What the IEA Data Actually Says for 2026–2032

The IEA’s August 2026 update is a study in ambiguity. On one hand, the growth rates — more than 10% in capture capacity and approximately 25% in storage — signal that carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) is no longer a niche technology. Project pipelines in North America, the North Sea and the Gulf region have matured to the point where construction has begun. On the other hand, the agency is explicit that many projects in the 425 Mt/yr total potential figure have slipped their target dates to 2035 or later, meaning the 2030–2032 window — the very period in which RED III Article 29 sustainability criteria, ReFuelEU e-fuel blending trajectories and CBAM import certificates converge — will see considerably less operational capacity than the headline number implies.

For compliance and marketing directors mapping supply chains today, this creates a binary pressure: either secure offtake from the smaller set of projects confirmed for pre-2032 commissioning, or build regulatory scenarios that account for constrained CO₂ feedstock availability and higher carbon costs.

Regulatory Deadlines Do Not Flex with Project Timelines

RED III’s revised greenhouse-gas savings thresholds for renewable and low-carbon fuels entered national transposition calendars in 2024 and carry direct implications for any producer using CO₂ as a feedstock for synthetic fuels — including Power-to-Liquid SAF and e-methanol. Captured biogenic or atmospheric CO₂ is one of the two inputs (alongside green hydrogen) required to manufacture these fuels. If capture projects are delayed to 2035, producers face either importing certified CO₂ at premium cost or failing to demonstrate the lifecycle emissions savings that RED III demands for renewable fuel of non-biological origin (RFNBO) status. ReFuelEU Aviation’s blending mandates escalate from 2% SAF in 2025 to 6% by 2030, with a specific synthetic fuel sub-mandate; those percentages cannot be met with carbon that does not yet exist in certified form.

The CBAM dimension is equally direct. From 2026 onward, importers of carbon-intensive goods into the EU must purchase CBAM certificates reflecting embedded emissions. Industrial facilities that had planned to use on-site capture to reduce their CBAM liability will need to revise their cost models if the capture infrastructure slips beyond 2032.

A Belgian Lens: Why the BE.Hydrogen Survey Matters to CO₂ Economics

Belgium’s BE.Hydrogen programme, approved by the Council of Ministers in March 2026 with €3.5 million in funding, is a geological survey of the Belgian subsoil — not a declaration of discovery. No natural hydrogen accumulation, flow or commercially exploitable resource has been confirmed on Belgian territory. What the programme, led by the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Belspo, is investigating is whether the Hercynian basement and the ancient coal basins of the Greater Region host geological conditions conducive to natural hydrogen generation. The significance for carbon capture economics is this: if geological hydrogen were eventually confirmed and produced without electrolysis, it would require no renewable electricity input, removing the largest single cost driver from green hydrogen and, by extension, from the e-fuels that depend on green H₂ plus captured CO₂. That would make the CO₂ feedstock — rather than the hydrogen — the binding constraint on synthetic fuel production, increasing the strategic value of every tonne of certified captured carbon. For now, that scenario remains a geological hypothesis pending the survey’s conclusions.

Sources

• What EU RED III compliance for biofuels means for renewable fuel operators – RSB
• ReFuelEU Aviation · blend trajectory & scope | e-fuels

Featured image via Unsplash.