The CO2 storage obligations, provided for in the “Net Zero Industry Act”, are far disproportionate to the emissions that Romania has, declared, on Monday, in a specialized conference, Cristian Bușoi, Secretary of State in the Ministry of Energy.
“At the European level, we are acting and lobbying to increase interconnection capacities. You know that we have this congestion point between Austria and Hungary, no connection between Austria and Slovakia, and we cannot benefit from good prices at certain times of the day and from importing electricity at better prices from northern and western Europe. We are also lobbying to simplify the legislation on methane emissions, which put a very high pressure and additional cost on Romanian oil and gas companies. We are trying to make those at the European Commission understand that we will not be able to implement investments in CO2 storage and capture. The “Net Zero Industry Act” obligations mean billions of investments for Romgaz and OMV Petrom and are not economically justified. The storage obligation for these companies and for Romania is far disproportionate to the emissions that Romania has. Regarding CO2, we advocate for the role of natural gas and for understanding the role of natural gas at European level during transition periods and even after 2050”, said the representative of the Ministry of Energy, according to Agerpres.
What are the obligations
According to the Regulation, the European Commission calculates CO₂ storage obligations based on each company’s share of oil and gas production in total European production during the reference period (2020–2023). The approximately 20% share allocated to Romania in the CO₂ storage obligations results from the share of its hydrocarbon production (oil and natural gas) in total European Union production during the reference period 2020–2023, not from the level of CO₂ emissions generated on Romanian territory. The consequence of this formula is that Romania—although it has a relatively low level of emissions at European level—is affected by high obligations.
Romgaz has filed a direct action against the European Commission with the Court of Justice of the European Union, mainly requesting the annulment of the NZIA Regulation, which requires oil and gas producers in the European Union to ensure a CO2 storage capacity of 50 million tons/year by 2030, of which Romania has a quota of 10.25 million tons of CO2/year, and the company a quota of 4.12 million tons of CO2/year. Romgaz’s argument (echoed by Romanian authorities and some MEPs) is that this method creates a major discrepancy between the effort required and Romania’s actual contribution to CO₂ emissions: Romania is responsible for only ~3% of the total CO₂ emissions of the European industrial sector during the reference period, but is assigned over 20% of the storage obligation — an asymmetrical investment burden that is not in line with the principle of economic proportionality.
No economic arguments
In its current form, Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 (NZIA) recognizes the strategic role of oil and gas companies in rolling out CO₂ storage infrastructure in Europe, but does not establish an explicit European financial support mechanism for the necessary investments. It assumes that these companies have the technical capacity and geological expertise to identify, drill, and operate storage sites — and therefore should bear the costs.
The European Commission acknowledges a structural asymmetry between Member States:
- some (such as Romania, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway – associated through the EEA) have geological formations suitable for long-term carbon dioxide storage;
- others (the Baltic countries, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, part of central Germany) do not have such natural conditions.
The NZIA Regulation introduces, through the storage obligations imposed on hydrocarbon producers, an approach of industrial solidarity: states that can develop storage capacities should create them for the benefit of the entire Union, not just for their own national needs. This principle follows directly from the wording of Article 18 and the preamble to the Regulation, which refers to “facilitating cross-border access to storage infrastructure and creating a common framework for the development of an internal market for CCS services.” In other words, storage infrastructure should be viewed as a European common good, not as an isolated investment at Member State level.
However, the current framework risks generating effects contrary to those expected. On the one hand, the European Union is promoting the acceleration of industrial electrification and the transition to renewable energy-powered processes, which will structurally reduce the demand for carbon dioxide capture and storage services. In this context, obligated companies—such as Romgaz or OMV Petrom—are placed in an impossible position: they are required to build massive storage infrastructure for a market that could disappear or become marginal by the time the investments pay off.
Furthermore, it imposes massive obligations on oil and gas companies to develop CO₂ storage infrastructure, without a clear economic mechanism through which these investments can be recouped.
In the absence of mature commercial solutions for capture, transport, and use, these obligations transform hydrocarbon operators—such as Romgaz or OMV Petrom—into forced investors in a sector that does not yet have a market, demand, or sustainable sources of financing. The paradox is obvious: the industry is being asked to build a billion-euro infrastructure for a need that, in the logic of the energy transition, should be declining. Without a European support mechanism – through grants, Contract for Difference schemes for stored CO2, or funds dedicated to transport infrastructure – this obligation risks becoming an unjustified financial burden, with a negative impact on real investments in decarbonization and industrial modernization.