Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
ITRE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsYvan Verougstraete
Thank you very much to the two rapporteurs. You were brave enough to tell the truth. Mister Nika, thanks very much for that. Indeed, the competitiveness fund's ambition isn't at the level of the challenges that we face, and we need to recognize that. And based on that, we need to do the least harm possible, or be as efficient as possible with the resources we have.
I think there will be some frustration, but we need to maintain what's essential and be consistent. Thanks very much to both of you, Mr. Ella and Mr. Nicka, for the draft report. In general, I support most of the recommendations that you've made, although I should underscore a couple of points of concern, and there are a couple of points missing on Horizon.
I think that the amendments between Horizon and the competitiveness fund are headed in the right direction, with the introduction of the Pathways actions. I think that's clear and extremely useful. We have to support innovative companies throughout the development process. And then on governance, I appreciate the role of the stakeholders and the scientific committee's contribution, but we're still missing some kind of coordination tool that the commission clearly doesn't intend to place on the table. So I would table an amendment in terms of improving coordination and synergy between the programs within the committee.
That coordination of competitiveness would make it possible to establish investment priorities in the competitiveness fund in accordance with clear criteria to ensure added European value for all of our expenses. Now on climate, I think that we should recall that competitiveness, that doesn't contribute to our climate goals, isn't good, and we've seen that with the fossil fuel crisis. So I think it's important to strengthen the elements in the text, maintaining the application of the performance regulation there, particularly do no significant harm. That forms the minimum of our environmental and climate ambitions. Finally, I'd like to strengthen the eligibility criteria.
They need to be simple. Taxpayers' money needs to support innovation and development of companies that are based in Europe. It shouldn't fill the pockets of competitors. Otherwise, we'll be saying goodbye to our independence. And so I would table the amendments to strengthen those provisions in the text.
Thanks very much for all the work done, and I look forward to continuing the work together. Thanks.
Benedetta Scuderi
Yes. Thank you so much, sir. I also wanted to thank the co-rapporteurs for the work they are doing and all the Shadow for the work with it we will be doing together. And as the co-reporters and many of us have pointed out, this is gonna be a big challenge. It's a big file.
This is very complex, and it's gonna be a big challenge for European competitiveness. I will speak in Italian. So now I'll switch. So, colleagues,
As Greens, we'd like to see the competitiveness fund as a real strategic tool that can support industrial resilience, social equality, and environmental transition. Based on the scant resources available, we need to support key policies. And in this regard, the definition of competitiveness is important. It can't be reduced to production or speed, but it should include sustainability, resilience, work quality, and independence from external shocks. It should include social and environmental aspects that form part of the European competitiveness. And in this framework, we'd also like to strengthen strategic autonomy, promote climate neutrality, support social progress, and guarantee democratic and efficient control.
In that regard, as Greens, we propose solid environmental social guarantees, a budget framework that's clearer and with greater control by parliament. So we need a clearer structure. Our governance needs to be transparent, of course, and that's where our amendments are focused. We need full responsibility with a fund structure that's clearer and able to ensure democratic control. The financial structure needs to be clearer, distinguishing between guarantees, financial instruments, subsidies, and public tenders, and we need to understand what's used and where the money should be placed.
In that context, Invest EU is very important. The fund needs to be socially credible, with stronger social conditions to allow for the development of competencies and to strengthen the workforce. At the same time, of course, as recalled by other shadows, it needs to be fully consistent with the environmental priorities to facilitate a genuinely inclusive transition. Also, we need to support and safeguard the life program, particularly when it comes to biodiversity and climate resilience. On the digital side of things, digital autonomy is very clear, is clearly important.
We need to control infrastructure, data, and technological infrastructure. Furthermore, we need to protect all of our SMEs. That's very important. And that's what we want to do. We want to support them, and we want ad hoc financing for these SMEs because they form part of the main economic fabric of our countries.
We're happy to work together to build a competitiveness fund that really is at the service of Europe's industries and SMEs, and above all, the citizens of Europe. Thank you.
Marc Botenga
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you as well to our two reporters for their very interesting draft. From our perspective, obviously, I mean, this fund indeed offers an opportunity. We agree, but this is not new. I mean, it's not new if you look at previous industrial proposals on the discrepancy between formal ambition and practical means and money. And this is why indeed we need to make choices. I'm very happy with the idea that we introduced a definition of competitiveness.
Although we might have some debates on how we exactly define competitiveness. But in any case, for us, it will be important, and I've seen the rapporteurs have included this, that we have this focus on strategic infrastructure. I've seen it's been put in for digital, it's been put in for energy, and this is really essential. We could put it in for a number of other sectors. The fundamental dimension of public infrastructure cannot be overstated in our view, because without this, there will be no competitiveness, definitely not on the longer term.
Secondly, if we look at choices that need to be made, we do believe that a shift towards these central sectors, these core sectors, and less defense, less military can help us to make the necessary choices. Regarding governance, we appreciate the concern and we share the concern on the concentration of power in the hands of the commission, not just through the governance mechanisms, but also through the excessive flexibility, which takes away certainty, which takes away guarantees, which makes it more difficult for smaller actors to actually plan and to actually have access to support from this fund. So we fully share this. I'm more skeptical of the DARPA idea. I would like to see it in other sectors.
I would like to see it in the pharmaceutical sector. I would like to see it in other dimensions as well. As I always say, rather than speak about DARPA, although I know we now have a different translation for it, we could try to have it as a BARDA-inspired approach. Regarding the funding, the kind of funding, I also think we need to look at a number of financial instruments and ways of funding in the proposal now that carry big risks. I'm thinking about the de-risking without playing with words.
I'm thinking about the lack of conditionalities, the lack of transparency, and the lack in the end of guarantees that the money and the support that is being made available will also yield the results we need. We have in the past had a lot of issues with the leverage effect, not creating the actual leverage that we wanted, not creating the private investment that we claimed we needed. And the last point, I think we also need to look at social rights, not just from a perspective of reskilling or upskilling, but seeing what social conditionalities, what employment, and what local production we can actually favor and foster through these proposals, and we will be putting amendments in that sense. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now we've got the CAT DI procedure, and I've got the three purse, the three MEPs, four. So first, Missus Elizabeta Gualmini.
Elisabetta Gualmini
Thank you. I'm here. Soléqua. Thank you, chair. Actually, I've got two questions.
The first one is that, of course, we are all very happy about the competitiveness fund, and the expectations are very high. The financial resource is not so high at all, but you know, and the two questions, the first one, I think that what is lacking is a kind of urban innovation window because we know that the competitiveness and innovation often comes bottom up. So is there a possibility to introduce, I'm not talking about social housing, which is another kind of field. I'm talking about the local ecosystems and the territorial innovation starting from the cities. Is there anything about it?
Or can we talk about it? The second question is about the small and medium-sized enterprises, of course. I do think that also the ECF is very much based on big companies. And so we really have to detail a little bit more. And this approach, one fits all, is not suitable to many countries in order to promote competitiveness.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. And Lina?
Lina Gálvez
So, thank you. Thank you very much. We welcome the effort in this report by the rapporteur to term the European Competition Fund into a practical instrument rather than a political label. Specifically, I support the inclusion of a clear definition of competitiveness, one that is anchored in productivity and the ability of our industry to thrive globally while delivering quality jobs here at home. I also appreciate a better link with Horizon Europe than the ones that were in the commission proposal.
However, to make this one truly effective, I would like to address three strategic pillars. First is the innovation to industry pathway. As the report suggests, we must bridge the gap between scientific excellence and industrial application. The European Competition Fund must empower European companies to scale up and retain value creation within the Union rather than losing our best innovations to global competitors. Second, a coherent social framework.
While we focus on digital leadership and critical raw materials, we must remember the skills are not a secondary objective. They are the backbone of this fund. We need a workforce capable of adapting to change, ensuring that this industrial transformation is also inclusive among regions. And finally, I will not be me if I do not mention gender equality. Women remain underrepresented in clean and deep tech sectors, as well as defense space.
And I would therefore like to see a clear mechanism within this fund to support women-led innovation, taking into account that we are 10 million more women within the European Union. And in many countries, we are 60% of people with university degrees or 50% with PhDs. So, if we are really seriously talking about competitiveness, we really need to talk seriously about equality as well. Thank you.
Matthias Ecke
Thank you, chair. Thank the rapporteur for really improving what the commission has proposed here in the ECF. I would like to raise two points on the digital window. One is on semiconductors. I welcome the restructuring of the digital window, connectivity to the public infrastructure, and also technology infrastructure and agile leadership.
But with regards to semiconductors, see a risk of a gap when it comes to funding under the ECF. The draft report covers semiconductors under the tech infrastructure window, as well as photonics under the Agile Digital Leadership window. But what is missing is, in a draft report, also in the commission proposal, the production phase itself. So I think that we should make sure with amendments that the development and expansion of semiconductor production until the ECF is eligible for funding. And the second one is software infrastructure because much like roads and rail or services, they serve as infrastructure, like invisible software components are the bedrock of our digital economy, like programming libraries, open standards, developer tools.
They are essential for innovation and competition. These are open source components and digital commons that are often developed in a decentralized manner, and they suffer from structural underinvestment and fragmented support mechanisms. And I think that we should take the example of what happens in Germany with the sovereign tech fund, and put it on a European level. So I propose we have did in the digital windows, a sovereign tech fund with little money, a lot of success, and the European Digital Infrastructure Consortium can also serve as an implementing mechanism. I will propose amendments in that direction.
Thank you.
Thank.
Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez
You, president. Thank you, chair. In the case of the vast country, I welcome the ECF in this geopolitical context that we're living in. This has to do with the creation of an innovative European ecosystem. It's very likely that we will have amendments that will reinforce the position of the Basque country and 18 other European regions that are applying for this financing, for sufficient financing that's based on excellency and impact.
These are strategic impacts that improve competitiveness and resilience and sovereignty within Europe that mobilizes private investment. These are necessary to facilitate the access and the attractiveness of emerging companies, so that they can expand them. There is a connection between Horizon Europe, and, of course, it includes a governance model that is inclusive among the member states and the regions that need to be protagonists in the background. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now, we've got the time for our opinion-giving committees. And I've got a long list from the side. Do we have, is with us, Rio Terraz? Yeah.
The floor is yours.
Riho Terras
Thank you, chair, and dear rapporteurs. First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their work on this draft report. The European Competitiveness Fund will be the main instrument to finance defense under the next MFF. As a rapporteur for the CD opinion, I am happy to report that we have delivered our opinion with a very strong majority, and I sincerely hope that our priorities will be taken on board in the next committee. The HR draft report focuses on high-risk innovation, defense research.
This is needed and this is indeed an important priority, as we cannot afford to fall behind on key technologies. But we must not forget to also focus on capability-driven research and development. We should address both immediate capability gaps, as well as future technological superiority. We did both under the European Defence Fund, and we should continue doing both in the future. It is important to understand that closing existing capability gaps, as well as bolstering our production capacities, act as the deterrents in themselves.
Since industrial capacities are not created overnight, we need to act now in order to increase our defense readiness. As we can already fund dual use research under Horizon Europe, we should do purely defense related research under the ESF and not limit ourselves to only dual use. A very important priority that we introduced in the SEDA opinion is the concept of the war reserve, which is an emergency flexibility mechanism to transfer funds from the other policy areas into defense if a member state is attacked and the mutual defense clause in article 42.7 is triggered. I look forward to collaborating with you in order to include the priorities of said opinion in the compare compromise text to a lead committee. Thank you very much.
Ilia Lazarov
Thank you, chair. I will speak in Bulgarian. I'm here.
In keeping with the post-27 MFF interim report and following a joint push by all political groups in SANT to ensure that the budget previously allocated to the standalone EU4 health program is fully reflected within the European Competitiveness Fund. The SANT opinion integrates union health financing into the fund as the de facto successor framework to the EU for health. Within the health, biotechnology, agriculture and bioeconomy window, the opinion secures an earmark of 10.05 for health-related priorities, of which €2,500,000,000 for cancer and €400,000,000 for Hera investments. In addition to that, it reinforces the industrial competitiveness of the union's health and life-science sectors. That is EUR 5,500,000,000 earmarked for industrial competitiveness in the health sector, with a strong focus on innovation, EU-based manufacturing, and resilient supply chains.
Complementary ring fencing is present in the digital leadership window, with a minimum of €2,000,000,000 for digital health and in the resilience and security, defense industry and space window, with at least €2,000,000,000 for military health and health preparedness underpinning the development of dual use medical countermeasures and strategic health infrastructure. Biotechnology is also recognized as a key enabler. The opinion introduces a dedicated health biotech sub-objective and targeted support for scaling up biotech-based medicinal products, medical devices, diagnostics and countermeasures, inclusive of advanced therapies and new biomanufacturing capacities, as well as support for nonmedical biotechnology and bio-based innovations in the wider bioeconomy, thereby linking the consolidation of EU for health resources in the ECF to the broader ITRIA agenda on strategic technologies, industrial leadership, and technological sovereignty. Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much, dear colleagues. Thank you for the draft report and for the presentation. We look forward to constructive cooperation from the side of the Budget Committee. And let me highlight a few points. First of all, we strengthened the revenue provisions to protect the ECF budget.
Second, we welcome the performance regulation as a horizontal and simplifying framework for the MFF files, streamlined performance indicators, monitoring and evaluation will be key for sound financial management and for ensuring value for union money. Third, we support your ambition on the ECF InvestEU instrument minimum size. Given the significant investment needs in the strategic sectors, this is essential. InvestEU has already proven its value in leveraging limited public resources and mobilizing private investments. However, strong financial instruments must go hand in hand with strong governance.
Here, there is room for improvement. We are leaving a lot of power in the hands of the investment committee. Strengthened governance will be essential for protecting union interests and credible budgetary decision-making and parliamentarian oversight. We, therefore, propose clearer rules on transparency, impartiality, selection based on market experience, and on the absence of conflicts of interest in the investment committee in line with the Invest EU regulation. At the same time, the ECF must remain guided by the principle of excellence.
In a context of geopolitical tension and economic pressure, funding must go to high-quality projects that deliver measurable results for Europe's competitiveness. On implementing partners, we support a targeted expansion of the open architecture while reintroducing a dedicated share of the EU guarantee for the EIB Group. Finally, we highlight that the proposal consolidates existing programs, which risks reducing transparency and accountability and limits parliament's ability to ensure funding for specific policy objects. Flexibility matters, but so does democratic oversight. Thank you very much.
Look forward to cooperating.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now, again, but in a different role, Iana on behalf of Cont Committee. Yana Nagreva.
Jana Nagyová
Yes. Thank you, chair. Now I'm speaking I have heard of miss being mister Knoatech, as a rapporteur on the Cont Committee. So let me begin to inform you that the opinion was adopted on 04/15/2026. As endorsed by the com conference of president, Kont amendment should be incorporated into all MFF reports with the aim of ensuring a consistent parliamentary parliament position on scrutiny and control, as well as facilitating design of discharge friendly MFF programs.
Main point which Kant brings in its opinion are as follows. First, strengthening transparency, accountability, and sound financial management, while respecting the need for flexibility and speed inherent in competitiveness-oriented instruments. Second, ensuring the full application of OLAF, European Court Auditors, and the European public prosecutor's office competencies across all implementation modes of the ECF. Third, guaranteeing the adequate geographical balance while focusing technical assistance on less experienced entities. Fourth, reinforcing safeguards against double funding, and enhancing traceability of the union funds.
Fifth, clarifying that simplification measures must not undermine transparency or accountability. Sixth, as regard financing not linked to the cost, ensuring robust justification and clear methodologies for setting and verifying milestones and targets. Let me conclude by reassuring that mister Knoedek remains available to further discuss all aspects of the con opinion. Thank you very much.
Danuše Nerudová
Thank you, chair. Dear colleagues, thank you to the co-reporters for their excellent work on the draft. Our opinion was actually adopted only yesterday, so it's still very fresh. So let me list very quickly our main priorities. For econ, it is important that the governance chapter of the ECF is further developed, in particular, inspiration from Invest EU.
The parliament needs to have its say, and European Investment Bank needs to preserve its role in Invest EU. We are also supportive of increasing the overall ECF envelope for private actors. But at the same time, we want clearer definitions of these actors, and we have the definitions for start-ups, scale-ups, less experienced applicants, and first-time applicants. For the first time and less experienced applicants, we have introduced a new chapter on competitiveness across Europe with monitoring and supporting measures, including technical assistance. We would also like to strengthen the SME dimensions throughout the text of the Commission.
We have now a horizontal window. We also do not want to discriminate against projects supporting low- and zero-carbon solutions. There is a clear reference to these projects, as well as the renewables and nuclear. We additionally would like that the decarbonization chapter concentrates on just transition activities. We also want to avoid unnecessary administrative burden, which is why references to the performance regulation have been removed from the text.
Finally, the social and housing window is reinstated but financed by the EU facility instrument, aligning with the ITRA report. Hope we will have a fruitful discussion with the corruptors and achieve a text that will take on board all these issues. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And from the AMPL committee, I don't see the representative. Okay. So, Nenvi Steinbosse.
Stine Bosse
Thank you. Again, dear colleagues, thank you for your presentation and for the draft report. On behalf of Envi, I will highlight the key elements of the opinion, which was passed yesterday. I would also like to thank all groups involved for a very constructive cooperation during negotiations. First of all, we strengthened the ambition on the clean transition throughout the ECF window.
We recognize the role of decarbonization as a strategic tool for boosting industrial competitiveness and for reducing strategic dependencies. This is reflected in our definition of competitiveness, which sees the clean transition and economic resilience as a precondition for long-term competitiveness. Here, we do see a clear room for improvement in the ITER draft definition. Secondly, we strengthened and integrated Life activities into the ECF, in line with the MFF interim report. This includes a dedicated budget of 3,390,000,000 and clear governance provisions.
We also widened the definition of life actions, adding wordings on the link between competitiveness, the environment and the clean transition. On this point, we do not see the MFF interim report reflected in the Itra draft. With no standalone life program in the next MFF, we have to insist on strong wordings and high numbers of ring-fencing for life actions. We believe that language from our report should be used as a basis for this. Lastly, we introduced a clear and simple reference to the do no significant harm principle, in line with the performance regulation, while respecting the sector-specific adaptations and exemptions as laid out in that regulation.
This will be a key point for our committee. For the sake of our environment, but also for the sake of simplicity, for businesses across MFF files, and in the end, for future proofing our economy. Thank you very much. We look forward to cooperating.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And do we have with us Imco? I can't see. So Reggie Dan Barna from the Reggie Committee.
Dan Barna
Thank you, chair. First of all, I want to thank both co-rapporteurs, Mister Ehler, and Mister Nika for their draft report. This morning, the Reggie Committee adopted its opinion on the European Competitiveness Fund. Our opinion emphasizes that geographical balance is a fundamental pillar of European resilience. The ECF must reflect this by supporting economic operators across all EU regions, with a particular focus on less developed and transitional regions.
We believe that excellence and geographical balance should be treated as essential criteria in evaluation of project proposal. For the competitiveness fund to succeed, it must ensure meaningful synergy with the local, regional, and national development plans. This alignment is vital to stimulate regional growth without inadvertently widening existing disparities. Furthermore, in today's geopolitical climate, we must recognize that a secure and resilient Europe depends on a strong eastern border. As highlighted by the European Commission, this region should be a priority for all European programs, including DCF.
To this end, the Region opinion advocates for the prioritizing of economic consortia that include partners from the eastern border regions. I look forward to a productive collaboration with the reporters and the shadow reporters from your committee. I am confident that together, we will secure a robust and effective position for the European Parliament. Thank you very much.
Thank.
Carlo Fidanza
Thank you, chair. I will speak in Italian. Thank.
thank you very much. I would like to thank you, the rapporteurs, as well the co-rapporteurs. And, in agri, we voted with a huge majority report that concerns, of course, the agricultural sector. It was a major majority indeed in favor of that. The critical nature of all of this, the necessity to get rid of explicit references to agriculture and bioeconomy, that's not simplification.
That's a political approach that reflects a political approach. So indeed, it will have consequences of a financial nature and others as well. We need consistency, and we need to take into consideration the political significance of this. Now the agro-elementary sector is one that we cannot put aside. It is something that is part of the entire construct that keeps it up.
It's food security, above all. So we have to understand that this is part of European sovereignty, and it is a key element of the value chain as well overall. The idea of prosperity is something which isn't vague. It has to be very clear in nature. We have to have clear criteria, priority as concerns resources as well.
And we have to have a situation which is not one of complexity and inconsistency. The new technology has to be taken into consideration on this particular front as well, the management of natural resources, genetic technology, and so forth. We want to make sure that we move forward effectively using the resources in the most optimal fashion. Agri food has to be managed with a very delicate, precise fashion, using the funds effectively and all that's out there for resilience, for robustness, for clarity, again, for political consistency as well. We have to defend this sector.
It's a responsibility of a fundamental nature that we cannot forget. Thank you.
Borys Budka
And before I give the floor to our two reporters, it's time for the Director General in DGROW, Mrs. Kirsten Jorna, for two minutes, for your remarks.
Kerstin Jorna
Thank you very much, chair, and thank you very much, the apertures and honorable members. Thank you for the opportunity to attend this debate on the draft reports. And from your discussion, I'd like to pick up 5 points. The first point is the connection between the competitiveness fund and Horizon. We propose to tightly link these two in order to support a seamless investment journey from research to the market.
And this connection critically depends on a strong dedicated research and development component of FP10 to be included in the ECF work programs with the necessary firepower, common priorities, and feedback loops. The more we weaken this link, the more we will lose this single investment journey. My second point is on SMEs and support for SMEs, not only in getting the money, but also in developing their projects. And many of you cited simplification, which is indeed a core value of our proposal. Horizontal activities are important for that as they help to develop project pipelines, support SMEs and skills, and accessibility of the ECF funding throughout the union.
In this context, we take note of additions proposed in the draft report with regard to the task of the EU for the business network. I would like to stress that it's important to equip the ECF with the adequate funding to deliver on these expectations. My third point is on the ECF and the Invest EU instrument. We appreciate that the key role of the ECF Invest EU instrument was also recognized in the report. And as Mr.
Draghi stated in his report, faced with huge investment needs, no public money alone will do the trick. We need to be able to leverage also private money. My fourth point is on the EU preference. Many of you mentioned that. This is a reaction to a changing and challenging geopolitical context, and we it's important to reduce our strategic dependencies.
Our proposal was carefully calibrated and also based on the experience, in line with the financial regulation. My fifth point, finally, is about ring-fencing or what, Mr. Ehle, you called flexibility versus predictability. I would like to say that the more we ring fence, and there were a lot of proposals on ring fencing certain parts and certain windows for certain policies or certain geographies, that will, if there's too much of the ring fencing, we will not be able to address the risks as they emerge in the future and where maybe we do not know yet where we will have to use our EU budget to make good, to increase the resilience for our economy and our economic actors. I will stop here for today, and I look forward to our future exchanges.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now our co-reporters. So first, Christian, and then Dan.
Christian Ehler
Thank you very much. I then reporters pretend to declare the eternal truth. I would like to reflect a little bit questions we have to answer. We heard the director general, but, I mean, the question to answer in this program is, what is the proportionality division between grant, so industry policy instrument of whatever kind, and all the additional fees for funding for other issues and the derisking instrument. I think the derisking instrument had been a very proven instrument and has a very high leverage.
Whereas on the grant-based instrument, we have to have a closer look at dedication, at concentration, at clear definitions. Then I would like to reflect a little bit on what the committees have been saying, although it's just a short time. On defense, I think we all agree that this is not just an opinion of the defense committee. We had been going through a process of EDAP, EDA. We have EDA.
We have the EDF. We have the SAFE program. So in a way, I think that the defense pillar should reflect that. I mean, shouldn't we invent the world for you? And let's be honest, also, do understand the pleas from Missus Yonah on flexibility, but in practical terms, the member states won't let us play a role in defense if we have 100% flexibility.
So it could be basically on an annual basis that we are not spending money on multi-annual programs. So that is not reflecting reality. And commission, for example, on space, on the last ministerial conference had been promising anything else already because we talk about multi-annual satellite projects. So, I mean, 100% flexibility on that on the third year, on the third satellite, I mean, not very likely. Then on, but I want to reassure the defense committee that we thoroughly consider to take all that in the report.
On econ, obviously, we have to talk about the role and the scope of InvestEU. There, would like to reflect a little bit that we are a little bit in between Econ and Budge. So in a way, I mean, we can withdraw ourselves to procedural decisions who is in charge of something, but we have to have a clear definition of what is the scope of Investio, what are third parties, and so on. Same of the whole question of governance, and also the question of budget. You have seen that we had been enforcing, let's say, in the range of the suggestions of the commission, the budget of the investee.
Then on Envy, I mean, on the green transition that we had been adding to the competitive definition, we think it's plausible. But yet again, at the given point, the rapporteurs had been very reluctant, although under pressure by their own groups, to ring-fencing practically everything which is in interest. That's the privilege of the opinion committee, but we have to say that we have to see in the end what we are going to do. Ring-fencing is one issue. Proportionality of the budget is another issue because, I mean, we plead for more money.
My experience in 23 years in budget negotiations, it's never more money. It's usually less money. On the Regi Committee, we listened carefully to the geographical balance, but yet again, a simplistic approach on that in percentage and so is not going to fly. So we have to look what is instrumental would also mean that in the NRP's discussion of the other Regi Committee, we would take up, for example, the seal of excellence financing and things like that because we had been creating that, but it was never practically used then from this member states. In principle terms on open questions, I think we should be aware, and it doesn't make sense to give to do the black and white game.
As it is with many proposals, as we learned from the net zero act, it's a work in progress. So we are also willing to interact with the commission. I mean, we have a lot of commissioners sitting on their feet who are praising the proposal in principle, but then having small addition in practical terms to negotiation in real terms had been already beginning. But what we should be all aware is this won't be strengthen our position if we expect that with a given 110,000,000,000, that seems to be realistically the scope of that, We come can promise everything to everyone because that will be then exactly the point where the member states, specifically the net zero payers, are going to say, we're not going to finance a Christmas tree. So the more dedication, the more focus, the clearer the intervention logic, the stronger is our position.
And I just would warn us that if you now muscle up every committee, every part of the commission informally, even member states muscling up with figures where we do know that we are not going to hit the figures, success of the negotiations will be somehow compared to the expectations which had been raised relatively low. So I think we have to get our things together. The two arbiters are really willing to look closely at all what the opinion committees had been saying and contributing. We know of that importance because we need a concise approach. And I would like to avoid, and I say that openly here, and it also addresses the parliament because we'd like to address the commission with its failures.
I would like to address also the parliament if that ends in an amendment battle in the plenary. This is not our role in these severe times. Our role is that we make the commission proposal concise, that we care about the budget, but it is with a clear intervention logic and a clear intention really to strengthen the competitiveness of Europe because that is what people are expecting. That is actually what the economy is expecting. That's the single much beyond the actual funding.
It's the psychological signal that we did understand that the competitiveness of the European economies is under threat and that we have a dedicated, well funded, and plausible instrument to do that and to leverage private investment because that might be the most important issue, at all. And so I have a lot of sympathy on derisking instruments because the leverage usually on the markets might be the highest, and the fight on the allocation of grants might be plausible, might be, to some 100%, understandable. But in terms of leverage, we have to find a smart balance between grant-based program and the derisking program. Thank you very much.
Thank you. And Dan?
Dan Nica
Thank you, chair. Thank you so much to the 11 rapporteurs for the 11 giving committees, giving an opinion. The number is unprecedented. I can't remember, although I'm very new in the European parliament, I can't remember when we had 11 rapporteurs from 11 giving committees. But thank you so much for the work. That is a very strong signal that there are big expectations from the European Covenantiveness Fund.
Secondly, I'd like to say many thanks to our members of the European Parliament because we expect to have between 10,015 amendments to the European Cohesion Fund. Figure on my name. I don't say that my people, they are happy because they have to deal with between 10 and 15,000 amendments because deadline is Monday. So we don't know yet what will be the final figure. So, just some brief comments.
It was a question about the medicine. Yes. We did introduce it because I said we changed a lot the structure of the European Community Health Fund, and we have a dedicated line for innovative medicine and for the new breakthrough technologies on the health equipment. Number two, ES, DARPA. DARPA, we had a hearing with the professor Philippa Guillaume, the Nobel Prize laureate for economics, and he said, guys, I don't know you cannot do miracles.
You are far away from Draghi request €800,000,000,000 per year, and you can barely provide the €20,000,000,000 for the next seven years for the industry and related energy activities. But at least do something smart. And we ask, professor, tell us. Tell me. What do you think we can do?
Do DARPA. DARPA is the only instrument, EU DARPA. EU DARPA is the only instrument which can bring money fast for the breakthrough technologies, and that is to be the right answer, and we did that. I would ramp up production. Somebody few of the committees, they ask about ramp up productions.
Yes. We do have the ramp up productions and we'll have to ramp up production. What is missing for our strategic needs and for our critical purpose, critical survivor of the European Union economy? On the semiconductor, Matthias asked about the semiconductor. Yes.
You have a point. I'm not saying that it is perfect. That's why we are waiting for the amendments, because we try to do our best with very limited resources. And a short answer, if I may, to the commission. I'm sorry, the missus general director, because you could attend our hearings in the working group.
We had 4 hearings. But I think your people, they were there. And I think they reported to you about many of the issues being raised by the stakeholders and the questions from the members of the parliament. Yes. I understand the issue with the flexibility, and we try to accommodate the need of the commission to distribute the money according to their own ideas and initiatives.
But we thought that it will be a little bit too hard to put all the pressure under your shoulders to distribute €264,000,000,000. This is why we reduced it to 16. And if it's too much, maybe we can convince the other reporters to reduce it to €10,000,000,000 in order to be sure that all the money they'll be allocated according to the priorities. And, also, I have to say that, we are it's not in your advantage as a commission because each and every time you ask the parliament to give you the possibility to, for the flex either enable the flexibility to be able to adopt the pieces of legislation to the delegated acts. We did that several times.
And when you count how many times you did that, the last figure was 4,500 delegated acts. On budgetary issues, it's unacceptable to have any measures without the approval of the European parliament. And the same is true of the international agreements and edge in every single important piece of legislation. That's why from our position, if I think this is the right approach, in the balance between predictability and flexibility, we have to be sure at least that we have a certain predictability and quite a few money for the flexibility because we don't know what will happen in the next years. We will have most probably more money for the flexibility.
But if you decided to put all the European programs in the European Communitiveness Fund, health, life, biotechnology, agriculture, everything, then you understand there is not too much money to be available for the flexibility. But together with you, dear colleagues, with all the shadow rapporteurs and our shadow rapporteurs in the ITRE committee, I think our final compromise will show that within these limits, with this constraint, we'll be able to produce a sound and a very good report, because at the end of the day, this is our image. This is what we have to present to the people and to show them that we are serious about the EU interest and the EU economy future. Thank you so much.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Christian, and our shadows. And, yes, you then have just mentioned it, but I will replay it. The deadline for amendments is May 11 and 5PM. So don't hesitate to, as Dan said, don't hesitate to send amendments.
Yes. Yes. We've got good reporters prepared for all the amendments and a lot of power to do. Yes. Exactly.
So, thanks a lot. And I see the next reporter, missus Svelyna Panchova and Shadows, so we can start immediately our last item for today's discussion, item 12. So I will give the floor to the rapporteur, and then, of course, catch the eye procedure, and if time permits, the opinion giving committees. So let's start. So the floor is yours.
Thank you, chair. Let's just give 30 seconds for people to leave the room, maybe. 30
Seconds. Who wants to leave the room? Yeah. We the last. We've got after, yeah. We've got 14.
Yes. So don't leave the room. Yeah. You are right.
Perfect. Shall.
We start?
Borys Budka
So once again, our dear chair, mister missus Svetlana Penkova, guidelines for Trans European Energy Infrastructure, amending regulations 2019 and repealing regulations 2022. So the floor is yours.
Tsvetelina Penkova
Thank you. Thank you, chair, dear colleagues. These files come at a very crucial and important moment for Europe's energy system, because when we speak about electrification, renewable deployment, flexibility, and security of supply, we all depend on the infrastructure of the electricity system in order to ensure industrial competitiveness. My objective in this report is clear: to support faster and better infrastructure development across our union, to make sure that the projects we promote are truly needed, and to ensure that the framework is cost effective, transparent, and beneficial for our citizens. I do welcome the proposal from the commission, which makes its effort to strengthen the union level planning and adapt to the ten years to the next stage of the energy transition.
But from the parliament perspective, we believe that we can improve the report in four main areas, which I'm going to touch upon very briefly in this exposé now. First, we need a stronger and more coherent planning baseline. So the report we are presenting here today supports the commission's approach based on a central scenario, but the central scenario could be a common reference point across all relevant planning processes, which do include the 10 year network development plans, infrastructure needs identification, cost-benefit analysis and cost allocation. I also do propose that the sensitivity analysis is mandatory, but not optional. The report also links the scenario planning more clearly to the National Energy and Climate Plans, and the National Network Development Plans.
It does require more granular data network utilization, availability in terms of capacity, and the flexibility of the resources. And in this regard, the report makes a serverification of the submitted data mandatory. The second important priority is needs-based planning. The 10E should not be just an aggregation of candidate projects. It should be a strategic tool that analyzes where the European energy system needs improvements.
So this is why the report broadens the understanding of infrastructure gaps, which should also include inefficient use of existing infrastructure, poor system performance or structural congestion or, in this regard, limited capacity availability. Where unmatched needs remain, the commission shall act without undue delay in publishing the unmatched needs with the proposed solutions, and, where necessary, launching a call for proposals. The logic should be identified European system need, candidate solution, and assessment of where they solve the problem. And, of course, where a correct corrective action is needed, it should be undertaken. Third, the transparency in the regulatory scrutiny and the role of ACER are key.
TENE brings important regulatory, permitting, and financing consequences. Hence, independent scrutiny and transparency are important. The report strengthens ACE's role in verifying planning data, reviewing needs identification reports, recommending corrections, benchmarking project costs, and reporting annually on the use of the congestion income. And so E and NOH should also publish not only the modeling input data, but also the assumptions connecting the identified needs with the proposed projects. And last priority is when we speak about the congestion, price divergence, and internal reinforcement with cross-border value.
This remains one of the key political sensitive issues, but we have to acknowledge that if internal bottlenecks prevent cross border flows from being used effectively, this has a pan European impact. That's why the report clarifies that internal reinforcement may have cross-border value where they increase cross-border transfer capacity or alleviate structural congestion affecting cross-border flows. On the congestion income, we propose an increase from 25 to 35%. The political logic is very clear. Where congestion revenues are generated because the system is constrained, a larger share of those revenues shall be used to address the constraints.
At the same time, we do reflect the concern raised by certain member states and colleagues from the European Parliament. So the provisional clause excludes congestion rents arising from internal border zones within a member state from this obligation. These revenues may instead be used for investment in improving adequacy, grid connection capacity, or congestion management in the member states where they are generated. I'm not going to speak about the horizontal priorities because we are out of time, but make sure that we have a stronger road to non-wire solution, digital tools, storage, demand responses, and flexibility. I will stop here now and look forward to hear what our shadows would add to those conversations.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now on behalf of Mister Popescu, Missus Andrea Wexler.
Andrea Wechsler
Thank you very much. I will present the thoughts of mister Popescu. Thank you, chair. I would like to thank the commission for its proposal and the rapporteur, Miss Penkova, for the draft report. The commission's proposal sets the right direction, accelerating cross-border infrastructure, improving planning, facilitating cost sharing, and simplifying permitting procedures.
From an EPP perspective, the priority now is to ensure that the final framework remains focused on delivering the right projects in a timely and cost effective manner. First, on the scenario under Article 11, we support a stronger European planning framework and the objective of a common EU scenario to guide infrastructure development. However, this scenario must be operational and jointly developed. It should cover the full horizon to 2050, include two intermediate 10 milestones, and integrate sensitivity analyses. It should also contain concrete elements, identified infrastructure needs, detailed network mapping, investment estimates, and implementation phases.
At the same time, the commission should coordinate the process. Well, NCOE, TSOs, ACER, and member states should be closely involved throughout the development and finalization of the scenario. We also need a clear distinction between scenario development, network planning, and project implementation. Second, on the scope. This revision should not focus only on electricity infrastructure.
Hydrogen storage and CO2 projects should also be properly reflected in the framework, including in planning, permitting, and exemptions where relevant. Third, on governance and implementation. We support stronger EU coordination, especially to address cross-border challenges and infrastructure gaps. At the same time, TENI regional groups should play a central role in identifying projects, needs matching, and implementation follow-up, ensuring the right balance between European coordination and member state involvement. Without enforcement, the scenario risks becoming a purely theoretical exercise.
We therefore need a binding EU-level instrument, such as an implementing act or a council decision, to ensure that the agreed scenario is effectively reflected in national planning and investment decisions. Otherwise, we risk adopting a framework that remains on paper without tangible impact. Fourth, on the PCI process. The current system remains too difficult. We should simplify the PCI process and avoid unnecessary reapplication requirements for projects that continue to progress and remain strategically relevant.
We should use this revision to simplify procedures and improve predictability for investors and project promoters. Fifth, on congestion revenues. We need a clear and fair approach. Congestion income should be used in the member state where it is generated and where it contributes to addressing cross-border congestion. Sixth, on infrastructure categories.
We welcome the new categories for resilience and non-wire solutions proposed by the commission. At the same time, the removal of the smart gas grids category should be reconsidered, particularly in favor of biomethane and renewable gases. And finally, on permitting. This remains the key bottleneck for project delivery. The framework should go further in facilitating permitting procedures, including for hydrogen storage and CO2 projects, while ensuring legal certainty and practical applicability across member states.
In conclusion, for the EPP, the priority is clear. A framework that is coherent, practical, and capable of delivering strategic infrastructure projects faster and more efficiently across the Union. We look forward to working constructively and efficiently with Aravapoteur and Schottow colleagues in the next stage of this file. Thank you.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you very much, chair. First of all, I would like to say that I welcome the proposal from the commission, which comes in a good time, and I would like to thank Sveentelina for yesterday's meeting. I'm not going to say anything extra new than what was said yesterday, but I'd like to summarize. First of all, I would like to say that from my perspective, 10e should focus on enabling infrastructure development in a pragmatic and efficient way, and we need faster delivery but without compromising system reliability or sound investment decisions. So I have three major points to mention.
First of all, is planning and concerning planning and governments. So I have serious concerns regarding the increasing centralization of planning, in particular the shift of scenarios development from NCOE to the commission and ACER. I believe that system operators bring essential technical expertise and regional knowledge already, so weakening their role is disconnecting planning from the real system needs. Concerning frequency of scenarios, extending the circle to four years would not rapidly reflect rapidly evolving market development, especially in the hydrogen sector, but not only. A two-year cycle should be maintained.
Second point concerning PCI, PMI framework and permitting. I believe that extending the validity of PCI PMI statutes from two years to four years is okay for projects which do demonstrate sufficient progress. This would reduce unnecessary admin burden and provide more predictability for investors, which is necessary. We also believe that granting PCI project status of highest national importance is key. And third point, concerning financing and cost allocation.
I have to say that we oppose central redistribution of 25% congestion revenues because we do believe that this revenue should remain and be reinvested where they are generated, to support greater development where it's actually needed. But obviously, they should be used effectively. If not, we might look for another way. And concerning cross border cost allocation, mechanical or automatic application of CBCA methodology as a condition for funding, don't see as appropriate. Because since 2013, since it started to work without some exceptions, it didn't work properly.
So to conclude, 10e should remain a framework that supports efficient, realistic infrastructure development. We need to avoid over-centralization, ensure that planning remains grounded in technical expertise and market reality. And I look forward it's not everything, but there are three key messages, and I look forward to work with all of you for the good compromise. Thank.
Ondřej Krutílek
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Twertelina, for the draft report. We, as ECR, support the main objective of the proposal as stronger and modern grids are essential for the energy transition, energy security, and affordable energy prices. At the same time, the framework must remain practical, balanced, and efficient. We need clear and enforceable rules by the use of existing infrastructures through digital technologies and AI, and the right balance between European coordination and national competencies. We also support a technology-neutral approach that takes into account the specific situation of landlocked countries.
Allow me to briefly highlight three main concerns regarding the commission proposal, which I intend to address through amendments. First, on article five, the requirement for project promoters to prepare implementation plans within two months and report annually risk creating excessive administrative burden. Our priority should be to speed up projects, not add more bureaucracy. Second, on article 11, we are concerned about a stronger role foreseen for the commission and ACER in developing binding central scenarios for ten-year network development plans. We must preserve the balance between EU coordination and national decision-making.
And third, on article 19, we do not support the proposed centralized redistribution of congestion revenues. The current system where revenues are reinvested into infrastructure in the affected commercial zones should remain. To conclude, we support the overall direction of the proposal, but the final framework must remain proportionate and effective. Thank you, and I'm looking forward to cooperation and negotiations.
Sigrid Friis
Thank you, chair. And I would like to read out a statement on behalf of our renew shadow, Anna Stirk. First of all, I would like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur for her good work on the draft report. The parliament's report on GRIDS called, amongst others, on the commission to revise the inter-TSO compensation mechanism. It is regretful that this has not been picked up by the Commission.
The electricity regulation has been amended anyway through T and E. The ceiling in place today to compensate TSO dates back to 2010, more than fifteen years ago. An update is urgently needed, especially for transit countries like Austria. Coming to the report that we are discussing today, I would like to stress the importance of support for the European approach of Commission's proposal. The proposed scenario building is needed in order to address the unmet needs.
The proposal will lead to a more integrated European grid, and eventually lower energy prices for the consumers. Therefore, I would like to thank the Rapporteur for keeping this general approach. In addition, I welcome some of the additions to strengthen the central scenario, such as by mandatory data verification by ESA and mandatory sensitivity analysis. I also think it's crucial that the infrastructure needs report includes an assessment of how needs will be addressed by projects proposed for the PCI list. Regarding the needs-matching process, some more clarification will be needed.
First, we should focus on the most prevailing unaddressed needs. Second, the commission should also clarify how potential third-party projects will be paid for. And thirdly, responsibilities regarding grid implementation should be clarified. On the ring-fencing of congestion revenues, the commission proposal remains vague and unclear how this would work in practice. Many member states are very skeptical as to how this should be implemented.
Lastly, thanks to the rapporteur and to the fellow shadow rapporteurs for having kept their cool head despite the commission president's attempts to compel the co-legislators to rush through this for no particular reason. This regulation would only apply to the PCA list after the next one that is in about four years. No one really understands how a couple of months, more or less, would lead to any benefit for anyone. Thanks again to the Rabotard, and Anna is looking forward to the upcoming negotiations.
Michael Bloss
Yeah. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much, Sveldliner, colleagues. Maybe a first comment on what Anna or Sigrid just said. We agree with a lot of the things that you said from the Greens.
I think just there is maybe a slight need to actually speed things up when we are in a situation of energy crisis that comes from our deep dependence on fossil fuel imports. And also noting that Europe is really not good at electrification. We are less electrified than the US and than China. So it's really about time that we do something, and this is also for the Greens the first and foremost priority, that this is about electrifying Europe. This is about the electricity grid, and this is about producing or creating a grid for our own produced renewable energies from Europe.
And that will drive out the dependency on fossil fuels and, in the same way, also meet our climate targets. Second, I think what the commission does really makes sense. Currently, the planning process is in the hands of the grid operators, DSOs, and TSOs, but there are more stakeholders at place: consumers, the producers, and the wider public goods. So it makes sense to actually have a more independent institution that is doing all the grid planning. We believe that it can be decommissioned, but there are better examples.
Also, if you look around Europe, our friends from the United Kingdom, they have just established an independent grid operator that is doing all of this planning, but also more the operating. And I think that is a very good example of how to manage a grid, how to manage the transition to electrification. And that would also ensure long term stability for the planning and not a lot of different kinds of political, how do you say, meddling depending on who is currently sending the commission or which political party. Then thirdly, on transparency and accountability, we need to really strengthen the e-governance. The central scenario or common scenario is good, but it really is important that the data is open, that it can be checked against by other stakeholders, by think tanks, by academia, by political parties, because rooted to every scenario building up our political choices.
And these political choices have to be discussed on a political level, and they have to be transparent and open. And, also, we have to admit that the quality of the data is not very good in most of the scenarios. The quality of the data also that and so eGets is not very good when it comes to what they get from the TSOs. TSOs don't really know what the DSOs look like. So we really have an issue there, and this needs to be improved.
Then lastly, on your report, Sertilde, we discussed it yesterday, so I don't need to say too much. Thank you very much. It's very good. I also want to point out, because this is a political point. It makes sense to have the congestion revenues also raised to 35%.
And, also, the current rationale of the commission makes a lot of sense because we see that some congestions do not only happen at cross border, but they also happen within countries, and that affects greatly prices in different countries. So this is an internal electricity market that should not be 27 different kinds of electricity markets, but just one. So, also we have to address it as one. And so this makes a lot of sense. Thank you for doing that.
There is still the question what this resource adequacy means, but we will hopefully be able to clear this up. So all in all, I'm looking very much forward to working with the shadows, and to get this done. And I think it's very important work on the journey of Europe, for a more independent energy system. Thank you.
Dario Tamburrano
Thank you very much, sir. Thanks to the rapporteur, and congratulations to the European Commission because we're quite happy with this Commission proposal and the text proposed by the rapporteur. And above all, we're happy because this was filling a gap in the European legislation. A lot has been said about generation, but not much about the grids. So this proposal is welcome.
We would like to say that we'll support the work and the proposal, but we've got three priorities. A couple coincide. First of all, improving planning and the definition of scenarios, aligning them with political objectives. Today, in many member states, there's no coherence, and there could be a discrepancy. We'd appreciate the definition of scenarios by the commission, but we need greater involvement of some actors, not only grid actors, but also people from electricity companies and civil society.
Two, investments need to be as efficient as possible. We need to think about flexibility of demand. Flexibility isn't really unknown in Europe. We need to meet the needs of a number of actors, so we need to specify certain measures. Three, we need greater attention to be paid to the distribution. The majority of renewables and flexibility are linked to distribution networks, and some projects could have transnational relevance.
We'd like distribution projects with a transnational impact, and they should be included in the EU list and also benefit, of course, from funding. Thank you very much, and I hope the work goes well.
Borys Budka
And now in the procedure, I've got four colleagues or two colleagues. So Maria Theresa is not there. Jens, yeah. So Jens.
Jens Geier
Thank you, chair.
I am quite surprised by the commission's proposal here because I think that it's high time for the commission to stop with these sorts of proposals thinking about the energy vectors. I'm shocked that this proposal neglects the opportunity to bring together gas and other sources because I think this could really increase our efficiency. Almost everybody that took part in this debate talked about bottlenecks and congestion rents that we could bring in. But what would be the case if there was too much electricity in the net? And so we could use electrolyzers and create green hydrogen.
This can be stored over a long period and brings up the ability to use this energy in periods where we can't generate much electricity. And so this can also be used in the gas pass stations as well. So I think there are far too few proposals from the commission in that regard. So I'd like to change that, and I will be tabling some amendments in that regard. Thank you.
Thank.
András Gyürk
Thank you very much. The energy and electricity networks have an uncontainable role in the everyday life of citizens and member states, so we have to pay strategic attention to them. Unfortunately, the commission's proposal, as well as the draft opinion, point to the opposite direction. I will give you a few examples. The ten-year infrastructure planning is supposed to be centralized.
If a member state's development plans are different from this, the member state is to be sanctioned. This is not correct. And, article 13 raises doubts as well, because it gives an opportunity to the commission to force infrastructure projects on the member states. This is a sovereignty risk, and a serious one, because the member state will have financial responsibility. And there are new financial obligations, liabilities, and 25% has to be set aside for the commission, which is 10,000,000,000 to 15,000,000,000 for Hungary per year, which has to be appropriated to the commission.
I think this proposal points in the wrong direction, but it's not too late to make a turnaround. We will submit some overarching proposals to this effect. Please consider them with attention. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And from the opinion given committee, we, there is with us Elsbieta Wukachevska from the NB committee. So, please, the floor is yours.
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska
Thank you, chair. I will speak in my native language.
Well, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the wonderful work. I'm under the impression that the situation concerning energy in the European Union indeed has to be revisited. In my opinion, and I'm referring now to the EPP, Mr. Popescu's text, I, indeed, I am very thankful for what Jens Gayers did because there is a need, a need that has to be taken very seriously. We can't manage in the fashion that things have been managed until now.
Indeed, it's quite clear that the regulation doesn't function as it ought to. And I do hope that we will succeed in finding, in hammering out some sort of compromise on this particular issue. Now Lithuania, Poland, well, we have created something which was thought to be not possible. The Baltic States, of course, have become independent of the Russian grid, of the Russian network. And now this, of course, was necessary in order to avoid some sort of catastrophe and disaster.
And we've seen indeed that the system that has been put together, Baltic states and Poland, functions much more effectively than that which was there in the past. And quite clearly, with the developments in Ukraine, these types of projects are key. I'm speaking here about Slovakia, Lithuania, liquid natural gas station that's been put together in Lithuania as well, to feed into the system. So all of this has allowed for a more effective flow of purchase from Norway and of the distribution of gas as well. All of this thanks to European partnerships that have been forged.
So clean energy, accessible clean energy requires a new technological approach that's neutral in character. And I think it's very important to take this into consideration. Also, financing from hydrogen, very important, a new possibility, and numerous different horizons have developed on that particular front as well. And let's not forget the need, the need that exists, biomethane, synthetic fuels, hydrogen. All of this is part of the energy mix of the future.
So we have to use all of these resources of every rich pallet, actually, that exist in the most effective fashion. But this requires an integrated system, clean cell systems as well, which requires integration using synthetic energies, hydrogen, biomethane as well. So I do hope indeed that we'll be able to focus on these particular issues. Now I think it's important for us to see how we can reduce the burden overall. And we, of course, have to have the necessary structural conditions as well.
But clearly, this has to be done in a very meticulous fashion, because the prices have to be taken into consideration, particularly under the circumstances that prevail today. Price regulation. Price regulation will be key, and I do hope that altogether, concertedly, we'll be able to put together a document, up to date, modern, if you like, document, taking into consideration all of the possibilities that exist, and looking at the political idiosyncrasies, the geopolitical situation overall. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
And then I give the floor to our reporter for the last remarks. I will give two minutes to the representative of the commission. So this is the head of the unit, Joachim Balke. The floor is yours.
Joachim Balke
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much to the rapporteur and her team for the excellent draft report, which we welcome very much on our side. As commission, we do believe that the grid package is an essential tool in ensuring that our energy transition is, in fact, going to be cost-effective.
Four very brief four points. First of all, we fully share the emphasis of the rapporteur on affordability. This is a key element also of our proposal. We do, in this respect, think that it is important not only to further promote the application of grid deployment but also alternative solutions such as digital or non-wire solutions. And this can contribute to cost efficiency and is an essential part of our proposal.
We, in this context, would, however, plead for a proportionate approach, not increasing too much the burden on project promoters, taking into account that the biggest risk to cost efficiency is certainly underinvestment in grids. Secondly, on planning, we would also very much like to thank the rapporteur for her support of the approach as proposed by, in our proposal, which essentially seeks to reinforce the European planning dimension, which we think is necessary. And this, to recall, has also been confirmed in the own-initiative report adopted by this parliament last year. We have, in this context, indeed, proposed to rebalance the governance of the grid planning process in a way which indeed enhances the coordinating role of the commission while, on the other hand, maintaining a very strong role for the TSO organizations and, in particular, implicating member states and the regional groups in a stronger form than is the case so far in this process. And we welcome explicitly the support from the rapporteur on this approach and the attempt to further strengthen it.
Certainly, on congestion income, here, I would like to clarify that what the commission proposal does is incentivize the use of this congestion income for the promotion, the financing of projects of common interest to remove the congestion. This is fully in line, of course, with the internal market legislation, which sets the framework for the use of congestion revenue. What the commission proposal does not do is create a redistribution mechanism. So the congestion income does, of course, remain under the control of the TSOs and the member states where they are collected. We take note of the higher ambition of the rapporteur as regards the share of congestion income to be used for that purpose, which is proposed to increase to 35%.
We would, on the other hand, caution against an approach which would further widen the scope of possible uses of such congestion income outside of the area of grid reinforcement, because we think these are funds which should be used for the removal of those congestions in order to set the right incentives to integrate the market. Then last point on the scope of the revised 10E regulation. We fully confirm the importance that we acknowledge not only to electricity infrastructure, which is at the heart of the discussion, but also to hydrogen and CO2 infrastructure, which have been included in the scope of the 10E, and we confirm this. We also agree that an integrated planning approach is not only useful, but efficient and necessary. We would, on the other hand, plead for a somewhat differentiated approach as regards, in particular, the permitting provisions for these different sectors, given their nature.
And lastly, while we fully recognize the role of biomethane in the energy transition, experience has shown that the smart gas grid category in the current 10E has not proven to be an effective tool to promote biomethane. So we think there are better ways of doing that. In conclusion, let me thank very much, once again, the rapporteur and everybody else, all the shadows who have spoken. We look forward to the cooperation and hope, of course, for an ambitious approach in the parliament and in the following dialogues. Thanks very much.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And, yes, but we finished the catch the catch okay. So one minute, and we must finish this point with the rapporteur. One minute, please.
Arba Kokalari
Thank you very much, Sheriff, for that. I just want to say something concerning what the commission just said about the congestion fees. Just a matter of information, 56% of unused revenues from congestion is Swedish money. 56%, we are 3% of the EU inhabitants. We just think that this is something that people should know, maybe in this discussion.
So what you are saying from the commission is that we can't use this money for many purposes, for the Swedish public, and, of course, for common interest also. But why do we have so many congestion revenues? It's because we are following the rules. We have bidding zones in our country, and that's why we have so many internal congestion revenues. So I just wanted to say this because it's a part of information that this is something that I think it's not relevant for a lot of countries, but for me, it is.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thanks for this remark. Thank you very much. And now this is time for our rapporteur to give the final remarks.
Tsvetelina Penkova
Thank you. Thank you, chair. A lot of points have been raised. I will try to be efficient and brief given that we are lagging behind in terms of the time schedule. So I've identified comments in more or less five main areas.
The first one, of course, is on the scenario planning, which is one of the sensitive issues here. So I just wanna make sure that the clear message from the report is that the scenario should not be considered in isolation. So member states, TSOs, regulators, Acer, NsoE, NsoG, NOH, and the commission, they all need to be involved, and this is very clearly stated in the report. So the aim is not to replace the technical expertise with the political planning, but to make the planning more transparent, faster, and focus on the European system's needs. So this is the first clear message from here.
The second question was more or less from EPP on the enforcement and follow through. Yes. We do acknowledge that we probably need stronger enforcement mechanism. But if we strengthen the EU-level planning, we must strengthen the implementation as well. We should work, therefore, on how the common scenario can be properly reflected in the national network development plans, PCI and PMI selections, investment decisions, and, where relevant, the national implementation process.
So we're gonna work on that part. The third remark that was brought up by, I believe, by the Patriots for Europe and ECR is when we speak about the timing and the details of scenarios. So there are different views to move viewpoints to move it from two years to four years scenario cycle. I understand that the concern that the energy market and technology are changing quickly is a valid one. At the same time, infrastructure planning also needs predictability.
So a possible balanced approach would be to have a mandatory sensitivity analysis and regular updates where market technology on demand conditions changed. The fourth point was on the needs-based planning, which was touched upon now also by the commission, and it was also raised by EPP, I believe. I've mentioned in my initial remarks the infrastructure gap should not only mean missing physical assets, and this approach should, of course, apply to all the relevant infrastructure categories, not only electricity. So here, we are speaking about hydrogen, CO2, networks, and storage. They also need serious and consistent treatment, while of course recognizing the different levels of maturity of each one of those technologies.
And last but not least, I cannot leave that point unaddressed on the congestion revenues. Also, the last few remarks were in that area. Of course, this is the most sensitive political issue, for sure. I reassured that the specific cases of some countries, as Sweden was mentioned, are taken into account. We also understand the concern of some colleagues that the commission proposal is not sufficiently clear on the criteria set at the moment, but at the same time, we should not ignore the problem and try to address it.
So the congestion generates significant revenues, and at the same time, the congestion problem is not resolved across Europe. So this creates a vicious cycle, which we're trying to address. So congestion creates income. But if the income is not used effectively to remove the constraints, then the congestion continues. So, this should not be working like that.
We cannot explain this to our citizens. We cannot explain this to our industries. So my view is we should not simply be speaking about the deletion, but we should try to improve this language and to try to figure out a way to have a fair mechanism ensuring that the connect congestion income is used to address congestion where it is created, while respecting the member states' concerns. So this is why we have the clear distinguished draft in the current report, where we have a differentiation between members with internal bidding zones and all the rest. I would not be able to address each one of the other points raised in detail, but those were the five main areas.
And please do allow me to conclude by saying that I really appreciate the serious work of all the shadow rapporteurs involved and all the stakeholders and the commission, of course. I think despite some of the small differences, we are all trying to have a better plan, more transparent, more cost effective, and fair for our consumers and industries, electricity infrastructure system within the EU, and I'm sure we're gonna deliver a very solid position from the European Parliament. Thank you.
Tsvetelina Penkova
It's Tuesday. Changed, actually. Yes. Apologies. I should have mentioned that.
Borys Budka
So deadline for amendments, Tuesday, 19 at noon. Okay. Thanks a lot. And we will start immediately the last item, item 14. And I will give the same rules.
So first, our reporter, Niels Folska.
Niels Fuglsang
Thank you. Thank you, chair. So let me start by underlining that I support the vision of the commission's grid package, and in particular, when it comes to accelerating the permitting procedures for grids and renewable projects. I think the commission states it pretty well why we need to take this seriously. It can take up to 9 years to get permitting for renewable energy projects in the European Union.
Nine years. And on average, it takes 5 years to get permits for electricity grids. To me, these numbers speak for themselves. If we, in this room, are serious about Europe's energy security, Europe's competitiveness, and the protection of our climate, we need to accelerate the permitting procedures. Due to the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz, Europe is right now experiencing another energy crisis.
We see the price of oil and gas skyrocketing, with big consequences for our citizens and our industry. Just as we did in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. We need to learn from this and do something about it. We must ensure the necessary build-out of our electricity grids and homegrown renewable energy, and we must do it faster than the current permitting times allow. We need to do it smartly without sacrificing environmental protection, and I believe this proposal is a step in the right direction.
This leads me to present some of my main priorities in the draft report. I support the introduction of the overriding public interest principle and the tacit approval approach. Grid infrastructure and renewable energy are some of the most important things for Europe to build right now. This importance must be reflected in our legislation. However, we must ensure the stability and safety of the grids when it comes to grid connection permits.
Therefore, I have introduced a safeguard when it comes to task and approval of connection permits. I support the exemption of smaller projects and the repowering of projects from environmental assessments. Smaller projects help households and businesses to shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and engage them in an energy transition. So these projects are very important. And due to their limited size, I believe we can rightly assume that these projects will have a minimal effect on the environment, and should therefore benefit from faster processes.
When wind turbines are repowered, they can grow quite significantly in size. If there are significant changes to the project, then I think they should go through the environmental assessment process. But if there are no, if we're talking about repowering of projects and there are no significant changes to the space that they take and the height that they have, they don't need to go through the whole process of making these long reports yet another time. We need to do that faster, in my opinion. So number three priority, stronger and better, and better-defined benefit sharing mechanisms.
The lack of public acceptance is a significant barrier to the deployment of renewables. Citizens must be on board, and they must feel that they also benefit from the green transition. And therefore, I have clearly defined what adequate benefit-sharing measures could be. I think that the local communities that offer their land to wind turbines or solar panels, they need to have some of the benefits. It cannot be big companies located far away from them that reap all the benefits.
So we need to make sure that they can see an interest in this. Number four, I have introduced an exemption for electricity grids to the Water Framework Directive. I understand that providing the necessary report to comply with the water framework directive to build out electricity grids, it's extremely time consuming. And I understand that can take up to 2 years in some member states. And the documentation needed can be a 1,000 page report in some cases.
And this is despite that we still have to, I still, I'm yet to find an example where these projects actually had an influence, a negative influence on water quality. And so I think we have huge problems with our water quality, but I'm not convinced that it's the renewable projects that cause these problems. Five, we need to be ambitious when it comes to digitalization. I'm convinced that digitalization and a transparent system that is easy to navigate for project developers and stakeholders is necessary. So, we need to digitalize the processes.
And that's basically my, some of my main priorities, and I look forward to hearing what the shadows have to say. Thank you.
Andrea Wechsler
Dear colleagues, Europe needs to electrify faster in order to be competitive for supply and also to have cheaper energy prices. That's why I thank the commission for this important proposal of the network package. Mister Fuglsong, the reporter, it's good that he has sped up the procedure. The following draft has the right goal and is bringing constructive work in a good direction. However, there are some things that we would like to emphasize from the side of the EPP.
Firstly, we need clear rules for infrastructure that is in public interest. Secondly, we need open technology. We shouldn't have political rules about what infrastructure is needed. Thirdly, subsidy subsidiarity. Energy is important, but this needs to function with the infrastructure of the member states.
Fourthly, legal certainty. Large infrastructure projects need decisions. Process permitting procedures can be complicated, and this should not be affected by complex infrastructure. And fifthly, pragmatism. A practical implementation is important.
A clear checklist, inspections that are done on time, and transparent procedures. Mr. Fugesong's report goes in the right direction, but we need to be more precise in some parts. The permitting procedures should go in the right direction. Local participation is important, but we shouldn't have small scale bureaucratic rules.
And procurement rules should also not involve new rules. Finally, energy infrastructure needs to be thought of in a more systematic way. The guidelines are there. This is to be legally certain, following the rules of subsidiarity so that the prices for our citizens continue to decrease.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you, chair, and thank you, mister Rapporteur, for your report. At the beginning, I like to say that our perspective is that we, first of all, must ensure that the permitting rules are pragmatic and technically sound. So it means that we cannot afford to trade great stability or legal certainty for speed. This is, like, the first point. And I would like to mention four key issues, which still are for our discussion for the future.
So first of all, that there is a need, what we see as a need, to clearly separate building permitting from grid connection. So, it's vital to clearly distinguish between administrative building permit where tacit approval is okay, and the technical pro process of the grid connection where tacit approval is not okay because these are two fundamentally different processes. Furthermore, in several member states, grid connection is not a unilateral administrative act as a permit, but a bilateral contracting process. The definition of grid connection permit request must be adjusted to reflect this reality. Otherwise, regulation will be inapplicable in many national legal systems.
We should be aware of this. Second point is overriding public interest and land rights. I strongly support the status of overriding public interest for great projects. Absolutely clear, we need to speed up. Just would like to add that the single biggest delay in grid construction is not the environmental permit, but the settlement of property rights with the landowners.
So this is something we should try to solve as well. Third point is digitalization and the administrative burden. Digitalization is welcome, obviously. The mandate for a single digital contact point within such a time frame as it's proposed is seen as unrealistic for many national administrations. Regarding mandatory benefit sharing and the appointment of facilitators for projects over 10 megawatts, the idea looks great at the first point, and we understand that local acceptance is absolutely crucial.
But concrete requirements, as set in the proposal, are too vague and administratively heavy. So we believe that member states should decide how to incentivize local communities rather than creating new EU-level bureaucratic layers. Fourth and the last is flexible connection and non-wire solution. We support the option for DSOs to offer flexible, non-guaranteed connection agreement. This is great.
But this must remain a tool for the system operator, not for the applicants due to technical restraints. So, to finalize or to conclude, I'm ready to support this package because we have to move ahead, but it must be rooted in technical reality and subsidiarity and look forward to the common work. Thank you.
Ondřej Krutílek
Thank you, chair. And thank you, Niels, for your draft report. In general, as already has been said, we support the acceleration of permitting in order to enable the fast deployment of new energy sources and infrastructure. At the same time, the objective should be to streamline the commission's proposal and to ensure that it remains proportionate and practically feasible. In other words, we must avoid creating additional duplication or unnecessary administrative burden.
In this context, allow me to briefly highlight several main concerns regarding the commission's proposal, which I intend to address through my amendments. First of all, I would like to propose modifications to or deletion of certain additional layers introduced in the proposal, including the reference to an independent facilitator responsible for promoting dialogue between project developers and the general public, as support for local communities should remain within the competence of member states. Second, I also have a question regarding the proposal to establish a single national digital portal covering all steps of permitting granting procedures, especially in terms of implementation and administrative implications. Third, while we support the modernization and repowering of older energy sources, assessments should not focus only on land use. They should also take into account factors such as the height of wind turbines and their impact on the landscape.
And finally, there are also politically tense sensible subjects, including the case of overriding public interest. We believe that flexibility should remain at national level to some extent and allow member states to take into account their specific circumstances and planning frameworks. Thank you again, and looking forward to the negotiation.
Sigrid Friis
Thank you, chair. And once again, I'd like to read out a statement on behalf of our new shadow, Ernest Dirk. First of all, thank you and congratulations to the operator for his good proposal. I think there are many points in the draft report that I can fully support. Acceleration of permits is crucial to remove bottlenecks and to get renewable installations to the grid and modernize EU grids through upgrades and expansions.
The commission's proposal includes several amendments that help address these bottlenecks. However, in some areas, the proposal could have been more straightforward and clearer. I'm pleased to see that the rapporteur has taken on board some proposals to improve the commission's proposal already in his draft. The renewable acceleration areas, unfortunately, have not been implemented equally in all the Member States. No-go areas or exclusion areas are certainly necessary to protect our environment and biodiversity.
The commission proposes that member states shall not endeavor to designate large areas. Exclusion zones shall not be designated only because someone does not like a wind turbine in their area. I appreciate that the draft report goes a step further in this regard. We must furthermore ensure that there is a proportionate relation between acceleration and exclusion areas. Let me give you an example from Austria.
In the state of Sturia, 27% of the territory have been declared no-go areas and only 0.57 are declared acceleration areas. This is missing the point of why we designate acceleration areas. Often, we see renewable projects face local resistance, so it's important to have measures in place that increase public participation and lead to more acceptance. However, I want to note that some member states already have implemented efficient measures to ensure public participation, and it should therefore be clarified that no new measure should be introduced if a Member State already has sufficiently efficient measures in place. Lastly, the introduction of options to the system operator rather than a strict sequence of steps in Article 17 provides some flexibility that, I believe, are good adjustments.
Once again, thank you to the rapporteur for the proposal, and Anna is very much looking forward to the upcoming negotiations.
Michael Bloss
And thank you, Niels. Thank you, everyone in the team. Like your proposals. Of course, we already had the first shadow meeting. And here, I think, again, the political direction is clear, and it is coming from the current situation.
We need to electrify, and we need to overcome these bottlenecks. And I would really rather see Europe connected. I would rather see electricity from wind and solar coming from Sweden and from Spain, to Poland and to France, than all the time importing 400,000,000,000 gas and oil from different countries, especially from the US where we are at the risk of being blackmailed. So this has to happen. And I think the approach is good.
We do like the benefit sharing and making communities really benefit from renewable energy. And we see that if renewable energies, wind power plants are owned by citizens, cooperatives, 50% of the wealth stays with the community. If not, it's only 8%. So strengthening this is really strengthening also the acceptance, and creating value at the local level. So that's important.
And second, I think speeding up the grid development is important. We will add a little bit to your report, Niels. And one thing is what the commission did is addressing the connection queue, but they only addressed it in the recommendations. And this is one of the big questions that has to be solved at the local level. And currently, it's very chaotic, and it also leads to less investments because there's no clear guidance and idea and timeline of when a project can get online.
So therefore, this should be dealt with in, well, in legal terms where we will put amendments to. Second, the role of DSOs is absolutely important. We unfortunately understand that some of the DSOs are widely exempted from many requirements. That also leads to the fact that we have little understanding and transparency of what is happening in the grid, but it also exempts them from providing fundamental services like, for instance, energy sharing, like making flexibility more important. So we will propose some suggestions to solve that problem and enable DSOs to be able to be an agent of the future flexible energy system.
Thirdly, on Article 17 and the connection permitting, it is good, but we will try to propose something that ensures that system operators cannot simply refuse the connection without considering grid enforcement or expansion where needed. So overall, looking forward to this process. I'm looking forward to working together with you. We will speed up. That's good.
So we hope we deliver soon to our citizens.
Rudi Kennes
Thank you, chair. I will speak in Dutch. Thank you, chair.
The proposal from the rapporteur does contain some points that we support. For example, that the advantages should be shared, support of citizens, especially those disadvantaged households. I'm thinking about digitalization as well and adapting the principle that energy efficiency should have priority. Also tackling a shortage of workers. This is especially the case for grid infrastructure, and then including citizens as well.
We do, however, have some concerns. We want to make our concerns and priorities clear. The NG projects should be designed so that local communities are included from the start, and that they can benefit from this as well. Public acceptance is highly important. It will also help us to tackle any delays.
This is a process, and the public needs to be consulted. In order to be climate neutral by 2050 and less dependent, it's important to prioritize renewable resources. The impact on the environment needs to be always monitored and checked. We need to consider whether these tactical permits and permit granting should possibly be reconsidered. And then when it comes to the question of the replacement of old technologies by new ones, there are different procedures.
Putting in new renewable energy and expanding that quickly is important. Energy efficiency too, this needs to be the most important aspect before we think about new infrastructure. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And we've got the rapporteur from NV Committee opinion, the opinion given committee. So Erasmus Nord, I'm sorry for the
Don't worry. I understand. Nordquist. Nordquist.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Nordquist. Sorry. It's my.
Not easy. Don't worry. Thank you very much, and thank you to the rapporteur and all the shadows for also sharing here today. It's been very interesting for me to listen to. First of all, I mean, yes, renewable electrification and grid infrastructure must be accelerated for us to meet our climate and energy goals.
And the commission has proposed some change to existing rules that can address some of these things that are blocking it if they're implemented right, because we also have to be aware that a lot of what's standing in the way right now is also poor implementation of existing EU laws. And I think we have to have that as a premise for this discussion. In my opinion draft I put forward, I really take a very constructive and pragmatic approach because we know that renewable replace fossil fuels and they are a net positive for environment and biodiversity. We do, however, want to add some proportionate safeguards aligned with the precautionary principle. It's not to block, but really to balance.
And I want to highlight three points from my draft report. And the first one is on the renewable acceleration areas. We all agree that the implementation of the national level has been rather chaotic. But we want to avoid confusion and preserve the principles in it. So we're suggesting that the mapping be done science-based and transparent, and for environmental considerations to be proportionate and well justified.
On the overriding public interest, we're adding nuances and safeguards, again, with principles of proportionality, so that we still have environmental impact assessments in place. And then this wider exemption from environmental assessments, example, for repowering of the small scale solar, we think it's important to nuance as well to put some safeguards in, so it's not just all of a sudden project scaling happening, that we have these safeguards. We know that the timeline will be very short. I've also spoken to the shadows in Envy and we will work very fast or as fast as we can. And we are voting already on June 15 in Envy.
So I really hope that the rapporteur and the shadow will take the Envy opinion into consideration also, because this is where we can come with the opinion from the environmental legislation side to you. I want to flag four things where I think there's issues you need to especially pay attention to the envy opinion. Again, the renewable acceleration areas, definition of alternative solutions, the exceptions to the screening and environmental impact assessment, as I mentioned, and then water framework directive. I mean, here, we are talking about the cornerstone of environmental protection in the EU. And, we really have to be extremely cautious and careful touching this.
I would say it would be the wrong way to go. Also because many conventional overhead lines or cable projects are very temporary and it can often be mitigated below the deterioration thresholds. But there are many projects that actually have an impact on our water environment, especially where it is in poor condition. And I really hope that we can have a good exchange on this, so we still protect our environment even though we have to speed up. But, again, my first point, it's also about implementing existing rules already and not just all of us saying, let's ride over our environment and our nature of protection.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now before I will give the floor for the final remarks, our reporter, this is the time for the commission. And on behalf of the commission, the responsible half, head of the unit, Paula Ray Garcia.
Paula Rey García
Good afternoon. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also to all intervening speakers, members of the parliament. So we would like really to welcome the draft report of the committee and thank, in particular, the reporter, mister Fulskanen and his team for the excellent draft report.
We welcome that the report overall maintains a high level of ambition to accelerate permitting procedures, and that's so on issues such as tacit approval, benefit sharing, the figure of the facilitator, the streamlining of environmental assessments, as well as the digitalization of procedures. And in this regard, we appreciate that the draft report not only supports the commission proposal, but also even enhances some of the elements that we have proposed. And just to give you an example, these concerns, for instance, the amendments to the digital portal to integrate smoothly some of the already existing efforts in this regard at the national level. There are, on the other hand, a number of technical elements that we would like to flag, where, we see the need for possible consideration of some clarifications to make sure that the wish effect is really achieved. So let me mention this briefly.
So this concerns some of the technical aspects, for instance, in relation to the grid connection procedures for renewables. Here, we understand the overall direction of travel, which is to ensure stability and safety, but the way, some of the amendments are word that may require some further clarification to make sure that this objective is achieved. A second element has to do with the suggested amendments on digitalization and standardization, where here as well, we welcome the strong push in this direction, the support for digitalization for grid-enhancing technologies.
which
Paula Rey García
is aligned with the Commission proposal and its objective. But at the same time, we see some elements regarding, for instance, standardization or skills or procurement, as well as anticipatory investments, where there could be the need to further clarify, keeping in mind not only the scope of the commission proposal, but also the EU existing legislation already in place. Similarly, the third point that we would like to flag has to do with acceleration of procedures for electricity grids and for hydrogen networks. So here as well, we would like to express appreciation for the ambition in the draft report regarding the acceleration of the authorization procedures. But, we see that, similarly, there are some amendments that may require clarification.
Just to name a few of these, this relates to, for instance, the funding options for national authorities or the duties imposed for national regulatory authorities. So, to conclude, we very much look forward to the next steps. We are fully committed to support the parliament in this effort, and we would like to thank, once again, the reporter and all the MEP's intervening for the reactions on this matter and the recognition of the need to accelerate, permitting. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And final remarks from our reporter, Niels Forsgang.
Niels Fuglsang
Thank you, chair. Thank you, colleagues. Very constructive comments. I've taken note of them. And I think there are many areas where we will be able to find each other.
We, of course, have different focus areas and put emphasis on different elements, but let's see. We've decided. So I just have three final comments here. So first, we've decided among the shadows to work fast. We think that this is, we sense the urgency as well, standing in the energy crisis. So we will aim for a vote in June in the committee, and we will have shadow meetings working intensely.
And I thank the shadows for agreeing to do this. I in because this is urgent, I have also proposed this one amendment that the transposition period should be one year and not two years as originally proposed. If this is urgent, then we agree this is urgent. I think the member states also need to work fast to implement it. If we can save one or two months, that's fine.
Good, from our side, but we can save a lot of time also if we implement these things fast. Second, I would say that the subsidiarity principle mentioned by several groups, and I think, and Blair, you mentioned that, I think this is a core important principle. And I think that we will be centering, we will be discussing this because, of course, we want, and I said, I want local communities to also have a share of the benefits. But we, of course, need to find the balance where we say, okay, member states can decide this themselves. What do we need to decide here at the EU level?
What can local communities, what can member states decide? And we, of course, want the local communities to decide and the member states to decide as much as possible. So we need to find the balance here, and I agree. So let's have a discussion on this. Finally, the balance between environmental and environmental interest and the interest in rolling out our homegrown renewable energy.
I think we can find a balance, but this is, of course, about finding the balance. And the colleagues mentioned the water framework directive. And I can tell you, Rasmus, that I care very much about the water environment. When I propose that we can, in some cases, exempt these renewable projects from making reports on the water framework directives, well, it's because my point of view, well, my analysis and my understanding is that you make very big reports. You make, according to the stakeholders I talk with, reports of 1,000 pages.
It takes up to two years, and I have yet to find one example of these reports changing anything. These reports show that this project cannot be done or should not be done. And in this case, I think, okay. I mean, if we're serious about speeding things up here, we also need to take this into consideration. I don't mean to, I mean, the water framework directive is a crucial piece of legislation, but I'm not convinced that it's the renewable energy that causes the harm to the water environment.
And that's why I proposed this. I'm, of course, willing to discuss with you, and let's see if we can enlighten ourselves. I'm also willing to go into that process the next months. Thank you very much, and I look forward to the cooperation with all of you.
Borys Budka
Thanks a lot for your effort. And, just a closing remark and announcement that the deadline for amendments is Monday, 11 May at noon. So thanks a lot for this, day for the hard for the long day, and this is the last item for the committee and for the coordinators. But, yeah, we've got nine minutes left, and we will start the coordinators meeting.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.