23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 197/29 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Agriculture  at its meeting  held  on 6 May  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 139th  plenary 
session,  held  on 25 and  26 May  1976  (meeting  of 25 
May  1976), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
unanimously: intervention  centres  which  are  calculated  in relation 
to the  Hamburg  price,  the  Committee  considers  that 
the comments  that  it made  in its opinion  of 25 June 
1975  are  still  largely  valid.  Therefore,  like  last  year, 
the derived1  intervention  prices  proposed  for  Arhus 
and Copenhagen  in 1976  do not  appear  to allow  a 
sufficient  margin  for actual  transport  costs. 
Done  at Brussels,  25 May  1976. 
The Committee  approves  the  Commission's 
proposal.  However,  with  regard,  in particular,  to the 
derived  prices  proposed  for  the  two  Danish The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the  new  strategy  communication  from  the  Commission  to the  Council  on 
the implementation  of the  energy  policy  guidelines  drawn  up by the  European  Council 
at its meeting  in Rome  on 1 and  2 December  1975 
The opinion  of the  Committee  is not  based  on  any  text  published  in the  Official 
Journal  of the European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 24  February  1976  the  Bureau  of the  Committee  decided,  in accordance  with 
Article  20,  third  paragraph,  of its Rules  of Procedure,  to draw  up an additional  opinion 
on the  abovementioned  subject. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
139th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  Article  20 (3)  of its Rules  of 
Procedure, 
Having  regard  to the  Committee's  opinions  of 18 
July  1974  (1) and  of 29  October  1975  {'-) on the 
communication  from  the  Commission  to the  Council 
entitled  'Towards  a new  energy  policy  strategy  for 
the Community', 
Having  regard  to  the  communication  from  the 
Commission  to the  Council  on the  implementation 
of the  energy  policy  guidelines  drawn  up  by  the 
(!) OJ No C 125,  16. 10. 1974,  p. 58. 
(2) OJ No  C 15, 22. 1. 1976,  p. 21. F.uropean  Council  at its meeting  in Rome  on 1 and  2 
December  1975, 
Having  regard  to the  decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
24 February  1976,  instructing  the  Section  for  Energy 
and Nuclear  Questions  to draw  up  an  additional 
opinion, 
Having  regard  to the  additional  opinion  adopted  by 
the abovementioned  Section  at its meeting  of 9 April 
and 7 May  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  additional  report  submitted  by 
the Rapporteur,  Mr  Renaud,  at these  meetings, 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 139th  plenary 
session  held  on 25 and  26 May  1976  (meeting  of 25 
May  1976), 
No C 197/30 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
Whereas  a coherent  and  effective  common  energy 
policy  should  be implemented, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 40 votes  to 17, with  19 abstentions: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. In  line  with  the  views  expressed  on  energy 
policy  at the  European  Council's  Rome  meeting,  the 
Commission  intends  to concentrate  on three  areas: 
— solidarity  in the event  of oil supply  difficulties, 
— the  encouragement  of energy  conservation, 
— measures  to  protect  and  develop  the 
Community's  energy  resources. 
1.2. It  calls  for  the  immediate  adoption  of a 
number  of proposals  in all three  sectors  already  on 
the Council  table.  In the  third  area,  the  Commission 
suggests  a  mixed  package  of  protection 
mechanisms.  They  cover  coal  stocks,  coking  coal, 
hydrocarbon  exploration,  financing  of  nuclear 
installations,  uranium  prospecting  and  a $ 7 
minimum  import  price  for  oil.  At  present  the 
Commission  is only  seeking  approval  in principle  of 
the broad  outlines  of  the  minimum  oil  price 
mechanism.  The  mechanism  might  never  come  into 
play.  But  it is needed  to foster  a climate  favourable 
to investment. 
1.3. The  Commission  is also  looking  for  the 
Council's  blessing  to study  and,  where  appropriate, 
to make  proposals  on  other  suitable  measures  to 
protect  the  Community's  energy  resources.  Such 
measures  include: 
— the  promotion  of  the  use  of coal  in power 
stations, 
— guarantees  to cover  investments  against  losses 
resulting  from  a drastic  fall  in imported  oil 
prices, 
— the  use  of the  Community's  ability  to obtain 
loans. 
1.4. The  Committee  also  takes  note  of  the 
Commission's  first  report  on the  achievement  of the 
Community  energy  policy  objectives  for  1985. According  to the  forecasts  made  in the  report,  it 
would  no longer  seem  possible  to attain  the  goal  of 
reducing  dependence  on  non-Community  energy 
sources  to  40  °/o in  1985.  This  conclusion  is 
particularly  unsettling  when  one  considers  that  it 
was only  one  year  ago  that  this  objective  was  set by 
the Council.  It is, therefore,  all the  more  necessary  to 
take  concrete  measures  to correct  this  situation  and 
so try  to achieve  at least  the  minimum  objective  of 
50°/o  energy  independence  by 1985. 
1.5. The  Committee  welcomes  the  more  positive 
approach  towards  the  implementation  of  a 
Community  energy  policy  which  seemed  to emerge 
from  the  meeting  of the  European  Council  in Rome 
on 1 and  2 December  1975.  However,  such 
statements  of intent  are  worthless,  unless  they  are 
backed  up by concrete  action.  The  Commission  must 
therefore  press  ahead  with  the  preparation  of 
detailed  proposals.  Also  the  Committee  would  urge 
the Council  to  adopt  quickly  the  Commission 
proposals  that  have  been  before  it for  some  time 
now,  such  as those  on Euratom  loans  and  solidarity 
among  the  EEC  partners  in the  event  of oil supply 
difficulties. 
1.6. The  Committee  regards  the  proposal  for  a 
seven  dollar  minimum  price  for  imported  oil as the 
main  new  policy  element  contained  in  the 
Commission's  communication.  Here,  the  Committee 
has in its additional  opinion  on  the  'new  strategy' 
already  requested  that  such  price  'should  be 
markedly  below  the  current  price  of  imported 
energy'.  In proposing  a seven  dollar  minimum  price 
for imported  oil,  the  Commission  says  nothing  about 
the economic  consequences  that  would  result  for:  (i) 
the countries  which  are  heavy  net  importers  of 
energy  and  have  few  indigenous  energy  resources, 
and (ii)  for  all the  Community-based  firms  in the 
Community  which  manufacture  for  export.  This 
question  is crucial  for the external  competitiveness  of 
EEC  industry,  which  is heavily  reliant  on exports, 
and the  Commission  should  state  clearly  how  it 
would  tackle  the  problem.  A minimum  import  price 
involves  placing  a tax  on oil coming  into  the  EEC  if 
the price  outside  the  EEC  drops  below  seven  dollars. 
Above  all,  an examination  will  have  to be made  of 
the favourable  and  adverse  effects  which  a minimum 
safeguard  price  might  have  on individual  Community 
regions.  Arrangements  will  also  have  to be made  to 
ensure  that  no  one  part  of the  Community  reaps 
possible  benefits  while  another  suffers  disadvantages. 
1.7. At  all events  the  system  would  have  to take 
account  not  only  of  the  financial,  fiscal  and 
budgetary  implications  of the  aids  that  would  be 
23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 197/31 
provided,  but  also  of the  influence  these  would  have 
on the  profitability  of both  the  energy-producing 
and the  energy-consuming  sectors. 
1.8. The  Committee  considers  that  this  system  and 
the procedures  for  operating  it should,  at all events, 
have  a Community  character. 
1.9. In  proposing  that  the  minimum  price  be fixed 
in dollars,  the  Commission  has  not  included  the 
possibility  of using  special  drawing  rights  or units  of 
account.  Neither  does  it state  clearly  whether  it is 
referring  to a constant  currency.  (It does  not,  for 
example,  mention  index-linking  against  inflation). 
No details  are  given  either  about  the  length  of time 
the mechanism  will  operate  or as to its stability  over 
a sufficiently  long  period  in the  face  of possible 
fluctuations  on the  energy  market.  The  Committee 
thinks  that  these  matters  should  be cleared  up if the 
scheme  is  to  be  regarded  as  credible  and 
economically  sound  by potential  EEC  investors. 
1.10.  In  line  with  the  view  expressed  above,  the 
Committee  considers  that  an examination  must  be 
carried  out  of all  the  other  possible  measures  to 
protect  and  encourage  investment  in energy  projects 
for which  the  Community  is responsible.  It is, 
therefore,  in principle,  in favour  of studying  the 
various  elements  of  all  the  possible  measures 
mentioned  by the Commission,  namely: 
— financing  support  for the holding  of coal  stocks, 
— extension  of the  period  of validity  for  aid  to 
coking  coal, 
— promotion  of uranium  prospecting, — support  for  technological  development  projects 
and aid  for  exploration  projects  in  the 
hydrocarbons  sector, 
— financing  of nuclear  installations. 
The Committee  recalls  that  it has  already  issued 
opinions  endorsing  oil  exploration  projects  (!) and 
the financing  of nuclear  power  stations  (2). The 
Committee  asks  that  these  various  measures  be 
studied  and  attaches  particular  importance  to the 
protection  policy  pursued  by the  Community  being 
conducted  in a balanced  manner  on all fronts. 
1.11.  Finally,  it must  be remembered  that  energy 
prices  are  determined  by factors  operating  at world 
level.  It will  be possible  to resolve  the  long-term 
issues  only  by international  cooperation  between  the 
major  energy  producers,  exporters,  and  consumers. 
Efforts  to secure  such  agreement  at the  Conference 
on International  Economic  Cooperation  (North-
South  Dialogue)  are  therefore  of great  importance 
for the  longer  term  and  must  be pursued  as a top 
Community  priority. 
Done  at Brussels,  25 May  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
i1) OJ No C 18, 25. 1. 1975,  p. 3. 
(2) OJ No C 248,  29. 10. 1975,  p. 8. 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  paragraphs  were  deleted  from  the opinion  after  the adoption  of an amendment 
by 41 votes  to 23 and  11 abstentions: 
After  point  1.6 
'The  Commission  does  not indicate  for what  purpose  rhe proceeds  of the tax mentioned  in 
1.6 could  be used.  For  these  and  other  reasons,  the Committee  considers  that  it is not in a 
position  to approve  the Commission  proposal.  Before  giving  its considered  opinion  on this 
point,  the Committee  would  like  to know  more  about  the mechanics  of the system  and  its 
consequences. 
No C 197/32 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
The Commission  should  also  study  all versions  of a safeguard  price  system,  including  those 
not necessarily  based  on a minimum  import  price,  such  as the combination  of a system  of 
protection  at the Community's  borders  and  an EEC  deficiency  payment  system.  However, 
such guarantee  systems  must  not  become  an unbearable  burden  for  the  Community's 
cconomy  and  budget.' 
As a result  of this  vote,  the  following  amendment  became  superfluous: 
'Add  the  following  after  the first  sentence  of the deleted  text  quoted  above: 
"The  Committee  thinks  it would  be particularly  useful  for its information  and  delibera-
tions  if the 'transfer  price'  concept  used  in a Commission  document  were  clarified.  Does 
the existence  of this  transfer  price  presuppose  a previous  price?  Do  the  governments 
know  the  machinery  used  for fixing  this  transfer  price?  Are  they  able  to influence  this 
machinery?  Are  they  able  to correct  this  machinery?".' 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  during  the proceedings: 
'Point  1.12 
Add after  the first  sentence: 
"The  nature  of these  measures  should  in no wray  infringe  on the  independence  at 
producing  countries;  they  should  be discussed  widely  before  they  are  introduced.  In 
addition,  the  Commission  must  investigate  a system  for  guaranteeing  stable  prices  to 
energy  users,  and  especially  to the  users  of petroleum-based  energy.  Can  it examine 
machinery  for reducing  government  taxes?  Can  it work  out a system  for preventing  price 
rises applying  to petroleum  held  in stock?  These  and  other  provisions  should  make  it 
possible  to combat  inflation  effectively."  ' 
Result  of the vote: 
For:  12;  against:  36;  abstentions:  12. 
Opinion  on the  amended  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  on the  harmonization  of the 
laws  relating  to motor  vehicle  driving  licences 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of  the 
European  Communities  No  C 8 of 13 January  1976,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 17  December  197.5,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  75 of the  Treaty  establishing 
the European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
139th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: