1. 1 Rapport of Session 1 & 2 Some issues Manfred Ritter

2. 2 Session 1 Presentations from France, Denmark, Ireland France an extensive reporting system –Still a lot of work to sort out the methodological differences between ETS and inventory (scope, fuel allocation, estimation method, reporting) –ETS data used to improve inventory e.g. emission factor for decarbonisation (bricks and tiles) –Link between ETS energy data and inventory made in inventory process but not fed back into the energy statistics –100% bottom-up approach for centralised electricity production and oil refineries

3. 3 Session 1 Denmark GHG/ETS teams –Formal (but not legal) agreement on exchange between organisations –Companies warned that data would be used for inventory but confidentiality an issue for publication –ETS data helped to improve limestone use and waste incineration Ireland two EPA units –Information used both ways – from ETS to inventory (public electricity, oil refineries, limestone use) and from inventory to ETS (EF for HFO/RFO and gas oil) –Discussions with statistics units on feedback to energy statistics

4. 4 Session 2 Presentations by Netherlands, Sweden and Germany Netherlands statistic backbone –Data exchange legally allowed –ETS will be used as secondary source; new interest of operators to participate Sweden statistic / EPA team –Data from NAP survey used to improve inventory –Identified number of new sources (raw materials use) and some issues with activity data or emissions factor

5. 5 Session 2 Germany two departments – National energy balance could be improved using ET data but confidentiality a practical issue –Would have liked to take plant specific information and use statistics for rest. BUT no clear information on share of source category covered by ETS

6. 6 Issues discussed Bottom up vs. top down –100% coverage for refineries, cement plants, iron and steel (coke ovens) –Use ETS data directly to compile inventories for some categories e.g. refineries –Coverage difficult for many sectors e.g. cogeneration for public power producers/industry –ETS data can be used to differentiate between subcategories in inventories –Information has come already from NAP1 for some sources – this should/could already have been included

7. 7 Issues Institutional arrangement / method. issues –Have to work with (quite different) MS set-ups –ETS, energy balances and inventory should be consistent or differences understood –allowing inventory and energy statistics bodies access to ETS data –useful to require installations to report non-ETS emissions as a memo item to get all emissions –threshold or criteria to indicate where differences between ETS and inventory data need to be resolved

8. 8 Issues Confidentiality –Still a problem –All emissions data in the public domain –Underlying data public but companies could request confidentiality; final decision with competent authority –Some countries stronger presumption on confidentiality –Some ETS monitoring reports will be published on the web others available on request –EU recommendations on the issue would be helpful

9. 9 Issues Best use of ETS data discussed –process related activity data directly (limestone/soda) –‘other fuels’ data to improve energy balance (waste) –fuel data as input to energy statistics –EF and oxidation factors to improve national figures –ETS, energy balances and inventory should be consistent or differences understood –Check own inventory with NAP examples / experience from MS such as Sweden

10. 10 Issues Timelines (what could still be done) –base year / 2004 inventory (15 march 2006): Screening ETS (NAP) data for (gross) inconsistencies Update time-series if needed –2005 inventory (15 January 2007) Ensure consistency of ETS, energy statistic and GHG inventory Report on it in the NIR