sou · GXB348 · 2009-05-29 00:00:00 — Utredningen har haft i uppdrag att analysera om beslut i tillstånds- frågor bör överklagas till förvaltningsdomstol i stället för till regeringen. Överprövning av beslut enligt elförordningen eller ellagen kan innebära en avvägning mellan intresset för nätkoncessionshavaren att driva sin verksamhet och andra intressenters intresse av att inte drabbas av verksamheten av t.ex. ekonomiska skäl eller miljöskäl. Vi anser dock att utrymmet för skönsmässiga bedömningar inte kan bedömas vara så framträdande att de bör tillmätas avgörande betydelse för frågan om regeringen eller förvaltningsdomstolarna ska överpröva nätmyndighetens beslut. Vi ser inte heller något betydande behov av att regeringen ska kunna påverka bedömningen av hur olika intressen ska vägas mot varandra i aktuella ärenden enligt elförordningen och ellagen. Dessa bedömningar och intresse- avvägningar bör kunna hanteras på ett betryggande sätt av de allmänna förvaltningsdomstolarna. Detta gäller enligt utredningens mening också beslut avseende nätkoncession för linje. I tidigare överväganden i dessa frågor har uttalats att ärenden avseende nätkoncession för linje bör överklagas till regeringen eftersom prövningsgrunderna, som avser tillämpning av , till stor del avser lämplighetsbedömningar. Vi finner dock att även dessa frågor bör kunna hanteras av förvaltningsdomstolarna. En prövning av beviljande av nätkonces- sion för linje innefattar dessutom exempelvis frågor som om sökanden ur ett ekonomiskt och administrativt perspektiv är lämplig att godkännas som nätkoncessionshavare. Utredningen anser således att övervägande skäl talar för att nuvarande instansordning i aktuella ärenden ändras och att dessa ärenden i stället överklagas till allmän förvaltningsdomstol. Undan- tag från första stycket är beslut av nätmyndigheten enligt nu- varande 2 § 2 och 4 elförordningen som även fortsättningsvis överklagas till regeringen. Vårt förslag innebär att i princip samtliga av nätmyndighetens överklagbara beslut ska överklagas hos länsrätten som första instans. Länsrättens dom eller beslut överklagas hos kammar- rätten, men det krävs prövningstillstånd för att kammarrätten ska pröva överklagandet. Regeringsrätten kommer att vara slutinstans, men det krävs även prövningstillstånd för att Regeringsrätten ska pröva överklagandet Koncessioner för naturgas (kap. 8) Naturgaslagen omfattar regler om koncession för naturgasledning, men därutöver gäller, oavsett om ledningen är koncessionspliktig eller inte, annan tillämplig lagstiftning (t.ex. , m.fl.). Naturgaslagens huvudregel innebär att en naturgasledning inte får byggas eller användas utan tillstånd (koncession) av regeringen. En koncession ska normalt meddelas . dock inte för en naturgasledning som är belägen efter en mät- och reglerstation (). El- och gasmarknadsutredningen föreslog att undan- taget från koncessionsplikt för naturgasledningar belägna efter en avskaffas och att en områdeskoncession för naturgas- nät införs. Utredningen har haft i uppdrag att analysera detta förslag om utvidgat koncessionskrav och ska därvid beakta de slut- satser som dras vid analysen av koncessionsuppdelningen på el- marknaden. Vår uppfattning är dock att det saknas behov av att införa en områdeskoncession för distributionsnät för naturgas. Den nya nu gällande lagstiftningen på området ställer tydliga och omfattande krav på en nätägares verksamhet, även när ledningarna drivs utan koncession. De lagfästa skyldigheterna omfattar nätägarens ansvar för drift, underhåll och utbyggnad av ledningsnätet, liksom den ekonomiska redovisningen, anslutning av ledningar och överföring av gas. Nätägaren har också att upprätta en övervakningsplan och redovisa vidtagna åtgärder utifrån denna plan. Det finns därför enligt utredningens bedömning goda möjligheter att övervaka ett distributionsföretags verksamhet utan att behöva införa en förhandsprövning. Vi anser att de problem som förslaget om områdeskoncession varit avsett att lösa i huvudsak bör angripas med andra medel. De potentiella problemen bör i de flesta fall kunna lösas inom ramen för det gällande regelverket. Utredningen föreslår endast en ändring av regelverket som avser avgränsningen av koncessionskraven för naturgasledningar. Syftet med ett distributionsnät, att förse slutförbrukare med naturgas, var det ursprungliga motivet för undantaget från konces- sionsplikt. Detta kom sedan att likställas med ledningarnas läge efter en . Denna koppling har dock visat sig inte vara entydig och kan således ifrågasättas. Utredningen föreslår därför en ändring av naturgaslagen inne- bärande att koncession inte krävs för en naturgasledning vars huvudsakliga användning är att överföra naturgas till slutförbrukare inom ett avgränsat geografiskt område. Naturgasledningar för vilka koncession inte krävs enligt gällande bestämmelser bör även fortsättningsvis vara befriade från koncessionskrav. Ikraftträdande och övergångsbestämmelser (kap. 9) föreslår ett antal ändringar i den befintliga lagstiftningen för el och naturgas. Utredningen anser att hinder inte föreligger för att de föreslagna ändringarna i lagstiftningen ska kunna träda i kraft . De föreslagna ändringarna bör även kunna träda i kraft vid ett och samma tillfälle, men med vissa övergångsbestämmelser. Sammantaget bör de föreslagna bestäm- melserna kunna träda i kraft . Ekonomiska och andra konsekvenser (kap. 10) Utredningen föreslår en rad förändringar i regelverken för tillstånd att bygga och använda elektriska starkströmsledningar. En ändring föreslås också angående undantag från tillståndskravet för natur- gasledningar. Förslagen innebär i flera fall snarare omfördelningar av resurser mellan verksamhetsområden än förändrade resursbehov i de aktuella verksamheterna. Därför torde de samlade konsekvenserna av utredningens förslag kunna bedömas som tämligen måttliga. Vi lämnar en översikt av de ändringar i resursanvändningen och övriga konsekvenser som kan förutses till följd av förslagen. Flera av förslagen leder enligt vår bedömning till minskade resurskrav, sänkta kostnader och lägre tidsåtgång för myndigheter och nätkoncessionshavare. Förslaget att överklagandebestämmelserna ändras så att ärenden som handläggs och beslutas av nätmyndigheten enligt 2 kap. ellagen ska överklagas hos allmän förvaltningsdomstol leder enligt vår bedömning till krav på en smärre resursförstärkning vid berörd länsrätt, medan ett motsvarande minskat resurskrav upp- kommer för regeringen. The final task of the Survey is, among other things, to analyse whether the present division between area concessions and line concessions, and its connection with the rules for tariff setting and reporting are suitable for the creation of purpose-oriented, operationally reliable and cost-effective electricity networks and, should this not be the case, to propose measures for it. We shall also consider the con- clusions that are drawn when analysing the electricity market and which are relevant for the proposal for extended concession require- ments for natural gas markets that have been advanced by the Electricity and Gas Market Survey. Furthermore, we have through supplementary directives been given a number of new tasks. One of these is to analyse whether decisions on permit issues should be appealed against to the admini- strative court instead of to the government, and possibly submit a proposal for a change in court hierarchy. The Survey shall also consider whether network concessions can be associated with the possibility for review instead of being limited by time. Finally, the Survey shall analyse whether the present regulations for the permit review of a network concession for line are appropriate for struc- tural changes in the existing power line network and possibly propose suitable measures. The Surveys concluding report contains an introduction in which the current regulations and preconditions for the Survey work in general are described (Chapter 1). After this, the Survey gives an account of the current regulations in , , and . In Chapters 3–8, the questions listed above are taken up in consecutive order. Chapters 9 and 10 deal with proposals concerning the coming into effect of the proposed regulations as well as economic and other consequences. After this, the Survey gives an account of the most important proposals in these chapters. Demarcation of area and line concessions (Chapter 3) Chapter 2 of the Electricity Act contains regulations that concern network concessions. A network concession for a line (line con- cession) concerns a power line with a basically predetermined route and is for the most part applicable in the case of lines carrying a higher voltage, usually in the National or in regional lines. A network concession for an area (area concession) does not concern a specific line but entitles the holder, within a specified area and without special review, to build lines that are included in the local transmission network. An area concession may only be granted if the area – bearing in mind the network activities – comprises a suitable unit. The area may not completely or partially coincide with another concession area, and in this decision a highest permissible voltage shall be speci- fied for the network. As the Survey shows, It is not always easy to determine which voltage can be assumed to be needed during a network companys concession period. With the Surveys proposal that an area network concession should apply until further notice (see Chapter 5), special consideration shall be given to the voltage that may be assumed to be needed in order to run the network for a reasonably foreseeable period of time. The Survey proposes that the provisions of the Electricity Act, that a highest permissible voltage for the power line network shall be specified in a decision on an area network concession, should be supplemented by regulations to the effect that in choosing the highest permissible voltage, consideration should be given to the voltage that may be considered necessary in order to run the net- work, to the environment given a future extension of the network, the securing of a socio-economically motivated extension and the consequences for the effected. During permit assessment for an area concession, it is not decided where and how a line shall be installed. This is the reason why it is not necessary to conduct an environmental impact assessment () when applying for an area concession. For construction within the framework of an area concession, an be conducted to the extent that it is necessary for the case in question, whereas an always be included in an application for a line network con- cession. In our opinion, the performance of an is generally an expen- sive procedure and gives rise to a delay in the permit process for the applicant. It is therefore important that the need for the per- formance of an , as is the case with the construction of a network subject to an area concession, should only be enforced where it is especially important. The Survey feels that overhead power lines with a voltage of up to and including , and buried cables of up to and including , do not often entail any particular impact on the environ- ment. Within the specified voltage range, it is not the line voltage that is the determining factor as to whether there is deemed to be an impact on the environment, but rather the nature of the sur- roundings through which the lines are planned to pass. We there- fore propose that the demand for the inclusion of an in the application for a network concession for a line should be removed for the voltage range in question and be replaced by a provision that concerned, within the frame- work for consultation in accordance with the Environmental Code, should determine whether or not an needs to be conducted. Network tariffs and the reporting of network activities (Chapter 4) The principal question in Chapter 4 concerns the overall account of a network concession for an area together with lines that are covered by a network concession for a line. The present wording in § 11 of the Reporting Ordinance states that a line which is covered by a network concession for a line, and which is entirely located within the concession area, shall, if the line is included technically and organisationally in the area, be reported together with the area network concession. The ruling of § 11 of the Reporting Ordinance has been applied and interpreted in different ways by electricity network companies, since it is these companies that decide which lines are to be repor- ted together. The Surveys proposal aims, within the framework of the basic principles of the Electricity Act, to better adapt the regulations on reporting and the structure of the network tariffs to the current conditions for electricity network activities. We propose that the regulations be introduced into the Electricity Act in order to provide clearer statutory support at the same time as the regulations be extended and clarified partly through new wording. It is proposed that the network authority be given the possi- bility, after an application from the concession holder, through decision, to allow collective reporting in cases other than those that can be deduced from the present wording in § 11 of the Reporting Ordinance and the revisions in the regulation that the Survey pro- poses. Collective reporting based on the network authoritys deci- sion means that the functions of the lines in the electricity network will have greater importance for how the lines are reported, which will in turn be important in determining which rules are to be applied with respect to the structure of the network tariffs. The structure of the network tariffs for whose facilities are connected to a certain line will in these cases be more dependent on what function the line in question has in the concession holders network rather than the type of concession that has been specified for the line. For the concession holder, this means a simpler and clearer struc- ture of the network tariffs in the concession holders collected net- work activities. For , the proposal means that the same tariff setting will be applied for the customer category concerned, irrespective of whether the facility is connected to a line that is covered by a network concession for a line or an area. In the changeover to collective reporting, the network tariffs may be influenced in an increasing or decreasing direction for different customer categories. In order to avoid excessively large and far- reaching changes being made directly, it is proposed that the net- work authority should be able to decide on a transitional (interim) period of up to and including five years for the application of an integrated network tariff structure. The provisions of the Electricity Act concerning the structure of the network tariffs mean that the latter shall be distance-inde- pendent for all on a local and regional network level. For incoming supply connected to regional lines, however, the concession holder may apply distance-dependent network tariffs. The proposal of the Survey on new regulations for collective reporting may have an impact on the conditions governing which regulations are to be applied with respect to the structure of the network tariffs. However, these consequences may be considered to be compatible with the basic principles for net- work tariff design and cost balancing in the Electricity Act. The Survey therefore proposes that no changes be made regarding the regulations. Period of network concession validity (Chapter 5) A network concession is granted for a certain predetermined period – 40 years in the case of a line concession and 25 years for an area concession. Should there be any special reasons, or the applicant requests it, a shorter period of time can be prescribed. Subject to an application by the concession holder, the period of network con- cession validity can then be extended for a further 40 and 25 years respectively. In principle, the same assessment shall then be made as for an application for a new concession. The Survey has been tasked with analysing whether the permit can be reviewed instead of being limited by time. As regards the review of area network concessions, it can be stated in general that the network authority has normally been able to grant a renewed concession without factual assessment having given cause for serious consideration. The Survey feels that if there is a need for changes to be made in the distribution network for electricity for reasons concerning, for example the structure of energy policy or a change in the energy system, it would probably be relatively ineffective to utilise the review institute. There should be other courses of action that give faster results since reviews of area network concessions are made at twenty-five-year intervals. To this shall be added the fact that such structural reasons do not carry the same weight for area concessions as for line concessions since the public do not have any direct influence over how the net- work concession holder routes the lines within the concession area. We propose, therefore, that the regulation that area network con- cessions should be granted for a specific period of time be deleted and replaced by a ruling to the effect that area network concessions should remain valid until further notice. In the opinion of the Survey, the current ruling in the Electricity Act and in the Act on the special administration of certain electrical installations gives sufficient opportunity for the review of an area concession, should such review be necessary because the concession holder failed to fulfil his undertakings. In the opinion of the Survey, there is good reason – with a similar motivation as that presented in the case of area network con- cessions – to propose that line network concessions should also be made valid until further notice. A proposal on these lines, however, should be supplemented by the expressly stated option to review a granted network concession. We therefore propose that network concessions for lines shall as a general rule of thumb apply until further notice. During an initial forty-year period, the network authority will only be able to review the network concession in accordance with the regulations that already apply today for the review of a network concession during a current period of validity. Once this forty-year period has expired, the reasons for review or reassessment will be broadened and more parties will have the oppor- tunity to request a review. The first assessment made by the network authority will thus be, on request, to assess whether or not a review procedure should be initiated. The justification as to why the network authority should initiate a review procedure for a network concession shall be that there is a need for socio-economic reasons, for the network concession holders business economic reasons or for reasons of the type stipulated in Chapters 2–4 of the Environmental Code, i.e. environmental, outdoor recreational or cultural reasons. A local authority or county administrative board or network concession holder shall be able to apply for the review of a line network con- cession when forty years have elapsed since the concession was granted. It shall also be possible for the network authority to initiate a review on its own initiative. If the network authority has decided to initiate a review pro- cedure for an existing network concession, the assessment shall be based in this second stage on the grounds that may exist for the decision to initiate a review procedure and to a large extent on those regulations that are applied in connection with an application for a new line network concession. Concession decision for structural changes (Chapter 6) A basic prerequisite for the granting of a network concession is that the facility is suitable from a general point of view. A suita- bility assessment of this type normally comes into question in the case of a network concession for a line. An application for a line concession shall, among other things, contain information on the transmission demand that the line is intended to satisfy. At the time of application, it is assumed that the applicant has examined and prepared the matter to such a level of detail that the technical structure of the line and the principal route alternatives have been established. Concession assessment is thus basically made on the basis of the preconditions for each individual line. However, in the case of major structural changes several power line projects may be depen- dent on each other for implementation. As an example, mention can be made of the Ström project, where was commissioned by the Government to study the design of the future 70–power line network in the region. The Survey has been given the task of assessing whether the current regulations for permit assessment for a line network concession are suitable in the case of structural changes in the existing power line network.. In our opinion, it is likely that similar structural changes in the electricity network as those in will be made in other cities in . The Survey concludes that, as with major road and rail projects, it is in the interest of all parties to have the permissi- bility of a structural change clarified at an early stage. A change is also dependent on the fact that the entire project can be imple- mented so that it will be possible to remove those lines that are pro- posed to be removed. There is also a certain amount of uncertainty in todays regulations in that all the previous work could prove to be unusable if the final project applied for in a structural change process is rejected. We therefore propose that in a structural change of the electri- city network, a permissibility assessment should be conducted in line with the Electricity Act. The assessment should cover the struc- tural change project in its entirety. Once the Government has decided that a certain project is permitted, the network authority shall administer the permit question in the individual parts of the project in accordance with the customary concession rules for line. The assessment conducted by the network authority shall then be restricted to those issues that have not been assessed by the Government. An application for permissibility assessment shall contain an . The regulations for permissibility assessment are co-ordinated with the regulations for line concessions in the introductory regulations in Chapter 2 of the Electricity Act. Appeals, etc. (Chapter 7) A permit (concession) is required from the Government in order to be allowed to construct or use a high-voltage electrical power line. However, the Government can authorise the network authority to examine questions in a network concession that do not concern a foreign connection. This means that the network authoritys deci- sion in a concession case, for example on the granting and transfer of a network concession and a change in the boundaries for an area network concession, shall be appealed against to the Government. Other decisions made by the network authority shall be appealed against to the general administrative court in accordance with the Electricity Act. Authority is entitled to act as a party in court and to appeal against a ruling of the court which has meant that the ruling of the network authority has been factually changed. The Survey has been tasked with analysing whether decisions on permit matters should be appealed against to the administrative court instead of to the Government.