Document No: SGAB-MI-005e
Sustainable Transport Forum (STF)
Sub-Group on Advanced Biofuels (SGAB)
2nd Meeting
Brussels 29 January 2016
European Research Council Executive Agency, Covent Garden
MINUTES
This document reflects the outcomes of deliberations of the Sustainable Transport Forum (STF), SubGroup on Advanced Biofuels (SGAB). It is not an official document adopted by the European
Commission.
Content:
1.
Welcome – Opening and welcome
1
2.
Introduction of new participants
2
3.
Approval of agenda
2
st
4.
Approval of the minutes of the 1 SGAB meeting
2
5.
Discussion on Actions
3
a.
General
3
b.
References of Work
3
c.
Memo’s
4
d.
Update on Technology status and reliability of the value chains
6
e.
Responses on the EC Public Questionnaire
8
6.
Definitions
9
7.
and 8.: 2030 target and template document
12
9.
Any other business
14
Annex 1
15
Annex 2
18
Annex 3
19
1.
Welcome – Opening and welcome
(The attendance of invited members, observers and Commission is shown in Annex 1)
The Chair of the meeting (Mr. Maniatis) opened the meeting by welcoming the participants on behalf
of DG ENER and DG MOVE.
The Chair invited Mr. Tricas from DG MOVE to participate in the steering panel of the meeting and to
present himself.
1
He invited the Vice-Chair (Mr. Landälv) and the three Rapporteurs (Mr. Van den Heuvel, Mr.
Waldheim, and Mr. Kalligeros ) to introduce themselves.
The Chair asked whether the participants had any objections that the meeting was taped, solely for
the purpose of drawing up the minutes. The participants did not object to this.
The Chair mentioned the participants from which he received apologies for attendance to this
meeting: Mr. Barbosa (Wageningen University), Mr. Sipilä (VTT), Mr. Judd (GERG) and Mr. Bauen
(E4Tech).
The Chair stressed the importance that members are participating in this meeting, preferably in
person, or otherwise by being represented by an alternate. The Chair proposed a resolution that
from now on any Member that is not present (in person or by alternate) at two consecutive meetings
would be deleted as an expert of the SGAB. The Members & Observers had no objections to this. The
Resolution was passed.
2.
Introduction of new participants
The Chair invited Members and Observers who were present for the first time to shortly introduce
themselves:
 Members: Ms. Hudson (British Airways), Ms. Labrie (Enerkem), Mr. Stefenson (Stena Lines),
Ms. Caiado (Concawe), Ms. Bravo (Dupont), Mr. De-Marliave (Total), Mr. Van Dijk (SkyNRG),
Mr. Hanarp (Volvo), Mr. Gameson (Abengoa), Mr. Dekker (Methanol Institute);
 Observers: Mr. Hameau (SNCF), Mr. Ivo Cluyts (Belgium Ministry of Environment), Mr.
Pezzaglia (Consultant to the Italian Ministry of Economic Development Administration) Ms.
Jaskot (European Biodiesel Board), Mr. Desplechin (ePURE).
3.
Approval of agenda
The Chair asked the participants if the proposed agenda was accepted and if there were any other
topics to add. No additional topics for the agenda were raised. The agenda was approved
unanimously.
4.
Approval of the minutes of the 1st SGAB meeting
The Chair presented the draft final minutes of the 1st meeting on screen. He indicated that all
comments that have been provided have been incorporated in this version of the draft and that a
separate document has been produced where all received comments are collected. He also stated
that comments on issues that were not discussed in the first meeting were not incorporated in the
minutes. In the case that a comment had not been reflected in the draft at all, he had communicated
directly with the person making the comment to give the reasons for not considering the comment in
question.
The minutes were discussed on a page by page basis.
On page 5 following a discussion it was agreed that the underlined section in “traditional agricultural
crop-based biofuels associated with some ILUC burden” would be deleted.
On page 5 the remark on ‘double counting’ was questioned and after discussion it was decided to
keep it in the minutes.
On page 5, in the last paragraph, the phrase “but still sustainable” was discussed by Mr. Venendaal
(BTG), Ms. Buffet (T&E) , the Vice-Chair due to lack of clarity about the exact definition of sustainable
and non-bio renewable fuels. It was decided to keep the text as is.
Mr. Vierhout (Enerkem) wanted to make a clarification on the definition of Advanced Biofuels (page
7). - Annex IX of the amended RED is eligible for double counting. Mr. Lastikka added that some
stakeholders indicated that Part A, Annex IX is good basis but other resources would be worthwhile
to discuss. The Chair concluded that with respect to the definition for now we stick to what is defined
2
in regulations and legislation. The discussion on definitions is scheduled to take place in point 6 of
the agenda.
On other pages no issues were raised. The Chair asked the participants whether the minutes could be
approved. The minutes were approved unanimously.
5.
Discussion on Actions
a. General
The Chair informed the participants that he investigated within DG Energy about the possibilities to
set up a Common Space for the SGAB Participants, where documents can be archived and shared
among the participants. He expected an answer from the IT experts within a few days whether it is
possible. Once the Common Space (either via DG Energy option, or other option like the Dropbox
facility that is now used by the rapporteurs) all members and observers will receive an invitation. Mr.
Mirabella (EFOA) asked whether the members and observer will be able to upload documents. The
Chair replied that the members and observers will only receive ”reading-rights”. The Core Team
(Chair, Vice-Chair and the three Rapporteurs) will upload documents. The documents that will be
uploaded are the Reference document that al participants were asked to provide and documents
that are produced within the SGAB context (meeting-based documents and reports). The latter will
only be uploaded when they have the status of approved documents.
The Chair projected the graph containing the 2030-target for advanced biofuels (see annex 3) with an
adjusted time scale, which highlighted that the target X% of Advanced Biofuels can be reached by
different subsets x1+x2+x3 etc., on top of the unchanged 7% target for conventional biofuels.
Action Chair
Arrange and issue access information to the Common Space
b. References of Work
The Chair mentioned that there was good response on the request to to submit three references to
relevant and important documents and that in total 74 references and/or documents have been
provided. Some of these were recommended by more than one participant.
Mr. Kalligeros presented an overview of the references and indicated that he also re-edited the
documents in such a way that they are according to international citing format. Ms. Labrie (Enerkem)
mentioned that she could not see the reference documents she submitted. Mr. Kalligeros replied
that we are still processing all submissions and that a final list will be made available soon. Mr.
Dekker (Methanol Institute) indicated that he would like to submit additional documents.
Mr. Mirabella wanted to know how documents that are copy-right protected are treated. He
suggested only providing a link to where these documents can be found, which was confirmed by Mr.
Kalligeros to be now already the approach. Mr. Wellinger (European Biogas Association) indicated
that such copy-right protected document could be shared if the author of such documents sends it
directly to an individual or a restricted group. It was agreed that for SGAB the approach to only
indicate the link to copyright restricted documents should be maintained. Ms. Bravo (Dupont)
stressed that with regard to DuPont, any references made should be to DuPont only.
The Chair stressed that participants should always send/copy emails to all members of the Core
Team (i.e. The Chair, Vice-Chair and rapporteurs) to ensure that these are processed correctly and
timely. He also asked the participants to refrain from unnecessarily copying emails to the extensive
address list used for agendas etc., e.g. to various other EC officials not directly involved, as the
number of emails creates a nuisance for such receivers.
Action Kalligeros
3
Compile the document of references
c. Memo’s
In the first meeting several members agreed to provide memos on specific topics. The Chair invited
the involved members to present the issue of their memo briefly. The corresponding documents will
be uploaded in the Common Space as soon as available.
I. SkyNRG on developed business models for biofuels in aviation
Mr. Van Dijk (SkyNRG) briefly described the business models SkyNRG currently developed to find
ways for closing the financial gap of the premium for biojet over conventional kerosene. One of their
models is the Corporate Programme in which organisations commit a 3-year budget and in that way
purchase a certain amount of biofuels that would equal the fuel consumption of a certain number of
flights with KLM. This kick-starting model has some limits but it helped to gain experience in the
supply chain, especially in the downstream side. Now this model is scaled up and further refined in
the Scandinavian context where the Fly Green Fund is similar but more airlines are involved. The Fly
Green Fund is about awareness building for the premium. In the Netherlands also a Public Private
Partnership is being built up: Bio Port Holland in which the partners Neste, Schiphol Airport, Port of
Rotterdam, Port of Amsterdam, SkyNRG, KLM and the Dutch Ministries of Economic Affairs and of
Environment collaborate to build up all part of the supply chain from feedstock, biofuels to the
delivery at the airport and the aircrafts. Aim is to build the infrastructure and the challenge is how to
get the investment in blending gets earned back. The Dutch system with voluntary RED opt-in for
biojet helps to bridge the financial gap for now, but the question is how to reach a positive business
case for the long term.
The Chair opened the floor for discussion.
Mr. Lastikka (Neste) said that Neste was thrilled about this project as the project investigates how to
reach a feasible situation for biofuels in aviation. These biofuels will always be more expensive and
with the current mandates, biofuels tend to flow towards the road sector. Ms. Hudson added that in
the US the government strongly supported the biofuels for aviation sector and in her opinion this
lacking in the EU context.
Mr Van Dijk responded that the support is industry politics while the concern of SkyNRG is how to
sort out the off-take of fuels, so that a next step can be taken to de-risk the biojet fuel chain.
Mr. Zschocke (Lufthansa) commented that the US RIN-systems covered a large part of the financial
gap and also mentioned the Dutch voluntary RED op-in opportunity, a system which is not in place
elsewhere in the EU (yet).
Ms. Labrie said that Enerkem had a US based project (focused on demonstration), and for such
projects the Department of Energy (DOE) provided long term guarantees for biorefinery plants at
level that is “powerful” for attracting private investments. It was discussed whether the RIN system
in the US excluded the aviation sector but Mr. Van Dijk confirmed that the RIN system could be used
for biofuels in the national aviation sector in the US.
The Chair commented that the EC wants to stimulate further development of advanced biofuel
technologies , but under H2020 the calls are drafted with more general specification. Through the
various FP7 Project Calls biofuel projects get sufficient support. Ms. Hull (Swedish Biofuels)
supported Ms. Hudson, and commented that the US activities started earlier than in the EU and
more support from EU Member States would be needed for the implementation on the local
markets: there should be EU legislation that would stimulate support at MS level. As there were no
further comments, the Chair thanked Mr. Van Dijk and closed this discussion to switch to the
presentation of another memo.
II. UPM: Reflection on the UPM NER 300 project
Mr. Janhunen (UPM) described the involvement of UPM in 2 innovative biofuel projects, of which a
BTL project in Stracel France was awarded 170 MEUR for funding from the NER300 programme.
Furthermore, another UPM project in Rauma, Finland was on the reserve list of NER300. The French
4
project initially gained great interest and the first project preparations started around 2005. Since
then the project has been confronted with a lot of internal and external delays. Without these delays
some of these projects could have gone forward.
The selection process within the NER300 programme was very complex and the structure of the
programme was not well-linked to the project development needs of the consortium developing the
project. National funding was not sufficient to kick start the project. As a pulp and paper mill
company, UPM is used to high investments carried by the company alone. The decision on the tall oil
HVO biofuel plant at Lappeenraanta had also been taken without any EC or national support.
However, for the Stracel biofuel project, it was debated internally whether UPM should take a high
risk for such a flagship project. But on the other side, the amount of 170 MEUR was a huge support
funding. Both the Commission and the French government were very flexible but in the development
of the project UPM continuously had to adapt the project and make modifications due to the
changing policy environment. In the summer of 2015 UPM informed the EC to not proceed with the
NER300 project.
Mr. Janhunen commented that it wasn't possible to bring the project to UPM's management and
request for a 500 MEUR investment decision so long as the ILUC debate was ongoing since the
financial viability of the project was not ensured. The alternative was to focus on the no-support
plant in Lappeenranta, Finland.
The Chair opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Vink (UOP Honeywell) commented that the deadlines
set by the NER300 programme were very tight and companies complained that they could not
manage fulfilling these deadlines. Furthermore, the selection process of NER300 was based on the
lowest marginal cost for CO2-reduction which did not fit well with the desire to have new innovative
technologies, hence higher risk, projects.
Mr. Janhunen responded that UPM was on the winning side to get 170 MEU funding so UPM was
very much willing to meet the deadlines. But it would have helped if there would have been support
for the design phase of such projects.
Mr. Vink added to this that UPM has sufficient deep financial pockets to carry this pre-project
development, but not many, and especially smaller, companies are in a situation where they can do
this. Feasibility studies for project of this size already often cost millions. Mr. Dekker asked which of
all the NER300 projects are aiming at Advanced Biofuels and which of these are still alive? The Chair
replied that the majority of the awarded NER300 projects were focused at advanced biofuels and
some of them are still running, but that he had no detailed overview of the current status.
Mr. Cavigliasso (MG/Biochemtex) commented that Biochemtex with is daughter company IBP was
the first NER300 project to start and now there are 3 projects started from 30 projects that were
selected. These numbers are an indication of the problems that were encountered in the application
of this support system. DG CLIMA will now start a process to re-think the support system. The
funding to the IBP project equals 200 EUR per ton of ethanol. At the moment the timing is not so
good to mobilize investment and there is a high risk that the existing NER300 fund is perceived more
like a cherry on a cake that isalready prepared.
Mr Van Dijk asked whether this information will be taken as input for a new ‘NER400’ programme.
The Chair commented that in his view the NER300 failed to address adequately technologically risky
projects of first of a kind biofuel plants. The EU money only comes available to a project after the
company or consortium had invested in the construction of a plant. With the insecurity of a post2020 policy the current 3 to 4 project are not enough to guide the way for advanced biofuels.
Mr. Janhunen stressed that at the moment there is a real need for research and projects. UPM
choose to develop a UPM-only project and walked away from a 170 MEUR subsidy, this should be
seen as a signal.
5
Ms. Holmgren (Lanzatech) brought a view from the US perspective were the government supports
start-ups already in the feasibility stage and then provides support to a group of selected projects,
rather than providing support for each project individually. This would increase the chances for
success.
The Chair thanked Mr. Janhunen and closed the discussion with the remark that the EC had
published a Tender to develop a template for feasibility studies for small and medium sized
industries. The final report of this project should be on the website of DG Energy.
III. Volvo on a Sustainable Transport Model
Mr. Hanarp (Volvo) explained the Sustainable Transport Model that Volvo is considering. He
illustrated the example of consumer goods. Business-to-Consumer (B2C) companies more and more
find that end users are willing (or considering) to pay a bit more for the products that is transported
to secure that the transport is more sustainable and comes with lower carbon emissions. There are
already some small scale examples of this in place organised by freight companies.The Vice-Chair
commented that currently the transport costs of goods are often only 2 or 3 % of the final price of a
product, whereas in the carbon footprint of such goods transport often is responsible for a much
larger share, like 25 %, of the total emissions. For high value goods, it is easier to cover the additional
costs for a lower carbon transport option. Mr. Strömberg (Scania) provided an example in which
Scania realised a 90 % carbon reduction in the transport of milk, at the costs of 2 €ct per litre of milk.
The Chair thanked Mr. Hanarp and closed the discussion.
IV. Neste on the fragmentation of the market
Mr. Lastikka explained how Neste experiences the fragmentation of the various markets. The Neste
biofuel is not accepted in certain countries, even though its biofuel qualifies within the RED. Now
that the RED supports advanced biofuels, member states need to apply this in their national
legislation more consistently.
Mr. Mirabella questioned whether member states did not recognise a biofuel as an advanced biofuel
on basis of the feedstock or on the basis of the innovativeness of the production process. Mr.
Lastikka replied that it concerns the technology of HVO production and Neste would like to receive
the same approach as local biofuels producer in a given country.
Mr. Venendaal asked whether Neste filed a written complaint to the EC or whether Neste had plans
to do so. Mr. Lastikka confirmed that several claims had been sent to the EC.
Ms. Labrie asked whether the EC could be stricter to MSs to stick to the list of feedstocks in Part A of
Annex IX. The Chair stated that the member states have a lot of freedom and flexibility to make their
own choices. They can differ on basis of the resources that are available in their country. There is less
freedom on distinction on basis of technology but technology per se is not addressed in any directive.
Mr. Lastikka added that according to the legal department of Neste, the EC Member States have the
freedom to make own choices, both on feedstocks and on technology. Mr. Janhunen supported Mr.
Lastikka by stating that this issue needs to be solved if Europe wants to realise 50 to 100 or more
advanced biofuel facilities. His final remark was that it took however years to get to the current list of
Part A, Annex IX.
d. Update on Technology status and reliability of the value chains
Mr. Landälv, Vice Chair, provided an update on the Technology Status descriptions. At the 1st meeting
it was agreed to provide technology status overview for four (4) pathways. Mr. Landälv highlighted
the recent work executed by the European Biofuel Technology Platform (EBTP), which in
collaboration with the European Industrial Bioenergy Initiative (EIBI) developed compact fact sheets
on seven (7) value chains, which will be completed in the coming weeks. The 4 pathways for which
within the SGAB topic groups are formed are:
 Thermochemical conversion
6
 Biological conversion
 Power to Gas or Liquid conversions
 Algae development
Mr. Landälv mentioned that these pathways are well covered by the seven Value Chains EBTP
described and very recently factsheets had been developed. Examples of these factsheets were
presented to the participants. He proposed to take the work done by EBTP and EIBI as a starting
point and develop the descriptions for the SGAB purpose. Mr. Landälv had already discussed this
with EBTP and had received their acceptance for this. Only for the Power to Gas and Liquid pathways
there is a need to develop technology status description from scratch as that was not part of the
seven EBTP/EIBI value chains factsheets.
Mr. Landälv will compile first drafts to be ready by 15th of February. From this date the members
connected to the four pathways, see minutes form the first meeting, will be asked to contribute to
the drafts developed. One aspect that is not yet covered in the fact sheets of EBTP concerns the
maturity level of the Value Chains. Information on real data on actual performance (e.g. how much
ton of feedstock is needed for biofuels output; what is the total production per year in terms of
volume produced or running hours) is often lacking and much needed for a good understanding of
the actual energy efficiency of the overall plant operations. The Chair opened the floor for
comments.
Mr. Vink suggested to also look at viable business options we should also look at co-processing
opportunities where mineral oils and bio-intermediates are co-processed as an additional pathway.
Mr. Landälv supported this view. Mr. Venendaal also supported the suggestion made by Mr. Vink and
indicated that BTG has already for two (2) years tried to bring attention to this option. Mr. Van Dijk
added that TOTAL provided a very interesting presentation on co-processing in the European
Flightpath (biojet in aviation) project.
Mr. Brown (IEA) agreed that this would be a very helpful addition and stressed to focus on
showstoppers: which are the essential barriers and how could integration with other processes be
established. He had a question on the geographical scope. Will the group only focus on EU? Mr.
Landälv replied that the group will take a global view.
Mr. Vu Duc (MOVE C2) asked whether also information about investment figures and investment
intensity of plants will be included in the overview. Ms. Hull asked whether there is room for an
expert review to add pathways. Mr. Landälv welcomed any information that seems relevant but only
once a first document for review is available. The Chair supported this approach and said that Mr.
Landälv would draw up a draft, which would be discussed with the topic groups. A second draft from
this group would be distributed to the participants for a review.
Ms. Labrie was wondering how to be able to make comparisons as there were so many different
business models. At this stage it is only possible to generate generic information on the pathways,
but only at plant level one can be more specific. Besides information on Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)
it is also necessary to know Operating Expenses (OPEX). Mr. Landälv replied that CAPEX and OPEX are
not focused in this review and referred to the list of data showed on the presentation. It is very
difficult to be objective and compare such numbers because (1) business models used are very
different and (2) the accuracy of the data is very much depending on the work carried out on a
specific project/concept.
Mr. Wellinger stated that the European Biogas Association is willing to contribute to the pathway on
biological conversion.
Mr. Dekker stated that the Methanol Institute is willing to contribute to the pathway on
thermochemical conversion.
The Chair asked the participants to indicate who would like to join one of the topic groups. Ms. Hull
posed a question whether separate pathways for blend fuels and full synthetic fuels would be
7
needed. A discussion followed in which was stressed that we should not miss relevant and new
pathways. Mr. Cavigliasso recalled the goal of this work. It should support the proposal of targets for
2030 and that purpose determines the level of detail in the technology status updates. The Chair
confirmed this view.
Mr. Mirabella raised a question on the feedstock: how to view renewable electricity to link to fossil
based CO2 to produce methanol. According to Mr. Mirabella the system boundaries of the
technologies are not fully clear. The Chair replied that the renewable nature of the energy that goes
into the fuel is what matters here.
The Chair concluded the discussion and informed that the draft document that will be available for
the participants will be made available via the Common Space. He also asked Mr. Lastikka for a brief
memo on the Neste experience of the fragmentation of the market. In the 1st meeting Mr. Brown
was asked whether IEA has information available on legislation on Member State level. Within IEA is
still investigated whether that information is available, but on short notice Mr. Brown will report
back.
Action Vice-Chair
compile first drafts for discussion with topic groups by Feb 15
Action Topic Groups
discuss first drafts and compile second version drafts (no date
mentioned)
Action Vice Chair
distribute second version draft to Members and Observers (no
date mentioned)
Action Neste
memo on the Neste experience of the fragmentation of the market
e. Responses on the EC Public Questionnaire
The Chair informed the participants about the received responses to Part 6 (Transport) of the public
consultation for the development of a new RED. 35 responses have been received and 3 are still
awaited. ACEA, British Airways and CONCAWE are requested to send their responses before the 5th
of February. Two participants have provided their response with the request to be treated
confidentially.
Mr. Van den Heuvel presented in a PowerPoint presentation the main results from the questions in
part 6: question 28, 29 and 30. The Chair opened the floor for discussion.
From the presentation Mr. Aho (ST1 Fuels) concluded that the result of this group of respondents
showed disappointment on the way RED delivered towards the objectives in the past, and continued
by wondering if the stakeholders can provide recommendations to design RED for the future on the
basis of this questionnaire because the results reflects views and improvements related to the RED
measures in place for 2020 framework.
Mr. Zschocke mentioned that he had read the question on the effective measures (Question 30)
differently than was analysed by Mr. Van den Heuvel in the presentation. In his view the question
was not whether the RED had been effective (or not) by taking these measures already, but merely
that the respondents could provide their view on which measure the EC could implement to become
more effective for the targets that RED aims to achieve. Mr. Van den Heuvel agreed to review as this
was only a preliminary presentation and that further analysis was planned.
Furthermore Mr. Zschocke commented that advanced biofuels are the most effective tool compared
to other alternatives for transport. He also stated that RED as a whole works but not really in the
transport sector. Additionally he questioned how it can be ensured, that it will increase the
penetration of renewable energy in the transport sector.
8
Mr. Malins warned that we should be careful about the message that we want to take from these
answers: are we focusing on ‘backward looking’ or should we deliver ‘forward looking’ messages?
Mr Lastikka stressed the need to go forward and provide a direction to the EC, to the European
Parliament and ultimately to the Council as inside the biofuels arena the industry see opportunities
to invest. He pointed out “Let’s not put too much attention of what was wrong, but on what can be
improved for future operations”.
The Chair advised on the next steps and asked whether the participants would approve the
incorporation of their respective comments in an annex report to the final SGAB report. The report,
entitled “SGAB participant responses to the Transport sector related questions of the Public
Consultation on a new RED”, is a support document to the SGAB final report and is not related to the
final analysis report of the Public Consultation itself
A discussion followed. Some participants provided their responses on a personal, individual expert’s
view and indicated that their organisation would submit an official full response to the public
consultation to the commission. Many of the participants indicated that for the time being, until the
public consultation closed, they wanted their responses to the SGAB remains treated as confidential
and anonymous.
The Chair argued that in the resulting analysis of the responses in this SGAB context, the key
messages would gain in strength if they could be supported by quotes or comments of organisation A
or company B. Also it was discussed whether the Core Team would draw up a pre-selection of the
most relevant issues and remarks, briefly describe these and indicate which organisations and
companies supported these comments.
Mr. Wellinger favoured to see all comments in order to be able to make an informed judgment and
indicate which comments he could support. The Chair concluded that the Core-Team will progress
with an analysis report and discuss this with the group. The analysis report will provide valuable input
to DG ENER/C1 unit who can take this on board in their preparatory work for a new RED. The Chair
closed this session for a lunch break.
Action Van den Heuvel
6.
Develop the questionnaire report
Definitions
The Chair re-opened the meeting after lunch to discuss the matter of biofuel definitions. The Core
Team has collected and discussed a set of biofuel related words, and had decided to separate this
into “definitions” to be used consistently and a “glossary” of related terms more or an understanding
purpose. The work is still in the stage of processing and further refinement. The Chair invited Mr.
Kalligeros to present a document in which various definitions on fuels are proposed to be used for
the work of the SGAB and in which a glossary of relevant keywords and their terminology is
described. The Chair started to highlight that a disclaimer would be included in the document on the
definitions. The disclaimer provides insight in the status of the document, on the process of the
collection of information and explicitly states that this by no means is an official Commission
Document.
Furthermore he invited the members and observers to send comments by email (and address that to
all members of the core-team).
Mr. Kalligeros first explained which approach was followed to develop the Definition and Glossary
Report and stressed that this Report is still ‘work-in-progress’ and certain definitions may still need to
be included. The structure of the report was explained: first a section with definitions on fuels, and
then a ‘Glossary’ section on relevant keywords and their terminology found in various sources
(mainly EC, JRC, IEA, standards). Following that the tables in the report were explained: in first
column the subject, in the second column the recommended definition and in the third column the
9
source where this definition originates from. Within ten (10) days following the meeting the Fueldefinition section will be finalised and be distributed for review by the participants.
Action Core Team
send the Fuel-Definition section to SGAB Members and Observers
by Feb 08
The Chair said that we have to reach an agreement on the Definitions for fuels. The glossary of
relevant keywords is only for the sake of clarity and information. On this list no agreement needs to
be reached. If there are two conflicting definitions priority is given to the one which is stated in the
EU legislation. The Chair then opened the floor for questions and comments.
Ms. Hull said that she will also send a written proposal to include sections on ‘ground-based fuels’,
‘shipping fuels’ and ‘aviation fuels’. The Chair stressed once more that at this agenda point of the
meeting only comments on the procedure were possible, not comments related to the content of the
definitions.
A further procedure rule was stated by the Chair that members and observers only send their
proposed definitions and related comments to the Core Team and not to the full list of Members and
Observers to prevent them from being overloaded.
The Chair then opened the floor for a discussion how to improve and/or upgrade on the Advanced
Biofuels definition.
Mr. Greening(ACEA)explained how ACEA’s view was on Advanced Biofuels: ACEA represents the
vehicles and car manufacturers and for this sector it is key to understand which fuels are going into
the vehicle and ensure that the engine and vehicle perform well. For the definition of Advanced
biofuels ACEA refers to biofuels from sustainable materials (can be on basis of Part A, Annex 9) that
are produced in such a way that they do not have any undesired impact in the vehicle. This definition
covers drop-in and dedicated fuels, but it does mean that for standard fuels blend-limits need to be
respected. These are the four key criteria for ACEA. Mr. Greening offered this definition as a start for
the discussion.
Mr. Wellinger stated that in the Definition and Glossary Report for the definition of Advanced
Biofuels ‘residues’ should be added. Mr. Aho reacted to Mr. Greening that the key criteria ’product
quality’ is already addressed in standards and specifications. In that sense this criteria is not relevant
for the sake of the SGAB work. Mr. Aho furthermore asked why we are making such an effort to
develop all these definitions.
Mr. Lastikka added that the societal goal should drive the development, not the technological
pathway. Should Advanced Biofuels be defined on the basis of how they fit in certain engines or
should the definition be based on how they serve societal goals?
Ms. Hull stated that she strongly favoured to include the product quality of the fuel, as certain
biofuels could be blend components with a quality improvement potential. To her we should end up
with a definition on renewable fuels in addition to one for standard/normal fuels.
Mr. Stefenson (Stena Lines) expressed his concern about the focus on the quality of the fuels, in the
view that advanced biofuels should be equal or better. In the marine sector it would perhaps be okay
to have a worse quality biofuel (as compared to biofuels used in road and aviation) replacing fossil
based marine fuels which due to the substitution still would bring environmental benefits.
Mr. Van Dijk pointed out that the process that determines and sets the quality of fuel is well
organised by standardization bodies and industrial organisations. The voice of the EC or of this group
on this subject might be less relevant and such details were better left to the technical committees to
deal with. Within a pathway, he continued, many varieties may exist and we have to figure out what
determines a sustainable fuel, which can be applied to a whole range of fuels. Otherwise we are too
10
strong focusing on picking just one ‘winning’ fuel. He pointed out that the development which is
needed is a portfolio of sustainable fuels.
The Chair made a clarifying remark that in the Glossary section of the Report nothing is mentioned
on specifications. Mr. Lastikka stated that the Advanced Biofuels Definition should not be based on
or dependent of a technology pathway. The definition should be technology-neutral.
For Ms. Labrie the specifications are out of scope for this discussion. She pointed to that, as a starting
point, a list of non-conventional feedstocks in Annex A, Part IX already exists. The term ‘Advance’ is
about ‘advancing’ and ‘innovation’ and as a result new developments and/or a technology innovation
component should be incorporated.
Ms. Hull expressed that there is a need for definitions to clearly understand what is meant when
talking of a certain fuel. For Mr. Mirabella the issue was still unclear how to see ‘advanced’: better in
greenhouse gas reduction, or better feedstock to fuel yield? He agreed in that sense with Mr.
Greening of ACEA. For Mr. Mirabella ‘advanced’ had a ‘green’ meaning (better GHG performance).
Mr. Landälv noted a similar discussion took place at the EBTP on 1st generation various 2nd generation
or even 3rd generation, and where somebody stated that EBTP should have an end-users position
rather than only the position from the fuel producers. That discussion led to a shift of focus from
production (shift from 1st generation to 2nd and 3ed generation) to also include fuel properties.
Definition of “advanced biofuels” consequently also became a more difficult matter to agree on. That
discussion is still ongoing.
Mr. Vink contributed that we have to distinguish sustainable feedstocks and non-sustainable
feedstocks and in that case the conversion can be viewed as a ‘black box’ to deliver fuels that match
the end users specification expectations. From a policy point of view however sustainability is about
the whole supply chain and that can provide a sustainable solution, or not.
Mr. Cavigliasso commented that the SGAB should find a practical approach how to get to the targets.
It is known to most of the participants how difficult it is to get into a discussion and how long it may
take to reach an agreement. We have to bear in mind that it only 8 months ago that an agreement
was reached on Part A, Annex IX.
Ms. Holmes replied however that we should not rest now: it is nice to have the list, but the door
should be open for new feedstocks as innovation is ongoing. We have to be aware of the focus to
replace fossil fuels. The Chair agreed that decarbonisation of the transport sector is the main goal.
Mr. Tricas (DG Move) stated that we have to stick to the Part A, Annex 9 list. The proposal of ACEA is
helpful in the sense that advanced biofuels should fit in current technologies.
Mr. Lastikka remarked that if the biofuels industry would bring forward a proposal that the car
industry and other industry would not support, such a proposal will not get any support.
Mr. Zschocke stated that it is nice to have a ‘catchy’ definition but this group needs to find a solution
that is relevant for this group to work on.
Ms. Bravo questioned why we are so much focusing on finding a new definition as there is a
definition that is approved by the Members States in the amended RED? We should use this and
work from there on.
For Mr. Greening the list in Part A, Annex IX is just a list of feedstocks, and that does not make it a list
of fuels. Mr. Lastikka recalled that there was an intention to come up with a definition in the
directive but it did not make it into the final text of the Directive.
Mr. Van Dijk stated that if we stick to list Part A, Annex IX aviation fuel can be disregarded as the
feedstocks from this list will not provide biojet for aviation. The Chair reminded the participants that
this group can provide a recommendation to the European Commission for a standing definition for
11
advanced biofuels, with a horizon towards 2030. Which advanced biofuels do we need to
decarbonize transport?
Mr. Tricas added that advanced biofuels should significantly contribute to greenhouse gas savings.
Mr. Mirabella summarized that there are two lines of thinking in this group: i) stick to the list of Part
A, Annex IX or develop a new algorithm and define a set of criteria to which a fuel needs to comply to
be called an advanced fuel. In the case of a list there will always be something on the list and
something not on the list.
Ms. Holmgren cautioned not to narrow the scope too much as some low-carbon fuels that by 2030
contribute to decarbonisation of transport are not regarded as biofuels today, and stated that all that
matters is Carbon Intensity. If this factor is not included, the definition of alternative fuels can allow
natural gas to come in the picture again.
For Ms. Hull a low-carbon fuel is a fuel that contains less fossil carbon than today’s fossil-based fuels.
The Chair stated that in the Glossary the terminology on ‘low-carbon’ is well described. For Ms. Hull
‘advanced fuel’ and ‘sustainable fuel’ are the same. For Mr. Mirabella advanced fuel means that it is
better than conventional fuels on some aspects.
Mr. Aho stressed that Part A, Annex 9 should the starting point for further expansion. Mr. Lastikka
inferred that the SGAB should respect the other options (electricity, hydrogen etc.) to decarbonize
the transport sector. Considerations must also be given to what happens in the US and other regions
in this field of alternative fuels. He concluded that his first outcome from the participation in this
subgroup is that the EC no longer want traditional biofuels and want to find options for advanced
biofuels.
Mr. Harrison (European Climate Foundation) stated that ECF uses the term ‘sustainable, low-carbon
liquid fuel’.
After this discussion and exploration of which aspects are important for the definition of advanced
biofuels The Chair closed the discussion on this agenda point and invited all participants to provide
their preferred definition within 10 days following this meeting. On basis of that we can draw up
alternative suggestions that could be of help to the Commission. The core team also would like to
receive feedback on the Definition and Glossary Report, which will be sent in the following days.
Action Members and
Observers
send preferred definitions on Advanced Biofuels by Feb 08
Action Chair
send the Definition and Glossary Report for feedback to Members
and Observers by Feb 15
7.
and 8.: 2030 target and template document
The Chair mentioned that a template document will be provided in which the Members and
Observers can express their opinion about a possible, achievable and realistic contribution for 2030
for advanced biofuels. Members and Observers are requested to provide their thoughts and
arguments and indicate a contribution for advanced biofuels expressed either as a certain
percentage of the transport fuel consumption or as an annual production volumes (in cubic meters
or million tonnes, to your own preferences) which could be achieved, and in addition the number of
biofuel facilities that could be producing biofuels and/or the expected investments that would be
needed to establish this.
Action Chair
12
Send a template for the 2030 target before Feb 15
The Chair continued that the focus in the estimated is on Europe, not on Member State or company
level. Mr. Vink asked whether the participants view should be based on mandatory or voluntary
targets. The Chair replied to leave that up to the members.
Ms. Labrie asked whether also the amount of GHG emission reduction should be mentioned. The
Chair replied that whatever you believe is relevant include that information to the template
document.
Mr. Aho wanted to know which fuels we should regard when assessing potential targets. The Chair
replied that we should for now stick to the list in Part A, Annex IX. Mr. Aho also questioned whether
we should make assumptions on the availability of high blends like E20 by 2030 and take that into
account when assessing. The Chair replied that a prerequisite box will be included in the template
document.
Mr. Tricas added that also the inland shipping sector should be taking into account.
Mr. Zschocke mentioned that in Germany it is targeted that all passenger cars are 100% electric. The
Chair replied that that then needs to be taken into account when presenting the view in the
template.
Mr. Mirabella wanted to know whether to base %-figures on real figures or on accounting numbers –
in the case double counting fuels still exist. The Chair stressed to provide real numbers.
Mr. Venendaal wanted to take the floor to present an alternative graph (compared to the graph
presented by the Chair in the 1st meeting to the group. In this graph he showed how the
development of Second Generation fuels could build upon a slowing S-curve graph of First
Generation fuels for the period 2020 even up to 2040. He wanted to stress that his group should
present realistic figures and should try to neither overestimate, nor underestimate progress of the
2G biofuels development, as that would result in building the wrong expectations to policy makers,
politicians and the civil society.
The Chair indicated that within this group we only have a mandate to look up to 2030 and not
beyond that time point. The Chair asked Mr. Venendaal to provide a brief description to the graph.
Ms. Buffet stated that biomass availability and sustainability estimated should be taken into
consideration. Also it should be noted that there are competing uses for biomass resources. The
Chair commented on this that any kind of biomass has competitive uses. All reports now available to
the EC indicate that for the expected share of bioenergy there is no conflict to other uses to reach
the 27% RES target in 2030.
Ms. Hudson raised the point that BA is a globally operating company and they would favour global
regulations. If the EU would advocate global requirements for biofuel, that might help reaching a
global regulation. The Chair asked whether Ms. Hudson could provide the group with her views on
this.
Mr. Zschocke said that the sustainable biomass requirements differ between the biomass resources.
The Chair replied that all Members must feel free to specify or limit their expectations in completing
the template document.
Mr. Neeft (RVO) took the floor to briefly describe a graph on the power to gas options. Based on
report reviews this graph indicated that the power to gas option might not be the first and preferred
option to store renewable energy from electricity – the power to heat option might be more costefficient for more operating hours than the power-to-gas options. A discussion on the graph
followed.
Mr. Wellinger did not agree with the conclusions from this graph. Mr. Dekker stated he also wanted
to further discuss on this graph and the underlying studies. The Chair asked Mr. Neeft to provide a
half page memo on this subject. Mr. Brown added that within IEA a lot of information on this is
available and he will provide reference material.
13
The Chair closed the discussion.
Action BTG
Provide addition information on the graph on S-curve develop 2G
biofuels
Action British Airways
Memo on BA views on EC vs global regulations for aviation
industry
Action RVO
provide a half page memo on the power-to-gas graph
9. Any other business
The Chair asked whether the participants wanted to raise any other business or issues. That was not
the case. He informed the group that the next meeting will take place on Friday February 26 th. He
thanked all participants for their presence and active contribution to the meeting and closed the
meeting.
14
Annex 1
Participants
A.1.1 List of members and attendance
Expert Members
Jan. 29
Alternate
Surname
Jan 29
Surname
Name
Present
Aho
Mika
X
ST1
Barbosa
Maria
Apologies
Wageningen UR
Bauen
Ausilio
Apologies
E4Tech
Brown
Adam
X
IEA
Cavigliasso
Piero
X
Mossi & Ghisolfi
Dekker
Eelco
X
Methanol Institute
Gameson
Thomas
X
ABENGOA
Gaupmann
Gloria
X
Clariant
Greening
Paul
X
ACEA
Hamje
Heather
Apologies
Harrison
Pete
X
European Climate
Foundation
Holmgren
Jennifer
X
Lanzatech
Hudson
Leigh
X
British Airways
Hull
Angelica
X
Swedish Biofuels
Janhunen
Marko
X
UPM
Judd
Robert
Apologies
GERG
Klintbom
Patrik
Apologies
Hanarp
Per
Labrie
Marie-Helene
X
Vierhout
Rob
Landälv
Ingvar
X
Lulea University of
Technology
Lastikka
Ilmari
X
Neste
Malins
Chris
X
The International
Council on Clean
Transportation
Marchand
Philippe
-
Mirabella
Walter
X
EFOA
Murfin
Andrew
Apologies
Shell
Schapers
Eline
Apologies
Sipila
Kai
Apologies
VTT
Stefenson
Per
X
Stena Lines
Stępień
Adam
X
Copa-Cogeca
15
Caiado
De-Marliave
van Dijk
Name
Catharina
Luc
Maarten
Present
X
Organisation
Concawe
Volvo
X
X
X
ENERKEM
Total
SkyNRG
Expert Members
Jan. 29
Alternate
Surname
Jan 29
Surname
Name
Present
Name
Present
Organisation
Strömberg
Jonas
-
van Campen
Jeroen
Apologies
Venendaal
René
X
BTG
Vink
Tim
X
Honeywell/UOP
Wellinger
Arthur
X
EBA/IEA Bioenergy
Zschocke
Alexander
X
Lufthansa
Scania
Bravo
Anna-Maria
X
DuPont
A.1.2 List of observers and attendance
Observers
Jan. 29
Substitute
/Alternate
Surname
Jan. 29
Surname
Name
Present
Bernodusson
Jón
-
Icelandic Transport
Authority
Buffet
Laura
X
Transport &
Environment
Deleu
Johan
X
UPEI
Garofalo
Raffaello
-
Desplechin
Emmanuel
X
ePure
Florea
Leonard
-
Regulatory Authority
for Energy
Gruson
Jean-François
-
IFP Energies nouvelles
Hameau
Thierry
X
SNCF
Cluyts
Ivo
X
Belgium Ministry of
Environment
Neeft
John
X
Netherlands
Enterprise Agency
Nicolau
Alexandra
X
General Directorate
for Energy & Geology
Pezzaglia
Marco
X
Consultant, Italian
Ministry of Economic
Development
Pinheiro
Sérgio Manso
-
General Directorate
for Energy & Geology
Weber
Thomas
X
Federal Ministry for
the Environment
Jaskot
A.1.3 List of EC Participants & Rapporteurs
Commission & Associated
16
Jan. 298
Name
Agata
Present
X
Organisation
European Biodiesel
Board
Surname
Name
Present
Organisation
McDowell
Malcolm
X
ENER A1
Kalligeros
Stamatis
X
Rapporteur
Maniatis
Kyriakos
X
ENER C2
Tricas Aizpun
Antonio
X
MOVE C1
van den Heuvel
Eric
X
Rapporteur
Vu Duc
Hoang
X
MOVE C2
Waldheim
Lars
X
Rapporteur
17
Annex 2
DRAFT AGENDA
Sub Group on Advanced Biofuels – Sustainable Transport Forum
Meeting 29/01/2016
European Research Council,
Covent Garden
Place Charles Rogier 16, room 25/SDR1
10.00 to 17.00
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
18
Welcome
Introduction of New participants
Approval of the Agenda
Approval of the Minutes of 1st SCAB Meeting
Discussion on Actions
a)
General
b)
References for work
c)
Memos by: BTG 3+5, Volvo 8, SkyNRG 9, Neste 10, Bio-Conversion
d)
Update on “Technology status and reliability of the value chains”
e)
Responses on the EC Public Questionnaire
Definitions
2030 target
a)
For Advanced Biofuels
b)
For Renewable Fuels
Next meeting (preparatory)
a)
2030 target for advanced Biofuels
b)
Which basis (%, MTOE, TWh)
c)
Which number
d)
N° of plants
e)
Biomass requirements
Other business
Annex 3
19