It’s no secret that bureaucratic institutions like the EU Parliament grind slowly. It often takes months before the EU Parliament even begins to deal with a legislative proposal. The reasons for this are disputes between the committees about responsibilities, Corinna Visser analyzes. There are always conflicts over which committee gets which dossiers – often of a political rather than substantive nature. Now the process is to be shortened, and the House’s rules of procedure from 1999 are to be revised.
However, it is not only the assignment to the committees that are often lengthy; the further legislative process also involves nerve-racking negotiations. One example is the trilogue on the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) reform. On Friday at a Table.Media event, ETS rapporteur Peter Liese (EPP), among others, discussed the ongoing trilogue in the context of the energy crisis. I have summarized a few aspects of the discussion for you in today’s issue.
The legislative proposals planned by the EU Commission are written in its work program. The program for the time until the European elections in 2024, will be decided this week. Markus Grabitz uncovered a draft and discovered, among other things, that the revision of the chemicals regulation REACH is to be postponed by one year.
Tonight at 7 p.m., Ismail Ertug (S&D) is expected to continue fighting for the traffic turn and development of charging infrastructure in the plenary debate on the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive (AFID). Read the profile to find out how Ertug became a transport politician.
I wish you an excellent start to the week
It should not be like this again: On April 21, 2021, the EU Commission presented its proposal for AI regulation (AI Act). Afterward, it took the bodies until December 1 to agree on the lead committees and for them to begin their work. That’s just one example.
Time and again, jurisdictional disputes arise over the assignment of dossiers, dragging out the process. “This is outdated,” says Bernd Lange (S&D), Chairman of the Conference of Committee Chairs (CCC). “We need to become faster, more efficient in committee assignments, and more appropriate in topics.” For this reason, Lange initiated appropriate reform steps.
The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament define the referral process. First, the “Unit for Reception and Referral of Official Documents” in the General Secretariat examines the legislative proposal and refers it to a lead committee based on Annex VI of the Rules of Procedure. This decision is announced in plenary.
After that, the other committees have four weeks to challenge the assignment. When that happens, negotiations begin in the CCC. This policy body includes all 20 chairs, and Lange currently heads it. The CCC then makes a recommendation, which is then deliberated on and decided by the Conference of Presidents (COP).
As a result, more and more dossiers are not allocated based on Annex VI responsibilities. “The allocation of committees is increasingly political,” criticizes MEP Axel Voss (EPP). “Much depends on which party has its eye on which rapporteur.” In previous legislatures, he said, people tended to stick to the Rules of Procedure. “Parliament has become more ideological and more activist,” Voss says. “So the disdainful Rules of Procedure don’t play a major role anymore.”
The disputes over jurisdiction are delaying the process enormously, Voss complains. “This is particularly annoying in the case of legal acts such as the supply chain or AI regulation since quick action is required from the legislator.” But it’s not just about speed, it’s also about content. Voss is convinced that “it is quite significant in which committee a bill is discussed.” “Because red, green, or liberal politicians in the interior committee certainly have often a different perspective on things than their party friends in the industry committee.”
While Lange does not believe in that, he, too, is interested in acceleration as well as objectification in the allocation process. “We have more and more horizontal legislation, such as Fit-for-55, the digital legislation, or the Supply Chain Act,” Lange says. That, he claims, is what the 1999 Rules of Procedure envisioned. “So, we also need to recalibrate the committee’s responsibilities.”
Meanwhile, the CCC created new guidelines for its own work and drew up recommendations for amending the rules of procedure. In September, the Conference of Presidents had already given the go-ahead to amend the rules of procedure, Lange says. To that end, he says, the COP sent a letter to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO), which is responsible for amending the Rules of Procedure. “It’s time to tackle the reform process,” Lange thinks.
On the one hand, the reform proposals are about clarifying how the individual committees should work together. On the other hand, there are procedural changes intended to speed up the process. For example, resolving disputes about the committees’ responsibilities should be possible even before the Commission proposal has been translated into all EU languages. However, the committees should start their work only after the translations are available.
There is another argument in favor of a responsibilities reform under Annex VI: The allocation of portfolios in the Commission differs from that of the committees because, unlike in the Commission, these have not changed since 1999. Here, an alignment could take place, says Lange.
Voss agrees: “I would have liked a different division at the beginning of the legislative period. For example, one based on the Commission’s portfolios,” he says. But the parliament was not open to change, which is now bringing inconsistencies to light, he says. “We need to come to a new division in future parliaments that is more efficient and modern.”
Peter Liese remains skeptical whether the crisis will have been overcome by the time the reform of the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) comes into force. The climate policy spokesman for the EPP and rapporteur for the ETS reform thus wants to take pressure off the market immediately and give trading in emission rights some breathing space so that the carbon price does not continue to rise. He sees the frontloading of certificates that should have been sold later as a relief measure in times of crisis.
But the ETS’s goals of getting the industry to invest in decarbonization remains, he stressed at a Table.Media event Friday. “Anyone who invests today knows they will benefit in 2026 at the latest. Anyone who thinks they can just keep polluting gets a clear signal.”
Before the EU Commission proposed to partially fund the REPowerEU program from the ETS, economist and ETS analyst Florian Rothenberg also expected next year’s prices to exceed €100 per carbon ton. This forecast has now been dampened. Currently, the carbon price in the ETS is just under €70, which is where it should stabilize, according to Rothenberg.
So, the problem is solved? No, counters Juliette de Grandpré, Senior Advisor Climate & Energy at WWF Germany. She argues the system sends out a price signal, which must be allowed to take effect. The current price is also not particularly high, she says, so intervention is not possible. In addition, de Grandpré is critical of frontloading for REPowerEU financing. The ETS provides financing for fossil infrastructure with this. Not a single cent should be taken from the ETS.
For large parts of the industry, the current carbon prices are not the problem. In particular, the emissions-intensive industry, exposed to international competition, continues to receive free emission allowances as protection against carbon leakage. However, the trilogue, currently underway on ETS reform, is also discussing when and how quickly these free allocations should be melted down in the future. A mistake, believes Henry Borrmann, Head of Energy Policy at the industry association “Die Familienunternehmer.”
“If the free allocation is eliminated without replacement, companies will go out of business.” Borrmann says, he is skeptical that the proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will provide that replacement, as it could be circumvented by foreign producers. Although steel imports into the EU would be subject to the climate tariff, finished steel products would not, the argument goes. Borrmann believes the competitive disadvantage of European companies would thus remain, as long as the CBAM only applied to basic materials. And applying the CBAM to every small-scale product would be bureaucratically impossible.
A frequent criticism of free allocations: Companies would not actually want to give up the revenue from free allowances. Specific industries also said as much in confidential discussions, De Grandpré reports. She criticizes the current system above all for the lack of conditionality, that revenues from the free allocations also flow into the transformation.
A shortcoming, that could also be remedied in the trilogue. Peter Liese already introduced a bonus-malus system during the negotiations in parliament, which rewards industrial plants that actively invest in the transformation with free allocations and takes a portion away from those that do not.
For Family Business Association members, the former is more likely to apply anyway, Borrmann assures. He says there are hardly any companies that do not think about transformation. Liese also has no doubts about this but points out that the EU still includes 26 other member states, and not all of them show the same speed in decarbonization. Whether the bonus-malus system will prevail is still completely open.
So far, the trilogue failed to provide answers to these and many other questions. Progress in getting the ETS reform off the ground has been meager so far (Europe.Table reported). On the other hand, the need for discussion about the reform remains high.
As a “teenager of the nineties,” Ismail Ertug grew up during the Kohl era. Born in Bavaria, however, this period was primarily shaped by Edmund Stoiber and the CSU. “That was not what I had imagined as a young person,” laughs the 47-year-old. Ertug is a trained industrial clerk and sits in the European Parliament as an SPD member.
That he is enthusiastic about European politics lies in his DNA, says Ertug. His parents came to Germany from Turkey as so-called guest workers. He sees Europe, above all, as a peace-building project that brings many benefits to its citizens.
In 2004, the candidate in his district of Upper Palatinate failed to get into Parliament in the European elections. “Bad for the party, but lucky for me.” In 2008, he was nominated for the next election. “I knew from the beginning that as a young person, you have to take a back seat, earn your place and highlight issues.” That’s how Ertug eventually landed on EU transport and climate policy.
At the European level, he is involved with legislation and regulation on the expansion of the charging infrastructure for alternative fuels (AIR). It is quickly noticeable that this is particularly close to his heart. He calls it “my baby.” In 2018, Ertug initiated an own-initiative report in the Transportation Committee that took up indicative and measurable targets for the expansion of charging, hydrogen and LNG refueling stations. He was able to push this through with a solid majority, even though the Council already removed this very provision in 2013.
With the AFIR, the feedback from the industry has now “taken on a new dynamic. For the vote in the Transport Committee (TRAN) alone, after many hearings and more than a thousand amendments, Ertug brought together 18 “Compromise Amendments” (Europe.Table reported), for which he received 17 majorities in the vote on October 3.
The 18th compromise, which failed in the TRAN, concerns sanctions that member states may impose on operators of charging stations if their charging stations do not function properly. On the other hand, it concerns the penalties member states are to pay if they fail to meet the expansion targets. Ertug insists on these penalties, without which he fears the actual achievement of the AFIR targets. In the plenary vote on October 19, he will make another attempt with new majorities.
But even after the vote, Ertug’s work is far from done. In the subsequent trilogue, it will be crucial to convince the member states of his compromises and, if necessary, make new ones. The member states are very unambitious and will want to accept as few commitments as possible, Ertug fears. “If we do well, we’ll get it through by the first of January 2024,” Ertug predicts the regulation’s publishing in the Official Journal. The sooner, he says, the faster we can start implementing the regulation and expanding the charging infrastructure.
However, what will be non-negotiable for Ertug is the level of ambition for car build and charging capacity. The Parliament calls for three-kilowatt hours per newly registered EV, the Commission for one. “At least in Germany, that is already possible, and thus too little for us,” Ertug says.
Ertug wants more infrastructure at shorter distances on the maximum distances at which member states must build hydrogen and electric infrastructure. He said the industry is already signaling feasibility. In 2026, the first mass production of hydrogen cars should start. He said that’s the signal to the industry, which has already proven it can do it. “Action is the order of the day.” Livia Hofmann
It’s no secret that bureaucratic institutions like the EU Parliament grind slowly. It often takes months before the EU Parliament even begins to deal with a legislative proposal. The reasons for this are disputes between the committees about responsibilities, Corinna Visser analyzes. There are always conflicts over which committee gets which dossiers – often of a political rather than substantive nature. Now the process is to be shortened, and the House’s rules of procedure from 1999 are to be revised.
However, it is not only the assignment to the committees that are often lengthy; the further legislative process also involves nerve-racking negotiations. One example is the trilogue on the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) reform. On Friday at a Table.Media event, ETS rapporteur Peter Liese (EPP), among others, discussed the ongoing trilogue in the context of the energy crisis. I have summarized a few aspects of the discussion for you in today’s issue.
The legislative proposals planned by the EU Commission are written in its work program. The program for the time until the European elections in 2024, will be decided this week. Markus Grabitz uncovered a draft and discovered, among other things, that the revision of the chemicals regulation REACH is to be postponed by one year.
Tonight at 7 p.m., Ismail Ertug (S&D) is expected to continue fighting for the traffic turn and development of charging infrastructure in the plenary debate on the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive (AFID). Read the profile to find out how Ertug became a transport politician.
I wish you an excellent start to the week
It should not be like this again: On April 21, 2021, the EU Commission presented its proposal for AI regulation (AI Act). Afterward, it took the bodies until December 1 to agree on the lead committees and for them to begin their work. That’s just one example.
Time and again, jurisdictional disputes arise over the assignment of dossiers, dragging out the process. “This is outdated,” says Bernd Lange (S&D), Chairman of the Conference of Committee Chairs (CCC). “We need to become faster, more efficient in committee assignments, and more appropriate in topics.” For this reason, Lange initiated appropriate reform steps.
The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament define the referral process. First, the “Unit for Reception and Referral of Official Documents” in the General Secretariat examines the legislative proposal and refers it to a lead committee based on Annex VI of the Rules of Procedure. This decision is announced in plenary.
After that, the other committees have four weeks to challenge the assignment. When that happens, negotiations begin in the CCC. This policy body includes all 20 chairs, and Lange currently heads it. The CCC then makes a recommendation, which is then deliberated on and decided by the Conference of Presidents (COP).
As a result, more and more dossiers are not allocated based on Annex VI responsibilities. “The allocation of committees is increasingly political,” criticizes MEP Axel Voss (EPP). “Much depends on which party has its eye on which rapporteur.” In previous legislatures, he said, people tended to stick to the Rules of Procedure. “Parliament has become more ideological and more activist,” Voss says. “So the disdainful Rules of Procedure don’t play a major role anymore.”
The disputes over jurisdiction are delaying the process enormously, Voss complains. “This is particularly annoying in the case of legal acts such as the supply chain or AI regulation since quick action is required from the legislator.” But it’s not just about speed, it’s also about content. Voss is convinced that “it is quite significant in which committee a bill is discussed.” “Because red, green, or liberal politicians in the interior committee certainly have often a different perspective on things than their party friends in the industry committee.”
While Lange does not believe in that, he, too, is interested in acceleration as well as objectification in the allocation process. “We have more and more horizontal legislation, such as Fit-for-55, the digital legislation, or the Supply Chain Act,” Lange says. That, he claims, is what the 1999 Rules of Procedure envisioned. “So, we also need to recalibrate the committee’s responsibilities.”
Meanwhile, the CCC created new guidelines for its own work and drew up recommendations for amending the rules of procedure. In September, the Conference of Presidents had already given the go-ahead to amend the rules of procedure, Lange says. To that end, he says, the COP sent a letter to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO), which is responsible for amending the Rules of Procedure. “It’s time to tackle the reform process,” Lange thinks.
On the one hand, the reform proposals are about clarifying how the individual committees should work together. On the other hand, there are procedural changes intended to speed up the process. For example, resolving disputes about the committees’ responsibilities should be possible even before the Commission proposal has been translated into all EU languages. However, the committees should start their work only after the translations are available.
There is another argument in favor of a responsibilities reform under Annex VI: The allocation of portfolios in the Commission differs from that of the committees because, unlike in the Commission, these have not changed since 1999. Here, an alignment could take place, says Lange.
Voss agrees: “I would have liked a different division at the beginning of the legislative period. For example, one based on the Commission’s portfolios,” he says. But the parliament was not open to change, which is now bringing inconsistencies to light, he says. “We need to come to a new division in future parliaments that is more efficient and modern.”
Peter Liese remains skeptical whether the crisis will have been overcome by the time the reform of the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) comes into force. The climate policy spokesman for the EPP and rapporteur for the ETS reform thus wants to take pressure off the market immediately and give trading in emission rights some breathing space so that the carbon price does not continue to rise. He sees the frontloading of certificates that should have been sold later as a relief measure in times of crisis.
But the ETS’s goals of getting the industry to invest in decarbonization remains, he stressed at a Table.Media event Friday. “Anyone who invests today knows they will benefit in 2026 at the latest. Anyone who thinks they can just keep polluting gets a clear signal.”
Before the EU Commission proposed to partially fund the REPowerEU program from the ETS, economist and ETS analyst Florian Rothenberg also expected next year’s prices to exceed €100 per carbon ton. This forecast has now been dampened. Currently, the carbon price in the ETS is just under €70, which is where it should stabilize, according to Rothenberg.
So, the problem is solved? No, counters Juliette de Grandpré, Senior Advisor Climate & Energy at WWF Germany. She argues the system sends out a price signal, which must be allowed to take effect. The current price is also not particularly high, she says, so intervention is not possible. In addition, de Grandpré is critical of frontloading for REPowerEU financing. The ETS provides financing for fossil infrastructure with this. Not a single cent should be taken from the ETS.
For large parts of the industry, the current carbon prices are not the problem. In particular, the emissions-intensive industry, exposed to international competition, continues to receive free emission allowances as protection against carbon leakage. However, the trilogue, currently underway on ETS reform, is also discussing when and how quickly these free allocations should be melted down in the future. A mistake, believes Henry Borrmann, Head of Energy Policy at the industry association “Die Familienunternehmer.”
“If the free allocation is eliminated without replacement, companies will go out of business.” Borrmann says, he is skeptical that the proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will provide that replacement, as it could be circumvented by foreign producers. Although steel imports into the EU would be subject to the climate tariff, finished steel products would not, the argument goes. Borrmann believes the competitive disadvantage of European companies would thus remain, as long as the CBAM only applied to basic materials. And applying the CBAM to every small-scale product would be bureaucratically impossible.
A frequent criticism of free allocations: Companies would not actually want to give up the revenue from free allowances. Specific industries also said as much in confidential discussions, De Grandpré reports. She criticizes the current system above all for the lack of conditionality, that revenues from the free allocations also flow into the transformation.
A shortcoming, that could also be remedied in the trilogue. Peter Liese already introduced a bonus-malus system during the negotiations in parliament, which rewards industrial plants that actively invest in the transformation with free allocations and takes a portion away from those that do not.
For Family Business Association members, the former is more likely to apply anyway, Borrmann assures. He says there are hardly any companies that do not think about transformation. Liese also has no doubts about this but points out that the EU still includes 26 other member states, and not all of them show the same speed in decarbonization. Whether the bonus-malus system will prevail is still completely open.
So far, the trilogue failed to provide answers to these and many other questions. Progress in getting the ETS reform off the ground has been meager so far (Europe.Table reported). On the other hand, the need for discussion about the reform remains high.
As a “teenager of the nineties,” Ismail Ertug grew up during the Kohl era. Born in Bavaria, however, this period was primarily shaped by Edmund Stoiber and the CSU. “That was not what I had imagined as a young person,” laughs the 47-year-old. Ertug is a trained industrial clerk and sits in the European Parliament as an SPD member.
That he is enthusiastic about European politics lies in his DNA, says Ertug. His parents came to Germany from Turkey as so-called guest workers. He sees Europe, above all, as a peace-building project that brings many benefits to its citizens.
In 2004, the candidate in his district of Upper Palatinate failed to get into Parliament in the European elections. “Bad for the party, but lucky for me.” In 2008, he was nominated for the next election. “I knew from the beginning that as a young person, you have to take a back seat, earn your place and highlight issues.” That’s how Ertug eventually landed on EU transport and climate policy.
At the European level, he is involved with legislation and regulation on the expansion of the charging infrastructure for alternative fuels (AIR). It is quickly noticeable that this is particularly close to his heart. He calls it “my baby.” In 2018, Ertug initiated an own-initiative report in the Transportation Committee that took up indicative and measurable targets for the expansion of charging, hydrogen and LNG refueling stations. He was able to push this through with a solid majority, even though the Council already removed this very provision in 2013.
With the AFIR, the feedback from the industry has now “taken on a new dynamic. For the vote in the Transport Committee (TRAN) alone, after many hearings and more than a thousand amendments, Ertug brought together 18 “Compromise Amendments” (Europe.Table reported), for which he received 17 majorities in the vote on October 3.
The 18th compromise, which failed in the TRAN, concerns sanctions that member states may impose on operators of charging stations if their charging stations do not function properly. On the other hand, it concerns the penalties member states are to pay if they fail to meet the expansion targets. Ertug insists on these penalties, without which he fears the actual achievement of the AFIR targets. In the plenary vote on October 19, he will make another attempt with new majorities.
But even after the vote, Ertug’s work is far from done. In the subsequent trilogue, it will be crucial to convince the member states of his compromises and, if necessary, make new ones. The member states are very unambitious and will want to accept as few commitments as possible, Ertug fears. “If we do well, we’ll get it through by the first of January 2024,” Ertug predicts the regulation’s publishing in the Official Journal. The sooner, he says, the faster we can start implementing the regulation and expanding the charging infrastructure.
However, what will be non-negotiable for Ertug is the level of ambition for car build and charging capacity. The Parliament calls for three-kilowatt hours per newly registered EV, the Commission for one. “At least in Germany, that is already possible, and thus too little for us,” Ertug says.
Ertug wants more infrastructure at shorter distances on the maximum distances at which member states must build hydrogen and electric infrastructure. He said the industry is already signaling feasibility. In 2026, the first mass production of hydrogen cars should start. He said that’s the signal to the industry, which has already proven it can do it. “Action is the order of the day.” Livia Hofmann
