Unlocking Australia’s Low Carbon Liquid Fuel Opportunity

Policy Engagement Overview

InfluenceMap analysis indicates that engagement on the consultation and inquiry has been overall positive. A total of 22 companies and industry associations in InfluenceMap’s database submitted a response to the consultation. Of these, 11 (50%) appeared to be supportive of the consultation paper, while 6 (27%) appeared to be unsupportive, with the remaining 5 (23%) holding either mixed or unclear positions. Respondents came from a variety of sectors including prospective LCLF producers and users, including the oil and gas, mining, aviation and automotive sectors.

Policy Engagement Trends

• The aviation sector appeared to be particularly supportive of the consultation paper. Both Air New Zealand and Qantas advocated for a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) mandate as well as a low carbon liquid fuels (LCLF) standard along with Airlines for Australia & New Zealand (A4ANZ). While A4ANZ, Virgin Australia and Boeing all stated support for a SAF mandate, this support came with conditions including complementary incentives and that the need for the mandate to follow a technology neutral approach.

• The energy sector appeared to hold overall mixed positions on the consultation paper, although there was a clear split between companies and associations with clean energy interests and traditional fossil fuel companies and associations. The Clean Energy Council and the Smart Energy Council both stated their support for a LCLF mandate and for the emissions’ intensity threshold to be increased over time, while the Clean Energy Council also stated support for a SAF mandate and a LCLF standard. The Australian Hydrogen Council also appeared to support mandates and standards for LCLF, along with BP. Iberdrola also stated support for LCLF mandates and standards with exceptions, but also advocated for a LCLF standard which would favor zero-emissions fuels. The Australian Institute of Petroleum appeared supportive of measures to grow LCLF but stated that such measures should be technology neutral and use default emissions’ rates. Similar positions were also taken by Chevron, ExxonMobil and Origin Energy. Origin also advocated for requirements to not be prescriptive and that the emissions' threshold should be “set as low as possible” and appeared to suggest that fossil fuels should be eligible for support.

• The automotive sector appeared to be unsupportive of the LCLF consultation paper. Toyota stated support for LCLF incentives while stating that ‘excessive regulation’ should be avoided, and appeared to favor the continued role of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles over electric vehicles. A similar position was by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), of which Toyota is a member.

• The mining sector also appeared to be broadly unsupportive of the consultation paper, apart from Fortescue, which strongly supported the consultation paper. Fortescue advocated for a SAF mandate and for the increased use of bio-based SAF in aviation in the short-term, while also advocating against fossil fuel usage and incentives. However, other entities from the mining industry were less supportive of the consultation paper. The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) appeared to not support LCLF mandates while advocating for a technology neutral approach, a position also taken by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME).