Proposition 53K3511

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

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

March 28, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive EC Regulation North Sea liability natural gas electrical energy energy policy energy storage energy transport energy supply governance wholesale trade offshore oil structure market stabilisation damages supervisory power transport safety pipeline transport wind energy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 22, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Mr Willem-Frederik Schiltz, refers to his written report.

Mr. Secretary of State, you may think that I stalk you in connection with the green power certificates. We had a discussion in the committee last time. Since the law containing various provisions came to the press in the morning, I would like to have made a few more comments and asked you a few clarifications regarding this situation.

In that law, after all, a mortgage is laid on the future of green energy in our country for twenty years. As everyone now knows, and as it is also stated in the CREG report, that will cost the taxpayer and the consumer a small 16 billion green power certificates only for the offshore windmills.

This condition is in fact the result of what was decided in 2005. Minister Vande Lanotte and Marc Verwilghen then concluded a fantastic deal to withdraw the green power certificates from ten to twenty years. For the first 216 megawatts and afterwards, various prices were determined, ranging from 90 to 107 euros and an average of 102 euros. As it fits into a political agreement—because it wasn’t an economic agreement—everyone was content. Mr. Verwilghen was pleased, because the large companies were exempted and received a subsidy. This subsidy was raised by the previous state reform to 47 million euros from the taxpayer.

In the meantime, we are a little further. As for those green power certificates, you know this is the jackpot for the wind turbine companies. I have repeatedly cited the same example because there is only one balance, specifically the balance of Belwind. Belwind sells electricity for a good 90 million euros, of which 63 million euros comes from green power certificates. The money of the consumer, the taxpayer, is therefore shifted. Three-quarters of the turnover consists of subsidies.

What are you doing now? You will stay with the old system that existed for Northwind, Belwind and C-Power. For 20 years, there will be an average of 102 euros per green power certificate. After there were some complaints about the rising cost of it and after the CREG issued a report about it stating that it was unpaid, you made a new calculation, based on the Levelized Cost of Energy, the LCOE, which consists of an unprofitable top plus the price of energy.

The CREG calculated that, for example, the unprofitable top is 102 euros for offshore wind energy. You have made a new calculation, based on whether one should put a cable or whether one can connect to the outlet. I would like to clarify this, Mr. Secretary of State. According to the CREG, one makes 12 euros profit if one does not have to lay the cable and one can connect to the outlet.

In fact, the unprofitable top then lies at 90 euros. What are you doing? You are issuing green power certificates for the next four parks today at 138 euros, based on the 102 euros and the electricity price. If you do not have to lay the cable, you make a profit of 12 euros. Thus, the four parks still to be built save 12 euros per megawatt of installed power because they connect to the outlet.

Then I see that again there are exceptions for the park Mermaid, not accidentally founded by the company Otary, together with Electrabel. The founder of Otary is also not by chance Mr. Vande Lanotte. It is clear that even if they connect to the outlet, they will still get a cable license.

I would have liked to have some explanation, Mr. Speaker. This is entirely unclear. Everything is contrary to each other. All you’ve done with the new scheme is a vest-pocket-pocket operation. It was 102 euros. The same goes for the four parks. Taking into account the €138 green power certificates and the connection to the outlet, it costs €48 per megawatt-hour.

Actually, you are opening a kind of casino. If the price of electricity drops, they win enormously. If the price of electricity rises, while the price is already set at 48 euros, that is only a balanced problem for the taxpayer.

This is a great gift for wind farmers. The same applies to the outlet, Mr. Minister, because it is paid by Elijah. Once that costs more than 100 million, it is again a gift for the wind farmers. In fact, it saves 25 million euros four times that they do not have to pay for the cable and that amount must then be invested in it.

Mr. Minister, I am very concerned about the future of all this, and I was therefore pleased to receive answers to my questions about Mermaid. It’s about green energy and when you talk about green energy, you’re incredibly uncritical. For me, it is about the fact that money, 15 to 16 billion euros, is thrown out of the pockets of the electricity consumer. The main concern is the over-subsidy of wind farms.

Mr. Speaker, in the committee I have already given the explanation on those 12 euros. The amount of 12 euros is not counted in the LCOE, as I already said. I confirm that again. We keep the old system for the old parks. That’s normal, because there have been investments and we can’t change the rules along the way.

However, I cannot accept Mr. Dedecker’s reasoning about the vest-pants-pants operation. That is absolutely not true. If we had ⁇ ined the old system, the margins of the different operators would be increasing in the future, as the price of electricity is likely to rise in the coming years. That will happen by inflation alone. This increase in electricity prices could be included in the margin of the operators. That is, the subsidy paid remained fixed, even if the operator’s margin had always increased. Now we introduce the dynamic character to the LCOE itself. If the price of electricity rises, the margin of the operator will no longer be increased, but will be returned, according to you, to the taxpayer. They’re the same people, but here it’s more those who pay their electricity bills. The price of offshore windmills is included. Therefore, this is absolutely not a vest-pocket-pocket operation. Now there is a dynamic element. The greater margin that had previously been for the operator in a rise in the price of electricity no longer disappears in his pocket, but flows back to the customers and consumers of electricity, say the taxpayer.

Why is there a special arrangement for Mermaid? Mermaid is the largest park of offshore windmills. Thus, for them, the cable or the connection with Alpha or Beta is also more expensive. This too must be taken into account. Again, all these elements are objectively calculated, calculated and objectivized by the CREG. Again, Mr Dedecker, the LCOE came, with those 12 euros, down to 152 euros. That is, according to your reasoning on the LCOE, we should have gone to 140 euros, while we come to 138 euros. This is a decrease in the price.

Especially the added value that we create today goes to a dynamic element. This means that a greater margin returns to the taxpayer and no longer enters the operator’s pocket.

Mr. Secretary of State, you are doing a bit of windowdressing. For example, you are constantly talking about those 152 euros, but that is not the price that the CREG has proposed, but the price that the wind farmers themselves have predetermined with the commission-Dralans. They placed that price themselves so high, which gave you an alibi to assert that you had lowered the price. The CREG proposes to give 102 euros. They will receive an additional 12 euros because they do not have to connect to the cable. The exact calculation I will save this assembly, but they come out at 90 euros. If the electricity price today is 48 euros, they still make a profit.

What do you do? You still opt for Mermaid, probably for political reasons, because for economic reasons it may not be. If I want to set up a wind farm somewhere in the North Sea, and that is a little further or a little closer, then that is my problem and then the taxpayer or the consumer should not solve it. There will therefore probably be a political reason, but I will not repeat that again, because otherwise it could still be claimed that I stalk Mr. Vande Lanotte. I only say that Mermaid was founded by Mr. Vande Lanotte together with Otary, a company whose chairman he was. I always note that there are benefits granted on that side, which must be paid by the taxpayer.

Mr. Secretary of State, you guarantee Mermaid a price of 150 euros, despite the fact that they can also plug their plug in one of the outlet connectors. That is unfair. In ten years — I may no longer be a member of this assembly — one may come to the conclusion that 16 billion euros have been thrown into the sea. The delegation in Mermaid came out on the basis that he was also a representative in Electrawinds. In the news of 13 am 00 you could still see what happened to Electrawinds: there 100 million were thrown into the sea. Of course, all this happens without punishment, because it is the money of the taxpayer. Now you are playing with 16 billion euros for those windmills at sea and that is the big problem.