WRITTEN QUESTION E-0006/02 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) and Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission. Electricity shortages in Spain and the Commission's attitude.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, competence of the Member States, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy grid, energy supply, energy transport, liberalisation of the market, oligopoly

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/11

(2003/C 28 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0006/02

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) and Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Electricity shortages in Spain and the Commission’s attitude

(17 January 2002)

In reply to a question by one of the authors of the present question (9 November 2001, E-2560/01 (1)),
Commissioner Monti said that the Commission is not at present in possession of evidence which would
enable it to conclude that the interruptions in electricity supply in certain regions of Spain are the result of
abusive practices by one or several of the operators on the Spanish electricity market.

The power cuts have occurred persistently and have become worse in the last few days, especially in
Catalonia and in other regions affected by a cold wave.

The situation has been debated in the Spanish press, but it appears unlikely that any solution will be
forthcoming from the Spanish government, which nonetheless bears the responsibility for the creation of
an oligopoly in the electricity sector.

All the experts agree that one of the causes of this situation is underinvestment by the electricity
companies, which have chosen to do as little as possible, in an attitude typical of those occupying a
dominant position. The consumers would be grateful if the Commission acted to end this situation.

Does the Commission intend to initiate any action to ascertain whether this situation is the result of
abusive exploitation of a dominant position by the electricity companies?

Does the Commission not believe that the reports published in the Spanish press provide sufficient
evidence for the belief that signs exist of anti-competitive practices?

Does the Commission believe that these power cuts may be the result of the characteristics of the
electricity sector in Spain?

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 119.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

As stated in its answer of 9 November 2001 to Written Question E-2560/01 from the Honourable
Member, the Commission has no evidence enabling it to conclude that the interruptions in electricity
supply in certain regions of Spain are the result of abusive practices by one or more operators on the
Spanish electricity market. The articles published in the Spanish press are not such as to cause it to change
its position.

The Commission considers that it is for the Spanish electricity regulator to investigate the real causes of
the interruptions in electricity supply in certain regions.

It does not therefore intend to conduct an investigation under the Community competition rules into the
problems of the continuity of electricity supplies by the companies responsible for transporting and
distributing electricity via high, medium and low voltage cables in Spain.

Generally speaking, the Commission continues to believe, as it stated in its reply of 9 November 2001,
that regulation by the national authorities seems to be the best method of ensuring continuity of electricity
supply.

It considers, however, that security of supply has a significant Community dimension in the internal
electricity market. That is why, in its March 2001 proposals for completing the internal energy market, it
suggested that Member States be required to ensure that a balance is maintained between production and
consumption and, if necessary, to issue invitations to tender for the construction of new power plants.

C 28 E/12

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

In addition, in its Communication on European energy infrastructure adopted on 20 December 2001, the
Commission underlined the importance of an adequate level of interconnection between networks in order
to benefit from the single market in the Union and improve energy security. It made specific proposals, in
particular as regards interconnections between Spain and its neighbours.

(2003/C 28 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0011/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Discovery of the roundabout financial means used to attract a business to the economically and

geographically disadvantaged Netherlands province of Friesland

Does the Commission recall that in its answer of 3 September 2001 to my question No E-1473/01 (1)
1.
it said, inter alia, that a certain case of ‘confidentiality’ in the Netherlands province of Friesland could
involve the European Social Fund (ESF) and that the matter had been referred to the relevant department,
the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs, so that it could carry out the necessary checks?

Has it since become aware that the abovementioned case seems to have no link to the ESF, but to an
2.
attempt made at the end of 1997 by the government of the province of Friesland to bring into the
Megapark business park in Heerenveen, with the help of considerable government support and a low land
price, the American company Space Crafts Incorporated (SCI), which is known for its low wages and hard
corporate culture and which, following the collapse of the space industry, assembles computer equipment
for, among others, Hewlett Packard?

3.
Did the Commission know that as early as February 1999 a public debate took place in the Friesland
provincial assembly concerning the confidentiality surrounding the roundabout financing of the founding
of the company referred to in point 2, whereby the province set up an ‘acquisition fund’ in late 1998,
under which the Noordelijke Ontwkkelings Maatschappij (Northern Development Company), which is not
subject to the Netherlands Open Government Law (Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur), was to receive the
sum of approximately EUR 3 million to provide temporary accommodation for the company? If so, what
did the Commission do with this information?

4.
Did the province of Friesland, following the submission of a question by the Commission to the
Netherlands in spring 1999, deny that money from the ‘acquisition fund’ had been promised to SCI, and
did it have to be left to a member of the provincial assembly, in an effort to ensure ethical government, to
inform the Commission of this state of affairs on 1 June 1999, in order to be able to forward the decision
to the Netherlands Government (reference number SG(2001) D/286182) in which the Commission ruled
that too much had been paid in subsidies and that this should be reimbursed?

5. What ways are open to the northern Netherlands provinces of Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe,
which for decades have been able to compensate to some extent for their unfavourable economic and
geographical situation vis-à-vis the densely populated west of the Netherlands by means of State subsidies
to help attract businesses with favourable conditions, to maintain their population levels and protect
employment opportunities without resorting to concealing information and circulating disinformation?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 28.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2002)

1. and 2.
E-0010/02 (1).

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to his written question

3.
The information to which this question refers was known to the Commission partly before, partly
after initiating the procedure of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. The Commission has requested detailed
information and based its decision on the information that was received from the Dutch authorities.