CCS Regulatory Comparison Matrix 2.0

The CCS Regulatory Comparison Matrix 2.0 is an update of an earlier tool. You can see and download the data from the previous version here.

About the CCS Proposal Matrix

The CCS Proposal Matrix is a tool that allows you to compare CCS regulations and regulatory proposals across a number of key issues. The matrix is not meant to judge the adequacy of various regulatory approaches or be a comprehensive study of various jurisdictions’ CCS-relevant regulations. It simply strives to compare CCS-specific regulations and regulatory proposals to each other to convey where key issues are managed similarly or differently and where they are not addressed.

How to Use the Matrix

Step 1: Select the desired CCS framework from the drop down menu.

Step 2: Using the colored legend as a guide, review a snapshot comparison of the various aspects of your selected framework with other evaluated CCS frameworks.

Step 3: Click on a colored cell to see more detail on that aspect of the comparison.

Feedback

The matrix is dynamic comparison, and we want it to evolve with the changing regulatory landscape. If you disagree with our analysis or have a different perspective, or if the matrix has helped you, please let us know.

Guidelines and Regulations

WRI’s CCS Guidelines

• Available at: http://www.wri.org/publication/ccs-guidelines

U.S. EPA’s Class VI Regulations

• Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-10/pdf/2010-29954.pdf
• Version referenced was published December 10, 2010
• Also see the EPA’s informational page: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/gsregulations.cfm

EU Directive 2009/31/EC

• Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0114:0135:EN:PDF
• Version referenced was published June 5, 2009

IEA Model Framework

• Available at: http://www.iea.org/ccs/legal/model_framework.pdf
• Version referenced was published November 2010

Acknowledgements

Authors: Sarah M. Forbes, Micah S. Ziegler, and Francisco Almendra. This effort would not be possible without international and national expertise from our contributors and reviewers. We would especially like to thank Harvard Law School’s Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic and Stanford Environmental Consulting.