCS transport and determining the availability of storage infrastructure;

19.  Calls for closer cooperation with the United States and Canada in the form of an exchange of expertise and good practices in the light of CCS activities undertaken in the context of the US-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue;

20.  Insists that new low-carbon technologies should be regarded as complementary and not as being in competition with one another; stresses the fact that both renewable and CCS have roles to play in the future EU energy mix and that the latter should not be to the detriment of achieving the EU’s mandatory renewables development target; calls for measures to promote the use of both technologies to be proposed within the 2030 climate and energy framework;

21.  Notes that Europe’s geology may provide an abundance of potential sites for the permanent sequestration of large quantities of CO2, not least below the North Sea far from human habitation; supports EU measures and funding to establish a common definition of a storage site’s character, identify appropriate storage locations across Europe, develop pilot projects, and prepare sites for commercial-scale storage on the territory of supportive Member States;

22.  Calls on the Commission to promote the production of a European atlas of potential CO2 storage sites;

23.  Recognises that Article 6 of the London Protocol has been amended so that it no longer needs to provide a barrier to the cross-border transportation of CO2 for sequestration; notes, however, that ratification of this change could take many years; calls on the Commission to clarify whether there are circumstances in which it will permit the cross-border transfer of CO2 prior to ratification of the Protocol;

Storage liabilities

24.  Notes the concern of some potential CCS developers that the requirements and liabilities placed upon them for the geological storage of CO2 in sites approved by Member States are unquantifiable and excessive; recalls, however, the rules on responsibility for the storage of CO2 laid down in the Directive on the geological storage of CO2 (the CCS Directive) and the obligations incumbent upon holders of a storage permit;

25.  Fully accepts that any accidental release of CO2 from a storage site must be prevented and the environmental integrity of the project protected in accordance with Article 1 of the CCS Directive; calls on the Commission to offer guidance regarding the degree to which the details of compliance arrangements should be determined in advance through negotiation between potential operators and the competent authorities of the Member States concerned;

26.  Points out that the CCS Directive gives Member States wide flexibility to determine the financial security to be provided by CCS operators and the period before which responsibility for a closed storage site is transferred to the competent authority; suggests that Member States that seek to promote CCS development will have to play a more entrepreneurial role and accept a greater share of the responsibilities than presently understood;

27.  Calls on the Commission to revise its CCS Directive guidance documents to clarify these points;

28.  Suggests that the CCS Directive requirement that in the event of CO2 leakage operators must surrender allowances does not take into account the costly remedial efforts required; fears that this obligation puts a further obstacle in the way of CCS development; calls on the Commission to propose a revision in its assessment of the CCS Directive;

Capture and storage-ready status

29.  Insists that it is no longer acceptable to invest in power plants or industrial installations likely to emit large quantities of CO2 without regard to how this will be reduced in future;

30.  Highlights that, according to a Eurobarometer survey, the European population remains largely unaware of CCS but that those who are informed are more likely to support it; Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve communication in order to raise public awareness of CCS, and believes that a wider understanding of CCS is crucial to public acceptance, and thus to the delivery, of CCS;

31.  Notes that Member States are permitted to evaluate in different ways the provisions of the CCS Directive requiring an assessment of capture, transport and storage capability to be made prior to the granting of operating licences for power plants;

32.  Calls on the Commission to suggest that it can be a condition – in the Member States that have decided to make use of CCS technology – of construction that adequate preparations for the implementation of CCS, or of other measures to reduce CO2 emissions significantly, be made for all new fossil fuel power plants and high-emission industrial installations above an agreed size, except in the case of electricity demand peak shavers or when a Member State has complied with a legislative requirement to publish a roadmap indicating how it will meet its 2050 CO2 reduction goals without the use of CCS;

33.  Asks the Commission to analyse and submit a report on the level of CCS which would need to be deployed by certain key dates, for example 2030, in order for CCS to make a significant contribution to 2050 emissions reduction targets;

Carbon capture and use

34.  Welcomes the various initiatives to make use of CO2 in ways that reduce overall emissions into the atmosphere and create alternative products such as sustainable transport fuels; calls in particular for the Commission to assess urgently the potential for the secure use of CO2 to enhance oil and gas recovery within the EU;

o

o    o

35.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1)

  OJ L140, 5.6.2009, p. 114.

(2)

  OJ C 251 E, 31.8.2013, p. 75.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Five years ago hopes were high that that the European Union was set to become the world leader in carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment. The European Council had not only embraced the idea of having up to 12 CCS demonstration projects in operation by 2015 but had endorsed a proposal from the European Parliament for a funding mechanism (NER300) that seemed likely to provide sufficient public sector support to ensure delivery.

All this was for the good. If global CO2 emissions are to be dramatically reduced by 2050 at lowest cost then deployment of CCS technology will be essential. It is needed to curb emissions from major industrial installations and can make possible some continued use of fossils fuels with much reduced global warming consequences.

Sadly, there is little to show for this initial enthusiasm. Thirteen significant projects in six countries were amongst the initial applicants for the first phase of NER300 funding but most ended up being withdrawn or failed to meet the stringent, and inflexible, requirements that had been set. In the second phase only one project (UK - ‘White Rose’) is in the running but it is far from certain that the requirements of the Member State and the requirements of the Commission will match up sufficiently to allow a commitment to be made. Meanwhile, the majority of the €1 billion made available for CCS pilot projects in 2009 through the European Economic Recovery Programme remains unspent and will not be reallocated.

CO2 separation and capture technology has been available since the 1930s. CO2 transport by pipeline is commonplace across the world. The security of CO2 underground storage has been demonstrated, not least at Sleipner where Norway has since 1996 been injecting 1m tonnes of CO2 per annum into rock deep beneath the North Sea without any sign of its unexpected movement.

Study after study shows that CCS will be cheaper per tonne of CO2 avoided than offshore wind and solar power, so why has the technology not been embraced with more enthusiasm?

The greatest reason by far is that neither the European Union nor its Member States have created a business model that promotes private investment. While developers of renewable energy have received cash subsidies courtesy of electricity users, CCS promotion has depended almost entirely upon carbon allowances being priced so high that investors would seek an alternative to buying them by ensuring that CO2 emissions were avoided. The value of the NER300 funding mechanism has also depended directly upon the carbon price, the collapse of which has therefore represented a double blow to hopes of CCS deployment.

No doubt a carbon price of €60-70 per tonne would greatly reduce the need for renewable subsidies and stimulate CCS investment but it is unlikely to be realised for many years to come. An alternative approach is needed. Your rapporteur outlines in this report the direction it could take and the measures that will be necessary.

He emphasises that the political and financial support of Member States will be essential if CCS is to be developed. While no Member State need adopt the technology against its will he challenges any assumption that EU governments all know how they will achieve their 2050 CO2 reduction goals, or have appreciated the part that CCS might play. In part for this reason he emphasises that EU legislation should require every Member State to publish an indicative strategy that explains how they will achieve the 2050 target.

Not everything can be left to the private sector. Member States that do appreciate the potential of CCS should be prepared to play an active role in bringing about its development. They will need to provide financial mechanisms such as feed-in tariffs of the same order as that paid to support renewable energy. They may need to assist in the construction of a pipeline network and help identify and prepare storage sites. They may need to take a lead in persuading a sceptical public that CO2 storage poses less risk than many other industrial activities. They will have to accept a share of the financial liability in case problems do occur at a storage site that they have themselves approved.

Although Member States should play a lead role it has always been accepted that the EU collectively should be playing a part in stimulating CCS development and ensuring that knowledge is shared for the benefit of all. As things stand the EU no longer has in place an effective policy for doing this.

Your rapporteur proposes that an EU target should be agreed to concentrate minds and encourage use of some of the limited existing funds that may be available to achieve the objective. He argues that we simply have to support development of a range of CCS flagship projects if innovation is to be promoted, costs reduced, and the technology to become accepted as a viable option. He proposes a modest goal of having sufficient CCS projects in operation or under construction by 2020 to enable the annual storage of 10m tonnes of CO2. This is one fifth of the global target for the year suggested by the International Energy Agency.

An additional source of funding will be required in the short term. Your rapporteur advocates the creation of an industrial innovation fund from the sale of carbon allowances. The resources could be available not only to support CCS but also to develop innovative renewable energy projects and means of reducing CO2 emissions from energy intensive industries.

The European Commission expects CCS to be viable on a stand-alone basis by 2035, but in the post-2020 pre-commercialisation stage your rapporteur believes that the source of financial support should be the fossil fuels from which CO2 emissions stem. He recommends the creation of a CCS certificates scheme along the lines of the UK’s ‘Renewables Obligation’ or the Swedish/Norwegian certificates scheme. He recommends that the obligation to hold a number of CCS certificates should apply specifically to the producers and importers of fossil fuels.

If financial support is not made available for CCS then the alternative would be to take a regulatory approach. Your rapporteur prefers to avoid introduction of strict emission performance standards, but he accepts that they may come to have a part to play.

The European Parliament gained credit in 2008 for having proposed a financial mechanism to support CCS that secured the support of the Council and the Commission. Your rapporteur hopes that MEPs can once again take the initiative, and that in this report the Parliament will propose the means of ensuring the application of a technology that has a key role to play in combating the threat from global warming.


OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (*) (6.11.2013)

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

on implementation report 2013: Developing and applying carbon capture and storage technology in Europe

(2013/2079(INI))

Rapporteur (*): Vicky Ford

(*)  Associated committee – Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

A.  whereas carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the only large-scale and demonstrable technology currently available to take carbon dioxide from combustion of fossil fuels to produce low-carbon electricity;

B.  whereas in the power sector there are alternatives to fossil fuels, in several industrial sectors – such as the chemical, steel, refinery and cement industries – deep emission reductions can only be achieved through CCS; the development of industrial CCS is therefore a priority;

C.  whereas the future of coal in Europe should be based on a stable development strategy, given that coal remains vital to the EU economy; whereas the challenge for the EU’s post-2030 energy mix is to provide opportunities for steady economic growth while maintaining the Member States’ energy security and the rapid development of new energy technologies, including coal technologies;

D.  whereas the policies adopted in the field of combating climate change have not had the expected effect and, in many cases, have led to the relocation of industry within the EU and to an increase in electricity prices, thereby contributing to a reduction in the competitiveness of the European economy and to poverty among the European public;

E.  whereas climate change can only successfully be combated if specific measures are implemented worldwide;

1.  Believes that CCS might enable Member States to exploit their carbon-based energy supplies in a demand-responsive manner, thus also contributing to diversity, security of energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reductions, while also maintaining industrial jobs and creating new specialist jobs in the EU; points out, meanwhile, that any increase in fossil fuel usage in the energy sector must go hand in hand with the deployment of CCS including incentives for investment;

2.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt far-reaching measures to foster international cooperation and to promote the use of technologies for mitigating the effects of climate change, in order to point expanding economies in the direction of developmental alternatives including, for example, CCS, which are less carbon intensive;

3.  Recalls that fossil fuels will continue to represent most of the energy mix in the decades to come (75 % in 2030 according to the International Energy Agency (IEA)), which makes CCS a valuable technology to be explored;

4.  Underlines that the IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 points out that the additional electricity investment needs which are required for a maximum two degree rise in global temperatures would increase by a further 40 % if CCS is not available;

5.  Notes that failing to include CCS within a long-term energy strategy will severely hamper national, Union and global efforts to address climate change;

6.  Believes that CCS policies and strategies should only be framed on the basis of sound evidence of the positive impact that they will have on the environment, on the stability of EU industry, on employment in the EU and on the affordability of energy prices for the public and for industry;

7.  Believes that new low-carbon technologies should not be regarded as being in competition but rather as complementary to each other in order to achieve Europe’s long-term decarbonisation goals; stresses that both renewables and CCS have an important role to play in the future EU energy mix; calls, therefore, for both renewables and CCS to have tailored mechanisms to provide investment certainty in the upcoming 2030 package on EU energy and climate change policies, in line with Article 194(2) TFEU, in order to create a level playing field and ensure fair competition amongst different low-carbon energy technologies;

8.  Believes that supporting initial projects, learning lessons and sharing knowledge are a prerequisite for developing details of longer-term measures to support CCS/carbon capture utilisation (CCU) and may result in reduced costs of CCS/CCU deployment; calls, therefore, for continued international collaboration between industry, including innovative SMEs, and institutions in order to ensure that best practices are applied; recalls, at the same time, the challenges of the different stages of research and development (R&D) and in bringing new technologies to the markets and to this end, believes that instruments for supporting projects at EU level should be strengthened so that they can genuinely stimulate business involvement in collaboration with research centres;

9.  Calls for closer cooperation with the United States and Canada in the form of an exchange of expertise and good practices in the light of CCS activities undertaken in the context of the US-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue;

10.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to address the main regulatory, financial and social barriers to the deployment of CCS, such as the granting of permits and funding, the establishment of a CCS skills base and the development and testing of technologies for effective capture, transport and storage;

11.  Believes that incentives and policy measures should target both CCS demonstration as well as subsequent longer-term operational projects and must provide greater certainty for private sector investment; believes, furthermore, that incentives and measures should be split efficiently both within the power-generation sector and CCS within industrial production processes;

12.  Believes that in order to render CCS economically viable and environmentally sustainable, carbon capture and storage demonstration projects should aim at developing site-related strategies for carbon capture and usage (CCU) to achieve a self-contained CO2 cycle, and calls on the Commission and Member States to foster research and technical development activities in corresponding technology field;

13.  Considers that the established methods for supporting demonstration projects using the NER300 financing instrument have failed to deliver an attractive business case for long-term private sector investment in CCS, and that the capital expenditure and, above all, operating costs required for this type of technology are still too high;

14.   Notwithstanding the ongoing debate on long-term structural reform of the ETS, calls on the Commission and Member States to come forward with other, dedicated policy measures and a more flexible financial model that will deliver the first operational CCS projects in the EU by 2020;

15.  Believes that support at EU level should, inter alia, be continued through the CCS European Industrial Initiative and Horizon 2010;

16.  Highlights that, according to a Eurobarometer survey, the European population remains largely unaware of CCS but that those who are informed are more likely to support it; Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve communication in order to raise public awareness of CCS, and believes that a wider understanding of CCS is crucial to public acceptance, and thus to the delivery, of CCS;

17.  Is concerned that Article 6 of the London Protocol will hinder the cross-border transportation of waste from CCS and subsequently limit its potential in Member States with no identifiable storage sites; calls, therefore, on the contracting parties to find a solution, such as ratifying the 2009 amendment to Article 6, in order to ensure that it does not become a barrier to CCS deployment;

18.  Asks the Commission to analyse and submit a report on the level of CCS which would need to be deployed by certain key dates, for example 2030, in order for CCS to make a significant contribution to 2050 emissions reduction targets;

19.  Believes that, in accordance with sustainable development principles, we should support not only the capture and storage of carbon, but also research and innovate with regard to the use of CO2;

20.  Calls on Member States to ensure that they have a deeper understanding of the potential for CCS in industrial applications, using emissions, technology and cost projections so that industrial CCS is given prominence in short- and medium-term policy decisions;

21.  Recognises that planning remains a competence at the level of the Member State and calls on the Commission, as well as Member States and local governments, to map more widely and in a more consistent manner CCS opportunities in high-emitting industrial sites, which will significantly aid in the taking of infrastructure and storage decisions; believes that these sites could form hubs and benefit from shared infrastructure opportunities.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

5.11.2013

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

39

5

1

Members present for the final vote

Josefa Andrés Barea, Jean-Pierre Audy, Ivo Belet, Bendt Bendtsen, Jan Březina, Maria Da Graça Carvalho, Giles Chichester, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Christian Ehler, Vicky Ford, Adam Gierek, Norbert Glante, Fiona Hall, Jacky Hénin, Edit Herczog, Kent Johansson, Romana Jordan, Krišjānis Kariņš, Lena Kolarska-Bobińska, Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Jaroslav Paška, Aldo Patriciello, Vittorio Prodi, Miloslav Ransdorf, Jens Rohde, Paul Rübig, Amalia Sartori, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Francisco Sosa Wagner, Konrad Szymański, Britta Thomsen, Evžen Tošenovský, Catherine Trautmann, Claude Turmes, Vladimir Urutchev

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Jerzy Buzek, Ioan Enciu, Andrzej Grzyb, Roger Helmer, Seán Kelly, Bernd Lange, Zofija Mazej Kukovič, Franck Proust, Algirdas Saudargas

Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

Nikos Chrysogelos


RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

27.11.2013

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

51

12

1

Members present for the final vote

Elena Oana Antonescu, Pilar Ayuso, Paolo Bartolozzi, Sandrine Bélier, Sergio Berlato, Lajos Bokros, Franco Bonanini, Biljana Borzan, Yves Cochet, Spyros Danellis, Chris Davies, Bas Eickhout, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Dan Jørgensen, Karin Kadenbach, Martin Kastler, Holger Krahmer, Corinne Lepage, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Linda McAvan, Miroslav Ouzký, Gilles Pargneaux, Andrés Perelló Rodríguez, Pavel Poc, Frédérique Ries, Anna Rosbach, Oreste Rossi, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Kārlis Šadurskis, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, Theodoros Skylakakis, Bogusław Sonik, Dubravka Šuica, Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu, Salvatore Tatarella, Thomas Ulmer, Glenis Willmott, Sabine Wils, Marina Yannakoudakis

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Erik Bánki, Gaston Franco, Julie Girling, Eduard-Raul Hellvig, Georgios Koumoutsakos, Marusya Lyubcheva, Judith A. Merkies, Miroslav Mikolášik, James Nicholson, Alojz Peterle, Vittorio Prodi, Marita Ulvskog, Vladimir Urutchev, Anna Záborská, Andrea Zanoni

Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

Esther de Lange

Last updated: 7 January 2014Legal notice