Proposition 52K2022

Projet de loi portant modification de la loi du 12 avril 1965 relative au transport de produits gazeux et autres par canalisations.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V the Van Rompuy government

Submission date

June 2, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

natural gas shareholding energy supply gas supply gas industry gas pipeline dominant position liberalisation of the market pipeline transport free competition

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 25, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing today and on which we will vote fits into the strategy of unbundling, disconnecting or disconnecting the various actors in the energy market. More specifically, it concerns the reduction of the share of electricity producers in the structure of suppliers, in order thus to strengthen competition.

We have had to wait a while for this draft. As a result, the discussion of the bills by Mr Tobback and Mr Van Noppen has been postponed until the draft is considered. Meanwhile, Mr. Van Noppen has once again disconnected his bill from the draft, because it does not cover the very same matter.

The criticisms expressed on the draft came mainly from the opposition. This will not surprise you. Mr Tobback has repeatedly referred to the problems related to the LNG terminal. He wondered what profit it would have to liberate the entire natural gas network if the crane – where the gas enters the country – still remains in the hands of monopolistic structures. The Minister replied that this is not exactly the case, since Publigas still owns part of the shares and can exercise a very strong influence on them. The short discussion that then developed has been thrown before your feet on our banks several times. It is about whether or not the municipalities are forced to defend the interests of the Empire in that sector. That is another discussion. I am confident that the Minister will talk to you on this issue in the coming months.

Another observation from the opposition was the question of why the participation in the supplier is limited to 24.99 percent. Why was it not suddenly chosen for zero percent, if the minister wants producers not to be able to influence suppliers? The Minister replied that it is not necessary. If one remains below 25 percent, there is no blocking minority and therefore no danger to strategic decisions. In addition, this way, according to the government, step-by-step work is done, and it avoids that suddenly a load of shares comes to the market, which may not immediately find a buyer.

Another aspect of the design is the implication associated with corporate governance. The Minister considered it necessary to introduce a reinforced form of good governance in the sector concerned. The criticism that was formulated on it was, I think, rather marginal. Excuse me, Mrs. Van der Straeten, you might put it a little more in the paint. They aimed not only to subject the Board of Directors, but also all affiliated organisations, such as the Supervisory Committee. You will get more information about this from the opposition.

Furthermore, I think that the N-VA was ⁇ concerned to also weld that 0% and immediately reform the entire market by setting a maximum market share for electricity producers. Mr. Van Noppen, I can reassure you, because that topic will be addressed later.

Furthermore, I think the discussions were briefly summarized. I have also made short comments. We had to wait for a long time. The government attributes this to the fact that the draft flirts with the competence problem, because the regions would be competent for part of the problem. It was therefore necessary to go to the Consultation Committee and this has been long awaited. The same applies to the opinion of the State Council.

Personally, I was a little surprised that in all that time only the limitation of the participation of producers in the supplier market was addressed. I had expected that the government, of which we are also part, would have come forward with a broader project. If she had to wait, I would have expected that she would have moved to the regions with a comprehensive package or at least already negotiated to examine how the electricity and gas market can be further, more thorough and more consistently reformed. This is not the case.

Mr. Minister, I am therefore again and more and more in full expectation, with the good hope that you will do something about it. For all clarity, I personally appreciate this bill as a step in the right direction, but still largely insufficient.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the reporter for his objective, clear and comprehensive report on a discussion that was indeed not without importance.

Then I use the opportunity to stand on this tribune to congratulate the government and the majority parties. This is a point in the government agreement of this coalition. We are only two years away and the bill of three articles was approved in the committee and will be approved today in the House. At this pace – we are indeed doing well, Mr. Verherstraeten – and assuming that Mr. Schiltz’s group continues to keep its ways, you will have implemented two points of the government agreement by the end of this legislature. Herman Van Rompuy can then come here weekly to say how effectively is governed by his government.

Colleagues, in all seriousness, this is a design that indeed has some interest. It has its imperfections, but the principle contained in the government agreement is an important principle. The legacy that we have in Belgium on our energy market, first of all gas, from a natural gas supplier, a natural gas user, a producer of electricity with the same natural gas, who is also the owner or co-owner of and controls the network through which that natural gas reaches consumers, both households and other competing producers of electricity, is a situation that could actually only have existed in the old Soviet Union and that has continued in Belgium longer than it has ever existed in the Soviet Union, colleague De Croo.

So it was high time that this happened. We were slowly in a situation where it was as if the highways were owned by Peugeot and everyone else had to pay to get their car on.

That unbundling did not come because this government wanted it so fantastically, but because the European Commission and the directive demanded it. That unbundling is a good thing and my group therefore fully supports it.

Will we then approve the bill as it is presented today? and no. This bill is not going far enough, my colleagues. Mr. Schiltz, you know it very well, because you have already announced it yourself. Thank you for summarizing my words, but I will say it again myself. It is of course absurd that this bill seeks to move to unbundling and to make the ownership structure more transparent, more objective and more open to competition, but at the same time leaves the important gateways to the network in a situation where it is perfectly possible to keep them still under control of a single natural gas supplier in Belgium.

This is what is happening, Mr. Schiltz. On the basis of the present draft law, in contrast to the bill I have submitted myself with Mrs. Van der Straeten, it is perfectly possible that tomorrow the LNG terminal in Zeebrugge will be picked up from Fluxys and housed in a subsidiary in which the gas supplier still holds the majority and control, and thus, in other words, still controls what will flow through the Belgian natural gas pipelines.

For this reason, my group will abstain from voting on the draft.

Mr. Minister, you have taken a step with that draft. It is a step that I welcome, but unfortunately it is only a first step. The current situation is partially resolved, but the risks for the future leave you. I expected more from this government. We will therefore abstain from voting on the draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to confirm our support for this new arrangement. We must go forward. Some will say that it’s just a step but it’s a step in the right direction and that’s what matters.

I hear Mr. Tobback with interest, as every time, but he should not complain when a step is made!

We will see this in other discussions: sometimes we need to strengthen the devices. We can expect to see the markets respond and then we will need to accelerate the movement. I wanted to say that this is a step in the right direction and that I therefore supported this arrangement.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his trending report. We should not always overwhelm things too much. It is indeed an important draft in the context of the discussion that has long been ongoing at European level about unbundling, or separation, to say it with a nice Dutch word. It does not mean more or less than that there are separate tasks for the different players in our energy market. The one who produces electricity and the one who supplies electricity must not be the same as the one who owns the grids.

If these are all the same people, there could be a problem of benefits, unequal access to the networks, and so on. This discussion has been partly resolved – not sufficiently for my group – in the Third Energy Package at European level, which has been formally adopted and will soon be published in the Official Journal.

Today, colleagues, the European Commission also published a press release in which it reaffirms its intention to send a written warning to 25 Member States, including Belgium, regarding the incorrect transposition of the Electricity and Gas Directives. More specifically, we are charged with matters that were already conscious. For example, the Commission is still not convinced that there is an adequate or appropriate body for dispute resolution, despite the fact that our legislation has already been adapted in that sense. Further in the framework of this draft, the Commission says that it is of particular importance that everyone who wishes to have equal access to the networks, that it is essential that there is sufficient reliable and transparent information on the capacity of the network and that the TSO, the transmission system operator, remains lacking in both gas and electricity in this area.

No matter how happy I am with this bill, colleagues, and no matter how important it is that the producers and suppliers will decline in share, this is only the beginning. It is not a closing point of an energy policy. This is only the beginning of a policy. In other words, the TSO and the government have a very important responsibility, which they will also have to take to heart.

Mr. Minister, you have said several times in the committee that we will actually nationalize Fluxys in part and that once the draft is subsequently approved, you will notify the TSO, even if he is only temporarily appointed, Fluxys in this case, that he must meet the provisions of the Gas Directive as soon as possible and effectively publish sufficient information – the correct and necessary transparent information, as requested by the European Commission.

As cited by the previous speaker, this is the implementation of a government agreement. I cannot get rid of the impression that the various Parliamentary groups do not have a unambiguous interpretation of what should be understood under that government agreement. In the plenary session, former Prime Minister Yves Leterme made it very clear that that 25% would apply to all entities falling under the management of the natural gas network, thus also to any subsidiaries, read Fluxys International. I still think that this bill still allows – in fact there is a shareholder agreement that is different – that control over Fluxys International and thus over the terminal will escape us. I do not think this is desirable.

Colleague Schiltz challenged me about corporate governance. I am very pleased that the bill also strengthens corporate governance. As the report shows – which the reporter has failed to explain sufficiently – we believe that this is actually not happening sufficiently. Also in the various organs it is necessary to ensure sufficient independence and sufficient transparency. I think this is a missed opportunity. The facts will show if this is really the case.

I would like to conclude with a philosophical consideration that I also made in the committee. For me, there is no question of nationalization of Fluxys, but of communalization. If we say that Fluxys is in the hands of the government, we must look in the hands of which government it is. These are de facto the municipalities of this country. This is not the desired level. The municipalities themselves are not responsible for overseeing natural gas supplies. If today at European level the directives are amended and amended, if the Member States are asked to make suggestions to amend the Directive on the security of natural gas supply, it is also the TSO, in this case Fluxys, which is considered to provide input and that can provide a relevant contribution.

I do not think the municipalities have the authority to monitor this. I am absolutely convinced that the federal government would be better placed for that. There is also a problem of democratic control. Sometimes I went to the city council to ask a question. I will be sent home by the mayor. Mr. Minister, I have already asked you this question in Parliament. Then you say that this is for the municipalities and that I should not ask you. In my opinion, there is a huge democratic gap, a huge lack of democratic control, by leaving this in the hands of the municipalities.

Mrs. Van der Straeten, what intrigues me is the following. You say that the municipalities that should be competent should be but the federal government. Why not the coasts? They actually have energy power, more than the federal level? Why specifically the federal government?

Because at the moment, network management is still a federal authority. Especially when it comes to the transmission network manager. This is a power that is not yet regionalized but is in the hands of the federal government. The federal level is the most appropriate level.

Furthermore, it does not seem to me desirable that there should be three different ideas on this subject. When it comes to natural gas supply – to name it – I remind you, for example, of the gas crisis of December and January, when one country decided to turn the cranes. Then in our country, with our existing network capacity and with the transit lines that we have and that we can flow in the two directions, we provided a solution to a real problem that raised on the European market.

It seems to me very logical and clear that there is one point of contact. At the moment, it is undoubted that this is the federal government.

I know, Mr. Chairman and Mr. De Croo, that I am speaking here about a case that has grown historically. The municipalities have an important historical responsibility. Of course, it is difficult to change certain things. But I hope that when I have been in Parliament for as long as Mr. De Croo, this is one of the things that can be changed and that we can move towards more coherence in our energy policy.

I think this proposal is a step in the right direction. But I do not understand why one does not move to a complete unbundling.

The European Commission is strongly in favour of a complete separation. He will come anyway. Belgium can finally be a good example. Belgium has the highest energy prices in Europe. This can only be changed by the full liberalization of the energy market.

The fact that the players on the energy market still have interests in the distribution network prevents other players from entering our network. Therefore, I have once again submitted my amendment for a complete unbundling. Anyone who votes against it is against lower energy prices.