Gas and power
Overview
Gas and power, two integral energy sources that underpin all major economic activities, are critical for businesses, which need access to reliable market information, data and prices. This enables them to make more informed decisions relating to their exposure to gas and power sectors.
Our team of market experts provides independent and reliable price assessments, indexes, market data and in-depth analysis. Our prices and market intelligence are used by energy companies, governments, banks, regulators, exchanges and many other organisations. You can benefit from our in-depth knowledge of these markets for better decision-making.
Gas and power market coverage
Argus is a leading independent provider of market intelligence to the global energy and commodity markets. Our price assessments and market intelligence are available for all major gas and power markets across the globe. Explore our coverage most relevant to your business.
Latest gas and power news
Browse the latest market-moving news on the global gas and power industry.
Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'
Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'
London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting. Argus Media spoke to ministerial adviser and Finland's head representative at the IMO delegation talks, Anita Irmeli, on the sidelines of the London MEPC meeting. What is your initial reaction to the text? We are happy and satisfied about the content of the agreed text, so far. But we need to be careful. This week, all member states were able to vote. But in October, when adaption will take place, only those states which are parties to Marpol Annex VI will be able to vote if indeed a vote is called for, and that changes the situation a little bit. Here when we were voting, a minority was enough — 40 votes. But if or when we vote in October, then we need two thirds of those party to Marpol Annex VI to be in favour of the text. Will enthusiasm for the decision today remain by October? I'm pretty sure it will. But you never know what will happen between now and and the next six months. What is the effect of the decision on FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS? Both FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS have a review clause. This review clause states that if we are ambitious enough at the IMO, then the EU can review or amend the regulation. So of course, it is very important that we first consider if the approved Marpol amendments are ambitious enough to meet EU standards. Only after that evaluation, which won't be until well after October, can we consider these possible changes. Do you think the EU will be able to adopt these the text as it stands today? My personal view is that we can perhaps incorporate this text under FuelEU Maritime, but it may be more challenging for the EU ETS, where shipping is now included. What was the impact of US President Donald Trump's letter on the proceedings? EU states were not impacted, but it's difficult to say what the impact was on other states. By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism
IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism
London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, pending an adoption vote at the next MEPC in October. The proposal passed by a majority vote, with 63 nations in favor including EU states, the UK, China and India, and 16 members opposed, including Mideast Gulf states, Russia, and Venezuela. The US was absent from the MEPC 83 meeting, and 24 member states abstained. The proposal was accompanied by an amendment to implement the regulation, which was approved for circulation ahead of an anticipated adoption at the October MEPC. Approval was not unanimous, which is rare. If adoption is approved in October at a vote that will require a two-thirds majority, the maritime industry will become the first transport sector to implement internationally mandated targets to reduce GHG emissions. The text says ships must initially reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 ( see table ) against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. This gradually tightens to 30pc by 2035. The text defines a "direct compliance target", that starts at 17pc for 2028 and grows to 43pc by 2035. The pricing mechanism establishes a levy for excessive emissions at $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) for ships compliant with the minimum 'base' target, called Tier 2. For ships in Tier 1 — those compliant with the base target but that still have emission levels higher than the direct compliance target — the price was set at $100/tCO2e. Over-compliant vessels will receive 'surplus units' equal to their positive compliance balance, expressed in tCO2e, valid for two years after emission. Ships then will be able to use the surplus units in the following reporting periods; transfer to other vessels as a credit; or voluntarily cancel as a mitigation contribution. IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said while it would have been more preferable to have a unanimous outcome, this outcome is a good result nonetheless. "We work on consensus, not unanimity," he said. "We demonstrated that we will continue to work as an organization despite the concerns." Looking at the MEPC session in October, Dominguez said: "Different member states have different positions, and there is time for us to remain in the process and address those concerns, including those that were against and those that were expecting more." Dominguez said the regulation is set to come into force in 2027, with first revenues collected in 2028 of an estimated $11bn-13bn. Dominguez also said there is a clause within the regulation that ensures a review at least every five years. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara IMO GHG reduction targets Year Base Target Direct Compliance Target 2028 4% 17% 2029 6% 19% 2030 8% 21% 2031 12% 25% 2032 17% 30% 2033 21% 34% 2034 26% 39% 2035 30% 43% Source: IMO Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Q&A: Australia’s Corporate Carbon expands ACCU trading
Q&A: Australia’s Corporate Carbon expands ACCU trading
Sydney, 11 April (Argus) — Australian carbon project developer Corporate Carbon has been expanding its trading capabilities around Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) on the back of growing supply and wider market maturity. Head of carbon trading Angus Robertson spoke with Argus about the latest developments in the market. Corporate Carbon is one of the biggest suppliers of ACCUs. Is it correct that the company has been issued around 15mn ACCUs, counting both fully-owned projects and partnerships, which would be around 10pc of all ACCU issuances since the scheme started in 2011? Yes, that's the approximate number. We've got around 100 projects. In terms of issuance from a mix of owned projects and offtake agreements with other developers and partners in the industry, the approximate forecast is around 3mn ACCUs/yr. We trade around that and then also have capacity to trade outside of our own projects and within the portfolio, plus operating as a trading entity in the secondary market. The company has been one of the main suppliers to private buyers, and to the federal government through carbon abatement contracts (CACs). But you are also buyers. How does that work? The increased capability of our business to both buy and sell is a reflection of the broader Australian carbon market maturing over the last few years. The beginning of the business was very much built off the back of those CACs. As that policy changed over time, allowing for the partial exiting of those CACs , obviously there's been a lot more focus on the secondary market now. We've seen a lot of trading houses, banks and other financial institutions coming into the market, and with that you get a more mature financial market. So in response to that, we've been building out our trading capacity as well as our broader commercial team over the past few years. We take a portfolio approach and we have a large inventory flow to assist with that growing demand, but there are times when we go out to the secondary market and source units on behalf of clients. You recently partnered with trading and risk management firm Ion Commodities to implement their Carbon Zero tool. How does that translate into your trading capabilities? We see Ion's solution as a really effective trading tool and portfolio management system. It reflects our readiness to operate at a larger scale. By providing those tools, it allows us to focus on the strategic goals of the business, especially from a commercial perspective. It is very much a tool for reporting purposes and the automation capabilities of the system assist with that, but it does have a bit of a flow-on effect in terms of efficiency across the business as well. Going to the market, in the short term, it seems to be all about the upcoming federal elections. Do you expect to see much price volatility within the next few weeks? Yes. As we approach the Australian federal election, we would expect there to be a degree of uncertainty, considering the difference in the two major party outcomes in terms of their take on the carbon market. We would see it as positive in either instance, but I think there is still a degree of uncertainty that should lead to perhaps a degree of illiquidity in the market. The market has been also weighed down by a strong issuance of safeguard mechanism credits (SMCs). Were you surprised with that high volume when it was first disclosed by the Climate Change Authority late last year? I think it was the general market consensus that the number was higher than initially forecast, and [ACCU] market prices definitely reflected that in the following weeks and months after those numbers were disclosed. Once the final numbers were released, I think the market had generally already priced that in by that point. Has that changed your internal outlook for when the ACCU market might see an expected shift from oversupply to undersupply? I wouldn't say our internal view has changed all that much. If the majority of that volume is now weighted towards the early years of the safeguard mechanism, policies might reflect that going forward. Now we would probably see ACCU supply as a potential restriction on the market in the short to medium term. Obviously, there's speculation around certain methods in the ACCU market, where higher forecasts were expected over the following next few years and that's now no longer the case. So probably more around supply than demand in terms of our shifted internal views, and this is more from a trading and market perspective as opposed to our actual projects being affected. So it's more on the supply side than demand, even with the high SMC issuances? Well, obviously the market has reacted to those media releases by the regulator around SMCs. So you know that's already happened — you can't really argue that now. Will there be further policy changes around the safeguard mechanism to account for that? That's a bit of an unknown, but it's definitely potential in the following years. And when you talk about supply constraints, is it mostly the delays with the development of the integrated farm and land management methodology , and potentially lower issuances from a reformed landfill gas method? Those are good examples of general delays in certain methods and the creation of new methods. So yes, our expectation is that this could be a big driver on ACCU prices in the next few years. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Oil and gas lobby calls H2 'core competency,' hails 45v
Oil and gas lobby calls H2 'core competency,' hails 45v
Houston, 10 April (Argus) — The oil and gas industry views hydrogen production as a "core competency" and sees 45v tax credits driving US exports and innovation, according to the American Petroleum Institute (API). "We really see this, especially from the oil and gas perspective, as a core competency," said Rachel Fox, API director of policy and strategy, on a webinar Thursday hosted by ConservAmerica. "We have such an advantageous opportunity with this credit," said Fox. "When we're talking about the export opportunity, we really do hold the cards in terms of producing hydrogen at the lowest cost anywhere in the world." The 45V incentive has become a crucible in President Donald Trump's agenda to promote fossil fuels. A broad-based coalition of groups sometimes at odds with one another has coalesced in favor of 45V noting that it promotes manufacturing jobs across rural America and sets up US energy companies to dominate growing global demand for cleaner burning fuels. Nonetheless, ConservAmerica described such energy tax incentives as being "squarely in the crosshairs" as legislators gear up for budget negotiations in which the administration is looking to slash government spending to offset a promised corporate tax cut. By tying a tiered scale of incentives to carbon intensity, 45V has spurred oil and gas companies to develop technologies and practices that curb emissions, said Fox. "There's a lot of incentive to try to hit that $3 mark by getting your hydrogen produced at a really low carbon-intensity limit and so it's galvanized a ton of innovation and a ton of new ideas on how that can be done throughout the natural gas system," said Fox. Most of those ideas revolve around lowering the methane intensity of natural gas production or sourcing low-methane intensity natural gas, such as from biowaste, said Fox. Some environmental advocates are skeptical that emissions from natural-gas based hydrogen production can be driven low enough to qualify for the highest $3/kg tier with existing technology and that most oil and gas companies will instead have to use less lucrative 45Q credits that apply to carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). However, at least one major energy company, ExxonMobil, has said it is seeking 45V to advance its massive natural-gas based hydrogen and ammonia project in Baytown, Texas. By Jasmina Kelemen Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Spotlight content
Browse the latest thought leadership produced by our global team of experts.
Explore our gas and power products
Both the natural gas and power services have a long track record of providing well researched pricing, high quality analysis and market intelligence to our clients.
Key price assessments
Argus prices are recognised by the market as trusted and reliable indicators of the real market value. Explore some of our most widely used and relevant price assessments.
