2012 Progress Report to Parliament

PROGRESS AGAINST THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK

THE COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

JULY 2012

PROGRESS AGAINST THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK

TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4 TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012)

Overview

On 29 th 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 budgets 1 .

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 report 2 and supporting technical annex 3 .

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) The CCC’s indicator framework for monitoring carbon budgets.

2) Progress across the economy.

3) Progress against indicators in the power sector.

4) Progress against indicators in buildings.

5) Progress against indicators in industry.

6) Progress against indicators in road transport.

7) Progress against indicators in agriculture.

8) Progress against indicators in waste.

9) 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 29 th 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: enquiries@theccc.gsi.gov.uk

1 Committee on Climate Change (2011) Meeting Carbon Budgets – 3 rd Progress report to parliament, Progress Report to Parliament. Available at: www.theccc.org.uk/reports

2 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

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


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 4 TH 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.

Figure 2: The CCC indicator framework


Figure 3: 2010 UK Emissions covered by the CCC indicator framework

2010 outturn emissions (2012 inventory): 588 MtCO

2 e


Note: Non-CO

2

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.

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 Narrative Source


Total

GHG emissions

(MtCO

2 e)

CO

2

Non-CO

2

604*

Non-Traded emissions

(MtCO

2 e)

357

Traded emissions

(MtCO

2 e)

EU ETS emissions

(MtCO

2 e)

Other Drivers

247

556

341

216 n/a

509 n/a n/a

312

197

604

357

247

2077

547

456

90

326

221

1902

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

DECC (2012) 2011 UK

Greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures; European

Commission (2April 2012)

Verified Emissions for 2008-

2009-2010-2011 and allocations 2008-2009-2010-

2011

European Commission (2April

2012) Verified Emissions for

2008-2009-2010-2011 and allocations 2008-2009-2010-

2011

ECONOMY-WIDE

GDP (% change on 2010)

Manufacturing GVA (% change on 2010)

Real Household

Disposable Income (% change on 2010)

Winter temperature

(change on 2010)

Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory

2011 outturn

0.7%

2.0%

-1.2%

4⁰C

Carbon Price (average) €13/tCO

2

*Budget numbers shown are average yearly emissions required to meet five year budgets.

Key

Narrative


Source

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.

ONS (2012) National Accounts

ONS (2012) National Accounts

DECC (2012) Energy Trends

Table 7.1

Bluenext Statistics

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:



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 CO

2

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 report 4 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.

4 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




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 gCO

2

/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




Emissions intensity

(g/kWh)

Total emissions (% change from 2007)

Generation

(TWh)

Wind

509

-15%

21

Nuclear 58

390

-39%

50

30

236

-64%

98

48

523

-13%

16.8

58.2

486

-18%

15.5

62.7

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


Trends, Table ET 5.1

POWER Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory

CCS 0


Transmission

Agreement on incentives for anticipatory investment for Stage 1 reinforcements

2010

5 11 0

In place

Implementation of enduring regime for accessing grid

Transitional OFTO regime in place

2010

2009

In place

In place

Enduring OFTO regime in place 2010 In place

2011 outturn

0

Narrative


Source

No CCS capacity was expected to be online in 2011. n/a

Scottish TO’s business plans agreed, National Grid

(NGET) expected to gain approval by end of 2012.

In place

In place

In place, but yet to be implemented

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

POWER

Grid reinforcement planning approval

Grid reinforcement construction begins

Grid reinforcements operational

Tendering for first offshore connections under enduring OFTO regime

Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3

2011:

Scotland

Stage 1,

Wales Stage

1 (Central),

South East

2012:

Scotland

Stage 1,

Wales Stage

1 (Central),

South East

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

2018:

Scotland

Stage 2

2011 trajectory

2011 outturn

Scotland on track, South East slight delay, Central

Wales a serious concern

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 n/a in 2011 n/a in 2011

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

2010

In place Still tendering under transitional regime.

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

POWER Budget 1 Budget 2

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

2011

2012

2010

Review of current market arrangements and interventions that will help deliver lowcost, low-carbon generation investment

Wind

Generation

(TWh)

Onshore

To begin in first budget period

13 26

Total capacity

(GW)

Offshore 8

Onshore 5.7

Offshore 2.5

Capacity entering construction

(GW)

Onshore 0.9

24

10.8

7.4

1.3

Budget 3 2011 trajectory

2011 outturn

Still under transitional regime n/a in 2011

44

54

18

16.6

1.5

To begin in first budget period

11.0

5.9

4.9

1.8

0.9


Narrative

As no tendering has occurred under the enduring regime, construction of all offshore connections has been under the transitional regime to date.

No action expected in 2011

Source

DECC; OFGEM, developers

DECC; OFGEM, developers

In place. To be replaced by

Major Infrastructure

Planning Unit in 2012

White paper published in

July 2011, confirmed contracts for low-carbon capacity

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 50gCO

2

/kWh, through a portfolio of low-carbon options, provided they can be built to schedule and cost.

Public announcements

DECC

10.4

5.1

4.6

1.8

Data not available

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









POWER Budget 1 Budget 2

Offshore 0.9 1.6

Budget 3

2.6

2011 trajectory

0.9

Capacity entering planning

Onshore

New planning applications will be required from the end of the second budget period at the latest to maintain flow into construction

No trajectory

Offshore

New planning applications will be expected in line with site leasing

No trajectory

Average planning period

(months) <12

Nuclear

Regulatory Justification process

Generic Design

Assessment

National Policy

Statement for nuclear

(including Strategic

Siting Assessment)

Regulations for a Funded

Decommissioning

Programme in place

2010

2011

2010

2010

<12 <12 <12

In place

In place

In place

2011 outturn

Data not available

2.3

0.5

18

Narrative


Source

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).

CCC calculations based on DECC

Renewable Energy Planning

Database



Database



Database

In place

Interim approval in 2011

Approved by Parliament in

2011.

In place

Reactor designs received interim approval in December 2011, with final approval expected towards the end of 2012.

Approved by Parliament in 2011 following some delay, awaiting the interim

Weightman report.

DECC Office of Nuclear

Development


Development


Development

In place In place


Development


Entering planning

Planning approval; site development and preliminary works begin

Construction begins

Plant begins operation

First planning application in 2010

First approval and site development and preliminary works begin in 2011

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 plant in

2018, with subsequent plants at 18 month intervals*

CCS

Front-End Engineering and Design (FEED) studies for competition contenders initiated

FEED studies for competition contenders completed end 2009

2010

In place

Approval in 2011 n/a for 2011 n/a for 2011

Initiated

Completed

2011 outturn

First planning application made in 2011

In November 2011 EDF submitted their application for Hinkley C, with determination expected in late 2012.

No approval

Initiated early 2010

FEED study ongoing

Narrative


Source


Development, public announcements

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.


Development, public announcements



The first competition awarded funding in

March 2010 to the Longannet and

Kingsnorth projects for Front End

Engineering and Design (FEED) studies

Longannet and Kingsnorth FEED studies completed in 2011

DECC

DECC

POWER Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3

Announce competition winner

Second demonstration competition

Quantification of saline aquifer CO

2

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

2010 launch 2010, announce winners

2011 no later than

2015 no later than

2016** no later than

2016 first demo in

2011 subsequent demos

2012/13

Demonstrations operational first demo in

2014, subsequent demos

2015/16***

First new full CCS plants supported via the postdemonstration mechanism

Other drivers

2022

2011 trajectory

Announced

Initiated n/a for 2011 n/a for 2011

DECC Roadmap expected

Initiated n/a for 2011 n/a for 2011

2011 outturn

Decision not to award funding

Not launched in 2011

Narrative


Source

Funding not awarded due to high cost of remaining contender

DECC

Launch occurred in April 2012, winners to be announced late 2012

DECC

DECC Roadmap delayed to

2012

DECC roadmap launched Spring 2012

No action in 2011



No action expected in 2011, due to delays in awarding funding

DECC



DECC

DECC

DECC

DECC

DECC

POWER

Total demand (TWh)


Coal and gas prices

Nuclear outages

Average wind load factors

2011 outturn Narrative


Source

317 TWh (consumption)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

CCC calculations; DECC (March

2012) Energy Trends, table ET

5.2

DECC (2012) Quarterly Energy

Prices, Table 3.2.1


Trends, Table 5.1

SSE and Centrica annual reports, DECC (June 2012)

Energy Trends, Table 6.1

POWER

Availability of offshore installation vessels

Access to turbines




Source

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.

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.

Research carried out by Poyry for the CCC in 2009 5 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.

These developments are very positive, though the magnitude of the expansion in production capacity delivered to date is not yet clear.

RenewableUK

RenewableUK; DECC Office of

Renewable Energy Deployment

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




Source

Nuclear supply chain, availability of skilled staff

International progress on CCS demonstration and deployment

Planning approval rates

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.

A recent enquiry by the House of Lords

Science and Technology

Committee 6 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.

House of Lords (November

2011)

Public announcements, Global

CCS Institute; International

Energy Agency; CCS Association



Database.

* 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

.

*** 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

𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑔/𝑘𝑊ℎ) = (𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 (𝑀𝑡𝐶𝑂

2

) ∗ 1000)/𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 (𝑇𝑊ℎ)

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 4 th 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.

2)

3)


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.

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.

4. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN BUILDINGS


The key conclusions from the CCC’s 2012 progress report to Parliament are:

Buildings



Buildings CO

2

emissions in 2011 fell by 12% to 186 MtCO

2

. 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 CO

2

. 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.

BUILDINGS

All buildings


CO₂ emissions (% change on

2007)* direct

Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn

-5% -19% -32% -2% -18% indirect** -10%

Final energy consumption

(% change on 2007) nonelectricity electricity

(autogen included)***

-8%

-3% electricity

(centrally produced)***

Residential Buildings

Headline Indicators

-3%

CO₂ emissions

(indicative minimum % change on

2007)* direct -6%

-2%

-2%

-22%

-20%

-18% -20%

-1%

-1%

-51%

-25%

-3%

-3%

-7%

-4%

-3%

-6%

-6%

-19%

-13%

-14%

Narrative


Source

Building CO

2

emissions fell by 12% in

2011, mainly as a result of relatively mild weather. Increased energy prices also had a small effect

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

Calculated from electricity consumption from DECC (June 2012)

Energy Trends; CCC estimate of gCO

2

/KWh of generation

DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends

DECC (June 2012) Energy Trends;

CCC estimates of autogenerated electricity based on DECC (2011)

Digest of UK Energy Statistics




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)


BUILDINGS indirect**

Budget 1

-11%



2007) nonelectricity electricity

(autogen included)***

-6%

-5% electricity

(centrally produced)***


Uptake of solid wall insulation

(million homes, total additional installations compared to 2007 levels)

Uptake of loft insulation (up to and including 100mm)

(million homes, total additional installations compared to 2007 levels)

-5%

0.5

2.3

Budget 2

-23%

-18%

-4%

-4%

1.2

5.6

Budget 3

-53%

-19%

-3%

-3%

2.3

5.6

2011 trajectory 2011 outturn

-8%

-7%

-6%

-6%

0.33

-20%

-13%

Uptake of loft insulation

(100mm +) (million homes, total additional installations compared to 2007 levels)

2.0 4.9 4.9

2.2

Narrative


Source

Calculated from electricity consumption from DECC (June 2012)

Energy Trends; CCC estimate of gCO

2

/KWh of generation


-8%

-8%

0.06

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


16; DECC (2011) Estimates of home insulation levels in Great Britain; CCC calculations

BUILDINGS

Uptake of cavity wall insulation (million homes, total additional installations compared to 2007 levels)

Budget 1

3.9

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)

Every house offered wholehouse energy audit

New energy efficiency financing mechanism budgeted and legislation in place

4.9

3%

16%

2011

Budget 2

8.1

9.3

18%

40% by 2017

Budget 3

8.1

12.6

45%

58%

Post CERT delivery framework legislation in place

Accelerate the introduction of minimum standards for privately rented residential properties

Introduce additional financial incentives (e.g. stamp duty rebates)

2011 by 2012 by 2016

2011 trajectory

2.4

4.0

1.8%

12.6%

2011 outturn

2.1

4.9

0.9% (2010 figure)

12.1% (2010 figure)

Narrative


Source

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.


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%)

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.

DEFRA (2011) Market

Transformation Programme (ad hoc enquiry)

DEFRA (2011) Market

Transformation Programme (ad hoc enquiry)

Audits will be carried out for homes taking up the

Green Deal. n/a

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

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

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

BUILDINGS

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)

Real electricity prices (change on 2010 levels)

Real gas prices (change on

2010 levels)

Appliance ownership

Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory 2011 outturn Narrative


Source

53.1 (2009)

62.3m (Total mid 2010)

26.9m (Total 2011)

-1%

-0.9%

+20%

2%

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

No data available

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


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

BUILDINGS

Budget 1 Budget 2

Weather

Non-residential buildings


CO₂ emissions

(indicative direct minimum % change on

2007)* indirect**

6% 2%

-9% -22%



2007) nonelectricity electricity

(autogen included)

-4%

-1% electricity

(centrally produced)**


-1%

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 October

2010

-8%

-1%

-1%

By 2016

Budget 3

-3%

-51%

-13%

-1%

-1%


1815 Heating Degree

Days (down 27%);

Average daily temperature 11°C (up

20%)


Narrative

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.

Source

DECC (2012) Weather statistics

6%

-6%

-4%

-1%

-1%

In place

n/a for 2010

In place

-13%

-14%

-12%

-2%

-2%

Green Deal will apply to

SMEs but not finalised yet.

Energy Act proposes introduction by 2018.

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.

Electricity and non-electricity consumption indicators are on track.

NAEI (2012); DECC (March 2011)


Calculated from electricity consumption from DECC ( June

2012) Energy Trends; CCC estimate of gCO

2

/KWh of generation








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

BUILDINGS

· All non-residential buildings to have an EPC

· All non-residential buildings to have a minimum

EPC rating of F or higher

Budget 1

· Roll out of DECs to nonpublic buildings

All public buildings covered by CRC to realise all cost effective emissions change potential

Other drivers

Emissions and fuel consumption by subsector

GVA (change on 2010 levels)

Budget 2 by 2017 by 2017

Budget 3 by 2020 by 2018


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

Narrative

n/a for 2010 On-going


Source

DCLG/DECC

DCLG/DECC

DCLG/DECC

The Government should retain the CRC

Energy Efficiency scheme and strengthen reputational incentives.

DECC n/a

1%

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. n/a

ONS (2012) UK National accounts

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


1%

-3%

10%

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 (2012) Economic Review


Table 3.4.2


Table 3.4.2

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

1%

1%

Budget 2

5%

4% from April

2011

Other drivers

Uptake and costs of renewable heat technologies

Biomass Boilers

Solar thermal

Heat pumps

District Heating

Budget 3

12% in 2020

11% in 2020

from April

2011

2011 trajectory

<1%

<1%

2011 outturn

0.6%*****

1.3%*****

Scheme launched in

2011 for the nonresidential sector.

Not available

Not available

Not available

Not available urgency.


Narrative

The increase in renewable heat penetration needed by 2020 will be very challenging to achieve, in particular in the residential sector.

The Government should extend the RHI to the residential sector as a matter of

Source

DECC

DECC

DECC

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 figures in this section of this table do not include renewable heat, which is considered separately below.

** 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



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. CO

2 emissions fell by 6% (to 151 MtCO

2

), and non- CO

2 emissions fell by 2% (to 35 MtCO

2 e). Within CO

2 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


CO₂ emissions


2007) direct

Budget 1

-14%

Indirect* -12%

Budget 2

-9%

-35%

Budget 3

-7%

-66%

2011 trajectory

13%

-11%

2011

outturn

-21%

-20%

Narrative Source

In 2011 emissions were below our indicator trajectories.

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.

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 gCO

2

/KWh of generation

INDUSTRY



2007)

Budget 1 nonelectricity

-19% electricity

(autogen included)

-16% electricity

(centrally produced)


Renewable heat

-6%

Buildings and industry renewable heat penetration (% of heat demand )**

1%

Budget 2

-20%

-11%

-19%

5%

Budget 3

-18%

-5%

-30%

12% in 2020

2011 trajectory

-18%

-16%

-7%

<1%

2011

outturn

-18%

-12%

-10%

0.6%***

Industry renewable heat penetration (% of heat demand)

Energy intensity (% change compared with 2007)

1%

-7%

Energy intensity for energy-intensive sectors

CCS

In light of outcome of CCS competition, set out an approach for industrial demonstrations compatible with deployment in the late

2020s

5%

-18%

Methodology under development

No later than 2013

13% in 2020

-24%

<1% 1.4%***

Reporting will commence in 2013

Reporting will commence in 2013

N/A for 2011


Narrative

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.

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.

Source

DECC (March 2011) Energy Trends

DECC (March 2011) Energy Trends;



DECC (March 2011) Energy Trends;



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

DECC

INDUSTRY

Publish industry strategy including detail and milestones for meeting carbon budgets, incentives and mechanisms for overcoming barriers

Other drivers


No later than 2013

Emissions and fuel consumption by subsector

Output manufacturing (change on 2010 levels)

Electricity

Real fuel prices for the industrial sector including CCL(change on 2010 levels)

Gas

Coal


N/A for 2011

Not available

2%

-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).


Key

2011

outturn

Narrative


Source

Detailed data for 2011 is not available until the publication of DUKES in July

2011.

GVA is a measure of output of the economy. Other things being equal, increased output would lead to higher energy consumption and emissions.

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.

Not available

ONS (2012) Economic and Labour

Market Review

DECC (2011) Quarterly Energy Prices

– table 3.3.2


– table 3.3.2


– table 3.3.2

6. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN ROAD TRANSPORT


The key conclusions from the CCC’s fourth progress report to Parliament were:



Domestic transport CO

2

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 2011 7 , 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 MtCO

2

.



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 CO

2

intensity of new cars fell from 144.2 gCO

2

/km in 2010 to 138.1 gCO

2

/km in 2011 (a 4.2% reduction), and are on track to meet our indicator of 95 gCO

2

/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 CO

2

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 CO

2

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.

7 Data for surface transport emissions in 2011 is not yet available

TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE 4 TH PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 2012) 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. o 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. o 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



Emissions (% change on 2007 8 )

Road

Transport

-9% -17% -26% -7% (2010)

Not available (2010: -

7%) gCO

2

/km (carbon intensity of a vehicle kilometre)

Car

Van

HGV

Car

-12%

4%

-4%

158

-22%

4%

-13%

136

-34%

-1%

-17%

113

-9% (2010)

+3% (2010)

-3% (2010)

164 (2010)


9%)


5%)

Not available (2010:

-6%)


168)

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 gCO

2

/km in 2009 to 167.8 gCO

2

/km in

2010. However, this is above our indicator for 2010.

NAEI (2012)

NAEI (2012)

NAEI (2012)

NAEI (2012)

CCC analysis

8 2007 emission estimates are outturn values

ROAD TRANSPORT


Vehicle technology

Van

HGV

Vehicle kilometres with impact of

Smarter Choices

(billion vehicle-km)

Car

New car gCO

2

/km Car

Budget 1

216

Budget 2 Budget 3 2011 trajectory

192 164 229 (2010)

761

412

146

678

419

116

627

431

773 (2010)

409 (2010)

95 (by 2020) 150.5



Source


219)


837)

402 (2010)

Average van fleet efficiency improved from 220.2 g CO

2

/km in 2009 to 219.2 g CO

2

/km in

2010 and was below our indicator.

There was a deterioration in

HGV fleet efficiency, from

757.6 g CO

2

/km in 2009 to

836.9 g CO

2

/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 4 th progress report).

CCC analysis

CCC analysis

DfT (2012), Transport Statistics

Great Britain 2011; CCC modelling

138.1

CO

2 intensity of new cars fell from 144.2 g CO

2

/km in 2010 to 138.1 gCO

2

/km in 2011, ahead of our trajectory value of 150.5 gCO

2

/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 gCO

2.

SMMT (2012), New Car CO

2

Report

2012


New electric cars registered each year (value at end of budget period)

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

Demand side measures

12,000

24,000

4.5%

2011/12

240,000

650,000

(240,000 delivered through pilot projects in

2015)

2.7 million 12,518

7.7%

600,000

10.0%

8,127

4.0%

n/a for 2011

Proportion of drivers exceeding

70mph* 0%* 0%* n/a

2011 outturn

1,082 (1,098 including 16 quadricycles)

1,312 (2,231 including 919 quadricycles)

3.5%

n/a for 2011 n/a (2010: 48%)

Narrative


Source

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

There was a decrease in the penetration of biofuels in the fuel mix from 3.6% in 2009 to

3.5% in 2010.

Review underway

HMRC (February 2012),

Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Bulletin n/a

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.

Government proposals to

Increase the speed limit on motorways to 80mph could result in emissions of up to 3.5

MtCO

2

higher (in 2020) than restricting speeds to the current limit.

DfT (2011), Speeds Statistics 2010

ROAD TRANSPORT

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


2.8 million 4.5 million 884,500

DfT announced creation of £560 million Local

Sustainable

Transport Fund which could support smarter choice projects n/a

2011 outturn

23,055

Narrative


Source

Reduced take up of training could be expected to increase emissions.

There has been only the most limited progress on eco-driving training.

Energy Saving Trust (ad hoc query)

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

Smarter Choices – phased roll out to towns

Starts in 2010 Complete See above n/a See above See above

Development of integrated planning and transport strategy

2011

Other drivers

New car sales that are best in class

n/a for 2011

New National

Planning Policy

Framework published in March

2012

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.

DCLG (2012); CCC analysis

38.0%

A greater proportion would be expected to reduce emissions.

Monitored to evaluate consumer behaviour change.

Up from 36.7% in 2010.

SMMT (ad hoc query)

ROAD TRANSPORT

Proportion of small/medium/large cars

New van CO

2

(gCO

2

/km)

New car CO

2

in Europe (gCO

2

/km)

New HGV CO

2

(gCO

2

/km)

Fuel pump prices


2011 outturn

38.5% (small)

38.4% (medium)

23.2% (large)

195.0

135.7

Data not available

133.27 p/l (petrol)

138.72 p/l (diesel)

Narrative


Source

A greater proportion would be expected to reduce emissions.


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.


Share of large cars increased from 21.2% in 2010.

CO

2 intensity of new vans fell from 196 gCO

2

/km in 2010 to

195 gCO

2

/km in 2011 (a 0.5% reduction). Greater reductions are expected in the near future following recently agreed EU target for CO

2

intensity.

However additional fiscal measures may be necessary.

3.3% lower than 2010 CO

2 intensity of new cars of 140.3 gCO

2

/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.

SMMT (ad hoc query)

DfT (ad hoc query)

European Environment Agency n/a


Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Bulletin

ROAD TRANSPORT

Fuel duty

Van km (billion vkm)**

HGV km (billion vkm)**

Surface transport modal split


Cost of car travel vs. cost public transport

2011 outturn

57.95p/l

70.9

27.5 n/a (2010: Buses & coaches 5.8%, Cars vans & taxis 84.6%,

Motor cycles 0.6%,

Pedal cycles 0.6%, rail 8.3%)

See narrative

Narrative


Source

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.


Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Bulletin

DfT (2012) Transport Statistics Great

Britain 2011


Britain 2011


Britain 2011


Britain 2011


Funding allocated to and population covered by Smarter Choices

Proportion of new retail floorspace in town centre/edge of centre locations

2011 outturn

See narrative

Data not available

Narrative


Source

£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.

DfT n/a

As above n/a

Proportion of new dwellings in settlements > 100,000 (% within boundary, on edge)

Ratio of parking spaces to new dwellings on annual basis

Data not available

Data not available As above n/a

Number of EV car models on market

Developments in battery and hydrogen fuel cell technology

Battery costs

Car ownership per household

7 (as of June 2011) insufficient data insufficient data n/a (2010: 1.16)

Successful conclusion of EU work on Indirect Land Use Change/ development of accounting system for ILUC and sustainability

EU work is ongoing

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.

To be reviewed

SMMT (ad hoc query)

To be reviewed

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. n/a

DfT National Travel Survey n/a




Source

Agreement of modalities for reaching an EU target of 95 gCO₂/km target and strong enough penalties to deliver target

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


Key

7. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN AGRICULTURE


The key conclusions from the CCC’s 2012 progress report to Parliament were:



Agricultural emissions increased by around 1% in 2010 9 , 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.

9 Detailed non-CO

2

emissions data for 2011 not available

AGRICULTURE Budget 1 Budget 2


Emissions (indicative % change from 2007 reflecting LCTP ambition scaled to UK)

CO

2 e emissions (% change in tCO

2

against

2007)

-3% -6%

Budget 3

-9%

GHG emissions (% change in tCO

2 e against 2007)

N

2

O -1%

CH

4

-6%

Source emissions (% change in tCO

2 e against 2007)

CO

2

*

Soils

Enteric fermentation

Animal waste n/a

-2%

-5%

-7%

-3%

-12% n/a

-3%

-10%

-13%

-4%

-18% n/a

-5%

-15%

-20%



Narrative Source

-1.9%

-0.8%

-3.5% n/a

-0.9%

-3.0%

-3.9%

-1.9%

-0.9%

-3.4% n/a

-1.2%

-4.0%

-5.3%

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, CH

4 emissions reduction has largely been driven by falling production and production efficiency gains. On track to meet first budget.

These reflect respective trends for N

2

O and CH above.

4

described

DECC (2012) 2010

UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures

DECC (2012) 2010


DECC (2011) 2009


DECC (2012) 2010


DECC (2012) 2010


DECC (2012) 2010


AGRICULTURE Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2010 trajectory 2010 outturn


Narrative

Machinery/fuels* n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Drivers (indicative % change from 2007 level) tN

2

O emissions per thousand hectares of arable and managed pasture tCH

4

emissions per tonne of cattle and calf meat, dressed carcase weight tCH

4

emissions per thousand litres of milk tCH

4

emissions per tonne of sheep and lamb meat, dressed carcase weight tCH

4 emissions per tonne of pig meat, dressed carcase weight

2007 = 2.18

2007 = 9.10

2007 = 0.42

2007 = 10.67

2007 = 1.12

2.15

8.63

0.40

10.05

1.06

2,11

8.15

0.38

9.43

1.00

2.08

7.68

0.36

8.81

0.94

2.16

8.82

0.41

10.30

1.08

2.17

9.01

0.42

9.78

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. tCH

4

emissions per tonne of poultry, dressed carcase weight


2007 = 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.18

Intensity unchanged since

2007.

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 timing, separating slurry and mineral N, using composts, and making full allowance for manure N

% of hectares where measures are in place

Better evidence about current farming practice is required to develop full trajectories.

Livestock management - including breeding for fertility and productivity

% of livestock of different production/fe rtility efficiency


Improvements to the inventory expected in 2015. Will also draw on ongoing work by

EBLEX, BPEX and others.

Manure management

% of manure/slurry stored in covered tanks or lagoons


Source

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.

AGRICULTURE Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2010 trajectory 2010 outturn

Anaerobic Digestion 10

Installed AD capacity using manures

(MW)***

31 68 102 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


Narrative

Need to collect data on an annual basis.

Source

The Farm Practices

Survey (Defra) but not collected on an annual basis.

Soil management

(reduced tillage/drainage), nitrification inhibitors, and using more Nefficient plants (species introduction and improved N-use plants)

Livestock management

(including maize silage and dietary additives in form of propionate precursors or ionophores)

Policy milestones

% of hectares where measures are in place

% of livestock consuming different diets and feed additives

Not suitable for all hectares.

Requires development of evidence base to resolve possible conflicts with other goals and to determine applicability, GHG benefits and costs under different conditions.

Not suitable for all animals/farms.

We will monitor the development of the evidence base around these measures, including applicability, net GHG benefits and resolution of possible conflicts with other sector goals.

We will return to this indicator in 2013.


Phase 1 of Industry Action Plan completed

April 2012 n/a April 2012

Plan will be delivered in three phases under a voluntary approach based on information provision and encouragement.

Industry Action Plan

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

End 2012

End 2012

2013

Pilot information hub completed

2012 report due end

2012

Hub intended to be the main source of approved guidance and information for farmers and advisors to access.

Review should examine full range of policy options for incentivising emissions reductions.

Industry Action Plan

Defra

10

Projection based on analysis contained in 2 nd CCC MACC produced by Scottish Agricultural College (2010).

AGRICULTURE

On-going monitoring of voluntary approach:

 Evaluate triggers

 Decide if new policies are required


2013-2014

2014-15)

Budget 3 2010 trajectory 2010 outturn n/a


Narrative

Policy review should widen the scope to consider this.

Development of smart inventory

Set milestone for delivery

2014 (first phase) Projects underway

Project to better understand and measure how biological systems and different farming practices impact on emissions.

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

Livestock:

Weight of carcase produced per day of age

Calves produced per cow per year

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.

* CO

2

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






Source

Defra

Defra

AUK

AUK

DECC; British Survey of Fertiliser Practice

AUK, British Survey of Fertiliser Practice

EBLEX

EBLEX

Defra

EU/Defra

Key

LAND USE, LAND USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY

Headline Indicators

CO

2

sequestered


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


Indicator

1 MtCO

2 e per year by 2030

Narrative

Based on a 15 year UK woodland creation programme of an additional 10,000 hectares per year. at least 21,000 hectares/year from 2015

This indicator will track annual

UK planting rates.

Source

Forestry Commission’s

Read Report (2009)

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

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.

WASTE


Budget 1

Emissions (indicative % change from 2007)

Budget 2 Budget 3 2010 trajectory

CO

2 e emissions (% change in

MtCO

2 e against 2007)

GHG and source emissions % change in

MtCO

2 e against

2007)

Landfill – CH

4

*

-9%

-10% to -15%

-22% to -33%

-25% to -37%

-32% to -50%

-36% to -56% n/a n/a

Wastewater treatment –

N

2

O*

-5% -2% +2% n/a

2010 outturn

-9%

-10%

-2%


Drivers

Incineration –

CO

2

*

No more than 25%

Biodegradable waste sent to landfill (indicative

% change from

2007 levels)

2007 = 29

Million tonnes (Mt)

-30%

(20 Mt)

-38% to -84%

(18 to 5 Mt)

-39% to -97%

(17 to 1 Mt) n/a n/a

+18%

-19%

(23 Mt)

Percentage of methane captured at landfill sites

2007 =

75%**

Policy milestones

Develop National Waste

Prevention Programme

75% 75%

End 2013

75% 75%

Narrative


Source n/a

Evidence to support waste prevention measures currently being developed

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.

N

2

O emissions arising from the treatment of wastewater are driven by population and protein consumption.

Increase in CO

2

emissions due to an increase in the amount of nonbiodegradable waste (e.g. plastics) that is incinerated (thereby releasing

CO

2

).

DECC (2012) 2010 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures




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).

The assumed rate of methane capture has increased from 15% in

1990 to 75% in 2007 and is expected to remain broadly constant.

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 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

WASTE

Agree responsibility deals with sectors specified in Waste Review

(waste management, paper, packaging, hospitality, textiles,

Courtauld 2 successor)

Explore scope to strengthen incentives through the waste chain

Launch consultation on wood landfill restriction

Budget 1

Different timetables for various sectors; ongoing work to 2015

Autumn 2012

Budget 2

Publish findings during Budget

2

Review case for material-specific landfill restrictions (e.g. on textiles or paper/card)

2012/2013 Parliament session


Ongoing discussions with various sectors


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 funding for reward and recognition trial schemes by local authorities

Review should examine full range of options for incentivising waste reduction and diversion from landfill.

Discussions underway with potential for consultation in Autumn

2012

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

Defra is reviewing the case for banning/restricting biodegradable wastes from landfill, starting with textiles.

WASTE

Develop specific food and paper/card waste strategy

Other drivers


2010 outturn

Improve estimates of methane captured and explore opportunities for capturing more methane from landfill

Ongoing

Total waste arisings: total waste generated (Mt) broken down by source (municipal and commercial/industrial sectors) and type.

End 2013

Pilot landfill study completed March

2012; scoping of wider survey underway n/a

Narrative


Source

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

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

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)

WASTE Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 2010 trajectory

2010 outturn

Narrative


Source

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.

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.

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

)

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.

The evidence base was recently improved and other projects are underway (as part of the Waste

Review) to further this.

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.


Key

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 CO

2

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 estimates 11 . 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


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 factors 12 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.

2012 Progress Report to Parliament

PROGRESS AGAINST THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK

THE COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

JULY 2012

PROGRESS AGAINST THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK

1.

THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING CARBON BUDGETS

2. PROGRESS ACROSS THE ECONOMY

3. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN THE POWER SECTOR

4. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN BUILDINGS

5. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN INDUSTRY

6. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN ROAD TRANSPORT

7. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN AGRICULTURE

8. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN WASTE

9. TEMPERATURE ADJUSTING EMISSIONS AND ENERGY DATA

Related documents

Products

Support

2012 Progress Report to Parliament

PROGRESS AGAINST THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK

THE COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

JULY 2012

PROGRESS AGAINST THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK

1.

THE CCC’S INDICATOR FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING CARBON BUDGETS

2. PROGRESS ACROSS THE ECONOMY

3. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN THE POWER SECTOR

4. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN BUILDINGS

5. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN INDUSTRY

6. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN ROAD TRANSPORT

7. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN AGRICULTURE

8. PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS IN WASTE

9. TEMPERATURE ADJUSTING EMISSIONS AND ENERGY DATA

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib