EUROPEAN REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR POWER-TO-X PROJECTS
The safety and technical compliance regulatory framework for the current European Power-to-X projects is primarily reliant on specific European Directives and their interpretation by member states. Key directives in this context include the Seveso III Directive, Machinery Directive, CE Marking Directive, ATEX Directive, Renewable Energy Directive, Pressure Equipment Directive, Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive, Low Voltage Directive, REACH, RoHS Directive, among others.
While Seveso-III Directive describes the safety framework via Safety Case (or Safety Report) requirements, the most current/ upcoming European Power-to-X developments do not follow the Safety Case framework, typically staying below the lower-tier thresholds defined in the directive. This is often due to the Directive stipulated present volumes of Methanol (500 tonnes) or Hydrogen (5 tonnes), and the fact that storage of these substances is frequently arranged offsite from the plant.
As a result, the only regulatory framework that these small-medium size Power-to-X projects currently adhere to is a technical compliance framework outlined by the Machinery Directive, CE Marking Directive, ATEX Directive, Pressure Equipment Directive, Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive, and Low Voltage Directive (refer to Figure 1).
While these directives extensively utilize European Norms and reference numerous EN/ISO standards, they leave significant gaps in the design aspects of equipment, systems, and plant infrastructure. This issue stems from the fact that these norms and standards were developed for various industries in general, without deeply integrating Power-to-X specific considerations, a knowledge gap attributable to the relative novelty of the Power-to-X industry.
Figure 1. Technical Compliance Framework for European Power-to-X Projects
Additionally, even in more mature industries, the practice of strictly adhering to standards and codes for complex plant construction has shifted toward the development of Design Performance Standards. See Figure 2 for the Design Performance Standard framework. This change reflects a recognition that asset owners are often better positioned than regulators to determine the specific processes and actions needed within their businesses to meet regulatory objectives.
However, the creation of Design Performance Standards from scratch, or procuring these services from specialized companies like DNV, can be a substantial undertaking for small to medium-sized companies, both in terms of cost and time. Consequently, there is a considerable risk that some Power-to-X projects will not adopt the Design Performance Standards approach in designing Power-to-X plants.
This is especially true for developments exempt from the Seveso-III Directive (and hence not re-quired approved Safety Cases) due to their size, which may instead simply adhere to a CE-marking technical compliance approach. Here, all machinery is delivered with CE marking to confirm conformity with EU regulations, marking the extent of technical compliance for these projects. Nonetheless, while being a keystone of technical compliance, the CE-marking approach does not guarantee that
