國際能源總署及歐盟碳補集與封存立法架構之研究：對台灣之啟示

A Study on the Legal Framework of International Energy Agency Model Regulatory Framework and European CCS Directive: The Lessons for Taiwan

福島核災後，各國之核電政策遭遇到嚴重之挑戰。台灣亦在福島核災後檢討既有之能源與核電政策，歷經數月之討論後，正式於2011年11 月由馬總統提出決定放棄原本之核電延役、擴大再生能源使用與天然氣使用之兩大方向作為回應。然而，考量到既有核電廠關閉後所產生之「基載」電力之缺口，是否可單純由再生能源與天然氣發電就可以因應，實不無疑問，且此兩種低碳能源亦有成本過高之問題。故參考國際能源總署之能源科技展望與歐盟政策之走向，亦有將碳捕集與封存科技納入之構想。其背後之考量，除了因應全球暖化危機外，亦有發展新興產業之目的。CCS 之推動需仰賴政策與法律之妥善結合，反觀我國，歷年來僅止於政策層面之討論，欠缺法治面之研究與分析。為建構我國發展碳捕集與封存科技之法規架構，本文擬參考國際能源總署之模範管制架構與歐盟2009 年碳捕集與封存指令及相關措施之作法，提供我國建構碳捕集與封存法規架構之啟示。

After Fukushima nuclear disaster, nuclear policies are facing a severe challenge all around the world, including Taiwan. In November 2011, President Ma declared to abandon the policy of life extension of Taiwan nuclear power plants, and extend renewable energy and natural gas. However, it’s a doubt that whether renewable energy and natural gas could fulfill the gap of baseload power once shutting down nuclear power plants, not mentioning the concern of high cost. Refer to IEA Energy Technology Perspectives and EU policies, CCS technology is subsumed in the policies to mitigate global warming as well as developing new technologies to stimulate economic grow followed by subprime mortgage crisis. Developing CCS requires to link up policies with law, but Taiwan has stopped in developing policies and disregarded research in legislation. To set up the legislation of developing Carbon Capture and Storage technology in Taiwan, this article will address the issue associated with the IEA model regulatory framework and the influential Directive 2009/31/EC for the inspiration of Taiwan’s legal system.