## 3 Methodology and Application to a Case Study
### Influence of Barriers and Incentives at the Territorial Level
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Code** & **Questions** & **Results** \\ \hline B.01 & To what extent is the REGULATION an obstacle & 62\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & to PtG deployment? & Average 3.7 \\ B.02 & To what extent is the LACK OF EQUIPMENT an & 55\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & obstacle to PtG deployment? & Average 3.5 \\ B.03 & To what extent is the PRICE OF THE & 73\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & ELECTROLYSER an obstacle? & Average 3.7 \\ B.04 & To what extent is the LACK OF INVESTMENT & 46\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & IN R&Rd and an obstacle? & Average 3.5 \\ B.05 & To what extent is the difficulty of obtaining & 64\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & FINANNCING an obstacle? & Average 3.5 \\ B.06 & To what extent does THE PAYBACK PERIOD OF & 92\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & THE INVESTMENT hinder PtG? & Average 4.3 \\ B.07 & To what extent does the COMPLEXITY of the & 42\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & facilities hinder PtG? & Average 2.8 \\ B.08 & To what extent does the lack of INTEREST on the & 42\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & part of customers hinder PtG technologies? & Average 3.4 \\ B.09 & To what extent does subsequent & 27\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & MAINTENANCE hinder the installation of PtG? & Average 2.8 \\  & To what extent is the high volume of initial & 73\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & INVESTMENT an obstacle to PtG deployment? & Average 3.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of the experts’ interviews regarding barriers to power-to-gas (PtG). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Code** & **Questions** & **Results** \\ \hline I.01 & To what extent would a substantial change in & 83\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & LEGISLATION encourage PtG? & Average 4.0 \\ I.02 & To what extent would fostering EQUIPMENT & 58\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & encourage PtG? & Average 3.4 \\ I.03 & To what extent would lower TECHNOLOGY & 77\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & PRICES increase PtG? & Average 4.2 \\ I.04 & To what extent would fostering the collaboration & 46\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & with R&D centers drive PtG? & Average 3.3 \\ I.05 & To what extent would SUBSIDIES promote PtG? & 85\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & To what extent would rising the PRICE OF & 55\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & ELECTRICITY mean more PtG installations? & Average 3.5 \\  & To what extent would making easier the & 83\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & INSTALLATION PROCESS increase PtG & Average 3.8 \\  & deployment? & 46\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & To what extent would INFORMATION & 46\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & CAMPAIGNS encourage PtG installations? & Average 3.3 \\ I.09 & To what extent would lower MAINTENANCE & 62\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & COSTS increase PtG? & Average 3.8 \\ I.10 & To what extent subsidies/incentives to new & 50\% very relevant or highly relevant. \\  & installations would facilitate PtG deployment? & Average 3.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of the experts’ interviews regarding incentives to PtG. In accordance with Section 2.1, technical is the smallest barrier from the perspective of interviews and the remaining barrier typologies are at the same level. Some considerations regarding the priority of economic and financial issues, as mentioned in Section 2.1, can be deduced from the average values. Finally, by comparing incentives and barriers it can be expected that the higher the difference between a barrier and its corresponding incentive, the more urgent the need to develop corresponding strategies. This confirms that financial, economic, and technical factors still need to be addressed.