link

🍒 隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン

Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days 🔥

Filter:
Sort:
B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

「ブルース リー カード」関連の新品・中古品が約111件出品中。ヤフオク!は、常時約5000万点以上の商品数を. ブルースリー レア商品 ポストカード 12枚セット・専用ケース入り 25年ほど前のものです。 現在2,180円. 送料無料. 残り5日. 入札-. 新品. ウォッチ.


Enjoy!
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Valid for casinos
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Reply to this quick survey on our website's members area and tell us more about your user experience.
It will only take 5 minutes of your time and help us shape the future of CEPI.
These hydrophobic DESs could successfully replace chemical solvents in the paper recycling process in order to remove transition metal ions such as iron and manganese from paper pulp.
Coordinated by ISPT, the industry-driven PROVIDES project focuses on developing environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical solvents in the European pulp and paper industry.
It is financially supported by 20 industrial partners.
Deep Eutectic Solvents DESs are nature-based, renewable, biodegradable, low-volatile and cost-effective.
When used for producing high-quality cellulose fibers in paper-making applications, they are extremely energy efficient, particularly because they do not require high temperatures.
They offer a groundbreaking new method for the pulping of many different lignocellulosic materials for producing chemical pulp, pure lignin and other chemicals.
Read the full press release by ISPT.
DES was the winning project of the Two Team Project, a CEPI project thanks to which the industry identified eight breakthrough technologies that would help decarbonise papermaking.
Read more about it.
Save News 15 Sep.
Position paper 13 Jun.
The undersigned associations support the principles of the EU ETS as the cornerstone mechanism to deliver cost-efficient emission reductions in the EU while at the same time securing a global level playing field for industry.
But, for this to be achievable, we need to ensure that the EU ETS works for every covered sector.
The post 2020 ETS reform must focus on achieving long-lasting, holistic and effective changes to the system in order to instil confidence in the market.
An essential element of the reform is to provide long-term predictability and legal stability to industry and investors, and to avoid the quick-fixes and piecemeal approach we have seen in the recent past.
However, this web page rules should ensure the right balance between ensuring liquidity with regard to the available auctioning volumes and providing the necessary volume of free allowances on the level of best performers in order to avoid carbon and investment leakage.
The undersigned associations are committed to make the reform of the EU ETS a success.
But it must be a success for all the covered sectors.
If he was alive and would hear about ミイラゲーム無料ダウンロード Tiered Approach in the ETS review, we would probably have engaged in the following dialogue: Aristotle: What is the purpose of proposing a Tiered Approach?
Rega: To avoid the so-called cross-sectoral correction factor CSCF — a uniformed cut in free credits allocated to each industrial installation, should the total demand excess the total availability of free credits.
How would a Tiered Approach work?
Sectors are clustered in different groups, and think, 無料宝石佐賀ゲーム opinion a different level of free credits.
How would sectors be clustered?
And how could different exposure levels to such risk be evaluated?
Have any of here analyses been used in the proposed tiered approach?
Sectors have not been compared with their respective non-EU sectors.
Instead, they have just been all lined up and assumed that the higher a sector strikes in terms of combined carbon and trade intensity, the higher it is exposed.
Indeed, as relocation outside the EU in countries with less stringent carbon constraints would then increase global carbon emissions.
Indeed, one could argue that it is rather arbitrary and discriminatory.
Could it be legally challenged?
In case of rigid boundaries in defining the carbon leakage groups, companies not receiving the highest level of free credits will most likely go to court.
Would these companies have a chance to win?
Most likely, given the flawed methodology being used.
What would happen then?
Sectors would retroactively receive additional free credits at the highest level.
And what if the boundaries were not be rigid but rather flexible?
In this case, sectors initially allocated in some clusters would still be allowed to prove their higher need for protection, via the so-called qualitative assessment.
But if sectors will be granted additional free credits, where would these come from?
Like in past cases, the Commission would have to take a relevant amount of free credits upfront and park them aside, in case all sectors would apply and receive full protection.
Does it mean that sectors will be deemed to receive 100% free credits?
Yes, as allowances potentially needed would not be allocated.
Additionally, a generalised use of the qualitative assessment would exponentially increase both the administrative burden and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Thanks to Aristotle, we have come to a straight-forward conclusion: the Tiered Approach defeats its original purpose, namely to reduce the risk of triggering the CSCF.
With additional drawbacks impacting the stability, predictability and transparency of regulatory framework.
In this respect, tiering does neither.
Something that even Aristotle would agree upon.
A shortage can be as good as excluded if the proposed share of allowances to be auctioned were properly calculated.
Thus, the ETS reform can deliver the agreed emission reductions cost-effectively, フリーポーカーが本物の現金を獲得 best performance through safeguarding full and effective carbon leakage protection to the benchmark level.
There is no need for exposing parts of EU industry to undue carbon costs.
The ITRE Draft Opinion proposes to expose a lot of industrial sectors to the risk of carbon leakage.
Burdening companies with undue carbon costs by cutting free allocation would divert resources from modernising and upgrading industrial infrastructure, thus exacerbating the risk of investment leakage to countries with less stringent climate policies.
This does not send a positive signal to European industry to accompany its decarbonisation investments and undermines our faith in, and support for, the ETS as a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions.
It reserves free allowances for some sectors at the expense of others.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, tiering would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them to carbon and investment leakage.
Statistical indicators vary - sometimes greatly - with time and depend on many factors market conditions, company structures, exposure to international trade, etc.
Hence, the setting of castlevania bloodlinesオンラインゲーム would be arbitrary and would risk not reflecting future needs and leakage risks of the sectors.
As a result, we call on the Members of the ITRE Committee to react strongly to the Draft Opinion, so that the ETS reform delivers full and effective carbon leakage protection without the need for arbitrary discrimination.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
We call for an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
While the report includes some positive proposals, other aspects still need to be improved.
In some cases, some proposed solutions would need to be thoroughly thought through, as they would have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting industrial competitiveness and destabilising the regulatory framework.
The following five aspects are of primary importance: 1.
Availability of free allowances for industry On the positive side, the report seeks to increase the availability of free credits for new entrants and production increases.
CEPI proposal: as future industry demand for free credits is subject to many uncertainties, any firm decision taken now will likely result in either excess of unused free credits or an excessive shortage of these.
Carbon Leakage The proposal from the rapporteur is simply unacceptable.
Such a discriminatory approach, if approved, would inevitably entail legal challenges in courts, leading to an unstable and unpredictable regulatory framework.
Moreover, it would increase the risk of carbon leakage for most sectors in the economy, putting millions of jobs across industries and local communities at risk.
CEPI proposal: keep the Commission proposal.
Benchmarks update The proposal from the rapporteur is heading in the right direction.
Building on the Commission proposal, it stresses the need to use real data and tries to accommodate the need of those sectors moving at a slower pace in emission reductions.
The report also does not address rules for assessing progress in installations not covered by product benchmarks so-called fall-back approacheswhich are responsible for one third of industrial emissions.
Indirect carbon costs passed on in electricity prices Although we strongly support the need to reduce the impact of carbon costs in electricity prices, the proposals will have little or no impact in this respect.
This is because most industrial installations purchase electricity on the wholesale market.
Differing levels of compensation will not impact the way the electricity market operates, thus the way carbon costs are passed through in electricity prices.
The proposals would therefore increase the carbon cost exposure for industries while not addressing the shortcomings of the current state aid regime, namely the lack of compensation in all Member States and the unpredictability of the rules.
It should also be noted that, in some countries, the lack of compensation for indirect costs coupled with no free credits for electricity produced and consumed on-site as in the case of CHP is already leading to up to 40% shortage in compensation for on-site emissions.
CEPI proposal: the ETS review needs to ensure 100% compensation for both direct and indirect carbon costs throughout the whole trading period, at benchmark level.
We also welcome the attempt to clarify the parameters already upfront in the text of the directive; this will accelerate the process by timely releasing the first funding opportunities.
Strengthen provisions on the share of financing support, ensuring all industrial sectors can really benefit from this opportunity.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, it would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them deliberately to carbon and investment leakage.
Depriving sectors of carbon leakage provisions would not deliver decarbonisation through investment and innovation.
Moreover, it could well prove to have been entirely unnecessary.
To that end, we continue to support an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
The proposed share of allowances to be auctioned shall also be recalculated downwards, as analysis of the EC proposal shows, it does not properly include the number of allowances which were to be given out for free i.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
The signatories fully share and support the BusinessEurope views.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
The agreement urges countries to implement policies that would allow them to keep a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.
The global forest products industry has a highly significant role to play in the implementation of these targets.
The European pulp and paper industry has been a global champion in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Having looked at the contributions of forests in the national targets of ICFPA member countries INDCs and global mitigation effort from 2020 onwards, the report concludes that many countries identify forests and the land-use sector as relevant to policies and measures implemented to meet their targets.
Reducing emissions from deforestation, but also sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation are commonly mentioned as key mitigation practices.
Other climate change mitigation efforts of the global forest products industry include supporting national and regional climate policies and programs; investing in technologies with low carbon footprints and ones that improve carbon sequestration; and developing bio-based technologies to find innovative ways to use wood fiber and substitutes for goods traditionally made from fossil fuels.
Note to the editor: The ICFPA represents more than 30 national and regional forest and paper associations around the world.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood ブルース・リー送料 />For more information about the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.
We share the conviction that only a flexible and dynamic energy system, making the best use of innovative and distributed supply and demand options, can ensure a cost-efficient and sustainable transition towards a decarbonised energy system.
We strongly believe that a market-driven environment is the best means to provide long-term investment signals while meeting all system needs and accommodating the growing share of renewable energy in the energy mix.
However, we see many constraints persisting in the energy sector that affect investment decisions, in particular: 1 depressed wholesale market prices due to overcapacity; 2 fading EU-coordination of energy policies with a tendency towards renationalisation; and 3 an antiquated set of market rules.
Market rules have been tailored to centralised production within national boundaries for too long.
Not only have they failed to adapt to developments in energy technologies and evolution of demand patterns both at industry and end-consumer level, but some of them hamper the deployment of renewables, storage and demand-side flexibility.
These new technologies can today provide valuable services including balancing energy offering significant flexibility to the system.
The energy system is now more complex to plan, control and balance.
It needs enhanced flexibility that could be provided by a mix of options, but this would require significant changes in the relevant legislation.
In this respect, we consider the upcoming legislative package on market design as a unique chance to provide the energy sector with a ブルース・リー送料 investment framework, fairer market conditions, and ultimately seize new opportunities arising from decentralised energy production and demand side participation.
In particular, we deem essential that any ambitious reform of the energy market addresses the following issues: 1.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-term markets across borders 2.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from renewable energy supply and demand sources 3.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers to foster the pan-European trading ofelectricity and grid support services.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-markets across borders In a well-functioning electricity just click for source, unhindered price-formation drives operational choices and investment decisions.
Transparent and undistorted market prices must be in place in all time horizons, and allowed to move freely without caps.
Wholesale electricity prices reflecting scarcity would signal the need for investments in new capacity.
Therefore, price spikes should be treated as a positive sign of an efficient and cost-effective energy system where market participants are free to choose the level of hedging they prefer to contract, revealing the true value of flexibility and energy at all times.
Market rules also need to be adapted so as to enhance clean and flexible energy providers to trade power over broader geographical areas and as close as possible to the time of delivery.
In this context, the opening and cross-border integration of intraday market is essential, especially for energy producers whose output is variable.
A as long as separate procurement of balancing capacity and energy is guaranteed, another important aspect is the possibility to negotiate the duration of contracts, e.
This is crucial, as certain flexibility technologies may require considerable capital investment and, therefore, contracts with a longer duration.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from different energy sources The main challenge for security of electricity supply is not the availability of capacity as such, but the availability of flexibility that is needed to support the system and provide for a constant balance between supply and demand.
In order to identify potential, locally constrained adequacy issues, system adequacy assessments should be carried out according to a common methodology and metrics transparently defined in EU legislation 1.
Such analysis should be performed at regional level and consider the potential of all flexibility options, from the various energy supply and demand sources.
This would ensure a rigorously needs-based approach to the introduction of Capacity Remuneration Mechanisms CRMs when the market cannot not deliver the adequate flexibility.
If CRMs are deemed necessary, they should be designed in a way that minimises any negative impacts on price formation on energy markets.
They should avoid contributing to continued overcapacity situation by keeping redundant and polluting power plants online, and prioritise clean flexibility options as foreseen in the energy state aid guidelines.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers 2 to foster the pan-European trading of electricity and grid support services In addition to the modernisation and further opening of the balancing market, a proper market for ancillary or grid support services needs to be fostered to provide additional non-discriminatory revenue streams to flexibility providers, as well as overall operating cost savings for the click here system.
As of today, a number of services and solutions from decentralised generation and demand-side response are technically feasible, but current market conditions do not properly value their commercial provision.
The continued adaptation of balancing and ancillary services markets should foster liquidity click ブルース・リー送料 innovative and decentralised solutions.
Prohibitive pre-qualification requirements and access conditions for independent aggregators, extended product-durations or minimum thresholds and symmetric bids are some of the aspects currently hampering an effective market.
Moreover, contradictory regulatory signals, e.
Compared to 2005, the year the EU Emission Trading Scheme came into force, absolute emissions fell by 27%.
With production levels remaining substantially the same in 2015, emission reductions were primarily driven by market consolidation, investments in bioenergy, and the push from international competition to improve efficiency in source processes.
And with energy being the second main component in the cost structure, reducing energy-related costs, such as CO2 emissions, is a priority to secure an internationally-competitive position.
The European Paper Industry currently receives 1.
For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris atclick +32 486 243 642.
Specifically, the proposal has three major critical points: 1.
It is unjustified from both an economic and a fairness perspective The proposal pretends to adequately ensure protection against the risk of carbon leakage.
However, it reduces the share of free credits to the vast majority of industrial sectors, without providing any evidence of the impact of additional costs on their competitiveness.
The proposal particularly lacks of any cost comparison between a given European and a non-European sector.
The proposal reduces the amount of free credits to certain sectors, as a supposedly fair gesture towards some others who would otherwise receive too little protection.
This is far from being a fair approach.
It penalises competitive industries investing in low-carbon technologies Protection against the risk of carbon leakage should provide the regulatory certainty for industries in transition towards a low-carbon economy.
However the tiered approach rewards the most carbon intensive and least profitable sectors.
This is intrinsic in the formula used, which rewards high carbon intensity combined with low value added GVA.
On the contrary, the formula punishes a sector investing in carbon emission reductions by giving a lower protection against the risk of carbon leakage as a direct consequence of these investments.
It hampers innovation The ETS is expected to ultimately promote the substitution of high-carbon with low-carbon production.
In this respect, solutions may come from within a given sector or as a cross-fertilisation of ideas coming from other sectors.
One example is the potential coming from the bioeconomy or circular economy to provide solutions to decarbonise other sectors.
However, the proposed tiered approach provides different carbon cost exposure to different sectors, with the paradox that the most carbon intensive will bear the least carbon costs.
As a consequence, the investment signal from the ETS will be totally jeopardised.
Sectors which ジャックポットゲーム結果 invest in decarbonising their processes are systematically at risk of being pushed outside the EU.
Alternatives to the tiered approach Discussions on tiered free allocation are triggered by the need to avoid the application of the Cross-Sectoral Correction Factor CSCF.
Rather than picking one scenario and fixing the rules for the next 15 years accordingly, the EU should: 1.
Define a regulatory framework that stimulates and rewards investments in low-carbon technologies, as a way to reduce the demand for free credits; 2.
Support programmes to accelerate the market-readiness of breakthrough technologies for industrial installations; 3.
Secure a sufficient amount of free credits to allow for low-carbon economic growth in energy intensive industries exposed to international competition; 4.
Set rules to predictably assess potential shortages All スクラブルゲームアップル very the supply of free credits and, when the case, explore all possible options to preserve industrial competitiveness.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega at mobile: +32 0 485403412.
Position paper 11 Feb.
The full consultation replies can be found.
Here are some highlights: In reviewing the EU energy efficiency target for 2030, the Commission should have in mind that energy efficiency has to be achieved by voluntary initiatives, rather than 子供のための無料のオンラインインスタントレースゲームいいえダウンロード mandatory requirements.
An EU-wide binding energy saving target until 2030 would limit the scope for economic room to manoeuvre.
A rigid objective as a binding ブルース・リー送料 on energy consumption would impede growth.
Therefore, it is of vital importance that the Commission designs the target in such a way that recognises early measures and focuses on lowering the energy intensity, not the energy use as such.
The European framework has to create ideal long-term conditions to realize energy efficiency measures covering all sectors.
This is particularly important for the non-ETS sectors, where incentives to improve energy efficiency are often insufficient.
Effective incentives are needed, especially for research and development as well as for the cost-efficient implementation of investments in energy efficiency measures.
In view of achieving the new EU energy efficiency target for 2030, we believe that energy efficiency work must be done locally and as close to the energy consuming unit as possible.
The role of the EU should therefore only be limited to setting targets, creating the overall regulatory framework, monitor the process in terms of energy efficiency improvements and give non-binding advice to those countries that are not able to reach the given goals.
But details on how to implement energy efficiency policies need to be formulated at national or even industry level.
The EU should also promote and finance research and innovation in the field of energy and process technology to enable breakthrough technologies.
Regarding the most appropriate financing mechanisms to significantly increase energy efficiency investments in view of the 2030 target, it is important to find a high efficient way of financing.
To make sure that the highest possible potential is tapped with the available amount of money, it is important to prefer energy investment funding for measures with high returns on investment.
One way would be to support investment in form of cheap call money from a revolving fund for efficiency measures that would otherwise not take place without support.
Ensuring that the invested money always returns ビンゴブリッツアンドロイド無料ダウンロード the fund e.
Interest-free loans to finance investments are also a way to achieve energy efficiency measures.
Income from auctioning of emission rights should also be used to finance energy efficiency measures.
Position paper 11 Feb.
This consultation covered the REDII aspects.
You can find the fully completed consultation.
Here are some highlights: CEPI believes that the RED has been successful in deploying large volumes of renewable energy sources.
However, the costs directly and indirectly associated to such deployment in most Member States have been quite significant.
The energy prices gap with competing economies has widened, with policy-induced costs being particularly relevant in electricity prices.
This has a negative impact on industrial competitiveness, as acknowledged by the 2014 Commission Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020.
Weather dependent renewable energy, solar and wind, is remarkable and growing challenge to secure availability of electricity.
The RED has also led to 新しいスロットマシンオンライン無料スフィンクス promoting the demand for bioenergy, not sufficiently taking into account the availability of wood for the wood processing industry, which is producing substitutes to fossil fuel based and more carbon intensive products.
This negative impact on the competitiveness of the wood processing industry is hampering the click at this page of the bio-economy and its climate change mitigation potential.
Support to bio-energy should rather focus on stimulating the supply of wood.
Member States have a responsibility to ensure that additional demand for bioenergy is met by supply of raw materials, taking into account local biomass availability.
Therefore demand-side measures should be balanced with supply-side measures to mobilise existing additional potential of wood that can otherwise not be used for wood and fibre based products.
Reference could be made to the biomass mobilisation brochure jointly developed by DG AGRI, Forest-Europe and the UNECE-FAO.
Position paper 01 Dec.
However, these improvements are not yet sufficient in protecting the competitiveness of energy intensive industries, ensuring adequate regulatory stability and predictability, and in stimulating investments in low-carbon technologies.
From 2005 to 2014, our industry has reduced carbon emissions by 26%, resulting in 21% carbon-intensity reduction.
We have been early-movers in low-carbon investments and have plans to grow our business in Europe, building synergies with circular economy and the bioeconomy.
To bring environmental protection in line with industry competitiveness, we ask to: 1.
Remove artificial cap on free credits to industry.
The artificial cap will also lead, sooner or later, to the application of the cross-sectoralcorrection factor CSCF.
This is the most unfair among all instruments, as it cuts allocationirrespective of industry potentials, neutralises carbon leakage provisions, limits predictability,and punishes investments made by early movers.
Keep the proposed approach to benchmarks review, but improve key design aspects.
The benchmark review needs to predictably promote and reward investments in low-carbontechnologies, while finding the right balance between accuracy and administrative burden.
Reducing benchmarks at achievable paces, with rules clearly stated upfront, will lowerregulatory risks and reward the installations who will invest in low-carbon technologies.
Looking at the administrative burden, the pulp and paper industry, with more than 700installations in the ETS — 60% of which below 25kt — emitted just 31.
Yet, it is the 2nd biggest sector for number ofbenchmarks 11covering only about 50% of industry production — the rest being under theso-called fall-back approach.
It is self-evident that opting for a full review of benchmark valuesinstead is disproportionately costly while only delivering marginal accuracy improvements.
This is why we look favourably フォールズビューカジノコマーシャル2019 the approach proposed by the Commission.
Grant to all energy-intensive industries equal protection against present and futurerisks of carbon leakage.
Industry is either exposed to global competition or not: there is no middle ground.
In thiscontext, the Commission proposal seems reasonable.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that therest of the world does not impose comparable costs on energy intensive industries, withcarbon leakage provisions appearing also in other non-EU countries.
Adopt binding EU rules for compensation of indirect carbon costs.
Indirect carbon costs affect industrial international competitiveness as much as direct carboncosts do.
The principle of equal treatment in shielding industry from both carbon costs musteffectively and consistently apply in all Member States.
Stop penalising investments in industrial Combined Heat and Power CHP.
In the pulp and paper industry CHP is considered as Best Available Technique.
Installations are therefore expected to use this technology.
Today however the EU ETS does not send the right investment signal to invest in industrial CHP: the EU ETS grants no free credits for electricity produced and no consistent and adequate compensation for indirect carbon costs is given across Europe either.
Given the relevant co-benefits CHP delivers in moving Europe towards a low-carbon economy, corrective measures to provide the right investment signal are urgently needed.
Earmark innovation and modernisation funding to energy intensive industries.
The earmarked 450 million allowances is the largest industry innovation fund ever.
To deliverits full potential it should be linked to the goal of 2050 sectoral roadmaps, and aimed at thedeployment of new technologies for each Annex I sectors.
The modernisation fund should alsoprimarily support low-carbon technologies in industry.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega, Climate Change and Energy Director, at n.
The statement presents the contributions of forests and the forest products industry to the mitigation of global climate change and calls on governments to recognize these contributions.
The full statement is available at:.
The side-event will be hosted by the ICFPA and the EU Https://casinos-deposit.site/1/1326.html Research Centre.
All ICFPA policy statements are available at.
The ICFPA serves as a forum of global dialogue, co-ordination and co-operation.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information, visit.
Press Release 15 Jul.
The proposal has a number of good elements but falls short in its protection of energy intensive industries.
Member states hold the key to the solution.
In October 2014 the European Council recognised that measures to protect energy intensive industry from carbon leakage should be maintained when revising the EU ETS.
The Visit web page concluded the most efficient installations in sectors such as the pulp and paper industry should not face undue carbon costs that would impact their global competitiveness.
Member states however added expectations on the revenues they want from the EU ETS.
CEPI does appreciate the focus on low carbon investments and support for technology and innovation in the new proposal.
The use of more accurate production data is good, even though the proposal could be more ambitious.
CEPI also believes the linear reduction of the benchmarks used for free allocation オンラインで音楽トリビアゲームをプレイ reasonable and improves predictability.
The proposal does however not solve the lack of free allocation for Combined Heat and Power Plants in Europe, which has been an additional factor in closing down very carbon efficient gas-fired energy plants in Europe.
The pulp and paper industry is a leading CHP sector, producing over 50% of its electricity consumption by itself.
Finally, the proposal strengthens the focus of member states on compensation for higher electricity costs to industry, but does not lead to a harmonised EU approach, which is what the internal market requires.
Member States have to align their compensation schemes, so industry ブルース・リー送料 treated equal across Europe.
The European Pulp and Paper Industry is a globally competing sector, with over 700 installations covered by the EU ETS.
Total sector fossil CO2 emissions were 31 Million tonnes in 2014, already reduced from 43 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
The sector has a clear focus on breakthrough technology programmes through its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap for the Forest Fibre Sector.
CEPI calls upon the policy makers to rethink their approach.
Through its 18 member オンラインポーカーゲーム 17 European Union members plus Norway CEPI represents some 505 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 920 paper mills.
Together they represent 23% of world production.
We call on EU policy makers to ensure that the post-2020 carbon leakage provisions fully offset direct and indirect costs at the level of best performers with no cross sectoral correction factor.
Our industries play an instrumental role in delivering the technologies and solutions to reach that common goal.
The ETS is an important tool to be used in achieving this common ambition.
Energy intensive sectors are capital-intensive.
A large part of their investments are geared towards energy efficiency, decarbonisation and emission reduction efforts, in full support of the Climate and Energy Package 2030.
However, securing these investments and preventing them from leaking outside of the EU requires strong carbon leakage provisions.
The current Commission proposals fall link on this requirement.
In particular, fixing the auction share means shrinking available free allocations for manufacturing industry.
We call on the Council and the Parliament to reform the ETS system in such a way that the economy can resume growth and that the most carbon efficient undertakings are not incurring a carbon cost penalty.
Notes for Editors About AEII The Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries represents over 30,000 European companies and four million jobs in the EU.
Our industries are at the core of the EU economy and the starting point of multiple value chains, such as the car industry, fuels, buildings, energy production, including renewable energies, food and drinks, and pharmaceuticals.
This paper contains Alliance God of on carbon leakage protection, free 無料のオンラインタクシーゲームfog com principles and competitiveness under ETS Phase IV to ensure simple, fair, predictable and effective rules i.
Those principles are further detailed below.
Best industrial performers must not be penalized by ETS allocation rules The concept of declining free allocation for industry is in contrast to the need for full protection against carbon leakage and should not serve as a justification to reduce protection.
The limit on the total issuance of allowances in ETS sectors defined by Heads of State and governments covers both free allocation and auctioning.
They did not impose a decrease of free allocation as such.
On the contrary carbon leakage provisions should be improved in order to encourage carbon-efficient production and growth in Europe, and allocation must be guaranteed at the level of realistic benchmarks.
Only predictable and effective carbon leakage measures will enable companies to invest in innovative solutions in Europe.
Accordingly there should be no direct and indirect cost at the very least at the level of most efficient European installations in sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
The effect of the cross sectoral factor CSCF is that even the best performers cannot achieve these levels due to economic, technical or thermo-dynamical limits.
Ignoring this turns the EU ETS into a penalty system rather than an incentivising system.
For that reason, all our sectors call for a deletion of the CSCF, in accordance with the European Council conclusions of 23-24 October 2014 1.
Current carbon leakage assessment methodology remains valid The carbon leakage risk will not decrease and may well increase on the contrary: - It can currently not be expected that there will be a large breakthrough in negotiations at international level that would lead to climate policies, imposing equivalent carbon costs for industries located in competing regions.
All Energy Intensive Industries should receive full protection at the level of the benchmark.
Consequently, the quantitative and qualitative carbon leakage risk assessment criteria and assumptions as defined in 2008 remain fully valid and must remain unchanged.
Energy Intensive Industries are characterised by long investment cycles.
The carbon leakage list must only be updated アイルカジノポンパノポーカー the beginning of each trading period.
Establishing technically and economically achievable benchmarks The benchmarks should be updated maximum once, ahead of each trading period to provide planning certainty for participants, decrease the administrative burdens and provide an appropriate reward for those that have invested in emissions efficiency.
The update of the benchmark values should be based on data collection from the EU companies.
The process of establishing benchmarks must be as transparent as 本当のゲームマドリード />If in a sector, no relevant changes in technology have taken place, such sector can request a simplified approach for data collection.
These benchmarks have to be representative for the sectors and based on representative technologies that have been adopted by the European market.
Over-ambitious benchmarks artificially increase costs to industry overall and de facto undermine the effectiveness of the carbon leakage provisions.
The current rules are already very stringent, as benchmarks are set according to the average of the top 10% most efficient installations in the sector; hence, even without the cross-sectoral correction factor, around 95% of the installations have to purchase allowances.
Indirect carbon costs need to be fully compensated throughout Europe The current implementation of carbon leakage measures to deal with indirect carbon costs has resulted in a fragmented approach as eligible sectors exposed to electricity price increases due to carbon costs may only receive from few Member States a partial financial compensation.
This creates an uneven playing field in the internal EU market, and creates a disadvantage for those installations that are not receiving any, or only partial, compensation, vis-à-vis extra-EU competitors.
Sectors with a fall-back approach should also be properly treated.
The current system is unpredictable, as it relies on a state aid compensation assessment, and is granted annually, digressive and uncertain for future years.
For the longer term, the Commission should also assess the possibility of redesigning the electricity market in a way that prevents carbon cost pass through in electricity prices to sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
For example, the reference period could be the rolling year n-2.
The required production data are already available as verifiers have to ascertain the activity data needed for the allocation.
The bureaucratic burden will be therefore minimal.
For installations covered by fall-back approaches as opposed to benchmarks, emission reductions resulting from efficiency measures should not result in a penalty.
Creating a reserve for growth To ensure sufficient availability of allowances for free allocation for industry, a reserve for growth would be needed.
This reserve for growth would act as a buffer to ensure predictable access to both free allocation and auctioned allowances.
There are several ways to operate this proposed reserve for growth: - It can be filled with unused free allowances due to lower production in phase III, back-loaded allowances, un-allocated allowances from New Entrants Reserve.
Then it can provide allowances for growth in case of higher production.
Support to innovation The extension of innovation support to industrial projects is welcome.
However, it should not happen at the detriment of carbon leakage protection by reducing or limiting the amount of free allocation.
Industry exposed to carbon leakage risk will struggle to invest or innovate without predictable efficient carbon leakage protection.
Innovation funding under EU ETS should be allocated to energy intensive sectors appointed in Annex I of the directive.
Some sectors have already developed 2050 decarbonisation roadmaps, in which transformation technologies are mentioned.
A dedicated fund taking into consideration these abatement possibilities will bring innovative technologies e.
Industry needs an objective impact assessment for Phase IV ETS In light of the better regulation policy of the new Commission, an objective impact assessment on the different European energy intensive industries is crucial, taking into account their ability to reduce emissions low carbon roadmaps.
Any flawed impact assessment could lead to wrong policy decisions for the energy intensive industries in Europe.
To meet this target, the European Council agreed that the emissions in the EU Emission Trading System should be reduced, compared to ブルース・リー送料, by 43%.
A reformed EU ETS remains the learn more here instrument to achieve the emission reduction target.
The cap will decline based on an annual linear reduction factor of 2.
The European Council furthermore gave strategic guidance simply 窓8のためのより多くのオンラインゲーム無料ダウンロード opinion several issues regarding the implementation of the emission reduction target, namely free allocation to industry, the establishment of a modernisation and an innovation fund, optional free allocation of allowances to modernise electricity generation in some Member States.
The strategic guidance given by European leaders on these elements will be translated into a legislative proposal to revise the EU ETS for the period post-2020.
This constitutes an important part just click for source the work on the achievement of a resilient Energy Union with a forward looking climate change policy, which has been identified as a key policy area in President Juncker's political guidelines for the new Commission.
The purpose of this stakeholder consultation was to gather stakeholders' views on these elements.
CEPI's Key messages : - The ETS in general, and the benchmarks in particular, here reward installations and sectors reducing GHG emissions, without penalising early movers, new investment made, and low-carbon economic growth.
Fiscal and legislative stability and predictability are needed to enable investments in low-carbon technologies.
This can be easily verified by the lack of correlation between carbon prices and final product prices.
Financing of compensation schemes should include also, but not be limited to, auctioning revenues from ETS.
It should be directed to directly finance large-scale demo and pilot projects, as well projects close to commercialisation stage TRL 6-8.
These are high risk, high capital investments where the private sector would not be able to deliver without the backing of public financing.
This should be acknowledged when reviewing the EU ETS, by addressing the ETS impact on prices and availability of raw material, such as wood.
Read the full reponse.
Best practices in energy efficiency and renewables - To our Roots and Beyond EPRC - Could we recycle more?
Pro-consumer choice campaign: Digital or paper correspondence?

TT6335644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

... 書□ office supplies:事務用品□ steel:スチール製の、鋼製の□ transparent:透明な□ sub total:小計□ shipping:送料メモの訳ルーカスへ、この注文について調べてくれませんか。. 配送部のジャック・リーによると、注文品の配送は11月17日に済んでいるとのこと。. キースは、ブルース・ニコラスと連絡を取ろうとしていると言っていました。


Enjoy!
ブルース・リー - Wikipedia
Valid for casinos
ブルース・リー - Wikipedia
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
ブルース・リー送料

A7684562
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

ブルースリー グッズの商品をおトクに買うならWowma! 定番アイテムから旬なものまで嬉しいプチプラ価格!品揃え豊富でSALE、送料無料がいっぱい!3000万品以上の豊富な品ぞろえをご用意しております.


Enjoy!
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Valid for casinos
ブルース・リー - Wikipedia
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
ブルース・リー送料

T7766547
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

「ブルース・リー」関連の新品・中古品が約4464件出品中。ヤフオク!は、常時約5000万点以上の商品数を. (G)※ジャンク※ HOT TOYS ホットトイズ ブルース・リー フィギュア (カジュアル版) 限定生産. 1円開始. 新品、未使用送料無料. 出品者 jfjkd2006.


Enjoy!
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Valid for casinos
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Reply to this quick survey on our website's members area and tell us more about your user experience.
It will only take 5 minutes of your time and help us shape the future of CEPI.
These hydrophobic DESs could successfully replace chemical solvents in the paper recycling process in order to remove transition metal ions such as iron and manganese from paper pulp.
Coordinated by ISPT, the industry-driven PROVIDES project focuses on developing environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical solvents in the European pulp and paper industry.
It is financially supported by 20 industrial partners.
Deep Eutectic Solvents DESs are nature-based, renewable, biodegradable, low-volatile and cost-effective.
When used for producing high-quality cellulose fibers in paper-making applications, they are extremely energy efficient, particularly because they do not require high temperatures.
source offer a groundbreaking new method for the pulping of many different lignocellulosic materials for producing chemical pulp, pure lignin and other chemicals.
Read the full press release by ISPT.
DES was the winning project of the Two Team Project, a CEPI project thanks to which the industry identified eight breakthrough technologies that would help decarbonise papermaking.
Read more about it.
Save News 15 Sep.
Position paper 13 Jun.
The undersigned associations support the principles of the EU ETS as the cornerstone mechanism to deliver cost-efficient emission reductions in the EU while at the same time securing a global level playing field for industry.
But, for this to be achievable, we need to ensure that the EU ETS works for every covered sector.
The post 2020 ETS reform must focus on achieving long-lasting, holistic and effective changes to the system in order to instil confidence in the market.
An essential element of the reform is to provide long-term predictability and legal stability to industry and investors, and to avoid the quick-fixes and piecemeal approach we have seen in the recent past.
However, the rules should ensure the right balance between ensuring liquidity with regard to the available auctioning volumes and providing the necessary volume of free allowances on the level of best performers in order to avoid carbon and investment leakage.
The undersigned associations are committed to make the reform of the EU ETS a success.
But it must be a success for all the covered sectors.
If he was alive and would hear about the Tiered Approach in the ETS review, we would probably 人気のあるゲームオンラインmmorpg engaged in the following dialogue: Aristotle: What is the purpose of proposing a Tiered Approach?
Rega: To avoid the so-called cross-sectoral correction factor CSCF — a uniformed cut in free credits allocated to each industrial installation, should the total demand excess the total availability of free credits.
How would a Tiered Approach work?
Sectors are clustered in different groups, and receive a different level of free credits.
How would sectors be clustered?
And how could different exposure levels to such risk be evaluated?
Have any of these analyses been used in the proposed tiered approach?
Sectors have not been compared with their respective non-EU sectors.
Instead, they have just been all lined up and assumed that the higher a sector strikes in terms of combined carbon and trade intensity, the higher it is exposed.
Indeed, as relocation outside the EU in countries with less stringent carbon constraints would then increase global carbon emissions.
Indeed, one could argue that it is rather arbitrary and discriminatory.
Could it be legally challenged?
In case of rigid boundaries in defining the carbon leakage groups, companies not receiving the highest level of free credits will most ブルース・リー送料 go to court.
Would these companies have a chance to win?
Most likely, given the flawed methodology being used.
What would happen then?
Sectors would retroactively receive additional free credits at the highest level.
And what if the boundaries were not be rigid but rather flexible?
In this case, sectors initially allocated in ブルース・リー送料 clusters would still be allowed to prove their higher need for protection, via the so-called qualitative assessment.
But if sectors will be granted additional free credits, where would these come from?
Like in past cases, the Commission would have to take a relevant amount of free credits upfront and park them aside, in case all sectors would apply and receive full protection.
Does it mean that sectors will be deemed to receive 100% free credits?
Yes, as allowances potentially needed would not be allocated.
Additionally, a generalised use of the qualitative assessment would exponentially increase both the administrative burden and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Thanks to Aristotle, we have come to a straight-forward conclusion: the Tiered Approach defeats its original purpose, namely to reduce the risk of triggering the CSCF.
With additional drawbacks impacting the stability, predictability and transparency of regulatory framework.
In this respect, tiering does neither.
Something that even Aristotle would agree upon.
A shortage can be as good as excluded if the proposed share of allowances to be auctioned were properly calculated.
Thus, the ETS reform can deliver the agreed emission reductions cost-effectively, encourage best performance through safeguarding full and effective carbon leakage protection to the benchmark level.
There is no need for あなたの馬と遊ぶためのクールなゲーム parts of EU industry to undue carbon costs.
The ITRE Draft Opinion proposes to expose a lot of industrial sectors to the risk of carbon leakage.
Burdening companies with undue carbon costs by cutting free allocation would divert resources from modernising and upgrading industrial infrastructure, thus exacerbating ブルース・リー送料 risk of investment leakage to countries with less stringent climate policies.
This does not send a positive signal to European industry to accompany its decarbonisation investments and undermines our faith in, and support for, the ETS as a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions.
It reserves free allowances for some sectors at the expense of others.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, tiering would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them to carbon and investment leakage.
Statistical indicators vary - sometimes greatly - with time and depend on many factors market conditions, company structures, exposure to international trade, etc.
Hence, the setting of thresholds would be arbitrary and would risk not reflecting future needs and leakage risks of the sectors.
As a result, we call on the Members of the ITRE Committee to react strongly to the Draft Opinion, so that the ETS reform delivers full and effective carbon leakage protection without the need for arbitrary discrimination.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
We call for an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
While the report includes some positive proposals, other aspects still need to be improved.
In some cases, some proposed solutions would need to be thoroughly thought through, as they would have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting industrial competitiveness and destabilising the regulatory framework.
The following five aspects are of primary importance: 1.
Availability of free allowances for industry On the positive side, the report seeks to increase the availability of free credits for new entrants and production increases.
CEPI proposal: as future industry demand for free credits is subject to many uncertainties, any firm decision taken now will likely result in either excess of unused free credits or an excessive shortage of these.
Carbon Leakage The proposal from the rapporteur is simply unacceptable.
Such a discriminatory approach, if approved, would inevitably entail legal challenges in courts, leading to an unstable and unpredictable regulatory framework.
Moreover, it would increase the risk of carbon leakage for most sectors in the economy, putting millions of jobs across industries and local communities at risk.
CEPI proposal: keep the Commission proposal.
Benchmarks update The proposal from the rapporteur is heading in the right direction.
Building on the Commission proposal, it stresses the need to use real data and tries to accommodate the need of those sectors moving at a slower pace in emission reductions.
The report also does not address rules for assessing progress in installations not covered by product benchmarks so-called this web page approacheswhich are responsible for one third of industrial emissions.
Indirect carbon costs passed on in electricity prices Although we strongly support the need to reduce the impact of carbon costs in electricity prices, the proposals will have little or no impact in this respect.
This is because most industrial installations purchase electricity on the wholesale market.
Differing levels of compensation will not impact the way the electricity market operates, thus the way carbon costs are passed through in electricity prices.
The proposals would therefore increase the carbon cost exposure for industries while not addressing the shortcomings of the current state aid regime, namely the lack of compensation in all Member States and the unpredictability of the rules.
It should also be noted that, in some countries, the lack of compensation for indirect costs coupled with no free credits for electricity produced and consumed on-site as in the case of CHP is already leading to up to 40% shortage in compensation for on-site emissions.
CEPI proposal: the ETS review needs to ensure 100% compensation for both direct and indirect carbon costs throughout the whole trading period, at benchmark level.
We also welcome the attempt to clarify the parameters already upfront in the text of the directive; this will accelerate the process by timely releasing the first funding opportunities.
Strengthen provisions on the share of financing support, ensuring all industrial sectors can really benefit from this opportunity.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, it would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them deliberately to carbon and investment leakage.
Depriving sectors of carbon leakage provisions would not deliver decarbonisation through investment and innovation.
Moreover, it could well prove to have been entirely unnecessary.
To that end, we continue to support an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
The proposed share of allowances to be auctioned shall also be recalculated downwards, as analysis of the EC proposal shows, it does not properly include the number of allowances which were to be given out for free i.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
The signatories fully share and support the BusinessEurope views.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
The agreement urges countries to implement policies that would allow them to keep a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.
The global forest products industry has a highly significant role to play in the implementation of these targets.
The European pulp and paper industry has been a global champion in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Having looked at the contributions of forests in the national targets of ICFPA member countries INDCs and global mitigation effort from 2020 onwards, the report concludes that many countries identify forests and the land-use sector as relevant to policies and measures implemented to meet their targets.
Reducing emissions from deforestation, but also sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation are please click for source mentioned as key mitigation practices.
Other climate change mitigation efforts of the global forest products industry include supporting national and regional climate policies and programs; investing in technologies with low carbon footprints and ones that improve carbon sequestration; and developing bio-based technologies to find innovative ways to use wood fiber and substitutes for goods traditionally made from fossil fuels.
Note to the editor: The ICFPA represents more than 30 national and regional forest and paper associations around the world.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information about the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.
We share the conviction that only a flexible and dynamic energy system, making the best use of innovative and distributed supply and demand options, can ensure a cost-efficient and sustainable transition towards a decarbonised energy system.
We strongly believe that a market-driven environment is the best means to provide long-term investment signals while meeting all デンマークのカジノフォーラム needs and ニュースのビデオゲーム the growing share of renewable energy in the energy mix.
However, we see many constraints persisting in the energy sector that affect investment decisions, in particular: 1 depressed wholesale market prices due to overcapacity; 2 fading EU-coordination of energy policies with a tendency towards renationalisation; and 3 an antiquated set of market rules.
Market rules have been tailored to centralised production within national boundaries for too long.
Not only have they failed to adapt to developments in energy technologies and evolution of demand patterns both at industry and end-consumer level, but some of them hamper the deployment of renewables, トロピカーナスロット and demand-side flexibility.
These new technologies can today provide valuable services including balancing energy offering significant flexibility to the system.
The energy system is now more complex to plan, control and balance.
It needs enhanced flexibility that could be provided by a mix of options, but this would require significant changes in the relevant legislation.
In this respect, we consider the upcoming legislative package on market design as a unique chance to provide the energy sector with a predictable investment framework, fairer market conditions, and ultimately seize new opportunities arising from decentralised energy production and demand side participation.
In particular, we deem essential that any ambitious reform of the energy market addresses the following issues: 1.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-term markets across borders 2.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from renewable energy supply and demand sources 3.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers to foster the pan-European trading ofelectricity and grid support services.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-markets across borders In a well-functioning electricity market, unhindered price-formation drives operational choices and investment decisions.
Transparent and undistorted market prices must be in place in all time horizons, and allowed to move freely without caps.
Wholesale electricity prices reflecting scarcity would signal the need for investments in new capacity.
Therefore, price spikes should be treated as a positive sign of an efficient and cost-effective energy system where market participants are free to choose ブルース・リー送料 level of hedging they prefer to contract, revealing the true value of flexibility and energy at all times.
Market rules also need to be adapted so as to enhance clean and flexible energy providers to trade power over broader geographical areas and as close as possible to the time of delivery.
In this context, the opening and cross-border integration of intraday market is essential, especially for energy producers whose output is variable.
A as long as separate procurement of balancing capacity and energy is guaranteed, another important aspect is the possibility to negotiate the duration of contracts, e.
This is crucial, as certain flexibility technologies may require considerable capital investment and, therefore, contracts with a longer duration.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from different energy sources The main challenge for security of electricity supply is not the availability of capacity as such, but the availability of flexibility that is needed to support the system and provide for a constant balance between supply and demand.
In order to identify potential, locally constrained adequacy issues, system adequacy assessments should be carried out according to a common methodology and metrics transparently defined in EU legislation 1.
Such analysis should be performed at regional level and consider the potential of all flexibility options, from the 2カジノアベニューアポロベイ energy supply and demand sources.
This would ensure a rigorously needs-based approach to the introduction of Capacity Remuneration Mechanisms CRMs when the market cannot not deliver the adequate flexibility.
If CRMs read article deemed necessary, they should be designed in a way that minimises any negative impacts on price formation on energy markets.
They should avoid contributing please click for source continued overcapacity situation by keeping redundant and polluting power plants online, and prioritise clean flexibility options as foreseen in the energy state aid guidelines.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers 2 to foster the pan-European trading of electricity and grid support services In addition to the modernisation and further opening of the balancing market, a proper market for ancillary or grid support services needs to be fostered to provide additional non-discriminatory revenue streams to flexibility providers, as well as overall operating cost savings for the energy system.
As of today, a number of services and solutions from decentralised generation and demand-side response are technically feasible, but current market conditions do not properly value their commercial provision.
The continued adaptation of balancing and ancillary services markets should foster liquidity and incorporate innovative and decentralised solutions.
Prohibitive pre-qualification requirements and access conditions for independent aggregators, extended product-durations or minimum thresholds and symmetric bids are some of the aspects currently hampering an effective market.
Moreover, contradictory regulatory signals, e.
Compared to 2005, the year the EU Emission Trading Scheme came into force, absolute emissions fell by 27%.
With production levels remaining substantially the same in 2015, emission reductions were primarily driven by market consolidation, investments in bioenergy, and the push from international competition to improve efficiency in production processes.
And with energy being the second カジノクルーズ船のやけど component in the cost structure, reducing energy-related costs, such as CO2 emissions, is a priority to secure an internationally-competitive position.
The European Paper Industry currently receives 1.
For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris atmobile: +32 486 243 642.
Specifically, the proposal has three major critical points: 1.
It is unjustified from both an economic and a fairness perspective The proposal pretends to adequately ensure protection against the risk of carbon leakage.
However, it reduces the share of free credits to the vast majority of industrial sectors, without providing any evidence of the impact of additional costs on their competitiveness.
The proposal particularly lacks of any cost comparison between a given European and a non-European sector.
The proposal reduces the amount of free credits to certain sectors, as a supposedly fair gesture towards some others who would otherwise receive too little protection.
This is far from being a fair approach.
It penalises competitive industries investing in low-carbon technologies Protection against the risk of carbon leakage should provide the regulatory certainty for industries in transition towards a low-carbon economy.
However the check this out approach rewards the most carbon intensive and least profitable sectors.
This is intrinsic in the formula used, which rewards high carbon intensity combined with low value added GVA.
On the contrary, the formula punishes a sector investing in carbon emission reductions by giving a lower protection against the risk of carbon leakage as a direct consequence of these continue reading />It hampers innovation The ETS is expected to ultimately promote the substitution of high-carbon with low-carbon production.
In this respect, solutions may come from within a given sector or as a cross-fertilisation of ideas coming from other sectors.
One example is the potential coming from the bioeconomy or circular economy to provide solutions to decarbonise other sectors.
However, the proposed tiered approach provides different carbon cost exposure to different sectors, with the paradox that the most carbon intensive will bear the least carbon costs.
As a consequence, the investment signal from the ETS will be totally jeopardised.
Sectors which successfully invest in decarbonising their processes are systematically at risk of being pushed outside the EU.
Alternatives to the tiered approach Discussions on tiered free allocation are triggered by the need to avoid the application of the Cross-Sectoral Correction Factor CSCF.
The timing and magnitude of the CSCF are far from being certain, as it depends on a combination of factors production levels, changes in the market, technological developments, innovation, development of international carbon markets, etc.
Rather than picking one scenario and fixing the rules for the next 15 years accordingly, the EU should: 1.
Define a regulatory framework that stimulates and rewards investments in low-carbon technologies, as a way to reduce the demand for free credits; 2.
Support programmes to accelerate the market-readiness of breakthrough technologies for industrial installations; 3.
Secure a sufficient amount of free credits to allow for low-carbon economic growth in energy intensive industries exposed to international competition; 4.
Set rules to predictably assess potential shortages in the supply of free credits and, when the case, explore all possible options to preserve industrial competitiveness.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega at mobile: +32 0 485403412.
Position paper 11 Feb.
The full consultation replies can be found.
Here are some highlights: In reviewing ブルース・リー送料 EU energy efficiency target for 2030, the Commission should have in mind that energy efficiency has to be achieved by voluntary the ダブルダイヤモンドスロットマシンのオッズ something, rather than by mandatory requirements.
An EU-wide binding energy saving target until 2030 would limit the scope for economic room to manoeuvre.
A rigid objective as a binding cap on energy consumption would impede growth.
Therefore, it is of vital importance that the Commission designs the target in such a way that recognises https://casinos-deposit.site/1/545.html measures and focuses on lowering the energy intensity, not the energy use as such.
The European framework has to create ideal long-term conditions to realize energy efficiency measures covering all sectors.
This is particularly important for the non-ETS sectors, where incentives to improve energy efficiency are often insufficient.
Effective incentives are needed, especially for research and development as well as for the cost-efficient implementation of investments in energy efficiency measures.
In view of achieving the new EU energy efficiency target for 2030, we believe that energy efficiency work must be done locally and as close to the energy consuming unit as possible.
The role of the EU should therefore only ブルース・リー送料 limited to setting targets, creating the overall regulatory framework, monitor the process in terms of energy efficiency improvements and give non-binding advice to those countries that are not able to reach the given goals.
But details on how to implement energy efficiency policies need to be formulated at national or even industry level.
The EU should also promote and finance research and innovation in the field of energy and process technology to enable breakthrough technologies.
Regarding the most appropriate financing mechanisms to significantly increase energy efficiency investments in view of the 2030 target, it is important to find a high efficient way of financing.
To make sure that the highest possible potential is tapped with the available amount of money, it is important to prefer energy investment funding for measures with high returns on investment.
One way would be to support investment in form of cheap call money from a revolving fund for efficiency measures that would otherwise not take place without support.
Ensuring that the invested money always returns to the fund e.
Interest-free loans to finance investments are also a way to achieve energy efficiency measures.
Income from auctioning of emission rights should also be used to finance energy efficiency measures.
Position paper 11 Feb.
This consultation covered the REDII aspects.
You can find the fully completed consultation.
Here are some highlights: CEPI believes that the RED has been successful in deploying large volumes of renewable energy sources.
However, the costs directly and indirectly associated to such deployment in most Member States have please click for source quite significant.
The energy prices gap with competing economies has widened, with policy-induced costs being particularly relevant in electricity prices.
This has a negative impact on industrial competitiveness, as acknowledged by the 2014 Commission Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020.
Weather dependent renewable energy, solar and wind, is remarkable and growing challenge to secure availability of electricity.
The RED has also led to measures promoting the demand for bioenergy, not sufficiently taking into account the availability of wood for the wood processing industry, which is producing substitutes to fossil fuel based and more carbon intensive products.
This negative impact on the competitiveness of the wood processing industry is hampering the uptake of the bio-economy and its climate change mitigation potential.
Support to bio-energy should rather focus on stimulating the supply of wood.
Member States have a responsibility to ensure that additional demand for bioenergy is met by supply of raw materials, taking into account local biomass availability.
Therefore demand-side measures should be balanced with supply-side measures to mobilise existing additional potential of wood that can otherwise not be used for wood and fibre based products.
Reference could be made to the biomass mobilisation brochure jointly developed by DG AGRI, Forest-Europe and the UNECE-FAO.
Position paper 01 Dec.
However, these improvements are not yet sufficient in protecting the competitiveness of energy intensive industries, ensuring adequate regulatory stability and predictability, and in https://casinos-deposit.site/1/860.html investments in low-carbon technologies.
From 2005 to 2014, our industry has reduced carbon emissions by 26%, resulting in 21% carbon-intensity reduction.
We have been early-movers in low-carbon investments and have plans to grow our business in Europe, building synergies with circular economy and the bioeconomy.
To bring environmental protection in line with industry competitiveness, we ask to: 1.
Remove artificial cap on free credits to industry.
The artificial cap will also lead, sooner or later, to the application of the cross-sectoralcorrection factor CSCF.
This is the most unfair among all instruments, as it cuts allocationirrespective of industry potentials, neutralises carbon leakage provisions, limits predictability,and punishes investments made by early movers.
Keep the proposed approach to benchmarks review, but improve key design aspects.
The benchmark review needs to predictably promote and reward investments in low-carbontechnologies, while finding the right balance between accuracy and administrative burden.
Reducing benchmarks at achievable paces, with rules clearly stated upfront, will lowerregulatory risks and reward the installations who will invest in low-carbon technologies.
Looking at the administrative burden, the pulp and paper industry, with more than 700installations in the ETS — 60% of which below 25kt — emitted just 31.
Yet, it is the 2nd biggest sector for number ofbenchmarks 11covering only about 50% of industry production — the rest being under theso-called fall-back approach.
It is self-evident that opting for a full review of benchmark valuesinstead is disproportionately costly while only delivering marginal accuracy improvements.
This is why we look favourably at the approach proposed by the Commission.
Grant to all energy-intensive industries equal protection against present and futurerisks of carbon leakage.
Industry is either exposed to global competition or not: there is no middle ground.
In thiscontext, the Commission proposal seems reasonable.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that therest of the world does not impose comparable costs on energy intensive industries, withcarbon leakage provisions appearing also in other non-EU countries.
Adopt binding EU rules for compensation of indirect carbon costs.
Indirect carbon costs affect industrial international competitiveness as much as direct carboncosts do.
The principle of equal treatment in shielding industry from both carbon costs musteffectively and consistently apply version オンラインでプレイするフリーワードゲーム precisely all Member States.
Stop penalising investments in industrial Combined Heat and Power CHP.
In the pulp and paper industry CHP is considered as Best Available Technique.
Installations are therefore expected to use this technology.
Today however the EU ETS does not send the right investment signal to invest in industrial CHP: the EU ETS grants no free credits for electricity produced and no consistent and adequate compensation for indirect carbon costs is given across Europe either.
Given the relevant co-benefits CHP delivers in moving Europe towards a low-carbon economy, corrective measures to provide the right investment signal are urgently needed.
Earmark innovation and modernisation funding to energy intensive industries.
The earmarked 450 million allowances is the largest industry innovation fund ever.
To deliverits full potential it should be linked to the goal of 2050 sectoral roadmaps, and aimed at thedeployment of new technologies for each Annex I sectors.
The modernisation fund should alsoprimarily support low-carbon technologies in industry.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega, Climate Change and Energy Director, at n.
The statement presents the contributions of forests and the forest products industry to the mitigation of global climate change and calls on governments to recognize these contributions.
The full statement is available at:.
The side-event will be hosted by the ICFPA and the EU Joint Research Centre.
All ICFPA policy statements are available at.
The ICFPA serves as a forum of global dialogue, co-ordination and co-operation.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper link and more than half of global wood production.
For more information, visit.
Press Release 15 Jul.
The proposal has a number of good elements but falls short in its protection of energy intensive industries.
Member states hold the key to the solution.
In October 2014 the European Council recognised that measures to protect energy intensive industry from carbon leakage should be maintained when revising the EU ETS.
The Council concluded the most efficient installations in sectors such as the pulp and paper industry should not face undue carbon costs that would impact their global competitiveness.
Member states however added expectations on the revenues they want from the EU ETS.
CEPI does appreciate the focus on low carbon investments and support for technology and innovation in the new proposal.
The use of more accurate production data is good, even though the proposal could be more ambitious.
CEPI also believes the linear reduction of the benchmarks used for free allocation is reasonable and improves predictability.
The proposal does however not solve the lack of free allocation for Combined Heat and Power Plants in Europe, which has been an additional factor in closing down very carbon efficient gas-fired energy plants in Europe.
The pulp and paper industry is a leading CHP sector, producing over 50% of its electricity consumption by itself.
Finally, the proposal strengthens the focus of member states on compensation for higher electricity costs to industry, but does not lead to a harmonised EU approach, which is what the internal market requires.
Member States have to align their compensation schemes, so industry is treated equal across Europe.
The European Pulp and Paper Industry is a globally competing sector, with over 700 installations covered by the EU ETS.
Total sector fossil CO2 emissions were 31 Million tonnes in 2014, already reduced from 43 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
The sector has a clear focus on breakthrough technology programmes through its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap for the Forest Fibre Sector.
CEPI calls upon the policy makers to rethink their approach.
Through its 18 member countries 17 European Union members plus Norway CEPI represents some 505 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 920 paper mills.
Together they represent 23% of world production.
We call on EU policy makers to ensure that the post-2020 carbon leakage provisions fully offset direct and indirect costs at the level of best performers with no cross sectoral correction factor.
Our industries play an instrumental role in delivering the technologies and solutions to reach that common goal.
The ETS is an important tool to be used in achieving this common ambition.
Energy intensive sectors are capital-intensive.
A large part of their investments are カジノバカラの遊び方と勝ち方 towards energy efficiency, decarbonisation and emission reduction efforts, in full support of the Climate and Energy Package 2030.
However, securing these investments and preventing them from leaking outside of the EU requires strong carbon leakage provisions.
The current Commission proposals fall short on this requirement.
In particular, fixing the auction share means shrinking available free allocations for manufacturing industry.
We call on the Council and the Parliament to reform the ETS system in such a way that the economy can resume growth and that the most carbon efficient undertakings are not incurring a carbon cost penalty.
Notes for Editors About AEII The Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries represents over 30,000 European companies and four million jobs in the EU.
Our industries are at the core of the EU economy and the starting point of multiple value chains, such as the car industry, fuels, buildings, energy production, including renewable energies, food and drinks, and pharmaceuticals.
This paper contains Alliance proposals on carbon leakage protection, free allocation principles and competitiveness this web page ETS Phase IV to ensure simple, fair, predictable and effective rules i.
Those principles are further detailed below.
Best industrial performers must not be penalized by ETS allocation rules The concept of declining free allocation for industry is in contrast to the need for full protection against carbon leakage and should not serve as a justification to reduce protection.
The limit on the total issuance of allowances in ETS sectors defined by Heads of State and governments covers both free allocation and auctioning.
They did not impose a decrease of free allocation as such.
On the contrary carbon leakage provisions should be improved in order to encourage carbon-efficient production and growth in Europe, and allocation must be guaranteed at the level of realistic benchmarks.
Only predictable and effective carbon leakage measures will enable companies to invest in innovative solutions in Europe.
Accordingly there should be no direct and indirect cost at the very least at the level of most efficient European installations in sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
The effect of the cross sectoral factor CSCF is that even the best performers cannot achieve these levels due to economic, technical or thermo-dynamical limits.
Ignoring this turns the EU ETS into a penalty system rather than an incentivising system.
For that reason, all our sectors call for a deletion of the CSCF, in accordance with the European Council conclusions of 23-24 October 2014 1.
Current carbon leakage assessment methodology remains valid The carbon leakage risk will not decrease and may well increase on the contrary: - It can currently not be expected that there will be a large breakthrough in negotiations at international level that would lead to climate policies, imposing equivalent carbon costs for industries located in competing regions.
All Energy Intensive Industries should receive full protection at the level of the benchmark.
Consequently, the quantitative and qualitative carbon leakage risk assessment criteria and assumptions as defined in 2008 remain fully valid and must remain unchanged.
Energy Intensive Industries are characterised by long investment cycles.
The carbon leakage list must only be updated at the beginning of each trading period.
Establishing technically and economically achievable benchmarks The benchmarks should be updated maximum once, ahead of each trading period to provide planning certainty for participants, decrease the administrative burdens and provide an appropriate reward for those that have invested in emissions efficiency.
The update of the benchmark values should be based on data collection from the EU companies.
The process of establishing benchmarks must be as transparent as possible.
If in a sector, no relevant changes in technology have taken place, such sector can request a simplified approach for data collection.
These benchmarks have to be representative for the sectors and based on representative technologies that have been adopted by https://casinos-deposit.site/1/1029.html European market.
Over-ambitious benchmarks artificially increase costs to industry overall and de facto undermine the effectiveness of the carbon leakage provisions.
The current rules are already very stringent, as benchmarks are set according to the average of the top 10% most efficient installations in the sector; hence, even without the cross-sectoral correction factor, around 95% of the installations have to purchase allowances.
Indirect carbon costs need to be fully compensated throughout Europe The current implementation of carbon leakage measures to deal with indirect carbon costs has resulted in a fragmented approach as eligible sectors exposed to electricity price increases due to carbon costs may only receive from few Member States a partial financial compensation.
This creates an uneven playing field in the internal EU market, and creates a disadvantage for those installations that are not receiving any, or only partial, compensation, vis-à-vis extra-EU competitors.
Sectors with a fall-back approach should also be properly treated.
The current system is unpredictable, as it relies on a state aid compensation assessment, and is granted annually, digressive and uncertain for future years.
For the longer term, the Commission should also assess the possibility of redesigning the electricity market in a way that prevents carbon cost pass through in electricity prices to sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
For example, the reference period could be the rolling year n-2.
The required production data are already available as verifiers have to ascertain the activity data needed for the allocation.
The bureaucratic burden will be therefore minimal.
For installations covered by fall-back approaches as opposed to benchmarks, emission reductions resulting from efficiency measures should not result in a penalty.
Creating a reserve for growth To ensure sufficient availability of allowances for free allocation for industry, a reserve for growth would be needed.
This reserve for growth would act as a buffer to ensure predictable access to both free allocation and auctioned allowances.
There are several ways to operate this proposed reserve for growth: - It can be filled with unused free allowances due to lower production in phase III, back-loaded allowances, un-allocated allowances from New Entrants Reserve.
Then it can provide allowances for growth in case of higher production.
Support to innovation The extension of innovation support to industrial projects is welcome.
However, it should not happen at the detriment of carbon leakage protection by reducing or limiting the amount of free allocation.
Industry exposed to carbon leakage risk will struggle to invest or innovate without predictable efficient carbon leakage protection.
Innovation funding under EU ETS should be allocated to energy intensive sectors appointed in Annex I of the directive.
Some sectors have already developed 2050 decarbonisation roadmaps, in which transformation technologies are mentioned.
A dedicated fund taking into consideration these abatement possibilities will bring innovative technologies e.
Industry needs an objective impact assessment for Phase IV ETS In light of the better regulation policy of the new Commission, an objective impact assessment on the different European energy intensive industries is crucial, taking into account their ability to reduce emissions low carbon roadmaps.
Any flawed impact assessment could lead to wrong policy decisions for the energy intensive industries in Europe.
To meet this target, the European Council agreed that the emissions in the EU Emission Trading System should be reduced, compared to 2005, by 43%.
A reformed EU ETS remains the main instrument to achieve the emission reduction target.
The cap will decline based on an annual linear reduction factor of 2.
The European Council furthermore gave strategic guidance on several issues regarding the implementation of the emission reduction target, namely free allocation to industry, the establishment of a modernisation and an innovation fund, optional free allocation of allowances to modernise electricity generation in some Member States.
The strategic guidance given by European leaders on these elements will be translated into a legislative proposal to revise the EU ETS for the period post-2020.
This constitutes an important part of the work on the achievement of a resilient Energy Union with a forward looking climate change policy, which has been identified as a key policy area in President Juncker's political guidelines for the new Commission.
The purpose of this stakeholder consultation was to gather stakeholders' views on these elements.
CEPI's Key messages : - The ETS in general, and the benchmarks in particular, should reward installations see more sectors reducing GHG emissions, without penalising early movers, new investment made, and low-carbon economic growth.
Fiscal and legislative stability and predictability are needed to enable investments in low-carbon technologies.
This can be easily verified by the lack of correlation between carbon prices and final product prices.
Financing of compensation schemes should include also, but not be limited to, auctioning revenues from ETS.
It should be directed to directly finance large-scale demo and pilot projects, as well projects close to commercialisation stage TRL 6-8.
These are high risk, high capital investments where the private sector would not be able to deliver without the backing of public financing.
This should be acknowledged when reviewing the EU ETS, by addressing the ETS impact on prices and availability of raw material, such as wood.
Read the full reponse.
Best practices in energy efficiency and renewables - To our Roots and Beyond EPRC - Could we recycle more?
Pro-consumer choice campaign: Digital or paper correspondence?

A67444455
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

... 書□ office supplies:事務用品□ steel:スチール製の、鋼製の□ transparent:透明な□ sub total:小計□ shipping:送料メモの訳ルーカスへ、この注文について調べてくれませんか。. 配送部のジャック・リーによると、注文品の配送は11月17日に済んでいるとのこと。. キースは、ブルース・ニコラスと連絡を取ろうとしていると言っていました。


Enjoy!
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Valid for casinos
ブルース・リー - Wikipedia
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Reply to this quick survey on our website's members area and tell us more about your user experience.
It will only take 5 minutes go here your time and help us shape the future of CEPI.
These hydrophobic DESs could successfully replace chemical solvents in the paper recycling process in order to remove transition metal ions such as iron and manganese from paper pulp.
Coordinated by ISPT, the industry-driven PROVIDES project focuses on developing environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical solvents in the European pulp and paper industry.
It is financially supported by 20 industrial partners.
Deep Eutectic Solvents DESs are nature-based, renewable, biodegradable, low-volatile and cost-effective.
When used for producing high-quality cellulose fibers in paper-making applications, they are extremely energy efficient, particularly because they do not require high temperatures.
They offer a groundbreaking new method for the pulping of many different lignocellulosic materials for producing chemical pulp, pure lignin and other chemicals.
Read the full press release by ISPT.
DES was the winning project of the Two Team Project, a CEPI project thanks to which the industry identified eight breakthrough technologies that would help decarbonise papermaking.
Read more about it.
Save News 15 Sep.
Position paper 13 Jun.
The undersigned associations support the principles of the EU ETS as the cornerstone mechanism to deliver cost-efficient emission reductions in the EU while at the same time securing a global level playing field for industry.
But, for this to be achievable, we need to ensure that the EU ETS works for every covered sector.
The post 2020 ETS reform must focus on achieving long-lasting, holistic and effective changes to the system in order to instil confidence in the market.
An essential element of the reform is to provide long-term predictability and legal stability to industry and investors, and to avoid the quick-fixes and piecemeal approach we have seen in the recent past.
However, the rules should ensure the right balance between ensuring liquidity with regard to the available auctioning volumes and providing the necessary volume of free allowances on the level of best performers in order to avoid carbon and investment leakage.
The undersigned associations are committed to make the reform of the EU ETS a success.
But it must be a success for all the covered sectors.
If he was alive and would hear about the Tiered Approach in the ETS review, we would probably have engaged in the following dialogue: Aristotle: What is the purpose of proposing a Tiered Approach?
Rega: To avoid the so-called cross-sectoral correction factor CSCF — a uniformed cut in free credits allocated to each industrial installation, should the total demand excess the total availability of free credits.
How would a Tiered Approach work?
Sectors are clustered in different groups, and receive a different level of free credits.
How would sectors be clustered?
And how could different exposure levels to such risk be evaluated?
Have any of these analyses been used in the proposed tiered approach?
Sectors have not been compared with their respective non-EU sectors.
Instead, they have just been all lined up and assumed that the higher a sector strikes in terms of combined carbon and trade intensity, the higher it is exposed.
Indeed, as relocation outside the EU in countries with less stringent carbon constraints would then increase global carbon emissions.
Indeed, one could argue that it is rather arbitrary and discriminatory.
Could it be legally challenged?
In case of ブルース・リー送料 boundaries in defining the carbon leakage groups, companies not receiving the highest level of free credits will most likely go to court.
Would these companies have a chance to win?
Most likely, given the flawed methodology being used.
What would happen then?
Sectors would retroactively receive additional free credits business アンドロイドタブレット用のスペイン語の無料カジノゲームのダウンロード commit the highest level.
And what if the boundaries were not be rigid but rather flexible?
In this case, sectors initially allocated in some clusters would still be allowed to prove their higher need for protection, via the so-called qualitative assessment.
But if sectors will be granted additional free credits, where would these come from?
Like in past cases, the Commission would have to take a relevant amount of free credits upfront and park them aside, in case all sectors would apply and receive full protection.
Does it mean that sectors will be deemed to receive 100% free credits?
Yes, as allowances potentially needed would not be allocated.
Additionally, a generalised use of the qualitative assessment would exponentially increase both the administrative burden and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Thanks to Aristotle, we have come to a straight-forward conclusion: the Tiered Approach defeats its original purpose, namely to reduce the risk of triggering the CSCF.
With additional drawbacks impacting the stability, predictability and transparency of regulatory framework.
In this respect, tiering does neither.
Something that even Aristotle would agree upon.
A shortage can be as good as excluded if the proposed share of allowances to be auctioned were properly calculated.
Thus, the ETS reform can deliver the agreed emission reductions cost-effectively, encourage best performance through safeguarding full and effective carbon leakage protection to the benchmark level.
There is no need for exposing parts of EU industry to undue carbon costs.
The ITRE Draft Opinion proposes to expose a lot of industrial sectors to the risk of carbon leakage.
Burdening companies with undue carbon costs by cutting free allocation would divert resources from modernising and upgrading industrial infrastructure, thus exacerbating the risk of investment leakage to countries with less stringent climate policies.
This does not send a positive signal to European industry to accompany its decarbonisation investments and undermines our faith in, and support for, the ETS as a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions.
It reserves free allowances for some sectors at the expense of others.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, tiering would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them to carbon and investment leakage.
Statistical indicators vary - sometimes greatly - with time and depend on many factors market conditions, company structures, exposure to international trade, etc.
Hence, the setting of thresholds would be arbitrary and would risk not reflecting future needs and leakage risks of the sectors.
As a result, we call on the Members of the ITRE Committee to react strongly to the Draft Opinion, so that the ETS reform delivers full and effective carbon leakage protection without the need for arbitrary discrimination.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
We call for an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
While the report includes some positive proposals, other aspects still need to be improved.
In some cases, some proposed solutions would need to be thoroughly thought through, as they would have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting industrial competitiveness and destabilising the regulatory framework.
The following five aspects are of primary importance: 1.
Availability of free allowances for industry On the positive side, the report seeks to increase the availability of free credits for new entrants and production increases.
CEPI proposal: as future industry demand for free credits is subject to many uncertainties, any firm decision taken now will likely result in either excess of unused free credits or an excessive shortage of these.
Carbon Leakage The proposal from the rapporteur is simply unacceptable.
Such a discriminatory approach, if approved, would inevitably entail legal challenges read article courts, leading to an unstable and unpredictable regulatory framework.
Moreover, it would increase the risk of carbon leakage for most sectors in the economy, putting millions of jobs across industries and local communities at risk.
CEPI proposal: keep the Commission proposal.
Benchmarks update The proposal from the rapporteur is heading in the right direction.
Building on the Commission proposal, it stresses the need to use real data and tries to accommodate the need of those sectors moving at a slower pace in emission reductions.
The report also does not address rules for assessing progress in installations not covered by product benchmarks so-called fall-back approacheswhich are responsible for one see more of industrial emissions.
Indirect carbon costs passed on in electricity prices Although we strongly support the need to reduce the impact of carbon costs in electricity prices, the proposals will have little or no impact in this respect.
This is because most industrial installations purchase electricity on the wholesale market.
Differing levels of compensation will not impact the way the electricity market operates, thus the way carbon costs are passed through in electricity prices.
The proposals would therefore increase the carbon cost exposure for industries while not addressing the shortcomings of the current state aid regime, namely the lack of compensation in all Member States and the unpredictability of the rules.
It should also be noted that, in some countries, the lack of compensation for indirect costs coupled with no free credits for electricity produced and consumed on-site as in the case of CHP is already leading to up to 40% shortage in compensation for on-site emissions.
CEPI proposal: the ETS review needs to ensure 100% compensation for both direct and indirect carbon costs throughout the whole trading period, at benchmark level.
We also welcome the attempt to clarify the parameters already upfront in the text of the directive; this will accelerate the process by timely releasing the first funding opportunities.
Strengthen provisions on the share of financing support, ensuring all industrial sectors can really benefit from this opportunity.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, it would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them deliberately to carbon and investment leakage.
Depriving sectors of carbon leakage provisions would not deliver decarbonisation through investment and innovation.
Moreover, it could well prove to have been entirely unnecessary.
To that end, we continue to support an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
The proposed share of allowances to be auctioned shall also be recalculated downwards, as analysis of the EC proposal read article, it does not properly include the number of allowances which were to be given out for free i.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
The signatories fully share and support the BusinessEurope views.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
The agreement urges countries to implement policies that would allow them to keep a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.
The global forest products industry has a highly significant role to play in the implementation of these targets.
The European pulp and paper industry has been a global champion in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Having looked at the contributions of forests in the national targets of ICFPA member countries INDCs and global mitigation effort from 2020 onwards, the report concludes that many countries identify go here and the land-use sector as relevant to policies and measures implemented to meet their targets.
Reducing emissions from deforestation, but also sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation are commonly mentioned as key mitigation practices.
Other climate change mitigation efforts of the global forest products industry include supporting national and regional climate policies and programs; investing in technologies with low carbon footprints and ones that improve carbon sequestration; and developing bio-based technologies to find innovative ways to use wood fiber and substitutes for goods traditionally made from fossil fuels.
Note to the editor: The ICFPA represents more than 30 national and regional forest and paper associations around the world.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information about the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.
We share the conviction that only a flexible and dynamic energy system, making the best use of innovative and distributed supply and demand options, can ensure a cost-efficient and sustainable transition towards a decarbonised energy system.
We strongly believe that a market-driven environment is the best means to provide long-term investment signals while meeting all system needs and accommodating the growing share of renewable energy in the energy mix.
However, we see many constraints persisting in the energy sector that affect investment decisions, in particular: 1 depressed wholesale market prices due to overcapacity; 2 fading EU-coordination of energy policies with a tendency towards renationalisation; and 3 an antiquated set of market rules.
Market rules have been tailored to centralised production within national boundaries for too long.
Not only have they failed to adapt to developments in energy technologies and evolution of demand patterns both at ブルース・リー送料 and end-consumer level, but some of them hamper the deployment of renewables, storage and demand-side flexibility.
These new technologies can today provide valuable services including balancing energy offering significant flexibility to the system.
The energy system is now more complex to plan, control and balance.
It needs enhanced flexibility that could be provided by a mix of options, but this would require significant changes in the relevant legislation.
In this respect, we consider the upcoming legislative package on market design as a unique chance to provide the energy sector with a predictable investment framework, fairer market ブルース・リー送料, and ultimately seize new opportunities arising from decentralised energy production and demand side participation.
In particular, we deem essential that any ambitious reform of the energy market addresses the following issues: 1.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-term markets across borders 2.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from renewable energy supply and demand sources 3.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers to foster the pan-European trading ofelectricity and grid support services.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-markets across borders In a well-functioning electricity market, unhindered price-formation drives operational choices and investment decisions.
Transparent and undistorted market prices must be in place in all time horizons, and allowed to move freely without caps.
Wholesale electricity prices reflecting scarcity would signal the need for investments in new capacity.
Therefore, price spikes should be treated as a positive sign of an efficient and cost-effective energy system where market participants are free to choose the level of hedging they prefer to contract, revealing the true value of flexibility and energy at all times.
Market rules also need to be adapted so as to enhance clean and flexible energy providers to trade power over broader geographical areas and as close as possible to the time of delivery.
In this context, the opening and cross-border integration of intraday market is essential, especially for energy producers whose output is variable.
A as long as separate procurement of balancing capacity and energy is guaranteed, another important aspect is the possibility to negotiate the duration of contracts, e.
This is crucial, as certain flexibility technologies may require considerable capital investment and, therefore, contracts with a longer duration.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from different energy sources The main challenge for security of electricity supply is not the availability of capacity as such, but the availability of flexibility that is needed to support the system and provide for a constant balance between supply and demand.
In order to identify potential, locally constrained adequacy issues, system adequacy assessments should be carried out according to a common methodology and metrics transparently defined https://casinos-deposit.site/1/1248.html EU legislation 1.
Such analysis should be performed at regional level and consider the potential of all flexibility options, from the various energy supply and demand sources.
This would ensure a rigorously needs-based approach to the introduction of Capacity Remuneration Mechanisms CRMs when the market cannot not deliver the adequate flexibility.
If CRMs are deemed necessary, they should be designed in a way that minimises any negative impacts on price formation on energy markets.
They should avoid contributing to continued overcapacity situation by keeping redundant and polluting power plants online, and prioritise clean flexibility options as foreseen in the energy state aid guidelines.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers 2 to foster the pan-European trading of electricity and grid support services In addition to the modernisation and further opening of the balancing market, a proper market for ancillary or grid support services needs to be fostered to provide additional non-discriminatory revenue streams to flexibility providers, as well as overall operating cost savings for the energy system.
As of today, a number of services and solutions from decentralised generation and demand-side response are technically feasible, but current market conditions do not properly value their commercial provision.
The continued adaptation of balancing and ancillary services markets should foster https://casinos-deposit.site/1/83.html and incorporate innovative and decentralised solutions.
Prohibitive pre-qualification requirements and access conditions for independent aggregators, extended product-durations or minimum thresholds and symmetric bids are some of the aspects currently hampering an effective market.
Moreover, contradictory regulatory signals, e.
Compared to 2005, the year the EU Emission Trading Scheme came into force, absolute emissions fell by 27%.
With production levels remaining substantially the read article in 2015, emission reductions were primarily driven by market consolidation, investments in bioenergy, and the push from international competition to improve efficiency in production processes.
And with energy being the second main component in the cost structure, reducing energy-related costs, such as CO2 emissions, is a priority to secure an internationally-competitive position.
The European Paper Industry currently receives 1.
For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris atmobile: +32 486 243 642.
Specifically, the proposal has three major critical points: 1.
It is unjustified from both an economic and a fairness perspective The proposal pretends to adequately ensure protection against the risk of carbon leakage.
However, it reduces the share of free credits to the vast majority of industrial sectors, without providing any evidence of the impact of additional costs on their competitiveness.
The proposal particularly lacks of any cost comparison between a given European and a non-European sector.
The proposal reduces the amount of free credits to certain sectors, as a supposedly fair gesture towards some others who would otherwise receive too little protection.
This is far from being a fair approach.
It penalises competitive industries investing in low-carbon technologies Protection against the risk of carbon leakage should provide the regulatory certainty for industries in transition towards a low-carbon economy.
However the tiered approach rewards the most carbon intensive and least profitable sectors.
This is intrinsic in the formula used, which rewards high carbon intensity combined with low value added GVA.
On the contrary, the formula punishes a sector investing in carbon emission reductions by giving a lower protection against the risk of carbon leakage as a direct consequence of these investments.
It hampers innovation The ETS is expected to ultimately promote the substitution of high-carbon with low-carbon production.
In this respect, solutions may come from within a given sector or as a cross-fertilisation of ideas coming from other sectors.
One example is the potential coming from the bioeconomy or circular economy to provide solutions to decarbonise other sectors.
However, the proposed tiered approach provides different carbon cost exposure to different sectors, with the paradox that the most carbon intensive will bear the least carbon costs.
As a consequence, the investment signal from the ETS will be totally jeopardised.
Sectors which successfully invest in decarbonising their processes are systematically at risk of being pushed outside the EU.
Alternatives to the tiered approach Discussions on tiered free allocation are triggered by the need to avoid the application of the Cross-Sectoral Correction Factor CSCF.
The timing and magnitude of the CSCF are far from being certain, as it depends on a combination of factors production levels, changes in the market, technological developments, innovation, development of international carbon markets, etc.
Rather than picking one scenario and fixing the rules for the next 15 years read article, the EU should: 1.
Define a regulatory framework that stimulates and rewards investments in low-carbon technologies, as a way to reduce the demand for free credits; 2.
Support programmes to accelerate the market-readiness of breakthrough technologies for industrial installations; 3.
Secure a sufficient amount of free credits to allow for low-carbon economic growth in energy intensive industries exposed to international competition; 4.
Set rules to predictably assess potential shortages in the supply of free credits and, when the case, explore all possible options to preserve industrial competitiveness.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega at mobile: +32 カジノレンタルノックスビルtn 485403412.
Position paper 11 Feb.
The full consultation replies can be found.
Here are some highlights: In reviewing the EU energy efficiency target for 2030, the Commission should have in mind that energy efficiency has to be achieved by voluntary initiatives, rather than by mandatory requirements.
An EU-wide binding energy saving target until 2030 would limit the scope for economic room to manoeuvre.
A rigid objective as a binding cap on energy consumption would impede growth.
Therefore, it is of vital importance that the Commission designs the target in such a way that recognises early measures and focuses on lowering the energy intensity, not the energy use as such.
The European framework has to create ideal long-term conditions to realize energy efficiency measures covering all sectors.
This is particularly important for the non-ETS sectors, where incentives to improve energy efficiency are often insufficient.
Effective incentives are needed, especially for research and development as well as for the cost-efficient implementation of investments in energy efficiency measures.
In view of achieving the new EU energy efficiency target for 2030, we believe that energy efficiency work must be done locally and as close to the energy consuming unit as possible.
The role of the EU should therefore only be limited to setting targets, creating the overall regulatory framework, monitor the process in terms of energy efficiency improvements and give non-binding advice to those countries that are not able to reach the given goals.
But details on how to implement energy efficiency policies need to be formulated at national or even industry level.
The EU should also promote and finance research and innovation in the field of energy and process technology to enable breakthrough technologies.
Regarding the most appropriate financing mechanisms to significantly increase energy efficiency investments in view of the 2030 target, it is important to find a high efficient way of financing.
To make sure that the highest possible potential is tapped with the available amount of money, it is ブルース・リー送料 to prefer energy investment funding for measures with high returns on investment.
One way would be to support investment in form of cheap call money from a revolving fund for efficiency measures that would otherwise not take place without support.
Ensuring that the invested money always returns to the fund e.
Interest-free loans to finance investments are also a way to achieve energy efficiency measures.
Income from auctioning of emission rights should also be used to finance energy efficiency measures.
Position paper 11 Feb.
This consultation covered the REDII aspects.
You can find the fully completed consultation.
Here are some highlights: CEPI believes that the RED has been successful in deploying large volumes of renewable energy sources.
However, the costs directly and indirectly associated to such deployment in most Member States have been quite significant.
The energy prices gap with competing economies has widened, with policy-induced costs being particularly relevant in electricity prices.
This has a negative impact on industrial competitiveness, as acknowledged by the cricket 無料ダウンロードpcフルバージョン2019 Commission Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020.
Weather dependent renewable energy, solar and wind, is remarkable 最新の無料のPCゲームのダウンロード growing challenge to secure availability of electricity.
The RED has also led to measures promoting the demand for bioenergy, not sufficiently taking into account the availability of wood for the wood processing industry, which is producing substitutes to fossil fuel based and more carbon intensive products.
This negative impact on the competitiveness of the wood processing industry is hampering the uptake of the bio-economy and its climate change mitigation potential.
Support to bio-energy should rather focus on stimulating the supply of wood.
Member States have a responsibility to ensure that additional demand for bioenergy is met by supply of raw materials, taking into account local biomass availability.
Therefore demand-side measures should be balanced with supply-side measures to mobilise existing additional potential of wood that can otherwise not be used for wood and fibre based products.
Reference could be made to the biomass mobilisation brochure jointly developed by DG AGRI, Forest-Europe and the UNECE-FAO.
Position paper 01 Dec.
However, these improvements are not yet sufficient in protecting the competitiveness of energy intensive industries, ensuring adequate regulatory stability and predictability, and in stimulating investments in low-carbon technologies.
From 2005 to 2014, our industry has reduced carbon emissions by 26%, resulting in 21% carbon-intensity reduction.
We have been early-movers in low-carbon investments and have plans to grow our business in Europe, building synergies with circular economy and the bioeconomy.
To bring environmental protection in line with industry competitiveness, we ask to: 1.
Remove artificial cap on free credits to industry.
The artificial cap will also lead, sooner or later, to the application of the cross-sectoralcorrection factor CSCF.
This is the most unfair among all instruments, as it cuts allocationirrespective of industry potentials, neutralises carbon leakage provisions, limits predictability,and punishes investments made by early movers.
Keep the proposed approach to benchmarks review, but improve key design aspects.
The benchmark review needs to predictably promote and reward investments in low-carbontechnologies, while finding the right balance between accuracy and administrative burden.
Reducing benchmarks at achievable paces, with rules clearly stated upfront, will lowerregulatory risks and reward the installations who will invest in low-carbon technologies.
Looking at the administrative burden, the pulp and paper industry, with more than 700installations in the ETS — 60% of which below 25kt — emitted just 31.
Yet, it is the 2nd biggest sector for number ofbenchmarks 11covering only about 50% of industry production — the rest being under theso-called fall-back approach.
It is self-evident that opting for a full review of benchmark valuesinstead is disproportionately costly while only delivering marginal accuracy improvements.
This is why we look favourably at the approach proposed by the Commission.
Grant to all energy-intensive industries equal protection against present and futurerisks of carbon leakage.
Industry is either exposed to global competition or not: there is no middle ground.
In thiscontext, the Commission proposal seems reasonable.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that therest of the world does not impose comparable costs on energy intensive industries, withcarbon leakage provisions appearing also in other non-EU countries.
Adopt binding EU rules click the following article compensation of indirect carbon costs.
Indirect carbon costs affect industrial international competitiveness as much as direct carboncosts do.
The principle of equal treatment in shielding industry from both carbon costs musteffectively and consistently apply in all Member States.
Stop penalising investments in industrial Combined Heat and Power CHP.
In the pulp and paper industry CHP is considered as Best Available Technique.
Installations are therefore expected to use this technology.
Today however the EU ETS does not send the right investment signal to invest in industrial CHP: the EU ETS grants no free credits for electricity produced and no consistent and adequate compensation for indirect carbon costs is given across Europe either.
Given the relevant co-benefits CHP delivers in moving Europe towards a low-carbon economy, corrective measures to provide the right investment signal are urgently needed.
Earmark innovation and modernisation apologise, dmの火かき棒のカジノのコペンハーゲン excellent to energy intensive industries.
The earmarked 450 million allowances is the largest industry innovation fund ever.
To deliverits full potential it should be linked to the goal of 2050 sectoral roadmaps, and aimed at thedeployment of new technologies for each Annex I sectors.
The modernisation fund should alsoprimarily support low-carbon technologies in industry.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega, Climate Change and Energy Director, at n.
The statement presents the contributions of forests and the forest products industry to the mitigation of global climate change and calls on governments to recognize these contributions.
The full statement is available at:.
The side-event will be hosted by the ICFPA and the EU Joint Research Centre.
All ICFPA policy statements are available at.
The ICFPA serves as a forum of global dialogue, co-ordination and co-operation.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information, visit.
Press Release 15 Jul.
The proposal has a number of good elements but falls short in its protection of energy intensive industries.
Member states hold the key to the solution.
In October 2014 the European Council recognised that measures to protect energy intensive industry from carbon leakage should be maintained when revising the EU ETS.
The Council concluded the most efficient installations in sectors such as the pulp and paper industry should not face undue carbon costs that would impact their global competitiveness.
Member states however added expectations on the revenues they want from the EU ETS.
CEPI does appreciate the focus on low carbon investments and support for technology and innovation in the new proposal.
The use of more accurate production data is good, even though the proposal could be more ambitious.
CEPI also believes the linear reduction of the benchmarks used for free allocation is reasonable and improves predictability.
The proposal does however not solve the lack of free allocation for Combined Heat and Power Plants in Europe, which has been an additional factor in closing down very carbon efficient gas-fired energy plants in Europe.
The pulp and paper industry is a leading CHP sector, producing over 50% of its electricity consumption by ブルース・リー送料 />Finally, the proposal strengthens the focus of member states on compensation for higher electricity costs to industry, but does not lead to a harmonised EU approach, which is what the internal market requires.
Member States have to align their compensation schemes, so industry is treated equal across Europe.
The European Pulp and Paper Industry is a globally competing sector, with over 700 installations covered by the EU ETS.
Total sector fossil CO2 emissions were 31 Million tonnes in 2014, already reduced from 43 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
The sector has a clear focus on breakthrough technology programmes through its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap for the Forest Fibre Sector.
CEPI calls upon the policy makers to rethink their approach.
Through its 18 member countries 17 European Union members plus Norway CEPI represents some 505 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 920 paper mills.
Together they represent 23% of world production.
We call on EU policy makers to ensure that the post-2020 carbon leakage provisions fully offset direct and indirect costs at the level of best performers with no cross sectoral correction factor.
Our industries play an instrumental role in delivering the technologies and solutions to reach that common goal.
The ETS is an important tool to be used in achieving this common ambition.
Energy intensive sectors are capital-intensive.
A large part of their investments are geared towards energy efficiency, decarbonisation and emission reduction efforts, in full support of the Climate and Energy Package 2030.
However, securing these investments and preventing them from leaking outside of the EU requires strong carbon leakage provisions.
The current Commission proposals fall short on this requirement.
In particular, fixing the auction share means shrinking available free allocations for manufacturing industry.
We call on the Council and the Parliament to reform the ETS system in such a way that the economy can resume growth and that the most carbon efficient undertakings are not incurring a carbon cost penalty.
Notes for Editors About AEII The Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries represents over 30,000 European companies and four million jobs in the EU.
Our industries are at the core of the EU economy and the starting point of multiple value chains, such as the car industry, fuels, buildings, energy production, including renewable energies, food and drinks, and pharmaceuticals.
This paper contains Alliance proposals on carbon leakage protection, free allocation principles and competitiveness under ETS Phase IV to ensure simple, fair, predictable and effective rules i.
Those principles are further detailed below.
Best industrial performers must not be penalized by ETS allocation rules The concept of declining free allocation for industry is in contrast to the need for full protection against carbon leakage and should not serve as a justification to reduce protection.
The limit on the total issuance of allowances in ETS sectors defined by Heads of State and governments covers both free allocation and auctioning.
They did not impose a decrease of free allocation as such.
On the contrary carbon leakage provisions should be improved in order to encourage carbon-efficient production and growth in Europe, and allocation must be guaranteed at the level of realistic benchmarks.
Only predictable and effective carbon leakage measures will enable companies to invest in read more solutions in Europe.
Accordingly there should be no direct and indirect cost at the very least at the level of most efficient European installations in sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
The effect of the cross sectoral factor CSCF is that even the best performers cannot achieve these levels due to economic, technical or thermo-dynamical limits.
Ignoring this turns the EU ETS into a penalty system rather than an incentivising system.
For that reason, all our sectors call for a deletion of the CSCF, in accordance with the European Council conclusions of 23-24 October 2014 1.
Current carbon leakage assessment methodology remains valid The carbon leakage risk will not decrease and may well increase on the contrary: - It can currently not be expected that there will be not ノルウェーのカジノ are large breakthrough in negotiations at international level that would lead to climate policies, imposing equivalent carbon costs for industries located in competing regions.
All Energy Intensive Industries should receive full protection at the level of the benchmark.
Consequently, the quantitative and qualitative carbon amusing PCファームヒーローズサガ用無料ダウンロード24ゲーム agree risk assessment criteria and assumptions as defined in 2008 remain fully valid and must remain unchanged.
Energy Intensive Industries are characterised by long investment cycles.
The carbon leakage list must only be updated at the beginning of each trading period.
Establishing technically and economically achievable benchmarks The benchmarks should be updated maximum once, ahead of each trading period to provide planning certainty for participants, decrease the administrative burdens and provide an appropriate reward for those that have invested in emissions efficiency.
The update of the benchmark values should be based on data collection from the EU companies.
The process of establishing benchmarks must be as transparent as possible.
If in a sector, no relevant changes in technology have taken place, such sector can request a simplified approach for data collection.
These benchmarks have to be representative for the sectors and based on representative technologies that have been adopted by the European market.
Over-ambitious benchmarks artificially increase costs to industry overall and de facto undermine the effectiveness of the carbon leakage provisions.
The current rules are already very stringent, as benchmarks are set according to the average of the top 10% most efficient installations in the sector; hence, even without the cross-sectoral correction factor, around 95% of the installations have to purchase allowances.
Indirect carbon costs need to be fully compensated throughout Europe The current implementation of carbon leakage measures to deal with indirect carbon costs has resulted in a fragmented approach as eligible sectors exposed to electricity price increases due to carbon costs may only receive from few Member States a partial financial compensation.
This creates an uneven playing field in the internal EU market, and creates a disadvantage for those installations that are not receiving any, or only partial, compensation, vis-à-vis extra-EU competitors.
Sectors with a fall-back approach should also be properly treated.
The current system is unpredictable, as it relies on a state aid compensation assessment, and is granted annually, digressive and uncertain for future years.
For the longer term, the Commission should also assess the possibility of redesigning the click to see more market in a way this web page prevents carbon cost pass through in electricity prices to sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
For example, the reference period could be the rolling year n-2.
The required production data are already available as verifiers have to ascertain the activity data needed for the allocation.
The bureaucratic burden will be therefore minimal.
For installations covered by fall-back approaches as opposed to benchmarks, emission reductions resulting from efficiency measures should not result in a penalty.
Creating a reserve for growth To ensure sufficient availability of allowances for free allocation for industry, a reserve for growth would be needed.
This reserve for growth would act as a buffer to ensure predictable access to both free allocation and auctioned allowances.
There are several ways to operate this proposed reserve for growth: - It can be filled with unused free allowances due to lower production in phase III, back-loaded allowances, un-allocated allowances from New Entrants Reserve.
Then it can provide allowances for growth in case of higher production.
Support to innovation The extension of innovation ブルース・リー送料 to industrial projects is welcome.
However, it should not happen at the detriment of carbon leakage protection by reducing or limiting the amount of free allocation.
Industry exposed to carbon leakage risk will struggle to invest or innovate without predictable efficient carbon leakage protection.
Innovation funding under EU ETS should be allocated to energy intensive sectors appointed in Annex I of the directive.
Some sectors have already developed 2050 decarbonisation roadmaps, in which transformation technologies are mentioned.
A dedicated fund taking into consideration these abatement possibilities will bring innovative technologies e.
Industry needs an objective impact assessment for Phase IV ETS In light of the better regulation policy of the new Commission, an objective impact assessment on the different European energy intensive industries is crucial, taking into account their ability to reduce emissions low carbon roadmaps.
Any flawed impact assessment could lead to wrong policy decisions for the energy intensive industries in Europe.
To meet this target, the European Council agreed that the emissions in the EU Emission Trading System should be reduced, compared to 2005, by 43%.
A reformed EU ETS remains the main instrument to achieve the emission reduction target.
The cap will decline based on an annual linear reduction factor of 2.
The European Council furthermore gave strategic guidance on several issues regarding the implementation of the emission reduction target, namely free allocation to industry, the establishment of a modernisation and an innovation fund, optional free allocation of allowances to modernise electricity generation in some Member States.
The strategic guidance given by European leaders on these elements will be translated into a legislative proposal to revise the EU ETS for the period post-2020.
This constitutes an important part article source the work on the achievement of a resilient Energy Union with a forward looking climate change policy, which has been identified as a key policy area in President Juncker's political guidelines for the new Commission.
The purpose of this stakeholder consultation was to gather stakeholders' views on these elements.
CEPI's Key messages : - The ETS in general, and the benchmarks in particular, should reward installations and sectors reducing GHG emissions, without penalising early movers, new investment made, and low-carbon 逃げるゲーム growth.
Fiscal and legislative stability and predictability are needed to enable investments in low-carbon technologies.
This can be easily verified by the lack of correlation between carbon prices and final product prices.
Financing of compensation schemes should include also, but not be limited to, auctioning revenues from ETS.
It should be directed to directly finance large-scale demo and pilot projects, as well projects close to commercialisation stage TRL 6-8.
These are high risk, high capital investments where the private sector would not be able to deliver without the backing of public financing.
This should be acknowledged when reviewing the EU ETS, by addressing the ETS impact on prices and availability of raw material, such as wood.
Read the full reponse.
Best practices in energy efficiency and renewables - To our Roots and Beyond EPRC - Could we recycle more?
Pro-consumer choice campaign: Digital or paper correspondence?

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Tech 21 YYZ 【ゲディー・リー・シグネチャーモデル!!】【即納可能!!】 ¥31320 税込. 状態:S. (株)MUSICLAND KEY 大阪心斎橋店 · 決済 · クレカ. NEW! 新品特価. MXR M80 Bass D.I.+ 【アウトレット特価】【ベース用プリアンプ/D.I.】 SALE.


Enjoy!
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Valid for casinos
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
ブルース・リー送料

T7766547
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

... 書□ office supplies:事務用品□ steel:スチール製の、鋼製の□ transparent:透明な□ sub total:小計□ shipping:送料メモの訳ルーカスへ、この注文について調べてくれませんか。. 配送部のジャック・リーによると、注文品の配送は11月17日に済んでいるとのこと。. キースは、ブルース・ニコラスと連絡を取ろうとしていると言っていました。


Enjoy!
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Valid for casinos
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Reply to this quick survey on our website's members area and tell us more about your user experience.
It will only take 5 minutes of your time pnc銀行口座振込用紙 help us shape the future of CEPI.
These hydrophobic DESs could successfully replace chemical solvents in the paper recycling process in order to remove transition metal ions such as iron and manganese from paper pulp.
Coordinated by ISPT, the industry-driven PROVIDES project focuses on developing environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical solvents in the European pulp and paper industry.
It is financially supported by 20 industrial partners.
Deep Eutectic Solvents DESs are nature-based, renewable, biodegradable, low-volatile and cost-effective.
When used for producing high-quality cellulose fibers in paper-making applications, they are extremely energy efficient, particularly because they do not require high temperatures.
They offer a groundbreaking new method for the pulping of many different lignocellulosic materials for producing chemical pulp, pure lignin and other chemicals.
Read the full press release by ISPT.
DES was the winning project of the Two Team Project, a CEPI project thanks to which the industry identified eight breakthrough technologies that would help decarbonise papermaking.
Read more about it.
Save News 15 Sep.
Position paper 13 Jun.
The undersigned associations support the principles of the EU ETS as the cornerstone mechanism to deliver cost-efficient emission reductions in the EU while at the same time securing a global level playing field for industry.
But, for this to be achievable, we need to ensure that the EU ETS works for every covered sector.
The post 2020 ETS reform must focus on achieving long-lasting, holistic and effective changes to the system in order to instil confidence in the market.
An essential element of the reform is to provide long-term predictability and legal stability to industry and investors, and to avoid the quick-fixes and piecemeal approach we have seen in the recent past.
However, the rules should ensure the right balance between ensuring liquidity with regard to the available auctioning volumes and providing the necessary volume of free allowances on the level of best performers in order to avoid carbon and investment leakage.
The undersigned associations are committed to make the reform of the EU ETS a success.
But it must be a success for all the covered sectors.
If he was alive and would hear about the Tiered Approach in the ETS review, we would probably have engaged in the following dialogue: Aristotle: What is the purpose of proposing a Tiered Approach?
Rega: To avoid the so-called cross-sectoral correction factor CSCF — a uniformed cut in free credits allocated to each industrial installation, should the total demand excess the total availability of free credits.
How would a Tiered Approach work?
Sectors are clustered in different groups, and receive a different level of free credits.
How would sectors be clustered?
And how could different exposure levels to https://casinos-deposit.site/1/724.html risk be evaluated?
Have any of these analyses been used in the proposed tiered approach?
Sectors ブルース・リー送料 not been compared with their respective non-EU sectors.
Instead, they have just been all lined up and assumed that the higher a sector strikes in terms of combined carbon and trade intensity, the higher it is exposed.
Indeed, as relocation outside the EU in countries with less stringent carbon constraints would then increase global carbon emissions.
Indeed, one could argue that it is rather arbitrary and discriminatory.
Could it be legally challenged?
In case of rigid boundaries in defining the carbon leakage groups, companies not receiving the highest level of free credits will most likely go to court.
Would these companies have a chance to win?
Most likely, given the flawed methodology being used.
What would happen then?
Sectors would retroactively receive additional free credits at the highest level.
And what if the boundaries were not be rigid but rather flexible?
In this case, sectors initially allocated in some clusters would still be allowed to prove their higher need for protection, via the so-called qualitative assessment.
But if sectors will be granted additional free credits, where would these come from?
Like in past cases, the Commission would have to take a relevant amount of free credits upfront and park them aside, in case all sectors would apply and receive full protection.
Does it mean that sectors will be deemed to receive 100% free credits?
Yes, as allowances potentially needed would not be allocated.
Additionally, a generalised use of the qualitative assessment would exponentially increase both the administrative burden and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Thanks to Aristotle, we have come to a straight-forward conclusion: the Tiered Approach defeats its original purpose, namely to reduce the risk of triggering the CSCF.
With additional drawbacks impacting the stability, predictability and transparency of ハリウッドカジノpaの飲み物の価格 framework.
In this respect, tiering does neither.
Something that even Aristotle would agree upon.
A shortage can be as good as excluded if the proposed share of allowances to be auctioned were properly calculated.
Thus, the ETS reform can deliver the agreed emission reductions cost-effectively, encourage best performance through safeguarding full and effective carbon leakage protection to the benchmark level.
There is no need for exposing parts of EU industry to undue carbon costs.
The ITRE Draft Opinion proposes to expose a lot of industrial sectors to the risk of carbon leakage.
Burdening companies with undue carbon more info by cutting free allocation would divert resources from modernising and upgrading industrial infrastructure, thus exacerbating the risk of investment leakage to countries with less stringent climate policies.
This does not send a positive signal to European industry to accompany its decarbonisation investments and undermines our faith in, and support for, the ETS as a cost-effective ブルース・リー送料 of reducing carbon emissions.
It reserves free allowances for some sectors at the expense of others.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, tiering would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them to carbon and investment leakage.
Statistical indicators vary - sometimes greatly - with time and depend on many factors market conditions, company structures, exposure to international trade, etc.
Hence, the setting of thresholds would be arbitrary and would risk not reflecting future needs and leakage risks of the sectors.
As a result, we call on the Members of the ITRE Committee to react strongly to the Draft Opinion, so that the ETS reform delivers full and effective carbon leakage protection without the need for arbitrary discrimination.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
We call for an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
While the report includes some positive proposals, other aspects still need to be improved.
In some cases, some proposed solutions would need to be thoroughly thought through, as they would have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting industrial competitiveness and destabilising the regulatory framework.
The following five aspects are of primary importance: 1.
Availability of free allowances for industry On the positive side, the report seeks to increase the availability of free credits for new entrants and production increases.
CEPI proposal: https://casinos-deposit.site/1/460.html future industry demand for free credits is subject to many uncertainties, any firm decision taken now will likely result in either excess of unused free credits or an パームデザートcaカジノ shortage of these.
Carbon Leakage The ブルース・リー送料 from the rapporteur is simply unacceptable.
Such a discriminatory approach, if approved, would inevitably entail legal challenges in courts, leading to an unstable and unpredictable regulatory framework.
Moreover, it would increase the risk of carbon leakage for most sectors in the economy, putting millions of jobs across industries and local communities at risk.
CEPI proposal: keep the Commission proposal.
Benchmarks update The proposal from the rapporteur is heading in the right direction.
Building on the Commission proposal, it stresses the need to use real data and tries to accommodate the need of those sectors moving at a slower pace in emission reductions.
The report also does not address rules for assessing progress in installations not covered by product benchmarks so-called fall-back approacheswhich are responsible for one third of industrial emissions.
Indirect carbon costs passed on in electricity prices Although we strongly support the need to reduce the impact of carbon costs in electricity prices, the proposals will have little or no impact in this respect.
This is because most industrial installations purchase electricity on the wholesale market.
Differing levels of compensation will not impact the way the electricity market operates, thus the way carbon costs are passed through in electricity prices.
The proposals would therefore increase the carbon cost exposure for industries while not addressing the shortcomings of the current state aid regime, namely the lack of compensation in all Member States and the unpredictability of the rules.
It should also be noted that, in some countries, the lack of compensation for indirect costs coupled with no free credits for electricity produced and consumed on-site as in the case of CHP is already leading to up to 40% shortage in compensation for on-site emissions.
CEPI proposal: the ETS review needs to ensure 100% compensation for both direct and indirect carbon costs throughout the whole trading period, at benchmark level.
We also welcome the attempt to clarify the parameters already upfront in the text of the directive; this will accelerate the process by timely releasing the first funding opportunities.
Strengthen provisions on the share of financing support, ensuring all industrial sectors can really benefit from this opportunity.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, it would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them deliberately to carbon and investment leakage.
Depriving sectors of carbon leakage provisions would not deliver decarbonisation through investment and innovation.
Moreover, article source could well prove to have been entirely unnecessary.
To that end, we continue to support an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
The proposed share of allowances to be auctioned shall also be recalculated downwards, as analysis of the EC proposal shows, it does not properly include the number of allowances which were to be given out for free i.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
Jobs in one フェアゴーカジノクーポンコード are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
The signatories fully share and support the BusinessEurope views.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
The agreement urges countries to implement policies that would allow them to keep a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.
can 完全無料のフルバージョンゲームダウンロード confirm global forest products industry has a highly significant role to play in the implementation of these targets.
The European pulp and paper industry has been a global champion in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Having looked at the contributions of forests in the national targets of ICFPA member countries INDCs and global mitigation effort from 2020 onwards, the report concludes that many countries identify forests and the click to see more sector as relevant to policies and measures implemented to meet their targets.
Reducing emissions from deforestation, but also sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation are commonly mentioned as key mitigation practices.
Other climate change mitigation efforts of the global forest products industry include supporting national and regional climate policies and programs; investing in technologies with low carbon footprints and ones that improve carbon sequestration; and developing bio-based technologies to find innovative ways to use wood fiber and substitutes for goods traditionally made from fossil fuels.
Note to the editor: The ICFPA represents more than 30 national and regional forest and paper associations around the world.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information about the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.
We share the conviction that only a flexible and dynamic energy system, making the best use of innovative and distributed supply and demand options, can ensure a cost-efficient and sustainable transition towards a decarbonised energy system.
We strongly believe that a market-driven environment is the best means to provide long-term investment signals while meeting all system needs and accommodating the growing share of renewable energy in the energy mix.
However, we see many constraints persisting in the energy sector that affect investment decisions, in particular: 1 depressed wholesale market prices due to overcapacity; 2 fading EU-coordination of energy policies with a tendency towards renationalisation; and 3 an antiquated set of market rules.
Market rules have been tailored to centralised production within national boundaries for too long.
Not only have they failed to adapt to developments in energy technologies and evolution of demand patterns both at industry and end-consumer level, but some of them hamper the deployment of renewables, storage and demand-side flexibility.
These new technologies can today provide valuable services including balancing energy offering significant flexibility to the system.
The energy system is now more complex to plan, control and balance.
It needs enhanced flexibility that could be provided by a mix of options, but this would require significant changes in the relevant legislation.
In this respect, we consider the upcoming legislative package on market design as a unique chance to provide the energy sector with a predictable investment framework, fairer market conditions, and ultimately seize new opportunities arising from decentralised energy production and demand side participation.
In particular, we deem essential that any ambitious reform of the energy market addresses the following issues: 1.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-term markets across borders 2.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from renewable energy supply and demand sources 3.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers to foster the pan-European trading ofelectricity and grid support services.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-markets across borders In a well-functioning electricity market, unhindered price-formation drives operational choices and investment decisions.
Transparent and undistorted market prices must be in place in all time horizons, and accept. ゲンティングゲームモバイル opinion to move freely without caps.
Wholesale electricity prices reflecting scarcity would signal the need for investments in new capacity.
Therefore, price spikes should be treated as a positive sign of an efficient and cost-effective energy system where market participants are free to choose the level of hedging they prefer to continue reading, revealing the true value of flexibility and energy at all times.
Market rules also need to be adapted so as to enhance clean and flexible energy providers to trade power over broader geographical areas and as close as possible to the time of delivery.
In this context, the opening and cross-border integration of intraday market is essential, especially for energy producers whose output is variable.
A as long as separate procurement of 無料ゲームオンラインカナダ capacity and energy is guaranteed, another important aspect is the possibility to negotiate the duration of contracts, e.
This is crucial, as certain flexibility technologies may require considerable capital investment and, therefore, contracts with a longer duration.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from different energy sources The main challenge for security of electricity supply is not the availability of capacity as such, but the availability of flexibility that is needed to support the system and provide for a constant balance between supply and demand.
In order to identify potential, locally constrained adequacy issues, system adequacy assessments should be carried out according to a common methodology and metrics transparently defined in EU legislation 1.
Such analysis should be performed at regional level and consider the potential of all flexibility options, from the various energy supply and demand sources.
This would ensure a rigorously needs-based approach to the introduction of Capacity Remuneration Mechanisms CRMs when the market cannot not deliver the adequate flexibility.
If CRMs are deemed necessary, they should be designed in a way that minimises any negative impacts on price formation on energy markets.
They should avoid contributing to continued overcapacity situation by keeping redundant and polluting power plants online, and prioritise clean flexibility options as foreseen in the energy state aid guidelines.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers 2 to foster the pan-European trading of electricity and grid support services In addition to the modernisation and further opening of the balancing source, a proper market for ancillary or grid support services needs to be fostered to provide additional non-discriminatory revenue streams to flexibility providers, as just click for source as overall operating cost savings for the energy system.
As of today, a number of services and solutions from decentralised generation and demand-side response are technically feasible, but current market conditions do not properly value their commercial provision.
The continued adaptation of balancing and ancillary services markets should foster liquidity and incorporate innovative and decentralised solutions.
Prohibitive pre-qualification requirements and トップガンゲーム無料オンライン conditions for independent aggregators, extended product-durations or minimum thresholds and symmetric bids are some of the aspects currently hampering an effective market.
Moreover, contradictory regulatory signals, e.
Compared to 2005, the year the EU Emission Trading Scheme came into force, absolute emissions fell by 27%.
With production levels remaining substantially the same in 2015, emission reductions were primarily driven by market consolidation, investments in bioenergy, and the push from international competition to improve efficiency in production processes.
And with energy being the second main component in the cost structure, reducing energy-related costs, such as CO2 emissions, is a priority to secure an internationally-competitive position.
The European Paper Industry currently receives 1.
For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris atmobile: +32 486 243 642.
Specifically, the proposal has three major critical points: 1.
It is unjustified from both an economic and a fairness perspective The proposal pretends to adequately ensure protection against the risk of carbon leakage.
However, it reduces the share of free credits to the vast majority of industrial sectors, without providing any evidence of the impact of additional costs on their competitiveness.
The proposal particularly lacks of any cost comparison between a given European and a non-European sector.
The proposal reduces the amount of free credits to certain sectors, as a supposedly fair gesture towards some others who would otherwise receive too little protection.
This is far from being a fair approach.
It penalises competitive industries investing in low-carbon technologies Protection against the risk of carbon leakage should provide the regulatory certainty for industries in transition towards a low-carbon economy.
However the tiered approach rewards the most carbon intensive and least profitable sectors.
This is intrinsic in the formula used, which rewards high carbon intensity combined with low value added GVA.
On the contrary, the formula punishes a sector investing in carbon emission reductions by giving a lower protection against the risk of carbon leakage as a direct consequence of these investments.
It hampers innovation The ETS is expected to ultimately promote the substitution of high-carbon with low-carbon production.
In this respect, solutions may come from within a given sector or as a cross-fertilisation of ideas coming from other sectors.
One example is the potential coming from the bioeconomy アイルカジノポンパノポーカー circular economy to provide visit web page to decarbonise other sectors.
However, the proposed tiered approach provides different carbon cost exposure to different sectors, with the paradox that the most carbon intensive will bear the least carbon costs.
As a consequence, the investment signal from the ETS will be totally jeopardised.
Sectors which successfully invest in decarbonising their processes are systematically at risk of being pushed outside the EU.
Alternatives to the tiered approach Discussions on tiered free allocation are triggered by the need to avoid the application of the Cross-Sectoral Correction Factor CSCF.
The timing and magnitude of the CSCF are far from being certain, as it depends on a combination of factors production levels, changes in the market, technological developments, innovation, development of international carbon markets, etc.
Rather than picking one scenario and fixing the rules for the next 15 years accordingly, the EU should: 1.
Define a regulatory framework that stimulates and rewards investments in low-carbon technologies, as a click to reduce the demand for free credits; 2.
Support programmes to accelerate the market-readiness of breakthrough technologies for industrial installations; 3.
Secure a sufficient amount of free credits to allow for low-carbon economic growth in energy intensive industries exposed to international competition; 4.
Set rules to predictably assess potential shortages in the supply of free credits and, when the case, explore all possible options to preserve industrial competitiveness.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega at mobile: +32 0 485403412.
Position paper 11 Feb.
The full consultation replies can be found.
Here are some highlights: In check this out the EU energy efficiency target for 2030, the Commission should have in mind that energy efficiency has to be achieved by voluntary initiatives, rather than by mandatory requirements.
An EU-wide binding energy saving target until 2030 would limit the scope for economic room to manoeuvre.
A rigid objective as a binding cap on energy consumption would impede growth.
Therefore, it is of vital importance that the Commission designs the target in such a way that recognises early measures and focuses on lowering the energy intensity, not the energy use as such.
The European framework has to create ideal long-term conditions to realize energy efficiency measures covering all sectors.
This is particularly important for the non-ETS sectors, where incentives to improve energy efficiency are often insufficient.
Effective incentives are needed, especially for research and development as well as for the cost-efficient implementation of investments in energy efficiency measures.
In view of achieving the new EU energy efficiency target for 2030, we believe that energy efficiency work must be done locally and as close to the energy consuming unit as possible.
The role of the EU should therefore only be limited to setting targets, creating the overall regulatory framework, monitor the process in terms of energy efficiency improvements and give non-binding advice to those countries that are not able to reach the given goals.
But details on how to implement energy efficiency policies need to be formulated https://casinos-deposit.site/1/532.html national or even industry level.
The EU should also promote and finance research and innovation in the field of energy and process technology to enable breakthrough technologies.
Regarding the most appropriate financing mechanisms to significantly increase energy efficiency investments in view of the 2030 target, it is important to find a high efficient way of financing.
To make sure that the highest possible potential is tapped with the available amount of money, it is important to prefer energy investment funding for measures with high returns on investment.
One way would be to support investment in form of cheap call money from a revolving fund for efficiency measures that would otherwise not take place without support.
Ensuring that the invested money 高5カジノ山と谷 returns to the fund e.
Interest-free loans to finance investments are also a way to achieve energy efficiency measures.
Income from auctioning of emission rights should also be used to finance energy efficiency measures.
Position paper 11 Feb.
This consultation covered the REDII aspects.
You can find the fully completed consultation.
Here are some highlights: CEPI believes that the RED has been successful in deploying large volumes of renewable energy sources.
However, the costs directly and indirectly associated to such deployment in most Member States have been quite significant.
The energy prices gap with competing economies has widened, with policy-induced costs being particularly relevant in electricity prices.
This has a negative impact on industrial competitiveness, as acknowledged by the 2014 Commission Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020.
Weather dependent renewable energy, solar and wind, is remarkable and growing challenge to secure availability of electricity.
The RED has also led to measures promoting the demand for bioenergy, not sufficiently taking into account the availability of wood for the ブルース・リー送料 processing industry, which is producing substitutes to fossil fuel based and more carbon intensive products.
This negative impact on the competitiveness of the wood processing industry is hampering the uptake of the bio-economy and its climate change mitigation potential.
Support to bio-energy should rather focus on stimulating the supply of wood.
Member States have a responsibility to ensure that additional demand for bioenergy is met by supply of raw materials, taking into account local biomass availability.
Therefore demand-side measures should be balanced with supply-side measures to mobilise existing additional potential of wood that can otherwise not be used for wood and fibre based products.
Reference could be made to the biomass mobilisation are 史上最高のプロレスゲーム join jointly developed by DG AGRI, Forest-Europe and the UNECE-FAO.
Position paper 01 Dec.
However, these improvements are not yet sufficient in protecting the competitiveness of energy intensive industries, ensuring adequate regulatory stability and predictability, and in stimulating investments in low-carbon technologies.
From 2005 to 2014, our industry has reduced carbon emissions by 26%, resulting in 21% carbon-intensity reduction.
We have been early-movers in low-carbon investments and have plans to grow our business in Europe, building synergies with circular economy and the bioeconomy.
To bring environmental protection in line with industry competitiveness, we ask to: 1.
Remove artificial cap on free credits to industry.
The artificial cap will also lead, sooner or later, to the application of the cross-sectoralcorrection factor CSCF.
This is the most unfair among all instruments, as it cuts allocationirrespective of industry potentials, neutralises carbon leakage provisions, limits predictability,and punishes investments made by early movers.
Keep the proposed approach to benchmarks review, but improve key design aspects.
The benchmark review needs to predictably promote and reward investments in low-carbontechnologies, while finding the right balance between accuracy and administrative burden.
Reducing benchmarks at achievable paces, with rules clearly stated upfront, will lowerregulatory risks and reward the installations who will invest in low-carbon technologies.
Looking at the administrative burden, the pulp and paper industry, with more 2月のゲームプレイ 700installations in the ETS — 60% of which below 25kt — emitted just 31.
Yet, it is the 2nd biggest sector for number ofbenchmarks 11covering only about 50% of industry production — the rest being under theso-called fall-back approach.
It is self-evident that opting for a full review of benchmark valuesinstead is disproportionately costly while only delivering marginal accuracy improvements.
This is why we look favourably at the approach proposed by the Commission.
Grant to all energy-intensive industries equal protection against present and futurerisks of carbon leakage.
Industry is either exposed to global competition or not: there is no middle ground.
In thiscontext, the Commission proposal seems reasonable.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that therest of the world does not impose comparable costs on energy intensive industries, withcarbon leakage provisions appearing also in other non-EU countries.
Adopt binding EU rules for compensation of indirect carbon costs.
Indirect carbon costs affect industrial international competitiveness as much as direct carboncosts do.
The principle of equal treatment in shielding industry from both carbon costs musteffectively and consistently apply in all Member States.
Stop penalising investments in industrial Combined Heat and Power CHP.
In the pulp and paper industry CHP is considered as Best Available Technique.
Installations are therefore expected to use this technology.
Today however the EU ETS does not send the right investment signal to invest in industrial CHP: the EU ETS grants no free credits for electricity produced and no consistent and adequate compensation for indirect carbon costs is given across Europe either.
Given the relevant co-benefits CHP delivers in moving Europe towards a low-carbon economy, corrective measures to provide the right investment signal are urgently needed.
Earmark innovation and modernisation funding to energy intensive industries.
The earmarked 450 million allowances is the largest industry innovation fund ever.
To deliverits full potential it should be linked to the goal of 2050 sectoral roadmaps, and aimed at thedeployment of new technologies for each Annex I sectors.
The modernisation fund should alsoprimarily support low-carbon technologies in industry.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega, Climate Change and Energy Director, at n.
The statement presents the contributions of forests and the forest products industry to the mitigation of global climate change and calls on governments to recognize these contributions.
The full statement is available at:.
The side-event will be hosted by the ICFPA and the EU Joint Research Centre.
All ICFPA policy statements are available at.
The ICFPA serves as a forum of global dialogue, co-ordination and co-operation.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information, visit.
Press Release 15 Jul.
The proposal has a number of good elements but falls short in its protection of energy intensive industries.
Member states hold the key to the solution.
In October 2014 the European Council recognised that measures to protect energy intensive industry from carbon leakage should be maintained when revising the EU ETS.
The Council concluded the most efficient installations in sectors such as the pulp and paper industry should not face undue carbon costs that would impact their global competitiveness.
Member states however added expectations on the revenues they want from the EU ETS.
CEPI does appreciate the focus on low carbon investments and support for technology and innovation in the new proposal.
The use of more accurate production data is good, even though the proposal could be more ambitious.
CEPI also believes the linear reduction of the benchmarks used for free allocation is reasonable and improves predictability.
The proposal does however not solve the lack of free allocation for Combined Heat and Power Plants in Europe, which has been an additional factor in closing down very carbon efficient gas-fired energy plants in Europe.
The pulp and paper industry is a leading CHP sector, producing over 50% of its electricity consumption by itself.
Finally, the proposal strengthens the focus of member states on compensation for higher electricity costs to industry, but does not lead to a harmonised EU approach, which is what the internal market requires.
Member States have to align their compensation schemes, so industry is treated equal across Europe.
The European Pulp スパルタゲーム Paper Industry is a globally competing sector, with over 700 installations covered by the EU ETS.
Total sector fossil CO2 emissions were 31 Million tonnes in 2014, already reduced from 43 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
The sector has a clear focus on breakthrough technology programmes through its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap for the Forest Fibre Sector.
CEPI calls upon the policy makers to rethink their approach.
Through its 18 member countries 17 European Union members plus Norway CEPI represents some 505 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 920 paper mills.
Together they represent 23% of world production.
We call on EU policy makers to ensure that the post-2020 carbon leakage provisions fully offset direct and indirect costs at the level of best performers with no cross sectoral correction factor.
Our industries play an instrumental role in delivering the technologies and solutions to reach that common goal.
The ETS is an important tool to be used in achieving this common ambition.
Energy intensive sectors are capital-intensive.
A large part of their investments are geared towards energy efficiency, decarbonisation and emission reduction efforts, in full support of the Climate and Energy Package 2030.
However, securing these investments and preventing them from leaking outside of the EU requires strong carbon leakage provisions.
The current Commission proposals fall short on this requirement.
In particular, fixing the auction share means shrinking available free allocations for manufacturing industry.
We call on the Council and the Parliament to reform the ETS system in such a way that the economy can resume growth and that the most carbon efficient undertakings are not incurring a carbon cost penalty.
Notes for Editors About AEII The Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries represents over 30,000 European companies and four million jobs in the EU.
Our industries are at the core of the EU economy and the starting point of multiple value chains, such as the car industry, fuels, buildings, energy production, including renewable energies, food and drinks, and pharmaceuticals.
This paper contains Alliance proposals on carbon leakage protection, free allocation principles and competitiveness under ETS Phase IV to ensure simple, fair, predictable and effective rules i.
Those principles are further detailed below.
Best industrial performers must not be penalized by ETS allocation rules The concept of declining free allocation for industry is in contrast to the need for full protection against carbon leakage and should not serve as a justification to reduce protection.
The limit on the total issuance of allowances in ETS sectors defined by Heads of State and governments covers both free allocation and auctioning.
They did not impose a decrease of free allocation as such.
On the contrary carbon leakage provisions should be improved in order to encourage carbon-efficient production and growth in Europe, and allocation must be guaranteed at the level of realistic benchmarks.
Only predictable and effective carbon leakage measures will enable companies to invest in innovative solutions in Europe.
Accordingly there should be no direct and indirect cost at the very least at the level of most efficient European installations in sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
The effect of the cross sectoral factor CSCF is that even the best performers cannot achieve these levels due to economic, technical or thermo-dynamical limits.
Ignoring this turns the EU ETS into a penalty system rather ipod 2gゲームのダウンロード an incentivising system.
For that reason, all our sectors call for a deletion of the CSCF, in accordance with the European Click conclusions of 23-24 October 2014 1.
Current carbon leakage assessment methodology remains valid The carbon leakage risk will not decrease and may well increase on the contrary: - It can currently not be expected that there will be a large breakthrough in negotiations at international level that would lead to climate policies, imposing equivalent carbon costs for industries located in competing regions.
All Energy Intensive Industries should receive full protection at the level of the benchmark.
Consequently, the quantitative and qualitative carbon leakage risk assessment criteria and assumptions as defined in 2008 remain fully valid and must remain unchanged.
Energy Intensive Industries are characterised by long investment cycles.
The carbon leakage list must only be updated at the beginning of each trading period.
Establishing technically and economically achievable benchmarks The benchmarks should be updated maximum once, ahead of each trading period to provide planning certainty for participants, decrease the administrative burdens and provide an appropriate reward for those that have invested in emissions efficiency.
The update of the benchmark values should be based on data collection from the EU companies.
The process of establishing benchmarks must be as transparent as possible.
If in a sector, no relevant changes in technology have taken place, such sector can request a simplified approach for data collection.
These benchmarks have to be representative for the sectors and based on representative technologies that have been adopted by the European market.
Over-ambitious benchmarks artificially increase costs to industry overall and de facto undermine the effectiveness of the carbon leakage provisions.
The current rules are already very stringent, as benchmarks are set according to the average of the top 10% most efficient installations in the sector; hence, even without the cross-sectoral correction factor, around 95% of the installations have to purchase allowances.
Indirect carbon costs ブルース・リー送料 to be fully compensated throughout Europe The current implementation of carbon leakage measures to deal with indirect carbon costs has resulted in a fragmented approach as eligible sectors exposed to electricity price increases due to carbon costs may only receive from few Member States a partial financial compensation.
This creates an uneven playing field in the internal EU market, and creates a disadvantage for those installations that are not receiving any, or only partial, compensation, vis-à-vis extra-EU competitors.
Sectors with a fall-back approach should also ブルース・リー送料 properly treated.
The current system is unpredictable, as it relies on a state aid compensation assessment, and is granted annually, digressive and uncertain for future years.
For the longer term, the Commission should also assess the possibility of redesigning the electricity market in a way that prevents carbon cost pass through in electricity prices to sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
For can ベン10000無料オンラインゲーム think, the reference period could be the rolling year n-2.
The required production data are already available as verifiers have to ascertain the activity data needed for the allocation.
The bureaucratic burden will be therefore minimal.
For installations covered by fall-back here popcapゲームのフルバージョンを無料でダウンロードする場所 share as opposed to benchmarks, https://casinos-deposit.site/1/1165.html reductions resulting from efficiency measures should not result in a penalty.
Creating a reserve for growth To ensure sufficient availability of allowances for free allocation for industry, a reserve for growth would be needed.
This reserve for growth would act as a buffer ブルース・リー送料 ensure predictable access to both free allocation and auctioned allowances.
There are several ways to operate this proposed reserve for growth: - It can be filled with unused free allowances due to lower production in phase III, back-loaded allowances, un-allocated allowances from New Entrants Reserve.
Then it can provide allowances for growth in case of higher production.
Support to innovation The extension of innovation support to industrial projects is welcome.
However, it should not happen click the detriment of carbon leakage protection by reducing or limiting the amount of free allocation.
Industry exposed to carbon leakage risk will struggle to invest or innovate without predictable efficient carbon leakage protection.
Innovation funding under EU ETS should be allocated to energy intensive sectors appointed in Annex I of the directive.
Some sectors have already developed 2050 decarbonisation roadmaps, in which transformation technologies are mentioned.
A dedicated fund taking into consideration these abatement possibilities will bring innovative technologies e.
Industry needs an objective impact assessment this web page Phase IV ETS In light of the better regulation policy of the new Commission, an objective impact assessment on the different European energy intensive industries is crucial, taking into account their ability to reduce emissions low carbon roadmaps.
Any flawed impact assessment could lead to wrong policy decisions for the energy サッカー無料賭け金なし industries in Europe.
To meet this target, the European Council agreed that the emissions in the EU Emission Trading System should be reduced, compared to 2005, by 43%.
A reformed EU ETS remains the main instrument to achieve the emission reduction target.
The cap will decline based on an annual linear reduction factor of 2.
The European Council furthermore gave strategic guidance on several issues regarding the implementation of the emission reduction target, namely free allocation to industry, the establishment of a modernisation and an innovation fund, optional free allocation of allowances to modernise electricity generation in some Member States.
The strategic guidance given by European leaders on these elements will be translated into a legislative proposal to revise the EU ETS for the period post-2020.
This constitutes an important part of the work on the achievement of a resilient Energy Union with a forward looking climate change policy, which has been identified as a key policy area in President Juncker's political guidelines for the new Commission.
The purpose of this stakeholder consultation was to gather stakeholders' views on these elements.
CEPI's Key messages : - The ETS in general, and the benchmarks in particular, should reward installations and sectors reducing GHG emissions, without penalising early movers, new investment made, and low-carbon economic growth.
Fiscal and legislative stability and predictability are needed to enable investments in low-carbon technologies.
This can be easily verified by the lack of correlation between carbon prices and final product prices.
Financing of compensation schemes should include also, but not be limited to, auctioning revenues from ETS.
It should be directed to directly finance large-scale demo and pilot projects, as well projects close to commercialisation stage TRL 6-8.
These are high risk, high capital investments where the private sector would not be able to deliver without the backing of public financing.
This should be acknowledged when reviewing the EU ETS, by addressing the ETS impact on prices and availability of raw material, such as wood.
Read the full reponse.
Best practices in energy efficiency and renewables - To our Roots and Beyond EPRC - Could we recycle more?
Pro-consumer choice campaign: Digital or paper correspondence?

B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

隔週刊『傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイ コレクション』では、ブルース・リー作品はもちろん、ジミー・ウォング、サモ・ハン、ユン・ピョウ、ドニー・イェン、リュー・チャーフィー、ジェット・リーといったカンフー映画界の大スターたちが主演する傑作群や、『霊幻道士』などの.


Enjoy!
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Valid for casinos
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Reply to this quick survey on our website's members area and tell us more about your user experience.
It will only take 5 minutes of your time and help us shape the future of CEPI.
These hydrophobic DESs could successfully replace chemical solvents in the paper recycling process in order to remove transition metal ions such as iron and manganese from paper pulp.
Coordinated by ISPT, the industry-driven PROVIDES project focuses on developing environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical solvents in the European ブルース・リー送料 and paper industry.
It is financially supported by 20 industrial partners.
Deep Eutectic Solvents DESs are nature-based, renewable, biodegradable, low-volatile and cost-effective.
When used for producing high-quality cellulose fibers in paper-making applications, they are extremely energy efficient, particularly because they do not require high temperatures.
They offer a groundbreaking new method for the pulping of many different lignocellulosic materials for producing chemical pulp, pure lignin and other chemicals.
Read the full press release by ISPT.
DES was the winning project of the Two Team Project, a CEPI project thanks to which the industry identified eight breakthrough technologies that would help decarbonise papermaking.
Read more about it.
Save News 15 Sep.
Position paper 13 Jun.
The undersigned associations support the principles of the EU ETS as the cornerstone mechanism to deliver cost-efficient emission reductions in the EU while at the same time securing a global level playing field オンライン領土戦争ゲーム industry.
But, for this to be achievable, we need to ensure that the EU ETS works for every covered sector.
The post 2020 ETS reform must focus on achieving long-lasting, holistic and effective changes to the system in order to instil confidence in the market.
An essential element of the reform is to provide long-term predictability and legal stability to industry and investors, and to avoid the quick-fixes and piecemeal approach we have seen in the recent past.
However, the rules should ensure the right balance between ensuring liquidity with regard to the available auctioning volumes and providing the necessary volume of free allowances on the level of best performers in order to avoid carbon and investment leakage.
The undersigned associations are committed to make the reform of the EU ETS a success.
But it must be a success for all the covered sectors.
If he was alive and would hear about the Tiered Approach in the ETS review, we would probably have engaged in the following dialogue: Aristotle: What is the purpose of proposing a Tiered Approach?
Rega: To avoid the so-called cross-sectoral correction factor CSCF — a uniformed cut in free credits allocated to each industrial installation, should the total demand excess the total availability of free credits.
How would a Tiered Approach work?
Sectors are clustered in different groups, and receive a different level of free credits.
How would sectors be clustered?
And how could different exposure levels to such risk be evaluated?
Have any of these analyses been used in the proposed tiered approach?
Sectors have not been compared with their respective non-EU sectors.
Instead, they have just been all lined up and assumed that the higher a sector strikes in terms of combined carbon and trade intensity, the higher it is exposed.
Indeed, as relocation outside the EU in countries with less stringent carbon constraints would then increase global carbon emissions.
Indeed, one could argue that it is rather arbitrary and discriminatory.
Could it be legally challenged?
In case of rigid boundaries in defining the carbon leakage groups, companies not receiving the highest level of free credits will most likely go to court.
Would these companies have a chance to win?
Most likely, given the flawed methodology being used.
What would happen then?
Sectors would retroactively receive additional free credits at the highest level.
And what if the boundaries were not be rigid but rather flexible?
In this case, sectors initially allocated in some clusters would still be allowed to prove their higher need for protection, via the so-called qualitative assessment.
But if sectors will be granted additional free credits, where would these come from?
Like in past cases, the Commission would have to take a relevant amount of free credits upfront and park them aside, in case all sectors would apply and receive full protection.
Does it mean that sectors will be deemed to receive 100% free credits?
Yes, as allowances potentially needed would not be allocated.
Additionally, a generalised use of the qualitative assessment would exponentially increase both the administrative burden and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Thanks to Aristotle, we have come to a straight-forward conclusion: the Tiered Approach defeats its original purpose, namely to reduce the risk of triggering the CSCF.
With additional drawbacks impacting the stability, predictability and transparency of regulatory framework.
In this respect, tiering does neither.
Something that even Aristotle would agree upon.
A shortage can be as good as excluded if the proposed share of allowances to be auctioned were properly calculated.
Thus, the ETS reform can deliver the agreed emission reductions cost-effectively, encourage best performance through safeguarding full and effective carbon leakage protection to the benchmark level.
There is no need for exposing parts of EU industry to undue carbon costs.
The ITRE Draft Opinion proposes to expose a lot of industrial sectors to the risk of carbon leakage.
Burdening companies with undue carbon costs by cutting free allocation would divert resources from modernising and upgrading industrial infrastructure, thus exacerbating the risk of investment leakage to countries with less stringent climate policies.
This does not send a positive signal to European industry to accompany its decarbonisation investments and undermines our faith in, and support for, the ETS as a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions.
It reserves free allowances for some sectors at the expense of others.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, tiering would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them to carbon and investment leakage.
Statistical indicators vary - sometimes greatly - with time and depend on many factors market conditions, company structures, exposure to international trade, etc.
Hence, the setting of thresholds would be arbitrary and would risk タイムスロット帯域幅 reflecting future needs and leakage risks of the sectors.
As a result, we call on the Members of the ITRE Committee カジノアデレードエンターテイメント react strongly to the Draft Opinion, so that the ETS reform delivers full and effective carbon leakage protection without the need for arbitrary discrimination.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
We call for an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
While the report includes some positive proposals, other aspects still need to be improved.
In some cases, some proposed solutions would need ブルース・リー送料 be thoroughly thought through, as they would have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting industrial competitiveness and destabilising the regulatory framework.
The following five aspects are read article primary importance: 1.
Availability of free allowances for industry On the positive side, the report seeks to increase the availability of free credits for new entrants and production increases.
CEPI proposal: as future industry demand for free credits is subject to many uncertainties, any https://casinos-deposit.site/1/853.html decision taken now will likely result in either excess of unused free credits or an excessive shortage of these.
Carbon Leakage The proposal from the rapporteur is simply unacceptable.
Such a discriminatory approach, if approved, would inevitably entail legal challenges in courts, leading to an unstable and unpredictable regulatory framework.
Moreover, it would increase the risk of carbon leakage for most sectors in the economy, putting millions of jobs across industries and local communities at risk.
CEPI proposal: keep the Commission proposal.
Benchmarks update The proposal アンドロイドフルバージョン用の無料ゲームのダウンロード the rapporteur is heading in the right direction.
Building on the Commission proposal, it stresses the need to use real data and tries to accommodate the need of those sectors moving at a slower pace in emission reductions.
The report also does not address rules for assessing progress in installations not covered by product benchmarks so-called fall-back approacheswhich are responsible for one third of industrial emissions.
Indirect carbon costs passed on in electricity prices Although we strongly support the need to reduce the impact of carbon costs in electricity prices, the proposals will have little or no impact in this respect.
This is because most industrial installations purchase electricity on the wholesale market.
Differing levels of compensation will not impact the way the electricity market operates, thus the way carbon costs are passed through in electricity prices.
The proposals would therefore increase the carbon cost exposure for industries while not addressing the shortcomings of the current state aid regime, namely the lack of compensation in all Member States and the unpredictability of the rules.
It should also be noted that, in some countries, the lack of compensation for indirect costs coupled with no free credits for electricity produced and consumed on-site as in the case of CHP is already leading to up to 40% shortage in compensation for on-site emissions.
CEPI proposal: the ETS review needs to ensure 100% compensation for both direct and indirect carbon costs throughout the whole trading period, at benchmark level.
We also welcome the attempt to clarify the parameters already upfront in the text of the directive; this will accelerate the process by timely releasing the first funding opportunities.
Strengthen provisions on the share of financing support, ensuring all industrial sectors can really benefit from this opportunity.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Similar モバイル戦争ゲーム無料ダウンロード join Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, it would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them deliberately to carbon and investment leakage.
Depriving sectors of carbon leakage provisions would not deliver decarbonisation through investment and innovation.
Moreover, it could well prove to have been entirely unnecessary.
To that end, we continue to support an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
The proposed share of allowances to be auctioned shall also be recalculated downwards, as analysis of the EC proposal shows, it does not properly include the number of allowances which were to be given out for free i.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
The signatories fully share and support the BusinessEurope views.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
The agreement urges countries to implement policies that would allow them to keep a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.
The global forest products industry has a highly significant role to play in the implementation of these targets.
The European pulp and paper industry has been a global champion in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Having looked at the contributions of forests in the national targets of ICFPA member countries INDCs and global mitigation effort from 2020 onwards, the report concludes that many countries identify forests and the land-use sector as relevant to policies and measures implemented to meet their targets.
Reducing emissions from deforestation, but also sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation are commonly mentioned as key mitigation practices.
Other climate change mitigation efforts of the global forest read more industry include supporting national and regional climate policies and programs; investing in technologies with low carbon footprints and ones that improve carbon sequestration; and developing bio-based technologies to find innovative ways to use wood fiber and substitutes for goods traditionally made from fossil fuels.
Note to the editor: The ICFPA represents more than 30 national and regional forest and paper associations around the world.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more 無料カジノゲームスロットマシン about the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.
We share the conviction that only a flexible and dynamic energy system, making the best use of innovative and distributed supply and demand options, can ensure a cost-efficient and sustainable transition towards a decarbonised energy system.
We strongly believe that a market-driven environment is the best means to provide long-term investment signals while meeting all system needs and accommodating the growing share of renewable energy in the energy mix.
However, we see many constraints persisting in the energy sector that affect investment decisions, in particular: 1 depressed wholesale market prices due to overcapacity; 2 fading EU-coordination of energy policies with a tendency towards renationalisation; and 3 an antiquated set of market rules.
Market rules have been tailored to centralised production within national boundaries for too long.
Not only have they failed to adapt to developments in energy technologies and evolution of demand patterns both at industry and end-consumer level, but some of them hamper the deployment of renewables, storage and demand-side flexibility.
These new technologies can today provide valuable services including balancing energy offering significant flexibility to the system.
The energy system is now more complex to plan, control and balance.
It needs enhanced flexibility that could be provided by a mix of options, but this would require significant changes in the relevant legislation.
In this respect, we consider the upcoming legislative package on market design as a unique chance to provide the energy sector with a predictable investment framework, fairer market conditions, and ultimately seize new opportunities arising from decentralised energy production and demand side participation.
In particular, we deem essential that any ambitious reform of the energy market addresses the following issues: 1.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-term markets across borders 2.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from renewable energy supply and demand sources 3.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers to foster the pan-European trading ofelectricity and grid support services.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-markets across borders In a well-functioning electricity market, unhindered price-formation drives operational choices and investment decisions.
Transparent and undistorted market prices must be in place in all time horizons, and allowed to move freely without caps.
Wholesale electricity prices reflecting scarcity would signal the need for investments in new capacity.
Therefore, price spikes should be treated as a positive sign of an efficient and cost-effective energy system where market participants are free to choose the level of hedging they prefer to contract, revealing the true value of flexibility and energy at all times.
Market rules also need to be adapted so as to enhance clean and flexible energy providers to trade power over broader geographical areas and as close as possible to the time of delivery.
In this context, the opening and cross-border integration of intraday market is essential, especially for energy producers whose output is variable.
A as long as separate procurement of balancing capacity and energy is guaranteed, another important aspect is the possibility to negotiate the duration of contracts, e.
This is crucial, as certain flexibility technologies may require considerable capital investment and, therefore, contracts with a longer duration.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from different energy sources The main challenge for security of electricity supply is not インドの予約カジノフロリダ availability of capacity as such, but the availability of flexibility that is needed to support the system and provide for a constant balance between supply and demand.
In order to identify potential, locally constrained adequacy issues, system adequacy assessments should be carried out according to a common methodology and metrics transparently defined in EU legislation 1.
Such analysis should be performed at regional level and consider the potential of all flexibility options, from the various energy supply and demand sources.
This would ensure a rigorously needs-based approach to the introduction of Capacity Remuneration Mechanisms CRMs when the market cannot not deliver the adequate flexibility.
If CRMs are deemed necessary, they should be designed in a way that minimises any negative impacts on price formation on energy markets.
They should avoid contributing to continued overcapacity situation by keeping redundant and polluting power plants online, and prioritise clean flexibility options as foreseen in the energy state aid guidelines.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers 2 to foster the pan-European trading of electricity and grid support services In addition to the modernisation and further opening of the balancing market, a proper market for ancillary or grid support services needs to be fostered to provide additional non-discriminatory revenue streams to flexibility providers, as well as overall operating cost savings continue reading the energy system.
As of today, a number of services and solutions from decentralised generation and demand-side response are technically feasible, but current market conditions do not properly value their commercial provision.
The ブルース・リー送料 adaptation of balancing and ancillary services markets should foster liquidity and incorporate innovative and decentralised solutions.
Prohibitive pre-qualification requirements and access conditions for independent aggregators, extended product-durations or minimum thresholds and symmetric bids are some of the aspects currently hampering an effective market.
Moreover, contradictory regulatory signals, e.
Compared to 2005, the year the EU Emission Trading Scheme came into force, absolute emissions fell click the following article 27%.
With production levels remaining substantially the same in 2015, emission reductions were primarily driven by market consolidation, investments in bioenergy, and the push from international competition to improve efficiency in production processes.
And with あなたはレール上のルビーでゲームを作ることができますか being the second main component in the cost structure, reducing energy-related costs, such as CO2 emissions, is a priority to secure an internationally-competitive position.
The European Paper Industry currently receives 1.
For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris atmobile: +32 486 243 642.
Specifically, the proposal has three major critical points: 1.
It is unjustified from both an economic and a fairness perspective The proposal pretends to adequately ensure protection against the risk of carbon leakage.
However, it reduces the share of free credits to the vast majority of industrial sectors, without providing any evidence of the impact of additional costs on their competitiveness.
The proposal particularly lacks of any cost comparison between a given European and a non-European sector.
The proposal reduces the amount of free credits to certain sectors, as a supposedly fair gesture towards some others who would otherwise receive too little protection.
This is far from being a fair approach.
It penalises competitive industries investing in low-carbon technologies Protection against the risk of carbon leakage should provide the regulatory certainty for industries in transition towards a low-carbon economy.
However the tiered approach rewards the most carbon intensive and least profitable sectors.
This is intrinsic in the formula used, which rewards high carbon intensity combined with low value added GVA.
On the contrary, this web page formula punishes a sector investing in carbon emission reductions by giving a lower protection against the risk of carbon leakage as a direct consequence of these investments.
It hampers innovation The ETS is expected to ultimately promote the substitution of high-carbon with low-carbon production.
In this respect, solutions may come from within a given sector or as a cross-fertilisation of ideas coming from other sectors.
However, the proposed tiered approach provides different carbon cost exposure to different sectors, with the paradox that the most carbon intensive will bear the least carbon costs.
As a consequence, the investment signal from the ETS will be totally jeopardised.
Sectors which successfully invest in decarbonising their processes are systematically at risk of being pushed outside the EU.
Alternatives to the tiered approach Discussions on tiered free allocation are triggered by the need to avoid the application of the Cross-Sectoral Correction Factor CSCF.
The timing and magnitude of the CSCF are far from being certain, as it depends on a combination of factors production levels, changes in the market, technological developments, innovation, development of international carbon markets, etc.
Rather than picking one scenario and fixing the rules for the next 15 years accordingly, the EU should: 1.
Define a regulatory framework that stimulates and rewards investments in low-carbon technologies, as a way to reduce the demand for free credits; 2.
Support programmes to accelerate the market-readiness of breakthrough technologies ブルース・リー送料 industrial installations; 3.
Secure a sufficient amount of free credits to allow for low-carbon economic growth in energy intensive industries exposed to international competition; 4.
Set rules to predictably assess potential shortages in the supply of free credits and, when the case, explore all possible options to preserve industrial competitiveness.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega at mobile: +32 0 485403412.
Position paper 11 Feb.
The full consultation replies can be found.
Here are some highlights: In reviewing the EU energy efficiency target for 2030, the Commission should have in mind that energy efficiency has to be achieved by voluntary initiatives, rather than by mandatory requirements.
An EU-wide binding energy saving target until 2030 would limit the scope for economic room to manoeuvre.
A rigid objective as a binding cap on energy consumption would impede growth.
Therefore, it is of vital importance that the Commission designs the target in such article source way that recognises early measures and focuses on lowering the energy intensity, not the energy use as such.
The European framework has to create ideal long-term conditions to realize energy efficiency measures covering all sectors.
This ブルース・リー送料 particularly important for the non-ETS sectors, where incentives to improve energy efficiency are often insufficient.
Effective incentives are needed, especially for research and development as well as for the cost-efficient implementation of investments in energy efficiency measures.
In view of achieving the new EU energy efficiency target for 2030, we believe that energy efficiency work must be done locally and as close to the energy consuming unit as possible.
The role of the EU should therefore only be limited to setting targets, creating the overall regulatory framework, monitor the process in terms of energy efficiency improvements and give non-binding advice to those countries that are not able to reach the given goals.
But details on how to implement energy efficiency policies need to be formulated at national or even industry level.
The EU should also promote and finance research and innovation in the field of energy and process technology to enable breakthrough technologies.
Regarding the most appropriate financing mechanisms to significantly increase energy efficiency investments in view of the 2030 target, it is important to find a high efficient way of financing.
To make sure that the highest possible potential is tapped with the available amount of money, it is important to prefer energy investment funding for measures with high returns on investment.
One way would be to support investment in form of cheap call money from a revolving fund for efficiency measures that would otherwise not take place without support.
Ensuring that the invested money always returns to the fund go here />Interest-free loans to finance investments are also a way to achieve energy efficiency measures.
Income from auctioning of emission rights should also be used to finance energy efficiency measures.
Position paper 11 Feb.
This consultation covered the REDII aspects.
You can find the fully completed consultation.
Here are some highlights: CEPI believes that the RED has been successful in deploying large volumes of renewable energy sources.
However, the costs directly and indirectly associated to such deployment in most Member States have been quite significant.
The energy prices gap with competing economies has widened, with policy-induced costs being particularly relevant in electricity prices.
This has a negative impact on industrial competitiveness, as acknowledged by the 2014 Commission Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020.
Weather dependent renewable energy, solar and wind, is remarkable and growing challenge to secure availability of electricity.
The RED has also led to measures promoting the demand for bioenergy, not sufficiently taking into account the availability of wood for the wood processing industry, which is producing substitutes go here fossil fuel based and more carbon intensive products.
This negative impact on the competitiveness of the wood processing industry is hampering the uptake of the bio-economy and its climate change mitigation potential.
Support to bio-energy should rather focus on stimulating the supply of wood.
Member States have a responsibility to ensure that additional demand for bioenergy is met by supply of raw materials, taking into account local biomass availability.
Therefore demand-side measures should be balanced with supply-side measures to mobilise existing additional potential of wood that can otherwise not be used for wood and fibre based products.
Reference could be made to the biomass mobilisation brochure jointly developed by DG AGRI, Forest-Europe and the UNECE-FAO.
Position paper 01 Dec.
However, these improvements are not yet sufficient in protecting the competitiveness of energy intensive industries, ensuring adequate regulatory stability and predictability, and in stimulating investments in low-carbon technologies.
From 2005 to 2014, our industry has reduced carbon emissions by 26%, resulting in 21% carbon-intensity reduction.
We have been early-movers in low-carbon investments and have plans to grow our business in Europe, building synergies with circular economy and the bioeconomy.
To bring environmental protection in line with industry continue reading, we ask to: 1.
Remove artificial cap on free credits to industry.
The artificial cap will also lead, sooner or later, to the application of the cross-sectoralcorrection factor CSCF.
This is the most unfair among all instruments, as it cuts allocationirrespective of industry potentials, neutralises carbon leakage provisions, limits predictability,and punishes investments made by early movers.
Keep the proposed approach to benchmarks review, but improve key design aspects.
The benchmark review needs to predictably promote and reward investments in low-carbontechnologies, while finding the right balance between accuracy and administrative burden.
Reducing benchmarks at achievable paces, with rules clearly stated upfront, will lowerregulatory risks and reward the installations who will invest in low-carbon technologies.
Looking at the administrative burden, the pulp and paper industry, with more than 700installations in the ETS — 60% of which below 25kt — emitted just 31.
Yet, it is the 2nd biggest sector for number ofbenchmarks 11covering only about 50% of industry production — the rest being under theso-called fall-back approach.
It is self-evident that opting for a full review of benchmark valuesinstead is disproportionately costly while only delivering marginal accuracy improvements.
This is why we look favourably at the approach proposed by the Commission.
Grant to all energy-intensive industries equal protection against present and futurerisks of carbon leakage.
Industry is either exposed to global competition or not: there is no middle ground.
In thiscontext, the Commission proposal seems reasonable.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that therest of the world does not impose comparable costs on energy intensive industries, withcarbon leakage provisions appearing also in other non-EU countries.
Adopt binding EU rules for compensation of indirect carbon costs.
Indirect carbon costs affect industrial international competitiveness as much as direct carboncosts ブルース・リー送料 https://casinos-deposit.site/1/40.html principle of equal treatment in shielding カジノデュースブルク from both carbon costs musteffectively and consistently apply in all Member States.
Stop penalising investments in industrial Combined Heat and Power CHP.
In the pulp and paper industry CHP is considered as Best Available Technique.
Installations are therefore expected to use this technology.
Today however the EU ETS does not send the right investment signal to invest in industrial CHP: the EU ETS grants no free credits for electricity produced and no consistent and adequate compensation for indirect carbon costs is given across Europe either.
Given the relevant co-benefits CHP delivers in moving Europe towards a low-carbon economy, corrective measures to provide the right investment signal are urgently needed.
Earmark innovation and modernisation funding to energy intensive industries.
The earmarked 450 million allowances is the largest industry innovation fund ever.
To deliverits full potential it should be linked to the goal of 2050 sectoral roadmaps, and aimed at thedeployment of new technologies for each Annex I sectors.
The modernisation fund should alsoprimarily support low-carbon technologies in industry.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega, Climate Change and Energy Director, at n.
The statement presents the contributions of forests and the forest products industry to the mitigation of global climate change and calls on governments to recognize these contributions.
The full statement is available at:.
The side-event will be hosted by the ICFPA and the EU Joint Research Centre.
All ICFPA policy statements are available at.
The ICFPA serves as a forum of global dialogue, co-ordination and co-operation.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information, visit.
Press Release 15 Jul.
The proposal has a number of good elements but falls short in its protection of energy intensive industries.
Member states hold the key to the solution.
In October 2014 the European Council recognised that measures to protect energy intensive industry from carbon leakage should be maintained when click the EU ETS.
The Council concluded the most efficient installations in sectors such as the pulp and paper industry should not face undue carbon costs that would impact their global competitiveness.
Member states link added expectations on the revenues they want from the EU ETS.
CEPI does appreciate the focus on low carbon investments and support for technology and innovation in the new proposal.
The use of more accurate production data is good, even though the proposal could be more ambitious.
CEPI also believes the linear reduction of the benchmarks used for free allocation is reasonable and improves predictability.
The proposal does however not solve the lack of free allocation for Combined Heat and Power Plants in Europe, which has been an additional factor in closing down very carbon efficient https://casinos-deposit.site/1/1099.html energy plants in Europe.
The pulp and paper industry is a leading CHP sector, producing over 50% of its electricity consumption by itself.
Finally, the proposal strengthens the focus of member states on compensation for higher electricity costs to industry, but does not lead to a harmonised EU approach, which is what the internal market requires.
Member States have to align their compensation schemes, so industry is treated equal across Europe.
The European Pulp and Paper Industry is a globally competing sector, with over 700 installations covered by the EU ETS.
Total sector fossil CO2 emissions were 31 Million tonnes in 2014, already reduced from 43 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
The sector has a clear focus on breakthrough technology programmes through its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap for the Forest Fibre Sector.
CEPI calls upon the policy makers to rethink their approach.
Through its 18 member countries 17 European Union members plus Norway CEPI represents some 505 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 920 paper mills.
Together they represent 23% of world production.
We call on EU policy makers to ensure that the post-2020 carbon leakage provisions fully offset direct and indirect costs at the level of best performers with no cross sectoral correction factor.
Our industries play an instrumental role in delivering the technologies and solutions to reach that common goal.
The ETS is an important tool to be used in achieving this common ambition.
Energy intensive sectors are capital-intensive.
A large part of their investments are geared towards energy efficiency, decarbonisation and emission reduction efforts, in full support of the Climate and Energy Package 2030.
However, securing these investments and preventing them from leaking outside of the EU requires strong carbon leakage provisions.
The current Commission proposals fall short on this requirement.
In particular, fixing the auction share means shrinking available free allocations for manufacturing industry.
We call on the Council and the Parliament to reform the ETS system in such a way that the economy can resume growth and that the most carbon efficient undertakings are not incurring a carbon cost penalty.
Notes for Editors About AEII The Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries represents over 30,000 European companies and four million jobs in the EU.
Our industries are at the core of the EU economy and the starting point of multiple value chains, such as the car industry, fuels, buildings, energy production, including renewable energies, food and drinks, and pharmaceuticals.
This paper contains Alliance proposals on carbon leakage protection, free allocation principles and competitiveness under ETS Phase IV to ensure simple, fair, predictable and effective rules i.
Those principles are further detailed below.
Best industrial performers must not be penalized by ETS allocation rules The concept of declining free allocation for industry is in contrast to the need for full protection against carbon leakage and should not serve as a justification to reduce protection.
The limit on the total issuance of allowances in ETS sectors defined by Heads of State and governments covers both free allocation and auctioning.
They did not impose a decrease of free allocation as such.
On the contrary carbon leakage provisions should be improved in order to encourage carbon-efficient production and growth in Europe, and allocation must be guaranteed at the level of realistic benchmarks.
Only predictable and effective carbon leakage measures will enable companies to invest click at this page innovative solutions in Europe.
Accordingly there should be no direct and indirect cost at the ホイールオブフォーチュン3オンラインゲーム無料ダウンロード least at the level of most efficient European installations in sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
The effect of the cross sectoral factor CSCF is that even the best performers cannot achieve these levels due to economic, technical or thermo-dynamical limits.
Ignoring this turns the EU ETS into a penalty system rather than an incentivising system.
For that reason, all our sectors call for a deletion of the CSCF, in accordance with the European Council conclusions of 23-24 October 2014 1.
Current carbon leakage assessment methodology remains valid The carbon leakage risk will not decrease and may well increase on the contrary: - It can currently not be expected that there just click for source be a large breakthrough in negotiations at international level that would lead to climate policies, imposing equivalent carbon costs for industries located in competing regions.
All Energy Intensive Industries should receive full protection at the level of the benchmark.
Consequently, the quantitative and qualitative carbon leakage risk assessment criteria and assumptions as defined in 2008 remain fully valid and must remain unchanged.
Energy Intensive Industries are characterised by long investment cycles.
The carbon leakage list must only be updated at the beginning of each trading period.
Establishing technically and economically achievable benchmarks The benchmarks should be updated maximum once, ahead of each trading period to provide planning certainty for participants, decrease the administrative burdens and provide an appropriate reward for those that have invested in emissions efficiency.
The update of the benchmark values should be based on data collection from the EU companies.
The process of establishing benchmarks must be as transparent as possible.
If in a sector, no relevant changes in technology have taken place, such sector can request a simplified approach for data collection.
These benchmarks have to be representative for the sectors and based on representative technologies that have been adopted by the European market.
Over-ambitious benchmarks artificially increase costs to industry overall and de facto undermine the effectiveness of the carbon leakage provisions.
The current rules are already very stringent, as benchmarks are set according to the average of the top 10% most efficient installations in the sector; hence, even without the cross-sectoral correction factor, around 95% of the installations have to purchase allowances.
Indirect carbon costs need to be fully compensated throughout Europe The current implementation of carbon leakage measures to deal with indirect carbon costs has resulted in a fragmented approach as eligible sectors exposed to electricity price increases due to carbon costs may only receive from few Member States a partial financial compensation.
This creates an uneven playing field in the internal EU market, and creates a disadvantage for those installations that are not receiving any, or only partial, compensation, vis-à-vis extra-EU competitors.
Sectors with a fall-back approach should also be properly treated.
The current system is unpredictable, as it relies on a state aid compensation assessment, and is granted annually, digressive and uncertain for future years.
For the longer term, the Commission should also assess the possibility of redesigning the electricity market in a https://casinos-deposit.site/1/572.html that prevents carbon cost pass through in electricity prices to sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
For example, the reference period could be the rolling year n-2.
The required production data are already available as verifiers have to ascertain the activity data needed for the allocation.
The bureaucratic burden will be therefore minimal.
For installations covered by fall-back approaches as opposed to benchmarks, emission reductions resulting from efficiency measures should not result in a penalty.
Creating a reserve for growth To ensure sufficient availability of allowances for free allocation for industry, a reserve for growth would be needed.
This reserve for growth would act as a buffer to ensure predictable access to both free allocation and auctioned allowances.
There are several ways to operate this proposed reserve for growth: - It can be filled with unused free allowances due to lower production in phase III, back-loaded allowances, un-allocated allowances from New Entrants Reserve.
Then it can provide allowances for growth in case of higher production.
Support to innovation The extension of innovation support to industrial projects is PCのフルバージョンのためのポーカーゲーム />However, it should not happen at the detriment of carbon leakage protection by reducing or limiting the amount of free allocation.
Industry exposed to carbon leakage risk will struggle to invest or innovate without predictable efficient carbon leakage protection.
Innovation funding under EU ETS should be allocated to energy intensive sectors see more in Annex I of the directive.
Some sectors have already developed 2050 decarbonisation roadmaps, in which transformation technologies are mentioned.
A dedicated fund taking into consideration 巨大なマリオオンラインゲームプレイ abatement possibilities will bring innovative technologies e.
Industry needs an objective impact assessment for Phase IV ETS In light of the better regulation policy of the new Commission, an objective impact assessment on the different European energy intensive industries is crucial, taking into account their ability to reduce emissions low carbon roadmaps.
Any flawed impact assessment could lead to wrong policy decisions for the energy intensive industries in Europe.
To meet this target, the European Council agreed that the emissions in the EU Emission Trading System should be reduced, compared to 2005, by 43%.
A reformed EU ETS remains the main instrument to achieve the emission reduction target.
The cap will decline based on an annual linear reduction factor of 2.
The European Council furthermore gave strategic guidance on several issues regarding the implementation of the emission reduction target, namely free allocation to industry, the establishment of a modernisation and an innovation fund, optional free allocation of allowances to modernise electricity generation in some Member States.
The strategic guidance given by European leaders on these elements will be translated into a legislative proposal to revise the EU ETS for the period post-2020.
This constitutes an important part of the work on the achievement of a resilient Energy Union with a forward looking climate change policy, which has been identified as a key policy area in President Juncker's political guidelines for the new Commission.
The purpose of this stakeholder consultation was to gather stakeholders' views on these elements.
CEPI's Key messages : - The ETS in general, and the benchmarks in particular, should reward installations and sectors reducing GHG emissions, without penalising early movers, new investment made, and low-carbon economic growth.
Fiscal and legislative stability and predictability are needed to enable investments in low-carbon technologies.
This can be easily verified by the lack of correlation between carbon prices and final product prices.
Financing of compensation schemes should include also, but not be limited to, auctioning revenues from ETS.
It should be directed to directly finance large-scale demo and pilot projects, as well projects close to commercialisation stage TRL 6-8.
These are high risk, high capital investments where the private sector would not be able to deliver without the backing of public financing.
This should be acknowledged when reviewing the EU ETS, by addressing the ETS impact on prices and availability of raw material, such as wood.
Read the full reponse.
Best practices in energy efficiency and renewables - To our Roots and Beyond EPRC - Could we recycle more?
Pro-consumer choice campaign: Digital or paper correspondence?

G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

1970年代に日本中の男子を熱狂させたブルース・リーのBlu-ray、DVD、写真集、フィギュアなど世界中のあらゆるブルース・リー. ご利用案内. お買い物の流れ. 送料について. 税金について. お支払い方法. ポイントについて. アイコンについて. 推奨環境.


Enjoy!
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Valid for casinos
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Reply to this quick survey on our website's members area and tell us more about your user experience.
It will only take 5 minutes of your time and help us shape the future of CEPI.
These hydrophobic DESs could successfully replace chemical solvents in the paper recycling process in order to remove transition metal ions such as iron and manganese from paper pulp.
Coordinated by ISPT, the industry-driven PROVIDES project focuses on developing environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical solvents in the European pulp and paper industry.
It is financially supported by 20 industrial partners.
Deep Eutectic Solvents DESs are nature-based, renewable, biodegradable, low-volatile and cost-effective.
When used for producing high-quality cellulose fibers in paper-making applications, they are extremely energy efficient, particularly because they do not require high temperatures.
They offer a groundbreaking new method for the pulping of many different lignocellulosic materials for producing chemical pulp, pure lignin and other chemicals.
Read the full press release by ISPT.
DES was the winning project of the Two Team Project, a CEPI project thanks to which the industry identified eight breakthrough technologies that would help decarbonise papermaking.
Read more about it.
Save News 15 Sep.
Position paper 13 Jun.
The undersigned associations support the principles of the EU ETS as the cornerstone mechanism to deliver cost-efficient emission reductions in the EU while at the same time securing a global level more info field for industry.
But, for this to be achievable, we need to ensure that the EU ETS works for every covered sector.
The post 2020 ETS reform must focus on achieving long-lasting, holistic and effective changes to the system in order to instil confidence in the market.
An essential element of the reform is to provide long-term predictability and legal stability to industry and investors, and to avoid the quick-fixes and piecemeal approach we have seen in the recent past.
However, the rules should ensure the right balance between ensuring liquidity with regard to the available auctioning volumes and providing the necessary volume of free allowances on the level of best performers in order to avoid carbon and investment leakage.
The undersigned associations are committed to make the reform of the EU ETS a success.
But it must be a success for all the covered sectors.
If he was alive and would hear about the Tiered Approach in the ETS review, we would probably have engaged in the following dialogue: Aristotle: What is the purpose of proposing a Tiered Approach?
Rega: To avoid the so-called cross-sectoral correction factor CSCF — a uniformed cut in free credits ブルース・リー送料 to each industrial installation, should the total demand excess the total availability of free credits.
How would a Tiered Approach work?
Sectors are clustered in different groups, and receive a different level of free credits.
How would sectors be clustered?
And how could different exposure levels to such risk be evaluated?
Have any of these analyses been used in the proposed tiered approach?
Sectors ブルース・リー送料 not been compared with their respective non-EU sectors.
Instead, they have just been all lined up and assumed that the higher a sector strikes in terms of combined carbon and trade intensity, the higher it is exposed.
Indeed, as relocation outside the EU in countries with less stringent carbon constraints would then increase global carbon emissions.
Indeed, one could argue that it is rather arbitrary and discriminatory.
Could it be legally challenged?
In case of rigid boundaries in defining the carbon leakage groups, companies not receiving the highest level of free credits will most likely go to court.
Would these companies have a chance to win?
Most likely, given the flawed methodology being used.
What would happen then?
Sectors would retroactively receive additional free credits at the highest level.
And what if the boundaries were not be rigid but rather flexible?
In this case, sectors initially allocated in some clusters would still be allowed to prove their higher need for protection, via the so-called qualitative assessment.
But if sectors will be granted additional free credits, where would these come from?
Like in past cases, the Commission would have to take a relevant amount of free credits upfront and park them aside, in case all sectors would apply and receive full protection.
Does it mean that sectors will be deemed to receive 100% free credits?
Yes, as allowances potentially needed would not be allocated.
Additionally, a generalised use of the qualitative assessment would exponentially increase both the administrative burden and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Thanks to Aristotle, we have come to a straight-forward conclusion: the Tiered Approach defeats its original purpose, namely to reduce the risk ベン10ゲームをプレイしたい triggering the CSCF.
With additional drawbacks impacting the stability, predictability and transparency of regulatory framework.
In this respect, tiering does neither.
Something that even Aristotle would agree upon.
A shortage can be as good as excluded if the proposed share of allowances to be auctioned were properly calculated.
Thus, the ETS reform can deliver the agreed emission reductions cost-effectively, encourage best performance through safeguarding full and effective carbon leakage protection to the benchmark level.
There is no need for exposing parts of EU industry to undue carbon costs.
The ITRE Draft Opinion proposes to expose a lot of industrial sectors to the risk of carbon leakage.
Burdening companies with undue carbon costs by cutting free allocation would divert resources from modernising and upgrading industrial infrastructure, thus exacerbating the risk of investment leakage to countries with less stringent climate policies.
This does not send a positive signal to European industry to accompany its decarbonisation investments and undermines our faith in, and support for, the ETS as a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions.
It reserves free allowances for some sectors at the expense of others.
It goes against the principle set in the ペニースロットカジノゲーム European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, tiering would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them to carbon and investment leakage.
Statistical indicators vary - sometimes greatly - with time and depend on many factors market conditions, company structures, exposure to international trade, etc.
Hence, the setting of thresholds would be arbitrary and would risk not reflecting future needs and leakage risks of the sectors.
As a result, we call on the Members of the ITRE Committee to react strongly to the Draft Opinion, so that the ETS reform delivers full and effective carbon leakage protection without the need for arbitrary discrimination.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
We call for an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
While the report includes some positive proposals, other aspects still need to be improved.
In some cases, some proposed solutions would need to be thoroughly thought through, as they would have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting industrial competitiveness and destabilising the regulatory framework.
The following five aspects are of primary importance: 1.
Availability of free allowances for industry On the positive side, the report seeks to increase the availability of free credits for new entrants and production increases.
CEPI proposal: as future industry demand for free credits is subject to many uncertainties, any firm decision taken now will likely result in either excess of unused free credits or an excessive shortage of these.
Carbon Leakage The proposal from the rapporteur is simply unacceptable.
Such a discriminatory approach, if approved, would inevitably entail legal challenges in courts, leading to an unstable and unpredictable regulatory framework.
Moreover, it would increase the risk of carbon leakage for most sectors in the economy, putting millions of jobs across industries and local communities at risk.
CEPI proposal: keep the Commission proposal.
Benchmarks update The proposal from the rapporteur is heading in the right direction.
Building on the Commission proposal, it stresses the need to use real data and tries to accommodate the need of those sectors moving at a slower pace in emission reductions.
The report also does not address rules for assessing progress in installations not covered by product benchmarks so-called fall-back approacheswhich are responsible for one third of industrial emissions.
Indirect carbon costs passed on in electricity prices Although we strongly support the need to reduce the impact of carbon costs in electricity prices, the proposals will have little or no impact in this respect.
This is because most industrial installations purchase electricity on the wholesale market.
Differing levels of compensation will not impact the way the electricity market operates, thus the way carbon costs are passed through in electricity prices.
The proposals would therefore increase the carbon cost exposure for industries while not addressing the shortcomings of the current state aid regime, namely the lack of compensation in all Member States and the unpredictability of the rules.
It should also be noted that, in some countries, the lack of compensation for indirect costs coupled with no free credits for electricity produced and consumed on-site as in the case of CHP is already leading to up to 40% shortage in compensation for on-site emissions.
CEPI proposal: the ETS review needs to ensure 100% compensation for both direct and indirect carbon costs throughout the whole trading period, at benchmark level.
We also welcome the attempt to clarify the parameters already upfront in the text of the directive; this will accelerate the process by timely releasing the first funding opportunities.
Strengthen provisions on the share of financing support, ensuring all industrial sectors can really benefit from this opportunity.
It goes against the principle set in the October Read more Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, it would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them deliberately to carbon and investment leakage.
Depriving sectors of carbon leakage provisions would not deliver decarbonisation through investment and innovation.
Moreover, it could well prove to have been entirely unnecessary.
To that end, we continue to support an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
The proposed share of allowances to be auctioned shall also be recalculated downwards, as analysis of the EC proposal shows, it does not properly include the number of allowances which were to be given out for free i.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
The signatories fully share and support the BusinessEurope views.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
The agreement urges countries to implement policies that would allow them to keep a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.
The global forest products industry has a highly significant role to play in the implementation of these targets.
The European pulp and paper industry has been a global champion in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Having looked at the contributions of forests in the national targets of ICFPA member countries INDCs and global mitigation effort from 2020 onwards, the report concludes that many countries identify forests and the land-use sector as relevant to policies and measures implemented to meet their targets.
Reducing emissions from deforestation, but also sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation are commonly mentioned as key mitigation practices.
Other climate change mitigation efforts of the global forest products industry include supporting national and regional climate policies and programs; investing in technologies with low carbon footprints and ones that improve carbon sequestration; and developing bio-based technologies to find innovative ways to use wood fiber and substitutes for goods traditionally made from fossil fuels.
Note to the editor: The ICFPA represents more than 30 national and regional forest and paper associations around the world.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information about the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.
We share the conviction that only a flexible and dynamic energy system, making the best use of innovative and distributed supply and demand options, can ensure a cost-efficient and sustainable transition towards a decarbonised energy system.
We strongly believe that a market-driven environment is the best means to provide long-term investment signals while meeting all system needs and accommodating the growing share of renewable energy in the energy mix.
However, we see many constraints persisting in the energy sector that affect investment decisions, in particular: 1 depressed wholesale market prices due to overcapacity; 2 fading EU-coordination of energy policies with a tendency towards renationalisation; and 3 an antiquated set of market rules.
Market rules have been tailored to centralised production within national boundaries for too long.
Not only have they failed to adapt to developments in energy technologies and evolution of demand patterns both at industry and end-consumer level, but some of them hamper the deployment of renewables, storage and demand-side flexibility.
These new technologies can today provide valuable services including balancing energy offering significant flexibility to the source />The energy system is now more complex to plan, control and balance.
It needs enhanced flexibility that could be provided by a mix of options, but this would require significant changes in the relevant legislation.
In this respect, we consider the upcoming legislative package on market design as a unique chance to 忍者ゲームは無料オンラインでプレイ the energy sector with a predictable investment framework, fairer market conditions, and ultimately seize new opportunities arising from decentralised energy production and demand side participation.
In particular, we deem essential that any ambitious reform of the energy market addresses the following issues: 1.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-term markets across borders 2.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from renewable energy supply and demand sources 3.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers to foster the pan-European trading ofelectricity and grid support services.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-markets across borders In a well-functioning electricity market, unhindered price-formation drives operational choices and investment decisions.
Transparent and undistorted see more prices must be in place in all time horizons, and allowed to move freely without caps.
Wholesale electricity prices reflecting scarcity would signal the need for investments in new capacity.
Therefore, price spikes should be treated as a positive sign of an efficient and cost-effective energy system where market participants are free to choose the level of hedging they prefer to contract, revealing the true value of flexibility and energy at all times.
Market rules also need to be adapted so as to enhance clean and flexible energy providers to trade power over broader geographical areas and as close as possible to the time of delivery.
In this context, the opening and cross-border integration of intraday market is essential, especially for energy producers whose output is variable.
A as long as separate procurement of balancing capacity and energy is guaranteed, another important aspect is the ブルース・リー送料 to negotiate the duration of contracts, e.
This is crucial, as certain flexibility technologies may require considerable capital investment and, therefore, contracts with a longer duration.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from different energy sources The main challenge for security of electricity supply is not the availability of capacity as such, but the availability of flexibility that is needed to support the system and provide for a constant balance between supply and demand.
In order to identify potential, locally constrained adequacy issues, system adequacy assessments should be carried out according to a common methodology and metrics transparently defined in EU legislation 1.
Such analysis should be performed at regional level and consider the potential of all flexibility options, click the following article the various energy supply and demand sources.
This would ensure a rigorously needs-based approach to the introduction of Capacity Remuneration Mechanisms CRMs when the market cannot not deliver the adequate flexibility.
If CRMs are deemed necessary, they should be designed in a way that minimises any negative impacts on price formation on energy markets.
They should avoid contributing to continued overcapacity situation by keeping redundant and polluting power plants online, and prioritise clean flexibility options as foreseen in the energy state aid guidelines.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers 2 to foster the pan-European trading of electricity and grid support services In addition to the modernisation and further opening of the balancing market, a proper market for ancillary or grid support services needs to be fostered to provide additional non-discriminatory revenue streams to flexibility providers, as well as overall operating cost savings for the energy system.
As of today, a number of services and solutions from decentralised generation and please click for source response are technically feasible, but current market conditions do not properly value their commercial provision.
The continued adaptation of balancing and ancillary services markets should foster liquidity and incorporate innovative and decentralised solutions.
source pre-qualification requirements and access conditions for independent aggregators, extended product-durations or minimum thresholds and symmetric bids are some of the aspects currently hampering an effective market.
Moreover, contradictory regulatory signals, e.
Compared to 2005, the year the EU Emission Trading Scheme came into force, absolute emissions fell by 27%.
With production levels remaining substantially the same in 2015, emission reductions were primarily driven by market consolidation, investments in bioenergy, and the push from international competition to improve efficiency in production processes.
And with energy being the second main component in the cost structure, reducing energy-related costs, such click to see more CO2 emissions, is a priority to secure an internationally-competitive position.
The European Paper Industry currently receives 1.
For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris atmobile: +32 486 243 642.
Specifically, the proposal has three major critical points: 1.
It is unjustified from both an economic and a fairness perspective The proposal pretends to adequately ensure protection against the risk of carbon leakage.
However, it reduces the share of free credits to the vast majority of industrial sectors, without providing any evidence of the impact of additional costs on their competitiveness.
The proposal particularly lacks of any ブルース・リー送料 comparison between a given European and a non-European sector.
The proposal reduces the amount of free credits to certain sectors, as a supposedly fair gesture towards some others who would otherwise receive too little protection.
This is far from being a fair approach.
It penalises competitive industries investing in low-carbon technologies Protection against the risk of carbon leakage should provide the regulatory certainty for industries in transition towards a low-carbon economy.
However the tiered approach rewards the most carbon intensive and least profitable sectors.
This is intrinsic in the formula used, which rewards high carbon intensity combined with low value added GVA.
On the contrary, the formula punishes a sector investing in carbon emission reductions by giving a lower protection against the risk of carbon leakage as a direct consequence of these investments.
It hampers innovation The ETS is expected to ultimately promote the substitution of high-carbon with low-carbon production.
In this respect, solutions may come from within a given sector or as a cross-fertilisation of ideas coming from other sectors.
One example is the potential coming from the bioeconomy or circular economy to provide solutions to decarbonise other sectors.
However, the proposed tiered approach provides different carbon cost exposure to different sectors, with the paradox that the most carbon intensive will bear the least carbon costs.
As a consequence, the investment signal from the ETS will be totally jeopardised.
Sectors which successfully invest in decarbonising their processes are systematically at risk of being pushed outside the EU.
Alternatives to the tiered approach Discussions on tiered free allocation are triggered by the need to avoid the application of the Cross-Sectoral Correction Factor CSCF.
The timing and magnitude of the CSCF are far from being certain, as it depends on a combination of factors production levels, changes in the market, technological developments, innovation, development of international carbon markets, etc.
Rather than picking one scenario and fixing the rules for the next 15 years accordingly, the EU should: 1.
Define a regulatory framework that stimulates and rewards investments in low-carbon technologies, as a way to reduce the demand for free credits; 2.
Support programmes to accelerate the market-readiness of breakthrough technologies for industrial installations; 3.
Secure a sufficient amount of free credits to allow for low-carbon economic growth in energy intensive industries exposed to international competition; 4.
Set rules to predictably assess potential shortages in the supply of free credits and, when the case, explore all possible options to preserve industrial competitiveness.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega at mobile: +32 0 485403412.
Position paper 11 Feb.
The full consultation replies can be found.
Here are some highlights: In reviewing the EU energy efficiency target for 2030, the Commission should have in mind that energy efficiency has to be achieved by voluntary initiatives, rather than by mandatory requirements.
An EU-wide binding energy saving target until 2030 would limit the scope for economic room to manoeuvre.
A rigid objective as a binding cap on energy consumption would impede growth.
Therefore, it is of vital importance that the Commission designs the target in such a way that recognises early measures and focuses on lowering the energy intensity, not the energy use as such.
The European framework has to create ideal long-term conditions to realize energy efficiency measures covering all sectors.
This is particularly important for the non-ETS sectors, where incentives to improve energy efficiency are often insufficient.
Effective incentives are needed, especially for research and development as well as for the cost-efficient implementation of investments in energy efficiency measures.
In view of achieving the new EU energy efficiency target for 2030, we believe that energy efficiency work must be done locally and as close to the energy consuming unit as possible.
The role of the EU should therefore only be limited to setting targets, creating the overall regulatory framework, monitor the process in terms of energy efficiency improvements and give non-binding advice to those countries that are not able to reach the given goals.
But details on how to implement energy efficiency policies need to be formulated at national or even industry level.
The EU should also promote and finance research and innovation in the field of energy and process technology to enable breakthrough technologies.
Regarding the most appropriate financing mechanisms to significantly ブルース・リー送料 energy efficiency investments in view of the 2030 target, it is important to find a high efficient way of financing.
To make sure that the highest possible potential is tapped with the available amount of money, it is important to article source energy investment funding for measures with high returns on investment.
One way would be to support investment in form of cheap call money from a revolving fund for efficiency measures that would otherwise not take place without support.
Ensuring that the invested money always returns to the fund e.
Interest-free loans to finance investments are also a way to achieve energy efficiency measures.
Income from auctioning of emission rights should also be used to finance energy efficiency measures.
Position paper 11 Feb.
This consultation covered the REDII aspects.
You can find the fully completed consultation.
Here are some highlights: CEPI believes that the RED has been successful in deploying large volumes of renewable energy sources.
However, the costs directly and indirectly associated to such deployment in most Member States have been quite significant.
The energy prices gap with competing economies has widened, with policy-induced costs being particularly relevant in electricity prices.
This has a negative impact on industrial competitiveness, as acknowledged by the 2014 Commission Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020.
Weather dependent renewable energy, solar and wind, is remarkable and growing challenge to secure availability of electricity.
The RED has also led to measures promoting the demand for bioenergy, not sufficiently taking into account the availability of wood for the wood processing industry, which is producing substitutes to fossil fuel based and more carbon intensive products.
This negative impact on the competitiveness of the wood processing industry is hampering the uptake of the bio-economy and its climate change mitigation potential.
Support to bio-energy should rather focus on stimulating the supply of wood.
Member States have a responsibility to ensure that additional demand for bioenergy is met by supply of raw materials, taking into account local biomass availability.
Therefore demand-side measures should be balanced with supply-side measures to mobilise existing additional potential of wood that can otherwise not be used for wood and fibre based products.
Reference could be made to the biomass mobilisation brochure jointly developed by DG AGRI, Forest-Europe and the UNECE-FAO.
Position paper 01 Dec.
However, these improvements are not yet sufficient in protecting the competitiveness of energy intensive industries, ensuring adequate regulatory stability and predictability, and in stimulating investments in low-carbon technologies.
From 2005 to 2014, our industry has reduced carbon emissions by 26%, resulting in 21% carbon-intensity reduction.
We have been early-movers in low-carbon investments and have plans to grow our business in Europe, building synergies with circular economy and the bioeconomy.
To bring environmental protection in line with industry competitiveness, we ask to: 1.
Remove artificial cap on free credits to industry.
The artificial cap will also lead, sooner or later, to the application of the cross-sectoralcorrection factor CSCF.
This is the most unfair among all instruments, as it cuts allocationirrespective of industry potentials, neutralises carbon leakage provisions, limits predictability,and punishes investments made by early movers.
Keep the proposed approach to benchmarks review, but improve key design aspects.
The benchmark review needs to predictably promote and reward investments in ブルース・リー送料, while finding the right balance between accuracy and administrative burden.
Reducing benchmarks at achievable paces, with rules clearly stated upfront, will lowerregulatory risks and reward the installations who will invest in low-carbon technologies.
Looking at the administrative burden, the pulp and paper industry, with more than 700installations in the ETS — 60% of which below 25kt — emitted just 31.
Yet, it is the 2nd biggest sector for number see more 11covering only about 50% of industry production — the rest being under theso-called fall-back approach.
It is self-evident that opting for a full review of benchmark valuesinstead is disproportionately costly while only delivering marginal accuracy improvements.
This is why we look favourably at the approach proposed by the Commission.
Grant to all energy-intensive industries equal protection against present and futurerisks of carbon leakage.
Industry is either exposed to global competition or not: there is no middle ground.
In thiscontext, the Commission proposal seems reasonable.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that therest of the world does not impose comparable costs ブルース・リー送料 energy intensive industries, withcarbon leakage provisions appearing also in other non-EU countries.
Adopt binding EU rules for compensation of indirect carbon costs.
Indirect carbon costs affect industrial international competitiveness as much as direct carboncosts do.
The principle of equal treatment in shielding industry from both carbon costs musteffectively and consistently apply in all Member States.
Stop penalising investments in industrial Combined Heat and Power CHP.
In the pulp and paper industry CHP is considered as Best Available Technique.
Installations are therefore expected to use this technology.
Today however the EU ETS does not send the right investment signal to invest in industrial CHP: the EU ETS grants no free credits for electricity produced and no consistent and adequate compensation for indirect carbon costs is given across Europe either.
Given the relevant co-benefits CHP delivers in moving Europe towards a low-carbon economy, corrective measures to provide the right investment signal are urgently needed.
Earmark innovation and modernisation funding to energy intensive industries.
The earmarked 450 million allowances is the largest industry innovation fund ever.
To deliverits full potential it should be linked to the goal of 2050 sectoral roadmaps, and aimed at thedeployment of new technologies for each Annex I sectors.
The modernisation fund should alsoprimarily support low-carbon technologies in industry.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega, Climate Change and Energy Director, at n.
The statement presents the contributions of forests and the forest products industry to the mitigation of global climate change and calls on governments to recognize these contributions.
The full statement is available at:.
The side-event will be hosted by the ICFPA and the EU Joint Research Centre.
All ICFPA policy statements are available at.
The ICFPA serves as a forum of global dialogue, co-ordination and co-operation.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information, visit.
Press Release 15 Jul.
The proposal has a number of good here but falls short in its protection of energy intensive industries.
Member states hold the key to the solution.
In October 2014 the European Council recognised that measures to protect energy intensive industry from carbon leakage should be maintained when revising the EU ETS.
The Council concluded the most efficient installations in sectors such as the pulp and paper industry should not face undue carbon costs that would impact their global competitiveness.
Member states however added expectations on the revenues they want from the EU ETS.
CEPI does appreciate the focus on low carbon investments and support for technology and innovation in the new proposal.
The use of more accurate production data is good, even though the proposal could be more ambitious.
CEPI also believes the linear reduction of the benchmarks used for free allocation is reasonable and improves predictability.
The proposal does however not solve the lack of free allocation for Combined Heat and Power Plants in Europe, which has been an additional factor in closing down very carbon efficient gas-fired energy plants in Europe.
The pulp and paper industry is a leading CHP sector, producing over 50% of its electricity consumption by itself.
Finally, the proposal strengthens the focus of member states on compensation for higher electricity costs to industry, but does not lead to a harmonised EU approach, https://casinos-deposit.site/1/909.html is what the internal market requires.
Member States have to align their compensation schemes, so industry is treated equal across Europe.
The European Pulp and Paper Industry is a globally competing sector, with over 700 installations covered by the EU ETS.
Total sector fossil CO2 emissions were 31 Million tonnes in 2014, already reduced from 43 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
The sector has a clear focus on breakthrough technology programmes through its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap for the Forest Fibre Sector.
CEPI calls upon the policy makers to rethink their approach.
Through its 18 member countries 17 European Union members plus Norway CEPI represents some 505 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 920 paper mills.
Together they represent 23% of world production.
We call on EU policy makers to ensure that the post-2020 carbon leakage provisions fully offset direct and indirect costs at Android用グランドポーカー無料ダウンロード level of best performers with no cross sectoral correction factor.
Our industries play an instrumental role in delivering the technologies and solutions to reach that common goal.
The ETS is an important tool to be used in achieving this common ambition.
Energy intensive sectors are capital-intensive.
A large part of their investments are geared towards energy efficiency, decarbonisation and emission reduction efforts, in full support of the Climate and Energy Package 2030.
However, securing these investments and preventing them from leaking outside of the EU requires strong carbon leakage provisions.
The current Commission proposals fall short on this requirement.
In particular, fixing the auction share means shrinking available free allocations for manufacturing industry.
We call on the Council and the Parliament to reform the ETS system in such a way that the economy can resume growth and that the most carbon efficient undertakings are not incurring a carbon cost penalty.
Notes for Editors About AEII The Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries represents over 30,000 European companies and four million jobs in the EU.
Our industries are at the core of the EU economy and the starting point of multiple value chains, such as the car industry, fuels, buildings, energy production, including renewable energies, food and drinks, and pharmaceuticals.
This paper contains Alliance proposals on carbon leakage protection, free allocation principles and competitiveness under ETS Phase IV to ensure simple, fair, predictable and effective rules i.
Those principles are further detailed below.
Best industrial performers must not be penalized by ETS allocation rules The concept of declining free allocation for industry is in contrast to the need for full protection against carbon leakage and should not serve as a justification to reduce protection.
The limit on the total issuance of allowances in ETS sectors defined by Heads of State and governments covers both free allocation and auctioning.
They did not impose a decrease of free allocation as such.
On the contrary carbon leakage provisions should be improved in order to encourage carbon-efficient production and growth in Europe, and allocation must be guaranteed at the level of realistic benchmarks.
Only predictable and effective carbon leakage measures will enable companies to invest in innovative solutions in Europe.
Accordingly there should be ダウンロードせずに無料のオンラインゲームをプレイ direct and indirect cost at the very least at the level of most efficient European installations in sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
The effect of the cross sectoral factor CSCF is that even the best performers cannot achieve these levels due to economic, technical or thermo-dynamical limits.
Ignoring this turns the EU ETS into a penalty system rather than an incentivising system.
For that reason, all our sectors call for a deletion of the CSCF, in accordance with the European Council conclusions of 23-24 October 2014 1.
Current carbon leakage assessment methodology remains valid The carbon leakage risk will not decrease and may well increase on the contrary: - It can currently not be expected that there will be a large breakthrough in negotiations at international level that would lead to climate policies, imposing equivalent carbon costs for industries located in competing regions.
All Energy Intensive Industries should receive full protection at the level of the benchmark.
Consequently, the quantitative and qualitative carbon leakage risk assessment criteria and assumptions as defined in 2008 remain fully valid and must remain unchanged.
Energy Intensive Industries are characterised by long investment cycles.
The carbon leakage list must only be updated at the beginning of each trading period.
Establishing technically and economically achievable benchmarks The benchmarks should be updated maximum once, ahead of each trading period to provide planning certainty for participants, decrease the administrative burdens and provide an appropriate reward for those that have invested in emissions efficiency.
The update of the benchmark values should be based on data collection from the EU companies.
The process of establishing benchmarks must be as transparent as possible.
If in a sector, no relevant changes in technology have taken place, such sector can request a simplified approach for data collection.
These benchmarks have to be representative for the sectors and based on representative technologies that have been adopted by the European market.
Over-ambitious benchmarks artificially increase costs to industry overall and de facto undermine the effectiveness of the carbon leakage provisions.
The current rules are already very stringent, as benchmarks are set according to the average of the top 10% most efficient installations in the sector; hence, even without the cross-sectoral correction factor, around 95% of the installations have to purchase allowances.
Indirect carbon costs need to be fully compensated throughout Europe The current implementation of carbon leakage measures to deal with indirect carbon costs has resulted in a fragmented approach as eligible sectors exposed to electricity price increases due to carbon costs may only receive from few Member States ルクソールのゲームセンター街 partial financial compensation.
This creates an uneven playing field in the internal EU market, and creates a disadvantage for those installations that are not receiving any, or only partial, compensation, vis-à-vis extra-EU competitors.
Sectors with a fall-back approach should also be properly treated.
The current system is unpredictable, as it relies on a state aid compensation assessment, and is granted annually, digressive and uncertain for future years.
For the longer term, the Commission should also assess the possibility of redesigning the electricity market in a way that prevents carbon cost pass through in electricity prices to sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
For example, the reference period could be the rolling year n-2.
The required production data are already available as verifiers have to ascertain the activity data needed for the allocation.
The bureaucratic burden will be therefore minimal.
For installations covered by fall-back approaches as opposed to benchmarks, emission reductions resulting from efficiency measures should not result in a penalty.
Creating a reserve for growth To ensure sufficient availability of allowances for free allocation for industry, a reserve for growth would be needed.
This reserve for growth would act as a buffer to ensure predictable access to both free allocation フリーピープルクーポンコード2019 auctioned allowances.
There are several ways to operate this proposed reserve for growth: - It can be filled with unused free allowances due to lower production in phase III, back-loaded allowances, un-allocated allowances from New Entrants Reserve.
Then it can provide allowances for growth in case of higher production.
Support to innovation The extension of innovation support to industrial projects is welcome.
However, it should not happen at the detriment of carbon leakage protection by reducing more info limiting the amount of free allocation.
Industry exposed to carbon leakage risk will struggle to invest or innovate without predictable efficient carbon leakage protection.
Innovation funding under EU ETS should be allocated to energy intensive sectors appointed in Annex I of the directive.
Some sectors have already developed check this out decarbonisation roadmaps, in which transformation technologies are mentioned.
A dedicated fund taking into consideration these abatement possibilities will bring innovative technologies e.
read article needs an objective impact assessment for Phase IV ETS In light of the better regulation policy of the new Commission, an objective impact assessment on the different European energy intensive industries is crucial, taking into account their ability to reduce emissions low carbon roadmaps.
Any flawed impact assessment could lead to wrong policy decisions for the energy intensive industries in Europe.
To meet this target, the European Council agreed that the emissions in the EU Emission Trading System should be reduced, compared to 2005, by 43%.
A reformed EU ETS remains the main instrument to achieve the emission reduction target.
The cap will decline based on an annual linear reduction factor of 2.
The European Council furthermore gave strategic guidance on several issues regarding the implementation of the emission reduction target, namely free allocation to industry, the establishment of a modernisation and an innovation fund, optional free allocation of 2人用の無料オンライントリビアゲーム to modernise electricity generation in some Member States.
The strategic guidance given by European leaders on these elements will be translated into a legislative proposal to revise the EU ETS for the period post-2020.
This constitutes an important part of the work on the achievement of a resilient Energy Union with a forward looking climate change policy, which has been identified as a key policy area in President Juncker's political guidelines for the new Commission.
The purpose of this stakeholder consultation was to gather stakeholders' views on these elements.
CEPI's Key messages : - The ETS in general, and the benchmarks in particular, should reward installations and sectors reducing GHG emissions, without penalising early movers, new investment made, and low-carbon economic growth.
Fiscal and legislative stability and predictability are needed to enable investments in low-carbon technologies.
This can be easily verified by the lack of correlation between carbon prices and final product prices.
Financing of compensation schemes should include also, but not be limited to, auctioning revenues from ETS.
It should be directed to directly finance large-scale demo and pilot projects, as well projects close to commercialisation stage TRL 6-8.
These are high risk, high capital investments where the private sector would not be able to deliver without the backing of public financing.
This should be acknowledged when reviewing the EU ETS, by addressing the ETS impact on prices and availability of raw material, such as wood.
Read the full reponse.
Best practices in energy efficiency and renewables - To our Roots and Beyond EPRC - Could we recycle more?
Pro-consumer choice campaign: Digital or paper correspondence?

A67444455
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

「ブルース リー カード」関連の新品・中古品が約111件出品中。ヤフオク!は、常時約5000万点以上の商品数を. ブルースリー レア商品 ポストカード 12枚セット・専用ケース入り 25年ほど前のものです。 現在2,180円. 送料無料. 残り5日. 入札-. 新品. ウォッチ.


Enjoy!
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Valid for casinos
ブルース・リー - Wikipedia
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
【ブルースリーアクション集】李小龍動作集 BRUCE LEE ACTION

T7766547
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

1970年代に日本中の男子を熱狂させたブルース・リーのBlu-ray、DVD、写真集、フィギュアなど世界中のあらゆるブルース・リー. ご利用案内. お買い物の流れ. 送料について. 税金について. お支払い方法. ポイントについて. アイコンについて. 推奨環境.


Enjoy!
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Valid for casinos
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
ブルース・リー送料

TT6335644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

ブルース・リー Bruce Lee 手帳型 Google Pixel 3(G007904_04) 専用 レジェンド 功夫 pop art センス 個性的 スマホケース. artruth. ¥ 2,980. 配送料無料の出品あり. ブルース・リー Bruce Lee 手帳型 Xperia XZ2 Premium SOV38(SOV38 au)(. すべての.


Enjoy!
ブルース・リー - Wikipedia
Valid for casinos
ブルース・リー - Wikipedia
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
ブルース・リー送料

A67444455
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

ブルース・リー Bruce Lee 手帳型 Google Pixel 3(G007904_04) 専用 レジェンド 功夫 pop art センス 個性的 スマホケース. artruth. ¥ 2,980. 配送料無料の出品あり. ブルース・リー Bruce Lee 手帳型 Xperia XZ2 Premium SOV38(SOV38 au)(. すべての.


Enjoy!
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Valid for casinos
ブルース・リー - Wikipedia
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Reply to this quick survey on our website's members area and tell us more about your user experience.
It will only take 5 minutes of your time and help us shape the future of CEPI.
These hydrophobic DESs could successfully replace chemical solvents in the paper recycling process in order to https://casinos-deposit.site/1/1163.html transition metal ions such as iron and manganese from paper pulp.
Coordinated by ISPT, the industry-driven PROVIDES project focuses on developing environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical solvents in the European pulp and paper industry.
It is financially supported by 20 industrial partners.
Deep Eutectic Solvents DESs are nature-based, renewable, biodegradable, low-volatile and cost-effective.
When used for producing high-quality cellulose fibers in paper-making applications, they are extremely energy efficient, particularly because they do not require high temperatures.
They offer a groundbreaking new method for the pulping of many different lignocellulosic materials for producing chemical pulp, pure lignin and other chemicals.
Read the full press release by ISPT.
DES was the winning project of the Two Team Project, a CEPI project thanks to which the industry identified eight breakthrough technologies that would help decarbonise papermaking.
Read more about it.
Save News 15 Sep.
Position paper 13 Jun.
The undersigned associations support the principles of read article EU ETS as the cornerstone mechanism to deliver cost-efficient emission reductions in the EU while at the same time securing a global level playing field for industry.
But, for this to be achievable, we need to ensure that the EU ETS works for every covered sector.
The post 2020 ETS reform must focus on achieving long-lasting, holistic and effective changes to the system in order to instil confidence in the market.
An essential element of the reform is to provide long-term predictability and legal stability to industry and investors, and to avoid the quick-fixes and piecemeal approach we have seen in the recent past.
However, the rules should ensure the right balance between ensuring liquidity with regard to the available auctioning volumes and providing the necessary volume of free allowances on the level of best performers in order to avoid carbon and investment leakage.
The undersigned associations are committed to make the reform of the EU ETS a success.
But it must be a success for all the covered sectors.
If he was alive and would hear about the Tiered Approach in the ETS review, we would probably have engaged in the following dialogue: Aristotle: What is the purpose of proposing a Tiered Approach?
Rega: To avoid the so-called cross-sectoral correction factor CSCF — a uniformed cut in free credits allocated to each industrial installation, should the total demand excess the total availability of free credits.
How would a Tiered Approach work?
Sectors are clustered in different groups, and receive a different level of free credits.
How would sectors be clustered?
And how could different exposure levels to such risk be evaluated?
Have any of these analyses been used in the proposed tiered approach?
Sectors have not been compared with their respective non-EU sectors.
Instead, they have ブルース・リー送料 been all lined up and assumed that the higher a sector strikes in terms of combined carbon and trade intensity, the higher it is exposed.
Indeed, as relocation outside the EU in countries with link stringent carbon constraints would then increase global carbon emissions.
Indeed, one could argue that it is rather arbitrary and discriminatory.
Could 安全な無料オンラインゲームサイト be legally challenged?
In case of rigid boundaries in defining the carbon leakage groups, companies not receiving the highest level of free credits will most likely go to court.
Would these companies have a chance to win?
Most likely, given the flawed methodology being more info />What would happen then?
Sectors would retroactively receive additional free credits at the highest level.
And what if the boundaries were not be rigid but rather flexible?
In this case, sectors initially allocated in some clusters would still be allowed to prove their higher need for protection, via the so-called qualitative assessment.
But if sectors will be granted additional free credits, where would these come from?
Like in past cases, the Commission would have to take a relevant amount of free credits upfront and park them aside, in case all sectors would apply and receive full protection.
Does it mean that sectors will be deemed to receive 100% free credits?
Yes, as allowances potentially needed would not be allocated.
Additionally, a generalised use of the qualitative assessment would exponentially increase both the administrative burden and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Thanks to Aristotle, we have come to a straight-forward conclusion: the Tiered Approach defeats its original purpose, namely to reduce the risk of triggering the CSCF.
With additional drawbacks impacting the stability, predictability and transparency of regulatory framework.
In this respect, tiering does neither.
Something that even Aristotle would agree upon.
A shortage can be as good as excluded if the proposed share of スーパースロットマシンが勝利 to be auctioned were properly calculated.
Thus, the ETS reform can deliver the agreed emission reductions cost-effectively, encourage best performance through safeguarding full and effective carbon leakage protection to the benchmark level.
There is no need for exposing parts of EU industry to undue carbon costs.
The ITRE Draft Opinion proposes to expose a lot of industrial sectors to the risk of carbon leakage.
Burdening companies with undue carbon costs go here cutting free allocation would divert resources from modernising and upgrading industrial infrastructure, thus exacerbating the risk of investment leakage to countries with less stringent climate policies.
This does not send a positive signal to European industry to accompany its decarbonisation investments and undermines our faith in, and support for, the ETS as a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions.
It reserves free allowances for some sectors at the expense of others.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, tiering would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them to carbon and investment leakage.
Statistical indicators vary - sometimes greatly - with time and depend on many factors market conditions, company structures, exposure to international commit イベントカジノヘリサウ are, etc.
Hence, the setting of thresholds would be arbitrary and would risk not reflecting future needs and leakage risks of the sectors.
As a result, we call on the Members of the ITRE Committee to react strongly to the Draft Opinion, so that the ETS reform delivers full and effective carbon leakage protection without the need for arbitrary discrimination.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
We call for an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
While the report includes some positive proposals, other aspects still need to be improved.
In some cases, some proposed solutions would need to be thoroughly thought through, as they would have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting industrial competitiveness and destabilising the regulatory framework.
The following five aspects are of primary importance: 1.
Availability of free allowances for industry On the positive side, the report seeks to increase the availability of free credits for new entrants and production increases.
CEPI proposal: as future industry demand for free credits is subject to many uncertainties, any firm decision taken now will likely result in either excess of unused free credits or an excessive shortage of these.
Carbon Leakage The proposal from the rapporteur is simply unacceptable.
Such a discriminatory approach, if approved, would inevitably entail legal challenges in courts, leading to an unstable and unpredictable regulatory framework.
Moreover, it would increase the risk of carbon leakage for most sectors in the economy, putting millions of jobs across industries and local communities at risk.
CEPI proposal: keep the Commission proposal.
Benchmarks update The proposal from the rapporteur is heading in the right direction.
Building on the Commission proposal, it stresses the need to use real data and tries to accommodate the need of those sectors moving at a slower pace in emission reductions.
The report also does not address rules for assessing progress in installations not covered by product benchmarks so-called fall-back approacheswhich are responsible for one third of industrial emissions.
Indirect carbon costs passed on in electricity prices Although we strongly support the need to reduce the impact of carbon costs in electricity prices, the proposals will have little or no impact in this respect.
This is because most industrial installations purchase electricity on the wholesale market.
Differing levels of compensation will not impact the way the electricity market operates, thus the way carbon costs are passed through in electricity prices.
The proposals would therefore increase the carbon cost exposure for industries while not addressing the shortcomings of the current state aid regime, namely the lack of compensation in all Member States and the unpredictability of the rules.
It should also be noted that, in some countries, just click for source lack of compensation for indirect costs coupled with no free credits for electricity produced and consumed on-site as in the case of CHP is already leading to up to 40% shortage in compensation for on-site emissions.
CEPI proposal: the ETS review needs to ensure 100% compensation for both direct and indirect carbon costs throughout the whole trading period, at benchmark level.
We also welcome the attempt to clarify the parameters already upfront in the text of the directive; this will accelerate the process by timely releasing the first funding opportunities.
Strengthen provisions on the share of financing support, ensuring all industrial sectors can really benefit from this opportunity.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, it would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them deliberately to carbon and investment leakage.
Depriving sectors of carbon leakage provisions would not deliver decarbonisation through investment and innovation.
Moreover, it could well prove to have been entirely unnecessary.
To that end, we continue to support an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
The proposed share of allowances to be auctioned shall also be recalculated downwards, as analysis of the EC proposal shows, it does not properly include the number of allowances which were to be given out for free i.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
The signatories fully share and support the BusinessEurope views.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
The agreement urges countries to implement policies that would allow them to keep a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.
The global forest products industry has a highly significant role to play in the implementation of these targets.
The European pulp and paper industry has been a global champion in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Having looked at the contributions of forests in the national targets of ICFPA member countries INDCs and global mitigation effort from 2020 onwards, the report concludes that many countries identify forests and the land-use sector as relevant to policies and measures implemented to meet their targets.
Reducing emissions from deforestation, but also sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation are commonly mentioned as key mitigation practices.
Other climate change mitigation efforts of the global forest products industry include supporting national and regional climate policies and programs; investing in technologies with low carbon ブルース・リー送料 and ones that improve carbon sequestration; and developing bio-based technologies to find innovative ways to use wood fiber and substitutes for goods traditionally made from fossil fuels.
Note to the editor: The ICFPA represents more than 30 national and regional forest and paper associations around the world.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information about the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.
We share the conviction that only a flexible and dynamic energy system, making the best use of innovative and distributed supply and demand options, can ensure a cost-efficient and sustainable transition towards a decarbonised energy system.
We strongly believe that a market-driven environment is the best means to provide long-term investment signals while meeting all system needs and accommodating the growing share of renewable energy in the energy mix.
However, we see many constraints persisting in the energy sector that affect investment decisions, in particular: 1 depressed wholesale market prices due to overcapacity; 2 fading EU-coordination of energy policies with a tendency towards renationalisation; and 3 an antiquated set of market rules.
Market rules have been tailored to centralised production within national boundaries for too long.
Not only have they failed to adapt to developments in energy technologies and evolution of demand patterns both at industry and end-consumer level, but some of them hamper the deployment of renewables, storage and demand-side flexibility.
These new technologies can today provide valuable services including balancing energy offering significant flexibility to the system.
The energy system is now more complex to plan, control and balance.
It needs enhanced flexibility that could be provided by a mix of options, but this would require significant changes in the relevant legislation.
In this respect, we consider the upcoming legislative package on market design as a unique chance to provide the energy sector with a predictable investment framework, fairer market conditions, and ultimately seize new opportunities arising from decentralised energy production and demand side participation.
In particular, we deem essential that any ambitious reform of the energy market addresses the following issues: 1.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-term markets across borders 2.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from renewable energy supply and demand sources 3.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers to foster the pan-European trading ofelectricity and grid support services.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-markets across borders In a well-functioning electricity market, unhindered price-formation drives operational choices and investment decisions.
Transparent and undistorted market prices must be in place in all time horizons, and allowed to move freely without caps.
Wholesale electricity prices reflecting scarcity would signal the need for investments in new capacity.
Therefore, price spikes should be treated as a positive sign of an efficient and cost-effective energy system where market participants are free to choose the level of hedging they prefer to contract, revealing the true value of flexibility and energy at all times.
Market rules also need to be adapted so as click the following article enhance clean and flexible energy providers to trade power over broader geographical areas and as close as possible to the time of delivery.
In this context, the opening and cross-border integration of intraday market is essential, especially for energy producers whose output is variable.
A as long as separate procurement of balancing capacity and energy is guaranteed, another important aspect is the possibility to negotiate the duration of contracts, 無料ヘビとはしごカエルゲーム />This is crucial, as certain flexibility technologies may require considerable capital investment and, therefore, contracts with a longer duration.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from different energy sources The main challenge for security of electricity supply is not the availability of capacity as such, but the availability of flexibility that is needed to support the system and provide for a constant balance between supply and demand.
In order to identify potential, locally constrained adequacy issues, system adequacy assessments should be carried out according to a common methodology and metrics transparently defined in EU legislation 1.
Such analysis should be performed at regional level and consider the potential of all flexibility options, from the various energy supply and demand sources.
This would ensure a rigorously needs-based approach to the introduction of Capacity Remuneration Mechanisms CRMs when the market cannot not deliver the adequate flexibility.
If CRMs are deemed necessary, they should be designed in a way that minimises any negative impacts on price formation on energy markets.
They should avoid contributing to continued overcapacity situation by keeping redundant and polluting power plants online, and prioritise clean flexibility options as foreseen in the energy state aid guidelines.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers 2 to foster the pan-European trading of electricity and grid support services In addition to the modernisation and further opening of the balancing market, a proper market for ancillary or grid support services needs to be fostered to provide additional non-discriminatory revenue streams to flexibility providers, as well as overall operating cost savings for the energy system.
As of today, a number of services and solutions from decentralised generation and demand-side response are technically feasible, but current market conditions do not properly value their commercial provision.
The continued adaptation of balancing and ancillary services markets should foster liquidity and incorporate innovative and decentralised solutions.
Prohibitive pre-qualification requirements and access conditions for independent aggregators, extended product-durations or minimum thresholds and symmetric bids are some of the aspects currently hampering an effective market.
Moreover, contradictory regulatory signals, e.
Compared to 2005, the year the EU Emission Trading Scheme came into force, absolute emissions fell by 27%.
With production levels remaining substantially the same in 2015, emission reductions were 3Dゲーム driven by market consolidation, investments in bioenergy, and the push from international competition to improve efficiency in production processes.
And with energy being the second main component in the cost structure, reducing energy-related costs, such as CO2 emissions, is a priority to secure an internationally-competitive position.
The European Paper Industry currently receives ブルース・リー送料 />For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris atmobile: +32 486 243 642.
Specifically, the proposal has three major critical points: 1.
It source unjustified from both an economic and a fairness perspective The proposal pretends to adequately ensure protection against the risk of carbon leakage.
However, it reduces the share of free credits to the vast majority of industrial sectors, without providing any evidence of the impact of additional costs on their competitiveness.
The proposal particularly lacks of any cost comparison between a given European and a non-European sector.
The proposal reduces the amount of free credits to certain sectors, as a supposedly fair gesture towards some others who would otherwise receive too little protection.
This is far from being a fair approach.
It penalises competitive industries investing in low-carbon technologies Protection against the risk of carbon leakage should provide the regulatory certainty for industries in transition towards a low-carbon economy.
However the tiered approach rewards the most carbon intensive and least profitable sectors.
This is intrinsic in the formula used, which rewards high carbon intensity combined with low value added GVA.
On the contrary, the formula punishes a sector investing in carbon emission reductions by giving a lower protection against the risk of carbon leakage as a direct consequence of these investments.
It hampers innovation The ETS is expected to ultimately promote the substitution of high-carbon with low-carbon production.
In this respect, solutions may come from within a given sector or as a cross-fertilisation of ideas coming from other sectors.
One example is the potential coming from the bioeconomy or circular economy to provide solutions to decarbonise other sectors.
However, the proposed tiered approach provides different carbon cost exposure to different sectors, with the paradox that the most carbon intensive will bear the least carbon costs.
As a consequence, the investment signal from the ETS will be totally jeopardised.
Sectors which successfully invest in decarbonising their processes are systematically at risk of being pushed outside the EU.
Alternatives to the tiered approach Discussions on tiered free allocation are triggered by the need to avoid the application of the Cross-Sectoral Correction Factor CSCF.
The timing and magnitude of the CSCF are far from being certain, as it depends on a combination of factors production levels, changes in the market, technological developments, innovation, development of international carbon markets, etc.
Rather than picking one scenario and fixing the rules for the next 15 years accordingly, the EU should: 1.
Define a regulatory framework that stimulates and rewards investments in low-carbon technologies, as a way to reduce the demand for free credits; 2.
Support programmes to accelerate the market-readiness of breakthrough technologies for industrial installations; 3.
Secure a sufficient amount of free credits to allow for low-carbon economic growth in energy intensive industries exposed to international competition; 4.
Set rules to predictably assess potential shortages in the supply of free credits and, when the ブルース・リー送料, explore all possible options to preserve industrial competitiveness.
For more information, please カースロットレースセット Nicola Rega at mobile: +32 0 485403412.
Position paper 11 Feb.
The full consultation replies can be found.
Here are some highlights: In reviewing the EU energy efficiency target for 2030, the Commission should have in mind that energy efficiency has to be achieved by voluntary initiatives, rather than by mandatory requirements.
An EU-wide binding energy saving target until 2030 would limit the scope for economic room to manoeuvre.
A rigid objective as a binding cap on energy consumption would impede growth.
Therefore, it is of vital importance that the Commission designs the target in such a way that recognises early measures and focuses on lowering the energy intensity, not the energy use as such.
The European framework has to create ideal long-term conditions to realize energy efficiency measures covering all sectors.
This is particularly important for the non-ETS sectors, where incentives to improve energy efficiency are often insufficient.
Effective incentives are needed, especially for research and development as well as for the cost-efficient implementation of investments in energy efficiency measures.
In view of achieving the new EU energy efficiency target for 2030, we believe that energy efficiency work must be done locally and as close to the energy consuming unit as possible.
The role of the EU should therefore only be limited to setting targets, creating the overall regulatory framework, monitor the process in terms of energy efficiency improvements and give non-binding advice to those countries that are not able to reach the given goals.
But details on how to implement energy efficiency policies need to be formulated at national or even industry level.
The EU should also promote and finance research and innovation in the field of energy and process technology to enable breakthrough technologies.
Regarding the most appropriate financing mechanisms to significantly increase energy efficiency investments in view of the 2030 target, it is important to find a high efficient way of financing.
To make sure that the highest possible potential is tapped with the available amount of money, it is important to prefer energy investment funding for measures with high returns on investment.
One way would be to support investment in form of cheap call money from a revolving fund for efficiency measures that would otherwise not take place without support.
Ensuring that the invested money always returns to the fund e.
Interest-free loans to finance investments are also a way to achieve energy efficiency measures.
Income from auctioning of emission rights should also be used to finance energy efficiency measures.
Position paper 11 Feb.
This consultation covered the REDII aspects.
You can find the fully completed consultation.
Here are some highlights: CEPI believes that the RED has been successful in ブルース・リー送料 large volumes of renewable energy sources.
However, the costs directly and indirectly associated to such deployment in most Member States have been quite significant.
The energy prices gap with competing economies has widened, with policy-induced costs being particularly relevant in electricity prices.
This has a negative impact on industrial competitiveness, as acknowledged by the 2014 Commission Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020.
Weather dependent renewable energy, solar and wind, is remarkable and growing challenge to secure availability of electricity.
The RED has also led to measures promoting the demand for bioenergy, not sufficiently taking into account the availability of wood for the wood processing industry, which is producing substitutes to fossil fuel based and more carbon intensive products.
This negative impact on the competitiveness of the wood processing industry is hampering the uptake of the bio-economy and its climate change mitigation potential.
Support to bio-energy should rather focus on stimulating the supply of wood.
Member States have a responsibility to ensure that additional demand for bioenergy is met by supply of raw materials, taking into account local biomass availability.
Therefore demand-side measures should be balanced with supply-side measures to mobilise existing additional potential of wood that can otherwise not be used for wood and fibre based products.
Reference could be made to the biomass mobilisation brochure jointly developed by DG AGRI, Forest-Europe and the UNECE-FAO.
Position paper 01 Dec.
However, these improvements are not yet sufficient in protecting the competitiveness of energy intensive industries, ensuring adequate regulatory stability and predictability, and in stimulating investments in low-carbon technologies.
From 2005 to 2014, our industry has reduced carbon emissions by 26%, resulting in 21% carbon-intensity reduction.
We have been early-movers in low-carbon investments and have plans to grow our business in Europe, building synergies with circular economy and the bioeconomy.
To bring environmental protection in line with industry competitiveness, we ask to: 1.
Remove artificial cap on free credits to industry.
The artificial cap will also lead, sooner or later, to the application of the cross-sectoralcorrection factor CSCF.
This is the most unfair among all instruments, as it cuts allocationirrespective of industry potentials, neutralises carbon leakage provisions, limits predictability,and punishes investments made by early movers.
Keep the proposed approach to benchmarks review, but improve key design aspects.
The benchmark review needs to predictably promote and reward investments in low-carbontechnologies, while finding the right balance between accuracy and administrative burden.
Reducing benchmarks at achievable paces, with rules clearly stated upfront, will lowerregulatory risks and reward the installations who will invest in low-carbon technologies.
Looking at the administrative burden, the pulp and paper industry, with more than 700installations in the ETS — 60% of which below 25kt — emitted just 31.
Yet, it is the 2nd biggest sector for number ofbenchmarks 11covering only about 50% of industry production — the rest being under theso-called fall-back approach.
It is self-evident that opting for a full review of benchmark valuesinstead is disproportionately costly while only delivering marginal accuracy improvements.
This is why we look favourably at the approach proposed by the Commission.
Grant to all energy-intensive industries equal protection against present and futurerisks of carbon leakage.
Industry is either exposed to global competition or not: there is no middle ground.
In thiscontext, the Commission proposal seems reasonable.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that therest of the world does not impose comparable costs on energy intensive industries, withcarbon leakage provisions appearing also in other non-EU countries.
Adopt binding EU rules for compensation of indirect carbon costs.
Indirect carbon costs affect ブルース・リー送料 international competitiveness as much as direct carboncosts do.
The principle of equal treatment in shielding industry from both carbon costs musteffectively and consistently apply in all Member States.
Stop penalising investments in industrial Combined Heat and Power CHP.
In the pulp and paper industry CHP is considered as Best Available Technique.
Installations are therefore expected to use this technology.
Today however the EU ETS does not send the right investment signal to invest in industrial CHP: the EU ETS grants no free credits for electricity produced and no consistent and adequate compensation for indirect carbon costs is given across Europe either.
Given the relevant co-benefits CHP delivers in moving Europe towards a low-carbon economy, corrective measures to provide the right investment signal are urgently needed.
Earmark innovation and modernisation funding to energy intensive industries.
The earmarked 450 million allowances is the largest industry innovation fund ever.
To deliverits full potential it should be linked to the goal of 2050 sectoral roadmaps, and aimed at thedeployment of new technologies for each Annex I sectors.
The modernisation fund should alsoprimarily support low-carbon technologies in industry.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega, Climate Change and Energy Director, at n.
The statement presents the contributions of forests and the forest products industry to the mitigation of global climate change and calls on governments to recognize these contributions.
The full statement is available at:.
The side-event will be hosted by the ICFPA and the EU Joint Research Centre.
All ICFPA policy statements are available at.
The ICFPA serves as a forum of global dialogue, co-ordination and co-operation.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information, visit.
Press Release 15 Jul.
The proposal has a number of good elements but falls short in its protection of energy intensive industries.
Member https://casinos-deposit.site/1/908.html hold the key to the solution.
In October 2014 the European Council recognised that measures to protect energy intensive industry from carbon leakage should be maintained when revising the EU ETS.
The Council concluded the most efficient installations in sectors such as the pulp and paper industry should not face undue carbon costs that would impact their global competitiveness.
Member states however added expectations on the revenues they want from the EU ETS.
CEPI does appreciate the focus on low carbon investments and support for technology and innovation in the new proposal.
The use of more accurate production data is good, even though the proposal could be more ambitious.
CEPI also believes the linear reduction of the benchmarks used for free allocation is reasonable and improves predictability.
The proposal does however not solve the lack of free allocation for Combined Heat and Power Plants in Europe, which has been an additional factor in closing down very carbon efficient ブルース・リー送料 energy plants in Europe.
The pulp and paper industry is a leading CHP sector, producing over 50% of its electricity consumption by itself.
Finally, the proposal strengthens the focus of member states on compensation for higher electricity costs to industry, but does not lead to a harmonised EU approach, which is what the internal market requires.
Member States have to align their compensation schemes, so industry is treated equal across Europe.
The European Pulp and Paper Industry is a globally competing sector, with over 700 installations covered by the EU ETS.
Total sector fossil CO2 emissions were 31 Million tonnes in 2014, already reduced from 43 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
The sector has a clear focus on breakthrough technology programmes through its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap for the Forest Fibre Sector.
CEPI calls upon the policy makers to rethink their approach.
Through its 18 member countries 17 European Union members plus Norway CEPI represents some 505 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 920 paper mills.
Together they represent 23% of world production.
We call on EU policy makers to ensure that the post-2020 carbon leakage provisions fully offset direct and indirect costs at the level of best performers with no cross sectoral correction factor.
Our industries play an instrumental role in delivering the technologies and solutions to reach that common goal.
The ETS is an important tool to be used in achieving this common ambition.
Energy intensive sectors are capital-intensive.
A large part of their investments are geared towards energy efficiency, decarbonisation and emission please click for source efforts, in full support of the Climate and Energy Package 2030.
However, securing these investments and preventing them from leaking outside of the EU requires strong carbon leakage provisions.
The current Commission proposals fall short on this requirement.
In particular, fixing the auction share means shrinking available free allocations for manufacturing industry.
We call on the Council and the Parliament to reform the ETS system in such a way that the economy can resume growth and that the most carbon efficient undertakings are not incurring a carbon cost penalty.
Notes for Editors About AEII The Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries represents over 30,000 European companies and four million jobs in the EU.
Our industries are at the core of the EU economy and the starting point of multiple value chains, such as the car industry, fuels, buildings, energy production, including renewable energies, food and drinks, and pharmaceuticals.
This paper contains Alliance proposals on carbon leakage protection, free allocation principles and competitiveness under ETS Phase IV to ensure simple, fair, predictable and effective rules i.
Those principles are further detailed below.
Best industrial performers must not be penalized by ETS allocation rules The concept of declining free allocation for industry is in contrast to the need for full protection against carbon leakage and should not serve as a justification to reduce protection.
The limit on the total issuance of allowances in ETS sectors defined by Heads of State and governments covers both free allocation and auctioning.
They did not impose a decrease of free allocation as such.
On the contrary carbon leakage provisions should be improved in order to encourage carbon-efficient production and growth in Europe, and allocation must be guaranteed at the level of realistic benchmarks.
Only predictable and effective carbon leakage measures will enable companies to invest in innovative solutions in Europe.
Accordingly there should be no direct and indirect cost at the very least at the level of most efficient European installations in sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
The effect of the cross sectoral factor CSCF is that even the best performers cannot achieve these levels due to economic, technical or thermo-dynamical limits.
Ignoring this turns the EU ETS into a penalty system rather than an incentivising system.
For that reason, all our sectors call for a deletion of the CSCF, in accordance with the European Council conclusions of 23-24 October 2014 1.
Current carbon leakage assessment methodology remains valid The carbon leakage risk will not decrease and may well increase on the contrary: - It can currently not be expected that there will be a large breakthrough in negotiations at international level that would lead to climate policies, imposing equivalent carbon costs for industries located in competing regions.
All Energy Intensive Industries should receive full protection at the level of the benchmark.
Consequently, the quantitative and qualitative carbon leakage risk assessment criteria and assumptions as defined in 2008 remain fully valid and must remain unchanged.
Energy Intensive Industries are characterised by long investment cycles.
The carbon leakage list must only be updated at the beginning of each trading period.
Establishing technically and economically achievable benchmarks The benchmarks should be updated maximum once, ahead of each trading period to provide planning certainty for participants, decrease the administrative burdens and provide an appropriate reward for those that have invested in emissions efficiency.
The update of the benchmark values should be based on data collection from the EU companies.
The process of establishing benchmarks must be as transparent as possible.
If in a sector, no relevant changes in technology have taken place, such sector can request a simplified approach for data collection.
These benchmarks have to be representative for the sectors and based on representative technologies that have been adopted by the European market.
Over-ambitious benchmarks artificially increase costs to industry overall and de facto undermine the effectiveness of the carbon leakage provisions.
The current rules are already very stringent, as benchmarks are set according to the average of the top 10% most efficient installations in the sector; hence, even without the cross-sectoral correction factor, around 95% of the installations have to purchase allowances.
Indirect carbon costs need to be fully compensated throughout Europe The current implementation of carbon leakage measures to deal with indirect carbon costs has resulted in a fragmented approach as eligible sectors exposed to electricity price increases due to carbon costs may only receive from few Member States a partial financial compensation.
This creates an uneven playing field in the internal EU market, and creates a disadvantage for those installations that are not receiving any, or only partial, compensation, vis-à-vis extra-EU competitors.
Sectors with a fall-back approach should also be properly treated.
The current system is unpredictable, as it relies on a state aid compensation assessment, and is granted annually, digressive and uncertain for future years.
For the longer term, the Commission should also assess the possibility of redesigning the electricity market in a way that prevents carbon cost pass through in electricity prices to sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
For example, the reference period could be the rolling year n-2.
The required production data are already available as verifiers have to ascertain the activity data needed for the allocation.
The bureaucratic burden will be therefore minimal.
For installations covered by fall-back approaches as opposed to benchmarks, emission reductions resulting from efficiency measures should not result in a penalty.
Creating a reserve for growth To ensure sufficient availability of allowances for free allocation for industry, a reserve for check this out would be needed.
This reserve for growth would act as a buffer to ensure predictable access to both free allocation and auctioned allowances.
There are several ways to operate this proposed reserve for growth: - It can be filled with unused free allowances due to lower production in phase III, back-loaded allowances, un-allocated allowances from New Entrants Reserve.
Then it can provide allowances for growth in case of higher production.
Support to innovation The extension of innovation support to industrial projects is welcome.
However, it should not happen at the detriment of carbon leakage protection by reducing or limiting the amount of free allocation.
Industry exposed to carbon leakage risk will struggle to invest or innovate without predictable efficient carbon leakage protection.
Innovation funding under EU ETS should be allocated to energy intensive sectors appointed in Annex I of the directive.
Some sectors have already developed 2050 decarbonisation roadmaps, in which transformation technologies are mentioned.
A dedicated fund taking into consideration these abatement possibilities will bring innovative technologies e.
Industry needs an objective impact assessment for Phase IV ETS In light of the better regulation policy of the new Commission, an objective impact assessment on the different European energy intensive industries is crucial, taking into account their ability to reduce emissions low carbon roadmaps.
Any flawed impact assessment could lead to wrong policy decisions for the energy intensive industries ブルース・リー送料 Europe.
To meet this target, the European Council agreed that the emissions in the EU Emission Trading System should be reduced, compared to 2005, by 43%.
A reformed EU ETS remains the main instrument to achieve the emission reduction target.
The cap will decline based on an annual linear reduction factor of 2.
The European Council furthermore gave strategic guidance on several issues regarding the implementation of the emission reduction target, namely free allocation to industry, the establishment of a modernisation and an innovation fund, optional free allocation of allowances to modernise electricity generation in some Member States.
The strategic guidance given by European leaders on these elements will be translated into a legislative proposal to revise the EU ETS for the period post-2020.
This constitutes an important part of the work on the achievement of a resilient Energy Union with a forward looking climate change policy, which has been identified as a key policy area in President Juncker's political guidelines for the new Commission.
The purpose of this stakeholder consultation was to gather stakeholders' views on these elements.
CEPI's Key messages : - The ETS in general, and the benchmarks in particular, should reward installations and sectors reducing GHG emissions, without penalising early movers, new investment made, and low-carbon economic growth.
Fiscal and legislative stability and predictability are needed to enable investments in low-carbon technologies.
This can be easily verified by the lack of correlation between carbon prices and final product prices.
Financing of compensation schemes should include also, but not be limited to, auctioning revenues from ETS.
It should be directed to directly finance large-scale demo and pilot projects, as well projects close to commercialisation stage TRL 6-8.
These are high risk, high capital investments where the private sector would not be able to deliver without the backing of public financing.
This should be acknowledged when reviewing the EU ETS, by addressing the ETS impact on prices and availability of raw material, such as wood.
Read the full 競馬賭博システム無料 />Best practices in energy efficiency and renewables - To our Roots and Beyond EPRC - Could we recycle more?
Pro-consumer choice campaign: Digital or paper correspondence?

CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

まわりの男子はみな怪鳥音を出しながらカンフーごっこをし、ヌンチャクを振り回しては自分にあてていましたブルース・リーは少年たちの憧れの的。 公開されたときには ☆送料無料 【ビバリー】ラウンジ・アームチェア アジアン家具、ブルース・リーはもう亡くなっ.


Enjoy!
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Valid for casinos
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Reply to this quick survey on our website's members area read article tell us more about your user experience.
It will only take 5 minutes of your time and help us shape the future of CEPI.
These hydrophobic DESs could successfully replace chemical solvents in the paper recycling process in order to remove transition metal ions such as iron and manganese from paper pulp.
Coordinated by ISPT, the industry-driven PROVIDES project focuses on developing environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical solvents in the European pulp and paper industry.
It is financially supported by 20 industrial partners.
Deep Eutectic Solvents DESs are nature-based, renewable, biodegradable, low-volatile and cost-effective.
When used for producing high-quality cellulose fibers in paper-making applications, they are extremely energy efficient, particularly because they do not require high temperatures.
They offer a groundbreaking new method for the pulping of many different lignocellulosic materials for producing chemical pulp, pure lignin and other chemicals.
Read the full press release by ISPT.
DES was the winning project of the Two Team Project, a CEPI project thanks to which the industry identified eight breakthrough technologies that would help decarbonise papermaking.
Read more about it.
Save News 15 Sep.
Position paper 13 Jun.
The undersigned associations support the principles of the EU ETS as the cornerstone mechanism to deliver cost-efficient emission reductions in the EU while at the same time securing a global level playing field for industry.
But, for this to be achievable, we need to ensure that the Source ETS works for every covered sector.
The post 2020 ETS reform must focus on achieving long-lasting, holistic and effective changes to the system in order to instil confidence in the market.
An essential element of the reform is マックコンピュータゲームベストバイ provide long-term predictability and legal stability to industry and investors, and to avoid the quick-fixes and piecemeal approach we have seen in the recent past.
However, the rules should ensure the right balance between ensuring liquidity with regard to the available auctioning volumes and providing the necessary volume of free allowances on the level of best performers in order to avoid carbon and investment leakage.
The undersigned associations are committed to make the reform of the EU ETS a success.
But it must be a success for all the covered sectors.
If he was alive and would hear about the Tiered Approach in the ETS review, we would probably have engaged in the following dialogue: Aristotle: What is the purpose of proposing a Tiered Approach?
Rega: To avoid the so-called cross-sectoral correction factor CSCF — a uniformed cut in free credits allocated to each industrial installation, should the total demand excess the total availability of free credits.
How would a Tiered Approach work?
Sectors are clustered in different groups, and receive a different level of free credits.
How would sectors be clustered?
And how could different exposure levels to such risk be evaluated?
Have any of these analyses been used in the proposed tiered approach?
Sectors have not been compared with their can 無料ダウンロードコンピュータゲームオフライン amusing non-EU sectors.
Instead, they have just been all lined up and assumed that the higher a sector strikes in terms of combined carbon and trade intensity, the higher it is exposed.
Indeed, as relocation outside the EU in countries with less stringent carbon constraints would then increase global carbon emissions.
Indeed, one could argue that it is rather arbitrary and discriminatory.
Could it be legally challenged?
In case of rigid boundaries in defining the carbon leakage groups, companies not receiving the highest level of free credits will most likely go to court.
Would these companies have a chance to win?
Most likely, given the flawed methodology being used.
What would happen then?
Sectors would retroactively receive additional free credits at the highest level.
And what if the boundaries were not be rigid but rather flexible?
In this case, sectors initially allocated in some clusters would still be allowed to prove their higher need for protection, via the so-called qualitative assessment.
But if sectors will be granted additional free credits, where would these come from?
Like in past cases, the Commission would have to take a relevant amount of free credits upfront and park them aside, in case all sectors would apply and receive full protection.
Does it mean that sectors will be deemed to receive 100% free credits?
Yes, as allowances potentially needed would not be allocated.
Additionally, a generalised use of the qualitative assessment would exponentially increase both the administrative burden and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Thanks to Aristotle, we have come to a straight-forward conclusion: the Tiered Approach defeats its original purpose, namely to reduce the risk of triggering the CSCF.
With additional drawbacks impacting the stability, predictability and トータルウォーモバイルゲームのダウンロード of regulatory framework.
In this respect, tiering does neither.
Something that even Aristotle would agree upon.
A shortage can be as good as excluded if the proposed share of allowances to be auctioned were properly calculated.
Thus, the ETS reform can deliver the agreed emission reductions cost-effectively, encourage best performance through safeguarding full and effective carbon leakage protection to the benchmark level.
There is no need for exposing parts of EU industry to undue carbon costs.
The ITRE Draft Opinion proposes to expose a lot of industrial sectors to the risk of carbon leakage.
Burdening companies with undue carbon costs by cutting free allocation ブルース・リー送料 divert resources from modernising and upgrading industrial infrastructure, thus exacerbating the risk of investment leakage to countries with less stringent climate policies.
This does not send a positive signal to European industry to accompany its decarbonisation investments and undermines our faith in, and support for, NBAゲームオンラインプレイ ETS as a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions.
It reserves free allowances for some sectors at the expense of others.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
source, tiering would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them to carbon and investment leakage.
Statistical indicators vary - sometimes greatly - with time and depend on many factors market conditions, company structures, exposure to international trade, etc.
Hence, the setting of thresholds would be arbitrary and would risk not reflecting future needs and leakage risks of the sectors.
As a result, we call on the Members of the ITRE Committee to react strongly to the Draft Opinion, so that the ETS reform アンドロイド用テンプルラン無料ゲームダウンロード full and effective carbon leakage protection without the need for arbitrary discrimination.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
We call for an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
While the report includes some positive proposals, other aspects still need to be improved.
In some cases, some proposed solutions would need to be thoroughly thought through, as they would have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting industrial competitiveness and destabilising the regulatory framework.
The following five aspects are of primary importance: 1.
Availability of free allowances for industry On the positive side, the report seeks to increase the availability of free credits for new entrants and production increases.
CEPI proposal: as future industry demand for free credits is subject to many uncertainties, any firm decision taken now will likely result in either excess of unused free credits or an excessive shortage of these.
Carbon Leakage The proposal from the rapporteur is simply unacceptable.
Such a discriminatory approach, if approved, would inevitably entail legal challenges in courts, leading to an unstable and unpredictable regulatory framework.
Moreover, it would increase the risk of carbon leakage for most sectors in the economy, putting millions of jobs across industries and local communities at risk.
CEPI proposal: keep the Commission proposal.
Benchmarks update The proposal from the rapporteur is heading in the right direction.
Building on the Commission proposal, it stresses the need to use real data and tries to accommodate the need of those sectors moving at a slower pace in emission reductions.
The report also does not address rules for assessing progress in installations not covered by product benchmarks so-called fall-back approacheswhich are responsible for one third of industrial emissions.
Indirect carbon costs passed on in electricity prices Although we strongly support the need to reduce the impact of carbon costs in electricity prices, the proposals will have little or no impact in this respect.
This is because most industrial installations purchase electricity on the wholesale market.
Differing levels of compensation will not impact the way the electricity market operates, thus the way carbon costs are passed through in electricity prices.
The proposals would therefore increase the carbon cost exposure for industries while not addressing the shortcomings of the current state aid regime, namely the lack of compensation in all Member States and the unpredictability of the rules.
It should also be noted that, in some countries, the lack of compensation for indirect costs coupled with no free credits for electricity produced and consumed on-site as in the case of CHP is already leading to up to 40% shortage in compensation for on-site emissions.
CEPI proposal: the ETS review needs to ensure 100% compensation for both direct and indirect carbon costs throughout the whole trading period, at benchmark level.
We also welcome the attempt to clarify the parameters already upfront in the text of the directive; this will accelerate the process by timely releasing the first funding opportunities.
Strengthen provisions on the share of financing support, ensuring all industrial sectors can really benefit from this opportunity.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, it would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them deliberately to carbon and investment leakage.
Depriving sectors of carbon leakage provisions would not deliver decarbonisation through investment and innovation.
Moreover, it could well prove to have been entirely unnecessary.
To that end, we continue to support an approach 子供へのパススロット on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
The proposed share of allowances to be auctioned shall also be recalculated downwards, as analysis of the EC proposal shows, it does not properly include the number of allowances which were to be given out for free i.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
The signatories fully share and support the BusinessEurope views.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to go here in Europe.
The agreement urges countries to implement policies that would allow them to keep a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.
The global forest products industry has a highly significant role to play in the implementation of these targets.
The European pulp 巨大なマリオオンラインゲームプレイ paper industry has been a global champion in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Having looked at the contributions of forests in the national targets of ICFPA member countries INDCs and global mitigation effort from 2020 onwards, the report concludes that many countries identify forests and the land-use sector as relevant to policies and measures implemented to meet their targets.
Reducing emissions from deforestation, but also sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation are commonly mentioned as key mitigation practices.
Other climate change mitigation efforts of the global forest products industry include supporting national and regional climate policies and programs; investing in technologies with low carbon footprints and ones that improve carbon sequestration; and developing bio-based technologies to find innovative ways to use wood fiber and substitutes for goods traditionally made from fossil fuels.
Note to the editor: The ICFPA represents more than 30 national and regional forest and paper associations around the world.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information about the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.
We share the conviction that only a flexible https://casinos-deposit.site/1/270.html dynamic energy system, making the best use of innovative and distributed supply and demand options, can ensure a cost-efficient and sustainable transition towards a decarbonised energy system.
We strongly believe that a market-driven environment is the best means to provide long-term investment signals while meeting all system needs and accommodating the growing share of renewable energy in the energy mix.
However, we see many constraints this web page in the energy sector that affect investment decisions, in particular: 1 depressed wholesale market prices due to overcapacity; 2 fading EU-coordination of energy policies with a tendency towards renationalisation; and 3 an antiquated set of market rules.
Market rules have been tailored to centralised production within national boundaries for too long.
Not only have they failed to adapt to developments in energy technologies and evolution of demand patterns both at industry and end-consumer level, but some of them hamper the deployment of renewables, storage and demand-side flexibility.
These new technologies can today provide valuable services including balancing energy offering link flexibility to the system.
The energy system is now more complex to plan, control and balance.
It needs enhanced flexibility that could be provided by a mix of options, but this would require significant changes in the relevant legislation.
In this respect, we consider the upcoming legislative package on market design as a unique chance to provide the energy sector with a predictable investment framework, fairer market conditions, and ultimately seize new opportunities arising from decentralised energy production and demand side participation.
In particular, we deem essential that any ambitious reform of the energy market addresses the following issues: 1.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-term markets across borders 2.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from renewable energy supply and demand sources 3.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers to foster the pan-European trading ofelectricity and grid support services.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-markets across borders In a well-functioning electricity market, unhindered price-formation drives operational choices and investment decisions.
https://casinos-deposit.site/1/8.html and undistorted market prices must be in place in all time horizons, and allowed to move freely without caps.
Wholesale electricity prices reflecting scarcity would signal the need for investments in new capacity.
Therefore, price spikes should be treated as a positive sign of an efficient and cost-effective energy system where market participants are free to choose the level of hedging they prefer to contract, revealing the true value of flexibility and energy at all times.
Market rules also need to be adapted so as to enhance clean and flexible energy providers to trade power over broader geographical areas and as close as possible to the time of delivery.
In this context, the opening and cross-border integration of intraday market is essential, especially for energy producers whose output is variable.
A as long as separate procurement of balancing capacity and energy is guaranteed, another important aspect is the possibility to negotiate the duration of contracts, e.
This is crucial, as certain flexibility technologies may require considerable capital investment and, therefore, contracts with a longer duration.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from different energy sources The main challenge for security of electricity supply is not the availability of capacity as such, but the availability of flexibility that is needed to support the system and provide for a constant balance between supply and demand.
In order to identify potential, locally constrained adequacy issues, system adequacy assessments should be carried out according to a common methodology and metrics transparently defined in EU legislation 1.
Such analysis should be performed at regional level and consider the potential of all flexibility options, from the various energy supply and demand sources.
This would ensure a rigorously needs-based approach to the introduction of Capacity Remuneration Mechanisms CRMs when the market cannot not deliver the adequate flexibility.
If CRMs are deemed necessary, they should be designed in a way that minimises any negative impacts on price formation on energy markets.
They should avoid contributing to continued overcapacity situation by keeping redundant and polluting power plants online, and prioritise clean flexibility options as foreseen in the energy state aid guidelines.
Implementing a learn more here playing field for all flexibility providers 2 to foster the pan-European trading of electricity and grid support services In addition to the modernisation and further opening of the balancing market, a proper market for ancillary or grid support services needs to be fostered to provide additional non-discriminatory revenue streams to flexibility providers, as well as overall operating cost savings for the energy system.
As of today, a number of services and solutions from decentralised generation and demand-side response are technically feasible, but current market conditions do not properly value their commercial provision.
The continued adaptation of balancing and ancillary services markets should foster liquidity and incorporate innovative and decentralised solutions.
Prohibitive pre-qualification requirements and access conditions for independent aggregators, extended product-durations or minimum thresholds and symmetric bids are some of the aspects currently hampering an effective market.
Moreover, contradictory regulatory signals, e.
Compared to 2005, the year the EU Emission Trading Scheme came into force, absolute emissions fell by 27%.
With production levels remaining substantially the same in 2015, emission reductions were primarily driven by market consolidation, investments in bioenergy, and the push from international competition to improve efficiency in production processes.
And with energy being the second main component in the cost structure, reducing energy-related costs, such as CO2 emissions, is a priority to secure an internationally-competitive position.
The European Paper Industry currently receives 1.
For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris atmobile: +32 486 243 642.
Specifically, the proposal ブルース・リー送料 three major critical points: 1.
It is unjustified from both an economic and a fairness perspective The proposal pretends to adequately ensure protection against the risk of carbon leakage.
However, it reduces the share of free credits to the vast majority of industrial sectors, without providing any evidence of the impact of additional costs on their competitiveness.
The proposal particularly lacks of any cost comparison between a given European and a non-European sector.
read more proposal reduces the amount of free credits to certain sectors, as a supposedly fair gesture towards some others who 最高のAndroidゲームのダウンロード otherwise receive too little protection.
This is far from being a fair approach.
It penalises competitive industries investing in low-carbon technologies Protection against the risk of carbon leakage should provide the regulatory certainty for industries in transition towards a low-carbon economy.
However the tiered approach rewards the most carbon intensive and least profitable sectors.
This is intrinsic in the formula used, which rewards high carbon intensity combined with low value added GVA.
On the contrary, the formula punishes a sector investing in carbon emission reductions by giving a lower protection against the risk of carbon leakage as a direct consequence of these investments.
It hampers innovation The ETS is expected to ultimately promote the substitution of high-carbon with low-carbon production.
In this respect, solutions may come from within a given sector or as a cross-fertilisation of ideas coming from other sectors.
One example is the potential coming from the bioeconomy or circular economy to provide solutions to decarbonise other sectors.
However, the proposed tiered approach provides different carbon cost exposure to different sectors, with the paradox that the most carbon intensive will bear the least carbon costs.
As a consequence, the investment signal from the ETS will be 鯉魚ゲーム jeopardised.
Sectors which successfully invest in decarbonising their processes are systematically at risk of being pushed outside the EU.
Alternatives to the tiered approach See more on tiered free allocation are triggered by the need to avoid the application of the Cross-Sectoral Correction Factor CSCF.
The timing and magnitude of the CSCF are far from being certain, as it depends on a combination of factors production levels, changes in the market, technological developments, innovation, development of international carbon markets, etc.
Rather than picking one scenario and fixing the rules for the next 15 years accordingly, the EU should: 1.
Define a regulatory framework that stimulates and rewards investments in low-carbon technologies, as a way to reduce the demand for free credits; 2.
Support programmes to accelerate the market-readiness of breakthrough technologies for industrial installations; 3.
Secure a sufficient amount of free credits to allow for low-carbon economic growth in energy intensive industries exposed to international competition; 4.
Set rules to predictably assess potential shortages in the supply of free credits and, when the case, explore all possible options to preserve industrial competitiveness.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega at mobile: +32 0 485403412.
Position paper 11 Feb.
The full consultation replies can be found.
Here are some highlights: In reviewing the EU energy efficiency target for 2030, the Commission should have in mind that energy efficiency has to be achieved by voluntary initiatives, rather than by mandatory requirements.
An EU-wide binding energy saving target until 2030 would limit the scope for economic room to manoeuvre.
A rigid objective as a binding cap on energy consumption would impede growth.
Therefore, it is of vital importance that the Commission designs the target in such a way that recognises early measures and focuses on lowering the energy intensity, not the energy use as such.
The European framework has to create ideal long-term conditions to realize energy efficiency measures covering all sectors.
This is particularly important for the non-ETS sectors, where please click for source to improve energy efficiency are often insufficient.
Effective incentives are needed, especially for research and development as well as for the cost-efficient implementation of investments in energy efficiency measures.
In view of achieving the new EU energy efficiency target for 2030, we believe that energy efficiency work must be done locally and as close to the energy consuming unit as possible.
The role of the EU should therefore only be limited to setting targets, creating the overall regulatory framework, monitor the process in terms of energy efficiency improvements and give non-binding advice to those countries that are not able to reach the given goals.
But details on how to implement energy efficiency policies need to be formulated at national or even industry level.
The EU should also promote and finance research and innovation in the field of energy and process technology to enable breakthrough technologies.
Regarding the most appropriate financing mechanisms to significantly increase energy efficiency investments in view of the 2030 target, it is important to find a high efficient way of financing.
To make sure that the highest possible potential is tapped with the available amount of money, it is important to prefer energy investment funding for measures with high returns on investment.
One way would be to support investment in form of cheap call money from a revolving fund for efficiency measures that would otherwise not take place without support.
Ensuring that the invested money this web page returns to the fund e.
Interest-free loans to finance investments are also a way to achieve energy efficiency measures.
Income from auctioning of emission rights should also be used to finance energy efficiency measures.
Position paper 11 Feb.
This consultation covered the REDII aspects.
You can find the fully completed consultation.
Here are some highlights: CEPI believes that the RED has been successful in deploying large volumes of renewable energy sources.
However, the costs directly and indirectly associated to such deployment in most Https://casinos-deposit.site/1/520.html States have been quite significant.
The energy prices gap with competing economies has widened, with policy-induced costs being particularly relevant in electricity prices.
This has a negative impact on industrial competitiveness, as acknowledged by the 2014 Commission Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020.
Weather dependent renewable energy, solar and wind, is remarkable and growing challenge to secure availability of electricity.
The RED has also led to measures promoting the demand for bioenergy, not sufficiently taking into account the availability of wood for the wood processing industry, which is producing substitutes to fossil fuel based and more carbon intensive products.
This negative impact on the スロットゲームを無料でプレイ of the wood processing industry is hampering the uptake of the bio-economy and its climate change mitigation potential.
Support to bio-energy should rather focus on stimulating the supply of wood.
Member States have a responsibility to ensure that additional demand for bioenergy is met by supply of raw materials, taking into account local biomass availability.
Therefore demand-side measures should be balanced with supply-side measures to mobilise existing additional potential of wood that can otherwise not be used for wood and fibre based products.
Reference could be made to the biomass mobilisation brochure jointly developed by DG AGRI, Forest-Europe and the UNECE-FAO.
Position paper 01 Dec.
However, these improvements are not yet continue reading in protecting the competitiveness of energy intensive industries, ensuring adequate regulatory stability and predictability, and in stimulating investments in low-carbon technologies.
From 2005 to 2014, our industry has reduced carbon emissions by 26%, resulting in 21% carbon-intensity reduction.
We have been early-movers in low-carbon investments and have plans to grow our business in Europe, building synergies with circular economy and the bioeconomy.
To bring environmental protection in line with industry competitiveness, we ask to: 1.
Remove artificial cap on free credits to industry.
The artificial cap will also lead, sooner or later, to the application of the cross-sectoralcorrection factor CSCF.
This is the most unfair among all instruments, as it cuts allocationirrespective of industry potentials, neutralises carbon leakage provisions, limits predictability,and punishes investments made by early movers.
Keep the proposed approach to benchmarks review, but improve key design aspects.
The benchmark review needs to predictably promote and reward investments in low-carbontechnologies, while finding the right balance between accuracy and administrative burden.
Reducing benchmarks at achievable paces, ポタワトミカジノフードコート rules clearly stated upfront, will lowerregulatory risks and reward the installations who will invest in low-carbon technologies.
Looking at the administrative burden, the pulp and paper industry, with more than 700installations in the ETS — 60% of which below 25kt — emitted just 31.
Yet, it is the 2nd biggest sector for number ofbenchmarks 11covering only about 50% of industry production — the rest being under theso-called fall-back approach.
It is self-evident that opting for a full review of benchmark valuesinstead is disproportionately costly while only delivering marginal accuracy improvements.
This is why we look favourably at the approach proposed by the Commission.
Grant to all energy-intensive industries equal protection against present and futurerisks of carbon leakage.
Industry is either exposed to global competition or not: there is no middle ground.
In thiscontext, the Commission proposal seems reasonable.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that therest of the world does not impose comparable costs on energy intensive industries, withcarbon leakage provisions appearing also in other non-EU countries.
Adopt binding EU rules for compensation of indirect carbon costs.
Indirect carbon costs affect industrial international competitiveness as much as direct carboncosts do.
The principle of equal treatment in shielding industry from both carbon costs musteffectively and consistently apply in all Member States.
Stop penalising investments in industrial Combined Heat and Power CHP.
In the pulp and paper industry CHP is considered as Best Available Technique.
Installations are therefore expected to use this technology.
Today however the EU ETS does not send the right investment signal to invest in industrial CHP: the EU ETS grants no free credits for electricity produced and no consistent and adequate compensation for indirect carbon costs is given across Europe either.
Given the relevant co-benefits CHP delivers in moving Europe towards a low-carbon economy, corrective measures to provide the right investment signal are urgently needed.
Earmark innovation and modernisation funding to energy intensive industries.
The earmarked 450 million allowances is the largest https://casinos-deposit.site/1/989.html innovation fund ever.
To deliverits full potential it should be linked to the goal of 2050 sectoral roadmaps, and aimed at thedeployment of new technologies for each Annex I sectors.
The modernisation fund should alsoprimarily support low-carbon technologies in industry.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega, Climate Change and Energy Director, at n.
The statement presents the contributions of forests and the forest products industry to the mitigation of global climate change and calls on governments to recognize these contributions.
The full statement is available at:.
The side-event will be hosted by the ICFPA and the EU Joint Research Centre.
All ICFPA policy statements are available ブルース・リー送料 />The ICFPA serves as a forum of global dialogue, co-ordination and co-operation.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information, ニュージャージーのトランプカジノ />Press Release 15 Jul.
The proposal has a number of good elements but falls short in its protection of energy intensive industries.
Member states hold the key to the solution.
In October 2014 the European Council recognised that measures to protect energy intensive industry from carbon leakage should be maintained when revising the EU ETS.
The Council concluded the article source efficient installations in sectors such as the see more and paper industry should not face undue carbon costs that would impact their global competitiveness.
Member states however added expectations on the revenues they want from the EU ETS.
CEPI does appreciate the focus on low carbon investments and support for technology and innovation in the new proposal.
The use of more accurate production data is good, even though the proposal could be more ambitious.
CEPI also believes the linear reduction of the benchmarks used for free allocation is reasonable and improves predictability.
The proposal does however not solve the lack of free allocation for Combined Heat and Power Plants in Europe, which has been an additional factor in closing down very carbon efficient gas-fired energy plants in Europe.
The pulp and paper industry is a leading CHP sector, producing over 50% of its electricity consumption by itself.
Finally, the proposal strengthens the focus of member states on compensation for higher electricity costs to industry, but does not lead to a harmonised EU approach, which is what the internal market requires.
Member States have to align their compensation schemes, so industry is treated equal across Europe.
The European Pulp and Paper Industry is a globally competing sector, with over 700 installations covered by the EU ETS.
Total sector fossil CO2 emissions were 31 Million tonnes in 2014, already reduced from 43 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
The sector has a clear focus on breakthrough technology programmes through its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap for the Forest Fibre Sector.
CEPI calls upon the policy makers to rethink their approach.
Through its 18 member countries 17 European Union members plus Norway CEPI represents some 505 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 920 paper mills.
Together they represent 23% of world production.
We call on EU policy makers to ensure that the post-2020 carbon leakage provisions fully offset direct and indirect costs at the level of best performers with no cross sectoral correction factor.
Our industries play an instrumental role in delivering the technologies and solutions to reach that common goal.
The ETS is an important tool to be used in achieving this common ambition.
Energy intensive sectors are capital-intensive.
A large part of their investments are geared towards energy efficiency, decarbonisation and emission reduction efforts, in full support of the Climate and Energy Package 2030.
However, securing these investments and preventing them from leaking outside of the EU requires strong carbon leakage provisions.
The current Commission proposals fall short on this requirement.
In particular, fixing the auction share means shrinking available free allocations for manufacturing industry.
We call on the Council and the Parliament to reform the ETS system in such a way that the economy can resume growth and that the most carbon efficient undertakings are not incurring a carbon cost penalty.
Notes for Editors About AEII The Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries represents over 30,000 European companies and four million jobs in the EU.
Our industries are at the core of the EU economy and the starting point of multiple value chains, such as the car industry, fuels, buildings, energy production, including renewable energies, food and drinks, and pharmaceuticals.
This paper contains Alliance proposals on carbon leakage protection, free allocation principles and competitiveness under ETS Phase IV to ensure simple, fair, predictable and effective rules i.
Those principles are further detailed below.
Best industrial performers must not be penalized by ETS allocation rules The concept of declining free allocation for industry is in contrast to the need for full protection against carbon leakage and should not serve as a justification to reduce protection.
The limit on the total issuance of allowances in ETS sectors defined by Heads of State and governments covers both free allocation and auctioning.
They did not impose a decrease of free allocation as such.
On the contrary carbon leakage provisions should be improved in order to encourage carbon-efficient production and growth in Europe, and allocation must be guaranteed at the level of realistic benchmarks.
Only predictable and effective carbon leakage measures will enable companies to invest in innovative solutions in Europe.
Accordingly there should be no direct and indirect cost at the very least at the level of most efficient European installations in sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
The effect of the cross sectoral factor CSCF is that even the best performers cannot achieve these levels due to economic, technical or thermo-dynamical limits.
Ignoring this turns the EU ETS into a penalty system rather than an incentivising system.
For that reason, all our sectors call for a deletion of the CSCF, in accordance with the European Council conclusions of 23-24 October 2014 1.
Current carbon leakage assessment methodology remains valid The carbon leakage risk will not decrease and may well increase on the contrary: - It can currently not be expected that there will be a large breakthrough in negotiations at international level that would lead to climate policies, imposing equivalent carbon costs for industries located in competing regions.
All Energy Intensive Industries should receive full protection at the level of the benchmark.
Consequently, the quantitative and qualitative carbon leakage risk assessment criteria and assumptions as defined in 2008 remain fully valid and must remain unchanged.
Energy Intensive Industries are characterised by long investment cycles.
The carbon leakage list must only be updated at the beginning of each trading period.
Establishing technically and economically achievable benchmarks The benchmarks should be updated maximum once, ahead of each trading period to provide planning certainty for participants, decrease the administrative burdens and provide an appropriate reward for those that have invested in emissions efficiency.
The update of the benchmark values should be based on data collection from the EU companies.
The process of establishing benchmarks must be as transparent as possible.
If in a sector, no relevant changes in technology have taken place, such sector can request a simplified approach for data collection.
These benchmarks have to be representative for the sectors and based on representative technologies that have been adopted by the European market.
Over-ambitious benchmarks artificially increase costs to industry overall and de facto undermine the effectiveness of the carbon leakage provisions.
The current rules are already very stringent, as benchmarks are set according to the average of the top 10% most efficient installations in the sector; hence, even without the cross-sectoral correction factor, around 95% of the installations have to purchase allowances.
Indirect carbon costs need to be fully compensated throughout Europe The current implementation of carbon leakage measures to deal with indirect carbon costs has resulted in a fragmented approach as eligible sectors exposed to electricity price increases due to carbon costs may only receive from few Member States a partial financial compensation.
This creates an uneven playing field in the internal EU market, and creates a disadvantage for those installations that are not receiving any, or only partial, compensation, vis-à-vis extra-EU competitors.
Sectors with a fall-back approach should also be properly treated.
The current system is unpredictable, as it relies on a state aid compensation assessment, and is granted annually, digressive and uncertain for future years.
For the longer term, the Commission should also assess the possibility of redesigning the electricity market in a way that prevents carbon cost pass through in electricity prices to sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
For example, the reference period could be the rolling year n-2.
The required production data are already available prompt 寺院ラン2ゲームオンライン無料 pity verifiers have to ascertain the activity data needed for the allocation.
The bureaucratic burden will be therefore minimal.
For installations covered by fall-back approaches as opposed to benchmarks, emission reductions resulting from efficiency measures ブルース・リー送料 not result in a penalty.
Creating a reserve for growth To ensure sufficient availability of allowances for free allocation for industry, a reserve for growth would be needed.
This reserve for growth would act as a buffer to https://casinos-deposit.site/1/392.html predictable access to both free allocation and auctioned allowances.
There are several ways to operate this proposed reserve for growth: - It can be filled with unused free allowances due to lower production in phase III, back-loaded allowances, un-allocated allowances from New Entrants Reserve.
Then it can provide allowances for growth in case of higher production.
Support to innovation The extension of innovation support to industrial projects is welcome.
However, it should not happen at the detriment of carbon leakage protection by reducing or limiting the amount of free allocation.
Industry exposed to carbon leakage risk will struggle to invest or innovate without predictable efficient carbon leakage protection.
Innovation funding under EU ETS should be allocated to energy intensive sectors appointed in Annex I of the directive.
Some sectors have already developed 2050 decarbonisation roadmaps, in which transformation technologies are mentioned.
A dedicated fund taking into consideration these abatement possibilities will bring innovative technologies e.
Industry needs an objective impact assessment for Phase IV ETS In light of the better regulation policy of the new Commission, an objective impact assessment on the different European energy intensive industries is crucial, taking into account their ability to reduce emissions low carbon roadmaps.
Any flawed impact assessment could lead to wrong policy decisions for the energy intensive industries in Europe.
To meet this target, the European Council agreed that the emissions in the EU Emission Trading System should be reduced, compared to 2005, by 43%.
A reformed EU ETS remains the main instrument to achieve the emission reduction target.
The cap will decline based on an annual linear reduction factor of 2.
The European Council furthermore gave authoritative ストリートファイターを無料でオンラインでプレイ think guidance on several issues regarding the implementation of the emission reduction target, namely free allocation to industry, the establishment of a modernisation and an innovation fund, optional free allocation of allowances to modernise electricity generation in some Member States.
please click for source strategic guidance given by European leaders on these elements will be translated into a legislative proposal to revise the EU ETS for the period post-2020.
This constitutes an important part of the work on the achievement of a resilient Energy Union with a forward looking climate change policy, which has been identified as a key policy area in President Juncker's political guidelines for the new Commission.
The purpose of this stakeholder consultation was to gather stakeholders' views on these elements.
CEPI's Key messages : - The ETS in general, and the benchmarks in particular, should reward installations and sectors reducing GHG emissions, without penalising early movers, new investment made, and low-carbon economic growth.
Fiscal and legislative stability and predictability are needed to enable investments in low-carbon technologies.
This can be easily click the following article by the lack of correlation between carbon prices and final product prices.
Financing of compensation schemes should include also, but not be limited to, auctioning revenues from ETS.
It should be directed to directly finance large-scale demo and pilot projects, as well projects close to commercialisation stage TRL 6-8.
These are high risk, high capital investments where the private sector would not be able to deliver without the backing of public financing.
This should be acknowledged when reviewing the EU ETS, by addressing the ETS impact on prices and availability of raw material, such as wood.
Read the full reponse.
Best practices in energy efficiency and renewables - To our Roots and Beyond EPRC - Could we recycle more?
Pro-consumer choice campaign: Digital or paper correspondence?

CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

【通常便なら送料無料】グリーン・ホーネット ブルース・リー セクシーカトー コスチューム 衣装 大人用T 。コスプレ グリーン・ホーネット ブルース・リー セクシーカトー 大人用 衣装 コスチューム.


Enjoy!
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Valid for casinos
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
ブルース・リー 胸熱アクション映像 (The best of Bruce Lee)李小龍

T7766547
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

1970年代に日本中の男子を熱狂させたブルース・リーのBlu-ray、DVD、写真集、フィギュアなど世界中のあらゆるブルース・リー. ご利用案内. お買い物の流れ. 送料について. 税金について. お支払い方法. ポイントについて. アイコンについて. 推奨環境.


Enjoy!
ブルース・リー - Wikipedia
Valid for casinos
ブルース・リー - Wikipedia
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
映画『アイ アム ブルース・リー』予告編

TT6335644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

1970年代に日本中の男子を熱狂させたブルース・リーのBlu-ray、DVD、写真集、フィギュアなど世界中のあらゆるブルース・リー. ご利用案内. お買い物の流れ. 送料について. 税金について. お支払い方法. ポイントについて. アイコンについて. 推奨環境.


Enjoy!
Energy and Climate Change | CEPI - CONFEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PAPER INDUSTRIES
Valid for casinos
隔週刊 傑作カンフー映画 ブルーレイコレクション | ブルーレイ付きマガジン
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Reply to this quick survey on our website's members area and tell us more about your user experience.
It will only take 5 minutes of your time and help us shape the future of CEPI.
These hydrophobic DESs could successfully replace chemical solvents in the paper recycling process in order to remove transition metal ions such as iron and manganese from paper pulp.
Coordinated by ISPT, the industry-driven PROVIDES project focuses on developing environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical solvents in the European pulp and paper industry.
It is financially supported by 20 industrial partners.
Deep Eutectic Solvents DESs are nature-based, renewable, biodegradable, low-volatile and cost-effective.
When used for producing high-quality cellulose fibers in paper-making applications, they are extremely energy efficient, particularly because they do not require high temperatures.
They offer a groundbreaking new method for the pulping of many different lignocellulosic materials for producing chemical pulp, pure lignin and other chemicals.
Read the full please click for source release by ブルース・リー送料 />DES was the winning project of the Two Team Project, a CEPI project thanks to which the industry identified eight breakthrough technologies that would help decarbonise papermaking.
Read more about it.
Save News 15 Sep.
Position paper 13 Jun.
The undersigned associations support the principles of the EU ETS as the cornerstone mechanism to deliver cost-efficient emission reductions in the EU while at the same time securing a global level playing field for industry.
But, for this to be achievable, we need to ensure that the EU ETS works for every covered sector.
The post 2020 ETS reform must focus on achieving long-lasting, holistic and effective changes to the system in order to instil confidence opinion スロットマシンオンラインゲーム無料ゲーム something the market.
An essential element of the reform is to provide long-term predictability and legal stability to industry and investors, and to avoid the quick-fixes and piecemeal approach we have seen in the recent past.
However, the rules should ensure the right balance between ensuring liquidity with regard to the available auctioning volumes and providing the necessary volume of free allowances on the level of best performers in order to avoid carbon and investment leakage.
The undersigned associations are committed to make the reform of the EU ETS a success.
But it must be a success for all the covered sectors.
If he was alive and would hear about the Tiered Approach in the ETS review, we would probably have engaged in the following dialogue: Aristotle: What is the purpose of proposing a Tiered Approach?
Rega: To avoid the so-called cross-sectoral correction factor CSCF — a uniformed cut in free credits allocated to each industrial installation, should the total demand excess the total availability of free credits.
How would a Tiered Approach work?
Sectors are clustered in different groups, and receive a different level of free credits.
How would sectors be clustered?
And how could different exposure levels to such risk be evaluated?
Have any of these analyses been used in the proposed tiered approach?
Sectors have not been compared with their respective non-EU sectors.
Instead, they have just been all lined up and assumed that the higher a sector strikes in terms of combined carbon and trade intensity, the higher it is exposed.
Indeed, as relocation outside the EU in countries with less stringent carbon constraints would then increase more info carbon emissions.
Indeed, one could argue that it is rather arbitrary and discriminatory.
Could it be legally challenged?
In case of rigid boundaries in defining the carbon leakage groups, companies not receiving the highest level of free credits will most likely go to court.
Would these companies have a chance to win?
Most likely, given the flawed methodology being used.
What would happen then?
Sectors would retroactively receive additional free credits at the highest level.
And what if the boundaries were not be rigid but rather flexible?
In this case, sectors initially allocated in some clusters would still be allowed to prove their higher need for protection, via the so-called qualitative assessment.
But if sectors will be link additional free credits, where would these come from?
Like in past cases, the Commission would have to take a relevant amount of free credits upfront and park them aside, in case all sectors would apply and receive full protection.
Does it mean that sectors will be deemed to receive 100% free credits?
Yes, as allowances potentially needed would not be allocated.
Additionally, a generalised use of the qualitative assessment would exponentially increase both the administrative burden and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.
Thanks to Aristotle, we have come to a straight-forward conclusion: the Tiered Approach defeats its original ブルース・リー送料, namely to reduce the risk of triggering the CSCF.
With additional drawbacks impacting the stability, predictability and transparency of regulatory framework.
In this respect, tiering does neither.
Something that even Aristotle would agree upon.
A shortage can be as good as excluded if the proposed share of allowances to be auctioned were properly calculated.
Thus, the ETS reform can deliver the agreed emission reductions cost-effectively, encourage best performance through safeguarding full and effective carbon leakage protection to the benchmark level.
There is no need for exposing parts of EU industry to undue carbon costs.
The ITRE Draft Opinion proposes to expose a lot of industrial sectors to the risk of carbon leakage.
Burdening companies with undue carbon costs by cutting free allocation would divert resources from modernising and upgrading industrial infrastructure, thus exacerbating the risk of investment leakage to countries with less stringent climate policies.
This does not send a positive signal to European industry to accompany its decarbonisation investments and undermines our faith in, and support for, the ETS as a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions.
It reserves free allowances for some sectors at the expense of others.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, tiering ブルース・リー送料 ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them to carbon and investment leakage.
Statistical indicators vary - sometimes greatly - with time and depend on many factors market conditions, company structures, exposure to international trade, etc.
Hence, the setting of thresholds would be arbitrary and would risk not reflecting future needs and leakage risks of the sectors.
As a result, we call on the Members of the ITRE Committee to react strongly to the Draft Opinion, so that the ETS reform delivers full and effective carbon leakage protection without the need for arbitrary discrimination.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
We call for an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
While the report includes some positive proposals, other aspects still need to be improved.
In some cases, some proposed solutions would need to be thoroughly thought through, as they would have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting industrial competitiveness and destabilising the regulatory framework.
The following five aspects are of primary importance: 1.
Availability of free allowances for industry On the positive side, the report seeks to increase the availability of free credits for new entrants and production increases.
CEPI proposal: as future industry demand for free credits is subject to many uncertainties, any firm decision taken now will likely result click here either excess of unused free credits or an excessive shortage of these.
Carbon Leakage The proposal from the rapporteur is simply unacceptable.
Such a discriminatory approach, if approved, would inevitably entail legal challenges in courts, leading to an unstable and unpredictable regulatory framework.
Moreover, it would increase the risk of carbon leakage for most sectors in the economy, putting millions of jobs across industries and local communities at risk.
CEPI proposal: keep the Commission proposal.
Benchmarks update The proposal from the rapporteur is heading in the right direction.
Building on the Commission proposal, it stresses the need to use real data and tries to accommodate the need of those sectors moving at a slower pace in emission reductions.
The report also does not address rules for assessing progress in installations not covered by product benchmarks so-called fall-back approacheswhich are responsible for one third of industrial emissions.
Indirect carbon costs passed on in electricity prices Although we strongly support the need to reduce the impact of carbon costs in electricity prices, the proposals will have little or no impact in this respect.
This is because most industrial installations purchase electricity on the wholesale market.
Differing levels of compensation will not impact the way the electricity market operates, thus the way carbon costs are passed through in electricity prices.
The proposals would therefore increase the carbon cost exposure for industries while not addressing the shortcomings of the current state aid regime, namely the lack of compensation in all Member States and the unpredictability of the rules.
It should also be noted that, in some countries, the lack of compensation for indirect costs coupled with no free credits for electricity produced and consumed on-site as in the case of CHP is already leading to up to 40% shortage in compensation for on-site emissions.
CEPI proposal: the ETS review needs to ensure 100% compensation for both direct and indirect carbon costs throughout the whole trading period, at benchmark level.
We also welcome the attempt to clarify the parameters already upfront in the text of the directive; this will accelerate the process by timely releasing the first funding opportunities.
Strengthen provisions on the share of financing support, ensuring all industrial sectors can really benefit from this opportunity.
It goes against the principle set in the October European Council Conclusions that best performing companies in ETS carbon leakage sectors should not bear further carbon costs.
Indeed, it would ensure that even best performers in most sectors would bear significant carbon costs and expose them deliberately to carbon and investment leakage.
Depriving sectors of carbon leakage provisions would not deliver decarbonisation through investment and innovation.
Moreover, it could well prove to have been entirely unnecessary.
To that end, we continue to support an approach based on realistic benchmarks, allocation based on more recent production data and an adequate reserve that ensures full allocation to benchmark levels.
The proposed share of allowances to be click the following article shall also be recalculated downwards, as analysis of the EC proposal shows, it does not properly include the number of allowances which were to be given out for free i.
Fairness and solidity should become key principles of policy making.
Jobs in one sector are neither more nor less important than those in other sectors.
The signatories fully share and support the BusinessEurope views.
We ask you to create a framework that gives all sectors an equal opportunity to compete and thrive in Europe, and not to pick certain sectors to stay in Europe.
The agreement urges countries to implement policies that would allow them to keep a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.
The global forest products industry has a highly significant role to play in the implementation of these targets.
The European pulp and paper industry has been a global champion in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Having looked ブルース・リー送料 the contributions of forests in the national targets of ICFPA member countries INDCs and global mitigation effort from 2020 onwards, the report concludes that many countries identify forests and the land-use sector as relevant to policies and measures implemented to meet their targets.
Reducing emissions from deforestation, but also sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation are commonly mentioned as key mitigation practices.
Other climate change mitigation efforts of the global forest products industry include supporting national and regional climate policies and programs; investing in technologies with low carbon footprints and ones that improve carbon sequestration; and developing bio-based technologies to find innovative ways to use wood fiber and substitutes for goods traditionally made from fossil fuels.
Note article source the editor: The ICFPA represents more than 30 national and regional forest and paper associations around the world.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information about the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.
We share the conviction that only a flexible and dynamic energy system, making the best use of innovative and distributed supply and demand options, can ensure a cost-efficient and sustainable transition towards a decarbonised energy system.
We strongly believe that a market-driven environment is the best means to provide long-term investment signals while meeting all system needs and accommodating the growing share of renewable energy in the energy mix.
However, we see many constraints persisting in the energy sector that affect investment decisions, in particular: 1 depressed wholesale market prices due to overcapacity; 2 fading EU-coordination of energy policies with a tendency towards renationalisation; and 3 an antiquated set of market rules.
Market rules have been tailored to centralised production within national boundaries for too long.
Not only have they failed to adapt to developments in energy technologies and evolution of demand patterns both at industry and end-consumer level, but some of them hamper the deployment of renewables, storage and demand-side flexibility.
These new technologies can today provide valuable services including balancing energy offering significant flexibility to the system.
The energy system is now more complex to plan, control and balance.
It needs enhanced flexibility that could be provided by a mix of options, but this would require significant changes in the relevant legislation.
In this respect, we consider the upcoming legislative package on market design as a unique chance to provide the energy sector with a predictable investment framework, fairer market conditions, and ultimately seize new opportunities arising from decentralised energy production and demand side participation.
In particular, we deem essential that any ambitious reform of the energy market addresses the following issues: 1.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-term markets across borders 2.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from renewable energy supply and demand sources 3.
Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers to foster the pan-European trading ofelectricity and grid support services.
Providing adequate price signals and further integration of short-markets across borders In a well-functioning electricity market, unhindered price-formation drives operational choices and investment decisions.
Transparent and undistorted market prices must be in place in all time horizons, and allowed to move freely without caps.
Wholesale electricity prices reflecting scarcity would signal the need for investments in new capacity.
Therefore, price spikes should be treated as a positive sign of an efficient and cost-effective energy system where market participants are free to choose the level of hedging they prefer to contract, revealing the true value of flexibility and energy at all times.
Market rules also need to be adapted so as to enhance clean and flexible energy providers to trade power over broader geographical areas and as close as possible to the time of delivery.
In this context, the opening and cross-border integration of intraday market is essential, especially for energy producers whose output is variable.
A as long as separate procurement of balancing capacity and energy is guaranteed, another important aspect is the possibility to negotiate the duration of contracts, e.
This is crucial, as certain flexibility technologies may require considerable capital investment and, therefore, contracts with a longer duration.
Ensuring a balanced approach to system adequacy that fully takes into account the contribution from different energy sources The main challenge for security of electricity supply is not the availability of capacity as such, but the availability of flexibility that is needed to support the system and provide for a constant balance between supply and demand.
In order to identify potential, locally constrained adequacy issues, system adequacy assessments should be carried out according to a common methodology and metrics transparently defined in EU legislation 1.
Such analysis should be performed at regional level and consider the potential of all flexibility options, from the various energy supply and demand sources.
This would ensure a rigorously needs-based approach to the introduction of Capacity Remuneration Mechanisms CRMs when the market cannot not deliver the adequate flexibility.
If CRMs are deemed necessary, continue reading should be designed in a way that minimises any negative impacts on price formation on energy markets.
They should avoid contributing to continued overcapacity situation by keeping redundant and polluting power plants online, and prioritise clean flexibility options as foreseen in the energy state aid ブルース・リー送料 />Implementing a level playing field for all flexibility providers 2 to foster the pan-European trading of electricity and grid support services In addition to the modernisation and further opening of the balancing market, a proper market for ancillary or grid support services needs to be fostered to provide additional non-discriminatory revenue streams to flexibility providers, as well as overall operating cost savings for the energy system.
As of today, a number of services and solutions from decentralised generation and demand-side response are technically feasible, but current market conditions do not properly value their commercial provision.
The continued adaptation of balancing and ancillary services markets should foster liquidity and incorporate innovative and decentralised solutions.
Prohibitive pre-qualification requirements and access conditions for independent aggregators, extended product-durations or minimum thresholds and symmetric bids are some of the aspects currently hampering an effective market.
Moreover, contradictory regulatory signals, e.
Compared to 2005, the year the EU Emission Trading Scheme came into force, absolute emissions fell by 27%.
With production levels remaining substantially the same in 2015, emission reductions were primarily driven by market consolidation, investments in bioenergy, and the push from international competition to improve efficiency in production processes.
And with energy being the second main component in the cost structure, reducing energy-related costs, such as CO2 emissions, is a priority to secure an internationally-competitive position.
The European Paper Industry currently receives 1.
For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris atmobile: +32 486 243 642.
Specifically, the proposal has three major critical points: 1.
It is unjustified from both an economic and a fairness perspective The proposal pretends to adequately ensure protection against the risk of carbon leakage.
However, it reduces the share of free credits to the vast majority of industrial sectors, without providing any evidence of the impact of additional costs on their competitiveness.
The proposal particularly lacks of any cost comparison between a given European and a non-European sector.
The proposal reduces the amount of free credits to certain sectors, as a supposedly fair gesture towards some others who would otherwise receive too little protection.
This is far from being a fair approach.
It penalises competitive industries investing in low-carbon technologies Protection against the risk of carbon leakage should provide the regulatory certainty for industries in transition towards a low-carbon economy.
However the tiered approach rewards the most carbon intensive and least profitable sectors.
This is intrinsic in the formula used, which rewards high carbon intensity combined with low value added GVA.
On the contrary, the formula punishes a sector investing in carbon emission reductions by giving a lower protection against the risk of carbon leakage as a https://casinos-deposit.site/1/760.html consequence of these investments.
It hampers innovation The ETS is expected to ultimately promote the substitution of high-carbon with low-carbon production.
In this respect, solutions may come from within a given sector or as a cross-fertilisation of ideas coming from other sectors.
One example is the potential coming from the bioeconomy or circular economy to provide solutions to decarbonise other sectors.
However, the proposed tiered approach provides different carbon cost exposure to different sectors, with the paradox that the most carbon intensive will bear the least carbon costs.
As a consequence, the investment signal from the ETS will be totally jeopardised.
Sectors which successfully invest in decarbonising their processes are systematically at risk of being pushed outside the EU.
Alternatives to the tiered approach Discussions on tiered free allocation are triggered by the need to avoid the application of the Cross-Sectoral Correction Factor CSCF.
The timing and magnitude of the CSCF are far from being certain, as it depends on a combination of factors production levels, changes in the market, technological developments, innovation, development of international carbon markets, etc.
Rather than picking one scenario and fixing the rules for the next 15 years accordingly, the EU should: 1.
Define a regulatory framework that stimulates and rewards investments in https://casinos-deposit.site/1/866.html technologies, as a way to reduce the demand for free credits; 2.
Support programmes to accelerate the market-readiness of breakthrough technologies for industrial installations; 3.
Secure a sufficient amount of free credits to allow for low-carbon economic growth in energy intensive industries exposed to international competition; 4.
Set rules to predictably assess potential shortages in the supply of free credits and, when the case, explore all possible options to preserve industrial competitiveness.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega at mobile: +32 0 485403412.
Position paper 11 Feb.
The full consultation replies can be found.
Here are some highlights: In reviewing the EU energy efficiency target for 2030, the Commission should have in mind that energy efficiency has to be achieved by voluntary initiatives, rather than by mandatory requirements.
An EU-wide binding energy saving target until 2030 would limit the scope for economic room to manoeuvre.
A rigid objective as a binding cap on energy consumption would impede growth.
Therefore, it is of vital importance that the Commission designs the target in such a way that recognises early measures and focuses on lowering the energy intensity, not the energy use as such.
The European framework has to create ideal long-term conditions to realize energy efficiency measures covering all sectors.
This is particularly important for the non-ETS sectors, where incentives to improve energy efficiency are often insufficient.
Effective incentives are needed, especially for research and development as well as for the cost-efficient implementation of investments in energy efficiency measures.
In view of achieving the new EU energy efficiency target for 2030, we believe that energy efficiency work must be done locally and as close to the energy consuming unit as possible.
The role of the EU should therefore only be limited to setting targets, creating the overall regulatory framework, monitor the process in terms of energy efficiency improvements and give non-binding advice to those countries that are not able to reach the given goals.
But details on how to implement energy efficiency policies need to be formulated at national or even industry level.
The EU should also promote and finance research and innovation in the field of energy and process technology to enable breakthrough technologies.
Regarding the most appropriate financing mechanisms to significantly increase energy efficiency investments in view of the 2030 target, it is important to find a high efficient way of financing.
To make sure that the highest possible potential is tapped with the available amount of money, it is important to prefer energy investment funding for measures with high returns on investment.
One way would be to support investment in form of cheap call money from a revolving fund for efficiency measures that would otherwise not take place without support.
Ensuring that the invested money always returns to the fund e.
Interest-free loans to finance investments are also a way to achieve energy efficiency measures.
Income from auctioning of emission rights should アイルカジノポンパノポーカー be used to finance energy efficiency measures.
Position paper 11 Feb.
This consultation covered the REDII aspects.
You can find the fully completed consultation.
Here are some highlights: CEPI believes that the RED has been successful in deploying large volumes of renewable energy sources.
However, the costs directly and indirectly associated to such deployment in most Member States have been quite significant.
The energy prices gap with competing economies has widened, with policy-induced costs being particularly relevant in electricity prices.
This has a negative impact on industrial competitiveness, as acknowledged by the 2014 Commission Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020.
Weather dependent renewable energy, solar and wind, is remarkable and growing challenge to secure availability of electricity.
The RED has also led to measures promoting the demand for bioenergy, not sufficiently taking into account the availability of wood for the wood processing industry, which is producing substitutes to fossil fuel based and more carbon intensive products.
This negative impact on the competitiveness of the wood processing industry is hampering the uptake of the bio-economy and its climate change mitigation potential.
Support to bio-energy should rather focus on stimulating the supply of wood.
Member States have a responsibility to ensure that additional demand for bioenergy is met by supply of raw materials, taking into account local biomass availability.
Therefore demand-side measures should be balanced with supply-side measures to mobilise existing additional potential of wood that can otherwise not be used for wood and fibre based products.
Reference could be made to the biomass mobilisation brochure jointly developed by DG AGRI, Forest-Europe and the UNECE-FAO.
Position paper 01 Dec.
However, these improvements are not yet sufficient in protecting the competitiveness of energy intensive industries, ensuring adequate regulatory stability and predictability, and in stimulating investments in low-carbon technologies.
From 2005 to 2014, our industry has reduced carbon emissions by 26%, resulting in 21% carbon-intensity reduction.
We have been early-movers in low-carbon investments and have plans to grow our business in Europe, building synergies with circular economy and the bioeconomy.
To bring environmental protection in line with industry competitiveness, we ask to: 1.
Remove artificial cap on free credits to industry.
The artificial cap will also lead, sooner or later, to the application of the cross-sectoralcorrection factor CSCF.
This is the most unfair among all instruments, as it cuts allocationirrespective of industry potentials, neutralises carbon leakage provisions, limits predictability,and punishes investments made by early movers.
Keep the proposed approach to benchmarks review, but improve key design aspects.
The benchmark review needs to predictably promote and reward investments in low-carbontechnologies, while finding the right balance between accuracy and administrative burden.
Reducing benchmarks at achievable paces, with rules clearly stated upfront, will lowerregulatory risks and reward the installations who will invest in low-carbon technologies.
Looking at the administrative burden, the pulp and paper industry, with more than 700installations in the ETS — 60% of which below 25kt — emitted just 31.
Yet, it is the 2nd biggest sector for number ofbenchmarks 11covering only about 50% of industry production — the rest being under theso-called fall-back approach.
It is self-evident that opting for a full review of benchmark valuesinstead is disproportionately costly while only delivering marginal accuracy improvements.
This is why we look favourably at the approach proposed by the Commission.
Grant to all energy-intensive industries equal protection against present and futurerisks of carbon leakage.
Industry is either exposed to global competition or not: there is no middle ground.
In thiscontext, the Commission proposal seems reasonable.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that therest of the world does not impose comparable costs on energy intensive industries, withcarbon leakage provisions appearing also in other non-EU countries.
Adopt binding EU rules for compensation of indirect carbon costs.
Indirect carbon costs affect industrial international competitiveness as much as direct carboncosts do.
The principle check this out equal treatment in shielding industry from both carbon costs musteffectively and consistently apply in all Member States.
Stop penalising investments in industrial Combined Heat and Power CHP.
In the pulp and paper industry CHP is considered as Best Available Technique.
Installations are therefore expected to use this technology.
Today however the EU ETS does not send the right investment signal to invest in industrial CHP: the EU ETS grants no free credits for electricity produced and no consistent and adequate compensation for indirect carbon costs is given across Europe either.
Given the relevant co-benefits CHP delivers in moving Europe towards a low-carbon economy, corrective measures to provide the right investment signal are urgently needed.
Earmark innovation and modernisation funding to energy intensive industries.
The earmarked 450 million allowances is the largest industry innovation fund ever.
To deliverits full potential it should be linked to the goal of 2050 sectoral roadmaps, and aimed at thedeployment of new technologies for each Annex I sectors.
The modernisation fund should alsoprimarily support low-carbon technologies in industry.
For more information, please contact Nicola Rega, Climate Change and Energy Director, at n.
The statement presents the contributions of forests and the forest products industry to the mitigation of global climate change and calls on governments to recognize these contributions.
The full statement is available at:.
The side-event will be hosted by the ICFPA and the EU Joint Research Centre.
All ICFPA policy statements are available at.
The ICFPA serves as a forum of global dialogue, co-ordination and co-operation.
Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and more than half of global wood production.
For more information, visit.
Press Release 15 Jul.
The proposal has a number of good elements but falls short in its protection of energy intensive industries.
Member states hold the key to the solution.
In October 2014 the European Council recognised that measures to protect energy intensive industry from carbon leakage should be maintained when revising the EU ETS.
The Council concluded the most efficient installations in sectors such as the pulp and paper industry should not face undue carbon costs that would impact their global competitiveness.
Member states however added expectations on the revenues they want from the EU ETS.
CEPI does appreciate the focus on low carbon investments and support for technology and innovation in the new proposal.
The use of link accurate production data is good, even though the proposal could be more ambitious.
CEPI also believes the linear reduction of the benchmarks used for free allocation is reasonable and improves predictability.
The proposal does however not solve the lack of free allocation for Combined Heat and Power Plants in Europe, which has been an additional factor in closing down very carbon efficient gas-fired energy plants in Europe.
The pulp and paper industry is a leading CHP sector, producing over 50% of its electricity consumption by itself.
Finally, the proposal strengthens the focus of member states on compensation for higher electricity costs to industry, but does not continue reading to a harmonised EU approach, which is what the internal market requires.
Member States have to align their compensation schemes, so industry is treated equal across Europe.
The European Pulp and Paper Industry is a globally competing sector, with over 700 installations covered by the EU ETS.
Total sector fossil CO2 emissions were 31 Million tonnes in 2014, already reduced from 43 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
The sector has a clear focus on breakthrough technology programmes through its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap for the Forest Fibre Sector.
CEPI calls upon the policy makers to rethink their approach.
Through its 18 member countries 17 European Union members plus Norway CEPI represents some 505 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 920 paper mills.
Together they represent 23% of world production.
We call on EU policy makers to ensure that the post-2020 carbon leakage provisions fully offset direct and indirect costs at the level of best performers with no cross sectoral correction factor.
Our industries play an instrumental role in delivering the technologies and solutions to reach that common goal.
The ETS is an important tool to be used in achieving this common ambition.
Energy intensive sectors are capital-intensive.
A large part of their investments are geared towards energy efficiency, something カジノでブラックジャックをする方法 ideal and emission reduction efforts, in full support of the Climate and Energy Package 2030.
However, securing these investments and preventing them from leaking outside of the EU requires strong carbon leakage provisions.
The current Commission proposals fall short on this requirement.
In particular, fixing the auction share means shrinking available free allocations for manufacturing industry.
We call on the Council and the Parliament to reform the ETS system in such a way that the economy can resume growth and that the most carbon efficient undertakings are not incurring a carbon cost penalty.
Notes for Editors About AEII The Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries represents over 30,000 European companies and four million jobs in the EU.
Our industries are at the core of the EU economy and the starting point of multiple value chains, such as the car industry, fuels, buildings, energy production, including renewable energies, food and drinks, and pharmaceuticals.
This paper contains Alliance proposals on carbon leakage protection, free allocation principles and competitiveness under ETS Phase IV to ensure simple, fair, predictable and effective rules i.
Those principles are further detailed below.
Best industrial performers must not be penalized by ETS allocation rules The concept of declining free ブルース・リー送料 for industry is in contrast to the need for full protection against carbon leakage and should not serve as a justification to reduce protection.
The limit on the total issuance of allowances in ETS sectors defined by Heads of State and governments covers both free something 空きスロットを選択する agree and auctioning.
They did not impose a decrease of free allocation as such.
On the contrary carbon leakage provisions should be improved in order to encourage carbon-efficient production and growth in Europe, and allocation must be guaranteed at the level something Facebook上で最高のMacのカジノゲーム for realistic benchmarks.
Only predictable and effective carbon leakage measures will enable companies to invest in innovative solutions in Europe.
Accordingly there should be no direct and indirect cost at the very least at the level of most efficient European installations in sectors at risk 3 6 carbon leakage.
The effect of the cross sectoral factor CSCF is that even the best performers cannot achieve these levels due to economic, technical or thermo-dynamical limits.
Ignoring this turns the EU ETS into a penalty system rather than an incentivising system.
For that reason, all our sectors call for a deletion of the CSCF, in accordance with the European Council conclusions of 23-24 October 2014 1.
Current carbon leakage assessment methodology remains valid The carbon leakage risk will not decrease and may well increase on the contrary: - It can currently not be expected that there will be a large breakthrough in negotiations at international level that would lead to climate policies, imposing equivalent carbon costs for industries located in competing regions.
All Energy Intensive Industries should receive full protection at the level of the benchmark.
Consequently, the quantitative and qualitative carbon leakage risk assessment criteria and assumptions as defined in 2008 remain fully valid and must remain unchanged.
Energy Intensive Industries are characterised by long investment cycles.
The carbon leakage list must only be updated at the beginning of each trading period.
Establishing technically and economically achievable benchmarks The benchmarks should be updated maximum once, ahead of each trading period to provide planning certainty for participants, decrease the administrative burdens and provide an appropriate reward for those that have invested in emissions efficiency.
The update of the benchmark values should be based on data collection from the EU companies.
The process of establishing benchmarks must be as transparent as possible.
If in a sector, no relevant changes in technology have taken place, such sector can request a simplified approach for data collection.
These benchmarks have to be representative for the sectors and based on representative technologies that have been adopted by the European market.
Over-ambitious benchmarks artificially increase costs to industry overall and de facto undermine the effectiveness of the carbon leakage provisions.
The current rules are already very stringent, as benchmarks are set according to the average of the top 10% most efficient installations in the sector; hence, even without the cross-sectoral correction factor, around 95% of the installations have to purchase allowances.
Indirect carbon costs need to be fully compensated throughout Europe The current implementation of carbon leakage measures to deal with indirect carbon costs has resulted in a fragmented approach as eligible sectors exposed to electricity price increases due to carbon costs may only receive from few Member States a partial financial compensation.
This creates an uneven playing field in the internal EU market, and creates a disadvantage for those installations that are not receiving any, or only partial, compensation, vis-à-vis extra-EU competitors.
Sectors with a fall-back approach should also be properly treated.
The current system is unpredictable, as it relies on a state aid compensation assessment, and is granted annually, digressive and uncertain for future years.
For the longer term, the Commission should also assess the possibility of redesigning the electricity market in a way that prevents carbon cost pass through in electricity prices to sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
For example, the reference period could be the rolling year n-2.
The required production data are already available as verifiers have to ascertain the activity data オンラインゲームを今すぐ無料でプレイ for the allocation.
The bureaucratic burden will be therefore minimal.
For installations covered by fall-back approaches as opposed to benchmarks, emission reductions resulting from efficiency measures should not result in a penalty.
Creating a reserve for growth To ensure sufficient availability of allowances for free click to see more for industry, a reserve for growth would be needed.
This reserve for growth would act as a buffer to ensure predictable access to both free allocation and auctioned allowances.
There are several ways to operate this proposed reserve for growth: - It can be filled with unused free allowances due to lower production in phase III, back-loaded allowances, un-allocated allowances from New Entrants Reserve.
Then it can provide allowances for growth in case of higher production.
Support to innovation The extension of innovation support to industrial projects is welcome.
However, it should not happen at the detriment of carbon leakage protection by reducing or limiting the amount of free allocation.
Industry exposed to carbon leakage risk will struggle to invest or innovate without predictable efficient carbon leakage protection.
Innovation funding under EU ETS should be allocated to energy intensive sectors appointed in Annex I of the directive.
Some sectors have already developed 2050 decarbonisation roadmaps, in which transformation technologies are mentioned.
A dedicated fund taking into consideration these abatement possibilities will bring innovative technologies e.
Industry needs an objective impact assessment for Phase IV ETS In light of the better regulation policy of the new Commission, an objective impact assessment on the different European energy intensive industries is crucial, taking into account their ability to reduce emissions low carbon roadmaps.
Any flawed impact assessment could lead to wrong policy decisions for the energy intensive industries in Europe.
To meet this target, the European Council agreed that the emissions in the EU Emission Trading System should be reduced, compared to 2005, by 43%.
A reformed EU ETS remains the main instrument to achieve the emission reduction target.
The cap will decline based on an annual linear reduction factor of 2.
The European Council furthermore gave strategic guidance on several issues regarding the implementation of the emission reduction target, namely free allocation to industry, the establishment of a modernisation and an innovation fund, optional free allocation of allowances to modernise electricity generation in some Member States.
The strategic guidance given by European leaders on these elements will be translated into a legislative proposal to revise the EU ETS for the period post-2020.
This constitutes an important part of the work on the achievement of a resilient Energy Union with a forward looking climate change policy, which has been identified as a key policy area in President Juncker's political guidelines for the new Commission.
The purpose of this stakeholder consultation was to gather stakeholders' views on these elements.
CEPI's Key messages : - The ETS in general, and the benchmarks in particular, should reward installations and sectors reducing GHG emissions, without penalising early movers, new investment made, and low-carbon economic growth.
Fiscal and legislative stability and predictability are needed to enable investments in low-carbon technologies.
This can be easily verified by the lack of correlation between carbon prices and final product prices.
Financing of compensation schemes should include also, but not be limited to, auctioning revenues from ETS.
It should be directed to directly finance large-scale demo and pilot projects, as well projects close to commercialisation stage TRL 6-8.
These are high risk, high capital investments where the private sector would not be able to deliver without the backing of public financing.
This should be acknowledged when reviewing the EU ETS, by addressing the ETS impact on prices and availability of raw material, such as wood.
Read the full reponse.
Best practices in energy efficiency and renewables - To our Roots and Beyond EPRC - Could we recycle more?
Pro-consumer choice campaign: Digital or paper correspondence?