11 Trans-European Energy Networks
| (27700)
11452/06
COM(06) 381
| Commission Opinion laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks (TEN-e) and repealing Decisions No. 96/391/EC and No. 1229/2003/EC.
|
| Legal base | Article 156 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 6 July 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 19 July 2006
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 27 July 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnotes 23 and 25
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not applicable
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
11.1 Article 154 of the EC Treaty requires the Community to contribute
to the creation and development of transnational infrastructure
networks (TENs) for energy, transport and telecommunications in
order to help achieve the objectives of the internal market and
the strengthening of economic and social cohesion. Articles 155
and 156 require the Community to establish, and the Council to
adopt, guidelines for the objectives and priorities of TENs and
to identify projects of common interest. It gives the Community
power to support projects of common interest through feasibility
studies, loan guarantees and subsidies. The present guidelines
for the energy TENs are contained in Decisions No. 96/391/EC and
1229/2003/EC, and the current EU budget for such projects is about
€20 million
a year.
11.2 In December 2003, the Commission put forward
a draft Decision[23]
setting out proposed new guidelines for gas and electricity TENs
and repealing the Decisions which contain the present guidelines.
In particular, it distinguished between three types of projects
for energy networks — "projects of common interest";
"priority projects", which would have priority for financial
support from the TENs energy programme; and "projects of
European interest", which would have a significant impact
on cross-border transmission capacity — and it also made
provision for the Commission to designate European Coordinators,
each responsible for one or more priority projects.
11.3 When the previous Committee considered this
in March 2004, it concluded that the proposed three-tier classification
of projects was over-elaborate, and it shared the doubts expressed
by the Government about the need for project Coordinators. It
therefore decided to keep the document under scrutiny, and asked
the Government to keep it informed of the progress of the negotiations
and, in particular, of the response to the concerns which had
been identified.
11.4 In June 2004, the Council reached a "general
approach"[24] on
a revised text which omitted the articles which had provided for
Projects of European Interest and for the designation of Coordinators.
This was followed in June 2005 by an amended Commission proposal,[25]
which, following negotiations with the European Parliament, had
incorporated only some minor amendments to the text the Council
agreed in June 2004. Since we were told that this text was acceptable
to the Government, we decided at our meeting on 13 July 2005 to
clear it (and the original document, which it had superseded).
The current document
11.5 This document sets out the Commission's Opinion
on the amendments proposed at the European Parliament's Second
Reading of the draft Decision on 4 April 2006, which apparently
reflect a compromise package agreed between the Parliament and
the Council. The Commission has accepted all of these amendments,
including those which re-introduce a designation of Projects of
European Interest for those with a very significant cross-border
dimension, and the designation of a European Co-ordinator for
each project.
The Government's view
11.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 27 July 2006,
the Minister of State for Energy at the Department of Trade and
Industry (Malcolm Wicks) simply says that the UK —
which broadly supports the development of Trans-European Networks
—
agrees with this compromise package of amendments.
Conclusion
11.7 Since our clearance of the original documents
on this subject was explicitly linked to the earlier provisions
on Projects of European Interest and the designation of European
Coordinators having been omitted, we find it strange that the
Government should now have agreed to a document which re-instates
these, particularly as it had itself earlier expressed reservations
on these aspects on the proposal. We are all the more surprised
that it should have done so without offering any justification
for this change in approach, and we would be glad if the Minister
could now provide an explanation. In the meantime, we will continue
to hold this latest document under scrutiny.
23 (25366) 6218/04; see HC 42-xvi (2003-04), para 3
(31 March 2004) and HC 34-ii (2005-06), para 13 (13 July 2005). Back
24
An agreement on the text before its submission to the European
Parliament. Back
25
(26651) 10010/05; see HC 34-ii (2005-06), para 13
(13 July 2005). Back
| 
