The State may renegotiate contracts that bind with motorway companies? Ségolène Royal is convinced. Minister calls for a 10% reduction of tariffs and free highways weekend. One immediately denied by Matignon version, which the judge “hard to imagine” . What
Read also: Delivery: how the government wants to puncture motorway companies
In suspending “indefinitely” environmental tax October 9, Segolene Royal has put the government face penalties and a loss of nearly $ 2 billion, which were particularly used to finance a series of road projects. Minister of Ecology is now targeting the highways and toll rates, which it hopes lowered companies. Even go a little fast, as in his speech in the morning of Tuesday, October 14 RTL
What she said.
“Highways have not complied with the contract that was theirs, that is to say, they would have had to reduce prices as the depreciation period infrastructure. (…) The Court of Auditors said that highways did not comply with the contract, to the extent that they would have had to lower tolls and not continue to super-pocketing. “
” Today, trading is going to open is that highways make this money to do the infrastructure work. “
Why it’s not so simple
The Court of Auditors has actually pinned several times, higher toll rates and, more generally, “relations between the state and the motorway concession companies’ . The judges of the Rue Cambon and denounced in their 2008 annual report “ inconsistent tariffs” rate increases systematically “above inflation” , and more generally a ‘pricing policy [which] is substantially removed from the rules which were based. “
New warning shot in July 2013 when the Court of Auditors published a report on the issue and denounced again increases “ above inflation” and a lack of requirement of the state in case of ‘non-compliance with their obligations by dealers’
nonetheless., past contracts with these companies heavily protected, so that the standoff is to engage more complex. Resume.
1. Specific contracts
When France wanted to build highways, she set up concessions the government has made companies responsible for constructing and maintaining these taxiways. These companies received in return for such heavy investment the right to operate, through tolls, motorways created during a certain period.
These companies were allowed to use another principle, that of the backing: rather than funding new sections for new loans, they could use the product highways already built to develop the network. . Principle that caused regular rate increases, but also lease time
In 2002 and again in 2004 and 2005, looking for money, the state has privatized these companies: to First Motorways of southern France (ASF) and those in the north and east (Sanef), and finally those of Paris-Rhin-Rhone (SAPRR.)
14 6000000000 Since these dates, motorway companies are fully privatized, and belong to large groups: Eiffage (APRR, AREA …), Vinci (ASF), Albertis … A total of 18 concession companies, of which only two are still public (those operating the tunnels of Mont Blanc and Frejus), manages over 9,000 miles of highway. An activity that generates significant and most guaranteed profits: by Expansion shareholders motorway companies have recovered 14.6 billion euros in dividends since 2006
2. Bonds followed shortly by the State
motorway companies have been involved in the management of networks becoming larger, the tolls were more or less profitable according sections. To complicate things, the motorway companies could apply a principle called “the expansion”: from an average increase, they could modulate the rise, further increasing the busiest sections and less those who know fewer passes. In 2009, following an initial report from the Court of Auditors, the motorway company promised to stop the practice, which has been gradually.
But these large groups are not entirely free to do what they want on the highways. Specific contracts with the state set their obligations: Pavement Maintenance, quality service equipment … In principle, the non-compliance with these obligations may lead to sanctions. Nonetheless, the Court of Auditors noted in two reports that the Department of Transport had the greatest difficulty in imposing a balance of power in negotiations with the motorway companies. In 2013, it noted as follows:
“The state does not show very particular case of non-fulfillment of their obligations by dealers, it was called Whether to preserve the heritage, to respect the commitments made in the plan contracts or transmitting the data required by the grantor. He rarely puts out contractual instruments available (possibility of formal notice and penalties) and does not make the contracting plan compliance by dealers of their contractual obligations ‘base’. “
3. Regular rate increases and planned
According to the decree of 1995, which establishes the principle of tolls, the amount defined in the specifications of the concession company based a “average mileage rate that takes into account the structure of the network, operating expenses and financial burdens of society and the modulation capabilities of the average mileage rate ‘. This average price may vary depending on the sections, according to complex rules again
The Order 1995 provides for increases “floor” guarantees dealers. Rates must increase at least up to 70% of inflation. Other factors come into play if the motorway company incurs additional investment, for example, she can pass on price increases. Similarly, a specific tax to finance deficit rail transport is to the tolls (TAT), and thus passed to the user.
In short, the increase in toll rates is expected and . anticipated in contracts with state contracts
In 1999, the State Council said that the practice of backing – and therefore the funding of new highway tolls from those already exploited – was illegal. This would normally lead to lower tolls on sections already depreciated by motorway companies. Yet modestly explained the Court of Auditors in 2008:
“The method of fixing the old highway tolls has not been modified and lower tolls has not occurred. “
In other words, the state has never taken the problem head on.
There are many concession contracts that motorway companies. And each contract sets its own policy rate modulation, as complex and different criteria as appropriate. And noted again the Court of Auditors, it becomes increasingly complex to understand “the relationship between costs and tolls on the motorway” .
In addition, these contracts have not actually planned to decrease rates. Thus, the Court noted in its report of 2013, “The assumption of a negative inflation was not taken into account in the drafting of concession contracts and plan contracts. In fact, writing the Decree 95-81 on motorway tolls and planning contracts evokes an increase or a rate increase, which excludes any idea of price cuts. “
As summed up by a parliamentary report of 2013 “The system is based on the principle that all investments must be offset by rate increases; therefore, corporate profits are not intended to be reinvested or allow lower fares. ” The autoutières companies therefore call regularly to the State the possibillity to make new investments, which result in rate increases or extensions of the concession period.
Similarly, contract terms provide for parades where taxation. Thus, the tax on motorway companies that Ségolène Royal would bring the end to compensate for the environmental tax mechanically would increase motorway tariffs.
4. Nationalization as the only solution?
As it stands, it is not possible to obtain rate reductions without engaging in a standoff with the motorway companies, which are protected by contracts already awarded. The only solution would be to renegotiate the concession agreements and modify variables on which they are based.
But this is probably not enough. As noted in the Express, the competition authority and pointed in September “how the legal framework for concessions forced any changes in the regulation of motorway sector, particularly tariff. Thus, it was only between 2027 and 2033, at the end of the concessions that the state, recovering the operation of the highway infrastructure, can deliver flat pricing “.
15 to 20 billion A Socialist deputy, Jean-Paul Chanteguet, estimated in May that the only quick solution was to re-nationalization of the motorway network. The legal structure would again be complex to implement, and costly: between 15 and 20 billion euros to pay for the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment