WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/01

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 June 2001)

Subject: Closing the Borsele nuclear plant in the Netherlands

The Dutch newspaper the Volkskrant wrote on 1 June 2001 that the Energy Commissioner, Mrs de Palacio, at a meeting in Arnhem the day before, had said: The earlier closure of nuclear plants as envisaged by the Dutch government was not a good idea. She was quoted as saying that meeting the Kyoto requirements would not be possible without nuclear energy. These statements were also repeated in other media.

1. Does the Commissioner confirm having made these statements?

2. Is the Commissioner aware of the environmental drawbacks of nuclear energy compared to other forms of energy generation based on non-fossil fuels?

3. Is the Commissioner aware of the Dutch Government's efforts to promote the use of various forms of non-fossil fuel energy, other than nuclear energy?

4. Can the Commissioner provide any concrete and convincing evidence that the Dutch Government's present policy is endangering meeting its Kyoto obligations?

5. If not, lacking the evidence and necessity, what motivated her to promote the narrow interest of the nuclear industry in such an obvious way?

6. Does the Commissioner agree that the choice of how (as opposed to if) to meet its Kyoto obligations is the prerogative of the Dutch Government?

7. What Treaty base can the Commissioner provide for her interference in Dutch energy policy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 2001)

The statement made by Vice President of the Commission on the closure of nuclear plants should be seen in the context of the Green Paper Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply(1)and the Community commitments aimed at addressing climate change.

The Vice-President is well aware of the environmental benefits of energy generation by non-fossil fuels and, in particular, the need to address the issue of the long-term management of nuclear wastes. Under her political authority, renewable energy sources have, for the first time, been supported through the adoption of a specific legislative instrument (Directive on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market) already approved by Council and Parliament. However, she is also aware of the practical limitations on the contribution non-fossil fuels are likely to make in the early decades of this century.

The Vice-President is also aware of the Dutch Government's efforts to promote the use of various forms of non-fossil fuel energy. She very much welcomes these efforts that are in line with the strategy as proposed by the Green Paper.

However, as pointed out in the Green Paper, closure of nuclear plants will make it even more difficult for the Community to achieve its commitments, including those made at Kyoto, regarding climate change. Indeed, on the basis of current trends, CO2 emissions are expected to continue to grow. Beyond 2010, even greater efforts will have to be made to reduce energy demand growth and to favour energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases. Nuclear is such a source.

By stating these fact, the Vice President is not promoting the narrow interests of the nuclear industry. She is highlighting the difficult challenges concerning energy and environment that the Community now faces, under the global strategic approach enshrined in the Commission's Green Paper in order to tackle the issue of the Union's security of supply and energy prime stability in a comprehensive and objective manner.

While clearly recognising that the choice of energy sources is the responsibility of each individual Member State, there is a Community responsibility to meet its international obligations regarding climate change. Moreover, it is in the interest of the Community to reduce its dependency on external energy sources. In making clear this position, the Vice President did not interfere in Dutch energy policy.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.