Proposition 55K0703

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 12 avril 1965 relative au transport de produits gazeux et autres par canalisations et la loi du 29 avril 1999 relative à l'organisation du marché de l'électricité, en vue de mieux protéger les PME.

General information ¶

Author

N-VA Bert Wollants

Submission date

Nov. 7, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

electrical energy energy supply gas small and medium-sized enterprises

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PVDA | PTB VB

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 ¶

May 28, 2020 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Collega Reccino Van Lommel, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present bill addresses inequalities for SMEs, which are very important in the economic fabric, in terms of the energy market. An adjustment is urgent. For a long time, it has been a thorn in the eye that SMEs that make forward-looking energy choices are sometimes punished for doing so.

For families, it has long been an acquired right that they can easily change supplier. This ensures that the market remains sharp and that families can use it to look for the best prices. A large number of people are not yet sufficiently familiar with this, but the right to change supplier has already brought much sharper electricity prices in the past. This also exists for SMEs, but there is still a certain adderle under the grass. SMEs are very sharply defined as companies that consume both up to 50,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity and up to 100,000 kilowatt-hours of gas.

At first glance, it seems logical to draw the border somewhere, but there is more going on. Two identical SMEs that consume equal amounts of electricity could still be judged differently in the current scheme because they accidentally choose a different fuel for heating their building. If one consumes a little too much natural gas, it loses the right to simply change supplier, while another, by using coal or fuel oil, can actually do what he wants. Those who then leave that fuel tank for what it is and still switch to a natural gas installation may also face the loss of those rights.

It becomes even more strange when the SME in question finds it in its mind to invest in a heat pump or an electric car fleet. It will emit less CO2 and cause less air pollution, but for some crazy reason the law today considers it losing rights as a consumer on the energy market.

This legislative proposal addresses the problem and allows SMEs to make it easier to switch to an energy supplier with sharper prices. Small and medium-sized enterprises, ⁇ in the future, will be able to take advantage of their position in this changing energy landscape. They can also work competitively and take advantage of it.

The solution is actually relatively simple. We cut through the very bizarre link that the legislator has created between the use of electricity and natural gas. We strongly raise the ceiling for electricity consumption. This means that SMEs who want to invest in electrification will no longer lose rights.

We also ensure that anyone who wants to invest in a heat pump or an electric vehicle, without any problems, can take the step, even for companies who want to leave the fuel oil boiler for what it is and to exchange for a more economical gas model. Nor will they lose any rights in that story in the face of the current situation.

That is a step forward. At the same time, however, we have – which has also been discussed in the committee – an absolute understanding of the adjustments that suppliers need to make in order to enable those SMEs to take advantage of the measure.

At the same time, they are also in a period where corona makes it difficult for suppliers in some cases. We have tried in the committee as best as possible to find a balance and give the suppliers the necessary space. There was also a wide support for this. We have taken the right direction in this regard.

I would like to thank the members and staff who have collaborated and contributed to the proposal, of course also for their contributions and support.

We are addressing a problem that came into our legislation ten years ago. I have addressed the problem several times over the past few years with a whole range of ministers who were responsible for Energy at the time. Today, however, Parliament is happy to do what Parliament is good at: resolving matters.

I hope, therefore, that the unanimous vote we were able to experience in the committee can also be spread here in the hemisphere.

Thank you, Mr. Wollants, for your initiative to extend the SME definition. It was fascinating parliamentary work, because we left with something that you explained in detail and because we landed with something that we eventually reached unanimous approval.

Ultimately, the most important thing is that for a large group of SMEs we will extend the protection that has been in the Electricity Act and the Gas Act for years. I find it fascinating to see how small technical aspects that have been involved in both laws for years and have been challenging different interpretations of how protection should be addressed, can now be proactively addressed.

I suspect that the vote from the committee will indeed be repeated. We will not change our voting behavior, so I expect that we will again have a unanimous vote.

This will mean progress for the many SMEs in our country.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wollants, I thank you for submitting this bill. Our group has been and remains in agreement with its objectives, more specifically the objective of allowing more companies to enjoy protection in the energy market.

For example, without this bill, there would remain restrictions for SMEs to change suppliers without a breakdown fee. Furthermore, companies should not be punished for the energy choices they make, such as switching to heat pumps or electric vehicles, as colleague Wollants recently mentioned.

Indeed, a maximum number of SMEs should be able to obtain favourable prices from other suppliers without being penalized. I think so, and the amendments in the committee show that Mr Wollants is of the same opinion, that the opinions of the FEBEG and the CREG have shown that adjustments were needed to counter some unwanted effects. These were, by the way, our concerns, ⁇ , but not exclusively, related to the impact on the suppliers and the possible impact on the tariffs.

It is also a good thing to consider electrification, which indeed increases the impact of the thresholds. An expansion of the SME group may make the market even more competitive.

We therefore support the amendment to raise the threshold for electricity consumption to 100,000 kilowatt-hours, the cutting of the link between electricity consumption and natural gas consumption and the maintenance of the threshold for natural gas, as well as the transition period, finally decided after good cooperation in the committee.

It is obvious that we support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, our group is always in favor of measures in favour of SMEs in energy law. They are the cornerstone of our economy and make an essential contribution to our economic growth and also to the creation of jobs.

At present, a SME is defined in energy law as a final customer with an annual consumption of less than 50 000 kWh of electricity and, cumulatively, of less than 100 000 kWh of gas for all of its points of connection to the transmission network.

The proposal was unanimously supported, after a constructive work in committee with all colleagues, as my colleague from Ecolo-Groen pointed out. It allows to raise the threshold for electricity consumption to 100 000 kWh. Electricity consumption will be separated from natural gas consumption. Finally, the threshold will be ⁇ ined for natural gas.

The advantage of the method – and not the least – is flexibility. Indeed, keeping the principle of the quantities consumed as the criterion for defining a SME and merely adjusting the thresholds allows to consider other future adjustments, upwards, depending on the evolution of the market or ⁇ even downwards.

By doubling the threshold for electricity consumption, a greater number of SMEs will be able to benefit from protection measures. All information about the price is also available for them. They will be able to use price comparison sites to easily identify potential savings.

This is good news, given that over the coming months and years a growing number of small and medium-sized enterprises will invest, for example, in heat pumps and electric commercial cars.

Finally, given the difficult situation of the coronavirus crisis and the importance of taking this situation into account in the implementation of new obligations, it seemed appropriate to give more time to the sector to proceed with the expansion of the target group. The measure will take effect from September 2021.

For these various reasons, our group will support this text.

Mr. Speaker, this bill expands the protection of SMEs and will ensure that more SMEs will be able to change their energy contract without paying a cancellation fee. This can already be ⁇ by individuals in the current legislation. They will also be able to choose renewable energy more easily.

In SMEs, protection depends on their energy consumption. Only SMEs with energy consumption within certain limits can cancel their energy invoice free of charge. This legislation extends these consumption limits and will ensure that more SMEs can benefit from this protection. That is why we have supported this bill in the committee and will do so here.

Especially in these times of crisis, self-employed and SMEs need to be better protected and supported. Some who know us less well may be a little surprised about this, but self-employed and SME leaders are people who often work hard. That is why they need support.

The best support we can provide to SMEs and self-employed persons is to ensure that the population has sufficient purchasing power. We will therefore gladly support this proposal.

Another note, for us, the date of accession, September 2021, should have fallen earlier. We believe that the suppliers are sufficiently equipped to start earlier, but that will not prevent us from supporting this bill.

We are, of course, satisfied with this bill. This bill will increase the limit of electricity consumption from 50,000 kilowatt-hours to 100,000 kilowatt-hours on an annual basis and will prepare the definition of a SME in the Electricity Act for further electrification of energy consumption. In this case, we primarily think of the use of heat pumps, instead of natural gas or fuel oil, and electric vehicles. These technologies, of course, increase electricity consumption, which can lead to consumption above the threshold of 50,000 kilowatt-hours. By raising that threshold now, we are already sending the message to SMEs that they do not have to stick to electrification, because they will be able to continue to maintain the safeguards provided for in energy legislation.

In the committee there was some discussion about choosing the threshold of 100,000 kilowatt-hours, which is partly of course an arbitrary choice, but it is, of course, a good step forward. In any case, the choice to raise the threshold is more practicable for suppliers than the original proposal discussed in the committee, which proposed to change the SME definition based on the size and number of employees, which would have become almost ineffective for suppliers from an administrative point of view in practice.

By increasing the limits and cutting the link between natural gas and electricity, much more SMEs will fall under the definition and therefore be entitled to the safeguards provided by energy legislation, including the free termination of the energy contract. This, of course, entails an increased risk for energy suppliers, as they must sell their purchased energy elsewhere. I think we will have to monitor this risk closely and check whether it does not create upward pressure on prices. Similarly, it is possible that a larger group of SMEs leads to increased competition between suppliers and hopefully to better, competitive energy prices.

Finally, I would like to mention the date of entry into force. In our opinion, it is good that the entry into force of this bill is anticipated on 1 September 2021. Thus, we give the suppliers, who are also severely affected by the coronary crisis, sufficient time to provide for the implementation in their IT applications of this legislative change. Those changes will be accompanied by the expected changes within the framework of Atrias.

In summary, with this bill, we encourage the electrification of our SMEs, provide for an increase in the number of SMEs that can benefit from various protective measures and ensure that suppliers have enough time to implement that IT-based implementation. Nothing but good news and

Our group will support this bill.

Mr. Delvaux, congratulations on your maiden speech. (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, it has been said here several times: self-employed persons and SMEs are largely the engine of our economy. Any proposal that will help them with a fairer approach to their energy bill, or at all a more flexible and better approach, will also receive our support.

From the very beginning when Mr. Wollants had submitted this bill, we were involved in this story. Initially, however, he broke some administrative boundaries, for example in the precise determination of what a SME is. With the necessary flexibility, a good solution came out of the bus.

As the colleague of Open Vld says, it can be discussed about that border that is still as arbitrary as the previous border, but our feeling says that now more SMEs belong to the target group for which this legislation should be intended. In that regard, that is a good thing.

In addition, this is equated with the natural gas border. This will not save the climate, but it is an important signal that electrification is also taking us a step forward in combating fossil energy in our society.

Finally, a few colleagues talked about the date and they thought it was good that it was pushed backwards. That’s just how they look at it. On the one hand, it may be good for our energy companies, on the other hand, it could be said that our SMEs have also had difficulty today and would have helped with an earlier entry into force of the law. However, we have reached an agreement in the committee and will therefore approve the present proposal.