Generic Hero BannerGeneric Hero Banner
Latest market news

Q&A: EU biomethane internal market challenged

  • : Biofuels, Natural gas
  • 25/01/02

The European Commission needs to provide clearer guidance on implementing existing rules for the cross-border trade of biomethane to foster a cohesive internal market as some EU member states are diverging from these standards, Vitol's Davide Rubini and Arthur Romano told Argus. Edited excerpts follow.

What are the big changes happening in the regulation space of the European biomethane market that people need to watch out for?

While no major new EU legislation is anticipated, the focus remains on the consistent implementation of existing rules, as some countries diverge from these standards.

Key challenges include ensuring mass-balanced transport of biomethane within the grid, accurately accounting for cross-border emissions and integrating subsidised biomethane into compliance markets. The European Commission is urged to provide clearer guidance on these issues to foster a cohesive internal market, which is essential for advancing the EU's energy transition and sustainability objectives.

Biomethane is a fairly mature energy carrier, yet it faces significant hurdles when it comes to cross-border trade within the EU. Currently, only a small fraction — 2-5pc — of biomethane is consumed outside of its country of production, highlighting the need for better regulatory alignment across member states.

Would you be interested in seeing a longer-term target from the EU?

The longer the visibility on targets and ambitions, the better it is for planning and investment. As the EU legislative cycle restarts with the new commission, the initial focus might be on the climate law and setting a new target for 2040. However, a review of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) is unlikely for the next 3-4 years.

With current targets set for 2030, just five years away, there's insufficient support for long-term investments. The EU's legislative cycle is fixed, so expectations for changes are low. Therefore, it's crucial that member states take initiative and extend their targets beyond 2030, potentially up to 2035, even if not mandated by the EU. Some member states might do so, recognising the need for longer-term targets to encourage the necessary capital expenditure for the energy transition.

Do you see different interpretations in mass balancing, GHG accounting and subsidies?

Interpretations of the rules around ‘mass-balancing', greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting and the usability of subsidised biomethane [for different fuel blending mandates] vary across EU member states, leading to challenges in creating a cohesive internal market.

When it comes to mass-balancing, the challenges arise in trying to apply mass balance rules for liquids, which often have a physically traceable flow, to gas molecules in the interconnected European grid. Once biomethane is injected, physical verification becomes impossible, necessitating different rules than those for liquids moving around in segregated batches.

The EU mandates that sustainability verification of biomethane occurs at the production point and requires mechanisms to prevent double counting and verification of biomethane transactions. However, some member states resist adapting these rules for gases, insisting on physical traceability similar to that of liquids. This resistance may stem from protectionist motives or political agendas, but ultimately it results in non-adherence to EU rules and breaches of European legislation.

The issue with GHG accounting often stems from member states' differing interpretations of the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Some states, like the Netherlands, argue that mass balance is an administrative method, which the guidelines supposedly exclude. Mass balancing involves rigorous verification by auditors and certifying bodies, ensuring a robust accounting system that is distinct from book and claim methods. This distinction is crucial because mass balance is based on verifying that traded molecules of biomethane are always accompanied by proofs of sustainability that are not a separately tradeable object. In fact, mass balancing provides a verifiable and accountable method that is perfectly aligned with UN guidelines and ensuring accurate GHG accounting.

The issue related to the use of subsidised volumes of biomethane is highly political. Member states often argue that if they provide financial support — directly through subsidies or indirectly through suppliers' quotas — they should remain in control of the entire value chain. For example, if a member state gives feed-in tariffs to biomethane production, it may want to block exports of these volumes. Conversely, if a member state imposes a quota to gas suppliers, it may require this to be fulfilled with domestic biomethane production. No other commodity — not even football players — is subject to similar restrictions to export and/or imports only because subsidies are involved. This protectionist approach creates barriers to internal trade within the EU, hindering the development of a unified biomethane market and limiting the potential for growth and decarbonisation across the region.

The Netherlands next year will implement two significant pieces of legislation — a green supply obligation for gas suppliers and a RED III transposition. The Dutch approach combines GHG accounting arguments with a rejection of EU mass-balance rules, essentially prohibiting biomethane imports unless physically segregated as bio-LNG or bio-CNG. This requirement contradicts EU law, as highlighted by the EU Commission's recent detailed opinion to the Netherlands.

France's upcoming blending and green gas obligation, effective in 2026, mandates satisfaction through French production only. Similarly, the Czech Republic recently enacted a law prohibiting the export of some subsidised biomethane. Italy's transport system, while effective nationally, disregards EU mass balance rules. These cases indicate a deeper political disconnect and highlight the need for better alignment and communication within the EU.

We know you've been getting a lot of questions around whether subsidised bio-LNG is eligible under FuelEU. What have your findings been?

The eligibility of subsidised bio-LNG under FuelEU has been a topic of considerable enquiry. We've sought clarity from the European Commission, as this issue intersects multiple regulatory and legal frameworks. Initially, we interpreted EU law principles, which discourage double support, to mean that FuelEU, being a quota system, would qualify as a support scheme under Article 2's definition, equating quota systems with subsidies.

However, a commission representative has publicly stated that FuelEU does not constitute a support scheme and thus is not subject to this interpretation. On this basis, FuelEU would not differentiate between subsidised and unsubsidised bio-LNG. A similar rationale applies to the Emissions Trading System, which, while not a quota obligation, has been deemed to not be a support scheme.

Despite these clarifications, the use of subsidised biomethane across Europe remains an area requiring further elucidation from European institutions. It is not without risks, and stakeholders require more definitive guidance to navigate the regulatory landscape effectively.


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.

25/04/02

Brazil SAF industry set to take off in 2027

Brazil SAF industry set to take off in 2027

Sao Paulo, 2 April (Argus) — Brazil's aviation industry is keeping an eye on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) regulations as the domestic market awaits the kickoff of local production to comply with the planned blend mandate and with potential for exports. The fuels of the future law envisages raising biofuel mix standards to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in domestic flights over a 10-year period starting in 2027, as Brazil has committed to applying a 10pc SAF mandate by 2037. The country's efforts to implement a SAF mandate runs in tandem with the guidelines from UN's International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (Corsia) program, which oversees GHG reduction in international flights. The program set up two phases until reduction targets are fully implemented, so airlines and producers adapt to changes efficiently. Airlines can voluntarily adhere between 2024-2026, followed by global compulsory targets from 2027-2035, prompting SAF usage or carbon credits compensation. The mandatory phase embraces all international flights, including those from and to non-voluntary countries, except for so-called underdeveloped countries and those with a low share of global air traffic flows. Brazil's SAF is a newborn industry that holds potential for feedstock supply , mostly for its traditional production pathways using soybean oil, corn and sugarcane ethanol, as well as widespread agricultural lands engaged in biomass production without practicing land-use change. Its variability also allows new projects to reuse degraded lands and existing agricultural assets to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) sustainability criteria related to land-use and soil health enhancement. SAF input in Brazil faces economic hurdles as high market volatility weighs on long-term investments, says A&M Infra's management consultant Filipe Bonaldo. But he also says that the political agenda will not hinder the energy transition as has happened in the US under President Donald Trump, since Brazil's economy is heavily based on agriculture its regulatory processes spur optimism. As an agricultural powerhouse, Brazil offers low-cost production and multiple sources to provide demand, both internally and offshore. Brazil is the third largest global exporter in agriculture and livestock markets, leading soy, orange juice and beef markets globally, according to agriculture and livestock confederation CAN. Debut in Rio Brazilian fuel distributor Vibra is the first to offer SAF in Brazil, before the blend mandate comes into effect. The company imported 550,000l (16,000bl) of SAF produced with used-cooking oil (UCO) from the port of Antwerp, in the Netherlands, in January. The biofuel is available for customers at Vibra's facility at the Rio de Janeiro international airport after a 10-month logistics plan was concluded. International Sustainability & Carbon Certification (ISCC) has secured all processes of the plan, from the supply chain of the product to distribution. Vibra operates in more than 90 airports in Brazil and accounts for 60pc of national aviation market share through its sector subsidiary BR Aviation, said executive vice-president of operations Marcelo Bragança. Why it took so long? The sector has long had doubts over the technical feasibility of admitting the use of biofuels in aviation , especially from a security point of view, said Anac's head of the environment and energy transition Marcela Anselmi. The agency, along with oil and biofuels regulator ANP, follow international regulations for SAF as it requires a physical and chemical resemblance to current fossil aviation fuels to ensure flight operations security. It is still not possible to use 100pc of SAF in aircraft motors, said Anselmi. There is a 50pc mix limit that inhibits worldwide adherence as there are technical restrictions yet to overcome. Recent engagement in the energy transition agenda is promoting biomass supply for aviation, as well as road and marine modalities, requiring new production pathways. For example, ATJ uses ethanol to convert it into SAF, which can be expensive to install and implies high capital expenditure. In a global context, Brazil stands in the vanguard of the SAF agenda as Europe and the US have only deployed legislation related to output and consumption over the past two years, Anselmi pointed out. Meanwhile, South America's planned SAF production capacity may reach 1.1mn l/yr in 2030, according to EPE. By João Curi Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Australia’s gas leaders hit out at market intervention


25/04/02
25/04/02

Australia’s gas leaders hit out at market intervention

Sydney, 2 April (Argus) — Senior figures in Australia's upstream gas sector have hit out at plans for intervention in the heavily regulated industry, as debate continues on how to best address domestic supply shortfalls later this decade. The federal Coalition in March announced National Gas Plan including a 50-100 PJ/yr (1.34bn-2.68bn m³/yr) domestic reservation system aimed at forcing the three LNG exporters based in Queensland's Gladstone to direct more supply to the eastern states' market. But oversupplying the market to drive down prices would destroy the viability of smaller gas projects, Australian independent Beach Energy's chief executive Brett Woods said at a conference in Sydney on 1 April. The domestic-focused firm, which will export some LNG volumes via its Waitsia project in 2025, warns that such a move by the Peter Dutton-led opposition would reduce export incomes while harming Australia's international reputation. The volumes impacted by the policy could reach around 900,000-1.8mn t/yr. Expropriation of developed reserves is equivalent to breaking contracts with LNG buyers and with the foreign and local investors that the country needs for ongoing economic security, Woods said on 1 April. Domestic gas reservation systems put in place by the state governments of Western Australia (WA) and Queensland, designed to keep local markets well supplied, were "clearly supportable", Woods said, but only future supply should be subject to the regulations. LNG terminals, which represent about 70pc of eastern Australia's total gas consumption and shipped 24mn t in 2024 , should not be blamed for the failure of governments to expedite new supply and plan for Australia's gas future, head of Shell Australia Cecile Wake said in response to the Coalition's proposal. Shell's QGC business supplied 15pc of its volumes to the local grid, with the remainder shipped from its 8.5mn t/yr Queensland Curtis LNG project, Wake added. Canberra has moved to promote gas use as a transition fuel to firm renewable energy in line with its 2030 emissions reduction targets, but progress has been slow as reforming laws appear to be hampering development . The state governments, particularly in gas-poor Victoria and New South Wales (NSW), must recognise the need for locally-produced supply and streamline the approvals processes, especially environmental permits, executives said. But despite pleas for an end to years of interventionist policy — including the governing Labor party's measures to cap the price of domestic gas at A$12/GJ , Australia's fractured political environment and rising cost of living has sparked largely populist responses from its leaders. A so-called "hung" parliament is likely to result from the 3 May poll , with a variety of mainly left-leaning independents representing an anti-fossil fuel agenda expected to control the balance of power in Australia's parliament. LNG debate sharpens Debate on the causes of southern Australia's gas deficit has persisted, and the ironic outcome of underinvestment in gas supply could be LNG re-imports from Gladstone to NSW, Victoria and South Australia, making fracked coal-bed methane — liquefied in Queensland and regasified — a likely higher-emissions alternative to pipeline supply. Several developers are readying for this possibility , which is considered inevitable without action to increase supply in Victoria or NSW, increase winter storages or raise north-south pipeline capacity. Australian pipeline operator APA appears to have the most to lose out of the active firms in the gas sector. APA chief executive Adam Watson this week criticised plans for imports, because relying on LNG will set the price of domestic gas at a detrimental level, raise emissions and decrease reliability of supply, Watson said. The firm is planning to increase its eastern pipeline capacity by 25pc to bring new supplies from the Bass, Surat and Beetaloo basins to market. But investment certainty is needed or Australia will risk needing to subsidise coal-fired power for longer if sufficient gas is unavailable to back up wind and solar generators with peaking power, Watson said. By Tom Major Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

LNG stocks at Japan’s power utilities rise


25/04/02
25/04/02

LNG stocks at Japan’s power utilities rise

Osaka, 2 April (Argus) — LNG inventories at Japan's main power utilities increased during the week to 30 March, as warmer weather reduced electricity demand for heating purposes and limited gas-fired generation. The utilities held 2.24mn t of LNG on 30 March, up by 22pc from a week earlier, according to a weekly survey by the trade and industry ministry Meti. This was higher by 51pc compared with 1.48mn t at the end of March 2024 and up by 10pc against 2.03mn t — the average end-March stocks over 2020-24. A seasonal rise in temperatures weighed on power demand, which fell by 12pc on the week to 87GW across 24-30 March, according to the Organisation for Cross-regional Co-ordination of Transmission Operators (Occto). This resulted in a 24pc fall in gas-fired output to an average of 24GW during the period, the Occto data showed. Coal- and oil-fed generation also fell by 14pc to 23GW and by 21pc to 409MW respectively in the same period. The lower demand has created extra supplies to be sold on the wholesale market. This has weighed on day-ahead prices on the Japan Electric Power Exchange (Jepx) and worsened generation economics for the country's thermal power plants. Margins at a 58pc-efficient gas-fired unit running on oil-priced LNG supplies fell into negative territory, with the spark spread averaging at a loss of -¥2.28/kWh ($15.22/MWh) across 24-30 March, compared with the previous week's profit of ¥0.84/kWh. The 58pc spark spread using spot LNG widened the deficit, with the margin averaging at a loss of -¥3.79/kWh against the previous week's -¥0.80/kWh, based on the ANEA — the Argus assessment for spot LNG deliveries to northeast Asia. Coal remained competitive in Japan's merit order. But the dark spread of a 40pc-efficient coal-fired unit also fell by 64pc on the week to an average of ¥1.63/kWh over 24-30 March, based on Argus' spot coal and freight assessments. By Motoko Hasegawa Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US oil, farm groups push EPA for steep biofuel mandate


25/04/01
25/04/01

US oil, farm groups push EPA for steep biofuel mandate

New York, 1 April (Argus) — The American Petroleum Institute and biofuel-supporting groups told Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials at a meeting today that the agency should sharply raise advanced biofuel blend mandates for 2026. The coalition told EPA that it supported a biomass-based diesel mandate next year of 5.25bn USG, up from 3.35bn USG this year, and a broader advanced biofuel mandate, including the cellulosic category, at 10bn Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits, up from 7.33bn RINs this year, according to three different groups that attended the meeting. Both mandates would be record highs for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Soybean oil futures and RIN credit prices have risen sharply over the past week on optimism that oil and biofuel interests were working to coordinate volume mandate requests for consideration by President Donald Trump's administration. The coalition is also pushing the agency to set a total conventional volume requirement at 25bn RINs, which would keep an implied mandate for corn ethanol flat at 15bn USG. Ethanol groups had previously eyed a mandate even higher, but limits on the amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline make much more-stringent requirements a tough sell to oil refiners. The coalition provided no specific request for the cellulosic biofuel subcategory, where most credit generation comes from biogas. Credits in that category are more expensive, but price concerns have been less potent recently given an EPA proposal to lower previously set cellulosic obligations, signaling that future volume requirements can be cut, too. EPA is aiming to finalize new RFS volume mandates by the end of the year if not earlier, people familiar with the administration's thinking have said. EPA officials signaled at the meeting they were working urgently on the rulemaking. "The agency is intent on getting the RFS program back on the statutory timeline for issuing renewable volume obligation rules," EPA said, declining to comment further on its plans for the rule. The RFS program requires oil refiners and importers to blend biofuels into the conventional fuel supply or buy credits from those who do. Under the program's unique nesting structure, credits from blending lower-carbon biofuels can be used to meet obligations for other program categories. One gallon of corn ethanol generates 1 RIN, but more energy-dense fuels earn more RIN credits per gallon. Some disagreements persist While groups at the meeting were aligned around high-level mandates, how administration officials and courts treat small refinery requests for exemptions from RFS requirements could undercut those targets. Groups present were broadly aligned on asking EPA not to grant widespread exemptions, though there is still disagreement in the industry about how best to account for exempted volumes when deciding requirements for other refiners. Groups present at the meeting today included the American Petroleum Institute and representatives of biofuel producers and crop feedstock suppliers. Some groups that previously engaged with the coalition's efforts to project unity to the Trump administration were not present. And some groups more historically skeptical of the RFS and more supportive of small refinery exemptions — including the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers — have not been closely involved. Fuel marketer groups notably did not attend the meeting after a representative sparred with others in the coalition at an American Petroleum Institute meeting last month. Some retail groups, including the National Association of Convenience Stores and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, instead sent a letter to EPA today arguing that the groups pushing steep volumes are discounting potential headwinds to the sector from new tax credit policy. Some of the groups advocating for higher biofuel volumes have pointed to high production capacity and feedstock availability, but have preferred to ignore thornier issues like tax credits, lobbyists say. "An overly aggressive increase in advanced biofuel blending mandates under the RFS will be punitive for American consumers" without extending a long-running $1/USG tax credit for biomass-based diesel blenders, the retailers' letter said. That incentive expired last year and was replaced by the Inflation Reduction Act's "45Z" credit, which offers subsidies to producers instead of blenders and throttles benefits based on carbon intensity. Generally lower credit values for biomass-based diesel — coupled with the US government's delays setting final regulations on qualifying for the credit — have spurred a sharp drop in biofuel production to start the year. Without a blenders credit, the RFS volume mandates pushed by some groups could increase retail diesel prices by 30¢/USG, the fuel marketers estimate, a potential political headache for a president that ran on curbing consumer costs. Other biofuel groups say that extending the credit would be an uphill battle this year, with some lawmakers and lobbyists instead focused on legislatively tweaking the 45Z incentive's rules to benefit crop feedstocks instead of reverting wholesale to the prior tax policy. By Cole Martin Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Next US tariffs to take effect 'immediately'


25/04/01
25/04/01

Next US tariffs to take effect 'immediately'

Washington, 1 April (Argus) — President Donald Trump plans to announce a sweeping batch of tariffs on Wednesday afternoon that will take effect "immediately", the White House said today. Trump will unveil his much anticipated tariff decision Wednesday at 4pm ET during a ceremony at the White House Rose Garden. While the administration has announced the effective date, there is little clarity on what goods will face tariffs at what rates and against which countries, leaving the government agencies that will be tasked with enforcing new tariffs largely in the dark. "The president has a brilliant team of advisers who have been studying these issues for decades, and we are focused on restoring the golden age of America and making America a manufacturing superpower," the White House said today, brushing off criticism from economists, industry groups and investors. Economic activity in the US manufacturing sector contracted in March as businesses braced for Trump's tariff threats. Trump has previewed or announced multiple tariff actions since taking office. The barriers in place now include a 20pc tariff on all imports from China, in effect since 4 March, and a 25pc tax on all imported steel and aluminum, in effect since 12 March. A 25pc tariff on all imported cars, trucks and auto parts, is scheduled to go into effect on 3 April, the White House confirmed today. Trump and his advisers have previewed two possible courses of action for 2 April. Trump has suggested that all major US trading partners are likely to see a broad increase in tariffs in an effort to reduce the US trade deficit and to raise more revenue for the US federal budget. But Trump separately has talked about the need for "reciprocal tariffs", contending that most foreign countries typically charge higher rates of tariffs on US exports than the US applies to imports from those countries. In that scenario, high tariffs become a negotiating tool to bring down alleged foreign barriers to US exports. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News on Monday night that the second course is the one Trump is more likely to take. Trump will announce "reciprocal tariffs" and "everyone will have the opportunity to lower their tariffs, lower their non-tariff barriers, stop the currency manipulation" and "make the global trading system fair for American workers again", Bessent said. But the White House insisted today that the new tariffs will not be a negotiating tool. Trump is "always up for a good negotiation, but he is very much focused on fixing the wrongs of the past and showing that American workers have a fair shake", the White House said. Trump's words and actions already have drawn retaliatory tariffs from Canada and China, and the EU is preparing to implement its first batch of counter-tariffs in April. Trump, for now, has deferred his tariff plans for imported Canadian and Mexican oil and other energy commodities. But the US oil and gas sector, which depends on pipelines and foreign-flagged vessels to transport its crude, natural gas, refined products and LNG, will feel the effects of tariffs on imported steel and proposed fees on Chinese-made and owned vessels calling at US ports. By Haik Gugarats Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Generic Hero Banner

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