WRITTEN QUESTION P-2460/03 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Anti-competitive actions of the Irish State in the electricity market.
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, award of contract, competition law, electrical energy, renewable energy, subsidiary, support policy

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/407

(2004/C 78 E/0428)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2460/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Anti-competitive actions of the Irish State in the electricity market

The Irish State has announced the results of the latest AER support scheme for renewable energy. The main
beneficiaries are subsidiaries of the national electricity utility ESB and their partner companies.

Given that the ESB is absolutely dominant in the Irish electricity market, with enormous resources at its
disposal, does the Commission consider that permitting ESB subsidiaries to participate in the AER
competition constitutes a distortion of the market? Does it further amount to a discrimination, given the
fact that it can use the extensive resources it has accumulated under State ownership, with its State
backing, to undercut independent producers?

Is the Commission willing to instruct the Irish State to halt the awards to ESB subsidiaries and partners
while it investigates the foregoing questions in relation to this competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The Commission state aid decision regarding the rural electrification scheme (AER) (1) does not impose any
requirement as to the nature of bidders. It is designed to increase the volume of electricity produced from
renewable sources of energy in Ireland and there is nothing to prevent subsidiaries of the Electricity Supply
Board (ESB) from participating in this increase provided that they satisfy the necessary conditions for
bidding successfully.

The Commission takes the view that, as the majority shareholder in ESB, the Irish State is free to manage
the company’s capital as it sees fit, provided that it complies with the market-economy investor principle.
In the case at issue, the Commission does not possess any information suggesting that ESB subsidiaries
receive aid from their parent company in the form of, say, supplies at lower-than-market prices.

The Commission has no intention, therefore, of amending its above decision so as to exclude ESB
subsidiaries from the AER scheme or of intervening in the awarding of contracts to ESB or its partners.

(1) Commission decision in Case N 553/01, OJ C 45, 19.2.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0429)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2537/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Net contribution to the common agricultural policy

(29 July 2003)

In the second report on economic and social cohesion in the EU the Commission stated that Portugal was
a net contributor to the common agricultural policy (CAP).

In answer to my Written Question P-0897/01 (1) the Commission produced the figures on which it had
based that assertion. According to the Commission, Portugal’s net contribution to the CAP between 1989
and 1998 amounted to EUR 2 000 m, in other words over EUR 260 per inhabitant.

That being the case, can the Commission say whether Portugal is still a CAP net contributor? Using the
same method as for the period between 1989 and 1998, can it supply updated figures for the period
between 1998 and 2002?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 213.