1. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Combining different data sources in GHG inventories Joost Huurman, Statistics Netherlands

2. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Content Experience in the Netherlands  Past  Present  Future Summary

3. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Past Starting in the 1990’s the Netherlands use two data sources for the GHG inventory: Annual Environmental Reports (AER) Submitted by 250 companies to regional authorities with a copy to Statistics Netherlands. Reports contain data on emissions and on fuel use. Sector energy balances (SEB) Published by Statistics Netherlands, energy department. Data used by the inventory experts on an aggregated level; there was no use of individual information on fuel consumption.

4. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Past Combining the data  Companies submitting an AER were allocated to industrial sub sector by the Emission Registration Office  Total fuel use as submitted in the AER was aggregated by sub sector and subsequently subtracted from sector energy balances (by fuel)  Resulting fuel use converted to emissions using default emission factors  Combination of calculated emissions and emissions submitted in the AER for determining total emissions

5. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Past 4 main problems:  Differences in company boundaries Energy statistics use statistical units, while AER are based on environmental permits. Environmental permits are regional while one statistical unit can have different locations (and one location can have several statistical units)  Differences in energy commodities Energy statistics use an exhaustive list of energy commodities based on international standards while (until 2005) AER use a non exhaustive list which is not always comparable.  How to split process from combustion emissions AER provide total emissions: process emissions not separable from fossil fuel related combustion emissions  Requirement on data (energy use) by permit, but jurisdictional situation complex Problems (i.e. lack of fuel data) with specific AER had to be solved by the regional authorities

6. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Past Most specific example: Large (chemical) industrial complex; combining almost all these problems:  Submission AER for all activities while company register lists dozens of statistical units located on the industrial site, acting in different industrial sub sectors (Petrochemical, Fertilizer, Chemical and Electricity and heat production)  No separate reports on process emissions  No energy data submitted in the AER for reason of confidentiality while acquiring details not possible by lack of jurisdiction Result: overestimation (double counting) of approx. 1,5 % of the national total (3,5 Mton). Clear example lack of transparency (data source): Justification for the Netherlands to change methodology for GHG inventory but also because of lack of consistency (population AER changed in time)

7. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Present Energy Statistics Surveys Supply side: Full survey (approx. 300 companies) Consumption side: Sample survey (approx. 2000 companies) Working process Integration by Statistics Netherlands All fuel is accounted for (no statistical difference) Data Storage Individual energy data in ASCII, when made available for emission calculation transferred to SQL-database

8. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Present To avoid double counting and to improve transparency/consistency the Netherlands decided on following actions  One “backbone” The company register of Statistics Netherlands is “leading”. Efforts to match the statistical units with the environmental permits.  One list of energy commodities A national fuel list to be used for the AER drafted in close consultation with energy department of Statistics Netherlands. List not exactly the same as used by the EU ETS

9. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Present Actions (cont.)  Computerization of the calculations Securing transparency and reproducibility. Also changes in energy statistics are easier to cope with for recalculations  Only if possible use EF from AER Rules drafted for using emission factors from AER (or other sources) instead of the defaults from the national fuel list  Feedback to energy statistics In compiling process comparison of energy data from AER and energy statistics. When AER data of a higher quality and company boundaries clear, energy statistics are revised

10. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 In diagram form Energy Statistics Fuel list (SN) Company register AER Fuel data EF & SF GHG Inventory AER National Fuel list Env. Permits

11. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Future  Starting April 2006 EU-ETS Emission Reports submitted to NEa (Netherlands’ Emission Authority)  Reports will contain same kind of information as AER  Expected problems for the data use are comparable to those for AER data  Data exchange legally possible but arrangements need to be agreed. Consultation with NEa in progress

12. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Benefits for energy statistics  Energy statisticians have another data source and look at their statistics from another point of view  Energy statistics gain importance: energy data basis for NAP: Industry Associations stimulate their members to improve the quality of their submissions to Statistics Netherlands

13. Copenhagen, 9 february 2006 Summary –The Netherlands used AER as a primary data source and combined this with the energy balance. –This changed to using the energy balance as a primary source and the AER as a check (comparing energy quantities) and as a source for secondary information like Emission Factors and Storage Factors. –In the future ETS emission reports an additional (secondary) data source Important issues  Possibility to revise energy statistics  Every opportunity to enhance uniformity should be used  The use of data of superior quality (e.g. ETS data) does not necessarily improve the national GHG inventory. The data has to fit in.