D3.2 Identification of potential PCI

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101075693 This project has received funding from UK Research and Innovation - Innovate UK under Innovation Funding Service (ISF) Deliverable 3.2 Identification of potential PCI Release Status: Final Author: Leandro-Henrique Sousa, Oskar Rei and Johan Hauge Johannessen (Ramboll), Ane Elisabet Lothe and Ragnhild Skagestad (SINTEF Industry), Adam Wójcicki (PGI-NRI), Alla Shogenova and Kazbulat Shogenov (TalTech), Lena Wammer Østgaard and Ingvild Ombudstvedt (IOM Law), Isaline Gravaud (BRGM) Date : 22 November 2024 Filename and version: CCUS-ZEN-D3.2-v2.docx Project ID NUMBER: 101075693 CCUS ZEN - Zero Emission Network to facilitate CCUS uptake in industrial clusters (HORIZON-CL5-2021-D3-02-12) Ref. Ares(2025)1146877 - 13/02/2025 D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 2 Document History Location This document is stored in the following location: Filename CCUS-ZEN-D3.2-v2.docx Location Revision History This document has been through the following revisions: Version No. Revision Date Brief Summary of Changes Name 0 15/10/2024 First version for review Leandro-Henrique Sousa 1 13/11/2024 Reviewed version by partners Leandro-Henrique Sousa 2 22/11/2024 Version for approval Leandro-Henrique Sousa Authorisation This document requires the following approvals: AUTHORISATION Name Signature Date WP Leader or coleader Alla Shogenova 22.11.2024 Project Coordinator Eirik Falck da Silva 22.11.2024 D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 3 © CCUS ZEN Consortium, 2024 This document contains information which is proprietary to the CCUS ZEN consortium. No third-party textual or artistic material is included in the publication without the copyright holder’s prior consent to further dissemination by other third parties. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Disclaimer Co-funded by the European Union and UK Research and Innovation. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or UK Research and Innovation. Neither the European Union nor UK Research and Innovation can be held responsible for them. No industry has committed at this stage to implement the scenarios presented in the deliverable D3.2. The scenario presented here, while based on an industrial reality, is a forward-looking scenario that explores the potential of CCUS in the Baltic region. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 4 Executive summary The CCUS ZEN project is a European initiative to promote the deployment of Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With a focus on the Baltic and Mediterranean Sea regions, the project evaluates the technical and non-technical aspects of potential CCUS value chains, selecting promising sites for eventual full-scale deployment. The document summarises work from the CCUS ZEN project's Task 3.2 of Work Package 3, discussing the requirements and advantages of obtaining Project of Common Interest (PCI) status. The classification as a PCI is crucial for vital energy infrastructure projects within the EU, supporting the European goal for climate neutrality by 2050 by interconnecting energy systems of Member States, enhancing market competition, and securing energy supply. The report identifies potential CCUS infrastructure candidates for PCI and lists the main factors that set them in line with the Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) Regulation. The proposed PCIs can be crucial to integrate key energy markets within the EU and benefit from faster permit processing, better regulatory conditions, and potential eligibility for financial support through the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). The benefits extend to reduced administrative costs and the provision of a solid foundation for cross-border carbon dioxide network development. The report lists three potential PCI projects, selected from the outcome of the CCUS ZEN Work Package 3 analyses, which could highly contribute for the European overall industrial decarbonisation: • A cross border pipeline system connecting Germany to Denmark which could transport 7.4 Mt/y of CO2 through 205 km from emitters in Hannover and Hamburg for geological storage and utilisation in Jutland or the Danish section of the North Sea. • A pipeline system connecting Northern Poland and Southern Eastern Lithuania to the Port of Gdańsk, transporting approximately 9 Mt/y of CO2. The pipeline network could stretch up to 932 km and opens pathways for CCUS implementation to the Czech industry. From the Port of Gdańsk, CO2 can be shipped for geological storage in multiple regions in the North Sea. • A pipeline infrastructure and harbour terminal for CCUS in Southern Italy. The pipeline system connects multiple emitters in Italy while a harbour in Brindisi allows for imports of CO2 from multiple regions, particularly Greece. The transportation infrastructure suggested for PCI would process 3 Mt/y. The document suggests an initial stakeholder assessment, for the Baltic and Mediterranean Sea regions' proposed infrastructure projects. It also provides insight into existing EU PCIs that relate to CCUS initiatives, drawing parallels and inferring suitability for new applications. To enhance the prospects of PCI application, the report accentuates the need for multistakeholder collaboration, mature project definition, technical preparation, and secure financing – all aimed at demonstrating project viability and alignment with the EU energy transition objectives. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 5 Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 2 The European Union Project of Common Interest (PCI) ............................................. 7 2.1 Requirements and Criteria for Obtaining PCI Status .......................................... 8 2.2 Potential Benefits of the PCI status ...................................................................... 9 2.3 List of relevant existing EU PCI ............................................................................. 9 3 Overview of proposed infrastructures for PCI ........................................................... 11 3.1 Cross-Border Pipeline Infrastructure: Germany-Denmark Link ....................... 12 3.1.1 Contribution to Market Integration ................................................................................... 14 3.1.2 Contribution to Sustainability ........................................................................................... 17 3.1.3 Cross-border Impact ........................................................................................................ 17 3.2 Pipeline infrastructure to Gdańsk CO2 terminal ................................................. 18 3.2.1 Contribution to Market Integration ................................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Contribution to Sustainability ........................................................................................... 23 3.2.3 Cross-border Impact ........................................................................................................ 24 3.3 Cross-border Pipeline and harbour Infrastructure: Southern Italy-Greece .... 24 3.3.1 Contribution to Market Integration ................................................................................... 30 3.3.2 Contribution to Sustainability ........................................................................................... 32 3.3.3 Cross-border Impact ........................................................................................................ 32 3.4 Additional proposed PCI ...................................................................................... 33 3.4.1 Harbour and offshore pipeline infrastructure in Tarragona .............................................. 33 4 Stakeholder Analysis for the Proposed PCI .............................................................. 34 4.1 Denmark ................................................................................................................ 36 4.2 Germany ................................................................................................................ 40 4.3 Poland ................................................................................................................... 42 4.4 Lithuania ................................................................................................................ 44 4.5 Italy ........................................................................................................................ 46 4.6 Greece ................................................................................................................... 48 5 Key insights for EU PCI Status Attainment ................................................................ 49 6 Reference List ............................................................................................................... 51 7 Abbreviation List .......................................................................................................... 53 D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 6 1 Introduction The overall objective of the project is to explore the potential for enabling CCUS value chain deployment in two regions with lower maturity level for CCUS compared to the current development in the North Sea region. The two selected regions are the Baltic Sea region and the Mediterranean Sea region. The CCUS ZEN mission is to contribute to the accelerated deployment of CCUS throughout Europe by enabling mutual, continuous learning between different stakeholder types and between European regions, drawing on learnings from ongoing and past projects, creating shared understanding of mission-critical implementation elements that need to work like clockwork, and building a coherent ecosystem of CCUS actors in Europe that are capable of delivering the requested contribution to European climate policy. To achieve this, CCUS ZEN has five objectives: 1. Technical mapping: For each region, map and understand the nature and longevity of emission sources, identify transport corridors and modalities, assess cost-effective ('bankable') storage capacity in the selected regions, and define interactions between CCUS hubs-and-clusters, renewable-based integrated energy systems, and/or circular production modes. 2. Non-technical mapping: Identify and involve relevant end users, public authorities and social stakeholders and analyse their concerns and needs using appropriate techniques and methods from the social sciences and humanities. 3. Value chain scenarios: Elaborate detailed plans for the integration of CCUS in hubs and clusters linked to CO2 storage sites via hubs, pipeline networks and shipping routes, with due attention to national and border-crossing permits and regulatory issues. 4. Local business model: Perform initial impact assessments and develop local business models for delivery of CO2 capture, transport, utilisation and/or storage, including the separation of responsibilities across the CO2 value chain. 5. Knowledge sharing, dissemination, and communication: Facilitate the exchange of knowledge and know how across CCUS projects, by continuing the activities of the existing European CCUS project network. The five objectives are integrated in the project framework illustrated in Figure 1-1. Technical and non-technical mapping constitute a high-level regional screening of CCUS opportunities in the two CCUS ZEN regions. This is followed by a selection and analyses of four promising value chains in each region studied. Based on the analyses, the most promising CCUS value chain in each region were selected for further development, including local business models. Throughout the project, the work is supported by knowledge sharing, dissemination and communication with network partners and other relevant stakeholders. A high-level technical mapping was conducted for the two regions as presented in D1.1 [1]. This report covered technical mapping of emission sources, storage sites, transport infrastructure, utilisation options and renewables. Thereafter, CCUS value chains both in the Baltic region and Mediterranean area were defined, and in the end the eight most promising sites were selected as shown in report D1.2 [2]. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 7 Figure 1-1 CCUS ZEN framework for CCUS value chain development This document is the second deliverable within Work Package 3 of the CCUS ZEN project. This deliverable explores the criteria for obtaining Project of Common Interest (PCI) status, outlines the benefits of achieving this designation, and provides examples of existing EU PCIs relevant to CCUS. It is important to denote the fact that the examples provided are suggestions for the development of a market that is not yet mature, and therefore, uncertainties could deviate the project outcomes from what is proposed. This report was developed in parallel with deliverable D3.1 [3] and focuses on identifying new infrastructure projects with the potential to obtain PCI status. It conducts a high-level PCI assessment based on the Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) requirements and suggests recommendations for the application to obtain PCI status. Furthermore, it details and assesses the stakeholders in the involved regions, their involvement, and roles in the suggested PCIs. The level of definition of the projects presented leads to an omission of varied factors also important for obtaining a PCI status, such as cost and economic modelling, funding, or risk assessment. 2 The European Union Project of Common Interest (PCI) Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) serve as critical energy infrastructure that interconnect the systems across European Union member states. These projects play a crucial role in propelling the EU towards its ambitious aim of carbon neutrality by 2050, primarily by enhancing the links of the EU energy and carbon dioxide markets, which boosts energy reliability and intensifies market competition. PCIs significantly contribute to the development of transnational infrastructure, thereby providing substantial advantages in pursuit of the EU's energy transition objectives. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 8 The PCI status is a classification that is assigned to significant energy or carbon dioxide infrastructure projects within EU, which aims to provide reliable, cost effective, and sustainable energy to EU countries. The selection of PCIs takes place biennially, involving a comprehensive process steered by multi-faceted Regional Groups. These groups are composed of qualified delegates from the European Commission, the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), and National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs). The Northern Lights initiative is a notable PCI example — it establishes a commercial route facilitating the maritime transfer of captured CO2 to an offshore geological storage site in Norway. The legal framework for the PCIs is outlined by the TEN-E regulation [4], which was established to prioritise consistency with sustainable energy objectives. As of 2022, the TEN-E Regulation shifts the support for fossil fuel infrastructure to focus on cross-border sustainable energy infrastructure. The revised TEN-E Regulation has a goal to create a market for cross-border carbon dioxide networks and hydrogen related projects. 2.1 Requirements and Criteria for Obtaining PCI Status The requirements for obtaining the PCI status are outlined in Article (4) of the TEN-E Regulation [4], which states the following general requirements: o The project must be necessary for at least one of the energy infrastructure priority corridors and thematic areas, as per Annex I in the TEN-E Regulation. Cross-border carbon dioxide network development is one of these priority thematic areas. o The overall potential benefit of the project outweighs its costs. o The project must involve at least two Member States. Moreover, the TEN-E Regulation states specific criteria for projects falling under a specific energy infrastructure. o Market integration, by reducing energy infrastructure bottlenecks, increase competition, interoperability, and system flexibility. o Security of supply, by interoperability, system flexibility, cybersecurity, and reliable system operation. o Contribute significantly to sustainability through the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the connected industrial installations by maintaining security of supply, increase the resilience and security of transport and storage of CO2, and efficient use of resources by enabling multiple CO2 sources and storage sites via common infrastructure that minimise the environmental burden and risk. o For carbon dioxide projects, the project is used to transport and, where applicable, store anthropogenic carbon dioxide originating from at least two Member States. The current report focuses the analyses on the market integration of different stakeholders that could take part in the CCUS value chains, contribution to sustainability, in terms of progress to national and EU decarbonisation targets, and cross border impacts that ease the D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 9 regulation difference between multiple countries to facilitate the establishment of CCUS networks. Although a limited set of criteria is analysed, these provide a good suggestion of how potential PCI projects can contribute to a cohesive and European level CCUS infrastructure. 2.2 Potential Benefits of the PCI status Achieving the PCI status is desirable for project promoters, as it carries several benefits for projects: o Accelerated permit granting process, enabling efficient implementation of important projects. o Improved regulatory conditions, encouraging transparency, investor trust and facilitating the development of projects. o Lower administrational costs through streamlined environmental assessment processes. o Eligible for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), which encompass financial support for feasibility studies and construction. The TEN-E Regulation, [4], stipulates the process and criteria for a project to be considered a PCI within any of its prioritised corridors spanning thematic areas. Within the CCUS scope, it defines the thematic area as: “Cross-border carbon dioxide network: development of infrastructure for transport and storage of carbon dioxide between Member States and with neighbouring third countries of carbon dioxide capture and storage captured from industrial installations for the purpose of permanent geological storage as well as carbon dioxide utilisation for synthetic fuel gases leading to the permanent neutralisation of carbon dioxide.” It provides a comprehensive framework outlining the requirements candidate projects must meet to attain PCI status. 2.3 List of relevant existing EU PCI Table 2-1 provides an overview of existing and planned EU PCIs, which have a direct or indirect relation to Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS), as well as other sustainable energy infrastructure projects. Table 2-1 List of relevant existing EU PCI, [5] Project Name Country Applicable to CCUS ZEN Description Norne Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, and United Kingdom Potential links Transport infrastructure in Denmark with onshore and possibly offshore storage, emitters primarily from DK, SE, BE and UK will transport to DK via ship. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 16 Table 3-4 Geological storage locations Site name Type Location Mean capacity (Mt) Injectivity (Mt/y) Gassum Deep Saline Aquifer Onshore 146 3.0 Voldum Deep Saline Aquifer Onshore 213 3.0 Jammerbugt Deep Saline Aquifer Nearshore 100 3.0 Inez Deep Saline Aquifer Offshore 178 3.0 Bifrost Depleted O&G field Offshore Min. 60 0.8 Greensand Depleted O&G field Offshore Min. 128 1.5 Lisa Deep Saline Aquifer Offshore 29 0.5 Thorning Deep Saline Aquifer Onshore 74 0.3 Figure 3-3 Geological storage sites To complete the integration of the captured emissions in a CCUS network, geological storage is also required for the selected project. The project identified storage sites within the Danish region (onshore and offshore), for which the proposed PCI pipeline would take a key role in supporting the CO2 supply. These are identified in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-3. The D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 17 theoretical numbers supplied by Table 3-4 must be subject to further validation during exploration and appraisal phases. 3.1.2 Contribution to Sustainability Environmental Sustainability: The project contributes to the capture and transportation of CO2 emissions, thus reducing the carbon footprint of industrial processes. By facilitating the industrial transition towards low-carbon solutions, it supports the EU's climate goals and helps mitigate climate change. CO2 Emissions Reduction Impact: The pipeline project is estimated to result in a substantial reduction of CO2 emissions by providing a reliable and crucial infrastructure for the transportation of captured CO2. Table 3-5 National and international sustainability targets Phase 1, total transported CO2 (Mt/y) Phase 2, total transported CO2 (Mt/y) German capture target, [6] (Mt/y) Industrial Carbon Management Strategy (ICMS), [7] – 2040 target (Mt/y) Contribution to ICMS 2040 goals, Phase 2 4.0 7.4 34 to 73 280 2.7% Efforts to promote sustainability in the region include implementing best practices in pipeline construction and operation to minimise environmental impact. Environmental impact assessments must be conducted to evaluate potential impacts on natural resources, including land use, water quality, and biodiversity. Mitigation measures must be implemented to minimise adverse effects on the environment. 3.1.3 Cross-border Impact As a cross-border project between Germany and Denmark, the export pipeline enhances cooperation and connectivity between the two countries' energy systems. It promotes crossborder trade and collaboration in the field of CCUS, contributing to regional integration and resilience. Both Germany and Denmark are contracting parties to the 1996 London Protocol. The Protocol mandates the conclusion of an arrangement or agreement between the exporting and importing countries when the CO2 is transported across borders for the purpose of offshore storage. Thus, if the offshore storage sites are used, a London Protocol arrangement or agreement between Germany and Denmark will be needed to facilitate for such commercial projects. A further description of the London Protocol was provided in Deliverable D2.3 [8]. The arrangement or agreement may address the transfer of responsibility for any leakage or other incidents between Germany and Denmark along the value chain, and to which country obligations to report and monitor CO2 leakages apply in accordance with EU legislation (e.g., the EU ETS and the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation – MRR) and international law. Regardless, as stipulated in Article 49 MRR, the ETS responsibility will follow the value chain, and the commercial parties may dictate the D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 18 points of transfer for e.g. responsibility in a commercial contract; provided it does not deviate from Article 49 or other relevant EU legislation. 3.2 Pipeline infrastructure to Gdańsk CO2 terminal Project Name: Pipelines to the Port of Gdańsk Location: Northern Poland, South-Eastern Lithuania (and Northern Czechia railway transport) to Port of Gdańsk Involved Member States: Poland, Lithuania, Czechia (storage sites under North Sea in DK, NO, NL and UK) Capacity: 9 Mt/y in 2030-2040 Pipelines: 932 km Figure 3-4 Proposed pipeline infrastructure for the selected PCI. The following PCI proposes an extension to the planned ECO2CEE PCI, referred in Table 2-1 and led by Orlen S.A, [9]. The ECO2CEE PCI includes multi-modal export/import CO2 Terminal in Poland, in Port of Gdańsk (Figure 3-4). In the present report, a CO2 pipeline transport infrastructure is proposed from Northern Poland and South-East Lithuania to the Port of Gdansk. Potential inclusion of CO2 emissions from Czechia transported by railway can be considered. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 19 The CO2 terminal shall be commissioned by 2027. In an initial stage, ECO2CEE proposes to transport up to 3 Mt/y via rail from the Orlen refineries in Płock, Poland. Potentially, the Mazeikai/Telšiai, in Lithuania, and the LaFarge-Holcim cement plant Kujawy in PiechcinBielawy, Poland will also export their captured emissions using a railway system. The first stage ECO2CEE emitters are presented in blue in Figure 3-4. The current report focuses on the following stage of the project, aiming to achieve a CO2 capacity of 9 Mt/y. A CO2 pipeline network is proposed, represented in red in Figure 3-4, supplementing and, likely, gradually replacing transport via rail contracted in the first stage. We also propose to transport the CO2 captured emissions of industrial installations in Czechia via rail, at this stage. The present report proposes additional detailing and description of a concept for the second stage of the ECO2CEE existing PCI, leading to a potential extension of the terminal capacities in Gdánsk. 3.2.1 Contribution to Market Integration The PCI project integrates various industries from the participating countries, including Cement, Waste to Energy, Paper and Pulp, Refineries, Chemical and Power Plants, to a common CCUS network. Four Orlen Refineries in Poland, Lithuania, and Czechia and two LOTOS Refineries in Poland aggregate the largest share of CO2 emissions – 6.7 Mt/y. Two Paper and Pulp installations in Poland translate approximately into 4.7 Mt/y. The power sector includes six plants in Poland and Lithuania of various capacities, totalling 3.0 Mt/y. There are also three Waste-to-Energy plants in Lithuania and one in Poland (total emissions 0.6 Mt/y). Chemical and Cement plants also take a key role in the CO2 toll to be captured. Because of the planned capacity of CO2 terminal in Gdańsk, about 56% of these emissions is proposed for a CCUS value chain. Capturing biogenic CO2 has higher priority than fossil CO2. Table 3-6 lists the industries benefitting from the integrated CO2 market. The proposed captured emissions are within the capacity of Port of Gdańsk terminal (lower than 9 Mt/y). In case higher CO2 capture efficiency or added Polish and Czech emitters, the terminal must be significantly upscaled. Table 3-6 Emission sources proposed by CCUS ZEN for the second stage of Gdansk PCI (Poland, Lithuania, and Czechia). Emission sources selected by Orlen for the first ECO2CEE stage are marked with an asterisk (*) No. Facility Name Company Name City Industry Sector CO2 Reported in 2021 (Total) (Mt/y) Fossil CO2 (Mt/y) Biomass and WtE CO2 (Mt/y) 1* LAFARGE CEMENT S.A. Oddział w Bielawach LAFARGE CEMENT SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA PiechcinBielawy Cement 1.27 1.15 0.12 D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 20 No. Facility Name Company Name City Industry Sector CO2 Reported in 2021 (Total) (Mt/y) Fossil CO2 (Mt/y) Biomass and WtE CO2 (Mt/y) (Lafarge Kujawy) 2* Rafineria (Orlen Płock) Polski Koncern Naftowy ORLEN S.A. Płock Refineries 2.56 2.56 0 3 Bydgoszcz WtE (Bydgoszcz WtE) MKUO ProNatura Sp. z o.o. Bydgoszcz WtE 0.16 0.16 4 Mondi Świecie Spółka Akcyjna (Mondi Świecie) Mondi Świecie Spółka Akcyjna Świecie Paper and pulp 3.97 0.71 3.9 5 ELEKTROCIEP ŁOWNIA (OpecIneko Grudziądz) OPEC-INEKO Sp. z o.o. Grudziądz Power - CHP 0.15 0.15 0 6 Produkcja papieru i tektury (IP Kwidzyn) International Paper - Kwidzyn sp. z o.o. Kwidzyn Paper and pulp 0.69 0.69 0 7 ELEKTROCIEP ŁOWNIA ELBLĄG (Energa Elbląg) ENERGA Kogeneracja Elbląg Power - CHP 0.22 0.17 0.06 8 INSTALACJE RAFINERYJNE (Lotos Gdańsk) GRUPA LOTOS S.A. Gdańsk Refineries 1.52 1.52 0 9 LOTOS ASFALT Sp. z o.o. Zakład Produkcyjny Gdańsk (Lotos Asfalt Gdańsk) LOTOS ASFALT sp. z o.o. Gdańsk Refineries 0.2 0.2 0 10 ODDZIAŁ ELEKTROCIEP ŁOWNIA GDAŃSKA (PGE Gdańsk) PGE Energia Ciepła S.A. Gdańsk Power - CHP 1.34 1.34 0.005 D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 21 No. Facility Name Company Name City Industry Sector CO2 Reported in 2021 (Total) (Mt/y) Fossil CO2 (Mt/y) Biomass and WtE CO2 (Mt/y) 11 ODDZIAŁ ELEKTROCIEP ŁOWNIA GDYŃSKA (PGE Gdynia) PGE Energia Ciepła S.A. Gdynia Power - CHP 0.67 0.67 0.001 TOTAL FROM POLAND 12.75 8.51 4.25 1* Orlen Lietuva (Orlen Lietuva Telšiai) Ab "Orlen Lietuva" Telšiai Refineries 1.5 1.5 0 2 Achema (Achema) Ab "Achema" Kaunas Chemical 2.21 2.21 0 3 Kaunas WtEP (Fortum Kaunas WtE) Fortum (Gren) +Ignitis Kaunas WtE 0.2 0 0.2 4 Lietuvos Energijos Gamyba, PP (LEG Vilnius) Ab "Lietuvos Energijos Gamyba" Vilnius Power 0.3 0.3 0 5 Vilniaus Šilumos Tinklai PP N2 (VST Vilnius N2) Ab "Vilniaus Šilumos Tinklai" Vilnius Power 0.29 0.29 0 6 Vilnius WtEP (Fortum Vilniius WtE) Fortum (Gren)+Ignitis Vilnius WtE 0.17 0 0.17 7 UAB Kauno WtEP (UAB Kauno WtE) UAB Kauno koge-neracine jegaine Vilnius WtE 0.11 0 0.11 TOTAL FROM LITHUANIA 4.79 4.31 0.48 1 ORLEN UNIPETROL RPA, s.r.o. - RAFINÉRIE, Kralupy (Orlen Unipetrol Kralupy) ORLEN UNIPETROL RPA, s.r.o. Kralupy nad Vltavou Refineries 0.52 0.52 0 D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 22 No. Facility Name Company Name City Industry Sector CO2 Reported in 2021 (Total) (Mt/y) Fossil CO2 (Mt/y) Biomass and WtE CO2 (Mt/y) 2 ORLEN UNIPETROL RPA, s.r.o. - RAFINÉRIE, Litvínov (Orlen Unipetrol Litvinov) ORLEN UNIPETROL RPA, s.r.o. Litvínov – Záluží Refineries 0.41 0.41 0 TOTAL FROM CZECHIA 0.92 0.92 0 While Table 3-6 presents the emitted CO2 per facility in 2021, Table 3-7 calculates the distribution of it to CCU (utilisation) or CCS value chains. It is also understood that not all the emitted CO2 will be captured due to varied reasons, from capture efficiency to business cases that will rely in other alternatives for decarbonisation rather than CCUS. Table 3-7: Captured CO 2 for storage and utilisation CO2 Reported (Total) Fossil CO2 Biomass and WtE CO2 TOTAL emissions (Mt/y) 18.46 13.74 4.73 Captured CO2, percentage from emitted - 44% 90% Captured CO2 (Mt/y) 10.3 6.04 4.26 For utilisation, percentage from captured - - 30% For utilisation (Mt/y) 1.28 0 1.28 For geological storage (Mt/y) 9.02 6.04 2.98 Out of a potential of 18.5 Mt/y CO2 emissions, a fraction of that is estimated to be captured. The captured CO2 is distributed as 1.3 Mt/y for utilisation and 9 Mt/y for storage. While CO2 for storage is sent for export in the Port of Gdánsk, CO2 for utilisation can be also sent to large volume hubs or to smaller scale individual facilities. The market integration is secured by a transportation network. ECO2CEE stage one assumes a railway infrastructure. The proposed PCI suggests a gradual transition to a pipeline network from 2030 to 2040. The stage 1 railway network is estimated at 1233 km D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 23 length. In stage two, it is reduced to 962 km, supported by a pipeline infrastructure totalling 932 km of length. Table 3-8: Proposed transport options to Gdansk Port (Poland, Lithuania, and Czechia). The first stage transport by railway proposed by Orlen is marked by an asterisk (*) From – to From – to From – to From – to From – to Total Railway Orlen Czechia – Gdańsk 962 km Lafarge Kujawy – Gdańsk* 226 km Płock – Gdańsk* 259 km Orlen Lietuva – Gdańsk* 748 km - 2195 km Pipeline Lafarge Kujawy – IP Kwidzyn 123 km Płock – IP Kwidzyn 138 km IP Kwidzyn – Gdańsk 78 km Vilnius-Kaunas – Gdańsk 558 km Achema – Kaunas 35 km 932 km The proposed pipeline network in Poland and Lithuania could encourage the construction of a common cross-border regulatory framework for the carbon market. Such network could eventually be extended to taking the role of a CO2 backbone supporting alternative transportation chains for the selected countries. This would allow the integration of other initiatives, such as CCS Baltic. Viable extension of such network to Czechia would require construction of a country wide network in Poland. The proposed project overlaps with the CCS Baltic PCI, as some of the same emitters may be applicable to both projects. The CCS Baltic PCI proposes a CO2 terminal in the Klaipeda port, closer to the Lithuanian emitters. This can be seen as an opportunity for extending the CCUS network to higher volumes of CO2 from other regions. 3.2.2 Contribution to Sustainability The project contributes to environmental sustainability by enabling the capture and transportation of a significant part of CO2 emissions of the region (particularly of northern Poland and Lithuania), thus reducing the carbon footprint of industrial processes there. Current National Energy and Climate Plans of Poland and Lithuania do not include captured CO2 target values. Presently large ETS installations emit 190 Mt CO2 in Poland and 5 Mt CO2 in Lithuania. In the case of Czechia there are estimates (modelling scenarios) of CO2 to be captured and stored/used starting from year 2035 (1.0-2.4 Mt/y) till 2050 (3.5-7.8 Mt/y); for comparison, the estimated emissions of ETS installations in Czechia in 2035 are 48-50 Mt CO2 (now 57 Mt). A more ambitious modelling scenario assumes average capture ratio (in D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 24 both ETS and bio installations in Czechia) 9 Mt/y in years 2033-2042 and 18 Mt/y in 20432050. 3.2.3 Cross-border Impact Poland, Czechia, and Lithuania are not parties to the London Protocol. Therefore, the Protocol does not require an arrangement or agreement to export the CO2. However, the proposed storage countries are all parties to the London Protocol, and they may nevertheless require an arrangement or agreement as part of their state practise. It may also be recommended to enter into such an arrangement or agreement regardless of the London Protocol, with the London Protocol requirements forming a backdrop as a best practise for cross-border CCS value chains. As explained in the Germany-Denmark PCI scenario above, also here may the arrangement or agreement address liability and the States’ monitoring and reporting responsibility. Otherwise, the transfer points may be stipulated by the commercial parties in their agreements, provided this is aligned with Article 49 of the MRR and other applicable EU legislation. In case of changes in Helsinki convention, if CO2 storage is permitted in the Baltic Sea, CO2 could be transported from Gdansk to the structures and depleted HC fields in the Polish part of the Baltic Sea. This would be economically positive, comparing to the transportation of CO2 to the North Sea structures which are under development now. 3.3 Cross-border Pipeline and harbour Infrastructure: Southern ItalyGreece The case presented in this section is based in the southern part of Italy, with large emission sources from Italy, in the Tarranto, Brindisi and Priolo Garallo emission cluster hubs, as presented in [2]. In addition, we have included two extra emitter hubs: Messina and Cantanzaro (Figure 3-5) that are situated close to existing national gas systems namely (Figure 3-6). In addition to the intra Italian emitters, we foresee cross-border infrastructure such as shipping CO2 transport from the Athens emitter cluster in Greece, and other countries such as France. For Greece, the CCUS ZEN project has included the most likely emitters only to support a CCUS network. Athens is considered a key emitter hub. The new infrastructure is defined below: 1) Pipeline westward from CO2 emitters in Priolo Gargallo, Messina, Cantanzaro to Bradanica, and pipeline eastward from CO2 emitters in Taranto and Brindisi. For the pipeline infrastructure, two main options are possible: a. Retrofit of existing gas pipeline. b. New pipeline installation in the existing pipe corridor. For alternative a), reuse of the pipeline depends on the conditions of the pipeline, the material, and the design pressure of the pipeline. For alternative b), the new main pipeline should have an approximate diameter of 12", to transport at least 3 Mt/y in dense phase (high pressure). Smaller pipelines are also required to link emitters within the clusters. The diameter of the pipelines must be defined according to the D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 25 design pressure and volumes to be transported. CO2 transported in gas phase requires a larger diameter. The pipeline is relatively long and may need booster stations to maintain the pressure level. 2) A CCS harbour infrastructure should be established at Brindisi harbour. Figure 3-5 Map of Proposed PCI Infrastructure in the Italian region. The proposed PCI is highlighted in red and orange. We propose to use the existing national gas pipeline corridor for CO2 transport from Priolo Gargallo, Taranto and Brindisi Emission Hubs, and shipping transport from Greece to the harbour at Brindisi. Project Name: New pipeline in Southern Italy, and new CCS harbour at Brindisi Location: Pipeline from Sicilia to Brindisi, and ship transport from Athen to Brindisi Involved Member States: Italy and Greece (possibly also France) Capacity: 19.3 Mt/y in CO2 emission. Transport capacity is 3.0 Mt/y by pipeline. Length: 50-513 km This pipelines and CO2 harbour infrastructures are proposed as a PCI located in Southern Italy and Greece. It aims to capture, transport and store approximately 3 million tons of CO2 emitted per year, in an onshore storage site named Brandanica [2]. This is facilitated by a CO2 pipeline transport infrastructure from Sicily and eastward from Brindisi. We foresee that a harbour CCS infrastructure must be established at Brindisi. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 32 Cluster Name Emitter ID Company Name Industry Sector CO2 Reported (Mt/y) Emission Trend Messina cluster E_IT_66 Termica Milazzo S.R.L. Power 0.6 growing Catanzaro E_IT_22 Edison S.P.A. Power 1.3 falling 3.3.2 Contribution to Sustainability Table 3-13 and Table 3-14 shows that even by assuming industrial sector reduction in the CO2 that will be stored, there will be up to 19.3 Mt/y available for underground storage. Storing part of this CO2 volumes, will have a significantly contribution to the sustainability of the EU’s energy systems. However, the amount stored, will also be dependent on the storage capacity. For the “Bradanica” storage site, we do not have access to dynamic reservoir simulations. A static storage capacity between 344 Mt, using a conservative storage efficiency of 1%, and 1376 million tonnes was estimated using a storage efficiency of 4%, assuming a reservoir porosity of 25% [11]. Often, a storage efficiency of 2% is assumed, that will correspond to 688 Mt storage capacity. If we assume that we have two injection wells, injecting 3 million tonnes per well per year, the site should be able to store 180 Mt over 30 years. Another possibility is to use depleted hydrocarbon fields also located in the Basilicata region, such as “Cugno le Machine” (area 48 km2), with two different reservoir units: “Grotole” and “Ferrandina” or the abandoned field “Serra Pizzuta” [12]. A third options, would be to explore offshore storage units, offshore Sicily as presented in [12]. 3.3.3 Cross-border Impact The project will have a significant impact on the CCUS value chain for Italy and Greece, since it will open short transportation routes using existing onshore natural pipeline corridors. As Figure 3-5 shows, there are several large CO2 emitter hubs geographically situated close to the pipeline corridor. For Greece, and specially the Athens emitters hub, the transport route to Brindisi is geographically close. It can also be an option, to ship CO2 from southern France. Italy and France are both contracting parties to the London Protocol, while Greece is not. France will need to conclude an arrangement or agreement with Italy in line with the London Protocol. Greece may not need to conclude such an arrangement or agreement as a nonContracting Party, but it is recommended, and Italy may nevertheless require it. As all countries are EU member states, the EU ETS and MRR, and the general environmental liability regime will also apply here. The arrangement or agreement may, or may not, contain criteria relating to e.g. responsibility, reporting and monitoring of leakages, potentially providing a basis for commercial agreements. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 33 3.4 Additional proposed PCI This section analyses an additional PCI that was studied in various stages of the CCUS ZEN project and is also important to mention. 3.4.1 Harbour and offshore pipeline infrastructure in Tarragona Project Name: Tarragona hub Location: Tarragona (Spain) Involved Member States: Spain, France Capacity: 9.8 Mt/y Length: 48.1 km Figure 3-8 CCUS value chain for Western Mediterranean – In dashed red is the proposed PCI in Tarragona. Total captured emissions for the 3 clusters amount to 9.77 Mt/y. The proposed PCI in Tarragona consists of common infrastructures to gather and transport the emissions from industrial clusters in Spain and France to an offshore storage site. These infrastructures are part of the CCUS value chain proposed for western Mediterranean region (Figure 3-8). Emissions originate from three industrial clusters: Tarragona, Barcelona, and Fos-Marseille. CO2 is transported to a gathering hub at the Tarragona harbour. From there, carbon dioxide is transported to a storage site offshore via pipeline. The infrastructures D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 34 proposed for PCI are the infrastructures common to the three clusters, i.e. the gathering hub in Tarragona and the offshore pipeline to storage. Table 3-16 Quantities of CO 2 captured by cluster Country Cluster Number of emitters CO2 captured (Mt/y) Spain Tarragona Cluster 5 1.98 Barcelona Cluster 9 2.25 France Fos-Marseille Cluster 18 5.54 Total 32 9.77 Detailed information about the gathering hub in Tarragona and the offshore pipeline are provided in D3.1 of the CCUS ZEN project [3], where technical description of the infrastructures is available. The offshore pipeline would transport up to 9.77 Mt/y of CO2 to the storage site. This would result, for 20 years operations project, in a total 190 Mt of stored CO2. The Tarragona PCI would enable the export and the storage of CO2 emissions from the French industrial clusters of Fos-Marseille in Spain, in addition to the emissions from the local clusters (Tarragona, Barcelona). In the Fos cluster, the potential for CO2 capture is high, while the local storage potential is low. Exporting CO2 by ship is already considered. The CALLISTO PCI plans harbour infrastructures to gather and liquefy CO2 for shipping to Ravenna (Italy). The Tarragona project would represent an additional storage alternative for the Fos region, where the demand for capture is high. Moreover, transporting CO2 from the Rhone valley to Fos is under consideration, which would increase the amount of CO2 to be shipped to storage. 4 Stakeholder Analysis for the Proposed PCI Effective implementation of PCI as large infrastructure projects requires the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders, necessitating coordination and collaboration across various sectors to ensure project success. In cross-country projects, the coordination and collaboration of diverse stakeholders is crucial to navigate regulatory differences and ensure smooth project execution. Table 4-1 lists various general stakeholders applicable for the multiple countries of each project, categorising them into regulatory authorities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), financial institutions, and project developers and partners. The table outlines each stakeholder's responsibilities and actions, listing their roles in facilitating the CCUS infrastructure. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 35 In the following subsections, detailed information can be found for each country regarding expected stakeholder involvement in the proposed PCI. Table 4-1 List of stakeholders Name Responsibility / Strategies Action Regulatory authorities Municipalities Municipality plan. Local plan. Land zone permit. Protected nature according to national law. Polluted soil and water resources. Protected stoneand earth dikes. Nature protections zones/lines In the municipalities where either compressor stations or other buildings are to be established, the responsible planning authority is the respective municipality. They are also responsible for a wide range of other environmental factors that may be affected by the project. Agency for Culture and Palaces Cultural heritage both sites and areas. Ensures that the provisions of the Museum Act are complied with in connection with construction work near protected ancient monuments. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) Bellona The organisation strives to identify and implement sustainable solutions to the world’s most pressing environmental issues. Its main goals are to combat the climate crisis, environmental degradation, pollution-induced hazards to human health, and the ecological consequences of economic development strategies. Integrate scientific systems-thinking and foresight in policymaking. Accelerate credible climate solution and the availability of decarbonisation infrastructure. Ensure transparency and accountability through awareness-raising and public participation Concito Facilitates knowledge about subjects to the green transition and thereby to accelerates it. Conduct pertinent analyses and generate novel insights. Facilitate the connection between scientific findings and policymaking. Assist decision-makers in adopting and implementing practical solutions. Provide a neutral and central platform for fostering dialogue on the green transition. The Council for Green Transition An organisation working to promote the green transition by developing and sharing knowledge about new green solutions that influence decision-makers, companies, and citizens to move in a green direction Their visions entail a green and sustainable society, a carbon-neutral Denmark, and ensuring well-thought-out holistic solutions. These visions are to be created in collaboration with others, as they cannot be achieved alone. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 36 Name Responsibility / Strategies Action Financial Institutions INNO-CCUS In 2020, it was decided to establish four green research missions under the Innovation Fund, focusing on either capture and storage or utilisation of CO2. INNO-CCUS is a broad research collaboration involving 54 different actors from both the public and private sectors, including universities, research institutions, and companies. In 2022, the partnership awarded the first round of project grants. EU Innovation Fund The EU's Innovation Fund aims to support groundbreaking technologies and comprehensive projects in Europe that have the potential to achieve significant CO2 reductions. Through the EU's Innovation Fund, support can be sought for a range of initiatives, including CCS projects. The EU's Innovation Fund operates with two distinct pools: one for larger projects with a total budget exceeding €7.5 million, and another for smaller projects with a total budget below €7.5 million. Connecting Europe Facility, Energy Among other funding opportunities within the EU, it is also possible to apply for support for CCS projects involving at least two EU member states. To obtain support through the so-called Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), it is a requirement that the project be listed on the EU's list of projects with PCI status. Project developers and partners Not listed emitters, T&S operators or CCU industry To create an integrated market for the development of CCUS networks. Engage in capture, transport, utilisation, and storage of CO2, with specific projects. CO2 Hub Europe A coalition of the largest stakeholders within CCS in Denmark, the coalition consists of both developers and researchers. The objective is to contribute to developing Denmark's potential to become Europe's central CO2 hub. This is done, among other things, through an analysis project aimed at elucidating the regulation, financing, and risk allocation between private actors and the state in connection with CCS. Consultancy, research organisations and EPC contractors Support the development and operationalisation of CCUS networks Through design, manufacturing, installation and commissioning services, consultancy, research centres and EPC contractors are crucial to operationalise CCUS networks. Additionally, they can perform business-oriented research and create roadmaps for the implementation of CCUS solutions. 4.1 Denmark In Germany to Denmark pipeline Link, the pipeline infrastructure of the proposed PCI (Jutland network) will run onshore the entire stretch between Denmark and Germany. In connection hereby, there are several stakeholders who will have an influence on the project. This covers both regulatory authorities and permitting, developers as well as interests from different NGO’s. The regulatory aspects and permitting covers nature considerations, such as Natura 2000 and Annex IV species, and the water framework directive, cultural heritage, safety issues, D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 37 and citizen's health. The regulatory aspect also covers municipal and local planning as a fundament to realise the project. Several NGOs work positively to promote the development of CCUS and the pipeline infrastructure and make the challenges or possibilities that exist visible. This is to illuminate and present it to the decision makers or authorities. To promote the development of CCUS and pipeline infrastructure, there are several opportunities for financial support, which are offered by several stakeholders both nationally and in the EU. The last stakeholder in relation to the implementation of CCUS infrastructure is the project developers and their partners. It is the stakeholders who help ensure the expansion takes place from a commercial perspective. In the following section, the stakeholders are divided into the following groups: Regulatory authorities, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO), Financial Institutions, and Project developers and partners. Their individual role and influence will be described further in the sections below. Regulatory authorities This group of stakeholders are the authorities which are the ones that are going to issue the permits and therefore they have a profound influence in the realisation of the project. A CO2 pipeline infrastructure project is subject to § 15 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as such projects appear in Appendix 1 No. 16 of the Environmental Assessment Act. The purpose of environmental impact assessment is to ensure that an assessment of the effects on the environment is conducted as a basis for the decision to grant or refuse permission for types of installations that may significantly affect the environment. A facility for collection of CO2 streams where the purpose is geological storage is also covered by Appendix 1 No. 6.9 of the Approval Order. An environmental permit typically contains conditions for the layout and operation of the company, ensuring that the company operates without significant environmental impact on the surroundings. The project therefore also requires an environmental approval according to § 33 of the Environmental Protection Act, to allow the establishment and operation of the facility. The authority for both permissions is the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. The necessary planning basis must also be secured in the early planning stage in accordance with provisions in the Planning Act. The Act's purpose is to ensure holistic planning that integrates different interests in the use of land, while protecting nature and the environment and creating optimal conditions for sustainable growth and development. In general, the municipalities are the planning authority, but for large infrastructure projects, the Government takes over as the responsible authority. Permission from the Danish Energy Agency is also required for the establishment and operation of a pipeline facility, cf. § 23u of the Underground Act. According to this, the works conducted along with the establishment must also be approved, cf. § 28 of the Underground Act. § 23t of the Underground Act sets out several provisions for potential users to use a CO2 pipeline infrastructure In addition to the above permits, it will be necessary to obtain several smaller permits on an ongoing basis. This could be permits, for example, for handling contaminated soil, D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 38 groundwater lowering, under drilling of roads and watercourses. The actual extent can only be fully clarified when a project has reached a higher level of detail. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) This group of stakeholders all have the common goal of promoting the expansion of initiatives aimed at reducing CO2 emissions, including new technological forms such as CCUS. They work to create transparency for investors and to translate the latest knowledge into actual climate action. This is done to ensure that Denmark meets its obligations to reduce CO2 emissions and, in this context, plays a role in developing innovative technologies to accelerate the green transition. Financial Institutions Due to the complexity of these types of projects and the overall common goal to reduce the CO2 emission, there are multiple stakeholders offering financial support in the form of grant schemes. This is also done to promote the expansion process of, among others, CCUS and pipeline infrastructure. The various support options are managed at both national and EU levels. Project developers and partners This group of stakeholders is relatively extensive as it consists of actors who face the challenges and seek solutions, encompassing the entire value chain from capturing to transporting and storing CO2. This means it consist of industries emitting CO2 who are implementing new CO2 capture technologies for the purpose of storage. The stakeholders could also be entities that can utilise the captured CO2, such as Power-to-X technologies. For this value chain to succeed, investment in CO2 infrastructure is required, and there are several stakeholders along with the proposed PCI (Jutland network) who are interested in ensuring the expansion of this infrastructure to avoid creating a bottleneck in CO2 transportation. Additional specific stakeholders are named in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 List of stakeholders (Denmark) Name Responsibility / Strategies Action Danish Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Approval Protected Forest Nature protection, including Natura 2000 areas, Annex IV species. Environmental protection. Danish Energy Agency Permits regarding the Underground Act. Is the authority regarding approvals cf. the Danish Underground Act. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 39 Name Responsibility / Strategies Action Green Power Denmark A green industry organisation working to promote the Danish energy sector, whose members consist of a range of stakeholders across the Danish energy sector. They work to ensure that in Denmark, our ambitions, framework conditions, and research maintain our green leadership position and generate prosperity and jobs and for investors in green energy that require clear and stable investment frameworks to ensure an adequate supply of green energy. Danish Industry - Energy Works to put the Danish energy industry on the political agenda, as well as to promote visibility both nationally and internationally. Acting by: Political advocacy, Consultation and advisory support, Network, Export promotion. State of Green Danish organisation working to disseminate Danish solutions for the green transition internationally. They work to strengthen Danish exports, attract foreign investors, and accelerate the global green transition through events, webinars, publications, and delegation visits. CCUS-puljen A market-based, technology-neutral fund aimed at promoting the capture, storage, and utilisation of CO2. In the first phase, it should contribute to CO2 reductions of 0.4 million tons annually from 2025, and in the second phase, it should be 0.9 million tons annually from 2030. The funds would cover costs at all stages of the CCUS value chain, and the support is allocated per ton of reduced CO2 NECCS-puljen The political agreement from December 2021 on the "Subagreement on Investments in a Continued Greener Denmark under the Finance Act for 2022" introduces a new fund of 2.5 billion DKK aimed at achieving a reduction of 0.5 million tons annually from 2025 through CO2 capture. The fund has been established with the aim of achieving an additional 0.5 million tons of negative emissions annually from 2025 through CO2 capture. Through this fund, support can be provided for negative emissions from CO2 capture from biogenic sources and subsequent storage underground. Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Programme (EUDP) A public grant schemes. The program supports the advancement of innovative technologies, including CCS-related technologies, which can help to fulfil Denmark's energy and climate goals. Energinet/Gas Storage Denmark Energinet and their subsidiary, Gas Storage Denmark, have developed and accelerated knowledge for the CCS industry. They have done this, among other things, through the first pilot project of CO2 storage in Denmark onshore, with the intention of contributing knowledge and experience on storing CO2 in the Danish subsurface. Evida As Denmark's national gas distributor and since the Danish government's proposal is for the expansion of CCS to be based on a market-driven model, where both private and public entities can own and operate CO2 transport pipelines. Since they have many years of experience in operating and establishing pipelines for gas, they believe they have the knowledge and experience to contribute to the establishment of Denmark's CO2 infrastructure. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 40 Name Responsibility / Strategies Action Nordsøfonden The Danish state's subsurface company, whose task is to create value by optimising the use of the Danish subsurface in the best viable way. Nordsøfonden represents the Danish state in all CO2 storage licenses with a 20% share. Additionally, depending on the specific project, Nordsøfonden may also become co-owners of relevant infrastructure, transportation, and storage facilities. 4.2 Germany Regulatory authorities The laying and operation of a CO2 pipeline requires a permit in accordance with §4 of the German Carbon Dioxide Storage Act (Kohlendioxid-Speicherungsgesetz, KSpG), [13]. The project is authorised in a planning approval procedure and since an Environmental Impact Assessment is also required for the project, the procedure must be conducted with public participation. Due to the federal structure in Germany, different authorities are responsible for the authorisation. However, since the planned pipelines are transit pipelines, it needs to be approved according to §133 BBergG (Federal Mining Act) (1) by the responsible state office (§136 BBergG) and (2) by the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie, BSH). For Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania the responsible authority for transit pipelines is the State Office for Mining in Stralsund (Bergamt Stralsund). For the state of Lower Saxony and Schleswig Holstein the State Office for Mining and Energy (Landesamt für Bergbau und Energie, LBEG) in Clausthal-Zellerfeld is the regulatory authority for project approval. Because the pipelines for the Denmark/Germany project are planned onshore in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and will run offshore through German Territorial Waters as well as the EEZ, three jurisdictions are affected by the project. For all three jurisdictions affected by the project, the State Office for Mining in Stralsund (Bergamt Stralsund) is the superior approval authority for the procedure. When a project includes waters belonging to the EEZ, several federal offices are automatically involved in addition. For the states of Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein the State Office for Mining and Energy (Landesamt für Bergbau und Energie, LBEG) in Clausthal-Zellerfeld is the superior approval authority. Nevertheless, for both federal states each jurisdiction has separate approval procedures which must be implemented. Depending on the respective jurisdiction, different authorities must be involved in the approval procedures. These authorities will be included over the course of the permitting procedure by the superior approval authority which oversees the overall process. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) In Germany Non-Governmental-Organisations are more critical of the implementation of CO2 – pipelines as they see the use as a tool to prolong unsustainable energy sources such as D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 41 gas-fired power plants. Especially NGOs like Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) regularly sue the government and companies for environmentally harmful projects. Other NGOs which are politically active are Greenpeace and WWF. The organisations NABU and BUND are also widespread and relevant in Germany, however they rarely intervene politically in planned controversial projects of companies or the government. Additional specific stakeholders are named in Table 4-3. Table 4-3: List of stakeholders (Germany) Name Responsibility/ Strategies Action Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt) Germany’s federal environmental protection agency Primary federal agency mandated to protect the environment and to issue analyses and assessments. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe) Germany’s central competence centre on geosciences and use of natural resources. Responsible for storage site security, assessment of environmental impacts and international norms. State Office for Mining Stralsund (Bergamt Stralsund) Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (and its Territorial Waters), Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) For transit pipelines the Bergamt Stralsund is in charge. For non-transit pipelines smaller than 300 mm (diameter) the affected counties can permit. State Office for Mining, Energy and Geology (Landesamt für Bergbau, Energie und Geologie, LBEG) Lower Saxony, parts of Schleswig Holstein The LBEG in Clausthal-Zellerfeld is the superior approval authority for the permitting procedure in both federal states. Federation of German Industries (Bundesverband Deutsche Industrie, BDI) Umbrella organisation of German industry and industry-related service providers Acting by: Public relations, Representation of the industry interests German Association for Negative Emissions (Deutscher Verband Negativemissionen) Umbrella organisation of German CDR players Acting by: Public relations, Representation of the CDR industry interests Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) German Environmental Aid German organisation for environmental protection Acting by: Public relations, Representation of the public interest, lawsuits against environmentally controversial projects Greenpeace Worldwide organisation for environmental protection and peace Acting by: public relations, organised protests, lawsuits against environmentally controversial projects WWF Worldwide organisation for environmental protection Acting by: public relations, organised protests, lawsuits against environmentally controversial projects D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 48 experimental geophysics. Sapienza University of Rome focuses on researching gas migration mechanics and communication of research outcomes. Additional specific stakeholders are listed in Table 4-6. Table 4-6: List of stakeholders (Italy) Name Responsibilities Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security Established in 2021 by folding responsibilities for energy, climate, and environmental into one ministry. The MiTE is also responsible for implementing environmental policy and promoting good environmental practices, including the promotion of climate education in schools. At the international level, MiTE holds a vital role in the management and distribution of EU funds. It aims to integrate energy and climate policies and advance the objectives of the green transition to a low-carbon economy in all the ministry’s activities. Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure and Agriculture Energyor climate related competences. The Ministry of University and Research (MUR) Channels funds for energy research and developments. The inter-ministerial Committee for Economic Planning and Sustainable Development (CIPESS) A collective governmental body chaired by the Prime Minister. Responsibilities include the cross-national coordination of policies to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, govern overall research and innovation to ensure alignment with policy objectives, including the National Research Programme and public research institutions whose work is relevant to SDGs. 4.6 Greece Regulatory authorities The regulatory authority in Greece is the Hellenic Republic Ministry of Environment and Energy. In Greece, the National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), [19], sets the national targets for 2030 on energy efficiency, renewables, and CO2 emissions reduction, as well as energy security, interconnections, the single energy market and competitiveness, development, and sustainable mobility. The recent law L.4920/2022 (art.228 par.1), as amended by L.4964/2022 (Article 175), designates the Hellenic Hydrocarbons and Energy Resources Management Company (HEREMA) as the competent authority for the licensing, monitoring, and supervision of carbon storage projects. Moreover, Article 173 of L.4964/2022 introduces a new licensing process for CO2 exploration and storage permits for economical operators who already hold hydrocarbon exploration and production rights in areas which could potentially be used for carbon storage [20]. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 49 Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) See Table 4-1. Financial Institutions EnEarth, a subcompany of the UK oil and gas company Energean has applied to the Hellenic Hydrocarbon and Energy Resources Management Company for a CO2 licence in Prinos, offshore Greece [21]. Project developers and partners According to the HERCCULES report D8.1 [22], two Greece projects have been approved for co-funding by the Innovation Fund: • Iris project for CO2 capture at the H2 production plant of a refinery in Corinth. • IFESTOS project for CO2 capture in a cement plant in Viotia. IFESTOS involves the construction of a large-scale carbon capture facility at TITAN’s flagship Kamari plant near Athens. TITAN will produce about 3 Mt/y of zero-carbon cement to serve the growing needs for green construction in the metropolitan area of Athens and beyond. Subject to regulation and permits, the carbon capture project will result in an absolute annual GHG emissions avoidance of more than 1.9 Mt/y of CO2, making the Kamari plant one of the largest carbon capture facilities in Europe. It is estimated that the first phase (capacity of around 1 Mt/y CO2) will be ready by the end of 2025 and the full capacity second phase (by the end of 2027). 5 Key insights for EU PCI Status Attainment This section provides key insights on the application process for obtaining EU Projects of Common Interest (PCI) status. The guiding principle for securing EU PCI status is adherence to the Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) framework, which serves as the foundation for the application process. It is essential to ensure that the project meets the eligibility criteria, which typically include cross-border impact, enhancing market integration, improving security of supply, and contributing to sustainability. A few of these criteria were studied for specific project examples in a non-exhaustive method. For CO2 projects, the European Commission has allocated a special thematic PCI group, "CO2 Networks," which is one of the priority groups. Highlighting the strategic importance of a particular CCUS project is important for securing PCI status. By emphasising its role in Europe's energy transition and contribution towards EU 2050 targets (European Commission, 2024), support can be gained from stakeholders and policymakers. Another aspect of supporting a specific PCI application is demonstrating its technological readiness and viability, if possible. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 50 Following the evaluation and recommendation by the regional groups – which consist of representatives from EU countries, including Transmission System Operators (TSOs), project promoters, national regulatory authorities, and others – in accordance with the specific PCI selection criteria under Article 4 of the TEN-E Regulation, the final decision is made by the European Commission. Successful projects are included in the PCI list, which is updated every two years. We highlight four different leverages which are crucial for a successful PCI application: • Technical preparation: displaying the project developer’s experience and track record can be a particularly important asset to achieve the PCI status. This can also be achieved with partnerships with institutions holding relevant skills for the project development. • Stakeholders: it is one of the most key factors to obtain a PCI status for a project. To ensure a sound project development, multiple entities must be brought onboards, as developers or external stakeholders. They can hold distinct roles or skills, contributing to the increase of the level of trust for the project completion. • Level of maturity: the level of definition of the project is also an indicator of the project capability to achieve the PCI status. A well-defined concept, where multiple scenarios have been analysed and screened, facilitates the construction of a sound PCI application. • Financing: while a PCI project facilitates the access to project funding, the applicants must show that they can raise the necessary funds to finance the project. This also means that it is important to have a solid economic analysis and business case. The suggested PCI in section 3 follow different strategies with different requirements: • The pipeline infrastructure from Germany to Denmark consists of a single pipeline to support a larger network. It is a crucial infrastructure to support carbon capture in the northern regions of Germany and the development of storage and utilisation initiatives in Denmark. This requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders, based in both countries. • The pipeline infrastructure to Gdánsk consists of a full network to enable CCUS value chains in the Baltic countries of Poland and Lithuania, with the possibility of extension to Czechia. Here, the infrastructure was not divided into smaller projects, which increases the level of difficulty in raising funds and requires the involvement of many stakeholders from different areas. It also leads to a more holistic development of the value chain, ensuring project continuity. • The pipeline and harbour infrastructure in Italy and Greece considers an additional type of infrastructure: a harbour and onshore terminal. This creates a higher diversity of risks and challenges, but also opportunities, to obtain CO2 shipped from longer distances such as France. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 51 6 Reference List [1] Ringstad, C., Falck da Silva, E., Skagestad, R., Heyn, R., Biragnet, C., Frykman P., Anthonsen, K.L., Gravaud, I., Wójcicki, A., Shogenova, A., Shogenov, K., Sınayuç, Ç., Yıldırım, B., Bulbul, S., Sousa, L.H. & Perimenis, A. (2023). Deliverable 1.1: Highlevel regional mapping of CO2 emission sources utilization industry and infrastructure in the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean Sea regions. Zero Emission Network to facilitate CCUS uptake in industrial clusters. CCUS ZEN. Open report in EU Horizon Europe CCUS ZEN. Project 101075693. [2] Gravaud, I., Shogenova, A., Shogenov, K., Sousa, L.H., Wójcicki, A., Lothe, A.E., Cruard, Q., Sınayuç, Ç., Yıldırım, B., Bulbul, S., Stevenson, R. & Perimenis, A. (2024). Deliverable 1.2 Identification of promising CCUS value chains in the two ZEN regions for further analyses in WP3. Open report in EU Horizon Europe CCUS ZEN. Project 101075693. [3] Shogenova, A., Shogenov, K., Sousa, L.H., Bonto, M., Gravaud, I., Lopez, A., Koumentis, I., Sınayuç, Ç., Yıldırım, B., Bulbul, S., Frykman P., Anthonsen, K.L., Bouvier, L., Lothe, A., Wójcicki, A., Perimenis, A., Ombudstvedt, I., Warmer, L., Honegger, M., Karimi, F., & Marzban, E. (2024), Deliverable 3.1 CCUS value chains for the two CCUS ZEN regions selected for further development in WP4. Open report in EU Horizon Europe CCUS ZEN. Project 101075693. [4] REGULATION (EU) 2022/869 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30 May 2022 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2009, (EU) 2019/942 and (EU) 2019/943 and Directives 2009/73/EC and (EU) 2019/944, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 347/2013. [5] Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1041 of 28 November 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Union list of projects of common interest and projects of mutual interest, C/2023/7930, OJ L, 2024/1041, 8.4.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2024/1041/oj. [6] Global CCS Institute (2024), CCS In Germany’s Decarbonisation Pathway: State of Play and Way Forward. [7] European Commission (2024), COM/2024/62, Communication from The Commission to The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of The Regions Towards an ambitious Industrial Carbon Management for the EU. [8] Honegger, M., Oh, S., Schmitt, F., Poralla, M., Ombudstvedt, I., Ostgaard, L., Viguier, R., Palfi, E., Bell, R., Evensen, D., Chalmers, H., Karimi, F. & Dahlberg, U. (2024), Making CCU and CCS hubs and clusters happen: Overcoming non-technical challenges. Perspectives Climate Research on behalf of the CCUS ZEN Project, D2.3 of CCUS ZEN project, Freiburg i.B., Germany, 70 pp. [9] Orlen (2023) Project ECO2CEE (prev. EU CCS Interconnector). CSLF Warsaw, 1314 June 2023. Retrieved from https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/202308/8.%20ECO2CEE%20PKN%20ORLEN.pdf. [10] IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean-energy-transitions, Licence: CC BY 4.0. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 52 [11] Donda, F., Volpi, V., Persoglia, S., Parushev, D. (2011), CO2 storage potential of deep saline aquifers: The case of Italy. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 327-335. [12] Barison, E., Donda, F., Merson, B., Le Gallo, Y., Reveillere, A. (2023), An insight into underground hydrogen storage in Italy. Sustainability, 15, 6886. [13] BR-Drucksache 266/24, Gesetz zur Änderung des KohlendioxidSpeicherungsgesetzes, Bundesregierung, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz. [14] Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania, (2024), Lithuania - Final updated NECP 2021-2030, 423 pp. https://commission.europa.eu/publications/lithuania-final-updated-necp-2021-2030submitted-2024_en. [15] Shogenova, A.; Nordbäck, N.; Sopher, D.; Shogenov, K.; Niemi, A.; Juhlin, C.; Šliaupa, S.; Ivandic, M., Wójcicki, A.; Ivask, J.; Klimkowski, L.; Nagy, S. (2021). Carbon Neutral Baltic Sea Region by 2050: Myth or Reality? 15th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-15, 15-18 March 2021, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Elsevier, SSRN, 1−12. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3817722. [16] BASRECCS (2024), BASRECCS | About us, https://www.bcforum.net/. [17] BASRECCS (2024), BASRECCS | Baltic Carbon Forum, https://www.bcforum.net/forum.php. [18] Haselton TM (2013). Exploiting the ROZ in Lithuania. 19th Annual CO2 Flooding Conference, Midland, Texas. http://www.co2conference.net/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/15-Haselton-Exploiting-the-ROZ-in-Lithuania-new-new.pdf. [19] Helenic Republic Ministry of Environment and Energy (2023). National Energy and Climate Plan – Preliminary Draft Revised Version, October 2023, 307 pp. [20] HEREMA (2023), Member State report on Implementation of Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of carbon dioxide ("CCS Directive"). [21] EnEarth (2024), EnEarth: Formal application for a CO2 Storage License. Retrieved from: https://www.energean.com/media/5842/enearth-formal-applicationfor-a-co2-storage-license.pdf. [22] Shogenova, A., Shogenov, K., Fantini, M., Ferrari, K., Guasti, E., Martinelli, F., Sogni, A., Damasiotis, M., Patlitzianas, K., Tzaos, P., Dütschke, E., Kantel, A., Janssen, H., (2024), Deliverable 8.1 Analysis of policy alignment including country case studies. HERCCULES. Project 101096691. D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 53 7 Abbreviation List Table 7-1 Abbreviations Abbreviation ACER Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators BE Belgium BG Bulgaria CCP Climate Change Programme CCUS Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage CEF Connecting Europe Facility CY Cyprus DK Denmark EC European Commission EL Greece EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction ES Spain ETS Emissions Trading System EU European Union FR France HC Hydrocarbon HR Croatia ICMS Industrial Carbon Management Strategy IT Italy D3.2 Identification of potential PCI 54 Abbreviation kt Thousand tonnes LT Lithuania LV Latvia MRR Monitoring and Reporting Regulation Mt Million tonnes NECP National Energy and Climate Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NL Netherlands NO Norway NRA National Regulatory Authorities O&G Oil and Gas PCI Project of Common Interest RRF Recovery and Resilience Facility SE Sweden SI Slovenia T&S Transport and Storage TEN-E Trans-European Network for Energy TSO Transmission System Operator UK United Kingdom y year ZEN Zero Emission Network (project)