Displaying items by tag: Carbon tax

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).

Vietnam: 20 factories in Quang Ninh, Thanh Hoa, Quang Nam and Thua Thien Hue provinces will be subject to a new carbon tax in a pilot project. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has started to put the programme into action following approval from Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc, according to the Vietnam News Agency Bulletin. The pilot project will start in 2020 and run until the end of 2021.

The scheme will include 11 cement companies and nine power plants. Cement producers and traders will be charged US$0.09/t of clinker, equivalent to US1.35/t of CO₂. The tax will also increase electricity costs for cement producers. It is expected to increase the production cost at plants by 0.29%.

Nguyen Van Vu, head of Finance and Planning Department under Vietnam Administration of Forestry (VAF), said that the tariff was lower than the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility pledge to pay for emission reduction efforts in North Central Region of US$5/t of CO2. The provinces running the tariff are expected to generate around US$7.4m/yr. Most of this revenue will be accrued in Quang Ninh, followed by Thanh Hoa, Thua Thien Hue and Quang Nam.

South Africa: Sephaku Cement estimates it will have to pay up to US$2.8m/yr as part of South Africa’s new carbon tax. The new tax started in June 2019. The subsidiary of Nigeria’s Dangote Cement said that it would apply the tax on its products based on the proportion of clinker per tonne. This would work out at between a 1.5% and 2.5% price increases on lower strength and high strength cement respectively.

In a financial report to 31 March 2019 the cement producer said that its cement sales volumes fell by 6.4% year-on-year due to low cement demand was exacerbated by increases in value added tax (VAT) and fuel prices during the first and last quarter of its financial year. Its sales revenue fell by 3.1% to US$162m and its net profit rose to US$9.08m but only due to a tax credit.

South Africa: The government has introduced a carbon tax of around US$8/t for carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO₂e) emissions. The carbon tax will initially only apply to scope 1 emitters in the first phase. The first phase will be from 1 June 2019 to 31 December 2022, and the second phase from 2023 to 2030. Large-scale tax-free emission allowances from 60 – 95% will be provided in the first phase. Industries such as cement or iron production will benefit from a basic threshold of 70%.

A review will be held before the second phase starts to measure progress. The treasury reinforced that the introduction of the carbon tax would not raise electricity prices due to tax breaks for renewable energy sources and credits for existing generation capacity.

Canada: The government has made a proposed new carbon tax easier for large-scale industrial emitters such as cement and steel producers. Originally the new legislation proposed imposing a levy on around 30% of a company’s CO₂ emissions from the start of 2018, according to the Globe and Mail newspaper. However, the revision has reduced the tax on so-called vulnerable industries with the cement and steel sectors only having to pay 10%. The levy will start at US$15/t in January 2018, rising to around US$40/t in 2022.

The decision to soften the carbon tax follows lobbying by the affected industries. The tax applies to provinces that do not have existing carbon emission controls, such as cap-and-trade schemes, that meets the central government’s standards. The provincial government of Ontario, which contains six of the country’s 17 integrated cement plants, recently decided to leave its own carbon pricing system. It will be subject to the new rules. Saskatchewan will also be affected.

Check out this great graph that the UK Mineral Products Association (MPA) released in its latest sustainable development report this week. It lays out where the MPA says the various direct and indirect costs come from climate change policies per tonne of cement.

Graph 1: The cumulative burden of direct and indirect cost of climate change policies on the cement sector (per tonne of cement). GBP£1 = Euro0.94 at time of writing. Source: MPA. 

If it’s correct then the two biggest contributors from carbon taxes on the price of cement in the UK arise from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) mechanism and the Renewable Obligation (RO). Between them the two policies account for around two-thirds of the carbon tax burden on the price of cement. Of note to an industry advocacy body like the MPA, both of these derive from local legislation and they could be changed or dispensed with separate to the Brexit negotiations to extricate the UK from the European Union that have just officially started.

The MPA then goes on to warn that these added costs could rise from GBP£3.24/t at present to GBP£4/t in 2020 and then the truly terrifying (to energy intensive manufacturers at least) GBP£17/t. Subsequently the MPA has flagged these potentially mounting costs as the biggest threat to the UK cement industry in the near future. Failure to act could mean more foreign imports, loss of jobs and damage to the security of supply. All very heavy stuff. The MPA’s warning was nicely timed to precede the UK government’s response to a consultation on another decarbonisation scheme, the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme. Here, the government is about to exempt high-energy users, including cement producers.

Essentially, the key message from the MPA’s report is that the cement sector is picking up but it is still below sales levels in 2007. At the same time it has made all these environmental improvements and, now, steadily tightening regulations threaten its future. Just compare this with the situation in the US where the Portland Cement Association (PCA) recently applauded President Donald Trump’s executive order to roll back environmental legislation from the Obama administration. Despite this it insisted that its members were committed to manufacturing products with a ‘minimal’ environmental footprint.

Funnily enough the MPA didn’t mention environmental issues when it released its updated Brexit priorities for the UK government. This is understandable given the graph above that suggests that the majority of the carbon costs on cement production come from UK legislation. However, sharing a land border with the EU south of Northern Ireland may give rise to all sorts of market skulduggery once any sort of post-Brexit deal becomes clear. And this doesn’t even take into account moving secondary cementitious materials about, like slag, or the UK’s international market in solid recovered fuels (SRF) and the like. Differences in UK and EU overall carbon costs on cement may start to have acute implications for producers in both jurisdictions as the negotiations build. In this atmosphere moves like Ireland’s Quinn Cement’s last month, to build a terminal on the UK side of the Irish border, make a lot of sense.

World: A new report released by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) has highlighted the potential costs of future CO₂ emissions and water supply constraints for 12 of the top global cement producers. CDP’s research shows that, even at a US$10/t CO₂ price, US$4.5bn could be wiped off profits, with the least efficient companies most at risk.

By compiling questionnaire responses, the report ranks 12 cement producers for performance across five key areas – emissions, energy and material management, carbon cost exposure, water resilience and carbon regulation supportiveness. It found that LafargeHolcim, Shree Cement and CRH were the least CO₂- and resource-intensive producers, with Italcementi, Cementir and Taiheiyo Cement the most highly intensive. Several major Chinese and other regional players failed to respond.

CDP found that many of the major cement companies have emissions targets that are set to expire in the next few years. It argues that, with the Paris Agreement driving towards net zero emissions by the middle of the century, cement companies have a ‘historic opportunity to set targets that can ‘future-proof’ their businesses.’

Tarek Soliman, Senior Analyst, Investor Research at CDP said, “This is the first piece of major research to break down how major players in the cement industry are meeting the challenge of reducing emissions in line with the science called for by the Paris Agreement. Cement will be a crucial building block as the Paris Agreement is put into effect, as it accounts for 5% of the world’s man-made emissions. The results couldn’t be clearer for companies and investors: a tipping point for cement companies is not far away.”

“As carbon-related regulatory measures inevitably tighten and the carbon price signal strengthens, investors will expect both strategic and rapid changes from cement companies, including better use of currently available options as well as investment in longer–term ones, whether this be in areas such as low-carbon product development or the deployment of carbon capture, use and storage.”

China: According to Reuters, cement producers participating in the carbon market in China's Hubei Province have told the local government that they cannot afford the millions of Chinese Yuan required to buy permits to cover mitigation obligations for 2014 and may default. Refusal to pay would test China's ability to force companies to comply with carbon targets and undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, in which a planned national carbon market would have a central role.

The 138 companies covered by the Hubei exchange have to hand over carbon permits in June 2015 to settle their obligations for 2014. Around a quarter are cement firms, which have complained that they were not allocated enough credits. "They are in talks with the government to gain immunity from non-compliance penalties and are asking to borrow some permits from next year's quota," said an unnamed broker.

The companies are facing high environmental compliance costs at the worst possible time, as the economy slows and the construction sector struggles. Chinese cement production fell by 4.8% in the first four months of 2015.

Huaxin Cement, the biggest local producer, is 1.15 million permits short of meeting its mitigation targets, according to a document seen by Reuters. Carbon permits in Hubei are trading at US$4.43 so it could cost the company US$5.1m to cover its shortfall.

"Hubei is generally oversupplied, but the distribution is not balanced. Most of the power sector is over-allocated, but the cement and chemical sectors are short," said another unnamed broker. "Those facing a big gap are not attempting to buy from the market. They are pushing the government for a compromise." Penalties for non-compliance could include a deduction in permits for 2015 plus a fine of up to three times the value of the obligations in default, although that is capped at US$24,176.

Canada: The Cement Association of Canada (CAC) has welcomed the British Columbia government's efforts to improve the Province's carbon tax. The British Columbia Carbon Tax is applied only to domestically-produced cement, while imported cement from the US and Asia is exempt, resulting in a net loss to the British Columbia economy. With local manufacturers facing higher costs under the carbon tax, cement imports from jurisdictions without a carbon policy have risen significantly.
The proposed 'transitional incentives,' of US$22m paid over a three year period, to encourage the British Columbia Cement industry to adopt cleaner fuels and further lower emission intensities will assist the current inequality that the industry faces as a result of imports coming from the US and Asia into British Columbia with no carbon tax applied. The cement industry has been working with the British Columbia government and other stakeholders for many years to find a win-win solution to protecting jobs, economic development and the environment.

"British Columbia produces some of the highest quality cement in the world, so the change makes sense both for the environment and for the Province's continued economic prosperity. British Columbia cement is a strategic commodity and a key component of concrete, which is essential to the implementation of the government's ambitious plan for infrastructure development," said CAC president and CEO Michael McSweeney.

"This incentive will help level the playing field for domestic producers of cement. It assists our company to ensure that good jobs stay and continue to be created in British Columbia," said Bob Cooper, vice president of Lafarge Western Canada. "Our competitiveness has been threatened by imports for the past five years and the move by the British Columbia government will also ensure that British Columbia has a long-term and secure local supply of made-in-British Columbia cement."