CCS and EC state aid rules - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 22
About This Presentation
Title:

CCS and EC state aid rules

Description:

(Within EFTA, ESA corresponds to the EU Commission. ... ESA: No a 5 years perspective is the correct one, and the project will not be ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:41
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 23
Provided by: hcbu
Category:
Tags: ccs | aid | esa | rules | state

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CCS and EC state aid rules


1
CCS and EC state aid rules
  • Illustrated by two Norwegian cases
  • Professor Hans Chr. Bugge
  • Research assistant Nina K. Hallenstvedt
  • Natural Resources Law Group
  • University of Oslo

2
What is the issue?
  • Technological development in CCS is needed and
    this will be very expensive.
  • When (if) the proper technological solution is
    found, huge investments are required in capture,
    transport, and storage installations. Also the
    running of the system will be costly.
  • At present full scale CCS from power production
    is very far from being economic and commercial
    (even if combined with Enhanced Oil Recovery
    EOR). The costs cannot be covered through the
    market price for electricity.
  • State aid is necessary, but
  • Do the EC state aid rules limit the
    possibilities?

3
The Norwegian situation
  • Norway wants to be a pioneer and gain experience
    in this field and if possible make CCS
    commercial.
  • Norways continental shelf has an enormous
    storage potential.
  • The possibility of CCS has been on the political
    agenda for nearly 10 years.
  • In 1999 a plan and application for gas-fired
    power plants without CCS became a very
    controversial issue in Norway. (A government had
    to resign on it.)

4
The Kårstø gas-fired power plant
  • In 1999 a permit was finally given to the Kårstø
    power plant (south of Bergen on the west coast)
    without CCS requirement.
  • It is now operating, emitting 1,2 mill. tons of
    CO per year against EU ETS emission allowances
    (when it operates)
  • The political aim is to retrofit CCS within 2012,
    based on best available technology
    (post-combustion amine process).
  • Gassnova SF - a 100 state owned company for the
    development of gas power technology/CCS was
    established in 2005. It shall build and run the
    full scale CCS chain at Kårstø from 2012. This is
    a separate entity from the company Naturkraft
    which owns and runs the power plant itself.
  • The vision Kårstø as CCS hub for CO2 from other
    Norwegian sources and the continent, possibly at
    least 20 mill. tons per year (in the Utsira or
    Johansen formations).

5
The Test Center Mongstad (TCM)
  • In 2007 StatoilHydro got permission to establish
    a new gas-fired power plant at Mongstad (north of
    Bergen), on the condition that new CCS technology
    is in place from 2014.
  • For this purpose a joint venture RD company has
    been established Test Center Mongstad (TCM).
  • The Norwegian state has 80 and StatoilHydro 20
    shares in TCM.
  • This is Norways moon landingA very high
    profile project for the government and for our
    prime minister in particular.

6
Summing up the engagement of the Norwegian state
  • Kårstø 100 state engagement in the future CCS
    chain (Gassnova).
  • Estimated costs Investment costs of 500 mill.
    and upwards, annual operating costs of min. 37
    mill.
  • Mongstad 80 direct state involvement in a
    technology RD project estimated to 200 mill.
  • Is this state aid? Is it prohibited by the
    present EC state aid rules (ECT art. 87)? (These
    apply to Norway through the EEA Agreement, see
    its art. 61.)

7
The present status of these cases
  • Norway has notified EFTA Surveillance Authority
    (ESA) about the government investment in the TCM
    and Kårstø.
  • (Within EFTA, ESA corresponds to the EU
    Commission.)
  • The issues are under discussion between the
    government and ESA since the summer 2007 for TCM
    and since January 2008 for Kårstø.
  • No formal case opened yet.

8
ECT Article 87 (1)
  • Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any
    aid granted by a Member State or through State
    resources in any form whatsoever which distorts
    or threatens to distort competition by favouring
    certain undertakings or the production of certain
    goods shall, in so far as it affects trade
    between Member States, be incompatible with the
    common market.
  • .

9
ECT Art 87 (3)
  • 3. The following may be considered to be
    compatible with the common market
  • .
  • (b) aid to promote the execution of an important
    project of common European interest ..
  • (c) aid to facilitate the development of certain
    economic activities or of certain economic areas,
    where such aid does not adversely affect trading
    conditions to an extent contrary to the common
    interest
  • CCS is explicitly not covered by the Community
    Guidelines for State Aid for Environmental
    Protection.

10
The stages to consider
  • Research and technological development including
    the investment and running of a test project.
  • Investments in full scale installations for
    capture, transport, injection, and storage.
  • The future operation of the CCS chain.

11
What is seen as state aid? Some basics
  • An element of public support to an activity (and
    not only from the state).
  • A broad understanding of support (in any form
    whatsoever, a burden, not only subsidies)
  • It must be specific, an exception from the
    general rule, and not in accordance with the
    system.
  • It must influence competition (even
    hypothetical).
  • It must have effect on trade between MS (this is
    often presumed if the other conditions are
    fulfilled) .

12
Is public investments through a state company
state aid?
  • Yes, if that investment is not market based,
    and
  • .there is no special justification for not
    acting as an ordinary market actor.
  • This is the market economy investor principle
    (MEIP) or private investor test,
  • called the center piece of EC state aid law.
  • The principle that public and private actors in
    the market must be treated equally ECT art. 295.

13
The test may be quite complex
  • The test Would a rational, private investor of
    comparable size, and in a comparable situation
    have made the investment?
  • Many hypothetical factors and uncertainties
  • - what type of private actor to compare with?
  • - what is the correct rate of return on the
    investment?
  • - what time frame short or long term? .etc.
  • What role does the environmental objective play?
    Does this justify the state involvement? Would a
    private firm act likewise?
  • The state has a certain margin of discretion in
    the judgments on these issues.

14
Where do we stand?The Mongstad case (simplified)
  • ECON study (for the government)
  • Premise strict CO2 emission reduction
    requirements post Kyoto and so increasing price
    on emission allowances.
  • TCM a profitable investment in a 20-years
    perspective. The state can take a long term view.
    Conclusion not state aid.
  • ESA No a 5 years perspective is the correct
    one, and the project will not be profitable in 5
    years. Conclusion state aid.
  • What if other power companies want to join the
    project, and buy shares from the state? (Several
    companies consider this.)

15
The Kårstø case
  • The objective Retrofit full scale CCS from 2012.
  • Investments of 500 mill. to be covered 100 by
    the state. Operating costs of 37 mill. to be
    covered by the state.
  • The total costs correspond to an emission
    allowance price of ca. 100 per ton CO2.
  • (The price today is 28).
  • Present status complex assessments made by ESA.
  • (A long list of questions has been presented to
    the Norwegian government.)
  • Most likely regarded as state aid (no private
    actor would make the investment), but may the
    exception rule in art 87 (3) be applied?

16
The exception rule in art. 87 (3)
  • The following may be considered to be compatible
    with the common market
  • .
  • (b) aid to promote the execution of an important
    project of common European interest ..
  • (c) aid to facilitate the development of certain
    economic activities or of certain economic areas,
    where such aid does not adversely affect trading
    conditions to an extent contrary to the common
    interest
  • In this case (b) can be seen as absorbing (c).

17
Elements in this assessment
  • Is there a well-defined objective of common
    interest?
  • Is there a market failure which necessitates
    state aid?
  • Is state aid the appropriate instrument to
    address the identified market failure?
  • Is it proportional to correct the marked failure?
  • Are the distortions of competition and trade
    effects limited, and the total balance positive?
    (Balancing test)
  • What weight to the environmental objective?
  • In the end a broad assessment with discretionary
    elements. The decision may be more political than
    strictly legal.

18
Some questions raised by ESA re. Kårstø
  • The time frame for state financing of operational
    costs?
  • Envisaged shut down periodes of the power plant?
    What economic effects?
  • A detailed net present value calculation for the
    CCS (costs, revenues and discount factor).
  • Is it foreseen that it may be profitable?
  • Is the CCS technology current, or does it include
    novelties?
  • Comparisons with other exisiting CCS facilities
    world wide?
  • How to chose the technology to be used
    (technology vendors), and will the know-how be
    shared by others?
  • Who will supply the energy for the CCS, and how
    is the energy price fixed?
  • The nature of various state interests managed by
    Gassnova.
  • ..

19
What about state support to private projects?
  • This will normally be state aid and acceptance
    must be based on the exception rule in art. 87
    (3) b) or c) and the mentioned assessment
    elements.
  • The key issue will probably be the necessity
    test Strong environmental arguments in favour,
    but how much state aid is necessary in order to
    compensate for the market failure (net loss) and
    get projects going?
  • The post Kyoto regime and the future price of CO2
    allowances will be of importance.

20
What are the general and political prospects?
  • CCS is seen generally and by the Commission as an
    important part of the solution to the climate
    problem.
  • EU wants to stimulate technological development
    in CCS, through 12 pilot projects.
  • The Commission has declared that it has a
    positive attitude towards state aid for
    technological development of CCS, based on the
    exception rule in art. 87 (3).

21
The prospects (cont.)
  • It seems likely that considerable state support
    even 100 - for technological development will be
    accepted.
  • In May 2008 the Energy Commissioner Andris
    Piebalgs told a Norwegian audience that 80 state
    involvement in TCM Mongstad seems acceptable.
  • He stressed the importance of developing CCS
    technology.
  • You should not worry . but I am not the
    Commissioner for competition

22
The prospects (cont.)
  • State aid to investments in full scale
    installations is a more complex issue, but in the
    short term the application of the exception rule
    seems reasonable due to the important
    environmental objective.
  • Most likely the question will be what level of
    state aid is necessary.
  • State aid to cover future operating costs of the
    CCS chain seems less likely, at least in the long
    term, but not impossible.
  • (Operationg aid is accepted for renewable
    energy.)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com