Displaying items by tag: Emissions Trading Scheme

Cembureau called for urgent action on electricity prices from European governments this week to protect cement plants. Its maths was crushingly simple. One tonne of cement takes around 110kWh of electricity to produce. Electricity prices started to top Euro700mWh in some European Union (EU) countries at the end of August 2022. The association says that this represents added costs of Euro70/t of cement and a tripling of the total cost of production. This kind of sudden extra cost to cement production could lead to the widespread closure of cement plants and lead to chaos in the construction supply chain.

Previously, Cembureau reported in 2020 that electricity accounts for about 12% of a cement plant’s energy mix. In a dry production process plant 43% of this is used for cement grinding, 25% goes into raw material preparation, another 25% on clinker production and the final portion is typically used for raw material extraction, fuel grinding and for packing and loading. However, the cost of the electricity can make a big difference to the overall energy bill for a cement plant. When a report by the European Commission’s (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) modelled a reference northern European cement plant with a production capacity of 1.0Mt/yr back in 2016, it concluded that the EU cement industry was spending around half of its energy costs on electricity compared to smaller ratios at plants in China, Egypt, Algeria and... Ukraine. That last country in the list is poignant given its unwitting participation in the current energy crisis. One other thing to note is that cement producers, as large scale users, may well be paying less than the wholesale prices Cembureau appears to be quoting.

The timing of Cembureau’s proclamation is pertinent because the EU and individual states have mostly been waiting until the autumn before revealing their energy support plans. However, the dilemma for Cembureau, and other industry lobbying groups, is how to protect their sectors whilst domestic consumers are threatened. The aftermath of the coronavirus lockdowns has shown what can happen when production of key commodities stops: supply chain disruption, shortages and price rises. One ironic shortage in the UK during the lockdown periods was that of CO₂, as high gas prices forced the main producer to shut down, leading to unexpected knock-on problems along the supply chain in areas such as food production. The same situation is reportedly at risk of happening again now too.

Cembureau’s wider solution is to link domestic and industrial consumers of electricity. So, some of its suggestions to policymakers are to use all available means of power generation, implement emergency measures such as price caps immediately, change the rules of the electricity market more generally to prevent future price shocks and to promote large scale renewable power source development. These are all things that could help both individual and industrial users of electricity.

Compare and contrast, then, with the MPA’s (Mineral Products Association) approach to the same problem in the UK. Its strategy instead has been to ask the UK government for tax cuts and freezes and to hurry along the forthcoming policy on support for Energy Intensive Industries. That’s not to say that Cembureau’s suggestions don’t also include some sector specific requests. It has asked that the EU temporary state aid framework adopted in late March 2022 should allow all energy intensive industries to have access to state aid covering 70 - 80% of eligible costs. It has also encouraged the wider use of alternative fuels, although it doesn’t link the reason why beyond reducing imports of fossil fuels. Lastly, it bangs the drum for its recent preoccupation, the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, this time adding electro-intensity as a main criterion for eligibility for compensation under EU emission trading scheme (ETS) indirect state aid guidelines.

Government support packages for the energy crisis are starting to be announced in European countries but the question for everyone is whether they and other actions will be enough. One problem for the cement industry will be simply staying on the radar of policy makers facing a crisis looming over their citizens. Yet if there is not enough energy to go around then rationing of some kind will be inevitable and heavy industrial users will be the first obvious targets to be told to cut back. Some months later building material supply shortages will hit. One national cement sector to watch in the coming months may be the Spanish one as it has long warned of the risks of high electricity prices.

Belgium: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has called for urgent action to be taken to support cement production due to large increases in the cost of electricity. It said that, if no measures were taken at both the European and national level, the current energy prices would lead to widespread plant closures across the European Union (EU). This in turn could create a crisis in the construction supply chain. It explained that one tonne of cement normally takes around 110kWh of electricity to produce. Therefore, with electricity prices now between Euro700 - 1000mWh, as observed in several EU member states, electricity costs amount to Euro70 – 110/t of cement, tripling the total cost of production.

The association has called for: all available sources of electricity generation to be used to boost power supplies; the immediate introduction of emergency measures, such as price caps; that the EU temporary state aid framework adopted in late March 2022 should allow all energy-intensive industries to have access to state aid covering 70 - 80% of eligible costs; and that co-processing in cement kilns should be actively encouraged and promoted at EU, state and local levels.

It added that further measures should also be considered, including: the electricity market design rules, including the marginal price setting mechanism, should be changed to prevent further electricity price hikes in the future; the cement sector should be made eligible for financial compensation under the EU emission trading scheme indirect state aid guidelines and that indirect emissions should be included in the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM); the large-scale deployment of renewable energy should be supported across the EU; and that the pace of the EU climate agenda ('Fit for 55') should be maintained, and the CBAM should be implemented in a timely manner.

New Zealand: Golden Bay Cement says that proposed changes to New Zealand's emissions trading scheme (ETS) would force it to review the viability of cement production at its 0.9Mt/yr Portland cement plant in Whangārei, Northland. The Northern Advocate newspaper has reported that the government proposes to reduce the number of ETS credits available to industrial enterprises under free allocation from 2024.Since the scheme's introduction in 2008, highly emissions-intensive businesses such as Golden Bay Cement have enjoyed 90% free allocation of ETS credits for their emissions.

From 2027, the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) will begin to charge third country-based cement exporters for the CO₂ emissions of their products sold inside the bloc. The new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a lynchpin in the strategy to realise a 55% reduction in EU industries' CO₂ emissions between 1990 and 2030. Starving foreign cement industries of a source of income may also help to make them change their ways. A regional solution leveraged through an unfair head start, however, might cause progress to falter where it is most needed in the global fight against climate change.

Carbon leakage has hung over the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) since its inception in 2005. Cembureau, the European cement association, has reported a 300% five-year increase in third-country cement imports up to 2021, with spikes matching those in ETS credit prices. Companies from Turkey to Australia have produced and transported their cement into the EU, at great CO₂ cost, while benefitting from a competitive edge over domestic producers, it would seem. Lawmakers rectified the situation by maintaining free allocations of ETS credits to EU industries, including cement, which received US$92m-worth in 2021.¹ In the wake of the Paris Agreement, an emissions pricing mechanism on cement imports first came before a vote of the member states in February 2017.

In what would become a recurring theme, opposition from all sides of the issue defeated the proposal. Most interesting was the international response: Brazil, China, India and South Africa voiced ‘grave concern’ over the proposed CBAM. A Russian representative at the Department of European Cooperation lamented the possible necessity of ‘response measures,’ while US Climate Envoy John Kerry coolly urged the EU to wait until after the COP26 climate change conference in November 2021. The outbursts were surprising given that the mechanism clearly conformed to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules: free allocations were always expected to phase out in a mirror image of the CBAM phase-in. The proposal eventually adopted on 22 June 2022 set the end date for both as 2032.

In 2020, the EU imported US$383m-worth of cement and concrete across its external borders, down by 17% year-on-year from US$463m in 2019.² Imports had previously more than doubled decade-on-decade from US$204min 2009. China accounted for US$167m-worth (43%) of cement and concrete exports to the EU in 2020, followed by Vietnam with US$34m (9%) and the UK with US$30m (7.9%). Other significant sources include Belarus (US$28m - 7.4%), Russia (US$13.8m - 3.6%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (US$13.5m - 3.5%), Serbia (US$13.1 million - 3.4%), Israel (US$13m - 3.4%), Turkey (US$12.6m - 3.3%) and the US (US$10.3m - 2.7%).

China

China’s first emissions trading scheme will be one year old on 16 July 2021. The scheme, covering more than twice the CO₂ emissions accounted for under the EU ETS, may lend an apparent synergy to EU energy policy and that of the bloc’s main trade partner.³ On the contrary, Chinese carbon credits cost 8.5% the price of EU ETS credits on 29 June 2022, with a growth rate of just 10% year-on-year compared to 53% in EU ETS credit prices. Unlike their European equivalent, they are also restricted to the energy sector. Chinese cement exporters are unready to meet the CBAM on its own terms. The inclusion of indirect emissions further disadvantages plants operating in China’s 57% coal-powered economy. Premier Li Keqiang has warned countries to be on their guard against a ‘new green trade barrier.’

These concerns ought to be considered in light of the scale and diversified nature of the China-EU trade partnership. The eventual inclusion of polymers, hydrogen and ammonia under the CBAM still does not extend its scope beyond 3% of Chinese imports to the EU by value, enabling China to retain the leverage it has previously proved willing to exercise against those who threaten the perceived interests of global trade.

China plans to reach net zero CO₂ emissions by 2060 through an energy transition in which it invested US$266m in 2021, more than the next six ranked countries combined.⁴ In the medium-term future, the CBAM may become a green bridge, connecting with Chinese emissions reduction policies in a single carbon border measure to raise money for developing countries’ sustainable transitions, as suggested by former governor of the People’s Bank of China Zhou Xiaochuan. Until then, China seems well positioned to ensure that a fair share of the costs arising from the CBAM pass to importers and the consumer.

Turkey

Turkey provided 3.3% of the EU’s cement and concrete imports in 2020, but the volume corresponded to 13% of Turkey’s total exports of the same. Thus, the country has a high exposure to any adverse effects of the CBAM – quantified at an estimated US$789m/yr by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.⁵ Turkey’s ratification of the Paris Agreement in late 2021 is among the positive outcomes of the CBAM. The country now plans to align with the CBAM. In this, the Turkish cement industry will rely on a share of a US$3.2bn loan from the World Bank, France and Germany.

The UN has yet to receive an updated climate action plan from the Turkish government in line with its pledges. Should Turkey fail to transition within the short timeframe provided by the CBAM, its cement sector might increase its existing focus on the West African market, where it holds 55% and 46% market shares for cement and clinker imports to Ghana and Ivory Coast respectively. The beleaguered industry has one greater refuge still: the US market, which consumed 18% of Turkish cement exports in 2020.

North America

Discussions of the CBAM’s impacts in Canada and the US are tied to those countries’ on-going deliberations over possible adjustment mechanisms of their own. At present, individual provinces and states are responsible for implementing carbon pricing. An international emissions trading scheme, called the Western Climate Initiative, already exists between the US state of California and the Canadian province of Quebec. The Canadian government is conducting a consultation on federal Border Carbon Adjustment (BCA) credits in the context of economy-wide pricing.⁶ Carbon border adjustment was previously an item on the US Trade Policy Agenda in 2021, but disappeared in 2022. President Biden pledged to impose 'carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations' during his candidateship in the 2020 US presidential election. On 7 June 2022, two weeks before the EU adopted CBAM, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced a carbon border adjustment bill to the US Senate, which it referred to its Committee on Finance.⁷

North American legislators will need to follow the European Parliament in building a broad centrist majority in order to pass their CBAMs. If they succeed, the world will gain a low-carbon axis of cement markets, bringing their trade partners behind them.

Other European countries

The UK cement industry expects to pay an extra US$30.1m/yr on account of the CBAM.⁹

A November 2021 report by the Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment) concluded that Ukraine's 'largest and most technological' cement producers will experience no critical influence from the CBAM when exporting to the EU.⁸ At that time, the Ukrainian strategy consisted of an alignment with any future CBAM. On 31 May 2022, The European Business Association calculated Ukrainian cement producers' total CBAM tax bill as US$3.36m/yr.¹⁰

Montenegro introduced its own emissions trading system, modelled on the EU ETS, in February 2021, a move which Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia have both announced their intent to follow.¹¹

Norway has called for international acceptance of the CBAM, but questioned the practicality of including indirect carbon pricing.

An example of the possible adverse effects of the CBAM comes from the EU's ban on Russian cement imports in April 2022. The loss of the EU market was one likely contributor to a rollback of climate regulation there.¹²

Developing countries

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Oxfam has criticised the CBAM's failure to include an exemption for the least developed countries. The EU's solution is an indirect one: it will put CBAM revenues towards its budget, from which international climate finance funding will be raised to an equivalent level. As Paris Agreement signatories, EU member states already expect to contribute to the achievement of US$100bn/yr in climate finance funds for poorer countries in 2023.

Oxfam has recommended that the EU do more to take account of its disproportionate contribution to cumulative global CO₂ emissions. This would include directly paying CBAM revenues into international climate finance and accelerating the phase-out of free ETS allocations.

Conclusion

On 22 June 2022, the most sustainable cement market in the world successfully harnessed market forces to its emissions reduction ambitions. The European cement industry will be able to celebrate the end of carbon leakage. Cement companies outside of the EU, however, now face increased costs and lower prices for their product. The legislation addresses some of the harm that it causes to less developed countries; those – like China, Turkey and Vietnam – in the middle will have to face it head-on.

So far, we have cited governments and lobby groups, but the real question of readiness for the CBAM lies with producers. Global cement companies, including those based in the EU, have implemented their sustainable cement technologies across all continents, and are beginning to reap the rewards of a new world where paying for pollution is unavoidable.

Sources

1. Sandbag, E3G and Energy Foundation, A Storm in a Teacup, Impacts and Geopolitical Risks of the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, August 2021, https://9tj4025ol53byww26jdkao0x-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/E3G-Sandbag-CBAM-Paper-Eng.pdf

2. Trend Economy, ‘Imports: European Union: 6810,’ 14 November 2021, https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/EuropeanUnion/6810

3. Energy Monitor, ‘Carbon trading the Chinese way,’ 5 January 2022, https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/carbon-markets/carbon-trading-the-chinese-way

4. China Power, ‘How Is China’s Energy Footprint Changing?’ https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/

5. Politico, ‘EU’s looming carbon tax nudged Turkey toward Paris climate accord, envoy says,’ 6 November 2021, https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-turkey-paris-accord-climate-change/

6. Canadian Climate Institute/L'Instut Climatique du Canada, 'Border Carbon Adjustments,' 27 January 2022, https://climateinstitute.ca/publications/border-carbon-adjustments/

7. Congress, 'S.4355 - Clean Competition Act,' 7 June 2022, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4355?s=1&r=6

8.Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment), ' The Impact of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on the EU - Ukraine trade,' November 2021, https://www.rac.org.ua/uploads/content/624/files/impactcarbonmechanismcbamukrainesummaryen.pdf

9. Burke et al, 'What does an EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism mean for the UK?' April 2021, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/What-does-an-EU-Carbon-Border-Adjustment-Mechanism-mean-for-the-UK_FULL-REPORT.pdf

10. European Business Association, 'Ukrainian exporters to pay more than € 1 billion in carbon tax to the EU under the CBAM,' 31 May 2022, https://eba.com.ua/en/ponad-1-mlrd-yevro-podatku-na-vuglets-shhoroku-splachuvatymut-ukrayinski-eksportery-v-yes-v-ramkah-svam/

11. Balkan Green Energy News, 'Which Western Balkan countries intend to introduce carbon tax?' 18 May 2022, https://balkangreenenergynews.com/which-western-balkan-countries-intend-to-introduce-carbon-tax/

12. Climate Home News, 'Russian climate action and research is collateral damage in Putin’s war on Ukraine,' 26 May 2022, https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/05/26/russian-climate-action-and-research-is-collateral-damage-in-putins-war-on-ukraine/

Belgium: Cembureau, the European Cement Association has welcomed the adoption of the European Parliament reports on the European Union (EU) Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

Koen Coppenholle, the chief executive officer of Cembureau, said “Our sector needs a coherent and predictable regulatory framework to deliver on its carbon neutrality ambitions. The texts adopted today offer significant improvements on key issues – such as the reinforcement of CBAM, the inclusion of indirect emissions, the need for a strong export solution for CBAM sectors, the inclusion of waste incineration in the EU ETS and the support for key breakthrough technologies - which we welcome.” He added that the association regretted the compromise reached suggesting delaying the implementation of the CBAM by one year as cement imports into the EU were growing “exponentially”.

Eurostat data cited by Cembureau shows that EU cement imports have increased by 300% in the past five years from 2016 to 2021, with specific spikes when the EU carbon price was at its highest level. The association is lobbying for what it calls a ‘watertight’ CBAM and a ‘realistic’ with the phase-out of free allocation of carbon credits to cement producers.

Europe: The European cement association Cembureau has expressed its disappointment in the outcome of European Parliament votes on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The parliament voted against an amended proposal to introduce a carbon border tax and to phase out ETS allowances from 2028 to 2034, against a previous proposal of 2025 – 2030. Groups including The Greens – European Free Alliance voted against the proposed legislation as they believed it did not go far enough.

Cembureau chief executive officer Koen Coppenholle said “The EU cement industry needs a strong CBAM to support our decarbonisation efforts and fight carbon leakage. Both draft European Parliament texts on ETS and CBAM contain significant improvements on some key issues – such as CBAM’s watertightness or industrial innovation – which are essential to support our transition to carbon neutrality.” Coppenholle continued “We encourage MEPs to resume negotiations as soon as possible and reach a reasonable compromise on the remaining divisive issues, thereby providing a predictable regulatory framework for the industry.”

UK: Mannok recorded sales of Euro270m in 2021, up by 16% year-on-year from Euro233m in 2020. The company’s earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) fell by 17% to Euro25.8m from Euro31.1m. The group attributed this to substantial cost absorption beginning in mid-2021. Energy prices rose by 66% year-on-year, while the cost of carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) credits more than doubled to Euro80/t at the end of the year.

Mannok said that demand for its products remains resilient, supported by stronger cost recovery. It added that a levelling out in energy prices has driven stronger profitability in the first quarter and April of 2022.

UK: The Mineral Products Association (MPA) says it is disappointed that UK-based cement and lime producers have been excluded from the government’s compensation scheme for climate change costs. The association says that the government has, “missed an opportunity to support two essential industries during the current energy crisis, despite other industry sectors - which directly compete with cement and lime - receiving the compensation.”

Under the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) scheme, some energy intensive industries can apply for compensation from the indirect costs of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) and Carbon Price Support (CPS) if they meet certain criteria. In the government’s 2021 consultation on the compensation mechanism, energy intensive industries needed to meet at least one of three tests to qualify. However, the MPA says that BEIS later changed this so that they had to pass all three tests and modified the targets.

Diana Casey, Director for Energy and Climate Change at the MPA, said “It is extremely disappointing that having met the criteria set out in the consultation, BEIS has decided to move the goalposts and exclude cement and lime from the scheme. UK manufacturers of all products face higher electricity and gas costs than European competitors, and this decision misses an opportunity to support the competitiveness of the UK cement and lime sectors, both essential foundation industries, especially during the current energy crisis and rapidly rising costs. Reaching net zero and delivering our economic potential requires huge investment from global businesses and it becomes harder to make the case for the UK as a location for such investment if policy costs make operating in the UK uncompetitive.”

EU: European Union (EU) member state governments have agreed to establish a carbon border adjustment mechanism on imports of polluting goods, including cement, from outside of the EU. Besides preventing carbon leakage, the member states hope that the mechanism will encourage EU partners to establish carbon pricing policies and combat climate change within the framework of the European Emissions Trading System (ETS).

Türkçimento’s Volkan Bozay took to the airwaves last week to raise the issues that the war in Ukraine is causing for Turkey-based cement producers. The head of the Turkish Cement Manufacturers’ Association explained, to the local Bloomberg HT channel, that the dramatic jump in the price of Newcastle Coal posed a serious threat to the sector. The price jumped nearly US$100/t in a single day in early March 2022. Bozay said that the cost of cement from a plant using imported coal would consequently rise by around US$15/t. He added that the association’s members had an average of 15 – 20 days of coal stocks.

Graph 1: Price of coal, March 2020 – March 2021. Source: Trading Economics.

In a separate press release Türkçimento revealed that Turkey, as a whole, imported approximately US$1.5bn of coal from Russia in 2021. The cement industry imported about 5Mt of coal in 2021, from all sources, although the majority of this came from Russia. Coal shipments from Russia since the start of the war were reported as ‘very limited or even not possible.’ It was further explained that each US$10/t increase in the price of coal put up plant production costs by US$1.5/t of cement.

Naturally Bozay’s appearance on a television news show carried a lobbying aspect. He called for government import standards – such as the sulphur ratio, lower heating values and volatile matter limits - to be relaxed to allow coal to be imported more freely from sources such as Colombia, Indonesia and South Africa. There was also a push to let in more alternative fuels such as tyres and waste-derived fuels. The bit that Bozay didn’t mention though was how many of his members had long term coal supply contracts in place to cushion them, from short term price inflation at least. Yet, if coal shipments from Russia have simply stopped, then the price is irrelevant. A cement kiln configured to run on coal stops when it uses up its stocks.

Turkey was the world’s fifth largest cement producer in 2021 according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Türkçimento data shows that in 2020 it exported 145,000t of cement to Russia by sea. Overall it exported 16.3Mt of cement and 13.5Mt of clinker. The US, Israel, Syria, Haiti and Libya were the top destinations for cement. Notably, Ukraine was the sixth largest recipients of cement, with 752,000t imported, although anti-dumping legislation introduced in mid-2021 looked set to reduce it until the war started. Ghana, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Cameroon and Belgium were the principal recipients of clinker. Cumulative cement exports for the year to October 2021 were up by 3% year-on-year compared to the first 10 months of 2020. Clinker exports were down by 27% though. Overall domestic production and sales in Turkey rose by 9.5%, suggested an estimated production figure of 79Mt for 2021.

Other fallout in the cement sector from the war in Ukraine this week included Ireland-based CRH’s decision to quit the Russian market. It entered the region in 1998 through a subsidiary based in Finland and was operating seven ready-mixed concrete plants via its LujaBetomix joint venture. CRH says that all operations in Russia have now stopped. In 2021 it sold its lime business in Russia, Fels Izvest, to Russia-based Bonolit. Although selling concrete plants is not trivial, these are far cheaper assets than clinker production lines. Germany-based HeidelbergCement, Italy-based Buzzi Unicem and Switzerland-based Holcim each operate at least one integrated cement plant in Russia. So far these companies have publicly expressed dismay at the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Ukraine and made donations to the Red Cross.

Graph 2: European Union Emission Trading Scheme price, 2020 – March 2022. Source: Sandbag.

Finally, one more surprise this week has been a crash in the European Union (EU) Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) carbon price from a high of Euro96/t in early February 2022 to Euro58/t on 7 March 2022. As other commentators have stated, normally the carbon price would be expected to follow the energy market, but this hasn’t happened. Instead investors have pulled out, possibly to maintain liquidity for other markets.

With the US set to ban Russian oil, gas and coal imports and phase-outs to varying degrees promised by the UK and the EU in 2022, we can expect more turbulence from energy markets in the coming days. As the Turkish example above shows, all of this can... and will... have effects on cement production.