search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Industry News


finalised schematic diagram finalised heat loss assessment finalised heat use information


Evidence to support an extension application must be provided no later than 31 March, 2021, and should be as complete as possible. Provisional schematics, provisional heat loss assessments and evidence of intended heat use will be expected to be provided to secure the extension being proposed. The government intend to set out


in the regulations the exact evidence requirements for an ‘extension application’ based on feedback to this notice. This will be announced via the government response to this notice. If a properly made extension


application is submitted in this window, applicants will then have an additional six months after scheme closure (on or before 30 September, 2021) in which to commission their plant and submit a full application for accreditation. Six months is a period deemed to correlate to the length of the full Great British-wide lockdown, plus some additional time to account for delays to project timelines caused by other factors, such as potential supply shortages and reduced productivity as a result of social distancing measures. It is intended that tariff rates will


be set as of the date of application for an extension application. As with


TG3, it is intended that payment windows will open at the point of scheme closure, but payments will only begin once a properly made full application for accreditation is submitted. Payments will end on 31 March, 2041. This means that applicants that accredit via this mechanism will receive 20 years of payments minus the length of time it takes to submit a properly made application for accreditation.


Question 1


Is 6 months enough additional time for projects to be able to commission and submit a full application for accreditation after scheme closure?


Question 2 Are there any other pieces of evidence, in addition to those listed, that applicants will not be able to provide that are normally required as part of an application for full accreditation?


Intended evidence requirements As part of their extension application, applicants will be expected to provide evidence that they had incurred costs associated with project development prior to the publication of this notice. This is to ensure that this measure is directly targeted at those projects most in need of aid as a result of


COVID-19 related delays. BEIS understands that there


are significant variations between projects and across technologies as to what investment of capital in development may look like. As such we are seeking information from industry on what evidence they would be able to provide if they are not able to demonstrate one or more of the below pieces of information. It is the intention of the department to develop evidence requirements to cover the fullest range of development scenarios, whilst still maintaining a sufficiently high bar to entry to ensure that extension applications are only granted to projects that are indeed under development at this time. Evidence that it is intended will sufficiently show that a project has already invested capital in development, prior to the publication of this notice, are:


a dated invoice for construction works relating to the installation


a dated invoice for the commissioning of pre-build development work relating to the installation


a dated application for planning permission


a dated email/letter evidencing that a project falls under permitted development and does not require planning permission


a dated invoice(s) for the purchase and installation of equipment relating to the installation


Green Source Initiative


UPM is one of the founding members of the #GreenSource initiative, to promote the role of forest-fibre industries in the effort to achieve the EU’s climate neutrality target by 2050. #GreenSource brings together members of EPIS, the European Pulp Industry Sector Association and Cepi, the Confederation of European Paper Industries. The forest fibre industry wish


to play a central role in offering solutions that responds to the needs of the European citizens and contribute to a sustainable lifestyle while making sure that forests keep growing, absorbing


CO2 and protecting biodiversity. A recent scientific study


commissioned by Cepi on the Climate effect of the forest- based sector in the European Union shows that, thanks to the forests and forest-based products, 806 million tons of CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere every year – this corresponds to 20% of the EU’s annual emissions – while bringing 3.5 million jobs, especially to rural areas.


In times of COVID-19, it’s


important to remember that the forest fibre industry is delivering packaging, tissue and hygiene


products that are essential to EU citizens while being good for the planet and good for the European economy. “We are, and will continue,


empowering people to make sustainable choices by providing a growing portfolio of climate- friendly products based on sustainably-sourced, renewable, and recyclable materials,” says Anna Maija Wessman, EPIS Secretary General. “We are proud of being part of


this alliance and want to take an active role in promoting pulp and other wood fibre-based products as a truly sustainable solution,”


says Tomas Wiklund, SVP Pulp Sales and Marketing, UPM. #GreenSource is the common


voice of our industry rising to tell the world how we are making a difference in the transition to a sustainable and climate-friendly future.


For further information please contact: Natasha Rubanin-Hildén, Marketing Manager, Sustainability, UPM Pulp, Tel. +358 40 731 0546 natasha.rubanin-hilden@upm.com media@upm.com


Autumn 2020 Forest Bioenergy Review 7


Question 3 Should an applicant not be able to demonstrate one of the above pieces of information, what other forms of evidence might be appropriate to demonstrate that an installation was under development prior to the publication of this notice?


Budget It is intended that there will be a separate allocation of funding within the NDRHI funding envelope to specifically cover this measure. The size of this budget will be based on the recent pre-COVID deployment trends.


It is intended that, as with


TG3, technology specific budget headrooms will be set and published by BEIS. These will be distinct from the TG budget headrooms. These will be set in line with the technology profile of recent deployment. This is in order to ensure that no one individual technology is able to utilise an oversized portion of the total budget for this measure and block other technologies from having fair access to this funding. Budget headrooms will reflect the estimated number of projects of each technology affected by COVID-19 related delays. Further details on budget for this


measure will be published in the government response to this notice.


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