ESWET response to draft revised MRV rules under the EU ETS

ESWET welcomes the European Commission’s proposal to revise the rules for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions (Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2066) following the recent revision of the EU ETS (Directive 2003/87/EC), incorporating new definitions and reporting requirements for renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) and recycled carbon fuels (RCFs), extending the EU ETS to additional sectors (e.g., buildings and transport), mandating compliance with sustainability criteria, introducing provisions for non-CO₂ aviation effects monitoring, emphasising improved data accuracy and reporting, and including provisions for CO₂ transport and storage monitoring, ensuring the integrity of stored CO₂. These changes are crucial for meeting the EU’s climate goals.

However, ESWET was surprised to see the inclusion in the draft act of a small provision affecting Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants. The concern lies in the fact that nowhere on the preambulatory clauses of the draft act does it mention that waste incineration is addressed with this piece of legislation, and also in the fact that just less than a year ago, Waste-to-Energy plants were specifically addressed in another dedicated revision of the Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) rules.

In light of this, we would like to reiterate some core messages that we shared with the European Commission in August 2023, as part of the consultation on the MRV revision to include emissions from the waste incineration sector.

1) The important thing to consider when it comes to monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) rules with regards to waste incineration, is that these have to be designed in such a way that truly corresponds to the sector, which has the unique feature of having a mixed feedstock. In general, monitoring and reporting of the CO₂ fossil fraction in heterogeneous waste is very complex and uncertain, and it can also be very expensive.

Unfortunately, the tiers and uncertainty levels foreseen for WtE plants in the revised MRV rules have been set on the same values as for conventional combustion plants. However, the values should differ for WtE plants, as their feedstock is highly heterogeneous.

2) On the other hand, fortunately and also logically, the MRV rules allow for flexibility to operators to apply either a calculation-based methodology or a measurement-based methodology to monitor the emissions of their plant (Article 21).

Each methodology has pros and cons: e.g., calculation-based is generally less expensive and easier to implement, suitable for standard emissions factors, but prone to higher uncertainties and may not accurately reflect the biogenic content of emissions from heterogeneous waste, while measurement-based provides more accurate and specific data tailored to actual emissions, particularly for complex and variable feedstocks like mixed waste, but requires expensive equipment and laboratory analyses, and achieving the necessary accuracy thresholds can be challenging, particularly for total (flow) CO₂ emissions.

Despite these pros and cons, it is appropriate that operators are the ones to choose which methodology works best for them and collaborate closely with the competent authorities to apply this methodology for the most accurate results. In light of the 2023 revision of the MRV legislation, one of the arguments that we raised was the fact that in both cases of calculation-based and measurement-based methodologies, the tiers and uncertainty levels proposed for WtE plants had been set on the same values as for conventional combustion plants.

In the end, this was not taken into consideration in the final text. Today, WtE plants are struggling to meet the uncertainty thresholds for any of the methodologies they choose, and this is because of the very heterogeneous nature of the feedstock, but also because of the high fluctuations of waste depending on seasons/times.

We call again on the European Commission to revise the uncertainty thresholds for WtE plants as soon as possible and in any case before any inclusion of the sector in the EU ETS.

ESWET wants to underline that all methodologies have positive and negative attributes, and we are not currently favouring one method over another. However, the current revision of the MRV rules has an impact on the C-14 methodology, so we would like to elaborate further on some aspects of it.

The full ESWET position paper can be found here.