National Strategy to Combat Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone - Consultation Paper

Summary of responses to the consultation, August - November 2002

INTRODUCTION

1. The Department issued a consultation paper in August 2002 setting out the UK Government and Devolved Administrations' plan to limit the emissions of four transboundary air pollutants which cause acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone: sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds and ammonia.
2. The key components to the strategy are the European Commission National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD) and UN/ECE Gothenburg Protocol, which set national emission ceilings of these pollutants for all signatories, to be achieved by 2010. The Gothenburg Protocol also sets limit values for certain sources of those pollutants. The UK expects to meet the emission ceilings and the majority of limit values through existing or agreed measures.
3. The consultation paper attracted a good response with a number of detailed submissions. In all some 24 responses were received. This paper summarises the responses.

GENERAL POINTS

4. The strategy was welcomed by a number of respondents, some of whom expressed their desire to work closely with the Government on implementation.
5. The need for a clear policy framework was emphasised in several responses. Of particular concern was the relationship between the NECD and other European Directives, notably Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) and the revised Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD). The importance of a strategic approach was highlighted. For example the Joint Nature Conservation Committee:

   'The government needs to make clearer the relationship between the NECD and the many other Directives and Regulations it is consulting on at present'

   and Scottish Power Generation Ltd, who emphasised that

   'Fundamental in this discussion is the interplay between the implementation of the NECD and the parallel LCPD and IPPC measures'.

   Various related issues, including the impact of derogations on meeting NECD ceilings, were raised.

6. Several respondents commented on the need for a strategic approach to the implementation of the various Directives. For example TXU Energy:

'It is critical to an efficient regulatory system that [LCPD, NECD and IPPC] are managed in a coherent way'.

• Defra is involved in an ongoing process to clarify the relationship between the NECD, LCPD and IPPC. This process includes other government departments, and stakeholders.

THE CEILINGS

Sulphur Dioxide (SO₂)

7. Several stakeholders were concerned that the UK would face difficulty in meeting the ceiling for SO₂. There was concern that current and planned measures may not be sufficient to meet the ceilings. For example UKPIA anticipated

   'difficulties and considerable costs'

   in meeting the ceiling. It was pointed out that uncertainties associated with SO₂ projections could result in the UK missing the ceiling.

8. There was additional concern with regard to the projection, contained in the paper, that additional measures would be required to meet the SO₂ ceiling if a National Plan is used to implement the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD). Powergen was of the view that

   'the failure of the National Plan approach to deliver NECD and (Gothenburg Protocol) compliance is a serious issue... Government and Plant Operators need to know exactly what measures are required before they can sensibly exercise the options in the LCPD'.

   Some respondents were of the view that the UK should utilise Emission Limit Values in implementing the LCPD, as this approach offers greater certainty.

9. This concern was related to the fact that the projections used in the paper are based on DTI Energy Paper 68 (EP68). A number of respondents were of the view that this document is an inappropriate basis for such projections, as it underestimates the likely level of future coal burn and therefore of sulphur emissions. For example UKPIA

   '[Our concern] is that it appears that the UK will have difficulty meeting the ceiling for SO₂, especially if the economics of electricity generation favour higher coal burn than has been assumed'

   Some respondents were of the view that this resulted in the costs of meeting the SO2 ceiling being underestimated in the REIA:

'... use of EP68 as the "business as usual" case has allowed the abatement costs associated with getting to the EP68 position to be excluded and so the total costs remain significantly understated'.

10. Various other points were raised regarding SO₂, including:
    • Lack of availability and breakdown of flue gas desulphurisation equipment may affect the UK's ability to meet the ceiling;
    • The ELV implementation option for LCPD may not deliver the ceiling, and could be of higher cost to the power generation industry; and
    • A number of technical points.

Oxides of nitrogen (NO_x)

11. All respondents were content that existing and proposed policy measures would deliver the NO_x ceiling. One respondent highlighted the importance of ensuring that the costs of NO_x reductions were spread across all relevant sectors.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

12. All respondents were content that existing and proposed policy measures would deliver the VOC ceiling. However the point was raised that the definition of VOCs in the NECD is narrower than that used in the UK's historic and current emission inventories. It was also suggested that further research should be carried out to identify which VOCs are most prominent in causing environmental damage.

Ammonia

13. A number of stakeholders were concerned that the UK would have difficulty in meeting the ammonia ceiling. For example the Environment Agency:

    '...the Agency considers there is high uncertainty for achieving the ceiling for ammonia'

    and the National Farmers Union:

    'the scope for extra reductions to be required if future estimates of emission levels turn out to be higher than the median figure assumed is clearly significant'.

    There was widespread concern among stakeholders that additional measures would be required to meet the ceiling and that there is uncertainty regarding current emission levels.

14. One respondent pointed out that other Directives would affect ammonia emissions e.g. revisions to the Laying Hens Directive.
• Defra is currently refining the emission inventories and projections for ammonia. Until this work is complete it is inappropriate to propose further action to reduce ammonia emissions.
15. The point was raised that the UK should adopt an 'effects-based' approach to implementation, in particular with regard to ammonia. For example the Joint Nature Conservation Committee:

    '...the focus of emission reductions needs to be related to maximum improvements in ecosystem protection'

    and the National Farmers Union:

'...local or regional problems are best addressed by a local or regional approach'.

• Defra will bear this point in mind when considering any further action which may be required to reach the ceilings.

EMISSION LIMIT VALUES

16. The consultation paper sought comments on a proposal to issue Directions enforcing the Gothenburg Protocol limit values for:
• NO_x emissions from lean burn gas engines; and
• VOC emissions from vapour recovery units.
17. The proposal to enforce the Gothenburg Protocol limit value for emissions from lean burn gas engines attracted considerable concern from a number of respondents. It was pointed out that enforcement of the emission limit value would result in disproportionate costs for operators of such engines. For example the Environment Agency was of the view that there

'... may be significant costs for the operators of lean-burn spark engines at landfills... landfill gas engines would have to incur significant expenditure in post combustion clean-up for NO_x'.

18. The point was made that reducing NO_x emissions to the level stipulated in the Protocol would result in lower efficiency and hence increased CO2 emissions, which would go against the principles of the Kyoto Protocol.
19. A number of respondents were of the view that imposition of the limit value would render such engines uneconomic. For example the Combined Heat and Power Association:

    '... the limit value... is likely to have a deterrent effect on future applications of such engines'

    and Euromot:

'Highly efficient CHP (Combined Heat & Power production installations) will become less economically attractive due to increased engine operating cost and added cost of aftertreatment systems'.

20. It was pointed out that the threshold for engines required to meet the limit value is very low, at 1MW; and that gas turbines are granted a variation in their NO_x emissions as a reward for operating as a CHP plant, while gas engines are not.
21. It was suggested that the limit values should be amended in order to avoid adversely affecting the growth of gas-engine CHP in the UK.
• Defra is currently exploring ways of meeting the Gothenburg Protocol's stipulations without having a disproportionate effect on landfill gas/biogas engines, and rendering them uneconomic.
22. Regarding the proposed limit value for emissions of VOCs from vapour recovery units, the UK Petroleum Industry Association took the view that:

'[the limit value] should not be applied unless it is the most cost-effective way to reduce VOC emissions'.

• Defra is currently exploring the most cost-effective methods for meeting the requirements of the Protocol.

NATIONAL EMISSION CEILINGS REGULATIONS

23. No respondents questioned the wording of the Regulations. Confirmation was sought that Gibraltar's economic activities would not make disproportionate inroads into the ceilings available to emitters in the rest of the UK.
• Gibraltar's emissions are included in national emission inventories, and were incorporated in the analysis which informed the UK's agreement of the ceilings. Defra can confirm that Gibraltar's economic activities do not make disproportionate inroads in to the ceilings.
• Regulations transposing the NECD have been passed and entered into force on 10/01/03 (Statutory Instrument No. 2002/3118).

REIA FOR THE NATIONAL EMISSION CEILINGS DIRECTIVE

24. Some respondents were concerned that the REIA does not show that monetised benefits clearly outweigh the costs of implementation. For example Scottish Power Generation Ltd:

'The REIA has not... demonstrated a clear potential cost benefit'.

25. A related point was raised by Bro Taf Health Authority, who were of the view that:

'... the short term and long term costs of not meeting the obligations far outweigh the costs of meeting them... it is disappointing that... no monetary values have been given [for health effects]'.

• The valuation methods used by the Commission in an analysis of the costs and benefits of the Directive for the EU as a whole are not accepted by the UK Department of Health. Therefore health and environmental benefits have not been monetised.

REIA FOR THE GOTHENBURG PROTOCOL

26. All respondents commenting on the REIA were content.