Värtaverket has given incorrect data on the emissions

Värtaverket in the east of Stockholm, provides the dwellings with district heating, producing electricity and supplying district cooling. It is also one of the few district heating plants in Sweden, and the only one in the Stockholm, still fired with fossil coal. As all such facilities will need to Värtaverket disclose how much greenhouse gases the business emits. Reporting takes place annually, is submitted to the environmental protection agency and is the basis for the EU's system for emission allowances, one of the linchpins in the fight against climate change.

For the 2017 reported emissions of close to half a million tonnes of carbon dioxide from Värtaverket. This makes it one of the top ten plants in Sweden contribute the most to climate change.

tell you that the numbers are incorrect. It is clear from an audit carried out in conjunction with the statistics presented for the environmental protection agency. In the bug report, that DN has taken part of, identifies six instances of errors relating to how emissions are measured and calculated. It moves about the measuring equipment that is suspected to be wrong, the internal controls that have failed and the figures seem to have been mixed together. The report concludes that it “cannot be ruled out that additional errors are present”.

In the clear: You do not know with certainty how much carbon dioxide as Värtaverket released in 2017. The environmental protection agency classifies the deficiencies as "material misstatement", the more serious of the two categories.

Such remarks are extremely rare. In the system of allowances included over 740 plants. Last year discovered significant errors at only three sites. The other two, the Kvarnsveden paper mill and Kubikenborg Aluminium, is both lesser polluters than the Värtaverket.

Link to the graphics

for utsläppshandelsenheten at the environmental protection agency, look seriously at what has occurred.

– We expect that all installations within the trading system must have functioning procedures in place to monitor their emissions and that they also must be able to show it to us in a transparent manner. Out of this perspective, it is serious when there are plants that do not have the systems in place.

the environmental protection agency launched earlier in the year a formal enforcement case against Värtaverkets owner, Stockholm Exergy AB IN January is expected the authority to take decisions on emission data.

" According to our preliminary assessment, they have higher emissions than what has been reported, but we have not yet taken a final decision. A company that emits more must purchasing additional allowances covering it up. Additionally, they need to pay 100 euros per tonne of greenhouse gases in the penalty.

Our preliminary assessment is that it is about several million in no fee

" Our preliminary assessment is that it is about several million in penalty.

" No, we can't see. We have had a good process, " says Fredrik Hannerz.

Värtaverkets emissions do not stop there. Previous reports have indeed been given the green light. But DN's review shows that they have been approved by a company that repeatedly has been lacking the necessary skills.

It is about Bureau Veritas Certification Sverige AB, and is one of only a handful of companies that have received a special certification to verify the emissions of greenhouse gases. The task is reminiscent of an auditor, but with the mission to ensure the data on the emissions.

Bureau Veritas was engaged by the Stockholm Exergy from 2013 to 2015 to check Värtaverkets emissions. During the same period was discovered on several occasions the shortcomings of the company's business, so serious that their certification was revoked by Swedac, the authority issuing them.

2014, after that Swedac had discovered the 15 points on which Bureau Veritas did not live up to the requirements. The condition was temporary.

The decision states that the company “has been guilty of a serious breach” and that it “no longer can be considered to have the necessary skills”. If the company continued to describe themselves as certified to work with greenhouse gas emissions, it would be forced to pay a fine, it was on.

Photo: Fredrik Funck

Two months later, strengthened the authority of the tone. The certificate was finally back in the big parts. But a part was left – which included the control of plant Värtaverket. A few months later it was time again. In september 2015 was discovered 17 new errors, “including several of a serious nature”, which Swedacs investigators write.

let Bureau Veritas vouch for greenhouse. During both 2014 and 2015 kept the company mission as verifiers. Each year, Värtaverket good score: Zero inaccuracies, only a few minor deviations. It shows the environmental protection agency's list.

In June 2016 put Swedac final bottom of the foot, drew back the Bureau Veritas certification for the control of greenhouse gas emissions in its entirety.

2016 also changed Värtaverket verifiers. The assignment went to a competitor, the Norwegian company DNV's Swedish branch. The following year, 2017, was discovered as the massive deficiencies which has led to the numbers condemned.

We thought we had good answers, but the environmental protection agency made a different assessment, and that we comply with the

Veritas is unique. No other company has the certificate to verify the greenhouse gases since the system was introduced.

Mikael Lindström, head of ackrediteringsfrågor at Bureau Veritas in the Nordic countries, said that the company at this time was in the midst of a reorganization which controls of greenhouse gases would be moved to the Danish sister company. Operations in Sweden was also suffering after a key expert had retired and turned out to be difficult to replace. In the day of the working Bureau Veritas with an accreditation from the Danish authorities.

– One can always be wise after the event, but it is not always easy to see when you are standing in the middle of it. The requirements also increased year after year, both from the Swedacs and from the EU side, " he says.

Ulf Wikström, sustainability manager at the Stockholm Exergy, says he has not received information about the problems with the Bureau Veritas until August 2016.

" It is clear that we were taken by surprise. We had to promptly find another, approved, verifiers, " he says.

however, not gone back to the previous years ' figures were verified by Bureau Veritas.

"No, not that way, but we have of course worked with the remarks which their examination gave rise to," says Ulf Wikström.

" We depend on those who review us, regardless of the company, meets the Swedacs requirements. It is our starting point that the correct figure should be reported. We neither wish to report too much or too little. We have a fairly long planning horizon and the need to plan and procure the examination in good time.

To Värtaverkets emissions report received a grade, he says, is because it is an exceptionally advanced establishment. He also says that the environmental protection agency preliminarily estimated the errors to the equivalent of 2.2% of the reported initially to the authority, which is about about 10 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

– Why the errors showed up right now is difficult for me to answer. It is probably about what one has chosen to focus on. We thought we had good answers, but the environmental protection agency did another assessment and we must abide by, " he says.