WRITTEN QUESTION P-3891/03 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Renewable energy in Ireland.
Date: 2003-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, competition, electrical energy, energy grid, market access, national implementing measure, renewable energy, wind energy

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/873

(2004/C 78 E/0926)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3891/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Renewable energy in Ireland

On 3 December, the Irish Commission for Energy Regulation announced a decision to block access to the
grid for wind energy beyond a capacity of 800 MW (for the whole island), based on advice from ESB
National Grid. The report on which this advice is based states that 2000 MW can be accommodated on
the grid with minimal constraints (1). According to the report’s authors, those constraints could be largely
or wholly eliminated through appropriate grid development, and revised network operating strategies. The
Irish Government has not transposed the Directive 2001/77/EC (2) on Electricity from Renewable Sources,
despite the 27 October deadline, and its officials seem to take the view that transposition is not necessary.
However, the actions of the Regulator would seem to conflict with Article 7 of that Directive, which
bestows considerable grid access and dispatch rights on renewable energy.

Will the Commission now oblige Ireland to transpose that Directive, and ensure that all measures are taken
to ensure grid access, as required by Article 7, where any restriction is for strictly safety and reliability
reasons and not lack of necessary investment or technical and procedural modifications?

Surely these actions by ESB National Grid are equivalent to those that arose in previous Commission
decisions (3),
in that ESB is making such decisions while it is simultaneously the owner and current
operator of the network, and a player in the market, including the renewable energy market? There is also
growing evidence of cross-subsidisation by ESB, for example in its own Regulatory Accounts. Will the
Commission now reconsider its approach to these competition issues in the Irish electricity market, as
expressed in its answer to my questions P-2460/03 (4) and E-2457/03 (5)?

(1)

‘The impacts of increased levels of wind penetration on the electricity systems of ROI and NI’, final report, Garrad
Hassan, ESBI, UCC for CER and OFREG-NI, 11-02-2003, page 85; (link).

(2) OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 33.
(3) B & I Line/Sealink decision [1992] 5 CMLR 255 and subsequent Stena/Sea Containers decision 94/19/EC, 21/12/93.
(4) See page 407.
(5) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The Directive 2001/77/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion
of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (1), in its Article 7,
bestows considerable grid access and dispatch rights on electricity from renewable energy as mentioned in
the letter of the Honourable Member.

Under this Article, Member States shall put into place a legal framework or require transmission system
operators and distribution systems operators to set up and publish their standard rules relating to the cost-
bearing of technical adaptations as grid reinforcements, which are necessary in order to integrate new
producers feeding electricity produced from renewable energy sources into the interconnected grid.

Sharing of costs of grid reinforcement shall be regulated by a legal framework with mechanisms based on
objective, transparent and non-discrimination criteria against electricity from renewable energy sources.

C 78 E/874

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Commission is carefully analysing the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which will be
brought into force by Member States to comply with Directive 2001/77/EC. In the case of Ireland, the
Commission started an infringement procedure on 25th November 2003 for non communication of the
national execution measures under Directive 2001/77/EC.

In the light of the transposition, the Commission will ensure that all measures are taken to ensure a fair
grid access as required in Article 7.

Regarding the State Aid aspects, the Commission takes the same view as in the previous Commission
answers to questions P-2460/03 and E-2457/03.

(1) OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

(2004/C 78 E/0927)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3908/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject: Freedom of movement in the EU and risk of abuse of welfare systems

1 May 2004 will be an historic day (cid:1) West and East Europe reunited after decades of separation. While
we should welcome this occasion, we should also be aware of some of the issues which may arise in
connection with it, in particular those associated with freedom of movement. In the spring, when the
borders open to citizens in the ten new Member States, where in general the standard of welfare is lower
than in the rest of the EU, there is a risk of abuse of the welfare systems in the current Member States.
To obtain a residence permit, students are required to be self-supporting, whereas there is no such
requirement of workers. The Court of Justice has ruled that the minimum working time for definition as
employment is ten hours per week for some form of consideration, not necessarily money. Ten hours’
employment now entitles the employee to a residence permit, which opens the door to the Member States’
welfare systems. Transitional rules are not an acceptable measure to prevent
this as it would be
discriminatory.

As these issues are currently the subject of intensive debate in most Member States, will the Commission
say whether it intends to introduce general measures, applying to all EU citizens, in order to combat abuse
and whether it will take the initiative to redefine the term ‘employed’ in order to prevent abuse of the
Member States’ welfare systems?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

During the preparations for enlargement, specific attention was paid to the issue of free movement of
people following enlargement. In particular, it was studied in detail the issue of the likely size and impact
of mobility in the post-enlargement period.

The overall conclusion from the analyses indicates that mobility from the new Member States to the
current 15 Member States is estimated to remain rather limited. These conclusions are in line with
previous enlargement experiences, in particular when Spain and Portugal joined the European Community.
Also at that time, it was observed that the improvement in expectations as well as the better opportunities
available to improve one’s standard of living and quality of life encourages people to remain in their home
country.

Free movement of persons and non-discrimination on the basis of nationality are fundamental rights for
community nationals within the European Union. Furthermore,
labour mobility is facilitated to better
match demand and supply on the European labour markets.