Revisão da diretiva do sistema de comércio de emissões da ue (eu ets)

Uma avaliação multicritério baseada em literatura do EU ETS.
Este artigo revisa a literatura existente sobre o Esquema de Comércio de Emissões da União Européia (EU ETS), enfocando a pesquisa empírica ex-post desde o final do primeiro período (2007). A literatura é apresentada através de uma avaliação multicritério. No que diz respeito à eficácia ambiental, apesar da sobre-alocação durante o primeiro período, a redução é estimada entre -2,5% e -5%. O vazamento de carbono impulsionado pelo comércio não foi observado, mesmo se os modelos econômicos de longo prazo predizem estimativas divergentes de vazamentos para certos setores em risco. A meta de redução provavelmente estaria abaixo de um nível economicamente eficiente, mas foi alcançada de maneira bastante econômica, ainda que a alocação gratuita tenha gerado vários efeitos distorcivos. As preocupações com a equidade foram múltiplas e constituem uma grande desvantagem para a política. Finalmente, a viabilidade institucional pode ser considerada positiva, na medida em que o EU ETS passou o processo legislativo europeu, ao contrário do anteriormente proposto imposto de carbono em toda a UE.
Abreviaturas
Escolha uma opção para localizar / acessar este artigo:
Verifique se você tem acesso através de suas credenciais de login ou de sua instituição.

Preços do carbono na UE: Avaliação de diferentes opções de reforma do EU ETS.
Destaques.
Analisamos as opções de reforma do Sistema de Comércio de Emissões da União Européia (EU ETS) com um modelo CGE.
O imposto variável sobre o carbono e o preço de reserva de leilão suportam o preço do carbono pelo menor custo.
As reformas baseadas em preços reduzem as emissões precoces, mas aumentam as emissões posteriores por meio do sistema bancário.
Novos Estados-Membros & # x27; as economias são mais afetadas do que outras por preços mais altos de CO 2.
Menores preços de permissões devido a um imposto sobre carbono são desfavoráveis ​​aos vendedores líquidos de permissões.
Este artigo estuda várias opções para apoiar os preços de permissões no Sistema de Comércio de Emissões (ETS) da UE, como o ajuste do teto, um preço de reserva de leilão e impostos fixos e variáveis ​​de carbono além do EU ETS. Utilizamos um modelo dinâmico de equilíbrio geral computável que permite explicitamente o sistema bancário de licenças e uma análise detalhada da relação custo-eficácia ao nível dos Estados-Membros da UE. Nós achamos que apertar o limite fornece uma solução ad hoc para a questão fundamental da robustez do preço efetivo do carbono, enquanto a introdução de um componente de preço para o ETS traz suporte estrutural ao preço do carbono em tempos de choques de demanda negativa para permissões de emissão. Essas políticas baseadas em preços ainda se beneficiam da flexibilidade intertemporal através da provisão bancária no EU ETS, realocando as emissões ao longo do tempo com reduções de emissões mais fortes nos primeiros anos e aumentos de emissões em anos posteriores. Um preço de emissão mais elevado tem um impacto negativo maior nos novos Estados-Membros. economias do que noutros Estados-Membros. Além disso, a introdução de um imposto sobre o carbono em adição ao EU ETS diminui o preço das licenças, resultando em ganhos de bem-estar para os compradores líquidos de licenças, enquanto os vendedores líquidos estão em pior situação.
Escolha uma opção para localizar / acessar este artigo:
Verifique se você tem acesso através de suas credenciais de login ou de sua instituição.

Petróleo e gás: legislação ambiental offshore.
Regulamentos e orientações ambientais sobre exploração e produção offshore de petróleo e gás, atividades de armazenamento e descarregamento de gás offshore e atividades de armazenamento de dióxido de carbono em alto mar.
Última atualização em 16 de fevereiro de 2018 - veja todas as atualizações.
A Avaliação Ambiental dos Regulamentos de Planos e Programas 2004.
A Avaliação Ambiental dos Regulamentos de Planos e Programas de 2004 implementa a Directiva Europeia de Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica (AAE) (2001/42 / CE). Embora a Directiva não tenha sido incorporada na legislação do Reino Unido até 2004, as AAE foram realizadas desde 1999 de acordo com os seus requisitos.
Os Regulamentos de Produção e Oleodutos de Petróleo Offshore (Avaliação dos Efeitos Ambientais) de 1999 (na sua versão alterada)
Directiva 85/337 / CEE do Conselho relativa à avaliação dos efeitos de determinados projectos públicos e privados no ambiente (a "Directiva de 1985"), alterada pela Directiva 97/11 / CE do Conselho, pela Directiva 2003/35 / CE e pela Directiva 2009 / 31 / EC, requer que sejam realizadas avaliações ambientais para certos tipos de projetos, incluindo atividades offshore de petróleo e gás, em toda a União Européia.
A Diretiva de 1985 e as suas três alterações foram codificadas pela Diretiva 2011/92 / UE (“a diretiva existente”), antes de a Comissão Europeia adotar uma proposta em outubro de 2012 para rever e alterar a diretiva existente. Em 15 de maio de 2014, a Diretiva 2011/92 / UE foi posteriormente alterada pela Diretiva 2014/52 / UE.
Os Regulamentos de Produção de Petróleo Offshore e de Tubulação (Avaliação de Efeitos Ambientais) de 1999 (“o Regulamento da AIA”) implementaram a Diretiva original e a emenda de 1997, e foram emendados em 2007, 2010 e 2017 por:
Os Regulamentos de 2007 sobre a Produção de Petróleo Offshore e os Pipe-lines (Avaliação dos Efeitos Ambientais) (Alteração) para implementar a Directiva 2003/35 / CE que previa a participação do público na elaboração de certos planos e programas relacionados com o ambiente.
Artigo 2 da Lei de Energia de 2008 (Modificações Consequentes) (Proteção Ambiental Offshore) Ordem 2010 (a “Ordem de 2010”) que aplicou as disposições às operações de descarga e armazenamento de gás combustível e dióxido de carbono em alto mar (além das atividades de produção de petróleo e gás) .
Primeira Parte dos Regulamentos de Produção de Petróleo Offshore e Linhas de Cano (Avaliação do Impacto Ambiental e outras Disposições Diversas) (Emenda) 2017 (os “Regulamentos de 2017”) que implementam os requisitos da Diretiva 2014/52 / UE, e também consolida as disposições da Artigo 2.º da portaria de 2010 (revogar essas disposições).
As actividades relacionadas com hidrocarbonetos offshore relevantes abrangidos pelo Regulamento AIA (conforme alterado) incluem, mas não estão limitadas a concessão e renovação de consentimentos de produção para desenvolvimentos de campo, a perfuração de poços (perfuração profunda) e a construção e instalação de produção. instalações e linhas de distribuição no Reino Unido e na plataforma continental do Reino Unido (UKCS). Detalhes completos desses e outros requisitos podem ser encontrados na orientação publicada.
Regulamentos.
Guia de AIA - setembro de 2017 (PDF, 813 KB, 82 páginas)
Aplicações e determinações.
As declarações ambientais (ESs) devem ser enviadas em cópia impressa para a equipe de gerenciamento ambiental, e os desenvolvedores devem enviar um e-mail para emt@beis. gov. uk para confirmar os requisitos de envio.
As solicitações de rotas para confirmar que um ES não é necessário devem ser enviadas através do Sistema de Rastreamento Ambiental do Portal de Energia do Reino Unido (PETS), e os desenvolvedores devem enviar um e-mail para emt@beis. gov. uk se precisarem de mais informações sobre o PETS.
As partes interessadas podem revisar os registros referentes a envios e decisões tomadas sob os Regulamentos EIA em dados ambientais de óleo e gás.
Requisitos de relatório.
As devoluções de depósitos autorizadas para as aprovações emitidas através do PETS devem ser feitas usando o formulário de relatório apropriado do Sistema de Monitoramento Ambiental de Emissões (EEMS).
Devoluções de depósito solicitadas pela Equipe de Gestão Ambiental para atividades cobertas por uma exclusão de EIA devem ser feitas usando este Formulário (planilha do MS Excel, 77KB), e devem ser enviadas por e-mail para emt@beis. gov. uk.
Áreas ambientalmente sensíveis.
Relatórios do projeto.
Para mais informações, entre em contato com a Equipe de Gestão Ambiental por e-mail em emt@beis. gov. uk ou (01224) 254079/254040 ou entre em contato com o seu Gerente Ambiental.
Regulamentos das Actividades Petrolíferas Offshore (Conservação dos Habitats) de 2001 (na sua versão alterada)
A Directiva 79/409 / CEE do Conselho, relativa à protecção das aves selvagens, vulgarmente conhecida por Directiva Aves, foi adoptada em 1979 e visa proteger todas as aves selvagens e os seus habitats mais importantes em toda a UE. A Directiva 92/43 / CEE do Conselho, relativa à conservação dos habitats naturais e da fauna e da flora selvagens, habitualmente denominada Directiva Habitats, foi adoptada 13 anos depois em 1992. Introduz medidas muito semelhantes, mas alarga a protecção a cerca de 1000 outras espécies raras. espécies ameaçadas ou endêmicas de animais e plantas silvestres, muitas vezes referidas coletivamente como espécies de importância européia. Também, pela primeira vez, introduziu proteção para cerca de 230 tipos de habitats raros ou importantes. A Diretiva Aves foi posteriormente alterada pela Diretiva 2009/147 / CE, uma versão codificada da diretiva original.
Em conjunto, as Diretivas Aves e Habitats proporcionam um quadro legislativo forte para proteger as espécies e os tipos de habitats mais vulneráveis ​​da UE em toda a sua extensão natural dentro da UE, independentemente das fronteiras políticas ou administrativas. O objectivo global das duas directivas é garantir que as espécies e os tipos de habitats que protegem sejam mantidos ou restaurados num estado de conservação favorável em toda a sua extensão natural dentro da UE. Eles, portanto, não apenas visam deter qualquer declínio, mas também visam assegurar que as espécies e os habitats qualificados se recuperem o suficiente para que possam florescer a longo prazo.
Os Regulamentos de Actividades Petrolíferas Offshore (Conservação dos Habitats) de 2001 implementaram as principais disposições das directivas que se aplicavam às actividades offshore de petróleo e gás, e foram alteradas em 2007, 2010 e 2017 por:
Os Regulamentos de Actividades Petrolíferas Offshore (Conservação dos Habitats) (Emenda) de 2007, que alteraram e alargaram um número de disposições nos regulamentos de 2001. Artigo 3 da Lei de Energia de 2008 (Modificações Consequentes) (Proteção Ambiental Offshore) Ordem 2010 (a “Ordem de 2010”) que aplicou as disposições às operações de descarga e armazenamento de gás combustível e dióxido de carbono em alto mar (além das atividades de produção de petróleo e gás) . Parte quatro dos Regulamentos de Produção e Tubulação de Petróleo Offshore (Avaliação de Impacto Ambiental e outras Disposições Diversas) (Emenda) de 2017, que introduziu disposições relativas à revisão de decisões existentes.
As disposições mais importantes dos regulamentos em relação às submissões ambientais ao Departamento são:
A Regra 4, que exige a emissão de consentimento para levantamentos geológicos relativos a operações offshore de petróleo e gás e operações de descarregamento e armazenamento de gás combustível offshore e dióxido de carbono, realizadas no UKCS.
Regulamento 5 que exige que, antes da concessão de qualquer licença, consentimento, autorização ou aprovação envolvendo uma atividade proposta que possa ter um efeito significativo em um site protegido relevante, seja individualmente ou em combinação com qualquer outro plano ou projeto, o Secretário O Estado deve fazer uma avaliação apropriada (uma Avaliação do Regulamento Habitats) das implicações para o local, tendo em vista os objetivos de conservação da planta. Portanto, o Departamento é obrigado a realizar uma provável avaliação de efeitos significativos, ou um exercício de "triagem" e / ou uma "avaliação apropriada" mais detalhada, e isso pode atrasar significativamente a determinação de uma submissão.
Regulamentos.
Orientação da Comissão Europeia sobre a avaliação dos planos e projectos que afectam significativamente os sítios Natura 2000 (orientação metodológica sobre as disposições dos nºs 3 e 4 do artigo 6º da Directiva Habitats 92/43 / CEE) Orientações sobre as actividades offshore petrolíferas Habitats) Regulamentos 2001 (Documento MS Word, 120 KB) Nota: O Departamento está atualmente atualizando esta orientação e uma versão alterada será publicada oportunamente Notas de Orientação para Pesquisas de Óleo e Gás e Perfuração Rasa (PDF, 235KB, 21 páginas) Nota: O Departamento está atualmente atualizando esta diretriz e uma versão modificada será publicada no devido tempo Diretrizes JNCC para minimizar o risco de ferimentos em mamíferos marinhos de levantamentos geofísicos (PDF, 796KB, 28 páginas) Protocolo estatutário da agência de conservação da natureza para minimizar o risco de lesão para mamíferos marinhos de empilhar barulho (PDF, 242KB, 13 páginas) diretrizes de JNCC para minimizar o risco de dano a mamíferos marinhos de usar explosivos (PDF, 165KB, 10 pa ges)
Outras informações úteis.
Aplicações e determinações.
Os pedidos de levantamentos geológicos, ou notificações de levantamentos marítimos propostos que não exijam consentimento são submetidos e processados ​​através do Portal de Energia do Reino Unido. As notificações podem ser enviadas através de um MAT (Master Application Template) autônomo, onde a pesquisa não está vinculada com qualquer outra atividade que exija um aplicativo do Portal de Energia do Reino Unido ou por meio de um Modelo de Aplicativo Subsidiário (SAT) se a pesquisa estiver vinculada a outra atividade, por exemplo, um MAT de perfuração relevante (DRA). As partes interessadas podem revisar registros de solicitações de pesquisas geológicas e envios de notificações de pesquisas marítimas, e quaisquer decisões relevantes tomadas nos termos dos Regulamentos Habitats.
Uma lista de Avaliações de Regulamentos de Habitats realizadas pelo Departamento pode ser encontrada em: Planilha HRA (Planilha MS Excel, 41.8KB)
Requisitos de relatório.
É uma condição de todos os consentimentos de levantamento geológico que um relatório de atividades e um relatório de fechamento sejam submetidos ao Departamento após a conclusão da pesquisa. O relatório é atualmente uma planilha do Excel e uma cópia pode ser encontrada usando o aqui. No futuro, os retornos serão migrados para o sistema de relatórios EEMS acessado através do Portal de Energia do Reino Unido e serão automaticamente alimentados no Registro de Ruído Marítimo. Regulamentos da Estratégia 2010). No entanto, nesse ínterim, os formulários de devolução devem ser enviados por e-mail para: emt@beis. gov. uk A planilha do relatório de encerramento também deve ser enviada à Schlumberger Integrated Solutions para todas as pesquisas sísmicas, com exceção das pesquisas no local, e à Medin para todos os levantamentos de sites sísmicos. Detalhes de contato relevantes e orientação são fornecidos na planilha do Excel. Onde for uma condição do consentimento para o levantamento geológico que um agente de Observação de Mamífero Marinho (MMO) e / ou Monitoramento Acústico Passivo (PAM) seja fornecido para a pesquisa, um relatório de MMO também deve ser submetido ao Departamento após a conclusão da pesquisa. e copiado para o Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). Cópias dos formulários e orientações relevantes e relatórios resumidos das observações do MMO podem ser encontradas no site do JNCC aqui.
Relatórios do projeto.
Projeto R & D da Subacoustech - Efeitos do ruído no ambiente marinho (Apresentação do MS PowerPoint, 5.48MB) Revisão e avaliação do som subaquático produzido a partir de atividades de óleo e gás e possíveis requisitos de relatório sob a Diretiva-Quadro Estratégia Marinha, julho de 2011 (PDF, 1.73 MB, 72 páginas) Moray Firth Study - este foi um projeto de três anos realizado pela Aberdeen University em nome do Departamento, com co-financiamento do Governo Escocês, Collaborative Offshore Wind Research para o Meio Ambiente (COWRIE) e Oil & amp; Gas UK, para avaliar o impacto potencial das operações de pesquisa sísmica de petróleo e gás em cetáceos em Moray Firth. Relatos relevantes relacionados ao estudo e aos levantamentos sísmicos associados podem ser encontrados abaixo:
Caithness Petroleum, Programa de Levantamento Sísmico, Braemore, Forse, Berriedale e Helmsdale Prospects e Burrigill Site Survey: Registro de Avaliação Apropriada (PDF, 8.62MB, 74 páginas)
Os funcionários da Universidade de Aberdeen envolvidos no projecto também publicaram vários artigos científicos relacionados com o estudo: Williamson, L. D., Brookes, K. L., Scott, B. E., Graham, I. M. & amp; Thompson, P. M. (2017) Variação diurna na detecção de toninha - implicações potenciais para o manejo. Ecologia Marinha Progress Series 570: 223-232.
Williamson, L. D., Brookes, K. L., Scott, B. E., Graham, I. M., Bradbury, G., Hammond, P. S. & amp; Thompson, P. M. (2016) Detecções de ecolocalização e levantamentos em vídeo digital fornecem estimativas confiáveis ​​da densidade relativa de botos. Métodos em Ecologia e Evolução. DOI: 10.1111 / 2041-210X.12538.
Thompson, P. M., Brookes, K. L. & amp; Cordes, L. S. (2014) Integrando dados acústicos e visuais passivos para modelar padrões espaciais de ocorrência em golfinhos costeiros ICES J. Mar. Sci., DOI: 10.1093 / icesjms / fsu110.
Pirotta, E., Brookes, K. L., Graham, I. M. & amp; Thompson, P. M. (2014) Variação na atividade de toninha portuária em resposta ao ruído da pesquisa sísmica. Biology Letters, 10: 20131090.
Thompson, P. M., Brookes, K. L., Graham, I. M., Barton, T. R., Needham, K., Bradbury, G. & amp; Merchant, N. D. (2013) A perturbação de curto prazo por um levantamento sísmico bidimensional comercial não leva ao deslocamento a longo prazo de botos. Atas da Royal Society, B. 280: 20132001. DOI: 10.1098 / rspb.2013.2001.
Brookes, K. L., Bailey, H. & amp; Thompson, P. M. (2013) As previsões dos modelos de associação de habitat de botos são confirmadas pelo monitoramento acústico passivo a longo prazo. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 134: 2523-2533.
Uma lista completa das publicações da Estação Cromarty Lighthouse Field da Universidade de Aberdeen está disponível através deste link.
Para mais informações, entre em contato com a Equipe de Gerenciamento Ambiental por e-mail em emt@beis. gov. uk ou (01224) 254079/254040 ou entre em contato com o seu Gerente Ambiental.
Os Regulamentos de Conservação Marinha Offshore (Habitats Naturais & amp; c.) De 2007 (na sua versão alterada)
Enquanto os Regulamentos das Actividades Petrolíferas Offshore (Conservação dos Habitats) de 2001 estabelecem as obrigações para a avaliação do impacto das actividades offshore de petróleo e gás (incluindo as actividades de descarga e armazenamento de gás e dióxido de carbono) em habitats e espécies protegidas pela A Directiva 79/409 / CEE (Directiva Aves) e a Directiva 92/43 / CEE do Conselho (Directiva Habitats), os Regulamentos de Conservação Marítima Offshore (Habitats Naturais & amp; c.) De 2007 são a legislação que rege a implementação de uma série de requisitos processuais contidos nas directivas. Os regulamentos aplicam-se à “área offshore” fora das águas territoriais do Reino Unido, ou seja, a área superior a 12 milhas náuticas da linha de base terrestre do mar territorial, e são comummente referidos como os Regulamentos dos Habitats Offshore da Defra.
Os Regulamentos de Conservação Marinha Offshore (Habitats Naturais, & amp; c.) De 2007 incluem disposições para a designação e proteção de áreas que abrigam importantes habitats e espécies na área marítima offshore. Uma vez designados, esses locais são chamados de Áreas Especiais de Conservação (SACs), para a proteção de certos habitats e espécies marinhas; e Áreas de Proteção Especial (SPAs), para a proteção de certas espécies de aves silvestres. O Regulamento também implementa obrigações de avaliação para atividades da indústria naval que não sejam petróleo e gás offshore; introduzir um sistema de licenciamento para quaisquer atividades marinhas que possam matar, ferir ou perturbar espécies protegidas; e criar uma série de ofensas que visam evitar atividades nocivas ao meio ambiente. O Regulamento foi alterado em 2009, 2010 e 2012 por:
Os Regulamentos de Conservação Marítima Offshore (Habitats Naturais, & amp; c.) De 2009 que alteraram os termos das infrações relacionadas à perturbação, aplicando as disposições aos animais de uma espécie para a qual um local foi designado como SAC ou listado como um Sítio de importância comunitária (SCI), enquanto os animais se encontram nesse local; e aos animais de uma espécie protegida europeia (EPS), estejam ou não em um local protegido. A emenda também incluía disposições relativas à publicação de orientações sobre a aplicação das infrações, exigindo que o tribunal levasse em conta qualquer orientação no processo; e incluiu disposições relativas às defesas contra as infrações relacionadas com a EPS, prevendo que elas não se aplicam se a acusação demonstrar que houve uma alternativa satisfatória à ação, ou que foi prejudicial à manutenção da população da espécie em questão em um estado de conservação favorável em sua faixa natural. É também estabelecido um maior detalhe para as disposições de vigilância e para clarificar o dever de agir à luz dessa vigilância.
Os Regulamentos de Conservação Marítima Offshore (Habitats Naturais, & amp; c.) (Emenda) de 2010 que estenderam as disposições relativas ao EPS para torná-lo uma ofensa para perturbar deliberadamente os animais de maneira que possam prejudicar sua capacidade de sobrevivência, criar, criar ou nutrir seus filhotes, ou no caso de animais de uma espécie em hibernação ou migratória, para hibernar ou migrar; ou afetar significativamente a distribuição local ou a abundância dessa espécie. A alteração incluía também disposições para os ministros escoceses exercerem determinadas funções na região offshore escocesa (anteriormente funções do secretário de Estado).
Os Regulamentos de Conservação Marítima Offshore (Habitats Naturais, & amp; c.) (Emenda) de 2012 que incluiu novas disposições que exigem que as autoridades competentes tomem medidas para preservar e restabelecer uma diversidade e área suficiente de habitat para aves selvagens e também impor um dever sobre eles usem todos os esforços razoáveis ​​para evitar a poluição ou a deterioração do habitat das aves selvagens. A alteração incluiu também disposições relativas a investigação e trabalhos científicos relacionados com a Directiva Aves; medidas para reforçar a execução dos sistemas de gestão; alterações em relação à classificação das ZPE pelos ministros escoceses; clarificação de regulamentos específicos em relação às administrações desconcentradas; e uma nova provisão para o Secretário de Estado revisar e informar sobre o funcionamento e eficácia dos Regulamentos de 2007.
As disposições mais importantes dos regulamentos em relação a submissões ambientais ao Departamento estão contidas na Parte 5, que fornece poderes para emitir licenças para atividades específicas que podem resultar na perturbação de EPS (EPS ou licenças de perturbação).
Regulamentos.
Os Regulamentos de Conservação Marinha Offshore (Habitats Naturais, & amp;.) 2007 Contribuindo para uma Rede de Área Marinha Protegida Esboço de orientação sobre a proteção de Espécies Protegidas Europeias de lesões e distúrbios (para a área marinha na Inglaterra e País de Gales e Reino Unido área) (PDF, 1.45MB, 120 páginas) Espécies Protegidas Européias de lesões e distúrbios (PDF, 1.45MB, 120 páginas)
Outras informações úteis.
Informações gerais relevantes em relação às sensibilidades ambientais e questões de conservação podem ser encontradas nas entradas para os Regulamentos de 1999 da Produção de Petróleo Offshore e de Tubulação (Avaliação de Efeitos Ambientais) e das Atividades Petrolíferas Offshore (Conservação de Habitats) de 2001. Informações relativas à A conservação da natureza marinha e o licenciamento da vida selvagem para águas internas e territoriais adjacentes à Irlanda do Norte podem ser encontrados aqui Informações relacionadas à conservação da natureza marinha e licenciamento da vida selvagem para águas internas e territoriais adjacentes à Escócia Informações sobre conservação da natureza marinha e vida selvagem o licenciamento para águas internas e territoriais adjacentes ao País de Gales pode ser consultado aqui. Informações sobre a conservação da natureza marinha para águas internas e territoriais adjacentes ao País de Gales podem ser encontradas aqui.
Aplicações e determinações.
Os pedidos de licenças de EPS / perturbação para atividades em águas adjacentes à Inglaterra ou na área offshore adjacente à Irlanda do Norte, Escócia e País de Gales são submetidos e processados ​​através do Portal de Energia do Reino Unido Os pedidos podem ser apresentados através de uma aplicação independente MAT (SA). A pesquisa não está vinculada a nenhuma outra atividade que exija um aplicativo do Portal de Energia do Reino Unido ou por meio de um Modelo de Aplicativo Subsidiário (SAT) se a pesquisa estiver vinculada a outra atividade, por exemplo, uma aplicação de pesquisa geológica relevante MAT (GS). As partes interessadas podem rever registros de pedidos de licença de EPS / distúrbio, e quaisquer decisões relevantes tomadas sob o licenciamento de EPS / distúrbio da Defra Offshore Habitats para atividades em águas internas ou territoriais adjacentes à Irlanda do Norte, Escócia e País de Gales são de responsabilidade da administração descentralizada relevante. , e potenciais candidatos devem entrar em contato com o órgão de licenciamento relevante.
Requisitos de relatório.
As licenças de EPS / perturbação são atualmente necessárias apenas para levantamentos acústicos nos quais o Comitê Conjunto de Conservação da Natureza (JNCC) ou outro Órgão Estatutário de Conservação da Natureza tenha aconselhado que o solicitante de um levantamento geológico também obtenha uma licença EPS / perturbação. Sob tais circunstâncias, os requisitos de relatórios detalhados no consentimento da pesquisa são suficientes para cobrir adicionalmente os requisitos de licença de EPS / perturbação, e não há requisitos adicionais de relatório.
Relatórios do projeto.
Regulamentação de Habitats As avaliações realizadas pelo Departamento para levantamentos geológicos acústicos são detalhadas na entrada dos Regulamentos de Atividades Petrolíferas Offshore (Conservação de Habitats) de 2001, e as avaliações relacionadas ao EPS incluirão avaliações de distúrbios.
Para mais informações, entre em contato com a Equipe de Gerenciamento Ambiental por e-mail em emt@beis. gov. uk ou (01224) 254079/254040 ou entre em contato com o seu Gerente Ambiental.
Regulamentos da Estratégia Marinha 2010.
A Diretiva 2008/56 / CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho estabelece um quadro de ação comunitária no domínio da política para o meio marinho e é geralmente conhecida como Diretiva-Quadro Estratégia Marinha. A directiva foi adoptada em Junho de 2008, com o objectivo de proteger o ambiente marinho em toda a Europa, e é a componente ambiental da política marítima integrada da Europa.
A diretiva estabelece um objetivo de “bom estado ambiental” que deve ser alcançado nas águas marinhas da UE até 2020. Após o primeiro ciclo de gestão, que termina em 2020, serão estabelecidos novos programas de medidas numa base semestral. A Comissão elaborou um conjunto de critérios pormenorizados e normas metodológicas para ajudar os Estados-Membros a implementar a Diretiva Marítima, que foram revistas em 2017 e conduziram à Decisão da Comissão sobre o Bom Estado Ambiental (GES). O anexo II da diretiva foi igualmente alterado em 2017 para melhor articular os componentes dos ecossistemas, as pressões antropogénicas e os impactos no meio marinho com os 11 «Descritores» de MSFD e com a nova decisão sobre o bom estado ambiental (GES).
O Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 transpôs os requisitos da Diretiva-Quadro Estratégia Marinha 2008/56 / CE para a lei do Reino Unido em julho de 2010. Os regulamentos estabeleceram um quadro jurídico de alto nível para garantir que as obrigações que a Diretiva impõe ao Reino Unido uma autoridade competente, e que essas autoridades competentes tenham os poderes necessários para implementar medidas para alcançar ou manter um bom estado ambiental no ambiente marinho até 2020. Os Regulamentos não definiram exatamente como isso seria alcançado e muito dos detalhes sobre como o Reino Unido implementará a Diretiva que foi desenvolvida desde que os regulamentos entraram em vigor. O instrumento legal inclui disposições que cobrem as seguintes questões fundamentais:
o âmbito geográfico da legislação - a área sobre a qual a Estratégia Marinha do Reino Unido será aplicada; Os organismos responsáveis ​​pela aplicação da directiva em diferentes partes das águas marinhas do Reino Unido (ou seja, os organismos que actuam como autoridades competentes para a directiva) e atribui a estes organismos o cumprimento de todos os requisitos da directiva de acordo com o calendário exigido; Disposições adequadas para garantir que o Governo do Reino Unido e cada uma das Administrações Devolvidas trabalhem em conjunto para aplicar a directiva de uma forma coerente e coordenada em todo o Reino Unido; Disposições adequadas para garantir que todas as autoridades públicas que tomam decisões ou realizem atividades que afetam o meio marinho sejam obrigadas a desempenhar um papel adequado para garantir a aplicação dos requisitos da presente diretiva; e disposições para garantir que as partes interessadas e o público sejam consultados em todas as fases fundamentais da aplicação da directiva.
Regulamentos.
A orientação da Comissão Europeia sobre o MSFD pode ser encontrada aqui. O documento da política de ambiente marinho do Defra, que inclui o Apêndice 2, Implementação da Diretiva-Quadro Estratégia Marinha, pode ser encontrado aqui.
Requisitos de relatório.
A meta do Reino Unido para Bom Estado Ambiental (GES) para ruído impulsivo (Descritor 11) está sendo facilitada através do estabelecimento de um Registro de Ruído Marinho (MNR). O Registro foi desenvolvido pela Defra e pelo Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), em conjunto com outros departamentos governamentais e com as Administrações Devolvidas (DAs), e registra atividades humanas em mares britânicos que produzem alta, baixa a média freqüência (10Hz - 10kHz ) ruído impulsivo. O MNR faz parte do programa de medidas do Reino Unido, estabelecido na Parte 3 da sua Estratégia Marinha.
O ruído subaquático das atividades humanas pode afetar os organismos marinhos, de invertebrados a peixes e mamíferos marinhos, de várias formas, de evitar fugas, mascarar sons usados ​​para se comunicar e encontrar comida, até lesões físicas e até mesmo a mortalidade. Entender quando e onde as atividades ruidosas ocorrerão, portanto, ajudará a definir um nível de referência para o ruído impulsivo nas águas do Reino Unido e informará a pesquisa sobre os impactos do ruído, particularmente sobre espécies vulneráveis ​​como os cetáceos.
As actividades humanas abrangidas pelo MNR incluem a condução de estacas de impacto, levantamentos geofísicos (sísmica, perfil subaquático inferior e eco-sondadores de feixe múltiplo), sonares militares, alguns dispositivos acústicos de dissuasão e uso explosivo. Os dados são coletados no local proposto e na data das atividades relevantes durante as etapas de planejamento e no local e data finais após a conclusão da atividade. O MNR também coleta, quando disponível, dados de fontes sonoras, incluindo o volume máximo de ar comprimido de energia máxima do martelo, freqüência do equipamento, níveis de pressão sonora, níveis de exposição sonora e equivalentes TNT explosivos.
Quando possível, os dados são extraídos dos processos de consentimento atuais ou fornecidos separadamente pelos desenvolvedores usando um formulário on-line simples. O fornecimento dos dados é obrigatório em alguns casos e voluntário em outros, dependendo do tipo de atividade e se há algum procedimento de consentimento relevante. Atualmente, está sendo desenvolvido um sistema integrado de captura de dados para vincular o Sistema de Rastreamento Ambiental do Portal de Energia (PETS) do Reino Unido ao MNR, que possibilitará o levantamento geológico de petróleo e gás e retornará os dados para serem automaticamente preenchidos.
Mapas serão produzidos anualmente mostrando a disseminação de atividades em "dias de bloqueio de pulsos" (o número de dias dentro do período especificado quando o ruído impulsivo foi gerado dentro de blocos individuais de licenciamento de petróleo e gás do Reino Unido). Os dados do Registro também são introduzidos em um registro europeu por meio da Convenção de Oslo e Paris para a Proteção do Ambiente Marinho do Atlântico Nordeste (OSPAR).
O MNR pode ser encontrado aqui Mais informações em relação ao MNR podem ser encontradas aqui.
Para mais informações, entre em contato com a Equipe de Gerenciamento Ambiental por e-mail em emt@beis. gov. uk ou (01224) 254079/254040 ou entre em contato com o seu Gerente Ambiental.
The Offshore Chemicals Regulations 2002 (na sua versão alterada)
The Offshore Chemicals (Amendment) Regulations 2011 came into force on 29 March 2011, extending certain provisions of the Offshore Chemicals Regulations 2002.
The Offshore Chemical Regulations 2002 were introduced to apply the provisions of a decision made by the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (the OSPAR Convention) to implement a harmonised mandatory control system for the use and discharge of chemicals by the offshore oil and gas industry. Under the regulations offshore operators must apply for permits for the use and/or discharge of chemicals in the course of all offshore oil and gas activities, including oil and gas production operations, well drilling, discharges from pipelines, and discharges during decommissioning activities.
The Offshore Chemicals (Amendment) Regulations 2011 further extend the provisions of the regulations to allow the department to take enforcement action in the event of any unintentional offshore chemical release. They also:
extend DECC ’s information-gathering powers so information can be obtained from a wider range of persons and in relation to a wider range of incidents simplify the permitting process for varying permits or transferring them to other operators more closely align the regulations with the Offshore Petroleum (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations (as amended)
Regulamentos.
Formulários de inscrição.
Use the following applications to apply for a chemical permit under the offshore chemical regulations:
Decommissioning Operation (formerly PON15E) - handled by the UK Oil Portal.
Well Intervention Operation (formerly PON15F) - handled by the UK Oil Portal.
Reporting requirements.
The standard chemical permit reporting forms can be accessed at the UK Oil Portal.
Additional reporting forms:
OSPAR annual reporting on the phase-out of hazardous substances.
For further information please contact the Environmental Management Team by e-mail at emt@beis. gov. uk or (01224) 254145 / 254102 / 254145 or please contact your assigned Environmental Manager.
The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005 (as amended)
All oil discharges from offshore oil and gas installations are carefully controlled to minimise contamination of the marine environment and the living resources it supports. The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005 (OPPC regulations) prohibit the discharge of oil to sea other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit. Operators of offshore installations must identify all planned oil discharges to relevant waters and apply for the appropriate OPPC permits.
The Energy Act 2008 (Consequential Modifications) (Offshore Environmental Protection) Order 2010 (PDF, 78.06KB) extends the provisions of the regulations to offshore gas unloading and storage operations and offshore carbon dioxide storage operations. This extension is, however, subject to geographical limitations to reflect the different devolution settlements relating to these offshore activities.
The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 introduced a number of changes to the regulations.
In addition, the amending OPPC regulations 2011:
extend OPRED (BEIS) information-gathering powers so information can be obtained from a wider range of persons and in relation to a wider range of incidents simplify the consents process for varying permits or transferring them to other operators.
provide additional powers for OPRED (BEIS) inspectors to take appropriate enforcement action in relation to actual or potential leaks and spills of oil.
Guidance and reporting requirements.
The Dispersed Oil in Produced Water Trading Scheme.
The Dispersed Oil in Produced Water Trading Scheme was cancelled following consultation and then approval from the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
For further information please contact:
Telephone: 01224 254054/254033.
The Offshore Combustion Installations (Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2013.
The Offshore Combustion Installations (Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2013 (“the Offshore (PPC ) Regulations 2013”) came in to force on 19 May 2013.
The Offshore (PPC ) Regulations 2013 transpose the relevant provisions of the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (“the IED”) in respect to specific atmospheric pollutants from combustion installations (with a thermal capacity rating ≥ 50 MW) on offshore platforms undertaking activities involving oil and gas production and gas and carbon dioxide unloading and storage. In this context, the obligations of the Offshore (PPC ) Regulations 2013 on the offshore oil and gas industry basically mirror those of the Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Regulations 2001 (as amended).
The Explanatory Memorandum fully describes the scope and other aspects associated with the Offshore (PPC ) Regulations 2013. The Offshore (PPC ) Regulations 2013 apply to those offshore combustion installations where a permit for their use is applied for and granted after 19 May 2013 - please note important points under the ‘Guidance’ heading below. As required by the IED, the existing 2001 Regulations (as amended) will continue to apply to offshore combustion installations which already have a permit before the Offshore (PPC ) Regulations 2013 came into force or where a permit was applied for before the 19 May 2013 and it was subsequently granted. Subject to transitional provisions, the existing 2001 Regulations (as amended) will cease to apply after 07 January 2014.
Regulamentos.
The Offshore Combustion Installations (Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2013 The Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 The Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Regulations 2001 Offshore Combustion Installation Regulations Charging Scheme ( PDF , 224KB , 10 pages )
OPRED (BEIS) will be revising the Guidance Notes to the 2001 Regulations (as amended) and the guidance / forms pertaining to ‘PPC permit applications and reporting requirements’ in order to reflect the obligations of the Offshore (PPC ) Regulations 2013. The offshore industry will be consulted - by the end of July / early August 2013 - on drafts of the revised documentation before updated versions are formally published. If, prior to the revised documentation being made available, any Operators need to apply for a new permit under the Offshore (PPC ) Regulations 2013 then they should use the existing application form. See links below to the extant Guidance Notes, the present guidance / forms for permit applications and reporting requirements, and other related information.
Graphics and diagrams.
The following graphics and diagrams are referred to in the guidance document:
IPPC flowchart.
IPPC flow chart: combustion plant ( MS Powerpoint Presentation , 45KB )
Combustion graphs.
Vendor turbine graphics.
Project reports.
Formulário de aplicação.
Reporting requirements.
For further information please contact the Environmental Management Team by e-mail at emt@decc. gsi. gov. uk or please contact your assigned Environmental Manager.
Environmental Inspection Plans 2014 onwards.
PPC Inspection Letters Issued.
Please contact the Offshore Inspectorate should you have any queries relating to these letters, or wish more information.
The Greenhouse Gases Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS )
Applications must be submitted for all qualifying installations undertaking specified activities that emit specified greenhouse gases, as detailed in schedule 1 of the ETS regulations. For the purpose of these regulations, an installation comprises any ‘stationary technical unit’ where one or more schedule 1 activities, and any ‘directly associated activities’, are carried out.
The third link above shows indicative allocations to each UK installation with the factor taken into account. We are providing this list now to enable operators to assess the impact of the factor. The list is provisional and does not represent the confirmed free allocation to installations. Further work is required to check and finalize allocations, including to take account of adjustments arising from capacity changes since 2011 and changes to carbon leakage status, and to transfer the data into the Registry. This process, including final clearance by the European Commission, is expected to take around two months. We anticipate moving allowances into operators’ registry accounts around November 2013.
EU Emissions Trading Scheme phase III.
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2012 (2012 Regulations) require that operators must notify the regulator of changes in activity levels which occurred during the year. Where you have not had any changes in activity level, you are required to submit a NIL return.
You must complete and submit the OPRED (BEIS) Change in Activity Notification form before 00:00 on 31 December 2013 completing separate notifications for each EU-ETS Permit held. Please note this deadline is stipulated in the Regulations and failure to Notify the Department and submit the relevant NE&C Change of Activity form (if relevant) by the 31 December could be regarded as a non-compliance.
The Notification Form asks you to identify whether the Installation has had a capacity reduction as per Schedule 6 (6), full cessation of activity as per Schedule 6 (7) or a partial cessation of activity as per Schedule 6 (8) of the 2012 Regulations, during the year. If the answer is ‘No’ simply complete the form and return to emt@beis. gov. uk If the answer to any of those questions is ‘Yes’ you must then consider if this could have an impact on the NIMs allocation of allowances for a qualifying sub-installation. If the answer is ‘No’ simply complete the form and return to emt@beis. gov. uk.
If the answer is ‘Yes’ and the change of activity could have an impact on the NIMs allocation of allowances for a qualifying sub-installation, you will also need to complete the EU Commission New Entrants & Closures (Change of Activity) form for recording and amending the amounts allocated for free in case of significant capacity reductions, cessations and partial cessations of installations. The form is available at gov. uk/oil-and-gas-offshore-environmental-legislation#the-greenhouse-gases-emissions-trading-scheme-ets.
Please complete and return the DECC - OGED Change of Activity Notification form and the NE&C form if relevant to EMT by e-mail at the address above before 00:00 (UK Time) on 31 December 2013 .
The UK Regulators have determined that allowances will be held in reserve until the notification form is received. Please note, notification of significant capacity reductions should be accompanied by a verification statement.
This following document outlines the appeals process under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/3038), and applies to any appeals made which relate to the 2013 reporting year onwards.
EU ETS non-compliance.
The EU ETS Directive requires Member States to put in place a system of penalties which is effective, proportionate and dissuasive but the nature of the penalties is largely left to Member State discretion (with the exception of the penalty for failure to surrender sufficient allowances in certain circumstances).
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System Regulations 2012 set out the civil penalties to which a person is liable if they do not comply with the EU ETS . DECC has produced the guidance below for the offshore oil and gas industry detailing the Department’s approach to enforcement and sanctions.
The EU Commission form.
The reporting form for (New Entrant Reserve applications) significant capacity reductions, cessations and partial cessations has been designed by the EU Commission for ALL operations and therefore there are a number of pages that are irrelevant for the offshore industry. Please do NOT try to modify this form.
There is a significant amount of guidance within the form and you are advised to carefully read and follow the relevant instructions within Tab B: ‘Guidelines and conditions’, and within the subsequent pages. As you complete the form (yellow boxes) information will be auto-populated into other relevant sections. The form will also automatically calculate allowances (green boxes) eg in the Partial Cessation section. You are specifically advised NOT to ‘cut and paste’ information as this will lead to unintended modifications within formulae. If you experience any issues with the form please contact EMT.
When the department receives your completed form, you will receive an acknowledgement. The information provided will be assessed and we will inform you of any anticipated changes to your allowances. All forms received will be collated and forwarded to the Commission for the final determination of allowances.
Even if you are not required to complete the EU Commission form at this time, operators are advised to familiarise themselves with this form, as this will be relevant for all operators in the future.
If you have any comments or queries please contact the EMT.
Annual Emissions Report.
Further to our advice of the use of the ETS7 form for the submission of annual emission reports for 2013, regretfully we have identified that this form does not fully conform to Phase III requirements. Therefore operators should make their annual emissions report on the Commission templates; Template No. 4 Annual Emissions Report of stationery source Installations (See under sub-section Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR) Guidance and Templates).
Verifiers should complete their Verified Opinion Statements on the following complimentary Commission template; Verification report template (See under sub-section Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR) Guidance and Templates).
It is imperative that Annual reports for 2013 are provided and verified within these two templates by 31 March 2014.
Do not amend any of the formatting of the Commission Forms. This will aid in the migration of your data to the ETSWAP system later this year.
Recommended Improvement Report.
The Department is now advising that the Recommended (or Annual ) Improvement Report, whichever is appropriate, should be made on the Commission template: Template No 7: Improvement Report for Stationary Installations.
Link for the Template See under sub-section ‘Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR) Guidance and Templates’.
It is imperative that Annual or Recommended Improvement Reports are submitted to the Department no later than 30 June 2014.
Please do not amend any of the formatting of the Commission Form. This will aid in the migration of your data to the ETSWAP system later this year. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact emt@beis. gov. uk.
For further information please contact: Email: emt@beis. gov. uk.
Supplementary material from the seminar held at Carmelite Hotel in Aberdeen on 26 May 2010.
EU ETS phase II.
Installations starting new entrant activities after 31 December 2007 and before 1 January 2013 can apply to the Phase II NER. All applications will require independent verification, including those from Later Phase I New Entrants, where the input data used in the benchmarking spreadsheet has changed from that used in the Phase I NER application. Further guidance is available on the DECC website.
Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme 2014.
The Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme Regulations (ESOS) 2014 has been introduced to implement Article 8 of the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU. ESOS is a mandatory energy assessment and energy saving identification scheme applicable to the offshore oil and gas industry sector.
The scheme requires an audit to be undertaken once every four years to identify cost-effective energy efficiency measures. Compliance for the first four-year period (Phase 1) is due by 5th December 2015 and should be notified using the online notification system.
Regulamentos.
Requisitos de relatório.
The online notification system is currently available for scheme participants to notify completion of the required audit. It is the scheme participant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the ESOS Regulations and to submit your notification by the required deadline. Please see Appendix A of the DECC - OGED guidance for information relating to completing the notification form.
Late notification submissions for Phase I compliance.
If scheme participants are unable to meet the Phase I compliance deadline of 5th December 2015, this should be recorded in advance of the deadline using the online form, explaining why the compliance deadline will be missed and when you expect to be compliant. Participants should also hold a record of the action taken to date to achieve compliance, including details of the appointment of a lead assessor, a copy of the late notification submission as they may be requested to provide the evidence pack to confirm that they are working towards compliance.
Scheme participants that qualify who do not notify a delay in compliance by 5th December 2015 will be in breach of the ESOS Regulations and will risk enforcement action. However, enforcement action is unlikely to be taken for Phase I non-compliance provided a notification confirming the non-compliance is submitted by 5 December 2015 and the full notification of compliance is received by 29 January 2016. For organisations committing to achieving compliance through ISO 50001 certification, enforcement action is unlikely to be taken as long as the notification of compliance is received by 30 June 2016.
For further information please contact the Environmental Management Team by e-mail at emt@beis. gov. uk or (01224) 254145 / 254102 / 254050 or please contact your assigned Environmental Manager.
The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Marine Licensing.
The introduction of the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) 2009 has introduced a marine licensing system. The licensable activities include the deposit and removal of materials, the disturbance of the seabed, and the use of explosives. BEIS is the licensing authority for reserved offshore energy related activities.
The vast majority of offshore energy activities relating to oil and gas exploration and production, gas unloading and storage, and carbon dioxide storage operations are controlled under the Petroleum Act 1998 (as amended) or the Energy Act 2008, and are specifically excluded from the marine licensing provisions under Part 4, section 77 of the MCAA. Therefore, operations that can be controlled under the Petroleum Act 1998 or the Energy Act 2008; or are exempted under the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011 (as amended), do not require a MCAA licence. The activities that are not excluded and require a MCAA licence are mainly related to decommissioning operations.
Guidance in relation to those offshore energy activities that are covered by the MCAA marine licensing regime is currently being developed. In the interim, please contact the Environmental Management Team (emt@beis. gov. uk) if you have any questions.
Application for a Marine Licence - handled by the UK Oil Portal.
Authorised return forms are currently under preparation and will be added to the EEMS reporting system accessed via the UK Oil Portal.
Marine Planning.
In addition to the licensing system for the carrying out of activities in the marine environment, the MCAA also introduced a new system of marine management, comprising the UK Marine Policy Statement and the production of marine plans. Marine planning is currently being developed via regional marine plans in England, whilst the Devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are currently developing national marine plans. Scotland’s National Marine Plan will also be supplemented by eleven regional plans. Further information on marine planning, including links to relevant UK and national documents and guidance on how the plans should be addressed in environmental applications, can be found here:
Regulamentos.
For further information please contact the Environmental Management Team by e-mail at emt@beis. gov. uk or your assigned Environmental Manager.
The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, Part II Deposits in the Sea.
The Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA), Part II Deposits in the Sea, used to cover the discharge or placement of substances or articles in the sea or on the seabed where the deposits could not be covered by other legislation. Following the introduction of the licensing provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, on 6 April 2011, it was dis-applied in English and Welsh waters and offshore waters adjacent to Scotland. However, FEPA Part II still applies in Scottish territorial waters, between the 3 NM Scottish controlled waters limit and the 12 NM Scottish territorial sea limit, where OPRED (BEIS) will remain the licensing authority. For activities within Scottish controlled waters, the Scottish Government is the licensing authority and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 is the relevant controlling legislation.
The vast majority of offshore energy activities relating to oil and gas exploration and production, gas unloading and storage, and carbon dioxide storage operations are controlled under the Petroleum Act 1998 (as amended) or the Energy Act 2008, and are specifically excluded from the marine licensing provisions of both the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA) and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (MSA). Information in relation to exceptions where it may be necessary to obtain a FEPA Part II licence will be included in the MCAA guidance.
Application for a FEPA Licence can be made using the Marine Licence application - handled by the UK Oil Portal.
For further information please contact the Environmental Management Team by e-mail at emt@beis. gov. uk or (01224) 254145 / 254102 / 254145 or please contact your assigned Environmental Manager.
The Energy Act 2008, Part 4A Consent to Locate.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC ) assumed responsibility for administration of Section 34 of The Coast Protection Act 1949 (CPA) in relation to offshore oil and gas operations on behalf of the Department for Transport (DfT) in October 2005. As of April 2011, the Consent to Locate (CtL) provisions of Section 34 of the CPA were incorporated into The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA). The MCAA provided a regulatory framework for a new marine licensing regime that included consideration of works detrimental to navigation. Although the MCAA licensing regime applies to a number of offshore oil and gas operations, including the disturbance of the seabed and the deposit and removal of substances or articles during the course of decommissioning operations, Section 77 of the MCAA excludes the vast majority of offshore oil and gas operations and carbon dioxide storage operations controlled under The Petroleum Act 1998 (PA) or The Energy Act 2008 (EA). To maintain the CtL provisions for these excluded operations, Section 314 of the MCAA created a new Part 4A of the EA, transferring the provisions of Section 34 of the CPA to the EA and transferring regulatory competence from DfT to OPRED (BEIS).
The issue of a CtL to an individual or organisation by the Secretary of State under Part 4A of the EA allows installation of the proposed offshore structure or operations providing they are undertaken in accordance with the consent conditions. It allows OPRED (BEIS) to insist upon the provision of navigational markings that are considered appropriate for the proposed offshore structure or operations.
Regulamentos.
Consulta.
OPRED (BEIS) have revised the procedures that were in place under the CPA, to ensure that the consenting process under Part 4A of the EA reflected the specific requirements of the operations that are covered by the MCAA exclusion. The revision accounted for requirements set out in Part 4A of the EA and the development of offshore practices that were not envisaged when the CPA was drafted. It has also taken into account the views of the bodies consulted on navigational matters prior to issuing Consents to Locate. OPRED (BEIS) has now completed its revision, and the new consenting process was subject to consultation which ended on 30 November 2012.
Guidance on Consent to Locate Application Types ( PDF , 15.7KB , 1 page )
Detailed guidance is in the process of being updated to address comments received through the consultation process. In the interim, please refer to the OPRED (BEIS) response document for further information or contact the Environmental Management Team if you have any questions.
Formulários de inscrição.
Consent to Locate Application Form - handled by the UK Oil Portal.
Reporting requirements.
PON10 Reporting Form , Update April 2017 ( MS Word Document , 44.4KB )
Useful documents.
Links Úteis.
For further information please contact the Environmental Management Team by e-mail at emt@decc. gsi. gov. uk or (01224) 254079 / 254102 / 254145 or please contact your assigned Environmental Manager.
The Energy Act 2008 (Consequential Modifications) (Offshore Environmental Protection) Order 2010.
The Energy Act 2008 makes provision under Part 1, Chapter 2 for the regulation of gas importation and storage through a licensing and enforcement regime for combustible gas. The Offshore Gas Storage and Unloading (Licensing) Regulations 2009, made under Part 1 of the Energy Act 2008, came into force on the 13 November 2009.
The Energy Act 2008 also makes provision under Part 1, Chapter 3 for the regulation of the storage of carbon dioxide (with a view to its permanent disposal or as an interim measure prior to its permanent disposal), through a licensing and enforcement regime. The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010, made under Part 1 of the Energy Act 2008, came into force on the 01 October 2010.
Following enactment of the Energy Act 2008 (Consequential Modifications) (Offshore Environmental Protection) Order 2010, which came into force on 01 July 2010 the provisions of the following regulations now also apply to gas unloading and storage, and carbon dioxide storage as they do to oil and gas activities. This extension is, however, subject to geographical limitations to reflect the different devolution settlements relating to offshore activities.
For further information please contact the Environmental Management Team by e-mail at emt@beis. gov. uk or (01224) 254079 / 254102 / 254145 or please contact your assigned Environmental Manager.
The Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 (as amended) The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 (as amended) The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended) The Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Regulations 2001 (as amended) The Offshore Installations (Emergency Pollution Control) Regulations 2002 (as amended) The Offshore Chemical Regulations 2002 (as amended) The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 (as amended) The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005 (as amended) The REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008 (as amended) The Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regulations 2009 (as amended)
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provisions) Regulations 2015.
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provisions) Regulations 2015 came into force on 22nd July 2015, and introduced new fees for functions relating to:
the Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety Directive) (Safety Case etc.) Regulations 2015; the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation Convention) Regulations 1998; the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999; the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001; regulation 49 of the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 2007; marine licences determined by DECC under section 71 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009; and the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regulations 2015.
The Regulations can be found at:
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016.
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016 came into force on 1st June 2016 and amended The Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provisions) Regulations 2015 and amended the fee charging provisions of the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 and the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001. The new Regulations introduced amended fees for functions relating to:
the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation Convention) Regulations 1998; the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999; the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001; regulation 49 of the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 2007; and the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regulations 2015.
The Regulations can be found at:
To coincide with these amended fee arrangements, the Department revised the existing charging schemes for the Offshore Chemicals Regulations 2002, the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2012 and the Offshore Combustion Installations (Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2013, to align the charges relating to those schemes with the amended charges detailed in the new Regulations.
Note: The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading charging scheme and the Offshore Combustion Installations charging scheme are being transferred to the entry detailed in Paragraph 7 below.
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Regulations 2016.
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2016 came into force on 1st December 2016 and amended the Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provisions) Regulations 2015 and amended the fee charging provisions of the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 and related provisions of the Energy Act 2008 (Consequential Modifications) (Offshore Environmental Protection) Order 2010.
The new Regulations introduced new / amended fees for functions relating to:
part 4A of the Energy Act 2008 (consents to locate); part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 ( marine licensing); and the Offshore Petroleum Activities ( Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001.
The Regulations can be found at:
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2017.
The Pollution Prevention and Control ( Fees) ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2017 amend the Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) ( Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provisions) Regulations 2015, the Offshore Chemical Regulations 2002, the Offshore Petroleum Activities ( Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005 and the Offshore Petroleum Licensing ( Offshore Safety Directive) Regulations 2015.
The new Regulations come into force on 6th April 2017, and introduce amended/new fee provisions for functions relating to:
various EU Fluorinated Gas Regulations; the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme Regulations 2014; the Offshore Chemicals Regulations 2002; the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005; and the Offshore Petroleum Licensing (Offshore Safety Directive) Regulations 2015.
The charging schemes for the Offshore Chemical Regulations 2002 and the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005 have also been updated.
The new regulations can be found at:
Guidance relating to all charging provisions can be obtained at:
The latest versions of relevant charging schemes can be found at:
Last updated 16 February 2018 + show all updates.
16 February 2018 Addition of The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 11 December 2017 Update to EU-ETS Civil Penalties Details spreadsheet 5 December 2017 Updated Substitute Reporting Guidance and Spreadsheets for 2017 3 November 2017 The Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 (as amended) section of the webpage updated and revised EIA Guidance - September 2017 uploaded 07/09/2017 3 November 2017 The Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 (as amended) section of the webpage updated and revised EIA Guidance - September 2017 uploaded 5 July 2016 EU ETS Civil Penalties Issued - (added) 12 May 2016 Oil and Gas: Updated documents and added The Pollution Prevention for 2016 28 January 2016 Offshore Combustion Installations Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2013 - Charging Scheme for the period 01/04/2015 to 21/07/2015 - (added) 2 December 2015 OSPAR annual reporting on the phase-out of hazardous substances - (updated) 2 December 2015 The Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme Regulations 2014 - (updated) 8 October 2015 PPC Inspection Letters Issued - (updated) 7 August 2015 EU Emissions Trading System – DECC Civil Sanctions Guidance to Industry - (added) 4 August 2015 The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System Regulations 2012 - (added) 3 August 2015 PPC Inspection Letters Issued - (updated) 20 July 2015 The Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provisions) Regulations 2015 - (added) 30 June 2015 EU Emissions Trading System – Appeals Guidance - (added) 5 June 2015 Oil and Gas: Updated the PPC Inspection letters document for June 31 March 2015 Oil and Gas: Environmental Legislation - Technical justification spreadsheet - (updated) and FAQ - (added) 17 March 2015 Oil and gas: Environmental legislation - PPC Inspection Letters Issued - (updated) 9 March 2015 Oil and gas:ESOS Guidance notes for the offshore oil and gas industry - (added) 17 February 2015 Oil and gas: Environmental Inspection Plan 2015 - (added) 16 February 2015 Oil and gas: Guidance on the Notification of Temporary Equipment used offshore - (updated) 9 February 2015 Oil and Gas: Recording and Analysis of Underwater Pile Driving: Installation of a Drilling and Production Jacket at Clair Ridge - (added) 16 January 2015 Oil and gas: ETSWAP industry user guidance - (added) 15 January 2015 Oil and gas: PPC Inspection Letters - (added) 19 December 2014 Oil and gas: Guidance for completing the Commission GHG Change of Activity Form Partial Cessation - (updated) 5 December 2014 Oil and Gas: Update of OSPAR reporting documents and addition of technical justification spreadsheet 4 December 2014 Oil and Gas: Added OGED notification spreadsheet and removed DECC-OGED Change Form 18 August 2014 Oil and gas: Environmental Inspection Plan 2014 - (added) 31 July 2014 Oil and gas: Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme 2014 guidance - (added) 30 June 2014 Oil and gas: Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme 2014 details - (added) 16 April 2014 Oila nd gas: Guidance on Consent to Locate Application Types - (added) 4 April 2014 Oil and gas: OPPC guidance notes for industry - (updated) 18 March 2014 Oil ans gas; OPPC PETS FAQ - (updated) 6 February 2014 Oil and gas: OPPC frequently asked questions - (added) 28 January 2014 Oil and gas:ETS7 - removed 14 January 2014 Oil and gas: OSPAR annual reporting updated 28 November 2013 Oil and gas: Moray Firth study final report - (added) 19 September 2013 The Energy Act 2008, Part 4A Consent to Locate Reporting requirements updated 22 May 2013 The Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Regulations 2013 - added 22 January 2013 First published.
Conteúdo Relacionado.
Orientação detalhada.
Explore o tópico.
Esta página é útil?
Serviços e informações.
Departamentos e política.
Links de suporte.
Ajuda Cookies Contato Termos e condições Rhestr o Wasanaethau Cymraeg Construído pelo Serviço Digital do Governo.
Todo o conteúdo está disponível sob a licença Open Government License v3.0, salvo indicação em contrário.

Revision of the eu emission trading system (eu ets) directive

Download a range of CCS materials including CCS animations, CCS PowerPoint, CCS Symbol, News Widget and more.
Useful downloads.
Reuse of unspent NER300 funds (1)
An important opportunity has arisen to utilise unspent NER300 funds and deliver tangible progress . Mais & raquo;
CCU in the EU ETS: ZEP Policy Briefing, November 2016.
In April 2016 the Zero Emission Platform (ZEP) published a report on Carbon Capture and . Mais & raquo;
CCU - Carbon Capture and Utilisation.
ZEP Network Technology produced a report on Carbon Capture and Use/Utilization (CCU) in April 2016, . Mais & raquo;
CCS: an essential technology to reconcile EU energy security with climate objectives.
Together with renewables and energy efficiency, CCS is a key technology to improve EU energy . Mais & raquo;
Marie Donnelly (EC DG Energy) at ZEP.
Introduction to Marie Donnelly.
Graeme Sweeney at ZEP 2013 General.
Graeme Sweeney, Chairman of the Zero.
Piotr Tulej (EC) and Didier Houssin.
Piotr Tulej, Head of Unit 'Low Carbon.
Tony Ripley (UK-DEC) and Charles.
Tony Ripley, UK Department of Energy.
Panel session at ZEP 2013 General.
Panel session with EC, IEA, Alstom and.
Andrew Purvis (GCCSI), Philip Pearson.
Andrew Purvis, General Manager EMEA.
Frederic Hauge, Head of Bellona, and.
Frederic Hauge of Bellona and the.
ZEP Animation featured on BBC News at.
The UK relaunched its CCS demonstration.
Siga-nos no Twitter.
@EP_Industry vote on #MarketDesign today. We call on MEPs to support the #EPS550, even though it is not enough to d… t. co/uQ5cpBWc8Q.
ZEP Highlights.
"An implementation plan for CCS and CCU in Europe" - ZEP article for EurActiv.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 15/01/2018.
Now that COP23 in Bonn has concluded, countries will be turning their attention to the mechanisms and technologies that will enable the .
"A New Dawn for CCS in Europe" - ZEP article for European Energy Innovation.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 15/01/2018.
As 2017 draws to a close, it is worth reflecting on the CCS developments that have taken place over the past year. O .
ZEP Position Paper Funding CCS Market Makers through the Innovation Fund.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 14/12/2017.
In March 2016 ZEP provided detailed recommendations for the design of the Innovation Fund Delegated Act, .
ZEP Response to EurActiv article "'Game over' for CCS, driven out by cheap renewables"
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 06/12/2017.
On the 4th December, EurActiv published an article entitled "'Game over' for CCS, driven out by cheap renewables"
"An indispensable solution" - ZEP article for Pan European Networks.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 27/09/2017.
ZEP has published a new report "Climate solutions for EU industry: interaction between electrification, CO 2 use and CO 2 storage"
ZEP Launches Fast Track CO 2 Transport and Storage for Europe report.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 12/06/2017.
ZEP has published a new report "Fast Track CO 2 Transport and Storage for Europe". The report concludes that "An integrated CO 2 transport and .
ZEP Briefing Paper - CCU in the Renewable Energy Directive.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 22/05/2017.
The European Commission in its revision of the EU Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) has proposed a 2030 target for ‘low-emission and .
ZEP Policy Brief - Energy Union Governance.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 09/05/2017.
The European Zero Emission Technology and Innovation Platform (ZEP) welcomes the proposal from the European Commission in November 2016 to .
ZEP Launches Commercial Scale Feasibility of Clean Hydrogen report.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 25/04/2017.
ZEP has published a new report "Commercial Scale Feasibility of Clean Hydrogen". The report investigates the potential of .
ZEP Launches 5th Annual Market Economics report.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 23/03/2017.
On the 23rd March, ZEP published its 5th annual Market Economics report "CCS and Europe's Contribution to the Paris Agreement - Modelling .
ZEP Press Release: Adoption of ETS Report is Crucial for CCS.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 16/02/2017.
Brussels, February 15 - The European Parliament today adopted its position on the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The European Zero .
ZEP Press Release: Adoption of ETS Report is Crucial for CCS.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 16/02/2017.
Brussels, February 15 - The European Parliament today adopted its position on the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The European Zero .
ZEP publishes Future CCS Technologies report.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 12/01/2017.
ZEP has published a report entitled "Future CCS Technologies". The report has been developed following COP21 and the aim of limiting the .
Reuse of unspent NER300 funds (1)
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 11/01/2017.
An important opportunity has arisen to utilise unspent NER300 funds and deliver tangible progress on CCS in Europe. Used intelligently, these .
CCU in the EU ETS: ZEP Policy Briefing, November 2016.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 28/11/2016.
In April 2016 the Zero Emission Platform (ZEP) published a report on Carbon Capture and Use/Utilization (CCU) which highlighted the .
Identifying and Developing European CCS Hubs.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 01/06/2016.
A low carbon EU should be inclusive with a comprehensive collection network enabling emitters large and small to connect to CO 2 storage and .
ZEP’s reply to issues paper No. 9 of SET plan Steering group.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 26/04/2016.
On 5 April 2016, the SET Plan Steering group published its paper on "Renewing efforts to demonstrate carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the .
CCS for industry - Modelling the lowest-cost route to decarbonising Europe.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 12/11/2015.
ZEP modelled the lowest-cost route to decarbonising European by looking at CCS for industries as refining, steel and cement.
ZEP Executable Plan for CCS in Europe.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 23/09/2015.
Emitting CO 2 to the atmosphere is currently much cheaper than storing it safely underground. Emitters can pay an ‘ETS wergild’ and are .
ZEP's model shows the lowest-cost route to decarbonising European power.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 14/11/2014.
In order to identify how low-carbon technologies can reduce European power emissions most cost-effectively in the horizon to 2050, the Zero .
ZEP report on Business Models for Commercial CO 2 Transport and Storage.
Publisher: ZEP Issued: 14/11/2014.
The critical role of CCS in meeting Europe’s energy, climate and societal goals is now indisputable: the European Commission’s .

Disbursement based on milestones is capped at 40% of the support.
Stakeholders want, CS&P reports, “I. F. funding [to] be provided when the project has a funding gap, leading to a form of contracted ‘funding against milestones’ approach.” But a cap of 40% on the proportion of support that “may not be dependent on verified avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions” has been hard-coded into ETS Innovation Fund’s legislative text. This is equivalent to saying that maximum 40% of support can be provided when milestones on the path to operation are met. The rest can only be released as the project operates.
The European Parliament would like to push 40% up to 60%, but even if the Council agrees, the fact remains that a large chunk of ETS Innovation Fund will be governed by the same constraint that NER300 faced. The discussions with stakeholders about whether and how to set up a revolving fund, who should manage it and the return it should generate will, at most, apply to 60% of the ETS Innovation Fund budget. This was not explained to the participants in DG CLIMA’s meetings.
“Transparent and clear criteria for project selection”
That’s what the stakeholders want, says CS&P. And again: “Participants were clear that any criteria […] should apply fairly to all proposals in order to compare them on an objective common basis.” But many of the criteria they want taken into consideration are ill-defined and unclear, like “Potential for developing profitable and volume business” or “Duration: Whether it is a short/long-term project (faster projects should be prioritised);”
NER300, the EC reminds us in its Impact Assessment, came with some fluffy criteria, too. For example, projects had to have “a cost-effective CO 2 reduction potential,” “be ready to be demonstrated at a scale which is easily conducive to further scaling up” and be “innovative in relation to the state-of-the-art”. It reconciled these with the need to be “objective and transparent” by, in the case of the “innovation” requirement, defining what “innovative” meant for different technologies in consultation with stakeholders, and in the case of the others, bundling them all together in a pass/fail “eligibility check” performed as part of the proposal evaluation process. This cleared the way for the selection of projects to then be done by a genuinely objective metric (“Cost Per Unit Performance”). ETS Innovation Fund, similarly constrained, may be given the same treatment.
To get the most out of the roundtables and of the invitation-only written consultation that ran in parallel, the EC or the consultants should have asked where to draw the line between eligibility and selection criteria. The Impact Assessment had even identified this as an area to explore (“It should be noted that innovation should be used either as an eligibility criterion or as a ranking one, to avoid confusion in the selection process.”).
Furthermore, the EC / consultants could have briefed the participants to focus on the eligibility criteria that the European Parliament adopted on 15 Feb (box below), since a list drawn up within the legislative process would in any case trump a stakeholder-drafted one. This list was known before the first roundtable, on 17 Feb. By doing these things, the stakeholders’ input could have built on rather than duplicated the work being done elsewhere.
Projects shall focus on the design and development of breakthrough solutions and implementation of demonstration programmes; The activities shall run close-to-market in production plants to demonstrate the viability of breakthrough technologies in overcoming technological as well as non-technological barriers; Projects shall address technological solutions that have the potential to be of widespread application, and may combine different technologies; Solutions and technologies shall ideally have the potential to be transferred within the sector and possibly to other sectors; Projects where the anticipated emissions reductions are significantly below the relevant benchmark value shall be prioritised. Eligible projects shall either contribute to emissions reductions below the benchmark values referred to in paragraph 2 or shall have future prospects to significantly lower the cost of transitioning towards low-emissions energy production; and CCU projects shall deliver a net reduction in emissions and a permanent storage of CO2 across their lifetime.
& mdash; European Parliament’s proposed guidelines for “criteria to be used for the selection of projects that are eligible”
Speaking at EUSEW DG CLIMA staff member Filippo Gagliardi said the consultation on ETS Innovation Fund had yielded “a number of interesting proposals on how to rank projects.”
Member States involved in project progress.
This is another area where stakeholders may have wasted their time. If the EC had wanted ETS Innovation Fund to work differently to NER300, it would not have proposed to leave the current text of the ETS Directive unchanged: “Support for these projects shall be given via Member States”. EP and Council have not touched it, either. So while CS&P has found that “Experts [want] ‘control of the process [to] be at the EU level and [to] allow for direct IF feedback with applicants (not via member state institutions)'”, a change compared to NER300 seems unlikely. Elsewhere CS&P reports, “the Innovation Fund should include ‘mechanisms to ensure proper coordination between EU and national funding'”, so maybe strong oversight by Member States is in fact desirable.
Time travel.
“Avoid confusion and overlap with other funding instruments,” recommends the report four times in its 24 pages. But what are these other instruments? The bulk of ETS Innovation Fund’s budget will be available only after 2020. No EU instruments for that period have yet been defined. It will be for those future instruments to fit around ETS Innovation Fund, not vice versa.
This has not stopped CS&P and DG CLIMA speculating that there will be a “successor to Horizon 2020” (see CS&P’s presentation and DG CLIMA’s — Fig 1). They show Horizon 2020’s successor to fully overlap with ETS Innovation Fund, suggesting neither believes this particular recommendation will be taken on board.
Supports the findings of a Sept 2016 report.
A report that covers the question of how to finance First-of-a-Kind commercial-scale demonstration projects (at least in the energy field) more comprehensively than CS&P’s was done under contract to DG Research in 2016. The report was called ‘Innovative Financial Instruments for First-of-a-Kind, commercial-scale demonstration projects in the field of Energy’. It recommended building up Innovfin EDP as a source of debt and creating a Strategic Energy Technology Equity Fund to meet “a clear need for more equity provision for FOAK projects in the EU.”
Suddenly ETS Innovation is about products, not just processes… (!)
The Parliament has convinced the Council to allow support to flow to “products substituting carbon-intensive ones”. In fairness to CS&P and its collaborators, this could not easily have been foreseen, and their report has almost nothing to say on the matter. Its heading “Process, Product or System Innovation” suggests that stakeholders had been invited to consider products in their deliberations, but their examples almost exclusively concern process innovation, occasionally system innovation. They had shown interest in products at the High Level Round Table on Low-Carbon Innovation, which DG CLIMA hosted on 9 June 2016.
Any comments on “breakthrough” technology?
Parliament and Council look set to underline ETS Innovation Fund’s applicability to “breakthrough solutions”. The CS&P report says, “The idea of ‘breakthrough technologies (and business models), rather than incremental innovations’ was highlighted several times.” It doesn’t, however, attempt to categorise the participants’ project examples into “breakthrough” and “non-breakthrough” in a consistent way. The report links the form of financing appropriate for a technology to the technology’s maturity: “The I. F. should mainly offer grants, complemented with partial grants and / or de-risked loans or equity (depending on the maturity of the technology) with higher levels of grant intensity for early stage projects.”
Enthusiasm for two-stage calls.
“Experts clearly favour a multi-stage process (‘funnel-type application procedure’) with a consensus opting for a two-stage process (for simplicity, clarity and to reduce administrative burdens),” writes CS&P. Isso é surpreendente. Many of the industries that will be targeted by ETS Innovation Fund are currently the object of the SPIRE (‘Sustainable Process Industry through Resource and Energy Efficiency’) part of Horizon 2020. SPIRE is unusual in that stakeholders have a lot of control over the Horizon 2020 budget. “The Commission commits to maintain regular dialogue with the Private Side during the preparatory phase of the drafting of the work programmes,” says its Contractual Arrangement, where ‘Private Side’ is a group of companies representing resource - and energy-intensive industry, and ‘work programmes’ are 2-year (sometimes 3-year) spending plans. In Work Programme 2016-2017 and Work Programme 2018-2020, SPIRE stakeholders got their funding from one-stage calls, probably because that’s what they wanted.
Single-stage calls are also the norm for Horizon 2020 energy demonstration projects. Such projects are identified as ‘IA’ in the table on page 137 of the Work Programme 2016-2017. The EC thinks adding 5 months to the evaluation process by requiring a second stage would be unpopular for industry-led consortia.
ETS Trilogue: agreement within sight on ETS Innovation Fund?
Scope-widening idea #1: products.
In May, the Council agreed to extend ETS Innovation Fund’s scope beyond processes to products, proposing to insert “as well as products” into the European Commission’s proposal. At the trilogue of 27 June, the Parliament insisted on keeping its wording, “products substituting carbon intensive materials”, because it felt this would free ETS Innovation Fund to develop materials that provide the same service as ones produced by energy-intensive industries, but that come from entirely different industries and lower-carbon supply chains. The Council accepted. The Parliament’s text was taken up in the revised negotiating mandate handed by COREPER to the Estonian Presidency in Sept 2017.
Setting ETS Innovation Fund on this course will be difficult. As shown below (under heading ‘60% vs 75% and 40% vs 60%’), both Parliament and Council (known collectively as ‘the legislator’) want a considerable proportion of support to be “dependent on verified avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions”. To “verify” avoidance, the substitution of carbon-intensive materials will have to be proved. This will not be easy.
Missing an “in”
The current text relating to products could be interpreted in two ways. It could be, “ETS Innovation Fund supports products substituting carbon intensive ones”, which implies various market-pull policies like price support to encourage end-consumers to shift from one product to another. It could alternatively be, “ETS Innovation Fund supports innovation in products substituting carbon intensive ones”.
It remains to be seen whether the legislator chooses to remove this ambiguity. One way to allow only the latter interpretation would be by inserting the word “in” before “products”:
…shall be available to support innovation in low-carbon technologies and processes, including environmentally safe carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) that contributes substantially to mitigate climate change, as well as in products substituting carbon intensive ones produced, in […] sectors listed in Annex I.
Scope-widening idea #2: breakthrough technologies.
Another idea of the European Parliament’s to be taken by up the Council at the last minute is to open ETS Innovation Fund to “breakthrough technologies”. This text appears in the Oct 2 update to its negotiating mandate: “Technologies receiving support shall not yet be commercially available, but shall represent breakthrough solutions or be sufficiently mature to be ready for demonstration at pre-commercial scale”. The word “or” suggests that the legislator sees these categories as distinct. The EC, for its part, thinks breakthrough technology is already within the scope of its proposals for ETS Innovation Fund. This is clear from the references to “breakthrough” that appear throughout its explanation of its design, written in 2015.
If the phrase “breakthrough technologies or” nonetheless nudges ETS Innovation Fund towards less mature technologies, the need to deliver “verifiable greenhouse gas avoidance” puts a limit on how speculative they can be.
What size of fund?
Commissioner Cañete wanted Parliament and Council to meet each other somewhere between their respective positions, but Council seems willing to negotiate only on the source of the allowances, not the final amount (see Oct 2 negotiating mandate update), which is left as per the EC’s proposal of 400 M. This website made the prediction in January that allowances from both the auctioned and free-allocated parts of the ETS would feed the ETS Innovation Fund. It remains to be seen whether the second part of the prediction, namely that the origin of allowances will be used to justify an ex-ante split between the shares of the pot going to energy vs industry projects, will come to pass. The European Parliament wants allowances to be taken from the auctioned share. The Council wants the first 300 M to come from the freely-allocated share and 100 M from the auctioned share.
Council ignores “leverage instruments”
The Council has ignored the Parliament’s reference to “leverage instruments”. If the final text omits this reference, it will be difficult for the Commission to create a “fund” from ETS resources in the sense of portfolio of investments that generates a return. It would still at least be possible for part of the allowances to be put towards Innovfin EDP or a similar debt instrument. This is compatible with the primary legislation behind the NER300 Decision, which the primary legislation behind ETS Innovation Fund will closely resemble.
60% vs 75% and 40% vs 60%
The Parliament wants the relevant costs of projects to be supported up to 75%, instead of 60% as proposed by the Commission. Up to 60% of this support would be paid out on the achievement of milestones in project development on the way to becoming operational, instead of 40%. The Council is open to compromise.
All wrapped up on time?
In a statement to NER400 just before the Sept trilogue, Fredrick Federley (MEP representing the committee with co-lead on ETS Innovation Fund, ITRE, in the trilogue) said, “We see the Council’s position as a first bid. This is not going to be settled today. The Council has moved a bit but many details remain to be sorted out, such as sourcing of the fund.” The expectation, however, is that agreement on all points will be reached at the next trilogue on October 12. This will allow the EU to go to the next major UN climate conference in Bonn 6-17 November with its house in order.
Opaque like many other trilogues.
Last year the European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly published recommendations on improving the transparency of trilogues. She came out against publishing the versions of the evolving agreement that are produced before each meeting because “the public” might get the idea that the text they contain is “set in stone”. Her recommendation continues,
The public, which might not be aware of the delicate negotiating strategies of the co-legislators regarding such concessions, could be seriously misled. Facing such a risk, participants might refrain from making any serious concessions. Thus, early disclosure could potentially damage the negotiation process.
This, of course, is utterly bogus. Firstly, who is “the public”? Probably not the proverbial man-in-the-street, but the rather the policy wonk, clued-up on the lawmaking process. If a trilogue concerns a newsworthy topic, then the man-in-the-street will mostly likely learn of it through a reporter or commentator who is familiar with the workings of the EU and able to explain them. Trilogue texts already contain flags saying that the text can change, e. g. as at the link above where a compromise is offered “in the context of the overall package”.
Secondly, even accepting that there may exist a group of people who are obsessed with following trilogues but who are too stupid to absorb the concept of nothing-being-agreed-until-everything-is-agreed, it is preposterous that lawmaking could be impaired as a consequence. This would never be allowed in any other context. Arcane procedures are used to carry out parliamentary business in democracies across the world all the time.
To her credit, O’Reilly seems to acknowledge this. Her recommendations will allow greater scrutiny of this increasingly used procedure. The paragraph including the phrases above is the only one of the 69 to start with a qualifier: “It is arguable that…”, hinting at the arguments she may have had with those fighting to keep interim versions of the agreement secret.
Half a year after O’Reilly published her recommendations, trilogues again came in for criticism.
*** UPDATE 11 Oct 2017 : The Ombudsman’s office has written to NER400 referring to a letter sent to the EC insisting on timely and substantive follow-up on her recommendations. She has asked for a response from the EC by 30 November 2017, and, in identical letters, responses from the European Parliament and Council. Reference is also made to a case before the European Court of Justice, De Capitani v Parliament (T-540/15), which covers access to the evolving agreement reached between Parliament and Council during trilogues, known as the “4-column document”.
Previewing Monday’s DG CLIMA event: the sectoral roundtable wrap-up.
What kind of fund is ETS Innovation Fund?
The financial community understands “fund” as something quite different to the way the word is usually used in Brussels. A banker told the roundtable he was chairing, “I didn’t hear the word ‘IRR’ once […]. There’s quite a lot of work to be done on how this fund is going to look like a fund.” Tomas Wyns, in his January 20th presentation, displayed slides saying that Innovation Fund “can enable/provide next layers of finance (equity, mezzanine, senior & minor debt, guarantees)”. The roundtables did not reach consensus on which of ‘enable’ or ‘provide’ the Innovation Fund should aim to do.
Grants, please.
“The line ‘grants are highly appreciated’ could be the quote of the day,” joked Vincent Gilles, the moderator of the finance session for renewables and storage at the 6 April event. Various speakers had spoken up for grants while recognising the usefulness of other forms of financing.
Size of projects.
“Investment needs for industry-size low carbon plants/processes may be in the range of 0.5-1 bn EUR for one single large process,” wrote Wolfgang Eichhammer on his January 20th slides. The rapporteur for the ferrous metals roundtable sensed tacit agreement for the suggestion that a commercial first-of-its-kind demonstration project could cost twice that amount. This would imply 300 M EUR of funding, said Theo Henrar, thinking of his company’s clean steel production technology ‘Hisarna’. This is line with the maximum found to be necessary by the consultancy Adelphi.
While stakeholders have argued about the extent to which ETS Innovation should fund early-stage research, Jos Delbeke (Director General of DG CLIMA) has clear ideas: “It is a fund for demonstration new technologies in the private sector […] and not PhDs”. This was also the line he took in June 2016.
Rules of the game.
Summing up the deliberations of the renewables roundtable on 6 April, Hans Bünting said “There are a lot good things that can be taken from NER300 into the new fund. There are some proven procedures and principles but also of course there’s some room for improvement […]: clear and transparent selection criteria which go beyond the technology evaluation.” Patrick Clerens shared the following on behalf of the energy storage sector: “It is really necessary to make sure that on one side we have technology neutrality but if you end up with the situation that of the 5-6 sectors that could make up the fund only one is selected [there should be possibility “to balance out” the funding].”
The cement sector came up with a number of specific ideas for project selection rules including a ranking criterion that evaluates the CO 2 saving of demonstration projects in different sectors against a recognised benchmark.
The metals sector pleaded for a programme that is “simple and flexible as possible in all respects such as what TRL levels to be financed, number and size of applications, funding tools applied, their tenor, potential interaction with other funding tools, etc.”
But the EC dampened expectations that Innovation Fund would be a one-stop shop providing all financing needs. Artur Runge-Metzger said on 20th January, “What we know from the experience of NER300 is that this will require a more flexible approach than we had in the past. It might require a more tailored approach. This might imply an increase in administrative complexity. It’s not going to be as simple and straightforward as the NER300. The instrument must be manageable. The one-stop shop sounds absolutely great, but it could be a big marketplace with many things and could create complication.”
The strangest feature of these roundtables was that participants were not briefed on the primary legislation now being negotiated between Council and European Parliament. The time spent discussing the desirability of making NER300 support dependent on reaching construction milestones rather than on successful plant operation was time wasted. Payment-by-milestones will be allowed to between 40% to 60% depending on whether the final text more closely reflects the Council’s or EP’s wishes.
Equally, there was no point complaining about the involvement of Member States in the ETS Innovation Fund (which many did). Their involvement is about to be fixed in law. Neither Commission, Council or EP have proposed to change the wording that shaped NER300, namely that “support for projects shall be given via Member States”.
Given the closeness of the text being finalised now to the text that defined NER300, it is difficult to see how the two could operate very differently.
Steps in the shaping of ETS Innovation Fund.
*** UPDATE 25 June 2017 : DG CLIMA has uploaded the presentations made in the workshops and its conference report. No attendance lists, though.***
UPDATE 24 May 2017 : Registration open for “Presentation of the report of recommendations from the sectorial consultation round tables” (wrap-up event ‘Conference 3’) — deadline 7 June. Agenda.***
This table recaps the different stages in the shaping of ETS Innovation Fund. The next event is the wrap-up event on 12 June. Registration not yet open.
6 non-public reports: innovation needs for all sectors + joint report for cement & lime and glass & ceramics on financing needs + joint report for renewable energies and storage on financing needs.
The EC said it would publish the questions put to the participants in these workshops, but it has not. It also said it would publish the presentations, but it has not, possibly because speakers refused to allow this.
Each sectoral roundtable report is presented by its writer. A consolidated summary of the full thirteen, which the EC should have in its possession “by the end of May” (Doubrava, 6 April) is published by the EC. It will include a list of the participants in the roundtables.
This final event “is probably where we from the Commission side will become a bit more outspoken in terms of what we think could fly from all the ideas we have been hearing,” said Artur Runge-Metzger on 20 Jan.
Job opening at DG CLIMA.
*** UPDATE 28 June 2017 : a new member of staff has been hired.***
DG CLIMA is looking for a replacement for one of its team managing NER300 and ETS Innovation Fund, among other responsibilities. It is offering a position for a Contract Agent (FG IV). The job description is here.
2017 predictions for ETS Innovation Fund.
ETS Innovation Fund divided into indicative shares for industry and energy.
Recognising the difficulty in comparing projects in such different areas as low-carbon processes in industry, renewable energy production, CCS and energy storage against each other, the EC will propose ex ante an indicative share of the ETS Innovation Fund pot for the main categories of eligible technology. This is standard practice in the EC’s other major funding programme for innovation in energy, Horizon 2020. But the EC will be sure to keep a mechanism that allows it to transfer budget from one category to another. Such a mechanism existed in NER300 and was very useful when CCS proved to be much less commercialisable than initially supposed.
The European Parliament’s Innovation Fund amendments will almost all disappear in trilogue.
‘Trilogue’ refers to the untransparent phase of EU lawmaking, when, away from public view, the small number of MEPs most closely involved in drafting the European Parliament’s position (Rapporteurs and Shadow Rapporteurs) and representatives from the Council (from the country holding the Presidency) discuss how to reconcile their sets of amendments. The EC mediates.
The European Parliament will try hardest to defend the increase in the Innovation Fund size from 400 to 600 million EUAs. Both rapporteurs, Ian Duncan and Fredrick Federley proposed this in their initial draft responses (article here and here). The EC seems quite supportive.
The allowances could potentially come from two places: the pool of allowances that would otherwise be auctioned, or from the pool that are allocated for free. There seems to be agreement on the source of the first 400 million: the freely allocated share. ITRE’s suggestion of taking the additional 200 million from the auctioned share, to which the 50 million to be transferred into ETS Innovation from the Market Stability Reserve originally belonged, will be adopted. [CORRECTION: Amendment 46 of the European Parliament’s report states they should come from the auctioned share.]
The Council, keen to see small projects funded and a good spread of projects between countries, will in turn demand that the maximum payment one project can get will be reduced from 15% of the expected total pot to 10%.
In addition, the origin of allowances will be used to determine the indicative split between industry and energy projects. The power sector obtains its EUAs from auctioning, so it will seem fair that 250 M out of 650 M EUR is for energy projects. Heavy industry, meanwhile, is freely allocated most of its allowances, so indicatively 400 M will be for industry.
ETS Innovation Fund will remain, essentially, a grant-funding scheme.
Schemes that provide non-grant finance to innovative energy (or low-carbon industrial) projects are growing in number and capacity. EFSI has been launched and will be extended. EDP Innovfin, which can support riskier projects than its predecessor, the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility, will also soon be given a cash infusion from the awards made to cancelled NER300 projects.
Sources of grant funding are less common. ETS Innovation Fund’s niche will be that it provides grant funding, to be complemented by the panoply of financial instruments available from other facilities. This approach will be popular with stakeholders. Focusing ETS Innovation Fund on one form of funding will be found to minimise the complexity of administering ETS Innovation Fund, particularly the ranking of projects. This is important as many stakeholders have appealed for simplicity.
The practice of periodically ‘flushing’ cash from failed ETS Innovation Fund projects to EDP Innovfin (or its post-2020 successor), established in NER300, will become standard. The possibility to directly send a portion of the 650 M EUA to EDP Innovfin will not be excluded either.
Targeted calls.
One of the biggest decisions the EC will need to make is whether to keep a project’s “innovative-ness” as an eligibility criterion, or make it a selection criterion. In NER300, innovative-ness was an eligibility criterion: a project had to respond to one of a list of defined technological challenges. If it did, it progressed to the next stage of scrutiny. If innovative-ness were a selection criterion, calls could be more open as there would be no need to define ex ante the technology challenge that projects should address.
Different approaches will be taken for energy projects and industrial projects.
Energy projects will need to meet one of a list of defined technological challenges. In contrast to NER300, that list will be updated often in a relatively transparent process. Stakeholder groups will be consulted, possibly as part of a SET Plan exercise.
The industrial sectors targeted by ETS Innovation Fund are those in Annex 1 of the Emissions Trading Directive. Each will have its own set of options for reducing CO 2 emissions per unit output. Luckily, there will be no need to anticipate them all because it will be possible for the EC simply to say that projects must deliver a specific CO 2 emission of at least 20% better than best-available-technology. The greater the CO 2 reduction beyond that threshold, the better the project’s standing in the competition. Such benchmarks exist, for example to determine the number of EUAs to allocate to industrial plants for free. This approach will be consistent with the European Parliament’s wishes and have the support of a leading NGO in the ETS Innovation Fund debate, Carbon Market Watch.
Wrap-up of 2016: state of play in European Parliament and Council.
The end of 2016 saw the two lead committees on ETS Innovation Fund in the European Parliament, ITRE and ENVI (shorthanded to “European Parliament” in the rest of this piece), adopt their amendments to the European Commission’s (EC’s) proposals. First ITRE voted, on 10 Nov; then ENVI on 15 Dec.
Member States were not ready to adopt their set of amendments on the Emissions Trading Scheme at the Environment Council meeting of 19 Dec, but from the document reflecting the state of their discussions, and their statements in the meeting (Sweden, Luxemburg, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia), it looks like their position on ETS Innovation Fund is settled.
European Parliament going for a big and generous Innovation Fund — Council reluctant to follow.
Like ITRE, ENVI wants a bigger Innovation Fund, made up of 600 million allowances, not the 400 million proposed by the EC. The EC had proposed that a maximum of 15% of the allowances could go to one project. MEPs did not decrease this limit to compensate the increased size of the Fund.
Innovation Fund’s predecessor, NER300, capped “relevant costs” at 50%, and this equated, typically, to around 30-40% of project CAPEX. ENVI voted to be more generous with Innovation Fund, allowing requests of up to 75% of relevant costs, but MEPs never put forward analysis to support that decision. The Commission did not set a good example: its defence of a 60% cap, set out in the Impact Assessment accompanying its proposals, is threadbare (see this article for more). The Council sticks with the EC’s cap nonetheless.
Enlarged scope: European Parliament and Council want funding for energy storage technologies.
The co-legislators want ETS Innovation Fund’s scope enlarged: energy storage technologies should be included. They underlined the need to fund CCU — carbon capture and use, which was implicitly already covered by the EC’s proposal — where it “contributes substantially to mitigating climate change” (Council’s phrasing). The European Parliament also underlined bio-based materials.
European Parliament wants even looser link between project performance and award payout.
ENVI Rapporteur Ian Duncan was keen to break the link between a project’s performance and its right to keep its award. The Committee took up his suggestion to allow up to 60% of the award to be paid out on effort alone: provided a project meets milestones in construction and commissioning it can keep up to 60% of its award. This would mean, in the extreme case, that only 40% would be payable on the project actually working.
The Member States prefer not to depart from the Commission’s proposals, by which no more than 40% of the award may be paid out on effort alone.
Council makes the 50 M EUAs from the Market Stability Reserve an integral part of ETS Innovation Fund.
The Council re-arranged the EC’s text relating to ETS Innovation Fund to more clearly show that the 400 M carbon allowances for ETS Innovation Fund and 50 M allowances from the Market Stability Reserve will be put towards one and the same funding programme.
European Parliament votes for fuzzier selection criteria.
MEPs want energy projects in the ETS Innovation Fund to be selected in part for their “future prospects to significantly lower the costs of transitioning towards low-emissions energy production”. Again, the Council prefers the Commission’s language, namely to use “objective and transparent” selection criteria. This was the principle that governed NER300’s design, interpreted in the NER300 Decision to mean that all projects would compete on a measure known as “cost-per-unit-performance”. That measure allowed the many and disparate renewable energy projects to be compared with each other, and was computable from nothing more than those projects’ internal financial and production forecasts.
Roland Schulze, the EC’s counterpart in the European Investment Bank for NER300, gave his views on ETS Innovation Fund’s selection process on 16 Jun 2016.
Factual mistakes.
…in amounts awarded.
“23 projects were awarded €1.5 billion.”
No. In the first call, only 1.21 bn EUR was awarded (Dec 2012 Award Decision), although the EC had raised 1.5 bn EUR for projects (July 2012 SWD). The EC preferred to roll some money over to the second call than to award it all in the first call.
… in size of the awards.
“The NER 300 funding for RES projects ranges from €7 to €203 million.”
Wrong: the smallest NER300 award is of 3.9 M EUR to a project in Latvia.
…in the amount of energy projects will produce.
“The awarded RES projects are estimated to increase the annual EU renewable energy production by some 18 TWh”
Wrong: it is 22.5 TWh. This number is obtained by dividing, for each RES project in the applicable amended award decision, the project’s maximum funding amount by the funding rate (or adjusted funding rate in the case of a part of the award being paid upfront), then summing the results and dividing by 0.75 to account for the fact that the maximum funding amount will have been irrevocably disbursed once 75% of bid production has been achieved. 18 TWh is number derived if you forget to divide by 0.75.
The projected quantity of energy produced from NER300 installations, quoted as a ‘result’ of the programme, is in any case of doubtful relevance. A better way to evaluate NER300’s success would be to focus on its proximate aim, which is to bring about the rapid replication of the supported technologies without further special financial support. More suitable criteria for success would therefore have been the speed at which projects are built and at which a Project Sponsor or his competitors subsequently deploy the same technology, or a next-generation version of it. This is a view that Gernot Klotz who spoke at DG CLIMA’s first ETS Innovation Fund event, the June 2016 High Level Round Table on Low-Carbon Innovation, would share.
False memories.
Indicative shares that were never there.
The Impact Assessment says,
“Indicative shares for CCS and RES projects with a smooth spill over possibility between the groups were crucial under the NER 300 programme to ensure the allocation of all available funds.”
(The association EURIMA happens to agree, calling for the principle to be maintained: “Criteria should be flexible enough so as to avoid that part of the funds remain unused if some of the selected projects do not materialise (as might be the case with CCS in the current NER 300 facility).”)
There were no “indicative shares for CCS and RES” in NER300. The shares of funding for CCS and RES depended on the amount of NER300 funding requested by confirmed projects. There was no way before running the competition to know how many confirmed projects in CCS and RES there would be or how much each, on average, would ask for. The text claims the “possibility for smooth spill-over” was crucial, but rules made the magnitude and direction of the spill unpredictable. Furthermore, they were never applied (in the first call, there were 0 confirmed CCS projects; in the second, the funding available exactly managed the funding requested by all the eligible projects in the competition).
…of the reasons for projects not being ‘confirmed’
The Impact Assessment says, of the first call,
“36 [projects] were either not confirmed by Member States or could not be supported due to insufficient funds.”
It would have been more accurate to write,
“36 were not confirmed by Member States either because of the maximum-3-projects-per-Member-State rule or because the EC did not invite them to confirm them.”
The EC requested the MS to confirm only those projects mentioned in the Staff Working Document of July 2012:
“In order for the Commission to adopt award decisions by end 2012, all Member States with candidate or reserve projects on the list in the Annex are requested to proceed swiftly to confirm for all candidates support as well as the national funding contributions”
The consequence of this was that when, at the last minute, the ULCOS CCS project withdrew, there were no projects the EC could award instead.
Airbrushing history.
The Impact Assessment says,
“The first call’s cycle lasted 25 months and this may seem as too long, but one has to bear in mind that the first call was also a learning curve for all involved parties. Considerable improvements, due to the streamlining of the process, were made during the second call and that lead ( sic ) to a much shorter cycle of 15 months.”
These sentences, while not strictly wrong, misrepresent the reason for the length of time to launch and conclude the first call. The circumstances that led to the protracted timing were never likely to be repeated in the second call or indeed in any subsequent call. This is because the delays were due to poor coordination with the process to set up the ‘single union registry’ for carbon allowances, which only needed to be done once.
The monetisation of the 200 million NER allowances for the first call could only begin with the registry in place (Bloomberg article 9 Nov 2011) and it was set up late. Within a couple of days of the adoption on 18 Nov 2011 of the regulation establishing the registry, the EC confirmed that it would “proceed swiftly with the European Investment Bank (EIB) to account opening to enable the delivery of allowances before the end of the month” (statement by Jos Delbeke).
Thus the start of the monetisation was pushed back, with a knock-on effect on the timing of the selection process (see official Summary Record of Climate Committee Meeting 14 Dec 2011).
The delays that the first call of NER300 would face were apparent to the EC even before it was launched. The EC updated the text of the Decision that had been signed off by Member States on 2 Feb 2010 (here) to extend an important NER300 deadline. Projects would no longer have to enter into operation no later than 31 Dec 2015, but within four years of the award decision.

Facultas – Sustainable Development Resources.
This site provides reviewed, vetted information and resources on sustainable development, climate, environment and related issues for professionals, policy makers, academia and the general public.
Renewable Energy & Environment.
Energy and Environment – New and Renewable Energies and Technologies.
Continuous growth in global energy demand coupled with growing concerns about energy security and the environment, have challenged the sustainability of the current energy system. Considering that 80% of greenhouse gases emissions are related to energy production and consumption, the development and deployment of innovative energy technologies are needed to reduce emissions, but also create new markets for EU industry and to secure adequate level of supply. To complement its emission trading policy, a coherent EU framework for the promotion of energy policy promoting energy efficiency (EE), renewable energy (RE) and R&D in energy innovation is needed if the EU wants to meet its emission targets and make the best of its competitive advantages in this field.
Renewable Energy Sources and Technologies.
Renewable sources of energy – wind power, solar power (thermal, photovoltaic and concentrated), hydro-electric power, tidal power, geothermal energy and biomass – are alternatives to fossil fuels that help reduce greenhouse gasses emissions, diversify energy supply and reduce dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets. The growth of renewable energy sources may also stimulates employment in Europe and the creation of new technologies. Policies that support renewable energy sources (RES) can give a significant boost to the economy and the number of jobs in the EU. Studies suggest that improving current policies to reach the 20% RES in final energy consumption by 2020 will provide a net effect of about 410,000 additional jobs and 0.24% additional GDP . [1]
Several of the RE technologies available today, especially wind energy, but also small-scale hydro power, energy from biomass, and solar thermal applications, are economically viable and competitive but their potential has not yet been fully realised.[2] In addition, offshore wind, ocean power and geothermal energy allow tapping additional potentials for which existing commercial technologies are not suitable. Advanced photovoltaics, concentrating solar power and new bioenergy technologies have technical advantages over similar available technologies (more efficient, and/or promise to allow for lower energy costs).[3]
Technology ripeness of some new renewable energy technologies is summarised in the table below.[4]
The other technologies are in earlier stages of innovation . All technologies not yet commercially available need further research and development as well as market introduction and deployment support in order to ensure commercialisation.
Cross-cutting barriers for those technologies include: R&D and project financing issues such as insufficient start-up and early-stage financing, acceptance and approval, a diversity of support instruments with varying effectiveness and general mind set issues such as an overestimation of bioenergies and underestimation of electricity-based renewables. Infrastructure and planning are another major area of barriers. A major barrier notably to the large-scale development of offshore wind and concentrating solar power are capacity limitations of the electricity grid.
Public and private R&D investment in renewable technologies are almost exclusively concentrated on a very limited number of Member States , mainly Germany, France, Italy, UK, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Finland and Austria. In Europe, public and private R&D spending is largely insufficient.
EU RES promotion policy.
In 1997 the EU-15 set itself the target of generating 12% of gross domestic energy consumption from renewable sources by 2010 of which electricity would represent 22.1% (becoming an overall 21% after the accession treaties in 2004). The Directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources [5] adopted in 2001 requires Member States to adopt national targets for the proportion of electricity consumption from renewable energy source. It constituted an essential part of the package of measures needed to comply with the commitments made by the EU under the Kyoto Protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
The 2007 Renewable Energy Progress Report [6] highlighted that whilst good progress had been made in recent years, the EU was expected to reach a renewable electricity share of 19% by 2010 rather than the 21% target. It found that so far the bulk of growth had come from wind power in a limited number of Member States. Moreover it noted that it had been necessary to initiate infringement proceedings against some Member States. The 2009 report[7] showed that growth rates of green electricity have increased (to 15.7% in 2006, up from 14.5% in 2004) however analysis still suggest that the 21% target would not be reached without significant additional effort.
Figure 1: 2007 share in RES electricity consumption (%) and 2010 target.
Figure 2: Range of technologies contribution to growth of RES.
Source: “Promotion and growth of renewable energy sources and systems” Final Report, Ecofys et al. (hydropower excluded)
The Renewable Energy Roadmap and the New RES Directive.
To further enhance the promotion and use of renewable energy, the “Renewable Energy Road Map”[8] proposed in 2007 a long-term strategy for RE including setting a mandatory target of 20% for renewable energy’s share of energy consumption in the EU by 2020 and 10% in the transport sector. In spring 2007 the EU Council agreed to the target and a revision of the Renewable Directive [9] was adopted by co-decision in spring 2009.
The new RES Directive establishes these overall mandatory targets as well as a mandatory national target for the overall share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy, taking account of countries’ different starting points. It is to be the main driver for new renewable technologies for crossing the so-called “valley of death”. It also includes an obligation to adopt National Renewable Energy Action Plans by June 2010.
The Directive establishes requirements on the mechanisms that Member States can apply to achieve their targets: supports schemes, guarantees of origin, joint projects, measures of cooperation between Member States and third countries as well as sustainability criteria for biofuels and bio-liquids.
Currently, Member States operate 27 different support schemes using various policy tools, including: feed-in tariffs; premium systems; green certificates; tax exemptions; obligations on fuel suppliers; public procurement policy; and research and development. The support schemes differ partly because support has traditionally been linked to other national priorities and also because national electricity markets still have very different characteristics and remain nationally segmented.[10] The most common systems appear to be feed-in-tariffs (FIT) and tradable green certificates (TGCs). Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. The question of harmonisation throughout the EU has been often posed, particularly in terms of measure cost-efficiency.
According to the forecast documents , ten Member States expect to exceed their national targets (table 2 below) for renewable energy, and five expect to use the Directive’s cooperation mechanisms and reach their target by developing some renewable energy in another Member State or a third country, for only a small amount of energy (around 2-3 mtoe). The forecast total production of renewable energy would actually exceed the 20% target and reach 20.3%.[11]
The issue of interconnector needs and the general need to reinforce the capacity of the grid is pointed out by many Members States as a necessary precursor for achieving the targets. For the EU overall, the share of electricity from renewable energy sources is expected to reach 33%- 35%5, accentuating the need to improve the electricity grid’s ability to manage and balance electricity flows and to improve the interconnections of the European grid to improve stability. [12]
Table 2 National overall share and target for the share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy in 2020.
Biomass and biofuels sustainability criteria: [13]
The RES Directive sets up sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids. In the absence of harmonized rules at EU level, Member States are free to put in place their own national schemes for solid and gaseous biomass used in electricity, heating and cooling.
The Directive provides that the Commission should report on requirements for a sustainability scheme for biomass other than biofuels and bioliquids. The biomass sustainability report released by the Commission in February 2010 provides recommendations for Member States to follow similar patterns and most importantly to be guided by the sustainability criteria explained in the report. The recommended criteria relate to:
(a) a general prohibition on the use of biomass from land converted from forest, other high carbon stock areas and highly biodiverse areas;
(b) a common greenhouse gas calculation methodology which could be used to ensure that minimum greenhouse gas savings from biomass are at least 35% (rising to 50% in 2017 and 60% in 2018 for new installations) compared to the EU’s fossil energy mix;
(c) the differentiation of national support schemes in favour of installations that achieve high energy conversion efficiencies; e.
(d) monitoring of the origin of biomass.
The National Renewable Energy Action Plans to be issued in June 2010 will be a key tool for identifying the EU’s ambitions for exploiting its biomass potentials, whether in electricity, heating or transport. Following the submission of these plans and analysis of emerging national schemes, the Commission will consider in 2011 whether additional measures such as common sustainability criteria at EU level would be appropriate .
In the context of the Second Strategic Energy Review, the Commissions intends to develop the Southern Mediterranean solar and wind energy potential, as well as offshore wind in the North Sea. This is in line with its strategy to develop indigenous energy production to decrease dependence on imported fossil fuels. The Commission Communication on ‘Offshore Wind Energy[14]: of November 2008 aimed at promoting the development of maritime and offshore wind energy in the EU. Benefits include: larger production units; stronger and more stable winds, and less concern among neighbouring citizens. By 2020, its utilisation is estimated could be 30 to 40 times greater than the current installed capacity of offshore wind farms.
Technical barriers for offshore wind still to be addressed by research include:[15] integration into the European electricity grid, technologies for the installation of offshore wind turbines (e. g. dedicated ships for the construction of offshore installations), material issues (corrosion resistant coating, corrosion resistant design to protect electronics inside the turbines, etc.), foundations, development of floating structures as foundations for offshore wind turbines[16]. Connecting and disconnecting HVDC lines via a DC switch is still an open issue. Today, HVDC connection/ disconnection is accomplished using DC/AC/DC converters.
Energy Efficiency and Energy Conservation.
In 2005, the Green Paper on Energy Efficiency[17] pointed to the fact that the EU could save at least 20% of its present energy consumption in a cost-effective manner, equivalent to €60bn per year. In 2006, the EP promoted a target of at least 20% improvements in EE by 2020 [18] while the Council in 2007 only proposed it as an objective to reach by 2020.[19]
The EU Energy Efficiency Action Plan (EEAP) adopted in October 2007[20] proposed priority actions to be introduced over a six-year period, in order to save 20% of annual consumption of primary energy by 2020 (compared to the energy consumption forecasts for 2020) This objective corresponds to achieving approximately a 1.5% saving per year up to 2020.
Actions include: labelling standards, building performance requirements, improving efficiency of power generation and distribution, cars fuel efficiency, facilitating financing of EE investments for SMEs and Energy Service Companies and a coherent use of taxation. A review of the EEAP has been foreseen by the Commission since end of 2009 but regularly postponed and currently planned for 2011 .
The Energy Services Directive [21], requires Member States to adopt an overall national indicative energy savings target of 9% by 2016, to be reached by way of energy services and other EE improvement measures. In June 2007, 17 Member States submitted their first National Energy Efficiency Action Plans , showing how they intend to reach the 9% target. A review of the submitted NEEAP[22] indicated:
a considerable gap in several Member States between the political commitment to energy efficiency and the measures adopted or planned and the resources allocated . Some Member States adopted savings targets going beyond the minimum indicative target[23], other Member States have indicated that they expect savings from measures to go beyond 9% without committing to or formally adopting a higher target.[24] Several Member States have set out comprehensive action plans for demonstrating the exemplary role of the public sector and numerous financial and fiscal incentives (e. g. in the housing and construction sector, for purchase or production of energy efficient equipment). On the other hand is difficult to assess whether certain Member States will be able to deliver in accordance with their strategies and targets given the brief descriptions of measures and the absence of saving estimates. NEEAPs include numerous measures target the buildings sector, especially residential buildings, and refurbishment of existing buildings. Some Member States declare ambitious strengthening of building codes and support passive or low-energy house buildings. Almost all NEEAPs include measures in the tertiary, transport and industrial sectors while only four include measures specific to the agriculture sector.[25] Some NEEAPs have included measures that fall outside the scope of the Directive including fuel switching and power generation, large Combined Heat and Power installations, biomass district heating, network loss reductions, biofuels, measures in international transport, and measures that have some impact on the EU ETS. A recast of the Directive could be presented as part of the revision of EU’s EEAP in 2011.
Buildings sector.
Existing technological developments could contribute to the widespread construction of buildings that far exceed the EE requirements set by policy-makers today. H ousing developments that are best-practices not only from an energy savings point of view, but also from an urban planning and social organisation perspective have been developed in the EU.[26] These projects have achieved greater sustainability by using a combination of local public policy, planning, design and technology, whereby the use of “traditional” energy saving measures such as better insulation is only part of the solution. Large companies have also been taking interest in the sector and have developed materials, systems and other technologies to increase EE.[27] Advances in RE technologies , such as a “solar dye” for example, can further contribute to the “greening” of buildings.
The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive [28] (EBPD) which came into effect in 2006 provides a common methodology for calculating the energy performance of buildings and for creating minimum standards of energy performance in individual Member States. The implementation of the directive encountered problems due to the lack of qualified experts to issue certificates and carry out inspections. Moreover, the directive excluded a great proportion of existing building stock – 72% – from having to comply with energy performance standards by imposing a 1,000m² threshold.[29]
On 19 November 2009, the European Parliament and the Council reached first reading agreement on a recast Directive . The new directive clarifies, strengthens and extends the scope of the current EPBD’s provisions by:
introducing clarification of the wording of certain provisions and extending the scope of the provision requiring Member States to set up minimum energy performance requirements when a major renovation is to be carried out; reinforcing the provisions on energy performance certificates, inspections of heating and air-conditioning systems, energy performance requirements, information, and independent experts; providing Member States and interested parties with a benchmarking calculation instrument, which allows the nationally/regionally determined minimum energy performance requirements ambition to cost-optimal levels to be compared; stimulating Member States to develop frameworks for higher market uptake of low or zero energy and carbon buildings; encouraging a more active involvement of the public sector to provide a leading example.
The main achievements of the EP and Council negotiation include: a separate article on financing issues (Art.10); ambitious, fixed targets and national action plans comprising support measures (Art 9) for nearly zero energy buildings; minimum energy performance requirements for technical building systems and to the building elements which have a significant impact on the energy performance of the building envelope whenever they are retrofitted or replaced (Art 7 and 8); new provisions on certificates, more information and transparency on experts’ accreditation, training, financial instruments, information to owners and tenants, and on certificates; Less administrative burden with regards to inspections; a new article on consultation of the stakeholders, including local and regional authorities (Art 21); more renewable elements shall take into consideration for new buildings (Art 6); introduction of intelligent metering systems and of active control systems such as automation, control and monitoring systems that aim to save energy (Art 8).
Industry and Transport sectors.
Apart from the user’s behaviour, there are two complementary ways of reducing the energy consumed by products: a) labelling to raise awareness of consumers on the energy use in order to influence their buying decisions; b) EE requirements imposed to products from the early stage on the design phase.
Framework Directive on Labelling.
First reading agreement was reached with the Council on the recast[30] of the Energy Labelling Directive[31] announced as a priority of the EEAP. The recast aims at extending its scope, currently restricted to household appliances, to allow for the labelling of all energy-related products including the household, commercial and industrial sectors and some non-energy using products such as windows which have a significant potential to save energy once in use or installed. The possibility to implement the framework through regulations or decisions instead of directives, and the possibility to set classes of efficiency under which Member States should not provide incentives or procure should, increase effectiveness of the ELD. Provisions on market surveillance as already introduced under the Eco-design Directive have been added. The basis of labelling will continue to be the scale A–G, from dark green (the most energy efficient) to red, which is well understood by consumers. For products that are already subject to labelling requirements and where a majority of the products on the market are in the highest energy classes, up to three more energy classes can be added to the label ( A+, A++ and A+++). Advertising should also indicate, as appropriate, the energy class, where energy-related or price information is disclosed.
The Eco-Design directive.
The Eco-Design Directive [32] establishes a framework for setting eco-design requirements, such as EE requirements, for all energy-using products in the residential, tertiary and industrial sectors. In October 2009 a revision [33] of the Eco-design Directive was adopted by the Council following a first reading agreement and proposes to extend the scope to cover other energy related products than energy-using products (excluding means of transport for persons or goods). Requirements of manufacturers: the directive provides for the establishment of standards to which energy-related products will have to conform in order to be able to benefit from free movement within the Community. These standards will have to be defined by the Commission in the framework of the comitology procedure, following an impact assessment. The new rules require that manufacturers of energy-related products take into consideration, from the design stage, the environmental impact that these products will have throughout their life cycle, thus facilitating cost-effective environmental improvements. The resulting directive is seen as the essential building block for an integrated sustainable environmental product policy, complemented by the initiatives on labelling [34] and other incentives such as greening public procurement [35] and reducing taxation for green products .[36]
Several measures have been adopted in the transport sector, mainly as part of the climate change and energy policy to reduce emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles . These include: setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars.[37] measures to promote clean and energy efficient road transport vehicles, by introducing energy consumption, CO 2 and pollutant emissions as mandatory award criteria into public procurement of vehicles. [38] labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters[39]
However, the current focus on vehicle and fuel technologies alone will be insufficient to offset the steady increase in passenger volumes and growth in freight transport. Further measure to develop a transport system capable of shifting the balance between modes of transport will be needed[40] as well as in urban transport[41] and freight transport[42][43].
Energy Technology and Innovation.
Public and private under-investment in energy research capacities and infrastructures has been endemic since the 1980s. If EU governments invested today at the same rate as in 1980, the total EU public expenditure for the development of energy technologies would be four times the current level of investment of around €2.5bn per year.[44] This declining trend can be observed also in the US[45] although the US’s annual allocations are substantially higher than those of the EU. Generally, data on public R&D budgets are very difficult to find: there is a lack of information reporting and coordination between Member States. However, low R&D investment in Europe is structural and not specific to the energy sector.
The Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) and industrial initiatives.
A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) was presented in November 2007[46], identifying key EU technological challenges for the next 10 years and proposing to deliver: (i) a new joint strategic planning, (ii) a more effective implementation, through the launch of new European Industrial Initiatives (EII) , (iii) an increase in resources, (iv) a new and reinforced approach to international cooperation.
The EP welcomed the SET-plan[47] and stressed that adequate financial support to EU’s energy technology policy is fundamental to achieving the EU’s objectives. It pointed out that the plan should not be financed through the reallocation of funds made available for energy under Seventh Framework Programmes (FP7) for Research and Development (2007-2013) [48] and the energy and innovation Programmes under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme ( CIP )[49], and pledged for an additional €2bn per year to be allocated as of 2009 independently from FP7 and CIP.
The 2009 EC Communication on Financing the SET Plan “Investing in the Development of Low Carbon Technologies” [50] proposed to implement the plan on the basis of “ the need for rapid action, a coordinated approach across the EU and the desire to reduce overall costs by optimising the portfolio of funded projects”. Together with stakeholders, the Commission has drawn Technology Roadmaps 2010-2020 [51] , including their estimated costs, for the implementation of the six first European Industrial Initiatives, an Initiative on Smart Cities and the European Energy Research Alliance during the next 10 years.
Figure 3: Technology Roadmaps SEC (2009)1295.
European Industrial Initiatives.
Since 2002, European Technology Platforms (ETP) have been set up[52], to bring together industrial and academic research communities in specific technology fields with a significant economic and societal impact. In 2007, wind energy, electricity networks of the future, hydrogen and fuel cells, photovoltaics, zero emission fossil fuel power plants and for biofuels, were among the 34 existing ETPs:[53] The aim is to coordinate their research agenda and tailor a common long-term strategic plan for R&D (so called SRA’s) so as to mobilise a critical mass of national, public and private resources and to overcome barriers to the development, deployment and use of new technologies. Building on the hydrogen and fuel cells ETP, the Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) on fuel cells and hydrogen (FCH), was established in May 2008.[54] to drive the technology towards commercialisation in the next decade. Between 2008 and 2017, the JTI will have a budget of €1bn with investment shared by its two founding members, the EU (via FP7) and Industry Grouping (IG). The EEI to be launched in June this year, are proposed as public-private partnerships with similar set up as the JTIs. However the existing FP7 evaluations and bureaucratic regulations and structures which govern the financial mechanisms and the functioning of the European institutions are a matter of raising concern in the current debates on FP7 mid-term review, the revision of the financial regulation and the discussions over the future FP8. From the side of industry, one of the major barriers for their participation in projects are the rules on patents and licensing. A complaint from the research and the industry side is the bureaucratic interference by the European Commission on the objectives and processes of the European Technology Platforms, which may well be repeated in the European Industrial Initiatives, public private partnerships involving governments, the academic sector and the business sector.[55]
European Energy Research Alliance.
On 27 October 2008, a European Energy Research Alliance (EERA)[56] was established as one of the outcomes of the SET-Plan. Ten leading research institutes have committed to use their combined annual R&D budget (>€1.3bn) to strengthen and optimise EU energy research capabilities. Key research areas promoted include wind, solar energy, second-generation biofuels, smart grids and carbon capture and storage. Cooperation is due to expand and intensify, as other research organisations are welcome to join once the project is properly up and running. Joint Programmes are to be launched for several areas such as wind, PV, CSP, CCS, materials for nuclear energy, geothermal, smart grids, marine energy, biofuels etc. in line with the selected SET-Plan technologies and comprise the majority of the Alliance’s current activities portfolio. Initially, the activities of EERA will be based on the alignment of its own resources to meet a critical mass for a substantial programme undertaking. Over time, alignment with EU programmes can be achieved and the Joint Programmes expanded with additional sources, including from Community programmes. The EERA aims to accelerate the development of new energy technologies by building upon the results of fundamental research and maturing technology development to a stage where it can be embedded in industry driven research. Therefore, close links with both industry driven research as well as fundamental research are key elements in the success of the EERA. The first EERA Joint Programmes of Research on Winds, Photovoltaic, Smart Grids and Geothermal will be officially launched at the SET-PLAN conference the 3- 4 of June 2010 in Madrid under the EU Spanish Presidency. The conference will report the progress of the SET-Plan since the conference held in Stockholm in October 2009 and will constitute the formal launching of the first European Industry Initiatives and EERA Joint Programs.
1.1.2 Financing infrastructure and demonstration projects.
European Energy Recovery Programme (EERP)
In March 2009 the EU set aside €3.98 billion to assist European economic recovery. On 4 March 2010, the European Commission selected further 43 major cross-border energy infrastructure projects, granting € 2.3 billion to 31 gas pipeline projects and 12 electricity interconnection projects. It is the largest amount the EU has ever spent on energy infrastructure. By co-financing parts of these projects up to 50% the EU contribution will help to lever up to 22 billion euros of private sector investment. With the Carbon Capture and Offshore Wind Projects which the Commission agreed to support on 9 December 2009, the budget for energy projects in the EERP is 97 % committed. [57]
In January 2008, nearly 100 mayors from across Europe signed up to the Commission-backed Covenant of Mayors, a commitment by city leaders to go beyond EU’s CO 2 emissions reduction target of 20% by 2020 . Since then some 1300 local authorities in the EU have signed up. The initiative has received consistent praise from EU leaders since being set up, but has thus far being operating on a relatively modest budget of some €15 million per year. The money was administered as a grant fund, managed by the European Investment Bank (EIB) to support the development of energy efficiency and sustainable energy projects in European cities and regions. In May this year the Commission has pledged[59] to significantly increase the amount of funding available for such projects, using unused money from the EU recovery package. EU Energy Commissioner Oettinger indicated that at least €115 million in unused funds will be available, and he would push for a significant percentage to support local and urban energy projects. Mayors and their representatives welcomed the proposal as recognition of the role of cities and local authorities in pushing energy reform and funds are expected to make a difference.
“NER300″ is a financing instrument managed jointly by the European Commission, European Investment Bank and Member States. Article 10(a) 8 of the revised Emissions Trading Directive[61] contains the provision to set aside 300 million CO 2 allowances in the New Entrants’ Reserve of the ETS for subsidising installations of innovative renewable energy technology and carbon capture and storage (CCS). The allowances will be sold on the carbon market and the money raised – which could be as much as 4.5 bn EUR if each allowance is sold for 15 EUR – will be made available to projects as they operate. According to this draft schedule, the second half of 2011 would be available for Member States to negotiate with Commission on the particular projects each wants to fund . They will, as a group, need to agree on a portfolio of winning proposals before the Commission can commit NER300 funding to any project.
Incorporating the necessary tools into the European Union Cohesion Policy to devise integrated strategies, allowing the deployment of new technologies at regional level with the structural funds providing assistance for the necessary infrastructure. This would allow regions under the EU’s convergence programme to develop into low carbon economies and be a showcase for new technologies.
Private capital investments.
Recent studies show that there is still room for substantial growth in private capital investments in European clean energy [62] . The financial sector, including private equity and venture capital, needs to adapt their risk profiles to invest more in potentially high-growth SMEs and spin-offs active in the field of low carbon technologies. The EIB is increasingly dedicating resources to energy projects (€7bn/year for 2009 and 2010) and has reinforced its contribution in the areas of RE and EE. It aims to develop less mature markets in and outside the EU and to favour the deployment of less-developed RE sources (such as solar power, biomass or biofuels) [63] . Initial results from the Risk Sharing Finance Facility established in 2007 [64] for financing research and innovation, confirm that the EIB is opening up wider financing opportunities for research and demonstration projects in the RE and EE sectors.
Future discussions.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels; increasing the share of renewables in final energy consumption to 20%; and moving towards a 20% increase in energy efficiency; is one of the 5 EU’s 2020 strategy headline targets. To achieve this, a new industrial revolution – reorienting our economy towards a low-carbon economy. – is needed thanks to massive R&D into new low carbon/carbon-free technologies is needed. However, there is a lack of substantial financing or any legal obligations to make incentives available for the financing of the SET Plan. [65]
Experts advocate increasing R&D budget in line with the respective Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) of each technological segment (when available). The role of public money should be to support mid-to long-term research projects that are not going to be immediately exploitable by the private sector in terms of commercialization.[66] Regarding the EU R&D&I financing instruments: the setting priority areas and introduction of appropriate governance of instruments will raise discussions in the establishment of the proposed European Industrial Initiatives and future FP8 in particular in light of the experience with FP7 on simplification and management; The European approach to large-scale renewable energy sources requires a pan-European smart grid (i. e. “super grid”), which can bring electricity from Renewables to where it is needed over long distances and which can balance the natural variability of Renewables on a European scale. This needs to be a priority for Europe and the European Economic Recovery Plan shows that EU spending on infrastructure projects is possible.[67] Most importantly, there needs to be legal certainty for investments in electricity generation from renewable energy sources. This also needs to address regulatory frameworks for interconnectors and offshore transmission , which vary greatly from country to country. Putting in place proper incentives for investments in the grid, including in interconnections, will also require shortened and streamlined permitting processes .[68] With sufficient interconnections and infrastructure in place, it will be time for EU member states to reconsider their national approach to renewables’ support schemes. Policy harmonisation will be beneficial for reasons of productivity, cost effectiveness, cross-border externalities or economies of scale. Many aspects will remain the responsibility of the Member States, such as permitting and more generally the administration. Different elements of such a framework can be developed within different timeframes. [69] In the context of the next financial perspectives (2014), reform of EU own resources in order to generate additional revenue for investment in energy innovation (for example linking the ETS to R&D expenditures); the difficult question of Energy taxation policy will also be on the table with the foreseen revision of the Energy Taxation Directive;
& # 8211; Appropriate funding and coordination is needed for example between the TEN-E programmes with other major EU programmes having an impact on infrastructural development, to be able to realize cross border initiatives, promoting new technologies or energy diversity.
& # 8211; Question of local versus large scale or centralised production of energy , and the division of decision-making competences will continue to arise as well as ensuring access to market to producers of RES in the current energy market structures.
Citations – The overview text and information in this overview is sourced from the following documents prepared by the European Parliament in preparation for the Joint Parliamentary Meeting:
Press Release of the European Parliament of 31 st May 2010, REF 20100531IPR75273 European Parliament prepared background notes on working group topics: ITRE_JPM_WG I ITRE_JPM_WG II ITRE_JPM_WG III Joint Parliamentary Meeting Draft Programme, Towards a European Energy Community for the 21st Century? [1] EmployRES – The impact of renewable energy policy on economic growth and employment in the EU.
[2] COM(2006) 848 EC Communication “Renewable Energy Roadmap”.
[3] EP study Assessment of Potential and Promotion of New Generation of Renewable Technologies, DRAFT 11 May 2010.
[5] Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market.
[6] RES progress report 2007.
[7] The Renewable Energy Progress Report COM (2009) 192.
[9] Directive 2009/28/EC and repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.
[10] Accompanying document to the EC Communication “The Renewable Energy Progress Report” SEC(2009) 503 final.
[13] Commission adopts biomass sustainability report Reference: IP/10/192 Date: 25/02/2010.
[14] Offshore Wind Energy: Action needed to deliver on the Energy Policy Objectives for 2020 and beyond (COM(2008) 768 final).
[15] EP study Assessment of Potential and Promotion of New Generation of Renewable Technologies, DRAFT 11 May 2010.
[16] Floating structures are required for wind farms at water depths of 60 m and more.
[17] “Doing More with Less” (COM(2005) 265 final of 22 June 2005).
[18] EP resolution on Energy efficiency or doing more with less – Green Paper, June 2006, P6_TA(2006)0243.
[19] European Council Conclusions March 2007 (7224/1/07).
[20] ”Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential” COM(2006)545 final.
[21] Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services.
[22] Synthesis of the complete assessment of all 27 National Energy Efficiency Action Plans SEC(2009)889 final.
[23] Italy 9.6%, Cyprus 10%, Lithuania 11%, and Romania 13.5%.
[24] Luxembourg 10.4%, Ireland 12.5% and the United Kingdom 18%.
[25] Latvia, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden.
[26] Vaubanexternal development in Freiburg, Germany, and the BedZED development in the south of London.
[28] Directive 2002/91/EC on the energy performance of buildings.
[30] COM (2008)0778 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products.
[31] Council Directive 92/75/
[32] Directive 2005/32/EC establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products.
[33] Directive 2009/125/EC establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products.
[34] Regulation (EC) No 106/2008 on a Community energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment (recast version), Community Ecolabel scheme COM(2008)0401.
[35] COM(2008) 400/2 EC Communication on Public procurement for a better environment.
[36] Council Conclusions 14 March 2008 – 7652/08.
[37] Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009.
[38] T6-0509/2008 EP Resolution on the proposal for a directive to promote clean and energy efficient vehicles.
[39] Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters.
[40] “European transport policy for 2010: time to decide” COM(2001) 370 final.
[41] COM(2005) 718 EC Communication “Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment”.
[42] COM(2006) 336 final, Freight Transport Logistics in Europe – the key to sustainable mobility.
[44] COM(2007)723 SET-Plan EC Communication “Towards a low carbon future”.
[45] US energy research and development: Declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion Gregory F. Nemet, D M. Kammen, University of California, Berkeley 2007.
[46] COM(2007)723 SET-Plan EC Communication “Towards a low carbon future”.
[47] EP resolution of 9 July 2008 on the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (2008/2005(INI)).
[48] Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-13).
[49] Decision 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme(2007-2013).
[50] Communication.”Investing in the Development of Low Carbon Technologies (SET-Plan)” COM(2009)519.
[51] Staff Working Paper accompanying COM(2009)519, A Technology Roadmap SEC (2009)1295.
[52] COM (2002)714 “Industrial Policy in an enlarged Europe”.
[53] “Evaluation of the European Technology Platforms” – Final Report for DG Budget (EC) by Idea Consult (December 2007).
[54] Council Regulation setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (8541/08).
[55] EP study Assessment of Potential and Promotion of New Generation of Renewable Technologies, DRAFT 11 May 2010.
[58] “Mayors to receive extra EU cash for energy projects” 05 May 2010 euractiv.
[59] Barroso pledged on 4 May to divert unused EU stimulus cash into a fund to help regions and cities become more energy efficient.
[62] ‘Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2007′, UNEP and New Energy Finance Ltd.
[65] Towards a European Energy Community – Notre-Europe 2010.
[66] EP study Assessment of Potential and Promotion of New Generation of Renewable Technologies, DRAFT 11 May 2010.
[67] EP study Assessment of Potential and Promotion of New Generation of Renewable Technologies, DRAFT 11 May 2010.