Co-product certification and CO2 netback

The official consultation question

Q42 · §4.6(c) · paper page 33

Noting GreenPower’s announcement about developing a biogenic CO2 certification, subject to recognition in broader frameworks (e.g. NGERs) are there gaps in national certification or standards for this or other co-products?

Shelby’s response

Yes. Developers and buyers need a clear pathway from recovered material to an accepted commercial product. GreenPower's biogenic CO2 certification initiative can provide assurance of biological origin, but origin certification should not be confused with product quality. Food, beverage and industrial customers may require separate specifications for purity, contaminants, quality management, traceability, storage and transport. Policy should make these interfaces explicit so that a producer can understand the complete route from recovered CO2 to an accepted customer product. For digestate, consistent testing, nutrient labelling and lawful-use pathways are similarly important.

For policy appraisal, Shelby recommends that biogenic CO2 revenue be modelled on a netback basis rather than assumed gross selling price. In the absence of transparent published Australian bulk contract prices, a prudent sensitivity case for early project appraisal would test approximately A$250/t ex-works netback, with an upside case around A$400/t where food/beverage quality, favourable location and contracted demand justify it. These are policy-modelling assumptions, not asserted Australian market prices. Financeable project models should ultimately use contracted revenue after purification, liquefaction, quality assurance, storage, loading and any producer-borne commercialisation costs.

European operating approach provides a practical example of this separation. Verdemobil's BioCO2 installations for example; can be configured to produce food- and beverage-grade liquid CO2 to customer specifications based on EIGA and ISBT quality requirements. High-precision online quality assurance can include UNISENSOR CARBOSCAN 300 analysers, which use optical absorption spectroscopy, monitor more than 40 contaminants and are designed to satisfy ISBT and EIGA quality requirements. This type of continuous analytical control, combined with process design, traceability and quality-management procedures, is particularly relevant where recovered biogenic CO2 is intended for food and beverage markets.

Requirements should be coordinated, with proportionate compliance costs for smaller plants and scope for shared verification services in regional clusters. Buyers should be able to establish what the product contains, where it came from and which environmental claims they may make. Recovering CO₂ for manufacturing can create useful domestic supply.

Frequently asked questions

What is Shelby’s position on co-product certification and co2 netback?

Biological origin certification does not replace product quality or customer qualification. Shelby recommends explicit interfaces and netback-based CO2 appraisal; proposed A$250/t and A$400/t sensitivity cases are modelling assumptions, not asserted Australian market prices.

What should a project team read alongside this answer?

Read the linked commercial guides and original question. Separate the response’s recommendations and illustrative assumptions from source-reported operating evidence.

Sources & References

• Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, National Renewable Gas Policy consultation

  Publication: Date not verified

  Observation period: Not recorded

  Relevant page / section: Claim-level locator not yet verified

  Last link / title verification: 2026-10-11

  Publisher link checked; individual claims, costs and regulatory applicability still require review.

  Check scope and current applicability before relying on this reference.

• Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, National Renewable Gas Policy consultation paper

  Publication: 2026-08

  Observation period: Australia; 2026 consultation

  Relevant page / section: Consultation questions; use answer-specific paper page and question reference

  Last link / title verification: 2026-10-11

  Publisher link checked; individual claims, costs and regulatory applicability still require review.

  Source for questions/context, not proof of an implemented support mechanism. Question text attribution: Commonwealth, CC BY 4.0, as noted in Shelby’s supplied consultation response.

• Creative Commons, Attribution 4.0 International

  Publication: Date not verified

  Observation period: Not recorded

  Relevant page / section: Claim-level locator not yet verified

  Last link / title verification: 2026-10-11

  Publisher link checked; individual claims, costs and regulatory applicability still require review.

  Check scope and current applicability before relying on this reference.