21 Amendments of Dominique RIQUET related to 2015/2322(INI)
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Commission’s planned transformation ofs with regard to the electricity market must lead to real market transformation and contribute to efficiency and security of supply;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas other positive experiences of common power markets as for example the Nordic electricity market between Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark or market coupling within the Central/Eastern Europe (4M, CZ-SK-HU- RO) should be taken into account;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas national capacity markets make it harder to integcan help to guarante electricity markets and run contrary to the objectives of the commone security of energy policsupply;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas national duties, high taxation costs, fixed prices, subsidies, feed-in priorities and lack of interconnectors prevent a functioning internal market in electricity and thus delay the full market integration of largely CO2- free energy sources;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas, subject to the findings of impact assessments, a medium-term increase in interconnection between the Member States to 15% or more could improve security of supply;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission communication on the transformation of the energy market and endorses the view that the transformed electricity market and thorough implementation of existing legislation should enhance regional cooperation on security of energy supply and should focus on more market and less regulation;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that the best way towards integrated EU-wide electricity market is to strategically determine the necessary level of integration which should be achieved, restore confidence among the market players and especially ensure proper implementation of existing legislation;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Member States to be more pro-actively involved in the design of a European internal market in electricity and to avoid undermining the objectives of Articles 114 and 194 TFEU by means of permanent capacity markets;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that a European internal market in electricity is possible on the basis of stronger price incentives; is aware, however, of the risks of unpredictable price surges and calls for meaningful pilot projects to be carried out before introducing prices that reflect the actual scarcity of supplies;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the importance of a common analysis of system management at regional level and calls for the transmission system operators of neighbouring markets to devise a commonordinated methodology to that end;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that network expansionefficient use of interconnections as well as national networks and their further expansion and development in particular is indispensable with a view to completing the internal market in electricity with a growing share of renewables; regrets that there are still large gaps in the interconnections between Member States, leading to network bottlenecks and significantly impairing operational security and cross-border energy trading; calls for the electricity interconnection objectives to be differentiated by region and aligned with the ENTSO-E ten-year network plan;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that rapid network expansion and the removal of network bottlenecks are also essential if uniform price zones are to be retained, and that the splitting of bidding zones c, often having negative implications on neighbouring countries which are not part of such zones, would be a sensible market economy approach to reflect actual electricity shortages in certain regions; takes the view that in closely integrated electricity networks the allocation of price zones should be decided together with all neighbours concerned in order to prevent both the inefficient use of networks and the reduction of cross-border capacities, which is incompatible with the internal market;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is sceptical ofConsiders that capacity mechanisms on the grounds of high cost and the riskdo not necessarily cause market distortions, particularly if they are based ofn market distortionsmechanisms and respect for the principle of technological neutrality, and stresses that national capacity markets are subject to the EU rules on competition and state aid;
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Stresses the need to promote the deployment of energy storage systems and to create a level playing field on which energy storage can compete with other flexibility options, based on technology- neutral design of the energy market;
Amendment 393 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that the expectation of future price surges can create incentives for producers and investors to invest in production capacity, particularly in high- efficiency modern gas-fired power stations (both gas engines and turbines), urges politicians not to intervene in the market even in the event of large price surges and calls, in the medium term, for the complete abolition of regulated final consumer prices;
Amendment 397 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that the expectation of future price surges can create incentives for producers and investors to invest in production capacity, particularly in high- efficiency modern gas-fired power stations, urges politicians not to intervene in the market even in the event of large price surges and calls, in the medium term, for the complete abolition of regulated final consumer priceand recalls that regulated tariffs must allow dynamic pricing to continue; calls for demand to be made more flexible by developing smart meters;
Amendment 438 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Notes that the Member States must meet specific quantitative objectives for the share of renewables in energy consumption, irrespective of the market situation, and therefore stresses the importance of promoting renewables in a way that focuses on competition and cost efficiency; therefore regards the EU-ETS as the most effective tool, and promotion of investment as more compatible with the market than current feed-in priorities and fixed prices;
Amendment 491 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Is convinced that, alongside renewables, all safe and sustainable energy sources which serve the objective of gradual decarbonisation in line with the recent Cop21 Global Agreement will continue to have a role to play in electricity generation; a. Decarbonisation should be supported with the definition of an Emission Performance Standard as a threshold beyond which carbon-intense power plants cannot be eligible for capacity markets or other support mechanisms, such as the modernization fund proposed in the ‘Cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments (ETS)’ directive;
Amendment 512 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Takes the view that, for a medium- term transitional period, national responsibility for the energy mix cannot be questioned and therefore that both nuclear power, which is largely CO2-neutral, and the use of national energy reserves together with high-efficiency gas-fired power stations and coal-fired electricity generation using the latest technology, can make vital contributions to the integration of renewables;
Amendment 577 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Takes the view that the transfer of responsibility for system security to supranational bodies would involve considerable regulatory effort which is not reflected in any worthwhile efficiency gain for the transmission and distribution system operators, and that the necessary legal framework would require several years to put in place;