We have acquired a new politics in Europe in which initiatives have a concealed connection of which the public is unaware. The EU has initiated an ambitious expansion of the electricity grid that is to power the digital structure. Data centres require enormous amounts of electricity. To achieve this, the grid must be expanded, and the EU wants Norway to take part in paying. In the United States, Trump asks the data giants to provide the power themselves. In the collective EU, the taxpayers are the milch cow, but this must be presented as technical requirements so that people do not understand the connection.
When green frivolous parties such as MDG say no to all relief in fuel prices and a German Member of the European Parliament believes that Norway must share its oil wealth with Ukraine, these are trial balloons. Norwegians are to learn to accept that nothing is theirs any longer; it belongs to the European community.
When the EU set the requirement that Norway must tax congestion revenues in the electricity market, the Minister of Petroleum and Energy Terje Aasland said no. But here the scheme is being smuggled in by the back door.
Stella Bugge in VG had a piece on Monday stating that Statnett asks customers to prepare for higher network tariffs. To sugar the pill, they signal that industry will receive a smaller discount on the network tariff than the 50 per cent they receive today. This is supposed to be evidence of burden-sharing.
Siri Hermo takes the proposal apart.
Statnett must invest over NOK 150 billion in the coming years.
This initiative from Statnett is a textbook example of how one packages heavy, system-imposed changes as “necessary investments”, while remaining completely silent about who has actually ordered the upgrades.
When Statnett says that they will double the network tariff, they skip over the following realities:
– The investments are dictated by the EU’s integration requirements.
Statnett must invest over NOK 150 billion in the coming years.
This is not only because the grid is “old”, but because the EU’s electricity market directive and Energy Package 4 require that Norway must be able to transport enormous quantities of power across national borders and price areas.
The EEA Agreement (EØS-avtalen) obliges us to have a grid that supports the internal market. We are not building the grid to secure electricity for the neighbour, but to remove “bottlenecks”, so that power can flow freely to where the price is highest in Europe. It is this “motorway” for European price contagion that Norwegian consumers are now being billed for through a doubling of the network tariff.
– The digitalisation in Energy Package 5 requires more grid.
When Statnett speaks of increased capacity, they are in reality speaking of facilitating the enormous data centres and battery factories that Energy Package 5 prioritises. The truth is that ordinary people must pay for the grid to withstand the EU’s digital ambitions.
The Norwegian people end up at the bottom of the list, but it is we who must finance the infrastructure that the large international technology giants are to use.
– The tariff model is locked by RME (which corresponds to ACER).
Gunnar Løvås mentions the letter from RME (Reguleringsmyndigheten for energi). RME is the body in Norway that is legally decoupled from Norwegian politicians in order to ensure that we follow ACER’s and the EU’s regulatory framework.
When Statnett is to create a “new tariff model”, this must be approved by RME in order to ensure that it is in line with the EU’s requirements for market-based pricing. This means that Statnett does not “conclude” on its own; they execute an order that ensures that the network tariff functions as a tool to steer consumption as Brussels desires.
– Industry vs. the consumer.
That industry pays less is also a political squeeze. Under the EEA rules on state aid, there are very strict limits on how much one can shield industry without ESA intervening. The result is often that the burden is shifted onto ordinary consumers, because that is legally “safer” in an EEA sense than providing targeted support to national industry.
Statnett presents this as a local technical necessity. In reality, the doubling of the network tariff is a tax on EEA membership. We are paying to expand the infrastructure that the EU requires for its “green” and digital transition.
Statnett does not govern this itself; they are the contractor building according to architectural drawings from Brussels, while Norwegian electricity customers are left with the entire bill. Is it not remarkable how they manage to present a massive transfer of money from the people to the EU’s infrastructure needs as a matter of “maintenance and customers”?
When will the Norwegian people see the connections..?