Designing a Workable Carbon Capture Use and Storage Regulatory Regime: Key Policy Challenges

2 min 39 sec January 15, 2026 (Edited)

Carbon capture, use, and storage (CCUS) is being adopted by signatories to the Paris Agreement to assist them in meeting their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Building a credible CCUS regulatory regime requires more than solving legal puzzles about ownership and liability. It requires practical rules that align investor incentives, manage shared infrastructure, and enable projects to operate across borders. This article explains the main policy tools governments use, how they are combined in practice, and what a well-designed regime looks like.

Financial incentives

Policymakers use several types of financial support to make CCUS projects bankable.

• One common approach is a contract for difference (CCfD): the government guarantees a price for each tonne of CO2 avoided, making revenue predictable for the project. CCfDs provide targeted price certainty, but require careful administration.
• Tax credits or investment tax credits provide capital support per tonne and can be scaled through existing tax systems. Tax credits are easier to scale, but are blunt and may not fully address long-term revenue risk.
• Grant programmes and direct payments are also used where upfront costs are a barrier.
• Another approach is a regulated asset base (RAB) model for shared transport and storage infrastructure, where users pay tariffs calculated to allow the operator to recover costs plus an allowed return.

The single common challenge is demand creation: without a consistent, predictable market for stored carbon — either through compliance markets or durable public support — projects rely disproportionately on subsidies.

Open access

Shared pipelines and storage sites are central to scaling CCUS, and rules for open access and competition matter. When a network is controlled by one company, regulators must ensure non-discriminatory access and transparent tariffs to avoid abuse of market power and to allow multiple emitters to plug in.

Some jurisdictions build open-access conditions into licences or economic regulations; others rely on competition authorities. Well-designed hub models — where trunk lines and large storage units are governed to allow multiple users — reduce transaction costs and prevent single-user dominance. If a lead developer is state owned, the legal framework must include clear, independent oversight to maintain fairness.

Land access and spatial planning

Land access and spatial planning are other practical concerns. Coordinating routes for pipelines, siting compressor stations, and sequencing cluster development requires statutory tools to avoid holdouts that can block entire networks. Some governments use compulsory purchase or expropriation powers for projects of public benefit, with fair compensation and procedural safeguards.

Where land ownership is concentrated and cooperative, negotiation can work; where ownership is fragmented, statutory tools aligned with robust public engagement speed up build out while protecting rights.

Cross-border projects

International projects raise extra complexity. Recent updates to the international law framework allow CO2 to be transported across borders for sub-seabed storage, but that move requires clear bilateral consent, compatible MRV systems, and agreement on liability if problems occur.

A cross-border storage hub only works if countries align on verification rules, recognise each other’s monitoring results, and prevent double counting of emissions reductions in carbon accounting systems. Governments that want to become regional storage hubs must put export/import authority into law and agree in advance on dispute resolution and chain of custody rules.