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
O tomto dokumente
Typ publikácie
Autor
Oblasť politiky
Kľúčové slovo
- alternatívna energia
- analýza dosahu
- biomasa
- biopalivo
- budovanie Európy
- ekologická politika
- ekonomická analýza
- EKONOMIKA
- energetická politika
- energetická spotreba
- ENERGIA
- EURÓPSKA ÚNIA
- kvalita ovzdušia
- medzinárodná dohoda
- medzinárodná politika
- MEDZINÁRODNÉ VZŤAHY
- obnoviteľná energia
- obnoviteľné zdroje
- politika spolupráce
- poškodzovanie životného prostredia
- program EÚ
- prírodné prostredie
- skleníkový plyn
- spolupráca v oblasti životného prostredia
- technológia a technické predpisy
- výroba
- VÝROBA, TECHNOLÓGIA A VÝSKUM
- výrobný cieľ
- znižovanie emisií plynov
- úspora energie
- ŽIVOTNÉ PROSTREDIE