REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION Ozone layer protection – revision of EU rules

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
02.07.2021
SEC(2022) 157
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
Ozone layer protection – revision of EU rules
{COM(2022) 151}
{SWD(2022) 99, 100}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0151 - SEK-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment /Ozone layer protection – revision of EU rules
Overall opinion: POSITIVE
(A) Policy context
A layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere protects living beings from harmful solar
radiation. In the 1980s, scientists discovered the so-called “hole” in the ozone layer caused
by emissions from certain manufactured chemicals (ozone-depleting substances, ODS).
Many ODS are also strong greenhouse gases.
In 1987, the international community adopted the Montreal Protocol to phase out the
production and consumption of ODS. The ODS Regulation is the main instrument to
ensure that the EU fulfils its obligations under the Montreal Protocol. It generally prohibits
production, trade and use of ODS, while exempting a few specified uses where alternatives
were not available at the time of its adoption. All phase-out dates are now in the past.
A recent evaluation found that most of the obligations and measures of the current
Regulation are fit for purpose. Nevertheless, there is scope to further reduce remaining
emissions of ODS and to improve the design of the Regulation in certain aspects. The
impact assessment examines ways to address these issues.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the additional clarifications and commitments to make changes to
the report.
The Board gives a positive opinion. The Board also considers that the report should
further improve with respect to the following aspects:
(1) The description of some measures and options is not fully clear.
(2) The impact analysis of a number of measures is not sufficiently developed or
based on a too narrow evidence base.
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should present more clearly the measures and policy options. It should
explain how the individual measures were selected. As regards the measures to reduce
2
emissions, the report should justify the focus on obligations and prohibitions, and explain
why other measures such as economic incentives are not considered. It should clarify
which types of foam banks are covered by the different options on their recovery and
destruction and why.
(2) The report should strengthen the impact analysis. It should increase the robustness of
the evidence by including information from more countries on the feasibility and costs of
the mandatory destruction of some types of foam banks. It should clarify the level of
additional costs for the monitoring of illegal goods. For the measure that introduces a
negative list for chemical production processes, it should expand on how this measure will
lead to very significant economic costs for the limited emission reductions. The report
should strengthen the analysis on the impacts on renovation costs, consumer prices and
affordability for vulnerable consumers.
(3) The report should elaborate on differences across Member States as regards their
contribution to remaining emissions. It should explain to what extent impacts are expected
to differ across Member States, possibly depending on the geographical concentration of
the most affected sectors, the historic use of products containing ODS and existing policies
on waste management, including enforcement.
(4) The report should improve the comparison of options. It should be consistent on the
scores allocated to each measure.
The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option in this initiative,
as summarised in the attached quantification tables.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
(D) Conclusion
The DG may proceed with the initiative.
The DG must take these recommendations into account before launching the
interservice consultation.
If there are any changes in the choice or design of the preferred option in the final
version of the report, the DG may need to further adjust the attached quantification
tables to reflect this.
Full title Impact assessment report accompanying the document Proposal
for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
on substances that deplete the ozone layer
Reference number PLAN/2020/6630
Submitted to RSB on 2 June 2021
Date of RSB meeting 30 June 2021
3
ANNEX – Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content
of these tables may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment
report, as published by the Commission.
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Reduced ozone- and
climate-relevant
emissions
Emission saving:
32,000 tODP for 2021-2050
179 million tCO2e for 2021-2050
Almost exclusively from action on
foams (option A1),
in addition some contributions from
better controls and monitoring
(options B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C4)
and prohibiting halon destruction
(A4)
Administrative cost
reductions for business
Annual savings up to €216,000 For business, mostly from efficiency
options
Affects importers/exporters (B1,
B5), laboratories and other entities
doing analysis (B4), chemical
industry (B1, B5) and aviation
companies (B6)
Administrative cost
reductions for
authorities
Savings:
694 person days/a up until 2024, 254
person days/a from 2024 onwards;
Annual IT costs of €31,500
EC: 574 person days/a until 2024,
254 person days/a thereafter,
plus annual IT costs of €31,500
Member States: 120 person days
until 2024
Indirect benefits
Job creation Up to 2400 FTEs Recycling, reclamation and
incineration entities
R&D Innovation on demolition and treatment
processes for foams
Knock-on effects on refrigerators
recycling
Recycling, reclamation and
incineration entities
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurre
nt
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
Action
A1
Direct costs
Compliance
costs:
Higher costs to
Compliance
costs:
Same as
4
building
owners.
Costs include:
Recovery: ca. €
1050-1200/t;
incineration
€2500-3500/t;
Total costs:
1.98 billion €
distributed over
a high number
of owners;
Abatement
costs:
€25,000–
132,000 / tODP
or
5.1-18.4 tCO2e
citizens if
commercial
building
owner
Indirect costs Enforcement
costs for
Member
States;
synergies
with waste
and circular
economy
policies
Action
A4
Direct costs
Compliance
costs:
Halon
equipment
owner (e.g.
aviation
company,
military etc.)
Costs may
arise if
transport,
reclamation
and sale is
higher than
destruction
Administrati
ve costs:
Keeping of
records for 5
years
Indirect costs Enforcement
costs for
Member
States
Action
B1
Direct costs
Indirect costs Changes
5
to IT
system
for EC
Action
B2
Direct costs Administrati
ve costs:
Minimal
higher cost
to importers
Indirect costs Enforcement
costs for
Member
States
Action
B3
Direct costs
Indirect costs Administrati
ve costs:
Cost to
acquire
authorised
trader status
for importers
Compliance
costs: Less
flexibility on
logistics for
importers
Enforcement
costs for
Member
States
Action
C1
Direct costs Administrati
ve costs for
reporting
companies*:
total €5,500
p/a
Indirect costs
Action
C2
Direct costs Administrati
ve costs for
producers/
destruction
companies/
feedstock
users: total
€20,000 p/a
Indirect costs
Action
C4
Direct costs Administrati
ve costs for
reporting
companies*:
total €13,000
p/a
Indirect costs
Action Direct costs Administrati
6
C5 ve costs for
reporting
companies*:
€25,000 p/a
Indirect costs
Electronically signed on 02/07/2021 10:34 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482