1. Introduction

The transition to a low-carbon energy system is increasingly based on a combination of hydrogen technologies, carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS), renewable electricity, electrolysers, direct air capture, carbon removal, advanced batteries, and other emerging technologies. These technologies are not governed by a single legal framework. Instead, they intersect with environmental law, energy regulation, industrial safety, land-use planning, infrastructure law, public procurement, climate policy, subsidy regulation, and liability law.

Hydrogen can be produced through several pathways. Green hydrogen is generally produced through electrolysis using renewable electricity, while hydrogen produced from natural gas with carbon capture is commonly described as blue hydrogen. Other production pathways include biomass-based and methane-pyrolysis approaches. Carbon capture can therefore operate as an enabling technology for hydrogen production while also raising questions about the measurement, transport, permanent storage and legal verification of captured carbon.

The legal challenge is particularly important because these technologies involve new infrastructure and risks. Hydrogen may require specialised pipelines, storage facilities and safety standards, while CO₂ capture requires pipelines, compression facilities and geological storage sites. In the UK, for example, the Energy Act 2023 specifically established statutory mechanisms concerning carbon-dioxide capture, transport and storage and hydrogen production, transport and storage, including revenue-support arrangements. (Legislation.gov.uk)

2. Meaning and Scope of the Concept

The relationship can be represented as:

Renewable electricity → Electrolyser → Hydrogen → Industrial/transport use

and, for hydrogen produced from hydrocarbons:

Natural gas → Hydrogen production → CO₂ capture → CO₂ transport → Geological storage

The broader technological ecosystem includes:

Green hydrogen

Blue hydrogen

Hydrogen electrolysers

Hydrogen pipelines

Hydrogen storage

Carbon capture

Carbon utilisation

Carbon geological storage

Direct air capture

Carbon removal technologies

Synthetic fuels and e-fuels

Fuel cells

Advanced energy-storage technologies

Digital monitoring and verification systems

The European Union's Net-Zero Industry Act expressly treats electrolysers and fuel cells and carbon-capture-and-storage technologies as strategic net-zero technologies. The EU framework also seeks to develop an EU market for CO₂ storage services. (EUR-Lex)

3. Hydrogen and Carbon Capture

Hydrogen is potentially important for sectors where direct electrification is difficult, such as:

steel;

chemicals;

fertilisers;

refining;

shipping;

heavy transport; and

some high-temperature industrial processes.

Carbon capture becomes particularly relevant where hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels.

For example, in a conventional natural-gas reforming process, carbon dioxide is generated alongside hydrogen. A carbon-capture system can separate the CO₂ and send it for utilisation or permanent geological storage.

The legal issue is therefore not simply whether hydrogen is labelled "low carbon." The regulatory system must determine:

how emissions are measured;

how much CO₂ is captured;

how much escapes;

whether upstream methane emissions are included;

whether the captured CO₂ is permanently stored;

who owns the captured CO₂;

who bears liability for leakage; and

whether the hydrogen qualifies for government support.

The UK's Environment Agency has specifically developed guidance for hydrogen production from methane or refinery fuel gas with carbon capture. It treats the hydrogen production facility and carbon-capture facility as regulated industrial activities and requires environmental permitting. (GOV.UK)

4. Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS)

CCUS generally involves four stages:

A. Capture

CO₂ is separated from an industrial process or power plant.

B. Compression and conditioning

The CO₂ is compressed into a form suitable for transportation.

C. Transportation

CO₂ may be transported by:

pipeline;

ship;

road tanker; or

other specialised infrastructure.

D. Storage or utilisation

CO₂ can either be:

permanently stored underground; or

used in industrial processes.

Permanent storage may involve depleted oil and gas reservoirs or saline geological formations.

The legal system must regulate every stage because an error in one stage can undermine the environmental integrity of the entire project.

5. Legal Framework for New Hydrogen and CCS Technologies

A. Environmental permitting

Hydrogen and CCS projects may require environmental permits because they can generate:

air emissions;

hazardous substances;

wastewater;

industrial waste;

noise;

construction impacts; and

risks of accidental releases.

The UK's regulatory approach illustrates this integrated model. Hydrogen production with carbon capture can fall under environmental permitting regimes, with regulators setting conditions concerning emission limits and environmental protection. (GOV.UK)

B. Planning and infrastructure approval

Large hydrogen and CCUS projects frequently require substantial infrastructure.

This may include:

hydrogen pipelines;

CO₂ pipelines;

compressor stations;

ports;

storage facilities;

offshore installations;

electrolysers;

renewable-energy installations.

Consequently, planning law becomes an essential part of energy-transition law.

A particularly significant UK example is the HyNet CO₂ Pipeline Project. In March 2024, the UK Government granted development consent for a CO₂ pipeline intended to transport carbon dioxide generated by future hydrogen-production facilities and existing industrial facilities for offshore storage. (GOV.UK)

This demonstrates that hydrogen and CCS regulation increasingly operates through integrated infrastructure systems, rather than treating hydrogen production as an isolated industrial activity.

6. Safety Regulation

Hydrogen is highly flammable and has distinctive physical characteristics. CO₂, although non-flammable, can create serious hazards at high concentrations.

Therefore, regulatory systems need rules concerning:

facility design;

pressure management;

emergency response;

pipeline integrity;

leak detection;

separation distances;

worker safety;

public safety;

monitoring systems; and

emergency planning.

The UK Health and Safety Executive states that its 2026 regulations extend offshore safety requirements to CCUS installations, CO₂ pipelines and offshore hydrogen production. (HSE)

This is an important development because it demonstrates the movement from technology-specific environmental regulation toward integrated safety regulation for new energy infrastructure.

7. Carbon Accounting and Verification

One of the most important legal issues is determining whether a project has actually achieved the claimed carbon reduction.

A hydrogen project may capture CO₂, but the overall climate impact can depend upon:

methane extraction;

methane leakage;

energy used in hydrogen production;

energy used for carbon capture;

transport emissions;

capture efficiency;

storage permanence; and

upstream supply-chain emissions.

Therefore, modern regulation requires measurement, reporting and verification (MRV).

The legal principle can be stated as:

No credible carbon benefit without credible measurement and verification.

This becomes particularly important when hydrogen or CCS projects receive:

tax credits;

subsidies;

contracts for difference;

carbon credits;

government procurement contracts; or

emissions-compliance benefits.

8. Subsidies and Revenue Support

New hydrogen and CCS technologies often have high initial costs.

Governments therefore use mechanisms such as:

capital grants;

production subsidies;

tax incentives;

contracts for difference;

regulated asset models;

carbon contracts;

public procurement;

infrastructure guarantees.

The UK's Energy Act 2023 created statutory mechanisms for revenue-support contracts relating to CO₂ transport and storage, carbon capture and hydrogen production. It also establishes concepts such as eligible low-carbon hydrogen producers and hydrogen transport and storage providers. (Legislation.gov.uk)

The legal importance of such mechanisms is that they convert technological policy into enforceable contractual rights and obligations.

9. Carbon Storage Liability

Permanent geological storage creates an important question:

Who is responsible if stored CO₂ escapes?

Possible liabilities include:

environmental damage;

climate-related accounting consequences;

damage to underground resources;

property damage;

personal injury;

regulatory penalties;

remediation costs.

A robust CCS legal framework therefore needs rules concerning:

site selection;

storage permits;

monitoring;

verification;

corrective measures;

financial security;

post-closure monitoring; and

transfer of liability.

Without these rules, the state may ultimately inherit risks from private infrastructure.

10. New Technologies and the Principle of Technological Neutrality

Energy law increasingly faces a choice between:

technology-specific regulation and technology-neutral regulation.

Technology-specific regulation establishes separate rules for:

hydrogen;

CCS;

batteries;

carbon removal;

nuclear energy;

renewable energy; etc.

Technology-neutral regulation instead focuses on measurable outcomes such as:

greenhouse-gas intensity;

safety;

environmental performance;

reliability;

resource efficiency.

A technology-neutral approach can encourage innovation, but it requires sophisticated measurement systems.

11. Direct Air Capture and Carbon Removal

A newer development is direct air capture (DAC), in which CO₂ is removed directly from atmospheric air.

DAC raises distinct legal questions:

Who owns atmospheric CO₂?

What constitutes permanent removal?

How is removal verified?

Can removal credits be traded?

What happens if stored carbon later escapes?

Who bears long-term liability?

The EU's net-zero technology framework expressly includes carbon-capture technologies, including direct-air-capture-related technologies within its wider technology ecosystem. (EUR-Lex)

12. Case Laws

Because commercial hydrogen and large-scale CCS infrastructure are comparatively new, direct reported case law specifically concerning hydrogen-CCS projects remains limited. Courts have therefore often addressed the underlying legal principles through environmental-impact assessment, climate change, infrastructure planning and industrial regulation cases.

Case 1: R (Hynot Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2025] EWHC 2644 (Admin)

This is particularly relevant to modern CCS regulation.

The case concerned the HyNet CCS cluster and challenges concerning:

major accidents and disasters;

consultation;

cumulative environmental effects; and

the Habitats Regulations.

The High Court judgment specifically describes the project as CCS involving capture, transportation and permanent underground storage beneath the Irish Sea. (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary)

Legal significance

The case demonstrates that the deployment of CCS does not remove ordinary environmental-law obligations. Instead, CCS projects remain subject to:

environmental assessment;

consultation;

major-accident analysis;

habitat protection; and

judicial review.

Thus, technological innovation does not create a regulatory exemption.

Case 2: R (Boswell) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero — 2025

This litigation concerned planning assessment of a proposed gas-fired generating station incorporating post-combustion CCS.

The central legal issue included how greenhouse-gas emissions associated with the project should be assessed within the planning framework. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Secretary of State had committed legal error in assessing the significance of GHG emissions from the proposed plant. (vLex)

Legal significance

The case illustrates an important principle:

The presence of CCS does not automatically eliminate the need to assess the project's wider greenhouse-gas consequences.

A project incorporating carbon capture must still be assessed within the applicable environmental and planning framework.

Case 3: Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

The US Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases fall within the statutory definition of "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act and that the Environmental Protection Agency could not simply decline to regulate them without giving a legally sufficient reason.

Relevance to hydrogen and CCS

Although this was not a hydrogen or CCS case, its broader significance is substantial.

It demonstrates that emerging climate technologies must operate within existing statutory environmental frameworks unless legislation clearly provides otherwise.

The principle is relevant when governments design regulatory systems for:

hydrogen;

carbon capture;

methane;

carbon removal; and

other climate technologies.

Case 4: American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011)

The US Supreme Court considered whether federal common law could provide a judicial remedy concerning greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants.

The Court concluded that the Clean Air Act and EPA's authority displaced federal common-law public-nuisance claims in this context.

Relevance

The case illustrates the importance of regulatory allocation of authority.

For hydrogen and CCS, legislation should clearly identify:

which regulator approves projects;

who establishes emission standards;

who regulates pipelines;

who supervises storage;

who verifies carbon reductions; and

which courts hear challenges.

13. Indian Environmental Jurisprudence

India does not yet have a comprehensive, dedicated CCS statute comparable to the UK's emerging CCUS framework. Consequently, hydrogen and carbon-capture projects must be understood against India's existing environmental and energy legislation.

Important legal instruments include:

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;

EIA Notification, 2006;

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010;

Electricity Act, 2003;

Energy Conservation Act, 2001;

carbon-market regulations; and

policies concerning green hydrogen.

India's Green Credit Rules, 2023, for example, establish a market-based mechanism for specified environmentally positive activities under the Environment (Protection) Act framework. (India Code)

Case 5: Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647

The Supreme Court recognised the importance of the:

precautionary principle;

polluter-pays principle; and

sustainable-development principle

within Indian environmental jurisprudence.

Relevance to hydrogen and CCS

These principles can be applied to emerging technologies where scientific uncertainty exists.

For example, regulators may need to assess:

underground CO₂ leakage;

hydrogen explosions;

groundwater impacts;

geological-storage risks;

lifecycle emissions.

The precautionary principle supports preventive regulation where potentially serious environmental harm is involved.

Case 6: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212

The Supreme Court reinforced the polluter-pays principle and recognised the ability of environmental authorities to recover costs associated with environmental damage.

The Court's environmental jurisprudence has subsequently been important for liability and remediation questions. (Sci API)

Relevance

For CCS projects, the principle is significant because it supports the proposition that environmental remediation should not automatically become a public financial burden.

Case 7: Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati (2020) 17 SCC 157

The Supreme Court rejected the idea that environmental clearance can ordinarily be granted retrospectively to cure an unlawful commencement of activity.

The Court emphasised the importance of prior environmental assessment.

This principle is particularly relevant to emerging hydrogen and carbon-capture facilities because innovative technology does not eliminate the requirement for appropriate environmental approval. The Supreme Court has subsequently referred to this line of authority in cases concerning environmental-clearance violations. (Sci API)

Case 8: M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024)

The Supreme Court's 2024 climate-related jurisprudence recognised a constitutional dimension to protection from the adverse effects of climate change, while balancing this against other constitutional and environmental considerations.

The Court's later materials describe the decision as recognising climate-related protection within the broader constitutional framework. (Sci API)

Relevance

For hydrogen and CCS policy, the decision is important because climate mitigation and adaptation can no longer be viewed exclusively as matters of executive policy. Climate considerations may intersect with constitutional environmental rights.

14. Regulatory Challenges

A. Defining "low-carbon hydrogen"

A central regulatory question is whether hydrogen should qualify as low-carbon based on:

production technology;

lifecycle emissions;

carbon capture percentage; or

actual emissions intensity.

A technology-based definition can create loopholes, whereas an emissions-intensity approach can be more technologically neutral but requires sophisticated MRV.

B. Leakage risk

Carbon capture is meaningful only if captured CO₂ remains securely stored.

Therefore:

Capture ≠ permanent removal.

The legal framework must distinguish between:

captured carbon;

transported carbon;

utilised carbon; and

permanently stored carbon.

C. Infrastructure access

Future hydrogen economies may require shared networks.

Legal questions include:

third-party access;

tariffs;

network codes;

capacity allocation;

interconnection;

pipeline conversion;

ownership;

non-discrimination.

Similar questions arise for CO₂ transport networks.

The UK's CCUS framework specifically contemplates transport-and-storage networks and economic regulation. (GOV.UK)

D. Public participation

Large infrastructure projects may affect:

communities;

landowners;

coastal areas;

fisheries;

groundwater;

ecosystems.

Therefore, consultation and public participation are essential components of project legitimacy.

The Hynot litigation demonstrates that consultation and cumulative environmental impacts can become grounds for judicial scrutiny of CCS projects. (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary)

15. Relationship Between Hydrogen and CCS

The technologies can complement one another.

Green hydrogen

Renewable electricity + electrolysis → hydrogen

Minimal direct CO₂ emissions if the electricity supply and lifecycle accounting support that conclusion.

Blue hydrogen

Natural gas + reforming + CCS → hydrogen + captured CO₂

Potentially lower emissions than conventional unabated hydrogen, but its environmental performance depends on:

methane leakage;

capture rate;

energy consumption;

transport;

storage permanence; and

lifecycle accounting.

Carbon removal

Atmospheric CO₂ → capture → permanent storage

This is conceptually different from merely preventing industrial emissions.

Consequently, legal definitions must avoid treating emissions avoidance, emissions reduction and carbon removal as identical activities.

16. Future Legal Architecture

A comprehensive legal framework for hydrogen, CCS and new technologies should contain at least the following components:

17. Conclusion

Hydrogen, carbon capture and new energy technologies are creating a new generation of energy law. The legal problem is no longer limited to regulating electricity generation or conventional fuels. It increasingly involves interconnected systems of hydrogen production, carbon capture, CO₂ transportation, geological storage, renewable electricity, digital monitoring and carbon markets.

The most important legal principles emerging from existing jurisprudence are:

Technological innovation does not eliminate environmental permitting requirements.

CCS projects remain subject to environmental-impact assessment and planning controls.

Carbon reductions must be measurable and verifiable.

Polluter-pays and precautionary principles remain relevant to emerging technologies.

Long-term storage liability must be clearly allocated.

Hydrogen and CCS infrastructure requires dedicated safety regulation.

Public participation and ecological protection remain relevant even for climate-mitigation projects.

Government subsidies and contracts require legally enforceable eligibility and verification criteria.

Lifecycle emissions are increasingly important when determining whether hydrogen or CCS genuinely delivers climate benefits.

Future energy law will increasingly regulate integrated hydrogen-carbon infrastructure rather than isolated technologies.

The recent UK Energy Act 2023, the 2026 offshore CCUS/hydrogen safety regulations, EU net-zero technology legislation, and cases such as Hynot demonstrate the direction of modern regulation: hydrogen and carbon capture are moving from experimental technologies toward regulated infrastructure sectors with dedicated economic, environmental, planning and safety regimes. (HSE)