Development and distribution of the IEA CCS model regulatory framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The IEA CCS Roadmap highlights the significance that CCS will play in achieving an atmospheric CO 2 stabilisation of 450ppm. In the scenario it is based on, CCS will provide approximately 20% of the total CO 2 emissions reductions out to 2050. To achieve this contribution, an ambitious CCS growth path will be required, with around 100 projects needed globally by 2020, and over 3000 by 2050. As a result of the required CCS expansion, a number of regulatory issues associated with protecting public health, safety and the environment, as well as ensuring stewardship for permanent CO 2 storage, will need to be addressed. There is also a need to provide flexible, adaptive regulations for the first set of demonstration projects. To address these issues, governments are amending existing resource extraction or environmental impact frameworks to allow the first demonstration projects to move forward, while at the same time developing dedicated legal frameworks to facilitate CCS commercialisation for the longer-term. In some cases, project-specific regulations may also be needed. In recent y ears, the international community has amended a number of legal instruments to advance CCS development. The London Protocol was amended in 2006 to allow for offshore CO 2 storage and in 2009 to allow fo r cross -border transport of CO 2 ; in 2007, the OSPAR Convention adopted similar provisions. The UNFCCC does not include a fi rm commitment for parties with regard to CCS; however, in 2006, the IPCC released the revised Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories , which are used for calculating and reporting national GHG emissions and removals. Although not yet officially sanctioned for use, these guidelines include a complete methodology for the treatment of CCS under the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC and currently have to be used in Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 countries (industrialised), but not yet by non-Annex 1 countries (developing). In parallel, many countries are developing comprehensive domestic regulatory frameworks for CCS. Dedicated legal frameworks enable CCS activities either through licensing regimes or by providing regulatory support for the fi nancing of demonstration projects. The European Commission’s 2008 CCS Directive establishes a regulatory framework for the geological storage of CO 2 . Australia has also enacted comprehensive state and national CCS regulatory frameworks for CO 2 storage. Additionally, regulations are currently being pursued in the United States, Canada, Norway and Japan. To assist in the rapid deployment of CCS in line with the recent findings of the IEA CCS Roadmap, the IEA, with assistance from Carbon Counts, Reed Smith LLP and UCL CCLP, has developed the IEA CCS Model Regulatory Framework, which is intended to serve as a tool to assist governments around the world in the development o f national regulatory frameworks. The Model Framework draws from current CCS regulatory developments in Europe, Australia, the USA, and elsewhere, to ensure that the work done in these countries can be leveraged around the world. The IEA, through this analysis, provides non-prescriptive assistance in CCS regulatory development to countries looking to develop their own domestic framework. This paper discusses the major features of the IEA CCS Model Regulatory Framework and how it can be best distributed and used to assist in the development of regulatory frameworks in all key regions of the world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".