1. l Click to edit Master text styles l Second level l Third level l Fourth level l Fifth level Combustion Installations Stakeholder Day on the EU-Monitoring and Reporting Guidelines Cologne, 12 May 2005 Dr Giuseppe MONTESANO Member, EURELECTRIC Climate Change Working Group Dr Giuseppe MONTESANO Member, EURELECTRIC Climate Change Working Group

2. l Click to edit Master text styles l Second level l Third level l Fourth level l Fifth level BACKGROUND l Principles of ANNEX IV of Directive 2003/87/EC include: –Use of standardised or accepted methods –Co-ordination with existing reporting requirements to minimise burden on business l EURELECTRIC considers that the Guidelines should be: –Consistent, accurate, verifiable, cost-effective

3. l Click to edit Master text styles l Second level l Third level l Fourth level l Fifth level EURELECTRIC CONCERNS l Economic / Cost effectiveness l Strategic l Technical

4. l Click to edit Master text styles l Second level l Third level l Fourth level l Fifth level ECONOMIC CONCERNS l Replacement of existing “accepted methods” –Some proposed tier levels are unrealistic and excessively costly –Well-established procedures exist for determination of fuel quantity and quality to serve commercial transaction requirements and revenue / taxation determinations l Requirement for EN/ISO 17025 accreditation –Measurement bodies and companies apply recognised standards –Procedures are in place to validate / audit reported data

5. l Click to edit Master text styles l Second level l Third level l Fourth level l Fifth level STRATEGIC CONCERNS l Impact on the extension of ET scheme to other activities / gases –Clear intent of Directive (Art. 24, 30) BUT –Are similar accuracy requirements for other activities / gases reasonable or achievable? »Activity data uncertainty »Emission factor uncertainty –If not does MRG act as a barrier to extension of ET scheme?

6. l Click to edit Master text styles l Second level l Third level l Fourth level l Fifth level TECHNICAL CONCERNS l Validity of Table 2 (metering uncertainty) data –Inability of current metering devices / methods to provide required uncertainty levels l Justification for EN/ISO 17025 requirement? –Evidence of failure of existing procedures? –Impact of limited number of laboratories on reporting –Timescale for accreditation of sufficient number of laboratories –Accuracy impacts for high moisture content fuels –Standard factors may be sometimes more accurate

7. l Click to edit Master text styles l Second level l Third level l Fourth level l Fifth level PROPOSALS (I) l Respect EU competitiveness requirements –Highest practicably achievable accuracy without excessive cost l Improve transparency: –Either specify in more detail the Tier requirements to reflect practical experience –Or give wider discretion to authorities to determine compliance with the general principles –Include a common definition for “batches” l Remove requirement for EN/ISO 17025 accreditation

8. l Click to edit Master text styles l Second level l Third level l Fourth level l Fifth level PROPOSALS (II) l Review assumed Tier uncertainty values to reflect current practical experience l Improve presentation by use of schematics (esp. Annex I) and practical worked examples l Include more comprehensive list of fuels in Table 4 (Annex I) l Subject Reporting Templates to a pilot verification exercise

9. l Click to edit Master text styles l Second level l Third level l Fourth level l Fifth level At the forefront of the electricity industry. www.eurelectric.org + 32 2 515 10 00 eurelectric@eurelectric.org