Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement on State aid with regard to the sale of power by Notodden Municipality (Norway) to Becromal Norway AS
Date: 2008-04-17
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, exchange of information, restriction on competition, sale

17.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/21

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance
and Court Agreement on State aid with regard to the sale of power by Notodden Municipality
(Norway) to Becromal Norway AS

(2008/C 96/05)

By means of Decision No 718/07/COL of 19 December 2007, reproduced in the authentic language on the
pages following this summary, the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 1(2)
in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance
Authority and a Court of Justice (Surveillance and Court Agreement). The Norwegian authorities have been
informed by means of a copy of the decision.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority hereby gives the EFTA States, EU Member States and interested parties
notice to submit their comments on the measure in question within one month from the publication of this
notice to:

EFTA Surveillance Authority
Registry
Rue Belliard 35
B-1040 Brussels

The comments will be communicated to the Norwegian authorities. Confidential treatment of the identity of
the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the
request.

SUMMARY

PROCEDURE

Based on press reports, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter ‘the Authority’), on 30 May 2007, sent
a letter to Norway requesting additional information on Notodden municipality's sale of electric power to
the aluminium foil producer Becromal Norway AS, located in Notodden.

Following the Norwegian authorities' reply to this request and further correspondence with the Norwegian
authorities, the Authority has decided to open a formal investigation procedure with regard to the power
sales agreement between Notodden municipality (as seller) and Becromal Norway AS (as buyer), in force
from 14 May 2001 to 31 March 2006 and prolonged until 31 March 2007.

ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTRACT

The contract in question was entered into by the parties on 10 May 2002, with retroactive effect from
14 May 2001. The volumes covered were fixed at 14,4794 GWh from 14 May 2001 to 31 December
2001, 30 GWh per year from 2002 to 2005, 7,397 GWh from 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2006, and,
finally, the contract contained an option for Becromal to buy certain power volumes to which the munici-
pality was entitled under Norwegian law (concession power) from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. It
appears that Becromal exercised this option.

The power volumes covered correspond to the power volumes to which the municipality was entitled under
its contract with Tinfos, a local power plant. The background for the Tinfos agreement was partly the muni-
cipality's right to so-called concession power under Norwegian law, and partly compensation to the munici-
pality for its rights to the waterfall which were exploited by Tinfos. Under these circumstances, the price
was fixed at NOK 0,135 per kWh.

The prices in the agreement between Notodden municipality and Becromal were linked to the price laid
down in the contract between Tinfos and Notodden municipality. Thus, the price was fixed at NOK 0,135
per kWh from 14 May 2001 to 31 March 2006. Thereafter, the price would correspond to the price of
concession power.

The Authority considers that, if the prices at which Becromal bought electric power from the municipality
were lower than the market price, State resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA must be deemed
to have been involved and a selective advantage to have been conferred on Becromal. There are several indi-
cations that this was the case:

C 96/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2008

Firstly, the fact that the price paid by Becromal was identical to the price paid by the municipality, indicates
that aid is involved, as this price reflected the municipality's special rights to the waterfall by virtue of legis-
lation and contractual relations.

Secondly, the price seems low in comparison to the general price level at the time of conclusion of the
contract.

Thirdly and finally, in a letter to Becromal dated April 2007, the municipality seems to acknowledge that
the former agreement had saved Becromal from costs of NOK 17,5 million compared to the market price.

If it is established that the contract price was below the market price at the time, Becromal would have
received an advantage which would have strengthened its position compared with that of its competitors.
Becromal also operates in international competition. Therefore, any aid would threaten to distort competi-
tion and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.

Any State aid involved would seem to constitute operating aid. As such aid is particularly distortive, the
Authority takes the preliminary view that the aid is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agree-
ment.

Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement constitutes a standstill obliga-
tion and Article 14 in Part II of that Protocol provides that, in the event of a negative decision, all unlawful
aid may be recovered from the beneficiary.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority has decided to open the formal investigation proce-
dure in accordance with Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to Surveillance and Court Agreement with
regard to the power sales contract between Notodden Municipality and Becromal Norway AS in force from
14 May 2001 to 31 March 2006, and prolonged until 31 March 2007.

17.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/23

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 718/07/COL

of 19 December 2007

on the sale of power from Tinfos power plant by the municipality of Notodden to Becromal
Norway AS

(Norway)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area (1),
in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26
thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on
the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of
Justice (2), in particular to Article 24 thereof and Article 1(2)
and (3)
II of
Protocol 3 thereof,

I and Articles 4(4) and 6(1)

in Part

in Part

Whereas:

I. FACTS

1. Procedure

According to an Article published in the regional Norwegian
newspaper named Telen on 26 March 2007, the municipality of
Notodden in Southern Norway had a power sales agreement,
which was about to expire, with Becromal, an aluminium manu-
facturing company having a plant at Notodden. According to
the Article, in order to safeguard Becromal's establishment at
Notodden, the prices under the expiring agreement were set
to the municipality's own costs in purchasing certain
equal
amounts of power, see further below. However, the municipality
was considering selling the power volumes on the open market.
On the basis of that Article, the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(hereinafter ‘the Authority’), on 30 May this year, sent a letter to
Norway requesting additional information on the municipality's
sale of power to Becromal, (Event No 422613).

By letter dated 19 July 2007, received and registered by the
Authority on 10 July 2007 (Event No 428860), the Norwegian
authorities replied to the request.

By letter dated 21 September 2007 (Event No 442519), the
Authority requested additional information.

By letter dated 30 October 2007 from the Norwegian Ministry
of Government Administration and Reform, received and regis-
tered by the Authority on the same day (Event No 449660),
Norway replied to the information request.

2. Description of the measures

Notodden is a municipality in the County of Telemark in
South-Eastern Norway. Located where two rivers flow into the
lake Heddalsvatnet, the municipality has significant hydropower
resources within its borders.

In that capacity, the municipality is entitled to receive a certain
amount of so-called ‘concession power’ from concessionaires for

(1) Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.
(2) Hereinafter referred to as the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

waterfall exploitation every year. The system of concession
power is laid down in Section 2(12) of the Industrial Licensing
Act and Section 12(15) of the Waterfalls Regulation Act (3).
According to these provisions, which are identical in wording,
counties and municipalities in which a power plant is located
are entitled to receive up to 10 per cent of a plant's yearly
production at a price determined by the State. With respect to
concessions granted prior to 1959, such as the concession in
the case at hand, the price is based on the so-called ‘individual
costs’ of the plant, unless a lower price is agreed on (4). Thus,
the price of concession power will normally be lower than the
market price.

Each municipality's entitlement to concession power is decided
on the basis of
its ‘general electric power supply needs’.
According to the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Direc-
torate, this includes electric power for industry, agriculture and
households, but not power for power intensive industries and
wood conversion (5). From 1988 Notodden municipality had
been entitled to approximately 3,9 GWh from the Tinfos power
plant located in Notodden, which appears to have been raised to
7,114 GWh in 2002 (6).

the

entitled to under

concession power volumes

In addition to the
that
the
regulations on
municipality was
concession power, Notodden municipality appears to have had
rights of use of the waterfall Sagafoss in Notodden. This right of
use was, however, exploited by Tinfos AS and not by the
municipality itself. In return, the municipality was entitled to
from the plant. The
additional volumes of electric power
commercial
is
currently governed by a contract entered into on 15 August
2001 (7). This contract stipulates that, until 31 March 2006, the

relationship between Notodden and Tinfos

(3) These provisions read: ‘The licence shall stipulate that the licensee shall
surrender to the counties and municipalities in which the power plant is located
up to ten per cent of the increase in water power obtained for each waterfall,
calculated according to the rules in Section 11, subsection 1, cf. Section 2,
third paragraph. The amount surrendered and its distribution shall be decided
by the Ministry concerned on the basis of the county's or municipality's general
electric power supply needs. The county or municipality may use the power
provided as it sees fit. […]. The price of power [for the municipality] shall be
set on the basis of the average cost for a representative sample of hydroelectric
power stations throughout the country. Taxes calculated on the profit from
power generation in excess of a normal rate of return are not included in the
calculation of this cost. Each year the Ministry shall set the price of power
supplied at the power station's transmission substation. The provisions of the
first and third sentences do not apply to licences valid prior to the entry into
force of Act No 2 of 10 April 1959’. (Translation by the Norwegian
Ministry of Petroleum and Energy).

(4) The ‘individual costs’ of the plant are calculated in accordance with the
legal provisions applicable until 1959. Under these provisions, the indi-
vidual cost price would be calculated as the plant's production costs
including 6 per cent interest on the initial costs, plus a mark-up of
20 per cent, divided by average yearly production in the period
1970-1999. See the so-called KTV-Notat No 53/2001 of 24 August
2001, Event No 455241.

(5) KTV-Notat No 53/2001, cited above.
(6) See Norway's reply to question 4 in the second request for information,

Event No 449660.

(7) Annex to Event No 449660.

C 96/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2008

municipality was entitled to buy 30 GWh per year, including
3,9 GWh concession power, from Tinfos AS. The price was set
at NOK 0,135/kWh for concession power and the additional
volume alike. After 31 March 2006, the municipality has only
be entitled to buy the volume constituting the concession
power, and the prices
the municipalities'
purchase of such power has been applicable since then.

established for

The relevant legal basis for the municipalities' right to conces-
sion power, referred to above, expressly states that municipalities
may dispose of the concession power as they see fit, irrespective
of the fact that the amount to which they are entitled is calcu-
lated on the basis of their ‘general electric power supply needs’.
Thus, there is nothing to prevent municipalities from selling this
power to power intensive industries, or any other industry,
established within the municipality.

Against this background, the municipality, on 10 May 2002,
entered into an agreement (1) with the aluminium foil producer
Becromal concerning the resale of the power volumes to which
it was entitled under the agreement with Tinfos. The agreement
takes retroactive effect and, therefore, also governs the power
volumes sold to Becromal from 14 May 2001 until the date of
signature of the contract. The volumes covered appear to corre-
spond to the volumes under the municipality's contract with
Tinfos until 31 March 2007: i.e., 14,4794 GWh from 14 May
2001 to 31 December 2001, 30 GWh per year from 2002 to
2005, 7,397 GWh from 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2006,
and, finally, an option for Becromal to buy the municipality's
concession power from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. The
prices also mirror those laid down in the municipality's contract
i.e. NOK 0,135 per kWh until 31 March 2006,
with Tinfos,
and, from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007,
‘the conditions at
which Notodden municipality may, at that time, buy the power in
question’. It appears that Becromal did choose to buy the conces-
sion power on these conditions in the period from 1 April
2006 to 31 March 2007 (2).

By letter dated 4 March 2007 (1), Becromal requested a prolon-
gation of the power purchase agreement. It also asked whether
higher volumes could be included in the contract. On 30 April,
the municipality replied to the request, offering Becromal to buy
the municipality's concession power at NOK 0,2 per kWh
(which is said to correspond to the spot price at NordPool, the
Nordic power exchange, for May 2007) for the period from
1 April to 31 December 2007, and thereafter a three-year agree-
ment at the price of NOK 0,264 per kWh from 1 January 2008
to 31 December 2010. It is also stated that the concession
power volume, from 1 April 2007, is 7,113 GWh.

The municipality also explained the background for the signifi-
cantly higher prices offered by the municipality in 2007
compared to the previous agreement. In this respect, it pointed
to the Municipal Executive Committee's requirement that ‘the
agreement to be entered into between Becromal AS and the munici-
pality must not infringe competition legislation or other legislation
pertaining to competition or State aid’. The letter then goes on to
state:

(1) Annex to Norway's reply of 9 July 2007, Event No 428860.
(2) The Authority is not in possession of a copy of any such prolongation
agreement. However, by letter dated 4 March 2007 (Annex to Event
No 428860), Becromal requested the prolongation of the agreement
and referred in that respect to ‘the agreement which Becromal has with
Notodden municipality concerning the purchase of the municipality's conces-
sion power expires on 31 March 2007’. Thus, it appears that the option to
buy concession power for the period 1 April 2006-31 March 2007 was
exercised.

‘During the years of application of
the previous agreement,
Becromal AS has obtained power at prices which have saved the
company for, in total, NOK 17,5 million compared to the market
price. The power price laid down in the previous agreement cannot
be upheld as it would as it involves a subsidy in breach of EEA
rules.’

On 30 June this year, Becromal replied that it accepted the
prices offered for the last nine months of 2007. By contrast, it
declined the offer for the period 2008-2010, as it was consid-
ered to be too high. The municipality replied, by letter dated
4 July, that in light of Becromal's letter, it considered that an
agreement had been reached concerning power volumes for
2007. Hence, it would come back soon with a draft agreement.
In respect of the period from 2008 to 2010,
it upheld its
previous position that the contract must be on market terms (3).
The municipality has later confirmed that no formal agreement
has yet been entered into. Nor have negotiations been held with
respect to the period after 1 January 2008 (4).

II. ASSESSMENT

1. The presence of State aid

State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:

‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by
EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any
form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition
by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain
goods shall,
in so far as it affects trade between Contracting
Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’

It follows from this provision that, for State aid within the
meaning of the EEA to be present, the following conditions
must be met:

— the aid must be granted through State resources,

— the aid must favour certain undertakings or the production
of certain goods, i.e. the measure must confer an economic
advantage upon the recipient(s), which must be selective,

— the beneficiary must be an undertaking within the meaning

of the EEA Agreement,

— the aid must be capable of distorting competition and affect

trade between contracting parties.

The fulfilment of these conditions will be considered further
below.

1.1. Presence of State resources

The measure must be granted by the State or through State
resources. Municipal
the
purposes of Article 61(1).

resources are State resources

for

(3) See Annexes to Norway's reply of 9 July 2007, Event No 428860.
(4) See Norway's reply to the Authority's second request for information,

Event No 449660.

17.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/25

In the case at hand, there is no transfer of money from the
municipality to Becromal. However, it is settled case law that
when a public entity does not fix an energy tariff in the manner
of an ordinary economic agent but uses it to confer a pecuniary
advantage on energy consumers,
it thereby forgoes the profit
which it could normally realise (1). Thus, if the price fixed in the
contract is lower than the market price, State resources within
the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA will be deemed to be involved.
The Authority will assess this question below under point 2.2.

NOK 17,5 million compared to the market price.
In a
presentation to the board of the administration of 28 November
2005,
the head of administration refers to a legal opinion
commissioned from Hjort Law Firm in 2001, i.e. prior to the
conclusion of the agreement, concluding that the price agreed
would constitute aid.

Against this background, the Authority has serious doubts that
the prices applicable under the agreement of 10 May 2002
reflected the market price of equivalent contracts at the time.

1.2. Favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods

In order for this condition to be fulfilled, the measures must
confer on Becromal advantages that relieve it of charges that are
normally borne from its budget. Secondly, the measure must be
selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of
certain goods’.
In the case at hand, an advantage would be
present if the power price in the contract between Becromal
and Notodden municipality is lower than the market price. In
that case, the measure would also be selective since it exclusively
benefits Becromal.

There are several
indications that the price laid down in the
contract between Becromal and the municipality was below the
market price for equivalent contracts at the time of conclusion
of the agreement.

the very method applied to arrive at

Firstly,
the price of
NOK 0,135, applicable from 14 May 2001 until 31 March
2006, indicates that aid is involved. As stated above, the price
calculation methods for concession power entail
that such
power prices are generally considerably lower than the market
price. Judging by the introduction to the agreement between
Notodden and Tinfos, the remaining power volumes covered
seem to be delivered in compensation for Tinfos' exploitation of
the municipality's rights to Sagafoss. The prices in the contract
between Notodden and Tinfos must, therefore, be presumed to
be below the market price. Since the price charged from
Becromal corresponds to the price payable by Notodden to
Tinfos, the same presumption applies to the price laid down in
the Becromal contract.

the time of conclusion of

Secondly, the price seems low in comparison to the general
price level at
the contract. For
example, the Authority's Decision No 142/00/COL of 26 July
2000, concluding that the contracts under which certain energy
intensive undertakings leased power plants from Statkraft did
not involve State aid, refers to 20-year contracts being obtain-
able in the open market at the time at a price of around
NOK 0,19 per kWh. Furthermore, an article published in the
regional newspaper Telen on 7 November 2001 seems to indi-
cate that the municipality had estimated the price of an equiva-
to be around
lent
NOK 0,1739 per kWh (2).

in the open market

five-year contract

Thirdly and finally, the municipality seems to acknowledge that
the price charged was lower than the market price. As referred
to above,
the municipality, by letter dated 30 April 2007,
informed Becromal that a prolongation of the price in the 2002
agreement would be in breach of the State aid rules, and that
the former agreement had already saved Becromal costs of

(1) See Joined Cases 67, 68 and 70/85, Kwekerij Gebroeders van der Kooy BV

and others v Commission, [1988] ECR 219, paragraph 28.
(2) http://www.telen.no/article/20011107/NYHET/11106002

1.3. Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting

Parties

The measures must distort competition and affect trade between
the Contracting Parties. Under settled case law, the mere fact
that an aid strengthens a firm's position compared with that of
other firms competing in intra-EEA trade, is enough to conclude
that the measure is likely to affect trade between the contracting
parties and distort competition between undertakings estab-
lished in other EEA States (3).

Provided that it is established that the price paid by Becromal
under the contract of May 2002 was below the market price for
similar contracts at the time, Becromal has received an advan-
tage which has strengthened its position compared with that of
its competitors. Thus the measure threatens to distort competi-
tion. Neither
to
(NOK 17,5 million) seem to be below the de minimis threshold
applicable at the material time (4).

amount

referred

does

the

aid

of

it is part of a group of
According to Becromal's homepage,
companies based in Italy and exports 100 per cent of
its
production. The plant at Notodden therefore competes with
undertakings established in other EEA States.
Insofar as the
measure is deemed to distort competition, it will, therefore, also
be capable of affecting trade between the Contracting Parties.

P r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s

Pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveil-
lance and Court Agreement, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall
be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of
any plans to grant or alter aid (…). The State concerned shall not put
its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a
final decision’.

The Norwegian authorities neither notified the power contract
of 10 May 2002, nor its prolongation in 2006, to the EFTA
Surveillance Authority. The Authority therefore concludes that,
should State aid be involved, the Norwegian Government has
not respected its obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of
Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

(3) See Case 730/79, Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission, [1980]

ECR 2671, paragraphs 11-12.

(4) EUR 100 000 over a three-year period, see Article 2(2) of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 69/2001, incorporated into the EEA Agreement by
Joint Committee Decision No 88/2002 (OJ L 266, 3.10.2002, p. 56
and EEA Supplement No 49, 3 October 2002, p. 42), e.i.f. 1 February
the EFTA Surveillance
2003, and paragraphs 12.1(2) and (3) of
Authority Decision No 54/96/COL of 15 May 1996 on the
ninth amendment of the procedural and substantive rules in the field of
State aid (OJ L 245, 26.9.1996, p. 28).

C 96/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2008

C o m p a t i b i l i t y o f t h e a i d

Exemptions from the general prohibition on State aid as
provided for in Article 61(1) may be granted if the conditions
of 61(2) or (3) are fulfilled. The exemptions under Article 61(2)
and 61(3)(a) and (b) seem to be applicable to the case at hand.

Under Article 61(3)(c) EEA, State aid to facilitate the develop-
ment of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas
may be considered to be compatible with the EEA Agreement
where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to
an extent contrary to the common interest.

As for the aid in question, it would seem to constitute operating
aid. As such aid is particularly distortive, it may only in very
limited circumstances be considered compatible with the func-
tioning of the EEA Agreement. The Authority has not been
presented with any elements indicating the existence of such
circumstances in the case at hand.

Against this background, the Authority takes the preliminary
view that the aid is not compatible with the functioning of the
EEA Agreement.

C o n c l u s i o n

the Authority cannot exclude the possibility that

Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian Govern-
the
ment,
contract between the Municipality of Notodden and Becromal of
10 May 2002, as well as its prolongation until 31 March 2007,
involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA
Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts that these
measures may be considered compatible with Article 61(3)(c) of
the EEA Agreement. Consequently, the Authority has doubts
that the above measures are compatible with the functioning of
the EEA Agreement.

Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) in Part II of
Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
the
Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in
Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court
Agreement. The decision to open proceedings is without preju-
dice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude
that the measures in question are compatible with the func-
tioning of the EEA Agreement.

The Authority also draws the attention of the Norwegian autho-
rities to the fact that Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the
Surveillance and Court Agreement constitutes a standstill obliga-
tion and that Article 14 in Part III of that Protocol provides
that, in the event of a negative decision, all unlawful aid may be
recovered from the beneficiary, save in exceptional circum-
stances. At this stage, the Authority has not been presented with
any facts indicating the existence of exceptional circumstances
on the basis of which the beneficiary may legitimately have
assumed the aid to be lawful.

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority requires,
within one month of receipt of this Decision, the Norwegian
Government to provide all documents,
information and data
the contract
needed for assessment of
between Notodden municipality and Becromal of 10 May 2002,
as well as the extension of the contract until 31 March 2007. It
requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this
Decision to the potential recipient of the aid immediately,

the compatibility of

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Authority has decided to open the formal
investigation
procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to
the
against Norway
and Court Agreement
Surveillance
contract between Becromal AS and the
concerning the
Municipality of Notodden in force from 14 May 2001 to
31 March 2006 and its prolongation until 31 March 2007.

Article 2

The Norwegian Government
to
Article 6(1) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and
Court Agreement, to submit its comments on the opening of
the formal
investigation procedure within one month of the
notification of this Decision.

requested, pursuant

is

Article 3

The Norwegian Government is required to provide, within one
month from notification of this Decision all documents, infor-
mation and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of
the aid measure, in particular:

(a) any documents relating to the prolongation of the agree-

ment until 31 March 2007;

(b) the calculations underlying the assumption that the agree-
ment had saved Becromal for NOK 17,5 million, set out in
the municipality's letter to Becromal of 30 April 2007;

(c) any other information that would establish market prices
for the type of contract in question at the time of the
conclusion of the agreement.

Article 4

The Norwegian Government is requested to forward a copy of
this Decision to the potential recipient of aid immediately.

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 5

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2007.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Per SANDERUD

Kristján Andri STEFÁNSSON

President

College Member