1. Session 3: The EU CCS Directive – three different approaches:
the UK, the Netherlands and Norway
Tuesday 25 March 2014, 0900 AEDT

2. Junior Professional Legal and Regulatory Tutorial Group
The Junior Professional Legal and Regulatory Tutorial Group is a Global CCS
Institute learning opportunity, presented by leading experts, that focuses on
developing the CCS legal and regulatory knowledge of junior professionals, recent
graduates and students.
Session 1
Sallie
Greenberg
Public Engagement RCSP Project Development and the Legal
Issues, Class VI permitting issues
Session 2
Steve
Carpenter
ISO process
Session 3
Diana
Poputoaia
EU Transposition of CCS Directive in Romania
Session 4 Andrew Gilder CCS in South Africa

3. Craig Hart
Craig Hart is the ENN Group Associate Professor at Renmin
University of China's School of Environment and Natural
Resources and a Lecturer at Johns Hopkins University's
Energy Policy and Climate program. As a practicing attorney,
he has over 15 years' experience practicing law in the fields
of project finance, carbon finance and capital markets. He
has represented project developers in the United States
geologic sequestration demonstration projects, in China on
Ingtegrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power
projects under China's 863 Program, and has advised
industry groups and international organizations on CCS
policy and regulation in the United States and Asia. He is
currently conducting separate studies of CCS regulation for
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Asian
Development Bank covering nine developing countries. He
holds a PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and a JD from the University of California at Berkeley.

4. Pamela Tomski
Pamela Tomski is the Senior Advisor, Policy and Regulatory –
Americas at the Global CCS Institute. She has over 15 years'
experience working globally on various aspects of carbon capture
and storage (CCS) technologies from building research,
development, and demonstration collaborations to education and
capacity building, regulatory frameworks, and policy and market
development. She is Founder & Director of the Research
Experience in Carbon Sequestration (RECS) program, the premier
US CCS education and training experience and career network for
young professionals; Advisory Board Member of the Southeast
Carbon Sequestration Technology Training Program, and CCUS
Research Coordination Network. Pamela has been active with the
US regional carbon sequestration partnerships, and served as
Director of Regulatory Compliance, Education and Outreach in the
Big Sky region.
She is also a member of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) CCS Academic Task
Force, an expert peer reviewer for the International Energy Agency (IEA) Greenhouse Gas Technologies
Conference, and stakeholder to the IEA Clean Coal Centre. Pamela serves as a Senior Fellow at the
Atlantic Council, a Washington, DC-based think tank, with a focus on clean energy technologies,
including advanced fossil energy systems and CCS. She is an Adjunct Professor at Tuskegee University,
and Advisor to the Inter-University Student Initiative in Carbon Sequestration.

5. Diana Poputoaia
Diana Poputoaia has over 7 years of experience of providing legal
advice on structuring, financing and permitting energy, PPP and
infrastructure projects. Under the umbrella of Oxford University,
Environmental Change Institute, Diana was the lead author of a report
on tradable green certificates in the European Union and investment
risks reduction. The report provided an understanding of renewable
energy sources – electricity support schemes in the European Union. In
the recent years, Diana has also started looking into carbon capture
and storage regulations across the European Union. Diana
collaborated with the Global Carbon and Capture Institute on revising
the carbon capture and storage legislation in Romania, and on
examining the lessons learned in the European Union following the
transposition of the European Union Carbon Capture and Storage
Directive. Diana graduated from the Law School in Iasi (Romania’s
oldest university) and holds an MSc in Environmental Change and
Management from the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford
University, UK.

6. QUESTIONS
 We will collect questions during
the lecture.
 Your tutors will pose these
questions to the lecturer once
the lecture has concluded.
 Please submit your questions
directly into the GoToWebinar
control panel.
The webinar will start shortly.

7. The EU CCS Directive – three
different approaches:
the UK, the Netherlands and Norway
24/03/2014

8. TOPICS
1. The EU CCS Directive
2. Transposition of the EU CCS Directive
3. Main barriers and proposed solutions
4. Conclusions

9. 1. The EU CCS Directive (I)
• The common denominator for the CCS regulatory
frameworks across the EU by setting:
– Principles (e.g. no CO2 storage in the water columns, only
storage sites with no significant risk of leakage,
environmental or health impacts should be selected); and
– Rules (e.g. the compulsory set up of a financial provision
securing closure and post-closure obligations) that need to
be complied with by all Member States
• Simultaneously, a number of issues are left to the
Member States to regulate in greater detail (e.g. the
instruments for the financial contribution for the
transfer of responsibility)

10. 1. The EU CCS Directive (II)
• November 2013 – the European Commission:
– Has requested Austria, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland,
Sweden and Slovenia to adopt the necessary
measures to fully transpose the EU CCS Directive
into their national law
– Has closed infringement cases against Belgium,
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia,
Greece, Finland, Luxembourg, Latvia and the
United Kingdom
• 2015 review of the CCS Directive

11. 2. Transposition of the CCS Directive (I)
• The UK:
– Integration of the CCS Directive into existing
legislation
– Leader in developing regulations and funding
mechanisms for supporting the development of CCS
projects (e.g. national competition for funding CCS
projects, financial support for CCS projects through
low carbon Contracts for Difference)
– No CCS project operational yet
– February 2014: the White Rose and Peterhead
projects share £100m funding under UK CCS
commercialization programme

12. 2. Transposition of the CCS Directive
(II)
• Norway:
– The CCS Directive entered into force on 1 June 2013 –
it had to be included first into the European Economic
Area Agreement, as Norway is not part of the
European Union
– The first “full” CCS projects at Sleipner (1996) and
Snøhvit (2008) are being operated under the
Norwegian petroleum legislation, without any specific
adaptions
– A significant potential for trans-boundary CO2 storage

13. 2. Transposition of the CCS Directive
(III)
• The Netherlands:
– Literal transposition of the CCS Directive
– The ROAD project received the storage license in 2012
• Most controversial points:
– financial security
– transfer of responsibility
– financial contribution under the financial mechanism

14. 3. Main barriers and
proposed solutions (I)
• Financial security
– Article 19 of the CCS Directive
– The main uncertainty relates to the price of EUAs in the
long run
– Potential solution to address the uncertainty over the
EUAs price: Member States to agree on a “ceiling and
floor” price per EUA
– Such a shared liability scheme may be interpreted as a
deviation from the “polluter pays principle” and may also
require the EC’s approval as it may amount to state aid
– Other issues include: calculation method, instruments,
activities covered

15. 3. Main barriers and
proposed solutions (II)
Barrier Country specific considerations
The UK The Netherlands Norway
Financial
security
- Amount high
enough to cover the
operator’s
obligations
- In force before
injection until
transfer of liability
- Adjustable by
relevant authorities
- No regulation of
calculation method,
terms & conditions,
triggering
procedure
- No regulation of
calculation method or
activities covered
- ROAD: cost of
monitoring,
contingency
monitoring,
abandonment,
financial contribution
& cost of EUAs in case
of leakage
- The uncertainty over
the cost of EUAs in
case of leakage
remains
- Amount and other
terms and
conditions
established by the
parties, on a case
by case basis
- Potential solution:
amount depending
on the cost for
government to
cover all duties
and obligations in
a worst case
scenario
- Parent guarantee

16. 3. Main barriers and
proposed solutions (III)
• Transfer of responsibility
– Article 18 of the CCS Directive
– Lack of clear criteria for determining whether the
transfer of responsibility can operate or not
– Competent authorities assess whether the
transfer of liability can operate based on the
documents produced by license holders
– The 20 years rule which involves high costs for
monitoring, insurance, etc.

17. 3. Main barriers and
proposed solutions (IV)
Barrier Country specific considerations
The UK The Netherlands Norway
Transfer of
responsibility
- Wider extent of
the permitted
transfer of
responsibility, i.e.
any leakage
liabilities (e.g.
personal injury,
damage to
property and
economic loss)
- March 2013 –
lack of clear
criteria for the
transfer to
operate
- Lack of sufficient
clarity on the
conditions for the
decrease in the 20
years rule to
operate: Which
evidence that the
CO2 stored is
completely and
permanently
contained? Will
authorities be
impartial in assessing
this evidence?
- Existing legislation
does not address
this concept
- Conditions for the
transfer of
responsibility will
have to be
determined at the
time of
decommissioning

18. 3. Main barriers and
proposed solutions (V)
• Financial contribution under the financial mechanism
– Article 20 of the CCS Directive
– It should cover monitoring costs for 30 years and costs
borne by the competent authority for ensuring that the
CO2 is permanently contained
– Challenge: determining the amount of the financial
contribution for the transfer of liability to actually operate
– ROAD project (the Netherlands): the financial contribution
covers only the cost of monitoring
– Norway: the financial contribution depends on the specific
conditions for each storage facility, and how much CO2 is
stored, thus enabling the calculation of the potential
leakage and associated costs

19. 3. Main barriers and
proposed solutions (VI)
Barrier Country specific considerations
The UK The Netherlands Norway
Financial
contribution
under the
financial
mechanism
- Coverage of
post – transfer
costs, i.e. the
costs for which
the authority
will be liable as
a result of the
transfer of
liabilities and
obligations to
the authority
- What amount?
Difficult to estimate
the post-transfer costs
to ensure that the CO2
is completely and
permanently stored
- ROAD – only
monitoring costs
- Existing legislation
does not regulate
this concept
- Criteria & amount
may be
determined on a
case by case basis
- No financial
contribution for
Sleipner & Snohvit

20. 4. Conclusions
• The role of public authorities can be extremely important: driver or
barrier
• No transposition method may be considered better than the other
• Unclear time framework for regulations addressing the main
barriers: before or after the 2015 review of the CCS Directive
• The development of CCS regulatory frameworks in the EU is
dependent upon practical experience
• Despite all uncertainties and associated risks, some CCS demo
projects across the EU make progress in their permitting

21. QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION
Please submit your questions in
English directly into the
GoToWebinar control panel.
The webinar will start shortly.

22. Tutorial Extranet Group:
https://inside.cleanenergyconnect.com/groups/junior-professional-legal-
and-regulatory-group-2014