Different methods of stakeholders' engagement (D4.2)

D 4.2 Different methods of stakeholders’ engagement Ref. Ares(2025)8251487 - 30/09/2025 D 4.2 Different methods of stakeholders’ engagement DELIVERABLE TYPE Report MONTH AND DATE OF DELIVERABLE Month 28, 30/09/2025 WORK PACKAGE WP4 LEADER ENVI DISSEMINATION LEVEL Public AUTHORS Ilaria Schiavi PROGRAMMA HORIZON EUROPE GRANT AGREEMENT 101111933 START June 2023 DURATION 28 Months Contributors NAME ORGANISATION Mattia Miglietta, Marianna Franchino ENVI Gema Rodado, Maria Panadero; Maria José Sánchez CNH2 Simon Habran TWEED Justyna Błaszak-Gondek RIGP Miroslava Tzekova, Vasimir Radulov BH2C Peer Reviews NAME ORGANISATION Simon Habran TWEED Sumanth Kumar Reddy Maddula IME María José Sánchez CNH2 Revision History The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union, neither the European Union Institutions and Bodies nor any person acting on their behalf. VERSION ORGANISATION REVIEWER MODIFICATIONS 0, 23/09/2025 ENVI ILARIA SCHIAVI FIRST DRAFT 1, 30/09/2025 ENVI ILARIA SCHIAVI Final version incorporating comments from reviewers Index of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 8 2 Preliminary activity ........................................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 THE INTERNATIONAL AWARENESS RAISING WORKSHOP .................................................. 9 2.2 PRELIMINARY WORKSHOPS IN SPAIN AND ITALY ...............................................................11 2.2.1 CNH2 event– 10th of October 2024, CNH2 premises, PUERTOLLANO, SPAIN ........................... 11 2.2.2 FUELING TOMORROW EVENT – 10th of October 2024, BOLOGNA ITALY ................................. 12 2.3 MEETINGS in BULGARIA ................................................................................................................13 3 The stakeholders’ engagement workshops ............................................................................................15 3.1 CALENDAR of EVENTS ...................................................................................................................15 3.2 OBJECTIVES; TARGETS; and AGENDA of the WORKSHOPS LOCAL WORKSHOPS: .....16 3.3 PROPOSED COMMON QUESTIONS ...........................................................................................17 3.4 USE OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED ..................................................................................20 4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................21 5 Annex 1: EU Hydrogen week workshop .................................................................................................22 6 Annex 2: “HYPOP Project: Tackling barriers in the hydrogen sector” CNH2 workshop ..............27 7 Annex 3: Fueling tomorrow workshop ...................................................................................................36 8 Annex 4: Belgium local stakeholders’ engagement workshop ...........................................................37 9 Annex 5: Bulgaria local stakeholders’ engagement workshop ...........................................................42 10 Annex 6: Spain local stakeholders’ engagement workshop ............................................................44 11 Annex 7: Poland local stakeholders’ engagement workshop .........................................................53 12 Annex 8: Italy local stakeholders’ engagement workshop ..............................................................56 Index of Figures Figure 1 HyPOP project at the Hydrogen Week 2024, Bruxelles .............................................................11 Figure 2 The CNH2 event of the 10th of October 2024, Puertollano.......................................................12 Figure 3 HyPOP project at Fueling tomorrow, Bologna ..............................................................................13 Partners short names ENVI Parco Scientifico Tecnologico Per L’ambiente Environment Park Torino Spa IMI Institute For Methods Innovation IME Fundacion IMDEA Energia APRE Agenzia per la Promozione della Ricerca Europea CNH2 Centro Nacional Del Hidrogeno RIGP Regionalna Izba Gospodarcza Pomorza CLUSTER TWEED Cluster Tweed BH2C Balkanski Vodoroden Klaster Abbreviations HRS Hydrogen Refuelling Stations Executive Summary HYPOP project aims to raise public awareness and trust towards hydrogen technologies and their systemic benefits. To do this, stakeholders’ engagement is a pivotal aspect, and the project developed and implemented a number of co-creation workshops to include the project’s target groups in the development of guidelines supporting the institutional and technical stakeholders in the safety, permitting and certification of hydrogen technologies. Overall, HyPOP organised: • One international awareness raising workshop during the 2024 Hydrogen Week (November 2024) • Some local workshops and meetings in Spain, Bulgaria and Italy, during a preliminary phase of engagement (2024); these three workshops were preparatory with respect to the “official” stakeholders’ engagement workshops; • Five local stakeholders’ engagement workshops, one each in Spain, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy and Belgium, all following a common format. The workshops followed a common structure and a portfolio of questions that were used to engage the public and the speakers and obtain useful inputs in the finalisation of the guidelines on permitting, safety and certification, which are some of the final outcomes of the project. In pursuing its objectives of gathering information about procedures on safety, permitting and certification and of creating guidelines on the same topics, HyPOP project created a wide range of opportunities for meeting stakeholders and favouring interactions and open discussions. In person meetings in the local language of the stakeholders were held to facilitate the exchange of experiences and also to understand at best the good practices and the gaps in the HyPOP countries. Many stakeholders from the industry and industry associations, research organisations, certification bodies and business support organisation took part in the initiative. Industry associations were key in supporting the engagement of speakers and audiences. Owing to their intervention, in some Countries local permitting and safety authorities also took part in the panels, but there was some resistance in other locations despite invitations being sent to direct contacts. The results of the discussions have been used to inform the development of the guidelines on safety, permitting and certification, which are publicly available on the HyPOP website. 1 Introduction HYPOP project aims to raise public awareness and trust towards hydrogen technologies and their systemic benefits. To do this, stakeholders’ engagement is a pivotal aspect, and the project developed and implemented a number of co-creation workshops to include the project’s target groups in the development of guidelines supporting communication of hydrogen towards the public (D3.4 “Guidelines for public engagement on H2 technologies' implementation”) and Guidelines supporting the institutional and technical stakeholders in the safety, permitting and certification of hydrogen technologies (Deliverables 4.3 to 4.5). This report provides information on the meetings, awareness raising events and workshops targeting institutional stakeholders, summarising the main outcomes and lessons learned. Overall, HyPOP organised: • One international awareness raising workshop during the 2024 Hydrogen Week (November 2024) • Some local workshops and meetings in Spain, Bulgaria and Italy, during a preliminary phase of engagement (2024); these three workshops were preparatory with respect to the “official” stakeholders’ engagement workshops; • Five local stakeholders’ engagement workshops, one each in Spain, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy and Belgium, all following a common format. The workshops aimed to engage permitting and (fire) safety authorities, first responders, adopters, hydrogen projects developers, certification bodies, to share experiences, highlight good practices and potential gaps in permitting and licensing approaches. Supporting materials for and reports of each workshop is presented in the Annexes. 2 Preliminary activity A first series of workshops and meetings was held during the period June to November 2024. These included: • An international awareness raising workshop held in Brussels during the 2024 Hydrogen Week • Two local workshops held in Spain and Italy in October 2024 • A number of meetings with representatives of local institutions were held in Bulgaria in 2024. These meetings resulted useful as a preparatory activity for the official stakeholders’ workshops held in the HyPOP Countries during 2025. The 2024 meetings had mostly the objective of raising the awareness about the project and identifying potential stakeholders for the 2025 workshops. They were also used to test the format of the stakeholders’ engagement workshops to be held later on, including the categories of speakers to be invited, the questions, the target audience and its engagement. 2.1 THE INTERNATIONAL AWARENESS RAISING WORKSHOP HyPOP took part in the Hydrogen Week 2024 with a booth in the EU Projects Pavillon (see D5.8). It also organised a side event held on the morning of the 19th of November. The Agenda is available in section 5. The objectives of the workshop were to: • Implement an engagement activity: gathering new experiences and needs from the audience (engagement goal); establish a useful discussion among different types of involved stakeholders, to better understand different points of view, identify barriers, needs and put the basis for the final guidance documents (co-creation goal). Taking in consideration it is an international event, so procedures/regulations are discussed at general level among European/international representatives. • Support the structuring of the guidelines: collection of data to create specific guidelines (in this case, technical) for the H2 implementation by using Best Practices from different case studies. Call to action to the audience for the best practices/experience collection. • Explore specifically the mobility and residential European experiences, analysing certification, safety, and authorisation aspects. Specific topics: o HRS: stationary/mobile with on-site production; HRS stationary/mobile without onsite production; o Mobility: buses/trains; o Residential: domestic hydrogen boilers/generators; domestic hydrogen boilers/generators with storage; domestic hydrogen boilers/generators with on-site production with mains’ gas. Speakers invited introduced their work and discussed their experience in the key topics of safety, permitting and certification. Speakers represented: • Funded projects that demonstrated hydrogen technologies in the mobility (MultHyFuel, H2PORTS and FCH2Rail) and residential sector (with a certification stakeholder (TUV Sud) 3.2 OBJECTIVES; TARGETS; and AGENDA of the LOCAL WORKSHOPS: OBJECTIVES: • DISSEMINATE: introduce the project and the general findings; introduce the S-LCA; focus on the findings related to the Country, introduce local best practices or best practices related to local projects if available. • FURTHER THE KNOWLEDGE: gather further evidence of best practices or barriers encountered. • ENGAGE: stimulate a discussion among different stakeholders to understand different needs and build a dialogue amongst parties • COCREATE: share the proposed format of the final guidance documents and gather suggestions and “nice to have”. TARGET (SPEAKERS AND AUDIENCE) Alongside the Consortium representative for the Country, local speakers might also be engaged. • First responders/fire fighters • Permitting authorities – environmental, safety and urban/building • Certification bodies • Representatives of demo projects, hydrogen valleys, etc • Integrators of technologies/installers/adopters • Other local players GENERIC AGENDA: 1. Introduction of HYPOP and main findings (DISSEMINATE) 2. National information: on H2 strategy and implementation prospect, on permitting, safety, certification (DISSEMINATE) 3. Discussion on the findings/ collection of further evidence on barriers/ best practices (FURTHER THE KNOWLEDGE) 4. Best practices collected at EU level (DISSEMINATE) 5. Discussion on applicability of best practices (from EU), barriers, needs at local level (ENGAGE) 6. Discussion on guidelines (COCREATE) 7. Wrap up 3.3 PROPOSED COMMON QUESTIONS 3.3.1 Multiple choice questions These questions were used to gather information from the stakeholders in a quick manner, also through live polls. Alternatives were inserted to cater for different audiences SAFETY 1) What are the main challenges in demonstrating the safety of hydrogen plants? A. Lack of harmonised technical standards and reference scenarios for risk assessment. B. Difficulty in accessing or generating data on accidental releases and real-world incidents. C. Limited training and awareness of hydrogen-specific risks among local authorities. D. Excessive reliance on conventional fossil fuel benchmarks in safety evaluations. 2) How have challenges in the safety evaluation process of hydrogen technologies been addressed? A. Development of dedicated hydrogen safety codes (e.g., ISO/TR 15916, NFPA 2). B. Establishment of early dialogue mechanisms between project developers and permitting bodies. C. Use of digital twin simulations to demonstrate compliance and mitigation scenarios. D. Consolidation of hydrogen-related responsibilities under centralised technical authorities. 3) What are the key advantages and disadvantages of your regulatory framework in ensuring hydrogen safety? A. Clear procedures and roles support efficient approval (advantage); lack of flexibility for novel systems (disadvantage). B. Strong legacy in industrial gas safety (advantage); slow integration of hydrogen-specific updates (disadvantage). C. Well-established emergency response protocols (advantage); regional inconsistencies in applying national rules (disadvantage). D. High transparency with stakeholders (advantage); overlapping responsibilities among authorities (disadvantage). 4) What improvements would you propose to overcome regulatory barriers? A. Create a centralised hydrogen permitting authority with technical and administrative capacity. B. Promote mutual recognition of safety assessments across EU member states. C. Offer incentives for early engagement with safety regulators in the project design phase. D. Develop targeted training programs for public authorities on hydrogen-specific risks. PERMITTING 1) What are the main challenges in obtaining or granting permits? A. Unclear classification of hydrogen projects within existing legislative frameworks. B. Lack of coordinated timelines between environmental and safety permits. C. Excessive documentation burden with redundant reporting obligations. D. Delays due to limited local expertise in hydrogen risk assessment. 2) How does environmental permitting for hydrogen compare to other energy techs? A. Hydrogen projects face more scrutiny due to novelty and public perception. B. Permitting times are often longer due to interdependencies with other infrastructure (pipelines, storage). C. In contrast, solar and wind benefit from streamlined procedures not yet adapted for hydrogen. D. Environmental concerns are similar, but hydrogen lacks clear Best Available Techniques (BAT) references. 3) What are the key safety concerns and related administrative hurdles during permitting? A. Explosion risk and leak management dominate safety reviews. B. Limited integration between environmental impact assessment (EIA) and safety documentation. C. Authorities may require conservative design margins due to lack of experience. D. Current regulations only partially address real-time monitoring or incident reporting protocols. 4) Have you experienced differences in permitting processes between regions or municipalities? A. Yes, some regions have established hydrogen one-stop-shops, others follow outdated general procedures. B. Yes, divergent interpretations of safety distances and buffer zones are common. C. No, the process is harmonised through national-level digital platforms. D. Differences exist and delay implementation; coordination mechanisms between regions should be enforced. CERTIFICATION 1) Which technologies are most impacted by gaps in standards or certification? A. Hydrogen refuelling stations (HRS) due to varying pressure and fuelling protocols. B. Electrolysers and storage systems, especially above certain capacity thresholds. C. Combined heat and power (CHP) units using hydrogen blends. D. Off-grid or residential systems where national standards are still under development. 2) Are you aware of any certification guidelines or protocols? Which are most useful? A. Yes, ISO 14687 and related PEM fuel cell standards provide essential criteria. B. EU-level certification of origin schemes helps with cross-border project alignment. C. Useful: H2-readiness labels; Weakness: lack of clarity on testing procedures. D. National guidelines exist but require alignment with EU Taxonomy and RED II principles. 3) For certification bodies: What gaps and challenges do you foresee? A. Need for harmonized testing procedures across certification laboratories. B. Difficulty in verifying dynamic performance under realistic operating conditions. C. Lack of comprehensive protocols for hybrid or sector-coupled hydrogen systems. D. Growing demand outpaces capacity of qualified evaluators and facilities. 3.3.2 Open questions The following questions were to be used mostly for engaging the speakers in a discussion where they could present their experience and points of view. SAFETY 1) What are the main challenges in demonstrating the safety of hydrogen plants, either as an entity interacting with authorities or as an authority evaluating these technologies? Please share your experience in the industry, mobility, and/or residential sectors. 2) How have challenges in the safety evaluation process of hydrogen technologies been addressed, either by entities interacting with authorities or by authorities themselves? Please share your experience or relevant examples from your country or others. 3) What are the key advantages and disadvantages of your regulatory framework in ensuring the safety compliance of hydrogen plants, from the perspective of both stakeholders interacting with authorities and authorities evaluating these projects? Please explain. 4) What improvements would you propose to overcome regulatory barriers in your country, considering both the perspective of stakeholders engaging with authorities and that of the authorities themselves? Please elaborate. PERMITTING 1) What are the main challenges you have encountered in obtaining or granting permits for hydrogen-related projects? Please describe your experience with environmental, safety, construction and/or administrative requirements and explain specific bottlenecks that you believe should be addressed. 2) How does the environmental permitting process for hydrogen projects compare to that for other energy technologies in your country? Are there unique challenges or advantages, and what improvements would you suggest? 3) What are the key safety concerns and the related administrative hurdles that arise during the permitting process for hydrogen technologies? How well do current regulations address these concerns? Do you believe there is room for improvement? 4) Have you experienced significant differences in permitting processes between regions or municipalities within your country? If so, how do these disparities affect project implementation? Additionally, what improvements would you propose to harmonize or streamline these processes? CERTIFICATION 1) Which technologies are most impacted by gaps in the standards framework and/or certification processes? Please share your perspective as a stakeholder or certification body, specifying the practical challenges and the relevant sectors and applications. 2) Are you aware of any certification guidelines or protocols? If so, which elements do you find most useful, and what improvements would you suggest? 3) For certification bodies: In which direction are you currently working, and what gaps and challenges do you foresee in the near future regarding hydrogen technologies? 3.4 USE OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED The information obtained from the workshop has been used in the development of the Safety, permitting and certification guidelines. Please see deliverables D4.3 to D4.5. 4 Conclusions In pursuing its objectives of gathering information about procedures on safety, permitting and certification and of creating guidelines on the same topics, HyPOP project created a wide range of opportunities for meeting stakeholders and favouring interactions and open discussions. In person meetings in the local language of the stakeholders were held to facilitate the exchange of experiences and also to understand at best the good practices and the gaps in the HyPOP countries. Many stakeholders from the industry and industry associations, research organisations, certification bodies and business support organisations took part in the initiative. Industry associations were key in supporting the engagement of speakers and audiences. Owing to their intervention, in some Countries local permitting and safety authorities also took part in the panels, but there was some resistance in other locations despite invitations being sent to direct contacts. The results of the discussions have been used to inform the development of the guidelines on safety, permitting and certification, which are publicly available on the HyPOP website. 5 Annex 1: EU Hydrogen week workshop 5.1 AGENDA 5.2 QUESTIONS USED DURING THE WORKSHOP Panel 1 Multhyfuel project • The regulatory framework and safety perception are critical factors when considering a hydrogen refuelling station, and perhaps even more when hydrogen comes to be integrated with other fuels. Which elements of the (European and national) regulatory framework for safety most influence the development of multifuel stations (e.g., SEVESO directive, national regulations, etc)? • Your project has focused on risk analysis and the use of software that can assess risk scenarios such as hydrogen leakage and its effects on the surrounding environment. Risk analysis is a tool that allows you to objectively assess and guarantee the safety of an installation. In your opinion, how can it complement a more prescriptive approach? TUV Sud • Different technological solutions for hydrogen mobility are needed to support the supply/demand ratio of the hydrogen market. In this respect, do you see more critical issues for permitting standard refuelling stations or containerised/compact stations? Should they be considered equally? • Staying on the topic of compact stations. As these are a potentially useful solution for increasing the number of demonstration projects and the familiarity of authorities and citizens with hydrogen, how does the authorities' approach to safety differ from standard solutions, where more safety measures can be employed? • What are the main critical issues you have experienced during the certification processes of hydrogen technologies included in refuelling stations and of the refuelling station as a whole, even in the case of compact configurations? And how do you think these could be overcome? CNH2 (H2ports/FCH2rail) • Compared to the other projects we have seen, in your case safety, permitting and certification aspects were addressed in two particular environments, such as ports and railways, where the competent authorities are used to operating in standardised contexts characterised by the use/application of international standards and codes. In your opinion, has it been complex to get a performance approach accepted? • Given the novelty of hydrogen applications in port and railway contexts, is the application of regulations, procedures, and industry guidelines an element that favours the relationship between authority and positive project development? Instead, are these an acceptable compromise from the designer's point of view? Common questions for all: • In your opinion, what are the elements that can favour a hydrogen refuelling station project in the field of safety, permitting and certification? MENTIMITER 1 • How much is hydrogen on site production a factor influencing the perception by the authorities or the demands in terms of safety and permitting procedures? Does it have an impact? What kind? (e.g., on timing procedures, etc) • Has the technical preparation of the project assessment authorities influenced the project? If yes, in what way (positive/negative/indifferent)? Is there cooperation? Are there delays due to differing interpretations? Panel 2 KIWA • What are the characteristic elements of the permitting procedures you have shown for installations in the Netherlands? how do these tie in with the permitting guidelines for residential hydrogen pilot projects? Prof Santarelli • Did the installation site and the interaction with grid operators influence the permitting procedures? Common questions for all: • In your experience and in relation to the projects you have described, how much do the presence of on-site production and/or the amount of hydrogen stored influence the perception of national/local authorities and thus the demands in terms of safety and permitting procedures? What kind of impact do they have? • The residential sector has the least practical experience in terms of demonstration projects and often lacks the appropriate regulatory references. In your opinion, what is needed today to foster the implementation of hydrogen technologies in residential contexts? MENTIMITER 2 ---------------- Panel 3 Hydrogen Europe • Both as an association and through your project, you have had to deal with different authorities operating in different countries. What are the main safety issues you have encountered when interacting with institutional authorities? In which cases is there more openness (e.g., installation in urban or suburban contexts) and in which is there more closure (e.g., local/national authority relationship) in the interaction and discussion of hydrogen projects? Rina • Today, we have seen presentations and experiences of different certification bodies. A certification body is often caught in the middle between the designer who needs to get the project approved and the authorities responsible for assessing the safety and certification aspects. We would like Rina to bring us his experience in interacting with the authorities.... Hynfra • We would like to know if, as a representative of a country on the EU13 countries list, you see a general progress in policies, safety and permitting regulations and thus in the perception towards hydrogen and its technologies? Central Finland Mobility Foundation • Finland is not a country that has been treated within HYPOP, but is, together with the frontrunner countries mentioned, a virtuous example of openness and commitment of institutions towards hydrogen technologies. We would like to know whether you have addressed or imagine addressing certain critical issues related to safety, permitting and/or certification aspects, or what are the main concerns of the institutions and citizens you represent. 5.3 Answers by the audience 7 Annex 3: Fuelling tomorrow workshop 7.1 FLYER and AGENDA 8 Annex 4: Belgium local stakeholders’ engagement workshop WORKSHOP TITLE Workshop on safety certification and permitting for hydrogen infrastructures EVENT DATE 24/01/2025 DURATION 3h PLACE Online CO-ORGANISER (IF ANY) / TOPICS ADDRESSED (SLCA, WP2’S QUESTIONS AS PROVIDED, ETC..) The topics addressed were: • Introduction of HyPOP and presentation of the main results concerning safety and permitting in EU. • Focus on permitting for HRS in Belgium, Netherlands, France and Germany • Share of expert experiences about permitting hydrogen infrastructure SHORT DESCRIPTION (EACH SESSION, TYPE OF INTERACTION, TOPICS DISCUSSED) The first topic of the meeting was the presentation of the HyPOP Project, which aims to raise awareness and trust in hydrogen technologies, particularly for mobility and residential applications. One of the activities of this project is to better understand the safety regulations, permitting processes, and technical guidelines across different European countries. The goal is to highlight some barriers and find best practices to overcome these obstacles. The first results of the HyPOP project were presented by the leader of the project, Mattia Miglietta from Envipark. Then, cluster TWEED focused on the main results for Belgium and its neighbouring countries. An overview of the guideline that already exist was presented for these countries. After the presentations, the participants shared experiences and challenges in obtaining permits for hydrogen projects, emphasizing the need for clearer regulations and improved communication between stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of hydrogen technologies. Sertius also highlight the importance of considering water management and noise issues in the permitting process. The following improvement was proposed: • Include insurance companies among the stakeholders. Indeed, they are often forgotten even though they are essential for the well development of the project. If the insurance company does not find the project secure, it will not insure the project. • Need for specific files and the best available technologies for hydrogen production. • Permitting process in Wallonia is more subjective and lacks concrete practices, while Flanders has a more objective and scientific approach. The stakeholders need a well-defined process for permitting hydrogen projects in the Walloon region. • Need for a change in the classifications in Wallonia for permitting procedures. For example, the Industrial Emission Directive (IED) should not be mandatory for hydrogen facilities (as is the case in Flanders). • Improve the experiences and the involvement of the Industrial Risk Departments (department of the Walloon administration). Indeed, it could result in shorter delays and better evaluation of the projects. • Reduce the delays in obtaining permits in Wallonia. Today, the permitting process can take up to a year or more. • Develop a unified EU-level guideline for hydrogen technology permitting • Improve social acceptance and trust in the safety of hydrogen projects. This is even more important than including additional security measures. And the following actions for next 6 months: • Organize a follow-up meeting • Share results from similar HyPOP meetings in other countries (Italy, Spain, Poland and Bulgaria). • Share contact information for potential firefighter training opportunities. • Discuss with STIB (public buses in Brussels) for their experiences with hydrogen bus implementation. • Proposition of a guideline for Wallonia. • Include the Industrial Risk Departments in the discussion SPEAKERS (NAME, AFFILIATION) o Simon Habran – Cluster TWEED o Mattia Miglietta – Envi Park o Xavier Muschoot, Sertius - Company in environmental and safety services o Catherine Goormaghtigh, Colruyt Group - Food Store Chain o Sébastien Dubois, RESA - Gas and electricity distribution network o Patrick Hendrick, Université Libre de Bruxelles INTERACTIVE QUESTIONS TO THE AUDIENCE (IF ANY) AND RESULTS o What are the main challenges you have encountered in obtaining or granting permits for hydrogen-related projects? Please describe your experience with environmental, safety, construction and/or administrative requirements and explain specific bottlenecks that you believe should be addressed. Administrative requirements are unclear in Wallonia. Generally speaking, public services are fearful of this new technology. This is due to a lack of experience, as these people are generally unfamiliar with hydrogen. At Colruyt, for their permitting process in Wallonia, they invited Walloon authorities to their first HRS in Flanders to raise awareness of this technology. => Training and awareness-raising among authorities is essential, and it is primarily the industry that can participate in this process. After obtaining a permit, you need to ensure your project, and this is also a delicate step, given that the insurance company must have confidence in the project so as not to charge exorbitant prices or require additional safety measures. So, we face the same problem: we need to raise awareness among stakeholders. Need for a change in the classifications in Wallonia for permitting procedures. For example, the Industrial Emission Directive (IED) should not be mandatory for hydrogen facilities (as is the case in Flanders). Indeed, this directive is very restrictive. o How does the environmental permitting process for hydrogen projects compare to that for other energy technologies? What improvement do you suggest? The same problem arose during the development of compressed natural gas in stations. Colruyt Group had to meet with all the authorities and firefighters in each municipality to convince them that the installation would work and did not pose excessive risks. The problem, therefore, is not the technology, but the perception, the awareness of the public and stakeholders regarding new technologies. We can develop multiple safety measures and implement technologies that eliminate risks, but the major problem remains people's perception of this new technology. o Have you experienced significant differences in permitting processes between regions or municipalities? If so, how do these disparities affect project implementation? Additionally, what improvements would you propose to harmonize or streamline these processes? There's a problem with subjectivity in administrative monitoring in Wallonia. The administration will ask questions of competent people like the firefighters, but there's no clear framework to follow. The framework in Flanders is better defined and therefore more objective. In Flanders, there's a well-defined permitting process, but not in Wallonia. The administration has no expertise in the field of hydrogen, so it often refers to the SEVESO regulations, even for small projects. No specific acceptance criteria => they follow SEVESO criteria, which are very restrictive for HRS. ▪ What are the main challenges in demonstrating the safety of hydrogen plants As already mentioned above, there is no technical challenge; the real challenge is the acceptance of the stakeholder to demonstrate it is safe. ▪ What improvements would you propose to overcome regulatory barriers in your country? Regulatory framework that is different for the different member state. Why there is not an EU regulatory framework/guidelines + See survey outside the table NR OF ATTENDANCE 18 GENERAL INFO ABOUT THE AUDIENCE TYPE (e.g., x % of academia, x% of companies etc) Essentially, companies, one university, one public entity (see the list of attendance) Website link (video, presentation, …): https://clusters.wallonie.be/tweed/home/actualites/actualites/feedback-hypop-workshop-safetycertification-and-permitting-hydrogen-infrastructures.html Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u54XHTLKZ8&t=1210s Slides: https://fr.slideshare.net/slideshow/feedback-whatsupp-in-europe-regarding-h2-regulations12-decembre-2024/274182179?_gl=1*sxdav5*_gcl_au*OTAxNzYyMTE1LjE3NTkxMzYzODI. Survey: 1. What guidelines could Wallonia rely on regarding permitting? The BAT of Flanders 2/6 (33%) The PSG35 of the Netherlands 1/6 (17%) A mix of BAT and PSG35 2/6 (33%) We must create a new guideline 0/6 (0% 2. If you choose “other”, specify your answer here: [email protected] Something coherent with Flanders, but maybe not the BAT … Anonymous Depending on the speed of work: speed PSG; if we can take more time the mix 3. For technical specifications like internal distances, is it better to: Fix the specifications in a clear regulation 1/5 (20%) The specifications are calculated and motivated by the operators => case by case approach. 3/5 (60%) It depends on which specification 1/5 (20%) 4. If you choose “it depends” for which specifications a clear regulation is needed [email protected] ISO standards are existing … Anonymous For standard gas stations (below a certain quantity of H2), we should have specifications in a clear regulation, and risk analysis for bigger projects. List of registered people: First name Name Organisation Present Remy Balegamire Baraka Cluster TWEED Oui Cédric Brüll TWEED Oui ilaria Schiavi environment park spa Oui Katiuscia Costabello IRIS srl Oui ALBERTO GARCIA Clean Hydrogen Partnership Oui Nuno Canha HyLab - Green Hydrogen Collaborative Laboratory Oui Tatiana Block New Energy Coalition Oui Mark Philips SGS Belgium NV Non Thomas Mergny JANSON BAUGNIET Oui Marc Marc Van Den Neste District Cleantech Oui Lucie Guerin Sertius Oui thibaut steenhuizen Service public de Wallonie Non Xavier Musschoot Sertius Oui Emmanuel Lheureux Service Public de Wallonie - direction des risques industriels géologiques et miniers Non Catherine Goormaghtigh Colruyt Group Oui Patrick Hendrick ULB Oui • Local/regional/national administrations, depending on whether or not powers have been transferred • Official State Gazette (BOE, Boletín Oficial del Estado) • Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge (National Government) 4. Which are the main challenges for demonstrating security in hydrogen technologies? While 2 people answered “I do not know”, the other 31 participated with different comments about: • Knowledge: the general lack of information or awareness and the lack of definition. • Public opinion: credibility, social awareness (fighting false myths, raising awareness in society that H2 has been with us for decades) and social issues. • Regulation and certification: lack of specific regulation, lack of a unique specific regulation, certification, standardized best practices, homogeneity. • Environmental prevention. • Techno-economic issues: costs, economic issues, demand, use of the technology, machinery operating hours, anticipation of storage equipment degradation, facility design, storage, distribution, making H2 closer to people through HRS. • Security: security in general, explosive zones, H2 flammability, pressure in H2 generation and storage, lack of previous accident data (for validating safety level). Developing, disseminating and applying passive and active security measures. 5. (a) Do you have experience in H2 technologies certification? Only one answer was allowed: 5. (b) Do you know any guideline or protocol for certification? The regulations mentioned where: • CertifHy: initiative started in 2014 and financed by the Clean Hydrogen Partnership with the objective of taking Europe-wide green and low carbon hydrogen certification to the next level: from concept to implementation • ISO standard 14687-2:2012; “Hydrogen fuel — Product specification”. • SAE J2719 standard: “Hydrogen Fuel Quality for Fuel Cell Vehicles”. • ISO standard 19880-1:2020: “Gaseous hydrogen — Fuelling stations”. 6. What barrier/s have you encountered during the installation of H2 technologies? 9 people answered “do not know”, “no answer” or something similar; one person said that they had no installed (any H2 technology) still and other said that they had not found barriers so far. The rest of the answers (22 people) can be grouped in 4 categories: • Economic viability: Some barriers as “funding”, “competitivity without grant”, “offerdemand balance/lack of off-takers”, “costs rationalization” were raised. • Knowledge: lack of information and awareness (in general and on the part of the administrations), availability of previous infrastructures and lack of precedents were also shown as a problem. • Security: ignorance about security, security itself and difficulty in detecting hydrogen leakages were other topics addressed. • Permitting and certification: around 11 people complained about the lack of regulation, regulatory ambiguity/interpretative discrepancies/different criteria between different entities of the same government, fear of risk, lack of a single certification and permitting body, products to be included in the certification process, delivery and execution deadlines and permitting and certification in general. 7. Anything else to add? Two people used this space to add an additional comment to the questions answered. One of them highlighted the importance of disseminating the H2 properties and the security measures applied in H2 usage, such as detection. The other one was worried about H2 implementation, saying that there are many projects on paper but few projects in actual execution, and that the green hydrogen price (€/kg) is not well defined. Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GphtPTVev0E Linkedin post from the conference: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7296100239579529216/ NR OF ATTENDANCE >50 (33 answers to the interactive questions) GENERAL INFO ABOUT THE AUDIENCE TYPE (e.g. x % of academia, x% of companies etc) Among the public there was representation from different types of stakeholders: • 3 authorities from Port Authority of Huelva and Andalusian Energy Agency (regional government) • 1 person from Emergency Services/ Fire Services Company (FALCK) • 17 people from private energetic/engineering companies: Enagás, HUNOSA Group, Oinse, COLLOSA, Moeve, Orbita ingeniería, Clantech, Elektra Andalucia XXI, Planea Hidrógeno, Idea Energía, Realza Ingenieros, Marwen Calsan group, CMC Cerezuela, Hidrorever, Acerinox. • 1 person from Sedigas (The Spanish Gas Association, non-profit association). • 1 person from TÜV SÜD. • 1 independent worker. • 4 people from public entities: City of Energy foundation (attached to the Institute for Just Transition (ITJ) of the Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge (MITECO)), CNH2 and INTA (National Institute of Aerospace Technology). • 2 people from hydrogen associations (H2CYL, Costa Rican Hydrogen Association) • 3 people from the education sector (Vocational training teacher, student, researcher from University of Huelva) Photos: Agenda: 9:00 – 9:10: Introduction and HYPOP project presentation. 9:10 – 9:25: Main results of the project. 9:25 – 9:45: Debate with the audience. (Interactive questions have been carried out during the HYPOP project and the main results presentation) 11 Annex 7: Poland local stakeholders’ engagement workshop Title of the meeting: Development of the Hydrogen Economy in the Pomeranian Region Date: 15 May 2025 Location: Marshal’s Office of the Pomeranian Voivodeship, Gdansk Participants: 18 representatives of key regional stakeholders 1. Objective of the Meeting The meeting aimed to introduce the HYPOP project (Hydrogen Public Opinion and Acceptance) and to initiate an in-depth, constructive interregional discussion on the potential and challenges related to the hydrogen economy. Financed by the Clean Hydrogen Partnership, HYPOP addresses the issue of building social trust in hydrogen technologies, especially in public transport and housing. The session highlighted project partnerships, planned outcomes, and community engagement methodologies. Participants were familiarized with HYPOP's importance in both European and regional hydrogen strategies. 2. Meeting Agenda and Presentation of HYPOP The meeting opened with a presentation of the HYPOP project’s goals and structure. The project’s territorial scope and international consortium—comprising hydrogen clusters, research institutes, and public communication organizations—were introduced. A particular focus was given to the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) methodology, used to identify social hotspots in hydrogen projects. Best practices in certification and safety developed at the EU level were also presented. Implementation tools were discussed, including: • The multimedia HYPOP platform featuring videos, analyses, and public opinion survey results, • A set of indicators to assess the social impact of hydrogen technology deployment. Participants gained a comprehensive overview of the tools and mechanisms HYPOP employs to support social acceptance of hydrogen technologies. 3. Participants The meeting gathered representatives from various sectors—industry, public administration, and environmental expertise. This cross-sectoral presence ensured a holistic view of hydrogen economy development. Represented institutions included: • Port of Gdansk – transport and logistics infrastructure • Gaz-System – gas system operator • ASE Group – provider of energy and technology solutions • SES Hydrogen – hydrogen sector company • Eko-Konsult – environmental consultancy • Marshal’s Office of the Pomeranian Voivodeship – regional government authority The composition of participants allowed for a comprehensive discussion from the perspectives of investors, regulators, and local communities. 4. Key Discussion Topics During the discussion session, participants shared experiences, needs, and challenges related to hydrogen project implementation. The following key issues were identified: • Complexity and lack of transparency in administrative procedures; lack of uniform local standards, • Insufficient administrative competence in technical and legal aspects of hydrogen installations, • Absence of coherent public communication tools and citizen engagement mechanisms, • Untapped potential for synergy with EU-funded projects, • The need for unified guidelines for the Pomeranian region. The debate revealed both systemic and organizational barriers, but also pointed to actionable intervention areas for the short term. 5. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the meeting’s content, presentations, and discussions, a comprehensive list of conclusions and recommendations was developed. These should guide future regional actions for advancing the hydrogen economy in the Pomeranian Voivodeship: • Updating the Regional Strategy: There is an urgent need to revise the Pomeranian regional development strategy to include a social component reflecting citizens’ attitudes, knowledge, and readiness to accept new technologies. This includes defining regional indicators for social acceptance and establishing monitoring mechanisms for public engagement in planning and implementation. Strategic alignment with EU documents such as REPowerEU and the Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe is advised. • Improving Local Government Capacity: Gaps in public administration knowledge—particularly regarding the interpretation of technical standards, environmental impact assessments, HSE regulations, and certification procedures—were identified. A modular training programme is recommended, covering legal, technical, and social aspects. An accessible knowledge base, such as an e-learning platform linked to HYPOP, should be developed. • Adapting HYPOP Tools Locally: HYPOP tools—such as the communication platform, public engagement models, S-LCA indicators, and EU-level best practices—can and should be localized. Their application would support decision-making, improve investor transparency, and strengthen community trust. • Strengthening Education and Public Communication: There is a pressing need to increase public outreach and educational efforts. Suggested actions include local media campaigns, community debates, information meetings, and integration of hydrogen topics into secondary and vocational school curricula. A citizen's guide on hydrogen technologies could serve as part of HYPOP’s public dissemination materials. • Integration with National and EU Projects: The region should actively participate in EU hydrogen development programmes (e.g., CertifHy). It is recommended to establish a coordination unit to facilitate applications for international research and implementation projects, which would boost funding access and technology transfer. • Developing Regional Roadmaps and Implementation Scenarios: Participatory and realistic hydrogen technology development roadmaps are needed for key sectors—transport, heating, energy-intensive industries, and housing. These should involve local communities, experts, and investors to avoid conflict and foster co-ownership of technological progress. These recommendations form a coherent framework for building a socially accepted, safe, and sustainable hydrogen economy in the Pomeranian region. Their successful implementation requires active involvement from administration, private sector, research institutions, and citizens—leveraging HYPOP as a tool and catalyst for regional action. 6. Next Steps To follow up on the meeting, the following actions were proposed: • Organizing regional workshops with local community participation, • Formally including the Pomeranian Voivodeship in the group of regions piloting HYPOP guidelines, • Reflecting the discussed issues in the update of the regional energy and climate strategy and in the programming documents under the FEnIKS 2021–2027 initiative. These planned activities aim to strengthen the region’s role in the European energy transition and harness social potential for implementing hydrogen innovations. 12 Annex 8: Italy local stakeholders’ engagement workshop WORKSHOP TITLE NORMATIVE E PROGETTI IN EVOLUZIONE: dialogo tra operatori e autorità della filiera dell’idrogeno sulla sicurezza, le procedure e il coinvolgimento della società civile EVENT DATE 23rd of May 2025 DURATION 10:30 – 12:30 CEST PLACE Hydrogen Expo Piacenza CO-ORGANISER (IF ANY) H2IT – Italian Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association TOPICS ADDRESSED (SLCA, WP2’S QUESTIONS AS PROVIDED ETC..) - Safety requirements and barriers - Permitting requirements and barriers - Main technologies suffering certification gaps - Importance of guidelines for safety and permitting - Relevance of risk assessment and identification of the best methodologies To understand perception of the audience about safety, permitting, and certification, check the answers from Slido Q&A reported below. SHORT DESCRIPTION (EACH SESSION, TYPE OF INTERACTION, TOPICS DISCUSSED) MAIN OUTPUTS FROM SAFETY & CERTIFICATION SESSION (a likely safety authority engagement discussion): • Project introduction (Safety): Present the project to the fire brigade command, making it easier to understand and accelerating the approval process. • Normative references: Review with the fire brigades which ministerial decrees and regulations apply to each section of the installation. • Critical issues: Analyse potential project criticalities and identify suitable mitigation measures. • Needs: Implement existing safety regulations, introducing specific conditions for each possible project size and technologies installed • Tools: To require risk assessment and to specify which methodology is desired • Approach: To reason on the likely of incident scenarios instead of gravity MAIN OUTPUT FOR PERMITTING: Project introduction (Permitting): Essential to present the project in advance to the authorities and administrations in order to gather comments/suggestions and then develop a design for “fit for purpose” permits. See description below for details. SPEAKERS (NAME, AFFILIATION) • Enrico Villa | Hydrogen project developer company (SIMPLIFHY) • Diomede Malvaso | Certification company (RINA) • Gabriele Ballocco | Fire safety company (RAMS&E srl) • Francesco Bonadeo | TSO company (SNAM) • Francesca De Falco | Public authority for environmental permitting (REGIONE CAMPANIA) • Francesco Vitali | Engineering company for environmental permitting (TECHFEM) INTERACTIVE QUESTIONS TO THE AUDIENCE (IF ANY) AND RESULTS (see results from Q&A Slido sessions) NR OF ATTENDANCE Up to 45 participants (in presence) GENERAL INFO ABOUT THE AUDIENCE TYPE (e.g. x % of academia, x% of companies etc) Private companies and public authorities SAFETY AND CERTIFICATION SESSION The first speaker was Simplifhy, an Italian company specialising in hydrogen projects, which shared its experience and the main criticalities it has encountered. They stressed how hard it is to bring the many different kinds of hydrogen-distribution plants—both in terms of scale and technology—under the technical fire-safety rule that currently addresses only hydrogen-production plants. Specifically: • Ministerial Decree (MD) 7 July 2023 does not tailor its requirements to the size of the plant (problem of applicability). • Safer technologies, such as metal-hydride storage are not mentioned in the national firesafety regulations (technology gap). SAFETY AND CERTIFICATION – Q&A SESSION PERMITTING– Q&A SESSION