Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I'm finished with the edits, except for that profitable projects and non-forthcoming investors sentence. Is is it fine that way?

Can we add anything to 3.1 and 3.2?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Mar 29th, 2009 at 11:19:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, if I'm allowed to be repetitive, I'd say:

3.1

[deleted the first 'own' because 'own resources' of the EU has a specific meaning in EU jargon]

If the EU's resources are limited, the most effective approach would not be support to developers, but some sort of requirement to develop networks (utilities forced to spend from their own resources or some form of tax). The TEN-E approach needs to be focused further in two respects. First, the projects need to be determined by the Member States in close coordination with the Commission and under clear reference to EU policy goals. Second, the resources need to focus on improvements to the electricity grid, and further on projects that are especially promising for the spread of renewable energy.

3.2

The EU should drop the limitation of wanting only market-driven TEN-E planning (planned revision No. 3). The level of funding for TEN-E is inadequate, but the EU could still allocate the resources with a greater impact if it focused more clearly on the electricity network and left desired expansion of the gas network to the Member States and regulatory requirements for storage and solidarity.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 03:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series