OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Utilitalia, Imprese Acqua Ambiente Energia

Utilitalia

Utilitalia is an Italian federation representing utilities in water, energy, and environmental services.

Lobbying Activity

Italian utilities urge EU to include waste-to-energy and renewable sales

5 Dec 2025
Topic — The European Commission is reviewing environmental criteria for the EU sustainable finance taxonomy.
Message — The federation wants taxonomy criteria aligned with existing EU water and waste directives. They propose including waste-to-energy and renewable energy sales as sustainable activities. They also call for flexible leakage targets to reflect the reality of aging infrastructure.123
Why — Inclusion of energy sales would allow utilities to report significantly higher green revenue figures.4
Impact — Recycling advocates may argue that labeling incineration as sustainable undermines the circular economy.5
Read full response

Utilitalia Proposes Carbon Credits to Support European Recycling

6 Nov 2025
Topic — The EU is consulting on legislative measures to promote sustainable production and circular economy business models.
Message — Utilitalia requests new 'Circular Carbon Credits' to reward the energy and carbon savings of recycled materials. They also demand harmonized EU rules for when waste becomes a raw material and full producer funding for electronic waste collection.123
Why — These measures would help local waste managers compete with cheaper virgin materials and ensure long-term economic sustainability.45
Impact — Manufacturers would face higher expenses for the total collection and processing of electronics once they become waste.67
Read full response

Utilitalia urges specific deadlines for energy reporting platforms

15 Sept 2025
Topic — This consultation details rules for authorizing and supervising energy market reporting entities.
Message — Utilitalia requests that conflict rules apply only to commercial entities. They seek firm deadlines for technical updates and exclusion of over-the-counter trades from reconciliation.123
Why — The proposals would reduce compliance burdens and protect members from potential legal risks.4
Impact — Regulators would have less oversight of energy trades if reconciliation requirements are narrowed.5
Read full response

Utilitalia urges higher thresholds for energy exposure reporting

15 Sept 2025
Topic — This consultation updates rules for reporting wholesale energy market data to ACER.
Message — Utilitalia wants higher thresholds to exclude smaller energy companies from exposure reporting. They suggest shortening the timeframe for reporting future energy production and consumption. They request simplified reporting for automated trading instead of complex identification codes.123
Why — This would simplify operations and lower technical compliance costs for energy companies.45
Impact — Regulators lose access to granular data on specific daily algorithmic trading strategies.6
Read full response

Utilitalia urges alignment with EU waste classification systems

24 Jul 2025
Topic — Regulation defining a list of products with critical raw materials recovery potential.
Message — Utilitalia recommends structuring product categories according to the EU WEEE classification system for consistency. They propose adding "Fluorescent lamps and LED modules", "Battery black mass", and ash from sewage sludge combustion.123
Why — Better alignment would improve traceability and support more efficient recycling and recovery processes.4
Read full response

Utilitalia calls for safeguards in fast electricity switching rules

17 Jun 2025
Topic — This consultation establishes interoperability requirements for 24-hour electricity supplier switching across the EU.
Message — Utilitalia requests secure identity verification to prevent unauthorized switching while ensuring access for non-digital users. They propose allowing the exchange of consumption data before contracts are signed to speed up the process. The association also suggests limiting switching frequency to prevent debt-dodging by opportunistic customers.123
Why — These measures would protect energy companies from financial losses caused by unpaid bills.4
Impact — Customers with outstanding debts could be blocked from switching to cheaper energy providers.5
Read full response

Response to European Water Resilience Strategy

4 Mar 2025

Utilitalia ritiene che la strategia europea debba favorire ladattamento agli impatti climatici, garantendo un approvvigionamento idrico sicuro e sostenibile. Laccelerazione del ciclo dell'acqua causa lalternanza tra siccità e piogge intense, compromettendo l'approvvigionamento idrico, soprattutto nellEuropa meridionale, e aumentando il rischio di alluvioni. È necessario incrementare i finanziamenti infrastrutturali, per colmare il gap esistente, proteggere le fonti e innovare i sistemi di gestione. Queste sfide richiedono operatori industriali, meccanismi regolatori efficaci e finanziamenti adattivi, per sostenere progetti a lungo termine. Vanno altresì promossi i partenariati pubblico-privati, nonché una governance centralizzata, per superare la frammentazione e garantire una gestione efficiente. Il Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza e il Piano Nazionale di Interventi Infrastrutturali e per la Sicurezza del Settore Idrico hanno consentito di rilanciare gli investimenti, ma occorre fare di più. Sono essenziali strumenti di investimento europei, finanziati con risorse UE, destinati alle opere strategiche e agli operatori più efficienti, dotati delle competenze per gestire adeguatamente progetti e interventi. Il rilancio degli investimenti richiede anche una semplificazione delle procedure di autorizzazione dei progetti, oggi troppo complesse. Agli interventi classici (sistemi di accumulo, anche ad uso multiplo, rinnovo delle reti, impianti di trattamento) occorre affiancare soluzioni innovative, come le nature based solutions. In aree urbanizzate, infrastrutture sostenibili come tetti verdi e opere di infiltrazione possono ridurre il deflusso superficiale e mitigare il rischio di allagamenti. Vanno però definite chiaramente competenze e modalità di finanziamento, così da ottimizzare la promozione di queste best practices. Occorre altresì promuovere una cultura dellacqua, responsabilizzando cittadini ed imprese su un uso consapevole della risorsa. È necessario promuovere la diversificazione delle fonti, attraverso il riuso delle acque reflue trattate e la dissalazione. Il riuso può coprire una parte significativa della domanda irrigua (e non solo), ma la sua diffusione richiede un quadro di governance solido, che individui chiaramente responsabilità e ripartizione dei costi. La dissalazione, invece, offre una soluzione innovativa per l'approvvigionamento potabile nelle aree costiere e nelle isole minori. Il servizio idrico può aiutare a combattere i cambiamenti climatici anche in altri modi: l'utilizzo dei fanghi di depurazione, ad esempio, consente di contrastare la desertificazione dei suoli e migliorare la permeabilità dei suoli. La gestione dei fanghi deve seguire i principi dell'economia circolare, promuovendo il recupero di energia e materia, il cui mercato deve essere incentivato. Anche la tecnologia può contribuire alla resilienza: ad esempio, le tecniche di ricarica della falda (MAR) sono essenziali per aumentare le riserve idriche sotterranee e contrastare l'intrusione del cuneo salino nelle aree costiere. Un contributo significativo può giungere anche dal settore idroelettrico, con gli invasi che garantiscono risorse nei periodi di scarsità. La tutela della risorsa idrica non può prescindere dalla protezione delle fonti, in particolare da inquinanti emergenti come i PFAS, la lotta ai quali richiede tecnologie avanzate e l'applicazione del principio "chi inquina paga". Un ulteriore pericolo è costituito anche dagli eventi climatici estremi, che compromettono la qualità e richiedono interventi costosi per garantire il rispetto degli standard. In conclusione, la strategia di resilienza idrica è cruciale per affrontare le sfide climatiche. Investimenti adeguati, unità dintenti, soluzioni innovative e una gestione sostenibile delle risorse idriche sono essenziali per un futuro sicuro e resiliente.
Read full response

Response to Implementing Act on non-price criteria in renewable energy auctions

21 Feb 2025

1. Premessa Utilitalia ritiene utile rimarcare la necessità che i criteri non-price eventualmente introdotti nella definizione delle aste per la diffusione delle FER non vadano ad ostacolare il corretto sviluppo di tali tecnologie e/o a determinare un incremento dei costi, che inevitabilmente si ripercuoterebbe sul prezzo dellenergia applicato al Cliente finale. Con riferimento allo sviluppo delle FER, considerato che tutti gli Stati Membri sono chiamati a sviluppare tali tecnologie per rispettare gli obblighi di penetrazione delle rinnovabili con il medesimo orizzonte temporale e che il NZIA si propone come obiettivo lincremento della capacità produttiva in seno allEuropa, non appare sufficientemente tutelato il rischio volume del mercato dei materiali. Tale situazione è stata già vissuta dagli Operatori negli ultimi anni e nel caso in cui uno Stato Membro rilevi una carenza strutturale di tecnologie provenienti dallUE tale da non permettere di allocare lintero contingente, non sembra siano previste leve sufficienti a derogare i criteri NZIA. Inoltre, tenuto conto che i criteri non-price possono concorrere nella misura massima del 30% e che ai criteri relativi a sostenibilità e resilienza deve essere attribuita una ponderazione minima del 15% ciò comporta che eventuali ulteriori e differenti criteri non-price individuati dallo Stato Membro sulla base di proprie necessità specifiche si ritroverebbero ad essere fortemente depotenziati. Da ultimo, appare necessario che venga chiarita la modalità di applicazione di tali criteri per asta, nel caso in cui un meccanismo introdotto dallo Stato Membro preveda ex-ante larticolazione di più aste secondo uno specifico calendario. Da non sottovalutare infine le criticità che potrebbero nascere per certificare ex-ante e verificare ex-post il rispetto di criteri quali la sostenibilità o la resilienza per gli investimenti di cui in parola. Di seguito alcune considerazioni puntuali. 2. Contributo alla resilienza art. 7 Si ritiene necessario chiarire che lintroduzione di criteri non-price debba al più configurarsi come un requisito preferenziale in sede di aggiudicazione dei contingenti, ma non ostativo alla partecipazione allasta da parte dei Soggetti proponenti. Ciò al fine di contenere il rischio di una insufficiente partecipazione e quindi della non totale aggiudicazione del lotto. Inoltre, i criteri, come specificato allart. 26 del NZIA, devono essere "non discriminatori" e pertanto l'atto di esecuzione dovrebbe garantire che i criteri individuati tengano conto delle caratteristiche e peculiarità delle diverse fonti tecnologiche. Per quanto riguarda, in aggiunta, la relazione della Commissione circa landamento delle quote di approvvigionamento delle tecnologie e dei loro componenti specifici da Paesi terzi, particolare attenzione deve essere posta al fatto che le scelte degli Operatori saranno inevitabilmente influenzate dagli esiti di tale relazione, anche in termini di accordi contrattuali per lapprovvigionamento dei componenti. Da ultimo, il tema dei controlli e delle verifiche relativamente al rispetto dei criteri: se infatti un Operatore può verificare la provenienza (doganale) della tecnologia, appare più complessa la verifica sui singoli componenti. LOperatore, infatti, potrà richiedere al più delle dichiarazioni di rispondenza ai requisiti al proprio fornitore per attestare la compliance dellintera filiera a monte, ma non dovrà avere lonere di verificare leffettiva veridicità della dichiarazione e pertanto non dovrà in alcun modo essere ritenuto responsabile di eventuali dichiarazioni mendaci. 3. Cybersecurity e data-security art. 5 Con riferimento ai criteri di prequalifica proposti, si segnala lopportunità di valutare, oltre alla conformità alla Direttiva NIS2, già citata nella proposta di atto di esecuzione, anche la coerenza con quanto previsto dalla Direttiva UE2022/2557, cd. Direttiva CER (Critical Entities Resilience).
Read full response

Utilitalia: Utilities Are Central to EU Industrial Competitiveness

31 Jan 2025
Topic — A strategy for a single market allowing companies to scale and compete globally.
Message — Utilities should be recognized as essential foundations for European productivity and growth. They call for mandatory quotas to ensure industries use recycled European materials. The association seeks faster permit approvals and support for utility company mergers.123
Why — Utilities would gain guaranteed demand for recycled goods and increased industrial scale.4
Impact — Exporters of raw materials and fossil fuels from outside Europe would lose revenue.5
Read full response

Meeting with Nicola Procaccini (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Jan 2025 · Introductory Meeting

Meeting with Camilla Laureti (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Jan 2025 · Acqua ambiente energia

Utilitalia seeks clearer distinction between low-carbon and renewable fuels

25 Oct 2024
Topic — This consultation concerns the methodology for calculating greenhouse gas savings for low-carbon fuels.
Message — Utilitalia wants the methodology revised to avoid confusing low-carbon status with renewable energy inputs. They seek to maintain a clear legislative distinction between renewable fuels and low-carbon fuels.12
Why — This would provide regulatory clarity for utility operators and avoid conflicting interpretations of rules.3
Read full response

Utilitalia urges EU to recognize sewage sludge as bio-resource

17 May 2024
Topic — This consultation addresses the management of nutrients and agricultural pollution under the Nitrates Directive.
Message — The organization calls for a revision of EU rules to include more sewage sludge derivatives. They argue that current regulations fail to value sludge as an essential bio-resource.12
Why — Italian water utilities would improve the marketability of their waste and reduce foreign dependencies.3
Impact — Chemical fertilizer manufacturers lose market share as organic recycled nutrients are prioritized.4
Read full response

Response to Guidance to Member States and market actors to unlock private investments in energy efficiency (EED recast)

26 Feb 2024

Si trasmettono le osservazioni Utilitalia alla Consultazione in oggetto
Read full response

Response to Guidance to facilitate the designation of renewables acceleration areas

23 Feb 2024

Si trasmettono le Osservazioni Utilitalia - Energie rinnovabili - orientamenti sulla designazione delle zone di accelerazione per le energie rinnovabili
Read full response

Response to Technical specifications for the preparation of risk management plans to ensure the safe reuse of treated waste water in

8 Feb 2024

Description of the water reuse system We suggest maintaining the definition of "point of compliance" referred to in Regulation 2020/741 and indicating the elements of the reuse system that distinguish "direct" reuse. We also suggest the following changes: - the outlet point of the treated waste water resulting from the LAST treatment stage, if the reclamation facility and the urban waste water treatment plant are the same; - the outlet point of the resulting reclaimed water, IF THE POINT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE OR THE RECLAMATION FACILITY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. Production of reclaimed water 4. In the discharge authorizations, the parameters and emission limits must be set "in consultation with the operator of the WWTP" and all data must be available to the operators. Distribution 2. Despite the reference to "pipelines", the introduction of the possibility of using open irrigation channels specifically dedicated to the transport of reuse water is also suggested. The use of chlorine for disinfection could be not very compatible with agricultural irrigation, so we suggest: 3. the management systems and strategies for controlling the physical, chemical and biological quality of reclaimed water during supply, including control ON ADDITIONAL POINTS OF DISINFECTION AND/OR RESIDUAL BIOCIDE TO PREVENT BACTERIAL REGROWTH Identification of all parties involved in the water reuse system and description of their roles and responsibilities Enhance the role and responsibilities of authority: Express an opinion on the risk management plan and COLLABORATE ON THE DEFINITION of threshold values (). PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE PRESCRIPTIONS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN CORRECT AND SAFE IRRIGATION PRACTICES (E.G. IN CASE OF WATER BLENDING) OR ANY OTHER REQUIREMENT FALLING WITHIN THE AUTHORITYS FIELD OF COMPETENCE. Hazards 5. Unregulated pollutants do not yet have defined analytical methods. For this reason, they should not be included in the list of substances to be investigated. As an alternative, we propose: 5. pollutants, that are not yet regulated (including micro-plastics or contaminants of emerging concern), BUT FOR WHICH WATCHING LISTS AND/OR THRESHOLD VALUES OF ACCEPTABILITY HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEFINED, identified in the reclaimed water () Hazardous events 4. e 5. Floods and earthquakes are extreme events, which can hardly be comprehensively considered in a water reuse risk management plan. 4. Drought events are among the main reasons that justify the use of water reuse. They cannot therefore represent a risk. Exposure routes The assessment of the risk of groundwater contamination should not be envisaged, as it is already included in the WSPs carried out by drinking water operators. Assessment of risks to the environment and to human and animal health 6 The risk validation can be done with only ONE of the proposed methodologies: from the wording of the sentence, in fact, this is not clear. Requirements and obligations to be taken into account in the risk assessment Direct discharge of treated wastewater must already comply with the requirements of the WFD. Therefore, it seems superfluous to subject water reused for irrigation purposes to the same assessment. Additional or stricter requirements for water quality and monitoring Any additional criteria must be based on solid technical-scientific evaluations; Proposals for purely precautionary purposes are not acceptable. Quality control systems and procedures Some of the procedures listed in the "Quality control systems and procedures" section appear redundant compared to those required by standards and normal industrial practices. Environmental monitoring systems It would be appropriate that the environmental monitoring system is placed under the responsibility of a relevant authority: The environmental monitoring system shall be set up AND CARRIED OUT BY THE RELEVANT AUTHORITY (E.G. LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY), in accordance with ()
Read full response

Utilitalia calls for flexible emission reporting for waste-to-energy

20 Aug 2023
Topic — Updating European Union rules for monitoring and reporting industrial greenhouse gas emissions.
Message — Utilitalia requests specific derogations for waste-to-energy plants due to the high heterogeneity of waste fuels. They propose simplifying sampling frequencies and using emission factors based on the total mass of waste. They also seek standard emission factors during the initial monitoring phase.123
Why — Reducing measurement accuracy requirements and sampling frequency would significantly lower operational costs.45
Impact — Climate regulators would receive less granular data on the carbon intensity of waste.67
Read full response

Italian utilities urge EU to avoid structural electricity revenue caps

23 May 2023
Topic — EU consultation on reforming electricity market design to lower costs and boost renewables.
Message — Utilitalia advocates for keeping market-based pricing and avoiding structural caps on inframarginal revenues. They propose voluntary power purchase agreements supported by public guarantees rather than mandatory obligations for suppliers. Additionally, they request fewer reporting and data-sharing burdens for distribution system operators.123
Why — Avoiding mandatory requirements would lower compliance costs and protect energy companies from financial risk.4
Impact — The general public or taxpayers would likely pay for social protections instead of the energy companies.5
Read full response

Utilitalia demands inclusion of renewable energy sales in taxonomy

3 May 2023
Topic — The consultation establishes a classification for investments contributing to European environmental objectives.
Message — The group wants the sale of renewable energy to be considered a green activity. They also seek the inclusion of intercompany activities in sustainability reporting.123
Why — This change would allow multi-utilities to access more capital via sustainable finance.45
Impact — Industrial groups are currently penalized by accounting rules that hide their green investments.67
Read full response

Utilitalia Urges More Flexible Water and Waste Taxonomy Rules

3 May 2023
Topic — EU consultation on establishing environmental classification criteria for sustainable economic investment activities.
Message — Utilitalia suggests adopting a gradual increase for leakage indexes to avoid disincentivizing investments in ageing networks. They also propose including waste incineration with energy recovery as a key enabler of the circular economy.123
Why — These changes would enable more green investment qualification while reducing administrative compliance costs.45
Impact — Environmental advocates lose as lower efficiency targets may reduce the ambition of water conservation efforts.6
Read full response

Meeting with Pietro Fiocchi (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

12 Apr 2023 · Urban wastewater treatment (recast)

Meeting with Patrizia Toia (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

18 May 2022 · Hydrogen and decarbonised gas markets package

Response to Waste Framework review to reduce waste and the environmental impact of waste management

22 Feb 2022

RESPONSE TO CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT – REVISION OF EU WASTE FRAMEWORK We at Utilitalia, the national federation of Italian utilities providing public services in the sectors of environment, water and energy, welcome the involvement of stakeholders in the revision of Directive 98/2008/EC, with some initial considerations. WASTE PREVENTION Talking about waste prevention targets, we must not refer to absolute targets, but we should link this reduction to socioeconomic indicators. A greater efficiency in the use of resources is not linked to a simple waste reduction, but to a reduction in the "intensity of production" of waste per unit of product or service, and to greater recyclability of waste linked to a best product design. For this reason, targets must be supported in advance by a waste analysis to address the reduction measures and EU must give objectives for waste reduction, indicators and calculation methodologies SEPARATE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, RECYCLING QUALITY 1. What kind of harmonization? We agree that the quality of recycling also depends on the efficiency of the collection models, and that this is not adequate in every European country. But even if some collection models may tend to seem more efficient than others (in terms of quantity and quality), it is not recommended to impose a unique model on every context. The choice of a collection model depends on many factors and there is no better model than others at an absolute level Therefore, any solution aimed at the "harmonization" of collection systems should not be binding, nor concern organizational and logistical aspects, nor impact the organization of entities that already have high separate collection and recycling performance. 2. Act on product design to improve the quality of recycling Moreover "the low recycling rates and the low quality of recycled materials" are not always and only due to the "inefficiency of separate collection", but also to the quality of the products put on the market. EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY We support the role of EPR schemes as a tool to improve the application of the "polluter pays" principle. To this end, it is important that EPR covers the full cost of efficient waste management and is applied to new categories of products, introducing economic levers capable of encouraging a better design of the products put on the market. Furthermore it is necessary to define what escapes the scope of responsibility when multiple compliance schemes operate in the same category of products. Without an Autority supervision, each subject would be interested in achieving its own recycling targets just by concentrating on the most valuable part of the flow, and leaving the burden of ensuring the management of less noble or unclear fractions to the public service, affecting general recycling performance and public spending. Please find Utilitalia's full position in attachment.
Read full response

Response to EU strategy for sustainable textiles

29 Jan 2021

The European Commission Roadmap well describes, in a general and concise manner, the main challenges affecting the textile industry and supply chain. The suggestions below are an expression of the point of view of municipal waste management operators. As part of the planned measures, it is suggested to give priority, at least in chronological terms, to the implementation of an effective European Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). The financial responsibility of producers with respect to the sustainability of products they place on the market (durability, recyclability, presence of substances of concern, microplastics, etc.) and to the management of their end of life (construction and technological innovation of recycling plants) would prevent that, at least in the first phase, the cost of the transition to a circular economy is borne above all by citizens, municipalities and companies responsible for waste management, or exclusively by public resources (i.e. Recovery Plan). Today in Italy the economic sustainability of municipal textile waste management is based on the market value of the noblest fraction (those prepared for reuse) and on the export of fractions with a negative value, sent for recovery or disposal in non-European countries. Global dynamics (also highlighted by the studies quoted in the Roadmap) suggest that the share of directly reusable municipal textile waste will gradually decrease and also their market value will decrease to the point that their management will soon become a cost too. For this purpose, by way of example, the following are mentioned: • the increase in supply, due to the increase of textile waste collected following the obligation of separate collection by 2025 (anticipated in Italy to January 1, 2022) and the new recycling targets; • the increase in supply, due to the fact that other countries (United States, China, South Korea) have also begun to collect and place on the market their municipal textile waste; • the blocking of imports by some traditionally importing countries; • the reduction of the quality (durability, recyclability) of used clothing and textile fibers. Europe will therefore have to face in the short term the problem of how to manage within its territory (without exports) increasing quantities of less reusable and recyclable textile waste. This will require an important development of textile waste collection and recycling systems, and an increase in management costs that will have to be equally shared among the players in the supply chain, starting with the producers themselves, in order to avoid that the contradictions of an unsustainable model of production and consumption fall exclusively on the last phase of resource management (that of waste management). It is important to optimize logistics (the volume and low weight of textile waste affects the costs and environmental impacts of collection, transport and storage). To promote recycling of textile waste it is necessary to invest both in the construction of new plants and technologies for selection and recycling of fibers, in order to allow Europe to fibre-to-fibre recycle of textile waste expected by 2025, and to work on a European regulation on end of waste criteria that gives Member States common rules for a more fluid commercial circulation of products obtained from recycling, equal conditions between operators in the EU states, and greater control of the European market. Finally, we would like to reiterate the need to strengthen, as stated in the Road Map itself, transparency, traceability and legality along all stages of the textile waste management chain. To this end, the supply chain certification systems are among the tools that can be used.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

18 Dec 2020

Utilitalia, associazione che riunisce circa 450 tra le principali imprese italiane operanti nei settori idrico, energetico e dell’igiene ambientale, accoglie con favore la volontà della Commissione di procedere nell’implementazione della c.d. Taxonomy Regulation, che rappresenta un prerequisito essenziale per realizzare gli obiettivi del “EU Green Deal”. Solo un quadro di regole uniformi e sostenibili sul lungo periodo, orientato dal principio fondamentale della neutralità tecnologica, può indirizzare l’economia europea verso scelte di investimento ecosostenibili. Tuttavia, l’esame del testo posto in consultazione evidenzia che la direzione presa non è quella auspicata e che le scelte fatte non tengono conto dell’effettiva maturità tecnologica dei diversi settori, nonché del reale contributo che ciascuna attività può fornire rispetto alla riduzione delle emissioni climalteranti. Ciò si riflette nell’adozione di criteri di vaglio tecnico eccessivamente sfidanti, che rischiano di portare all’esclusione, dal novero delle attività ecosostenibili, di servizi essenziali per la sicurezza sanitaria delle comunità e la tutela degli ecosistemi (come ad esempio la costruzione e la gestione di reti idriche e depuratori), “green” per definizione. Anche alcune tecnologie di produzione di energia elettrica e termica, capaci di assicurare una drastica riduzione di emissioni di CO2 rispetto all’utilizzo di fonti tradizionali (in primis idroelettrico, biodigestione e cogenerazione), potrebbero restare escluse. Inoltre, il regolamento delegato non sembra considerare il potenziale contributo che determinate attività possono fornire, anche in un’ottica di transizione, alla lotta ai cambiamenti climatici (ad. es. Waste-to-Energy). Altro aspetto da evidenziare è quello relativo alla coerenza delle nuove regole rispetto all’ordinamento vigente. Gli atti delegati devono coordinarsi con le altre norme eurounitarie e nazionali, sia settoriali sia generali, evitando sovrapposizioni e problemi interpretativi. Occorre prevenire anche l’insorgere di conflitti: ad esempio, i vincoli sempre più stringenti fissati dalle nuove direttive europee sul trattamento di acque potabili e reflue non sono coniugabili con una drastica riduzione dei consumi energetici. In caso contrario, si rischia di svuotare l'interesse di imprese ed investitori rispetto alle attività sostenibili, spingendoli a focalizzarsi su attività tradizionali. Verrebbe quindi vanificato uno degli obiettivi del Regolamento Taxonomy: indirizzare i mercati finanziari verso il sostegno ad attività in linea con gli obiettivi ambientali dell’Unione. Il mercato della finanza sostenibile, infatti, è alimentato dal volume delle attività target. Ma se le regole imposte sono così stringenti da ridurre a residuali le attività potenzialmente eleggibili, si produce il paradosso per cui numerosi progetti che perseguono obiettivi di sostenibilità e resilienza risulteranno non investibili. Si ritiene quindi imprescindibile un intervento da parte della Commissione Europea sul testo del regolamento delegato teso a: • Rimuovere gli ostacoli di natura tecnica – elencati in dettaglio nell’allegato – che escludono dalla Tassonomia numerose attività capaci di contribuire alla lotta ai cambiamenti climatici. In particolare, vanno superati criteri, limiti e parametri eccessivamente stringenti e privi di progressività e di una necessaria differenziazione sulla base del contesto; • Procedere ad una graduale implementazione della Tassonomia, sia per valorizzare il potenziale contributo di alcune attività, considerate “tradizionali”, alla transizione energetica, sia per incrementare l’accettazione, da parte del mercato, dei nuovi paradigmi introdotti dal Regolamento (UE) 2020/852. Solo in questo modo sarà possibile indirizzare i mercati verso il sostegno a programmi di investimento realmente green, in grado di coniugare servizi e produzioni di qualità, rispetto dell’ambiente e sviluppo sociale ed economico.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001

21 Sept 2020

Directive 2009/28/EC recognised in its typical and default values the biomethane from municipal biowaste as sustainable, since was reaching the greenhouse gas saving targets of 60%. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 in its Annex VI has a different approach, and provides typical and default values of GHG savings for biomethane produced from bio-waste differentiating by “open” and “close” digestate and by the presence or not of the off-gas combustion. These default values show how biomethane produced from bio-waste and used for transport reaches the “sustainable” status only in the case of “close digestate” and contextual “off-gas combustion”. This is a critical aspect for the Italian sector that produces biomethane from bio-waste because none of these two considered setups completely fit with the specificity of the technology installed in Italy and in many plants in operation in other EU countries as well. In fact, instead of making a direct agronomic use of digestate that requires a prolonged (a few months) storage, which would justify a close storage of the digestate and a biogas recovery system, in the “Italian model” the digestate from bio-waste is immediately composted to produce a soil improver. This practice, according to the recently issued Waste Treatment BREF, is common in other Member States (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands) when the feedstock is mainly based on household bio-waste. This means in practice that the layout of Italian plants does not foresee any storage of digestate. In some cases, “storage” occurs for a very short time (e.g. one day) as an intermediate step before the digestate undergoes the aerobic treatment phase, losing the possibility of producing and releasing fugitive methane to the atmosphere. Precisely because the storage is short or simply does not exist, there is not even a digestate biogas recovery system. Utilitalia has made calculations for the specific layout of Italian plants, which resulted, even with very conservative assumptions, in the conclusion that such installations would be above the requested threshold for sustainability. As far as the off-gas combustion issue is concerned, one must stress the fact that nowadays several upgrading technologies developed are able to minimize the release of fugitive bio-methane through the off-gas stream without the need of the post-combustion section that, besides requiring further investments, requires an additional energy input (i.e. fossil or renewable methane) to operate. It would be very useful to include further GHG savings standards associated to specific methane emission thresholds related to different upgrading efficiencies and performances. The result of the current formulation in REDII is that default values according to which biomethane produced from bio-waste cannot reach sustainability thresholds except in the case of “Close digestate” and contextual “off-gas combustion” will stop investments in innovative solutions, that would be able in reality to provide important savings of greenhouse gas. Using an actual value would certainly not be a solution. First of all, the use of an actual value should be promoted when the case is a specific example and not when it refers to a layout considered in Waste Treatment BREF and common in many Member States. Secondly, calculating independently and periodically the sustainability of each consignment of biomethane (in addition to introduce elements of complexity and additional costs) will introduce a dangerous margin of indeterminacy and risk that would not reconcile with the certainty necessary to determine the sustainability of an investment as important as the construction of a new biogas-to-methane upgrading plant. For these reasons, we strongly believe that the revision of RED II should take into account properly the specificity of the integrated facilities, which will be able to provide a substantial contribution to the share of biofuels in Europe.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

4 Sept 2020

Utilitalia welcomes an update of the Waste Water Directive and its integration with the Sludge Directive, given the highly interconnected issues contained in the two directives. Moreover, we believe it is right to update the Directive also in the light of new technical-scientific knowledge and the new challenges that await us (eg, climate change, digitalization, technological innovation, ...), as well as the new regulatory framework based on the circular economy. In this sense, it is particularly useful to talk about issues such as energy efficiency, in consideration of the high energy consumption that typically characterizes wastewater treatment plants. The hope is that adequate incentives can be introduced. These issues must be placed on the same level as those of the reduction of pollution in water bodies and the protection of the aquatic and marine ecosystem. Furthermore, the issue of emerging pollutants and micropollutants, including pharmaceutical substances and microplastics, deserves a separate mention. These pollutants, increasingly produced by society, pass through wastewater treatment plants and arrive in the receiving water bodies. In this regard, we believe it is essential to reaffirm the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR). Producers must bear the responsibility and costs for the treatment of these pollutants (for example the microplastics contained in personal care products), thus declining the principle set out in the same Water Framework Directive (polluter pays principle). In fact, wastewater treatment plants cannot be considered the final stage on which to discharge all the pollutants produced, leaving plant managers the responsibility of providing for their treatment - with costs, however, borne by the entire community. We therefore believe that this is a central issue for the updating of the Directive and must be suitably implemented there.
Read full response

Response to EU Methane Strategy

5 Aug 2020

The EU Roadmap for the reduction of fugitive methane emissions is sharable, because methane has a greenhouse effect (GWP Global Warming Potential) about 21 times higher than CO2. However, according to the GHG Protocol - one of the highest greenhouse effect authorities - CH4 fugitive emissions derive mainly from losses on the gas transmission network: “… the EU imports most of the gas it consumes and the majority of methane emissions associated with this gas are emitted before reaching the EU’s borders ”. Objective of the Roadmap: " The main objective of this initiative is to identify the main areas of action to significantly reduce manmade methane emissions in the sectors of energy, agriculture and waste " The sewage sludge sector was also included in the road map, but this produces irrelevant quantities of CH4. Anaerobic digestion, which emits much higher quantities of methane, is not considered a process at risk of fugitive emissions and is therefore not mentioned in international protocols, because biogas is used for energy purposes (CH4 to CO2 with GWP = zero). The quantities of biogas treated are negligible compared to the huge amount of methane that is introduced into the distribution networks. So even the losses, which certainly occur, are negligible. Furthermore, the fugitive emissions of methane relating to our supply chain are typically widespread and not collectable (and therefore treatable). Due to the huge difference in impact, it seems inappropriate to put on the same level, in the effort to reduce greenhouse gases, the treatment of sewage sludge (irrelevant) and the agricultural, waste and gas networks sectors, which instead have very significant emissions. An unspecified action to monitor fugitive emissions in the sectors included is included in the road map. But these types of monitoring are practically impossible to accomplish. Especially in the sewage sludge sector, for the small quantities of CH4 that can be emitted and because they are very widespread low intensity emissions. Monitoring can only be done through estimates. The roadmap also provides for an unspecified "monitoring action" of fugitive emissions in the sectors included. But these types of monitoring are practically impossible to accomplish. Especially in the sewage sector, because of the small quantities of CH4 that can be emitted and because they are widespread very low intensity emissions, monitoring can only be done through estimates.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC

31 Jul 2020

Utilitalia ritiene assolutamente condivisibile la necessità di revisionare la Direttiva fanghi alla luce delle nuove conquiste tecnico-scientifiche nel frattempo acquisite. I parametri oggetto dell'attuale direttiva non rispondono ad una valutazione integrata dell’utilizzo dei fanghi di depurazione in agricoltura; è quindi necessario garantire sempre, attraverso adeguati controlli e monitoraggi, la massima protezione dell'ambiente, oltre che naturalmente della salute dell'uomo, attraverso parametri aggiornati rispetto alle conoscenze tecnologiche e scientifiche su questa particolare matrice. Va però precisato a tale riguardo che, anche in un'ottica unitaria, volta alla promozione dell’Economia Circolare, di Direttiva Fanghi e Direttiva Acque Reflue, diventa sempre più necessario ed opportuno l'introduzione e l'applicazione del principio della responsabilità estesa del produttore (EPR) per alcune sostanze inquinanti (quali ad esempio le microplastiche usate per i prodotti della cura della persona). Non si può pensare, infatti, che il costo della depurazione di queste sostanze e di altri inquinanti emergenti particolarmente difficili da trattare negli impianti di trattamento dei reflui ricada sull'intera collettività, e non, come sarebbe giusto e come peraltro è già previsto dalla Direttiva Quadro sulle Acque (polluter pays principle), direttamente su chi tali sostanze le produce. Le acque reflue (e i fanghi di conseguenza) non possono cioè diventare l’elemento terminale sul quale spostare la responsabilità di eliminare gli inquinanti prodotti a monte. Senza entrare ora nel merito delle possibili soluzioni a tale problema, si fa solo presente che, da questo punto di vista, probabilmente l'unione delle due Direttive (Direttiva Fanghi e Direttiva Acque reflue) potrebbe essere opportuna per inquadrare e regolamentare il problema in maniera più organica e unitaria. Si ritiene inoltre che la Direttiva fanghi debba, in un'ottica di economia circolare, incentivare anche altre forme di gestione dei fanghi oltre l'utilizzo in agricoltura. Questo perché, nel caso in cui un fango non abbia le caratteristiche idonee all'utilizzo in agricoltura, la norma deve presentare e incentivare le altre possibili forme di gestione alternative alle quali ricorrere, che consentano un recupero di materia o di energia. Riteniamo infine che una revisione della Direttiva Fanghi sia opportuna ed auspicabile anche per dare una spinta propulsiva alla nostra normativa nazionale sull'uso dei fanghi in agricoltura (decreto legislativo n. 99/1992), ormai datata quasi 30 anni, a parte qualche puntuale aggiornamento apportato recentemente. Dal punto di vista degli operatori del settore, ovvero dei gestori del servizio idrico integrato, che devono gestire gli impianti di trattamento delle acque reflue e occuparsi poi della gestione dei fanghi contestualmente prodotti, occorre una normativa certa e stabile che consenta loro di pianificare i necessari interventi da mettere in campo ed i relativi investimenti in un orizzonte sufficientemente ampio. Una Direttiva che poi deve essere implementata dai singoli Stati Membri a nostro avviso può aiutare a raggiungere questo obiettivo. Utilitalia, che tra l’altro rappresenta l’Italia in seno ad Eureau, sostiene pertanto la necessità di aggiornare la Direttiva Fanghi.
Read full response