1 / 12

ECCP Meeting, EU ETS Review, 22 nd May 2007

Back-up info, some views and experiences (not necessarily shared by all sectors) Applicability and practical aspects of Performance-based allocation. Vianney Schyns, IFIEC Europe Vianney.Schyns@usgbv.com. ECCP Meeting, EU ETS Review, 22 nd May 2007. Number of benchmarks

Download Presentation

ECCP Meeting, EU ETS Review, 22 nd May 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Back-up info, some views and experiences(not necessarily shared by all sectors)Applicability and practical aspects of Performance-based allocation Vianney Schyns, IFIEC Europe Vianney.Schyns@usgbv.com ECCP Meeting, EU ETS Review, 22nd May 2007

  2. Number of benchmarks Transaction costs & complexity Setting the benchmark below average performance Technical definition  all energy carriers Benchmarks in a direct emissions scheme Contents

  3. Pareto: few activities have major coverage Netherlands: almost 100 benchmarks already defined

  4. Transaction costs and complexity • High transaction costs often mentioned in literature Transaction costs lower in practice • Typical consultancy costs: € 25-40,000 per benchmark • Higher cost first time complex benchmark • So 100 benchmarks cost say € 3-4 mln • “Verification Bureau”, NL say < € 1 mln for 100 benchmarks (each 4 years?) • Excl. verifier, for NL only: say € 5 mln for 4 x 75 Mton = < € 0.02/ton CO2 • Determination of benchmarks cheaper on EU scale • Additional: annual costs of monitoring & verification • Complexity often mentioned as problem • Defining new benchmarks needs great care – technology expertise • Practical principle: keep it simple – ignore secondary effects • Once defined  rather straightforward

  5. Possible feasible benchmark formula • Benchmark data of plants under the scheme (now EU) Benchmark between average & best performance, e.g. Benchmark = WAE – CF x (WAE – BP) • WAE = Weighted Average Efficiency • CF = Compliance Factor, to comply with total cap • BP = proven Best Practice, proven means actual measured operational data (or rather BP Group, for extra stimulation of innovation) • Formula coincides with EU ETS Directive Annex III (3), average emissions and achievable progress for each activity • Industry most likely opposes following alternatives • Dutch/Flemish worldtop 10% – too short allocation, unstable outcome  shape benchmark curve + incomplete participation • Related only to BP (BP + X%) – too short allocation, contra-incentive to improve BP, effectiveness & innovation

  6. Benchmark = WAE – CF x (WAE – BP)

  7. Benchmark takes account of all energy carriers (1) CO2 ? • Many energy functions can • be done either with: • Steam, or • Electricity, or • Natural gas or other fuel • Benchmark takes this into account: • Normalised calculation to (total) • primary energy – or total CO2 • Benchmark for only fuel is meaningless • Benchmarks for manufacturing and (related) utility plants Production plant Feeds Product(s) Steam Electricity Natural gas ? Other fuel ? Examples: chemical plants, refineries, paper plants, etc.

  8. Benchmark takes account of all energy carriers (2) • Separation train can be: • Efficient, with net-export • of steam of whole cracker • Inefficient, steam import • Both can be with the • same direct emission of • the cracker itself Simplified scheme steamcracker 2/3 of the investment CO2 Steam recovery Furnaces with heat recovery to steam Separations with high power compressors Feeds Products (ethylene, propylene, etc.) (ethane, LPG, naphta, gas oil, etc.) • Power train can be: • Steam turbine driven • Electric motor driven • Combinations • High influence on • electricity & steam • balance, direct • emissions elsewhere Electricity Steam Methane from feedstock

  9. Benchmarks in a direct emissions scheme (1) Allocation = direct emission – emission {total plant – total BM} CO2 • Example: • Net-import of secondary energy carriers: • 70 – {120 – 100} = 50 • Plant worse than benchmark Production plant Feeds Product(s) • Further examples: • Zero net-import: • 120 – {120 -100} = 100 • Plant worse than benchmark • Net-import: • 70 – {90 – 100} = 80 • Plant better than benchmark Steam Electricity Natural gas Other fuels Site utilities have also benchmarks

  10. Benchmarks in a direct emissions scheme (2) • Easy inclusion in an ETS • No conceptual problem in a direct scheme and no legal problem with Directive, on the contrary • Allowances according to deviation with benchmark • In formula: A = RDE + RSE – Σproduction x (REE/RCE – benchmark) x CCF • RDE = Realised Direct Emission (ton CO2) • RSE = Realised Sequestered Emissions (ton CO2) • REE/RCE = Realised Energy (or CO2) Efficiency (GJ/ton product or ton CO2/ton product) • Benchmark = benchmark energy (or CO2) efficiency • CCF = CO2 Conversion Factor (= 1.0 in case of CO2-benchmark) • Note: Process emission is in this view included in the Best Practice

  11. Benchmarking in the product chain Benchmarking provides incentives in the whole product chain … Electricity Electricity and heat generation Industrial manufacturing plant with use of electricity and heat Fuel Fuel Product Feed Heat, from CHP or from boilers … the efficiency of the production of electricity & heat … the efficiency of the use of (fuel), electricity & heat

  12. Benchmarks need great care Present Dutch formula is incorrect Allowances = HE x G x E x C HE = historic emissions G = Growth Factor E = Energy Efficiency (benchmark/actual energy use) C = Compliance factor to remain within total cap Formula becomes meaningless – even introduces gaming – in case of significant import of secondary energy carriers (utility boilers & CHP are rightfully separate), for example: HE (= ~ zero) x E = ~ zero Hardly or zero CO2 Production plant Feeds Product(s) Steam Electricity Hardly or zero fuel Other effectiveness’ shortcomings Maximisation E (110%) Minimisation E (85%)

More Related