GEO Speciality Chemicals UK Ltd vs Environment Agency (CCA)

The Appellant contends that the Respondent, which is the administrator of the Climate Change Agreement regime, erred in law when deciding upon the target to be contained in the CCA by misinterpreting the scope of its powers. The Appellant argues that by reason of the error, the Respondent unlawfully fettered the exercise of its power to vary the CCA and further, that it was unreasonable to impose the target it did, because the varied target could not be complied with.

In response to the Appeal and by way of amendment to its original response, the Respondent contends that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because, in agreeing the CCA with the Appellant, the Respondent made no decision capable of giving rise to a right of appeal under CCA. Further, it contends that, if any such decision had been made, there was nothing unreasonable in the target within the CCA.

The parties have helpfully supplied an agreed statement of facts upon which I rely in this decision. In the light of this agreed statement I concluded that there was no need for me to hear oral evidence at the hearing.

Under Schedule 6 to the 2000 Act (" Schedule 6 ") various fuel types, as a source of energy, are defined as a taxable commodity on which the CCL is generally payable at a specified rate. However, under paragraph 44 of Schedule 6 provision is made for reduced rate supplies where a facility is covered by a CCA and the supply of energy is made during the period of the CCA.

Schedule 6 provides for two kinds of CCA agreement. A single direct agreement with the administrator of the scheme (paragraph 47) or, alternatively, a combination of an umbrella agreement and an underlying agreement (paragraph 48). The CCA scheme has in fact been implemented through recourse to a combination of Umbrella (" UmA" ) and Underlying Agreements.