Care contracte dintre Hidroelectrica si ArcelorMittal Galati nu sunt ajutor de stat? Which Contracts Between Hidroelectrica And ArcelorMittal Are Not A State Aid?

In ciuda faptului ca nu a intreprins nici o investigatie pe piata energiei electrice, in perioada in care Hidroelectrica a avut contracte cu asa zisii „baieti destepti”, Consiliul Concurentei incearca acum sa ne convinga ca o parte a acestor contracte nu reprezinta ajutor de stat si ca va informa Comisia Europeana in acest sens: „contractele incheiate de Hidroelectrica cu Alro si ArcelorMittal nu reprezinta ajutor de stat, ci sunt contracte comerciale normale”, a declarat presedintele Consiliului Concurentei, Bogdan Chiritoiu. Interesanta aceasta revelatia, aparuta la circa doi ani de cand s-a sesizat Comisia Europeana pe marginea acestui subiect.

Numai ca, Hidroelectrica nu a avut contracte avantajoase doar cu cei doi mari consumatori, care din anumite puncte de vedere aduceau chiar avantaje companiei de stat, ci si cu alti opt furnizori privati de energie, despre care Consiliul Concurentei nu spune nimic. Domnul Chiritoiu risca sa redeschida un subiect deosebit de sensibil pentru Hidroelectrica, care nu a incheiat inca definitiv capitolul „baieti destepti”. Spre exemplu, un mare furnizor de energie (cu capital strain) anunta saptamana trecuta ca ia in considerare sa dea Hidroelectrica in judecata pentru pagubele suferite in urma rezilierii contractului de furnizare. Si nu este singurul.

Revenind la contractul sau contractele Hidroelectrica cu Arcelor Mittal Steel Galat si la interpretarea lor doar prin prisma unui posibil ajutor de stat, am recomanda institutiei de concurenta sa analizeze in ce conditii au fost semnate aceste contracte si daca acolo nu s-au incalcat regulile pietei libere. La vremea respectiva, cand Energy-Center a sesizat acest lucru, Consiliul Concurentei a tacut malc. Va amintim doar cateva elemente ale aranjamentelor din ultimul contract, semnat in 2012, in luna octombrie, dupa alte intelegeri anterioare.

La sfarsitul lui 2012, lasat fara energie hidro ieftina mai bine de un an de zile, combinatul siderurgic de la Galati s-a vazut obligat sa iasa pe piata de energie cu o oferta de cumparare pentru o cantitate de 2.528.000 MWh, la un pret de initiere de 210 lei/MWh, valabila din luna noiembrie 2012 si pana la finele lui 2014. Aparent, la o asa cerere orice producator din Romania ar fi fost tentat sa intre la licitatie. Numai ca oferta de cumparare a Arcelor Mittal Steel Galati seamana leit cu o alta oferta facuta in martie 2012, plasata tot pe OPCOM. O oferta anterioara, din 2010, intermediata de OPCOM a fost finalizata, dar ulterior a fost suspectata de ajutor de stat. Producatorii de energie desemnati sa dea curs ofertei din martie 2012 au fact un pas inapoi, probabil la ordinul proprietarului, adica Ministerul Economiei. Prea batea la ochi.

In data de 14.03.2012 operatorul pietei PCCB a publicat oferta SC ArcelorMittal SA, in care pretul nu este o valoare ferma, ci o formulă ce poate duce la o valoare doar cu o luna înaintea momentului de livrare a energiei electrice. Si aici apare o noua poveste, care a scapat Consiliului Concurentei. Actiunea OPCOM, adica acceptarea ofertei, exceda cadrul de reglementare pe care trebuie sa-l respecte, in speta Ordinul ANRE 6/2011 de aprobare a Regulamentului privind cadrul organizat de tranzactionare a contractelor bilaterale de energie electrica. In mod repetat, in acest document se specifica doar „pret”, „oferte cu caracteristici bine definite… pretul solicitat”, iar la art. 22 exista obligatia OPCOM privind „scopul stabilirii unor referinte solide de pret pentru piata de energie electrica”.

Drept consecinta, OPCOM ar fi trebuit sa nu permita oferta Arcelor Mittal. Probabil, OPCOM a inteles aceasta situatie, dar a inchis ochii la cererea proprietarului sau, Ministerul Economiei.

Comportarea incorecta a OPCOM trebuie legata de asigurarile ce i s-au dat, inclusiv din partea ANRE, prin propunerea de actualizare a Legii energiei electrice, care-i confera monopolul pe piata intermedierilor de contracte cu energie electrica. Cei ce au sustinut acest demers au uitat de opozitia OPCOM de a introduce contractele standardizate de energie electrică. Lipsa de fermitate in impunerea acestor contracte in PCCB permitea operatorului sa treaca prin piaţa „girata” de ANRE a unor tranzactii discutabile, asa cum a fost si cea a Mittal, din 2010 si cea din 2012. Care din ele a fost, sau nu a fost ajutor de stat?

Comisia Europeana a declansat in urma cu doi ani mai multe investigatii privind contractele Hidroelectrica incheiate cu marii consumatori de energie, respectiv Alro Slatina si ArcelorMittal Galati, si cu traderii de energie, asa-numitii ‘baieti destepti’.Though it has not investigated the energy market while Hidroelectrica had contracts with the so-called ‘wise guys’, the Competition Council is trying now to convince that some of these contracts are not a state aid, and therefore it will inform the European Commission: „the contracts signed by Hidroelectrica with Alro and ArcelorMittal are not a state aid, but merely normal commercial agreements”, said Mr. Bogdan Chiritoiu, the President of the Competition Council. Now that’s an interesting revelation, a couple of years after the European Commission opened a case on this matter.

.

But Hidroelectrica did not close favorable contracts with these two large consumers, who were actually beneficial for the state company in some respects, it also signed with eight other private energy suppliers, about whom the Competition Council does not utter a word. Mr. Chiritoiu risks reopening a very delicate issue for Hidroelectrica, who did not permanently close the ‘wise guys’ chapter yet. For instance, a big (foreign-owned) energy supplier announced last week that it considers suing Hidroelectrica for the damages resulting from the termination of the supply contract. And it is not the only one.

Let’s return to Hidroelectrica’s contract(s) with ArcelorMittal Steel Galati and to their interpretation only as a possible state aid. We recommend to the competition authority to analyze in what conditions were these contracts signed and if this did not breach the free market rules. At that moment, when Energy-Center raised the issue, the Competition Council remained absolutely silent. We remind just a few items of the arrangements within the last agreement, signed in October 2012, after some other previous agreements.

At the end of 2012, cut out from the cheap hydro energy for more than a year, the steel factory of Galati was forced to place on the energy market a purchase offer for 2,528,000 MWh, at an initial price of 210 RON per MWh, valid from November 2012 until the end of 2014. Apparently, any producer of Romania should have been tempted to bid for such an offer. Only that ArcelorMittal Steel Galati’s offer was identical to a previous one, from March 2012, also made through OPCOM (the the Electrical Energy Market Operator). A previous offer through OPCOM, made in 2010, was successful, only to be later suspected as a state aid. The energy producers assigned to the offer of March 2012 stepped back, probably following and order of their owner, the Ministry of Economy. It was much too obvious.

On March 14, 2012 the operator of the operator of the PCCB market (the centralized market for electricity bilateral contracts) published ArcelorMittal’s offer, where the price was not firm, but resulting from a formula that could generate a value only one month before the time of delivery of the electrical energy. Here’s a whole new story, ignored by the Competition Council. OPCOM’s action, i.e. accepting the offer, exceeded the mandatory regulation framework, namely the (Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority) ANRE’s Order 6/2011 for the approval of the Regulation of the organized framework of trading of bilateral contracts for electrical energy. This document repeatedly refers only to the „price”, to „offers with well-defined characteristics […] the asking price”, and Article 22 stipulates OPCOM’s obligation „in order to establish sound price references for the electrical energy market”.

Consequently, OPCOM should have rejected ArcelorMittal’s offer. Probably, the market operator has understood this, but closed its eyes upon request of its owner, the Ministry of Economy.

The unfair behavior of OPCOM has to be related to the assurances it received, including from ANRE, through the proposal of updating of the Electrical Energy Law, assigning it the monopoly on the brokerage of the electricity contracts. The partisans of this action forgot about OPCOM’s resistance to introducing standard contracts for the electrical energy. The weakness in imposing these contracts on the PCCB allowed the operator to pass through the market ‘overseen’ by ANRE dubious transactions, like the ones with Mittal in 2010 and 2012. Which of these was, or was any of these a state aid?

Two years ago, the European Commission launched several investigations on Hidroelectrica’s contracts with the big energy consumers Alro Slatina and ArcelorMittal Galati, and with the energy traders, the so-called ‘wise guys’.