Sittings · Compare
What changed
PA_Legam
ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE procedure
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Follow up to the European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste
The Rapporteur supports many elements in the Commission proposal especially regarding the ambition of a more effective Directive and the introduction of a new centre for innovative techniques. The Rapporteur believes that the Industrial Emissions Directive has been and is crucial to lower polluting and emissions from the industrial sector in the European Union, is of the opinion that the Directive brings environmental, climate and health benefits for the European Union; believes that the current working method (the Sevilla process) that is being used to agree upon the Best Available Techniques (BAT) for pollution prevention and control, should be maintained.
1. Rapporteur: Radan KANEV (EPP / BG)
However, the Rapporteur is of the opinion that the Commission proposal puts unjustified burden on operators and overlooks the risk of sub optimisations, believes that the Directive must acknowledge adjustments between contrary environmental values into consideration in order to make this legislation better for climate, environment and people.
2. Reference numbers: 2022/0104 (COD) / A9-0216/2023 / P9_TA(2024)0123
On this note, the Rapporteur opposes the deletion of energy efficiency requirements and the introduction of environmental performance limit values. The electrification of industry will require more energy, setting strict consumption requirements is to obstruct the electrification of these sectors.
3. Date of adoption of the resolution: 12 March 2024
Secondly, the Rapporteur is concerned that the Commission overlooks the role of the Sevilla process when implementing the Innovation centre for industrial transformation and emissions (INCITE), believes that the centre will give crucial contribution to the analysis of innovative and emerging techniques. Is however concerned that the Commission proposal suggests that the findings of the centre can be directly included in BREFs without technical assessment in the Sevilla process.
4. Legal basis: Article 192 paragraph 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Thirdly, the rapporteur believes that technical development and innovation is key for the European Union to reach its climate goals. Believes, that innovation and development of new techniques should be given adequate time for implementation. Is therefore, of the opinion that emerging and innovative techniques should be given a longer test period with the possibility of extension by the competent authority to ensure legal certainty for operators.
5. Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)
AMENDMENTS
6. Commission's position: accepts all amendments.
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(15) Providing a high level of protection of human health and the environment as a whole requires inter alia the establishment in permits of emission limit values at a level that ensures compliance with the applicable emission levels associated with the best available techniques set out in the BAT conclusions. Emission levels associated with the best available techniques (BAT-AELs) are usually expressed as ranges, rather than as single values, to reflect the differences within a given type of installations that result in variations in the environmental performances achieved when applying BAT. For example, a given BAT will not deliver the same performance for different installations, some BATs may not be suitable for use in certain installations, or a combination of BATs may be more effective on some pollutants or environmental media than others. The achievement of a high level of protection of human health and the environment as a whole has been jeopardised by the practice of setting emission limit values at the laxest end of the range of emission levels associated with the best available techniques, without considering the potential of a given installation to achieve lower emission levels through the application of best available techniques. Such practice discourages frontrunners from implementing more effective techniques, and hinders the achievement of a level-playing field at a high level of protection of human health and the environment. Competent authorities should therefore be required to set in permits the lowest possible emission limit values which reflect the performance of BAT for the specific installations, taking into consideration the whole range of BAT-AELs and aiming at the best environmental performance possible for the installations; unless the operator demonstrates that applying best available techniques as described in the BAT conclusions only allows the concerned installation to meeting less strict emission limit values.
(15) Providing a high level of protection of human health and the environment as a whole requires inter alia the establishment in permits of emission limit values at a level that ensures compliance with the applicable emission levels associated with the best available techniques set out in the BAT conclusions. Emission levels associated with the best available techniques (BAT-AELs) are usually expressed as ranges, rather than as single values, to reflect the differences within a given type of installations that result in variations in the environmental performances achieved when applying BAT. For example, a given BAT will not deliver the same performance for different installations, some BATs may not be suitable for use in certain installations, or a combination of BATs may be more effective on some pollutants or environmental media than others. The achievement of a high level of protection of human health and the environment as a whole has been jeopardised by the practice of setting emission limit values at the laxest end of the range of emission levels associated with the best available techniques, without considering the potential of a given installation to achieve lower emission levels through the application of best available techniques. Such practice discourages frontrunners from implementing more effective techniques, and hinders the achievement of a level-playing field at a high level of protection of human health and the environment. Competent authorities should therefore be required to set in permits the possible emission limit values which reflect the BAT-AEL range for the specific installations, taking into consideration the whole range of BAT-AELs and aiming at the best environmental performance possible for the installations; unless the operator demonstrates that applying best available techniques as described in the BAT conclusions only allows the concerned installation to meeting less strict emission limit values.
Or. en
Amendment 2
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(16) The contribution of Directive 2010/75/EU to resource and energy efficiency and circular economy in the Union should be made more effective, taking into consideration the ‘Energy Efficiency First’ as a guiding principle of the Union energy policy. Therefore, the permits should establish, where possible, mandatory environmental performance limit values on consumption and resource efficiency levels, including on the use of water, energy and recycled materials, based on the environmental performance levels associated with the best available techniques (BAT AEPLs) set out in decisions on BAT conclusions.
(16) The contribution of Directive 2010/75/EU to resource and energy efficiency and circular economy in the Union should be made more effective, taking into consideration the ‘Energy Efficiency First’ as a guiding principle of the Union energy policy. Therefore, the permits should establish, where possible, indicative environmental performance limit values on consumption and resource efficiency levels, including on the use of water, energy and recycled materials, based on the environmental performance levels associated with the best available techniques (BAT AEPLs) set out in decisions on BAT conclusions, taking cross-media effects, national conditions and placement of installations into account.
Or. en
Justification
Frequent trade-offs must be considered based on national conditions, placement of installations etc. If this Directive is implemented as the Commission proposal suggests the best environmental performance for every installation cannot be achieved. Failure to have a holistic perspective on emissions from installations would lead to sub-optimizing solutions that neither benefit the climate nor people.
Amendment 3
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(24) The evaluation of Directive 2010/75/EU found that, even if it should foster the transformation of European industry, it is not dynamic enough and does not sufficiently support the deployment of innovative processes and technologies. It is therefore appropriate to facilitate the testing and deployment of emerging techniques with improved environmental performance, to facilitate cooperation with researchers and industries in publicly funded research projects subject to the conditions foreseen in the relevant European and national funding instruments, as well as to set up a dedicated centre to support innovation by collecting and analysing information on innovative techniques, including emerging techniques, relevant to activities within the scope of that Directive and to characterise their level of development from research to deployment (technology readiness level or ‘TRL’) and their environmental performance. This will also inform the exchange of information on drawing up, reviewing and updating BAT reference documents. Innovative techniques to be collected and analysed by the centre should be at least at the level of technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies) or system prototype demonstration in operation environment (TRL 6-7).
(24) The evaluation of Directive 2010/75/EU found that, even if it should foster the transformation of European industry, it is not dynamic enough and does not sufficiently support the deployment of innovative processes and technologies. It is therefore appropriate to facilitate the testing and deployment of emerging techniques with improved environmental performance, to facilitate cooperation with researchers and industries in publicly funded research projects subject to the conditions foreseen in the relevant European and national funding instruments, as well as to set up a dedicated centre to support innovation by collecting and analysing information on innovative and emerging techniques, relevant to activities within the scope of that Directive and to characterise their level of development from research to deployment (technology readiness level or ‘TRL’) and their environmental performance. This should be used as a basis for the exchange of information on drawing up, reviewing and updating BAT reference documents. Innovative techniques to be collected and analysed by the centre should be at least at the level of technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies) or system prototype demonstration in operation environment (TRL 6-7).
Or. en
Amendment 4
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(25) Achieving Union objectives regarding a clean, circular and climate neutral economy by 2050 calls for a deep transformation of the Union economy. Consistently with the 8th Environmental Action Programme, operators of installations covered by Directive 2010/75/EU should therefore be required to include transformation plans in their environmental management systems. Such transformation plans will also complement the Corporate Sustainability Reporting requirements under Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council75 by providing a means for concrete implementation of these requirements at installation level. The first priority is the transformation of energy-intensive activities listed in Annex I. Therefore, the operators of energy-intensive installations should produce transformation plans by 30 June 2030. Operators of installations carrying out other activities listed in Annex I should be required to produce transformation plans as part of the permit reconsideration and update following the publication of decisions on BAT conclusions published after 1 January 2030. Whilst the transformation plans should remain indicative documents prepared under the responsibility of the operators, the audit organisation contracted by the operators as part of their environmental management systems should check that they contain the minimum information to be set by the European Commission in an implementing act, and the operators should make the transformation plans public.
(25) Achieving Union objectives regarding a clean, circular and climate neutral economy by 2050 calls for a deep transformation of the Union economy. Consistently with the 8th Environmental Action Programme, operators of installations covered by Directive 2010/75/EU should therefore include transformation plans in their environmental management systems. Such transformation plans will also complement the Corporate Sustainability Reporting requirements under Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council75 by providing a means for concrete implementation of these requirements at installation level. The first priority is the transformation of energy-intensive activities listed in Annex I. Therefore, the operators of energy-intensive installations should produce transformation plans at company level by 30 June 2030. Operators of installations carrying out other activities listed in Annex I should produce transformation plans at company level as part of the permit reconsideration and update following the publication of decisions on BAT conclusions published after 1 January 2030. The transformation plans should remain indicative documents prepared under the responsibility of the operators. The operators should make those transformation plans public.
__________________
__________________
75 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC; OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19–76.
75 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC; OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19–76.
Or. en
Justification
An operator may have several installations. Requiring a transformation plan for every installation would impose an inappropriate administrative burden on operators that are not always major companies. Secondly, this would impose a large administrative burden on Member States, organisations, operators and risk damaging the companies' transformation plans. Unforeseen events can change the investments, for example the current energy crisis with expensive energy.
Amendment 5
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(7) In Article 9, paragraph (2) is deleted.
deleted
Or. en
Justification
Article 9.2 should remain in this Directive. Deletion would result in double regulation with Directive 2003/87/EC (ETS), creating contradictions on requirements and on improving energy efficiency performance. The goal of a climate-neutral union until 2050 will require industrial polluters to decarbonize, resulting in a greater energy usage instead of a dependency on fossil fuels. The reintroduction of this article means that article 15.3 also needs to be amended.
Amendment 6
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 14a – paragraph 2 – point f
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(f) a transformation plan as referred to in Article 27d.
(f) a transformation plan at company level as referred to in Article 27d.
Or. en
Justification
An operator may have several installations. Requiring a transformation plan for every installation would impose an inappropriate administrative burden on operators that are not always major companies.
Amendment 7
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
The competent authority shall set the strictest possible emission limit values that are consistent with the lowest emissions achievable by applying BAT in the installation, and that ensure that, under normal operating conditions, emissions do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques (BAT-AELs) as laid down in the decisions on BAT conclusions referred to in Article 13(5). The emission limit values shall be based on an assessment by the operator analysing the feasibility of meeting the strictest end of the BAT-AEL range and demonstrating the best performance the installation can achieve by applying BAT as described in BAT conclusions. The emission limit values shall be set through either of the following:
Following the publication of decisions on BAT conclusions referred to in Article 13(5), the competent authority shall set emission limit values that are achievable by applying BAT in the installation, and that ensure that, under normal operating conditions, emissions do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques (BAT-AELs) as laid down in those decisions on BAT conclusions. The emission limit values shall be based on an assessment by the operator analysing the feasibility of meeting the BAT-AEL range demonstrating the lowest emission limit the installation can achieve by applying BAT as described in BAT conclusions. The emission limit values shall be set through either of the following:
Or. en
Justification
The current working method to finalize BAT-AELs are high-level, evidence-based and highly technical deliberations conducted in Sevilla within technical working groups, consisting of experts from Member States, industry, environmental NGOs and services of the Commission. This work should continue since it results in a BAT-AEL range based on collection of data, sectoral knowledge and Member State competence on national conditions. The lowest emission value achievable in the BAT-AEL range cannot be the reference value as firstly it will not be feasible for every installation. Secondly, there are cross-media effects for every installation. Frequent trade-offs must be considered based on national conditions, placement of installations etc. If this Directive is implemented as the Commission proposal suggests the best environmental performance for every installation cannot be achieved. Thirdly, using the strictest value will harm technique neutrallity as all other plants will need to choose these BAT to reach the level.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 15 – paragraph 3a
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
3a. The competent authority shall set environmental performance limit values that ensure that, under normal operating conditions, such performance limits values do not exceed the environmental performance levels associated with BATs as laid down in the decisions on BAT conclusions referred to in Article 13(5).
3a. The competent authority shall set indicative environmental performance limit values that ensure that, under normal operating conditions, such performance limits values do not exceed the environmental performance levels associated with BATs as laid down in the decisions on BAT conclusions referred to in Article 13(5).
Or. en
Justification
When setting resource consumption requirements, it should be possible to take a certain degree of flexibility into account for different environmental aspects, with a view to reducing the overall environmental impact and to promoting technologies that also reduce greenhouse gases. It should also be taken into account that the conditions differ for different products and material qualities. It is important that the requirements continue to be indicative as the transformation to fossil free production as well as more advance products often uses more energy or water.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20
Directive 2010/75/EU
Chapter IIa – title
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
PROMOTING INNOVATION’
ENABLING INNOVATION’
Or. en
Amendment 10
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 21
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 27 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Member States shall, where appropriate, encourage the development and application of emerging techniques, in particular where such techniques have been identified in the BAT conclusions, the BAT reference documents or the findings of the innovation centre for industrial transformation and emissions referred to in Article 27a.
Member States shall encourage the development of emerging and innovative techniques. Member States may, where appropriate and when an operator chooses that option, facilitate the application of emerging and innovative techniques, in particular where such techniques have been identified by the innovation centre for industrial transformation and emissions, established under Article 27a, and further assessed before their inclusion in the BAT reference documents.
Or. en
Justification
Member states should not be entitled to decide which technique an operator should apply, the decision to use an emerging technique is the operators. It is crucial that techniques that has been identified by the INCITE go through assessment in the Sevilla process since the INCITE should not change the order of BREFs.
Amendment 11
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 27a – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
2. The centre shall collect and analyse information on innovative techniques, including emerging techniques relevant to activities within the scope of this Directive, and characterise their level of development and their environmental performance. The Commission shall take into account the findings of the centre when preparing the work programme for the exchange of information referred to in Article 13(3), point (b), and when drawing up, reviewing and updating the BAT reference documents referred to in Article 13(1).
2. The centre shall collect and analyse information on innovative techniques, including emerging techniques relevant to activities within the scope of this Directive, and characterise their level of development and their environmental performance. The Commission shall take into account the findings of the centre when preparing the work programme for the exchange of information referred to in Article 13(3), point (b), and when drawing up, reviewing and updating, after an assessment by the relevant technical working group in Sevilla, the BAT reference documents referred to in Article 13(1).
Or. en
Amendment 12
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 27b – title
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Testing of emerging techniques
Testing of emerging and innovative techniques
Or. en
Amendment 13
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 27b – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Without prejudice to Article 18, the competent authority may grant temporary derogations from the requirements set out in Article 15(2) and (3) and from the principles set out in Article 11, points (a) and (b), for the testing of emerging techniques for a total period of time not exceeding 24 months.
Without prejudice to Article 18, the competent authority may grant temporary derogations from the requirements set out in Article 15(2) and (3) and from the principles set out in Article 11, points (a) and (b), for the testing of emerging and innovative techniques identified by the centre for a total period of time not exceeding 48 months. The competent authority may grant an extension of those temporary derogations. An initial extension period shall not exceed 12 months.
Or. en
Justification
This directive should support innovation by providing adequate testing periods for operators. Ensuring continuous testing of an emerging technique that due to unforeseen circumstances needs more time.
Amendment 14
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 27c – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
By way of derogation from Article 21(3), the competent authority may set emission limit values that ensure that, within 6 years of publication of a decision on BAT conclusions in accordance with Article 13(5) relating to the main activity of an installation, emissions shall not, under normal operating conditions, exceed emission levels associated with emerging techniques as laid down in the decisions on BAT conclusions.
By way of derogation from Article 21(3), the competent authority may set indicative emission limit values that ensure that, within the period in respect of which an assessment has been carried out by the competent authority together with the operator, emissions shall not, under normal operating conditions, exceed emission levels associated with emerging and innovative techniques as laid down in the decisions on BAT conclusions.
Or. en
Justification
Emission values for emerging techniques are estimated and should hence be indicative in order not to hinder the development of a technology that can create great climate benefit. To promote the use of emerging techniques an operator needs adequate time for permitting, installation and testing. A fixed time period is limiting the possibilities for operators as unforeseen external events, which the operator cannot influence, e.g. global crises and supply shortages, can affect the test period.
Amendment 15
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 27d – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Member States shall require that by 30 June 2030 the operator includes in its environmental management system referred to in Article 14a a transformation plan for each installation carrying out any activity listed in points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6.1 a, and 6.1 b of Annex I. The transformation plan shall contain information on how the installation will transform itself during the 2030-2050 period in order to contribute to the emergence of a sustainable, clean, circular and climate-neutral economy by 2050, using the format referred to in paragraph 4.
Member States may request that by 30 June 2030 the operator includes in its environmental management system referred to in Article 14a a transformation plan for the companys' grouped activities listed in points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6.1 a, and 6.1 b of Annex I. The transformation plan shall contain information on how the company will transform itself during the 2030-2050 period in order to contribute to the emergence of a sustainable, clean, circular and climate-neutral economy by 2050, using the format referred to in paragraph 4.
Or. en
Justification
A operator may have several installations. Requiring a transformation plan for every installation would impose an inappropriate administrative burden on operators that are not always major companies.
Amendment 16
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 27d – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that by 31 December 2031, the audit organisation contracted by the operator as part of its environmental management system assesses the conformity of the transformation plans referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 with the requirements set out in the implementing act referred to in paragraph 4.
deleted
Or. en
Justification
Would impose a large administrative burden on Member States, organisations and operators.
Amendment 17
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 27d – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Member States shall require that, as part of the review of the permit conditions pursuant to Article 21(3) following the publication of decisions on BAT conclusions after 1 January 2030, the operator includes in its environmental management system referred to in Article 14a a transformation plan for each installation carrying out any activity listed in Annex I that is not referred to in paragraph 1. The transformation plan shall contain information on how the installation will transform itself during the 2030-2050 period in order to contribute to the emergence of a sustainable, clean, circular and climate-neutral economy by 2050, using the format referred to in paragraph 4.
Member States shall require that, as part of the review of the permit conditions pursuant to Article 21(3) following the publication of decisions on BAT conclusions after 1 January 2030, the operator includes in its environmental management system referred to in Article 14a a transformation plan at company level, of any activity listed in Annex I that is not referred to in paragraph 1. The transformation plan shall contain information on how the company will transform itself during the 2030-2050 period in order to contribute to the emergence of a sustainable, clean, circular and climate-neutral economy by 2050, using the format referred to in paragraph 4.
Or. en
Justification
An operator may have several installations. Requiring a transformation plan for every installation would impose an inappropriate administrative burden on operators that are not always major companies.
Amendment 18
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 27d – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the audit organisation contracted by the operator as part of its environmental management system assesses the conformity of the transformation plans referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 with the requirements set out in the implementing act referred to in paragraph 4.
deleted
Or. en
Justification
Would impose a large administrative burden on Member States, organisations and operators.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Directive 2010/75/EU
Article 27d – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
3. The operator shall make its transformation plan as well as the results of the assessment referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 public, as part of the publication of its environmental management system.
3. The company shall make its transformation plan as well as the results of the assessment referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 public, taking into account the company' trade secrets, as part of the publication of its environmental management system.
Or. en