Hydrogen: New Ambitions

and Challenges
February 2024

This article, by S&P Global Ratings and S&P Global Commodity Insights, is a thought leadership report that neither
addresses views about individual ratings nor is a rating action. S&P Global Ratings and S&P Global Commodity
Insights are separate and independent divisions of S&P Global.

spglobal.com | © 2024 S&P Global. All rights reserved.

Authors
Shankari Srinivasan, Vice President, Global Gas, LNG and Low-Carbon Gas, S&P Global Commodity Insights,
shankari.srinivasan@spglobal.com

Claire Mauduit-LeClercq, Director, EMEA Utilities, S&P Global Ratings, claire.mauduit@spglobal.com

Julien Bernu, Associate Director, EMEA Utilities, S&P Global Ratings, julien.bernu@spglobal.com

Catherine Robinson, Executive Director, Hydrogen and Low-Carbon Gas, S&P Global Commodity Insights,
catherine.robinson@spglobal.com

Simon Blakey, Senior Advisor, S&P Global Commodity Insights, simon.blakey@spglobal.com

Anastasia Pantazopoulou, Analyst, Hydrogen and Low-Carbon Gas, S&P Global Commodity Insights,
anastasia.p2@spglobal.com

Contributors
Denise Grazette, Editorial, Design and Publishing

Nicola Koutsoumbi, Editorial, Design and Publishing

Brianne Paschen, Editorial, Design and Publishing
Angela Long, Editorial, Design and Publishing

In addition to its role in the oil refining and chemical industries, hydrogen is now
emerging as a vector of clean energy delivery. There is genuine interest and investment
worldwide as governments and businesses seek to develop this budding industry as
part of their energy transition goals. Nevertheless, significant challenges lie ahead to
bring this industry up to scale.

Key Takeaways
– Low-carbon hydrogen requires innovation from industry, a pragmatic and
cooperative approach to classification by governments and customer
commitments to a premium product.
– There are currently positive signals, but challenges remain in each of these areas
to reduce development costs and thus deploy capacities at scale.

– The transition to low-carbon hydrogen is unlikely to happen at a speed and scale

to transform the business environment for European regulated gas infrastructure
companies in the coming five years.

– With the emergence of a low-carbon hydrogen economy and looming regulatory

resets (post 2030), gas network operators may already be adapting their balance
sheets to navigate a more uncertain environment.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 2

Introduction
A new industry is emerging to deliver low-carbon hydrogen to energy markets. New
companies are being founded and new business models are being designed. Pilot
plants are expanding to commercial scale, and industrial parks increasingly look to
develop regionwide linkages in “hydrogen hubs” and “hydrogen valleys.” Intense efforts
are underway to reduce production costs and to find economically viable ways to
transport hydrogen. Meanwhile, governments worldwide are working on the detailed
design and implementation of subsidy or support regimes, working with conviction that
net-zero targets, or even deep reductions in carbon footprint, will require a contribution
from low-carbon molecules as well as low-carbon electrons.

A striking characteristic of this emerging industry is that interest and investment are
genuinely worldwide: there is scope for some part of the hydrogen supply and value
chain in advanced, industrializing and developing countries alike.

This cross-divisional report by S&P Global Commodity Insights and S&P Global Ratings
describes the opportunities and challenges facing the nascent clean hydrogen
industry. While the opportunity is genuinely global, there are significant challenges.
There are specific implications for gas infrastructure operators in the European market
in particular.

These challenges fall into three main categories: cost reduction and elimination of
bottlenecks, definition and classification, and customer commitments. All must be
overcome to realize a global vision in which hydrogen plays a vital part in a transformed
energy system.

The global vision

Hydrogen is an important feedstock for the oil refining and chemical industries,
primarily supplying local needs. Manufacturing hydrogen today accounts for about
2% of the world’s energy consumption. It is essentially an industrial gas, the majority
of which is made from fossil fuels (natural gas, and to a lesser extent, coal) in a highly
carbon-intensive “steam reforming” process. Some hydrogen is a by-product of oil
refining and chemical processes and can be fed back for the benefit of other processes
in the plants where it is sourced.

However, there is a clear vision to transform this into an industry that delivers energy
to a wide variety of uses. Technologies to decarbonize the making of hydrogen could
transform it into a vector for delivery of low-carbon energy to its new customers.
Chart 1 shows the ambitious scale of this transformation, as hydrogen moves from
being mainly an industrial gas to becoming a low-carbon energy carrier.

In almost every corner of the globe, there is an emerging overlap of business interests
and political ambitions that strongly favors this development of hydrogen and hydrogen
derivatives as a carrier of low-carbon energy.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 3

Chart 1

The evolution of the hydrogen market: from industrial gas to low-carbon energy carrier
2020 Net-zero

Hydrogen 2% of global
demand Up to 25% of global energy consumption
energy consumption

Hydrogen >95% from unabated Two-thirds from renewables

supply fossil fuels One-third from abated fossil fuels

Local production and

Hydrogen International trade, used across the economy
use, concentrated in
value chain
refining and chemicals

Carbon-based fuel Low-carbon hydrogen Electricity Hydrogen derivative

Production Transmission, distribution and storage End use

Truck — liquid
Pipeline Ship — liquid
and compressed
Power

Carbon- Ammonia/
based fuel Steam Transport
methanol/LOHC
reforming/ Reconversion
gasification Conversion
+ CCS
Direct use
Maritime
Synthetic methane

Water
electrolysis Domestic
+CO2/CO
(methanation)

Industrial
Renewable
electricity

Local water
Transmission electrolysis

Data compiled January 2023.

H2 = hydrogen; LOHC = liquid organic hydrogen carriers; CCS = carbon capture and storage;
CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane.
Source: S&P Global Commodity Insights.
© 2024 S&P Global.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 4

Based on the global engagement of S&P Global’s customers and partners, a picture has
emerged of future possible trade in low-carbon hydrogen. The pattern of hydrogen trade
could emulate the current international trade in the major fuels: coal, oil and gas. Chart 2
illustrates how the worldwide interest in low-carbon hydrogen may evolve into a global
trading system. Under this scenario, countries with favorable wind and/or solar resources
(and in some cases, developed hydroelectric or nuclear industries) will become “producers,”
as will traditional oil and gas producers, making use of carbon capture technologies;
industrialized regions with more limited resources (coastal China, Japan and South Korea in
east Asia; Germany, Italy and Central European countries) will become net importers, while
some countries that are both resource-rich and industrialized may be largely self-sufficient.

In all countries colorized on the map, governments have announced strategies that point
their industries toward low-carbon hydrogen as part of their energy transition plans.
In many, these strategies either have been, or are in the process of becoming, translated
into specific subsidy, tax break or other support policies. Prominent among these are the
United States, with its three-pronged support of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and the hydrogen component of the Energy Earthshots Initiative; India,
with its Green Hydrogen Policy (February 2022); and China, whose Hydrogen Development
Plan (March 2022) is delivering results that include what is currently the world’s largest “green
hydrogen” facility: the 260 MW electrolyzer set in Kuqa, Xinjiang, supplying hydrogen to the
nearby refinery at Tahe. While Europe currently lags China, installed capacity is expected to
grow strongly as production support auctions around the continent get underway.

Chart 2

Geographical range is one part of the hydrogen story. Perhaps more important is the
range and diversity of business interest. Appropriately for an emerging industry, a wide
variety of business models are developing.

For this highly diverse vision to succeed, three serious challenges must be overcome:
cost reduction and elimination of bottlenecks; harmonization of definitions and
classification of low-carbon hydrogen; and lining up robust customer commitments to
buy. The remaining years of the 2020s will reflect whether — and if, so how — they will
be surmounted.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 5

 Cost reduction Definitions and Customer
and elimination of classification of commitments
bottlenecks low-carbon hydrogen to buy

Challenge 1: Reducing costs,

overcoming bottlenecks
General cost conditions
There is intense focus on finding ways to reduce cost in the whole clean hydrogen
supply chain. The capital and operating costs of production — whether from methane
reforming, separation and storage of carbon, or electrolysis — are an important
element. But so too are the questions of infrastructure, pressure and storage. There
are various technical options for infrastructure to deliver hydrogen to the customer,
whether for local use, for long-distance transportation by pipe or truck, or across
the world by ship in the form of ammonia, methanol, a liquid organic hydrogen carrier
or liquefied hydrogen. These “delivery costs” can typically more than double the
production cost for each unit delivered to a customer. Hydrogen must also be delivered
at suitable pressures and purities for different types of customers to use, and most
uses also require hydrogen to be stored. Cost is added at each stage.

In all these areas, businesses are working to identify the least costly route for their own
interests and business models, and to work out means of reducing those costs.

The costs of infrastructure, storage and pressure management are likely to face similar
new cost drivers that arise from general economic conditions and from particular
project complexities.

Supplying primary energy for hydrogen manufacture

— Future risks
Hydrogen, and especially low-carbon hydrogen, is not an energy source. It is a vector by
which other energies can be delivered in a low- or zero-carbon way to customers with
specific energy needs. As such, the cost and scale factors for these energies can be
more important than the cost chain for hydrogen itself.

– Natural gas prices: Natural gas is the main feed for steam-methane reforming (SMR)
and auto-thermal reforming (ATR) manufacture of hydrogen, and its price is typically
set in a global market. Its price responds to the vagaries of commodity market
conditions, with all their uncertainties. In the past three years, the feed price of gas
into “grey” hydrogen manufacture (carbon-intensive manufacture, with no carbon
capture) has varied in most parts of the world by a factor of two or three. The impact
on the cost of hydrogen can hence be substantial.

– Cost of renewable electricity generation: It is widely expected that the cost of

generating renewable electricity will continue to fall, reducing future operating
input costs. This expected declining cost has an influence on the attractiveness of
electrolytic hydrogen over the larger-scale processes of methane reforming with
carbon capture and storage. Nevertheless, it remains uncertain.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 6

– Direct competition for renewable sources with all other much-needed
electrification needs: For example, in the EU, we estimate that producing
5 million metric tons of green hydrogen per year would require about 35 GW of
electrolyzer capacity (plus 50-150 GW of renewable generation capacity, which may in
turn absorb one-eighth of total EU renewable capacity). Renewable power feed will
compete directly with the higher-ranking goal of electrification of final demand.

Chart 3 shows that the currently operating 1 GW of electrolysis capacity is likely to

increase tenfold within about the next three years.

Chart 3

10 GW of electrolysis capacity is under construction or in

advanced planning stage
Tenfold increase in operating capacity
Capacity (GW) expected in three years.
15

12
Advanced planning

9
At the end of 2023,
operating capacity
6
was just under 1 GW. Under construction

0
2023 2024 2025 2026 Beyond 2026

As of Jan. 5, 2024.
GW = gigawatt.
Source: S&P Global Commodity Insights.
© 2024 S&P Global.

Furthermore, there are important government initiatives to stimulate more new

projects through auctioning. In Europe, for example, a European Hydrogen Bank,
backed by €800 million from the European Union’s Innovation Fund, will lead auctions
for renewable hydrogen production (offering winners a fixed-price payment per
kilogram of hydrogen produced for up to 10 years of operation).

Even as plans come to reality, and with costs declining, the principal challenge for
low-carbon hydrogen production via electrolysis is the sheer scale of new renewable
generating capacity that is required.
Chart 4 shows the renewables or low-carbon power needed in order to produce
1 million metric tons (MMt) of low-carbon hydrogen from electrolysis. The operating
capacity factors of the various forms of low-carbon electricity generation — solar,
onshore and offshore wind, and nuclear power — determine how much capacity
must be available to the hydrogen producer.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 7

Chart 4

Electricity requirements for hydrogen from electrolysis

Capacity Capacity
requirement factor

Solar 52 GW 13 %

OR

Onshore wind 22 GW 25 %

OR 50 TWh 1 MMt

Offshore wind 11 GW 50 %

OR

Nuclear 7 GW 80 %

Data compiled Dec. 2, 2022.

GW = gigawatt; MMt = million metric tons; TWh = terawatt-hour.
Based on typical European capacity factors.
Source: S&P Global Commodity Insights.
© 2024 S&P Global.

As illustrated,1 50 TWh of electricity — equal to 5 billion cubic meters of natural gas, or

about 80,000 barrels per day of oil — is required to make 1 MMt of hydrogen.2 Chart 4 shows
that over 50 GW of solar power (assuming a 13% capacity factor) would be needed 3 to
generate the required amount of electricity to manufacture just 1 MMt of low-carbon
hydrogen from electrolysis. For nuclear power, with a higher capacity factor, 7 GW of
fully operational capacity would be needed, limiting electrolyzer feedstock to dedicated
low-carbon power. These are huge numbers, and bear in mind that a primary call on new
electricity capacity in most parts of the world will be to support the direct electrification of
customers’ final energy uses.

Separately, it is clear that methane reforming, with carbon capture, will be a part of
the low-carbon hydrogen future, alongside electrolysis. Final investment decisions
for large projects have been taken in Europe and the United States and more are
expected in 2024–2025.

Planning bottlenecks
Furthermore, for low-carbon electrolytic hydrogen to take off in the next five years,
planning bottlenecks will have to be removed. Chart 5 shows the typical lead times in
Europe for planning for wind power (offshore and onshore) and for solar power. These
are significantly longer than the lead times either for electrolysis projects or for the
construction of large electrolysis manufacturing facilities. The contrast is striking, and
the main bottleneck is clear.

1 Electrolyzer efficiency is modeled as 70%.

2 The world consumes about 800 times this amount of gas each year, and about 1,200 times as much oil every day.
3 In other words, seven nuclear power plants of 1 GW each, or over 12 million homes each with solar panels of 4 kW
capacity, would supply enough electricity for just 1 MMt of hydrogen.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 8

Chart 5

The planning bottleneck

Renewables assets Planning Permitting Pre-build Build

Offshore wind 12 years

4 years 4 years 2 years 2 years

Onshore wind 11.5 years

3 years 6 years 1 year 1.5 years

Solar 5 years
1 year 3 years 0.5 years 0.5 years

Electrolysis projects

Electrolysis
projects 3 years
(10–100 MW) 2 years 1 year

New electrolysis
manufacturing 2 years
facility* 1 year 1 year

Data compiled Jan. 5, 2024.

*Once Head of Terms/purchase contracts are in place.
Source: S&P Global Commodity Insights.
© 2024 S&P Global.

Challenge 2: Classification,
definition and harmonization
Official classifications and definitions are paramount for a technology to fit into a
taxonomy, opening the door to green credentials, financing and commercialization,
at the domestic and international levels. For the latter, harmonization of these
classifications could become crucial to envisage a global hydrogen economy.

As a result, a further challenge we see for a future electrolysis industry is the question
of “additionality.” How can it be known that the dedication of a low-carbon electricity
source to manufacturing hydrogen will not deprive another sector of the energy
economy of the same low-carbon electricity? Will the “deprived” customer be obliged
instead to consume high-carbon energy, such that there will be no overall reduction
of emissions? What needs to be in place to ensure that new renewable capacity,
dedicated to hydrogen manufacture, is in addition to the renewable electricity that is
being built to decarbonize the wider use of electric energy?

This subject is being treated differently in different parts of the world. In many
jurisdictions, the issue is addressed by requiring, over time, an increasingly closer
match between electrolyzers’ hours of operation and the actual hours of output of wind
and solar equipment on electric grids, and limiting the use of electricity from renewable
facilities commissioned more than three years before the electrolysis. Harmonized
rules, or some basis for mutual recognition of standards around additionality and time
stamps, will be needed for international trade to develop rapidly.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 9

Broader issues in the development of standards are at stake as well. Chart 6 compares the
carbon intensity of various technologies for making hydrogen — reforming of gas (or coal)
with and without carbon capture, or with different levels of carbon capture, and electrolysis
using electricity from dedicated (implicitly “additional”) renewable or nuclear power, or
with electricity “from the grid” — acknowledging that different grids have different carbon
footprints depending on the mix of generating capacities.

Consultations have been underway for several years, yet there is little indication of what
common international standards might be agreed. The International Partnership for
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy continues its important work toward setting
ISO standards, and the International Energy Agency has drawn attention to the
importance of the issue, but timelines are still far from clear.

These issues of additionality and low carbon definitions matter a great deal to any business
whose planned activities and value creation depend on a clear recognition of the low-
carbon character of their product or service in multiple markets and jurisdictions. Delays in
finalizing the detailed rules have already caused some proposed projects to be postponed.
Chart 6

Carbon intensity of studied hydrogen routes, well-to-gate GHG emissions

(gCO2e/MJ)

Upstream emissions Direct emissions during hydrogen production Total emissions

GHG emissions (gCO2e/MJ)

0 50 100 150 200 250

SMR average
100
.

No capture

SMR state-of-the-art
Natural gas to hydrogen No capture 91

SMR
90% capture 24

Coal gasification
No capture 226

Coal to hydrogen
Coal gasification
33
90% capture

Organic waste to hydrogen 25

Biomass to hydrogen

Electrolysis – German grid

2019 power mix
149

Electrolysis – Renewables/
36
Water electrolysis Nuclear and 27% natural gas

Electrolysis – Renewable power 0

Data compiled March 23, 2023.

GHG = greenhouse gas; gCO2e/MJ = grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule; SMR = steam-methane reforming;
Biomass = sources that qualify under RED II definition.
Source: S&P Global Commodity Insights.
© 2024 S&P Global.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 10

 Challenge 3: Finding customers
Lower costs and harmonized definitions are two of the three main challenges to be solved
in order for low-carbon hydrogen to take off as an energy vector in the coming five years.

But the most important criterion for takeoff, strongly influenced by the two previous
challenges, will be the willingness of potential customers to sign up for offtake — to
contract explicitly with suppliers to deliver low-carbon hydrogen.

S&P Global’s industry partners are strongly signaling that, while cost reduction and
regulatory harmonization are important, the focus now needs to turn to the demand
side: finding reliable customers for low-carbon hydrogen (see Chart 7).

If production costs can be reduced, there will still be a geographical issue; hydrogen
produced at this cost far from the end-use point will not stimulate demand. What
matters is the effective cost of hydrogen delivered to the user at the end point. In
markets where there is a carbon price, this can help move the dial in the direction of
making low-carbon hydrogen competitive. Consumption mandates, such as European
policies around RFNBOs (renewable fuels of nonbiological origin) or Japanese rules on
cofiring of power plants, move the dial further — and give clues as to which sectors (in
industry and transport, for example) may become first movers.

The critical test will be when customers sign up for long-term offtake, and with
appropriate guarantees or assurances.

Chart 7

Which sectors in the European Union can be tempted, or obliged,

to pay a low-carbon hydrogen premium?
Willingness Alternative means of meeting European
Sector or end use
to pay consumption targets
Refuel
Aviation Aviation Bioliquids

Maritime — from 2034 Bioliquids

Refinery hydrogen No target, but can be used to meet RFNBO

target, as replacing existing production
potentially lowers cost/risk

Road transport Electricity, Bioliquids

Existing industrial Imports: Unabated ammonia and ammonia

use: Ammonia from abated natural gas

New uses: Iron and No low-carbon hydrogen consumption

steel/power generation targets; RED III includes a nonbinding
ETS renewable target only

Data compiled January 2024.

ETS = Emissions Trading System (EU); RED = Renewable Energy Directive;
RFNBO = renewable fuels of nonbiological origin.
Source: S&P Global Commodity Insights.
© 2024 S&P Global.

In this context, the focus on developing hydrogen hubs or hydrogen valleys, adopted
by many countries with high ambitions for hydrogen as part of their energy transition
strategies, is sensible and welcome. Industry recognizes that it will have to play its part
for the hub/valley approach and structure to be successful.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 11

Companies in the hydrogen supply chain are seeking innovative solutions to
drive customer demand — over and above reducing the costs of production and
infrastructure. New entrants to the business in the Americas and in Europe are
looking to e-fuels or to synthetic methane as a means of delivering low-carbon
hydrogen cost effectively into existing installed capital assets. Companies across
the world are searching for customers who, for brand reasons, or to meet their own
corporate net-zero or low-carbon targets, may be willing to pay a green premium.
In some cases, initiatives are already visible from the customer side. Low-carbon
hydrogen is in a nascent stage for all end uses. Refiners, chemical manufacturers,
steel companies and haulage operators are proactively demanding a schedule for
their suppliers’ access to low-carbon hydrogen, to reduce the carbon footprint of
their own supply chain. Government mandates for the renewable fuel content in
these sectors provide an important incentive, along with brand concerns.

Such initiatives, both from hydrogen producer and consumer sides, will continue to flourish.

A closer look at Europe:

Credit implications for gas
network infrastructure
Significant growth in green gases could help assure the continued use of gas networks
through the energy transition. Conversely, an uncertain or slow transition to low-carbon
hydrogen or other renewable gases could raise the risk of steady decline in network
throughput. This has implications for regulators as they assess and decide rates of
return and determine the underlying value of the asset base. Declining throughput
means a higher proportionate share of the cost of transport is attributed to each unit
of gas that customers buy — unless the regulator, with customer costs in mind, resets
either the allowed rate of return or the asset value, or both.

This risk of “regulatory reset” weighs on S&P Global Ratings’ views of business
risk profiles in the regulated gas network sector. In view of the challenges and
uncertainties described above, repurposing natural gas pipelines to transport low-
carbon hydrogen is unlikely to happen at sufficient speed, low enough cost or large
enough scale to diminish the risk. Hydrogen-related investments by gas operators
themselves are, for the most part, currently small scale — limited to pilot projects
or to testing the resiliency of blending up to 15%-20% of hydrogen (by volumes) with
natural gas. Our credit ratings base case reflects both reset risk and the marginal
nature of these investments.

However, some transportation operators, particularly in Europe, may be assigned

responsibility for deploying hydrogen “backbone” in their national markets and for
connecting various markets throughout the continent. The investment programs of
these operators could be both more material and more likely to be sympathetically
reviewed by regulators, aligned with national energy transition priorities:

– In the Netherlands, for example, the state via its gas transmission system operator
plans to build the hydrogen backbone with investments of about €1.5 billion by 2030,
about 50% of which will be covered by government grants. Plans involve deploying
200 km of new pipelines, with the major effort devoted to adapting existing natural
gas infrastructures.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 12

– Germany’s updated July 2023 National Hydrogen Strategy anticipates a backbone of
11,200 km by 2032. A start-up grid of 1,800 km of converted or newly built hydrogen
could be partly supported from European funds by 2028, but Germany’s traditionally
private and regionally owned companies could play a significant role, with flanking
governmental support through incentives such as contracts for difference.

– Backbone plans in Spain and the United Kingdom may only reach maturity in 2026;
they are conditional, in Spain’s case, on decisions on eligibility for European funding,
and in the UK, on a broader governmental decision on whether hydrogen will have a
role in the decarbonization of the heating sector.

– As well as these national-scale plans, some gas distribution grids could also be
positioned to make local investments in direct connections between hydrogen
producers and industrial end users at their operational sites. Such projects remain
marginal for now.

An additional challenge in Europe is the lack of near-term regulatory frameworks for

renewable gases infrastructure. Consequently, there is a transition period where gas
transport operators may need to look to secure funding (private or state subsidies) in
the absence of an enforceable regulation.

At this stage, we do not envision any potential material step-up in investments related
to low-carbon hydrogen network infrastructures before 2030. Yet, the sector would
need to be financially prepared should these heavy investments start to materialize.
Funding strategies, financial policies and balance-sheet robustness in particular
could be key areas of attention in order to preserve credit quality. These financial and
investment decisions come at a time of uncertain natural gas demand evolution and
still-unclear pickup potential on green gases. Regulatory support will also remain a
major variable for the creditworthiness of these companies, affecting the timeliness
of allowed cost recovery, tariff setting changes, and possible compensation for
decline in gas usage. As regulatory periods end and new usages emerge, operators
may face higher regulatory reset uncertainties.

Conclusion
Low-carbon hydrogen is a business that has already started to grow. It has strong
political support and industry interest across the world. But the challenges identified
above — cost and scale, planning bottlenecks, defining rules for what is “green” and
lining up customers willing to commit to a product at a premium cost — mean that
the transition to hydrogen is unlikely to happen at a speed and scale to transform the
business environment for regulated European infrastructure companies.

spglobal.com Hydrogen: New ambitions and challenges| 13

CONTACTS

www.spglobal.com
www.spglobal.com/en/enterprise/about/contact-us.html

Copyright © 2024 S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.

These materials, including any software, data, processing technology, index data, ratings, credit-related analysis, research, model,
software or other application or output described herein, or any part thereof (collectively the “Property”) constitute the proprietary
and confidential information of S&P Global Inc its affiliates (each and together “S&P Global”) and/or its third party provider licensors.
S&P Global on behalf of itself and its third-party licensors reserves all rights in and to the Property. These materials have been
prepared solely for information purposes based upon information generally available to the public and from sources believed to be
reliable.

Any copying, reproduction, reverse-engineering, modification, distribution, transmission or disclosure of the Property, in any form
or by any means, is strictly prohibited without the prior written consent of S&P Global. The Property shall not be used for any
unauthorized or unlawful purposes. S&P Global’s opinions, statements, estimates, projections, quotes and credit-related and other
analyses are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase,
hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security, and there is
no obligation on S&P Global to update the foregoing or any other element of the Property. S&P Global may provide index data.
Direct investment in an index is not possible. Exposure to an asset class represented by an index is available through investable
instruments based on that index. The Property and its composition and content are subject to change without notice.

THE PROPERTY IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS. NEITHER S&P GLOBAL NOR ANY THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS (TOGETHER,
“S&P GLOBAL PARTIES”) MAKE ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS,
THAT THE PROPERTY’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE PROPERTY WILL OPERATE IN ANY SOFTWARE OR
HARDWARE CONFIGURATION, NOR ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO ITS ACCURACY, AVAILABILITY, COMPLETENESS
OR TIMELINESS, OR TO THE RESULTS TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. S&P GLOBAL PARTIES SHALL NOT IN
ANY WAY BE LIABLE TO ANY RECIPIENT FOR ANY INACCURACIES, ERRORS OR OMISSIONS REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE. Without
limiting the foregoing, S&P Global Parties shall have no liability whatsoever to any recipient, whether in contract, in tort (including
negligence), under warranty, under statute or otherwise, in respect of any loss or damage suffered by any recipient as a result of or in
connection with the Property, or any course of action determined, by it or any third party, whether or not based on or relating to the
Property. In no event shall S&P Global be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive,
special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees or losses (including without limitation lost income or lost profits and
opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Property even if advised of the possibility of
such damages. The Property should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its
management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions.

The S&P Global logo is a registered trademark of S&P Global, and the trademarks of S&P Global used within this document or
materials are protected by international laws. Any other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

The inclusion of a link to an external website by S&P Global should not be understood to be an endorsement of that website or the
website’s owners (or their products/services). S&P Global is not responsible for either the content or output of external websites.
S&P Global keeps certain activities of its divisions separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of
their respective activities. As a result, certain divisions of S&P Global may have information that is not available to other S&P Global
divisions. S&P Global has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information
received in connection with each analytical process. S&P Global may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses,
normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P Global reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and
analyses. S&P Global Ratings’ public ratings and analyses are made available on its sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge)
and www.capitaliq.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P Global publications and third
party redistributors.