No C 114/24 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 11. 5. 77 
This  procedure  is preferable  to an objective  definition 
of frontier  sites.  To rule  out misunderstandings  about 
the Regulation's  scope,  the  Committee  proposes, 
however,  that  the  fourth  recital  in the preamble  be 
deleted,  since  the problem  involved  is not peculiar  to 
frontier  regions  only. 
3. The  Committee  recognizes  the need,  covered  by 
Article  3, to obtain  all  relevant  information  on 
possible  trans-frontier  effects.  The  information 
already  collected  under  Articles  37 and  41 to 44 of 
the Euratom  Treaty  cannot  be exhaustive  in this 
regard. 
4. The  Committee  approves  the  proposal  in 
Article  4 of the  draft  Regulation  to set  up  a 
consultative  'panel  of independent  experts'  nominated 
by the Member  States.  It assumes  that  the  Member 
States  in question  will  be adequately  represented  on 
this panel  and  that  each  Member  State  will  nominate 
the strongest  advocates  to plead  its particular  case. 
The Committee  would  moreover  point  out  that 
Article  4 does  not  require  all Member  States  to be 
Done  at Brussels,  30 March  1977. represented  in each  individual  case.  It merely  gives 
the Commission  the  opportunity  to  tailor  the 
composition  of the  panel  to fit the  circumstances. 
Nevertheless,  the  Committee  would  like  a clearer 
picture  of the  number  of people  involved,  their 
qualifications  and  the duration  of their  appointment. 
It also  believes  that  the  parties  which  let contracts 
for the construction  of power  stations  might  usefully 
be represented. 
5. The  Committee  is concerned  lest the consultation 
and information  procedure  add  undue  delay  to the 
decision-making  process.  However,  it regards  the 
time  limits  specified  in the  Regulation  (maximum 
total  duration  approximately  nine  months)  as 
acceptable. 
6. Finally,  the Committee  would  point  out that  this 
proposal  can  naturally  deal  only  with  the  problems 
that may  arise  within  the  Community  or between 
Member  States  in connection  with  the siting  of power 
stations. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Regulation  on Community  financial  measures 
to promote  the use of coal  for electricity  generation 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 22 of 29 January  1977,  page  4. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 20 January  1977  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  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 
147th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 30 and  31 March  1977. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community  and,  in particular, 
Article  198  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the  request  for an opinion  made 
by the  Council  of the  European  Communities  on 
20 January  1977, Having  regard  to the  Decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 25 January  1977,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Energy  and  Nuclear  Questions  to draw  up an opinion 
and a report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by this  Section 
at its 29th  meeting,  held  on 4 March  1977, 
11.5.  77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 114/25 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
rapporteur,  Mr S. Jonker, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 147th  plenary 
session  of 30  and  31  March  1977  (meeting  of 
30 March), 
Whereas  the Council,  in its resolution  of 17 December 
1974,  adopted  a series  of energy  targets  for  the 
Community  designed  inter  alia  to restrict  consumption 
of oil where  it can be economically  replaced  by other 
energy  sources; 
Whereas  the  increased  use  of coal  for  electricity 
generation  constitutes  an  important  means  of 
achieving  these  targets, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
with  no votes  against  and  18 abstentions: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. Objectives 
1.1.1.  The  Committee  approves  the  aim  of the 
Commission's  proposal,  namely,  to increase  the use 
of coal  for electricity  generation. 
It believes  that  such  a move  would  diversify  the form 
and origin  of the Community's  energy  supplies.  The 
increased  use  of coal  for  electricity  generation,  it 
thinks,  is the  key  to achieving  the  target  for  coal 
consumption.  In turn,  this  is an important  element 
in achieving  the overall  energy  targets  for 1985.  It 
is, therefore,  advisable  that  the  proposed  incentives 
also be made  available  for  other  energy-producing 
installations  which  use coal. 
1.1.2.  The  Committee  recognizes  the  primacy  of 
the need  to strengthen  the Community's  coal  industry, 
to attain  its coal  production  targets  and  to guarantee 
outlets  for the coal  so produced.  It believes  that  it 
is of fundamental  importance  for the Community's 
overall  balance  of payments,  its employment  situation 
and the  reliability  of its sources  of energy  supply. 
The Committee  considers  that  it is essential  as an 
expression  of confidence  in those  who  choose  to 
make  their  career  in this  sector.  In so far as there  are 
shortcomings  in present  policy,  the  Committee 
believes  that  efforts  must  be intensified.  Efforts 
should  be made  to increase  the  productivity  of 
Community  coal  production.  All  the  necessary 
measures  to this  end  should,  in the Committee's  view, 
be undertaken  by the Community  in the context  of 
its coal  policy  under  the ECSC  Treaty. 
1.1.3.  The  Committee  believes  that  the  proposal 
under  consideration  should,  however,  be considered 
solely  in an overall  energy  context.  It regards  it as one of a series  of measures  which,  taken  as a whole, 
should  ultimately  constitute  a Community  energy 
policy.  It believes  its objectives  should  be simply  to 
reduce  dependence  on oil,  i.e. maximize  the use  of 
coal irrespective  of origin.  This  view  is largely 
reflected  in  the  Commission's  proposal.  The 
Committee  also  holds  the  view  that,  in accordance 
with  the second  sentence  of Article  5, priority  should 
be given  to projects  using  principally  Community 
coal. 
1.2. Means 
1.2.1.  It  may  be asked  whether  the means  chosen 
are those  best  suited  to achieve  the  objective  of 
increased  coal  consumption  for electricity  generation. 
1.2.2.  Under  the proposal,  the Community  would 
pay 30 °/o of the additional  capital  costs  of installing 
coal-fired  capacity.  At the same  time,  the Commission 
notes  that  'the  inherent  technical  requirements  of 
coal-fired  installations  result  in construction  cost 
some  20 °/o above  those  of comparable  oil-fired 
installations'.  In addition,  assuming  that  the relative 
heat cost  of coal  is equal  to that  of oil,  coal-fired 
power  stations  have  higher  operating  costs  arising 
out of coal  preparation,  dust  collection  equipment, 
ash disposal  and  poorer  thermal  efficiency.  The  total 
cost of coal-firing  is thus  significantly  higher  than 
that of oil.  Of this  total,  the Community  would  pay 
a relatively  small  part. 
1.2.3.  The  success  of the measure  depends  entirely 
on its  ability  to influence  electricity  producers' 
investment  decisions.  Such  effects  are  difficult  to 
forecast.  However,  electricity  producers  have  to bear 
a large  proportion  of the  extra  costs.  Indeed,  some 
undertakings  have  already  expressed  a lack  of 
interest. 
Moreover,  where  they  do decide  to invest  in coal-
fired  projects,  their  decision  is likely  to be governed 
by other  motives.  The  Committee  thus  feels  that  the 
scheme  will  have  limited  effectiveness  (i.e. in realizing 
coal capacity  which,  otherwise,  would  not  be 
installed). 
1.2.4.  In  the  light  of the  comments  made  above 
in 1.2.1,  1.2.2  and  1.2.3,  the  Committee  would 
suggest  that  the  system  be reviewed  to ensure  that 
Community  funds  are used  as efficiently  as possible. 
The Committee  proposes  among  other  things  that 
the Commission  should  pursue  the idea  of providing 
reduced-interest  loans  to finance  coal-fired  projects. 
1.2.5.  The  Committee  would  point  out  that  the 
costs  of installing  and  running  coal-fired  units  vary 
in different  regions  of the  Community.  Greater 
No C 114/26 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 11.5.  77 
flexibility  should  be built  into  the  scheme  to allow 
account  to be taken  of these  differences.  The  single 
rate of aid  of 30 °/o should  be replaced  by an upper 
and lower  limit.  The  Commission  should  be allowed 
to allocate  aid  at rates  falling  within  this  range  — 
the higher  the  investment  costs  of the  project,  the 
higher  the  rate  of aid. 
1.2.6.  The  scheme  should  be  reviewed  after  a 
number  of years,  so as to keep  it fully  attuned  to 
the prevailing  conditions  on the  energy  market. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Article  1 
2.1.1.  The  Committee  looked  at the  question  of 
granting  retrospective  assistance  for  capacity  already 
installed.  However,  there  would  be  no  incentive 
element  involved. 
2.1.2.  In  the  second  indent  of the  first  paragraph, 
it should  be  made  clear  that  the  term  'necessary 
ancillary  equipment'  also  applies  to  equipment 
outside  the  power  station  to the  extent  that  such 
equipment  is required  exclusively  for the operation  of 
the coal-fired  unit. 
2.1.3.  It  must  be made  clear  that  dual-fired  projects 
are also  covered.  All  three  indents  of the  first 
paragraph  should  be redrafted  accordingly. 
Done  at Brussels,  30 March  1977. 2.2. Article  2 
2.2.1.  In  line  with  the  comments  in 1.2.5  above, 
the single  rate  of aid  of 30 °/o should  be replaced  by 
an upper  and  lower  limit.  The  Commission  should  be 
allowed  to allocate  aid  at rates  falling  within  this 
range. 
2.2.2.  The  final  paragraph  of Article  2 should  be 
redrafted.  The  Commission  should  have  the  right  to 
adjust  the  grants  proportionally,  where  the  type  of 
equipment  installed  by  the  undertaking  is  not  that 
specified  in  the  plans  which  it submitted  to  the 
Commission. 
2.3. Article  5 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  endorses  the  plan  to award 
the grants  on a competitive  basis  to those  projects 
which  'result  in the  largest  coal-burn  in relation  to 
the size  of the  respective  grants'. 
This  criterion  must  not,  however,  be applied  in such 
a way  as to put  projects  planned  under  difficult 
conditions  at a disadvantage  vis-a-vis  those  planned 
under  easy  conditions. 
2.4. Article  6 
2.4.1.  A  fourth  indent  should  be added,  specifying 
that where,  through  'force  majeure',  the  power 
station  is temporarily  unable  to keep  its coal-burn 
schedule,  the  instalment-payment  schedule  should 
simply  be put  back  in time  accordingly. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendments  were  rejected  during  the discussion: 
Point  1.1.3. 
Delete  the last  sentence. 
Point  2.3. 
Add  a new  point  2.3.2.  worded  as follows: 
'The  Committee  considers  that  the  second  sentence  in Article  5 should  be deleted,  since 
giving  priority  to projects  that  use  mainly  Community  coal  would  be incompatible  with  the 
11.5.  77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 114/27 
directive  given  in the  first  sentence  that  project  priority  should  be based  on the  relation 
between  coal-burn  and  the amount  of grant  applied  for'. 
Reasons  for the above  amendments 
In the first  sentence  of Article  5, it is stated  that  the Commission  'is to be guided',  but in the 
second  it says  that  'priority  is to be given'.  The  latter  wording  would  tie the  Commission's 
hands  and  cancel  out  the  'guidance'  criterion  given  in the  first  sentence.  This  could  lead  to 
some  projects  being  given  priority  although  their  coal-burn/grant  ratio  was  lower  than  that 
of others.  Moreover,  it should  be remembered  that  the Commission's  representatives  told  the 
Section  that  the  Commission  was  considering  another  solution  that  was  completely  different 
from  the one  advocated  in the present  version  of Article  5. 
Voting  (amendments  taken  together) 
For: 9, against:  59, abstentions:  11. 
Points  1.2.5,  2.2.1  and  2.2.2. 
Delete. 
Reasons 
Cost  differences  were  already  taken  into  account  when  the fixed  rate  of aid was  set.  A variable 
rate would  lead  to complications  and,  in some  cases,  distortion  of competition. 
Voting 
For: 28, against:  41, abstentions:  12. 
Point  2.1.1. 
Replace  by: 
'The Committee  considers  that  if Community  aid  were  granted  only  to projects  that  had 
been  begun  after  the Regulation  had  been  approved  by the  Council,  this  would  penalize 
schemes  that  fitted  in with  the  Commission's  objectives  but  had  been  started  before 
adoption  of the Regulation,  and  would  hold  up diversification. 
The Committee  therefore  proposes  that  the last  paragraph  of Article  1 should  be re-worded, 
so as to make  eligible  for aid all projects  completed  after  the Regulation  is adopted'. 
Reasons 
No reasons  given. 
Voting 
For: 23, against:  29, abstentions:  17. 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Decision  on the  acceptance  of certain  Codex 
standards  for sugars  intended  for human  consumption 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of  the 
European  Communities  No  C 292  of 11 December  1976,  page  3. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 2 December  1976  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in  accordance  with  Articles  43  and  100  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the  European  Economic  Community.