Use of energy from renewable sources
Despite its considerable length and a rather large number of options (over 30), the IA report could have delivered a more coherent, comprehensive, and persuasive analysis. The internal logic of the report and the arrangement of options is at times hard to understand because the options are linked to challenges rather than to clearly defined problems and objectives. Furthermore, the absence of preferred options makes it difficult to assess the usefulness of the impact assessment in informing the political decisions underpinning the legislative proposal. The use of different models, which are by the Commission's own admittance very difficult to compare, may have led to a certain lack of coherence in the assessment of the impacts. The proportionality of proposed measures is not always clearly visible compared with the evidence provided by the models used in the assessment. Overall, given the number of considerable shortcomings and the fact that the assessment twice received a negative opinion from the RSB, one might have expected a better argumentation for the Commission's decision to proceed with the proposal.
Briefing
Apie šį dokumentą
Publikacijos rūšis
Autorius
Politikos sritis
Raktinis žodis
- APLINKA
- aplinkos blogėjimas
- aplinkos politika
- atsinaujinantys ištekliai
- atsinaujinančių išteklių energija
- bendradarbiavimas aplinkotvarkos srityje
- bendradarbiavimo politika
- biokuras
- biomasė
- EKONOMIKA
- ekonominė analizė
- ENERGETIKA
- energetikos politika
- energijos (su)vartojimas
- energijos taupymas
- ES programa
- europinė struktūra
- EUROPOS SĄJUNGA
- gamtos aplinka
- gamyba
- GAMYBA, TECHNOLOGIJOS IR MOKSLINIAI TYRIMAI
- gamybos planas
- išmetamųjų dujų kiekio mažinimas
- oro kokybė
- pakaitinė energija
- poveikio tyrimas
- TARPTAUTINIAI SANTYKIAI
- tarptautinis susitarimas
- tarptautinė politika
- technologijos ir techniniai reglamentai
- šiltnamio efektą sukeliančios dujos