Opinion
Delivering the goods ORR biomass consultation: don’t
repeat the mistakes with coal ! ORR proposals to increase freight track access charges for biomass run counter to
government energy policies and could ultimately endanger thousands of jobs, believes Chris MacRae
T
he Office of Rail Regulation has recently published its consultation for Periodic Review 2013: Consultation on a freight specific charge for biomass. The consultation can be found at:
www.rail-reg.gov.uk/pr13/consultations/
biomass.php This follows ORR’s consultation results published on 11
January 2013 on a ‘conclusion on the average variable usage charge and a freight specific charge’, in which it implemented new charges for ESI (electricity supply industry) coal, spent nuclear fuel and iron ore transported by rail. That initial consultation was run in May 2012. FTA objected to the proposals that ORR now intends to press ahead with on the basis that they discriminate against sectors deemed captive to rail; are incorrect regarding coal as it can and will shift to road, and threaten the Scottish coal production industry and jobs so represent anti- Scottish discrimination by a UK regulator. Now ORR wants to do the same with biomass, increasing freight track access charges for it because it is a ‘captive’ market! Like almost everyone else connected with biomass power generation and associated with its supply chain, FTA is concerned that the proposed additional freight access charge for biomass runs counter to overall UK government energy policy in relation to biomass, and comes at a time when significant money and time have already been invested in the biomass supply chain and crucial decisions about investment in renewable energy are being taken. When responding to the consultation, FTA has asked that ORR considers the following points: The UK government has openly encouraged the conversion of
existing coal-fired power stations to run on biomass in order to help fulfil its renewable energy and carbon reduction ambitions while maintaining security of electricity supply. The ORR’s proposals run directly counter to government energy policies. The ORR proposals could add between £0.50 and £1.50 per tonne to the price of biomass. This increase is a material change to the May 2012 consultation proposal and may have the effect of halting a number of biomass projects, endangering thousands of existing and potential jobs at power stations, rail companies, construction businesses and ports (though none of this worried ORR in relation to ESI coal).
In order to encourage multi-million pound investments in low
carbon technologies, the government has established financial support arrangements through the Renewables Obligation (RO) and is finalising details of the new Feed-in Tariff with Contracts for Difference (CfD’s). This new rail charge for biomass has been proposed so late in the day that it has not been factored into the recent RO Banding Review nor into the strike price setting for the CfD’s and undermines the lengthy consultation process that the government has already concluded with the power industry
on financial support for biomass. There needs to be a single coherent approach in relation to biomass.
Coal and biomass are not linked and so it is not appropriate
to apply the charge to both commodities in the same way. Unlike coal, biomass power requires significant investment and support from the government and the private sector to allow the UK to achieve its mandatory green targets, and owing to the differing calorific value of the products, more biomass will need to be transported to produce the same amount of electricity as coal. This serves to penalise biomass compared to coal, benefiting coal-fired power stations and increasing the differential between the two fuels that other government departments are working hard to remove! Overall government strategy must be taken into account when considering whether and how this charge is implemented. Those ports and power stations who intend to invest in
biomass and the future of the energy industry have already spent significant time and money in choosing their logistics partners and in some cases have made early investments in plant and equipment. Any introduction of either the freight specific charge or the freight only line charge could fundamentally alter long- term investment plans and arrangements, as customers will need to reassess their chosen partners. There are similar impacts on rail freight operators, and equipment suppliers. It is not clear from the consultation document how the ORR
will calculate the proposed charges. Without this transparency, the industry cannot be clear that the charge is fair and reasonable. The ORR must make its methodology clear in advance of any decision being made. This includes the calculation of the proposed freight only line charge, which would be in addition to any freight specific charge. The ORR can only levy an increased charge if the ‘market
can bear it’ (as per the EU Directive on Access Charging). As the market for biomass generation already required support through the Renewables Obligation, it is unclear that this criterion can be met. Such is the size of investment required in renewable energy
that those in the biomass power generation and supply chain industry propose that charges should be removed from the biomass rail agenda for at least the next two five-year review periods (Control Periods). This would allow for investors to come forward to fulfil the government’s renewable energy plans. The introduction of this charge would only delay and jeopardise the fulfilment of these projects. Please ORR, don’t make the same mistakes with biomass that you have with coal! Chris MacRae is rail freight policy manager at the Freight Transport Association
May 2013 Page 51
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124