On 14th April, the European Parliament’s Industry and Energy (ITRE) Committee adopted its opinion on the Commission directive proposal on the limitation of certain air pollutants from medium combustion plants (MCP), while MEPs in the Environment (ENVI) Committee debated the amendments introduced. In the ENVI Committee views are clearly divided between those who want to strengthen the proposal, even adding other pollutants in the scope of the directive, and others who are concerned about the costs, especially in certain countries.
The Commission proposal on the limitation of certain air pollutants from medium combustion plants (MCP) was presented in December 2013 as part of the Clean Air Programme for Europe. Its objective is to bridge the gap in the EU legislation for regulating emissions from combustion plants between 1 and 50 MW. Covering SO2, NOx and particulate matter emissions from these installations, the new rules would apply from 2018 for new plants and 2025 for existing installations. The proposal allowed some flexibility for existing plants below 5 MW and plants operating less than 500 hours per year.
On 17 December, the Environment Council adopted a general approach on the Commission proposal. On 4 February, the European Parliament’s rapporteur, Mr Grzyb (Poland, EPP), issued his draft report. Both texts show a high number of similarities, introducing exclusions from the scope of the MCPD as well as certain exemptions or flexibility mechanisms.
Both texts received a lukewarm response from many MEPs in the ENVI Committee, which is leading on the file. The proposal received almost 500 amendments, showing the extent of divisions among MEPs, which was also confirmed by a debate in the ENVI Committee on 14 April. Some MEPs introduced further proposals for specific exemptions and the shadow rapporteur for the ECR group, Ms Wiśniewska (PL), said that her group would not support the extension of the scope of the directive to include other pollutants because of a lack of resources or technologies in certain member states. Indeed a number of MEPs want to introduce emission limits for mercury, dioxins and furans, formaldehydes, methane, carbon monoxide, total organic carbon and ammonia. Some also propose energy efficiency requirements. Many MEPs also support exemptions for plants not running more than a certain number of hours on a rolling average over three or five years, between 500 hours and 1500 hours.
In the meantime, the ITRE Committee issued its opinion on 14 April. MEPs support exemptions for plants not running more than 1000 hours as a rolling average over five years and introduced a limited lifetime derogation modelled on the ones existing for large combustion plants and already proposed by the Council in its general approach. They also chose to make optional the adoption of stricter values by member states in zones not complying with ambient air quality requirements. They also open the door to future energy efficiency standards for medium combustion plants following a Commission assessment.
The vote in the ENVI Committee is now scheduled on 6-7 May as the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs are discussing compromise amendments. A mandate for starting trialogue negotiations with the Council and the Commission may also be voted on. The negotiations between the institutions could still be concluded under the Latvian Presidency in the first half of this year.