1 / 25

Managing differencies in coverage, institutional and methodological issues (EU ETS vs GHG inventory) case of France

Managing differencies in coverage, institutional and methodological issues (EU ETS vs GHG inventory) case of France. Jean-Pierre FONTELLE. Centre Interprofessionnel Technique d’Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique. www.citepa.org.

keene
Télécharger la présentation

Managing differencies in coverage, institutional and methodological issues (EU ETS vs GHG inventory) case of France

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. Managing differencies in coverage, institutional and methodological issues (EU ETS vs GHG inventory) case of France Jean-Pierre FONTELLE Centre Interprofessionnel Technique d’Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique www.citepa.org Workshop on data consistency between National GHG inventories and reporting under the EU ETS 9 – 10 February 2006, Copenhagen

  2. Raising issues of discussion • scope and classification problems • benefits for inventories • impact on emission inventory process • management and institutional arrangements for ETS & GHG inventory

  3. Scope and classification For GHG inventory as well as EU ETS with regard to CO2 emission sources : • A boiler is a boiler, • A stack is a stack, • 1 ton of CO2 is 1 ton of CO2, • 1 ton of coal, heavy fuel oil or gas is the same and CO2 emissions are identical, • BUT A PLANT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME PLANT because of : • differences in scope (all plants included in GHG Inventory vs plants with particular • characteristics (size, type of process, type of equipment, sectoral classification), • differences in fuel allocation (case of blast furnace, coke oven and steel gases), • differences in emission estimation methods and accuracy, • differences in data reporting • Therefore, the same plant may be differently accounted for GHG inventory and ETS

  4. Scope and classification For GHG inventory as well as EU ETS with regard to CO2 emission sources : • A boiler is a boiler, • A stack is a stack, • 1 ton of CO2 is 1 ton of CO2, • 1 ton of coal, heavy fuel oil or gas is the same and CO2 emissions are identical, • BUT A PLANT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME PLANT because of : • differences in scope (all plants included in GHG Inventory vs plants with particular • characteristics (size, type of process, type of equipment, sectoral classification),

  5. LCP, NEC, EMEP • Refinery • Steel industry • Coke ovens • Cement > 500 t/d • Lime > 50 t/d • Glass > 20 t/d • Tiles & ceramics > 75 t/d • Paper & pulp > 20 t/d • Energy produc. > 20 MW GHG inventory EU ETS Directive EU ETS France IPPC / EPER Larger list of sources and emission threshold 100 000 t CO2 All sources included whatever the sector, the capacity and the equipment Classification is different Not concerned by CO2 but consistency with activity rate (fuel comsump-tions, produc-tions) Plant specifi-cations more or less restricted (eg LCP > 50 MW) All equipments included except engines for transportation Only boilers, gas turbines and engines except emergency units

  6. Scopes of inventories / registers are different GHG & NEC IPPC EU ETS LCP EMEP EPER

  7. Scope and classification For GHG inventory as well as EU ETS with regard to CO2 emission sources : • A boiler is a boiler, • A stack is a stack, • 1 ton of CO2 is 1 ton of CO2, • 1 ton of coal, heavy fuel oil or gas is the same and CO2 emissions are identical, • BUT A PLANT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME PLANT because of : • differences in scope (all plants included in GHG Inventory vs plants with particular • characteristics (size, type of process, type of equipment, sectoral classification), • differences in fuel allocation (case of blast furnace, coke oven and steel gases),

  8. By-products (tars, chemical products, …) Limitation of the source-oriented approach Pig iron, steel, … Steel industry External recovery Blast furnace gas Coke oven gas Steel conversion gas Recycling Flaring Fossil, fuel and various products

  9. Coal (95) Coal (95) Blast furnace Gas (268) Natural Gas (57) External recovery (eg power plant) CO2 (t) (kgCO2/GJ) CO2 (t) (kgCO2/GJ) Between situations A and B 500 000 500 000 • Supplementary • CO2 emission • by flaring 500 kt • National total + 106 kt • CO2 non emitted by the power plant 344 kt (x20€/t = 6,88 M€) 106 000 500 000 Total 606 000 Total 1 000 000 ETS allocation 950 000 t Situation A Situation B

  10. Consequences : • for ETS, the optimal approach is not always the source-oriented approach, • maintaining a single data collection and reporting system for ETS and GHG inventory • heightens the difficulty and needs more resources • it is necessary to be careful of the impact of particular flows or activities on data • reporting and management, • consistency between ETS and GHG inventory requires more stringent QC procedures, • Example / previous case : Is the sum of BFG fuel consumptions and CO2 emissions consistent with the sum of plants consuming BFG and the production of BFG minus flaring and losses ?

  11. Scope and classification For GHG inventory as well as EU ETS with regard to CO2 emission sources : • A boiler is a boiler, • A stack is a stack, • 1 ton of CO2 is 1 ton of CO2, • 1 ton of coal, heavy fuel oil or gas is the same and CO2 emissions are identical, • BUT A PLANT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME PLANT because of : • differences in scope (all plants included in GHG Inventory vs plants with particular • characteristics (size, type of process, type of equipment, sectoral classification), • differences in fuel allocation (case of blast furnace, coke oven and steel gases), • differences in emission estimation methods,

  12. In practice, top-down inventories are partly processed on a mixed approach Some sectors are totally compiled as purely bottom-up, some other are partly compiled from bottom-up then balanced with top figures EMEP (*) Inventories based on bottom-up approach EPER LCP (*) ETS Inventories based on top-down approach UNFCCC UNECE (*) NEC (*) NAMEA Accuracy requirements from ETS >> GHG requirements The situation depends on specific characteristics for each MS inventory (*) not dealing with CO2 but concerned by activities

  13. Combustion Σ non individual installations = All installations - Σ individual installations Σ fueli cons. from non indiv. instal. = energy balance fueli - Σ fueli cons. indiv. instal.

  14. Decarbonizing - Example 1 : bricks and tiles 52 ETS plants vs ~140 GHG plants Individual data available for 49 / 52 ETS plants (combustion and decarbonizing separately) and total emission (combustion + decarbonizing) for 3 others Calculation of ratio (CO2 decarbonizing / total CO2) based on 49 ETS plants Estimation of decarbonizing CO2 for 3 plants Total decarbonizing emission for 52 ETS plants 276 kt CO2 -> EF 50 kg CO2/t prod National EF in GHG inventory 40 kg CO2/t prod -> 230 kt CO2 CONSEQUENCE : change in national EF 40 -> 50 kg CO2/t prod -> 287 kt CO2 The difference corresponds to ~90 non ETS (very small)plants.

  15. Decarbonizing - Example 2 : lime – auto-producers excluded 22 ETS plants vs 23 GHG plants Individual data available for 20 / 23 ETS plants (combustion and decarbonizing separately) and total emission (combustion + decarbonizing) for 3 others Calculation of ratio (CO2 decarbonizing / total CO2) based on 20 ETS plants Estimation of decarbonizing CO2 for 3 plants Total decarbonizing emission for 22 ETS plants 2474 kt CO2 National emission by using EFs in GHG inventory 2534 kt CO2 CONSEQUENCE : no change in national EFs for lime production (decarbonizing) The difference (2,4%) corresponds to 1 non ETS plant.

  16. Consequences : • more details in data collection are required to operate conveniently with specifications • of various needs, • additional appropriate QC actions have to be implemented, • more confidence in some sectoral emissions, • greater completeness, consistency and comparability, • collateral benefit for non-CO2 emissions, • possible impact on inventory processes (GHG and non GHG), • increased inventory burden.

  17. Scope and classification For GHG inventory as well as EU ETS with regard to CO2 emission sources : • A boiler is a boiler, • A stack is a stack, • 1 ton of CO2 is 1 ton of CO2, • 1 ton of coal, heavy fuel oil or gas is the same and CO2 emissions are identical, • BUT A PLANT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME PLANT because of : • differences in scope (all plants included in GHG Inventory vs plants with particular • characteristics (size, type of process, type of equipment, sectoral classification), • differences in fuel allocation (case of blast furnace, coke oven and steel gases), • differences in emission estimation methods and accuracy, • differences in data reporting

  18. Reporting The National Inventory System is based on a single system providing results for GHG and non GHG inventories. The system does not specifically focus on EU ETS reporting. Both, EU ETS and inventories (GHG and non-GHG) use individual industrial data from the national emission reporting system on Internet (GEREP). Specific information for EU ETS reporting is required (fuels / products consumptions, productions, CO2 emission, emission factors, methodological information, etc.). To a large extent, the information requested for ETS is already collected for emission inventories (GHG and non GHG) within GEREP. Data collection and treatment have been adapted to take on board new specifications from ETS. GEREP was amended in late 2005 in order to include the ETS demand within the annual common reporting from facilities

  19. 156 Mt CO2 – ~1100 installations 84% of allocations from 19% of plants 96% of allocations from 53% of plants (those > 25 000 t)

  20. 156 Mt CO2 – ~1100 installations

  21. t

  22. ~1100 ETS plants within over 5500 industrial facilities concerned

  23. Overview of the reporting flow sheet Requests and characteristics from UN, EC and national authorities on ETS and Inventories (GHG and non-GHG) National regulation 28/07/2005 (Min. of Envt) Individual regulation (Local authority) Accreditationof verifiers (Min. of Envt) National annual reporting system GEREP (Min. of Envt and local authority) Internal arrangements, implementation of monitoring plans (Operators) Review, 1st check Report and conclusion (Verifiers) Reporting on Internet (GEREP) of annual emissions (Operators) Additional verifications and synthesis for further improvements (Min. of Envt) 2nd level of verifications (Local authorities) ETS registry (CDC) and Inventory compiler (CITEPA)

  24. Data treatment in inventories More individual figures have to be considered within inventory processes. Additional checks have to be performed : for instance concerning energy balances (sectoral and total). The use of specific figures from individual plants will imply annual changes in emission factors and consequently raise several items such as additional remarks from UNFCCC reviewers or additional risks on adjustments. Increase the « cost » of emission inventories. But possibly less with the current integrated national inventory system than it would be if two separate processes were implemented.

  25. Conclusion • EU ETS requirements : • introduce additional complexities in emission data collection and reporting as well ETS as inventories, • allow greater accuracy and consistency in GHG inventories, • allow additional benefits for non-GHG inventories, • increase the burden of work both for ETS and inventories due to differences in specificities (scope is different, methodological impact due to allocation of CO2 and related management of risks, additional checks, etc.), • need for more resources (development of reporting procedures, guidance, advice, verification for ETS, more data to compile in inventories, additional checks) ,

More Related