Methodology for the free allocation of

emission allowances in the

EU ETS post 2012
Sector report for the gypsum industry

November 2009
Ecofys (project leader)
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research
ko-Institut
By order of the European Commission
Study Contract: 07.0307/2008/515770/ETU/C2
Ecofys project Number: PECSNL082164

Disclaimer and acknowledgements

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this study represent only the views of the authors and not those of the
European Commission. The focus of this study is on preparing a first blueprint of an
allocation methodology for free allocation of emission allowances under the EU Emission
Trading Scheme for the period 2013 2020 for installations in the gypsum industry. The
report should be read in conjunction with the report on the project approach and general
issues. This sector report has been written by Ecofys.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank representatives from the gypsum industry for the in-depth
discussions on possible benchmarking options for the gypsum industry during the execution
of the project.

Table of content
1

Introduction ..................................................... 1

Production process and GHG emissions................. 4

Benchmarking methodology ................................ 5

3.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Final proposal for products to be distinguished ....................................................... 6

Benchmark values ............................................. 9

4.1 Background and source of data ................................................................................ 9
4.2 Final proposed benchmark values ............................................................................ 9
4.3 Possibility of other approaches .............................................................................. 10

Additional steps required .................................. 11

Stakeholder comments ...................................... 12

References ...................................................... 13

Appendix A: List of EU ETS installations in the gypsum

industry .......................................................... 14

ii

1 Introduction
The gypsum industry covers the activities ranging from mining the mineral gypsum to the
production of (end-use) products. Products of the gypsum industry are plaster, plasterboards
(which includes a wide range of standard and specialty products), gypsum fibreboard and
gypsum blocks, which are all used in the building sector (EUROGYPSUM, 2007). Gypsum is
also an essential ingredient in cement production, where it is used as a retarding agent.
Outside the construction industry, dried and grinded raw gypsum is called land plaster and
used as a soil amendment and fertiliser. Furthermore, gypsum is used in the making of
ceramic moulds, plaster cove and cornice, surgical and dental casts, as a water conditioner for
beer-brewing and sugar-refining, as ingredients in flour, bread, ice-cream and pet food, and as
an agent in pharmaceutical products.
The gypsum industry is explicitly included in the amended EU ETS Directive as:
Drying or calcination of gypsum or production of plaster boards and other gypsum
products, where combustion units with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW are
operated.
Activities of European gypsum installations, represented by EUROGYPSUM, can potentially
fall under the following NACE Rev. 1.1/ PRODCOM codes:
Table 1

NACE Rev. 1.1 and PRODCOM codes for gypsum products

NACE Rev. 1.1 code

PRODCOM code

Description
Quarrying of limestone, gypsum and chalk1

14.12
14.12.10.30
26.53

Gypsum and anhydrite

Manufacture of plaster

26.53.10.00

26.62
26.62.10.50

26.62.10.90

26.64
26.64.10.00

Plasters consisting of calcined gypsum or

calcium sulphate (including for use in building,
for use in dressing woven fabrics or surfacing
paper, for use in dentistry)
Manufacture of plaster products for construction
purposes
Boards, sheets, panels, tiles, similar articles of
plaster/compositions based on plaster,
faced/reinforced with paper/paperboard only,
excluding articles agglom. with plaster,
ornamented
Boards, sheets, panels, tiles, similar articles of
plaster/compositions based on plaster, not
faced/reinforced with paper/paperboard only,
excluding articles agglom. with plaster,
ornamented
Manufacture of mortars
Factory made mortars

Continuation Table 1

NACE Rev. 1.1 code

PRODCOM code

Description

26.66

Manufacture of other articles of concrete, plaster

and cement
Articles of plaster or compositions based on
plaster, n.e.c.

26.66.11.00
1

Energy emissions from mining or quarrying are not covered by the EU ETS

Regarding the above listed NACE / PRODCOM codes, several things should be noted:

Table 2

Installations for mining and quarrying of gypsum are not covered by the EU ETS.
Installations in the gypsum sector normally produce more than one of the products
mentioned in the table.
The products as mentioned are also produced by installations that are not regarded as
part of the gypsum sector, because they also conduct other production processes not
related to gypsum.
Normally, production statistics based on PRODCOM only relate to products that are
sold and not to intermediate production
Installations in the gypsum sector might also use other PRODCOM codes when
reporting production or can for a certain product choose between various codes (e.g.
between mortars and plaster or between boards and articles.
Gypsum sector in the EU ETS

Number of installations

2005

2006

2007

2008

20

Allocation (kt CO2)

91

177

177

996

Verified emissions (kt CO2)

86

180

177

717

As shown in Table 2, only very few installations of the gypsum sector were covered in the
first phase of the EU ETS. On average, they received slightly more allowances than reported
emissions.
The coverage increased considerably to 20 installations in phase II. The larger number of
installations is mostly due to an enlarged scope of the EU ETS in the United Kingdom. As
there is no dedicated activity category for gypsum installations, Member States have included
them under the category Energy activities Combustion installations with a rated thermal
input exceeding 20 MW (except hazardous or municipal waste installations).
Based on 2008 data, these installations have received on average almost 40% more
allowances than emissions. The order of magnitude of the long position is similar to other
industrial installations that reduced their output due to the general economic downturn in
2008. Allocation and verified emissions data per installation are given in Appendix A.
Regarding the installations and allocation numbers, it has to be noted that due to the broad
definition as combustion installations, it may be possible that some installations that belong
to the gypsum sector are missing. As well, changes made to the installations or allocation

from the Member States New Entrants Reserve may lead to a higher allocation number than
what is listed above.
The number of installations captured in phase 3 of the EU ETS from 2013 to 2020 is
depending on the following issues:

Definition of individual equipment <3MW, which could lead to several

installations fallen below the 20MW threshold.1
Definition of Art. 27 requirement for equivalent measures, as that could lead to
several installations <35MW and emitting <25,000t of CO2 per annum being
exempted as small emitters.

Notwithstanding the above, EUROGYPSUM expects the number of gypsum installations

captured to rise substantially. They estimate that around 50 plants could be caught in phase 3.
This would represent a very significant increase in the number of plants participating in the
EU ETS. Greater accuracy can be provided following a EUROGYPSUM survey of thermal
capacities across EU installations.

The amended EU ETS Directive states that When the total rated thermal input of an installation is calculated in order to decide
upon its inclusion in the Community scheme, the rated thermal inputs of all technical units [] are added together. These units
could include all types of boilers, burners, turbines, heaters, furnaces, incinerators, calciners, kilns, ovens, dryers, engines, fuel
cells, chemical looping combustion units, flares, and thermal or catalytic post-combustion units. Units with a rated thermal input
under 3 MW []shall not be taken into account for the purposes of this calculation. As some installations have dryers and
burners within those dryers, the exact definition of the term technical units is very decisive for the calculation of the
installations thermal input. In case technical unit refers to the dryer, a dryer with 3 burners of 1.5 MW each will be included in
the calculation. In case technical unit refers to the burners, the same dryer will not be included. For some gypsum plants, this
definition could make the difference between being covered and not being covered by the EU ETS.

2 Production process and GHG emissions

The mineral gypsum is calcium sulphate dihydrate (CaSO4.2H2O) from a chemical point of
view. The production process starts with the mining of the mineral, which is then ground to a
powder. This powder can be sold as a component to cement.
Inside the gypsum production process, the powder is dried until a water content of 0.5% is
reached. The resulting raw can be sold as a soil conditioner, then called land plaster. If the
raw gypsum is heated (calcined) at 150C to 165C, three-quarters of its combined water is
removed to produce hemi-hydrate plaster (CaSO4,1/2H2O), commonly known as stucco or
Plaster of Paris. When this powder is mixed with water the resulting paste sets hard as the
water recombines to produce gypsum again. Higher calcination temperatures produce socalled anhydrite, which has a lower reaction with water.
In a last production step, the plaster can be mixed with water and other components
(additives, accelerators, etc.) to produce gypsum blocks, or, if pressed between two sheets of
paper, plasterboard. gypsum reinforced with glass-fibre (Glass reinforced gypsum GRG) is
used to increase its fire-resistance.
An important alternative to the use of natural gypsum is gypsum that comes from a flue gas
desulphurization plant (FGD) of the power station industry. This FGD gypsum is the end
product of a wet purification procedure with natural lime, formed in the same but speeded-up
process as natural gypsum. This synthetic gypsum has a higher purity (gypsum content of
96%) than most natural gypsum (80%). On the other hand, it has also a higher wet content (810%) than natural gypsum (1-3%), leading to a higher energy input for drying.
Emissions in the gypsum industry occur as a result of combustion processes. These
combustion processes deliver the energy for three main production steps (Entec, 2006):

Drying the raw gypsum feed (natural or synthetic) to achieve ~0.5 % moisture content
Calcining the gypsum
Drying of the final plasterboard product

The majority of gypsum plants use direct combustion to deliver the heat for calcining and
drying. As a consequence the associated CO2 emissions are attributed to the respective
gypsum installation.
However, in some cases, CHP plants at the gypsum site also deliver energy to external
customers, and other plants use indirect heat via steam that is supplied by external plants. In
these cases, the CO2 emissions attributed to the respective installation will have to be
corrected for the exported or imported energy to calculate the emission intensity for the
product benchmark in line with the overall approach to cross-boundary heat flows as
discussed in the report on the project approach and general issues.

3 Benchmarking methodology
3.1 Background
The gypsum industry covers the activities ranging from mining the mineral gypsum to the
production of (end-use) products. Products of the gypsum industry are plaster, plasterboards
(which includes a wide range of standard and specialty products), gypsum fibreboard and
gypsum blocks, which are all used in the building sector (EUROGYPSUM, 2007). Gypsum is
also an essential ingredient in cement production, where it is used as a retarding agent.
Outside the construction industry, dried and grinded raw gypsum is called land plaster and
used as a soil amendment and fertiliser. Furthermore, gypsum is used in the making of
ceramic moulds, plaster cove and cornice, surgical and dental casts, as a water conditioner for
beer-brewing and sugar-refining, as ingredients in flour, bread, ice-cream and pet food, and as
an agent in pharmaceutical products. Intermediate products are also traded amongst
installations of the gypsum sector, as not all installations carry out all activities.
For the raw gypsum/land plaster stage, the CO2 emissions associated with drying the raw
material depend on the water content of the raw gypsum. Natural gypsum has a lower wet
content than flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) gypsum, which means that natural gypsum is
less CO2 intensive. Natural gypsum is not available at all sites while FGD gypsum is a byproduct of the cleaning of power plants flue gases. For the plaster stage, various types of
gypsum are produced by differentiating the temperature of the calcining process. Higher
temperatures lead in general to a lower reaction with water. The following types can be
differentiated:

Table 3

Hemi-hydrates and anhydrates and respective calcining temperatures (Datenbuch Gips

2006)

Name
-hemi-hydrate (CaSO4 H2O)

Calcining temperature
80 - 180C (saturated steam atmosphere)

- hemi-hydrate t (CaSO4 H2O)

120 - 165C (standard atmosphere)

-Anhydrite III (CaSO4 0,x H2O)

290C (saturated steam atmosphere)

-Anhydrite III (CaSO4 0,x H2O)

110C (standard atmosphere)

Anhydrite IIs (CaSO4)

300 - 500C

Anhydrite IIu (CaSO4)

300 - 500C

Anhydrite I (CaSO4)

>700C

For the final product stage, drying energy and associated CO2 emissions vary between product
types, regarding their form (gypsum blocks, plasterboards, glass-fibre reinforced gypsum
(GRG) boards), additives (different inert materials for fire, water or sound characteristics) or
thickness.

3.2 Final proposal for products to be distinguished

In accordance with the criteria for product differentiation as mentioned in the report on the
project approach and general issues (Chapter 4), separate benchmarks could be distinguished
if the difference in benchmark emission intensity is substantial (20% is mentioned as
threshold) and if the different products can be well differentiated using accepted and
unambiguous product classifications. Because of the trade in intermediate products, also with
installations not covered by the EU ETS, and in accordance with the principle to have
different benchmarks for intermediate products if these products are traded between
installations [report on the project approach and general issues, Chapter 4], it is necessary to
determine benchmarks for all stages of the gypsum product chain. This means that
benchmarks should be determined for the raw gypsum/land plaster (the principle product
dehydrate gypsum sold after drying), the plaster (after calcining) and the gypsum block or
plasterboard stages.
In their reply to the interim report, EUROGYPSUM proposed to use eight product
benchmarks for the gypsum sector, as shown by Figure 1:

Figure 1

Benchmark differentiation proposed by EUROGYPSUM (Eurogypsum, 2009)

To assess the need to differentiate between eight different gypsum products, two issues have
to be solved:
1. Product groups have to be clearly distinguishable and well defined.
2. Relevant emissions and production data for each product group have to be available.
Regarding the first issue, it has to be noted that while some plaster products can be clearly
categorized as -plaster, -plaster, anhydrite or multiphase plaster, the gypsum industry can
produce plasters over the whole spectrum of technical specifications. Therefore, and because
different technologies are applied for the very similar products (Datenbuch Gips, 2006),
emission intensities of products are expected to be merely distributed over a large spectrum
than clearly cut into groups. A differentiation into product groups seems to be further
complicated by the different market shares of products in national markets.
Even if product groups can be clearly defined in theory, it would be difficult to ensure that
production is correctly reported under each group by manufacturers, as PRODCOM or other
official categorization nomenclatures are hardly useful to differentiate between intermediate
products (alpha plaster, beta plaster, anhydrite, multiphase plaster are differentiated by
process temperature and related physical attributes of product).
Regarding the second issue, so far the only data available and reliable is contained in (Entec,
2006). This report gives data for four instead of eight product groups. It has to be noted that
this report is solely based on data for the United Kingdom, which might not be representative
for the whole EU gypsum sector.
As an alternative to the default output based benchmark, allocation benchmarks for the
gypsum sector could be based on input mass data for the process steps of drying the raw
gypsum and calcining the raw gypsum to plaster. Benchmarks for final products such as
gypsum blocks and plaster boards should be based on output data, as is shown in Table 4.
Table 4

Benchmark basis per gypsum product group

Process step

Benchmark

Raw material drying to gypsum

Raw gypsum input

Calcining to alpha plaster

Raw gypsum input

Calcining to beta plaster

Raw gypsum input

Calcining to anhydrite

Raw gypsum input

Calcining to multiphase plaster

Raw gypsum input

Drying to gypsum blocks

Product output

Drying to plasterboards

Product output

Drying to GRG

Product output

The reasons for this are as follows:

As gypsum is processed in the form of powder as an intermediate product, it is much

easier and common practice to measure input volumes than output volumes after
grinding/drying and calcining.
Due to the above mentioned reason, there are historical data on input mass and
specific thermal energy available.
Raw gypsum is traded commercially much more often than gypsum at intermediate
product. Therefore, incoming gypsum is more accurately measured than stored or
outgoing gypsum that is transferred within a company.
Ratios between input and output mass are related to the type of intermediate product
(processing, additives) but are in general well known at installation level.
The addition of inert materials after the calcination step is confidential information
for the three main companies of the sector, as this is the main criteria of
differentiation between products and companies.

If it can be shown that input-to-output ratios are consistent for different products, applying
input-based benchmarks, whether directly or indirectly via default conversion factor for input
to output mass could in principle be considered.
Given the issues discussed above regarding differentiation and data availability, to our
knowledge, the only available public source of energy or emissions data for products of
gypsum products is the new entrant benchmark report for the UK (ENTEC, 2006). Based on
the information in that study, it is proposed to develop benchmarks for the following gypsum
products based on production output:

Dry gypsum / land plaster (after drying of raw gypsum input) PRODCOM code
could not be identified, probably part of 14.12.10.30, to be resolved
Plaster (after calcining; no differentiation between different types) PRODCOM
26.53.10.00 and 26.66.11.00
Gypsum blocks, plasterboards and coving (after drying to final product; no
differentiation) PRODCOM 26.62.10.50
Glass-fibre reinforced gypsum (GRG) plasterboards PRODCOM 26.62.10.90

As the benchmarks differentiate mostly between process steps (drying of raw gypsum,
calcining to intermediate products, drying to final product), it seems possible to achieve a
clear and transparent differentiation and definition of these product groups. The PRODCOM
codes noted above might be used for this, but it is not sure at the moment that the PRODCOM
definitions are sufficiently comprehensive and exclusive, especially regarding the
differentiation between plasterboards and GRG plasterboards.

4 Benchmark values
4.1 Background and source of data
At the moment EUROGYPSUM is having relevant energy, emissions and production data
collected by a third party. Until results are available, the only data source available is the
ENTEC report, which itself uses information from a 1993 US EPA report (US EPA, 1993).
Benchmark values differentiated in the ENTEC report are given in kWh/ton. For benchmarks
in t CO2/ t, a fuel-and generation-specific emission factor has to be applied.
Based on the ENTEC report as well as other sources and information from the sector, natural
gas is assumed to be the standard fuel for gypsum plants. Furthermore, it is assumed that the
natural gas is burned and the heat directly fed into the gypsum process, which means that no
additional factor representing the energy efficiency of the process has to be applied.
Based on Commission Decision (2007/589/EC) on the monitoring and reporting guidelines
for the EU ETS, the CO2 emissions factor of natural gas is 56.1 tons of CO2 per GJ.

4.2 Final proposed benchmark values

In general, differences in emission intensity of gypsum products are caused by

The raw material used (natural or FGD gypsum, with the natural gypsum leading to
lower emissions because of lower water content),
The calcination temperature applied (with higher temperatures leading to higher
emissions and a lower reaction with water),
The final product made (plaster, blocks, plasterboards or GRG boards with varying
formats; higher emissions due to higher drying energy needs).

Until actual European data is provided, the results from ENTEC (2006) allow the proposal of
the following benchmark values for the gypsum sector:

Dry gypsum / land plaster:

Plaster
Gypsum blocks, plasterboards and coving:
GRG plasterboards:

0.20 GJ / t
0.85 GJ / t
1.49 GJ / t
3.25 GJ / t

0.01 t CO2 / t
0.05 t CO2 / t
0.08 t CO2 / t
0.18 t CO2 / t

These values are based on the values of best performing plants in the UK in the middle of the
decade. It is consistent with values found for US gypsum plants. The value for dry gypsum
assumes moisture content of 6 weight % and is an average value based on an estimated fuel
requirement of 0.033 GJ / t per weight % of moisture content.

It should be noted that these values might not be representative for European plants,
especially as regional production and consumption patterns differ widely according to
EUROGYPSUM.
Furthermore, it should be noted that benchmark values of the ENTEC report are related to the
mass of produced output and does not consider the option to use input units for dry gypsum /
land plaster and plaster stages.

4.3 Possibility of other approaches

If it can be demonstrated that there are no considerable losses of gypsum material throughout
the production process and differences in additives for a specific product (group) are marginal
regarding associated CO2 emissions, a benchmark based on raw gypsum input data could be
applied for all intermediate products. This would not be in line with the general approach to
base benchmarks on product output, but would have advantages regarding data collection and
accuracy.
The input of raw gypsum (calcium sulphate) will then have to be measured for each of the
respective benchmarked intermediate products separately.
Due to the limited emissions and the complexity of the sector (variety of (intermediate)
products) a fall-back approach as elaborated on in Chapter 5 of the report on the project report
and general issues could also be envisioned.

10

5 Additional steps required

As mentioned above, data on energy, emissions and production volumes per product could
not be obtained from the gypsum sector, represented by EUROGYPSUM, so far. The
benchmark values as proposed here for that reason have a narrow basis.
These data are critical to assess the differentiation of benchmarks for products as well as
benchmark levels based on the best performing installations. Data are currently gathered
within the gypsum sector, and hopefully the results will be available within time to develop
representative gypsum benchmarks at a later stage. The data could also be used as a bottomup verification of the proposed benchmark values in this study and could further clarify
whether the necessary production data are available. In such verification step, the use of input
rather than output data would could be elaborated in more detail to assess potential
advantages and drawbacks of such a method and the correct product definitions (PRODCOM
in combination with classifications in use by the sector) should also be further assessed.
Although concerns by the sector regarding data confidentiality and anti-trust issues are
acknowledged, it should be noted that official benchmark rules and values for each sector as
well as final allocations per installation will ultimately become available.

11

6 Stakeholder comments

Comments to an interim version of this report have been received via the following
communications:

Attachment to e-mail from EUROGYPSUM on 2009-07-01: 090701 Eurogypsum

comment on first Ecofys rep on gypsum benchmark
Attachment to e-mail from EUROGYPSUM on 2009-07-03: Ecofys Initial Report
on Gypsum Sector Benchmarking May 09 amended
Attachment to e-mail from EUROGYPSUM on 2009-08-03: 2nd Written Response
to Ecofys regarding benchmarking report July 2009

These inputs have all been included in the main text of this report (e.g. the proposal for eight
product benchmarks and the use of input rather than output variable).

12

7 References
Bundesverband der Gipsindustrie (2006), Datenbuch Gips, Darmstadt.
Entec (2006), EU Emissions Trading Scheme Phase II Review of New Entrants' Benchmarks
Gypsum, Report Version Two
Website of the European Commission, DG Competition
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/index/nace_all.html, visited on May 12th,
2009.
Eurostat (2008), PRODCOM list 2008.
EUROGYPSUM (2007) Gypsum factsheet.
EUROGYPSUM (2009) Eurogypsum comments on first Ecofys report on gypsum benchmark

U.S. EPA (1993) Emission factor documentation for AP-42 sector 11.16 Gypsum
Manufacturing.

13

Appendix A: List of EU ETS installations in the gypsum industry

Allocation and verified emissions of gypsum installations 2005-2007; all values rounded (Source http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/citl_en.htm)

Reg.
Instal. .ID

Verified

Allocation

Verified

Allocation

Verified

Main

Allocation

emissions

2006

emissions

2007

emissions

activity

2005 [1000

2005

[1000

2006

[1000

2007

type code

EUAs]

[ktons]

EUAs]

[ktons]

EUAs]

[ktons]

code

Company

Name

BE

Saint-Gobain

BPB Belgium

630

Gyproc
DK

Knauf

Danogips A/S

344

25

27

19

32

19

30

DK

Saint-Gobain

Gyproc A/S

345

25

17

19

18

19

18

Knauf GmbH -

861

874

22

20

22

19

951

32

22

32

22

1030

44

37

44

39

41

46

41

52

41

50

91

86

177

180

177

177

Gyproc
ES

Knauf

Planta de Esczar
ES
ES

Saint-Gobain

Saint-Gobain Placo

Gyproc

Iberica S.A

Knauf

Knauf GmbH Planta de Guixers

ES

Yesos Ibericos

Yesos Ibricos,
S.A

IE

Saint-Gobain

Kingscourt Works

Gyproc
Sum

14

Allocation and verified emissions of gypsum installations 2008 (Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/citl_en.htm)

Main
activity
type code

Reg.
code
Company
Saint-Gobain Gyproc
BE
Knauf
DK
Saint-Gobain Gyproc
DK
Knauf
ES
Saint-Gobain Gyproc
ES
Knauf
ES
Yesos Ibericos
ES
Lafarge
GB
Lafarge
GB
Knauf
GB
Knauf
GB
Saint-Gobain Gyproc
GB
Saint-Gobain Gyproc
GB
Saint-Gobain Gyproc
GB
Saint-Gobain Gyproc
GB
Saint-Gobain Gyproc
GB
Saint-Gobain Gyproc
IE
Saint-Gobain Gyproc
SE
Knauf
SE
Norgips Norge AS
NO
Sum
Sum corrected1
1

Name
BPB Belgium
Danogips A/S
Gyproc A/S
Knauf GmbH - Planta de Esczar
Saint-Gobain Placo Iberica S.A.
Knauf GmbH - Planta de Guixers
Yesos Ibricos, S.A
Lafarge Plasterboard - Portbury
Lafarge Plasterboard - Ferrybridge
Knauf Sittingbourne
Knauf Immingham
Barrow Works
Sherburn Gypsum Works
Robertsbridge Gypsum Works
Kirkby Thore Gypsum Works
East Leake Gypsum Works
Kingscourt Works
Gyproc AB
Knauf Danogips GmbH
Norgips Norge AS

Instal. .ID
630
344
345
861
874
951
1030
942
943
978
979
1009
1011
1012
1013
1014
2
791
795
52

Allocation 2008
[1000 EUA]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
1

45
21
17
29
18
21
38
91
49
65
79
49
100
52
99
136
49
0
0
37
996
966

Verified emissions
2008
[ktons CO2eq]
49
27
17
0
14
20
35
68
24
56
48
36
36
29
57
77
35
25
22
40
717
670

Sum corrected excludes entries where either allocation or verified emissions data is not available.

15