Proposition 53K2320

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière d'énergie (I).

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

July 2, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection electricity supply electrical energy price of energy energy supply invoicing gas small and medium-sized enterprises soft energy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

July 18, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. by 2320.

State Secretary Wathelet points out that the bill containing various provisions on energy includes three groups of measures. First, it is prohibited to impose breakdown fees on all contracts relating to gas and electricity supplies, provided that a one-month notice period is observed. Contrary to what is stated in the agreement of the Council of Ministers of 12 March 2012, no exception is allowed.

Second, Article 105 is incorporated into the Gas and Electricity Act. That article was only included in the Amendment Act and is now anchored in the Gas and Electricity Act. This improves the readability of the invoice and at the same time defines the framework in which the consumer agreement should be extended.

Third, the bill provides for a ban on creating margins as a result of the obligation to purchase regional green electricity certificates. For green power and heat power certificates, suppliers will only be allowed to transfer to their customers the market price of the certificate published by the regional regulators and the costs of the operation determined by royal decree on the advice of the CREG. The draft law ensures that non-compliance with provisions relating to breakdown compensation and invoicing can also be prosecuted within the framework of the law on market practices.

During the general discussion, Green expressed his satisfaction with the content of the present bill. The N-VA notes that progress is being made with regard to the breakdown compensation. The sp.a welcomes the readability of the invoice and also notes with satisfaction that the break-off fee for families and SMEs will be abolished if they comply with a one-month notice period. Ecolo-Groen considers the uniformization of the invoice to be a good thing. Open Vld states that several suppliers have not charged breakdown compensation for some time. There are problems for small suppliers. The definition of SME will not be changed and the issue will be further examined.

Two amendments were submitted, both of which were rejected. The whole draft is unanimously adopted in the committee.

So far the report. With the approval of the President, I now come to my presentation.

I am pleased that the bill is voted here today. Some time ago, my colleague Renaat Landuyt and I submitted a bill to protect the end customers of gas and electricity. We wanted simpler invoices and a limitation of the breakdown fee to 50 euros. That proposal was incorporated into the various provisions, though with the abolition of the breakdown compensation.

We have taken the first step in the right direction, Mr. Minister; the SPA has taken the first step and has launched the discussion with our proposal. In the committee, Green suggested to eliminate the breakdown compensation altogether. This was included. We are therefore very pleased that the government has gone beyond what we requested.

Everyone must admit that what is being voted here today is very positive. The energy factor will now be effectively more transparent, which will benefit the final buyer. The expiry of the breakdown compensation, provided that a one-month notice period is observed, will optimize the dynamism in the energy market.

Transparency and breakdown compensation will now also be legally anchored. Sanctions will be imposed from now on. Both individuals and SMEs can now change suppliers at no cost.

Particularly for SMEs, the measure represents a huge progress, as the costs of changing suppliers were significantly higher, making it not always obvious to change suppliers.

I have already said in the committee that some self-employed have changed from supplier without realizing that the breakdown compensation for SMEs was higher than that for families. It was a financial disaster for them.

Again, I cannot emphasize clearly enough that we must take care of our small entrepreneurs. Furthermore, they are not always as prosperous as most people think. Look at the number of bankruptcies. They are a very vulnerable group in our society.

However, I still have a major concern. As I have already cited in the committee, I hear from typical small SMEs, such as a baker or a slaughterhouse, that they are already excluded from the definition, because their consumption is just over 50 megawatts.

Last week I struck through a group purchase for professionals on invoices from catering and electricity ⁇ . It turns out that they also consume a little more than 50 megawatts. I therefore welcome your promise, Mr. Secretary of State, to examine the impact of the current definition. I hope that even those small enterprises will soon be able to fall into the definition; after all, it is a fairly large group.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, first and foremost, I want to emphasize that the present draft contains a number of good but also less good provisions. It will always be so. I am glad, Mr. Secretary of State, that you have listened to what we have all said over the past months and years in Parliament. This applies, inter alia, to the adaptation of Article 105. In the committee we had already discussed this issue following my question where the problems were exactly situated. It is good that the article is now being adjusted.

There is also the provision on the breakdown compensation. At that time, we proposed to remove them. The majority was against this at the time, but I am certain that progressive insight brings us closer together.

Of course, there are also provisions that are not entirely correct. I will limit my criticism to two major points.

The first is the calculation of green electricity certificates. We discussed it extensively, but the answers were not very satisfactory. Thus, in the first place, they cannot be transferred to consumers and SMEs. Ms Vanheste has recently cited these problems. In my second point, I will definitely come back to that.

In vertically integrated enterprises, the difference between market price and minimum value can be calculated. I have then repeatedly asked you how that would go in his work with the example of the solar panels. The market value is about 108 euros, the minimum value for the certificates fluctuates around 450 euros. Does that actually mean that hundreds of euros can be added to that price?

I have asked it repeatedly but never received a response. I hope you have checked it in the meantime. If you read the law again, I am afraid you will not understand it. Then I also fear that some colleagues approve texts that they do not understand. However, I see that you have brought reinforcement in the public. Without a doubt, Mr. Van Eycken knows more about this matter than you know yourself.

Second, of course, the invoices should be clear and as quickly as possible. CD&V has submitted another bill ordering the King to clearly draft the invoices. This is a profound legislative change. In practice, however, problems arise. If this is approved, there are three different regulations that impose what must appear on the invoice, namely the public service obligations imposed on the suppliers at the regional level, the draft currently underway and a royal decree that was ratified when Mr Deleuze was competent in the matter. Since the content of those texts is not the same, in practice one must comply with several standards that one cannot execute simultaneously. I will give you an example. As Mr Deleuze saw, and as it is still in force, the invoices must indicate how much percentage of electricity comes from natural gas. That category does not exist in your bill or in the directive of the Flemish government.

Which directive should be followed exactly? Who is wrong if one does not follow one of the three?

The Royal Decree of Mr Deleuze still stipulates that the address and telephone number of the CREG must be indicated on the invoice. You choose the Energy Ombudsman Service.

For consumers, it is quite simple. For small and medium-sized enterprises, it becomes really complex. Although everyone knows very well what a small and medium-sized enterprise is, the law on this subject is incomprehensibly complex.

That is not your fault, but that of Minister Magnette, but you had the opportunity to adjust it. I will give you a few examples.

Today, a SME is generally considered to be an enterprise with less than 50 employees and a balance sheet of less than 250 000 euros. Your definition is that a SME should not consume more than 50 megawatts of electricity and 100 megawatts of natural gas.

You should take the place of a supplier who must send an invoice. That supplier has an electricity contract with a company and may know about how much electricity that company consumes. On this basis, however, he cannot determine which invoice he should issue. He can only determine that if he also knows the consumption of natural gas, if he knows how, for example, that baker fire his oven or heats his warehouse. If he knows it, he should check if it is actually less than 100 megawatts. But maybe that baker heats up with fuel oil and then it does not fall under it anyway. He may have 10 000 employees, but if his consumption is still lower, then he does not fall under it. Suppose that baker installs a new boiler the following year, no longer on fuel oil but on gas. Well, I have no idea how that supplier should know that, but he must suddenly adjust his invoice.

Mr. Secretary of State, this is not consistent with what it should actually be. I can then give a whole series of examples, where the supplier would have to perform an audit to know which invoice to be sent to a SME, to know if it is a SME.

However, some of the problems can be easily solved, in particular by removing the 2003 KB. I have submitted an amendment in this regard and will repeat it later. Remove the 2003 KB and some of the problems have been solved. If you can find inspiration in European directives to correctly translate the definition of a small and medium-sized enterprise, you may find it all.

After all, what you are doing now makes the matter so complex that this is just food for your Minister of Administrative Simplification and I am very curious what he thinks about it. Just fix that.

This also applies to control. The Royal Decree is still in force. Well, believe it or not, the royal decision on electricity and gas bills must be checked by the Federal Environmental Inspection. That is true, right?

Here is, it is right!

Can it be crazy in this country? You know as well as I know that this is a bad thing, that we put up rules here. This may be even worse than the football law from then on.

Mr. Secretary of State, finally take the courageous decision and approve that small amendment of the opposition. We both know that in a few months you will have to decide to cancel the royal decree, but you are now too proud to admit it. Mr. Wathelet, I will return to this when you realize how high the need is.

I do not see Mrs. Dierick and there are no more registered speakers.

I was registered as a speaker. Can I intervene from my bank?

I was surprised that you were not registered.

I will take this as a compliment.

Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to summarize briefly two elements that I also cited in the committee. This is a package of various provisions which often contain positive elements. Our group will support it. You know that our group evaluates each proposal on its merits. This is what we did in this case too.

First, I would like to highlight the following element. The fact that the National Bank will play less or no longer a role in the price mechanism is a good thing. Yesterday we spoke in the committee about the pacification between the current classical tripartite and the CREG, who knows one of the building blocks for a more constructive relationship between politics and the regulator. However, you still have a lot of homework, because our group finds that you don’t always work that good relationship in hand.

Secondly, I would like to talk about the general breakdown compensation. I checked it for a moment; on 9 April, a controversy arose about the breakdown compensation. In the spring, the Consumer Agreement also stipulated that the breakdown compensation was not abolished for all types of contracts. In the meantime, that step has been taken. Our group was, by the way, one of the parties asking to take that step. We are, of course, pleased that we have been able to contribute to a better proposal for the consumer.

I would like to suggest the following, Mr. Secretary of State. In the autumn, the switching campaign is scheduled at the local governments. This was also supported by our group. I think the combination of the general abolition of the breakdown fee and the switching campaign offers a lot of potential to move the supplier market even further. I would like to ask you to add something to this. In September, when consumers are given the opportunity to inform themselves in their municipality house about the cheapest supplier for their consumption profile, they should also get information about energy savings there.

That is independent of the debate today, but there is a connection with the general abolition and the switch campaign. I would like to invite you to look at this. Let federal officials tell citizens not only how to switch, but also how to reduce their consumption. This would make the current package of measures even more social and environmentally friendly.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the MEPs for the text, especially since the inspiration and the theme, including the compensation for breaches, were brought up by Parliament itself. With this text we go a step further, but Parliament has submitted the original text, for which I thank you.

I have four elements of answer.

First, Mr. Calvo, it is not a switch campaign, but a comparison campaign. Consumers do not necessarily need to change suppliers. They may also be satisfied with their supplier. What is important is that they have the necessary information and make a good, conscious decision about their supplier. Therefore, a comparison campaign is necessary, rather than a switch campaign. If the result of the equation is a switch, that is good, but if that is not the case, that is also good.

As for your questions, Mr. Wollants, it is true that we do not change the definition of SMEs and large enterprises in the text. This is not touched. You also refer to the KB itself. We have indeed re-examined the KB and it cannot be revoked by the legislative text. In order to remove the KB, a KB should be issued. We will ⁇ do so, but then we have to see if the KB can really be withdrawn. In any case, if conflicts arise between the law and the KB, then of course the law prevails. There is no problem with legal certainty. To make it even clearer, we will work on the withdrawal of the KB. I will continue to inform you about this.

You have, as in the committee, cited the example of the company of solar panels. In the first place, it rarely happens that this is done by an integrated company that uses solar panels for the integrated production of its electricity. But if a company would take a margin on the fixed price of green power certificates on solar panels, which would already be high, plus a margin and the transaction costs that would come up above that, then it would ⁇ not be able to sell electricity anymore because its electricity would be too expensive. In short, it is a rare example, but if that choice is made by a company, then its electricity would be much too expensive, due to the fixed price.

As for the federal level, it is true that we must bring down our fixed price for green power certificates. That was stated in my April note and was repeated in one of the parts of the relief plan, which was proposed this morning by the government. It is one of the measures related to the energy price, which are implemented by the federal government. However, the fixed price of green power certificates is largely determined by the regions. You should know that too.

We will ⁇ continue to discuss the topic because, before the entry into force of the legislation, a KB must be issued in which the transaction costs are determined.

Mr. Secretary of State, as regards the KB, you have had some time to look at it thoroughly. I’m not talking about the last two weeks. I asked you this question a few months ago. Then you fell completely out of the air, because then you didn’t even know of the existence of that KB. Now you want to say that you have not had the opportunity to read that text all those months? Apparently this is the case.

What is even more disturbing is that you are talking about it quite lightly. You say that the law builds on that. Of course, this is the case, but the scope is not the same. It follows that the exemption only applies to small and medium-sized enterprises that consume a maximum of only 50 megawatt-hours. The KB remains applicable to all those who consume more. If a business crosses a mystical boundary during the year, it will suddenly have to get a different kind of invoice. That remains the problem. The solution is very simple: just remove that measure!

This is based on the vertically integrated companies. You now actually say that a legal provision has been drawn up in this regard, which in some cases does not work. As a result, there is actually a self-regulatory system, because the companies involved will never account for so much because otherwise they can no longer sell their electricity. Why is this provision included? You have to explain it to me.

I think that provision has come because you have never come to the realization of its scope. You are now trying to speak out of it by claiming that the price of electricity in that case will become too high. I think that provision will need to be adjusted in the future.

Colleagues, I think there are some essential pain points here. Of course, there are also good provisions. However, if you’re too proud to adjust the pain points, you’re making poor legislation, you’re creating administrative burdens and you’re just making it difficult for the sector. I think no one has any benefit from this.

Finally, my questions were also asked in the committee and there were no answers. You know that. Whether this is the reason why you are more interested in foreign sports performance, I do not know.