Proposition 54K3584

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 29 avril 1999 relative à l'organisation du marché de l'électricité portant la mise en place d'un mécanisme de rémunération de capacité.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Leen Dierick
MR Benoît Friart
Open Vld Nele Lijnen, Frank Wilrycx

Submission date

Feb. 21, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

electrical energy energy policy power plant energy production production capacity security of supply

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld MR PP

Voted to reject

N-VA PVDA | PTB VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit ∉

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

April 4, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Michel de Lamotte, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the nuclear exit comes closer with racial steps. Finally you can put. After all, the old, depreciated nuclear power plants have had their best time and today only shine out in unreliability. In recent years, they were more silent than they produced energy. There were cracks in the reactor vessels; there was concrete rotting; there were fires in the non-nuclear sections; there was a leak in the water pipeline and there was sabotage. Just name it. The number of incidents could not be counted on ten fingers. The conscious power plants remained silent for months.

What has the government done? It has extended the life of the oldest nuclear power plants by 10 years. It has granted Engie Electrabel a fixed reduction on the nuclear interest rate and has refused to assume the operators unlimited liability in case of damage in a possible nuclear incident.

De facto, Engie Electrabel directed the energy policy in our country. The surplus supply of nuclear energy that thus persisted blocked the necessary investments in alternative forms of energy. Our energy policy fell into a vicious circle, wasting precious time, while reinforcing the uncertainty about nuclear withdrawal.

In fact, by sprinkling five years of uncertainty about the nuclear departure, the investment climate was simply killed. Today we hear all former majority parties declare that there are insufficient alternatives available to guarantee supply security.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Accomplished things do not take once. If we want to start with the closure of the nuclear power plants in three years, then according to Elia 3,6 gigawatt new capacity will be needed to replace the nuclear power plants.

The current framework law on the capacity compensation mechanism should allow for new capacity, which is subsidised new gas power plants to be built. According to the SP, this is not necessary.

For the sp.a, it is important that we stick to the planned nuclear departure in 2025. I repeat that nuclear power plants are outdated, unsafe and unreliable. They also put a stop to investments in future-oriented renewable energy production.

We want to realize the nuclear exit without raising the electricity bill for the families. Today, energy poverty is peaking. More than one in five Belgian families live in energy poverty. We must absolutely avoid their number increasing even more.

An extension of the lifetime of existing gas plants will enable the closure of the gas plants without building new, expensive and subsidised gas plants that will potentially push up the consumer’s energy bill. Unlike new gas plants, existing plants do not have to be operational for 20 years in order to be profitable.

For the few hours a year when we need that additional capacity; we can resort to alternatives, invest in demand management with large consumers and make concrete agreements with our neighbors. Meanwhile, investments in future-oriented, clean technologies must be fully prepared.

The legislative proposal for a capacity compensation mechanism presented today is a framework law. This means that the contours of the final capacity auction will be very broadly outlined, but that all concrete parameters have yet to be determined. These parameters will determine the final cost price.

The SPA does not want to give a next government a carte blanche. There needs to be a social debate on the further development of the mechanism. Thus, we want to concrete guarantee that the government will not build unnecessarily new gas power plants and will not over-subsidize. This can be done by differentiating in the support that different technologies receive. Not every technology has the same costs and opportunities in terms of revenue.

Price ceilings could ensure that, regardless of the level of the marginal price, not every technology receives the same guaranteed price. In addition, one should look at how one can avoid windfall profits when the costs of a power plant suddenly drop sharply in case of falling gas prices.

Therefore, we have submitted a number of amendments in the committee to ensure that all royal decrees arising from this law must be ratified by law by Parliament. This framework law does not exclude the operators of nuclear power plants from participating in the capacity auction. This is stated in the memory of the explanation, but not in the legislation itself.

Colleagues, for all clarity, of an extension of the life of the two or three youngest power plants, as the N-VA wants, for the sp.a can absolutely not be the case. Engie Electrabel has received a lot of gifts over the past few years.

Finally, the sp.a wants the government to include in the National Energy and Climate Plan, which must be finalised by 31 December this year, that gas plants must switch to green gas so that it becomes profitable. In this way, we also guarantee that our gas infrastructure becomes future-proof.

I would like to reiterate our main criticism of the present bill. The financing of the capacity reimbursement mechanism should not fall on the energy invoice. However, there are currently insufficient guarantees for this. Everything will have to be arranged through implementation decisions, including the parameters that will determine the cost price. However, Parliament has no control over this. Furthermore, it would be a sign of a lack of common sense if we were again to stick to fossil technology for years, which is damaging to the climate.

However, only in this way can we guarantee our energy supply in the short term, keep it affordable and keep it climate-neutral.

Mr. Speaker, the end of the legislature is approaching and there are points on our agenda that have a long way forward. This proposal may be one of the champions in this field.

A clear policy framework for flexible energy capacity has been sought in and outside this Parliament for a very long time. The former energy minister, State Secretary Wathelet, was already looking for this. Then there was the track of public procurement. This was at the end of the previous legislature. Since then, there has been a very long search for what to do, how to create clarity, how to create certainty.

The long advance, I do not put that under chairs or benches, is immediately one of the reasons why our group today wishes to give green light to this law. This first step must definitely be taken. As the uncertainty on this subject continues, we continue to organize the scarcity and uncertainty. That cannot be the intention.

Our group will support this, but it is not a blanco cheque. It is a framework law that will have to be closely followed. There are still a lot of underlying decisions to be made. I suspect that it is also food for a lot of political and parliamentary debate, even when it comes to legislation that does not need to be adopted in this hemisphere.

Our group will support this because it is necessary in the context of the energy transition. Not approving this might be a gift to those who advocate the extension of our oldest nuclear power plants. This is why we give green light.

Colleagues, of course, there must be great concern and vigilance. The cost of all this should not go out of hand, should be limited to a minimum and should primarily focus on organizing, enabling the transition. The colleague just said it, it may indeed not be the intention to maintain too much fossil energy for too long. However, supporting flexible capacity in a smart way can just accompany or even really push through the breakthrough of renewable energy.

Hence our support, but ⁇ with great vigilance and follow-up in the coming months and years.

This is a complex and technical matter. This text is in fact a framework law prepared by a working group set up by the government, a group to which several experts have been associated, including representatives of Elia, CREG and DG Energy.

This text is a necessary framework for several reasons. This is first and foremost the first step, since the 2003 Act on the Exit from Nuclear Power, towards an energy transition, towards a future energy mix without nuclear power plants. A new wave of investment in the electricity sector is indeed needed. By 2025, the energy transition, including a secure, affordable, sustainable electricity supply, with an increasing number of renewable energies, must be realised.

Moreover, the CRM is a crucial element of the Energy Pact which is part of the energy policy of Belgium and also of its three Regions. There is no alternative: we need to find at least 6 GW of new capacity and this will not be possible without the CRM.

In addition, the capacity remuneration mechanism will replace the current system of the strategic reserve and will be a key element for the security of our country’s supply in the coming years.

Dear colleagues, without the adoption of this CRM, the risk of supply problems will be too big at the time of nuclear departure. In the absence of measures, the abandonment of the nuclear fleet between 2022 and 2025 will result in very frequent peaks in the markets, not to mention the risks of dismantling each winter. This will obviously be very problematic for our economy, our ⁇ , our households.

It is therefore essential that this mechanism is capable of attracting sufficient investment in the short term because, today, we still do not have sufficient capacity. Without reform, it will not be possible to attract all these investments.

At the request of the Minister, Ms. Marghem, the DG Energy has conducted a study to determine and design this ideal capacity mechanism for our country.

The mechanism, identified as the best option for Belgium, is that of reliability options. This mechanism has already been approved by the European Commission in Ireland and Italy. This bill is therefore inspired by the modalities for the application of capacity remuneration mechanisms in these states, insofar as they are appropriate to our Belgian context.

It is extremely important that this framework law proposal can be adopted so that the preparation of the enforcement orders can be started. Elia, DG Energy and CREG need legal bases to develop the CRM. These decisions will then be submitted to the European Commission, which, after validation, will notify them so that the CRM comes into force. Specifically, the approval by the European Commission should be made by summer 2020. The first auction will take place in October 2021 and the first capacity will be available in 2025.

In conclusion, my group supports the bill that will provide the next government with an adequate legal framework. It is essential that this mechanism guarantees sufficient capacity and investment to ensure the supply of our country. It must also be flexible enough to offer all the opportunities to new technologies.

This issue has been addressed throughout the entire legislature. My colleagues and I have continuously asked the Minister about this. Mr. Friart’s bill is nothing more than a government project for which Ms. Marghem did not even find it useful to join us to defend it.

This capacity remuneration mechanism is an important part of our future energy mix. It is the duty that commands us to come in support of this text, in front of a majority in lamas. Remember that the project, which was to be deposited on our banks by 20 July 2018 – the last date announced by the Prime Minister – arrives here in extremis.

If, today, we are supposed to support this mechanism, it is above all to obtain the certainty that none of our fellow citizens will lack electricity during the coming winters. These are the concerns that will guide us at the time of voting, despite the doubts that continue to float over this text.

The framework law defines several concepts and notions, but the number of royal decrees that will be applied to ⁇ this is high. Moreover, when we see the timetable that is needed for this implementation, I think we can cross our fingers.

Among the remaining uncertainties remains the question of the participation of foreign capabilities in the mechanism, whose modalities presented in a committee depend more on the draft than on the resulting project. We must therefore remain very vigilant. We are not closing our nuclear power plants to subsidize those of our French neighbors, let’s be very clear!

As my colleague would like to recall, during the previous parliamentary period, Secretary of State Wathelet had launched a tender, which was cancelled by the minister as soon as he took office - probably due to a lack of voluntarism and negotiating capacity in the face of the European Commission.

Another major unknown concerns the issue of funding of the mechanism. The project was to reach us at the same time as the energy standard, which was supposed to partially settle this matter, and this, for 20 July 2018. We are always waiting for him.

In this regard, I want to be clear. If, of course, we have some claims relating to the necessary preservation of the competitiveness of our companies and industries, we will remain very vigilant to ensure that this is never done at the expense of households and SMEs which already carry a very heavy share of national solidarity. It is not, for us, a question of recourse again to a request solely concerned with affecting the private consumer. This implementation is indispensable to provide this energy mix if we want to continue to get out of nuclear power in the years 2022–2025.

It is essential for us to reach this energy mix in the coming years in order to guarantee this supply and this energy security for our citizens as well as for our companies, for the benefit of all but at an acceptable cost for both.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in 2014 we added an extensive energy loop to the government agreement. It included a whole package of measures and part of it has come back on the water after the four competent ministers reached an agreement on the long-awaited energy pact. This was subsequently converted by the government, subject to a large number of conditions, into the federal energy strategy.

The objectives were very clear. It was intended to organize supply security, respect the Paris Agreement, guarantee affordable energy for ⁇ – including electricity-intensive – and families, and maintain the highest possible level of safety of our installations. In the federal energy strategy, a very strict timing was inserted on a lot of things to ensure that this all went well. If we go over it for a moment, you will understand why there are some problems with it.

First and foremost, there was a preliminary draft law on the energy standard. It was intended that our families and ⁇ would not pay more in this way than in the countries around us. It was also intended that a proposal on this subject would be prepared on 20 July 2018. It was also requested to submit a preliminary draft for the reform of the offshore degressivity system by 31 May 2018. In addition, a federal energy committee had to be established to monitor the effects of the policy. For this purpose, a preliminary draft had to be prepared. Finally, we come to the subject matter, in particular a capacity mechanism that should also be completed by 31 May 2018.

Colleagues, you know as well as I know that today only one proposal has finally reached this Chamber. The proposal for the capacity mechanism is the only thing we can discuss here. We have not heard anything about the energy standard. I can already predict that a number of parties represented in this House will include an energy standard in their electoral program. It is, of course, ⁇ unfortunate that Mrs. Minister, due to her undoubtedly busy schedule, has not found time to effectively do something about it.

Nor have we heard anything about the degressivity of the offshore fee. You know that this system is being fished by the European Commission and urgently needs to be reformed. At least on January 1, this year it should be completed. You also know that if we do not, there is a risk that our companies will get even more in trouble.

It was last week, I think, that another study was put in the forefront ordered by Febeliec, to clarify what the difference is with the countries surrounding us. Our companies in Flanders pay 13% to 20% more for their electricity than those in the countries around us. In Wallonia, this is up from 18% to 34%. If Europe decides tomorrow that the application of the current system should stop, the costs for those companies will rise exponentially. This will ensure that the jobs that are created there today will be lost in large part. So I can’t imagine a reason why, for Ms. Marghem and MR, no solution could come out of the bus and why this could not come before the Parliament. The legal uncertainty resulting therefrom falls absolutely 100% under the responsibility of the Minister. If steps are taken across Europe and the system is cancelled, that is all on Mrs. Marghem’s account.

Around the Federal Energy Committee, the wind is silent. We have heard about it once in a policy note and then we have not seen a letter about it in Parliament. Agreements were made on those files, but they were clearly not realized. I know the Minister’s response to this. She will answer me that this has not happened, because in the meantime the government has gone into ongoing affairs. She must then explain to me how that could be the reason in relation to a number of documents that had to be on the table between 31 May and 20 June. Maybe she will be able to explain everything as her hair fits.

What is presented today is the capacity mechanism. This is a mechanism that should be explored in cooperation with our neighbors, as it naturally serves to ensure that we meet the conditions of the federal energy strategy, namely affordability, sustainability and supply security. Let’s make a big mistake here, my colleagues.

The government calculated — it still does so today — a cost of that mechanism of 345 million euros per year, for 15 years. What is shown by the figures of the CREG? It costs one pack more, namely 600 to 940 million euros per year. If you calculate that over the period of support, it is about 9 to 13 or 14 billion euros in the following years.

The minister has denied these figures every time, over and over again. She first claimed that the numbers were not there. He then said that they had to be calculated. Then it sounded that she couldn’t just spread those numbers into any microphone. Even a little later, it was about the accounting work of someone who had planned a coup against the minister. It would all be part of a conspiracy. You can’t imagine it so crazy or it was an excuse from the minister.

What is shown now? In the hearing we held on this bill, the Board of Directors of the CREG confirmed that the 9 to 14 billion euros are indeed the figures from which they came out. That is the commitment, my colleagues.

Second, the financing of the entire system has been strategically taken from the bill. Initially, proposals for its organization were drafted, but they have disappeared integrally. The answer to the questions who should pay what and how is entirely about the elections. Today, Mrs. Minister puts a system on her hat, which she claims will solve the problem, but the answer to the questions who should pay what and how and who will be charged is for the next government. After us, you know.

Third, it was indeed hammered that it must be a system that is aligned with our neighbors. It cannot be intended that we build and finance gas power plants at the expense of our families and ⁇ and that then power plants abroad disappear, because the net balance is realized at the expense of our citizens and ⁇ . PWC, which has done the study work for this story, has already warned us very clearly about this in March last year. There had to be an arrangement, but nothing came into the house.

The committee found that the only consultation on this with the countries around us was an informal consultation, an exchange of what everyone was doing, learning from each other, so, but in no way an alignment. We then asked for reports of that consultation, but also there one had to remain guilty of the answer. No reports have even been made. This is not what can be expected from such a system.

Fourth, a last element that is absolutely important is the demand for necessity. The federal regulator proposes us to adopt an amendment that will allow the capacity mechanism to take effect only when a royal decree gives the start shot. Is that a sign on the wall? The regulator indicates that we should have such a mechanism when it is needed, but based on the current figures, the calculation work of Elia, it turns out that it is not needed at all today. However, if one reads the texts and the explanation of the applicant, it turns out that it is about building a whole bunch of gas power plants as soon as possible.

That is not what we need today. This threatens to become a ⁇ heavy burden for our families and ⁇ . There are many things that are not clear. They want this to be approved here today without knowing what it will cost our families and ⁇ . The estimates of the CREG are up to 14 billion euros.

I do not think that we should cooperate with such a story and we will therefore not support that proposal.

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.

I will start my speech with the following words: What a wasted time! The discussion of this bill should have taken place much earlier. But we have been forced to see the inability of this government and the majority to make clear choices in favor of the nuclear exit. This has made us lose almost the time of an entire legislature.

There have been differences in views, differences in positions between the N-VA and the other majority parties that have stopped all decisions in favor of the energy transition. If we add to this some chaotic methods, we understand that we had to wait for the last moment to finally receive a concrete proposal aimed at accompanying the exit from nuclear power.

We regret that it took four and a half years for this bill to come to the table of Parliament and finally be considered here at the last minute.

We know, for years, that the market is not ready to invest in new production capacity. This is a problem that is encountered throughout Europe. It was this well-known finding that led the previous government to propose a system of support through a tender in favour of the construction of new power plants. In the end, it was a mechanism not so different from the one proposed today. However, it had been cancelled by this government as soon as it was invested. Ultimately, this original sin, if I can call it this way, will cost us almost five years.

Now we are back to the wall. In order to comply with the calendar of nuclear departure, it is necessary to adopt this law as soon as possible. Given the deadlines for the construction of a new power plant, it will be almost impossible to get out of nuclear power, if this text is not adopted in this legislature, which we will do, I hope, soon.

This is the fundamental political issue that we are dealing with today. Do we want, yes or no, to get out of nuclear power?

For the Socialist group, the answer is clear, since we have supported, since 2003, the progressive withdrawal from nuclear power, for at least three major reasons.

First, the risk of a serious nuclear accident can never be completely excluded. A human or technical failure will always remain possible, not to mention other sources of problems. The Japanese who have the most advanced technological knowledge among the most advanced have not been able to prevent the Fukushima disaster in 2011. And when a nuclear accident occurs, the consequences are very quickly apocalyptic.

Second, nuclear power is a polluting energy, even though nuclear power plants emit less CO2 than coal or gas plants. Nuclear power generates radioactive waste, some of which remain very dangerous for several hundred or even thousands of years. These waste are stored somewhere, kept away from the population for centuries. This represents a financial, but also environmental debt for future generations. While everyone is talking about sustainable development, who can defend a system that produces waste on the back of future generations for thousands of years?

Third, the seven Belgian reactors were put into service between 1975 and 1985. Unfortunately, the safety standards related to it have become obsolete. One can make a parallel with cars: between a car of the 1970s and a car of today, it is obvious that there are differences due to technological developments. The car of yesterday will never meet the safety standards of today’s cars.

It is not enough to be opposed to nuclear power, it is still necessary to build an alternative. To ensure access to energy for citizens and ⁇ , there is no miracle solution. We need to develop an energy policy based on three pillars.

The first pillar is the reduction of our energy consumption. To consume less is to spend less. Consuming less means polluting less, and it means reducing our energy dependence on overseas. It is also the most effective way to combat global warming.

The second pillar of our energy policy must be the flexibility of supply and demand. This goes through the construction of new flexible production capacities, but also through demand management, interconnections and energy storage.

The third pillar is the indispensable development of renewable energy. For years, our nuclear power plants have suffered untimely breakdowns. Every winter the question of security of supply arises. At some times, there were more failed power plants than operating power plants. We must break with this model of high dependence on nuclear energy to move, by 2050, towards a 100% renewable energy model. This is the climate challenge ahead of us.

The establishment of a capacity remuneration mechanism will accelerate this construction while preserving our security of supply. That is why our group supports this bill. This is not blind support; in the coming months, we will be attentive to the impact of the remuneration mechanism on consumer purchasing power.

Electricity bills have already increased too much during this legislature. The causes are as follows. VAT was increased from 6 to 21%, intercommunal taxation was introduced and their subordination to the ISOC, and nuclear power plants experienced repeated failures. It will be up to the next government and the next Parliament to decide how to finance the capacity remuneration mechanism, but our position is that it is not acceptable that only residential customers are contributed. Industries also benefit from the necessary measures to guarantee security of supply. It is therefore fair that they also finance them. We will pay attention to this in the coming weeks and in the coming months. We will support this bill.

In 2003, Belgium voted out of nuclear power. To guarantee this outcome, it was obviously necessary to replace nuclear energy with alternative energies. Since 2003, for 16 years therefore, very little has been done in terms of investments in renewable energy, although technically, these alternatives have existed for a long time.

What are the brakes? There are three orders. First, some political forces have stopped things. We think in particular of the N-VA which has actually sabotaged a real energy policy, because it defended, and it still defends, nuclear energy. Then there are the many manoeuvres of ENGIE Electrabel, which for years, set on the extension of nuclear power plants to increase its profits. Finally, there is the dogma, the belief that the market is the solution to address all the challenges that are posed to us, and in particular the energy transition.

Today, sixteen years later, we actually have a problem. We have a problem, and yet we continue to fail to make the necessary investments, i.e. public investments in renewable energy. The aim is to subsidize the private sector. The state is not responsible for energy policy. It does not invest in renewable energy, but it subsidizes the profits of companies.

The government is limited to market solutions: either nuclear power – which was extended during this legislature – or subsidies for gas power plants, because the necessary investments in renewable energies have not been made.

The PTB will vote against this bill. In the same logic, we will abstain from the following text, which also does not dare to get out of the market framework.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the speakers for their contributions to the discussion on a text of great scope for the future and of great complexity too. The latter is due to the fact that it is necessary to ensure that every existing or future unit of production, whether on the Belgian territory or on a foreign territory, is taken into account in a completely equal manner.

Furthermore, regarding the choice that is made in our electric mix to replace outgoing nuclear capacity with congruent gas power plant capacity (that is, that which is necessary in view, meanwhile, of the increase of renewable in our country), I think we have here a very interesting text because the gas is flexible. Its flexibility and its “pilotable” character allow it to deal in an extremely harmonious way with renewable energy whose capacity is growing in our country.

By calling on project providers through this framework text, we give the signal that in Belgium, we will, by a flexible way, support their profitability. Even today, gas is more expensive than electricity. To produce electricity from gas plants, the turnover that allows the company to expect profitability by selling the thus produced electricity must be supported at certain times, when electricity in the markets is at its lowest.

This is a very important signal that, we hope, will attract investors who will be able, on this basis, to develop projects in connection with the authority and in consultation with it and to install their infrastructure on our territory. This will generate significant investments and jobs and this will allow us, from 2021, to be ready in 2025, to have the capacity in gas power plants, necessary for the exit of our electric mix from the production of electricity by nuclear power.

It is just time and not too late. The degree of complexity of the text will allow you to understand why it took time to elaborate it. This is the first in Belgium. This is also a first in other countries. We worked with the European Commission (EC) precisely to be as fast as possible by observing what was applicable in other countries and by choosing the systems that were best suited to Belgium.

The EC has validated our framework text and already, for several months, the institutions with which we normally work - whether it is the CREG, Elia and, in the accompanying committee, the consultant who carried out the study we had ordered to be able to choose as appropriately as possible the system that was best suited to Belgium - are working on execution orders which, once the text has been voted, must be agreed with stakeholders so that these execution orders are as suitable as possible to the Belgian situation, to that of the Belgian market and to the circumstance of our minimum (also calculated) need for new gas power plants on our territory.

Dear colleagues, you are grateful for the support you will grant to this text, knowing that, this making, you clearly mark your will to get rid of the electricity produced by the nuclear power in this country and in accordance with the law that provides for this release in 2025.