Proposition 53K1106

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 12 avril 1965 relative au transport de produits gazeux et autres par canalisation.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Liesbeth Van der Auwera
MR David Clarinval, Marie-Christine Marghem
PS | SP Philippe Blanchart, Olivier Henry, Karine Lalieux, Linda Musin
Vooruit Bruno Tobback

Submission date

Jan. 21, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive natural gas shareholding energy supply gas gas supply gas industry gas pipeline market stabilisation pipeline transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

VB

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 ¶

April 28, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Mr. Since George is not present, I refer to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Bill No. 1106, which is subject to the vote of your assembly, is the result of a fruitful work carried out within the Economy Committee, chaired by Ms. Van der Auwera.

The proposal was initially submitted by Mrs. Lalieux, whom I would like to emphasize the quality of the interventions in committee. We also worked, Mr. Clarinval and myself, on this proposal, and all colleagues in the Economy Committee.

I will only clarify four points in the proposal, which in fact aims to adapt the natural gas storage system to the current situation, in particular Regulation (EC) No 715/2009.

But first of all, I would like to briefly recall the context of this case. SA Fluxys, the manager of natural gas infrastructure in Belgium for transport, storage and liquefied gas, called LNG, has a natural gas storage infrastructure in Loenhout.

Currently, this infrastructure can benefit only one type of customer, public distribution. The evolution of the natural gas market in Europe, since the first gas directive transposed into Belgian law in April 1999, has marked a decisive step, in particular with the increase of interconnections between the different regions of Europe.

As a result, the public distribution has a larger choice for natural gas supplies and obviously felt this winter.

Thus, intercommunal companies no longer necessarily use gas storage in Loenhout; more exclusively in any case.

Proposal 1106 aims to enable, within the framework of the European Regulation on Access to Gas Infrastructure, access to storage to be opened not only to public distribution but also to other suppliers, as well as to gas producers.

As mentioned earlier, I would like to make four important remarks on this matter.

First, the established system allows any gas operator who wishes to take and subscribe storage capacities according to non-discriminatory rules, set out in the Code of Good Conduct, as specified in the Royal Decree of 21 December 2010. This means that current operators, such as Electrabel and Gaz de France, for example, will always be able to subscribe capacities, if they wish, in parallel with new subscribers.

Secondly, the bill allows gas producers to effectively subscribe to storage capacity in compliance with the Code of Good Conduct, respecting the non-discrimination criterion and the CREG tariffs. Producers Statoil and Gazprom will be able to contract storage capacity.

I would like to highlight the Prime Minister’s intervention for his support for this project. This is indeed an important point, as this type of gas operator enhances the security of gas supply as this type of operator will transit a large amount of gas through our country rather than through other transit routes.

It is also important – and this follows from what I just said – that Belgium, including Flanders, remains a crossroads for gas flows. Given the international character of the gas market, it is equally important that this matter remains federal, which further explains and justifies the intervention of the Prime Minister.

Third, the bill imposes public service obligations in case of shortage. If a shortage arises, for example in the context of an international crisis, the user of the Loenhout storage facility, such as Gazprom, will have to put the relevant capacity at the disposal of the natural gas transmission operator, namely the company Fluxys. In such a situation, GRT Fluxys will have to make this gas available to protected customers, i.e. end-users, through intercommunal companies.

Fourth, by changing the storage regime, we avoid the company Fluxys, whose municipalities are majority shareholders, a cost for the non-use of storage infrastructures, which results in a medium and long-term increase in user invoice and a decrease in dividends in the head of municipalities. Furthermore, in this context, I wonder about the fact that the director of the administration of Minister Magnette did not support this project more vigorously. I dare hope that he did not defend the theses of shippers who wanted to maintain a preferential regime favouring speculation.

In a different order of ideas, Mr. Clarinval and I, along with other members of the committee, are delighted that certification, authority designation and forward-looking studies have been removed from this text to focus on the essential, namely gas storage.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that in this particular period of political life, Parliament has once again demonstrated that it can make useful reforms to maintain Belgium’s place on the European gas market.

There is a small piece of legislation before you. I can say that this is a fortune, because the initial proposal of colleague Lalieux was much more comprehensive. Although I am very pleased with the autonomy of the Parliament, we in the committee have yet to conclude that the implementation of this bill has gone quite far.

It was about the transposition of the third package of European directives and the complete, further settlement of the liberalization of the gas market. After mature consultations in the committee and beyond, and on the basis of a number of concise amendments made by ourselves, we have decided to exclude only two articles from the proposal. These two articles are very useful because they align the system of gas storage, especially in Loenhout, with the European requirements.

If this bill is approved, we will be able to better allocate the allocation of this storage, and we will not have to go on to all kinds of agreements concluded between Prime Ministers of sometimes shady powers. We can finally market the allocation of this storage location, as it should be in a liberalized market.

I hope to be able to count on your support for these two summary but important articles.

The European natural gas market is changing. European reserves, whether in the Netherlands or England, are gradually exhausting.

In order to compensate for this decline in European production, large volumes of gas will have to be imported from more distant sources. This is why large international investment projects have emerged. It will be cited projects of gas pipeline transportation from Russia or even the Caspian Sea. Other projects are still being considered, including the Nabucco project. Investments to build pipelines and LNG terminals or storage capacities are multiplying. The routes of gas to Europe and across the continent are re-designed. These movements represent a challenge, but also an opportunity for our security of supply.

The ideal for a non-gas-producing country is to have a supply infrastructure directly connected to the sources. However, in order to be able to afford it, huge capital must be invested that only the largest countries can afford. It is well understood that the Belgian market, by its size, will never be profitable enough to offer its own pipeline to Russia or Norway. With this ideal out of reach, Belgium’s strategy has always been to enhance its geographical position between the sources and the various end-consumption markets in the Northwest. The aim is to put our security of supply on cross-border gas flows to other countries.

In order to meet the needs of households and ⁇ , Belgium must take advantage of the current developments in the European market to intensify its role as a turntable by attracting new gas flows to its territory.

This bill – it has been recalled – aims to contribute to this strategic goal by reforming the storage regime to which our gas transmission and storage manager, Fluxys, is bound today.

According to current legislation – Ms Marghem recalled – Fluxys must prioritize allocating storage capacity to suppliers that power the Belgian distribution networks. Suppliers who sell their gas on the Belgian market can therefore claim a priority duty on the storage capacity available to Fluxys.

This system, which was originally advantageous for Belgian customers, is now unsuitable for the changes in the European gas market.

Gas suppliers are increasingly working on a tense flow. Previously, they used storage capacity as a way to cope with peak consumption, for example in winter. Now they will seek that flexibility in the gas exchanged through their interconnection capabilities. This is especially the case for our small country which is obviously very well interconnected with England, Germany, the Netherlands and France.

Add to this that while the storage facility manager is also obliged to prioritise and annually allocate storage capacity to Belgian suppliers, nothing, on the other hand, obliges them to effectively use that capacity.

Therefore, in recent years there has been a decrease in the demand for storage to the point of putting into question the economic viability of the installations concerned and a huge financial loss for Fluxys.

In order to respond to this new reality, we therefore felt necessary to change the storage regime. The bill replaces the rule of annual priority allocation in favour of suppliers on the Belgian market with a new system that was explained by Ms. Marghem. I will not return to it.

The new mechanism avoids speculation but also guarantees public service tasks, with priority customer obligations for supply security in the Belgian market.

Dear colleagues, you will understand, this minimalist proposal aims to increase the attractiveness of our storage system for gas companies. Thus, we will be able to establish ourselves as a natural gas crossroads in northwestern Europe with all the benefits that this implies for our security of supply, for the financial health of Fluxys and for employment in a highly strategic sector in Belgium.

Like others, I would like to congratulate the work we have done in the Economy Committee. All groups, all parliamentarians have tried to reach a compromise in these difficult times. I would also like to thank all those who stood around the table to reach this compromise.

I also hope that other compromises will come in this committee and that we will have such a serene debate next week on the rent. But this is another story.