OpenLobby.EU
Explore

ANDRITZ HYDRO GmbH

ANDRITZ HYDRO

ANDRITZ HYDRO GmbH, a subsidiary of Andritz AG, is an energy service provider that markets and supplies electro-mechanical systems and services for hydropower plants.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament) and WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle and

21 Jan 2025 · Critical Raw Materials

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

18 Dec 2020

Being a major player in the hydropower industry, Andritz welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed draft delegated acts. In general, we welcome that Hydropower is no longer classified as “transitional” activity but as a sustainable renewable technology that contributes to the mitigation and adaption. However, we are concerned about the technical screening criteria and the general assessment of hydropower. Hydropower still risks being considered not fully sustainable and there are extensive consequences for the perception of hydropower and electricity storage if the draft delegated acts do not change substantially. The main concerns regarding hydropower and electricity storage (specifically for pumped hydro) are: • Regarding the DNSH criteria, the draft Delegated Act and its Annexes bear the risk of creating a double standard for hydropower • The current version fails to put forth a technology-neutral approach for all renewable generation technologies (namely hydropower) as well as for electricity storage technologies Treating hydropower and pumped hydro storage unequal compared with other renewables will not only hamper development of sustainable hydropower and other renewables within the European Union and thus put a central and enabling element of the safe energy transition in question. It even may lead to a loss of flexible clean electricity needed in keeping the level of security of supply. Such imbalance also weakens a traditional European “home market” for a worldwide technology and market leading industry. Europe was the cradle of hydropower. Almost all milestones in the technological development of hydropower have been and are still set in Europe or by European headquartered companies. All in all, the “big three” equipment manufacturers are all EU based and together with 50+ smaller companies they are leading the world market with a share of about 50-65%. They are in permanent interaction with hydropower operators but also with a broad community of universities and research institutes, construction firms, engineers and consultants across Europe. An unbalanced approach in taxonomy would not only undermine the European hydropower “home market”. It has its direct and indirect effect on export, namely when financing projects outside the EU. It is to be expected that the European Taxonomy Regulation will be an important benchmark for proof of sustainability, at least for European export credit agencies. But the pressure will not only come from the financial markets and from export credit agencies, but also from customers when sustainable, taxonomy compliant project financing is requested. Then European suppliers (e.g. equipment manufacturers) would have an additional "burden of proof", both vis-à-vis their customers and agencies in order to show that the project and the technology supplied is sustainable. The result would be a clear competitive disadvantage compared to competition from non-EU countries. Therefore, we suggest making the following changes to the draft Delegated Act and its Annexes: • Apply the same technical screening criteria for all renewable generation technologies • Make a singular reference to the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the DNSH for Objective 3, Sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources • Include all renewable electricity generation technologies, as defined by RED II in the activity ‘Installation, maintenance and repair of renewable energy technologies’ • Categorize all electricity storage technologies as economic activities substantially contributing to climate change mitigation and not as enabling activities. • Do neither distinct between “closed-loop” and “mixed” pumped hydropower storage nor between them and other storage technologies, when it comes to specific DNSH criteria. Find the details with regards to ANDRITZ Hydro’s response on Hydropower in the attached file.
Read full response