News 08 September 2020 News from SKAO
The CO2 Performance Ladder has potential as a successor to the MJA3 covenant
This conclusion is drawn in a study conducted by Arcadis on behalf of the Climate Friendly Procurement & Business Foundation (SKAO) and the Union of Water Boards.
This conclusion is drawn in a study conducted by Arcadis on behalf of the Climate Friendly Procurement & Business Foundation (SKAO) and the Union of Water Boards. The study sheds light on the extent to which the CO2 Performance Ladder is suitable as a management system for organizations as a possible successor to the Multi-Year Agreements on Energy Efficiency (MJA3) covenant.
The study shows that most of the obligations under the LTA3 covenant are fulfilled by a CO2 Performance Ladder certification at level 3. A test in three sectors (water boards, ICT sector and rail sector) also shows that the CO2 Performance Ladder is a possible successor could be from the LTA3 covenant.
The reason for the study is that the MJA3 covenant will expire in 2020, a covenant in which more than 1000 organizations in the Netherlands participate, including the water boards. Several sectors and companies are investigating a possible successor to the structured approach to energy saving that the LTA3 has.
The study looked at the extent to which the CO2 Performance Ladder is suitable as a management system for organizations as a successor to the LTA3. From the perspective of the participating organizations, it was examined what both the similarities and the differences are between the two. In addition to a general comparison between the two instruments, the experience in three sectors with both instruments was also discussed in more detail. These are the ICT sector, the water boards and the rail sector. These three sectors are characterized by participants with a multitude of establishments.
The Unie van Waterschappen is co-sponsor of the research because the water boards are also looking for a successor to the LTA3 covenant. The continuation of a sectoral agreement in which a group approach is central and more intensive measure monitoring are important wishes in this regard. Since 2011, the water boards have been monitoring the annual progress of the water boards' energy, climate and sustainability objectives via the Climate Monitor Water boards. More and more water boards are supplementing the Climate Monitor Water boards with certification on the CO2 Performance Ladder. More than 2/3 of all water boards are now involved in a Community of Practice CO2 Performance Ladder for water boards and the first water board has already been certified.
Similarities and differences
There are many similarities between the CO2 Performance Ladder and the LTA3 covenant, such as focusing on an energy management or CO2 management system. In the study, the CO2 Performance Ladder, MJA3 and the Climate Monitor Water Boards are juxtaposed by means of tables, resulting in an objective comparison of variables such as: scope, goal, control, data quality, reporting, exemptions, etc.
In addition to similarities, there are also differences. One difference is that MJA3 focuses on energy savings and efficiency, while the ladder from level 3 quantifies energy consumption in terms of CO2 emissions. Under LTA3 there is no obligation for public publications, while transparency and communication (about objectives, ambitions and progress) within the CO2 Performance Ladder is one of the four pillars of the system.
Another difference is that during the term of MJA3, these organizations have an exemption from the Energy Saving Information Obligation and from the EED energy audit. Organizations with a ladder certificate from level 3 only have an exemption from the EED audit obligation.
Considerations
The CO2 Performance Ladder can be a useful successor to MJA3. There are a number of points to consider:
Periodic multi-year plan, looking ahead and measure monitoring at sector level
When LTA3 ends, the foresight and monitoring of energy saving and energy generation at sector level will also cease. The current reporting method makes it possible for LTA3 sectors to add up the outlook and the realization at sector level.
In addition to the requirements of the CO2 Performance Ladder, it could be decided to make agreements at sector level about the method of calculating planned and realized savings (energy and CO2) and to bundle these at a fixed time during the year.
Exemption from legal obligations
The test against practice shows that the three sectors (water boards, ICT sector and rail sector) are concerned about a possible increase in the administrative burden when the term of LTA3 has expired. The concern approach within the LTA3 is an instrument for efficiently regulating compliance with relevant energy legislation. If the current exemption from the obligation to provide information also lapses with the expiry of LTA3, companies and organizations with many establishments expect that the administrative burden to comply with energy legislation (such as the obligation to provide information) is due to the disappearance of a group.