Proposition 53K3357

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 29 avril 1999 relative à l'organisation du marché de l'électricité.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Feb. 12, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

electrical energy electrical industry energy grid energy supply nuclear energy shortage strategic reserves security of supply

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (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 ¶

March 13, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Leen Dierick, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, we know that this draft is on the table to ensure that we do not get black-outs in the future. Meanwhile, we also know what a black-out would cost us, namely 120 million euros per hour according to the press releases. That is a lot, and we should avoid that.

The cost of the strategic reserve, the scheme proposed here today, is difficult to estimate today. We have asked that question in the committee and the State Council has also asked that question. Everyone fears the boomerang effect of this, which will weigh and continue to weigh on electricity prices.

The Secretary of State said an estimate based on 1,600 megawatts would equate to approximately 1 euro per megawatt hour or 3.5 euros per family. Starting from the same cost price, but with regard to the companies, however, we think it could be a very high invoice. I remember that many parties, in the context of the reform of the federal contribution, knocked themselves on the chest because they could have reduced the federal contribution by 1 euro or 1.5 euro. That was a big victory, because for some companies it means a lot of money. Now to say that the cost price is only 1 euro per megawatt hour and that this means nothing, I find a very dangerous track.

I understand very well that it is impossible today to estimate what the real cost will be, because the Secretary of State has said very clearly that he was talking about 1,600 megawatts, which is a lot. Indeed, it is difficult to say whether that is realistic and it is difficult to estimate which figure is really in question. However, I urge that this be closely monitored. After all, this threatens to undermine the whole system, also knowing that in the past several parties have warned that such a strategic reserve, if not properly managed, could cause us to simultaneously pay the reserve formation for abroad and the countries surrounding us. So a lot of questions were asked to see how to deal with it.

Per ⁇ this is the time, now that the Secretary of State is present, to discuss the discussion of the matter. Per ⁇ this is the time when the Secretary of State comes to light with the agreement he has concluded in the framework of Tihange 1. In the meantime, we have heard from Mr. Di Rupo that this was all in pots and pots two or three weeks ago and that the agreement was signed. So I would like to know where that agreement is, when it was exactly signed, and what it contains.

During the debates on the bill, the question was to what extent it would be addressed. Can we talk about a new estimate of how much that will cost? You know that we have made some realistic calculations in this regard and that we have concluded that the scheme for Tihange 1 would be worth between 16 and 25 million euros. In the bill, everything and everything has been covered. But let’s be honest, with 16 to 25 million, we’re absolutely not going far.

Mr. Secretary of State, we would like to know exactly what the agreement means. I am willing, and I assume that Mr. Calvo will also, to give you the time to go and pick up the document so that it can be involved in this discussion. It seems to me evident that as soon as such an agreement is concluded, as soon as matters are done, information is provided to Parliament. I think that the Secretary of State promised us that in the committee. The agreement is now three weeks old.

The [...]

Is she not three weeks old? Then Mr. Di Rupo made us think. The agreement was signed three weeks ago, and if so, we would like to see it now.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the government agreement was ambitious in terms of energy because it was about providing our country with a true short, medium, but also long-term vision. The government’s intention was therefore to ensure a real energy supply capacity while ⁇ ining acceptable and reasonable prices for all consumers.

This project is a major element of this comprehensive plan for supply security. In fact, it creates a strategic reserve mechanism of electricity that will be able, in parallel with the gradual exit of nuclear power, to guarantee our security of supply.

This strategic reserve will be developed by the Elia network manager and the CREG will approve its operating rules to ensure that the capabilities of the strategic reserve do not negatively affect the functioning of the market.

In short, it is a mechanism that will allow our country to provide a strategic reserve for a given period of one to three maximum winter periods, this strategic reserve can be activated in case of risk of shortage.

Dear colleagues, the gentleness of this winter, prolonged by the coming spring, must not make us forget the questions that arose in previous years, mainly during the winter of last year which was long and rigorous and also marked by the shutdown of the nuclear power plants of Doel 2 and Tihange 3 which had deprived the Belgian grid of 2,000 megawatts of electricity.

The exit from nuclear power and the establishment of the strategic supply plan should be accompanied by a reserve mechanism to anticipate, in the future, punctual supply problems.

This project is therefore part of a larger objective and plan that will now allow our country to best control our energy policy within the defined framework and to assume a gradual exit from nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be longer in my speech regarding this important project that will be supported by the Socialist Group.

Mr. Secretary of State, a bill on our energy market and our security of supply is especially important for our group. Since the period of ongoing business, we have made proposals to guarantee supply security in the short and long term. After all, we have the ambition to eliminate this annoying nuclear energy, but we obviously do not want to take any risk in terms of supply security for our citizens and ⁇ .

Unfortunately, a lot of precious time has been wasted in recent years. Who knows where we could have stood if we had had a real energy policy in recent years.

You came with the equipment plan. This is an element of it. In principle, the equipment plan should outline a short-term and long-term energy policy, but it has become a set of measures.

This is our first criticism of what is present today. It is one of the measures. It is a new chapter in the Electricity Act, a new mechanism, along with many other existing mechanisms related to the production market.

You find a problem, you invent a new system, but you actually do not have a long-term vision of how the energy market should look and how the tariffs should be organized. Will you allow them to be determined by the free market? This is an important criticism.

Colleague Wollants has also already referred to the financial picture. The financial impact of the bill is uncertain. This is an important warning to your address. This is an important point of the bill. Our group, unlike others, has no major ideological problems with the strategic reserve, with the mapping of the capacity by Elijah, or with the takeover of the capacity by Elijah to guarantee the security of supply. We want it to go according to the right modalities and we would like to get a clear price label. This is not the case today.

You laugh at it, Mr. Secretary of State, but I can’t get around asking you a few questions about another element of your equipment plan. This was also stated in the questionnaire with the Prime Minister. You promised Parliament, both in the committee and in the plenary session, that as soon as the convention was signed, Parliament would get it. We would like to get insight into the convention on Tihange 1 and on the 10-year extension of the life of that stoke nuclear reactor.

Today we must ask the Prime Minister about the 285 million euros that our citizens and companies are reimbursing to GDF Suez. A month ago, a file from the energy regulator appeared stating that gas prices in 2012, in this policy period, were manipulated for 500 million euros. These are two ongoing files of the BBI.

Thereafter follows a logical request from the opposition, taking into account these two aforementioned files, not to sign the convention. What was the Prime Minister’s response this afternoon? The convention was signed two or three weeks ago. However, you promised to make the convention available immediately.

I am surprised that no member of Parliament, besides colleague Wollants and myself, finds this an absolute shame. I do not understand that Mr. Frédéric, Mrs. Temmerman, Mrs. Pas, Mr. Terwingen and Mrs. Fonck are not standing with us on the barricade. What we heard this afternoon is an absolute accusation of parliamentary democracy.

In fact, contracts are signed, which were promised to be made available to Parliament. However, it is awaited until the next parliamentary question is asked. It is said that our land has already been sold. Don’t worry, it’s already signed. It is an absolute shame.

Mr. Secretary of State, if you were consistent, you should have stayed at home today. If you have such a lacquer in Parliament, then you should not have been here for the discussion of the bill. For the rest, you laugh with us.

Our group has fundamental problems with the convention. It is a bilateral agreement between the State and a company, which ensures that the fiscal regime and the economic parameters of the economic activities concerned are kept stable, whatever the outcome of the elections may be. We are committed to the contract for this and future governments. It cannot! This cannot be done in a parliamentary democracy. This cannot be done in a democracy!

Which SME can negotiate bilaterally with Di Rupo and Wathelet its fiscal regime until 2025? None of None. You do that for Electrabel-GDF Suez, a company we’ve seen passing two cases of tax evasion over the past month.

I do not understand that. The convention has already been signed. That is very regrettable. I think this is the biggest energy mistake of the current legislature. The only thing you can do now is to make the convention available, and tomorrow or at the beginning of next week the convention will be passed point by point in the business committee.

After all, there will be things in there that actually cannot, for that convention in itself is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out for a moment that I fully agree with Mr. Calvo in these matters and that I have demonstrated this in his presentation this afternoon. You mentioned Mrs. Pas, but we have shown that we are absolutely right and supporting him in this.

Mr. Speaker, I will answer quite quickly.

I am pleased that the text can count on the support of almost everyone.

As for the convention, it is correct that Mr. Di Rupo and I signed this convention two to three weeks ago. Then we sent the convention to the other two firms. You know, these are French companies.

Mr Calvo, I must remind you once again that this is not a convention between the State and a single company. It is a convention between the state and two companies. You always forget this. On the one hand, there is Electrabel, but there is also another company, EDF. The text returned to my office earlier this week. We dated the document on March 12, as agreed with the two companies.

This convention will be explained tomorrow to the employees of Tihange 1. I find this normal. In the course of the morning afternoon, we will send the convention to Parliament. I think it is normal that we send them only after everyone has signed them. A convention shall be signed not only by the State, but also by the other Parties to the convention. I think it is normal for employees to get an explanation first. They will see their future and that of Tihange 1.

So far, Mr. Speaker, the explanation of the different dates.

So far it has come that you think all this is normal. You have no feeling of nervousness. You don’t feel like you might have to explain something. You find that normal. Your explanation is that there are not four signatures under it, but six. That is what is told here. The fundamental point is that no other company can claim such a luxury regime to negotiate bilaterally on its own tax preferential regime, and that until 2025. The SMEs Janssens and Peeters can only dream of that. You say that we must not forget that there is also a second company. This is completely incomprehensible to me, Mr. Secretary of State.

You say that you will eventually make the texts available tomorrow. We will read them with great attention, but this is a topic that deserves a parliamentary discussion. Our group has requested that this item be scheduled in the Committee on Business and the Committee on Finance of the Chamber. This also includes BBI files. Currently, there are discussions about, in total, € 785 million tax evasion.

Mr. Speaker, you have stated that you are open to this. I ask you to make sure that the schedule actually takes place next week so that we can review that convention point by point. Then it will appear that not only the mechanism itself, but also its modalities – I have already listed some of them – are absolutely impossible.

Today, two months before the elections, you say to every citizen of this country, whatever ball he paints on May 25, that you have done your favor and that the next governments will be obliged to adhere to the stupid mistake you made to extend a stokoud nuclear reactor to bad conditions. This is not just a blasphemy of this Parliament, it is a blasphemy of our entire democratic system. It is actually a raised middle finger to all people who are engaged in energy and want to make a real choice on 25 May.

It is really a pity that the Secretary of State says that we do not get them for the time being.

I am ready to conduct a debate next week on the convention that will be forwarded as I promised and as agreed, after the signature of everyone, which seems normal to me, and of course also after the communication of the convention to the employees of Tihange 1. I am available to the committee next week to conduct a debate, in which you will be able to determine that this convention fully respects the texts of the law approved here. I have fully respected my mandate. I am prepared to come to the committee next week without any trouble. In the meantime, you will have time to read the convention. I want to be absolutely transparent. I am not afraid of the debate. We are fully in line with the mandate we have been given. I have fully respected that. I think it is normal for us to have a discussion on this issue next week based on the text of the convention.

What I especially hear here is the willingness to look at it and be able to discuss the texts. That will be the most feasible. What I do not hear here is the opposition of any group to put that on the agenda. So I assume that it will happen in this way too. I see the group leader of the group of the chairman of the committee for business, so I think we should be sure that this debate will take place.

Avoid a dispute between the Germans. What I’m going to tell you will reassure you. I can only put a point on the agenda of a committee from the moment I have a document. The Secretary of State tells us that he will send us the convention. When I have it, it will be included on the agenda. We will not spend the night discussing whether this has been said or not. Let us be simple! There is a convention. It will be transmitted and, as soon as I have it, I will put it on the agenda. I told Mr. Van Hecke just recently.

I think we can then move to the next page of the debate. You will probably have time to read this convention this weekend. This should not be a problem because we are announcing bad weather!

There is not only the question of speaking specifically about the convention in the business committee. There is also the question – the two cases are actually linked together – what is the substantive and fiscal strategy of this government with regard to GDF SUEZ. This question was also raised by our group, but has not yet been answered.

I know that the Chairman of the Committee for Finance is pleased with the proposal to also discuss in the committee the two BBI dossiers, on which there are still many questions and with a cost sheet of 850 million euros. Then it seems to me very pragmatic to have the Committee on Business and the Committee on Finance gather next week to deliberate on the folding of files concerning GDF SUEZ and Electrabel. That is the question that our group has just raised. Part of my question has already been fulfilled. I would also like to see the second part complete.

I look forward to your position on this, Mr. Speaker, because you, as the Father of this Assembly, of course, play an important role in this. If you say we’re going to do this, that’s perfect. Then next week we will finally have the debate that this Parliament is entitled to.

Second, Mr. Secretary of State, you are talking about transparency, democracy, and so on, as promised. I think you should avoid words like “transparent” and “democracy” in this dossier, too, next week. A convention, a contract between the state and a company, is no longer of this time. Whether it is communicated to Parliament early, late, very quickly or very slowly, the method itself is wrong.

You have already said it several times. You are repeating. At your age, this is worrying.

We will close this debate.

It was agreed that as soon as I have the convention, I will put it on the agenda of a committee.

I have no illusions. I have no ability to stop you from asking a question. You will then ask any questions you want at this time in full transparency. The only thing is that we will have to find a time outside Wednesday afternoon and Thursday when we have a plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, (...) (The microphone is turned off.)

The Conference of Presidents will decide where it will send him back.