Source: ABlawg, the University of Calgary Faculty of Law Blog on developments in Alberta law
Author: Prof. Shawn Fluker, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Case Considered: Citizen’s Climate Lobby and Our Children’s Earth Foundation v California Air Resources Board (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, January 25, 2013, Case number CGC-2-519544).

This comment examines a recent judicial review decision by the Superior Court of California dismissing a challenge to the legality of the carbon emission offset regime established by California’s Air Resources Board (CARB). The petitioners in this case alleged the offset regime does not comply with its parent statute – the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, (California , AB 32) – and thus the CARB does not have legal authority to implement it. The essence of the claim was that a carbon emission offset created by the CARB regime would not necessarily represent the real and demonstrable carbon emission reduction required by the legislation. The Court ruled the offset regime created and administered by the CARB complies with the legislation.

Why might this California judicial review decision be of interest to Alberta? The primary reason is that Alberta is home to Canada’s most established carbon emission offset regime. The legal framework governing carbon emission offsets in Alberta is similar to that in California, and thus vulnerable to a similar challenge some day. And while there are no challenges forthcoming to Alberta’s regime that I am aware of, this decision provides a good opportunity to examine how Alberta’s carbon offset regime works.

A primer on carbon markets

The international consensus is to use market-based regulation to achieve a global reduction in carbon emissions. The theory of market-based regulation is generally that price regulates our behaviour, and an efficient market that assigns a price on the right to emit carbon will accomplish the same emission reduction goals as traditional command and control directives but at less overall cost to society. The key functions of the carbon market are price discovery on the right to emit and providing a forum in which those rights can be traded between market participants.

A price on carbon emissions generates incentive for an emitter to invest in abatement technology or otherwise reduce its emissions. Trading rights to emit provides emitters with flexibility to decide how to comply with an emissions reduction obligation; for example, an emitter may choose to acquire the right to emit from others rather than reduce its own carbon emissions. In carbon markets the right to emit comes in the form of an emissions allowance or credit distributed by a regulatory authority or a carbon emission offset recognized by a set of administrative rules

Carbon markets exist in varying shapes and sizes. The primary design is a cap-and-trade system, while a less common format is known as baseline-and-credit. I will briefly describe both here because California is a cap-and-trade system and Alberta is a baseline-and-credit system.

The cap-and-trade scheme generally involves the distribution and trading of a fixed number of carbon emissions allowances that cap the total aggregate emissions for a specified group of entities in a given jurisdiction and compliance period. Cap-and-trade basically works as follows. A regulatory authority caps the total allowable quantity of carbon emissions from specified regulated emitters for a designated compliance period, and then divides the cap into allowance units (each unit typically represents one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent – I will refer only to carbon in this comment for simplicity, but there are many greenhouse gases potentially subject to emission reduction obligations in a given jurisdiction). Prior to the commencement of each compliance period, the regulatory authority distributes allowance units by a prescribed method such as an auction or lottery. At the end of the compliance period a regulated emitter must report their carbon emissions and submit emission allowance units sufficient to cover the quantity of emissions reported. If a regulated emitter has insufficient allowance units to cover its reported carbon emissions for the period, the emitter must acquire additional allowance units from other market participants or pay an administrative penalty. The European Union Emissions Trading System is the world’s most established cap-and-trade system, and has operated in European Union member countries since 2005.

A baseline-and-credit emissions trading scheme is similar to the mechanics of cap-and-trade set out above, but differs significantly in some respects. Baseline-and-credit basically works as follows. The regulatory authority establishes a formula upon which to calculate a baseline amount of carbon emissions for each regulated emitter in a compliance period. If the scheme is intensity-based, then the baseline is calculated as an amount of carbon emissions per unit of production. The scheme does not impose an overall cap on emissions. Overall emissions in a jurisdiction will increase as the number of emitters increases, or similarly a regulated emitter itself may increase its absolute emissions so long as the intensity limit per unit of production is below the assigned baseline. At the end of the compliance period a regulated emitter must report their carbon emissions. The regulated emitter earns credits to the extent actual emissions are below the baseline, but must submit credits to cover any emissions in excess of the baseline. Alberta has an intensity baseline-and-credit system.

Carbon market schemes typically allow regulated emitters who exceed their emissions limit to comply with emission reduction obligations using emission offsets generated by “offset projects” operated by non-regulated entities. An emission offset is created by an activity conducted in a manner that generates less carbon emissions in comparison to an established business-as-usual scenario. The incentive to produce emission offsets is the opportunity to sell offsets at the market price for carbon to regulated emitters who need the offsets for compliance purposes.

The use of emission offsets for carbon reduction compliance has attracted some criticism, particularly when used in a cap-and-trade scheme such as that in California. The main concern is that the infusion of offsets into the market results in overall emissions that exceed the legislated cap because regulated emitters can use offset credits generated by non-regulated entities for compliance instead of the capped number of emissions allowances auctioned by the regulatory authority. The response to this criticism is that carbon emissions reduced or sequestered in one location have an equally beneficial effect on the atmosphere as emissions reductions in another location, so it makes no difference whether the source of a reduction is a regulated emitter or someone else. The controversy does, however, illustrate the importance of ensuring an offset represents an actual reduction in carbon emissions that is additional to the norm, otherwise the use of emissions offsets would impair the effectiveness of a carbon reduction system. Most cap-and-trade systems address this in part by limiting the amount of emissions offsets that a regulated emitter can use in a compliance period.

The California emissions offset program

The California legal framework provides the CARB with extensive discretion to decide what rules to enact that will govern carbon emissions reduction in the state. The CARB decided to use a cap-and-trade system that allows regulated emitters to use both auctioned emission allowances and offsets for compliance purposes. Carbon emission reduction obligations in California commenced in January 2013. Also of note, California has agreed to link its cap-and-trade system with Quebec effective January 2014. Quebec also commenced its cap-and-trade system in January 2013. Assuming these jurisdictions proceed with linkage in 2014, a regulated emitter in Quebec will be allowed to use California allowances and offsets for compliance purposes and vice versa.

The petitioners in Citizen’s Climate Lobby challenged the carbon emission offset regime established by the CARB, arguing that the CARB rules allow for the possibility that an offset does not represent a real and additional carbon emission reduction. The concept of “additionality” is at the heart of the dispute, and the California Superior Court provides a good overview of the issues. Overall, the question of concern here is whether an emission offset represents a real and additional carbon emission reduction; in other words, that the carbon emission reduction occurs from activity that would not have been conducted but for the financial incentive provided by the prospect of selling carbon offsets into the market for profit.

The Court notes that measuring for additionality with precision is a difficult exercise. A regulatory authority must decide what method to use for determining the level of carbon emissions in the business-as-usual case using a basket of hypotheticals. The most accurate method would be to assess each individual offset project on a one-by-one basis. This method is less common than the alternative standards or protocol method because the latter is far more efficient to implement on a wide-scale basis. The protocol method establishes the business-as-usual emissions baseline for a category of project and also gives parameters to quantify the amount of carbon emission offsets generated by a project in that category. I provide some examples of this approach below.

The specific claim by the petitioners in Citizen’s Climate Lobby was the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (California, AB 32) did not provide the CARB with authority to use protocols to govern the generation of carbon emission offsets. Their argument was that the use of protocols to create offsets does not ensure that each and every offset generated by an offset project represents a real carbon emission reduction. At the time of this case, the CARB had authorized 4 protocols including the Urban Forest Project Protocol by which municipalities can generate emission offsets by planting more trees in their jurisdiction than are cut down in a given year – in other words by avoiding a net loss in trees per year. Among a host of reasons, the petitioners argued this Protocol did not ensure additionality because it failed to account for the many economic or social factors that might influence a municipality to plant trees besides the incentive to sell offsets into the carbon market. The petitioners argued municipalities strive to avoid a net loss of trees per year anyways so surely there will be instances where a municipality planting trees is not “additional” and thus each and every offset produced by the protocol will not represent a real reduction in carbon emissions.

The Court observed the only guidance for the CARB provided by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (California, AB 32) is that an offset represent a carbon emission reduction that is in addition to a reduction that would otherwise occur. The Act leaves the rest to the CARB. In light of this broad discretionary power the Court considered various statutory interpretation arguments and concludes that the CARB has the power to use protocols to govern the creation of offsets and that the 4 protocols enacted thus far sufficiently ensure carbon emission reductions are additional even though it is possible that non-additional offsets will enter the market. To hold otherwise, the Court ruled it would have to forbid the use of offsets entirely and in doing so violate the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary by rewriting legislation.

The Alberta emissions offset program

In 2003 Alberta became the first Canadian jurisdiction to enact a legal and policy framework governing carbon emissions, with reporting obligations commencing in 2003 and emission reduction obligations commencing in 2007. The framework consists of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, SA 2003 c C-16.7 [CCEMA], and a number of regulations and policy enacted thereunder including the Specified Gas Reporting Regulation, Alta Reg 251/2004, the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation, Alta Reg 139/2007 [SGER], and policy guidance on matters such as the creation of carbon emission offsets and compliance reporting. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development is responsible for administering the carbon reduction program.

Unlike the cap-and-trade system in the EU and California, Alberta has a baseline-and-credit system which does not impose an absolute cap on carbon emissions but instead requires regulated emitters to reduce their carbon emissions per unit of economic production. Alberta’s framework thus allows for a rise in aggregate carbon emissions resulting from increased economic activity by regulated emitters.

Regulated emitters in Alberta are those with facilities that have carbon emissions in any single calendar year over 100 000 tons. Paradigm examples of facilities operated by regulated emitters include oil sands extraction and processing and coal-fired electricity generation. A regulated emitter must initially determine their baseline intensity of carbon emissions per unit of economic production in accordance with calculation prescribed in Part 4 of the SGER. Thereafter a regulated emitter must reduce its emissions per unit of economic production by up to 12 % per annum, depending on whether the facility is “established” or “new.” A regulated emitter is required to file a compliance report with Alberta Environment to confirm net carbon emissions at or below the intensity cap or acknowledge failure to comply with a proposal to remedy non-compliance. Failure to comply is an offence, and an offender is liable to a fine of up to $200 per ton above the allowable limit.

In cases where actual carbon emissions will exceed their intensity cap for a compliance period, a regulated emitter may submit emission offsets to cover the excess. Section 5 of the CCEMA authorizes the Alberta government to enact regulations governing the creation and use of an emissions offset for compliance purposes. Section 7 of the SGER establishes some of these provisions, while most of the details are set out in policy guidelines published by Alberta Environment. These guidelines are not policy so much as enforceable legal rules, since section 7(2) of the SGER states that an emissions offset must comply with these guidelines in order to be submitted for compliance.

Like California, Alberta uses the standards based or protocol method to govern the creation of carbon emission offsets. The SGER requires that an offset be created by an activity that follows an approved protocol for producing a demonstrable and quantifiable reduction of one ton of carbon emission that is not otherwise required by law. Alberta Environment policy guidance states that the offset must represent a reduction in carbon emissions that is above a business-as-usual or common practices threshold. As of the date of writing, Alberta Environment has approved 33 offset project protocols. Examples include landfill gas capture and combustion, waste heat recovery, and solar electricity generation.

Some concluding thoughts

The Alberta framework does not limit the number of offsets that a regulated emitter can use to meet its net emissions intensity cap for a compliance period. So the requirement of additionality in an offset is more acute in Alberta than in jurisdictions such as California which limit the number of offsets that can be submitted for compliance. To the extent it is possible for non-additional offsets to be generated in Alberta’s regime, it is also possible for a regulated emitter to exceed its intensity cap and comply by submitting non-additional offsets. The result would be a complete failure by the legal framework to curb carbon emissions.

The issue of additionality in offsets, however, is not currently at the forefront in Alberta like it is in California. This is likely because Alberta does not impose an absolute cap on carbon emissions and regulated emitters still have the compliance option of simply paying $15 per ton into the provincial carbon management fund to cover excess emissions in a compliance period. Alberta Environment reports that total fund payments have varied between approximately $50 and $80 million per year since 2008. So there really is no functional carbon market in Alberta.

Professor Fluker’s research on carbon markets is supported by a grant from Carbon Management Canada.

Lead PI Warren Mabee

KINGSTON, ON, May 2013 – Researchers at Queen’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy are working with Lafarge to test using low carbon fuels including construction and demolition waste, asphalt shingles, utility poles and railway ties, to help power cement plants.

Canada’s cement industry is responsible for up to 3% of the country’s carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and about 30-40% of those emissions are due to burning coal and petcoke. But there has been some reluctance to introducing mixed biomass waste as low carbon fuel in cement plants, says Dr. Warren Mabee, the lead investigator on the joint project with Lafarge.

“There has been concern about using some waste streams, partly because of a lack of good science to quantify emission reductions, and partly because people are worried that combustion of these materials might lead to other kinds of pollution,” he says. “This project is designed to explore these issues. We will be able to verify the practicality and safety of using these feedstocks in a real industrial process. Work to date indicates that they are safe and highly suitable.”

Carbon Management Canada (CMC) a national network that supports game-changing research to reduce CO₂ emissions in the fossil energy industry as well as from other large stationary emitters, is providing Mabee and his team (including Dr. Andrew Pollard, also at Queen’s) $400,000 over three years.

Mabee’s CMC-funded research feeds into a larger project undertaken by Lafarge and Natural Resources Canada. Together, all partners have contributed more than $8 million to develop innovative solutions to power Lafarge Canada’s cement plant in Bath, Ontario, by re-using local surplus materials as low carbon fuels.

Mabee’s project will also produce the first science to include comparative life cycle assessments, full emission comparisons, evaluation of water use, and burner optimization.

The low carbon fuels will include debris from construction and demolition sites, materials that can’t be recycled and railway ties. Cement plants combust burn fuel at a high enough temperature to achieve complete combustion which eliminates harmful emissions and converts non-combustible components into cement.

“These burners are already set up to handle coal – a very dirty feedstock – and therefore it’s easy for us to manage any negative emissions associated with burning cleaner, lower carbon alternatives,” says Mabee. “We will be measuring the impact of low carbon fuels in a real in a real plant making real cement. This will give us a very good sense of how these fuels will perform in the real world.”

In its most recent round of funding, CMC is awarding $3.75 million to Canadian researchers working on eight different projects. The awards were made after a rigorous, international, peer-reviewed process.

For printable PDF:

W. Mabee – Low carbon fuels

Lead PI Warren Mabee

Dr. Warren Mabee’s Round 3 CMC project – Low carbon fuel demonstration project for the cement industry – is part of the following initiative.

BATH, ON, May 3, 2013 – Lafarge Canada Inc, Natural Resources Canada, the Queen’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy and Carbon Management Canada announced today that they are joining forces and investing more than $8 million to develop innovative solutions to power Lafarge Canada’s cement plant in Bath, Ontario, by re-using local surplus materials as low carbon fuels.

This multi-partner initiative intends to produce low emission, low carbon fuels from local supplies such as construction and demolition site debris (wood based), railway ties, and other energy containing materials that aren’t presently recycled. The results of this full-scale demonstration program will enable the Canadian cement industry to adopt low carbon fuels faster, making the industry more competitive while providing better local value to local communities and, importantly, reducing carbon emissions.

“Our commitment is to build better cities and communities. Being a responsible neighbour and sustainable partner in the community where we live, work and raise our families is part our core values,” said Bob Cartmel, President and Chief Executive Officer in Eastern Canada for Lafarge Canada Inc. “We are delighted to bring this world class demonstration initiative to the Canadian cement industry. We believe that this project is exactly in line with our mission of building better cities by lowering our carbon footprint, making use of local fuel supplies, and creating local sustainable jobs.

In meeting Canada’s extensive infrastructure needs, the Canadian cement industry currently emits about 3.8% of the country’s carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and about 30-40% of those emissions are due to fossil fuel use. With the help of its partners, Lafarge Canada’s project will enable the Bath cement plant to use renewable, low carbon fuels that can be found locally, reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions, making use of materials that our cities and towns don’t currently reuse, and offer a sustainable alternative to the industry at large.

Carbon Management Canada (CMC), a network of Centres of Excellence that supports research to reduce CO₂ emissions, is funding Dr. Mabee, Dr. Pollard, and their team’s low carbon fuel research with a $400,000 grant over three years. Queen’s University will evaluate the life cycle benefits of low carbon fuels in the cement industry as well as in-depth validation of expected emission reductions.

“We will be measuring the impact of low carbon fuels in a real kiln, in a real plant, making real cement, said Dr. Warren Mabee, director of Queen’s University Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy and lead investigator on the joint project with Lafarge Canada. “This project will give us a very good sense of how these fuels will perform in the real world.”

Natural Resources Canada is awarding $2.68 million to Lafarge Canada to construct this full-scale demonstration plant.

“Through the ecoENERGY Innovation Initiative, our Government is investing in innovative clean energy technologies that create jobs, generate new economic opportunities and protect the environment,” said the Honourable Joe Oliver, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources. “This program demonstrates our tangible support for energy projects that drive energy innovation.”

Other project partners include Pollution Probe, WWF Canada, Queen’s University, the Cement Association of Canada, Mesa Bioenergy, Scott Environmental, and Rail Link, a Metis company.

To learn more about Dr. Mabee’s project:

Click here

Or access printable PDF

W. Mabee – Low carbon fuels

Prof. Nigel Bankes

Author: Prof. Nigel Bankes, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary

The attached post draws attention to a recent decision of the Energy Resources Conservation Board in Alberta dealing with a CO2-EOR miscible flood project. The decision points to an important gap in the property and regulatory framework for CO2-EOR projects in Alberta because of the absence of compulsory unitization provisions in Alberta’s oil and gas conservation legislation. In this particular case the project operator, Glencoe Resources, was unable to persuade one party to join the unitization. That party is now free-riding on Glencoe’s project. In the context of carbon management it is important to note that the free rider is also venting the CO2 which is produced in association with its oil. Had the pool in question been fully unitized the free rider’s producing well would have been integrated in Glencoe’s operations and any CO2 produced from that well captured and re-injected into the reservoir.

Click here to read complete blog

Or view PDF:
Blog_NB_Butte_Energy_May20131

Dr. Guy Mercier

What: Webinar on using hard rock mine waste to accelerate carbon mineralization
Who: Dr. Guy Mercier, INRS, Dr. Greg Dipple, UBC
When: Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 1 pm MT

To Register

CMC is hosting a webinar focusing on two carbon sequestration methods that involve waste rock from mines.

Featured speakers for the May 14 webinar are Dr. Greg Dipple, Department Head for Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of British Columbia, and Dr. Guy Mercier, of the Institut national de la recherche scientifique in Quebec. Both researchers are working on enhancing carbonation processes and both are using waste rock from mines, albeit using very different processes.

The webinar is one of a series CMC is developing to take research to a wider audience that includes industry stakeholders as well as other researchers in Canada and abroad.

“Our investigators are working on processes and technologies that we believe are of interest to industry stakeholders and to other researchers. The processes on which Dr. Mercier and Dr. Dipple are working will help reduce carbon emissions in industry and have the added benefit of saving costs for those industries,” said Richard Adamson, CMC Managing Director.

Crushed rock in flue gas streams

Mercier is working with an international team of researchers to develop a process that would see steel, coal and cement plants as well as oil and gas facilities remove most of the carbon dioxide (CO₂) from their emissions through chemical reactions with various types of crushed rocks in the stacks. Waste materials, such as rock, concrete or mine tailings, are crushed into a powder form and then released into a plant’s flue gas stream. The resulting chemical reaction removes about 80% of the CO₂. The resulting carbonate byproducts can be sold to a variety of industries for use as a refractory material or an alkaline agent in wastewater treatment.

“This will allow companies to profit while sequestering CO₂, says Mercier.

Accelerated mineralization with mine tailings

Dipple and his colleagues are also using mine waste material to sequester CO₂ but they are working with mine tailings in ponds. One area of investigation involves increasing the concentration of CO₂ supplied to a slurry similar in chemical composition to tailing process water. Results show a 200-fold rate of increase over atmospheric weathering just by increasing the concentration of CO₂ in the air passed through the slurry to 10%.

In a second approach Dipple’s team is using an enzyme, carbonic anhydrase, to catalyse the hydration of aqueous CO₂ to a form that can be mineralized. Ultimately, the team plans to combine both methods – higher concentrations of CO₂ will be used with the enzyme – for a vastly accelerated mineralization process.

Dipple points out that in mine waste rock and tailings that are rich in magnesium silicate minerals, carbon fixation capacity is much larger than total greenhouse gas production from mine operations. Some large mines could therefore operate as net carbon sinks, turning their mine waste into a resource by absorbing the carbon dioxide emissions of other industries.

The webinar begins at 1 pm MT on May 14, 2013. To register for this free event go to:
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5239318391439478272

Dr. Anita Arduini in Beijing

Dr. Anita Arduini, Program Director for CMC, recently attended the 6th International Petroleum Technology Conference in Beijing, China co-hosted by the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and ExxonMobil. She wrote this blog about her experience.

The 6th International Petroleum Technology Conference attracted over 3500 delegates from 60 countries with its theme of “Challenging Technology and Economic Limits to Meet the Global Energy Demand”.

The conference started with a CEO plenary session with comments from executives of CNPC, Royal Dutch Shell, Saudi Aramco, Baker Hughes and Woodside Energy Ltd. It was stated that traditional fossil fuels will continue to play a dominant role in the world’s energy mix, but new sources of energy will play an increasing role particularly unconventional oil and gas. Many of these new sources of energy will be found in challenging areas such as deep water and the Arctic. The cost of developing these resources is increasing.

Collaboration is necessary

All executives stressed that collaborations and partnerships are necessary for the development of the energy industry. No one company can do it alone anymore because the scale and cost of the projects are so large. Zhou Jiping, President of CNPC, stated that “We need international technological cooperation in an innovative manner to achieve mutual benefits and win-win outcomes”.

An example of an area for co-operation is in the development of China’s shale gas resources. While it was stated that by 2020, the portion of non-fossil energy is expected to reach 15% of China’s primary energy mix, there was no further discussion of alternative energy systems. The focus of the conference was definitely fossil fuel.

Social license to operate important

Questions from the delegates to the participants in the plenary session were focused around environmental impacts and interactions with communities. There was recognition that the “social license to operate” depended on continually improving the industry’s environmental performance along with effective communication with all partners. Industry needs to form partnerships with groups that it hasn’t been well connected with in the past.

The technical program of the conference consisted of over 600 papers presented in both technical sessions and in “ePoster” presentations. The “ePoster” format is being tried for the first time at this conference. The posters are displayed on 40 screens set up in the corridors of the conference centre. At specific times, authors of the posters are present to give mini-presentations. As well, delegates are able to access the ePosters at the stations thoughout the conference. The advantage of this system is that more information can be offered than is normally placed on a paper poster.

Richard Adamson, Managing Director

As many of you know CMC management, the Research Management Executive, and the Board have been working hard since last June to develop a new high-impact, sustainable business model. The objective is to put together a structure that:

1. Increases impact on real carbon emissions from large stationary sources;
2. Enables a balance between funding grant-based research programs and supporting strategic and contract research;
3. Expands the collaborative research network within and beyond the academic community, within Canada and internationally;
4. Increases access to resources (facilities and skills) to accelerate the maturation of promising academic research results; and
5. Enables long-term facilities and programs development.

In late March, CMC had an off-site Board retreat to walk through a straw-man proposal for ‘CMC2.0’ and received tremendous feedback and strong directional support. Now begins the hard work of putting together a much more detailed business plan in time for the June 2013 Annual Conference in Calgary.

We have already had informal discussions with many from industry, government and the research network as we develop these concepts and we will continue to reach out as this plan is developed. Thanks to all who have contributed their thoughts, concerns, insights and opinions and thanks in advance to those who will do so over the next few months.

Prior to the Board retreat the question came up – What role does and should CCS play in our thinking going forward?

While we have not definitively answered this question, it seems clear that CCS is still likely to be part of the long-term transition to a low-carbon future. Given the strong influence of decisions in the U.S. on domestic policy and funding priorities, we thought the following article from GCCSI on the prospective new Energy Secretary, Ernest Moniz was useful.

Another thought provoking report came in last week from the desk of Ralph Torrie, Managing Director of the Trottier Energy Futures Network.  They have just released An Inventory of Low-Carbon Energy for Canada , looking at the potential availability of carbon-free energy sources that might be harvested domestically by 2050.

Let us know what your thinking is on these important topics (and others) as we continue to develop our plan for CMC2.0.

Richard Adamson, CMC Managing Director, says the agreement smoothes the way for increased collaboration between researchers and will foster opportunities for graduate students.

Working together for mutual benefit

“This agreement builds and strengthens CMC’s existing relationships with international researchers and with organizations whose aims are similar to ours.,” says Adamson. “CMC and the Stanford Centre have shared interests that relate to the use, storage or sequestration of carbon and we recognized it would be mutually beneficial to work together to advance these interests. We’ll also be exploring additional opportunities for collaboration.”

In late March, an agreement between CMC and the Stanford Centre for Carbon Storage (SCCS) was executed which recognizes there are opportunities for the two organizations to share skills, facilities and experience.  The SCCS was established in 2011 to investigate questions and develop technologies related to the geological sequestration and storage of CO2. It is housed within the School of Earth Sciences at Stanford University.

As a first collaborative venture, CMC and SCCS have initiated a student exchange program (click here for details). Adamson notes that CMC’s planned Geosciences Field Research Station might also open opportunities for collaborative research ventures.

Anna Harrison and Dr. Greg Dipple

Four Carbon Management Canada graduate students from across the country have been accepted to attend the UK Energy Research Centre’s (UKERC) ninth annual Energy Summer School at the University of Warwick and will receive travel reimbursement from CMC.

The interdisciplinary summer school program has been specifically designed to give second year PhD students an opportunity to look beyond their own research and develop an understanding of energy systems as a whole and pathways to low-carbon and resilient energy systems. There are no tuitions fees for the school and the UKERC provides accommodation, meals and materials. CMC offered travel reimbursement of up to $2,000 for a limited number of students working on CMC-funded projects.

Travelling to the July summer school in the UK will be Paul Addo and Amir Bahman Radnejad, both from the University of Calgary, Anna Harrison from the University of British Columbia, and Abedeh Gholdoust, University of Alberta.

Paul Addo, a 2^nd year PhD Chemistry student studying with Dr. Viola Birss at the University of Calgary, is excited about the opportunity to attend the school and values the interdisciplinary nature of the program.

“­­­I believe this summer school will give me the opportunity to augment my knowledge in the various technologies currently being employed to mitigate CO₂ emissions. Also as a chemistry student I would like to broaden my knowledge and perspective on the geopolitical policies and challenges negating the rapid transition to carbon neutral based systems,” says Addo.

Addo’s research involves the development of reversible solid oxide fuel cell (RSOFC) based on a perovskite catalyst for the co-electrolysis of water and carbon dioxide to syngas. Reversible solid oxide fuel cells can run in both the electrolysis mode (SOEC) to electrolyze H₂O to H₂ or co-electrolyze CO₂/H₂O to syngas, when excess renewable energy is available and then run in fuel cell mode (SOFC) to convert H₂, natural gas or syngas to electricity and heat.

Anna Harrison, a 2^nd year PhD student in Geology, is hoping to gain a broader understanding of energy systems. Harrison recognizes the benefits of collaborating with other researchers and is looking forward to meeting colleagues from other disciplines and countries.

“The school will help provide context as to how scientific research regarding CO₂ sequestration fits into the global issue of developing a sustainable energy future, and offer guidance as to the introduction of these technologies into the global marketplace. In particular, I would like to learn more about the political and economic challenges related to the development of a low-carbon global energy system,” says Harrison.

Through her work with supervisor Dr. Greg Dipple, Harrison is investigating the potential to accelerate carbon mineralization reactions in Mg-rich mine tailings to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of mining operations. Sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide occurs passively under normal mining conditions at certain mine sites. If these passive rates are accelerated, large mines have the potential to more than offset their CO₂ emissions.  She is using experiments and reactive transport modeling to investigate methods to exploit the inherent sequestration capacity of mine tailings.

CMC International Exchange Subsidy Program for travel between  July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014

CMC graduate students and postdocs have until May 27 to apply  for CMC’s International Exchange Subsidy Program.

Travel that must be taken between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014. The support is for no more than 10 CMC HQP who have been accepted to work with an external research team at one of the following three partner organizations:

• The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre (UKCCSRC). Canadian HQP and academic investigators are asked to contact the Research Area Champions who lead the 18 research themes of the UKCCSRC to find an appropriate research group.

• The Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC). Canadian HQP and academic investigators are asked to contact the Australian researchers listed in the compilation of the research projects in the Annual Report of CO2CRC.

•  The Stanford Center for Carbon Storage (SCCS). Canadian HQP and academic investigators are asked to contact Faculty listed under the SCCS’s Research page.

As part of the exchange agreement, CMC will also fund Canadian academics to accept HQP (10 in total) from one of the three organizations listed above into their research team for a period of time of up to one month.

The funding support to cover travel costs, meals, accommodation and direct research costs will be covered by both CMC and the partner organizations up to a maximum contribution by CMC of $5000CDN per student for the UK, $6000CDN for Australia and $4000CDN for the US.

Eligibility for CMC-Funded HQP:

• A member of the research team of a CMC-funded research project.
• A graduate student or postdoc or research associate (i.e. HQP) supervised by a CMC-funded investigator.
• Must be able to take and complete the proposed trip abroad no later than June 30, 2014
• Must remain part of the research team during the proposed trip abroad.
• The host supervisor must be a member of one of the three international research organizations identified above.

Eligibility for HQP from the partner organizations:

• HQP of a research team affiliated with one of the three international research organizations identified above.
• Must be able to take and complete the proposed trip abroad no later than June 30, 2014.
• Must remain part of the research team during the proposed trip abroad.
• The host supervisor in Canada must be funded by CMC.

For more information, queries and application submission please contact Joan Smart at  joan.smart@cmc-nce.ca. Further details and application form are below.

CMC International Exchange Program 2013

CMC International Exchange Application Form