OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Alfa Laval Corporate AB

AL

Alfa Laval is a leading global provider of first-rate products in the areas of heat transfer, separation and fluid handling.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament) and Euroheat and Power

10 Jul 2025 · Event: The Future of Clean Heating and Cooling – Preparing the EU Strategy

Meeting with Apostolos Tzitzikostas (Commissioner) and

1 Jul 2025 · Strategic Dialogue on the EU Industrial Maritime Strategy

Meeting with Stéphane Séjourné (Executive Vice-President) and

1 Jul 2025 · EU Strategic Dialogue on the EU Industrial Maritime Strategy.

Meeting with Mark Nicklas (Head of Unit Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs) and EUPPORTUNITY (QB, Lda.) and LP Brussels

28 Jan 2025 · Innovative solutions for the decarbonisation of ships

Meeting with Tomas Anker Christensen (Cabinet of Commissioner Dan Jørgensen)

16 Dec 2024 · Potential role of business in support of EU's energy diplomacy

Meeting with Tomas Tobé (Member of the European Parliament) and Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and Orgalim – Europe's Technology Industries

24 Sept 2024 · Industrial and Transport Policy

Meeting with Kurt Vandenberghe (Director-General Climate Action)

24 Sept 2024 · “crafting the Green Deal”

Meeting with Kerstin Jorna (Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

23 Sept 2024 · Exchange on economic challenges and single market

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

17 Dec 2020

We welcome the opportunity to give feedback on the draft Delegated Acts on climate change mitigation and adaptation. We support the ambitions in the European Green Deal and hence the development of instruments to achieve these. Please find our comments to the draft Delegated Acts attached.
Read full response

Response to FuelEU Maritime

24 Apr 2020

Dear DG-move, I will not spend time on telling how much I appreciate all the valuable policy making the paper aims at. I will instead point on the few issues I have with the text in the Roadmap, so cutting to the cheese. Under headline “Problem the initiative aims to tackle” – starting at line 5, the following sentence: "In addition, significant emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter significantly contributed to air pollution in coastal areas and port cities, where ship engines are still being used to produce the necessary power during the port visit.” The issue I have with the sentence is that it is value laden. “Significantly contribution” – how much is significant? It cannot be as much as at open sea, since the port load is so much lower than oceangoing load. Further, the sentence might imply that we have no regulation for those mentioned pollutants or at worst that ships do not comply with the regulations. In general I would prefer to stick to the GHG issue at stake – yes, there are other side benefits cutting GHG, however, it is not the focus. The next sentence continues: “This increase is driven by the growth in transport activity not compensated by corresponding increase in energy efficiency, owing to slow implementation of emission reduction measures and persistent heavy reliance on hydrocarbon fuels. While further improvements in energy efficiency are necessary, this initiative focuses on accelerating the market uptake of sustainable alternative maritime fuels.” I would instead say: “The 32% increase is due to the growth in transport activity not compensated by corresponding increase in energy efficiency, as those emission reduction measures were enforced too late to catch up with the actual increase and since no real alternative to hydrocarbon fuels has been available. While further improvements in energy efficiency are necessary, this initiative focuses on accelerating the market uptake of sustainable alternative maritime fuels.” Referring to the 32% leaves no doubt of what we are talking about – hence this proposed change. “Driven by” might imply that it is still ongoing, but what we are talking about is something that happened in the past – hence propose to insert “due to” instead. I would argue that it is not “slow implementation” that have caused the lack of leveling out, but enforcement steps (EEDI phases) that did not catch up – hence the proposed text. And the last part proposed to be amended; as it stands now it implies that shipowners had all the choices of alternatives, they did just not pick them, which of cause is and was not the situation – hence the last proposal to change the wording. Under the same heading bullet point 2: The phrase “to secure” is not the proper expression. It is the physical properties we are talking about and those cannot be “secured”. Propose to exchange “to secure” with “for”. Under heading “Likely economic impacts”, second paragraph, third sentence. Please rephrase, I simply don’t understand what it is intending to say. Under heading “Likely environmental impacts”, second bullet point. If bio-fuels will become the most popular used fuel also in port, PM will not be reduced, perhaps quite the opposite. To solve the various problems in this bullet point, be less specific and simply make a full stop where the comma is and delete the rest of the sentence. Further on bullet point 3. I don’t know what is envisioned. Big diesel engines will still be the main energy converters onboard ships – and they are noisy. Instead be specific instead of “negative” and refer to OSP supply. It could be done as follows; however, I don’t suggest using it – it is just a clumsy example: “Reduction of noise emissions if regulatory measures require zero emissions from stack while at port (so indirectly requirement to on-shore power supply, on-board batteries or fuel cells).” These were the comments. Best of wishes with the onward going work.
Read full response