Top of page
Page content starts here

Environmental Accounting

In FY2004, HEPCO adopted environmental accounting that is in accord with the Ministry of the Environment's Environmental Accounting Guidelines. In our pursuit of environmentally-conscious business activities, we quantitatively ascertain and analyze environmental conservation costs and effects to the extent feasible, and release these figures publicly.

Calculation Approach

  • Scope: HEPCO (including some HEPCO Group companies)
  • Standard: Ministry of the Environment's Environmental Accounting Guidelines FY2006

Environmental Conservation Costs

The amount of capital investment and costs for environmental conservation have been calculated.
The promotion of recycling activities and other such efforts increased the amount committed by ¥600 million over the FY2017 level.
Enhanced managerial efficiency cut costs for power station repairs and other more efficient practices reduced costs by ¥7.49 billion compared to FY2017.

(¥100 million units)

Classification Investment Costs
FY2017 FY2018 FY2017 FY2018
Global warming countermeasures 4.8 5.6 57.3 7.4
Regional environmental conservation 24.9 26.3 146.8 120.2
Formation of recycling-oriented society 3.6 9.9 67.9 67.2
Environmental management 6.6 4.1 27.3 30.3
Environmental relations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.0 0.0 16.4 15.7
Total 39.9 45.9 315.7 240.8

Environmental Conservation Effects

CO2 intensity and other environmental conservation effects have been calculated.
The long-term shutdown of Tomari Nuclear Power Station has forced us to utilize alternative thermal power generation to make up for supply shortages, so CO2 emissions have tended to increase just as they did in FY2017, and SOX and NOX emissions have also remained high.
We will utilize initiatives geared toward improving the efficiency of thermal power stations and other measures as we strive to reduce these emissions to the maximum extent possible.
Greening areas totaled 14,696 km2 at the end of FY2018.

Classification Description FY2017 FY2018
Global warming countermeasures CO2 emissions intensity (kg-CO2/kWh)
Actual emissions factor is given in parentheses
0.640
(0.632)
0.678
(0.666)
SF6 capture rate (%) During equipment inspection 99 99
During equipment removal 99 99
Regional environmental conservation SOX emissions intensity (g/kWh) 0.97 0.89
NOX emissions intensity (g/kWh) 0.60 0.65
Formation of recycling-based society Amount recycled (10,000-ton units) 108.9 110.8
Final amount disposed of (10,000-ton units) 2.6 3.7
Environmental management* Landscape preservation measures
Distribution line route length (km)
554 580
Greening area (1,000 m2 units) 14,671 14,696

* Values for environmental management items are cumulative.

Economic Effects

From the results of a quantitative analysis of the economic conservation effect, we found that reductions in fuel costs provided the greatest benefit.
The economic effect was ¥11.2 billion in FY2018.

(¥100 million units)

Classification Description FY2017 FY2018
Global warming countermeasures Reduction in fuel costs 102.5 98.5
Formation of recycling-based society Sales of valuables through recycling 1.8 6.2
Reduction in new product purchases and waste treatment costs through recycling 14.5 7.3
Total   118.8 112.0

Environmental Conservation Costs and Economic Effects

Fluctuation in environmental conservation costs is significantly affected by new energy purchase expenditures and plant operations.
In FY2018, environmental conservation costs decreased 23% in comparison to FY2017 due to savings made in power station repairs thanks to enhanced managerial efficiency and other more efficient practices.
However, the economic effect was almost the same, and cost-effectiveness rose 23% as a result.
We will continue to work hard to enhance managerial efficiency as we engage in environmental conservation activities that are highly cost-effective.

Classification FY2017 FY2018 Change
(1) Environmental conservation cost (expense) ¥31.57 billion ¥24.08 billion -23%
(2) Economic effect ¥11.88 billion ¥11.20 billion -5%
Cost effectiveness [ (2) / (1) ] 0.37 0.46 +23%

Return to top of page