Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon, and welcome to our strategy presentation. Over the last six years, we've reshaped Snam in four main ways. We've made Snam simpler, leaner and faster. We've removed organizational layers up to four in certain areas, and we've hired or acquired 1,396 new colleagues that bring new excellent skills, particularly in green energy. Great people are gonna be a key scarce resource in the race to zero. Second, we've enhanced the value of our assets and secured their role in the energy transition. Snam has taken the leadership on hydrogen readiness, designing and carrying out tests for both transport and storage, and future-proofing our assets and investment plans. Third, we have expanded our playing field, launching new ventures in hydrogen, biomethane, energy efficiency, and sustainable mobility. Fourth, we've expanded our geographical footprint.
The assets we've acquired have enabled us to establish partnerships with key investors and energy companies to generate superior returns and provide opportunities for additional growth in areas of the world with the best renewable potential, for instance, in the Middle East. We've done all this while continuing to cut costs and grow. We have increased investments in our core business and earnings per share by around 50%, and we've returned almost EUR 5 billion to shareholders through dividends and buybacks. As a result of this repositioning, Snam today is in a sweet spot. We have solid near-term growth and cash flows, and we have the assets and competences required to excel in the energy transition, providing accelerated and superior long-term growth. Today, we're announcing some breaking news that will underpin our future.
First, our vision to create a 2,700 km hydrogen backbone before 2030. The first tranche of a national hydrogen infrastructure, which we expect will be regulated at a premium compared to today's returns. Second, our acquisition of the TTPC, TMPC pipelines, which carry natural gas from North Africa into Italy. These will be key to unlocking the vast potential of North African green hydrogen production, feeding into our H2 backbone and through Italy into Europe. Thirdly, the tests that we've carried out to show that our 17 billion m³ of gas storage capacity can hold up to 100% of hydrogen. This provides a truly massive amount of Net Zero flexibility. I think this is the least understood challenge and also opportunity of the energy transition.
To build the same amount of storage for electrons, that is in batteries, would require tens of trillions of Euros of CapEx. Fourth, we've also made our first international storage acquisition, buying a stake in dCarbonX, a company which is set to play a key role in the promising hydrogen market in Ireland. Finally, our partnership with De Nora has created a lot of value, not least through our support of the De Nora Gigafactory project. This value will be crystallized as the company has indicated it will go public in the near future. At the same time as having an enviable future-proof portfolio of assets, Snam also has unique characteristics. We are a purpose-led company committed to Net Zero. We are the first in our sector to announce a Scope 3 emissions reduction target on our associates and on our suppliers.
We have unique engineering and project management expertise to deliver infrastructure projects on time and on budget. Our ability to work in partnership will become increasingly relevant in the context of accelerating investments in the decarbonization. Our presentation today will provide a vision of our growth to 2030, as well as our five-year strategic plan horizon. COP 26 was a tipping point for Net Zero. Political commitment, technology, policy, and funding are finally all falling into place. What is missing are now bankable, replicable, and scalable projects that need to be sanctioned in a hurry if we're to achieve staying below 1.5 degrees warming. This is the world's challenge, and this is Snam's opportunity. There are now finally a consensus that green gas will have a very significant role to play.
Electricity will only account to about half of the energy mix by 2050 in a fully decarbonized state. Over a third of the system will be running on biomethane, low carbon gas, and especially hydrogen. Hydrogen is no longer the fuel of the future. It is happening today. Falling costs mean that in the next few years, we'll have hydrogen cheaper than fossil fuels cost today. This, coupled with a supportive policy environment, means that real sizable projects will approach FID much sooner than expected. This is the beginning of an investment opportunity which will account for the lion's share of the $150 trillion of CapEx required to reach zero. There is no shortage of investors keen to supply the capital.
The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero has signed up already 130 trillion of assets committed to the Net Zero pathway. Much of the value creation of this investment cycle will be focused on midstream infrastructure. That's because of the key and central role it will play. In a traditional energy system, the really hard job was finding and producing oil and gas. It required capital, cutting-edge technology, the capacity to manage geopolitical risk, and that was where the lion's share of the project's returns were. The midstream sector traditionally was mainly a way of getting fuels from A- B. It could still make good returns on some complex projects, but more or less infrastructure returns were half of those in the upstream. The Net Zero energy system will make these roles invert.
With the advent of modular renewables, upstream energy production will have low barriers to entry, very high competition between different sources, lower risks and lower returns. The sun and the wind and the capacity to harvest them will scarcely be a problem. What will be far more complex is turning this intermittent, seasonal, and often far away energy produced in the oceans and the deserts into energy that's available exactly where and when we want it. That's why the energy storage will be the next big thing. There will be value in interconnecting molecules and electrons. For example, turning excess renewable into hydrogen, transporting and storing it through the gas grid, and then using it to deliver peak winter heating, whether directly or by providing flexibility to the power grid.
This will be far cheaper than trying to manage the intermittency of supply and the seasonality of demand through electricity alone. What happens in a hybrid vehicle, which is constantly optimizing between electrons and molecules, will begin to happen in factories and maybe in homes, enabled by the smart integration of infrastructure. This is where people will be able to earn higher returns. A sizable amount of the CapEx super cycle will be focused on midstream green energy infrastructure along three mega trends. The first, we need 30 times the solar and wind capacity we have today. Second, hydrogen production will need to increase 100-200 times the current size to account for between 15%-35% of the total energy needs, an endeavor that will require up to $100 trillion of CapEx.
A third mega trend that is finally gaining more traction is carbon removal. We may need to capture and store up to a third of the CO₂ that we emit today if we're to keep within 1.5 degrees. All of these figures assume the continued effort on energy efficiency. We need to keep overall energy demand flat to 2050, notwithstanding a doubling of GDP and 2 billion extra people on our planet. Overall, this super cycle entails around EUR 100 trillion-EUR 150 trillion of investments through the value chain by 2050. That's around EUR 5 trillion per year. A significant challenge for an energy sector that's already stretched, investing less than EUR 2 trillion a year. It means conceptually, there's room for every company and every investor to almost triple the current pace of investment.
I believe the bottleneck will really be the capacity to get steel built on the ground. People, equipment, and project management capabilities are gonna be the missing ingredient and the scarce resource. That is exactly what Snam is good at and why, as I think about the energy transition, I think the world needs more Snams. Looking more closely at hydrogen, from a starting cost of around $600/MWh, we're already down to below 100 today where it's sunny. That's already half of today's wholesale power prices in Europe, and that's broadly aligned with today's expensive gas costs. The tipping point for hydrogen is $2/kg or $50/MWh. According to the Green Hydrogen Catapult, of which Snam is a founding member, we'll get there within five years, assuming only 25 GW of accumulated global electrolyzer demand.
That looks increasingly achievable as we already have over 90 GW of hydrogen capacity that has been announced worldwide. At $1/kg or $25/MWh, hydrogen becomes competitive with many more fossil fuels, including coal and most current uses. Getting to that level is the only way we will stay below 1.5 degrees, and that's what's required to get China and India to phase down and eventually phase out of coal. I'm therefore very excited that the $1/kg level is the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Shot. They want to get there. The U.S. government wants to get there before 2030. I'm even more excited to see BNEF, BloombergNEF, to forecast hydrogen at below or around $0.5/kg by 2050.
Just as a reminder, that's only above EUR 10 per MWh, which is almost 10x cheaper than some of the more recent nuclear projects. Given hydrogen's cost trajectory, some policy nudges will only be required to get the initial scale going. Many countries are stepping in to provide just that. The new German coalition government has doubled targeted hydrogen capacity to 10 GW by 2030. Italy has a EUR 3.6 billion hydrogen CapEx support in the Recovery and Resilience Plan, and that's mainly gonna be focused on the hard-to-abate sectors. We see widespread recognition for the need of OpEx support to hydrogen projects in the form of contracts for difference, both on the supply and on the demand side.
The U.S. has recently approved funding for hydrogen hubs and is now proposing tax credits of up to $3 per kilo for clean hydrogen, as well as enhanced fiscal support for CCS. Blending hydrogen in the natural gas grid is a useful way to scale up the market at a very low cost. This is being considered in the Netherlands and according to a leaked version in the EU gas and hydrogen package. Imports and exports will be crucial to optimize the overall market. Germany is set to allocate significant public funding to hydrogen production also outside of Europe. Italy's ambition is to become a hydrogen hub for Europe, importing green hydrogen from North Africa and exporting it to the north. With regards to infrastructure, the emerging consensus is that in Europe, it will be regulated hydrogen networks with their own RAB.
The EU is expected to address the issue in the upcoming gas and hydrogen package. Germany has already proposed regulation for the hydrogen network, with a 9% cost of equity to be included in the premium WACC formula. Hydrogen's green premium can also be bridged by consumers. The cost of a car made with green steel is only 0.7% higher than an ordinary car, and there's an interest in a growing system of eco-labeling, which could allow this to happen for any good. We see a centralized model as the most efficient way of producing and delivering large volumes of hydrogen.
The analysis we've done for Italy suggests that producing renewable power in the sunny south, turning it into hydrogen with large scale electrolyzers, and then using existing natural gas pipelines and storage is both the most secure and the cheapest way of delivering hydrogen at between $2-$4 a kilo. With only a tenth of which would be necessary for transport. Producing hydrogen at the point of use by using dedicated nearby renewables avoids the transport costs, but may mean choosing suboptimal areas for renewable production, even assuming there's enough space. It also means every consumption site needs to build its own storage to manage the seasonality and intermittency of renewable production. To reach its overall objectives, Italy needs to build 8 GW of renewable sources a year until 2030 and beyond.
Today, we're only building 1 GW per year, and so that's going to be a real challenge even without having to try to build additional renewables focused on the consumption areas. Producing hydrogen using power from the grid is probably the easiest thing to do to get going, but it will not work in the long term as the market scales up. Transporting energy through the power grid is expensive compared to using the gas network, especially considering the cost for balancing and storage. Running all the energy we need through the power lines will further burden the electricity network, requiring significant investments to upgrade it, and it also makes for a more fragile system. Of course, there will be space for the different archetypes in different circumstances, but promoting a centralized model will deliver a much more affordable, scalable, and secure system.
As well as pipelines, the new energy system will also require an entirely different approach to storage. Today, each fuel value chain has its own vertical storage built into it. The oil sector, for example, has 7.2 billion barrels of storage, which is equivalent to over 70 days of global consumption. The gas sector has 422 BCM of storage scattered around 661 different facilities globally. Overall, fossil fuels and fossil fuel molecules have intrinsically in their value chains over 19,000 TWh of storage capacity. Now, to replace those in today's systems would cost around EUR 500 billion. But if they were to be replaced with batteries, the cost would skyrocket in the hundreds of trillions of Euros. In a Net Zero system, overall storage requirements will change dramatically.
We will need to invest in new types of storage, some of it to replace our current molecules, in the form of long-term flexible storage and some to cover the shorter-term fluctuations. We will need to substitute the long-term storage currently provided by the gas system. In Italy, in the U.K., the gas grids deliver twice as much energy as the power grid in the summer, but deliver 4-5 times more energy in the winter, as is clearly seen in this graph. Only a week of very cold weather can have the same demand impact as the entire electricity system. At the same time, the daily variation in demand on the power grid will increase by 3.5 times compared today, as the grid relies on intermittent and seasonal production and has to satisfy and accept a greater percentage of consumption.
We recently had a taste of what this means when in September, lower wind in the U.K. took around 20 GW of capacity out of an already strained system, sending prices through the roof. The much needed flexibility of the Net Zero system will be provided by green electrons and green molecules working together. How we will store this energy will very much be a function of time, of the duration of the storage. When charged and discharged daily, batteries add 110 EUR per MWh to power costs. That's around 5x higher than the cost of using hydrogen tanks and 50 times higher than salt caverns. If we're looking at storage durations that are longer than a day, weekly, monthly, or seasonal storage, hydrogen and biomethane cost EUR 5-EUR 40 per MWh.
Battery would cost EUR 770 per MWh when used weekly, and if you were to spread the CapEx over a monthly use, they would cost over EUR 3,000 per MWh. Let's not even think about the seasonal use. There's also large differences in the CapEx required to build the different technologies. Developing 10 TWh of depleted fields, turning them into hydrogen storage, would cost around EUR 1 billion. Twice as much as the cost of methane storage. But still 2,500x less than the EUR 2.5 trillion it would cost to develop the same storage with lithium ion batteries, even assuming the cost of batteries fall to a low $100 per kWh.
Much of the investment required by 2050 will be in hydrogen production and the reshaping and purposing of the energy transport and storage system, including for the CO₂ value chain. All these areas are ones in which Snam already has a leading position and in which we have chosen to focus our future growth. More specifically, we've chosen to focus our growth on three areas. The first is the energy networks to transport methane, biomethane, low carbon gas, and CO₂. The second area is new integrated energy storage, where we will enhance the performance of our hydrogen-ready assets and expand into new low carbon storage and new geographies. The third area of growth for Snam are our integrated green projects in the molecule space, particularly.
We will continue to leverage our skills, commercial relationships, and partnerships we've developed through our energy transition platforms to seek projects that are bigger, scalable, particularly in hydrogen and biomethane. Following the work we've done, the reputation we've built, we're fortunate that we have access to more opportunities than we have the people, bandwidth, and resources to pursue. We are therefore choosing to focus on the best projects, those which have scale or close to our assets, where we can deploy our competences and therefore have higher returns. The screening from a broader set of opportunities has already yielded EUR 23 billion of weighted investments for the 2021-2030 period.
EUR 15 billion of these are in energy networks, where we envisioned EUR 12 billion in investments in our Italian transport infrastructure and EUR 3 billion to create the first tranche of a hydrogen backbone running from north to south, mainly using existing infrastructure and really positioning Italy as a hydrogen export hub. EUR 5 billion will be in energy storage, where we've identified EUR 3 billion investments to maintain and enhance the performance of the regulated methane storage and EUR 2 billion of weighted greenfield and brownfield opportunities in the new energy storage, including hydrogen and CO₂. With regards to the green energy projects, we have EUR 3 billion of investment opportunities, continuing our existing platform and pursuing bigger hydrogen, biomethane, and CCS projects in Italy and abroad.
The basket of investments would not alter Snam's risk profile, as EUR 18 billion are in businesses which are or which we expect to be fully regulated. While for the EUR 5 billion in new energy storage and integrated projects, we are pursuing a contracted model that minimizes volume and commodity risk. We expect regulated natural gas assets to make returns in the mid-single digits, while new regulated hydrogen asset base is expected to receive a premium. For new energy storage and integrated projects, we're looking at returns in the high single digits or above, also benefiting from incentives, grants, and policy support. Overall, these expected returns could deliver average annual EBITDA growth to 2030 of around 7%.
As a result of our 10-year visibility on investments in regulated businesses, we've upgraded RAB growth to 2025 to over 2.5%, with an acceleration to over 3.5% between 2025 and 2030. That only includes investments identified in natural gas transport and storage. The hydrogen network provides upsides to these numbers, and so would further storage capacity required for the transition from natural gas to hydrogen. Our investment plan to 2030 is based on the verified knowledge that our transport and storage assets are compatible with hydrogen blends up to 100%, which means that any investments which are needed today to maintain and enhance the performance of the gas system will be valuable assets for the energy transition.
This knowledge has been gathered by Snam in collaboration with leading universities, technical institutes, and very importantly, many, if not most, of our European peers. Massimo Derchi, who runs our Italian assets, will now explain a little more about his groundbreaking work done in this precious effort to future-proof our assets.
Thank you, Marco. Let me start by saying that the industry, and in particular refineries and petrochemical, have been dealing with transport of hydrogen for decades. Today, we have more than 14,000 km of hydrogen lines in operation in Europe and in the U.S. There is an internationally recognized standard, the ASME B31.12, which is dealing with the transport of hydrogen by pipe, both in terms of design, of new pipelines, and repurposing of existing lines. Unfortunately, there is not yet a similar European standard, but its definition is in progress, and the first step will be the incorporation of the same contents of the ASME B31.12 standard. We at Snam decided in 2019 to launch a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of a network to the transport of hydrogen based on the two methodologies provided for by the ASME code, Option A and Option B.
Both applicable for the design of new hydrogen pipelines or for the conversion of existing pipelines. The application of Option A, which is based on desktop studies to the Snam pipeline network, confirms that almost all of existing network is convertible, although in some cases, this leads to a reduction of a maximum operating pressure. Such a reduction may be scaled back or even canceled once the roadmap on the usage of the other option, Option B, is completed. Option B includes extensive testing. The entire verification process of each individual pipeline, as well as the determination of the applicable maximum operating pressure for the transport of hydrogen, will be certified by RINA, one of the leading international third-party certification bodies.
I'm proud to say that on November 26, the first statement of material suitability for the transport of hydrogen has been issued by RINA for the pipeline connecting the arrival of TAP to the Italian national network. Having a standard for hydrogen readiness is of crucial importance, but so is having a shared standard, at least among European TSOs, in order to ensure safe cross-border transport. To this end, we are working to set European standards in cooperation with other gas TSOs, universities, and institutions. We took a different route to verifying whether our storage sites, which are equivalent to 17 billion m³ of capacity in depleted gas fields, were hydrogen-ready. Because on a depleted reservoir, there is no relevant technical literature or test.
We launched an extensive project in cooperation with the Politecnico di Torino and the Italian Institute of Technology to investigate and simulate the physical, chemical, and microbiological phenomena associated with storing a hydrogen natural gas blend in natural gas-depleted fields. Over the course of the project, we tested that there is no risk of dissolution or alteration of the reservoir and of the cap rock minerals, even if they are exposed to 100% hydrogen. We tested the gas tightness of reservoir from blend up to 100% hydrogen. In other words, we checked that there is no risk of diffusion of hydrogen through the cap rock of the reservoir. We also tested that the bacteria which are present in the reservoir are not affected by hydrogen, which means that there is no risk of production of an acid like H2S.
Eventually, we tested the well's materials, cement and seals. While further investigations are needed to confirm the long-term behavior of the systems in presence of hydrogen, no risks were highlighted by this extensive set of tests. The next step will be to complete microbiological tests in a multi-reactor, which means we'll test the bacterial behavior under the actual pressure and temperature conditions. We will launch a pilot test on a Snam storage site as soon as the necessary alterations are achieved. Based on the results so far achieved, we are very, therefore, very confident about the possibility of storing hydrogen, even pure hydrogen, in depleted natural gas reservoirs. I will now hand you back to Marco for a closer look at our 10-year investment plan.
Thank you, Massimo. The hydrogen readiness of our network underpins our EUR 12 billion investment plan in the grid. We will invest EUR 5.3 billion to replace around 3,000 km of pipeline that are fully amortized. This level of replacement will keep fully amortized pipelines broadly flat at 10,000 km. All new pipes are in line with our hydrogen-ready standards. EUR 2.9 billion will be invested on maintenance to secure the performance and resilience of the system. A further EUR 2 billion will be invested in technologies for our own Net Zero and to digitalize our network. We will build six dual fuel compressor stations, which provide flexibility to the system as we can choose whether to use gas or electricity to compress our gas and change equipment to eliminate methane leakage. Through this investment, we are jumping into our dual-fuel sector coupling future.
Over the 10-year horizon, we will spend EUR 1.8 billion on network development, including the methanization of Sardinia and new CNG and biomethane grid connections. As well as investing in the resilience of our gas assets, today we're happy to share our vision for a new EUR 3 billion, 2,700 km, mainly repurposed hydrogen backbone all the way from Mazara del Vallo in the westernmost tip of Sicily in the south to our export locations in Passo Gries and Tarvisio in the north. This infrastructure will connect green hydrogen production areas in the south and potential blue hydrogen supply in the northeast with industrial customers throughout the country.
It is essential for the hydrogen market to develop at scale, allowing the transport of 20 TWh of hydrogen by 2030, but already targeting at least 150 TWh at full deployment and unlocking hydrogen, as mentioned before, at a levelized cost delivered in Italy between EUR 2 and EUR 4 per kilo. The backbone we are presenting today is the first step towards the creation of an integrated, interconnected national hydrogen market in Europe, and the positioning of Italy as a hydrogen hub. Further investments will emerge to serve growing Italian demand and export opportunities, especially leveraging on the renewable potential in North Africa, which cannot be underestimated. There are parallel lines from North Africa to Germany, which could facilitate the early emergence of a dual system and a clearly dedicated export route for hydrogen.
We expect the Italian backbone to be regulated, as mentioned, at a premium in line with what's happening in Germany and at the European level. We have significantly strengthened our position along the very strategic North Africa-Europe route through the acquisition of half of Eni's stake in the TransMed and TTPC pipelines. This route is key to ensuring the security of supply in Italy. We have an earn-in/earn-out mechanism to protect us from any downside to these gas flows. The route also has strong hydrogen upside. It is composed, as mentioned, of parallel pipes, two on the onshore and five on the offshore, which, similar to our network, are largely made from steel, as Massimo said, that is already hydrogen-ready. Having five lines clearly gives us a lot of flexibility and optionality.
The transaction, which will have a co-controlled governance model over the NewCo, to which Eni's stakes in TransMed and TTPC pipelines will be transferred, is expected to close in the second half of 2022 and will contribute an average of EUR 25 a year between 2023 and 2025. Returns will be in line with those of our similar investments in our portfolio, in our international portfolio. The availability of a possible hydrogen import route from North Africa will enable the development of upstream projects in the area, opening up interesting perspectives for future integrated hydrogen projects. Turning now to the long-term prospects for our storage business, we have a new plan which aims to bring our storage subsidiary to another level. We want to leverage our world-class assets and competencies to expand in new energies and new geographies. We start from a position of strength.
The value of our 17 BCM of regulated gas storage, the largest capacity in Europe by far, is increasingly clear today, given the tight markets we are experiencing in gas. The recent energy market crunch has cost Europe above EUR 200 billion of extra cost just in four months. While the cost of developing and operating an additional 20 billion m³ of storage to shave winter peaks would be just EUR 1.5 billion a year. The fact that our storage assets are also hydrogen compatible supports the rationale for the investments required to enhance its performance. Snam's technical competences in storage are world leading. Today, we're providing technical services to Chinese clients, including CNPC, Sinopec, and PipeChina, to support them in quadrupling China's natural gas storage capacity, which would also benefit Europe by reducing Asian winter LNG demand.
Right now, Asia and Europe are competing for a few cargoes of LNG that are driving up the prices of the entire gas market, as well as the power market in most European countries. Looking forward in the context of growing requirements for a diversified large scale storage capacity in the energy transition, there will be strong rationale for repurposing existing storage capacity to hydrogen, both our own depleted fields and the aquifers owned by our subsidiaries such as Teréga. We also intend to use our geographical competencies to expand into hydrogen and CO₂ storage in selected international markets. We see real value in the ability to offer integrated energy storage solutions, which may also include electricity storage. In storage, we're approaching a new investment cycle in Snam with EUR 3 billion of investments planned in the next 10 years.
Through this CapEx plan, we will add flexibility and performance and reduce emissions and begin to replace fully amortized assets. In particular, we'll invest EUR 1.1 billion in the redevelopment of aging wells and new capacity to increase flexibility. We'll invest EUR 700 million in equipment replacements and workovers, EUR 400 million in net zero investments, including the dual fuel stations, as well as EUR 800 million on maintenance. This number also includes increased investment to comply with more stringent regulation. On top of the investments in our core regulated infrastructure, we've been enhancing our capability on aquifers, salt caverns, and CO₂ storage, our understanding of sector coupling solutions, our engineering capacity, as well as our commercial reach. We have a weighted pipeline of greenfield and brownfield projects under scrutiny and analysis.
We have just announced an agreement with dCarbonX, a great company which focuses on the development of offshore, subsurface resources to enable the energy transition in cooperation with the big Irish utility, ESB. Here, we expect a regulated business model to develop. Post FID, these projects can open up CapEx opportunities of at least EUR 1 billion on a 100% basis. Moreover, through Teréga, we're involved in PYCASSO, a CCS project in the south of France and in the north of Spain. Turning now to the third pillar of our investment program, the green energy projects see us continuing to leverage our established energy transition platforms and grow through larger scale integrated green gas projects.
Looking specifically at hydrogen, in only two years, we have gained strong knowledge of and context in the upstream segment through our investments in equipment manufacturers, De Nora and ITM. Our midstream team are global leaders in hydrogen-ready standards and testing, as you've heard from Massimo. In downstream, we've opened 156 separate commercial discussions that are ongoing. Some of these will turn into projects, and all of them contribute to our deep knowledge of the needs and expectations of our customers, particularly in the hard-to-abate sectors of people making steel, ceramics, glass, and the heavy transport that are all now looking at Snam to provide them with innovative solutions to achieve an energy transition at affordable costs.
Considering that in green energy, the real scarce resource is going to be the offtake, this commercial head start, as well as our strong, recognized brand and reputation, will provide a very valuable asset. Looking ahead, we're moving from pilot projects to a market in which offtakers keen to decarbonize will require multi-molecule solutions a lot sooner than previously anticipated. This would lead to new integrated projects that will be using midstream and upstream capabilities in the blue and green hydrogen, as well as in biomethane and CO₂ value chains. Our vision to 2030 is focused on three work streams. In Italy, we will invest in larger replicable hydrogen projects and industrial clusters and specific industries such as steel making.
Internationally, we'll be looking at hydrogen and CCS projects in areas including Northern Europe and the U.S., as well as North Africa and the Middle East, where renewables are indeed very competitive and the potential local offtakers and/or access to export infrastructure or where there are policy frameworks targeting accelerated decarbonization. With regards to biomethane, we'll continue to leverage our Italian platform to develop additional capacity through greenfield projects and bolt-on acquisitions. Overall, we've identified a weighted pipeline of opportunities for EUR 3 billion until 2030, for which we're targeting overall returns, at least in the high single digits. Let's now look at our 2021-2025 plan. Our CapEx plan has increased by more than 10% to EUR 8.1 billion.
Investments in our core infrastructure are EUR 6.8 billion, in line with the previous plan, and will deliver a RAB CAGR for core transport and storage exceeding 2.5% over the 2021-2025 period. This does not include CapEx related to the hydrogen backbone, which will start from 2025 onwards. In this plan, we've increased investments in green energy projects encompassing biomethane, mobility, energy efficiency, and hydrogen to over EUR 1.3 billion, mainly due to the expansion of our biomethane and hydrogen platforms. Taken together, green energy projects will provide EUR 150 million of EBITDA by 2025. The investments carried out in the plan period will provide further upside with around EUR 180 million of EBITDA from this CapEx in 2027.
This is starting to become a sizable part of our value creation going forward. Our CapEx plan is future proof. Approximately 43% of investments are hydrogen ready, and this is defined as a replacement and development investments on our assets using new pipelines with hydrogen-ready standards. A further 10% is dedicated to investments which reduce our Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and 5% to digitalization in line with last year. 17% of total investments will be dedicated to green energy projects, including hydrogen, biomethane, and energy efficiency. We have run a thorough internal assessment against the Taxonomy Delegated Acts, and determined that 40% of our investments are taxonomy aligned. Looking more in detail at the CapEx profile of our Italian asset, it includes EUR 2.1 billion of investments on replacement, dual fuel compressor stations, the first tranche of the Sardinia project.
This has been unfortunately delayed compared to last year's plan, owing to a slower authorization and approval process. We project EUR 300 million of investments in the plan period in line with last year. In storage, we're investing in replacement and substitutions into dual fuel compressor stations and new and refurbished wells and investments in new metering systems, as I mentioned, to comply with the more stringent regulations. When we look at the green energy projects, we continue to invest in the platforms. In our hydrogen plan, we have eight projects in mobility and industrial clients, some of which have already been awarded funding through the Innovation Fund in Horizon 2020, and some which have applied for the very important IPCEI European initiative. We have also earmarked EUR 50 million for R&D initiatives and venture capital investments, and these numbers are in the plan.
We do this to remain at the forefront of the technological shift that we're observing in the space. Overall, for hydrogen, we're forecasting EUR 250 million of Snam CapEx. On biomethane and mobility, we're planning to invest EUR 850 million, mainly to expand our platforms in urban and agricultural feedstock to reach around 120 MW of capacity, nearly double our previous plan.
We expect a slower ramping up of our biomethane and mobility businesses, which are interlinked through the regulation, due to a significant delay in public administration authorizations that has been accumulated during and after the pandemic, as well as the effect of the pending biomethane decree, which on the upside provides new volumes, incentivized volumes from 1.1 BCM- 3.6 BCM, particularly supportive of agricultural feedstock and less supportive of urban waste. This is good news for Snam in two ways. First, because the more biomethane in the grid, the sooner the grid becomes green, and the overall market for our subsidiaries is getting bigger. In energy efficiency, we've acquired companies with specific competencies in key segments and developed a real leader in the country. We've renamed it Renovit.
Cassa Depositi e Prestiti acquired a 30% stake in January. Renovit is positioned as a key player in the sector. Over the planned period, it will develop a further pipeline of projects in the residential sector, also supported by the longer term fiscal incentive. It will install 90 MW of distributed energy and support the deep renovation of public buildings. Overall, we see EUR 230 million of investments broadly in line with last year, producing stable, long-term contractualized returns. We created Renovit as we saw an opportunity to consolidate a very fragmented market with significant growth potential. This is one of the business where we have, though, the least synergies with other activities. Thank you for your attention so far. I'll now hand over to Alessandra.
Thank you, Marco. On the financial structure side, we remain committed to preserving the solidity of our balance sheet. Cost of debt over the plan is circa 1.1%, thanks to the actions that we have taken to lock in favorable market conditions and considering the expected positive environment in interest rates and credit spreads. Further opportunities for funding cost reductions are achievable, thanks to increased share of sustainable financing as part of our natural rollover of more expensive bonds. Furthermore, we expect sustainable financing to obtain better pricing versus traditional financing going forward. Second, an opportunistic approach in maturity profile management. Third, further treasury management optimization via recourse to uncommitted credit lines and commercial paper. Our credit metrics remain comfortably within the threshold of our current rating by Fitch, Moody's, and S&P.
We expect net debt to fixed asset, including book value of equity affiliates, to be comfortably below the official rating threshold of 75% set by Moody's. This is the most suitable leverage ratio compared to the net debt to RAB, as it also factors in the contribution of new businesses and associates. This is clearly recognized by rating agencies. Clearly, the attractive investment opportunity environment connected with the acceleration of the transition toward Net Zero represent a further credit enhancement factor. Net debt at the end of 2022 is expected at circa EUR 14.8 billion from the guidance of EUR 14.1 for 2021.
This considers the cash out related to the acquisition of the stakes in TMPC and TTPC for slightly less than EUR 400 million, the full year CapEx, EUR 300 million of temporary working capital absorption, mainly referring to the Ecobonus development. On the positive side, the conversion of our EUR 400 million convertible bond currently well in the money, and the reimbursement of a shareholder loan toward an associate with circa EUR 200 million of positive effect. Our focus on ESG also drives our financial strategy. Today, sustainable finance is already at 60% of the total committed funding, having achieved the target set for 2024, three years in advance. We are now raising this target to above 80% by 2025, and to achieve this, we will leverage on the new sustainable finance framework published today.
The proceeds from bond issuances under the framework will be used for general corporate purposes, incorporating appropriate KPIs for the issuance of so-called sustainability-linked bonds in line with the new plan target. Specific projects align with the taxonomy from the EU, so-called taxonomy-aligned use of proceeds. All future Snam issuances will be in ESG format, either sustainability-linked or use of proceeds. Turning now to our international affiliates, we have a great portfolio that we continue to de-risk and diversify. We have a long-standing history of successful partnerships in different countries with both industrial and financial players. It generates great returns. Excluding the recently announced acquisition of the TTPC and TMPC stakes, two-thirds of the capital invested will be paid back already by 2025 through dividends received. Overall annual cash returns is 10% on average.
Some assets in our portfolio are still considered at cost while delivering strong and visible contributions. For instance, TAP, that has a book value of slightly less than EUR 300 million, provide annual net income to Snam of around EUR 60 million for 25 years. Assets such as TTPC and TMPC or ADNOC are enablers to access new green projects given their position in areas of the world with competitive renewables and H2 production costs. Looking at mature assets such as our Austrian associates, they will of course experience the effect of anticipated expiry of long-term contracts. At the same time, they will benefit from their position in future H2 export corridors in the medium to long term. Finally, we have opened offices in Middle East and U.S., regions which have high potential in the development of H2 and CO₂ ecosystem and storage. Looking now at De Nora.
In less than one year from entering into the company, we are very pleased with the performance and the value that we have created for both the company we invested in and for Snam. De Nora, which is a global leader in sustainable technologies, continues to show strong growth while building an appealing H2 backlog, with the H2 segment expected to deliver positive EBITDA already in 2022. De Nora has already existing manufacturing capacity of 1 GW, and with Snam's support, has filed IPCEI request for an additional Gigafactory to be realized in Italy. De Nora results are well ahead of those foreseen at the acquisition time, and 2021 revenues are expected to be above EUR 600 million, 20% more than 2020.
De Nora, as heard, is considering an IPO in 2022, depending on market conditions, and similarly it is their JV partner, TKUCE. We remind you that we value De Nora at an enterprise value EUR 1.2 billion on a 100% basis, including its 34% stake in TKUCE. Moving on to our capital allocation policy, it remains coherent with the prior years. We are committed to our current rating metrics and risk profile, and we only invest at or above the risk-adjusted returns available on our regulated CapEx. Furthermore, we assess opportunities in coherence with our ESG strategy and broader Net Zero vision. We prioritize opportunities where we can leverage our industrial capabilities, unlock growth and new options without jeopardizing risk profile. We do not seek growth for growth's sake.
As we have discussed, with ample investment opportunities, and we will continue to apply strict financial criteria when evaluating any initiatives. Turning now to our ESG targets. Today, we're announcing a Scope 3 target covering over 90% of our Scope 3 emissions. We are the first European TSO to do this and the first TSO with a specific target on our supply chain. We're also announcing a new Scope 1 and 2 intermediate target of CO₂ emission reduction to 28% by 2025, benefiting also from the acceleration of our methane emission program. We will work with our associates to intensify their effort on emissions and incentivize supplier to define clear CO₂ targets. We will also develop joint projects with suppliers to use renewables and green fuel in their production processes.
In this way, we will not only decarbonize Snam, but also enable and encourage their wider decarbonization and industrial processes connected with our operation, such as steel making. These targets are in line with the general methodology of the Science Based Targets initiative. Indeed, our Scope 3 target covers 90% of emissions higher than the level required and in line with the 1.5-degree scenario. As well as targets related to Net Zero, we have a broader ESG scorecard covering 14 areas and aligned with our target year to 2025 to match that of our 2021-2025 strategic plan.
ESG targets range from the environmental ones on our emissions, to our commitment to more equal female representation across the company, to focus on board places and integrating ESG with our strategy. This year, we are introducing new objectives in the areas of sustainable finance, as mentioned before. I will now hand over to Marco for his closing remarks.
Thank you, Ale. Looking more closely at our growth over the planned period, we expect 4.5% EBITDA CAGR from 2022 as a result of the RAB growth and the contribution of the clean energy projects. Net profit from 2022 is expected to grow at 3%, driven by the excellent growth of the operating level, slower growth at the associate level, and higher D&A and interest charges. Assuming the investments and the returns that we've described in our ten-year vision, these growth rates will significantly accelerate to 2030. To sum up our targets, in 2022, investments will increase to EUR 1.5 billion. Tariff RAB will reach EUR 21.4 billion.
Net income will be slightly above the guidance for full year 2021 of EUR 1.170 billion, adjusted for the WACC impact, which we have assumed flat and equal to around EUR 85 million at the net income level on a yearly basis. This target assumes some growth in output-based incentives, pending a consultation document on fully depreciated assets expected before the end of this year. Our net debt guidance is at EUR 14.8 billion. Looking at the plan period overall, investments will be EUR 8.1 billion. These will deliver a RAB CAGR above 2.5% and a net income CAGR from 2022, after the WACC has been reduced, of around 3%.
As a result of our robust growth prospects, we confirm and extend our dividend policy, which sees 5% annual DPS growth to 2022. We are extending thereafter visibility on our minimum annual growth of 2.5% all the way to 2025. In the last six years, Snam has delivered best in class growth and total shareholder returns, and we remain fully committed to a strict financial discipline and compelling shareholder remuneration. Wrapping up, what I would like you to take away from today's presentation is that first, Snam is a champion in the race to zero. We have future-proofed our world-leading portfolio of assets, which has significant upside potential also in the near term. We have a unique track record in delivering complex projects on time and on budget, which will be the real scarce resource of the energy transition.
We've built a wealth of technological and commercial know-how in hydrogen, which positions us well for the next leg of the market's development. Second, as a result, today we are spoiled for choice when it comes to new projects. Initiatives worth trillions of dollars will be developed along the hydrogen value chain and in energy transport and storage. Our positioning allows us to choose the ones where we can create the most value. We have identified EUR 23 billion of opportunities which we can deliver while maintaining our credit metrics. Our 2030 vision sees the start of a new infrastructure investment cycle in Italy to deliver ample and low-cost hydrogen to the domestic market and to enable exports to Europe.
Third, we combine superior long-term growth prospects with a solid near-term industrial plan, in which we continue to invest in our hydrogen-ready replacement program and increase our activities in the energy transition. Finally, we remain committed to our treasured financial discipline and confirm and extend our dividend policy, providing attractive shareholder returns now and in the long term. I would like to thank everyone for your attention. Alessandra and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you have.
Excuse me. This is the global conference operator. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touch-tone telephone. To remove yourself from the question queue, please press star and two. Please pick up the receiver when asking questions. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. The first question is from Javier Suarez with Mediobanca. Please go ahead.
Hello. Good afternoon, and thank you for the presentation. Three questions from me. The first one is on the strategical, or the strategic positioning of the company. Following the presentation, it seems that there is going to be an acceleration in the EBITDA, the projected EBITDA, between phase I up to 2025 and then phase II to 2030. I think that most of the growth is coming from non-regulated businesses.
The question for you is if this is not changing the profile of the company, and if there is not the possibility that in 2030 the Snam is going to be a different company from the people's perception now. Second question is also related to the strategic positioning is that given the extent of the hydrogen opportunity and the attached storage opportunity as well, why the company continues to pursue international growth opportunity? And the question is that maybe phase number two from 2025 onwards, the company could consider asset rotation of those international assets as part of its strategy as well.
On the numbers to 2025, if you can share with us the contribution to revenues and EBITDA from non-regulated business, so to understand those new activities, which are the contribution that are giving to growth during the length of your business plan. If you can explain also the different approach to maximum gearing versus the previous business plan, why the company has changed the definition of gearing in this new business plan, that would be helpful as well. Finally, on the assumption from your business plan, unraveling a little bit the math, I guess that you are assuming a WACC reduction in Italy along the lines of minus 60 basis points.
The question for you is that is there any level of WACC cut in which you could have to reconsider either your CapEx or dividend? I think that is the very final question that you mentioned during your presentation, some contribution from out of base base incentives before the year-end to be approved. If you could be a little bit more specific, that would be helpful as well. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Javier. I will take all the questions and let Alessandra answer on the gearing change that you ask about. On the strategic positioning, no, I think we've been very clear. We've probably said it three or four times throughout the afternoon that we do not intend at all to change the risk profile. So if you look at the EUR 23 billion, a great majority of that is regulated, even regulated at a higher premium for the hydrogen backbone in line with what's happening in Germany. I suspect as the recovery funds make their way into real concrete incentives in Italy and in Europe, and incentives are built for the energy transition in general, there's potential upside to that.
Even the non-regulated activities will be contracted, and so we'll seek off-takers that strip out essentially the commodity and the price and the volume risk. We don't intend to change the profile at all, and as we mentioned, we can choose to dedicate our scarce people and talent and resources to really the best and most secure projects. You asked about the international growth asset rotation. We've said it all along, we do not have an emotional attachment to assets. When they stop growing or when we don't see any additional upside, we could consider partial or even total monetization.
The international strategy that we've outlined has served us very well so far and is giving us access. We went through our investment criteria to invest in new and additional projects. We do not look, and we've ruled out several investments that potentially had attractive returns, but would have either ESG implications because, for instance, of attachment to just fossil methane. Where we see the risk of the stranded assets, we stay very clear of those assets. On the non-regulated new businesses, as I mentioned, we expect an EBITDA of EUR 150 million on these assets by 2025, and that will grow to EUR 180 million by 2027. You should take into account, compared to last year's plan, two things.
First, let's say almost a two-year delay on some of the CapEx on biomethane, so it's in there, but it's more end-loaded, as I mentioned, because of some approval taking longer because this is really a heavily territorial task. Also because of the change in the decree, it made sense to put some of the projects on hold, and some of our customers had also decided, like Snam, to put some of the projects on hold. Overall, there will be more growth, there will be more capacity, but it will come in 2026, 2027, and 2028, and thereafter. On the WACC, I think your numbers are correct, and we don't see the outcome at a level where we need to revise the CapEx and the dividends that we've announced today.
This shows our confidence in the solidity of the business and in an outcome that is expected to be reasonable. Ale, on the gearing, maybe you want to add something.
On the gearing, we are very comfortably within our credit metrics, as I said. I think the shift between referring to the RAB and referring to the fixed asset is something that follows the dialogue we've been having with rating agencies and the fact that they recognize that for good quality asset, even if not regulated, it's unfair not to consider them. That will apply as the new businesses ramp up, also to our new businesses, given the low risk profile that they bring to the equation. We are simply putting in practice the consequence of our dialogue and applying a strong credit metric, which is more appropriate for both ourselves and reflects what we are doing and also from the rating agency standpoint.
If we were to just as a reference, if we were to look at net debt to RAB, we'll still be below the threshold that we've always been using. We are shifting consistent with the dialogue we've been having with the rating agencies to a different metric.
Some of these are not commenting on the possibility of Snam on your assumption on additional output-based incentive to be approved by the-
Oh, yes.
Code of governance.
This is a long-going topic today I've been raising now for a few years, which is to get recognition of the fully amortized assets and have some form of incentive not to replace what we can avoid replacing. I think it's a win-win. I think it hopefully comes out soon in the coming weeks, and there's some expectation of that in our like in our 2022 numbers.
Okay. Many thanks.
The next question is from Harry Wyburd with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Hi. Afternoon, everyone. Three questions from me, please. Firstly, on this 2026 to 2030 CapEx, hydrogen, how much of this is. How sure are you that this is basically what we'd consider authorized. You laid out all the different regions and how positive all the direction the legislation is going and how Germany has said they're gonna regulate at a premium return. But how concrete is that in Italy. You sort of extrapolating from Germany and hoping that Italy will mirror that. Or have you had substantive conversations with the government and with the regulator that means you really feel very confident that this CapEx is definitely gonna be approved, and you're definitely gonna get a higher return on it.
Then I'd be interested to know if you've made any assumptions in the guidance on how much higher returns you're expecting versus the, I guess, vanilla transmission return you get in gas. The first one. Second one, very high level question, and you've given us a lot of the building blocks in the presentation, but I wonder if you could just bring it together a bit. Why is the EBITDA CAGR over the next few years so much higher than the net income CAGR? And you alluded to higher D&A, higher interest costs and the associates slowing down. But I wondered if you could give us a bit more, you know, color and moving parts on that. Then the final one, just a very kind of strategic one.
I guess we look at this presentation, some very interesting charts on how much cheaper it is to store power using hydrogen and so on, or energy using hydrogen, I should say. You've got this great growth opportunity in the second half of this decade, but then you kind of scroll down a bit and the net income CAGR is 3%, which I guess is somewhat lower than some of your peers. Is there anything you can do to try and front load this growth in some way? I mean, you alluded to selling lower growth assets. Press is talking about selling a minority in storage. I wonder, could you not go a bit further and sell a minority in the transmission business if it's not growing fast enough?
Maintain control, but that would presumably increase your growth rate. The question is really, is there anything you can do while we sort of wait for this opportunity to arrive to get kind of growth moving between now and 2025? Thank you.
Thanks, Harry. These are great questions. On the certainty, there is no certainty on the approvals for the hydrogen. There's still a lot of work to be done to get hydrogen, let's say, certified from a safety and from a technical point of view. There needs to be a lot of EU harmonization around the certificates of origin, what we mean by hydrogen, etc. I think 2022 is the year when a lot of this will happen. There's gonna be a hydrogen and gas package coming out of Brussels that will already indicate the direction of travel. There have been extensive interactions with the regulators in many countries, and this, as you will pick up from media reports from both Timmermans and von der Leyen and Simson.
You know what I'm talking about, the kind of Italy as a hub is now widely reported in the media. There's an understanding that we need kind of common and harmonized EU rules, which I think is great news. Germany has a 9% return on capital in the premium for the hydrogen, and I think the Italian system and the Italian regulator has a long history of providing input-based incentives when they need something done quickly. You know, we've had it in storage. In fact, part of the reason our growth is slowing down on the conventional business is that some of those input-based incentives are expiring as time progresses.
I think this is really good news, kind of underpinning that CapEx, which I think is among the most strategic CapEx in the European kind of energy transition landscape. When we talk about the net income versus EBITDA, it's really the forward curves on interest and the D&A of an accelerating CapEx program that explain it together with the Austrian associates that whose contracts will be expiring. There's nothing more to that. You can put in the forward curves. Of course, we don't know if they will turn out to be there. We have interest rates kind of growing, outpacing inflation, RABs not really able to catch up. That's really what is going on.
I don't know if, Ale, if you wanna add something on this, but I think these are the main points. On the strategic question that you asked, which is a great question that we also ask ourselves, there will be some options like a De Nora IPO to really front-load a lot of that value creation slash crystallization, whatever word we decide to use, that will be unlocked. In terms of monetizing minority stakes, that's not something that we have a priority. Because we're not resource constrained, nor will we be in the EUR 23 billion of CapEx to 2030, we don't really see monetizing as a necessity in the near term to finance. We do see the opportunity to accelerate the hydrogen.
I think Europe, post Glasgow, has realized that its Fit for 55 is a really challenging kind of portfolio of opportunities that need to be invested in. Some of the stuff that we're doing, it represents lower-hanging fruits from a decarbonization perspective. We are now working on a plan where we've been, perhaps I wouldn't use the word shy, but we don't know the shape and form of the incentives. We assume some incentives are there, but we've also seen companies like Snam, when the incentives really make sense to fast-track some of the investment projects and some of the projects.
For sure, we're in touch with most of the Italian companies, and I can tell you as CO₂ prices are increasing, they really have a real urgency to stop paying EUR 60 or EUR 70 per ton of CO₂ that they weren't paying in previous years or were paying a lot less for. The market is clearly there, the political incentive is clearly there. We have what it takes to get stuff approved and built as fast as we can, as the TAP project has demonstrated. I agree with you, there could be room to the upside even in the shorter term.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Harry.
The next question is from Alberto Gandolfi with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good afternoon, and thanks for taking my questions. Only two are left on my side. The first one is to go back again to balance sheet. Marco, you just mentioned in the near term you don't need any extra financing. You know, from 2026 your run rate of CapEx broadly would double. May I ask you if you still would remain comfortable in terms of balance sheet from 2026 to 2030? And if any further, let's say, you know, financing might be needed, would you be open to perhaps also split, not just De Nora, but at least the whole green energy division as a way of funding the plan?
The second question, I'm still not 100% sure, if you don't mind repeating, and apologies about this, but how much of the premium CapEx, so the CapEx that is supposed to be regulated for which you're asking for a premium, how much of that is approved, as of today, or when do you expect it to be approved by the regulator? Again, just a clarification here. I see you're expecting premium returns, and you mentioned Germany as an example. Couldn't we use as a counter example, the digitalization investments made by Terna in Italy that have not received the premium return? You know, the realm of 5%-ish is still one of the highest returns in Europe. Would your plan still work if actually you didn't have premium returns?
Would you go ahead with the investments, or would you just accept a baseline return in exchange? Thank you.
Okay, thanks. I don't think we've thought about IPO-ing the entire business. I think, and Ale, you can jump in, but we feel that the EUR 23 billion of CapEx we can finance on balance sheet. We have, as I mentioned earlier, some assets that could be rotated out, perhaps even entirely. And so we see no risk there and no option. We continue to, you know, be in the market to try to optimize the shape and holding of our portfolio. One thing that we could do as some of these projects gain scale is to monetize part of them on FID. There's just so much appetite from financial investors and from IOCs and from bigger companies for new, attractive integrated projects.
Some of our projects, you know, we may have the CapEx and have the EBITDA and continue to consolidate them, but we may have minority partners in the projects to reduce the cash out. That's not something that we've put in the numbers. EUR 23 billion we can sustain, but several options to increase that if opportunities arise or if we decide to lower the gearing we have, we have those in the pocket. When it comes to the premium, Look, I think there will need to be a level of harmonization in Europe. We have made much higher returns in all our international projects than we have in Italy.
There's a point in which some of these new, more cutting-edge, more technological projects will need to get some form of premium in the market. I'm confident that we will get there. We don't need it defined until 2025, because as I said, we won't start investing this money before then. There's a period of time when all this can be penned out. I don't want to talk about Terna's returns, but I think the dialogue in general around the opportunity for Italy to be a hydrogen hub is a very, let's say, high level, intense dialogue that has evolved over the last three years into something that's becoming more and more tangible with our announcements today.
Thank you.
Thanks.
The next question is from Enrico Bartoli with Stifel. Please go ahead.
Hi, good evening, and thanks for taking my question. The first one is related to the new H2 pipeline that you are expecting to develop after 25 for connecting Southern Italy to Central Europe. Actually, I guess that the development of this pipeline is based on also a massive development of hydrogen production in the North African countries. I was wondering, let's say, what level of visibility we have that actually the North African countries are going this direction, and if there are some political discussions at European level with the government there in order to develop this value chain over the next years. The second question is related to the development of EBITDA that you expect by 2030.
If I'm right, you are targeting an EBITDA between EUR 4 billion and EUR 4.8 billion. If you can provide a hint of the breakdown between the networks, the storage and the contribution from the new energy projects, and particularly on those, considering that for 2027, you are guiding to more or less EUR 180 million of
EBITDA, if we can assume that this figure would at least double by 2030. The third one is related to the new technical development that you highlighted in the storage business. These new tests that confirm that even 100% of utilization would be possible. I was wondering what is your confidence of the possible industrial development of these findings and possible timing of, let's say, increasing visibility on the industrial suitability of this technical development. Thank you.
Okay. The good news on the hydrogen pipeline, contrary to an electric interconnection, first, as I mentioned, from Tunisia to Sicily, we have five lines, so one of those could be converted even with relatively little volumes. The pipes can operate at high pressure, but also at low pressure. There's a lot of flexibility, and the good news is that you don't have an inefficient system, even if the pressure is lower up to a point. You can start converting a piece of the pipe even with relatively small volumes. Thank you, Enrico, because you gave me the opportunity to clarify something that I should have said earlier. This backbone does not depend on North Africa.
It will facilitate North African hydrogen, but we can do and sustain the backbone just to move hydrogen from the south of Italy to the north of Italy. It's not contingent on anything happening outside of Italy, but of course, it will be an enabler of that. The 2030 EBITDA, I think we've given the level of disclosure that we're happy with at this point. You can work out based on those CapEx figures and return expectations and growth targets, more or less the breakdown. As I mentioned, the new energy businesses will be EUR 150 million EBITDA 2025, EUR 180 million 2027 , and I think continuing to grow nicely thereafter.
On the technical development on storage, this is really an industry breakthrough because we suspected that that was possible, but there was a lot of skepticism also among some of the leading engineers and geologists that we were interacting with. To be able to say that we can comfortably consider it finished the first phase of this in-lab experiment is incredibly encouraging. We don't need to store hydrogen anytime soon, but it means that our investments and hopefully more importantly, the European investments that should be made in integrated storage projects are really future-proof.
This is no longer a problem of stranded assets in the energy transition, but it's an opportunity of having depleted fields available to fill them up at very low costs, at ultra-low costs, with completely flexible, clean, abundant, and ultra-cheap new hydrogen. The timing of that is not gonna happen any time soon. I think what will happen sooner, and perhaps not starting in Italy, but starting in the U.K. and Norway, is CCS and things like that, where really Stogit can play a big role, because essentially the skills you need for CCS are exactly the skills that we have.
Thank you very much.
The next question is from James Brand with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.
Hi, good afternoon, and well done on the plan. I had three questions on different topics. Firstly, on the new incentives that you could be getting. You said you factored in some incentives into the plan. You didn't sound particularly enthusiastic that they could be material in making that comment. But equally, on the other hand, I can understand that you might want to be quite conservative at this stage before it's set out. I was just wondering whether you could comment on whether you think those incentives could be material for you, or not. Secondly, question on the storage investments, I guess both the investments out to 2025 and thereafter.
The investments out to 2025, just to be clear what you're spending the money on there, is that all going into existing gas storage assets, and is that partly to start to ready them for hydrogen, or is it something else? And then in the plan, gas storage out to 2030. Is there new storage facilities incorporated into those numbers? And then thirdly, I've asked you this question before, but I can see obviously your thoughts on the whole hydrogen topic is evolving rapidly. It's very impressive how much work you do on it. I'd just be interested in asking it again.
The question is, on pathway for the transition on getting from where you are now to industries using hydrogen. Do you see that coming through deblending? Because I think deblending is quite expensive at the moment. Or do you think that some of the sector investment in hydrogen backbone complemented with redundancy in your current network, that you can have dedicated pipelines? I'm just interested in how we get there. Thanks a lot.
Thank you. No, the reason you may have perceived some frustration in my voice on the output-based incentives is because this for me is a no-brainer, because it's really in the system's interest. We have some in. There's a range. We will see what the new consultation will be very shortly, I think, around the middle of December, and hopefully we can settle this very soon in the new year. I was hoping to get it done by the plan, and I was hoping to get it done by year, but I understand there's been some delay, but I don't expect any real negatives there. Because the dialogue is so active, we don't want to give specific numbers at this point.
This is kind of good news for the system and for us, and it really creates even more optionality and flexibility if we can avoid replacing some assets also in the context of developing the new corridors. When it comes to storage, yes, we will have incremental storage capacity. I think, Alessandro, 500 million m³ , so 0.5 billion m³ . What's happening in storage is similar to what's happened sooner in the grid. We have some mandatory investments we have to make for security compliance, which has become more stringent. We have some replacements, so fully amortized and necessary to replace assets. We have some well investments in the wells themselves.
We have some investments in the dual fuel compressor stations, which enable us to reduce the CO₂ and methane emissions, and we have to get emissions of methane essentially close to zero. These are all good and healthy investments that contribute to the RAB growth, and that we absolutely need to carry out until 2025. We have the new storage, as I mentioned, going to look at CCS as well as maybe salt caverns and other hydrogen ways of storing it. When it comes to the way I see the market develop, I see our network over time, and maybe not everywhere, not in every country we operate. I see networks evolving to be able to transport CO₂, biomethane, and hydrogen.
There will be three types of network. In Holland, you already have a CO₂ backbone, for example, as well as some hydrogen backbones that are already beginning to operate, particularly in North America. The blending is simply a means of creating a market to break the chicken and egg, to create immediate low cost demand for hydrogen. I agree with you, it's not the most energy efficient way to deliver hydrogen. It's exactly what we did with the biofuels directive, you may remember, to create a kind of overnight market. The beauty of blending, the reason I'm a blending advocate, is that you can dial it up and dial it down, depending on the real demand build that customers have.
When I talk to customers, and I talk to a lot of big industrial users, I break them up into three camps. First, people who simply want the CO₂ taken away from their factories. They have complex industrial processes. They need CH4 either as a feedstock or in very high precision percentages and quality, and they don't want to deal with changing their whole infrastructure. They just really wanna get out of the CO₂ as quickly as possible. We have customers that are happy to invest to take on hydrogen, and they're doing that at a pilot phase. You know, that potentially gets into the way of really decarbonizing the system, 'cause we don't really need a lot of pilots. They understandably want to see the impact on their factory. A lot of this equipment is proprietary.
They really wanna test it in-house before committing to bigger volumes. There's customers who today use natural gas for very high heating, for example, to make ceramics or some types of DRI. You know, there's some green steel projects that are popping up here and there. Here you have customers that are ready to commit to big volumes of hydrogen very quickly. The market will develop along these three routes. The good news is that Snam can play a big role in all three, both because of the transport, because of the storage, and because of our commercial outreach into these markets where we really have a lot of credibility.
Very interesting. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
The next question is from José Ruiz with Barclays. Please go ahead.
Yeah, good afternoon, and thanks for taking my questions. It's just three quick clarifications about the presentation. Number one, could you tell us when are you assuming which year you are assuming that you will have Italian regulation for hydrogen networks for transport? Secondly, in slide number 15, the EUR 12 billion investments and EUR 3 billion for transport, where is repurpose and where is dedicated? So have you included repurpose of hydrogen in the first category in CH4 transport, or is all included in hydrogen transport, the EUR 3 billion? Third question is on the same table, in storage, so new energy storage, the EUR 2 billion, I was wondering what is the reason why this shouldn't be included in the RAB?
Is that because it's too early, or you're expecting a later regulation on storage, or you are just considering that the new form of storage is not going to be regulated? Thank you very much.
Sure, José. This also allows me to clarify something. On the EUR 3 billion, on the regulation for the EUR 3 billion, we don't need that before 2025. However, before the end of the year, the commission will publish their draft EU gas and hydrogen package, and there will be a usual kind of 18-month consultation around that. That's really what happens. When you look at the EUR 12 billion, and you see a breakdown of that as we go into the five-year plan, a lot of that is replacement. When you look at the EUR 3 billion, all of that is a repurposing to make it hydrogen ready. That's basically entirely repurposing.
To be specific, that does not include the compressor stations potentially to export the hydrogen into northern Europe. That's that for the EUR 12 billion. Regarding the new storage, now we wanted to be crystal clear here, so I've put that little star on the EUR 2 billion and the EUR 3 billion saying none of this will be regulated. That's being a little conservative, 'cause in Ireland, for example, I think it will be regulated. Because I don't know yet, I've put it into the non-RAB, so that the RAB figure I gave you is essentially a function of what we have in Italy, what will be entirely and most certainly regulated at a RAB.
I will, if I have to make a bet, some of the EUR 5 billion that have that footnote will eventually be regulated.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next question is from Javier Garrido with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Hi, good afternoon. In the interest of time, I will just make one question. It's a generic question on affordability. You are talking, when you discuss your plan to 2030, you are talking of higher RAB growth on 2025 onwards, and you are also talking about premium returns for hydrogen investments. How do you make that fit into an environment where the regulator is showing to be mindful about the cost of the service and in a context where there may be pressure on the cost of the raw material with also hydrogen costs initially being high? How do you square the circle of getting higher returns, growing faster, and making the businesses still affordable? Thank you.
You touched, Javier, on a key point. I think the first path to affordability is for Europe to build more gas storage that will then or fill up the existing gas storage, so to scale down, and China is doing the same and should do the same, to scale down the competition for winter gas. Because no one will want gas in the summer, it's gonna be very cheap, and the opportunity to store more gas in the summer will help Europe, will help the energy transition, will help Asia as well get quicker off coal.
When you look at the Fit for 55, so much needs to happen that what we're talking about is by far the lowest to use a modern concept lowest green premia the lowest hanging fruit, the lowest abatement cost. We're talking about tiny numbers in the context of the energy transition. The PNRR, the National Recovery and Resilience Plan for Italy, is a generous one. A big part of that is earmarked for hydrogen. The good news is that covers really the 2022-2026 period, which if you look at the hydrogen costs, is where you need some support before it reaches a parity level.
The end game is to deliver energy which is cheaper than today's, notwithstanding our extra returns and a lot of other players' incremental returns from the CapEx. I think this is a common theme also looking at some of the other utilities presentations in the last few days. I think we all now believe as you can get hydrogen to $1/kg, $25/MWh, we're paying gas $90 today. There's really a near-term opportunity to address the affordability issue with cheaper renewable energy. We have this big resource available from the National Recovery Plan to help not only bridge that gap when hydrogen is more expensive, but also to give it a nice and gentle nudge to get the snowball effect and the ball rolling.
That's very clear. Thank you.
The next question is from Antonella Bianchessi with Citi. Please go ahead.
Yes, hello, good afternoon. I have two questions. The first one is if your net debt guidance for 2022 already includes the impact of the acquisition of the pipeline between Algeria and Italy. The second is if you can quantify the contribution of these assets to your net profits, then if you can give us a little bit of guidance on the contribution of the affiliates, international affiliates in 2025. How much of this is coming from this? Finally, if in your projection you are assuming that the allowed return will remain stable or if you have any kind of, you know, changes depending on rate assumption and, you know, the three-year adjustment and the other things as affected by the regulation.
My last big picture question is, you know, the clear bottleneck to your vision is the development of renewable in Italy, which, you know, was really poor also in 2021, and also this idea to develop hydrogen in Africa. Would the company be willing to directly invest in these assets given, you know, that they are so key to, you know, to the implementation of your vision?
Thank you. Thank you very much, Antonella. Yes, the net debt includes the acquisition, the target. The average contribution is around EUR 25 million for the plan period. Ale, maybe you answer the affiliates question. I will take the last point on the direct investments. I think there will be a rush to invest in renewable projects wherever there is space. What hydrogen really does and what our backbone does is debottleneck some of those investments that are currently not proceeding because there is a bottleneck on the power grid. It's really an enabler of greater renewable growth.
As I mentioned, to hit the 8 GW per year, Italy significantly has to ramp up those investments, and I don't think we have the luxury of choosing where to make them. We will need to make them where there's land, where there's local acceptance, of course, where it's sunny would be better, and the backbone is a very neat way to debottleneck a lot of these investments.
Okay. On the international associate
Yes. Sorry. On the WACC, you were asking me if it was stable. Yes, we assume it's stable throughout the plan. It's that EUR 85 million that I talked about, flat, for the plan.
On the international associates, by 2025, the entire portfolio will contribute something in the range of EUR 108 million, as a mix of the decline that Marco commented and I commented before of some of our outsourcing, which will run on a short-term contract basis versus long-term contract basis with lower remuneration, compensated by the contribution of both change in perimeter and the other associates.
180?
Yes.
These are the four, just the foreign ones.
For the international ones, just the international ones.
I think you need to add around EUR 100 for the domestic.
Yeah.
For the Italians.
At least. Yeah.
It's kind of 280 and 180.
The next question is from Stefano Gamberini with Equita. Please go ahead.
Good afternoon, everybody. A few questions also from my side. First, regarding the investment in the energy transition. Out of EUR 1.3 billion of investment, you more than double the investment in biomass and gas mobility, while in the meantime, in hydrogen, the investment increased just by EUR 100 million. While there are a lot of support from COVID fund, a lot of products where you are involved, why, despite all these investments and all this support, in services that have to be spent by 2026, you increase just by EUR 100 million the investment in this area?
The second question is just if you can give me an idea what are the main cost performance differences between the alkaline electrolyzer from De Nora and the PEM electrolyzer from ITM Power, ITM. So, what do you expect could be probably the winner in the long run? The last from your side, considering the development of hydrogen that now are mainly focused on heavy transport or high priority sectors, do you expect that in the long run, hydrogen could also replace natural gas for heating system or do you think that this is a very unlikely scenario? Many thanks.
Thank you, Stefano. I'll take the two, the second and third, and then Alessandra will answer on the new energy CapEx. The PEM and the alkaline perform different jobs. PEM is good for more flexible, shorter-term swings, smaller footprint, smaller projects, and the alkaline is better for the giga projects, the bigger scale projects. We're still in the early stages of this, really scaling up this technology, so we are happy to be involved in both, and we think both are needed, and we suspect that we will soon run into manufacturing bottlenecks similarly to what's happening in batteries.
The good news is that we're moving away from rare materials, and that's where a lot of the R&D is working on, and the performance of some of these electrolyzers is improving, and so is their durability. We will also have new types of electrolyzers like solid oxide, et cetera, emerging, I'm sure. This is an opportunity for people like De Nora who have been in the space for decades to really continue to invest and stay ahead of the technology, and that's what we want to do with our hydrogen venture capital and R&D programs that we're very seriously spending time and money on. When it comes to heating for...
I don't know, some people are very much in favor, others are very much against, whether hydrogen will be delivered to all the homes. I suspect it will be delivered to some homes. I suspect some people will want to have a hydrogen boiler that behaves exactly like their natural gas boiler, and other people who are refurbishing the entire home will move to heat pumps. What I do know, because of the slides I shared with you on the storage, is that even that heat pump will have behind it a hydrogen, a storage system to provide that winter heating, power. Now, in the U.K., where you have a lot more wind in the winter than in the summer, you can do with less heating.
In Germany and Italy, for example, where you have plenty of winter days with no wind at all, then you will need a lot of hydrogen. Even if in the home it's a heat pump, it will still be essentially hydrogen heating. Ale, on the-
Yeah.
New investments.
Coming on the new investments for on the new businesses, the reality is that the strong increase is on biomethane, where you have these 700, net of grants, around 700 and change million of investments. Mobility is essentially flat vis-à-vis last year, so there is no change. Equally, energy efficiency is essentially flat vis-à-vis last year, and we are increasing hydrogen by EUR 100 million versus what we had in the past plan. As Marco was saying, these initiatives are those that are consistent with all the submission that we've made to the different incentive programs, so the IPCEI, the Innovation Fund.
Of course, we will monitor how the PNR will evolve to the extent that more opportunities will become relevant to the initiatives that Marco described at length that we are taking forward with all the customers that are today connected to our grid and looking to understand what it will take to decarbonize.
Just a quick follow-up. Do you expect a lot of room on these hydrogen projects in the forthcoming years? Or do you think that the main investments will remain in biomethane plants?
No. It's two different things. I think we put in the plan what we have visibility on based on the submission we have already made on this, incentive, and funding schemes. It doesn't mean that we could increase what we are going to invest in hydrogen. We simply lack the complete visibility. We do have a number of other initiatives that we will continue to bring forward, and that could mean that the mix when looking at the overall investment plan, looking forward, could change with a greater share of hydrogen vis-à-vis the big increase that we are already showing in biomethane, where the increase is around EUR 600 million vis-à-vis last year plan.
Okay. Thanks a lot.
The next question is from Chris Laybutt with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for taking my question. I've only really got one left, just on the Algerian asset contribution. Marco, you mentioned a level earlier. I missed it. I thought it might have been EUR 20 million or EUR 25 million. Is that contribution a 2022 or a 2023 full year contribution? Just some sense for the contract composition within the portfolio that we have. Do you expect that to grow with inflation, or is it a relatively flat contribution over time over the next, say, few years, just to give us an idea of the evolution of the assets as far as you can see it at this stage? Thank you.
Thanks a lot. The closing is expected in the second half of next year, the contribution in 2022 is very marginal. The contribution will be EUR 25 on average for the plan period. There's an earn-in/earn-out mechanism, depending on the actual volumes of gas that flows because the contract is tied to volumes of gas. We've been able to work very constructively with Eni to kind of. That's a pass-through so that we're not taking any essentially volume risk on this very strategic asset. The yearly flows will depend on the volumes, and we'll be providing updates on our forecast. The good news is that the volumes are decided upfront, and they don't really change unexpectedly.
Okay. Very useful. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
The next question is from Bartlomiej Kubicki with Société Générale. Please go ahead.
Hello, good afternoon. Few things left, if you don't mind. Firstly, I would like to maybe stress test a little bit your long-term CapEx assumptions to a scenario where actually a centralized hydrogen production doesn't work and is replaced with decentralized hydrogen production. For instance, Terna moves on with their plan to have a certain amount of pumped storage deployed in Italy, plus, for instance, Russia purchases the hydrogen with the blue hydrogen production. How do you think your outlook until 2030 could change? Then some clarifications, if you don't mind. Again, on Algeria, because you're talking about EUR 25 million contribution, whereas in the press release for the transaction, you mentioned EUR 90 million for 100% of the assets earned in 2020. So I wonder where the contraction is coming from.
Also on the WACC, again, from 2025, I think we can assume with quite high level of probability, given the consultation papers, that actually the allowed WACC will decline in 2025. I wonder what is the reason for actually keeping it stable. Maybe the very, very last small point, if you look at your today's cost of debt and your 2025 cost of debt, what are you assuming in 2025, please? Thank you.
Good. Thank you. Alessandra Pasini, maybe you take the Algeria 90 million, 2020, question. I'll take the first and the last. We will need everything. We will need all of the pumped hydro. We will need more, much more than the CapEx that we've put in our kind of non methane CapEx. Even that won't be enough, just because of the level of intermittency and volatility and unpredictability and seasonality that we will have in storage. Blue hydrogen will be very narrowly defined, and I think the new government in Germany is very much favoring green over blue. Look, Snam is incredibly nicely hedged. If methane continues to run, we are happy. If biomethane grows further, we are happy.
If blue hydrogen comes, it's exactly the same infrastructure that we use for green. I mean, even gray hydrogen would behave in exactly the same way in our pipes and in our storage. We're very nicely hedged. If anything, I think there will be upside opportunity to this plan, both the 2025 and the 2030 plan. When it comes to the WACC, you're right. If we take today's forward curves, there could be some adjustment in the last year of the plan. The current forward curve is quite steep. I suspect it could reflatten slightly as concerns about the pandemic extend. There are so many moving parts to this that I thought it was easier to just keep it flat.
That certainly helped our board and our management team, and hopefully helps you also be able to see through the WACC and look at what's happening, apart from the WACC. Then when the WACC number is finally precise and approved, then we will all adjust for that and be able to adjust for that quite quickly. Ale, on Algeria?
Yeah. On Algeria, the reference was to the 2020 full-year net income contribution on a Eni full share basis. As we said, we have worked with Eni to effectively design a mechanism that completely protect volume risk according to a contractual baseline. That means that that number hedges us vis-à-vis delta. If we were to apply what we have bought to 2020 numbers, it would get a EUR 45 million contribution. The 25 numbers that Marco indicated is the average. There will be years where the contribution is higher, maybe similar to the 2020 numbers, and years where it is lower. It doesn't really matter versus what we paid, because we have a Euro- per- Euro actual protection until 2029.
When it comes to the cost of the debt in 2025, it's 1.1%.
Okay. Thank you very much.
The next question is from Emanuele Oggioni with Kepler Cheuvreux . Please go ahead.
Hi. Good evening, everybody, and thank you for taking my question. I have one left on how Snam could be impacted by the new global methane deal from COP26. I know you provided on slide five a reference on this, but I wonder what would be the next moving parts that could affect or be positive for Snam. Thank you.
Yes. We are completely determined to getting to zero emissions of methane. We start from a very low base, 0.07. There's work CapEx that we're doing. Some of our leakages were there by design, and so there's some equipment that we're changing really to be able to strip out all the methane leakages. We think the head start that we have, because we started working on this five years ago, again, will be a competitive advantage as our ESG score that Alessandra mentioned will be based on that and will give us an even. We are already doing better than the COP agreements and the COP targets. We see this as a further area of outperformance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
There are no more questions registered at this time.
Okay. Thank you all very, very much for the depth of questions and for your interest and attention, and I hope to see you soon in person. Bye-bye.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over. You may disconnect your telephones.