1. Introduction

Hydrogen is increasingly being developed as an energy carrier for industrial decarbonisation, electricity balancing, heavy transport and international energy trade. As hydrogen markets expand, pipelines are likely to become important infrastructure for transporting hydrogen from production facilities to storage sites, industrial consumers, ports and energy hubs.

However, hydrogen pipeline governance raises legal questions that differ from conventional natural-gas pipeline regulation. These include who may build and operate pipelines, who has a right to use pipeline capacity, how access charges are determined, how capacity is allocated, whether third parties can obtain access, how pipelines are converted from natural-gas service to hydrogen service, and who bears responsibility for safety and losses.

The central legal problem is therefore not simply construction of pipelines. It is the creation of a regulatory framework that balances infrastructure investment, non-discriminatory access, safety, competition, property rights and public-interest energy policy.

2. Meaning of Hydrogen Pipeline Governance

Hydrogen pipeline governance refers to the legal and institutional rules governing the planning, construction, ownership, operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning of hydrogen transportation pipelines.

A comprehensive governance framework normally covers:

licensing and authorisation;

land acquisition and rights-of-way;

environmental and planning approvals;

technical and safety standards;

pipeline ownership and operation;

third-party access;

capacity allocation;

tariffs and transportation charges;

congestion management;

network balancing;

quality specifications;

metering and certification;

emergency response;

liability and insurance;

dispute resolution; and

cross-border transportation.

Hydrogen pipelines may operate as:

dedicated private pipelines serving a single producer and consumer;

merchant pipelines operated commercially by an infrastructure company;

regulated common-carrier networks;

third-party-access networks; or

integrated hydrogen transmission systems subject to public utility regulation.

The legal treatment depends heavily on which model a jurisdiction adopts.

3. Pipeline Ownership and Regulatory Authority

The first governance question is who legally controls the pipeline.

A hydrogen pipeline can be owned by:

a hydrogen producer;

an industrial consumer;

a private infrastructure company;

a state-owned enterprise;

a transmission-system operator; or

a jointly owned consortium.

Ownership does not necessarily mean unrestricted control.

Where a pipeline is designated as regulated infrastructure, the owner may be required to provide transportation services to qualified third parties on regulated or negotiated terms.

This produces an important distinction:

Ownership is a property right; pipeline access is a regulatory right that may arise independently of ownership.

A government may therefore permit private ownership while imposing obligations relating to access, tariffs, safety and service quality.

4. Licensing and Pipeline Authorisation

Hydrogen pipelines generally require several categories of legal approval.

A. Construction authorisation

The developer may need governmental approval before construction.

The approval can address:

route selection;

engineering design;

environmental impact;

proximity to populated areas;

land rights;

crossing of roads and railways;

water bodies;

protected areas; and

emergency access.

B. Operating authorisation

After construction, the operator may require a separate licence or certification confirming that the pipeline satisfies applicable technical and safety requirements.

C. Environmental approval

Large hydrogen infrastructure may trigger environmental assessment requirements, particularly where pipelines cross sensitive ecological or densely populated areas.

D. Land and rights-of-way

Pipeline development frequently requires easements or statutory rights to use private or public land.

The legal system must balance the infrastructure developer's needs against:

landowners' property rights;

compensation;

environmental interests; and

community participation.

5. Third-Party Access Rights

One of the most important issues in hydrogen pipeline governance is third-party access (TPA).

TPA means that a pipeline owner or operator may be required to allow other producers, suppliers or consumers to use available pipeline capacity.

There are two principal models.

Regulated Third-Party Access

Under regulated TPA, access conditions and/or tariffs are determined according to regulatory rules.

For example:

Producer A owns hydrogen pipeline X, but Producer B may obtain transportation capacity if spare capacity exists and B satisfies the applicable technical and contractual requirements.

The purpose is generally to prevent infrastructure bottlenecks from becoming barriers to market entry.

Negotiated Third-Party Access

Under negotiated TPA, the pipeline operator and prospective user negotiate:

transportation charges;

capacity;

duration;

quality;

balancing;

liability;

connection requirements; and

curtailment arrangements.

Regulation may nevertheless establish minimum transparency and non-discrimination requirements.

6. Open Access and Non-Discrimination

A mature hydrogen transportation regime may impose an obligation of non-discriminatory access.

The operator should not arbitrarily favour:

its own hydrogen production business;

affiliated producers;

particular industrial consumers; or

politically preferred users.

For example, if a pipeline has 1 million tonnes/year of technically available capacity, an operator should have transparent rules for allocating capacity among competing users.

Non-discrimination is particularly important where the pipeline is considered a natural monopoly.

Building multiple parallel long-distance hydrogen pipelines may be economically inefficient. Consequently, the infrastructure may possess significant market power.

Regulation attempts to prevent the owner from using that market power to exclude competitors.

7. Capacity Allocation

Pipeline capacity is finite.

Therefore, legislation must establish what happens when demand exceeds available transportation capacity.

Possible mechanisms include:

First-Come, First-Served

Capacity is allocated according to the timing of applications.

Pro-Rata Allocation

Available capacity is divided among eligible users according to defined proportions.

Auctions

Users compete for capacity through an auction mechanism.

Long-Term Contracting

Users reserve capacity through long-term transportation contracts.

Regulatory Priority

Certain categories—such as essential public services or strategic industrial projects—may receive priority where legislation expressly permits it.

A good governance regime should establish these rules before congestion occurs, rather than leaving allocation entirely to the pipeline operator.

8. Tariff Regulation

Access rights are closely connected with transportation charges.

A hydrogen pipeline tariff may include:

capacity reservation charges;

commodity transportation charges;

connection charges;

metering charges;

balancing charges;

compression costs; and

ancillary service costs.

A regulator may adopt:

Cost-of-Service Regulation

The tariff is based on:

operating costs + depreciation + reasonable return on invested capital + approved regulatory adjustments.

Incentive Regulation

The operator receives incentives to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

Negotiated Tariffs

Prices are agreed between the pipeline operator and users, subject to competition-law and regulatory constraints.

Hybrid Regulation

Some infrastructure costs are regulated while commercial transportation services remain negotiable.

9. Essential Infrastructure and Natural-Monopoly Theory

Hydrogen pipelines may exhibit natural-monopoly characteristics because the cost of constructing parallel networks can be extremely high.

This creates the possibility of an essential-facility problem.

If one pipeline provides the only economically viable connection between a major hydrogen production cluster and industrial consumers, denying access could potentially prevent competitors from reaching the market.

Competition law and sector-specific energy regulation may therefore interact.

The legal framework must determine:

when access becomes mandatory;

whether spare capacity is sufficient;

whether refusal is objectively justified;

whether access would compromise system safety;

whether the requesting party can satisfy technical standards; and

whether compensation must be paid to the infrastructure owner.

10. Safety as a Condition of Access

Access rights cannot be absolute.

Hydrogen has distinctive physical characteristics, including:

high diffusivity;

a broad flammability range;

potential material-compatibility issues;

leakage concerns; and

particular requirements concerning compression and storage.

Therefore, a pipeline operator may legitimately refuse a connection where the proposed hydrogen stream fails applicable technical specifications.

A sound legal framework should distinguish between:

unlawful discriminatory refusal and objectively justified technical refusal.

For example, refusal may be justified where:

hydrogen purity is outside network specifications;

pressure is incompatible;

the pipeline material is unsuitable;

injection would create safety risks; or

available capacity has genuinely been exhausted.

11. Hydrogen Quality Standards

Pipeline access also requires rules concerning hydrogen quality.

Hydrogen transported through a network may need specifications concerning:

purity;

moisture;

contaminants;

pressure;

temperature;

odorisation where applicable;

energy content; and

compatibility with downstream equipment.

Quality regulation is particularly important where different producers inject hydrogen into a shared network.

Without standardisation, one producer could impose costs on other users by introducing hydrogen that requires additional purification or damages equipment.

12. Repurposing Natural-Gas Pipelines

An important legal issue is whether existing natural-gas pipelines can be converted to hydrogen service.

Repurposing raises questions concerning:

material compatibility;

embrittlement;

valves and compressors;

leakage;

pressure limits;

metering;

safety distances;

environmental approvals; and

existing contractual rights.

Existing natural-gas users may also have legally protected transportation rights.

Consequently, conversion cannot always be treated simply as an engineering decision. It may require regulatory approval and potentially renegotiation or termination of existing rights.

13. Cross-Border Hydrogen Pipelines

International hydrogen pipelines create additional legal problems.

A cross-border pipeline may require:

bilateral agreements;

transit rights;

customs arrangements;

common technical standards;

certification recognition;

environmental approvals;

jurisdictional rules concerning liability; and

dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Questions may arise regarding which country's regulator has jurisdiction over:

transportation tariffs;

safety;

pipeline integrity;

access rights;

environmental damage; and

emergency response.

International hydrogen corridors therefore require regulatory interoperability.

14. Indian Legal Context

India does not yet have a single, comprehensive hydrogen pipeline code equivalent to a mature dedicated hydrogen transmission regime.

Hydrogen transportation can intersect with India's broader energy, industrial, environmental and safety laws.

Relevant institutional and legal considerations may include:

the National Green Hydrogen Mission;

the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE);

the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG);

the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) where its statutory jurisdiction applies;

environmental and land-use legislation;

industrial safety regulation; and

technical standards applicable to hydrogen infrastructure.

The PNGRB Act, 2006 is particularly relevant when considering how hydrogen transportation interacts with India's existing framework for petroleum and natural-gas pipelines. The precise applicability of existing petroleum/natural-gas pipeline provisions to hydrogen requires careful examination rather than assuming that hydrogen automatically receives identical regulatory treatment.

The Energy Conservation Act, 2001, as amended, and the National Green Hydrogen Mission also form part of the wider policy architecture supporting hydrogen development.

For India, an eventual dedicated hydrogen pipeline framework could clarify:

pipeline licensing;

rights-of-way;

common-carrier obligations;

third-party access;

tariff methodology;

hydrogen quality standards;

pipeline conversion;

safety standards;

cross-border transportation; and

regulatory jurisdiction.

15. European Union Approach

The European Union has moved toward a dedicated regulatory architecture for hydrogen networks.

The EU's gas-market reforms associated with the Hydrogen and Decarbonised Gas Market package distinguish hydrogen networks from conventional natural-gas infrastructure and provide a framework for hydrogen network operators, access, infrastructure planning and regulation.

A central regulatory concept is the separation of infrastructure operation from competitive hydrogen production and supply activities.

This reflects a broader principle of energy law:

The infrastructure needed to transport energy should not necessarily be controlled in a manner that allows the infrastructure owner to exclude competing energy suppliers.

The EU model also addresses network development and regulatory oversight through national regulatory authorities and European-level coordination.

16. United States Approach

The United States historically has regulated hydrogen transportation through a combination of:

pipeline safety regulation;

environmental law;

state utility regulation;

federal energy regulation where applicable;

property and land-use law; and

contract and commercial law.

The regulatory treatment of hydrogen pipelines is therefore more fragmented than a single integrated hydrogen-network code.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has an important role in pipeline safety regulation, while state authorities may also exercise jurisdiction depending on the infrastructure.

This illustrates an important comparative point:

Hydrogen pipeline governance does not necessarily require one regulator. A multi-regulator model can function if jurisdictional boundaries are clearly defined.

17. Case Laws and Judicial Principles

Because dedicated hydrogen pipeline jurisprudence is still developing, many relevant cases come from natural-gas pipelines, electricity networks, common carriers, competition law and infrastructure regulation. These cases provide legal principles that can be applied to emerging hydrogen networks.

A. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973)

The U.S. Supreme Court considered the interaction between regulated utility infrastructure and competition law.

The case is relevant because control over essential electricity infrastructure can affect competition in downstream markets.

Hydrogen relevance:
A hydrogen pipeline operator possessing substantial infrastructure control may create competitive concerns if pipeline access is used to exclude competing suppliers.

B. MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T, 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983)

The case involved access to telecommunications infrastructure and the essential-facilities doctrine.

The court examined circumstances in which refusal to provide access to infrastructure could raise competition concerns.

Hydrogen relevance:
Although telecommunications is not energy law, the case is frequently discussed in the development of essential-facilities principles. A hydrogen pipeline with no practical substitute could raise comparable questions about access.

C. Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004)

The U.S. Supreme Court substantially limited the circumstances in which competition law requires a dominant firm to share infrastructure.

The Court emphasised that compelled sharing can reduce incentives to invest in infrastructure.

Hydrogen relevance:
This principle is highly significant for hydrogen pipelines. A legal regime must balance:

preventing exclusionary infrastructure control; and

preserving incentives for private investment in expensive hydrogen networks.

Thus, mandatory third-party access should generally be grounded in clear sector-specific legislation rather than relying exclusively on general competition law.

18. EU Gas Pipeline Jurisprudence

European courts have developed substantial jurisprudence concerning third-party access and energy infrastructure.

C-17/03, VEMW and Others v. Energiebedrijf Amsterdam

The Court of Justice of the European Union considered issues concerning long-term electricity import contracts and the compatibility of contractual arrangements with EU energy-market liberalisation.

The broader importance of the case lies in the relationship between existing contractual rights and evolving market-access regulation.

Hydrogen relevance:
As hydrogen networks develop, regulators will have to determine how existing long-term transportation agreements interact with new open-access requirements.

C-290/03, Barker

The CJEU's broader internal-market jurisprudence concerning energy regulation illustrates the importance of non-discriminatory regulatory treatment.

For hydrogen networks, this supports the principle that infrastructure regulation should be designed consistently with competition and internal-market objectives where those legal regimes apply.

19. Indian Judicial Principles Relevant to Pipeline Access

Indian courts have repeatedly considered questions involving:

natural resources;

public infrastructure;

regulatory authority;

public interest;

property;

environmental protection; and

statutory powers.

Although India has not yet developed a large body of hydrogen-pipeline case law, established principles from infrastructure and energy jurisprudence can inform future hydrogen regulation.

Association of Natural Gas & Others v. Union of India

Indian gas-sector litigation has examined regulatory questions concerning natural-gas infrastructure and the statutory authority of regulators.

Such jurisprudence is relevant to hydrogen because it demonstrates the importance of identifying the precise statutory source of regulatory jurisdiction.

GAIL (India) Ltd. v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Indian gas-sector disputes involving pipeline transportation and commercial arrangements demonstrate the importance of contractual allocation of transportation rights and regulatory jurisdiction.

For hydrogen, transportation agreements should clearly establish:

capacity rights;

nomination procedures;

transportation charges;

balancing obligations;

interruption rights;

force majeure;

quality requirements;

liability; and

dispute resolution.

20. Public-Interest and Property Considerations

Pipeline construction often requires access to privately owned land.

The legal framework therefore needs to reconcile infrastructure development with constitutional and statutory property protections.

A compulsory acquisition or easement regime should provide:

lawful authority;

procedural safeguards;

notice;

opportunity to object where applicable;

compensation; and

environmental safeguards.

Hydrogen infrastructure should not receive unlimited rights merely because it is associated with clean-energy development.

21. Liability for Pipeline Accidents

Hydrogen pipeline legislation should identify responsibility for:

leakage;

explosion;

fire;

environmental damage;

injury or death;

property damage;

contamination;

interruption of supply; and

third-party losses.

Possible liability models include:

Fault-Based Liability

The injured party must establish negligence or other fault.

Strict Liability

The operator may be responsible for specified damage regardless of fault.

Statutory Compensation Scheme

Legislation may establish compensation mechanisms for particular classes of accidents.

Insurance requirements can complement these rules.

22. Emergency Access and Regulatory Powers

A hydrogen pipeline regulator may need emergency powers to:

order temporary shutdown;

restrict injection;

require repairs;

impose safety measures;

investigate accidents;

access pipeline facilities; and

coordinate emergency response.

However, emergency powers should be constrained by:

statutory authority;

proportionality;

procedural safeguards; and

review mechanisms.

This prevents emergency powers from becoming arbitrary interference with private property or contractual rights.

23. Access Rights and Competition Law

Hydrogen pipeline regulation will increasingly involve competition law.

Potential anti-competitive conduct may include:

discriminatory transportation charges;

refusal to connect competitors;

preferential allocation to affiliated businesses;

excessive access charges;

withholding available capacity;

tying pipeline access to hydrogen purchase agreements; and

strategically underutilising infrastructure.

Competition authorities and energy regulators may therefore need mechanisms for cooperation.

24. Recommended Structure of a Hydrogen Pipeline Access Code

A comprehensive hydrogen pipeline code could contain the following chapters:

Such legislation would create greater legal certainty for producers, infrastructure investors and industrial consumers.

25. Conclusion

Hydrogen pipeline governance is fundamentally a question of how infrastructure power should be regulated in an emerging hydrogen economy.

The principal legal challenge is to reconcile four interests:

investment incentives for pipeline developers;

open and non-discriminatory access for hydrogen producers and consumers;

safety and environmental protection; and

efficient development of competitive hydrogen markets.

The emerging legal model is likely to combine pipeline licensing, technical safety regulation, regulated or negotiated third-party access, transparent capacity allocation, tariff oversight and competition-law safeguards.

The case law from gas, electricity, telecommunications and essential infrastructure demonstrates an important principle: mandatory access can promote competition, but excessive compulsory sharing can undermine infrastructure investment. Hydrogen legislation therefore needs clear statutory rules defining when access is required, what constitutes spare capacity, how tariffs are calculated, and when safety or technical considerations justify refusal.

For India, the development of a dedicated hydrogen pipeline framework would be particularly significant. A clear regime addressing rights-of-way, licensing, third-party access, tariffs, hydrogen quality, repurposing of gas pipelines, safety, liability and cross-border transportation could provide the legal foundation necessary for large-scale hydrogen infrastructure development.