Notice

CCUS ECC Teesside selection process: clarification questions (updated 20 March 2026)

Updated 20 March 2026

Clarification questions (added 13 February 2026)

Q001. Please can I check the submission date for the ECC expansion selection process? I see April 10th on the website, as well as March 10th in an update today.

The ECC Teesside selection process has 2 key deadlines:

• 10 March 2026: deadline to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI). Submitting an EOI is required to access the application portal
• 10 April 2026: deadline to submit the full application

The March date relates to the EOI stage, and the 10 April date relates to the full application submission.

Q002. I would like to join the session scheduled for the week commencing 2nd March. However, the Eventbrite link shows the event as ‘sold out’, even though the invitation was only circulated yesterday. Could you please confirm if this is the case, or if there are still spaces to join?

Eventbrite registration for the East Coast Cluster Teesside Selection Process is now back online, and tickets should be available to book.

Please note that registration for this event does not form part of the EOI or application process. It is an optional opportunity to hear more about the process and to ask questions.

If you continue to experience any issues accessing the page or securing a ticket, please let us know.

Further details regarding joining the engagement session will be shared with the registered individuals in due course.

Q003. On the Transition Access Agreement would an NPT project be eligible under the TAA or should merchant NPT projects wait for the NPT pathfinder process?

Projects that require Non-Pipeline Transport (NPT) are not eligible to apply through the ECC Teesside Selection Process.

We expect NPT projects to be considered through the NPT Pathfinder Selection Process. Subject to further policy development, we are currently minded that the Pathfinder Selection Process may be open to projects applying under the Transition Access Agreement. However, the position is not yet final and may change as policy is developed, including in light of delivery capacity, affordability and other priorities.

Clarification questions (added 20 February 2026)

Q004: Please can you confirm whether the Industry Engagement Event on Tuesday 3 March is a full day session? Also, when do you expect the final venue/location details to be announced to attendees?

The event will be held on 3 March as a hybrid session, with an in-person attendance at the Teeswork Skills Academy in Teesside, and an online attendance option. We expect to run from mid-morning (around 10.30am), to allow time for attendees travelling to arrive, until mid-afternoon (around 4pm). We are currently reviewing demand for in-person attendance; capacity is limited. We will contact those who have expressed an interest via Eventbrite shortly with joining instructions and further event details.

Clarification questions (added 27 February 2026)

Q005: The Guidance Notes sets out the requirement for projects to have engaged with the T&SCo, NEP, to understand how feasibly they could connect to the network, and any connection requirements. This understanding will then feed into the DESNZ assessment process.  What information will NEP be sharing with projects, and what information should projects share with NEP?

NEP will provide the following information to projects:  

• signposting to the CCS Network Code, including Network-specific Entry Provisions, noting that the contents of the Annexures are subject to review and may be modified. Please refer to the CCS Network Code website for more information.
• System Development Statement
• indicative T&S fee ranges, if requested

We expect you to share with NEP whatever information is needed to provide confidence that you have a viable network connection plan.  It is for projects to judge what information is necessary to that end, taking into account their specific project needs, but we would anticipate this including, as a minimum, the following list. This list is considered a subset of the requirements of the East Coast Cluster Teesside Selection Application Guidance.

• capture project location
• capture project’s proposed connection point to the T&S Network and planned spur pipeline route including, if known, the location at which the CO2 pipework exits the applicant’s boundary perimeter
• forecast CO2 volumes to be exported to the T&S Network (including maximum instantaneous t/hr and annual average Mtpa)
• expected CO2 profile across a typical year to show any expected flow variability
• expected CO2 profile across the contract lifetime, including any proposed variability in annual Mtpa
• capture project schedule milestones including FID and COD
• if available, Pipeline Feasibility Study on the proposed connection route between the Capture Project and the T&S Network (to include design assumptions, devex & capex costs, schedule milestones and risks)
• division of responsibilities regarding design, development, construction and operation of the connection pipeline and details of where ownership of the CO2 and infrastructure transfer from the capture project to the T&SCo

Clarification questions (added 6 March 2026)

Q006:  Does the name on the EOI have to match the project name exactly or is it possible to change it after submission?

DESNZ assesses each application strictly on the basis of the entity that submits it, against the published eligibility, technical deliverability, financial and economic benefit criteria set out in the ECC Application Guidance. It is therefore important that projects select the correct applicant entity at the point of submission, as that entity will be assessed against the criteria.

Clarification questions (added 13 March 2026)

Q007: The guidance (p.64) references job and apprenticeship estimate in Annex D2, but Annex D2 is focused on goods and services. Are job and apprenticeship numbers expected in the annex too?

The reference on page 64 of the guidance to job and apprenticeship estimates in Annex D2 is incorrect. Applicants are not required to provide job numbers in either Annex D1 or Annex D2. Information on apprenticeships is requested through the skills question in Annex D1. The guidance will be corrected in due course.

Q008: Why are we focusing on UK suppliers and not EU?

We are looking to understand the UK supply chains strengths and want to ensure there are opportunities created for UK suppliers so communities across the UK benefit from the public funding provided.

Q009: At what stage of the project, it is expected that the registration with North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) portal for supply chain should be initiated? It is our understanding that this enrolment and use of the portal shall be required during the Execution phase of the project and not in FEL3 stage where the procurement activities are limited to receiving budgetary quotes for the CAPEX estimation at AACE Class 3 level.

At a minimum we want projects to commit to using the Pathfinder portal and Supply Chain Action Plans in their application. If projects have started to engage with the NSTA already that would be seen beneficially.

Q010: Will the MRV protocol and the EU Removals/CRCF framework also apply to non‑GGR projects such as ICC or BECCS?

The UK GGR Standard, due to be published in 2027, will include detailed methodologies for GGR projects. These methodologies will include the MRV protocol and removal quantification provisions. These will apply to all projects applying via the GGR Business Model, the Power BECCS Business Model, and all projects applying via the TAA which intend to generate GGRs. In advance of the detailed methodologies in the UK GGR Standard being published, we are inviting applicants to use the methodologies from the EU CRCF framework to support their application to the ECC Teesside Selection Process.

Projects applying under ICC and Waste ICC Business Models which intend to sell GGR credits are currently subject to a “restrict and review” policy. This policy prohibits the sale of GGR credits until the Counterparty conducts a review and determines whether and how the restriction should be lifted (including whether any conditions should be included to the lifting of the restriction). We expect that part of this review will consider whether the UK GGR Standard should also apply to Projects under the ICC and Waste ICC Business Model, and whether this should be a condition specified by the Counterparty in lifting the restriction. Further information can be found in the Industrial Carbon Capture Business Models Updates from December 2022, p.26 to 27 and November 2025, p, 23

Q011: Section 8.2 of Guidance Document:

In relation to the GGR Business Model eligibility criteria, does the required 90% capture rate mean that all of such capture is to be sequestered via the cluster pipeline? Or may some of this volume be sold to third parties for industrial uses?

Section 8.2 of the Application Guidance refers to eligibility criteria for the GGR Business Model. This Business Model provides revenue support for the sale of GGR credits generated by capturing and storing CO2 via the T&S network. As such, the project’s projected capture rate must be calculated based on CO2 captured and exported to the T&S network, and this projected capture rate must be at least 90%.

Q012: We note the clause within the GGR business model contract that allows for partial commissioning by the COD deadline subject to a negotiable percentage commissioned factor. We would appreciate clarification on whether this clause could apply in the context of the ECC selection process.

The ECC process is designed to prioritise projects that can demonstrate credible, large-scale delivery and effective use of T&S capacity by the end of 2032. While the GGR Business Model allows some flexibility on commissioning profiles between Operational Conditions Precedent and the Longstop Date, the firm expectation is that a substantial majority of the project’s total capacity must be operational before payments commence. This ensures delivery confidence, subsidy discipline, value-for-money, and scheme alignment. It is also important to note that the flexibility in the GGR Business Model is intended to operate within the context of projects that have already met the minimum eligibility thresholds and been taken forward into negotiations. In addition, a project delivering very low throughput in the early years would risk material under-utilisation of the T&S network, potentially displacing other projects capable of delivering earlier abatement and better value-for-money for allocated network capacity.

Q013: For an ICC project where the base plant produces SAF, do biomass sustainability criteria apply to the same extent as they do for BECCS projects under the GGR business model?

An ICC Project which is producing SAF and not generating Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) credits, will not have to comply with the GGR Standard. Only projects which are generating GGR credits have to comply with the GGR Standard.

However, projects producing SAF may need to comply with other sustainability criteria under other applicable policies, such as the SAF Mandate and the UK ETS Scheme.

For projects supported by the ICC business model, the ICC Contract itself may also include requirements to comply with certain sustainability criteria, for projects using biomass feedstocks or fuels. Further details are provided in the April 2024 update publication on the ICC business models. These requirements are still to be confirmed; however we will seek to understand the extent to which we can align and minimise the administrative burden for Emitters that are part of multiple government schemes that require sustainability criteria.

For projects supported by the Transition Access Agreement (TAA), only projects which are planning to generate GGRs will be required to comply with the UK GGR Standard for the purpose of quantification of removals and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV).

Q014: Capture as a Service (CaaS) Model: Why has the CaaS guidance not evolved since the HyNet process, despite industry concerns?

While DESNZ has received recent interest with regards to potential alternative arrangements for Capture-as-a-Service (CaaS), we have not made any changes to the CaaS structure in the ECC Teesside Selection Process. This is because such alternative models, including those which enable flexibility of emitters and/or a phased approach, would require a number of significant changes in policy and business model design. Changes in policy need to be considered carefully against a range of factors, including regulatory constraints, subsidy control requirements, and value-for-money considerations. DESNZ has not had sufficient time to consider these factors to make significant changes to the CaaS structure in this selection process.

DESNZ will continue to keep this policy under review for future application processes, and we welcome further feedback from stakeholders on alternative proposals.

Q015: Will DESNZ consider enabling phased or modular CaaS structures instead of requiring all entities to be fully established at submission?

For the ECC Teesside Selection Process, the requirements for Capture-as-a-Service (CaaS) projects are as described in the application guidance document. This means that there will not be any flexibility for Emitters to be phased or changed within the Caas Group following submission of an application to the ECC Teesside Selection Process.

Changes in policy need to be considered carefully against a range of factors, including regulatory constraints, subsidy control requirements, and value-for-money considerations.

DESNZ will continue to keep this policy under review for future application processes, and we welcome further feedback from stakeholders on alternative proposals.

Q016: Could DESNZ provide flexibility for substituting entities if one participant fails during the application process?

For the ECC Teesside Selection Process, the requirements for Capture-as-a-Service (CaaS) projects are as described in the application guidance document. This means that there will not be any flexibility for Emitters to be phased or changed within the CaaS Group following submission of an application to the ECC Teesside Selection Process.

Changes in policy need to be considered carefully against a range of factors, including regulatory constraints, subsidy control requirements, and value-for-money considerations.

DESNZ will continue to keep this policy under review for future application processes, and we welcome further feedback from stakeholders on alternative proposals.

Q017: Why is any form of Non‑Pipeline Transport (NPT) prohibited within CaaS value chains, even when the main injector is pipeline‑connected?

For the ECC Teesside Selection Process, the requirements for Capture-as-a-Service (CaaS) projects are as described in the application guidance document. This means that no form of Non-Pipeline Transport will be allowed within CaaS value chains. This is because DESNZ’s policy on Non-Pipeline Transport is still under development.

Changes in policy need to be considered carefully against a range of factors, including regulatory constraints, subsidy control requirements, and value-for-money considerations.

DESNZ will continue to keep this policy under review for future application processes, and we welcome further feedback from stakeholders on alternative proposals.

Q018: What evidence or analysis would DESNZ find most helpful to inform future reforms to accommodate more flexible CaaS models?

DESNZ will continue to keep our position on Capture-as-a-Service (CaaS) policy under review for future application processes, and we welcome further feedback from stakeholders, including evidence of the benefits afforded by alternative CaaS structures, in writing or via a meeting.

Q019: Which environmental permits are critical‑path for ECC assessment, and must applicants show submissions or approvals at the application stage?

Critical‑path permits: The Guidance does not set a fixed list of permits that must be secured to apply. Instead, projects must identify the permits and planning consents that are critical to their specific proposal (e.g. environmental permits regulated by the Environment Agency, planning permission, abstraction/discharge licences where relevant) and reflect them in a credible, logic‑linked schedule. Annex E is provided to help applicants identify likely environmental risks, standards and permitting needs; it does not mandate specific permits at application stage.

What is assessed at application: During the deliverability assessment, DESNZ looks for accurate identification of critical planning and consenting stages and evidence of progress or a clear plan to secure them within the proposed timetable to COD—not possession of final approvals at application. Applicants should show that permitting steps are incorporated into the overall project schedule, with realistic timelines and risk mitigations in place

Submissions vs approvals: Applicants are not required to hold final environmental permits when they apply. Where appropriate, they should evidence that they have applied for key consents or have a clear and credible plan to do so in time. The emphasis is on the credibility of the consents strategy and schedule, rather than approvals being in place at submission.

Q020: Does DESNZ have a preferred approach for referencing of supporting documents?

Yes. The Application Guidance sets out a clear preference for how supporting documents should be referenced and submitted.

Applicants are encouraged to:

• Provide concise, clearly referenced supporting documents, rather than reproducing large volumes of information within the application forms themselves.
• Reference supporting documents within the relevant Project Plan questions and submit those documents alongside the Project Plan via the submission portal.
• Ensure that supporting documentation is clearly labelled, proportionate, and directly relevant to the question being addressed.

The ECC Teesside Selection Guidance notes that the Project Plan has been designed to allow references to supporting documentation wherever possible, to avoid unnecessary duplication, and that assessors will rely on the referenced materials submitted with the application. Applicants should also observe the word limits for Project Plan questions; any information provided above the stated limits will not be considered.

It should be noted that the Application Guidance does not prescribe a fixed list of supporting documents, this reflects the fact that projects will be at different stages of development and may therefore have different material available; applicants are nevertheless expected to provide supporting evidence that is proportionate, appropriate to their project’s maturity, and aligned with recognised industry standards.

Applicants should ensure that all referenced documents are included in the submission and are sufficiently clear for assessors to locate and understand the evidence being relied upon.

Q021: Can you confirm the email address we need to use for requesting a NDA?

The deadline for submitting an Expression of Interest was 10 March 2026 via eccteessideselection@energysecurity.gov.uk. NDA information on the NDA process and the next steps will be issued to those Projects that submitted an EOI. Any NDArelated requests outside of the ECC Teesside Selection Process should be directed to: eccteessideselection@energysecurity.gov.uk.

Q022: Can you confirm the distinction between the ‘Shortlisting’ Milestone in Autumn and the ‘Integration’ at the end of the year?

Shortlisting is an individual project level‑ assessment, undertaken after the deliverability assessment. Projects rated Amber or Green at the assessment stage are then evaluated on their own merits against value for money, affordability, and supply chain and skills criteria. Only projects that meet the required threshold progress beyond this stage.

Cluster Integration is a portfolio level‑ assessment of shortlisted projects. DESNZ considers combinations of projects together, taking account of system level constraints such as available T&S capacity, network operability, affordability‑ and overall value for money. Not all shortlisted projects are guaranteed to progress.

The outcome of Shortlisting and Cluster Integration together is the Project Negotiation List (PNL), which DESNZ intends to publish by the end of the year. Inclusion on the PNL enables progression to due diligence and negotiations but does not imply an offer of support or network access.

Q023: Would 2032 COD date shift if not enough viable projects?

The expectation is that projects should be able to reach Commercial Operation Date (COD) no later than the end of December 2032, and this date is used as a key benchmark for eligibility, deliverability assessment and selection.

DESNZ may take forward a portfolio of projects that collectively exceeds available capacity to provide resilience where some projects do not progress. However, there is no expectation that the 2032 COD requirement would shift if there were fewer viable projects. Applicants are therefore expected to demonstrate a credible plan to achieve COD by 2032, and this remains a core consideration throughout the assessment process.

DESNZ reserves the right to amend or cancel the process, or discontinue discussions, in line with the provisions set out in the Application Guidance

Q024: As part of assessing an applicant’s submission, DESNZ will want to have the opportunity to speak to EPCs and having NDAs in place in order to do so. Can you advise on DESNZ’s timelines, when do they want to start speaking to EPCs?

DESNZ does not intend to engage directly with EPC contractors during the initial phases (assessment, shortlisting, cluster integration) of the ECC Teesside Selection Process.

During assessment, projects are evaluated solely on the basis of the information provided within the submitted application and clearly referenced supporting evidence, in line with the published Application Guidance. Engagement with third parties, including EPCs, does not form part of this process and is not required to support assessment or scoring.

Engagement with EPCs, including the establishment of NDAs where appropriate, would be expected to become relevant only once projects have been selected to progress beyond the Selection Process via inclusion within the Project Negotiation List (PNL). At that stage - during due diligence and commercial negotiations - DESNZ may require direct discussions with EPCs to support verification of delivery arrangements, risk allocation, cost and schedule assumptions, and overall project readiness.

Applicants should therefore not assume or plan for EPC engagement with DESNZ during the assessment phase of the ECC Teesside Selection Process, and should ensure that all necessary information to support eligibility and deliverability is clearly set out within their submission. Further detail on due diligence and negotiation activities will be provided to projects that are invited to progress beyond the selection process.

Q025: How would DESNZ prefer to receive submissions where there is optionality going forwards - either as setting out the range of options or as a base case with options to be explored in due course?

Funding optionality

Delivery model optionality (CaaS vs EPC)

Where there is optionality going forward, DESNZ’s preference would be for submissions to be structured around a clearly defined base case, with any credible alternatives or options set out transparently alongside it.

The base case should represent the proposer’s current best‑view approach, supported by the strongest available evidence and assumptions, and should be sufficiently developed to allow robust assessment. Optionality should then be clearly articulated as discrete options or variants, with a concise explanation of:

• the rationale for each option,
• the key drivers or decision points that would trigger a move away from the base case, and
• the implications for cost, risk, deliverability and value for money.

Setting out a base case with clearly bounded options enables effective comparison to other applicants while retaining flexibility to explore and refine alternatives as the project matures.

Q026: How will projects connecting via the Transition Access Agreement (TAA) be considered within the ECC Teesside funding prioritisation process.

Projects that are able to connect to the ECC T&S Network via the Transition Access Agreement (TAA) may be prioritised where all other factors are equal, reflecting the lower ongoing subsidy requirements associated with this approach. However, projects applying under the TAA are assessed against the same deliverability, value for money, affordability and supply chain criteria as projects seeking support through a CCUS Business Model.

Use of the TAA does not guarantee selection or prioritisation. Decisions will be made on a case‑by-case basis, taking account of overall portfolio considerations, system constraints and the extent to which projects meet the objectives‑ of the ECC Teesside Selection Process, as set out in the Application Guidance.

Q027: Could DESNZ provide further clarity on how project scheduling and programme information are considered within the assessment process, including how weight is applied to these factors during deliverability assessment.

The project schedule / programme questions within the sector-specific Project Plan form are assessed as part of the Deliverability assessment, as set out in the ECC Teesside Selection Process Application Guidance.

Deliverability is assessed holistically, taking into account the extent to which a project demonstrates a credible, robust and achievable pathway to connection and operation within the relevant timeframe, rather than by applying fixed numerical weightings to individual questions within the Project Plan. The project schedule / programme information is therefore assessed, given a RAG rating and considered equally alongside other deliverability evidence.

The project schedule / programme questions are intended to provide assurance that:

1) the key development, consenting, procurement, construction and commissioning activities have been appropriately identified and sequenced;

2) critical path activities and interfaces with the CO2 transport and storage network have been understood; and

3) the proposed timeline is realistic and consistent with the project’s stated readiness and assumptions.

Applicants should therefore focus on providing clear, consistent and well‑evidenced responses across the Deliverability section as a whole, ensuring that the project schedule and programme information coherently supports the wider narrative on project readiness and feasibility.

However, where, during the course of the deliverability assessment, it becomes apparent that a project does not meet one or more of the eligibility criteria, this may override earlier views formed during the eligibility stage. Eligibility is therefore not considered to be fixed following the initial eligibility assessment, but is kept under review as further evidence is examined through the deliverability assessment.

By way of example, where interrogation of the project schedule or programme as part of the deliverability assessment indicates that the project is unlikely to achieve a commercial operation date by 2032, this may mean that the project no longer meets the eligibility requirement relating to connection within the ECC Teesside timeframe. In such circumstances, the outcome of the deliverability assessment may result in the project being deemed ineligible, notwithstanding any earlier eligibility assessment conclusions.

Q028: Will you look at affordability studies sector by sector or across the board?

Affordability will be considered both at a project and portfolio level. Individual projects will be assessed within their relevant sector as part of the shortlisting process; however, affordability will also be considered across the portfolio during cluster integration, taking account of overall fiscal constraints, available capacity and value for money across the ECC Teesside Selection Process as a whole.

Q029: For clarity, will there be notification to bidders between each of these stages? Eligibility (may) - Deliverability & Shortlisting (autumn) - Cluster Integration (End of the year)?

Yes. Applicants will be notified of the outcome of the eligibility check. Projects that pass eligibility will proceed to the deliverability of assessment, and applicants will be notified of the outcome of that assessment. Projects that progress through shortlisting and cluster integration will be informed of the outcome of those stages, including whether they are included on the Project Negotiation List (PNL). Timings for notifications may vary depending on the volume and complexity of applications, but DESNZ intends to keep applicants informed as the process progresses, as set out in the Application Guidance.

Q030: Will there be any shifts in application timelines?

DESNZ does not currently expect to make changes to the published application timelines. Applicants should therefore plan based on the dates set out in the Application Guidance. DESNZ reserves the right to amend the process or timelines if required, and any such changes would be communicated to applicants in line with the published process.

Q031: Is there any flexibility regarding the COD deadline?

As outlined in the Application Guidance, all applicants must be able to reach COD by the end of 2032. Projects which are not able to meet this requirement will not progress beyond the eligibility check stage.

Q032:  If technical specifications, commercial projections and financial modelling are still in development, would a high-level, less detailed submission be considered?

We understand that projects applying the ECC Teesside Selection Process may be at different levels of maturity. Projects must seek to provide sufficient granularity to provide confidence in their ability to deliver by the required COD deadline and will be marked accordingly during the deliverability assessment.

Q033:  If it is not currently feasible for us to apply to the ECC Teesside Selection Process, would DESNZ find value in submitting an Expression of Interest form?

We would advise that projects should only submit an Expression of Interest form if they intend to submit a full application to this selection process. We welcome all engagement with DESNZ and partner departments in the development of CCUS in the UK and encourage ongoing dialogue where appropriate.

Q034:  For the DESNZ ECC submission, can you confirm the confidence level that should be used when presenting the Quantitative Risk schedule analysis i.e. P10? P50? P90?

The ECC Application Guidance does not mandate a specific QSRA confidence level. Applicants should clearly state the percentile(s) used and the rationale. As good practice, applicants are encouraged to present a central case (P50) as well as the full range of outcomes (for example P10 and P90) to demonstrate their understanding of schedule uncertainty and downside risk

Where higher‑percentile outcomes (such as P90) indicate a material risk of COD occurring after 2032, this is likely to be interpreted by assessors as increased schedule risk and may adversely affect the project’s deliverability assessment and associated RAG rating, particularly where the drivers of risk and proposed mitigations are not clearly evidenced.

Q035: If shortlisting more emitters than available capacity, will visibility be provided for future expansion of the ECC during the shortlist period?

The shortlisting and cluster integration stages are focused on assessing projects against current assumptions on available ECC T&S capacity and overall portfolio affordability. While DESNZ may take forward a portfolio of projects that collectively exceeds currently available capacity to provide resilience, the process does not provide for formal commitments or guaranteed visibility on future network expansion during the shortlisting period.

Any information on potential future expansion of the ECC T&S Network would be subject to separate regulatory, commercial and policy decisions, and applicants should not assume that shortlisting implies access to future expanded capacity.

Q036:  As part of Hynet’s PNL, a diverse selection of Business Models and sectors were included - will the diversity of projects be considered as part of the deliverability assessment in this round?

No. Project diversity is not assessed as part of the deliverability assessment, which is focused on the credibility and capability of individual projects to be delivered within the required timeframe. Deliverability assessments are undertaken on a project by‑ ‑project basis, against the relevant technical and commercial/financial criteria for each sector.

However, portfolio level‑ considerations, including the overall configuration of projects across sectors and business models, will be considered at the cluster integration stage. At those stages, DESNZ assesses combinations of projects together, taking account of factors such as system constraints, affordability, value for money, and contribution to overall ECC objectives. The resulting mix of project types may therefore be a diverse selection.

Q037:  Please can you confirm whether Microsoft Word versions of the pdf application forms will be made available to projects that have submitted on EoI?

The Application Guidance confirms that application templates will be provided to applicants via the GOV.UK landing page and SharePoint portal following submission of an Expression of Interest and completion of the NDA. Annex A has also recently been updated and is now available in Word format. Applicants should use the latest versions provided through these official channels.

Q038: Is there any timeline to launch NPT Pathfinder; would it align with ECC?

As set out in the ECC Teesside Selection Process guidance, the NPT Pathfinder is expected to launch shortly. An announcement will be made on Gov.uk at launch.

Q039: Can DESNZ clarify whether NPT projects are required to have a single delivery point into the ECC T&S network.

We anticipate that the current restriction in the Network Code will require each NPT project applying for the NPT Pathfinder to have a single, unique delivery point into the ECC T&S network.

Q040: Why can’t NPT projects join the process on a TAA basis?

The ECC Teesside Selection process has been designed for piped projects only. We anticipate that NPT Projects applying into the NPT Pathfinder process will be able to do so via the TAA.

Q041: Can DESNZ clarify how aggregation would work for NPT projects, including the role of any aggregating entity.

Aggregation of capture volumes from multiple sites is currently anticipated to be permissible. All capture sites and the entity acting as the user of the network (likely the receiving terminal) will need to become a single legal entity in order to contract with Government.

There will be no pool of capture projects for aggregation. We expect applicants to determine their full NPT Project supply chain for themselves.

Q042: Each company participating in the development of the CCUS-Enabled Hydrogen Project must provide a response. Multiple responses (A, B, C, etc.) may be necessary if the CCUS-Enabled Hydrogen Project is being developed in partnership”. We would expect that Section 4.7.2.B is meant for the second company participating in the CCUS-Enabled Hydrogen Project, however, the note here reads “Each company participating in the development of an individual T&S or project must provide a response. Multiple responses may be necessary where projects are being developed in partnership”. Is the note in Section 4.7.2.B (and C, D, E etc.), which refers to the development of a T&S project, an error?)

For CCUS‑Enabled Hydrogen Projects, Section 4.7 is intended to capture company‑level financial and commercial information for each company participating in the development of the project. Where a CCUS‑Enabled Hydrogen Project is being developed in partnership, each participating company must provide a separate response to the relevant sub‑sections (e.g. A, B, C, etc.), together with a completed Financial Statement Form (Annex C) and the associated financial documents.

The references in Section 4.7.2 (including B, C, D, E, etc.) to “an individual T&S or project” should be read as generic wording applying to the relevant project being assessed, including CCUS‑Enabled Hydrogen Projects, rather than implying that the requirement is limited to Transport and Storage projects only. The intent is to ensure that DESNZ receives distinct, company‑specific financial and commercial information for all entities involved in the development, financing, or key investment decisions for the project.

Applicants should therefore submit:

• Individual company level‑ responses for each participating entity, and
• The required financial statements and supporting documentation for those entities, alongside the overarching Project Plan and financing plan.

Q043: There is no word limit quoted for the Hydrogen Project Plan (Annex A) Section 4.1.3. Please could you confirm if this is intentional or if the word limit been omitted in error?

A word limit of 750 words applies to Section 4.1.3 of the Hydrogen Project Plan, which has been introduced to correct an omission in the original publication.

Q044: Changing the reference price floor in the LCHA is quite a significant change and, as far as we are aware, the first time it has been mentioned in a government document. Some Hydrogen members where surprised to see it included here and are wondering how this change is likely to be consulted on and enacted. Its mention raises questions about the LCHA and how projects will be applying.

Some level of clarity on what is really being proposed here, or the process involved, would be helpful to applicants next week.

As part of our ongoing considerations related to the LCHA, we are exploring whether amendments may be appropriate to reflect our improved understanding of hydrogen costs and alternative decarbonisation pathways since the initial design of the HPBM. As an example, we are considering whether the introduction of end‑use‑specific reference price floors may be suitable.

The Hydrogen Production Business Model team engages on LCHA changes through its Stakeholder Forum, which is likely to be the appropriate route for communicating and testing any proposals to modify the reference price.

Projects may contact the HPBM Team (hydrogen.businessmodels@energysecurity.gov.uk) to request the latest draft version of the LCHA applicable to CCUS-enabled hydrogen Projects, including amendments made since the LCHA dated December 2024.

Q045: What is the threshold for an increase in capacity of an existing hydrogen plant in order to qualify for HPBM support?

For an existing hydrogen production facility, there is no minimum capacity threshold for the increase in hydrogen production capacity as part of the Eligibility criteria.

Existing hydrogen production facilities proposing to retrofit carbon capture and carry out works to increase the capacity of the facility, may be eligible to apply to ECC Teesside Selection via the hydrogen production sector, provided they also meet the hydrogen-specific eligibility criteria (such as Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard Compliance).

At the Deliverability stage, Applicants are required to clearly describe and evidence the proposed hydrogen production capacity of the project, including how the retrofit changes the existing facility and results in an increase in hydrogen output. The Deliverability assessment considers the technical credibility and feasibility of the proposed configuration and whether the project can realistically deliver the outputs claimed within the ECC timeframe.

Q046: For hydrogen, does the offtaker have to be a direct pipeline project? If a newbuild, is there a minimum capacity you expect?

For hydrogen projects, there is no requirement for the offtaker to be connected via a direct hydrogen pipeline, and no minimum capacity threshold is set.

To be eligible, applicants must have identified and engaged with at least one qualifying hydrogen offtaker and provide evidence of progress towards an agreement (for example, an MoU or letter of intent). This is to provide assurance that the project is sufficiently developed to deploy and deliver carbon savings.

At Deliverability, Projects will be assessed on the credibility and deliverability of proposed offtake arrangements. Consideration will be given to HMG’s confidence that the CCUS-enabled hydrogen plant has commercial and technical arrangements in place with a viable offtaker or offtakers for most (75% and above) of their hydrogen volumes, and that at least one of these viable offtakers is a qualifying offtaker.

Q047:  Industry understands DESNZ is interested in how offtakers will use hydrogen. What does this mean and how will it factor into the assessment process?

The evidence is increasingly clear that electrification will play a major role in most industrial decarbonisation. Hydrogen’s role is therefore expected to be more focused on helping decarbonise industrial processes that are especially difficult to electrify such as in chemical production and refining. It can also provide long duration dispatchable power and inter-seasonal energy storage, to help balance a renewables-based power system.

The Eligibility Assessment serves as an initial step for determining basic eligibility for CCUS-enabled hydrogen Projects and requires Projects to have identified and engaged with at least one qualifying offtaker and to provide evidence of progress towards an agreement.

At Deliverability, Projects will be assessed on the credibility and deliverability of proposed offtake arrangements. Consideration will be given to HMG’s confidence that the CCUS-enabled hydrogen plant has commercial and technical arrangements in place with a viable offtaker or offtakers for most (75% and above) of their hydrogen volumes, and that at least one of these viable offtakers is a qualifying offtaker.

Applicants should be aware that in subsequent stages, such as VfM and shortlisting, consideration may be given to how Projects align with broader Government priorities, such as supporting Net Zero and clean power goals, by helping to decarbonise critical, hard-to-electrify industries, alongside other factors. Therefore, we encourage Projects to align with these Government priorities, and the objectives of the Modern Industrial Strategy’s Clean Energy Industries Sector Plan.

Q048: When will the Hydrogen Strategy be publsihed, as this would support our application?

We recognise that, at the time of the launch of the ECC Teesside Selection Process, projects are anticipating the publication of hydrogen policy documents.

We plan to publish a renewed Hydrogen Strategy, alongside a package of other hydrogen policy documents, as soon as possible this year.

As the final application deadline for the ECC Teesside Selection Process is 10th April 2026, we therefore encourage Projects to utilise the published Application Guidance, in addition to aligning with Government priorities, such as supporting Net Zero and clean power goals, and the objectives of the Modern Industrial Strategy’s Clean Energy Industries Sector Plan.

Q049: Will capacity be ring fenced for TAA projects? Given fiscal environment is TAA going to be maximised to reduce full?

The ECC selection process will not ring-fence capacity across any sector or business model including the TAA.

Q050: What business models will be applicable for the TAA, is it limited?

The TAA is available for sectors covered by all CCUS Business Models that can apply through the ECC selection process.

Q051:  Will the TAA be associated with a specific allocation round in future?

The TAA has been developed initially for Projects applying as part of the ECC buildout process. DESNZ has signaled our intention to move towards a more market-led industry, and the TAA is a part of this. A form of TAA or equivalent is therefore expected to be available for future allocation rounds, but this will be subject to future decisions.

Q052: If the TAA doesn’t involve any support (as per DESNZ preference, notwithstanding case-by-case on T&S fees and cross-chain risks), why is there a contract term at all?

In this case, it appears to just be a vehicle to get around the “Govt allocation process” constraint in the Network Code, but it’s not clear why that connection access could be withdrawn at the end of a TAA term, or what mechanism would exist in the Code for that? It’s inconsistent with analogous connections in gas/electricity.

The TAA is aimed at Projects that require limited financial or risk support from government. It is viewed as an important stepping stone towards the introduction of fully merchant Users. We will always assess whether any government support is necessary for Projects. Projects that believe they only require access to the ECC T&S Network and no government support in any form are still be expected to participate in the ECC Teesside Selection Process and apply for a TAA, to ensure capacity requirements can be considered and there are effective system planning and appropriate oversight. However, where application evidence shows that no DESNZ support is required and it is confirmed that no subsidy of any form is needed, [DESNZ may consider the applicability of the TAA as currently designed / the TAA will not be relevant, and we will set out the appropriate pathway for your connection to the ECC T&S Network following the application process].

Q053: What is the reasoning behind the gain-share mechanism?

Decisions on the inclusion of gainshare are ongoing and would only be considered in cases where access to the T&S Network would enable the Emitter to generate material additional profits directly derived from this access, which are significantly in excess of a project’s costs associated with access to the T&S Network.

Q054: Can we have an extension to the application window?

The application deadline of 10 April provides a 9-week window, consistent with application windows used by the Department in other CCUS allocation rounds. We are also responding to calls to move more quickly end-to-end and therefore are not planning to extend the application window.

As set out in the guidance, projects should contact DESNZ as early as possible if they anticipate any difficulty meeting the deadline. DESNZ may, in very exceptional circumstances and with sufficient advance notice, consider accepting a late application, but applicants should plan on the basis that the published deadline will stand.

Clarification questions (added 20 March 2026)

Q055: Has more detailed information on the Power BECCS business model design been published since the consultation in April 2025?

In April 2025, we published a consultation seeking views on proposals for revenue support regulations in relation to GGRs and power BECCS business models. We are continuing to develop the government response to the consultation, which will be published in due course.

We are continuing to develop a first of a kind business model for large-scale power BECCS projects (>100MW) to incentivise negative emissions, with the co-benefit of producing low-carbon electricity. We will publish an update at the earliest available opportunity.

Q056: If a portion of CO2 produced by a CCUS‑enabled hydrogen production facility is to be purified, liquefied and transported off‑site for use in UK industry, would these CO2 volumes would be treated as Scope 1 emissions for the purposes of assessing compliance with the Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard (LCHS)? Are there any mechanisms within the LCHS framework to mitigate this impact?

The Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard (LCHS) does not permit emissions credits for carbon capture and usage and any CO2 which is not captured and permanently stored in the CO2 Network must be accounted for under the LCHS methodology. 

The LCHS does not provide mechanisms to mitigate or discount these emissions: the methodology is designed to ensure accurate and transparent accounting of all greenhouse gas emissions associated with hydrogen production, and therefore CO2 destined for industry use must be counted as an emitted stream.

As set out in Chapter 7: Hydrogen of the Guidance Document, to be eligible under the Hydrogen sector, Projects must demonstrate that they are capable of meeting the requirements of the latest version of the UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard. For the purposes of eligibility for this round, this is Version 4 of the LCHS and the accompanying LCHS Data Annex, published in January 2026.

Q057: Is there an indicative maximum scale or capacity limit for NPT projects.

Details on the requirements which NPT Projects will need to meet, including on scale, will be set out in the NPT Pathfinder guidance, due to be published shortly.

Q058: At the connection point will there be adequate storage for NPT projects to feed in?

Details on the requirements which NPT Projects will need to meet, including on scale, will be set out in the NPT Pathfinder guidance, due to be published shortly.

Q059: Could you clarify whether co‑mingling will be permitted at the terminal and provide an update on the longer‑term design of the NPT Pathfinder.

Details on the requirements which NPT Projects will need to meet, including on scale, will be set out in the NPT Pathfinder guidance, due to be published shortly.

Q060: Will completion of the DCO approval for Permitting process be required as an Initial Condition Precedent (ICP) under the TAA contract?

It is expected that the TAA will include two sets of conditions precedent, the “Initial Conditions Precedent” (ICPs) and the “Operational Conditions Precedent” (OCPs), similar to other CCUS Business Model Contracts. The decision of which ICPs to incorporate into the TAA is contingent upon further development and the evolution of contractual requirements. Specific obligations and conditions relating to ICPs will need to be defined as the TAA is further developed, and may vary depending on the broader positions adopted, the protections afforded, and the particular characteristics of the relevant arrangements.

Q061:  Please clarify the level of details for DevX costs is expected to be included by projects applying under TAA Business model. It is understood that under TAA model where no UK government funding support is envisaged, the DevX cost aspect may not be as relevant to non-TAA projects.

Projects applying under the TAA are expected to provide as much cost detail as is feasible for their stage of development, equivalent to that required for BM‑supported projects.

All relevant cost items should be provided regardless of whether the project expects to receive BM support. This information enables DESNZ to assess the performance, deliverability and value‑for‑money of the project as a whole.

Projects applying under the TAA are expected to provide full whole‑plant cost information, equivalent in scope to that required for projects seeking Business Model (BM) support. This includes DevEX, CAPEX and OPEX costs for both the underlying facility and the proposed CCS plant.

Projects should therefore populate all relevant cost line items and indicate, for each, whether it would be considered eligible or ineligible for BM support. For TAA projects, it is expected that many of these items may be marked as “ineligible”, but the underlying data must still be provided.

Q062:  Regarding the “Cost Eligibility” column in Form B (Ref.column G in the Form B - I_Project Tab), can DESNZ confirm whether DevX, CAPEX, and OPEX cost categories are considered “Not Eligible” for unsupported projects under the TAA business model?

In Annex B, TAA projects are expected to input complete whole‑plant cost information, covering both the underlying facility and the CCUS components. This includes relevant DevEX, CAPEX and OPEX line items.

The “Cost Eligibility” column is intended to record the project’s view on whether a cost item would be eligible for BM support. It does not determine whether the cost item should be included in the form. All relevant cost items should therefore be populated in Annex B, with projects indicating eligibility or ineligibility for BM support as appropriate.

For projects proceeding under a TAA / unsupported scenario, it is acceptable and expected that most cost items will be marked as “ineligible” for BM support. This does not remove the requirement to provide the full underlying cost information, which DESNZ requires to support technical and commercial assessment and ongoing development of the TAA.

Q063:  Why are TAA projects not required to complete eligibility criteria?

TAA projects are required to meet eligibility criteria for the ECC selection process. They must meet the central eligibility criteria and be UK incorporated & registered; be able to develop direct, onshore pipeline access to ECC CO2 T&S network (no intermediate non‑pipeline transport); and operational by end of 2032.

However, to reflect the scaled back commercial offer, TAA Projects are not required to meet the same Business Model User sector criteria. Where relevant, the following sector-specific criteria apply:

Power CCUS: Electrical output of at least 20 MW low‑carbon electricity; grid connection in place by COD.

Projects generating GGRs: comply with UK GGR Standard.

Projects are required to complete the relevant Project Plan to the fullest, including responding to eligibility criteria questions where able. This is to ensure that the assessment can be carried out with all relevant project information.

Q064: Please can you advise whether the ECC Teesside process and related TAA will be applicable to all future connections to the East Coast Cluster, including the Northern Endurance Partnership – or whether this only relates to the expansion network of the East Coast Cluster?

If the TAA only applies to the East Coast Cluster expansion – would the existing Network Code then apply also to projects not requiring CCUS subsidy support looking to access and use the Northern Endurance Partnership?

For the ECC Teesside Selection Process, the TAA is a new contract being introduced to enable Projects that do not require the support provided by a full CCUS Business Model to connect to the T&S Network. DESNZ has signalled our intention to move towards a more market-led industry, and the TAA is a part of this. A form of TAA or equivalent is therefore expected to be available for future allocation rounds, but this will be subject to future decisions.

The CCS Network Code (the Code) sets out the commercial, operational and technical arrangements that govern use of CCS networks in the UK. T&S Co’s are required under their Economic Licence to maintain and administer the Code. All Projects, whether supported with a full Business Model or the TAA, must accede to the live version of the Code at FID. Whilst the Code is an industry owned, live document that will evolve with the sector, we recommend that Applicants plan and design to comply with the Code, and do not assume that compliance can be achieved by modifying it to their own, Project specific needs or preference. It is therefore in an Applicant’s interest to understand the Code and to have clear plans to ensure they can adhere and therefore accede to it. The Code was initially developed as a minimum viable product to support the establishment of the first network connections. We recognise there may be certain universal modifications required to facilitate the TAA and Pathfinders projects, although these will not constitute material changes to the existing code. 

DESNZ is actively developing the Code to support transitioning the network toward greater commercialisation and market focus, through substantive modifications that will support fully merchant-driven projects alongside other requirements such as NPT, over the next few years.

Q065: Are you able to inform if a recording of the session is available?

The engagement session was not recorded, but the slides presented during the session are available to access, along with the responses to the clarificatory questions asked within the session.

Please find them here:

CCUS East Coast Cluster: Teesside selection process - GOV.UK

ECC Teesside selection process - engagement session slides

Q066: Will there be a reserve list like Hynet?

DESNZ may take forward a portfolio of projects that collectively exceeds available T&S capacity to provide resilience where some projects do not progress. The outcome of the shortlisting and cluster integration stages is the Project Negotiation List (PNL), which identifies projects that may proceed to due diligence and negotiations. Inclusion on the PNL does not guarantee support or access to the network, and DESNZ reserves the right to amend the process or portfolio configuration in line with the Application Guidance.

Q067: Energy markets- Due to current world events and the impact on energy markets, could DESNZ advise on how Applicants should approach the energy price assumptions for the CCUS plant?

We recognise that current world events may impact energy markets however, DESNZ does not provide standard energy‑price assumptions. Applicants should use their own realistic, evidence‑based assumptions, ensuring they are internally consistent across the Project Plan and Financial Response. These should reflect the best available data and informed by historic market data, forward views where appropriate, and clearly stated assumptions, in line with the requirement for credible, supportable inputs.

Q068:  Project Schedule – Final Investment Date

To help us illustrate the ‘suggested completion date’ as part of the Project Schedule, could DESNZ provide specific dates for shortlisting, announcement of the project negotiation list, negotiations phase and Final Investment Decision? Recognising that these are DESNZ decisions, these dates at this stage would only be used for producing a fully illustrated Project Schedule and for the purposes of completing the Financial Response.

DESNZ is not able to provide fixed or project‑specific dates for shortlisting, publication of the Project Negotiation List (PNL), the negotiations phase, or FID. As set out in the published process timelines, these milestones are described as indicative rather than fixed.

Table 3 of the Guidance states that:

Shortlisting is expected in Autumn 2026,

The Project Negotiation List is expected to be published by the end of 2026, and

Due diligence and negotiations are expected to begin from early 2027,

FID is indicated as “From 2027”, reflecting that timing will depend on project maturity and completion of due diligence, commercial arrangements, financing and consents.

In Section 2.1 Process Overview, the Guidance explains that the process is designed to be efficient while ensuring HMG gathers the evidence needed to determine which projects should enter due diligence and negotiations and to support policy development. It does not assign specific or guaranteed durations for negotiations or contract award.

Q069:  Do DESNZ expect applicants to state the full future CO2 capture potential of their projects, or only the volumes they plan to connect within the Track‑1 Expansion window, given the constrained T&S capacity and staged build‑out described in the ECC documentation?

Projects will be assessed on the planned CO2 capture volumes which are realised at COD.

The project plan (Annex A) requests information on the future planned expansions (within Section 3), this is outside the scope of this selection process but provides useful context and signals future intentions for the project.

Q070:  Given the lack of resource capacity from NEP to perform any connection routing work, what is the expectation around level of detail for connections to T&S (which will be part of NEP scope in due course)?

We do not expect detailed engineering work but rather an outline concept for the pipeline and the proposed routing. We also expect the applicants to have engaged with NEP on the potential connection. Further information on what information projects are expected to discuss with NEP is outlined in Q005.

Q071:  For spur lines please can you confirm how these will be consented? Does it need consenting by the applicant or NEP.

We would expect the party responsible for engineering and constructing the spur pipeline to gain the necessary consents and approvals, which is most cases would be NEP but is not prescribed.

Q072:  Will DESNZ consider shorter tie‑in distances and reduced pipeline/connection works as lowering delivery risk, and therefore improving scoring under deliverability?

During the assessment phase of the selection process DESNZ will assess the complexity of the proposed connection and associated risks regarding deliverability.