Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-02-Speech-1-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090202.16.1-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, this has been a really fascinating debate and has reflected all the diversity of views on energy and the importance that this issue deserves. But I believe that the debate definitely shows that the rapporteur has struck the right balance. It is true that each of us sees the detail differently. There are no simple solutions, no silver bullets to solve this.
I believe we are here taking the first step towards European public funds supporting this type of development. This could be the biggest difficulty, but I believe the Council will work hard really to approve of our proposal because I believe it is balanced, if not ideal for every Member State.
On Nabucco, our preferred option is definitely transit via Turkey. We are working now, we have started the intergovernmental conference with a view to concluding it in March with an intergovernmental agreement and a project support agreement. That should give enough legal and regulatory clarity for investing in the Nabucco pipeline. If it fails, we will look for alternatives. So there are alternatives, but Turkey is our priority route and I think it is beneficial for Turkey as well.
As for gas storage, we are considering this, but 90 days should not be necessary for everyone, because it very much depends on imports. If a country produces gas it does not need the same level of storage, so there should be a more fine-tuned proportion that gives enough security of supply and is realistic enough in case of crisis. So we are still looking at what the fine-tuning of the gas storage proposal could look like.
Again I would like to thank you for this debate. It was a very tough debate, but I believe that all elements are there and we just need to continue to work very vigorously to implement the ones that we have agreed on and the proposals that have been agreed in this House. Again I would like to thank Parliament for its strong support for developing a European energy policy.
Again I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for really going through the process of ensuring that all opinions are reflected in the report, while at the same time clearly supporting the Commission’s second strategic energy review.
A lot of you spoke about the supergrid. Supergrid is the tool that was seen as a magical solution. Well, it is true that it has a lot of potential, but with a grid we have a challenge. Somebody needs to pay for the grid, and, as you know, we are looking for a balance between affordability, security of supply and sustainability. So, if we really want to move towards this supergrid, the recovery plan is the first small step in the right direction.
The recovery plan can lead to a vicious circle where we say: ‘Well, we need this, we need that, but it should be done by industry’. Yes, we do also encourage industry with different types of incentives, but if the public funds and European funds will not follow in accordance with our political priorities, then the plan will not be successful.
Then there are other issues that I would also emphasise, echoing what Mr Paparizov said. On the third internal market package, I would just say what it does for Europe. First of all there is the agency for cooperation of European regulators. That will solve a lot of issues. Second, a European body for transmission system operators. These two issues are crucially related to security of supply, while at the same time not taking away national sovereignty over energy.
So if this package is adopted now, we will achieve a lot of momentum. If it is postponed, we will lose a lot of momentum for security of supply. So, in my opinion, the recovery plan and the third energy package is something that needs to be done.
The last questions are usually the ones I remember the best, so I will briefly respond to them, because they relate very clearly to the issues that we discussed. What is the Council discussing? I think there are basically two issues.
One is whether we should give public funds to energy at all. Well, a minority of countries still believes that it is good that the funding should come from industry, but this brings the problem that it is hard for industry to move on very costly projects where returns are uncertain.
The second issue is ‘a fair return for my country’. Well, I could point out that my country is not specifically covered by this recovery plan, so it is good that there were a lot of questions on this. I explained that any interconnection with the Baltic as a whole helps my country as well. So this issue is still looked at very much from a national perspective: ‘my fair return’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples