Publications, Reports & Research
Our publications, reports and research library hosts over 500 specialist reports and research papers on all topics associated with CCS.
In several European countries, recent initiatives to launch carbon capture and storage demonstration projects faced strong local opposition over perceived health, environmental, and property risks, putting policy makers under pressure to provide additional safety guarantees. One way to increase safety standards is to strengthen the criteria in Article 12 of Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of CO2, which is based on the London Protocol and OSPAR Convention requirements on the purity of the captured CO2 stream. The German and the Dutch draft legislation implementing Directive 2009/31/EC both provide for the possibility to impose additional CO2 stream-purity requirements. The paper examines the scope for EU Member States to adopt stricter CO2 stream-purity criteria under EU law. Based on an analysis of the relevant case law of the European Court of Justice and the content of Directive 2009/31/EC, it concludes that the scope for EU Member States to adopt stricter CO2 stream-purity criteria under EU law is likely to be narrow. The room for non-EU parties to the London Protocol and OSPAR Convention to adopt such stricter requirements might likewise be limited.
Upon its adoption in the Directive revising the European Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (Directive 2009/29), Article 10(a)8 was heavily criticized by a number of environmental organizations and legal scholars for disturbing the EU ETS’ market mechanism. Article 10(a)8 provides for the possibility to co-finance the up to 12 planned European Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration projects as well as innovative renewable energy demonstration projects through the EU ETS new entrants reserve. The criticism of Article 10(a)8 raises doubts as to the article’s consistency with the EU ETS (and its overarching goals) as such and, in essence, questions the measure’s proportionality. It is not unthinkable that the EU law principle of proportionality will in future be used to challenge the validity of Article 10a(8). This article argues that it is in that case unlikely that the Court of Justice of the European Union would declare Article 10a(8) to infringe the principle of proportionality.