REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION - 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

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
SEC(2022) 169
10.12.2021
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
- 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
-
- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on reporting of environmental data from industrial
installations and establishing an Industrial Emissions Portal
COM(2022) 156 and 157
SWD(2022) 111 and 112
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0156 - 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 / Revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive and the
Regulation on the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
Overall opinion: POSITIVE WITH RESERVATIONS
(A) Policy context
The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) is the main EU instrument used to monitor,
reduce and mitigate pollution from the largest installations covering several sectors
including power plants, refineries, production of cement, steel, non-ferrous metals and
glass. The IED aims to prevent, reduce and eliminate emissions into air, water and soil
pollution arising from industrial activities.
The European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register Regulation (E-PRTR) establishes a
an integrated database of publically-accessible information on pollution from Europe’s
largest industrial facilities.
The initiative aims to revise these two instruments to address shortcomings identified in
the evaluations of the instruments and to ensure that they contribute fully to the EU’s
environmental and climate goals.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the additional information provided in advance of the meeting and
commitments to make changes to the report.
However, the report still contains significant shortcomings. The Board gives a
positive opinion with reservations because it expects the DG to rectify the following
aspects:
(1) The report does not sufficiently explain how the revised IED and E-PRTR will
interact with and support other legislation.
(2) The report is not clear how the 25 measures under the option supporting ‘more
effective legislation’ have been chosen and why no alternative measures are
envisaged.
(3) The report is not clear on some relevant impacts of the envisaged measures, in
particular on industrial competitiveness, Member States and consumers.
2
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should expand and strengthen its analysis of the coherence between the
revised IED and E-PRTR and other legislation. It should improve its explanation of the
interaction with the EU Emissions Trading System and be clearer about any overlap (or
synergy) with the Common Agricultural Policy when it comes to adjustment costs. It
should explain how IED would interact with the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) given
that it is an EU-wide horizontal instrument imposing binding GHG reduction requirements
on specific operators and sectors, while the ESR sets an overall reduction target but leaves
it to Member States to determine the appropriate national mix. It should, for example,
explain how methane emissions (potentially covered by both instruments) would be
tackled.
(2) The report should consider alternatives for the package of 25 measures in the option
supporting more effective legislation (option 1). Many of these measures are contentious or
are not merely clarifying ambiguous provisions but are clearly increasing ambitions. The
report should consider all options that are likely to emerge in the legislative process,
including a more restricted package of measures.
(3) The report should further develop the analysis of competitiveness impacts on industry
(taking into account the high – in absolute terms – compliance costs even with only partial
quantification) and assess the risk that operators may outsource their production to third
countries. In particular, it should assess more thoroughly the impacts on competitiveness of
the newly included industry sectors (e.g. livestock farms) and the risk that EU production
will be substituted by third-country imports (benefitting from less stringent production
requirements).
(4) The report should better explain, and present transparently, impacts on consumer
prices (in terms of potential cost pass-through) and on third countries. It should clearly
identify and analyse the impacts by Member State to reveal whether the implementation
burden falls unevenly. It should assess territorial impacts, as the envisaged inclusion of the
livestock sector is likely to affect in particular rural areas.
(5) When it comes to the proportionality of the measures considered, the report should
more clearly account for the fact that for some of the benefits there is a higher level of
uncertainty that they will materialise when compared with the costs. The report also needs
to explain better the combined impact (any synergies or lack thereof) of the five different
sets of measures chosen as preferred option.
(6) The report should be more explicit about any possible implementation issues and
whether the necessary resources will be available across all Member States to ensure the
consistent and effective implementation of the revised instruments.
(7) The report should better reflect the diversity of stakeholder views through the analysis
and indicate how dissenting or minority views have been taken into account.
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.
3
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings 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 Revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive and the
Regulation on the European Pollutant Release and Transfer
Register
Reference number PLAN/2020/6608
PLAN/2020/8555
Submitted to RSB on 10 November 2021
Date of RSB meeting 8 December 2021
4
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 direct and indirect Benefits and estimated costs (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option vs BAU
Businesses National Authorities Citizens and Consumers
More effective
legislation (PO1)
PO1 will improve the effectiveness of the IED and the E-PRTR Regulation by clarifying and simplifying the IED
legislative framework; improving public access to information, coherence with the broader EU legal framework and
policy objectives, especially the European Green Deal, zero-pollution ambition and the Aarhus Convention; and will
level the playing field and raise standards of laggard Member States, especially in environmental protection.
Direct benefits:
 The measures introduced on the E-PRTR will result
in administrative cost savings for reporting – in total
by 13.5 million/year. This counterbalances the
additional administrative costs related to IED
measures referred to below, resulting in overall stable
administrative costs for businesses under this option.
 Savings stemming from clarification and
simplification in the IED and the E-PRTR that could
not be quantified
Indirect benefits:
 Improved level playing field primarily by
homogenising and clarifying the requirements that
businesses should comply with and expected
Direct benefits:
 Less duplication of effort, taking
advantage of synergies via greater
cohesion with related business and
environmental ministries and
departments
Indirect benefits:
 Clarifying and simplifying existing
legal requirements will translate into
reduced administrative costs
Costs:
 Authorities will need marginally more
resources for bringing together and
sharing data and information
Direct benefits:
 Improved quality of the
environment via lower levels of
emissions to air, water and soil.
 Participation in permitting of
installations responsible for
significant emission of pollutants
Indirect benefits:
 Improving public access to
information will increase public
leverage and ability to influence
the environmental performance
ambition
 The reduction in pollutant
5
enforcement practices
 Improved environmental performance could have
operational benefits in the medium to longer term, for
example, through increased energy efficiency
Costs:
 Installations will need to employ more resources due
to an increase in the frequency and/or depth and
breadth required in permit reconsiderations,
derogations and exemptions. This will constitute one
off costs as they will materialise once per 10 years,
corresponding to a yearly average of 13.6
million/year
 Operational costs may increase or will be brought
forward, primarily by introducing more stringent
requirements and limiting the duration and/or
reducing the likelihood of approval of derogations
from implementing BAT Conclusions. This will also
affect CAPEX: illustrative estimations for five
sectors estimate CAPEX for reducing NOx emissions
to represent €210 million/year
 Total administrative burden €15.1
million/year
emissions linked to use of safer
chemicals will have indirect
benefits such as improving public
health and labour productivity,
reducing social and healthcare
burden.
 Illustrative calculations for health
benefits from reductions of NOx
emissions in five sectors estimate
this to represent at least between
€860 million and €2 800
million/year
Accelerating
innovation (PO2)
PO2 is expected to introduce incentives for operators to develop, test and deploy more innovative technologies in a
context of rapid technological advancement and a need for deep industrial transformation in sectors regulated by the
IED. The scale of impact of this measure would depend on the take-up and the findings of the Innovation Observatory.
Businesses National Authorities Citizens and Consumers
6
Direct benefits:
 Streamlined investment to develop and test
innovative techniques and technologies
 Effective and efficient intervention in updating
BREFs through the Observatory monitoring
Indirect benefits:
 Putting the EU’s industry in the front-foot of
transformation, potentially gaining first-mover
advantage and exporting acquired know-how or
innovative techniques
Costs:
 Additional capital and operating expenditures will be
needed from operators, although the scale is uncertain
and would depend upon the response by IED
operators and the selected novel technologies
 Heavy industry transformation mainly be driven by
the climate policy requires significant investments.
This option may lead to an increase in and/or bring
forward costs for IED operators, especially capital
expenditure, by encouraging industrial transformation
and favouring innovative and emerging technologies
 Administrative costs are estimated at €54
million/year. This stems mainly from occasional
one-off activities linked to permit reconsiderations
following BREF reviews, less from yearly monitoring
Direct benefits: NA
Indirect benefits: NA
Costs:
 Administrative burden €54
million/year. This stems mainly from
occasional one-off activities linked to
permit reconsiderations following
BREF reviews and
inspection/enforcement
Direct benefits:
 Access to information about state-
of-the-art techniques
 Improved environment through
faster deployment of innovative
techniques
Indirect benefits:
 The potential reduction in
pollutant emissions is likely to
have indirect benefits such as
improving public health and labour
productivity, reducing social and
healthcare burden. The scale of
such benefits will depend on the
degree of acceleration of
technological progress
7
and reporting activities (1.1 million/year)
Contributing to a
non-toxic and
resource efficient
circular economy
(PO3)
PO3 would enhance the status of the parts of BAT conclusions whose legal status is unclear. The EMS will provide
sufficient flexibility for the pertinent actors. This will encourage a more efficient and circular use of resources with the
lowest possible administrative, operational and capital costs. In the longer term, installations will contribute more to a
circular economy and a resource efficient model of business and will move to using safer chemicals.
Businesses National Authorities Citizens and Consumers
Direct benefits:
 Operational cost savings in the longer term due to
improved resource efficiency, reduced waste and
carbon footprint
 Market likely to reward good performers
Indirect benefits:
 Encouraging research and innovation
Costs:
 60%-80% of IED installations may be affected,
resulting in administrative costs for those operators;
costs induced by measures to improve chemicals
management, circular economy and resource
efficiency will depend on the complexity of
installation's plans and systems
 Administrative burden: at €117.2 million/year
Direct benefits:
 Clarity on how to implement BAT
conclusions
Indirect benefits: N/A
Costs:
 Administrative burden: €37
million/year
Direct benefits:
 Reduced environmental footprint
of industrial installations
 Increased public access to
information on emission of all
pollutants by individual industrial
installations
Indirect benefits:
 Enabling benchmarking of the
environmental performance of
different industrial activities
 The potential reduction in
pollutant emissions linked to use
of safer chemicals is likely to have
indirect benefits such as improving
public health and labour
productivity, reducing social and
8
healthcare burden
Addressing
decarbonisation of
industry (PO4)
The scale of benefits of PO4 will depend on how energy efficiency and associated GHG and other pollutant emissions
reductions incentivised via the IED may interact with the EU ETS framework. The benefits would include positive
impacts on air quality; the efficient use of resources; waste production, generation and recycling; innovation and
research; and levelling the playing field.
Businesses National Authorities Citizens and Consumers
Direct benefits:
 Economies of scale stemming from an integrated
approach towards transformation (depollution and
decarbonisation)
 Improved energy efficiency
Indirect benefits:
 Encouraging more investment in developing and
testing innovative techniques and technologies
Costs:
 Additional capital and operating expenditures related
to energy efficiency measures implemented by
operators is uncertain and would depend upon the
response by IED operators, and whether those
measures are needed to comply with other climate or
energy law (e.g. the Energy Efficiency Directive).
 Administrative burden: €29 million/year
Direct benefits: N/A
Indirect benefits:
 Cooperation between authorities in
charge of the IED and the Energy
Efficiency Directive should ease
overseeing of overall implementation
Costs:
 Administrative burden:
€21million/year
Direct benefits:
 Information and better
understanding of all GHG
emissions (going beyond CO2)
Indirect benefits:
 The potential reduction in
pollutant emissions is likely to
have indirect benefits such as
improving public health and labour
productivity, reducing social and
healthcare burden
Industrial scope
(PO5)
PO5 is the most significant option in terms of costs. It will more than triple the number of installations covered by the
IED, mainly in the livestock-rearing sector. The tailored regulatory framework will significantly mitigate the
associated administrative burden.
9
Businesses National Authorities Citizens and Consumers
Direct benefits:
 IED permitting provides a recognition that
installations apply BAT, improving the green
credentials of the company
 Levelling of EU playing field
Indirect benefits:
 Encouraging more investment in developing and
testing innovative techniques and technologies
Costs:
 Intensive livestock production will bring additional
84 000 cattle farms and 77 000 pig and poultry farms
under the IED scope, representing the largest 13%
non-subsistence farms, out of the c.1.5 million farms
within these sectors. The tailored approach reduces
the administrative costs associated with IED
permitting by 20 to 30%, depending on the specific
activity. Compliance costs will be both one-off
(abatement techniques) and recurring. These should
not surpass €300 million/year
 Other scope expansion will bring additional 1 500 to
1 900 installations under the IED that will be subject
to full IED permitting, possibly including some
SMEs. The associated costs for businesses should not
surpass €41 million/year
Direct benefits:
N/A
Indirect benefits:
N/A
Costs:
 Intensive livestock production will
bring additional 84 000 cattle farms
and 77 000 pig and poultry farms under
the IED scope. The tailored approach
reduces administrative costs associated
with IED permitting by about 30%
through.
 Other scope increase will bring
additional 1500 to 1300 installations
under the IED scope that will be
subject to full IED permitting.
 Administrative costs: €177.3
million/year
Direct benefits:
 Participation in permitting of
installations responsible for
significant emission of pollutants
 Increased public access to
information on emission of all
pollutants by individual industrial
installations
Indirect benefits:
 The potential reduction in
pollutant emissions is likely to
have indirect benefits such as
improving public health and labour
productivity, reducing social and
healthcare burden.
 Reductions in methane and
ammonia emissions are valued at
over €7 285 million per year
(using damage costs and carbon
price)
10
 Administrative costs of €226.5 million. This stems
mainly from occasional one-off activities linked to
the permitting process estimated at 167.1
million/year. Recurrent costs (monitoring, reporting
and inspections) represent 59.4 million/year
Electronically signed on 10/12/2021 14:35 (UTC+01) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482