Hydrogen
Paper

Criteria

Background

Development of Eligibility Criteria
under the Climate Bonds Standard& Certification Scheme
Published for certification
NOTE:

These Criteria can be used to certify Use-of-Proceeds Instruments, SustainabilityLinked Debt Instruments, Assets and Entities per the Climate Bonds Standard v4.0

Revision

Date

Rev. 2.0

November 2023

Summary of Changes
Issued for Certification
Hydrogen production, and delivery criteria

Rev. 1.1

August 2023

Issued for Public Consultation
Hydrogen production, and delivery criteria

Rev. 1.0

November 2022

Issued for Certification
Hydrogen production criteria

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

Page | 1

Acknowledgements
Climate Bonds gratefully acknowledges the Technical and Industry Working Group members who supported the development of these
Criteria. Members are listed in Appendix A. Special thanks are given to Emre Gencer, the technical lead specialist and Marian Rodriguez
for coordinating the development of the Criteria through the Technical Working Group.
The Industry Working Group provided critical and useability focused consultation and feedback on the Criteria, but this does not
automatically reflect endorsement of the criteria by all members.

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

Page | 2

Definitions
Additionality principle: Ensuring that electrolytic hydrogen is produced from additional renewable electricity.
Applicant: The term or name for any potential bond issuer, or non-financial corporate entity that might seek certification under
the Steel Criteria.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): describes a suite of technologies that capture waste CO2, usually from large point sources,
transport it to a storage site, and deposit it where it will not enter the atmosphere. Stored CO2 is injected into anunderground geological formation; this could be a depleted oil and gas reservoir or other suitable geological formation.
Carbon Capture, Utilisation and storage (CCUS): describes a suite of technologies that capture waste CO2, usually from large point
sources, to then use it in other processes, or to make products.
Climate Bonds Initiative (Climate Bonds): An investor focused not-for-profit organisation, promoting large-scale investments thatwill deliver a global low carbon and climate resilient economy. Climate Bonds seeks to develop mechanisms to betteralign the interests of investors, industry, and government to catalyse investments at a speed and scale sufficient to avoid
dangerous climate change.
Climate Bonds Standard (CBS): A screening tool for investors and governments that allows them to identify green bonds theproceeds of which are being used to deliver climate change solutions. This may be through climate mitigation impact
and/or climate adaptation or resilience. The CBS is made up of two parts: the parent standard (CBS v4.0) and a suite of
sector specific eligibility Criteria. The parent standard covers the certification process and pre- and post-issuancerequirements for all certified bonds, regardless of the nature of the capital projects. The Sector Criteria detail specificrequirements for assets identified as falling under that specific sector. The latest version of the CBS is published on the
Climate Bonds website.
Climate Bonds Standard Board (CBSB): A board of independent members that collectively represents $34 trillion of assets undermanagement. The CBSB is responsible for approving (i) Revisions to the CBS, including the adoption of additional sector
Criteria, (ii) Approved verifiers, and (iii) Applications for Certification of a bond under the CBS. The CBSB is constituted,
appointed, and supported in line with the governance arrangements and processes as published on the Climate Bonds
website.
Climate Bond Certification: allows the issuer to use the Climate Bond Certification Mark in relation to that bond. Climate Bond
Certification is provided once the independent CBSB is satisfied the bond conforms with the CBS.
Critical interdependencies: The asset or activity’s boundaries and interdependencies with surrounding infrastructure systems.
Interdependencies are specific to local context but are often connected to wider systems through complex relationshipsthat depend on factors ‘outside the asset fence’ that could cause cascading failures or contribute to collateral systembenefits.
Geographic correlation: Renewable electricity generation must be geographically correlated to the hydrogen production site,which means to be located in the same electricity market price area.
Green Bond: A green bond is a bond of which the proceeds are allocated to environmental projects or expenditures. The term
generally refers to bonds that have been marketed as green. In theory, green bonds proceeds could be used for a wide
variety of environmental projects or expenditures, but in practice they have mostly been earmarked for climate change
projects.
Hydrogen production assets and projects: Assets and projects relating to the acquisition, installation, management and/or
operation of infrastructure for hydrogen production and delivery.
Hydrogen Delivery projects: All the operations and activities after hydrogen production and before end-use. It includes
conditioning, transportation, conversion, reconversion, and storage.
Industry Working Group (IWG): A group of key organisations that are potential issuers, verifiers and investors convened by Climate
Bonds IWG provides feedback on the draft sector Criteria developed by the TWG before they are released for public
consultation.
Investment Period: The interval between the bond’s issuance and its maturity date. Otherwise known as the bond tenor.

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

Page | 3

Technical Working Group (TWG): A group of key experts from academia, international agencies, industry and NGOs convened by
Climate Bonds. The TWG develops the Sector Criteria - detailed technical criteria for the eligibility of projects and assets
as well as guidance on the tracking of eligibility status during the term of the bond. Their draft recommendations arerefined through engagement with finance industry experts in convened Industry Working Groups (see below) and throughpublic consultation. Final approval of Sector Criteria is given by the CBSB.
Temporal correlation: Ensuring that renewable energy generation and hydrogen production coincide temporally.

List of acronyms
A&R

Adaptation and Resilience

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

CCS

Carbon Capture and Storage

IRENA

International Renewable Energy Agency

CCU

Carbon Capture and Utilisation

IWG

Industrial Working GroupCO2eq CO2 equivalents

NGO

Non-governmental organisations

EGS

Environmental, Social, and Governance

SBTi

Science-Based Targets initiative

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

TWG

Technical Working GroupGWP

Global Warming Potential

IEA

International Energy Agency

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

Page | 4

Table of Contents
Definitions

3

List of acronyms

4

1

7

2

Introduction
1.1

Overview

7

1.2

Funding the goals of the Paris Agreement

7

1.3

The role of bonds

7

1.4

Introduction to the CBS8

1.5

Process for Sector Criteria Development

8

1.6Structure of this document

9

Sector Overview
2.1

What is hydrogen?

9

2.2

Future of Hydrogen

10

Key players

10

2.2.1
2.3

3

Climate change and main decarbonisation challenges

11

2.3.1

Hydrogen Production

11

2.3.2

Hydrogen Delivery

13

2.3.3

Hydrogen Storage

16

2.4

Investment need

16

2.5

Deals already seen in the sector

16

Principles and Boundaries of the Criteria

17

3.1

Guiding Principles

17

3.1.1

Guiding principles - Use-of-Proceeds bonds

18

3.1.2

Guiding principles - General Corporate Purpose bonds

18

3.2

Assets and Activities Covered by these Criteria

19

3.3

Overarching considerations

20

3.3.1

GHG emissions that are included

20

3.3.2

Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions

21

3.3.3

Colour spectrum classification and carbon intensity benchmarks

21

3.4

GHG accounting methodology

22

3.4.1

Hydrogen Production GHG Accounting Methodology

23

3.4.2

Hydrogen Transportation GHG Accounting Methodology

23

3.5

4

9

Considering regional differences

23

3.5.1

Additional requirements and qualitative criteria

24

3.5.2

Other environmental impacts

24

Criteria Overview

25

4.1

Eligible assets and projects

25

4.2

Mitigation criteria for decarbonisation measures, and specific projects within facilities producing hydrogen

26

4.2.1

Relating to feedstock use:

26

4.2.2

Relating to electricity source

26

4.2.3

Various27

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

Page | 5

4.3

Mitigation criteria for assets or facilities producing hydrogen

29

4.3.1

Carbon intensity benchmark

29

4.3.2

Emissions reduction trajectory

30

4.3.3

Cross cutting criteria for decarbonisation measures and retrofitting activities

32

4.4

Mitigation Criteria for Hydrogen Delivery Projects

33

4.5

Criteria for adaptation & resilience

34

4.5.1

An overview of the criteria for adaptation & resilience

34

4.5.2

Key aspects to be assessed

34

4.5.3

Practical requirements for this Component

36

4.6

Existing tools and guidelines considered

Appendix A: TWG and IWG members

37
38

List of Figures
Figure 1: Criteria development process
9
Figure 2: Hydrogen Production routes
10
Figure 3: Carbon dioxide emissions reduction vs. hydrogen volumetric blending
14
Figure 4: The most common routes for large-scale hydrogen transportation
14
Figure 5: The Hallmarks of a credibly transitioning company
19
Figure 6: Simplified Representation of Hydrogen Value Chain
20
Figure 7: The relationship between the Corporate, Scope 3, and Product Standards for a company manufacturing product A
21
Figure 8: Hydrogen Colour Spectrum
22
Figure 9: Electricity mix 2021
23
Figure 10: Impacts on climate change associated with the production of NG-based hydrogen with methane emission rates of 0.2%,
1.5%, and 8%, and two plant configurations with high and low CO2 removal rates, applying both GWP100 and GWP20.56 30
Figure 11: Carbon-equivalent emissions by hydrogen production pathways, 2030 and 2050
32
Figure 12: Example of technologies to reduce emissions from hydrogen production towards net zero by 2050.
32

List of Tables3
Table 1: Technology Readiness Level of Hydrogen Production Options
Table 2: Main hydrogen carriers and delivery options comparison
Table 3: Deals already seen in the hydrogen market
Table 4: Key principles for the design of Climate Bond Standard Sector Criteria
Table 5: Mitigation measures categories
Table 6: Main existing standards for hydrogen production
Table 7: Hydrogen carbon intensity thresholds
Table 8: The Climate Bonds principles for Resilience

12
15
17
18
26
29
31
34

List of Appendices
Appendix A: TWG and IWG members

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative38

Page | 6

1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
This document serves as a reference document to the Criteria Document for Hydrogen Production. The purpose of this document
is to provide an overview of the key considerations and issues that were raised during the development of the Hydrogen Criteria
and provide the rationale for why requirements were chosen and set.
The Criteria were developed through a consultative process with TWG and IWG, and through public consultation. The TWGs
comprised academic and research institutions, civil society organisations, multilateral banks and specialist consultancies whereas
IWGs are represented by industry experts including potential bond issuers and investors. A 52-day period of public consultation
offers the opportunity to any member of the public to comment on the Criteria. This document aims to capture these various
dialogues and inputs and substantiate the reasoning behind the Hydrogen Criteria.
Supplementary information will be made available in addition to this document, including:
•
•
•
•
•

Information to support issuers and verifiers is available at the Hydrogen Criteria.
Hydrogen Frequently Asked Questions
Hydrogen public consultation feedback and responses summary
Climate Bonds Standard: contains the requirements of the overarching CBS
The Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme Brochure: provides an overview of the Climate Bonds Standard &Certification Scheme, of which these Criteria are a partFor more information on Climate Bonds and the Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme, see www.climatebonds.net.

1.2 Funding the goals of the Paris Agreement
The current trajectory of climate change, expected to lead to a global warming of 2.7-3.1°C by 21001, poses an enormous threat
to the future of the world’s nations and economies. The aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit warming to a global average of no
more than 2°C higher than pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, and ideally no more than 1.5°C. The effects of climatechange and the risks associated even with a 2°C rise is significant: rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of hurricanes,
droughts, wildfires and typhoons, and changes in agricultural patterns and yields. Meeting the 2°C goal requires a dramatic
reduction in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
At the same time, the world is entering an age of unprecedented urbanisation and related infrastructure development. Global
infrastructure investment is expected to amount to USD 90 trillion by 2030, more than the entire current infrastructure stock 2.
To ensure sustainable development and avoid dangerous climate change, this infrastructure needs to be low-carbon and resilient
to physical climate impacts, without compromising the economic growth needed to improve the livelihoods and wellbeing of theworld’s poorer citizens. Ensuring that the infrastructure built is low-carbon raises the annual investment needs by 3-4%. Climate
adaptation needs to add another significant amount of investment, estimated at USD 280-500 billion per annum by 2050 for a 2°C
scenario.

1.3 The role of bonds
Traditional sources of capital for infrastructure investment (governments and commercial banks) are insufficient to meet thesecapital needs; institutional investors, particularly pension and sovereign wealth funds, are increasingly looked to as viable actors
to fill these financing gaps.

1 According to Climate Tracker, under current policies we could expect 2.7 - 3.1°C: http://climateactiontracker.org/global.html
2 The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (2018), ‘Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent

Times’: https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

Page | 7

Capital markets enable issuers to tap into large pools of private capital from institutional investors. Bonds are appropriate
investment vehicles for these investors as they are low-risk investments with long-term maturities, making them a good fit withinstitutional investors’ liabilities (e.g., pensions to be paid out in several decades).
Bond financing works well for low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure projects post-construction, as bonds are often used
as refinancing instruments. Labelled Green Bonds are bonds with proceeds used for green projects, mostly climate change
mitigation and/or adaptation projects, and labelled accordingly. The rapid growth of the labelled green bond market has shownin practice that the bond markets can provide a promising channel to finance climate investments.
The Green Bond market can reward bond issuers and investors for sustainable investments that accelerate progress toward a lowcarbon and climate-resilient economy. Commonly used as long-term debt instruments, Green Bonds are issued by governments,
companies, municipalities, and commercial and development banks to finance or re-finance assets or activities with environmental
benefits. Green Bonds are regular bonds with one distinguishing feature: proceeds are earmarked for projects with environmental
benefits. Green Bonds are in high demand and can help issuers attract new types of investors.
A green label is a discovery mechanism for investors. It enables the identification of climate-aligned investments even with limited
resources for due diligence. By doing so, a green bond label reduces friction in the markets and facilitates growth in climatealigned investments.
Currently Green Bonds only account for less than 0.2% of a global bond market of USD128 trillion 3. The potential for scaling up istremendous. The market now needs to grow much bigger, and quickly.

1.4 Introduction to the CBS
Activating the mainstream debt capital markets to finance and refinance climate friendly projects and assets is critical to achieving
international climate goals, and robust labelling of green bonds is a key requirement for that mainstream participation. Confidence
in the climate objectives and the use of funds intended to address climate change is fundamental to the credibility of the role thatgreen bonds play in a low carbon and climate resilient economy. Trust in the green label and transparency to the underlying assets
are essential for this market to reach scale but investor capacity to assess green credentials is limited. Therefore, Climate Bonds
created the Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme, which aims to provide the green bond market with the trust andassurance to achieve the required scale.
The Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme is an easy-to-use tool for investors and issuers to assist them in prioritising
investments that truly contribute to addressing climate change, both from a resilience and a mitigation point of view. It is madeup of the overarching CBS detailing management and reporting processes, and a set of Sector Criteria detailing the requirements
assets must meet to be eligible for certification. The Sector Criteria covers a range of sectors including solar energy, wind energy,
marine renewable energy, geothermal power, low carbon buildings, low carbon transport, and water. The Certification Scheme
requires issuers to obtain independent verification, pre- and post-issuance, to ensure the bond meets the requirements of the
CBS.
Existing Sector Criteria cover solar energy, wind energy, marine renewable energy, geothermal power, buildings, transport (landand sea), bioenergy, forestry, agriculture, waste management and water infrastructure, hydropower, electricity grids and storage.
In addition to Hydrogen, additional Sector Criteria currently under development include Cement and Steel.

1.5 Process for Sector Criteria Development
The CBS has been developed based on public consultation, road testing, and review by the Assurance Roundtable (a group of
verifiers) and expert support from experienced green bond market participants.

3

www.icmagroup.org/regulatory-policy-and-market-practice/secondary-markets/bond-market-size

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

Page | 8

Figure 1: Criteria development process

The Standard is revisited and amended on an annual basis in response to the growing climate aligned finance market. Sector
specific Criteria are developed by TWG made up of scientists, engineers, and technical specialists. Draft Criteria are presented to
IWG before being released for public comment. Finally, Criteria are presented to the CBSB for approval (see diagram below).
Sector Criteria for many sectors are available and include wind, solar, geothermal, marine renewables, hydropower, roadtransport, marine transport, electrical grids, water management and buildings. Criteria are available atwww.climatebonds.net/standard/available.

1.6 Structure of this document
This document supports the Hydrogen Criteria. It captures the issues raised and discussed by the TWG, as well as the arguments
and evidence in support of the Criteria. It is structured as follows:
Section 2

provides a brief overview of the sector: its status, trends and role in mitigating and adapting to climatechange.
Section 3 outlines the objectives, principles, boundaries and overarching considerations for setting the criteria andprovides an overview of the criteria.
Section 4 describes the rationale behind the mitigation requirements.
Section 4.6 describes the rationale behind the adaptation and resilience requirements.

2 Sector Overview
2.1 What is hydrogen?
Hydrogen is a basic chemical that has been used for years mainly as a feedstock for refineries and chemical processes, such as
ammonia and methanol production. However, hydrogen is experiencing an unprecedented momentum today as a sustainable fueland feedstock beyond its traditional applications. It offers a huge opportunity to replace fossil fuels and contribute to thedecarbonisation of the economy.
Hydrogen is not a primary energy source but an energy carrier whose production requires high amounts of energy. It can beproduced from different energy sources, such as fossil fuels, biomass, renewables, nuclear, and via diverse conversion
technologies. Nevertheless, most of its production today is based on fossil fuel-based alternatives: steam methane reforming(SMR) of natural gas and coal gasification; these production pathways have high carbon footprints; hence, making hydrogenproduction less emission intensive is essential to contribute to decarbonisation of the economy. Today hydrogen production
accounts for 6% of fossil gas and 2% of coal consumption globally4.
The following diagram illustrates the main technologies and energy sources to produce hydrogen.

4

IEA, 2021. The future of hydrogen. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/9e3a3493-b9a6-4b7d-b499-7ca48e357561/The_Future_of_Hydrogen.pdf

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

Page | 9

Figure 2: Hydrogen Production routes5

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the total demand for hydrogen in 2020 was around 90 million tonnes. Around
45% was used in oil refining, and 50% in chemicals production, mainly ammonia, and the remaining 5% was used for steel
production through the Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) process.6
The criteria development process included considerations about acceptable energy sources, lock-in risks for fossil-based
production, end-use targeting, and ambitious thresholds for emissions reduction among other key elements.

2.2 Future of Hydrogen
Estimating hydrogen future demand depends on different scenario assumptions involving policy frameworks, diverse technology
deployment, and market dynamics. Although it is expected that most of the global demand will be for low-carbon (ideally zerocarbon) hydrogen in the future, it is not possible to accurately predict the hydrogen demand by 2050. The estimations varyconsiderably, including 149 Mt/year, according to Shell´s 2018 Sky Scenario7; 300 Mt/year under the “Energy of the future”
scenario, developed by Deloitte8; and 546 Mt/year in the Hydrogen Council 2019 forecast 9. Most of these projections foresee aslight and stable growth by 2030. Then, after 2035, steeper growth is expected, influenced by capacity increase and thedevelopment of the essential infrastructure. Usually, the time needed to implement hydrogen infrastructure projects, such as
pipelines and terminals, is around 10 to 12 years.9
Despite a wide range of demand estimations per sector, heavy industry, long-distance transport, and other energy sectors seemto dominate the future demand.

2.2.1 Key players
The hydrogen generation industry is a global and competitive market. Traditionally, it was led by key multinational corporations,such as Air Liquide (France), Air Products and Chemicals (U.S.), Linde Group (Germany), and Messer Group (Germany), which
produce mainly industrial gases. Also, Cummins (U.S.), a power technology company that recently acquired Hydrogenics, an

5 Zhang et al, 2021.

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1674862X2100001X?token=45189D47108BFB3EB9E1276C36F19EAFD40D16A4103A51D1C5BAC21CD67B106AE1A4F
FE0931EC3241B57FED439E50027&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20221114115024
6 IEA, 2021. Global Hydrogen Review. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/5bd46d7b-906a-4429-abda-e9c507a62341/GlobalHydrogenReview2021.pdf
7World Energy Council, 2021. Working Paper | Hydrogen demand and cost dynamics. www.worldenergy.org/assets/downloads/Working_Paper__Hydrogen_Demand_And_Cost_Dynamics_-_September_2021.pdf
8 Deloitte, 2021. Scenario Analysis COAG Energy Council - National Hydrogen Strategy Taskforce

www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/future-of-cities/deloitte-au-australian-global-hydrogen-demand-growth-scenario-analysis091219.pdf
9World Energy Council, 2021

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 10

industrial gas technology manufacturer. Many acquisitions, joint ventures, and alliances are increasing capabilities andcompetitiveness in a growing and challenging market. Some players are developing new technologies to meet the demand of
emerging markets, such as fuel cell vehicles. The deployment of new applications and the shift of hydrogen use toward otherindustries will drastically modify the dynamics of this market, including new players and stakeholders 10.
Large energy companies are announcing low-carbon hydrogen development projects. Most of the hydrogen scaling up project
announcements have been from the oil and gas sector. These projects mainly focus on meeting actual demand from industrial
clusters and their internal demand using the existing gas infrastructure. BP in Australia, Shell in the Netherlands, Equinor in the
UK, Sasol in South Africa, and Sinopec in China announced large green hydrogen projects. Repsol, in Spain, announced a quarterof its capital expenditure on low carbon projects, including hydrogen, through 2025 11. Large utility companies started to react byannouncing electrolysis infrastructure projects for hydrogen production to complement their renewable assets 12. ACWA Power in
Saudi Arabia is involved in a $6.5 billion green hydrogen project. NextEra in the US is working on a green hydrogen pilot using solar
energy to meet the demand of its plant in Florida, which today operates with natural gas. San Diego Gas & Electric announced two
green hydrogen storage projects, and Ohio's Long Ridge Energy Terminal confirmed its plans to convert a gas power plant to 100%
green hydrogen13. In Europe, the German utility Uniper developed a decarbonisation strategy to transform its gas power
production to hydrogen through an alliance with GE, a gas turbine manufacturer and Siemens. Iberdrola, in Spain, will work on an
innovation project to build an electrolyser powered by solar energy, which will supply hydrogen demand of an ammonia plant 14.
Other critical stakeholders across the value chain are renewable energy companies, technology providers, electrolyser and fuelcell manufacturers, pipeline and infrastructure companies, refueling station operators, storage operators, fossil gas industry, andpotential off-takers in the industrial sector, such as steel, and chemicals, heavy transport sector, including vehicle manufacturers& OEMs on the road transport, shipping sector to use or transport hydrogen 12. However, it is not clear who the off-takers ofhydrogen will be. Although some refinery and petrochemical assets have been listed as end-users, there is still a lack of visibility
and definitions of business models.

2.3 Climate change and main decarbonisation challenges
2.3.1 Hydrogen Production
Different hydrogen production technologies can be classified depending on the energy source and the production unit size andlocation. It can be decentralised (distributed), which implies small production plants located near the point of use, and centralised,in large plants to transport and distribute the hydrogen through pipeline or lorry 7. The infrastructure required for each varies andwill have its own challenges.
There is a vast opportunity to decarbonise hydrogen production, which will accelerate its adoption as an alternative feedstock andfuel. Hydrogen demand is mainly fulfilled by the processes based on fossil fuels, with 68% of the share from natural gas, 16% fromoil, and 11% from coal. Production processes include steam methane reforming (SMR), autothermal reforming (ATR), partial
oxidation (POX), and coal gasification. Today around 95% of total hydrogen is produced from fossil resources 7. The remaining
amount is produced by electrolysis, which needs to use low-carbon electricity to be considered low-carbon hydrogen.
Every region has a different perspective on hydrogen production pathways. Some countries prioritise renewable-based
production, and others include fossil-based production with carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) in the medium term
to decarbonise existing assets. Nuclear electricity source is taking more relevance, especially in regions such as China and Russia14.

10 Schlund and Schulte, 2021. The who’s who of a hydrogen market ramp-up: A stakeholder analysis for Germany

www.researchgate.net/publication/350107324_The_who's_who_of_a_hydrogen_market_ramp-up_A_stakeholder_analysis_for_Germany
11 Petroni and Holger, 2020. Betting on hydrogen. Journal report. https://powertapfuels.com/pdf/WSJ_Hydrogen_Overview_Oct_2020.pdf
12 Parnell, 2020. Who Will Own the Hydrogen Future: Oil Companies or Utilities?

www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/utilities-on-both-sides-of-atlantic-follow-oil-majors-hydrogen-lead
13 Pearl, 2021. NextEra sees hydrogen as key to deep decarbonization, takes small steps for now

www.utilitydive.com/news/nextera-sees-hydrogen-as-key-to-deep-decarbonization-takes-small-steps-for/598855/
14 Noussan et al., 2020. The Role of Green and Blue Hydrogen in the Energy Transition - A Technological and Geopolitical Perspective

www.researchgate.net/publication/348116004_The_Role_of_Green_and_Blue_Hydrogen_in_the_Energy_Transition__A_Technological_and_Geopolitical_Perspective
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 11

Alternative pathways exist, such as biomass gasification and pyrolysis, thermochemical water splitting, photocatalysis, andsupercritical water gasification of biomass; however, their maturity levels are still low 15.
The next table contains the technology readiness level (TRL) of the main production technologies.
Table 1: Technology Readiness Level of Hydrogen Production Options16
Technology name•

Short name

TRL

1.

Steam methane reforming

SMR

9

2.

Steam methane reforming with CCS

SMR+CCS

7-8

3.

Coal gasification

CG

9

4.

Coal gasification with CCS

CG+CCS

6-7

5.

Methane pyrolysis

CH4 pyrolysis

3-5

6.

Biomass gasification

BG

5-6

7.

Biomass gasification with CCS

BG+CCS

3-5

Electrolytic Hydrogen
Electrolytic hydrogen, also referred as green hydrogen when electrolyser is powered by renewable electricity, is produced via
decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen gas. Different electrolysis technologies exist to produce hydrogen, Alkalinetechnology being the most mature and widely used, even for existing processes such as chlorine production. Proton exchange
membrane (PEM), which is already commercially available, offers more flexibility, with a wider operating range, shorter
response time, and lower footprint. Solid oxide electrolysers (SOEC), which has better energy efficiency if thermally integrated
and works at higher temperatures, are still under development 7.
The main barrier to electrolytic hydrogen is the cost. However new developments, membrane materials and stack options
can reduce it.

•

Fossil-based Hydrogen with CCS
The commonly named blue hydrogen uses traditional fossil fuel-based processes with carbon capture and storage (CCS) to
reduce carbon emissions. Although it is possible to retrofit existing fossil-based hydrogen assets with CCS, additional transportand storage infrastructure may be required. The capture rate can vary depending on the plant design and whether carbon
capture is implemented to all CO2 sources in the plant. The effective capture rate can be 60-95%. 17However, according to theEnergy Transition Commission, it should be at least 90% to qualify as low-carbon hydrogen.
Another critical issue is the upstream methane leakages, including fossil fuel extraction, transport, and use. It must be
accounted for to accurately quantify the total GHG emissions from hydrogen production.18•

Methane/biomethane Pyrolysis
Methane pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of methane into hydrogen and carbon. There are no CO2 emissions from thisprocess. The only by product is solid carbon. However, because this process relies on fossil resources, except for biomethane
pyrolysis, it is not a long-term solution.19 It should be seen as a transition alternative to enhance the development of thehydrogen market, which should move towards renewable-based options, to avoid carbon lock-in risks.

15 IRENA, 2018 Hydrogen from renewable power: Technology outlook for the energy transition.

www.irena.org/publications/2018/sep/hydrogen-from-renewable-power
16

Al-Quahtani et al., 2021. Uncovering the true cost of hydrogen production routes using life cycle monetisationwww.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261920314136
17National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2022. Technical Report. https://netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=ed4825aa-8f04-4df7-abef-60e564f636c9Cite
18 Bauer et al, 2022. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2022/se/d1se01508g
19 Sánchez-Bastardo et al., 2021.

Methane Pyrolysis for Zero-Emission Hydrogen Production: A Potential Bridge Technology from Fossil Fuels to a Renewable andSustainable Hydrogen Economy. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01679

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 12

2.3.2 Hydrogen Delivery
Technologies and infrastructure to deliver hydrogen from production assets to end-users are critical parts of the value chain.
Because of the low volumetric energy density of hydrogen at ambient temperature and pressure, transporting and storing it
requires high amounts of energy. The emissions reduction potential of hydrogen as an alternative fuel to decarbonise some sectorsof the economy can be eclipsed when delivered using energy intense alternatives. Therefore, ensuring a clean delivery pathway
is required to keep consistency with a low-carbon production process. Overlooking delivery technologies can become a barrier todeploy the hydrogen market and decarbonise some sectors of the economy.

2.3.2.1
Hydrogen Delivery pathways
From a process point of view, hydrogen delivery includes three main steps:a) Conversion/ packing: Physical or chemical conditioning of hydrogen to have it ready for transport.
b) Transport and storage: Storing and transporting hydrogen to the end user.
c) Reconversion/unpacking: Separation and conditioning operations to have the hydrogen gas ready to use.
Further, there are two main ways of delivering hydrogen: Distribution, and transmission or transport. Distribution of hydrogen isfrom a single production point to a distribution network. Transmission of hydrogen is from a single production plant to a single
end-use point.20 Additional details can be found in the following sections.

2.3.2.1.1
Distribution
Exist different alternatives to supply end users, which includes transport through pipelines or trucks. The most suitable option
depends on the end-use application. In the future, pipelines will be the most cost-efficient distribution alternative; in the shortand medium term, hydrogen production near demand centers using trucks, trains, and refueling stations will be the bestalternative21. Ensuring cost-effective transmission and distribution of hydrogen will be essential to unlocking hydrogen
applications.

2.3.2.1.2

Transmission and Transport

Long-distance transmission and global trade will be part of the hydrogen value chain, especially for regions with significant
hydrogen demand but limited land area to generate power from renewable sources. Hydrogen's global value chain will have longdistance pipelines, and shipping routes22.
Hydrogen transportation is a critical part of the value chain sustainability analysis. High amounts of energy are required tocompress or liquify gas hydrogen or convert it to another energy carrier, such as ammonia. Currently, the main transportation
alternatives for hydrogen are compressed gaseous or liquid hydrogen by truck and compressed gaseous by pipeline. Anotheroption is hydrogen blends using existing fossil gas infrastructure. Although blends have been promoted in some countries, theemissions saving potential is lower than expected. Because blends are typically expressed in volumetric percentages, and thevolumetric energy density of hydrogen is lower than the one of methane, in consequence, the energy share of hydrogen is lower
in gas blends.23 The Following graph illustrates the emissions reduction potential of different blends of hydrogen and natural gas.
Considering its low mitigation potential, blends are excluded from the Climate Bonds criteria.

20Yang and Ogden, 2007.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319906001765

21 Hydrogen Council, 2021. https://hydrogencouncil.com/en/hydrogen-insights-2021/
22 Hydrogen Council, 2021. https://hydrogencouncil.com/en/hydrogen-insights-2021/
23 Noussan et al., 2020 www.researchgate.net/publication/348116004_The_Role_of_Green_and_Blue_Hydrogen_in_the_Energy_Transition_-_A_Technological_and_Geopolitical_Perspective
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 13

Figure 3: Carbon dioxide emissions reduction vs. hydrogen volumetric blending 23
For hydrogen medium-distance transport the lower-cost alternative is through pipelines. This option would have the potential
advantage of using existing infrastructure, assuming it is possible. For long distances, ship transport is the best alternative. It isdue to the lower costs and better flexibility to supply to different countries from a single exporter. 23 However, an energy carriersuch as ammonia can also be an alternative because of the energy required to liquefy hydrogen and keep it at low temperatures.
The diagram below shows the main routes for hydrogen transport.

Figure 4: The most common routes for large-scale hydrogen transportation
Table 2 summarizes the main transport alternatives, including a brief description of the technologies, the main energy requirements,
and the advantages and disadvantages. Information was taken from the technical report “Assessment of Hydrogen Delivery
Options” by the Joint Research Centre (JRC)24 recently published and the report “Hydrogen transportation / The key to unlocking
the clean hydrogen economy” by Roland Berger. The energy requirements are based on estimations and modeling from Roland
Berger.25

24 Ortiz et al., 2022. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC130442
25

Roland Berger, 2021. https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_hydrogen_transport.pdf

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 14

Table 2: Main hydrogen carriers and delivery options comparison

Alternative
Compressed

Description
Hydrogen is compressed to the pipelinepressure. It might require recompression at
different distances across the pipeline.
Existing fossil gas pipelines can be retrofitted
and adapted to transport hydrogen.

Advantages••••

Low operational costs
Long lifetimes
Mature technology and successful
experiences.
Pipelines can be used as a storage
option.

Disadvantages
•
•
•
•
•

•
Liquefied

LOHC (Liquid organichydrogen carriers)

Ammonia

Liquefying hydrogen requires a cooling step,
up to -253°C. After that, hydrogen is stored
in insulated tanks. After transporting theliquified hydrogen, it is vaporised to have itback as a gas.

•

LOHC are chemical compounds that havehydrogen chemically bind (hydrogenation).
LOHC can be transported at atmosphericpressure. After transporting it, the LOHC is
dehydrogenated using heat, to remove thehydrogen. Some LOHC are toluene,
dibenzyltoluene andbenzyltoluene.
Ammonia is a basic chemical used mainly to
produce fertilisers. Most of its production isbased on fossil resources.
Ammonia today is a storage alternative forhydrogen. Liquid ammonia is transported inrefrigerated tanks, and then its components
are split through a cracking process.

•Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

Mature technology at small-scale (inthe aerospace industry and refuelingstations).

•

•
•

•
•
•
•

•

LOHC can be stored, transported,and handled without complexity andsafety issues, even under ambient
temperatures.
Existing infrastructure can be used.
No hydrogen losses
Good storage alternative to manage
renewable intermittencies.
Ammonia production, transport andstorage are mature processes, that
already have infrastructure andstandards.
Ammonia can store larger volumesof hydrogen compared to othercarriers.

•
•

•
•
•

High initial capital costs
Long construction times (more than 10 years)
Complex permitting and authorization
processes
Cross-border pipelines are more complex andrequire cooperation
Material and network components
incompatibility of existing pipelines for
repurposing.
Blending has a very low emissions reduction
potential
Liquefaction requires high amounts of energy.
Because of the specific refrigeration needs,
storing, handling, and transporting it is morechallenging.
Boil-off losses
Transporting liquified hydrogen at large scales,
using vessels, is at early stages of development
Dehydrogenation is an energy intensive process
Producing the organic carrier has an additional
carbon footprint.

Safety concerns related to toxicity andpollution.
Ammonia production is high energy intensive.
The process of cracking ammonia to obtainhydrogen has a low technical readiness level. It
has high energy requirements.

P a g e | 15

Conversion
energy req.
[MWh/t H2]Reconversion
energy req.
[MWh/t H2]

Different assumptions need tobe made to estimate energy
requirements of compressedhydrogen. Network
configuration, pressure, andhydrogen flow influence theenergy requirements.

12.0

0.6

0.5

15.0

5.72

11.2

As it is illustrated in the Table 2, conversion contributes the most to the energy consumption of liquified hydrogen. Conversely, themost significant step for LOHC is the reconversion process. For ammonia, both conversion and reconversion contribute to energy
requirements. However, the cracking process is more energy intensive. In the case of compressed hydrogen, although it is notincluded in Table 2, transport energy requirements are the most critical part beyond the compression process. According to the
JRC report, more than 70% of the energy consumption to deliver compressed hydrogen by ship is related to transport.
Some aspects need to be considered to define the criteria for hydrogen infrastructure projects and investment. The energy
consumption, carbon footprint, and safety considerations are critical when defining low-carbon and certifiable projects. Setting
emissions intensity benchmarks should also be part of the criteria to certify hydrogen delivery and infrastructure projects to avoid
affecting the low-carbon definition of hydrogen production. The Climate Bonds hydrogen production criteria include transport
emissions as part of GHG accounting systems boundaries. However, there is still a lack of guidance on methodologies to quantify
these emissions.

2.3.3 Hydrogen Storage
The energy content of an energy carrier influences the storage method. Hydrogen density must be increased to be stored due to
its low volumetric energy density.
It is necessary to differentiate between hydrogen storage to operate its supply chain and large seasonal hydrogen storage to deal
with renewables intermittencies. Storage at terminals, refueling stations, and vehicles, such as ships and trucks, are part of the
supply chain storage activities. The hydrogen carriers described above are also part of the storage alternatives. Regarding large
seasonal storage, options include salt caverns, aquifers, or exhausted oil and gas reservoirs 26.
Gaseous hydrogen storage requires vessels using materials like steel, glass fiber, carbon fiber, and different polymeric materials.
Underground hydrogen storage implies the use of cushion-gas to keep the pressure of the reservoir and facilitate a good hydrogen
injection and removal rates. The amount of cushion gas can vary from 25% to 80% of the total volume, depending on the type ofstorage and its specific needs. Some cushion gas alternatives are methane, CO2, and nitrogen. Because of the leakage risk andgiven the warming potential of CO2 and methane, these are excluded from these criteria for hydrogen storage projects to becertified.

2.4 Investment need
Today, the costs of production of low-carbon hydrogen are higher than other low-carbon energy sources. In addition, because of
the uncertainties around the future hydrogen demand, revenues, and risk allocation, financial support will be necessary in the
short and medium term. A greater certainty will attract investors and reduce risk, which is essential to develop a healthy hydrogenmarket.
Financial institutions will be vital in mitigating the financial risk of early projects. During the past ten years, the European
Investment Bank (EIB) financed R&D hydrogen projects and now is offering technical advice and funding for large-scale hydrogenprojects. In 2020, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation dedicated AUD 300 million to the Advancing Hydrogen Fund 27.
According to the Hydrogen Council insights report, there are 228 hydrogen projects announced mainly in Europe, Asia, andAustralia. It would represent above the USD 300 billion by 2030 in total investments across the value chain, with only USD 70
billion from Governments.

2.5 Deals already seen in the sector
Many deals are taking place to accelerate the development of hydrogen projects. Hydrogen features in a small share of green
bonds so far (approximately 122 green bonds so far, worth about USD83.6 billion). The three largest deals were sovereign deals,

26Noussan et al.,2020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348116004_The_Role_of_Green_and_Blue_Hydrogen_in_the_Energy_Transition_-_A_Technological_and_Geopolitical_Perspective/link/5fef3daf92851c13fedb8fb9/download
27

IEA, 2021. Global Hydrogen Review. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/5bd46d7b-906a-4429-abda-e9c507a62341/GlobalHydrogenReview2021.pdf

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 16

notably those from the UK, Canada, Sweden, and Saudi Arabia. Other notable issuers include Munich Re, Daimler, and Fortescue.
The following table includes some examples of announced projects 28:
Table 3: Deals already seen in the hydrogen market

Production••

UK Government Green Gilt, bluehydrogen production with
CC(U)S.
Air liquid issued a 500-millioneuro green bond to finance thedevelopment of sustainableprojects, including hydrogen.

Infrastructure/Transportation•••

Fuel cells: Faurecia, France,development, and productionof hydrogen fuel cell systems(stacks) for light vehicles,
commercial and utility vehicles,
and other applications.
Vehicles: Hyundai Capital, South
Korea.
Refuelling stations: IwataniCorp, Japan.

End-uses•••

Fuel cells: Faurecia, France,development, and productionof hydrogen fuel cell systems(stacks) for light vehicles,
commercial and utility vehicles,
and other applications.
Vehicles: Hyundai Capital, South
Korea.
Refuelling stations: IwataniCorp, Japan.

3 Principles and Boundaries of the Criteria
3.1 Guiding Principles
The objective of Climate Bonds has been to develop Hydrogen Criteria that can maximise viable bond issuances with verifiable
environmental and social outcomes. This means the Criteria need to balance the following objectives:••

They form a set of scientifically robust, verifiable targets and metrics; andThey are usable by the market, which means they must be understandable for non-scientific audiences, implementable atscale, and affordable in terms of assessment burden.

The Criteria should:•••

Enable the identification of eligible assets and projects (or use of proceeds) related to Hydrogen investments that canpotentially be included in a Certified Climate Bond;
Deploy appropriate eligibility Criteria under which the assets and projects can be assessed for their suitability for inclusion ina Certified Climate Bond; andIdentify associated metrics, methodologies, and tools to enable the effective measurement and monitoring of compliancewith the eligibility Criteria.

The Hydrogen Criteria are split into two distinct subsets, depending on the financial instrument being certified:a) Use-of-Proceeds bonds (for example, green bonds)b) General Corporate Purpose bonds (for example, Sustainability-Linked Bonds)c) Each subset of criteria may share common requirements, pathways or metrics but require different demonstrations ofcompliance. In general, the Criteria are made up of four components which need to be satisfied for assets to be eligible forinclusion in a Certified Climate Bond.

28

Climate Bonds Market Intelligence

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 17

3.1.1 Guiding principles - Use-of-Proceeds bonds
The guiding principles for the design of the Hydrogen Criteria, which is a standard approach for all Climate Bonds criteria aresummarised in Table 3.
The Hydrogen Criteria are made up of two components, both of which need to be satisfied for assets to be eligible for inclusion ina Certified Climate Bond. These are as follows:
1) Climate Change Mitigation Component - addressing whether the asset or project is sufficiently ‘low GHG’ to be compliant
with rapid decarbonisation needs across the sector - see Sections 3 and Sections 4 of the criteria document for details
2) Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Component - addressing whether the facility is itself resilient to climate change
and furthermore not adversely impacting the resilience of the surrounding system. This encompasses a broad set ofenvironmental and social topics - see Section 4.4 of the criteria document for details.

Table 4: Key principles for the design of Climate Bond Standard Sector Criteria
Principle

Requirement for the Criteria

Ambitious

Compatible with meeting the objective of limiting global average warming to a 1.5°C
temperature rise above pre-industrial levels set by the Paris Agreement.

Material

Criteria should address all material sources of emissions over the lifecycle. Scope 1 & 2
emissions should be addressed directly and scope 3 considered.

No offsets

Offsets should not be counted towards emissions reduction performance.

ResilientTo ensure that the activities being financed are adapted to physical climate change anddo not harm the resilience of the system them are in.

Scientifically Robust

Based on science not industry objectives.

Granular

Criteria should be sufficiently granular for the assessment of a specific project, asset or
activity. Every asset or project to be financed must comply.

Globally consistent

Criteria should be globally applicable. National legislation or NDC’s are not sufficient.

AlignedLeverage existing robust tools, methodologies, standards.

Technology neutral

Criteria should describe the result to be achieved.

Avoid lock-in

Avoid supporting development that may result in long term commitments to highemission activities.

3.1.2 Guiding principles - General Corporate Purpose bonds
Climate Bonds’ focus to date has been UoP bonds but it is our intention to certify instruments beyond UoP, including corporate
SLBs and similar (e.g. Sustainability Linked Loans - SLLs). This will allow us to provide guidance to issuers and assurance to investors
around the credibility of those instruments, which can at present prove difficult to evaluate due to lack of consistency inapproaches and metrics used by each issuer. This will require assessment of both the company’s transition KPIs, and their ability
to deliver on their targets. Such certification would follow the requirements set for UoP bonds, namely a standardised, common
rule set, binary assessment, simplicity, transparency, and science-based criteria.
Nonetheless, the two subsets of criteria share many of the same guiding principles. The Climate Bonds Initiative sets out thefollowing as key principles for setting entity level criteria:
•
•
•
•
•

Science based.
Testable.
Relatively simple.
Not reinvent the wheel.
Consistent over time and companies.

Rather than the two components for green (mitigation and adaptation & resilience), the Climate Bonds Initiative has proposed
five hallmarks for transition that are relevant to entities, these are summarized in Error! Reference source not found..

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 18

Figure 5: The Hallmarks of a credibly transitioning company

3.2 Assets and Activities Covered by these Criteria
The Climate Bonds hydrogen criteria cover activities and projects across the hydrogen value chain, including production,
conditioning, conversion, transportation, and storage activities. Some requirements for certification are included beyond theemissions intensity. A compatible production and transport emissions benchmark using an LCA approach should be used. It will
incentivize collaboration and data exchange across different players in the hydrogen value chain, and the most important aspect,
it will ensure that hydrogen has a substantial emissions reduction potential.
Exist some initiatives, such as the “Modular certification” approach, which focus on each part of the value chain individually to set
benchmarks. This approach could facilitate custody transfer, given the different stakeholders involved in each part of the value
chain. 29 A modular approach proposes certifying a single step instead of the entire value chain. This approach was discussed with
the TWG; however, setting emissions intensity benchmarks per module can be challenging and out of the scope of these criteria,
given the lack of hydrogen delivery emissions data. There are multiple combinations of production and delivery alternatives, whichmakes the benchmark setting a difficult task. Nevertheless, once the market is developed and there is more available data, amodular approach should be used.
The following diagram illustrates a simplified version of the hydrogen value chain and the activities in scope of the Climate Bonds
criteria.

29

White et al., 2021. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544220322465

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 19

Figure 6: Simplified Representation of Hydrogen Value Chain

Although most of the investment has been in production and final application projects, industry, governments, and key players
are bringing the attention to the necessity to fill the gap on delivery infrastructure projects. Because of logistic issues and highcosts, most of the hydrogen production today is on site. However, promoting hydrogen as an alternative fuel would requiretransport and distribution infrastructure development, especially to deliver hydrogen towards regions with limited renewableenergy sources or CCS infrastructure.

3.3 Overarching considerations
In setting the criteria, the emissions to be included were discussed, along with the scope of emissions and what criteria would test
that the sector is decarbonising and give assurance to investors that financial instruments issued by companies are of satisfactory
quality. The key considerations are summarised in this section.

3.3.1 GHG emissions that are included
Although the major GHG emitted from hydrogen generation is CO2, there are other GHG such as methane (CH4) and, nitrous oxide(N2O), which can have significant contributions for some hydrogen production pathways. CH 4 has a global warming potential(GWP) of 83 times of CO2’s global warming potential over 20 years and, 30 times over 100 years, thus, underestimating methane
emissions from the hydrogen value chain could lead to an inaccurate GHG accounting and favour some pathways that emit highamounts of that potent GHGs.
Discussions concluded that all relevant GHG based on the most up to date IPCC Assessment Report (AR6) and not just CO 2 should
be included in the assessment of emissions. Further, the most up-to-date IPCC 100-year global warming potential factors should
be adopted, and the energy values must use the lower heating value (LHV).
Although hydrogen is an indirect GHG, it is still uncertain its global warming potential. Thus, for the purpose of these criteriahydrogen emissions will not be part of the GHG accounting yet. The criteria will be revised periodically, and once researchdeveloped further and there is more available data on hydrogen emissions and GWP, the criteria will be updated, and hydrogen
will be included in the GHG accounting. Hydrogen leaks will be addressed from a detection, monitoring, and mitigation
perspective.

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 20

3.3.2 System boundaries and Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions
The system boundaries and scope of emissions are important aspects to define as part of the criteria development process. It
influences the focus of the analysis and sets the boundaries for the calculation of emissions intensity. Scope 1 emissions are directprocess emissions, scope 2 are indirect emissions from purchased electricity, heat, and power; and scope 3 emissions are indirectemissions from extraction and manufacture of raw materials and fuels that are not included in scope 2 (all these also known as
scope 3 upstream emission) and include waste disposal and product end use (these also known as scope 3 downstream emissions)and many others.
By conducting a cradle-to-site life cycle assessment, which is cradle to gate plus transportation emissions, the scope 1, 2, andpartially scope 3 emissions are covered. For the aim of the Climate Bonds Criteria, only scope 3 emissions from purchased goods,
plus transportation emissions to the site where the product is used, must be considered. Transportation emissions contribute to
the total GHG emissions of hydrogen. For example, local hydrogen production in an exporter country can be low carbon. Still, once
it is transported long distances, the total emission could be higher and not classified as a low-carbon alternative to decarbonisingother sectors. Transport emissions should be included in the carbon intensity benchmark, as part of the system boundary. The
proposal is to use a compatible production and transport emissions benchmark using an LCA approach, regardless of the
production and delivery pathway combination.
The following figure illustrates how the scope of emissions at the corporate level relates to life cycle stages at the product level.
The dotted line shows the system boundary for the LCA, and the scope of emissions covered. Because there are no CO2 emissions
from hydrogen combustion, excluding end-use emissions does not affect the GHG accounting.

Figure 7: The relationship between the Corporate, Scope 3, and Product Standards for a company manufacturing product A 30

3.3.3 Colour spectrum classification and carbon intensity benchmarks•

Colour spectrum
Technologies to generate hydrogen can be classified using a colour spectrum. Terms such as low carbon and clean hydrogen
are also being adopted. However, there is no common consent for their use. 8 Next figure illustrates the main colours used toclassify different hydrogen production pathways.

30 Product life cycle accounting reporting standard. GHG protocol. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-

Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 21

Figure 8: Hydrogen Colour Spectrum31

The Climate Bonds criteria do not use a colour spectrum classification, but a low-carbon concept and a benchmark approach,which is explained in the following section.
•

Carbon Intensity Benchmarks
Carbon intensity benchmarks (kgCO 2eq/kgH2) are also applied as an indicator to compare hydrogen production processes.
This perspective focuses on meeting the carbon footprint requirement regardless of the technology. Canada has taken thisapproach.32 Likewise, the EU taxonomy sets benchmarks without specifying the technology to produce hydrogen. 33
Carbon intensity varies depending on the production pathway. Electrolysis pathways are affected by the carbon content of
the electricity used, and fossil-based production combined with CCUS is impacted by the capture rate and fugitive methane
and CO2 emissions.
The Climate Bonds criteria include a carbon intensity benchmark of below 3 kgCO 2eq/kgH2 as a starting point for low-carbon
production, which represents an emissions reduction of 73% of traditional fossil-based production processes. In order to avoid
carbon lock-in risk, for fossil-based production facilities the benchmark must reduce overtime to reach net zero by 2050.
Additional information is given in Section 4.3.1. The benchmark was set regardless of the production pathway. Nevertheless,additional restrictions and requirements were included to reduce potential carbon lock-in risks, and other sustainability
impacts associated with some production routes. More details can be found in Section 4.2.

3.4 GHG accounting methodology
During the discussion sessions, the adoption of the international partnership for hydrogen and fuel cells in the economy (IPHE)
methodology was considered 34. The IPHE developed a methodology for determining the GHG emissions of hydrogen production
using a “cradle to gate” system boundary, which includes conditioning of hydrogen. They will expand its system boundary
incorporating transport emissions. The IPHE methodology has been adopted by some initiatives, including the Australian and theGreen Hydrogen Standard. Although there are some criticisms from other authors, the IPHE methodology is a good initiative topromote harmonisation in GHG accounting for the global hydrogen market. Nevertheless, the TWG highlighted the ISO standards
as a well-known and straightforward methodology that avoids overspecification.

31 https://rail.ricardo.com/news/opinion-decoding-the-hydrogen-t-rainbow
32Hydrogen strategy for Canada. www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/nrcan/files/environment/hydrogen/NRCan_Hydrogen%20Strategy%20for%20Canada%20Dec%2015%202200%20clean_low_accessible.pdf
33 https://ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance-taxonomy/activities/activity/15/view
34

The IPHE is an intergovernmental initiative with the participation of 21 countries and the European commission.

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 22

The life cycle assessment includes a cradle-to-site system boundary, excluding CAPEX emissions. Even though some authors havedemonstrated that emissions from hydrogen infrastructure, and renewable energy production can be material 35, according to theHydrogen Council, they represent a low percentage of the total emissions for different production pathways 36. It is important tohighlight that no existing criteria or standards for hydrogen production include CAPEX emissions 37.

3.4.1 Hydrogen Production GHG Accounting Methodology
The Climate Bonds criteria include a life-cycle approach using the ISO 14040, ISO 14044 for life-cycle assessment, and ISO 14067
for product carbon footprint calculations. The ISO 14040 and 14044 are complementary standards. The ISO 14040 contains theprinciples and framework, and the ISO 14044 set the requirements to measure the impacts of hydrogen on the environment. The
ISO 14067 is focused on its climate impacts.

3.4.2 Hydrogen Transportation GHG Accounting Methodology
Hydrogen transportation emissions to the site where hydrogen will be used must be covered. It includes energy and electricity
related emissions. The life cycle assessment for hydrogen transportation and storage should follow the ISO 14083:2023“Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions arising from transport chain operations”. This standard was developed
to address GHG emissions from supply chains, which means addressing scope 3 emissions. It is based on the GLEC framework,
which is aligned with the GHG Protocol and the Carbon Disclosure Project. 38

3.5 Considering regional differences
Even tough addressing regional differences is out of the scope of the Climate Bonds criteria development process, discussing thesepotential differences and understanding their implications is crucial for setting criteria. Regional differences have implications to
produce hydrogen. The carbon intensity of hydrogen production change depending on aspects such as energy mixes andproduction efficiency. Countries with available renewable energy sources, space for solar and wind farms, and good access towater sources will be producers of renewable based hydrogen. Countries with low gas prices will favour fossil-based production.
The following graph shows the per capita electricity mix of different countries.

Figure 9: Electricity mix 202139

35 Majer, S., Oehmichen, K., Moosmann, D., Schindler, H., Sailer, K., Matosic, M., & Reinholz et al., T. (2021). REGATRACE D5.1. Assessment of integrated

concepts and identification of key factors and drivers. www.regatrace.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/REGATRACE-D5.1.pdf
36

German Energy Agency/World Energy Council - Germany (publisher) (dena/World Energy Council - Germany, 2022), Global Harmonisation of Hydrogen
Certification, Berlin 2022. Retrieved from www.weltenergierat.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/dena_WEC_Harmonisation-of-HydrogenCertification_digital_final.pdf
37

German Energy Agency/World Energy Council - Germany (publisher) (dena/World Energy Council - Germany, 2022), Global Harmonisation of Hydrogen
Certification, Berlin 2022. Retrieved from www.weltenergierat.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/dena_WEC_Harmonisation-of-HydrogenCertification_digital_final.pdf
38 https://www.ideagen.com/thought-leadership/blog/iso-140832023-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-your-supply-chain
39 Hydrogen Council, 2021. https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Hydrogen-Council-Report_Decarbonization-Pathways_Part-1-Lifecycle-

Assessment.pdf
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 23

In addition, local regulatory frameworks for energy generation, national hydrogen strategies, and different GHG emissions
monitoring and reporting mechanism available in different jurisdictions might directly affect the adoption of the hydrogen criteria
at a global level. However, Climate Bonds aims to promote criteria that are ambitious enough and that can be implemented
globally.

3.5.1 Additional requirements and qualitative criteria
Beyond setting a carbon intensity benchmark, it is crucial to consider important aspects that could affect the performance of a
project to be certified as low-carbon under Climate Bonds criteria.
Depending on the production process, feedstock used, decarbonisation measure, and the delivery alternative, specific criteria andqualitative requirements might be necessary. It includes compliance with existing criteria for other sectors for which Climate Bonds
developed criteria for. It also includes methane and hydrogen leaks monitoring, detection, and mitigation strategies, andcompliance with existing regulations or ISO standards relevant for a specific activity.

3.5.2 Other environmental impacts
The comparative analysis of the different hydrogen production pathways has focused mainly on carbon intensity, efficiency, andcosts, nevertheless, some studies have pointed out the relevance of including other environmental impacts, using methodologies
such as sustainability assessments, and integrated assessments over the entire value chain. 40 Including these methodologies canbe essential for decision-making and prioritising alternatives with lower impacts beyond climate change.
Although Climate Bonds’ primary focus is on climate, criteria were set to prevent undesirable side effects on other environmental
objectives. The analysis for the criteria setting included existing criteria and standards for hydrogen production addressing them.
•

DNSH Principle: The EU taxonomy establishes six environmental objectives and considers other impacts by setting qualitative
criteria. Activities should comply with the "Do No Significant Harm" (DNSH) principle. Economic activities making a substantial
contribution to the first two objectives (mitigation or adaptation) must be assessed to ensure they do not cause significant
harm to all remaining environmental objectives (sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, transition toa circular economy, protections and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems; and pollution prevention and control).

•Land Use: Land use change criteria are implemented in the Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II) for biofuels, not for power
fuels. H2Global, ISCC PLUS, and LCFS address land use criteria for power fuels. There are some recommendations on including
emissions related to ILUC into hydrogen standards.41 However, to keep consistency with other industry sector´s criteria
developed by Climate Bonds, and avoiding overspecification, the only requirement included in these criteria to address land
use is meeting the requirements of the bioenergy criteria on ILUC risks.

•

Water: Water consumption usually is 10-15 ℓ/kgH2, which can be supplied with fresh water, desalinated seawater, andwastewater recovery. Nevertheless, electrolytic hydrogen deployment can be affected by water scarcity, which can be criticalin specific regions. Fossil-based hydrogen production with CCS also has a considerable water consumption. Al-Qahtani et al.,2021 estimate that its production requires 24 ℓ/kgH2 using natural gas and 38 ℓ/kgH2 using coal, which is higher than theamount required for electrolytic hydrogen.42
The RED II and H2Global address excess of water use, and ISCC considers it within its GHG accounting methodology.
The TWG concluded that water consumption should also be addressed from a sustainability perspective, mainly focused on
avoiding excessive water consumption, and not as part of the GHG accounting. Addressing water consumption is criticalparticularly in regions with water stress or scarcity, thus avoiding water use competition with other essential uses such as
human consumption, and agriculture.
Although it was discussed whether excluding water scarce regions from the criteria, it was decided not excluding specificregions. The proposal is to request a water management plan and a local water availability assessment to demonstrate a

40 www.weltenergierat.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/dena_WEC_Harmonisation-of-Hydrogen-Certification_digital_final.pdf
41 World Energy Council, 2022. Report Global Harmonisation of Hydrogen Certification Overview of global regulations and standards for renewable hydrogenwww.weltenergierat.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/dena_WEC_Harmonisation-of-Hydrogen-Certification_digital_final.pdf
42 Al-Qahtani et al., 2021 Uncovering the true cost of hydrogen production routes using life cycle monetisation.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261920314136
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 24

responsible water sourcing and management. Some regions could become water stressed at any point, so it would be
uncertain which regions to exclude given the changing dynamics of potential climate impacts. Furthermore, there are somedesertic regions, like the Atacama Desert in Chile, with low water availability but with a high potential for hydrogen production
implementing seawater desalination technologies, which should be included.
•

Sustainability and social aspects for raw materials sourcing: Sustainability and social issues related to raw materials sourcing
for hydrogen production, including critical minerals, polymers, among others, were highlighted as critical aspects for thesustainable production of hydrogen, however they are out of the scope of these criteria.
The final criteria proposal to address other environmental impacts included a thorough environmental impact assessment as
a component for issuers, to identify and report any potential risks, and relevant plans or measures to address them. Thissuggestion was thus adopted as it is a reasonable requirement, and many facilities will already have to comply with similar
local regulations which enables straightforward reporting.

•Pollution prevention: Pollution prevention requirements for hydrogen fossil-based production were included. These
requirements imply compliance with best available techniques emissions levels of pollutants, for the specific industrial
process.43
In addition, brine management is critical for projects using desalination technologies, aiming to address the potential negative
impacts on ecosystems and soil. Compliance with Climate Bonds criteria for desalination plants in the Climate Bonds watersector criteria was included as part of the criteria44.

4 Criteria Overview
4.1 Eligible assets and projects
The hydrogen production criteria cover:• Manufacturing or acquisition of electrolysers and membranes for low-carbon hydrogen production.
• Decarbonisation measures or retrofitting activities within facilities producing hydrogen. These criteria apply to specificprojects that require investment for the implementation of a specific decarbonisation measure in a facility.
• Facilities producing hydrogen. These criteria apply to the certification of the whole facility for production of low-carbonhydrogen and includes carbon or energy intensity thresholds and additional criteria depending on age of facilities,
feedstock and electricity source.
• Criteria for entities producing hydrogen. These criteria cover entities or business segments of a company dedicated to
low-carbon hydrogen production.
The hydrogen delivery criteria cover:• Hydrogen conditioning, including compression and liquefaction.
• Hydrogen transportation, including pipelines (transmission and distribution networks), LOHC (Liquid organic hydrogen
carriers), truck and shipping.
• Hydrogen storage.

43 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0738&from=EN
44 Climate Bonds Water Criteria. 4.2.2. Desalination projects and assets; and Appendix 1, Section 5. Desalination Plants

www.climatebonds.net/files/files/Water%20Criteria%20Document%20Final_100822.pdf
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 25

4.2 Mitigation criteria for decarbonisation measures, and specific projects within
facilities producing hydrogen
Decarbonisation measures are categorised as follows:
Table 5: Mitigation measures categories
Category

Mitigation measures

Relating to feedstock use•

Using biogas

Relating to electricity source•

Using renewables: Wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal

Various•••

Manufacture of electrolysers and membranes
Electrification of processes
Carbon Capture and Storage, Carbon Capture and Utilisation

For each mitigation measure, specific constraints, and requirements to provide consistency and coherence with thedecarbonisation goals were set. These requirements for decarbonisation measures are provided in Section 3.1 of the criteria
document.
Following section provides further definitions and explanation of these measures as considered in these criteria.

4.2.1 Relating to feedstock use:•

Biogas from biomass:
Eligibility for biomass as a feedstock is restricted to secondary organic streams, (i.e., materials usually discarded or classified
as wastes from another primary use, e.g., residues from agriculture, organic matter from agro-industrial processing). The useof primary biomass may lead to increased demand for wood and dedicated energy crops. This can lead to unintended
consequences such as an increase in emissions due to increased deforestation, direct and indirect land use change. 45
Climate Bonds developed criteria for sustainable biomass sourcing, as part of the bioenergy criteria, thus biomass-based
production needs to meet these Climate Bonds criteria.

•

Biogas from landfill sites, wastewater sludge and manure:Anaerobic digestion of manure and sewage wastewater sludge, and landfill gas produce biogas, which is then converted tobio-methane. Biomethane can be used to produce hydrogen throughout the conventional SMR process. Although thesehydrogen production pathways can reduce GHG emissions compared to fossil-based production, upstream methane leakages
can increase considerably the carbon intensity of hydrogen production.46 Methane leakage monitoring, reporting, andverification is part of the requirements when using these alternative feedstocks.

4.2.2 Relating to electricity source•

Renewables energy: Wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower
Electrolytic hydrogen using carbon intensive grid electricity might have higher GHG emissions than using conventional
processes such as fossil based production without CCS. Thus, the share of renewable energy content in the grid should beenough for electrolysis-based production using electricity from the grid. The criteria do not include a minimum share of
renewables, given that a high carbon content of electricity will not allow a project to meet the carbon intensity benchmark.
Additionality, temporal and geographic correlation: In order to avoid the risk of increasing the fossil-based electricity
production by using existing renewable energy generation for hydrogen production, additionality criteria were included.
Additionality aims to ensure that renewable electricity used for hydrogen production is additional to the renewable

45 Jan P.M. Ros, Jelle G. van Minnen, Eric J.M.M. Arets (2013). Climate effects of wood used for bioenergy. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

PBL publication number: 1182 www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/PBL-2013-climate-effects-of-wood-used-for-bioenergy-1182_0.pdf
46 Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of biomethane and hydrogen pathways in the European Union .ICCT, 2021. https://theicct.org/wp-

content/uploads/2021/10/LCA-gas-EU-white-paper-A4-v5.pdf
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 26

generation used to decarbonise the grid electricity for other purposes. Although it could imply administrative burden for
issuers, it was included to avoid a negative impact in the whole energy system decarbonisation.
Additionality can be ensured using any of the following approaches 47:•

Physical link: New renewable electricity generation capacity physically linked to the electrolyser.

•

Commercial link: Using a PPA (power purchase agreement) to demonstrate new renewable electricity capacity link to theelectrolyser.

•

System-wide/ Marginal technology approach: Electricity for hydrogen production would be considered renewable during
the time when the renewable energy sources are the marginal technology in the market merit order.

Temporal and geographic correlation between the power generation plant and the hydrogen production facility must be
demonstrated, to ensure the renewable character of the electricity used and the use of additional energy. Temporalcorrelation is a good approach to ensure that renewable electricity to produce hydrogen is additional all time. Nevertheless,
it is important to define the frequency of the correlation´s evaluation. On the one hand, a simultaneous approach, hourly
evaluation, would ensure compliance of the additionality requirement; however, it could be too strict and set a barrier,especially in some regions, to accelerate the deployment of hydrogen projects. On the other hand, a yearly assessment would
facilitate the electrolyser operation at its optimal utilisation rate; however, it could increase the carbon intensity of electricity
generation by using different energy mixes.47
These criteria propose a time span of one month to evaluate temporal correlation, to facilitate the electrolysers to operate
at a better capacity rate and reducing costs. It would promote the deployment of the hydrogen market at early stages byreducing the strict hourly burden. However, this monthly time span will be evaluated on each criteria update and modified
accordingly to making it stricter and promoting the decarbonisation of hydrogen production.
Geographic correlation is particularly important when using a commercial link approach. It aims to ensure that there is nocongestion impeding that the electricity goes to the electrolyser. It must be ensured that both, electricity generation andelectrolysers, are in the same network.
•

Nuclear energy
Although Climate Bonds have not yet developed criteria for nuclear energy generation, the TWG acknowledges the role that
nuclear energy can play in producing low-carbon hydrogen. From a mitigation perspective, it is an important alternative;
nevertheless, it is critical to consider potential risks associated with safety and nuclear waste management, which will be
addressed from the Adaptation and Resilience Risk criteria.

4.2.3 Various•

Manufacturing and acquisition of electrolysers and membranes
Because of the critical roles of electrolysers in developing the industry, manufacturing and acquisition of these areautomatically eligible under the mitigation criteria. However, the adaptation and resilience requirements need to be met tobe certified.

•Electrification of processes
This measure implies a shift from providing process heat by fossil fuel combustion and using electrified equipment instead.
Examples include innovations in steam boilers, using an AC current and direct electrical resistance to heat the reactors.
Renewable electricity should be used to reduce emissions. Implementing this technology could reduce around 1% of global
CO2 emissions48.

47 Pototschnig, 2021. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/72459/PB_2021_36_FSR.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
48 Sebastian T. Wismann, Jakob S. Engbæk, Søren B. Vendelbo, Flemming B. Bendixen, Winnie L. Eriksen, Kim Aasberg-Petersen, Cathrine Frandsen, Ib

Chorkendorff, Peter M. Mortensen (2019) “Electrified methane reforming: A compact approach to greener industrial hydrogen production” Science Vol. 364,
Issue 6442, pp. 756-759 doi: 10.1126/science.aaw8775
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 27

A rather more advanced and accessible technology applicable in low to medium temperature processes is the use of electricheat pumps to recover and provide process heat. With this measure, up to 67% reduction in process emissions can be achieved
and the use of fossil fuels is avoided49. This reduction can be increased when renewable power is used to run the heat pump.
•

Carbon Capture and Storage
This is the process of capturing (separating from dilute sources), transporting and storing CO 2 in order to prevent its release
into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide storage can be in open, closed or cycling systems 50. Open systems include natural
systems such as in biomass growth and soil. Closed systems include the geological storage in lithosphere or deep oceans andmineral formations. Cyclic systems include the conversion of CO 2 into fuels or chemicals, this form is also known as carbon
capture and utilisation (CCU). For the purposes of this criteria document, CCS refers specifically to closed systems as ingeological storage since this is the one with the largest storage life span51. Biomass and CCU are defined and addressed
separately under the measures of using biomass or biomass derived feedstock and using CO 2 as feedstock, respectively.
Emissions from carbon capture must be included in the emissions from the conversion plant.
Hydrogen produced from natural gas resources can have high methane emissions due to methane leakages. Methaneleakages may occur during the reforming process. Also, upstream methane leakages can be in the order of 20%, based on
observed measurements during fossil gas extraction and distribution52. Thus, projects using fossil gas combined with CCS
should demonstrate MRV (monitoring, reporting and verification), and mitigation measures for methane leaks 53. Upstream
methane emissions must be of maximum 0.2% 54. Shell set a methane emissions target of 0.2% by 2050. Likewise, country
members of the global methane alliance have an intensity target of 0.25% or below.

•

Carbon Capture and Utilisation
Carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) includes the use of captured CO2 as a raw material. The major sources of CO2 consideredin this measure include flue gases, industrial off-gases, which requires concentration and purification of CO 2 using carbon
capture processes. CO2 can then be converted into hydrogen through electrochemical or catalytic synthesis. Care should betaken regarding the end use of the product generated from CO2. This is mainly because if the CO2 is immediately released into
the atmosphere during end product use, the mitigation is ephemeral. This means, additional restrictions are included for theend product, which should be a long-lasting or recyclable product so as to keep CO2 in a loop.

•

Research & Development Projects
The Climate Bonds Standard includes certification of R&D projects. To be eligible, relevant research and development
expenditure at advanced stages must have clear and measurable climate-related goals, such as emissions or energy reduction
potential. Early-stage projects must present a detailed climate benefits plan and be assessed periodically.
The low-carbon hydrogen industry is nascent and relies on new technologies and innovation projects, which are still underdevelopment and need to be financed. Thus, promoting finance for R&D projects is critical to enhance the sector's
development.

49 De Boer, R., Marina, A., B. (2020) Zühlsdorf Strengthening Industrial Heat Pump Innovation. Decarbonizing Industrial Heat. www.sintef.no/globalassets/sintef-

energi/industrial-heat-pump-whitepaper/2020-07-10-whitepaper-ihp-a4.pdf
50

Hepburn, C, Adlen, E, Beddington, J et al. (2019) The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilisation and removal. Nature, 575 (7781). pp. 87-97. ISSN
0028-0836
51 According to the IPCC, well-selected, well-designed and well-managed geological storage sites can maintain CO2 trapped for millions of years, retaining over

99 per cent of the injected CO2 over 1000 years. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf
52 ICCT, 2021. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/LCA-gas-EU-white-paper-A4-v5.pdf
53 Additional guidance can be found in the report Best Practice Guidance for Effective Methane Management in the Oil and Gas Sector. Monitoring, Reportingand Verification (MRV) and Mitigation. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2019https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/images/CMM/CMM_CE/Best_Practice_Guidance_for_Effective_Methane_Management_in_the_Oil_and_Gas_Sector__Monitoring__Reporting_and_Verification__MRV__and_Mitigation-_FINAL__with_covers_.pdf
54 The Global Methane Alliance country members committed to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector in 0,2% in their NDC. Also, Shell, set a methanetarget of 0,2% by 2025 from its oil and gas assets. www.ccacoalition.org/en/activity/global-methane-alliance; https://safety4sea.com/why-shell-has-set-amethane-emissions-target-of-below-0-2-by-2025/
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 28

4.3 Mitigation criteria for assets or facilities producing hydrogen
The following sections elaborate on the elements of the mitigation criteria for production facilities.

4.3.1 Carbon intensity benchmark
To be eligible for certification, facilities producing hydrogen must meet specific emissions intensity thresholds provided in the
Hydrogen Criteria document. During the TWG meetings, some of the existing standards and carbon intensity benchmarks forhydrogen production were discussed. The CertifHy guarantee of origin scheme set a 4kgCO2e/kgH2 carbon intensity limit. The US
benchmark for low-carbon hydrogen is also 4kgCO2e/kgH2. The EU taxonomy set a 3kgCO2e/kgH2 carbon intensity benchmark, and
the Green Hydrogen Standard a 1kgCO2e/kgH2. The
Table 6 below shows some of the main existing standards and their system boundaries.

Table 6: Main existing standards for hydrogen production
CertifHy

The US standard

Green Hydrogen
Standard

Description

Guarantee oforigin scheme

National Standard

Global standard

Geographic
level

EU Level

US National level

Criteria
approach• Green• Cleanhydrogencriteria.

• Low carbon
criteria.

• Same GHG
threshold.

hydrogencriteria.

• GHG threshold
regardless ofthetechnology.

UK Low carbon
Standard

TÜV SÜD CMS70

Climate Bonds

Classification
systemNational Standard

Industry standard

Sustainablefinance standard

GlobalEU Level

UK National level

EU

Global• Green• Low-carbon• Low-carbon• Greencriteria.

criteria.

hydrogencriteria.

• Other

Cradle-to-gate.

Cradle-to- gate.

Cradle-to- gate.

GHG
Emissionscriteria< 4,3
kg CO2e/kg H2

4.0
kg CO2e/kg H2

1.0
kg CO2e/kg H2• ISO 14044• ISO 14067• ISO 14044 and• aligned with
the IPHE
methodology• GHG threshold• GHG threshold

regardless ofthe technology

regardless ofthe technology

renewable
non-fossil
sources on acase-by-casebasis.

Systemboundary

GHG
Calculation
methodology

EU Taxonomy• IPHE
Methodology
with somemodificationshydrogencriteria• GHG
thresholds
regardless ofthetechnology.

• Low-carbon
criteria.

• GHG
thresholds
regardless ofthetechnology.

• Specificclimatemitigation
requirements.

Life cycle
emissions.

Cradle-to- gate.

Cradle to site
(cradle to gateplus
transportation
emissions).

< 3.0
kg CO2e/kg H2

2,4
kg CO2e/kg H2 (20gCO2/MJLHV)

3,5kg CO2e/kg H2(from the REDII in
the EU)3,0kg CO2e/kg H2(Sliding scale
target)• EU Directive• ISO 14040• ISO 14044• ISO 140672• GHG Protocol• EU Directive• ISO 14040• ISO 14044• ISO 140672• EU Directive• ISO 14040• ISO 14044• ISO 140672

or• ISO 14067:
2018(119)or

Cradle to site
(cradle to gateplus
transportation
emissions).

• ISO 14064-1:
2018(120).

The TWG concluded that 4kgCO2e/kgH2 is not ambitious enough for projects to be aligned with the Paris agreement. In order to beambitious but not so restrictive to limit the deployment of the hydrogen market at early stages, the TWG defined adopting a below
3kgCO2e/kgH2/kgH2 emissions limit as a point for projects today, using a cradle-to-site plus delivery emissions system boundaries.
It is an ambitious, technologically feasible, and compatible target that allows different production and delivery pathways
combinations to meet the total emissions intensity required. A detailed analysis of the life cycle emissions of several fossil gas-basedhydrogen with carbon capture configurations has been studied by Bauer, et.al 2022. See figure below. 55 According to it, the target
can be achieved for fossil-based production combined with CCUS with a minimum capture rate of 93% and a maximum methane

55

Bauer et al, 2022. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2022/se/d1se01508g

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 29

leakage rate of 0.2%. Because the numbers in the graph do not include emissions from hydrogen transportation, it can be assumed
that local demand or short-distance transportation alternatives using renewables are a good option, mainly to decarbonise existing
demand.

Figure 10: Impacts on climate change associated with the production of NG-based hydrogen with methane emission rates of 0.2%,
1.5%, and 8%, and two plant configurations with high and low CO2 removal rates, applying both GWP100 and GWP20.55

For renewable based projects, production emissions can be lower than 1.0 kgCO2e/kgH2, so there is more room for conditioning,
conversion, and transportation emissions.56
According to Ortiz Cebolla et al.57, depending on the inlet pressure, the energy requirements for compressing can vary from 3 to30 MJ/kg H2, which means 0.4-3.6 kgCO2e/kgH2. For liquefaction, an ideal operation has an energy consumption of 14.4 MJ/kgH2,
which is approx. 1.7 kgCO2 e/kgH2. Scaling up liquefaction plants will reduce emissions to 2.2-2.6 kgCO2 e/kgH2.
The emissions of an average transport cycle (i.e., a combination of diesel and electric compressors) for a hydrogen transportdistance of 1200 km are in the order of 0.58 kgCO2e/kgH2. For 402 km, it is 0.19 kgCO2e/kgH2.58 It can be significant, depending on
the production pathway selected. If renewable power is used for hydrogen delivery activities, the operating emissions can beeliminated.

4.3.2 Emissions reduction trajectory
According to the IEA, Irena, and High-Level Champions hydrogen production emissions must trend towards near zero by 2050.
Climate transition action plans are essential to guide investors in defining whether plans are credible and compliant with reduction
targets. When selecting a pathway, it must be compatible with the 1.5°C global warming relative to the pre-industrial level target
over time. Mitigation pathways are a guide to estimate the rate of emissions and carbon intensity reductions needed to achievea specific target global average temperature rise by a certain year. Thus, the projection of decreasing threshold values was
performed to ensure that assets and activities included in the use of proceeds contribute to the 1.5°C target. Numerous end-toend hydrogen production pathways depend on the selected energy source, conversion technology, and transport method. The
adopted benchmark sets a sliding scale target, which reduces over time. Because the goal is to reduce emissions towards nearzero, lower thresholds were proposed by 2030, 2040, and 2050 to guide investors and industry. The criteria include the emissions
reduction trajectory for fossil-based production assets for facilities certification. It is recommended to follow the trajectory forfacilities using other production pathways, such as renewable-based production, which already have a low-emissions intensity.

56 Emissions intensity does not include emissions from the manufacture of turbines, solar panels, or materials for the production of renewable energy, neither forthe production of tanks, pipelines, trucks and ships.
57 OrtizCebolla, R., Dolci, F. and Weidner, E., Assessment of Hydrogen Delivery Options, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022,
doi:10.2760/869085, JRC130442. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC130442
58

MIT Energy Initiative’s SESAME platform

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 30

Still, it is not a requirement for these facilities to avoid over-specification. For entities, the trajectory should apply regardless ofthe production pathway, given that having a decarbonisation pathway towards 2050 is a common practice for companies today,
and Climate Bonds want to incentivise it.

Table 7: Hydrogen carbon intensity thresholds
Criteria

Asset Type

Production and delivery
of hydrogen202359

2030

2040

2050

3,0 kgCO2e/kgH2

1.5 kgCO2e/kgH2

0.7 kgCO2e/kgH2

0 kgCO2e/kgH2

The benchmarks in Table 7 take into consideration an analysis of the technologies that should be disincentivised in a near-zero
trajectory. The estimations made and illustrated in the graph below, by the Hydrogen Council, can be used as a reference. CAPEX
emissions should not be included to be able to compare with the targets in the graph. As mentioned above, the hydrogenproduction emissions benchmarks can be met by different energy sources and technology options. The 3kgCO 2e/kgH2 carbon
intensity limit can be achieved via natural gas reforming with CCS, mainly for on-site demand or local consumption withouttransportation emissions. Also via electrolytic hydrogen production including transportation emissions. For the natural gas with
CCS path, at 90% carbon capture rate, the upstream methane leakage should be below 0.45%. At 95% carbon capture rate, up to
0.75% upstream methane leakage rate will be tolerable. 60 For electrolytic pathway the carbon intensity of the electricity supply
should be below 62 gCO2e/kWh, which is equivalent of having a power system with at least 90% generation from zero carbon
options such as solar, wind, hydro and nuclear and the remaining 10% is an average fossil gas combined cycle plant. 1.5
kgCO2e/kgH2 can be met by 2030 with either electrolytic hydrogen powered by an electricity supply of 31 gCO 2e/kWh carbon
intensity or with fossil gas pyrolysis with 0.7% upstream leakage rate. It implies having strict methane leakages mitigation andmonitoring mechanism. By 2040, fossil-based production should be disincentivised and renewable based production should be
the focus of hydrogen production. To meet 0.7 kgCO2e/kgH2 and 0 kgCO2e/kgH2, electricity supply should be 98% zero carbon by
2040, and 100% zero carbon, by 2050 respectively. These pathway carbon intensity values are estimated by MIT Energy Initiative’s
SESAME platform61 to provide examples. An analysis of various pathway options can be found in the recent NETL report 62 andHydrogen Council’s report.63 If renewable energy sources are used to supply the energy required for conditioning, conversion
operations, road and maritime transportation, emissions targets should be achieved.

60

Gencer et al, 2020. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192031062X

61

https://sesame.mit.edu

62 National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2022.

https://netl.doe.gov/projects/files/ComparisonofCommercialStateofArtFossilBasedHydrogenProductionTechnologies_041222.pdf
63 Hydrogen Council, 2021. https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Hydrogen-Council-Report_Decarbonization-Pathways_Part-1-Lifecycle-

Assessment.pdf
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 31

Figure 11: Carbon-equivalent emissions by hydrogen production pathways, 2030 and 205063

The figure below shows some potential production pathways and delivery alternatives that meet the proposed carbon intensity
benchmarks overtime, according to the explanation above.

Figure 12: Example of technologies to reduce emissions from hydrogen production towards net zero by 2050.

4.3.3 Cross cutting criteria for decarbonisation measures and retrofitting activities•

Additional criteria depending on the age of the facility
In setting the criteria, it was important to differentiate between existing operating assets which are transitioning towards
low-carbon production processes, and those financed as brand-new assets. Brand-new assets may be standalone facilities
and outside boundary limits of existing facilities, or they can be new production trains integrated into existing facilities (thus,
not necessarily green field developments).
Although criteria apply to both types of facilities, there are additional requirements set depending on the age of the facility,
as shown in the criteria document. There are two main reasons for this: to prevent carbon lock in and ensure emissions

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 32

reduction over time and prevent stranded assets. In order to reduce potential lock-in risks related to the use of fossil resources
for the production of hydrogen, new facilities can use fossil resources only if combined with CCS or CCU technologies until
2035.
•

Additional criteria depending on the feedstock used
These additional criteria refer to criteria set for the capital investments used for implementing decarbonisation measures
including the use of hydrogen, biomass, and energy from alternative sources, and to the Climate Bonds most up to datecriteria for each source of energy. Coal based production is excluded to avoid potential carbon locking risks, and otherenvironmental impacts related to coal. Nuclear based production is excluded because of the lack of criteria for nuclear energy
generation.

•

End-uses exclusions
Regarding end-uses, which sector should be prioritized and how to define it is still under discussion. Allocating resources toprojects with an ambitious mitigation potential should be part of the role of sustainable finance and the green bonds market.
There are two main perspectives. On the one hand, the lack of hydrogen end-uses restrictions could promote the use ofhydrogen in sectors that have more efficient decarbonization pathways. In that sense, end-uses such as urban heating, lightmobility and electricity storage are part of the criteria exclusions. On the other hand, end-uses can be defined by the market
further development. Also, for some sectors, such as steel, basic chemicals and shipping there are already criteria foralternative fuel and feedstocks, which includes hydrogen. Thus, the use of hydrogen for these sectors should be defined foreach specific sector criteria.

4.4 Mitigation Criteria for Hydrogen Delivery Projects
Multiple combinations of production, delivery pathways operations, technologies, and delivery ways make the hydrogen value
chain complex. There is no specific delivery alternative that best fits all hydrogen projects. Each project has its own particularities;
thus, setting criteria is challenging. Some carriers can be the preferred option depending on the distance, the hydrogen flow, theinfrastructure and resources for reconversion at the end-use point.
Some aspects need to be considered to define the criteria for hydrogen delivery projects and investment. The energy consumption,
carbon footprint, and safety considerations are critical when defining low-carbon and certifiable projects. Setting emissions
intensity benchmarks should also be part of the criteria to certify hydrogen delivery and infrastructure projects to avoid affecting
the low-carbon definition of hydrogen production. The Climate Bonds hydrogen production criteria include transport emissions
as part of the GHG accounting system boundary. However, there is still a lack of guidance on methodologies to quantify theseemissions and set a benchmark for each delivery pathway. The IPHE methodology is expanding its work to cover transportation
emissions. The GH2 alliance is also developing a methodology to account for transportation emissions. However, due to the lackof a specific methodology today, the Climate bonds criteria adopted the ISO standards, and set as a main requirement
demonstrating that delivery projects will be used only for low-carbon hydrogen purposes. Thus, a transporter needs to involvethe hydrogen producer to present its hydrogen production emissions intensity or a low-carbon hydrogen certificate.
If a chemical carrier is used, its emissions intensity needs to be included in the GHG accounting as well.
Further, potential leaks across the value chain should not be overlooked. Leak monitoring and mitigation should not be only formethane. A recent study from a group of researchers at the University of Cambridge highlights the warming effect impacts ofhydrogen emissions and some air quality implications.64 However, specific methods and technologies for monitoring theseemissions need to be defined. There is a company working on hydrogen detection sensors, which would be critical for accurate
GHG accounting and avoiding economic losses. Potential certification of the manufacture of this kind of equipment should be
discussed.
Transport distance is another influential factor. It affects the hydrogen pressure, temperature, and fuel requirements. Although
long transport distances should not be encouraged, it is necessary to evaluate to which extent these aspects can be part of criteria,
standards, and certification schemes or if it is more convenient to address them from a policy point of view. In the meantime, theClimate Bonds criteria will not set a distance limit. Instead, the compatible emissions intensity must be met. In addition, for roadand maritime hydrogen transportation, the existing low-carbon transport and shipping criteria developed by Climate Bonds canbe adopted.
For addressing safety, the Climate Bonds criteria adopted the ISO/TR 15916:2016, “Basic considerations for the safety of hydrogensystems”.

64

Warwick et al., 2023. https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2023-29/

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 33

4.5 Mitigation Criteria for entities and Sustainability Linked Debt (SLD)
The criteria for entities and SLDs are based on the Climate Bonds Standard v4.0. However, entities working on hydrogen production
and delivery are diverse. These can be oil and gas companies, renewable energy companies, electricity utilities, infrastructurecompanies, gas network operators, transport companies, and storage facilities operators. The main requirement for them isdemonstrating that their operations are focused on low-carbon hydrogen that meets the emissions intensity benchmark at thetime of certification and in the future.
Hydrogen production companies must commit to an emissions reduction trajectory towards close to net zero by 2050. For entities
focused only on hydrogen delivery projects, it is more challenging to reduce emissions aligned with a specific trajectory; it will
depend to some extent on their hydrogen supplier. Because of that, the principal certification requirement is ensuring that theiroperations will be dedicated only to low-carbon hydrogen. Fossil gas delivery must not be part of their operations.

4.6 Criteria for adaptation & resilience
4.6.1 An overview of the criteria for adaptation & resilience
Potential risks associated with climate change include negative impacts on capital assets, transport and raw materials availability
difficulties, productivity, and safety problems 65. Potential risks include negative impacts to capital assets, transport and raw
materials availability difficulties, productivity and safety problems. This section describes the Adaptation & Resilience (A&R)
Component of the eligibility Criteria for assets and projects under the Climate Bonds Standard. This component of the Criteria
views the potential climate adaptation and resilience impacts/benefits of the Hydrogen sector as inextricably linked to a broad
range of environmental and social issues and proposes to assess these in the round.
Section 4.6.2 below describes the scope of this component in terms of the key factors that need to be assessed to ensure that
Certified Climate Bonds are delivering on key climate outcomes in line with the overall objectives of the Standard. Section 4.6.3
describes practical aspects of this component, to ensure that any transaction burden for issuers is minimised, while maintaining
rigour and robustness in assessment. Section 4.7 describes existing tools. The Adaptation and Resilience Component of theHydrogen Criteria balances the needs for assessments while leveraging existing tools where appropriate.

4.6.2 Key aspects to be assessed
Climate adaptation and resilience mitigation criteria are designed to ensure that a project itself is resilient to climate change andthat it does not affect the resilience of other sectors. The development of the requirements for the A&R component was basedon Climate Bonds “Climate resilience principles” document 66. Figure 6 gives an overview of the six principles for resilience.

Table 8: The Climate Bonds principles for Resilience

65 Lux Research (2020). In the Path of Destruction: Preparing for Global Climate Change in the Chemical Industry.

https://members.luxresearchinc.com/research/report/36147
66 Climate Bonds Initiative (2019). Climate Resilience Principles. A framework for assessing climate resilience investments. www.climatebonds.net/climate-resilience-principles
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 34

Although the principles provide a framework and serve as guidance for general aspects to consider, it is also recognised thechallenges and limitations to assess the adaptation and resilience aspects in general. Such limitations include the lack of awarenessof climate resilience benefits and a common language, robust data on climate risks and common methodologies for climate risk
assessment, lack of capacity and interdependencies with other assets or actors in the supply chains. It is also acknowledged that
A&R has inherent complexities which makes it harder to quantify and it can be very context specific, depending not only on
location but also on the type of asset, the type of risk looked at, the level of severity and frequency of the risk, and so on. The
frequency and magnitude of the impacts are commonly underestimated by companies.
Because hydrogen is a basic chemical, the adaptation and resilience developed by the basic chemicals working group apply forhydrogen production projects and assets.
•

Location: Appropriate geographic or other spatial boundaries for climate risk and benefits assessments for assets andactivities in the sector was discussed as well as consideration of the broader system affected by those assets and activities.
There are expected internal and external interdependencies between assets or activities in a given sector and between sectors(which become evident when a climate event results in a potential failure of value chains) but there can also be opportunities
to maximise resilience benefit.

Key infrastructure dependencies were identified with special relevance for the chemicals sectors including water (which is as
process raw material, cooling agent and in cleaning), gas, energy, and other key utilities necessary to run the processes and keep
the adaptation and resilience equipment and infrastructure operating during any outage arising from climate change events. All
these infrastructure dependencies are to be included in the production element.
•

•

•

•

•
•

Timeframes: Appropriate time horizons for climate resilience assessments need to be set for the assets and activities in scope.
The criteria to base the time horizon for the assessments are set based on the typical lifetimes of assets in the chemicals
sectors which is 30 years on average (though it is recognised that some may last for 50 years or more).
Hazardous substances: Criteria include a classification of geographies according to the level of risk. This can be determinantto certify a project or not. Risk assessments are routinely conducted by insurance companies. They include type of risk, theprobability and the magnitude of the impact. In addition, a timeline of when risks could occur is required (identify zones prone
to floods, storms, etc). The assessment should be preferably based on local models and data, but it can also be more regional
or global. Again, the level of detail may depend on the types of risks.
Disclosure: As part of the monitoring and evaluation principle, there are requirements for reporting and disclosing risks
assessments. Currently there are a number of issued seen:o a lack of alignment or harmonisation as reporting is often undertaken on a voluntary basiso the level of completeness can be low which leads to accusations of greenwashingo the frequency for reporting and updating the assessment varies (recognising that the time horizons for revisiting theassessments will likely depend on the level of risk of a facility: low risk facilities can have long time horizons, andhigh-risk facilities short time horizons). Depending on the severity of the risk the time horizon can be set.
Other aspects to consider when setting the A&R requirements are listed as follows:
Identification of the key climate risks - including hazards, exposures, and vulnerabilities - likely to be experienced by assets
and activities in that sector The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board document is an example of guidance toreference when assessing risks. Some insurance companies, such as FM global, can also be a useful source of data for risk
assessments.
Models, methodologies and data sets that would be most appropriate for determining likely physical climate risks to be faced
in context for activities and assets in that sector
Climate change risk measures and metrics for assets and activities in that sector - e.g. how should assets and activities deal
with these risks? How this could be evaluated?
Based on the discussions presented above, the assessment methodology includes a verification list that the verifier should
complete when assessing an asset or project. It is recognised that this may not be complete, but is presented as the mostrobust available, given the complexities and several angles of the topic, and the lack of robust and more quantitative

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 35

methodologies and tools. In setting such verification lists, documentation from Lux Research and guidelines from the UK
Chemical Industry Association67, and Dale (2021)68 were taken as key references.
•

Wider environmental and social risks are complex and interconnected and should be assessed under these Criteria, however
the following points are noted:
The Climate Bonds Standard is focused on climate impacts - including low GHG-compatibility (mitigation) and also climate
adaptation and resilience. Defining resilience can be challenging. However, it is clear that many topics which have been a partof environmental and social assessments for a number of years overlap significantly with the resilience of affected populations
and ecosystems and their ability to adapt to climate change.
The most obvious example is the potential impact of climate change on hydrological conditions, and consequently watersupply and local livelihoods. Another is climate change exacerbating ecological problems such as impaired species migration
and algal blooms. Environmental and social impacts such as these, already complex and interconnected, become more sowhen climate change impacts and risks are taken into account, and there is a logic to addressing all key environmental factors,
rather than trying to separate them out.
The Climate Bonds Standard does not usually address primarily social impact issues, these were discussed but not consideredwithin scope.

4.6.3 Practical requirements for this Component•

Leverage existing tools
The knowledge and literature on adaptation and resilience impacts of the hydrogen facilities, and the chemicals sector ingeneral, is limited as this area is in its infancy. The A&R Component will require consideration of a highly complex and varied
set of issues across the environmental and social spectrum for which data, methodologies and metrics may not be available.
Qualitative methods based on verification lists or questionnaires have been proposed which can however be leveraged. It is
not appropriate for Climate Bonds to commit resources to address these issues, and the guiding principle of simplicity shallbe applied at this time. More robust criteria can be developed over time as more information is generated and integrated in
the subsequent revisions of the Criteria.
However, it should be noted that existing methods do not always fully or explicitly cover the additional, often interrelated
impacts connected to climate adaptation and resilience. Many of the risk assessments and management processes specified
by existing ES guidelines will be a prerequisite for identifying A&R risks, but more may be needed to fully address them giventhat this is an emerging topic.

•

Minimise the assessment burden
In addition, there needs to be a balance between rigour and practicality. Any Criteria with a prohibitively expensive
assessment burden will discourage certification. Any methodology adopted therefore need to avoid this.

•A binary ‘pass’/’fail’ outcome rather than scores or grades
Certification decisions under the Climate Bonds Standard are binary - applicants are either certified or not. Therefore, the
A&R Component needs to be framed in terms of pass/fail thresholds. Where an assessment tool provides scores or grades
for a facility, consideration has been given to what threshold ‘score’ or result should represent a pass for the purposes of
Climate Bonds Certification.

•

Retrospective application
Finance raised in this sector may be for new, greenfield facilities, for retrofits or upgrades to existing facilities, or they may be
a straight refinancing of an existing facility. Therefore, any proposal and associated approved assessment tool under thisComponent needs to be usable for both new and existing facilities.
This is not a straightforward issue; as in the case of refinancing, the facility may have been operating for a number of years.
It may have been compliant with best practices in place at the time of its implementation but may not meet current best

67 Chemical Industries Association (2015). Safeguarding chemical businesses in a changing climate. How to prepare a. Climate Change Adaptation Plan.

www.cia.org.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KW8WF8CBZG0%3D&portalid=068 Dale, S.(2021). Disaster Planning: Improve Your Plant’s Resilience. Become more proactive in dealing with acute and chronic natural disasters.

ChemicalProcessing.com. www.chemicalprocessing.com/articles/2021/disaster-planning-improve-your-plants-resilience/
Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 36

practice requirements. The selected methodology and tool will therefore need to be able to address and resolve any ‘legacy
issues’ that may be identified.

4.7 Existing tools and guidelines considered
A range of existing tools and guidelines with the most potential to be leveraged for the Hydrogen Criteria are listed below, with abrief indication of whether they were taken forward for further consideration or not.
Risk Assessment and Climate Scenarios
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

69

The ISO 14091:2021 Adaptation to climate change - Guidelines on vulnerability, impacts and risk assessment standard offers
guidelines for assessing the risks related to the potential impacts of climate change.69
Risks can be characterised by the associated annual probability of failure or annual costs of loss or damage
For risk assessment, the TCFD The Use of Scenario Analysis in Disclosure of Climate Related Risks and Opportunities isrecommended.
A broad range of models can be used to generate climate scenarios. Users should apply climate scenarios based on
representative concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 or similar / equivalent to ensure consideration for the worst casescenario. (The IPCC ‘Shared Socioeconomic Pathways’ to develop potential temperature scenarios. SSP5-8.5 is the highest
warming pathway, SSP3-7.0 the second highest and so on).
The IPCC Sixth Assessment report also provides an indication as to how different temperatures impact the likelihood andseverity of different climate impacts
A framework for risk management for climate security. www.c2es.org/document/degrees-of-risk-defining-a-riskmanagement-framework-for-climate-security/
Climate Change Risk Assessment Guidelines. www.ctcn.org/system/files/dossier/3b/D4.2%20Climate%20change%20risk%20assessment%20guidelines.pdf

www.iso.org/standard/68508.html

Hydrogen Criteria Background Paper- Climate Bonds Initiative

P a g e | 37

Appendix A: TWG and IWG members
Climate Bonds Coordinator
Marian Rodriguez
Senior Research Analyst

Climate Bonds Initiative

External Technical Lead Advisor:
Emre Gençer
Principal Research Scientist

MIT Energy Initiative

TWG Members
Clarissa Bergman Fonte
Researcher in Energy planningFederal University of Riode Janeiro, BrazilÁlvaro Bobadilla

Cédric Philibert
Senior Energy Consultant.

Independent

Maria de los Angeles Valenzuela
Manager Consultant

HINICIO (Chile)

Gabriela Nascimento
da Silva
Hydrogen consultant

KfW (the developmentbank of Germany)

Marta Lovisolo
Advisor on Renewable Energy
Systems

Bellona Europa

Giuseppe Bianchi
Senior Professional in
Innovation and
Decarbonisation

Independent.
Former IEA analyst

Patrick Molloy
Manager Breakthrough Technologie

Rocky Mountain Institute(RMI)

Gniewomir Flis
Associate, Senior Advisor
Hydrogen

Energy Revolution
Ventures

Rachel Fakhry
Green Hydrogen Sector Lead

Climate Champions. Race tozero UNFCCC

Joe Powell
Director Energy Transition
Institute

University of Houston

Zainab Datti
Technical Advisor

Deutsche Gesellschaft fürInternationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)GmbH

Zaffar Hussain
Project Lead PtX Africa

Agora Energiewende

Additional experts consulted:
Herib Blanco
Analyst - Hydrogen Energy(Power to X)

International Renewable
Energy Agency (IRENA)

Sarah Torkamani
Environmental and energy
policy expert

Independent

Graeme Sweeney
Chair of the Advisory Council

European Technology
Platform of Zero Emission

Appendices - Climate Bonds Initiative

HINICIO (Chile)

Energy Analyst

IWG Members
CWP Global

Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)

Bureau Veritas

JCRA (Japan Credit Rating Agency)

Carbon Trust

Kawasaki Heavy Industries

China Hydrogen Alliance

Mizuho International

Eletrobras

NSW | Point Advisory an ERM Group Company

Hydrogen Brazil

Rubicola Consulting

Hydrogen Europe

Snam

IFA (International Fertilisers Association)

Socalgas

IHI Corporation

Sustainalytics

Appendices - Climate Bonds Initiative