Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-285"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20031217.9.3-285"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph