Proposition 54K2070

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

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Oct. 4, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

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

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

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 ¶

Dec. 21, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Karine Lalieux, Karin Temmerman and Damien Thiéry. They refer to the written report.

The floor is yielded to Mr. Wollants.

Mr. Calvo asks a legitimate question whether the questions at the end are all answered. I suggest that I give all the answers now, so that no more questions need to be asked.

Colleagues, when we talk about the repartition contribution, that always leads to fierce debates. We spent a lot of time in this area. Clearly, we need to install a system that will last for the next few years. In the current system, it was always in the last months of the year that the coins were there for the following year. The present draft saves us that exercise for the coming years and ensures that a realistic amount to be received in the budget becomes. Until now, there have been trials year after year, and that can be done.

By the way, the situation has fundamentally changed. Unlike the previous system in which the nuclear interest rate for 7 power plants was "captured", a separate system is set up for the power plants whose lifetime has been extended – previous legislature for Tihange 1 and this legislature for Goal 1 and 2 – for the sake of supply security. We had to adjust the story.

We spent a lot of time in our committee explaining how the system now works. This will be the subject of debate today.

It is quite clear – I have also cited this in the committee – that the amount of the amount is determined by the contribution capacity of the various power plants and that the way in which the tax is distributed is based on the year preceding the taxation.

Let me talk about the amount. In recent years, a higher amount has been registered. This includes several other power plants. The key question is whether the anticipated amount is realistic. In other words, what is needed to capture the nuclear victory? For 2015, we worked with a gross amount of 297 million euros. For the year 2016 there is a gross amount of 247 million euros, if we do not count the power plants whose lifetime has been extended. To that, of course, the funds will be added for Goal 1 and 2, 20 million euros, and for Tihange 10 million euros.

That is, the gross amounts are quite similar. There are differences, but they are perfectly justifiable. For example, the energy prices, which have been different every year, have now changed steadily. In the wholesale market, suppliers and producers work with a kind of hedging strategy to sell their power on the market. For the sake of balance they use a three-year pricing system, in which one part is paid in the first year, one part in the second year and one part in the third year.

As I have already noted in the committee, the prices have changed considerably. I will not go into detail, but in 2015 the average price was around 50 euros/megawatt hour. For 2016, that price is around 46 euros, which indeed corresponds to a lower nuclear interest rate.

The CREG has done research on this. Now, in its report on the safety grid mechanism, in which it also specifically devotes a chapter to the decline in electricity prices, the pure commodity, it comes to the conclusion that that commodity has declined by 47 %, which, of course, causes the nuclear interest rate to be captured in a different way.

We have been exchanging ideas for a long time about whether it is a N-system or a N-min 1 system. Undoubtedly, you all know perfectly how this works, but for the sport, I would like to repeat it.

When the system was launched in early 2008, the year N-1 was used to guarantee the predictability of the nuclear commission company and to examine how everything could be deposited so that it would happen properly. This system has always been discussed. We have always looked at the amount of the year before. This, of course, is not the same as capturing the nuclear interest rate of the previous year. I will return to that later.

For example, in 2014 it is re-recorded and it is said that when calculating the taxable base, one actually looks at the calendar year that is the year preceding the year in which the distribution contribution is collected. In 2015 the same thing happened. That is also the logic.

However, I note that there has been a lot of confusion in the debate about whether it is about capturing the nuclear interest rate of 2015 or of 2016. This is the basis of the discussion on which we have spent a lot of time.

It may also be difficult to link with what the court has stated on this subject. You know that every repartition contribution includes a judgment of the Constitutional Court. There was also, of course, a look at what had to happen and how it had to be looked at. There we see that with the opinion of the State Council, which has now been received on the basis of the amendments submitted by the opposition, there is some noise on the line and that there are indeed differences. Therefore, it is absolutely worthwhile, to look at the Constitutional Court’s judgment for a moment, to see how this has happened and how we should look at it.

I will refer to a number of documents from the Constitutional Court, so that it becomes clear how the redistribution contribution actually works.

In this case, there is the 2015 judgment concerning the redistribution contribution for the year 2013. The Constitutional Court states that it was determined by the legislator in order to take into account the contributing capacity of the contributor and the existence of the significant gains generated by the activity of electricity production by the splitting of nuclear fuels. It was alleged that that choice was made taking into account the historical and future context, including the benefits ⁇ by nuclear operators and companies, as well as the evaluation of the actual tax burden borne by the sector.

The repartition contribution shall not be calculated on the basis of the turnover or the profit of the contributors, which is realized in the course of the subscription year, but on the basis of their capacity to contribute. This is an important aspect that the Constitutional Court has referred to. In any case, it allows the legislator to estimate the contribution capacity on the basis of year N – 1 and therefore also to estimate the nuclear interest rate in order to capture that in this way.

It goes even further. If we look at how they look at the distribution contribution further, it is true that the contested distribution contribution in question — and at that time it was both the basic component and the complementary component — was owed by those persons who, on the date of publication of the law, had a share in the industrial production of electricity by splitting nuclear fuels. It is imposed, not by applying a rate on the profits — and I think it should in part be the case — generated during a given period by the production of electricity based on nuclear energy, but by applying a fraction expressing a ratio between the amount to be collected fixed by the legislature and the share of each contributor in that production in the year N – 1.

In this way it is estimated without, the Constitutional Court continues, that the income or profits generated by this production are taken into account in the calculation of the tax. I think that there has been a lot of confusion there, and I think that this should definitely be looked at.

Furthermore, we must note that in those documents of the Constitutional Court it is made very clear that it cannot be a retroactive tax, that is, that it cannot in any case be a tax on the nuclear interest generated the year before it, which makes it clear that it is indeed so that the year in which the tax is levied is also the year in which the nuclear interest is captured and that it can ⁇ not be considered otherwise.

“The contested provisions do not impose a tax imposed by applying a rate on the profits generated in the course of a given year by the production of electricity by splitting nuclear fuels. The repartition contributions are therefore not intended to collect the nuclear interest rate generated in the course of 2012”. This was clearly referred to the 2013 repartition contribution. I repeat, that repartition contribution does not extend to collect the nuclear interest that has arisen in the course of the year N – 1. I think this is of great importance. Mrs. Lalieux says no, apparently she knows better than the Constitutional Court.

Ms. Lalieux will be speaking soon.

In that regard, I think there can be no doubt. It is, of course, also in line with what I have already stated in the committee, namely that there can be no problem.

You have submitted a number of amendments to correct a number of matters that do not necessarily need to be corrected on the basis thereof. Furthermore, the State Council considers that the way you wish to correct it is insufficient and not correct. Therefore, it is recommended that we continue with the draft as we have presented it, so that no problem can arise and there is legal certainty for the collection of the contribution until 2026, as planned.

Surprisingly, a certain amendment is somewhat misformulated. This is an Ecolo-Green amendment. Those who have been here a little longer know that in 2008 there was a lot of discussion about the extension of the Tihange IV nuclear power plant. Mrs. Tine Van der Straeten then struck hard that this was complete nonsense because Tihange IV is, as you know, the cafe across the plant. You will be visiting Tihange soon, so you may be able to walk around in the cafe. It’s a small self-employed, so I’m absolutely against you taxing them further. I think it is important that there is proper work done and that the memory of Tine Van der Straeten in the Ecolo-Groen group can continue to live, so that you do not submit that amendment in the future in that way. I know that the cafe was long to take over, and I understood that in 2015 a buyer was found. During the previous legislature we were there, under the impulse of Mr. George of the CDH, to drink a pint in connection with our visit to the nuclear power plant. Per ⁇ this correction should still happen in the amendments.

Mr. Wollants should be limited to making a little bit of humor around an amendment that would talk about Tihange 4. I would like to point out to him that the text as we wrote and wrote it talked well about Tihange 3 but that once it passed through the services and was reworked in the official documents, it moved to Tihange 4. However, our text, as we signed it by hand, I still checked, talked about Tihange 3. You can continue with this for a long time! At some point, you will realize that in fact, you are attacking the services!

I would like to tell you here, Mr. Wollants, that I consider the way the work has been carried out in the committee, it is ⁇ displaced in your head. You know very well that if we are today obliged to repeat here, in the plenary session, a committee debate, a purely technical debate, it is because in the committee, and I will demonstrate it just now, neither the majority, nor even the minister were able to hold a line and explain correctly what was in this project. This is probably why we will have further explanations from the Minister today.

I find it ⁇ distracted to play on a technical error between what we submitted and who talked about Tihange 3 and what was printed and who talked about Tihange 4. I wanted to at least put that in place, before intervening at the tribune later.

Mr. Wollants, it is true that humor is always good. Some plenary sessions are very long. Since you highlight a small technical error in an amendment drafted by Ecolo-Groen, I would like then that amendments criticized by the State Council and laws criticized by the State Council are not voted in the lead of the majority.

We will have the decency, Mr. Wollants, to withdraw an amendment that we have filed and which is criticized by the State Council. We will not insist. If we should follow the State Council and the CREG, Mr. Wollants, this is not an amendment that should be withdrawn, it is the bill. Then you would be honest.

Speaking of coffee doesn’t matter. Speaking of a technical mistake by mocking yourself in this way, like Mr. Nollet, I find this ⁇ distracted. Trying at least to justify the unjustifiable is what you have tried to do, because the minister was not able to do so. Continue to justify the unjustifiable, we will see in the years that follow what will happen!

I think I have clearly demonstrated how the design works. The number of times I have heard in the last few years members of your group laughing at the Tihange 4 mob from two legislatures ago is countless. (Protest by Mr Calvo)

There are two reasons for that, Mr. Calvo. First, you did not participate in the commission’s visit to the central. Second, the transfer of Ms. Van der Straeten’s files to you may not have gone as smoothly as it should.

But back to the design. The draft was based on the judgment of the Constitutional Court. That it is consistent with the existing jurisprudence is for me the teststone. You cannot simply change the rules.

We must conclude that in certain amendments and in the opinion of the State Council there is an incorrect premise, namely that the production of the previous year is taxed. This would automatically make the tax retroactive, so that every tax since 2008 would be retroactive. The Belgian State, on the other hand, has done everything in its power in the years before, so that the interest rate cannot be considered retroactive. It should be seen as capturing the nuclear interest rate of the year itself, taking into account the unavailability in the year N – 1.

There should in no way be the impression that the repartition contribution of 2016 is about the interest rate of the previous year. Otherwise, you will have to deal with a retroactive system and that should absolutely not happen. If we had wanted retroactivity in the past – I identify myself so much with the Belgian State – then we would have lost things.

In all cases, a stable legal framework should be established, taking into account the N-1 principle and the N-principle. I am already convinced that you will return to the retroactivity in defending your amendments.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the extension of Doel 1 and Doel 2 has become for the majority and for this government a true crossroads.

Over the past two years, dear colleagues, the government and the majority have repeatedly put their knees to the ground. So much suffering for two small aging reactors, Mrs. Minister! It is no longer politics, it has almost become religion.

But nothing holds this government and the majority back when it comes to serving the nuclear dogma. It doesn’t matter if the State Council gives assassin’s opinions and demands that the text be modified. It does not matter, Mr. Wollants, if the energy regulator hardly criticizes this project and demands the filing of more than ten amendments. It does not matter if parliamentarians demand that the text be amended to protect the general interest and the taxpayer. The devotion of the majority has a reason that no one knows. Dear colleagues of the majority, you are completely chained to Electrabel and you can no longer step back.

On November 30, 2015, the Prime Minister, Ms. Marghem and Mr. Mestrallet, CEO of Engie, paraphed three bills, including the one submitted to us today.

So we look at the last of these three bills. Good luck for us, Madame Dierick!

They then held their hands in front of the cameras. Everyone was smiling. On that day, the government and its majority promised Electrabel and Engie that the three bills would be voted without the parliament having a word to say, this within a certain period that the minister had to extend many times.

As was the case for the two previous bills, Mr. Wollants, this bill was made tailor-made for Elecrabel. The Parliament was not entitled to make any amendments to it, except for a few amendments you have submitted. However, three major problems arise.

The first problem – you mentioned it – lies in the fact that this project offers a tax exemption of several tens of millions of euros to nuclear producers, namely EDF and Electrabel.

We are not the only ones who say this, Mr. Wollants. The State Council and the CREG, the regulator that has many experts to analyze a bill, also affirm this.

As in the past, the 2016 nuclear contribution must be based on the profits and output of the previous year; this has been done. If not, how do you want to know the production of the current year? It should be based on the previous year; this is what the CREG and the State Council say. And that’s what you did, Mr. Wollants, in 2015! This is what you did in 2014! And this is what the government has done since 2012 with Mr. Wathelet.

Now, you know, since Doel 1 and Doel 2 laws were voted, 2015 is a transition year for three of the seven nuclear reactors involved here: Doel 1, Doel 2 and Tihange 1. These three reactors saw their toll tax regime modified, in connection, of course, with their extension.

However, I want to repeat this so that taxpayers and SMEs know how much the state will lose, the tax regime has not entered into force on 1 January 2015. It entered into force on the basis of the extension dates. For Tihange 1, it came into force on 1 October 2015, which is nine months of production in 2015. For Doel 1, it came into force on February 15, 2015, which is a month that is exempt from the nuclear tax. For Doel 2, it came into force on July 6, 2015, meaning six months that are not taxed in your project.

The problem is that these three periods, which represent many months of production, are not taxed in this bill. They escape a tax on nuclear rent.

You refer to the Constitutional Court. I refer to the State Council. We can read together the two pages of the State Council opinion on the amendment that we have re-submitted. The State Council confirms for the second time – it had already said it without the majority amendment, in the analysis of the bill a few months ago – that there is an exemption of several tens of millions of euros.

This is called the White Year. This is what we have called a “temporary hole” commission. We have a beautiful time hole.

You might laugh at it, but we are still talking about tens of millions of euros. And at the same time, it is the first year that the state proceeds this way: to exempt nuclear production. This has not happened since 2008, the year the nuclear tax was introduced.

In a budgetary context so complicated, as we had the opportunity to see during the plenary session yesterday, while an austerity policy is applied to all citizens, tax gifts are made to energy producers. We know that their nuclear power plants are now profitable. For me, Mr. Wollants, this is the real scandal of this bill.

Mr. Minister, you did not have a problem calculating N and N-1 when it came to increase VAT from 6 to 21% for all energy consumers. These are tens of millions of euros in the pockets of consumers. Meanwhile, a tax gift of tens of millions of euros is made to Electrabel.

Mr. Wollants, this tax gift will not stop in 2016. In 2017, according to the forecasts of your expert, the nuclear tax will continue to decline and from 550 million in 2012 – although I agree with you regarding the reduction in the price of energy – it will go to less than 200 million in 2017. This is all profit for Electrabel and it is a dry loss for the state budget.

There are two weights, two measures, Mr. Wollants. It is scandalous! I will explain in a moment why we also see a loss in 2017, despite the price.

The second major problem of this bill is legal uncertainty. You have read some passages of the Constitutional Court’s judgments, which suited you. You have not read the opinion of the CREG. What you don’t like, you don’t read. Since the opinions of the State Council did not fit you, there was no reason to read them!

Legal uncertainty could cost far more than the minimum €40 to €50 million. Maybe that would have helped Mrs. De Block. We would make less savings in social security if nuclear contributed more to the state budget. That would have really helped her. This would have helped patients.

Unfortunately, this is not the case with you. In its opinion that you have forgotten, Mr. Wollants, the CREG points out many legal gaps in the bill. Do you agree? We audited her and she gave a circumstantial opinion of 80 pages.

He said the plan is justified. I quote, as I had already done in the committee, she judges the justification “lacunary, inaccurate and inaccurate”. Adding more negative adjectives is not possible given a bill that should be legally undisputed. The CREG requests, in its opinion, to modify the exposition of reasons to reduce this legal uncertainty, which we find normal here, at parliamentary level.

In the committee, we asked many questions, but the minister was unable – Mr. Nollet just said it in your interpellation – to justify the choices of the government. Mr. Wollants, you made a demonstration here again because we did not receive a clear response from the Minister during the commission.

When I say that we will lose several tens of thousands of euros in 2017 and in the years that follow, it is because, Mr. Wollants, we have received no explanation but above all no justification of the choice to capture only 38% of the profit margin of Electrabel since the base, it is 38% of the profit margin of Electrabel. These are the calculations for the coming years.

When asked the question of the reason for the 38 percent, we were answered that it was proportional, except that in 2015, this government, like the previous governments, also captured 46 percent. So why change from 46% to 38%? That is the question! It is a dry loss. However, the Constitutional Court, which you like to quote so much, has always said that 46% was a legitimate and proportionate rate. This is not tax as a tax. Therefore, there is no reason to go to capture 38% when you can capture 46%. There is no answer in relation to this.

There is no answer either, Madame the Minister – but maybe you will explain it to us – to the question of why you apply the degressive mechanism between 2017 and 2025 and not for 2016.

The year 2016 is totally exceptional with tax exemption and no degressiveness as in 2017 and 2025. I also raise the question.

There is also no response to CREG’s criticisms, according to which the bill uses indicators that no longer exist in the electricity market and are present in Annex 3 to the bill. These indications no longer exist, but they are still inserted in the annexes of the project. The question remains without a clear answer.

This lack of choice and justification gives the image of great amateurism and weighs legal uncertainty on this bill, which would normally bring a lot of money to the state. This could then result in a cancellation of the device with the consequence that Electrabel and EDF might not pay the taxes they are claimed on nuclear power plants.

With such a poorly folded text, one must fear a cancellation, this time by the Constitutional Court: there is no justification while the other texts were correctly justified. Simply, even if a non-aggression pact was signed with Electrabel, if I have well understood, on both sides (and gifts), EDF never said, never wrote, and never engaged, but I also ask here the question to the minister, never to bring an appeal before the Constitutional Court in relation to this bill.

Once again, we regret here that both the State Council and the CREG were not followed in their circumstantiated opinions.

I come to my third problem, also raised by the State Council and the CREG, namely the investigative power that should be assigned to the latter. We have discussed this issue a lot in the committee. The CREG demanded, like us, to have an investigative power, which it already has in the framework of other tasks it fulfils for the State as a regulator. This includes allowing the CREG to have a power of access to documents held by nuclear producers.

The State Council, in its first opinion, had asked the Government to draft an amendment and to address it to the State Council. As usual, the government did not follow the State Council and refused to follow it and send an amendment.

Subsequently, the CREG presented itself in commission to request the granting of its control powers. I would like to remind you, dear colleagues, that the CREG depends entirely on the Parliament. Parliament votes its budget unanimously and it considers that it is doing its job well since its budget is voted unanimously! Unfortunately, this bill entrusts him with important tasks, but we do not give him the power to properly carry out his mission. If a problem should arise, she would be at the mercy of the goodwill of Electrabel and EDF to receive the documents she demands.

We can, in this case, see, once again, the obvious influence of Electrabel. The interest of the state, consumers and the general interest is to have a strong energy regulator. Today, however, you are depriving this regulator of its power. The general interest is also to have a regulator who can perform the tasks that the State and Parliament ask without being dependent on the goodwill of nuclear producers. The government has preferred to defend the interests of Electrabel rather than to defend the general interest. This is unfortunate but symptomatic of the policy of this government!

For more than two years, we have been working on the extension of two aging reactors, Doel 1 and Doel 2. We have seen all the government’s contempt for public institutions that defend the general interest like the CREG. We saw the policy of "two weights, two measures" with the policy of austerity towards consumers and the red carpet for Electrabel. We have seen hypocrisy towards the population through the claim to get out of nuclear power by 2025 while doing everything to postpone it. After more than two years of work on bills, the dominant feeling is that of an enormous waste of time and resources. Instead of preparing for the energy transition (I refer to the debates on the general policy note and the remarks of Ms. Dierick that shook the minister over the fact that the federal is nowhere in terms of the energy transition), the government has hardened to extend two small aging reactors that are not needed. There were other alternatives! Another path was possible.

In order to guarantee energy security in the future, but above all to ensure the departure of nuclear power in 2025, these two reactors had to be closed - as the previous government had planned. This would send a strong signal to investors. Likewise, Belgium would have demonstrated its credibility in its project of exit from nuclear power. No one believes it anymore. The majority has refused to seize this opportunity and thus loses precious years, as the race for energy transition is launched around the world. This is an irresponsible choice that our country will pay the price in the coming years.

Regarding Electrabel’s tax exemption for transitional reactors, we re-submit an amendment that, of course, calls for a larger sum, namely 250 million euros of contribution to the 2016 fiscal year. The goal is, on the other hand, to reflux the state budget which is going very badly, as we saw yesterday for long hours. In this way, the austerity policy you impose on our fellow citizens could be eased.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that we will vote soon closes a sequence that we opened in the spring of 2015 and during which the Doel 1 and 2 reactors were extended.

We have, it may be necessary to recall, extended the activity of these reactors because, under the previous legislature, the risk of black-out floated over the country. Plans were discussed, untimely power cuts in winter, cities plunged into darkness, overcrowded hospitals, schools without heating, ⁇ forced to close. The risks of power outages were one of the newspapers, which revealed in the spring of 2013 that Belgium had overcome the black-out during the winter. In addition, it was also discussed at the exit of the winter of 2014.

Today, all of this is over. This is why it was necessary to extend Doel 1 and Doel 2. Following this extension, we voted in June on the bill fixing the annual fee for Doel 1 and Doel 2 to 20 million euros per year from 2016 and until 2025. It was then, and this is the reason for the bill that is submitted to us today, to vote on a bill fixing the nuclear distribution contribution for the years 2016 to 2025 concerning Doel 3, Doel 4, Tihange 2 and Tihange 3. Remember that a flat amount of 200 million euros was paid by the operator in 2015 on the basis of the bill voted by our assembly at the end of last year.

From 2008 to 2015, the distribution contribution was fixed on the basis of a convention, a legislation revised annually. The Constitutional Court admitted this specific mechanism, while demanding that it be taken into account in time of the contributing capacity of the operator. Thus, only the surplus profit, that is, the amount that exceeds the remuneration necessary for the operator’s activity, can be captured. In 2016, it will be a fixed amount of 130 million euros. This amount is lower than in the past, but it is explained by several reasons. First, the contribution no longer includes the Doel 1 and Doel 2 power plants. Like Tihange 1, they are now subject to an annual fee. In addition, it should be remembered that the reactors of Doel 3 and Tihange 2 remained unavailable for prolonged periods during the year 2015. Lastly, and most importantly, electricity prices have dropped sharply, also decreasing the surplus profit likely to be captured by the state.

For the period 2017-2026, the State will review the distribution contribution on the basis of a mechanism that will levy the highest amount between an annual minimum amount and 38% of the profitability margin of the nuclear fleet. This margin will take into account the sales price index, production volume and costs.

For the period 2017-2019, however, the State will be insured with a minimum amount of 177 million euros per year, before the degressivity. For each subsequent period, an annual minimum shall be established on the basis of an average of 38 % of the estimated margin for the subsequent period, to which a reduction of 7,5 % shall apply.

The CREG will be brought here to play an important role, that of calculating annually the profitability margin; from 2020, every three years, it will calculate and fix the parameters of fixed and variable costs, this until 2026, on the basis of a methodology adopted by itself.

During our committee work, the opposition wanted to hear the CREG on the tasks within its competence and to obtain an opinion on the entire bill. Following this hearing, nine amendments were submitted by the majority to clarify certain points, without however putting into question the well-foundedness of the bill we maintain our support for. As recalled by Professor Hens, specialist of the ULG, it translates a positive agreement for the Belgian state.

In addition to the CREG, the DG Energy will also have a role to play. It shall calculate the proportional reduction of the annual contribution amount, as well as the highest amount between the annual minimum amount and the 3 % profitability margin, and shall apply the degressive rate and the three-year contribution credit mechanism.

The aim of this bill, dear colleagues, is in fine to ensure income to the state treasures while respecting constitutional jurisprudence, but also taking into account the drastic drop in the price of electricity and therefore the profits of the aforementioned operators.

Some will object that the State Council considers in its opinion that, on the bill, there would be a state aid. However, the letter of the European Commission’s DG Competition of 7 September 2016 gave righteousness to the government’s constant interpretation on this issue, concluding that there was no state aid.

In conclusion, this is a mechanism that was validated by the Constitutional Court on the express condition that it is proportionate in order not to be assimilated to a confiscation of the profits of exploiters.

The extension of Tihange 1, Doel 1 and Doel 2, as well as the significant decrease in electricity prices gradually led the government to revise this regime. The government has therefore taken care to develop a structural regime that enables to ensure a balanced legal framework taking into account the specifics of the nuclear plant outside the three reactors that, they, have been extended.

Mr. Friart, I hear what you say and both the political demonstration and the legal demonstration. I would like to comment on one of your comments in the committee. It is in the report. So I’m going to quote it so that you can ... My only question is whether you keep that statement or not.

You recall, on page 42 of the report, that in 2015, the distribution contribution you are now talking about was fixed to 200 million euros, "this amount having been estimated in accordance," say you, "to the surplus profit made in 2015. Tihange 1 has entered into account for the calculation of the contribution for the first nine months of operation of the year."

My only question is this: Do you keep this word or not?

Mr. Nollet, no, it is compared to N-1.

What has been said in the Committee is not correct?

This is compared to N-1.

With this bill, we establish a permanent legal framework, consistent with European and constitutional jurisprudence, ensuring to the State significant financial revenues, especially since there will always be a guaranteed minimum.

Let me, therefore, conclude by highlighting a project that will ensure substantial revenues to the federal state, for the benefit of all its policies, including an ambitious energy policy, while giving the CREG a fixing and control role that will strengthen the objectivation of the parameters of the formula provided by the law.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, it will be clear that the formulation and ⁇ the discussion of this bill has not gone from a loose roof.

Mrs. Minister, in September it became known that you had collected several million euros too little for the nuclear interest rate for Tihange 1. At that time, you completely ignored the warnings of the CREG. However, the CREG was clear: in order to recover the nuclear tax, the convention on Tihange 1 had to be adjusted.

Mrs. Minister, your intervention was characteristic of the way you deal with the entire energy dossier, and especially the nuclear dossier. You actually renounce your fundamental duty to pay attention to the house. You are actually leaving it empty by an energy monopolist. You stand there and you look at it.

With the present bill, which the majority will probably approve tomorrow, you are doing exactly the same. The level of the nuclear interest rate that will be charged in the future is not the result of an objective analysis of the victories of Electrabel or of the nuclear power plants. It is simply the result of the agreement you have entered into in the past with that multinational.

This is the third draft on the subject. It is very clear that this design, again, is written on the scale of the monopoly. Again, you ignore the warnings from your and our energy regulator, the CREG. Furthermore, you ignore the advice of the State Council, but we are already ordinary, both of you and some other members of the government.

How has the discussion gone? This is not an example of transparency, Mrs. Minister. We asked for documents from the beginning. We had to wait for that. You hid behind the confidential character and so on.

We asked for hearings, because it is an important project, not only for the future of our country, but also for you. If one sees the budgetary difficulties and the way the budget is shrunk here, then every euro is important, especially if it can be taken from the nuclear interest rate. It is therefore important that the draft law persists in the future.

You originally only allowed an hearing with Mr. Colmant. The rest you found useless and inappropriate. However, the CREG had very pertinent questions from the beginning, Mrs. Minister. Given the new tasks you have assigned to the CREG, it was, in my opinion, necessary to involve it in the draft law from the outset. The majority laughed at the fact that we once again asked for a hearing, but we knew that the CREG had very relevant comments. We wanted to discuss this with the CREG.

The outcome of the first hearing was hallucinating. You will remember that, Mr. Secretary. We learned then that the CREG was not entirely involved in the drafting of the bill. However, your energy regulator should assist you in such matters. The CREG was barely or only entirely involved at the end.

Even more shocking was that according to the CREG, with the bill, the collection of the nuclear interest would not be guaranteed in the long term. The CREG has formulated a number of amendments to correct this. As usual, you put it next to you.

We have therefore requested again to receive advice on the complete design of the CREG. The majority agreed, for which I thank you. The CREG had simply not had the time to do that before.

What were the conclusions, Mrs. Minister? The nuclear interest rate is arbitrary and legally uncertain. He said the Minister did not sufficiently justify his decision. For example, why is 38% of the margin reduced, as Ms. Lalieux has already mentioned? Why is there degressivity from 2017 and not in 2016? According to the CREG, Mrs. Minister, it is therefore not unthinkable that the interest rate does not stand before the Constitutional Court. Mr. Wollants will probably deny this. If Electrabel goes to court, we can see what happens with the collection of the coins.

It is clear, Mrs. Minister: many elements in the bill are not rational and are, again, the result of pre-negotiations, which are determined by a single energy producer.

Another comment was that the draft law is not coherent. The various nuclear power plants in our country are treated unequally: one power plant is subject to a flat-rate tax, the other to a calculation formula. This makes the tax for one more heavy than for the other. Thus, Tihange 1 largely escapes the 2015 nuclear tax. The specific tax for Tihange 1 will be levied for the year 2015, but will only apply from 1 October.

This, Mr. Wollants, has indeed caused the whole discussion: how is the nuclear interest rate calculated for 2015 and how is it collected?

Therefore, Mrs. Minister, we have submitted a number of amendments that were submitted to the State Council, because we wanted clarity on the subject. As you know, this matter was discussed in the morning and still in the afternoon, and during that discussion a little changed, despite your statements.

This week we received the opinion of the State Council on these amendments and I will read it for a moment. “As regards Tihange 1, CREG may be supported in its conclusion that the fee to be paid for the extension of the life of the nuclear power plant concerned in 2015 can only relate to the period from 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2015 and thus constitutes the compensation for the extension which entered into force on 1 October 2015. Consequently, it is not contradictory to collect the redistribution contribution for the period preceding that date.” In other words, Mrs. Minister, the State Council gives us completely right here.

As regards Objective 1 and Objective 2, it must be determined that the extension of the operating life of those plants has also not entered into effect until the course of 2015, respectively on 6 July 2015 and on 1 December 2015. Therefore, since the distribution contribution for 2016 is calculated on the basis of the 2015 electricity production in non-extended power plants, there is reason to take into account the production until the date of entry into force of the extension.”

Mrs. Minister, the State Council gives us the right twice, both for Tihange 1 and for Goal 1 and 2.

In addition to the other problems I have already mentioned — arbitrarily-legally inconsistent — it is unimaginable that you give Electrabel a gift again.

Again, this is inherent to the pathway and it is a constant in everything related to your policy around nuclear energy. Again and again, you draw the map of Electrabel: the extension of the life of Goal 1 and Goal 2, the blocking of the investment space for the alternative players, the €700 million tax advantage to Electrabel, the absence of and the launch of a federal energy vision and an intergovernmental energy pact, and so on.

We have had a lot of discussions in the committee. We will re-submit the amendments, which the CREG considers to be truly necessary. We are right from the State Council. I would therefore advise the majority to think a little before approving this bill and rejecting our amendments.

The government demanded efforts from the people and raised the VAT on electricity from 6 to 21%. It is now really time for a multinational like Electrabel to be encouraged to finally pay fair taxes.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, Mr. Kristof Calvo, Ecolo and Groen have already had the opportunity to develop the political problem of the huge gift offered to Electrabel by the insufficiency of the amount collected with the new version of the nuclear tax in view of the profits achieved by the accelerated depreciation of the Belgian nuclear power plants.

We do not remove a word, not a virgule from what we have already had the opportunity to say, and which is found in the various reports. By the way, I would like to thank the many rapporteurs who, since the beginning of the legislature, have been following us in the work on the extension of Doel 1 and Doel 2. Even if we do not remove a word from what has already been said, we will not repeat the principle debate here.

I would like to return to this gift story. This is something that comes back regularly, as well as in the commission. I think if we make gifts to Electrabel, it should appear in the balance sheets, in the income accounts. It should be tangible.

Given the current price of electricity (30 or 35 euros the megawatt), considering the results of Electrabel plummeted by the price of electricity, on the one hand, and by the distribution contributions and the fee, on the other hand, (the balance sheet of Electrabel shows a loss of 1.3 billion last year), I do not see where the gifts of the State are.

If the state gifts were really there, it would be marked in Electrabel’s accounts. Electrabel would make significant profits, the state would collect taxes. It would be different and more interesting. I don’t see any gifts. In any case, they are not included in the balance sheets of Electrabel.

Do I have to answer this?

That’s what you want, Mr. Nollet!

Do you dare to make a parallel? When you give a gift to Kazakhs, they don’t put it in their balance sheet! When you give a gift to Electrabel, Electrabel does not put it in its balance sheet with a justification line stating "This is a gift from Minister Marghem!" The demonstration with the figures was presented in the committee, each time. If you wish, I can do it, but I suggest that you do not do it and return my statement to the existing reports, thanking the various rapporteurs. But you interrupted me at that moment.

There are not Kazakhs at this level, but auditors!

My colleague Gilkinet is part of the commission of inquiry on the Kazakh affair. He explained to me that at the starting point of this file, there is a willingness of Tractebel to invest in these countries. However, in order to be able to do this, it was necessary to pay for table basements not very clean, nor very clear – they must still be indogue. The Belgian justice and the French justice are interested in this. It happens that it is necessary to intervene to save the “soldier” Chodiev and save his two Kazakh counterparts who fall under the caudine forks of Belgian justice. All this is related to Tractebel and the actions carried out in these countries.

Closer to us, remember the hallucinating remarks of Mr. Bens, who also had to be an officer in Kazakhstan In subcommittee Nuclear Security, he ⁇ the presence of people hidden in the closets who listened to everything that was happening at the time of making decisions and who fell as soon as the door opened!

He talked about under the table at which he had to participate at some point. We can talk about the case of Kazakhstan, but this is not the subject of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would only like to say that if there had been gifts in recent years, that would appear in the balance sheets, at the level of profits.

It’s not because Electrabel didn’t make any profits during the years you cited that there were no gifts!

I dare hope that as an entrepreneur, you understand your balance sheet. It’s not because you have a profit or loss, that in the upstream, there was no positive and negative and gifts in the positive period.

I didn’t want to talk about all these things and ask you to refer to the published reports, which are quality.

The [...]

Mr. de Lamotte just told us that the gifts were visible in the state budget and he is right because it is seen as negative in tax revenues.

As for the political aspect, I refer to the various reports.

Today, on the other hand, we will complement this political view with a purely legal view. Let’s go straight to the goal!

The text deposited on the banks of the parliament does not legally hold the way and the remarks you made in the committee do not help to clarify the situation.

In its opinion of 22 June 2016, the State Council highlighted all its weaknesses, in particular pointing out that it was a state aid that should have been notified in advance to the European Commission. The CREG added "a layer" of it in its 84-page opinion, drafted exceptionally at the request of parliament.

The Minister did not consider it necessary to consult the regulator. We must remember these elements in this long history. The minister considered that his project was so good that she should not consult the regulator. However, Parliament requested a supplementary written opinion from the CREG. From this point of view, I would like to thank the various parliamentarians of the majority who joined us in this request. I think this opinion was useful. It is the least thing to recognize it. Not everyone may share all of the CREG considerations, but the opinion has been helpful to illuminate the work. The minister wanted to by-pass the CREG.

That is to say if, with the opinion of the State Council, with the opinion of the CREG, with the comments of my colleagues, the minister was expected in a committee to clarify the legal, and not political situation, and answer the many questions of interpretation.

Unfortunately, there was no question of clarification. Worse, everyone who attended the parliamentary work came out of the commission on November 29 more confused than he entered so much the ministry’s remarks were confused, inconsistent and far from being able to respond to the legal objections of parliamentarians, the CREG and the State Council.

The report of the committee’s work – and I thank the rapporteurs and the rapporteurs – logically could not do better than be the reflection of this ministerial galimatias.

We bitterly regret that the Minister did not seize the penalty that we tended to her, Mr. Calvo and I, at the end of the committee, by proposing, given the state of confusion, that a table numbered year by year and reactor by reactor be provided to parliamentarians.

For any answer, and I refer here to the report, the minister has merely said that she does not perceive the added value of a written note that would be added to this debate. Everyone will judge, especially those who have participated in our parliamentary debates. I think and I maintain that a table, a written note would have been useful, probably more useful than the oral remarks that were held.

I am sorry that this picture was not presented, but the plenary session of today remains. And to help the minister take advantage of this last opportunity for clarification through the plenary session, I produced a document that highlights the six issues. I handed it over to the minister and I will fly them over here at the tribune. I produced a document that highlights the six most important unresolved legal problems at this stage of the work on the nuclear tax, whether it is its "distribution contribution" or its "redemption" section, both being strongly articulated to understand the situation.

I dare hope, Mrs. Minister, that you will not escape your responsibilities and that you will have the courage to answer point by point, in a precise and legally concrete manner, to each of the problems that I will now develop. As I said, to help you, I gave you a copy of the document. There is no surprise.

The problem number one. Are there six or seven power plants in 2015? There is an inconsistency, Mr. Wollants, between the explanation of the basis on which the 2015 distribution contribution is based. I am talking about 2015.

In commission, the minister gave two very different versions of the basis on which the distribution contribution of 2015 is based. You have your documents, Mr. Wollants. You have the report. The first version is on page 34, paragraph 3, of the report and I cite: "The amount of the specific allocation contribution for the year 2015 was fixed at 200 million, amount which was established on the basis of the CREG report of 12 March 2015, established from 2014 data".

According to this report, since we are working on data 2014, we are dealing with 7 power plants. The second element, still in the same version "7 power plants", on page 38, paragraph 2, of the report, the minister says: "In 2015, the contribution was fixed at 200 million euros and targeted the entire nuclear park completely amortised." This is version 1.

Furthermore, we have version 2. On page 43, paragraph 3, last sentence, the minister said: "The distribution contribution for the year 2015 was fixed for the entire nuclear park except made of Tihange 1". There are no longer seven power plants, but six.

What is the correct version? Between your two versions?

Go forward point by point. And you will answer each of the points!

There are two versions of the same report. The Minister gives two different versions in the same report between page 34 and page 43. These are not statements of members of the opposition, of Mrs. Lalieux, of the president, of Mr. Calvo, of Mr. de Lamotte or of myself. These are the words of the minister who says on one side white and on the other black. Mr Wollants, you know it. What is the correct version? The one on page 43 or the one on page 34?

First you will hear what the Minister is going to say. This changes a little!

Mr. Friart, this is fine, there was just a third version. The Friart version is on page 42, dear colleagues!

I wrote this story almost for memory. I will quote it anyway. Everyone has demanded it. Mr. Friart offers a third version even more original, because according to him in 2015, Tihange 1 entered into account for the calculation of the contribution but for the first nine months of operation of the year.

We have the version 1 of the minister who says these are the 7 complete power plants, the version 2 is just 6 power plants, we do not consider Tihange 1 at all and the version Friart, it is the Friart compromise: we refer to a period of 9 months.

What is the correct version? Do you maintain your version or not?

For the distribution contribution, effectively, but not as part of the calculation of the fee but for the distribution contribution since the distribution, it is always N – 1.

I am in favor of the distribution contribution.

That is all I will say. This is done in the year N – 1, so this is taken into account.

But do you consider it for nine months or completely?

for nine months.

So, you keep your version 3. Perfect, it is consistent with what is in the text! What do you choose, Mr. Minister? Shoot the fate? Version 1, version 2 or version 3?

This is the first problem. There are six. It will not be too long, but they are equally accurate and documented. Problem number two, N or N – 1? Incoherence in the reference year! Once again, I went to read the report. I would like to thank the rapporteurs but also the services, I would like to say, because we worked within very tight deadlines. Version 1 is on page 34, paragraph 3, of the report. You say: "The amount of the specific allocation contribution for this year was fixed at 200 million, amount which was established on the basis of the CREG report of 12 March 2015 established from data 2014". Here we are clearly in the N-1 version. Version 1, version N – 1.

You say more or less the same thing on page 32, paragraph 3, last sentence, I quote: "The amount of the contribution 2016 takes into account the time of the park availability in 2015." The problem is version 2 on page 36, paragraph 2 which states: "For 2015, it is the contributive capacity of the year 2015 that was taken into account to fix the contribution." We are in the year N and not in the year N-1. On page 35, paragraph 3, the same! The minister responded to Mrs Lalieux who asked the question that "the nuclear distribution contribution is an estimated surplus profit tax for the current year".

In this regard, we are well in the version N. Then, on page 35, paragraph 6, first sentence: "In conclusion, the distribution contribution, the tax year and the tax year coincide": version year N.

Is this the first version of your speech or is it the second version of your speech that we should remember? This is a very simple question. Following my reasoning, I will orient my questions according to your answer.

Mr. Speaker, I would not intervene if this was not expected, but it was in line with expectations. It is actually a re-release of what happened in the commission. Collega Nollet has an excess of right to ask Mrs Marghem point by point the questions that have not yet been answered today.

Collega Nollet has been so kind to put the written version of his intervention on Mrs. Marghem’s couch. He will overcome everything point by point and I think it would be good if the Minister also gave point by point answers and clarifications. Otherwise, we end up in a situation such as this that gave rise to questions to the State Council, with additional amendments. After months of travel, it is still not possible to make a decision in this file.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to moderate so that the Minister at least clarifies those points, precisely because the report causes a lot of confusion. Maybe you also want a copy, to follow with? This makes moderation a little easier. In my opinion, it is appropriate to tranch about the various problems. The minister already has a copy on his bank.

It is important to redefine the way we work. From the moment when everyone develops his intervention and when the minister says that she will respond globally, as it has always happened, I think, Mr. President, that you can allow yourself to advance the work as usual. The Minister will answer later.

Thus, Mr. Thiéry, that is our usual way of working. The Minister will answer later.

The [...]

Mr. Calvo, I would like to talk about a different way of working, I am actually asking party for that. This was shown at the Conference of Presidents this afternoon. However, we will not change our way of working and cours de route, in the middle of this debate.

I ask Mr Nollet to continue his speech.

Let us see in what situation we are. We received the opinion of the State Council this morning and we must react. We do this by submitting amendments. We would be perfectly able to request a meeting of the committee for a second reading. If you challenge us and it is not possible to organize the work properly, it is enough that a member requests a second reading in commission. This was not our purpose or intention.

On the other hand, since I develop a reasoning in the tree, based on the responses of the minister, I must choose this or that branch of this scheme. If she answers me, "We take the year N," my questions about the reasoning N-1 fall, and I continue my questions on the part N. On the other hand, if she replies to me, “No, I’ll answer later,” I have to develop both options – which is much longer.

Yes, I know, but it will be so.

Mr. Wollants, do you want to answer in the place of Mrs. Minister?

I will be brief.

If we are at this point in plenary, it is frankly not the responsibility of the opposition. The problem is that we are continually working in urgency while the State Council had given its opinion a long time ago, that amendments must be submitted urgently, that the report is contradictory and that it is about hundreds of millions of euros running until 2026.

Mr. Speaker, if we ask for explanations, it is obviously because we defend the general interest, but we well understood - and I am sorry, because it also works in this way in committee - that the minister did not want or could not answer. This is very bad for this matter and, above all, for the interests of the state.

Mr. Speaker, we will wait for the answer and I dare hope that, in the response, we will be able to react point by point.

Mrs. Minister, if your answer is the option N, then what in 2026 since there will be no more nuclear production if the text is not modified?

Do you follow the underreason, the tree?

If, on the contrary, it is the version N –1 that prevails, then I ask you to remove the words you have had on pages 36, paragraph 2; 35, paragraph 3; 35, paragraph 6. In the absence of a withdrawal, there will obviously be a difficulty of interpretation in court or even, subsequently, by actors other than EDF and Electrabel, which the CREG reminds us in its opinion: third actors may also consider that they have appeal here.

Is it then, for the generating fact of the distribution contribution, to take into account income or capacity? Here too, in the committee, other colleagues can emphasize this, the minister gave two very different versions of the generating fact. Mr. Friart did not give his version to him. Maybe we can question him. Finding a compromise could help.

But the minister gave two versions. Version 1 is on page 35, paragraph 3, first sentence. I invite you, Mr. Wollants, you who follow the works, to read this passage. The Minister responds that the nuclear distribution contribution tax the estimated surplus profit for the current year. If we follow this statement, then it is the income, the surplus profit that is the fact generating the tax.

Version 2 is a few lines further, in the last paragraph of page 35. However, as noted above in terms of the fact generating the distribution contribution, if in 2016 a debtor still has a share in the industrial production of electricity by fission of nuclear fuels, the latter must be subject to the distribution contribution.

This means that what matters here is no longer the income, the surplus profit, but it is the capacity of production, if one still has a part.

What is the correct version? The third paragraph or the last paragraph? What will those who will have to look at your text and read to give your intentions? Will they be able to choose themselves or will we have a clear answer? Is it about taxing by the fact generating income or capacity? Mr. Wollants has no more answers than Mrs. Minister.

If it is the version 1 - in the tree, version 3/1 -, if it is the version of revenue that is retained, then there is clearly a threat to the revenue of the state. As the CREG recalls in point 77 of its opinion of 28 November, since 2008, it was the capacity that was the generating fact of taxation. “As regards the fact generating the distribution contribution, it should be noted that the Constitutional Court has ruled that the contribution is due by persons who, at the date of publication of the contested law, held a share of the industrial production of electricity by fission of nuclear fuel.”

The CREG pointed out in this regard that “the commitments of operators of companies with a share-party to renounce pending appeals and to introduce new appeals against the distribution contribution are not capable of mitigating the importance of the deficiencies of consistency.” The CREG speaks of lack of consistency. I believe that with the words that have been made in the committee, this will not be settled. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that a third party may bring an action against the distribution contribution, for example on the basis of competition law or the constitutionality of the distribution contribution. It should also be recalled that, unlike previous years, the bill aims this time to introduce a distribution contribution for eleven consecutive years. The risk of recourse against the distribution contribution must therefore also be assessed in the light of these elements."This is in point 156, on page 65 of the CREG opinion.

Conclusion: if it is version 1 that is included in issue 3, several billion euros of public revenue are at stake.

If it is actually an income tax, the minister puts a huge risk on the defence of the state in the framework of the appeals brought, some of which are still pending. Let us make the calculation. It is not complicated. If we choose this option, we are talking about 2.7 billion for the period 2008 to 2015, to which is added at least 1.63 billion for the period 2016-2026. But we may be told that this is the other option that is chosen.

Beyond the elements I have communicated to you in writing, would you be willing to transmit to Parliament, within the framework of the transparency requested in this case, the precise commitments of Electrabel or rather of EDF? Would you be willing to send to Parliament a copy of the EDF’s written commitment to renounce their appeals?

The [...]

You sent a mail. I ask for a copy of the mail so that I can verify that conditions are not bound by it.

Is the document you submitted the official document? Do they put conditions in the official mail for the withdrawal of their appeals?

The [...]

I just ask you to take the time to read it again so that you can give us all the certainty about it when answering. And if this is not the case, could you give us the terms of the agreement for EDF to withdraw its appeals?

Waiting for your answer, I will move on to the fourth issue. This is the problem called, rightly, by my colleagues, the “white year.” This is the white year for the distribution contribution component.

As can be seen with the previous problem, the distribution contribution is either a income tax or a capacity tax. But in the end, regardless of the version chosen, one finds that there is a form of white year, in fact, a year not subject to, at least partially, in terms of distribution contribution.

The first option: if it is an income tax, the 2015 tax would be based on the 2014 income. However, the 2016 tax, as presented by the Minister in commission, concerns the 2016 income. As a result, there is a hole in the 2015 income.

A similar problem appears in the second option. If it is a nuclear capacity tax, the 2015 tax would be calculated on the 2014 production capacity and the 2016 tax would be calculated on the 2015 production capacity but the bill does not take into account Doel 1, Doel 2 and Tihange 1. Consequently, in this second option, for Doel 1, Doel 2 and Tihange 1, the 2015 period before extension is not covered by a distribution contribution.

In both options, there is a shortage to win for the state. The State Council confirms this by analyzing the amendments. I suppose you read it! He extends the speech by saying that there is actually a difficulty for the three power plants. They should also lead to an adjustment of the overall amount of the distribution contribution for 2016. This is point 3.1 of the State Council Opinion. We are therefore reinforced in the fact that there is this white year for the distribution contribution regardless of the answer you bring to the third problem.

Fifth problem: Wrong distribution key for the 2016 distribution contribution. The 130 million for the 2016 distribution contribution are, as attested by article 3 of the bill, distributed among debtors according to the 2015 key. For the years 2016 to 2026, I cite Article 3: "A distribution contribution shall be charged to the operators referred to in Article 2, 5° and the companies referred to in Article 24, § 1, without solidarity between them and in proportion to their quotas-shares in industrial production by fission of nuclear fuel and this, for the last calendar year passed."

But there is a parenthesis. Doel 3, Doel 4, Tihange 2 and Tihange 3. When the parenthesis is taken into account, the power plants of Tihange 1, Doel 1 and Doel 2 are not taken into account for the 2016 allocation. In 2015, these three power plants operated normally before entering their extension phase. It is therefore not legally correct to exclude Tihange 1, Doel 1 and Doel 2 for the months prior to the extension in the calculation of the 130 million distribution key from the 2016 distribution contribution.

This error creates a serious problem of imbalance between debtors. It is known that for EDF, it is 50% in Tihange 1, which is not the case in other power plants. Therefore, EDF does not contribute to the amount to which it should contribute. I think that’s related to the agreement they’ve made.

Remember, they were excluded from the negotiation. The Minister had forgotten that the EDF was also involved. She has only negotiated with Electrabel. At the 16th press conference, at the "bunker", the EDF bosses were not seen. In any case, I did not see them. Maybe they were in the basement, or even further away, or in the toilet at that time. There is a problem that they have to compensate for. The way we compensated is as follows: "We will not take them into consideration, we will take another distribution key." But legally, this does not hold the way, given the risk of recourse and the fact that everything is not yet settled in the matter.

It does not matter what or the reasons for this imbalance. I mentioned the gift in compensation for forgetting to associate them. Or the gift that is seen in the accounts, as Mr. Friart rightly recalled. These are gifts in compensation for the costs of buying too high shares. We have seen this in the EDF accounts. Or any other reason. Legally, we are here in front of a node. It is necessary to modify the bill and recalculate the distribution keys for the contribution 2016, to include part-time, Tihange 1, Doel 1 and Doel 2.

Sixth problem: the white year, no longer for the distribution contribution, but for the Doel 1 and Doel 2 fee. The opinion of the State Council and the opinion of the CREG raised a difficulty in interpreting the fee provided for in Article 4.2 of the law of 31 January 2003. This was discussed in the committee on the occasion of this project.

Article 4.2 stipulates that: "The owner of the Doel 1 and 2 nuclear power plants pays, from the year 2016, until 2025 inclusive, to the federal state, an annual fee in exchange for the extension of the duration of the permit for industrial production of electricity. The payment 2016, first payment, relates either to the operations under extension relating to 2016, or to the operations under extension relating to 2015.” This means, according to the State Council, from July 5 for Doel 1 and from December 1 for Doel 2.

In the text I gave you, Mrs. Minister, I still speak of February 15th, but the date of July 5th must be taken into account in option 2. I did not receive the final opinion from the State Council until this morning.

As the State Council states on page 11, “the fee constitutes a counterpart to the extension.” As soon as there is an extension, there must be a fee. Therefore, we are tempted to say that option 2 should be applied.

I would like to say this because the Minister does not respond.

However, the explanation of the reasons for the law of 22 June 2016 suggests that option 1 should be preferred. What is the right option?

In fact, whatever the option is chosen, there is a shortage to win for the state budget. In option 1, there is no fee for extended operation for the relevant months of 2015, starting July 5 for Doel 1 and December 1 for Doel 2.

In option 2, there is a problem in 2026 for the extended operating payment for 2025, as the law provides for payment only until 2025. No payments related to the extended operation for 2025 will be made.

In conclusion of this problem number 6, whether it is option 1 or option 2, there is a shortage to earn of 20 million euros for the state.

Here, Mrs. Minister, Mr. President, Dear colleagues, are the six problems identified in the form of a tree tree. These are purely legal issues and consistency between the ministry’s statements. I repeat, I’m not going to repeat the whole debate here on the gifts, on the extension itself. We have already expressed ourselves. But I dare hope that, when you come to the tribune here just recently, you will take time, point by point, to answer these elements. If not, I will interrupt you. I would rather say this already, Mr. Speaker, in order to have an answer to each of these points.

It is essential that you are not here just to defend the nuclear power, the gifts, the extension you grant, but that you also enlighten anyone who reads after the text about all these uncertainties. This is more than uncertainty. These are inconsistencies between two statements that you have held yourself in commission and which I recalled here around the six points that I identified. So I look forward to your response on each of the points and I will not fail to rebound in the framework of the debate that will take place.

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. A number of elements have already been discussed and I would like, as far as I am concerned, to address directly the opinion of the State Council following the amendments that were deposited here a few days now, in particular the amendment no. 24, which validates again – I am sorry to tell you, Mr. Friart – the fact that Saint Nicholas has done well offering a gift worth several tens of millions of euros to nuclear operators.

Now we are certain, and I hope that most colleagues are, that there is a white year for Doel 1, Doel 2 and Tihange 1. Yes, dear colleagues of the majority, the government that we have to control – this is our role – proposes us to vote, tomorrow, a bill that makes a gift worth several tens of millions of euros to Electrabel.

And this government that decided to increase the VAT on electricity, because it created, according to him, a budgetary problem decides to offer millions of euros to Electrabel as well.

That is the reality!

As regards this gift to Electrabel, it must be acknowledged that the Minister surpassed herself in commission to try to hide it and that her demonstration was fantasy, when she dared to claim that the calculation of the distribution contribution relates to the year in which it is perceived and not to the year N – 1 and that she added that the distribution of that axis between Electrabel and EDF is however made on the basis of the installed capacities in the year N – 1.

You made a beautiful compound! You took pears, figures from the year N for the calculation of the contribution, and you took apples for the distribution between EDF and Electrabel. According to you, we do not take the figures of production corresponding to year n but to year N-1. You have tried to make us swallow this indigest compot and I hope you will hold a different position today because this dish did not like either the majority or the opposition.

It also did not please the State Council who, in his opinion on amendment 24 that I submitted, mentions the following: "According to the bill, this tax is calculated on the basis of nuclear production during the year N-1, so that for 2016, it is therefore calculated in principle on the basis of production in 2015". The State Council, speaking in this way, confirms that the fantasy version of the Minister of Energy, according to which the tax voted in 2016 concerned the nuclear production of 2016 and not that of 2015, does not stand the way. This version is therefore well overlooked by the Council of State. Mr. Wollants, you have clearly stated this.

Let’s go back to the time hole of several million euros! The State Council, in its first opinion, mentions that "it is necessary to establish in this case that for 2016 an ad hoc distribution contribution that is due by the operators and some companies is established, but that three nuclear power plants are not subject to it.

However, these power plants are in a comparable situation in that they are also responsible for the commercial activity of industrial production of electricity by fission of nuclear fuels. The application of the formulas claimed to be the basis for the fixation of the amount would result in a significantly higher amount if these power plants were actually taken into account.

From this perspective, the difference constitutes, therefore, an advantage granted by means of state resources to the undertakings concerned.” I refer to the State Council.

In its notice that we officially receive this morning, the State Council adds: “The CREG stresses that this extension for each of these power plants took place only in the course of 2015, so that the fee to be paid can only concern that part of the year 2015 on which the extension relates. Nothing justifies, therefore, not to take into account, for the calculation of the contribution of distribution of industrial electricity production by the Doel 1, Doel 2 and Tihange 1 power plants, which occurred before the extension takes place.

The State Council added that the extension to the three reactors Doel 1, Doel 2 and Tihange 1 should lead to an adjustment of the total amount of the distribution contribution for 2016.

This time hole, the opposition denounces it! He denounces it, but does not invent anything. It is based on the opinion of the Energy Regulator and the State Council, simply. Honestly, I think you have no choice but to acknowledge and assume that you have signed a contract with Electrabel that is detrimental to the interests of the Belgian State.

You are actually trying to justify an amount of 130 million which is in no way the result of a wise calculation but rather of an agreement with Electrabel. Moreover, like the State Council, we ask you today to give us a credible demonstration of your calculation of the 130 million. We tried in the commission to know this amount. How it was created, we do not know!

We did not have a response. The additional arguments presented today by the State Council and in the written opinion of the CREG, which we heard on 29 November, are quite accurate. Make us this credible demonstration of your calculation of those 130 million!

Do not come and tell us, as in the commission, that it is the figures drawn from the 2014 CREG report that served as the basis for calculation! And to these figures that calculate the theoretical operating margin of the power plants, you applied the power plants unavailability rate for the year 2015 because, listen carefully, first of all, the figures of the 2014 CREG already contained an unavailability rate that you do not remove before adding your own unavailability rate for the year 2015. So you add two unavailability rates! To this regime, this is a real gift! We knew that your government had difficulty calculating, here is another good proof! In fact, there are additions, in fact.

Secondly, your unavailability rate for 2015 is not correct and should be much lower given that you exclude from the calculation of this rate, three reactors that have turned, a brilliant calculation, indeed, which makes the happiness of nuclear operators. The White Year is there!

Therefore, Mrs. Minister, while the hole for the year 2016 is confirmed by both the CREG and the State Council, you must tell the citizens of that country now how much is the shortage to earn for the budget of the Belgian State for the year 2016. Is it ten, twenty, thirty or forty million euros? This can even be beyond.

Today, I expect you to provide the actual figures. Citizens have the right to know them and we ask for a bit of honesty and transparency.

As regards the fact of not taking into account, in particular, Tihange 1, in this year’s contribution – I wanted to support Mr. Nollet’s arguments – would it not be a gift to EDF, which holds 50% of Tihange 1? We can ask the question. And, by this fact, an attempt to ensure that the operator who has not signed the Doel 1 and 2 conventions will refrain from any recourse with respect to this nuclear tax. Without doing anything, EDF received compensation.

Regarding the method, there is a lot to say. You have not associated the regulator with the drafting of the bill. Naturally that you did not, since the bill was written by Electrabel. But it is quite abnormal if the government and the Minister of Energy did their job correctly. Furthermore, the information revealed during the CREG hearing was frightening. It turns out that the government had deposited on our banks a bill that did not guarantee that the Belgian state was able to collect the nuclear rent. The CREG demonstrated this through the hearing and the amendments it suggested.

Dear colleagues, what is going on? This government negotiates the nuclear tax with the taxpayer. It is the only one in Belgium. And since the taxpayer is not stupid, he even makes sure that he does not have a legally concrete text. We can understand this from Electrabel, but the attitude of the minister is inexcusable.

How many mistakes are made in this nuclear issue! Mistakes that put in danger hundreds of millions of euros while the state budget is in a bad position, we saw it long yesterday.

The CREG was therefore aware of this bill, which costs several hundred million euros, while it was already on the banks of the parliament. Remember: we heard the CREG tell us that it had discovered it while it was already filed. The regulator is a body of the Parliament. Fortunately, we did our job by demanding an audition from the CREG, which made our majority colleagues uncomfortable. They had to submit amendments to this bill in order to guarantee a minimum of legal certainty. I think in particular of the scheduled deadlines that did not hold the way when it came to form certain findings or to make decisions. However, I recall that the majority rejected some of the amendments proposed by the CREG. We should not look too far to know the reason: these amendments were clearly contrary to Electrabel’s financial interests. As the federal government is feet and fists tied to the operator regarding this nuclear tax made in Electrabel, the majority has not moved a iota. In fact, remember, the document we received was paraphed with the Engie-Electrabel convention.

It is therefore a sad picture that this government gives us subject to the financial interests of a private company rather than the general interest. It must be said that the budget situation of the executive is so catastrophic that you are no longer a few tens of millions more or less.

Isn’t it worth defending the general interest? Do you find that good governance inspires your way of acting?

We can conclude that we are witnessing a historic day, since we vote for a tax negotiated with the taxpayer concerned, and whose text was paraphed by the boss of Engie, Gérard Mestrallet, and that of Electrabel, Philippe Van Troeye.

We are indeed in what is called “the fiction of the legislator” since the law has not been realized here, but elsewhere, in an office. I have only to recite the State Council today on page 11 of its opinions. It says this: "As the State Council (Legislative Section) has observed before, the normative function cannot be exercised through agreements concluded with the companies concerned and the legislator is not bound by this convention." Here, obviously, the majority is bound by this convention and we are moving forward in that direction.

This nuclear tax is a pure product of the Michel-Electrabel government that, for two years, has been trying to make us swallow its salads in terms of energy policy. We can only reject this way of being imposed by one of our taxpayers the amount of the tax he will pay, while the nuclear tax required by previous governments amounted to 550 million euros, validated three times by the Constitutional Court. You are now going, by approving this bill, ladies and gentlemen of the majority, to change the legal paradigm.

We will therefore vote against this bill, but we still expect clear, precise and above all credible answers from the minister. The questions that have been asked deserve answers and I expect at least consideration in these answers.

The Minister insists. Like the State Council, we want a credible demonstration of the calculation of this tax for 2016 and we also expect you to finally give the time hole figures in this tax, given the non-taxation of Doel 1 and 2 and Tihange 1 in 2015. We actually expect the majority to fill this time hole before voting this bill.

Finally, I would like to return to a speech by Mr. Friart just recently, when he spoke of the risks of black-out or delestation by shouting to the wolf. Mr. Friart, at the beginning of your speech, I didn’t cut you off, but how many times did this happen? Zero of times. If you had the right readings – I know that this is the case but you didn’t read them at the right time – the Minister of Energy said in November 2016, it’s not far, on BX1: “In the case of cold, we may have to activate the displacement plan” and, since then, she has again mentioned, in the newspaper Le Soir in July 2016, the possibility of a new shortage of energy.

Madam the Minister, ladies and gentlemen of the Government and dear colleagues of the majority, beyond this project, I truly call for work on the energy transition. We have requested it. Projects are on the table. We have submitted texts. It is in this context that we need to work. We lost two years.

We will suspend the session for three minutes for technical reasons.

I would like to return to what Mr. De Lamotte said about the black-out. The risks were extremely present. The press ⁇ enough about it in 2013. He talked about it again in 2014. There may not have been a black-out, but we really passed very close. It should be noted that since Ms. Marghem has been a minister, there has never been a question of black-out, neither in reality nor in the press.

On the other hand, in order to put some things flat at the level of the debate we have had, I would like to quote Professor Ernst, who passed a few weeks ago to the RTBF. In my opinion, he is a very objective person. He is a scientist. He has a different view of the problem than what was said here by the opposition. I would like to quote some of his terms, because they are worth holding.

He believes that "the minister has rather well negotiated with Electrabel the nuclear tax. There is a fixed part of 150 million (this is after degressivity) on the units of Tihange 2 and 3, Doel 3 and 4. The producer must pay at least this amount, or 38% of the profits. The important thing is that this was negotiated at a time when the price of electricity was higher than it is now. This equals to capturing more than 60% of Electrabel’s profit this year. There is therefore no gift to Electrabel," he explained, questioned by RTBF.

He also added, about Electrabel, “I have the impression that they will no longer make any profits for ten years with their nuclear fleet.” He concluded by saying that “he finds indecent this legend of the government on his knees before Electrabel who fills his pockets and steals the state. It doesn’t hold the road.” I wanted to signal it.

Mr. President, I hear Mr. Friart’s remarks on the risk of black-out.

I referred to the statements of the Minister in November and July. She didn’t say what you said, Mr. Freeman. He noted the risk of depression during this period. I wanted to remind him. You don’t have good readings or your readings are incomplete.

As far as the scientists are concerned, we will see what happens. As far as I am concerned, I can tell you that the nuclear contribution, at the time that preceded that of Ms Marghem, was a package that went back to the state treasuries.

At the level of dismantling, some measures can actually always be taken by the minister, which is a good thing. But I insist on the fact that there is no longer a question of black-out, which was not the case three years ago.

The [...]

We were very lucky!

That said, the words of Professor Ernst must be taken with much more intelligence, much more accuracy. In any case, they are significantly more interesting than some of the words held by the opposition today, which were sometimes at the back of the puppets.

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. Because I have the impression that it is a super unelected legislator who approved this text.

In the end, all of us, miserable little elected parliamentarians, must we still push the button? We, who obviously have no power over our super colleague Gérard Mestrallet who paraphed the text long before us. Does this still make sense? I am asking the question in a general way, not just about this project.

When we see that the Extended Criminal Transaction Act was drafted by the lawyers of Mr. Chodiev, a member of your party, when we see that the Notional Interest Act was drafted by the FEB Tax Commission, and when we find that the Law on Excess Profit Rulings was drafted by PwC, one of the Big Four...

Mr. Van Hees, I would have interrupted you if you were on the tribune, but you are not there.

Can you ask the speaker to remain in the debate? For now, I hear everything and anything except the topic of the debate.

Do you assure me that speech is free?

and yes. But not completely. Go ahead, Mr Van Hees!

I take good note of this.

Indeed, I am out of the framework of the discussion because this project, in particular, interpells me at the level of how it was written and decided. I am linking with other projects that followed the same path. I was against the Patent Revenue Deductions Act that was drafted by the lawyers of the multinational pharmaceutical company GSK.

We can still talk about the Carat Tax Act that was drafted by the diamond sector as well as the future law that may reform the ISOC next year whose first mould was drafted by a tax office. We learned this by seeing the properties of the Word document that contained it. And finally, the present law that we have to discuss and that we will have to vote tomorrow, which was drafted by Engie-Electrabel.

Should we still vote if the head of the minister has already adopted it and paraphed it? I ask myself the question.

If the minister feels compelled to repeat over the length of interviews that she is not sold to Electrabel, it may be that her policy, given the composition of her cabinet at a certain time, question and legitimately push us to think the opposite.

Here are the consequences of this policy. The finding is simple, Electrabel will never have paid as little as this year, since the nuclear tax exists. They paid only 200 million in 2015 and will only pay 160 million in 2016, thanks to an advantageous, but very controversial and controversial calculation, which puts extended reactors out of play.

The price of electricity has never been so low. At the time, it was 80 euros per megawatt and now it is at 35.

I don’t know if you know about it in trade, but imagine a trader who should sell all year round in balance. After six months, he put the key under the straw. The same goes for Electrabel. From the moment when its turnover decreases by half, given that the price of electricity decreases by half, it can no longer contribute in the same way as before. It is just a matter of common sense.

First, I think the tax that is imposed on Electrabel is much lower than its profits. I am not able to explain how the 38% was fixed.

Secondly, when Electrabel fails to run its old and dangerous power plants, it is rewarded by the non-payment of the tax.

Finally, this bill that the majority is about to vote for represents once again a "Electrabel gift". It may be a coincidence if it is voted at the same time as the budget and three days before the passing of Santa!

With this budget, everyone will have to tighten their belts except, once again, this multinational which is known to have among its shareholders people like Albert Frère or the Boël family and liberals in the board of directors.

I hope this is a coincidence.

There are no more speakers registered. The government has the word.

I would like to thank you, as usual, for your very nutritious interventions. I will also begin as I am used to with the first intervention, especially since with the dose of humor that we know him, Mr. Bert Wollants explained to all the colleagues that he was going to project in his speech the way the law works, in order to answer all the questions that would be asked by one and another, as they have already been in a commission. This has already been discussed extensively and extensively in the Commission. The plus-value, the novelty, is obviously the State Council’s response to the amendments submitted by the opposition in the plenary session a few days ago.

Mr. Wollants reminds us of the basics. Honestly, we should at least – and I say it to all the speakers – recall, whenever it comes to tax matters, – I know at least one here who knows this kind of matters very well, Mr. Van Hees – the fundamentals of a tax. Who is the taxpayer? What is the plate chosen to collect the tax and how much? How is it formed?

Who is the taxpayer? These are the companies that hold a share in electricity production in this country. What is the plate? It is precisely this quota-part, or, in any case, this capacity to produce electricity, which is assessed according to the constitutional agreement – and there, I feel that it will be a bit problematic but I will say it like this in the light of everything we have said – which is assessed over time, that is, it is assessed in multi N. We will try to speak the same language.

Contributive capacity measured over time is precisely what the companies concerned are able to generate as surplus profit through production and over time.

This contributing capacity over time is assessed in relation to all the years during which nuclear power plants have had, by a position of de facto monopoly, a rent created by the scarcity of the product they put on the market and have been able to generate a surplus profit that must be taxed. As I know, we started taxing it only in 2008 when these power plants had been amortized for a little longer. They were already amortized in the 20 years that followed their industrial service: in 1995 for Doel 1 and Doel 2; in 2015 for those that came to add to the nuclear park. This means that, already for a long time, this surplus profit could have been taxed, which was only done from 2008.

Naturally, as we looked at the contributive capacity over time, we were able to carry on at that time, especially since the prices of electricity were very high, taxing up to 250 million in 2008 on the basis of an agreement made at that time with nuclear operators knowing that at that time, the contributive capacity or in any case the surplus profit of the power plants had been estimated at 750 million. Thus it is 30% of those 750 million that began to be taxed by the distribution contribution, at the time only basic, from 2008.

In 2011 - 2012, a supplementary allocation contribution of 350 million was added, modulated according to the availability of the power plants. This also allowed the other operator (who is not a nuclear operator in the sense of producer but rather in the sense of holding shares in the company Electrabel, namely EDF) to be applied a degressivity that was applied to its profits because the costs it retains (and the way to assess its profit or surplus profit) from the operation by Electrabel of the power plants in which it holds shares are charged to it on a flat basis and are proportionally higher for that operator in relation to the shares it has available only to the operator Electrabel.

This wish was heard as part of the current configuration since, at their request, given the low price of electricity, we introduced a greater degressivity for operators, taking into account the fact that EDF requested that this degressivity be greater in its head. But we also wanted to maintain equity between taxpayers, which is why the degressivity is applied to both operators.

That being said, I return to the discussion on N and N-1. I would like to come back to these considerations, but I don’t know if they fundamentally help us. You show it by doing semantic cutting. Not that I consider you cut phrases, cut pieces, given phrases that I didn’t say, but out of their overall context, they don’t realize the real problem we’re facing. We have taxpayers, we have a taxable plate, we have an amount. How is the amount fixed? The amount is generated by holding shares in industrial electricity production. There is not only the share in question, but there is the fact of holding it as a taxpayer. The tax is calculated for the year in which it must be paid. To say how much the tax will be raised to claim in order to capture the surplus profit, we rely on several indicators. I can even read passages where I say it.

I would like to answer the 38% question. This is beyond the intermediate years 2015-2016 that are packaged. This is the formula for the percentage of the margin of income minus cost. If this percentage is higher than the minimum amount, it is taken. Why 38 percent? It is all the hearing of Mr. Colmant that explained to us, as we did in the past with the 30% of 750 million in 2008, that the rent of rarity, the nuclear rent, in this case the nuclear surplus profit, is taxed around 30% in the economic doctrine for monopolistic operators.

So, you know well that with the degressivity, those 38% become 32%. With this amount, we turn around what is usually done in these subjects. There is a clear explanation. It is derived from the scientific economic doctrine, which was communicated, during its hearing, by Mr. Colmant, who has also been heard several times.

I return to the amounts. The question of course concerns the fixed amounts. The amounts linked to a formula are quite clear amounts, obviously, since they are linked to the price of electricity, of which everyone agrees that it has decreased. You had submitted, remember, an amendment aimed at fixing the distribution contribution for 2015 to 280 million instead of 200, in 2015. Implicitly, it showed that you had admitted the idea that electricity prices were lower, not because you were forced to do so, but because it was a reality. Therefore, we could no longer afford to tax the surplus profit at the level we did in the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

How do we look? Several indicators are used. First, the 30 percent, the proportionality index, more or less. Second, what worked or didn’t work in the previous year’s nuclear park? What is the reality? Thirdly, what is the proportionality index that will be chosen to fix it, compared to the CREG calculation? You remember that the starting point was the 2015 CREG report, which looked at the 2014 nuclear production and which updated the set of data that it continues to study, in order to report what the nuclear benefit is.

In this case, the CREG does not speak of surplus profit, but of the whole profit. She makes a calculation by looking back. “They produced so much, and now their profit margin, or at least their overall profit, amounts to 434 million.”

That is why you see appearing, in the statement of reasons, both in 2015 and in 2016, the gross amount of the contribution as fixed, and the starting point, on the basis of these proportionality indices, in 2015 and 2016. This is 297 million gross in 2015 and 247 million gross in 2016.

This is the contribution of nuclear distribution.

For Doel 1, Doel 2, Tihange 1, there are specific mechanisms. It is not a matter of tax. This is something quite special. As you know, we have had discussions with the State Council, from the beginning, from Tihange 1 on the qualification of royalties. In fact, it is specifically intended to take into account the extension of these power plants which, in order to be extended, must allow for very high youth investments which must be taken into account.

When Mr. Colmant came to present his report, he made comparisons with the results of the mechanisms for Tihange 1, Doel 1, Doel 2 and the distribution contribution. He told us that all this was more or less in the same range, taking into account the youth investment that is being made. It was then that some of you intervened to say that the variable formula of Tihange 1 does not pose a problem since it takes into account investments. The question was the same for both.

The amounts of investments for Doel 1 and Doel 2 are fixed in the agreement. But, in reality, the amount of investments for Tihange 1 was listed in the Annexes to the Convention. You know it very well. It is slightly lower than that for Doel 1 and Doel 2 which are twins and that, by definition, there are two.

The problem remains the same. It is not because youth investments reach a certain amount that the mechanism changes in nature, that the problems are different. Why such amounts? Why are they not less important? Hasn’t the cost been counted twice? These are specific mechanisms.

For Tihange 1, we chose a variable formula without floor. And for Doel 1 and Doel 2, given the low ratio of the Tihange 1 fee, a package was preferred.

Let me continue.

This fee is worth year by year. While the formula for Tihange 1 was specifically configured by looking at the production of the year N-1.

I sent you a picture.

I want to tell you, Madame.

I didn’t just send it to Mr. Nollet. I want to send it to everyone. But, during our committee work, Mr. Nollet suggested – I repeat his terms – that I submit a painting, just before the plenary session. What I did.

So I sent him just before the first intervention. But this picture can of course be sent to everyone.

It shows income for the state from 2015 to 2026. You see the specificity of the Doel 1 and Doel 2 fee, which is paid for the first time in 2016, as Tihange 1. Both are paid in 2016. It is at the time they are paid that they are de facto excluded from the distribution contribution. This is what I wanted to tell you.

Imagine that the farmers do not pay the fee. This can happen. What do we do? Imagine a trial. We can always make trials. It is not a problem to make trials. However, we need to be able to react. I think we should apply to them, at that time, the distribution contribution, as to everyone. And since the fee exempts them from the distribution contribution, the fact of not paying it does not put them in the situation of being exempt. This is subject to possible procedures.

In 2016, the first payment is made for Doel 1, Doel 2, while the start of the extension dates from ... Mrs. Lalieux, specifically, according to the State Council that does not like (...) it is true and I am happy to acknowledge it, which says, for me Doel 1 is not extended before July 6, 2015.

The [...]

On some points, the CREG and the Council of State are of the same opinion. On others, they are not of the same opinion. I will not begin to go into the details. I will not begin to criticize the positions of the State Council and the CREG between them.

The fee for Doel 1 and Doel 2 is paid in 2016. The fee for Tihange 1 is paid in 2016. On the table, you can see that for Doel 1 and Doel 2, this will generate 20 million by 2025, while the fee for Tihange 1 is foreseen until 2026. The formulas of the variable distribution contribution obviously vary according to the evolution of the price of electricity. Why in 2026? Because even if we got out of nuclear power in 2026, and there is no more electricity produced by nuclear power, there will still be taxpayers holding shares in industrial electricity production.

From day to day – this is what the State Council did not like – one does not push a button, one does not close the door by saying “there is no more power plant.” There are still power plants, but simply – I’ve always said it – they can no longer inject electricity into the circuit.

So you have here a very objective picture of what is paid, hoped, with possible means of coercion, in the state treasures until 2025-2026.

This picture should be made

It is being distributed.

As we are going to talk a lot about it, can we attach it as an annex to the report that will be made of the session? That is all I want to ask.

I don’t know if we’re going to talk a lot about this picture because I know you from the heart and you’ll consider once again that it’s a new element. Do not be annoyed! This table only summarizes the expected yield of this set; that is, from 2015 to 2026, the distribution contribution and, from 2016 to 2025-2026, the extended power plant fees. Here is where we are.

With regard to the question asked by Mrs. Lalieux about degressivity, we have decided to take a package – besides, the State Council and the CREG say it is possible for an executive to make political choices. I remind you that in the agreement concluded in July 2015, you have seen appear alongside the 2015-2016 distribution contributions, the result of what mathematically returns to the State on the basis of the 2006 law on unused sites.

To these 200 million in 2015 were added, according to the government’s budget choice, those 100 million. In 2016, 20 million were added to 130 million. You should know that Electrabel paid at once in 2015 the 120 million on the Deposit and Consignation Fund. I will repeat what was said by Mr. Benoît Friart, because I think not everyone was there. When, having three minutes, we went for a sandwich, Mr. Friart noted that, during a radio show, Professor Ernst repeated that he considered that these nuclear power plants would no longer bring large profits to the operators and that what had been captured was really at the limit of the confiscation.

So let’s close them!

Mr. Nollet, it does not depend on me.

If the reasoning is correct and the tax is confiscatory, the teams are not obliged to extend. Do you think for a moment that if Electrabel ever realized that it was running the power plants in pure loss, would it continue? They are not crazy! This is not mercantilism.

First, you lend me things that I didn’t keep. I mentioned someone else.

The [...]

Mr. De Lamotte, you do not have the word.

He did not say it was confiscation. Otherwise, a well-born, normal operator would stop these nuclear power plants.

We are fully agreed.

He explained that it was at the confiscatory limit, because the costs represent 30, the tax 4 and electricity is sold between 35 and 45. I remember that, in La Meuse, ⁇ well-known newspaper in Liège, he stated that I had bled them white! This is probably excessive. Otherwise, Mr. Nollet, when you are bleeding white, you no longer live!

But we really tried to calculate this as tightly as possible. We have taken into account – and we have never talked about it, since I have never heard you address these questions – as best as possible the fluctuations of electricity, ⁇ in a period when the perception that one may have of it is becoming more and more distant.

There is the buffer technique that is found in the annexes with an illustrative example and another element that has never been addressed, and yet fundamental, which emerges from the whole of this text, namely the limitation in the formula of the impact in the charges of nuclear provisions.

This means that nuclear supplies, which are the next topic that we will ⁇ investigate in the coming months, are being updated regularly.

Recently, the Nuclear Provision Commission revised the update rate. And, therefore, necessarily according to the calculations that I have seen appear and that I have not yet screened, there would be money to give back to the right to adequately provision for dismantling in 2025 especially given the extension of some power plants.

The impact of provisions has been calibrated so as not to exaggerate the formula unconsciously and empty it of its meaning, of its ability to produce a distribution contribution.

Surprisingly, I have never heard of this in commission. It is not serious. We can talk about it. But this shows though that the concern of the government, contrary to what is said, has always been, and ⁇ here, to capture as much as possible in a completely legal way without being confiscatory the current surplus profit as assessed over several years knowing that the price of electricity has dropped sharply and that some power plants no longer contribute to the distribution contribution since they are prolonged and that they are in a separate regime.

I’ve heard that we should have closed Doel 1 and Doel 2. This is an opinion that I have often heard. However, we are not convinced at all. We have two elements.

We saw, first, yet recently, in November, tensions on the wholesale electricity markets where electricity prices in our country were 6 to 7 times higher than those practiced in the Netherlands and Germany. So this did not allow us to buy electricity that became rare and sold at a very high price and to be adequate to our needs between 17:00 and 20:00.

That is why the government considered it appropriate, this avoiding us from a very significant tension in terms of adequacy, that we have extended Doel 1 and Doel 2.

The second reason why this extension is good (the royal decree will come when this set is completed, in January) is that the fee generates means for the energy transition.

Doel 1 and Doel 2 are closed. But I need it and other colleagues explained how important it was that we had a minimum of energy independence and why, by doing so, we managed to avoid downtime and other discomfort when everywhere in the press in 2014, there was only that.

In addition, there is a key-key sum that we can use as part of the energy transition for innovative electricity production and storage, which is very necessary for this energy transition.

The clues that you talked about, Mrs. Lalieux, are used and the CREG would have wanted to take back what it had recommended in its reflection on the cost and revenue verification of Tihange 1. At that time, when we drafted this bill, we held the same index as Roland Berger ultimately held, i.e. 0,0095. It is not the same as the CREG. This means, though, that there are several opinions and that the CREG having issued its own, others have also done so, which have justified the state’s point of view.

It is not a coincidence. This is part of reflexes used by people who know the same techniques and determine the index to be applied in certain cases.

I believe that all this can really be explained serenely and that what matters, in the end, is what will go back into the state’s cash. Ms. Lalieux has insisted on this. Certainly, the revenues were much larger before, but the prices of electricity were so high that with the accumulation of surplus profits for years, since the amortization of the power plants, the nuclear surplus profits had accumulated and was appropriately captured by these basic and complementary distribution contributions, just at the limit – the Constitutional Court recalled it well – of the confiscatory. So it was necessary to change. This is what we did by trying to take a formula that is closest to reality.

You also talked about the investigative power of the CREG. We had a discussion on this in the committee. We will never agree, this seems to me very clear. The Government considers that the weight of the CREG is very important, since it can establish authority, as would a contribution controller who would not receive the documents justifying the professional charges that are invoked, according to its expertise, according to the different work it has performed with nuclear operators for so many years, as well as costs and revenues within the framework of the mission entrusted to it.

There is no fear in our opinion. It is not the investigative powers, which are probably somewhat excessive compared to the usual work of the CREG, which will be as effective as what it can already do now, namely fixing authority. Trust me, we are already on the verge of confiscation and we must find to reorganize in the company and to focus more and more in the context of the energy transition! It is clear that they will ⁇ not play with fire and will be imposed on cost and income standards that would not conform to reality and will ⁇ collaborate properly with the CREG.

It is not the investigative powers, once again, when everything goes well and everything can go well with a minimum of pressure, which necessarily give relevant elements of knowledge of the file for the work that is entrusted to the CREG.

You said that I had not been so watchful when I had again raised VAT on electricity. This represents a large additional package, or 15%, for all invoices. I have already recognized it.

However, remember that this was a one-shot provisional measure for two years. The provisional can become definitive. But that was not the choice of this government. However, this issue will need to be addressed. Indeed, electro-intensive companies demand an energy standard, and they are faced with high electricity consumption and also with less competitiveness compared to other countries around us. The VAT is obviously negligible for them, since they defalct it.

I think we need to make an effort on ourselves, as I told my regional colleagues. This must be done together, it is not the federal alone. You are right, it is competent for VAT, but for the rest, other taxes add to commodity and come from other levels of power. We must work together to find a solution for the residential consumer.

In this regard, I would like to tell you, to complete your information, that the four Energy Ministers of this country will meet on 30 January to present each other. Not only will we present our wishes, but we will also present our ways of seeing collaboration for the development of a vision and an energy pact. This is about the energy transition, as Ms. Lalieux has also spoken about it!

I pass the intervention of Mr. Friart, who made the best intervention.

I think for now in this first set, Mr. President, I have already answered all the questions that have been asked.

Thank you, Madam the Minister. I think some people will want to respond.

Thank you, Mrs. Minister, for your explanations. So we have a new concept, Mr. Friart, which you can put into one of your interventions: the multi N. It was already estimated that the explanation was not very clear, now, we no longer tax a year but several years! It seems to me delusional but it may be 7 pm, we all worked a lot. Per ⁇ it is that? What is catastrophic is that it will not enlighten people who will have to read and understand the law because now, Mr. Lachaert, we have a multi N. I don’t know if you know what it is, otherwise you can always explain it to me.

I will obviously not agree with your explanation of the multi N or with your explanation that repeats us continually that there is no exemption for power plants that have changed regime. By the way, if you read first the convention in its article 2 on Doel 1 and Doel 2, Mrs. Minister, it does not cover the whole year 2016. It only covers the year 2016 from 6 July, the date we all signed.

I think that a profit is taxed based on an accounting year, i.e. N – 1. Moreover, CREG has always made its calculations on the basis of N – 1. She did it to you in 2014 for 2015 and in 2015 for 2016.

The multi N does not hide the exemption. It seems to me that you have not been able to explain to us that there was no tax exemption and tens of millions of euros of gifts to Electrabel, and even less through your agreement that starts only from July 6th.

I am still confused about the year 2026! If you are in year N and the power plants stop in 2025, they will no longer produce electricity in 2026.

Mr. Wollants, will they still produce electricity in 2026 if they are stopped in 2025?

No to No!

For once, I agree with you, Mr. Wollants.

But then, since they no longer produce electricity in year N, why are there suns in year 2026 on the table (unless we are in year N – 1). Mr. Clarinval smiled gently to me.

They keep turning a little. These are electricity production subjects! It’s a bit extra, Mr. Lachaert said to me.

I laugh because we have had so many debates without answer or clarity that, as a result, I am convinced, and even more after the explanations received, the small table as well as the revision of the convention, that this bill (like the two previous and the next, we will return to it) makes beautiful gifts to a multinational, which is in a situation of monopoly, which does not take into account the general interest and that of consumers but rather the particular interest since you are feet and fists tied.

I come to 38 percent. I answer you all because you have answered all my questions without convincing me, Mrs. Minister. Last year it was 46%. You never said that 46% were unimaginable, disproportionate, vicious.

Economic doctrine, what does it mean? While we have a regulator who calculates and accesses all documents, who agrees with 46%. The doctrine of which country? We don’t even know what the reality of those 38 percent is. As for the cost from which these 38 percent are calculated, you have never demonstrated it.

You talked about Professor Ernst. You follow him while he does not have access to all the numbers of Electrabel and EDF but you do not follow the regulator that has access to him. I do not understand. We pay a regulator, but I have well understood that if it serves much to parliament, it serves very little to make laws and even less to recover the debt of the state from ⁇ virtually monopoly.

You are talking about the problem that would have been the closure of Doel 1 and Doel 2 if we had kept the trajectory of the previous government. The problem we had in November was the power plants. They are chaotic for the moment: they close, we don’t know when they reopen, they announce it but don’t know how to do it, there are security issues. The problem with the security of supply, today, is nuclear power plants, and that is not the rest.

The rest, you put it to zero because by extending nuclear power plants, you give a very negative signal to those who would like to invest in other energy sources.

And then, as for your transition, and this is a strong call by Mrs. Dierick and Mr. Lachaert – even when it comes to current issues – the 40 million are placed on a La Poste account. It is still comic! You have forgotten to set up a fund. Until it has been put in place, we will not be able to use these sums or select projects. We are wasting time, as you have already wasted two years.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, we know why this bill was paraphed and signed by Mr. Mestrallet. Who are the big winners of the three bills that the majority voted for? These are, of course, Electrabel and Engie. I think this is unfortunate for the energy future of our country.

It is absolutely clear that this is not an easy matter.

When I see what is said here and again and read what is sent around, among other things, through Twitter; I can not help but conclude that there is very little understanding of how something has been bound together in recent years.

It all actually started in 2008, when several systems were run through each other to create a working system.

There are three slopes and possibly a fourth track forward, between which one should be chosen. But none of them corresponds to what is happening in practice. Therefore, it may be good for everyone to read all the texts thoroughly.

After that, I heard Mr. Nollet ask whether it is now an income tax. I advise him to read the judgment of the Constitutional Court. It says literally: “without taking into account the income or profits generated by production in the calculation of the tax.” That is a clear answer. I have said this before, so this is not new.

My comment will be very brief.

What I said in the tribune, these are statements that the Minister held in committee. I only cited it. You are right to point out that the Constitutional Court has issued opinions and that it has drawn a line that must be followed. It is not my point of view that I highlighted in the tribune, but the contradictory statements of the minister, who said black, who said white. What is the correct version? You now tell me that it is the Constitutional Court. But why not? Let her tell us, in this case, what is the correct version for each of the six points. That will be enough for me.

You have your answer, and that’s very good. I’ll take a look at it and I’ll come back soon before the Minister.

Mr. Nollet, that is fine for me all. I explained just how I think the whole file is built up. This has been the case since 2008, with different governments following each other.

In addition, we have had a lot of discussions about whether it is wise to account for the fall in electricity prices, which makes a huge difference in time, when the nuclear interest rate is fixed. I think this is desirable and also reasonable. One might argue that investments are made in power plants where less is taken out, while there may be alternatives.

At the same time, we can see that Ecolo and we are taking the same step in giving, for example, a subsidy of 100 million euros to a waste incineration oven in Brussels. Mrs. Lalieux can undoubtedly say more about this. Even with these waste incineration ovens, one can wonder how one and the other is in common.

However, I am convinced that we are now in a transition period. The energy vision is unlikely to be important; and must be elaborated. The power plants are there now, but we cannot keep them open in the long run. A life span of eighty years, as in some power plants in the United States, seems unlikely to me, but we may differ in opinions about it.

It will be necessary to take steps here. Please do not make a story of giving gifts to Electrabel, Engie and Suez. By the way, I think Suez also has shares in the burning ovens in Brussels that I just cited.

Per ⁇ we should make the story a little different. It seems that the level on which it is spoken has a clear impact on what is being told here. Let us remain coherent, both in terms of the repartition contribution and in energy policy in general. Maybe we will get out somewhere.

Per ⁇ this creates an opening to talk in the Brussels Parliament about green power certificates and ⁇ even hearings can be organized, as Ecolo and N-VA had requested. In that case, we may also be able to take a step forward here.

Based on the principle that the table is attached to our report, we can therefore talk about it without detailing it here. However, I would like to make a preliminary observation. The table may correspond to your way of representing things, but it has no force of law. It only matters how the interpretation of the reading will be interpreted by the institutions or actors who will be brought to position on this document. Nevertheless, this document confirms some of the problems I have pointed out.

Electrabel, EDF, Engie are not philanthropists and they know how to count. You give the impression that you are just at the limit of the confiscation and that you are close to a euro. These people are not idiots! They know how to count. If they do not have sufficient economic or financial interests to extend their activities, they will not do so.

You cannot threaten them so that they prolong their activities. They made their calculations, they checked if you accepted the text they provided to you and they estimated that their business was still very profitable, even though the overall turnover is lower this year.

In addition, this year, Tihange 1 will also pose a problem due to the cost of the technical accident or the error that deteriorated the concrete coating. It will cost them a lot, but that is their problem.

If you just look at the text and if they have written the text you submitted and you are going to vote tomorrow, in any case with regard to the majority, be sure, Mrs. Minister, it is that it is in favor of them. That was my preliminary.

I would like to apologize, Mr. Friart. I did not see you. You were in my back calling.

I need to be brief, Mr. Freeman.

It is often relevant.

All this to say that, ⁇ , Electrabel is going through difficult times now. The price of electricity is very low. This is not why they will necessarily put the key under the cloth. I think that in every business, in every industry, in every trade, there are sometimes tough times.

Electrabel ⁇ hopes that the price of electricity will rise. And if the price of electricity rises, if the profits of Electrabel increase, we will have a figure that will be much higher than the 177 million euros, hence all the interest of what has been negotiated by the minister and what makes it really a good contract for the government and for the country. As soon as electricity prices go up, the country will have more resources. We can be sure in the coming years, since we are still on the medium term, in the next ten years and in the next ten years, the price of electricity will rise. We do not look at this in the short term. We look at this in the medium and long term.

Mr. Friart did well to correct his initial statement because indeed, this is calculated over the entire extension period. And if Electrabel does, it is because she knows very well that it is in her interest in the short, medium and especially long term. Anyway, I believe that neither I nor my opposition colleagues will weep over the unfortunate fate of Electrabel that would be supposedly forced to prolong. Let us pass.

Let’s go back problem by problem. Question 1: Six or seven power plants? What is retained now? If I look at your picture, it is seven power plants in 2015. Is it right or not?

Mr. Nollet, as I said in the committee, there are seven power plants and then there is the story of Tihange 1. And, there, you have forgotten to quote the statement of Mr. Friart who actually says that it could - if we start like this, we will go into the details - that we have taxed twice Tihange 1.

In fact, if one considers that the fee starts from 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2015 and that 2015 concerns the seven power plants, it has been taxed twice.

What version should I keep? All versions are good, but which one should ultimately be remembered? Is this the version 6, the version 7 or the version of Mr. Friart?

I want to answer your questions and enter the game you want me to play. But what I see is what goes into the state’s treasures. I am trying to get what belongs to him. You think that’s not enough, but that’s your point of view.

This is not the debate here.

This is a substantial debate. What I want is money that goes into the state treasures and comes from the operation of nuclear power plants in this country. That is all I want to have.

As the minister says, with all sympathy for colleague Nollet, this discussion is not relevant. The amount to be collected for 2016 was calculated forfaitarily. For this calculation, the reference was taken to the operation of the energy park in 2015, including all periods in which it has stopped – because also the reactors whose lifetime was extended have long stopped – as a reference.

Again, it is a flat-rate calculation during the negotiations with Electrabel to reach those 130 million. It is based on the park of 2015 and it has been taken into account that centrales has been shut down for a while. There was a forfeit of 130 million.

Tot na de komma rekening houden met hoe active of power plants exact have been, daar gaat het niet om. Er is a foreclosure of 139 million euros for 2016. The point.

I’m sorry, Mr. Lachaert, I’m not talking about this at all. I’m not talking about the 130 million. I am talking about 2015. I am in the first problem.

Here it is 2016.

and no! We will return to 2016-2026 afterwards. My first question, of which I am speaking here, concerns the distribution contribution of 2015. The minister, on page 34, says that it relates to the seven power plants concerned in 2014. In another place, she says it concerns only six power plants. My question is simply what is the correct version.

Today, it seems to be said that the correct version is that of Mr. Friart. Why not ? I can accept that. I just need to know which parts of the 2015 report should be blocked.

Mr. Lachaert, so much better if you tell me that today is the third version. But in the picture that is given to us here, these are the seven power plants. Let me just answer which is the correct version. However, it is not unnecessary to ask what is the basis for calculation. There are three different versions in the report.

I think the Minister just said it right. It is about the park in 2015 and all relevant periods of non-renewal and the periods in which the park has stopped were also taken into account.

We can continue to return to the report of the committee and what has been said or not said. I think the version is clear today. In 2016 it is a flat-rate tax and this text covers the period from 2016 to 2026. For 2015 there is another taxation based on year N of 200 million, which has also been paid.

The only relevance for your question about 2016 is that there is an agreement with the operators for a flat amount of 130 million. For the following years, the amount is higher and may even be higher if the profits, as Mr. Friart says, increase and the price of electricity rises.

I know this is annoying for some who want everything explained to them until the last carat of detail. In addition to what Mr. Lachaert has just said, to which I fully endorse, the distribution contribution for 2015 is voted and more than voted. Who can complain? He was not attacked, I know. It’s full-fledged and covers 2015. The power plants for which a fee will be paid are extended, i.e. they exceed the age of forty, but the fee will be paid in 2016. I explained it just recently.

One may pretend not to understand the question, but I am not talking about the fee – which addresses the sixth point. I am talking about the 2015 distribution contribution. I am referring to the different statements you have made in the committee. Is the conclusion of this debate to recognize that in 2015 we worked on this plant, as shown in the table? Your painting, Mr Lachaert. Is this the 7th, Mr. Lachaert?

Yes, it is indicated.

So we have one answer: it is the seven.

But I told you!

We turned around the pot. They say it is seven. and OK.

Mr. Nollet, listen, I understand that you are asking questions in your tree that participates in a logical system that belongs only to you.

At least I played cards on the table.

I repeat that these aspects are not relevant in our discussion, as Mr. Wollants explained to you. There is no first, second and third path. It is not what I said in paragraph 3 and then in paragraph 7. The central question is: how much has the taxpayer been taxed in such a year and why? What is the tax base? What are the amounts that go into the state treasures? This is what is important.

You are talking about 2015. We are currently discussing a text for the period 2016-2026. The 2015 contribution has been voted and more than voted.

I have my answer for 2015. We no longer need to talk about it.

The next problem is N or N –1. You bring here to the plenary session an entirely new element. I was there, but you were there too. It is no longer N-1, it is multi N.

I will allow myself to interrupt you a little to tell you that this is the evaluation of the contributive capacity over time. It is therefore not the fixation in the exercise of the tax, or in relation to data from the N-1 year.

N-1 is used, and the Constitutional Court repeats it. It is cited by the CREG and the Council of State. For the distribution between taxpayers, we look at the year before. This is the distribution between the different taxpayers that is used in N –1.

There are, however, indications that are used to fix, at a given time, on the fiscal year, the amount of the contribution, and I have explained this ten times in commission. This is especially what the power plants have produced, the 30% around which it is necessary to turn is the margin that can be captured when we talk about rarity rent. This is also the situation of electricity prices in the current context. That is all.

So I think we have the answer to question number two: it is N – 1.

But not . I am sorry, but I did not say that. The whole problem comes from there. It took hours and hours in the committee.

So, you have not understood. Excuse me .

The debate is stuck there and the problem is that the Council of State is a lot wrong there.

It is very clear N. To be able to calculate a tax for N, one must look at N -1 and that is just the difficult thing to explain. It is a tax for N that is virtually calculated on data from N -1 because this is the only reference one has. One cannot act retroactively because one cannot tax for the past. Mr Wollants explained this. It is n anyway.

So I have the answer. I was wrong and I apologize. The answer is N. This is the answer to problem 2. It clarifies things.

Yes, everyone is wrong except the majority or, in any case, the minister and Mr. Lachaert, for now and ⁇ even Mr. Wollants! What I need are answers. The only thing I’m looking for is to have firm and definitive answers. I do not judge. I said that I would not repeat that discussion. The answer today is definitive, it is the year N.

I repeat the question of my colleague, in 2026, if we tax on N, while there will be no more production, how will we do?

You know very well that the variable formula is based on income and costs and a percentage of the margin that comes out of income less costs. Where will we find these low-cost income? We will be looking for them in the year before. This is precisely the difference. This variable formula works like Tihange 1 without being comparable since they are not identical diets. A fee and a tax are two different things, but this is how it works.

Who is the taxpayer? It is the one who holds a quota-share in industrial electricity production. So I told you recently, and I told you before, that these people still hold in 2026, even if they can no longer inject electricity into the grid, shares in the industrial production of electricity, even if they no longer get income from it.

And reality, on va regarder puisqu'ils doivent demanteler a partir de 2025. They must close the boutique. They will no longer be able to introduce electricity in the network by 2025. It was the same problem with Goal 1. This is what I have this. Goal 1, and reality, is always there. Elle a d'ailleurs continué à être taxée, Mr. Nollet. Remember to remember! It was there suspended and the air and a continued to be taxed. On a simple tenu account of a degressivity which proceeds from its unavailability during a certain time, but it continued to be taxed at the expense of the contribution of distribution, even when it has stopped momentanément, simply because the law of prolongation had not yet been voted. C is all.

This is an extremely technical discussion. Not so long ago this afternoon, Ms. Onkelinx pointed out — and in my opinion rightly — that by conducting this kind of debate in the plenary session, we make a bit of a caricature of ourselves.

And, in my opinion, rightly. I do not want any member of the House to be prevented from saying what he means. But we must be careful that our debates do not become caricatures. There will be a technical debate in the committee. I don’t blame anyone, but I feel like we’re repeating it many times.

I understand your comment. But normally, when one returns from the State Council with amendments that have an extremely important scope and whose criticism is not neutral, whether one agrees or not, one returns in committee to Parliament and takes time to discuss it again. It happens that this was not possible. I even asked for another twenty-four hours to be able to analyze things, but it was not possible. So I adapt to the circumstances, without seeking to shoot in length. However, I would like to have a response on each of the points I have raised. The first two have just been removed, I have four. I ask you to let me go to the end.

I understand the imperative of the president and that is why I tried to globalize. You ask me for answers, I want to give you them, I will not deny you the answers you ask. But at the end of your four questions, I hope that you will be satisfied, even if the answers do not suit you, and that we may be able to move on to the following.

Mr. Speaker, we talked about this at the Conference of Presidents this morning when we talked about the organization of the work. My political judgment has been made for a long time and I have already expressed it on other occasions.

Mrs. Minister, today I just want to have your definitive position on the six points that, in my opinion, were not consistent in your various statements in committee. I’m not going to do anything else and I’m not going to go back on anything other than these six points.

If there is no alternative, we must continue.

The next point: what is the generating fact of the distribution contribution, income or capacity?

Generator is defined as having a share in the industrial production of electricity.

That is the capacity.

and yes.

It is very good.

The [...]

You say you never said the opposite. I am referring to page 35, paragraph 3, of the report.

Mr. Nollet, I would like to cut down the sentences. However, the context must be taken into account.

As the President pointed out, we have had a great opportunity to talk about all this in committee.

There are contradictions, which I can admit. But I disagree with you. I think there is no contradiction. I have already said what I am saying to you now.

I am not trying to agree with you. We can then move to the following question.

For the white year and the distribution contribution, capacity and not income are taxed. So we are in Option 2.

With option 2, the 2015 tax should be calculated on the 2014 production capacity, otherwise we would face an inconsistency. In this case, we are in the following option that for Tihange 1, Doel 1 and Doel 2, the 2015 period before extension is not covered by the distribution contribution. The reasoning is clear. We traced the tree. So I come to this conclusion with respect to point 4.

We will try to answer the questions briefly. They are, in a certain way, relevant for the development and implementation of the present draft. If I understand it correctly – colleagues who follow the file and Mrs. Minister, improve me if necessary – it is also for 2015 about 2015 capacity, but it is calculated on 2014. Effective production is the mirror for 2015. However, it is just the same reasoning as it was for 2016, as it has actually been for years.

Si l’on regarde le tableau... (laughs)

Mr. Nollet, I think what the minister has said is correct, namely that for some reactors it can be paid twice, because a flat-rate taxation has been agreed, based on the 2015 capacity, but with a calculation based on the virtual data of 2014. In the meantime, the extension came, for which new contributions were requested. Thus, for Tihange 1 there may even be twice income.

So, given what has been said for the 2016 distribution contribution, I think there is an error in the table since we should also consider Tihange 1, Doel 1 and 2, for the previous period. In the table, in the 2016 column, on the line "CR paid year Y".

This is not the bill. Here, we discuss the period 2016 to 2026.

But I am in 2016!

I suggest that we stop discussing 2015 and previous years because it has nothing to do with the bill.

But I am in the 2016 column!

Yes, but you are constantly talking about 2015, etc. This has nothing to do with the present bill.

Absolutely of course! And this text has already been extensively discussed and voted in plenary. In 2015 !

We have not received adequate answers, especially on the period before the extension. We try a mounting that doesn’t hold the road. Moreover, Mrs. Minister, I did not get my answer, because you were relatively short and you avoided the question of the unavailability rate of 2014 and 2015. This confuses your calculation.

Colleagues, I know of the file we are discussing now, nothing, but I have understood that it is about the interest that will be paid between 2016 and 2026. (Congratulations of Conversation)

To a certain extent, this is a caricature. Here is a club of experts who discuss the numbers.

I really want to ask you to come to the essence of things. This is about interest rates for 10 years. Even I understand that from now on it begins to count, that it has been worked with a reference to previous years and that that reference has been decided in a previous period.

However, we are talking about an amount of 130 million euros that must go back to the state treasures and that must be justified. Because it is not all to say that we take those 130 million without justifying it consistently. I just ask that justification keeps the way. I have to say that this is about the previous part. But this is not what the picture shows. I would like to move to the next issue, but that of the white year, point no. 4, remains whole.

Point 5 relates to the allocation key for the contribution 2016. Because, in this case, you use the distribution key referring to the year N-1. But in year N-1, Doel 1 and 2 and Tihange 1 worked. Therefore, the distribution key must take into account what worked in the previous year. Doel 1 and 2 and Tihange 1 are considered. This no longer changes the amounts; it is the key of distribution!

The nuclear interest rate of year N is captured. The Constitutional Court has clearly stated that it is the intention of the legislator to withhold the nuclear interest rate of the nuclear circuit during the year N. We agree on this.

There are two variables that play to estimate the nuclear interest rate for the year N. I am very clear about an estimate. One of those variables is the availability in the previous year. That will never be accurate, but that is the best number we have to estimate the coming year N.

It is assumed, of course, that the nuclear interest is created by power plants that can contribute in year N. Because Goal 1, Goal 2 and Tihange 1 do not contribute to this system in 2016 — they contribute to another system — they are not included.

When it comes to the distribution between the operators, the year N -1 is also used because this is the most recent data to make an estimate for the year N.

Then there is another aspect and that is also for me the most difficult aspect to understand, namely that the contribution capacity is estimated. In the past, the Council of Ministers has ruled that the contribution capacity should be assessed in time over the relevant financial year and over the previous financial years. That contribution capacity is therefore not isolated in one year because the contribution capacity of previous years is also included in that exercise.

I am not a lawyer so you may say that this legal mumbo is jumbo, but so the Constitutional Court has accepted the arrangement and so we must continue to use that arrangement so that the nuclear interest rate can be estimated as well as possible, even though it will never be an exact estimate or a tax on the exact income because this was never the purpose of the arrangement. However, the latter makes it difficult to understand.

Nevertheless, it was very well understood, for which thank you.

I can follow the reasoning and also the very logic that is to remain consistent with what we have done, because the Constitutional Court has validated it so and that if we do not, we take huge risks. But in the past, when it was redistributed on the different entities ...

Why is it important? Because EDF shares vary according to the calculation. But if you apply the same logic to the 2016 distribution contribution as was done in the past, not for the amount being drawn up, but for the distribution, you should consider a portion of the months that relate to Tihange 1, Doel 1 and Doel 2. If you want to stay logical and consistent with the past. But you want to change that. I think that by changing this, you take the risk of inconsistency with the past. Okay, I have the answer.

I would like to say one more thing about that.

Mr. Wollants, however, we were well on the way now.

I would like to say one more thing about it. There is a problem when one adds Tihange 1, because there the share of EDF is much greater. If one puts that central in the table, it means that for the year 2016 Electrabel will pay much less and EDF more. Then the question is whether this is correct in the light of the convention that the arrangement is based on.

That is my question. That’s why you didn’t respond to the question...

Therefore, I believe that if one takes into account the calculation for 2016 of Doel 1, Doel 2 and Tihange 1 and thus causes EDF to pay more and Electrabel less as a result of a convention concluded between the Belgian state and Electrabel, EDF thus has a basis to challenge the arrangement. In the current system, which does not include those power plants, that basis does not exist.

I agree with this reasoning and I understand the risks and consequences. That is why, when I raised this problem, I also asked the Minister what the commitments and the written formula that EDF has accepted in relation to the potential appeal were. I do not think that the Minister has answered this request and we are putting the answer in suspension, waiting for all the information.

The sixth issue concerns the fee for the white year. The table shows us a problem over a year, 2015 or 2026. One of the houses remained white. Since Doel 1 and Doel 2 were already extended in part in 2015, we should have something for the two years. But we see nothing.

This is why we find in the green box Doel 1 and Doel 2.

The Minister explained, and this is found in the text of the law, that the fee is linked to the extension. What is represented in the green represents another thing that is related to the base tax.

The fee is linked to the extension and we do not see anything.

The [...]

Do it though! Do it though!

So, Mr. Speaker, my conclusion on a sixth point. This is the last. It is actually seen that there is a white year - in any case, the minister will think more about it - on the distribution contribution, which is nevertheless not a neutral fact.

The Minister will now answer us on the element that was left for us and which she had to check, namely whether we could receive a copy of EDF’s concrete commitment.

I have finished. I disagree, but this has been known for a long time. At least I have answers to my questions and I see where the problems remain. Mr. Wollants has just confirmed a part of it.

Can the general discussion be concluded?

If the Minister says that she will give us a copy of the written letter, that is enough for me.

I have already given it. We are looking for it when it is given to you.

This is just the mail. There are no conditions. That was my question.

In my opinion, I gave it when we talked about the fee in January 2016.

Mr. Speaker, in this case, if Mrs. Minister can only say that she will give it back to us, that is enough for me and we can close.

The general discussion can be concluded.

I was also registered.

You are rightly protesting, Mr. De Lamotte. Your name was well written.

Thank you Mr. President. I have heard the responses of the Minister. But I am still somewhat surprised by the answers that have not been provided, especially on the unavailability rates in 2014 and 2015. I would like to return to this.

I also asked you to calculate the 130 million in a precise manner. You tell me that it is a scam. For me, it is an element. I think there will be, at some point in the calculation, a question to be asked in relation to the problem of state aid for the 2015 fiscal year. I would like to draw your attention to this element.

Here, Mr. Speaker, to be brief.