Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research,
Development, and Demonstration at the U.S.
Department of Energy

Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy
June 10, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42496
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

Summary
In 2012 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rule that would limit
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) to no more than 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour of
production from new fossil-fuel power plants with a capacity of 25 megawatts or larger. EPA
proposed the rule under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA, new natural gas-
fired combined-cycle power plants should be able to meet the proposed standards without
additional cost. However, new coal-fired plants would only be able to meet the standards by
installing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. EPA missed its original deadline
for issuing a final rule and has not indicated when it will publish the final rule.
The proposed rule sparked increased scrutiny of the future of CCS as a viable technology for
reducing CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. It also placed a new focus on whether the
U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) CCS research, development, and demonstration (RD&D)
program will achieve its vision of developing an advanced CCS technology portfolio ready by
2020 for large-scale CCS deployment.
Congress appropriated $3.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery
Act) for CCS RD&D at DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy in addition to annual appropriations for
CCS. The large influx of funding for industrial-scale CCS projects may accelerate development
and deployment of CCS in the United States. Since enactment of the Recovery Act, DOE has
shifted its RD&D emphasis to the demonstration phase of carbon capture technology. However,
the future deployment of CCS may take a different course if the major components of the DOE
program follow a path similar to DOE’s flagship CCS demonstration project, FutureGen, which
has experienced delays and multiple changes of scope and design since its inception in 2003.
To date, there are no commercial ventures in the United States that capture, transport, and inject
industrial-scale quantities of CO2 solely for the purposes of carbon sequestration. However, CCS
RD&D has embarked on commercial-scale demonstration projects for CO2 capture, injection, and
storage. The success of these projects will likely influence the future outlook for widespread
deployment of CCS technologies as a strategy for preventing large quantities of CO2 from
reaching the atmosphere while U.S. power plants continue to burn fossil fuels, mainly coal.
Given the pending EPA rule, congressional interest in the future of coal as a domestic energy
source appears directly linked to the future of CCS. In the short term, congressional support for
building new coal-fired power plants could be expressed through legislative action to modify or
block the proposed EPA rule. One bill, H.R. 2127, would prohibit EPA from finalizing any rule
limiting the emission of CO2 from any existing or new source that is a fossil fuel-fired electric
utility generating unit unless and until CCS becomes technologically and economically feasible.
Congress has not yet acted on H.R. 2127.
Alternatively, congressional oversight of the CCS RD&D program could help inform decisions
about the level of support for the program and help Congress gauge whether it is on track to meet
its goals. A DOE Inspector General audit report identified several weaknesses in the DOE
management of awards made under the Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (ICCS) program
funded by the Recovery Act. The audit report noted that addressing these management issues
would be important to future management of the program, given that DOE had only obligated
about $623 million of the $1.5 billion appropriated for the ICCS program under the Recovery Act
as of February 2013.

Congressional Research Service

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Issues for Congress .......................................................................................................................... 2
EPA Proposed Rule Limiting CO2 Emissions from Power Plants ............................................. 2
New Power Plants ............................................................................................................... 2
Existing Power Plants.......................................................................................................... 3
Implications for CCS Research, Development, and Deployment ....................................... 3
Audit Report from the DOE Inspector General ......................................................................... 3
Legislation ................................................................................................................................. 4
113th Congress ..................................................................................................................... 4
112th Congress ..................................................................................................................... 4
111th Congress ..................................................................................................................... 5
CCS Research, Development, and Demonstration: Overall Goals .................................................. 5
Program Areas ........................................................................................................................... 6
Recovery Act Funding for CCS Projects: A Lynchpin for Success?................................................ 9
CCS Demonstrations: CCPI, ICCS, and FutureGen 2.0 ............................................................ 9
Reasons for Withdrawal from the CCPI Program ............................................................. 11
Reshuffling of Funding for CCPI ...................................................................................... 12
Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Projects ............................................................... 13
FutureGen—A Special Case? ............................................................................................ 16
Geologic Sequestration/Storage: DOE RD&D for the Last Step in CCS ...................................... 18
Brief History of DOE Geological Sequestration/Storage Activities ........................................ 18
Current Status and Challenges to Carbon Sequestration/Storage ............................................ 20
Outlook .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Figures
Figure 1. Typical Trend in Cost Estimates for a New Technology As It Develops
from a Research Concept to Commercial Maturity ...................................................................... 8

Tables
Table 1. DOE Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration
Program Areas .............................................................................................................................. 7
Table 2. DOE CCS Demonstration Round 3 Projects .................................................................... 10
Table 3. DOE Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (ICCS) Projects ........................................ 13
Table 4. Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships ................................................................... 19

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 22
Congressional Research Service

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

Introduction
Carbon capture and sequestration (or storage)—known as CCS—is a physical process that
involves capturing manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source and storing it before its release to
the atmosphere. CCS could reduce the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere while allowing
the continued use of fossil fuels at power plants and other large, industrial facilities. An integrated
CCS system would include three main steps: (1) capturing CO2 at its source and separating it
from other gases; (2) purifying, compressing, and transporting the captured CO2 to the
sequestration site; and (3) injecting the CO2 into subsurface geological reservoirs. Following its
injection into a subsurface reservoir, the CO2 would need to be monitored for leakage and to
verify that it remains in the target geological reservoir. Once injection operations cease, a
responsible party would need to take title to the injected CO2 and ensure that it stays underground
in perpetuity.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has pursued research and development of aspects of the
three main steps leading to an integrated CCS system since 1997.1 Congress has appropriated
approximately $6 billion in total since FY2008 for CCS research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) at DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy: approximately $2.7 billion in total
annual appropriations (including FY2013), and $3.4 billion from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5, enacted February 17, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the Recovery
Act).
The large and rapid influx of funding for industrial-scale CCS projects from the Recovery Act
may accelerate development and demonstration of CCS in the United States, particularly if the
RD&D pursued by DOE’s CCS program achieves its goals as outlined in the department’s 2010
RD&D CCS Roadmap.2 However, the future deployment of CCS may take a different course if
the major components of the DOE program follow a path similar to DOE’s FutureGen project,
which has experienced delays and multiple changes of scope and design since its inception in
2003.3
This report aims to provide a snapshot of the DOE CCS program, including its current funding
levels and the budget request for FY2014, together with some discussion of the program’s
achievements and prospects for success in meeting its stated goals. Other CRS reports provide
substantial detail on the technological aspects of CCS (CRS Report R41325, Carbon Capture: A
Technology Assessment
) and information on various challenges to CCS deployment (CRS Report

1 U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Carbon Sequestration Program: Technology
Program Plan
, Enhancing the Success of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies, February 2011, p. 10,
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/2011_Sequestration_Program_Plan.pdf.
2 In part, the roadmap was intended to lay out a path for rapid technological development of CCS so that the United
States would continue to use fossil fuels. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory,
DOE/NETL Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage RD&D Roadmap, December 2010, http://www.netl.doe.gov/
technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/CCSRoadmap.pdf. Hereinafter referred to as the DOE 2010 CCS Roadmap.
3 As originally conceived in 2003, FutureGen would have been a 10-year project to build a coal-fired power plant that
would integrate carbon sequestration and hydrogen production while producing 275 megawatts of electricity, enough to
power about 150,000 average U.S. homes. The plant would have been a coal-gasification facility and would have
produced and sequestered between 1 million and 2 million tons of CO2 annually. FutureGen 2.0 differs from the
original concept for the plant, because it would retrofit an existing power plant in Meredosia, IL, with oxy-combustion
technology, and is funded largely by appropriations made available by the Recovery Act. See CRS Report R43028,
FutureGen: A Brief History and Issues for Congress, by Peter Folger.
Congressional Research Service
1

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

RL34621, Capturing CO2 from Coal-Fired Power Plants: Challenges for a Comprehensive
Strategy
, and CRS Report RL34601, Community Acceptance of Carbon Capture and
Sequestration Infrastructure: Siting Challenges
). In addition, one report focuses solely on the
FutureGen project (CRS Report R43028, FutureGen: A Brief History and Issues for Congress).
Issues for Congress
EPA Proposed Rule Limiting CO2 Emissions from Power Plants
New Power Plants
On March 27, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rule that
would limit emissions from new fossil-fuel power plants to no more than 1,000 pounds of CO2
per megawatt-hour of energy produced. It would apply to plants with a generating capacity of
greater than 25 megawatts.4 EPA proposed the rule under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
amending 40 C.F.R. Part 60. According to EPA, new natural gas-fired combined-cycle power
plants should be able to meet the proposed standards without additional cost. However, new coal-
fired plants would only be able to meet the standards by using CCS.5
The prospects for building new coal-fired electricity generating plants depend on many factors,
such as costs of competing fuel sources (e.g., natural gas), electricity demand, regulatory costs,
infrastructure (including rail) and electric grid development, and others. However, the EPA
proposed rule clearly identifies CCS as the essential technology required if new coal-fired power
plants are to be built in the United States.6
The proposed rule has sparked increased scrutiny of the future of CCS as a viable technology for
reducing CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. The proposed rule also places a new focus
on DOE’s CCS RD&D program—whether it will achieve its vision of “having an advanced CCS
technology portfolio ready by 2020 for large-scale CCS demonstration that provides for the safe,
cost-effective carbon management that will meet our Nation’s goals for reducing [greenhouse
gas] emissions.”7
The EPA missed its April 2013 deadline to issue the final rule on new fossil-fuel power plants and
did not give a date certain for when the rule would be finalized, citing in part its need to review
the more than 2 million comments the agency received.8

4 EPA Fact Sheet: Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants, http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/
pdfs/20120327factsheet.pdf.
5 Ibid. According to EPA, new power plants that use CCS would have the option to use a 30-year average of CO2
emissions to meet the standard, rather than meeting the annual standard each year. Under this option, new plants would
be allowed to emit 1,800 pounds per megawatt-hour for the first 10 years of operation (a standard that should be
achievable by an efficient supercritical coal-fired facility or an integrated gasification combined-cycle plant), provided
that the facility committed to a 600 pound per megawatt-hour standard for the following 20 years of operation.
6 The proposed rule is for new power plants, and exempts existing power plants as well as plants that make
“modifications” as defined under EPA’s New Source Performance Standards. See 40 C.F.R. Part 60.
7 DOE 2010 CCS Roadmap, p. 3.
8 Jean Chemnick, “Questions Loom as EPA Misses Deadline for New Power Plant Rule,” Greenwire, April 15, 2013,
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1059979488/search?keyword=1%2C000+pounds.
Congressional Research Service
2

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

Existing Power Plants
The proposed rule would address only new power plants. However, in remarks to reporters, acting
EPA Administrator Robert Perciasepe stated that the EPA would also address limiting greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from existing power plants.9 Perciasepe also noted that the agency expects
to propose a standard for existing plants within 18 months of April 2013.
Implications for CCS Research, Development, and Deployment
Congress has appropriated funding for DOE to pursue CCS research and development since 1997
and signaled its interest in CCS technology by awarding $3.4 billion from the Recovery Act to
CCS programs at DOE. Given the pending EPA rule, congressional interest in the future of coal
as a domestic energy source appears directly linked to the future of CCS. In the short term,
congressional support for building new coal-fired power plants could be expressed through
legislative action to modify or block the proposed EPA rule. Alternatively, congressional
oversight of the DOE CCS RD&D program could help inform decisions about the level of
support for the program and help Congress gauge whether the program is on track to meet its
goals. The history of CCS RD&D at DOE and the pathway of some its signature programs, such
as FutureGen, invite questions about whether the RD&D results will enable widespread
deployment of CCS in the United States within the next decade.
Audit Report from the DOE Inspector General
The DOE Inspector General issued an audit report on March 21, 2013, that identified several
weaknesses in the DOE management of awards made under the Industrial Carbon Capture and
Storage Program funded by the Recovery Act.10 Its main findings were that DOE had not
adequately documented the approval and rationale to use $575 million of the $1.1 billion in
Recovery Act funding reviewed during the Inspector General’s audit to accelerate existing
projects rather than proceeding with new awards. According to the audit report, Recovery Act
funding guidance stipulated that funds be awarded to competitively selected projects within the
Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Program. In its explanation, DOE officials told the
Inspector General that the department had not received the number of applications anticipated
under the competitive solicitation, and issuing another solicitation was not feasible due to time
constraints on obligating Recovery Act funding.11
The Inspector General report also identified several other weaknesses with the management of
Recovery Act awards. These included reimbursing award recipients nearly $17 million without
obtaining or reviewing adequate supporting documentation; awarding over $90 million to
recipients even though the merit review process identified significant financial and/or technical
issues; and assorted other findings. The audit report noted that addressing these management

9 John M. Broder, “E.P.A Will Delay Rule Limiting Carbon Emissions at New Power Plants,” New York Times, April
12, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/science/earth/epa-to-delay-emissions-rule-at-new-power-plants.html?
_r=0.
10 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: The Department of Energy’s Industrial
Carbon Capture and Storage Program Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
, OAS-RA-13-15,
March 2013.
11 Ibid., p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
3

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

issues would be important to future management of the program, given that DOE had only
obligated about $623 million of the $1.5 billion appropriated under ARRA as of February 2013.
Legislation
Although DOE has pursued aspects of CCS RD&D since 1997, the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-58) provided a 10-year authorization for the basic framework of CCS research and
development at DOE.12 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140)
amended the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to include, among other provisions, authorization for
seven large-scale CCS demonstration projects (in addition to FutureGen) that would integrate the
carbon capture, transportation, and sequestration steps.13 (Large-scale demonstration programs
and their potential significance are discussed below.) It can be argued that, since enactment of
EISA, the focus and funding within the CCS RD&D program has shifted towards large-scale
capture technology development through these and other demonstration projects.
In addition to the annual appropriations provided for CCS RD&D, the legislation most significant
to federal CCS RD&D program activities since passage of EISA has been the Recovery Act (P.L.
111-5). As discussed below, $3.4 billion in funding from the Recovery Act was intended to
expand and accelerate the commercial deployment of CCS technologies to allow for commercial-
scale demonstration in both new and retrofitted power plants and industrial facilities by 2020.
113th Congress
A bill introduced on May 23, 2013, H.R. 2127, would prohibit the EPA from finalizing any rule
limiting the emission of CO2 from any existing or new source that is a fossil fuel-fired electric
utility generating unit unless and until CCS becomes technologically and economically feasible.
Per the discussion above, the legislation appears to be in response to the EPA proposed rule
limiting emissions from new fossil-fuel power plants to no more than 1,000 pounds of CO2 per
megawatt-hour of energy produced.
112th Congress
In the 112th Congress, a few bills were introduced that would have addressed aspects of CCS
RD&D. The Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Sequestration Program Amendments Act
of 2011 (S. 699) would have provided federal indemnification of up to $10 billion per project to
early adopters of CCS technology (large CCS demonstration projects).14 The New Manhattan
Project for Energy Independence (H.R. 301) would have created a system of grants and prizes for
a variety of technologies, including CCS, that would contribute to reducing U.S. dependence on
foreign sources of energy. Other bills introduced would have provided tax incentives for the use
of CO2 in enhanced oil recovery (S. 1321), or would have eliminated the minimum capture
requirement for the CO2 sequestration tax credit (H.R. 1023). Other bills were also introduced
that would have affected other aspects of CCS RD&D financing, such as loan guarantees. None

12 P.L. 109-58, Title IX, Subtitle F, §963; 42 U.S.C. 16293.
13 P.L. 110-140, Title VII, Subtitles A and B.
14 Among other provisions, the bill would also have amended EISA to expand the number of large CCS demonstration
projects from 7 to 10.
Congressional Research Service
4

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

of the bills introduced in the 112th Congress affecting federal CCS RD&D, other than the
continuing resolution (CR), was enacted.
111th Congress
In the 111th Congress, two bills that would have authorized a national cap-and-trade system for
limiting the emission of greenhouse gases (H.R. 2454 and S. 1733) also would have created
programs aimed at accelerating the commercial availability of CCS. The programs would have
generated funding from a surcharge on electricity delivered from the combustion of fossil fuels—
approximately $1 billion per year—and made the funding available for grants, contracts, and
financial assistance to eligible entities seeking to develop CCS technology. Another source of
funding in the bills was to come from a program that would distribute emission allowances to
“early movers,” entities that installed CCS technology on up to a total of 20 gigawatts of
generating capacity. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, but neither bill was
enacted.
CCS Research, Development, and Demonstration:
Overall Goals

The U.S. Department of Energy states that the mission for the DOE Office of Fossil Energy is “to
ensure the availability of ultra-clean (near-zero emissions), abundant, low-cost domestic energy
from coal to fuel economic prosperity, strengthen energy security, and enhance environmental
quality.”15 Over the past several years, the DOE Fossil Energy Research and Development
Program has increasingly shifted activities performed under its Coal Program toward
emphasizing CCS as the main focus.16 The Coal Program represented 69% of total Fossil Energy
Research and Development appropriations in FY2012 and in FY2013, and 64% in the FY2014
request,17 indicating that CCS has come to dominate coal R&D at DOE. This reflects DOE’s view
that “there is a growing consensus that steps must be taken to significantly reduce [greenhouse
gas] emissions from energy use throughout the world at a pace consistent to stabilize atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, and that CCS is a promising option for addressing this challenge.”18
DOE also acknowledges that the cost of deploying currently available CCS technologies is very
high, and that to be effective as a technology for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from power
plants, the costs for CCS must be reduced.19 The challenge of reducing the costs of CCS

15 DOE 2010 CCS Roadmap, p. 2.
16 The Coal Program contains CCS RD&D activities, and is within DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy, Fossil Energy
Research and Development, as listed in DOE detailed budget justifications for each fiscal year. See, for example, U.S.
Department of Energy, FY2014 Congressional Budget Request, volume 3, Fossil Energy Research and Development,
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/Volume3_1.pdf. The percentage of funding allocated to the Coal Program
is calculated based on the subtotal for Fossil Energy Research and Development prior to rescission of prior year
balances, which were $187 million for FY2012 and $42 million for FY2013, respectively.
17 U.S. Department of Energy, FY2013 Congressional Budget Request, volume 3, Fossil Energy Research and
Development
, p. 411.
18 DOE 2010 CCS Roadmap, p. 3.
19 DOE states that the cost of deploying currently available CCS post-combustion technology on a supercritical
pulverized coal-fired power plant would increase the cost of electricity by 80%. DOE 2010 CCS Roadmap, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
5

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

technology is difficult to quantify, in part because there are no examples of currently operating
commercial-scale coal-fired power plants equipped with CCS. Nor is it easy to predict when
lower-cost CCS technology will be available for widespread deployment in the United States.
Nevertheless, DOE observes that “the United States can no longer afford the luxury of
conventional long-lead times for RD&D to bear results.”20 Thus the coal RD&D program is
focused on achieving results that would allow for an advanced CCS technology portfolio to be
ready by 2020 for large-scale demonstration.
The following section describes the components of the CCS activities within DOE’s coal R&D
program and their funding history since FY2012. This report focuses on this time period because
during that time DOE obligated Recovery Act funding for its CCS programs, greatly expanding
the CCS R&D portfolio, which was expected to accelerate the transition of CCS technology to
industry for deployment and commercialization.21
Program Areas
The 2010 RD&D CCS Roadmap described 10 different program areas pursued by DOE’s Coal
Program within the Office of Fossil Energy: (1) Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP); (2)
Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC); (3) Advanced Turbines; (4) Carbon
Sequestration; (5) Solid State Energy Conversion Fuel Cells; (6) Fuels; (7) Advanced Research;
(8) Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI); (9) FutureGen; and (10) Industrial Carbon Capture and
Storage Projects (ICCS).22 DOE changed the program structure after FY2010, renaming and
consolidating program areas. Table 1 shows the current program structure and indicates which
programs received Recovery Act funding.
Some program areas are directly focused on one or more of the three steps of CCS: capture,
transportation, and storage. For example, the Carbon Storage program area focuses on the third
step: evaluating prospective sites for long-term storage of CO2 underground. In contrast,
FutureGen from the outset was envisioned as combining all three steps: a zero-emission fossil
fuel plant that would capture its emissions and sequester them in a geologic reservoir.
RD&D is also divided among different industrial sectors in two program areas: the Clean Coal
Power Initiative (CCPI) program area and Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Projects (ICCS)
program area. The CCPI program area focuses on the demonstration phase of carbon capture
technology for coal-based power plants. The ICCS program area demonstrates carbon capture
technology for the non-power plant industrial sector.23 Both these program areas focus on the
demonstration component of RD&D, and account for $2.3 billion of the $3.4 billion appropriated
for CCS RD&D in the Recovery Act in FY2009. From the budgetary perspective, the Recovery
Act funding shifted the emphasis of CCS RD&D to large, industrial demonstration projects for
carbon capture. The CCPI and ICCS program areas are discussed in more detail below.

20 DOE 2010 CCS Roadmap, p. 3.
21 Ibid., p. 2.
22 Ibid., p. 11.
23 Ibid., p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
6

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

Table 1. DOE Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and
Demonstration Program Areas
(funding in $ thousands, FY2012-FY2014, including Recovery Act funding)
Fossil Energy


Research and
FY2013
Development Coal
Recovery
(annualized
FY2014
Program Areas
Program
Act FY2012 CR)a
(Request)
CCS
FutureGen 2.0
1,000,000 0 0
0
Demonstrations

Clean Coal Power
800,000 0 0
0
Initiative (CCPI)
Industrial
Carbon
1,520,000 0 0
0
Capture and
Storage Projects
(ICCS)

Site 80,000 0 0
0
Characterization,
Training, Program
Direction

Carbon Capture and Carbon Capture
— 66,986 69,320 112,000
Storage, and Power
Systems

Advanced
Energy
— 97,169
100,554
48,000
Systems
Carbon
Storage

— 112,208 116,116
61,095
Cross
Cutting
— 47,946 49,435
20,525
Research
NETL
Coal
35,011 35,225
35,011
Research and
Development
3,400,000
359,320
370,650
276,631
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, FY2013 Congressional Budget Request, volume 3, Fossil Energy Research and
Development
, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/Volume3_1.pdf. U.S. Department of Energy, Carbon
Sequestration, Recovery Act, http://www.fe.doe.gov/recovery/index.html; U.S. Department of Energy, FY2014
Congressional Budget Request, volume 3, Fossil Energy Research and Development, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2013/04/f0/Volume3_1.pdf.
Notes:
a. According to DOE, the FY2013 column amounts reflect the continuing resolution (CR, P.L. 112-175) levels
annualized to a full year.
This shift in emphasis to the demonstration phase of carbon capture technology is not surprising,
and appears to heed recommendations from many experts who have called for large, industrial-
scale carbon capture demonstration projects.24 Primarily, the call for large-scale CCS

24 See, for example, the presentations given by Edward Rubin of Carnegie Mellon University, Howard Herzog of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Jeff Phillips of the Electric Power Research Institute, at the CRS seminar
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7




















Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

demonstration projects that capture 1 million metric tons or more of CO2 per year reflects the
need to reduce the additional costs to the power plant or industrial facility associated with
capturing the CO2 before it is emitted to the atmosphere. The capture component of CCS is the
costliest component, according to most experts.25 The higher costs of power plants with CCS,
compared to plants without CCS, and the uncertainty in cost estimates results in part from a
dearth of information about outstanding technical questions in carbon capture technology at the
industrial scale.26
In comparative studies of cost estimates for other environmental technologies, such as for power
plant scrubbers that remove sulfur and nitrogen compounds from power plant emissions (SO2 and
NOx), some experts note that the farther away a technology is from commercial reality, the more
uncertain is its estimated cost. At the beginning of the RD&D process, initial cost estimates could
be low, but could typically increase through the demonstration phase before decreasing after
successful deployment and commercialization. Figure 1 shows a cost estimate curve of this type.
Figure 1. Typical Trend in Cost Estimates for a New Technology As It Develops
from a Research Concept to Commercial Maturity
ty
aci

Cap
t of
Uni

per
l Cost
ta
pi
a
C

Researc
ar h
Devel
e opmen
opme t Demons
t
n Demonstr
t
t Demons r
trat
a ion
o
De
D pl
Depl
p
Deploy
o ment
ment
m
Mat
a ure
u
T
re T
re e
T c
e hnology
og
Time
m or
Cu
or
m
Cu u
m lativ
i e
v Capaci
Ca
t
paci y
t

Source: Adapted from S. Dalton, “CO2 Capture at Coal Fired Power Plants—Status and Outlook,” 9th
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Washington, DC, November, 16-20, 2008.


(...continued)
Capturing Carbon for Climate Control: What’s in the Toolbox and What’s Missing, November 18, 2009. (Presentations
available from Peter Folger at 7-1517.) Rubin stated that at least 10 full-scale demonstration projects would be needed
to establish the reliability and true cost of CCS in power plant applications. Herzog also called for at least 10
demonstration plants worldwide that capture and sequester a million metric tons of CO2 per year. In his presentation,
Phillips stated that large-scale demonstrations are critical to building confidence among power plant owners.
25 For example, an MIT report estimated that the costs of capture could be 80% or more of the total CCS costs. John
Deutsch et al., The Future of Coal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, 2007,
Executive Summary, p. xi.
26 The Future of Coal, p. 97.
Congressional Research Service
8

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

Deploying commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects—an emphasis within the DOE CCS
RD&D program—would therefore provide cost estimates closer to operational conditions rather
than laboratory- or pilot-plant-scale projects. In the case of SO2 and NOx scrubbers, efforts
typically took two decades or more to bring new concepts (such as combined SO2 and NOx
capture systems) to the commercial stage. As Figure 1 indicates, costs for new technologies tend
to fall over time with successful deployment and commercialization. It would be reasonable to
expect a similar trend for CO2 capture costs if the technologies become widely deployed.27
Recovery Act Funding for CCS Projects: A Lynchpin
for Success?

The bulk of Recovery Act funds for CCS ($3.32 billion, or 98%) was directed to three
subprograms organized under the CCS Demonstrations Programs; CCPI, ICCS, and FutureGen
(Table 1). Under the 2010 CCS Roadmap, and with the large infusion of funding from the
Recovery Act, DOE’s goal is to develop the technologies to allow for commercial-scale
demonstration in both new and retrofitted power plants and industrial facilities by 2020. The
DOE 2011 Strategic Plan sets a more specific target: to bring at least five commercial-scale CCS
demonstration projects online by 2016.28
It could be argued that in its allocation of Recovery Act funding, DOE was heeding the
recommendations of experts (see footnote 24) who identified commercial-scale demonstration
projects as the most important component, the lynchpin, for future development and deployment
of CCS in the United States. It could also be argued that much of the future success of CCS is
riding on these three programs. Accordingly, the following section provides a snapshot of the
CCPI, ICCS, and FutureGen programs, and a brief discussion of some of their accomplishments
and challenges.
CCS Demonstrations: CCPI, ICCS, and FutureGen 2.0
The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) was an ongoing program prior to the $800 million
funding increase from the Recovery Act. Recovery Act funding now is being used to expand
activities in this program area for CCPI Round 3 beyond developing technologies to reduce
sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury pollutants from power plants.29 After enactment of the Recovery
Act, DOE did not request additional funding for CCPI under its Fossil Energy program in the
annual appropriations process (Table 1 shows zeroes for FY2012-FY2014). Rather, in the
FY2010 DOE budget justification, DOE stated that funding for the these projects in CCPI Round
3 would be supported through the Recovery Act, and as a result “DOE will make dramatic
progress in demonstrating CCS at commercial scale using these funds without the need for
additional resources for demonstration in 2010.”30

27 For a fuller discussion of the relationship between costs of developing technologies analogous to CCS, such as SO2
and NOx scrubbers, see CRS Report R41325, Carbon Capture: A Technology Assessment, by Peter Folger.
28 U.S. Department of Energy, Strategic Plan, May 2011, p. 18, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2011_DOE_Strategic_Plan_.pdf.
29 DOE had solicited and awarded funding for CCPI projects in two previous rounds of funding: CCPI Round 1 and
Round 2. The Recovery Act funds were to be allocated CCPI Round 3, focusing on projects that utilize CCS
technology and/or the beneficial reuse of CO2. For more details, see http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/
powersystems/cleancoal/.
30 U.S. Department of Energy, Detailed Budget Justifications FY2010, volume 7, Fossil Energy Research and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

According to the 2010 DOE CCS Roadmap, Recovery Act funds are being used for these
demonstration projects to “allow researchers broader CCS commercial-scale experience by
expanding the range of technologies, applications, fuels, and geologic formations that are being
tested.”31 DOE selected six projects under CCPI Round 3 through two separate solicitations.32
The total DOE share of funding would have been $1.75 billion for the six projects in five states:
Alabama, California, North Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia (Table 2). However, the projects in
Alabama, North Dakota, and West Virginia withdrew from the program, and currently the DOE
share for the remaining three projects is $1.03 billion (of a total of over $6 billion for total
expected costs). With the withdrawal of three CCPI Round 3 projects, DOE’s share of the total
program costs shrank from over 22% to approximately 17%.
Table 2. DOE CCS Demonstration Round 3 Projects
Metric Tons of
DOE Share of
Total Project
CO2 Captured
Round 3
Funding
Cost
Percent
Annually
Project
Project Location
($ millions)
($ millions)
DOE Share
(millions)
Status
Texas Clean
Penwell, TX
450
1,727
26%
2.7b Active
Energy Project
Hydrogen Energy
Kern County,
408 4,028 10% 2.6
Active
California Project
CA
NRG Energy
Thompsons,
167 338 50% 1.4
Active
Project
TX
AEP Mountaineer
New Haven,
334 668 50% 1.5
Withdrawn
Project
WV
Southern
Mobile,
AL
295 665 44% 1
Withdrawn
Company Project
Basin Electric
Beulah, ND
100
387
26%
0.9
Withdrawn
Power Project
Total
1,754
7,813
22.4%
10.1

Total, Active
1,025
6,093
16.8%
6.7
Projectsa
Sources: DOE Fossil Energy Techline; Environment News Service (March 12, 2010), http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/mar2010/2010-03-12-093.html; NETL CCPI website, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/
coalpower/cctc/ccpi/index.html; NETL Factsheet: Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC, March
2012,http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/FE0002650.pdf; NETL Factsheet Hydrogen Energy
California Project, May 2013, http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/FE0000663.pdf; NETL
Factsheet BRG Energy: W.A. Parish Post Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration Project, March 2012,
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/FE0003311.pdf.
Notes: DOE funding for the NRG Energy Project was initially announced as up to $154 million (see March 9,
2009, DOE Techline, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2010/10005-

(...continued)
Development, p. 35, http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/10budget/Content/Volumes/Volume7.pdf.
31 DOE 2010 CCS Roadmap, p. 15.
32 The first solicitation closing date was January 20, 2009; the second solicitation closing date was August 24, 2009.
Thus the first set of project proposals were submitted prior to enactment of the Recovery Act. See
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/.
Congressional Research Service
10

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

NRG_Energy_Selected_to_Receive_DOE.html). A May 2010 DOE fact sheet indicates that funding for NRG is
$167 million (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/FE0003311.pdf).
a. Total include amounts that were reallocated from withdrawn projects to active projects.
b. According to NETL, this amount could be up to 3 million metric tons annually.
Reasons for Withdrawal from the CCPI Program
Commercial sector partners identified a number of reasons for withdrawing from the CCPI
program, including finances, uncertainty regarding future regulations, and uncertainty regarding
the future national climate policy.
Southern Company—Plant Barry 160 MW Project
Southern Company withdrew its Alabama Plant Barry project from the CCPI program on
February 22, 2010, slightly more than two months after DOE Secretary Chu announced $295
million in DOE funding for the 11-year, $665 million project that would have captured up to
1 million tons of CO2 per year from a 160 megawatt coal-fired generation unit.33 According to
some sources, Southern Company’s decision was based on concern about the size of the
company’s needed commitment (approximately $350 million) to the project, and its need for
more time to perform due diligence on its financial commitment, among other reasons.34 Southern
Company continues work on a much smaller CCS project that would capture CO2 from a 25 MW
unit at Plant Barry.
Basin Electric Power—Antelope Valley 120 MW Project
On July 1, 2009, Secretary Chu announced $100 million in DOE funding for a project that would
capture approximately 1 million tons of CO2 per year from a 120 MW electric-equivalent gas
stream from the Antelope Valley power station near Beulah, ND.35 In December 2010, the Basin
Electric Power Cooperative withdrew its project from the CCPI program, citing regulatory
uncertainty with regard to capturing CO2, uncertainty about the project’s cost (one source
indicates that the company estimated $500 million total cost; DOE estimated $387 million—see
Table 2),36 uncertainty of environmental legislation, and lack of a long-term energy strategy for
the country.37 The project would have supplied the captured CO2 to an existing pipeline that
transports CO2 from the Great Plains Synfuels Plant near Beulah for enhanced oil recovery in
Canada’s Weyburn field approximately 200 miles north in Saskatchewan.

33 MIT Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies, Plant Barry Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
Project
, http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/plant_barry.html.
34 Ibid.
35 U.S. DOE, Fossil Energy Techline, Secretary Chu Announces Two New Projects to Reduce Emissions from Coal
Plants
, July 1, 2009, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2009/09043-DOE_Announces_CCPI_Projects.html.
36 Lauren Donovan, “Basin Shelves Lignite’s First Carbon Capture Project,” Bismarck Tribune, December 17, 2010,
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/a5fb7ed8-0a1b-11e0-b0ea-001cc4c03286.html.
37 Daryl Hill and Tracie Bettenhausen, “Fresh Tech, Difficult Decisions: Basin Electric has a History of Trying New
Technology,” Basin Electric Power Cooperative newsletter, January-February 2011, http://www.basinelectric.com/
Miscellaneous/pdf/FeatureArticles/Fresh_Tech,_difficul.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

American Electric Power—Mountaineer 235 MW Project
In July 2011 American Electric Power decided to halt its plans to build a carbon capture plant for
a 235 MW generation unit at its 1.3 gigawatt Mountaineer power plant in New Haven, WV. The
project represented Phase 2 of an ongoing CCPI project. Secretary Chu had earlier announced a
$334 million award for the project on December 4, 2009.38 According to some sources, AEP
dropped the project because the company was not certain that state regulators would allow it to
recover the additional costs for the CCS project through rate increases charged to its customers.39
In addition, company officials cited broader economic and policy conditions as reasons for
cancelling the project.40 Some commentators suggested that congressional inaction on setting
limits on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the weak economy, may have diminished the
incentives for a company like AEP to invest in CCS.41 One source concluded that “Phase 2 has
been cancelled due to unknown climate policy.”42
Reshuffling of Funding for CCPI
According to DOE, $140 million of the $295 million previously allotted to the Southern
Company Plant Barry project was divided between the Texas Clean Energy project and the
Hydrogen Energy California project. DOE provided additional funding, resulting in each project
receiving an additional $100 million above its initial awards.43 The remaining funding from the
canceled Plant Barry project (up to $154 million) was allotted to the NRG Energy project in
Texas (see Table 2).44
According to a DOE source, selection of the Basin Electric Power project was announced but a
cooperative agreement was never awarded by DOE.45 Funds that were to be obligated for the
Basin project could therefore have been reallocated within the department, but were rescinded by
Congress in FY2011 appropriations.
Some of the funding for the AEP Mountaineer project was rescinded by Congress in FY2012
appropriations legislation (P.L. 112-74). In the report accompanying P.L. 112-74, Congress
rescinded a total of $187 million of prior-year balances from the Fossil Energy Research and
Development account.46 The rescission did not apply to amounts previously appropriated under

38 U.S. DOE, Fossil Energy Techline, Secretary Chu Announces $3 Billion Investment for Carbon Capture and
Sequestration
, December 4, 2009, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2009/09081-
Secretary_Chu_Announces_CCS_Invest.html.
39 Matthew L. Wald and John M. Broder, “Utility Shelves Ambitious Plan to Limit Carbon,” New York Times, July 13,
2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/business/energy-environment/utility-shelves-plan-to-capture-carbon-
dioxide.html?_r=1.
40 Michael G. Morris, chairman of AEP, quoted in New York Times article by Wald and Broder, July 13, 2011.
41 Wald and Broder, New York Times, July 13, 2011.
42 MIT Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies, AEP Mountaineer Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage Project
, http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/aep_alstom_mountaineer.html.
43 Telephone conversation with Joseph Giove, DOE Office of Fossil Energy, March 19, 2012.
44 U.S. DOE Fossil Energy Techline, “Secretary Chu Announces Up To $154 Million for NRG Energy’s Carbon
Capture and Storage Project in Texas,” March 9, 2010, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2010/10005-
NRG_Energy_Selected_to_Receive_DOE.html.
45 Telephone conversation with Joseph Giove, DOE Office of Fossil Energy, April 11, 2011.
46 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

P.L. 111-5; however, funding for the AEP Mountaineer project that was provided by the Recovery
Act and not spent was returned to the Treasury and not made available to the CCPI program.47
Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Projects
The original DOE ICCS program was divided into two main areas: Area 1, consisting of large
industrial demonstration projects; and Area 2, consisting of projects to test innovative concepts
for the beneficial reuse of CO2.48 Under Area 1, the first phase of the program consisted of 12
projects cost-shared with private industry, intended to increase investment in clean industrial
technologies and sequestration projects. Phase 1 projects averaged approximately seven months
in duration. Following Phase 1, DOE selected three projects for Phase 2 for design, construction,
and operation.49 The three Phase 2 projects are listed as large-scale demonstration projects in
Table 3. The total share of DOE funding for the three projects, provided by the Recovery Act, is
$686 million, or approximately 64% of the sum total Area 1 program cost of $1.075 billion.
Under Area 2, the initial phase consisted of $17.4 million in Recovery Act funding and $7.7
million in private-sector funding for 12 projects to engage in feasibility studies to examine the
beneficial reuse of CO2.50 In July 2010, DOE selected six projects from the original 12 projects
for a second phase of funding to find ways of converting captured CO2 into useful products such
as fuel, plastics, cement, and fertilizer. The six projects are listed under “Innovative
Concepts/Beneficial Use” in Table 3. The total share of DOE funding for the 6 projects, provided
by the Recovery Act, is $141.5 million, or approximately 71% of the sum total cost of $198.2
million.
Table 3. DOE Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (ICCS) Projects
(showing DOE share of funding and total project cost)
DOE Share of Total Project
Percent
ICCS Project
Funding
Cost
DOE
Name
Location
Type of Project
($ millions)
($ millions)
Share
Air Products &
Port Arthur,
Large-Scale
284 431 66%
Chemicals, Inc.
TX
Demonstration
Archer Daniels
Decatur, IL
Large-Scale
141 208 68%
Midland Co.
Demonstration
Leucadia Energy,
Lake Charles,
Large-Scale
261 436 60%
LLC
LA
Demonstration
Alcoa, Inc.
Alcoa Center,
Innovative
13.5 16.9 80%
PA
Concepts/Beneficial Use

(...continued)
conference report to accompany H.R. 2055, 112th Cong., 1st sess., December 15, 2011, H.Rept. 112-331 (Washington:
GPO, 2011), p. 851.
47 Telephone conversation with Joseph Giove, DOE Office of Fossil Energy, March 19, 2012.
48 Email from Regis K. Conrad, Director, Division of Cross-Cutting Research, DOE, March 20, 2012.
49 U.S. DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Major Demonstrations, Industrial Capture and Storage (ICCS):
Area 1
, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/iccs1/index.html#.
50 U.S. DOE, Recovery Act, Innovative Concepts for Beneficial Reuse of Carbon Dioxide, http://fossil.energy.gov/
recovery/projects/beneficial_reuse.html.
Congressional Research Service
13

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

DOE Share of Total Project
Percent
ICCS Project
Funding
Cost
DOE
Name
Location
Type of Project
($ millions)
($ millions)
Share
Novomer, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Innovative
20.5 25.6 80%
Concepts/Beneficial Use
Touchstone
Triadelphia, PA
Innovative
6.7 8.4 80%
Research Lab,
Concepts/Beneficial Use
Ltd.
Phycal, LLC
Highland
Innovative
51.4 65 80%
Heights, OH
Concepts/Beneficial Use
Skyonic Corp.
Austin, TX
Innovative
28 39.6
70%
Concepts/Beneficial Use
Calera Corp.
Los Gatos, CA
Innovative
21.4 42.7 50%
Concepts/Beneficial Use
Air Products &
Al entown, PA
Advanced Gasification
71.7 75 96%
Chemicals, Inc.
Technologies
Eltron Research
Boulder, CO
Advanced Gasification
71.4 73.7 97%
& Development,
Technologies
Inc.
Research
Research
Advanced Gasification
168.8 174
97%
Triangle Institute
Triangle Park,
Technologies
NC
GE Energy
Schenectady,
Advanced Turbo-
31.3 62.6 50%
NY
Machinery
Siemens Energy
Orlando, FL
Advanced Turbo-
32.3 64.7 50%
Machinery
Clean Energy
Rancho
Advanced Turbo-
30 42.9
70%
Systems, Inc.
Cordova, CA
Machinery
Ramgen Power
Bellevue, WA
Advanced Turbo-
50 79.7
63%
Systems
Machinery
ADA-ES, Inc.
Littleton, CO
Post-Combustion
15 18.8
80%
Capture
Alstom Power
Windsor, CT
Post-Combustion
10 12.5
80%
Capture
Membrane
Menlo Park, CA Post-Combustion
15 18.8
80%
Technology &
Capture
Research, Inc.
Praxair Tonawanda,
Post-Combustion
35 55.6
63%
NY
Capture
Siemens Energy,
Pittsburgh, PA
Post-Combustion
15 18.8
80%
Inc.
Capture
Board of
Champaign, IL
Geologic Site
5 6.5
77%
Trustees U. of IL
Characterization
N. American
Greenwood
Geologic Site
5 7.85
64%
Power Group,
Vil age, CO
Characterization
Ltd.
Congressional Research Service
14

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

DOE Share of Total Project
Percent
ICCS Project
Funding
Cost
DOE
Name
Location
Type of Project
($ millions)
($ millions)
Share
Sandia
Houston, TX
Geologic Site
4.38 5.63 78%
Technologies,
Characterization
LLC
S. Carolina
Columbia, SC
Geologic Site
5 6.25
80%
Research
Characterization
Foundation
Terralog
Arcadia, CA
Geologic Site
5 6.25
80%
Technologies
Characterization
USA, Inc.
U. of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL
Geologic Site
5 10.8
46%
Characterization
U. of Kansas
Lawrence, KS
Geologic Site
5 6.29
80%
Center for
Characterization
Research, Inc.
U. of Texas at
Austin, TX
Geologic Site
5 6.25
80%
Austin
Characterization
U. of Utah
Salt Lake City,
Geologic Site
5 7.23
69%
UT
Characterization
U. of Wyoming
Laramie, WY
Geologic Site
5 5
100%
Characterization


Totals
1,422.4 2,038.4
70%
Source: Emails from Regis K. Conrad, Director, Division of Cross-Cutting Research, DOE, March 20 and March
27, 2012; U.S. DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Major Demonstrations, Industrial Capture and Storage
(ICCS): Area 1
, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/iccs1/index.html#; U.S. DOE, Carbon Capture
and Storage from Industrial Sources, Industrial Carbon Capture Project Selections,
http://fossil.energy.gov/recovery/
projects/iccs_projects_0907101.pdf.
Notes: Table is ordered from top to bottom by type of project: Large-Scale Demonstration; Innovative
Concepts/Beneficial Use; Advanced Gasification Technologies; Advanced Turbo-Machinery; Post-Combustion
Capture; and Geologic Site Characterization. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Since its original conception, the DOE ICCS program has expanded with an additional 22
projects, funded under the Recovery Act, to accelerate promising technologies for CCS.51 In its
listing of the 22 projects, DOE groups them into four general categories: (1) Large-Scale Testing
of Advanced Gasification Technologies; (2) Advanced Turbo-Machinery to Lower Emissions
from Industrial Sources; (3) Post-Combustion CO2 Capture with Increased Efficiencies and
Decreased Costs; and (4) Geologic Storage Site Characterization.52 The total share of DOE
funding for the 22 projects, provided by Recovery Act, is $594.9 million, or approximately 78%
of the sum total cost of $765.2 million.
Overall, the total share of federal funding for all the ICCS projects combined is $1.422 billion, or
approximately 70% of the sum total cost of $2.038 billion.

51 Email from Regis K. Conrad, Director, Division of Cross-Cutting Research, DOE, March 20, 2012.
52 U.S. DOE, Carbon Capture and Storage from Industrial Sources, Industrial Carbon Capture Project Selections,
http://fossil.energy.gov/recovery/projects/iccs_projects_0907101.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

FutureGen—A Special Case?
On February 27, 2003, President George W. Bush proposed a 10-year, $1 billion project to build a
coal-fired power plant that would integrate carbon sequestration and hydrogen production while
producing 275 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 150,000 average U.S. homes. As
originally conceived, the plant would have been a coal-gasification facility and would have
produced and sequestered between 1 million and 2 million tons of CO2 annually. On January 30,
2008, DOE announced that it was “restructuring” the FutureGen program away from a single,
state-of-the-art “living laboratory” of integrated R&D technologies—a single plant—to instead
pursue a new strategy of multiple commercial demonstration projects.53 In the restructured
program, DOE would support up to two or three demonstration projects of at least 300 megawatts
that would sequester at least 1 million tons of CO2 per year.
In the Bush Administration’s FY2009 budget, DOE requested $156 million for the restructured
FutureGen program, and specified that the federal cost-share would only cover the CCS portions
of the demonstration projects, not the entire power system. However, after the Recovery Act was
enacted on February 17, 2009, Secretary Chu announced an agreement with the FutureGen
Alliance—an industry consortium—to advance construction of the FutureGen plant built in
Mattoon, IL, the site selected by the FutureGen Alliance in 2007.54 Further, DOE anticipated that
$1 billion of funding from the Recovery Act would be used to support the project.55
On August 5, 2010, then-Secretary of Energy Chu announced the $1 billion award, from
Recovery Act funds, to the FutureGen Alliance, Ameren Energy Resources, Babcock & Wilcox,
and Air Liquide Process & Construction, Inc., to build FutureGen 2.0.56 FutureGen 2.0 differs
from the original concept for the plant, because it would retrofit Ameren’s existing power plant in
Meridosia, IL, with oxy-combustion technology at a 202 MW, oil-fired unit,57 rather than build a
new state-of-the-art plant in Mattoon.58
Challenges to FutureGen—A Similar Path for Other Demonstration Projects?
A decade after the George W. Bush Administration announced FutureGen—its signature clean
coal power initiative—the program is still in early development. Among the challenges to the
development of FutureGen 2.0 are rising costs of production, ongoing issues with project
development, lack of incentives for investment from the private sector, time constraints, and
competition with foreign nations. Remaining challenges to FutureGen’s development include
securing private sector funding to meet increasing costs, purchasing the power plant for the

53 See http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2008/08003-DOE_Announces_Restructured_FutureG.html.
54 Prior to when DOE first announced it would restructure the program in 2008, the FutureGen Alliance announced on
December 18, 2007, that it had selected Mattoon, IL, as the host site from a set of four finalists. The four were Mattoon,
IL; Tuscola, IL; Heart of Brazos (near Jewett, TX); and Odessa, TX.
55 See DOE announcement on June 12, 2009, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2009/09037-
DOE_Announces_FutureGen_Agreement.html.
56 See DOE Techline, http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2010/10033-
Secretary_Chu_Announces_FutureGen_.html.
57 Ameren had planned to replace the oil-fired boiler with a coal-fired boiler using oxy-combustion technology to allow
carbon capture. See http://www.futuregenalliance.org/pdf/FutureGen%20FAQ-General%20042711.pdf.
58 For more information about the history of FutureGen, and issues for Congress, see CRS Report R43028, FutureGen:
A Brief History and Issues for Congress
, by Peter Folger.
Congressional Research Service
16

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

project, obtaining permission from DOE to retrofit the plant, performing the retrofit, and then
meeting the goal of 90% capture of CO2.
A question for Congress is whether FutureGen represents a unique case of a first mover in a
complex, expensive, and technically challenging endeavor, or whether it represents all large CCS
demonstration projects once they move past the planning stage. As discussed above,
approximately $3.3 billion of Recovery Act funding is committed to large demonstration projects,
including FutureGen. A rationale for committing such a substantial level of funding to
demonstration projects was to scale up CCS RD&D more quickly than had been the pace of
technology development prior to enactment of the Recovery Act. However, if all the CCS
demonstration projects encounter similar changes in scope, design, location, and cost as
FutureGen, the chances of meeting goals laid out in the DOE 2010 Strategic Plan—namely, to
bring at least five commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects online by 2016—may be in
jeopardy.
Alternatively, one could argue that FutureGen from its original conception was unique. None of
the other large-scale demonstration projects share the same original ambitious vision: to create a
new, one-of-a-kind, CCS plant from the ground up. Even though the individual components of
FutureGen—as originally conceived—were not themselves new innovations, combining the
capture, transportation, and storage components together into a 250-megawatt functioning power
plant could be considered unprecedented and therefore most likely to experience delays at each
step in development.
Scholars have described the stages of technological change in different schemes, such as
• invention, innovation, adoption, diffusion;59 or
• technology readiness levels (TRLs) ranging from TRL 1 (basic technology
research) to TRL 9 (system test, launch, and operations);60 or
• conceptual design, laboratory/bench scale, pilot plant scale, full-scale
demonstration plant, and commercial process.61
FutureGen is difficult to categorize within these schemes, in part because the project spanned a
range of technology development levels irrespective of the particular scheme. The original
conception of the FutureGen project arguably had aspects of conceptual design through
commercial processes—all five components of the scheme listed as the third bullet above—which
meant that the project was intended to march through all stages in a linear fashion. As some
scholars have noted, however, the stages of technological change are highly interactive, requiring
learning by doing and learning by using, once the project progresses past its innovative stage into
larger-scale demonstration and deployment.62 The task of tackling all the stages of technology

59 E. S. Rubin, “The Government Role in Technology Innovation: Lessons for the Climate Change Policy Agenda,”
Institute of Transportation Studies, 10th Biennial Conference on Transportation Energy and Environmental Policy,
University of California, Davis, CA (August 2005).
60 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Definition of Technology Readiness Levels,” at
http://esto.nasa.gov/files/TRL_definitions.pdf.
61 For a more thorough discussion of different schemes describing stages of technology development, see chapter 4 of
CRS Report R41325, Carbon Capture: A Technology Assessment, by Peter Folger.
62 E. S. Rubin, “The Government Role in Technology Innovation: Lessons for the Climate Change Policy Agenda,”
Institute of Transportation Studies, 10th Biennial Conference on Transportation Energy and Environmental Policy,
University of California, Davis, CA (August 2005).
Congressional Research Service
17

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

development in one project—the original FutureGen—might have been too daunting and, in
addition to other factors, contributed to the project’s erratic progress since 2003. It remains to be
seen whether the current large-scale demonstration projects funded by DOE under CCPI Round 3
follow the path of FutureGen or instead achieve their technological development goals on time
and within their current budgets.63
Geologic Sequestration/Storage: DOE RD&D for the
Last Step in CCS

DOE has allocated $112 million and $116 million per year for its carbon sequestration/storage
activities in FY2012 and FY2013, respectively. The FY2014 request is for $61 million (See Table
1
.) In contrast with the carbon capture technology RD&D, which received nearly all of the $3.4
billion from Recovery Act funding, carbon sequestration/carbon storage activities received
approximately $50 million in Recovery Act funds. Recovery Act funds were awarded for 10
projects to conduct site characterization of promising geologic formations for CO2 storage.64
Brief History of DOE Geological Sequestration/Storage Activities
DOE has devoted the bulk of its funding for geological sequestration/storage activities to RD&D
efforts for injecting CO2 into subsurface geological reservoirs. Injection and storage is the third
step in the CCS process following the CO2 capture step and CO2 transport step. One part of the
RD&D effort is characterizing geologic reservoirs (which received a $50 million boost from
Recovery Act funds, as noted above); however, the overall program is much broader than just
characterization, and has now reached the beginning of the phase of large-volume CO2 injection
demonstration projects across the country. According to DOE, these large-volume tests are
needed to validate long-term storage in a variety of different storage formations of different
depositional environments, including deep saline reservoirs, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, low
permeability reservoirs, coal seams, shale, and basalt.65 The large-volume tests can be considered
injection experiments conducted at a commercial scale (i.e., approximately 1 million tons of CO2
injected per year) that should provide crucial information on the suitability of different geologic
reservoirs; monitoring, verification, and accounting of injected CO2; risk assessment protocols for
long-term injection and storage; and other critical challenges.
In 2003 DOE created seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships (RCSPs), essentially
consortia of public and private sector organizations grouped by geographic region across the
United States and parts of Canada.66 The geographic representation was intended to match

63 Another possible source of uncertainty for FutureGen, and other large industrial CCS projects, is cost recovery
during the operating phase of the plant after the construction phase and initial capital investments are made. “Learning
by doing” should increase operating efficiency, but it is unclear by how much and over what time span. For more
discussion on cost trajectories and expected efficiency gains, see CRS Report R41325, Carbon Capture: A Technology
Assessment
, by Peter Folger.
64 The total DOE share for the 10 projects is $46.6 million. See DOE, Recovery Act, http://fossil.energy.gov/recovery/
projects/site_characterization.html.
65 DOE 2010 CCS Roadmap, p. 55.
66 Four Canadian provinces are partners with DOE in two of the regional partnerships, and are members with other
participating organizations that are contributing funding and other support to the partnerships.
Congressional Research Service
18

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

regional differences in fossil fuel use and geologic reservoir potential for CO2 storage.67 The
RCSPs cover 43 states and four Canadian provinces and include over 400 organizations,
according to the DOE 2010 Strategic Plan. Table 4 shows the seven partnerships, the lead
organization for each, and the states and provinces included. Several states belong to more than
one RCSP.
The RCSPs have pursued their objectives through three phases beginning in 2003:
(1) Characterization Phase (2003 to 2005), an initial examination of the region’s potential for
geological sequestration of CO2; (2) Validation Phase (2005 to 2011), small-scale injection field
tests (less than 500,000 tons of CO2) to develop a better understanding of how different geologic
formations would handle large amounts of injected CO2; and (3) Development Phase (2008 to
2018 and beyond), injection tests of at least 1 million tons of CO2 to simulate commercial-scale
quantities of injected CO2.68 The last phase is intended also to collect enough information to help
understand the regulatory, economic, liability, ownership, and public outreach requirements for
commercial deployment of CCS.
Table 4. Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships
Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership

States and Provinces in the
(RCSP) Lead
Organization
Partnership
Big Sky Carbon Sequestration
Montana State University-Bozeman
MT, WY, ID, SD, eastern WA,
Partnership (BSCSP)
eastern OR
Midwest Geological Sequestration
Illinois State Geological Survey
IL, IN, KY
Consortium (MGSC)
Midwest Regional Carbon
Battelle Memorial Institute
IN, KY, MD, MI, NJ, NY, OH, PA,
Sequestration Partnership
WV,
(MRCSP)
Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership
University of North Dakota Energy
MT, northeast WY, ND, SD, NE, MN,
(PCOR)
and Environmental Research Center
IA, MO, WI, Manitoba, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, British Columbia
(Canada)
Southeast Regional Carbon
Southern States Energy Board
AL, AS, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN,
Sequestration Partnership
TX, VA, portions of KY and WV
(SECARB)
Southwest Regional Partnership
New Mexico Institute of Mining and
AZ, CO, OK, NM, UT, KS, NV, TX,
on Carbon Sequestration (SWP)
Technology
WY
West Coast Regional Carbon
California Energy Commission
AK, AZ, CA, HI, OR, NV, WA, British
Sequestration Partnership
Columbia (Canada)
(WESTCARB)



Source: DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory, Carbon Sequestration Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnerships
, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/infrastructure/rcsp.html.

67 DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory, Carbon Sequestration Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships,
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/infrastructure/rcsp.html.
68 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
19

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

There are RD&D activities funded by DOE under its carbon sequestration/carbon storage
program activities other than the RCSPs, such as geological storage technologies; monitoring,
verification, and assessment; carbon use and reuse; and others. However, the RCSPs were
allocated approximately 70% of annual spending on carbon sequestration/carbon storage in
FY2012, and comprise 66% of that account in the FY2014 budget request. The RCSPs provide
the framework and infrastructure for a wide variety of DOE geologic sequestration/storage
activities.
Current Status and Challenges to Carbon Sequestration/Storage
The third phase—Development—is currently underway for all the RCSPs, and large-scale CO2
injection has begun for the SECARB and MGSC projects.69 The Development Phase large-scale
injection projects are arguably akin to the large-scale carbon capture demonstration projects
discussed above. They are needed to understand what actually happens to CO2 underground when
commercial-scale volumes are injected in the same or similar geologic reservoirs as would be
used if CCS were deployed nationally.
In addition to understanding the technical challenges to storing CO2 underground without leakage
over hundreds of years, DOE also expects that the Development Phase projects will provide a
better understanding of regulatory, liability, and ownership issues associated with commercial-
scale CCS.70 These nontechnical issues are not trivial, and could pose serious challenges to
widespread deployment of CCS even if the technical challenges of injecting CO2 safely and in
perpetuity are resolved. For example, a complete regulatory framework for managing the
underground injection of CO2 has not been developed in the United States. However, EPA
promulgated a rule under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that creates a new
class of injection wells under the existing Underground Injection Control Program. The new class
of wells (Class VI) establishes national requirements specifically for injecting CO2 and protecting
underground sources of drinking water. EPA’s stated purpose in proposing the rule was to ensure
that CCS can occur in a safe and effective manner in order to enable commercial-scale CCS to
move forward.71
The development of the regulation for Class VI wells highlighted that EPA’s authority under the
SDWA is limited to protecting underground sources of drinking water but does not address other
major issues. Some of these include the long-term liability for injected CO2, regulation of
potential emissions to the atmosphere, legal issues if the CO2 plume migrates underground across
state boundaries, private property rights of owners of the surface lands above the injected CO2
plume, and ownership of the subsurface reservoirs (also referred to as pore space).72 Because of
these issues and others, there are some indications that broad community acceptance of CCS may
be a challenge. The large-scale injection tests may help identify the key factors that lead to
community concerns over CCS, and help guide DOE, EPA, other agencies, and the private sector

69 For details on the two large-scale injection experiments by SECARB, see http://www.secarbon.org/; for details on
the large-scale injection experiment by MGSC, see http://sequestration.org/.
70 DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory, Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership Development Phase
(Phase III) Projects
, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/infrastructure/rcspiii.html.
71 For more information on the EPA Class VI wells in particular, and the Safe Drinking Water Act generally, see CRS
Report RL34201, Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): Selected Regulatory and Legislative Issues, by Mary Tiemann.
72 For a discussion of several of these legal issues, see CRS Report RL34307, Legal Issues Associated with the
Development of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Technology
, by Adam Vann and Paul W. Parfomak.
Congressional Research Service
20

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE

towards strategies leading to the widespread deployment of CCS. Currently, however, the general
public is largely unfamiliar with the details of CCS and these challenges have yet to be resolved.73
Outlook
The success of the Clean Coal Program will ultimately be judged by the extent to which emerging
technologies get deployed in domestic and international marketplaces. Both technical and
financial challenges associated with the deployment of new “high risk” coal technologies must be
overcome in order to be capable of achieving success in the marketplace. Commercial scale
demonstrations help the industry understand and overcome startup issues, address component
integration issues, and gain the early learning commercial experience necessary to reduce risk and
secure private financing and investment for future plants.74
The testimony quoted above from Scott Klara of the National Energy Technology Laboratory
sums up a crucial metric to the success of the federal CCS RD&D program, namely, whether CCS
technologies are deployed in the commercial marketplace. To date, there are no commercial
ventures in the United States that capture, transport, and inject large quantities of CO2 (e.g., 1
million tons per year or more) solely for the purposes of carbon sequestration.
However, the CCS RD&D program has embarked on commercial-scale demonstration projects
for CO2 capture, injection, and storage. The success of these demonstration projects will likely
bear heavily on the future outlook for widespread deployment of CCS technologies as a strategy
for preventing large quantities of CO2 from reaching the atmosphere while plants continue to burn
fossil fuels, mainly coal. Congress may wish to carefully review the results from these
demonstration projects as they progress in order to gauge whether DOE is on track to meet its
goal of allowing for an advanced CCS technology portfolio to be ready by 2020 for large-scale
demonstration and deployment in the United States.
In addition to the issues and programs discussed above, other factors might affect the
demonstration and deployment of CCS in the United States. The use of hydraulic fracturing
techniques to extract unconventional natural gas deposits recently has drawn national attention to
the possible negative consequences of deep well injection of large volumes of fluids. Hydraulic
fracturing involves the high-pressure injection of fluids into the target formation to fracture the
rock and release natural gas or oil. The injected fluids, together with naturally occurring fluids in
the shale, are referred to as produced water. Produced waters are pumped out of the well and
disposed of. Often the produced waters are disposed of by re-injecting them at a different site in a
different well. These practices have raised concerns about possible leakage as fluids are pumped
into and out of the ground, and about deep-well injection causing earthquakes. Public concerns
over hydraulic fracturing and deep-well injection of produced waters may spill over into concerns
about deep-well injection of CO2. How successfully DOE is able to address these types of
concerns as the large-scale demonstration projects move forward into their injection phases could
affect the future of CCS deployment.

73 For more information on the different issues regarding community acceptance of CCS, see CRS Report RL34601,
Community Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Infrastructure: Siting Challenges, by Paul W. Parfomak.
74 Testimony of Scott Klara, Deputy Laboratory Director, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of
Energy, in U.S. Congress, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Legislation
, hearing to receive testimony on carbon capture and sequestration legislation, including S. 699 and S. 757,
112th Cong., 1st sess., May 12, 2011, S.Hrg. 112-22.
Congressional Research Service
21

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at DOE


Author Contact Information

Peter Folger

Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy
pfolger@crs.loc.gov, 7-1517


Congressional Research Service
22