Carbon Capture Regulations Must Match Pace of Innovation (RealClear Energy)

This op-ed was originally published by RealClear Energy on December 9, 2024. Click here to read the entire piece.

Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies are often described – on both sides of the aisle – as a central pillar of America’s clean energy future. They can help solve for global energy emissions and decarbonize hard-to-abate industries, all while reinforcing U.S. energy independence and growing our economy. And yet, despite decades of investment in American CCUS innovation, an out of date regulatory bottleneck at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to hold back the full deployment of these critical technologies

The broad appeal of CCUS stems from its ability to address environmental concerns while working within our existing power system, particularly in regions where heavy industry dominates. For example, the production of cement, steel, and chemicals account for almost 70% of direct CO2 emissions from industry worldwide, and these industries require access to abundant baseload power to get the job done – they cannot rely on renewable energy alone. According to the Global CCS Institute, over 40% of projects in the global CCS pipeline are in these hard-to-abate sectors.

It’s no wonder that CCUS is bipartisan: the George W. Bush administration laid the groundwork for advancing carbon capture technology through initiatives like the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI), the Obama administration built upon these investments with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Trump administration provided updated direction for CCUS R&D in the Energy Act of 2020 and enhanced and extended the 45Q tax credit to make CCUS projects more economically viable – not once but twice. Most recently, the Biden Administration invested billions in American CCUS through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.

In addition to these decades of federal investments, the U.S. also possesses world-class geological resources and technical expertise to store CO2 permanently underground at the scale developers need. While we currently lead the world in this technology, and major U.S. energy companies are looking to invest billions of dollars to maintain this leadership role, other countries are ramping up too – and closing the gap.

Click here to read the full article

Coastal Blue Carbon 101

Blue carbon is the term used to describe the “watery” nature of carbon captured by the ocean and coastal ecosystems. Coastal blue carbon ecosystems refer to biomass-based coastal habitats, such as salt marshes, mangroves and seagrass meadows, that store carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. These ecosystems are a major carbon sink – storing about 50 percent of the Earth’s carbon, despite occupying less than 5 percent of global land area and less than 2 percent of the ocean. In addition to their carbon storage potential, these ecosystems create flood-resilient communities, provide economic benefits by supporting fisheries, enhance property values and improve nutrient cycling. However, the loss and degradation of coastal blue carbon ecosystems reduce future carbon sequestration potential and can emit carbon dioxide (CO2) back into the atmosphere. Therefore, the restoration, maintenance and conservation of these areas are essential to achieving global emissions reduction goals. Together, this makes coastal blue carbon ecosystems among the world’s greatest natural tools to address climate-related challenges today. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recognized coastal blue carbon as a necessary pathway to harness the resiliency of nature and naturally remove excess carbon from the atmosphere.  

This Coastal Blue Carbon 101 provides an overview of this promising natural carbon removal solution and policies that may bolster additional deployment across coastal states. Recommendations include:

What is Coastal Blue Carbon?

A Nature-based Carbon Removal Solution –
Coastal blue carbon is considered a nature-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) solution. Nature-based CDR solutions remove and store carbon from the atmosphere through naturally occurring processes – like photosynthesis, which takes sunlight and CO2 from the air to make water and sugar for the plant. Nature-based CDR solutions are recognized as a promising set of pathways to reduce emissions, with the global voluntary carbon market recording a 170% increase in the traded volume of nature-based carbon credits between 2017 and 2018.

The Most Efficient Natural Carbon Sink –
In the U.S., coastal blue carbon ecosystems sequester an estimated additional 6.7 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MtCO2e) annually, as of 2022. This is equivalent to CO2 emissions from energy usage in over 960 thousand U.S. homes each year. Globally, coastal blue carbon ecosystems sequester 0.84 billion tons (Gt) CO2 per year. It has been estimated that coastal blue carbon can annually sequester carbon at a rate ten times greater than mature tropical forests while covering far less area, making them the most efficient natural carbon sinks in the world, all while providing multiple co-benefits. This is possible because coastal blue carbon ecosystems are made up of oxygen-depleted flooded soil, which slows down decomposition.

A Solution for Economic and Environmental Resiliency –
Harnessing coastal blue carbon pathways can improve resiliency and bolster the economies of coastal communities by creating solutions in the face of extreme weather and changes in marine ecosystems. These nature-based solutions can be integrated into community planning to provide (1) billions of dollars in savings during floods, (2) economic benefits by maintaining habitats for marine life used by fisheries that support economic activity and food supply, (3)  improved water quality for residents and wildlife and (4) protect dozens of military installments and training grounds from storm surge and coastal flooding.

Types of Coastal Blue Carbon

The three main types of coastal blue carbon ecosystems are salt marshes, mangrove forests and seagrass meadows. Salt marshes are coastal wetlands flooded and drained by salt water brought in by the tides and are dominated by plants such as grasses, reeds and sedges. Salt marshes can be found on the coasts of the United States, with about half of the nation’s salt marshes located along the Gulf Coast. Mangroves are salt-tolerant trees that grow where land and sea meet, typically along shores, rivers and estuaries. Mangrove forests in the U.S. are found throughout the Gulf of Mexico, although increases in water temperature may lead to their northward expansion Figure 1. Seagrass is aquatic grass found in shallow coastal waters around the world. Figure 2 shows that sea level determines the designation of these ecosystems. Tidal marshes and mangrove forests exist both above and below sea level, while seagrass is strictly underwater. Table 1 provides a comparison between these three coastal blue carbon ecosystems.

Water level determines the location of coastal blue carbon ecosystems

Source: Nature Reviews, Earth & Environment

Comparison of coastal blue carbon ecosystems

Sources: 1. Louisiana mangrove projects, 2. Louisiana salt marsh project, 3. Florida seagrass project

Estimated ranges of coastal blue carbon in the U.S. from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Estimated carbon sequestration rates of coastal blue carbon pathways from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Mangroves

Mangroves are salt-tolerant trees that grow where land and sea meet, typically along shores, rivers and estuaries. Mangrove forests cover 33-49 million acres around the world, which is on average the size of the state of Iowa. A majority of mangrove forests in the U.S. can be found on the Gulf Coast, primarily in Florida and Louisiana, due to warmer temperatures. An estimated 500,000 acres of mangroves in the coastal areas of Central and South Florida.

Mangrove carbon sequestration –
Mangrove forests store more than 11.7 Gt of carbon globally, which is equivalent to 22% of 2023 global emissions. The restoration of all feasible mangrove regions in the world has been estimated to sequester up to an additional 688 Mt of carbon over a 40-year period, a greater carbon storage potential than afforestation. With optimal market incentives in place, 20% of global mangrove forests can be restored and contribute to the removal of 29.8 MtCO2e each year. The mangrove forests in Florida’s Everglades National Park can store carbon valued at nearly $3 billion. 

Benefits of mangrove restoration and protection –
Mangroves make up resilient coastal ecosystems that withstand damage from storms, preventing over $11 billion in property damage globally every year. For example, during Hurricane Irma in Florida, mangroves averted $1.5 billion in storm damages and protected over half a million people. Mangrove forests also provide key ecosystem benefits, including (1) serving as a habitat and nursery for many marine species, (2) providing economic opportunity for coastal communities and (3) supplying seafood for millions of people. They are also valuable for fisheries, with an annual median value of over $15,000 per acre for fisheries in the Gulf of California.

Salt Marshes

Salt marshes are coastal grassland ecosystems that are regularly flooded by seawater. North America is home to around 40% of global salt marshes. The U.S. has approximately 3.8 million acres of salt marshes, about a quarter larger than the state of Connecticut. A vast interconnected 1 million acres stretches from North Carolina to Florida. Louisiana accounts for up to 40% of the coastal salt marshes in the contiguous U.S.

Salt marsh carbon sequestration –
Globally, salt marshes store an estimated 1.4-2.4 Gt of carbon, which is equivalent to removing over 571 million vehicles from the road each year. Restored marshes could result in approximately 13 to 207 Mt of additional CO2 accumulation per year, equivalent to removing over 49 million vehicles from the road each year. This would offset 0.51% of global energy-related CO2 emissions, a substantial amount considering that salt marshes make up less than one percent of Earth’s surface. As of 2013, Louisiana’s marshes were estimated to bury and store 4.3 million tons of carbon per year, which was 47% of the capacity of North America and 5-21% of the global capacity for carbon in tidal wetlands. North Carolina’s salt marshes currently hold around 64 million tons of carbon and sequester an additional 250,000 tons each year.

Benefits of salt marsh restoration and protection –
Salt marshes play an important role in coastal flood protection, fisheries support and biodiversity enhancement. Salt marshes protect coastal communities from natural disasters that can cause infrastructural storm and flooding damage, preventing over $23 billion in storm protection services annually in the United States. Salt marshes, and the estuaries that support them, also provide habitat for more than 75% of commercial and recreational fish species in the U.S. including white shrimp, blue crab, redfish and flounder.

Seagrass

Seagrass meadows are underwater coastal ecosystems composed of aquatic grasses. Globally, the documented area of seagrass coverage is accepted by researchers to be an underestimate at 43.7 million acres, equivalent to nearly the size of the state of Oklahoma. This is an underestimate because many seagrass meadows have not been fully charted. Models that consider uncharted areas indicate a three times greater area of seagrass meadows at 148 million acres, or similar to the size of the state of Texas.

Seagrass Carbon Sequestration –
Globally, seagrass meadows could store as much as 8.5 Gt of carbon, equivalent to energy emissions from over 1.1 billion homes in the U.S. each year. This is as much as salt marshes and mangroves combined, primarily due to more global acreage. Seagrass habitat throughout the Mississippi River Delta stores up to 35 Mt of carbon, a greater storage capacity than any other terrestrial or marine area and even higher than seagrass habitats in other locations.

Benefits of seagrass restoration and protection –The 1 million acres of salt marshes within the South Atlantic states (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina) shield over a dozen military installations and training grounds from storm surges and coastal flooding. Economically, seagrass meadows contribute over $20 billion each year to Florida by providing habitat for commercially and recreationally important fish. For instance, a single acre of seagrass meadow can be home to 40,000 fish and 50 million invertebrates. Additionally, coastal tourism and recreation in seagrass ecosystems along Florida’s coast generates $250 million annually across 8,000 jobs and 500 companies.

Policy

Research and Development (R&D) — Continued support for coastal blue carbon R&D initiatives, as carried out by Federal research agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), will be important to understand the carbon sequestration and storage potential of coastal blue carbon projects. R&D initiatives could include long-term research studies examining the impact of (1) different coastal ecosystems, (2) plant species and (3) changes in climate or management during the maintenance of projects. R&D will also be needed to improve the consistency and accuracy of measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification (MMRV) of emissions from coastal blue carbon projects by improving remote sensing measurement tools and methods, including for satellites and aircraft. 

Data Collaboration and Coordination — A collaborative and coordinated effort between federal agencies to map current and future coastal blue carbon ecosystems is necessary to determine geographic areas with the greatest potential for increasing blue carbon stocks. This collaborative data resource could expand on existing projects to include information on ongoing and planned coastal blue carbon projects. A project that could be expanded is the NASA-USGS National Blue Carbon Monitoring System, which integrates nationally available data sets, satellite data and field data to refine models used to measure carbon stocks and fluxes in changing coastal wetlands. 

Wide-scale Deployment —  To support the wide-scale deployment of coastal blue carbon pathways, coastal restoration and creation projects could design their planning processes with carbon removal and sequestration built-in. An existing projects that could implement this is the Department of Defense’s Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program (REPI), which preserves natural habitats near military installations through stakeholder partnerships. Market incentives and technology-inclusive regulatory pathways may be helpful in encouraging the incorporation of carbon removal into coastal restoration planning processes. Market incentives could look like tax incentives aimed at encouraging the incorporation of carbon measurements into projects, and purchase prizes, such as DOE’s Commercial CDR Purchase Pilot Prize, which aims to demonstrate how technology-neutral CDR purchase contracts can catalyze innovation. Streamlined permitting and regulatory processes that reflect the value of coastal blue carbon projects could also increase deployment and carbon removal.

Protecting American Intellectual Property is key to American Innovation

The House of Representatives took important steps this week to protect American interests in the face of hostile actors. Many of the bills passed this week focused on the increasing threat of influence from the Chinese Communist Party. These included a proposal from Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV) to add foreign entity of concern (FEOC) provisions to energy tax credits, protecting American advanced manufacturing.

This is especially relevant as the Department of Energy (DOE)’s cutting-edge research makes it a high-profile target for malicious actors that seek to pilfer U.S. intellectual property. As the pinnacle of America’s world-class energy innovation apparatus, DOE’s unique structure leverages the National Labs and public-private partnerships to deploy breakthrough technologies to address the toughest energy challenges. DOE must advance technological innovation while protecting American Intellectual Property (IP) and its licensure. 

DOE frequently issues competitive funding awards through grants and cooperative agreements to industry, universities, state and local governments and nonprofits to implement research, development and technology deployment (RD&D). These awards result in DOE-funded intellectual property that is patented and then sold or licensed to other entities creating opportunities for technology transfer, which can generate large economic benefits to the U.S. provided it is not acquired by foreign entities.

However, such transfers are not without risks. A May 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, prompted by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), found that DOE is continuously behind the curve and needs to take critical action to protect the U.S. technological inventions it funds from foreign acquisition. Sen. Barrasso expressed his “deep concern about the ability of the DOE’s research security apparatus to resist threats from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)” earlier this year in a letter to DOE Secretary Granholm. Sen. Barrasso underscored the imperative for the Department to “remediate its chronic counterintelligence shortcomings” through an effective plan of action.

This level of oversight is appropriate, especially given recent episodes like DOE’s 2022 selection of battery manufacturer Microvast for a $200 million award. The award was made notwithstanding existing DOE prohibitions on awardee participation in Chinese Talent Programs, as the company CEO had done. As a result of vigorous Congressional oversight, the award was later canceled. 

To avoid similar stumbles, ClearPath recently provided recommendations that underscore the national economic and security imperative to protect American IP from illicit actors. 

DOE can utilize an earlier and improved vetting process while managing new funding and authorities for demonstrations, supply chain and manufacturing. Privately, industry has expressed concerns that DOE has inconsistently applied licensing requirements and waivers, leading to protracted negotiations and project delays. GAO noted in its report that while DOE focuses on flexibility, industry and universities often value clarity and standardization. Such a perceived lack of clarity from DOE could dissuade well-qualified applicants from partnering with DOE for major funding programs. This may also result in a process where only the largest companies and most sophisticated operators with a stable of attorneys can afford to participate in protracted negotiations. It is a delicate balance, but ultimately, as a general principle, DOE should provide well-defined terms and conditions upfront.

DOE should ensure that IP licensing requirements for grants and cooperative agreements from the programs are in alignment with those of the National Laboratories. DOE and the laboratories can make access easier across the DOE complex, thus encouraging more partnerships. In a similar vein, DOE should develop a publicly accessible, no-regrets IP licensing template that is compliant and up-to-date. An awardee that uses the template for licensing its technology will have confidence in relying on parameters blessed by DOE. 

To facilitate the advancement of U.S. economic security and technology leadership along with DOE and the organizations it contracts with, ClearPath recommends a combination of short-term goals and a long-term focus.  One example is the DOE’s nuclear partnerships with Poland and Romania. In April 2024, DOE established the first-ever regional Clean Energy Training Center in Warsaw, Poland, aiming to catalyze the development of the nation’s civil nuclear energy program. The DOE can play an important role in building up the technical expertise of an allied country looking to build new technologies, like nuclear energy. By proactively engaging, the DOE can enable U.S. companies to better compete in the international market. 

In the short-term, DOE could prioritize earlier and improved vetting of funding applicants and align compliance between the national labs through common IP licensing templates. These changes could make it easier for industry to work with both DOE programs and the National Labs. These actions could be part of a larger strategy to develop clear IP licensing procedures for universities and companies. This would be an important step to promote compliance and adequately protect any licensed IP. Beyond these themes, DOE could focus on increased transparency and reduce its reliance on waivers. DOE could promulgate explicit and discernible terms and conditions that are clear to funding applicants.

Longer-term, DOE could investigate providing access to a preliminary “background check” for partners to use to protect DOE-funded IP. DOE’s funding opportunities often require multiple partners and entities in a team that is applying to a solicitation. Choosing teaming partners is important from a security as well as technical perspective. Awardees receive equity investment inquiries and have outright sales opportunities for business units that have DOE-funded technology or for the IP itself. If DOE’s partners could vet potential partners by querying a database without having access to the data within it, that could provide some assurance of protection and may even help to capture more investment for DOE-funded technology. 

Employing these solutions will strengthen DOE’s protection of American IP while improving access and encouraging energy innovators to partner with DOE. Employing the short-term solutions will provide the added bonus of making DOE’s processes, including award negotiating and contracting, faster, more efficient and more productive — a need we will lay out in our next blog in this series.

Sizing Up Energy Storage: The Grid Storage Launchpad Is Here

In August of 2024, the Department of Energy (DOE) dedicated the Grid Storage Launchpad (GSL) at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Years in the making, the $75 million GSL is now among the foremost storage research and development (R&D) facility in the country to accelerate the development of next-generation storage technologies. This facility is a testament to the world-class American energy innovation apparatus. This unique structure leverages DOE and the national labs to spur public-private partnerships that can deploy innovative technologies to boost grid reliability and reduce costs.

DOE first identified PNNL as the site for the GSL in 2019, followed by a larger announcement from then Energy Secretary Dan Brouillete in 2020. The GSL and the Energy Storage Grand Challenge both received support from former President Donald Trump in his proposed presidential budgets for FY2020 and FY2021. 

The overarching goals of the GSL are supported by the bipartisan Better Energy Storage Technology (BEST) Act authored by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Tina Smith (D-MN) on the Senate side, Bill Foster (D-IL), Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA), Sean Casten (R-IL), and Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH), and ultimately signed by former President Trump.The BEST Act received bipartisan, bicameral support, advancing out of the Senate Energy Committee and House Science Committee respectively with 23 co-sponsors in the Senate and 102 co-sponsors in the House. The bill was ultimately included in the Energy Act of 2020 and signed into law by former President Trump.

The BEST Act authorized the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish a cross-cutting energy storage system research and development program to improve the efficiency of the nation’s electric grid, while helping to align research efforts on energy storage technologies. These programs were subsequently funded to the tune of $500 million in the FY23 funding package, directing key resources to the DOE Offices of Electricity, Science, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

The BEST Act is a step toward modernizing the U.S. energy grid by promoting American innovation for advanced storage technologies. The bill directed DOE to undertake three energy storage system demonstration projects and established a joint program between DOE and the Department of Defense to demonstrate long-duration storage technologies. It also advanced recycling efforts to reuse critical energy storage materials such as lithium, cobalt and nickel. Collectively, these efforts will help increase the resilience and reliability of the grid, lower energy costs and reduce reliance on foreign adversaries like China. 

Grid reliability is a growing concern all across the country. Grid operators project major increases over the next decade to respond to the growth of data centers, AI and a budding U.S. manufacturing renaissance. From weather events to the retirement of baseload assets, the grid will need a full set of solutions featuring new technologies to meet ever-growing energy demand. For example, wind and solar are variable resources whose availability depends on the weather, which poses challenges to grid operators who must carefully balance supply and demand every minute of every day to keep the lights on. More innovation in storage technology will help with that balance. 

The GSL facility is designed to specialize in the most pressing research areas, including testing basic materials and developing pilot-scale battery systems to validate new technologies. These types of activities are a key part of the innovation S-curve.

There continues to be broad, bipartisan support for energy storage innovation. In addition to the GSL, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provided funding for demonstration projects and key support for critical minerals innovations. Beyond these projects, the Trump Administration launched the Energy Storage Grand Challenge to ensure America can domestically develop and manufacture the energy storage technologies needed to meet market demands by 2030. Most recently, the Biden Administration launched the Long Duration Storage Shot, which aims to “reduce the cost of grid-scale energy storage by 90% for systems that deliver 10+ hours of duration within the decade.” 

This strong federal support and broad public-private partnerships have catapulted energy storage as an innovation success story. These types of agreements can jumpstart innovation from the lab to commercial success. 

Form Energy recently announced projects with utilities in Minnesota and Maine, in addition to nearing completion of their flagship factory at a former steel mill site in Weirton, WV. Quidnet recently received a SCALEUP Award from ARPA-E, and startups Antora and Rondo recently announced major fundraising rounds for their respective thermal battery technologies.

Even though the innovation these companies have put into action, there are still barriers that need to be overcome for broad deployment. These include reforms to wholesale electricity markets to ensure storage assets are compensated for the attributes they provide to the grid, market signals that encourage variable renewables to pair their output with energy storage to provide firm power, and improved models to incorporate long-duration storage into utility planning. 

There is a lot of room for Congress to build on the success of the GSL, the BEST Act and the infrastructure law in the year ahead. These promising investments are just the beginning of a generational shift toward American made storage technologies.

CO2 Pipelines Are Safe…and We Need a Lot More

You’ve probably heard about a clean energy technology called Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage – or “CCUS” for short.

This is a method of capturing carbon dioxide or “CO2” from emissions sources like power plants and industrial facilities. Another method for reducing emissions is called Direct Air Capture, which removes CO2 that is already in our atmosphere — think a giant vacuum. If we’re serious about global emissions reduction — we need both.

In addition to driving down emissions, captured CO2 is also a valuable commodity.  CO2 is not only used to make your beer fizz, carbon oxides can be used for everyday products like building materials, fertilizer, and fuels. CO2 that is not in use can be permanently and safely stored – usually underground – where it resides for thousands of years. 

Often, when CO2 is captured, it’s not located near an available storage or use site and has to be transported to another location. Today, the best and safest way to move CO2 is through pipelines. 

Pipelines are everywhere – often without us even realizing it. They are beneath our highways, run through our cities, and connect our homes. Other essential resources, like natural gas, water, and waste, are all moved by pipelines. That’s because pipelines are the most land-efficient way to transport materials while minimizing environmental impact.

The Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, also known as “PHMSA”, has long regulated the security of this infrastructure. PHMSA provides national standards for pipeline design, construction, maintenance and operation. These ensure that all necessary measures are taken to mitigate risks and safeguard the well-being of your family and the environment.

Now let’s talk about CO2 pipelines. The U.S. currently has more than 5,000 miles of these pipelines, which have been safely operating across our country for over 50 years. CO2 is a stable, non flammable gas – we know it’s safe. We breathe it in and out every day – it’s even used in fire extinguishers. Over the last twenty years, there have been zero recorded fatalities associated with the very few CO2 pipeline incidents that have occurred. A pipeline accident, like we saw in 2020 in Satartia, Mississippi, while concerning, is extremely uncommon and is not representative of the safety performance of this critical infrastructure over the last several decades.

As demand for clean, reliable, and affordable energy grows, so will the demand for effective carbon management technologies. That means, to meet our energy security and global emission reduction goals, the build-out of CO2 pipeline infrastructure is vital.  An estimated 30,000 – 96,000 miles of CO2 pipelines will be needed by 2050 – that’s roughly 5 to 18 times the length of our existing network. 

We get it, some people are uneasy about new infrastructure. But let’s face it, whether you care about climate change or U.S. competitiveness- we need these technologies. By building CO2 pipeline infrastructure, we are not only building our capacity to reduce emissions and protect our environment, we’re also creating jobs, bolstering local economies, and continuing to use the energy sources that make our country strong. In America, we’re not afraid to build — it’s what we do. 

And, through R&D and innovation, we’ll leverage the efficiency and maintain the strong safety record of this vital American infrastructure.

Let America build – A policy path to modernize energy permitting

Our team spends a lot of time on reliable, affordable, clean energy systems that run 24/7. These types of technologies are an integral part of our energy future, but with a growing economy and electricity demand doubling, we need MORE power.

This means building a lot of new nuclear, geothermal, and clean fossil power plants. We’ll also need immense new transmission and pipeline infrastructure to move energy around the country.

But we’ve got a ton of work to do in very little time. 

Whether you are motivated by deep emissions reductions, furthering our nation’s energy security, or enabling the next generation of American manufacturing, the coming decades are essential. By many estimates, that means at least 10,000 new clean energy projects this decade alone. And, every one of those projects will require new permits to build. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. has a world-class apparatus… for getting in the way.

Let me give you an example. The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, calls for developers to measure the environmental impact of their projects. But NEPA was passed years before we had other laws with strict environmental standards like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or Endangered Species Act. 

Each of those are important — but all together … permit reviews can spiral into extremely long efforts, spanning thousands of pages with duplicative analyses and dozens of bureaucrats required to sign off on each individual project. And, this is not even taking into account the time it takes for any local permitting or state regulations. While this system may have made sense 50 years ago, the surge in new energy demand requires a new way.    

When we think about how to build tens of thousands of new clean energy projects, and how to balance speed and safety, it’s obvious the U.S. needs a more predictable process. 

At ClearPath, we always focus on solutions. Here are two that should be pretty simple: 

First, grant immediate approval to projects on a site that have already undergone an environmental review.

Second, we must expedite court challenges so a final decision on projects is made in a timely manner. 

Let me simplify both concepts.

Do you remember standing in line at the airport before TSA pre-check? That was brutal! Now, individuals who have proven they are not a risk can move through an expedited line.

Here’s another example.

There are mountains of evidence that some projects have little to no environmental impacts, such as an advanced manufacturing facility that produces parts for clean energy on a brownfield, or converting a retired coal plant to an advanced nuclear facility or siting a new geothermal plant at a depleted oil and gas well. These are the types of projects we should automatically permit to move forward.

Just like random screenings at TSA, we can audit the operators to ensure they’re complying with all environmental laws as we go. So new energy accelerates at no new environmental costs.

And for those projects that do need permits up front, we should ensure reviews are complete within 1 year and resolve any legal disputes within 6 months.

Under the current system, clean energy projects can suffer long delays, sometimes decades, largely because of obstructive litigation practices. We must strike the right balance while halting the never-ending cycle of frivolous lawsuits. 

At ClearPath, we believe all of this can be done without rolling back environmental protections or eliminating the public’s opportunity to be involved in the review process. Even with these necessary changes, a project would still be required to comply with environmental laws during its entire lifetime.*

It’s a win-win. Let’s get building.

Putting All the Carbon Management Innovation Pieces Together

One of the most exciting clean energy technologies the United States leads the world on is carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). The world’s abundant natural resources, or using them for industrial activity don’t alone create climate change, the emissions from them do.

That’s why reducing carbon dioxide emissions at scale doesn’t mean you must scrap existing technology. In America, we have the incredible ability to innovate our way to a clean energy future. CCUS can be used in the power sector to reduce emissions from natural gas and coal fired generation, ethanol production facilities, and difficult to decarbonize industries such as steel and concrete.

Perhaps you’ve heard that CCUS is expensive, or that it’s only going to benefit the oil and gas industry. At ClearPath, we follow the facts, so let’s dig into how this technology is cross-cutting and how it can be an economically viable tool for lowering global emissions.

Congress authorized a moonshot program in the Energy Act of 2020 to create a federal demonstration program to work with private sector innovators to scale up new technology. In 2021, Congress funded the program through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). In December 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) selected three carbon capture demonstration projects for award negotiations, totaling $890 million in potential awards. These projects include the Baytown CCS Project in Texas, Project Tundra in North Dakota, and the Sutter Decarbonization Project in California.

Energy innovation is a little different than, say, a new app for your phone that runs algorithms. These are large construction projects that require millions of dollars of capital to build — just to see if the technology can work in real-world settings. The U.S. has a proud history of supporting energy projects in the early stages of development using demonstration programs. Once new technology is proven and shows its ability to lower commercialization costs, the private sector can adopt the technology. You can call this a public private partnership, or you can call it American innovation leadership coupled with good old-fashioned, market-based principles. 

OCED is a critical piece of this innovation pipeline to aid in the transition of ideas from a lab to real-world applications. OCED’s CCUS demonstration projects can spur additional private-sector investment, and support the development of critical transportation and storage infrastructure across the CCUS supply chain. 

Recognizing the importance of CCUS technologies in the Energy Act of 2020, Congress followed it up with the bipartisan IIJA of 2021, which allocated DOE $12 billion to carry out a range of carbon management initiatives, from direct air capture hubs to a CCUS demonstration program. IIJA also established OCED to help administer these new initiatives in collaboration with the private sector. 

3 awarded, 3 more to go

The Energy Act and IIJA authorized and funded six potential CCUS demonstration projects. So far, only the three projects we mentioned have been selected for award negotiation – and none have officially received any award funds yet. A timely and efficient rollout of these critical funding opportunities will provide applicants visibility into expected timelines and decision-making milestones and ensure this program has the impact Congress intended. 

Coordination of federal programs

A full value chain approach is critical for effectively demonstrating and deploying carbon capture technology. That includes developing a dedicated, diverse and reliable carbon transportation network, including pipeline, truck, barge, rail, and storage infrastructure.

To do this, OCED can leverage funding opportunities from other DOE programs, because once you capture the carbon it needs to go somewhere for utilization or storage. For example, Project Tundra, selected for award negotiation in the carbon capture demonstration program, has participated in DOE’s CarbonSAFE Initiative, which supports carbon storage projects. Another example is the DOE Carbon Dioxide Transportation Infrastructure Finance (CIFIA) program, which provides loans and grants to carbon transport project developers. By ensuring all midstream partners involved with OCED, from private sector pipeline to barge operators, are aware of and eligible for CIFIA support, funding opportunities can be leveraged across programs to support this critical transportation infrastructure. As DOE facilitates connections across complementary programs, it will be important that selected projects are co-located with other CCUS hubs and infrastructure to minimize duplicative efforts and optimize federal resources.

DOE could also facilitate the sharing of key learnings with CCUS demonstration program participants, including midstream and downstream project partners, and other offices. For example, in December 2023, DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) announced $40 million in funding for technical and informational educational assistance for carbon transport and storage project developers. DOE could ensure any learnings and best practices identified through FECM programs are transferred to participants in OCED’s carbon capture demonstration program and project partners. In addition, OCED can also provide specialized support for these demonstration projects. DOE can help applicants identify strategies to reduce project costs, hire personnel with the necessary skills and expertise, manage stakeholder relationships, and create plans to manage these large, complex projects.

Don’t forget about  permitting

The timeline for permitting these projects is currently a tremendous barrier to success. Cross-agency coordination will be key to ensuring administrative delays do not prevent the build-out of transportation and storage infrastructure and hinder applicants’ ability to secure funding opportunities. Each part of the CCUS value chain is subject to its own unique, complex regulatory requirements that could fall under state or federal jurisdiction depending on the state. For example, applicants to DOE’s carbon capture demonstration program are required to obtain a Class VI permit, which allows for the underground storage of carbon. These permits are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or, in some cases, by states that have been given authority, also called primacy. DOE requires applicants to provide evidence that these permits have been obtained or submitted to the EPA. If an applicant does not have a permit, they must explain when they expect to receive it. 

However, the timeline for obtaining Class VI permits from the EPA can be long and unpredictable. It can take the EPA six years to issue a Class VI permit, and the agency has been slow to grant primacy to states – which have proven their ability to grant Class VI permits in a fraction of the time. A couple of perfect examples of how Class VI primacy works wonders are North Dakota where the state was able to issue a permit for Red Trail Energy in less than five months, or in Wyoming where their Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a draft permit for Tallgrass Energy’s Juniper I-1 well in just over one year.

Similarly, applicants must also demonstrate they will have access to transportation infrastructure. However, carbon pipelines, which are regulated at the state level, have encountered an unpredictable regulatory environment, leading to significant delays and even the cancellation of projects. Streamlined permitting for carbon pipelines and updated Congressional direction for carbon pipelines R&D and safety standards would aid in the build-out of this key infrastructure.

Congress is already leaning into the issue of improvements to pipeline permitting and development. In March of 2024, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee passed the Next Generation Pipelines Research and Development Act with bipartisan support. This bill would seek to modernize our pipeline system by authorizing new research and development programs focused on various pipeline technologies and uses, including the transportation of carbon.

From R&D, demonstrations, and transport we covered here to the private sector incentives known as 45Q, Congress has put the pieces on the table to finally scale up carbon capture. If we can find the proper permitting piece, and put them all together,  the United States can reduce emissions at home and turn the innovations and technologies into business opportunities for American developers to find customers all around the world.

A Decade of Dedication

The climate debate sure looked different 10 years ago. 

When I founded ClearPath in 2014, we looked at global temperatures, sea levels and the so-called “100-year weather events.” We studied the data AND watched the political discourse.

And we were concerned. 

At the time, many advocates said we could only solve the climate challenge with 100% renewable energy and by starving the fossil energy industry. They said the government needs to solve the challenge; free-market innovations would be too expensive, and consumers and industry wouldn’t adopt them.

Advocacy for small modular nuclear was limited, few embraced carbon capture as a solution, and other game-changing technologies like long-duration, grid-scale storage were barely a glimmer. 

Thankfully, conservatives knew there was a better way.

Over the past 10 years, the ClearPath family of entities has worked with private sector innovators and leaders in Congress to shape conceptual ideas into pragmatic policy, leading to the construction of real projects. These relationships have led to significant clean energy policy wins – from developing the moonshot Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program concept in 2016 to the inception of the 45Q tax incentive in 2018 and the Energy Act of 2020, which culminated with new legislation like the Better Energy Storage Technology (BEST) Act and the Advanced Geothermal Innovation Leadership (AGILE) Act.

Over the last decade, U.S. emissions have decreased by 15%, more than any other nation. 

That hasn’t happened by chance, conservative clean energy leaders have catalyzed innovation policies:

Did I mention that conservatives in Congress led and supported all these victories?

Where is ClearPath today?
The last decade has resulted in significant growth for the ClearPath family – both in size and impact. We’ve seen an 800% personnel increase and expanded our policy portfolio from primarily a nuclear and CCUS advocacy organization to 11 different policy areas. While we remain steadfast in our core technologies, we have added exciting new areas to our portfolio, such as tackling industrial emissions and agriculture and how we can deploy cleaner energy internationally.

In Washington, people and politics drive policy, and policy refines our heavily regulated energy system. 

Recent polling conducted by Engagious and Echelon Insights shows 88% of voters believe climate change is happening, 74% want their Member of Congress to focus on clean energy, and 60% of voters believe innovation rather than regulation is the best way to reduce emissions.The leadership driving this seachange is remarkable, and here are just some of the federal lawmakers who are meeting the demand of their constituents and have championed clean energy policy over the last decade.

What’s next?

10 years into this dream, we have covered a lot of ground, but we still have quite the journey ahead. Many of the right policies are in place, but we need to get America building again. We need to get advanced nuclear reactors built, we need to capture carbon directly from the air, and we need to decarbonize heavy industry. Energy demand will double over the next decade, and one of the most important efforts everyone needs to get behind is updating our outdated permitting processes. Because if we continue to invest in novel technologies, and ensure that the projects currently under development are successful, then the U.S. will continue to lead the world in adopting clean energy solutions.

I mentioned that in Washington, D.C., people are policy, so when discussing ClearPath’s future, I must recognize how the organization is searching for the next generation of clean energy champions. ClearPath’s Conservative Climate Leadership Program (CCLP) actively recruits individuals passionate about climate and clean energy policy who want to work on Capitol Hill and drive innovative technologies to reduce global energy emissions.

We all hear a lot of talk about a clean energy future, and we know that success means putting cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable energy on the grid. 

If there is one thing you can count on ClearPath doing for the next 10 years: supporting America’s free-market advantage. When American energy works, we all win…

Onward!

DAC Hubs: The IIJA Authorization Driving the Industry

Even if we hit the brakes on emissions today, there is still too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to meet net zero by 2050. Engineer and Professor Klaus Lackner realized this back in 1999, at the 24th Annual Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems in Clearwater, FL, where he proposed the concept of directly scrubbing CO2 from the air. Fast forward to 2021, and a momentous milestone was achieved as the world’s first direct air capture (DAC) plant turned on in Iceland.

In 2021, Congress also provided the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) a staggering $3.5 billion through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to develop four Regional Direct Air Capture (DAC) Hubs, each with the capacity to capture 1 million metric tons of CO2 annually. While much of the federal investments in the IIJA were directed towards traditional projects such as roads and bridges, one significant section managed to revolutionize an industry: the Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs.

U.S. DAC innovators are eager to hit the ground running with their technology. In August 2023, DOE announced up to $1.2 billion for two DAC Hubs slated for award negotiations: the South Texas DAC Hub and Project Cypress in southwest Louisiana, both designed to capture a million metric tons of CO2. In March, Project Cypress, the first to emerge from negotiations, received the first portion of their award funding — $50 million issued by the DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED). Battelle, the project lead, has indicated that an additional $51 million in private investment will be mobilized to kick-start the initial phase of the Project Cypress DAC Hub. DOE is anticipated to finalize the remaining $1.2 billion in DAC grants soon and is set to release an additional $2.4 billion in follow-on funding.

When included in a portfolio of innovative, clean technologies, DAC has the potential to provide a game-changing solution to the global challenge of removing excess carbon dioxide (CO2) already in our atmosphere. Research shows DAC can remove CO2 at the volumes needed to meet net-zero targets AND it can do so quickly.

Though the two million-ton DAC Hub winners are garnering the spotlight, there are 19 additional projects that will support earlier stages of DAC project development, including feasibility assessments and front-end engineering and design (FEED) studies. Of the 19, 14 projects will enable efforts to explore the feasibility of a potential DAC Hub location, ownership structure and business model. The remaining five projects will perform FEED studies establishing and defining technical requirements focused on project scope, schedule and costs to reduce risk during later phases.

While stakeholders eagerly await the finalization of these awards, DOE is already looking ahead to its next task of accelerating DAC deployment potential by supporting mid-scale commercial demonstration facilities. Last month, DOE issued a Request for Information on how to approach the development of DAC facilities with lower capture capacities of approximately 5,000–25,000 tons per year. 

DOE’s Regional DAC Hubs represent a fusion of innovation and economic opportunity. Furthermore, these hubs offer a tangible solution to the pressing issue of climate change without resorting to heavy-handed regulations or mandates. By incentivizing private-sector investment in DAC technologies, the government empowers businesses to lead in reducing emissions while preserving economic competitiveness.

DAC Hubs showcase the potential for collaborative efforts between government and industry. The success of DAC technology hinges not only on its scalability but also on its capacity to integrate seamlessly into existing infrastructures and industries.

DAC is one of the many types of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies that are taking on the challenge of removing CO2 from our atmosphere. Because of this, the program will lay the technical foundation for the future widespread commercialization of this critical suite of technologies. The yearly removal capacity for all U.S.-based CDR technologies is roughly one billion metric tons and 10 billion metric tons globally to reach net zero by 2050. With the DAC Hubs only clearing a percentage of the task, there is still a long road ahead. Other DOE initiatives like the CDR Pilot Prize are embracing a technology-inclusive approach to accelerate multiple CDR solutions, like enhanced weathering and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, towards the billion metric ton goal. Bipartisan proposals, such as the Carbon Removal and Emissions Storage Technologies (CREST) Act of 2023 introduced by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), possess the ability to infuse the necessary resources toward this technology-inclusive DOE program. 

The United States is leading the way for supportive policies for DAC innovation. As the DAC narrative unfolds, it underscores the importance of bold, forward-thinking American policies like the IIJA, which have the potential to catalyze transformative change within the industry.

Unlocking Carbon Storage Wells in 2024

Carbon storage is carrying momentum into 2024 following big year-end developments, with Louisiana obtaining regulatory primacy for carbon storage and Wyoming permitting its first set of Class VI wells. After years of delays and bottlenecks at the federal level, states are taking the lead to move these projects forward.

Both of these developments help address the main challenge developers are currently facing: unclear project development timelines due to permitting delays. To date, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has permitted just two active wells in Illinois and six pending wells in Indiana and California.

The EPA is charged with implementing the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to prevent contamination of underground sources of drinking water. In 2011, the EPA created a new well classification, known as Class VI wells, specifically for the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide. This well class was specifically created to store CO2 in “non-usable” aquifers under a layer called caprock, which is a natural seal that prevents CO2 from escaping back out into the atmosphere. Research has shown that CO2 can be securely sequestered underground, particularly within deep and porous rock formations, lasting for thousands of years, and there are natural pockets of CO2 that have existed for millions.

States have recognized the need to accelerate these types of investments and have elected to pursue primacy – the ability to process applications through the state’s environmental regulator rather than the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — for carbon storage wells.

States have long been critical partners in the UIC program. In each case, the state regulator must demonstrate standards that are no less stringent than the federal requirements. While the EPA has delegated primacy for at least one well class to a majority of states, so far, just three states hold Class VI primacy: North Dakota, Wyoming and Louisiana. The number of states with Class VI primacy is expected to steadily increase as applications from Arizona, West Virginia and Texas are all currently under review. Additionally, the EPA recently made award selections across 25 states and tribes to support state primacy applications as directed by the infrastructure bill.

North Dakota and Wyoming have demonstrated a strong track record of approving permits for carbon sequestration in a timely manner. Whereas the federal EPA process can take years, North Dakota and Wyoming have been able to issue permits in a matter of months, with Wyoming issuing its first three Class VI permits in December 2023 after 10 months of review.

As of January 2024,179 wells across 63 projects are currently under review at the EPA. Creating efficient timelines through state primacy will be critical to approving the deluge of new well permit applications currently sitting under review at the EPA. The long and uncertain timelines at the federal level represent a significant barrier to developing the scale of storage capacity required for future carbon management infrastructure.

Additional recommendations to accelerate carbon storage projects include:

Combined with a growing interest in Class VI primacy applications from states, these policy recommendations will position carbon capture and storage for more breakthroughs in the year ahead. It will be critical for the EPA to demonstrate success by expeditiously reviewing state primacy applications to unlock projects and get more steel (and CO2 emissions) into the ground.