Document x5MRwrwKe2eQ8erYev2p32n96

Archived: lundi, 11 mars 2024 14:03:23 From: To: Subject: RE: NOTA's WPE - EP amendments (F-gas regulation) Sensitivity: Normal Et les miennes ! mercredi, 26 avril 2023 15:20 Some aspects wil be easy to solve and a compromise will be quicly found, but other not. Common provision between FGRR and 03RR are accepted as an approach. Here we are not changing the Eu Concil position but rather give a lead to continue the discussions. Round 1 Art 4.6 and Rec 10 a, about SF shall be recovered. ... Art 5.2 and 8.1 extention to mobile sector although the scope may difer (maritime) Art 9 EP extent producer responsibility. Art 10.7 : additionnal requirements. GER (...) FRA est oppos l'interdiction au sf en agriculture, ni pour les annexe IV. Les trilogues devront tre prudent pour tous les points lis au SF6. Chap I, problmes avec les amd 38 39 40 142 et 144, Chap II oppos aux 9, 44 et 94 sur la rcup du SF et cela devrait tre intgr la position du Conseil, en plus risque d'interfrence avec d'autres rglements. Trs opposs au 47, conditions d'exemptions de contrles de fuites pour les SF6 car problme financiers et d'mission. Souple sur d'autres points. Aussi difficult pour les 48 49 53 54 sur le secteur mobile, tout comme 10 57 63 sur la responsabilit largie des producteurs car il faudrait valuer l'impact. Le 68 sur la formation adapter en 6 mois, c'est trop court. NLD AMD 41 on feedstcks, EP goes too far. CHAP II, enforcability is difficult as this would entail checks of homes, 68 is too short, 72 keep it reasonable. FIN, positive to many EP suggestions. 45 do not understand. 46 not supported. 47 do not support deletion of c) ; 49 on ships and planes is agreable but exemtpion MAC DIR. Producer responsibility should not be changed. 64 SF6 is already included. 70-71 no support. Reminds the art 13.3.Bis is crcial and should remain at all costs. EST (ROW numbers), CHAP II no support for SF agri recapture. Row 121 support the current system not narrow to domestic, 125 no changes. Certification in 6 month not acceptable. CHAP IIII 11.4 SF6 ex.... POL EP is mainly unacceptable but there are some good solutions. (amd numbers). 37 not ok; 40 not ok, 41 not ok; 44 and related not possible to recapture SF ;45 may be ok but already gas tight; 46 not clear; 84-86 and 95 should be considered together and are OK. SLO stick to the Council mandate as much as possible. Chap II still under study (SF); 57-63 not so detailed; 67 what are other alternatives and what certification may be proposed. 68 not OK; 69flex, 70 more info on threshold; 81 should have 1 year; 8284 flexibility. CZE 17 not ok 38-39 not ok; 4 could be ok; 142-144 don't like them but flex. Not for the extended producer responsibility.5763; 45-47, 60, 68 , 69 not ok. 70 as GER. 80, 82, 84 problematic problems of responsibility AUT quite flexible.not support 68. Art 10.8 remain on Council position. Art 12 questions the GWP 20 or 100, but better to stick to 100.12.3 on labelling may change the annexes. DNK amd 49 on leakchecks are problematic for Ships. HUN 44-9 on SF skeptical and need impact assessment. 58-63 also skeptical as it brings burden. 65-71 keep Council mandate. 68 too short. 70-71 opposed. BEL mainly stick to mandate. Negative on ame 46_47, 52. 68 too short. 81-91 and AnnIV. Positve 57 64 ITA positive to 55-56; 67-73 acceptable but prefer CION; 80-83 questions. CHY scrutiny dut supports DNK BUL amd 10, 57-63 not in favor. 45 -49 not ok; 68, 70-71 not ok.81, 84-86 not ok MLT 46 no residential, 48-49 prefer Council ; 55-56 keep Council; 58 no support for wording.59 not ok; 60 not ok, 70 not acceptable. Support CHY-DNK. GRE support DNK-CHY POR 68 too short. IRL support GER and asks to protect the semi-conductor text. CION the addition on labelling (GWP 20). GWP 100 is enough and less confusing btu not too important. On SF, it is covered by biocide regulation. Acceptable if not contradictory or double regulation. No clear impact assessment. Need to be caution to keep alternatives to MB. Relabeling of retrofitted equipment is important. Leak check on HS equipment is not a good idea and would increase the burden with little impact. The semi-conductor sector uses more then one ton and there are few alternatives. But if the are kept outside the scope, the price of HFC will increase for them. They should develop alternatives. Cion suggest to keep the exemption. Round 2 FIN 130only publically available info should be made available. 170 maybe not necessary. 127 no support. 131 too much burden. 137-138 no support as it changes central provisions. SLO 96 flex ; 97 need more info on the role of an agancy. 98 flex. 114 keep confidential ; 117 hesitant if no destruction capacity 118 keep mandate ; Art 23 ;.. 119-121 and 126 flex, 127 ok but deadline later; 129 flex, 130 mandate, 137 flex; 140 2027 too soon and mandate. 141 ok. NLD on semi-conducteur, 130 too strong; 128 4 (on teporary strorage mandate. XXX on electronic register.... keep 137 MLT 111 oppose removal of temp storage. 12-126 oppose to remove exemption. 128 don't apporve to add "regular"; 130 no support; 131 no support EST Art 26.1 keep mandate. 29.7 to much admin burden. DNK Support 24 on export ban of equipment. Chap 6 totally flex, CHAP 7 129 is also flex. POL 95 no support, 97 not clear on agency; 113 stick to available and protect sentsitive. 117 mandate; 119 mandate. 122124flex;1 25-126 not rational ; 140 mandate FRA 95-96 semi conductor : keep mandate. 104 et 110 ok; 29-30 ok, 28-117 not acceptable. CHAP VI 120-127 not acceptable. 128-130 flex; 131 not acceptable. Chap VII 21-22 no; 137-140 not keen. GER Ch IV 18-no need for SME. 27 too. Semi-conducteur should be exempted. 113 critical on confidentiality, maybe partial data. CH V 28 reject, temp storage rejected too; destruction not acceptable CH VI what are the benefits. 127 problematic in federal structures. CH VII 131 ask about logbook data. CH IX 139 reject as PFAS in REACH should be redrafted. Assessment in 2027 too soon. CZE CH IV 18 ok 95-96, 112 not acceptable. CH 30 ok; other mandate. Ch VI not acceptable, mainly 127. CH VII flex but not 131 that is not acceptable. CH IX 21 ok, but all at the same date. ITA is flex 18-27 97-98, Ch V 24 118-119 flex, CH VI not flex, but CH VII flex. Ch IX flex on 21-22 137-139. 140 is ok. BLG 95-96, 111, 112, 113, CH V 28 79, 114-115, CH VI 120 122 126, 127, CH VII 130-131, CH IX 137-138 are all not acceptable. HUN 113, 117, 120-127 all not acceptable and 2027 is too early for a review. AUT 97 what agency, 113 not keen,115 117, flex on 130 but 131 hesitant. 2027 too early (140) POR CH IV 18 is agreeable but it may take awhile. 27 not acceptable CH IX not acceptable as it may conflict with MTL Protocol. CION on logbooks they doubts of such a large exercise. Temporary storage, could be further assessed. Agency to request CION to act may not be appropriate. Export ban comes from the Council and the EP. It may disadvantage EU companies. Concerned about data made publicaly available. Round 3 EST stick to mandate. POL 132 (fines) mandate, 160 mandate.74-75 not ok ut flex on 75. 76-77 are ok; 78 not, 152 absolutely not ok, 89 90-92 definitely not ok, 99 not ok; Ann IV on Switchgear the council is the max they could accept. 10a 20a acceptable, but other not. DNK CH VIII positive or flexible But 132 on fines it's a no-go. Ann VII is flex. Not in favor for specific amount for MDIs. OK with 5 but revenues to general budget. GER 132 not acceptable. But recital 34 could be amended to accommodate it. CH III no ref to REACH. 74 is no, 78 (under scrutiny), ban on exports to mandate. Exemption for military equipment is ok. 152, 81 91 92 not ok. 101 mandate. 102 reject, oppose exemtion for semi-conductor. 146 mandate. FIN 132 mandate, 78 unclear, 152 not supported, 89 91 not ok, 102 no earmarking but refer to mandate, 150 favor ambitions but need to wait for full alternatives to be available. ITA positive to CH VIII 31-36, 132, CH III ok SLO sanctions as FIN, 160 flex, 74 not flex, 76 unnecessary, 78 mandate, 79 same date as for exports, 1rt 13 and Ann IV and VII, hadr to understand. Prefer mandate. Art 17 not flex on the price, but flex on 17.6 (100). Amd 101not reasonable, 102 ... FRA CH VIII not in favor of 132, CH III better to keep mandate, such a 3-4 12-13, 14, 20 and 99 not favorable to the EP approach, 102 is acceptable. 74 not in favor, 79 mandate, 152 and 89-92 not ok, 88 not pertinent. Ann IV 153-45 157 not ok. SF6 is sensitive so not for 23b, amd 146 not ok, Ann V 147-148 not favorable. HUN 74 mandate, 152 89-92 not possible. 91 not ok at all. 79 neither 151 and 100 1002 could be flex. MLT 24, 75, 78, 89 91, 99 ... not ok........ CZE CH VIII 31 35 nogo, 32 unnecessary, 35, 33 not ik.40 flex, 16 153 problematic, 23 to be removed, 159 is ok, 156 i very positive as well as 88. AUT 88 raises questions. Is it necessary to make exemption for nuclear uses. 74 flex, 99 flex, 102 mandate, 132 need it to be clear (not reffering to the market value). BLG 31-35 could be supoorted, 132 not ok, 74, 78, 152, 88-92, 99, 94, 150 could not be supported. NLD FLEX to 99, concerned about earmarking (mandate), 152, 89 91 not keen. Desflorane Mandate, 146 no, ... LIT flex for technical, but prefers to stick to mandate as much as possible. DNK 99 the 2 was foreseen to allow margin during the trilogue. LUX 88 supports questions and asks if no other legislation may be applicable. GRE support Art 16.4 but no other. HUN 88 align with CZE. ROM reminds their participation to the POL note. Red lines in Ann IV and VII. Could be flex on the price. CION on 88 it is restricting the possibility to equipment to go below -50 in medical only and nuclear, they feel it restrictive and not convinced. Many will to stick to the mandate. PFAS and some other aspects are maybe treated specifically because they are discussed publicaly. On penalties, they remind that deforestation set up penalties. This could be considered as an example for this negotiation. From: Schrauwen (SPF Sant Publique - FOD Volksgezondheid) < Sent: jeudi, 27 avril 2023 12:07 To: Cc: Wilmart (SPF Sant Publique - FOD Volksgezondheid) < Subject: NOTA's WPE - EP amendments (F-gas regulation) Bonjour doardo, Pour info, ci-dessous mes notes de hier. Bonne journe, > > From: Schrauwen (SPF Sant Publique - FOD Volksgezondheid) Sent: woensdag, 26 april 2023 18:45 To: Wilmart (SPF Sant Publique - FOD Volksgezondheid) < > Subject: NOTA's WPE - EP amendments (F-gas regulation) Written comments: next week (03/05) ROUND 2 FI 117: previous wording better 127: no support uniform date (own systems in place) 131: no support administrative burden too high for benefits 137-138: no support changes central provisions regulation SI 96: flexible 97: which cases agency comes in? 98: flexible 113: keep data confidential (cf. original proposal and mandate) 117: hesitant due to additional costs 118: stick to council mandate Art. 23 pp. 13: stick to deleted para's 119: flexible 120-121: flexible 126: flexible 127: agree synchronized electronic system but deadline 2024 seems soon 129: flexible 130: stick council decision 137: flexible 140: 2027 deadline too soon to see results 141: flexible NL Concerns amendments semiconductor, public data (too high administrat i ve bur den), c entr ali z ed el ectr oni c syst e (flexibility for MS), review (too far) MT 111: oppose removal (difficult to enforce + see no added benefits) 120-126: oppose 128: not approve additional term "regular" 130: not support changes (prerogative receiving MS whether or not to conduct checks) 131: get too high administrative burden EE Art 26 para 1: keep threshold to avoid administrative burden Art. 29 para 7: bring administrative burden to all DK 24: support amendment (export ban equipment) Chapter 6: flexible EP amendments Chapter 7: flexible to amendment 129 (enforcement, incl. online trade) PL 95: support 97: more clarification needed 113: addition data F-gas portal (stick to current one + limit data since some are more sensitive commercially) 117: stick to council text (customs cannot destroy something itself) 119: council text is better (text illegal trade) 120-124: deletion limit for reporting (flexible) 125-126: related to limit for verif i cat i on r eport ( not r at i onale to r equi r e veri f i c ati on f or smal l quanti ti es ) compromise proposal Chapter 9: scrutiny on additional empowerment 140: date for review report FR Semiconductors: not support + more clarification EC? 104, 110: support (going in right direction) 29, 30: support 117: no support (customs destruction) 120-127: no support (reporting obligation) Flexible timing control (128-130) 131: no support (MS asked to give yearly summaries from data gathered at control - administrat i ve bur dent oo bi g &n benefits) DE Support PL & FR 18, 13c: exception regulation for MKBs not necessary 27: crit i cal vi e w( publi cat i on data) l egal c oncerns & benefit s not cl ear + who s houl d pass thi s on? Pos si ble t o publ only partial data to accommodate EP? 28: reject + temporary storage to be rejected + no support customs to destroy themselves 127: problems due to federal structure (MS compelled to use centralized system when nationally good reason not to do so?) 131: not fan + what is logbook data? 137: reject 139: reject 140: reject (2027 far too soon) CZ 18: support 95, 96, 112: no support (extension portal system or more restrictions) 30: support , other amendments chapter 5: prefer council position 127: most problematic amendment in chapter 6 Chapter 7: mostly f l exi bl e, wi t h exc ept i on 131 ( not ac c ept for l imi t ed added val ue & a dmini st r at ive bur den associ a with it) Chapter 9: support 21 (streamline same date, prefer 2030) 137 - 138: not accept IT Flexible: 18, 27, 97, 98 Chapter 5, flexible: 24, 108, 119 Chapter 6: not flexible Chapter 7: 128-131 flexible Chapter 9: flexible 21, 22 as well as 137-139 BG 95-96: no support (semiconductors) 111: no support (temporary keeping & registration) 112: no support 113: no support Chapter 5: 28, 97 no support / 114-115 no support Chapter 6: no support 120, 122, 126 (disproport i onal pr oposal s - ad mi ni str at i ve bur den) / 127 no s upport ( exi s t system should be TIA) Chapter 7: no support 130, 131 Chapter 9: no support 137, 138 HU 113: no support (data sensitivity) 117: no support (destruction customs office) 120-127: no support (2027 too early for review) AT 97: question Agency meant by EP (more info needed) 113: public available information (questions & hesitant due to legal concerns) 115 & 117: hesitant 130: flexible (online platforms) 131: hesitant 140: stick to council position (review) PT Chapter 4: 18 support (but equipment involved is large so can take while) / 27: undermine goals to reduce (not acceptable) Chapter 9: 21a not accept EC Logbook: when you have a piece of equipment and you need to ref ill i t, you havel ogbook t o fill in & moni tor l eaka each equipment. That type of informat i oni s us ef ul t o havet o have be t ter overvi ewl evel of emi ss i on. S ome MS ha advanced systems in this. It would be a big burden on MS to collect & make summaries & send to commission in all dif f er ent l anguages. EC has doubts onc ost- benefit of this exerci se &lar ge bur denit puts on MS. Wor t hwhi le to anal y proposal in more detail. Temporary storage: not initially propose because it would be disproportionate. Can be further assessed. EU agencies to request EC to do things: not appropriate. Export ban: not in EC proposal. Council made ban & parliament totally bans all export of equipment which is also banned in annex 4. Going EP way would put EU companies too much at disadvantage. Concerned making all data public. Some of those data are confidential. ROUND 3 PDCY EE Important topics Spare parts on market provided emissions do not increase Similar ban as council of export of product & equipment containing F-gas (stricter & applies to all products & equipment) Delay ban servicing refrigeration equipment New ban servicing stationary equipment (starting 2030) Heat pumps Delete GWP values in some of the bans Switchgear: full ban SF6 No postponement high voltage switchgear MDIs same direction: smoother transition to avoid negative consequences public health 2M extra quota to address possible shortages New bans in annex 4 Quota price: 5y increasing over time to ensure constant revenue (compared to 2 euros in council position) Penalties: strengthen EC proposal & make more detailed + increase minimum amount of fines Non paper number countries & fragile balance we achieved in COREPER in April. St i ck t o c ouncil appr oac h as muc h a possible in these chapters. PL 132 (market fines): no support 160 (parts equipment): text in our mandate is better 74-75: no support but 75 might be flexible 76-77: support 78: no support 152: absolutely not 89: absolutely not 90-92: absolutely not 99 (quota): absolutely not 94: no support Changes annex 4 Switchgears: maximum was in council position 10a + 20a: support All rest = red line DK General: quite positive & flexible but some comments Chapter 8 Administrative fines: red line (because Danish Constitution) & no flexibility to show here 132: flexible Annex 4: flexible and positive towards direction Annex 7: same as above Art. 17: f l exi bl e on pri c e E UR 5 but r evenue s houl d be part of over all budget of t he Uni on(i mport ant t o def endc ounci mandate on this) DE 132: absolute red line (legally speaking not able to implement) but to accommodate EP (criminal precedence over administrative misdemeanors) follows in writing Chapter 3 REACH: reject 74: reject (stick to 2y) 78: what happens with intermediary traders? Ban on export: maintain council compromise but military except i ons pr oposal i s not bad + no exc ept i on f military in mobile installations (might come back to haunt us) 152, 89, 91, 92: no support more clarification needed 101: stick to council position but in principle positive on reaching agreement with EP 102: reject (charged to EU budget generally) Oppose to deletion of exemption on semiconductors Chapter 4 Increase use heat pumps should not be hampered (not shorten transitional periods further) 146: reject FI 132: position on sanctions did not change - support continue trilogue in line council position 78: unclear certification requirements refer to buyer or seller 152: no support (concerned not consider technical lifetime already installed equipment) 89 & 91: why use reclaimed or recycled refrigerants would be banned 102: no support broader earmarking revenues, accepted it with upper limit in council decision (no support broader earmarking) 150: favor ambit i ous phas edo wn but at t hi s poi nt not i nf avor of s e t t ing dat eof phas e out ( c ounci l mandate i s bal an way forward) IT Positive outlook Chapter 8: 31-36, 132, 136 Chapter 3: 3, 4, 12-15, 16, 22, 25 SI Sanctions: no support detailed requirements on penalties 160: flexible 74: no support 76: unnecessary changes proposed 78: keep council position 79: same dates for prohibition should apply for export Art. 13 annex 4 & 7: more time needed to study EP proposal Art. 17 para 6: flexible (amendment 101) 101: flexible 102: agree purposeful spending collective money but difficult for such mechanism FR Chapter 8: 132: no support (maintain council mandate) Chapter 3 3, 4, 12: stick council approach 14: switchgears - keep council proposal (recital 13a) 20, 99: no support (keep stable contributions over time) 102: flexible 74: hesitant (impact economic operators in supply chain) 79: export ban (council approach more measured to situation) 89, 91, 92: not relevant (exemptions for military equipment) brings end of life of a lot of equipment in existence Annex 4 145, 153: not in favor (approach a bit much) Switchgears: important for FR (pay attention to this type of data) 146: not in favor (authorization processes - administrative burden) Retain review clause Keep use SF6 as part of maintenance (keep these provisions) Annex 5 Not in favor amendments (HFC production rights) HU 74: stick council mandate (6 months too restricting) 152: red line 89, 90-92: no support 99 & quota price: very negative 79: not support on export ban rules Annex 4 & annex 7: stick council position Annex 8: 151 & 100, 102: flexible MT 74: sufficient time needed so keep EC position 78: questions reasoning behind this proposal - no support EP amendment 89, 91: prefer EC text 99: strongly oppose EUR 5 (small enterprises might be left out) 132: no support 137, 138: any changes to prohibition should be done through implementing acts 152: concerns new changes proposed (not allow servicing & maintenance) 145, 153, ... : against introducing more restrictions with impact on market CZ Chapter 8 31, 35: no support 32: unnecessary 133, 135: problematic Chapter 3: Welcome amendment linked to RU invasion in UA 115: highly problematic (aerosols) 23: not include amendment 159, 25: support Many Ops no support (in writing) 156: welcome 88: welcome (include in final compromise text - safety reasons) AT 88: no support (extension exempt i on milit ar y equi p ment + appli cat i ons i n nuc l ear fi el necessary? If was necessary, EC would have taken it up and they did not. 74: flexible 99: quota price (flexible) 102: stick to council (frugal MS) 132: sanct i ons ( acc or di ng t o AT l a w, sanc t i ons s houl d be c l ear and t hat i s not t he case n ow) - c l ear no on th amendment BG 31-35: support 132 74, 78, 152, 88-92, 99, 94, 150: no support NL 26, 99, 102: flexible height fee & but concerned ceiling earmarking 152, 89, 91: concerns 106: keep council position 146: concerns (high administrative costs) 151: questions different reference value Annex 4 & 7: flexible to grow towards EP amendments with high ambition LI General: stick closely to council mandate (especially chapter 3, trajectory & ambition level) DK 99: quota price - we lowered the price to 2 EUR in compromise to have negot i at i on pos i t io nwit h EP, i n this l i ght s flexibility & be positive towards EP proposal (agreement at COREPER) LU 88: support AT (quest i ons r ai s ed on s o me ot her ques t i ons and why EC pr opos ed this if t here is no di ff erent legi s l a is applicable, possible alternatives, etc.) ES Still scrutinizing HU 88: support CZ RO 88: support CZ, HU & remind you of one MS signing non-paper - some elements in general approach were quite straight jacket i ng us (r edli nes i n annex 4 & 7, al s o wi t h pri c e) maximum we can accept (going to 3 is f l exi bili t y s ho w already) EC 88: amending something that we have in the current regulat i on. It i s r estri c t i ng t he poss ibil i ty to ot her t ypes products cooled minus 50 for medical & nuclear power stat i ons. We di d not have " medi cal " wor d i n. Restri c t i approach from EP & not sure that this is technically feasible to say it should only apply to medical. For nuclear power stations, also need minus 50. One of the areas where an exemption would be needed. Full prohibit i on F- gas es i s cl os e t o heart t o r apport eur & MEPs ot her par t i es, in t he publ ic debate for t he momen Looking into areas where we for sure don't need to go for F-gases at all. Ex. domestic refrigeration, nobody would think about starting to put synthetic f-gas in anymore. Penalt i es: alr eady agr ee ment onr egul at i on deforest at io n wher e penal ties l i nkedto i l legal act ivit y f r om whi c hyo profit. ROUND 4: ODS PDCY Less EP amendments Feedstock: more rapid phase out + caps for feedstock in delegated acts FI Favor listing allowed feedstock using (good example for work under MP) EE Feedstock use (amendments 26-30): support MT Positive scrutiny in general Para 5, subpara 1: council removed this para. Preference towards council mandate & keep it removed. FR 16: flexible (but more clarity needed) 18: hesitant (more clarity needed) 26-30: flexible 35-37: flexible 61-62: reluctant to go this way (penalties) DK Lean positive towards EP proposals DE Hesitant amendments feedstock General remark: under MP MS responsible to fulf il obli gat i on to fulfi l obl i gations regar ding feedsto ck &no l i under MP (internationally not the current state of art) Questions will be handed in in written NL Concerns on feedstock (other instruments to regulate this) EC Doing something on feedstock = important. Almost only area lef t under MP wher e mor e can be done. But wor k i ongoing & quest i oni s i f i t i s us ef ul t hat E Ui s goi ng t hr ough tr oubl e t o est abli s hli st of per mi t t ed uses, whi ch c ou mean some uses are not permit t edi n t he EU. I mpact ass ess ment wher e we anal yz ed whi c h us es you c oul d possi bl replace ODS, conclusion was that in general the environmental ef f ect woul d be doubt ful . Ext r emel y expensi ve change to another feedstock. Would consider to move out of EU if that happened. Threat that you not know is true or not. Consider to make sure that in future Ozone regulat i on, t her e i s possi bili t y t o make li st s o t hat we go i nt negotiations under MP and negotiate list & afterwards implement it.