Proposition 53K2579

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

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Dec. 14, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

natural gas tax relief consumer protection electrical energy price of energy energy production energy supply maximum price offshore oil structure renewable energy reduction of gas emissions wind energy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶

Dec. 19, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

First and foremost, I would like to thank the Minister for this legislative initiative. As a rapporteur, I can inform you that there has been a discussion about a technical correction or correction, proposed by the Secretary of State, in the federal contribution.

Companies that consumed less than their counterparts sometimes had to contribute more to the federal contribution. This major injustice will be corrected by the legislation in force, according to the State Secretary.

There has been a short, but very animated discussion, which, in part due to the contribution of Mr. Wollants, was sometimes very technical and whose impact the general public could not immediately know, even after reading the excellent written report, for which I compliment the reporters.

The discussion was eventually settled by the statement and communication of the Secretary of State that he wants to clarify a possible contradiction between a law and a royal decree and that he chose the royal decree because it provides more clarity.

The State Secretary dismissed the concerns of several Commissioners that the electricity generated by the windmills in the North Sea and directly injected into the distribution network would lead to higher costs and a higher distribution rate. It is not intended to inject that generated electricity into the distribution network, but it is intended to provide clarity about the right of green electricity producers to federal, and not regional, green electricity certificates.

Mr Schiltz, I would like to thank you as the rapporteur for your report, although the connotation you make on some points does not fully testify to the objectivity that one should expect. I will return to that later.

The bill contains a number of good things. The double ceiling in the federal contribution has been asked for a very long time. I remember having stood here at least three or four times with amendments to resolve this. The majority has always found it very pleasant not to have to engage in this.

Today, after endless discussions, it has come out. The double ceiling is finally out. After 2 or 3 years, companies will finally pay a little less for their electricity. They will no longer be encouraged to consume more just to sit above that ceiling; something that the government has eventually resolved. That is a good thing. That is why we will support this.

Mr Schiltz says that no one is awake from the technical correction. I will explain how that goes together.

This is not a clarification. This is what is called: the correction of the pruts work of the former Minister of Energy. He said here then with a lot of bravour that it is absolutely necessary that it is clear that only those who inject on the transmission network, i.e. through the high-voltage lines, have the right to support through the green current certificates.

The State Council asked whether this is the way this should be arranged. Minister Magnette said: “Of course, that distribution network is a purely theoretical track. This is absolutely not the matter.”

That was at the end of 2011. Our new Secretary of State now says this fact has been happening since 2009. So there is indeed a problem and electricity is transported through the distribution network, coming directly from the windmills at sea.

Indeed, as Mr Schiltz has cited, green power certificates do not fall within the distribution network tariff, but he forgets the following sentence in the report, namely that there are indirect costs involved and that a reinforcement of the network is needed, the costs of which are only reimbursed by the region.

Meanwhile, there are companies who want to connect to the grid with great pleasure and want to produce electricity, create jobs, bring economic growth, but for whom the answer is that there is no space, among other things because their electricity cannot access it. The offshore windmills take that place.

I find this an important element, that you try to gently cover with the mantle of love as being a clarification. Sorry, this is not the issue, it is very clear about...

Mr Wollants, first and foremost, the above is a report of the rapporteur, and therefore a view as objectively as possible. If you argue that the current situation, in which electricity from the windmills is injected into the distribution network, leads to indirect costs, that is a finding that you have made. It is not because it is not mentioned in the report that I would violate your opinion. It is not an objective determination, it is a determination that you have made.

Per ⁇ it is so. It could be. However, I would like to point out that this is about stimulating green power projects at sea.

When there is a problem in the Flemish territory with the licensing of a high-voltage line, the Stevinline, you can never expect the federal government to ask the green electricity producers at sea to stop building windmills and put everything on hold because the electricity does not hit land. That would be the reverse world. This would hinder a major innovation, not to mention our obligation to generate a certain percentage of green electricity.

These are two different problems. You can’t just throw them on one piece.

You should not overdo the whole debate that you have held in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, the rapporteur did not cite this argument.

I find it interesting that you put it up. If I am not mistaken, the federal government at the time committed to making the windmills operate at sea by 2004. When was the Stevin Line ready for the licensing phase? Was it in 2004? I mean not! Let’s be honest, you’re trying to push it off now, but actually one should have done the two at the same time, both capturing the zone for the offshore windmills and expanding the high-voltage grid so that the power could be on the grid. That has not happened, that is the only conclusion I make.

Second point, if you are talking about those indirect costs, that would be my estimate, to my knowledge, the Secretary of State in the committee said that this can indeed involve indirect costs. Where or not? In that sense, I find it a bad thing that that electricity through that network will cause costs for citizens and ⁇ .

I find it even worse that the Secretary of State says that this can happen in the future. I read in the report that it is not desirable that wind turbine parks should be added to the distribution network. In fact, you should say, Mr. Secretary of State, that it is an absolute condition that this comes to the transmission network. This is the best for the entire network. You need to transport that current from the end of the grid, but if you put it there via high voltage, you can get it where you want. I want to show that here. It is a pity that it went so.

I quote this directly from the text. “The permits will make it clear that the connection of offshore wind farms to the distribution network is not desirable.” Of course, these are not desirable, but it does not exclude that this will still happen. I want to absolutely avoid reusing capacity that local families and ⁇ need to do other things in the future. That is the challenge, and for that I ask for extra attention.

Mr. Schiltz, did you mean something? Wait, don’t talk, Mr. Wollants, because in my opinion you will not agree with what he is going to say.

Monsieur le président, le débat et commission était plus sur, much more serene. I am disturbed by the fact that Mr. Wollants is trying to reinterpret the intentions of the majority. In this respect, he is sick in the same bed as Mr. Calvo. What lies ahead here is a very dry piece of legislation that actually tries to clarify a long-standing problem. I remember visually and auditively how the Secretary of State tried hand-and-tand to explain this to you in the committee, that he will watch, that he commits himself to that when there are additional concessions wind energy will be given and that in the concession terms will be stipulated that that electricity will not come to the distribution network.

If in the text about the word “desirable” you want to do almost biblical text exegesis, then you are free to do so. You will not at all be proven that this government has bad intentions or tries to shake away uncertainties in this dry and sober piece of law.

Mr. Schiltz, the current government was in place when the text amended here was approved. The point.

I will be very brief. I have exactly the same opinion as Mr Schiltz.

I repeat that it is not desirable that it is linked directly to the distribution network. It is ⁇ not the best way to work.

However, it is now no option not to give a green certificate to those who have a concession of the offshore windmills and not to allow them to enjoy the green certificate system. We need to do something to make something possible for those who have a direct link to the distribution network, knowing that in the next procedure this will no longer be possible.

Last but not least: Fortunately, we did not wait for the Stevin project to develop the offshore windmills. In the other case, we were still far away from development.