The European Parliament held a debate on Monday 8 March on the first regulation on reducing methane emissions in the EU, which is due to be voted on at the European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg on Tuesday 9 May, following the adoption by a large majority of the text at the joint meeting of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) and the Environment (ENVI) Committee on 26 April (see EUROPE 13170/7).
The text, drafted by co-rapporteurs Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA, German) and Pascal Canfin (Renew Europe, French), aims to measure and reduce methane emissions in the fossil fuel sector (oil, gas and coal), in particular by promoting the control of methane (CH4) leaks, a gas considered to be 80 times more harmful to the climate than carbon dioxide (CO2).
“The reduction of methane emissions is almost cost-neutral”, Jutta Paulus pointed out during a plenary debate. “Anything that is not lost through leakage can be sold. The International Energy Agency tells us that there is no excuse for inaction”.
Earlier in the day, a collective of environmental NGOs sent a joint letter to MEPs regarding amendments 268-280, tabled by a small group of EPP and ID MEPs, and which they consider to “seriously undermine the essential functions of the whole regulation”.
These amendments include, among others, a provision that would exempt a significant number of companies from complying with their leak detection and repair obligations, but also from flaring (domestically and for imports), because some companies already claim to be meeting a performance standard of 0.2% methane intensity.
“This standard can be misleading, as large facilities might already reach the required intensity standard due to their high production rate, and still emit substantial quantities of methane into the atmosphere”, the letter describes.
The NGOs also denounce the proposed reduction in the frequency of leak detection and repair inspections for above-ground and underground components, but also a measure to reduce the number of leak detections and repairs when leaks have not been detected for some time.
Finally, they point to a provision that allows non-compliant importers to be exempted from penalties simply by showing that “reasonable endeavours” have been made to find information on reporting obligations.
Pascal Canfin expressed his surprise at these proposed amendments. “Our EPP colleagues are returning to key elements that they also voted for. We voted for a compromise. Now we need to be united. We hope to have a strong and ambitious mandate in the face of what will be difficult negotiations in the coming months”.
On the application of the rules to imports, MEP Massimiliano Salini (EPP, Italian) expressed dismay at “additional constraints on imports that we do not think are necessary”, at a historic moment when Europe is seeking to get rid of Russian imports.
MEPs Markus Buchheit (ID, German) and Roman Haider (ID, Austrian) criticised the “opaque NGO lobbyism”.
“The problem today is that lobbyists have become involved in decision-making. When it is banks, it is problematic; when it is environmental NGOs, there’s no problem”, said Roman Haider.
However, a majority of MEPs, as well as EU Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson, supported the co-rapporteurs’ initial draft report and called for a vote in favour of the text in order to launch inter-institutional negotiations with the EU Council.
To see the joint letter from environmental NGOs: https://aeur.eu/f/6rx (Original version in French by Pauline Denys)