PROGRESS AGAINST THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK THE COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE JULY 2012 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) PROGRESS AGAINST THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK Overview On 29th June 2012, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) produced its fourth annual progress report to UK Parliament, required under section 36 (1) of the Climate Change Act 2008, on progress towards meeting carbon budgets1. In order to make a judgement about whether the UK is on track to meet its climate goals in a transparent and evidenced based way, we assess progress against a suite of indicators, first set out in chapter 3 of our 2009 progress report2 and supporting technical annex3. This paper provides a complete set of information on progress against these indicators, to complement the key messages set out in the main report. Specifically, this paper is split into 9 sections: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) The CCC’s indicator framework for monitoring carbon budgets. Progress across the economy. Progress against indicators in the power sector. Progress against indicators in buildings. Progress against indicators in industry. Progress against indicators in road transport. Progress against indicators in agriculture. Progress against indicators in waste. Temperature adjusting emissions and energy data. Each review of the indicators in individual sectors will encompass: Trajectory values and outturn data for 2011 A brief assessment of whether progress against each indicator is “on track”, drawing on contextual factors An update on data sources used for monitoring The methodology used to estimate 2011 values for those indicators where 2011 outturn data are not yet available. All data is correct and up to date as at 29th June 2012. Any further queries not addressed in this technical annex or the main progress report document should be directed to the CCC enquiry email: [email protected] 1 Committee on Climate Change (2011) Meeting Carbon Budgets – 3rd Progress report to parliament, Progress Report to Parliament. Available at: www.theccc.org.uk/reports Committee on Climate Change (2009) Meeting Carbon Budgets – the need for a step change, Progress Report to Parliament. Available at: www.theccc.org.uk/reports. 3 Committee on Climate Change (2009) Technical Appendices – Chapter 3 – Emissions reduction scenarios and indicators. Available at: http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/1st-progress-report/technicalappendices 2 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 1. THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING CARBON BUDGETS In our December 2008 advice on the level of the first three “carbon budgets”, the Committee proposed two sets of budgets (see figure 1): The interim budget: UK emissions reductions compatible with a 20% reduction in EU emissions for both the traded (emissions captured by the EU ETS) and nontraded sectors (emissions not captured by the EUETS). Meeting the interim budget results in a 34% reduction against 1990 emissions by 2020. The intended budget: UK emissions reductions compatible with a 30% reduction in EU emissions for both the traded (emissions captured by the EU ETS) and nontraded sectors (emissions not captured by the EUETS). This was based on a satisfactory global agreement being reached at the 2009 annual UNFCCC negotiations at Copenhagen. Meeting the intended budget results in a 42% reduction against 1990 emissions by 2020. The government accepted this advice in April 2009 and went on to legislate the interim budget. In May 2010 the Government also accepted the CCC’s subsequent advice on the level of the fourth carbon budget (2023-2027). Figure 1: Legislated and Intended budgets TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) One approach to monitoring progress meeting carbon budgets would simply be to compare actual emissions with budgets and to say that we are on track if emissions are within budgeted levels and off track otherwise. Such an approach would not, however, be adequate: 1) There are many factors which drive emissions, some of which would not result in sustainable emissions reduction. For example the recession of 2008/09 resulted in significant reductions in emissions, but does not indicate we are on track for long term emissions reductions. This is because the fall in emissions can be associated with recessionary impacts rather than the delivery of underlying abatement measures. 2) Some of the measures which will result in emissions reductions have long lead times (e.g. investment in low carbon power generation). Therefore focusing simply on emissions could reveal too late that measures required to meet future budgets have not been implemented. In our 2009 progress report, we therefore set out a framework of indicators for monitoring progress. These include not just emission reductions, but also progress implementing measures that drive these reductions and the development of policies to achieve this. Our indicator trajectories are based on our Extended Ambition scenario for reducing emissions set out in our December 2008 report and subsequently updated in our 2009 and 2010 progress reports. This scenario includes ambitious but reasonable assumptions on penetration of energy efficiency improvements and a number of measures which would cost more per tonne than our projected carbon price but which are important stepping stones on the path to 2050. It is broadly in line with policies to which the Government is committed at least in principle. Given the impact of the recession in 2009, delivery of measures in the Extended Ambition scenario would lead to an outperformance of the Interim budget. The CCC framework disaggregates indicators between headline indicators (which are based on emissions and energy demand) and other supporting indicators (see figure 2). Headline indicators Emissions: Our headline indicators include a sectoral breakdown of economy wide emissions to power, buildings, industry, transport, agriculture and waste. It should be noted that these emissions trajectories were set out before the full impact of the recession on emissions was known; given the impact of the recession, together with implementation of measures in the Extended Ambition scenario, it is expected that emissions reductions will be greater than set out here. Emissions intensity and demand: We also include high level indicators of the supply and demand side factors which drive emissions. On the supply side, for example, we have developed trajectories for carbon intensity of power generation and carbon efficiency of vehicles underpinning our emissions reduction scenarios. On the demand side, we have trajectories for electricity and heat demand reduction, and for vehicle miles/passenger miles. Supporting indicators Implementation indicators: Each headline indicator is underpinned by a set of indicators which track progress in implementing the measures required to achieve sustainable emissions reduction. We have therefore developed trajectories across the range of measures driving our emissions reduction scenarios. In the power sector, for TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) example, we have trajectories for adding low-carbon power generation capacity. In buildings we have trajectories for roll out of loft, cavity wall and solid wall insulation. In transport, we have trajectories for penetration of electric cars. Forward indicators: Where appropriate, we have trajectories for forward indicators that we use to assess whether we are on track to deliver measures as required. In the power sector, for example, delivering the new low-carbon capacity required will require planning applications/ decisions to be made, projects to move to the construction phase, etc., a number of years before emissions reductions ensue. Policy milestones: In order that measures are successfully implemented, the appropriate enabling framework will have to be in place. We therefore include in our framework indicators reflecting key policy milestones and high level aspects of policy design. Other drivers There are a number of emissions drivers for which we do not set out indicators in advance, but which we track as part of our monitoring framework. These include drivers for which we would hope to see improvements (e.g. technology costs, supply chain capability etc.) and those which are purely contextual (e.g. GDP, fossil fuel prices, population etc.). In choosing indicators, we have required that these fulfil a range of criteria. In particular, high quality representative data must be available in a timely manner if it is to be useful for monitoring. Where data is not available or does not meet these criteria, we will work with Government to try to address this. While we present outturn vs. trajectory figures for 2011, it is not our expectation that our trajectories will be achieved precisely for every indicator in every year. There may be some year-to-year variation, which is acceptable. Similarly it may be the case that some indicators are not met while others are over-achieved; this may still on average constitute sufficient progress. A problem will be signalled however if under-achievement persists, if a large number of indicators are off-track, or if specific indicators or milestones which are key in unlocking abatement in the longer term are not met. It is also important to note in this assessment we do not monitor all emissions in the economy but focus on emissions in power, transport, buildings, industry, agriculture and waste (see figure 3). The sections below show the monitored sectors in detail with narrative and data sources used to track individual indicators. TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) Figure 2: The CCC indicator framework TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) Figure 3: 2010 UK Emissions covered by the CCC indicator framework 2010 outturn emissions (2012 inventory): 588 MtCO2e Note: Non-CO2 non-agriculture (e.g. f-gases) and non-surface transport (e.g. domestic aviation) emissions are not tracked in individual sector tables but are part of the CCC’s overall assessment of emissions and carbon budgets. The data used for this exhibit is based on the latest available emissions data (2012 inventory). Data excludes International Aviation and Shipping since these are not currently covered by carbon budgets. TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 2. PROGRESS ACROSS THE ECONOMY The key conclusions reached about the UK as a whole from the CCC’s 2012 progress report to parliament are: Economy-wide emissions fell by 7% in 2011, in the context of warmer winter weather, low economic growth and rising fuel prices. Without the mild winter weather emissions would have fallen by around 4%, with delivery of measures to reduce emissions contributing around 0.8%. Non-traded emissions fell by 7%, although without the mild winter weather they would have fallen by only 2%. Against a relatively low level of ambition, progress in delivering measures to reduce emissions was mixed, with significant improvements in the emissions intensity of new cars, rates of insulation of lofts and cavity walls in line with our indicators, but continued low uptake of solid wall insulation. Traded emissions fell by 7% in 2011 and remained below the UK’s share of the EU ETS cap. Progress adding low-carbon capacity in the power sector was broadly on track against our indicator framework but will need to accelerate in future, as will implementation of measures to reduce emissions from energy-intensive industry. EU ETS emissions are highly relevant for the UK, since the price of EUAs is determined EU-wide. Total EU ETS emissions fell by 2% in 2011. This was mainly due to increased outturn from renewables and nuclear and mild winter temperatures. Emissions remained well below the EU ETS cap in 2011, reflecting the significant fall in 2009 as a result of the economic downturn. ECONOMY-WIDE Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn 604* 556 509 604 547 Narrative Source Headline indicators GHG emissions (MtCO2e) Total CO2 n/a 456 Non-CO2 n/a 90 Non-Traded emissions (MtCO2e) 357 341 312 357 326 Traded emissions (MtCO2e) 247 216 197 247 221 EU ETS emissions (MtCO2e) Other Drivers n/a 2077 1902 DECC (2012) 2011 UK greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures Emissions in 2011 were well below the first budget level due to recession impacts in 2009 and mild winter weather in 2011. EU ETS emissions remain well below the EU ETS cap due to the ongoing effects of the recession, as well as mild winter weather and increased renewables generation in 2011. DECC (2012) 2011 UK Greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures; European Commission (2April 2012) Verified Emissions for 20082009-2010-2011 and allocations 2008-2009-20102011 European Commission (2April 2012) Verified Emissions for 2008-2009-2010-2011 and allocations 2008-2009-20102011 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) ECONOMY-WIDE Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn GDP (% change on 2010) 0.7% Manufacturing GVA (% change on 2010) 2.0% Real Household Disposable Income (% change on 2010) -1.2% Winter temperature (change on 2010) 4⁰C Carbon Price (average) €13/tCO2 *Budget numbers shown are average yearly emissions required to meet five year budgets. Key Narrative Slow growth in output and manufacturing, will tend to put downward pressure on emissions compared to a normal year of economic growth Declining disposable income will tend to lead to decreased demand for residential heating and electricity, as well as decreased demand in petrol and diesel. Milder winter temperatures were a major driver of falling emissions in 2011, due to decreased demand for heating in both residential and non-residential buildings. The low average carbon price in 2011 will have led to higher emissions as it implies a relative cost improvement against 2010 for more carbon-intense fuels. Source ONS (2012) National Accounts ONS (2012) National Accounts DECC (2012) Energy Trends Table 7.1 Bluenext Statistics TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 3. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN THE POWER SECTOR The key conclusions regarding the power sector from the CCC’s 2012 progress report to Parliament were: 4 Emissions from the power sector fell by 7% in 2011 due to both a fall in electricity demand and a reduction in emissions intensity. Demand fell by 4%, partly reflecting higher than average winter temperatures which reduced demand for heating. There was also a small improvement in the carbon-intensity of generation, which fell by 2%. This fall reflected the impact of new renewable capacity on the system, favourable weather conditions (higher wind speeds and more rainfall) and an increase in nuclear generation as nuclear plants returned to normal operation following outages in 2010. There was some underlying progress reducing emissions, with investment in wind capacity. However, an accelerated pace of investment to 2020 will be required to support sector decarbonisation over the next two decades. There was also some progress against our forward indicators, but significant challenges remain and should be addressed in the near term: o Renewables. Investment in wind generation in 2011 was one-third the rate required annually by the end of the decade. The forward pipeline remains strong, with sufficient projects in planning, awaiting construction or in construction to meet our indicators to at least 2017. But delivering investments will require resolution of current policy uncertainties (e.g. relating to the Renewables Obligation, the Electricity Market Reform, transmission pricing) and that financing barriers are addressed (e.g. the Green Investment Bank to mobilise project finance for offshore wind). Both biomass and solar delivered strongly in 2011. o CCS. The first CCS competition failed to award funding to any project. A second competition has been launched aiming to fund four commercial-scale demonstration projects and incorporating lessons from the first. It is crucial now to maintain momentum through to timely delivery of these projects (i.e. towards the beginning of the 2016- 2020 period) to ensure CCS can contribute towards sector decarbonisation in the 2020s. This requires that projects are selected and funding is awarded this year, with FEED studies and contracts to follow in 2013 ahead of construction starting by 2014. The demonstration programme should be supported by development of a strategy for follow-on CCS projects and CO2 infrastructure. o Nuclear. Progress has been made in approval of the nuclear National Policy Statement, interim approval of the generic reactor designs and the submission of the first planning application for new nuclear. The final Weightman report4 on the implications of Fukishima was published and concluded that the UK had displayed a strong safety culture and existing procedures were adequate. However, the project pipeline is weak, reflecting significant risks related to the financial viability of investments. The key determinant of whether nuclear investment proceeds will be the successful implementation of Electricity Market Reform. Office for Nuclear Regulation (September 2011) Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK nuclear industry. Available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/fukushima/finalreport.pdf TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) Progress has been made on Electricity Market Reform (EMR), most notably through the Government stating that this will be based on long-term contracts for lowcarbon power generation and, more recently, publication of the Draft Energy Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. Long-term contracts offer the best chance to bring forward required investment in low carbon technologies at least cost to the consumer. It is important now that a clear carbon objective is set for the EMR (i.e. to achieve carbon intensity of the order of 50 gCO2/kWh in 2030 through investment in low-carbon technologies), to provide investor confidence that there will be a market for low-carbon technologies built to schedule and cost, and that there will not be a second ‘dash for gas’. Specific commitments on minimum levels of less mature technologies should be made, subject to cost reductions being achieved. There are also a number of detailed design questions which should be resolved as a matter of urgency so that the EMR can be implemented from 2014. POWER Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative Source Headline indicators Emissions intensity (g/kWh) 509 390 236 523 486 Total emissions (% change from 2007) -15% -39% -64% -13% -18% Wind 21 50 98 16.8 15.5 Nuclear 58 30 48 58.2 62.7 Generation (TWh) Emission intensity fell by 2% in 2011 and is slightly below our indicator. The 2011 outturn reflects an increase in low-carbon generation. More specifically nuclear generation increased by 11%, as plants returned to normal operation following outages in 2010, and there was also a 31% rise in generation from renewables, in part due to favourable weather conditions for wind and hydro (higher wind speeds and rainfall). Gas generation fell whilst coal generation remained broadly constant. Power station emissions fell by 7% on 2010, reflecting a decline in emissions intensity and a fall in demand (due partly to relatively warmer weather). Wind generation was lower than envisaged in our indicator. For onshore wind this was partly due to shortfalls in capacity added to the system. For offshore it may have been due to projects coming online later in the year, or a more general underperformance in terms of achieved load factors. See Box 2.1 in report for more detail. Outturn above indicator. Annual availability returned to the average after being lower in 2010 due to maintenance outages. NAEI (2012); DECC (March 2012) Energy Trends; DECC (2012) 2011 UK greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures; CCC calculations DECC (2012) 2011 UK greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures DECC (March 2012) Energy Trends ,Table ET 5.1 DECC (March 2012) Energy Trends, Table ET 5.1 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) POWER Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative No CCS capacity was expected to be online in 2011. CCS 0 5 11 0 0 Source n/a Supporting indicators Transmission Agreement on incentives for anticipatory investment for Stage 1 reinforcements 2010 In place Scottish TO’s business plans agreed, National Grid (NGET) expected to gain approval by end of 2012. 2010 In place In place Transitional OFTO regime in place 2009 In place In place Enduring OFTO regime in place 2010 In place In place, but yet to be implemented Implementation of enduring regime for accessing grid OFGEM’s decision to approve funding in phases, with the final approvals not made until 2012/13, is slower than envisaged in our indicator framework. Whilst progress continues to be slower than envisaged in our indicators, delivery of infrastructure when required remains feasible. The transitional access regime (“Connect and Manage”) was made permanent as of August 2010. This allows generators to connect to the network as soon as local works to the transmission system are complete, but does not require all grid improvements required to make best use of the electricity to be complete at that date. Whilst some progress has been made in bringing forward connection dates, connection remains a potential source of delay for bringing forward some projects that already have planning approval. Offshore connections are still being tendered and constructed by developers under the transitional regime. DECC and OFGEM have agreed the form the enduring regime will take, which is very similar to the current transitional regime whereby developers are able to build their own connections but must later sell them to a third party operator. Finer details of the enduring regime still need clarification. Connections under the enduring regime are not expected to be operational until at least 2014. DECC; OFGEM DECC; OFGEM; National Grid Transmission Networks Quarterly Connections Update (February 2012) DECC; OFGEM DECC; OFGEM; Renewable UK TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) POWER Grid reinforcement planning approval Grid reinforcement construction begins Budget 1 2011: Scotland Stage 1, Wales Stage 1 (Central), South East 2012: Scotland Stage 1, Wales Stage 1 (Central), South East Grid reinforcements operational Tendering for first offshore connections under enduring OFTO regime 2010 Budget 2 2013: Wales Stage 1 (North), English East Coast Stage 1, South West 2014: Scotland Stage 2 2014: Wales Stage 1 (North), English East Coast Stage 1, South West 2015: Scotland Stage 2 2015: Scotland Stage 1, Wales Stage 1 (Central), South East 2017: Wales Stage 1 (North), English East Coast Stage 1, South West Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Scotland on track, South East slight delay, Central Wales a serious concern n/a in 2011 2018: Scotland Stage 2 n/a in 2011 In place Still tendering under transitional regime. Narrative Source Whilst there has been some progress on the planning approval of new investments e.g. some reinforcements in the North of Scotland have gained approval and are under construction, there continues to be a delay in mid Wales. This delay has largely been due to local public opposition towards the transmission infrastructure and the onshore wind it is required to connect to the grid. DECC; OFGEM; grid companies No action expected in 2011 although construction of some reinforcements e.g. in the North has commenced. OFGEM; grid companies No action expected in 2011 OFGEM; grid companies The form of the enduring regime has been agreed and it is now expected that Ofgem will run the first tender round under this regime later in 2012 or in 2013. It is important that issues over network integration (see “enduring OFTO regime” above) are resolved in order for investment further offshore to proceed as planned. OFGEM; grid companies TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) POWER Budget 1 Construction of first offshore connections under enduring OFTO regime begins First offshore connections under enduring OFTO regime operational Planning IPC set up and ready to receive applications Review of current market arrangements and interventions that will help deliver lowcost, low-carbon generation investment Wind Generation (TWh) Onshore Offshore Total capacity (GW) Capacity entering construction (GW) Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative Source DECC; OFGEM, developers 2011 Still under transitional regime As no tendering has occurred under the enduring regime, construction of all offshore connections has been under the transitional regime to date. 2012 n/a in 2011 No action expected in 2011 In place. To be replaced by Major Infrastructure Planning Unit in 2012 2010 To begin in first budget period 13 8 26 24 44 54 To begin in first budget period White paper published in July 2011, confirmed contracts for low-carbon capacity 11.0 10.4 5.9 5.1 Onshore 5.7 10.8 18 4.9 4.6 Offshore 2.5 7.4 16.6 1.8 1.8 Onshore 0.9 1.3 1.5 0.9 Data not available Government should ensure the proposed replacement of the IPC does not adversely impact the efficiency of the planning system. Long-term contracts should bring forward low-carbon capacity at least cost to the consumer. The Government should set a clear objective for EMR, i.e. to decarbonise the power sector to 2030 to a level of the order of 50gCO2/kWh, through a portfolio of low-carbon options, provided they can be built to schedule and cost. Generation in 2011 was lower than envisaged in our indicators. For onshore wind this shortfall was largely due to the shortfall in capacity added to the system. For offshore wind it may be partly due to projects coming on later in the year. See box 2.1 in main report for more detail. Due to two consecutive years of underperformance in terms of incremental capacity, total capacity fell short of our indicators by 0.3 GW. Around 0.5 GW of offshore wind was added to the system in 2011, slightly exceeding our indicator. This brought total offshore capacity broadly on track with our indicator trajectory. Important that DECC collects this data on an annual basis in order to determine if there is a lag entering construction after planning consent achieved DECC; OFGEM, developers Public announcements DECC DECC (March 2012) Energy Trends, Table ET 5.1 DECC (March 2012) Energy Trends, Table ET 5.1 DECC (March 2012) Energy Trends, Table ET 7.1 DECC (March 2012) Energy Trends, Table ET 7.1 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) POWER Budget 1 Offshore Capacity entering planning Onshore Offshore 0.9 2.6 New planning applications will be expected in line with site leasing <12 Nuclear Regulatory Justification process 2010 Generic Design Assessment 2011 Regulations for a Funded Decommissioning Programme in place 1.6 Budget 3 New planning applications will be required from the end of the second budget period at the latest to maintain flow into construction Average planning period (months) National Policy Statement for nuclear (including Strategic Siting Assessment) Budget 2 <12 <12 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn 0.9 Data not available No trajectory 2.3 No trajectory 0.5 <12 In place 18 In place Interim approval in 2011 Narrative Important that DECC collects this data on an annual basis in order to determine if there is a lag entering construction after planning consent achieved 2.3 GW of capacity was submitted for planning approval. Total amount of capacity determined was 1.6 GW. The total stock in planning increased from 8.1 GW at end 2010 to 8.7 GW at end of 2011. Capacity entering planning increased by 0.5 GW, with 0.5 GW determined. Therefore the stock in planning stayed constant at 2.5 GW. The relatively small amount of capacity submitted reflects that projects licensed under Crown Estate Round 1 and 2 have largely progressed to construction, whilst the majority of projects in deeper waters (i.e. Round 3) have not yet made applications; to be monitored. Planning times at all scales exceeded the 12 months assumed in our indicators. Large-scale onshore projects were particularly slow, with the average determination period increasing to 55 months (from 36 months in 2010). Source CCC calculations based on DECC Renewable Energy Planning Database CCC calculations based on DECC Renewable Energy Planning Database CCC calculations based on DECC Renewable Energy Planning Database In place DECC Office of Nuclear Development Reactor designs received interim approval in December 2011, with final approval expected towards the end of 2012. DECC Office of Nuclear Development 2010 In place Approved by Parliament in 2011. Approved by Parliament in 2011 following some delay, awaiting the interim Weightman report. DECC Office of Nuclear Development 2010 In place In place In place DECC Office of Nuclear Development TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) POWER Entering planning Planning approval; site development and preliminary works begin Budget 1 Budget 2 First planning application in 2010 Subsequent applications at 18 month intervals Subsequent application approvals, site development and preliminary works at 18 month intervals First plant in 2013, subsequent plants at 18 month intervals First approval and site development and preliminary works begin in 2011 Construction begins Budget 3 2011 trajectory In place Approval in 2011 2011 outturn Narrative Source First planning application made in 2011 In November 2011 EDF submitted their application for Hinkley C, with determination expected in late 2012. DECC Office of Nuclear Development, public announcements No approval Determination of the planning application for the first plant (Hinkley C) is not expected until late 2012. Preparatory works have started on the site in anticipation of approval. DECC Office of Nuclear Development, public announcements n/a for 2011 No action expected in 2011 First plant in 2018, with subsequent plants at 18 month intervals* Plant begins operation CCS Front-End Engineering and Design (FEED) studies for competition contenders initiated FEED studies for competition contenders completed No action expected in 2011 n/a for 2011 end 2009 Initiated Initiated early 2010 The first competition awarded funding in March 2010 to the Longannet and Kingsnorth projects for Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) studies 2010 Completed FEED study ongoing Longannet and Kingsnorth FEED studies completed in 2011 DECC DECC TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) POWER Budget 1 Announce competition winner 2010 launch 2010, announce winners 2011 Second demonstration competition Quantification of saline aquifer CO2 storage potential Review of technology and decision on framework for future support Strategic plan for infrastructure development Planning and authorisation approval, land acquisition, and storage site testing completed, construction commences Demonstrations operational First new full CCS plants supported via the postdemonstration mechanism Other drivers first demo in 2011 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative Source Announced Decision not to award funding Funding not awarded due to high cost of remaining contender DECC Initiated Not launched in 2011 Launch occurred in April 2012, winners to be announced late 2012 DECC No action expected in 2011 DECC No action expected in 2011 DECC DECC Roadmap delayed to 2012 DECC roadmap launched Spring 2012 DECC No action in 2011 No action expected in 2011, due to delays in awarding funding DECC No action expected in 2011 DECC No action expected in 2011 DECC no later than 2015 n/a for 2011 no later than 2016** n/a for 2011 no later than 2016 DECC Roadmap expected subsequent demos 2012/13 Initiated first demo in 2014, subsequent demos 2015/16*** n/a for 2011 2022 n/a for 2011 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) POWER Total demand (TWh) Coal and gas prices Nuclear outages Average wind load factors Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative Source 317 TWh (consumption) Consumption fell by 4%, largely due to a fall in consumption in the residential (-5%) and industrial (-4%) sectors. This was partly due to higher than average winter temperatures during 2011. Adjusting for changes in temperature, residential demand fell by only around 1% in 2011. CCC calculations; DECC (March 2012) Energy Trends, table ET 5.2 An increase in the cost of gas generation relative to coal, driven by wholesale fuel prices and low carbon prices, meant that gas generation fell along with overall demand, whilst coal generation remained broadly constant. DECC (2012) Quarterly Energy Prices, Table 3.2.1 A return to normal operation following a year in which a number of plants experienced maintenance outages, and the associated increase in generation, contributed to the decline in emissions intensity experienced between 2010-2011. DECC (March 2012) Energy Trends, Table 5.1 Whilst the cost of gas and coal generation started off broadly on par at the start of 2011, from October onwards the cost of gas began to exceed the cost of coal. The share of nuclear electricity supplied increased from 17% in 2010 to 19% in 2011 as nuclear plants that experienced extended outages in 2010 returned to normal operation. Official statistics on achieved load factors were not available at time of publication. However, SSE reported an increase in load factor for onshore wind to above 30%, compared with 24% in 2010/11. Centrica also reported an increase in the load factor of offshore wind, from 29% in 2010 to 36% in 2011. 2011 average wind speed was 1.4 knots higher than in 2010. Data on achieved load factors in 2011 will be available in 2012 DUKES (due July 2012). SSE and Centrica annual reports, DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends, Table 6.1 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) POWER Availability of offshore installation vessels Access to turbines Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn 2 new vessels delivered in 2011 In 2010, 2011 and 2012 to date there have been announcements of intent to construct turbine factories in the UK by Siemens, Gamesa, General Electric and Vestas. Narrative Two new installation vessels were delivered in 2011, with a further four expected this year and eleven more either in construction or on order. There are also more vessels planned. These are positive developments. Source RenewableUK Research carried out by Poyry for the CCC in 20095 anticipated a need for four vessels by end of 2010 and ten vessels in total by 2020 to deliver wind investment consistent with our indicator trajectory. There was progress in the development of several UK turbine manufacturing facilities in 2011/12; Siemens and Vestas received planning approval for factories capable of being able to support up to 2 GW of capacity a year, whilst Gamesa have chosen a site for their facility but are still seeking planning consent. The announced factories together could form a large share of the European offshore wind supply chain, which could be delivering around 5-8 GW/year by the end of the 2010s according to stated plans in member states’ National Renewable Action Plans. RenewableUK; DECC Office of Renewable Energy Deployment These developments are very positive, though the magnitude of the expansion in production capacity delivered to date is not yet clear. 5 Poyry (2009) Timeline for Wind generation to 2020 and a Set of Progress Indicators p62. Available at: http://downloads.theccc.org.uk/docs/503_WindTimelinesProgressIndicators_v7_0.pdf TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) POWER Budget 1 Nuclear supply chain, availability of skilled staff International progress on CCS demonstration and deployment Planning approval rates Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn House of Lords report published, examining UK R&D capabilities and expertise to support new nuclear No significant developments The UK-wide approval rate for onshore wind has fallen from around 60% in 2010 to around 50% in 2011. Narrative A recent enquiry by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee6 raised questions over the UK’s R&D capabilities and expertise to support new nuclear energy. The Committee proposed that the Government should develop a long term strategy for nuclear energy, including support for R&D through an R&D Roadmap and establishment of a Nuclear R&D Board. The Government have agreed to the recommendations and in the summer of 2012 will publish a long-term strategy on the role of nuclear energy in the UK Technology demonstration is needed urgently, but will not occur until mid-2010s at large scale The downward trend for onshore wind has been driven by a decline in the approval rate for small scale (<50 MW) projects determined at the local authority level. The UK-wide approval rate for these projects has fallen from 69% in 2010 to 46% in 2011. This downward trend has been observed across England, Scotland and Wales. Increased approval rates are required to deliver the required flow of projects from planning into construction. * Up to 3 nuclear plants by 2022. ** The Energy Act 2010 requires a rolling review of CCS progress, to report on the appropriate regulatory and financial framework by 2018. 6 House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (November 2011) Report: Nuclear Research and Development Capabilities. Source House of Lords (November 2011) Public announcements, Global CCS Institute; International Energy Agency; CCS Association CCC calculations based on DECC Renewable Energy Planning Database. TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) *** Total of 4 CCS demonstration plants by 2020. Note: Numbers indicate amount in last year of budget period i.e. 2012, 2017, 2022 Key Methodology for calculating emissions intensity (/ℎ) = ( (2 ) ∗ 1000)/ (ℎ) Emissions data is taken from DECC’s provisional 2011 emissions release, table 1, “Power stations.” The electricity supplied figure is calculated from Energy Trends, tables 5.1 and 5.5. Electricity supplied is taken only for Major Power Producers (MPP) for all nonrenewables and “all generating companies” for renewables. Losses are then taken from table 5.5 and subtracted from this total. Pumped storage and imports are not included in the calculation. This figure differs from that published by DECC in their annual DUKES because the DECC calculation does not subtract losses. As such, the CCC figure represents the emissions intensity of UK supplied electricity at the point of consumption, while the DECC figure represents this intensity at the point of supply to the grid. Methodology for calculating achievable emissions intensity Achievable emissions intensity is reported in the 4th progress report, chapter 2. It is defined as the minimum average annual emissions intensity that could be achieved in a given year, given the installed capacity, the average availability of that capacity, demand and the profile of that demand. The calculation is approximate, as an accurate figure would require use of a detailed energy system model that would take into account differences in the flexibility of different types of capacity. The procedure used is as follows: 1) The hourly demand profile for an average year is applied to the demand from the outturn year in order to estimate the amount of capacity that will be required to generate at any given time. TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 2) Using the latest available data on capacity added to the system in the outturn year (from a combination of DECC’s energy model projections and published statistics), average availabilities are applied to calculate the generation available for dispatch to the system at any given time. Transmission and distribution losses are accounted for at this point by subtracting a percentage from available generation. 3) The generation by each type of plant to deliver lowest possible emissions is calculated according to the average availabilities and demand profile. In practice this means running nuclear and renewables first, followed by gas and coal capacity. An annual average amount of oil generation, imports and storage is assumed, and subtracted from required generation by the other capacity in the merit order. Applying emissions factors, achievable emissions intensity is calculated by dividing the emissions produced by the dispatched generation by the electricity supplied to give a figure in g/kWh. TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 4. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN BUILDINGS The key conclusions from the CCC’s 2012 progress report to Parliament are: Buildings Buildings CO2 emissions in 2011 fell by 12% to 186 MtCO2. This was mainly as a result of the milder winter weather compared to the unusually cold 2010 winter months – temperature-adjusted emissions only fell by 4%. Rising gas prices also had an impact that can explain much of the remaining reduction. In terms of the implementation of energy efficiency measures, there was good progress on cavity wall insulation, professional loft insulation and the installation of new boilers, but very limited progress on solid wall insulation. Going forward, there are major challenges in continuing to deliver high rates of cavity wall insulation, and significantly increasing the rate of solid wall insulation. There is also a high degree of risk around whether rates of loft insulation can be sustained under the new market-based policy, with DECC projecting a much lower level of uptake than required in our trajectories, leaving a potential carbon gap of 3 Mt CO2. Options to strengthen the incentives should be developed (e.g. consequential improvements as proposed under the recent building regulations consultation could be a very useful lever to support the Green Deal). We will closely monitor the Green Deal and ECO to ensure they deliver carbon savings. In the non-residential sector, the key policy is the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme which began operating in 2011. The Government has proposed to simplify the scheme further and hinted at its possible abolition. Simplification would be welcome given scope for reducing the administrative burden without weakening incentives. However, abolition would be premature, particularly in view of evidence that the CRC has resulted in a greater focus on measuring energy consumption and the financial incentives it provides. Therefore the scheme should be retained, at least for the time being, while scope for rationalising the full set of policies for the non-residential sector is considered. To complement the scheme, an early date (e.g. January 2013) for the start of the non-residential Green Deal should be confirmed and ambitious standards for the private rented sector should now be announced. The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) began operating in November 2011, offering support for renewable heat investment in the non-residential sector. The residential sector is covered by the Renewable Heat Premium Payment but uptake is slow. Given the need to make early progress on residential heat decarbonisation to build supply chains and consumer awareness, the Government should extend the RHI to the residential sector as a matter of urgency. Green Deal finance should also be made available in conjunction with the RHI to cover at least the additional costs of renewable heat investment compared to conventional alternatives. Approaches to address non-financial deployment barriers should be introduced. Additionally, the uncertainty about RHI funding beyond 2015 should be resolved as soon as possible. TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) BUILDINGS Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative Source All buildings Headline indicators CO₂ emissions (% change on 2007)* Final energy consumption (% change on 2007) Building CO2 emissions fell by 12% in 2011, mainly as a result of relatively mild weather. Increased energy prices also had a small effect direct -5% -19% -32% -2% -18% Energy consumption is on track for our indictor trajectory. NAEI (2012); DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends; DECC (2012) 2011 UK greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures; CCC calculations indirect** -10% -22% -51% -7% -19% Calculated from electricity consumption from DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends; CCC estimate of gCO2/KWh of generation nonelectricity -8% -20% -25% -4% -13% DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends electricity (autogen included)*** -3% -2% -1% -3% -6% electricity (centrally produced)*** -3% -2% -1% -3% -6% DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends; CCC estimates of autogenerated electricity based on DECC (2011) Digest of UK Energy Statistics DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends; CCC estimates of autogenerated electricity based on DECC (2011) Digest of UK Energy Statistics Residential Buildings Headline Indicators CO₂ emissions (indicative minimum % change on 2007)* direct -6% -18% -20% -3% -14% Although residential emissions and energy consumption were below our indicator trajectory in 2011, this is largely due to the large fall in emissions in 2009 as a result of the recession. The further fall in emissions in 2011, [following an increase in 2010] was largely due to the relatively mild winter weather, coupled with increased energy prices, which reduced demand for heating, (e.g. gas consumption in homes fell by 23 %). NAEI (2012); DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends; DECC (2012) 2011 UK greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures; CCC calculations TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) BUILDINGS Final energy consumption (indicative minimum % change on 2007) Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative Source indirect** -11% -23% -53% -8% -20% Calculated from electricity consumption from DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends; CCC estimate of gCO2/KWh of generation nonelectricity -6% -18% -19% -7% -13% DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends electricity (autogen included)*** -5% -4% -3% -6% -8% electricity (centrally produced)*** -5% -4% -3% -6% -8% DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends; CCC estimates of autogenerated electricity based on DECC (2011) Digest of UK Energy Statistics DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends; CCC estimates of autogenerated electricity based on DECC (2011) Digest of UK Energy Statistics Supporting indicators Uptake of solid wall insulation (million homes, total additional installations compared to 2007 levels) 0.5 1.2 2.3 Uptake of loft insulation (up to and including 100mm) (million homes, total additional installations compared to 2007 levels) 2.3 5.6 5.6 Uptake of loft insulation (100mm +) (million homes, total additional installations compared to 2007 levels) 2.0 4.9 4.9 0.33 0.06 2.2 All lofts: 3.9 / 2.4 (CERT professional) There was an increase in insulation rates in 2011, although overall numbers are very low and there is a need for a substantial increase in uptake rates to achieve 2.3m per year by 2020. The indicator is on track in 2011 against the delivery we expected. However, our insulation trajectories require a substantial increase from 2012 which is unlikely to happen under the new policy framework. Loft insulation installed under CERT by professional installers increased by 62% in 2011, while DIY installation figures decreased by 57% in 2011, leaving overall installation figures down by 10%. However, there is uncertainty around DIY insulation figures (e.g. double counting with professional figures?). OFGEM (2012) CERT update quarter 16 OFGEM (2012) CERT update quarter 16; DECC (2011) Estimates of home insulation levels in Great Britain; CCC calculations TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) BUILDINGS Uptake of cavity wall insulation (million homes, total additional installations compared to 2007 levels) Uptake of energy efficient boilers (million homes, total additional installations compared to 2007 levels) Uptake of energy efficient appliances - Cold A++ rated (% of stock) Uptake of energy efficient appliances - Wet A+ Rated (% of stock) Budget 1 3.9 8.1 Budget 3 8.1 2011 trajectory 2.4 2011 outturn Narrative Source 2.1 Although the annual installation rate rose in 2011 against 2010 levels, the indicator is still below the number of installations we expected. A substantial increase is required, which is unlikely under the new policy framework. OFGEM (2012) CERT update quarter 16; DECC (2011) Estimates of home insulation levels in Great Britain; CCC calculations. Boiler replacement is continuing at a rate of more than 1 million per year. Current uptake means the indicator is above the anticipated level in 2011. Heating and Hotwater Industry Council (2012); DCLG for estimates of new build properties which would have an A-rated boiler (assumed as 100%) 4.9 9.3 12.6 4.0 4.9 3% 18% 45% 1.8% 0.9% (2010 figure) 16% 40% 58% 12.6% 12.1% (2010 figure) Every house offered wholehouse energy audit New energy efficiency financing mechanism budgeted and legislation in place Budget 2 by 2017 It has not been possible to access data on the sale of energy efficient appliances for 2011, due to a lack of monitoring by government or industry. This lack of evidence should be addressed. The figures reported are the 2010 figures. Audits will be carried out for homes taking up the Green Deal. DEFRA (2011) Market Transformation Programme (ad hoc enquiry) DEFRA (2011) Market Transformation Programme (ad hoc enquiry) n/a 2011 Final design of the Green Deal published June 2012 There is considerable uncertainty over uptake rates as interest rates are likely to be relatively high. Other incentives will be required to drive uptake. DECC Post CERT delivery framework legislation in place 2011 Final design of the Energy Company Obligation published June 2012 There is uncertainty around the likely uptake of measures under the Green Deal and ECO. Additional levers may be needed. DECC Accelerate the introduction of minimum standards for privately rented residential properties by 2012 Energy Act proposes introduction by 2018 With the introduction of the Green Deal financing mechanism, there is no reason to delay this. DECC None implemented or proposed. With the uncertainty over Green Deal uptake rate, additional financial incentives are likely to be needed. DECC Introduce additional financial incentives (e.g. stamp duty rebates) by 2016 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) BUILDINGS Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative Source 53.1 (2009) While CCC have not set out a trajectory for average SAP ratings, improved energy efficiency in buildings will result in a rising average across the UK housing stock. The average SAP rating in 2009 was 53.1 (up from 51.4 in 2008). DECC (2011) Energy Consumption in the UK, domestic tables – 3.5, September update Other drivers Average SAP rating Implementation of behavioural measures Population Number of households (by type - building and occupants) Real household disposable income (change on 2010 levels) No data available 62.3m (Total mid 2010) 26.9m (Total 2011) -1% Real electricity prices (change on 2010 levels) -0.9% Real gas prices (change on 2010 levels) +20% Appliance ownership 2% Other things being equal, a rising/ageing population is likely to increase energy consumption and emissions in the long term. Population increased by 1% in mid 2010 compared to a year earlier, up by 470,000. 2011 estimates are not yet available. The number of households increased by around 1% in 2011. Other things being equal, an increase in the number of households is likely to result in increased energy consumption and emissions. Likely changes to household type (in terms of both building and occupants: e.g. flats vs. houses, single vs. multiple person households) could also affect emissions. Real household disposable income fell in 2010 and 2011 - the first time this has happened in 2 consecutive years since 1982. Other things being equal higher prices of the main fuels in the non-residential sector (electricity and gas) will reduce energy consumption. The rising price of gas may have contributed to a decrease in emissions across the sector. ONS (2011) Mid 2010 population estimates DCLG Housing Statistics - table 401; CCC calculations****** ONS (2012) Economic Review DECC (2012) Quarterly Energy Prices, Table 3.4.2 DECC (2012) Quarterly Energy Prices, Table 3.4.2 Other things being equal, an increase in appliance ownership will increase electricity demand which feeds through to emissions. DECC (2011) Energy Consumption in the UK TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) BUILDINGS Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory Weather Non-residential buildings Headline indicators CO₂ emissions (indicative direct minimum % change on 2007)* Final energy consumption (indicative minimum % change on 2007) 6% 2% -3% 6% 2011 outturn Narrative 1815 Heating Degree Days (down 27%); Average daily temperature 11°C (up 20%) Colder temperatures increase heating requirements in households which can be a key factor in year on year changes in direct emissions. This is monitored to note year on year changes. -13% indirect** -9% -22% -51% -6% -14% nonelectricity -4% -8% -13% -4% -12% electricity (autogen included) -1% -1% -1% -1% -2% electricity (centrally produced)** -1% -1% -1% -1% -2% In place Green Deal will apply to SMEs but not finalised yet. n/a for 2010 Energy Act proposes introduction by 2018. Source DECC (2012) Weather statistics Emissions in the non-residential sector are from public and commercial buildings. In 2011, commercial sector emissions fell by 5% despite a small rise in economic output (1.6%). Indirect emissions fell by 4%, due to a combination of the milder weather, higher electricity prices and a fall in the carbon intensity of power generation. Public sector emissions also fell by 4%. It is likely that this reduction is largely weather-related, with the implementation of measures also playing a role in some organisations. NAEI (2012); DECC (March 2011) Energy Trends; DECC (2012) 2011 UK greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures; CCC calculations Electricity and non-electricity consumption indicators are on track. DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends; CCC estimates of autogenerated electricity based on DECC (2011) Digest of UK Energy Statistics DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends; CCC estimates of autogenerated electricity based on DECC (2011) Digest of UK Energy Statistics Calculated from electricity consumption from DECC ( June 2012) Energy Trends; CCC estimate of gCO2/KWh of generation DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends Supporting indicators Develop policy on SMEs by October 2010 Accelerate the introduction of minimum standards for privately rented nonresidential properties Government decision on the following recommendations for EPCs and DECs: By 2016 by October 2010 In place As with the rest of the Green Deal policy, there is considerable uncertainty over uptake rates. Clarification is needed on what the minimum standard will be and the potential penalties for non-compliance. Ambitious standards should be set soon to reduce uncertainty for landlords. DECC DECC TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) BUILDINGS · All non-residential buildings to have an EPC Budget 1 Budget 2 Other drivers Emissions and fuel consumption by subsector GVA (change on 2010 levels) All service sectors which includes public and business sectors (change on 2010evels) Real electricity prices faced by non-domestic consumers (including CCL) (change on 2010 levels) Real gas prices faced by nondomestic consumers (including CCL) (change on 2010 levels) Renewable heat Supporting indicators 2011 trajectory by 2020 by 2017 by 2018 2011 outturn Narrative No commitment to do this Minimum standards for privately rented premises would address this for a large proportion of the commercial sector No commitment to do this by 2017 · All non-residential buildings to have a minimum EPC rating of F or higher · Roll out of DECs to nonpublic buildings All public buildings covered by CRC to realise all cost effective emissions change potential Budget 3 n/a for 2010 On-going n/a 1% DCLG/DECC DCLG/DECC DCLG/DECC The Government should retain the CRC Energy Efficiency scheme and strengthen reputational incentives. Detailed data for 2011 is not available until the publication of DUKES in July 2012. GVA is a measure of output of the economy. The fact that there was a slight rise in 2011 despite a drop in emissions suggests some degree of decoupling, through energy efficiency and fuel switching. 1% -3% 10% Source DECC n/a ONS (2012) UK National accounts ONS (2012) Economic Review Other things being equal higher prices of the main fuels in the non-residential sector (electricity and gas) will reduce energy consumption. The rising price of gas may have contributed to a decrease in emissions across the sector. DECC (2012) Quarterly Energy Prices, Table 3.4.2 DECC (2012) Quarterly Energy Prices, Table 3.4.2 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) BUILDINGS Renewable heat penetration (% of heat demand from renewables) – total buildings and industry*** Buildings renewable heat penetration (% of heat demand) Renewable Heat Incentive in operation Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn 1% 5% 12% in 2020 <1% 0.6%***** 1% 4% 11% in 2020 <1% 1.3%***** from April 2011 from April 2011 Other drivers Uptake and costs of renewable heat technologies Biomass Boilers Solar thermal Heat pumps District Heating Narrative The increase in renewable heat penetration needed by 2020 will be very challenging to achieve, in particular in the residential sector. Scheme launched in 2011 for the nonresidential sector. The Government should extend the RHI to the residential sector as a matter of urgency. Not available Not available Not available Not available Over time, due to economies of scale, it is expected the cost of renewable heat relative to conventional heating technologies will fall; which coupled with policy initiatives should stimulate uptake. Detailed data for uptake and costs of renewable technologies is not available. To be reported in future progress reports in detail as data improves. ** These changes are based on centrally produced electricity demand changes whose carbon intensity is assumed to be that of new build gas. Within our modelling of the power sector, emissions from electricity generation are lower than is represented here due to different assumptions about carbon intensity. The indirect emissions shown here are therefore conservative. *** Figures show percentage changes in total electricity consumption including auto generated electricity, and in centrally produced electricity only. ****The classification of industry has changed from previous CCC progress reports to align with the classification used by DECC. Refineries, other energy supply and off road transport are now include and these trajectories include this update. Industry energy consumption excludes energy consumption from refineries and other energy supply. ***** 2010 outturn for renewable heat (2011 figures will be available in July 2012) ******The 2011 figure is extrapolated from a 2008 estimate which is derived based on ONS mid-year population estimates with projected rates of household formation from trends in Census and Labour Force Survey. Key DECC DECC * These figures in this section of this table do not include renewable heat, which is considered separately below. Note: Numbers indicate amount in last year of budget period i.e. 2012, 2017, 2022 Source DECC TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 5. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN INDUSTRY The key conclusions from the CCC’s 2012 progress report to Parliament were: Industry emissions fell by 5% in 2011. CO2 emissions fell by 6% (to 151 MtCO2), and non- CO2 emissions fell by 2% (to 35 MtCO2e). Within CO2 emissions, direct emissions fell by 6% (combustion and process emissions by 6% and 4% respectively), and indirect emissions fell by 6%. Estimating the extent to which emission reductions reflect underlying progress on low-carbon measures rather than other drivers (i.e. fuel switching and output changes) is difficult due to current data constraints. It is unlikely that the emissions reduction was driven by either fuel switching or changes in output, suggesting that reductions may have resulted from improvements in energy efficiency. However, there is a lack of direct evidence to substantiate this. To improve the assessment of underlying progress in industry, more disaggregated emissions data is required to track the extent of underlying progress, which will be available for some sectors from DECC in 2013. Challenges going forward are to further implement energy efficiency measures, to increase the use of bioenergy, and to invest in low-carbon technologies (e.g. CCS). Although policies in place (e.g. the Renewable Heat Incentive and the CCS demonstration programme) will help, incentives have been weakened through limiting the coverage of Climate Change Agreements to the non-energy-intensive sectors, and due to the low price of carbon in EU ETS. To ensure sufficiently strong incentives are in place, the Government should set out an approach for large-scale biomass and industrial CCS development consistent with meeting carbon budgets and the level of ambition set out in the Carbon Plan. INDUSTRY Budget 1 Headline indicators CO₂ emissions (indicative direct minimum % change on 2007) Indirect* Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative In 2011 emissions were below our indicator trajectories. -14% -12% -9% -35% -7% -66% 13% -11% -21% -20% Emissions fell 18% in 2008 and 2009 primarily due to the recession. In 2010 emissions increased by 2%. This increase reflects increased output in industry as the sector experiences a “bounce back” from recession. Source NAEI (2011); DECC (March 2011) Energy Trends; DECC (2011) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures; CCC calculations Calculated from electricity consumption from DECC (March 2011) Energy Trends; CCC estimate of gCO2/KWh of generation TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) INDUSTRY Final energy consumption (indicative minimum % change on 2007) Budget 1 nonelectricity -19% Budget 2 -20% Budget 3 -18% 2011 trajectory -18% 2011 outturn Narrative Source -18% In 2011, emissions dropped by 5%. It is unlikely that the emissions reduction was driven by either fuel switching or output, suggesting that reductions may have resulted from improvements in energy efficiency. DECC (March 2011) Energy Trends electricity (autogen included) -16% -11% -5% -16% -12% electricity (centrally produced) -6% -19% -30% -7% -10% Reduction in non-electricity energy consumption is on track, whereas electricity consumption (including autogen) is above our indictor trajectory although electricity consumption (excluding autogen) is below our indicator. DECC (March 2011) Energy Trends; CCC estimates of autogenerated electricity based on DECC (2010) Digest of UK Energy Statistics DECC (March 2011) Energy Trends; CCC estimates of autogenerated electricity based on DECC (2010) Digest of UK Energy Statistics Supporting indicators Renewable heat Buildings and industry renewable heat penetration (% of heat demand )** 1% 5% 12% in 2020 <1% 0.6%*** Industry renewable heat penetration (% of heat demand) 1% 5% 13% in 2020 <1% 1.4%*** Energy intensity (% change compared with 2007) -7% -18% -24% Reporting will commence in 2013 Energy intensity for energy-intensive sectors Methodology under development CCS In light of outcome of CCS competition, set out an approach for industrial demonstrations compatible with deployment in the late 2020s Renewable heat penetration is broadly consistent with trajectory; however the rate increases sharply going forward. The RHI has only been introduced in the non-residential sector at this stage. Introduction in the residential sector, expected in late 2013. DECC Reporting will commence in 2013 No later than 2013 N/A for 2011 DECC TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) INDUSTRY Publish industry strategy including detail and milestones for meeting carbon budgets, incentives and mechanisms for overcoming barriers Other drivers Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 No later than 2013 Emissions and fuel consumption by subsector 2011 trajectory Narrative Source Not available Detailed data for 2011 is not available until the publication of DUKES in July 2011. Not available 2% GVA is a measure of output of the economy. Other things being equal, increased output would lead to higher energy consumption and emissions. ONS (2012) Economic and Labour Market Review N/A for 2011 Output manufacturing (change on 2010 levels) Real fuel prices for the industrial sector including CCL(change on 2010 levels) Electricity Gas Coal -0.9% +20% +8% * Carbon intensity assumed to be equal to new build gas. **Reflects incremental penetration of renewable heat above a baseline penetration in 2007 of 1.2%. *** 2010 outturn for renewable heat (2011 available in July 2012). Note: Numbers indicate amount in last year of budget period i.e. 2012, 2017, 2022 Key 2011 outturn The rising price of gas and coal may have contributed to reducing emissions but it is unclear to what extent. It is unlikely that fuel switching from coal to gas occurred however given that the price of gas rose more than coal. The rising price of gas and coal may have contributed to reducing emissions but it is unclear to what extent. It is unlikely that fuel switching from coal to gas occurred however given that the price of gas rose more than coal. DECC (2011) Quarterly Energy Prices – table 3.3.2 DECC (2011) Quarterly Energy Prices – table 3.3.2 DECC (2011) Quarterly Energy Prices – table 3.3.2 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 6. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN ROAD TRANSPORT The key conclusions from the CCC’s fourth progress report to Parliament were: 7 Domestic transport CO2 emissions were broadly flat in 2010. Within this surface transport emissions were also broadly flat. A preliminary assessment suggests that surface transport emissions may have fallen slightly in 20117, with reduced emissions from cars but increased emissions from vans and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). o Surface transport emissions remained unchanged in 2010, following two years of decline. Reduced distance travelled for cars, improved vehicle efficiency and increased use of biofuels was offset by increased distance travelled for vans and HGVs. o A preliminary assessment for 2011 suggests that surface transport emissions may have slightly decreased, with the effect of reduced carbon intensity of cars offsetting increased distance travelled by cars, vans and HGVs. However, there is a risk that surface transport emissions increase as the economy recovers, with the possibility that people purchase higher emitting vehicles and travel more. o Domestic aviation and shipping emissions fell by 4.7% in 2010, to 4.1 MtCO2. Carbon intensity of vehicles. There has been good progress in reducing new car emissions, but less progress in reducing new van emissions, and significant cuts are required across vehicle modes in order to achieve future carbon budgets. o CO2 intensity of new cars fell from 144.2 gCO2/km in 2010 to 138.1 gCO2/km in 2011 (a 4.2% reduction), and are on track to meet our indicator of 95 gCO2/km in 2020. Whether there has been a fundamental shift in car purchase behaviour needs to be closely monitored as the economy recovers and fossil fuel prices change, with use of fiscal levers (e.g. VED differentiation) as required to ensure continued progress. o CO2 intensity of new vans fell only 0.5% between 2010 and 2011 relative to the 3.1% annual reduction required between 2010 and 2020. We would expect emissions to fall more quickly as manufacturers work to meet the recently agreed EU new van target for CO2 intensity. However, it may be necessary for the Government to provide additional fiscal incentives for purchase of more efficient vans. o Although there were limited purchases of electric vehicles in 2011, conditions are in place to support market development (i.e. Government support for purchase of electric vehicles, investment in battery-charging infrastructure, and manufacturers launching new models). The announcement in Budget 2012 that the company car tax exemption for zero and ultra-low emission vehicles would be withdrawn in 2015 will limit incentives for uptake in this key sector while raising only very limited revenues, and should be reversed. o Biofuels penetration remained broadly constant between 2010 and 2011. It will be important to ensure that increased biofuels penetration is sustainable through strengthening safeguards against indirect land use impacts. With a more robust sustainability framework, increased penetration is likely to be feasible and desirable to 2020. Progress on changing behaviour has been mixed, with good progress on roll out of sustainable travel programmes, but limited progress on eco-driving training and a risk that the motorway speed limit will be increased. Data for surface transport emissions in 2011 is not yet available TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) o o o The Local Sustainable Transport Fund is sufficient to roll out Smarter Choices to around 25% of the UK by 2015. The Government should now set out its approach to fully rolling out Smarter Choices by 2020. Eco-driving training can make a significant and cost-effective contribution to meeting carbon budgets but progress has been extremely limited. To encourage eco-driving, the Government should consider including this as a key element of the practical driving test, and consider options to increase ecodriving training and other opportunities to provide information on fuel consumption and the benefits of eco-driving. Government proposals to increase the speed limit on motorways and potentially dual carriageways would significantly increase emissions relative to the alternative of enforcing the current speed limit, and provide a negative signal about the Government’s commitment to meeting carbon budgets. Given the need to reduce emissions from cars and vans, the Government should consult on enforcing the existing speed limit, including a full assessment of the costs and benefits of this option. ROAD TRANSPORT Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Road Transport -9% -17% -26% -7% (2010) Not available (2010: 7%) Car -12% -22% -34% -9% (2010) Not available (2010: 9%) Van 4% 4% -1% +3% (2010) Not available (2010: 5%) HGV -4% -13% -17% -3% (2010) Not available (2010: -6%) Car 158 136 113 164 (2010) Not available (2010: 168) Narrative Source Headline indicators Emissions (% change on 20078) gCO2/km (carbon intensity of a vehicle kilometre) 8 2007 emission estimates are outturn values Road transport emissions in 2010 were broadly unchanged from 2009 levels. 3.3% decrease on 2009 reflecting combination of more efficient vehicles, increased penetration of biofuels, and reduced distance travelled. 0.5% increase on 2009 reflecting increased distance travelled. Estimated 10.9% increase in emissions unlikely to be accurate given limited increase in distance travelled and limited worsening in fleet efficiency. Average car fleet efficiency improved from 170.0 gCO2/km in 2009 to 167.8 gCO2/km in 2010. However, this is above our indicator for 2010. NAEI (2012) NAEI (2012) NAEI (2012) NAEI (2012) CCC analysis TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) ROAD TRANSPORT Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Van 216 192 164 229 (2010) Not available (2010: 219) HGV 761 678 627 773 (2010) Not available (2010: 837) 412 419 431 409 (2010) 402 (2010) Car Vehicle kilometres with impact of Smarter Choices (billion vehicle-km) Narrative Average van fleet efficiency improved from 220.2 g CO2/km in 2009 to 219.2 g CO2/km in 2010 and was below our indicator. There was a deterioration in HGV fleet efficiency, from 757.6 g CO2/km in 2009 to 836.9 g CO2/km in 2010, above our indicator. Broadly on track. Our indicator trajectory reflects anticipated increase in v-kms as incomes rise, offset by demand reductions from Smarter Choices measures. Provisional figures suggest that car distance travelled increased by 0.5% in 2011, from 402 billion vehicle-km in 2010 to 404 billion vehicle-km in 2011; this increase cannot be explained simply through changes in fuel prices and income (See Box 5.2 of the 4th progress report). Source CCC analysis CCC analysis DfT (2012), Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011; CCC modelling Supporting indicators Vehicle technology New car gCO2/km Car 146 116 95 (by 2020) 150.5 138.1 CO2intensity of new cars fell from 144.2 g CO2/km in 2010 to 138.1 gCO2/km in 2011, ahead of our trajectory value of 150.5 gCO2/km in 2011. The combined effect of more efficient cars in each class, and a partially offsetting shift towards purchase of larger cars is an observed 4.2% improvement in new car gCO2. SMMT (2012), New Car CO2 Report 2012 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) ROAD TRANSPORT New electric cars registered each year (value at end of budget period) Budget 1 12,000 240,000 24,000 650,000 (240,000 delivered through pilot projects in 2015) Stock of battery electric and plugin hybrid cars in vehicle fleet Biofuels Penetration of biofuels (by volume) Decision on whether RTFO target can be met sustainably Budget 2 4.5% 7.7% Budget 3 600,000 2.7 million 10.0% 2011/12 2011 trajectory 8,127 12,518 2011 outturn Narrative Source 1,082 (1,098 including 16 quadricycles) Although take-up in 2011 of 1,098 electric cars is lower than our indicator, this partly reflects the limited availability of electric cars on the market in 2011. SMMT See above SMMT HMRC (February 2012), Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Bulletin n/a 1,312 (2,231 including 919 quadricycles) 4.0% 3.5% There was a decrease in the penetration of biofuels in the fuel mix from 3.6% in 2009 to 3.5% in 2010. n/a for 2011 n/a for 2011 Review underway Demand side measures Proportion of drivers exceeding 70mph* 49% of drivers, including 14% by more than 10mph, exceed the speed limits on motorways; 42% of drivers, including 10% by more than 10mph, exceed the speed limits on dual carriageways. 0%* 0%* n/a n/a (2010: 48%) DfT (2011), Speeds Statistics 2010 Government proposals to Increase the speed limit on motorways to 80mph could result in emissions of up to 3.5 MtCO2 higher (in 2020) than restricting speeds to the current limit. TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) ROAD TRANSPORT Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative Source Reduced take up of training could be expected to increase emissions. Car drivers who have undergone eco driving training 1.2 million Smarter Choices – demonstration in a city and development plan for roll out if successful, demonstration in rural areas and demonstration targeting longer journeys 2010 Smarter Choices – phased roll out to towns Starts in 2010 Development of integrated planning and transport strategy 2011 2.8 million 4.5 million Complete 884,500 DfT announced creation of £560 million Local Sustainable Transport Fund which could support smarter choice projects See above n/a for 2011 23,055 There has been only the most limited progress on eco-driving training. Energy Saving Trust (ad hoc query) n/a Funding is only sufficient to roll out Smarter Choices to around 25% of the UK by 2015. Further funding needed to fully roll out Smarter Choices by 2020. DfT (2011); CCC analysis n/a See above See above New National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012 Other drivers New car sales that are best in class 38.0% It is not clear that the new National Planning Policy Framework will result in appropriate land use planning decisions that result in reduced transport emissions. Close monitoring of decisions on new developments will be required. A greater proportion would be expected to reduce emissions. Monitored to evaluate consumer behaviour change. Up from 36.7% in 2010. DCLG (2012); CCC analysis SMMT (ad hoc query) TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) ROAD TRANSPORT Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn 38.5% (small) Proportion of small/medium/large cars 38.4% (medium) 23.2% (large) New van CO2 (gCO2/km) 195.0 New car CO2 in Europe (gCO2/km) 135.7 New HGV CO2 (gCO2/km) Data not available Fuel pump prices 133.27 p/l (petrol) 138.72 p/l (diesel) Narrative A greater proportion would be expected to reduce emissions. Monitored to evaluate consumer behaviour change. Share of small cars decreased slightly from 39.0% in 2010. Share of medium cars decreased from 39.7% in 2010. A smaller proportion would be expected to reduce emissions. Monitored to evaluate consumer behaviour change. Share of large cars increased from 21.2% in 2010. CO2intensity of new vans fell from 196 gCO2/km in 2010 to 195 gCO2/km in 2011 (a 0.5% reduction). Greater reductions are expected in the near future following recently agreed EU target for CO2 intensity. However additional fiscal measures may be necessary. 3.3% lower than 2010 CO2 intensity of new cars of 140.3 gCO2/km. We will monitor as and when data becomes available. The European Commission is due to report on a methodology for measurement of HGV emissions by early 2013. Higher fuel prices would be expected to reduce emissions. Monitored to provide context for vehicle mileage and demand for fuel efficient vehicles. Petrol prices increased 14% and diesel prices increased 16% in 2011. Source SMMT (ad hoc query) DfT (ad hoc query) European Environment Agency n/a HMRC (February 2012), Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Bulletin TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) ROAD TRANSPORT Budget 1 Fuel duty Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn 57.95p/l Van km (billion vkm)** 70.9 HGV km (billion vkm)** 27.5 Surface transport modal split n/a (2010: Buses & coaches 5.8%, Cars vans & taxis 84.6%, Motor cycles 0.6%, Pedal cycles 0.6%, rail 8.3%) Cost of car travel vs. cost public transport See narrative Narrative Higher fuel duty would be expected to reduce emissions. Monitored to provide context for vehicle mileage and demand for fuel efficient vehicles. 1.3% nominal increase over 2010. Reduced van km would be expected to reduce emissions. Van distance travelled rose by 3.0% in 2011, from 68.8 billion vehicle-km in 2010 to 70.9 billion vehicle-km in 2011. Reduced HGV km would be expected to reduce emissions. HGV distance travelled rose 0.3% in 2011, from 27.4 billion vehicle-km in 2010 to 27.5 billion vehicle-km in 2011. Greater share of bus and rail travel compared with car travel would be expected to reduce emissions. There was a decrease in the proportion of surface transport passenger-km from cars, vans and taxis from 85.4% in 2009 to 84.6% in 2010, with a slight increase in buses and coaches from 5.6% in 2009 to 5.8% in 2010. There were not significant changes in the other modes. Reductions in public transport costs would be expected to increase modal share relative to cars and therefore reduce emissions. The overall cost of motor vehicle use increased 6.4%, compared with a 4.7% increase in rail fares and a 4.2% increase in bus and coach fares in 2011. Source HMRC (February 2012), Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Bulletin DfT (2012) Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011 DfT (2012) Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011 DfT (2012) Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011 DfT (2012) Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) ROAD TRANSPORT Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Funding allocated to and population covered by Smarter Choices See narrative Proportion of new retail floorspace in town centre/edge of centre locations Data not available Narrative £560 million Local Sustainable Transport Fund could deliver Smarter Choices to 25% of the UK. This data would indicate degree to which land use planning delivers outcomes associated with lower levels of car travel; however, this data is not currently collected at the UK level. Source DfT n/a Proportion of new dwellings in settlements > 100,000 (% within boundary, on edge) Data not available As above n/a Data not available As above n/a Ratio of parking spaces to new dwellings on annual basis Low level of electric vehicle sales in 2011 partly reflected the limited number of models that had come to market. However, a further five models have since been introduced in 2012, and a considerable range are currently under development and due to come to market in the near future. Number of EV car models on market 7 (as of June 2011) SMMT (ad hoc query) Developments in battery and hydrogen fuel cell technology insufficient data To be reviewed Battery costs insufficient data To be reviewed Car ownership per household n/a (2010: 1.16) Other things being equal increased ownership would be expected to increase miles travelled and hence emissions. The number of cars per household increased by around 2% from 2009. DfT National Travel Survey Successful conclusion of EU work on Indirect Land Use Change/ development of accounting system for ILUC and sustainability EU work is ongoing n/a n/a TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) ROAD TRANSPORT Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory Agreement of modalities for reaching an EU target of 95 gCO₂/km target and strong enough penalties to deliver target 2011 outturn Narrative Source See narrative The Commission shall complete a review by 1 January 2013 of the specific emissions targets, with the aim of defining the modalities for reaching the 2020 target in a cost-effective manner. n/a * These are the values implied by the estimated savings from speed limiting. The CCC recognises that in practice it is impossible to achieve zero speeding. However, as close to zero as practicable is required to achieve the greatest carbon savings. ** We aim to include new van and HGV gCO₂/km in our indicator set as the available monitoring data improves Note: Numbers indicate amount in last year of budget period i.e. 2012, 2017, 2022 Key TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 7. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN AGRICULTURE The key conclusions from the CCC’s 2012 progress report to Parliament were: 9 Agricultural emissions increased by around 1% in 20109, but given emissions reductions in previous years, agriculture remains on track to broadly meet our indicator trajectory for the first carbon budget - a 3% reduction by 2012 relative to 2007 levels The increase in emissions reflected higher agricultural output, which increased by 1.8% in 2010. Within this total, livestock output increased by 3.2% while crop output declined by 0.7%. Offsetting increased livestock output were improved emissions intensity of livestock production due to productivity gains in milk production and improved fertiliser efficiency on grassland. However emissions intensity of crop production worsened reflecting less efficient use of fertiliser on cropland. Over a longer term, there is some evidence of progress towards improving emission intensities - nitrous oxide emissions intensity of crops was 1% lower in 2010 compared to 2007 levels, due to increased fertiliser efficiency. Higher levels of productivity through increased yields have also reduced the nitrous oxide and methane emissions intensity of livestock products by 7% and 4% respectively since 2007. However, there is limited evidence on implementation of measures to reduce emissions so the existing evidence base should be extended to provide a more comprehensive overview of current and changing farming practice. Given further evidence, it will be possible to set out a framework of forward indicators as we have for other key emitting sectors. In order that improvements in emissions intensity are sustained, and the recent worsening for crop production is reversed, new incentives may be required. There is scope for strengthening incentives at UK and EU levels. The Government’s policy review due at the end of 2012 should cover the full range of policy options available, and should set clear performance triggers for the introduction of new policies. Detailed non-CO2 emissions data for 2011 not available TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) AGRICULTURE Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2010 trajectory 2010 outturn Narrative Source Headline indicators Emissions (indicative % change from 2007 reflecting LCTP ambition scaled to UK) CO2e emissions (% change in tCO2 against 2007) GHG emissions (% change in tCO2e against 2007) N2O CH4 CO2* Source emissions (% change in tCO2e against 2007) -3% -1% -6% -3% -9% -4% -1.9% -0.8% -1.9% -0.9% -6% -12% -18% -3.5% -3.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Soils -2% -3% -5% -0.9% -1.2% Enteric fermentation -5% -10% -15% -3.0% -4.0% -7% -13% -20% -3.9% -5.3% Animal waste Agricultural GHG emissions increased year-on-year by 1% in 2010 but are still on track for the 3% reduction (relative to 2007 levels) required by the end of the 1st budget period. Year-on-year increase driven by a rise in UK agricultural production (thus increased application of fertiliser on pasture and cropland), although only livestock output increased, while crop output declined. However since 2007 there is evidence of lower intensity of both livestock and crop output due to more efficient fertiliser use. On track to meet first budget. Year-on-year change driven by increased livestock production. Since 2007, CH4 emissions reduction has largely been driven by falling production and production efficiency gains. On track to meet first budget. These reflect respective trends for N2O and CH4 described above. DECC (2012) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures DECC (2012) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures DECC (2011) 2009 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures DECC (2012) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures DECC (2012) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures DECC (2012) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) AGRICULTURE Machinery/fuels* Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2010 trajectory 2010 outturn n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Narrative Source Drivers (indicative % change from 2007 level) tN2O emissions per thousand hectares of arable and managed pasture tCH4 emissions per tonne of cattle and calf meat, dressed carcase weight tCH4 emissions per thousand litres of milk tCH4 emissions per tonne of sheep and lamb meat, dressed carcase weight tCH4 emissions per tonne of pig meat, dressed carcase weight 2007 = 2.18 2.15 2,11 2.08 2.16 2.17 2007 = 9.10 8.63 8.15 7.68 8.82 9.01 2007 = 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.41 0.42 2007 = 10.67 10.05 9.43 8.81 10.30 9.78 2007 = 1.12 1.06 1.00 0.94 1.08 0.93 Improvement since 2007 likely to be due to lower fertiliser application rates, particularly on pasture. On track to meet first budget. Intensity slightly below 2007 levels but above trajectory for 2010. Intensity unchanged since 2007. Worsening intensity, reflecting reduced yields, since 2007 and above trajectory for 2010. Improvement in intensity since 2007 likely to reflect improved yields. Outturn in 2010 is above trajectory. tCH4 emissions per tonne Intensity unchanged since of poultry, dressed 2007 = 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.18 2007. carcase weight Supporting indicators Measure where greater confidence exists (e.g. proven technology, considered best practice, consistent abatement results) but uncertainty about baseline use. Nutrient management including improved mineral and organic N % of hectares timing, separating slurry where Better evidence about current farming practice is required to develop full trajectories. and mineral N, using measures are composts, and making in place full allowance for manure N Improvements to the inventory % of livestock expected in 2015. Will also Livestock management of different draw on ongoing work by including breeding for production/fe Better evidence about current farming practice is required to develop full trajectories. EBLEX, BPEX and others. fertility and productivity rtility efficiency % of manure/slurry Manure management stored in Better evidence about current farming practice is required to develop full trajectories. covered tanks or lagoons Agriculture in the UK 2010 (AUK 2010) (chapter 5). Emissions calculated on a production basis. Intensity projections for budget period assume constant output or land use. Outturn calculated using actual emissions and output. Defra Defra Periodically covered by Farm Practices Survey (Defra). Last covered in 2012 survey. TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) AGRICULTURE Anaerobic Digestion10 Budget 1 Installed AD capacity using manures (MW)*** 31 Budget 2 68 Budget 3 102 2010 trajectory 2010 outturn Les s than 1% of holdings have AD (2011) Measures that require further evidence to establish appropriateness and effectiveness in UK and in regional contexts Soil management (reduced tillage/drainage), % of hectares Not suitable for all hectares. nitrification inhibitors, where Requires development of evidence base to resolve possible conflicts with other goals and to determine and using more Nmeasures are applicability, GHG benefits and costs under different conditions. efficient plants (species in place introduction and improved N-use plants) Livestock management % of livestock (including maize silage Not suitable for all animals/farms. consuming and dietary additives in We will monitor the development of the evidence base around these measures, including applicability, different diets form of propionate net GHG benefits and resolution of possible conflicts with other sector goals. and feed precursors or additives ionophores) Policy milestones Phase 1 of Industry Action Plan completed April 2012 Phase 2 delivery: Roll-out of Industry information hub Establish baseline farming practice and framework to monitor progress Government policy review on voluntary approach: Development of policy options for intervention Set triggers for intervention 10 n/a 2013 End 2012 End 2012 Projection based on analysis contained in 2nd CCC MACC produced by Scottish Agricultural College (2010). Narrative Source Need to collect data on an annual basis. The Farm Practices Survey (Defra) but not collected on an annual basis. We will return to this indicator in 2013. We will return to this indicator in 2013. April 2012 Plan will be delivered in three phases under a voluntary approach based on information provision and encouragement. Industry Action Plan Pilot information hub completed 2012 Hub intended to be the main source of approved guidance and information for farmers and advisors to access. Industry Action Plan report due end 2012 Review should examine full range of policy options for incentivising emissions reductions. Defra TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) AGRICULTURE Budget 1 On-going monitoring of voluntary approach: Evaluate triggers Decide if new policies are required Development of smart inventory Budget 2 Budget 3 2013-2014 2014-15) Set milestone for delivery 2014 (first phase) 2010 trajectory 2010 outturn Narrative Source n/a Policy review should widen the scope to consider this. Defra Projects underway Project to better understand and measure how biological systems and different farming practices impact on emissions. Defra Other drivers Crops/soils: Crop yields (e.g. cereals) Cropping areas N2O emissions per unit of fertiliser use Output of product per unit of fertiliser use We will return to this indicator in 2013. We will return to this indicator in 2013. We will return to this indicator in 2013. We will return to this indicator in 2013. AUK AUK DECC; British Survey of Fertiliser Practice AUK, British Survey of Fertiliser Practice Livestock: Weight of carcase produced per day of age Calves produced per cow per year We will return to this indicator in 2013. We will return to this indicator in 2013. EBLEX EBLEX General: We will monitor development of the evidence base and R&D support for the various mitigation measures. We will also track upcoming CAP reform negotiations (to be complete by 2014) and implications for farming practice and emissions. We will return to this indicator in 2013. We will return to this indicator in 2013. * CO2 abatement potential not factored into first three budget periods ** Broadly consistent with LCTP ambition and industry roadmaps. UK Inventory at present will not fully capture reductions in emissions as a result of uptake of particular measures. *** Handling beef, dairy and pig manures and slurries Note: Numbers indicate amount in last year of budget period i.e. 2012, 2017, 2022 Defra EU/Defra TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) Key LAND USE, LAND USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY Indicator Narrative Source Headline Indicators CO2 sequestered 1 MtCO2e per year by 2030 Based on a 15 year UK woodland creation programme of an additional 10,000 hectares per year. Forestry Commission’s Read Report (2009) at least 21,000 hectares/year from 2015 This indicator will track annual UK planting rates. National Forest Inventory Woodland Area Statistics for Great Britain By 2014 Defra will consider report due 2012 by independent panel of experts, which will consider, amongst other things, how to increase woodland cover. Defra Supporting indicators UK woodland planting Annual new UK planting **** Development and implementation of a woodland creation programme **** 2007 baseline = 10.7 thousand hectares. Source: Forestry statistics 2010, figure 1.4. Key TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 8. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN WASTE The key conclusions from the CCC’s fourth progress report to Parliament were: Waste emissions fell by 3% in 2010, continuing a longer-term trend where emissions fell by 64% over the period since 1990, largely due to reduced methane emissions arising from landfill sites. The Government has ambitions to further reduce emissions by 22% in 2020 (72% relative to 1990). This reflects a 25% reduction in the amount of biodegradable waste landfilled in 2020 relative to 2010, which is required to meet UK targets under the EU Landfill Directive. Our analysis suggests that there is potential to go beyond this given further opportunities for waste prevention and recycling and other disposal methods such as anaerobic digestion and composting. Increased ambition for the next decade may be appropriate, particularly given the long-term legacy emissions from waste sent to landfill over the next decade, and should be considered by the Government. The key driver of future waste emissions reductions will be the landfill tax, which provides a financial incentive for reducing the amount of biodegradable waste sent to landfill. In addition to the landfill tax, the Government is considering new approaches to addressing barriers to the reduction of biodegradable waste sent to landfill, with a focus on voluntary agreements and the role of information provision/public engagement. Stronger levers may need to be introduced if full potential for reducing waste emissions is to be addressed; this should be kept under review. Food and paper/card are the two largest sources of waste emissions and offer the largest potential to reduce emissions. We therefore recommended that the Government should develop specific strategies for reducing the amount of these waste streams sent to landfill. These should cover the full range of levers across the waste chain (i.e. from producers and retailers through to disposal) and for waste generated by households and the commercial and industrial sectors. TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) WASTE Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2010 trajectory 2010 outturn Narrative Source Headline indicators Emissions (indicative % change from 2007) CO2e emissions (% change in MtCO2e against 2007) GHG and source emissions % change in MtCO2e against 2007) -9% -22% to -33% -32% to -50% n/a -9% Landfill – CH4* -10% to -15% -25% to -37% -36% to -56% n/a -10% Wastewater treatment – N2O* -5% -2% +2% n/a -2% Incineration – CO2* No more than 25% n/a +18% Overall GHG emissions arising from waste management declined year-onyear by 3% in 2010. Year-on-year change due to reduction in biodegradable waste being sent to landfill; also driven in part by increases in the methane capture rate. N2O emissions arising from the treatment of wastewater are driven by population and protein consumption. Increase in CO2 emissions due to an increase in the amount of nonbiodegradable waste (e.g. plastics) that is incinerated (thereby releasing CO2). DECC (2012) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures DECC (2012) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures DECC (2012) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures DECC (2012) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures Supporting indicators Drivers Biodegradable waste sent to landfill (indicative % change from 2007 levels) Percentage of methane captured at landfill sites 2007 = 29 Million tonnes (Mt) 2007 = 75%** -30% (20 Mt) 75% -38% to -84% (18 to 5 Mt) 75% -39% to -97% (17 to 1 Mt) 75% n/a 75% -19% (23 Mt) n/a 19% reduction since 2007. Indicator range covers the Government’s projection based on current policies to meet the EU Landfill Directive (high end) to achievement of full technical potential to divert waste from landfill (low end). AEA (2012) UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2010: Annual Report for submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Annex 3; Defra MELMod landfill methane model The assumed rate of methane capture has increased from 15% in 1990 to 75% in 2007 and is expected to remain broadly constant. Policy milestones Develop National Waste Prevention Programme End 2013 Evidence to support waste prevention measures currently being developed Defra is working with WRAP, businesses, civil society and local government to enable better resource efficiency and waste prevention. Defra, including Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011; Defra (2012) and Progress TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) WASTE Agree responsibility deals with sectors specified in Waste Review (waste management, paper, packaging, hospitality, textiles, Courtauld 2 successor) Budget 1 Different timetables for various sectors; ongoing work to 2015 Review case for material-specific landfill restrictions (e.g. on textiles or paper/card) Budget 3 2010 trajectory Ongoing discussions with various sectors Publish findings during Budget 2 Explore scope to strengthen incentives through the waste chain Launch consultation on wood landfill restriction Budget 2 2010 outturn Narrative • Waste management industry: deal launched in June 2011 to promote recycling services for SMEs and quality standards for materials recycling facilities; will report against indicators Summer 2014. • Paper: revised deal launched in Summer 2011 with direct marketing, magazines, and newspaper companies; Defra to further investigate opportunities to further cover paper industry (ongoing discussions). • Packaging: Starting in Summer 2011, various deals underway to reduce packaging, increase amount of recycled contents, make packaging more recyclable by design. • Hospitality: Hospitality and Food Service Agreement launched May 2012 to reduce food and packaging waste and increase proportion of waste being recycled, composted or sent to AD* • Textiles: Sustainable Clothing Action Plan to reduce impacts of clothing consumed in UK (ongoing work to 2015. Initial exploration underway including Review should examine full range of funding for reward options for incentivising waste and recognition trial reduction and diversion from landfill. schemes by local authorities Autumn 2012 Discussions underway with potential for consultation in Autumn 2012 2012/2013 Parliament session Defra is reviewing the case for banning/restricting biodegradable wastes from landfill, starting with textiles. The Government has committed to looking at the case for restricting certain materials from landfills, starting with wood (which is easier to sort). Source with delivery of commitments from the Government’s Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) WASTE Improve estimates of methane captured and explore opportunities for capturing more methane from landfill Budget 1 Budget 2 Ongoing Budget 3 2010 trajectory 2010 outturn Narrative Source Pilot landfill study completed March 2012; scoping of wider survey underway The assumed average capture rate should be revised as evidence improves; if lower than assumed, waste emissions could be substantially higher. Over time as newer landfill sites become more important, the average capture rate is likely to be higher than the current rate of 75%. Defra/ Environment Agency Develop specific food and paper/card waste strategy End 2013 n/a Strategies should set out an approach to monitoring progress and policy options to address any slow progress across the key sectors and the full waste chain (i.e. the residential, commercial and industrial sectors, from production and retail through to final disposal); should build on work underway as part of the Waste Review. Defra Other drivers Total waste arisings: total waste generated (Mt) broken down by source (municipal and commercial/industrial sectors) and type. Annual data on total UK waste arisings is compiled every two years. Data for 2010 will be available in 2012. Survey evidence from WRAP suggests overall UK household waste fell by 13% from 2007 to 2010. Data for 2008 indicates a total 11% decrease since 2004, with commercial and industrial waste down 17% and household waste up 2%. Ideally we would monitor the total amount of biodegradable waste generated, but this is not readily available (e.g. if food is composted it is not always included in total waste arisings estimates). Defra – Waste Statistics Regulation return to Eurostat (compiled every two years, beginning in 2004); WRAP Household Food and Drink surveys; Devolved administration waste data (for municipal waste) TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) WASTE Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 Waste management: amount, proportion and type of waste (Mt) sent to landfill and to alternative treatments (e.g. recycling/composting, energy from waste, MBT); municipal recycling rates. Separate collection: number/percentage of local authorities providing for separate collection of food waste; percentage of food waste sent to treatment via AD. General: We will monitor work to improve emissions data (e.g. estimates of activity data, methane yields and decay rates) as well as costs and environmental benefits from various landfill diversion treatment options. 2010 trajectory 2010 outturn Narrative The total amount of waste sent to landfill has decreased 25% since 2007, reflecting the impact of the landfill tax and landfill allowance trading scheme. Food waste has decreased by 17%, paper/card by 19%, and all other biodegradable waste by 19%. Municipal waste in England: Landfilling rates have decreased from 58% to 43% between 2007 and 2010; Recycling rates increased from 30% to 40% between 2007 and 2010; Incineration with and without ER from 11% to 15%. Approximately 46% of local authorities in the UK provided for some type of separate food collection in 2010 (e.g. separate food, food mixed in garden waste, or both); we will track the amount of food waste sent to treatment via AD subject to data availability. The evidence base was recently improved and other projects are underway (as part of the Waste Review) to further this. Source AEA (2012) UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2010: Annual Report for submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Annex 3; Defra MELMod landfill methane model; Defra and devolved administration waste data WRAP, Local Authority Waste and Recycling Portal (http://laportal.wrap.org.uk) Defra, Environment Agency, IPCC, others * Methane emissions trajectories reflect a range of emissions reductions from the Government’s projections to close to full diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill. Other greenhouse gas trajectories are based on Government projections. ** An average methane capture rate of 75% is assumed across UK landfill sites. Note: Numbers indicate amount in last year of budget period i.e. 2012, 2017, 2022 Key TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 9. TEMPERATURE ADJUSTING EMISSIONS AND ENERGY DATA The effect of external temperatures and weather has been shown empirically to have a direct relationship to energy consumption and therefore emissions. When external temperatures are colder than average, energy consumption typically rises due to increased demand for heating fuels. Conversely when external temperatures are warmer than average, demand for energy is reduced as demand for heating fuels falls. There are also other auxiliary effects of different weather occurrences such as disruption to travel due to snow or loss of worker productivity due to heat waves. Warmer temperatures in summer currently have a much smaller effect in the UK, given that energy demand for cooling remains significantly lower than energy demand for heating. The winter months of 2011 (January, February and December) were milder than in 2010 as well as the recent average (2000-2011). This resulted in reduced emissions, particularly in the residential sector. In 2010, however, the winter months were significantly colder than in 2009 and recent averages. Given that this yearly fluctuation in temperatures obscures underlying emissions trends we have used a “temperature adjusted” estimate of the change in energy consumption from 2007 to 2011. This can be interpreted as how energy consumption would have changed without any deviation in winter temperatures from the long term mean (1971-2000). We have then used the adjusted trend in energy consumption to calculate the effect on emissions. This allows us to assess underlying progress, abstracting from year-to-year variations in weather, which is useful in assessing future prospects for emissions. Total CO2 emissions in 2011 fell 7%, but adjusting for the effects of the mild winter emissions would have only fallen by 4%. The largest effect can be observed in the domestic sector. Direct emissions fell 22% but temperature adjusted would have fallen only 4%. Indirect emissions (from electricity generation) fell 7% but would have fallen 3%. In the non-domestic sector, direct emissions fell 7%, but temperature adjusted would have fallen 2%. Overall, non-traded sector GHG emissions, which fell by 7%, would have only fallen 2% without the impact of the mild winter months, while traded sector emissions which fell 7% would have fallen 6%. Methodology This analysis is based on a methodology used by DECC for temperature adjusting energy consumption estimates11. The methodology can be broken down into the following steps: 1. Historic datasets (1971-2000) of UK energy consumption and recorded (average) quarterly temperature are used to determine a simple relationship between energy use and temperatures. The data are analysed on a quarterly basis to allow seasonal variation in heating requirements to be identified (i.e. a house uses more energy for heating in quarter 1 because of the typically colder external temperatures). 11 For more detail on the methodology of the temperature adjustment see DECC Energy Trends June 2011: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/energy-trends/2076-trendsjun11.pdf TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 2. The quarterly energy consumption figures are then adjusted for the temperature effects in each given quarter. For example, if the temperature in 2011was exactly equal to the long-term average there would be no adjustment to 2011 energy consumption for temperature effects. In the residential sector gas, electricity and ‘other fuels’ were corrected for temperature effects. In the non-residential sector only ‘other fuels’ were corrected. Only these sectors and fuels are adjusted because only they showed a significant relationship between temperature and energy consumption. 3. Energy consumption is then converted to emissions using the appropriate emissions factors12 to produce a temperature adjusted estimate of emissions. This allows changes to emissions from year to year to be compared without the impact of temperature changes. 12 Coal, gas and oil factors are taken from the Defra greenhouse gas conversion factor tables; electricity conversion factors for 2011 were calculated by the CCC.