Proposition 52K2282

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 12 avril 1965 relative au transport de produits gazeux et autres par canalisations en ce qui concerne les tarifs de transit.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Katrien Partyka
LE Joseph George
Open Vld Willem-Frederik Schiltz

Submission date

Nov. 30, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Regulation natural gas energy supply gas single market liberalisation of trade pipeline transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Vooruit N-VA LDD FN VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Bart Laeremans (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 ¶

Feb. 11, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Ms Lalieux, refers to her written report. The general discussion included Mr Schiltz, Mrs Partyka, Mrs Plasman, Mr Clarinval, Mrs Van der Straeten, Mr Van Noppen and Mr Georges.

Mr. Speaker, I will check whether Ms. Lalieux wants to intervene.

I note his name between parentheses.

Mr. Laeremans is also writing in. Mr Schiltz has been prevented. Ms. Partyka has the word.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to bring Belgian legislation into line with the European rules on gas transit.

In the context of the proposal, I would like to add two points. First, since 2004, EU law has required Member States to apply the same tariffs for gas transport, regardless of whether it is transport within a Member State or transit. Second, Europe allows an exception for so-called historical contracts, i.e. transit contracts concluded under certain conditions before 1 July 2004. Against these two principles was sinned in the law of 10 March 2009. The European Commission initiated infringement proceedings on 8 October 2009 just because of the provisions of this law. New enterprises should be able to enter the market in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner on the basis of tariffs agreed between the network operator and an independent regulator.

This also happened in Belgium. As of 1 January, the CREG has agreed with the operator of the natural gas network Fluxys multiannual tariffs for the transport, transit and storage of natural gas, as demanded by Europe, with the same tariffs applicable to transport and transit. These reduced transport charges should ultimately also benefit families. The CREG believes that this should reduce the invoice by 20 euros for an average family. The agreement between the independent regulator and the network operator is therefore there, now also the legislation had to be adjusted. This is precisely the purpose of this proposal, in particular to bring the Gas Act in line with European rules, including the new European Gas Directive 2009/73, which must be transposed by 3 March 2011. From then on, no distinction should be made between transport and transit, including for the so-called historical contracts. The proposal therefore reinforces the agreement between CREG and Fluxys, which I have just described.

The bill provides for these specific points.

First, the abolition of the special system for transit. This means the deletion of Article 15, 5° quinquies, which was amended by the Act of 10 March 2009.

Secondly, from 2 March 2011 at the latest, the exception allowing separate tariffs for the so-called historical contracts will cease. The proposal therefore stipulates that Article 15, 19(1) shall cease to apply by 2 March 2011. The King may remove this exception earlier.

Third, the interpretative provision of historical contracts is deleted. That interpretation was given in the law of 10 March 2009, in Article 15/19, paragraph 2, of the Act.

The law of 10 March 2009 has created a lot of legal uncertainty. The bill is positive for several reasons. First, the infringement proceedings that Europe launched against the law on 8 October 2009 are thus remedied. Second, over the interpretation problems of historical contracts, a trial has already been conducted at the Court of Appeal in Brussels. This was a preliminary question to the Court of Justice. Third, there was uncertainty as the CREG filed an action before the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the law.

The present proposal creates greater legal certainty.

First of all, I will make a correction. In the text is still the name of my colleague, Bruno Tobback. He is not the co-sponsor of the bill.

This does not mean that we did not agree with the original bill. We found the equalization of the transit tariffs with the transport tariffs a good thing. Europe has requested that too. It is fully in line with the agreement between the CREG and Fluxys. This agreement leads, in the first instance for the consumer, to a savings of 20 euros per year. This has already been mentioned by Mrs. Partyka.

The agreement on the multiannual tariffs has also resulted in the reduction of the transport tariffs for the large companies. We see that GDF Suez, which will take over the transport contracts of Eni, Distrigas and ECS, is also doing a good thing.

Would it have stayed there! The original proposal was that the text on the historical transit contracts, which could benefit from a very cheap rate, would normally enter on 1 January 2010. This was at the same time as the entry into force of the text on the multiannual rates, as proposed by the CREG.

Recently there was suddenly the bizarre story of the amendments and the proposal to add them another year. I will not tell it again. It is stated in the report and we heard it in the press.

The proposal has now been amended so that the transit contracts are valid until 3 March 2011, the last time for the implementation of the European directive.

What does this mean for Suez? In addition to the favorable transportation rate, Suez will receive an additional year: 20 million euros profit. For Wingas it means a profit of approximately 8 to 10 million euros. And all this is at the expense of the consumers, who would normally earn those 20 million euros a year. Consumers will in any case see a little less money back in the first year, because they will pay more, because the government gives extra to Suez and Wingas that year. That is why our group will vote against.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the authors of the proposal, in particular Mr Partyka, for taking the initiative to submit a proposal to remedy the transit law, which was approved by Parliament last year.

I think the proposal is especially good on one point. In fact, it provides a legal basis, as colleague Partyka explained, for transit tariffs and transport tariffs. That tariff methodology provides legal certainty with regard to the tariff agreement recently concluded between the regulator, on the one hand, and Fluxys, on the other.

I think it is a very important agreement, because it can bring peace in the market and also peace between Fluxys and the regulator, who not so long ago stood opposite each other with pulled knives. The consumer is one of the big winners. The transport tariff in the tariff agreement now effectively provides a reduction of approximately 20 euros per year for a fashion family. Colleagues Plasman and Partyka have named it.

We still have a problem with another aspect of the law, the protection of historical contracts. We have been in the committee for a long time. We had also stopped at the discussion of the previous law. The arguments are known. They do not need to be repeated here. The only thing I want to say about it today is that I regret that it has been thought a little too unilaterally from the perspective of the transit companies. Ultimately, the transit companies are the major winners of the protection of historical contracts. I know that there is a legal reasoning in this regard, which can be interpreted in both directions. We leave this debate for what it is. This will eventually be discussed in court. You know my position on this.

Thro ⁇ this debate, however, we must also pay sufficient attention to the TSO for Fluxys. Fluxys will soon be a majority in public hands, at Publigas. Fluxys has a very important and very large investment program: 1.5 billion for the next five years and 2,8 for the next ten years. It benefits from being able to act in a political context that fully supports this investment policy, both nationally and internationally.

There are major changes in Fluxys, due to the sale of the Suez stock packages, which will be largely in the hands of Publigas, but probably not fully. I don’t think Publigas will buy the entire 38% of the shares. Then, of course, comes the question of who will be the third investor, who will be the third industrial partner for those shares.

I think that is a very relevant question, which we should be able to have a good and open debate in our country at the different levels of competence and at the level of the various governments involved. This debate was a bit held last week in the Flemish Parliament, where a hearing was held with Publigas and Publi-T. It was a little about Elijah. Daniël Termont, the chairman of Publigas, confirmed there in Parliament that he does not rule out the possibility of a third partner.

I know that we can’t fully send it from the government. However, we can have a framework discussion on this. It is then really important that that third partner is someone who is capital-powered on the one hand and on the other also has a significant experience, nationally or internationally, in the field of natural gas supply and the investment in our networks.

The entire investment program of Fluxys focuses on supply security. This is the link with the consumer. At times when a crane is decided to turn off in Russia, we in Belgium must be able to ensure that our consumers can still heat their homes in the winter. In this sense, Fluxys is a crucial player and Fluxys should have a great place in our hearts and also receive sufficient attention in our political work. I hope that in the upcoming legislative initiatives, both from Parliament and the Minister, that concern will be taken very seriously into account and that this will be our first concern.

Mr. Minister, I have another final question. On 9 February the deadline for responding to the infringement notice had expired. Our legislative work is not finished. I can imagine that the answer to the European Commission would have been that a legislative initiative is underway, has been submitted to the House, then went to the Senate, and that the publication is likely to follow in a few months. Can you shed some light on what exactly was answered to the European Commission?

Our work on transit and historical contracts will then be completed here in Parliament and we will then have to wait for the opinion of the European Commission and later for the opinion of the legal bodies who will have to settle, among other things, on the validity of those contracts.

I would like to thank you all for the extensive discussions in the committee. Hopefully they are now a little closed for this aspect.

On behalf of the MR Group and more specifically of Mrs. Marghem and the members of the Economy Committee, I would like to say that the Partyka and consorts bill, relating to the transport of gas products, is ⁇ welcome. In fact, both in the form and in the substance, it is worth pointing out how positive this bill is.

On the form, first of all, here is again a parliamentary proposal that comes to support, help, complement the policy conducted by the government. We welcome the collaboration of the Minister in this matter, who fully understood all the complementarity that he could have to cooperate with our commission.

In essence, this proposal makes it possible to bring Belgian legislation in line with Community law and the principle of non-discrimination, and thus avoid a severe condemnation of our country by the European institutions. Indeed, the distinction between transit and gas transport should be abolished as soon as possible and the parliamentary pathway fully responded to this request.

As regards the date of entry into force of this law, it was important not to be misguided and to choose the most legally secure dates. Therefore, in consultation with the Government and the European Commission, the majority amendments were made to the original proposal. Here and now it is necessary, on the one hand, to completely refute the allegations of some, mainly to the sp.a, who see in these amendments the voice of hyper-powerful lobbies and, on the other hand, to refute for reasons of legal security the wishes of others, the CREG at the head, to want to reverse the law in 2006. This way of acting would completely violate the principles of European law.

In conclusion, for both formal and substantive reasons, the MR group will fully support the Partyka and consorts bill, as amended by the majority groups.

Furthermore, we sincerely deplore the simplistic understations of some groups aiming to present us as being manipulated by very powerful lobbies.

I welcome the massive interest of the energy specialists of the Sp.a, which we unfortunately see more often in the newspaper than in the committee concerned. Instead of asking for the establishment of a new investigative committee, they would better come to the existing committees, and help find solutions to the problems they eventually created in the previous legislature.

At first, our group agreed to the bill as it was originally submitted. The amendment would immediately lead to further liberalization of the energy market, bring the legislation in line with European law, and enter into force on 1 January 2010. Following threats from GDF Suez, the majority submitted amendments to their own bill, which postponed the date of 1 January 2010 to 11 March 2011.

This is once again a gift from the majority parties to GDF Suez, making the consumer the victim of the lack of action and courage of this majority. Apparently, GDF Suez in Belgium determines the content of the bills, rather than the democratically elected members of the House. That is why we will vote against.

In our view, the original proposal of colleagues Partyka and Schiltz was a very good proposal. It was intended to impose the same tariffs for the transit as for the transport of gas, something we have been in favour from the beginning in previous debates, just like the European Commission, just like the Brussels Court of Appeal. This would not only apply to the new contracts, but at the same time also to the historical transit contracts.

That proposal was so good in our eyes because the French energy giant GDF Suez, a company that is largely owned by the French state, as we know, today can deliver gas through our country to and across the borders of France at far too low rates. The transit tariffs Suez enjoys are much lower than the transport tariffs paid by the gas consumers in this country. The low tariffs that Fluxys applies to gas intended for France are offset by the high tariffs for domestic gas consumers.

The aforementioned bill by Mrs Partyka and Mr Schiltz puts an end to this practice. Since this equalization is imposed by Europe, it was only logical and obvious that it would be implemented immediately for all contracts, including those from the past.

Therefore great was our disappointment when the majority suddenly called for an extension of the validity of the historical contracts. From the discussions in the committee it became very soon clear that this is a new gift, a new gift to the great boss of Suez, Mr. Mestrallet. He has committed heavy lobbying and even blackmail – we have read his letter – in order to maintain and maintain the favorable transit rates for another year, and apparently with success. Chantage is paying in this country. Suez will be able to maintain its privileges until the very last moment, without any rational and objective reasons.

Members of the majority parliament should be well aware that, by giving in to Suez’s aspirations, they do not serve the public interest, not the interest of Fluxys, which will soon become fully owned by the municipalities, and not the interest of domestic natural gas consumers, who must pay the bill for the low rates of the historical transit contracts.

Mrs. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to know how Suez successfully succeeds in lobbying, pressuring and blackmailing, and then successfully, the Belgian government. The only importance that the amendment serves on the bill is the importance of the French energy giant Suez, the interest of France. The only interest that is served here is the French interest.

Therefore, we will not approve the amended bill.

On behalf of the CDH, we will approve this bill, which we have co-signed with Mrs Partyka.

I will recall an important element, because I have heard some rather unpleasant insinuations and about which I hear protest. Last October, the CREG approved the tariffs for gas transport and storage. It also issued a favorable opinion on the appointment of a natural gas transmission, installation and storage network operator.

These decisions are important. They affect each of our consumers, each of our families and each of our ⁇ .

In fact, it should be noted that the tariffs of transport to consumers decreased by 35%, which corresponds to a reduction of approximately 20 euros of the annual bill of a household of four persons. I am therefore surprised by the frilance of some of our colleagues who would not support this reduction. For a small industrial consumer, the reduction in the invoice would be in the order of 3,700 euros per year.

With this decision, the CREG applied a cost-based tariff methodology, a single tariff methodology, thus responding to the requirements of European legislation and the position adopted by the European Commission in this regard. These tariffs were applicable from 1 January last year.

This is why Mrs. Partyka, Mr. On November 30, Schiltz and I submitted a bill amending the old law of April 12, 1965. Indeed, in this law as amended on 10 March 2009, the legislator had made a distinction between transport and transit. Following the adoption of this law, the European Commission had decided, on 8 October 2009, to open an infringement procedure against Belgium. It was therefore appropriate to modify our legislative arrangements to provide for the calculation methodology a certain legal basis.

I will remind you that on 3 December 2009, at the tribune of this Chamber, in a public session, I had asked an oral question to Mr. I asked the minister to know the interest in changing the legal arrangement; I then told him that Mrs Partyka and myself, along with Mr. Partyka, were in a position to change the legal arrangement. Schiltz, we had submitted a bill. As a result, the arrangement could be applied from 1 January 2010.

At that time, Mr. The minister had answered me in this regard: "I have examined, and I will continue to do so with great interest, the draft law formulated."

We are there! This arrangement has all its political, legal and economic interests.

On a political level, it demonstrates that the House can effectively seize, in consultation with the ministers and the government, important files and that it can also show creativity and initiative. From a legal point of view, we have thus responded to the Commission’s observations and avoided infringement proceedings. Finally, economically speaking, we respond to the important desire of our citizens to see their tariffs drop.

I also insist that the tariffs thus approved will be among the lowest in Europe and will ensure that Fluxys receives a fair remuneration for the invested capital. They will enable this business – and fortunately we still have it on the territory of our state! Financing its important investment programme and reinforcing Belgium’s role as a pivotal point of the gas market in northwestern Europe. I repeat in full terms the statement of the CREG on this subject.

Some would say it could have been done faster or better. I note that those who criticize today have not taken any parliamentary initiative and have not filed anything significant. I note in this regard that it was appropriate to abandon the difference between transit and transport, which we are doing. As regards historical contracts, the derogation regime provided for in the Second Gas Directive remains valid until the entry into force of the 2009 Directive on the internal gas market, i.e. the Third Gas Directive, on March 2 next year.

By doing so, we allowed the extension of the situation as it is, giving it a legal basis that appears to be unattainable, which would not have been the case in the opposite sense. I invite you all to vote enthusiastically on this bill.

I would like to respond to Mr. George. He says that those who criticize the proposal have submitted nothing of meaning — rien de significatif. Mr. George was also present at the numerous committee meetings that we have spent on this topic. He was able to see with his own eyes that there were several amendments, including from my group, not only on Mrs Partyka’s proposal, but also on the previous proposal.

I did not submit that amendment again because I think we have resolved our discussion. The views are known. You know my very well. I think we should leave it here. I can’t really appreciate that this is discarded as meaningless.

These comments were not addressed to you. We had a very interesting debate. I have heard insinuations from two opposition groups that lobbying has been carried out against us. But when I signed and supported this proposal in the committee, I was not at all the subject of such a lobbying. I am big enough and independent enough to know what I am doing.

Mr. Speaker, I was the rapporteur of this bill, and it is again with great satisfaction that I emphasize that the parliamentarians of the Economy Committee can work, in good collaboration with the relevant ministers and their collaborators, in such a way as to overcome their quarrels to try to find pragmatic and safe solutions for a sector that is in great need.

This also shows the maturity of this commission and the Parliament. As I insist every time, the government should rely more on parliamentarians, who show that they can work effectively, even after many discussions. At least, we ⁇ something concrete through a real parliamentary debate. This is also the meaning of this parliament, which the government sometimes tends to forget.

I would like to say two words to also welcome this proposal and the excellent Parliamentary work. I continue to think that the state of European law allowed to retain two tariff formulas. Furthermore, their existence seemed to me perfectly compatible with the interests of Fluxys, without prejudice to the consumer. This would have allowed for higher transit rates than those of transport. Therefore, the price of transport would have been more interesting. This could have been adopted, in accordance with the rule of law, as recognized by CREG and Fluxys, while ⁇ ining a different system of transit tariffs. But, either, in a concern of calming and in order to avoid sterile polemics, I agreed to this proposal. I did it mainly because I found the discussions extremely constructive.

I therefore look forward to further parliamentary proposals on topics such as the obligation to register the CO2 emissions of motorcycles or the "fair trade" labels. There is a wide space for parliamentary initiatives that I will welcome with great enthusiasm.

Many speakers here have announced that their group will vote against. I would like to clarify that my group will abstain, despite our major problems with the article on the historical transit contracts. After all, the article on the tariff methodology is ⁇ as important and creates the legal certainty for the tariff agreement concluded between the CREG and Fluxys. This is very important for the industry, for the consumers, for the TSO and for the regulator. For these reasons, we will abstain and ⁇ not vote against.