Resource logo with tagline

EPC consortium to build Entergy hydrogen-ready power plant

A consortium of Mitsubishi Power Americas, Sargent & Lundy and TIC—The Industrial Company will provide Entergy with EPC services to build a Texas power plant.

A consortium of Mitsubishi Power Americas, Inc., Sargent & Lundy and TIC—The Industrial Company will provide Entergy Texas with engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) services to build the Orange County Advanced Power Station (OCAPS), according to a news release.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas approved Entergy Texas’ proposal to build the 1,215 megawatt (MW) combined-cycle power plant near Bridge City, Texas.

According to Texas PUC documentation, the agency approved construction of the plant but without the hydrogen component of the project, noting that Entergy may amend its application in a future proceeding. The PUC also noted in a January filing that the cost of the Orange County power station could be as much as $2.5bn.

The consortium partners’ combined expertise will help Entergy progress toward its energy transition goal:

  • Sargent & Lundy, known for its advanced class combined-cycle engineering experience, is the Engineer of Record.
  • TIC, which has a strong record for safe on-time construction, is the Constructor.
  • Mitsubishi Power, a world leader in power generation and storage solutions, is supplying its hydrogen-capable power train which includes two M501JAC enhanced air-cooled gas turbines, steam turbine, heat recovery steam generator, and advanced control system.

President and CEO of Entergy Texas Eliecer Viamontes, said, “The OCAPS facility will power the rapidly growing Southeast Texas region for years to come and continue our mission of providing cleaner, more reliable, and lower-cost energy for our customers. Additionally, the ability to unlock the plant’s hydrogen co-firing capability supports the plant’s long-term viability and will benefit our customers. OCAPS will be strategically located near hydrogen producers, pipeline, storage and off-takers to leverage this important source of clean and reliable energy in the future.”

“Through the strong collaboration and the extensive expertise of the project partners, we are strategically equipped to help Entergy achieve its decarbonization goals,” said Kurt Clardy, senior vice president of TIC. “We look forward to leveraging our vast experience to safely construct this industry-leading facility.”

Sargent & Lundy Chairman, President & CEO Victor Suchodolski said, “Being selected as the engineer of record is a wonderful opportunity for us to support Entergy’s long-term decarbonization goals. Along with our advanced class combined-cycle engineering experience, Sargent & Lundy has a deep understanding of the complexities associated with developing large-scale projects like this. We are closer to a cleaner energy future as we work with our partners to reach their 2050 net zero carbon targets.”

Bill Newsom, President and CEO, Mitsubishi Power Americas, said, “Mitsubishi Power realizes that to reach net zero carbon goals, we need to assemble teams with complementary expertise. We have been honored to work with Entergy on several recently commissioned power plants. We look forward to continued progress with Entergy and our EPC partners TIC and Sargent & Lundy.”

Unlock this article

The content you are trying to view is exclusive to our subscribers.
To unlock this article:

You might also like...

Fluor and Carbfix collaborating on CCS solutions

The companies look to partner with clients looking for end-to-end CO2 reduction. An MOU enables the two companies to pursue CO2 removal projects like direct air capture and bioenergy CCS.

Fluor Corporation has signed an MOU with Carbfix, the CO2 mineral storage operator, to pursue CCS solutions, according to a news release.

Together the companies look to decarbonize hard-to-abate industries like steel, aluminum and cement.

“The companies will leverage their respective expertise to partner with clients looking for end-to-end CO2 reduction,” the release states. “The MOU also enables the two companies to pursue CO2 removal projects such as direct air capture and bioenergy carbon capture and storage.”

Fluor will provide its proprietary carbon capture technology and EPC. Carbfix’ technology dissolves CO2 in water and injects it into porous basaltic rock formations, where natural processes cause the CO2 to form stable carbonate minerals within two years.

Carbfix has applied its method of turning CO2 into stone underground for more than a decade in Iceland. The company currently captures and mineralizes one-third of the CO2 emissions from Iceland’s largest geothermal power plant, with the goal of increasing this rate to 95% by 2025.

Read More »

Avangrid and Sempra tentatively planning US green hydrogen

Avangrid and Sempra Infrastructure have entered into a heads of agreement for the potential joint development of US green hydrogen and ammonia projects.

Avangrid and Sempra Infrastructure have entered into a heads of agreement (HOA) for the potential joint development of US green hydrogen and ammonia projects, according to a news release.

The HOA provides a framework for the companies to identify, appraise, and develop large-scale green hydrogen projects to serve US and international customers.

AVANGRID’s background in renewable development as the third largest renewables operators in the U.S., complements Sempra Infrastructure’s project development and commercial expertise across clean power, energy networks and LNG, the release states.

Read More »

Canada to fund CAD 800m for clean fuel projects

60 projects have been selected to receive funding through Canada’s CAD 1.5bn Clean Fuels Fund.

Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson announced that approximately 60 projects have been selected to receive funding under the Government of Canada’s CAD 1.5bn Clean Fuels Fund (CFF).

These projects represent a first tranche of the highest-ranking applications from last year’s call for proposals and have a total combined value of more than CAD 3.8bn. They include production facilities, as well as feasibility and front-end engineering and design studies, spanning seven jurisdictions and covering five different fuel types.

The federal government is undertaking negotiations to finalize the terms of funding for each project, and the total federal investment in these projects will be up to CAD 800m. This funding will help project proponents address critical barriers to growth in the domestic clean fuels market and lays the groundwork for the low-carbon fuels of the future.

A second tranche of projects, from last year’s call for proposal, is currently being reviewed, with funding decisions expected to be finalized in December. Once successful applicants have been informed, Natural Resources Canada will start contribution agreement negotiations.

Canada’s clean fuels industry is rapidly growing, owing to the global demand to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and bolster energy security. The importance of continued investment into the production, development and distribution of clean fuels together with their infrastructure and technology is clear, as Canada strives to position itself as a global leader with investments such as the CFF.

At today’s announcement, Minister Wilkinson also highlighted a combined investment of more than $8.8m to six organizations for 10 hydrogen and natural gas refuelling stations to help accelerate the decarbonization of road transportation. Federal funding for these projects was provided through Natural Resources Canada’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program (ZEVIP) and the Electric Vehicle and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Deployment (EVAFIDI).

The funding under ZEVIP and EVAFIDI includes:

Read More »
exclusive

Carbon capture OEM eyeing US for manufacturing plant

A Vancouver-based maker of carbon capture equipment is considering building a manufacturing plant in the US. Its number one target market: gray hydrogen producers.

Svante, a carbon capture original equipment manufacturer based in Vancouver, is eyeing the US as it seeks to expand its market presence across North America.

The company has raised sufficient capital to construct its first plant in Vancouver, where it will make specialized filters and contactor machines used in the carbon capture and removal processes, Svante CEO Claude Letourneau said in an interview.

Within several years, Svante is planning to build a second manufacturing facility in the United States, closer to where its customers are located and where CO2 can be monetized, Letourneau said.

Svante raised $318m last year in a series E fundraising round led by Chevron New Energies. It will spend approximately $100m to build the Vancouver facility.

Letourneau says the company’s principal target market in North America is existing gray hydrogen facilities that use steam methane reforming, of which there are around 1,000. The cost of adding carbon capture to existing SMR plants brings the cost of blue hydrogen from $1.50 per kilogram to around $2 per kilogram, according to Letourneau, compared to green hydrogen that will cost between $3 – $6 per kilogram with a similar carbon footprint.

“It’s a good solution,” he said.

Optimizing costs

As an original equipment manufacturer, Svante has partnerships with some of the largest EPC companies in the world for carbon capture projects: Kiewit in North America, Technip in Europe, and Samsung in Asia.

“When you have a technology that you want to take to market, you need to get the benefit of a close relationship with these EPC contractors if you want to deploy quickly and reduce costs,” he said.

He noted that the filters and contactors typically make up between 10% – 15% of the cost of a carbon capture plant, while the rest is in the balance of plant. Filters typically have a lifespan of three to five years, he said, allowing for additional recurring revenues for Svante after the initial installation.

Svante is working on five to six projects with Kiewit in North America that are in the pre-FEED and FEED stages, with FIDs expected by the end of next year. It is also working with Linde on a Department of Energy-sponsored pre-FEED carbon capture project for Linde’s Port Arthur gray hydrogen facility.

Additionally, Svante has a partnership with Swiss-based Climeworks for direct air carbon capture technologies.

“We want to be for carbon capture what GE Aerospace is for the jet engine industry,” he said, using an analogy to a market in which there are only several OEMs in a large, consolidated industry.

Target market

There are around 10,000 emitting plants globally that need carbon capture in order to decarbonize; meanwhile there are only 40 carbon capture facilities in operation, according to Letourneau. Svante’s Vancouver plant will be able to make equipment for around 10 plants per year, but eventually the company would like to scale up to between 50 – 100 plants per year with additional manufacturing capacity.

“This is a big problem we’re trying to solve here,” he said.

To build the second plant in the US, the company will explore using project finance debt and seek to take advantage of US government incentives for clean energy manufacturing. The recently enhanced carbon capture tax incentives – of $85 per ton of CO2 captured versus $50 previously – will also benefit Svante’s carbon-emitting customers.

In addition to gray hydrogen, the company is targeting carbon emissions from oil and gas refining as well as pulp and paper mills.

Use cases

Svante’s modular solid sorbent technology can be inserted to capture flue gas at the end of the refining process instead of inside the plant, offering fewer disruptions to existing systems. Svante then concentrates the CO2 into a pipeline grade for storage or industrial use.

“Nobody makes these filters in the world,” Letourneau continued, “so if I want to convince somebody to give Kiewit and ourselves a purchase order for $300m to build a 1 million-ton-per-year plant, they need to see that we have a manufacturing plant to make the filters, they need to see that we have the size of the contactor done at commercial size, and they need to see that we’ve done all the engineering studies to justify that this project can be monetized, economical, and the like.”

The company is sufficiently capitalized to advance the projects in its pipeline, and is focused on completing the Vancouver plant and garnering purchase orders in order to become profitable. A potential future exit could come in the form of an IPO or sale to a larger player, Letourneau said.

“We understand the market is quite buoyant and probably a few large companies are going to try to dominate, and they may decide they want to acquire a company like us, so an M&A is a possible exit in the next five years, depending on the conditions,” he said.

Read More »
exclusive

Of CfDs and RFNBOs: Untangling the global hydrogen policy web

US ammonia and hydrogen project developers are increasingly looking to Japan and South Korea as target markets under the belief that new rules for clean hydrogen and its derivatives in Europe are too onerous.

Much fuss has been made about the importance of pending guidance for the clean hydrogen industry from US regulators. Zoom out further and major demand centers like the European Union, Japan, and South Korea have similarly under-articulated or novel subsidy regimes, leaving US clean fuels project developers in a dizzying global tangle of red tape. 

But in the emerging global market for hydrogen and ammonia offtake, several themes are turning up. One is that US project developers are increasingly looking to South Korea and Japan as buyers, turning away from Europe following the implementation of rules that are viewed as too onerous for green hydrogen producers.

The other is that beneath the regulatory tangle lies a deep market, helping to answer one of the crucial outstanding questions that has been dogging the nascent ammonia and hydrogen industry: where is the offtake? 

Many projects are proceeding towards definitive offtake agreements and final investment decisions despite the risks embedded in potential changes in policy, according to multiple project finance lawyers. In most cases, reaching final agreements for offtake would not be prudent given the raft of un-issued guidance in these major markets, said the lawyers, who acknowledge a robust offtake market but may advise their clients against signing final contracts.

The European Union rules for green hydrogen and its derivatives became law in June, and included several provisions that are proving challenging for developers and their lawyers to structure around: prohibiting state-subsidized electricity in the production of green hydrogen, and the requirement that power for green hydrogen be purchased directly from a renewable energy supplier. 

Taken together, the policy developments have pushed many US project developers away from Europe and toward Japan and South Korea, where demand for low-carbon fuels is robust and regulations are viewed as less burdensome, if still undefined, experts say.

Developers are carefully choosing jurisdictions for their target offtake markets, “limiting their focus to North Asian rather than European buyers, with the expectation that certain standards and regulations will be less strict, at least in the near term,” said Allen & Overy Partners Hitomi Komachi and Henry Sohn, who are based in Japan and Korea, respectively.

Trade association Hydrogen Europe lambasted the new European rules last year while they were still in formation, saying they would cause a “mass exodus” of the continent’s green hydrogen industry to the US.

Make or break

US policymakers delivered a shock blow with last year’s approval of the Inflation Reduction Act – but its full benefits have yet to flow into the clean fuels sector due to outstanding guidance on additionality, regionality, and matching requirements. 

At the same time, the 45V tax credit for clean hydrogen has been called potentially the most complex tax credit the US market has ever seen, requiring a multi-layered analysis to ensure compliance. The US policy uncertainty is coated on top of an already-complex development landscape facing developers of first-of-kind hydrogen and ammonia projects using electrolyzer or carbon capture technologies. 

“Even though folks are moving forward with projects, the lack of guidance impacts parties’ willingness to sign definitive documents, because depending on the guidance, for some projects, it could break the economics,” said Marcia Hook, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington DC.

Now, US developers seeking access to international markets are contending with potential misalignment of local and international rules, with Europe’s recently enacted guidelines serving as a major example of poorly arrayed schemes. 

Some US developers have already decided it may be challenging to meet the EU’s more rigorous standards, according Hook, who added that, beyond the perceived regulatory flexibility, developers appear to be garnering more offtake interest from potential buyers in Asia.

Projects that depend on outstanding guidance in Asia are also moving ahead, a fact that, according to Alan Alexander, a Houston-based partner at Vinson & Elkins, “represents a little bit of the optimism and excitement around low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia,” particularly in Japan and Korea.

“Projects are going forward but with conditions that these schemes get worked out in a way that’s bankable for the project,” he added. “It’s not optimal, but you can build it in,” he said, referencing a Korean contract where conditions precedent require that a national clean hydrogen portfolio standard gets published and the offtaker is successful in one of the  Korean power auctions.

RED III tape

Unlike the US, the EU has focused on using regulation to create demand for hydrogen and derivative products through setting mandatory RFNBO quotas for the land transport, industry, shipping and aviation sectors, according to Frederick Lazell, a London-based lawyer at King & Spalding.

Lazell called the EU rules “the most fully-developed and broad market-creation interventions that policymakers have imposed anywhere in the world.” As a result, being able to sell RFNBO into Europe to meet these quotas is expected to fetch the highest prices – and therefore potentially the highest premiums to suppliers, he said.

The European guidelines enacted in June introduced several provisions that will make it challenging for US developers to structure projects that meet the EU’s classification for renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs).

For one, the European Commission issued guidance that prohibits subsidies for renewable energy generation when it is transmitted via a power purchase agreement through the electrical grid to make RFNBO.

This provision potentially eliminates all green hydrogen-based projects in the US from qualifying as an RFNBO, a managing partner at a US-based investment firm said, given that green hydrogen projects will likely be tied to renewables that are earning tax credits.

“The EC’s decision to include this restriction on State aid makes the EU’s version of additionality more onerous than even the strictest requirements being considered in the US,” lawyers from King & Spalding wrote in a September note, adding that some people in the industry argue that the decision is inexplicable under the RED II framework that authorized the European Commission to define additionality. 

A second challenge of the EU regulations is the mandate that PPAs be contracted between the RFNBO producer and the renewable energy source. Such a requirement is impossible for electricity markets where state entities are mandated to purchase and supply power, a structure that is common in multiple jurisdictions. Moreover, the requirement would remove the possibility of using a utility or other intermediary to deliver power for green hydrogen production.

“These technical issues may be serious enough for some in the industry to consider challenges before the Court of Justice of the European Union,” the King & Spalding lawyers wrote. “However, it is not yet clear whether there is the appetite or ability to turn such suggestions into a formal claim.”

Go East

Although the subsidy regimes in Japan and South Korea are expected to be less stringent in comparison to the EU, the programs are still not completely defined, which leaves some uncertainty in dealmaking as projects move forward.

The traditional energy sector has always dealt with change-in-law risk, but the risk is heightened now since regulations can change more rapidly and, in some cases, impact ongoing negotiations, said Komachi and Sohn, of Allen & Overy, in a joint email response. 

“Certain regulations coming into force may be contingent or related to the funding plan of the project,” they said. As such, clean fuels offtake frameworks need to facilitate not only the tracking and counting of emissions, they added, but also leave sufficient flexibility as regulatory frameworks evolve.

Japan, through its Hydrogen Basic Strategy, set out targets to increase the supply of hydrogen and ammonia in the country while reducing costs, deploying Japanese electrolysis equipment, and increasing investment into its supply chain. Additionally, Japan is contemplating a contracts-for-difference-style regime to support the gap between the price of clean hydrogen or ammonia and corresponding fossil fuels for 15 years.

Still, standards for “clean hydrogen” have not been clarified, though most observers believe the country will follow a carbon emissions lifecycle analysis in line with IPHE criteria, which is proposed at 3.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram of hydrogen. Similarly, rules around “stacking” subsidies in Japan with other jurisdictions such as the Inflation Reduction Act have not been defined.

Meanwhile, Korea is considering carbon emissions standards of up to 4 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of hydrogen. It is pushing for greater use of hydrogen in part through its Amended Hydrogen Act, requiring electric utilities to buy electricity made from hydrogen in a bidding round starting in 2024. The requirement scales up from 1,300 GWh of general hydrogen in 2025 to 5,200 GWh for general hydrogen and 9,5000 GWh for clean hydrogen in 2028.

Both countries are working to incentivize the entire supply chain for hydrogen and ammonia to ensure the separate pieces of infrastructure will be available on investable and bankable terms, with the aim of creating a demand center when the export centers are developed, Komachi and Sohn added.

They also point out that the emerging clean fuels offtake market will operate in the near term in a more spotty fashion in comparison with the more liquid markets for oil and gas.

“Hydrocarbon markets have gradually moved towards portfolio players, trading and optimization,” said Goran Galic, an Australia-based partner at Allen & Overy. “Smaller market size, technological and regulatory considerations mean that clean fuels, at least initially, require more of a point-to-point approach and so building long-term working relationships between the developers and offtakers is a key aspect of offtake strategy.”

Read More »
exclusive

Interview: Vinson & Elkins’ Alan Alexander on the emerging hydrogen project development landscape

Vinson & Elkins Partner Alan Alexander, whose clients include OCI and Lotus Infrastructure, has watched the hydrogen project development space evolve from a fledgling idea to one that is ready for actionable projects.

Vinson & Elkins Partner Alan Alexander, whose clients include OCI and Lotus Infrastructure, has watched the hydrogen project development space evolve from a fledgling idea to one that is ready for actionable projects.

In the meantime, a number of novel legal and commercial issues facing hydrogen project developers have come to the forefront, as outlined in a paper from the law firm this week, which serves as a guide for thinking through major development questions that can snag projects.

In an interview, Alexander, a Houston-based project development and finance lawyer, says that, although some of the issues are unique – like the potential for a clean fuels pricing premium, ownership of environmental attributes, or carbon leaking from a sequestration site – addressing them is built on decades of practice.

“The way I like to put it is, yes, there are new issues being addressed using traditional tools, but there’s not yet a consensus around what constitutes ‘market terms’ for a number of them, so we are having to figure that out as we go,” he says.

Green hydrogen projects, for example, are “quite possibly” the most complex project type he has seen, given that they sit at the nexus between renewable electricity and downstream fuels applications, subjecting them to the commercial and permitting issues inherent in both verticals.

But even given the challenges, Alexander believes the market has reached commercial take-off for certain types of projects.

“When the hydrogen rush started, first it was renewables developers who knew a lot about how to develop renewables but nothing about how to market and sell hydrogen,” he says. “Then you got the people who were very enthusiastic about developing hydrogen projects but didn’t know exactly what to do with it. And now we’re beginning to see end-use cases develop and actionable projects that are very exciting, in some cases where renewables developers and hydrogen developers have teamed up to focus on their core competencies.”

A pricing premium?

In the article, Vinson & Elkins lawyers note that commodities pricing indices are not yet distinguishing between low-carbon and traditional fuels, even though a clean fuel has more value due to its low-carbon attributes. The observation echoes the conclusion of a group of offtakers who viewed the prospect of paying a premium for clean fuels as unrealistic, as they would need to pass on the higher costs to customers.

Eventually, Alexander says, the offtake market should price in a premium for clean products, but that might depend in the near term on incentives for clean fuels demand, such as carbon offsets and levies, like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.

“Ultimately what we need is for the market to say, ‘I will pay more for low-carbon products,’” he says. “The mindset of being willing to pay more for low-carbon products is going to need to begin to permeate into other sectors. 30 or 40 years ago the notion of paying a premium for an organic food didn’t exist. But today there are whole grocery store chains built around the idea. When the consumer is willing to pay a premium for low-carbon food, that will incentivize a farmer to pay a premium for low carbon fertilizer and ammonia, which will ultimately incentivize the payment of a premium for low-carbon hydrogen. The same needs to repeat itself across other sectors, such as fuels and anything made from steel.”

The law firm writes that US projects seeking to export to Europe or Asia need to take into account the greenhouse gas emissions and other requirements of the destination market when designing projects.

In the agreements that V&E is working on, for example, clients were first focused on structuring to make sure they met requirements for IRA tax credits and other domestic incentives, Alexander says. Meanwhile, as those clean fuels made their way to export markets, customers were coming back with a long list of requirements, “so what we’re seeing is this very interesting influx” of sustainability considerations into the hydrogen space, many of which are driven by requirements of the end-use market, such as the EU or Japan.

The more stringent requirements have existed for products like biofuels for some time, he adds, “but we’re beginning to see it in hydrogen and non-biogenic fuels.”

Sharing risk

Hydrogen projects are encountering other novel commercial and legal issues for which a “market” has not yet been developed, the law firm says, especially given the entry of a raft of new players and the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.

In the case of a blue hydrogen or ammonia project where carbon is captured and sequestered but eventually leaks from a geological formation, for example, no one knows what the risk truly is, and the market is waiting for an insurance product to provide protection, Alexander says. But until it does, project parties can implement a risk-sharing mechanism in the form of a cap on liabilities – a traditional project development tool.

“If you’re a sequestration party you say, ‘Yeah, I get it, there is a risk of recapture and you’re relying on me to make sure that it doesn’t happen. But if something catastrophic does happen and the government were to reclaim your tax credits, it would bankrupt me if I were to fully indemnify you. So I simply can’t take the full amount of that risk.’”

What ends up getting negotiated is a cap on the liability, Alexander says, or the limit up to which the sequestration party is willing to absorb the liability through an indemnity.

The market is also evolving to take into account project-on-project risk for hydrogen, where an electrolyzer facility depends on the availability of, for example, clean electricity from a newly built wind farm.

“For most of my career, having a project up and reaching commercial operations by a certain date is addressed through no-fault termination rights,” he says. “But given the number of players in the hydrogen space and the amount of dollars involved, you’re beginning to see delay liquidated damages – which are typically an EPC concept – creep into supply and offtake agreements.”

If a developer is building an electrolyzer facility, and the renewables partner doesn’t have the wind farm up and running on time, it’s not in the hydrogen developer’s interest to terminate through a no-fault clause, given that they would then have a stranded asset and need to start over with another renewable power provider. Instead, Alexander says, the renewables partner can offset the losses by paying liquidated damages.

Commercial watch list

In terms of interesting commercial models for hydrogen, Alexander says he is watching the onsite modular hydrogen development space as well as power-to-fuels (natural gas, diesel, SAF), ammonia and methanol, given the challenges of transporting hydrogen.

“If you’re going to produce hydrogen, you need to produce it close to the place where it’s going to be consumed, because transporting it is hard. Or you need to turn it into something else that we already know how to transport – natural gas, renewable diesel, naphtha, ammonia.”

Alexander believes power-to-fuels projects and developers that are focused on smaller, on-site modular low-carbon hydrogen production are some of the most interesting to watch right now. Emitters are starting to realize they can lower their overall carbon footprint, he says, with a relatively small amount of low-carbon fuels and inputs.

“The argument there is to not completely replace an industrial gas supplier but to displace a little bit of it.”

At the same time, the mobility market may take off with help from US government incentives for hydrogen production and the growing realization that EVs might not provide a silver-bullet solution for decarbonizing transport, Alexander adds. However, hydrogen project developers targeting the mobility market are still competing with the cost of diesel, the current “bogey” for the hydrogen heavy mobility space, Alexander says.

Read More »

Welcome Back

Get Started

Sign up for a free 15-day trial and get the latest clean fuels news in your inbox.