Lifeline for power stations, as MEPs let industry "off the hook"

Strasbourg, France - MEPs at the European Parliament have adopted stricter rules on air pollution, but left EU Member States some flexibility to extend deadlines for power plants or even waive the rules for certain specific installations.

The Industrial Emissions Directive, which received its second reading in the European Parliament on 7 July, is intended to improve health and the environment, while making the rules clearer and easier to implement. The MEPs adopted the compromise package, with 639 votes in favour, compared to only 35 votes against.

Stricter limits on nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and dust will be introduced from 2016. MEPs agreed, however, that Member States can use ’transitional national plans’ to allow large combustion plants (including fossil fuel power stations) up to July 2020 to meet the rules.

Some older plants may not have to meet the targets at all, as long as they close by the end of 2023 or run for 17,500 operating hours after 2016, whichever happens first. Newer power stations must still meet the 2012 deadline that applies to them.

The agreed directive, which was jointly worked out by the EU Council and EU Commission, combines seven pieces of existing legislation, including directives on Integrated Pollution Prevention and control (IPPC) and Large combustion plants. This is the main piece environmental legislation applying to 52,000 industrial activities in Europe.

The regulation updates and merges seven pieces of existing legislation, including directives on large combustion plants and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), the latter covering around 52,000 industrial and agricultural installations with a high pollution potential, from refineries to pig farms.

The decision to back the new rules followed intense debate among MEPs in Strasbourg.

For his part, Chris Davies MEP (LibDem, North West) demanded: “The legislation that we put in force has to be applied equally and effectively across the European Union if we are to protect the environment, and if we are to ensure that certain countries do not gain a competitive advantage by not investing in the improvements that are necessary to make that possible.”

Davis went on to comment: “We have now recast this legislation. We have not perhaps relaxed it, but we have addressed the fact that the first measure failed to be applied by Member States. Member States have got off the hook. My Member State, the United Kingdom, has got off the hook. It has not done what Germany did.

“So, I ask the Commissioner in his response to tell us exactly - to put on the record - what is there in this new legislation that will ensure that Member States actually do what they are required to do?”

For Martin Callanan MEP (Conservative, North East) the decision was an acceptable compromise: “Nobody got what they wanted - perhaps that is the mark of good European legislation but it is a bit of a messy fudge - and nobody is happy. Member States are not particularly happy. Certainly some Members of this House are very unhappy”

According to Callanan, the compromises reached are a good balance between, on the one hand, protecting the environment but, on the other, taking into account some of the quite legitimate concerns held by some Member States that forcing a lot of coal plants to close early would actually be a bad thing for the environment.

“We have our long term emissions legislation and directives to meet, which would be compromised by forcing too many plants to close early, and at the end of the day all the improvements we want to see have to be paid for by somebody,” said the Conservative MEP. “At the end of the day, that is always the consumer.”

Industry groups welcomed the decision, with Anne-Gaelle Collot, the UK-based Chemical Industries Association’s head of environment commenting: “We are pleased by the adoption by the European Parliament of the compromise package, which we believe is a fair compromise between the various political positions and which lays a solid framework for achieving environmental goals as well as maintaining a competitive European industry.

“The text contains workable provisions for large combustion plants as well as the necessary flexibility to ensure a risk-based approach to environmental permitting in line with the current UK implementation of European environmental permitting legislation.”

According to the CIA, due to its comprehensive compliance with IPPC, the UK chemical industry is well placed to work with the competent authorities on the implementation of the directive to ensure that the environmental and industrial objectives of the directive are achieved.

The Association, however, also cautioned that “a proper implementation respecting the spirit of the compromise” in all Member States would be crucial for industry.