ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAAB
1
2
FormatCategorySourceTitleYearLinkDescription/AbstractPagesComment / RecommendationsCitation
3
4
RoadmapIndustrial CCUSPortland Cement AssociationPCA Roadmap to Carbon Neutrality2021https://www.cement.org/docs/default-source/roadmap/pca-roadmap-to-carbon-neutrality_10_10_21_final.pdfPCA member companies are committed to achieving carbon neutrality across the value chain by 2050. The PCA Roadmap involves the entire value chain starting at the cement plant and extending through the entire life cycle of the built environment to incorporate the circular economy. This approach to carbon neutrality leverages relationships at each step of the value chain, demonstrating to the world that this industry can address climate change. The five links in the value chain include the production of clinker, the manufacture and shipment of cement, the manufacture of concrete, the construction of the built environment, and the capture of carbon dioxide using concrete as a carbon sink. Each link identifies specific targets, timelines, technologies, and policies to reach the goal of carbon neutrality. 38CCUS is a critical part of cutting emissions in cement production. CCUS effectively captures CO2 so it can either be used to produce new materials or be safely and permanently sequestered. Dozens of CCUS technologies are undergoing research and testing in cement plants throughout the world. In early 2021, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced two initial studies for carbon capture with cement plants in Colorado and Texas. Capture technologies undergoing research in the cement industry include a variety of solvent, sorbent, and membrane technologies. Carbonation, mineralization, calcium (or carbonate looping), oxyfuel combustion and calcination, and algae capture are included within that research.
5
Best Practices / Action PlanTransport InfrastructureGreat Plains Institute and the eight signatory states to the CO2 Transport Infrastructure Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), developed as part of the Regional Carbon Capture Deployment InitiativeRegional Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Transport Infrastructure Action Plan2021https://www.betterenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Regional-CO2-Transport-Infrastructure-MOU-Action-Plan.pdfThis Action Plan is the culmination of a year-long process engaging states and stakeholders aimed at supporting the expeditious buildout of CO2 transport infrastructure for CCUS projects across the country. It describes a range of potential strategies to incentivize CCUS project deployment, including federal and state financial incentives and investments, public-private partnerships with companies, partnerships with local and federal governments, and the identification of funding sources to support dedicated state resources and other appropriate mechanisms for the individual states. State Recommendations Below is a compilation of policies and best practices implemented and/or under consideration in states with carbon management potential. The compilation is meant to provide a menu for state policymakers and stakeholders to consider. Market Development Establishment of State Procurement Standards and Programs; Providing Off-Take Agreements Including Carbon Capture in Electricity Generation Portfolio or Clean Energy Standards. Financial Incentives Eligibility for State Low Carbon Fuels Standards and Other Clean Fuels Programs; Optimization of State Tax Policies; Exemptions or reductions in property and sales taxes on machinery and equipment used across the carbon management value chain; Temporary and targeted production and severance taxes to encourage the use and storage of anthropogenic CO2 captured; State Financing and Grant Programs; Utility Cost Recovery Mechanisms13(State Recommendations - continued) Regulatory Policies and Planning Such policies do not carry a significant price tag, but they are essential to providing regulatory and financial certainty for project development and creating the confidence for multiple private sector actors to proceed with project and investment decisions together across the entire capture, transport, utilization and storage value chain. Clarifying Agency Roles and Responsibilities for Regulating Geologic Storage Establishing Rules for Geologic CO2 Storage: Declaring CO2 storage is in the public interest, Rules for CO2 ownership, Requirements for CO2 responsibility, Pore space ownership, access, and eminent domain, State Primacy for EPA Class VI geologic storage permits, Government assumption of long-term liability for stored CO2; Regulation and Planning of CO2 Transport and Storage: Pollution control device qualification, Interstate planning and policy alignment for CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, CO2 pipelines and eminent domain]; Facility Siting and Integrated Resource Planning: Consider pre-approving project siting and environmental criteria, Grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity, Include environmental and social considerations in the certification process, Recommend legislative action to allow utilities to apply for an advance determination of prudence, Require regulated utilities to consider carbon capture, removal and utilization technologies and associated CO2 transport and storage infrastructure in their IRP.
6
Policy ReportIndustrial CCUSCalifornia Nevada Cement AssociatonCNCA Achieving Carbon Neutrality in Cement Industry - Key Barriers and Policy Solutions2021https://issuu.com/askono/docs/cnca.carbonneutrality.vfinal._03.28.21_There are three primary pathways to reducing GHG emission in the cement industry: (1) reducing process emissions; (2) reducing combustion emissions through fuel switching; and (3) increasing distributed electricity generation. Each pathway offers a mix of near-term, mid-term, and long-term opportunities, as well as a range of GHG re-duction benefits. Achieving carbon neutrality in the California cement industry will require pressing forward on all fronts to unlock a portfolio of options that each cement plant can use to chart its path toward carbon neutrality given its circum-stances. While CCUS technology addresses both combustion and process emissions, the primary benefit of carbon capture is to abate process emissions that cannot be reduced through other conventional decarbonization levers. With a typical capture rate upwards of 90%, this approach yields cement industry GHG abatement on a scale otherwise not achievable by non-CCUS abatement measures. As a practical matter, carbon neutrality will be out of reach for the California cement industry unless and until cost-effective CCUS technology is commercially available, given the otherwise limited set of options for addressing process emissions.42PATHWAY 1. REDUCING PROCESS EMISSIONS Lever 1.B Carbon Capture Utilization & Storage ● Timing: Long-Term| ● Impact: >50% The most significant constraint on the cement industry’s ability to realize net carbon neutrality is the presence of significant “process emissions.” The chemical conversion process of limestone calcination re-leases CO2 as a byproduct during the production of clinker. This chemical process alone results in 0.510 MT of GHG emissions for every metric ton of clinker produced and comprises a majority of the industry’s GHG footprint. While emissions stemming from fuel or energy use can be mitigated through a broad suite of options and substitutions, the presence of process emissions effectively creates an emissions reduction “wall” where at least half of the industry’s GHG footprint cannot be reduced by investments in conventional GHG abatement measures (e.g., improving energy efficiency or significantly increasing the use of lower-carbon fuels).
7
ReportPolicyRenewable and Sustainable Energy Institute, University of Colorado BoulderAccelerating the US Clean Energy Transformation: Challenges and Solutions by Sector2020https://www.colorado.edu/rasei/sites/default/files/attached-files/accelerating_the_us_clean_energy_transformation_final.2.pdfSection 2.7.2 RD&D priorities in electricity –Carbon capture, utilization, and storage Currently, CCUS is only economical in niche applications, especially given the limited benefits of the 45Q tax credits6 (Gonzales, Krupnick, and Dunlap 2020; J. Christensen 2019). The federal government should continue exploring opportunities in this space, however, given the significant potential for breakthroughs and the potential need to cut emissions even more rapidly. We should pursue all options to respond rapidly to the climate emergency, including CCUS, to avoid being caught unprepared, as we were with the coronavirus pandemic. We should invest in more RD&D on advanced capture methods and alternative fuel/thermodynamic cycles. It is important, however, that any efforts in this area do not distract us from the need to drive fossil fuel emissions to zero as rapidly as possible. Development of carbon-free technologies that can firm the electricity supply, including advanced geothermal power, concentrating solar power with thermal storage, marine hydrokinetic, advanced nuclear power, and CCUS are important for systems with high levels of variable renewable generation. However, it is essential that these technologies demonstrate a path to cost competitiveness by 2030 if they are to play a role in rapid decarbonization of the power sector.1215.2.2 Low-carbon fuels: the case for green hydrogen Some industrial processes release carbon dioxide in high concentrations. In these cases, CCUS may be a cost-effective decarbonization approach in the near term. In addition, there are processes where burning a carbon-based fuel is advantageous to the process and substituting with biomass or biofuel is appropriate. But for deep decarbonization of industry, there is a great deal of attention being paid to the use of hydrogen fuel, which may prove especially important for processes that are difficult to electrify. And whereas electricity is generally used only for heating, hydrogen can be used both as a heating fuel and for certain processes that use hydrogen as a chemical input (such as ammonia production). The current costs of renewable hydrogen are higher than the cost of fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, so some people have promoted CCS as the most cost-effective means to reduce industrial carbon emissions today. Most hydrogen today is produced from natural gas via steam methane reforming (SMR) and is referred to as grey hydrogen. Capturing and sequestering the carbon dioxide generated by this process is the cheapest way to currently produce low-carbon hydrogen (“blue hydrogen”) and is likely to be used in the short term if hydrogen can be produced where geologic storage of the captured carbon dioxide is available.Kutscher, Charles F., Jeffrey S. Logan, and Timothy C. Coburn. 2020. “Accelerating the US Clean Energy Transformation: Challenges and Solutions by Sector.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute, University of Colorado Boulder.
8
ReportEnvironmental JusticeCarbon 180Removing Forward - Centering Equity and Justice in a Carbon-Removing Future2021https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b9362d89d5abb8c51d474f8/t/6115485ae47e7f00829083e1/1628784739915/Carbon180+RemovingForward.pdfThe Biden administration signaled a strong commitment to EJ by releasing a series of executive orders (EOs), establishing a number of advisory councils, and appointing justice advocates to high-profile positions across the government. Similarly, there has been definitive interest in pursuing carbon removal across land- and technology-based solutions from both Congress and the administration. However, there remains tension within the government on the role of carbon removal as it relates to EJ. To date, many feel that the benefits to disadvantaged communities have not been demonstrated and are therefore not supported. Establishing a coherent and cohesive federal carbon removal strategy that addresses these important concerns will be key to scaling up these technologies and practices in a timely, durable, and sustainable manner.62Author's Guiding principles: 1. The benefits of carbon removal solutions must be equitably distributed. 2. Public engagement must be robust and involve seeking input from groups throughout the development and deployment of carbon removal solutions. 3. Safeguards are needed to ensure adverse impacts are not borne by disadvantaged communities. 4. The socioeconomic consequences and distributional impacts of carbon removal solutions need to be evaluated alongside their technological and economic attributes. 5. Carbon removal is seeking to address a challenge that is both local and global, and therefore should incorporate justice across temporal and spatial scales.
9
RoadmapTechnologyCarbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF)Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap 20212021https://www.cslforum.org/cslf/Resources/Publications/CSLF_Tech_Roadmap_2021_finalThis Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) 2021 Technology Roadmap (TRM) is an update of the 2017 version, based on reported progress and published documentation on carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) activities between October 2017 and February 2021. The main findings of the 2021 Technology Roadmap are as follows: 1. Many countries have reported ambitious targets to achieve new net-zero emissions by mid-2021, pointing to the necessity of deploying clean energy and emissions reduction technologies. However, analyses by the United Nations in February 2021 show that the world was not on track to reach the targets of the Paris Agreement of keeping the anthropogenic temperature rise to well below 2oC, and preferably close to 1.5oC, by the end of the 21st century. 2. Carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS, will be required to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement. 3. CCUS is proven technology, and there has been progress in many aspects of CCUS since the 2017 TRM, including increased attention and willingness to invest in large-scale CCUS projects. 4. The deployment of CCUS lags behind what is required even in the scenarios of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and International Energy Agency (IEA) with highest ambitions on the implementation of other sustainable measures. 5. The CSLF Technical Group stresses the challenging deployment pathway for CCUS in the coming decades, based on the IEA SDS, which reaches net-zero emissions by 2070.73The COVID-19 pandemic has had an exceptional impact on the economics of countries around the world, with severe effects on lives and livelihoods. COVID-19 has impacted energy use and CO2 emissions and introduced near-term uncertainty about the future of energy demand. As of early March 2021, IEA6 estimates that the primary energy demand in 2020 dropped 4% from 2019 and that energy-related CO2 emissions were down 5.8%, somewhat less than earlier estimates (IEA 2020c; DNV∙GL 2020a; UNEP 2020a), all of which indicated that the energy demand would drop by 5% and the energy-related CO2 emissions by 7% in 2020. An increase in emissions in December 2020 by 2% above December 2019 contributed to the difference in estimates. Energy investments are expected to be down 18% (IEA 2020c). There will be variations across fuels and nations. Despite the reduction in CO2 emissions in 2020, the world is still on its way to a temperature increase in excess of 3oC. The COVID-19 drop in emissions will have minimal impact—only 0.01oC—on the temperature increase by 2050 (UNEP 2020a).
10
White PaperInfrastructure ModelingGreat Plains Institute, University of WyomingWHITEPAPER ON REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MIDCENTURY DECARBONIZATION2020https://www.betterenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GPI_RegionalCO2Whitepaper.pdfAnalysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) has determined that deployment of carbon capture technology is critical to achieve midcentury US and global carbon reduction goals and temperature targets. Long-term, coordinated planning on regional CO 2 transport corridors will result in optimized, regional scale infrastructure that minimizes costs, land use, and construction requirements while maximizing decarbonization across industrial and power sectors throughout the United States. This whitepaper presents the results of a two-year modeling effort to identify such regional scale CO 2 transport infrastructure that would serve existing facilities and allow participation by new capture projects and facilities in the future.71Los Alamos National Laboratory's SimCCS model was deployed to create theoretical CO2 transport networks that minimized costs and maximized storage while protecting natural resources, public lands, population centers, indigenous or tribal lands, and a variety of other geographic factors. The scenarios presented here are only for theoretical consideration across broad geographic areas and are not meant to identify or proscribe the specific location of CO2 transport infrastructure.
11
FACT SheetEconomic Impact and JobsGreat Plains Institute- Regional Carbon Capture Employment Initiative (REDI)JOBS AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CARBON CAPTURE DEPLOYMENT Colorado2021https://carboncaptureready.betterenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CO_Jobs.pdfColorado has the opportunity to create an annual average of up to 2,870 project jobs over a 15- year period and 1,578 ongoing operations jobs through the deployment of carbon capture at 19 industrial and power facilities. The retrofit of equipment at these facilities would capture 23.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. Along with the development of CO2 transport infrastructure, this would generate up to $9.2 billion in private investment.1Rhodium Group performed an economic analysis based on the Regional Carbon Capture Deployment Initiative's near- and medium term capture potential scenario. The Rhodium analysis quantifies the economic impact and employment opportunities of carbon capture retrofit projects by deploying state-specific data in the IMPLAN economic model. The analytical results measure the impact of project investment and operation costs through expected annual jobs. Average annual project jobs were calculated assuming deployment of all projects within the 15-year period from 2021-2035. The jobs reported are in-state jobs, directly associated with carbon capture retrofits. They do not include other jobs at the facilities, nor indirect and induced jobs.
12
FACT SheetEducational MaterialGreat Plains InstituteCarbon Capture 1012019https://www.betterenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CC101.pdfCarbon capture refers to a group of technologies that prevent industrial and electric power facility carbon emissions from reaching the atmosphere or remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. Document addresses: Technologies; Why carbon capture is important; Factors that influence cost of capture; Carbon capture benefits to the economy & environment; Carbon capture is proven technology.2
13
Report to CongressPolicyWhie House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Report to Congress on Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration (CCUS), June 30, 2021 Delivered to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Natural Resources, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, as directed in Section 102 of Division S of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 20212021https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CEQ-CCUS-Permitting-Report.pdfTo reach the President’s ambitious domestic climate goal of net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050, the United States will likely have to capture, transport, and permanently sequester significant quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2). In addition, there is growing scientific consensus that carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will likely play an important role in decarbonization efforts globally; action in the United States can drive down technology costs, accelerating CCUS deployment around the world. Carbon capture technology can reduce emissions of other kinds of pollution (such as sulfur oxides) in addition to carbon pollution, and can provide well-paying union jobs. For CCUS to scale more widely, CCUS technology deployment must advance in the context of a strong regulatory regime informed by science and experience. Responsible CCUS projects should include meaningful public engagement and help address cumulative pollution for overburdened communities. In addition to the climate and equity imperatives for responsible CCUS deployment, there is an economic imperative to support these technological systems: CCUS can reduce the costs of meeting climate goals, and maintain and create well-paying union jobs nationwide and globally.84The Administration is committed to accelerating the responsible development and deployment of CCUS to make it a widely available, increasingly cost-effective, and rapidly scalable climate solution across all industrial sectors. To broadly scale CCUS in an manner that is efficient, orderly, and responsible, the President has committed to increasing support for CCUS research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D), enhancing the Section 45Q tax incentive for CCUS (Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 45Q”)), advancing a technology-inclusive Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard, ensuring a robust and effective regulatory regime, and supporting efforts to ensure that CCUS technologies are informed by community perspectives and deliver desired climate, public health, and economic goals, as outlined in this report. CCUS plays several critical roles in achieving climate goals. CCUS is likely to be especially important for decarbonizing the industrial sector, where high-temperature heat can be difficult and expensive to electrify and where there are significant emissions as a result of chemical processes. CCUS may also play an important role in decarbonizing the global power sector.
14
ReportEducational MaterialGlobal CCS Institute101 QUESTIONS AND 101 ANSWERS FROM THE CCS 101 WEBINAR SERIES2021https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/101-Questions-and-101-Answers-from-the-CCS-101-Webinar-Series.pdfBetween 23 April and 21 May, 2021, the Global CCS Institute hosted a series of three Carbon Capture and Storage 101 Webinars. The purpose was to give U.S. Congressional staffers and other interested stakeholders an introduction to the key facets of the global CCS industry. With only one hour allocated to each webinar, the theme for each one was chosen carefully not only to answer as many questions as possible about the current state of the CCS enterprise but also to focus on the requisites for accelerating the deployment of more facilities across the world. Accordingly, the first webinar focused on “Introducing a CCS Project,” the second was on “CCS Infrastructure for a Net-Zero Future,” and the third was titled “CCS Policy for a Net-Zero Future.” These webinars generated an extraordinary number of questions – 101 in total. Their breadth and depth emphasised the many technological, financial, geographical, social, and political aspects of CCS that must be met to achieve the scale-up required to manage climate change. These questions also clearly indicate the need for more educational materials on CCS.28Questions from the webinars were organized into eight (8) categories: Webinar Questions about and for the Institute (1-6), CCS Technology (7-14), CCS Economics - Costs & Financing (15-20), CCS Transport (21-33), CCS Storage (34-63), CCS Geography (64-74), CCS Policy (75-99), and Carbon Utilization (100-101).
15
ReportAnnual UpdateGlobal CCS InstituteThe Global Status of CCS 20212021https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-statusreport/The Global Status Report documents the important milestones for CCS over the past 12 months, providing analyses of the global CCS facility pipeline, legal and regulatory issues, industrial applications and regional deployment around the world.43
16
Special ReportPathways to Net ZeroInternational Energy AgencyNet Zero by 2050 -A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector 2021 (3rd Revision)2021https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/beceb956-0dcf-4d73-89fe-1310e3046d68/NetZeroby2050-ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector_CORR.pdfThe energy sector is the source of around three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions today and holds the key to averting the worst effects of climate change, perhaps the greatest challenge humankind has faced. Reducing global carbon dioxide (C02) emissions to net zero by 2050 is consistent with efforts to limit the long-term increase in average global temperatures to 1.5 'C. This calls for nothing less than a complete transformation of how we produce, transport and consume energy. The growing political consensus on reaching net zero is cause for considerable optimism about the progress the world can make, but the changes required to reach net-zero emissions globally by 2050 are poorly understood. A huge amount of work is needed to turn today's impressive ambitions into reality, especially given the range of different situations among countries and their differing capacities to make the necessary changes. This special IEA report sets out a pathway for achieving this goal, resulting in a clean and resilient energy system that would bring major benefits for human prosperity and well-being.224Innovation is critical in the Net Zero Energy (NZE) to bring new technologies to market and to improve emerging technologies, including for electrification, CCUS, hydrogen and sustainable bioenergy. The degree of reliance on innovation in the NZE varies across sectors and along the various steps of the value chains involved.
17
Report Pathways to Net ZeroPrinceton UniversityNet-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, interim report 2021https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdfThis Net Zero America study aims to inform and ground political, business, and societal conversations regarding what it would take for the U.S. to achieve an economy-wide target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. Achieving this goal, i.e. building an economy that emits no more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are permanently removed and stored each year, is essential to halt the buildup of climate-warming gases in the atmosphere and avert costly damages from climate change. A growing number of pledges are being made by major corporations, municipalities, states, and national governments to reach netzero emissions by 2050 or sooner. This study provides granular guidance on what getting to net-zero really requires and on the actions needed to translate these pledges into tangible progress.345Annex I (NZA). CO2 Transport and Storage Transition DRAFT 2020-12-13.pdf Four of five core Net-Zero America (NZA) scenarios rely on CO2; capture and storage (CCS) to decarbonize cement production, gas- and biomass-fired power generation, natural gas reforming, and/or biomass derived fuels production, and in some cases from direct air capture from the atmosphere. The requirement for geological sequestration ranges from almost 1 to 1.7 gigatonnes of CO2; per annum, servicing more than one thousand capture facilities distributed across the nation. This appendix describes the downscaling, siting and cost modelling for CO2 transport and storage infrastructure in order to permanently sequester captured CO2 streams identified in EER model outputs. The detailed downscaling of CO2 transport and storage systems was undertaken for the E+ and E-B+ scenarios. Table I highlights the source/sink flows being tracked as part of CO2 pipeline sizing and siting in 20S0 under E+ and E-B+ scenarios. CO2 flows in other NZAP scenarios arc provided for comparison in Table 1. Table 20 through Table 25 provide source/sink flows being tracked as part of CO2 pipeline sizing and siting for E+ and E-B+ scenarios from 2020 - 2050.Suggested citation: E. Larson, C. Greig, J. Jenkins, E. Mayfield, A. Pascale, C. Zhang, J. Drossman, R. Williams, S. Pacala, R. Socolow, EJ Baik, R. Birdsey, R. Duke, R. Jones, B. Haley, E. Leslie, K. Paustian, and A. Swan, Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, interim report, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, December 15, 2020.
18
ReportEconomic Impact and JobsRhodium GroupThe Economic Benefits of Carbon Capture: Investment and Employment Estimates for the Contiguous United STATES Colorado profiled pages 32 - 242021https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Carbon-Capture-State-Investment-and-Employment-Estimates_Phase-I.pdfThe Great Plains Institute (GPI) commissioned Rhodium Group to conduct an independent analysis exploring the economic benefits associated with carbon capture retrofit opportunities at existing plants in the US. Phase I of this study is a state-by-state analysis focused on opportunities in 21 of the states participating in the Regional Carbon Capture Deployment Initiative. GPI identified the industrial and electric power facilities examined in this phase as carbon capture projects with near- to intermediate-term feasibility. In Phase II of this analysis, we explore the industrial opportunities in the remaining lower-48 states. Rhodium identified the facilities in Phase II as near- to intermediate-term carbon capture retrofit opportunities. Finally, in Phase III of this analysis, we explore the national opportunities at industrial and electric power facilities through mid-century. In addition to using the near-to intermediate-term facilities from the previous phases, Rhodium identified a separate group of long-term opportunities with carbon capture retrofit feasibility by 2050.92The direct economic benefits considered include private sector investment and employment opportunities associated with the construction and operation of carbon capture retrofits. The results show how individual states can play to their existing and unique strengths on their separate paths to decarbonization.E. Leslie, K. Paustian, and A. Swan, Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, interim report, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, December 15, 2020.
19
ReportLegal and RegulatoryU.S. Department of EnergyDOE Workshop Report- Siting and Regulating CCUS Infrastructure2017https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Workshop%20Report--Siting%20and%20Regulating%20Carbon%20Capture%2C%20Utilization%20and%20Storage%20Infrastructure.pdfThe regulation of CO2 pipelines and other CCUS infrastructure is a joint responsibility of Federal and State governments. However, states typically play a primary role in establishing the requirements for siting, construction, and operations of CO2 pipelines. The first QER found that the development of a national CO2 pipeline infrastructure should “build on state experiences, including lessons learned from the effectiveness of different regulatory structures, incentives, and processes that foster interagency coordination and regular stakeholder engagement.” The Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored a technical workshop in April 2016 in Washington, D.C., to identify and promote best practices for siting and regulating CO2 infrastructure (pipelines, EOR, and other geologic CO2 storage sites). The purpose of the workshop was to foster communication, coordination, and sharing of lessons learned and best practices among states and entities that are involved in siting and regulating CO2 infrastructure, or that may have CO2 infrastructure projects within their borders in the future. The workshop also encompassed issues being addressed in the second installment of the QER, including discussions around regulation and management of CO2 storage sites, which serve as critical infrastructure for entities capturing CO2.63Tax Credits, Exemptions, Reductions, Abatements and Rate Recovery States have targeted incentives to support deployment of CCUS infrastructure, including tax credits, exemptions, reductions, and abatements and rate recovery. These incentives are commonly applied at the State level to equipment, property associated with CCUS infrastructure, CO2 used in EOR, utilities, and businesses. Here are some examples: • Property tax exemption. Kansas H.B. 2419 provides a property tax exemption on carbon capture, sequestration, or utilization property for five years after construction or installation. • Reduced income tax. Mississippi H.B. 1459 provides for a reduced income tax rate of 1.5 percent for qualified businesses that sell CO2 for EOR or storage • Severance tax reduction. New Mexico (Section 7-29 New Mexico Statutes Annotated) provides a rate of 1.875 percent of taxable value for oil produced with CO2 in qualified enhanced recovery projects, under specified pricing circumstances. • Sales tax reduction on equipment used for CCS. Montana applies a reduced tax rate of 50 percent for the first 15 years for equipment placed in service after January 1, 2014, used for geologic sequestration of CO2. • Rate recovery. Virginia S.B. 1416 and H.B. 3068 provide for utilities to recover an enhanced rate of return for investment in specific project types, including carbon capture facilities.
20
ReportPolicyEnergy Futures Initiative and Stanford UniversityAn Action Plan for Carbon Capture and Storage in California: Opportunities, Challenges, and Solutions.” October 2020.2020https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ec123cb3db2bd94e057628/t/5f96e219d9d9d55660fbdc43/1603723821961/EFI-Stanford-CA-CCS-FULL-rev1.vF-10.25.20.pdfCCS is a critical decarbonization pathway for helping California meet its 2045 carbon neutrality goal, while also supporting related goals that are fundamental enablers of the clean energy transition and key to building the necessary coalitions. The goals are: 1) Maximizing options for meeting 2030 and 2045 GHG targets to reduce overall abatement costs, improve the likelihood of achieving the targets, and foster innovation. 2) Motivating the private sector to deeply decarbonize its activities and products. 3) Enabling continued economic and reliability benefits from existing industries and power generation. 4) Unlocking new, potentially multi-billion-dollar, clean energy industries—such as hydrogen, CO2 utilization, DAC, and fuels from biomass waste—creating new jobs in the process. This study, provides policymakers with options for near-term actions to deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS), a clean technology pathway well suited for rapidly reducing emissions from economically vital sectors in California that have few other options to decarbonize. 181Near-term actions to leverage CCS potential for meeting climate targets: Affirm state support for CCS in meeting emissions targets, Improve and coordinate CCS permitting processes,Issue policy guidance to clarify CCS eligibility, Issue guidance for CO2 storage, Develop state supported CCS demos with industry; Pursue key enablers for CCS to contribute towards the state’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal: Incorporate CCS Protocol into Cap-and-Trade Program, Improve support mechanisms to make CCS projects more attractive, Establish public-private partnerships to create LA and Bay Area hubs., Set statewide carbon removal targets; Encourage CCS projects that inspire new opportunities to lead global action on climate: Support innovation at research institutions and laboratories, Support options to ensure adequate clean firm power, Create transport and storage operator Energy Futures Initiative and Stanford University. “An Action Plan for Carbon Capture and Storage in California: Opportunities, Challenges, and Solutions.” October 2020
21
ReportLegal and RegulatoryUnited States Energy Association, Univerity of Wyoming, West Virginia UniversityStudy on States’ Policies and Regulations per CO2-
EOR-Storage Conventional, ROZ, and EOR in Shale:
Permitting, Infrastructure, Incentives, Royalty Owners,
Eminent Domain, Mineral-Pore Space, and Storage Lease
Issues Colorado profiled pages 20 - 27		2020https://usea.org/publication/study-states%E2%80%99-policies-and-regulations-co2-eor-storage-conventional-roz-and-eor-shaleThis project provides comprehensive and comparative analysis of four dimensions of CO2 law, regulation, and policy: 1) land use, mineral, water, and pore space rights; 2) regulation of CO2-EOR and CO2 pipelines; 3) eminent domain; and, 4) geologic CO2 storage and incremental storage regulation. The study suggests opportunities to harmonize energy policies and address regulatory gaps and inconsistencies. The aim of this study is to facilitate a better understanding of the legal underpinnings that frame risk, uncertainty, and investment in CO2 utilization and storage infrastructure and projects, and to provide a roadmap for changes which are conducive to regional project development.155Most states have institutional capacity through state oil and gas regulatory agencies and existing regulatory frameworks for oil and gas, pipelines, and eminent domain. However, the study identifies three potential categories of constraints arising from state laws and policies: 1) regulatory gaps; 2) uncertainty regarding the application of existing oil and natural gas frameworks to CO2 projects; and 3) interstate and state-federal inconsistencies and coordination issues, which present implementation challenges to regional projects. The study identifies opportunities for state lawmakers to address gaps and inconsistencies on a state-by-state basis, and opportunities for federal legislation and rulemaking. Moreover, the study concludes that, due to consistent institutions and relatively harmonized legal frameworks, regional coordination presents the most immediate opportunity for states to address implementation challenges.
22
ArticleLegal and RegulatoryEnvironmental Law ReporterSOURCES TO SINKS: EXPANDING A NATIONAL CO2 PIPELINE NETWORK2020https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338331946_Sources_to_Sinks_Expanding_a_National_CO2_Pipeline_NetworkThis Article provides an overview of CO2 pipeline regulation in the United States. After a brief introduction, Part I provides a description of the sources and end-uses for CO2 in the United States. Part II examines the general challenges likely to encumber the expansion of a national pipeline system. Part III examines the current regulatory framework for CO2 pipelines and explains the patchwork system of state and federal law currently applicable to CO2 pipelines. Part IV examines the Riley Ridge Natrona Pipeline as a case study to demonstrate how coordination between state siting laws and federal resource management laws plays out in practice. Part V evaluates the policies and regulatory frameworks that may be most conducive to expanding a national CO2 pipeline. This last part also contains recommendations, best practices, and incentives for states looking to encourage the development of CO2 transportation infrastructure.20The transportation of CO2 serves important public purposes. The commodity uses of CO2 are expected to necessitate an expansion of existing CO2 transportation infrastructure within the United States in the next 30 years. The demand for geologic storage of CO2 will also increase as a result of state and federal tax and regulatory incentives aiming to curtail atmospheric CO2. Safety regulation is carried out by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) — part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) — though states may regulate the safety of strictly intrastate pipelines. Similar to oil pipelines and electric transmission lines, CO2 pipelines are sited subject to state law. Many states do not specifically regulate CO2pipelines due to the historically privatized expansion and development of the CO2market. States that do regulate CO2 pipelines commonly create siting authorities, establish permitting and industrial siting requirements, standardize mechanisms for local government participation, and dictate methods through which CO2 pipelines may acquire property along a proposed pipeline route.
23
ReportPolicyEnergy Futures InitiativeWorkshop Summary
The Critical Role of CCUS:
Pathways to Deployment at Scale
2021https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ec123cb3db2bd94e057628/t/603d3bd74d006a4004a9a88b/1614625758081/CCUS+Workshop+Summary+030121.pdfCCUS is Essential for Rapid Deep Decarbonization. There was general consensus that CCUS is a necessary component of any global strategy to achieve net-zero emissions by midcentury to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. Carbon capture can be implemented on numerous emissions sources in the electricity and industrial sectors, and it is one of the only decarbonization solutions for a number of sectors, such as cement and steel. In fact, in its September 2020, flagship report, CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, the IEA concluded that “reaching net zero will be virtually impossible without CCUS” (see Figure 1). This conclusion and the growing recognition by scientists, policymakers, and governments that a net-zero emissions target is necessary for holding temperature increases to 1.5 degrees by mid-century, provided the motivation for this workshop.28Presently, there are policy, regulatory, investment, and public acceptance challenges in the U.S. and in other countries around the world. Supportive, consistent, and durable policies and regulations at national, regional, and state levels will be necessary to ensure that the environment is protected, and the CO2 is permanently and securely stored. At the same time, project developers must be able and willing to navigate the permitting or other policy mechanisms that make a project financially viable. The development of strong and predictable policy and regulatory environments for CCUS, especially for geologic storage, will also be critical for CDR pathways that require storage, such as direct air capture (DAC), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). CCUS offers an example of a climate mitigation solution that addresses all of these post-COVID concerns. It has the support of a wide range of stakeholders, and it can create jobs and aid in the clean energy transition. It offers sizeable economic benefits and dramatic emissions reductions in both the power sector and in vital industrial sectors that have few alternatives to decarbonize.
24
ReportPolicyInternational Energy Association (IEA)CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions - Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage2020https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean-energy-transitionsThe International Energy Agency (IEA) Energy Technology Perspectives 2020 report highlights the central role that CCUS must play as one of four key pillars of global energy transitions alongside renewables-based electrification, bioenergy and hydrogen (IEA, 2020a). CCUS can reduce emissions from large stationary sources, essentially power stations and large industrial plants, in a variety of ways, as well as generate negative emissions, by combining it with bioenergy (BECCS) or through direct air capture (DAC). Carbon removal technologies will almost certainly be required due to the practical and technical difficulties in eliminating emissions in certain sectors, including some types of industry (notably steel, chemicals and cement), aviation, road freight and maritime shipping.174Captured CO2 can be used in a number of ways, including to produce clean aviation fuels. CCUS is the only alternative to retiring existing power and industrial plants early or repurposing them to operate at lower rates of capacity utilisation or with alternative fuels. Retrofitting CO2 capture equipment can enable the continued operation of existing plants, as well as associated infrastructure and supply chains, but with significantly reduced emissions. In the power sector, this can contribute to energy security objectives by supporting greater diversity in generation options and the integration of growing shares of variable renewables with flexible dispatchable power. Retrofitting facilities with CCUS can also help to preserve employment and economic prosperity in regions that rely on emissions-intensive industry, while avoiding the economic and social disruption of early retirements.
25
Legal and RegulatoryGlobal CCS InstituteLessons and Perceptions: Adopting a Commercial Approach to CCS Liability2019https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Adopting-a-Commercial-Appraoch-to-CCS-Liability_Thought-Leadership_August-2019.pdf1. Liability has long been raised as a significant barrier to wide scale deployment of CCS.
2. Regulatory frameworks have been developed and adopted that address liability and other operator concerns, and to provide certainty for those seeking to invest in the technology’s deployment. This has included the use of existing liability provisions, found in wider national and regional legislation, but also the development of innovative approaches to the management of operators’ and regulators’ risk exposure.
3. An assessment of the liability provisions within the early CCS-specific regulatory frameworks reveals a wide range of CCS-specific models, which actively seek to address the various forms of liability throughout the project lifecycle. The development of these frameworks is largely complete, and, in some instances, their subsequent review has revealed them to be fit-for-purpose.
4. Project-level experience similarly confirms the suitability of these early liability models, citing overall, the positive impact that national frameworks have played in supporting project deployment. Interviews with project proponents and analysis of permitting experiences reveals many of the liabilities borne under CCS-specific models are both familiar and eminently manageable. The availability and benefits of transfer provisions in some jurisdictions, have proven particularly significant, with some proponents highlighting their beneficial impact upon project investment decisions.
5. In parallel with advances in the development of law and regulation and project-level experience, there have been significant improvements in the characterization and quantification of the risks associated with the CCS process. Studies considering the magnitude of potential liabilities attaching to commercial operations, project and industry-level assessments of risk and insurability and greater confidence in the fate of stored CO2, suggest the burden of liability is much less than predicted in early analysis.		36"6. Despite these regulatory developments, the topic of liability continues to be raised by some project developers, policy-makers and regulators as a critical issue in the deployment of carbon capture and storage. 7. The analysis undertaken in the compilation of this report, undertaken through policy and legislative review together with interviews conducted with policymakers, regulators, lawyers, project proponents and representatives from the insurance sector, reveals that greater effort be directed towards dispelling the widely-held view that liability is a potential ‘showstopper’ for the technology’s deployment. 8. To achieve this ambition, greater focus must be directed towards eliminating barriers and supporting deployment. Examples of the critical factors to be addressed include: • Closer examination and clarification of the types of liability borne by a CCS operation throughout the project lifecycle. • The unique challenges posed to both operators and regulators, of greenhouse emissions/climate liabilities. • Consideration of the role of government and the private sector in allocating and managing risks across the CCS project lifecycle. • Further engagement of the insurance sector in the technical and regulatory debate, in order to allow them to develop effective and affordable products. "
26
ReportLegal and RegulatoryInterstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)Guidance for Operational and Post-Ops Liability for Regulation of CO2 Storage2014https://iogcc.ok.gov/sites/g/files/gmc836/f/documents/2021/guidance_for_states_and_provinces_on_operational_and_post_operational.pdfIn this report, the Task Force discusses liability broadly under federal, state or provincial, and common law, from the perspective of the state or provincial regulator of CGS. The most relevant of these liability concerns likely are to be those liabilities that arise out of the state or provincial and, in the United States, federal laws that deal directly with CGS. To better illustrate the divisions in federal/state regulation and jurisdiction within a CGS project, the Task Force did two things in this report. First, it posited a CGS project as being comprised of five phases: (I) Exploratory; (II) Permitting (Pre-Storage); (III) Storage (Operational); (IV) Closure; and (V) Post-Closure. Five phases rather than the four identified in previous IOGCC Task Force guidance better captures the limited federal jurisdiction under the SDWA. Second, the Task Force produced a CGS Project Framework and Risk Analysis. The analysis identifies the risks posed by each activity, the regulatory jurisdiction (federal or state) over the activity, and the recommended Financial Assurance (FA) to cover the regulatory risks of the activity. The report discusses FA and the various mechanisms available to the states to protect their interests related to a CGS project.84Given the regulatory complexities of CO2 storage dealing with property rights, pore space management, and environmental protection issues, the Task Force strongly recommends states and provinces regulate CO2 storage utilizing a resource management philosophy which allows these issues to be regulated in a way that balances these activities within an all-encompassing regulatory framework. Waste management frameworks do not adequately address pore space ownership and consequently cannot effectively manage the efficient use of the pore space resource. To facilitate the orderly development of CO2 storage projects, a state or province should embrace two basic principles: (1) that it is in the public interest to promote the geologic storage of CO2 in order to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions; and (2) that the pore space of the state or province should be regulated and managed as a resource under a resource management framework. This should be done by the state or province prior to storage occurring within the state or province. and provinces are best situated to assume responsibility for the “caretaking”(monitoring and maintenance) responsibility in the final Post-Closure (Long-Term Storage) Phase of a CGS project when that project has been deemed to have stabilized.
27
Journal ArticleClean Firm PowerJoule VOLUME 5, ISSUE 6, P1331-1352The challenges of achieving a 100% renewable electricity system in the United States2021https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2021.03.028Understanding the technical and economic challenges of achieving 100% renewable energy (RE) electric power systems is critical, given the increasing number of United States regional and state commitments toward this goal. Although no detailed study of a major utility of large interconnection under 100% RE system has been published, considerable literature explores the potential to greatly increase RE penetration. This literature, combined with real-world experience with increased RE deployment, points to two main challenges associated with achieving 100% RE across all timescales: (1) economically maintaining a balance of supply and demand and (2) designing technically reliable grids using largely inverter-based resources. The first challenge results in a highly nonlinear increase in costs as the system approaches 100% RE, in large part because of seasonal mismatches. The second challenge might require new inverter designs, depending on the mix of RE technologies. Analysis and experience to date point to no fundamental technical reasons why a 100% RE electric power system cannot be achieved, but the economic challenges indicate the need for advancements in several technologies and careful consideration of the suite of options that could be used to achieve equivalent carbon-reduction goals. Previous work also points to the need for analytic tool development, and techno-economic feasibility analysis must also consider the host of regulatory, market, and policy issues that might limit the ability to deploy mixes of resources that are suggested by least-cost modeling exercises.17
28
ReportEnergy InnovationBreakthrough EnergyAdvancing the Landscape of Clean Energy Innovation 2019https://www.breakthroughenergy.org/-/media/files/bev/report_advancingthelandscapeofcleanenergyinnovation_2019.pdfPrepared for Breakthrough Energy by IHS Markit and Energy Futures Initiative - The report identifies critical strengths and weaknesses of this ecosystem and offers recommendations for making that ecosystem more effective. It examines the different technology readiness stages through which innovation passes and the importance of feedback among those stages. It also discusses the significant opportunities to accelerate the pace of clean energy innovation that are presented by rapid advances occurring today across a myriad of technologies originating outside the energy sector.229
29
Exexcutive SummaryEnergy InnovationBreakthrough EnergyAdvancing the Landscape of Clean Energy Innovation - Executive Summary2019https://www.breakthroughenergy.org/-/media/files/bev/execsummary_advancingthelandscapeofcleanenergyinnovation_2019.pdfPrepared for Breakthrough Energy by IHS Markit and Energy Futures Initiative - The report identifies critical strengths and weaknesses of this ecosystem and offers recommendations for making that ecosystem more effective. It examines the different technology readiness stages through which innovation passes and the importance of feedback among those stages. It also discusses the significant opportunities to accelerate the pace of clean energy innovation that are presented by rapid advances occurring today across a myriad of technologies originating outside the energy sector.13
30
ReportGeologic StorageNETLBest Practices: Operations for Geologic Storage Projects2017https://www.netl.doe.gov/node/5831Geologic Storage of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) has gained recognition in recent years as a necessary technology approach for ensure environmental sustainability by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy’s (FE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) are developing technologies that will enable widespread commercial deployment of geologic storage of CO2 by 2025-2035. The purpose of this Operating Carbon Storage Projects Best Practices Manual (BPM) is threefold: (1) Provide stakeholders with a compilation of best practice guidelines for Operating Carbon Storage Projects (2) Communicate the experience gained, to date, through the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (RCSP) Initiative (3) Develop a consistent industry-standard framework, terminology, and set of guidelines for communicating project-related storage resources and risk estimates associated with the project
31
ReportGeologic StorageNETLBest Practices: Public Outreach and Education for Geologic Storage Projects2017https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/BPM_PublicOutreach.pdfThis manual presents 11 Best Practices derived from the experience gained thus far by the RCSPs. The RCSPs encountered a few common themes in developing outreach programs for small-scale Validation Phase and large-scale Development Phase projects. These themes include a lack of understanding of how CO2 storage works due to the “out of sight” nature of the technology; a lack of familiarity with similar storage functions already occurring in nature, and the actual performance of other geologic storage projects. Other themes include communication challenges that stem from the implementation of complex projects. Effective public outreach and education can help improve and facilitate a geologic storage project and overcome these challenges. The Best Practices highlighted in this manual address the practical implications of conducting outreach and education for geologic storage projects across a variety of U.S. geologic and cultural settings. The objective of this manual is to communicate the lessons learned and to recommend Best Practices that have emerged from the first decade of public outreach conducted by the RCSPs. The manual is intended to assist project developers in understanding and adopting Best Practices in outreach to support geologic storage projects. Although project developers are the primary audience for this document, other stakeholders may find information that will aid them in their consideration of carbon storage projects and community engagement.68
32
ReportGeologic StorageNETLBest Practices: Risk Management and Simulation for Geologic Storage Projects2017https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/BPM_RiskAnalysisSimulation.pdfGeologic storage is an approach that draws on more than a century of experience in the oil and gas industry and, more recently, several decades of other analogous commercial industries that utilize subsurface injection of gases and/or liquids. However, like any technology application, there are potential risks associated with geologic storage that need to be analyzed and properly managed. This BPM builds on the experience of the RCSP Initiative and efforts within the research community, notably the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG) R&D Program review of risk assessment guidelines, (IEA 2009) to develop an approach for utilizing risk management and numeric simulation throughout the process of implementing a geologic storage project, (i.e., site selection, design, operation and, ultimately, closure).1 Together, risk management and numeric simulation are an integral part of the decision-making process for all geologic storage project stakeholders, including developers, operators, regulators, and the general public. These analyses need to be undertaken routinely throughout the entire lifecycle of a project and updated as experience and operational data are obtained. This BPM reflects the lessons learned from the work of the RCSPs to develop and/or use formal and qualitative methods to select and implement geologic storage projects safely and effectively.2 The manual presents two frameworks—one for approaching risk management and the second for approaching numeric simulation. These approaches have been structured to include the overarching best practices that have been developed from the specific lessons learned of the RCSPs. The format is intended to help the reader consider both the overarching structure of the approach as well as some of the details required for implementation.
33
ReportCarbon Dioxide SequestrationNETLBest Practices for: Terrestrial Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide2010This manual covers land types and management methods that can maximize carbon storage in vegetation and soil. It also covers the analytical techniques necessary to monitor, verify, and account for terrestrially stored carbon, which is required for this carbon to be traded. The status of GHG trading and the institutions involved are also covered. Finally, results from the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) terrestrial field trials are discussed as examples of what can be done. This manual is aimed at individuals and organizations considering terrestrial sequestration projects and those considering regulations/legislation governing carbon emissions caps.
34
ReportGeologic StorageNETLBest Practices: Site Screening, Site Selection, and Site Characterization for Geologic Storage Projects2017https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/BPM-SiteScreening.pdfThe primary audience for this BPM is future storage project developers and CO2 producers. It will also be useful for informing local, regional, state, and national governmental agencies. Finally, it will inform the general public about the rigorous analyses that are involved in screening, selecting, and characterizing potential geologic storage sites. The process of identifying suitable sites with adequate storage involves methodical and careful analysis of the technical and non-technical features of promising areas. This BPM uses a CO2 Storage Resource Classification System, which is modeled after the Petroleum Resources Management System (PRMS) as a framework for discussion of data to be collected, and analyses to be performed, for developing a site for geologic storage. The process, from initial exploration of large areas to site qualification, is divided into three stages: Site Screening, Site Selection, and Site Characterization. These stages correspond in rank order to three sub-classes within the Prospective Resources classification: Potential Sub- Regions, Selected Areas, and Qualified Site(s).
35
ReportGeologic StorageNETLBest Practices for: Geologic Storage Formation Classification: Understanding Its Importance and Impacts on CCS Opportunities in the United States2010https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2019-01/BPM_GeologicStorageClassification.pdfA need exists for further research on carbon storage technologies to capture and store carbon dioxide (CO2) from stationary sources that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies have the potential to be a key technology for reducing CO2 emissions and mitigating global climate change. Deploying these technologies on a commercial-scale will require geologic storage formations capable of: (1) storing large volumes of CO2; (2) receiving CO2 at an efficient and economic rate of injection; and (3) safely retaining CO2 over extended periods. Eleven major types of depositional environments, each having their own unique opportunities and challenges, are being considered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for CO2 storage. The different classes of reservoirs reviewed in this study include: deltaic, coal/shale, fluvial, alluvial, strandplain, turbidite, eolian, lacustrine, clastic shelf, carbonate shallow shelf, and reef. Basaltic interflow zones are also being considered as potential reservoirs. DOE has recently completed this study which investigated the geology, geologic reservoir properties and confining units, and geologic depositional systems of potential reservoirs and how enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and coalbed methane (CBM) are currently utilizing CO2. The study looked at the classes of geologic formations, and their potential to serve as CO2 reservoirs, distribution, and potential volumes. This study discussed the efforts that DOE is supporting to characterize and test small- and large-scale CO2 injection into these different classes for reservoirs. These tests are important to better understand the directional tendencies imposed by the depositional environment that may influence how fluids flow within these systems today, and how CO2 in geologic storage would be anticipated to flow in the future. Although diagenesis has modified fluid flow paths during the intervening millions of years since they were deposited, the basic architectural framework created during deposition remains. Geologic processes that are working today also existed when the sediments were initially deposited. Analysis of modern day depositional analogs and evaluation of core, outcrops, and well logs from ancient subsurface formations give an indication of how formations were deposited and how fluid flow within the formation is anticipated to flow.
36
ReportGeologic StorageNETLBest Practices: Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) for Geologic Storage Projects2017https://www.netl.doe.gov/node/5827This manual discusses development of risk-based MVA plans for geologic carbon storage projects, and provides recent research results concerning existing and emerging MVA techniques. Although the focus is on the experience gained through the DOE RCSP Initiative, MVA plans and a few key monitoring techniques applied at international large-scale field projects are described. Best practices result from successful application of techniques during field application and are documented through lessons learned. Technical references are provided for readers interested in further information. Current and ongoing research focused on emerging tools is provided as well.
37
ReportBioenergy and Carbon StorageCCS InstituteBioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage2019https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-research/bioenergy-and-carbon-capture-and-storage/After almost thirty years of climate change negotiations, global CO2 levels are still rising (NOAA, 2018). The UNFCCC Paris Agreement goals of holding global warming to ‘well-below’ 2°C and to ‘pursue efforts’ to limit it to 1.5°C are in stark contrast to the ever-dwindling carbon budget. The evidence makes it clear. CO2 needs to be removed from the atmosphere, known as carbon dioxide removal (CDR), using negative emissions technologies (NETs) to meet global warming targets. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is emerging as the best solution to decarbonise emission-intensive industries and sectors and enable negative emissions. This Perspective from Christopher Consoli, Senior Consultant - Storage, explores this technology and its deployment as a climate mitigation solution.
38
ReportCarbon Capture and StorageCCS InstituteCCS Policy Indicator (CCS-PI)2018https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-research/ccs-policy-indicator-ccs-pi/Government policy, given effect through law and the allocation of public resources, is critical to achieving climate targets. It plays a material role in determining the return on investment for any climate mitigation technology making confidence in government policy a pre-requisite of investment. The CCS-PI tracks the development of government policy to accelerate the deployment of CCS as an essential climate mitigation technology in over 100 countries.
39
ReportCarbon Capture and StorageCCS InstituteThe California LCFS and CCS Protocol - An Overview for Policymakers and Project Developers2019https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-research/the-lcfs-and-ccs-protocol-an-overview-for-policymakers-and-project-developers/The Global CCS Institute has launched a report analyzing California’s recently passed carbon capture and storage protocol. The report provides a summary of the regulation for project developers and policymakers in other states and countries, given the Protocol's global applicability. While comparing it to other relevant regulations – including the federal carbon capture tax credit also known as 45Q – the report seeks to raise awareness for the opportunities created through the protocol and to advance deployment opportunities. The protocol incentivizes carbon capture and storage projects reducing the lifecycle emissions from bioethanol, hydrogen, and crude, provided the fuel is sold into the California market, as well as direct air capture projects globally.
40
ReportCarbon CaptureNational Association of Regulatory Utility CommissionersCarbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration: Technology and Policy Status and Opportunities2018https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/09B7EAAA-0189-830A-04AA-A9430F3D1192This paper examines the present state of CCUS and the challenges to widespread deployment in the energy sector. It explores the policy and technology environment for coal- red power generation and CCUS for energy and industrial uses. It offers an array of actions policymakers and regulators can use to encourage CCUS adoption to extend the life of existing coal- red power plants while drastically cutting carbon dioxide emissions, illuminating how the coal plant of the future could look. This paper can be a resource for any stakeholder concerned with the intersection of energy and environmental issues related to coal, but focuses on the role state public utility commissions play in the future of CCUS technology. As economic regulators, state commissions must balance reliability, resilience, policy goals, and customer needs while maintaining fair prices for ratepayers. However, the energy sector is subject to a complex combination of regulatory bodies at all levels of government, and state commissions have limited authority in some key areas. Therefore, the paper also looks at federal and other state and local actions that could encourage CCUS adoption.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100