Modernize, Compete, Win: Upgrading America’s Energy Finance Strategy (The National Interest)

This op-ed was originally published by The National Interest on April 5, 2025. Click here to read the entire piece.

By upgrading its energy finance strategy through smart reforms and strategic investment, the United States can cement its role as the go-to energy partner for the future.

The global energy landscape is changing fast. Countries are scrambling to secure resources, invest in new technologies, and stay ahead in an increasingly competitive market. At the same time, U.S. oil and gas production is booming, artificial intelligence (AI) -driven electricity demand is surging and America remains heavily reliant on foreign critical minerals. Growing instability in key strategic regions and rising competition with China  has increased the stakes for U.S. national security, economic strength and global partnerships.

America needs smart export and development financing policies to maintain global leadership. Agencies like the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (EXIM) are key tools for projecting American energy dominance and pushing back against China’s aggressive, state-funded energy expansion. With both agencies up for reauthorization this Congress, now is the time to modernize their mandates, cut red tape, and give them the support they need to secure U.S. energy leadership on the global stage.

Geopolitical Competition and Energy Security

Although the U.S. leads in key areas, competitors like China and Russia aren’t sitting still. China  has invested nearly $1 trillion into clean energy projects annually while building ninety-four gigawatts of new coal capacity. Meanwhile, China and Russia dominate nuclear fuel and critical mineral supply chains, using predatory financing to lock in energy deals across emerging markets.

The U.S. can’t afford to let its competitors outmaneuver it. By modernizing key federal agencies, Washington can provide nations with competitive alternatives, securing America’s leadership in global energy for decades.

Strengthening U.S. Energy Leadership Through Strategic Financing

If the United States wants to stay ahead in global energy markets and compete with China’s massive state-backed investments, the administration needs to double down on promoting American commercial energy projects abroad. The DFC and EXIM are critical tools for backing American energy innovation and infrastructure, but bureaucracy and outdated policies make them less effective. Their upcoming reauthorizations offer prime opportunities to fix that.

Right now, the DFC makes money for the U.S. taxpayer but can only provide up to $1 billion in loans and only $60 billion in total, compared to China’s nearly unlimited state financing. Raising these caps would allow the United States to fund bigger projects, like nuclear plants and critical minerals infrastructure, that shape the future of energy. In addition, fixing how the federal government’s archaic budget rules affect the DFC is also necessary so it can fully use its resources to help American companies compete globally.bate sectors.

Click here to read the full article

Power Demand Explained: Watts, Gigawatts and the Future of Energy

These days, we hear a lot about the rapid increase in global energy demand due to various factors like growing economies, widespread electrification, and the rise of data centers as AI expands. And it’s true. Here in the United States, after 15 years of static growth, our electricity demand is rising at an accelerated rate. Researchers estimate that by 2030, we will need 20% more energy - a total of 5 million gigawatt-hours of electricity each year.

“5 million gigawatt-hours.” That sounds like a lot. But what does that really mean?

Let’s start with the basics. A watt is a measure of power in an instant. For example, the 60-watt light bulb in your lamp at home requires 60 watts of power to turn on. A Watt-hour is a measurement of that power usage over time.

So, let’s say you turn on your lamp to read a book for two hours, you use 120 watt-hours of electricity. Easy enough.

Now, let’s take a look at a few other examples, going in order from smallest to largest. But first a reminder about unit prefixes: there are one thousand watts in a kilowatt, one million in a megawatt, and one billion in a gigawatt. 

While you’re reading your book, your lamp might only use 120-watt hours of electricity, but the average American household will use 2.4 kilowatt-hours during that time. That’s your lamp, the AC, the TV playing, and so on. Scaling up - with 150 megawatt-hours - you could power 42,000 American households for three hours while they watch a Sunday afternoon football game… or you could use your 150 megawatt-hours to power the NFL stadium itself. In the same amount of time, a large city like Washington D.C. would consume 25 times that much electricity, almost 4 gigawatt hours.

Currently, the U.S. needs around 4 million of these gigawatt-hours a year - again that’s 4 million billion watt-hours - or 4 with 15 zeros after it - and those needs are met with a mixture of 60% fossil fuels, 30% renewables, and 10% nuclear energy. And to get us 20 percent more energy - up to 5 million gigawatt hours a year  - we would need the equivalent of 1,500 Hoover dams in additional generation. That means we are going to need a lot more of ALL of these energy sources to keep up with expected demand.

And, we don’t just need more energy, we need energy that is affordable, reliable and clean. In other words, we need to take a pragmatic, all of the above approach to U.S. energy development. To keep the lights on - at a price that consumers can afford, we need more baseload energy –  the 24/7/ 300 and 65 days a year electricity sources that provide clean power. That means things like advanced nuclear, geothermal, and natural gas with carbon capture.

Ultimately, in order to generate and move all this energy around, we are going to need more than 15,000 new energy projects in this decade alone, and every single one of those projects starts with a permit. Unfortunately today in the United States, you can get a college degree faster than you can get a permit to build a clean energy project. That is why we all must work together to streamline federal permitting processes and unleash American energy. 

ClearPath’s answer to the power demand challenge? It’s time to Let America Build.

Carbon Dioxide Pipelines 101

Pipelines are critical infrastructures that move essential resources, such as water, oil, natural gas and other materials, from where they are produced or gathered to locations where they can be used or stored. Pipelines are everywhere. They are found beneath our highways, through our cities and communities. If you have a gas stove or plumbing, you have a pipeline in use at home. Today, there are over 5,300 miles of carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines in the United States.

For over 50 years, pipelines have transported CO2 safely, quickly, efficiently and in large volumes. This experience makes pipelines uniquely equipped to facilitate the deployment of carbon management technologies such as carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) and direct air capture (DAC). 

Carbon management technologies drive clean energy innovation and job creation at home, while strengthening U.S. global competitiveness and energy leadership abroad. The U.S. government has already invested billions in carbon management technologies, and from 2022 through mid-2024, the private sector announced over $26 billion in investments in these technologies. 

Today, more than 270 carbon management projects have been announced that are at various stages of development or are operational in the U.S. These projects make pipeline infrastructure essential. When CO2 is captured, it’s often not located near an available storage or use site and has to be transported to another location. Over half of cement plants in the U.S. are located outside a 100-mile radius of the nearest CO2 storage site. Pipelines are the best and safest way to move CO2 to these storage sites and other locations.

In this 101, you will learn about CO2 pipelines, including the importance of pipelines for U.S. energy security, how CO2 pipelines are regulated, why they are safe, and most importantly, policies that can enable the build-out of this infrastructure.  

Recommendations include:

What are Carbon Dioxide Pipelines?

CO2 pipelines move carbon dioxide – a non-flammable, odorless and stable gas – to locations where it can enhance energy production, make valuable products or be safely stored. CO2 is usually transported in a liquid or “supercritical” state, which is the easiest, most efficient way to transport CO2. A supercritical state means the CO2 is pressurized to the point it exhibits properties of both a liquid and gas.

Like most pipelines, CO2 pipelines are primarily located underground and out of sight. They are made with high-grade steel paired with anti-corrosive coatings and typically have a diameter of 4 to 24 inches – which is roughly between the length of a cell phone and a carry-on suitcase.

Where are Carbon Dioxide Pipelines in the U.S.?

CO2 pipelines have been safely operating in the U.S. for the last half-century. Historically, most CO2 pipelines in the U.S. have transported CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. EOR is a highly engineered, well-understood process where CO2 is injected into the reservoirs of an existing oil field to increase oil recovery from depleting wells. During these operations, CO2 can remain underground, keeping it out of the atmosphere.

Of the 5,300 miles of CO2 pipelines across the U.S., most are in Texas, New Mexico, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Louisiana, North Dakota, Mississippi and Colorado. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, an estimated 30,000 - 96,000 miles of CO2 pipelines will be needed by 2050 to reach our emissions reduction goals. To put these numbers in perspective, this is only 1-3% the length of our existing 3,000,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines in the U.S. today.

Illustrative 2050 CO2 Pipeline Network

Sources include ClearPath analysis, National Carbon Sequestration Database Saline basins, and Princeton’s Net-Zero America spur and trunk line transmission expansions for the high-electrification scenario.

How are Carbon Pipelines Regulated?

Similar to other pipelines and linear infrastructure projects, CO2 pipelines are subject to several layers of regulations at the local, state and federal levels:  

Safety 

The Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, regulates the safety of U.S. pipeline infrastructure and provides national standards for the safe and responsible design, construction, maintenance and operation of pipelines. In some cases, a state may assume regulatory authority over the safety of intrastate CO2 pipelines if it adopts rules that are as stringent as, or more stringent than, PHMSA’s minimum standards.

Environment, Water and Land

CO2 pipelines are subject to strict state and federal regulations that seek to protect water sources, agricultural land, the local environment and wildlife. These include the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act and more. Local and tribal communities are also engaged throughout these permitting processes. 

Siting and Construction 

Before building a CO2 pipeline, an operator must receive regulatory approval for the location and construction of the project. Unlike interstate natural gas pipelines, which are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), there is currently no option to site an interstate CO2 pipeline solely using a federal process. The siting and construction of both interstate and intrastate CO2 pipelines are largely regulated at the local and state levels, creating a patchwork of regulatory approaches and standards across the country. 

When siting and constructing a CO2 pipeline, each developer is subject to the unique eminent domain laws of each state, and many states lack clear eminent domain policies for these pipelines. Eminent domain, a last resort option for building major infrastructure projects, is a process by which the government can permit a company to use private property without the express permission of the landowner. This can only occur if the government determines that a property owner is fairly compensated and the project benefits the public. Eminent domain has been used to build roads, develop water supplies, construct pipelines and more. This process isn’t new, but it is rare. In fact, between 2008 and 2018, less than 2 percent of easements for interstate natural gas pipelines involved eminent domain. 

Rate Regulation

Rate regulation refers to a process by which an authority can regulate the price pipeline operators can charge for transporting a material (e.g., natural gas, oil). Unlike interstate natural gas and oil pipelines, there is no federal ratemaking authority for carbon pipelines. Today, the majority of carbon pipelines are private access and do not require rate regulation. However, this is poised to change as the carbon pipeline network grows and more entities require access to carbon transportation via common carrier or open-access pipelines.

Regulatory Landscape for Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

*PHMSA regulates interstate CO2 pipelines. PHMSA also regulates intrastate CO2 pipelines if a state does not have a certified safety program. If a state has a certified safety program, the state can only regulate intrastate pipelines, not interstate.

**CO2 pipelines are subject to various regulatory requirements pertaining to the environment, water, and wildlife under federal legislation such as the National Environmental Protection Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and more. Different federal agencies may have jurisdiction over permits and assessments required under these laws, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Energy and more.

Safety and Health

CO2 pipelines have a strong safety record. Over the last 20 years, zero fatalities have resulted from the few pipeline incidents that have occurred. CO2 is stable, non-flammable, and non-combustible. In fact, CO2 is used in fire extinguishers to put out flames. We also breathe CO2 in and out every day.

On the ground, pipeline operators take measures to ensure the safety and integrity of pipeline infrastructure. In addition to monitoring the integrity of the pipelines and conducting regular maintenance, operators mitigate corrosion by limiting the amount of water and other contaminants that enter a CO2 pipeline. For example, before CO2 enters a carbon capture system, contaminants must be removed, and before being placed into a pipeline, the CO2 is dehydrated to reduce the presence of water. 

A leak is the unintentional release of a substance or material from a pipeline. The overall CO2 leaked from pipelines is limited – approximately 0.001 - 0.005% of the total volume of CO2 that is transported through pipelines annually. To mitigate leaks, PHMSA requires new and refurbished CO2 pipelines to utilize remotely controlled or automatic shut-off valves, thus reducing safety risks and allowing first responders to act swiftly.

Operators regularly implement procedures to prevent and mitigate the impact of incidents, and PHMSA requires operators to communicate safety-related information with the public. CO2 pipelines are a vital part of American infrastructure, and operators are committed to working with PHMSA and other regulatory authorities to ensure robust safety standards for all pipelines.

What are the Benefits of CO₂ Pipelines?

CO2 pipelines benefit the public by boosting local economies, providing direct financial benefits for landowners, strengthening energy and national security and helping to lower carbon emissions:

Policy Recommendations

Establish Efficient Permitting Processes — A decentralized regulatory structure for siting interstate carbon pipelines has led to significant uncertainty for project developers who require access to pipeline infrastructure. An unpredictable regulatory environment can result in delays, increased project costs, and, in some cases, the cancellation of projects altogether. These challenges underscore the need for a more predictable, transparent and cohesive regulatory framework to support the safe and efficient deployment of interstate carbon pipeline infrastructure. The federal government – with agencies such as FERC – can play a critical role in supporting the coordinated and effective siting and permitting of carbon pipelines. Congress could consider establishing an optional federal siting pathway for interstate CO2 pipelines, allowing project developers the flexibility to choose a federal permitting process. 

Expand Research, Development and Deployment (RD&D) – Dedicated RD&D is critical to building out CO2 pipelines at the scale that is needed and enabling the commercialization of advanced materials and technologies for this infrastructure. Pipeline RD&D should focus on, among other areas, enhanced geohazard monitoring, advanced leak detection and monitoring, advanced pipeline materials and integrity, retrofitting natural gas pipelines for CO2 transport and more. Increased coordination between the Department of Energy (DOE) and other federal agencies, such as PHMSA, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and FERC will also be key to expanding critical RD&D efforts for CO2 pipeline infrastructure. 

A key opportunity for Congress is to reintroduce and advance the bipartisan Next Generation Pipelines Research and Development Act, which passed the House of Representatives during the 118th Congress. This legislation would modernize our pipeline system by authorizing the U.S. Department of Energy’s research and development programs focused on various pipeline technologies and uses, including the transportation of carbon dioxide. 

Reauthorize PHMSA – PHMSA’s three-year authorization in the bipartisan PIPES Act of 2020 expired in September 2023. Reauthorizing and providing updated funding profiles for PHMSA’s activities and programs are critical for ensuring a safe and reliable pipeline network across the United States. During the 118th Congress, PHMSA reauthorization legislation, the PIPES Act of 2023, led by Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO), passed the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with strong bipartisan support. This Congress, policymakers could reintroduce this legislation, which would mandate that the agency finalize updated CO2 pipeline safety rules.

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.

Delivering America First Energy Policy — 5 Priorities for the 119th Congress

The 119th Congress and incoming Administration have a major opportunity: Make America the world innovation leader in clean energy and clean manufacturing. This opportunity builds on the foundation established under the first Trump Administration to unleash American energy projects and build a stronger America.

The incoming Trump administration has nominated leaders to key agencies who have the experience to deliver on these results – Lee Zeldin for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Chris Wright for the Department of Energy (DOE), and former Governor of North Dakota Doug Burgum for the Department of the Interior (DOI).

And Congress is poised to deliver on this too by focusing on innovation over regulation and markets over mandates to advance clean, reliable, and affordable American-made energy.

ClearPath has outlined five policy areas for the 119th Congress to unleash the power of American innovation:

ClearPath’s mission is to accelerate American innovation to reduce global energy emissions. ClearPath therefore supports all-of-the above energy and innovation policies that make America stronger and more secure. 

We look forward to advancing policies that will further strengthen America’s leadership role in clean energy and innovation.

Let’s get to work.

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

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.