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.
Download

2012 Progress Report to Parliament