Annexes

Annex 1: Common tabular formats for the electronic reporting of:

1.1  Information necessary to track progress in implementing and achieving NDC

The common tabular formats for information necessary to track progress in implementing and achieving NDC have been reported electronically and are available on the UNFCCC website. 64

1.2  Information on financial, technology development and transfer and capacity-building support provided and mobilized

The common tabular formats for information on financial, technology development and transfer and capacity-building support provided and mobilized have been reported electronically and are available on the UNFCCC website. 65

Annex 2: Information in relation to Norway’s participation in cooperative approaches

Norway’s intention is to fulfil this target in cooperation with the EU. This will be done within the framework set up by Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. In the event that domestic measures and the cooperation with the EU does not lead to a full realization of the target, Norway may use ITMOs acquired from countries outside the EEA. A program for procurement of ITMOs from countries outside the EEA is established Norwegian Global Emission Reduction Initiative – regjeringen.no and an allotment of NOK 8.2 billion has been set up through the state budget and can be drawn upon if the need arises.

Norway will report on its choice of accounting method for cooperative approaches in its forthcoming Initial Report pursuant to the rules under Article 6 in Decision 2/CMA.3 and in future BTRs. The Initial Report will also contain details of the individual cooperative approaches.

EU and Norway need to agree on how to account for the reductions achieved in the common Emissions Trading System (such an agreement was made pursuant to the unit flow under the Kyoto Protocol) and rules pertaining to any flows of ITMOs reflecting flows of units under other pillars of the cooperation. An allotment of NOK 3 billion has been set up through the state budget for acquisitions of units under the ESR and LULUCF pillars.

Norway expects that the net flow of allowances between EU and Norway in the European ETS will be the basis for transfer of ITMOs also under the Paris Agreement, as was the case under the Kyoto Protocol. Further details defining such net flow is to be agreed between the parties. However, Norwegian companies have acquired and used significantly more allowances in the ETS than we expect that Norway will be held responsible for under this cooperative approach, which will then lead to a significant transfer of ITMOs from EU to Norway. Under the Kyoto Protocol such transfer closed most of the gap between the actual Norwegian emissions and the commitment; see the final compilation and accounting reports ( 1613334 , car2024_NOR.pdf ). The remaining gap was closed using units from the Clean Development Mechanism and also some from Joint Implementation.

Annex 3: Methodologies and assumptions used to estimate greenhouse gas impacts of policies and measures

This annex describes to the extent possible, the methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals of the actions, policies and measures (PaMs) reported in chapter 2.5 of this Biennial Transparency Report. It also presents other relevant information related to the PaMs.

Norway does not have emissions of NF ₃ in its inventory, so this gas is not relevant for estimating the impacts of PaMs. The effects reported in CTF table 5 are aggregated into CO ₂ equivalents by using GWP-100 factors from the IPCCs fifth assessment report.

Cross-sectoral

PaM cross-sectoral No. 1: The CO ₂ -tax on mineral products (excluding road transport and air transport under the ETS)

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The effect is calculated as a scenario analysis using the SNOW-model and the framework for the WEM-projections. The CO ₂ -tax on mineral products is explicitly modeled in SNOW, so the effect is calculated by running the model using the same assumptions as in the WEM-scenario, but changing the tax rate in the CO ₂ -tax to 0 for the period 2025–2040, and calculating the yearly difference in emissions from the WEM-scenario. The SNOW-model and assumptions for the WEM-scenario is described in further detail in chapter 2.6.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

In previous reporting the effect was calculated using the static elasticity model KAJA. For this report the SNOW-model has been used instead.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Taxes on GHG emissions confers costs on the emitters that leads to an equivalent generation of revenue for the government, meaning there is no cost to society, rather a redistribution of revenue. The tax does however require administration and reporting for both the government and the tax subjects. These costs are considered to be small. A tax rate of NOK 1 176 is equivalent to a tax rate of NOK 3.17 per liter of mineral oil. Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

The combustion of mineral products leads to other emissions causing harmful air pollution. The CO ₂ -tax contributes to reducing these emissions.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with cross-sectoral PaMs No. 4-10 and transport PaMs No.7-8 and 10-19. The calculated mitigation is acquired by using a macroeconomic model and should appropriately take into account any overlap effects from the mitigation caused by the other PaMs.

PaM cross-sectoral No. 2: EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The effects of the EU ETS on the petroleum sector are considered under the PaM «Climate policies that affect the petroleum sector» and the effects on aviation are considered under the PaM «CO ₂ tax on domestic aviation». The effect of expanding the EU ETS to maritime transport has not yet been assessed as it was just recently included.

The remaining scope of the EU ETS is stationary onshore installations. Because emission allowances in the EU ETS can be sold across borders between installations in the scheme, the effect of the scheme on national emissions depends on several factors in addition to the level of ambition of the EU-wide cap. A crucial factor is Norwegian industry’s abatement cost relative to the abatement cost in industry located in other countries covered by the scheme, and relative to the carbon price. For this reason, in contrast to the Europe-wide effect, the scheme’s effect at the national level is difficult to assess and quantify.

There are no national emission targets for emission trading scheme (ETS) emissions as there are for the emissions under the effort sharing regulation (ESR). Estimates in a study by Statistics Norway 66 suggest that the ETS in phase II (2008–2012) may have led to emission reductions. Since the results holds in some, but not all robustness tests, the effect in this BTR is reported as not estimated (NE).

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Auctioning of allowances confers costs on the emitters that leads to an equivalent generation of revenue for the government, meaning there is no cost to society, rather a redistribution of revenue. The ETS does however require substantial administration and reporting for both the government and the encompassed entities.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The PaM’s objective is to reduce GHG emissions, but it could also lead to reductions in non-GHG emissions.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The PaM is considered to interact with the PaM industry No.1 and PaM cross-sectoral No. 6, see BTR text for further information.

PaM cross-sectoral No. 3: EU Emissions Trading System 2 (ETS2)

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The EU Emissions Trading System 2 (EU ETS2) covers CO ₂ emissions from fuel combustion in buildings, road transport and additional sectors. The EU ETS2 is separate from the existing EU ETS. The EU ETS2 will be fully operational in 2027, but regulated entities are required to hold a greenhouse gas emissions permit by 1 January 2025, as well as an approved monitoring plan. The emissions that will be covered by the EU ETS2 is currently to a large degree already covered by taxes (see PaM cross-sectoral No. 1). It is too early to estimate the effect that the EU ETS2 can have on national emissions as it is not yet operational.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There are administrative costs for the Norwegian Environment Agency.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with the PaM cross-sectoral No. 1 and several of the PaMs addressing road traffic. Since the effect of the EU ETS2 has not been estimated, there is no overlap in estimates of effects.

PaM cross-sectoral No. 4: Regulation by the Pollution Control Act

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The effect in terms of emission reductions of the Pollution Control Act is not estimated since GHG emissions are to a large extent covered by other specific policy instruments.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The Pollution Control Act lays down a general prohibition against pollution. Implementation of Best Available Techniques (BAT) is a key regulatory requirement under the Pollution Control Act § 2, 3rd letter1. BAT is defined in the Norwegian regulations: Pollution Regulation § 36, appendix II», and is aligned with the definition in the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), Directive 2010/75/EU.

In the waste sector, regulations under the Pollution Control Act are used to ensure minimum environmental standards of landfills and incineration plants, and to regulate the handling of certain waste fractions.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The Pollution Control Act applies also to greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions are however to a large extent covered by other specific policy instruments such as the CO ₂ tax and the EU ETS.

PaM cross-sectoral No. 5: The Planning and Building Act

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The effect on emissions reduced through the regulations in the Planning and Building Act is difficult to estimate, as the emission reduction potential includes transport, land use change and buildings from all Norwegian municipalities. In addition, the base line is not defined.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The legislative purpose of the Act is to ensure sustainable development in the interest of individuals, society and future generations. Among the core plannings functions and considerations required in all planning in accordance with the Act, are climate change adaptation, preservation of agricultural soils and safeguarding nature as the foundation for Sami culture, population and human health, and promotion of civil safety, in addition to climate change mitigation. Sustainable land use in accordance with the Act that reduce emissions from land use change will also predominantly benefit biodiversity.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM cross-sectoral No. 6: Enova

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Enova gives financial support to projects with an aim to contribute to Norway’s emission reduction commitment and contribute to Norway’s transition to a low-emission society. Enova’s support is focused on projects in the late stages of technology development and early stages of market development. Qualifying projects may have an immediate and direct climate implication, however the central aim of the «Enova model» is to contribute to a market transition whereby the relevant technologies and solutions diffuse into and compete in the relevant markets. Support for specific technologies is not permanent, it is typically limited in time and resources to what is deemed necessary to achieve the needed transition. The expected long-term effect of Enova is the emissions reductions that follow from these market transitions. These effects could be both national and international.

Enova does not support projects in a policy vacuum. There are a variety of other policy instruments in Norway, which directly or indirectly aim to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions, support for R&D, taxes, regulations, and various other instruments. In such a context it is hard to say which instrument contributed to which development or reduction. An effect of the signaled steep increase in the carbon tax toward 2030 and onwards may be to reduce the need of financial support from Enova to drive early market diffusion. This illustrates the interplay between different instruments.

Although the overarching aim is to drive a longer term market transition, Enova also records direct emission effect from the individual supported projects. These numbers will not include the market transformation effect, nor can they be wholly attributed to Enova because businesses also respond to and incorporate incentives provided by other instruments. The reductions Enova calculates reflect the difference between the supported project and a defined baseline for each project. This difference (effect) may be in the form of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to reduced consumption of fossil fuels, following from e.g. improved efficiency of fossil sources or conversion from fossil to renewable energy. In addition, emission reductions may result from improved industrial processes. It must be noted that the baseline project may represent a new or expanded activity, thus the reported project result could be a reduced increase in emissions, and not necessarily a net decrease in total emission.

Reported numbers on greenhouse gas emissions reductions builds on Enova-supported projects that have been realized in 2017 or later years. The estimate is based on the direct annual effect from each project on emissions over the project’s expected lifetime. Other instruments such as the CO ₂ tax also play an important role when it comes to the profitability of the project, but the grant from Enova is assumed to be the factor that triggers the project, and the entire direct effect on emissions is in this case credited to Enova.

In the estimates, a project’s lifetime is assumed to be equal to the average lifetime of projects in the relevant sector. The assumed average lifetime of projects is based only on those applications in each sector where a full profitability analysis is required, and thereby expected lifetime is stated. For example, the expected lifetime of projects in transport, industry and the energy system is assumed to be 9, 13 and 23 years, respectively.

For the years after 2021 some assumptions need to be made when it comes to emission effects from the various sectors. Based on historic projects, we assume the following yearly effect from new projects: 300 000 tons CO ₂ in total, where 180 000 comes from transport projects, 80 000 from ESR within industry, 30 000 from ETS industry and 10 000 from other sectors. As the time goes by and the carbon price rises, it is likely that the carbon price increasingly will trigger projects in the market introduction phase. This will possibly result in Enova increasing the focus on technology development and decreasing the focus on market introduction. Technology developing projects usually contribute to less direct emission results than projects in the market introduction phase. Therefore, it is assumed a 20 per cent reduction in direct emission result for projects supported during the years 2025–2035, compared to the assumed results from 2022–2024.

As mentioned above, the most important effect of Enova is technology development and market change that in the longer run contributes to emission reductions. These effects are difficult to estimate and do not show in these estimates.

The estimated accumulated contribution to direct greenhouse gas emission reductions from Enova’s project portfolio is about 0.9 million tonnes of CO ₂ equivalents in 2020 and about 2.6 million tonnes in 2030.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with the PaMs cross-sectoral No. 1 and 2. The main effect of the interacting measures for Enova is to is to increase the cost of the baseline (emission intensive) alternative, thus reducing the level of economic support needed to trigger the projects.

PaM cross-sectoral No. 7: Klimasats

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Municipalities must report on the results and effects of the projects as well as their experiences from the implementation. Knowledge and experiences enable the Norwegian Environment Agency to provide more informed policy advice the Ministry of Climate and Environment. The agency also shares project information and experiences to municipalities through a range of channels, such as webinars, podcast, social media, conferences etc. in order to facilitate the start-up of new projects in other municipalities.

An external evaluation 67 (2019) of the Klimasats scheme has concluded that the funding to a large degree is contributing to the realization of local emission reductions projects that would not have been implemented without financial support. It also found that the scheme stimulates local governments and administrations in identifying new emission reduction projects, it contributes to capacity building and to the dispersion of project ideas and experiences from projects among municipalities.

For many projects, for example when fossil-driven vehicles or machines are replaced by zero emissions technology, it is possible to give a fairly accurate estimate of the emissions reductions effect in tons/CO ₂ . But for complex projects that involve several actors, run over several years, and are affected by different policy measures, it is very difficult to isolate the effect of Klimasats as a policy measure and also to quantify the emissions reductions effect by a reasonable degree of certainty. In such cases, we rely on indicators of transformation towards a low carbon, sustainable future to do a qualitative estimate of the effects.

The Norwegian Environment Agency has been able to estimate the emissions reduction effect in 785 of 1962 projects. (For 1177 projects, quantification is difficult, due to the nature of the project.) The quantifiable and relevant projects are estimated to having reduced 2020 emissions by 16 kt CO ₂ eq., and that it will reduce emissions in 2030 with 53 kt. Estimates are assumed to be conservative. In addition, projects that are not quantifiable still contribute to emissions reductions, development of new methods and solutions for local climate action and sustainable local transformation. More details can be found in a publication (in Norwegian) on the agency’s website. 68

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

From 2016 to 2024, the Klimasats funding scheme has partially funded more than 2200 municipal emissions reductions and green transformation projects throughout the country, with a total of 1,8 billion NOK.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Many projects contribute to a more long-term transition to a low carbon future through urban planning, capacity building and cross-sectoral cooperation. Many projects are transport-related and will reduce exhaust emissions that impacts air quality, and/or will reduce the need for transportation. Many projects also stimulate local government to identify new emission reduction projects, contribute to capacity building and to the dispersion of project ideas and experiences from projects among municipalities. Access to project plans and experiences enable the Norwegian Environment Agency to provide more informed policy advice the Ministry of Climate and Environment.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM share some of the objectives as PaM cross-sectoral No. 6, but Enova is aimed at the private sector and technology development and commercialization and Klimasats is aimed at the public sector and increased uptake of mature technologies.

PaM cross-sectoral No. 8: The environmental technology scheme – Innovation Norway

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The environmental technology scheme supports projects in the demonstration and piloting phase, and it is difficult to quantify the results. The final product or process may not be taken up by the market until several or many years after the support is granted. In their applications, the companies indicate the expected environmental impact of the pilot and the expected effect if the new solution spreads. However, there is no requirement for the effects to be converted into CO ₂ equivalents and climate-specific reporting.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM cross-sectoral No. 9: Nysnø Klimainvesteringer AS (Nysnø)

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Nysnø’s overall effect on greenhouse gas emissions will be determined by Nysnø’s ability to identify and invest in high-return companies and funds, within its mandate. Nysnø’s effect on national emissions will have to be calculated based on actual and estimated future avoided emissions of the companies invested in by Nysnø (directly or indirectly). Methodology to do this with sufficient precision is under development, but does not exist as of today.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM cross-sectoral No. 10: Climate and environmental requirements for public procurements

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

It is difficult to quantify the effects of requirements in public procurements.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

This requirement also includes environmental considerations.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs

Petroleum

PaM petroleum No. 1: Climate policies that affect the petroleum sector

The CO ₂ tax on petroleum activities on the continental shelf

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The effect is calculated by comparing the emission intensity from oil production in Norway and Australia. The underlying assumption is that Australia, having mostly offshore production and a comparable level of overall economic development to Norway, but having a less stringent environmental regulation on its production, serves as a reasonable basis for creating a counterfactual development in Norwegian emissions.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has not been any major change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

The combustion of mineral products leads to other emissions causing harmful air pollution. The tax contributes to reducing these emissions.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM petroleum No. 2: Indirect CO ₂ emissions from offshore and onshore NMVOC regulation

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The regulation on offshore loading and storage of crude oil has, compared to no regulation, reduced the indirect CO ₂ emissions of NMVOC by about 95 kt tonnes CO ₂ - equivalents in 2023. The estimated effects are based on reported data from the oil fields operators to the Norwegian Environmental Agency. In 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 the projected effects are 84, 67, 59 and 54 kt tonnes CO ₂ equivalents respectively. The latter estimates are based on the assumption that it is the same relationship between oil production and reported baseline NMVOC emissions from the oil fields operators as in 2023.

To calculate the effect of the NMVOC regulation on land terminals, the emissions are estimated with and without measures per terminal, and later summarised. The emissions in 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 without measures have been back-calculated from the projected amount of crude oil loaded and an implied emission factor equal to the latest year ahead of the implementation. The emissions in 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 with measures have been calculated with an implied emission factor equal to 2023, which is the most recent year with historical emissions data from the installation. The effect of the regulations is approximately 55 kt CO ₂ equivalents per year since 2017, and the projected effect is also approximately 53 kt CO ₂ equivalents per year.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Both investment cost and operating expenses are relatively high for integrated VOC recovery units. The private cost of complying with the current regulation on offshore loading is about NOK 5,000/tonne CO ₂ equivalents per year for this measure.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The measure reduces emissions of NMVOC. NMVOC may react with NOx to form ground-level ozone and cause damage to health, vegetation and materials. In addition, many volatile organic compounds have negative effects on health. Benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as benzo[a]pyrene are carcinogenic.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM cross-sectoral No. 4.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS)

PaM CCS No. 1: Carbon capture and storage (CCS)

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The Norwegian CCS policy will help to develop and demonstrate CO ₂ capture and storage technologies with a potential for technology transfer. The full-chain demonstration project in Norway, Longship 69 , should contribute to knowledge sharing and technology development in an international perspective. The Norwegian government’s policy includes research, development and demonstration, and international work for the implementation of CCS as an international mitigation measure.

The full-scale project will lead to emission reductions from 2025, if the projects at the cement factory and waste-to-energy plant are realized as planned. It is estimated that the CCS on these plants will reduce the emissions 400 kt tonnes CO ₂ annually from 2025 (10 per cent biogenic CO ₂ ), and 750 kt CO ₂ annually from 2029 (30 per cent biogenic CO ₂ ). The Northern Lights Storage and the Heidelberg Materials carbon capture facility are both in the final stages of construction and is expected to start operations early in 2025. The capture project on the waste-to-energy plant in Oslo has not made final investment decision (FID) as of the time of writing. The effect is based on the planned capacity of the capture projects from their front-end engineering and design (FEED) studies.

It is difficult to quantify the emissions reduction that will be realized through the policy beyond this. The Northern Lights storage facility also plan to receive CO ₂ from the Ørsted project in Denmark (ca. 430 kt CO ₂ annually from 2026, 100 per cent biogenic CO ₂ ), and Yara Sluiskil in the Netherlands (ca. 800 kt CO ₂ annually from 2025), both of which are past FID. The Longship project have facilitated these projects as well. As part of the project, the Northern Lights storage has made some investments in preparation for a phase 2, which will expand the capacity to 5000 kt CO ₂ per year.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The total project costs for Longship are estimated at NOK 25.1 billion. This includes 10 years of operations.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

From the cement factory emissions of SO ₂ and chlorine are expected to be reduced by 80 per cent, PM ₁₀ by 10 per cent, fluoride by 50 per cent, ammonia by 30 per cent.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

Energy and transformation industries

PaM energy No. 1: Electricity tax

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Electricity in Norway is generated through renewable souces with zero emissions. Thus the tax is not expected to have a substantial effect on emissions.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has not been any major change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM energy No. 2: Electricity Certificate Act

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The electricity certificate system is a market based support scheme to promote new electricity production based on renewable energy sources. The support scheme is technology neutral, which means that all energy sources defined as renewable energy sources in accordance with Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources qualifies for the right to certificates. For Norway most of the electricity were already produced from renewable energy sources. The effects on national emissions are indirect, and not possible to calculate.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The support scheme is market based and is financed by end-consumers. Electricity suppliers are obliged to cover a share of their electricity sales by cancelling elcertificates which are bought from producers. The costs associated with buying and cancelling the elcertificates are paid for by end-consumers. As the system is market based, the costs have varied from year to year. The historical prices on elcertificates and an estimation on the cost per kWh for end-consumers are published yearly and the latest report can be found on the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate’s website. 70

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The scheme has brought in 21 TWh of new renewable electricity production in the period from 2012 to 2022. Renewable energy plants with an operating date after 31 ^st of December 2021 is not eligible for elcertificates.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM energy No. 3: Energy requirements in the building code

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Energy requirements for buildings reduce energy use over the lifetime of the building, which reduces the need for energy production and the use of fuelwood. Energy requirements also help reduce peak energy demand, which reduces the need for power grid expansion.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM energy No. 4.

PaM energy No. 4: Ban on the use of mineral oil for heating

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Use of mineral oils for heating of buildings has been regulated through different measures such as CO ₂ tax, mineral oil tax, standards in the building code and support schemes from Enova and municipalities. The ban on the use of mineral oils for heating of most buildings from 2020 means that most residential, public, and commercial buildings has phased out emissions from such use.

Total direct emissions from heating of households and businesses have declined by more than 80 per cent since 1990, from 2.7 to 0.5 million CO ₂ equivalents. The remaining emissions are mostly from the use of gas and from wood burning. The projection estimates emissions of 0.25 million tonnes of CO ₂ equivalents in 2030.

It is difficult to separate the emission effect of different measures, but on the basis of the assumption mentioned above, the effect of the ban on the use of mineral oil for heating of buildings can be estimated to 400 kt CO ₂ equivalents in 2020, and 380 kt CO ₂ equivalents in 2030. The estimated effect in 2030 includes an additional 80 kt per year from the expansion of the ban to include the use of mineral oil for heating purposes of buildings under construction or renovation from 2022.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The ban reduces local air pollution and the risk of oil leaks from oil tanks to the ground.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM energy No. 3.

PaM energy No. 5: Bionova

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Bionova consists of a value added scheme for renewable energy and technology development and a bioeconomy programme. Only the climate effect of the value added scheme for renewable energy and technology development is quantified. The scheme supports production and use of renewable energy on farms. The largest part of the budget is used on bioenergy production from wood or wood pellets. There is no historical data on what type of energy this bioenergy substitutes. Some of the budget is used on biogas plants on farms, but the effect overlaps with the PaM support for delivery of manure to biogas production. The support for changing heating of greenhouses from fossil to renewable energy is the only part of the PaM that can be quantified with the current data available. In 2020 three projects received support for a total of 1,3 GWh and the climate effect was estimated to 300 tons of CO ₂ equivalents. In 2023 the number of projects for fossil free heating of greenhouses increased to 12 with a total of 12,5 GWh. If this level of support is continued, the effect in 2030 will be 3000 tons of CO ₂ equivalents. For the calculation of climate effect an emission factor of 243 grams of CO ₂ per kWh is used assuming that NPG is substituted by wood. The data collection for the scheme is under improvement and will give the possibility to quantify the effect of substituting fossil fuel with bioenergy in the future.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

The calculations are now based on data for substitution of fossil fuels.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The PaM interacts with the PaM agriculture No. 7.

Transport

PaM transport No. 1: The CO ₂ -tax on mineral products (road transport only)

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The emissions from road traffic are covered by several strong mitigation policies that have large overlaps and interactions. In order to provide a reasonable estimate the impact of these policies needs to be calculated as a whole, and are reported under this PaM.

Electric vehicles

To analyse the effect on emissions from the different incentives provided for Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) we compare the BEV share to a country with few incentives towards the purchase of BEVs. The EV-share in Australia is approximately 1.0 per cent In total, Norwegian EVs drove approximately 9 948 million kilometers in 2023, or 28 per cent of the distance driven by passenger cars. If the BEV share was 1.0 per cent instead, 9 591 million of those kilometers are assumed to be driven by cars with internal combustion engines (ICE) instead, with an average fuel efficiency of 0.8 and 0.65 liters per ten kilometers for petrol and diesel cars. This results in a counterfactual fuel consumption in road traffic given the absence of any BEV-incentives, which is used as a baseline for the calculation of the effect of the biofuel blending mandate

Biofuel blending mandate

The estimated emission reduction for 2020 is based on estimated consumption of fossil fuels adjusted for the increased consumption an abolishment of all EV-incentives would entail. The observed share of biofuels in 2023 is used as a point estimate. In the calculation of the mitigation effect, it is assumed that without the mandates the sale of biofuels would be replaced by fossil fuels. It is taken into account that the energy content in biofuel is lower than in fossil fuel, i.e. 1 liter of biofuel replaces less than 1 liter of fossil fuel. This provides a new counterfactual fuel consumption in road traffic given the absence of both EV incentives and the blending mandates, which is used as a baseline for the calculation of the mitigation effect of the CO ₂ -tax and the road usage tax.

CO2-tax, road usage tax and the price effect of the biofuel mandate

Taxes on fuels used in road traffic leads to increased prices for consumers. Since biofuels are more expensive than fossil fuels the sales mandate will also lead to an increase in fuel prices. The Norwegian Ministry of Finance has developed a model to analyse the mitigation effects of changes in the taxes on GHGs. The model combines price data, volume data from the tax authorities, and elasticities from economic literature to predict the mitigation effect of each tax for the different sectors and products that the tax covers. The analysis uses the sales volumes of fossil fuels stemming from an abolishment of the biofuel sales mandates and abolishing the incentives towards purchasing low and zero emission vehicles described above, and the mitigation effect is calculated as the response in sales volume following the decrease in prices that an abolishment of the taxes and the sales mandate would entail.

The total effect on emission

The procedure above provides an estimate of the level of emissions in 2023 given the absence of the included policies and measures. It is estimated that emissions would be increased by 4.7 million to a total of 13.0 million tonnes. Mitigation effects are calculated assuming that without these measures, emissions from Norwegian road transportation would remain stable at this counterfactual level for the entire period 2024-2040, instead of being reduced in accordance with the WeM-projections.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has not been any major change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Carbon taxes confers costs on the emitters that leads to an equivalent generation of revenue for the government, meaning there is no cost to society, rather a redistribution of revenue. The tax does however require administration and reporting for both the government and the tax subjects. These costs are considered to be small. A tax rate of NOK 1 176 is equivalent to a tax rate of NOK 3.17 per liter of mineral oil.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

The combustion of mineral products leads to other emissions causing harmful air pollution. The tax contributes to reducing these emissions. The tax also contributes to reducing congestion, accidents and other harmful effects from road traffic.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with transport PaM No. 2-4, 6 and 11. The calculated mitigation includes the mitigation effect of transport PaMs No. 2-4 and 6.

PaM transport No. 2: Road usage tax

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

See description under PaM transport No. 1.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has not been any major change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

The combustion of mineral products leads to other emissions causing harmful air pollution. The tax contributes to reducing these emissions. The tax also contributes to reducing congestion, accidents and other harmful effects from road traffic.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with transport PaM 1, 3-4, 6 and 11. The calculated mitigation is included in the mitigation effect of transport PaM 1.

PaM transport No. 3: One-off registration tax based on CO ₂ -emissions

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

See description under PaM transport No. 1.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There have not been any major change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with transport PaM 1, 2, 4, 6 and 11. The calculated mitigation is included in the mitigation effect of transport PaM 1.

PaM transport No. 4: Tax advantages for electric vehicles

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

See description under PaM transport No. 1.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There have not been any major change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

In 2024, the estimated tax expenditures related to electric vehicles in Norway are NOK 28 billion.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

The combustion of mineral products leads to other emissions causing harmful air pollution. The tax advantages contributes to reducing these emissions.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with transport PaM 1-3, 6 and 11. The calculated mitigation is included in the mitigation effect of transport PaM 1.

PaM transport No. 5: CO ₂ tax on emissions under the ETS from domestic aviation

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The effect is calculated as a scenario analysis using the SNOW-model and the framework for the WEM-projections. The CO ₂ -tax on mineral products is explicitly modeled in SNOW, so the effect is calculated by running the model using the same assumptions as in the WEM-scenario, but changing the tax rate in the CO ₂ -tax to 0 for the period 2025-2040, and calculating the yearly difference in emissions from the WEM-scenario. The SNOW-model and assumptions for the WEM-scenario is described in further detail in chapter 2.6.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

In previous reporting the effect was calculated using the static elasticity model KAJA. For this report the SNOW-model has been used instead.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Carbon taxes confers costs on the emitters that leads to an equivalent generation of revenue for the government, meaning there is no cost to society, rather a redistribution of revenue. The tax does however require administration and reporting for both the government and the tax subjects. These costs are considered to be small. A tax rate of NOK 674 is equivalent to a tax rate of NOK 1.72 per liter of mineral oil.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

The combustion of mineral products leads to other emissions causing harmful air pollution. The CO ₂ -tax contributes to reducing these emissions.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with transport PaM No. 9. The calculated mitigation is acquired by using a macroeconomic model and should appropriately take into account any overlap effects from the mitigation caused by the other PaMs.

PaM transport No. 6: Biofuel mandate for road transportation

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The methodology is described under PaM transport No. 1 X

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has not been any major change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Biofuels from wastes and residues typically have a social-economic cost of approx. 4000-7 000 NOK/tonne CO ₂ .

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with transport PaM 1, 2, 4, 6 and 11. The calculated mitigation is included in the mitigation effect of transport PaM 1.

PaM transport No. 7: Biofuel mandate for shipping

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The methodology is described under PaM transport nr 1.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has not been any major change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Biofuels from wastes and residues typically have a social-economic cost of approx. 4000-7 000 NOK/ton CO ₂ .

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with transport PaM No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 11. The calculated mitigation is included in the mitigation effect of transport PaM No. 1.

PaM transport No. 8: Biofuel mandate for other sectors

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The methodology is described under PaM transport nr 1.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has not been any major change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Biofuels from wastes and residues typically have a social-economic cost of approx. 4000-7 000 NOK/ton CO ₂ .

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with transport PaM No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 11. The calculated mitigation is included in the mitigation effect of transport PaM No. 1.

PaM transport No. 9: Biofuel mandate for aviation

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The estimated effect for 2020 is based on actual amounts of biofuels for aviation in 2020. The estimated effect for 2030 is based on projected amounts of biofuels for 2030 for aviation.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Estimated socio-economic cost: 5,000 NOK/tonne CO ₂ . The measure increases fuel costs for airlines and reduces revenue from the CO ₂ tax. The measure could result in an increase in fuel costs in 2030 of 0,4–0,7 NOK per liter, and an increase in ticket prices of 1–3 percent.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The PaM can stimulate the implementation of new technology for the production of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), which can provide learning and cost reductions for subsequent projects.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM transport No. 5.

PaM transport No. 10: Pilot projects for zero emission construction sites

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The first pilots started in 2022. The direct effect from the scheme has not been possible to estimate, but the total emissions from machines and vehicles used in transport infrastructure projects are estimated to be at least 4–5 per cent of the total emissions from the transport sector, 600-700 000 tonnes CO ₂ equivalents. Speedier introduction of zero-emission machines and advanced technology development could also benefit other sectors and thereby lead to an even larger reduction in national emissions.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The investment costs for zero-emission construction machinery are currently significantly higher than for machinery with combustion engines. These costs are reflected in higher prices for the execution of construction sites with zero-emission equipment. Furthermore, there are costs for establishing charging infrastructure at the construction site. The total costs vary significantly between different machinery and construction sites. We see that investment cost for smaller and more mature zero emission technologies are going down, and for some work processes, the costs are no longer significantly higher than operations performed with combustion engines.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Zero-emission machinery contribute to reduction of local air pollution and less noise on the construction sites.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM transport No. 11: Urban mobility – urban growth agreements

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions. The estimates are the same as in the previous report.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM transport No. 12: Maximum CO ₂ -emissions from the coastal services Bergen-Kirkenes

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Based on the annual maximum allowed emissions level in the contract (162 000 t CO ₂ ), it is estimated that the emissions will be reduced by approximately 60 000 t CO ₂ in 2030.

Emissions from the coastal route Bergen-Kirkenes has in the current contractual period averaged 142 199 tonnes CO ₂ per year, compared to 230 kt CO ₂ in 2016. Conversion factors for CO ₂ for various energy carriers are provided by the Ministry of Climate and Environment. There is no contract beyond 2030 as of now.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

In the previous report the emission reduction in 2035 was estimated to be similar to 2030. In this report, we make no such assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The emission requirement is costly and varies between the two operators of the route. One of the operators has reported emissions above the maximum allowed level for the first few years of the contract. The operator has however implemented further measures to ensure they will be within the average annual limit at the end of the contract period.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Less local air pollution.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

Vessels currently running in coastal service have just recently been included in the EU emission trading system. However, the effect of expanding the EU ETS to maritime transport has not yet been assessed as it was just recently included. The PaM also interacts with the PaM transport No. 7.

PaM transport No. 13: Requirements for zero and low-emission technology in tenders for public ferries

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The emissions from ferries have decreased by about 100 kt CO ₂ from 2015 until 2020 and is estimated to decrease by a further 100 kt CO ₂ by 2025. Eventually emission from this segment will be close to zero. This is likely as a result of the requirements for zero and low-emission technology in tenders for ferries on the national and county council highways, on tenders that have been awarded, announced or expected as of today. It’s likely that the downward trend will continue. There will be a new national zero emission requirement for all public tender ferries from 2025.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Costs vary significantly between different ferry connections.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Reduction of local air pollution and less noise on board.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

A few vessels currently running on contract with the National Public Roads Administration have just recently been included in the EU emission trading system. However, the effect of expanding the EU ETS to maritime transport has not yet been assessed as it was just recently included. The PaM also interacts with the PaM transport No. 7.

PaM transport No. 14: Green Shipping Programme

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Immediate effects are expected from the pilots that are realized, as well as the projects from the Service Center. The effects are ships in operation with dramatically reduced emissions, and in many cases with zero emissions. The potential in scaling of the successful pilots must not be underestimated, and the technologies that are proven feasible can be realized on a larger scale in 5-10 years. Hence, the emission reduction potential is substantially larger than what is shown in the individual projects within the programme. The effect of the pilots has not been quantified.

The emission reduction potential from the Service Center’s projects is approximately 260 kt CO ₂ /year. Effects are expected from 2028 and for 2030, an increase of projects in the portfolio is assumed. Further increases in effect are expected after 2030.

A primary role for GSP is also to funnel projects into available public and private funding schemes, e.g. from Enova, thus enhancing the impact of these schemes. Effects in the longer run and outside of GSP are expected, as results from barrier studies, roadmaps, and reduction of business risk after successful demonstration in the pilots. A primary function of the GSP is to identify barriers through work on concrete, actual projects – and to communicate these barriers, as well as possible measures and policies to overcome them, to stakeholders including government entities. One example is the GSP barrier study on electrical ferries that accelerated the implementation of emission requirements from the authorities. The Service Center’s focus on the cargo owners stimulates the development of the market for green fuels and environmentally friendly transport services, increasing the demand for, and availability of such.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Costs vary greatly between different technologies and segments.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Reduction of local air pollution and less noise on board.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

Some of the vessels included in the programme may be included in the EU emission trading system. However, the effect of expanding the EU ETS to maritime transport has not yet been assessed as it was just recently included. The PaM also interacts with the PaM transport No. 7.

PaM transport No. 15: Risk loan scheme for low and zero emission vessels, short sea vessels and fishing fleet

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Innovation Norway (IN) has issued loans of around 570 million NOK, for investments on a total of 28 ships, including two fishing vessels, since its start in 2020. The emission reductions in the projects supported by the scheme have an estimated emission reduction between 25 percent to 71 percent per tonnemile. The emission reduction effect has not been estimated due uncertainties of actual emission reductions.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

NOx-emission reductions are estimated to be around 80-90 percent.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

Vessel supported under the scheme may also be included in the EU emission trading system. However, the effect of expanding the EU ETS to maritime transport has not yet been assessed as it was just recently included. The PaM also interacts with the PaM transport No. 7.

PaM transport No. 16: High speed passenger ferries scheme

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Some projects will directly reduce emissions by implementing zero emission vessels. The estimated effect of this is around 33 kt CO ₂ per year from 2025, possibly more in 2030 and 2035 depending on funded projects in upcoming tenders. The emission reduction estimates are based on the county councils own actual emissions data for current vessels in operation. These vessels will be replaced with zero or lower emission vessels. Actual emission reductions will in some tenders depend on what operators will offer, while some set clear minimum emission standards because of support from the scheme.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Costs vary significantly between different routes. Costs may be 20–100 percent higher than conventional fossil fuel-based solutions.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Reduction of local emissions and noise.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The PaM interacts with the PaM transport No. 7.

PaM transport No. 17: Maritime Zero 2050

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The Maritime Zero 2050 call was first initiated in 2022, and the three research projects given funding the first year started up in 2023 and will last until 2025 (when prototypes will be tested on board vessels etc.). The four research projects given funding in 2023 started in 2023/2024 and will last until 2026/2027. The research projects that will be given funding in 2024 is expected to end in 2028. This means that the first effect on national emissions resulting from these projects the earliest can be seen from 2025 and after.

The funded projects will provide new knowledge and potential new zero-emission solutions for large ships sailing long distances, but it is not given how many ships that will be converted or replaced from conventional fossil fuel ships to zero-emission fuel ships based on this. As the relevant ships are large ships sailing long distances, it should also be noted that some of the emission reductions may be outside of Norway. The emission reduction effect has not been estimated due to lack of data.

However, it is possible to give high-level indications on emission reduction potential per ship that is converted or replaced based on the project results. For an example, looking at the project related to nuclear propulsion of merchant ships, this nuclear solution may replace a conventional LNG carrier typically consuming almost 40,000 metric tons HFO per year, which will result in emission reductions of roughly 120,000 metric tons of CO ₂ per ship.

The results from the two hydrogen projects will be essential elements in a combined knowledge base and technology platform that will facilitate the widespread, efficient, sustainable and safe use of liquid hydrogen for merchant ships. Optimizing entire power and propulsion systems will save large amounts of power and energy, and this is a necessary step to enable use of hydrogen and obtain reduction in GHG emissions in the maritime sector.

Other funded projects aim via new methods and technology to accurately document and verify emissions incurred in the entire fuel value chain from raw material sourcing to fuel use, incorporating both Well-To-Tank and Tank-To-Wake emissions. By documenting emissions incurred throughout the fuel value chain, the project results may empower stakeholders with the transparency and trust needed to help the shipping industry to decarbonize. However, it is challenging to estimate the emission reduction effect on such projects.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

Vessel supported under the scheme may also be included in the EU emission trading system. However, the effect of expanding the EU ETS to maritime transport has not yet been assessed as it was just recently included. The PaM also interacts with the PaM transport No. 7.

PaM transport No. 18: Investments in railways

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

In addition to impacts on emissions from the National Transport Plan, emission reductions from electrification projects on non-electric railway lines that are proposed in the national budget has also been estimated.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits

Transfer of traffic from road to rail has positive effects besides emission reductions as it also reduces local air pollution that might stem from wear of roads and tires.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM transport No. 19, as electrification will reduce emissions from certain freight relations by rail. As that PaM is difficult to estimate, these benefits have also not been quantified.

PaM transport No. 19: Grant funding to transport freight by rail

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

From 2019 to 2023 freight transport by rail has had no significant growth, but with strong fluctuations on a year-by-year basis. Because of the collapse of the railway bridge at Randklev in august 2023 due to flooding, freight transport by rail lost infrastructure capacity between Oslo and Trondheim, leading to a decrease transport from 2022 to 2023 of about 12 per cent. Until the bridge was fully restored in May 2024 (including follow on effects of lost market shares) the transport further decreased by 20 per cent compared to the corresponding period in 2023. The rail freight companies have in September 2024 reported that the freight volumes are returning to the affected transport relations. Further, the total assigned freight volumes for 2025 are stable from 2024. It has however not yet been time to calculate the effects of the support scheme on national emissions. Increased rail capacity, freight transport demand and restrictive measures for road transport are key drivers for a modal shift from road to rail. The support scheme is thus one of multiple measures that works simultaneously to increase transport freight by rail. Additionally, the Covid 19 pandemic had an impact for both global and national demand for goods, which increased national freight transport by rail in the second half of 2020. This sudden increase occurred simultaneously as the first payment from the support scheme took place.

To determine the effect of the support scheme on national emissions, more data over time is needed to isolate different explanatory variables. Nevertheless, the support scheme did improve market conditions for rail freight companies, and thus contributed to the growth observed in the last years. New analyses indicate that the grant funding has a significant impact on the economic situation of the rail freight companies and would negatively impact the supply of rail freight and large parts of the current freight transport by rail would plausibly be shifted to road.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The grant fund has been allocated 100 MNOK for 2025. Funds are allocated in the national budget, on a year-by-year basis, as such there is no information to report on future costs beyond 2025.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM transport No. 20: Zero emission requirements for public procurement of vehicles

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

There has been made estimates of the emission effect of having all new vehicles in the different vehicle groups become zero emission. These estimates are based on calculations in the two reports « Klimatiltak i Norge mot 2030 » of 2023 and « Klimatiltak i Norge – Kunnskapsgrunnlag 2024 », both from the Norwegian Environment Agency. These reports both calculate emission reductions of electrification of vans, buses and trucks. The calculations are based on projections in the National Budget for 2023 and 2025, and of estimates of replacement rates and composition of the vehicle fleet. In the reports, effects of the planned measures are calculated as the emission effects exceeding the electrification assumed in the baseline projections.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

PaM not included in previous report.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Electric city buses are in most cases competitive with fossil fueled ones when looking at total costs, but high investment costs might be a barrier for some, and especially for the smaller bus companies.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Reduction of local air pollution and less noise in the bus.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

Industrial processes and product use

PaM industry No. 1: CO ₂ compensation scheme

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Starting from 2024, the scheme will have a payment ceiling of 7 billion NOK, which will be adjusted for inflation annually.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The scheme will also contribute to energy efficiency going forward.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The PaM is considered to interact with the PaM cross-sectoral No. 2.

PaM industry No. 2: Use of bio carbon in the production of cement and ferroalloys

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The measure is implemented by private companies and therefore is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The PaM is considered to interact with the PaM cross-sectoral No. 2.

PaM industry No. 3: N ₂ O reduction, production and nitric acid

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The estimated effects on national emissions have been estimated by comparing emission intensity (tonne N ₂ O/tonne nitric acid) with a «business-as-usual» scenario from 1990 with no change in emission intensity since 1990. The effect for 2020 is based on production levels and emissions from the GHG inventory, while 2030 estimates are consistent with the GHG projections. The effects for 2020 is estimated to 2500 kt CO ₂ equivalents, while the projected effect in 2030 is estimated to 2400 kt CO ₂ equivalents.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The measure is implemented by private companies and therefore is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The PaM is considered to interact with the PaM cross-sectoral No. 2. The production of nitric acid was opted-in to the EU ETS in 2008 and this has provided incentives for further emissions reductions.

PaM industry No. 4: Agreement with the aluminium industry

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The emission intensity (tonne PFC in CO ₂ eq/tonne aluminium) has decreased substantially. This is a result of the sustained work and the strong attention on reduction of the anode effect frequency and time in all these pot lines and the shift from the Soederberg production technology to prebaked technology. The estimated effects on national emissions have been estimated by comparing the emission intensity with a «business-as-usual» scenario from 1990 with no change in emission intensity since 1990. The effect for 2020 is based on production levels and emissions from the GHG inventory, while 2030 estimates are consistent with the GHG projections. The effects for 2020 and 2030 are both estimated to 5200 kt CO ₂ equivalents.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

The reported effects in NC8/BR5 were based on GWP-100 values from the IPCCs fourth assessment report.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The measure was implemented by private companies and therefore is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The PaM is considered to interact with the PaM cross-sectoral No. 2. The production of aluminium entered the EU ETS in 2013 and this has provided incentives for further emissions reductions.

PaM industry No. 5: F-gas regulation and the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The Norwegian Environment Agency provided an updated assessment on the effect on HFC emissions of planned measures in 2016, based on the work of a national expert. For 2020, the Norwegian Environment Agency has estimated a reduction in HFC emissions of about 150 kt CO ₂ -equivalents. Comparing projected emissions with emission levels in 2015 gives an estimated effect of approximately 600 kt in 2030 and 660 kt CO ₂ -equivalents in 2035. The effect in 2035 includes an effect of 27 thousand tonnes CO ₂ -equivalents from restrictions on SF ₆ in certain products, such as windows. The effect is estimated as likely emissions without the measure.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The assessment from 2016 estimated the costs to 500 to 670 kroner/tonne CO ₂ eq reduced emissions. The costs are related to both investment and operational costs for leakage checks and recovery of used f-gases, as well as related to the transition to HFCs with lower GWP values.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with the PaM industry No. 6. That PaM is an incentive to avoid investments in equipments containing high-GWP-HFC and PFC, as well as reducing leakage from existing equipments, and thereby reducing the amount of HFC and PFC imported to Norway. This contributes to fulfil the commitments under the Kigali amendment and implementing the F-gas regulation. That PaM is also an incentive to avoid emissions of HFC and PFC at end-of-life. This contributes to achieving the requirements in the F-gas regulation concerning safe recovery and destruction of used f-gases.

PaM industry No. 6: Tax and reimbursement scheme on HFC and PFC

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Norway has no methodology for estimating the impact that provides estimates of a sufficiently high quality.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Previous reporting has included an estimated impact calculated using data from the period 2010-2012. This estimate is now considered to be outdated, and is therefore not used in this report.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Carbon taxes confers costs on the emitters that leads to an equivalent generation of revenue for the government, meaning there is no cost to society, rather a redistribution of revenue. The tax does however require administration and reporting for both the government and the tax subjects. These costs are considered to be small. The tax rate measured in kilograms of HFC/PFC varies greatly between the different products depending on its global warming potential value.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with PaM industry No. 5.

PaM industry No. 7: Tax on SF ₆

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The effect is calculated as a scenario analysis using the SNOW-model and the framework for the WEM-projections. The tax on waste incineration is explicitly modeled in SNOW, so the effect is calculated by running the model using the same assumptions as in the WEM-scenario, but changing the tax rate to 0 for the period 2025-2040, and calculating the yearly difference in emissions from the WEM-scenario. The SNOW-model and assumptions for the WEM-scenario is described in further detail in chapter 2.6.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

The PaM was introduced in 2023 and has not been previously reported.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Carbon taxes confers costs on the emitters that leads to an equivalent generation of revenue for the government, meaning there is no cost to society, rather a redistribution of revenue. The tax does however require administration and reporting for both the government and the tax subjects. These costs are considered to be small. The tax rate is NOK 1 176 per tonnes of CO ₂ -equivalent which corresponds to NOK 27 636 per kg of SF ₆ .

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with industry PaM No. 5. The calculated mitigation is acquired by using a macroeconomic model and should appropriately take into account any overlap effects from the mitigation caused by the other PaMs.

Agriculture

PaM agriculture No. 1: Regional agri-environmental programme

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Environmentally friendly spreading of manure corresponds to category 1 techniques as identified in the guidance document for the LRTAP-convention (ECE/EB.AIR/120). Such techniques save ammonia emissions and indirectly also N ₂ O emissions from deposition of ammonia. Such savings may also reduce the need for mineral fertilizers and resulting N ₂ O emissions from this source, however, the latter effect only arise if farmers reduce the dosage of fertilizer according to improved input efficiency.

In Norwegian reports to the LRTAP-convention, we note that uptake of category 1 techniques has risen over recent years and in 2023 the area with environmentally friendly spreading of manure reached 29 per cent of the agricultural area where manure is spread. The regional agri-environment programme was introduced in 2013 and to estimate the effect of the measure, activity data from 2013 was compared to activity data from 2020. The use of environmentally friendly spreading of manure reduced the emissions with about 6 600 tons of CO ₂ -equivalents in 2020. In 2030 environmentally friendly spreading of manure will reduce the emissions with 7 000 tons of CO ₂ - equivalents, given that the level of activity from 2023 is continued.

Estimated effects of measures primarily targeted at abatement of erosion and run-off

Various policies under regional agri-environmental programmes address erosion and run-off from arable cropping systems, with effects also for conservation of nutrients and soils, and thus for abatement of GHG emissions. In the abovementioned scale up of funds for Regional Agri-environmental Programmes in 2022, particular priority has been given to support such abatement. Furthermore, from 2023, farms in specific regions draining to the Oslofjord estuary meet requirements that zones adjacent to water courses shall have plant cover over winter, and 60 percent of the cropland of individual farms shall be equipped with plant cover over winter. Similar policy development in other erosion-prone regions are due in coming years.

Practices to comply with support schemes and/or requirements targeted at arable cropping systems include use of buffer strips, no-autumn tillage, and catch-/cover-crops. There is general agreement that such practices support retention of soil organic matter and nutrients, and in this way sequester carbon and reduce N ₂ O emissions, while quantifying such effects is more complex. First, we can estimate that uptake of soil conserving practices in arable cropping increase substantially. Uptake currently amount to 1/3 of overall land allocated to arable crops, corresponding to around 100.000 ha of land. With policies and measures under implementation, we project that in the near future, uptake will increase to 1/2 of arable cropland (around 150.000 ha of land). The area of catch crops increased from 8 000 ha in 2020 to 17 000 ha in 2023.

The effect of these measures is currently not included in the official inventory. The effect of no-autumn tillage has not been estimated due to lack of research. The carbon sequestration of catch crops can however be estimated using factors from the literature.

Assuming a carbon sequestration of 880 kg CO ₂ pr ha pr year, an increase in direct N ₂ O emissions of 16 kg CO ₂ equivalents pr ha pr year, a reduction in indirect N ₂ O from leaching of 70 kg CO ₂ -equivalents pr ha pr year, and an increase in CO ₂ from field operations of 4 kg pr ha pr year, the net mitigation effect from use of cover crops on 8 000 ha correspond to 7 500 tons of CO ₂ -equivalents for 2020. If the area with catch crops is continued as in 2023, the emission reduction in 2030 will be around 16 000 tons of CO ₂ equivalents.

Biochar was included in the scheme in 2023, and if the level of biochar used in this year is continued, the emission reduction in 2030 will be 49 tons of CO ₂ equivalents.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The cost of environmental spreading of manure is estimated to about 3000 NOK per ton of CO ₂ equivalents. Catch crops has a cost of 1000- 1400 NOK per ton of CO ₂ equivalent while biochar has an estimated cost of under 500 NOK per ton of CO ₂ equivalent.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The measure will improve water quality, reduce ammonia emissions and contribute to climate adaptation and biodiversity.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM agriculture No. 2: Requirements and support for livestock on pasture

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The 2019 refinement of IPCC guidelines was implemented for emissions from deposition of manure on pasture in 2023The emission factor is lower than in the 2006 IPPC guidelines and consequently, the emissions will decrease with increased use of pasture. Activity data for pasture is however not updated since 2013, so changes in pasture use will not be reflected in the emissions.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable. GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Pastureland use at Norway’s northern latitudes can result in non-GHG mitigation benefits due to suppression of vegetation and therefore brighter surface, resulting in increased reflection of solar radiation and increased surface albedo. Especially in Norway’s mountainous regions with snow cover for extensive periods each winter, this climate benefit through increased albedo is considered to partially or completely outweigh the climate cost of suppressed vegetation (carbon removals foregone).

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM agriculture No. 3: Support scheme for Special Environmental Measures in Agriculture

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The effect on emissions from better storage of manure depends on several characteristics and is therefore hard to estimate. Investment support is given only to storage constructions that are better than requirements established in overall regulations, e.g. capacity to store manures for longer periods in order to optimise the timing of application, and/or instalment of cover on storage silos in order to prevent excessive emissions.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Improved storage capacity for manure is estimated to have a cost of about 3000 NOK per ton of CO ₂ equivalent.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM agriculture No. 4: Drainage of agricultural soils

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

There is a tendency of higher emissions of N ₂ O from soils with high humidity. Drainage may therefore reduce such emissions. Additionally, yields on properly drained fields are higher, which lower the emissions pr kg of product. However, the effect also depends on e.g. fertilizer, time of fertilization, humidity of the soil, structure of the soil and pH values. There are currently few studies available that can help quantifying the effect on emissions, and more knowledge is therefore needed.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The measure will contribute to climate adaptation, increased yields and better working conditions.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM agriculture No. 5: Project Climate Smart Agriculture

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The effect on emissions has not been estimated since the project should be considered as a support system and enabling condition for other, more specific improvements.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM gives more knowledge about climate and environment and could in this way interact with several other PaMs.

PaM agriculture No. 6: Climate and environment programme

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The project is related to development and dissemination of knowledge, while actual effect on emissions can only happen through on-farm implementation. The effect on emissions has therefore not been estimated.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM gives more knowledge about climate and environment that can be relevant for several of the other PaMs.

PaM agriculture No. 7: Delivery of manure for production of biogas

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

The use of manure for biogas production has increased from 77 000 tons in 2020 to 138 000 tons in 2023, which equals about 1,6 per cent of the manure in Norway.

The effect of the support scheme is estimated to about 2 200 t CO ₂ -equivalents in 2020 and 3 400 tons of CO ₂ -equivalents in 2030. The emission reduction in 2030 is based on a continuation of the share of manure delivered to biogas production in 2023.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The share of manure delivered to biogas- production in 2020 is compared to activity data from 2014, the year before the support scheme was implemented.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

The effect of the PaM in 2030 is estimated by assuming that the level of manure delivered to biogas production in 2023 is continued until 2030.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The cost of the measure is estimated to about 1000 NOK per ton CO ₂ equivalent.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Biogas production from manure could contribute to redistribution of phosphorus from areas with high animal density.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

Biogas plant on farms receive support from the renewable scheme.

PaM agriculture No. 8: Restrictions on cultivation of peatlands

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Emissions from land conversion from peatland to cropland are reported in the agriculture chapter for N ₂ O, while the LULUCF chapter covers CO ₂ emissions. New cultivation of peatlands was forbidden in Norway in 2020. In 2020, the area of new cultivation of peatland was about the same as in 2019, but in 2021 the restrictions reduced the area of new cultivation and the related emissions of N ₂ O and CO ₂ . The area of newly cultivated peatland decreased from 82 ha in 2021 to 17 ha in 2023. Since 2021 is the first year where the regulation was effective the whole year, the area of new cultivated peatland in this year was used when estimating the future effect of the measure.

Since the restrictions were enforced in June 2019, the effect for 2020 is set to 0. The effect is estimated to increase to 4 500 tons CO ₂ eq. in 2030, based on the prevention of cultivation of 180 ha per year. It is only the reductions of N ₂ O form this measure that is reported in the agricultural sector. The largest share of emission reductions is CO ₂ which is reported in the LULUCF sector. The effect of the restrictions is increasing over time because the emissions from each hectare of drained peatlands continue for decades after the drainage has happened.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Forest on organic soils has been included in the calculations since the last report. This is because the restrictions also apply to these areas.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The cost of the measure is estimated to under 500 NOK per ton of CO ₂ equivalents.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Intact peatlands and bogs are crucial for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. Conserving these areas will also contribute to climate adaptation through flood mitigation and natural barriers against forest fires.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF)

PaM LULUCF No. 1: Higher seedling densities in existing areas of forest land

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Higher seedling densities have very limited effect by 2030. However, it has greater potential in the long term. The total potential is not yet reached. Based on statistics, about 50 per cent of the planted area has been covered by this scheme since it was implemented in 2016.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

In 2022, forest owners received subsidies totalling 25.2 million NOK on 18,661 hectares. By 2023, the subsidized area slightly decreased to 17,506 hectares, but the subsidy increased to 27.8 million NOK. The contribution from forest owners was 59.3 million NOK in 2022 and 53 million NOK in 2023.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The measure contributes to increasing forest production per unit area, providing a basis for increased harvesting and value added for forest owners and the forest industry. It can help meet increased future market demand for forest raw materials and products.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM LULUCF No. 2.

PaM LULUCF No. 2: Genetical improvement, plant breeding

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The potential for CO ₂ removal is expected to be limited until 2030, but significantly higher estimates are projected for 2100. The long-term strategy for breeding Norway spruce involves ensuring that 100per cent of planted spruce trees come from improved plant material by 2040. In 2020, a breeding program was launched for pine and birch, and a seed plantation has already been established for black alder. Additionally, other tree species are being considered for similar breeding programs.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Since 2016, the annual support has been approximately 15 million NOK, which was given as support to The Norwegian Forest Seed Foundation, which is responsible for forest plant breeding.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The measure contributes to increasing forest production per unit area, providing a basis for increased harvesting and value-added for forest owners and the forest industry. It can help meet increased future market demand for raw materials and products from forests.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM LULUCF No. 1 and 5.

PaM LULUCF No. 3: Fertilization of forests as a climate mitigation measure

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

It is estimated that fertilization of 5 000-10 000 hectares of forest is acceptable for biodiversity and the environment. If 5 000-10 000 hectares of forest is fertilized, estimates show additional CO ₂ removals of 140 to 270 kt tonnes CO ₂ annually. The effect of the measure will gradually increase and peak after approximately 10 years. With a steady area treated yearly the effect can be prolonged over time.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

In 2022, forest owners received subsidies totaling 0.5 million NOK, and 300 hectares of forest land were fertilized. In 2023, the fertilized area increased to 2120 hectares, and the subsidies increased to 5.8 million NOK. The price per decare for forest owners was 400 NOK in 2022 and 600 NOK in 2023. The total cost for 2023 amounted to 12.7 million NOK, including the cost from the forest owner.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The measure contributes to increasing forest production per unit area, providing a basis for increased harvesting and value-added for forest owners and the forest industry. It can help meet increased future market demand for raw materials and products from forests.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM LULUCF No. 4: Tending of juvenile stands

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

By increasing the area treated each year, removals can be enhanced by 2030. However, the short term effect will be minimal. The measure will mostly have long term effects, so the removal potential is much larger toward 2100. Tending as a climate measure was included in 2023 as a new climate measure in Norwegian forestry.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

The subsidies provided for tending in 2023 were 4.5 million NOK.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The measure contributes to increasing forest production per unit area, providing a basis for increased harvesting and value-added for forest owners and the forest industry. It can help meet increased future market demand for raw materials and products from forests.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM LULUCF No. 1 and 5.

PaM LULUCF No. 5: Regeneration with proper tree-species

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Regeneration with proper tree species each year can enhance removals by 2030. However, the effect will be minimal. The measure will mostly have long-run effects, so the removal potential is much larger toward 2100.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

The measure contributes to increasing forest production per unit area, providing a basis for increased harvesting and value-added for forest owners and the forest industry. It can help meet increased future market demand for raw materials and products from forests.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM LULUCF No. 1 and 2.

PaM LULUCF No. 6: Reduced emissions from peatlands and bogs

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Emissions from land conversion from peatland to cropland are reported in the agriculture chapter for N ₂ O (chapter 4.3.10.8), while the LULUCF chapter covers CO ₂ emissions. For CO ₂ alone, the projected effect can reach a little less than 80 kilo tonnes by 2035, based on the prevention of cultivation of 180 ha per year. The effect of the restrictions is increasing over time because the emissions from each hectare of drained peatlands continue for decades after the drainage has happened.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

Intact peatlands and bogs are crucial for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. Conserving these areas will also contribute to climate adaptation through flood mitigation and natural barriers against forest fires.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

Waste

PaM waste No. 1: Requirement to collect landfill gas

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

The landfills model has been updated with new input data for the historical timeseries which led to small changes in the mitigation impact calculation. The reported effects in NC8/BR5 were based on GWP-100 values from the IPCCs fourth assessment report.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM waste No. 2: Ban on depositing biodegradable waste in landfills

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

To estimate the effect of the ban of depositing biodegradable waste, it has been assumed a constant share of deposited amounts among easy degradable organic waste from 2002 to 2040. A constant share of deposited amounts of waste among other biodegradable waste has been assumed from 2009 to 2040 to estimate the effect of the prohibition of all biodegradable waste.

To calculate total produced amounts of organic and other biodegradable waste, the population growth has been used. Between 2002 and 2009, collected landfill gas amounted to around 26 per cent of national potential methane emissions from landfills. This value has been kept constant during the period 2002-2040 to estimate the mitigation impact of the regulation. This impact has been estimated to 345 kt CO ₂ equivalents in 2020, 478 kt CO ₂ equivalents in 2025, 592 kt CO ₂ equivalents in 2030, 678 kt CO ₂ equivalents in 2035 and 745 kt CO ₂ equivalents in 2040.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

From the previous report, the landfills model has been updated with new input data for the historical timeseries which led to small changes in the mitigation impact calculation. The reported effects in NC8/BR5 were based on GWP-100 values from the IPCCs fourth assessment report.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

PaM waste No. 3: Tax on waste incineration

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The effect is calculated as a scenario analysis using the SNOW-model and the framework for the WEM-projections. The tax on waste incineration is explicitly modeled in SNOW, so the effect is calculated by running the model using the same assumptions as in the WEM-scenario, but changing the tax rate to 0 for the period 2025-2040, and calculating the yearly difference in emissions from the WEM-scenario. The SNOW-model and assumptions for the WEM-scenario is described in further detail in chapter 2.6.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

In previous reporting the effect was calculated using the static elasticity model KAJA. For this report the SNOW-model has been used instead.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Carbon taxes confers costs on the emitters that leads to an equivalent generation of revenue for the government, meaning there is no cost to society, rather a redistribution of revenue. The tax does however require administration and reporting for both the government and the tax subjects. These costs are considered to be small. A tax rate of NOK 882 is equivalent to a tax rate of NOK 485 per ton of waste.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

The combustion of mineral products leads to other emissions causing harmful air pollution. The tax contributes to reducing these emissions. Furthermore the tax contributes to reduce the amount of waste and provides increased incentives to recycle materials.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

The mitigation from this PaM is considered to interact with PaM waste No. 4. The calculated mitigation is aquired by using a macroeconomic model and should appropriately take into account any overlap effects from the mitigation caused by the other PaMs.

PaM waste No. 4: Other measures in the waste sector

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

It is difficult to quantify the mitigation effects on greenhouse base emissions of these other measures in the waste sector. Their objectives are primarily to increase waste recycling, this is not necessarily reflected in the GHG inventory that would be used to calculate GHG effects. The effects are therefore reported as not estimated (NE).

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Not applicable.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

There has been no change in methodologies or assumptions.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits:

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered not to interact with other PaMs.

Planned measures

PaM WAM No. 1 Changes in environmental taxes on fuels and GHGs

Sector: Cross-sectoral

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The effect is calculated as a scenario analysis using the SNOW-model and the framework for the WEM-projections. The taxes in question are explicitly modeled in SNOW, so the effect is calculated by running the model using the same assumptions as in the WEM-scenario, but increasing the tax rates in the CO ₂ -tax on mineral products, the tax on HFC and PFC, the tax on SF ₆ and the tax on waste incineration to gradually increase to NOK 2 400 in 2030, and calculating the yearly difference in emissions from the WEM-scenario. The mitigation effect also includes the government budget proposal for 2025, where the usage tax is reduced 2025. The SNOW-model and assumptions for the WEM-scenario is described in further detail in chapter 2.6.

The mitigation effect also includes the expansion of the CO ₂ -tax to fisheries in distant waters. This effect is calculated using the static elasticity model KAJA.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

Carbon taxes confers costs on the emitters that leads to an equivalent generation of revenue for the government, meaning there is no cost to society, rather a redistribution of revenue. The tax does however require administration and reporting for both the government and the tax subjects. These costs are considered to be small. A tax rate of NOK 2 400 per ton CO ₂ is equivalent to a tax rate of NOK 6.37 per liter of mineral oil.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

The combustion of mineral products leads to other emissions causing harmful air pollution. The tax contributes to reducing these emissions. Furthermore the tax increase will contribute to reduce the amount of waste and provides increased incentives to recycle materials.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM WaM No. 2–7. The interaction is not taken into account in the estimated impact for this PaM WAM, but when adding up all planned measures, the sum of emission reductions is adjusted for overlapping effects.

PaM WAM No. 2 Further measures to reduce emissions from building and construction

Sector: Energy

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The estimate of emission reductions from the the requirement in public procurement for emission-free energy use at construction sites is based on the following implementation:

Calculations of emission reductions are based on the Norwegian Environmental Agency’s report « Klimakrav til bygge- og anleggsplasser i offentlige anskaffelser» . 71

The estimate of emission reductions from the ban the use of fossil gas for heating buildings is based on the following implementation:

Calculations are based on the projections in the 2025 National Budget and the implementation above.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM WAM No. 1 and 4 and PaM cross-sectoral No. 6. When adding up all planned measures, the sum of emission reductions is adjusted for overlapping effects.

PaM WAM No. 3 New ban on the use of fossil gas for heating buildings

Sector: Energy

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Calculation of emission effects is based on the Norwegian Environment Agency’s report Climate Measures in Norway («Klimatiltak i Norge – Kunnskapsgrunnlag 2024).

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM WAM No. 1. When adding up all planned measures, the sum of emission reductions is adjusted for overlapping effects.

PaM WAM No. 4 Increased biofuel mandate

Sector: Transport

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

The following implementations is proposed and used in estimating the emission effects:

Gradually increase the biofuel mandates for road traffic to 33 percent by 2030

Gradually increase the biofuel mandates for other purposes (non-road machinery) to 28 percent by 2030

Gradually increase the biofuel mandates for maritime transport to 18 percent by 2030

Increase the mandates in aviation to the same level as the EU’s RefuelEU Aviation ramp-up plans, but before the requirement is increased, airlines must be credited for the use of biofuel in the EU’s quota system. Therefore, from January 1, 2025, the sales requirement will continue at the same level

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM WAM No. 2, 5 and 6. These measures have overlapping effects. The estimates of emissions reductions have been adjusted to account for this.

Interaction with increased biofuel mandates:

PaM WAM No. 5 Further measures to reduce emission from shipping

Sector: Transport

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Estimated emission reductions of the measures:

Estimates of emission effects are based on the Norwegian Environment Agency’s report Climate Measures in Norway («Klimatiltak i Norge – Kunnskapsgrunnlag 2024). Calculations are based on electrification of county ferry connections, electrification and use of ammonia as fuel in the aquaculture industry, use of ammonia on offshore vessels, transition to biogas on offshore vessels, and transition to battery and hydrogen for high speed ferries.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM WAM No. 1 and 4. When adding up all planned measures, the sum of emission reductions is adjusted for overlapping effects.

PaM WAM No. 6 Further measures for reduced emissions from road traffic

Sector: Transport

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Several measures have been proposed in order to reduce emissions from road traffic, as described in chapter 2.5. The following development of zero emission vehicles is assumed:

Share of vehicles which have zero emissions

Estimates of the emission effect are based on calculations in the Norwegian Environment Agency’s report ‘Klimatiltak i Norge – Kunnskapsgrunnlag 2024’, in which emission reductions of electrification of vans, buses and trucks are calculated. The calculations are based on projections in the National Budget for 2025 and of estimates of replacement rates and composition of the vehicle fleet. Effects of the planned measures are calculated as the the emission effects exceeding the electrification assumed in the baseline projections.

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

In the 2025 National Budget, increased funding for the state agency Enova is proposed, by NOK 1.7 billion, including 1.2 billion in support of heavy duty transport, both for zero emission vehicles and charging infrastructure.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM Cross-sectoral No. 6 and PaM WAM No. 1 and 4. For vans and city buses, the emission effects overlap with the effect of the CO ₂ tax and the biofuel sales requirement. For trucks and long-distance buses, the emission effects overlap with the effect of the CO ₂ tax, the biofuel mandates, and the effect of Enova. When adding up all planned measures, the sum of emission reductions is adjusted for overlapping effects.

PaM WAM No. 7 Further measures to reduce emission from the industry sector

Sector: Industry

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Calculation of the emission effect of the ban on use of fossil fuels for stationary indirect heating for energy purposes is based on the Norwegian Environment Agency’s report Climate Measures in Norway («Klimatiltak I Norge – Kunnskapsgrunnlag 2024).

Changes in methodologies or assumptions for estimating impact since previous report:

Not applicable.

GHGs included in the calculation of impact:

GHG impacts expected within:

Information on costs:

There is no information to report on costs.

Information on non-GHG mitigation benefits;

There is no information to report on non-GHG mitigation benefits.

Information on how the mitigation action interacts with other:

This PaM is considered to interact with PaM cross-sectoral No. 6. When adding up all planned measures, the sum of emission reductions is adjusted for overlapping effects.

PaM WAM No. 8 Further measures to reduce emissions from agriculture

Sector: Agriculture

Effect on national emissions has been estimated:

If no, explanation for why effect has not been estimated:

Not applicable.

If yes, description of methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the GHG emission reductions or removals:

Estimates of emission reductions from measures in the agruculture sector: