STATEMENT EUROHEAT & POWER ON DRAFT LCP BREF

January2014 The current process establishing Large Combustion Plant Best available technology REFerence Document (LCP BREF) is more than technical work. Its conclusions will have far-reaching implications for the whole energy sector across Europe and will set the conditions for the delivery of permits for installations above 50 MW. On the heat market, the increasing costs to implement emission limit values (ELV) foreseen in the first draft have the potential to gravely damage the competitiveness of District heating. This will lead to a situation where customers switch to cheaper unregulated alternatives, which will not only increase the overall emissions of pollutants, but do so in emission points close to the ground, causing a severe deterioration of urban air quality. The first draft does not reflect the important principle of cost-effectiveness that should be central in this process i.e. cost-benefit analysis of tightening emission limits, and inventory of alternative ways to reach the same goal with other measures. The first draft does not reflect at this stage the complexity and diversity of the energy sector - range of capacities and technology types. And there is the need to do further work on the current draft and consult stakeholders before adoption of a final document. No decision can be taken in a rush on such a crucial dossier.

Need for comprehensive approach Consistency with the principles set out in Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions (IED) should be sought in drafting ELVs. In particular, a more balanced approach would enable to focus not only on consumptions of energy and water but also to account for the use of other entrants (chemicals). More specifically, cross-media effects between emissions (air, water, residues) have to be considered when stipulating BAT associated emission levels for one medium. The same applies to technical interdependencies e.g. between carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides emissions as well as ammonia emissions from DENOX and the reduction of nitrogen oxides emission. Link between IED and LCP BREF The EIPPCB should clarify the link between BREF and current values set out in the Directive. This Directive will require installations to meet new emission limits values by 2016. The implementation is under way, and tenders concerning the construction of pollution control devices have started or will start in the next few months. Shortly after the implementation of the IED, the implementation of BREF by 2018/2019 will oblige operators to invest a second time into new technologies so that installations meet new ELV. The EIPPCB should clarify that existing installations, which will comply with new requirements set out in the IED, are exempted from implementing new emission limit values set out in BREF. There is urgency for clarification on this issue to avoid stranded assets, uncertainty and misguided investments. We propose that the BAT conclusions differentiate between: New installations / major refurbishment (when the process is modernized). In this case, specific combustion technologies, minimum energy efficiency performance should be required, along with new AEL and new pollutants when applying for a permit Installations where the process is not yet amortized, but the emission treatments already are. In this case, more stringent AEL / new pollutants should be required as long as they only involve a modernization of the emissions treatments
1

Installations where the emission treatments units are not yet amortized. In this case, ELV should not be lowered (i.e. stick to IED values for this present update and to the last BREF values for the future ones) and new pollutants might be added as far as the corresponding requirements can be met with the existing treatments.

Operating modes The current draft addresses all plants disregarding operating modes. All plants operating mid-merit, emergency and peak load plants as well as industrial plants with repetitive quick changes in steam demand are subject to the BREF on terms equal to those of base load plants of equal size and fuel. The requirements of BATC on such plants might cause investments disproportionate to the gain in air quality, due to their limited annual production. As written above, there is also a risk that such investments may lead to increasing prices of district heat to a level that induces loss of customers - or even of entire nets, which in turn means loss of previous gains in air quality and energy efficiency from CHP. Measuring requirements Last but not least, conclusions concerning measuring requirements should account of cost-effectiveness and account of past controlled impact on environment. For example it is not reasonable to monitor noise level three times a year if previous tests have proved compliance with existing rules, nor is the suggested frequency and extent of fuel analysis likely to improve the plants environmental performance compared to the suggestion made by Euroheat & Power in our comment posted on BAT 5. Derogation for peak installations To minimize negative impacts on their economy, the IED authorizes Member States to use derogations (articles 31 to 35 and derogation for peak installation running less than l 500 hours in annex V). The IED is unclear whether those derogations still apply or not, especially for peak boilers as the BREF is supposed to replace annex V. The following principles should apply : The installations which got derogation should have to meet the associated emission levels of the BREF into force at the end of their derogation deadline, provided that those requirements are published with sufficient notice (publication at least 3 years prior to the deadline?) The BREF should not apply at all to peak installations. They should keep the current parameters /ELV of the IED.