Greenhouse stats inaccurate says HPS Transport

Statistics for at least one transport firm appearing in this year’s National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Publication are in dispute and others may also be inaccurate. Greenhouse gas emission and energy consumption figures for HPS Transport, if accurate, would put the South Australian refrigerated transport firm on the same level as the biggest energy and aluminium producing companies.

By Rob McKay | March 1, 2012

Statistics for at least one transport firm appearing in this year’s National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Publication are in dispute and others may also be inaccurate.

Greenhouse gas emission and energy consumption figures for HPS Transport, if accurate, would put the South Australian refrigerated transport firm on the same level as the biggest energy and aluminium producing companies.

A spokeswoman for HPS says the figures are wrong and that that hers was not the only company in this position.

She understands that an amended Publication would be released next month.

A response was awaited at deadline today
from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, which has sought to downplay the link between information in the Publication and the likely impact on firms of the carbon tax.

The move appears to be reaction to the coverage of last year’s publication.

“While emissions information under the carbon pricing mechanism will build on the NGER reporting framework, the two are different and serve different purposes,” Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer Ross Carter says.

“The NGER Publication includes the total scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions at a corporate level, as well as scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions.”

“When looking at this data, it is important to remember that under the carbon pricing mechanism, liability is applied to only a subset of scope1 emissions, which are called covered emissions in the Clean Energy Act 2011. Scope 2 emissions are not covered by the carbon pricing mechanism.

“It is not possible to accurately estimate potential liabilities under the carbon pricing mechanism from the data included in the NGER Publication.

“Liable entities need to use their own data to assess their liability as required by the Clean Energy Act 2011. In doing this, they can use information that they report under the NGER Act.”

Scope 1 emissions are the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a direct result of an activity, or series of activities including ancillary activities. These include transport, “such as a transport company burning diesel oil in its trucks”, the department says.

Scope 2 emissions are the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a direct result of one or more activities that generate electricity, heating, cooling or steam that is consumed by the facility but do not form part of the facility..

Meanwhile, more transport companies or companies that use or the subsidiaries of which use a significant fleet of trucks have appeared in the Publication for the 2010-11 financial year.

This has occurred as the threshold for reporting from 125 kilotonnes of CO₂-equivalent to 50 kilotonnes CO₂– equivalent.

These firms include Armesto’s, Automotive Holdings Group, HPS Transport, Hazell Bros Group, JJ Richards, Kalari, Lindsay Australia, MJ Luff (Border Express), Patience Bulk Haulage, POTA, Regional Express, Scott’s Refrigerated Freightways, Scotts Transport Industries, SeaRoad Holdings and VersaCold Logistics.

Naturally, there has been movement from last year’s figures – mostly upward.

For example, scope 1 emissions at AA Scott rose from 124,893 tonnes to 156,260 tonnes while its energy consumption went from1,886,589 gigajouls (gj) to 2,278,327 gj.

CEVA Logistics saw its emissions rise from 67,562 tonnes to 80,214 tonnes and energy use from 1 million gj to 1.2 million gj.

Linfox’s emissions rose from 215,728 tonnes to 224,015 tonnes as energy use rose from 3.3 million gj to 3.4 million gj

One of the biggest movers was Toll, whose emissions were up from 437,525 tonnes to 575,214 tonnes and 6.6 million gj to 8.7 million gj.

By contrast, Silk Logistics went the other way, with emissions falling from 90,481 tonnes to 75,412 tonnes and consumption from 1.3 million gj to 1.1 million gj.

And Adelaide Brighton’s emissions fell from from 31. million tonnes to 2.8 million tonnes and its consumption from 20.9 million gj to 19 million gj.

The following list notes the reporting firms that use trucks either as a primary or ancilliary function.

Figures are for emissions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in scope 1 and scope 2 and for energy consumption measured in gigajoules. Some of the figures are disputed:

AA Scott: 126,274; 7,983; 2,278,327

Adelaide Brighton: 2,818,115; 293,662; 19,006,479

Air Liquide Australia: 4,496; 289,949; 1,279,089

Armesto’s Transport: 63,425; 109; 910,059

Australian Postal Corporation: 86,755; 211,923; 2,086,754

Automotive Holdings Group: 28,236; 36,022; 558,101

CEVA: 80,214; 24,663; 1,244,628

HPS Transport: 14,566,719; 382; 209,268,694

Hazell Bros Group: 15,109,554; 0; 216,159,575

JJ Richards: 58,688; 4,005; 859,176

Kalari: 88,365; 1,721; 1,273,822

Lindsay Australia: 89,726; 4,370; 1,301,405