No C 23/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 84 
limit values — particularly the 85 dB(A) limit value — proposed by the European Com­
mission and advocated in the Committee's own opinion. 
The Commission's proposal is based on criteria which are not fully scientific. Moreover, the 
risk of hearing loss below 90 dB(A) is probably less than has been suggested by the Euro­
pean Commission. These members do not believe that the great technical and particularly 
financial burden of meeting an 80 dB(A) limit, or introducing an 85 dB(A) limit can be justi­
fied in view of the size of the risk at such levels. 
These members therefore believe that the exposure limit in the Directive should be set at 90 
dB(A). 
Mr Antonsen, Mr Arena, Mr Bagliano, Mr Binnenbruck, Mrs Bredima, Mr Breitenstein, Mr 
Broicher, Mr Cammann, Mr De Bievre, Mr Dracos, Mr Fortuyn, Mr Fuller, Mr Kenna, Mr Law, 
Mr Loughrey, Mr Low, Mr Masprone, Mr Noordwal, Mr de Normann, Mr Paggi, Mr Pearson, Mr 
Pelletier, Mr Poeton, Mr Regaldo, Mr Romoli, Mr Schnieders, Mr Stahlmann, Mr Storm-Hansen, 
Mr Swift, Mr Tamlin, Mr Van der Mensbrugghe, Mr Van Melckenbeke, Mr Wagner, Mr Wick, 
Mr de Wit, Mr Zinkin. 
Opinion on the communication from the Commission to the Council entitled 'Energy and 
energy research in the Community: a five-year programme of action and its financing' 
(84/C 23/15) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 23 June 1983 the Commission referred the abovementioned communication to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty estab­
lishing 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 
212th plenary session held in Brussels on 23 and 24 November 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Commis­
sion on 23 June 1983 for an opinion on the com­
munication from the Commission to the Council 
entitled energy and energy research in the Com­
munity: a five-year programme of action and its 
financing, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 5 July 1983, instructing the Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions to prepare an opinion on the 
matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by that Sec­
tion at its 84th meeting, held on 4 November 1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr Fortuyn, 
Having regard to the discussions at its meeting of 
23 November 1983 (212th plenary session of 23 and 
24 November 1983), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
30. 1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/45 
1. General considerations 
1.1. The Committee is in favour of the Commis­
sion's plan to step up action by the Community in 
the field of energy. 
Even though the Commission considers that market 
forces have brought about considerable changes in 
the pattern of energy supply and demand, it also 
thinks that both Community and national auth­
orities must provide an additional stimulus in cer­
tain sectors. The Committee agrees with this and 
with the Commission's view that efforts must be 
made to optimize public spending on energy, and 
considers a multi-year programme to be highly suit­
able. If business and industry are to plan accurately, 
they need to know the autorities' intentions suffi­
ciently well in advance. A stable framework is 
vitally important. 
1.2. The Committee regrets that the Commission 
could not explain its proposals more clearly and 
provide more financial data about the scale of the 
planned activities and how they are to be spread 
over the period covered by the programme. This 
makes it difficult to judge the proposals in relation 
to each other. For example, it is not yet clear why 
the budgets for the years 1986 and 1987 should be 
roughly twice the 1984 budget. 
An attempt has been made in the Appendix to this 
opinion to compile rough figures from the data 
given in a large number of Commission documents 
and the three-year financial estimates. 
1.3. Another important point is that Community-
wide activities should be properly coordinated with 
the present and future activities of trade and indus­
try and central and local authorities in the Member 
States. Annex 1 in Commission document gives 
figures about activities in the Member States in 1982 
and 1983, but the Committee wonders whether these 
are reliable and complete enough, especially as it 
would seem that they only cover government 
expenditure. The level of expenditure in the various 
Member States varies greatly. The figures for Greece 
and Luxembourg are extremely meagre. The reason 
for this might be that in some Member States busi­
ness and industry account for a larger proportion of 
the activities than in others. Greater insight into the 
activities at Member State level is required for a pro­
per assessment. 
1.4. The Committee should be provided with more 
data in order to be able to assess whether activities should be stepped up to the extent proposed by the 
Commission. At the moment the Committee is not 
convinced that this should be so. 
The Committee thinks in fact that the analysis of the 
energy situation on which the Commission's propo­
sal has been largely based is rather pessimistic on 
several counts. 
1.5. The Committee thinks that the current price 
level for energy products is not going to check the 
major structural adjustments in energy demand that 
have taken place and are still in progress. Energy 
prices are still a very effective reason for conserving 
energy and looking for alternative sources. 
The Committee considers that on the supply side 
too, investments continue to be prompted by current 
prices and the uncertainty surrounding the levels of 
future prices, even though a number of particularly 
costly or high-risk projects (coal liquefaction, etc.) 
have been suspended for the time being or spread 
over a longer period of time. Nevertheless it may be 
that investments in research and development in 
general are not stimulated by the current level of 
prices. 
The Committee would, however, recall in this con­
text that a number of fiscal and administrative 
obstacles will have to be overcome before invest­
ments justified by the current level of prices can go 
ahead in the Member States, on both the demand 
and supply sides. 
1.6. In view of these considerations, the fields in 
which the Community could become more active 
should be selected very carefully. The Committee 
would also be happy if it were consulted about 
specific new proposals. 
Energy research also continues to be a matter of 
great importance. In this area in particular the Com­
munity has an important coordinating role to play. 
1.7. Apart from wanting more information about 
the financial data, the Committee would like to 
have more details about: 
— the strategy behind further specific proposals. 
Although the Commission set out its general 
approach, some points in the strategy would 
appear to require further clarification, such as 
the importance of coal liquefaction and 
No C 23/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1.84 
gasification research and demonstration pro­
jects as part of the policy to promote the use of 
coal, 
— the criteria to be applied in planning activities 
(whether projects are to be transnational, 
whether they are to be of a competitive or pre-
competitive nature, etc.), 
— how the activities selected for a Community 
programme are to be given practical encourage­
ment, 
— the decision-making machinery to be used for 
fixing and managing the individual parts of the 
five-year programme. 
These factors are of crucial importance when it 
comes to assessing whether the proposals will be 
equal to the task. 
1.8. The Committee points out that the Communi­
cation does not cover the social aspects of the pro­
posed five-year programme. It would like to see the 
likely impact on employment spelled out for each 
part of the programme or, at the least, for the pro­
gramme as a whole. 
1.9. Pending these more detailed proposals and the 
information to be supplied therewith, the Com­
mittee is able to make the following comments: 
2. Assessment of the programme's general aspects 
2.1. Research, development and demonstration 
activities (R, D & D) 
2.1.1. The Committee thinks that R, D & D in the 
energy sector is particularly suitable for action at 
Community level. A good number of the R, D & D 
activities in the five-year programme are included in 
the 1984 to 1987 framework programme for scien­
tific and technical activities and their general objec­
tives have already been approved by the Committee 
in an opinion delivered on 1 June 1983 (•). This 
framework programme and the chapter therein deal­
ing with energy were endorsed by the Committee on 
the following conditions: 
— firms should be involved more in planning, 
implementing and evaluating R, D & D activi­
ties, 
— the common R, D & D policy's structures and 
procedures should be amended in accordance with the opinion adopted by the Committee on 
9 September 1983 (2). 
2.1.2. R, D & D in the field of non-nuclear energy 
was dealt with by the Committee in an opinion 
adopted on 28 September 1983. 
2.2. Activities other than R, D & D 
2.2.1. Rational use of energy 
The Committee has already underlined its interest in 
this sector in its opinion of 15 December 1982 (3). It 
would urge once again that the proposals pending at 
the Council should be adopted and that the Com­
munity should expand its activities in this field. 
2.2.2. Solid fuels 
The Committee is shortly to deliver an opinion on 
Commission documents concerning the five-year 
programme's initial batch of measures on solid 
fuels. The Committee reiterates its firm belief that 
the procedures used for granting aid to productive 
investment should be simple, rapid and non-bureau­
cratic otherwise they will be ineffective. 
2.2.3. Links between electricity and gas 
networks 
The Committee recognizes the importance of links 
between networks; the urgency of these links will 
have to be examined and demonstrated on a case-
by-case basis. It wonders whether the Commission 
should simply coordinate the work to be carried out 
by the Member States concerned, or whether it 
should do more. 
2.2.4. Hydrocarbons 
— Development of technology 
The Committee considers this to be a good area for 
action. In this connection the proposal for a Council 
Decision on the granting of support for Community 
projects in the hydrocarbons sector (1983), for 
example, seems to be a further step in the right 
direction. 
(') OJNoC211,8. 8. 1983. (2) OJ No C 341, 19. 12. 1983. 
(3) OJ No C 33, 7. 2. 1982. 
30. 1. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/47 
— Prospection and exploratory drilling 
The Committee would like to know where the Com­
mission has got the idea that the information which 
firms have collected about the Community's hydro­
carbon resources is inadequate. It would point out 
that the most costly activities concern the commer­
cial development of deposits, with the profitability 
of this development work depending amongst other 
factors on tax parameters. The Committee would 
draw attention to the fact that restrictive fiscal and 
legal regulations, entailing a variety of constraints, 
are still in force in several Member States; as these 
measures are liable to discourage prospecting for 
hydrocarbon deposits, both onshore and offshore, 
the Committee would hope that this problem will be 
taken into consideration. In any case, work at Com­
munity level in the field of prospection and explora­
tory drilling must always be carried out in close con­
sultation and cooperation with the oil industry. 
2.2.5. Nuclear energy 
— Development of technology 
The Committee would emphasize the great import­
ance of further research in the fields of radiation 
protection, reactor safety, the shipment and disposal 
of radioactive waste and the decommissioning of 
nuclear plant. Opinions on these subjects, which for 
the most part fall within the sphere of research and 
development, have recently been issued by the 
Committee. 
— Uranium prospection 
The Committee thinks that any new uranium 
reserves in the Community are likely to be small. 
The Committee therefore agrees with the Commis­
sion suggestion that the possibility of uranium pros­
pection and exploration in developing countries 
(ACP countries) should be investigated for the pur­
pose of improving the security of supply in the 
Community and reducing the Community's depend-
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1983. ency on major producers such as Australia, Canada 
and South Africa. 
3. Funding of the programme 
3.1. Both in the document under examination and 
in the document 'The future financing of the Com­
munity (draft Decision on own resources) (1983) 
(page 6, paragraph 15) the Commission puts forward 
the idea that a tax should be levied on energy con­
sumption. 
3.2. The Committee is opposed to a tax on energy 
consumption because: 
— such a tax in itself would not strengthen Com­
munity energy policy. As the Committee has 
already stated in 1.4, energy prices in general 
need not be increased in order to prompt the 
necessary changes, 
— any measure involving an additional tax on 
energy may have an adverse effect on the 
economic cycle and investment in general, 
— a general tax without exemptions would have 
an adverse effect on industry's competitiveness, 
— a tax from which industrial consumption is 
exempted would pose administrative problems 
and be too costly, 
— it is not right to finance a programme of limited 
duration by means of a special tax on energy 
which may not be abolished at the end of the 
five-year programme. 
3.3. For these fundamental and practical reasons, 
the Committee considers that the cost of energy 
policy must be met out of the general budget and 
that a sufficiently large sum must therefore be set 
aside for this purpose in the budget. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
No C 23/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 84 
APPENDIX 
Summary of rough estimates of level of expenditure 
(Commitrpent credits) 
(million ECU) 
A. RESEARCH AND DEVELOP­
MENT 
(AND DEMONSTRATION) 
Framework programme 1984 to 
1987 
— Rational use of energy 
— Renewable energy sources 
— Nuclear fusion — Jet 
— Nuclear energy (fission) 
Total A 
B. OTHER ACTIVITIES 
(subsidies) 
— Energy savings (ES) 
(demonstration projects) 
— Renewable/alternative 
energy sources (RAES) 
(demonstration projects) 
Geothermal energy 
Biomass and solar energy 
Other sources 
— Rational use of energy hydro­
carbons 
Technology 
Prospection 
Interconnection gasnets 
Strategical stocks of oil and 
gas 
— Solidfuels 
(a) EEC-budget 
Rationalization of 
production 
(Lignite and peat 
included) 
Coal stocks (reduction) 
Cokes (new action) 
Social volet Demonstration projects 
— Liquefaction and 
gasification 
— Others 
(b) ECSC budget 
— Nuclear energy 
Radioactivity material 
transport 
Uranium prospection 
— Electricity 
Interconnection nets 1 
Conversion power plants [ 
— Others ' 
Total B 
Total 
C. ACTIVITIES NOT FUNDED 
BY R&D —ENERGY — 
CECA BUDGETS 
Hydrocarbons 
— Regional Fund 
— EMS subsidies 
Electricity 
— Regional Fund 
— EMS subsidies 
— Additional measures UK 1982 
Budget 
36 
(36) 
43 
(5) 
130 
118 
327 
(41) 
20 
p.m. 
5 
— 
p.m. 
23 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— — 
16 
68 
0,5 
p.m. 
— 
— 0,5 
133 
419,0 
55 
36 
221 
13 
404 
729 1983 
Budget 
54 
(54) 
50 
(24) 195 
119 
418 
(78) 1984 
Prelimi­
nary draft 
Budget 
93 
(82) 88 
(44) 
182 
141 
504 
(126) 1985 
— 
— — 
— 1986 
— 
— — 
— 1987 
— 
— — 
— 1984 to 
1987 
520 
310 
480 
460 
1 770 Ref. 
COM 
doc. '83 
260 
260 
260 
260 
(credits for demonstration projects between brackets) 
26 
10 
10 
4 
5 
24 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— — 
8 
20 
78 
0,4 
p.m. 
— 
— 3,2 
188,6 
528,6 30 
10 
18 
16 
65 
40 
p.m. 
p.m. 
300 
100 
60 
60 ( montant estime necessaire' (years 1 
1 1985 to 1987) not still decided in- \ 
\ eluded in framework programme J 
\ estimates 490 381 
j no specific proposal for the time 1 
| being; consequently no financial } 
1 estimate 1 
300 
100 
48 
60 300 
100 
36 
60 300 
— 24 
— 1 200 
300 
168 
180 447 
447 
174 
583 
{ (cf. demonstration projects for ES & RAES) } 
24 
28 
42 
0,6 
10 
— 
— 7,7 
811,3 
1 189,3 — 
— — 
— — 
— — 
— 
f no specific proposal for the time 1 
| being; consequently no financial J 
\ estimate J 
Figures not available