Thanks Paula, Christian with Europe. Question for Anna-Kaisa on the methane regulation.

The Council has postponed the discussion on the proposal until next Friday.

So I was wondering, would this leaves little time for trilogues, so obviously.

So I was wondering, is there any strict timeline or deadline from the Commission side for reaching agreement,

or are you fine with the, adoption being pushed back until next year?

And then the second question on the substance.

If I may, the Parliament adopted a position for a 3 year delay. You, proposed a limited 1 year delay.

So I was wondering, have you assessed the impact of different lengths of postponement, including potentially a 3 year delay. Thank you.

When we made the proposal a few weeks ago, it is now with the co-legislators,

and it is obviously their prerogative to now set the speed at which they will take this forward.

We obviously have made very clear that we had good reasons to make a proposal to delay by one year. We stand by that.

We consider this to be the appropriate measure to take at this point in time.

But it is the prerogative, obviously, of the co-legislators now to decide on the speed, and we stand ready to support and be part of this exercise as we proceed,

and I think that answers the question on the Parliament's 3 year as well.

We respect the right of the co-legislators to make up their own opinion and position on what we propose,

but we put on the table a proposal to postpone by one year.

We consider this to be sufficient to allow the necessary flexibility that we want to achieve and what is needed in the current period,

and therefore, We will engage now with the Parliament and the Council.

To ensure that the process For the proposal that we made it fully preserved in its essential scope,

and it would not distort it. This is where we are.

But as to the timetable, as to the comments made by the co-legislators,

as by the suggestions for the timeline, this is the prerogative of the co-legislators.

This is not for us to comment on.

These are questions that should be asked to the Council or to the European Parliament. Christian, you have a follow up. Thanks.

Just on the impact of this, because you didn't really answer that question, I think, so wondering if you've assessed that.

I mean, you said it's sufficient, one year is sufficient, but did you assess the impact of a longer delay,

one year delay, or did you just take one year on the basis that it can't do, do too much damage. Thank you.

You will see when, when you look at the proposal that we made, there,

there is this kind of prelude to before the before the legal text,

and there is a mention on impact, impacts as well.

And given that we are not touching the substance or the ambition.

Of the regulation at all with this very, very targeted amendment,

so we're not changing the substance or the spirit or the objective at all.

So therefore there is no further impact assessment now being carried out while the proposal is with the co-legislators.

We are not introducing any new requirements to the Member States or the operators with this very targeted amendment,

so you will see this language, it is all in the proposal that we made. So now it's a normal codecision process.

It is now with the co-legislators, and we do not, from the Commission have any.

Comments to run on the record commenting on the process that is ongoing in Parliament and in the European Council. I have more questions. Thank you so much. It's Nikolaus for rapporteur.

You said the prerogative of the co-legislators to make up their own mind.

It's also the prerogative of the Commission to withdraw the legislation should the co-legislators impose too much bureaucracy,

significantly, as you said, distort the nature of the proposal. Is the Commission. Recognising its ability to withdraw the law.

We we don't want to go to the speculation,

but I do appreciate that you consistently ask this question repeatedly.

It's good, and our response remains the same that we have now made the proposal, it is now with the co-legislators,

we work with everybody and we hope that we will have a solution soon enough to preserve because ultimately,

our main The goal and objective is to preserve the regulation.

That should be the ultimate goal for Parliament and the Council, and in this current situation,

in this current context, we made a proposal to lay.

It's entry into force by one year or there are certain obligations to enter into force by one year.

So ultimately this should be the framework now for everybody, and we work in this context,

but we do not make any kind of speculative football commentary now from the podium what might or might not happen. We absolutely stick to our proposal, Nikolas. Philippe. Can I just quickly. Go ahead.

It was previously on this podium that the Commission announced the withdrawal of the Greer Claims Directive when the co-legislators exceeded too much, which means that there is precedent that this can be announced at the podium,

just wondering whether This would be the place where you could, OK,

this is actually extremely speculative,

but just like you answered your question. Philippe.