COMM

                    

        LINKACTION

List of Questions, Respondents, and Possible Answers

## 1. European Commission Officials (e.g., Directorate-General for Competition)
– **Question**: “Can you confirm whether the Bulgarian government notified the Commission of the €590 million state aid for electricity storage infrastructure before its implementation, and if so, on what date?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “The aid was notified on [date], but the notification was incomplete or delayed, potentially violating Article 108(3) TFEU.” *(Favorable)*
– “The aid was properly notified on [date], and the Commission approved it under the TCTF.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “The aid was implemented before full notification, which could render it unlawful.” *(Critical Insight)*

– **Question**: “Did the Commission conduct a detailed market impact assessment for the Bulgarian electricity storage aid, and if so, what were the findings regarding potential market distortion?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “The assessment was limited, and key market distortion risks were not fully addressed.” *(Favorable)*
– “A comprehensive assessment was conducted, concluding minimal distortion.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “The assessment overlooked the rapid expansion of storage capacity, which has since distorted the market.” *(Critical Insight)*

## 2. Bulgarian Ministry of Energy Officials
– **Question**: “What specific criteria were used to select the beneficiaries of the €590 million state aid, and were these criteria publicly disclosed?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “Selection criteria were not fully transparent, raising concerns about favoritism.” *(Favorable)*
– “The criteria were publicly available and aligned with EU guidelines.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “Certain beneficiaries had political connections, suggesting potential misuse of funds.” *(Critical Insight)*

– **Question**: “Has the Bulgarian government provided additional support to electricity storage projects beyond the €590 million aid, and if so, was this notified to the Commission?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “Additional support was provided without notification, potentially violating state aid rules.” *(Favorable)*
– “All support was included in the notified aid package.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “The National Recovery and Resilience Plan includes overlapping funds for similar projects.” *(Critical Insight)*

## 3. Energy Market Analysts or Economists
– **Question**: “How has the €590 million state aid affected competition in Bulgaria’s electricity storage market, particularly regarding new entrants or smaller players?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “The aid has concentrated market power among a few large players, stifling competition.” *(Favorable)*
– “The aid has fostered a competitive market by supporting multiple projects.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “Smaller firms have been unable to compete, leading to market consolidation.” *(Critical Insight)*

– **Question**: “What is the projected impact of Bulgaria’s rapid energy storage expansion (e.g., 7,500 MW by 2026) on electricity prices and market stability?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “The expansion is likely to depress prices unsustainably, distorting the market.” *(Favorable)*
– “The expansion will stabilize prices and support renewable integration.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “The surplus storage capacity risks creating inefficiencies and market imbalances.” *(Critical Insight)*

## 4. Legal Experts Specializing in EU State Aid Law
– **Question**: “Based on recent CJEU rulings (e.g., May 2025 energy sector case), what procedural flaws could invalidate the Commission’s approval of SA.114306?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “Failure to conduct a thorough market impact assessment could be a key flaw.” *(Favorable)*
– “The approval likely adhered to procedural requirements.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “The expiration of the TCTF could render the aid unlawful if disbursed after June 30, 2024.” *(Critical Insight)*

– **Question**: “How could the CJEU’s March 2025 ruling on transparency in tender processes apply to the Bulgarian aid’s beneficiary selection?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “The ruling sets a high bar for transparency, which the Bulgarian process may not have met.” *(Favorable)*
– “The Bulgarian tender process likely complied with transparency standards.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “Lack of public disclosure of selection criteria could violate the ruling’s principles.” *(Critical Insight)*

## 5. Representatives from Competing Energy Firms
– **Question**: “Has your company experienced any competitive disadvantages due to the Bulgarian state aid for electricity storage infrastructure?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “Yes, the aid has allowed subsidized firms to undercut prices, making it difficult to compete.” *(Favorable)*
– “No, the aid has not significantly impacted our operations.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “We’ve lost market share directly due to the subsidized expansion of storage capacity.” *(Critical Insight)*

– **Question**: “Are you aware of any irregularities or favoritism in the allocation of the €590 million aid to certain beneficiaries?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “Yes, certain firms with political ties received disproportionate funding.” *(Favorable)*
– “No, the allocation seemed fair and transparent.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “The tender process lacked transparency, and key details were not disclosed.” *(Critical Insight)*

## 6. European Investment Bank (EIB) Officials
– **Question**: “Is the EIB’s funding for Bulgaria’s energy transition (e.g., pumped-storage hydro plants) coordinated with the €590 million state aid, and does it comply with EU state aid rules?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “The EIB funding overlaps with the state aid, potentially creating excessive subsidization.” *(Favorable)*
– “The EIB funding is separate and compliant with state aid rules.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “The combined funding exceeds what is necessary, distorting the market.” *(Critical Insight)*

## 7. Bulgarian Consumer Advocacy Groups
– **Question**: “How has the state aid for electricity storage infrastructure impacted electricity prices and service quality for Bulgarian consumers?”
– **Possible Answers**:
– “Prices have increased despite the aid, and service quality has not improved.” *(Favorable)*
– “The aid has stabilized prices and improved grid reliability.” *(Unfavorable)*
– “Consumers are paying more due to inefficiencies in the subsidized projects.” *(Critical Insight)*

# Strategic Value
These questions are designed to target key areas such as procedural compliance, market impact, and legal vulnerabilities. The favorable answers and critical insights could provide the evidence needed to challenge the aid’s legality, demonstrate market distortion, or highlight procedural flaws, thereby strengthening our position in legal proceedings, contract negotiations, or mediation.

 

1. European Commission Officials (e.g., Directorate-General for Competition)

  • Question: “Can you confirm whether the Bulgarian government notified the Commission of the €590 million state aid for electricity storage infrastructure before its implementation, and if so, on what date?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “The aid was notified on [date], but the notification was incomplete or delayed, potentially violating Article 108(3) TFEU.” (Favorable)
      • “The aid was properly notified on [date], and the Commission approved it under the TCTF.” (Unfavorable)
      • “The aid was implemented before full notification, which could render it unlawful.” (Critical Insight)
  • Question: “Did the Commission conduct a detailed market impact assessment for the Bulgarian electricity storage aid, and if so, what were the findings regarding potential market distortion?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “The assessment was limited, and key market distortion risks were not fully addressed.” (Favorable)
      • “A comprehensive assessment was conducted, concluding minimal distortion.” (Unfavorable)
      • “The assessment overlooked the rapid expansion of storage capacity, which has since distorted the market.” (Critical Insight)

2. Bulgarian Ministry of Energy Officials

  • Question: “What specific criteria were used to select the beneficiaries of the €590 million state aid, and were these criteria publicly disclosed?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Selection criteria were not fully transparent, raising concerns about favoritism.” (Favorable)
      • “The criteria were publicly available and aligned with EU guidelines.” (Unfavorable)
      • “Certain beneficiaries had political connections, suggesting potential misuse of funds.” (Critical Insight)
  • Question: “Has the Bulgarian government provided additional support to electricity storage projects beyond the €590 million aid, and if so, was this notified to the Commission?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Additional support was provided without notification, potentially violating state aid rules.” (Favorable)
      • “All support was included in the notified aid package.” (Unfavorable)
      • “The National Recovery and Resilience Plan includes overlapping funds for similar projects.” (Critical Insight)

3. Energy Market Analysts or Economists

  • Question: “How has the €590 million state aid affected competition in Bulgaria’s electricity storage market, particularly regarding new entrants or smaller players?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “The aid has concentrated market power among a few large players, stifling competition.” (Favorable)
      • “The aid has fostered a competitive market by supporting multiple projects.” (Unfavorable)
      • “Smaller firms have been unable to compete, leading to market consolidation.” (Critical Insight)
  • Question: “What is the projected impact of Bulgaria’s rapid energy storage expansion (e.g., 7,500 MW by 2026) on electricity prices and market stability?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “The expansion is likely to depress prices unsustainably, distorting the market.” (Favorable)
      • “The expansion will stabilize prices and support renewable integration.” (Unfavorable)
      • “The surplus storage capacity risks creating inefficiencies and market imbalances.” (Critical Insight)

4. Legal Experts Specializing in EU State Aid Law

  • Question: “Based on recent CJEU rulings (e.g., May 2025 energy sector case), what procedural flaws could invalidate the Commission’s approval of SA.114306?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Failure to conduct a thorough market impact assessment could be a key flaw.” (Favorable)
      • “The approval likely adhered to procedural requirements.” (Unfavorable)
      • “The expiration of the TCTF could render the aid unlawful if disbursed after June 30, 2024.” (Critical Insight)
  • Question: “How could the CJEU’s March 2025 ruling on transparency in tender processes apply to the Bulgarian aid’s beneficiary selection?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “The ruling sets a high bar for transparency, which the Bulgarian process may not have met.” (Favorable)
      • “The Bulgarian tender process likely complied with transparency standards.” (Unfavorable)
      • “Lack of public disclosure of selection criteria could violate the ruling’s principles.” (Critical Insight)

5. Representatives from Competing Energy Firms

  • Question: “Has your company experienced any competitive disadvantages due to the Bulgarian state aid for electricity storage infrastructure?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Yes, the aid has allowed subsidized firms to undercut prices, making it difficult to compete.” (Favorable)
      • “No, the aid has not significantly impacted our operations.” (Unfavorable)
      • “We’ve lost market share directly due to the subsidized expansion of storage capacity.” (Critical Insight)
  • Question: “Are you aware of any irregularities or favoritism in the allocation of the €590 million aid to certain beneficiaries?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Yes, certain firms with political ties received disproportionate funding.” (Favorable)
      • “No, the allocation seemed fair and transparent.” (Unfavorable)
      • “The tender process lacked transparency, and key details were not disclosed.” (Critical Insight)

6. European Investment Bank (EIB) Officials

  • Question: “Is the EIB’s funding for Bulgaria’s energy transition (e.g., pumped-storage hydro plants) coordinated with the €590 million state aid, and does it comply with EU state aid rules?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “The EIB funding overlaps with the state aid, potentially creating excessive subsidization.” (Favorable)
      • “The EIB funding is separate and compliant with state aid rules.” (Unfavorable)
      • “The combined funding exceeds what is necessary, distorting the market.” (Critical Insight)

7. Bulgarian Consumer Advocacy Groups

  • Question: “How has the state aid for electricity storage infrastructure impacted electricity prices and service quality for Bulgarian consumers?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Prices have increased despite the aid, and service quality has not improved.” *(F