Within the introduction to one of many few interviews that Daniel Křetínský, the second richest particular person within the Czech Republic, gave to the Czech media this summer time, Forbes journal requested the rhetorical query: “Who’s the one that is being portrayed in some media as a coal baron and one of many largest air polluters, though it’s not true?” The quick reply may very well be that Daniel Křetínský is a coal baron and one of many world’s largest polluters, though he tries to faux it is not true. However how is it that Křetínský and his firm, Energetický a průmyslový holding (EPH), handle to maintain up the looks?
The corporate’s rigorously cultivated picture is linked to the carbon accounting it makes use of to current itself to the general public. EPH claims to be a “chief in European decarbonisation”. However in accordance with the info now we have compiled, even a conservative view of its emissions locations it among the many three dirtiest firms within the European Union. And there aren’t any related details to assist the declare of being a ”European decarbonisation chief”.
In reality, EPH stories lower than half of its emissions in its carbon accounting, even once we use a conservative methodology. Furthermore, our evaluation reveals that the ability crops in EPH’s portfolio are decarbonising extra slowly than the remainder of the EU energy sector.
EPH is certainly one of Europe’s three prime polluters
After all, it is crucial for firms to transparently report correct details about their carbon footprint for a variety of causes. It’s important as a result of it impacts an organization’s public picture. It impacts its public picture, which may additionally entice or deter buyers.
Investor attractiveness is, in any case, one of many most important explanation why firms maintain local weather accounts. On the idea of local weather accounting, they usually fee an environmental, social and governance (ESG) score. This determines the extent to which an organization is uncovered to the danger that, for instance, local weather change or the decarbonisation of the financial system might jeopardise its monetary efficiency.
Nonetheless, it’s not solely the non-public sector that’s making choices primarily based on local weather accounting; governments and public establishments are additionally more and more taking it under consideration. The European Central Financial institution, for instance, introduced final 12 months that it could steadily decarbonise its company bond portfolio, though it will definitely backtracked from its authentic plans this 12 months.
However allocating duty for greenhouse fuel emissions within the vitality sector just isn’t straightforward. Other than the query of whether or not emissions needs to be attributed to the mining firm, the gas transporter, the ability plant proprietor, the patron or the entire financial system, there’s additionally the query of the best way to divide duty among the many numerous shareholders of energy crops. Or, for instance, between those that personal the ability stations and those that function them.
There are a number of methods of allocating duty for emissions. For now, it will likely be enough to say that typical carbon accounting approaches allocate emissions both by possession or by who controls the corporate.
Nevertheless it may also be helpful to have a look at, for instance, the full emissions from all of the actions by which the corporate is concerned, as we could also be eager about details that typical carbon accounting strategies don’t keep in mind. Every of those strategies has its professionals and cons, which we’ll come again to.
The underside line is that every one of them place EPH among the many prime three CO2 emitters within the European Union – together with Germany’s RWE and Poland’s PGE. The precise rating throughout the prime three could range relying on the tactic used.
An evaluation of knowledge from the EU Emissions Buying and selling Scheme (EU ETS) reveals that EPH, along with German listed RWE and Polish semi-public PGE, is answerable for 1 / 4 of emissions from the vitality sector in your complete European Union. Right here we solely attribute emissions in accordance with possession, which is probably the most beneficial possibility for the three largest polluters. EPH alone is answerable for about 6% of the full emissions of the European vitality sector, once more utilizing a beneficial strategy.
Because the chart reveals, the massive three’s vital share is because of the truth that every of them owns a disproportionate variety of the dirtiest crops. Eight of the ten dirtiest energy stations within the European Union are owned by these firms. All eight burn lignite.
EPH co-owns three of the ten dirtiest crops. And a fourth is shut behind in eleventh place. These are the German lignite energy crops of the Lausitz-based LEAG group, which EPH owns along with the Czech funding group PPF. Collectively, these crops emitted virtually 56 megatonnes of CO2 final 12 months, or 7.6% of the emissions of your complete vitality sector within the European Union.
Why a lot? On the one hand, they’re actually large crops, so logically they produce extra emissions. However they’re additionally very inefficient. Lusatian energy crops emit about 4 instances as many grams of greenhouse gases per kilowatt-hour of vitality as the common European energy plant.
The emission depth of the Lusatian energy crops can also be about twice as excessive because the sources disclosed by EPH in its sustainability report. They’re so soiled that their carbon depth even exceeds the higher restrict for coal within the modelling tables of the Intergovernmental Panel on Local weather Change (IPCC).
EPH stories lower than half of its emissions
And the Lusatian energy crops merely don’t seem within the whole checklist of EPH’s emissions offered within the report. The corporate discloses 23 megatonnes of greenhouse fuel emissions. Nonetheless, our evaluation reveals that even a conservative strategy would attribute round 47 megatonnes of greenhouse gases to the corporate in 2022. To place it bluntly, EPH declares lower than half of its emissions.
The Greenhouse Fuel Protocol customary, some of the broadly used carbon accounting methodologies for firms, affords two fundamental methods to account for emissions. An organization can account for emissions primarily based on its possession stake, or primarily based on whether or not it workouts monetary or operational management over the asset.
The primary strategy is pretty simple, however EPH has not chosen it. Beneath the second strategy, the corporate data all emissions from the operations it controls in its carbon accounts. In doing so, it should additionally assess the instances the place it workouts management collectively with different entities.
If the calculation relies on monetary management and is collectively exercised by accomplice firms, they need to add the emissions for these property in accordance with their respective shares. Nonetheless, EPH has not chosen this technique both. It calculates its emissions utilizing the operational management technique, which can contain contractual preparations between the enterprise companions.
LEAG’s extremely polluting Lusatian energy crops are one such three way partnership. EPH states in its 2022 Sustainability Report that it workouts joint management over the corporate, i.e. it doesn’t make choices alone, however along with one other shareholder.
Subsequently, if it selected the monetary management technique, it must report its share of emissions. Nonetheless, EPH states that it stories its information in accordance with the operational management technique, i.e. primarily based on whether or not it could make choices on the corporate’s operations.
Obtain the very best of European journalism straight to your inbox each Thursday
For instance, EPH counts negligible emissions from the Czech cogeneration plant Plzeňská teplárenská, the place it has administration management, though it owns barely 1 / 4 of the full. Then again, EPH doesn’t embrace in its whole emissions the Greenho
For instance, EPH counts negligible emissions from the Czech cogeneration plant Plzeňská teplárenská, of which it has administration management, though it owns barely 1 / 4 of the full. Then again, EPH doesn’t embrace in its whole emissions the greenhouse gases emitted by LEAG, Slovenské elektrárne and the Italian gas-fired energy plant Scandale, over which it claims to have neither monetary nor operational management.
The person firms subsequently maintain their carbon accounts separate. They report their very own emissions, however EPH itself doesn’t account for them in any respect. That is clearly a deliberate follow.
EPH appears to concentrate on this. Though the 2021 report doesn’t embrace the emissions of the Lusatian energy crops within the whole, we will no less than nonetheless discover them within the appendix ”Foremost LEAG figures” (on web page 315). Within the newest report, nevertheless, even this reference has been dropped.
”It actually places the corporate in a greater mild,” feedback Lia Wagner, an analyst at Urgewald, a German organisation that specialises in researching fossil gas firms after which offering information on them to monetary establishments. The hassle to distance itself from LEAG is confirmed by the truth that, since this summer time, EPH now not even lists LEAG as one of many firms in its portfolio on its web site.
The ensuing image of EPH’s emissions is subsequently the results of the selection of carbon accounting technique. The operational technique used assigns duty for emissions to the choice maker within the “medium time period”. Nonetheless, that is extraordinarily deceptive, significantly within the case of the Lausitz energy crops, the place the long-term horizon is essential from a local weather perspective.
LEAG and MIBRAG, which is wholly owned by EPH, are the one vitality producers in Germany planning to function lignite-fired energy crops past 2030. ”LEAG and the nearly emission-free Slovenské elektrarne usually are not included in EPH’s sustainability report as a result of that is consistent with worldwide methodology,” EPH spokesman Daniel Častvaj confirmed when requested by Deník Referendum why EPH doesn’t declare the substantial quantity of emissions for which it’s really accountable.
EPH mustn’t declare it’s not answerable for LEAG’s emissions
It’s tough to guage from public sources whether or not EPH’s carbon accounting itself is appropriate, no less than from a proper viewpoint, as we shouldn’t have entry to contracts between shareholders, for instance. Nonetheless, the truth that the corporate presents itself to the general public on the idea of those figures gives the look of a deliberate misrepresentation.
”Even when it’s not towards the legislation, I believe the corporate deserves criticism for this. It positively makes them look higher than they’re,” Lia Wagner from Urgewald instructed Deník Referendum.
The corporate’s exterior communication provides the clear impression that EPH has the truth is been in a number one function within the three way partnership for a very long time and is subsequently answerable for LEAG’s operations. That is confirmed by the assertion of the opposite shareholder within the PPF Group in this 12 months’s half-yearly report on the corporate’s monetary efficiency.
In it, PPF says: ”As of 30 June 2023, the Group’s whole shareholding in LEAG represented a 50% share in financial rights (because the acquisition in 2016, the Group’s authorized efficient possession is zero, it solely has joint management over LEAG by means of the contractual preparations with the three way partnership accomplice).” PPF subsequently considers itself to be a monetary investor solely.
Lastly, a take a look at the entry within the Industrial Register of LEAG Holding, a.s., by means of which EPH and PPF collectively personal nearly all of the shares, reveals that every one members of the Board of Administrators and two of the three members of the Supervisory Board are EPH workers. Subsequently, it’s debatable as to which precise share of the difficulty needs to be counted as EPH’s personal. Nonetheless, a zero share doesn’t mirror actuality.
Křetínský shifts its dirtiest assets to a brand new firm
The truth that Křetínský itself is conscious of that is proven by one other manoeuvre it has launched this 12 months. Up to now, now we have analysed the newest accessible emissions information for 2022.
In October this 12 months, nevertheless, PPF offered 20% of its stake in LEAG for one euro to EP Power Transition, a brand new sister firm of EPH with the identical possession construction. The 2 firms now collectively personal a full 70% of LEAG, i.e. a controlling stake. The transaction was coincidentally reported by the enterprise each day E15, co-owned by Daniel Křetínský.
EPH plans to steadily switch its remaining 50% stake in LEAG to EP Power Transitions, and finally additionally its lignite-fired energy plant in Schkopau, Saxony-Anhalt. Along with the ability crops, EPH may also switch its German open solid lignite mines to the brand new construction, making EPH the third largest coal mining firm within the European Union when it comes to shareholdings. As soon as once more alongside Germany’s RWE and Poland’s PGE.
On this means, a parallel company construction will allow EPH to formally divest itself of its lignite assets, which it doesn’t intend to stop mining till after 2030, the 12 months to which the German authorities has dedicated itself within the coalition settlement. Formally, EPH will be capable to faux that it’s going to abandon coal-fired energy era itself by 2030.
”The truth that two authorized entities have the identical house owners doesn’t imply that one is answerable for the opposite,” wrote Daniel Častvaj, spokesman for EPH, in a response to Deník Referendum on the choice to separate lignite assets. This not directly confirms the usefulness of the entire operation. With out the creation of this construction, EPH itself would have needed to consolidate the corporate and take duty for it.
The German organisation Urgewald, talked about above, can also be crucial of the brand new construction. Amongst different issues, it’s involved that EP Power Transition is not going to have enough assets to recultivate the panorama affected by mining.
Karsten Smid, a researcher at Greenpeace’s German headquarters in Hamburg, expresses related considerations. ”Recultivation would require an funding of round three to 10 billion euros. Nonetheless, it’s at present unclear whether or not the corporate has these funds,” he instructed Deník Referendum. Nonetheless, EPH spokesman Daniel Častvaj instructed Deník Referendum that ”mining firms make provisions for recultivation in accordance with the related legal guidelines and laws”.
However recultivation just isn’t the one problem. Even the formal separation of the dirtiest vitality sources from the remainder of the corporate raises critical questions. ”EPH wants bond financing. However banks and different monetary establishments are already relying on the truth that coal has no future. The brand new accounting construction will assist the corporate look comparatively inexperienced and proceed to draw financing,” says Smid.
The plan to create a framework for elevating inexperienced finance can also be talked about by EPH in its sustainability report, alongside the declare that it’s going to virtually utterly part out coal-fired energy era by the tip of 2025. It’s subsequently potential that the switch of soiled assets is meant to assist EPH meet the standards for acquiring financing from, for instance, inexperienced bonds. These have stricter local weather influence necessities than typical bonds.
EPH energy crops lag behind European pattern in decarbonisation
”EPH is a European chief in decarbonisation and the transition from coal to wash vitality,” EPH proclaimed in its presentation final 12 months. Even at this time, the corporate sees itself as ”a frontrunner within the vitality transition in Europe”. This declare was echoed, for instance, by the then editor-in-chief of Křetínský’s media outlet Information.cz. However even on this case, the corporate’s self-portrayal is at odds with actuality.
We’ve analysed the info for all energy and heating crops – lively and retired – at present owned by EPH and in contrast it with your complete vitality sector within the European Union over the past ten years. A assessment of the discount in emissions in comparison with 2013 reveals that the ability crops by which EPH has an curiosity are following the European pattern and have lagged behind in recent times.
The corporate was 5 proportion factors worse off than the European energy sector final 12 months. We see the same pattern if we take the common of the primary three years.
One may ask whether or not the evaluation is biassed by the truth that now we have included all of the assets at present owned by the corporate, together with people who weren’t a part of the holding ten years in the past. In any case, EPH’s asset construction has modified past recognition over the previous ten years.
Nonetheless, the pattern is confirmed even when we take 2019 as a baseline, because the energy plant portfolio has not modified a lot since then till 2022. On the idea of the accessible information, it’s subsequently not possible to conclude that EPH is main the decarbonisation of the European Union, because it claims to be.
Up to now, now we have been lenient with the most important polluters in our calculations. Nonetheless, the share strategy now we have used to date doesn’t keep in mind who really makes the selections in regards to the operation of the plant, particularly in the long run. This too is controversial, as now we have seen.
Nonetheless, can there be a justification for the duty to reveal full emissions information for all operations by which firms or their house owners are concerned? Such a requirement could seem counterintuitive, as it could inevitably result in double counting of equivalent emissions to a number of shareholders.
However even such an strategy appears completely professional. If the said intention of local weather coverage is to part out greenhouse gas-emitting vitality sources and redirect assets in direction of non-emitting applied sciences, the market, along with the general public sector, ought to encourage buyers and shareholders to keep away from even partial possession of carbon emitting sources.
This strategy is kind of widespread once we take into account the distribution of duty for numerous different pathological behaviours or transgressions. Even when a number of perpetrators commit against the law collectively, every is held absolutely accountable. It’s subsequently applicable to require that the complete local weather influence of all operations by which firms or shareholders are concerned, both by means of possession or operational management, be accounted for.
It’s clear from the graph that the diploma of duty for the Lusatian energy crops that we attribute to EPH has a really vital influence on the corporate’s local weather accounting. For each RWE and PGE, the reported emissions don’t differ considerably from these attributed to them below the share or participation technique. The instance of EPH subsequently illustrates how essential it’s to know the complete local weather influence of firms if we wish to incentivise them to maneuver quickly away from fossil fuels.
On the European stage, the function of carbon accounting is at present being debated. A brand new European directive units out guidelines for so-called non-financial reporting. Massive firms must report on the environmental and social impacts of their actions beginning in 2024. The benefit is that firms is not going to solely have to clarify how local weather change and decarbonisation might threaten their monetary efficiency, but additionally how their enterprise itself impacts the setting and society.
Nonetheless, the just lately adopted model has moved away from necessary reporting on emissions specifically, leaving it on a voluntary foundation. Scientists have sharply criticised the European legislators for this.
With out correct data it’s not possible to make the suitable choices, in each the private and non-private sectors. However higher data on the true local weather influence of firms is just one small piece of the puzzle.
📺 Watch Deník Referendum’s editor-in-chief Jakub Patocka’s intervention on EPH’s emssions on the European Parliament in November 2023.
Assessing the true local weather influence of EPH additionally reveals a deeper drawback with our present strategy to reworking society to a zero-carbon financial system. Up to now, governments have largely left the tempo and nature of the transformation to the non-public finance sector.
It’s about setting guidelines. The fundamental start line would appear to be for the European Union and its member states to ascertain guidelines that make ’inventive’ carbon accounting, as practised by EPH, not possible, and to get rid of the potential for gaining an unfair benefit by intentionally creating parallel firms into which soiled operations are transferred in order that the unique firm can compete for inexperienced subsidies and funding.
Massive polluters like EPH routinely tout their constructive environmental, social and governance rankings and entice monetary buyers to purchase their bonds and finance their operations, though the fact of their local weather impacts is basically completely different. The instance of EPH reveals that the present strategy merely doesn’t result in a redirection of assets away from soiled industries in direction of greener types of enterprise. Governments themselves must take a way more lively function in figuring out the place private and non-private assets are channelled.
METHODOLOGY
Deník Referendum has been analysing the emissions of EPH and different European firms for a number of months. The information tracks CO2 emissions and emissions of different much less vital greenhouse gases, transformed into what is called CO2 equal (CO2eq).
The information on emissions from particular person energy and warmth era crops are primarily based on the European and UK Emissions Buying and selling Scheme (EU/UK ETS) databases, with a number of exceptions. The primary is the emissions determine for the Denizli energy plant in Turkey, which comes from the RWE Sustainability Report.
One other partial exception is the determine for the Lippendorf plant, the place LEAG owns solely one of many two lively items and operates the opposite for EnBW. Nonetheless, the emissions of each items are reported collectively within the EU ETS as they’ve a typical operator (LEAG). The distinction between the collectively reported emissions and the separate unit straight owned by LEAG is subsequently calculated by subtracting the emissions reported in LEAG’s sustainability report from the full of its verified emissions within the EU ETS database.
The reverse case is the Dutch Swentibold energy plant owned by RWE, whose emissions are reported by a separate entity along with different actions on the location. The emissions information for the separate energy plant might subsequently not be separated and added to RWE’s emissions.
Information on the possession of particular person energy crops are primarily based on analysis by the unbiased vitality think-tank Ember. These had been subsequently verified, specifically for RWE, PGE and EPH, and corrected for errors within the suppose tank’s analysis, primarily resulting from overlooking modifications in possession. We then added the precise possession share for every useful resource owned or co-owned by certainly one of these three firms.
As a part of our lenient strategy to company carbon accounting, in monitoring whole emissions now we have not attributed emissions to firms from sources that they function however don’t personal. As a substitute, now we have attributed emissions from most of these operations within the case of the participation technique within the final graph, which tracks the complete emissions of all operations by which firms take part ultimately.
In our analysis, we solely tracked emissions from energy and warmth crops. For instance, we didn’t embrace emissions from pure fuel storage amenities. These could also be included within the whole emissions reported by particular person firms. Nonetheless, they typically have a negligible influence on whole emissions.
EPH, for instance, consists of emissions from storage and logistics in its carbon accounting, however these are solely a small fraction of the full. Nonetheless, it’s tough to separate these from the corporate’s carbon accounting. And it’s higher for EPH to incorporate them, as this reduces the distinction between the emissions it stories and the emissions for which it’s really accountable.
To trace the decarbonisation pattern in Europe’s vitality sector over the previous decade, information on whole emissions from European energy and warmth crops relies on analysis by the think-tank Ember. Their database makes it potential to extract the sectoral class of electrical energy and warmth from the checklist of emissions from all actions lined by the EU ETS. This makes it potential to trace the EU-wide decarbonisation pattern of the sector and examine it with the emissions from EPH energy and warmth crops.
We’ve additionally used this Ember database in the same approach to assemble the graph displaying the share of the three largest emitters within the European energy sector’s emissions in 2022. Nonetheless, right here we needed to clear the info utilizing the newest information within the EU ETS database.
👉 Authentic article in Deník Referendum