WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1526/96 by Elisabeth SCHROEDTER to the Commission. Compensatory investment allowance payments by the government of the Land of Brandenburg for the preferential use of brown coal as an energy source
Date: 1996-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, SCHROEDTER
Subjects: competition law, economic support, electrical industry, energy supply, investment aid, lignite, power plant













EUR-Lex - 91996E1526 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1526

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1526/96 by Elisabeth SCHROEDTER to the Commission. Compensatory investment allowance payments by the government of the Land of Brandenburg for the preferential use of brown coal as an energy source  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0080 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1526/96 by Elisabeth Schroedter (V) to the Commission (6 June 1996)Subject: Compensatory investment allowance payments by the government of the Land of Brandenburg for the preferential use of brown coal as an energy sourceIs the Commission aware that the government of the Land of Brandenburg is offering all public utilities in Brandenburg an investment allowance (about one third of the total investment) to cover all the additional cost of constructing new combined heat-and-power plants using the expensive variant of a technology based on brown coal rather than a power station variant using natural gas?Is the Commission aware that this investment allowance is conditional on the purchase of a specified annual quantity of brown coal from the local Lausitz open-cast brown coal mining industry?Is the Commission aware that the government of the Land of Brandenburg similarly intends to grant the public utilities of the city of Cottbus an investment allowance if, when investing in a new power station, they decide against the combined heat-and-power technology, with its very high level of efficiency, and instead buy district heat from the central Jänschwalde brown coal plant?Is the Commission aware that in the agreement settling the dispute before the Federal Constitutional Court the city of Brandenburg an der Havel, one of the plaintiffs, was required to ensure sufficient generation of electricity using brown coal and to limit its own generation of electricity?If so, can the Commission explain why this does not contravene the rules on competition contained in the Treaty (Articles 85, 86 and 91)?If not, will the Commission initiate measures based on the rules on competition in the EC Treaty to combat this practice in the Land of Brandenburg?Can the Commission say what measures it will initiate?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)As a result of Written Question No P-850/96, ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p.91. )) the Commission's attention was drawn to possible measures to promote the use of eastern German brown coal under agreements concluded as part of the 'energy consensus rounds' concerning eastern Germany and it has requested the German authorities to provide relevant information. However, it is not aware of the fact that the Government of the Land of Brandenburg has granted or is planning to grant massive investment allowances to public utilities in Brandenburg and to the city of Cottbus with a view to encouraging the use of brown coal as a source of energy.Consequently, the Commission will be asking the German authorities forthwith to give their views on this matter too, so that the measures can be assessed in the light of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty. In order to ascertain whether the agreement settling the dispute before the Federal Constitutional Court constitutes an infringement of Article 85, 86 or 90, the Commission needs to know the exact details of the settlement and the identity of the parties concerned. It will be seeking further information from the German authorities.