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 sittingsPaulius Saudargas
Two minutes, okay. Thank you, Chairman, dear colleagues. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Christophe Grudler for his draft report, really great report. And I look forward to work closely with you and other shadow rapporteurs. Space is becoming increasingly important for Europe's competitiveness, security, and resilience.
So that's why we need an effective agency. The Commission proposal expands agency's role by entrusting the agency with additional operational and exploitation tasks. The proposal increases the EU contribution to the agency from around 525 million in the current MFF to almost 1 billion in the next MFF, while new tasks entrusted to the agency will also be financed through the European Competitiveness Fund. As the EU space programs grows and more responsibilities are entrusted to the agency, in my view, the agency should have the mandate and capacity to take on greater share of tasks entrusted to it. So despite the very good report, I tabled some amendments.
And my amendments therefore build up on Commission's proposals to strengthen the role of agency in its exploitation and operational tasks and aim to create better coordination among member states in space.
The objective is also to make better use of existing European space systems and capacities and ensure that services they provide are delivered in an efficient way across the Union. In addition, I also propose to strengthen the role of the European Parliament as a budgetary authority, including by giving Parliament a greater say in the agency's governance and introducing voting rights in areas where Parliament currently has a non-voting role. So with the proposed amendments, I want to move towards a more integrated European space market and a more coordinated European approach to space services. I look forward to working with you all on this file. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now the chair Giorgio Gori from S&D. Two minutes, sorry.
Giorgio Gori
Thank you, chair. Volevo innanzitutto ringraziare il relatore per il draft report. Lo sviluppo del settore spaziale europeo è una priorità strategica dell'Unione non solo per il ruolo determinante che svolge per la resilienza e la sicurezza del nostro continente, ma anche perché rappresenta un fattore abilitante per l'industria europea, specialmente per diversi settori ad alta innovazione tecnologica. E quindi stabilire finalmente una base giuridica autonoma per EUSPA, non più legata alla durata di un singolo quadro finanziario, è un passaggio necessario per garantire continuità operativa e certezza del diritto, condizioni indispensabili per gli operatori economici e il funzionamento dell'agenzia stessa. La proposta della Commissione riprende e aggiorna quanto già previsto nel precedente regolamento sul programma spaziale, senza creare discontinuità rispetto all'assetto esistente.
Resta però necessario garantire coerenza con quanto verrà stabilito da altre normative in via di definizione che per forza di cose incideranno sul ruolo dell'agenzia, in primis il fondo per la competitività e lo Space Act. È proprio su una definizione più precisa dei compiti dell'agenzia e delle condizioni alle quali questi vengono assunti che considero vi sia maggiore margine di miglioramento della proposta della Commissione. Questo darebbe maggiore certezza nell'applicazione e ridurrebbe il rischio di sovrapposizioni con i compiti già svolti da altri attori. Ad esempio, in merito al concetto di prontezza operativa, condizione necessaria affinché vengano attribuiti ulteriori compiti all'agenzia, ritengo che sarebbe preferibile definirla nel testo: criteri chiari su personale, competenze tecniche e garanzia di continuità dei servizi, una verifica componente per componente e un processo ben definito con cui la Commissione può pronunciarsi, trasmettendo ogni decisione a Parlamento e Consiglio. Sebbene comprenda la scelta del relatore di eliminare questo concetto, credo ci sia margine per migliorarlo nel lavoro che svolgeremo insieme.
Infine, ho accolto con favore diversi passaggi del progetto di relazione, in particolare sul rafforzamento del ruolo del Parlamento e sull'indipendenza del comitato di accreditamento di sicurezza. Condivido il principio per cui chi gestisce i sistemi non deve poi anche certificarne la sicurezza, considerando la rilevanza di queste decisioni. Ringrazio quindi ancora il relatore per la proposta di relazione e confido in un confronto costruttivo nel prosieguo dei negoziati. Grazie.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you, chair. And first of all, I'd like to thank rapporteur Mr. Grudler on an ambitious and forward-looking draft. Thank you. Very nice. And first of all, I'd like to say that we do support the overall direction and particularly welcome proposal to retain agency's broader current name rather than define it too narrowly through services.
The rapporteur is right to clarify EUSPA responsibilities across navigation, Earth observation, EOGS, GOVSATCOM, IRIS and space surveillance. And also that EUSPA must receive necessary financial, human and technical resources sufficiently in advanced.
New responsibilities must never come with unfunded mandates. So this is probably the key, but anyway we still will submit some amendments and there will be three major areas. First of all, it concerns Prague. We believe that Prague must remain EUSPA's genuine institutional and operational center. Local offices may support the agency's work, but they must not lead to fragmentation or entire portfolios being transferred away from the headquarters because this is something which is not fully efficient from our perspective.
Second, EUSPA should have stronger role in market uptake, commercialization, demand aggregation and support for European downstream companies because our investment in space infrastructure must translate into European technologies, resilient supply chains and concrete benefits for citizens and businesses. And finally, we support independent, effective and timely security accreditation. However, any reform must preserve existing expertise, operation continuity and Member States' confidence. We should carefully access the proposed separation of technical accreditation support while avoiding both excessive Commission control on one side and weakening of the Security Accreditation Board on the second side. In conclusion, Europe's space assets are strategic infrastructure and we look forward to work constructively with the rapporteur and all team to develop it further.
Thanks.
Ondřej Knotek
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Christophe, you did a very good job and I think that your draft report is a solid basis for further, further work. I'm convinced too that the agency's current name should be, should be kept. Furthermore, it is important to explicitly mention the well-established name, EUSPA. Of course, even more important is what tasks the agency will carry out. I appreciate that the rapporteur gives EUSPA a stronger and clearer role in the management and other activities relating to European space projects, including their security.
I only believe that we should make a clear link to the new tasks arising from the EU Space Act. We shouldn't give the agency new responsibilities without giving, giving it the financial, human and technical resources. I'm glad to see we are on the same page on this. Certain procedural and organizational rules are up for the discussion at a later stage, to which I'm open, of course, and I will contribute to it with my amendments as well. There is, however, one important point to address: the security accreditation, which already has been raised by my other colleagues.
First, as a conservative, I ask: do we have evidence of fundamental systemic problems with accreditation and that the Chinese wall within the agency, agency is not effective? Second, moving all technical assessment away from EUSPA staff could lead to loss of expertise and delays if Member States cannot provide enough experts. I also have doubts about practicality of three-month deadline. Not to conclude on a negative road, I'm ready to discuss this too amongst the shadows. Thank you once again and I'm looking forward to work with you, Christophe, and also with other colleagues on this proposal.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Ondřej. And now from The Left we've got our colleague Marina Mesure.
Marina Mesure
Merci Monsieur le Président. Je comprends bien qu'à travers ce texte nous tentons d'élargir les prérogatives de l'EUSPA, notamment dans la gestion des services spatiaux européens d'observation de la Terre et d'Iris au carré. Pour moi, vraiment le point crucial, et j'entends certains collègues qui l'ont mentionné avant moi, ça sera vraiment de mettre l'emphase sur le fait que ces nouvelles responsabilités doivent s'accompagner de moyens humains et financiers pour que ces missions puissent durablement nous servir. Je dis cela parce que nous avons, partageons tous l'objectif d'avoir des décisions plus rapides, plus fiables, et en même temps nos administrations ont de moins en moins de moyens. Et c'est d'autant plus inquiétant que nous sommes aussi dans les négociations en ce moment avec le Space Act et nous voyons que certains collègues essaient de faire passer, et nous le voyons d'ailleurs de plus en plus dans les législations européennes, ce principe du silence vaut acceptation, c'est-à-dire que si on n'est pas capable de donner une réponse dans les temps, et bien dès lors ça devrait être accepté.
Et nous nous y opposons évidemment avec force puisque justement si ces procédures des fois prennent du temps, c'est parce qu'on a depuis de très nombreuses années entravé les administrations dans leurs moyens humains et financiers pour pouvoir délivrer les autorisations. Donc ce point sera absolument central pour nous, celui des moyens financiers, humains. Et le deuxième point que je rappelle encore à plusieurs reprises dans le Space Act, c'est la question de la puissance publique. Pour nous, la force du secteur spatial européen repose pleinement sur la force qu'occupe la puissance publique. Et donc ce sera là aussi pour nous un élément absolument essentiel que nous porterons de la même manière dans le Space Act que aujourd'hui dans le texte qui nous est proposé sur les prérogatives de l'EUSPA.
Merci.
Borys Budka
Thank you, dear colleague. And I don't have anyone in catch-the-eye procedure, so now I will give the floor to Mrs. Isabella Poldrugo, Deputy Head of Unit at DG DEFIS from and Unit Space Policy. So the floor is yours.
Isabella POLDRUGO
Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Commission welcomes the proposal of the European Parliament and it looks forward to a constructive support to the rapporteur, Mr. Grudler, the shadows and the ITRE Committee. The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Union Space Services Agency, EUSPA, ensures legal certainty and the agency's continuity of operation and activities beyond the MFF cycles. The new name better reflects the agency's identity, its evolving role and the new responsibilities. It also takes into account the fact that in the European Competitiveness Fund, there is not reference anymore to space programs or to space programs.
Nevertheless, it is important to keep the acronym to profit of the brand awareness raised in these late last years. EUSPA will play a key role in the implementation of the actions related to the Union space system and space policy implementation as included in the European Competitiveness Fund. This is why the Commission's proposal includes three groups of task: the own task, that is the one that EUSPA has already today, as well as the entrusted task, that is performed by EUSPA also now, and a third group, subject to the operational readiness of the agency, that includes the new task to align with the ECF provisions.
Speaker 9
This is to keep the structure of the agency flexible and adaptable to the evolving implementation of the European Competitiveness Fund. Additionally, the regulation includes specific provisions to continue operating in case of crisis, ensuring the continuity of services and preserving the security of the European Union space system and operations, including the security accreditation. We are talking today about an operational system used by 4.5 billion users worldwide, with new services including for the governmental users. This is why the role of EUSPA, including the one of the Security Accreditation Board, is key to ensure the security and continuity of services that enable our economies, security and well-being. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thanks a lot. And now for the final remarks, the time is for our rapporteur, so Christophe, the floor is yours again.
Christophe Grudler
Yes. Merci, Monsieur le Président. Très bel après-midi, hein, plein de choses à dire. Donc je serai donc très très court, très très court pour évidemment d'abord remercier les collègues qui sont tous très impliqués. Merci pour leurs interventions et leur soutien.
Merci donc en particulier aux shadow rapporteurs Sodargas, Gori, Krutílek, Nagoyava, Nagoyova, sorry, Lagodinsky, Mesure. On, je pense qu'on peut faire du bon travail ensemble. J'ai pris note de tous les éléments. Je suis confiant qu'on arrivera vraiment ensemble à créer les bases du futur de l'EUSPA et que nous pourrons parvenir à renforcer les moyens de cette agence aux côtés évidemment de nos collègues de la commission des budgets. Donc je reste bien sûr à votre pleine disposition pour toutes les précisions que vous jugerez utiles.
Merci.
Borys Budka
Merci beaucoup. And after all your remarks and positions, I would like to announce that the deadline for amendments is the 1st of October at midday. So remember amendments to 1st of October, and the vote is planned on our ITRE committee meeting at 1st of December. Thanks a lot. And before we will go to item 6, we will have the break because this is planned for quarter to 5.
So we must wait for our rapporteur and shadows rapporteur and shadows. So now we've got more than less 20 minutes of break and we will meet again here in this room quarter to 5.
Jüri Ratas
Second, a realistic linear reduction factor. An aggressive reduction trajectory penalizes companies for lacking clean technologies that do not yet exist. I advocate for a two-stage approach: a lower initial reduction rate of 3.2 percentage until 2035, moving to 2.2 percentage from 2036 onwards. This gives industry crucial breathing space until key technologies become commercially available. Third, dynamic safeguards for global competitiveness.
A permanent export solution for CBAM is absolutely crucial, as Parliament has reiterated several times. Tools like CBAM are still untested. I propose a system of sector-specific key performance indicators. We must continuously monitor production relocation, output drops, and import market shares. If these indicators show that phasing of free allowances hurts European competitiveness, the phase-out must be immediately paused or adjusted.
And fourth, pragmatic solution for carbon removals and top performers. We need clear rules for permanent carbon removals to ensure high environmental integrity without disrupting market stability. Furthermore, we must reward early movers to support their decarbonization efforts. The deadline for tabling amendments here in ITRE is set for today at 5:00 PM, and I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the colleagues who have already submitted their proposals and constructive input. Tomorrow we will hold our first shadows meeting, and dear colleagues, reaching climate neutrality, I think, cannot come at the cost of European production and jobs.
I really look forward to working closely with all of you to find the consensus, to find the compromise, and of course to build a green, resilient, and competitive future for Europe. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much, and now on behalf of S&D, Bruno Tobback, two minutes for you.
Bruno Tobback
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur for his proposal. I think that what we are seeing happening today and the energy crisis that we face is a stark reminder of the need for decarbonization and energy efficiency as actually the only robust path to a competitive European economy. It is not just about saving the planet. Hoping for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz so we can get cheap oil or gas again is not a strategy for European competitiveness. And that transition will require massive investment, and the ETS is indeed probably the single most important instrument that we have to mobilize that investment.
It does that in two ways. It does it by setting a stable and predictable track for carbon prices, by thereby creating a business case and investment security for market players and for industries, as cap-and-trade systems have already proven to do in many other industries and many other areas.
At the same time, ETS also generates revenues, if it is well designed, revenues that, at least according to my group, should go more than today towards stimulating investment in the contributing sectors and in enabling infrastructure to make sure that we can decarbonize in a competitive way, infrastructure such as grids. It is clear for us, colleagues, that getting this right will allow ETS to have its place as part of a broader investment strategy for Europe and not just as a pathway to climate neutrality, but as a way to make sure that we are not in European industries, as we are in many cases too much doing today, manage decline, but about rebuilding and investing in an economic prosperity on a new and more solid foundation than what we have today. That is our challenge and I'm looking forward to the hopefully interesting discussions we will have with our colleagues on that. Thank you.
András Gyürk
Köszönöm a szót, elnök úr. Az EU kibocsátáskereskedelmi, úgynevezett ETS rendszere súlyos tehertétel az európai ipar számára. Az elmúlt években az EU ipari termelése csökkent, és több százezer munkahely veszett oda. Mindez jelentős mértékben a magas energiaár környezetben károsnak bizonyuló ETS rendszernek is köszönhető. Megdőlt az a tétel is, hogy az EU példáját harmadik országok is követni fogják, a kínai szén-dioxid kvótaár jelenleg 12 euró, az európai pedig 84.
Így lehetetlen valódi versenyről beszélni. Ezért mi patrióták az ETS rendszer teljes körű, radikális felülvizsgálatát kezdeményezzük. Meggyőződésünk, hogy az ETS-nek mostantól az európai polgárokat és vállalatokat kell segítenie. Több mint 100 módosító javaslatot nyújtunk be, ezek közül ismertetnék most néhányat. Először, a mostani felülvizsgálat keretében mi patrióták újfent kezdeményezzük a polgárok üzemanyag-fogyasztását és fűtés-használatát alig több mint egy év múlva jelentős mértékben megadóztatni kívánó ETS 2 rendszer hatályon kívül helyezését.
Ez a lépés évi több száz eurós többletkiadást és súlyos jóléti veszteséget jelentene minden európai háztartás számára. Elfogadhatatlan ez az intézkedés, most még nem késő visszafordítani. Másodszor, kezdeményezzük az ingyenes kvótakiosztások feltételekhez való kötésének eltörlését is. Felelőtlenség a vállalatokat arra kényszeríteni, hogy gazdaságilag életképtelen technológiákba fektessenek be. Szintén javaslatot teszünk egy olyan mechanizmus kidolgozására, ami kedvezőtlen gazdasági helyzet esetén további ingyen kiosztásokat juttatna a vállalatoknak.
Végül, szintén határozottan ellenezzük a hulladékégetők bevonását az ETS rendszerbe, illetve a távhő szektornak juttatott ingyenes kvóták eltörlését is. Ezek a javaslatok érdemben nem csökkentenék az európai károsanyag-kibocsátást, viszont jelentős mértékben növelnék a polgárok fűtésszámláját és az önkormányzatok által fizetendő hulladékkezelési díjakat. A hatások különösen súlyosak lennének Közép-Európában, így Magyarországon. Ezek veszélyes elképzelések, amelyek ellen mi patrióták fel fogunk lépni. Számos más javaslatunk is van, amelyeket a közös munka során szeretnénk majd megvitatni.
Köszönöm a szót, elnök úr.
Alessandro Ciriani
Thank you, chair, I will speak in Italian. Io ringrazio il relatore Ratas per il lavoro svolto e per averlo impostato su quella che per noi è una questione fondamentale, ovvero la decarbonizzazione può funzionare solo se procede insieme alla competitività della sua industria.
Conoscete bene la nostra posizione, riteniamo che nelle attuali condizioni l'ETS sul settore manifatturiero vada sospeso, debba essere sospeso, perché non possiamo continuare ad aumentare il costo della produzione europea mentre mancano ancora molte delle condizioni necessarie alla decarbonizzazione. Detto questo, considero importante che il draft riconosca alcuni dei problemi che noi andiamo denunciando da tempo. Negli ultimi anni abbiamo fissato obiettivi sempre più ambiziosi, dando spesso per scontato che le imprese avessero già a disposizione energia competitiva, infrastrutture e tecnologie adeguate. Oggi invece sappiamo che così non è. Le nostre aziende competono con produttori che affrontano costi energetici più bassi e non sostengono un costo della CO2 paragonabile a quello europeo.
Se produrre in Europa diventa progressivamente più costoso, il rischio è perdere investimenti, produzioni, posti di lavoro senza ridurre davvero le emissioni globali. Per questo considero positivi alcuni segnali del draft: maggiore prudenza sulle condizionalità, una traiettoria più graduale del Linear Reduction Factor e soprattutto la volontà di verificare cosa accade quando il CBAM sostituisce progressivamente le quote gratuite. Sul CBAM dobbiamo essere chiari: non possiamo eliminare una protezione certa sulla base della promessa che un meccanismo nuovo funzionerà perfettamente. Questo è un dogma, non è un regolamento. Dobbiamo guardare agli effetti reali su produzioni, importazioni, esportazioni e investimenti.
Su questa base lavoreremo nel negoziato con l'obiettivo di rafforzare ulteriormente il testo e garantire che la transizione non si traduca in nuova pressione sulla nostra base industriale, perché decarbonizzare non può significare delocalizzare. Grazie presidente.
Sophie Wilmès
Grazie a lei, and now it's time for Renew and Sophie Wilmès.
Thank you chair, thank you Yuri for your work on this opinion. The ETS review must indeed maintain a credible decarbonisation trajectory while giving European industry the time and resources needed to make the transition. So I would like to point out few of the amendments that I have put down. First, the linear reduction factor. So I do share the rapporteur's approach of smoothing the LRF further between 31 and 34 before tightening it up from 36 onwards.
And this would allow more time for industrial decarbonisation technologies and infrastructure to be deployed. Second, on international credit, I support the Commission approach, but I would like to add a request for the Commission to already make a preliminary assessment in 31 to give industry earlier visibility. Third, I also propose a more gradual and linear phase-out of the free allocation for CBAM sectors while maintaining its complete phase-out in 38 as proposed by the Commission. My objective is indeed to ensure a gradual shift to CBAM, avoid abrupt changes in the level of free allocation and a better align the phase-out of free allocation with the roll-out of carbon neutral investments. In this regard, I also believe that we should retain the existing conditionality framework rather than introduce a new complex investment conditionality regime which goes against the spirit of the simplification we have been working on the past years.
The ETS review should also structurally address the situation of the European exporters who do not benefit from CBAM protection when competing in third countries' market. And moreover, I would like to increase from 50 to 75% the minimum share of national ETS auction revenue dedicated to decarbonizing ETS sector. Technology neutrality must also remain a guiding principle for the Innovation Fund, the Industrial Decarbonization Bank and the Modernization Fund. This includes recognizing the role of clean and low-carbon electricity and heat generation in industrial decarbonization. Alignment with the Industrial Accelerator Act is as well an important priority.
On permanent carbon removals, I would favor an alignment with the CRCF to ensure consistency with the current framework. And finally, on the municipal waste incineration, I propose a five-year phase-in and a producers-pays approach so that the cost associated with fossil carbon embedded in products are not passed on to local authorities. So of course I look forward working with the rapporteur and all the colleagues on these amendments and I thank you for your attention.
Isabella Lövin
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, first of all I'd like to thank Mr. Ratas for his work on the draft opinion. Now the EU ETS is the European Union's most important core instrument to drive decarbonization for the industry. And this really plays a key role in ensuring that we achieve our climate objectives while we're supporting also the European industry in its transition and also making us independent on imports of fossil fuels. Now the European industry needs a stable and an ambitious ETS that provides long-term predictability.
So changing the rules during the game is not what the industry is asking for. In this regard, we're concerned that the Commission proposal already lowers the level of ambition in several areas and that the draft opinion appears to take further steps in this direction. In particular, the linear reduction factor should not be weakened. The price signal should not be weakened further because companies and industrial sectors have already planned and invested on the basis of the existing trajectory. Changing it again risks undermining the stability and predictability that industry needs for long-term investment decisions.
We're also deeply concerned about prolonging free allocation. A clear and predictable phase-out is important not only for achieving our climate objectives but also for providing certainty to companies that have already started adapting and investing in decarbonization. They should not be punished for being the frontrunners. The ETS should be strengthened and implemented in a consistent, predictable and credible way. This is what I hear from all the industries in my home country Sweden, that this is what they expect from us.
This is essential both for achieving our climate objectives and providing European industry with the certainty it needs to really take the decisions on the much-needed investments. I look forward to working constructively with you and to fruitful cooperation with all the shadow rapporteurs. Thank you.
Jussi Saramo
Thank you very much. And the Left, Eero Heinäluoma.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also want to thank the rapporteur for a draft that it's a good base. But also we are very worried in the Left and in my discussions with Finnish industry and other European frontrunners, they have raised serious concerns.
The changing the rules would destroy the foundations of their investments, the investments they have already done and the investments they are planning to do. And going back, it would not be a good thing for Europe as a whole, as we know that we need to get rid of this economy that it's so dependent on the Russian and Middle Eastern and US fossil fuels. So for the Left, it is important that reform efforts, they maintain strong incentives for industry to reduce its own emissions within the EU, that the carbon price, they remain predictable and a clear emissions reduction pathway provides investment certainty for companies and supports the development of the European clean tech industry. The Commission's proposal includes several mechanisms that increase the supply of emission allowances, slow their phase-out, or allow EU internal emissions reductions to be replaced by credits and carbon removals. And the draft we are now having, it weakens some of these elements even further, and for us that's a big problem.
In our view, the flexibility mechanism, they must not replace the genuine emission reductions. So, but I can and of course we can understand that the political change after the last mandate, it's been big, so we are trying to find constructive cooperation, but to be honest, the situation we are going to is not very satisfactory for us, so we really are trying to make big differences for the draft. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thanks a lot. And now in the ITRE procedure, we've got Mrs. Sophie Eriksson. Not with us. Okay, so Mrs. Sigrid Friis.
Sigrid Friis
Thank you very much and happy to have this debate today. I think it's very important, we need to be careful not to weaken the ETS trajectory further. It's one of the central pillars of both Europe's climate policy and our competitiveness policies. The businesses have made investment decisions on the basis on the direction that we have set. Changing this direction now will create uncertainty, slow down investment, and it risks making the transition more difficult and more expensive.
So I would really like to maintain the current LRF until 2036 and only adjust it afterwards. I'm also concerned with the introduction of international carbon credits. I think Europe needs enormous investments to decarbonize our industry, and every euro that we spend buying reduction outside the EU is a euro that is not being invested in the transformation that we need here at home. So instead of sending money abroad to pay for emission reductions elsewhere, the ETS should help mobilize investment in European clean technologies, industrial decarbonization, and energy security. Finally, I think we should be very clear about the purpose of both the free allowances and the ETS.
As I said, decarbonization is expensive, so we shouldn't simply hand out the resources without strong conditionality. And ETS revenue should go towards climate priorities, not projects that risk creating new fossil fuel dependence or prolong existing fossil fuel use.
Emma Ytterell
Thank you so much. I have the privilege of being shadow on this file in ENVI, but I'm also really glad to be here in ITRE discussing this from an industry perspective. Because I think it's very important, not easy, but it's important to look at where would we be without ETS. We just had a fossil crisis and the facts and reports shows that if we did not have the ETS in Europe, we would have been using more fossil energy, more vulnerable, and we would have had higher energy prices. We don't have high energy prices because of the ETS.
We have high energy prices because of the use of fossil fuels. So with the ETS, we will use less fossil energy and be less vulnerable and sensitive towards fossil energy crises. And at some point, you have to then take a decision: do you believe in this system or you don't? Commission say they believe in this system, but they also present changes to the LRF, the MSR, the benchmarks, the addition of international credits, and more free allowances. All of these making the ETS weaker.
What are the cumulative effects of this? And what signal does that send to industry? I just want you all, members of the ITRE committee, to have that in mind. Five different parameters or even more is actually used to weaken this system that our industry is relying on. They are relying on us.
Please have that in mind when discussing the details of this and look at the whole package and what signal we actually send to our most precious industries.
Katri Kulmuni
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, there is a contradictory in line with our commission, with the common emission reduction targets, with the one minor detail I'm lifting up. There's a regulation currently in the proposal about 95 percentage usage of biomass, which will in the end kick out the factories that has been using the most with renewables out of free allowances. So with this artificial limit, they will continue using the 5 percentage of fossils, which isn't the idea when we are trying to get out of the fossils. So and it will definitely also limit the ambitiousness to get sites that are 100 percent renewable.
So I do hope that this will be changed. And another point of view, while I'm the northernmost of all of our colleagues, I'm worried that the ice class ships vessel exemption is only, it's not permanent, it's only an exception. And it is so that winter comes every year into Finland where the ports will be ice-covered also in the future. So I do hope that it would be permanent while the winters are also. Thank you.
Gabriel Mato
Gracias, presidente. I'm going to speak in Spanish, if you don't mind. La revisión del ETS desde mi punto de vista debe alcanzar dos objetivos. Por una parte apoyar la descarbonización, por supuesto, pero por otra preservar la competitividad de nuestros territorios. Y hablo desde las islas de las regiones ultraperiféricas como Canarias y por eso apoyamos y celebramos que la Comisión proponga prolongar hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2035 las excepciones para las conexiones aéreas y marítimas de estas regiones.
Porque tenemos que tener claro por qué son necesarias. En Canarias, donde yo vivo, el avión y el transporte marítimo no son una alternativa, son una necesidad y una infraestructura esencial. No hay carreteras, ferrocarril ni otra conexión que pueda sustituirlo.
Y si los costes del carbono encarecen estas conexiones el impacto necesariamente se trasladará a los pasajeros, a las empresas y al precio de los bienes. Y si una conexión insular deja de ser económicamente viable no existe otra ruta esperando para poder sustituirla. Por eso claramente queremos descarbonizar pero desde luego no a costa de encarecer y de poner más dificultades todavía a la insularidad. La revisión del ETS debe mantener un tratamiento específico para estas regiones ultraperiféricas y garantizar lo que es la previsibilidad hasta 2035 y si fuera posiblemente más allá en línea con lo que establece el propio artículo 349 del Tratado. Por tanto la transición climática debe ser ambiciosa pero también tiene que ser justa y por supuesto territorialmente coherente.
Muchas gracias.
Borys Budka
Thanks. And this is the end of list of colleagues who were in our catch-the-eye procedure. So now I will give the floor for the final remarks our rapporteur. So please the floor is yours.
Jüri Ratas
Yeah, thank you, thank you dear colleagues and of course I understand that how important but also how difficult is this ETS topic for us. And like I said that tomorrow we will start our shadows meeting and I really hope that we could find this balance if I could say so between the economy, climate and also the social sphere. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Okay, thanks a lot. So this is the end of our discussion. And as we informed, as our secretariat informed you via email, deadline for amendments was today at five and vote in ITRE will take place in November 19. So thanks a lot for the discussion. And I just announce that we don't have any other businesses so the next ITRE meeting will take place in Strasbourg 8th of October.
So remember we will meet on votes in Strasbourg. Thanks a lot and I close our today's committee meeting.