Proposition 54K1046

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

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

April 29, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive EU law energy policy energy technology national law national implementing measure renewable energy innovation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• 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 ¶

June 17, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the draft law containing various provisions on energy must be seen as a whole with the draft law on supply security that we will discuss later.

The draft law, which was discussed in the committee on 19 May, has a dual objective, on the one hand, the partial transposition of Directive 2012/27/EU of 2012 on energy efficiency, in particular Article 15 relating to demand response, and, on the other hand, the establishment of a budget fund for energy transition, to promote the research and development of innovative projects in the field of energy, in particular in relation to energy production and storage.

This fund will be established with the compensation to be paid to the Federal State, in accordance with the law of 13 January 2003 on the gradual withdrawal from nuclear energy for industrial electricity production, incorporated in the draft law on the provisions on security of energy supply, which will be voted tomorrow.

I will come to the statements of the various committee members.

Ms. Lalieux generally sees little problems in the partial transposition of the European Energy Efficiency Directive. On the other hand, it raises questions regarding the uncertainty regarding the revenue for the Energy Transition Fund and what exactly is meant by innovative energy projects. Does this concern only renewable energy sources or are other projects, such as the energy atoll, eligible?

Mr Friart is of the opinion that this bill fits perfectly within the government’s strategy to lead the energy transition into a good course. In order to ensure security of supply, it is necessary to mobilise sufficient resources for energy research. The transposition of the European Directive provides the opportunity to reduce energy consumption by stimulating energy efficiency.

Ms. Dierick considers the present bill a step forward in improving energy security. The extension of the lifetime of Goal 1 and Goal 2 is only one element in the entire energy security policy. She also wants to know what types of projects are eligible and what happens to the fund established in the framework of the life extension of Tihange 1.

Mr Wollants notes that the Energy Transition Fund is a translation of a wish from the previous legislature, namely that the technology of yesterday funds the technology of tomorrow. He also welcomes the good understanding in the consultation committee between the federal state and the regions. According to him, this bill is an important step in the energy transition and energy independence.

I have emphasized the importance of the Energy Transition Fund. It offers a short- and medium-term solution and opportunities to invest in energy transition and energy storage in the longer term. The economic impact should not be underestimated. Massive and timely investment in the new energy sector creates jobs and provides know-how that our country can export later.

Mr Nollet stated that the other points of the action plan contained in the Government Decision of 18 December 2014 are treated remarkably slower than the present draft. For example, he had questions about Elijah’s investment plan and preventing the closure of conventional production units. He also questioned the broad definition of the transit fund’s capabilities and the uncertainty about its resources. He wondered whether other funds than the nuclear interest will go to that fund.

Mr de Lamotte considered that the presented strategy shows a lack of coherence and wondered why Annex 11 of the Directive is not included in the present draft. He also called for greater clarity on the resources and the use of the Energy Transition Fund. He also informed about the structural measures to ⁇ the energy transition.

Mr Calvo, finally, questioned whether the nuclear interest rate will provide sufficient resources to enable investments in new technologies. He also emphasized the importance of thermal power plants and also wondered whether the MYRRHA project will be able to raise funds from that fund.

In her response, the Minister indicated that Annex 11 will be translated into a subsequent draft law. The strict deadline for the transposition of the directive, 5 June, prevented it from being included in the present draft. The development of a full legal framework for demand management services seems premature. In the balancing, the question response will play an important role. The Minister also stated that CREG will be involved and that the tariffs should reflect energy efficiency, energy savings and optimal use of the energy infrastructure. Efficiency will be more important than volume.

As regards the fund, the Minister pointed out that it can only be fed with the resources as provided for in this bill and that those resources must be used as described in this bill. The modalities of the compensation shall be fixed in an agreement between the State and the owner of Goals 1 and 2. Regarding the strategic reserve and the capacity market, the Minister will wait for the study of the CREG. According to the Minister, Elia can fulfill its role as transmission network operator in Belgium and also develop foreign commercial activities.

The Ecolo-Green group submitted five amendments that were not approved. The bill was then adopted in the committee with ten votes against four.

I thank Mr. Wilrycx and I open the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker,

We know that this is primarily a regional matter, but the federal government still has a role to play. Therefore, it is a partial transposition of a Directive. Furthermore, other elements of this Directive will be further transposed.

The bill under review includes a positive aspect. I want to talk about the new skills given to CREG in terms of energy efficiency.

As for the creation of an Energy Transition Fund, at this stage, we do not know the revenues that will be paid there since there is the fee for Doel 1 and Doel 2 of which we do not yet know anything since the bill that appears in point 2 of our agenda is silent as to the terms of this fee.

And the expenses authorized in this Energy Transition Fund are a bit of the "for-all" expenses. It is unclear which projects will be funded by the Fund. One thing is clear: that the government will comply with the law. Thus, the atoll will not be funded.

As for politics, I will not be too long. The government has requested that the bill be reviewed at the same time as the bill to extend Doel 1 and Doel 2. The minister said that an agreement had been reached between the majority parties in this regard.

It is evident that the demand of the parties present in the government to discuss both laws at the same time is only explained by the willingness to tell a story to journalists and the public with the creation of a budget fund that remains, at this point, a completely empty shell. Given the lack of accuracy as to the revenue it will have, the government is trying to make us believe that its energy policy is not based solely on nuclear power.

In terms of energy, the only concrete decision made by the minister concerns the extension of Doel 1 and Doel 2. As I have already said in the committee, Mr. Speaker, this second project is just a hidden-sex of the "all-to-nuclear" policy.

We obviously do not see any disadvantages in making electricity and gas transmission networks more efficient. But thank you, Madam the Minister, do not present this project to us as a solution to our supply security problems because it is simply false.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, indeed, the present bill we are discussing together must be concluded – as our rapporteur has recalled – with the draft law on provisions on energy security and demonstrates, if still necessary, that we intend to provide our country with effective tools to ensure energy supply in the short, medium and long term.

Indeed, we immediately assessed the gravity of the situation and set ourselves to take urgent measures, but our will remains to provide our country with a sustainable strategy aimed at guaranteeing the sovereignty and energy independence of our country. We owe it to our citizens and our ⁇ . They deserve both affordable energy as well as a high level of safety and security.

Without strong and immediate action, we are exposing, as we all know, our hospitals, pensions, public services, citizens and ⁇ to a high risk of blackout in the event of a harsh winter.

The Federal Bureau of the Plan estimated the cost of a one-hour blackout to be €120 million. It is in this context that this draft law, initially gathered into a single text before the State Council, in its opinion of 6 February 2015, indicated that it could only recognize the urgency for the consideration of the draft law on the extension of the Doel 1 and Doel 2 reactors, at the same time making a distinction between, on the one hand, short-term measures and, on the other hand, medium and long-term measures, in which the measures envisaged by this draft law are incorporated.

The aim is to create an energy transition budget fund to encourage research and development in innovative energy projects, including energy production and storage.

It thus partially transposes Article 15 of Directive 2012/27 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to briefly return to the content of these measures, which are part of the energy strategy that the government finally intends to provide our country with. The creation of the Energy Transition Fund will first be powered by nuclear rent. It will, on the one hand, encourage research and development in innovative fields to foster this energy transition and, on the other hand, guarantee and strengthen our security of supply and the balance of the grid.

As regards the transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive, it will be recalled here that it is part of the ambitious European Energy Efficiency Plan, including the 20-20-20 Strategy.

To this end, the Union has established a framework for energy efficiency and energy saving policies in the Member States. It aims to impose a set of binding measures aimed at achieving significant energy savings. Certainly, energy efficiency is mainly the competence of the Regions, but if you believe the State Council’s opinion, the federal state remains competent for energy transmission.

This project also specifies certain elements that are strictly related to the transmission network or the competence of the CREG. It will allow it to provide for tariff guidelines while adding a general competence for non-discrimination of products resulting from demand management in the wholesale energy market.

This bill, you know, is far from unacceptable. Through the transposition of the European Directive, it will enable our country to participate in the European effort to reduce our energy consumption in a responsible momentum for our climate as well and, in the end, to limit our energy dependence.

By strengthening the CREG, we encourage measures aimed at achieving greater energy efficiency, an indispensable condition for the implementation of the strategy pursued by this majority.

Finally, we encourage a tariff remuneration of the transmission system operator when he acts efficiently from an energy point of view. The remuneration will therefore become favourable based on efficiency and not volume. The tariffs will also reflect energy efficiency, energy saving, optimal use of energy infrastructure.

Finally, the creation of the Energy Transition Fund will contribute to encouraging technological research and innovation in energy efficiency, including the important issues related to storage. It will in no way – I believe, along with the MR, the minister, the federal government – be an opportunity of any means to finance, encourage and support the development of nuclear energy, but rather to finance new methods of energy production such as storm power production projects.

This is not a new fund. The Minister has clearly stated its desire to bring together the existing budget funds in the matter to make its allocation more efficient. Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I have said enough in the committee and also as an introduction: the situation is serious and we must act, take our responsibilities and that is what we are doing. We also know that the extension of the nuclear power plants of Doel 1 and Doel 2 cannot alone be the solution to this problem.

With this bill, we finally insert our country into a global approach, because there is no need to recall that other countries in Europe experience similar situations. It is better to act together. The construction site is huge, huge. We want to go forward. Our country cannot afford standstill or stand-alone in this matter. We must act courageously, efficiently and in the general interest.

Mr. Speaker, we face huge challenges in the energy landscape in order to be able to guarantee our supply in the short and long term. In the past few weeks and also today, the main focus will probably be on the possible extension of Goal 1 and Goal 2. Of course, this is not the only measure we want to take to guarantee supply security.

We provide a package of measures. We are pleased that they are present today in Parliament. CD&V has insisted that they be submitted simultaneously and hopefully approved. In addition to the extension of Goal 1 and Goal 2, demand management should be fully invested in order to better align supply and demand. The best kilowatt-hour is still what is not consumed, which is why we strongly support the transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive. Finally, as the colleagues have already said, we also provide for an energy transition fund, in which the money from Goal 1 and 2 comes to support innovative projects for energy storage and production.

CD&V is pleased that these measures are all present today in a single package, but the government agreement of course contains other measures. A very important measure is, among other things, to examine how we can preserve our existing gas power plants and ensure that they do not close. We hope that this measure will also be submitted to Parliament soon.

We will support the present draft.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to this text, which could have been an extremely important text, I would like to make two essential remarks, beyond what could have been said in the report – I would like to thank the rapporteur for the passage. We will not be able to support this text if it does not evolve according to them.

First, in the order of achievements to tackle supply difficulties, you make the choice – we’ll probably talk about it soon – to extend Doel 1 and Doel 2, while, beyond the government’s agreement, what was necessary and useful above all was to set up a mechanism, as recommended by the CREG, that prevents Electrabel and other operators from closing their thermal power plants so easily. If such a device existed today, you would be able to guarantee much of the 1,300 MW that today threaten to shut down. This is point 6 of your December 18 agreement. Instead of working on that aspect, you have first and foremost worked on the extension of nuclear power plants.

Of course, the text that we are proposing here is another chapter of your December 18 agreement. It is quite interesting because, a priori, when you are faced with the media, when you are in any case on television, you are talking about the fact that this fund will allow to finance – Ms Jadin also said here in the tribune – new forms of renewable energy. We talked about marvelous energy. And she clarified an important fact, which was also discussed in the committee: this fund will not fund nuclear research or production.

I would like to address this question to you, Mr. President, but also to Mr. President, if you wish. Why not include that dimension as in the text itself? This is my second point. Article 7 is concerned here. When we look at the nature of the expenses authorized by this fund, we find two points. First, "all measures to encourage and support research in innovative projects in the field of energy".

Could renewable energy be excluded from the nuclear sector? Wouldn’t that allow us to be more precise in activating this fund? In the current state, proposals can cover all energy modes. You say, and I support you, that we will not fund nuclear from this fund. Your intention is, among other things, to support the driving tide, offshore energy, etc. I am in federal jurisdiction. Shouldn’t the text be consistent with what is said? In the first paragraph of Article 7, the word ‘renewable’ should therefore be added.

The second point proposes ⁇ ining, developing or seeking any system to guarantee supply security or balance of the network, including production. Again, all aspects are addressed.

I agree with the part on energy storage, which is part of the federal competence, as you said in the committee, Madam the Minister. You answered the question broadly and thoroughly by the State Council. This part is not a problem for us. We support you legally and politically.

There are also no problems with demand management. This is one of the important measures to prevent the risk of blackouts and supply shortages. Currently it is underused. You are right, and we are following you in this regard as well. However, the wording of point 2 is even more general than that of point 1. We therefore propose to tighten the government’s capacity to use this fund around three elements: renewable energy, storage and demand management. These are the aspects you present when you move to television. It remains that the formula in the text is far too broad and that it allows, therefore, to finance everything and anything. That is why I submitted an amendment to the President’s Office.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the project that is presented to us now is only the out-of-work of the debate that will follow, but in relation to this bill mentioned, the strategy presented here effectively illustrates a lack of coherence, since the government does not consider, through the act under consideration, as required by Directive 2012/27 of the European Parliament of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending or repealing certain directives, to provide for transposition into a single act of the legislator. We have said it in committee, but there is no worse deaf than the one who does not want to hear.

Article 3, of which the elements were mentioned in the report, intends to establish an energy transition fund for use exclusively by the federal government. What will this fund be used for? This has not been specified, as we are in a supply security issue and no precise answer to this question concerning research, development and other sectors. It is a little fog. What budgetary resources could then be allocated to this fund, given that the compensation mechanism of this fund is currently not known yet? We do not know.

Mrs. Minister, there is fear that the creation of this fund will be fed with good intentions that, today, are lost in a set of vague contours, without tags. This is what we regret, although we could at some point have clarified a number of points that could have captured and engaged certain possibilities in terms of energy transition and energy development through the use of this fund. I would like to express this regret at this forum.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I still leave – and will do so again later – the government agreement that has been recalled by some of you.

It is, in the government agreement, to read that within the framework of supply security, a legislative initiative will be taken including two elements. The first is the extension of the nuclear units of Doel 1 and 2, on the one hand, with the agreement of the AFCN and the operator, and on the other hand, that the operation of these reactors may not exceed 2025. The Government will take measures to improve the investment framework for the entire energy market and to prevent, in an efficient and cost-effective manner, the decommissioning, as a result of changed market circumstances, of conventional production units, such as gas and cogeneration, which are not yet at the end of their life.

The Government Decision of 18 December 2014, to which it was also referred, which is the implementation of the Government Agreement that I have just read, provides in point 1 for the immediate extension of Doel 1 and 2 units for a period of ten years without the operation of these reactors exceeding 2025. As in the spirit of the government, security of supply does not go without technical security and nuclear security, the decision of 18 December 2014 stipulates immediately after the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control will set the conditions relating to safety and security, which will be an indispensable preliminary for the extension of these units.

Some would have wanted the sixth point to be placed first, but we are following the government agreement that puts it further. It is about requesting recommendations, in particular to the CREG, in order to avoid the decommissioning of conventional production units such as gas and cogeneration which are not yet at the end of their life, ⁇ by ensuring their profitability.

This brief general presentation leads to what interests us precisely today. Within the framework of that decision of 18 December 2014, which consists of eight points, point 4 states that it is appropriate to establish an energy transition fund with appropriate means, the modalities of which will be later defined in order to encourage research and development in innovative projects in the field of energy, in particular to develop the production and storage of energy.

This is very precise but it also says that the precisions and modalities will be defined later in another text. Point 5 relates to energy efficiency and says that it is necessary to transpose the provisions of the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU which falls within its competence, i.e. the competence of the federal on demand management. This is the political framework in which we work.

Before concluding my general introduction, I would like to remind you that the project we have in mind is a separate project from the one that follows and that only concerns the ten-year extension of Doel 1 and 2. These two projects were initially one and the same project. To prevent the most pressing, the government had decided to submit a single project that provides for short-term measures (decade extension of Doel 1 and 2), medium-term measures (transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive as regards the federal competence) and long-term measures (creation of the Energy Fund).

I am now entering into the topic that we are dealing with on this project. I remember his object. The proposed transposition actually constitutes a partial transposition of only Article 15 of Directive 2012/27/EU and, in particular, Article 15.4 and Article 15.8. In order to meet the objectives of that Directive and to enable a non-discriminatory development of the very important products currently being developed in our demand-driven economy, while respecting the independence of the national regulatory authority (CREG) and the possibility for the Member State (the Belgian State) to provide guidelines, in the right line of the transposition of the third Energy package, tariff guidelines should be added to the Electricity Act and the Gas Act.

This consists of two very important points. The first point is the removal of incentives for transport tariffs that are detrimental to the overall energy efficiency (production, transport and supply of electricity) or those that could hinder the participation of consumer deletions in the adjustment market and the provision of auxiliary services. I give two examples. First, as regards transport tariffs, it is planned to remove incentives that are detrimental to the overall efficiency of the electricity system, such as incentives in transport tariffs that would effectively increase the volume of energy transported.

Second, when it comes to balancing adjustment, it is necessary to allow the participation of the deletions of consumption. In other words, it is necessary to allow companies that agree to consume less to participate in public procurement, alongside production offers, i.e. companies that produce electricity, to constitute reserves. The integration of demand management products into auxiliary services should also be encouraged.

The second point concerns tariffs aimed at improving efficiency in the design and operation of infrastructure. Within the framework of the Electricity Directive, it is necessary to ensure that tariffs allow suppliers to improve the participation of consumers in the efficiency of the system, including withdrawal of consumption based on national factors.

In terms of improving the efficiency of infrastructure design and operation, it should be encouraged to provide tariff remuneration to the transmission system operator when he acts energetically efficiently in the design and operation of his network.

In terms of improving consumer participation in the efficiency of the electricity system, the participation of customers connected to the transmission network in the demand management service should be improved. Big consumers such as BASF and Solvay are already making huge efforts in energy efficiency and eliminating demand.

The second part of the bill aims to extend in the Electricity Act the competence of our federal regulatory body, the CREG, so that it can encourage demand-driven resources, such as consumer deletions, to participate in the wholesale market as well as resources related to supply, thus energy production.

This involves encouragement, with regard to access and participation in demand management, in particular in terms of balance, reserves and other network services markets, all of course in compliance with the new European network codes.

The competence of the CREG is limited to the wholesale market, the retail market within the competence of the Regions. This will enable CREG to play its role as a facilitator between demand management actors and transmission system operators or other actors.

The bill thus specifies certain elements that are strictly related to the transmission network, to the country’s supply security competence, since the encouragement of demand-oriented resources helps to better balance supply and demand on the energy market, which promotes the stability of energy supply, or to the competence of the national regulatory authority which is the CREG in terms of wholesale market for balancing, auxiliary services and Belpex.

The objective is that the CREG remains attentive and has the powers to do so, and that, in the exercise of its powers, the resources related to demand management are treated in a non-discriminatory manner on the wholesale market, respecting the powers of the federated entities.

What are the concrete advances of this bill in terms of demand management? It includes two key elements to further integrate demand management into the Belgian energy market. On the one hand, it actively encourages demand-driven resources, such as consumer deletions, to participate in the wholesale market in the same way as supply-driven resources. On the other hand, it introduces a tariff guideline in the Electricity and Gas laws, which will have the effect of removing any obstacle for consumer clearance services to the adjustment market and to the provision of auxiliary services.

By providing for these provisions, the bill sets rules for non-discriminatory treatment that allows the demand management market to gradually integrate into the market of auxiliary services, balancing and more in the wholesale market.

Why not create a more comprehensive legal framework? This is because with CREG, we feel that it is premature to organize a strict and firm framework for demand management services. Some actors integrate themselves into the current rules without difficulty in carrying out their activities. Others are demanding a much more developed framework.

The bill lies between these two directions. It aims to enable the further development of demand management services, while leaving the future design of the market model free. In doing so, a place is also left for the development of the sector and innovation. Through the tasks entrusted to it, CREG will also be able to participate actively in the development of the new Belgian energy market segment. This will lead to better integration into the current market.

Depending on the reality of the market, once the further development of demand management services – which is what we hope for and want to encourage to do –, new rules will, if necessary, be able to complement this first legal framework.

With regard to the Energy Transition Fund, the bill under consideration aims to implement another important government decision of 18 December 2014, namely the financing of the energy transition by creating an energy transition fund with adequate resources, the terms of use of which – I have already said and repeat – will be later defined to encourage research and development in innovative energy projects, in particular to develop energy production and storage.

I make an incise. In terms of renewables, the fund that was created with the extension of Tihange 1 is dedicated to renewables, which is why we have dedicated this new fund to another specific object, which is the production and storage of energy and all innovative projects in this field.

The bill provides for the creation of a budgetary fund within the meaning of Article 62 of the Law of 22 May 2003 on the Organisation of the State Budget and Accounting. The latter will be fed by the fee referred to in Article 3 of the Act on Various Provisions on Energy Supply Security and which inserts an article 4, § 2 in the Law of 31 January 2003 on the Progressive Exit of Nuclear Energy, namely the draft law that will come later for the determination of the nuclear fee related to the extension of the Doel 1 and 2 power plants. This fee - we cannot repeat too much - is borne by the owner of the Doel 1 and 2 nuclear power plants, i.e. the only owner of Electrabel.

In the event of a third-party investment in such power plants, the amount of the fee will obviously be equally distributed between the owners according to their respective shares.

For the surplus, the bill provides that the King will determine by deliberate decree in Council of Ministers the precise arrangements for the use of this fund.

This includes projects that can be financed by the Fund. It is intended to encourage and support research and development in innovative energy projects within the competence of the federal state. It realises by its existence and this text a wish already expressed during the previous legislature, namely that the old technologies now finance the technologies of the future. It is about designing a framework that encourages investment in research and storage in order to facilitate the energy transition and contribute to our country’s security of supply.

By facilitating massive and early investment in the innovative energy sector, we can also hope to develop a sector of the economy that, in the long run, will create jobs. It is not about using, as some have argued, the fund’s resources to encourage nuclear energy; let it be clear. The aim is to promote the development of new methods of energy production, such as motor tide or energy storage – as your colleague Kattrin Jadin reminded.

As indicated in the committee – and I refer to the work of the committee, which took place, these, in perfect serenity – the fund will not, to date, be used to support the energy atolls off the Belgian coast. The matter has recently been discussed in the Council of Ministers, where it will be reviewed before the summer holidays, after analyzing the planned systems for energy storage.

Regarding the modalities of financing this fund, you know after reading the project, it is the entire fee related to the extension of the nuclear units of Doel 1 and 2 that will be allocated to the supply of this fund. A subsequent law will still have to fix the modalities of calculation and collection of this fee, you know well. I will soon come with this bill before the Energy Committee and this Parliament. Furthermore, the amount of the fee will have to be calculated on the basis of this law, which will set the guiding and essential elements of the agreement, which will then have to be concluded with the operator of the power plant.

Mr. Minister, you affirm, as Ms. Jadin has done earlier, that this fund will not be used to finance nuclear production or nuclear research. But this is not what is written in the text. At the moment, the text leaves this question open.

I agree with you, it is so much better if this fund is not used to finance nuclear power. But why is the text not more precise and does not prohibit it?

For the simple reason that the fund – in which we fulfill the wishes of the previous legislature – is intended for the old technologies, thus nuclear, to fund the technologies of the future, i.e. innovative projects in production and storage. The project clearly states that this fund, which will be fueled by revenues from nuclear – technology of the past – will serve to power the technologies of the future.

It may be even better if it is said. But it was already written as in the project, I repeat it.

The Tihange 1 Fund, created during the extension of Tihange 1, is linked to renewable energy. Therefore, it was not appropriate, with the new fund that we are creating in this bill, to operate redundancy, since renewable energies were already supported by a fund created in 2013.

Everything will be done, colleagues, so that the planned Energy Transition Fund can have sufficient resources. In other words, before 15 November 2015 and if the negotiations with the operator succeed, the terms for calculating the fee intended to feed the fund will be set and the terms for using the fund will be set by the king. The fund will only be operational once the first fee has been collected.

You say that nuclear research cannot be financed under this fund. But can the MYRRHA project, for example, be financed by this fund?

No, as I replied to you in committee and the means of financing for MYRRHA are budgetary means that are currently being discussed in IKW and which I will come back later in committee. I am very attentive, as you know.

I regret that the text does not reflect the words of the Minister. This is a problem, because we have clear commitments but a text that, legally, does not take back what the minister says. It is much wider. It helps to finance many other things. We are facing a legal problem of writing this intention. This makes our vote impossible, unless the amendment is held, which simply allows to translate what is here in the text.