THE LARGE COMBUSTION PLANTS DIRECTIVE (2001/80/EC)
Summary of responses to the Government’s consultation paper, July-September 2003
INTRODUCTION
1. Parallel to a similar consultation taking place in the rest of the UK, the Scottish Executive
issued a consultation paper in June 2003 seeking views on the way in which EC Directive
2001/80/EC, known as the revised Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCPD), should be
implemented within the UK. Under the Directive, large combustion plants are those with a
rated thermal input which is equal to or greater than 50 MW, regardless of the type of fuel
used.
2. The main decision on which the paper was seeking views was whether the UK should
adopt the emissions limits (ELV) approach or the national plan approach as the means of
implementing the revised LCPD for pre-1987 plants.
3. The Paper also contained:
 a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) setting out the costs and benefits of the two
alternative implementation options for the Directive.
 Draft UK national plan for 'existing' plants – that is plants for which a licence was
granted before 1 July 1987.
 A paper on key issues on the interpretation of the Directive.
4. The consultation paper attracted many detailed submissions. A large number of
respondents welcomed the opportunity to comment on the Governments proposals on
implementation. Some 23 substantive responses were received, with the majority being from
individual businesses and trade associations representing industry sectors. Other responses
were received from environmental groups and regulators. A list of consultation responses is
at Annex A.
5. Copies of the responses, excluding those made in confidence have been placed in the
Scottish Executive library.
RESPONSES TO IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
The choice of the implementation approach
6. There was a divide amongst the respondents on the major issue of the implementation
approach. However the majority were on the side of the ELV approach even though the
consultation paper had expressed a preliminary preference for adopting the national plan
approach to implement the revised LCPD. Those backing the national plan option saw it
offering additional flexibility to the ELV approach. Some others were attracted by the lower
costs, as identified by modelling in the consultation paper. Support for the plan approach was
strongest amongst industry which generates significant amounts of electricity from their own
plants, e.g. the paper and chemical sector, but in some case that support dependent on certain
factors. A major power company, Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) also supported the
plan approach. For example some comments were as follows:-




BP Grangemouth:
We are in agreement with the Executive on the adoption of the
National Plan…..[Within that plan].. we emphasize that any trading scheme must
have sufficient number of active participants to ensure equitable trading conditions.
The Paper Federation of Great Britain Limited: …endorses the intention to adopt the
national plan approach as this allows necessary flexibility whilst maintaining the
improvement objectives.
SSE:.. supports approaches based on market solutions. SSE considers the NERP
approach more appropriate fro implementing the Directive for “existing plants”. It
gives the regulated players more options to achieve their targets under the LCPD.
Roche Vitamins (UK) Ltd :….we would support the National Plan approach which
we consider to be the most flexible and practical approach.
7. On the other hand, there were respondents which disagreed with the national plan approach
and had a strong preference for the ELV approach. Within this disagreement there were some
common factors of concern: that the approach outlined for ELVs appeared to be simpler and
cheaper as well as involving a lower level of risk, while the plan would lead to much larger
amounts of lower sulphur coal being imported at the expense of UK sourced coal. The major
generating company in Scotland favoured the ELV route as did all of the coal sector
responses. For example:




SEPA:…ELVs give industry greater stability and certainty for planning future
investment in new plant in partnership with the regulator
Scottish Power…We are concerned that constraints have been placed on the potential
flexibility of a National Plan by the interpretations placed on key phrases within the
Directive.
Electricity Association: the UK should adopt the ELV option for implementing this
Directive as it offers much lower risks in terms of supply security, costs to electricity
customers and practicality, in addition to its environmental benefits.
Scottish Coal: would incentivise generators to install Flue Gas Desulphuisation and
enable them to burn the slighter higher sulphur indigenous coal whilst still gaining the
environmental benefit of reduced SO2 emissions . The ELV approach would avoid
significant job losses and costs to the UK and Scottish economies.

There were a number of responses similar to the Scottish Coal theme of there being job losses
arising from increased reliance on imported coal
The Meaning in the LCPD of “combustion plant”
8. This was raised by many of the respondents in their comments on the consultation paper.
They endorsed the unit approach set out in the consultation paper believing it added extra
flexibility for both the ELV and National Plan options. However a few pointed out the
inconsistency with the IPPC “station” approach.
Allocations under a national plan.
9. If the national plan route was the chosen option, there was general support for the free
allocation of emission allowances.
Trading under a National Plan
10. One of the questions posed in the consultation paper related to whether the cost savings
predicted to follow from emissions trading within a national plan were likely to be achieved.
Many of the responses were doubtful about whether the trading scheme would be able to
operate as suggested, with such views being expressed by both sides of the ELV/National
Plan debate Fro example:




BP Grangemouth: we emphasize that any trading scheme must have a sufficient
number of active participants to ensure equitable trading conditions
Electricity Association: If the trading regime is to be successful we would suggest that
the UK should approach the Commission to seek clarification on the possibility of
incorporating banking within a LCP trading scheme
Scottish Power: BAT represents a command and control approach to emissions
reduction, while trading represents a market based approach. The two approaches are
intellectually conflicting. BAT forces individual sites to implement defined
abatement measures and consequently limits their choice to trade off the costs of
abatement with the costs of additional permits, Do not think it likely that a trading
scheme will give the costs benefits identified. Any trading scheme will be extremely
costly to administer and will have only a relatively small number of participants.
BPB Paperboard: believe that banking system between years is critical to ensuring the
effectiveness of the National Emissions Reduction Plan. The Directive does not
appear to outlaw this facility and this would be consistent with the proposals to allow
banking under the EU Emissions Trading scheme
RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT
INTERPRETATIONAL ISSUES
NATIONAL
PLAN
AND
PAPER
ON
11. The Scottish Executive had, as part of the consultation exercise, set out a summary of
issues on which it had been asked to give guidance on the interpretation of the Directive.
Where comments were offered on this issue, the consultees mostly agreed with the
approaches outlined. However there was a difference of view on the Scottish Executive
interpretation that when a plant subject to a national plan closes, the overall size of the
bubble must be reduced. For example:
 Scottish Power: We do not agree with the interpretation of the meaning from the use
of the word “increase in the consultation document. The statement in the Directive is
aimed at ensuring that, where plant closes, the National Plan bubble does not increase,
it does not state there must be a decrease.
Scottish Executive/ACE
15 October 2003
LIST OF RESPONDENTS
1. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
2. BP Grangemouth
3. Tullis Russell
4. Electricity Association
5. Paper Federation of Great Britain
6. Scottish Power
7. Scottish and Southern Energy
8. Confederation of UK Coal Producers
9. Scottish Coal
10. ATH Resources
11. HJ Banks (Mining) Ltd
12. Solid Fuel Association
13. The Coal Authority
14. Roche Vitamins (UK) Ltd
15. Scottish Enterprise
16. East Lothian Council
17. BPB Paperboard
18. Law Mining
19. HRM Resources Ltd.
20. The Scottish Coal Company Limited
21. J Fenton & Sons (Contractors) Ltd.
22. Caledonian Paper
23. The Scotch Whisky Association