media briefing
5 March 2015
Smoke & Mirrors - How Europe’s biggest polluters became their own regulators
The European Union is in the process of defining new standards limiting pollution from coal-fired
power stations in the EU – a once-in-a-decade opportunity to clamp down on toxic emissions
killing thousands of people every year.
But a Greenpeace investigation has revealed the whole process has been captured by the coal
industry, with the result that the emission limits the EU is about to agree could be extremely lax.
Not only would most of the existing plants be allowed to pollute several times more than could be
achieved by adopting the best clean technologies available. EU standards would also be
significantly weaker than those imposed in other parts of the world, including China.
The full report is available here.
Coal plants are the largest source of sulphur dioxide and mercury emissions in Europe and one of
the largest industrial sources of emissions of nitrogen oxides, arsenic, lead and cadmium. Air
pollution from the EU’s coal-fired power stations caused an estimated 22,300 premature deaths in
2010[1], as well as exacerbating asthma and contributing to dangerous levels of mercury found in
the blood of thousands of babies born in Europe.
Right now the European Union is updating air pollution standards for industrial installations,
including for coal power plants. In March 2015, the process is expected to propose definitions of
best available techniques (BATs) and related pollution limits. The BATs are defined in so-called
BAT reference documents (BREFs). EU member states are expected to vote on the proposal by
the end of this year, followed by the formal adoption in early 2016. The new definitions of best
available techniques and related emission limits must be included in updated environmental
permits within four years after the adoption.
The updated EU pollution limits must be in line with best available techniques limits.
Based on a draft of the proposal, this report demonstrates that EU industrial air pollution
limits currently considered in the process are much weaker than the standards in force in
China, Japan and the United States.
The report also shows that existing coal power plants both within and outside the
European Union already have much more demanding emission limits or better real-world
emission control performance than would be required by the draft proposals in the
process.
Part 1 of this report, ‘Smoke’, compares the proposed EU air pollution standards with
standards and actual emissions from other countries.
Part 2, ‘Mirrors’, outlines the EU decision-making process and demonstrates its capture by
industry interests.
Proposed EU pollution limits compared to current performance and other standards
A new proposal for the BREF for Large Combustion Plants (LCP BREF) is expected to be issued
in March, defining best available techniques and related limits for pollution by coal plants, one of
the largest sources of toxic pollution in Europe.
Exposure to particulate matter (PM2.5) is the largest environmental health threat in Europe,
increasing risk of death from heart disease, respiratory diseases and lung cancer, and shortening
life expectancy by 6-12 months in most European countries [3].
Research by Stuttgart University commissioned by Greenpeace estimates that emissions from
coal-fired power plants in the EU were responsible for 22,300 premature deaths in 2010[4].
200,000 babies are born each year in the EU with mercury levels in their blood that are known to
harm their mental and neurological development [5].
Part 1 of this report includes comparisons of the proposed BREF standards for four highly
damaging pollutants, SO2, NOx, PM2.5 and Hg, with various national standards for new and
existing plants, and with some of the best performing operational plants around the world.
The proposed BREF standards for existing coal-fired power stations would allow them to emit

30% more SO2

80% more NOx
than the equivalent Chinese standards, and more than the average of all plants operating in
Japan.
Even more shockingly, operators would be able to build new coal plants in the EU producing

5x the SO2,

2.5x the NOx,

2x the particulates

5x the mercury
of the best currently operating plants around the world.
The draft proposal would allow much more pollution than would result from the use of the best
available techniques. Adopting these standards will allow enormous health impacts, including
thousands of deaths, which could be prevented with existing technology.
Polluting industries have captured the regulatory process
Of the various bodies involved in drafting, reviewing and proposing the new standards, the most
important is the Technical Working Group (TWG), chaired by the European IPPC Bureau.
Greenpeace found that the TWG is dominated by the energy industry - a total of at least 46
representatives in government delegations are in fact industry lobbyists, on top of the 137 formal
industry representatives participating. This means, that the polluters are designing the regulations
intended to govern their own industry.
Examples of government delegations dominated by industry include:

The United Kingdom nine-person member state delegation has five representatives of large
polluters, including coal power plant operators RWE, EDF and E.ON and the Stanlow oil refinery.

The seven-member Greek delegation is entirely made up of representatives of Public Power
Corporation, the operator of some of the dirtiest lignite power plants anywhere in the EU, and
Hellenic Petroleum.

The Spanish twelve-person delegation includes eight industry representatives, including
coal power plant operators Endesa and Iberdrola, as well as the electricity producers’ association
UNESA.
Reflecting Industry concerns
Even genuinely independent EU country representatives have been known to advocate the
positions of polluting companies, often using statements directly copied from industry
representatives.
In a particularly blatant case, delegates from Spain’s ministry of environment and Ireland’s
Environmental Protection Agency argued for weaker emission limits using a statement that was
identical to a comment tabled by power company lobby group Eurelectric[6]. Hubert Bramberger,
representing the Bavarian Environment Agency in Germany’s delegation, demanded weaker SO 2
emission limits for lignite plants, with a written comment identical to ones posted by several
industry representatives. Richard Chase, representing the UK Environment Agency, used a written
comment identical to ones made by Eurelectric and RWE to argue that certain energy efficiency
techniques were too expensive.
Seven delegations – those of Poland, the Czech Republic, Greece, Germany, France, the UK and
Spain – are responsible for the vast majority of comments seeking to further weaken the limits.
Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden were the only countries to make any comments at all
seeking to protect public health. All three sent government delegations composed entirely of
government delegates.
Europe is allowing the polluters to set their own standards, with the majority of delegates
representing the industries being regulated. If this is allowed to continue, our coal plants will fall
well behind leading countries and cause major avoidable health impacts.
Time for EU decision-makers to intervene
Greenpeace is calling for the process to be reformed to remove conflicts of interest, unnecessary
delays, derogations and exemptions, and to bring the BREF standards into line with the real best
available techniques, as is required by EU law. EU environment ministers, members of national
parliaments and the European Parliament need to intervene in the process and to take the
following actions:

Ensure timely adoption: adoption and publication of best
available technique definitions and emission limits for large combustion plants should take place
by January 2016 at the very latest.

Make standards robust: the implementation of the BREF by
member states should set equally robust standards for all power plants. Standards should be
binding for all member states and not allow derogations.

The BREF and related emission limit values should be based
on the best international performers.

Prescribe continuous measurement of mercury and other
emissions for all categories of plants in order to check compliance.

Stop conflicts of interests: end the formal inclusion of staff on
the payroll of industries affected by the Industrial Emissions Directive in EU member state
delegations.
Notes:
[1] University of Stuttgart research, in Greenpeace (2013), Silent Killers:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Silent-Killers/
[2] For more information: http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about/more_information.html
[3] EEA (2007), Loss of statistical life expectancy attributed to anthropogenic contributions to
PM2.5, 2000 and 2020: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/loss-of-statistical-lifeexpectancy-attributed-to-anthropogenic-contributions-to-pm2-5-2000-and-2020
[4] Research by Stuttgart University in Greenpeace (2013) Silent Killers report:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Silent-Killers/
[5] Bellanger et. al. (2013) Economic benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe:
Monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention in Environmental Health 2013, 12:3
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/3
[6] Carmen Canales, Spanish Ministry of Environment, Sean O'Donoghue, Ireland EPA and Helen
Lavray, Eurelectric, all argued for weaker emission limits using the exact same passage, word-forword and letter-for-letter.
Contacts:
Joris den Blanken, Greenpeace climate change policy director, mobile +32 (0) 476 961 375,
joris.den.blanken@greenpeace.org
Greenpeace EU pressdesk, t. +32 (0)2 274 19 11 email: pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org
The full report is available here.
For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU
Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and
behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. Greenpeace does not
accept donations from governments, the EU, businesses or political parties.