Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending European Parliament and Council Decision No 1254/96/EC laying down a series of guidelines on trans-European energy networks` (97/C 30/28)

On 25 September 1996 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 129d, first paragraph, of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 13 September 1996 (the rapporteur was Mr Hernández Bataller).

At its 338th Plenary Session (meeting of 25 September 1996) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 100 votes to one with eight abstentions.

1. General comments

1.1. The Committee welcomes the present proposal which updates the first guidelines on projects to be included in the trans-European energy networks. These guidelines, as the Committee pointed out at the time, have the dual objective of (i) forming the backbone of the internal energy market and making it physically possible, and (ii) helping to consolidate the cohesion, in terms of energy supply, of the EU's outlying and most remote regions.

1.2. The Committee is particularly pleased not only that projects in the three new member states are included, but also that these networks have been integrated into the Union's new approach to external energy policy, e.g. vis-à-vis the CEEC and, in particular, the new Euro-Mediterranean cooperation.

1.3. The Committee would, however, raise three points which could limit the success of this proposal:

1.3.1. Firstly, the meagre funding earmarked for project viability studies, coupled with the inherent uncertainties which, especially in the natural gas sector, could arise during the discussion of the directive on the internal market in this energy source.

1.3.2. Secondly, the short shrift given to projects in the outlying and most remote regions which receive only minimal attention and could therefore find themselves denied the benefits deriving from improved supplies to other regions. The Committee would reiterate its call for projects of special importance for these regions to receive, if necessary, partial financing from the Structural Funds.

1.3.3. Thirdly, the inadequate attention paid to the environmental compatibility of projects. The statement in the annex, namely that 'this decision is without prejudice to the assessment of the environmental impact of the projects`, is not enough and should have been incorporated into a specific article in the decision itself.

2. Specific comments

2.1. Add the following new clause to the preamble:

'Whereas the next review of this list will give special attention to the integration of the specific needs of the outlying and most remote regions of the European Union so as to facilitate satisfactory conditions of security of supply and diversification of their sources of supply.`

2.2 Add the following new Article 1a:

'This decision is without prejudice to the need for a favourable assessment of the environmental impact of each project before it can be regarded as definite.`

Brussels, 25 September 1996.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER