Monitoring, Reporting & Verification for EU-ETS. Jaap Bousema (Dutch Emissions Authority) 11 September 2013

Transcription

1 Monitoring, Reporting & Verification for EU-ETS Jaap Bousema (Dutch Emissions Authority) 11 September

2 Content 1. Introduction: role of NEa, framework, scope 2. ETS compliance cycle 3. Monitoring principles and methodologies 4. Verification and accreditation 5. Lessons learnt

3 Dutch Emissions Authority (NEa) Raised in 2005 Independent Agency of Ministry of the Environment Competent Authority for EU-ETS and biofuels (transport) Main task for EU-ETS: Supervision of compliance cycle: Permits Allocation of allowances Inspections and sanctions Maintenance of Emissions Trading Registry

4 Legal framework ETS-Directive (2003/87/EC) Two new Regulations: - Monitoring and Reporting (601/2012): MRR - Accreditation and Verification (600/2012): AVR You cannot manage what you do not measure

5 Scope of EU-ETS Activities included Threshold Combustion installations >20 MWth Oil Refineries - Production of ferrous metals > 2,5 t/hr Cement > 500/50 t/day Glass > 20 t /day Ceramics > 75 t /day Pulp & Paper > 20/t day Etc. From 2012 aviation included Greenhouse Gases under EU-ETS: CO 2, N 2 O, PFC

6 Emissions in NL ( ) Year EU-ETS Others (agriculture, transport, build environment) Emissions (Mtonne) Total Mtonne GHG emissions under EU-ETS per year 41 % of GHG emissions under EU-ETS Av. 376 ETS-installations in From 2013 about 460 ETS-installations (broader scope)

7 ETS Sectors in NL % of total emissions nr. of installations

8 Organizational structure of EU-ETS Verifiers Legislation European Union NL Ministry of environment Verification Legislation Allocation Permits Operators Reporting, surrender allowances Inspections, sanctions

9

10 Permit for ETS - Mandatory access ticket to EU-ETS - No information about actual emissions or allowances - Most important element: monitoring plan Monitoring plan - Description of monitoring methodology - Approval before GHG is emitted - Installation specific application of monitoring requirements - Operator responsible for content - Basis for reporting, verification and inspection

11 General monitoring principles - All emissions within an installation included (except mobile sources and waste incineration) - A tonne must be a tonne - Completeness - Consistency, comparability, transparency - Accuracy - Integrity of methodology - Continuous improvement - Cost-effectiveness

12 Supporting documents at submission of MP - Uncertainty assessment - Risk assessment - Sampling plan formally approved All must be checked before issuance of permit

13 Monitoring CO 2 -emissions

14 Measurement based approach Mandatory for N 2 O-emissions (and CCS) Determination of hourly emissions: Σ GHGconcentration [g/nm3] * Flue gas flow [Nm3] Uncertainty requirement for annual average concentration, in principle 2,5 % In practice: only relevant if calculation is impossible Very rarely applied in NL

15 Calculation based approach Standard methodology (combustion): CO 2 -emissions (t) = amount * LHV * EF * OF LHV = Lower Heating Value (energy content, e.g. TJ/Nm3) EF = Emission factor (e.g. Tonne CO 2 /TJ) OF = Oxidation factor (fraction which is oxidised) Specific methodologies for process emissions Mass balance approach For all incoming and outgoing fuels/material/products: Carbon (t) = amount * carbon content CO 2 -emissions (t) = carbon * 3,664 Relevant for activities where products contain CO 2 from input, e.g. steel production, chemicals

16 Tier system Amount of fuel/material/product (=source stream) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 7,5 % 5 % 2,5 % 1,5% Calculation factors (LHV, EF, OF, CC) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Standard default values More specific default values (e.g. NIR) Based on analysis

17 Application of the tier system The bigger the installation/source, the higher the tier; point of departure: highest tiers applied by all for all source streams Different tiers are set for different industrial activities Exceptions to reduce administrative burden: Installations with emissions <50 kton CO 2 /year, with even lower requirements < 25 kton CO 2 /year Minor and de-minimis source streams Other exceptions: Technical infeasibility Unreasonable costs

18 Standard methodology 1) Oil refinery, process gas > 500,000 t CO 2 category C Amount: 1,5 % very accurate measurement equipment Emission factor: [0,5 %] Daily sampling & Calorific value: [0,5 %] analysis 2) Food processing installation (boiler), natural gas < 25,000 t CO 2 category A Amount: invoice from supplier, no uncertainty assessment Emission factor: default value Calorific value: default value

19 Data management and control Step 1 Collection of primary input data Risk: measurement device out of order Regular maintenance and control Step 2 Step 3 Registration of primary input data Risk: data is not registered Registration of primary input data in emissions report Risk: data are incorrect Back up facilities, regular control Control & corrective actions

20 Key elements to focus on as CA: Accuracy levels achieved for quantities What proof is accepted for uncertainty figures? What is the quality control on measuring devices? Quality of sampling and analysis sampling plan What are the sampling procedures? What standards are applied? Are the samples representative for the specific source stream/batch? What quality control measures and standards are applied for analysis? Data management and quality control Can primary data be backtracked? What are the risks of lost or incorrect data?

21 Annual emissions report Detailed data General information and signatures Total emissions

22 Annual emissions report Identification en signatures Detailed Data per source stream Emissions [tonne CO 2 ] Permit ID Name en address The operating person Signatures of the operator and of the verifier Type of source stream Amount of fuel or material Emission factors Net calorific value Oxidation factor Carbon content CO 2 per source stream (fuel type or/en material) CO 2 transmitted and received CO 2 totals

23 Role of verifier Check implementation of monitoring plan Check data in emissions report Verification statement (for NEa) Management letter for the operator Verifier Legal entity/person accredited by a National Accred. Body Contracted by the operator

24 Verification principles Objective: ensure that data are monitored and reported according to the MRR (validated MP) Reliability: correct and free from material misstatements Independence: from operator and CA Professional scepticism Reasonable level of assurance Materiality Scope of verification

25 Steps in the verification process Issuing verification report Strategic analysis Risk analysis Independent review Verification plan Drafting the Verification report Process analysis (actual verification) Internal verification Documentation Addressing misstatements and non-conformities

26 Requirements on verifiers Competence process Impartiality and independence Other issues Accreditation of verifiers Competences of verifiers Verifications performed in line with AVR Requirements met?

27 Lessons learnt from EU-ETS Normal industrial practice not (always) sufficient Pre-checking of monitoring methodology essential Sufficient time for preparation is needed Operators need extensive guidance on monitoring Equal treatment vital, but hard to achieve Role of verification should not be underestimated From compliance assistance to enforcement Energy efficiency stimulated by monitoring & allocation Share experiences and knowledge with stakeholders

28 More information Legal documents, guidance documents and templates for Monitoring & Reporting and Verification & Accreditation: documentation_en.htm

29 Thank you for your attention Jaap Bousema Senior Advisor Emissions Trading Dutch Emissions Authority (NEa)