WRITTEN QUESTION E-2378/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Renewable energy sources and hydroelectric power

According to the recent report by energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio, the Commission does not intend, in its new proposal for an energy directive, to grant hydroelectric power the status of a renewable source of energy. The proposed directive also suggests that Finland should increase its electricity production by 10 % by 2010 by burning wood. This is a completely impossible objective. According to the calculations of the Finnish trade and industry ministry, Finland would need to invest some FIM 12 to 15 billion in wood-burning power stations in order for the country to use the required 10 million m3 of wood in energy production. The burning of wood would also cause a serious shortage of raw materials in the wood processing industry.

In the light of the above, why does the Commission not want to grant naturally flowing water the status of a renewable energy source? On what calculations does the Commission base its opinion concerning the advisability of a radical increase in wood burning? Does the Commission consider this objective sensible in the light of the environmental consequences of burning wood?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

The proposal for a directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market(1) to which the Honourable Member refers reflects the Commission's traditional position on the role of hydro power. This type of energy is clearly a renewable energy source, but electricity produced from large hydroelectric installations (i.e. with a capacity above 10 megawatt (MW)) is in general competitive and does not need particular public support. Member States thus can make allowance for electricity produced from large hydroelectric installations for achieving their national target in consumption of electricity produced from renewable energy sources as indicated in the annex to the proposal. The targets for consumption contained in the annex are not binding but indicative and the Commission's proposal leaves it to Member States to promote within the limit of the definition in Article 2(1) the types of renewable energy sources that are best suited to their particular circumstances. Consequently, it does not follow from the proposal for a directive that Finland in any way would have to substitute electricity production from hydroelectric installations with a production based on the burning of wood.

All forms of hydropower are furthermore included in the provisions on certification of origin, as consumers should have the right to know if their electricity is produced from renewable sources of energy. However, in the case of hydroelectric installations, guarantee certificates have to specify whether their capacity lies above or under 10 MW.

Also, large hydroelectric installations do not benefit from the more technical provisions of the proposal, e.g. priority access to the grid, as this is not needed to assure economic viability on the market. In conclusion it may be said that the Commission with its policy promoting renewable energy sources tries to focus public support to the types of renewable energy sources where it is most needed and justified in economic terms.

(1) COM(2000) 279 final.