TIC/S3/10/5/A

TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITTEE

AGENDA

5th Meeting, 2010 (Session 3)

Tuesday 23 February 2010 The Committee will meet at 2.00 pm in Committee Room 1. 1. Subordinate legislation: The Committee will take evidence on the Draft CRC

Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010 from—

Stewart Stevenson MSP, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure, and Climate Change, John Holmes, Branch Head, Eric Baster, Policy Manager, Climate Change, Emissions Trading, and Jonathan Dennis, Economic Adviser, Economics (Climate Change) Branch, Scottish Government.

2. Subordinate legislation: Stewart Stevenson MSP to move S3M-5738—

That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that the draft CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010 be approved.

3. Subordinate legislation: The Committee will take evidence on the A96 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010, A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010, the A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010, the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) (Craibstone Junction) Special Road Scheme 2010, the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010, and the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 from—

Stewart Stevenson MSP, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure, and Climate Change, Caroline Lyon, Head of Solicitors Transport, Culture and Procurement Division, Transport Scotland, and Jim Vance, Head of Design and Development, Transport Scotland, Scottish Government; Robert Galbraith, Director of Operations, and Dr Pete Gilchrist, Divisional Director, Jacobs UK Ltd.

TIC/S3/10/5/A

4. Subordinate legislation: Stewart Stevenson MSP to move S3M-5729—

That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that the A96 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 be approved.

5. Subordinate legislation: Stewart Stevenson MSP to move S3M-5730—

That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that the A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 be approved.

6. Subordinate legislation: Stewart Stevenson MSP to move S3M-5731—

That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that The A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 be approved.

7. Subordinate legislation: Stewart Stevenson MSP to move S3M-5732—

That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) (Craibstone Junction) Special Road Scheme 2010 be approved.

8. Subordinate legislation: Stewart Stevenson MSP to move S3M-5733—

That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 be approved.

9. Subordinate legislation: Stewart Stevenson MSP to move S3M-5734—

That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 be approved.

10. Forth Crossing Bill: The Committee will take evidence on the Bill at Stage 1 from—

Tom Hart, Vice President, Scottish Association for Public Transport; Lawrence Marshall, Chair, ForthRight Alliance; George Mair, Director, Scotland, Confederation of Passenger Transport UK; Steve Walker, Operations Director, Stagecoach.

TIC/S3/10/5/A

Steve Farrell Clerk to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee

Room T3.40 The Scottish Parliament

Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5211

Email: steve.farrell@scottish.parliament.uk

TIC/S3/10/5/A

The papers for this meeting are as follows— Agenda item 1

CRC cover note

TIC/S3/10/5/1

The Draft CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010

PRIVATE PAPER

TIC/S3/10/5/2 (P)

Written evidence from Forth Ports PLC

TIC/S3/10/5/3

Agenda item 3

AWPR cover note

TIC/S3/10/5/4

Agenda item 4

The A96 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010

Agenda item 5

The A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010

Agenda item 6

The A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010

Agenda item 7

The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) (Craibstone Junction) Special Road Scheme 2010

Agenda item 8

The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010

Agenda item 9

The A90 ( Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route ) Trunk Road Order 2010

TIC/S3/10/5/A

Agenda item 10

PRIVATE PAPER

TIC/S3/10/5/5 (P)

Written evidence from Scottish Association for Passenger Transport and Forthright Alliance

TIC/S3/10/5/6

TIC/S3/10/5/1

TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITTEE

5th Meeting, 2010 (Session 3)

Tuesday 23 February 2010

Subordinate Legislation Cover Note Title of Instrument The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010 (SI

2010/draft) Type of Instrument Affirmative Laid Date 19 January 2010 Circulated to Members

18 February 2010

Meeting Date 23 February 2010 Minister to attend the meeting

Yes

SSI drawn to the Parliament’s attention by Subordinate Legislation Committee

No

Reporting Deadline 1 March 2010 Purpose 1. This Order establishes in the United Kingdom an emissions trading scheme in respect of greenhouse gases under sections 44 and 46(3) of and Schedule 2 and paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Climate Change Act 2008 (c. 27). It applies to direct and indirect emissions from supplies of electricity, gas and fuel by public bodies and undertakings. 2. Further information from the Scottish Government on this instrument is attached as an annex to this note. Further Information 3. The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has been designated lead committee and is required to report to the Parliament by 1 March 2010. 4. The Subordinate Legislation Committee did not have any comments to make in relation to this instrument. 5. Under Rule 10.6.1 (b), the Order is subject to affirmative resolution before it can be made. It is for the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee to recommend to the Parliament whether the Order should be approved. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate

TIC/S3/10/5/1

Change has, by motion S3M-5738 (set out in the agenda), proposed that the Committee recommends the approval of the Order. The Minister will attend in order to speak to and move the motion. The debate may last for up to 90 minutes. Ahead of the formal debate, there will be an opportunity for members to ask questions of the Minister and his officials. 6. At the end of debate, the Committee must decide whether or not to agree the motion, and then report to Parliament accordingly. Such a report need only be a short statement of the Committee’s recommendation.

Steve Farrell Clerk to the Communities Committee

Tel. 0131 348 5211 email: steve.farrell@scottish.parliament.uk

TIC/S3/10/5/1

CARBON REDUCTION COVER LETTER AND BRIEFING NOTE FROM THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT COVER LETTER Dear Mr Harvie, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme – Committee Consideration 23 February - Briefing As you are aware, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee is due to consider the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order on 23 February. I am aware that this legislation is quite complex and thought that the attached briefing note might help inform members of the Committee and assist in consideration of the Order. I trust this proves helpful.

STEWART STEVENSON

TIC/S3/10/5/1

BRIEFING NOTE THE CARBON REDUCTION COMMITMENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCHEME – ORDER IN COUNCIL Aim 1. This draft Order implements a scheme to reduce CO2 emissions by improving energy efficiency in large organisations in the public and private sectors – the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC). By capping emissions from the target sector and enabling the trading of emissions allowances, it will promote the uptake of cost-effective emissions reduction measures. The resulting reduction in energy bills will mean that, overall, the sector will save money under the scheme. In addition to the emissions reductions directly achieved, the reduction in energy demand will make it cheaper to decarbonise the electricity generation and heating sectors because the lower the demand for energy, the lower the resource costs of meeting demand through renewable generation technologies.1

Why 2. The CRC aims to reduce emissions through increasing energy efficiency in large, non-energy-intensive organisations across the public and private sectors. 3. Emissions from the largest energy-intensive industrial installations are covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and some organisations in energy-intensive subsectors have signed up to Climate Change Agreements2 under the Climate Change Levy (CCL). The non-energy-intensive organisations target sector - e.g., banks, hotel and retail chains, service sector companies, NHS Boards, local and national government - occupy an emissions reduction “policy gap” but are responsible for around 10% of the UK’s total CO2 emissions. 4. The CCL, a tax on energy use, provides a useful price signal but does apply to non-energy-intensive organisations. However, it is often simply absorbed by the affected organisations, rather than encouraging action. Analysis3 of energy use in these organisations has suggested that significant opportunities for cost-effective energy-saving measures exist which are not being taken. One reason is that in a typical CRC organisation, energy only represents 1-2% of total costs, and therefore purely financial incentives are not fully effective in driving reductions. 5. The CRC scheme is designed to achieve emissions reductions by increasing the uptake of cost-effective efficiency measures. As a cap-and-trade scheme, it will place a limit on emissions from the sector, providing certainty that reductions will be made. The need to project emissions and purchase allowances in advance will make opportunities for cost-effective emissions reductions more apparent. The scheme will also involve an annually published league table, which will rank participants according to their emissions reduction performance. The public recognition this will provide is expected to be a powerful reputational driver for many organisations. It is expected that the scheme as a whole will increase board-level interest in energy management strategy. 6. The scheme is also designed to target specific situations where there is a lack of incentive for emissions reductions. In leased properties many factors affecting energy use are in the control of the landlord, yet if energy bills are passed to the tenant, making improvements would bring the landlord little benefit. CRC will go some way to tackling this by

1 Identified as transformational outcomes which must be achieved if Scotland is to meet the 2050 emissions target. See Climate Change Delivery Plan, published in June 2009. 2 Energy-intensive industries can obtain an 80 percent discount from the Climate Change Levy, provided they meet challenging targets for improving their energy efficiency or reducing their carbon emissions. Climate Change Agreements (CCAs) set the terms under which eligible companies may claim the levy reduction. 3 http://www.decc.gov.uk/media/viewfile.ashx?filepath=what we do/a low carbon uk/crc/policy/nera-enviros-report-060428.pdf&filetype=4

TIC/S3/10/5/1

ensuring that where landlords supply energy to their tenants, the landlord remains responsible for the emissions. 7. About 3,500 organisations across the UK will be required to participate in the scheme, up to 250 of which have their headquarters in Scotland. An online system for reporting will be implemented to simplify the compliance procedure. The verification regime for participants’ emissions reports is designed to be light-touch. 8. Importantly, the CRC is broadly revenue-neutral to government as revenue from allowances sales is “recycled” to participants. The recycling mechanism is designed to enhance the financial incentive to reduce emissions, by linking payments to the scheme’s performance league table. How the scheme will work from participant’s view point 9. Emissions Trading is a market based mechanism that applies a limit on pollution, and regulates it with a system of allowances that can be exchanged between participants. Each allowance gives its holder the right to emit a specified level of the relevant pollutant, and the supply of these allowances can be used to control the overall level of pollution. Trading of allowances between parties who are responsible for emissions can occur on an open secondary market with a price determined by demand. 10. Where the cost of reducing emissions is cheaper than the price of allowances, participants in a trading scheme have a financial incentive to reduce their emissions. Conversely, when the costs are high it is preferable to purchase sufficient allowances to cover emissions. Thus the prevailing allowance price reflects the marginal cost of abatement for the firm with the most expensive costs. When allowances become scarce and the price of emissions rise, there is a corresponding increase in the available options for cost effective emissions reduction; and in this way emissions trading schemes produce the most economically efficient way for a group of participants to reduce their emissions, with the “lowest hanging fruit” always targeted first. 11. The following is a brief outline of functioning of scheme:

11.1 The CRC will operate as a cap-and-trade scheme. The core requirement is that participating organisations must submit allowances annually to cover the emissions which result from all energy supplies they are responsible for.

11.2 The scheme will begin in April 2010, with a three-year introductory phase. The first year of this phase will be a reporting-only year, in which no allowances need to be bought, and the next two years will operate on a fixed-price sale of allowances, where there will be no limit on availability.

11.3 From 2013, a cap (limit) in tonnes of CO2 will be placed on the emissions of the target sector, and rights to emit, in the form of allowances will be auctioned. The level of the cap will be agreed by the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the other Devolved Administrations, following advice from the Committee on Climate Change.

11.4 At the start of each financial year organisations will need to predict their emissions for the year ahead and purchase sufficient allowances to cover these emissions. They will be encouraged to devise a strategy for participation based on the emissions reduction measures available to them. If a particular measure reduces emissions at a cost per tonne of CO2 which is less than the cost of an allowance (and also taking into account the value of any resulting energy savings), it makes financial sense to implement that measure. This will inform the number of allowances they need to purchase, and drive the take-up of cost-effective emissions reduction measures.

11.5 If, during the course of a year a participant’s actual emissions diverge from their predictions, they can arrange to trade allowances with other organisations on the secondary market.

TIC/S3/10/5/1

11.6 Participants will have until 31 July? following the end of each financial year to collate and submit a report on their energy use, which is converted to emissions. Participants must surrender for cancellation one allowance for each tonne of CO2they emit.

11.7 The information in participant’s annual reports is used to rank them in a league table based on emissions reduction performance. Each receives a “recycling payment” – a share of the revenue from the most recent allowance sale, adjusted to reflect their ranking in the league table. The calculation of the league table and recycling payments is described further in the attached Annex. It should be noted that, although the league table is constructed using participants’ data for the previous year, it is revenue from the sale of allowances for the current year which is recycled. This means that revenue is only held for six, rather than eighteen months.

11.8 The CRC applies to emissions across whole organisations. An organisation required to participate in the CRC may already operate an installation or site included in the EU ETS or a CCA. The organisation will not be required to submit CRC allowances for emissions regulated by these schemes.

How important aspects of scheme are achieved in Order Part 1 - Introduction 12. Part 1 establishes the CRC scheme. It divides the scheme into overlapping phases of seven years (following a three year introductory phase), largely to provide points where new organisations can enter the scheme and organisations which no longer meet the qualification threshold can leave. Each new phase begins two years before the end of the preceding phase. This simplifies drafting later in the Order, as there are a number of actions participants must take at the start of each phase before the requirement to surrender allowances is applied from the third year onwards (primarily, the submission of a Footprint Report as described in Part 4) 13. Part 1 also identifies the administrators for the scheme. SEPA will regulate participants in Scotland, although the Environment Agency (EA) will undertake certain administration duties for the whole of the UK. Part 2 – Registration as a participant 14. The CRC requires organisations to apply to be registered as a participant if their energy use exceeded a threshold level in the qualification year. The Order therefore has to define what constitutes an organisation for the purposes of the scheme. This definition has been considered carefully so that:

• the scheme covers as many emissions as possible; • the administrative burden to participants is minimised; and • participants are recognisable and the league table is effective – for example,

emissions from organisations operating under franchise agreements will be attributed to the franchisor, although the organisations may not be otherwise related.

15. For the most part, this is accomplished by counting individual legal entities as distinct organisations – e.g. an “undertaking” in the private sector or a public body in the public sector. However, in various cases, the objectives set out above are best satisfied by requiring a number of connected legal entities to participate together as a group. 16. Schedules 3 and 4 define what an organisation is for the purposes of the scheme, for the public and private sectors respectively. Use is made of the Freedom of Information (FOI(S)) Act (Scotland) 2002, which includes a comprehensive list of ‘”public authorities” in Scotland. In general, a public body is an organisation for the purposes of the CRC if it is listed in the FOI(S) Act. Where a public body is legally part of another body it will participate

TIC/S3/10/5/1

as part of that parent body. Chapter 2 of Part 2 and Schedule 3 describe the types of public bodies which must participate as groups. 17. In the private sector, subsidiary companies will be grouped together with their highest UK parent company as a single participant. The Order draws on the Companies Act 2006 definitions of parent and subsidiary undertakings to define the relationships within the Group, specifically using the definition of ‘Group Undertaking’ set out in Section 1161(5) of the Act. In the CRC Order, provisions relating to private sector organisations are set out in Chapter 4 of Part 2 and in Schedule 4. 18. To assist the CRC function effectively across differing types of organisational structure, the CRC allows organisations some flexibility to choose to disaggregate parts of their structure to participate in the CRC as if they were a separate organisation. Companies can choose to split off subsidiaries to participate separately where they meet the qualification threshold in their own right. Similarly, Government departments and the devolved administrations can disaggregate any part of their structure to participate separately, regardless of size or legal status. 19. Organisations’ potential for emissions reductions depends mostly on the size of their energy use. The Order only requires organisations which exceed a qualification threshold to participate in the CRC, in order to avoid imposing a disproportionate burden on those with smaller energy use. For simplicity, the qualification threshold is based on electricity used through half hourly4 meters, as a proxy for total energy use. The qualification threshold is in Part 1 of the Order. 20. The CRC runs over phases – after the initial three year introductory phase, a new phase begins every five years. At the start of each phase, organisations must apply to be registered as full CRC participants if they use more than the threshold amount of electricity. 21. Approximately 20,000 organisations in the UK have a half-hourly meter. It is expected that 3,500 of these will exceed the threshold and be full participants. Of these, 200-250 have their headquarters in Scotland. However, Article 62 requires the remaining 16,500 organisations, at the start of each phase, to log-on to the CRC registry and claim the half hourly meters they are responsible for. Without this requirement, known as an information disclosure, the costs of enforcing the scheme would be much greater, as the regulators would have to examine tens of thousands of meter records to find out which organisation is responsible for each, and calculate their total electricity usage. Information disclosures require the minimum of information and instructions on their completion have been sent to the billing addresses for the relevant meters. Organisations which have a half-hourly meter but fail to complete an information disclosure will be liable to fines. Part 3 - Exemptions 22. Part 3 of the Order deals with exemptions. The CRC applies to emissions across whole organisations. An organisation required to participate in the CRC may already operate an installation or site included in the EU ETS or a CCA. The organisation will not be required to submit CRC allowances for emissions regulated by these schemes. Furthermore, an organisation which has a sufficient percentage of it’s total emissions covered by a CCA may apply for complete exemption from the CRC. 23. Energy used for specific purposes is exempt from the scheme, e.g., energy used in most forms of transport, or in domestic accommodation. Also, electricity generated by participants on their premises from renewable sources is exempt, as long as the participant does not receive ROCS or another financial incentive for generating it. All electricity drawn

4 Mandatory Half Hourly Meters (HHM) supply electricity settled on the half hourly market and are required in situations where the average peak electricity demand over the three months of highest supplies received exceeds 100kW over the previous 12 months. Note; not all half hourly meters trading on the half hourly market are classed as mandatory.

TIC/S3/10/5/1

from the grid is treated as having the same emissions because even where an organisation is signed up to a green electricity tariff, energy efficiency is important. Part 4 – Footprint reports and Part 5 - Annual reports 24. Annual reports contain data on energy use which is converted to tonnes of CO2 emitted – this is the number of allowances a participant must surrender. However the annual report may not cover all a participant’s energy supplies – participants are permitted to ignore smaller energy sources so long as at least 90% of their total (“footprint”) emissions are covered in the annual report, or by CCAs or the EU ETS. The footprint report is completed at the start of every phase to establish the energy supplies which must be included in annual reports in order that this percentage is met. Some types of “core” energy supplies, described in Schedule 2, must always be included in annual reports. Part 6 – Allowances and CRC emissions 25. Part 6 contains the key requirement of the Order - the obligation on participants to surrender valid allowances equal to the emissions in their annual reports at the end of each year. It should be noted that the government allowance sale for the year ahead takes place before participants are required to surrender allowances for their previous year’s emissions. Article 52 prevents allowances purchased at the start of year sale being surrendered for the previous year’s emissions. This restriction is necessary in order to ensure that participants project their emissions and put in place reduction strategies. It will help ensure cost-effective efficiency measures are implemented and, in the capped phases, avoid spikes in the allowance price. Part 7 – Records 26. Unlike the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, participants’ emissions reports are not subject to external verification. This is to reduce the cost of participation. Instead, participants are required to maintain evidence packs to back up the information in their footprint and annual reports, which will be periodically audited. Part 12 enables the administrators, by issuing a compliance notice, to require a participant to provide their evidence pack for audit. It is intended that the administrators will audit about 20% of participants each year. Detailed guidance is being produced setting out the information evidence packs should contain. Part 8 – Information and assistance requirements 27. As referred to above, Article 62 requires organisations which are have a half-hourly meter but which do not meet the threshold for participation to complete an information disclosure. Articles 63 and 64 require electricity and gas suppliers to provide usage information upon request - to participants to assist them in complying, and to the administrators in order that they can enforce the scheme effectively. In some cases the CRC will require organisations to cooperate in order to comply with the scheme – tenants and landlords, franchisees and franchisors, and public bodies required to participate as part of a group. The former of each of these pairs of participants must provide information to the latter so that they are able to ensure scheme compliance. Part 9 Administration of the scheme 28. Registration, reporting and the trading and surrender of allowances will all be carried out by participants using an on-line Registry. Part 9 requires the EA to establish a single Registry for all UK participants, which has the capabilities set out in Schedule 7 . Part 10 – Achievement and performance tables 29. Energy costs are only 1-2% of total costs in a typical CRC participant, and financial incentives alone would not be fully effective in driving reductions. CRC therefore incorporates a league table based on the information in participants annual reports, which will rank participants according to recent emissions reduction performance. This will be published

TIC/S3/10/5/1

annually, and will offer public recognition for those successfully reducing emissions. It is also linked with the revenue recycling mechanism which is a key part of the scheme. 30. The Order deals only with the calculation and publication of the table. The sale of allowances, as a reserved matter, will be covered by regulations made under the Finance Act 2008. The revenue recycling mechanism has been set out in publications by the government and regulators, but as it only involves actions on the part of government and the regulators, it will not be covered in legislation. Nevertheless, as integral parts of the scheme, these matters are described in the attached Annex. 31. Position in the league table is determined by combining participants’ scores in three metrics, which are provided for in this Part and in Schedule 8. The absolute change metric measures absolute emissions reductions, and has the greatest weighting. The relative change metric measures the reduction in emissions intensity of operations, and aims to reward organisations which grow but contain their emissions growth. The early action metric applies in the introductory phase, and is designed to reward organisations which took action to reduce emissions before the start of the scheme. These are described further in the Annex. Part 11 – charging 32. It is estimated that it will cost the administrators £6 million per year to run and enforce the CRC. In the second consultation5 on the CRC, stakeholders were asked whether they would prefer for enforcement costs to be taken from the recycling pot or recovered as charges. There was widespread support for a system of charges. 33. Part 11 sets out processes for the payment of charges and the activities which may be charged for. The actual level of charges is set out in a separate document, to enable simpler updating. The levels for the first year have been publicised, the main charge being a subsistence fee of £1290 payable by all participants annually, and a once-per-phase registration fee of £950. Part 12 - Monitoring Compliance 34. This provides the administrators with the power to issue a compliance notice, requiring a participant to supply information in connection with compliance. Compliance notices will be used by the administrators to obtain participants’ evidence packs for audit. Part 13 – Enforcement 35. Part 13 provides powers for the enforcement of the CRC. Article 89, in conjunction with Schedule 9 provides the administrator or their appointed representative with powers of entry and inspection. Enforcement notices are provided for in Article 91. Failure to comply with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence under Part 15, and they are intended mainly as a reinforcing measure should civil penalties not be sufficient to ensure an organisation registers for the scheme. Part 14 – Civil penalties 36. A system of civil penalties is provided to guard against most breaches of the CRC Order. In line with better regulation principles and SEPA’s policy of taking the least formal action required to obtain compliance, Article 94 allows administrators to waive or lower penalties where participants have demonstrated the intent to comply with the Order and certain criteria are satisfied. Penalties are designed to be dissuasive but proportionate, taking into account the range of participant sizes.

5 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/climatechange/scotlands-action/EmissionsTrading/CRC/crcgovresponse

TIC/S3/10/5/1

37. The central requirement of the scheme is to surrender allowances equal to emissions – the fine for failure to do so is £40 per tonne of CO2 emissions not covered by allowances. Payment of the fine does not however release the participant from the requirement to surrender allowances - the shortfall is carried over to the next year. 38. Another notable fine relates to the obligation placed on energy suppliers to provide information when requested by the administrator or participants (Part 8, Articles 63 and 64). This is vital for the enforcement of the scheme, and to assist participants compile annual reports. Repeated failure to provide such information attracts a fine of £500,000. 39. Organisations will also face having their name published on the registry website should they fail to comply with the Order, and the administrator is also entitled to block their registry accounts, preventing allowance trading. Part 15 – Criminal offences and penalties 40. The Order creates a small number of criminal offences, such as deliberately providing false information in order to gain from the scheme. Another notable offence is failure to comply with an enforcement notice. It is intended enforcement notices will be used should civil penalties not be sufficient to ensure an organisation registers for the scheme. Part 16 – Appeals, services of notice and national security 41. This provides the right for participants to appeal decisions of the administrator. Schedule 10 sets out further procedure. The Scottish Ministers must determine appeals against decisions taken by SEPA, except in cases where the Scottish Ministers are themselves the appellant. In these cases, the Scottish Ministers must appoint an independent appeals body.

TIC/S3/10/5/1

ANNEX

How is the league table constructed?

1. Participants are ranked by combining their scores on three different metrics, which have been designed to measure the performance of participants in reducing their emissions:

a. The Early Action Metric recognises good energy management undertaken prior to the start and in the early years of the scheme. This metric is based on two factors, equally weighted, which have been chosen as a proxy for good energy management:

(i) The level of voluntary installation of automatic meters (AMR). AMR provides meter readings at least every half hour which are remotely accessible, usually via a normal computer. They are a strong indicator of good energy management practice.

(ii) The percentage of the participant’s emissions covered by a valid Carbon Trust Standard certificate or equivalent accreditation. ,To be awarded the Carbon Trust Standard, an organisation must have reduced its annual emissions two years in a row.

b. The Absolute Metric measures the actual reduction in emissions achieved by the organisation. The metric is the percentage reduction in emissions obtained from comparing current annual emissions to average emissions over the preceding five years. In the first five years of the scheme, current emissions are compared against the average over the years available.

c. The Growth Metric recognises that organisations that are growing might as a consequence increase their emissions. It measures the reduction in emissions intensity of operations. The metric is the percentage change in emissions per unit turnover (or revenue expenditure in the public sector) compared to the average over the preceding five years.

2. Each metric will carry a different weighting – these are shown below for the introductory phase of the scheme. In subsequent phases of the scheme the Early Action Metric will cease to be used, and the proposed weighting is 75% Absolute Metric to 25% Growth Metric.

How will revenue recycling work?

3. There are two stages in the calculation of what share of the revenue from the April auction of allowances is paid to each participant in October:

d. The share of auction revenues is based on the proportion of the total CRC emissions for which the participant was responsible in the first year of the scheme. For example, if total CRC emissions are 10,000 tCO2 in 2010/11, and the participant’s emissions are 100 tCO2, their share is 1%. This basic share will be the same in each subsequent year of the scheme, rewarding participants which make genuine long-term emissions reductions year-on-year.

TIC/S3/10/5/1

e. This share is then adjusted based on their position in the performance league table for the previous year. This adjustment is based on a maximum bonus/penalty rate. The top-performing participant will have their share of revenues adjusted upwards by the maximum rate. The second place participant’s share will be adjusted at a marginally lower rate, the third’s at a slightly lower rate again, and so on. Mid-table participants’ shares will receive little or no adjustment. The shares of those in the lower half will be adjusted downwards, with the bottom-performing participant’s share being adjusted by the maximum rate.

4. The maximum bonus/penalty rates for the first five years of the scheme will be:

Year 1 ±10%

Year 2 ±20%

Year 3 ±30%

Year 4 ±40%

Year 5 ±50%

How will this incentivise emissions reductions?

5. The incentive to reduce emissions can be broken down in to three parts:

f. A participant who reduces its emissions will have to purchase fewer allowances. Using their knowledge of the allowance price, participants will be able to calculate how much a potential emissions reduction measure will save them, encouraging cost-effective measures to be taken.

g. Compared to doing nothing, reducing emissions will always improve a participant’s revenue recycling payment, as the payment a participant receives does not depend on how much they spend on allowances. Though the exact increase will be difficult to estimate, this will further incentivise emissions reductions, and also allows adjustment to be made to recognise the effect of growth on performance.

h. Because the recycling shares of participants ranked in the top half of the league table are adjusted upwards, organisations which consistently finish in the top half of the table will receive more in recycling payments than they pay for allowances. The converse is true of participants which consistently finish in the lower half of the table.

6. The cost of allowances in the CRC is small compared to the cost of energy. Though analysis predicts that the financial and reputational incentive to reduce emissions provided by this Order will be effective, the main reward for implementing efficiency measures will remain the saving on energy bills that will result. This means that the CRC can have a net positive financial effect even for participants which are consistently placed in the lower half of the league table. Indeed the projection in the Impact Assessment that the scheme will have a positive net present value to participants of over £1 billion suggests this will be the case for many such participants.

TIC/S3/10/5/3 WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM FORTH PORTS PLC

Forth Ports PLC understand that this committee will be considering the Carbon Reduction Commitment draft legislation. Forth Ports run a group of regionally based ports in the central belt of Scotland and Tayside. Grangemouth is Scotland's largest container port, serving both the Glasgow and Edinburgh Metropolitan Regions. The Port of Tilbury is London's major distribution hub for South East England. We also have a port terminal operation at Chatham in Kent operated under the Nordic banner. We provide marine services, controlling navigation in the Firths of Forth and Tay through the Forth and Tay Navigation Service as well as operating our own towage fleet. We have a Property Division that manages and develops our property assets, a recycling division (Nordic Recycling) and a joint venture renewable energy division (Forth Energy) with Scottish and Southern Energy. In Forth Ports we are actively working to reduce our carbon footprint through resource efficiency measures. We have been developing these projects for some years, substantially reducing our energy usage with considerable attention at board level. Forth Ports support activities to reduce carbon, indeed the shipping routes calling at our ports substantially reduce the carbon budget of the UK and we strongly believe that more use of the shipping routes calling at our ports could make a significant impact on the UK’s ability to meet its carbon targets. A recent study by the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management (part funded by the Carbon Trust) showed that just three of the many routes from our ports saved more than three times the Forth Ports Group carbon footprint (Scope 1, 2 & 3) when compared to road transport alternatives. Following further work we have identified that Forth Ports PLC has a carbon leverage in excess of 10:1; we save more than ten times the carbon we emit in conducting our business. Furthermore, (as the government is aware) we are working on a number of potential coastal shipping and barge transport options that will further demonstrate the carbon benefits that can be derived from growing port volumes by diversion from road. We therefore believe that by working in partnership with government and attracting more trade to travel by sea rather than by land we can reduce the UK’s carbon footprint and substantially contribute to the 2050 80% target. We supply electricity to a number of our tenants within our port estates. On average they use 4-5 times the electricity that we use ourselves. Under the current rules of the scheme, we are responsible for the CRC liabilities of our tenants (where we supply the electricity). This is an issue for us, as it makes our CRC liability disproportionately large. Furthermore, we have no control over the electricity usage of our tenants. Many tenants conduct industrial processes, mills, cement batching plants, processing factories, pipe coating, metal working and so on. Many of these tenants own their buildings, albeit on our land. They therefore have full control over their electricity usage, which makes the proposal that we are responsible for their electricity usage in the CRC a challenging one for us. Clearly we will have to recoup our CRC costs, but there is no logical or sensible clear method for us to do so. Many of our leases are for multi-decadal periods, making it impossible to re-write these to factor in a new scheme such as this. Due to the nature of the scheme, all the tenants that we supply with electricity will be captured, even those with exceptionally small usage, far below the 6,000MW threshold of the scheme for participation. We believe this will result in some of our smaller and more mobile tenants leaving the ports, and therefore a net carbon dis-benefit through all of the additional transportation associated with port related services relocating out of our ports. By far the majority of the tenants that we supply use less electricity on our site than the scheme participation threshold.1 A major vulnerability for Forth Ports is how to deal with new tenants entering the port, if we purchased a subsidiary, the scheme recognises this, and the group would not be penalised unfairly. However, if (as in 2009) a new tenant was signed up that used 6 million units a year, this would count as an absolute increase on emissions, regardless of the fact that it was new business. Similarly, we have one tenant, who is a major user who has a plant that is virtually dormant unless they have a contract. The plant could be dormant for a number of years and then operational for one or more years. If these companies were participants in their own right, the scheme may be able to manage this, but as the scheme stands there is no recognition of this issue and our league table position and resulting reputation and recycle payment is highly vulnerable. 1 They may be part of a larger group and would qualify in their own right as a result, but as they are supplied by the port, they will not participate at our sites and we will be responsible for their emissions.

TIC/S3/10/5/3 This landlord/tenant issue is particularly acute in ports; clearly we will have to pass this cost on to our tenants. There is no obvious way to deal with issues like those outlined in the paragraph above, particularly if all of the other tenants have assisted in the reduction of carbon relative to their business activities. Yet we all lose our recycle payment. We can split a subsidiary company out of the overall Forth Ports Group – so that it reports on its own (where we clearly have control), but we cannot split our tenants out to report separately (when we have no control over them). Mobile plant was specifically excluded from the CRC until the latest iteration from DECC. This u-turn doubles our own use CRC liability. This last minute change came as a surprise; given previous correspondence specifically stated that mobile plant was not included. Finally, I was recently informed that the final guidance for the scheme will not be available until April – which is when the scheme starts. Surely this is too late? Could the start date for the scheme be postponed to start 1st January 2011? Forth Ports PLC is investing in a number of renewable energy projects. In the Port of Tilbury we have consent for four wind turbines, yet once constructed we will be unable to discount this on-site generated renewable energy from our CRC liabilities. In Scotland we are seeking consent for two wind projects and four renewable energy plants on our estates along through our joint venture with Scottish and Southern Energy: Forth Energy.2 Similarly, if consented, post construction we will not be able to discount this energy against our CRC liabilities. Beyond these projects, we have been working on resource efficiency for a number of years, having created substantial savings to date on energy use per tonne of cargo handled. This has been achieved through infrastructural investment as well as through behavioural initiatives: e.g. encouraging staff to switch off electrical equipment when idle. Last year we saved in excess of 10% across the Forth Ports group of companies relative to the tonnage handled. This is on top of the previous year, where a number of asset areas achieved astounding savings in excess of 30%. Part of the work we have undertaken to date on carbon budgeting has shown us that, particularly with coastal shipping, there are opportunities for transport carbon footprints to be substantially reduced by modal shift from road (or rail) to sea. In many cases, moving goods by sea can emit one tenth of the carbon or road transport. This by far exceeds the government’s aspiration of an 80% reduction by 2050, and it is an immediate saving. Summary The up front payment nature of the scheme presents many companies with cash flow planning difficulties. But the biggest issue is the decision to make landlords (specifically in the case of ports), where they supply electricity to tenants, responsible for the carbon emissions of their tenants under the CRC. This is a particular vulnerability due to the inability of ports to control the energy use of their tenants, and in particular the often impossibility of forecasting the usage of certain tenants. This represents an enormous financial and reputational liability in its current format. Ports are keen to improve energy efficiency and have made great progress on this over recent years. The aim to improve energy efficiency is fully supported, but the implementation is overly complex and completely unfair where we are expected to carry the liability of tenant companies. We would propose that where there is a ‘directed utility’, the utility has the same duty to inform DECC of its energy on-sales as any power company. We hope that our comments are useful. We look forward to seeing the outcome of this committee and working with the governments of the UK and Scotland to reduce carbon budgets through the facilitation of modal shift from road to sea. Dr. Derek McGlashan Environment Manager – Scottish Operations Forth Ports PLC

2 www.forthenergy.co.uk

TIC/S3/10/5/4

TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITTEE

5th Meeting, 2010 (Session 3)

Tuesday 23 February 2010

Subordinate Legislation Cover Note Title of Instruments The A96 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route)

Trunk Road Order 2010 The A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 The A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) (Craibstone Junction) Special Road Scheme 2010 The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010

Type of Instruments Affirmatives Laid Date 15 January 2010 Circulated to Members

18 February 2010

Meeting Date 23 February 2010 Minister to attend the meeting

Yes

SSI drawn to the Parliament’s attention by Subordinate Legislation Committee

No

Reporting Deadline 1 March 2010 Purpose 1. These orders are to provide the powers to construct new special roads to the west of Aberdeen between Blackdog and Stonehaven, and Charleston and Cleanhill, known as the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR). Further information on these orders, including a map of the overall route has been provided by the Scottish Government and is attached as an annexe to this note.

TIC/S3/10/5/4

Further Information 2. The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has been designated lead committee and is required to report to the Parliament by 1 March 2010. 3. The Subordinate Legislation Committee did not have any comments to make in relation to these instruments. 4. Under Rule 10.6.1 (b), the Orders are subject to affirmative resolution before they can be made. It is for the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee to recommend to the Parliament whether the Orders should be approved. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has, by motions S3M-5729 to S3M-5734 (set out in the agenda), proposed that the Committee recommends the approval of these Orders. The Minister will attend in order to speak to and move the motions. The debate may last for up to 90 minutes. Ahead of the formal debate, there will be an opportunity for members to ask questions of the Minister and his officials. 5. At the end of debate, the Committee must decide whether or not to agree the motions, and then report to Parliament accordingly. Such a report need only be a short statement of the Committee’s recommendation.

Steve Farrell Clerk to the Communities Committee

Tel. 0131 348 5211 email: steve.farrell@scottish.parliament.uk

TIC/S3/10/5/4

BRIEFING NOTE: ABERDEEN WESTERN PERIPHERAL ROUTE SCHEMES AND TRUNK ROAD ORDERS FROM TRANSPORT SCOTLAND

ABERDEEN WESTERN PERIPHERAL ROUTE Introduction The Scottish Ministers have a statutory duty in accordance with the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to keep under review the trunk road network in Scotland, and to manage and maintain that system of routes - including improving the network where appropriate - to ensure a safe and efficient national network of roads. These functions are undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by Transport Scotland, an executive agency of The Scottish Government. The trunk road network is the system of through routes that provide strategically important road links between communities throughout Scotland. The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 sets out the procedure for promoting Schemes and Orders giving general powers to construct, reconstruct, alter, widen, improve or renew roads. The Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) is a new 46km long dual carriageway proposed jointly by the Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council. The purpose of the six instruments subject to affirmative procedure is to provide the powers to construct new special roads to the west of Aberdeen between Blackdog and Stonehaven, and Charleston and Cleanhill, known as the AWPR. The instruments also provide the powers to construct new lengths of trunk roads to form parts of the A90, A96 and A956 to support the new special roads. It should be noted that these instruments are associated with a number of other instruments which are not subject to affirmative resolution procedure. It is intended that these other instruments will be made following completion of the affirmative resolution procedure. The Proposed Scheme The AWPR has been designed in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, which sets out the requirements for Trunk Roads. The side roads and accesses have been designed to standards agreed with the relevant local authorities. The AWPR will be dual carriageway with two lanes in each direction, except for the section between North Kingswells Junction and Craibstone Junction, which will be three lanes in each direction. Access to the route will be possible from eight junctions –Stonehaven (A90), Charleston (A956), Milltimber (A93), South Kingswells (A944), North Kingswells, Craibstone (A96), Goval (A947/B977) and Blackdog (A90). The AWPR will be classified as a Special Road, and access will be restricted to certain classes of vehicles. For example, certain farm vehicles and cyclists will not be permitted. The existing A90 will remain a right of way for all types of road users. Special Road status also gives the Scottish Ministers powers to exclude utilities cables and pipelines from being laid along the road which could cause traffic disruption when they have to be maintained. However, existing cables and pipelines would be accommodated where they cross the Scheme. Instruments Subject to Affirmative Procedure The six Schemes and Trunk Road Orders subject to affirmative resolution procedure are listed below: • The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 • The A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 • The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) (Craibstone Junction) Special Road Scheme

2010

The three Special Road Schemes listed above promote sections of the AWPR which will be classified as special roads and will be managed and maintained by Scottish Ministers as part of the national strategic road network. • The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 • The A96 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 • The A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route)Trunk Road Order 2010 The three Trunk Road Orders listed above promote sections of the AWPR which will be classified as trunk roads and will be managed and maintained by Scottish Ministers as part of the national strategic road network. These six instruments are associated with a number of other instruments which are not subject to affirmative resolution procedure. It is intended that these other instruments will be made following completion of the affirmative resolution procedure. Instruments not subject to Affirmative Procedure Side roads and existing paths and tracks crossed by the AWPR will be maintained or realigned wherever practicable. Footpaths and tracks will be provided to accommodate users including pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. In order to promote alterations and improvements to the local road network and existing paths and tracks crossed by the AWPR, the following associated instruments/orders have been published in draft and will be made following completion of the of the affirmative resolution procedure: • The A90 Trunk Road (Charleston to Blackdog) Detrunking Order 200[ ] • The A96 Trunk Road (Dyce Drive to Haudagain Roundabout) Detrunking Order 200[ ] • The A96 Trunk Road (Dyce Drive Roundabout to Craibstone) Detrunking Order 200[ ] These orders promote sections of the existing trunk road network which as a consequence of the new scheme will be reclassified as local roads to be managed and maintained by the relevant local roads authorities. • The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road (Side Roads) Order 200[ ] • The A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road (Side Roads) Order 200[ ] These orders promote the connecting local roads associated with the AWPR scheme, in particular the stopping up and providing new local roads/private means of access and any improvements required to the local road network as a consequence of the new special roads. • The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road (Side Roads) Order 200[ ] • The A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road (Side Roads) Order 200[ ] • The A96 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road (Side Roads) Order 200[ ] These orders promote the connecting local roads associated with the AWPR scheme, in particular the stopping up and providing new local roads/private means of access and any improvements required to the local road network as a consequence of the new trunk roads. • The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road (Redetermination of Means of

Exercise of Public Right of Passage) Order 200[ ] This order promotes the redetermination of parts of some local roads from all purpose roads to cycle tracks for the sole use of cyclists and pedestrians. • The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road (Extinguishment of Public Rights

of Way) Order 200[ ] This order promotes both the extinguishment of existing public rights of way and also details any alternative public rights of way to be provided as a consequence of conflicts with the line of the proposed new road. • The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road and the A956 (Aberdeen Western

Peripheral Route) Special Road Compulsory Purchase Order 200[ ]

• The A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road and the A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Compulsory Purchase Order No. 2 200[ ]

These orders promote the compulsory acquisition by Scottish Ministers of lands and servitude rights necessary for the purpose of constructing the AWPR scheme. They identify as accurately as possible the owner and occupiers who will be served with the relevant notices under the statutory procedure along with any explanatory literature.

ABERDEEN WESTERN PERIPHERAL ROUTE

TIC/S3/10/5/6

WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM SCOTTISH ASSOCIATION FOR PASSENGER TRANSPORT AND FORTHRIGHT ALLIANCE

WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM SCOTTISH ASSOCIATION FOR PASSENGER TRANSPORT

Forth Crossing Public Transport Corridor: Introductory Notes

The Scottish Association for Public Transport (SAPT) is concerned that the proposed configuration of the Forth Road Bridges, including the bus corridor proposals, creates an unbalanced road capacity situation and is an extremely ill-thought out project considering the high capital cost involved.

Bus traffic on the existing Forth Road Bridge amounts to less than 1% of the overall vehicle movements. Even a doubling of bus traffic from development of P+R will still amount to less than 2% of overall vehicle movements. The existing Forth Road Bridge will, therefore, be effectively empty, while the new bridge is expected to absorb all the car and HGV traffic. A significant cost is involved in modifying the approach roads to provide access to the new bridge for all traffic other than buses. But it is obvious that once the new bridge opens, there will be irresistible pressure on politicians from road users to re-open the existing bridge to car traffic to relieve traffic congestion at peak periods on the new bridge.

Given that this is the most expensive Scottish transport infrastructure investment of the 20th and 21st century, it is of the utmost concern that the proposed configuration of the two Forth Road bridges is illogical, and that further significant and expensive re-design of the approach roads is almost certain to be undertaken, under public pressure, to revert to making greater use of the existing bridge for car traffic, leading to a major increase in road capacity from Fife into the Lothians.

SAPT recommends that the design of the approach roads, including the bus access roads, should be suspended to allow a more logical solution to be investigated. The rushed timetable for design of the new bridge and the approach road philosophy, in response to over-reaction to the corrosion problems, should be halted while results from the current anti-corrosion exercise are completed.

Analysis of road traffic statistics, which will be presented to the TICC Committee orally by SAPT on 23rd February, show that there is no pressure from road traffic growth to urgently provide additional road capacity on the Forth crossing. Furthermore, train capacity across the Forth can be expanded by further train and platform lengthening, and additional signalling. More Park+Ride parking spaces at railway stations throughout Fife, where feasible, together with train/ tram connections to west Edinburgh once the Gogar Interchange opens, should help reduce road traffic on the Forth road bridge, giving time for a measured review of the situation. Regards, John McCormick Chairman Scottish Association for Public Transport

TIC/S3/10/5/6

This statement complements parallel submissions being made to Forth Bridge Bill and Finance Committees of Scottish Parliament. These conclude that in the present budget context and with a prime priority for an improving and sustainable Scottish economy:- a) the principles of the Forth Crossing Bill are unsupported by robust evidence and would lead to a damaging contraction of spending on the programmes needed to accelerate shifts in energy sources and cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the years to 2020 and on to 2050 b) inadequate attention is given in the Bill to actions to encourage modal shift from cars (a key policy aim of the Scottish Government) and increased car-sharing, especially at peaks. The rest of this submission deals with the scope for a major change of approach to the Forth Public Transport Corridor in the years to 2017 (the first full year an extra bridge could be available) and from 2017 to 2027. It supports the view of the adjacent City of Edinburgh, West Lothian and Fife Councils that there is a pressing need, ignored in the Policy Memorandum, to encourage greater shifts to public transport in the years to 2017 and to continue such a momentum in a cost-effective way. The proposals in the Policy Memorandum are not cost effective and largely an afterthought to the emphasis on an additional crossing rather than central to the Scottish Government policy aims of greater shifts to public transport and greater cuts in carbon emissions. The Period 2005-17 The Bill’s Policy Memorandum and the extensive additional information available on the Transport Scotland Forth Crossing website has the fundamental flaw of concentrating on road vehicle flows rather than on passenger volumes and occupancy levels crossing the Forth. There are only incidental references to the Forth Rail Bridge, no information on passenger mode share and no evaluation of steps to improve car occupancy at peaks or of the impact on travel patterns of multimodal smart ticketing and a multi-modal Gogar (Edinburgh West) interchange. Table 1 shows the Transport Scotland data on actual and expected road vehicle crossings in 2005 and 2017 Forth Crossing :Road Vehicle Volumes per Day (thousands) 2005 2017 % change 2017 % change ( no extra bridge) (on new bridge) (on present bridge) 66 83 26% 92 0.3 44% Since traffic levels on motorway and A road traffic levels in Scotland have stabilised (APPENDIX 1) and since toll removal on the Forth Bridge in early 2008 has had only a marginal impact on traffic levels (apart from some rise in off-peak volumes), Forth Road Crossing volumes are unlikely to be more than 68,000 in 2010, possibly rising to 70,000 on the existing bridge by 2017 but with some absolute reduction in peak volumes. The Transport Scotland estimates of 26% to 44% growth between 2005 and 2017 are unsubstantiated and conflict with existing information on changes in passenger flow totals and mode share since 2005. Table 2 shows SAPT mid-range estimates of passenger volumes across the lower Forth in 2005, 2010 & 2017. They assume that around 10% of traffic volumes relate to HGV and LGV goods movement. Forth Crossing : Average Passenger Volumes per Day (thousands) Passengers 2005 2010 2017 Road Vehicles 2005 2010 2017 Car 1 occupant * 35 36 32 35 36 32 Car multi-occupant 50 52 63 24 25 30 Bus/coach/DRT ** 10 13 17 0.5 0.7 1 Rail 14 19 28 Ferry 2 TOTALS 109 120 142 59.5 61.7 63 *including taxis with 1 passenger ** including private hire buses, minibuses, taxis with 2+ passengers

TIC/S3/10/5/6

Transport Scotland has been invited to confirm actual data for 2005 and their up-dated estimates and underlying assumptions for 2010 and 2017. The SAPT data is based on the assumptions in Appendix 2. The Period 2017-27: Suggested Actions Defer decisions on an additional Forth crossing until the results of present technical studies and of a stronger public transport and car-sharing strategy to 2017 have been observed. This may permit further extension of the life of the present road bridge but, if road vehicle volumes are higher than expected, it will be important to maintain the momentum of a strategy supporting an increased modal share for public transport and taking forward the proposals already being advanced by official bodies yet, for reasons which are unclear, omitted from the Bridge Bill Policy Memorandum and the Transport Scotland Forth Crossing website. SAPT would draw the Committee’s attention to Transport Scotland’s own conclusion that road vehicle traffic growth at Queensferry is expected to be much lower after 2016, amounting to total growth of only 6% between 2017 and 2027. There is a need to clarify whether there is an implicit assumption here that, if growth is higher, it could be handled by hard-shoulder running on the new bridge and/or the reopening of a least one lane each way on the present bridge to general traffic rather than bus only operation. The further public transport actions to which the attention of the Committee is drawn are:-

• the Scottish Government plans for the extension of rail electrification into Fife and to Dundee/Aberdeen by 2027 with the route to Perth and Inverness following

• the construction of a new and direct rail link from the Ferrytoll area to Halbeath and beyond (Project 28 in the Strategic Transport Projects Review, December 2008, costed at £100 to £250m)

• plans to reopen to passengers the rail branch from Thornton to Windygates and Leven (also for freight)

• possible restoration of passenger rail services between Dunfermline and Alloa (on a freight line)

• plans to develop a Glasgow-Lanarkshire-Livingston-west Edinburgh-Fife-Dundee/Aberdeen rail corridor in association with a high-speed route from London to Scotland via the West Midlands, Lancashire and Carlisle to Scotland, dividing for Glasgow and Edinburgh north of Carstairs.

• modification of the existing Forth Road Bridge as part of plans for tram extensions from West Edinburgh into West Lothian and also South Fife

Conclusions and Recommendations The Forth Bridge Bill and the related Policy Memorandum and Transport Scotland documentation gives inadequate consideration to the potential for increased modal share for public transport on existing Forth Crossings - especially in a situation where the evidence points strongly to reduced rates of growth in total in passenger movement across the Forth even after allowance is made for expected change in population and employment levels and locations. The optimum solution is to make better use of the existing road and rail bridges in the coming decade rather than proceed to a very expensive additional crossing and under-utilisation of the existing rail and road bridges. The Committee is urged to make two recommendations as top priorities:- 1) – an early multi-modal reappraisal of total passenger movement and mode share on the Forth Crossing Corridors with a view to an action programme agreed within 12 months to encourage mode shift to public transport and car-sharing over the years to 2017 2) – cancellation of further work on the Forth Crossing Bill on the grounds that this is not an essential and cost-effective project within the stated overall aims of the Scottish Government in a period of tightened public finance.

TIC/S3/10/5/6

APPENDIX 1 Road and Car Traffic Statistics (million vehicle Kms) - Rail Comparisons 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Scottish M-way & A Roads All traffic 28,209 28,055 28,898 28,986 28,810 Cars 22,308 22,060 22,610 22,392 22,221 STS No 28 p 124 M90 at Kelty (average daily flows for all traffic- thousands) 29,565 30,703 26,511 30,787 STS No 28 p 130 Rail Passenger kms in Scotland outwith SPT area (millions) 1994-95 2004-05 783 1,437 +83% STS No 24 2005 p 152 Total pass kms in Scotland continued upwards from 2,224m in 04-05 to 2,601m in 08-09 i.e. +18% with rate of growth being higher in the east of Scotland STS No 28 p 158 Examples of yearly passenger usage of Forth area rail stations (thousands) 2004 2005 2006 2007 Dundee 1,438 1,515 1,490 1,600 Kirkcaldy 1.050 1,072 1,126 1,152 Inverkeithing 988 972 986 1,032 Dunfermline Town 569 604 632 638 South Gyle 405 424 410 464 Leuchars 375 378 401 Dalmeny 327 361 371 387 Dunfermline Queen Margaret 195 206 211 203 Dalgety Bay 239 247 262 271 Annual data in STS on 100 top stations and usage of new stations – more detail available from ORR Ferrytoll Park And Ride and other P+R Data requested but not yet available Estimated usage of Gogar Rail/Tram/Bus Interchange in first full year is 750 thousand APPENDIX 2 Assumptions made in relation to Passenger Volumes in 2017 1) 50% rise in real cost of petrol/derv but rail and bus fare rises capped at rate of inflation 2) introduction on the existing bridge of a peak period priority lane for buses, other high occupancy vehicles, vans and approved HGVs within the next 12 months (peak period being defined as the Monday to Friday commuting peaks plus well-publicised extensions to cover periods when major events would otherwise lead to bridge delays; approved HGVs defined as those with no easy alternative to using the present bridge and paying an appropriate 3-monthly or yearly fee; bridge ban on non-approved HGVs) 3) ramp metering at Ferrytoll, Inverkeithing & Halbeath junctions and/or peak-time lone occupant car charges 4) opening of Gogar(Edinburgh West) as a fully intermodal interchange by 2012, including interchange from rail to a quality bus network for west Edinburgh and to quality bus links to West Lothian and along the Edinburgh Bypass (this could be financed in part by a delay in the planned provision of a direct rail link from Gogar to the Falkirk line by 2017 and earlier extension of Edinburgh tram Route 1 from the Airport to a new interchange station at Ratho Station/Newbridge also serving the Ingliston Exhibition and Showground zone) 5) early introduction of multi-modal smart ticketing in association with a rise in long- stay parking charges in west Edinburgh and at Edinburgh Airport (with proceeds used for public transport and active travel) 6) provision of high-capacity ‘Forth Metro’ rail services from east of Edinburgh to Cowdenbeath via Gogar, Ferrytoll, Inverkeithing, Rosyth, Dunfermline & Halbeath on a 15 minute or higher frequency

TIC/S3/10/5/6

7) further improvements in rail passenger capacity and trip times to Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth and Inverness 8) enhanced use of rail, bus & cycle park and ride and local bus feeders 9) development of Ferrytoll as an interchange including rail facilities, bus feeders and direct bus links to Newbridge/Livingston and to Granton/Leith development zones 10) provision of at least one fast passenger ferry route from south Fife to Edinburgh Waterfront

TIC/S3/10/5/6

WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM FORTHRIGHT ALLIANCE

FORTH CROSSING BILL EVIDENCE FROM LAWRENCE MARSHALL, CHAIR, FORTHRIGHT ALLIANCE: In order to comment on the proposals in the Forth Crossing Bill to create a public transport corridor on the current Forth Road Bridge, a little background information and comment might be helpful: The history of the engagement of the Scottish Parliament with the issues surrounding the existing and proposed road crossings of the Forth at Queensferry is largely an unfortunate saga of serial contradictions coupled with ill-advised and costly populism. The Scottish Parliament, upon abolishing the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board in 2002, established in its place the Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) - with a remit to not only operate and maintain the Forth Road Bridge but also to invest in transport and infrastructure projects beyond the bridge itself. FETA, as a transport authority, thus produced a Local Transport Strategy (2005) for the bridgehead area to guide such investment. As I wrote, as Convener of FETA, in the Foreword to its Annual Report for 2005-2006, "a key component of FETA's Local Transport Strategy was ... the introduction of a Road User Charge, with variable charging at peak hours as a means of managing demand and raising revenue for further cross-Forth improvements".1 The then Scottish Executive indeed encouraged FETA in its view that the tolling regime then in place was no longer appropriate and that a new charging order should be progressed whereby the emphasis would shift from the movement of vehicles to that of people across the Firth. A new order would also correct the absurdity of HGVs being charged less to cross the bridge than buses - despite the former causing much damage to the structure while the latter were beneficial to FETA's efforts to reduce congestion and offer bridge users a "Guid Passage". That the Scottish Executive were keen on just such a change in tolling was made most obvious when funding was granted to FETA to enable it to sign the construction contract for the M9 spur - but on condition that an Application in Principle for a variable charging regime be submitted. Of course, subsequently and as a result of political developments, the Application in Principle was rejected by the Scottish Parliament - which then went on to abolish tolls completely. FETA is no longer a transport authority and its Local Transport Strategy has likewise been abandoned. With an increase of 40% in traffic volumes over current levels being planned for the new bridge in 2017, even the aspiration to dampen down traffic growth has now been reversed - with a vengeance. Such an increase in traffic, moreover, will have to be accommodated on a surrounding road network in essence much the same as that of today. Buses – although provided with a dedicated crossing over the current bridge - will struggle even more in the face of such traffic increases to make their way into Edinburgh along the A90 corridor and to West Lothian via the M9 spur. Moreover, the idea that Edinburgh, for instance, would welcome a substantial increase in bus traffic is just fanciful. Bus congestion in the city is already dire - and pollution levels giving real cause for concern along the very road corridors such buses would utilise. There may be a case for increased bus provision between Fife and West Lothian – the Livingston area in particular. Surely, however, a variable charging regime would be a better way of encouraging an increase in the use of public transport than the construction of a new £2.34 billion bridge which leaves in its wake a vastly under-used existing bridge which has over 70 years of its design life left to run.

1 See http://www.forthroadbridge.org/sites/default/files/documents/Annual%20Report%202005-06.pdf

TIC/S3/10/5/6

No amount of increase in the number of buses crossing the Forth Road Bridge if a new bridge is built can possibly justify the expenditure required - not only the £2.34 billion for the new bridge but also the ongoing cost of operating and maintaining the existing bridge. It is envisaged that, while 92,000 vehicles per day cross the new bridge in 2017, the "old" bridge will carry a mere 300 buses per day. That represents less than half of one percent of the current volume of 66,000 vehicles - or, to put it another way, a mere six minutes' worth of traffic in an entire day. Even with an unlikely ten-fold increase in the number of buses using the existing bridge, capacity for some 63,000 extra vehicles would be lying dormant - capacity that users of a congested new crossing will soon be demanding be opened up to them as well. We will have spent a fortune to be in a far worse position than before as regards traffic congestion over the Forth at Queensferry. Far better that the Scottish Government work to resolve the problems of the existing bridge within more easily available budgets. Moreover, if indeed £2.34 billion is available, some of that money should in our view be spent instead on more deserving and socially useful projects throughout the land. These could, of course, include measures to reduce train fares in Fife and the Lothians to the levels pertaining in Strathclyde - coupled with very modest expenditure on a couple of long-awaited signals on the Forth Bridge to allow a more frequent train service to run. Longer trains and platforms, coupled with a greater variety of destinations served by train and/or tram-train within the city and throughout the Lothians, would help as well. Buses and ferries could also benefit from increased public support both in terms of capital and revenue expenditure. In summary, then, the best use of the existing bridge is to keep it for general traffic - with variable charging in place to better utilise current capacity in terms of moving people, not just vehicles, across the Firth. There should be no new bridge - a project which is simply unsustainable both financially and environmentally and which is, moreover, socially unjust. No realistic proposed increase in public transport provision across the existing bridge should a new bridge be built can ever justify the cost involved nor mitigate the redundancy thereby created on the "old" bridge.