Decarb Connect

Emissions Reduction Alberta has launched a C$50 million funding round through its Industrial Transformation Challenge. The program has now committed over C$175 million since 2022. Individual project funding ranges from C$500,000 to C$10 million. Applicants must secure at least matching funds from industry partners. The scope is broad. Eligible technologies include AI-enabled optimization, grid modernization, energy storage, electrification, low-emissions industrial processes, circular economy solutions, and carbon reduction across agriculture, forestry, and heavy industry. Waste-to-value, heat recovery, water treatment, bioenergy, and critical minerals are also covered. This is a signal of policy continuity. Alberta operates the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) fund, which is an output-based carbon pricing system for large emitters. The province is using revenue from that system to co-invest in industrial efficiency. The matching requirement ensures that public capital leverages private expenditure. The program targets projects ready to scale, not early-stage R&D. ERA's review process requires demonstrated compatibility with Alberta's emissions pathway and economic growth objectives. Selected projects will now move toward implementation. The broader context is the competitiveness argument. Alberta's economy is hydrocarbon-intensive. The program explicitly links emissions reduction with industrial competitiveness and supply chain resilience. This is a pragmatic model for fossil-fuel-producing regions navigating the energy transition. #Alberta #IndustrialDecarbonization #Cleantech #TIER

Podcast Episode 137: What CCS 1.0 Taught Us — And Where the Money Should Go Now Europe spent €8–10 billion on hydrogen and CCS projects over the last decade. We have a handful of projects that never crossed the line, and an industry still arguing about infrastructure that doesn't exist. Grant Budge was there for CCS v1.0. He knows why it stalled. As CEO of PeroCycle, he's now building something different — on-site CO2 conversion, no pipelines, no offsite infrastructure, and a negative cost of abatement on a DRI steel plant at current European energy prices. In this Decarb Connect episode, Alex Cameron sits down with Grant to unpack: → Why large corporate balance sheets were part of the problem, not the solution → The real reason hydrogen and CCS absorbed so much capital for so little output (it wasn't just bad tech) → What a global database of validated decarbonisation technologies would actually change — and why it doesn't exist → How PeroCycle moved from +$50–60/tonne CO2 abated to -$80/tonne → The $250–300 million question: how a pre-revenue startup scales to first-of-kind steel plant without the number killing the story → Why nickel and glass might matter more to PeroCycle right now than steel Grant has been on both sides of the investor table. His read on what separates companies that keep the conversation alive from those that get screened out early is direct, practical, and worth hearing. Link in the first comment. #DecarbConnect #podcast #Episode137 #CCS #CarbonCapture #IndustrialDecarbonisation #Steel #ClimateTech #HardTech #NetZero #PeroCycle

The UK government has committed £59.6 million ($80 million) to launch the Peak Cluster carbon capture and storage project. The pipeline will transport CO2 from cement and lime facilities in Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and the North West to depleted gas reservoirs off the coast of Barrow-in-Furness. Target capacity is over three million tonnes of CO2 annually. This is a direct intervention in process emissions. Cement and lime derive up to two-thirds of their carbon footprint from calcination, not fuel combustion. Fuel switching alone cannot address this. The project secures over 2,000 existing manufacturing jobs and creates 300 permanent operational roles plus 1,200 construction positions. The funding de-risks the capital expenditure for subsea carbon transport. The government is providing the long-term regulatory and financial predictability that heavy industry requires for net-zero investment. The project is positioned as the world's largest consolidated cement decarbonisation development. The feasibility question is the pipeline route and land access. The corridor crosses multiple jurisdictions and requires easements. The timeline for construction and commissioning is not specified in the announcement. The broader signal is industrial strategy. The UK is using public capital to preserve domestic cement and lime production capacity. Without CCS, these industries face carbon leakage or closure. The Peak Cluster model is replicable for other industrial clusters with access to offshore storage. #CCS #Cement #UKIndustry #NetZero

New research from Stanford GSB and the University of Mannheim challenges a core assumption about industrial decarbonisation. The paper, forthcoming in The Accounting Review, analyses 512 combinations of nine cement abatement technologies. It finds that at €141 per tonne CO2, producers could cut emissions by 96% while production costs rise only 12%. This is significant. Previous estimates suggested comprehensive decarbonisation would double cement costs. The difference is methodological. The researchers model technology interactions, not isolated marginal abatement cost curves. Carbon capture efficiency depends on kiln performance and feedstock mix. The combined effect changes the cost curve. The study uses the EU ETS as its pricing framework. At the 2023 price of €85 per tonne, the model finds a one-third emissions reduction is cost-effective. At €141 per tonne, deep decarbonisation becomes rational. The EU ETS has traded above €100 in recent years. This is within policy reach. The broader implication is for hard-to-abate sectors. The methodology applies to iron, steel, and aluminium, which together account for over 20% of manufacturing emissions. The researchers argue that process emissions, not just fuel switching, can be addressed at moderate cost. The feasibility question is the investment cycle. Cement plants are long-life assets. Retrofitting requires capital allocation and planning. The cost increase is modest, but the payback period depends on sustained carbon pricing. This is an argument for policy predictability. #Cement #Decarbonisation #EUTS #IndustrialPolicy

Ohio has enacted House Bill 170, establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework for carbon capture and geologic storage. The law took effect June 24, 2026. It replaces a fragmented local permitting landscape with a single state authority. Three provisions are commercially significant. First, the law vests pore space ownership with the surface owner, creating a clear chain of title. Second, it allows statutory consolidation at a 70% threshold, solving the holdout problem that has stalled many subsurface projects. Third, the state assumes primary liability after a certificate of project completion is issued. This is a deliberate and efficient set of incentives. The fee structure is transparent: five cents per metric ton for post-closure care, three cents per metric ton for host county infrastructure. Liability insurance is capped at $15 million. These are known costs that can be modeled with confidence. The feasibility question is the Class VI permit itself. The state is streamlining the process, but the EPA still issues the permits. The consolidation order from the state must be aligned with federal timelines. The law's liability protections have not been tested in court. A legal challenge to the consolidation provisions could delay the first projects. The 70% threshold is an experiment in eminent domain applied to subsurface storage.

The European Parliament's environment committee voted this week to extend the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to more than 400 product codes. This is a significant expansion from the initial scope. The committee also backed tougher anti-circumvention measures. The second quarterly CBAM reference price was published at €75.28 per tonne. This is a clear signal that the EU is widening its carbon adjustment net. Downstream sectors and additional materials are now in scope. The legal framework is moving faster than many importers have anticipated. Companies with supply chains into Europe must now assess their exposure across a much broader range of goods. The committee also agreed to widen carbon leakage financial support to downstream sectors while limiting support to the exported share of production. This dual approach protects domestic industry while maintaining pressure on imports. The feasibility question is administrative capacity. Expanding CBAM to 400+ product codes requires significant customs and verification infrastructure. The system must also manage carbon pricing for embedded emissions in complex supply chains. The critical unknown is data availability. CBAM relies on verified emissions data from third-country producers. For many downstream products, that data does not exist at the facility level. Importers will face a choice between default values (which may overstate their liability) and investing in supply chain transparency. This data gap, not customs capacity, will determine whether the expanded mechanism functions as intended or becomes a bureaucratic bottleneck for trade.

California Resources Corporation has started CO2 injection at its Carbon TerraVault I project in Kern County. The facility captures up to 100,000 tons annually from a natural gas processing plant and stores it in a depleted oil field. This is the state's first operational carbon capture and sequestration project. The milestone comes with significant caveats. Environmental groups are suing Kern County over alleged inadequate environmental review. The project sits in a century-old oil field with thousands of existing wells, raising concerns about long-term containment. CRC has applied for storage across the state totaling 352 million tons capacity, but current offtake agreements cover only a fraction of that. California also finalized carbon pipeline regulations this week, previously banned in the state. The rules require automatic public notifications for ruptures, public engagement, and emergency responder training. They do not mandate odorants for leak detection or restrict pipeline proximity to schools and homes, points of contention for community groups. The industry signal is regulatory fragmentation. California is building its own pipeline framework while federal rulemaking stalls. The EPA is reviewing 11 more CCS projects with nearly 50 injection wells in the state, with approvals expected through 2027. Seven of those are CRC projects. The feasibility question is containment. Using aging oil fields for permanent storage requires rigorous monitoring. The lawsuit challenges the environmental assessment's adequacy. Without resolution, this project remains a test case for liability, not just technology. The next bottleneck is the voluntary carbon market. Microsoft's reported pause on new carbon removal purchases undermines the credit revenue model. California's state requirements may sustain demand, but that is a narrow base. #CarbonCapture #CCS #California #ClassVI