« Back to GR Energy & Climate Briefs Archive

April 15th, 2010
Commentary and Analysis
Key Issues
Names in the News

While carbon capture and storage currently enjoys the support of key Congressional policymakers, a number of liability issues associated with the capture, transport and storage of carbon could imperil this nascent technology. The absence of a clear regulatory framework for CCS has prevented companies from formulating adequate financial risk management strategies to respond to accidental leaks in the half-million injection wells in the US. GR’s Thursday Insight analyzes the various legal and regulatory uncertainties associated with CCS and the way forward for both policymakers and businesses.


Scent of Shale Gas Hangs Over Katyn»

Govt Strategy Pushes Green Car Technology»

China Eyes Namibia's Minerals»

Senate Leader Set to Take Command of Climate Bill»


To enable the deployment of CCS at a commercial scale in the Unites States, in addition to the widely discussed technical hurdles, the greatest challenge may in fact be managing risk and long-term liability.  The specific manner in which these issues are addressed – politically as well as legally – will determine whether governments’ massive long-term investment (the US government alone would pledge $60 billion under various legislative proposals, and spent $3.4 billion in the stimulus) in CCS will pay dividends.  Though this emerging technology has significant business interest and political support, CCS still faces an array of hurdles, most notably, concerns about financial risk management.  Currently, there is no comprehensive framework of any kind in place to manage the financial risk associated with CCS, particularly the long-term risks of CO2 storage.  Because the CCS debate is playing prominently in the political debate over coal – and could determine the future of a US climate bill generally– concerns regarding CCS risk and liability issues are particularly urgent.

Renewed Coal Debate Points to the Importance of CCS

The political debate in Washington this week illustrates the central position the CCS question holds in the negotiations over climate legislation.  At a hearing this week on Capitol Hill, where coal mining executives were pressed to support climate legislation, they said that a price for their support of such legislation would be greater federal funding of CCS.  The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security bill that passed the House last year includes $10 billion for CCS research and development plus $50 in bonus allowances for CCS installed before 2025.  The bill also would provide deep concessions for coal-using industries, such as utilities, in the form of free carbon emission allowances and a ban on EPA regulation of carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Senate’s version, which could finally be unveiled by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) next week, is expected to support fossil fuels even more strongly than the House’s.  The coal industry wants KGL to include funding levels for CCS at least equal to those proposed by Waxman-Markey and to maintain the ban on EPA regulations, while shielding the coal sector from federal emissions reduction requirements until CCS technology is fully deployable. Recently, this debate has centered on the Rockefeller-Voinovich language to boost government funding for CCS, which is now being offered as a bargaining chip for KGL. But, that debate shows that the level of continued government support for CCS is contingent on a wide range of factors, particularly how the ongoing negotiations over climate legislation will play out.

The Role of CCS in Climate Mitigation and Ongoing CCS Projects

Several studies have explored the enormous potential value of CCS as a climate change mitigation option.  There is an emerging consensus around a few points.  The cost of CCS is likely to drop after a set of first mover projects is developed.  In addition, there is value in having the flexibility to select the most appropriate option – be it energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy, CCS, or other means of reducing carbon from energy.  But CCS is clearly central: IEA analysis suggests that without CCS, overall costs to reduce emissions to 2005 levels by 2050 increase by 70%. The actual range of ongoing CCS activity is limited, however, and there has been a consistent call, by leaders like Boyce and Arch Coal CEO Steven Leer, for more demonstration projects to be deployed. Today, only four commercial scale CCS projects, located in Algeria, Canada (Alberta), Norway and the Norwegian Sea, are in operation worldwide. 

See full article here.

Jason Goodwin
15 April 2010

15 Apr 2010
Climate Change
15 Apr 2010
Fossil Energy
15 Apr 2010
15 Apr 2010
15 Apr 2010
Greenhouse Gas Regulation under the Clean Air Act
April 2010
Resources for the Future
Developing Natural Gas for Heavy Vehicles
April 2010
Center for American Progress

Adapting for Future Resource Challenges
April 2010
Center for Strategic and International Studies
The Next Empire
May 2010
The Atlantic
Obama's Nuclear Strategy
US Sentate

Brown, along with nine other Midwestern Democratic Senators, is set to deliver a set of conditions to Sens. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman which will spell out what they need to come on board with KGL's forthecoming energy and climate bill.

Garten Rothkopf
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036 | phone: 202.457.7920

The material contained within this email is solely for the use of Garten Rothkopf clients, employees, partners and other designated recipients. It is not intended to be quoted, reproduced or circulated in any fashion without the express permission of Garten Rothkopf LLC.