Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Green Paper on Energy Efficiency or Doing More With Less
Date: 2006-02-16
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy policy, energy saving, energy supply, environmental protection, security of supply

C 192/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.8.2006

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Green Paper on Energy Efficiency or Doing More
With Less

(2006/C 192/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Green Paper on Energy Efficiency (COM(2005) 265 final);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission on 7 June 2005 to consult it on this subject,
under Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision taken by its President on 16 November 2005 to instruct the Commission
for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on the subject;

Having regard to its opinion of 17 June 2004 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (COM(2003) 739 final — 2003/0300
(COD)) — CdR 92/2004 fin (1);

Having regard to its opinion of 20 November 2002 on the Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council adopting a multiannual programme for action in the field of energy: ‘Intelli-
gent Energy for Europe’ Programme (2003-2006) (COM(2002) 162 final — 2002/0082 COD) — CdR
187/2002 fin (2);

Having regard to its opinion of 15 November 2001 on the Commission's Green Paper ‘Towards a Euro-
pean strategy for the security of energy supply’ (COM(2000) 769 final) — CdR 38/2001 fin (3);

Having regard to its opinion of 15 November 2001 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European
the Council on the energy performance of buildings (COM(2001) 226 final —
Parliament and of
2001/0098 (COD)) — CdR 202/2001 fin (4);

Having regard to its opinion of 13 December 2000 on the Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
on an Action Plan to Improve Energy Efficiency in the European Community (COM(2000) 247 final) —
CdR 270/2000 fin (5);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 216/2005 rev. 1) adopted on 1 December 2005 by its Commis-
sion for sustainable development (rapporteur: Mr Bernd Vögerle, Vice-President of the Austrian Federation
of Local Authorities, (AT/PES));

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 63rd plenary session of 15 and 16 February
2006 (meeting of 16 February):

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

in order to minimise dependency of the kind currently seen in
Ukraine or Bulgaria. On the basis of
the Green Paper on
Energy Efficiency it is possible to reduce overall dependence on
crude oil and natural gas and thus to draw up a European
action plan;

1.1 welcomes the Green Paper of the European Commis-
sion and initiatives to raise energy-efficiency in general in the
light of the current
trend, which points to an increase in
Europe-wide energy consumption of up to 10 % in the next
fifteen years;

stresses the outstanding importance of energy effi-
1.2
ciency, particularly in the light of the current crisis on the gas
market. Europe's sources of energy supply must be diversified

(1) OJ C 318, 22.12.2004, p. 19.
(2) OJ C 73, 26.3.2003, p. 41.
(3) OJ C 107, 3.5.2002, p. 13.
(4) OJ C 107, 3.5.2002, p. 76.
(5) OJ C 144, 16.5.2001, p. 17.

1.3 welcomes the fact that measures are being considered
at all potential levels of implementation (EU, national, regional,
local) and calls for compliance with the subsidiarity principle
in the process of implementation;

is aware that energy-efficiency makes a significant
1.4
contribution to all
three relevant energy-policy objectives:
security of supply, environmental and climate protection and
competitiveness;

also emphasises the important social dimension of
1.5
energy-efficiency measures which include the creation and safe-
guarding of local and regional jobs and which safeguard consu-
mers from non-sustainable energy costs;

16.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/13

1.6
points out that further energy-efficiency rules for the
Member States must not be drawn up too hastily. As stated in
the Green Paper, many energy-efficiency measures are already
in force in the EU or are being drawn up which have not yet
had time to have an impact or which still have to be imple-
mented. Examples of
the
combined heat and power
the emissions
trading directive and the energy end-use efficiency directive;

these are the buildings directive,

(CHP) directive,

1.7
draws attention to the fact that in many Member
States and regions strategic plans and programmes of measures
with very similar objectives or effects to those set out in the
Green Paper already exist. Examples are the climate protection
strategies (since the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol), National
Allocation Plans (under the Directive on Emissions Trading)
and the reduction of atmospheric pollutants (under the Direc-
tive on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollu-
tants — NEC Directive). Therefore in the medium term the
emphasis should be not on new efficiency plans but on the
consistent implementation of the existing plans.

As experience of the implementation of these plans shows, in
many cases these are measures in respect of which decisions to
implement can be taken rapidly but whose effects are visible
only in the longer term;

1.8
points to the numerous initiatives on energy-efficiency
and renewable energies taken at local and regional level, the
results of which are publicly available on numerous websites.
Examples of this are the collections of good practice from all
over Europe on the websites of ManagEnergy und Energie
Cités (6);

1.9
is aware that raising energy-efficiency requires a policy
of small steps. These small steps are being taken on a large
scale by local and regional authorities which, given their close-
ness to the grass roots, have an awareness-raising function to
perform;

1.10 makes the critical point that EU objectives regarding
liberalisation of energy markets (increasing competition in
order to reduce prices) and energy-efficiency are difficult to
reconcile. Falling prices do not promote energy-efficiency.
Moreover, power station renewal is being delayed for lack of
suitable investment conditions;

considers measures to promote demand-side policy in
1.11
the liberalised energy market to be appropriate. This entails
also including the environmental costs in the consumer price
and ensuring equal access to the grid. Strategies to raise
energy-efficiency can play a key role wherever a counterweight
is needed to current supply-side policies.

(6) http://www.managenergy.net/gp.html.

http://www.energie-cites.org/page.php?lang=en&dir=3&cat=3&sub=3.

2. The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

2.1
recommends that, if it is decided to introduce energy-
efficiency plans, these be structured as five-year plans with at
most two evaluations. Annual plans and annual evaluations do
not in practice produce satisfactory results and are therefore
not appropriate (question 3);

particularly emphasises

that, when drawing up
2.2
measures, special attention needs to be paid to past achieve-
ments and potential in the individual Member States, and that
cost benefit analyses need to be carried out on each individual
measure;

2.3
rejects the establishment of absolute efficiency increase
targets. Those Member States which have in the past been less
economical in the use of energy must not be given a competi-
tive advantage. Member States which have already made
savings or which use particularly efficient technologies have
less potential
for further efficiency increases and would be
clearly disadvantaged by the application of absolute targets;

2.4
recommends instead a benchmarking system which, on
the basis of an analysis of different climatic conditions and past
energy-efficiency achievements, would lay down national
energy-efficiency objectives
for each Member State. These
national objectives could then be incorporated into the defini-
tion of European standards and would thus make it possible to
take account of national circumstances and previous achieve-
ments in a fairer way;

2.5
considers that the emissions trading mechanism should
be structured in such a way that power stations would receive,
after a reasonable transitional period, only as many certificates
under the allocation plan as correspond to the production of
the planned amount of power and heat in a gas turbine CHP
power station. This would be a clear signal in favour of the
objective of raising the energy-efficiency of electricity genera-
tion (question 13);

2.6
proposes that thought be given to a similar emissions
certificate calculation for industry. Each industrial plant would
receive only as many emission certificates as correspond to the
planned amount of production in a plant with the highest
energy-efficiency standard. This would mean transferring costs
in accordance with the polluter pays principle and would bring
major energy and CO2 savings (question 2);

2.7
calls for state aids for measures to introduce environ-
mental innovations and productivity improvements with a view
to increased energy-efficiency to be allowed. This aid could be
structured as investment aid, with support
for innovative,
energy-efficient technologies being exempted from the notifica-
tion requirement. On the other hand, energy-efficiency should

C 192/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.8.2006

be taken into consideration as a general criterion in environ-
mental protection support, as this is implemented to a great
extent at local and regional level; particularly advocates block
exemption for aid aimed at raising energy-efficiency, or at least
sufficiently high thresholds in order to reduce administrative
burdens and any delays in implementing projects of this kind
(question 5);

2.14
points out the need for information and training
which should not be restricted to energy sector professionals,
but extended in particular to those working outside the energy
field, such as architects, construction companies, property
developers, planners and infrastructure managers;

2.8
calls for account to be taken of energy-efficiency criteria
in public purchasing at all levels (EU, national, regional and
local). As this accounts for 16 % of EU GDP, greater demand
for energy-efficient equipment, vehicles, buildings etc would be
a strong incentive for industry to develop such products and
bring their cost down. There is a wealth of experience in indivi-
dual Member States of environmentally conscious public
purchasing criteria;

2.9
rejects, however, binding rules on the award of
contracts, as many regional and local authorities have very
limited budgets. Instead, local authorities with limited budgets
should be shown the advantages of the award of energy-effi-
cient contracts, making it easier for them to chose between the
lowest and the best bidder principles (question 6);

2.10 welcomes financing programmes for energy-efficiency
projects. For the regional and local level, however, this would
mean that financial resources and support could be made avail-
in line with the authority's
able only on a voluntary basis,
budgetary situation (questions 7 and 22);

2.15
strongly advocates the accelerated introduction of
CHP plants. In addition to committed implementation of the
CHP directive, the associated market for heat must also be
developed more rapidly than hitherto (question 13);

supports the overhaul of older,

2.16
inefficient district
heating systems as an important contribution to raising energy-
efficiency and calls on the Member States to use Structural and
Cohesion Fund resources for this purpose;

call

supports

the European Parliament's

2.17
to the
Commission to propose legislation for an efficient heat and
cooling market. For the local level of government the efficient
use of heat energy is just as important as appropriate cooling
solutions. The use of air conditioning has in recent years led to
an enormous rise in electricity consumption in the warm
seasons of the year. As, via building regulations, the market for
heat and cooling falls within the remit of local government, a
special policy of information and advice would appear to be
important here too. Local decisions should be influenced so as
to take greater account of energy-efficiency. Innovative exam-
ples of district heating and cooling are available in the collec-
tions of best practices on the Internet referred to above;

2.11
calls on the Commission to take account of energy-
efficiency criteria in all policy areas falling within the EU remit.
Particularly in the areas of the Structural and Cohesion Funds,
rural development and support for research, the Commission
could make energy-efficiency a compulsory project-selection
criterion. This could also be seen as an indirect incentive for
the local and regional levels (question 12);

supports the emphasis on and promotion of decentra-
2.18
lised production referred to in the Green paper, but points out
that the relationship between power station capacity and local
consumption needs to be studied closely. Here too CHP should
be viewed as a particularly efficient form of production. High
energy-efficiency is easiest to achieve when the heat produced
is used locally;

2.12
rejects any extension or tightening of the EU Buildings
Directive before the results of implementation of the existing
text have been evaluated. Before the directive is extended suffi-
cient time must be allowed for assessment of the existing direc-
tive (question 8);

advocates

intensive publicity work at all

2.13
levels.
Campaigns should be of national, regional or local relevance
and focus on issues where practical alternative forms of action
are actually available to the target group. Cooperation between
the European Commission or its representative offices in the
Member States and the regional and local levels of government
would be desirable (question 12);

2.19
stresses that, with regard to power generation from
renewable energy sources too, attention must be paid to
energy-efficiency and the most environmentally sound handling
of existing resources. When constructing new plants, consump-
tion should first be optimised in all areas and only then should
the supply system be adapted to optimised consumption. The
following factors should, however, be considered and —
depending on national law — examined with the involvement
of the competent local and regional authorities: location, type
of technologies, plant size, use of capacity;

2.20
rejects a system of white (energy-efficiency) certificates
where the provider is required to carry out energy-saving
measures for the final consumer. It is feared that the economic

16.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/15

cost of
introducing and operating a further trading system
would exceed the savings thereby made. Apart from the high
administrative cost, fair allocation would be even more difficult
than in the case of emissions trading (question 15);

2.21
calls for further investment in the development of
local public passenger transport and rail infrastructure. Only if
reasonable alternatives to individual transport (cars) exist can a
reduction in car
term;
welcomes in this context the fact that the European Commis-
sion's Proposal for a Regulation on public passenger transport
services by rail and by road accepts the principle of local and
regional authority autonomy in the provision of this service of
interest, which constitutes recognition of the role of
general

traffic be expected in the longer

these authorities in providing local public passenger transport
services;

calls on the Commission to encourage industry to
2.22
shoulder its responsibility and to adopt various measures aimed
at reducing final consumer prices for energy-efficient equip-
ment and renewable-energy technologies; concurs with the
European Parliament that impressive cost reductions have been
achieved in individual technologies in recent years, but that
additional reductions are needed to make measures to raise
energy-efficiency attractive to the public;

2.23
sees it as the duty of the EU, given Europe's relatively
high environmental standards, to negotiate tariff or non-tariff
advantages in the WTO for energy-efficient products.

Brussels, 16 February 2006.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the
Council on European policies concerning youth Addressing the concerns of young people in
Europe — implementing the European Youth Pact and promoting active citizenship

(2006/C 192/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission to the Council on European policies concerning
youth: Addressing the concerns of young people in Europe — implementing the European Youth Pact and promoting
active citizenship (COM(2005) 206 final);

HAVING REGARD TO the decision of the European Commission of 30 May 2005 to consult it on this
subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

HAVING REGARD TO the decision of its President of 25 July 2005 to instruct its Commission for
Culture and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject;

HAVING REGARD TO the European Youth Pact (Presidency conclusions of the Brussels European Council
(22 and 23 March 2005) 7619/05 Annex 1);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the
Council — Creating the ‘Youth in action’ programme for the period 2007-2013 (1) (CdR 270/2004 fin) (2);

HAVING REGARD TO its global opinion on the follow-up to the White Paper on a New Impetus for European
Youth — Proposed common objectives for voluntary activities by young people and Proposed common objectives for

(1) COM(2004) 471 final.
(2) OJ C 71 of 22.3.2005, p. 34.