Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipelines for Carbon Sequestration: Emerging Policy Issues

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipelines for Carbon Sequestration: Emerging Policy Issues

Order Code RL33971
Carbon Dioxide (CO ) Pipelines for Carbon
2
Sequestration: Emerging Policy Issues
Updated January 17, 2008
Paul W. Parfomak
Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Carbon Dioxide (CO ) Pipelines for Carbon
2
Sequestration: Emerging Policy Issues
Summary
Congress is examining potential approaches to reducing manmade contributions
to global warming from U.S. sources. One approach is carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) — capturing CO at its source (e.g., a power plant) and storing
2
it indefinitely (e.g., underground) to avoid its release to the atmosphere. A common
requirement among the various techniques for CCS is a dedicated pipeline network
for transporting CO from capture sites to storage sites.
2
In the 110th Congress, there has been considerable debate on the capture and
sequestration aspects of carbon sequestration, while there has been relatively less
focus on transportation. Nonetheless, there is increasing understanding in Congress
that a national CCS program could require the construction of a substantial network
of interstate CO pipelines. S. 2144 and S. 2191 would require the Secretary of
2
Energy to study the feasibility of constructing and operating such a network of
pipelines. S. 2323 would require carbon sequestration projects to evaluate the most
cost-efficient ways to integrate CO sequestration, capture, and transportation. S.
2
2149 would allow seven-year accelerated depreciation for qualifying CO pipelines.
2
P.L. 110-140, signed by President Bush on December 19, 2007, requires the
Secretary of the Interior to recommend legislation to clarify the issuance of CO2
pipeline rights-of-way on public land.
That CCS and related legislation have been more focused on the capture and
storage of CO than on its transportation, reflects a perception that transporting CO
2
2
via pipelines does not present a significant barrier to implementing large-scale CCS.
Notwithstanding this perception, and even though regional CO pipeline networks
2
already operate in the United States for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), developing a
more expansive national CO pipeline network for CCS could pose numerous new
2
regulatory and economic challenges. There are important unanswered questions
about pipeline network requirements, economic regulation, utility cost recovery,
regulatory classification of CO itself, and pipeline safety. Furthermore, because CO
2
2
pipelines for EOR are already in use today, policy decisions affecting CO pipelines
2
take on an urgency that is, perhaps, unrecognized by many. Federal classification of
CO as both a commodity (by the Bureau of Land Management) and as a pollutant
2
(by the Environmental Protection Agency) could potentially create an immediate
conflict which may need to be addressed not only for the sake of future CCS
implementation, but also to ensure consistency of future CCS with CO pipeline
2
operations today.
In addition to these issues, Congress may examine how CO pipelines fit into
2
the nation’s overall strategies for energy supply and environmental protection. If
policy makers encourage continued consumption of fossil fuels under CCS, then the
need to foster the other energy options may be diminished — and vice versa. Thus
decisions about CO pipeline infrastructure could have consequences for a broader
2
array of energy and environmental policies.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Carbon Capture and Sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Sequestration in Geological Formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Existing U.S. CO Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2
Key Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
CO Pipeline Requirements for CCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2
Economic Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Jurisdiction over CO Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2
Potential Issues Related to ICC Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Policy Implications for Rate Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Siting Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Commodity vs. Pollutant Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Pipeline Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Materials Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Cost Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
CO Pipeline Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2
Cost Implications for Network Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
CO Pipeline Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2
Criminal and Civil Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
List of Figures
Figure 1. Major CO Pipelines in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2
Figure 2. U.S. Prices for Large Diameter Steel Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Carbon Dioxide (CO ) Pipelines for Carbon
2
Sequestration: Emerging Policy Issues
Introduction
Congress has long been concerned about the impact of global climate change
that may be caused by manmade emissions of carbon dioxide (CO ) and other
2
greenhouse gases.1 Congress is also debating policies related to global warming and
is examining a range of potential initiatives to reduce manmade contributions to
global warming from U.S. sources.2 One approach to mitigating manmade
greenhouse gas emissions is direct sequestration: capturing CO at its source,
2
transporting it via pipelines, and storing it indefinitely to avoid its release to the
atmosphere.3 This paper explores one component of direct sequestration —
transporting CO in pipelines.
2
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is of great interest because potentially large
amounts of CO emitted from the industrial burning of fossil fuels in the United
2
States could be suitable for sequestration. Carbon capture technologies can
potentially remove 80%-95% of CO emitted from an electric power plant or other
2
industrial source. Power plants are the most likely initial candidates for CCS because
they are predominantly large, single-point sources, and they contribute approximately
one-third of U.S. CO emissions from fossil fuels.
2
There are many technological approaches to CCS. However, one common
requirement for nearly all large-scale CCS schemes is a system for transporting CO2
from capture sites (e.g., power plants) to storage sites (e.g., underground reservoirs).
Transporting captured CO in relatively limited quantities is possible by truck, rail,
2
and ship, but moving the enormous quantities of CO implied by a widespread
2
implementation of CCS technologies would likely require a dedicated interstate
pipeline network.
1 This report does not explore the underlying science of climate change, nor the question of
whether action is justified. See CRS Report RL33849, Climate Change: Science and Policy
Implications, by Jane A. Leggett.
2 For more information on congressional activities related to global warming, see CRS
Report RL31931, Climate Change: Federal Laws and Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas
Reductions, by Brent D. Yacobucci and Larry Parker; and CRS Report RL34067, Climate
Change Legislation in the 110th Congress, by Jonathan L. Ramseur and Brent D.
Yacobucci.
3 This report does not address indirect sequestration, wherein CO is stored in soils, oceans,
2
or plants through natural processes. For information on the latter, see CRS Report
RL31432, Carbon Sequestration in Forests, by Ross W. Gorte.

CRS-2
In the 110th Congress, there has been considerable debate on the capture and
sequestration aspects of carbon sequestration, while there has been relatively less
focus on transportation. Nonetheless, there is increasing understanding in Congress
that a national CCS program could require the construction of a substantial network
of interstate CO pipelines. The Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Study Act of 2007 (S.
2
2144), introduced by Senator Coleman and nine cosponsors on October 4, 2007,
would require the Secretary of Energy to study the feasibility of constructing and
operating such a network of CO pipelines. The America’s Climate Security Act of
2
2007 (S. 2191), introduced by Senator Lieberman and nine cosponsors on October
18, 2007, and reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
in amended form on December 5, 2007, contains similar provisions (Sec. 8003). The
Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Act of 2007 (S. 2323), introduced by
Senator Kerry and one cosponsor on November 7, 2007, would require carbon
sequestration projects authorized by the act to evaluate the most cost-efficient ways
to integrate CO sequestration, capture, and transportation (Sec. 3(b)(5)). The Coal
2
Fuels and Industrial Gasification Demonstration and Development Act of 2007
(S.2149) introduced by Senator Dorgan on October 4, 2007, would allow accelerated
depreciation for certain new CO pipelines. The Energy Independence and Security
2
Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140) signed by President Bush, as amended, on December 19,
2007, requires the Secretary of the Interior to recommend legislation to clarify the
appropriate framework for issuing CO pipeline rights-of-way on public land (Sec.
2
714(7)).
Legislative focus on the capture and storage components of direct carbon
sequestration reflects a perception that transporting CO via pipelines does not
2
present a significant barrier to implementing large-scale CCS. Even though regional
CO pipeline networks already operate in the United States for enhanced oil recovery
2
(EOR), developing a more expansive national CO pipeline network for CCS could
2
pose numerous new regulatory and economic challenges. As one analyst has
remarked,
Each of the individual technologies involved in the transport portion of the CCS
process is mature, but integrating and deploying them on a massive scale will be
a complex task. “The question is, how would the necessary pipeline network be
established and evolve?”4
A thorough consideration of potential CCS approaches necessarily involves an
assessment of their overall requirements for CO transportation by pipeline, including
2
the possible federal role in establishing an interstate CO pipeline network.
2
This report introduces key policy issues related to CO pipelines which may
2
require congressional attention. It summarizes the technological requirements for
CO pipeline transportation under a comprehensive CCS strategy. It characterizes
2
these requirements relative to the existing CO pipeline infrastructure in the United
2
States used for EOR. The report summarizes policy issues related to CO pipeline
2
development, including uncertainty about pipeline network requirements, economic
4 John Douglas, “Expanding Options for CO Storage,” EPRI Journal, Electric Power
2
Research Institute (Spring 2007): 24.

CRS-3
regulation, utility cost recovery, regulatory classification of CO itself, and pipeline
2
safety. The report concludes with perspectives on CO pipelines in the context of the
2
nation’s overall energy and infrastructure requirements.
Background
Carbon sequestration policies are inextricably tied to the function and
availability of the necessary technologies. Consequently, discussion of CCS policy
alternatives benefits from a basic understanding of the physical processes involved,
and relevant experience with existing infrastructure. This section provides a basic
overview of carbon sequestration processes overall, as well as specific U.S.
experience with CO pipelines.5
2
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Carbon capture and sequestration is essentially a three-part process involving
a CO source facility, a long-term CO storage site, and an intermediate mode of CO
2
2
2
transportation.

Capture. The first step in direct sequestration is to produce a concentrated
stream of CO for transport and storage. Currently, three main approaches are
2
available to capture CO from large-scale industrial facilities or power plants:
2
! pre-combustion, which separates CO from fuels by combining
2
them with air and/or steam to produce hydrogen for combustion and
CO for storage,
2
! post-combustion, which extracts CO from flue gases following
2
combustion of fossil fuels or biomass, and
! oxyfuel combustion, which uses oxygen instead of air for
combustion, producing flue gases that consist mostly of CO and
2
water from which the CO is separated.6
2
These approaches vary in terms of process technology and maturity, but all yield a
stream of extracted CO which may then be compressed to increase its density and
2
make it easier (and cheaper) to transport. Although technologies to separate and
compress CO are commercially available, they have not been applied to large-scale
2
CO capture from power plants for the purpose of long-term storage.7
2
5 More detailed information is available in CRS Report RL33801, Direct Carbon
Sequestration: Capturing and Storing CO , by Peter Folger.
2
6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report: Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage, 2005 (2005): 22-23. (Hereafter referred to as IPCC 2005.)
7 H. J. Herzog and D. Golumb, “Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuel Use,” in C.J.
Cleveland (ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy (New York, NY: Elsevier Science, Inc., 2004):
(continued...)

CRS-4
Transportation. Pipelines are the most common method for transporting
large quantities of CO over long distances. CO pipelines are operated at ambient
2
2
temperature and high pressure, with primary compressor stations located where the
CO is injected and booster compressors located as needed further along the
2
pipeline.8 In overall construction, CO pipelines are similar to natural gas pipelines,
2
requiring the same attention to design, monitoring for leaks, and protection against
overpressure, especially in populated areas.9 Many analysts consider CO pipeline
2
technology to be mature, stemming from its use since the 1970s for EOR and in other
industries.10 Marine transportation may also be feasible when CO needs to be
2
transported over long distances or overseas; however, many manmade CO sources
2
are located far from navigable waterways, so such a scheme would still likely require
pipeline construction between CO sources and port terminals. Rail cars and trucks
2
can also transport CO , but these modes would be logistically impractical for
2
large-scale CCS operations.
Sequestration in Geological Formations. In most CCS approaches, CO2
would be transported by pipeline to a porous rock formation that holds (or previously
held) fluids where the CO would be injected underground. When CO is injected
2
2
over 800 meters deep in a typical storage formation, atmospheric pressure induces
the CO to become relatively dense and less likely to migrate out of the formation.
2
Injecting CO into such formations uses existing technologies developed primarily
2
for oil and natural gas production which potentially could be adapted for long-term
storage and monitoring of CO . Other underground injection applications in practice
2
today, such as natural gas storage, deep injection of liquid wastes, and subsurface
disposal of oil-field brines, also provide potential technologies and experience for
sequestering CO .11 Three main types of geological formations are being considered
2
for carbon sequestration: (1) oil and gas reservoirs, (2) deep saline reservoirs, and (3)
unmineable coal seams. The overall capacity for CO storage in such formations is
2
potentially huge if all the sedimentary basins in the world are considered.12 The
suitability of any particular site, however, depends on many factors, including
proximity to CO sources and other reservoir-specific qualities like porosity,
2
permeability, and potential for leakage.
7 (...continued)
277-287.
8 IPCC 2005: 26.
9 IPCC 2005: 181.
10 CO used in EOR enhances oil production by re-pressurizing geological formations and
2
reducing oil viscosity, thereby increasing oil movement to the surface. CO is used
2
industrially as a chemical feedstock, to carbonate beverages, for refrigeration and food
processing, to treat water, and for other uses.
11 IPCC 2005: 31.
12 Sedimentary basins are large depressions in the Earth’s surface filled with sediments and
fluids.

CRS-5
Existing U.S. CO Pipelines
2
The oldest long-distance CO pipeline in the United States is the 225 kilometer
2
Canyon Reef Carriers Pipeline (in Texas), which began service in 1972 for EOR in
regional oil fields.13 Other large CO pipelines constructed since then, mostly in the
2
Western United States, have expanded the CO pipeline network for EOR. These
2
pipelines carry CO from naturally occurring underground reservoirs, natural gas
2
processing facilities, ammonia manufacturing plants, and a large coal gasification
project to oil fields. Additional pipelines may carry CO from other manmade
2
sources to supply a range of industrial applications. Altogether, approximately 5,800
kilometers (3,600 miles) of CO pipeline operate today in the United States.14
2
Figure 1. Major CO Pipelines in the United States
2
Sources: Denbury Resources Inc., “EOR: The Economic Alternative for
CCS,” Slide presentation (October 2007). [http://www.gasification.org/
Docs/2007_Papers/25EVAN.pdf]; U.S. Dept. of Transportation,
National Pipeline Mapping System, Official use only. (June 2005).
[https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov]
The locations of the major U.S. CO pipelines are shown in Figure 1. By
2
comparison, nearly 800,000 kilometers (500,000 miles) of natural gas and hazardous
liquid transmission pipelines crisscross the United States.15
13 Kinder Morgan CO Company, “Canyon Reef Carriers Pipeline (CRC),” web page (2007).
2
[http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/co2/transport_canyon_reef.cfm]
14 U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Pipeline Mapping System database (June 2005).
[https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov]
15 Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), National Transportation Statistics 2005 (Dec.
2005), Table 1-10. In this report oil includes petroleum and other hazardous liquids such
as gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, and propane, unless otherwise noted.

CRS-6
Key Issues for Congress
Congressional consideration of potential CCS policies is still evolving, but so
far initiatives have focused more on developing capture and sequestration
technologies than on transportation. Specific legislative proposals in the 110th
Congress reflect the current perception that CO capture probably represents the
2
largest technological hurdle to implementing widespread CCS, and that CO2
transportation by pipelines does not present as significant a barrier. While these
perceptions may be accurate, industry and regulatory analysts have begun to identify
important policy issues related specifically to CO pipelines which may require
2
congressional attention.
CO Pipeline Requirements for CCS
2
Although any widespread CCS scheme in the United States would likely require
dedicated CO pipelines, there is considerable uncertainty about the size and
2
configuration of the pipeline network required. This uncertainty stems, in part, from
uncertainty about the suitability of geological formations to sequester captured CO2
and the proximity of suitable formations to specific sources. One recent analysis
concludes that 77% of the total annual CO captured from the major North American
2
sources may be stored in reservoirs directly underlying these sources, and that an
additional 18% may be stored within 100 miles of additional sources.16 If this were
the case, the need for new CO pipelines would be limited to onsite transportation
2
and a relatively small number of long-distance pipelines (only a subset of which
might need to be interstate pipelines).
Other analysts suggest that captured CO may need to be sequestered, at least
2
initially, in more centralized reservoirs to reduce potential risks associated with CO2
leaks.17 They suggest that, given current uncertainty about the suitability of various
on-site geological formations for long-term CO storage, certain specific types of
2
formations (e.g., salt caverns) may be preferred as CO repositories because they have
2
adequate capacity and are most likely to retain sequestered CO indefinitely. As
2
geologic formations are characterized in more detail and suitable repositories
identified, CO sources can be mapped against storage sites with increasing certainty.
2
The current uncertainty over proximity of sources to storage sites, however, implies
a wide range of possible pipeline configurations and a wide range of possible costs.
Whether CCS policies ultimately lead to centralized or decentralized storage
configurations remains to be seen; however, pipeline requirements and storage
16 R.T. Dahowski, J.J. Dooley, C.L. Davidson, S. Bachu, N. Gupta, and J. Gale, “A North
American CO Storage Supply Curve: Key Findings and Implications for the Cost of CCS
2
Deployment,” Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and
Sequestration ( Alexandria, VA: May 2-5, 2005). The study addresses CO capture at 2,082
2
North American facilities including power plants, natural gas processing plants, refineries,
cement kilns, and other industrial plants.
17 Jennie C. Stevens and Bob Van Der Zwaan, “The Case for Carbon Capture and Storage,”
Issues in Science and Technology, vol. XXII, no. 1 (Fall 2005): 69-76. (See page 15 of this
report for a discussion of safety issues.)

CRS-7
configurations are closely related. A 2007 study at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) concluded that “the majority of coal-fired power plants are
situated in regions where there are high expectations of having CO sequestration
2
sites nearby.”18 In these cases, the MIT study estimated the cost of CO transport and
2
injection to be less than 20% of total CCS costs. However, the study also stated that
the costs of CO pipelines are highly non-linear with respect to the quantity
2
transported, and highly variable due to “physical ... and political considerations.”19
Another 2007 study, at Duke University, concluded that “geologic sequestration is
not economically or technically feasible within North Carolina,” but “may be viable
if the captured CO is piped out of North Carolina and stored elsewhere.”20 There
2
are also significant scale economies for large, integrated CO pipeline networks that
2
link many sources together rather than single, dedicated pipelines between individual
sources and storage reservoirs.21 As Congress considers CCS policies, it may
examine the relationship between CO reservoir sites and pipeline requirements.
2
Economic Regulation
Economic regulation of interstate pipelines by the federal government is
generally intended to ensure pipelines fulfill common carrier obligations by charging
reasonable rates; providing rates and services to all upon reasonable request; not
unfairly discriminating among shippers; establishing reasonable classifications, rules,
and practices; and interchanging traffic with other pipelines or transportation
modes.22 If interstate CO pipelines for carbon sequestration are ultimately to be
2
developed, it will raise important regulatory questions in this context because federal
jurisdiction over hypothetical interstate CO pipeline siting and rate decisions is not
2
clear. Based on their current regulatory roles, two of the more likely candidates for
jurisdiction over interstate pipelines transporting CO for purposes of CCS are the
2
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Surface Transportation
Board (STB).23 However, both agencies have at some point expressed a position that
interstate CO pipelines are not within their purview, as summarized below.24
2
18 John Deutch, Ernest J. Moniz, et al., The Future of Coal. (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology: 2007): 58. (Hereafter referred to as MIT 2007.)
19 MIT 2007: 58.
20 Eric Williams, Nora Greenglass, and Rebecca Ryals, “Carbon Capture, Pipeline and
Storage: A Viable Option for North Carolina Utilities?” Working paper prepared by the
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and The Center on Global Change,
Duke University (Durham, NC: March 8, 2007): 4.
21 MIT 2007: 58.
22 General Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office), Surface
Transportation: Issues Associated With Pipeline Regulation by the Surface Transportation
Board, RCED-98-99 (Washington, DC: April 21, 1998):3; and 49 U.S.C. § 155.
23 The STB is the successor agency to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) under the
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-88).
24 For a more comprehensive discussion of CO pipeline regulatory jurisdiction, see CRS
2
Report RL34307, Regulation of Carbon Dioxide (CO ) Sequestration Pipelines:
2
(continued...)

CRS-8
Federal Jurisdiction over CO Pipelines.
The Natural Gas Act of 1938
2
(NGA) vests in FERC the authority to issue “certificates of public convenience and
necessity” for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipeline
facilities.25 FERC is also charged with extensive regulatory authority over the siting
of natural gas import and export facilities, as well as rates for transportation of
natural gas and other elements of transportation service. FERC also has jurisdiction
over regulation of oil pipelines pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).26
Although FERC is not involved in the oil pipeline siting process, as with natural gas,
FERC does regulate transportation rates and capacity allocation for oil pipelines.27
Jurisdiction over rate regulation for pipelines “other” than “water, gas or oil”
pipelines resides with the STB, a decisionally independent regulatory agency
affiliated with the Department of Transportation.28 The STB acts as a forum for
resolution of disputes related to pipelines within its jurisdiction. Parties who wish
to challenge a rate or another aspect of a pipeline’s common carrier service must
petition the STB for a hearing, however; there is no ongoing regulatory oversight.
Although CO pipelines are not explicitly excluded from FERC jurisdiction by
2
statute, FERC ruled in 1979 that they are not subject to the Commission’s
jurisdiction because they do not transport natural gas for heating purposes.29
Likewise, the ICC in 1980 concluded that Congress intended to exclude all types of
gas, including CO , from ICC regulation. After making the initial decision that it
2
likely did not have jurisdiction over CO pipelines, the ICC did conclude that the
2
issue was “important enough to institute a proceeding and accept comments on the
petition and our view on it.”30 After the comment period the ICC confirmed its view
that CO pipelines were excluded from the ICC’s (and, therefore, the STB’s)
2
jurisdiction.31 Thus, the two federal regulatory agencies that, generally speaking,
have jurisdiction over interstate pipeline rate and capacity allocation matters appear
to have rejected explicitly jurisdiction over CO siting and rates, and there is no
2
legislative or judicial history to suggest that their rejections were improper at the
time. Absent federal authority, CO pipelines are regulated to varying degrees by the
2
states.
Potential Issues Related to ICC Jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the ICC’s
1980 disclaimer of jurisdiction over CO pipelines, other evidence indirectly suggests
2
24 (...continued)
Jurisdictional Issues, by Adam Vann and Paul W. Parfomak.
25 15 U.S.C. 717f(c).
26 49 App. U.S.C.§1.
27 Section 1801 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed FERC to “promulgate regulations
establishing a simplified and generally applicable ratemaking methodology” for oil pipeline
transportation.
28 49 U.S.C. § 1-501(a)(1)(c).
29 Cortez Pipeline Company, 7 FERC ¶ 61,024 (1979).
30 Id.
31 Cortez Pipeline Company — Petition for Declaratory Order — Commission Jurisdiction
Over Transportation of Carbon Dioxide by Pipeline, 46 Fed. Reg. 18805 (March 26, 1981).

CRS-9
the possibility that interstate CO pipelines could still be considered subject to STB
2
jurisdiction. For example, an April 1998 report by the General Accounting Office
(GAO)32 stated that interstate CO pipelines, as well as pipelines transporting other
2
gases are subject to the board’s oversight authority. The STB reviewed the GAO’s
analysis and, apparently, did not object to this jurisdictional classification.33
Furthermore, although the STB is the successor to the now-defunct ICC, the STB
conceivably could determine that its jurisdiction is not governed by the ICC’s
decision in the CO matter. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that federal
2
agencies are not precluded from changing their positions on the issue of regulatory
jurisdiction. According to the Court, “an initial agency interpretation is not instantly
carved in stone. On the contrary, the agency, to engage in informed rulemaking, must
consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis.”34
Accordingly, regulation of CO pipelines for CCS purposes by the STB (or by FERC,
2
for that matter) under existing statutes remains a possibility.
Policy Implications for Rate Regulation. If CCS technology develops to
the point where interstate CO pipelines become more common, and if FERC and the
2
STB continue to disclaim jurisdiction over CO pipelines, then the absence of federal
2
regulation described above may pose policy challenges. In particular, with many
more pipeline users and interconnections than exist today, complex common carrier
issues might arise.35 One potential concern, for example, is whether rates should be
set separately for existing pipelines carrying CO as a valuable commercial
2
commodity (e.g., for EOR), versus new pipelines carrying CO as industrial pollution
2
for disposal. Furthermore, if rates are not reviewed prior to pipeline construction, it
might be difficult for regulators to ensure the reasonableness of CO pipeline rates
2
until after the pipelines were already in service. If CO pipeline connections become
2
mandatory under future regulations, such arrangements might expose pipeline users
to abuses of potential market power in CO pipeline services, at least until rate cases
2
could be heard. Presiding over a large number of CO rate cases of varying
2
complexity in a relatively short time frame might also be administratively
overwhelming for state agencies, which may have limited resources available for
pipeline regulatory activities.
32 Now known as the Government Accountability Office.
33 Surface Transportation Board (STB), Personal communication, (December 2007). The
STB Office of Governmental and Public Affairs informed CRS that the board recognizes
the conflict between this GAO report and the ICC decision (as well as the wording of 49
C.F.R. § 15301 governing STB jurisdiction over pipelines other than those transporting
“water, gas or oil”). However the office did not want to state an opinion as to the current
extent of STB jurisdiction over CO pipelines and suggested that the STB would likely not
2
act to resolve this conflict unless a CO pipeline dispute comes before it.
2
34 Chevron U.S.A. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, at 863-64 (1984).
35 Beard Company 2000 annual report (10-k) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission states that the company (with other plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in 1996 against
CO pipeline owner Shell Oil Company and other defendants alleging, among other things,
2
that the defendants “controlled and depressed the price of CO2” from a field partially
owned by Beard and “reduc[ed] the delivered price of CO2 while ... simultaneously inflating
the cost of transportation.” [http://www.secinfo.com/dRxzp.424.htm#1fmr]

CRS-10
Siting Authority. A company seeking to construct a CO pipeline must secure
2
siting approval from the relevant regulatory authorities and must subsequently secure
rights of way from landowners along the pipeline right by purchasing easements or
by eminent domain. However, since federal agencies claim no regulatory authority
with respect to CO pipeline construction, potential builders of new CO pipelines do
2
2
not require, and could not obtain, federal approval to construct new pipelines.
Likewise, federal regulators claim no eminent domain authority for pipeline
construction, and so cannot ensure that pipeline companies can secure rights of way
to construct new pipelines. By contrast, companies seeking to build interstate natural
gas pipelines must first obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity from
FERC under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 717, et seq.). Such certification may
include safety and security provisions with respect to pipeline routing, safety
standards and other factors.36 A certificate of public convenience and necessity
granted by FERC (15 U.S.C. § 717f(h)) confers eminent domain authority.
The state-by-state siting approval process for CO pipelines may be complex and
2
protracted, and may face public opposition, especially in populated or
environmentally sensitive areas. As the National Commission on Energy Policy
(NCEP) states in its 2006 report:37
Recent developments notwithstanding, most new energy projects are still
regulated primarily at the state level and public opposition remains inextricably
intertwined with local concerns, including environmental and ecosystem impacts
as well as, in some cases, complex issues of property rights and competing land
uses.... In some cases, upstream or downstream infrastructure requirements —
such as the need for ... underground carbon sequestration sites ... may generate
as much if not more opposition than the energy facilities they support. At the
same time — and despite recent moves toward consolidated oversight by FERC
or other regulatory authorities — fragmented permitting processes, nonstandard
permitting requirements, and interagency redundancy often still compound siting
challenges.
Securing rights of way along existing easements for other infrastructure (e.g.,
natural gas pipelines, electric transmission lines) may be one way to facilitate the
siting of new CO pipelines. However, existing easements may be ambiguous as to
2
the right of the easement holder to install and operate CO pipelines. Questions may
2
also arise as to compensation for landowners or easement holders for use of such
easements, and as to whether existing easements can be sold or leased to CO2
pipeline companies.38 A related issue is whether state condemnation laws, which are
often used to secure sites for infrastructure deemed to be in the public interest, allow
for CO pipelines to be treated as public utilities or common carriers. This issue also
2
arises on federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). New
36 18 C.F.R. § 157.
37 National Commission on Energy Policy, Siting Critical Energy Infrastructure: An
Overview of Needs and Challenges. (Washington, DC: June 2006): 9. (Hereafter referred
to as NCEP 2006.)
38 Partha S. Chaudhuri, Michael Murphy, and Robert E. Burns, “Commissioner Primer:
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage” (National Regulatory Research Institute, Ohio State
Univ., Columbus, OH: Mar. 2006): 17.

CRS-11
CO pipelines through BLM lands potentially may be sited under right of way
2
provisions in either the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA; 43
U.S.C. § 35) or the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA; 30 U.S.C. § 185). However, the
MLA imposes a common carrier requirement while the FLPMA does not. Although
the agency currently permits CO pipelines for EOR under the MLA,39 CO pipeline
2
2
companies seeking to avoid common carrier requirements under CCS schemes may
litigate to secure rights of way under FLPMA.40 Provisions in P.L. 110-140 require
the Secretary of the Interior to recommend legislation to clarify the appropriate
framework for issuing CO pipeline rights-of-way on federal land (Sec. 714(7)).
2
Another complicating factor in the siting of CO pipelines for CCS is the types
2
of locations of existing CO sources. Although a network of long-distance CO
2
2
pipelines exists in the United States today for EOR, these pipelines are sited mostly
in remote areas accustomed to the presence of large energy infrastructure. However,
many potential sources of CO , such as power plants, are located in populated
2
regions, many with a history of public resistance to the siting of energy infrastructure.
If a widespread CO pipeline network is required to support CCS, the ability to site
2
pipelines to serve such facilities may become an issue requiring congressional
attention. As the NCEP concluded, “In sum, it seems probable that the siting of
critical infrastructure will continue to present a major challenge for policymakers.”41
Commodity vs. Pollutant Classification
Under a comprehensive CCS policy, captured CO arguably could be classified
2
as either a commodity or as a pollutant. CO used in EOR is considered to be a
2
commodity, and is regulated as such by the states. Because captured CO may be
2
sold as a valuable commodity for EOR, and may have further economic potential for
enhanced recovery of coal bed methane (ECBM), some argue that all CO under a
2
CCS scheme should be classified as a commodity.42 However, it is unlikely that the
quantities of CO captured under a widely implemented CCS policy could all be
2
absorbed in EOR or ECBM applications. In the long run, significant quantities of
captured CO will have to be disposed as industrial pollution, with negative
2
economic value.43 Furthermore, on April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
the Clean Air Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the
authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including CO , from new motor
2
vehicles.44 The court also held that EPA cannot interpose policy considerations to
39 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Assessment for
Anadarko E&P Company L.P. Monell CO Pipeline Project, EA #WY-040-03-035 (Feb.
2
2003): 71.
40 Chaudhuri et al: 17.
41 NCEP 2006: 9.
42 IOGCC 2005: 41.
43 S.M. Frailey, R.J. Finlay, and T.S. Hickman, “CO Sequestration: Storage Capacity
2
Guideline Needed,” Oil & Gas Journal (Aug. 14, 2006): 44.
44 Massachusetts v. EPA; at [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf].
(continued...)

CRS-12
refuse to exercise this authority. While the specifics of EPA regulation under this
ruling might be subject to agency discretion, it has implications for the regulation of
CO emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants.
2
Separately, EPA has also concluded that geologic sequestration of captured CO2
through well injection meets the definition of “underground injection” in §
1421(d)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).45 EPA anticipates protecting
underground sources of drinking water, through its authority under the SDWA, from
“potential endangerment” as a result of underground injection of CO in anticipated
2
CCS pilot projects. EPA’s assertion of authority under SDWA for underground
injection of CO during CCS pilot studies may contribute to uncertainty over future
2
classification of CO as a commodity or a pollutant.
2
Conflicting classification of captured CO as either a commodity or pollutant
2
has important implications for CO pipeline development. For example, classifying
2
all CO as a pollutant not only would contradict current state and BLM treatment of
2
CO for EOR, but might also undermine an interstate commerce rationale for FERC
2
regulation of CO pipelines. On the other hand, classifying all CO as a commodity
2
2
would create other policy contradictions, for example, in regions like New England
where EOR may be impracticable. Under either scenario, legislative and regulatory
ambiguities would arise — especially for an integrated, interstate CO pipeline
2
network carrying a mixture of “commodity” CO and “pollutant” CO . Resolving
2
2
these ambiguities to establish a consistent and workable CCS policy could likely be
an issue for Congress.
Pipeline Costs
If an extensive network of pipelines is required for CO transportation, pipeline
2
costs may be a major consideration in CCS policy. MIT estimated overall annualized
pipeline transportation (and storage) costs of approximately $5 per metric ton of
CO .46 If CO sequestration rates in the United States were on the order of 1 billion
2
2
metric tons per year at mid-century, as some analysts propose, annualized pipeline
costs would run into the billions of dollars. Furthermore, because most pipeline costs
are initial capital costs, up-front capital outlays for a new CO pipeline network
2
would be enormous. The 2007 Duke study, for example, estimated it would cost
approximately $5 billion to construct a CO trunk line along existing pipeline rights
2
of way to transport captured CO from North Carolina to potential sequestration sites
2
in the Gulf states and Appalachia.47 Within the context of overall CO pipeline costs,
2
several specific cost-related issues may warrant further examination by Congress.
44 (...continued)
For further information see CRS Report RL33776, Clean Air Issues in the 110th Congress:
Climate Change, Air Quality Standards, and Oversight, by James E. McCarthy.
45 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, memorandum (July 5, 2006). Available at
[http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/uic/pdfs/memo_wells_sequestration_7-5-06.pdf].
46 MIT 2007: xi.
47 Eric Williams et al. (2007): 20.

CRS-13
Materials Costs. Analysts commonly develop cost estimates for CO2
pipelines based on comparable construction costs for natural gas pipelines, and to a
lesser extent, petroleum product pipelines. In most cases, these comparisons appear
appropriate since CO pipelines are similar in design and operation to other pipelines,
2
especially natural gas pipelines. A University of California (UC) study analyzing the
costs of U.S. transmission pipelines constructed between 1991 and 2003 found that,
on average, labor accounted for approximately 45% of the total construction costs.
Materials, rights of way, and miscellaneous costs accounted for 26%, 22%, and 7%
of total costs, respectively.48 Materials cost was most closely dependent upon
pipeline size, accounting for an increasing fraction of the total cost with increasing
pipeline size, from 15% to 35% of total costs. The MIT study estimated that
transportation of captured CO from a 1 gigawatt coal-fired power plant would
2
require a pipe diameter of 16 inches.49 According to the UC analysis, total
construction costs for such a pipe between 1991 and 2003 averaged around $800,000
per mile (in 2002 dollars), although the study stated that costs for any individual
pipeline could vary by a factor of five depending its location.50
Figure 2. U.S. Prices for Large Diameter Steel Pipe
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
r Ton
$1,000
pe
$800
e
ric
$600
P
$400
$200
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07
Source: Preston Pipe & Tube Report. Pipe prices represent average transaction price (by
weighted average value) for double-submerged arc-welded pipe > 24” diameter,
combining domestic and import shipments. Prices are reported through October 2007.
Since pipeline materials make up a significant portion of CO pipeline
2
construction costs, analysts have called attention to rising pipeline materials costs,
48 N. Parker, “Using Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Costs to Estimate Hydrogen
Pipeline Costs,” UCD-ITS-RR-04-35, Inst. of Transportation Studies, Univ. of California
(Davis, CA: 2004): 1. [http://hydrogen.its.ucdavis.edu/people/ncparker/papers/pipelines];
see, also, G. Heddle, H. Herzog, and M. Klett, “The Economics of CO Storage,” MIT LFEE
2
2003-003 RP (Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, MIT, Cambridge, MA: Aug.
2003). [http://lfee.mit.edu/public/LFEE_2003-003_RP.pdf]
49 MIT 2007: 58.
50 N. Parker (2004): Fig. 23.

CRS-14
especially steel costs, as a concern for policymakers.51 Following a period of low
steel prices and company bankruptcies earlier in the decade, the North American steel
industry has returned to profitability and enjoys strong domestic and global demand.52
Now, higher prices resulting from both strong demand and increased production costs
for carbon steel plate, used in making large-diameter pipe, may alter the basic
economics of CO pipeline projects and CCS schemes overall. As Figure 2 shows,
2
the price of large-diameter pipe was generally around $600 per ton in late 2001 and
early 2002. By late 2007, the price of pipe was approaching $1,400 per ton. Analysts
forecast carbon steel prices to decline over the next two years, but only gradually, and
to a level still more than double the price early in the decade.53
If some form of CCS is effectively mandated in the future, a surge in demand
for new CO pipe, in competition with demand for natural gas and oil pipelines, may
2
exacerbate the trend of rising prices for pipeline materials, and could even lead to
shortages of pipe steel from North American sources. As a consequence, the
availability and cost of pipeline steel to build such a CO pipeline network for CCS
2
may be a limiting factor for widespread CCS implementation.
Cost Recovery.
In states where traditional
rate
regulation
exists,
construction and operation of CO pipelines for CCS could raise questions about cost
2
recovery for electric utilities under state utility regulation. If, for example, a CO2
pipeline is constructed for the exclusive use of a single power plant for on-site (or
nearby) CO sequestration, and is owned by the power plant owners, it logically
2
could be considered an extension of the plant itself. In such cases, the CO pipelines
2
could be eligible for regulated returns on the invested capital and their costs could be
recovered by utilities in electricity rates. Alternatively such a CO pipeline could be
2
owned by third parties and considered a non-plant asset providing a transportation
service for a fee. In the latter case, the costs could still be recovered by the utility in
its rates as an operating cost.
Two complications arise with respect to pipeline cost recovery. First, because
utility regulation varies from state to state (e.g., some states allow for competition in
electricity generation, others do not),54 differences among states in the economic
regulation of CO pipelines could create economic inefficiencies and affect the
2
attractiveness of CO pipelines for capital investment. Second, if CO transportation
2
2
infrastructure is intended to evolve from shorter, stand-alone, intrastate pipelines into
a network of interconnected interstate pipelines, pipeline operators wishing to link
CO pipelines across state lines may face a regulatory environment of daunting
2
complexity. Without a coherent system of economic regulation for CO pipelines,
2
whether as a commodity, pollutant, or some other classification, developers of
51 IPCC 2005: 27.
52 See CRS Report RL32333, Steel: Price and Policy Issues, by Stephen Cooney.
53 Michael Cowden, “A Profusion of New Pipeline Projects and Profits... for Now,”
American Metal Market (January 2008): 18; Global Insight, Steel Industry Review (2nd Qtr.
2006), tabs. 1.11-1.12; and American Metal Market, “West Sees More Steel Plate But Prices
Holding Ground” (Aug. 31, 2006).
54 In market-based states, cost recovery may affect electricity markets.

CRS-15
interstate CO pipelines may need to negotiate or litigate repeatedly issues such as
2
siting, pipeline access, terms of service, and rate “pancaking” (the accumulation of
transportation charges assessed by contiguous pipeline operators along a particular
transportation route). It is just these kinds of issues which have complicated and
impeded the integration of individual utility electric transmission systems into larger
regional transmission networks.55
CO Pipeline Incentives. Oil industry representatives frequently point to
2
EOR as offering a market-based model for profitable CO transportation via pipeline.
2
It should be noted, however, that much of the existing CO pipeline network in the
2
United States for EOR has been established with the benefit of federal tax incentives.
Although current federal tax law provides no special or targeted tax benefits
specifically to CO pipelines, investments in CO pipelines do benefit from tax
2
2
provisions targeted for EOR. They also benefit from accelerated depreciation rules,
which apply generally to any capital investment including petroleum and natural gas
(non-CO ) pipelines. For example, the Internal Revenue Code provides for a 15%
2
income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil by one of nine qualified
EOR methods, including CO injection (I.R.C. § 43).56 Also, extraction of naturally
2
occurring CO may qualify for percentage depletion allowance under I.R.C. §
2
613(b)(7). Prior federal law, both tax and nontax, also provided various types of
incentives for EOR which stimulated investment in CO pipelines. In particular, oil
2
produced from EOR projects was exempt from oil price controls in the 1970s.
Development of CO pipeline infrastructure in the 1980s benefitted from tax
2
advantages to EOR oil under the crude oil windfall profits tax law, which was in
effect from March 1980 to August 1988.
Although there were never incentives explicitly for CO pipelines under federal
2
tax and price control regulation in the 1970s and 1980s, it is clear that CO pipeline
2
infrastructure development benefitted from these regulations. In a CCS environment
where some captured CO is a valuable commodity, but the remainder is not,
2
establishing similar regulatory incentives for CO pipelines becomes complex. One
2
initial proposal in S. 2149 would allow seven-year accelerated depreciation for
qualifying CO pipelines constructed after enactment (Sec. 4). As debate continues
2
about the economics of CO capture and sequestration generally, and how the federal
2
government can encourage CCS infrastructure investment, Congress may seek to
understand the implications of CCS incentives specifically on CO pipeline
2
development.
Cost Implications for Network Development. In light of the overall costs
associated with CO pipelines, including the uncertainty about future materials costs
2
and cost recovery, some analysts anticipate that a CO network for CCS will begin
2
with shorter pipelines from CO sources located close to sequestration sites. Larger
2
CO trunk lines are expected to emerge to capture substantial scale economies in
2
55 For further information of electric transmission regulation, see CRS Report RL33875,
Electric Transmission: Approaches for Energizing a Sagging Industry, by Amy Abel.
56 Unfortunately for EOR investors, while this tax credit is part of current federal tax law,
its phaseout provisions mean that presently it is not available — the credit is zero — due to
high crude oil prices.

CRS-16
long-distance pipeline transportation. According to the 2007 MIT report, “it is
anticipated that the first CCS projects will involve plants that are very close to a
sequestration site or an existing CO pipeline. As the number of projects grow,
2
regional pipeline networks will likely evolve.”57 It is debatable, however, whether
piecemeal growth of a CO pipeline network in this way, presumably by individual
2
facility operators seeking to minimize their own costs, would ultimately yield an
economically efficient and publically acceptable CO pipeline network for CCS.
2
Weaknesses and failures in the North American electric power transmission grid,
which was developed in this manner, may be one example of how piecemeal,
uncoordinated network development may fail to satisfy key economic and operating
objectives.
As an alternative to piecemeal CO pipeline development, some analysts suggest
2
that it may be more cost effective in the long run to build large trunk pipelines when
the first sites with CO capture come on line with the expectation that subsequent
2
users could fill the spare capacity in the trunk line. In addition to lower per-unit
transport costs for CO , such an arrangement would smooth out potentially
2
intermittent CO flows from individual capture sites (especially discontinuously
2
operated power plants), provide a greater buffer for overall CO supply fluctuations,
2
and generally allow for more operational flexibility in the system.58 Planning and
financing such a CO trunk line system would present its own challenges, however.
2
As another analysis points out, “implementation of a ‘backbone’ transport structure
may facilitate access to large remote storage reservoirs, but infrastructure of this kind
will require large initial upfront investment decisions.”59 How a CO network for
2
CCS would be configured, and who would configure it, may be issues for Congress.60
CO Pipeline Safety
2
CO occurs naturally in the atmosphere, and is produced by the human body
2
during ordinary respiration, so it is commonly perceived by the general public to be
a relatively harmless gas. However, at concentrations above 10% by volume, CO2
may cause adverse health effects and at concentrations above 25% poses a significant
asphyxiation hazard. Because CO is colorless, odorless, and heavier than air, an
2
uncontrolled release may accumulate and remain undetected near the ground in low-
lying outdoor areas, and in confined spaces such as caverns, tunnels, and basements.61
Exposure to CO gas, as for other asphyxiates, may cause rapid “circulatory
2
57 Ibid., MIT. (2007): 59.
58 John Gale and John Davidson, “Transmission of CO — Safety and Economic
2
Considerations,” Energy, Vol. 29, Nos. 9-10 (July-August 2004): 1326.
59 IPCC 2005: 190.
60 For further discussion see CRS Report RL34316, Pipelines for Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Control: Network Needs and Cost Uncertainties, by Paul W. Parfomak and Peter Folger.
61 J. Barrie, K. Brown, P.R. Hatcher, and H.U. Schellhase, “Carbon Dioxide Pipelines: A
Preliminary Review of Design and Risks,” Proceedings of the 7th International Conference
on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (Vancouver, Canada: Sept. 5-9, 2004): 2.

CRS-17
insufficiency,” coma, and death.62 Such an event occurred in 1986 in Cameroon,
when a cloud of naturally-occurring CO spontaneously released from Lake Nyos
2
killed 1,800 people in nearby villages.63
The Secretary of Transportation has primary authority to regulate interstate CO2
pipeline safety under the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Act of 1979 as amended (49
U.S.C. § 601). Under the act, the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates the
design, construction, operation and maintenance, and spill response planning for CO2
pipelines (49 C.F.R. § 190, 195-199). The DOT administers pipeline regulations
through the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) within the Pipelines and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).64 Although CO is listed as a Class 2.2
2
(non-flammable gas) hazardous material under DOT regulations (49 C.F.R. §
172.101), the agency applies nearly the same safety requirements to CO pipelines
2
as it does to pipelines carrying hazardous liquids such as crude oil, gasoline, and
anhydrous ammonia (49 C.F.R. § 195).
To date, CO pipelines in the United States have experienced few serious
2
accidents. According to OPS statistics, there were 12 leaks from CO pipelines
2
reported from 1986 through 2006 — none resulting in injuries to people. By
contrast, there were 5,610 accidents causing 107 fatalities and 520 injuries related to
natural gas and hazardous liquids (excluding CO ) pipelines during the same period.65
2
It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from these accident data, because CO2
pipelines account for less than 1% of total natural gas and hazardous liquids
pipelines, and CO pipelines currently run primarily through remote areas. Based on
2
the limited sample of CO incidents, analysts conclude that, mile-for-mile, CO
2
2
pipelines appear to be safer than the other types of pipeline regulated by OPS.66
Additional measures, such as adding gas odorants to CO to aid in leak detection,
2
may further mitigate CO pipeline hazards. Nonetheless, as the number of CO
2
2
pipelines expands, analysts suggest that “statistically, the number of incidents
involving CO should be similar to those for natural gas transmission.”67 If the
2
nation’s CO pipeline network expands significantly to support CCS, and if this
2
expansion includes more pipelines near populated areas, more CO pipeline accidents
2
are likely in the future.68
62 Airco, Inc., “Carbon Dioxide Gas,” Material Safety Data Sheet (Aug. 4, 1989).
[http://www2.siri.org/msds/f2/byd/bydjl.html]
63 Kevin Krajick, “Defusing Africa’s Killer Lakes,” Smithsonian, v. 34, n. 6. (2003): 46 —
55.
64 PHMSA succeeds the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA),
reorganized under P.L. 108-246, which was signed by the President on Nov. 30, 2004.
65 Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), “Distribution, Transmission, and Liquid Accident and
Incident Data,” (2007). OPS has not yet released 2007 incident statistics. Data files
available at [http://ops.dot.gov/stats/IA98.htm].
66 John Gale and John Davidson. (2004): 1322.
67 Barrie et al. (2004): 2.
68 Gale and Davidson (2004): 1321.

CRS-18
Criminal and Civil Liability. There are no special provisions in U.S. law
protecting the CO pipeline industry from criminal or civil liability. In January 2003,
2
the Justice Department announced over $100 million in civil and criminal penalties
against Olympic Pipeline and Shell Pipeline resolving claims from a fatal gasoline
pipeline fire in Bellingham, WA, in 1999.69 In March 2003, emphasizing the
environmental aspects of homeland security, Attorney General John Ashcroft
reportedly announced a crackdown on companies failing to protect against possible
terrorist attacks on storage tanks, transportation networks, industrial plants, and
pipelines.70
Even if no federal or state regulations are violated, CO pipeline operators could
2
still face civil liability for personal injury or wrongful death in the event of an
accident. In the Bellingham accident, the pipeline owner and associated defendants
reportedly agreed to pay a $75 million settlement to the families of two children
killed in the accident.71 In 2002, El Paso Corporation settled wrongful death and
personal injury lawsuits stemming from a natural gas pipeline explosion near
Carlsbad, NM, which killed 12 campers.72 Although the terms of those settlements
were not disclosed, two additional lawsuits sought a total of $171 million in
damages.73 The MIT study concluded that operational liability for CO pipelines, as
2
part of an integrated CCS infrastructure, “can be managed within the framework that
has been successfully used for decades by the oil and gas industries.”74 Nonetheless,
as CCS policy evolves, Congress may seek to ensure that liability provisions for CO2
pipelines are adequate and consistent with liability provisions in place for other CO2
infrastructure.
Other Issues
In addition to the issues discussed above, additional policy issues related to CO2
pipelines may arise as CCS policy evolves. These may include addressing technical
transportation problems related to the presence of other pollutants, such as sulfuric
and carbonic acid, in CO pipelines. Some have also suggested the use or conversion
2
of existing non-CO pipelines, such as natural gas pipelines, to transport CO .75
2
2
69 “Shell, Olympic Socked for Pipeline Accident,” Energy Daily (Jan. 22, 2003).
70 John Heilprin, “Ashcroft Promises Increased Enforcement of Environmental Laws for
Homeland Security,” Assoc. Press, Washington dateline (Mar. 11, 2003).
71 Business Editors, “Olympic Pipe Line, Others Pay Out Record $75 Million in Pipeline
Explosion Wrongful Death Settlement,” Business Wire (April 10, 2002).
72 National Transportation Safety Board, Pipeline Accident Report, PAR-03-01. (Feb. 11,
2003).
73 El Paso Corp., Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Form 10-Q, Period ending June 30, 2002. (Houston, TX: 2002). The
impact of these lawsuits on the company’s business is unclear, however; the report states
that “our costs and legal exposure ... will be fully covered by insurance.”
74 MIT 2007: 58.
75 An example is the Gwinville, MS-Lake St. John, LA natural gas pipeline purchased by
(continued...)

CRS-19
Coordination of U.S. CO pipeline policies with Canada, with whom the United
2
States shares its existing pipeline infrastructure, may also become a consideration.
Finally, the potential impacts of CO pipeline development overseas on the global
2
availability of construction skills and materials may arise as a key factor in CCS
economics and implementation.
Conclusion
Policy debate about the mitigation of climate change through some scheme of
carbon capture and sequestration is expanding quickly. To date, debate among
legislators has been focused mostly on CO sources and storage sites, but CO
2
2
pipelines are a vital connection between the two. Although CO transportation by
2
pipeline is in some respects a mature technology, there are many important
unanswered questions about the socially optimal configuration, regulation, and costs
of a CO pipeline network for CCS. Furthermore, because CO pipelines for EOR
2
2
are already in use today, policy decisions affecting CO pipelines take on an urgency
2
that is, perhaps, unrecognized by many. It appears, for example, that federal
classification of CO as both a commodity (by the BLM) and as a pollutant (by the
2
EPA) potentially could create an immediate conflict which may need to be addressed
not only for the sake of future CCS implementation, but also to ensure consistency
between future CCS and today’s CO pipeline operations.
2
In addition to these issues, Congress may examine how CO pipelines fit into
2
the nation’s overall strategies for energy supply and environmental protection. The
need for CO pipelines ultimately derives from the nation’s consumption of fossil
2
fuels. Policies affecting the latter, such as energy conservation, and the development
of new renewable, nuclear, or hydrogen energy resources, could substantially affect
the need for and configuration of CO pipelines. If policy makers encourage
2
continued consumption of fossil fuels under CCS, then the need to foster the other
energy options may be diminished — and vice versa. Thus decisions about CO2
pipeline infrastructure could have consequences for a broader array of energy and
environmental policies.
75 (...continued)
Denbury Resources, Inc. in 2006 and converted to CO transportation for EOR in 2007.
2