Emissions Trading for Waste Incineration Plants with Energy Recovery in Sweden

(1)

Emissions trading for waste

incineration plants with energy

recovery in Sweden

Author: Ellen Philipsson

Spring

2020

Supervisor: Jakob Carlander

Examiner: Danica Djuric Ilic

(2)

Publication type:

Master’s thesis in Energy and Environmental Engineering Advanced

level, 30 credits

Spring semester 2020 ISRN Number:

LIU-IEI-TEK-A--20/03663—SE

Linköping University Department of Management and Engineering (IEI)

www.liu.se

(3)

ABSTRACT

Emission trading is a tool for achieving the European commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The aim is to create an effective European emissions trading market with the least possible negative impact on economic development and employment within the Union. Waste incineration plants in Sweden were added into this system in 2013 and the general situation has been a non-functioning market with a surplus of allowances where the emission cap was not tight enough to drive a significant reduction in emissions. For the upcoming trading period starting 2021 the cost for emission allowances is expected to increase due to the reformation, and the challenge is to allocate the cost for allowances in a fair and sustainable manner. The aim of this thesis is to present options on how to allocate the cost for emission allowances related to waste incineration plants with energy recovery in Sweden. The aim is further to understand how the cost allocation can result in a decrease of CO2 emissions and thereby a lower climate impact.

The initial idea for the research topic was proposed by the case study company and further developed in conjunction with the author, supervisor and examiner. The research is based on a case study of Tekniska Verken AB, an energy recovery company in Sweden. A case study approach was chosen as the research questions focuses on investigating a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context. Data collection consisted of a literature review, semi-structured interviews and field visits, where the interviews were the main source of data for this research.

The overall understanding is that the cost for emission allowances should be allocated further up the waste supply chain, all the way to product producers. By allocating the cost to waste providers by increased waste incineration treatment-price, the cost is pushed one step upstream. In this case, differentiating the waste providers by divide them into categories (such as municipal waste for example) and allocate the cost for emission allowances based on the performance of each category is a realistic and feasible solution aiming upstream. The cost can be allocated differently among waste providers depending on which category the waste derives from or on an overall level, tentatively using radiocarbon method. The radiocarbon method is considered reliable and practical to use compared to other options. Adopting polluters pay principle identifies the polluters and by allocating the cost for emitting carbon towards them plants an incentive to improve sorting and to decrease the share of fossil content. This can eventually contribute to a lower impact.

Keywords

Energy recovery, emissions trading, waste management, sustainability,

EU ETS

(4)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This master thesis was written in collaboration with Tekniska Verken AB, as part of an on-going overall assessment of the emission trading system connected to incineration plants. The advisors at the case study company have shown good enthusiasm and support throughout the research process providing guidance and information when needed.

I wish to take the opportunity to thank everyone involved in the development of the thesis. I would like to thank my supervisor at the university who has been supportive when needed and provided guidance in the completion of the thesis. Without the feedback and the opportunity to discuss ideas, the work throughout the research would have been struggling. I also would like to thank my examiner who has provided me with relevant previous research and interesting aspects to consider. Further, I would like to thank my opponents who have been analysing the work, and provided feedback. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends who have been very supportive during the development of the thesis.

(5)

1. Introduction

Current scientific thinking agrees on the view that human activities are likely responsible for most of the observed global warming and other climate changes (Oreskes 2004; Powell 2019). During the UN Conference on the Environment and Development that was held in Rio de Janeiro 1992, an agreement called Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was generated as a response to tackle the climate changes (UNFCCC 1992). An extension of this agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, came later in Japan 1997 that implemented the objective of the UNFCCC to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (UNFCCC 2000). The protocol came into effect in 2005 and consisted of developed countries committing themselves to targets and timetables for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (UNFCCC 2008). To meet these requirements, a market-based approach to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions was implemented (UNFCCC 2008). Market-based instruments are regulations that encourage behaviour through market signals rather than through explicit directives regarding pollution control levels or methods (Hockenstein, Stavins & Whitehead 1997; Stavins 2000). This approach refers to Emissions Trading Schemes and consists of several trading markets globally.

Emission trading is one of the EU's key tools for achieving the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Swedish Energy Agency 2019). The aim is to create an effective European emissions trading market with the least possible negative impact on economic development and employment within the Union (European Commission 2019). Further, EU ETS harmonizes climate policy within the EU in order to make a larger dent in global emissions and utilize the potential gains achievable through synergies at the EU level (Swedish Government 2017). The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) contains around 13,000 industrial and energy production industries, where about 750 of them are located in Sweden (Swedish Energy Agency 2019). In addition to the 28 member states of the EU, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland have included some facilities in the EU ETS (European Commission 2019). The trade is regulated by the EU directive 2003/87/EC, which covers all EU member states and is implemented in the national law of each country (European Commission 2008). Companies emitting less greenhouse gases than the number of allowances it disposes can save the allowances during the trading period, but another option is to sell the excess allowances to other companies (Naturvårdsverket, 2019). This means that companies that increase their emissions must buy allowances from other willing to sell them (Stavins 2001). In practice this means that buyers of allowances are penalized for their increased emissions, while the sellers are rewarded for decreased emissions. The EU ETS covers about 45 percentage of the total volume of EU greenhouse gas emissions, and the actual price for each allowance is determined by the market (Swedish Energy Agency 2019). If the emissions exceed the number of allowances disposed in the company, a sanction fee is exacted on the exceeding amount (Swedish law 2004:1199).

The first trading period of the EU ETS took place from 2005 to 2007 and was considered a pilot phase (Swedish Energy Agency 2019). It was used for testing price formation on the emission market and to establish the necessary infrastructure for

(7)

2 monitoring, reporting and verify the emissions. The emission cap was based mainly on estimates since there were insufficient reliable emission data available (Swedish Energy Agency 2019). The second trading period lasted from 2008 to 2012, allowing EU Member States to fulfil their Kyoto Protocol commitments. Changes in the EU ETS Directive during 2004 allowed facilities in the system to use international credits (CER / ERU) generated under the Kyoto Protocol's flexible mechanisms to fulfil their commitments (European Commission 2015). During this period, over 95 percent of the allowances were distributed free of charge (Swedish Energy Agency 2019). The third trading period of the EU ETS extends between 2013 and 2020. Aircraft operators have been included since 2012, and from 2013 there were also some additional sectors in the EU ETS (European Commission 2015). One of these sectors were incineration plants with an installed capacity of more than 20 MW alongside with combustion plants connected to district heating networks with a total capacity of more than 20 MW (Swedish Energy Agency 2019). So far, only Sweden and Denmark have included their incineration plants in the system (European Commission 2015).

1.1 Problem description

During trading period I and II allowances for emissions were typically given for free to companies, which resulted in allowances getting windfall profits1_{. Moreover, the}

emission cap was not tight enough to drive a significant reduction in emissions since the total allocation of allowances turned out to exceed actual emissions (Naturvårdsverket 2019). This surplus occurred because the allocation of allowances by the EU was based on emissions data from the European Environmental Agency in Copenhagen. This caused a surplus of 200 million tonnes in the EU ETS during the first trading period.

For trading period III, the European commission proposed a number of changes to make the system more effective. Among other changes, the planned auctioning of 900 million allowances during the years 2014-2016 was postponed and a market stability reserve was introduced in 2019 to avoid future surplus of allowances. However, the surplus of allowances continued to increase and for the fourth trading period between 2021-2030, the European Commission has decided that a reformation of the system is necessary. The reform includes a tighter yearly decrease of allowances on the market compared to previous period. The decision also includes annulation of allowances from 2023 that is yearly transitioned into the market stability reserve that transcends previous years auctioning.

For the waste incineration plants that were added into the EU ETS by 2013 the general situation has been a non-functioning market with a surplus of allowances (Naturvårdsverket 2019). However, with upcoming trading period starting 2021 the incineration plants are expecting the cost for emission allowances to increase due to the reformation. For the case study company, Tekniska Verken AB, the emission allowances are currently allocated to customers of the energy recovered. According to the European Commission (2008) and Djuric Ilic & Ödlund (2018), the allocation

1_{Windfall profits are large, unexpected, gains resulting from lucky circumstances. They are}

(8)

3 should rather be directed upstream and accrue the waste producers, and thereby applying The-Polluters-Pay principle2_{. The challenge is thus to allocate the cost for}

allowances among the waste producers in a fair and sustainable manner for the upcoming trading period, as different waste providers contribute to varying amount of fossil carbon.

1.2 Aim and research questions

The aim of this thesis is to present options on how to allocate the cost for emission allowances in waste incineration plants with energy recovery in Sweden. The aim is further to understand how the cost allocation can result in a decrease of CO2 emissions and thereby a lower climate impact. The following questions are stated to fulfil the aim with the objective to find answers throughout the thesis.

How could the cost for emission allowances covered in the EU ETS be allocated among stakeholders in the waste production-treatment life cycle? How can the allocation contribute to lower climate impact?

The term “cost allocation” here refers to the cost for allowances that are to be allocated both in theory and in practice by the organization being subject for EU ETS. The long-term aim of allocating the cost for allowances to the accurate polluter is to see the overall fossil content decrease. With decreased fossil content in the waste, less CO2 is emitted and the waste incineration plants will thereby experience a decreased demand for allowances.

1.3 Significance of the research

As the system of emission trading allowances is a rather new phenomena introduced into the energy recovery business, historical findings and data are limited. This together with the fact that the system changes and evolves throughout new trading periods makes the research significant. Furthermore, it is relevant to transfer the allocation to the accurate polluter and thereby give the waste producers the ability to decrease the emissions they should be accounted for. Improved sorting and awareness related to fossil share content could both be achieved with improved research within the subject. Ideally it would result in a decrease of the overall emissions eventually, and lowered impact on the climate. With information and measures about the fossil content for the waste producers, a change and an improvement are likely to be aimed for.

(9)

4

2. Background

This chapter presents the relevant previous research and theory to clarify and support the topic of the thesis. Frameworks and supporting concepts are described throughout this chapter. The theory presented here is the foundation for the development of the aim of this thesis and is later used as the basis for the analysis.

2.1 Allocation of CO2 emissions

The academic research within this topic is rather limited and the industry is lacking a robust method for allocation of emissions (Avfall Sverige, 2014). However, recent studies and theory has shown that a systems perspective and upstream approach is preferred from a sustainable point of view (Ilic & Ödlund, 2018). It can therefore be concluded that the cost for CO2 emissions such as allowances included in EU ETS should also be allocated in an upstream approach. Applying the upstream approach includes detecting and managing the primary problems that is connected to other problems later in the system, and which problems that are detected as primary problems depends on the system boundaries (Ilic & Ödlund, 2018).

For the overall discussion of including waste incineration plants with energy recovery in EU ETS, an expanded system boundary should be applied to avoid problem shifting (Ilic & Ödlund, 2018). That would include the product producers and their impact on the waste that is incinerated. However, with the limitations and aim of this thesis the system boundaries stretch from waste generators to waste incineration plants with energy recovery, see figure 1. Since waste incineration plants are to pay for the allowances, the cost can be distributed either one step upstream or one step downstream from the waste incineration company. Since it is previously established that waste treatment is the primary service provided by Ilic & Ödlund (2018), an upstream approach is thereby preferred. That approach is therefore chosen also for this thesis.

Figure 1. Boundaries of the thesis

2.1.1 Polluters pay principle

Applying the “Polluters Pay Principle” means that stakeholders that cause damage to the environment should pay the socio-economic costs (European Commission 2008). This principle is described in the EU Commission Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC and states, “the costs of waste management shall be borne by the original waste producer or by the current or previous waste holders” (p. 14). For this study and previous mentioned boundaries, the polluters can be identified as the provider of waste containing fossil carbon. By identifying them and allocate the cost for emitting

(10)

5 CO2 emissions in the same direction would give the polluters incentives to act and to reduce the problem that they cause (Ilic & Ödlund, 2018).

2.1.2 Waste management hierarchy

The waste management hierarchy is a part of the European waste management policy. The directive presents a five-step waste hierarchy where prevention is the best option, followed by re-use, material recycling and other forms of energy recovery, with disposal such as landfill as the least desirable option, see figure 2 (European Commission 2010). Some countries in Europe, for example Sweden, have material recycling and energy recovery as the predominant waste management option due to a landfill ban. In Sweden it is illegal to landfill sorted burnable waste and organic waste (Naturvårdsverket, 2005). However, some European countries use landfills for the majority of their waste. The overall European goal is to make all countries move up the waste hierarchy, indifferent the starting position (European Commission 2010). According to the waste hierarchy, waste incineration with energy recovery being subject for EU ETS are the second least desirable option.

Figure 2. Waste management hierarchy

2.1.3 Cap-and-trade system

The EU ETS is a so-called Cap-and-trade system where a cap is set on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by the installations covered by the system (Benkovic & Kruger 2001). The level of the cap determines the number of allowances in the system and is designed to decrease annually. The gradual reduction allows companies to slowly adapt to meet increasingly ambitious emission reduction targets. Emission allowances allow the release of greenhouse gases where every allowance corresponds to 1 tone of CO2 equivalents (Swedish Energy Agency 2019). A central authority or governmental body allocates or sells a limited number of allowances to discharge specific quantities of a specific pollutant per trading period (C2ES 2011). In Sweden the emission trading system is regulated by the law

(2004:1199) Emissions Trading and the regulation (2004:1205) Emissions Trading,

where the Environmental Protection Agency operates as the authority responsible to handle errands concerning emission allowances (Naturvårdsverket 2019). Each

Prevention Reuse Recycle Recover energy Disposal

Maximum conservation of resources Reusing materials

Recycling & reprocessing materials Energy recovery prior to disposal Zero conservation of resources

(11)

6 transfer of ownership between countries within the European Union is additionally validated by the European Commission (European Commission, 2019).

2.2 Analysing the waste

Once it is established that emissions for waste incineration with energy recovery are to be allocated in an upstream approach and that the polluter can be identified as the provider of fossil carbon content for incineration, the waste needs to be further analysed. In order to determine the emission relevance (CO2) of waste, reliable and practical methods is required that analyses the differentiation between biogenic and fossil carbon. Compared to fossil fuels, waste shows a much broader variation in composition, which is strongly dependent on what type of waste that is provided for incineration with energy recovery (Aschenbrennera et al., 2018). There are four standardized methods available (Jones et al. 2013), which are presented closer below.

2.2.1 Radiocarbon method (14C Method)

This method consists of flue gas samples that are taken of the flue gas resulting from waste incineration and is further explained in the standard EN 15440:2011. Radiocarbon method is based on the same concepts as radiocarbon dating, but instead of age equations a ratio is derived from the present amount of radiocarbon in a sample that is put in reference to a modern standard (Jones et al., 2013). This gives a distinction of fossil carbon, where all originally existing 14C is completely decayed (Jones et al., 2013). The biogenic content in the waste are reported as percentage modern carbon, which allows calculation of fossil carbon (Jones et al., 2013).

Due to anthropogenic activities, the level of 14C in the atmosphere changes over time, which complicates interpretation of results (Jones et al., 2013). This means that this analysis method requires an atmospheric correction factor that corresponds to the changes. With the analysis standard for 14C-analysis CEN/TS 15747 (2008), it is possible to analyse the fossil carbon content in solid samples and flue gas samples. Carbon-14 analysis is not limited by the biodegradability of the waste (Jones et al., 2013).

2.2.2 Selective dissolution method

The selective dissolution method assumes that biomass fuel components of solid recovered fuels will dissolve in sulphuric acid or hydrogen peroxide but the fossil-fuel components will not (Jones et al., 2013). The method is described in the standard EN 15440:2011. When applying this method for solid recovered fuels, the assumption is further that biomass is equivalent to biodegradable, which is not accurate and the uncertainties should be acknowledged (Beta Analytic, 2020). The reliability of this standardized method strongly depends on the type and composition of the waste as this method is not applicable to some materials usually present in solid recovered fuel (Aschenbrennera et al. 2018).

(12)

7 2.2.3 Manual sorting method

Manual sorting was the first method used to draw conclusions and make analysis about the content of the waste intended for waste incineration. The method is described in detail in the standard EN 15440:201, but can shortly be described as a method where the waste is manually inspected and sorted by operators.

Manual sorting has the advantage of providing knowledge about what kind of waste that is thrown away for waste incineration. However, this method offers limited information about the fossil content of the waste, as it is difficult deciding this for each item intended for waste incineration. The reliability of this method strongly depends on the type and composition of the waste (Aschenbrennera et al. 2018). As manual sorting is greatly affected by the knowledge of the sorting person and available facts about the waste compounds, the uncertainties of this method are hard to calculate (Jones et al., 2013).

2.2.4 Balance method

The balance method consists of a calculation based on mass balances and energy balances, which together provide an over-determined system of equations (Fellner et al., 2007). The method uses operational data from existing control systems in the plants where the main input is the balance between oxygen consumption and CO2-formation in the process (Jones et al., 2013). The actual method is based on the fact that there are several fundamental differences between the biogenic and fossil carbon reactions during a combustion process, which allows for separation of the two (Fellner et al., 2007).

This method has advantages compared to previous mentioned methods with respect to reliability and/or costs (Aschenbrennera et al. 2018). The method has also been recognized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as an approved methodology to determine the fraction of fossil carbon in waste. Even so, it has been argued that the result from this method is rather sensitive due to the influence of operational data that may vary and lack relevant information.

2.3 Differentiating waste providers

Variations in the waste can appear due to different types of commercial and industrial waste, municipal solid waste, waste collection scheme, or seasonal variations in waste generation (Aschenbrennera et al. 2018). Djuric & Ödlund (2018) identifies four categories of waste providers that is relevant for the waste incineration plants with energy recovery in Sweden to observe; waste that is rejected from material recycling, municipal waste, industrial waste and imported waste. All the waste provided for waste incineration in Sweden can roughly be split into these four categories Since the origin of waste differs among the categories, the polluter for each category is assumed to differ.

Thereby, three different levels of waste providers are identified as relevant to study, see figure 3. Level 1: All waste provided for waste incineration, level 2: Waste provided from each category mentioned above and level 3: Waste provided from a specific provider.

(13)

Figure 3. Different levels of waste providers

All waste provided for waste incineration Municipal Waste Municipal #1 Municipal #n Industrial Waste Industry #1 Industry #n Waste rejected from material recycling Recycler #1 Recycler #n Imported Waste Importer #1 Importer #n

(14)

2.4 Framework cost allocation for emission allowances

From the background, following framework is derived, see table 1. It combines the different options of determining fossil carbon content with different options of how to differentiate the waste providers. Treatment price is the price waste providers pay to have the waste incinerated by the waste incineration plants.

Table 1. Framework cost allocation approaches for emission allowances based on fossil carbon content

Waste:

Method:

All Waste Waste separated

by category

Waste from specific provider Radiocarbon

method

Distribute the cost equally on treatment price for each contract-price

Distribute the cost equally on the treatment price depending on fossil content for the category

Distribute the cost equally on the treatment price depending on fossil content for that specific waste provider Selective dissolution method Manual sorting method Balance method

To answer the research question “How could the cost for emission allowances covered in the EU ETS be allocated among stakeholders in the waste production-treatment life cycle?”, the level of waste provider and method to determine the fossil carbon content should be established.

(15)

10

3. Method

This chapter of the thesis describes the overall process and methods used to gather the necessary data and information to fulfil the purpose of this thesis and answer the research questions. Clarification of the research topic and approach is presented first, which after the design and process of data collection and analysis is explained more in detail. This chapter also describes and assesses the quality of the research and the ethical considerations as well as identifies possible limitations of the research.

3.1 Research topic

The initial idea for the research topic was proposed by the case study company and further developed in conjunction with the author, advisor and examiner. It begun with researching discussions related to emissions trading to gain a better understanding of the topic and which parts that were of more interest to the case study company, and in need of more academic research. Hence, the topic chosen had to be not only interesting from the industry perspective, but also relevant from academic perspective. In accordance to this, the research topic was determined. After some research online and first contact with key stakeholders, it proved to be a much-discussed topic in the industry, but with little previous academic research. Further, the topic of emissions trading was something the author found relevant to initial areas of interest and where a contribution was found to be possible.

3.2 Research approach

The author chose to adopt a qualitative and interpretive research approach. According to Klein & Myers (1999) and Rowlands (2005), interpretive qualitative research rests on the assumption that knowledge is acquired through social constructions such as language, consciousness, and shared meanings. Moreover, the author chose to adopt inductive research methods working from data to theory. Inductive research implies the intention to produce theory and knowledge inductively, instead of deductively test and verify/falsify an existing theory (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Charmaz, 2014). The topic of the thesis is lacking adequate theoretical understanding and empirical support, and therefore the intention to conduct a research should be qualitative (Bryman & Bell, 2015). They continue stating that when research is done on a topic that is yet not well understood, a qualitative method is preferred, as in this case.

3.3 Research design

The research is based on a case study of Tekniska Verken AB and the assessment of cost allocation for emission trading allowances. According to Yin (2014), a case study approach is suitable when the research questions focuses on investigating a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context. Furthermore, a case study is appropriate where questions of the type “how” or “why” are asked (Yin, 2014). The remarks from Yin (2014) suit well with the intended aim and research questions. In addition to choosing case study for the research, the author adopted a qualitative method, as the research is primarily exploratory. The qualitative method gains an understanding of underlying reasons, opinions and motivations, and provides

(16)

11 information about the problem that potentially can be used for quantitative research (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The method chosen was further based on the availability and feasibility throughout the study.

The study took part from December 2019 to April 2020, where the fieldwork mainly took place in March and April 2020 with the exception of a field visit in December 2019. The assessment process mainly consisted of five semi-structured interviews with relevant key stakeholders and focused on discussing the challenges in relation to cost allocation for emission allowances. Key stakeholders involved energy strategists and researchers both at the case study company and other relevant organizations. Furthermore, the assessment process continued with six semi-structured interviews that were held with waste providers. Besides the interviews, a literature review and filed visits also contributed to the assessment process.

3.4 Data selection and collection

Case study research usually relies upon multiple sources of information and methods (Yin, 2014; Neale et al., 2006). Each method used for the data collected is described more in detail below.

3.4.1 Literature and document review

Different databases were used to make sure that many different sources were covered. These online databases included LiU library search, Google Scholar and Web of Science and various search words were used related to emissions trading, EU ETS, energy recovery and waste management. Documentation from Tekniska Verken AB, Avfall Sverige and several governmental institutions were reviewed and relevant data collected.

3.4.2 Interviews

According to Yin (2014), there are different types of interviews that can be conducted when collecting data during a case study. The interview can either be structured, unstructured or semi-structured. A structured interview contains questions that are planned and created in advance, with no spontaneous follow up questions or free-flowing conversation. The advantage of this type is the easiness of comparing answers and finding clear patterns in the data collected. However, the disadvantage is the inflexibility and risk of missing out of relevant information to questions that arises during the interview. An unstructured interview has no questions prepared in advance, and different interviewees are asked different questions. During an unstructured interview, the questions arise as the interview proceeds making it very personalized. This creates a casual and natural conversation, which enables all information possessed by the interviewee to be collected. The disadvantage, however, is the sprawling result from the interview making it very difficult to compare and evaluate the answers.

Combining the structured and unstructured way of interviewing results in the semi-structured type, which offers the advantages of both. A semi-semi-structured interview has a few prepared questions but includes spontaneous questions as the interview

(17)

12 continues. It allows the objective comparison of answers from the candidates, while also providing the opportunity to explore the topic relevant to that specific candidate. Since the semi-structured contains several advantages, as mentioned above, together with the variation in knowledge and experience of the respondents, this was the type chosen for this study.

These data collections in the form of interviews were the main source of data for this research. Altogether, the author conducted 11 interviews through two different ways, either through phone or meeting face-to-face. Six of the interviews were conducted with waste providers, and five were conducted with relevant waste incineration stakeholders both at the case study company and other organisations. They were considered relevant due to their involvement in the development of a sustainable approach towards EU ETS for energy recovery plants. The interviews took place during March and April, 2020 and consisted of some closed and some open questions, since it was semi-structured. It was important to enable free discussions on the topics that were considered important to the informants, which according to Bryman & Bell (2015) allows further abdicative reasoning. The interviews were done in a rather informal conversational manner, making use of the benefit of the semi-structured approach making the informants feel more comfortable discussing the questions and the author could feel comfortable to ask follow-up questions.

Informants were given information about the topic on beforehand which enabled them to prepare themselves and spend some time reflecting on the area of research. Permission to record the interview was asked for in the beginning of each interview. The recording provided the possibility to afterwards analyse the answers and avoid any loss of information.

The interview-questions can be found in Appendix A, and were derived from the theoretical background created previous to the interviews. Firstly, questions about the informants and the organization were asked to understand the responsibilities of the informants and their relation to emissions trading for energy recovery plants. During the interviews it became clear that depending on the informant; different questions took different time to answer.

3.4.3 Field visits

For the main part of the time, the author was placed at one of the offices of the case study company. This facilitated interception of attitudes among employees about the studied topic. The case study company conducted an incineration experiment at one of their facilities in December 2019 trying to differentiate the waste from one provider. The aim was to take a flue gas test from when that specific waste was incinerated and thereby determine how large percentage of the waste that contained non-organic fossil waste using the radiocarbon method. During the experiment, notes were taken to decrease the risk of losing valuable information.

(18)

13

3.5 Data analysis

The analysis of the data from literature study, interviews and field visits was based on the framework developed at the end of the background chapter. The aim throughout the data analysis was to find certain patterns from the collected data regarding the studied topic. The observation and the interviews gave a basis to start contrasting the data to the previous research findings from the theoretical background. Overall patterns, apparent similarities as well as differences that could be of value were analysed. The analysis was then summarised into concluding remarks, which answered the research questions of this thesis. A summary of answers from the interviews can be found in appendix B.

To analyse the data collected regarding the different methods for analysing the waste, several evaluation aspects were used. The first aspect is how reliable the method is considered how trustworthy test-results about the fossil share content are. The second aspect is how practical the method is to use and implement in order to decide on the feasibility of the method. These aspects are considered sufficient to use when analysing the data, and to be able to evaluate the methods to fit the EU ETS system for waste incineration plants with energy recovery.

3.6 Research quality

Bryman and Bell (2015) argues that validity and reliability are used as criterions to establish and assess the quality of a research. They continue stating that adapting validity and reliability to qualitative research means that external and internal validity as well as external and internal reliability should be considered as measures.

External validity indicates the degree to which the findings can be generalizable (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Further, Bryman and Bell (2015) explains that this is a common issue for qualitative research, especially when case studies and small sample sizes are used. To minimise this issue, the author chose to include not only key persons from Tekniska Verken but also other relevant key stakeholders outside of the organisation. That led to more generalizable results and an improvement of the external validity of the research. Internal validity focuses on the balance between the observations of the researcher and the theory developed out of those observations (Bryman & Bell, 2015). To avoid risks with the internal validity of the thesis, the boundaries were kept narrow and enabled the author being more certain of the validity of the observations. For example, keeping the boundaries to only include Swedish waste incineration plants disregarded major cultural or other national differences. Further, ensuring internal validity the data collected needed to lead to the right information and thereby the right analysis and conclusions. To ensure the quality of the people interviewed some background questions were asked to verify the informants had required knowledge about the topic. However, the ability to answer the questions varied among the informants.

External reliability indicates the degree to which the study can be replicated (Bryman & Bell, 2015). For a qualitative research, this can be difficult due to social circumstances that are in constant movement and therefore replication is not common for business research (Bryman & Bell, 2015). To enable further replicability of this research, the author has ensured to be as accurate as possible with the way of how this

(19)

14 thesis was conducted. The method of the collection of data had been described and the uses of concepts in the thesis are clear. Internal reliability focuses on the coherence of the observations of the researcher (Bryman & Bell, 2015). This is a relevant factor since one person conducted this research. To avoid eventual problems with the internal reliability, issues that arose were discussed with supervisor both at the university as well as the supervisor at the case study company.

3.7 Limitations

For this thesis, there are some limitations that should be highlighted. First, the time to conduct the thesis and finalise the study was limited to five months, and therefore more extensive research was not possible. Second, the method and depth of the data collection was limited as the interviews did not necessarily create the depth of the study that it under other circumstances could have. Finally, the limitation with highest impact of the research within this field is the scope and system boundaries, see figure 1. Ideally, a broader system perspective should have been adopted to avoid analyses and conclusions contributing to problem shifting. For example, in certain cases the best option, considering the environment, is to incinerate the waste although it contains a lot of carbon. However, by emphasise the system boundaries apparent in the thesis, the findings of this research can still be of relevance.

Considering the limitations of the time and resources, the author considers the chosen methods to be sufficient and legitimate for the aim of presenting options on how to cost allocate for emission allowances in waste incineration plants with energy recovery in Sweden. Further, the author considers the chosen methods to be sufficient for the aim of understanding how cost allocation can contribute to a lower climate impact.

4. Empirical results & analysis

The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings and results from the empirical data collected based on the methods presented in chapter 3. Further, this chapter incorporates the analysis of the findings identified connected to the research questions.

4.1 Results for approaching allocation of cost for emission allowances

From the data collected based on the interviews, it became apparent that EU ETS not yet is a system that is well established among several stakeholders of companies which perform waste treatment by waste incineration that includes energy recovery. The understanding from respondents is that waste incineration plants with energy recovery are providing a service to treat the waste in a sustainable manner, and are somewhat punished for that by being included in the EU ETS. Several respondents from the interviews compared and equated emission allowances with the waste

(20)

15 incineration tax introduced in April 20203_{, which like EU ETS is counterproductive}

according to them. The cost for emissions should rather be affecting the source of waste: when the products ending up as waste are being produced. Furthermore, dissatisfaction could be identified over the fact that Sweden is one of two countries in Europe including waste incineration plants in EU ETS. From an environmental and competitive point of view, all European countries should include their waste incineration plants. As the system is not optional with current legislation, the respondents from the interviews were however interested in how to deal with the allocation of cost for emission allowances. They also emphasised that if EU ETS was sustainable and fair, meaning that the accurate polluter pays for the accurate amount of CO2 and including all countries in EU, it could be a functioning system to decrease CO2 emissions.

An aspect to address with the upcoming reformation in combination with waste incineration tax is the risk of waste providers seeking other actors on the market when increasing the treatment-price. Due to the Swedish regulation regarding counteraction of cooperation between competitors about pricing-strategy at the market4_{, no joint}

solution can be expected. However, as all waste incineration plants within Sweden are facing the same changes, the risk is considered minor according to several respondents. Furthermore, as the waste situation looks today with many waste incineration plants in Sweden operating on the European and international market, the supply of waste is considered steady. The waste provider segment might change with increased treatment-price, but the risk of experiencing shortage of fuel for the boilers is considered low. One interviewee mentioned that waste should be treated as product production: globally, and not necessarily locally.

4.2 Evaluation of methods used for analysing the waste

The different options for determining the fossil content of the waste, mainly based on what is found in literature and documents, have been evaluated. The radiocarbon method can be successful with larger amounts of waste, which can be provided when merging waste within the same category together for example. For the withdrawing of information about how large amount of fossil carbon that is emitted when incinerating the waste, this is a sufficient and reliable option. One aspect to consider is the lack of information about what kind of waste that is incinerated using the radiocarbon method. This is can be answered by using the manual sorting method that can provide this information. For EU ETS however, the only information needed when reporting is how much fossil carbon that is emitted and not what kind of waste that causes the emissions. That fact, together with flue gas samples being more trustworthy (Jones et al. 2013), speaks for using the radiocarbon method over the manual sorting method. The selective dissolution method as it is described in literature obtains various disadvantages compared to the radiocarbon method, as it is not well suited for several materials found in the waste meant for incineration. Continuing, the balanced method contains aspects that can affect the reliability of the method described in chapter

3_{Tax introduced as a control mean to promote recycling to a higher extent and thereby}

decreased emissions. 2020 the additional tax is set to 75 kr per ton waste, and is planned to increase yearly.

(21)

16 2.2.4. However, one advantage of the balanced method is the cost aspect as the method uses operational data from existing control system in the waste incineration plants. For this case study, the organisation being subject for research uses the radiocarbon method to report about their emissions.

One aspect that were of high value to waste providers was the information of what kind of waste (e.g. packaging) that is incinerated, and several respondents expressed that this information would be of higher value to them rather than how large share of the waste that is emitting fossil carbon. Using the radiocarbon method, this information would not be possible to provide. The knowledge about the different alternatives of how to determine the fossil share content of waste among respondents of the interviews were however limited. The manual sorting method was the method where most knowledge was present and was used by several of the waste providers in their processes in order to acquire knowledge about the content in the waste. They were using the information to direct the efforts of improve sorting in the right direction. None of the waste providers responding in the interview had sufficient information about the fossil share content in their waste sent to waste incineration. Answering the question about whether this information would be of any use to the waste providers, the response was that it would give a measure of how well they are preforming in their efforts of improving sorting. However, being merged into a category of several waste providers this measure would most likely not be of any use according to the respondents. If it would be possible to differentiate the waste and allocate a certain amount of fossil carbon emissions to a specific provider, the waste providers would appreciate transparency about the performance. That information would be useful in the sense that the best performing waste providers could share knowledge about their efforts in their mission of decreasing the share of fossil carbon in the waste.

4.3 Possibilities to differentiate waste providers

Assuming the waste and fossil share content differs among the different waste providers, the data collected all point in the direction of differentiate the waste providers. The Polluters Pay Principle states that the costs of waste management (which in this case includes emission allowances) should be acquired the original waste producer or by the current or previous waste holder. The first natural step is to allocate the cost for emissions to the waste providers on an overall level, but in order to actually target the waste providers and polluters that can affect the decrease of CO2 emissions the most, information about which they are needs to be stated. All respondents from the interviews agreed on that the best solution would be to customize the treatment-price based on how large share of CO2 emissions that the specific waste contributed to. It was however contemplated that the complexity and uncertainty of such a setup would be significant.

During data collection, it became apparent that with the methods available today to separate and analyse waste from one provider to another, numerous samples would be necessary in order to maintain a high validity. When deciding how often tests should be conducted, the capacity of the boiler and the everyday operation needs to be taken into consideration. As the waste content tends to differ during the year, an interval of

(22)

17 taking samples every quartile was suggested from several respondents. Taking samples with that frequency of all waste providers of the caste study organisation using the radiocarbon method is not considered feasible due to the requirements it would involve. It would highly affect the everyday operation and require a robust logistic setup. One option that was presented was to invest in a small waste incineration facility with focus on conducting tests. However, merging waste providers into categories and take samples with the same frequency would enable to obtain results trustworthy enough to base the pricing strategy on the results. More so, if deciding on the alternative of distribute the cost equally on all waste incinerated no change in the processes of testing is needed for the case study company. As the setup is today, flue gas is collected during a period of three mounts (four times a year) before the test is sent for analyse.

As mentioned above, information about fossil share content would be of little use to waste providers when being merged into a category of several waste providers. However, the majority of the respondents agreed that it would be preferable to be merged into a category with similar waste providers and have their indirect price for emission allowances based on the performance of the category rather than the overall performance of all waste being incinerated. This alternative was considered realistic to implement by several waste incineration stakeholders. However, dividing the waste providers into the four categories presented in this thesis could be too inelastic and it was frequently mentioned that subcategories probably would serve well.

4.3.1 Results from the field visits

From one of the field visits it was learnt that trying to differentiate the waste providers on level 3 (waste from one specific provider) by fossil-based content using the radiocarbon method, see table 2, was complicated. The experiment failed due to the high moisture-content of the waste. When trying to incinerate the selected waste in the combustion boiler the high moisture-content caused the boiler to decrease in effect and when reaching a critical level, the experiment was aborted. The small homogeneous amount of waste was insufficient to conduct a radiocarbon test on. Table 2. Framework cost allocation with the option for the experiment highlighted in green

Waste:

Method:

by category specific provider Waste from Radiocarbon

method

(23)

18 Several critical factors were identified for this option during the field visit, where good incineration quality was one. To be able to differentiate the waste from a specific provider using the radiocarbon method the batch being tested needs to be dry enough to not affect the effect of the boiler during operational hours. For the experiment conducted, the waste had been collected and stored in an outdoors area. This option puts certain requirements on the logistics of collecting and storing the waste being subject for testing. Other critical factors to consider for this option that became apparent, is to decide how representative the test results are for the total amount of waste from that specific provider and how often these tests need to be conducted. Finally, using the same boiler as used for everyday operation creates an uncertainty of when the waste being subject for testing starts to burn and when the mixed waste continues.

5. Concluding discussion

This section of the thesis summarizes the analysis and states the conclusion. Therefore, based on the analysis and drawn conclusions, the research questions set in the beginning of this thesis is answered and the aim of this thesis fulfilled.

5.1 Discussion

The overall agreement is that the cost for emission allowances should be allocated further up the waste supply chain, all the way to product producers. Waste incineration plants have little influence of what is in the waste once it reaches the plant. The upstream approach is established in previous research, and by taking it one step further to analyse the waste and differentiate the waste providers the goal to detect the polluters, according to the polluters pay principle, is within reach. By allocating the cost to waste providers by increased waste incineration treatment-price, the cost is pushed one step upstream.

I

t is difficult to directly compare the different methods for analysing the fossil carbon content in the waste presented in this research. Beyond the estimation of emitted fossil carbon the methods provide other information, which can be valuable to the incineration plant. Therefore, the choice of method can be influenced by factors other than determination of fossil fuel emissions when considering implementation in the incineration plants. However, in order to detect how much CO2 that is emitted from waste incineration, which is aligning with requirements in EU ETS, the radiocarbon method is preferred. With that concluded, it is not excluded to combine the methods presented in this report.

With the techniques available today for determining the fossil content, it will be costly and require a lot of effort to differentiate each waste provider from each other and is therefore not suggested as an option. It should not be neglected that an increased treatment-price on an overall level might contribute to a decrease of fossil carbon emissions in more than one way. With increased price for incineration of waste, the actual amount of waste could decrease and other options, such as recycling, are likely to be exploited in a higher degree. Although the fossil share content of the waste provided for incineration might be unchanged, the actual amount of waste may decrease. This resulting in an indirect decrease of the fossil carbon from each waste

(24)

19 provider. Furthermore, no burden of proof of test results is needed if the cost is equally distributed on all waste providers. It is clear that it would require little administrative and logistical efforts to distribute the cost equally on all waste providers compared to trying to differentiate the waste providers. However, if being serious about trying to find the actual polluters that contribute most to fossil carbon emission, more effort should be put in.

5.2 Conclusions

As stated earlier, the overall understanding is that the cost for emission allowances should be allocated further up the waste supply chain. In this case, differentiating the waste providers by divide them into categories (such as municipal waste for example) and allocate the cost for emission allowances based on the performance of each category is a realistic and feasible solution aiming upstream. The cost can be allocated differently among waste providers depending on which category the waste derives from or on an overall level, tentatively using radiocarbon method. The radiocarbon method is considered reliable and practical to use compared to other options. Adopting polluters pay principle identifies the polluters and by allocating the cost for emitting carbon towards them plants an incentive to improve sorting and to decrease the share of fossil content. This can eventually contribute to a lower impact.

5.3 Cost allocation suggestions for case study company

Firstly, allocate the CO2 emissions caused by waste incineration from district heat customers to waste providers on an overall level, see red highlight in table 3. Secondly, differentiate the waste providers by category, either by categories suggested in this study or other, see orange highlight in table 3. Subcategories could be a good supplement to the overall categories and should be exploited.

Table 3. Framework cost allocation with the implementation suggestions highlighted

Waste:

Method:

by category

Waste from specific provider Radiocarbon

method

(25)

20

5. 4 Concluding remarks

It should be highlighted that EU ETS is an end-of-pipe solution5_{, and the findings}

presented above are based on the current legislation and policy that energy recovery plants are required to hold these emission allowances. However, taking on a broader system perspective and further applying an upstream approach, the allocation might look a bit different. According to the waste management hierarchy there are three steps more favorable than energy recovery and by allocating the emission permits to the fossil-product producers, these steps are exploited in a higher degree. This is possible with the starting point that all fossil-based products are incinerated in the end of their product life cycle. The allocation should be based on a cost strategy for product producers that consider the choice of material (recycled/virgin) and the life spam of the product. This means in practice that if a company produces a fossil-product from recycled material and with a relatively long life spam, it could be offered an allowance relief. Consequently, if a company produces a fossil-product from virgin material with a relatively short life spam, the cost for emission permits will be impending. Regarding the non-EU imported fossil-based products, the cost for emissions could be added to the custom.

One of the problems today with recycled material is the possible insufficient quality and the absence of economic benefits. By applying the suggested system, both these issues are dealt with in an organic way. When there are economic incentives to use recycled material, more effort to innovate robust sustainable material from recycled material is likely to be seen. Furthermore, the demand for recycled material will thereby increase and in order to supply this demand a material refund system could be one example of solving that aspect. Applying a material refund system gives incentives to both private persons and organizations to improve their sorting. An additional result of the suggested system is the product development process that is expected to improve in the degree of possibility to dismantle, and decrease in usage of mixed material.

By applying an upstream approach, the share of fossil-based content in the incinerated waste will decrease essentially, and consequently also the cost for emission allowances. Sweden is, as mentioned earlier, one of two countries that has included energy recovery plants into the EU ETS and the system should be evaluated from this critical viewpoint before more countries follow. The government and policy-makers on EU-level should be aware of the complexity of allocating emission allowances to energy recovery plants. From a system perspective, the cost allocation for emissions allowances should shift from waste incineration energy recovery plants to fossil-based product producers.

5. 3 Suggestions for future research

The research has some limitations that were discussed in more detail in chapter 3.7, giving indication of further research possibilities. The empirical data collection relied on a limited amount of sources, and therefore further empirical research with a larger

5_{Method used to handle already formed contaminants from a stream of air, water, waste,}

(26)

21 sample size would bring more validity for the findings of this research. Furthermore, the approaches that were developed could be tested more in-depth.

(27)

22

References

Aschenbrennera et al. 2018. “An alternative method to determine the share of fossil carbon in solid refused derived fuels – Validation and comparison with three standardized methods” Fuel, ISSN: 0016-2361, Vol: 220, Page: 916-930. Beta Analytic (2020), “Carbon-14 Analysis vs. Selective Dissolution Method”. [Online] Available at:

https://www.betalabservices.com/renewable-carbon/carbon-credits-sdm.html [Accessed 26.03.2020]

Benkovic, S., Kruger, J., 2001. “To trade or not to trade? Criteria for applying cap and trade. Optimizing nitrogen management in food and energy production and

environmental protection”. Proceedings of the Second International Nitrogen Conference on Science and Policy. The Scientific World 1

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2015). “Business Research Methods”. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) (2017), “International emissions”. [Online] Available at: Retrieved 23rd_{of October 2019,}

https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ [Accessed 23.11.2019] Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) (2019), “Climate change 101: Cap and Trade”. [Online] Available at: Retrieved 23rd_{of October 2019,}

https://web.archive.org/web/20171005153958/http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/clima te101-captrade.pdf [Accessed 23.11.2019]

Charmaz, K., 2014. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: SAGE Publications.

Djuric Ilic, D., Ödlund L. (2018), “Method for allocation of carbon dioxide emissions from waste incineration which includes energy recovery”, Energy Procedia 149 (2018) 400–409.

European Commission 2008, “Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives” [Online] Available at:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=en [Accessed 03.02.2020] European Commission 2019, “EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)” [Online] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en [Accessed 03.02.2020] European Commission 2015, “EU ETS Handbook” [Online] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/ets_handbook_en.pdf [Accessed 08.02.2020]

European Commission 2010, “Being wise with waste: The EU’s approach to waste management” [Online] Available at:

(28)

23 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/WASTE%20BROCHURE.pdf [Accessed 08.05.2020]

Farooque, O., Hossain, M. (2019), “The emission trading system, risk management committee and voluntary corporate response to climate change – a CDP study”, International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p262-283. 22p.

Fellner J, Cencic O and Rechberger H (2007) “A new method to determine the ratio of electricity production from fossil and biogenic sources in waste to-energy plants”. Environmental Science and Technology 41: 2579–2586.

Hansen, W, Christopher, M, & Verbuecheln, M (2002),"EU Waste Policies and Challenges for Local and Regional Authorities". [Online] Available at:

https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/download/projekte/1900-1949/1921-1922/1921-1922_background_paper_waste_en.PDF [Accessed 20.03.2020]

Hockenstein, J.B., R.N. Stavins and B.W. Whitehead (1997), “Creating the Next Generation of Market-Based Environmental Tools”. Environment 39(4):12-20, 30-33. Klein, H.K. & Myers, M.D., 1999. “A set of principles for conducting and

evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems”. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), pp.67-93.

Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S., 2009. “Interviews: learning the craft of

qualitative research interviewing”. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: SAGE Publications.

Investopedia (2019), “Windfall profits”. [Online] Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/windfall-profits.asp [Accessed 20.04.2020] Johansson, I. and von Bahr, B. ”Ekonomisk allokering av emissioner och resurser vid avfallsförbränning med energiutvinning.” Avfall Sverige. Rapport E2014:06 (2014) Jones FC, Blomqvist EW, Bisaillon M, Lindberg DK, Hupa M. “Determination of fossil carbon content in Swedish waste fuel by four different methods”. Waste Manage Res 2013;31(10):1052–61. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242x13490985. [Accessed 26.03.2020]

Naturvårdsverket (2019), “Utsläppshandel”. [Online] Available at: https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Miljoarbete-i-samhallet/Miljoarbete-i-Sverige/Uppdelat-efter-omrade/Utslappshandel/ [Accessed 17.10.2019] Neale, P., Thapa, S. & Boyce, C., 2006. “Preparing a case study: a guide for

designing and conducting a case study for evaluation input”. Pathfinder International. Oreskes, N. (2004). “The scientific consensus on climate change”. Science, 306, 1686.

(29)

24 Powell, J. L. (2019). “Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0270467619886266

Stavins, R.N. (2000), “Market-Based Environmental Policies”, in: P.R. Portney and R.N. Stavins, eds., Public Policies for Environmental Protection (Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.), forthcoming.

Stavins, R. N. (2001). “Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments”.

Swedish Energy Agency, 2019 “Emissions trading in the EU”. [Online] Available at: https://www.energimyndigheten.se/en/sustainability/eu-ets---implementation-in-sweden/about-emissions-trading/emissions-trading-in-the-eu/[Accessed 04.02.2020] Swedish Government, 2017 “Brännheta skatter! Bör avfallsförbränning och utsläpp av kväveoxider från energiproduktion beskattas?”. [Online] Available at: https://www.regeringen.se/4aa7ef/contentassets/5109c13a4d2d4b739276a2126bf7fb8

7/brannheta-skatter-bor-avfallsforbranning-och-utslapp-av-kvaveoxider-fran-energiproduktion-beskattas-hela-dokumentet-sou-201783.pdf [Accessed 10.02.2020] Swedish law 2004:1199 “Om handel med utsläppsrätter”. [Online] Available at:

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-20041199-om-handel-med-utslappsratter_sfs-2004-1199 [Accessed 12.02.2020]

UNFCCC 2000, “TRACING THE ORIGINS OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: AN ARTICLE-BY-ARTICLE TEXTUAL HISTORY” [Online] Available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0200.pdf [Accessed 03.02.2020]

UNFCCC 1997, “Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”. [Online] Available at:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1998/09/19980921%2004-41%20PM/Ch_XXVII_07_ap.pdf [Accessed 04.02.2020]

UNFCCC 1992, “United Nations Framework on Climate Change” [Online] Available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf [Accessed 04.02.2020] Yin, R. K., 2014. “Case Study Research Design and Methods” (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 282 pages.

Emissions Trading for Waste Incineration Plants with Energy Recovery in Sweden