> Retouradres Postbus 20401 2500 EK Den Haag
Directoraat-generaal Klimaat
en Energie

DG FISMA
Martin Spolc

Bezoekadres
Bezuidenhoutseweg 73
2594 AC Den Haag
Postadres
Postbus 20401
2500 EK Den Haag
Overheidsidentificatienr
00000001003214369000
T 070 379 8911 (algemeen)
F 070 378 6100 (algemeen)
www.rijksoverheid.nl/ezk

Date
Subject

January 21th 2022
NL feedback on taxonomy draft Complementary Delegated Act

Dear Mr. Spolc,

Behandeld door
R.T.P. Glasbeek LLM
T 070 379 6029
R.T.P.Glasbeek@minezk.nl
Ons kenmerk
DGKE / 22005792
Uw kenmerk

The Netherlands attaches great value to the development of the taxonomy, as in
our view it is a vital instrument to support the greening of the financial sector and
the broader economy. The Netherlands has always emphasized the importance of
a science based and technology-neutral taxonomy, in line with state of the art
developments in the market and coherence with current policies.

Bijlage(n)

We have read the draft Complementary Delegated Act with interest. In this letter
we provide specific technical feedback on a number of articles in this Act. We
would like to urge the Commission to comprehensively review all responses,
taking into account these criteria that are enshrined in the taxonomy regulation,
before adoption of the complementary delegated act. Please find The Netherlands’
feedback on the drat Complementary Delegated Act below.

4.26

Pre-commercial stages of advanced technologies with minimal
waste from the fuel cycle

The Netherlands supported the separate scientific process on the role of nuclear
energy in the taxonomy, and supports that the outcome of that process is
reflected by the inclusion of this research activity on nuclear energy in the
taxonomy.
With regard to the do no significant harm criterion on disposal facilities in this
activity, we refer to our feedback in relation to activity 4.27 on this matter, below.

4.27

Construction and safe operation of new nuclear power plants, for
the generation of electricity or heat, including for hydrogen
production, using best-available technologies

The Netherlands supported the separate scientific process on the role of nuclear
energy in the taxonomy, and supports that the outcome of that process is

Pagina 1 van 6

Directoraat-generaal Klimaat
en Energie

reflected by the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy. We do however
have a few significant issues with regard to the technical screening criteria for this
activity in the draft complementary delegated act.

Ons kenmerk
DGKE / 22005792

Disposal facility
First, screening criterion 1f (page 14) requires a plan with detailed steps to have
in operation, by 2050, a disposal facility for high-level radioactive waste. The
Netherlands supports including criteria for the safe treatment of nuclear waste, in
line with the relevant Euratom legislation. But the proposed criterium disregards
the fact that a disposal facility is only needed upon conclusion of the nuclear
activities.
The Netherlands has a unique waste management system in place (detailed
below), that ensures a high level of safety. The technical screening criteria for this
activity should facilitate the safe waste management system The Netherlands has
in place. This requirement should be amended to “Member states should have in
place a disposal facility for radioactive waste by 2050, or as a temporary measure
until a specified date, a specially designed and built storage. This storage has to
be specifically designed and built to provide a level of safety comparable to
geological depository. More specifically, to withstand a the regular hazards e.g.
flooding and earthquakes.”
Background information
•
The Netherlands has one national nuclear waste management
organization: COVRA. It has very robust facilities for the long-term
storage of low, intermediate and high-level waste. These facilities are
situated on their site in Vlissingen, the province of Zeeland.
•
All operators of nuclear reactors in The Netherlands are obliged to store
their nuclear waste at COVRA. Operators pay a fee to COVRA, and COVRA
becomes owner of the waste. During their lifespan, operators transfer
waste regularly to COVRA. Operators don’t collect waste on their site.
•
The radioactive waste at COVRA is stored and safely managed in specially
designed buildings until 2130. These buildings provide a level of safety
comparable to a geological disposal. The Dutch geological disposal is
foreseen to be in operation in 2130. The waste at the site of COVRA will
then be transferred to the geological disposal facility. This National
Program complies with directive EU 2011/70.
•
This storage at COVRA provides a high level of safety, which eliminates
the necessity of a disposal facility to be built earlier than 2130.
•
Apart from the absence of the necessity for The Netherlands to have in
operation a geological storage facility in 2050 from a safety point of view,
it will be technically and financially unfeasible to meet the criterion of an
operational geological storage, due to the short time period to design and
build such a site.
Accident tolerant fuels
Regarding ‘do no significant harm’-criterion 2, setting a requirement for the use of
accident-tolerant fuel for nuclear power plants, The Netherlands is of the opinion
that it is better not to include this in the ‘do no significant harm’-criteria, until it is
Pagina 2 van 6

Directoraat-generaal Klimaat
en Energie

scientifically absolutely clear that these type of fuels are actually safer in general,
and specifically in the type of nuclear power plants that are in use in Europe. This
is currently not the case yet. We therefore propose striking this criterion at this
stage.

Ons kenmerk
DGKE / 22005792

Other do no significant harm criteria
In addition The Netherlands has feedback on the DNSH-criteria for this activity.
Feedback regarding the sustainable use of water resources:
The Netherlands is reiterating that the activity should be in line with recitals 23
and 26, and articles 12, 14, 15 and 17 of the Regulation, and the Union legislation
to which they refer. We very much support the idea of keeping (ground) water
safe from contamination and heat, also in the context of environmental
degradation. However, the risks resulting from increased water temperature on
the ecological function (ecosystem functioning, loss of species and vulnerability to
invasive species) are not addressed explicitly enough. This should be addressed
by adding the following: “Environmental degradation risks related to preserving
water quality and avoiding water stress, such as the ecological function of the
affected water body, are identified and addressed, in accordance with a water use
and protection management plan, developed in consultation with relevant
stakeholders.” We furthermore invite the Commission to address the topic of
vaporisation as part of the activity and the availability of fresh water in river and
lake systems during times of draught, again also in light of environmental and
ecosystem degradation risks. We support the concept of a “water use and
protection management plan” to be established with all stakeholders as proposed
in additional criteria 3 to the DNSH principle, but also urge that more clarity is
brought into this text where it states “avoiding water stress”. This in our view
includes the water available (quantity) for the nuclear power plant and to all other
(downstream) water uses depending on the source of water. The minimal use of
water for cooling and techniques for safe discharge should be brought in to the
best-in-class technology criteria.
Mining and milling
The Netherlands feels an additional (life-cycle) analysis addressing why the impact
of mining and milling for uranium was not addressed in the Delegated Act should
be provided by the Commission. This issue was referred to by the SCHEER, but
not addressed in the draft delegated act.
4.28

Electricity generation from nuclear energy in existing installations

We refer to the feedback provided under 4.27.

4.29

Electricity generation from fossil gaseous fuels

Primarily, The Netherlands is opposed to including any exception to the 100 gram
CO2e/kWh threshold in the green taxonomy. This threshold is supported by
scientific evidence: both the recent IPCC-report on 1,5 degrees, and the IEA have

Pagina 3 van 6

Directoraat-generaal Klimaat
en Energie

made clear that new fossil fuel investments are incompatible with the 1.5 degrees
objective, which is enshrined in the taxonomy regulation (art. 10-2).

Ons kenmerk
DGKE / 22005792

Based on the available science, the Platform proposed this technology-neutral
threshold of 100 gram CO2e/kWh. The Commission has not provided scientific
evidence to support deviating from this threshold, which was already included in
the first delegated act, both explicitly and as a benchmark for many other
thresholds (e.g. with regard to manufacturing). Including exceptions to that
threshold, as proposed by the Commission in activities 4.29, 4.30 and 4.31, does
in our view not meet the requirement that the technical screening criteria ‘be
based on conclusive scientific evidence and the precautionary principle enshrined
in Article 191 TFEU’, as per article 19-1f of the taxonomy regulation.
Based on scientific evidence, including fossil fuels as sustainable under the
taxonomy regulation – even if this is for a limited period of time – would
potentially undermine the credibility of the taxonomy as a tool to prevent
greenwashing.
Secondarily, The Netherlands is in favour of addressing the role of coal/oil-tonatural gas switching only as amber or ‘intermediate performance’ in a general
taxonomy. The Platform has delivered a draft report on the general taxonomy last
July, and is expected to release a final report in Q1 2022. The Commissions’
proposed Substantial Contribution threshold for electricity generation from fossil
gaseous fuels is the same 270 gr CO2e/kWh as the DNSH-threshold proposed by
the Platform and supported by science. This performance level, between 100gr
and 270gr, should only be used as an ‘amber’ or ‘intermediate performance’
category in a general taxonomy. The Netherlands would like to note that such an
extension of the taxonomy would require a level 1 legislative act.
Thirdly, in the event that fossil gaseous fuels are included in the taxonomy despite
the above arguments, The Netherlands strongly urges the Commission to further
limit the scope of inclusion, with stricter and additional technical screening criteria,
in order to decrease the risk of lock-in in unsustainable fossil fuels. We propose
various elements, to be included jointly. All of these conditions together would in
the view of the Netherlands be required to meet technical screening criteria for
this activity.
1. The Netherlands proposes adjusting the deadline for the exception for
gas-powered plants (“for the construction permit is granted by”) to 2025.
2. Under technical screening criterion i), we propose amending the threshold
for direct GHG emissions of the activity to 230gr CO2e/kWh, which
correlates with the best available technology in this sector. There should
be no reference to average annual emissions, and no separate threshold
of 550 kgCO2/kW. This addresses security of supply, which is not the
taxonomy’s objective. In addition, as average annual emissions can also
be lowered by reducing operational hours, this criterion would allow for
high emission facilities to be eligible as sustainable under the taxonomy,
which would not help the taxonomy’s objective of combatting
greenwashing.

Pagina 4 van 6

Directoraat-generaal Klimaat
en Energie

Ons kenmerk

3. Under technical screening criterion iii), we propose including a
DGKE / 22005792
requirement that the facility to be replaced by the gas power plant, has
been in full operation in the year prior to the replacement. This is needed
to prevent that facilities that have already been retired for either
regulatory or financial reasons, would be used to greenwash new fossil
power facilities.
4. The Netherlands proposes including a high burden of proof to
demonstrate that electricity in this location cannot be generated from
renewable energy sources. We request the Commission to detail how and
when this burden of proof can be met, both technically and economically.
5. With regard to technical screening criterion v., The Netherlands proposes
that the production capacity of the (single) facility does not exceed the
capacity of the replaced facility. In addition, there should be an additional
requirement that the new facility has no more capacity then the actual
power output over the last years of the facility that is being replaced.
6. Technical screening criterion vi. should be amended to read: “the
replacement leads to an immediate reduction in emissions of at least 55%
GHG per kWh of output energy from the first year of operation of the
facility”. In addition, a policy commitment is insufficient as underlying
evidence for fuel switching. There needs to be assurance that this fuel
switch actually takes place by the deadlines set in the technical screening
criteria.
7. Technical screening criterion vii., which states that the activity takes
place on the territory of a Member State that has committed to phase-out
the use of energy generation from coal, should include the phrase “by at
least 2035”.
8. We propose that the exception to only be applicable for Member States
with a large share of fossil fuels in their electricity mix at the time of
approval for the project.
9. The requirements to avoid methane leakage under technical screening
criterion 2 should both be met, so that it would not suffice to just meet
one. In addition, this should be verified by a certified and independent
third party, and included in the review by the Commission.
10. The Netherlands requests the Commission to address the upstream and
life-cycle effects of methane leakage (based on the latest available
science) in the technical screening criteria, and include these emissions
as counting towards the applicable threshold for this activity.
Additionally and importantly, for this activity it should be made clear that only
CAPEX investments can count as having a substantial contribution for climate
mitigation, and only for improvements in performance. OPEX should not be
eligible as sustainable investment under the taxonomy. Where the CAPEX
investment might actually have a short-term and potentially substantial
contribution in reducing harmful emissions, incentivising the continued operation
of fossil fuel power plants creates incentives that lock-in these unsustainable
technologies. Therefore, operational expenditures should not be eligible under this
exception.

Pagina 5 van 6

Directoraat-generaal Klimaat
en Energie

4.30

High-efficiency co- generation of heat/cool and power from fossil
gaseous fuels

Ons kenmerk
DGKE / 22005792

We refer to the comments made in response to activity 4.29, which apply for this
activity as well.

4.31

Production of heat/cool from fossil gaseous fuels in an efficient
district heating and cooling system

We refer to the comments made in response to activity 4.29, which apply for this
activity as well.

General remarks on do no significant harm
Cumulative and cross-border effects are not explicitly mentioned in the DNSHcriteria for all economic activities in this draft delegated act. The Netherlands
invites the Commission to explicitly account for these effects in the DNSH-criteria
for pollution prevention and control.

Reporting
NL is in favor of the proposed separate reporting obligation with regard to the
activities covered in this (draft) complementary delegated act.
We look forward to continuing our joint efforts for a science-based and
technology-neutral taxonomy, and request for a swift adoption of the definitive
complementary delegated act by the Commission. The Netherlands will
subsequently decide on our position with regard to this definitive complementary
delegated act.

Best regards,

Roel Glasbeek
Permanent expert to the Member States Expert Group on Sustainable Finance

Pagina 6 van 6