• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
438
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • ETP BLUE Map is a 50% from 2007 (29 Gt) and 80% from BAU (57 Gt) reduction in 2050.
  • 16 th Conference of the Parties and 6 th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
  • Examples for the first question: Demonstration first via one-off legislation (Western Australia, Barrow Island Act, 2003) Demonstration first via adaptation of existing regulations (CO2CRC Otway Pilot Project, Victoria) Regulate first in the UK (Energy Act, 2008) with demonstration “competition” to follow In parallel in Alberta (ongoing Acid Gas Injection, Shell Quest via ERCB) with AB32 2010 and ongoing RFA.
  • At current the US does not allow for any transfer or diminution of liability.
  • For example: EU allows for transfer of “climate liability”; Alberta does not. Australia Commonwealth legislation extends protection from liability under “general law”; State of Victoria does not.

Transcript

  • 1. Recent International Legal and Regulatory Developments in CCS
    • Sean McCoy
    • Carbon Capture and Storage: Legal Framework Development and Supply Chain Perspectives 18 October 2011
  • 2. International Energy Agency
    • Inter-governmental body founded in 1973, currently 28 Member Countries
    • Policy advice and energy security coordination
    • Whole energy policy spectrum and all energy technologies
    • Key publications: World Energy Outlook and Energy Technology Perspectives
    • Host to more than 40 technology-specific networks (“Implementing Agreements”)
      • Operated independently with their own membership and financing
      • Includes IEAGHG, IEA Clean Coal Centre etc.
    • Active in CCS since 2000; dedicated CCS unit created in 2010
      • Provides policy advice
      • Supports broader IEA cross-technology analysis
    IEA countries OECD countries, but not IEA members
  • 3. CCS is needed to meet emissions reduction targets Source: IEA ETP, 2010 BLUE Map Scenario
  • 4. The IEA CCS Roadmap sets an ambitious growth path Source: IEA CCS Roadmap, 2009
  • 5. Three Key Legal & Regulatory Milestones to Achieve the CCS Roadmap Goals
    • Existing legal and regulatory frameworks should be reviewed and adapted for CCS demonstration by 2011 in OECD countries and by 2015 in all countries
    • All countries should have a legal and regulatory framework suitable for large-scale CCS deployment by 2020
    • International legal issues need to be resolved by 2012
  • 6. CCS Legal and Regulatory Review
    • Analyses global CCS regulatory progress
    • Released every 6 months
    • Contributions by national and regional governments and international organisations
    • Overview of recent and expected developments
    • IEA analysis of key advances and trends
  • 7. Highlights from the 2 nd Edition: May 2011
    • Reports from 29 governments and 9 international organizations
    • Theme for the 2 nd edition: long-term liability for stored CO 2
    • Significant developments in five areas:
      • Transposition of EU Directive on Geologic Storage
      • Inclusion of CCS in the Clean Development Mechanism
      • International marine treaty developments
      • Process for developing CCS regulatory frameworks
  • 8. Transposition of EU Directive on Geologic Storage
    • June 25, 2011 deadline for notification of transposition of the Directive spurred considerable progress
    • 11 of 27 EU member states formally communicated transposition measures to the Commission by deadline
    • Member States must (with few exceptions) transpose the Directive—the remaining Member states still have work to do!
    • The Commission has released four guidance documents to assist in transposition
  • 9. CCS in the Clean Development Mechanism
    • Recent History
    • November 2010 : Decision at COP-16 ( Cancun, Mexico) that CCS is eligible under the CDM, subject to resolution of certain specified issues
    • August 2011 : Synthesis report of submissions from Parties released by the UNFCCC Secretariat
    • September 2011 : Technical workshop on modalities and procedures for geologic storage held in Abu Dhabi
    • Next steps
    • November 2011 : Draft modalities and procedures, prepared by the UNFCCC Secretariat to be considered by SBSTA at COP-17 (Durban, South Africa)
  • 10. Developments in International Marine Treaties
    • London Protocol: 2009 Article 6 Amendment
      • Amendment to enable cross-border transportation of CO 2
      • Ratification required by 27 of 40 Contracting Parties
      • Only Norway has ratified to date; Dutch ratification pending
      • Only 17 additional Parties with substantial interest in CCS
      • Constraint on offshore storage cooperation
    • OSPAR
      • 2007 amendment to enable sub-seabed CO 2 injection
      • Ratification by 7 Parties required; 6 ratifications to date with 1 pending
      • Likely to enter into force in 2011
  • 11. Practical Considerations to Develop CCS Regulatory Frameworks
    • Timing of regulatory development: develop CCS-specific regulation first; demonstrate CCS first; or develop and demonstrate in parallel?
    • How can coordination be achieved within government?
    • Where are the regulatory gaps and barriers to CCS?
    • Is regulation is fit for purpose?
  • 12. What Do We Mean by “Long-term Liability”?
    • “ Liability” generic term for
      • General law liabilities ( e.g. under civil law, for damage to the environment, human health or third party property)
      • Monitoring and corrective actions or remediation measures
      • “ Global” (climate) liability
    • “ Long-term liability”: liabilities arising after
      • Permanent cessation of injection and completions of active monitoring
    • CCS aims to be permanent: implications for liabilities associated with a storage site
  • 13. Traditional Focus on the Question of Transfer
    • Liability transfer or indefinite operator responsibility?
    • Trend towards liability transfer
      • European Union follows this approach, along with Australia and some Australian, Canadian and US states and provinces
    • No outright consensus in existing CCS frameworks and other options exist
  • 14. Beyond Transfer: The Devil is in the Details
    • Much to consider beyond preliminary question of transfer
    • Generally three requirements imposed:
      • No significant risk of physical leakage or seepage of stored CO 2
      • Minimum time period elapsed
      • Financial contribution to long-term stewardship
    • Marked differences in approach between jurisdictions
  • 15. Three Key Legal & Regulatory Milestones to Achieve the CCS Roadmap Goals
    • Existing legal and regulatory frameworks should be reviewed and adapted for CCS demonstration by 2011 in OECD countries and by 2015 in all countries
    • All countries should have a legal and regulatory framework suitable for large-scale CCS deployment by 2020
    • International legal issues need to be resolved by 2012
  • 16. Thank-you!
    • Sean McCoy, Ph.D. International Energy Agency Energy Analyst, Legal & Regulatory Issues
      • Telephone: +33 (0)1 40 57 67 07 Email: sean.mccoy@iea.org Web: www.iea.org/ccs/legal.asp