Proposition 54K2188

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

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Nov. 28, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive administrative sanction electrical industry energy industry energy policy energy distribution fine

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

Mrs Griet Smaers, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

I will not be long. And I don’t have six questions to ask with precise answers to receive, Mr. Nollet.

Dear colleagues, we see, with this bill, the abolition of a 2006 law that establishes the levy to fight against the non-use of electricity production sites. The minister is very constant, as is his government, since this law is made, again, for Electrabel.

As part of the big deal for the extension of Doel 1 and 2, the government has already approved the transaction for a sum of 120 million to close the dispute between the Belgian state and Electrabel which arose from the law. The state demanded 300 million euros. The rating was revised downwards and dropped to 180 million euros. The federal state is too rich for the Minister of Energy!

It now obtains the total abolition of the law.

This is hallucinating, Mrs. Minister, because as a liberal minister you are strengthening the monopoly of the historical producer!

You justify your law by stating that there is no longer a site concerned but the energy landscape can change, Mrs. Minister. This law had a deterrent purpose in order to discourage a producer from abusing his position. Rather than repealing the 2006 law, it had to be amended by extending its scope to land available for smaller production units or for renewable energy. But that would not have been acceptable for Electrabel, Mr. Wollants. So you abolish this law purely and simply as it could have been dissuasive and favoured other producers. There is, once again, a dominant position of a producer. We regret this removal.

Mr. Speaker, we have determined that the 2006 law on imposing a tax on unused sites has never worked, nor has it delivered the expected results. It was intended that the unused sites would come on the market and produce others on them, but that never happened. Furthermore, in all sorts of legal complications, one has been caught up without a good result. With this text, we can now close that chapter.

I would like to remind you, first of all, that the vision on which the former law is based is a very different view from which we are now attached. That law imposed a tax on unused sites on which a 250 megawatt coal power plant could be built in order to market those sites for the construction of a coal power plant. I don’t know what you remember about the last coal-fired power plant that one wanted to build, but the permit for its construction was denied for reasons of sustainable development.

I absolutely do not want to encourage a producer to build a coal-fired power plant. I, by the way, myself fulminate weekly or monthly against Germany in this regard; we will therefore in no way do it ourselves.

Second, when it comes to renewable energy, which is also included in the text, you should be well aware of what renewable energy it is about. For windmills and solar panels, you need a fairly large terrain before they can produce 250 megawatts. Therefore, it is a large biomass power plant, in other words larger than the existing biomass power plants, while there has already been a lot of criticism and discussion about Max Green and the new biomass power plant in Gent, which both do not even produce 250 megawatts.

I am therefore pleased that the law, which has not produced good results, is disappearing. At the same time, the proposed solution makes money in the gap, which allows us to pay for other things. We need to continue working on the energy mix. In such a policy, the existing law does not fit, because it does not offer a solution, and I have no point in encouraging the construction of coal-fired power plants and large biomass plants, while we just do not want them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two remarks and address a request to the Minister. The Belgian state, within the framework of the bill that is on the table, must alone renounce all taxes on unoccupied sites, while Electrabel and EDF have launched a procedure to recover the federal gas contribution, the minister, for a sum of 120 million euros. In the context of the Doel 1 and Doel 2 deal, there was no withdrawal of these provisions, nor appeal.

We challenge the way things happen, but not the fact that there are things. We are in the case of a non-revocation of the appeals of Electrabel and EDF on this file.

The second element. Mr. Minister, in the report, I wanted you to inform us about the powers of other energy regulators in Europe. This was mentioned in the text of the law on installations established or not established in Belgium. Should we not question the powers conferred on national regulators with respect to operators established abroad but whose activities have an impact on the domestic market and possibly consider strengthening the powers of the CREG in this regard?

I mentioned the case of the Endex gas and energy exchange, established in the Netherlands and where reference prices are fixed, which intervene on the markets in Belgium. I was concerned with my Wallonian colleagues, and indeed, this notion "to be established in Belgium" does not exist in the texts of the CWaPE. There is a way to work in this dimension, in order to be able to give the CREG a power for producers who work on the Belgian market but are not established there. I think this problem should be addressed and producers should be placed on an equal footing. I am waiting for your response and will reply later.

I will also be brief. I thank my colleagues. First, ten years of operation of this law following a judgment of the Constitutional Court amending certain elements thereof because the tax was not levied in the state, also changed the definition by saying that it is in fact aimed at the construction of an electricity production facility with a capacity of at least 400MW for a gas plant or with a production capacity of at least 250MW for a coal plant or a production facility operating on the basis of renewable energy sources or cogeneration. Therefore, it is precisely a wording that goes against our objectives.

Secondly, there was a series of procedures. These procedures have resulted in judgments that will be made definitive by the meaning of the decisions. In reality, it is not 300 million but 143,75 million that were fixed by the court of first instance and of which 17 and 6 million that were paid by Electrabel, which makes the amount due is well 120 million. This amount is currently in the Deposit and Consignation Fund.

The DG Energy found that it could no longer collect taxes because the last site on which it could have been sold has been sold. So she made us a four-page report on October 20 which led to the abolition or in any case to the inapplicability of this law.

As far as the two questions of Mr. de Lamotte are concerned, they are not directly related to our case. As I promised you, I asked the CREG on the element "established in Belgium". It is not part of what the law with various provisions changes to the electricity law today. But you will have the answer.

Regarding the federal contribution, I also questioned. I will have the opportunity to talk about this with you later. Indeed, this issue was not part of our negotiations, as you have seen.

I regret once again the way this happened, especially for those 120 million for which there is no abstention on the appeals of Electrabel and EDF Luminus.

With regard to the organisation of the electricity market, the competence of the CREG could indeed also be established on institutions established abroad but operating on the Belgian territory. I was expecting you to propose an amendment to correct this proposal. If he doesn’t come, I’ll help you. I will submit a double amendment: one concerns the electricity market and the other concerns the gas market. Mr. Speaker, I give it to you.

The [...]

Mr. Minister, you do what you want. I am presenting this for the debate tomorrow, to present those companies which are not established in Belgium but which, since they work on the Belgian territory, could commit some impairment there and escape administrative fines. I submit the document to you, Mr. Speaker.