Proposition 53K3087

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 31 janvier 2003 sur la sortie progressive de l'énergie nucléaire à des fins de production industrielle d'électricité et modifiant la loi du 11 avril 2003 sur les provisions constituées pour le démantèlement des centrales nucléaires et pour la gestion des matières fissiles irradiées dans ces centrales.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 24, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

electrical energy energy policy energy supply nuclear power station decommissioning of power stations

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

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 ¶

Nov. 28, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The debate on the bill that is being submitted to us this afternoon has been rich and dense. This shows how much Parliament is concerned about our energy future.

I will try to summarize what has been said. After a preliminary procedural debate, following repeated requests from Groen, the Secretary of State, after two hours, was still able to present the bill that envisages the extension of Tihange 1 for ten years and obviously the closure of Doel 1 and Doel 2.

For the Secretary of State for Energy, the market has never really believed in the release of nuclear power, since the 2003 law has not been followed by any measures. In its agreement of 11 December 2011, the government therefore confirmed the application of the 2003 law, while entrusting the Secretary of State with the task of ensuring the country’s security of supply at the lowest cost for citizens and ⁇ .

The goal is thus triple and this is what has been discussed: to quit nuclear power by 2025, to ensure in the meantime security of supply and the best possible cost for our ⁇ , our competitiveness and our fellow citizens.

This draft law is therefore a first step in the implementation of this security plan. Obviously – this has been pointed out by the Secretary of State – in this matter, there is no solution. There is not only one solution. Nobody holds the truth, it was said, but indeed this plan and this bill were made after consulting all our independent institutions, our regulator, the energy service, but also a series of experts. Therefore, a choice must be made at a given time. This decision was presented to us by the Secretary of State.

This bill obviously contains an important article: the 2003 law allowed us to derogate from the nuclear power exit. In this law, we emphasize the exit from nuclear power, thus crediting the whole plan and the fact that finally, Belgium will take, after the vote, this decision.

For the Secretary of State, the only way to reconcile a sufficient income for the investment decision and a maximum income for the state was to minimize the cost associated with uncertainty, whether economic or legal. This is what we are doing in this bill.

Finally, the willingness to pass through parliament, through this bill and through an amendment that completes it clearly testifies to the willingness for the government to act in transparency with parliament and, I recall, under the control of the CREG which is an independent regulator that depends on parliament.

I now come back to the discussion we had with our colleagues. During the general discussion, Mr. Calvo has requested the reading of a convention that will be signed with certain operators. He also requested an analysis from the Court of Auditors. These requests, supported by others, have, however, been rejected by the House Economy Committee.

For the N-VA, Mr. Wollants expresses serious concerns about the method used to ensure security of supply. The speaker stresses that other measures are indicated in terms of supply security, such as investments in interconnection capacity.

by Mr. Dedecker, on the other hand, believes that the main problem posed by the bill is its financial impact. According to him, the cheapest source of electricity production is nuclear energy.

In response to the requests expressed, the Secretary of State recalled that the convention is for now just a piece of paper that will have legal value only after its signing and especially after the vote of this bill empowering the Secretary of State and the government to sign this convention.

by Mr. Calvo directly challenged this agreement since it was the operator, the company Electrabel, who drafted the investment list. I wonder who else could write the investment list for Tihange 1.

Mrs Gerkens asks how the parliament will have access to the signed convention... I am reporting, right?

Mr Calvo, this is the report.

Mr the President...

Did you not say that?

Mrs. Lalieux, you have to give clear wine. You say you report, but at the same time you make all sorts of personal remarks, almost value judgments, about it. Either you speak in the general discussion, or you bring the report, but on the one hand refer to the report and on the other ask who else could have done it...

I remove my little point of humor. Your speech was long.

Let us for the clarity of the debate that properly keep things apart.

Mr. Calvo, so I take away my little point of humor and I will stick to the text.

Ms Gerkens asks how Parliament will have access to the signed convention. by Mr. Dedecker proposes that we have access to this convention with closed doors. The request was rejected by the Economic Committee since it was reminded that the preliminary draft agreement was analyzed by the CREG and that the latter submitted its opinion, to which we have access, as well as the investment list.

On behalf of the PS Group, I point out the importance of reviewing this bill in terms of transition and security of supply. As nuclear security is fundamental to us, it is important that the 600 million investments for the extension of Tihange 1 are under effective supervision of the CREG and the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control.

For CD&V, Ms. Dierick insists that we finally have an energy equipment plan. It reaffirms that it was indispensable to extend the Tihange 1 plant for the short-term supply security of our country. But there will still be heavy investments needed to move to green energy.

by Mr. Dedecker, for his part, considers that the situation is alarming in terms of supply security and regrets the excessive subsidies granted to the market, which would distort competition. The speaker once again highlights the economic impact of the closure of Doel, parallel to the cost of the wind turbine file and, more generally, that of green certificates.

For the group, Mr. Clarinval welcomes the fact that for the first time our country has a short, medium and long-term energy policy, which will benefit our companies and the portfolios of our fellow citizens as well as the state budget. for Mr. Clarinval, the project is a pragmatic and clear response to our energy policy.

by Mr. Calvo regrets that our country has been negligent in terms of supply security. Without this negligence, the speaker believes that the first phase of nuclear exit could have been achieved without problems in 2015. He also regrets that the issue of nuclear waste is absent from this debate.

The speaker then designates and details what he calls "the myths of the Secretary of State's equipment plan", namely:

Reduction of energy bills,

- the assertion that the operation of Tihange 1 was indispensable until 2025,

- the claim that the exit from nuclear power is ⁇ ined,

- the assertion that the equipment plan would finally be accompanied by an energy vision,

- the assertion that the 10-year extension is the only safe solution.

by Mr. Calvo also questions about the government amendment as well as the mechanisms of the project, the 600 million investments and especially the control of those 600 million. The Minister responds that it is the CREG that will have to monitor these investments.

by Mr. Tuybens, for the sp.a group, welcomes the fact that the government has finally made a firm decision to quit nuclear power since the sp.a had already made this decision in 2003. The draft law under consideration fixes this exit from nuclear power unequivocally. The member is pleased that this exit is finally inscribed in a law. For him, what is fundamental is that Parliament can examine in detail the issue of investments, ⁇ in Tihange 1, and that other energy sources are the basis for new investments.

Muriel Gerkens recalls that nuclear power is a risk and it refers to Fukushima. Like the mr. Calvo, Ms Gerkens is surprised that topics such as nuclear safety or limited liability for damage to owners, producers or nuclear energy operators are not mentioned. It also notes a lack of transparency in the head of the Secretary of State, for example on the text of the convention.

by Mr. George believes that the work of the Secretary of State is not appreciated at its fair value.

Finally Mr. Wollants emphasizes the importance of three pillars in energy policy: supply security, energy price and sustainability. For the speaker, the question is where the balance between these three pillars lies. For him, it would be desirable to ensure greater security because in case of high demand, the price increases as the supply decreases (this is the law of the market), especially when the interconnection capacity is reduced. He emphasizes this capacity.

It also insists on the need to operate the extension safely.

Colleague Willem-Frederik Schiltz points out that the bill under consideration is not aimed at extending the life of the nuclear power plants, but rather their closure – with a special modality for the only Tihange power plant. He notes that the bill finally proposes a clear timetable for the release and that it will no longer be possible to modify the text by a royal decree, as was the case before. The speaker, however, expresses some concerns by recalling that the government agreement referred to the making available to the market of the capacity of the amortized nuclear power plants. For the speaker, it is vital to increase competition in the production market, but this implies that suppliers must have sufficient purchasing capacity.

As for Ms. De Bont, she announces that she cannot approve the bill due to the general framework that is not sufficiently transparent.

For the Secretary of State, the legislator sends, with this draft, a strong signal and makes known, in addition, the alternative solutions he wishes to propose in these difficult times, since there is no single country that is not confronted with the question of the energy mix and where the aid of public authorities is not under pressure. It then confirms the evolution of the system of the provision in accordance with the government agreement, as noted by Mr. by Schiltz. The desire to promote competition in the electricity production market and reduce the cost of energy for Belgian households and ⁇ has, on the other hand, remained unchanged. On the other hand, legal and economic objections appeared. Nevertheless, competition and affordable energy remain obviously the key points of this bill and the government plan.

Parliamentarians insist, like the Secretary of State, on the fact that the ball will be, tomorrow, in the camp of parliament. They recall that the CREG and the Federal Nuclear Control Agency have a mission to monitor investments in Tihange 1 and that the first is under parliamentary control. It is our responsibility to fulfill this mission.

This project, concludes the Secretary of State, offers the best possible compromise, with an extension of the duration of operation on fair terms for all parties. Furthermore, he advocates a clear long-term policy.

The text was adopted by eleven votes for, one vote against and two abstentions. All the amendments, which I will not describe, submitted by the N-VA and the Ecolo-Groen Group were rejected.

Mrs. Lilly, would you like to continue with your speech. Now you can show all the humour you want!

I will remember it. I am not used to reporting. It must be that!

First of all, I would like to thank the collaborator who helped me to write this report, or rather who wrote it. The length of my report testifies to two things. On the one hand, the debate on this bill was full of questions, arguments and exchanges, which obviously highlights the importance of this text. On the other hand, the debate recalled that this bill should not be considered as an isolated text but as part of a set of initiatives, a strategic supply plan of the Secretary of State. This bill also shows how much this parliament is interested in this issue and it is very well so!

It is difficult, or even impossible, not to link this bill to the entire supply security plan, this plan that will enable our country to provide itself with a true short, medium and long-term vision on energy. This project is therefore an important step in the perspective of this strategic plan, an important step that will obviously have revived older debates on the nuclear exit.

My colleague, David Clarinval, was delighted to see, in this plan and in this bill, a pragmatic law that avoided ideological shells. I do not always agree with him on energy matters but I share his opinion; this law is a pragmatic law that meets the concerns of the government and parliament, that is, security of supply, price, nuclear security and the energy future of this country.

As the Secretary of State also pointed out, when a topic is important, everyone thinks they have the solution. I said this in this report. However, we know that there is no single solution. There are multiple and complementary solutions that need to be implemented.

This bill is therefore crucial both in terms of energy transition and security of supply, in terms of ⁇ ining reasonable prices for consumers, for the competitiveness of our companies and for the intensification of competition in the electricity market. However, it must be repeated, this text is not the solution but it is an integral part of many solutions.

As the Secretary of State stressed, the project under consideration offers the best possible compromise with an extension of operating life and correct and realistic conditions accompanied by a clear, long-term energy policy. I would also like to emphasize that, even if that was not the goal, it will return to the state budget.

For the PSG, this extension must be done with an absolute priority: ensuring complete nuclear security. The 600 million extension investments for Tihange 1 are a first guarantee of the legitimate questions that arise as a result of this extension. The burden of evidence, as well as the effective supervision of these investments by the CREG and the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, are the second and most important of the guarantees: the guarantee of independent expertise under parliamentary control, I repeat.

During the talks, we talked about “signing a blank check.” I am not at all of that opinion! As members of Parliament, our role is to remain attentive and to keep an eye on the developments in this matter. Our role is to question and question the minister of course, but also the CREG or the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control. Parliament has not signed a blank check. Parliament must continue to work: it will continue its control.

Finally, as I said, this project is only a step, important of course, but it is only a step. Like my colleague Dierick, I look forward to analyzing and debating the next steps in our committee and in our Parliament.

As is well known, the extension of Tihange 1 was a necessary but not sufficient step to ensure the energy transition. We must encourage and develop the combustion of gas and the sources of renewable energy; continue to act to reduce the energy bill of consumers and ⁇ ; consolidate the production market in Belgium through new investments, through interconnections; but also, and we must say to our Regions, to save energy as much as possible: this is obviously fundamental.

The next steps are many and equally important. I hope there will soon be more projects in the committee.

I will nevertheless say a word from Elia, the operator of the Belgian high-voltage power grid, who is concerned after the announcement of the closure of several gas power plants in our country last November 23. It is obviously not anecdotal that Elia reiterates the risk of black out from the winter of 2014. This is not a detail, and I’m sure our Secretary of State has that in mind for this winter.

This is a reminder of the urgent need to progress on all aspects of this strategic energy plan. We need to move forward as quickly as possible and avoid thinking that we are the only ones to be right. I think that solutions need to be aligned; there is no truth within this energy plan.

This is, of course, a bill on which the committee has spent a little more time than the majority would have desired. The committee meeting was scheduled for an early morning, to hunt the draft through the committee for an hour, of course, including the questions that could still be asked later, after which everything would be fire and fire again.

It has gone a little differently. This is a debate that needs to be conducted effectively.

Last year there was the launch of the Wathelet Plan, which contains a number of measures and is a brief summary of the federal government’s vision for energy. Then there was a year of silence, and now there is the draft.

Now we see a first step, without the initial plan being properly discussed and without the hearings with the industry and with the users, which were requested by many parties. This is not all necessary, because Mr. Wathelet has a plan. That plan contains a number of figures, with which he intends, at least in part, to realize supply security through the extension of Tihange 1.

However, the figures are somewhat outdated. Last week, Elijah reaffirmed what is repeatedly denied, in particular that we were very close to shutting down the current in large parts of the country in January. Mr. Secretary of State, as soon as during the discussion of this draft it is asked how you will provide the power needs, you are talking about the extension of Tihange 1 to ensure that the light continues to burn. We never get an answer to our question. This is of course the easiest way to address the problem. If the question is not answered, there can be no discussion. So you hope to get the matter around in an hour.

But this is not how it works, Mr. Secretary of State, if we all want to ensure the security of our country’s supplies, we must ask questions. More importantly, there must also be answers.

Of course, the federal government can throw its head into the sand and implement the majority-party agreement, hoping that everything will go well, but that’s hardly a policy and that’s hardly a vision. We cannot agree with that.

One of my most important questions is, therefore, how the security of supply is guaranteed. Last week we heard that Elijah is not at ease for this winter, but not for the next winter.

Mr. Secretary of State, how do you deal with this? What actions will you take? In what timeframe do you see that come well?

You are planning the construction of a number of new gas power plants. We have heard this story for about a year and a half. On the ground, however, we are receiving signals that clearly indicate that no one wants to build gas plants. The first gas plant should be operational at the latest in 2016. It would probably be the fastest-built power plant in this country. If you believe it, Mr. Secretary of State, then I am curious how you think you will realize this.

In short, we continue to be exposed to risks in terms of supply security. There is a risk that at some point, many ⁇ , SMEs and families will face huge costs because of the power cuts. If in the port of Antwerp, for example in a petrochemical company, the electricity would effectively disappear, then the damage runs in the millions of euros. On a possible solution, it remains silent.

We received a second warning from Elijah, just before the summer. The question was how we could create sufficient primary, secondary and tertiary reserves. On these three types of reserves, Elijah uses the words “insufficient”, “insufficient” and “unsustainable”. A State Secretary for Energy can be expected to do this and to provide an answer. Whenever this question is asked, however, Elia gets wrong and the secretary of state is right. We will see what happens. Mr. Secretary of State, before the light goes out, you may no longer fulfill your current function.

Is this the policy you want to put forward and leave in Parliament? The policy of the visionary State Secretary for Energy that would ⁇ supply security. I would like to at least get an answer to my question about specific achievements.

Mr. Secretary of State, last year you gave figures when presenting the supply security plan. Can you summarize these figures and describe where we stand today? You answer that you can’t return numbers every time. However, every month we get reports of power plants that will be closed, but the government remains silent.

What you do well is to provide all municipalities with a roadmap with guidelines in case of power outages. This is absolutely necessary, but can you please also work on supply security?

Extending the life of Tihange 1 is one method to ensure that we have the necessary power. We may not get there, but we agree to keep Tihange 1 open.

At the same time, you are committed to a higher fee for doing other things. I have just listened back and forth to make sure I’m right, and I’ve heard you say that this will charge a lot more than the current interest rate. You have said that a few times, on television as well as in an interview with The Time. You can say that the newspapers are quoting you wrongly, but was there a voting simulator hired by Radio2 to make that statement?

The [...]

You have said that it will earn a lot and a lot more than the interest rate now.

The (...)

So you confirm that it will earn more than the interest itself.

Pour le rapport: en commission, j'ai même expliqué why I had this cela et sur quelle base. You tell it at the radio, you tell it in a journal, you confirm it in commission, I explain it and, today, I understand that I have this that you didn’t have this! I explained why you had this, according to what mechanism and for what reasons. It is extraordinary to see that you try every time to put in my mouth of words that you don't have these words or to change what I've got this. I’ve got the habit, that doesn’t bother me! I’ll explain after.

You now accuse me that I have put words in your mouth. What I said has been confirmed three times. In fact, you said that it would earn much more than the interest rate itself.

The [...]

That’s what I just told you.

Mr. Wollants, you ne comprend peut-être pas bien le néerlandais, mais vous m'attribuez à cette tribune l'intention de prétendre avoir été mal cité par un journaliste. You will never ferai! You confirm the words that I have tenus toward this same journalist. It's the only thing you say! N'essayez donc pas de faire croire que je vais dire autre chose que ce que j'ai this before! Do not try to believe that you will say that a journalist has not quoted me! Absolutely pass!

I will summarize it. I say you said it, you say you said it, Open Vld says you said it, we all say you said it.

In the committee, we examined the figures in detail with you. We talked about the production price for Tihange 1, which you take into account. You said then that it is 27 euros per megawatt hour. I had played: between 26 and 28 euros.

Then we looked at the depreciation of the investment for the life extension of Tihange 1. This means approximately 7.89 euros per megawatt hour. We also know, from the responsibility for the amendment you submitted, that the guaranteed return for the owners of Tihange 1, both Electrabel and EDF, is 6.4 euros per megawatt hour.

I continue to count. In total, that is 41.29 euros per megawatt hour. You tell me that the new measure will bring more. We know that the revenue today is approximately 90 million euros. You said that too.

Let’s look at how the sales price is calculated. To do this, they use a methodology that I can follow. One takes into account for 1/3 the forward price 2 years in advance, for 1/3 with the forward price 1 year in advance and 1/3 the day-ahead price, the price of the day before it must be delivered.

Let us make that calculation, using the market prices, which are publicly available on Powerhouse.be. There we see prices for 2016, for 2015, and so on. For 2015 we are coming at a sales price of 41.8 euros. For 2016 the sales price is 41.9 euros. I make the bill including the day-ahead price, and I’m so generous to add a few more euros, but I have to determine that you create a margin of 2 or 3 euros between the guaranteed price and the market price. Of the 7.5 million euros, 70 percent goes to the state treasury.

That is, we are more or less out of an amount between 16 and 23 million euros, which goes to the state treasury. I am very interested in the figures you have used to calculate that the measure will yield far more than the current interest rate. But I do not see that today. You will see it and you will undoubtedly be very creative.

How do you estimate the interest rate? Do you continue to say that for Tihange 1 with a price of 41 euros per megawatt hour, there remains an interest rate, for a power plant that costs more to run than to produce electricity? Do you think that another interest would be paid on the basis of an amount that is lower than the production costs? This is a new reasoning.

The interest rate will be much higher than today, 90 million euros.

With my system and such low prices we get something. We ⁇ ’t have gotten anything if we had stayed with the interest rate system. So I decide for a moment.

C’est bien plus que cela. Why Why ? Parce que sur la rente, nous aurions obtenu zéro. If there is an interest, it is necessary that there is a margin. And l’absence de marge, il n’y a pas the interest! C’est tout !

I will take together. We will have much more than the interest rate now, because if the power plant is closed, we get nothing. Give him five francs, they say to us.

You may estimate that for Doel 1 and 2, we will also have ... and Mr. Calvo will come to explain to us that for the closure of Doel 1 and 2, we will continue to ...

Do you want to repeat the whole discussion here?

Mr. Secretary of State, you put words in my mouth. That is not convenient. This is also not good for the debate. It is a pity that there are so few spectators, because slowly the monkey comes out of the sleeve. Slowly it becomes clear how a number of factions in the majority have allowed themselves to roll as little children throughout the discussion around the nuclear departure.

Colleague Wollants makes the correct calculation. You are so honest to answer this, but what does it show? The entire life extension of Tihange 1 will yield nothing, unless the prices shoot through the roof and we will get electricity prices in the coming years from 62 to 66 euros per megawatt hour.

The [...] !

We still leave a little margin. The only thing that gets you in more is what is more than nothing. There are parties that a year ago promised the voters that we would win the lottery if we extended the life of the nuclear power plants. Those people are left behind today, put in the cold and deceived and lied by you, Mr. Secretary of State.

Let’s try to calibrate the debate. Here you take back the discussions that took place in the committee; come to the essential, please. Anyway, no one is there to follow you anymore: so it is useless. Let us be realistic and pragmatic: go to the essential!

Mr. Minister, keep your replicas for the final answer: your interruptions lead the speaker to resume a synthesis.

Mr Calvo, you will have the word soon.

Let us move forward with order and method in this debate.

Mr. Wollants, continue and, if possible, conclude. I will then pass the word to the other speakers.

Mr. President, I am doing my best. If certain issues from the committee are again addressed, it is primarily because we would like to get the answers we have not received here.

This seems to be a good way of working. If I ask a question and I get an answer, I don’t have to go back on this. If I have to ask a question again and again and I still get no answer, it is up to the Secretary of State to answer it here.

The Government promises in its accountability that it will use the amount it receives from that life extension usefully. It can even be divided. Maximum one third will go to improve competition and the rest, so minimum 2/3, goes to lower prices, which would rise because of the offshore.

If we are talking about 20 million euros and those in 3 parts, then there is not much left if you want to support new gas plants. Then there is not much left if we know that in 2020 we will have to pay 800 million euros extra for that offshore. If you then promise the world to use those revenues, which were many and many more, to press the costs for the business and the families, you will not go far. It is just a drop on a hot plate.

You also said on the radio that you will not name amounts, that you will not say how much it is exactly, but that you have calculated it. Mr. Secretary of State, with that calculation you do not really create much confidence, not with us and not with the people who must pay the invoice at the end of the ride.

Another interesting point is that not everything was included in this bill and in this amendment. There is another passage on the agreement that you will conclude with the operators, the owners of that plant.

In part, this can be a specification of what is stated in the law. In this you are right. But when it comes to engaging in big matters, of which we can no longer estimate what the effect is, and you also do not want to explain it, then the Parliament is worried. We have tried in the committee to specify some of those matters based on the matters you have said yourself.

At the moment we want to pour it into an amendment and let it be approved, you refuse. That makes us worried. Indeed, the agreement contains information about things such as the method of calculating the remuneration, the incalculation of negative differences and their verification. These can indeed be valuable things.

However, if in the same agreement the compensation is included when the unilateral action of the federal government changes the economic parameters, then I wonder what you will do exactly. What does that mean if there is a measure by the federal government that does not create supply shortages and prices remain under control, and the power plant therefore does not ⁇ the expected yield? Are these types of parameters?

You said in the committee that it is not. It is merely about the agreed yield of 9.3 percent. However, if we put it on the table, you refuse to include it. So it can be anything: it can be building interconnection capacity, building power plants, any form of federal government intervention that has an effect on a particular parameter. However, we know that we do not control them all and that this has extensive consequences. So I want to know exactly what you are going to meet. You do not want to answer that. I understand that you want to keep your hands free, but that doesn’t really create a lot of confidence.

I just made the calculation: we will come at around 20 million euros, much more than the current interest rate. Of those 20 million euros, nothing remains. Fortunately, you have thought about that too. After all, you have included a sentence: the fee to be paid by the operators and owners of Tihange 1 will never be negative. A third of nothing and two-thirds of nothing will make a lot of people happy.

Mr. Wathelet, I would have expected from you a more thorough policy. I had expected that we could discuss this thoroughly and that the industry’s request to discuss the dossier thoroughly would be heard. First of all, you want to get the file through quickly. You have an agreement on Tihange 1 and more it shouldn’t be.

Excuse me, Mr. Secretary of State, if that is the energy policy of the government – for which a member of the Chamber may apologize so soon – then it is absolutely not necessary for me.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, ensuring supply security in a sustainable and affordable way for both consumers and ⁇ is the goal that we as Christian Democrats pursue in energy policy.

That this is not an easy and obvious goal is undeniable. We are facing a number of difficulties in the energy landscape, including a 2003 law that provides for the definitive closure of all nuclear power plants, but which still contains a force majeure clause and in fact since 2003 has sparked uncertainty in the investment climate.

While we are investing heavily in renewable energy, we find that the cost is getting up. There are gas power plants, but often they don’t prove to be profitable. Closures are announced and investments continue.

Finally, we are also faced with very heavy pressure on energy prices and with adverse consequences for the competitiveness of our ⁇ and for the budgets of our families.

It is clear: the energy challenges are enormous in our country.

This government, and in particular Secretary of State Wathelet, faces the challenge of ensuring our supply security in a credible way. In July 2012, the Wathelet plan was proposed and approved by the government. This plan is very closely aligned with the ten-point plan of CD&V, in which we propose a mix of measures, such as saving energy for households and ⁇ , boosting investments in renewable energy, investing in innovation and in the European market to safeguard our security of supply in a sustainable and affordable way.

Today, as Parliament, we are discussing a bill that contains two issues.

First, the confirmation of the 2003 exit calendar, with the exception of 1 nuclear power plant, Tihange 1, which will be extended by ten years.

We also discuss the modalities associated with this extension. Where in the past the previously symbolic 2003 nuclear departure law created uncertainty and uncertainty, this bill creates clarity in many areas.

I will explain more closely. There is clarity about the final nuclear exit. The bill, which is being voted today, provides for the deletion of Article 9 of the 2003 Act. This ultimately provides security for investors. In addition, there is clarity about the necessary investments to keep Tihange 1 open for ten years longer.

An investment of approximately 600 million euros for greater security is needed. A clearly fixed rate of 9.3 percent as a fair compensation for the renewal investments is allowed to the owners. Of the positive difference between the sale price of electricity and the actual costs with this fair remuneration, 70 percent goes to the State, the remaining 30 percent to the owners. Two-thirds of this income will go to the offshore and one-third will be used to increase competition in the Belgian electricity production market by supporting new investments.

This arrangement removes the uncertainty among investors. In addition, the income will benefit the affordability for families and ⁇ .

Finally, the CREG, an independent regulator, has a clear role in this story. The CREG will be given the new task to verify the owners’ revenue and actual costs. In terms of safety, the CREG will also be assisted by the FANC.

Mrs Dierick, I find it very nice that you are going to distribute all those coins, but can you tell me how you estimate the income? You say it will reassure investors, but if I’m not mistaken, it’s about a third of 20 million euros. The average investor is not far from this. What amount you are taking into account – that may be a lower limit or a upper limit – to introduce it into the market and thus put the investors a heart under the belt.

Mr. Speaker, it is notable, however, that Mr. Wollants has since almost put us to sleep with a battery of numerical material and that, now that Mrs. Dierick is trying to explain the broad lines of a policy choice, he is once again trying to sneeze under her with numerical material. I suggest, however, that we let the speaker explain for a moment the political vision of this draft and this majority.

Mr. Wollants, I just want to say that it is a great merit that here is finally a very clear definition, a very clear formula for calculating the income. We are moving away from the flat-rate amount of the nuclear interest rate that we have always discussed. At least we have a clear formula.

Of course, it is very difficult to raise an amount here already. I do not have those calculations. However, I have full confidence that this money will yield. I do not agree with you that this will be a zero operation. It is a great merit that there is finally a clear formula to calculate this. That was what I wanted to say.

Christian democracy is characterized by equality. That is your USP. Parliament was not allowed to see the convention. That is a real shame, because we give a blank check. To say that you do not have the calculation, but that you have confidence in it, that is not instantaneous, Mrs. Dierick.

Moreover, if you get a minimal number of numbers from the Secretary of State and apply a simple main account to it – you don’t have to study it for a long time, it’s just counting sums or multiplications, and even consult the sites where you can find the prices of electricity – then you will find that there can not be the 125 million euros promised by the Secretary of State.

How will you fulfill the promised funding? Is that a legitimate question from Mr. Wollants and myself? From which electricity prices do you assume to say that you have confidence that it will still make enough? However, at least that is what you as a Christian Democrat, as a momentary politician, should be able to tell us?

Mr. Calvo, you will have the opportunity to develop your arguments soon.

Mr. Calvo, the big difference between you and me is that in terms of energy you have no confidence in anyone other than yourself. I have confidence in the Secretary of State because he can present thorough principles. You trust only yourself and no one else.

Colleagues, the extension of Tihange 1 is one measure out of the whole package of various measures from the equipment plan. CD&V looks forward to any other measures still to be taken. Technology and progress never stand still. The needs and needs of people and ⁇ vary over time. Therefore, we believe that intermediate evaluations should be conducted in order to update the equipment plan.

We will approve this bill because we believe it is necessary for our supply security. At the same time, we call on the government to start developing a vision for our energy supply after 2017 in a timely manner because the closure of nuclear power plants between 2022 and 2025 represents a huge challenge that we must start in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, there is a bill on the banks, not about the extension of Tihange by ten years, but about a final nuclear departure in 2025 and, in addition, a realistic way forward to that far-reaching decision.

In Germany it was treated differently. There, the stuff was thrown apart and coal-fired power plants were quickly put into operation to keep the network still up. Fortunately, we do it a little differently in Belgium.

The exit is confirmed. A central is delayed slightly to the end of the calendar during that start-up period. The outgoing departure schedule still has the same end goal, ⁇ in 2025. No year has been added or reduced. It is exactly the same calendar. Only within that calendar will a central run a little longer.

We just heard Mr. Wollants interrupt a battery number of data. I think the better statistic is lazy, Mr. Wollants.

Mr Schiltz, you are talking about a battery numbers that are mixed up. Can you tell which of my numbers are not correct?

The first, the prize, comes from Mr. Wathelet; the second, the depreciation, is confirmed by Mr. Wathelet; the third is literally in accountability with the amendment to the bill draft and the last is for everyone to read on the website of the energy exchanges.

If you call that gambling, if the liberal party likes to toss budgets together without numbers and with some nice dreams, without the account being correct, then this is indeed gambling everything together.

I do not have the habit of repeating here the debates, which are held in the committees and which deal with very detailed comments. So I go to the essence of the bill, which is the confirmation of the nuclear departure.

We do not deviate from the original calendar. There is a power plant that will be extended for 10 years. In exchange for this, we receive, after deduction of the investment fee, 70 percent in the form of remuneration.

It is important for the liberal party that this amount is not used to crush a budget or to close somewhere a pit in the budget course, but that this goes to the energy policy, to increase the competitiveness of energy-intensive companies, Mr. Wollants and Calvo.

Let us be honest. The very voluntary project, which Belgium has set up with the construction of windmills at sea, began to become expensive and began to weigh on our energy-intensive industry. I am therefore very pleased that the Secretary of State, together with us, has embarked on the path to ensure that the costs of the wind farm are removed from the bill for the energy-intensive companies, so that they finally get back in a positive competitive position against our neighbors.

Mr. Secretary of State, we have talked about the agreement that would be concluded, among other things, by you and the operating company of that one nuclear power plant in question. That is not insignificant. After all, we know the framework of the agreement within which you will operate, which is fixed through the present draft law.

I would have, of course, also liked to see that in the negotiations on that agreement you make at least one attempt to examine how the electricity, of which we will be able to recover 70 percent of the profits and spend on energy policy, is used. After all, it can be pleasant if we can ⁇ additional competitive dynamics in the electricity market and ⁇ in relation to the energy market of the suppliers.

Colleagues, there is the baking line on whether or not something will bring something. We had the debate about the nuclear interest rate, which was a very extensive and very technical debate. We won a battle before the Constitutional Court, which, however, was not without risk. After all, the nuclear interest rate is a difficult construction, to — I dare to admit it honestly — to correct a mistake from the past. We corrected the mistake, we collected the money.

Mr Calvo, now the opening of a power plant is extended and the operator must invest additional. You cannot save the goat and the cabbage. If a person spends money, he cannot be asked to pay the double of his expenses to the government, even if it is unreasonable, without earning anything from it himself.

This proposal is fair and clear. It will ensure that our energy policy goes in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I would like to begin my brief intervention on the law of 2003. Unlike Ms. Dierick’s party, the Social Democrats, the Liberals and the Greens had seats in the government at that time. Then it was decided to stop every power plant at the age of forty. It would start with the closure of Doel 1 and 2 and Tihange 1 in 2015 and end in 2025, with the closure of the entire Belgian nuclear production plant. As then, we are still proud of it today. The decision made it possible to set a timeline to step out of nuclear energy.

This has not yet been addressed during the debate, colleagues, but the fuel consumed creates an immense waste problem. These include radioactive plutonium, cesium and tritium. The storage needs are hundreds of years. Future generations should not be filled with this material, especially since the discussion about the solution is still ongoing. I think it is important to remember this, because that is the true reason why we, even in 2003, opted for the gradual nuclear withdrawal.

All partners who were part of the coalition at the time showed understanding for the argument of supply security in our country, otherwise they would not have accepted, so not even the Greens, that a royal decree could change the law substantially. However, since that law was not followed by any other measure, the market never really believed in nuclear withdrawal between 2003 and 2011.

The moral culprits for the fact that Tihange 1 stays open longer are those who have sprinkled mist over the past decades, aroused unrest and doubted the actual closure of the nuclear power plants, so that the investments, research and developments in for example wind energy have not got the start we had then, in 2003, for example. I don't know how it happens to you, but if there is fog, and if the visibility is limited to, for example, a hundred meters, then you don't drive quickly with the car, even if it is only for safety reasons.

Well, many investors have not fully or not been able to get into the fog to build green energy faster in our country. This is the first element in my presentation.

I come to a second point. In 2013, the risk of supply problems has evolved to such an extent that new measures are needed. Therefore, the government saw sufficient reasons to decide to postpone the closure of Tihange 1 for ten years, that is, until 2025. However, this opportunity was taken not only to make the time path for the departure credible, but also to confirm the times for the departure by removing in the 2003 Act the article stating that a simple royal decree is sufficient to deviate from the law. That article did not contribute in any way to convince the market of the effectiveness of the law. The present draft law unambiguously establishes the nuclear exit. Therefore, from now on, it is not the government, but only the legislative power. Therefore, Greens and Socialists should make it clear to voters that a vote for most other parties has been able to revive nuclear power plants.

“Most of the others,” I said.

Mr. Tuybens, I find your vote advice for the Greens and Social Democrats successful. But if we look at what is going on today, then I think you should make a vote advice for the Greens alone, because only the Social Democrats are apparently no guarantee of a withdrawal from nuclear energy.

You would ask a question, right?

Mr Tuybens, I totally disagree with you when you say that the excursion is now bottled and that the initial law was as leaky as a seed. (Protest by Mr Schiltz)

Mr Schiltz, if you get irritated so quickly, that means that there is at least a little truth in our interventions. A little patience!

Mr Benson, you can go on. Mr. Calvo will say this in his speech.

The [...]

Mr Benson, go on now! Mr. Calvo, you will say all this soon. You are the cock! You are attacking everyone. Attack the speaker if you wish. When it’s your turn, you’ll see that they’ll answer you. by mr. Schiltz said nothing. Enough is enough, Mr Calvo. The floor is for mr. Thumbs

The (...)

Mr Calvo, you do not have the word. There is no microphone.

Mr Tuybens, don’t let yourself be distracted by people on the road.

Colleague Calvo, it is the understatement of the day when you ask to give the parliamentary debate a chance. We have spent six or seven hours here in the last two weeks. I have not heard a question from you, but if you had asked a question, I would have referred to the discussion in the committee.

Colleagues, we give the owners of Tihange 1 the opportunity to extend its lifetime and grant them a balanced income, to persuade them to invest an additional 600 million euros for the 10-year extension. In addition to this balanced remuneration, the State generates income that can be used to finance the energy policy.

The only way to reconcile these two objectives – balanced income to decide to switch to investments for the owners, and maximum income for the State – is to minimize the cost cost caused by economic and legal uncertainty.

There is an agreement with the owners. That 9.3 percent has already been mentioned. In addition, 70 percent of the income in the form of a remuneration will flow to the State, in exchange for the extension of the operating life. This remuneration is used to reduce the costs of support for offshore renewable energy, and to finance support for the construction of new power plants to replace nuclear power plants.

The FANC and the CREG will review all costs incurred by Electrabel to the State in order to avoid excessive calculations. The CREG has certified that it has all the resources necessary to carry out this control.

It is the intention of the Government to ensure full democratic transparency on the remuneration and on the figures, as well as to charge the CREG with the new control task.

I have another question for the Secretary of State. To what extent will Parliament be able to control how Electrabel performs the calculations? That Parliament will be able to examine in detail seems to me fundamental.

I have confidence in the computing capabilities of the CREG. But, Mr. Secretary of State, I suspect that at some point there will be grey zones where the vision of the CREG and that of the operators differs. Arbitration is one of the possibilities. It is provided in it.

Would it not, however, be interesting to require, in addition to the agreement, also the moral commitment of the operators to provide the CREG only with invoices relating to the extension of the service life of Tihange? The suggestion I would like to make is that the owners make a declaration of honour that the investments for which they wish the costs to be reimbursed are related to the extension of service life. In Anglo-Saxon legal terminology, the term pledge is used in this context. It is also part of this legal culture to resort to that institution in such cases.

I consider the addition of such a document to the agreement valuable. It is an additional guarantee that allows the taxpayer to pay only the costs associated with increasing security of supply.

This is my only question. On behalf of my group, I can indicate that we will approve this bill by a majority.

Mr. Tuybens, you and other colleagues of the majority refer repeatedly to the CREG and FANC, who apparently have said that that convention and the verification of those data are perfectly in order.

Where do you get that? Where have the CREG and the FANC explicitly validated this way of working?

I would like to refer to the discussion in the committee.

We will now listen closely to Ms. Gerkens.

I suppose that mr. Calvo will not interrupt you.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of State, my colleague Calvo will complete my speech.

No one doubts!

It will provide technical clarifications.

I see that this subject generates a lot of electricity. The interventions of the environmentalists crush the members of the House. I will synthesize.

This is not the intervention of environmentalists. It is an ecologist who makes interventions!

You, there is no problem!

You do not know if my intervention is not a problem because I obviously agree with my colleague Calvo.

It is true that it intervenes regularly, but is it the only debate that causes regular interventions? This is an important issue that will determine the energy future of the country. Therefore, I believe that some tolerance should be put in place for exchanges in plenary session.

The bill contains the amendments the government decided to make to the 2003 law that organized the exit of nuclear power generation once the power plants reached the age of 40 years. This law had an article 9 which stipulated that in the event of a major problem of insecurity of supply, it would be possible to change the agenda. But it shouldn’t be possible to do so if it resulted from a lack of “voluntary” energy policy on the part of policy makers and producers.

We are confirmed today that we are leaving nuclear power in 2025 and we are told that we are improving the legal certainty of the law by removing this famous article, that clause that allowed to change the schedule slightly in case of a major problem of insecurity of supply. We are told that by removing it, everything becomes clear and that we finally put in place a management plan by inserting in the law the dates for the output of the power plants. It is an illusion to believe that this legal certainty comes only by removing this article 9 which provided for a case of force majeure.

The legal uncertainty, and the uncertainty you associate with it for investors, saying that this is why they hesitated to invest in alternative productions, is not due to this article. It is due to the fact that after the passing of the law in 2003 and after the 2003 elections, there was no energy policy in the country. There has been no support from alternative producers and, worse, there have been successive and contradictory expressions from members of governments and members of government parties that have succeeded since 2003. Investors do not want to invest in renewable energy in Belgium because they know that political parties say one day yes, one day no and do not cease to contradict each other.

Therefore, today you have concluded that the life of one of the oldest nuclear power plants should be extended by ten years to guarantee this famous security of supply. We obviously cannot support this decision or understand it because no element, no report justifies this 10-year extension.

I come to the calendar. You have emphasized a lot that this bill contains a concrete timetable. In fact, this calendar has nothing more concrete than the law of 2003 that advocated the closure of power plants after a lifetime of 40 years. In fact, you simply display the dates, central by central, and the closing year that will correspond to them. But there is this ten-year operational extension for Tihange 1.

The review of this timetable tells us that five reactors will need to shut down between 2022 and 2025. In this regard, we take a risk because a concentration of closures is planned over three years while it would have been possible to extend these closures by anticipating now; only Doel 1 and 2 will close in 2015. We do not always understand your consistency. As for the claims about the benefits of the bill, they are illusory and we cannot support them.

Your project contains a device that will replace nuclear rent based on a fee to offset that extension and linked to the expected investment of 600 million for that extension. But we do not know how and how we will assess, calculate and verify the accuracy of these fees and the link that will exist between that fee and the actual production costs. There was no way for this agreement to be reached in the Commission.

If we can understand that a final text can only be signed after the text of a bill, you are not going to make us believe that you have not already ruled on the terms of the agreement and that it was not possible to submit them to us in a committee.

Since 2003, we have been constantly seeing – or knowing what is happening – texts, agreements signed between producers and governments (sometimes in the person of a minister, sometimes in the person of the prime minister). Sometimes they find themselves in a closed envelope in a closed closet in a hallway of parliament and include arrangements, returns of profitability gains to the producers and not the state, which, in general, gets to that level.

Again, we are asked to trust the government and vote for a text that will be signed, but could not be shown to us. Of course, we cannot accept such a process.

Finally, our country will extend the life of a nuclear power plant without being sure of its future behavior.

In reality, if we oppose the production of electricity through nuclear power, it is not for pleasure to oppose a mode of production, but because such a mode inherently contains risks that are impossible to control in the event of an incident.

It results in incalculable consequences for the population in the fields of health, economy, social development, the environment. Proof of this is the Fukushima disaster that has resulted in persistent effects that the population has to bear for generations. The same applies to all waste from nuclear power plants.

Frankly, despite the expressed desire to continue the operation of this power plant, there is no concern about nuclear security to be intensified. However, it is unclear how the materials and reactors will behave. Neither is there any willingness to make sufficient arrangements with producers so that they assume and finance, to the end, their liability for damages resulting from an accident at the plant.

We have introduced amendments to finally take into account and develop the principle of unlimited liability.

During the discussions here and at other times in the committee, we submitted amendments calling for more work on the control of waste cost management and the dismantling of power plants. In this Parliament, we fail to move forward in this area, as it is decided to extend the life of a nuclear power plant by ten years. According to us, this is an unconsciousness that we can neither share nor assume with you.

Therefore, Ecolo-Groen will oppose this bill extending the operation of the Tihange 1 plant. I will leave my colleague Calvo to care to complete my speech in a more technical way.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, the Flemish Belang has abstained from voting in the committee on this bill and will do so in the plenary session, not because we have no opinion on the matter or because we do not attach any interest to it, on the contrary. We think the bill is actually too important to make it simply a boxing match between the majority and the opposition.

We can actually support the present bill, as it provides a legal framework for the renewal of the operating permit of Tihange 1. However, that bill does not require that, since Article 19 of the 2003 law provides for the possibility of keeping nuclear power plants open longer if necessary. That article 19 is deleted with the proposed bill and on that point we voted against.

The present bill may also provide for a more secure compensation or compensation in exchange for the renewal of the operating permit of Tihange 1, and that is positive. I say “possible,” because its calculation is nothing but transparent. This has been mentioned several times tonight. This makes approval of the bill difficult. We don’t like to give a blank check. The confidence is not so great now.

Moreover, we can ⁇ not support the bill, in so far as it confirms the 2003 law, the gradual withdrawal from nuclear energy. With the removal of Article 19, the exit will even be toned. This is not because we absolutely swear by nuclear energy, but because we believe that the new generation of nuclear reactors, about which we have a lot of scientific knowledge, for our regions are not only the closest – in terms of CO2 emissions – but also the most reliable and cost-effective installations.

The plants must be absolutely safe. Of course everyone agrees on this. However, the cost table is also important. Mr. Secretary of State, you yourself say that the State must also be able to generate income. The transition to renewable energy should be made possible through revenue and energy should remain affordable for users, both households and ⁇ . We agree on that as well.

The transition to renewable energy is a good thing in itself and must definitely be invested in. Yet it costs a lot of money. We fear that a complete shift at the moment will be inexpensive and threaten our energy supply.

Energy supply is a priority for us. Many studies have shown that the supply with the current policy of nuclear withdrawal will not succeed, among other things – it has already been mentioned, including by you – because after 2003 no concrete measures were taken to ⁇ the nuclear withdrawal. Without a plan, no market player believes in the exit, you said.

Therefore, you came up with the plan-Wathelet, the design of which is actually the first part. However, it is far from the full promised global plan. There is not much to see about an investment plan to utilize other energy sources. You think that should come with the second part of your plan. However, it is precisely the weakness of the first part of the bill that you cannot present it.

I doubt that market players with the current bill are now convinced of the nuclear exit. This does not make the nuclear exit more realistic. Even the ideologists of Ecolo-Greens will be right on this point.

You say a little of everything is decided. This refers, inter alia, to the decision concerning the compensation requested from the owners of Tihange 1 in exchange for keeping the plant open longer. This is stated in the amendment that has now been included as Article 3b in the bill and that has been discussed a lot.

We should not overdo this discussion here tonight. By the way, I can still find it hard to say about the amount of this compensation, whether it is correct or not. I have too little data for that.

You appoint the CREG to verify this and to verify whether the dark, secret draft of convention you talked about is in line with the bill we are to vote on here today. You did not want to come to Parliament with a signed convention, but nobody had asked you to do so. We have only requested that the draft convention be made public. I can’t get rid of the impression that you wanted to put the Parliament somewhat out of play on that point.

You provided us with a document from the CREG, in which we can read that they make some comments regarding the feasibility of their assignment. In the committee, I have explicitly asked you whether you have adjusted or will adjust the provisional convention, taking into account the comments of the CREG. However, I have not received a response to this.

What I am especially interested in is whether clear agreements will be made on the level of detail of the information that the owners of Tihange 1 must provide to the CREG.

How will a transparent calculation be ensured? That transparent calculation will either be submitted to Parliament post factum, even if we should have voted on this proposal for a long time. This makes it so difficult for my group to support this design. We have no concrete idea of the nuclear interest rate and the fee that will be paid, a state income that you consider necessary to enable the transition to renewable energy and to keep energy affordable and, of which you have not yet talked, to be able to secure our energy supply.

How much will actually remain of that compensation if the owners have charged their necessary investment of approximately 600 million euros? I do not have the numbers and therefore can not discuss them, but it continues to speculate on electricity prices.

Which costs may be charged as renewal costs remains uncertain. The distinction is not always easy to make and Electrabel will probably have other costs, as the FANC also states.

The question is, then, what will remain of the expected income and how much of it will be decided before the court. Mr. Secretary of State, you say there will be a lot more. I’ve heard from Mr Schiltz that it’s about 70 percent, but 70 percent of what, I wonder. 70% of no income is nothing. So I’d like to get more detailed calculations, but we didn’t get any insight. Without a transparent and detailed invoice, we hand over a blank cheque, Mr Schiltz.

So we have no certainty that this bill, the first part of Secretary of State Wathelet’s plan, will provide sufficient resources to attract investors in renewable energy and to secure and keep our energy supplies affordable.

Furthermore, there is still no plan for when the remaining nuclear power plants should be closed between 2020 and 2025. It is reckless to support the withdrawal from nuclear power without any plan, even though this bill confirms that Tihange 1 can remain open for ten years longer.

Therefore, the Flemish Interest will not approve this bill and will abstain from the vote.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, this project is part of a political, voluntary and responsible choice. It was expected with a triple goal, which was already contained in the government statement. It aims first to get out of nuclear power in 2025 and thus remove the article that allowed to deviate from the principle of exit. Above all, since this is not just an ideological debate, but a responsible debate, it is about ensuring the security of electricity supply to all our fellow citizens and our companies and guaranteeing them an acceptable price, because everyone consumes electricity. To do this, the price must be acceptable given the competition of foreign companies.

This project is responsible and voluntary because it removes the derogation that appeared in the previous law, which had made a way out of the nuclear power. The signal was never sufficient for the market, because no alternative framework had been created on the level of production and that law appeared as a law that would be revised.

I’ve heard that Tihange 1 is extended; that’s true. But it is for an objective reason, which is found in the studies produced by our parliamentary committees and in the CREG reports. Otherwise, we would be lacking electricity. That is why it was decided to extend the Tihange power plant and to concrete the exit of all nuclear sites.

I have repeatedly heard in the committee that the extension would only take place at the expense of nuclear security. This is completely unacceptable! It is exactly the opposite. It would have been unacceptable to extend the existence of Tihange 1 without imposing significant investments. They are the ones who will guarantee this security. The Federal Agency – we wanted an independent regulator, we have one – will independently ensure compliance with security standards and the implementation of the necessary investments for the extension of Tihange 1.

I also recall the figures that appear in the LTO study carried out in 2012 by the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control: the extension of Tihange 1 will require 600 million euros of investment. Therefore, this is not a weekly operation, as some would have desired, for a year or two. It is based on accountability and the need to safely ensure the supply of our fellow citizens and our ⁇ .

I still hear some of us say, and the advocates have been ⁇ long in the committee, that somehow we shouldn’t have done that. I also hear some questioning the mechanism of the convention which will be taken into application of the law. I still hear some questioning the calculations that will serve as the basis for arbitration. I would like to point out, however, that Mr. Schiltz just said that it is legitimate that the two operators who will have to invest 600 million euros can continue to generate operating profit. This will by no means prevent the perception of a rent – which was not imagined ten years ago but only a few years ago – on other nuclear power plants. It is also normal that the state can capture a large part of the profits of the farmers. This will be done through a structural mechanism.

Some would have wanted to see the convention before the law was passed. I would like to remind you that the Convention has the law as legal framework, and that we are now voting for that law. This agreement will capture 70% of the profits of nuclear operators and re-inject them to the benefit of our citizens, through better competition, and to the benefit of offshore wind power.

I would just tell Mr. Who nimis probat nihil probat. He may not understand Latin, I will say it in French: those who have nothing to say always plead long, and it is not necessary for those who have a good argument to plead endlessly.

Fact personal

Personal Fact