Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage and Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal.
Emerging speculative development potential
Overview.
Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) and Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal are emerging mitigation pathways in Southeast Asia, offering potential opportunities for economic diversification and industrial transition while supporting long‑term climate goals. CCUS captures CO₂ primarily at industrial point sources (and in some cases from the air) for storage or use, whereas Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (MCDR) encompasses ocean-based approaches that remove CO₂ from the atmosphere or seawater and store it in marine systems, often with the aim of long-term sequestration. As ASEAN economies continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels, these technologies are increasingly viewed as pragmatic complements to renewable energy and efficiency improvements. However, the sector faces significant uncertainties related to technological readiness, long‑term environmental impacts, evolving regulatory frameworks, and the substantial capital, infrastructure, and technical capacity required for deployment across the region.
Across ASEAN, countries are advancing CCUS readiness at different speeds, with Indonesia and Malaysia making the most significant progress in establishing enabling regulations, institutional arrangements, and early storage‑hub models. Other member states, including Thailand and Viet Nam, remain in research and scoping phases as they evaluate geological suitability and regulatory needs. Despite growing policy attention reflected in regional frameworks such as the ASEAN Strategy for Carbon Neutrality and APAEC Phase II, major barriers persist. These include high initial costs, uncertain revenue streams, complex permitting requirements, cross‑border regulatory gaps, and the need for harmonised technical standards and robust MRV systems. The region’s expanding energy demand and the relatively young age of many fossil‑fuel assets further complicate transition planning, highlighting the importance of financing mechanisms, carbon‑pricing signals, and coordinated regulatory design to improve project viability.
Within this wider sustainability and governance landscape, CCUS and MCDR intersect with offshore energy, ports, shipping, oil and gas infrastructure, and marine environmental management because they rely on seabed space, pipeline networks, industrial clusters, and rigorous monitoring systems for CO₂ transport, utilisation, and long‑term storage. These cross‑sector dynamics shape climate‑mitigation pathways, industrial‑transition strategies, and environmental safeguards, while reinforcing circular‑economy and low‑carbon development goals through the repurposing of existing infrastructure, integration with emerging clean‑energy systems, and the development of regional CO₂‑management ecosystems capable of supporting resilient, science‑based decarbonisation across ASEAN.
Explore how CCUS is positioned for each of the
Blue Economy Capitals.
Financial Capital.
Financial Capital.
ASEAN’s sustainable finance rules steer CCUS in the power sector away from green bonds: the ASEAN Green Bond Standards exclude fossil‑fuel power, pushing CCUS‑related projects toward SLBs, transition‑labelled instruments, or unlabelled financing (ACMF, 2018). In parallel, the ASEAN Taxonomy (Version 3, 2024) formalises a multi‑tier “Green–Amber” transition approach (including coal phase‑out TSC in earlier releases), which is being aligned with national taxonomies and will be central to channelling capital into harder‑to‑abate sectors and enabling activities (ASEAN, 2024). Marketwise, ASEAN’s labelled debt stock and loan volumes continue to grow, with SLBs and blue bonds complementing the long‑established green bond segment (Climate Bonds Initiative, 2022; ADB & IFC, 2023).
Blended finance platforms supporting the energy transition, along with related initiatives such as CCUS, are scaling and being implemented across several ASEAN countries. For coal phase‑out, the ADB’s Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) combines concessional, commercial and policy instruments and is moving into transactions (e.g., Cirebon‑1 Indonesia), alongside an ADB USD 500 million policy‑based loan to hard‑wire enabling reforms (ADB, 2023, 2024). The Affordable and Sustainable Energy Transition Program will advance key policy actions to help the country meet its enhanced nationally determined contribution (NDC) and achieve net-zero power sector emissions by 2050. PETRONAS’ Kasawari CCS is among the world’s largest offshore CCS, signalling SOE‑backed balance‑sheet financing capacity that can be complemented by labelled debt at the corporate level.
The project is being funded by PETRONAS Carigali (PCSB) on its balance sheet. PCSB took Final Investment Decision (FID) on 20 Oct 2022 and directly awarded the ~RM 4.5 billion (approximately USD 1.08 billion) EPCIC package to Malaysia Marine & Heavy Engineering (MMHE) in November 2022 (NS Energy, 2023; Petronas, 2022; Ong, 2022). Where storage hub regulation is bankable (e.g., Indonesia Presidential Decree 14/2024; Malaysia CCUS Act 2025; Sarawak Land Code Rules), long tenor project finance can be blended with corporate issuances and multilateral participation (Government of Indonesia, 2024; Rajah & Tann, 2025; Sarawak LawNet, 2022). Additionally, blue bonds can complement CCUS by financing coastal resilience/mangroves that deliver carbon sinks and adaptation co benefits (for example, Indonesia sovereign blue bond 2023; Thailand EXIM blue bond 2024; Philippines BDO blue bond 2022) (UNDP, 2023; EXIM Thailand, 2024; IFC, 2022).
Physical Capital.
Physical Capital.
CCUS in ASEAN is moving from policy commitment to early infrastructure build out. Regionally, CCUS is now embedded in ASEAN’s carbon neutrality agenda and the APAEC workplan (ASEAN CCS Deployment Framework and Roadmap), reflecting recognition that coal heavy power systems and hard to abate industries will need capture and storage to decarbonise without jeopardising energy security (ACE, 2024). Momentum is also visible in regional dialogues that prioritise cross‑border CO₂ transport, CO₂‑shipping, and regulatory harmonisation which is critical for countries with limited storage but strong capture potential (ERIA, 2025). Globally, the CCUS project pipeline is expanding through hub‑ and network‑based models, which offer useful lessons for ASEAN. However, deployment capacity will still need to accelerate significantly to align with net‑zero pathways (Fajardy et al., 2025).
The readiness of ASEAN countries for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) varies. Indonesia and Malaysia, particularly Sarawak, have made significant progress in establishing enabling rules and institutions. Indonesia’s MEMR Regulation 2/2023 established a CCS/CCUS framework for upstream oil and gas, while Presidential Regulation 14/2024 expanded its coverage beyond oil and gas areas, clarifying licensing, MRV, liabilities, and, critically, permitting limited cross-border CO2 transport and storage to establish a regional hub model (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2023; Government of Indonesia, 2024; Ashurst, 2024). Sarawak promulgated the Land (Carbon Storage) Rules 2022 to license onshore and offshore storage sites, positioning East Malaysia for hub development alongside national efforts, such as the Kasawari CCS project (Sarawak Government, 2022; NS Energy, 2023). In contrast, Thailand and Viet Nam are advancing through research and development and scoping. A regional storage picture is emerging, with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam having completed early identification steps (location, capacity, suitability) across saline aquifers and depleted fields. However, better access to geological data remains a key enabler (ACE, 2024).
Physical infrastructure and project development are most advanced in Indonesia, where new regulations permit carbon storage in depleted hydrocarbon fields and deep saline aquifers. Around 15 carbon capture and storage and carbon capture, utilisation, and storage projects are progressing from feasibility through to development, supported by approximately USD 8 billion in investment. This activity is underpinned by an estimated storage potential exceeding 8 gigatonnes in depleted reservoirs and roughly 400 gigatonnes in saline aquifers, positioning Indonesia as a leading regional carbon storage hub (Yi & Saliha, 2025). Cross‑border models are emerging: Singapore is evaluating aggregation of industrial CO₂ for shipment to regional storage, together with ongoing ASEAN deliberations, signals a shift toward integrated capture‑transport‑storage networks (ERIA, 2025).
MCDR (marine carbon dioxide removal) in ASEAN is earlier stage, with physical infrastructure largely limited to R&D blueprints rather than deployment, but it aligns well with the region’s coastal industrial base. Recent governance guidance underscores the need for science‑based safeguards and permitting frameworks before scaling field trials, providing a pathway ASEAN could adopt as it explores pilots and future linkages with CCUS value chains (Ocean Panel, 2025; Yale CNCC, 2025).
Human Capital.
Human Capital.
ASEAN’s CCUS skills are catching up to policy as training shifts from ad‑hoc seminars to structured, multi‑country programs; a series of the Southeast Asia CCS Accelerator (SEACA) workshops targets regulation, storage appraisal, liability, bankability, and cross‑border/G2G competencies in permitting, MRV, storage licensing, and CO₂ transport contracts (Global CCS Institute, 2024; ERIA, 2023). Regionally, the ASEAN CCS Deployment Framework & Roadmap (2024) elevates CCS under APAEC and the carbon neutrality strategy, implicitly ramping demand for geoscience, subsurface engineering, CO₂ shipping and project finance talent; complementary ASEAN Centre for Energy initiatives on capacity building and workforce transformation reinforce the pipeline of new entrants and reskilled professionals for the transition (ACE, 2024, 2025).
Indonesia takes initiative to scale up skills from policy to projects. The SKK Migas PTK 070 (2024) standardises CCS/CCUS in upstream areas, clarifying required competencies across Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE), technical design, MRV and administration for operators and regulators (SKK Migas, 2024; RuangEnergi, 2024). Government R&D and industry are building the talent base: LEMIGAS is running structured knowledge sharing (“LEMIGAS Academy”) and joint studies with Pertamina/Shell on capture, CO₂ transport, injection and monitoring (Kementerian ESDM, 2024; OG Indonesia, 2024). Universities are formalising talent pipelines through closer alignment with industry needs. Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB)’s Center of Excellence for CCS and CCUS delivers short courses and laboratory-based training, while the BP Tangguh and ITB partnership provides scholarships and applied research opportunities linked to the Tangguh CCUS hub. Together, these initiatives connect graduate training directly to real world project development (Institut Teknologi Bandung, 2025; BP Indonesia, 2024).
PETRONAS has created a dedicated Carbon Management function to develop integrated CCS hubs and services in Malaysia, setting national benchmarks for roles in storage site characterisation, LCO₂ shipping, compression and hub operations; the flagship Kasawari CCS provides a live training ground for project execution at scale (PETRONAS, 2025; NS Energy, 2023). Sarawak’s Land (Carbon Storage) Rules 2022 establish clear requirements for licensing, operator responsibilities, and financial obligations, signalling the professional qualifications that regulators expect and that training providers are now targeting. In parallel, PETROS’ Sarawak Bid Round 2024 and related outreach efforts are expanding local capabilities in subsurface studies, techno economic analysis, and project delivery management (Sarawak Government Gazette, 2022; PETROS, 2024).
Thailand’s CCUS Hub initiative (PTT/PTTEP with DMF) and the Thailand CCUS Alliance/Chiang Mai CCS network are anchoring road mapping, storage assessment and reskilling programmes as projects move toward execution later this decade (Sutabutr, 2024; TCCA, 2025; Chiang Mai CCS, 2025). Drawing on VPI–Black & Veatch PVN feasibility work and the 2024 Energy Outlook, Viet Nam is defining skill needs in integration, capture selection, and hub design, progressing toward a national CCUS legal and training framework (Black & Veatch, 2024; EREA & DEA, 2024). The Philippines, which is still in the pre‑deployment phase for CCUS, utilises the DOE’s Certificate of Energy Project of National Significance (CEPNS) framework under Executive Order 30 and the Energy Virtual One Stop Shop (EVOSS) Act to fast‑track major energy project approvals, building capabilities directly applicable to CCUS once pilots proceed (Tamang, 2022; Republic Act No. 11234; Executive Order No. 30, June 28, 2017).
Collectively, these moves signal ASEAN’s pivot from policy to execution where the binding constraints are now accredited competencies, mutual recognition, and cross‑border operability, not ambition. If governments, operators, and universities align on common competency frameworks (esp. MRV and storage licensing), portable credentials, and talent/data mobility, the region can translate pilots into bankable, multi‑country hubs this decade.
Social Capital.
Social Capital.
In response to ASEAN’s escalating energy demand and persistent reliance on fossil fuels, Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) and Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (MCDR) emerge as a pragmatic complement to renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives. Recent projections indicate a substantial increase in total primary energy supply, exceeding double by 2050, with fossil fuels constituting approximately 76% of the energy mix even under ambitious transition scenarios. Notably, energy-related greenhouse gas emissions reached approximately 2.2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO₂e) in 2020, accounting for approximately 4.3% of the global total (ACE, 2024). Regionally, CCUS has gained prominence within policy frameworks, exemplified by the ASEAN Strategy for Carbon Neutrality (2023), APAEC Phase II (2021–2025), and subsequent AMEM communiqués. These initiatives underscore CCUS as a strategic tool for decarbonisation while simultaneously safeguarding energy security within a system that remains heavily reliant on oil, gas, and relatively nascent coal assets (ASEAN, 2023a, 2023b; ACE, 2023).
ASEAN now has a region level playbook for CCUS governance. The ASEAN CCS Deployment Framework and Roadmap sets out regulator roles, licensing, MRV and pathways from pilots to hubs, aligning permitting with energy security objectives while signalling skills and process needs across agencies (ACE, 2024). In parallel, the ASEAN Taxonomy v3 provides a common “Green/Amber” transition lens and updates to safeguards (e.g., CRVA/LCA guidance and national social/environmental references), which are practical anchors for inclusivity and transparency in project selection and reporting (ATB, 2024). Taken together, these instruments help member states codify technical standards while embedding “do‑no‑significant‑harm” and social‑safeguard expectations, so CCUS supports just‑transition outcomes, not only emissions metrics.
ASEAN’s CCUS/MCDR governance blends a regional policy vision with deal ready, technical guidance: the ASEAN Strategy for Carbon Neutrality makes “accelerate green value chain integration” a priority, including coordinating regional policies and regulations for CCUS infrastructure and identifying high potential hubs (e.g., SG–ID–MY) with policy support for cross border CO₂ movement (ASEAN, 2023). Complementing this, in 2024, ASEAN accelerated CCS/CCUS development, anchored in regional cooperation, regulatory alignment, and scalable projects. At the 4th Asia CCUS Network Forum, stakeholders underscored CCS/CCUS’s role in climate goals, advancing legal harmonisation, carbon‑recycling policies, and flagship efforts like EOR. The 42nd AMEM endorsed coal decarbonisation pathways (CCUS, biomass co‑firing, and IGCC) and welcomed the ASEAN CCS Deployment Framework and Roadmap to unlock cross‑border investment and integrated infrastructure. JOGMEC’s Handbook for CO₂ Cross‑Border Transport CCS and ASEAN’s Joint Statement to UNFCCC COP‑29 further strengthened readiness by clarifying legal and technical protocols and affirming CCUS as a pillar of a just energy transition. Given CCS/CCUS’s transboundary nature, clear and robust regulation has become the key indicator of readiness, enabling investment, project development, and mutual confidence among participating countries (ASCOPE, 2025).
At the national stage, ASEAN governments advanced CCS/CCUS leadership through new laws, standards, and cross-border initiatives, alongside an island CCS project slated for 2030 to curb major industrial emissions. Thailand amended its Petroleum Act to recognise a “carbon business”; the Philippines paired an MoU with Saudi Arabia on carbon circular economy with domestic CCS‑linked projects; and Viet Nam enshrined CCS in its 2045 energy strategy with reinforcing policies and industry workshops. Indonesia established a comprehensive CCS framework (Presidential Regulation No. 14/2024), issued SKK Migas guidance, adopted ISO CCS standards, added CCS/EOR terms to gross-split PSCs, and advocated internationally, including at COP‑29. Malaysia progressed a standalone CCUS Bill and signalled a 2026 carbon tax to fund decarbonisation R&D, while Singapore strengthened regional collaboration (LOI with Indonesia, MOC with Japan), appointed the S‑Hub consortium for cross‑border CCS, and launched an EMA grant call for power‑sector feasibility (ASCOPE, 2025).
The 21st Asia CCUS Network Knowledge Sharing Conference highlights the push to realise cross‑border CCS as a pathway to net‑zero, spotlighting Japan’s 2024 selection of nine Advanced CCS projects (including multiple cross‑border projects) and plans to capture CO₂ from Tokyo Bay, Setouchi, and the Kinki–Chugoku–Kyushu industrial regions for shipment to Malaysia’s Malay Peninsula and Sarawak (with potential links to Oceania), alongside Singapore’s exploration of exporting CO₂ to Indonesia’s Sunda Asri Basin and Indonesia’s search for overseas partners for Ubadari and other storage sites (ERIA, 2025a, 2025b; Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security, 2024; Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan, 2024). Momentum is further reinforced by the full operationalisation of Article 6 at COP29, which unlocks international carbon markets and could reduce nationally determined contribution implementation costs by up to USD 250 billion per year. This is complemented by the New Collective Quantified Goal, which targets mobilising at least USD 300 billion annually for developing countries by 2035 (COP29 Presidency, 2024; UNFCCC, 2024; CarbonBrief, 2024). To translate this potential into deliverable projects, ANGEA’s cross-border carbon capture and storage study, together with regional technical guidance, addresses emissions accounting and accreditation issues such as unit generation, rights to emissions reductions, cross-border transactions, measurement reporting and verification, and permanence. It also covers carbon dioxide transport and storage implementation, including carbon dioxide stream specifications, transport options, storage permitting, monitoring measurement and verification and auditing, site closure requirements, and long-term liability (Asia Natural Gas and Energy Association, n.d.; Energy News Bulletin, 2023; ERIA, 2025).
Natural Capital.
Natural Capital.
CCUS natural capital in ASEAN is supported by abundant depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and deep saline aquifers located close to major industrial clusters and liquefied natural gas value chains. Indonesia’s subsurface endowment is frequently assessed as among the largest globally, with multi gigatonne storage potential in depleted fields of approximately 8 gigatonnes and up to hundreds of gigatonnes in saline aquifers. This positions Indonesia as a prospective regional storage hub for captured carbon dioxide from neighbouring countries with limited geological capacity, such as Singapore (Yi & Saliha, 2025).
The concentration of offshore gas fields across ASEAN, particularly in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, means that a substantial stock of existing wells, platforms, and pipelines can be repurposed for carbon dioxide transport and injection. This existing infrastructure represents valuable natural capital that can significantly shorten the time to market for developing carbon storage hubs (Offshore Technology, 2023). Complementing this geology, cross border offtake models are advancing: Singapore’s S Hub (ExxonMobil–Shell) is working with government to deliver ≥ 2.5 MtCO₂/yr by 2030, leveraging regional storage under seabed or in depleted fields (EDB, 2024).
Malaysia’s natural capital for CCUS is especially notable: PETRONAS’ Malaysian Petroleum Management (MPM) has identified ~46 Tcf of potential CO₂ storage across 16 depleted fields, indicating capacity beyond domestic upstream CO₂ and opening the door to imported CO₂ streams (Mustafa et al., 2022). This geological base underwrites flagship assets like Kasawari CCS (the world’s largest offshore” by volume) with ~3.3 MtCO₂/yr capture and reinjection to the M1 reservoir via a 138 km subsea line, enabled by 14–15 kt topsides/jacket infrastructure (Čavčić, 2022; Offshore Technology, 2024). Policy is aligning with geology: Malaysia’s 2023 licensing round explicitly permits carbon storage appraisal (e.g., Penyu Basin blocks) after minimum work commitments, blending exploration with future CCS business models (Battersby, 2023). Together, these factors make Malaysia a credible storage hub that could accept CO₂ from regional emitters while decarbonising its own high CO₂ gas assets (EDB, 2024).
MCDR (marine carbon dioxide removal) natural capital across ASEAN stems from extensive coastlines, industrial ports, and warm shelf seas, which could support ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) and closed system mCDR co located with desalination or coastal industry; these pathways can increase ocean CO₂ uptake while potentially delivering acidification relief if done under strict MRV and safeguards (Siri et al., 2024; Ocean Visions, 2023). Governance guidance emphasises the need for science-based standards, robust permitting frameworks, and effective monitoring prior to scaling up field trials. This is particularly relevant for ASEAN as it considers pilot initiatives that link marine carbon dioxide removal with emerging carbon capture, utilisation, and storage hubs (Doney et al., 2025). Critically, mCDR efficiency and impacts are location dependent, reinforcing the need to site deployments where ocean dynamics favour durable drawdown and robust verification (Zhou et al., 2024; MIT Climate Portal, 2025).
Assessment of Capacity for Growth
Assessment of Capacity for Growth
UNCERTAIN OR SPECULATIVE
In the ASEAN region, Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) is poised for substantial expansion through 2035. Existing offshore and liquefied natural gas (LNG) capabilities in Indonesia and Malaysia are being repurposed for carbon storage, facilitated by regional knowledge sharing platforms and policy signals that integrate CCUS into the energy transition (ERIA, 2025; ACE, 2024). Because ASEAN green standards and many sovereign green frameworks restrict proceeds to “pure green” uses, CCUS in fossil power typically falls outside labelled green bonds, pushing developers toward alternative financing such as: SPVs tied to firm-level emissions-intensity KPIs; transition bonds or loans aligned with the ASEAN Taxonomy’s transition tiers; blended facilities (e.g., ACGF/ETM) for common-carrier transport and storage as well as industrial CCUS; and carbon revenue stacking from regulated or voluntary markets (ACMF, 2018; ATB, 2024; ADB, 2024).
In parallel, a coherent ASEAN CCUS deployment pathway is emerging around five priorities: (1) enhancing economic viability via carbon pricing, grants, tax credits, and contracts-for-revenue, leveraging SOEs and utilities to crowd in private capital; (2) cutting lead times through tighter stakeholder coordination and clear, time-bound licensing and permitting, including rules for transboundary CO₂ movement; (3) mitigating risk complexity with robust legislation clarifying CO₂ ownership, liability, and post-closure stewardship, harmonised technical and safety codes, and proactive public engagement; (4) narrowing innovation gaps through feasibility studies on technology readiness and socio-economic impacts and by embedding high-integrity CDR standards and certification; and (5) facilitating hubs supported by a regional sources-and-sinks database, open-access transport and storage frameworks, and alignment with international law for cross-border shipping and storage (ACE, 2024; ASEAN, 2023).
The bankability of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects is improving with hub and spoke models, such as Singapore’s S Hub. This model aims to capture at least 2.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MtCO₂) annually by 2030 and anchor cross-border shipping to regional sinks (EDB, 2024; Fajardy et al., 2025). The necessary hardware is being developed: Malaysia’s Kasawari CCS facility couples a ~3.3 MtCO₂/year facility to a 138-kilometer subsea line, demonstrating the readiness of heavy steel in a region with numerous repurposable fields and pipelines (Čavčić, 2022; Offshore Technology, 2024). Governance is progressing towards cross-border storage, led by Indonesia, although harmonised standards and long-term liability still require further development (ACE, 2024; ICCS Center, 2025). This trajectory is supported by abundant subsurface capacity: Malaysia’s regulator has mapped approximately 46 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of potential storage across 16 depleted fields, while Indonesia’s endowment exceeds hundreds of gigatonnes in saline aquifers and depleted reservoirs, supported by a wide range of offshore gas assets that expedite the time to market for storage hubs (Mustafa et al., 2022; Yi & Saliha, 2025; Offshore Technology, 2023).
In contrast, MCDR is in an earlier stage of commercialisation, with promising foundations but greater reliance on research capacity, MRV toolkits, and permitting. ASEAN’s robust coastal engineering infrastructure can be adapted to pilot closed-system approaches and ocean alkalinity enhancement in conjunction with existing desalination, ports, and industrial utilities. However, large-scale adoption will depend on rigorous scientific research, verifiable accounting, and reduced unit costs (currently ranging from USD 500 to USD 7,000 per ton) (Siri et al., 2024; MIT Climate Portal, 2025). Governance blueprints and safeguards are available and can be localised before field trials are scaled up. Nevertheless, national regulations for crediting and environmental oversight must be developed and implemented (Doney et al., 2025; CSIRO, 2025). Naturally, ASEAN’s warm shelf seas and extensive coastlines present an attractive opportunity for MCDR. However, its effectiveness is highly site-specific and influenced by circulation, mixing, and seasonal variations, underscoring the need for meticulous site selection and robust verification frameworks before gigatonne-scale deployment (Zhou et al., 2024; Ocean Visions, 2025).
Economics and execution are the primary obstacles. High initial costs and uncertain revenue streams hinder bankability; stakeholders consistently emphasise the necessity of carbon pricing, targeted grants/tax credits, and procurement-based revenue support to address viability gaps (ACE, 2024; Global CCS Institute, 2023). Extended lead times, multi-agency permitting, and cross-border regulations add complexity, particularly for hub-and-cluster models; clarity on CO₂ classification/ownership, post-closure liability, and harmonised technical standards are still developing (ACE, 2024). The coal fleet’s embedded contracts and relative youth exacerbate the transition challenge and can entail substantial buyout expenses, although proposals such as “transition credits” aim to expedite credible retirements while addressing investor claims (WRI, 2025; McKinsey & MAS, 2023). Concurrently, recent analysis suggests that the average age of ASEAN coal plants will be compatible with retirement by 2040 under favourable policy conditions, highlighting the significance of financing and regulatory design rather than solely technical obstacles (Global Energy Monitor, 2024).
