Transcript ETS-GHG inventory-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
Workshop on data consistency between National GHG inventories and reporting under the EU ETS 9 – 10
February 2006, Copenhagen
Raising issues of discussion
scope and classification problems
benefits for inventories
impact on emission inventory process
management and institutional arrangements for ETS &
GHG inventory
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
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),
EU ETS Directive EU ETS France GHG inventory IPPC / EPER
• Refinery
• Steel industry
All
• Coke ovens
Larger list
All sources
equipments
included
• Cement > 500 t/d included except
of sources
whatever the
• Lime > 50 t/d
sector, the
and
engines for
capacity
and
• Glass > 20 t/d
emission
transportation
the
• Tiles & ceramics
equipment
threshold
> 75 t/d
100 000 t
• Paper & pulp
> 20 t/d
Classification
CO2
is different
• Energy produc.
Only boilers,
> 20 MW
gas turbines
and engines
except
emergency
units
LCP, NEC,
EMEP
Not
concerned
by CO2 but
consistency
with activity
rate (fuel
comsumptions,
productions)
Plant
specifications
more or less
restricted
(eg LCP > 50
MW)
Scopes of inventories / registers are different
GHG & NEC
IPPC
EU ETS
LCP
EMEP
EPER
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),
Limitation of the source-oriented approach
Pig iron, steel, …
Steel industry
Fossil,
fuel
and
various
products
Recycling
By-products
(tars, chemical products, …)
External
recovery
Blast furnace gas
Coke oven gas
Steel conversion gas
Flaring
External recovery (eg power plant)
(kgCO2/GJ)
Coal
(95)
Blast
furnace
Gas
(268)
CO2 (t)
500 000
500 000
(kgCO2/GJ)
Coal
(95)
Natural
Gas
(57)
500 000
ETS allocation 950 000 t
Situation B
Between
situations
A and B
• Supplementary
CO2 emission
by flaring 500 kt
106 000
Total 606 000
Total 1 000 000
Situation A
CO2 (t)
• National total
+ 106 kt
• CO2 non emitted
by the power plant
344 kt
(x20€/t = 6,88 M€)
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 ?
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,
Inventories
based on
bottom-up
approach
EPER
LCP (*)
ETS
In practice, top-down inventories
are partly processed on a mixed
approach
Inventories
based on topdown approach
Some sectors are totally compiled
as purely bottom-up, some other
are partly compiled from bottomup then balanced with top figures
UNFCCC
UNECE (*)
EMEP (*)
NAMEA
NEC (*)
Accuracy requirements from ETS >> GHG requirements
The situation depends on specific characteristics for each MS inventory
(*) not dealing with CO2 but concerned by activities
Combustion
Sectors in
ETS
Methodological
approach in GHG
inventory
Centralized
electricity
production
and oil
refinery
100% bottom-up
Other
sectors
Problems
with ETS ?
Impacts ?
No problem,
already in use
for GHG
inventory
Increase of accuracy, more
detailed data available,
minimal impact on
emissions at plant level and
national level
Partly bottom-up or No problem,
national figures
possible
differences
compensated
within energy
balance
Increased accuracy at local
and/or sectoral levels, no
change at national level,
compensation of possible
differences, reporting more
complicated
Σ non individual installations = All installations - Σ individual installations
Σ fueli cons. from non indiv. instal. = energy balance fueli - Σ fueli cons. indiv. instal.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Number of installations according to CO2
allocations for France in EU ETS
6%
13%
>500 kt
47%
100-500 kt
25-100 kt
<25 kt
34%
156 Mt CO2 – ~1100 installations
CITEPA 02/2006
CO2 allocations for France in EU ETS
84% of allocations
from 19% of plants
12%
4%
>500 kt
100-500 kt
25-100 kt
96% of allocations
from 53% of plants
(those > 25 000 t)
20%
<25 kt
64%
CITEPA 02/2006
CO2 allocations and number of installations
by sector for France in EU ETS
100%
GAS TRANSPORTATION
90%
ENERGY OTHER
80%
GLASS
70%
PETROLEUM REFFINERY
PAPER & PULP
60%
FOOD AND DRINK INDUSTRY
50%
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
40%
CEMENT
30%
LIME
20%
DISTRICT HEATING
TILES AND CERAMICS
10%
IRON AND STEEL
0%
annual
allocations
156 Mt CO2 – ~1100 installations
number of
installations
CITEPA 02/2006
t
CO2 allocation according to the number
of installations for France in EU ETS
allocations
10 000 000
1 000 000
100 000
10 000
1 000
0
CITEPA 02/2006
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200
nb installations
~1100 ETS plants within over 5500 industrial facilities concerned
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)
Internal
arrangements,
implementation of
monitoring plans
(Operators)
ETS registry (CDC) and
Inventory compiler (CITEPA)
Individual
regulation
(Local
authority)
Accreditation
of verifiers
(Min. of Envt)
National annual
reporting
system GEREP
(Min. of Envt
and local
authority)
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)
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.
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,
, burden of work both for ETS and inventories due to
• increase the
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)