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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
ITRE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsCéline Gauer
It will be complemented by proposals on taxation because taxation should set the right incentives to go for homegrown clean rather than for imported fossil. And we will also address network charges with a view to address all the different components of the electricity bill of consumers. An essential element in that picture is obviously the grids because we see that one of the main obstacles to the faster rollout of electrification is the grid capacity. And this is why I'm very happy that we are starting tonight the trilogue on the grids package with you and with the representative from the presidency, from the Council, to try and advance this grid package very, very fast and make sure that we then get the best potential of electrification for all of it.
All of this is a step towards the 2030 the post-2030 package that I was referring to. We are working extremely hard on it. We are finalizing the impact assessment both on the governance regulation but also on the energy efficiency directive and on the renewables directive. Key elements from us in doing that that work of course staying with the ambition that has been explained in the climate in the climate law but also having an emphasis on simplification and flexibility in attaining the targets and focusing very much on the implementation. It's not it's very good to have targets, it's very good to have a direction of travel but we also need to make sure that we do deliver on what on the objectives that we are setting collectively for ourselves.
A last word on investment because of course this very substantial transformation of our energy systems requires funds, it requires investment. The estimates for for the investment needs have are reaching between 600 billion and 700 billion in in the next decade and and we know that this will have to be mobilized both from public funding but mostly from private from private sources. And in this regard the clean energy investment strategy that we have already put forward offers this integrated approach to funding and makes sure that we can leverage the private financing that is needed for this transformation to occur in an efficient manner. EU funds of course have always played an important role and will continue to play an important role. Just looking at the previous period and at for example InvestEU, I think InvestEU's 57 billion are have been sort of triggered to energy-related investments.
And this is the largest of of all the the sectors that have benefited from it as it is a demand-driven instrument. We can see that this reflects the demand and the need for those investments. But we can also look at the Recovery and Resilience Facility where we see that 27% of the overall funding have directly gone to the energy sector. Cohesion and Horizon have a very solid track record in in funding the energy transformation and CEF Energy is obviously an irreplaceable source of funding for cross-border infrastructure that we so much need to have the best allocation of resources across across the EU. So together with the cooperation with the EIB and and the national promotional banks we are very much looking forward to the next MFF as well and hope to for a quick agreement on the package to make sure that there is no disruption into the the public the EU public funding of this transformation.
In conclusion and before we go into the discussion just to recap and well the energy transition started as a climate imperative but it has now become an absolute security need and a critical factor for the competitiveness of our economies. The urgency of the reforms is agreed and there is no surprise that the three packages I've referred to are all part of the One Europe One Market roadmap and they are there because there is consensus on the importance and urgency of action. So delivering this ambitious package will only be possible if we all cooperate together. So you can count on my full dedication and and full cooperation with with this house and I I look very much forward to working with all of you.
So thank you for your attention and looking forward to your questions as well. Thank you.
Tsvetelina Penkova
Perfect. Thank you, thank you, thank you Director General Gauer. We do appreciate the work done so far and we we count on the collaboration, cooperation as you've re-emphasized as well. You mentioned the grids package, the trilogue part on part of it is starting today. The Parliament is very committed to deliver on the second part of the grids package starting with the trilogue in September.
So I think there is a very clear understanding from the members of Parliament on the importance of everything you've emphasized. And now without a further ado, let's continue with the first round of intervention from the coordinators of the political groups. 90 seconds for the intervention, 90 seconds for immediate answer from your side and then an option for follow-up for another half a minute. And we're starting with EPP and Mr. Ehler.
Christian Ehler
Thank you very much. Welcome to the Parliament. I think the bad news is that we can't spare you in terms of that having that you have a hundred days or something like that. You're thrown in midst of everything. I mean, if we would follow for the moment your logic, the question is what the delivery is for that.
And if we look to the electrification agenda, I mean, we see due to our analysis that the 2030 targets for hydrogen, grids and wind basically are becoming an unreachable goal. So in a way, what is actually delivered on the electricity story? And that is twofold. We we are worried about that we had been completely falling short on the Commission's ambition on hydrogen. Because I mean you can have electricity how much you want for a steel company, for a lot of production companies in Europe, it's decisive whether you have electricity and hydrogen.
So in a way, how does that fit together? And I would just like to ask you, I mean given that there has been a very ideological point of view on green hydrogen so far and in general also on low-carbon hydrogen, how you're going to change? Because the Commission proposal is missed by more than 50%. We simply don't have hydrogen. So the electrification story is in question.
And then I would like to add, but for the moment I stop, to salute the rule of the President with a question on the methane.
Céline Gauer
Thank you very much. And thank you for your understanding indeed, 100 days I don't have. It is it is correct that we are that the ramp-up of of hydrogen production is far, far away from the expectations we had collectively and from the plans that member states had made. I think it is a fact. It hasn't picked up the way we all thought it would it would it would pick up.
So that what does it mean? It means that we have to look back at at the rules and we have to also adjust them to give more time for that ramp-up. Because we as you as you remember the the rules were were becoming more and more stringent and the objective of them becoming more more stringent was precisely that we thought that we would have far higher volumes of hydrogen in the system to date than than we actually have. So as you as you know we are working on on a targeted review of the delegated act on hydrogen precisely to cater for this additional time needed for the ramp-up and avoid that by having yes an ambitious and and and certainly desirable window of of time for for looking at the hydrogen that is taken from from the grid then we would simply make the situation unmanageable for for those companies that need and that want to invest in hydrogen.
We will be coming with that in very very shortly in the in the autumn point absolutely well well taken. Are we ideological about that? I don't think so. I think this is the reason why we are making those those targeted those targeted adjustment because we we know that we have to essentially look look at the reality. But that still begs a question on the implementation.
So what what can we do to make sure that we have a tighter grip on the implementation is not only a question for the Commission or for the Parliament it is also very much a question for for the Member States and that's also how we are looking at at the national energy and climate plans and try to see with the Member States how we can combine those and also link them potentially to funding to make sure that we that we have a better chance to reach the next the next target we would set for ourselves. Thank you.
Christian Ehler
Two short questions. I mean during the last Energy Council meeting on the 26th of June a total number of 17 Member States have raised serious concerns about the implementation of the methane emission regulation. I don't want to get in detail but I think that will be reflected but what is your answer to that simply because the methane regulation has also implications on hydrogen and the ability for example Algeria to excavate and produce hydrogen. Second question on the permitting part. You are referring to to speed up but the permitting part of the grid package just covers a few regulations but for example if you go through water you're good perhaps with the permitting part if the bird is sitting on your wire you're not because we don't touch the bird directive.
So isn't it that we have to fix that dilemma within the vertical omnibus the ENVI omnibus.
Thank you. The floor is yours.
Céline Gauer
Thank you very much. On the methane regulation. Yes of course we've heard the 17 the 17 Member States who have expressed worries that because we are in an energy in an security of supply crisis situation although it's not really security of supply but I think we are in an energy crisis situation that's not that's not disputed that the immediate implementation of the of of the penalties could lead to a security of supply issue. I think that that's the argument that they that they were making. And we we are also aware that more guidance is required on on the on the way companies can demonstrate compliance with with the regulation.
So for for these reasons we are coming hopefully next week with with two recommendations that will first support companies to demonstrate compliance and second recommend or urge Member States not to apply penalties for a certain period of time letting time to the to the market to adjust to demonstrate compliance and to go beyond the the crisis we are we are facing at the moment. We believe that this is a sound legal way of of going about the difficulties that we punctually have at the moment and this is also the most immediate one because once a recommendation it's is adopted then it is of course also relevant for national courts and will be directly directly applicable.
Thank you. Sorry permitting. Three questions I was supposed to be coming back on on the previous one and actually it's three additional questions. No sorry for that. Permitting yes point taken and actually we also read very well the work in this house on on permitting and the suggestion to to extend the scope.
What we had tried to do with the proposal was to to have a balance between the need to to roll out the the grids and the renewables faster while protecting the environment still. So it's always a delicate balance and you can debate where you want to have the cursor but but but you have to have that that balance. In the council there were some some discussion with some member states wanting us to go further but quite a number of member states wanted us also to not go that far and protect the environmental acquis. So that's I think is going to be an interesting point for discussion in the in the trilogue and and I sincerely hope that we will find the proper the proper balance collectively between between those two and I don't doubt that. Thank you.
Dan Nica
Mulțumesc doamnă președintă. Doamna Gauer sunteți noua directoare generală a DG Ener ne bucurăm să vă avem aici și câteva întrebări foarte simple. Unu piața energiei pentru cetățeni și pentru companii înseamnă cât e prețul energiei și toată lumea se uită la cât îi vine factura acasă pentru firme cât îi vine factura pentru energia consumată cât le vine și mai ales care este predictibilitatea. Cineva care vrea să-și facă un business plan ar trebui să știe și care este prețul pe care îl vor plăti. Astăzi când vorbim situația este proastă.
Multe firme din Uniunea Europeană sunt delocalizate și pleacă unul din motivele invocate în special în industria constructoare de mașini este prețul energiei electrice. Care sunt măsurile pe care vreți să le luați și cum vreți să adresați câteva din lucrurile pe care le știm. Interconectori lipsă lipsă de capacitate lipsă de voință și multe alte lucruri care ar însemna o creștere a capacității pentru ca energia să poată să funcționeze într-o piață unică de energie așa cum ar trebui. A doua chestiune mulți cred că sunt mințiți și înșelați în momentul în care vine vorba de prețul energiei electrice prețul gazelor naturale și aș vrea să vă întreb de ce nu există în Uniunea Europeană și o bursă pentru electricitate și pentru gaze. Pentru gaze este un hub mai mult sau mai puțin important în Amsterdam care face dictează prețurile în Uniunea Europeană.
Nu credeți că o bursă ar putea să însemne și o chestiune de transparență să știm și noi cine vinde cine cumpără la ce preț dacă au inside information și bănuiesc că și dumneavoastră ați citit raportul Agenției Europene pentru Supravegherea Piețelor Financiare care spune câteva lucruri foarte importante despre cum funcționează aceste piețe și mai ales utilizarea unor mecanisme de piață într-o piață care nu este reglementată mecanisme tipic bursiere de gen vânzare pe short vânzare pe buy and hold și alte lucruri de acest gen ceea ce duce la o creștere artificială a prețurilor.
Céline Gauer
Thank you very much. So what can we do for the electricity bill for the energy bill let me start with electricity. I think the the price of electricity is directly a function of the electricity mix that we see in countries or in regions depending on interconnection. You if you if you look how much low carbon electricity generation you have in in in the system and how often the price is set by this low carbon generation then you see directly low prices. If you have countries where the price is set by gas or by coal or by lignite then you see high prices.
I think this is very simple. So what can we do? The first thing we should do is to invest in low-carbon generation capacity and to support that investment. Of course, not everything has to come in terms of investment. Flexibility is absolutely essential, especially together with renewables.
And the access to the grid, so investment in grid is also fundamental because if you have a capacity that you can't connect, that is not simply feeding into the electricity prices. Interconnection, very important indeed, to also mutualize the flexibility across the borders and make sure that you always have the cheapest capacity feeding into the system. Taxation, as I mentioned already in my intervention, is also very important. So having the right taxation with the right incentive. And finally, network charges, on which you shouldn't have a lot of things that are not related to the energy prices.
ACER, you mentioned the agency, indeed is monitoring that there is no cross-border manipulation or speculation in the way we see electricity prices formed. For the rest, it is in hands of the national regulatory authorities, which are cooperating closely also with the agency. Should we have a fund for the prices? I think this can be extremely expensive if it is untargeted. But what can make sense is to have targeted measure supporting the most vulnerable customer when you have incident of spikes in the prices for very specific reasons, as you can have a specific crisis that is leading then to unaffordable prices.
But that is really a temporary and targeted measure that can be taken by the Member States whenever it is needed. It cannot be a long-term measure or it cannot be a broad measure because it is simply emptying the public finances for no long-term result. The only long-term solution to this situation is a change in the generation mix. Thank you.
Dan Nica
Bun. La întrebarea cum anume vedeți această chestiune a lipsei unei burse pentru energie, n-ați răspuns. Și vă mai întreb încă o dată. De ce nu putem avea o bursă europeană care, de exemplu, să spună care este prețul corect la gazele naturale? Sau pot să vă dau o chestiune mai simplă.
De ce nu avem o bursă pentru certificatele de dioxid de carbon? În Europa e 80 de euro tona. În China, 10-13. O treime din certificatele de dioxid de carbon sunt deținute de entități din afara Uniunii Europene. Și n-o spun eu, v-am spus, este ESMA, European Supervisory Market Authority, care spune că buy and hold duce la creșterea artificială a prețurilor și aceste prețuri sunt plătite de către industria europeană și de către oameni acasă în prețurile la factură, în timp ce unii își umflă buzunarele.
Până la urmă, acesta este sensul acestei întrebări. Și mai ales măsuri, pentru că această chestiune noi aici în comisia asta o vorbim de vreo doi ani de zile. Iar cei de la ACER au 470 de cazuri, doamna director general.
Știți câte au rezolvat până acum în ultimii doi ani din 470? 25. Încă 400 și ceva de doi ani de zile stau în analiză pentru că se pare că nu au resursa umană necesară. Poate puteți să le dați o mână de ajutor cu experții din Comisie, cu cei de la DG ENER, cu cei de la DG BUDG sau de la DG FIN, ca să poată să rezolve aceste lucruri. Pentru că dacă cineva a manipulat piața de energie, cred că nu e corect să rămână și cu banii luați și nepedepsit.
Mulțumesc.
Céline Gauer
Thank you very much. I think two, two, I understand your questions with two, two elements. First, you said why don't we have the right price? I think the price that we, that we have for natural gas, as you were asking, is the result of, of supply and demand. We may find it too high, but it is the result of a match between supply and demand.
And, and that's why actually, because it is a very expensive commodity, admittedly, and a commodity that we are to very, very large extent importing, then the solution to this one is to try and decrease our consumption as we have done since 2022 by 17%. So on this one again, the price is the market price, it is the result of supply and demand. It is certainly high and it is certainly very volatile. And so we have to do something about it, but that something is certainly to decrease our gas, our gas imports. On the speculation on CO2 trading, that's indeed something that, that is coming regularly in, in a debate and there's been some, some investigation and some research into this.
We haven't had evidence, at least to my, to my knowledge and, and as far as I understand from my, my colleagues in, in charge of, of the ETS, we haven't had evidence of, of manipulation or speculation on, on ETS certificates. We haven't, we haven't seen that. And wherever there were cross-border cases that ACER could, could, could find out, then this was, this was tackled and, and addressed. Of course, that leads to your last, to your last point, which is that the national cases that are not cross-border are in the hands of, of the national regulators. And we are indeed doing something to help them.
So we have set up, starting this year, what we call the Energy Academy together with the Florence School of Regulation to provide capacity building and training precisely to the national regulators and specifically also, not only, but, but covering very much in detail the, the application of the REMIT regulation, precisely to equip them better to tackle this. So this is what we're doing. Thank you.
András Gyürk
Thank you, Chair. Dear Madam Director General, welcome to the ITRE Committee. On behalf of the Patriots group, I wish you success in your new role. And now I'd like to speak in Hungarian if I may. Tisztelt főigazgató asszony!
Egy egészséges energiapolitikának három fő prioritás, ellátásbiztonság, megfizethetőség és fenntarthatóság közötti egyensúlyra kell törekednie. Ez az elmúlt évek uniós energiapolitikájának nem volt jellemzője sajnos, ezért ezzel kapcsolatos elképzeléseiről tennék fel kérdéseket. Először az ellátásbiztonság területén az EU továbbra is jelentős problémákkal küzd, többek között aggasztóan alakul a gáztárolók töltöttségi szintje. Mindössze 75%-ot érhet el november elejére, ami évtizedes negatív csúcs lenne. Milyen a szükséges földgáz és kőolaj importot ösztönző lépéseket tervez a Bizottság?
Másodszor, a Bizottság eddig nem tudott mit kezdeni az energiaárakkal. A lakossági árak magas szinten ragadtak, a vállalkozások pedig továbbra is négyszer-ötszörösét fizetik az energiáért globális versenytársaikhoz képest. Ma nincs olyan kisvállalkozás vagy nagyipari szereplő, aki ne az energiaárakat nevezné meg fő problémaként.
Milyen új, az eddigi kudarcos stratégiát meghaladó lépéseket terveznek ez ügyben, tisztelt főigazgató asszony? Végül a fenntarthatóság kérdését társadalmi oldalról megközelítve. A magas árak mellett egyre gyakrabban szólnak bele a polgárok energiafogyasztási szokásaiba. A Bizottság a háztartások áramfogyasztását korlátozná az adatközpontok energiaigényére hivatkozva. A magyar kormány pedig a légkondi használat csökkentésére szólít fel az esti órákban.
Főigazgató asszony, ön szerint életvezetési tanácsokkal kezelhető-e a fenntarthatóság problémája? Köszönöm szépen.
Céline Gauer
Thank you very much. So, I think I would disagree with you that we haven't found the right balance between affordability, sustainability, and security. It is a balance, obviously, that is evolving over time because the world around us is evolving. And as I was explaining in my introductory remarks, of course, today we are looking very, very much at the security because of the two energy crises, imported energy crises that we are seeing. So that comes to the forefront of the worries, but of course, we always have to look at the three priorities and always achieve the three in the round.
On security of supply, do we have major problems? Actually, we don't. We have a price problem at the moment, but we don't have security of supply. And we discussed with all the Member States last week again, with all of their energy specialists, to make sure that we share all the data and that we have the same reading of the situation. And all of them, and that's also our assessment, were seeing that the storage levels are increasing, that they are slightly above 50% by now.
This is on the low range, but it is still compatible with security of supply. And we haven't seen any security of supply issue, neither in the past nor going forward. So I think on security of supply, we are good. It doesn't mean that we are not going to improve the frameworks, and I was referring to the proposal that we want to make. And we certainly want to update the way, in particular for gas, we are looking at security of supply, looking at how we also better tackle the interplay between the gas and the electricity sector to make sure that we have the right security standards, if you want, and the right storage level going forward.
So it's not that we don't want to adjust and that we don't want to update, but I would tend to disagree that we don't have security of supply. We do have that. On energy prices, I think I already commented on that. I think energy prices, yes, they are high. They are high on imported fossil, and these are not things that we can control.
They can come lower, in particular on electricity, if we have the right electricity mix and the right flexibility in our system. And this is why, this is what the Commission is doing. The Commission is promoting, both by regulation but also by funding, investment in clean generation and also energy efficiency, which is my last point on do we push people not to consume.
Well, we don't push people not to consume because we fully acknowledge that that energy consumption is needed and is something that that is here to stay and probably here to grow. But but what is absolutely essential is to have an efficient consumption, is to make sure that we that we are not wasting energy, neither electricity nor nor any other source of energy because we can't waste it because it is too precious. And the the overall policy of the Commission in terms of of energy efficiency and the overall EU policy on energy efficiency is all steered at ensuring that there is no waste, not to cut anybody's energy consumption arbitrarily. And then finally on the on the ranking and the prioritization of of households or data centers or industrial users, I think it is something that is very, very largely, if not exclusively, in the hands of the regulatory authorities of the Member States that do regulate the the access to the grid by those different those different players. And there is nothing at EU level that says you have to connect data center and and let your hospitals in the cold, absolutely nothing of that sort in at EU level.
Thank you.
Follow up?
András Gyürk
Köszönöm szépen a a választ. A kiegészítő kérdésem nekem is a metánkibocsátási rendelettel lenne kapcsolatos. Jelezte, hogy természetesen ismerik a tizenhét tagállam jelzését a jogszabállyal kapcsolatban, amely veszélyezteti a földgáz- és kőolajellátásukat. Rajtuk kívül természetesen energetikai partnerországok, iparági szereplők is hasonló véleményen vannak, ezt is érdemes itt elmondani. Mi patrióták a következő napokban levélben fogjuk jelezni a fenntartásainkat a Bizottságnak.
Azt mondta, ajánlásokat fognak megfogalmazni. Az a kérdésem, továbblépve azért ennél, tud-e adni a Bizottság garanciákat, hogy ez a rendelet nem fog magasabb, még magasabb energiaárakhoz vezetni az európai lakosság és ipar számára? S ha nem tud ilyen garanciát adni, nyújtani, akkor miért ragaszkodik továbbra is egy olyan határidőhöz, amelyet, ahogy mondom, számos tagállam, partnerállam, piaci szereplő irreálisnak tart? Köszönöm a választ.
Céline Gauer
Thank you very much. As I mentioned before, we're not insisting on the deadline because we have understood that more time is needed in the current circumstances. And this is why we are working on recommendation that will provide additional time to market players to adjust and to comply. But why do we insist on the principle of the methane regulation? Simply because methane emissions are eighty times higher and more toxic for for the for the environment than than CO2 emissions that are already pretty bad.
So this is absolutely critical to tackle those those emissions. And this is why this House, together with the Council, adopted the methane regulation and this is why we are implementing it as it is our duty to do to do so. But more time is indeed needed to adjust and that we are just about to to provide. Can we give a guarantee that prices will be at a given level? No, because as I explained before, prices are a result of supply and demand and it's not something that we are directly regulating just because I think there's not something that that an EU authority can can regulate.
These are the result of supply and demand and indeed fossil fuels are expensive. Thank you.
Tsvetelina Penkova
Thank you. We continue with ECR, but just a remark, colleagues have been very generous in terms of timings, but please still be respectful in the timing. And now we're moving to ECR and Mr. Obajtek.
Daniel Obajtek
I'd rather speak Polish. Gratuluję pani dyrektor, duże wyzwanie. Ja mam takie pytanie, czy w pakiecie bezpieczeństwa energetycznego uwzględniacie państwo gaz, energię, czy również będziecie uwzględniać w tym pakiecie ropę? I tak parę słów odnośnie kwestii ropy. Proszę państwa, dużo mówimy o transformacji, odejściu od paliw kopalnianych, ale tak naprawdę rzeczywistość jest taka, że w przypadku ropy i paliw tradycyjnych Europa jeszcze będzie bardzo, bardzo długo zależna.
I teraz, szanowni państwo, niestety nie zakrzywimy ekonomii ani geografii. Więc w momencie, kiedy całkowicie będziemy podejmować decyzje i nie dostosujemy się logistycznie i podejmiemy decyzję całkowicie o odejściu ropy rosyjskiej, to pragnę zaznaczyć, że w przypadku produktów i zużycia ropy rosyjskiej następuje tak zwany dyferencjał między ropą Brent i Ural. Czyli jeżeli będziemy stosować inne gatunki ropy, będziemy niekonkurencyjni w stosunku co do tych, którzy stosują ropę choćby nawet Ural, czyli rosyjską. Automatycznie będzie potworny problem z rafineriami w Europie i będziemy uzależnieni od importu paliw z zewnątrz. A jak wygląda import paliw z zewnątrz, to państwo doskonale sobie zdajecie sprawę, że on nigdy nie do końca będzie stabilny.
Więc jeżeli planujemy w tym pakiecie również ropę, to bardzo bym prosił, byśmy się zastanowili, czy logistycznie jesteśmy bezpieczni, jeżeli chodzi o kwestie ropy w Europie. Dziękuję.
Céline Gauer
Thank you very much. Absolutely, I think we are indeed very dependent. We're very dependent on gas and we're very dependent on oil. I think we are importing the overwhelming majority of those two commodities and very, very little production within the EU or within the EEA. So absolutely we need to make sure that we have a resilient infrastructure, but also that we have diversification, but that we also have a very clear trajectory in terms of use of those fossil fuels and reduction of that use.
Reduction is going to happen, I think that's in all the pathways to 2050. It's not immediate, however, and we also have to manage the transition, which is what we are trying to do and what we are supporting Member States to do as well. Thank you.
Christophe Grudler
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Madame la Directrice générale, déjà toutes nos félicitations pour votre nomination et notre souhait de plein succès dans vos missions, pour vous dire que si on est parfois un peu critique, on sera toujours à vos côtés pour sortir des énergies fossiles à condition évidemment que la neutralité technologique soit bien respectée par la Commission. Je voulais faire une alarme sur l'hydrogène, comme un peu mon collègue Christian Ehler juste avant. On s'est planté, on s'est trompé sur l'hydrogène au moment de la stratégie hydrogène de juillet 2020. Et après, l'erreur de REPowerEU était catastrophique.
20 millions de tonnes d'hydrogène pour 2030, 100 % vert, pas une place pour de l'hydrogène bas carbone. Et puis en plus, aller signer des accords à travers le monde pour avoir de l'importation d'hydrogène, on n'a rien aujourd'hui. C'était un échec total. Tout ce que ça a permis, c'est de vendre des électrolyseurs chinois à l'Égypte, à la Namibie, à l'Arabie saoudite, parce qu'on a été incapable de promouvoir les électrolyseurs européens. Donc aujourd'hui, qu'est-ce qu'on attend de vous là-dessus ?
On attend la révision de l'acte délégué sur l'hydrogène vert. On attend la consultation que vous devez lancer pour définir une méthodologie pour inclure l'hydrogène produit à partir de nucléaire. C'est prévu dans l'acte délégué sur l'hydrogène bas carbone, mais la méthodologie n'est toujours pas là. Et enfin, on attend votre stratégie européenne sur l'hydrogène qui sera publiée peut-être d'ici la fin de l'année. On l'attend en tout cas depuis un an et donc ce serait peut-être important qu'on l'ait.
Il y aurait trois objectifs rapides : décarboner l'industrie, ça nous paraît important de soutenir la demande dans ce cadre-là, promouvoir les électrolyseurs européens quand la Commission signe des accords, et enfin avoir un vrai statut pour l'hydrogène natif ou naturel. Il y a beaucoup de gisements en Europe et c'est une vraie perspective pour l'avenir. Voilà, je voulais vous demander un peu votre avis sur ces différents points d'hydrogène que j'ai pu soulever. Merci.
Céline Gauer
Merci beaucoup pour vos questions. Je vais répondre en français. Et la réponse est assez simple. Oui, nous savons que vous attendez ces trois actes, ces trois documents : l'acte délégué sur l'hydrogène vert, l'acte délégué sur l'hydrogène bas carbone et la stratégie. Et la bonne nouvelle, c'est que nous y travaillons.
Nous sommes quasiment au bout pour les deux premiers et la stratégie, nous avons fermement l'intention de l'adopter d'ici la fin de l'année. Donc vous devriez y trouver votre compte. Je suis ainsi que tous mes collègues travaillant sur ces dossiers à votre disposition et à celle de tous les membres du comité pour en discuter de manière informelle avant leur finalisation pour adoption. Merci beaucoup.
Christophe Grudler
Merci, et j'aurais une petite question de suivi rapidement. Vous allez présenter le plan d'action pour l'électrification. Vous avez décidé d'y adosser la stratégie pour le chauffage et le refroidissement, ce qui est quelque chose d'assez nouveau. Est-ce que vous pouvez nous dire clairement si cette stratégie sera technologiquement neutre ? Parce que les technologies nucléaires, notamment les SMR, qui possèdent un fort potentiel de cogénération et de production de chaleur décarbonée, voilà, est-ce que ça sera inclus dedans ?
Céline Gauer
Merci de votre question. Là, ça devient un peu plus compliqué. Nous allons adopter le plan électrification, qui est tout un plan électrification technologiquement neutre, en tout cas on s'est efforcé de le présenter comme tel. Il inclura un grand nombre d'éléments relatifs au heating and cooling, mais ce ne sera pas le dernier mot en la matière. Et pour le moment, si vous me le permettez, je m'arrêterai là.
Tsvetelina Penkova
Thank you, and we are moving to the last speaker in this round, from the Greens, Mr. Niinistö.
Ville Niinistö
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Director-General, for being here today and good luck in your work. Obviously, we all wish that, and I've been also encouraged by your answers today, but let's see how you answer my questions. I also focus on electrification and energy sovereignty. And I think we all understand that we have learned the hard way how reliant we are on imported fossil fuels in the last years, first with Russia and since then with what happens in Hormuz. So I think it's clear that the dependence on fossil fuels is not just a climate issue, but it's also an energy security and energy independence issue.
And when we solve these problems, we have to solve them together. So we have to see how interlinked climate, energy independence and resilience and then also competitiveness are.
Still there is a major gap between our rhetoric on independence and Europe's energy system. We need to electrify much faster. Only 23% of the final energy consumption is electricity, and electricity in many parts of Europe is still actually structurally disadvantaged when it comes to fossil fuels. And we even hear some colleagues say that we should intervene on the pricing mechanisms of the market, and we should do that because mostly that would then only support fossil fuels. So the focus on electrification is super important and we support the Commission on that.
However, there is a risk that if we only focus on the electrification target, we may neglect or weaken the current architecture that's driven investment in renewables and energy efficiency. So my question is, how will you ensure that the new electrification objective strengthens rather than substitutes ambitious post-2030 targets for also renewables and energy efficiency, and how more specifically we can also get renewables investments forward when it comes to storage? We all see that the renewables on storage solutions have been slower to come as foreseen, and that's part of the problem in our energy system currently. Thank you.
Céline Gauer
Thank you very much for your question. I think the electrification target is not a substitute for the overall post-2030 architecture. It is just a really interesting metric that is cross-cutting and that is encompassing some of the elements but not all of the elements of the overall framework. So it is never intended to replace it. It is a complement, it is an indicator that is interesting to also observe because we saw also by looking internationally that there is a link between that electrification and the overall efficiency of the system, but also of the independence and resilience of the system because of what I was mentioning before, that actually most of the electricity generated here can be considered as homegrown.
So it is not at all seen as a substitute to the rest. We are working as I mentioned on the post-2030 framework. We are looking at the many, many, many targets that we have in the current framework. We do not envisage to touch anything until 2030. But beyond 2030, learning also from the experience that we have made so far, looking at how to simplify the architecture of the target.
But it doesn't mean replacing the existing with an electrification target. It may mean having an electrification target, it may mean also having a different way or different combination of the elements and certainly a simplification, but not a substitution. And on this one, we are still as I mentioned doing the impact assessment, so we are looking at many, many different options to choose from and we haven't come to a close. So also contributions very welcome in that regard. Thank you.
Ville Niinistö
Follow-up? Yes, thank you. I just want to reiterate how important it is to make sure that there is incentive to invest in renewables also when it comes to capacity markets and that we don't get a problem with, you know, we have a chicken and egg problem currently with a lot of renewable hydrogen projects that there needs to be also demand from the consumers and there needs to be also systemic support for these investments. And that is something that the Commission needs to look at also beyond IAA, which is already a proposal here.
Additionally, I would like to ask about the Russian oil imports. You have promised a proposal to ban Russian oil imports like there is a ban on Russian gas. I think this is important geopolitically, more broadly also beyond the war in Ukraine when it ends that we show that we don't go back to dependence on Russian oil, so this goes beyond climate and beyond fossil fuels, it's also geopolitical security for us. You have promised a proposal, now it's been postponed. I think we still need it, so it would be good for you to reiterate your commitment to come forward with that proposal and my question is when.
Céline Gauer
Thank you very much. Before I answer that, let me go back on storage because I forgot to answer on on storage. So on storage, we are completely sharing the need for storage, the need for flexibility more generally, but the need for the need for storage, we have created a framework that is a bit of an innovative framework with a tripartite storage that we concluded in in in Luxembourg in the margin of the Energy Council last time and we will also use that instrument together with with the upcoming regulation and with the with the funding support that we can also provide to advance on storage. On whether it's the REPower oil is still on the table, the answer is yes. On when will it come, the answer is I don't know.
It is as in the current context a bit well we saw it was it was a bit difficult, so that's why we have delayed it a little just to avoid aggravating further the the current situation, but it is certainly not off the table. Thank you.
Tsvetelina Penkova
Thank you, Director-General. So now we're moving to the next round of questions. We have eight people on the speakers list. We're going to divide them into two groups, four people, one minute each and then four minutes answer from the Director-General and then the second group of four people. So if you still want to partake in the debate, please do indicate it with your with your name name tags.
And now we're starting with Mr. Popescu from EPP for one minute.
Virgil-Daniel Popescu
Mulțumesc, doamnă președintă de ședință. O să vorbesc în în românește și aș vrea să reiau pe scurt lucrurile despre energia nucleară și despre energia regenerabilă. Le consider că sunt complementare, că nu că trebuie să funcționeze în paralel și una nu exclude pe alta. Părerea mea sinceră este că decarbonizare fără energie nucleară și fără regenerabile, evident, nu se poate face. Mă interesează care este opinia Comisiei și a dumneavoastră despre energia nucleară și dacă este pozitivă ce facem pentru a promova energia nucleară, ținând cont că sunt nenumărate dezbateri că până la urmă dacă să folosim sau nu energia nucleară.
Și întorcându-mă la energia regenerabilă, vă pun dumneavoastră o întrebare, pentru că de la DG Ener ar trebui să plece până la urmă necesarul de energie pentru electrificare și să vedem câtă tehnologie este nevoie în domeniul energiei regenerabile, să ne întrebăm ce vom face peste 20 de ani dacă acuma importăm tehnologie din în special din din China și dacă nu acest cost de securitate pe care îl plătim la fiecare minut când importăm această tehnologie nu va ajunge la o dependență așa cum avem acum cum am avut-o cu gazul rusesc și cu greu am reușit să ne debarasăm de ea. Mulțumesc.
Niels Fuglsang
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Director General, for coming to discuss with us. We'll be seeing you later tonight on the trilogue on the grid package. I'll be there together with Mrs. Virkkunen and Mr. Kloc and good other people. So we'll be looking forward to that. What I would like to ask you about is data centers.
You're coming out with a package on data centers. It's been delayed a few times. And as you know, we need to reduce our energy consumption, we need to increase our energy efficiency by 11.7% by 2030. And we're not on track. We only, if you look at the plans from member states, it only adds up to about 8%.
So we need to do more. So I'd like to ask you about what your intentions are when it comes to data centers. We asked for some labeling that will show which data centers are green, which are energy efficient, and which use renewable energy. And we also give you the mandate in the Energy Efficiency Directive to come up with possible minimum performance standards for data centers. What are your ideas here?
We think that this is necessary to reach our energy efficiency targets.
Mirosława Nykiel
Thank you. Madam Director General, the European Union imports more than 90% of its natural gas and oil and almost all of its crude oil from the third countries. The methane regulations must therefore support climate goals while also safeguarding security of supply and the competitiveness of our economy. From 2027, importers will face obligations that virtually no producer outside the EU can currently meet. This could result in higher energy prices, supply distributions, and weaker industrial competitiveness.
That is why 17 member states, including Poland, are calling for a three-year stop-the-clock for the rules to reflect the actual capabilities of producers in third countries. Is the Commission ready to propose a stop-the-clock mechanism to protect Europe's energy security and economic competitiveness? Thank you.
Tsvetelina Penkova
Thank you. I'm extending the first round from four to five speakers as we got more asked for the floor. And we have Mr. González Casares now.
Nicolás González Casares
Thank you, Tsvetelina. Thank you, Mrs. Juul-Jørgensen. I will speak in Spanish. Si nos tomamos en serio la electrificación como una columna vertebral de la descarbonización, debemos abordar las barreras estructurales que a día de hoy tenemos. Por ejemplo, hoy en día la electricidad sigue soportando una carga fiscal desmesurada y la metodología del factor de energía primaria infravalora sistemáticamente la eficiencia de la electricidad en comparación con el gas.
Va a abordar esta cuestión concreta el plan de electrificación para promover realmente que suceda en todos los sectores? Y al mismo tiempo, la electrificación debe ir de la mano de la autonomía estratégica. Y estamos viendo un rápido desarrollo de los centros de datos que consumen y explotan grandes cantidades de electricidad y recursos hechos en la UE, salvo el riesgo que ahora estamos viendo de gasificación de uso de turbinas de gas que están detrás del contador. Y esto pone en riesgo la soberanía europea y aumenta nuestra dependencia fósil.
Pero diré más. Son compañías que nos pueden cortar el acceso a esos centros de datos poniendo además en riesgo la soberanía europea. ¿Considera que nos enfrentamos a un riesgo real de gasificar la transición digital y de renunciar nuestra dependencia energética europea?
Angelika Niebler
Dear Madam Director General congratulations on your new position and good luck for the challenges ahead. Now my question relates to the expected electrification action plan. One year ago the Commission promised in its affordable energy action plan savings of 45 billion euros in 2025 and 130 billion annually by 2030. And yet until this very day the implementation gap is still substantial many measures are only partially implemented. And most importantly there is still no robust evidence of broad EU-wide reductions in final energy prices.
And the ex-ante estimation has never been followed up by concrete assessments of the achieved savings. On the contrary I have to tell my citizens back home that energy prices have risen in Europe. And against this background I would like to ask you will the Commission when proposing new targets new market mechanisms new subsidy schemes provide for an elaborate impact assessment? And will this impact assessment also quantify how much electricity prices will actually fall in each member state and who will finance the required investments and what height of investments is necessary? Thank you.
Thank you. Dear Director General I pass you now the floor for four minutes to address some of the questions and concerns probably not not gonna be sufficient but we still have another last round of speakers so let's try to be concise as much as possible.
Céline Gauer
Okay so I'll I'll try to stay concise and many thanks for all of your all of your questions. What is the Commission doing for for nuclear? The Commission is is having a tech-neutral approach across the different instruments it is using which in turn then provides outlet for for nuclear generation. It also published recently the PINC report so the the illustrative program for for nuclear investments which frames the overall needs and and direction of of nuclear investment in in the EU. And it is to a limited extent because simply of of treaty obligations but it is also fostering some nuclear investments through for example the recent repurposing of 200 million guarantees through InvestEU to invest into SMRs.
So whenever we we can leverage existing instruments to also support investment in in the nuclear field we are we are doing we are doing so. This being said I think the bulk of the nuclear investment is was the bulk the quasi-totality of the nuclear investment are in the hands of the member states in full freedom recognized by the treaty of the choice of their energy mix.
On the security cost for importing Chinese technology, I think this is a very relevant point which we are tackling. We tackled it recently in dealing with the inverters for storage and solar, both by looking at the security dimension and stepping up cybersecurity measures to mitigate any risk that could come from the imports of some of those components, but also by fostering domestic production. As I mentioned in the beginning of my presentation, it is a business case for Europe to invest into this clean technology. We have, I think, the second largest heat pump producer in the world is a Polish company. So this is also a good thing for European business.
And the more we can support domestic business to produce those technologies, the better for employment, for industry, but also for our independence. On data center labeling, so it's coming. It's coming very soon. So we have well the intention to deliver on the request that was placed to us by the co-legislator. So are we going to do for the minimum performance standards for new data centers?
I think we are also working on that and will come forward with it, I think, beginning of next year at the latest. On the methane regulation, again, the same answer. We are well aware that a bit more time is required and we have prepared a recommendation that is just about to be adopted that will provide guidance to the companies for certifying their compliance with the rules, but also provide more time free of penalty for them to adjust. The intention again is not not to adjust because the original ambition of the methane regulation still stays there and is still important and still has to be delivered upon, but it's just to provide a bit more time to adjust. On the tax burden for electricity, absolutely, this is a problem.
I think we have very, very few member states where electricity is taxed less than gas and this is not setting the right incentive for electrification. We are coming as part of our package, hopefully at the end of the week, with a proposal in that respect to steer the member states to address that problem. On data centers and their energy consumption, I think that comes back a bit to the question on what are we doing for labeling. Yes, we are looking at the energy sourcing of data centers and how much additionality they provide, also because they are, they start creating in some member states a real problem for the electricity grid and for the electricity consumption. So we think it is really important to have additional clean generation triggered by those data centers.
And this is precisely what we are trying to foster through the labeling and through the clear identification of the clean dimension of the electricity generation for each and every data center that would be coming online. So that's our way of trying to tackle those two issues. On impact assessment and the need for impact assessment on the different measures, absolutely, this is completely valid. And we are doing an impact assessment on all the different targets.
So the the you will see something in the electrification action plan indeed, but this will be impact assessed as all the other possible targets before we come to any regulation that would then be binding. An action plan, as you know, is is an action plan, it is not a binding legal legal document, but before we come to binding legal document, we will have a proper a proper action plan as it should. Will we quantify the the drop in electricity prices? As you know very well, I think the formation of electricity prices is not directly connected to this or that measure, it is a function of supply and demand on the on the interconnected market. So it's not something that you can that you can simply calculate like that, it's just not not the way electricity prices are are set in any market.
And who will finance the investment? I think on on that you have you need a mix. I think the amount of of investments needed for the energy system is is humongous, so that will be a mix of private investment for everything that is in the money, that is in the market, and and support, targeted support by public authorities, cleared and minimized by state aid rules, because state aid rules here are a very precious help to make sure that we don't have and we don't use more public funding than absolutely strictly necessary to get the renewable capacity, to get the nuclear capacity, to get whatever else in in capacity markets coming coming online. So that's that's how we are trying to minimize the cost also for the citizens. Thank you.
Tsvetelina Penkova
Continuing the last round, please colleagues stick to the time because we're already running out of time almost and we have six people on the speaker's list. So we continue with Madam Koning from EPP.
Willemien Koning
Dank u. Ik zal spreken in het Nederlands. In Nederland komt 77% van de verbruikte energie uit het buitenland. Zoals u aangaf is heel Europa nog te afhankelijk van fossiele brandstoffen van buiten de EU. Dat maakt ons kwetsbaar en het blijft een bron van CO2-uitstoot.
Daarom is elektrificatie noodzakelijk. De vraag is: hoe gaan we dat in de praktijk doen? In Nederland is de netcongestie inmiddels zo ernstig dat het stroomnet ons huidig elektriciteitsverbruik al niet goed aankan. Kleine modulaire kernreactoren, SMR's, zouden hier een deel van de oplossing kunnen zijn. Want die kunnen decentraal betrouwbare, schone stroom leveren aan onder andere industrieclusters en nieuwe datacenters zonder het net verder over te belasten.
Maar dan moeten we ze wel kunnen bouwen en snel. Nu zijn de bouwkosten van SMR's in Europa veel hoger dan bijvoorbeeld in China. Mede door gebrek aan subsidie, trage vergunningverlening en onvoldoende harmonisatie van standaarden tussen de lidstaten. Mijn vraag is: in hoeverre wordt steun voor nucleaire energie, waaronder SMR's, meegenomen in het elektrificatieplan? Kunt u daar nog wat meer over zeggen?
Is er bijvoorbeeld aandacht voor vergunningverlening en harmonisatie?
Jens Geier
Danke, Frau Präsidentin, ich würde gerne Deutsch sprechen. Ich habe noch eine Frage, Frau Generaldirektorin, mit meinen herzlichen Glückwünschen zu Ihrer Ernennung, zum Thema Wasserstoff, zu dem wir schon einiges heute diskutiert haben. Und muss mich gleich entschuldigen, weil ich treffe um 16 Uhr den japanischen Vizebotschafter und den möchte ich nicht warten lassen, also möglicherweise habe ich keine Gelegenheit mehr, Ihre Antwort zu hören. Das täte mir leid, aber Kollegen werden mir berichten, ob Sie was was Sie geantwortet haben. Christoph Grudler und und Herr Ehler haben viel von den Fragen vorweggenommen, die ich auch gehabt hätte.
Mich interessiert dann aber auch eine komplementäre Rolle von grünen Gasen zur Elektrizität. Ich glaube, wir können uns sehr, sehr viele Investitionen sparen, wenn wir Sektorkopplung gründlich zu Ende denken, also etwa Überschüsse über Power-to-X in Gas verwandeln, was wir leichter transportieren und speichern können und am Ende damit Netzkosten sparen würden.
Mich würde interessieren, wie sehen Sie die komplementäre Rolle von grünen Gasen bei der Elektrifizierung? Dankeschön.
Michael Bloss
Thank you, Chair, and congratulations, Ms. Gauer. So the first question is that you are discussing now the 2030 or the post-2030 framework. And Commissioner Jørgensen has clearly stated that he will put forward a 2040 renewable energy target. So I just want to ask you again, will you make sure that the Commission proposes a robust renewable energy target for the period post-2030 for the year 2040? And the second question is on the 2030 renewable energy target.
In 2024, we are at 25% of our energy coming from renewables, and our target for the year 2030 is 45%. What will you do in order to make sure that Member States actually deploy more renewable energy and this target will be reached? Thank you very much.
Eszter Lakos
Thank you very much, and congratulations to the Director-General on her appointment. Thank you also for replying to the methane regulation questions, and I would like to focus now on the nuclear technologies under the Industrial Accelerator Act that is linked, you know, to your topic. So you in the REPowerEU roadmap, you foresee the restrictions on the Russian enriched uranium and nuclear technologies imports, but you have not come up with any proposal for the time being. Now, in the Industrial Accelerator Act, there is the Made in Europe criteria, and also nuclear technology that basically allows a kind of backdoor for the introduction of such restrictions that I was just, you know, mentioning to you before. So the Made in Europe requirements introduce the Made in Europe introduces requirements for components on the nuclear power plants and empowers the Commission to impose Union origin requirements on nuclear fuel cycle technologies.
So what, you know, is the concern is that it could exclude potentially trusted European partners, also, for instance, the SMRs, the small modular reactors, eventually stemming from the US, Canada, UK, that they are frontrunners of those technologies. And also some Member States, they are already committed, you know, to buying these SMRs. So I was just wondering, did DG ENER assess this proposal? Could these rules undermine the security of supply, and also will DG ENER support a complete supply chain assessment before any delegated act applies to the EU origin requirements? Thank you.
Sofie Eriksson
Thanks, I will speak Swedish.
Tack så mycket och grattis till jobbet. Jag vill passa på att fråga om det arbete som pågår kring framtida regler för nättariffer. Vi har tagit del av uppgifter... fungerar det eller är något fel? Okej. Var det något fel?
Something wrong? No, it's okay. Okej. Vi har tagit del av uppgifter om att kommissionen överväger modeller som i högre grad ska styr när hushåll använder el genom effekttariffer. Och det finns ju en poäng i att skapa incitament för ett mer effektivt utnyttjande av elnät, särskilt för energiintensiva industrier, men vi måste utgå ifrån hur människors vardag faktiskt ser ut.
För vi har erfarenhet av den här typen av modeller i Sverige och den erfarenheten visar att det är betydligt lättare att flytta elanvändningen i teorin än vad det är i praktiken. Många hushåll har helt enkelt inte möjlighet att välja en annan tid för att laga mat eller tvätta eller ladda sin bil. Man gör det när man kommer hem från jobb eller skola. Erfarenheten visar också att risken är stor att kostnader för det här istället flyttas över till hushåll som har minst möjlighet att anpassa sig utan att det ger den systemnytta som man har hoppats på. Så min fråga är därför, kan du säga något om hur man har tagit tillvara medlemsstaternas erfarenheter när man utformar framtida regler för nättariffer?
Hur säkerställer vi att människor inte får högre elräkningar bara för att man lever ett vanligt familjeliv? Tack.
Thank you. And Madam Jovanovici.
Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă
Thank you, I will speak Romanian. În primul rând, nu consider că nu ați răspuns la întrebarea colegului meu din România cu privire la bursa pentru electricitate și gaze. Și aș vrea să știu, sunteți de acord, nu sunteți de acord, veți propune Comisiei aceste lucruri dacă va fi o chestiune de viitor. În al doilea rând, ați vorbit despre certificatele de energie și de siguranța lor. E, eu vreau să vă spun că sunt nu sunt deloc sigure și nu sunt în general sunt mai bune pentru rețelele de criminalitate organizată decât pentru oameni, deși decât pentru țări și pentru companii.
Și vreau să vă spun că la nivelul Uniunii Europene aceste rețele de criminalitate organizată exploatează fondurile masive alocate pentru tranziția ecologică și complexitatea piețelor transfrontaliere de certificate, generând pagube de miliarde de euro. Investigațiile coordonate de Parchetul European și Europol arată că infractorii acționează la nivelul Uniunii Europene prin patru metode principale. Frauda cu certificate de carbon fantomă, importurile ilegale. Avem deja o investigație de amploare din mai 2026 care a scos la iveală o schemă uriașă prin care mari companii europene din cel puțin nouă țări, inclusiv giganți energetici din Germania, Franța și Austria, au fost înșelate să cumpere credite de carbon false din China. Infractorii au creat în acte proiecte de reducere a emisiilor care în realitate nu existau sau foloseau auditori corupți.
Aceste credite fictive au fost vândute pe piața europeană drept compensări verzi, permițând poluatorilor să pară sustenabili în mod ilegal. Al doilea este frauda transfrontalieră cu TVA, caruselul energetic. O rețea cumpără certificate dintr-un stat membru fără TVA și le vinde rapid în alt stat cu TVA inclus. Înainte ca fiscul din țara respectivă să poată colecta taxele, firmele fantomă coordonate de rețelele criminale dispar cu miliardele de euro provenite din TVA.
Apoi, a treia, deturnarea fondurilor imediat UE pentru energie curată și speculația și corupția pentru terenuri agricole care trec din terenuri care ar fi agricole în curți construcții tot așa prin intermediul acestor acestor companii de rețea.
Tsvetelina Penkova
We've been quite generous, he's spoken for almost two and a half minutes. And now I'll pass the floor back to the Director-General to address the many many topics and questions. If you just allow me to to add one more one more very brief one, several times it was mentioned about the 200 million guarantee to to support the investment in innovative nuclear technologies. I'm not sure it was clear for everyone what's the state of play and the level of preparation of the Commission on that proposal that was introduced by the President in March this year. And now the floor is yours for four minutes, please.
Céline Gauer
Thank you very much. I'm trying to retrieve the first of the round. Okay, yes, it was the first one. Okay, very good. So what can we do about... she's... ah yeah, she's just gone.
So what can we do... well, I'm still delivering the the reply for everyone else's benefit. So what can we do about congestion in the in the grid? First, get quick to adopt the grids package and and roll out the grids. Second, try to improve the grid management and and the flexibility in the system to be able to to make the best use of of the grid that that we that we have. And on the speed for building new SMRs, we know that the few the first SMRs in in Canada are coming are coming online, so it's it's not science fiction, it's it's it's coming.
How long is it going to take here in Europe to to have some built? I think that's a question of years, it's not for it's not for tomorrow, which also means that we also need to to look at at this as one of the of the elements, as one of you said earlier, of the energy mix. I think it is not nuclear versus renewables, we need renewables absolutely, we we may need and the Member States may choose to also use nuclear, it's a complement to one and the other. What... so that that was... and why don't we have subsidies? I think there is it is absolutely possible to subsidize nuclear if Member States chose choose to do so, some are actually investing quite substantial amounts of state aid in building in building new nuclear, it is absolutely possible provided that they respect state aid rules.
Are we going also to look at CO2 gases? As Mr. Geyer is also gone, yes we are, there will be as part of the of the package a carbon capture usage and storage part which will look at the at the CO2 markets and their functioning and provide some some regulation to their operation to make sure that the market, which is a nascent market, then can take off. Renewables targets, will I make sure that the that the College comes up with with renewables targets? I think you're giving me far too much power, I cannot control the the College. So no, neither can my actually my Commissioner nor my Executive Vice-President.
What I can tell you is that a renewables target is an integral part of all the options that we are assessing for the for the moment and and that that will certainly be put forward for for discussion and then you will see, we will also see what the Commission's proposal in the end will be, but the renewables target is very firmly anchored into the mission letter of my Commissioner and of the Executive Vice-President. What are we going to do for the fact that Member States are falling short of their of their renewables targets?
We are supporting, pushing, trying to make sure, and that's a really important point for me, that implementation of the renewables directive is also taking place because many, many Member States are lagging behind on that implementation. Supporting, as we have massively done from the EU budget, to allow the rollout of additional renewable capacity and also making the case, which is also something that you are doing in this house, but showing the economic case for rolling out renewables, which is more compelling today than it ever was. So hopefully with a lot of efforts from all sides we will improve the situation. REPower, nuclear and Made in Europe. So REPower nuclear, yes, I think was, or is in the making, and it's a bit like for REPower oil, it is still in the making and we are still working on it and we will come up with it at the appropriate moment.
On the look on the supply chain for the application of the Made in Europe principle, yes, it is something that we are doing very closely with our colleagues in DG GROW because we need to know supply chain by supply chain what the implications are. Do we have a risk that network tariffs will become more expensive for households and if they have limited flexibility? I think progress on the flexibility also of the appliances is being increased, but to be fully transparent, I think the core of the work on the flexibility and on the network charges for the proposal we are working at the moment on is not targeted at households and the smart management of electricity consumption by households, but much more at industry. For households, smart meters and smart appliances are part of the solution, but of course they need to be rolled out before anything can happen. And Member States are indeed sharing experiences on the very different types of tariff regulation that they are applying, all learning from each other, from the good but also from the bad.
On the manipulation, I think coming back to my previous answer, we don't have evidence of corruption or manipulation that have not been tackled by the national regulatory authorities or by ACER. And I'm not aware of any EPPO finding in that respect, but I will look into it. Again, we haven't seen a case from the EPPO concluding on this. On the InvestEU and the state of play, I think we're still working together with the EIB to see how we can unblock this guarantee and then foster additional investment in that field. Thank you.
Tsvetelina Penkova
Thank you, thank you, Madam Director-General. Thank you for being at your first hearing in the ITRE Committee. Good luck and welcome to one of the most intense committees of the European Parliament, with the members who are very active, up to date, and they would always come with challenging questions, but also constructive feedback and suggestions from the Parliament. So you can also count on our future collaboration. We're all looking forward for that.
I wish everyone nice summer then, and good evening, enjoy the game tonight.