Weaknesses in the taxonomy draft + Futur • Table.Briefings

Dear reader,

It is not often that delegated acts get caught up in the mills of big politics. In the case of the supplementary legal act to the Taxonomy Regulation, that is exactly what has happened. The EU Commission has now extended the deadline until January 21st for member states and experts to comment on its draft. This should actually have ended on Wednesday, but the need for discussion is great.

Even within the traffic light coalition: SPD, FDP, and Greens have not yet reached an agreement on Germany’s position on the classification of nuclear power and natural gas. The rejection announced by Minister of the Environment Steffi Lemke (Greens) over the weekend relates solely to the inclusion of nuclear power in the taxonomy, her spokesperson clarified yesterday. The federal government is “still in the process of coordinating” its position on the legal act as a whole.

The Commission has contributed to this muddle. It had announced that it would base the classification solely on scientific criteria. However, the draft sent out on New Year’s Eve contains a number of weaknesses, as Charlotte Wirth points out in her analysis. For example, the supposedly strict safety requirements for nuclear power plants are formulated laxly. The nuclear lobby also criticizes the authority for unnecessarily committing itself to one approach to the unresolved question of final storage. A new report commissioned by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (German Environmental Aid) even considers the Commission’s draft to be illegal – read more about this in the news.

The taxonomy topic has only been present in the general public for a few weeks. In Europe.Table, it has been from the very beginning: Already in mid-August, in the 6th issue of our briefings, Charlotte Wirth had pointed out the gaps in the report of the Commission’s own research unit JRC. We have closely followed the discussion over the past months, and our readers were not surprised by any turn of events.

Today you are already reading the 100th issue of Europe.Table. Many more will follow. I explicitly invite you to be part of the further development: Tell me what you like about Europe.Table and what we can do better: till.hoppe@table.media.

Another topic that is still underestimated by many: Standards and norms. At the beginning of February, the Commission intends to present its new standardization strategy. Long reserved for experts, the field is now being used as an “industrial and geopolitical instrument,” warns Jochen Reinschmidt of the ZVEI in his guest article. Europe must therefore position itself more strategically.

Your
Till Hoppe

Nuclear power in the taxonomy draft: a text with weaknesses

By

Charlotte Wirth

One person, in particular, will have been pleased with the draft taxonomy that the European Commission sent to member states shortly before midnight on December 31st: French EU Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton. “We need nuclear power to become climate neutral. Therefore, it was always clear that it must not be excluded from the taxonomy,” Breton recently told the “Journal du Dimanche“.

It was Breton and his home country, France, who fought to ensure that investments in nuclear power could be written off as “green” in the future. “Political pressure was exerted from the very beginning, through all channels,” says Carole Dieschbourg, Luxembourg’s environment minister, describing the path to the delegated act. Indeed, Emmanuel Macron has the greatest interest in ensuring that investments in nuclear power are considered sustainable, as France has decided to rely on this energy source in particular on its way to climate neutrality.

Others are less pleased with the draft legislation. For the nuclear industry, the proposal does not go far enough. In fact, nuclear power is listed only as a transitional technology in the draft taxonomy. “This is not justified,” finds Jessica Johnson of FORATOM, the mouthpiece of the European nuclear industry. “Nuclear power meets the premises of Do No Significant Harm and is CO2 neutral. It should be treated the same as sustainable energy sources.”

Commission refers to outdated security law

However, the fact that nuclear power is listed as a transitional source in the draft has pragmatic reasons. According to the Taxonomy Regulation, it is the only category into which it can fall. The other categories listed in the framework text apply primarily to renewable energies. This classification is also the subject of criticism by opponents of nuclear power, albeit for different reasons. In fact, the draft taxonomy allows the construction of nuclear reactors to be approved until 2045.

The member states have until 2050 to build final storage facilities. In this context, however, there can be no talk of a transition; after all, 2050 is the year in which the EU already wants to be climate-neutral. In addition, the construction of nuclear power plants takes decades: Approval in 2045 does not mean that the reactors will already be on the grid by then. This contradiction is one of the bases for a possible lawsuit, Dieschbourg said in an interview with Europe.Table. At the moment, the experts are examining the draft in detail.

For its part, the Commission insists that the classification of nuclear power as “sustainable” goes hand in hand with strict safety criteria. “The safety requirements for nuclear power plants are very high, and it is difficult to revise them upward,” said an EU official. Still, the referencing is fuzzy in the draft. For example, the Commission refers throughout to Directive 2009/71/Euratom. However, this was adapted in 2014 (2014/87/Euratom). After the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, safety requirements for European reactors were revised and tightened in this more recent text to minimize the risk of serious nuclear accidents.

At least in practice, it is common in the nuclear safety field to refer to the latest version, the 2014 text, says Manfred Mertins, an expert on nuclear safety. He accuses the Commission of unclean work: “You always refer to the current text. That is standard practice, and we do the same with expert reports. After all, the work has to be done explicitly according to the most current status.”

Shall or Should

Mertins sees other errors in the proposal. For example, the Commission uses the verb “should” throughout the draft to introduce the supposedly stricter safety requirements. In the vocabulary of nuclear safety, the use of “shall” and “should” is clearly regulated. If a requirement is absolute and integrally binding, “shall” would be used. If, however, implementation is at the discretion of the operators, “should” is used.

This, he said, runs through all international texts on nuclear safety. “Unlike requirements such as those laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Commission’s requirements are non-binding. The Commission is deviating from the international norm here. The ‘shall’ is incredibly important. If the Commission doesn’t put that in, it’s quite deliberate,” said the honorary professor at TU Brandenburg.

So did the Commission deliberately choose weaker language in its draft? Another element points to this: According to the draft taxonomy, for example, the requirement is that nuclear reactors must comply with the latest state of the art. Requirements for nuclear safety, however, always refer to the state of the art in technology and science, Manfred Mertins criticizes. “Just talking about technological progress is not enough. This merely lags behind scientific developments. With nuclear safety, you have to know: What does science show, and where are there already problems.”

For its part, the Commission insists that the text imposes “stricter safety criteria for nuclear power”. But this alone hides a contradiction: The imposition of such criteria is by definition not the task of a delegated act. After all, according to Article 290 TFEU, this is the power to “adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act in question.” This contradiction is also acted as the basis of any action.

Technologies partially do not yet exist

At the same time, the Commission’s draft goes so far as to draft safety requirements and standards for technologies that do not yet exist. A few examples:

The text formulates the requirement that nuclear power plants switch to so-called “accident-tolerant fuels” as quickly as possible. But these do not even exist yet, criticizes FORATOM: “The development is still in the research stage, and it is not at all clear when such a fuel will come onto the market,” notes Jessica Johnson. In addition, it is not up to the Commission to approve such technologies. The responsible authorities are the national authorities of the member states, which are responsible for nuclear safety. “These are independent and cannot simply be pressured into giving the green light for the introduction of such fuels,” Johnson says.

Similarly, the Commission’s draft refers to reactors with a closed fuel cycle or so-called breeder reactors. These, too, are not even on the market at this time. “These technologies have not even been tested yet, and the problems only become apparent later,” Manfred Mertins notes. Even the new pressurized water reactors (EPR), which are currently being built in China and Flamanville, for example, are already showing clear safety problems, the safety expert points out.

Another problem is that many of the new technologies listed by the Commission do not yet have a legal basis. For mini-reactors, for example, the EU has launched the ELSMOR project. The aim is to develop a legal basis in the first place.

Nuclear waste disposal as a solved problem

What is particularly tricky, however, is that the Commission claims that operators must submit a plan by 2025 explaining how they intend to set up a repository for heavy radioactive waste by 2050. The crux of the matter is that the Commission is limiting itself to a single technology here: Deep geological repositories, of which it itself admits that there are none in the world as yet. It is true that there are corresponding projects in Finland, France, and Sweden, but that is all. The nuclear industry is also unhappy with this demand. It criticizes the Commission for going too far by limiting itself to one solution, while research is also being carried out in other directions. In the worst-case scenario, it would hinder investment in research into other solutions.

Nuclear critics, on the other hand, view the Commission’s requirement as unrealistic. “What is a plan? At the end of the day, it’s just a paper, and you don’t know whether the project will succeed or fail in the end,” says Greenpeace nuclear expert Roger Spautz, for example. What’s more, he says, it’s not even clear whether these deep repositories can be implemented everywhere. After all, that would depend on the geological conditions of the respective regions. “The Commission is limiting itself here to a solution that has not even been tested. There are already countries that reject the concept of deep geological repositories because, in the event of problems such as possible leaks, it will be virtually impossible to still evacuate the waste,” Spautz warns. Meanwhile, the timing is also unrealistic, he says. Spautz cites the example of the Cigéo repository project in France. This has been in the planning stage since 2006 and is scheduled to be used for the first time in 2035 at the earliest, possibly more likely in 2040.

Lifetime extensions are “sustainable”

It is no coincidence that the Commission is focusing on this solution. For example, it bases its assessment on the controversial report by the Commission’s own Joint Research Centre, which was tasked with examining whether nuclear power complies with the Do-No-Significant-Harm principles (Europe.Table reported). Here, the overarching criticism was that the JRC presented the nuclear waste disposal problem as a solution thanks to deep geological repositories, despite the absence of any empirical data.

However, the draft taxonomy not only applies to new reactors but also seeks to classify investments in lifetime extensions of old reactors as sustainable. But the old reactors could not meet today’s safety standards, warns Manfred Mertins. “Europe is home to the oldest reactors in the world. More than three-quarters are older than 30 years.”

These could not possibly be upgraded to the latest technology and safety, after all, they were designed to 1970s safety standards. “They can’t be retrofitted to today’s standards, and they can’t withstand airplane crashes or extreme weather. After all, the structure is there, so the walls can’t be thickened, and you can’t put anything in there.”

FORATOM knows this, too, and points out that the latest Euratom directive of 2014 already states that nuclear plants must be “as close as possible” to the safety of new designs. And notes that safety will be put through its paces during lifetime extensions.

Energy policy or not?

This assessment is again the responsibility of the national authorities, not the Commission. In its current annual report alone, the French Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) reports more than 1,000 incidents at France’s outdated nuclear power plants. While most of these are minor incidents, the sum total of them is also very dangerous, notes Roger Spautz of Greenpeace. He also points out that European reactors still do not even meet the safety requirements introduced after the nuclear accident in Japan. In France, for example, it will take until 2040 for the new standards that apply to the reactors after Fukushima to be met.

In any case, one thing is clear: The taxonomy text offers scope for attack due to its ambiguities. The Commission claims that the paper is merely intended to define transparency criteria for investors and not to pursue an energy policy. For Luxembourg’s Minister for the Environment Carole Dieschbourg, however, it sends a clear message: “The taxonomy shapes any further discussion around the design of the energy transition – about funds, about European funds, at a national and international level, and ultimately about how public money is invested.” Thierry Breton, who announced on Sunday that 500 billion must be invested in new nuclear power plants because the climate goals can only be achieved with the help of nuclear power, probably sees it the same way.

Steffi Lemke, Germany’s Minister for the Environment and Consumer Protection has a very different view of nuclear power: “Apart from its many dangers and disadvantages, it does not pay off even in purely economic terms after more than six decades and now obviously needs injections of money under a false label. The EU Commission creates the great danger of blocking and damaging truly sustainable investments in favor of dangerous nuclear power.” However, Germany does not want to join a lawsuit.

Conference on the Future of Europe: the Warsaw wish list

By

Eric Bonse

More speed in climate protection, more help for environmentally conscious consumers, and more ambition in the ecological restructuring of the economy: These are the demands of 200 randomly selected citizens who discussed climate change and environmental policy in Warsaw over the weekend at the invitation of the EU.

The “random citizens” who met as part of the 2021 Conference on the Future of Europe, which began in 2021, advocate, among other things, “mandatory CO2 filters” for coal-fired power plants, restrictions on factory farming to reduce methane, and accelerated production of “green” hydrogen.

By contrast, the participants in the EU panel were cautious about the dispute over “green” energy sources. A ban on nuclear power is just as little in Warsaw’s wish list as a phase-out of coal. This should please the EU Commission, whose proposal for a taxonomy has triggered a fierce dispute.

“Since we cannot stop CO2 emissions immediately, and since we continue to depend on coal, we must take both short-term and long-term measures,” reads the 52 recommendations available to Europe.Table. In them, the citizens show themselves to be pragmatic – they are not calling for a radical turnaround in climate policy.

Sharp criticism of agricultural policy

The situation is different in agricultural policy: There, the patience of many consumers with the industry seems to be running out. For example, the citizens’ panel calls for agricultural subsidies to be diverted from environmentally harmful large-scale farms to organic farming. In addition, the use of pesticides should be massively restricted.

“Citizens are clearly speaking out against a previous agricultural policy that was strongly influenced by lobby interests,” says Green MEP Daniel Freund, who is accompanying the Conference on the Future of Europe. These proposals must now be quickly translated into concrete policy.

“The Conference on the Future of Europe is a unique opportunity to better position the EU with citizen participation,” Freund said. “We have to show that we are serious about this experiment in democracy and implement this input.” Otherwise, there is a danger that citizens will become further alienated from the EU and its procedures.

However, it is unclear which citizens’ wishes will actually be taken up and implemented in the end. The French EU presidency has promised to adopt as many ideas as possible and to actively promote EU reform. The new federal government in Germany also wants to work for reforms.

Ideas threaten to get lost in the Brussels business

Other countries, however, are putting on the brakes. In addition, the Conference on the Future of Europe has been overshadowed by personnel squabbles and competence disputes since it began in spring 2021. All three EU institutions are claiming a say. This could become a problem, especially when it comes to proposals for institutional reform. Another citizens’ panel, which met in December, called for an EU constitution, an end to unanimity in the Council, and transnational lists for the European elections.

However, these ideas risk being lost in the Brussels business if they are not taken up and supported by at least one institution. So far, however, there are no signs of such support. The plenary session on January 21st and 22nd in the European Parliament in Strasbourg will show whether and to what extent the process will bear fruit.

Participants include 108 EU members of parliament, 108 members of national parliaments, 108 citizens, 54 representatives of the Council, and three representatives of the EU Commission. The proposals will then be summarized in an interim report, which in turn will be discussed by the three EU institutions. What will be left in the end is unclear.

The EU’s largest democracy experiment to date has already shown how to effectively involve citizens and deliver concrete results. But the EU institutions have so far failed to prove that they are serious about citizen participation.

EU taxonomy illegal according to DUH expert opinion

The inclusion of nuclear energy and natural gas in the EU taxonomy for sustainable investments would not be compatible with current EU law. This is the result of an expert opinion commissioned by Deutsche Umwelthilfe and presented on Monday. The paper also says that the Commission’s proposal is not in line with the German constitution, which obliges the German government to oppose the taxonomy.

The Commission already lacked the formal authority. Among other things, the deadline for drafting the supplementary delegated act had already expired. From a substantive point of view, too, “the classification of nuclear energy as ecologically sustainable is ruled out from any conceivable point of view. Natural gas power plants should be considered as transitional technologies in principle. However, an inclusion in the taxonomy is also unlawful, in particular, due to the criteria listed therein.

The controversial taxonomy expansion is based on an EU regulation on sustainable financing from June 2020, which was to define which activities and products can, in principle, make a significant contribution to achieving the EU climate targets. For the concrete design, the Commission was entrusted with the preparation of a delegated act, but under clear conditions.

Displacement of wind and solar energy

For example, article 10 of the regulation stipulates that the expansion of renewable energies and the development of lower-CO2 solutions must not be hindered. However, by including nuclear energy and natural gas, this is precisely the case, according to Cornelia Ziehm, lawyer and author of the report. The Commission’s proposal also contradicts the precautionary principle of the primary law of the European treaties, which obliges risk avoidance.

“We too see a limited need to add new gas capacity to ensure the security of supply,” said Constantin Zerger, DUH’s head of energy and climate protection. However, he said, that does not justify calling natural gas a green technology and including it in the taxonomy. The criteria listed therein would allow for too long runtimes and thus displace wind and solar energy, which would contradict the provisions from the regulation.

The fuel switch to low carbon fuels envisaged in the taxonomy is also “highly problematic”, as there is no provision for accounting for emissions from the supply chain (for example, in the production of blue hydrogen from natural gas).

“Germany’s abstention is out of the question”

“The German government must get out of the lamenting phase and enter a phase of action,” said DUH Managing Director Sascha Müller-Kraenner. “An abstention by Germany in this important vote in the European Council is out of the question. The German government has a special responsibility in the nuclear phase-out.”

It was even obliged to counteract the planned regulation, explained attorney Ziehm. This is because the mandate to protect from Article 20 of the Basic Law as well as the climate ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court would also apply to the co-drafting of EU law, especially if direct repercussions on the environment and society in Germany could be expected, which is clearly the case with the taxonomy. In particular, since this would also allow an extension of the operating lives of old and failure-prone nuclear power plants close to the border.

The consultation process now underway with member states has been extended until January 22nd. Over the weekend, German Minister for the Environment Steffi Lemke (Greens) had announced that the German statement would contain “a clear no to nuclear power”. The German government does not agree on the inclusion of natural gas.

The EU Commission intends to officially present its plans at the end of January when the four-month review period begins by the Parliament and Council, which will then vote on the taxonomy. A rejection is considered unlikely. In the Council, this would require a qualified majority of 20 out of 27 EU member states. The EU Parliament can reject the proposal with an absolute majority. Only when the taxonomy comes into force can legal action be taken against it. Austria and Luxembourg have already announced that they will take such a step if the current proposal remains on the table. til

Europol: EDPS prohibits endless data retention

European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) Wojciech Wiewiórowski has banned the European police agency Europol from permanently retaining personal data without a clear link to criminal activity.

Since 2020, the data protection watchdog and Europol had been at odds with each other over storage practices. However, Wiewiórowski now stated, “There has been no significant progress on the core issue that Europol continues to store personal data on individuals without the processing being in line with the restrictions of the Europol Regulation.”

The European Data Protection Supervisor has now ordered the police cooperation authority to sort out existing stored data within twelve months and to store new data for no longer than six months without allocation.

According to a report in Der Spiegel, Europol is said to have hoarded 4 petabytes (4,000 terabytes) of data. In his decision, the EDPS describes the agency’s activities under the heading of “big data analyses”. As an EU institution, Europol is not directly subject to the Directive on Data Protection in the Area of Police and Justice but has its own requirements. The revision of the Europol Regulation is still under discussion.

Europol has illegally stored massive amounts of data on millions of entirely unsuspicious people for years, criticizes Pirate MEP Patrick Breyer (Greens/EFA). “The consequence: Innocent citizens run the risk of being wrongly suspected of a crime because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The six-month storage period now ordered limits this risk.” But Breyer sees this only as a stage victory for data protection: “The illegal practices are simply to be legalized with the new Europol regulation, which is scandalous.” fst

Corporate sustainability reporting: disagreement around SMEs

The “Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive” (CSRD) is intended to define the rules for the reporting obligations of companies with regard to their sustainable management more clearly and to tighten them in some places. An exchange between committee members, rapporteurs, and shadow rapporteurs took place in the EU Parliament’s lead JURI committee on Monday. Almost 600 amendments for the draft report have been received by rapporteur Pascal Durand (Renew/List Renaissance) so far.

The biggest point of contention is still the question of the scope of the new reporting requirements. Durand would also like to oblige small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to report regularly on the impact of their own business practices on climate and the environment. The Commission had still excluded these in its proposal.

Warning of additional burden for SMEs

Angelika Niebler (EPP/CSU) warned that SMEs should not be overly burdened with reporting obligations and called for companies with fewer than 500 employees to be exempted from the regulation. She argued that the CSRD should not lead to a situation where only auditing companies could generate new business areas. On the other hand, “classic medium-sized companies” would be faced with additional expenses.

Axel Voss (CDU) added that the whole debate must focus on sustainability. Companies need a plan on how they can become more sustainable. Then, they need to be helped to achieve those goals. “Information obligations and due diligence alone will not make a company more sustainable,” Voss said on Monday.

Durand counters that it would even give SMEs an advantage on the financial market if they were also subject to the reporting requirements, as this would give them better access to funding from investors interested in sustainability. Support for this position comes from the Left Party and the Greens.

Tiemo Wölken (S&D/SPD) also spoke in favor of extending the reporting requirements in order to increase the “quality and quantity of information”. It would not be helpful to exempt SMEs from CSRD – not for investors, not for stakeholders, not for the companies themselves. This would create a “level playing field” of all companies participating in the financial market, Wölken said. The JURI committee is scheduled to vote on the report in mid-March. luk

Sassoli in hospital again

The President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, cannot perform his official duties until further notice. The 65-year-old has been in hospital in Italy since December 26th due to a “serious complication in the course of a malfunction of the immune system,” his spokesman announced. Sassoli had already been struggling with health problems before: He was absent for more than two months last fall due to severe pneumonia.

The socialist politician will shortly be stepping down from office. On January 18th, the European Parliament will vote on who will succeed him. The favorite is Roberta Metsola, a member of the European People’s Party (EPP) who has been vice president of the Parliament until now. However, the Maltese still has to face a hearing in the S&D group on Wednesday morning. The Greens and Liberals also have reservations about the avowed anti-abortionist. Metsola’s competitors, the Polish PiS deputy Kosma Złotowski and the Left Party’s Sira Rego from Spain, however, are given little chance. tho

Government to adopt emergency climate program by April

According to the Ministry of Economics, the German government intends to adopt key projects for climate protection and the expansion of renewable energies by April. The “crash program” should then clear the parliamentary hurdles by the end of the year and take effect at the beginning of 2023, the ministry said on Monday. The aim is to put Germany back on track to meet its climate protection targets.

The company is drastically behind schedule. The targets would be missed this year and probably next year as well. Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action Robert Habeck (Greens) will present his plans in detail today.

The core element is a reform of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), it said. The principle that the expansion of wind or solar energy is in the “overriding public interest” and serves public safety would be anchored. Tender volumes for solar or wind energy would be raised to an ambitious level and then increased annually. There will be a requirement for solar on new buildings. More areas will be designated for onshore wind by reducing the distance between wind turbines and weather radars or air traffic beacons.

Aids for industry with CCFD

The expansion of renewables is seen as the key to phasing out coal by 2030 and protecting the climate. Resistance from residents and conservationists, as well as bureaucratic hurdles, have recently slowed down the expansion. This is to be changed with the legal definition of an “overriding public interest”.

According to ministry sources, the crash program will also include a concept for climate protection contracts, so-called Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCFD). These are intended to help the industry finance the use of climate-friendly fuels such as green hydrogen. The higher costs can be offset through these contracts. The goal is to protect energy-intensive industries in international competition with less climate-friendly countries.

According to the ministry, Habeck wants the program to trigger a boom in new technologies and create new jobs. The climate protection requirements would be made socially acceptable, it said, with a view to the already high energy prices. rtr

EU researchers: record levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

According to scientists, 2021 was the fifth hottest year since records began. The atmosphere also recorded more of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane than ever before. That’s according to researchers from the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) on Monday.

By a wide margin, the past seven years have been the hottest years since measurements began in 1850. The average global temperature in 2021 was 1.1 to 1.2 degrees Celsius above the level of the 1850-1900 period. The hottest years were 2020 and 2016.

Last summer was reportedly the hottest ever in Europe. According to scientists, climate change exacerbated many of last year’s extreme weather events, such as wildfires in Siberia and the US and floods in Europe, China, and Sudan. There were severe wildfires in Turkey, Greece, and southern Italy. In Sicily, the highest temperature in Europe was recorded at 48.8 degrees Celsius. More than 200 people died in floods in Western Europe.

“These events are a stark reminder that we need to change our behavior and take decisive and effective steps toward a sustainable society and work toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions,” said C3S Director Carlo Buontempo.

According to the researchers, it remained unclear why the proportion of methane – a particularly potent greenhouse gas – has jumped in the past two years. The gas is produced, for example, in oil and gas production and agriculture, but it also occurs in natural sources such as wetlands. rtr

Consumer advice center: heating cost subsidy clearly too low

The consumer centers demand a clearly higher heating cost subsidy than the Federal Minister for Housing, Urban Development and Building Klara Geywitz (SPD) proposed. “It is good that the federal government wants to help low-income households with high energy costs,” said the head of the board of the federation of German consumer organizations, Klaus Müller, on Monday. “However, the one-time heating allowance for housing benefit recipients is clearly set too low.”

€135 for individuals and €175 for a two-person household for the entire 2021/2022 heating period were not enough for many households to offset the sharp rise in heating costs. Some of the affected households are also likely to receive high bills already during the heating season. For these households, the Federal association demands unbureaucratic emergency assistance.

Prior to this, an initial draft bill by the Minister for Housing on the heating cost subsidy, which the SPD, Greens, and FDP had agreed on in principle, had become known. According to the bill, more than 700,000 households are to receive the subsidy. rtr

Standardization system: Europe must adopt a strategic approach

By Jochen Reinschmidt

Jochen Reinschmidt is Head of the Innovation Policy Department at the German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers’ Association (ZVEI).

Norms and standards are important instruments for disseminating innovations in the market. The companies of the electrical and digital industry are represented worldwide and supply products and system solutions to all relevant sectors of the economy, be it industry, mobility, energy, health, buildings, or the consumer sector. Therefore, we advocate open markets, following the guiding principle: “One test, one standard, accepted everywhere.”

However, we see that standardization is increasingly being used as an industrial and geopolitical instrument. While the involvement of German and European companies in standardization has been steadily declining over the years, the involvement of organizations from other regions of the world is increasing significantly, in some cases with considerable government support. Europe must position itself more strategically here.

Process optimization necessary

Standards are essential to ensure the safety of products. In Europe, the New Legislative Framework (NLF) system for placing products on the market has proven its worth. However, the processes behind it should be optimized.

We, therefore, take a positive view of the fact that the European Commission is addressing these issues and will present a European standardization strategy at the beginning of February. From the perspective of the electrical and digital industry, the following points, in particular, should be taken into account (cf. ZVEI policy paper on standardization):

Standardization and consortial standardization:

Both standards and consortial standards have their place and their justification in the technical world. In our view, however, consortial standards are not suitable for specifying legal requirements due to the limited consensus.

Intensify interaction between industry, government, and standards organizations

Standardization is the task of the industry. All interested parties can participate to ensure a broad social consensus. The state and standardization organizations support by shaping the framework conditions. We should maintain this proven division of labor in the future.

However, standardization can also be an industrial or geopolitical instrument. It is, therefore, necessary to bring together the proven bottom-up approach of market-driven standards and the political-strategic top-down approach through cooperation between government and politics as well as the industry in order to develop a common European strategy. To this end, a continuous exchange between the EU Commission, member states, European standards organizations, and industry must be initiated.

Strengthen the proven NLF principle

Using the NLF with the approach of harmonized standards to concretize abstract legal requirements has, in our view, proved its worth and must be further strengthened. Technical standards developed in cooperation between the European standards organizations and the Harmonised Standards (HAS) consultants should be the only standards referred to in European legislation.

Improve process for creating harmonized European standards

The delays, some of which are considerable, must be eliminated structurally. And what is at least as serious: The ever-increasing drifting apart of the proven “parallel” standardization in the European and international standardization organizations must be prevented.

Ensure European positions in international standardization

The German economy needs international standards that sufficiently reflect Europe’s requirements and positions. Standards should, therefore, preferably be developed by international and European standards organizations. If this does not succeed, there must be no blanket mutual recognition of standards in international negotiations, but very definitely recognition of test results based on common standards.

Promoting standardization work through taxation

Standardization is part of the innovation process and involves considerable costs. At the same time, companies involved in standardization make a contribution to the national economy that goes far beyond their individual benefit. It must be in the interest of German and European industrial and innovation policy to promote involvement in standardization in the same way as activities in research and development, for example, by introducing a tax-based standardization subsidy for companies that are actively involved in standardization.

EUROPE.TABLE EDITORS

Till
Hoppe

Charlotte
Wirth

Falk
Steiner

Timo
Landenberger

Corinna
Visser

Lukas
Knigge

Eric
Bonse

Sarah
Schaefer

Manuel
Berkel

Lisa-Martina
Klein

Markus
Grabitz

Stephan
Israel

Claire
Stam

Dear reader,

It is not often that delegated acts get caught up in the mills of big politics. In the case of the supplementary legal act to the Taxonomy Regulation, that is exactly what has happened. The EU Commission has now extended the deadline until January 21st for member states and experts to comment on its draft. This should actually have ended on Wednesday, but the need for discussion is great.

Even within the traffic light coalition: SPD, FDP, and Greens have not yet reached an agreement on Germany’s position on the classification of nuclear power and natural gas. The rejection announced by Minister of the Environment Steffi Lemke (Greens) over the weekend relates solely to the inclusion of nuclear power in the taxonomy, her spokesperson clarified yesterday. The federal government is “still in the process of coordinating” its position on the legal act as a whole.

The Commission has contributed to this muddle. It had announced that it would base the classification solely on scientific criteria. However, the draft sent out on New Year’s Eve contains a number of weaknesses, as Charlotte Wirth points out in her analysis. For example, the supposedly strict safety requirements for nuclear power plants are formulated laxly. The nuclear lobby also criticizes the authority for unnecessarily committing itself to one approach to the unresolved question of final storage. A new report commissioned by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (German Environmental Aid) even considers the Commission’s draft to be illegal – read more about this in the news.

The taxonomy topic has only been present in the general public for a few weeks. In Europe.Table, it has been from the very beginning: Already in mid-August, in the 6th issue of our briefings, Charlotte Wirth had pointed out the gaps in the report of the Commission’s own research unit JRC. We have closely followed the discussion over the past months, and our readers were not surprised by any turn of events.

Today you are already reading the 100th issue of Europe.Table. Many more will follow. I explicitly invite you to be part of the further development: Tell me what you like about Europe.Table and what we can do better: till.hoppe@table.media.

Another topic that is still underestimated by many: Standards and norms. At the beginning of February, the Commission intends to present its new standardization strategy. Long reserved for experts, the field is now being used as an “industrial and geopolitical instrument,” warns Jochen Reinschmidt of the ZVEI in his guest article. Europe must therefore position itself more strategically.

Your
Till Hoppe

Nuclear power in the taxonomy draft: a text with weaknesses

By

Charlotte Wirth

One person, in particular, will have been pleased with the draft taxonomy that the European Commission sent to member states shortly before midnight on December 31st: French EU Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton. “We need nuclear power to become climate neutral. Therefore, it was always clear that it must not be excluded from the taxonomy,” Breton recently told the “Journal du Dimanche“.

It was Breton and his home country, France, who fought to ensure that investments in nuclear power could be written off as “green” in the future. “Political pressure was exerted from the very beginning, through all channels,” says Carole Dieschbourg, Luxembourg’s environment minister, describing the path to the delegated act. Indeed, Emmanuel Macron has the greatest interest in ensuring that investments in nuclear power are considered sustainable, as France has decided to rely on this energy source in particular on its way to climate neutrality.

Others are less pleased with the draft legislation. For the nuclear industry, the proposal does not go far enough. In fact, nuclear power is listed only as a transitional technology in the draft taxonomy. “This is not justified,” finds Jessica Johnson of FORATOM, the mouthpiece of the European nuclear industry. “Nuclear power meets the premises of Do No Significant Harm and is CO2 neutral. It should be treated the same as sustainable energy sources.”

Commission refers to outdated security law

However, the fact that nuclear power is listed as a transitional source in the draft has pragmatic reasons. According to the Taxonomy Regulation, it is the only category into which it can fall. The other categories listed in the framework text apply primarily to renewable energies. This classification is also the subject of criticism by opponents of nuclear power, albeit for different reasons. In fact, the draft taxonomy allows the construction of nuclear reactors to be approved until 2045.

The member states have until 2050 to build final storage facilities. In this context, however, there can be no talk of a transition; after all, 2050 is the year in which the EU already wants to be climate-neutral. In addition, the construction of nuclear power plants takes decades: Approval in 2045 does not mean that the reactors will already be on the grid by then. This contradiction is one of the bases for a possible lawsuit, Dieschbourg said in an interview with Europe.Table. At the moment, the experts are examining the draft in detail.

For its part, the Commission insists that the classification of nuclear power as “sustainable” goes hand in hand with strict safety criteria. “The safety requirements for nuclear power plants are very high, and it is difficult to revise them upward,” said an EU official. Still, the referencing is fuzzy in the draft. For example, the Commission refers throughout to Directive 2009/71/Euratom. However, this was adapted in 2014 (2014/87/Euratom). After the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, safety requirements for European reactors were revised and tightened in this more recent text to minimize the risk of serious nuclear accidents.

At least in practice, it is common in the nuclear safety field to refer to the latest version, the 2014 text, says Manfred Mertins, an expert on nuclear safety. He accuses the Commission of unclean work: “You always refer to the current text. That is standard practice, and we do the same with expert reports. After all, the work has to be done explicitly according to the most current status.”

Shall or Should

Mertins sees other errors in the proposal. For example, the Commission uses the verb “should” throughout the draft to introduce the supposedly stricter safety requirements. In the vocabulary of nuclear safety, the use of “shall” and “should” is clearly regulated. If a requirement is absolute and integrally binding, “shall” would be used. If, however, implementation is at the discretion of the operators, “should” is used.

This, he said, runs through all international texts on nuclear safety. “Unlike requirements such as those laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Commission’s requirements are non-binding. The Commission is deviating from the international norm here. The ‘shall’ is incredibly important. If the Commission doesn’t put that in, it’s quite deliberate,” said the honorary professor at TU Brandenburg.

So did the Commission deliberately choose weaker language in its draft? Another element points to this: According to the draft taxonomy, for example, the requirement is that nuclear reactors must comply with the latest state of the art. Requirements for nuclear safety, however, always refer to the state of the art in technology and science, Manfred Mertins criticizes. “Just talking about technological progress is not enough. This merely lags behind scientific developments. With nuclear safety, you have to know: What does science show, and where are there already problems.”

For its part, the Commission insists that the text imposes “stricter safety criteria for nuclear power”. But this alone hides a contradiction: The imposition of such criteria is by definition not the task of a delegated act. After all, according to Article 290 TFEU, this is the power to “adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act in question.” This contradiction is also acted as the basis of any action.

Technologies partially do not yet exist

At the same time, the Commission’s draft goes so far as to draft safety requirements and standards for technologies that do not yet exist. A few examples:

The text formulates the requirement that nuclear power plants switch to so-called “accident-tolerant fuels” as quickly as possible. But these do not even exist yet, criticizes FORATOM: “The development is still in the research stage, and it is not at all clear when such a fuel will come onto the market,” notes Jessica Johnson. In addition, it is not up to the Commission to approve such technologies. The responsible authorities are the national authorities of the member states, which are responsible for nuclear safety. “These are independent and cannot simply be pressured into giving the green light for the introduction of such fuels,” Johnson says.

Similarly, the Commission’s draft refers to reactors with a closed fuel cycle or so-called breeder reactors. These, too, are not even on the market at this time. “These technologies have not even been tested yet, and the problems only become apparent later,” Manfred Mertins notes. Even the new pressurized water reactors (EPR), which are currently being built in China and Flamanville, for example, are already showing clear safety problems, the safety expert points out.

Another problem is that many of the new technologies listed by the Commission do not yet have a legal basis. For mini-reactors, for example, the EU has launched the ELSMOR project. The aim is to develop a legal basis in the first place.

Nuclear waste disposal as a solved problem

What is particularly tricky, however, is that the Commission claims that operators must submit a plan by 2025 explaining how they intend to set up a repository for heavy radioactive waste by 2050. The crux of the matter is that the Commission is limiting itself to a single technology here: Deep geological repositories, of which it itself admits that there are none in the world as yet. It is true that there are corresponding projects in Finland, France, and Sweden, but that is all. The nuclear industry is also unhappy with this demand. It criticizes the Commission for going too far by limiting itself to one solution, while research is also being carried out in other directions. In the worst-case scenario, it would hinder investment in research into other solutions.

Nuclear critics, on the other hand, view the Commission’s requirement as unrealistic. “What is a plan? At the end of the day, it’s just a paper, and you don’t know whether the project will succeed or fail in the end,” says Greenpeace nuclear expert Roger Spautz, for example. What’s more, he says, it’s not even clear whether these deep repositories can be implemented everywhere. After all, that would depend on the geological conditions of the respective regions. “The Commission is limiting itself here to a solution that has not even been tested. There are already countries that reject the concept of deep geological repositories because, in the event of problems such as possible leaks, it will be virtually impossible to still evacuate the waste,” Spautz warns. Meanwhile, the timing is also unrealistic, he says. Spautz cites the example of the Cigéo repository project in France. This has been in the planning stage since 2006 and is scheduled to be used for the first time in 2035 at the earliest, possibly more likely in 2040.

Lifetime extensions are “sustainable”

It is no coincidence that the Commission is focusing on this solution. For example, it bases its assessment on the controversial report by the Commission’s own Joint Research Centre, which was tasked with examining whether nuclear power complies with the Do-No-Significant-Harm principles (Europe.Table reported). Here, the overarching criticism was that the JRC presented the nuclear waste disposal problem as a solution thanks to deep geological repositories, despite the absence of any empirical data.

However, the draft taxonomy not only applies to new reactors but also seeks to classify investments in lifetime extensions of old reactors as sustainable. But the old reactors could not meet today’s safety standards, warns Manfred Mertins. “Europe is home to the oldest reactors in the world. More than three-quarters are older than 30 years.”

These could not possibly be upgraded to the latest technology and safety, after all, they were designed to 1970s safety standards. “They can’t be retrofitted to today’s standards, and they can’t withstand airplane crashes or extreme weather. After all, the structure is there, so the walls can’t be thickened, and you can’t put anything in there.”

FORATOM knows this, too, and points out that the latest Euratom directive of 2014 already states that nuclear plants must be “as close as possible” to the safety of new designs. And notes that safety will be put through its paces during lifetime extensions.

Energy policy or not?

This assessment is again the responsibility of the national authorities, not the Commission. In its current annual report alone, the French Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) reports more than 1,000 incidents at France’s outdated nuclear power plants. While most of these are minor incidents, the sum total of them is also very dangerous, notes Roger Spautz of Greenpeace. He also points out that European reactors still do not even meet the safety requirements introduced after the nuclear accident in Japan. In France, for example, it will take until 2040 for the new standards that apply to the reactors after Fukushima to be met.

In any case, one thing is clear: The taxonomy text offers scope for attack due to its ambiguities. The Commission claims that the paper is merely intended to define transparency criteria for investors and not to pursue an energy policy. For Luxembourg’s Minister for the Environment Carole Dieschbourg, however, it sends a clear message: “The taxonomy shapes any further discussion around the design of the energy transition – about funds, about European funds, at a national and international level, and ultimately about how public money is invested.” Thierry Breton, who announced on Sunday that 500 billion must be invested in new nuclear power plants because the climate goals can only be achieved with the help of nuclear power, probably sees it the same way.

Steffi Lemke, Germany’s Minister for the Environment and Consumer Protection has a very different view of nuclear power: “Apart from its many dangers and disadvantages, it does not pay off even in purely economic terms after more than six decades and now obviously needs injections of money under a false label. The EU Commission creates the great danger of blocking and damaging truly sustainable investments in favor of dangerous nuclear power.” However, Germany does not want to join a lawsuit.

Conference on the Future of Europe: the Warsaw wish list

By

Eric Bonse

More speed in climate protection, more help for environmentally conscious consumers, and more ambition in the ecological restructuring of the economy: These are the demands of 200 randomly selected citizens who discussed climate change and environmental policy in Warsaw over the weekend at the invitation of the EU.

The “random citizens” who met as part of the 2021 Conference on the Future of Europe, which began in 2021, advocate, among other things, “mandatory CO2 filters” for coal-fired power plants, restrictions on factory farming to reduce methane, and accelerated production of “green” hydrogen.

By contrast, the participants in the EU panel were cautious about the dispute over “green” energy sources. A ban on nuclear power is just as little in Warsaw’s wish list as a phase-out of coal. This should please the EU Commission, whose proposal for a taxonomy has triggered a fierce dispute.

“Since we cannot stop CO2 emissions immediately, and since we continue to depend on coal, we must take both short-term and long-term measures,” reads the 52 recommendations available to Europe.Table. In them, the citizens show themselves to be pragmatic – they are not calling for a radical turnaround in climate policy.

Sharp criticism of agricultural policy

The situation is different in agricultural policy: There, the patience of many consumers with the industry seems to be running out. For example, the citizens’ panel calls for agricultural subsidies to be diverted from environmentally harmful large-scale farms to organic farming. In addition, the use of pesticides should be massively restricted.

“Citizens are clearly speaking out against a previous agricultural policy that was strongly influenced by lobby interests,” says Green MEP Daniel Freund, who is accompanying the Conference on the Future of Europe. These proposals must now be quickly translated into concrete policy.

“The Conference on the Future of Europe is a unique opportunity to better position the EU with citizen participation,” Freund said. “We have to show that we are serious about this experiment in democracy and implement this input.” Otherwise, there is a danger that citizens will become further alienated from the EU and its procedures.

However, it is unclear which citizens’ wishes will actually be taken up and implemented in the end. The French EU presidency has promised to adopt as many ideas as possible and to actively promote EU reform. The new federal government in Germany also wants to work for reforms.

Ideas threaten to get lost in the Brussels business

Other countries, however, are putting on the brakes. In addition, the Conference on the Future of Europe has been overshadowed by personnel squabbles and competence disputes since it began in spring 2021. All three EU institutions are claiming a say. This could become a problem, especially when it comes to proposals for institutional reform. Another citizens’ panel, which met in December, called for an EU constitution, an end to unanimity in the Council, and transnational lists for the European elections.

However, these ideas risk being lost in the Brussels business if they are not taken up and supported by at least one institution. So far, however, there are no signs of such support. The plenary session on January 21st and 22nd in the European Parliament in Strasbourg will show whether and to what extent the process will bear fruit.

Participants include 108 EU members of parliament, 108 members of national parliaments, 108 citizens, 54 representatives of the Council, and three representatives of the EU Commission. The proposals will then be summarized in an interim report, which in turn will be discussed by the three EU institutions. What will be left in the end is unclear.

The EU’s largest democracy experiment to date has already shown how to effectively involve citizens and deliver concrete results. But the EU institutions have so far failed to prove that they are serious about citizen participation.

EU taxonomy illegal according to DUH expert opinion

The inclusion of nuclear energy and natural gas in the EU taxonomy for sustainable investments would not be compatible with current EU law. This is the result of an expert opinion commissioned by Deutsche Umwelthilfe and presented on Monday. The paper also says that the Commission’s proposal is not in line with the German constitution, which obliges the German government to oppose the taxonomy.

The Commission already lacked the formal authority. Among other things, the deadline for drafting the supplementary delegated act had already expired. From a substantive point of view, too, “the classification of nuclear energy as ecologically sustainable is ruled out from any conceivable point of view. Natural gas power plants should be considered as transitional technologies in principle. However, an inclusion in the taxonomy is also unlawful, in particular, due to the criteria listed therein.

The controversial taxonomy expansion is based on an EU regulation on sustainable financing from June 2020, which was to define which activities and products can, in principle, make a significant contribution to achieving the EU climate targets. For the concrete design, the Commission was entrusted with the preparation of a delegated act, but under clear conditions.

Displacement of wind and solar energy

For example, article 10 of the regulation stipulates that the expansion of renewable energies and the development of lower-CO2 solutions must not be hindered. However, by including nuclear energy and natural gas, this is precisely the case, according to Cornelia Ziehm, lawyer and author of the report. The Commission’s proposal also contradicts the precautionary principle of the primary law of the European treaties, which obliges risk avoidance.

“We too see a limited need to add new gas capacity to ensure the security of supply,” said Constantin Zerger, DUH’s head of energy and climate protection. However, he said, that does not justify calling natural gas a green technology and including it in the taxonomy. The criteria listed therein would allow for too long runtimes and thus displace wind and solar energy, which would contradict the provisions from the regulation.

The fuel switch to low carbon fuels envisaged in the taxonomy is also “highly problematic”, as there is no provision for accounting for emissions from the supply chain (for example, in the production of blue hydrogen from natural gas).

“Germany’s abstention is out of the question”

“The German government must get out of the lamenting phase and enter a phase of action,” said DUH Managing Director Sascha Müller-Kraenner. “An abstention by Germany in this important vote in the European Council is out of the question. The German government has a special responsibility in the nuclear phase-out.”

It was even obliged to counteract the planned regulation, explained attorney Ziehm. This is because the mandate to protect from Article 20 of the Basic Law as well as the climate ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court would also apply to the co-drafting of EU law, especially if direct repercussions on the environment and society in Germany could be expected, which is clearly the case with the taxonomy. In particular, since this would also allow an extension of the operating lives of old and failure-prone nuclear power plants close to the border.

The consultation process now underway with member states has been extended until January 22nd. Over the weekend, German Minister for the Environment Steffi Lemke (Greens) had announced that the German statement would contain “a clear no to nuclear power”. The German government does not agree on the inclusion of natural gas.

The EU Commission intends to officially present its plans at the end of January when the four-month review period begins by the Parliament and Council, which will then vote on the taxonomy. A rejection is considered unlikely. In the Council, this would require a qualified majority of 20 out of 27 EU member states. The EU Parliament can reject the proposal with an absolute majority. Only when the taxonomy comes into force can legal action be taken against it. Austria and Luxembourg have already announced that they will take such a step if the current proposal remains on the table. til

Europol: EDPS prohibits endless data retention

European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) Wojciech Wiewiórowski has banned the European police agency Europol from permanently retaining personal data without a clear link to criminal activity.

Since 2020, the data protection watchdog and Europol had been at odds with each other over storage practices. However, Wiewiórowski now stated, “There has been no significant progress on the core issue that Europol continues to store personal data on individuals without the processing being in line with the restrictions of the Europol Regulation.”

The European Data Protection Supervisor has now ordered the police cooperation authority to sort out existing stored data within twelve months and to store new data for no longer than six months without allocation.

According to a report in Der Spiegel, Europol is said to have hoarded 4 petabytes (4,000 terabytes) of data. In his decision, the EDPS describes the agency’s activities under the heading of “big data analyses”. As an EU institution, Europol is not directly subject to the Directive on Data Protection in the Area of Police and Justice but has its own requirements. The revision of the Europol Regulation is still under discussion.

Europol has illegally stored massive amounts of data on millions of entirely unsuspicious people for years, criticizes Pirate MEP Patrick Breyer (Greens/EFA). “The consequence: Innocent citizens run the risk of being wrongly suspected of a crime because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The six-month storage period now ordered limits this risk.” But Breyer sees this only as a stage victory for data protection: “The illegal practices are simply to be legalized with the new Europol regulation, which is scandalous.” fst

Corporate sustainability reporting: disagreement around SMEs

The “Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive” (CSRD) is intended to define the rules for the reporting obligations of companies with regard to their sustainable management more clearly and to tighten them in some places. An exchange between committee members, rapporteurs, and shadow rapporteurs took place in the EU Parliament’s lead JURI committee on Monday. Almost 600 amendments for the draft report have been received by rapporteur Pascal Durand (Renew/List Renaissance) so far.

The biggest point of contention is still the question of the scope of the new reporting requirements. Durand would also like to oblige small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to report regularly on the impact of their own business practices on climate and the environment. The Commission had still excluded these in its proposal.

Warning of additional burden for SMEs

Angelika Niebler (EPP/CSU) warned that SMEs should not be overly burdened with reporting obligations and called for companies with fewer than 500 employees to be exempted from the regulation. She argued that the CSRD should not lead to a situation where only auditing companies could generate new business areas. On the other hand, “classic medium-sized companies” would be faced with additional expenses.

Axel Voss (CDU) added that the whole debate must focus on sustainability. Companies need a plan on how they can become more sustainable. Then, they need to be helped to achieve those goals. “Information obligations and due diligence alone will not make a company more sustainable,” Voss said on Monday.

Durand counters that it would even give SMEs an advantage on the financial market if they were also subject to the reporting requirements, as this would give them better access to funding from investors interested in sustainability. Support for this position comes from the Left Party and the Greens.

Tiemo Wölken (S&D/SPD) also spoke in favor of extending the reporting requirements in order to increase the “quality and quantity of information”. It would not be helpful to exempt SMEs from CSRD – not for investors, not for stakeholders, not for the companies themselves. This would create a “level playing field” of all companies participating in the financial market, Wölken said. The JURI committee is scheduled to vote on the report in mid-March. luk

Sassoli in hospital again

The President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, cannot perform his official duties until further notice. The 65-year-old has been in hospital in Italy since December 26th due to a “serious complication in the course of a malfunction of the immune system,” his spokesman announced. Sassoli had already been struggling with health problems before: He was absent for more than two months last fall due to severe pneumonia.

The socialist politician will shortly be stepping down from office. On January 18th, the European Parliament will vote on who will succeed him. The favorite is Roberta Metsola, a member of the European People’s Party (EPP) who has been vice president of the Parliament until now. However, the Maltese still has to face a hearing in the S&D group on Wednesday morning. The Greens and Liberals also have reservations about the avowed anti-abortionist. Metsola’s competitors, the Polish PiS deputy Kosma Złotowski and the Left Party’s Sira Rego from Spain, however, are given little chance. tho

Government to adopt emergency climate program by April

According to the Ministry of Economics, the German government intends to adopt key projects for climate protection and the expansion of renewable energies by April. The “crash program” should then clear the parliamentary hurdles by the end of the year and take effect at the beginning of 2023, the ministry said on Monday. The aim is to put Germany back on track to meet its climate protection targets.

The company is drastically behind schedule. The targets would be missed this year and probably next year as well. Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action Robert Habeck (Greens) will present his plans in detail today.

The core element is a reform of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), it said. The principle that the expansion of wind or solar energy is in the “overriding public interest” and serves public safety would be anchored. Tender volumes for solar or wind energy would be raised to an ambitious level and then increased annually. There will be a requirement for solar on new buildings. More areas will be designated for onshore wind by reducing the distance between wind turbines and weather radars or air traffic beacons.

Aids for industry with CCFD

The expansion of renewables is seen as the key to phasing out coal by 2030 and protecting the climate. Resistance from residents and conservationists, as well as bureaucratic hurdles, have recently slowed down the expansion. This is to be changed with the legal definition of an “overriding public interest”.

According to ministry sources, the crash program will also include a concept for climate protection contracts, so-called Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCFD). These are intended to help the industry finance the use of climate-friendly fuels such as green hydrogen. The higher costs can be offset through these contracts. The goal is to protect energy-intensive industries in international competition with less climate-friendly countries.

According to the ministry, Habeck wants the program to trigger a boom in new technologies and create new jobs. The climate protection requirements would be made socially acceptable, it said, with a view to the already high energy prices. rtr

EU researchers: record levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

According to scientists, 2021 was the fifth hottest year since records began. The atmosphere also recorded more of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane than ever before. That’s according to researchers from the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) on Monday.

By a wide margin, the past seven years have been the hottest years since measurements began in 1850. The average global temperature in 2021 was 1.1 to 1.2 degrees Celsius above the level of the 1850-1900 period. The hottest years were 2020 and 2016.

Last summer was reportedly the hottest ever in Europe. According to scientists, climate change exacerbated many of last year’s extreme weather events, such as wildfires in Siberia and the US and floods in Europe, China, and Sudan. There were severe wildfires in Turkey, Greece, and southern Italy. In Sicily, the highest temperature in Europe was recorded at 48.8 degrees Celsius. More than 200 people died in floods in Western Europe.

“These events are a stark reminder that we need to change our behavior and take decisive and effective steps toward a sustainable society and work toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions,” said C3S Director Carlo Buontempo.

According to the researchers, it remained unclear why the proportion of methane – a particularly potent greenhouse gas – has jumped in the past two years. The gas is produced, for example, in oil and gas production and agriculture, but it also occurs in natural sources such as wetlands. rtr

Consumer advice center: heating cost subsidy clearly too low

The consumer centers demand a clearly higher heating cost subsidy than the Federal Minister for Housing, Urban Development and Building Klara Geywitz (SPD) proposed. “It is good that the federal government wants to help low-income households with high energy costs,” said the head of the board of the federation of German consumer organizations, Klaus Müller, on Monday. “However, the one-time heating allowance for housing benefit recipients is clearly set too low.”

€135 for individuals and €175 for a two-person household for the entire 2021/2022 heating period were not enough for many households to offset the sharp rise in heating costs. Some of the affected households are also likely to receive high bills already during the heating season. For these households, the Federal association demands unbureaucratic emergency assistance.

Prior to this, an initial draft bill by the Minister for Housing on the heating cost subsidy, which the SPD, Greens, and FDP had agreed on in principle, had become known. According to the bill, more than 700,000 households are to receive the subsidy. rtr

Standardization system: Europe must adopt a strategic approach

By Jochen Reinschmidt

Norms and standards are important instruments for disseminating innovations in the market. The companies of the electrical and digital industry are represented worldwide and supply products and system solutions to all relevant sectors of the economy, be it industry, mobility, energy, health, buildings, or the consumer sector. Therefore, we advocate open markets, following the guiding principle: “One test, one standard, accepted everywhere.”

However, we see that standardization is increasingly being used as an industrial and geopolitical instrument. While the involvement of German and European companies in standardization has been steadily declining over the years, the involvement of organizations from other regions of the world is increasing significantly, in some cases with considerable government support. Europe must position itself more strategically here.

Process optimization necessary

Standards are essential to ensure the safety of products. In Europe, the New Legislative Framework (NLF) system for placing products on the market has proven its worth. However, the processes behind it should be optimized.

We, therefore, take a positive view of the fact that the European Commission is addressing these issues and will present a European standardization strategy at the beginning of February. From the perspective of the electrical and digital industry, the following points, in particular, should be taken into account (cf. ZVEI policy paper on standardization):

Standardization and consortial standardization:

Both standards and consortial standards have their place and their justification in the technical world. In our view, however, consortial standards are not suitable for specifying legal requirements due to the limited consensus.

Intensify interaction between industry, government, and standards organizations

Standardization is the task of the industry. All interested parties can participate to ensure a broad social consensus. The state and standardization organizations support by shaping the framework conditions. We should maintain this proven division of labor in the future.

However, standardization can also be an industrial or geopolitical instrument. It is, therefore, necessary to bring together the proven bottom-up approach of market-driven standards and the political-strategic top-down approach through cooperation between government and politics as well as the industry in order to develop a common European strategy. To this end, a continuous exchange between the EU Commission, member states, European standards organizations, and industry must be initiated.

Strengthen the proven NLF principle

Using the NLF with the approach of harmonized standards to concretize abstract legal requirements has, in our view, proved its worth and must be further strengthened. Technical standards developed in cooperation between the European standards organizations and the Harmonised Standards (HAS) consultants should be the only standards referred to in European legislation.

Improve process for creating harmonized European standards

The delays, some of which are considerable, must be eliminated structurally. And what is at least as serious: The ever-increasing drifting apart of the proven “parallel” standardization in the European and international standardization organizations must be prevented.

Ensure European positions in international standardization

The German economy needs international standards that sufficiently reflect Europe’s requirements and positions. Standards should, therefore, preferably be developed by international and European standards organizations. If this does not succeed, there must be no blanket mutual recognition of standards in international negotiations, but very definitely recognition of test results based on common standards.

Promoting standardization work through taxation

Standardization is part of the innovation process and involves considerable costs. At the same time, companies involved in standardization make a contribution to the national economy that goes far beyond their individual benefit. It must be in the interest of German and European industrial and innovation policy to promote involvement in standardization in the same way as activities in research and development, for example, by introducing a tax-based standardization subsidy for companies that are actively involved in standardization.