WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1726/97 by Richard CORBETT to the Commission. Southport sea wall
C 21/86 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 1. 98 (98/C 21/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 May 1997) Subject: Electricity Grid Feed Act The letter of 26 October 1996 from Commissioner Van Miert to Germanyís Federal Minister for Economic Affairs, Rexrodt, states that, in the field of wind power production, the Commission was assuming that áin 1990 there had been a capacity of 20 MW and that the additional cost to all electricity supply companies in Germany had been between DM 500 000 and 1 million per annumí. If one accepts these figures, the additional costs arising from wind power are, at most, DM 0. 0125-0. 025/kWh. This calculation accords with German case law dealing with cartels and information provided by renewable energy associations. At the same time, however, this figure completely contradicts the alleged additional costs of up to DM 900 million in 2005 which have been asserted by the German energy industry and accepted by the Commission without verification (with an estimated installed wind power capacity of 4000 MW). If one carries out the calculation in the same way as the Commission, the additional costs in 2005 could not exceed DM 100-200 million for all German energy suppliers. The studies of trends in the costs of wind power published in Germany in early 1997 show that the 1. Electricity Grid Feed Act clearly does not result in excessive subsidies being paid. These studies demonstrate that only at the most favourable coastal sites do the rates of subsidy currently granted permit the facilities to operate economically. This calculation does not even take account of the impact of possible future damage to facilities and repair work. Is Directorate-General IV aware of these studies, and will it qualify its statements of October 1996 in the light of this new information? 2. Is the Competition Commissioner aware that his German Director-General, Alexander Schaub, is a member of the same party as Minister for Economic Affairs Rexrodt, to whom the letter of 26 October 1996 was addressed? Is there not a serious conflict of interest in this case, particularly in view of the fact that Mr Schaub drafted an internal note from Directorate-General IV on the Electricity Grid Feed Act, quite blatantly accepting without verification the position of PreussenElektra, which had complained, and not even mentioning the material submitted by the renewable energy associations? Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1997) Several studies on the development of costs for production of wind energy in Germany have been 1. submitted to the Commission in 1997 and are being examined. As far as their results may influence the evaluation of the Stromeinspeisungsgesetzí under state aid law, the Commission will take them into account in its decision how to proceed in this matter. The Commission is obliged to examine complaints from enterprises and individuals about the infringement 2. of competition rules of the Community. In complying with this obligation, the Commission regularly asks the government of the Member State concerned to comment the facts underlying the complaint. This was the purpose of the letter sent by the Commission to the minister of Economics. (98/C 21/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/97 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission (23 May 1997) Subject: Southport sea wall Can the Commission confirm that it verified that the UK complied with the provisions of Directive 92/43 (1) 1. (Habitats Directive) and Directive 85/337 (2) (Environmental Impact Assessment) in authorizing this project? In doing so, was it satisfied that the alternative of ánatural sea defencesí (i. e. allowing embryonic sand 2. dunes to develop) was given sufficient consideration?