inception report february 2004 entec uk...

European Commission DG Environment

Review of the Large Combustion Plant Directive Inception Report

February 2004

Entec UK Limited

Certificate No. FS 13881

Report for Brian Brangan DG ENV-C.1 European Commission B-1049 Brussels Belgium

Main Contributors Katherine Wilson Alistair Ritchie Layla Twigger

Issued by ………………………………………………………… Alistair Ritchie

Approved by ………………………………………………………… Nick Hedges

Entec UK Limited Windsor House Gadbrook Business Centre Gadbrook Road Northwich Cheshire CW9 7TN England Tel: +44 (0) 1606 354800 Fax: +44 (0) 1606 354810

h:\projects\em-260\10000 projects\10819 ec lcpd\inception report - 04011 i3.doc

European Commission DG Environment

Review of the Large Combustion Plant Directive Inception Report

February 2004

Entec UK Limited

Certificate No. EMS 69090

In accordance with an environmentally responsible approach, this document is printed on recycled paper produced from 100% post-consumer waste, or on ECF (elemental chlorine free) paper

i

\\enorfs01\data\data\projects\em-260\10000 projects\10819 ec lcpd\inception report - 04011 i3.doc

February 2004

Contents

1. Introduction 1 1.1 This Report 1 1.2 Project Summary 1 1.2.1 Background – The Large Combustion Plant Directive 1 1.2.2 Project Scope and Objectives 2 1.3 Structure of the Report 2

2. Project Overview 3

3. Approach to Information Collection 5

4. Approach to Information Analysis 9 4.1 Tightening of ELVs 9 4.2 Additional ELVs 10 4.3 NOX ELV Derogation 11 4.4 Economic Instruments 11 4.5 Effects of Differences in Standards 12 4.6 Offshore gas turbines 13 4.7 Monitoring and compliance 13

5. Deliverables 15

6. References 17

Figure 2.1 Overview of approach to project (*aspects having greatest resource prioritisation) 4 Table 3.1 Types and sources of information 5 Table 5.1 Key Project Deliverables and Associated Timescales 15

ii


February 2004

1


February 2004

1. Introduction

1.1 This Report Entec UK is currently undertaking a project for the European Commission (Contract No B4-3040/2003/360121/MAR/C1) to support the review of Directive 2001/80/EC, referred to as the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD). This report serves as a project inception document and outlines Entec’s proposed approach to the information collection and analysis tasks required under the contract.

1.2 Project Summary

1.2.1 Background – The Large Combustion Plant Directive Adopted in October 2001, the LCPD requires Member States to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and dust from power plants and other industrial facilities containing large combustion plants (LCPs). Reductions in emissions of the three pollutants of concern will yield reductions in acidification, ground level ozone and particulate matter, with subsequent improvements to human health and the environment.

The Directive also places a requirement for a review of its implementation and the potential for extension of the Directive’s requirements. In particular, Article 4(7) of the Directive specifies the following:

“Not later than 31 December 2004 and in the light of progress towards protecting human health and attaining the Community's environmental objectives for acidification and for air quality pursuant to Directive 96/62/EC, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council in which it shall assess:

(a) the need for further measures;

(b) the amounts of heavy metals emitted by large combustion plants;

(c) the cost-effectiveness and costs and advantages of further emission reductions in the combustion plants sector in Member States compared to other sectors;

(d) the technical and economic feasibility of such emission reductions;

(e) the effects of both the standards set for the large combustion plants sector including the provisions for indigenous solid fuels, and the competition situation in the energy market, on the environment and the internal market;

(f) any national emission reduction plans provided by Member States in accordance with paragraph 6.

The Commission shall include in its report an appropriate proposal of possible end dates or of lower limit values for the derogation contained in footnote 2 to Annex VI A.”

2


February 2004

1.2.2 Project Scope and Objectives The overall objective of the study is to contribute to the preparation of the review of the LCPD. The tasks to be undertaken can be listed as follows:

• Collection of information on emissions of key pollutants; air emission standards and air quality limit values; Best Available Techniques for power plants; national emission reduction plans; implementation of the Directive in the Candidate Countries; fuel use in power plants; and comparison of EU and US approaches to reducing SO2 and NO2 emissions from large combustion plants, including economic instruments;

• Presentation of findings on a range of issues, including the feasibility of tightening ELVs under the LCPD; cost-effectiveness of further reductions; justification for including ELVs for heavy metals and size-differentiated particles; justification for inclusion of offshore gas turbines; effects of differences between Community environmental standards; improvements to monitoring and compliance; the feasibility of national or regional emission trading; and assistance with the proposal of possible end dates or of lower limit values for the derogation in footnote 2 to Annex VI A; and

• Attendance at and contribution to meetings of a working group of stakeholders and national experts.

1.3 Structure of the Report The structure of this report is as follows:

• Section 2 presents an overview of the project approach, detailing how each of the data collection tasks contribute to various sections of the analysis;

• Section 3 summarises the approach for the collection of information;

• Section 4 summarises the approach for the analysis of information;

• Section 5 lists the deliverables; and

• Section 6 lists the references.

3


February 2004

2. Project Overview

As highlighted in Section 1.2, the project objectives will be achieved through the effective combination of both information collection and analysis. A series of tasks for data collection and analysis were identified in the project specification and discussed in Entec’s original project proposal. Figure 2.1 displays how each of the data collection tasks will contribute to the various stages of data analysis.

4


February 2004

Figure 2.1 Overview of approach to project (*aspects having greatest resource prioritisation)

Monitoring and Compliance Background data to support analysis

Offshore Gas Turbines Background data to support analysis

Alternative ApproachesEU and US approaches to NOX and SO2 reductions in LCPs including economic instruments

Air Emissions Standards ELVs and air quality limit values

LCPD ImplementationNational plans for Member States and implementation in Accession Countries

Operational, Emissions and Abatement Data Emissions, fuels, abatement and costs

Best Available Techniques (BAT) Current and emerging techniques and costs

MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE Suggestions for improvements in monitoring and compliance

TIGHTENING OF ELVs * Technical and economic feasibility and cost-effectiveness of further emissions reductions of SO2, NOX and PM from LCPs

ADDITIONAL ELVs * Technical and economic feasibility and cost-effectiveness of ELVs for heavy metals and size differentiated particulate matter

NOX ELV DEROGATION Technical and economic feasibility and cost-effectiveness to assist with possible revision to Annex VI.A (NB2)

OFFSHORE GAS TURBINES Technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of inclusion of offshore gas turbines in the LCPD

ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS * Feasibility and desirability of national or regional economic instruments for SO2 and NOX from LCPs

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENCES IN STANDARDS * Environmental, competition and internal market effects of differences between Community environmental standards for LCPs

5


February 2004

3. Approach to Information Collection

Information will be gathered from a wide range of sources and contacts in order to provide the most appropriate data in support of the analysis sections. Table 3.1 lists the type of information and the level of data collection required, as well as potential sources of information for each of the data collection tasks outlined in Section 2. As agreed at the project kick-off meeting, Entec will liase with other CAFÉ consultants to ensure that the development of this project is as co-ordinated as possible with the other projects.

Table 3.1 Types and sources of information

Type of information required Level of data collection

Source of information

Operational, Emissions and Abatement Data

LCP emissions data will be collected for the latest available year. The emissions will be reported in tonnes per annum (tpa), set out according to the activities and sectors in the EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook (EEA, 2002), within the relevant SNAP/CORINAIR activity categories, as far as possible.

Emissions will also be reported in tonnes per MWh electricity produced per fuel and per country, for electricity supply industries.

The pollutants to be considered are as follows:

• SO2

• NOX

• PM (by size – coarse, PM10, PM2.5, ultrafine)

• Heavy Metals (Cadmium, Mercury, Arsenic, Nickel and Vanadium)

Current and planned additional abatement techniques (and their costs) will be reported where data is available, including linking with the information from the “BAT” section detailed below.

Information will be gathered on fuels currently used and projected for 2010 and 2020 where data is available. Data will include proportions, quantities and average sulphur contents of each fuel type used in LCPs.

It is noted that LCPs considered in this study will be >50 MWth on a ‘per boiler’ basis. This is a working assumption for this study only and is intended to avoid duplication of work carried out by a separate contractor.

Member State/ Accession Country and Representative Plants (Note 1)

Information already held by Entec as a result of projects for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in the UK as well as projects for the EC.

Competent Authorities and organisations collating information under relevant national inventories in the Member States and Accession Countries.

IIASA. National emissions by activity/sector for historic years and future scenarios are available from the RAINS WEB model. Country-specific data (fuel quality, emission factors, control strategies, cost-effectiveness of measures etc.) are currently being reviewed within the process of bilateral consultations with countries covered by the CAFE Project. Thus data for individual countries is due to be complete by the end of March 2004 and Entec will liaise with IIASA to obtain the data.

Key reports by IIASA (1998 and 2001) on the effects of the revision of the LCPD on emissions of air pollutants will also be referred to. The methods and conclusions will be taken into account.

EGTEI information will be taken into account depending on its availability within the project timescales. Country specific information on the rate of uptake of measures, fuel consumption, fuel types etc is being sought from participant countries although the extent and timing (April 2004 at the earliest) of such information is currently uncertain. Average data on costs of abatement for LCPs >500MWth is expected to be available by Spring 2004, with data on smaller LCPs available in Summer 2004.

NECD plans on the EC website.

Data from implementation of the EPER (register IPPC).

UNECE/EMEP emission database (for data reported under the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution), including reporting under the UNECE Heavy Metals Protocol.

The Draft Second Position Paper on Particulate Matter (CAFÉ, 2003) contains useful general data regarding emissions, abatement and data quality issues.

IEA databases on metals from LCPs, and IEA CoalPower4

6


February 2004



Database (IEA Coal Research, 2001) – this details information such as capacities, fuel types and abatement techniques present for coal power stations in the EU and Candidate Countries.

Information at the EU level will be utilised including energy balances and forecasts published by DG Transport and Energy, such as “European Union Energy Outlook to 2020”.

Entec will maintain close contact with Eurelectric, particularly in relation to size differentiated particles.

Best Available Techniques (BAT)

Information will be collected on BAT and associated costs in BAT Reference Documents (BREF Notes). Entec will present descriptions of the currently available and emerging techniques and their abatement efficiencies. Details of the costs of introduction will also be presented, including one-off (capital) and annual operating costs, both for typical plants and for the EU as a whole. This will consider both the costs for (a) retrofitting the measure to an existing plant and (b) applying the measure to a new plant. To assist interpretation of the costs, capital costs will be presented in terms of € per KWe (or equivalent) and operating costs in terms of € per KWhr (or equivalent).

Representative Plants (Note 1)

In relation to the main sectors covered by the LCPD, BREF Notes have been formally adopted for iron and steel and for petroleum refineries. The BREF Note specifically for large combustion plants is currently only in draft form. However it is likely to be finalised during 2004. The latest draft (March 2003) will be used unless more up-to-date information becomes available within the timescales of the relevant tasks within this study.

Other key literature includes IEA-Coal Research reports, VGB PowerTech studies, JEP (Joint Environment Programme (of UK power companies)) reports, etc.

Relevant Entec project work.

See also sources of information listed under “Operational and emissions data”, including IIASA and EGTEI.

Alternative Approaches

This task will compare the techniques used within the European Union and United States aimed at reducing the emissions of SO2 and NOX in the Large Combustion Plant (LCP) sector. Information is required on any appropriate economic instruments. To give clarity to the analysis, Entec will categorise the key initiatives as one of the following:

• Regulations;

• Taxation; or

• Tradable Permit Schemes.

Entec will summarise the key elements of the US and EU approaches, with similarities and differences highlighted.

Details will be included of any available data on emissions reductions achieved through implementation of the US and EU approaches, in comparison to the environmental objectives. An important issue is the difference in compliance costs (per tonne of pollutant abated) between the EU and other areas, and the reasons for the differences. In addition, qualitative views will be sought from the US on the success, or otherwise, of the approaches adopted.

Entec will outline the degree to which the initiatives have been successful in achieving its stated intentions, and any major unintended consequences, including economic or technological consequences.

Entec will discuss any lessons that can be learnt from implementation of the US approaches that can be applied to current and future control of SO2 and NOx emissions from the LCP sector in the EU.

USA and Member State/ Accession Country

Review of relevant literature and through consultation with representatives of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

Oxera, partners to Entec on this project.


Consultation with relevant regulatory authorities and government departments across EU.

Entec will utilise information from the Dutch NOX emissions trading scheme workshop.

Entec will also use information held by the International Emissions Trading Association in their on-line library and in their Point Carbon database of emissions trading schemes.

7


February 2004



Air Emissions Standards

Information will be presented on emission limit values for LCPs at a national level, identifying which Member States and Accession Countries go further than the LCPD, which regulate LCP emissions of heavy metals, PM10, PM2.5 etc.

An brief overview will also be presented on national air quality limit values, guideline values and targets, including averaging periods and percentile compliance requirements.

Member State/ Accession Country

European Commission.

Legislators and regulators in the Member States and Accession Countries.

Under Article 16 of the IPPCD, seven of the 15 Member States have submitted electronic ELV reports, which have been sent to Entec, along with a previously published summary report on ELVs in Member States.

JRC in ISPRA, in relation to work on the feasibility of particulate emission standards from LCPs and other combustion sources including a German standard on the measurement of PM from LCPs.

LCPD Implementation

For Member States, Entec will collect brief information on the status of any national plans that will be implemented. In particular this will include the extent of the national plan in terms of sector coverage; measures by which the targets will be met and the timetable for reaching the targets; and a comparison between the national plans.

A broad comparison will be made between those plans, the NEC plans and the IIASA baseline scenarios to assess the comparability of data.

For Accession Countries, Entec will collect the information on the timeframes / transition periods for implementation of the various provisions of the LCPD and any problems foreseen with implementation of the Directive, as viewed by the authority in question.


European Commission.

Representatives and competent authorities in Member States and Accession Countries.

Information provided by the EC on “Transition Periods Treaty Provisions”.

Offshore Gas Turbines

Assessment of NOX emissions from offshore gas turbines.

Abatement measures and costs for abating NOX emissions from offshore gas turbines.

Fuel types and combinations.

Potential technical and logistical issues including variations in gas composition and calorific values.

Representative Offshore Gas Turbines


UK Offshore Oil Association (UKOOA).

Key equipment suppliers to the offshore sector including ABB Alstom Power.

Monitoring and Compliance

Current status of monitoring and regulatory compliance with the requirements of the Directive.

Suggestions to make the monitoring/compliance provisions more efficient.


Competent authorities in Member States and Accession Countries.

Information from IMPEL

Note

1. The establishment of a representative profile of plants will be based on four key parameters:

(i) Plant size (50 to 100MWth, 100 to 300MWth, 300 to 500MWth, >500MWth);

(ii) Fuel type (Coal, lignite, oil, natural gas, biomass, peat, site-produced liquid fuel, site-produced gaseous fuel);

(iii) Plant age (pre-1/1/1987, 1/1/1987 to pre-27/11/2002, 27/11/2002 onwards); and

(iv) Geographic location (including Member States opting for national plans for existing plants, Member States opting for the ELV approach for existing plants, and Accession Countries).

8


February 2004

9


February 2004

4. Approach to Information Analysis

The following sections provide details on the proposed approach to the information analysis tasks. These tasks are supported by the information gathering tasks outlined in Section 3, as described in Figure 2.1.

4.1 Tightening of ELVs Addressing the question of whether it is technically and economically feasible and cost effective to ‘do more’ than the current LCPD was identified as a key area for resource prioritisation during the project kick-off meeting. This task will have regard for the CAFÉ priorities to reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions, both primary and secondary, and also to reduce ozone. As such, all current LCPD pollutants (SO2, NOx and PM) will be considered.

For representative LCPs, Entec will examine the following:

• The level of emission control currently applied to representative LCPs across the Member States and Candidate Countries, and the current levels of emissions (on a ‘mass’ and ‘concentration’ basis, as well as per MWh of electricity produced) associated with those plants, including comparison with LCPD ELVs;

• The additional measures (and the timing of those measures) that are expected to be implemented under ‘business as usual’ (BAU) policy commitments (including the IPPC Directive and the LCPD);

• Any potential further measures that would go beyond those identified above, based on a comparison between the above information and information on relevant emission reduction techniques.

For the additional measures, both those expected to be implemented under BAU policy commitments and those that may go beyond BAU policy commitments, we will undertake assessments for representative plants of:

1. Impacts on emissions on a ‘mass’ and ‘concentration’ basis as well as on a mass of pollutant per MWh basis, including comparison with the LCPD ELVs;

2. Technical feasibility. This will involve consideration of the ease of implementing the measure taking into account typical site constraints and the extent of operational experience of the measure. Any particular technical difficulties associated with the measure will be highlighted;

3. Economic feasibility. This will quantify the additional costs of implementing the measures, taking into account capital and operating costs. We will ensure consistency with the work by IIASA on discount rates, economic lives etc, unless otherwise agreed with the Commission. Key parameters to compare the economic impact across the EU will be cost as a percentage of the cost of electricity produced for the electricity generation industries; and cost as a percentage of production costs for other industries. Entec will liaise with Commission Services about ways of expressing costs before work starts on this aspect.

10


February 2004

4. Cost-effectiveness of additional measures applied to the LCP sector on both a €/t of pollutant abated as well as €/(mg/m3) of pollutant emission achieved. These will be presented in the form of cost curve spreadsheets and, where appropriate, charts. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness data (in €/t) will be compared to the cost-effectiveness of additional measures in other sectors, e.g. road transport, shipping, smaller combustion plant, metal processes, chemical sector, mineral processes, etc. This aspect will take into account how cost-effectiveness data is apportioned for measures that abate more than one pollutant, including close consultation with IIASA in relation to approaches in the RAINS model.

On the basis of the above work, we will develop analysis and conclusions in relation to the technical and economic feasibility and cost-effectiveness of tightening the LCPD ELVs.

The timing of any potential further tightening will be important as compliance dates further into the future allow greater opportunity to make improvements in line with planned capital renewal programmes and reflect the gradual replacement of older, less environmentally efficient power generation technology. Working assumptions will be agreed with the Commission regarding the timing of any potential tighter ELVs.

4.2 Additional ELVs At the project kick-off meeting it was confirmed that a key area for resource prioritisation concerned the introduction of possible ELVs for heavy metals (Cadmium, Mercury, Arsenic, Nickel and Vanadium) and size-differentiated particles (coarse PM, PM10, PM2.5 and ultrafines).

This task will examine the following issues:

• The current levels of emissions of heavy metals and size-differentiated particles within the LCP sector, including particle size distributions for coal and oil fired LCPs;

• The current levels of emissions for the representative LCPs; and

• The additional measures (under BAU policy commitments and beyond BAU measures) for reducing these emissions for the representative LCPs and their impacts on emissions (with consideration to reductions in health effects); technical feasibility; economic feasibility and cost-effectiveness, applying the approaches set out in Section 4.1.

On the basis of the above work, we will develop analysis and conclusions in relation to the technical and economic feasibility and cost-effectiveness of possible ELVs for heavy metals and size-differentiated particulates.

During this task consideration will be given to the US experience (e.g. from US EPA) on Mercury; IEA databases on metals from LCPs; reports in support of work related to the UNECE Heavy Metals Protocol and the 4th Air Quality Daughter Directive; and ongoing work on a mercury strategy within the Commission.

11


February 2004

4.3 NOX ELV Derogation This derogation allows operators of solid fuel LCPs >500MWth a less stringent NOX ELV if they do not operate for more than 2,000 hours per annum until 31/12/15 and 1,500 hours after 01/01/16.

This assessment will consider the cost-effectiveness of different levels of NOx abatement for solid fuel LCPs >500MWth including primary measures (such as overfire air and reburn) and secondary measures (such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR)). This will also take into consideration the likely environmental significance of such low load factor plants into the future.

4.4 Economic Instruments At the project kick-off meeting it was confirmed that an area for investigation concerned the potential for the use of economic instruments including emissions trading and taxation.

Under the direction and guidance of Oxera, Entec will consider, in the form of a screening level analysis, both the feasibility and desirability of emissions trading or taxation as an alternative means of reducing emissions of NOx and SO2, in comparison to more conventional regulatory approaches. This task will involve particular consultation with Commission Services.

Entec will highlight the conditions that facilitated the emissions trading approaches in the USA and determine their applicability to the EU. Entec will also take into account other experience such as the development of the Dutch NOX trading system; the Swedish system of NOX taxation; and NOx and SO2 taxation systems in other European countries.

The following questions form a basis for investigation:

• What indicative quantity of emissions could potentially be covered by a trading / taxation scheme taking into account constraints on LCP emissions imposed by various directives such as IPPC and the geographically differentiated and effect-based approach to emission reductions in the NEC Directive?

• What would be the indicative cost-effectiveness of further reductions with and without the use of economic instruments?

• Are there any incompatibilities in relation to the way the directive is structured? For example, how compatible is a stack gas concentration approach with trading – would a performance based standard (e.g. tonnes of pollutant per MWh of electricity produced) be better?

• Are there any institutional difficulties (especially in terms of Accession Countries)?

• Over what time period will permits apply, and will banking and borrowing be beneficial?

• What characteristics of the various LCP sectors make them suitable or unsuitable for emissions trading / taxation (e.g. diversity of applicable abatement techniques, numbers of operators, etc.)?

• How can the market design encourage trading?

12


February 2004

• What resources will be required for monitoring and enforcement?

This analysis will be informed by several other related aspects of this study including data on tonnes of pollutant emissions per MWh of electricity produced.

On the basis of these investigations, a summary will be presented of the overall feasibility and desirability of emissions trading or taxation, as applied to European LCPs, as well as information on the choices faced by the Commission if choosing to adopt such a scheme. Recommendations will be made where appropriate.

4.5 Effects of Differences in Standards At the project kick-off meeting it was confirmed that a key area for resource prioritisation concerned the effects of differences between Community environmental standards for the LCP sector on competition in the energy market, on the environment and the internal market.

Based on the information collected, a comparison of the environmental standards in place will be undertaken. This will include issues such as the levels at which ELVs are set, the monitoring and compliance issues and the presence of any national plan, as well as other issues identified during the study. Based on this comparison, Entec will examine whether the differences have any significant implications for the level of environmental protection afforded by emission reductions, as well as whether any countries are likely to be competitively disadvantaged by stringency and type of implementation method.

The approach to the analysis will be determined following consultation with Commission Services. Depending on the outcomes of such consultation it may take into account the framework set out for competition assessment in the UK (OFT, 2002) as follows:

• The characteristics of the markets in question. Entec will provide information on the numbers of LCPs that are likely to be in direct competition for each of the market sectors of interest (e.g. iron and steel, refineries). Entec will examine the potential for demand-side substitution (e.g. the availability of alternatives to the products/services provided by each of these sectors) and supply-side substitution (e.g. whether the markets are truly developed across the EU and whether the impacts of a price rise in one location could lead to an increase in domestic sales from a non-domestic supplier). This will be based on information from intra- and extra-EU trade statistics (available from Eurostat), as well as relevant reports on the markets in question (e.g. from the International Energy Agency, trade association market reports). This will consider, for example, the impact of increasingly de-regulated energy markets across Europe. The UK had early experience of this with break-up of the duo-poly of National Power and Powergen and New Electricity Trading Arrangements;

• The characteristics of competition within the energy industry and, in particular, the key variables on which competition is based, such as price uniformity, quality, location, quality, reliability and flexibility. Entec will base this appraisal on information such as Eurostat statistics, reports on the energy industry (e.g. BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2003); and Ian Pope Associates (2000) report on the potential for electricity trade in an enlarged EU based on different environmental standards); and

• The extent to which requirements under the Directive may lead to a change in the nature of competition for any particular Member States, taking into account factors such as

13


February 2004

alterations to the market structure, increased barriers to entry or exit, reduced strength of competition, reduced product differentiation and restrictions upon innovation. This will include a quantitative analysis of indicative impacts on electricity prices if different environmental standards are applied.

4.6 Offshore gas turbines The current LCPD does not apply to gas turbines used on offshore platforms. This task will investigate what, if any, justification there is to include the offshore gas turbine sector in the LCPD and an indication of what provisions could apply. It will take into consideration:

• Total NOx emissions from offshore gas turbines to obtain a perspective on the relative significance of these emissions;

• Identification of additional measures to reduce NOx emissions;

• Potential technical and logistical considerations associated with these measures including variations in gas composition and calorific values, etc; and

• Cost-effectiveness of measures, relative to other gas turbines and LCPs.

4.7 Monitoring and compliance Key provisions related to monitoring and compliance are set out in Articles 7, 12, 13, 14 and 16. Member State competent authorities are responsible for monitoring and regulating LCPs to ensure that they comply with the relevant provisions including provision of relevant information.

Based on contacts with regulators within the Member States’ competent authorities and information from IMPEL, Entec will aim to elicit information on the actual implementation of monitoring and compliance aspects of the Directive and relevant future plans, highlighting areas of good practice that might be appropriate for other Member States or Candidate Countries. Key considerations will relate to:

• Any proposals to make the monitoring / compliance provisions more efficient;

• Consistency with other reporting requirements; and

• Any suggestions with regard to national plans and the reporting of them (currently every three years).

14


February 2004

15


February 2004

5. Deliverables

As detailed in the Technical Specification, three reports are specifically required from the study, in addition to support provided to the Commission’s working group. These are outlined in Table 5.1, along with the relevant timeframes (in accordance with contractual requirements).

Table 5.1 Key Project Deliverables and Associated Timescales

Deliverable Issue Date

Interim report 15 April 2004

Draft final report 26 August 2004

Final report 26 September 2004

The content of each of the above reports will be agreed with the Commission prior to submission. The final report will be a detailed report that summarises the information collected and contains the main results of the work.

16


February 2004

17


February 2004

6. References

BP (2003) Statistical review of world energy. Available online at http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId=95&contentId=2006480

CAFÉ (2003) Second Position Paper on Particulate Matter. Draft for Discussion. CAFÉ Working Group on Particulate Matter. August 20th 2003.

European Environment Agency (EEA) (2002) EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook - 3rd edition, Technical Report No 30 for European Environment Agency, October 2002.

Ian Pope Associates (2000) The potential for electricity trade in an enlarged EU based on differential environmental standards. April 2000.

IEA Coal Research (2001) CoalPower4 Database, IEA Clean Coal Centre, London.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (1998) Impacts of Revised Emission Limit Values for Large Combustion Plants on EU15 Countries’ Emissions in the Year 2010. Report to the European Commission, DG-XI. Contract No. B5-9500/97/000636/MAR/E1. Markus Amann. October 1998.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (2001) Emission reductions from existing large combustion plants resulting from the amendment of the Large Combustion Plant Directive. Report to the European Commission, DG ENV. Contract No. B4-3040/2000/267962/MAR/D3. Janusz Cofala, Markus Amann. January 2001. Available online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pollutants/combustion_report.pdf

Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (2002) Guidelines for Competition Assessment – A Guide for Policy Makers Completing Regulatory Impact Assessments, United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading, February 2002.