Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning a multiannual programme for the promotion of energy efficiency in the Community - SAVE II

(96/C 82/04)

On 20 December 1995 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under the first paragraph of Article 130s and the second paragraph of Article 198 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 this subject, adopted its Opinion on 19 October 1995. The Rapporteur was Mrs Cassina.

At its 331st Plenary Session (meeting of 20 December 1995), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1. On 7 November 1995 the Commission presented document COM(95) 225 final comprising a Communication concerning the promotion of energy efficiency in the EU and a proposal for a Council Decision concerning a multiannual programme for the promotion of energy efficiency in the European Union, entitled SAVE II.

1.2. The ESC endorses the Commission initiative and approves the draft Decision on SAVE II, subject to the comments in points 4 and 5 below.

2. Background

2.1. The programme on Specific Actions for Vigorous Energy Efficiency (SAVE I) (), which ends this year, focused on three main areas:

- technical measures (performance of equipment);

- financial measures;

- measures to influence consumer behaviour.

2.2. SAVE I also included a number of legal measures, and measures to provide back-up for energy efficiency action in the Member States.

2.3. SAVE I is the continuation of a series of non-technological measures developed earlier in the Community, such as the sectoral audits to establish average consumption levels and the Directives on type-approval of boilers (1978-1982).

2.4. Technological measures, such as the Joule and Thermie programmes, fell outside SAVE I.

2.5. The ESC, in its Opinion on the SAVE I programme and the measures it contained (), noted that:

- the Commission should have ensured that manufacturers, users, consumers, employees and professional bodies were consulted and that they contributed to the work of the Programme Advisory Committee;

- a new Directive aimed at coordinating the activities of national energy efficiency authorities was needed;

- the results of this programme should have been incorporated into the general policy decisions relating to the Internal Energy Market and applied to existing programmes for the purpose of possible revision (e.g. Thermie programme);

- the programme should have constituted a positive step towards achieving the Community's priority objectives for environmental improvement, energy efficiency and security of supply;

- the programme's results should have been made available to third countries, especially those of Central and Eastern Europe;

- user behaviour, and hence providing users with guidance and information, are vital for rational energy use;

- financial and fiscal incentives by the Member States had a strategic role in reinforcing energy saving;

- higher priority should have been given to energy audits and the appointment of energy managers.

2.6. It is regrettable that the final text of the Council Decision on SAVE I of 29 October 1991 only partly took note of the Committee's suggestions.

3. Main points of the Commission document

3.1. The document under consideration comprises a Commission Communication followed by a draft Council Decision, a financial statement and a report on the impact on SMEs and on employment.

3.2. Articles 130s of the Treaty (environment chapter) and 189c (cooperation procedure) form the legal basis.

3.3. The proposal's objective is to continue the present SAVE programme which expires on 31 December 1995 (). The Commission provides for the following new actions:

- monitoring of energy efficiency progress at national and EU level;

- specific actions to promote greater cohesion between Member States in establishing policies geared to efficient energy management;

- specific action aimed at improving energy management at regional and urban level;

- actions aimed at establishing energy efficiency as a criterion within existing EU strategic programmes;

- evaluation and monitoring of all the actions contained in the programme.

3.4. The Commission bases its proposal on:

- the evaluation and recommendations of a group of independent experts;

- the conference held in Florence on 26-28 October 1994 on the SAVE programme;

- the lessons learnt from the SAVE I programme and other actions in the energy sector;

- the effectiveness of SAVE I in helping to improve the rational use of energy resources with a view to:

stabilizing CO2 emissions;

serving as one of the pillars of the Green Paper on Energy Policy;

demonstrating the benefits of such rational use, as highlighted in the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, Employment;

contributing to economic and social cohesion;

promoting the full use of local energy sources;

accelerating the introduction of technologies favouring energy efficiency in the Community and other countries.

3.5. It is proposed that SAVE II will incorporate, along with the SAVE I actions, the current actions from the PACE programme () (Community action programme for improving the efficiency of electricity end use) and PERU programme (Community energy management programme for the regions, cities and islands).

3.6. It is also proposed to reinforce existing actions on:

- labelling and standardization of energy-using equipment;

- pilot actions to be carried out by appropriate networks;

- targeted pilot actions;

- dissemination of information through appropriate networks.

3.7. The proposal pays particular attention to the subsidiarity principle.

3.8. The proposed budget is ECU 150 million over five years.

3.9. The proposal provides for the continuation of the advisory committee which assists with the present SAVE programme.

3.10. Funding for the actions described in the proposal is set out in Article 4.

3.11. The Commission will draw up an annual list of priorities to be applied to these actions.

3.12. After the third year, and on expiry of the programme, the Commission will publish reports on what the programme has achieved.

3.13. The Commission proposes that the SAVE II programme begin on 1 January 1996 and end on 31 December 2000.

4. General comments

4.1. In general terms, SAVE II is a major development on SAVE I, from which it differs in various aspects.

4.2. The ESC acknowledges that as a Council Decision, the legal bases of SAVE II are Article 130s (1) of the Treaty and the 'cooperation' procedure with the EP, laid down in Article 189c.

4.2.1. Article 130s has to be read in conjunction with Article 130r which sets out certain important common objectives, including protecting and improving the quality of the environment, and the prudent and rational utilization of natural resources [Article 130r (1)], and at a practical level declares the need to take account of, inter alia, environmental conditions in the various regions, and the impact of environmental policies on the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions [Article 130r (3)].

4.3. At this juncture, the ESC would recall the fully argued case it makes in its Opinions on Community energy policy and the Green Paper on energy policy, for the inclusion of an appropriate chapter on energy in the Treaty ().

4.4. As stated in many previous Opinions, the ESC believes that, above and beyond their specific fields, energy policy measures should seek to achieve two aims which are vital for European integration: economic and social cohesion and the growth of employment within a context of sustainable development. It therefore considers that the effectiveness of SAVE II must be measured taking account of the contribution of the planned measures to improve environmental conditions and for the rational use of energy: (a) to reducing the difference in levels of development between the regions of the EU and (b) to job creation.

4.5. The structure of the programme (incorporating the PACE and PERU programmes) is also an improvement in that it puts the measures on a more systematic footing (already a feature of PACE) and embraces new strategic participants: the regional, local and urban authorities (PERU). The ESC firmly believes that for the subsidiarity principle to be applied, there must be a balanced division of responsibilities between decisionmakers at different levels and they must be encouraged to develop active forms of cooperation.

4.6. The ESC feels that the proposed funding of ECU 150 million over five years is reasonable and adequate for the measures taken to be significant, as long as the approach adopted is consistent with the strategic priorities and sufficient incentives and guarantees are available for additional resources to be obtained from third parties. The ESC further considers that particular attention should be paid to actively involving SMEs.

4.6.1. The ESC warns the competent authorities that the funding must be shared between the various measures in a way that will clearly reflect the reasons for which they were given priority. Similarly, whilst agreeing that a degree of flexibility in operating the programme is needed, the ESC suggests that a greater proportion of the funding should be distributed in the first years in order to ensure that the proposed measures get off to a secure and well-motivated start.

4.6.2. The ESC is aware of the inter-institutional agreement that the estimated total budget should not be mentioned in the text of a decision if the Article 189c procedure is invoked, but considers it regrettable because this impairs both the clarity and the transparency of the document.

4.7. The ESC strongly emphasizes that (in addition to having clear objectives and procedures that are consistent with them) the programme's success relies on good management of its resources, allocating them to measures and projects that are inherently effective and complement one another overall. Against this background, the ESC is somewhat concerned about the following points.

4.8. The Committee to be created under Article 6 of the draft Decision, to assist the Commission in implementing the programme, is modelled on that created for SAVE I. The ESC feels that the structural differences between the two programmes should also be reflected in the composition of this body in order to enable it to perform this role as effectively as possible.

4.8.1. SAVE II has incorporated the PERU programme and the social and socio-occupational bodies must be involved in achieving the objectives of SAVE II itself. The ESC therefore hopes to be able to contribute to the work of the Committee established under Article 6 and considers that a positive contribution might also be made by the Committee of the Regions. However, the present system of Committee procedures seems rather impervious to this type of aspiration. The ESC nevertheless declares its readiness as of now to cooperate with the Commission and the Committee in question in the most appropriate ways. The ESC also fully agrees that the Committee referred to in Article 6 should retain advisory status.

4.9. The ESC stresses the need for particular attention to be given to systematically mobilizing all the parties directly or indirectly involved with the planned measures: regional and municipal authorities, private investors, the social partners, consumers and users, etc. will need to be in a position to become acquainted with the programme and assess its performance. It is therefore vital that the advisory measures should have the potential to reach as many citizens as possible.

4.9.1. Without suggesting detailed alternative arrangements, the ESC would alert the competent authorities (starting with the Commission and the Council) to the need for effective mechanisms and transparent procedures to ensure that as much useful information as possible on the use of resources is available to the public, since readily interpretable concrete data on the costs and benefits of a Community programme are likely to enhance its social acceptability, and thus its success.

4.10. By contrast with SAVE I, SAVE II shifts the emphasis from legislation (Directives) to cooperation between the Member States via the promotion of appropriate policies. According to the Commission, Community legislation will only be drawn up when there is no agreement between the various parties involved. In any case, the ESC believes that decisions based on negotiations will have to be a) subject to control mechanisms in order to verify their effectiveness and consistency with the objectives of the programme, and b) accompanied by a firm commitment to inform the public affected by the actions.

4.10.1. The ESC considers that while this change of approach could be productive, it seems too radical and lacks a satisfactory rationale. The ESC stresses that even though the Directives have proved difficult to enforce, they have made a significant contribution to both the promotion of a real energy policy and to reductions in emissions. Furthermore, this assessment concurs with the independent experts' report ().

4.10.2. The development of a legislative framework and its implementation is a major task that is not alwaysworthwhile because of the difficulty in applying specific legislation for each country and, above all, monitoring whether they have been carried out. The Committee takes the view that in the case of labelling, the best way of guaranteeing that the directives will be effective, is for them to be requested by consumers themselves. However, a special effort will need to be made under SAVE II to boost awareness among energy consumers. Manufacturers and the socio-professional organizations should also be involved in this exercise.

4.10.3. The Committee also takes the view that the Commission should strive to reduce the relative dissipation of effort that was a feature of projects approved under SAVE I. It should rather aim more at integrated action, drawing in interested parties in different sectors and geographical areas. To achieve this, help should be given in the drafting of proposals, particularly those of concern to SMEs and small administrative bodies. Procedures for obtaining access to the programme should be 'user-friendly'.

4.11. The extensive use of networks that are already established or that were created specifically under SAVE I could be useful to improve programme management, but it does raise some doubts regarding the difficulties in reaching end-users of the actions, whether appliance manufacturers, consumers or utility suppliers. The Commission will meanwhile have to guarantee that other bodies outside these networks are provided with free access to the information produced and to funding provided under SAVE II.

4.11.1. Studies and models will require specific objectives and a guarantee that the results will be used at a later date. The involvement of the final users will have to be ensured, in order to prevent models becoming a purely theoretical exercise.

4.12. One of the objectives of SAVE II is to make the most effective use of electricity, and as such it would be wise to explicitly involve the electricity distribution companies, which frequently operate demand management programmes.

The same comment could also be made regarding gas companies and their involvement in the programme.

The ESC also suggests that contract tendering procedures should also contain a clear list of the energy-saving requirements imposed on energy management and distribution companies.

4.13. The reasons for the distinction between pilot actions put forward by the networks and 'targeted pilot actions', should be explained more clearly.

4.13.1. This is particularly important for pilot actions which have been successful in certain regions and which may then be applied to others. The ESC also believes that in areas in which energy companies are reluctant to adapt, it would be beneficial to exploit the results of initiatives taken in areas in which energy companies are more ready to welcome this kind of project.

4.14. This Opinion has no intention of tackling the delicate matter of tax on CO2 emissions (which is in any case the subject of another Opinion currently under preparation). Nonetheless, the ESC reiterates that a concrete reduction in emissions must be secured by any means available; for SAVE II the individual projects should indicate their specific targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions. These targets must be adequately quantified and carefully verified after implementation.

4.15. Besides social and economic cohesion and the employment objective (see point 4.4) the ESC is concerned about EU energy cohesion and, when the programme is being implemented, it would like to see all necessary efforts made to:

- encourage rational development of resources and energy consumption commensurate with the needs and consumption patterns of the different areas, and in accord with the local potential for developing economic activities linked to the production, maintenance and operational efficiency of companies;

- take account of the variations in the base levels of the Member States and regions by concentrating on the most underdeveloped areas. Often the major beneficiaries of this type of programme are in fact those States and regions with high levels of development and consumption which would be able to tap other resources;

- take account of the particular difficulties facing EU islands and apply to these areas reinforced support mechanisms, as already proposed in the Own-initiative Opinion on the Community energy policy, referred to in point 4.3;

- inform and train consumers and citizens in general, in order to develop a strong and widespread awareness of the issues at stake and thus encourage significant changes in behaviour in order to safeguard the environment.

4.16. The ESC approves the involvement of the Central and Eastern European applicants for EU membership in SAVE II, but feels that the funding mechanism for the measures concerned is too vague. The participation of such countries is likely to be rather burdensome if, as the Commission indicates, the Central and Eastern European countries have to raise funds from internal sources whilst Community support would only be available for an initial period and from a budget heading other than that which allocates funds to SAVE II.

4.16.1. The ESC warns once again that attempts to achieve convergence between these countries' economies and those of the EU need active support; it should be possible for measures and initiatives to be planned over a number of years. The ESC proposes that assistance should be provided to the CEECs, not merely at the outset of the programme but also thereafter, if not by direct EU aid, then by clear and controlled incentives for private investment there, in order to promote energy cohesion throughout Europe. The EIB in particular has a strategic role to play to this end.

4.16.2. The environmental impact of the misuse of resources, particularly where CO2 emissions are involved, cannot be confined within one area: adequate investment in the applicant countries would be wholly to the advantage of the EU and might in future even alleviate some of the particularly serious problems besetting the Member States today.

4.17. Moreover, the ESC is surprised that there is no move to open up cooperation with the Mediterranean applicant States and the Mediterranean area in general.

4.17.1. There are many good reasons for this e.g.:

- some of these countries (Malta and Cyprus, both applicant countries, for example) have considerable supply problems because of their situations; this has an impact on costs;

- several others in that area produce and supply energy raw materials to the EU;

- for other areas of the Mediterranean basin, the already serious pollution problems caused by the profligate use of energy resources could sooner or later change the environmental conditions of the EU countries themselves.

4.17.2. Therefore, even though the EU and third countries are developing the Synergy programme (which entails a very modest EU contribution), the ESC considers that failure to take in consideration the particular relationship of the EU with the Mediterranean third countries in SAVE shows a lack of strategic vision on the part of the EU.

4.17.3. It should therefore not be difficult to pinpoint resources to support the involvement of Mediterranean third countries in SAVE II within the framework of the decisions to be taken to implement the agreed line taken at the Cannes Summit on the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

5. Specific comments

5.1. In the preamble a new recital should be inserted after the penultimate one, referring to the associated countries of the Mediterranean Basin. The final recital should consequently state that appropriations for these countries too must be made available from other Community resources.

5.2. Article 3

A fourth paragraph should be added, requiring the Commission to take the measures necessary to ensure effective coordination between Community resources and those from public and private funds.

5.3. Article 4 (2)

After 'each year', mention should be made of the objective set out in Article 1 (1).

5.4. Article 7 (1)

The interim report should also be sent to the ESC.

5.5. Article 9

After 'the associated Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs)' insert 'and countries of the Mediterranean Basin'.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No L 307, 8. 11. 1991, p. 34.

() OJ No C 120, 6. 5. 1991.

() OJ No L 307, 8. 11. 1991, p. 34.

() OJ No L 157, 9. 6. 1989.

() OJ No C 393, 31. 12. 1994, pp. 95 et seq.; OJ No C 256, 2. 10. 1995, p. 34.

() Valter Fissamber, Rodney Janssen, Bernard Laponche and Eoin Lees, The SAVE programme - evaluation of the European Union Programme (1991-1994) and proposals for future action (1995-2000), November 1994.