4 th ISCC Global Sustainability Conference. Multiple Counting Challenges and Traceability Requirements. Brussels, February 5, 2014

Transcription

1 4 th ISCC Global Sustainability Conference Multiple Counting Challenges and Traceability Requirements Brussels, February 5, 2014 Dr Jan Henke Meo Carbon Solutions GmbH Weissenburgstr. 53 D Köln 1!

2 Multiple counting has been discussed in many variations in the past year without any solution / / /2013 RED (2009/28/EC) EC Proposal European Parliament Lithuanian Council Presidency Double counting: wastes residues non-food cellulosic ligno-cellulosic No lists but examples: Crude glycerine, Straw Bagasse Husks Cobs Nut shells Quadruple counting Algae Straw Animal manure, sewage sludge POME, EFBs Tall oil pitch Crude glycerine Bagasse Grape marcs, wine lees Nut shells, husks, cobs, bark... Quadruple counting Algae Renewable liquids Gaseous fuels of nonbio origin CCS Bacteria Double counting UCOME TME Advanced but single counting Waste, residues, straw, husks, etc. No quadruple counting List of double counting material Five times counting for electric mobility 2!

3 Further Member States implemented double counting. Harmonization, practical implementation and certification guidance remain limited Legislation Double counting lists 3!

4 Large volumes of double counting biofuels are already on the market. They reduce markets for traditional producers Biodiesel Germany 2012 Biofuels Netherlands 2012 Biodiesel UK 2012/13 Crude glycerine 0.5% Waste 21.9% Palm 7.9% Soy 6.7% Sunflower 0.2% Biodiesel, energy content related Other 1.2% Ethanol: Mostly corn 24.8% Biofuels (after double counting) Double counting fuels 50.8% (42.3% FAME) Soy 1.8 Tallow 16.4 Palm 0.3 Rape 3.4 Biodiesel (feedstock), volume related Rape 62.8% FAME: Mostly rape 23.2% UCO 78.1 Source: BLE 2013 Source: NEA 2013 Source: RTFO !

5 Due to double counting, high price premiums for UCOME can be achieved on top of FAME 0. This further increases incentives for fraud Source: 2014 Starsupply Commodity Brokers. 5!

6 German double counting UCOME achieves price premiums on top of EU double counting UCOME This reflects higher certification efforts Price premiums UCOME DE vs. EU (USD/t) UCOME RED-EU UCOME RED-DE Spread (right hand axis) August September October November December January Spread DE vs. EU Source: 2014 Argus Media Limited !

7 Missing harmonization leads to higher certification and administration costs, loopholes and loss of credibility example PFAD FFB CPO RPO Plantation Oil mill Refinery Biodiesel plant PME Final market PFAD as waste PFAD Certificate GHG emissions Self-declaration as point of origin Only transport to biodiesel plant e.g. Finland PFAD as coproduct Certificate GHG emissions e.g. UK, NL 7!

8 Challenges do not disappear with Fuel Quality Directive implementation Fuel Quality Directive (2009/30/EC) Decarbonization strategy for the transport sector GHG per energy unit % 10% EU: FQD requires a 6 % GHG reduction per energy unit* Germany: 2015: GHG reduction quota (2015: 3%; 2017: 4.5%; 2020: 7%) For a practical and secure implementation same open questions as for double counting need to be solved * Obtained through the use of biofuels, alternative fuels and reductions in flaring and venting at production sites (additional 4% by CCS, electric vehicles and CDM possible). 8!

9 What needs to be done? Set up a list of wastes and residues vs. products/ co-products and clear procedure on amendments/ specifications Identify the respective points of origin and starting point for GHG calculation Define which default values can be used Define the certification approach to guarantee traceability and prevent fraud Require procedures for wastes and residues from voluntary schemes Limited hope for an EU-28 approach from the European Commission However, at least some cooperation between member states and voluntary schemes and a convergence of lists is taking place 9!

10 A database to automatically transfer all required information in a closed system is part of the solution Trace Your Claim (TYC) already offers this solution Fraud resistance due to closed system High data integrity Reduced documentation and administration Meets divergent member state requirements Direct data transfer to member state s databases (e.g. ROS, NABISY, ELNA) 10!