Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

Changes from October 18, 2021 to October 5, 2022

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the October October ~~18, 2021~~5, 2022
United States
Angela C. Jones
Carbon capture and storage (or sequestration)—known as CCS—is a process Carbon capture and storage (or sequestration)—known as CCS—is a process ~~that involves~~intended to capture
Analyst in Environmental Analyst in Environmental
~~capturing~~ man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source and man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source and ~~storing~~store it permanently underground. it permanently underground. As one Policy potential option for greenhouse gas mitigation,
~~Policy~~
CCS could reduce the amount of CO2—an CCS could reduce the amount of CO2—an important greenhouse gas—emitted to the atmosphere important greenhouse gas—emitted to the atmosphere

~~from the burning of fossil fuels at power plants and other large industrial facilities. The concept~~from power plants and other large
Ashley J. Lawson
industrial facilities. The concept of carbon utilization has also gained interest within Congress of carbon utilization has also gained interest within Congress Analyst in Energy Policy and in the private sector as a means and in the private sector as a means
~~Analyst in Energy Policy~~
for capturing CO2 and converting it into potentially for capturing CO2 and converting it into potentially commercially viable products, such as commercially viable products, such as

chemicals, fuels, cements, and plastics, thereby reducing emissions to the atmosphere and chemicals, fuels, cements, and plastics, thereby reducing emissions to the atmosphere and
helping offset the cost of CO2 capturehelping offset the cost of CO2 capture. (CCS is sometimes CCS is sometimes referred to as CCUS—carbon capture, referred to as CCUS—carbon capture,

utilization, and storage, and storage). Direct air capture . Direct air capture (DAC) is a related and emerging technology designed to is a related and emerging technology designed to
remove atmospheric CO2 directly. remove atmospheric CO2 directly.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has funded research and development (R&D) in aspects of CCS since at least 1997 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has funded research and development (R&D) in aspects of CCS since at least 1997
within its Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment program within its Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment program
(FECM) portfolio. Since FY2010, Congress has provided (FECM) portfolio. Since FY2010, Congress has provided ~~$7.3~~a total of $9.2 billion billion (in constant 2022 dollars) in annual appropriations for FECM, of which $2.7 billion (in constant 2022 dollars) was directed to CCS-related budget line items. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) provided $8.5 billion (nominal dollars) in supplemental funding for CCS for FY2022-FY2026, including funding for the construction of new carbon capture facilities, plus another $3.6 billion (nominal dollars) for DAC. ~~in appropriations for DOE CCS-related activities,~~
~~including annual increases in recent years. In FY2021, Congress provided $750 million to FECM, of which $228.3 million~~
~~was directed to CCUS.~~
~~Worldwide, according to the Global CCS Institute, 24 facilities capturing and injecting CO2 facilities were operational in~~
~~2020, 12 of which are in the United States.~~ U.S. facilities capturing and injecting CO2, and projects under development, U.S. facilities capturing and injecting CO2, and projects under development,
operate in five industry sectors: chemical production, hydrogen production, fertilizer production, natural gas processing, and operate in five industry sectors: chemical production, hydrogen production, fertilizer production, natural gas processing, and
~~power generation. These facilities capture and inject CO2 with the aim to sequester the CO2 in underground geologic~~
~~formations or use the CO2 to increase oil production from aging oil fields, known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR)~~power generation. Most projects use the injected CO2 to increase oil production from aging oil fields, known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), while some facilities capture and inject CO2 with the aim to sequester the CO2 in underground geologic formations. The Petra . The Petra
Nova project in Nova project in ~~Texas~~Texas, starting operation in 2017, was the first and only U.S. fossil-fueled power plant generating electricity and capturing CO2 in large was the first and only U.S. fossil-fueled power plant generating electricity and capturing CO2 in large
quantities (over 1 million quantities (over 1 million metric tons per year) until CCS operations were suspended in 2020.tons per year) until CCS operations were suspended in 2020.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under authorities to protect underground sources of drinking water, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under authorities to protect underground sources of drinking water,
regulates CO2 injection through its Underground Injection Control (UIC) program and associated regulations. While the regulates CO2 injection through its Underground Injection Control (UIC) program and associated regulations. While the
agency establishes minimum standards and criteria for UIC programs, most states have the responsibility for regulating and agency establishes minimum standards and criteria for UIC programs, most states have the responsibility for regulating and
permitting wells injecting CO2 for EOR (classified as Class II recovery wells). permitting wells injecting CO2 for EOR (classified as Class II recovery wells).
Congress has incentivized development of CCS projects through creation of the Internal Revenue Code Section 45Q tax Congress has incentivized development of CCS projects through creation of the Internal Revenue Code Section 45Q tax
credit for carbon sequestrationcredit for carbon sequestration or, its use as a tertiary injectant for EOR its use as a tertiary injectant for EOR, or other designated purposes. Recent Internal or other designated purposes. Recent Internal
Revenue Service guidance and regulations on this tax credit are intended to provide increased certainty for industry by Revenue Service guidance and regulations on this tax credit are intended to provide increased certainty for industry by
establishing processes and standards for “secure geologic storage of CO2,” among other requirements. establishing processes and standards for “secure geologic storage of CO2,” among other requirements.
~~The~~Several provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260) ~~included several provisions aimed at supporting~~aim to further support CCS project CCS project
development in the United States. The act revised and expanded DOE’s ongoing CCS research, development, and development in the United States. The act revised and expanded DOE’s ongoing CCS research, development, and
demonstration activities, established expedited federal permitting eligibility for CO2 pipelines (where applicable), and demonstration activities, established expedited federal permitting eligibility for CO2 pipelines (where applicable), and
extended the start-of-construction deadline for facilities eligible for the Section 45Q tax credit, among other provisions. extended the start-of-construction deadline for facilities eligible for the Section 45Q tax credit, among other provisions. IIJA included additional supportive provisions. P.L. 117-169, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, contained several provisions related to the 45Q tax credit that increase the amount of the tax credit for certain facilities and extend the deadline for start of construction, among other provisions. There is broad agreement that costs for constructing and operating
~~There is broad agreement that costs for~~ CCS would need to decrease before the technologies could be widely deployedCCS would need to decrease before the technologies could be widely deployed ~~across~~
~~the nation~~. In the view of many proponents, greater CCS deployment is fundamental to reduce CO2 emissions (or reduce the . In the view of many proponents, greater CCS deployment is fundamental to reduce CO2 emissions (or reduce the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphereconcentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, in the case of DAC) and to help mitigate human-induced climate change. ) and to help mitigate human-induced climate change. ~~Congress may also consider~~
~~that~~In contrast, some stakeholders do not support CCS as a mitigation option, citing concerns with continued fossil fuel combustion and some stakeholders do not support CCS as a mitigation option, citing concerns with continued fossil fuel combustion and
the uncertainties of long-term underground CO2 storage. the uncertainties of long-term underground CO2 storage.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

link to page link to page 56 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

arbon capture and storage (or sequestration)—known as CCS—is a process arbon capture and storage (or sequestration)—known as CCS—is a process ~~that involves~~
~~capturing~~intended to capture man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source and man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source and ~~storing~~store it to avoid its release it to avoid its release
~~C to the~~to the C atmosphere. CCS is sometimes referred to as CCUS—carbon capture, atmosphere. CCS is sometimes referred to as CCUS—carbon capture, utilization, ,
and and storage. CCS could reduce the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from storage. CCS could reduce the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from ~~the burning of~~
~~fossil fuels at~~ power plants and other large industrial facilities.power plants and other large industrial facilities.1 An integrated CCS system would An integrated CCS system would
include three main steps: (1) capturing and separating CO2 from other gases; (2) include three main steps: (1) capturing and separating CO2 from other gases; (2) ~~compressing and~~
transporting the captured transporting the captured and compressed CO2 to the storage or sequestration site; and (3) injecting the CO2 in CO2 to the storage or sequestration site; and (3) injecting the CO2 in
underground geological reservoirs (the process is explained more fully below in underground geological reservoirs (the process is explained more fully below in “CCS Primer”). .
~~In recent years,~~The utilization as part of CCUS part of CCUS ~~increasingly~~ has has been of increased interest to researchers and policymakers. Utilization~~been viewed as a potentially~~
~~important component of the process. Utilization~~ refers to the beneficial use of CO2—in lieu of refers to the beneficial use of CO2—in lieu of
storing it—as a means of mitigating CO2 emissions and converting it to chemicals, cements, storing it—as a means of mitigating CO2 emissions and converting it to chemicals, cements,
plastics, and other products.plastics, and other products.21 This report uses the term This report uses the term CCS except in cases where utilization is except in cases where utilization is
specifically discussed.specifically discussed.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has long supported research and development (R&D) on The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has long supported research and development (R&D) on
CCSCCS, currently within its Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research, Development, Demonstration, within its Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research, Development, Demonstration,
and Deployment program (FECM).and Deployment program (FECM).32 From FY2010 to From FY2010 to ~~FY2021~~FY2022, Congress provided a total of $9.2 billion (2022 dollars)3 in annual~~, Congress provided $7.3 billion in~~
~~total~~ appropriations for FECM, appropriations for FECM, ~~much of which was directed to CCS~~of which $2.7 billion (2022 dollars) was directed to CCS-related budget line items. Additionally, Congress . Additionally, Congress
provided a provided a ~~one-time~~supplemental appropriation of $3.4 billion appropriation of $3.4 billion ($4.4 billion in 2022 dollars) for CCS in the American Recovery and for CCS in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). It provided another supplemental appropriation of $8.5 billion (nominal dollars) for CCS in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) for FY2022 to FY2026.4 Congress has expressed support for continuing Congress has expressed support for continuing
federal investment in CCS research and development—including financial support for federal investment in CCS research and development—including financial support for
demonstration projects—through the appropriations process in recent years and in DOE research demonstration projects—through the appropriations process in recent years and in DOE research
reauthorizations provided in the Energy Act of 2020 (Division Z of the Consolidated reauthorizations provided in the Energy Act of 2020 (Division Z of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021; P.L. 116-260).Appropriations Act, 2021; P.L. 116-260).
~~In recent years,~~ The IIJA provided funding for several programs authorized by the Energy Act of 2020 and established other programs aimed to promote CCS in the United States, as discussed later in this report. Congress has also enacted tax credits for facilities that capture and sequester Congress has also enacted tax credits for facilities that capture and sequester
CO2—one strategy for incentivizing CCS project deployment. In CO2—one strategy for incentivizing CCS project deployment. In ~~2018~~2022, Congress enacted , Congress enacted
~~legislation (Title II, §4119 of P.L. 115-123)~~as part of P.L. 117-260, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), provisions that increased the tax credit for sequestering or that increased the tax credit for sequestering or
utilizing CO2, utilizing CO2, ~~commonly~~ referred to as the “Section 45Q” tax credit.referred to as the “Section 45Q” tax credit.~~4 In P.L. 116-260, Congress~~5 The IRA also
extended the deadline for start of construction of extended the deadline for start of construction of certain facilities seeking the tax creditfacilities seeking the tax credit~~, which, along~~
~~with~~ . The Internal Revenue Service regulations on Section 45Q issued in early 2021Internal Revenue Service regulations on Section 45Q issued in early 2021~~, could encourage~~
~~more project development, according to some analysts.5~~ could provide a more stable investment environment for project planning.
Congressional interest in addressing climate change has also increased interest in CCS, though Congressional interest in addressing climate change has also increased interest in CCS, though
debate continues as to what role, if any, CCS should play in debate continues as to what role, if any, CCS should play in ~~deep~~ greenhouse gas greenhouse gas emissions reductions. reductions.
While some policymakers and other stakeholders support CCS as one option for mitigating CO2 While some policymakers and other stakeholders support CCS as one option for mitigating CO2
emissions,emissions,6 others raise concerns that CCS may others raise concerns that CCS may ~~not discourage~~encourage continued fossil fuel use and that CO2 fossil fuel use and that CO2 ~~could~~

1 1 ~~Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) also could be used to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power~~
~~plants that use bioenergy sources instead of fossil fuels. In that case, the process is known as~~ ~~bioenergy with carbon~~
~~capture and storage, or BECCS.~~
2 See, for example, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), See, for example, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Carbon
Utilization Program, at https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-utilization. , at https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-utilization.
32 Formerly called Fossil Energy Research and Development. 3 Throughout this report, nominal dollars are converted to Q2 2022 dollars (referred to in this report as 2022 dollars) using the price index for federal government investment in research and development from Bureau of Economic Analysis, “National Income and Product Accounts,” Table 3.9.4. 4 For more information, see CRS Report R47034, Energy and Minerals Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), coordinated by Brent D. Yacobucci. 5 The credit is codified at 26 U.S.C. §45Q. Congressional Research Service 1 link to page 7 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States could leak from underground reservoirs into the air or other reservoirs, thereby negating climate benefits of CCS.6 ~~Formerly called Fossil Energy Research and Development.~~
~~4 The credit is codified at 26 U.S.C. §45Q.~~
~~5 Carbon Capture Coalition, 45Q Tax Credit, at https://carboncapturecoalition.org/45q-legislation/.~~
~~6 For example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) includes CCS as a “key solution” in its 2021 report on achieving~~
~~global net zero greenhouse gas emissions. IEA anticipates widespread CCS deployment in several industries (e.g.,~~
~~power, cement, and hydrogen production) as well as direct air capture. International Energy Agency (IEA),~~ ~~Net Zero by~~
~~2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, May 2021.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

1

~~link to page 6~~ ~~Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States~~

~~leak from underground reservoirs into the air or other reservoirs, thereby negating any climate~~
~~benefits of CCS.7~~
This report includes a primer on the CCS (and carbon utilization) process; overviews of the DOE This report includes a primer on the CCS (and carbon utilization) process; overviews of the DOE
program for CCS R&D, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation of underground program for CCS R&D, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation of underground
CO2 injection used for CCS, and the Section 45Q tax credit for CO2 sequestration; and a CO2 injection used for CCS, and the Section 45Q tax credit for CO2 sequestration; and a
discussion of CCS policy issues for Congress. An evaluation of the fate of injected underground discussion of CCS policy issues for Congress. An evaluation of the fate of injected underground
CO2 and the permanence of CO2 storage is beyond the scope of this report. CO2 and the permanence of CO2 storage is beyond the scope of this report.
CCS Primer
An integrated CCS system includes three main steps: (1) capturing and separating CO2 from other An integrated CCS system includes three main steps: (1) capturing and separating CO2 from other
gases; (2) compressing and transporting the captured CO2 to the sequestration site; and (3) gases; (2) compressing and transporting the captured CO2 to the sequestration site; and (3)
injecting the CO2 in subsurface geological reservoirs. The most technologically challenging and injecting the CO2 in subsurface geological reservoirs. The most technologically challenging and
costly step in the process is the first step, carbon capture. Carbon capture equipment is capital-costly step in the process is the first step, carbon capture. Carbon capture equipment is capital-
intensive to build and energy-intensive to operate. Power plants can supply their own energy to intensive to build and energy-intensive to operate. Power plants can supply their own energy to
operate CCS equipment, but the amount of energy a power plant uses to capture and compress operate CCS equipment, but the amount of energy a power plant uses to capture and compress
CO2 is that much less electricity the plant can sell to its customers. This difference, sometimes CO2 is that much less electricity the plant can sell to its customers. This difference, sometimes
referred to as the referred to as the energy penalty or the or the parasitic load, has been reported to be around 20% of a , has been reported to be around 20% of a
power plant’s capacity.power plant’s capacity.87 Figure 1 shows the shows the options for parts of an integrated CCS process schematically from source to storage.CCS process schematically from source to storage.

76 For example, For example, ~~see~~the International Energy Agency (IEA) includes CCS as a “key solution” in its 2021 report on achieving global net zero greenhouse gas emissions. IEA anticipates widespread CCS deployment in several industries (e.g., power, cement, and hydrogen production) as well as direct air capture. International Energy Agency (IEA), Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, May 2021. See also the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Climate and Economic Justice Screening
Tool and Justice 40 Interim Final Recommendations, May 13, 2021, p. 58; and Richard Conniff, “Why Green Groups , May 13, 2021, p. 58; and Richard Conniff, “Why Green Groups
Are Split on Subsidizing Carbon Capture Technology,” Are Split on Subsidizing Carbon Capture Technology,” YaleEnvironment360, April 9, 2018. , April 9, 2018.
87 See, for example, Howard J. Herzog, Edward S. Rubin, and Gary T. Rochelle, “Comment on ‘Reassessing the See, for example, Howard J. Herzog, Edward S. Rubin, and Gary T. Rochelle, “Comment on ‘Reassessing the
Efficiency Penalty from Carbon Capture in Coal-Fired Power Plants,’” Efficiency Penalty from Carbon Capture in Coal-Fired Power Plants,’” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 50 , vol. 50
(May 12, 2016), pp. 6112-6113. (May 12, 2016), pp. 6112-6113.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2 2

link to page link to page 1213

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

Figure 1. ~~The CCS Process~~Options for an Integrated CCS Process: Capture, Injection, and Utilization

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, “Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas,” Fourth U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, “Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas,” Fourth
Edition, 2012, p. 4. Edition, 2012, p. 4.
Notes:: EOR is enhanced oil recovery; is enhanced oil recovery; ECBM is enhanced coal bed methane recovery. is enhanced coal bed methane recovery. Caprock refers to a refers to a
relatively impermeable formation. Terms are explained inrelatively impermeable formation. Terms are explained in “CO2 Injection and Sequestration.”
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

3 3

link to page link to page 89 link to page link to page 1821 link to page link to page 1821 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

The transport and injection/storage steps of the CCS process are not technologically challenging The transport and injection/storage steps of the CCS process are not technologically challenging
per se, as compared to the capture step. Carbon dioxide pipelines are used for enhanced oil per se, as compared to the capture step. Carbon dioxide pipelines are used for enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) in regions of the United States today, and for decades large quantities of fluids recovery (EOR) in regions of the United States today, and for decades large quantities of fluids
have been injected into the deep subsurface for a variety of purposes, such as disposal of have been injected into the deep subsurface for a variety of purposes, such as disposal of
wastewater from oil and gas operations or of municipal wastewater.wastewater from oil and gas operations or of municipal wastewater.98 However, the transport and However, the transport and
storage steps still face challenges, including economic and regulatory issues, rights-of-way, storage steps still face challenges, including economic and regulatory issues, rights-of-way,
questions regarding the permanence of CO2 sequestration in deep geological reservoirs, and questions regarding the permanence of CO2 sequestration in deep geological reservoirs, and
ownership and liability issues for the stored CO2, among others. ownership and liability issues for the stored CO2, among others.
CO2 Capture
The first step in CCS is to capture CO2 at the source and separate it from other gases.The first step in CCS is to capture CO2 at the source and separate it from other gases.109 As noted As noted
above, this is typically the most costly part of a CCS project, representing up to 75% of project above, this is typically the most costly part of a CCS project, representing up to 75% of project
costs in some cases.costs in some cases.1110 Current carbon capture costs are estimated at $43-$65 per ton CO2 Current carbon capture costs are estimated at $43-$65 per ton CO2
captured, though cost reductions of 50%-70% may be possible as the industry matures.captured, though cost reductions of 50%-70% may be possible as the industry matures.1211
Currently, three main approaches are available to capture CO2 from large-scale industrial facilities Currently, three main approaches are available to capture CO2 from large-scale industrial facilities
or power plants: (1) postcombustion capture; (2) precombustion capture; and (3) oxy-fuel or power plants: (1) postcombustion capture; (2) precombustion capture; and (3) oxy-fuel
combustion capture. combustion capture.
The following sections summarize each of these approaches. A detailed description and The following sections summarize each of these approaches. A detailed description and
assessment of the carbon capture technologies is provided in CRS Report R41325, assessment of the carbon capture technologies is provided in CRS Report R41325, Carbon
Capture: A Technology Assessment, by Peter Folger. , by Peter Folger.
Postcombustion Capture
The process of postcombustion capture involves extracting CO2 from the flue gas—the mix of The process of postcombustion capture involves extracting CO2 from the flue gas—the mix of
gases produced that goes up the exhaust stack—following combustion of fossil fuels or biomass. gases produced that goes up the exhaust stack—following combustion of fossil fuels or biomass.
Several commercially available technologies, some involving absorption using chemical solvents Several commercially available technologies, some involving absorption using chemical solvents
(such as an (such as an amine; ; see Figure 2), can in principle be used to capture large quantities of CO2 from , can in principle be used to capture large quantities of CO2 from
flue gases.flue gases.1312 In a vessel called an In a vessel called an absorber, the flue gas is “scrubbed” with an amine solution, , the flue gas is “scrubbed” with an amine solution,
typically capturing 85% to 90% of the CO2. The CO2-laden solvent is then pumped to a second typically capturing 85% to 90% of the CO2. The CO2-laden solvent is then pumped to a second
vessel, called a vessel, called a regenerator, where heat is applied (in the form of steam) to release the CO2. The , where heat is applied (in the form of steam) to release the CO2. The
resulting stream of concentrated CO2 is then compressed and piped to a storage site, while the resulting stream of concentrated CO2 is then compressed and piped to a storage site, while the
depleted solvent is recycled back to the absorber. depleted solvent is recycled back to the absorber.
Other than the Other than the 2017-2020 Petra Nova project (discussed below in Petra Nova project (discussed below in “Petra Nova: The First Large U.S. Power
Plant with CCS”), no large U.S. commercial electricity-generating plant has been equipped with ), no large U.S. commercial electricity-generating plant has been equipped with
carbon capture equipment, though several projects are under development. carbon capture equipment, though several projects are under development.

98 Injecting CO2 into an oil reservoir often increases or enhances production by lowering the viscosity of the oil, which Injecting CO2 into an oil reservoir often increases or enhances production by lowering the viscosity of the oil, which
allows it to be pumped more easily from the formation. The process is sometimes referred to as allows it to be pumped more easily from the formation. The process is sometimes referred to as tertiary recovery or or
enhanced oil recovery (EOR). (EOR).
EOR may involve incidental carbon storage. 9 10 Carbon capture is related to, but distinct from, direct air capture (DAC), a process that captures CO2 from the Carbon capture is related to, but distinct from, direct air capture (DAC), a process that captures CO2 from the
atmosphere. DAC is discussed in more detail in later sections of this report. For a comparison of CCS and DAC, see atmosphere. DAC is discussed in more detail in later sections of this report. For a comparison of CCS and DAC, see
CRS In Focus IF11501, CRS In Focus IF11501, Carbon Capture Versus Direct Air Capture, by Ashley J. Lawson. , by Ashley J. Lawson.
1110 National Petroleum Council (NPC), National Petroleum Council (NPC), Meeting the Dual Challenge: A Roadmap to At-Scale Deployment of Carbon
Capture, Use, and Storage, Chapter 5, July 17, 2020. , July 17, 2020.
1211 Greg Kelsall, Greg Kelsall, Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage - Status, Barriers, and Potential, International Energy Agency , International Energy Agency
(IEA) Clean Coal Centre, July 2020. (IEA) Clean Coal Centre, July 2020.
1312 Amines are a family of organic solvents, which can “scrub” the CO2 from the flue gas. When the CO2-laden amine is are a family of organic solvents, which can “scrub” the CO2 from the flue gas. When the CO2-laden amine is
heated, the CO2 is released to be compressed and stored, and the depleted solvent is recycled. heated, the CO2 is released to be compressed and stored, and the depleted solvent is recycled.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

4 4

link to page link to page 910 link to page link to page 910 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

Figure 2. Diagram of Postcombustion CO2 Capture in a Coal-Fired Power Plant
Using an Amine Scrubber System
Fl Fl
F ue F ue
u u
e ga e ga
g s g s
a a
Stea Stea
e m e m
m m
El El
E ect E ect
e ri e ri
r ci r ci
c ty c ty
t t
to to
o at o at
a m a m
t osp t osp
o o
h h
sp e sp e
h r h r
e e e e
Turb Turb
r in r in
i e i e
e e
Gen Gen
e era e era
r t r t
a or a or
r r
St St
S ea S ea
e m e m
a a
Co Co
C a C a
o l o l
a a
Air Air
i i
r Polllu r Polllu
l tio l tio
i n i n
o o
Mo Mo
M st M st
o ly o ly
l l
ck ck
Co Co
C nt C nt
n ro n ro
r l r l
l Syst l Syst
y ems y ems
m m
CO Ca CO Ca
C pture C pture
r r
PC Boiler PC Boiler
s s
PC Boiler PC Boiler
2 2
ta ta
Ai Ai
A r A r
N2 N2
N N
(N (N
( O ( O
N N
, PM, , PM,
M SO ) M SO )
S S
) )
x x
2 2
Am Am
A in A in
i e i e
n n
Am Am
A in A in
i e i e
n / n /
e CO e CO
C 2 C 2
CO2 to CO2 to
2 2
CO2 CO2
stor stor
o a o a
r g r g
a e a e
Amine/CO Amine/CO
g g
Amine/CO2 Amine/CO2
CO2 CO2
2 2

Sepa Sepa
p ra p ra
r t r t
a io a io
i n i n
Co Co
C mp C mp
m re m re
r ssio r ssio
ssi n ssi n
o o

Source: E. S. Rubin, “CO2 Capture and Transport,” E. S. Rubin, “CO2 Capture and Transport,” Elements, vol. 4 (2008), pp. 311-317. , vol. 4 (2008), pp. 311-317.
Notes: Other major air pol utants (nitrogen oxides-NOx, particulate matter-PM, and sulfur dioxide-SO2) are Other major air pol utants (nitrogen oxides-NOx, particulate matter-PM, and sulfur dioxide-SO2) are
removed from the flue gas prior to CO2 capture. PC = pulverized coal. N2 = nitrogen gas. removed from the flue gas prior to CO2 capture. PC = pulverized coal. N2 = nitrogen gas.
Precombustion Capture (Gasification)
The process of precombustion capture separates CO2 from the fuel by combining the fuel with air The process of precombustion capture separates CO2 from the fuel by combining the fuel with air
and/or steam to produce hydrogen for combustion and a separate CO2 stream that could be stored. and/or steam to produce hydrogen for combustion and a separate CO2 stream that could be stored.
For coal-fueled power plants, this is accomplished by reacting coal with steam and oxygen at high For coal-fueled power plants, this is accomplished by reacting coal with steam and oxygen at high
temperature and pressure, a process called temperature and pressure, a process called partial oxidation, or , or gasification (Figure 3).1413 The The
result is a gaseous fuel consisting mainly of carbon monoxide and hydrogen—a mixture known as result is a gaseous fuel consisting mainly of carbon monoxide and hydrogen—a mixture known as
synthesis gas, or , or syngas—which can be burned to generate electricity. After particulate impurities —which can be burned to generate electricity. After particulate impurities
are removed from the syngas, a two-stage are removed from the syngas, a two-stage shift reactor converts the carbon monoxide to CO2 via converts the carbon monoxide to CO2 via
a reaction with steam (H2O). The result is a mixture of CO2 and hydrogen. A chemical solvent, a reaction with steam (H2O). The result is a mixture of CO2 and hydrogen. A chemical solvent,
such as the widely used commercial product Selexol (which employs a glycol-based solvent), such as the widely used commercial product Selexol (which employs a glycol-based solvent),
then captures the CO2, leaving a stream of nearly pure hydrogenthen captures the CO2, leaving a stream of nearly pure hydrogen ~~that~~. This is burned in a combined is burned in a combined
cycle power plant to generate electricity—known as an cycle power plant to generate electricity—known as an integrated gasification combined-cycle
plant (IGCC)—as depicted i (IGCC)—as depicted in Figure 3. Existing IGCC power plants in the United States do not Existing IGCC power plants in the United States do not
capture CO2.capture CO2.1514
One example of One example of ~~gasification~~IGCC technology in operation today is the Polk Power Station about 40 technology in operation today is the Polk Power Station about 40
miles southeast of Tampa, FL.miles southeast of Tampa, FL.1615 The 250 megawatt (MW) unit generates electricity from coal- The 250 megawatt (MW) unit generates electricity from coal-
derived syngas produced and purified onsite. The Polk Power Station does not capture CO2.derived syngas produced and purified onsite. The Polk Power Station does not capture CO2. An An
example of precombustion capture technology, though not for power generation, is the Great example of precombustion capture technology, though not for power generation, is the Great
Plains Synfuels Plant in Beulah, ND. The Great Plains plant produces synthetic natural gas from Plains Synfuels Plant in Beulah, ND. The Great Plains plant produces synthetic natural gas from
~~lignite coal through a gasification process, and the natural gas is shipped out of the facility for~~

14 13 See CRS Report R41325, See CRS Report R41325, Carbon Capture: A Technology Assessment, by Peter Folger. , by Peter Folger.
1514 One integrated gasification combined-cycle project in Edwardsport, IN, was designed with sufficient space to add One integrated gasification combined-cycle project in Edwardsport, IN, was designed with sufficient space to add
carbon capture in the future. For further discussion, see DOE, NETL, “IGCC Project Examples,” at https://netl.doe.gov/carbon capture in the future. For further discussion, see DOE, NETL, “IGCC Project Examples,” at https://netl.doe.gov/
research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/project-examples. research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/project-examples.
1615 For more information about the Polk Power Station, see DOE, NETL, “Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification For more information about the Polk Power Station, see DOE, NETL, “Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification
Combined-Cycle Project,” at https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/tampa. Combined-Cycle Project,” at https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/tampa.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

5 5

link to page link to page 1011 link to page link to page 1011 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

lignite coal through a gasification process, and the natural gas is shipped out of the facility for sale in the natural gas market. The process also produces a stream of high-purity CO2, which is sale in the natural gas market. The process also produces a stream of high-purity CO2, which is
piped northward into Canada for use in EOR at the Weyburn oil field.piped northward into Canada for use in EOR at the Weyburn oil field.1716
Figure 3. Diagram of Precombustion CO2 Capture from an IGCC Power Plant
Fl Fl
F ue F ue
u u
e ga e ga
g s g s
a a
El El
E ect E ect
e ri e ri
r ci r ci
c ty c ty
to to
o at o at
a m a m
t osp t osp
o o
h h
sp e sp e
h r h r
e e e e
Air Air
i i
ty ty
r r
Ai Ai
A r Sepa A r Sepa
p ra p ra
r t r t
a io a io
i n i n
Un Un
U it U it
i i
H H
Ai Ai
A r A r
2 2
H O H O
2 2
O2 O2
Gas Gas
s Tu s Tu
T rb T rb
r in r in
i e i e
Co Co
C a C a
o l o l
a a
H H
n n
H H
ck ck
2 2
H H
Shif Shif
i t i t
2 2
Quench Quench
t t
Sulf Sulf
l ur l ur
Quench Quench
CO Ca CO Ca
C pture C pture
r r
Co Co
C mb C mb
m in m in
i ed i ed
ta ta
Ga Ga
G sif G sif
si ie si ie
i r i r
r r

2 2
ed ed

2 2
S S
H H
System System
Re Re
R mo R mo
m val m val
2O 2O
2 2
Re Re
R acto R acto
ct r ct r
CO CO
r r
2 2
Cycl Cycl
C C
e e
ycl Pla ycl Pla
l nt l nt
n n
Se Se
S l S l
e ex e ex
e o e o
x l x l
o o
Se Se
S l S l
e ex e ex
e o e o
x l x l
o /CO o /CO
C 2 C 2
CO2 to CO2 to
2 2
Sulf Sulf
l ur l ur
CO CO
r r
Sele Sele
l xol/ l xol/
l CO l CO
2 2
CO CO
stor stor
o a o a
r g r g
a e a e
g g
2 2
CO2 CO2
2 2

Re Re
R covery R covery
r r
Sepa Sepa
p ra p ra
r t r t
a io a io
i n i n
Co Co
C mp C mp
m re m re
r ssio r ssio
ssi n ssi n
o o

Source: E. S. Rubin, “CO2 Capture and Transport,” E. S. Rubin, “CO2 Capture and Transport,” Elements, vol. 4 (2008), pp. 311-317. , vol. 4 (2008), pp. 311-317.
Oxy-Fuel Combustion Capture
The process of oxy-fuel combustion capture uses pure oxygen instead of air for combustion and The process of oxy-fuel combustion capture uses pure oxygen instead of air for combustion and
produces a flue gas that is mostly CO2 and water, which are easily separable, after which the CO2 produces a flue gas that is mostly CO2 and water, which are easily separable, after which the CO2
can be compressed, transported, and stored can be compressed, transported, and stored (Figure 4). Oxy-fuel combustion requires an oxygen . Oxy-fuel combustion requires an oxygen
production step, which would likely involve a cryogenic process (shown as the air separation unit production step, which would likely involve a cryogenic process (shown as the air separation unit
iin Figure 4). The advantage of using pure oxygen is that it eliminates the large amount of . The advantage of using pure oxygen is that it eliminates the large amount of
nitrogen in the flue gas stream, thus reducing the formation of smog-forming pollutants like nitrogen in the flue gas stream, thus reducing the formation of smog-forming pollutants like
nitrogen oxides. nitrogen oxides.
Currently oxy-fuel combustion projects are at the lab- or bench-scale, ranging up to verification Currently oxy-fuel combustion projects are at the lab- or bench-scale, ranging up to verification
testing at a pilot scale.testing at a pilot scale.1817

1716 For a more detailed description of the Great Plains Synfuels plant, see DOE, NETL, “SNG from Coal: Process & For a more detailed description of the Great Plains Synfuels plant, see DOE, NETL, “SNG from Coal: Process &
Commercialization,” at https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/great-plains. Commercialization,” at https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/great-plains.
1817 For more information, see NETL, For more information, see NETL, Oxy-Combustion, at https://netl.doe.gov/node/7477. , at https://netl.doe.gov/node/7477.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

6 6

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

Figure 4. Diagram of Oxy-Combustion CO2 Capture from a Coal-Fired Power Plant
Fl Fl
F ue F ue
u u
e ga e ga
g s g s
a a
to to
o at o at
a m a m
t osp t osp
o o
h h
sp e sp e
h r h r
e e e e
Stea Stea
e m e m
m m
El El
E ect E ect
e ri e ri
r ci r ci
c ty c ty
t t
Tu Tu
T rb T rb
r in r in
i e i e
e e
ck ck
Gen Gen
Ge era Ge era
r t r t
a or a or
ta ta
r r
S S
St St
S ea S ea
e m e m
a a
CO CO
Air Air
i i
r Polllu r Polllu
l tio l tio
i n i n
2 to 2 to
on on
2 2
Co Co
C a C a
o l o l
a a
CO CO
storage storage
2 2
Di Di
D stil D stil
i i
l l
stil a stil a
l tio l tio
i n i n
n n

storag storag

PC PC
C Boilie C Boilie
l r l r
CO CO
r r
Co Co
C nt C nt
n ro n ro
r l r l
l Syste l Syste
y y
ms ms
m m
2 2
2 2

s s

H2 H2
H O H O
2 2
System System
2O 2O
Syste Syste
Co Co
C mp C mp
m re m re
r ssio r ssio
ssi n ssi n
o o
( (
( PM, ( PM,
M SO M SO
S S
) )
2 2
O2 O2
Fl Fl
F ue F ue
u u
e ga e ga
g s g s
a a
s recyc s recyc
e e
l l
cyc e cyc e
H2 H2
H O H O
2 2
Air Air
i i
r r
Sepa Sepa
p ra p ra
r t r t
a io a io
i n i n
Ai Ai
A r A r
Un Un
U it U it
i i

Source: E. S. Rubin, “CO2 Capture and Transport,” E. S. Rubin, “CO2 Capture and Transport,” Elements, vol. 4 (2008), pp. 311-317. , vol. 4 (2008), pp. 311-317.
Allam Cycle
The Allam Cycle is a novel power plant design that uses supercritical CO2 (sCO2) to drive an The Allam Cycle is a novel power plant design that uses supercritical CO2 (sCO2) to drive an
electricity-generating turbine.electricity-generating turbine.1918 sCO2 is CO2 held at certain temperature and pressure conditions, sCO2 is CO2 held at certain temperature and pressure conditions,
giving it unique chemical and physical properties.giving it unique chemical and physical properties.19 In contrast, most power plants in operation In contrast, most power plants in operation
today (and most proposed power plants using CCS) use steam (i.e., water) to drive a turbine. today (and most proposed power plants using CCS) use steam (i.e., water) to drive a turbine.
Power plants using the Allam Cycle combust fossil fuels in pure oxygen, producing CO2 and Power plants using the Allam Cycle combust fossil fuels in pure oxygen, producing CO2 and
water.20 The CO2 can be reused multiple times to generate electricity, or piped away for utilization water.20 The CO2 can be reused multiple times to generate electricity, or piped away for utilization
or storage. The excess CO2 produced by the cycle is sufficiently pure to be directly transported or or storage. The excess CO2 produced by the cycle is sufficiently pure to be directly transported or
used without requiring an additional capture or purification step. For power plant operations, used without requiring an additional capture or purification step. For power plant operations,
sCO2 may be more efficient than steam. Initial estimates indicate that power plants using the sCO2 may be more efficient than steam. Initial estimates indicate that power plants using the
Allam Cycle could have comparable efficiencies to natural gas combined cycle power plants Allam Cycle could have comparable efficiencies to natural gas combined cycle power plants
without CCS.21 without CCS.21
~~The NET Power demonstration facility in La Porte, TX, is the first power plant to use the Allam~~
~~Cycle. Plans for two commercial-scale Allam Cycle power plants—one in Colorado and one in~~
~~Illinois—were announced in April 2021.22~~

~~19 NET Power, The Allam-Fetvedt Cycle, at https://netpower.com/the-cycle/.~~
18 NET Power, The Allam-Fetvedt Cycle, at https://netpower.com/the-cycle/. 19 Supercritical CO2 refers to temperature and pressure conditions above a critical point where CO2 has characteristics of both a gas and a liquid. In this “supercritical” state, small changes in temperature or pressure can result in large changes in density, which can make supercritical CO2 a useful working fluid for power generation. The critical point for CO2 refers to the temperature and pressure conditions above which matter phase boundaries disappear. 20 The operational NET Power facility uses natural gas as a fuel, but coal may also be used. One of the NET Power 20 The operational NET Power facility uses natural gas as a fuel, but coal may also be used. One of the NET Power
project developers, 8 Rivers Capital, received a DOE grant in 2019 to study the design of a coal-fired power plant using project developers, 8 Rivers Capital, received a DOE grant in 2019 to study the design of a coal-fired power plant using
the Allam Cycle. DOE, “U.S. Department of Energy Invests $7 Million for Projects to Advance Coal Power Generation the Allam Cycle. DOE, “U.S. Department of Energy Invests $7 Million for Projects to Advance Coal Power Generation
Under Coal FIRST Initiative,” at https://netl.doe.gov/node/9282. Under Coal FIRST Initiative,” at https://netl.doe.gov/node/9282.
21 Rodney Allam et al., “Demonstration of the Allam Cycle: An update on the development status of a high efficiency 21 Rodney Allam et al., “Demonstration of the Allam Cycle: An update on the development status of a high efficiency
supercritical carbon dioxide power process employing full carbon capture,” supercritical carbon dioxide power process employing full carbon capture,” Energy Procedia, vol. 114 (2017), pp. , vol. 114 (2017), pp.
5948-5966. 5948-5966.
~~22 Akshat Rathi, “U.S. Startup Plans to Build First Zero-Emission Gas Power Plants,” Bloomberg Green, April 15,~~
~~2021.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

7

~~Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States~~
Congressional Research Service 7 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States The NET Power demonstration facility in La Porte, TX, is the first power plant to use the Allam Cycle. Plans for two commercial-scale Allam Cycle power plants—one in Colorado and one in Illinois—were announced in April 2021.22
CO2 Transport
After the CO2 capture step, the gas is purified and compressed (typically into a supercritical state) After the CO2 capture step, the gas is purified and compressed (typically into a supercritical state)
to produce a concentrated stream for transport. Pipelines are the most common method for to produce a concentrated stream for transport. Pipelines are the most common method for
transporting CO2 in the United States. transporting CO2 in the United States. ~~Currently, approximately~~Approximately 5,000 miles of pipelines transport 5,000 miles of pipelines transport
CO2 in the United States, predominantly to oil fields, where it is used for EOR.23 Transporting CO2 in the United States, predominantly to oil fields, where it is used for EOR.23 Transporting
CO2 in pipelines is similar to transporting fuels such as natural gas and oil; it requires attention to CO2 in pipelines is similar to transporting fuels such as natural gas and oil; it requires attention to
design, monitoring for leaks, and protection against overpressure, especially in populated areas. design, monitoring for leaks, and protection against overpressure, especially in populated areas.
Costs for pipeline construction vary, depending upon length and capacity; right-of-way costs; Costs for pipeline construction vary, depending upon length and capacity; right-of-way costs;
whether the pipeline is onshore or offshore; whether the route crosses mountains, large rivers, or whether the pipeline is onshore or offshore; whether the route crosses mountains, large rivers, or
frozen ground; and other factors. The quantity and distance transported will mostly determine frozen ground; and other factors. The quantity and distance transported will mostly determine
shipping costs. Shipping rates for CO2 pipelines in the United States may be negotiated between shipping costs. Shipping rates for CO2 pipelines in the United States may be negotiated between
the operator and shippers, or may be subject to rate regulation if they are considered open access the operator and shippers, or may be subject to rate regulation if they are considered open access
pipelines with eminent domain authority. Siting of CO2 pipelines is under the jurisdiction of the pipelines with eminent domain authority. Siting of CO2 pipelines is under the jurisdiction of the
states, although the federal government regulates their safety.states, although the federal government regulates their safety.24
Even though regional CO2 pipeline networks currently operate in the United States for EOR, Even though regional CO2 pipeline networks currently operate in the United States for EOR,
developing a more expansive network for CCS could pose regulatory and economic challenges. developing a more expansive network for CCS could pose regulatory and economic challenges.
Some studies have suggested that development of a national CO2 pipeline network that would Some studies have suggested that development of a national CO2 pipeline network that would
address the broader issue of greenhouse gas address the broader issue of greenhouse gas emissions reduction using CCS may require a concerted federal reduction using CCS may require a concerted federal
policy, in some cases including federal incentives for CO2 pipeline development.policy, in some cases including federal incentives for CO2 pipeline development.2425 In 2020, In 2020,
enacted legislation included provisions to facilitate the study and development of CO2 pipelines enacted legislation included provisions to facilitate the study and development of CO2 pipelines
that could be used for CCS.that could be used for CCS.2526
Using marine vessels also may be feasible for transporting CO2 over large distances or overseas. Using marine vessels also may be feasible for transporting CO2 over large distances or overseas.
Liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gases (i.e., propane and butane) are routinely Liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gases (i.e., propane and butane) are routinely
shipped by marine tankers on a large scale worldwide.shipped by marine tankers on a large scale worldwide.2627 Marine tankers transport CO2 today, but Marine tankers transport CO2 today, but
at a small scale because of limited demand. Marine tanker costs for CO2 shipping are uncertain, at a small scale because of limited demand. Marine tanker costs for CO2 shipping are uncertain,
because no large-scale CO2 transport system via vessel (in millions of because no large-scale CO2 transport system via vessel (in millions of metric tons of CO2 per year, for tons of CO2 per year, for
example) is operating, although such an operation has been proposed in Europe.example) is operating, although such an operation has been proposed in Europe.~~27 Marine tanker~~
~~shipping might be less costly than pipeline transport for distances greater than 1,000 kilometers~~
~~and for less than a few million tons of CO2 transported per year.28~~

28 22 Akshat Rathi, “U.S. Startup Plans to Build First Zero-Emission Gas Power Plants,” Bloomberg Green, April 15, 2021. 23 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, “Annual Report Mileage for Hazardous Liquid or Carbon 23 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, “Annual Report Mileage for Hazardous Liquid or Carbon
Dioxide Systems,” web page, July 1, 2020, at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/annual-report-Dioxide Systems,” web page, July 1, 2020, at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/annual-report-
mileage-hazardous-liquid-or-carbon-dioxide-systems. mileage-hazardous-liquid-or-carbon-dioxide-systems.
24 24 For additional information on CO2 pipeline safety, see CRS Insight IN11944, Carbon Dioxide Pipelines: Safety Issues, by Paul W. Parfomak. 25 See, for example, Elizabeth Abramson et al., “Transport Infrastructure for Carbon Capture and Storage,” Regional See, for example, Elizabeth Abramson et al., “Transport Infrastructure for Carbon Capture and Storage,” Regional
Carbon Capture Deployment Initiative, June 2020; Ryan W. J. Edwards and Michael A. Celia, “Infrastructure to Enable Carbon Capture Deployment Initiative, June 2020; Ryan W. J. Edwards and Michael A. Celia, “Infrastructure to Enable
Deployment of Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage in the United States,” Deployment of Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage in the United States,” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, September 18, 2018. , September 18, 2018.
2526 USE IT Act (H.R. 1166 and S. 383), 116th Congress, and enacted as part of P.L. 116-260. USE IT Act (H.R. 1166 and S. 383), 116th Congress, and enacted as part of P.L. 116-260.
2627 Rail cars and trucks also can transport CO2, but this mode probably would be uneconomical for large-scale CCS Rail cars and trucks also can transport CO2, but this mode probably would be uneconomical for large-scale CCS
operations. operations.
~~27 See IEA Clean Coal Centre, “Northern Lights – Send Us Your CO2,” July 2, 2020. In this report, the amount of CO2~~
~~is stated in metric tons, or 1,000 kilograms, which is approximately 2,200 pounds. Hereinafter, the unit tons means~~
~~metric tons.~~
~~28 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report, Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, 2005, p.~~
~~31.~~28 See IEA, “Northern Lights.”
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

8 8

link to page link to page 67 link to page link to page 67 link to page link to page 1213 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

CO2 Injection and Sequestration
Three main types of geological formations are being considered for underground CO2 injection Three main types of geological formations are being considered for underground CO2 injection
and sequestration: (1) depleted oil and gas reservoirs, (2) deep saline reservoirs, and (3) and sequestration: (1) depleted oil and gas reservoirs, (2) deep saline reservoirs, and (3)
unmineable coal seams. In each case, CO2 in a supercritical state would be injected into a porous unmineable coal seams. In each case, CO2 in a supercritical state would be injected into a porous
rock formation below ground that holds or previously held fluidsrock formation below ground that holds or previously held fluids (Figure 1). When CO2 is . When CO2 is
injected at depths greater than about half a mile (800 meters) in a typical reservoir, the pressure injected at depths greater than about half a mile (800 meters) in a typical reservoir, the pressure
keeps the injected CO2 supercritical, making the CO2 less likely to migrate out of the geological keeps the injected CO2 supercritical, making the CO2 less likely to migrate out of the geological
formation. The process also requires that the geological formation have an overlying formation. The process also requires that the geological formation have an overlying caprock or or
relatively impermeable formation, such as shale, so that injected CO2 remains trapped relatively impermeable formation, such as shale, so that injected CO2 remains trapped
underground underground (Figure 1). Injecting CO2 into deep geological formations uses existing technologies . Injecting CO2 into deep geological formations uses existing technologies
that have been primarily developed and used by the oil and gas industry and that potentially could that have been primarily developed and used by the oil and gas industry and that potentially could
be adapted for long-term storage and monitoring of CO2. be adapted for long-term storage and monitoring of CO2.
The storage capacity for CO2 The storage capacity for CO2 ~~in geological formations is~~ when considering all the sedimentary basins in the world is potentially very large compared to total CO2 emissions from stationary sources~~potentially very large if all the~~
~~sedimentary basins in the world are considered~~.29 In the United States alone, DOE has estimated .29 In the United States alone, DOE has estimated
the total storage capacity to range between about 2.6 trillion and 22 trillionthe total storage capacity to range between about 2.6 trillion and 22 trillion metric tons of CO2 ( tons of CO2 (~~see~~see
Table 1).30 The suitability of any particular site, however, depends on many factors, including 30 The suitability of any particular site, however, depends on many factors, including
proximity to CO2 sources and other reservoir-specific qualities such as porosity, permeability, and proximity to CO2 sources and other reservoir-specific qualities such as porosity, permeability, and
potential for leakage.31 For CCS to succeed in mitigating atmospheric emissions of CO2, it is potential for leakage.31 For CCS to succeed in mitigating atmospheric emissions of CO2, it is
assumed that each reservoir type would permanently store the vast majority of injected CO2, assumed that each reservoir type would permanently store the vast majority of injected CO2,
keeping the gas isolated from the atmosphere in perpetuity. That assumption is untested, although keeping the gas isolated from the atmosphere in perpetuity. That assumption is untested, although
part of the DOE CCS R&D program has been devoted to experimenting and modeling the part of the DOE CCS R&D program has been devoted to experimenting and modeling the
behavior of large quantities of injected CO2. Theoretically—and without consideration of costs, behavior of large quantities of injected CO2. Theoretically—and without consideration of costs,
regulatory issues, public acceptance, infrastructure needs, liability, ownership, and other issues—regulatory issues, public acceptance, infrastructure needs, liability, ownership, and other issues—
the United States could store its total CO2 emissions from the United States could store its total CO2 emissions from the electricity generating sector and other large stationary sources (at the current large stationary sources (at the current
rate of emissions) for centuries. rate of emissions) for centuries.
Table 1. Estimates of the U.S. Storage Capacity for CO2
(in billions of metric tons) (in billions of metric tons)

Low
Medium
High
Oil and Natural Gas Reservoirs Oil and Natural Gas Reservoirs
186 186
205 205
232 232
Unmineable Coal Unmineable Coal
54 54
80 80
113 113
Saline Formations Saline Formations
2,379 2,379
8,328 8,328
21,633 21,633
Total
2,618
8,613
21,978
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Carbon Storage Atlas, 5th ed., , 5th ed.,
August 20, 2015, at https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Coal/carbon-storage/atlasv/ATLAS-V-August 20, 2015, at https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Coal/carbon-storage/atlasv/ATLAS-V-
2015.pdf. 2015.pdf.

29 29 Sedimentary basins refer to natural large-scale depressions in the Earth’s surface that are filled with sediments and refer to natural large-scale depressions in the Earth’s surface that are filled with sediments and
fluids and are therefore potential reservoirs for CO2 storage. fluids and are therefore potential reservoirs for CO2 storage.
30 For comparison, in 30 For comparison, in ~~2019~~2020 the United States emitted 1. the United States emitted 1.64 billion billion metric tons of CO2 from the electricity generating sector. See tons of CO2 from the electricity generating sector. See
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ~~Draft~~ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-~~2019~~~~, p.~~
~~ES-7~~2020, Table 2-4, at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/, at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/~~draft-~~inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-~~2019~~2020. .
31 31 Porosity refers to the amount of open space in a geologic formation—the openings between the individual mineral refers to the amount of open space in a geologic formation—the openings between the individual mineral
grains or rock fragments. grains or rock fragments. Permeability refers to the interconnectedness of the open spaces, or the ability of fluids to refers to the interconnectedness of the open spaces, or the ability of fluids to
migrate through the formation. migrate through the formation. Leakage means that the injected CO2 can migrate up and out of the intended reservoir, means that the injected CO2 can migrate up and out of the intended reservoir,
instead of staying trapped beneath a layer of relatively impermeable material, such as shale. instead of staying trapped beneath a layer of relatively impermeable material, such as shale.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

9 9

link to page link to page 1213 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

Notes: Data current as of November 2014. The estimates represent only the physical restraints on storage (i.e., Data current as of November 2014. The estimates represent only the physical restraints on storage (i.e.,
the pore volume in suitable sedimentary rocks) and do not consider economic or regulatory constraints. The the pore volume in suitable sedimentary rocks) and do not consider economic or regulatory constraints. The
low, medium, and high estimates correspond to a calculated probability of exceedance of 90%, 50%, and 10%, low, medium, and high estimates correspond to a calculated probability of exceedance of 90%, 50%, and 10%,
respectively, meaning that there is a 90% probability that the estimated storage volume wil exceed the low respectively, meaning that there is a 90% probability that the estimated storage volume wil exceed the low
estimate and a 10% probability that the estimated storage volume wil exceed the high estimate. Numbers in the estimate and a 10% probability that the estimated storage volume wil exceed the high estimate. Numbers in the
table may not add precisely due to rounding. table may not add precisely due to rounding.
Oil and Gas Reservoirs
Pumping Pumping ~~CO2~~water, gas, or chemical injectants into oil and gas reservoirs to boost production (that is, EOR) has been practiced in into oil and gas reservoirs to boost production (that is, EOR) has been practiced in
the oil and gas industry for several decades. the oil and gas industry for several decades. CO2 is one type of injectant that is used in EOR processes. The United States is a world leader in this The United States is a world leader in this
technology, and oil and gas operators inject approximately 68 million tons of CO2 underground technology, and oil and gas operators inject approximately 68 million tons of CO2 underground
each year to help recover oil and gas resources.32 Most of the CO2 used for EOR in the United each year to help recover oil and gas resources.32 Most of the CO2 used for EOR in the United
States comes from naturally occurring geologic formations, however, not from industrial sources. States comes from naturally occurring geologic formations, however, not from industrial sources.
Using CO2 from industrial emitters has appeal because the costs of capture and transport from the Using CO2 from industrial emitters has appeal because the costs of capture and transport from the
facility could be partially offset by revenues from oil and gas production. The majority of existing facility could be partially offset by revenues from oil and gas production. The majority of existing
CCS facilities offset some of the costs by selling the captured CO2 for EOR. According to some CCS facilities offset some of the costs by selling the captured CO2 for EOR. According to some
studies, EOR using CO2 captured from an industrial source studies, EOR using CO2 captured from an industrial source ~~can~~could potentially produce crude oil with a lower produce crude oil with a lower
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions intensity than either oil produced without EOR or oil lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions intensity than either oil produced without EOR or oil
produced through EOR using naturally occurring CO2produced through EOR using naturally occurring CO2, depending on the process characteristics and analysis methodologies used.33 CO2 can be used for EOR onshore or .33 CO2 can be used for EOR onshore or
offshore. To date, most U.S. CO2 projects associated with EOR are onshore, with the bulk of offshore. To date, most U.S. CO2 projects associated with EOR are onshore, with the bulk of
activities in western Texas.34 Carbon dioxide also can be injected into oil and gas reservoirs that activities in western Texas.34 Carbon dioxide also can be injected into oil and gas reservoirs that
are completely depleted, which would serve the purpose of long-term sequestration but without are completely depleted, which would serve the purpose of long-term sequestration but without
any offsetting financial benefit from oil and gas production. any offsetting financial benefit from oil and gas production.
Deep Saline Reservoirs
Some rocks in sedimentary basins contain saline fluids—brines or brackish water unsuitable for Some rocks in sedimentary basins contain saline fluids—brines or brackish water unsuitable for
agriculture or drinking. As with oil and gas, deep saline reservoirs can be found onshore and agriculture or drinking. As with oil and gas, deep saline reservoirs can be found onshore and
offshore; they are often part of oil and gas reservoirs and share many characteristics. The oil offshore; they are often part of oil and gas reservoirs and share many characteristics. The oil
industry routinely injects brines recovered during oil production into saline reservoirs for industry routinely injects brines recovered during oil production into saline reservoirs for
disposal.35 Adisposal.35 As Table 1 shows, deep saline reservoirs constitute the largest potential for storing shows, deep saline reservoirs constitute the largest potential for storing
CO2 by far. However, unlike oil and gas reservoirs, storing CO2 in deep saline reservoirs does not CO2 by far. However, unlike oil and gas reservoirs, storing CO2 in deep saline reservoirs does not
have the potential to enhance the production of oil and gas or to offset costs of CCS with have the potential to enhance the production of oil and gas or to offset costs of CCS with
revenues from the produced oil and gas. revenues from the produced oil and gas.

32 As of 2014. See Vello Kuuskraa and Matt Wallace, “CO2-EOR Set for Growth as New CO2 Supplies Emerge,” 32 As of 2014. See Vello Kuuskraa and Matt Wallace, “CO2-EOR Set for Growth as New CO2 Supplies Emerge,” Oil
and Gas Journal, vol. 112, no. 4 (April 7, 2014), p. 66. Hereinafter Kuuskraa and Wallace, 2014. , vol. 112, no. 4 (April 7, 2014), p. 66. Hereinafter Kuuskraa and Wallace, 2014.
33 For example, one study comparing lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of EOR using different sources of CO2 found 33 For example, one study comparing lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of EOR using different sources of CO2 found
that using CO2 captured from an IGCC power plant or a natural gas combined cycle power plant resulted in oil with that using CO2 captured from an IGCC power plant or a natural gas combined cycle power plant resulted in oil with
25%-60% lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 source is not the only determinant of the net emissions 25%-60% lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 source is not the only determinant of the net emissions
reductions associated with EOR. The types of EOR technology and methods also affect estimated emissions reductions reductions associated with EOR. The types of EOR technology and methods also affect estimated emissions reductions
in scientific studies. To a certain extent, EOR can be optimized for CO2 storage (i.e., conducted in such a way as to in scientific studies. To a certain extent, EOR can be optimized for CO2 storage (i.e., conducted in such a way as to
attempt to maximize the storage of CO2 as opposed to maximizing the production of oil). attempt to maximize the storage of CO2 as opposed to maximizing the production of oil).
34 As of 2014, nearly two-thirds of oil production using CO2 for EOR came from the Permian Basin, located in western 34 As of 2014, nearly two-thirds of oil production using CO2 for EOR came from the Permian Basin, located in western
Texas and southeastern New Mexico. Kruskaa and Wallace, 2014, p. 67. Texas and southeastern New Mexico. Kruskaa and Wallace, 2014, p. 67.
35 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates this practice under authority of the Safe Drinking Water 35 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates this practice under authority of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. See the EPA UIC program at https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-ii-oil-Act, Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. See the EPA UIC program at https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-ii-oil-
and-gas-related-injection-wells. and-gas-related-injection-wells.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

10 10

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

Unmineable Coal Seams
U.S. coal resources that are not mineable with current technology are those in which the coal beds U.S. coal resources that are not mineable with current technology are those in which the coal beds
are not thick enough, are too deep, or lack structural integrity adequate for mining.36 Even if they are not thick enough, are too deep, or lack structural integrity adequate for mining.36 Even if they
cannot be mined, coal beds are commonly permeable and can trap gases, such as methane, which cannot be mined, coal beds are commonly permeable and can trap gases, such as methane, which
can be extracted (a resource known as can be extracted (a resource known as coal-bed methane, or CBM). Methane and other gases are , or CBM). Methane and other gases are
physically bound (adsorbed) to the coal. Studies indicate that CO2 binds to coal even more tightly physically bound (adsorbed) to the coal. Studies indicate that CO2 binds to coal even more tightly
than methane binds to coal.37 CO2 injected into permeable coal seams could displace methane, than methane binds to coal.37 CO2 injected into permeable coal seams could displace methane,
which could be recovered by wells and brought to the surface, providing a source of revenue to which could be recovered by wells and brought to the surface, providing a source of revenue to
offset the costs of CO2 injection. Unlike EOR, injecting CO2 and displacing, capturing, and offset the costs of CO2 injection. Unlike EOR, injecting CO2 and displacing, capturing, and
selling CBM (a process known as selling CBM (a process known as enhanced coal bed methane recovery,, or ECBM) to offset the or ECBM) to offset the
costs of CCS is not costs of CCS is not ~~yet~~ part of commercial production. Currently, nearly all CBM is produced by part of commercial production. Currently, nearly all CBM is produced by
removing water trapped in the coal seam, which reduces the pressure and enables the release of removing water trapped in the coal seam, which reduces the pressure and enables the release of
the methane gas from the coal. the methane gas from the coal.
Carbon Utilization
The concept of carbon utilization has gained increasingly widespread interest within Congress The concept of carbon utilization has gained increasingly widespread interest within Congress
and in the private sector as a means for capturing CO2 and storing it in potentially useful and and in the private sector as a means for capturing CO2 and storing it in potentially useful and
commercially viable products, thereby reducing emissions to the atmosphere and offsetting the commercially viable products, thereby reducing emissions to the atmosphere and offsetting the
cost of CO2 capture. EOR is currently the main use of captured CO2, and some observers envision cost of CO2 capture. EOR is currently the main use of captured CO2, and some observers envision
EOR will continue to dominate carbon utilization for some time, supporting the scale-up of EOR will continue to dominate carbon utilization for some time, supporting the scale-up of
capture technologies that could later rely upon other utilization pathways.38 Nonetheless, research capture technologies that could later rely upon other utilization pathways.38 Nonetheless, research
activities and congressional interest in utilization tend to focus on uses other than EOR. For activities and congressional interest in utilization tend to focus on uses other than EOR. For
example, P.L. 115-123, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which expanded the Section 45Q tax example, P.L. 115-123, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which expanded the Section 45Q tax
credit for carbon capture and sequestration, excludes EOR from the definition of carbon credit for carbon capture and sequestration, excludes EOR from the definition of carbon
utilization. P.L. 115-123 defines carbon utilization as39 utilization. P.L. 115-123 defines carbon utilization as39
 the fixation of such qualified carbon oxide through photosynthesis or  the fixation of such qualified carbon oxide through photosynthesis or
chemosynthesis, such as through the growing of algae or bacteria; chemosynthesis, such as through the growing of algae or bacteria;
 the chemical conversion of such qualified carbon oxide to a material or chemical  the chemical conversion of such qualified carbon oxide to a material or chemical
compound in which such qualified carbon oxide is securely stored; and compound in which such qualified carbon oxide is securely stored; and
 the use of such qualified carbon oxide for any other purpose for which a  the use of such qualified carbon oxide for any other purpose for which a
commercial market exists (with the exception of use as a tertiary injectant in a commercial market exists (with the exception of use as a tertiary injectant in a
qualified enhanced oil or natural gas recovery project), as determined by the qualified enhanced oil or natural gas recovery project), as determined by the
Secretary [of the Treasury].40 Secretary [of the Treasury].40
P.L. 116-260 provides two authorizations for a DOE carbon utilization research program (to be P.L. 116-260 provides two authorizations for a DOE carbon utilization research program (to be
coordinated as a single program) in the coordinated as a single program) in the ~~aforementioned~~ USE IT Act and Energy Act of 2020. USE IT Act and Energy Act of 2020.
Both focus on
36 36 Coal bed and and coal seam are interchangeable terms. are interchangeable terms.
37 IPCC Special Report, p. 217. 37 IPCC Special Report, p. 217.
38 For example, “For good reasons, many seek to find ways to use CO2 to create economic value in a climate-positive 38 For example, “For good reasons, many seek to find ways to use CO2 to create economic value in a climate-positive
way. Today, the primary use of CO2 is for enhanced oil recovery. This is an important near-term pathway and provides way. Today, the primary use of CO2 is for enhanced oil recovery. This is an important near-term pathway and provides
opportunities to finance projects, scale-up technologies and reduce costs.” Written testimony of Dr. S. Julio Friedmann, opportunities to finance projects, scale-up technologies and reduce costs.” Written testimony of Dr. S. Julio Friedmann,
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Full Committee Hearing to Examine Development
and Deployment of Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Management Technologies, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 28, 2020. , 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 28, 2020.
39 CRS In Focus IF11455, 39 CRS In Focus IF11455, The Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration (Section 45Q), by Angela C. Jones and Molly F. , by Angela C. Jones and Molly F.
Sherlock. Sherlock.
40 P.L. 115-123, §41119. A 40 P.L. 115-123, §41119. A tertiary injectant refers to the use of CO2 for EOR or enhanced natural gas recovery. refers to the use of CO2 for EOR or enhanced natural gas recovery.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

11 11

link to page link to page ~~15 link to page 7~~16

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

~~Both focus on~~ “novel uses” for carbon and CO2, such as “chemicals, plastics, building materials, “novel uses” for carbon and CO2, such as “chemicals, plastics, building materials,
fuels, cement, products of coal utilization in power systems or in other applications, and other fuels, cement, products of coal utilization in power systems or in other applications, and other
products with demonstrated market value.”41 products with demonstrated market value.”41
Figure 5 illustrates an array of potential utilization pathways: uptake using algae (for biomass illustrates an array of potential utilization pathways: uptake using algae (for biomass
production), conversion to fuels and chemicals, mineralization into inorganic materials, and use production), conversion to fuels and chemicals, mineralization into inorganic materials, and use
as a working fluid (e.g., for EOR) or other services. as a working fluid (e.g., for EOR) or other services.
Figure 5. Schematic Illustration of Current and Potential Uses of CO2

Source: U.S. DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), at https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-U.S. DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), at https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-
utilization. utilization.
41 P.L. 116-260, Division S, §102(c). Congressional Research Service 12 link to page 8 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States Direct Air Capture ~~Direct Air Capture~~
Direct air capture (DAC) is an emerging set of technologies that aim to remove CO2 directly from Direct air capture (DAC) is an emerging set of technologies that aim to remove CO2 directly from
the atmosphere, as opposed to the point source capture of CO2 from a source like a power plant the atmosphere, as opposed to the point source capture of CO2 from a source like a power plant
(as described above in (as described above in “CO2 Capture”)).42 .42
DAC systems typically employ a chemical capture system to separate CO2 from ambient air, add DAC systems typically employ a chemical capture system to separate CO2 from ambient air, add
energy to separate the captured CO2 from the chemical substrate, and remove the purified CO2 to energy to separate the captured CO2 from the chemical substrate, and remove the purified CO2 to
be stored permanently be stored permanently or utilized for other purposes.43 This process is similar to postcombustion carbon capture in some ways, though DAC and CCS differ in a number of ways. ~~or utilized for other purposes.43~~

~~41 P.L. 116-260, Division S, §102(c).~~
~~42 CRS In Focus IF11501, Carbon Capture Versus Direct Air Capture, by Ashley J. Lawson. Some DAC processes~~
~~capture CO2 from seawater instead of the atmosphere.~~
~~43 For a detailed assessment of DAC technology, see the American Physical Society,~~ ~~Direct Air Capture of CO2 with~~
~~Chemicals: A Technology Assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs, June 1, 2011, at https://www.aps.org/policy/~~
~~reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf. Hereinafter American Physical Society, 2011. Additional background~~
~~information is also available in National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,~~ ~~Negative Emissions~~
~~Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda, 2019.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

12

~~Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States~~

DAC systems have the potential to be classified as net carbon negative, meaning that if the DAC systems have the potential to be classified as net carbon negative, meaning that if the
captured CO2 is permanently sequestered or becomes part of long-lasting products such as cement captured CO2 is permanently sequestered or becomes part of long-lasting products such as cement
or plastics, the end result would be a reduction in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In or plastics, the end result would be a reduction in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In
addition, DAC systems can be sited almost anywhere—they do not need to be near power plants addition, DAC systems can be sited almost anywhere—they do not need to be near power plants
or other point sources of CO2 emissions. They could be located, for example, close to or other point sources of CO2 emissions. They could be located, for example, close to
manufacturing plants that require CO2 as an input, and would not necessarily need long pipeline manufacturing plants that require CO2 as an input, and would not necessarily need long pipeline
systems to transport the captured CO2. systems to transport the captured CO2.
The concentration of CO2 in ambient air is far lower than the concentration found at most point The concentration of CO2 in ambient air is far lower than the concentration found at most point
sources. Thus, a recognized drawback of DAC systems is their high cost per ton of CO2 captured, sources. Thus, a recognized drawback of DAC systems is their high cost per ton of CO2 captured,
compared to the more conventional CCS technologies.44 A 2011 assessment estimated costs at compared to the more conventional CCS technologies.44 A 2011 assessment estimated costs at
roughly $600 per ton of captured CO2.45 A more recent assessment from one of the companies roughly $600 per ton of captured CO2.45 A more recent assessment from one of the companies
developing DAC technology, however, projects lower costs for commercially deployed plants of developing DAC technology, however, projects lower costs for commercially deployed plants of
between $94 and $232 per ton.46between $94 and $232 per ton.46 In 2021, DOE launched a research effort called the Carbon Negative Shot, aiming to achieve CO2 removal (including DAC) for less than $100 per ton.47 By comparison, some estimate costs for conventional CCS from By comparison, some estimate costs for conventional CCS from
coal-fired electricity generating plants in the United States between $48 and $109 per ton.coal-fired electricity generating plants in the United States between $48 and $109 per ton.47
48 Congress has sometimes combined support for CCS and DAC into single proposals, despite the Congress has sometimes combined support for CCS and DAC into single proposals, despite the
differences in the technologies. For example, the federal tax credit for carbon sequestration differences in the technologies. For example, the federal tax credit for carbon sequestration
applies to CCS and DAC projects (with CO2 injection for sequestration).applies to CCS and DAC projects (with CO2 injection for sequestration).4849 In other cases, though, In other cases, though,
Congress has treated the technologies separately. For example, the Energy Act of 2020 provided Congress has treated the technologies separately. For example, the Energy Act of 2020 provided
CCS R&D authorizations primarily in Title IV—Carbon Management, while most DAC R&D CCS R&D authorizations primarily in Title IV—Carbon Management, while most DAC R&D
~~authorizations are in Title V—Carbon Removal.~~
~~Commercial CCS Facilities~~
~~According to one set of data collected by the Global CCS Institute (GCCSI), 24 commercial CCS~~
~~facilities were capturing and injecting CO2 throughout the world in 2020, 12 of which are in the~~
~~United States.49 These facilities have a cumulative capacity to capture and store an estimated 40~~
~~million tons of CO2 each year.50 Additionally, according to GCCSI, 3 more commercial facilities~~
~~were under construction, 34 pilot or demonstration-scale CCS facilities were operational, and 8~~
~~CCS technology test centers were operational worldwide, as of 2020.51~~

authorizations are in Title V—Carbon Removal. 42 CRS In Focus IF11501, Carbon Capture Versus Direct Air Capture, by Ashley J. Lawson. Some processes capture CO2 from seawater instead of the atmosphere. These are sometimes called direct ocean capture, or DOC. 43 For a detailed assessment of DAC technology, see the American Physical Society, Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals: A Technology Assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs, June 1, 2011, at https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf. Hereinafter American Physical Society, 2011. Additional background information is also available in National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda, 2019. 44 Generally, the more dilute the concentration of CO2, the higher the cost to extract it, because much larger volumes 44 Generally, the more dilute the concentration of CO2, the higher the cost to extract it, because much larger volumes
are required to be processed. By comparison, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.04%, whereas the are required to be processed. By comparison, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.04%, whereas the
concentration of CO2 in the flue gas of a typical coal-fired power plant is about 14%. concentration of CO2 in the flue gas of a typical coal-fired power plant is about 14%.
Duncan Leeson, Andrea Ramirez, and Niall Mac Dowell, “Carbon Capture and Storage from Industrial Sources,” in Carbon Capture and Storage, ed. Mai Bui and Niall Mac Dowell, p. 299. 45 American Physical Society, 2011, p. 13. 45 American Physical Society, 2011, p. 13.
46 Robert F. Service, “Cost Plunges for Capturing Carbon Dioxide from the Air,” 46 Robert F. Service, “Cost Plunges for Capturing Carbon Dioxide from the Air,” Science, June 7, 2018, at , June 7, 2018, at
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air.
47 47 DOE, “Secretary Granholm Launches Carbon Negative Earthshots to Remove Gigatons of Carbon Pollution From the Air by 2050,” press release, November 5, 2021. 48 Lawrence Irlam, Lawrence Irlam, The Costs of CCS and Other Low-Carbon Technologies in the United States-2015 Update, Global , Global
CCS Institute, July 2015, p. 1, at http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/costs-ccs-and-other-low-carbon-CCS Institute, July 2015, p. 1, at http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/costs-ccs-and-other-low-carbon-
technologies-2015-update. technologies-2015-update.
4849 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11455, For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11455, The Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration (Section 45Q), by , by
Angela C. Jones and Molly F. Sherlock. Angela C. Jones and Molly F. Sherlock.
49 Global CCS Institute, Global Status Report 2020~~, December 1, 2020. Two~~Congressional Research Service 13 link to page 18 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States Commercial CCS Facilities According to one set of data collected by the Global CCS Institute (GCCSI), 24 commercial facilities were capturing and injecting CO2 throughout the world in 2021, 12 of which are in the United States.50 An additional facility, the Red Trail Energy facility, came online in the United States in 2022. See Figure 6 for locations of U.S. projects capturing and injecting CO2 for either EOR or geologic sequestration, some of which are not in operation. Figure 6. Location of U.S. Carbon Capture and Injection Projects EOR and Geologic Sequestration Source: CRS, using data from the Global CCS Institute, Global Status Report 2021, 2021, and the University of North Dakota Energy & Environment Research Center at undeerc.org. 50 Global CCS Institute, Global Status Report 2021, December 1, 2021; and North Dakota Industrial Commission, Class VI - Geologic Sequestration Wells, accessed October 4, 2022, at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/dmr/oilgas/ClassVI . The 13 facilities in operation do not include two facilities, Petra Nova and Lost Cabin, facilities, Petra Nova and Lost Cabin,
that stopped CCS operations in stopped CCS operations in ~~2020~~2020, or the Zeros facility, which is under construction. The Global CCS Institute defines a . The Global CCS Institute defines a commercial facility as a facility capturing CO2 for as a facility capturing CO2 for
permanent storage as part of an ongoing commercial operationpermanent storage as part of an ongoing commercial operation, that generally has an economic life similar to the host that generally has an economic life similar to the host
facility whose CO2 it captures, and that supports a commercial return while operating and/or meets a regulatory facility whose CO2 it captures, and that supports a commercial return while operating and/or meets a regulatory
~~requirement.~~
~~50 Global CCS Institute, Global Status Report 2020, p. 19.~~
~~51 Global CCS Institute, Global Status Report 2020, p. 19.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

13

~~Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States~~

~~U.S. CCS facilities in operation or under development occur in five~~requirement. Congressional Research Service 14 link to page 20 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States These facilities reportedly have a cumulative capacity to capture an estimated 40 million metric tons of CO2 each year.51 Additionally, according to GCCSI, one commercial facility was under construction and 15 projects were in advanced development in the United States, as of 2021.52 U.S. capture and injection facilities in operation or under development occur in seven industrial sectors, according industrial sectors, according
to GCCSI data: chemical production, hydrogen production, fertilizer production, natural gas to GCCSI data: chemical production, hydrogen production, fertilizer production, natural gas
processing, and power generation.processing, and power generation.~~52 The~~53 Until spring of 2022, the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) facility in Decatur, IL Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) facility in Decatur, IL,
is (also known as the Illinois Industrial Project), was the only facility injecting the only facility injecting ~~the~~ CO2 solely for geologic sequestration. The facility injects CO2 CO2 solely for geologic sequestration. The facility injects CO2
captured from ethanol production into a saline reservoir and as of captured from ethanol production into a saline reservoir and as of ~~2019~~2021 reported that reported that ~~1.5~~2 million million
metric tons of CO2 had been injected at the site.metric tons of CO2 had been injected at the site.53
~~Figure 6.Operational and Planned CCS Facilities in the United States Injecting CO2~~
~~for Geologic Sequestration and EOR~~
~~Global CCS Institute data, as of 2020~~

~~Source:~~ 54 In 2022, North Dakota issued a Class VI permit for CO2 injection by Red Trail Energy in Richardton, ND. The company plans to capture and inject 180,000 tons of CO2 per year into an on-site formation for geologic sequestration.55 See Figure 7 for additional information on the timeline and industrial sectors for CO2 capture and injection facilities in the United States. 51 Global CCS Institute, Global Status Report 2021, p. 62. 52 Global CCS Institute, Global Status Report 2021, pp. 63-64. GSSCI does not define “advanced development” in this report. 53 Global CCS Institute, Global Status Report 2020. “Under development” indicates that some project development activity has occurred (e.g., feasibility or design studies), but the facility is not actively capturing and/or injecting CO2 Projects may be in different stages of development. 54 EPA FLIGHT database, accessed March 14, 2022. 55 Industrial Commission of North Dakota, “North Dakota Approves First Carbon Capture and Storage Project Under State Primacy in the United States,” accessed August 1, 2022, at www.nd.gov/ndic/ic-press/News-DMR211019.pdf. Congressional Research Service 15 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States Figure 7. Operational, Planned, and Suspended Facilities in the United States Injecting CO2 for Geologic Sequestration and EOR Source: CRS, adapted from ~~CRS, adapted from~~ Global CCS Institute, Global CCS Institute, Global Status Report ~~2020~~~~, 2020~~2021, 2021; GSSCI does not define “advanced development” in this report. Red Trail Energy information from the Industrial Commission of North Dakota. .
Notes: Mtpa = mil ion tons per annum (year); circle placement indicates initial year of operations or anticipated Mtpa = mil ion tons per annum (year); circle placement indicates initial year of operations or anticipated
initial year of operations for projects under development, according to GCCSI (the first time frame in the figure initial year of operations for projects under development, according to GCCSI (the first time frame in the figure
represents 38 years, while the other time frames each represent a five-year period). Some projects under represents 38 years, while the other time frames each represent a five-year period). Some projects under
development anticipate multiple CO2 sources; in these cases, circle placement indicates the initial application development anticipate multiple CO2 sources; in these cases, circle placement indicates the initial application
being studied. being studied.
~~Particular attention has been paid~~Stakeholders have paid particular attention to two power generation projects: Boundary Dam, in to two power generation projects: Boundary Dam, in
Saskatchewan, Canada, and Petra Nova, near Houston, TX. Both projects involved retrofitting Saskatchewan, Canada, and Petra Nova, near Houston, TX. Both projects involved retrofitting
coal-fired electricity generators with carbon capture equipment and have been coal-fired electricity generators with carbon capture equipment and have been ~~lauded as~~
~~successful~~noted as examples of carbon capture technology. At the same time, both projects have been examples of carbon capture technology. At the same time, both projects have been
criticized for high costscriticized for high costs, relative to other low-carbon technologies for electricity generation, and for sequestering carbon via EOR. and for sequestering carbon via EOR.56 In May 2020, Petra Nova’s owners In May 2020, Petra Nova’s owners

~~52 Global CCS Institute, Global Status Report 2020. “Under development” indicates that some project development.~~
~~activity has occurred (e.g., feasibility or design studies), but the facility is not actively capturing and/or injecting CO2.~~
~~Projects may be in different stages of development.~~
~~53 EPA FLIGHT database, accessed November 16, 2020. For comparison, that facility reported emitting 17.5 million~~
~~metric tons of covered GHGs for that same period.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

14

~~Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States~~

~~stopped operating the CCS equipment, citing unfavorable economics due to low crude oil prices,~~
~~though reports suggest the facility may have experienced prior mechanical challenges.54~~
stopped operating the CCS equipment, citing unfavorable economics due to low crude oil prices, though reports suggest the facility may have experienced prior mechanical challenges.57 56 See, for example, Food & Water Watch, “Top 5 Reasons Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Is Bogus,” July 20, 2021. 57 Jeremy Dillon and Carlos Anchondo, “Low Oil Prices Force Petra Nova Into ‘Mothball Status,’” E&E News, July 28, 2020; and Nichola Groom, “Problems Plagued U.S. CO2 Capture Project Before Shutdown: DOE Document,” Reuters, August 6, 2020. Congressional Research Service 16 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States Petra Nova: The First Large U.S. Power Plant with CCS
On January 10, 2017, the Petra Nova–W.A. Parish Generating Station became the first industrial-On January 10, 2017, the Petra Nova–W.A. Parish Generating Station became the first industrial-
scale coal-fired power plant with CCS to operate in the United States. The plant began capturing scale coal-fired power plant with CCS to operate in the United States. The plant began capturing
~~approximately 5,000 tons~~5,200 short tons (approximately 4,717 metric tons) of CO2 per day from its 240-megawatt-equivalent slipstream using post of CO2 per day from its 240-megawatt-equivalent slipstream using post
combustion capture technology.combustion capture technology.5558 The capture technology The capture technology iswas designed to be approximately 90% efficient (i.e., approximately 90% efficient (i.e., it
~~captures~~designed to capture about 90% of the CO2 in the exhaust gas after the coal about 90% of the CO2 in the exhaust gas after the coal iswas burned to generate electricity) burned to generate electricity)
and and iswas designed to capture 1.4 designed to capture 1.4 ~~million~~million metric tons of CO2 each year. tons of CO2 each year.5659 The captured CO2 The captured CO2 iswas transported transported
via an 82-mile pipeline to the West Ranch oil field, where it via an 82-mile pipeline to the West Ranch oil field, where it iswas injected for EOR. NRG Energy injected for EOR. NRG Energy
Inc., and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation, the joint owners of the Petra Nova Inc., and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation, the joint owners of the Petra Nova
project, together with Hilcorp Energy Company (which project, together with Hilcorp Energy Company (which ~~handles~~handled the injection and EOR), the injection and EOR),
anticipated increasing West Ranch oil production from 300 barrels per day before EOR to 15,000 anticipated increasing West Ranch oil production from 300 barrels per day before EOR to 15,000
barrels per day after EOR.barrels per day after EOR.57 60 However, Petra Nova’s operators turned off the CCS equipment in May 2020, Petra Nova’s operators turned off the CCS equipment in May 2020,
citing low oil prices caused, in part, by the COVID-19 pandemic.citing low oil prices caused, in part, by the COVID-19 pandemic.58
61 In January 2021, the operators announced plans to indefinitely shut down the CCS equipment’s power source.62 As of October 2022, Petra Nova remains out of service.63 DOE provided Petra Nova with more than $160 million from its Clean Coal Power Initiative DOE provided Petra Nova with more than $160 million from its Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI) Round 3 funding, using funds appropriated under the American Recovery and (CCPI) Round 3 funding, using funds appropriated under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) together with other DOE funding for a total of Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) together with other DOE funding for a total of
more than $190 million of federal funds for the $1 billion retrofit project.more than $190 million of federal funds for the $1 billion retrofit project.5964 Petra Nova is the only Petra Nova is the only
CCPI Round 3 project that expended its ARRA funding and began operating.CCPI Round 3 project that expended its ARRA funding and began operating.6065 The three other The three other
CCPI Round 3 demonstration projects funded using ARRA appropriations (as well as the CCPI Round 3 demonstration projects funded using ARRA appropriations (as well as the
FutureGen project—slated to receive nearly $1 billion in ARRA appropriations) all have been FutureGen project—slated to receive nearly $1 billion in ARRA appropriations) all have been
canceled, have been suspended, or remain in development.canceled, have been suspended, or remain in development.6166

~~54 Jeremy Dillon and Carlos Anchondo, “Low Oil Prices Force Petra Nova Into ‘Mothball Status,’” E&E News, July 28,~~
~~2020; and Nichola Groom, “Problems Plagued U.S. CO2 Capture Project Before Shutdown: DOE Document,” Reuters,~~
~~August 6, 2020.~~
55 Slipstream ~~refers to the exhaust gases emitted from the power plant.~~58 Slipstream refers to the exhaust gases emitted from the power plant. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration Demonstration Project Final Scientific/Technical Report, March 31, 2020, p. 3. 59 DOE, “Petra Nova CCS Project.” 60 NRG News Release, “NRG Energy, JX Nippon NRG News Release, “NRG Energy, JX Nippon
Complete World’s Largest Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Facility On-Budget and On-Schedule,” January 10, 2017, Complete World’s Largest Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Facility On-Budget and On-Schedule,” January 10, 2017,
at http://investors.nrg.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=121544&p=irol-at http://investors.nrg.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=121544&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2236424. 61 L.M.Sixel, “NRG Mothballs Carbon Capture Project at Coal Plant,” Houston Chronicle, July 31, 2020. 62 “Power Plant Linked to Idled U.S. Carbon Capture Project Will Shut Indefinitely,” Reuters, January 29, 2021, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/power-plant-linked-idled-u-204526410.html. 63 Corbin Hiar and Carlos Anchondo, “Biggest CCS Failure Clouds Supreme Court Ruling,” E&E News, July 11, 2022. 64~~newsArticle&ID=2236424.~~
~~56 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), “Recovery Act: Petra Nova~~
~~Parish Holdings: W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration Project,” at https://www.netl.doe.gov/~~
~~research/coal/project-information/fe0003311.~~
~~57 NRG News Release, “NRG Energy, JX Nippon Complete World’s Largest Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Facility~~
~~On-Budget and On-Schedule,” January 10, 2017, at http://investors.nrg.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=121544&p=irol-~~
~~newsArticle&ID=2236424.~~
~~58 L.M.Sixel, “NRG Mothballs Carbon Capture Project at Coal Plant,” Houston Chronicle, July 31, 2020.~~
59 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), “Recovery Act: Petra Nova U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), “Recovery Act: Petra Nova
Parish Holdings: W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration Project,” at https://www.netl.doe.gov/Parish Holdings: W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration Project,” at https://www.netl.doe.gov/
research/coal/project-information/fe0003311. research/coal/project-information/fe0003311.
6065 For an analysis of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects funded by the American Recovery and For an analysis of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects funded by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5), see CRS Report R44387, Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5), see CRS Report R44387, Recovery Act Funding for DOE Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS) Projects, by Peter Folger. , by Peter Folger.
6166 FutureGen is discussed in more detail in CRS Report R44387, FutureGen is discussed in more detail in CRS Report R44387, Recovery Act Funding for DOE Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS) Projects, by Peter Folger. , by Peter Folger.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1517

link to page link to page 2123 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

Boundary Dam: World’s First Addition of CCS to a Large
Power Plant
The Boundary Dam project was the first commercial-scale power plant with CCS in the world to The Boundary Dam project was the first commercial-scale power plant with CCS in the world to
begin operations. Boundary Dam, a Canadian venture operated by SaskPower,begin operations. Boundary Dam, a Canadian venture operated by SaskPower,6267 cost cost
approximately $1.approximately $1.35 billion, according to one source billion, according to one source~~.63 Of that~~, though it was originally estimated to cost $1.3 billion.68 Of the originally estimated amount, $800 million was for amount, $800 million was for
building the CCS process and the remaining $500 million was for retrofitting the Boundary Dam building the CCS process and the remaining $500 million was for retrofitting the Boundary Dam
Unit 3 coal-fired generating unit. The project also received $240 million from the Canadian Unit 3 coal-fired generating unit. The project also received $240 million from the Canadian
federal government. Boundary Dam started operating in October 2014, after a four-year federal government. Boundary Dam started operating in October 2014, after a four-year
construction and retrofit of the 150-megawatt generating unit. The final project was smaller than construction and retrofit of the 150-megawatt generating unit. The final project was smaller than
earlier plans to build a 300-megawatt CCS plant, but that original idea may have earlier plans to build a 300-megawatt CCS plant, but that original idea may have been projected to cost as much as cost as much as
$3.8 billion. The larger-scale project was discontinued because of the escalating costs.$3.8 billion. The larger-scale project was discontinued because of the escalating costs.6469
Boundary Dam captures, transports, and sells most of its CO2 for EOR, shipping 90% of the Boundary Dam captures, transports, and sells most of its CO2 for EOR, shipping 90% of the
captured CO2 via a 41-mile pipeline to the Weyburn Field in Saskatchewan. CO2 not sold for captured CO2 via a 41-mile pipeline to the Weyburn Field in Saskatchewan. CO2 not sold for
EOR is injected and stored about 2.1 miles underground in a deep saline aquifer at a nearby EOR is injected and stored about 2.1 miles underground in a deep saline aquifer at a nearby
experimental injection site. By experimental injection site. By ~~June 2020~~March 2022, the plant had captured over , the plant had captured over ~~3.4~~4.3 million million metric tons of CO2 tons of CO2
since full-time operations began in October 2014.since full-time operations began in October 2014.6570 The project injected 370,000 metric tons of CO2 for geologic sequestration as of 2021.71
The DOE CCS Program
DOE has funded R&D of aspects of the three main steps of an integrated CCS system since DOE has funded R&D of aspects of the three main steps of an integrated CCS system since at least 1997, 1997,
primarily through its Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research, Development, primarily through its Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research, Development,
Demonstration, and Deployment program (FECM).Demonstration, and Deployment program (FECM).6672 CCS-focused R&D has come to dominate CCS-focused R&D has come to dominate
the coal program area within DOE FECM since 2010. Since FY2010, Congress has provided $the coal program area within DOE FECM since 2010. Since FY2010, Congress has provided $~~7.3~~
~~billion~~ 9.2 billion (in constant 2022 dollars) total in annual appropriations for FECM (see Table 2).73 67 SaskPower is the principal electric utility in Saskatchewan, Canada. 68~~total in annual appropriations for FECM (see Table 2). ARRA provided an additional $3.4~~
~~billion to that total, specifically for CCS projects.67~~
~~The Trump Administration proposed shifting FECM’s focus to early-stage research, as~~
~~summarized in the FY2021 budget request for FECM: “This Budget Request focuses DOE~~
~~resources toward early-stage R&D and reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund~~
~~later-stage research, development, and commercialization of energy technologies.”68 The Trump~~
~~Administration’s approach would have been a reversal of Obama Administration and George W.~~

~~62 SaskPower is the principal electric utility in Saskatchewan, Canada.~~
63 MIT Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies, CCS Project Database, “Boundary Dam Fact Sheet: Carbon MIT Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies, CCS Project Database, “Boundary Dam Fact Sheet: Carbon
Capture and Storage Project,” at http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/boundary_dam.html. Capture and Storage Project,” at http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/boundary_dam.html.
6469 Ibid. Ibid.
6570 SaskPower, SaskPower, BD3 Status Update: ~~June 2020~~March 2022, at https://www.saskpower.com/about-us/our-company/blog/, at https://www.saskpower.com/about-us/our-company/blog/2022/bd3-status-bd3-status-
~~update-june-2020.~~
66update-march-2022. 71 Petroleum Technology Research Center, Annual Report 2020-2021, at https://ptrc.ca/pub/docs/annual-reports/Annual%20Report%202020-21-%20Final_sm.pdf. 72 DOE has also funded some CCS and carbon removal research through its Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy. The Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment The Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment
appropriations account was previously known as the Fossil Energy Research and Development (FER&D) account. The appropriations account was previously known as the Fossil Energy Research and Development (FER&D) account. The
Biden Administration renamed the Office of Fossil Energy as the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management in Biden Administration renamed the Office of Fossil Energy as the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management in
2021. This name change was also adopted by appropriators throughout the FY2022 appropriations process. See DOE, 2021. This name change was also adopted by appropriators throughout the FY2022 appropriations process. See DOE,
“Our New Name Is Also a New Vision,” July 8, 2021, at https://www.energy.gov/fe/articles/our-new-name-also-new-“Our New Name Is Also a New Vision,” July 8, 2021, at https://www.energy.gov/fe/articles/our-new-name-also-new-
vision. vision.
~~67 Authority to expend American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) funds expired in 2015. An~~
~~analysis of ARRA funding for CCS activities at DOE is provided in CRS Report R44387,~~ ~~Recovery Act Funding for~~
~~DOE Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Projects, by Peter Folger.~~
~~68 DOE, FY2021 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 3 Part 2, February 2021, p. 195.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

16

~~link to page 21~~ ~~Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States~~

~~Bush Administration DOE policies, which supported large carbon-capture demonstration projects~~
~~and large injection and sequestration demonstration projects. Congress instead provided annual~~
~~increases in the first three years of the Trump Administration and continued support for~~
~~demonstration projects. The Biden Administration has also supported funding CCS demonstration~~
~~projects. Table 2 shows the funding for DOE CCS programs under FECM from FY2010 through~~
~~FY2021.69~~

6973 For information on FY2021 and FY2022 appropriations, see CRS In Focus IF11861, For information on FY2021 and FY2022 appropriations, see CRS In Focus IF11861, ~~Funding for~~DOE’s Carbon Capture
and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Removal ~~at DOE~~Programs, by Ashley J. Lawson. , by Ashley J. Lawson.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1718

link to page link to page 2225 link to page link to page 2225
Table 2. ~~Funding~~Annual Appropriations for DOE Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment
~~Program (FECM)~~ Program Areas
FY2010 through FY2010 through ~~FY2021~~FY2022 (in thousands of nominal dollars) FECM Program Program/ Areas Activity FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022
~~FECM Program~~
~~Program/~~
~~FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016~~
~~FY2017~~
~~FY2018~~
~~FY2019~~
~~FY2020~~
~~FY2021~~
~~Areas~~
~~Activity~~
~~($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)~~
CCUS and Power
Carbon Capture
— —
58,703 58,703
66,986 66,986
63,725 63,725
92,000 92,000
88,000 88,000
101,000 101,000
101,000 101,000
100,671 100,671
100,671 100,671
117,800 117,800
~~126~~86,300 99,000~~,300~~
~~Systems~~ Systems Carbon Dioxide 40,000 49,000 Removal

Carbon

23,000 23,000 29,000
Utilization

Carbon Storage
— —
120,912 120,912
112,208 112,208
106,745 106,745
108,766 108,766
100,000 100,000
106,000 106,000
95,300 95,300
98,096 98,096
98,096 98,096
100,000 100,000
79,000 79,000 97,000

Advanced Energy
— —
168,627 168,627
97,169 97,169
92,438 92,438
99,500 99,500
103,000 103,000
105,000 105,000
105,000 105,000
112,000 112,000
129,683 129,683
120,000 120,000
~~122,000~~
108,100 94,000 and Hydrogen Systems

Cross-Cutting
— —
41,446 41,446
47,946 47,946
45,618 45,618
41,925 41,925
49,000 49,000
50,000 50,000
45,500 45,500
58,350 58,350
56,350 56,350
56,000 56,000
7232,900 33,000 ,000
Research

Mineral — — — — — — — — — — — 53,000 53,000 Sustainability Supercritical
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
10,000 10,000
15,000 15,000
24,000 24,000
24,000 24,000
22,430 22,430
16,000 16,000
14,500 14,500 15,000
CO2 Technology

NETL Coal R&D
— —
— —
35,011 35,011
33,338 33,338
50,011 50,011
50,000 50,000
53,000 53,000
53,000 53,000
53,000 53,000
54,000 54,000
61,000 61,000
0 0

Transformational
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
50,00 50,000a
35,000 35,000
25,000 25,000
20,000 20,000
10,000 10,000 0
Coal Pilotsa
Subtotal CCUS and
393,485 389,688 359,320 341,864 392,202 400,000 430,000
~~423~~473,800
481,117
486,230
490,800
446,800 469,000
Power Systems
Other FECM
Natural Gas
17,364 17,364
0 0
14,575 14,575
13,865 13,865
20,600 20,600
25,121 25,121
43,000 43,000
43,000 43,000
50,000 50,000
51,000 51,000
51,000 51,000
57,000 57,000 0 Technologies CRS-19 FECM Program Program/ Areas Activity FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022
~~Technologies~~

Unconventional
19,474 19,474
0 0
4,859 4,859
4,621 4,621
15,000 15,000
4,500 4,500
20,321 20,321
21,000 21,000
40,000 40,000
46,000 46,000
46,000 46,000
46,000 46,000
~~Fossil~~0 Fossil Energy Technologies from Petroleum – Oil Technologies Resource 110,000 Technologies and Sustainability

Program
158,000 158,000
164,725 164,725
119,929 119,929
114,201 114,201
120,000 120,000
119,000 119,000
114,202 114,202
60,000 60,000
60,000 60,000
61,070 61,070
61,500 61,500
61,500 61,500 66,800
Direction

Plant and Capital
20,000 20,000
19,960 19,960
16,794 16,794
15,982 15,982
16,032 16,032
15,782 15,782
15,782 15,782
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
~~CRS-18~~

~~FECM Program~~
~~Program/~~
~~FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016~~
~~FY2017~~
~~FY2018~~
~~FY2019~~
~~FY2020~~
~~FY2021~~
~~Areas~~
~~Activity~~
~~($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)~~

Env. Restoration
10,000 10,000
9,980 9,980
7,897 7,897
7,515 7,515
5,897 5,897
5,897 5,897
7,995 7,995
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —

Special
700 700
699 699
700 700
667 667
700 700
700 700
700 700
700 700
700 700
700 700
700 700
700 700 1,001
Recruitment

NETL Research
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
0 0
43,000 43,000
50,000 50,000
50,000 50,000
50,000 50,000
83,000 83,000 83,000
and Operations

NETL
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
0 0
40,500 40,500
45,000 45,000
45,000 45,000
50,000 50,000
55,000 55,000 75,000
Infrastructure

Coop R&D
4,868 4,868
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —

Directed
35,879 35,879
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —

20,199 Projects
Subtotal Other

266,285 195,364 164,754 156,851 178,229 171,000 202,000
~~258~~208,200
245,700
253,770
259,200
303,200
356,000 FECM
Rescissions/Use of Rescissions/Use of

— (151,000) (187,000) — (151,000) (187,000)
— —
— —
— —
— —
(14,000) (14,000)
— —
— —

Prior-Year Balances Prior-Year Balances
Total FECM

659,770 434,052 337,074 498,715 570,431 571,000 632,000
668,000
726,817
740,000
750,000
750,000
~~FY2010-FY2021~~
~~Grand Total~~
~~$7.3B~~825,000 Total FECM (Q2 2022 dollars) 832,547 533,715 409,144 598,581 669,712 669,402 740,721 766,636 809,515 809,032 800,863 781,295 825,000

CRS-20 Sources: U.S. Department of Energy annual budget justifications for FY2012 through U.S. Department of Energy annual budget justifications for FY2012 through ~~FY2021~~FY2023; explanatory statement for P.L. 115-141, Division D (Consolidated ; explanatory statement for P.L. 115-141, Division D (Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018, at https://rules.house.gov/bil /115/hr-1625-sa)Appropriations Act, 2018, at https://rules.house.gov/bil /115/hr-1625-sa).
; explanatory statement for P.L. 117-30 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Division D). Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CCUS = carbon capture utilization and sequestration (or storage); FECM = Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research, CO2 = carbon dioxide; CCUS = carbon capture utilization and sequestration (or storage); FECM = Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research,
Development, Demonstration, and Deployment program; NETL = National Energy Technology Laboratory; Inf. & Ops = infrastructure and operations; Coop = Development, Demonstration, and Deployment program; NETL = National Energy Technology Laboratory; Inf. & Ops = infrastructure and operations; Coop =
cooperative; R&D = research and development. Directed Projects refer to congressionally directed projects. Program areas are as used in the explanatory statement for cooperative; R&D = research and development. Directed Projects refer to congressionally directed projects. Program areas are as used in the explanatory statement for
~~FY2021~~FY2022 appropriations; previous appropriations language used alternative names for some program areas and may not be completely comparable. appropriations; previous appropriations language used alternative names for some program areas and may not be completely comparable. ~~Grand total for~~
~~FY2010-FY2021 subject to rounding. Amounts~~Supplemental appropriations provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) ~~are not shown in the table or~~
~~included in the grand total~~and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) are not shown in the table. The carbon utilization program was first authorized for FY2021 as part of P.L. 116-260. . The carbon utilization program was first authorized for FY2021 as part of P.L. 116-260.
The line items for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Resource Technologies and Sustainability were first used in FY2022 appropriations. Nominal dol ars adjusted to Q2 2022 dol ars using the price index for federal government investment in research and development from Bureau of Economic Analysis, “National Income and Product Accounts,” Table 3.9.4. a. Funding for Transformational Coal Pilots was first provided as a proviso in FY2017 appropriations. See explanatory statement for P.L. 115-31, Consolidated a. Funding for Transformational Coal Pilots was first provided as a proviso in FY2017 appropriations. See explanatory statement for P.L. 115-31, Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017, Division D at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-115HPRT25289/pdf/CPRT-115HPRT25289.pdf. Appropriations Act, 2017, Division D at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-115HPRT25289/pdf/CPRT-115HPRT25289.pdf.

CRS-21 link to page 26 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States Congress has additionally provided supplemental funding for DOE’s CCS activities. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $3.4 billion ($4.4 billion in 2022 dollars), specifically for CCS projects.74 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) provided $8.5 billion (nominal dollars) in supplemental funding for CCS for FY2022-FY2026 (see Table 3), including funding for the construction of new carbon capture facilities and commercial carbon storage facilities. Additionally, IIJA provided $3.6 billion (nominal dollars) in supplemental funding for DAC, primarily to support the establishment of four regional direct air capture hubs in the United States.75 Table 3. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Supplemental Appropriations for Carbon Capture and Storage Programs FY2022 through FY2026 (in thousands of nominal dollars) Total Unspecified FY2022- Program Year FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2026 Front-End Engineering and Design (carbon 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 capture) Carbon Capture Large-Scale Pilot 387,000 200,000 200,000 150,000 — 937,000 Projects Carbon Capture Demonstration 937,000 500,000 500,000 600,000 — 2,537,000 Projects Carbon Dioxide Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 3,000 2,097,000 — — — 2,100,000 Innovation (CIFIA) Carbon Utilization 41,000 65,250 66,563 67,941 69,388 310,141 Carbon Storage Validation and 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 Testing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 50,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 75,000 Class VI Injection Well Program Source: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), Division J. 74 Authority to expend American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) funds expired in 2015. An analysis of ARRA funding for CCS activities at DOE is provided in CRS Report R44387, Recovery Act Funding for DOE Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Projects, by Peter Folger. 75 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) defined a regional direct air capture hub as “a network of direct air capture projects, potential carbon dioxide utilization off-takers, connective carbon dioxide transport infrastructure, subsurface resources, and sequestration infrastructure located within a region.” 42 U.S.C. §16298d(j). Congressional Research Service 22 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States Notes: Programs are within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), except for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Class VI injection well program, which permits wells for geological sequestration of carbon dioxide. Some DOE programs are administered by the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM), while others are administered by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. IIJA additionally provided $3,500,000,000 ($700 mil ion each year, FY2022-FY2026) to develop four regional clean direct air capture hubs and $115 mil ion (unspecified year) for direct air capture technology prize competitions. Both programs are to be administered by FECM. All funds are to remain available until expended. A 2021 evaluation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found several cost control risks related to DOE’s past management of its CCS program, particularly DOE’s implementation of ARRA.76 These risks included a high-risk selection process, an accelerated schedule of project review, and the bypassing of internal cost controls. GAO found DOE used less risky processes in awarding CCS funding for industrial projects as compared to coal projects. Partly as a result, two out of three funded industrial CCS projects were operational in 2021, while none of the eight funded coal projects was operational. GAO noted that economic factors, such as declines in natural gas prices, affected coal projects more than industrial projects, and also contributed to withdrawal or cancellation of DOE-funded coal projects. ~~CRS-19~~

~~Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States~~

EPA Regulation of Underground Injection in CCS
EPA issues regulations for underground injection of CO2 as part of its responsibilities for EPA issues regulations for underground injection of CO2 as part of its responsibilities for
underground injection control (UIC) programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA underground injection control (UIC) programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA
also develops guidance to support state program implementation, and in some cases, directly also develops guidance to support state program implementation, and in some cases, directly
administers UIC programs in states.administers UIC programs in states.7077 The agency has established minimum requirements for state The agency has established minimum requirements for state
UIC programs and permitting for injection wells. These requirements include performance UIC programs and permitting for injection wells. These requirements include performance
standards for well construction, operation and maintenance, monitoring and testing, reporting and standards for well construction, operation and maintenance, monitoring and testing, reporting and
recordkeeping, site closure, financial responsibility, and, for some types of wells, post injection recordkeeping, site closure, financial responsibility, and, for some types of wells, post injection
site care. Most states implement the day-to-day program elements for most categories of wells, site care. Most states implement the day-to-day program elements for most categories of wells,
which are grouped into “classes” based on the type of fluid injected. Owners or operators of which are grouped into “classes” based on the type of fluid injected. Owners or operators of
underground injection wells must follow the permitting requirements and standards established underground injection wells must follow the permitting requirements and standards established
by the UIC program authority in their state. by the UIC program authority in their state.
EPA has issued regulations for six classes of underground injection wells based on type and depth EPA has issued regulations for six classes of underground injection wells based on type and depth
of fluids injected and potential for endangerment of underground sources of drinking water of fluids injected and potential for endangerment of underground sources of drinking water
(USDWs). Class II wells are used to inject fluids related to oil and gas production, including (USDWs). Class II wells are used to inject fluids related to oil and gas production, including
injection of CO2 for EOR. injection of CO2 for EOR. ~~Class VI wells are used to inject CO2 for geologic sequestration.~~ There There
are more than 119,500 EOR wells are more than 119,500 EOR wells ~~injecting CO2~~ in the United States, predominantly in in the United States, predominantly in
California, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, and Oklahoma.California, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, and Oklahoma.7178 This This total includes EOR includes EOR wells that can be ~~wells~~ used to inject CO2 used to inject CO2
captured from anthropogenic sources and wells using naturally derived CO2. captured from anthropogenic sources and wells using naturally derived CO2. Class VI wells are used to inject CO2 for geologic sequestration. Two ~~Two~~ EPA-permitted EPA-permitted
Class VI wells are currently operating for sequestration in the United States, both located at the ADM wells are currently operating for sequestration in the United States, both located at the ADM
facility in Illinois.facility in Illinois.7279 In 2022, North Dakota, which has delegated authority for its UIC Class VI well program, issued two CO2 injection permits for geologic sequestration. 76 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects, December 2021. 77 40 C.F.R. §§144-147. 78 EPA, FY19 State UIC Injection Well Inventory, accessed April 11, 2021. 79 EPA has granted North Dakota and Wyoming primary enforcement authority for Class VI well programs in those states. Congressional Research Service 23 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States
To protect USDWs from injected CO2 or movement of other fluids in an underground formation, To protect USDWs from injected CO2 or movement of other fluids in an underground formation,
Class II EOR wells must transition to Class VI geologic sequestration wells under certain Class II EOR wells must transition to Class VI geologic sequestration wells under certain
conditions.conditions.7380 Class II well owners or operators who inject CO2 primarily for long-term storage Class II well owners or operators who inject CO2 primarily for long-term storage
(rather than oil production) must obtain a Class VI permit when there is an increased risk to (rather than oil production) must obtain a Class VI permit when there is an increased risk to
USDWs compared to prior Class II operations using CO2. The Class VI Program Director (EPA USDWs compared to prior Class II operations using CO2. The Class VI Program Director (EPA
or a delegated state) determines whether a Class VI permit is required based on site-specific risk or a delegated state) determines whether a Class VI permit is required based on site-specific risk
factors associated with USDW endangerment. To date, no such transition has been required. factors associated with USDW endangerment. To date, no such transition has been required.

~~70 40 C.F.R. §§144-147.~~
~~71 EPA, FY19 State UIC Injection Well Inventory, accessed November 27, 2020.~~
~~72 EPA has granted North Dakota and Wyoming primary enforcement authority for Class VI well programs in those~~
~~states.~~
~~73 40 C.F.R. §144.19.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

20

~~Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States~~

~~The 45Q Tax Credit for CCS74~~
~~Title II, Section 41119 of P.L. 115-123, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, amended Internal Revenue Code Section~~
~~45Q to increase the tax credit for capture and sequestration of “carbon oxide,” or for its use as a tertiary~~
~~injectant in EOR operations. Carbon oxide is defined variously in the legislation to include CO2, or any other~~
~~carbon oxide—such as carbon monoxide—that qualifies under provisions of the enacted law. The law raises the~~
~~tax credit~~ The 45Q Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration81 Federal tax credits for carbon sequestration were first authorized in 2008 with the enactment of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act (Division B of P.L. 110-343). This act added Section 45Q to the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C), which established tax credits for CO2 disposed of in “secure geologic storage” or through EOR with secure geologic storage.82 The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA; P.L. 115-123) amended Section 45Q to increase the tax credit for capture and sequestration of “carbon oxide,” for its use as a tertiary injectant in EOR operations, or for other qualified uses. In 2022, the measure known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA; P.L. 117-169) made numerous changes to Section 45Q. Provisions in Section 45Q establish the amount of the tax credit per ton of carbon oxide captured and disposed of, annual CO2 capture minimums, deadlines for beginning facility construction, and credit claim periods, and direct the U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury) to issue 45Q regulations, among other provisions. Credit rates, capture minimums, and other provisions differ depending on the type of facility and when the facility or capture equipment was placed in service. The IRA established the tax rate for facilities or equipment placed in service after December 31, 2022. If projects pay prevailing wages and meet registered apprenticeship requirements, the tax credit amount is $85 per ton of CO2 disposed of in secure geologic storage and $60 per ton of CO2 used for EOR and disposed of in secure geologic storage, or utilized in a qualified matter.83 For DAC facilities or equipment placed in service after December 31, 2022, that pay prevailing wages and meet registered apprenticeship requirements, the credit is $180 per ton for CO2 disposed of in secure geologic storage and $130 per ton for CO2 that is used for EOR and disposed of in secure geologic storage, or utilized in a qualified manner.84 Credit amounts are adjusted for inflation after 2026. To qualify for tax credits, a point source facility or DAC facility must begin construction by December 31, 2032.85 The credit can be claimed over a 12-year period after operations begin. The IRA increased the credit from the rates that had been established in the BBA. Before the IRA, and for facilities placed in service before 2023, the Section 45Q tax credit amount increases linearly from $22.66 to $50 per ton over the period from calendar year 2017 until calendar year 2026 linearly from $22.66 to $50 per ton over the period from calendar year 2017 until calendar year 2026
for CO2 captured and for CO2 captured and ~~permanently stored~~disposed of in secure geologic storage, and from $12.83 to $35 per ton over the same period for CO2 , and from $12.83 to $35 per ton over the same period for CO2
captured and used as a tertiary captured and used as a tertiary ~~injectant. Starting with calendar year 2027, the tax credit wil be~~injectant for EOR or for another qualified use, with tax credit amounts adjusted for inflation after 2026. A facility must capture a minimum amount of CO2 to qualify for tax credits under Section 45Q.86 For facilities that begin construction after August 16, 2022, DAC facilities must capture at least 1,000 tons of CO2 per year; 80 40 C.F.R. §144.19. 81 For additional background, see CRS InFocus IF11455, The Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration (Section 45Q), by Angela C. Jones and Molly F. Sherlock. 82 26 U.S.C §45Q. P.L. 115-123 expanded the tax credit to all carbon oxides, which includes CO2 and carbon monoxide. 83 P.L. 117-169, §13104(b). For facilities that do not meet prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, the base credit amount is $17 per ton for secure geologic storage and $12 per ton for EOR or other qualified use. 84 P.L. 117-169, §13104(c). Prior to the IRA amendments, eligible taxpayers disposing of CO2 captured through DAC would have received the credit amount for the type of disposal used, either geologic sequestration or EOR/utilization. For facilities or equipment placed in service after December 31, 2022, the base credit amount established in the IRA is $36 per ton for CO2 captured using DAC with geological sequestration and $26 per ton for CO2 captured using DAC with EOR or qualified utilization. 85 P.L. 117-169, §13104(a). 86 Taxpayers must physically or contractually dispose of captured carbon oxide in secure geological storage. See IRS Prop. Reg. §1.45Q-1, Prop. Reg. §1.45Q-2, Prop. Reg. §1.45Q-3, Prop. Reg. §1.45Q-4, and Prop. Reg. §1.45Q-5; and Congressional Research Service 24 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States electricity generating facilities must capture at least 18,750 tons of CO2 per year and have a capture design capacity at least 75% of the unit’s baseline carbon oxide production; and other facilities must capture at least 12,500 tons of CO2 per year.87 The amounts established in the IRA are less than what had previously been required. For facilities that began construction by August 16, 2022, and are covered under the BBA, an ~~adjusted for~~
~~inflation. It also requires that the credit be claimed over a 12-year period after operations begin. Additionally, to~~
~~qualify, facilities must begin construction before January 1, 2026.75~~
~~To qualify, a minimum amount of CO2 is required to be captured and stored or utilized by the facility.76 This~~
~~amount varies with the type of facility. An~~ electricity generating facility that emits more than 500,000 tons of CO2 electricity generating facility that emits more than 500,000 tons of CO2
per yearper year~~, for example,~~ must capture a minimum 500,000 tons of CO2 annually to qualify for the tax credit. A must capture a minimum 500,000 tons of CO2 annually to qualify for the tax credit. A
facility that captures CO2 for the purposes of utilization—fixing CO2 through photosynthesis or chemosynthesis, facility that captures CO2 for the purposes of utilization—fixing CO2 through photosynthesis or chemosynthesis,
converting it to a material or compound, or using it for any commercial purpose other than tertiary injection or converting it to a material or compound, or using it for any commercial purpose other than tertiary injection or
natural gas recovery (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury)—and emits less than 500,000 tons of CO2 natural gas recovery (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury)—and emits less than 500,000 tons of CO2
must capture at least 25,000 tons per year. A direct air capture facility or a facility that does not meet the other must capture at least 25,000 tons per year. A direct air capture facility or a facility that does not meet the other
criteria just described must capture at least 100,000 tons criteria just described must capture at least 100,000 tons per year. Tax-exempt entities, including state and local governments and electric cooperatives, can elect to receive the Section 45Q tax credits as “direct pay.” This allows these entities to receive the credit amount as a payment, instead of a reduction in tax liability. The IRA allows direct pay for CO2 captured at facilities placed in service after December 31, 2022. Taxpayers also may be able to elect to receive the Section 45Q tax credit as direct pay, for up to five years, but not after 2032. Taxpayers can also elect to make a one-time transfer of~~per year.~~
~~The modifications to 45Q in P.L. 115-123 also changed taxpayer eligibility for claiming the credit. For equipment~~
~~placed in service before February 9, 2018, the credit is attributable to the person that captures and physically or~~
~~contractually ensures the disposal or use of qualified CO2, unless an election is made to allow the person disposing~~
~~of the captured CO2 to claim~~ the credit. For equipment placed in service after February 9, 2018, the credit is the credit. For equipment placed in service after February 9, 2018, the credit is
attributable to the person attributable to the person ~~that~~who owns the carbon capture equipment and physically or contractually ensures the owns the carbon capture equipment and physically or contractually ensures the
disposal or use of the qualified CO2. The credits can be transferred to the person disposal or use of the qualified CO2. The credits can be transferred to the person ~~that~~who disposes of or uses the disposes of or uses the
~~qualified CO2. Proponents of this change suggest it provides greater flexibility for companies with different~~
~~business models to use the tax credit effectively, including cooperative and municipal utilities~~qualified CO2. .
Some stakeholders have suggested that the Some stakeholders have suggested that the ~~2018~~ tax credit increases in Section 45Q could be a “game changer” tax credit increases in Section 45Q could be a “game changer”
for CCS developments in the United States, by providing for CCS developments in the United States, by providing ~~high-enough incentives for~~incentives sufficient to drive investments investments ~~into~~in CO2 capture CO2 capture
and storage.and storage.7788 They note that EOR has been the main driver for CCS development They note that EOR has been the main driver for CCS development ~~until now~~, and the new tax , and the new tax
credit incentives might result in an increased shift toward CO2 capture for permanent storagecredit incentives might result in an increased shift toward CO2 capture for permanent storage, apart from EOR. apart from EOR.
Opponents to 45Q include some environmental groups that broadly oppose measures that extend the life of coal-Opponents to 45Q include some environmental groups that broadly oppose measures that extend the life of coal-
fired power plants or provide incentives to private companies to increase oil production.fired power plants or provide incentives to private companies to increase oil production.7889 Another factor to Another factor to
consider is the cost. consider is the cost. ~~According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the changes enacted in P.L. 115-123~~
~~wil reduce federal tax revenue by an estimated $689 mil ion between FY2018 and FY2027.79~~Over the FY2022-FY2031 budget window, Treasury estimates that the tax credit wil reduce federal income tax revenue by a total of $20.1 bil ion.90 Other groups note Other groups note
that measures in addition to the 45Q tax credits wil be needed to lower CCS costs and promote broader that measures in addition to the 45Q tax credits wil be needed to lower CCS costs and promote broader
deployment. deployment.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) continues to issue guidance and promulgate regulations on implementation ofThe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) continues to issue guidance and promulgate regulations on implementation of
the Section 45Q tax credit. In January 2021, the IRS issued final regulations on demonstration of “secure geologic the Section 45Q tax credit. In January 2021, the IRS issued final regulations on demonstration of “secure geologic
storage,” utilization of qualified carbon oxide, eligibility, and credit recapture, among other provisions (86 storage,” utilization of qualified carbon oxide, eligibility, and credit recapture, among other provisions (86 Federal
~~Registe~~rRegister, January 15, 2021, 4728-4773). The IRS may issue further Section 45Q guidance related to changes enacted in the IRA in the future. Department of the Treasury, “Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration,” 85 Federal Register 34050-34075, June 2, 2020. 87 P.L. 117-169, §13104(a). For equipment placed in service after the enactment of the BBA on February 9, 2018, and before January 1, 2023, the annual capture requirements are (1) in the case of a facility that emits no more than 500,000 metric tons of carbon oxide, capture at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon oxide that is either fixated through the growing of algae or bacteria, chemically converted into a material or chemical compound in which the carbon oxide is stored, or used for another commercial purpose (other than a tertiary injectant); (2) in the case of an electricity generating facility not described in (1), capture at least 500,000 metric tons of carbon oxide per year; or (3) in the case of a direct air capture facility not described in (1) or (2), capture at least 100,000 metric tons of carbon oxide. For equipment placed in service before February 9, 2018, the capture requirement is 500,000 tons per year. 88 Emma Foehringer Merchant, “Can Updated Tax Credits Bring Carbon Capture Into the Mainstream?,” Greentech Media, February 22, 2018; James Temple, “The Carbon Capture Era May Finally Be Starting,” MIT Technology Review, February 20, 2018. 89 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Capturing Carbon Pollution While Moving Beyond Fossil Fuels,” accessed on November 27, 2019, at https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/capturing-carbon-pollution-while-moving-beyond-fossil-fuels; Richard Conniff, “Why Green Groups are Split on Subsidizing Carbon Capture Technology,” YaleEnvironment360, April 9, 2018. 90 U.S. Department of the Treasury, “FY2023 Tax Expenditures,” accessed February 17, 2022, at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/tax-policy/tax-expenditures. Congressional Research Service 25 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States Discussion In recent Congresses, proposed and enacted CCS-related legislation has addressed federal CCS research and development (R&D) activities and funding, CO2 pipelines, and the carbon sequestration tax credit. Bills, or provisions thereof, addressing CCS ~~, January 15, 2021, 4728-4773).~~
~~Discussion~~
~~In recent Congresses, proposed and enacted CCS-related legislation has addressed federal CCS~~
~~RD&D activities and funding, CO2 pipelines, and the carbon sequestration tax credit. More than~~

~~74 For additional background, see CRS InFocus IF11455, The Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration (Section 45Q), by~~
~~Angela C. Jones and Molly F. Sherlock.~~
~~75 The begin-construction deadline was extended from January 1, 2024, to January 1, 2026, in the Taxpayer Certainty~~
~~and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020 (Division EE of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021; P.L. 116-260).~~
~~76 Taxpayers must physically or contractually dispose of captured carbon oxide in secure geological storage. See IRS~~
~~Prop. Reg. §1.45Q-1, Prop. Reg. §1.45Q-2, Prop. Reg. §1.45Q-3, Prop. Reg. §1.45Q-4, and Prop. Reg. §1.45Q-5; and~~
~~Department of the Treasury, “Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration,” 85 Federal Register 34050-34075, June 2, 2020.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

21

~~Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States~~

~~55 bills were introduced in the 116th Congress that contained provisions addressing CCS. Some of~~
~~these bills, or provisions thereof,~~ were enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, were enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (P.L. 116-260). Potential implementation and oversight issues related to these provisions 2021 (P.L. 116-260). Potential implementation and oversight issues related to these provisions
might be of interest in the 117th Congressmight be of interest in the 117th Congress~~. In 2021, the Biden Administration has announced~~
~~climate change mitigation goals and strategies, and new climate-focused groups and initiatives~~
~~that may also be of interest when considering CCS-related oversight, appropriations, or~~
~~legislation~~ and beyond. .
In the 116th Congress, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260), In the 116th Congress, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260),
Congress reauthorized the DOE CCS research program. Among other provisions, the law Congress reauthorized the DOE CCS research program. Among other provisions, the law
expanded the scope of DOE’s research to noncoal applications (e.g., natural gas-fired power expanded the scope of DOE’s research to noncoal applications (e.g., natural gas-fired power
plants, other industrial facilities).plants, other industrial facilities).8091 The law also authorized a DOE carbon utilization research The law also authorized a DOE carbon utilization research
program and specific activities related to direct air capture (e.g., a DAC technology prize). program and specific activities related to direct air capture (e.g., a DAC technology prize). IIJA built upon this expanded scope, providing supplemental appropriations for several programs authorized by P.L. 116-260, and established new CCS and DAC programs. As is ~~As is~~
also true for other DOE applied research programs, some criticize such activities as an also true for other DOE applied research programs, some criticize such activities as an
inappropriate role for government, arguing the private sector is better suited to develop inappropriate role for government, arguing the private sector is better suited to develop
technologies that can compete in the marketplace.technologies that can compete in the marketplace.92 Council on Environmental Quality 2021 CCS Report to Congress and 2022 CCS Guidance In response to the USE IT Act, in 2021, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) provided Congress with a report on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration project permitting and review.93 One of several reports required by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260), this report provides information on federal permitting and regulations for CCS projects and examines technical, financial, and policy-related issues for project deployment. In its key findings, CEQ states that “CCUS has a critical role to play in decarbonizing the global economy” and that “President Biden is committed to accelerating the responsible development and deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and permanent sequestration as needed to decarbonize the U.S. economy by mid-century.”94 CEQ also finds that to be beneficial, CCS projects must be “well-designed and well governed.”95 Regarding governance, CEQ also finds that the existing federal regulatory framework is “rigorous and capable of managing permitting and review actions while protecting the environment, public health, and safety as CCUS projects move forward.”96 In February 2022, CEQ released an interim guidance, Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration Guidance, also as directed by Congress in the USE IT Act.97 The interim guidance 91 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF11861, DOE’s Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Removal Programs, by Ashley J. Lawson. 92 See, for example, Heritage Foundation, “Eliminate the DOE Office of Fossil Energy,” in Budget Blueprint for FY2022. 93 CEQ, Council on Environmental Quality Report to Congress on Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CEQ-CCUS-Permitting-Report.pdf. The report to Congress is required by P.L. 116-260, Division S, §102. 94 CEQ CCS Report, p. 8. 95 CEQ CCS Report, p. 8. 96 CEQ CCS Report, p. 8. 97 Council on Environmental Quality, “Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration Guidance,” 87 Federal Register Congressional Research Service 26 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States includes recommendations for federal agencies that would support “the efficient, orderly, and responsible development and permitting of CCUS projects at an increased scale in line with the Administration’s climate, economic, and public health goals.”98 In the document, CEQ provides guidance to federal agencies on the processes for permitting and review of CCS projects and CO2 pipelines, public engagement, and assessing environmental impacts of CCS projects. Other CCS Policy Issues With respect to other issues for congressional consideration, costs
~~Costs~~ have been, and remain, a key challenge to CCS development in the United States. In recent have been, and remain, a key challenge to CCS development in the United States. In recent
years, Congress has attempted to address this challenge in two main ways—federal R&D and years, Congress has attempted to address this challenge in two main ways—federal R&D and
federal tax credits. P.L. 116-260 federal tax credits. P.L. 116-260 and P.L. 117-169 also extended the start of construction deadline for facilities also extended the start of construction deadline for facilities
claiming the 45Q tax claiming the 45Q tax credit. ~~credit. The tax credit is considered by some stakeholders as one of the~~
~~strongest policies supporting CCS in the world.81~~ In January 2021, the IRS promulgated In January 2021, the IRS promulgated
regulations establishing requirements for carbon storage under Section 45Q. Congress remains regulations establishing requirements for carbon storage under Section 45Q. Congress remains
interested in the efficacy of the tax credit in promoting CCS development and could consider interested in the efficacy of the tax credit in promoting CCS development and could consider
additional adjustmentsadditional adjustments ~~to it~~. .
The issue of expanded CCS deployment is closely tied to the issue of reducing greenhouse gas The issue of expanded CCS deployment is closely tied to the issue of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to mitigate human-induced climate change. In emissions to mitigate human-induced climate change. In ~~two January 2021 executive orders,~~
2021, the Biden Administration announced climate change mitigation goals and strategies, and new climate-focused groups and initiatives that may also be of interest when considering CCS-related oversight, appropriations, or legislation. In two executive orders signed in January 2021, President Biden outlined new federal climate policies; created new White House and Department President Biden outlined new federal climate policies; created new White House and Department
of Justice climate offices; and established new task forces, workgroups, and advisory committees of Justice climate offices; and established new task forces, workgroups, and advisory committees
on climate change science and policy.on climate change science and policy.8299 At this early stage, the implications of these executive At this early stage, the implications of these executive
branch policies and actions on branch policies and actions on CCS project development and deployments are unclear. The use of CCS technology as a greenhouse gas emissions reduction approach is not uniformly supported by advocates for actions to address climate change.100 Some argue that CCS supports continued reliance on fossil fuels, which runs counter to their view of how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet other environmental goals. They tend to prefer policies that phase out the use of fossil fuels altogether. Others raise concerns about the long-term safety and environmental uncertainties of injecting large volumes of CO2 underground. 8808-8811, February 16, 2022. The CEQ guidance is required by P.L. 116-260, Division S, §102. 98 Council on Environmental Quality, “Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration Guidance,” 87 Federal Register 8808-8811, February 16, 2022, p. 8809. 99~~CCS project development and deployments are unclear.~~

~~77 Emma Foehringer Merchant, “Can Updated Tax Credits Bring Carbon Capture Into the Mainstream?,”~~ ~~Greentech~~
~~Media, February 22, 2018; James Temple, “The Carbon Capture Era May Finally Be Starting,”~~ ~~MIT Technology~~
~~Review, February 20, 2018.~~
~~78 “Capturing Carbon Pollution While Moving Beyond Fossil Fuels,” Natural Resources Defense Council, assessed on~~
~~November 27, 2019, at https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/capturing-carbon-pollution-while-moving-beyond-~~
~~fossil-fuels; Richard Conniff, “Why Green Groups are Split on Subsidizing Carbon Capture Technology,”~~
YaleEnvironment360, April 9, 2018.
~~79 Joint Committee on Taxation,~~ ~~Estimated Effects of the Revenue Provisions Contained in the “Bipartisan Budget Act~~
~~of 2018,”~~ ~~JCS-4-18, February 8, 2018.~~
~~80 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF11861, Funding for Carbon Capture and Carbon Removal at DOE,~~
~~by Ashley J. Lawson.~~
~~81 For example, “45Q: The most progressive CCS-specific incentive globally,” Lee Beck,~~ ~~The U.S. Section 45Q Tax~~
~~Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration: An Update, Global CCS Institute, p. 2, April 2020.~~
82 Executive Order 13990, Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis, January 20, 2021; and Executive Order 14008, January 20, 2021; and Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, January 27, , January 27,
2021. 2021.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

22

~~Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States~~

~~An additional consideration in the congressional policy discussion is that not all advocates for~~
~~actions to address climate change support CCS technology.83 Some argue that CCS supports~~
~~continued reliance on fossil fuels, which runs counter to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and~~
~~other environmental goals. They tend to prefer policies that phase out the use of fossil fuels~~
~~altogether. Other CCS opponents raise concerns about the long-term safety and environmental~~
~~uncertainties of injecting large volumes of CO2 underground.~~100 For example, in its May 2021 interim final recommendations, the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) listed CCS projects as among those projects that would not benefit communities (WHEJAC, Justice40, Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool & Executive Order 12898 Revisions: Interim Final Recommendations, May 13, 2021). See also Carlos Anchondo, “Industry Warns Lawmakers of CCS Threats,” Energywire, November 25, 2019; and Richard Conniff, “Why Green Groups Are Split on Subsidizing Carbon Capture Technology,” YaleEnvironment360, April 9, 2018. Congressional Research Service 27 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States

Author Information

Angela C. Jones Angela C. Jones
Ashley J. Lawson Ashley J. Lawson
Analyst in Environmental Policy Analyst in Environmental Policy
Analyst in Energy Policy Analyst in Energy Policy

Acknowledgments
CRS Specialist Paul Parfomak provided substantial contributions to the CO2 Transport Section of this CRS Specialist Paul Parfomak provided substantial contributions to the CO2 Transport Section of this
report. CRS Specialist Peter Folger authored the original version of this report. CRS Intern Claire Mills report. CRS Specialist Peter Folger authored the original version of this report. CRS Intern Claire Mills
contributed research related to lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for different enhanced oil recovery contributed research related to lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for different enhanced oil recovery
processes. processes.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

~~83 For example, in its May 2021 interim final recommendations, the White House Environmental Justice Advisory~~
~~Council (WHEJAC) listed CCS projects as among those projects that would not benefit communities (WHEJAC,~~
~~Justice40, Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool & Executive Order 12898 Revisions: Interim Final~~
~~Recommendations,~~ ~~May 13, 2021). See also Carlos Anchondo, “Industry warns lawmakers of CCS threats,”~~
Energywire, November 25, 2019; and Richard Conniff, “Why Green Groups Are Split on Subsidizing Carbon Capture
~~Technology,” YaleEnvironment360, April 9, 2018.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
~~R44902 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED~~
23 Congressional Research Service R44902 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED 28