Displaying items by tag: Emissions Trading Scheme

Belgium: The European cement association Cembureau says that the European Union’s (EU) upcoming ‘Fit for 55’ emissions legislation must provide an enabling regulatory framework for the cement industry’s carbon neutrality roadmap. Key issues of concern to the association are the prevention of carbon leakage, the retention of free allocation and a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) until 2030 and the need for a ‘coherent package’ to boost the uptake of low-carbon technologies. It said that the industry supports the European Green Deal and the major challenge of delivering deep emissions cuts by 2030.

Chief executive officer Koen Coppenholle said “Whilst we welcome that the CBAM will seek to bridge the widening gap in carbon costs between EU and non-EU countries, the proposed phase-out of free allocation and the absence of export rebates would cause significant risks to investments.” He added “The decision not to include indirect emissions at this stage is also regrettable.”

Europe: The European cement producers’ association Cembureau says that a possible reduction of European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) free allowances would endanger cement producers’ investment decisions and projects. It says that this in turn might produce competition distortions with third parties. The EU is planning to implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) but the association is concerned that its ‘Fit for 55’ 55% CO₂ emissions reduction target for 2030 may have negative implications for the cement industry. However, the association said that it supported the concept of a CBAM.

Cembureau has called for a transition period until 2030 whereby free allocation under the EU ETS will continue fully alongside the introduction of the CBAM. It added that this is compatible with World Trade Organisation rules and avoids any form of ‘double protection’ provided the free allocation is taken into account when calculating the levy paid by any third-party importers. It further stated that the CBAM must cover both direct and indirect emissions. It has also continued to press the legislators to provide for a CO2 charge exemption for EU exporters to third countries, if the country in question is not covered by an equivalent carbon pricing mechanism. The association asked the EU to consider implementing secondary legislation before any CBAM enters force, and to ensure consistency of ‘Fit for 55’ legislative initiatives, applied across a sufficient breadth of sectors to preclude market distortions.

Little trickles of detail about the European Union’s (EU) proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) started to emerge last week. The key bit of information that Bloomberg managed to squeeze out of their source was that a transition period with a simplified system is being considered from 2023 and then a full version could turn up in 2026. Cement importers, and those in selected other heavy industries, would be required to buy electronic emission certificates at prices corresponding to those in the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS). Other titbits include: that the prices will be set on a weekly basis based on the average carbon permit price within the EU that week; a default value will be devised for importers who can’t back up their emissions data; and imports from a country with its own carbon pricing scheme will be entitled to a discount. The plans are due to be made public in mid-July 2021. Debate is then expected to follow before approval will be required from the European Parliament and member states.

The detail isn’t out there yet but the CBAM is set to collide with trade agreement territory. For example, how the draft agreement tackles issues such as exports from Europe and whether importers should be compensated for not receiving a free allocation of carbon credits could be seen to offer competitive advantage to one party or another. Climate policy will clash with trade policy once or if the CBAM makes in into law. At this point countries that import cement into the EU may start trying to negotiate or complaining to the World Trade Organisation. One previous example of climate policy bashing into trade agreements is when the EU tried and failed to apply the ETS to aviation in the early 2010s. The experience from this incident is expected to inform the European Commission’s approach on the CBAM.

Outside the EU, new carbon pricing schemes have been popping up all over the place and various cement associations are creating or refining their own carbon neutral plans. Last week in North America, for example, the Cement Association of Canada said it was working with the government on launching a roadmap by the end of 2021. In the US, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) has also been hard at work to publish its own roadmap by the end of 2021. Meanwhile, over in the oil sector there were a couple of victories for activist shareholders in May 2021 with Shell, Exxon Mobil and Chevron all being forced to make changes to their climate change polices by courts and activist investors. This makes one wonder how long it will be before the same thing happens to cement companies.

All this increases the pressure between trading agreements and climate legislation. One of the questions that has popped up at Global Cement’s webinar series has been whether attendees thought that a global carbon pricing and/or trading scheme might be a realistic position or not (the majority said ‘yes’ within 20 years). Yet the EU CBAM, all these sustainability plans and continued pressure by investor activist don’t happen in isolation. They occur in an interconnected world.

So it was both non-surprising and eye-popping to discover recently that a private carbon exchange is being prepared in Singapore for a launch by the end of 2021. Climate Impact X (CIX) is being backed by DBS Bank, Singapore Exchange, Standard Chartered and the Singapore-government owned investment company Temasek. As for which companies would actually voluntarily enter into a scheme that would actively reduce profits, the answer lies above. Any organisation looking to trade between carbon pricing jurisdictions might well have an economic incentive to find a truly international scheme that was reputable. Or, perhaps, a publicly owned company dealing in carbon-intensive products might be bullied into one by its activist investors. The focus on such an exchange being reputable is essential here, given the potentially large amounts of money that could be involved and the mixed views on existing carbon offsetting schemes. CIX says it will use satellite monitoring, machine learning and blockchain technology to ensure the integrity of its carbon credits and this is certainly thinking in the right direction. Until it arrives though, we wait to see the detail on the EU CBAM.

EU: The European Commission is reportedly planning to introduce its carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) for cement imports from 2023. Reporting by Bloomberg has revealed that a ‘simplified’ system could be used in a transition period from 2023 with the full mechanism due to start in 2026. Under the new system, cement importers would have to buy certificates at a price linked to the European Union (EU) emissions trading system (ETS). Details on the CBAM and wider environmental plans are due to be made public in mid-July 2021. However, full legal acceptance of the scheme will require approval by the European Parliament and member states.

In a previous response to a report on the CBAM in February 2021, Koen Coppenholle, the head of the European Cement Association (Cembureau), said that a CBAM was a useful tool to address the imports of products not subject to similar carbon constraints in the European Union. He added, “The Environment Committee’s report highlights some key points in this respect, notably that a CBAM should result in EU and non-EU suppliers competing on the same CO2 costs basis; that the scope of CBAM should be wide to avoid market distortions, and that both direct and indirect emissions should be included.”

In May 2021 the EU ETS reached a price of Euro50/t following a significant rise from late 2020 onwards.

Poland: The Polish Cement Association (SPC) has forecast a 2% year-on-year drop in cement sales to 18.5Mt in 2021. President Krzysztof Kieres attributed the fall to growing imports and reduced construction due to a cold start to the year. He predicts that sales will rise again, by 4% to 19.3Mt, in 2022.

The SPC has warned that the industry faces large costs in meeting the European Green Deal’s required 40% CO₂ emissions reduction by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. In particular, the local industry noted that the rising European Union (EU) CO₂ price has caused a direct increase in electricity prices. It has called on the government and the EU to compensate it for this rise.

Imports of cement also present a key challenge. In 2020, imports of Belarusian cement increased by 80% to 440,000t and imports of Ukrainian cement increased by 50% to 32,000t. The association expressed strong support for the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as a means of protecting the industry against imports both from neighbouring countries outside the EU and via polluting shipping from cement exporters further afield such as Turkey.

Europe: The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has reached a price of Euro50/t. Data from Refinitiv and reporting by Reuters shows that on 4 May 2021 it hit Euro50.05/t, its highest level since the scheme started in 2005. Prior to late 2020 the carbon market price remained below Euro30/t. The fourth phase of the EU ETS started in January 2021.

Financial results for 2020 from the major Chinese cement companies are now out, making it time for a recap. Firstly, information from the China Cement Association (CCA) is worth looking at. The country had a cement production capacity of 1.83Bnt/yr in 2020. For an idea of the current pace of industry growth, 26 new integrated production lines were built in 2020 with a clinker production capacity of just under 40Mt/yr.

This is as one might expect from the world’s biggest cement market. However, the CCA also revealed that the country has over 3400 domestic cement companies, of which two thirds are independent cement grinding companies. Most of these were reportedly created during the late 2000s as dry kilns started to predominate. The CCA is concerned with the quality of the cement some of these companies produce and the lack of order in this part of the market such as regional imbalances. This suggests that the government’s attempts to consolidate the cement industry as a whole had led to the independent companies heading down the supply chain. It also raises the possibility that the government-led consolidation drive may move to grinding next. One news story to remember here is that in February 2021 the CCA called for its industry to respect competition laws following a government investigation. Later in the month it emerged that eight cement companies in Shandong Province had been fined US$35m for price fixing in a sophisticated cartel whereby the perpetrators went as far arranging a formal price management committee to regulate the market.

The CCA described 2020 as a year of sudden decline, rapid recovery and stability. Coronavirus hit cement output in the first quarter of 2020 leading to unprecedented monthly year-on-year declines before it bounced right back in a classic ‘V’ shaped recovery pattern. Despite the pandemic and bad weather later in the year, annual output rose by 2% year-on-year to 2.37Bnt in 2020 from 2.32Bnt in 2019. This has carried on into 2021 with a 61% increase in January and February 2021 to 241Mt from 150Mt in the same period in 2020. That’s not surprising given that China was suffering from the pandemic in these months in 2020 but the growth also suggests that the industry may have gone past stability and is growing beyond simply compensating for lost ground.

Graph 1: Year-on-year change in cement output in China, January 2010 - February 2021. Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China. Note that accumulated data is issued for January and February each year so these months show a mean figure.

Chart 2: Annual cement production growth by Province in 2020. Source: China Cement Association.

Chart 2 above shows cement production in 2020 from a provincial perspective. Note the sharp decline, more than 10% year-on-year, in Hubei Province (shown in dark green). Its capital Wuhan is where the first documented outbreak of coronavirus took place followed by a severe lockdown. Zooming further out, China’s clinker imports grew by 47% year-on-year to 33.4Mt in 2020. This is the third consecutive year of import growth, according to the CCA. The leading sources were Vietnam (59%), Indonesia (10%), Thailand (10%) and Japan (8%). China has become the main export destination for South East Asian cement producers and Chinese imports are expected to continue growing in 2021.

Graph 2: Revenue of large Chinese cement producers in 2020 and 2019. Source: Company reports.

Moving to the financial figures from the larger Chinese cement producers, CNBM and Anhui Conch remain the world’s two largest cement producing companies by revenue, beating multinational peers such as CRH, LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement. Anhui Conch appeared to be one of the winners in 2020 and Huaxin Cement appeared to be one of the losers. This is misleading from a cement perspective because Anhui Conch’s increased revenue actually arose from its businesses selling materials other than clinker and cement products. Its cement sales and cement trading revenue remained stable. On the other hand, Huaxin Cement was based, as it describes, in the epicentre of the epidemic and it then had to contend with flooding along the Yangtze River later in the year. Under these conditions, it is unsurprising that its revenue fell.

CNBM’s cement sales revenue fell by 3% year-on-year to US$19.5bn in 2020 with sales from its new materials and engineering compensating. Anhui Conch noted falling product prices in 2020 to varying degrees in most of the different regions of China except for the south. CNBM broadly agreed with this assessment in its financial results. Anhui Conch also reported that its export sales volumes and revenue fell by 51% and 45% year-on-year respectively due to the effects of coronavirus in overseas markets. The last point is interesting given that China increasingly appears in lists of major cement and clinker exporters to different countries. This seems to be more through the sheer size of the domestic sector rather than any concerted efforts at targeting exports.

One major story on CNBM over the last 15 months has been its drive to further consolidate its subsidiaries. In early March 2021 it said it was intending to increase its stake in Tianshan Cement to 88% from 46% and other related transactions. This followed the announcement of restructuring plans in mid-2020 whereby subsidiary Tianshan Cement would take control of China United Cement, North Cement, Sinoma Cement, South Cement, Southwest Cement and CNBM Investment. The move was expected to significantly increase operational efficiency of its constituent cement companies as they would be able to start acting in a more coordinated manner and address ‘fundamental’ issues with production overcapacity nationally.

In summary, the Chinese cement market appears to have more than compensated for the shocks it faced in 2020 with growth in January and February 2021 surpassing the depression in early 2020. Market consolidation is continuing, notably with CNBM’s efforts to better control the world’s largest cement producing company. Alongside this the CCA may be starting to suggest that rationalisation efforts previously focused on integrated plants should perhaps be now looking at the more independent grinding sector. The government continues to tighten regulations on new production capacity and is in the process of introducing new rules increasing the ratio of old lines that have to be shut down before new ones can be built. Finally, China introduced its interim national emissions trading scheme in February 2021, which has large implications for the cement sector in the future, even if the current price lags well behind Europe at present.

Europe: Members of the European Parliament (MEP) have adopted a resolution supporting a European Union (EU) carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). If enacted by the EU then a carbon tax could be levied on certain goods imported from outside the EU that don’t meet local decarbonisation standards. MEPs stressed that it should be World Trade Organisation compatible and not be misused as a tool to enhance protectionism.

The new mechanism is intended to be part of a broader EU industrial strategy and cover all imports of products and commodities covered by the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS). MEPs add that already by 2023, and following an impact assessment, it should cover the power sector and energy-intensive industrial sectors like cement, steel, aluminium, oil refinery, paper, glass, chemicals and fertilisers, which continue to receive substantial free allocations, and still represent 94% of EU industrial emissions.

“The CBAM is a great opportunity to reconcile climate, industry, employment, resilience, sovereignty and relocation issues. We must stop being naïve and impose the same carbon price on products, whether they are produced in or outside the EU, to ensure the most polluting sectors also take part in fighting climate change and innovate towards zero carbon. This is our best chance of remaining below the 1.5°C warming limit, whilst also pushing our trading partners to be equally ambitious in order to enter the EU market,” said EU Parliament rapporteur Yannick Jadot.

The European Commission is expected to present a legislative proposal on a CBAM in the second quarter of 2021 as part of the European Green Deal as well as a proposal on how to include the revenue generated to finance part of the EU budget.

Europe: The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has reached a price of Euro40/t for the first time in its history. Data from the environmental campaign group Sandbag show that on 9 March 2021 it hit Euro40.58/t. Carbon prices under the scheme started to climb in 2018 after stagnation in much of the 2010s. The fourth phase of the EU ETS started in January 2021.

The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) looked like it might be about to hit Euro40/t this week. It still might. You can blame it on the current cold front bringing snow to much of Northern Europe and the bedding into of the fourth phase of the ETS that started in January 2021. In early 2020 analysts were generally predicting an average price of around Euro30/t by 2030 bolstered by volatility in the price due to the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Yet the price recovered and so did the European Commission’s resolve to push through its European Green Deal. By mid-December 2020 the price had shot past Euro30/t and analysts were forecasting average prices of well over Euro50/t by 2030. Depending on one’s disposition this is the rate at which either serious decarbonisation attempts will begin to be viable for commercial companies, or the point at which more plants simply close.

Figure 1: European Union Emissions Trading System carbon market price in Euros (European Union Allowance), February 2020 – February 2021. Source: Sandbag.

One group which is well aware of the EU ETS and its consequences upon the cement industry is Cembureau, the European cement association. Some of its current lobbying efforts have been directed at trying to shape how the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) will appear in legislation proposals in June 2021. Its argument boils down to protecting its members from carbon leakage both in and out of the EU’s borders and maintaining free allocation until 2030 to ease the transition to a lower carbon economy. The former should find common ground. However, calls for a CO₂ charge exemption for EU exporters may perplex environmentalists, who might wonder how this could possibly encourage third party countries to introduce their own carbon pricing schemes. The latter is clearly pragmatism for an industry saying that it is facing change at a pace that may be too rapid for it to cope with. Concrete products do carry sustainability advantages over other building materials. Wiping out swathes of the region’s production base, simply because one knows exactly how much CO₂ they emit compared to rival building materials that one doesn’t, may not help the EU reach its climate commitments by 2050. As if to underline this fear, another European clinker line was earmarked for closure this week when Lafarge France announced the planned conversion of the Contes cement plant into a terminal.

Figure 2: Estimate of global cement production in 2018 by region. Source: Cembureau.

Figure 2 above puts the situation into a global perspective, showing that Cembureau’s members were responsible for below 7% of cement production in 2018. China produced an estimated 55% of global cement production in the same year. In terms of overall CO₂ emissions across all sources, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that China produced 30% of CO₂ emissions in 2018.

It seems odd then that the introduction of an interim ETS in China at the start of February 2021 didn’t receive more global news coverage. The new scheme covers 2225 power companies across the country. It follows pilot regional schemes that have run since 2011, covering seven provinces and cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. Previously, the country’s largest local carbon market, the China Emissions Exchange (Guangzhou), was based in Guangdong province and it included power generation, cement, steel, and petrochemical sectors. State news agency Xinhua reports that this scheme reduced carbon emissions from these industries by 12% from 2013 to 2019. The new national ETS is expected to include cement and other industries at a later stage.

Commentators in the European press have pointed out that the Chinese national ETS is actually planning to make an effort on transparency and to force companies to publish their pollution data publicly. Yet, they’ve also said that the data may be inaccurate anyway, echoing the usual Western fears about Chinese figures. Other concerns include the method of giving out pollution permits rather than allocating them by auction as in other cap and trade systems, which could reduce the incentive to reduce emissions. It’s also worth pointing out that carbon was priced at US$6/t under the Chinese system compared to around US$35/t in the EU and US$17/t in California, US at the end of 2020. At this price it seems unlikely that the Chinese national ETS will encourage much change without other measures.

The EU and Chinese ETS are at different stages but the differences in scale are stark. When or if the Chinese one goes national across those eight core industries it will likely leapfrog over the EU ETS and become the world’s largest with an estimated 13,235MtCO₂e under its purview. By contrast, the EU ETS manages 1816MtC0₂e according to World Bank data. The kind of dilemmas Cembureau and others are tackling with the EU ETS such as carbon leakage and how fast to tighten the system against heavy emitters are illustrative to other schemes in China and elsewhere.