Debate: Sustainable maritime fuels  - Deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure
Date: MONDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2022
Speaker: Adina-Ioana Vălean
Language: EN

It is very good to see these key proposals moving forward, as they are important deliverables for the Fit for 55 package. Accelerating the uptake of alternative fuels is a cornerstone of our approach to achieve our 2030 climate ambition. It is also an effective contribution to decreasing our reliance on fossil fuel imports and improving energy security and air quality in the EU. FuelEU Maritime will play a crucial role in decarbonising the maritime sector. Imposing gradually stricter greenhouse gas intensity limits on the energy used onboard ships will provide a clear signal to the market of the need for renewable and low-carbon fuels in this sector. It also provides regulatory certainty and facilitates the necessary investment for the energy transition. The additional requirements to use onshore power supply will drastically cut emissions in port areas from the most polluting ships, including minimising harmful air pollution. It is important to ensure that the provisions for zero emissions at berth remain robust. The report adopted in the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) is the result of a well-balanced compromise following months of discussions. It maintains the majority of central elements in the core methodology of the original Commission proposal, such as focus on greenhouse gas intensity, technology neutrality and flexibility mechanisms. Some other amendments could reduce the efficiency and make it more difficult to implement the regulation. I would like to recall some of the key elements behind our proposal. First, the Commission has proposed a level of ambition that ensures we are on track to deliver the climate goals in 2030 and 2050, with maritime transport playing its role as part of the economy-wide effort for decarbonisation. The priority should be to adopt this important piece of legislation quickly, with the reassurance that we would soon review the regulation. Second, regarding the inclusion of a sub—target for renewable fuels of non-biological origin, I would like to recall that FuelEU Maritime is built upon a principle of technological neutrality, which is also strongly supported by the stakeholders. While I agree that we should incentivise the use of these fuels, we should leave it to the market to make technology decision and drive the price down as supply increases. Otherwise, we risk locking in the large majority of the existing fleet on the most expensive fuel option, making them end up paying to comply. That would be a lose-lose situation leading to higher costs for operators while doing nothing for cutting emissions.  Other amendments have also been tabled ahead of today’s plenary debate on the scope of the regulation, both in terms of the ship size threshold and geographical scope. Regarding the former, in the Commission’s opinion, the 5 000 gross tonnes threshold remains the most optimal one where we tackle 90% of emissions while not imposing regulatory burdens on 99% of maritime transport SMEs. We must also keep in mind that the EUR 5.7 billion investment estimate for ports to put in place new infrastructure to meet the FuelEU and AFIR current requirements already requires significant effort. It is extremely doubtful that the ports sector could cover drastically increased investment needs, which would be required if the size threshold is lowered. As regards the geographical scope, our proposal is fair towards third countries and allows them to decide on appropriate action regarding their share of energy used emissions. The only real solution to this problem is a global measure agreed at the IMO, which the EU is pushing for. That being said, I think we can all agree on the need to set a clear path for swift action on renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport. By delivering a robust legal framework with ambitious but achievable targets, we will encourage investment, create demand and allow the supply to scale up in a timely fashion. Let’s not forget that decarbonising shipping will require a major effort from operators and ports and that we should do as much as we can to ensure a smooth transition. A few words on the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation: to accelerate the uptake of sustainable alternative fuels, and particularly zero—emission vehicles, we must also ensure that a sufficient network of publicly accessible recharging and refuelling points is available across the EU, and this regulation provides certainty to light and heavy-duty vehicles that they can easily recharge and refuel. I want to welcome the TRAN report, which fully supports the switch to regulation, the setting of binding deployment targets and requirements to achieve full interoperability. This is also a very good starting point for the trialogues, considering that the Council also supports these main principles in its general approach. Some of the proposed amendments go well beyond the scope and parameters of our proposal. Let me therefore reiterate the key reasoning behind our proposal. Deployment of infrastructure should largely be market driven. We are setting mandatory deployment targets to ensure that a sufficient network of electric recharging and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure is deployed across the EU. Member States will have to ensure this. On this basis, market actors should invest further into the recharging and refuelling infrastructure needed to fully correspond to market demand, providing the optimal infrastructure. Targets should also remain technically feasible, considering the investments needed, particularly in the underlying electricity grid infrastructure. 2025 will be upon us very quickly. Those green investments will take some time, especially for truck recharging. Equally, deployment targets should be reasonable and be set at a level that will not crowd out private investments or lead to unused infrastructure in parts and regions of Europe. It would simply make it more expensive for our citizens. Competition between operators of recharging points will be key to having the best services and prices for consumers. We agree on the need to ensure that users have full access to relevant data. Transparent price information and easy payment methods. Overall, we should be careful not to overregulate this nascent and fast—growing market, for example, in the area of roaming, and thereby discourage private investments. When it comes to infrastructure for propulsion fuels in maritime ports, I believe that we need to be careful in what can be prescribed already today. Picking one technology now and mandating such infrastructure in all ports will effectively pre-empt future technology choices by industry. We will have a review on AFIR early on that will provide more clarity on possible decarbonisation pathways for the maritime sector that would allow us to set appropriate targets. As regards targets for rail infrastructure to be certainty under AFIR, I would like to recall that, under our TEN-T proposal, we already propose a full electrification of the TEN-T Core and Comprehensive Railway Networks. Repeating such requirements in AFIR would only create unneeded legislative redundancies. To conclude, I look forward to a fruitful debate and I hope that you can adopt the Parliament position on these two files this week to start trialogues next week already. Thank you very much.