128
In the aforesaid installments an interest equal to a middle monthly Euribor was foreseen plus the margin 1%.
The aforesaid installments have a maximum duration until December 2013 when the payment of any unpaid
sum was foreseen.
The finalization of the terms foreseen in the aforesaid agreement as well as the signature of a new contract
of electrical energy supply was subject to the approval of the REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF ENERGY, to which
the Provider has submitted a draft of an electrical energy supply contract, which included the terms of the
supply offered in order to exercise its regulation control. The activation of this agreement defined as necessary
and indispensable term the final arrangement of various subjects of the regulatory frame which regarded the
process of self – supply of electrical energy from ALUMINIUM S.A. as well as the relevant ministry decisions
to verify the codes which will allow the issue of commercial permit of the station of co-production of electrical
energy and heat.
Waiting for the above mentioned and for a reasonable time period the two parties agreed on 16/12/2010 re-
garding the implementation of the agreement frame from 1/7/2010 the following:
40,7 €/MWh for the middle monthly proportion of 4.710 hours per year and The Limit System Price / Rate on
the middle monthly proportion of the other 4.050 hours. Moreover, the payment process of the old sum with
the down payment of 20 mio euros as well as the payment of the monthly installments of the sum 1 mio plus
interests form 1/7/2010 until 30/11/2010.
On 30/6/2011 the REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF ENERGY (RAE) issued its decision no 798/2011 regarding the
contract draft which was submitted for control and approval. In the aforesaid decision RAE formulates its point
of view, rejecting in essence the basic terms of the examined contract draft inviting the two parties to negotiate
again and to redefine these terms on the basis of the basic principles of invoicing as defined on 06.06.2011 with
the decision no 798/2011. In particular the decision no 798/2011 of the RAE mentions:
“{….} taking into consideration the comments set by the two firms regarding the aforesaid terms, the following
must be reexamined: a) the issue of the distinction of the charges which regard clearly the charges which are
included to the marked / labeled prices and the charges which are levied further / plus and the charges which
have to be paid by the client and b) the continuing problematic reference to the A – 150, moreover as stated:
‘[….] the objective of the existence of the negotiation ability between the high voltage clients and in particular
of a client with the electrical specifications of the ALUMINIUM S.A. which represent approximately the 5% of
the total consumption of the interconnected system with the dominant provider, in other words PPC S.A., is to
examine and to express in percentage the possibilities that exist in order to improve the contract and to inter-
nalize any benefits arising from it regarding the function of the Daily Energy Programming / Planning as well
as the long term development planning of the System which large / big consumptions can offer and in particu-
lar consumptions of the size of firms such as ALUMINIUM S.A., the consumption of which on itself justifies the
construction and the viable function of a production unit of 300 MW, taking into consideration the combination
of such a large size and the high coefficient of charge of the specific consumer.
It is obvious that the existence or not of a consumer of the size of ALUMINIUM S.A. , affects definitively the
business plan of PPC S.A. as well as of the whole electrical energy market.
