Legislative initiative enabling the development of competitive CO2 markets and CO2 transportation infrastructure.
Date: 2026-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: energy policy

FACTUAL SUMMARY REPORT:  
PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON CO2 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 
AND MARKETS 

Disclaimer: The received contributions to the consultation and the resulting summary reflect the 
views of the participants who responded and cannot be regarded as the official position of the 
European Commission and its services, and thus, do not bind the European Commission. 

Objectives and approach of the consultation 

The public consultation questionnaire for the CO2 markets and infrastructure legislative initiative 
was open from 6 October 2025 to 9 January 2026, following the feedback period for the call 
for evidence (between 31 July and 11 September 2025). The purpose of this consultation was 
to collect in-depth and high-quality evidence, information and feedback on a potential regulatory 
framework  for  CO2  market  and  transportation  (as  follow-up  to  the  Industrial  Carbon 
Management Strategy of 20241). The consultation results will inform the Commission’s decision 
on the way forward. 

The public consultation questionnaire comprised a total of 55 questions, structured in 5 chapters: 
Chapter 1: General questions; Chapter 2: Providing regulatory certainty and investor confidence 
to develop the necessary CO2 infrastructure; Chapter 3: Removing barriers to the cross-border 
transportation of CO2; Chapter 4: Supporting the emergence of a competitive, cost-effective CO2 
value chain; and Chapter 5: De-risking the development of CCS. 

The responses to the general questions (Q1-Q5) are discussed in section 2 of this document, 
while  the  specific  questions  (Q6-Q55)  on  technical  and  regulatory  issues  are  summarised  in 
section 3. The questionnaire was made up of closed questions (to evaluate pre-defined answers) 
and open questions (to eliminate possible biases). Stakeholders could further comment on closed 
questions to specify their viewpoint. In addition, stakeholder submitted 74 position papers.  

As regards the methodology used in this summary, the  results are obtained  directly  from EU 
survey2,  which  computes  statistics  on each  question. The  percentages  are  based  on  the  total 
number of answers received to the public consultation, i.e. the 206 participating stakeholders. 
100% refers to the total number of responses, even if not every question has been answered by 
every  respondent.  All  percentages  are  rounded  to  the  nearest  whole  number.  For  closed 
questions, scale-based responses are counted together for presenting the results (by combining, 
for example, the responses “very important” and “important”). 

Efforts  have  been  taken  to  publicise  the  public  consultation  as  to  reach  a  maximum  of 
stakeholders3. 

1 COM/2024/62, EUR-Lex - 52024DC0062 - EN - EUR-Lex 
2 EUSurvey - Welcome 
3 Including news release on the European Commission website, announcement at the 5th ICM Forum, 
social media posts on DG ENER platforms – X (posts on 6/10/25, 8/11/25, and 10/12/25) 
and LinkedIn, at meetings with Member State representatives with national regulatory authorities, and at 
stakeholder workshops. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 1. Information about respondents 
A  total  of  206  stakeholders  responded  to  the  public  consultation4.  Businesses  made  up  the 
largest  proportion  of  respondents  with  107  submissions  (52%),  followed  by  business 
associations with 65 respondents (32%). Fewer submissions were made by Non-Governmental 
Organisations (11 respondents), public authorities (7 respondents), other entities (7 respondents), 
and academic/research institutions (4 respondents). EU citizens (2 respondents), trade unions (1 
respondent), and non-EU citizens (1 respondent) provided the least number of contributions. 

Figure 1. Contributions received by category of stakeholders (Source: EUSurvey responses) 

A total of 25 different countries were represented amongst the respondents. Aside from Norway 
(9), the United Kingdom (6), Switzerland (3), United States (2), Australia (2), and Iceland (1), all 
other 183 responses came from EU Member States (89% of responses). Over a quarter of the 
submissions  are  from  German  stakeholders  with  54  respondents  (26%),  35  of  which  are 
companies/businesses and 17 are business associations.  

Overall,  industry  stakeholders  (companies/businesses  and  business  associations)  account  for 
83% of all submissions (172 respondents). Among the 172 companies and businesses, 13 out 
of 107 companies are based outside the EU, and 4 of the 61 business association responses are 
also from non-EU entities. This distribution shows the interest from third countries for the further 
development of the industrial carbon management value chain beyond the EU borders. 

4  

One respondent out of the 206 participated by only uploading a position paper, i.e. without 
answering the questions.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  2.  Contributions  received  by  category  of  stakeholders  and  EU  and  non-EU  responses 
(Source: EUSurvey responses) 

Section 2. Rationale and key element for a regulatory framework 
The  general  questions  (chapter  1)  aimed  at  identifying  the  rationale  and  key  elements  for  a 
regulatory  framework  that  would  support  the  development  of  competitive  EU  CO2  markets. 
Overall,  90%  of  respondents  supported  an  EU-level  regulatory  framework  for  the  industrial 
carbon management value chain. Most respondents (73) favour developing rules in phases, i.e. 
setting EU-level key regulatory principles now and developing detailed, technical rules later as 
the  market  matures.  Most  of  the  respondents  (139  responses,  67%)  call  for  a  regulatory 
framework  setting  out  the  main  regulatory  principles,  with  a  large  part  (81  responses,  39%) 
supporting a framework which retains sufficient flexibility to accommodate uncertainties in the 
ramp-up phase. Some respondents (58 responses, 28%) consider that setting key principles now 
would  allow  details  to  be  fine-tuned  later.  At  the  same  time,  21%  of  the  respondents  (43 
responses) express the need for clearly defined rules from the beginning to reduce regulatory 
uncertainty.  Most  of  the  respondents  (181  responses,  88%)  call  for  a  technology  neutral 
regulatory framework, with many (132 responses, 64%) preferring market forces deciding on 
decarbonisation options. Only 5% (11 responses) prefer limiting the use of CCS to the hard-to-
abate sectors.  

Most  of  the  respondents (91  responses,  44%)  support  a  market  design  considering  from the 
outset  CO2  storage  and  use  and  the  CO2  streams  from  bioenergy  with  carbon  capture  and 
storage (BECCS) and direct air capture (DAC). At the same time, many of the respondents (76 
responses, 37%) prefer a regulatory framework focusing on CO2 storage. They either see CO2 
storage as the main driver of the value chain (48 responses, 23%) or expect that the market 
design principles for BECCS and DAC are not fundamentally different from those for storage (28 
responses, 14%). 

Regarding more specific areas of intervention, respondents consider removing legal barriers to 
cross-border  CO2  transport  and  trade  as  a  very important  topic  (191  responses,  93%).  More 
concretely, they express strong support for measures ensuring cross-border interoperability (175 
responses, 85%), clear rules on responsibility for CO2 leakage (171 responses, 83%)  and for 
interconnections with non-EU countries (170 responses, 83%). Respondents are calling for de-
risking investments in CO2 transport infrastructure (188 responses, 91%). Many of them consider 

3 

 
 
 
 
increasing market transparency and visibility in the CO2 value chain a relevant de-risking tool 
(137 responses, 67%). Most respondents call for measures providing regulatory certainty and 
investor confidence to develop the needed CO2 infrastructure. A large majority of respondents 
support  providing  regulatory  certainty  for  existing  CO2  projects  (182  responses,  88%)  and 
streamlining permitting frameworks (179 responses, 87%). They also consider the coordinated 
planning of CO2 transport infrastructure (158 responses, 76%) and clear rules enabling the use 
of existing energy infrastructure for CO2 transport (143 responses, 69%) as relevant measures. 
To  support  the  emergence  of  a  competitive  and  cost-effective  CO2  value  chain,  respondents 
support measures ensuring non-discriminatory and transparent access to CO2 networks (170 
responses, 83%) and storages (159 responses, 77%) as well as avoiding conflicts of interest in 
the CO2 market (126 responses, 61%). 

Section 3. What measures may be needed 

The  specific  questions  (chapters  2  to  5)  aimed  at  exploring  in  greater  detail  what  potential 
measures would be needed to support the development of competitive EU CO2 markets 

Regulatory certainty and investor confidence to develop CO2 infrastructure 

Overall,  respondents  agree  that  there  are  barriers  to  developing  CO2  infrastructure.  176 
respondents (85%) agree that there is a lack of investor confidence along the CO2 value chain, 
158  (77%)  highlight  the  lack  of  coordination  along  the  CO2  value  chain  and  across  Member 
States  and  148 (72%)  the  lack  of  regulatory  certainty.  As  regards the potential  measures to 
address these challenges, most respondents agree that CO2 pipeline planning coordinated at EU 
level provides visibility on CO2 pipeline availability for CO2 emitters and storage operators (131 
responses, 64%) as well as on CO2 pipeline needs (130 respondents, 63%) and can help mitigate 
the coordination risk in the CO2 value chain (130 respondents, 63%). Most respondents consider 
national network plans necessary (146 responses, 71%), with contribution by each infrastructure 
operator (139 responses, 67%)  and coordinated with EU-level  network plans (132 responses, 
64%).  

Some industrial carbon management projects will start operation or take investment decisions 
before  new  legislation  is  adopted.  To  provide  such  pre-existing  CO2  projects  with  regulatory 
predictability,  many  respondents  favour  the  possibility  of  temporary  exemption  from  certain 
regulatory requirements (73 responses, 35%).  

Stakeholders agree that reusing existing energy infrastructure can play a role in developing the 
necessary  CO2 infrastructure  (160  responses,  78%),  though  considering  that  this  will  have  a 
limited role (109 responses, 53%). Respondents expect as main benefits of repurposing energy 
infrastructure for CO2 transport to be time and cost savings (137 and 136 responses, each 66%) 
and  accelerated  administrative  processes  (108  responses,  52%).  Furthermore,  respondents 
agree  that  there  are  barriers  to  repurposing,  such  as  legal  factors  (90  responses,  44%)  and 
regulatory barriers to reusing existing permits and rights (82 responses, 40%). 

Most  stakeholders  agree  that  permitting  procedures  for  CO2  infrastructure  can  be  improved. 
More concretely, they strongly support a single point of contact to assist and guide applicants 
through  the  permitting  procedure  (144  responses,  70%)  and  fully  digitalised  permitting 
procedures (136 responses, 66%). Additionally, the entire permitting procedure  should have a 
maximum  duration  specified  in  EU  legislation  (136  responses,  66%)  and  Member  State 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
authorities should ensure adequate resources available to deal with the permitting procedures5 
(132 responses, 64%). 

Removing barriers to the cross-border transportation of CO2  

Stakeholders perceive the London Protocol6 as the main international treaty posing restrictions 
to the cross-border transport of CO2 within the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA) (118 
responses, 57%)7. When considering appropriate measures to address the perceived restrictions, 
many respondents propose encouraging Member States to  act  (including drawing up bilateral 
agreements between parties; 46 responses, 22%)  and EU regulatory intervention,  particularly 
the adoption of a legal framework for CO2 transport (37 responses, 18%). 

Regarding countries outside of the EU and the EEA, 116 respondents (56%) state that the United 
Kingdom (56%) and North Africa (23%) have CO2 storage infrastructure that can be relevant for 
EU  emitters.  Respondents  consider  access  to  CO2  transport  and  storage  in  these  countries 
relevant to gain access to additional storage or utilisation capacity (88 respondents, 43%), to 
address  storage  availability  bottlenecks  (74  respondents,  36%)  and  to  access  geographically 
closer or more suitable infrastructure (52 responses, 25%).  Restrictions  for cross-border CO2 
transport  infrastructure  with  third  countries  are  deemed  to  be  the  London  Protocol  (60 
respondents, 29%), the need for alignment with the EU ETS Directive (78 responses, 38%) and 
the permitting of cross-border CO2 transport infrastructure with third countries (52 respondent, 
25%).  

Respondents  strongly  agree  (157  responses,  76%)  that  a  harmonised  EU-level  framework  is 
necessary for ensuring clear responsibility for CO2 leakage for cross-border CO2 transport. 

As  regards  the  work  on  standardisation,  the  respondents  support  that  some  minimum  CO2 
quality requirements would provide a valuable contribution for the entire value chain and for the 
interoperability  of  the  network.  As  regards the  quality  of CO2,  especially  when  different CO2 
streams  are  mixed  from  different  industrial  processes,  54  respondents  (26%)  advocate  for 
quality  requirements  being  the  same  in  the  interconnected  CO2  pipeline  network  and  in  the 
infrastructure directly connected to pipelines. In addition,  32 respondents (16%)  agree  that it 
should be the same throughout the whole CO2 value chain. In contrast, 54 respondents (26%) 
state  that  the  quality  requirements  could  vary  at  different  points  in  the  interconnected  CO2 
pipeline network and in the infrastructure directly connected to it. 88 respondents (43%) consider 
that  managing  quality  to  ensure  system  integrity  and  safety  should  be  the  responsibility  of 
emitters.  

Supporting the emergence of a competitive, cost-effective CO2 value chain 

As  regards  competitive  conditions  of  CO2  pipeline  transport,  most  respondents  highlight  that 
CO2 pipelines have large economies of scale (155 responses, 75%), and high fixed costs and low 

5 This refers to permitting of installations and transport capacities that have been specified in the 
national energy and climate plans or in Member State reports under Article 21 of the Net-Zero Industry 
Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1735).    
6 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other 
Matter. 
7 For this section, the responses “represents a significant restriction” and “represents a moderate 
restriction” are summarised in the sense of representing restriction. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
variable or marginal costs (152 responses, 74%), compatible with the view that CO2 networks 
have characteristics resembling a natural monopoly. In contrast, many respondents state that 
CO2 transportation by ships is likely to be subject to effective competition (109 responses, 53%). 
Some stakeholders expect effective competition also for CO2 transport by trucks (80 responses, 
39%)  and  by  trains  (72  responses,  35%).  In  relation  to  geological  storage,  120  respondents 
(58%)  agree  that  storages  are  not  readily  available  in  large  parts  of  the  EU  and,  therefore, 
storage operators have significant market power. Many also add that the market for CO2 storage 
has high entry barriers (118 responses, 57%).  

Stakeholders agree that market rules ensuring competitive outcomes are essential to foster trust 
and investment (111 respondents, 54%). Over half of the stakeholders agree that regulated, cost 
reflective  tariffs  for  CO2  networks  would  be  necessary  to  ensure  that  CO2  markets  are 
competitive (105 responses, 51%). Tariffs for pipelines should be cost-reflective (91 responses, 
44%), without distorting competition between pipelines and other means of CO2 transportation 
(116 responses, 56%) and regulated at national level (88 responses, 43%). Furthermore, 126 
respondents (61%) agree that non-discriminatory access to CO2 pipelines requires setting access 
rules for adjacent infrastructure, such as CO2 terminals. Concerning  competitive CO2 storage 
markets,  many  respondents  advocate  for  additional  rules  on  the  access  conditions  to  CO2 
storage (107 responses, 52%). In particular, they call for rules to avoid discriminatory capacity 
allocation  and  capacity  hoarding  (108  respondents,  52%)  and  for  regulated,  cost-reflective 
tariffs for CO2 storage (75 respondents, 36%). 

146 respondents (71%) consider that a harmonised EU-wide certification system for biogenic 
CO2 across utilisation pathways is essential to ensure consistency, transparency and credibility 
across the EU. In addition,  many  respondents  consider a harmonised  mass balance  approach 
applied  across  the  entire  network  and  all  pathways  as  the  preferred  method  to  ensure 
traceability (84 responses, 41%). 

De-risking the development of CCS 

Stakeholders were asked about how to best address cross-value chain risks. Respondents do not 
support the possibility of all value chain partners taking out joint commercial insurance against 
the cost of CO2 leakage (75 respondents, 36%) or that they should create a joint pool of ETS 
allowances to serve as a buffer against CO2 leakage costs (67 responses, 33%). They also do 
not agree to address these risks as part of the normal contractual arrangements between parties 
in the value chain (67 responses, 33%). Individual commercial insurances are controversial with 
some against (59 responses, 29%) and some in favour (46 responses, 22%).  

Respondents agree that financing the development of cross-border CO2 pipeline infrastructure 
may pose more challenges than financing domestic pipelines, due to the involvement of more 
than one Member State (134 responses, 65%) and due to the differences in applicable regulatory 
frameworks (117 responses, 57%). To mitigate these risks, respondents call for non-financial 
measures, such as tools increasing transparency on infrastructure development. Further, many 
advocate  for  state  intervention  limiting  volume  risks  for  network  operators  (110  responses, 
53%), for cross-border cost allocation mechanisms (91 responses, 44%) and for regulated tariffs 
which can be adjusted over time (86 responses, 42%).  

As regards tools to lower the amount of the up-front financial security required from CO2 storage 
operators by the CCS Directive, some respondents support contributions from storage operators 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to a commercial insurance cover underwritten by a national  financial  security instrument  (47 
responses, 23%) while others support the contribution from storage operators to a national CCS 
financial  security instrument  (41  responses, 20%).  Contributions  from  storage operators  to  a 
commercial  insurance  cover  underwritten  by  an  EEA-wide  CCS  financial  security  instrument 
financed  by  Member  States  is  supported  by  44  respondents  (21%)  while  contributions  from 
storage operators to an EEA-wide financial security instrument underwritten by EEA countries by 
43 respondents (21%).  

The Industrial Carbon Management Strategy proposed establishing a CO2 platform by 20268. 
Stakeholders take the view that the main functions of such a platform should be increasing the 
visibility  of  current  and  future  supply  and  demand  (138  respondents,  67%)  and  improving 
coordination along the CO2 value chain by facilitating contacts between market participants as 
well  as  by  matching  storage  demand  and  supply  (97  respondents,  47%).  Respondents  also 
consider that such a platform is important for aggregating volumes of captured CO2 by small(er) 
CO2 emitters to help them access the transportation and storage (95 responses, 46%), to provide 
information  on  pipeline  access  conditions  (94  responses,  46%)  and  to  provide  information 
facilitating CO2 infrastructure planning (83 responses, 40%).  

8 Commission communication: Towards an ambitious Industrial Carbon Management for the EU, 
COM/2024/62 final, EUR-Lex - 52024DC0062 - EN - EUR-Lex 

7 

Electronically signed on 26/02/2026 09:13 (UTC+01) in accordance with Article 11 of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121