120 likes | 229 Views
Copenhagen – 9 February 2006 EU COM/EEA Workshop: Data Consistency National GHG Inventories & Reporting under the E U - ETS Jochen Harnisch, Ecofys J.Harnisch@ecofys.de. Data Consistency: EU-ETS/UNFCCC Setting the scene - EU ETS. EU-ETS: Dimensions of Consistency.
E N D
Copenhagen – 9 February 2006 EU COM/EEA Workshop: Data Consistency National GHG Inventories & Reporting under the EU-ETS Jochen Harnisch, Ecofys J.Harnisch@ecofys.de Data Consistency: EU-ETS/UNFCCCSetting the scene - EU ETS
EU-ETS: Dimensions of Consistency • Legal consistency with scope of ETS Directive • Quantitative consistency: national GHG inventories • Conceptual consistency: inventory approaches in national GHG inventories • Consistency with other emissions trading schemes • Clear source attribution / identification between different inventories • Compatibility with industy practices and GHG estimation protocols • Tracking of installation based emission reduction measures in national inventory
Legal Framework of EU-ETS • Objective: ETS to help Member States to meet EU Kyoto obligations cost-effectively • Traded EU-Allowances will be backed by AAUs starting from 2008 • Direct emissions approach • Installation based
Quantitative: Emission Factors • EU-MRG 2004 require the use of site specific emission factors and NCV for most large installations • Most significant deviations: coal, lignite, natural gas • Observed deviations for bulk fuels: 1-10 % • Random or systematic? • Wealth of information available in spring 2006 • Careful analysis warranted offering opportunities to improve inventory quality
Quantitative: Oxidation Factors • EU-MRG prescribe use of site specific oxidation factors for large installations using solid fuels • Incomplete burnout: Most significant deviations: coal, lignite and peat – few percent max. • Total impact on inventory: limited but sytematic • Default factors for smaller installations and other fuels not always consistent with what MS use in the national inventories
Quantitative: Continuous Emissions Monitoring • Revised EU-MRG will contain an Annex on CEMS • Can be used for CO2 and non-CO2 • Not widely used for CO2 and accompanied by calculation based on fuel use • Candidates for 2008-2012: N2O from production of nitric acid and adipic acid • Quantitative inconsistencies – but impact is likely to be limited
Conceptual: Transferred CO2 • ETS-Directive: Direct emissions from installations • EU-MRG 2004 provide few constraints to deduction of CO2 from an installation • No requirement of long term storage • To be reported as memo-item • Backing of EUAs with AAUs leads to inconsistency in the case of most cases of “transferred CO2” • Carbon Capture and Storage: Similar situation but potentially much larger volumes
Source Identification / Attribution • ETS - reporting by installations includes codes from IPCC-Source Categories and EPER for each activity • However, operators and competent authorities are unfamiliar with IPCC and EPER systems • From one installation emissions for different categories may occur but are unlikely to be consistently attributible • Further methodoligal improvement and guidance on diffentiation for individual activities
Recognition of ETS Reductions • ETS helps to find the most cost-effective reduction options across the ETS-sector • However – consideration in national ghg inventory not granted, e.g.: - Fuel switch between fuel sub-categories - Shifting of biomass fuels between sectors - Use of alternative raw materials - Non-CO2 ghg abatement in opted-in sectors • Main criterion today: Measure mirrored in national energy statistics
Linking of ET Schemes • Internationally, a diversity of mandatory and voluntary ET schemes is evolving • Most are national or multi-national • However, also entire sectors like aviation are under discussion for integration / linking • Linking with other ETS schemes likely to be limited to parties which have ratified the KP • National ghg inventories are likely to provide the “anchor” for schemes • Lithmus test: level of consistency with national inventories?
Challenges • Appropriate use of the wealth of information from EU-ETS to improve inventory quality • Avoid losses of AAUs from countries because of loopholes and inconsistencies • Avoid situations of investments or fuel switch without result in national ghg inventory • Improve assignment & identification of emissions • Common communication line for inventory reviews and potential adjustment procedures • Recommendations for review of EU-MRG for second trading period
Thank you for your attention! Contact: Jochen Harnisch Ecofys GmbH phone: +49 911 994358-12 e-mail: j.harnisch@ecofys.de