Investidores pedem regulação para hidrogênio brasileiro

: Biofuels, Biomass, Electricity, Emissions, Fertilizers, Hydrogen, Metals
23/09/20

O Brasil tem potencial para se tornar um dos principais fornecedores globais de hidrogênio, mas iniciativas para ampliar a produção necessitam de regulação do governo, afirmam investidores e pesquisadores.

"Uma paridade de preço competitiva [em relação a combustíveis fósseis] depende de incentivos e esforços do governo para estimular o movimento de zerar emissões", disse o gerente de desenvolvimento de produtos da Mercedes-Benz, João Marcos Leal, em evento do setor, realizado em São Paulo.

O potencial do hidrogênio no país se apoia na diversidade de fontes de energia renovável, além da experiência com o uso de biomassa como matéria-prima para combustíveis. O governo federal estima uma capacidade produtiva de aproximadamente 1,8 bilhão de t/ano da commodity, comparado às atuais 1 milhão de t/ano.

O presidente da Comissão de Transição Energética e Produção de Hidrogênio Verde da Câmara dos Deputados, Arnaldo Jardim, está trabalhando em um modelo regulatório para o hidrogênio.

O deputado reforçou a necessidade de uma "neutralidade tecnológica" na escolha das rotas de produção e defendeu a definição por uma categoria de baixo carbono do elemento químico.

Jardim disse que o governo estabelecerá medidas para a ampliação do hidrogênio como matriz energética. "Queremos iniciativas como tratamento tributário e garantias de que o governo possa conduzir leilões ou ter seu poder de compra utilizado para estimular a questão do hidrogênio."

Durante o evento, o parlamentar também sugeriu um pacote para estimular a demanda doméstica, como no uso da amônia verde, fertilizantes, aço verde, além dos setores de refino e transportes.

O país já possui um plano trienal para o hidrogênio, entre 2023-2025, no qual constam plantas em todas as regiões até 2025. Segundo o documento, o próximo passo é a consolidação do país como produtor competitivo da commodity de baixo carbono até 2030.

Tais perspectivas, no entanto, são incompatíveis com as ações do governo para o setor, devido à falta de um marco regulatório, na visão da Associação Brasileira de Energia Solar Fotovaltaica (Absolar). O presidente da entidade, Eduardo Tobias, destacou o uso da energia solar para produzir hidrogênio via eletrólise.

A Associação Brasileira de Energia Eólica (Abeeolica) também encorajou a produção do renovável a partir fontes verdes. "O custo do hidrogênio produzido usando energia de eólicas offshore já é muito competitivo", disse o diretor técnico da associação, André Themoteo. A Abeeolica prevê o início das operações da primeira usina eólica offshore do Brasil em 2030.

Portos preparam infraestrutura

Os portos brasileiros vêm anunciando novas infraestruturas para a produção de hidrogênio, na esteira de discussões crescentes sobre transição energética no país.

O porto do Açu, no Rio de Janeiro, planeja construir um polo de hidrogênio de baixo carbono de 4 gigawatts (GW), com capacidade para produzir 604.000 t/ano da commodity, 1,9 milhão de t/ano de amônia e 315.000 t/ano de e-metanol.

O projeto atenderá, principalmente, a demanda da indústria de fertilizantes. Além disso, há planos para beneficiar as movimentações de minério de ferro no porto e atender às demandas do setor marítimo, informou Eduardo Kantz, diretor executivo de ESG e questões institucionais do Porto do Açu.

O porto de Pecém, no Ceará, também terá um polo de hidrogênio. O pedido de licença ambiental já foi feito e a expectativa é de que que a produção de hidrogênio comece em 2027, de acordo com Fabio Grandchamp, vice-presidente de operações do complexo portuário.

Movimento similar é observado no porto de Suape, em Pernambuco, enquanto o porto de Santos, em São Paulo, considera a construção de uma planta de hidrogênio verde utilizando energia gerada pela sua usina hidroelétrica de Itatinga (SP), com capacidade de 15MW.

Por Laura Guedes

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

24/06/28

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.

Canaries' bio-marine fuel demand hit by ETS exemptions

24/06/28

Canaries' bio-marine fuel demand hit by ETS exemptions

London, 28 June (Argus) — Spanish energy firm Cepsa has delayed plans to supply marine biodiesel blends in the Canary Islands as increased demand for conventional bunker fuels and EU regulatory exemptions weigh on market fundamentals for the blended products. Cepsa's international marine fuels sales manager, Francisco Diaz Castro, told attendees at the Maritime Week Las Palmas conference last week that the firm remains committed to supplying marine biodiesel in the Canary Islands but is delaying it in response to a sharp rise in conventional bunker fuel demand in recent months, underpinned by vessels re-routing around the southern tip of Africa to avoid the risk of Houthi attacks in in the Red Sea. Vessels have been stocking up on bunker fuels before and after sailing around Africa's Cape of Good Hope to avoid stopping along the way. Latest data from the Spanish transport ministry show sales of conventional bunker fuel out of the Canary Islands last month increased by 3pc compared with April and by 41pc on the may last year (see table) . This demand growth has pushed suppliers to retain barge availability for conventional bunker fuels, reducing capacity to supply marine biodiesel blends. Market participants told Argus that another reason marine biodiesel demand in the Canary Islands has not picked up is EU regulatory exemptions for vessels sailing between the islands and mainland Spain. According to article 12 (3b) of the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS) directive, "an obligation to surrender allowances shall not arise in respect of emissions released until 31 December 2030 from voyages between a port located in an outermost region of a member state and a port located in the same member state, including voyages between ports within an outermost region and voyages between ports in the outermost regions of the same member state, and from the activities, within a port, of such ships in relation to such voyages." Argus understands that this exemption applies to all vessels covered under the scope of the EU ETS, but would not apply if the vessel is sailing from an outermost region, such as the Canary Islands, to a different EU member nation, for example the Netherlands. A similar exemption for FuelEU Maritime regulations may be applicable as well, subject to member states asking for the exemption of the specific ports and routes for the vessels. Such an exemption could apply until 2029. Argus understands that requests from member states for this exemption will be published in the coming months. An exemption from FuelEU Maritime regulations could also be applied to routes connecting islands with a population under 200,000 people. This specific exemption would therefore not apply to Tenerife and Gran Canaria but may apply to other parts of the Canary Islands with smaller populations. By Hussein Al-Khalisy and Dafydd ab Iago Canary Islands liquid bunker sales t Month Las Palmas Tenerife Total Sales % m-o-m % y-o-y May-24 282,447 49,749 332,196 3 41 Apr-24 255,262 68,782 324,044 27 38 Mar-24 189,868 64,654 254,522 0 3 Feb-24 207,564 47,344 254,908 -6 0 Jan-24 219,962 51,894 271,856 16 27 Dec-23 187,889 47,306 235,195 4 1 Nov-23 181,218 45,940 227,158 5 -2 Spanish Transport Ministry Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Q&A: Corporate reporting and certification schemes

24/06/28

Q&A: Corporate reporting and certification schemes

London, 28 June (Argus) — Corporate reporting standards and obligations are becoming more granular and falling under greater scrutiny across the EU, after new rules came into force at the start of 2024. Argus spoke to net zero adviser Nils Holta at environmental solutions provider Ecohz to review changes to EU legislation and consider their impact on wholesale energy attribute certificates markets. Edited highlights follow: Let's start by decoding the acronyms and taking stock of changes to reporting standards this year. What do the principles of the CSRD and ESRS look like? How do these align with the EU Taxonomy? These are all thematically related pieces of legislation, that are not formally linked to each other. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the EU Sustainable Investment Taxonomy are two of the angles of a sustainability transparency triangle completed by the Green Claims Directive (GCD). Through these policy mechanisms, the EU seeks to cover sustainability reporting, sustainability criteria for investments, and marketing information to consumers. Essentially, the EU is trying to add sustainability as a new dimension of the single market, alongside standardised comparisons on quality and price. The CSRD relates more to the finance side. Through the annex with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), it details how companies should report on their sustainability impact, their sustainability-related risks, and any financial opportunities that arrive as a result of sustainability matters. It has been developed as an addition to European financial disclosure requirements, and in Norway, for instance, it has been transposed through amendments to the "accounting law" (Regnskapsloven). For financial undertakings, the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) plays much the same role, albeit at a higher level of granularity. On the consumer-facing side, companies will soon be required to adhere to the GCD when promoting their products' environmental profiles to final consumers in what the EU calls "explicit environmental claims". While not quite the same as sustainability reporting, it fits in a market dynamic where the EU expects economic actors to be more transparent about the environmental qualities of their products — like we are used to for price and quality. Finally, we have the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities, or just the Taxonomy. The Taxonomy is a list of economic activities with clear criteria on how they can be performed sustainably, and, in some cases, how they can be considered a transitional activity to more sustainable options. The Taxonomy also mandates that large undertakings and financial actors disclose the percentage of their Capex [capital expenditure], Opex [operating expenditure], and turnover that is invested in, finances, or derives from activities that are considered sustainable under the Taxonomy. Here is the link to the CSRD (ESRS), GCD and SFDR. If you are required to report on the percentage of your investments or turnover that is associated with sustainable activities, you need to know how all the companies you invest in are performing. And through the CSRD they are required to share this information in a transparent and streamlined manner. If, as a company, you want to make a claim about a product's environmental profile, you are now also required to possess and sort the information necessary to found that claim through the same directive. So here we have the triangle — the Taxonomy and SFDR push investors towards sustainable investments. The GCD provides consumers with a choice to consume sustainably, and the CSRD and ESRS ensure that companies have the information necessary for the other two to work. So the EU wants you to base Taxonomy reporting or environmental claims on the information published in your CSRD reporting? Not quite. I should stress at this point that EU law does not require companies to use the same methodologies for their CSRD reporting as for explicit environmental claims under the GCD or for showing criteria alignment with the Taxonomy. The simple reason is that communication to different audiences — shareholders, financial sector institutions, consumers — might require different approaches. It is, however, very simple to base claims under the Taxonomy or GCD on information gathered for CSRD reporting, and I have seen companies rely on CSRD reporting for claims of Taxonomy-alignment in their annual reports. How are things changing within the CSRD in terms of how industrial and corporate (I&C) companies will need to document energy — power and gas — consumption throughout their supply chains? What does it mean in terms of scope 2 and 3 emissions? This is a good place to clarify terminology. The CSRD is an EU directive that mandates sustainability reporting, sets out how member states are responsible for making sure companies report, and details which categories of companies need to report. All in all, we are taking about at least 50,000 EU-based companies and maybe another 10,000 non-EU companies with operations in the EU, as a rough assessment. The ESRS are the technical standards, outlining — over some 300 pages — how companies can assess what information they need to report and how this can be reported. The ESRS go into detail regarding how questions about energy consumption and climate transition plans or supply chains are asked and framed. Thank you for the clarification, and now back to the market-based vs location-based reporting? In general, the ESRS move towards market-based reporting. Emissions are to be reported by scope — 1, 2 and 3 — separately and using both market-based and location-based methodologies for Scope 2. They are also to be reported against total turnover, so investors can see the greenhouse gas intensity of their investments' turnover. At the same time, the ESRS clearly state that energy consumption must be reported using the market-based methodology in the case of Scope 2, and that it "can" be market-based in Scope 1, which for most companies would primarily relate to gas. The latter is highly technical and is tied to the EU emissions trading system monitoring and reporting requirements. Disclosing companies must report Scope 3 as it was reported to them. There is no option to not report on Scope 3 emissions outside of Europe, which means that these 60,000 or so companies will push their own reporting requirements through their entire value chain. It also means that oil and gas companies will finally need to include emissions from combustion of their own products in their sustainability reporting. Considering that changes to the CSRD will lead to greater focus on Scope 3 emissions, how is this likely to impact the energy attribute certificates (EAC) markets? Are you already seeing changing approaches to EAC procurement? How do biomethane and hydrogen fit into the picture, and is there a role for carbon offsets? What we are seeing is a greater corporate interest in understanding their own value chain and getting their suppliers to cover Scope 2 consumption with EACs. They can even use the divergence between location and market-based reporting to stress how much they actually achieve by sourcing renewable energy. The result is quite literally the difference between the two numbers. The ESRS do not open for carbon offsets as a way of reducing total emissions. Any offsets must be reported separately. Biomethane and hydrogen would both serve to decarbonise your gas combustion, so mainly Scope 1. However, the requirements for credible claims to consumption are tied to a bundled model, so we expect less focus on certificate trade and more focus on efficient value chains to deliver the product as a whole. There are a lot of open questions here tied to member state transposition of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) III — and in some cases RED II — and to the coming Union Database for renewable fuels. How will the GCD impact consumer disclosure requirements and how does it tangentially relate to the Taxonomy? Do you expect this to also drive more granular purchases in EAC markets? When procuring EACs, will additional specifications such as eco labels become more prominent in the market? There is no specific link between the GCD and the Taxonomy, but Taxonomy-alignment would definitely be one of the things that can be communicated and substantiated in a way that is aligned with the GCD. Using an eco-label is a way to distinguish your product among several who all use renewable electricity. However, it is difficult to assess exactly how companies and consumers will react to this information in the long term. In the near future, we expect the GCD to lead to a reduction in environmental performance claims overall, at least until companies have a decent understanding of what and how they should communicate. The fine is up to 10pc of total turnover. There are often questions around how nuclear power is viewed in the EU Taxonomy — can you clarify that? And how do you see nuclear power — through scope 2/3 — playing a role in I&C companies documenting carbon neutrality through disclosure mechanisms? There has been a growing trend of energy suppliers offering carbon-neutral tariffs as opposed to renewable owing to the greater cost of documenting renewables through EACs, on top of already higher outright power and gas prices. Do you see I&C customers taking a similar route? Under the Taxonomy, nuclear is not considered renewable. It is, however, acknowledged as carbon-neutral, and we see several EU initiatives targeted at promoting "low-carbon" rather than renewable solutions. There is also an addendum to the Taxonomy, where nuclear and gas-fired power plants can be considered Taxonomy-aligned under certain circumstances. For gas, this relates to replacing coal and being time-limited in nature; while for nuclear, it is tied to a series of environmental and waste-treatment requirements. As long as the market recognises a qualitative difference between renewable and nuclear, EACs for each will be priced differently. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

UK HRC market ponders early closure of Tata BFs

24/06/28

UK HRC market ponders early closure of Tata BFs

London, 28 June (Argus) — The UK hot-rolled coil (HRC) market was pondering the potential premature closure of Tata Steel's blast furnaces today. Tata Steel UK could close both its furnaces and the wider heavy end at its Port Talbot site by 5 July because of the impending and "indefinite" strike by members of the trade union Unite, due to start on 8 July, company chief executive Rajesh Nair said in a note to employees on Thursday. Tata had initially planned to maintain blast furnace 4 until September, with blast furnace 5 going down this month. The strike, involving 1,500 workers, would mean Tata could not "maintain safe and stable operations", Nair said. Tata is trying to bring Unite back to the negotiating table, alongside other unions Community and GMB. The company said it will pursue legal action to challenge the validity of Unite's strike ballot — it has questioned whether the union met the 50pc participation threshold requirements at certain sites. Sources were caught somewhat off-guard by the news, which is complicated by the failure of the UK government to approve the Trade Remedies Authority's recommendation to suspend import quotas for HRC . With HRC import quotas still in place, supply from ‘other countries' sellers will be increasingly constrained — the duty-free quota is around 23,000/t quarter, but almost 50,000t could clear into this in 1 July, partially because of Tata's increased importation of Indian HRC. Should Tata's furnaces go off line early next month, it would need to increase imports of overseas tonnage, including from its parent company in India. Sources suggest HRC supply from its parent company could be booked for end-August arrival at the earliest. If quotas have not been suspended, there could again be duties payable for other countries' sellers. In a typical market, the disruption would clearly propel prices higher. But demand remains low, with mill tied and independent service centres competing to sell sheet as low as £620/ddp, a price which leaves no margin, based on average stock cost. Europe's imposition of a 15pc cap on countries selling into its own other countries quota is another complicating factor. That move effectively caps any country selling into that quota to 141,849t/quarter and could lead to material being diverted to the UK. The UK has not amended developing nation status as part of its latest safeguard review, meaning Vietnam — a major seller into the EU other countries' quota — can sell into the UK without quota. Vietnam is bearing the brunt of increased Chinese HRC exports, taking 3.9mn t over the first five months of this year, compared to 6.1mn t over the whole of 2023, which was a record high. By Colin Richardson Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Lynas to produce heavy rare earths in Malaysia by 2025

24/06/28

Lynas to produce heavy rare earths in Malaysia by 2025

Beijing, 28 June (Argus) — Australia-listed mining company Lynas Rare Earths plans to start producing two separated heavy rare earth (HRE) products at its Malaysian facility by 2025. Lynas will start production of separated dysprosium and terbium at one of Lynas Malaysia's solvent extraction circuits in 2025. The facility is designed to separate up to 1,500 t/yr of a mixed heavy rare earth compound containing mixed samarium, europium, gadolinium, holmium, dysprosium and terbium (SEGH). The HRE project has completed initial engineering and detailed engineering design is underway, with commissioning and ramp-up expected in mid-2025. Lynas' HRE product range will increase to five products — dysprosium, terbium, unseparated samarium/europium/gadolinium, holmium concentrate and unseparated SEGH — after the separation of dysprosium and terbium from the SEGH compound. Dysprosium and terbium are needed to produce high-performance rare earth magnets, which are used in consumer electronics, electric vehicle engines and other automotive applications. Lynas is also progressing pre-construction activities for its planned rare earth processing facility in the US. Its facilities in Malaysia and the US have been designed to accept third-party feedstocks once they start operations. The heavy rare earths production provides a pathway to accelerate Lynas' commitment to processing all of the elements at the firm's Australian Mount Weld ore site, said Lynas' chief executive officer and managing director, Amanda Lacaze. Supply chains More national governments have been taking action to build or diversify more resilient and sustainable rare earth supply chains, to keep up with a fast-evolving clean energy transition and reduce their heavy reliance on China-origin supplies. China is the largest supplier of medium and heavy rare earths in the world, and it has been implementing stricter export control policies for rare earth extraction and separation technology. There is limited progress on the development of rare earth projects outside China, especially in the HRE market, mostly because of exploration technique restrictions, ore resource shortages, production costs and capital pressure and environmental consideration and so on. US-based rare earth producer MP Materials aims to develop a facility to produce HREs in the next few years. It has started neodymium-praseodymium oxide production since the third quarter of last year and targets commercial production of finished magnets by late 2025. Australian mineral producer Iluka Resources plans to achieve an output capacity of up to 23,000 t/yr of rare earth oxide, including 5,500 t/yr of neodymium-praseodymium oxide and 725 t/yr of dysprosium and terbium oxide from its refinery in Australia. 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