Environment Update January 2010
Grid expectations
Newly issued Government guidance will inform producers of biogas of the legal, technical and regulatory requirements of injecting biomethane into the national grid. The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has published a document entitled ‘Biomethane into the Gas network: A Guide for Producers’, in light of the Renewable Energy Strategy launched in July 2009, to explain the gas regulatory system.
Biogas is the term used to refer to a combustible gas created by anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic material, consisting of levels of methane and carbon dioxide and other traces of contaminants. Biodegradable wastes currently going to landfill, along with manures, slurries and sewage sludge fuel the production of biomethane, which with similar characteristics to natural gas, can be injected into the national gas network and used in existing gas appliances, provided that it meets quality requirements.
Therefore the main aim of the guidance is to make operators of AD plants and biogas producers aware of the various issues and practical points which apply to biomethane production for grid injection, setting out the following key information:
-
Technical information on the production of biomethane – explains that to convert biogas to biomethane, the main requirement is to remove the majority of carbon dioxide. It also looks at the difference between using biogas and bio-SNG to produce biomethane;
-
Efficiency of injecting biomethane into the grid – lists the main benefits. In particular, injection means more efficient use of the gas for connection purposes by transporting it through a gas pipeline system, compared to using gas for on-site electricity only applications;
-
Key players in the gas market – explains the different functions for the Government, regulators such as Ofgem and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as well as market participants such as producers, shippers and suppliers who require licenses under the Gas Act 1986, and whose activities are regulated by Ofgem; and
-
Connection to the gas grid – advises on the basic requirements for connection. These include the arrangements for physical connection (where information must be supplied to the DN such as the proposed location of the biomethane production facility), the licensing and contractual arrangements to be made with a licensed Gas Transporter (GT), and gas quality standards.
Finally, the Guidance also highlights that biomethane produced from the treatment of waste can only be injected into the gas network with the permission of the regional gas distribution network (DN), and it is the DN’s decision as to whether the gas would need to be cleaned and treated to an acceptable agreed standard. The regulatory implications of biomethane produced from waste are presently under consideration by the EA and SEPA.
The DECC guidance can be found at the following link:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/markets/gas_markets/nonconvention/nonconvention.aspx
Guide to groundwater
DEFRA is seeking views on the proposed guidance to the Groundwater (England & Wales) Regulations 2009. The Regulations came into force in 2009 and replace the Groundwater Regulations 1998, which implemented the 1980 Groundwater Directive (to be repealed by the Water Framework Directive with effect from 2013). The Regulations implement the key provisions of the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) and continue to implement the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC).
The consultation on the revised guidance is intended to replace the guidance issued in 1999 in respect of the Groundwater Regulations 1998. However, it is highlighted that the 2009 Regulations ensure that essential requirements of the 1980 Directive are retained during the change to the new regime under the WFD. Authorisations granted under the 1998 Groundwater Regulations remain valid and become permits under the 2009 Regulations. All new permits however will be granted pursuant to the 2006 Groundwater Directive and the new Groundwater Regulations.
The guidance gives a step by step assessment of the 2009 Regulations, and reflects the fact that the changes to the approach to groundwater control under the 2006 Directive are minor. The key changes are:
-
That a larger range of substances comes within control;
-
There are different exclusions and exemptions; and
-
That the approach is generally more risk based and less prescribed.
Focus is paid to the future transition to the amended Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) of which the Groundwater Regulations will form part of when the EPR are revised in 2010. Although the nature and impact of groundwater controls under EPR 2010 will not change in principle, one key effect will be that there will be a more clear-cut definition of exemptions from controls. Under the 1998 Regulations the terms ‘exclusion’ and ‘exemption’ are used interchangeably and generally relate to exclusions from control. However, under EPR 2010 only excluded activities are outside the EPR controls.
Upon implementation of the new regime, DEFRA proposes to issue updated guidance responding to the groundwater quality aspects of EPR 2010.
The DEFRA consultation on the draft Groundwater guidance may be accessed via the following link:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/groundwater/index.htm
Plans predict ecological sustainability for UK waters
UK environment agencies have published final river basin management plans (RBMP), which set out how ‘good ecological status’ is to be achieved in UK waters by 2015, or 2027 at the latest. The Environment Agency (EA) has published plans for ten river basin districts within England and Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has published two and three have been published by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA).
The publications demonstrate the UK’s commitment to implementing the key objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) in terms of measuring water quality in the UK for the protection of the environment. Under the Water Framework Directive, Member States were required to draw up a RBMP for each river basin district by 22 December 2009. So far, the UK is only one of eight Member States to have submitted their RBMP’s to the European Commission.
At present, the main causes of water pollution come from water run off from urban and rural land and discharge of waste water from sewage and industry overflows. The plans set out the pressures and risks facing UK waters as a result of such human activities and establish actions to fight these sources of pollution, in order to reach the EU standards on water quality. They advise how the target water status will be achieved for each river, lake, estuary, coastline and groundwater throughout the UK.
The plans have been developed with the input of water companies, farming groups, industry and NGO’s such as the Rivers Trusts and RSPB, who are also called upon to play their part in meeting the UK targets for good ecological status.
The plans published for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may be accessed at:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33106.aspx
http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx
http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/water/wfd/themes/riv_bsn_mngt_plng.htm
Carbon Neutral – beyond the greenwash
There are ever increasing claims by businesses that they are aiming to be carbon neutral by a future date or that their products are carbon neutral in order to demonstrate a commitment to tackle climate change, which is becoming an increasingly important factor in purchasing decisions, to engage employees on environmental issues and to promote products or services.
However, until recently there has been no definition of what was meant by “carbon neutral”. The Government felt that giving a formal definition to the term would: increase the potential effectiveness of the term and avoid public cynicism caused by inconsistent or misleading usage of the term; ensure a level playing field; and provide both the motivation and an indicator of action on greenhouse gas emissions.
On 30 September 2009, after a period of consultation, the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) published guidance on carbon neutrality. This includes the following definition:
“Carbon neutral means that – through a transparent process of calculating emissions, reducing those emissions and offsetting residual emissions – net carbon emissions equal zero.”
This requires three stages to be followed:
-
Calculating emissions: determining what emissions are to be calculated, the boundaries in terms of type of gases, organisational context and sources of emissions and then applying appropriate emissions factors. This must be done in an accurate, consistent and transparent manner.
-
Reducing emissions: assessing what internal emissions reductions can be made through steps such as energy efficiency and then determining how reductions will be calculated, verified and communicated.
-
Offsetting residual emissions: i.e. acquiring carbon credits to offset any residual emissions after calculating emissions and achieving internal reductions.
When making any statement about carbon neutrality the DECC’s view is that:
-
There should be clear information on the emissions measured, the reductions made and offsets purchased;
-
It should be linked to a particular and specified period of time; and
-
It should be reviewed annually.
The DECC have also stated that a carbon neutral claim which is based solely upon calculation of emissions and offsetting should not be made.
In addition to the DECC guidance, Defra has also issued a “Green Claims Code” which provides best practice in relation to promotional claims including: accuracy, truthfulness, using unambiguous terminology, presentation of claims and comparative claims. Due to the increasing amount of ‘green’ products placed on the market, the Green Claims Code is currently being updated.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/open/carbon_neutrality/carbon_neutrality.aspx
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2009/090218a.htm
Tough targets – CCAs to be more restrictive
The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has published specific proposals on the form and content of new climate change agreements (CCAs), following an earlier consultation in March 2009, looking generally at proposals for change to CCA’s. Although current CCA’s expire in March 2013, the scheme is now set to continue until 2017.
Due to significant changes to climate change policy in the UK since CCAs were introduced, the proposals aim to simplify CCAs in order to reduce administrative costs and increase the performance of the new CCAs in cutting carbon emissions. It is only possible for CCAs to be effective in helping to reduce carbon if they show consistency with the framework of climate change policy initiatives, such as the EU ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) 2005, the Climate Change Act 2009 and from 2010 the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC).
In order to ensure that these objectives are carried out, the proposals have tightened the existing measures which govern the target achievements of industry sectors:
-
Whereas the CCAs currently provide for 80% relief from the Climate Change Levy (CCL) for participants meeting energy efficiency targets, this will drop to 65%;
-
Between 2012 and 2015 relief on CCL will be dependent upon meeting calendar year targets rather than the current biennial targets;
-
Under the current scheme, installations who failed to meet their targets are deemed as having met them, if their overall sector has achieved them. The new CCAs will require all installations to achieve targets either through direct action or purchasing target allowances;
-
The proposals will close off the UK ETS and allow carbon trading only for the purpose of hedging failure. The UK ETS has been over-supplied with allowances and to carry them forward to the next scheme would undermine its environmental objectives. Therefore the DECC will cancel the remaining allowances and compliance will be achieved through purchase of EU ETS Allowances (EUAs) or Certified Emission Allowances (CEAs);
-
Allowances created by overachievement would be restricted against new targets over and above any obligations under the EU ETS. This is to prevent the occurrence of double benefits arising from targets partially covered by CCAs and EU ETS. These allowances could only be stored for future own use, subject to verification; and
-
There would be just one form of CCA and the Government would lower the current 90% energy eligibility threshold at which the whole site would qualify, to 70%.
Responses to this second consultation on the form and content of new CCAs are to be submitted by 15 February 2010, following which the DECC expects to publish its full response in the spring after further consultation with industry.
The DECC consultation may be viewed via the following link:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/cca_scd_cons/cca_scd_cons.aspx
SCIs - protection reinforced under ECJ Judgement
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has issued its judgement (Case C-226/08) on a matter referred to it for a preliminary ruling by Germany. The issue concerned Germany’s intention to include parts of the River Ems, within the local authority area of Stadt Papenburg, as a Site of Community Interest (SCI) within the meaning of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC).
Article 3(1) of the Habitats Directive requires Member States to set up a network of sites of special areas of conservation (SACs), known as Natura 2000, for the purpose of conserving the natural habitat types and habitat species which appear in Annex I and Annex II of the Directive.
Articles 4(1) and (2) direct Member States to use the assessment criteria set out in Annex III to propose a list of sites home to protected species, which are listed respectively in Annex I and II of the Habitats Directive. The criteria for identifying an SCI is based upon the objectives of conservation of the Annex I and II habitats and species. The agreed list of SCIs is then transmitted to the Commission for inclusion on their draft list of SCIs.
The case arose as a result of ongoing dredging operations which Stadt Papenburg permitted under German national law before the Habitats Directive was transposed into German law. The operations were carried out at a shipyard within the site identified on the draft list of SCI’s proposed by the Commission and set to be approved by Germany.
Following objections raised by Statd Papenburg, firstly that the agreement would amount to a breach of the administrative autonomy which it has under German national law, and secondly, that the proposal would hinder the vital activities of the shipyard, which depended upon the Ems remaining navigable for large seagoing ships, the case was referred to the ECJ. The local area authority feared that by including parts of the River Ems on the draft list of SCIs, all future dredging operations would have to undergo the assessment required by Article 6. Article 6 requires Member States to conduct an assessment of the implications in light of the site’s conservation objectives. Only imperative reasons of public interest would justify a project which carried negative implications from going ahead.
In looking first at whether Article 4(2) of the Habitats Directive permits a Member State to refuse to agree to the Commission’s draft list of SCI’s, on grounds other than nature conservation, the court observed that when agreeing to include a site as an SCI, Article 4(2) does not provide requirements other than those relating to conservation of natural habitats and species or to the setting up of Natura 2000, to be taken into account. It therefore must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to refuse to agree to an inclusion, on grounds other than environmental protection.
In respect of the dredging operations, it decided that they constituted a project likely to have significant impacts on the environment and which was not justified by any overriding public interests. The ongoing regularity of the dredging operations meant that they could be regarded as a single operation for the purposes of Article 6 of the Directive. It followed that the continuing of the operations on the site after its inclusion as an SCI on the draft list, would be subject to the requirements of the Habitats Directive.
The judgement in case C-226/08 can be found via the following link:
http://curia.europa.eu
The matters covered in this ebulletin are intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. They are not intended, and should not be used, as a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. Semple Fraser LLP will accept no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FIONA ROSS