From Leader to Laggard? U.S. Faces Carbon Capture Slowdown as EU Surges Ahead
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has long been recognized as a critical technology for achieving net-zero emissions, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors like steel, cement, and chemicals. Historically, the United States has been at the forefront of CCS development, propelled by generous subsidies and tax incentives, notably the 45Q tax credit enhanced by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). However, recent policy developments in Europe signal a strategic shift that could redefine global leadership in CCS.
The U.S. approach: A market-led model facing political uncertainty
For years, the United States has been the global frontrunner in CCS deployment, thanks to a market-based approach centered around financial incentives. The 45Q tax credit, bolstered by the IRA, offered up to $85 per tonne of CO2 captured and stored in geological formations, and up to $180 per tonne for direct air capture (DAC) projects. These incentives sparked a surge of interest and investment, with over $320 billion in clean energy projects announced in the wake of the IRA—many incorporating CCS as a key decarbonization tool.
The enthusiasm for CCS in the U.S. market remains strong. Companies and investors are still eager to pursue large-scale projects, and the technological expertise in CCS is considerable. However, the political landscape has introduced significant uncertainty. Proposed legislation to repeal or weaken key provisions of the IRA has created a cloud of doubt over the future of CCS incentives. Already, this policy instability has led to the cancellation or delay of major projects, with estimates suggesting that over $14 billion in clean energy investments have been shelved due to fears that the regulatory framework may shift.This political uncertainty undermines investor confidence and makes it harder for companies to commit to the long lead times and high capital costs required for CCS projects. As a result, while the interest and market potential for CCS in the U.S. remain strong, the momentum is at risk of stalling.
Europe's regulatory mandate: A new model for CCS deployment
In contrast, Europe is taking a more direct and regulatory-driven approach. Under the recently adopted Net-Zero Industry Act, the EU has introduced a groundbreaking requirement: oil and gas companies must collectively develop and reserve at least 50 million tonnes of annual CO2 storage capacity by 2030. This mandate is proportionally assigned, with each company's obligation based on its historical production levels, ensuring that those most responsible for emissions contribute the most to the solution.
This shift marks a fundamental departure from the U.S. model. Rather than relying on voluntary market signals and financial incentives, Europe is creating a binding legal obligation—turning CCS from a niche technology into a critical pillar of its industrial decarbonization strategy. By designating these storage projects as Net-Zero Strategic Projects, the EU also accelerates permitting processes and unlocks access to funding mechanisms like the Innovation Fund, supported by revenues from the EU ETS.
This regulatory certainty offers investors a stable environment in which to commit capital, reducing risk and providing a clear roadmap for the long-term development of CCS infrastructure.
A shift in global momentum
The contrasting approaches between the U.S. and Europe highlight a shifting dynamic in global CCS leadership. The U.S. market, once the undisputed leader in CCS due to its financial incentives, now faces a potential slowdown as policy uncertainty erodes confidence. While interest and market conditions for CCS in the U.S. remain strong, the lack of stability in the regulatory environment makes it difficult for projects to reach final investment decisions.
Europe, by contrast, is creating a stable and predictable policy framework that reduces uncertainty and drives investment. By mandating the development of storage capacity, Europe ensures that the infrastructure will be in place to support decarbonization efforts across multiple sectors—from steel and cement to hydrogen and negative emissions technologies. This approach positions Europe as a growing center of gravity for CCS innovation, offering a blueprint that other regions may seek to emulate.
Oil and gas companies as part of the solution
In previous publications, I have discussed how oil and gas companies can contribute to the energy transition—not just as suppliers of fossil fuels, but as builders of critical infrastructure for a net-zero future. Europe's CO2 storage mandate is a clear example of this vision in action. By leveraging their expertise in subsurface operations, oil and gas companies can develop the storage capacity that will serve as the backbone of Europe's industrial decarbonization strategy. This is a tangible way for these companies to contribute positively to the transition, using their resources and knowledge to solve one of the most pressing challenges of the clean energy shift: where to safely and permanently store CO2.
Conclusion
The European Union's CO2 storage mandate is more than just a regulatory milestone—it is a turning point for the global CCS industry. By creating a legally binding requirement for storage development, Europe is providing the certainty that markets and investors need to scale up CCS projects. In contrast, the U.S., despite its early lead and the market's ongoing interest, risks losing momentum due to political instability and the potential rollback of critical incentives.
This transatlantic divergence has far-reaching implications. As Europe accelerates its CCS deployment, it positions itself as a leader in the global race to decarbonize heavy industry. The U.S., meanwhile, faces the risk of ceding its leadership role unless it can provide stable and predictable policy support.
The challenge now is clear: Europe must act swiftly to implement its ambitious plans, and the U.S. must ensure that political uncertainty does not undermine its CCS potential. The world is watching, and the choices made today will shape the industrial landscape of tomorrow.
By Leon Stille for Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.comRead this article on OilPrice.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
23 minutes ago
- Fast Company
From immigration law to business success: Navigating the challenges for foreign business in the U.S.
As a U.S. business immigration attorney and founder of Grape Law Firm PLLC, I have worked with many foreign entrepreneurs who have achieved lasting success in the United States. Establishing and scaling a company here requires time, effort, and strategic planning to navigate a complex web of immigration regulations and compliance requirements. COMMON LEGAL HURDLES IN SECURING EMPLOYEE VISAS The primary challenge faced by businesspeople is securing a legal presence in the United States. This means obtaining the appropriate visa or status for both entrepreneurs and their essential personnel. However, the process of business immigration to the U.S. is often a challenging adventure. According to the 2024 CIS Ombudsman Annual Report, from initial market entry to business expansion—and even to permanent establishment—the complexities of business immigration affect entrepreneurs at every stage of their U.S. journey. They face significant challenges in documenting the viability of their enterprises to immigration officials while managing their immigration status to meet the changing needs of the business ecosystem. NAVIGATING VISA PATHWAYS FOR BUSINESS GROWTH As business immigration attorneys, one of our primary duties is to help our clients choose the most suitable visa for their business vision and goals. The selection of the appropriate visa is the foundation on which a successful application strategy is built and is an investment in the company's long-term growth. It is imperative for entrepreneurs to understand that various options exist for starting new businesses in the United States or expanding existing operations. Each visa category has its own distinct advantages and considerations based on differing business needs. For instance, the E‑1 Treaty Trader and the E‑2 Treaty Investor visas are viable options for entrepreneurs. These visa categories cater to foreign traders and investors who are citizens of treaty countries—countries that have treaty agreements with the U.S. Traders must engage in continuous trade with the United States, and the U.S. must be their primary trading partner. Conversely, investors must make substantial investments through new or existing enterprises. Both the E‑1 and E‑2 visas can support long-term, sustainable business ventures in the United States (each is valid for up to five years and can be extended indefinitely), provided that they spur economic progress in their respective industries and investment areas. Furthermore, the L‑1 Intracompany Transferee visa is an ideal choice for international companies planning to expand to the U.S. The L‑1 visa allows foreign companies to transfer their managerial or executive employees for new office openings, thereby facilitating the establishment of operations in the United States. However, a potential downside is that the L‑1 visa requires rigorous application preparation—a thorough case file must be compiled, followed by consistently detailed documentation of organizational development and business growth metrics, especially during the first three years of operations. A CASE IN POINT One case from our L‑1 visa practice perfectly illustrates these complexities. As a seasoned professional in the scaffolding industry, our client's initial L‑1 New Office visa application succeeded through careful preparation and a comprehensive five‑year business plan. However, the real challenges emerged during the extension phase. When she sought to extend her L‑1 visa with different legal counsel, she faced a rigorous Request for Evidence (RFE) from USCIS that scrutinized every aspect of her business operations. The RFE questioned not only the structure, but also its growth trajectory and staffing decisions—common challenges that many foreign businesses face in proving the legitimacy and sustainability of their operations. The industry's unique characteristics, including its project‑based nature and specialized staffing requirements, made it particularly challenging to conform to USCIS's traditional expectations for business development. Her case is a stark reminder for prospective entrepreneurs that experienced immigration counsel can provide needed guidance throughout the ups and downs of their U.S. immigration journey. Entrepreneurs must acknowledge that deciding on the right visa type is more than an entry ticket to the United States—a visa is the key to legal rights, business investments, and financial aspirations that influence one's life in the U.S. BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR LONG-TERM SUCCESS The U.S. business immigration ecosystem is ever-changing and demands legal acumen in business planning—integrating proactive immigration solutions from the very beginning. To achieve lasting success, entrepreneurs need expert legal guidance to navigate the complex steps of immigration and adapt to any changes or updates in the immigration system. Beyond legal counsel, success often hinges on comprehensive preparation and strategic planning. Maintaining detailed business documentation from day one proves crucial for immigration success. Successful immigrant entrepreneurs often distinguish themselves through meticulous record-keeping of business transactions, employee contracts, and market analyses that demonstrate their enterprise's viability. Early strategic planning should include developing detailed business projections, establishing clear organizational structures, and creating systems for tracking achievements and metrics. These elements strengthen visa applications and create a foundation for sustainable growth. Networking within industry associations and chambers of commerce can provide valuable insights into immigration processes and business development. Furthermore, entrepreneurs who actively participate in their industry's ecosystem often find themselves better positioned to demonstrate their legitimacy to immigration authorities. This comprehensive approach, combining thorough documentation with strategic foresight, guarantees that immigration planning aligns with business goals while maintaining strict compliance with U.S. regulations. As we look to the future, business expansion into the United States and immigration to the country will only become more interlinked. In that regard, the aforementioned success story of our entrepreneur client is an excellent example—showcasing that viewing immigration not as a hurdle but as a strategic tool is essential for success. Always remember: proper planning, combined with expert guidance, can transform potential obstacles into opportunities for growth in the American market. The key to sustainable success lies in developing a nuanced understanding of how immigration pathways can support business objectives while ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements.
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Nordic Capital Pushes Noba Bank's IPO Into Second Half of Year
Nordic Capital is pushing back the launch of its initial public offering of consumer finance provider Noba Bank Group AB citing market volatility. 'We are particularly focused on floating the company in a good listing environment to ensure successful aftermarket performance,' Nordic Capital Partner Christopher Ekdahl told Bloomberg in emailed comments.
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
Employers Reluctant To Cover Obesity Meds, Lower Costs May Change This
A new survey report from the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans shows continued reluctance by United States employers to cover glucagon-like peptide-1 drugs for weight loss. Going forward, however, lower net costs may induce better coverage by employers. Makers of GLP-1s for obesity are offering an array of discounts, some to insurers, others directly to patients. The IFEBP first conducted the survey in Oct. 2023 and again in May 2024. In the latest survey released ten days ago, employers revealed that 55% of them provide coverage of GLP-1s for diabetes only, while only 36% provide coverage for both diabetes and weight loss. And of those employers currently offering GLP-1 drug coverage solely for diabetes, just 17% are considering reimbursement of drugs for weight loss. Broadly speaking, the survey responses demonstrate that a large number of employers are still unwilling to reimburse GLP-1s for obesity. The weight loss therapeutics activate the body's receptors for GLP-1 on its own or in combination with GIP. When released by the gut, these natural hormones increase insulin delivery, suppress appetite, slow stomach emptying and increase the feeling of fullness. Perhaps what's driving continued reluctance to cover these products for weight loss is the overall impact that GLP-1s have on employers' pharmacy budgets. GLP-1 drugs used for obesity account for an average of 10.5% of total annual claims in the 2025 survey. In parts of the traditional health plans' market, we observe that some insurers are reconsidering their coverage of GLP-1s. Blue Cross Blue Shield, for example, just announced a reversal in its policy in which some plans offered coverage of GLP-1s for obesity. Starting in January 2026, BCBS will no longer cover these medicines for weight loss across the insurer's standard plans. At the same time, however, the large insurer Cigna announced it will begin capping out-of-pocket costs at $200 per month, starting next month, for patients using the obesity drugs Wegovy (semaglutide) and Zepbound (tirzepatide) through an add-on to its pharmacy benefit management plans. This is aimed at encouraging more employers to offer coverage of the drugs. It's unknown what the net cost to Cigna will be for the medicines. But presumably, the insurer has been able to reach a deal that's favorable financially, meaning a substantial reduction in net costs. It's possible in future that employers decide to revisit their coverage decisions if net costs decrease sufficiently, combined with more data showing the benefits of weight loss drugs when taken consistently and in conjunction with an appropriate dietary and exercise regimen. Also, the pharmaceutical firm Novo Nordisk announced last month a new partnership with CVS Caremark, the nation's largest pharmacy benefit manager, which grants coverage of Wegovy over its competitor Zepbound for customers who are insured for obesity medications. It's presumed that CVS was able to negotiate sizable rebates for Wegovy. CVS Caremark said that for insured patients, starting this July, Wegovy and Saxenda (liraglutide) will be the preferred GLP-1 medicines on its largest commercial formularies. This implies fewer access restrictions such as prior authorization, but also lower patient cost-sharing. It's unknown precisely what this means in terms of out-of-pocket costs for patients. But most patients with coverage for obesity drugs have monthly cost-sharing under $100. The arrangements reached by Cigna and CVS could help bring down net prices for employers for popular weight loss medicines. And at the same time, under the Inflation Reduction Act, the federal government is negotiating the prices of the GLP-1s Ozempic (semaglutide) and Wegovy. So-called maximum fair prices will be publicly posted in early 2026. These could reflect even steeper discounts. In addition to what payers are doing, Novo Nordisk is pursuing a direct-to-patient strategy to regain market share it has lost to drug maker Eli Lilly in the lucrative obesity drug market. Here, Novo Nordisk struck a deal in which CVS pharmacy will offer Wegovy for $499 a month for cash-paying customers who aren't insured for the medication. Since the Food and Drug Administration removed the active ingredients semaglutide and tirzepatide from its shortage list, the business model of selling directly at a considerable discount to the consumer has become popular for the two main manufacturers of obesity drugs. In 2024, Eli Lilly adopted a direct-to-consumer strategy for Zepbound, among other products, with its LillyDirect program. This service includes a DTC pharmacy and a referral network of in-person and telehealth clinicians. LillyDirect allows uninsured or underinsured individuals not on Medicaid or Medicare to purchase Zepbound product directly after obtaining the requisite prescription from their doctor. The firm recently extended the range of Zepbound products available through LillyDirect by adding high-dose vials at $499. Rival Novo Nordisk also launched a DTC option, NovoCare Pharmacy, two months ago. Patients not insured in the public sector who wish to have access to Wegovy can acquire the drug for an out-of-pocket cost of $499 per month, provided they have a prescription and make use of a designated specialty pharmacy. And, since the end of April, customers also pay a $499 monthly subscription when they obtain Wegovy from Ro and LifeMD, and $599 at Hims & Hers. While employers aren't yet reimbursing weight loss drugs en masse, significantly reduced net costs could affect their future coverage decisions.
