Sibelga

Sibelga is the unique distribution network operator (DSO) for electricity and natural gas in the 19 municipalities of the Brussels capital region in Belgium with about one million clients.

Links

Website Transparency Register Profile

ID: 930565637560-65

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Bruno Tobback (Member of the European Parliament) and Elia Transmission Belgium

24 Sept 2025 · FLEXCON Smart Energy Tour

Response to Proposal for a legislative act on methane leakage in the energy sector

25 Jan 2021

As a mid-size gas public distribution company, Sibelga has successfully been working for many years to reduce methane emissions, mainly for obvious safety reasons as we operate in urban environment (Brussels). Sibelga welcomes the Commission objective to reduce methane emissions in the energy sector, considering both monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and leak detection and repair (LDAR) methodologies. We believe that MRV is essential to allocate responsibilities within the value chain and to put figures in perspective. For the gas distribution, we support further harmonization between Member States on MRV programs. We’d welcome an adequate EU methodology, adapted to the European regulated downstream gas distribution system (around 1000 gas DSOs in EU), which is totally different of the global industry and the upstream segment. As such, for the downstream gas sector, the OGMP methodology should continue to stay a voluntary initiative. We notice that most of the global methane emissions are emitted outside the EU. As the overwhelming parts of the emissions in the EU are situated upstream, the option 2a (Sector coverage limited to upstream gas and oil) should be the priority. Indeed, we really encourage the Commission to take into account the specificities of the distribution segment, when proposing new measures or targets. In order to illustrate some of those specifics, we’d like to draw the attention of the Commission on the following: • We apply a longstanding strict legislation and controls for safety reasons (Royal Decree of 28 June 1971), • In an urban environment, leakages are quickly detected (including thanks to odorisation) and then quickly repaired, • We operate at low pressure level, limiting the amount of gas in case of leakage, • We distribute gas to a high number (500 000) of household installations, in which the majority of uncontrolled small leaks takes place, • An incompressible theoretical reported figure of leakages can result from the application of methodologies based on standard factors and grid configuration, which de facto limits the value of such reporting, • Due to its configuration, measuring every part of the grid would be very costly if not impossible (monitoring is already done although without measuring), • The replacement of all cast iron and fiber cement pipes is already achieved, leaving little ‘marge de manoeuvre’ to further improve the network, • Given the urban context, we don’t do any torching at all, • Controlled venting is applied in some interventions on the network (safety first: controlled venting is preferred to explosion), • The use of emission limiting equipment during interventions must be financially responsible (“Shortstopp Williamson” for instance). We believe that many other European DSOs face similar challenges in their emissions management. Any additional European legislation should avoid duplications in reporting and additional administrative burden. It should preferably build on what is already existing (IPCC guidelines for instance). Although it is important that NRAs allow LDAR-related costs to be encountered by regulated entities, we want these costs to remain proportionate, considering the financial impact on energy tariffs. Indeed, we believe that in the distribution segment, the necessary investments have already been realized (for safety reasons) and that any additional measure to the current ones will be done at positive marginal cost, as it is recognized by the IEA for the downstream sector (https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020/methane-abatement-options). We urge the Commission to reflect more thoroughly on the value for money of any additional burden put on European gas distribution companies, considering in the one hand the amount of emissions that could be expected to be saved in that particular segment and in the other hand the consequent costs that would be charged on consumers.

Read full response

Response to 2030 Climate Target Plan

19 Mar 2020

Le Plan et l'impact assessment sont appréciés pour leurs aspects exhaustifs, ambitieux et participatifs. Les aspects locaux et de proximité pourraient davantage être pris en compte pour refléter la volonté de l'Union de se rapprocher du citoyen, de ses préoccupations et d'en faire un acteur à part entière. - Il est demandé si le changement de comportment attendu, lié aux générations (les jeunes agissent différemment) sont intégrés dans les modèles pertinents. - Il est suggéré de réaliser l'étude d'impact non seulement au niveau Etats Membres mais aussi à l'échelle sous-régionale, étant donné les grandes disparités qu'il peut y avoir au sein d'un Etat membre. En particulier, une évaluation différentiée entre grandes villes et régions rurales aurait du sens. - Dans le secteur de l'énergie, étant donné le rôle croissant des utilisateurs et de la gestion de la demande, il est recommandé de travailler/consulter davantage que par le passé les gestionnaires de réseaux de distribution (et pas uniquement avec les gestionnaires de réseaux de transport et les échanges transfrontaliers) qui assurent la connexion des consommateurs avec les réseaux d'énergie. Merci.

Read full response