WRITTEN QUESTION E-2880/02 by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Energy liberalisation progress in the EU.
Date: 2002-10-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: electrical energy, energy market, energy policy, gas, information, information processing, liberalisation of the market, single market

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/27

The attention of the honourable Parliamentary is also drawn on the outcomes of the meeting held on
4 November 2002 between MEP representatives (Cocobu, COBU, AFET) and Commission officials on the
EU aid to the Palestinians. A serie of documents on the management of EU funds to the Palestinians were
handed to the MEP on this occasion, notably a document on the role of the IMF within the framework of
the Direct Budgetary Assistance to the PA that will be also sent to you.

(2003/C 222 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2880/02

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Energy liberalisation progress in the EU

There is much controversy and there are differing statistics as to the extent of liberalisation of the energy
markets in the European Union’s 15 Member States.

I would therefore be interested in knowing:

(cid:1) what is the current level of energy market liberalisation in electricity and gas in the EU’s Member

States, specifically in France?

(cid:1) what are the criteria used by the Commission to define a) the electricity and gas markets and b)

liberalisation?

(cid:1) what is the source and date of data used by the Commission to compile this information?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

The liberalisation of Community gas and electricity markets consists of the following measures:

(cid:1) creating competition in the market for generation of electricity or the production or import of gas,

and the development of transparent wholesale markets with several players,

(cid:1) creating competition in the market for supplying gas and electricity to final customers, in particular by

introducing and gradually extending the rights of customers to choose their supplier,

(cid:1) separation of those parts of the business that are natural monopolies, that is transmission and
distribution networks, with the introduction of specific regulation of the prices charges for the use of
networks,

(cid:1) integration of national electricity and gas markets by the adoption of harmonised rules for

transmission tariffs and capacity allocation.

The Commission has recently published its second benchmarking report on the internal electricity and gas
market (1), which is
available on the DG TREN website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/en/
elec_single_market/index_en.html

This document is an up to date reference of the policies adopted in different Member States and some of
the results currently being achieved.

Regarding the level of declared market opening, a table is extracted from the report showing the most
recent information from October 2002 and is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

For France, the table shows that for both electricity and gas, the degree of declared market opening is at
the minimum permitted by the current Directives. Furthermore, for gas, the opening of the market is
purely the result of an informal agreement between the regulator and the main gas companies. The Gas
Directive (2) has not been transposed into French law and the case is currently before the Court of Justice.

C 222 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

However, a declaration of market opening does not, of itself, make for a well functioning market.
Ineffective regulation, potential cross subsidies, inadequate unbundling and market concentration may still
mean that vertically integrated companies are able to frustrate the efforts of potential new suppliers.

An alternative indicator of the openness of a market in the process of liberalising is to examine the
proportion of customers that have made use of their ability to switch supplier, or to renegotiate with the
existing supplier. A table containing estimates of this parameter for, respectively, large users and then if
relevant smaller commercial users and households is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

This table shows that, for electricity in France, around 10-20 % of the eligible customers have switched or
renegotiated, which is only around 5 % of the total market. Similarly for gas, although 20-30 % of eligible
customers have switched from Gaz de France (GDF), this is again around 5 % of the total market.

This information is based on estimates submitted by Member States’ governments or national regulatory
bodies and refers to the cumulative period since market opening. i.e. 1999-2002 for electricity and 2001-
2002 for gas. In future, Eurostat is intending to encourage Member States to carry out an evaluation for
individual years on a regular basis.

(1) SEC(2002) 1038.
(2) Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the

internal market in electricity (cid:1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2003/C 222 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2891/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Problems with the High Flux Reactor in Petten

(14 October 2002)

The Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (NRG) manages the High Flux Reactor in Petten, which
belongs to the Commission’s Joint Research Centre.

On 26 September 2002, the TV programme Reporter revealed on the basis of documents from the plant
itself that a larger or smaller leak in the cooling system could deprive the reactor core of cooling water and
possibly cause it to melt (‘the possibility cannot be absolutely excluded’).

In the 1980s, the ‘Veldman scenario’ (a break in the cooling-water pipes) was developed. This scenario was
analysed in detail by a working party including former operator Veldman. The NRG considers it extremely
unlikely that this scenario would actually arise and says that, although the possible consequences would be
serious, the surrounding area would be unaffected.

The reactor should be thoroughly examined while not operating, in order to identify any possible safety
problems.

State Secretary Van Geel (Environment) is allowing much uncertainty to persist regarding this issue. His
letter to the Lower House of Parliament does indicate that the government has never ordered a serious and
thorough investigation of the possibility that the reactor core might be deprived of cooling water (‘in view
of the international practice then prevailing, whereby research reactors were not subjected to this type of
analysis’). It is not clear on what Van Geel bases the opinion of his Nuclear Energy Service that in the
event of a break there would not be any risk of an explosion.

Does the Commission agree that the safety of nuclear installations should always be beyond doubt?

Does the Commission agree that, as a precaution, the High Flux Reactor in Petten should temporarily cease
to operate until the reactor’s serious safety problems have been solved?