What will be the impact on GHG reduction and on industry and consumers?

Discussion with the Director-General of DG Taxud Gerassimos Thomas

Watch the recording:

The Commission has proposed a complete and highly ambitious overhaul of the Energy Taxation Directive.

The proposal, if accepted, would extend the scope of the Directive, requiring, for example, taxation of fuel for maritime and aviation would increase minimum tax levels, and would introduce a taxation system based on fuel categories focused on GHG levels.

Director-General Thomas will provide an overview of the proposal, how he sees the procedure progressing (it requires unanimous Council agreement), and what will be the consequences for business and citizens.

Programme

FSR Regulatory Policy Workshop Series 2022

The surge in electricity prices over the last few months have led to calls by different stakeholders, including some national governments, to introduce changes in the electricity market design. For example, on 5 October 2021, the governments of Spain, France, the Czech Republic, Romania and Greece issued a common statement calling for a reform of the day-ahead electricity market, which would need to be improved “to better establish a link between the price paid by the consumers, and the average production cost of electricity in national production mixes. This is all the more important as decarbonisation will increase the use of electricity in our economy”.

Following this call, a number of ‘non-papers’ were released in November 2021 proposing a variety of measures. For example:

• In a ‘Non-paper on energy and electricity & gas markets’[1], it is argued that urgent action is needed to ensure that “final consumers pay electricity prices that reflect the costs of the generation mix used to serve their consumption” and that this could be achieved through “mechanisms based on financial transfers between producers and consumers, [which] would have no effect on the functioning of the wholesale market, nor affect the merit order of the different generation plants mobilised in the energy market on an hourly basis”.
• In a ‘Non-paper on electricity, gas and ETS markets’, after indicating that “a common European approach is our preference for the whole European energy internal market”, it is suggested that “in exceptional situations, Member States have to be allowed to adapt the electricity price formation to their specific situations (mix, resources, level of interconnections)” and therefore it is proposed that consideration be given to reforming the electricity market design so that “the electricity price would be obtained as an average price with reference as well to the cost of ‘inframarginal’ clean technologies (particularly renewables)”.

These are just examples of the kind of (often contradictory) proposals that have been floating around in recent months. In the first non-paper quoted above, financial transfers are advocated which “would have no effect on the functioning of the wholesale market, nor affect the merit order of the different generation plants mobilised in the energy market on an hourly basis”. In the second non-paper, it is proposed that Member States “be allowed to adapt the electricity price formation to their specific situations” so that “the electricity price would be obtained as an average price with reference as well to the cost of ‘inframarginal’ clean technologies (particularly renewables)”.

To tackle rising energy prices, while preventing damage to the internal energy market from uncoordinated national actions, in October 2021 the European Commission proposed a ‘toolbox for action and support’[2], which outlined a set of measures which the Commission itself and the Member States could adopt to deal with the current high-price situation. Many of these measures are aimed at mitigating the impact of higher energy prices on industry, businesses and households, especially vulnerable ones. However, and interestingly, the Commission also expressed its intention of “task[ing] ACER to study the benefits and drawbacks of the existing electricity market design and propose recommendations for assessment by the Commission by April 2022”[3].

In fact, some of the proposals floated in the debate in recent months, including one of those above, could be interpreted as calling for the ‘pay-as-cleared’ pricing approach in the DAM to be abandoned in favour of some version of the ‘pay-as-bid’ method[4].

This is also the interpretation followed by ACER, which, intervening in this debate with a note in October 2021, indicated that: “any future market design needs to be able to (a) remunerate technologies above their marginal costs, sometimes quite significantly so, and (b) incentivise the alleviation or smoothing of volatility in the market. The ‘pay-as-clear’ model allows for both of these elements”[5].

However, there is a sense that there might be more in the proposals recently voiced than a switch from the ‘pay-as-cleared’ to the ‘pay-as-bid’ remuneration method, which is not a new issue and has been already resolved, in favour of “pay-as-cleared” pricing approach, many times in the past[6].

Against this background, and without trying to pre-empt the assessment being conducted by ACER, but rather possibly contributing to it, the Workshop will aim at digging deeper in the proposals recently floated and discussed by many stakeholders to assess whether and which other measures related to the electricity market design, beyond the pricing mechanism, could and should be considered to deal with the much higher electricity prices now and, most likely, in the forthcoming energy transition.

For this purpose, the Workshop will be structured in two sessions:

• Session I will aim at identifying the scope and details of the proposals on market design enhancements which have been put on the table over the last few months;
• Session II will consider these proposals and assess the extent to which (some features of) the current electricity market design could be enhanced or complemented to support the future energy transition.

Sustainability assessment

The FSR assesses the sustainability and carbon footprint of all its Workshops of the Regulatory Policy Series. This Workshop is run online due to the COVID-19-related restrictions. Therefore, there is no travel involved and the Workshop’s carbon footprint is limited to the impact of using ICT. It is considered that there are no viable ways further to reduce the carbon footprint of the Workshop.

Please note that this event is by invitation only. For further information, please contact Elena Iorio.

[1] Non-paper by the Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian and Greek governments.

[2] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Tackling rising energy prices: a toolbox for action and support, Brussels 13.10.2021, COM(2021) 660 final.

[3] Ibid, Section 3.2.1, page 15.

[4] It seems that this is the way in which ACER also interpreted at least some of the proposals voiced in the last few months. It addresses the ‘pay-as-bid’ vs. ‘pay-as-cleared’ debate in its Preliminary Assessment of Europe’s high energy prices and the current wholesale electricity market design, Part 1, November 2021, Section 4.3.

[5] ACER, High Energy Prices, October 2021, page 12.

[6] Cfr., among many, Susan Tierney, Todd Schatzki and Rana Mukerji, “Pay-as-Bid vs. Uniform Pricing: Discriminatory Auctions Promote Strategic Bidding and Market Manipulation,” Public Utility Fortnightly, March 2008.

In the FSR Insights of 16 of February, the editors Raphael J. Heffron and Maciej M. Sokołowski will join Lucila de Almeida, one of our hosts and contributor of the special issue, to discuss some of the papers that will be published in the Energy Policy. Especially, they will discuss academic articles covering two aspects: the failure of policymakers to ensure energy justice, and the pitfalls of indicators based on the case study of the EU’s Retail Electricity Market Barrier Index.

Watch:

#FSRInsights pills:

M. Sokolowski on Energy Policy Failures

Energy policies always have an impact on society, the climate, the economy, and international relations. Nevertheless, they are not immune to failures and, when they do, policymakers and regulators can learn from these experiences. How will we identify failure in energy policy? What makes their failure? Could they be saved? What did not work? How to correct them? Above all, what are the lessons we can take from them?

These are just some of the matters which Guest Editors – Raphael J. Heffron and Maciej M. Sokołowski – raise in the Special Issue of the Energy Policy: “When Energy Policy Fails: Impacts, Recovery & Managing Risk”. The Special Issue offers insightful analyses on collapsed incentives, lost projects, mistakes, wrong paths, bad decisions, and lessons from the past based on policy failures in energy policymaking. In this context, it offers a global view of energy policy failure with contributions from across the world.

Speakers

Raphael J. Heffron (Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago)

Maciej M. Sokołowski (Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Warsaw, Poland Institute of Comparative Law, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan)

Lucila de Almeida (FSR, Wageningen University & Research, Netherlands)

Hosts

Leonardo Meeus (FSR and Vlerick Business School, Belgium)

Lucila de Almeida (FSR & Wageningen University and Research, Netherlands)

Discussant

Maria Dolores Sanchez Galera (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid)

Links

Energy Policy Special issue: When Energy Policy Fails: Impacts, Recovery & Managing Risk

Maciej M. Sokołowski & Raphael J. Heffron, Defining and conceptualising energy policy failure: The when, where, why, and how

Lucila de Almeida, Fabrizio Esposito, and Josephine van Zeben, When Indicators Fail Energy Policies: Pitfalls of the EU’s Retail Electricity Market Barrier Index (to be added soon in the link above)

Raphael J. Heffron (2022). Applying Energy Justice into the Energy Transition. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

A presentation and discussion on the latest FSR study on the cost-effectiveness of decarbonisation efforts.

Christopher Jones and James Kneebone of the Florence School of Regulation (FSR) will be joined by Ilaria Conti, Head of FSR Gas for a discussion on cost-effective decarbonisation of the energy sector, with a focus on the recently published ‘Florence School of Regulation: Cost-effective decarbonisation study 2022’.

This study, which represents a short follow-up to the original and more comprehensive cost effectiveness study, aims to take stock and frame developments in the past months in the context of EU energy policy, and to reassert some of the key messages from the 2020 publication that remain relevant. The key areas of focus for the study are on renewable energy metrics (capacity and cost), hydrogen costs (green, turquoise, blue), as well as the influence of market factors on cost-effectiveness of gas switching, namely the European carbon price (ETS).

The event will also elaborate on some of the policy-related conclusions that can be drawn from the findings, in the context of recent legislative developments in this area. A Q&A with the audience will follow.

Read more

Policy implications of 2022 Cost-effective Decarbonisation Study

This Debate takes stock of the current situation of the electricity retail market in Europe and discusses the future role of electricity retailers, as digitalisation and decarbonisation of the industry advance.

Watch the recording:

Liberalisation of the EU electricity retail market was completed in July 2007. However, the experience so far shows that many of the small (residential) consumers are unwilling to take advantage of the potentials provided to them by retail competition, with switching rates remaining low (at 5-6%) for many years. The reluctance by a large share of consumers to switch supplier (stickiness) gives suppliers market power; moreover, instances of unfair commercial practices undermine trust in the liberalisation process.

The recent increases in wholesale energy prices found several suppliers – including providers of regulated services – inadequately hedged and led them to, or near to, bankruptcy. Only in the UK and only in the period September – November 2021, the period with the sharpest increase in wholesale electricity prices, 24 energy suppliers, serving some 4 million customers, went out of business. Supplier insolvency could cause widespread financial instability across the entire electricity sector, and significant costs to the system.

At the same time, the Italian regulator is organizing auctions to allocate (blocks of) small consumers who have been unwilling to leave the franchise market and choose a different supplier on the free market.

Draft Programme

INTRODUCTION TO THE DEBATE AND OPENING PRESENTATIONS

14.00 – 14.05 Introduction to the Debate

Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

14.05 – 14.25 Recent issues with electricity retail markets

Guido Cervigni | DFC Economics

Martin Crouch| 4D Economics

PANEL DISCUSSION: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, POLLS, AND COMMENTS

Moderated by FSR

14.25 – 14.50 Introductory remarks from the panellists

Tiziana Lo Nardo | ARERA

Natalie McCoy | ERSE

Anna Martin | BEUC

14.50 – 14.55 Polls

14.55 – 15.25 Comments on the outcome of the polls and Q&A from the audience

15.20 – 15.30 Concluding remarks

Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

The European Union’s Energy Strategy, part of the European Green Deal, is central to the aim of achieving a zero net emissions economy by 2050. Central to this strategy is creating a more integrated energy system, with circular energy system, energy efficiency, electrification, and decarbonization at its core. While the transition to direct heating or electrification is neither feasible nor efficient in all end-use applications, many renewable and low-carbon fuels must be used to reduce the consumption of natural gas and fossil fuels. Biofuels and biogases produced from biological waste from agriculture, food and forestry are then a short-term sustainable solution. The scenario, therefore, urges a legal framework that enables a more circular energy system.

The development of the EU’s circular energy system occurs in a complex legal landscape, covering a multi-level jurisdictional system and crossing many economic sectors. Specifically, the key sectors to this transition – agriculture, food, forestry – deal with waste in different ways. Moreover, the current environmental and sectoral regulations of these industries do not envisage and actively discourage circularity within the production process. In order to live up to the promise of a circular energy system – make use of resources that are currently discarded with a view of addressing the urgent climate and energy crises that the EU faces; improve human, animal and plant life; and allow for a more sustainable society without the need to dramatically change our lifestyle – these legal complexities need to be mapped and addressed holistically. This edited volume brings together legal and non-legal academics to develop a roadmap to the transition towards a more EU’s circular energy system.

The workshop will provide authors with the chance of presenting the first draft of their book chapters and receiving feedback from book editors and other authors. The book project is a collaboration of the Florence School of Regulation with Wageningen University and Research (Netherlands).

Organisers:

Lucila de Almeida and Josephine van Zeben

Participation:

Closed to contributors

EU gas and electricity prices have increased rapidly over the last few months and reached unprecedented levels. While the recent energy price dynamics reflect current market conditions and have little to do with the future energy transition, they provide an opportunity to reflect on the most appropriate market design to support this transition.

In this FSR Talk, we will discuss with the authors of the recent FSR publications on the topic:

• Recent energy price dynamics and market enhancements for the future energy transition
• High gas prices in Europe: a matter for policy intervention?

Watch:

Speakers:

Alberto Pototschnig, Deputy Director for Policy Affairs

Ilaria Conti, Head of FSR Gas

Enrico Tesio, DFC Economics

Agenda:

• Welcome and Intro to the papers: Alberto Pototschnig (10’) and Ilaria Conti (10’)
• Polls with the audience and comments by the speakers (20’)
• Q&As (15’)

#FSRTalks

Live interviews with experts from the wider network of the school to showcase and discuss a recent work (a book just published, interesting study, innovative project) in a light and interactive way.

Learn more

The Commission has tabled a comprehensive set of proposals to regulate the emerging low and zero-carbon hydrogen market, covering GOOs and certification, tariff rules, unbundling and TPA, blending, grid financing, consumer rights as well as new measures regarding gas security of supply.

The debate seeks to consider what will be the effect of the new rules in practice, how the gas and hydrogen grids will interact, and to discuss what will be the most contentious parts of the package.

Watch

Introduction Christopher Jones, FSR

Panel debate Dennis Hesseling, ACER

James Watson, Eurogas

Kees van der Leun, Common Futures

Ilaria Conti, FSR

Piotr Kuś, ENTSOG

Conclusion     Augustijn Van Haasteren, European Commission

#FSRDebates

This Debate will provide an early opportunity to discuss the Commission’s proposals on tariffication for hydrogen and decarbonised and low-carbon gases, as outlined below.

Watch the recording:

In the current EU regulatory framework, electricity and gas networks are subject to regulated third-party access rules. The users of these networks have been paying for the development, maintenance and operation of their respective grids, with those withdrawing from the network typically paying a larger share of the total costs[1]. In the electricity sector, the so-called “single system paradigm” has been in place for almost twenty years. Under this approach, cross-border exchanges of electricity do not pay tariffs at the EU internal borders. The costs of the EU transmission system are therefore recovered only at the entry into and exit from this system and TSOs hosting transits are compensated through an inter-TSO compensation (ITC) mechanism. In gas, the 2009 Third Energy Package introduced the “entry-exit” system, in which gas transmission network users pay every time the gas enters or exits an entry-exit area, often corresponding to a national jurisdiction.

In its Hydrogen and Decarbonised Gas Market Package of December 2021, the European Commission proposed a specific transmission tariff framework for hydrogen and, more generally, for decarbonised and low carbon gases.

In particular, according to the ommission’s proposal, hydrogen network would have to be subject to regulated third-party access rules as from 2031, with negotiated third party access allowed until then.

Moreover:

• injections into the network from renewable and low carbon gases production facilities would benefit from a discount of up to 75% on the respective capacity-based tariffs;
• renewable and low carbon gases would benefit from a discount of up to 75% on the capacity-based transmission tariffs at entry points from and exit points to storage facilities in the Member States of first injection, unless the storage facility is connected to more than one transmission or distribution network and is used to compete with an interconnection point.

Regulatory authorities may set discount rates lower than 75%, provided that the discount is in line with the general tariff principles and in particular the principle of cost-reflectiveness, taking into account a need for stable financial frameworks for existing investments where appropriate, and the advancement of the roll-out of renewable and low-carbon gases in the concerned Member State

The Commission’s proposal also envisages that renewable and low-carbon gases would benefit from a 100% discount on the entry and exit tariffs at all interconnection points, including entry points from and exit points to third countries, as well as entry points from LNG terminals

These discounts should not affect the general tariff setting methodology, but should be provided ex-post on the relevant tariff.  The revenue shortfall emerging from the granting of discounts to renewable and low-carbon gases, if above 10% of allowed revenues, shall be addressed through an inter transmission system operator compensation mechanism.

Finally, the Commission proposal envisages the possibility of cross-subsidisation of the hydrogen transmission network by gas transmission network users, by providing that Member States may allow financial transfers between separate regulated services, subject to some conditions. Such a possibility does not seem to be subject to any harmonisation requirement across the EU.

Draft Programme

Introduction to the Debate and Opening Presentations

14.00 – 14.05   Introduction to the Debate

Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

14.05 – 14.15   The Commission’s proposal

Feodora Petit and Benedikt Klauser  | Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission

14.15 – 14.25   FSR initial considerations

Ilaria Conti | Head of Gas, FSR

Panel Discussion: Introductory Remarks, Polls and Comments

Moderator: Leigh Hancher| Florence School of Regulation

14.25 – 14.50   Introductory remarks from the panellists
Csilla Bartok | Team Leader for Gas Markets and Energy Retail, ACER
Annie Krist | Vice President, Eurogas
Claude Mangin | Market Development Manager, ENTSOG
Peter Claes | President, IFIEC Europe

14.50 – 14.55   Polls

14.55 – 15.15   Comments on the outcome of the polls and Q&A from the audience
Panellists

15.20 – 15.30   Concluding remarks

Tom Maes | CREG
Leigh Hancher | Florence School of Regulation and Tilburg University
Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

[1] With load paying a predominant share of electricity transmission costs (with many jurisdictions charging all transmission costs to load and the lowest share being in Sweden at 63%), while in gas the picture across the EU is more varied. [HERE RESULTS OF ACER MONITORING OF E-E%]

Do we need a European Strategy for Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) and a legislative package with a form and level of ambition similar to the Hydrogen Strategy?

This FSR debate will consider the main issues related to CCUS in the light of recent policy communications, legislative initiatives, and Commission guidelines.

The permanent storage of CO2 in geological formations is an important option to mitigate industrial emissions. To reach the climate neutrality objective of the EU Climate Law, carbon removals will have to be fully integrated into the EU climate policy. To be climate neutral, in 2050 each single tonne of CO2eq allowed under the policy framework to be emitted to the atmosphere will have to be neutralized by a certified tonne of CO2 removed from the atmosphere.

The Commission recognizes that the establishment of the legal framework will be an essential stepping stone towards the recognition of carbon removals in the EU climate policy. Its recent Communication on Sustainable Carbon Cycles aims at establishing sustainable carbon cycles for bio- emissions in European economy and ecosystems. It recognizes that even if this is a long-term endeavour it nevertheless requires coordinated action now.

But are these plans sufficient and timely? Is not the more immediate challenge to establish the role of CCUS for European industry in the energy transition?

Should the Commission already step up its game and take the same level of leadership, vision and determination regarding CCS as it has regarding hydrogen, announce clear targets and deadlines, commit to developing a CCUS Alliance (similar to the hydrogen, battery alliances), and commit to new legislative proposals on CCUS to deliver a cost-effective CCS network? Will the final version of the Climate Energy and Environmental Guidelines for state aid – to be published at the end of 2021 provide clear criteria for assessing the compatibility of financial support for CCUS?

Programme

14.00 – 14.05 Introduction to the Debate

Leigh Hancher | Florence School of Regulation

14.05 – 14.15 The Commission’s approach

Chris Bolesta, Decarbonisation and Sustainability of Energy Sources, Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission

14.15 – 14.25 FSR initial considerations

Prof Christopher Jones and Prof Andris Piebalgs | FSR

PANEL DISCUSSION: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, POLLS AND COMMENTS

Moderator: Nicolò Rossetto| Florence School of Regulation

14.25 – 14.50 Introductory remarks from the panellists:

Torbjorg Klara Fossum, VP Global CCS Solutions, Equinor ASA; Malcolm Keay, OIES, Oxford; Jonas Helseth, Director Bellona Europa, Brussels.

14.50 – 14.55 Polls

14.55 – 15.15 Comments on the poll’s outcome and Q&A from the audience and panellists

15.20 – 15.30 Concluding remarks

Leigh Hancher | Florence School of Regulation and Tilburg University

Nicolò Rossetto | Florence School of Regulation

#FSRDebates

Taking place only a few weeks after the UN Climate Conference in Glasgow (COP26), this FSR Debate will review the outcome of the conference and discuss the implications of the progress made, or lack thereof, for the development of the global carbon market.

Background

Parties to the Paris Agreement can use different instruments for trading emissions reductions at the international level through several mechanisms established by Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Article 6.2 allows countries to develop decentralised cooperative approaches under which they could trade mitigation units, so-called Internationally Transferable Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs), to reach their own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Article 6.4 opens the possibility to set up a new UN centralised mechanism to trade emissions reduction credits related to specific sustainable development projects. Article 6 also provides the opportunity further to account for international cooperation and integration of non-market approaches.

The development of Article 6-compatible carbon markets could allow countries to achieve net-zero targets with greater economic efficiency, increased economies of scale, and further financial cooperation. According to a recent study from the International Emissions Trading Association and the University of Maryland, the market value of financial flows between countries could potentially exceed $1 trillion per year in 2050.

The part of the Paris Agreement Rulebook meant to implement these Article 6 provisions has just been agreed at the COP26 in Glasgow. However, many questions, to be discussed in the FSR Debate, remain. What are the prospects for international carbon markets? Will this new Rulebook stimulate the possibility of moving toward a global carbon market? Or does it contain loopholes that could harm the environmental integrity of the mechanisms? What could governments do to ignite the global carbon market?

Programme

The event will be moderated by:

Simone Borghesi | Florence School of Regulation, EUI

Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation, EUI

Introduction to the Debate and Opening Presentations

14.00 – 14.05   Introduction to the Debate

Ilaria Conti | Florence School of Regulation, EUI

14.05 – 14.15   Opening address

Martin Hession | DG Climate Action, European Commission

14.15 – 14.25   ETS Alignment: possible reforms for integration

Stefano Verde | Florence School of Regulation, EUI

Panel Discussion: Introductory Remarks, Polls and Comments

14.25 – 14.50  Introductory remarks from the panellists

Kelley Kizzier | Environmental Defense Fund

Luca Lo Re | International Energy Agency

Billy Pizer | Resources For Future

14.50 – 14.55   Polls

14.55 – 15.20   Comments on the outcome of the poll and Q&A from the audience

Panellists

15.20 – 15.30   Concluding remarks

Jos Delbeke | School of Transnational Governance, EUI

#FSRDebates

Hosts: Leigh Hancher and Alberto Pototschnig (FSR)

The focus of this series is on recent court cases, regulatory decisions, EU legislation, or public consultations to be discussed by a panel of experts.

This event will be live-streamed and recorded. Highlights and presentations will be made available online.

This event is organised under the framework of the LIFE DICET project co-financed by the EU LIFE Programme of the European Commission.

The next episode of FSR debates in collaboration with Environment Defense Fund Europe will look at methodological issues on baseline methane emissions in the EU and globally. There is a high level of uncertainty today for tracking progress in the mitigation of methane emissions, which means that emissions are still underestimated. It could also hamper further efforts to reduce methane emissions.

The debate will start with the discussion on the current state of methane science with the presentation on methane in the recently published findings of the Working Group I (WGI) contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Subsequently, the webinar will use two case studies from Romania and Australia to give insight into the issues experienced by the researchers who worked on these projects. In both countries, potential inconsistencies in existing inventories were encountered, and the scientists will discuss their experiences on how measurements can help to improve emission baselines.

In the second session, the discussion will focus on possible solutions. In particular, the key areas for further efforts needed to help underpin this important building block of an effective Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) regime will be discussed.

Guiding questions:

• What is the current state of methane science?
• What can we learn from the measurement campaigns undertaken in Romania and Australia?
• What are the key areas for further research?
• How to ensure that the improved company reporting translates into more robust national GHG inventories?

Host: Andris Piebalgs, Florence School of Regulation

14.00 – 14.05 Welcome

Andris Piebalgs

14.05 – 15.00 Session 1 The current state of methane science

Keynote address: Vaishali Naik | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Thomas Röckmann | Utrecht University

Bryce Kelly | University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney) (pre-recorded video) 

15.00 – 15.55 Session 2 Key areas for further research

Steven Hamburg | Environment Defense Fund Europe/IMEO Scientific Committee

Manon Simon | Carbon Limits

Ricardo Bolado-Lavin | Joint Research Center

Keynote remarks: K.C. Michaels | International Energy Agency

15.55 – 16.00 | Conclusion

Dagmar Droogsma | Environment Defense Fund Europe

Read more on measurement campaigns in Australia

Isotopic signatures of major methane sources in the coal seam gas fields and adjacent agricultural districts, Queensland, Australia

Coal seam gas industry methane emissions in theSurat Basin, Australia

#FSRDebates

The focus of the debate series hosted by Andris Piebalgs and Christopher Jones is on policy issues to be discussed by a panel of experts. Learn more about the FSR series.