Eurelectric response to the SEAC draft opinion on restricting PFAS

Eurelectric welcomes the publication of the SEAC Draft Opinion on the Restriction of PFAS. We welcome the fundamental efforts to reduce the use of PFAS and ensure an environmentally conscious approach to protect people and the environment. Given the associated risks of PFAS, it is essential to ensure that regulatory action balances environmental protection with the continued functioning of critical infrastructure and services.

In the European power sector, PFAS groups are currently used in essential, professional and long-life industrial products. Eurelectric represents downstream users who procure power sector components for their operations and do not manufacture these products. As manufacturers are not required to disclose the presence of PFAS in their products, utilities face significant challenges in identifying all instances of PFAS use in their supply chains.

Any proposed restriction on PFAS must therefore consider its potential impact on the availability of electrical equipment used in power generation, transmission, and distribution networks. These components are critical for the decarbonisation and electrification of the Union, which are contingent upon competitiveness and open strategic autonomy.

Eurelectric agrees with SEAC’s conclusion that a blanket ban on PFAS would not be proportionate, and we support the implementation of use-specific derogations and socio-economic considerations in establishing such derogations. Moreover, Eurelectric would like to highlight our key concerns and recommendations in response to the Draft Opinion:

Insufficient information to assess substitution potential

• In some cases, SEAC acknowledges there is insufficient information to assess substitution potential. We believe any transition period should be evidence-based, and that insufficient information provides a basis for longer derogation periods.
• We agree with SEAC that the nonexistence of alternatives should not be the sole basis for whether or not a derogation is justified. Additional reasons such as risk of market shortages or safety requirements should also be considered.

Challenges in substitution and derogation assessments  

• Introducing alternative products requires a profound operational and technical process that is not feasible within 18 months for many applications. Energy assets are operated under high reliability, durability, and security requirements, with strict technical standards. Even when an alternative technology may exist, implementation, qualification, and in-situ testing require substantially longer timelines than the proposed 18 months.
• Shifting to alternatives would not only affect the products themselves, but would also require extensive re-testing, re-qualification, updates to specifications, audits, workforce training, and adjustments in operational capacity.
• The requirement for strong evidence of low substitution potential as a basis for derogations is particularly challenging in complex supply chains, where data is difficult to obtain despite high system relevance. A PFAS ban must not lead to a de facto creation of a monopoly. The introduction of any ban should be explicitly linked to the availability of multiple substitute technologies on the market.

Overlap with the FGAS Regulation 2024/573

• Eurelectric agrees that alignment between the PFAS restriction and the F-gas Regulation (2024/573) is essential.
• The development of alternatives to HFC to respond to requirements in the F-gas Regulation, for instance the use of HFOs having lower global warming potential but that can degrade into PFAS, should be covered solely by the F-gas regulation.
• The SEAC opinion does not address the availability of derogations for most PFAS based alternatives to SF₆ in high voltage switchgear. This omission assumes that by the time the PFAS Regulation enters into force, these substances will already have been phased out of the market under the F-gas Regulation. However, SEAC overlooks the potential application of the cascading principle and the possibility of an EU-wide derogation to be issued by the European Commission, which could effectively extend the use of PFAS based alternatives.

Structural limitations of the consultation framework 

• The consultation framework does not fully capture the breadth and complexity of PFAS applications in the power system, making it challenging to adequately assess and convey the extensive implications of PFAS restrictions for the electricity sector.
• Many use cases fall outside of defined evaluation levels and are highly challenging to classify within the current framework. 
• Questions regarding feasibility of alternatives apply to thousands of individual components across multi-layered supply chains, meaning that multiple-choice responses may apply differently across components.
• The absence of an option to indicate lack of available information limits the ability to provide accurate responses in cases where data is not currently available.

Moving forward, we recommend that the PFAS restriction process considers the following recommendations:

1. Introduce adequate transition periods for power sector applications. Where SEAC cannot assess an adequate derogation period, or where suitable, safe and in-situ tested alternatives are not available, Eurelectric suggests introducing an unlimited derogation period. In addition, introducing the cascading principle, similar to the F-gas regulation, would incentivise the use of the most suitable alternative, prevent  supplier monopolies for critical energy assets, and allow for unlimited derogations in cases related to safety requirements.

• Implement a labelling system to identify PFAS-free products, thereby ensuring greater transparency across the supply chain.

• We welcome SEAC’s view to avoid regulatory overlaps with existing frameworks, specifically that of the F-Gas Regulation, and for all voltage levels.

• We welcome SEAC’s stance to permit continued use, repair, and maintenance of existing equipment for a prolonged period after being placed on the market until the end of service life. We strongly recommend a 50-year derogation period for power sector applications to match the lifetime of power sector equipment.

Include reassessment mechanisms to review derogations based on technological progress, or lack thereof.