In 2030, the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level’s extra-EU imports are limited to shipped imports through the PCI reception terminals in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The overall contribution of shipped hydrogen imports are rather limited when compared to the overall EU hydrogen demand. Therefore, in this infrastructure level, European hydrogen demand is mostly met by indigenous production through electrolysis or hydrogen production using natural gas which are not enough to fully cover the hydrogen demand. Therefore, curtailed hydrogen demand is significant.

In 2030, in the Advanced hydrogen infrastructure level, Europe will receive imports also from North Africa contributing to the reduction of hydrogen demand curtailment via higher utilisation rates of interconnected supply corridors.

The overall yearly supply-demand balance for the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in 2030 for the reference weather year is presented in Table 7.

As detailed in Table 7, electrolytic hydrogen production is the main source of hydrogen in Europe. This assessment results in an approximate share of 8.3 % of hydrogen demand curtailment in Europe.

Figure 3 shows the hydrogen production via electrolysis in the different European countries for the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in the 2030 assessment. The countries with highest electrolytic hydrogen production are Spain, Finland, Sweden, and Germany. Some countries have more than one source of electrolytic hydrogen production.

This is related to the intra-country assumptions, which can be summarized as it follows:

Intra-EU cross-border flows emerge between ­different European countries due to limitations of available supplies and associated costs. Figure 5 shows these flows.

Two main transport corridors emerge in the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in the 2030 assessment, one from the Iberian Peninsula towards Germany through France and one from Nordic countries to Germany.

This result is explained by the fact that these ­corridors are connecting countries with high availability of supply with other countries where hydrogen ­supplies might be limited or more expensive.

In addition, among the interconnected countries within the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level, Germany shows the highest demand and at the same time enables transport of supply to its neighbouring countries, acting as a hydrogen hub.

In the 2030 PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level assessment for the reference weather year, countries can be grouped in four different categories according to their supply-demand balance on a yearly basis:

While on a yearly basis some countries are net exporters and some countries are net importers, net exporters may be relying on net imports during certain shorter periods of time and net importers may be providing net exports during certain shorter periods of time. This can result in bidirectional flows at interconnections. This situation is caused by the seasonality of electrolytic hydrogen production and to some extent by the seasonality of hydrogen demand.

The overall yearly supply-demand balance for the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in 2030 for the stressful weather year is presented in Table 9. As detailed in Table 9, electrolytic hydrogen production is the main source of hydrogen in Europe but it is reduced in comparison with the reference weather year.

This assessment results in an approximate share of 11.1 % of curtailed hydrogen demand at European level. This represents an increase by 3 percentage points in comparison with the reference weather year.

Figure 6 shows the hydrogen production via electrolysis in the different European countries for the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in the 2030 assessment. The countries with highest electrolytic hydrogen production are Spain, Finland, Sweden, and Germany.

Some countries have more than one source of electrolytic hydrogen production. This is related to the intra-country assumptions, which is explained in section 3.1.1.

Intra-European cross-border flows emerge between different European countries due to limitations of available supplies and associated costs. Figure 8 shows resulting yearly average flows under stressful weather conditions.

In comparison with the reference weather year, the export from countries that to a large extent base their hydrogen production on RES is reduced. This reduces the usage of the Iberian and of the Nordic corridor.

At the same time, the import ­terminals must be used to a higher extent, increasing exports of countries and regions with such ­terminals. ­Germany maintains its role as hydrogen hub. Despite the overall reduction of electrolytic ­hydrogen production, under stressful weather conditions the countries with the highest electrolytic hydrogen production follow the same distribution as in the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in 2030 for the reference weather year.

In the 2030 PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level assessment for the stressful weather year, countries can be grouped in four different categories according to their supply-demand balance on a yearly basis:

While on a yearly basis some countries are net exporters and some countries are net importers, net exporters may be relying on net imports during certain shorter periods of time and net importers may be providing net exports during certain shorter periods of time. This can result in bidirectional flows at interconnections. This situation is caused by the seasonality of electrolytic hydrogen production and to some extent by the seasonality of hydrogen demand.

The price formation in the DHEM is based on the merit order of hydrogen production (see section 1.2.1). Several price groups stand out, while a signification correlation is understood here as a correlation above 0.7:

The price correlations listed above are enabled by the infrastructure projects already considered in this hydrogen infrastructure level. However, price differences that led to the identification of the groups listed above are not necessarily describing an infrastructure gap. For this identification of infrastructure gaps, the thresholds of IGI indicator 1 are used.

If one of the two thresholds of IGI indicator 1 is passed, a regional hydrogen infrastructure gap is assumed to be identified (see section 1.2.1)

Table 11 lists the borders for which Threshold 1 and/or Threshold 2 were passed. In this case, both ­thresholds were always passed at the same ­borders.

As explained in section 1.2.2, this IGI indicator assesses infrastructure gaps by quantifying hydrogen demand curtailments at individual nodes ­during the reference weather year, assuming no ­disruptions of infrastructures or of supply sources. It involves a multi-step simulation process integrating DHEM and DGM³ outputs to evaluate the combined curtailments across nodes. The assessment is performed for the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in 2030.

Figure 10 and Table 12 show yearly average ­curtailment rates of hydrogen demand in the Zone 2 nodes of different European countries. For countries where the hydrogen market is divided into several sub-zones (i. e., nodes), the curtailment rate in the different sub-zones is presented. The yearly average hydrogen curtailment rates are thereby colour-coded in the map to indicate levels relative to the set threshold: blue signifies curtailment above the threshold, while green represents rates that are not above it.

In the 2030 assessment of the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level, hydrogen demand is curtailed all over Europe. However, differences in the hydrogen curtailment rates between nodes are related to the level of infrastructure development and supply availability.

As explained in the description of the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level (see section 1.1 and Figure 1), with limited availability of extra-EU supplies, hydrogen demand is satisfied mainly with electrolytic hydrogen production and hydrogen production from natural gas.

Countries with higher availability of supply from those sources or from imports show lower curtailment rates. Only Bulgaria and Croatia hydrogen demand is completely undisrupted and the hydrogen demand curtailment in Italy is very low. All other countries including strong net exporters face (weather-induced) disruptions. In comparison with IGI indicator 1, this IGI indicator focusses on the availability of supplies.

As detailed in Figure 11, (regions of) countries can be aggregated in six different groups according to their average yearly hydrogen demand curtailment rates:

Without the infrastructure already considered in the hydrogen infrastructure level, the overall hydrogen demand curtailment would be higher.

All countries of group 1 have high shares of hydrogen produced from natural gas to cover national demand.

Among the countries of group 2, Spain, Sweden and Finland receive a significant share of their supply from national electrolytic hydrogen production, while Belgium, and the Netherlands, have access to extra-EU import capacities. The France-South region benefits from potential supplies from the Iberian Peninsula but also from other parts of France. At the same time, while the average demand curtailment is comparably low, all relevant nodes at certain hours of the year hit very high curtailment rates between 84 % in Spain, 89 % in Germany, and 100 % in the other nodes.

Among the countries of group 3, some countries like Denmark, Portugal, the United Kingdom and Ireland, despite having significant electrolytic hydrogen production compared to the national demand, still cannot cover all demand when RES are not available. In the case of Denmark and Portugal, being peripheric countries, their neighbouring countries (i. e., Germany and Spain) can help to mitigate demand curtailment, whereas in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, being isolated from Europe leads to higher curtailment rates. Among the countries of group 3, some countries such as Austria, Estonia, Germany and Latvia, despite being well interconnected, show demand curtailment mainly due to the limited availability of supplies for the EU in general that are then rather consumed closer to the location of production or import. For France, different curtailment rates are observed between the different hydrogen nodes. The France-Southwest region is the area with higher curtailment (i. e., 33.3 %) as it is isolated and strictly depends on local production. Between the other two demand nodes in France (i. e., France and France-South regions) there is 7 % of difference in the demand curtailment due to privileged access of the France-South region to supply from the Iberian Peninsula.

Among the countries of group 4, some countries like Czechia and Lithuania show high curtailment rates (i. e., 27.6 % and 21.1 %), despite being connected to Germany, in case of Czechia and other Baltic Sea countries, in case of Lithuania. This is because both countries need significant imports from their neighbouring countries to satisfy demand while the neighbouring countries at certain periods of time do not have access to surplus supplies for export. In addition, national production in Lithuania represents a higher share of the demand in comparison with the Czech Republic. Greece shows a curtailment rate of 33.3 %, which can be explained by the fact that despite being interconnected with Bulgaria, both countries are isolated from the rest of Europe (see section 1.1 and Figure 1). Lastly, the Belgium-Mons region is designed to be an individual cluster only connected to France (Valenciennes production cluster) and not interconnected to the remaining Belgian grid in the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in 2030. Due to this isolated situation, curtailment is significantly higher (i. e., 24.1 %) than in the rest of the country (i. e., 0.9 %).

Group 5 includes countries with very high curtailment rates of up to nearly 100 %. All the countries in this group are fully isolated and rely on national hydrogen supplies, mainly produced from ­natural gas. This is also the case for the Poland-South region that shows a curtailment rate of almost 60 %, whereas the Poland-North region has a curtailment rate of around 31 % due to higher hydrogen generation in that region.

Group 6 includes only isolated countries that have hydrogen demand but no national hydrogen production assets connected to Zone 2.

In Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and ­Slovenia, on top of the hydrogen demand curtailments observed in Zone 2 nodes as described in the paragraphs above, hydrogen demand curtailments can be observed in Zone 1. While these curtailments are limited to a few months in Sweden and Finland, it is of relevance in every month in Ireland and reaches up to 86 % in December in Denmark and up to 96 % in December in Slovenia.

Figure 11 and Table 13 show the yearly average hydrogen demand curtailment rates in the Zone 2 nodes of various European countries for 2030, simulated under a stressful weather year. This weather scenario assumes adverse conditions, such as reduced wind and solar energy availability, which directly impacts hydrogen production.

For countries with hydrogen markets divided into multiple sub-zones (i. e., nodes), curtailment rates are depicted individually for each sub-zone on the map. The yearly average hydrogen curtailment rates are thereby colour-coded to indicate levels relative to the set threshold 1: blue signifies curtailment above the threshold, while green represents rates that are not.

As detailed in Figure 11, countries can be aggregated in different groups according to their average yearly hydrogen demand curtailment rates:

Based on Table 13, the countries that have a yearly average hydrogen demand curtailment rate below 3 % in the stressful weather year are Spain, France-South region, the Netherlands, Croatia, Italy, Belgium, and Bulgaria.

The second group of countries includes Sweden, Portugal, France, the France-North region, Finland, Estonia, and Germany. These nations exhibit demand curtailment rates exceeding the defined threshold 1 but remaining at or below 20 %. This trend can be attributed to the composition of the composition of their hydrogen production means. For instance, Sweden, with a demand curtailment rate of 4.95 %, leverages a substantial share of wind and hydropower, ensuring greater stability in its hydrogen supply. Finland is comparable to Sweden, while France demonstrates a 12 % demand curtailment rate, where its reliance on nuclear energy mitigates dependence on fluctuating climatic conditions, enhancing supply availability. Germany benefits from its proximity to multiple supply options as it is in the centre of the Iberian and the Nordic corridor, has own import terminals, and has access to terminals in neighbouring countries.

The third group encompasses Belgium-Mons, ­Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, Hungary, Greece, Denmark, Czechia, and Austria. This cohort includes countries like Greece (33.94 %) and Denmark (26.94 %) alongside others such as Czechia and Ireland, which face challenges stemming from their relative isolation within the hydrogen production and distribution topology. Geographic and infrastructural isolation increases reliance on domestically produced hydrogen, particularly from RES. Furthermore, dependency on imports from a single connected country—similarly affected by climatic stress—limits the availability of external hydrogen supplies. In such cases, countries prioritize domestic needs over exports, further constraining the import options for these isolated or peripheric regions.

The fourth group contains Slovenia, Romania, Poland and Luxembourg that show annual average hydrogen demand curtailment rates that exceed 50 % but remain below 100 % under the stressful weather year. The high curtailment rate observed in Luxembourg can be primarily attributed to the absence of interconnections with the neighbouring countries in the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in combination with low national hydrogen production options. In Poland, which is divided into a northern region and a southern region, the southern region experiences notably higher curtailment rates under the stressful weather year due to lower hydrogen generation in the Poland-South region than in the Poland-North region. This disparity arises also due to a lack of sufficient PCI infrastructure which, combined with intensified weather impacts, significantly limits the ability to meet hydrogen demand. Romania and Slovenia also encounter substantial curtailments. In both countries, limited infrastructure in the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in 2030 results in considerable hydrogen demand curtailment, regardless of weather variability. Consequently, while weather conditions play a role, they are not the primary factor in the persistently high curtailment rates observed in these countries.

Full demand curtailment under the stressful weather year has been identified for Slovakia, Malta and Cyprus, as has been the case for the reference weather year. These countries are fully isolated in the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level in 2030 and have no national hydrogen production assets connected to Zone 2.

In 2030, compared to the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level, the advanced infrastructure level considers several new infrastructures (see section 1.1.2): Besides a connection between Algeria and Italy, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania are connected to Germany, Poland and Czechia instead of being isolated.

The overall yearly supply-demand balance for the advanced infrastructure level in 2030 for the reference weather year is presented in Table 14. As detailed in Table 14, electrolytic hydrogen ­production is the main source of hydrogen in Europe.

This assessment results in an approximate share of 4.3 % of hydrogen demand curtailment in Europe. This is a significant decrease compared to the curtailment rate of 8.3 % for the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level. Thereby, electrolytic hydrogen production, hydrogen production from natural gas and imports via terminals are all slightly reduced on yearly average as Algerian supply is partially replacing these supplies due to the merit order besides decreasing the hydrogen demand curtailment.

Figure 12 shows the hydrogen production via electrolysis in the different European countries for the Advanced hydrogen infrastructure level in the 2030 assessment. The countries with highest electrolytic hydrogen production are Spain, Finland, Sweden, and Germany.

Some countries have more than one source of electrolytic hydrogen production. This is related to the intra-country assumptions, which is explained in section 3.1.1.

Intra-EU cross-border flows emerge between different European countries due to limitations of available supplies and associated costs. Figure 14 shows these flows.

Compared to the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level, which contains the Iberian and the Nordic corridor, a new main corridor emerged in the advanced infrastructure level:

In addition, among the interconnected countries within the advanced infrastructure level, new interconnections with Slovakia, Hungary and Romania enable new flows to these countries from German/Czechian and Austrian hubs.

In the 2030 Advanced infrastructure level assessment countries can be grouped in four different categories according to their supply-demand balance on a yearly basis:

In comparison with the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level, Italy will change from exporting role to transit country due to the availability of North African supplies. In addition, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary could overcome isolation, and Austria changed from group 2 to group 3.

While on a yearly basis some countries are net exporters and some countries are net importers, net exporters may be relying on net imports during certain shorter periods of time and net importers may be providing net exports during certain shorter periods of time. This can result in bidirectional flows at interconnections. This situation is caused by the seasonality of electrolytic hydrogen production and to some extent by the seasonality of hydrogen demand.

The overall yearly supply-demand balance for the Advanced hydrogen infrastructure level in 2030 for the stressful weather year is presented in Table 16. As detailed in Table 16, electrolytic hydrogen production is the main source of hydrogen in Europe but it is reduced in comparison with the reference weather year and is partially compensated by increase used of SMR.

This assessment results in an approximate share of 6.1 % of curtailed hydrogen demand at European level. This represents an increase by 2 percentage points in comparison with the reference weather year.

As shown in Figure 17, flow characteristics are the same as for the reference weather year.

Less availability of RES for electrolytic hydrogen production reduces flows from European exporting countries.

The price formation in the DHEM is based on the merit order of hydrogen production (see section 1.2.1). Several price groups stand out, while a signification correlation is understood here as a correlation above 0.7:

The price correlations listed above are enabled by the infrastructure projects already considered in this hydrogen infrastructure level. However, price differences that led to the identification of the groups listed above are not necessarily describing an infrastructure gap. For this identification of infrastructure gaps, the thresholds of IGI indicator 1 are used.

Hydrogen market clearing price spreads

If one of the two thresholds of IGI indicator 1 is passed, a regional hydrogen infrastructure gap is assumed to be identified (see section 1.2.1). Table 18 lists the borders for which Threshold 1 and Threshold 2 were passed. In this case, both thresholds were always passed at the same borders.

In comparison with the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level, the price spreads at the following borders decreased below the thresholds through the additional infrastructure of the Advanced hydrogen infrastructure level (see Figure 19):

As explained in section 1.2.2, this IGI indicator assesses infrastructure gaps by quantifying hydrogen demand curtailments at individual nodes ­during the reference weather year, assuming no disruptions of infrastructures or of supply sources. It involves a multi-step simulation process integrating DHEM and DGM⁵ outputs to evaluate the combined curtailments across nodes. The assessment is ­performed for the Advanced hydrogen infrastructure level in 2030.

Figure 19 and Table 19 show yearly average curtailment rates of hydrogen demand in the Zone 2 nodes of different European countries. For countries where the hydrogen market is divided into several sub-zones (i. e., nodes), the curtailment rate in the different sub-zones is presented. The yearly average hydrogen curtailment rates are thereby colour-­coded in the map to indicate levels relative to the set threshold: blue signifies curtailment above the threshold, while green represents rates that are not above it.

In the 2030 assessment of the advanced infrastructure level, hydrogen demand is curtailed in most European countries.

As explained in the description of the Advanced hydrogen infrastructure level (see section 1.1.2), with limited availability of extra-EU supplies, hydrogen demand is satisfied mainly with electrolytic hydrogen production and hydrogen production from natural gas. Countries with higher availability of supply from those sources or from imports show lower curtailment rates. Most countries including strong net exporters face (weather-induced) disruptions. In comparison with IGI indicator 1, this IGI indicator focusses on the availability of supplies.

As detailed in Table 19, (regions of) countries can be aggregated in six different groups according to their average yearly hydrogen demand curtailment rates:

Without the infrastructure already considered in the hydrogen infrastructure level, the overall hydrogen demand curtailment would be higher.

Compared with the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level, group 1 also includes the France-South region and the Netherlands. All countries in this group do not face any hydrogen demand disruption (i. e., 0 % curtailment rates). The very low curtailment of Italy in the PCI/PMI infrastructure level (i. e., 0.1 %) is completely removed due to the additional imports from North Africa. The France-South region can benefit from privileged access to Iberian supply. The Netherlands benefit from additional import capacities. Furthermore, Bulgaria, Croatia have high shares of hydrogen produced from natural gas to cover nation demand.

Compared to the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level, group 2 grows by France and Estonia. Among the countries of group 2, Spain, Sweden and Finland receive a significant share of their supply from national electrolytic hydrogen production, while Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany have their curtailment reduced thanks to (indirect) access to the extra-EU import capacities in North Africa unlocked in the Advanced level. Austria and Germany have (indirect) access to extra-EU import capacities. France benefits both from Iberian supply as well as imports to countries in its East, Estonia benefits from its proximity to Finland, and Austria benefits from its connections with both Germany and Italy.

Compared to the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level, group 3 grows by the Poland-North region, Hungary, the Belgium-Mons region, Czechia, Slovakia, the France-Southwest region, and Romania due to non-PCI projects with advanced status that provide additional capacities to supply these countries/regions. Among the countries of group 3, some countries like Denmark, Portugal, the United Kingdom and Ireland, despite having significant electrolytic hydrogen production compared to the national demand, still cannot cover all demand when RES are not available. In the cases of Denmark and Portugal, being peripheric countries, their neighbouring countries (i. e., Germany and Spain) can help to mitigate hydrogen demand curtailment. Lithuania and Latvia can receive hydrogen from Finland via Estonia and from Poland to mitigate demand curtailment. Estonia and Poland will both only provide hydrogen to Lithuania and Latvia when having access to surplus hydrogen quantities. In the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, being isolated from Europe leads to higher curtailment rates due to limited options for cross-border balancing.

Within the same group 3, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania are benefiting from new interconnections. Thereby, Slovakia is the transit country to Hungary and Hungary is the transit country to Romania. While the France-Southwest region is still isolated and strictly depends on local production, the hydrogen demand curtailment is reduced compared to the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level. This is enabled by the additional hydrogen storage capacities in the France-Southwest region in the advanced infrastructure level. In addition, Czechia benefits from the fact that its western neighbours can share more hydrogen surplus.

In group 4, Greece shows a curtailment rate of 33.4 %, which can be explained by the fact that despite the new interconnections in the advanced infrastructure level in Eastern Europe, Greece and Bulgaria remained isolated and therefore their situation is not improved compared to the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level.

Group 5 includes countries with very high curtailment rates. All the countries in this group are fully isolated and rely on national hydrogen supplies mainly produced from natural gas.

Group 6 includes only isolated countries that have hydrogen demand but no national hydrogen production assets connected to Zone 2.

In Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and ­Slovenia, on top of the hydrogen demand curtailments observed in Zone 2 nodes as described in the paragraphs above, hydrogen demand curtailments can be observed in Zone 1. While these curtailments are limited to a few months in Sweden and Finland, it is of relevance in every month in Ireland and reaches high levels in Denmark and Slovenia. Compared to the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level, these curtailments are slightly reduced due to higher availability of electricity for electrolytic hydrogen production due to additional imports (i. e., new availability of North African imports and import ­terminals).

Table 20 shows the yearly average hydrogen demand curtailment rates in the Zone 2 nodes of various European countries for 2030, simulated under a stressful weather year. This weather scenario assumes adverse conditions, such as reduced wind and solar energy availability, which directly impacts electrolytic hydrogen production. For countries with hydrogen markets divided into multiple sub-zones (i. e., nodes), curtailment rates are depicted individually for each sub-zone on the map.

The yearly average hydrogen curtailment rates are thereby colour-coded to indicate levels relative to the set threshold 1: blue signifies curtailment above the threshold, while green represents rates that are not.

In interconnected countries, the average hydrogen demand curtailment rates in Zone 2 are more or less doubled compared to the reference weather year as less hydrogen is available during stressful weather conditions.

As detailed in Table 20, (regions of) countries can be aggregated in different groups according to their average yearly hydrogen demand curtailment rates:

Table 21 displays the maximum utilisation rates of hydrogen interconnections for both hydrogen infrastructure levels in 2030 for the reference weather year. Table 22 shows this information for the stressful weather year.

As stated in section 1.1, some countries are completely isolated from the hydrogen infrastructure:

When interpreting the tables, the strategic dimensioning of interconnections becomes more evident when also considering the data for 2040 as presented in section 4.2.1. As hydrogen pipelines have significant economies of scale, one early investment with a large pipeline diameter can represent an anticipatory investment.

This section will be produced after the public consultation of the TYNDP 2024 Infrastructure Gaps Identification report in line with the methodology described by steps 2 to 3 in section 6 of the TYNDP 2024 Annex D2.

Solved infrastructure gaps in Advanced hydrogen infrastructure level compared to PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level

The additional projects of the advanced infrastructure level could solve the following indications of regional hydrogen infrastructure gaps:

Nevertheless, not all IGI indicators could be solved from a regional perspective even if the advanced hydrogen projects provide benefits.

Identification of advanced, non-PCI/PMI ­projects responsible for solving hydrogen ­infrastructure gaps by addressing hydrogen infrastructure bottlenecks

The following advanced, non-PCI/PMI projects contributed to mitigate the identified infrastructure gaps in the 2030 assessment:

Besides the projects listed above, the projects included in the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level also contribute to the solving and mitigation of infrastructure gaps.