British Columbia raises biofuels output goal
British Columbia has increased by 15pc its 2030 goal for renewable fuels production in the province, driven by the success of its low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS).
The province aims to produce 1.5bn liters/yr (26,000 b/d) of renewable fuels by 2030, up from its prior goal 1.3bn l/yr, the government said Thursday in a report on its clean energy strategy.
British Columbia's LCFS has driven investment in petroleum alternatives and enabled more ambitious biofuel targets, with the province on track to produce 840mn l/yr of renewable fuels by 2026, according to the report.
The new goal specifically covers renewable liquid fuels like renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel. The province also aims to scale up renewable natural gas and hydrogen, the report said.
British Columbia's LCFS targets a 30pc reduction in the carbon intensity of the diesel and gasoline fuel pools by 2030 as well as a 10pc reduction in the carbon intensity of aviation fuels. The provincial program, which operates alongside new federal requirements, has the toughest reduction targets of any North American LCFS.
LCFS programs require yearly reductions in transportation fuel carbon intensity. Conventional, higher-carbon fuels that exceed annual limits incur deficits that suppliers must offset with credits generated from the distribution of approved, lower-carbon alternatives.
British Columbia justified its renewable fuels goals in the report, arguing that "liquid and gas fuels will remain essential for the foreseeable future" for long-haul transportation, industry, and remote communities with less access to electricity.
A more ambitious domestic production target is also designed to reduce the province's dependence on fuel imports. The only provincial fuel producers are Tidewater Midstream and Infrastructure's 12,000 b/d refinery and Tidewater Renewables' 3,000 b/d renewable diesel refinery in Prince George as well as Parkland's 55,000 b/d refinery in Burnaby that co-processes renewable feedstocks with conventional petroleum feedstocks.
Related news posts
Australia’s safeguard credit selling interest unclear
Australia’s safeguard credit selling interest unclear
Canberra, 2 July (Argus) — There is buying interest in Australia's upcoming safeguard mechanism credits (SMCs), but selling interest has been scant so far, delegates heard at a Carbon Market Institute (CMI) symposium in Canberra on 1 July. The Clean Energy Regulator (CER) will start to issue SMCs from 2025 onwards to safeguard facilities that report scope 1 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below their annual baselines, effectively introducing emissions allowances into the Australian carbon market. Each SMC will represent 1t of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) below the baseline of a facility, which will have the option to either hold it for future use or sell it to facilities that exceeded their thresholds. Facilities that overstep their baselines are required to buy and surrender one Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) or SMC for each excess 1t of CO2e, and will be penalised if they fail to do so. This means companies in need of units will have interest in buying SMCs, but there are doubts about selling interest, market experts said. "We hear lots of our clients aiming to go out there and buy SMCs, but very few who are going to generate them are willing to sell because they see them as a mechanism for hedging future risk," said sustainability advisory firm Anthesis' climate resilience and decarbonisation lead, Thomas Hodgson. Facilities will be allowed to hold an unlimited number of SMCs until 2030. They will be able to use the credits for safeguard compliance at any point up to that year — irrespective of when the SMCs are issued — but the Australian government has pledged to review post-2030 banking arrangements in the scheduled review of the safeguard mechanism in 2026-27, according to CMI. Climate risk and energy transition consultancy Energetics has been working with 10 clients that account for a combined 15mn t/yr of CO2e in Australia. But most of them were not currently looking at the opportunity of receiving SMCs in the near future, Energetics' head of emissions quant David Kazmirowicz said, highlighting a potentially limited credit issuance. Actual SMC transactions are only expected to pick up once the CER issues the first units in early 2025, when there will be more visibility on issuance volumes as well as selling and buying appetite. These below-baseline credits will be "a certificate to watch", said the regulator's principal economist Georgina Prasad. There will be advantages in banking SMCs for future liability, but several facilities likely to receive the credits are not expected to have any liability in the next several years, according to Australian carbon advisory company RepuTex's head of research Bret Harper. "So this is probably a prime opportunity for them to test the market and see if they can monetise those credits," he pointed out. SMCs are expected to trade at a discount to ACCUs as their use will be restricted to safeguard facilities, excluding them from voluntary and non-federal compliance demand, according to market participants. Safeguard volumes accounted for 75pc of all the nearly 1.2mn ACCU cancellations in the first quarter of 2024, according to latest CER data. Generic ACCU prices have ranged between A$33.75-34.60 ($22.50-23.05) in recent weeks. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
US judge halts 'pause' on LNG export licenses
US judge halts 'pause' on LNG export licenses
Washington, 1 July (Argus) — A federal judge in Louisiana has ordered President Joe Biden's administration to end its five-month-old "pause" on the approval process for new LNG export licenses until the resolution of a lawsuit by states that said the policy is unlawful. The US Department of Energy (DOE) and other administration officials are immediately "enjoined and restrained" from "halting and/or pausing the approval process" for LNG export applications requesting licenses to export to countries without a free trade agreement with the US, federal district court judge James Cain wrote today. DOE did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The court's ruling is a potential blow for the Biden administration, which had said it would need until the first quarter of 2025 — after the November elections — to finish a more thorough review of the economic and climate-related effects of fully licensing LNG terminals, beyond the 48 Bcf/d of US liquefaction capacity that is fully permitted today. DOE officials have cited concerns that licensing more LNG projects could end up increasing natural gas prices for consumers. "So much has changed, including the volumes of what we're exporting," US deputy energy secretary David Turk said last week at a congressional hearing. "So we said, 'Let's take a step back, let's update our economic analysis." Biden announced the LNG licensing pause in January, delighting climate groups that have argued that approving additional projects would amount to a "climate bomb." But the pause enraged gas industry officials that worried the pause could threaten investments in a set of projects that were nearing a final investment decision. The pause raised uncertainty on the status of LNG export projects that have yet to obtain licenses, including Venture Global's proposed 28mn t/yr CP2 project in Louisiana that last week cleared a key part of the federal permitting process. The court's ruling does not explicitly require DOE to issue new LNG export licenses, or set an explicit deadline for the agency to take final action on pending applications. But the judge said that under the Natural Gas Act, DOE is required to act "expeditiously" once it receives an export application. Before Biden formally announced the pause, some LNG export applications were already subject to reviews that industry officials said amounted to a de facto freeze. In the ruling, Cain said that Louisiana and other states that challenged the LNG licensing pause were likely to succeed on the merits in showing Biden's policy was arbitrary and capricious, in part because DOE failed to provide a "detailed explanation" for its halt of the approval process. Cain said that DOE had made a "complete reversal" from its position in July 2023, when it defended its licensing process in its rejection of a complaint from environmentalists. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Denmark to launch carbon tax on agriculture from 2030
Denmark to launch carbon tax on agriculture from 2030
Dalby, 1 July (Argus) — The Denmark coalition government has introduced the world's first carbon emissions tax on agriculture, which will take effect from 2030. The agreement was reached on 24 June after five months of negotiations between the Government of Denmark, the Danish Agriculture and Food Council, the Danish Society for Nature Conservation, the Confederation of Danish Industry, Danish trade union NNF that organises workers within the domestic slaughterhouse and meat industry, and association Local Government Danish. Farmers will have to pay 120 Danish kroner/t ($17.30/t) of emitted CO2 equivalent from livestock from 2030, rising to DKr300 from 2035 onwards. Revenues from the tax will be channelled back to the sector and reinvested into green initiatives, climate technology, and production transformation, targeting agricultural sectors facing the most difficulty transitioning, according to the British Agriculture Bureau (BAB). Copenhagen is a significant exporter of pork and dairy, and agriculture is currently expected to account for 46pc of emissions by 2030. Experts believe the carbon tax will cut these emissions by 1.8mn t in 2030, its first year of operations, enabling Denmark to meet its target of cutting 70pc of its total emissions by that year, according to BAB. Resistant farmers have brought traffic to a standstill in European capitals several times this year, in protests for EU leaders to remove rules designed to clean up the agriculture sector. New Zealand in late 2023 delayed the introduction of a proposed tax on cow emissions which was set to start at the end of 2025, but the newly elected New Zealand government in June cancelled the plan to tax livestock producers on methane production. The then New Zealand government had forecast the levy would have reduced the amount of methane released by livestock into the atmosphere by as much as 47pc by 2050, without disclosing the baseline year. By Jessica Clarke Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
US Supreme Court ends 'deference' to regulators
US Supreme Court ends 'deference' to regulators
Washington, 28 June (Argus) — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority, in one of its most significant rulings in years, has thrown out a landmark, 40-year-old precedent under which courts have offered federal agencies significant leeway in deciding how to regulate the energy sector and other industries. In a 6-3 ruling that marks a major blow to President Joe Biden's administration, the court's conservatives overturned its 1984 ruling Chevron v. NRDC that for decades has served as a cornerstone for how judges should review the legality of federal regulations when a statute is not clear. But chief justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said experience has shown the precedent is "unworkable" and became an "impediment, rather than an aid" for courts to analyze what a specific law requires. "All that remains of Chevron is a decaying husk with bold pretensions," the opinion said. For decades, under what is now known as Chevron deference, courts were first required to review if a law was clear and if not, to defer to an agency's interpretation so long as the government's reading was reasonable. But the court's majority said the landmark precedent has become a source of unpredictability, allowing any ambiguity in a law to be a "license authorizing an agency to change positions as much as it likes." Roberts wrote that the federal courts can no longer defer to an agency's interpretation "simply because" a law is ambiguous. "Chevron is overruled," Roberts writes. "Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority." The court's ruling, named Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimando, focuses on lawsuits from herring fishers who opposed a rule that could require them to pay about $710 per day for an at-sea observer to verify compliance with regional catch limits. The US Commerce Department said it believes it interpreted the law correctly, but the fishers said the "best interpretation" of the statute was that it did not apply to herring fishers. The court's three liberal justices dissented from the ruling, which they said will likely result in "large-scale disruptions" by putting federal judges in the position of having to rule on the merits of a variety of scientific and technical judgments, without the benefit of expertise that regulators have developed over the course of decades. Overturning Chevron will put courts "at the apex" of policy decisions on every conceivable topic, including climate change, health care, finance, transportation, artificial intelligence and other issues where courts lack specific expertise, judge Elena Kagan wrote. "In every sphere of current or future federal regulations, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role," Kagan wrote. The Supreme Court for years has been chipping away at the importance of Chevron deference, such as a 2022 ruling where it created the "major questions doctrine" to invalidate a greenhouse gas emission rule limits for power plants. That doctrine attempts to prohibit agencies from resolving issues that have "vast economic and political significance" without clear direction from the US Congress. That has led regulators to be hesitant in relying on Chevron to defend their regulations in court. The Supreme Court last cited the precedent in 2016. The ruling comes a day after the Supreme Court's conservatives, in another 6-3 ruling , dramatically curtailed the ability of the US Securities and Exchange Commission — and likely many other federal agencies — to use in-house tribunals to impose civil penalties. The court ruled those enforcement cases instead need to be filed as jury trials. That change is expected to curtail enforcement of securities fraud, since court cases are more resource-intensive. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Business intelligence reports
Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.
Learn more