natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, the interested parties consider the full exemption not to be financed through State resources.
Poleg tega je v pripombah poudarjena stalna potreba po baznih elektrarnah in s tem pasovnem odjemu za zagotavljanje stabilnosti omrežja.
According to the interested parties, the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV 2011 was part of the overall system of network charges and therefore constituted a mere price regulation.
PRIPOMBE NEMČIJE
The fact that the full exemption is dependent on an authorization to be delivered by the BNetzA is considered to be a purely formal act which in itself would not suffice to establish that the full exemption is financed through State resources.
Nemčija meni, da popolna oprostitev, ki je predmet sklepa o začetku postopka, ni državna pomoč, ker z njo ni bila dana selektivna prednost, niti ni bila financirana iz državnih sredstev.
The interested parties argue in particular that the full exemption could not be regarded to be financed through State resources following the introduction of the Paragraph 19-surcharge in 2012.
Druga možnost pa je po njenem mnenju ta, da je oprostitev združljiva z notranjim trgom.
The Paragraph 19-surcharge is considered to be part of the overall system of network charges.
V zvezo s tem poudarja tudi, da je treba ohranjati enake konkurenčne pogoje za energetsko intenzivne panoge v Evropi v času, ko narašča delež električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
Accordingly, the interested parties reject the qualification of the Paragraph 19-surcharge as a parafiscal levy.
Nemčija meni, da je bila popolna oprostitev skladna z logiko sistema omrežnin v Nemčiji, zlasti z načelom, da morajo biti omrežnine sorazmerne (stroškom) in nediskriminatorne.
By way of explanation, the interested parties submit that the amount of the Paragraph 19-surcharge was not determined by the State, but was rather calculated by the network operators on the basis of the losses in revenue resulting from the full exemption.
Trdi, da je bilo treba zaradi načela upoštevanja vzroka za stroške iz člena 16(1) StromNEV in zahteve iz drugega stavka člena 17(1) StromNEV, da je treba pri omrežninah upoštevati dejanske ure uporabe, pasovne odjemalce obravnavati drugače kot ostale končne odjemalce.
The Paragraph 19-surcharge would serve the mere purpose of equalising the financial burden resulting from the full exemption for all network users in Germany.
Dodala je, da je treba oprostitev razumeti kot primerno nadomestilo za prispevek pasovnih odjemalcev k stabilnosti omrežja.
In this regard, the interested parties explain that the TSO had a discretion as to the use of the proceeds of the Paragraph 19-surcharge.
Medtem ko poraba tipičnih odjemalcev niha in je ni mogoče v celoti predvideti, pasovni odjemalci stalno jemljejo enako količino električne energije iz omrežja.
The interested parties reject the finding that the TSO centralised the proceeds of the Paragraph 19-surcharge and thereby acted similarly to a fund.
Zaradi velike predvidljivosti pasovnega odjema električne energije se je zmanjšala potreba po izravnalni električni energiji in rezervah ter potreba po ponovnem dispečiranju.
It is explained that the joint project group ‘Horizontaler Belastungsausgleich’ (PG HOBA), to which the Opening Decision refers, was created on a voluntary basis and merely served the purpose of a technical coordination between the TSO.
Na splošno je velika predvidljivost olajšala načrtovanje omrežja in omogočila največji izkoristek elektrarn (če so elektrarne večinoma konvencionalne).
The compensation mechanism described in section 2.4 of this Decision needed to be regarded independently from the advantage granted to baseload consumers.
Poleg tega naj oproščeni pasovni odjem ne bi prispeval k povečani potrebi po razvoju omrežja (razen če je sam razlog za širitev omrežja), ker se za krepitev zmogljivosti omrežja upoštevajo samo spremembe obremenitve poleg stalnega pasovnega odjema.
Without the compensation mechanism the network operators would have simply taken the losses in revenue into account when calculating the network charges for the non-exempted undertakings as in 2011.
Nazadnje, pasovni odjemalci naj bi pozitivno vplivali tudi na regulacijo frekvence, ker lahko stalna obremenitev določenega obsega zmanjša motnje frekvence in operaterju omrežja zagotovi več časa za odziv.
The interested parties submit that the exemption from network charges did not distort competition or affect trade between Member States, as it only reduced the financial burden and competitive disadvantage that result from network charges in Germany, which are considered to be significantly higher than in other Member States.
Nemčija nadalje pojasnjuje, da splošni sistem omrežnin ne upošteva ustrezno stroškov omrežja, ki jih povzročijo oproščeni pasovni odjemalci, v primerjavi z odjemalci s spreminjajočimi se vzorci porabe.
Only a limited number of interested parties argue that the exemption from network charges is compatible with the Internal Market.
Zlasti funkcija istočasnosti temelji na preteklih podatkih, vendar ne more zagotavljati, da bi spremenljivi odjemalci energijo porabljali ob istem času, kot so jo v preteklosti.
Their arguments essentially refer to the contribution of baseload consumers to the stability of the network and hence to security of supply in Europe.
Čeprav je za spremenljive odjemalce z majhnim številom ur polne uporabe empirično tudi značilen nizek faktor istočasnosti, lahko njihova poraba električne energije kljub temu (zaradi nepredvidljivosti porabe) niha okoli letne konične obremenitve.
Moreover, they argue that in light of the Union's climate policies the exemption would strengthen the competitiveness of energy-intensive undertakings and therefore prevent them from shifting their activities to outside of the Union, which would result in negative consequences for the Union's economy, as it would e.g. lead to a loss of value chains and increase the Union's dependency on imports.
Zato so operaterji omrežja pri razvoju omrežja prisiljeni vanj vključiti varnostno rezervo.
Finally, a limited number of interested parties claim that any recovery would be in violation of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Ta varnostna rezerva pa ni potrebna pri pasovnih odjemalcih.
To this end, they argue that by finding that the full exemption was financed through State resources, the Commission would deviate from the interpretation of the State aid notion applied prior to the full exemption both in its own case practice as well as the case-law of the European Court of Justice, in particular its interpretation of State resources in the PreussenElektra-judgment.
Zaradi tega naj bi bili pri funkciji istočasnosti precenjeni stroški, ki jih pasovni odjemalci povzročijo v primerjavi s spremenljivimi odjemalci.
After expiry of the deadline for interested party comments, the Commission received comments from two additional interested parties (Wacker Chemie AG and Koehler Kehl GmbH).
Nazadnje, Nemčija pojasnjuje, da velika in stabilna obremenitev pomeni ekonomijo obsega, ki se ne upošteva pri določitvi omrežnin na podlagi funkcije istočasnosti.
Wacker Chemie AG submitted comments on the physical path methodology developed by the BNetzA to determine individual network charges of baseload consumers as of 2014.
Pri določitvi omrežnin na podlagi funkcije istočasnosti naj bi bile torej precenjene omrežnine, ki jih plačajo pasovni odjemalci.
Wacker considered that the physical path method was not an adequate way to determine individual charges because the network charge would depend on whether the baseload consumer would be located close to a baseload power plant or not.
Nemčija glede tega na koncu ugotavlja, da v primerjavi s spremenljivimi odjemalci pasovni odjemalci pomenijo vrsto znižanj stroškov in prihrankov pri stroških, ki koristijo vsem uporabnikom omrežja.
Wacker also criticized the fact that hydro plants were not considered as baseload plants and that the plant in question had to be able to cover the entire potential load of the baseload consumer.
Teh prihrankov ni mogoče natančno izračunati, vendar se lahko izračunajo posredno z dodelitvijo individualnih stroškov pasovnega odjemalca (dodatni stroški).
Wacker considered that the full exemption had been a simpler principle adequately reflecting the contribution of the baseload consumer to the stability of the network.
Nemčija meni, da je bila pravna zahteva, da poraba električne energije presega 10 GWh in dosega 7000 ur polne uporabe, utemeljena in skladna, ker je zagotavljala stabilen in znaten pasovni odjem.
Wacker, however, did not provide any elements describing the stabilizing effects of baseload consumers.
Da bi končni uporabniki dosegli 7000 ur uporabe, bi moral njihov odjem električne energije iz omrežja ustrezati najvišji letni konični obremenitvi vsake četrt ure v obdobju, ki znaša 80 % leta.
Koehler Kehl GmbH submitted comments on a report published by the BNetzA on 20 March 2015.
Pri 7000 urah polne uporabe torej ni šlo za funkcijo količine porabljene električne energije, temveč stabilnosti porabe.
Koehler Kehl GmbH refers to statements in the report, which confirm the contribution of baseload electricity consumption to the network stability in the period of 2011-2013.
Povedano drugače, 7000 ur polne uporabe je bilo mogoče doseči samo, če je imel odjemalec točno enak odjem vsaj 80 % celotnega leta.
On that basis, Koehler Kehl GmbH argues that a different treatment of baseload consumers does not amount to a selective advantage.
Nemčija pojasnjuje tudi, da je bila zahteva 10 GWh določena v tej količini, ker naj bi uporabniki omrežja razmišljali o izstopu iz splošnega sistema omrežnin samo pri določeni ravni porabe električne energije.
To the extent that the evaluation report suggests that stable baseload electricity consumption is becoming less relevant for network stability, Koehler Kehl GmBH however questions the validity of the report.
Glede morebitne vključenosti državnih sredstev Nemčija meni, da država ni izvajala nadzora nad financiranjem oprostitve.
To this end, its comments challenge the methodology applied to establish the report as being inaccurate, as the report relies e.g. on statements made by low voltage network operators to which, however, no baseload consumer is connected.
Trdi, da zgolj to, da so regulativni organi odobrili oprostitev, ne zadostuje za ugotovitev obstoja takega nadzora.
The report therefore would not contain any valid statement that would reject the stabilizing effect of baseload consumption.
Poleg tega Nemčija trdi, da dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 ne pomeni dajatve v smislu sodbe Essent.
In addition, the comments highlight the continuous need for baseload generation plants and thus baseload consumption for providing network stabilizing.
Nemčija v podporo tej trditvi navaja, da dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 ni določila država, temveč operaterji prenosnega omrežja, ki so bili večinoma zasebne družbe.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
Poleg tega naj v nasprotju s sodbo Essent presežek dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 ne bi pripadal državnemu proračunu.
Germany considers the full exemption subject of the Opening Decision not to be State aid, as it neither conferred a selective advantage nor was financed through State resources.
Nazadnje, štelo se je, da operaterji prenosnih sistemov prosto uporabljajo prilive od dodatne dajatve iz člena 19.
Alternatively, they consider the exemption to be compatible with the internal market.
Nemčija trdi tudi, da dejstvo, da je dodatno dajatev iz člena 19 uvedla agencija BNetzA, samo po sebi ne zadostuje za ugotovitev obstoja državnega nadzora.
In this regard, they also stress the need of keeping a level-playing field for energy-intensive industries in Europe while the share of electricity from renewable energies increases.
Nemčija v zvezi s tem pojasnjuje, da je bila dodatna dajatev iz člena 19 uvedena, da bi se omogočila izravnava izgub prihodka zaradi oprostitve.
Germany considers that the full exemption was within the logic of the system of network charges in Germany, in particular with the principle that network charges should be proportionate (to costs) and non-discriminatory.
Taka izravnava po Nemčiji je bila potrebna zaradi regulativnih posebnosti v Nemčiji, kjer je prenosno omrežje razdeljeno na štiri geografska območja in štiri operaterje prenosnih sistemov.
They submit that the principle of cost-causality enshrined in Paragraph 16(1) of the StromNEV as well as the requirement set out in the second sentence of Paragraph 17(1) of the StromNEV, according to which network charges have to reflect the actual hours of use, made it necessary to treat baseload consumers differently than other end consumers.
Druga možnost bi bila povišanje omrežnin za neoproščene končne uporabnike v zadevnem omrežnem območju, kar pa bi povzročilo geografsko različna stroškovna bremena v Nemčiji.
They added that the exemption should be viewed as an adequate compensation for the baseload consumers' contribution to the stability of the network.
Znesek stroškovnega bremena bi bil tako odvisen od obsega oprostitev v zadevnem omrežnem območju.
Germany explains that baseload consumers are very different from ‘typical consumers’.
V zvezi z letom 2011 Nemčija pojasnjuje, da izgub prihodka, ki so nastale leta 2011, ni bilo mogoče povrniti prek omrežnin za leto 2011, ker je bilo treba omrežnine določiti vnaprej.
While typical consumers had a volatile consumption that cannot entirely be predicted, baseload consumers were consumers that are constantly withdrawing the same amount of electricity from the grid.
Niti jih ni bilo mogoče povrniti leta 2012, ker je treba omrežnine izračunati na podlagi napovedanih stroškov omrežja.
The high predictability of baseload electricity consumption reduced the need for balancing electricity and reserves as well as the need for re-dispatching.
Če bi bilo ob koncu regulativnega obdobja stanje še vedno negativno, bi se lahko zaradi tega povišale najvišje dovoljene ravni prihodka v naslednjem regulativnem obdobju.
In general, the high predictability facilitates network planning and maximized the use of the generation fleet (provided that the generation fleet is mostly composed of conventional plants).
Nemčija v zvezi s tem pojasnjuje tudi, da pristojni regulativni organ ni imel v lasti Regulierungskonto, niti ga ni nadzoroval.
However, if they were subject to the network charges calculated according to Paragraph 16 and Paragraph 17 of the StromNEV, baseload consumers would have to fully contribute to all those costs while they are not causing such costs.
Edini namen Regulierungskonto je bil pobot prilivov od omrežnin, ki presežejo najvišjo dovoljeno raven prihodka v določenem regulativnem obdobju v okviru sistema, opisanega v uvodni izjavi 41.
As baseload consumers were generally located in the vicinity of electricity generation capacities, they were using a smaller portion of the grid and there were less grid losses connected to their consumption.
Zato na Regulierungskonto niso bila knjižena nobena likvidna sredstva, ki bi lahko bila uporabljena za financiranje izgub prihodka zaradi oprostitve.
Moreover, the exempted baseload consumption would not contribute to an increased need for grid development (unless they are themselves the reason for the grid expansion) as only the variation of load on top of the constant baseload consumption were to be taken into account for capacity reinforcement of the grid.
Nemčija meni tudi, da popolna oprostitev ni ustvarila dodatnega bremena za državni proračun.
Finally, baseload consumers also had a positive impact on frequency regulation given that a constant load of a certain size could mitigate frequency disturbances and give the network operator more time to react.
Zlasti operaterjev prenosnega sistema ni mogoče enačiti z državo.
Germany further explains that the general system of network charges did not adequately reflect the network costs caused by the exempted baseload consumption in comparison to consumers with variable consumption patterns.
Z usklajevanjem svojih postopkov za upravljanje dodatne dajatve iz člena 19 zaradi učinkovitosti in preglednosti naj ne bi ravnali podobno kot sklad.
In particular, the simultaneity function was based on historical figures but could not guarantee that variable consumers would consume at the same time as they did in the past.
Nemčija je poleg tega izrazila mnenje, da popolna oprostitev omrežnin ni povzročila izkrivljanja konkurence na notranjem trgu.
Hence, while variable consumers with a low amount of hours of full use were empirically also characterized by a low simultaneity factor, their electricity consumption nevertheless could (due to the unpredictability of the consumption) fluctuate around the annual peak load.
Nemčija se je pri tem sklicevala na visoke stroške električne energije, ki naj bi bremenili energetsko intenzivna podjetja, ki delujejo v Nemčiji, bolj kot njihove konkurente, ki delujejo v drugih državah članicah.
This obliged network operators to build in a safety margin when they develop the network.
Nemčija je v zvezi s tem trdila tudi, da bi moralo biti državam članicam dovoljeno, da sprejmejo ukrepe za ohranitev konkurenčnosti evropske industrije, zlasti energetsko intenzivnih panog, ter glede tega poudarila, da ima Nemčija zelo ambiciozno politiko obnovljivih virov energije v primerjavi z drugimi državami članicami in da ta ambiciozna politika zahteva pomembne naložbe v omrežja.
This safety margin was not needed for baseload consumer.
Omrežnine naj bi se tako povišale.
As a consequence, the simultaneity function would overestimate the costs caused by baseload consumption in relation to variable consumers.
Omejitev stroškov energije, ki so posledica uporabe energije iz obnovljivih virov, je bila potrebna za zagotovitev enakih konkurenčnih pogojev v primerjavi s panogami v drugih državah članica ali tretjih državah.
Finally, Germany explains that a large and stable load lead to economies of scale that the network charge determination on the basis of the simultaneity function did not take into account.
Brez te omejitve bi bila ogrožena nemška industrija.
The network charge determination on the basis of the simultaneity function would therefore overestimate the network charges due by baseload consumers.
Poleg tega Nemčija pojasnjuje, da tudi če bi popolna oprostitev pomenila pomoč, bi to vsekakor bila združljiva pomoč v skladu s členom 107(3)(b) ali (c) Pogodbe, saj je bila popolna oprostitev v obdobju od leta 2011 do leta 2013 potrebna za spodbujanje vzorca porabe električne energije, ki je koristen za omrežje in njegovo stabilnost.
Germany concludes on this point that compared to variable consumers baseload consumers lead to a series of cost reductions and cost savings that benefitted all network users.
Nemčija v zvezi s tem pojasnjuje, da je bila popolna oprostitev potrebna, da se pasovni odjemniki zadržijo v sistemu splošne oskrbe z električno energijo in da se prepreči njihov prehod na sistem samooskrbe ali gradnja neposredne povezave z elektrarno v škodo stabilnosti omrežja.
Those savings could not be calculated with accuracy but they could be computed indirectly by allocating the individual costs of the baseload consumer (incremental costs).
Na ta način je popolna oprostitev prispevala k cilju zanesljivosti oskrbe.
In order to reach 7000 hours of use, end users would need to take electricity out of the network corresponding to the maximum annual peak load in every quarter of an hour over a period corresponding to 80 % of the year.
Brez obsežnega in stalnega odjema električne energije naj konvencionalne elektrarne s sinhronskimi generatorji ne bi bile sposobne nenehno delovati in zagotavljati enakih pomožnih storitev.
The 7000 hours of full use were thus not a function of the quantity of electricity consumed but of the stability of the consumption.
To naj bi bilo pomembno zlasti glede na naraščajoči delež električne energije, ki jo proizvajajo nestalni viri obnovljive energije, in odločitev o zaprtju osmih jedrskih elektrarn po nesreči v Fukušimi.
In other terms, 7000 hours of full use could be reached only if the consumer had exactly the same take off at least 80 % of the entire year.
Brez konvencionalnih elektrarn s sinhronskimi generatorji bi morali operaterji omrežja izvajati druge stabilizacijske ukrepe, zaradi česar bi se povišali splošni stroški omrežja.
Germany also explains that the 10 GWh-requirement has been defined as such because network users would consider leaving the general system of network charges only at a certain level of electricity consumption.
Nemčija torej meni, da je bil cilj popolne oprostitve v skladu s splošnimi cilji iz člena 1 EnWG, tj. varno in učinkovito oskrbo z energijo po razumni ceni.
With regard to the potential involvement of State resources, Germany considers that the State did not exercise any control over the financing of the exemption.
Nemčija trdi tudi, da je bila popolna oprostitev potrebna, da se omogoči razvoj električne energije iz obnovljivih virov, ker je zagotavljala, da bodo vedno obstajali odjemalci za porabo električne energije iz obnovljivih virov, kadar koli se proizvede.
It submits that the mere approval of the exemption by the regulatory authorities was not sufficient to establish such control.
Brez pasovnih odjemalcev je obstajalo tveganje, da bi bila električna energija iz obnovljivih virov proizvedena takrat, ko ni povpraševanja po električni energiji.
Furthermore, Germany argues that the Paragraph 19-surcharge did not qualify as a levy within the meaning of the Essent judgment.
S tem pa bi bili operaterji omrežja prisiljeni omejiti obrate za proizvodnjo električne energije iz obnovljivih virov in jim plačati nadomestila, zaradi česar bi se povišali stroški podpore električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov.
In support of that argument, Germany submits that the Paragraph 19-surcharge was not determined by the State, but by the TSO, which were mainly private companies.
Nazadnje, Nemčija pojasnjuje tudi, da je bil namen popolne oprostitve tudi izvajanje člena 14 Uredbe (ES) št. 714/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta ter uvodne izjave 32 in člena 32(1) Direktive 2009/72/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta, ki zahtevajo, da se omrežnine uporabljajo nediskriminatorno.
Also, contrary to the Essent judgment, no surplus of the Paragraph 19-surcharge would accrue to the State budget.
Nemčija trdi, da je popolna oprostitev zagotavljala, da so bili pri omrežninah upoštevani različni vzroki za stroške pasovnega in običajnega odjema električne energije.
Finally, the TSO were considered to be free in the use of the proceeds of the Paragraph 19-surcharge.
OCENA SHEME POMOČI
Germany also contends that the mere fact that the Paragraph 19-surcharge had been introduced by the BNetzA was not in itself sufficient to establish State control.
Spodnja ocena temelji na oceni pravnega okvira, tržnih razmer, mešanice virov električne energije in omrežnih razmer v letih od 2011 do 2013 ter je omejena nanjo.
In this regard, Germany explains that the Paragraph 19-surcharge was introduced in order to allow for an equalisation of the losses in revenue following the exemption.
OBSTOJ POMOČI V SMISLU ČLENA 107(1) POGODBE
Such equalisation across Germany was necessary due to the regulatory specificities in Germany, where the transmission network is divided into four geographical areas and four TSO.
V skladu s členom 107(1) Pogodbe je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, če vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
The alternative would have consisted in increasing the network charges for the non-exempted end users within a concerning network area, which however would have led to geographically different cost burdens in Germany.
OBSTOJ PREDNOSTI
The amount of the cost burden thus depended on the amount of exemptions within the respective network area.
Pojem prednosti v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe ne zajema samo pozitivnih dajatev, kot so subvencije, ampak tudi ukrepe, ki v različnih oblikah znižujejo stroške, ki navadno bremenijo proračun podjetja, in ki imajo tako, ne da bi bili subvencije v strogem pomenu besede, podobne značilnosti in enake učinke.