Skip to content

Where are you from?

Choose your province and we will tell you how the deputies and senators you elected vote, one by one.

 

We remember it in this browser. If you create an account, we keep it there.

Type a law, a topic, a person or a province.

What it is

Proposal to require more checks before power plants can close

Admitted step 2 of 7 · Rejected

It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 27 April 2018. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Popular en el Congreso.

Official title: Private member's bill to amend Law 24/2013, of 26 December, on the electricity sector, regarding the authorization procedure for the closure of electricity generation facilities.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000238· updated 11 Nov

Automatic summary, not yet reviewed

  1. The bill would amend the Electricity Sector Act so that closing power plants would not depend only on the owner, but would also protect supply, prices, competition and environmental goals.
  2. The bill would require temporary or permanent closures of peninsular plants over 50 MW to first get opinions from the National Markets and Competition Commission, the Climate Change Office and the Institute for Energy Diversification and Saving, issued within three months. If any of them finds a significant negative impact, the closure would be denied.
  3. If a closure is denied for reasons other than supply risk, measures could be approved to keep the plant running, including a competitive process in which another company takes over the facility. These rules would also apply to nuclear plants.
  4. For nuclear plants, notifying the intent to stop operating or missing the deadline to request a license renewal would count as a closure request. Failing to request the renewal on time would become a punishable offense.

Who it affects

  • Companies owning power plants over 50 MW: They would need prior opinions and could see their closures denied.
  • Nuclear plant owners: Special rules would apply: announcing a shutdown or not requesting renewal would count as a closure request, and missing the renewal deadline would be an offense.
  • Electricity consumers: The goal would be to protect supply, prices and competition in the electricity market.
  • Public bodies (National Markets and Competition Commission, Climate Change Office, Institute for Energy Diversification and Saving): They would have to issue reasoned opinions within three months.

Words worth knowing

Dictamen
An official opinion or report issued by a public body on a specific matter.
Silencio administrativo
What is considered decided when the administration does not answer in time. Here, no answer would mean denial.
Concurrencia competitiva
A process where several companies compete, in this case to take over the plant.
Proposición de ley
A bill introduced by members of Congress. While it is being processed, it is not in force.

It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries

Where it stands

How far did it get?

It took 2 of 7 steps. It reached Admitted, and today it is rejected.

  1. Introduced27 April 2018Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
  2. Admitted3 May 2018The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
  3. Amendmentsnot reachedGroups propose changes.
  4. Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
  5. Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
  6. Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
  7. BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 6 official steps on a timeline
Apr 2018May 2018Jun 2018Jul 2018Aug 201811. 27 April 2018: Presentación22. 3 May 2018: Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales Publicación desde 03/05/2018 hasta 07/05/201833. 3 May 2018: Calificación44. 7 May 2018: Gobierno Contestación desde 07/05/2018 hasta 13/06/201855. 13 June 2018: Pleno Toma en consideración desde 13/06/2018 hasta 11/09/201866. 11 September 2018: Concluido - (Rechazado) desde 11/09/2018 hasta 17/09/2018

11 September 2018

How did the plenary vote?

More votes against 137 yes · 189 no · 1 abst.

Voted on: Private member's bill by the Popular Parliamentary Group in the Congress, to amend Law 24/2013, of 26 December, on the electricity sector, regarding the authorization procedure for the closure of electricity generation facilities.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 2 of sitting 138· updated 10 Nov

Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.

Your province

How did the deputies from your province vote?

And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.

Or see how most of each province voted
More details: how each group and each province voted

The groups

Who voted in favour and who against?

In favour, most of Popular en el Congreso. Against, most of Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Mixto, Ciudadanos and Gcup-ec-em. 5 deputies voted differently from their group.

By province: in 13 most voted in favour; in 26, against.

Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.

  • In favour: 13
  • Against: 26
  • Tie: 13
Result by parliamentary group
GroupSeatsHow it voted
Socialista84
84 against
Vasco (EAJ-PNV)5
5 against
Mixto19
3 in favour · 7 against · 1 abst. · 8 did not vote
Ciudadanos32
31 against · 1 did not vote
Gcup-ec-em67
1 in favour · 62 against · 4 did not vote
GER9
9 did not vote
Popular en el Congreso134
133 in favour · 1 did not vote

What happens next

What happens now?

It goes no further. A similar one could be introduced later.

Sources

Where does all this come from?

  • The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
  • Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
  • We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.