• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
 

Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements

on

  • 933 views

Green Paper

Green Paper

Policy analysis document prepared for the project “Ukraine’s integration strategy in the European Energy Community”

Statistics

Views

Total Views
933
Views on SlideShare
933
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements Document Transcript

    • International Center for Policy Studies Reducing emissionsfrom thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements Green Paper Policy analysis document prepared for the project“Ukraine’s integration strategy in the European Energy Community” Kyiv 2011
    • This report has been prepared under the “Ukraine’s integration strategy in theEuropean Energy Community” project carried out by the International Centrefor Policy Studies (ICPS).Project advisor: Ihor Bohatyriov.Authors: Ildar Gazizullin, Larion Lozoviy, Olga Ivakhno, Vivica Williams, IrynaPetrenko, Roman Zaika.Authors would like to thank Iryna Verbytska (DTEK) and Yuri Trofymenko (NAK“EKU”) for their feedback and other experts who participated in the discussionsundertaken in preparation of this report.Design and layout: Publishing House “Optima”English translation and editing: Lidia WolanskyjContact information: International Centre for Policy Studies vul. Pymonenka, 13а, Kyiv, Ukraine, 04050 Tel.: (044) 484 4400, 01, fax: 484 4402 e-mail: office@icps.kiev.ua, web: www.icps.com.ua
    • ContentOverview 5The Problem: Higher than permissible harmful emissions 6What impedes compliance with air quality standards 8 Technological and structural factors 8 Outdated power generating and environmental technologies 8 Fuel consumption 9 Use of low quality coal 10 Environmental rules that favor polluters 11 Regulating heat-generated electricity rates 13 Dilatory reforms on the electricity market 14 Ineffective technical assistance 14The economic and social impact of emissions 16 Dampened economic growth 16 Poorer quality farm products and lower land values 16 Additional costs to the healthcare system 17 Deteriorating quality of human capital 18 Reduced life expectancy 18 Loss of workforce 20Impeding the development of Ukraine’s power generation 20 Greater risks for investing in heating plants 20 Complications with trading Ukrainian electricity on EU power markets 20 The growing cost of environmental programs in the future 21Loss of status as a reliable international partner 22A vision of the future of thermal power generation in Ukraine:eco-friendly and safe for humans 24 The positive future impact of meeting EEC environmental requirements 24 The environment will remain a priority 26 Environmental standards will meet European requirements 26 Volumes of emissions will go down 26Options for resolving the problem 28Proposed solutions 29
    • Annex 1. Tables and charts 30Annex 2. The value of a statistical life 37Annex 3. EU environmental protection requirements in the Energy Community Treaty 38Annex 4. Environmental fees and taxes 40Annex 5. Territorial spread of emissions in Ukraine, 2008 42Annex 6. Cross-border impact of emissions 43Annex 7. Population centers within TES pollution zones in Ukraine 45List of Abbreviations 47Glossary of Terms 48
    • OverviewThe purpose of this Green Paper is to identify key problems and obstacles inreducing harmful emissions from heating plants, or thermo-electric stations(TESs) as they are known in Ukraine, now that the country has joined the EnergyCommunity Treaty (EEC). The identification and detailed description of theseproblems will be subject to discussion with experts and stakeholders, which willmake it possible to determine their positions regarding the prospects for bring-ing thermo-electric generation in line with EU requirements.This Green Paper looks at thermal power plants, which are governed by Di-rective 2001/80/EC, which is a binding part of the Energy CommunityTreaty.These are primarily large plants—thermo-electric stations (TESs) and combinedheating and power plants (CHPs), known as thermoelectric centrals or TETs inUkrainian—with total capacity over 50 MW. And it is these companies that emitthe greatest amount of pollution into Ukraine’s air every year. Besides thermalgeneration companies, large combustion plants are used in district heating,chemical and steel companies. Therefore, the combined analysis of problemsand obstacles presented in this paper can also be applied to other sectors of theeconomy where large combustion plants operate.This paper examines the impact of three groups of key pollutants emitted bythermo-electric generation: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) anddust. The issue of carbon dioxide emissions (СО2) is not raised as this pollutantis covered by other framework agreements, including the Kyoto Protocol.The Energy Community is allowed to expand the list of requirements for pro-tecting the environment that its member countries must abide by. Currently, thismost likely means incorporating Directive 2010/75/EU, which came into effect inJanuary 2011 with the purpose of combining all major EU environmental normsfrom the last few years with regard to industrial production. If this comprehen-sive document is included in the list of environmental norms that are part of theEnergy Community Treaty or the Association Agreement between Ukraine andthe European Union, it will become binding on Ukraine as well.Expert commentary provided during a public discussion of this Green Paper willmake it possible to clarify the problems raised here and the obstacles to resolv-ing them and will become the basis for a subsequent White Paper. That paperwill contain recommendations for how approach the problem of the harmful im-pact of thermo-electric power generation on Ukraine’s environment, based onthe requirements of Directive 2001/80/EC. The two most complicated requirements are Directive 2001/80/EC and 96/61/EC (IPPC), but there are a slew of other regulatory documents with regard to the use of emissions, the production of organic solvents, and so on.Overview 
    • The Problem:Higher than permissible harmful emissionsToday, Ukraine’s thermoelectric stations (TESs) emit between 5 and 30 timesmore pollutants than EU standards allow. In fact, thermoelectric plants are themain source of air pollution in Ukraine; this sector is responsible for nearly 80%of all countrywide emissions of sulfur dioxide and 25% of nitrogen oxides. Theby-products of burning fuel, mainly coal, are solid ash particulates or dust, SO2,NOx and carbon dioxide (СО2).The harmful emissions of thermoelectric power companies have not decreased,despite the fact that, over 2006–2008, Ukraine’s environmental standards be-gan to approximate European ones. For instance, related Decrees issued by theMinistry of the Environment generally correspond to European practice usingthe best available techniques, in accordance with Directive 2001/80/EC. Thecountry’s power generating companies also pay taxes for emitting pollutantsinto the atmosphere that are small compared to the damage these emissionscause (prior to 2011, there was a fee).What is more, according to market players, the emissions coming from TESs willcontinue to be higher than the permissible levels through 2030 and further, eventhough the deadline for meeting Directive 2001/80/EC in Ukraine has been setfor 2017.For one thing, power companies are investing little or nothing in environmen-tal measures on their existing units or in building new ones with the exceptionof some filtration equipment reconstruction projects. The construction of newpower units that meet environmental norms is not planned for the foreseeablefuture. According to some estimates, Ukraine needs to draw between US $5bnand US $17bn in investment, depending on the number of power units it decidesto modernize (see estimates in Annex 1). This means that investments just tobring TESs in line with EU environmental standards for air quality should beseveral times more than the annual total amount of investment in thermal powergeneration today. Environment Ministry Decrees №309 dated 27.06.2006 and №541 dated 22.10.2008. See I.A. Volchyn, 2010. See, for instance, the draft Concept for a State Targeted Program for fuel and energy com- plex (FEC) enterprises to gradually reduce the aggregate annual emission of pollutants into the atmosphere at existing combustion plants in line with Directive 2001/80/EC dated 30.03.2011, for the period through 2030. The Annex to this report provides data on concentration caps in mg/cu m for pollutants in TES flue gases according to EU and Ukrainian norms. The cost of harmonizing Poland’s thermoelectric stations to EU norms could reach EUR 20 billion. http://www.wbj.pl/article-50262-eu-directive-poland-must-halve-industrial-emis- sions-by-2020.html Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • How Directive 2001/80/EC is being met in EU countries Some EU companies and countries are not meeting the requirements of Directive 2001/80/EC. For instance, in 2006, 40% of Poland’s thermoelectric stations still did not meet the regulated levels of sulfur oxide emissions set for 2008. Today, 90% of Poland’s TESs do not meet the emission standards for nitrogen oxides set for 2016. One of the main reasons why countries cannot meet strict air quality standards is the age of TES power units, which are 20-30 years old. Because some countries, primarily Great Britain and Poland, were unable to meet the requirements within the established timeframe, the practice of derogation or partial re- vocation of the law has been introduced. This gives countries some breathing space to pull together costly reforms. There are a number of ways to postpone the fulfillment of requirements: • A country can launch a transitional national plan that allows it to put off the deadline for meeting standards to June 2020. • Individual power plants can be exempted from the Directive if they operate less than 20,000 hours and are slated to be shut down by December 2015. • Power companies can also be exempted from the Directive if they intend to operate the equipment for less than 17,500 hours for the rest of its service life. This provision will be in effect over 2016–2023. • TESs that burn local hard fuel, such as lignite, may be exempted from the need to meet standards for SO2 emissions until 2019, provided that the sulfur is removed from the fuel. This kind of practice is meeting criticism within the EU, as it could encourage countries to continue not to meet standards. According to some estimates, the resulting air pollu- tion could lead to 500,000 early deaths in the EU every year, in addition to damaging the environment through eutrophication, increased acidity and the emergence of ground- level ozone. Sources: Сhrister Еgren, “Emission ceilings may be further postponed,” Air Pollution and Climate Secre- tariat, December 2010, http://airclim.org/acidnews/2010/an3-10.php#fourteen; Evaluation of Member States’ emission inventories for 2004–2006 for LCPs under the LCP Directive (2001/80/EC), European Com- mission, 2008; Chris Tighe, “Doubt cast over power plant’s future,” Financial Times, 23 April 2010, http:// www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d7529c58-4e39-11df-b48d-00144feab49a,s01=1.html#axzz1JyBOJ2Gb. For discussion How justified and realistic do you find the permissible emission levels established by Di- rective 2001/80/EC? What is the cause of the gap between formal caps set in environmental legislation and real emission levels?  The addition of artificial or natural nutrients to water, causing excess plant growth.The Problem: Higher than permissible harmful emissions 
    • What impedes compliancewith air quality standardsTechnological and structural factorsOutdated power generating and environmental technologiesUkraine’s thermoelectric stations demonstrate some of the lowest technical,economic and environmental indicators in Europe. The main equipment at thecountry’s TESs went on line in the 1960s and 1970s and was designed accord-ing to standards from the 1950s.Their life-cycles have already come to an end(see Annex 1). Altogether, power units generating a total of 12 GW or 42% of allthe standing capacity of Ukraine’s TESs are currently in need of replacement,making average utilization efficiency at domestic TESs around 32%, comparedto 45% in most developed countries. Moreover, most TES scrubbers for the re-moval of particles in Ukraine are not efficient enough to meet the standards ofDirective 2001/80/EC, and no TESs have installations for filtering sulfur oxidesand nitrogen from flue gases.10The inefficiency of TES power equipment makes it commercially unfeasible toinstall filtration equipment. For instance, systems for filtering flue gases couldsignificantly reduce the efficiency of power units by 1.5-2%—and, in some cases,up to 5%—by increasing the consumption of power for internal use. In addition,such systems cost a considerable amount to operate, ranging from EUR 3mn toEUR 8mn annually.11The majority of desulfurization and denitrification technology are intended foruse during the base operating periods of power-generation equipment. How-ever, Ukraine’s coal-fired plants are forced to operate to cover peak and semi-peak loads in Ukraine’s Unified Power System. This is because of the high shareof atomic energy stations, 48% in 2009, producing electricity in Ukraine and thegeneral concentration of hydroelectric resources in the Dnipro, which is also asource of water supplies for many of the country’s regions.  Rukhlov, A.V., Electricity in coal mines in the context of problems in the power generation sector of Ukraine, Mining elctromechanics and automation: Science and technology series, 2007, Vol. 77, pp 19-25. Ukraine also lacks a fully developed scientific and technological infrastructure for the design, development and production of flue gas filtration equipment. In Ukraine, 62% of TES coal-fired facilities are equipped with precipitators (ash filtration efficiency η=92–99%), 35% use wet scrubbers (η=92–96%, η=92–99%,) and 3% use cy- clone separators (η≤90%). See Y. Leha, O. Mysliuk and N. Korneliuk, “Ways to improve the filtration of flue gases at TESs,” Environmental Safety, 2008, №1, pp 42-50.10 Desulfurization facilities have been planned, among others, for the new power units at the Dobrotvirska TES. See the report “Rehabilitating heating and power stations in Ukraine: A needs, costs and benefits assessment,” prepared by IMEPOWER, 2008.11 Eugenio Podda, Megalopolis WFGD: Project Experience and Design Initiatives; Lars-Erik Johansson, FGD: Choosing NID® DFGD or Open Spray Tower WFGD; European Users Conference, Lisbon, 15–17 September 2009. Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Cogeneration plants also pollute Ukraine has more than 20 combined heating and power or cogeneration plants (CHPs), known as TETs locally, with an output capacity of over 50 MW (see list of TETs in Annex 1). These companies are categorized as large combustion plants and are thus governed by Directive 2001/80/ЄС. Cogeneration plants are considered more efficient and eco-friendly than classic TESs. Still, Ukraine’s TETs currently emit far above the EU norms of NOх. For instance, even if it maintains all the proper conditions during its operation, the Kharkivska TET-5 still emits 400–500 mg/m3 concentrations of NOх (using gas) and 520–650 mg/m3 (using mazut) during combustion, when the maximum volume allowed under the Directive for compa- nies of this size is 200 mg/m3. Ukraine’s TETs mainly run on gas and have traditionally been viewed as enterprises that do not pollute the environment with SO2 emissions and dust. However, the growing cost of natural gas and problems with its reliable delivery have been forcing TETs to look at the option of switching their facilities to cheap, available coal. This kind of reconstruction is occurring at the Kaluska TET, one of the largest in Ukraine. After its reconstruction in 2009, the Kramatorska TET also returned to coal firing. This could turn such enterprises into major additional sources of sulfur dioxide and dust pollution. Given that the majority of TETs are located within major metropolitan areas, switching to coal could noticeably increase man-made pressure on the local environment.Fuel consumptionThe high level of pollutants, especially sulfur oxides, by TES companies ismainly a result of their use of coal as their main fuel. Nearly 90% of power unitsat Ukraine’s thermoelectric stations have been designed to use coal. Ukrainehas many confirmed reserves of coal, which make this form of fuel a priority fordomestic thermoelectric generation. Ukraine’s current Energy Strategy for theperiod to 2030 is oriented towards using only domestic coal for domestic powergeneration.12Each year, Ukraine’s TESs use nearly 25 million tonnes of coal. Over the last 20years, there has been a sharp reduction in the use of gas and mazut, from 50% tonearly 20%. The steep rise in the price of Russian natural gas has caused most gasand mazut-based power generation units to be shut down13.12 The base scenario is for no imported heating coal over 2015–2020, while starting in 2030, plans are to use no more than 3.2% imported coal.13 For instance, over 2010, none of the gas-mazut power units at Ukraine’s TESs were in opera- tion: two units generating 300 MW each at the Trypilska TES, three units generating 800 MW each at the Vuhlehirska TES, and three more units generating 800 MW each at the Zaporizka TES. Based on data from the Institute for Energy Studies, in Q1’11, consumption of natural gas at TESs belonging to Ukrainian power utilities was 175mn cu m less than in the same period of 2010. The Scientific and Technical Association of Power and Electrical Engineers of Ukraine, Center for Public Information on Issues in the Fuel & Energy Com- plex, Analytical Study of the State of the Fuel & Energy Complex of Ukraine, №410, Kyiv, 2011..What impedes compliance with air quality standards 
    • Use of low quality coalThe quality of coal that is used as fuel at Ukraine’s TESs does not correspond tothe initially designed indicators, being typically lower in caloric value and high-er in ash content. Ukraine’s TESs were built to be fired by coal with a combustionlevel of 27.61 kJ/kg, under 17% ash content, and a maximum of 1.0% sulfur.14Instead, the caloric value of coal that was delivered to NAK Energy Company ofUkraine’s TES in 2010 was only 22.08kJ with an ash content of 22.0%15.The lower quality of coal has led to greater quantities of harmful emissions intothe air. Compared to projected figures, using coal without enrichment increasesthe relative weight of sulfur oxide and particulate emitted by 30-40% per kWh ofpower generated16. In addition, the high ash content of the coal results in greatererosion of equipment and higher costs for internal power consumption at theTES, which increases the operating costs and reduces the overall efficiency ofthe station. Moreover, the high ash content of this coal prevents the industryfrom reaching a high efficiency coefficient, even with the most up-do-date fur-naces, and requires the use of natural gas to ignite the firing process.Burning Ukrainian anthracite, the planned fuel for nearly 50% of the country’spower equipment, also leads to additional costs. The long-term extraction of an-thracite made it necessary to begin exploiting deposits in deeper layers, whichcontain slow-burring anthracite, which requires even the most modern ash andcoal boilers to use natural gas to ignite the combustion process. Monopolized access to coal leads to low quality coal In Ukraine, access to coal is highly restricted as there is no free market for the fuel. Current prices for coal are formed as a means for compensating the cost of running coal mines and do not meet market conditions. This kind of approach has led to a monopolized coal market. It impedes the imports of heating coal from neighbors such as Poland and Russia and supplies by non-residents, even at prices at par and of competitive quality. The result for domestic coal mining companies is a lack of incentive to meet the needs of custom- ers, such as thermo-electric utilities by, for instance, reducing the sulfur content of their coal. Today, the virtual monopolist coal supplier delivering to power companies largely owned by the state is a state owned Vuhillia Ukrainy. This company includes state-owned mines and enrichment plants that are highly inefficient, outdated and close to the ends of their lifespans and whose production cost is very high and results in prices that are not matched by quality. The average production cost of coal in 2010 was UAH 776/t, while the purchase price of heating coal was UAH 355-635/t.14 Op. cit. Rukhlov, A., Vol. 78.15 Ukraine’s TES have been operating using low quality coal for decades. Because of this, the stations were forced to make a series of design changes to their boilers and undertake orga- nizational and technological measures to adapt them to the actual quality of coal. The result is that TES boilers in their current state will be unable to work on the planned quality of fuel properly or long term without returning to their planned designs.16 A 1 percentage point rise in the proportion of sulfur in coal increases the concentration of sulfur dioxide in flue gases by 2,300-2,500 mg/m3.10 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Aging equipment and technology and difficult geological conditions in the mines also negatively affect the quality of coal extracted in Ukraine. The state-owned coal-mining sector typically has highly worn working assets—more than 70% of the mines have never done any upgrading in the last 30 years—and uses even those highly inefficiently. Most state companies mining heating coal are loss-making, making it impossible to do any upgrading on their own using company capital and requiring constant injections from the state. Although the volume of state funding of the coal sector nearly quadrupled over 2001-2010, to UAH 7.7bn, the current capacity of the state to invest the necessary capital to upgrade equipment is not enough. The state coal sector is highly uncompetitive and is artificially compensated by manda- tory procurements of fuel by the power utilities that are largely state owned. Such sub- sidization of the industry at the expense of thermal generation complicates the options for power companies to attract the necessary capital to build environmentally friendly facilities. Because of this and because of the low environmental standards, Ukraine’s TESs burn dirty coal and have no reason to switch to cleaner fuels. During the transition to market relations, coal industry enterprises and power companies will be interested in raising the quality indicators of the coal they burn. Right now, “gas” coal, which is what the remaining 50% of Ukraine’s power equipment runs on, is in far greater demand, as it is used in the steel-making business and is exported abroad.Environmental rules that favor pollutersDespite growing penalties and taxes for polluting the environment, the finan-cial incentives17 for polluters to reduce harmful emissions are insufficient. It ismore convenient for energy companies to pay their fees and taxes than to investin environmental measures. According to an OECD report,18 the small fees andlow rate of collection suggest that Ukraine’s oversight bodies use inappropriate,flawed methods to assess the damage to the environment, so that they seriouslyunderestimate the economic impact of pollution. In other words, the amount ofannual fees paid by Ukraine’s power companies, which was UAH 520 million in2009 alone, is less than 5% of the value of the damage that pollution causes toUkraine’s population and economy in the form of additional illness and highermortality (for details, see section on the impact of pollution). What Ukraine’s Environmental Strategy does not mention The Action Plan for Ukraine’s Environmental Strategy through 2020 contains no concrete indicators for maximum concentrations of various pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, ni- trogen dioxide and nitrogen oxide or particulates. It only contains provisions for new legislative and regulatory documents to be drawn up (Art. 2.2.5) and plans for measures to establish target indicators for the content of harmful substances in line with EU legisla- tion (Art. 2.3.1).17 For instance, the Tax Code calls for increasing the tax rate for emissions from stationary facilities by 3.6 times. See the list of fees and taxes in the Annexes to this report.18 See OECD, “Translating Environmental Law into Practice: Progress in Modernizing Envi- ronmental Regulation and Compliance Assurance in Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Cen- tral Asia,” 2007.What impedes compliance with air quality standards 11
    • The Action Plan also calls for “reducing the volume of emissions of widespread pollutants: stationary facilities have until 2015 to reduce these by 10% and until 2020 to reduce them by 25% of the baseline level” (Art. 2.2). But the baseline itself is not established. Although all quantitative commitments regarding the reduction of emissions are supposed to be counted from 2010, it is not clear where the quantitative data for 2010 has been identi- fied and whether they have actually been established or not. Thus, in contrast to Directive 2001/80/EC, these requirements can be interpreted in a variety of ways and effectively ignored.Ukraine’s system of environmental monitoring and oversight has all the neces-sary components and generally resemble international practice in managing en-vironmental protection. But the practice of implementing environmental policyis very different from EU standards.Firstly, Ukraine has published some figures about the worst industrial pollu-tion, but did not provide any information about the reason why these were aboveestablished norms. In this way, it is nearly impossible to analyze how effectivegovernment policy is in ensuring that polluters meet environmental standards.Government officials often refer to the large number of inspections carried outand the number of investigations into violations as an indicator of the success oftheir policies, but not actual reduction in emissions.19Secondly, the Government lacks the necessary instruments and technical con-ditions to properly monitor and oversee.20 Inspectors and other employees atsurveillance agencies have a hard time enforcing environmental legislation be-cause their human and financial resources are seriously limited, and they haveno access to the latest data—or to the modern technologies needed to collectand analyze data. A total of only 130 Environment Ministry staff are responsiblefor administrating and granting permits to more than 15,000 companies through27 territorial offices. Moreover, their salaries are much lower than in the privatesector, which leads to a high rate of turnover and creates the conditions for cor-ruption to spread.Ukraine has a program for polluters to do their own monitoring and to pay for itscost. But the results vary greatly between what state laboratories come up withand what the labs belonging to these companies get. This is due partly to thepoor standards for ensuring the accuracy of results, partly to unreliable testingmethods, and partly to the lack of regulated procedures regarding the condi-tions for testing.2119 Ibid., OECD, 2007.20 Materials adapted from a report by the European Commission assessing cooperation be- tween Ukraine and the EU.21 Ibid., OECD, 2007.12 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Monitoring system requirements for Energy Community members Directive 2001/80/EC requires Energy Community members to set up their own pro- grams for monitoring emissions and adapting to EU directives. Monitoring systems in EU countries have a number of common features: the use of multiple methods for checking results with both internal and external quality controls; the holding of consultations with stakeholders such as representatives of heavily polluting industries and local govern- ment bodies; and the provision of information so that the public can easily access it. Most countries also delegate some of the oversight functions to the local level. Energy Community members use the continuous emission monitoring system, or CEMS, and consistent—for instance, daily— systems for monitoring the level of pollution close to the source of the emissions. The cost of this monitoring is typically carried by the com- panies, who are expected to monitor on their own. These companies are then audited to ensure that they are upholding environmental standards. The monitoring itself is han- dled by an independent, accredited institution. EU countries use standardized methods to measure emissions to get results that can be compared at the Union and international levels. Sources: Guide to the Approximation of European Union Environmental Legislation, EU DirectivesRegulating thermal electricity generation ratesToday, the only available source of capital for large environmental projects orcompensation for attracted financial resources applied to this purpose is theinvestment component of the electricity rates charged to customers by powercompanies. Still, because of the enormous amount of investments needed ingeneral to update heat-generating equipment and install systems to filter fluegases, these are hard to justify economically and to charge the environmentalinvestment component in electricity rates.The current system for setting wholesale and retail electricity rates cannot en-sure the return of investments in flue gas filtration systems at TESs. What makesthis impossible is the cross-subsidization and discount policy that reduce resi-dential electricity rates at the expense of industrial and commercial users andthe overregulation of wholesale rates on the electricity market.Residential users in Ukraine do not pay the real cost of the electricity that theyuse, as electricity is considered a social good. The result is that the sector doesnot earn the income necessary for sustainable growth and for investment in en-vironmental measures. Rates for residential electricity are 2-4 times lower thanindustrial rates and 3-12 times lower than what EU residents pay.22 This has madeprofit margins for generating electricity in Ukraine less in recent years than simi-lar indicators for power companies in EU countries.The wholesale rate for power is based on the Rules of the Wholesale Energy Mar-ket (WEM) in Ukraine and largely depends on the cost of fuel, especially coal, Compare data on electricity rate levels in Ukraine and the EU at www.nerc.gov.ua and www.22 energy.eu.What impedes compliance with air quality standards 13
    • which constitutes 70-80% of the production cost of generating electricity at thecountry’s TESs. According to WEM rules, price requests from heat-generatingcompanies are supposed to be based on actual technical and economic data fromthe previous period (month) with a margin of fluctuation of ±5%. This meansthat generating companies cannot significantly increase the price of wholesaleelectricity on the WEM and to thus earn additional income to institute invest-ment programs, including environmental ones.Dilatory reforms on the electricity marketThe main factor keeping investors from putting capital into the implementationof the Directive’s requirements is the continuing postponement of reforms inUkraine’s electricity sector. The Government itself will have no means to seri-ously fund thermal generation because it is scheduled to make major paymentson foreign debts over the next five years. At the same time, the funds in the En-vironmental Protection Fund are not being directly put towards emission reduc-tion (see data on the amounts of received and spent funds in Annex 1).It is also highly unlikely that thermal generation companies will be able to getmajor credit from international financial institutions like the IBRD, EBRD or EIBwithout state guarantees and basic reforms on Ukraine’s electricity market.23 Forinstance, in the EBRD’s lending portfolio on Ukraine, only 7% of loans have goneto Ukraine’s power sector, whereas in other countries in the region, this share istypically 10-20%. The available mechanisms for receiving bank loans for TES24purposes is based on the growth of prices on the wholesale electricity marketand is not enough to satisfy the real capital needs of thermal generation in full.In short, Ukraine’s TES companies have little investment appeal because of theexcessive administrative regulation on the electricity market, especially when itcomes to companies owned by the state. Nor will the privatization of power com-panies guarantee attracting the necessary investment capital to upgrade gen-erating facilities unless there is reform in the energy market and investors canbe offered clear, transparent and long-term guarantees that their environmentalinvestments will have a return.Ineffective technical assistanceCooperation between the EU and Ukraine has not led to major improvementsin environmental conditions. As Ukraine’s largest donor,25 the EU did not initi-ate projects directed at improving environmental management in general or thecapacity of the Environment Ministry, in particular, to carry out environmental23 See the Concept for Reforming the Wholesale Electricity Market (WEM). Reforming the WEM is also called for in the Protocol on Ukraine’s accession to the European Energy Com- munity.24 See Cabinet Instruction №648 dated 8.09.2004.25 Since 1991, the total volume of technical assistance provided to Ukraine by the EU through the TACIS program, macrofinancing and humanitarian aid has added up to EUR 1 billion. See http://comeuroint.rada.gov.ua/komevroint/control/uk/publish/article?art_id= 52066&cat_id=44792.14 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • policy over 2002–2009.26 Instead, the EU supported the drafting of legislationthat has had little sustainable impact. The TACIS program, the EU’s main in-strument for cooperation with Ukraine on environmental issues, only supporteddevelopment of regional potential based on small-scale pilot projects. Until re-cently, the European Commission also gave no support to Ukraine for upholdinginternational commitments.The Commission began to change its approach to technical assistance toUkraine by undertaking more comprehensive and systemic programs. In 2010,for instance, it initiated a new Twinning project with the Environment Ministrythat was directed at increasing the agency’s technical capacities. This includesexchanging practical experience and learning methodology. At the end of 2009,two additional projects were launched to help Ukraine follow through on theAarhus Convention27 and the Espoo Convention on assessing environmental im-pact in a cross-border context.28 In January 2011, the EU announced that it waslaunching a Budget Support program for the Government of Ukraine worth atotal of EUR 35 million in support for the implementation of the national envi-ronmental strategy.29 For discussion How much incentive do environmental charges give companies to reduce their emis- sions? How closely does Ukraine’s environmental regulation system today comply with the re- quirements of Directive 2001/80/EC? What is the main reason for the low level of funding to make thermal generation compa- nies more environmentally friendly? What kind of impact do international donors have on the Government’s environmental policy?26 See Evaluation of the European Commission’s Cooperation with Ukraine, 2010.27 The Aarhus Convention regulates the right to access to information, public participation and access to justice on environmental matters.28 Under these two projects, the European Commission proposes to revise the Action Plan to improve the legal environment and administrative potential necessary to comply with both conventions. This includes the participation of other ministries, including the Ministry of Energy and the Coal Industry.29 The complete list of the EU’s main technical assistance programs in energy and the environ- ment in Ukraine can be found at: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/projects/ list_of_projects/projects_en.htm. Over 2007-2013, the EU has plans to provide nearly EUR 141 million in assistance to energy projects.What impedes compliance with air quality standards 15
    • The economic and social impactof emissionsDampened economic growthPoorer quality farm products and lower land valuesTES emissions constitute a constant source of soil pollution, primarily acid rainand ash sediment, with toxic heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, copper andzinc. These pollutants eventually end up in ground waters and rivers. Moreover,TES emissions have a negative impact on the health of those who reside wherethese hazardous materials settle. As an example, the ground soil in local eco-systems around the Burshtyn TES typically show higher levels of phytotoxic-ity, fluctuating between minimal in areas with complex planting and extremelyintensive on the territory of the Burshtyn plant itself. This leaves surroundingfarmlands and areas along roadways in danger, as the toxicity of surface areasare constantly higher than average.30The operation of the TES has a noticeably toxic and mutagenic impact on localfarming. Harmful emissions can lead to lower yields in orchards, pathologies infruit-bearing trees themselves, and uncontrollable mutational processes amongseed cultures. For instance, it has been shown that sulfur dioxide inhibits plantgrowth31 and makes farm produce more vulnerable to pests, leading to possiblegreater use of pesticides to counter this threat. Soil contaminants are also tied toa higher overall incidence of illness in the local population.32Moreover, territorial pollution happens in an extremely uneven manner. Air pol-lutants settle and contaminate the groundcover in concentric bands that extendas far as 20-30 kilometers. Dust, in combination with heated air, does not settleimmediately around the TES but moves with air streams and gradually lands onthe soil. Within this area, completely safe farmland borders on “islands” of con-taminated parcels. Thus, in order for farmsteads and commercial farms locatedwithin these zones to be certified as growing environmentally clean produce, alabor-intensive and costly procedure needs to be undertaken to establish theboundaries of the polluted areas.3330 See Penderetskiy, O.V., Determining soil contamination from the Burshtyn TES in order to assess opportunities to grow environmentally-clean agricultural products, The Environ- ment and Safe Living, №6, 2004, pp 62–69.31 B. Miller, B., Coal Energy Systems, Elsevier Academic Press, 2005, 507 pp.32 Zhdanov, V.V., An assessment of the impact of emissions from the Luhansk TES on soil contamination with heavy metals, Current Issues in Hygiene and Environmental Safety in Ukraine: Third Marzeyev Readings, materials from the academic conference in Kyiv, 24-25 May 2007, pp 57–58.33 Mishchenko, L.V., A geoecological audit of the impact of human factors on the environ- ment and health of the local population, using the Pokuttia region as an example, Candi- date of Geographical Studies dissertation, Chernivtsi, 2003, 21 pp.16 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Certifying ecologically-clean products: A high standard Ukraine applies both national and international standards of ecological certification for plots of land and the produce grown on them. Compliance with international criteria is determined by such organizations as the Global Ecological Network (GEN) and the Inter- national Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). The procedure estab- lished by these organizations primarily sees the production process as requiring certifica- tion, not the end product, and it starts with inspecting the quality of the soil as the first step.34 Farms that export organic products to the EU must undergo a strict certification procedure regulated by EC Resolution 2092/91, which is done by foreign standardization agencies that operate in Ukraine. Users of land plots that are within the pollution zone of a TES are faced with serious com- plications during this procedure. This land is also not eligible for status as a special re- source zone, where it is permissible to grow produce for pediatric and dietetic purposes. Such areas normally need to be a certain regulated distance from industrial areas.35 This means that these farm enterprises are effectively out of the running for the promising market of organic and ecologically clean products.The very fact that a piece of land is in a risk zone has a negative impact on itsvalue when it comes to selling the lot. Given that the practice of selling or trans-ferring land under long-term leases through auctions is growing in popularity inUkraine, this factor is likely to play an even more important role. The require-ment to have an expert assessment of the starting price of a parcel of land and tocomplete the technical certificate providing detailed information about the landthat is being put up for sale could significantly reduce the chances of a success-ful sale of those parcels that are in polluted zones.Additional costs to the healthcare systemThe country’s economy suffers losses because of the growing cost of healthcarepaid by both the State Budget and private households. It has been establishedthat a day of hospitalization costs at least UAH 500, while an emergency housecall is at least UAH 300. Conservative estimates are that the direct losses ondoctors’ visits and hospital services due to illnesses caused by air pollution inUkraine is over UAH 1 billion annually.36The country suffers even greater losses because of the higher mortality ratecaused by poor air quality. Although the methodology for calculating the eco-nomic cost of increased mortality is fairly ambiguous (see Annex 2), the dataavailable in Ukraine is more than just suggestive. For this country, the value ofstatistical life (VSL) is around US $90,000, based on 2006 figures. This means thatthe most conservative estimates in pre-crisis times result in a cost of increased34 Artysh, V.I., Improving the system of regulation of the production of organic products in Ukraine, Scientific Courier of the National University of Bioresources and Nature Manage- ment of Ukraine, №145, 2010.35 Mozalova, M., Regulating the certification of soil zoned for agricultural use, Issues in Legal- ity №103, 2009.36 Strukova E., Golub A., Markandya, A., The Cost of Air Pollution in Ukraine. Access: http:// ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2006.120.html.The economic and social impact of emissions 17
    • mortality due to air pollution that is UAH 12 billion per annum.37 This means thatUkraine loses nearly 4% of GDP every year. By comparison, Russia loses 5% ofGDP, while developed countries lose under 2%.38 Additional costs due to the emission of certain harmful pollutants in Russia and the US In Russia, every additional tonne of SO2 costs the healthcare system EUR 3,000 annually. The overall annual burden of additional costs through higher rates of disease and mortal- ity due to SO2 emissions is nearly EUR 4 bn and EUR 1.5bn annually from NOx39 emissions. In the US, similar costs are a factor higher: for instance, every additional tonne of SO2 and NOx leads to nearly US $10,000 additional costs to the budget and annual costs to the healthcare system due to such diseases as cancer and respiratory and pulmonary ill- nesses caused by air pollution amount to over US $185bn a year.40Deteriorating quality of human capitalReduced life expectancyEmissions from Ukraine’s TESs are damaging the health of those who live adja-cent to such plants. This is seen primarily in the inhalation of coal dust and par-ticulates, which are found in greater concentrations in the air around TESs. Theyalso contain a slew of heavy metals, which has led to nearly double the normalrate of illness in those regions: respiratory diseases – 1.9 digestive illnesses – 2.6 diseases of the circulatory system – 1.6 endocrinal diseases, eating disorder, metabolic imbalances – 3.4 birth defects – 1.441It has been shown that the general rate of severe and chronic diseases of therespiratory system, such as ARD, pneumonia, chronic bronchitis and bronchialasthma among those residing near TESs is on average 2.1 times higher (see An-nex 1). A 10% increase in the concentration of coal dust in the air leads to a 3.9%rise in the incidence of respiratory disorders, a 2.5% rise in circulatory disorders,and a 3.9% rise in birth defects.Those groups of the population who suffer the most from this negative impactare children, especially children under the age of six. In addition to the con-tinuous worsening of overall and local immunity in children, there has been an37 Ibid.38 Ibid.39 http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/external_costs_of_coal/878?PHPSESSID=f1382192 38c72e8038a0a5694354af1d40 See assessment of expenditures for selected countries in Annex 1.41 V. Zhdanov, “Hygienic evaluation of the impact of harmful emissions from TESs on the health of the local population and arguments for various prophylactic measures,” disserta- tion, Candidate of Science, 14.02.01- 2009.18 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • increase in disorders of the broncho-pulmonary system.42 Studies have recordedexcessive concentrations of heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, manganese,lead and zinc in the hair of children who live directly near TESs. This suggestshow the cumulative effect of exceeding emission norms, taken together with thesignificant pollution from transportation, causes an accumulation of dangerouschemical elements in the human body. Overall, children who live in industrialzones with various types of air pollution have health indicators that are two tothree times below the average for children who live in ecologically clean areas. The link between desulfurization and infant mortality in Germany In a study of infant mortality carried out in Germany between 1985 and 2003,43 mortality was compared before and after the installation of a desulfurization plant at a local power plant. The study revealed that a reduction in emissions saved 850–1,600 infant lives per year.Air pollution causes up to 90% of all carcinogenic risks linked to environmentalpollution. Over the last 50 years, the lung cancer rate in heavily industrial areashas risen more than fivefold, especially through the use of powerful TESs, thefirst of which went into operation nearly 50 years ago.Air pollution leads to a significant increase in overall mortality rates in a givenpopulation. And this group of diseases is one that underlies the most deathsamong Ukrainians: cardiopulmonary diseases and cancer of the lungs—togeth-er result in as much as 68% of deaths due to disease. An analysis of additionalmortality in Zaporizhzhia due to sulfur dioxide and coal dust emissions in justone district of the city revealed that 100 more people died every year - that is1,700 per 1,000,000 annually.44 Estimates place the absolute number of addition-al deaths caused by air pollution in Ukraine at nearly 30,000 every year.45Emissions from the country’s largest TES affect the health of residents in eightoblasts: Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kyiv, Luhansk, L’viv, Vin-nytsia, and Zaporizhzhia. According to estimates, more than 800,000 Ukrainianslive within 30 kilometers of a major TET. This number would be even larger if theemission zone of those CHPs located near or directly in major cities is taken intoaccount. The problem with pollution has a cross-border aspect as well: on onehand, Ukraine pollutes the territories of other countries; and on the other, thecountry is also polluted by neighboring countries (see Annex 5).42 V.M. Kulias, O.B. Yermachenko, O.A. Trunova, I.B. Ponomariova, D.P. Sadekov, V.S. Ko- mov, and O.A. Dmytrenko, Microbiocenosis of the mucous membranes of the throat and nose of children inhaling the ash of multicomponent chemical dust, Medical Perspectives, Vol. XV, 1, 2010.43 See Simon Lüchinger (2009), cited at ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp10079.pdf.44 M. Brody, J. Caldwell and A. Golub, Developing Risk-Based Priorities for Reducing Air Pol- lution in Urban Settings in Ukraine, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Vol. 68, №9 (2005), pp. 356–357.45 E. Strukova, A. Golub and A. Markandya, Air Pollution Costs in Ukraine, Access: http:// ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2006.120.html.The economic and social impact of emissions 19
    • Loss of workforceTES companies are finding it hard to keep highly-qualified specialists. Such pro-fessionals are extremely mobile and are always on the lookout for a job in a lesspolluted environment for themselves and their families.Projected losses due to high absenteeism during operating hours due to illnessescaused by the poor local environment amounted to more than UAH 500mn in2005, the last year for which figures are available. If the direct loss of time neededto rehabilitate and renew working capacities are added—normally up to 7 daysafter hospitalization—the scale of these losses among the working populationwill be even higher.This trend towards a declining quality of workforce particularly affects thosecounties that are located right next to TES operators. Although TESs are gener-ally located far from major urban conglomerations in Ukraine, the territories im-mediately adjacent to them tend to be heavily populated. The average numberof employees at a single TES is 1,500-2,000, most of whom live with their familiesas close as possible to their jobs. Thus, although TESs offer locals the prospect ofa decent job and social benefits, they simultaneously jeopardize the health andperformance of these same workers.Impeding the development of Ukraine’s power generationGreater risks for investing in heating plantsBecause Ukraine lacks a consistent policy regarding the implementation ofDirective 2001/80/EC, the risks related to investing in heat-based power gen-eration are higher, which puts a damper on incoming investment.46 For foreigninvestors, the lack of negative environmental impact from carrying out a givenproject is one of their criteria in choosing where to invest their capital. For in-stance, the EBRD has been increasing its investments into alternative energy inUkraine as well as into projects aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gas-es. According to the already-announced “Initiatives in the sustainable energysector”47 policy of the EBRD, the Bank plans to support “clean energy” projects,especially renewable ones, and places no priority on upgrading the power unitsof Ukraine’s TESs.Complications with trading Ukrainian electricity on EU power marketsIf Ukraine’s TESs continue to generate power using technologies that cause sig-nificant environmental damage, it will be very hard to integrate the domestic gridinto the single European electricity market. All other factors being equal, Euro-pean buyers tend to prefer to buy power that is being generated using “clean”technologies. On one hand, European countries and many other world players46 Over the last 20 years, because of anticipated stricter EU environmental policies and grow- ing uncertainty regarding the size of fines for emissions, the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the EU has effectively ground to a halt (see Annex 1).47 http://www.ebrd.com/russian/pages/sector/energyefficiency/sei/strategy.shtml20 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • on the electricity market, belong to that category of electricity consumers whoare prepared to pay more for clean energy.48 On the other hand, EU power com-panies are concerned about losing their competitive edge due to higher environ-mental standards and are demanding that the European Commission apply thesame rules to trading partners. The carbon leakage effect European producers are always on the search for ways to compensate the cost of improv- ing targeted EU requirements regarding CO2 emissions. Some of them are transferring their power generating facilities to countries that do not levy strict fines for emissions. This is leading to the phenomenon of “carbon leakage,” where the reduction of emissions in country A is leading to a proportionally higher level in country B. Moreover, the global level of emissions is not being reduced, which is casting doubt on the success of climate change policies altogether. This trend is particularly noticeable in energy-intensive man- ufacturing sectors, such as cement, steel, paper and chemicals.In a situation where there is strong competition on the single EU energy market,such production factors as environmentally friendly generation—which at firstglance would seem secondary—turn out to be key factors that force a buyer tochoose the more compliant provider rather than any other one.The growing cost of environmental programs in the futureBy ignoring Directive 2001/80/EC when constructing new power units now,Ukraine will face a higher cost to institute environmental protection measuresfurther down the line. The country already felt the effect of such “path depen-dence”49 before, when the prior selection of a particular technology made effortsto modernize the system ever more complicated and costly. Those who draftprojects to reduce emissions at existing TES power units often face a dilemma:to choose new equipment on a short-term basis (10-15 years) as a relatively in-expensive but not very effective choice, or to choose more costly technical solu-tions that will later be adapted to new equipment that will replace that which hascompleted its useful lifespan. Time is not on the side of aging power units Every year, bringing existing TES power units in line with environmental regulations be- comes a more complicated procedure. The design of these TESs, which were built to meet the specifications of outdated soviet dust collectors, desulfurization plants and boiler ash and slag removal facilities, was supposed to offer considerable advantages in exploita- tion. But today they have turned into a serious barrier to installing modern treatment systems. Some aspects of the construction of the soviet TESs make it unreasonably ex- pensive and even risky to apply contemporary solutions.48 According to a study by IBM Global Business Services, 67% of users surveyed in six coun- tries—Great Britain, Germany, Holland, the US, Japan, and Australia—have indicated the willingness to pay higher rates for environmentally friendly energy. For more details, see http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/index.wss/ibvstudy/gbs/a1029014.49 For more details, see Page, S.E., Path Dependence, Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2006 (1), pp 87–115.The economic and social impact of emissions 21
    • For instance, many TESs have no room to install sulfur and nitrogen treatment plants. Sulfur dioxide accelerates the corrosion of metals and is the most damaging chemical material pollutant. Changes in temperature and humidity increase the pace at which equipment is worn out through corrosion.50 If the problem of emissions of this kind is not resolved, Ukraine’s TESs, which are already operating at the peak of their normal po- tential, could find themselves reaching the end of their normal lifespans more quickly, leading to even more emissions.Loss of status as a reliable international partnerIf Ukraine fails due to lack of motivation to fulfill the commitments it made onits accession to the European Energy Community, Kyiv’s stable foreign policycourse will be undermined, as well as its status as a reliable foreign partner.Ukraine is already losing its reputation because of misappropriation of KyotoProtocol funds and failure to comply with the Aarhus Convention in domesticlegislation.51Sanctions from the EEC and publicity in the international community couldput under question Ukraine’s ability to fully participate in multilateral projects.Such an official step by the EEC Council of Ministers, such as announcing thefact that Ukraine’s legislation is not in compliance with related EU laws, mightnot have any legal force in the final analysis, but it would definitely complicateany further integration of Ukraine’s energy market with the Community’s en-ergy markets. Sanctions by the European Energy Community The leadership of the EEC could raise sanctions against a country that is in violation of its rules if there is evidence of a violation or there are doubts whether the country will meet points in the Treaty in a timely manner. Currently, EEC mechanisms to deal with members who “do not play fair ” are more oriented towards consensual problem resolution than towards severe punishments. However, in future the penalties for not carrying out com- mitments that a country has taken on could be more serious. The European Energy Community’s institutional structure provides for a series of mecha- nisms intended to spur members, especially new ones, to fully comply with the points in the Agreement. First stage. The EEC Secretariat launches the preliminary stages of conflict resolution and sends the “guilty parties” an open letter. Should such members delay measures to resolve the given problem, the EEC sends its reasoned opinion and presents its reasoned request, both of them then posted for open access. B. Miller, Coal Energy Systems, Elsevier Academic Press, 2005, p. 507.50 Ukraine’s ratification of the Aarhus Convention in 1999 failed to push the country to change51 its domestic legislation to provide both individuals and civil society organizations access to information about the environment. In 2011, Ukraine could lose its membership in this Con- vention. See http://www.rac.org.ua/skhovishche-novin/novina/article/orguska-konven- cija-turkmenistan-chi-ukrajina/.22 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Second stage. If such precautionary measures prove insufficient, the Community’s Coun- cil of Ministers can officially announce that there have been violations based on collected information, including evidence from third parties, justification from the “accused” party, and the opinion of the Advisory Committee. Although such instruments belong to the class of “soft power” measures, their application is typically widely broadcast, as was the case with the Serbian Government, which was unable to ensure the proper implementa- tion of certain EU Directives. Third stage. In the case of a serious, lengthy violation of commitments, the Council of Ministers has the right to suspend certain rights that a member country enjoys through its Agreement, including: the right to vote in the Community, to participate in meetings and to make use of mechanisms provided by the Agreement. The last include using the power grid without trade restrictions, making use of assistance in the case of an emer- gency, and having the licenses and standards of operations of utilities recognized. Source: European Energy Community (EEC) For discussion How accurate do you think the estimated cost of Ukraine’s problems is? How effective an incentive are current EEC sanctions to ensure that all points in the Treaty are fulfilled? To what extent do you think not carrying out the environmental Directive will complicate integration into the single EU electricity market? How significantly would you say air pollution affects the working age population and human capital as a whole? What other interested parties can you think of for whom excessive emissions from ther- mal generation constitutes a problem and what is the cost of that problem for them?The economic and social impact of emissions 23
    • A vision of the futureof thermal power generation in Ukraine:eco-friendly and safe for humansIf Ukraine’s thermo-electric generation is modernized along the principles ofsustainable development and completely complies with the environmental con-ditions of the European Energy Community, this sector will become safer forhumans and environmentally friendly.The positive future impact of meeting EEC environmental requirementsThe activity of the Energy Community is aimed at reaching three key goals: lib-eralizing the market and increasing competitiveness; increasing the security ofenergy supplies; and reducing the impact on the environment. The most positiveimpact from Ukraine’s accession to the Community is seen as coming from thefirst two goals: simplifying access to the unified European electricity market,gaining the opportunity to establish direct links to end users, diversifying supplysources and increasing energy security. But the environmental requirements aretoo often seen as an obstacle and an extra “whim” on the part of the Europeans.In actual fact, a realistic vision of the future of thermal generation in Ukrainewithin the common European energy market is impossible without the environ-mental aspect of integration. The overall success of integration into the EEC de-pends on a clear understanding of the full range of future positive effects thatwill accompany joining the common energy space, including positive changesin environmental protection.The table below shows the potential costs and benefits that carrying out the en-vironmental requirements of the EEC could bring to the basic interested partiesin Ukraine.24 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Future positive costs and benefits of meeting EEC environmental requirements (Directive 2001/80/EC) Key interest Benefits Costs groups • Life expectancy should rise, while infant mortality and the loss Individual More expenditures of years of life due to illnesses caused by the unsatisfactory Ukrainians on power required state of the atmosphere should go down. • Environmental law will become more predictable. Clearer requirements regarding the volume of emissions, the timeframes for acting and the size of environmental taxes should make it easier to plan production operations. • Additional incentives will encourage the modernization of existing facilities and technologies and to come up with new, more efficient generating capacities. • Electricity generated in an environmentally friendly manner will be in greater demand on the common European market. Business Longer ROI term • Investments in eco-friendly policies and the application of the best available technologies should promote a better image for companies, which will begin to be associated with cutting-edge achievements in environmentally-oriented power generation. • A lower rate of disease will make it possible to improve the quality of human capital and the overall employability of workers. At the same time, it will minimize economic losses due to temporary inability to work. • The Ukrainian side will recover its status as a reliable partner in Need for international energy and environmental cooperation. institutional • Ukraine will enjoy the full rights and preferences due to it as a changes and signatory to the ECT and will avoid sanctions for not enforcing The State additional costs to the Treaty’s provisions. introduce effective • Additional incentives will arise to reform the energy sector. environmental • Public spending on healthcare should go down, especially in policies areas with a high level of pollution from TESs. • A reduction in the amount of cross-border leakage of air pollution should improve the environment for a number of neighboring EU member countries. • Ukrainian and European power generating companies should find themselves operating on a more level playing field. More competition European Additional spending on environmental protection measures from clean partners will affect all participants in the common energy market and Ukrainian power not just EU members. • New opportunities to invest in joint environmental projects will arise. European partners will be more eager to invest in and provide credits and technical assistance to Ukraine.Source: ICPSA vision of the future of thermal power generation in Ukraine: eco-friendly and safe for humans 25
    • The environment will remain a priorityReducing man-made pressure on the environment is one of the most importantbenefits that Ukraine could enjoy from having joined the EEC. However, the re-lated positive effects will not be felt immediately, but in the medium and longerterm. The “market” and “security” components of the ECT will be felt soonerthan the environmental one.52In this vision of the future, Ukraine will continue to meet its environmental com-mitments to the EEC, successfully taking advantage of all the benefits of par-ticipating in the Treaty. And, on the contrary, if integration into the EEC movesaway from the desired course and problems with funding or diplomatic supportfrom the EU arise, this will no longer offer an excuse to roll back the environmen-tal protection program.Environmental standards will meet European requirementsThe environmental requirements of the Energy Community will continue to bethe main incentive for making heating plants more environmentally friendly, astheir modernization is supposed to be in line with the main framework agree-ment, Directive 2001/80/EC “On the limitation of emissions of certain pollut-ants into the air from large combustion plants.” In Ukraine, all the necessarylegislative conditions for complying with this Directive are to be set in place andits provisions developed in a National Action Plan to reduce harmful emissions.During the drafting of this plan, Ukraine will be guided by detailed recommenda-tions for this type of document from the European Commission, which includespathways to reach goals with the help of European methods and practices. Theset of measures in the Action Plan will be aimed at meeting established normsand sources of funding and will take into account realistic timeframes for com-plying with EEC requirements.Volumes of emissions will go downUkraine will ensure the gradual convergence of the concentration of specificemissions of pollutants from new and existing combustion plants with those lev-els that are established in the Directive. The actual concentrations of emissionsat new TES power units will approximate European norms for dust at 30–50mg/cu m, sulfur oxides at 200-400 mg/cu m, and nitrogen oxides at 200–600mg/cu m. A state system for environmental monitoring that has been reformedin line with best European practice will provide reliable information on the paceof annual reduction of emissions. The European Commission’s report on EEC activities for 2011 shifts meeting environmental52 priorities to medium term objectives while noting that this will take place no earlier than when national markets are “opened” an the delivery of electricity becomes reliable. See ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/community/doc/20110310_report_en.pdf).26 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • A vision of development of thermal generation in Poland Coal will continue to be a major fuel in the country’s power generation sector, but it will begin to be used more in a gasified or liquid state. Polish TESs will use clean coal tech- nologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage and gasifying coal, thus reducing emis- sions into the air. In 2020, Polish residents should not be feeling the impact of concentrations of ash that are higher than those allowed by EC Directives. As a result, the number of respiratory and cardiological illnesses, as well as the costs to the healthcare system, should start decreas- ing. Source: Energy Strategy of PolandA vision of the future of thermal power generation in Ukraine: eco-friendly and safe for humans 27
    • Options for resolving the problemDuring the process of adapting to Directive 2001/80/EC, countries are expectedto develop a strategy for reorganizing their TESs and to establish which existinggenerating capacities will be decommissioned, which ones will be modernized,and how many new power units will have to be brought on line. The two latteroptions typically mean: 1) changes to the balance of fuels more towards naturalgas; 2) a higher quality of fuels, such as enriched coal; 3) greater efficiency in theproduction process; and 4) the introduction of gas-cleaning technologies. EUcountries are following a variety of ways to adapt to the Directive.The end of lifespan option. Countries decide to shut down a TES when upgrad-ing makes no economic sense. The lifespan of such power units is limited to afew years or because the designated number of hours of operation is runningout. Choosing this option could indicate planned changes in the energy balanceof the country in favor of atomic energy or renewable sources of energy. Forinstance, after shutting down most of its TES, France switched to mostly atomicenergy. Using this option requires diversifying sources of energy, dealing withthe social impact in those regions where plants are being shut down, and renew-ing the polluted territory.The extended lifespan option. Countries upgrade their existing TESs, switchingthem to basic power mode and increasing their load, so a few modernized TESscan compensate for the capacities of those that have been shut down. Great Brit-ain and Ireland are examples of countries that have kept a series of major TESsby upgrading them and switching them to being gas-fired. Germany, which hasalso kept most of its TESs, radically improved the quality of its fuel coal. Thedownside of this option is that modernizing old power units does not necessarilyallow the country to fully meet environmental requirements and it is not alwayseconomically sound, given the small amount of extended lifespan added to theblock.53The starting from scratch option. Building new TESs makes it possible to use thelatest technologies for capturing harmful emissions and to switch to cogenera-tion. Introducing this option is complicated by the need to attract a large amountof investment up front and to designate suitable locations for new power sta-tions. Worn and obsolete power units are typically reconstructed so that their lifespan is extend-53 ed, but usually only for 10-15 years. This casts doubt on the point of investing major capital in highly costly gas cleaning equipment.28 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Proposed solutionsOver 2011–2016, Ukraine is supposed to start meeting the requirements of Di-rective 2001/80/EC regarding the reduction of emission and heat-generatingplants in order to improve the health of its population. But this has to happenwithout risking the reliability of the unified power system in Ukraine, whichmeans: to establish the basic principles of energy security—the best balance between domestic and imported fuel and energy resources; to prepare a National Emission Reduction Plan; to draw up a Strategy or plan for handling TES emissions: using ash slag and other byproducts of sulfur and nitrogen treatment, such as gypsum, nitrogen fertilizers, and so on; to establish permits for concentrations of emissions that are based on best available techniques and reflecting local features; to develop a strategy for decommissioning aging power units; the basis for extending the use of newer units on condition that they are completely up- graded, including the installation of efficient gas filtration units, and the principles for building new power-generation facilities that meet the require- ments of EC Directives;54 to amend existing legislation to ensure the fulfillment of the National Emis- sion Reduction Plan and the upgrading and new construction of TESs; to implement other provisions of the Energy Community in a timely manner, especially Directive 2003/54/EC, which calls for the completion of reforms of the electricity market; to reform the coal industry by introducing a coal exchange. For discussion To what extent do you agre with the vision of the future of Ukraine’s thermo-electric sec- tor presented here? How worth it is it for the Energy Community to extend its timeframes on environmental requirements? In what way can the reduction of emissions at heat-generating plants affect various in- terested parties? What other options are there for resolving the problem of polluting substances?54 Directive 2009/72/EC dated 13 July 2009 on the basic rules for internal electricity markets, EC Regulation № 714/2009 dated 13 July 2009 on the requirements for access to power grids that provide cross-border exchanges of electricity, and Directive 2005/89/EC dated 18 January 2006 on measures to ensure power supply and investing in infrastructure, and so on.Proposed solutions 29
    • Annex 1 Tables and chartsTable 1. Volumes of air emissions from power and thermal generation in Ukraine over 2005–2007 2005 2006 2007 Pollutant emission % of total emission % of total emission % of total volume, ’000 t emissions volume, ’000 t emissions volume, ’000 t emissions NOx 154.06 30 158.21 32 172.34 24 SOx 876.06 73 1,114.64 77 1,069.24 79 Dust 327.72 42 347.61 44 306.24 41Source: Environment Ministry, based on data provided by the Institute of Energy under the National Academy of Sciences of UkraineTable 2. Comparison of EU and national requirements for emissions of air pollutants from TES flue gases І. New combustion plants Nominal emissions, mg/cu mPollutant, thermal Environment Ministry Environment Ministry capacity, MW Directive 2001/80/EC Decree №309 of Decree №541 of 27.06.2006 22.10.2008Particulates 30 50 30P>100*Sulfur dioxide 200 500 200P>100Nitrogen oxides 200 500 200P>10030 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • ІІ. Upgraded combustion plants Nominal emissions, mg/cu m Thermal Current Environment Environment In excess of EC Pollutant capacity, emission level, Directive Ministry Ministry Directive,% MW mg/cu m 2001/80/EC Decree №309 Decree №541 of 27.06.2006 of 22.10.2008 as of 01.01.2016Particulates 1,000-1,700*** 50 2,000–3,400 P>500** 50 50 P<500 100 100 as ofSulfur 01.01.2016 3,000–7,000 500 750–1,750dioxide 100<P<500 2,000–400 2,000–400 P>500 400 400 as ofNitrogen 01.01.2016 700–1,800 500 350–900oxides 100<P<500 600 600 P>500 200 200* P>1000 applies to power units generating >50 MW.** P>500 – to units generating >160 МW.*** Does not include the level of emissions from reconstructed dust-capturing equipment.Source: Ministry of Fuel and Energy III. Combustion plants of major power generating companies in Ukraine Emissions for 2009, mg/cu m Pollutant Actual Directive 2001/80/EС Excess, % NAK Energetychna Kompania Ukrainy (EKU)Sulfur dioxide 3,300 400 825Nitrogen oxides 1,050 200 525Particulates 1,200 50 2,400 SkhidEnergoSulfur dioxide     Zuyivska 2,637 400 659 Luhanska 5,483 400 1,371 Kurakhivska 3,773 400 943Nitrogen oxides Zuyivska 1,224 200 612 Luhanska 1,408 200 704 Kurakhivska 486 200 243Source: Company dataAnnex1 31
    • Chart 1. Technical state of NAK EKU TES power units relative to their lifespans 350 1,100 MW Lifespan of metals established by current norms 300 15,414 MW Permissible individual lifespan 250 Individual lifespan 200 000 hours 1,446 MW 150 4,800 MW Idle lifespan 100 50 7 blocks 61 blocks 5 blocks 7 blocks 4.8% 67.7% 6.4% 21.1% 0Note: As of April 2011, NAK EKU power units generated a total of 23 GW or 85% of all available capacities at Ukrainian TESs.Source: Y. Trofymenko, “Approaches to equipping NAK Energetychna Kompania UkrainyTESs with gas-cleaning equipment as part of the implementation of Directive 2001/80/EС,”presentation at roundtable on “Integrating Environmental and Energy Policy: Challenges formembers of the European Energy Community,” held on 7.12.2010.Table 3. Estimates of the cost of implementing Directive 2001/80/EC5556 Organization Parameters Assumptions Timeframe: by 2020 Extending the lifespan of power units by installing cleaning Institute of systems on coal-fired units and applying primary measures Energy under Cost: US $16-17bn to reduce NOx emissions on gas oil units along with the the NAS55 Capacity: 27–28 GW installation of emission reduction systems. Change of electrical filters: US $40/kW Timeframe: 20 years Construction of desulfurization plants: US $200/kW VAT Cost: US $22bn Equipping boilers with gas denitrification catalyzers: US L’vivORHRES56 Capacity: 27.122 GW $100/kW Dollar inflation: 3% p.a.55 See B.A. Kostiukovskiy, S.V. Shulzhenko and N.P Nechayev, “Approaches to meeting envi- ronmental requirements regarding emissions of air pollutants in the thermal energy sector in Ukraine,” Institute of Energy under the NAS.56 See Energy and Electrification №7, 2010, pp 39–42.32 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Organization Parameters Assumptions Timeframe: by 2030 NAK EKU Cost: US $3.9–6.8bn In 2009–2010 prices Capacity: EKU plants Timeframe: by 2018 Donbas Fuel Cost: UAH 85bn57 & Energy Constructing desulfurization and denitrification plants: US Capacity: 22.1 GW Company $350/kW (DTEK) Cost: US $3–4bn 58 Capacity: DTEK plantsSource: ICPS5758Table 4. Age of TESs in EU as of 2005 Average age Capacities older Capacities older of TES power units than 25 years, % than 40 years, % Coal-fired 26 54 9 Gas-fired 12 17 1 Mazut-fired 26 55 5 All power units 21 42 6Source: Tzimas et al (2009)Table 5. The cost of damage from additional illnesses and mortality SO2 NOx Dust (PМ2.5) Country EUR/tonne Australia 9,048 8,334 36,392 China 1,090 1,003 4,381 European Union 7,948 7,320 31,965 India 566 521 2,277 Japan 8,499 7,828 34,182 Republic of South Africa 2,257 2,079 9,078 Russia 3,158 2,909 12,702 United States 11,096 10,220 44,628Source: Adapted from External Costs of Coal: Global Estimate, External Costs of Coal:Global Estimate // Access: http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/external_costs_of_coal/878?PHPSESSID=f138219238c72e8038a0a5694354af1d Ibid., pp 32–33.57 See Energobusiness №45/680 dated 9.11.10.58Annex1 33
    • Chart 2. Illness per 10,000 population in Luhansk1 400 Number of illnesses among people, who live within the 1-3 km area from TES1 200 Number of illnesses among people, who live in the 3km and further from TES Number of illneesses among people, who live areas without TES1 000 800 600 400 200 0 Flu Angina Chronic bronchitis Bronchial asthmaSource: Adapted from V.V. Zhdanov’s Assessment of the impact of the Luhanska TES on theatmosphere and health of the local population, Hygiene and Epidemiology Bulletin, Vol. 10,№1, 2006.34 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Table 6. Combined Heating and Power or Cogeneration Plants (TETs) in Ukraine subject to Directive 2001/80/EC Name Capacity, MW Bilotserkivska TET 120 Darnytska TET 160 Dniprodzerzhynska TET 62 Kaluska TET 200 Kyivska TET-5 700 Kyivska TET-6 500 Kramatorska TET 120 Kremenchutska TET 255 Myronivska TET 260 Odeska TET-2 68 Oleksandriyivska TET-3 60 Pervomaiska TET 48 Sevastopolska TET 55 Severodonetska TET 260 Simferopilska TET 278 Svema TET 115 Kharkivska TET-2 74 Kharkivska TET-3 62 Kharkivska TET-5 540 Khersonska TET 80 Khersonska TET-2 74 Cherkaska TET 230 Chernihivska TET 210 Total 4,531Source: Company dataTable 7. Fees for polluting the environment in Ukraine, 2009 Actual fees paid for polluting % Type of commercial activity ’000 UAH % prior to Actually paid 2008All types 1,107,119 100.0 92 113Power, gas and water utilities 521,652 47.1 105 125Source: Derzhkomstat, Ukraine’s statistics agencyAnnex1 35
    • Table 8. Capital investments and current spending to protect the atmosphere and on climate change, 2009, ’000 UAH Including Capital Type of Actual State Budget funds Local budget funds other investmentcommercial spending, internal State local sources and current activity total funds total Environmental total environmental of spending Fund funds funding Capital 1,273,789 1,203,358 5,622 – 7,813 5,646 56,996All types Current 1,035,156 1,029,143 4,640 – 447 431 926Power, gas Capital 146,051 141,185 2,400 – 2,465 299 –and waterutilities Current 57,543 57,307 – – 237 2301 –Source: Derzhkomstat, Ukraine’s statistics agencyTable 9. Top 10 major EU combustion plants, by annual emissions Country SO2 Country NOx Country AshBulgaria TPP Maritsa Iztok 2 Great Britain Drax Greece Ag. Dimitrios ІII-IV BOT ElektrowniaSpain CT AS Pontes Poland Greece Ag. Dimitrios І-II Bełchatów S.A. TPP “MaritsaBulgaria Spain CT Teruel I-II-III Slovakia Slov.elektrбrne, Vojany, EVO Iztok 3” Narva Elektrijaamad AS,Spain CT Teruel I-II-III Great Britain Aberthaw Estonia Balti Elektrijaam BOT Elektrownia ElektrowniaPoland Poland Bulgaria TPP Maritsa Iztok 3 Bełchatów S.A. Kozienice S.A.Greece Megalopoli II Great Britain Cottam Poland Elektrownia Kozienice S.A. S.C. Complexul Elektrownia CT Compostilla IIPoland Іспанія Romania Energetic Rovinari S.A. Patnуw (G 3,4) No. 2 Narva Elektrijaamad AS,Bulgaria TPP Bobov dol Great Britain Ratcliffe Estonia Eesti Elektrijaam BOT ElektrowniaBulgaria TPP Brikel Great Britain Kingsnorth Poland Bełchatów S.A. S.C. ComplexulRomania Energetic Rovinari Great Britain Scottish Power plc Bulgaria TPP Maritsa Iztok 2 S.A. No. 2Source: Evaluation of Member States emission inventories 2004–2006 for LCPs under the LCPDirective (2001/80/EC), European Commission, 2008.36 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Annex 2 The value of a statistical lifeThe methodology for calculating the value of a statistical life is generally criti-cized as being subjective and ethically suspect. Still, it is one of the few meansavailable to apply an economic value to resources that are needed in order tocompensate for damages caused to human health by environmental pollution.In the model recently proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA),59 this parameter is calculated on the basis of how prepared the averageperson is to pay extra in order to reduce additional mortality risks. 100,000 ran-domly selected respondents were asked a simple question: How much wouldyou be willing to pay to reduce your personal risk of death from any given factornext year?“Reducing risk” in this case means that, of 100,000 people, one person less willdie, that is, a single “statistical life” will be saved. The average sum that respon-dents named was multiplied by 100,000, which is the ultimate cost of this statisti-cal life. Thus, it becomes clear to what extent society is prepared to pay to savethe life of a single individual, without really knowing who that individual mightbe. For more details, see http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwFUS/41DD6DBAE4659 D241B85256E89005C2989.Annex 2 37
    • Annex 3 EU environmental protection requirements in the Energy Community Treaty60Directive 79/409/EС on protecting certain species of birds. Only Art. 4(2) ap-plies, which requires the protection of ordinary migratory birds by paying spe-cific attention to preserving wetlands, including international ones.Directive 97/11/EС, which amends and expands Directive 85/337/EEС, on as-sessing the impact of certain countries and private projects on the environment.The purpose is to ensure the necessary evaluation of the environmental impactof both states and private projects on human health, quality of life, biodiversityand the capacity of ecosystems to renew themselves. This Directive requiresprojects with a potentially serious impact on the environment to get permissionto design and assess their environmental impact. The environmental impact as-sessment should reveal, describe and evaluate both the direct and indirect im-pact of such projects on humans, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climate andlandscape, material assets, and cultural sites, and to calculate the mutual impactof these various factors.Directive 1999/32/EС on reducing the sulfur content of certain types of liquidfuels. The purpose of this Directive is to reduce SO2 emissions from the burningof certain liquid fuels. With specific exceptions, it prohibits the use of heavyfuels whose sulfur content is over 1% of mass as of 1.01.2003, while light dieselfuel may not be used if it contains more than 0.2% of sulfur as of July 2000 and0.1% as of 1.01.2008. Sampling and testing the conformity of fuels to these limitsare supposed to be done according to established methods and Commissions areexpected to report annually on the results.Directive 2001/80/EС on limiting emissions of certain pollutants into the airfrom sustained combustion plants. The purpose of this Directive is to reduceand control emissions from sustained combustion plants. It applies to plants thatfire fuels whose nominal effective thermal capacity is equal to or higher than 50MW. Member countries should draft related programs to gradually reduce thecumulative annual volume of emissions from existing plants and to uphold capson emissions based on the relevant percentage reduction set for each country.National emission reduction plans should ensure that overall annual levels ofNOx, SO2 and ash emissions from existing plants reaches the levels that wouldhave been reached if these caps had been applied to plants that were operatingin 2000. Member countries should ensure that all building and operating permitsfor new plants comply with these emissions caps.60 Adapted from informational materials on the EEC prepared by the Kantor Company under the EU ТАCIS project called “Assistance to Ukraine in analyzing its energy policy and pro- moting the idea of joining the Energy Community Treaty.”38 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • In addition to these regulations, Art. 13 of the Energy Community Treaty statesthat the parties to its Treaty also recognize the importance of the Kyoto Pro-tocols and should put effort into meeting them. The parties to this Treaty alsoagree to put effort into instituting Council Directive 96/61/EС on comprehen-sive pollution prevention and control.The Annex to the Protocol on Ukraine’s accession to the Energy CommunityTreaty sets the schedule for Ukraine to implement the acquis communautaire asone of the requirements of the Energy Community Treaty, especially in termsof environmental protection. Directives 79/409/EEС and 97/11/EС were to beinstituted once the EEC came into effect, while Directive 1999/32/EС should beintroduced into domestic legislation by 31 December 2011. Directive 2001/80/EEС should be instituted by 31 December 2017.Table 10. Schedule for Ukraine to implement acquis communautaire on environmental protectionDirective 85/337/EС (with changes and additions) on assessing the impact of certainstate and private projects on the environment, amended by Directive 97/11/EС and 01.01.2013Directive 2003/35/EСDirective 79/409/EС (Art. 4, Point 2) on protecting wild birds 01.01.2015Directive 1999/32/EС on reducing sulfur content in certain liquid fuels 01.01.2012Directive 2001/80/EС on establishing caps on emissions of certain pollutants into the 01.01.2018air by large combustion plantsAnnex 3 39
    • Annex 4 Environmental fees and taxesTable 11. Environmental fees and taxes Nominal fee, UAH/t, Tax rate, UAH/t, Pollutant effective until 2011 effective as of 2011 Nitrogen oxides 80 1,221 Ammonia 15 229 Sulfur anhydrates 80 1,221 Acetone 30 458 Benzopyrene 101,807 1,554,343 Butylacetate 18 275 Vanadium pentoxide 300 4580 Hydrogen chloride 3 46 Carbon monoxide 3 46 Particulates 3 46 Cadmium compounds 633 9,664 Manganese and compounds 633 9,664 Mercury and compounds 3,390 51,757 Carbon disulfide 167 2,550 Ethyl n-butyl 80 1,221Sources: Tax Code, Cabinet of Ministers Resolution №303 “On approving the procedure forsetting nominal fees for polluting the environment and for collecting such fees” dated 1 March1999.The base nominal fee, that is, the basic indicator for establishing the rate of pay-ment, for polluting the air was introduced in 1999 by Cabinet resolution.61 Thisresolution remained in effect until 2010. The base nominal fee effectively did notchange for all those years, as it was only marginally raised in 2003.The amount of these fees was calculated using an inflation coefficient and anannual order from the Cabinet of Ministers, which made the entire procedureextremely convoluted and complicated the reporting process. The size of thefee for emitting pollutants into the air from stationary facilities was calculatedaccording to the formula: П Σ(Н Па.с. = t=1 біМлі + КпНбіМпі)КтКінд Cabinet of Ministers Resolution №303 “On approving the procedure for setting nominal61 fees for polluting the environment and for collecting such fees” dated 1 March 1999.40 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • where N is the base nominal fee, along with a series of coefficients that took intoaccount territorial, social and environmental factors.With the adoption of the new Tax Code in 2011, environmental taxes were in-troduced that were nearly 20 times more than the original nominal base. Actualcollections of these fees were not equally increased, however, as the formula forcalculation was simplified by dropping all coefficients. The total tax charged forair pollution from stationary sources is calculated by taxpayers themselves inde-pendently every quarter, based on actual volumes of emissions.Annex 4 41
    • Annex 5 Territorial spread of emissions in Ukraine, 2008Left to right: SO2, NOx, recovered nitrogen, non-methane light organic com-pounds, ash (2.5 μm), ash (2.5–10 μм)Source: Norwegian Institute of Meteorology, 201042 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Annex 6 Cross-border impact of emissions Countries receiving SOx emissions from Ukraine Other, 14% Romania, 2% Russia, 39% Bulgaria, 3% Kazakhstan, 5% Belarus, 8% Ukraine, 29% Contribution of SOx emissions from other countries to Ukraine Other, 25% Ukraine, 45% Bulgaria, 6% Russia, 7% Romania, 8% Poland, 9%Annex 6 43
    • Countries receiving NOx emissions from Ukraine Other, 18% Russia, 40% Romania, 3% Bulgaria, 3% Kazakhstan, 4% Belarus, 9% Ukraine, 23% Contribution of NOx emissions from other countries to Ukraine Other, 33% Ukraine, 25% Italy, 3% Russia, 19% Romania, 5% Germany, 5% Poland, 10%Source: Norwegian Institute of Meteorology, 201044 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • Annex 7 Annex 7 Population centers within TES pollution zones in Ukraine Company <1 km, facility located 1–3 km, population center 3–10 km, population enter not far from facility Population in risk zone, ’000 within a population borders on facility (Risk Zone III) (urban/rural) center (Risk Zone ІІ) (Risk Zone І) Burshtynska TES, Burshtyn Kuropatnyky, Korostovychi, Vytan’, Chahariv, Koniushky, Obelnytsia, Kalush, Halych, 61.8 (23.8/38.0) Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast Nastashyne, Dem’ianiv Berezhany, Zhydachiv, Luchnytsi, Yunashkiv, Halytskiy County Sarnyky, Dibrova, Ozeriany, Kuriv, Sloboda, Zhalybory, Kinashiv, Narayivka, Bovshiv Vuhklehirska TES, Svitlodarske Luhanske, Novoluhanske, Semyhirya, Travneve, Myronivskiy, Nyzhnye Lozove, 52.3 (41.1/11.2) Donetsk Oblast Dolomitne Kyrpychne agglomeration of Debaltseve and Svitlohradske Dobrotvirvska TES, L’viv Dobrotvir Maiky, Matiashi, Stariy Dobrotvir, Reklynets, Pavliv, Babychi 57.5 (23.0/34.5) Oblast Kozaky, Rokety, Dolyny, Rohali, Kamianka-Buzka County Perekalky, Selets Zaporizhska TES Energohrad Prymirne, Novo Ukrainka Ivanivka, Novovodyane, Dniprovka, Michurina, 41.7 (13.6/28.1) Zaporizhzhia Oblast Vodyane Kamiansk-Dniprovsk County Zmiyivska TES, Komsomolske Donets Blahodatne, Zanke, Heniyivra, Dachnt, Ukrainske, 73.0 (34.0/39.0) Kharkiv Oblast Omelchenky, Andriyivka, Chervoniy Donets Zmiyiv County Zuyivska TES, Zugres Mykolayivka, Zuyivka Hirne, Vedmezhe, Khartsyzk Lypove, Serdyte, 105.4 (104.5/0.961) Donetsk Oblast Tsupky, Zachativka, Spivuche, Shakhtne, Troyitsko- Khartsyzk County Khartsyzke, Pokrovka, Shyroke, Novopelahiyivka, Novomykolayivka, Sadove, Dubivka, Zolotarivka Kryvorizka TES, located more than Zelenodolsk Velyka Kostromka, Mala Kostromka, Topolne, 57.6 (28.6/29.0) Dnipropetrovsk Oblast 2 km from the nearest Ukrainka, Novoarmianivka Apostolivsk County population center45
    • 46 Company <1 km, facility located 1–3 km, population center 3–10 km, population enter not far from facility Population in risk zone, ’000 within a population borders on facility (Risk Zone III) (urban/rural) center (Risk Zone ІІ) (Risk Zone І) Kurakhivska TES, Kurakhove Illinka, Berestky, Stepanivka Stari Terny, Dalne, Dachne, Shevchenko, 84.7 (56.0/28.7) Donetsk Oblast Voznesenka, Kreminna Balka, Izmayilivka, Hirnyk, Mariyinsk County Kurakhivka, Zoriane, Oleksandropol, Ostrovske, Yantarne, Uspenivka, Romanivka Ladyzhynska TES, Ladyzhyn Dmytrenky, Basalychivka Kharpachka, Bubnivka, Novoselivka, Lukashivka, 23.9 (22.6/1.3) Vinnytsia Oblast Zaozerne Ladyzhyn City Council and nearby villages Luhanska TES, Shchastia Peredilske, Оbozne, Vesela Hora, Petrivka, Heyivka, 13.0 Luhansk Oblast Stariy Aidar, Tsvitni Pisky, Svitle, Pryvitne, Khrystove Shchastia and nearby villages Prydniprovska TES, Dnipropetrovsk, Liubymivka, Prydniprianske Ilarionove, Ivanivka, Vasylivka, Dniprove, Voloske, 77.9 Samarsk County Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Samarskiy County Pershe Travnia Slovianska TES, Mykolayivka Starodubivka Orikhovatka, Rai-Oleksandrivka, Pyskunivka, Kryva 34.7 (15.1/ 19.6) Donetsk Oblast Luka, Brusivka, Stariy Karavan, Sloviansk Sloviansk County Starobeshivska TES, Starobesheve Voznesenka Horbatenko, Chumaky, Oleksandrivka, Berehove, 51.4 (27.7/23.7) Starobesheve Donetsk Oblast Petrovske, Pidhirne, Zernove, Rodynkove, Kypucha County Krynytsia, Kamianka, Noviy Svit, Kirove, Svitle Trypilska TES, Ukrainka Trypillia Tatsenky, Pliuty, Kozyn, Obukhiv, Neshcheriv, 68.5 (50.7/17.8) Kyiv Oblast Tarasivka, Dereviana, Shcherbanivka, Zhukivtsi, Obukhiv and Obukhiv Khalepia, Vytachiv County Total: 803.2, including: 542.4 – urban residents 260.8 – rural residents Source: Derzhkomstat. Calculation: ICPSReducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements
    • List of AbbreviationsECSEE Energy Community of Southeast Europe; also known as the European Energy Community (EEC)EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentEIB European Investment BankIBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentNAK EKU Energetychna Kompania Ukrainy (Energy Company of Ukraine) National Stock CompanyBAT Best Available TechniquesOECD Organization of Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentORE Wholesale Electricity MarketTES Thermoelectric Stations (heating plants)TET Thermoelectric Centrals (cogeneration plants)CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring SystemsGEN Global Ecolabelling NetworkIFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture MovementsTACIS Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent StatesList of Abbreviations 47
    • Glossary of Terms Emissions Limit Establishing an emissions threshold requires bringing the current levels of emissions Values (ELVs) in line with the thresholds detailed in Annexes III-VI and Arts. 5, 7 and 8 of Directive 2001/80/EC. Average monthly indicators for actual emissions, with the exception of equipment start-up and shutdown periods, must not exceed the established emissions thresholds. Environmental A mandatory national fee that is based on actual emissions released into the air, tax pollutants released into bodies of water, waste disposal, the actual volume of radioactive wastes that are temporarily stored by their manufacturers, the actual volume of radioactive wastes generated and the actual volume of radioactive wastes accumulated through 1 April 2009 (based on the new Tax Code). Best Available A process, technique and method, an approach to the design, construction, Technology management, servicing and maintenance, exploitation and decommissioning of (BAT) industrial sites, that is based on modern scientific and technological practices that have been approved by government environmental agencies and are registered in the national BAT registry. The term “best” means technology that is the most effective for producing output while upholding an established level of environmental protection. The term “available” means technology that has been developed to the point where it can be applied in a given branch of industry both cost-effectively and technically. In some cases, “available” may be substituted by the term “current” if this is allowed according to state law. National The NERP outlines the gradual reduction in overall emissions of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur Emission dioxide (SO2), and ash from existing plants based on low parameters: real annual Reduction Plan operating time for each facility, volumes of fuels used, and so on. This document (NERP) should include targets and objectives aimed at reducing emissions, to establish timeframes for their achievement, and to describe monitoring mechanisms.48 Reducing emissions from thermoelectric stations in Ukraine by meeting the European Energy Community requirements