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.

25/01/28

US still eyes 1 February for Canada, Mexico tariffs

US still eyes 1 February for Canada, Mexico tariffs

Washington, 28 January (Argus) — President Donald Trump is still keen to impose tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico as soon as 1 February, the White House said today. Trump in multiple public comments since taking office on 20 January said he was still considering a 25pc tariff on Canada and Mexico, even though his administration has yet to provide any details on the proposal. Trump spent much of his meeting on Monday with Republican lawmakers at their annual retreat in Florida blasting Canada and Mexico over their allegedly unfair trade practices. Tariffs should become a key source of income for the US government, just as they were in the nineteenth and early twentieth century before being supplanted by income taxes, Trump told the lawmakers, who are looking at ways to extend tax cuts enacted during his first term and set to expire at the end of 2025. Trump also said he would impose tariffs on all imported computer chips, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. Trump's messaging on China tariffs has been more mixed. He said last week he would go on with his initial plans to impose a 10pc tax on all imports from China, but he also said he preferred to avoid a trade war with Beijing. An executive order Trump signed on 20 January lays out a process suggesting timelines of June-July for imposing tariffs on the US' key trading partners, with no reference to the 1 February deadline. But Trump has the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from any country by a variety of executive actions and with very short notice, as he demonstrated over the weekend during a high-profile confrontation with Colombia over deporting migrants from the US. Trump told the lawmakers on Monday that he expects to wield the threat of tariffs as a negotiating tool often, because even "a very strong country" like Colombia caved in to his demands. Canada and Mexico appear to be preparing for a protracted trade confrontation with the US if Trump follows through on his threat, with retaliatory measures targeting specific US products and companies. The looming faceoff has unnerved the US oil producers and refiners, which are warning of severe impacts to the integrated North American energy markets if taxes are imposed on flows from Canada and Mexico to the US. Industry group American Petroleum Institute is lobbying the Trump administration to exempt crude and other energy products from any tariffs he plans to impose. Trump last week shrugged off the arguments from the US energy industry about potential negative impacts from confronting Canada and Mexico. "We don't need their oil and gas," Trump said. "We have our own, we have more than anybody." Almost all of Mexico's roughly 500,000 b/d of crude shipments to the US through November are waterborne, targeting Gulf coast refiners, and can be diverted to Asia or Europe. Canadian producers have much less flexibility — more than 4mn b/d of Canada's exports are wholly dependent on pipeline routes to and through the US. Only around 900,000 b/d can be directed away from the US via the recently expanded Trans Mountain pipeline system to the Pacific coast, although late-2024 flows were actually closer to 400,000 b/d, split evenly between the US west coast and Asia. Conversely, many refineries in the US midcontinent have no practical alternative to the Canadian crude. US gasoline prices would move higher by 30-70¢/USG if the 25pc tariffs that Trump has threatened were applied to Canada's oil, Canada's TD Bank projects. Trump's commerce secretary nominee Howard Lutnick will face a confirmation hearing at the Senate Commerce committee on Wednesday, with trade wars likely to feature high among the questions lawmakers direct at him. By Haik Gugarats Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Traders expect low uptake of 5-year Latvian gas storage


25/01/28
25/01/28

Traders expect low uptake of 5-year Latvian gas storage

London, 28 January (Argus) — Market participants expect limited demand for a new five-year gas storage product that Latvian operator Conexus will begin offering later this year. Conexus will offer a five-year product for its 25TWh Incukalns storage site for the first time ever on 11 February. This five-year offering will be in addition to the one and two-year products already previously offered by Conexus, along with the storage transfer and interruptible capacity products. All market participants surveyed by Argus expect weak demand for the five-year product, mostly because of unfavourable summer-winter spreads and traders' lack of willingness to commit to bookings that far ahead. Several respondents highlighted that only a limited pool of firms would be interested in planning their activities five years out. Most traders "do not look to the so distant future in the gas storage business", one said. "Not so many market players are ready to tie themselves to local gas markets for five storage cycles in a row," another said. Several respondents criticised the product's rules, with one noting that it could even lead to storage utilisation falling, "considering the fines for inventory transfer between storage seasons". Traders would try to "squeeze out the pipeline/LNG supply potential, rather than over-injecting", they added. Another said they were concerned that the share of the overall storage capacity allocated to the five-year product was "too high" and would make it possible for some market participants to "hijack this very much needed capacity in a similar way" to what happens at the Latvian-Lithuanian border point of Kiemenai. Several traders have expressed frustration that annual capacity at Kiemenai has been fully booked but only a small part is at times used , blocking other shippers from accessing the capacity and resulting in low utilisation rates. Another trader highlighted the product's limitation of only allowing a user to transfer up to 50pc of the total booked capacity from one storage cycle to the next without having to pay additional fees. The previous set of capacity products has been "tested for years and proven to be working", another market participant said, arguing that "imperfect but certain conditions are better than uncertain ones". One trader pointed out that a lack of interest in the five-year product could increase demand for the traditional one and two-year products, increasing the premium at these auctions further. Two other traders pointed out that given prevailing inverted summer-winter spreads, there is little financial incentive to book any capacity products, let alone make a five-year commitment. Ultimately, the "behaviour of local players is and will continue to be influenced by the closest summer-winter spread and the difference between this spread and the one-year storage tariff, not by long-term storage capacity of injection/withdrawal limits," one concluded. By Brendan A'Hearn Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Brazil biofuels venture to add complex in Alagoas


25/01/28
25/01/28

Brazil biofuels venture to add complex in Alagoas

Sao Paulo, 28 January (Argus) — Brazilian advanced biofuels firm GranBio, biofuels producer Impacto Bioenergia and two sugarcane plant operators will build a biofuels complex in northeastern Alagoas state, the companies said on Monday. The biorefinery project, named Exygen I, will cost an estimated R1.5bn ($253mn) and produce carbon neutral ethanol, biomethane and biofertilizers. It will have production capacity of 160mn l/yr (2,760 b/d) by 2026 and use sugarcane byproducts as feedstock, according to GranBio. Exygen I's estimated biomethane production capacity will be 50mn m³/yr. The complex will produce the renewable gas from vinasse, a by-product of sugarcane processing. Future investments would include increasing Exygen I's storage capacity and biogas distribution. But the initial storage and biogas distribution capacities were not disclosed. The project's next step includes producing biogenic CO2 — made from organic matter decomposition — biofertilizers and e-methanol, used in marine fuels. The project is a joint effort between GranBio, Impacto Bioenergia, Alagoas-based producing unit Caete and sugar and ethanol firm Central Açucareira Santo Antonio. Brazil's fuels of the future law , approved in October, increased incentives for the country's biofuels market. By Maria Frazatto Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Lootah Biofuels to collect UCO from UAE households


25/01/28
25/01/28

Lootah Biofuels to collect UCO from UAE households

Dubai, 28 January (Argus) — Dubai-based biofuels producer Lootah Biofuels will launch a smart app in coming months to facilitate the collection of used cooking oil (UCO) from households and businesses in the UAE. Lootah plans to increase and simplify the collection of UCO, which currently stands at 300,000 litres/month. The company wants to encourage "individuals and families to actively participate in collecting and safely disposing used cooking oil at designated collection points." Lootah Biofuels aims for the recycling of UCO to reach 80pc in the coming years, up from less than 50pc currently — largely sourced from restaurants and the hospitality sector. Lootah Biofuels' plant is the largest in the Middle East, producing 53,000 t/yr of biodiesel, which it supplies to the local transportation and aviation market and exports to the Netherlands, the UK, Germany and India. Lootah Biofuels signed an agreement with Malaysian biofuel feedstock supplier FatHopes Energy in 2023 to collaborate on supplying sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) to Dubai's aviation sector and establishing a Malaysian used cooking oil (UCO) aggregation hub. Bunker hopes Bunker market participants in Fujairah, UAE, the world's third largest marine fuels centre, hope the potential production increase will boost availability of B24 — which consists of 24pc used cooking oil methyl ester (Ucome) and 76pc very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO). The Fujairah bunker market has been facing competition with other industry sectors over limited supplies. Bunkering B24 has been slow in Fujairah, with sporadic demand emerging. "There is just one customer who periodically asks for B24, which is not always available," a Fujairah trader said. Still, bunker sellers expect regional demand for B24 to rise later this year as shipowners prepare to meet more stringent mandates set by the EU and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). FuelEU Maritime aims to raise the share of renewable and low-carbon fuels in the fuel mix of maritime transport within the EU, and will set requirements for greenhouse gas emission reductions against a 2020 baseline level, starting with 2pc in 2025. The EU is an important market and a regular destination for much of the maritime traffic passing through Fujairah, so the new regulations are likely to be a trigger for change, market participants said. "Many vessels refuel in Fujairah before calling at EU ports," one trader says. "They already have to comply with the EU ETS, [Carbon Intensity Index], and will need to also comply with FuelEU." By Elshan Aliyev Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Republican floats repeal of 45Z clean fuel credit


25/01/27
25/01/27

Republican floats repeal of 45Z clean fuel credit

New York, 27 January (Argus) — A Republican lawmaker has quietly introduced a bill to repeal a key subsidy for low-carbon fuels, complicating a debate among lawmakers on what to do with clean energy incentives provided by the Inflation Reduction Act. The bill, HR 549, introduced this month by US representative Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas) would repeal the 2022 climate law's "45Z" incentive for clean fuels, which offers increasingly generous subsidies to fuels as they produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions. While the credit is currently in effect, the legislation as written would apply retroactively, striking the credit from the tax code after 2024. The proposal comes as Republicans prepare to pass major legislation this year through the Senate's reconciliation process, which bypasses the 100-member chamber's 60-vote requirement to advance most bills. Intent on extending tax breaks passed during President Donald Trump's first term but wary of adding to budget deficits, lawmakers are searching for ways to cut government spending. While changes to at least some Inflation Reduction Act programs are expected, biofuels policy is seen as a less likely target for Republicans than other climate policies. And even members supportive of scrapping clean energy subsidies might be wary of repealing incentives retroactively. Still, the new bill suggests that a full repeal of 45Z could at least be part of legislative discussions this year. The bill was referred on 16 January to the House Ways and Means Committee, of which Van Duyne is a member. Other Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee have expressed openness to updating but not necessarily eliminating the credit, with six members opening a request for information last year on options such as limiting foreign feedstocks or encouraging more "climate-smart" farm practices. Industry groups generally supportive of 45Z might even welcome some legislative changes, particularly those frustrated by incomplete guidance on qualifying for the credit issued in the waning days of former president Joe Biden's term. More information on lawmakers' plans could come soon, with House Republicans on Monday attending a policy retreat with Trump in Florida. Whatever changes are proposed, Republicans' slim majorities leaves them with little room for dissent and could give farm-state lawmakers leverage to ensure some type of biofuel tax credit survives legislative negotiations. By Cole Martin 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