20150831-IEA-7th_CCS_Regulatory_Network_Meeting_Workshop_Report_2015_19页_896kb

7th IEA International CCS Regulatory Network Meeting Summary

Core Content

The 7th IEA International CCS Regulatory Network Meeting, held in Paris on 22-23 April 2015, brought together 35 representatives from national and sub-national governments, industry, and research communities to discuss the regulatory development and implementation of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies. The meeting focused on the permitting processes, the regulation of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects, and the interaction of CCS regulation with broader emissions reduction schemes, both domestically and internationally.

Main Objectives

• To review the experiences of CCS projects and regulators in applying for and issuing permits.
• To share knowledge and support jurisdictions in developing regulatory frameworks.
• To explore the regulation of existing EOR projects for CO₂ storage.
• To examine the interaction between CCS regulation and emissions reduction schemes.
• To discuss international standards and regulatory processes affecting CCS.

Key Sessions and Findings

Session 1 – Long Term Liability Workshop Review

• The IEA and Global CCS Institute co-hosted an expert workshop on managing long-term liability for CO₂ storage.
• Key findings:
  • Liability remains a critical issue for CCS projects.
  • There is a difference in perception of risks compared to reality.
  • Good site selection, supported by a solid regulatory framework, is fundamental.
• The workshop highlighted the unique nature of CO₂ liability, including "climate liability" due to potential leakage under emissions reduction frameworks.
• A separate workshop report summarizing the discussion and findings is expected to be published.

Session 2 & 3 – Country Updates

• European Commission:
  • The CCS Directive (2009/31/EC) is being implemented across EU member states.
  • The Innovation Fund (NER 400) is proposed as a follow-up to the NER 300, expanding the scope of eligible technologies.
  • As of 2015, six EU member states are fully compliant with the directive.
• Poland:
  • Implemented the directive in 2013 via an amendment to the Geological and Mining Law.
  • The Ministry of the Environment oversees CCS legislation and requires a fee for CO₂ storage activities.
  • A review of the current approach is planned for 2024.
• United Kingdom:
  • Supports CCS deployment through the Electricity Market Reform (EMR) and a £1 billion commercialisation program.
  • Two projects, White Rose and Peterhead, are in the FEED stage with FID expected in early 2016.
• Portugal:
  • CCS is not a top policy priority but some activity is ongoing, including the development of a roadmap and identification of storage resources.
• Canada:
  • Leads in CCS deployment with four operational or under-construction projects.
  • Alberta has a 2010 amendment to the Mines and Minerals Act regulating CCS, including the Post Closure Stewardship Fund (PCSF).
• United States:
  • The EPA is finalizing rules under the Clean Air Act, including the Clean Power Plan.
  • CO₂ injection for storage requires a Class VI permit, while EOR projects use Class II permits.
  • Six Class VI permits have been issued to date, including for the FutureGen and ADM projects.
• Korea:
  • Aims for a 30% reduction in emissions by 2020, with around 2 MtCO₂ expected to come from CCS.
  • Has a CCS roadmap and is conducting R&D and exploring geological storage capacity, estimated between 1.9 and 5.1 GtCO₂.

Session 4 – International Activities

• The International Standards Organisation (ISO) is developing standards for CCS through Technical Committee 265 (TC265), chaired by Sandra Locke.
• TC265 has six working groups covering capture, transport, geologic storage, verification, risk management, and vocabulary.
• Draft technical reports and international standards are under development, with some expected to be finalized by late 2015.
• The London Protocol amendment allows for the export of CO₂ for storage under the seabed, but requires ratification by two-thirds of parties. Only two have ratified so far, with five in the process.

Day 2 Sessions

Session 5 – Permitting Processes: Project and Regulator Perspectives

• Several projects have been granted CO₂ storage permits, including:
  • Illinois Industrial CCS (IICCS): ADM's project in Decatur, Illinois, which is part of the IBDP pilot.
  • Shell Quest: A CCS project in Alberta, Canada, under construction with a planned start in 2015.
  • CarbonNet (Australia): A hub-style project in Gippsland, seeking to build a multi-user CCS network.
• Permitting involves detailed modeling and monitoring to ensure storage integrity.
• In the US, the post-injection site closure (PISC) period is 50 years, but ADM was granted a 10-year period due to demonstrated stability.
• In the UK, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Crown Estate manage approvals. The Crown Estate grants exclusive leases for subsurface pore space.
• In Australia, regulatory challenges include inconsistencies between Victorian and federal legislation, particularly regarding long-term liability.

Session 6 – Operation and Regulation of CO₂-EOR

• CO₂-EOR has been used for decades in the US to enhance oil recovery.
• It involves injecting CO₂ into oil reservoirs to increase oil production and reduce emissions.
• Presentations from Gassnova, University of North Dakota, and University College London explored the regulatory and operational aspects of CO₂-EOR.
• The process can unlock an additional 10-15% of the original oil in place.

Session 7 – Interaction of CCS Regulation with Emissions Reduction Schemes

• The meeting discussed how CCS regulation interacts with domestic and international emissions reduction schemes.
• The EU ETS is seen as a key driver for CCS deployment, though the directive has seen limited project experience.
• The review of the CCS Directive found that while it is fit for purpose, modifying it could create uncertainty.
• The US Clean Power Plan and other regulations were examined for their potential impact on CCS deployment.

Conclusion

The meeting emphasized the importance of developing and refining regulatory frameworks to support the deployment of CCS technologies. It highlighted the need for clear liability arrangements, consistent international standards, and the role of existing EOR projects in testing regulatory processes. The participants from various jurisdictions shared experiences and insights, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in CCS regulation.

Key Information

• IEA Mandate: Promote energy security and provide research on reliable, affordable, and clean energy.
• CCS Roadmaps: Outlined the need for faster deployment than initially anticipated.
• Permitting Process: Varies by jurisdiction, with examples from the US, Canada, UK, and Australia.
• Liability: A major concern, with the need for clear frameworks and financial security instruments.
• International Standards: ISO TC265 is developing standards for capture, transport, and storage.
• EOR Projects: Used for testing regulatory frameworks and have different classifications (Class II and Class VI) in the US.
• Regulatory Challenges: Exist in Australia due to jurisdictional differences and in the EU due to limited project experience.

Annex

• Annex 1: Meeting Agenda is available for reference.