U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–946 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 116–5 

HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 383, THE UTILIZING 

SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS WITH INNOVATIVE 

TECHNOLOGIES ACT, AND THE STATE OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES THAT REDUCE, CAPTURE, 

AND USE CARBON DIOXIDE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIKE BRAUN, Indiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, -Ranking 

Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 5 

Moore, Hon. Shelley, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ............................ 6 

WITNESSES 

Sukut, Paul, General Manager and CEO, Basin Electric Power Cooperative .... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 14 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 15 

Oldham, Steve, CEO, Carbon Engineering ........................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 29 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 29 

Waltzer, Kurt, Managing Director, Clean Air Task Force ................................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse 54 

(1) 

HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 383, THE UTILIZING 

SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS WITH INNOVATIVE 

TECHNOLOGIES ACT, AND THE STATE OF 

CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES THAT REDUCE, 

CAPTURE, AND USE CARBON DIOXIDE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Braun, 

Rounds, Sullivan, Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, 

Booker, Markey, Duckworth, Van Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. The committee will come to 

order. 

Today we are here to discuss Utilizing Significant Emissions 

with Innovative Technologies Act, or simply, the USEIT Act. The 

USEIT Act would encourage the commercial use of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. 

The bill supports the use of carbon capture technology, including 

direct air capture. The legislation also expedites permitting for carbon dioxide pipelines in order to move the carbon dioxide from 

where it is captured to where it is stored or used. 

For those of you who are not familiar with the USEIT Act, it is 

a practical, common-sense piece of legislation to turn carbon dioxide emissions into valuable products. We can use carbon dioxide to 

extra oil from wells that wouldn’t otherwise be profitable through 

a process called enhanced oil recovery. We can capture carbon dioxide and use it to make building materials and carbon fiber. Captured carbon even can be used for medical purposes. 

Today we are going to hear testimony about other new and exciting developments in the area of carbon capture technologies. When 

we introduced the USEIT Act last year, we had a group of four 

Senators in support, including members of this committee, Senators Whitehouse and Senators Capito. And I would like to introduce into the record an article published in the National Journal 

last week entitled The Senate’s Quite Climate Policy Deal Maker. 

You look great in that picture, Sheldon. 

2 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. The article praises Senator Whitehouse for 

‘‘finding incremental successes working with Republican colleagues.’’ And I hope there is no objection to introducing this. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I don’t know. Does Senator Cardin have 

any objection? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, thank you, Chairman, that is kind 

of you. 

Senator BARRASSO. The praise is well-deserved. 

This Congress, I want to again thank Senator Whitehouse and 

Senator Capito for their continued partnership as we work to get 

the USEIT Act to the President’s desk. Support for the USEIT Act 

has now grown from an initial bipartisan group of four Senators to 

a larger group of 12 Senators, including seven of my colleagues on 

this committee. Along with Senators Whitehouse and Capito, I am 

pleased, this Congress, to have Ranking Member Carper, Senator 

Cramer, Senator Duckworth, Senator Rounds and Senator Inhofe 

as cosponsors of the USEIT Act. 

In addition, a bipartisan companion bill has been introduced in 

the House of Representatives. 

When we had a hearing on the USEIT Act last year, we heard 

testimony about the many ways carbon dioxide can be transformed 

from a useless by-product into a valuable commercial good. Interest 

in the USEIT Act has continued to grow since last year. This is in 

large part due to the bipartisan success we had with the FUTURE 

Act, which was signed into law a year ago. Senators Whitehouse, 

Capito and I led that legislative effort as well. The FUTURE Act 

extended and expanded the tax credit for using and storing carbon 

dioxide. 

The Clean Air Task Force called the FUTURE Act one of the 

most important bills for reducing global warming pollution in the 

last two decades. The extension and expansion of the so-called 45Q 

tax credit to the FUTURE Act has expended public interest about 

how we capture and use carbon dioxide. 

This Congress, I have continued to focus on ways to expedite and 

expand the use of carbon capture. That begins with the USEIT Act. 

Last Congress, we unanimously supported the legislation out of 

committee by a voice vote. This Congress, we want it signed into 

law. America should reduce emissions through innovation, not punishing government regulations. The USEIT Act advances that goal. 

This is also the approach we took with the bipartisan Nuclear 

Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. The bill will make sure 

America remains a leader in nuclear energy innovation. Nuclear 

power creates jobs and is critical if we are going to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. President Trump signed the legislation into 

law earlier this year. 

Passage of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization 

Act was an important step forward. I look forward to continuing to 

work with members of this committee on both sides of the aisle to 

make additional progress in promoting nuclear energy technology, 

including exploring solutions to nuclear waste disposal issues. 

This committee has and should continue to lead on bipartisan 

and on common-sense solutions. Such solutions do not include, in 

3 

my opinion, the Green New Deal, which I believe is unworkable 

and according to Doug Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, would cost between $51 trillion and $93 

trillion dollars. 

My ideas do include the USEIT Act, as Axios recently reported, 

although the USEIT Act is not as high-profile or sweeping as the 

Green New Deal resolution, also unveiled on the same day. The bill 

takes a more direct, concrete aim at the root of climate change, 

emissions themselves. So when we work together, we have shown 

we can promote American leadership, grow our economy and lower 

our emissions. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Carper, a cosponsor of the USEIT Act, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Sheldon, I just note, that looking over your shoulder, in this article, that the headline says, the Senate’s Quiet Climate Policy deal 

maker, Bernie, is looking over your shoulder. So for what it’s 

worth. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this 

hearing today and for your leadership as we begin to examine one 

of the many ways we can work together to find solutions that we 

need to, and then craft legislation to support what I call win-win 

policies that address climate change while addressing job creation 

and fostering economic growth. 

In today’s hearing, we are going to be focusing on technologies 

that reduce, capture, and use carbon dioxide as well as bipartisan 

legislation that supports them. Utilizing these significant innovations with innovative technology or USEIT is sponsored, as we 

know, by the Chairman, cosponsored by a bunch of us, including 

me. And let’s start with the primary reason I believe we need to 

act, and that is, to address carbon dioxide emissions and climate 

change. 

The science behind climate change is settled, from our warming 

oceans to heat traps in our atmosphere. Climate change is real. It 

is happening, and human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, 

are greatly contributing to the problem. Scientists have also found 

direct links between climate change and recent extreme weather 

events such as the rash of devastating category 5 hurricanes that 

our Country has experienced, wildfires in the west, they are as big 

as my State of Delaware. Again, the science is clear from these extreme weather events, they are only going to get worse if we do 

nothing. 

It doesn’t matter if you are from a coastal State or from a landlocked State. I have lived in both. If you care about public health 

or the environment, if you care about our economy and our national 

security, the reality of climate change is that every person living 

in our Country will eventually see or experience it. Most are already affected by it today. God knows that we are in Delaware. 

As I see it, we have a couple of options. We can take up this fight 

and get serious about addressing and adopting and adapting to cliVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:04 May 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35946.TXT VERNE
4 

mate change, or we can stick our heads in the sand and do nothing. 

Doing so I think threatens the future of our children and our 

grandchildren. I say we fight and we fight together, not with one 

another. Senator Barrasso’s colleague, his wing man from Wyoming 

is Mike Enzi, who is a great guy. He is the author of the 80–20 

rule that I oftentimes cite. I used to explain why Mike Enzi, a very 

conservative Republican, got so much accomplished by working 

with Ted Kennedy, the most liberal Democrat we had at the time. 

And Mike said that, ‘‘Ted and I work on the 80–20 rule.’’ I said, 

what is that, and he said, ‘‘We agree on 80 percent of the stuff, we 

disagree on 20 percent of the stuff, we focus on the 80 percent 

where we agree, and we’ll turn to the other 20 percent some other 

time.’’ I think the USEIT Act is just a great example of the 80– 

20 rule. So we appreciate his wisdom. 

The fight, however, can also do some real good, can unleash 

American innovation and job opportunities, while putting the U.S. 

in the driver’s seat of a global clean energy economy that would include this kind of technology. That won’t be easy. We still need a 

comprehensive approach, every tool in our tool box to address this 

issue. 

To make that major shift toward a cleaner energy economy, R&D 

and our other Federal investments, tax incentives from our regulations and all our other policies that harness market forces are 

going to be on the table, too. Fortunately, we are not starting this 

fight from square one. Smart investments and regulations made by 

the Obama administration, and we can go back even as far as the 

George Herbert Walker Bush administration, results in dramatic 

increases in the deployment of energy efficiency, clean energy technology at a cheaper cost. 

As a result of these smart policies, more than 3 million people 

went to work today in clean energy energy jobs, while consumers 

pay less, not more, in energy costs now than they did a decade ago. 

Which proves yet again we can have a cleaner environment, better 

climate, and stronger economy. 

Despite these successes, much more is needed to stem the tide 

of climate change. We are going to hear today from our witnesses 

that major investments in carbon capture utilization and sequestration technologies are in demand. The USEIT Act helps make 

these investments through R&D and by lowering other barriers 

preventing the widespread development and deployment of CCUS. 

I am especially pleased to see that this year’s version of the bill 

makes additional investments in direct air capture of carbon pollution. With the changes we have made, and again, I am happy to 

join our Chairman and colleagues and Sheldon in cosponsoring this 

USEIT Act. 

We want to assure the broad deployment of CCUS and other 

clean energy technologies. However, the U.S. must make bolder, 

bigger actions than the USEIT Act. And we must embrace broad 

climate policies, such as a price on carbon eventually to really move 

the needle on our climate change policies. 

With that said, this hearing is not the end. It is just the beginning. I look forward to working with the Chairman and all of our 

colleagues here to make sure that our Country is more secure, both 

economically and with respect to the threat of climate change. My 

5 

hope is that we can do so in this Congress. This is a good place 

to start. Thanks so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I would like to give my two colleagues who have supported the 

USEIT Act since its initial introduction last year an opportunity to 

provide some remarks. Senator Whitehouse, would you like to say 

a few words? 

OPENING OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would be delighted to, Chairman. Thank 

you very much for your kind words and for your leadership on this. 

If we can get this bill passed, it will build on the success of the 

FUTURE Act, the 45Q Act, which we successfully got into the 2018 

budget deal. And I want to thank our chairman, Senator Barrasso, 

and Senator Capito, for their leadership on the FUTURE Act. Pulling everybody together was a broad and unlikely coalition, but it 

worked, and the bill is in place. 

It will help solve the market failure of there being no revenue 

proposition for captured carbon. We gave it a revenue proposition, 

and the market has responded. Occidental Energy and Hoyt Energy have announced that they will pursue a project to capture CO2

from two ethanol plants supported by the 45Q Rule. Net Power, a 

novel natural gas electricity-generation technology that inherently 

captures all its CO2 emissions, has said it will use the credit to 

build its first commercial scale plant. 

So things are already moving. But nobody likes highways and 

roads more than Senator Inhofe, and this USEIT Act will basically 

allow for highways and roads for the CO2 to get from the place 

where it is captured to the place where it can be either used or sequestered. At the moment, you can do things like they are doing 

up in Saskatchewan and you can capture carbon from the plants 

emissions and run it to, as the Chairman pointed out, enhanced oil 

recovery sites. But that limits the reach of this technology. And we 

need to expand it. The USEIT Act will help expand it. 

I want to thank Chairman Barrasso for his leadership on both 

of these bills. I appreciate it very much. I want to thank our ranking member, Senator Carper, for his very helpful contributions to 

this bill and his support of it. Senator Capito is again a key, lead 

player in this, and I appreciate and thank her. Senators 

Duckworth, Rounds and Cramer were in my notes to thank. But 

Chairman Barrasso mentioned that Senator Inhofe is a cosponsor 

as well. So I want to express my appreciation to him. 

We have had very good luck when we work with Senator Inhofe 

on pieces of legislation. We have a plastics bill that passed by 

unanimous consent with Senator Inhofe’s support. We have the 

TSCA bill that passed Congress and has been a very strong, bipartisan environmental achievement, with not just Senator Inhofe’s 

support, but his leadership. And Senator Inhofe is very often very 

active in making sure that infrastructure bills get done. We have 

had a few occasions where we have worked together to break various logjams in the Senate to keep infrastructure bills moving. 

6 

I think that our colleagues look at a bill that has both Senator 

Whitehouse and Senator Inhofe cosponsoring it and think, well, 

there is probably room for me in that bill. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And that, combined with Senator Inhofe’s 

immense legislative skills at getting things done, I think I would 

give him a particular welcome to this bill. 

So we have a big opportunity here. I do think that we have 

shown that pricing carbon works, that the market does need to accept that there is a real difference between carbon-intensive power 

and carbon-free power. And the quicker we can reflect that, the 

better we will respond to the climate crisis that is looming over us. 

So it is great to have this bipartisan opportunity. I have companies like AgCorp and BioProcessH20 and my home State of Rhode 

Island that are excited by these prospects. 

I will close by saying that some years ago, I won the very prestigious award of being the algae advocate of the year. I know you 

are all deeply jealous of that accomplishment by me. But one of the 

reasons I was the algae advocate of the year was because algae actually can get into the exhaust stream once CO2 gets captured, and 

it can be turned into a variety of products, from feed to makeup 

to human food products and so forth. So when we added carbon 

capture utilization and sequestration, a kind word to the algae 

folks. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Capito, over to you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is going to be 

a hard act to follow Captain Algae over there. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CAPITO. But I am going to try. I do appreciate, certainly, 

Senator Whitehouse’s leadership on this, when we introduced it 

last year, when we did 45Q, the FUTURE Act. It was amazing to 

see the different stakeholders in the room. And I want to thank the 

chairman and the ranking member for being here, and Senator 

Inhofe for joining on to our second try here. 

I want to thank the chairman, too, for prioritizing this bill early 

in our session. I really appreciate this. We did learn some things 

last year when we tried to move the bill forward. And this year, 

I am happy to say that one of my counterparts from West Virginia, 

David McKinley, has already introduced a counterpart for this in 

the House. 

So I think timely enactment of the USEIT Act is of essence. Because last year we did pass the FUTURE Act, as Senator 

Whitehouse said. The FUTURE Act expanded and improved the 

45Q tax credit for the utilization, carbon capture and storage. I 

think it was a very substantive step. 

But we have had some headwinds with that that prevent that bipartisan achievement from having its full effect. First of all, the 

IRS has yet to provide revised guidance, helping us to utilize the 

credit. And just recently, Senators Whitehouse and Barrasso and I 

7 

sent a letter earlier to the IRS leadership requesting that they expedite that guidance. 

The January 1, 2024, deadline for projects to begin construction 

is looming ever larger. And we know, and you all know certainly, 

and I know our panel will tell us, these are not inexpensive 

projects as you are moving forward. You are making enormous capital commitments along with a longevity. Predictability is absolutely critical. 

Second, there remains the lack of regulatory certainty from our 

Federal permitting agencies. That is where we know that this bill 

comes in, providing a clear playbook for securing the necessary permits. Senator Whitehouse talked about sort of the belts and suspenders aspect of this bill, and the associated infrastructure, like 

CO2 pipelines, will help sponsors know what they are getting into. 

And it will provide assurance that as they seek private investment 

that a project won’t get lost in approval purgatory. 

This committee has heard substantive testimony about the cost 

overruns and delays that can result when project sponsors in any 

arena, and even the agencies themselves, don’t know what the approval process actually looks like. So that is why timely enactment 

of the USEIT Act is so vital for making broad-based deployment of 

carbon capture utilization and storage technologies reality. 

As I am sure we will hear from our witnesses today, if the 

United States and the world are to bend the curve on atmospheric 

carbon dioxide, CCUS has to be a part of a policy and technological 

win and mix. CCUS will also serve to preserve employment in industries like coal and construction and manufacturing, and in the 

process, it will prevent major market disruptions that could kill 

jobs and significantly raise costs for energy and goods across our 

Nation. 

So I look forward to hearing from the panel. Again, thank you 

for bringing this bill up so quickly. It is an important policy and 

it has a lot of good, bipartisan cosponsors and interests. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I was counting the number of times I heard the 

word bipartisan. I stopped counting at 20. And normally, you would 

hear a lot about fighting, how we don’t get along, we don’t work 

on anything together. And normally, at this part of our hearings, 

we stop and we join hands and sing Kum By Yah. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. And this might be one of those moments, if not 

right away, then maybe at the end of the hearing. But we are glad 

you are here to add to the spirit. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I am pleased now to introduce our three witnesses, Paul Sukut, 

who is CEO and General Manager of Basin Electric Power Cooperative. Basin provides power to residents of nine States, including 

my home State of Wyoming. We are happy for your willingness to 

testify. 

We also have with us Mr. Steve Oldham, who is the CEO of Carbon Engineering, and Mr. Kurt Waltzer, who is the Managing Director of the Clean Air Task Force. 

So welcome. I invite all of you to testify. I want to remind the 

witnesses that your full written testimony will be included and 

8 

made part of the official hearing record today. We ask that you try 

to keep your statement to within 5 minutes, so we will have some 

time for questions. I look forward to hearing from each of you. 

Would you like to begin, Mr. Sukut? 

STATEMENT OF PAUL SUKUT, GENERAL MANAGER AND 

CEO, BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE 

Mr. SUKUT. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Barrasso, 

Ranking Member Carper and members of the committee. 

As the Senator said, my name is Paul Sukut. I am the CEO and 

General Manager of Basin Electric Power Cooperative. We are 

headquartered in Bismarck, North Dakota. I have worked in the 

energy industry about 40 years, about 36 with Basin Electric, and 

really, I have served as CEO since 2014. 

I would like to thank you for the invitation to speak this morning 

about innovation in the utility industry and other efforts to reduce 

emissions, particularly carbon. Basin Electric is a generation and 

transmission cooperative that provides wholesale electricity to 141 

rural electric cooperatives that serve 3 million customers across 9 

States. 

We have a diverse generation portfolio, consisting of over 6,000 

megawatts of coal, natural gas, wind, recovered energy, nuclear 

and market purchase agreements. Our generation resources participate both in the MISO and SPP regional transmission organizations. 

Basin electric and its members have invested billions of dollars 

in capital in recent years to secure its fossil-based generation. I 

would refer the committee to my written testimony for additional 

details on our facilities. Basin Electric is actively engaged in assuring that these assets can continue to operate in a carbon-constrained future, and we strongly support common-sense carbon 

management regulation that recognizes improvements already 

made to existing plants, and sets a standard that is achievable 

with cost-effective technologies that can be applied to the facility 

itself and allows flexibility. 

As utilities make decades-long planning decisions, it is imperative to have certainty with respect to how regulations impact our 

facilities, and the associated costs just to run them. Looking further into the future, Basin Electric remains interested in developing solutions to innovate with respect to cost-effective clean coal 

technologies that capture, utilize and sequester CO2. 

Basin Electric is the host site for the Integrated Test Center located at our Dry Fork Station near Gillette, Wyoming. This test facility will provide space for researchers to turn CO2 into a marketable commodity. 

In addition to the Integrated Test Center, Basin has been involved with exploring the potential for near-zero emission Allam 

Cycle technology as an option for future power generation. Again, 

I would refer the committee members to my written testimony for 

details on this technology, our partners and its status. 

I would like to highlight for the committee a subsidiary of Basin 

Electric, the Dakota Gasification Company, which operates the 

Great Plains Synfuels Plant near Beulah, North Dakota. This one 

of a kind facility produces synthetic natural gas from lignite coal, 

9 

and several fertilizer and chemical coal products. Notably, the facility is also one of the largest CO2 sequestration projects in the 

world, utilizing CO2 separated during the coal gasification process 

for enhanced oil recovery in Saskatchewan, Canada. 

I believe that the plant and the development of its products continue to demonstrate what a resource we have in our coal reserves, 

and what can happen with smart innovation. I hope this is the 

kind of progress that we will continue to see from the ITC and 

through other initiatives for value-added coal use and CO2 capture 

at the Federal and State levels. 

Finally, a lot of discussion on carbon capture tends to focus on 

the technological challenges of economically capturing CO2. But the 

other side of this equation is what you do with CO2 once it is captured. Recently, Basin Electric has participated with the Plains 

CO2 Reduction Partnership in the Department of Energy’s 

CarbonSAFE program, to investigate the geology in both North Dakota and Wyoming and ultimately develop a large-scale injection 

test well for CO2 sequestration. Developing a solution for captured 

CO2 will inevitably require additional build-out of pipeline infrastructure in order to come to fruition. 

For this reason, we support the Utilizing Significant Emissions 

with Innovative Technologies Act and its provisions to expedite 

guidance, permitting and construction of CO2 infrastructure. As a 

not-for-profit electric cooperative, Basin Electric has a fiduciary responsibility to its members to provide electric generation at the 

lowest possible cost. 

The question of carbon capture is not only one of a technology 

barrier, but an economic one as well. Many factors impacting the 

utility industry today make capital investments, such as new coal 

construction, cost prohibitive if not impossible. 

To this end, we appreciate the bipartisan support from the members of this committee for legislation such as the 45Q capture tax 

credit that was expanded last year, as well as the USEIT Act that 

provide further assistance to relieve the regulatory and financial 

barriers to carbon capture utilization and sequestration, as well as 

other novel technologies. 

In closing, Basin Electric has undergone a number of changes as 

the electric industry has evolved. But I believe we have a good 

story to tell with respect to CO2 reduction, and are well-positioned 

to serve our members now and well into the future. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. I 

would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sukut follows:] 

10 


35946.001

Testimony of Paul Sukut, CEO and General Manager, Basin Electric Power Cooperative 

Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

February 27,2019 

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the committee. My 

name is Paul Sukut, I am the CEO and General Manager of Basin Electric Power Cooperative 

(Basin Electric) headquartered in Bismarck, North Dakota. I have worked in the energy industry 

for 40 years, including over 35 with Basin Electric. I served as the cooperative's Chief Financial 

Officer and Deputy General Manager prior to becoming CEO in 2014. 

Thank you for the invitation to speak this morning about innovation in the utility industry and our 

efforts to reduce emissions. Basin Electric is a generation and transmission cooperative that 

provides wholesale electricity to 141 rural electric cooperatives who serve three million consumers 

in nine states across a high voltage transmission system of over 2,500 miles (owned and 

maintained). 

Basin Electric has a diverse generation portfolio consisting of approximately 6, 700 megawatts of 

coal, natural gas, wind, recovered energy, oil, nuclear power, and market purchase agreements. 

Our generation resources participate in both the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and 

Southwest Power Pool regional transmission organizations. 

In North Dakota, Basin Electric operates two separate, two-unit coal-based power plants, the 

Antelope Valley Station and Leland Olds Station. To meet the demands of the rapid development 

in the Bakken oil fields in Western North Dakota, Basin Electric recently completed deployment 

of approximately 500 megawatts of natural gas-fired electric generation and over 200 hundred 

miles of 345-kV transmission infrastructure. As a result, we now own and operate simple cycle 

natural gas turbines and reciprocating engine generation at the Pioneer Generation Station, along 

with simple cycle natural gas turbines at the Lonesome Creek Station. 

In Wyoming, Basin Electric is a member of the Missouri Basin Power Project that owns the 

Laramie River Station in Wheatland and is operated by Basin Electric. We also operate one of the 

newest additions to the coal-based fleet, the Dry Fork Station outside of Gillette, which 

commenced operation in 20 II. In addition to these coal-based facilities, Basin Electric operates 

45 megawatts of distributed generation in Wyoming consisting of nine natural gas-fired 

combustion turbines. Basin Electric also built and operates a simple cycle natural gas turbine at 

the Culbertson Station in Montana. 

The Deer Creek Station - a 300 megawatt natural gas combined cycle plant near Elkton, South 

Dakota- went into service in 2012. We also operate a two-unit simple cycle natural gas turbine at 

the Groton Station, as well as an oil-based peaking station near Vermillion. Finally, Basin Electric 

has also developed and owns nearly 300 megawatts of wind generation since 2009, and has power 

purchase agreements for over I ,000 megawatts of additional wind power. By 2021, Basin Electric 

will contract and own nearly 2,000 megawatts of wind generation. 
11 


35946.002

Carbon-Constrained Future 

As I've described, Basin Electric and its members have invested billions in capital in recent years 

to secure its fossil-based generation. In addition to new facilities, such as Dry Fork and Deer 

Creek, Basin Electric has and continues to invest in the latest environmental controls for its existing 

facilities - $1.6 billion to-date. At the same time, we have sought to diversify our portfolio with 

renewable generation and low-cost power purchase agreements enabled in part by the renewable 

Production Tax Credit. By next year, 25 percent of the energy Basin Electric will be delivering to 

our members will be from renewable sources. This investment and diversification in our 

generation portfolio has significantly lowered our carbon dioxide (C02) emissions per megawatthour and we expect to continue that trend. 

Going forward, Basin Electric is actively-engaged in ensuring that these assets can continue to 

operate in a carbon-constrained future. One of the biggest factors driving our long-term planning 

involves what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ultimately does about C02 regulation. 

The Clean Power Plan would have been devastating to rural electric cooperatives. At the time the 

CPP was released, we estimated a $5 billion impact to Basin Electric and our members, in both 

stranded costs for our existing coal generation, and replacement generation to continue meeting 

load. We support the EPA in finalizing the proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule. This proposed 

regulation recognizes the improvements made to existing plants, provides for setting a standard 

that is achievable with cost-effective technologies that can be applied to the facility itself, and 

allows for flexibility to achieve a unit-based standard. 

Basin Electric continues to support reform of other Clean Air Act programs, such as New Source 

Review, to ensure that utilities can make cost-effective improvements to their facilities that 

increase efficiency and reduce emissions. As utilities make decades-long planning decisions, it is 

imperative to have certainty with respect to how regulations impact our facilities and the associated 

costs to run them. The absence of regulatory certainty creates the threat of not knowing whether 

we can continue operating a facility through the duration of its estimated life. Our number one 

priority as a utility, besides providing low-cost and reliable power, is to ensure that our generating 

facilities do not become stranded assets for which our members still have to pay for yet receive no 

benefit from. The Clean Air Act directed the EPA to account for remaining useful life in its 

regulation of existing facilities to address this concern, and regulations need to uphold this 

important principle. 

Innovation 

Looking further into the future, Basin Electric remains interested in developing solutions to help 

crack the code with respect to cost-effective clean coal technologies that capture, utilize, and 

sequester C02. Basin Electric is a partner - along with Tri-State Generation and Transmission 

Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association - with the Integrated Test 

Center (ITC) located at our Dry Fork Station. Using flue gas provided by Dry Fork, this test 

facility will provide space for researchers to explore new and innovative solutions to tum C02 into 

a marketable commodity. The State of Wyoming invested in the design and construction of this 

facility, and oversees its operation. Five teams from several different countries are preparing to 

move on-site and will compete for the NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE. 
12 


35946.003

In addition to the ITC, Basin has been involved with exploring the potential for Allam Cycle 

technology as an option for future power generation. The Allam Cycle, developed by NET Power, 

is a new power cycle that utilizes oxy-fired natural gas to produce supercritical C02, which is then 

used as the working fluid in a turbine to generate power with near-zero emissions. Given Basin 

Electric's long history with coal gasification at the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, and our interest in 

continuing to utilize North Dakota's vast lignite reserves, we have looked into whether this 

technology can be deployed with gasified coal. At this point, Basin Electric, and its partners -

ALLETE Clean Energy, the Lignite Energy Council, the North Dakota Industrial Commission, 

and the Energy and Environmental Research Center, have been conducting research on syngas 

combustion and feasibility while NET Power completes construction and testing at its 

demonstration facility near Houston, Texas. 

I would also like to highlight for the committee a subsidiary of Basin Electric, the Dakota 

Gasification Company, which operates the Great Plains Synfuels Plant near Beulah, North Dakota. 

This one-of-a-kind facility produces synthetic natural gas from lignite coal, and produces 

approximately 600,000 tons of fertilizer co-products including anhydrous ammonia, ammonium 

sulfate, and a newly-commissioned urea plant that began operation early last year. In addition to 

fertilizers, the facility produces several chemical co-products such as phenol, naphtha, tar oil, 

krypton and xenon gases, and liquid nitrogen. 

Originally designed to solely produce synthetic natural gas following the 1970s energy crisis, the 

Dakota Gasification Company has diversified its product stream after acquiring the facility from 

the Department of Energy in 1988. Today, nearly 80 percent of the plant's revenue is derived from 

products other than synthetic natural gas. In the process, the Dakota Gasification Company 

returned over $1 billion of the Federal Government's original investment in the plant through 

revenue sharing and surrender of tax credits. Notably, the facility is also one of the largest C02 

sequestration projects in the world. Approximately three million tons of C02 are separated 

annually during the process of reforming raw gasified coal into pipeline-quality natural gas. Since 

2000, more than 35 million tons of C02 have been shipped via pipeline to the Weyburn oil field in 

Saskatchewan and utilized for enhanced oil recovery. 

The Great Plains Synfuels Plant has certainly had its challenges throughout the years, but I wanted 

to highlight that this facility and the development of these products continue to demonstrate what 

a resource we have in our coal reserves, and what can happen when innovation is unleashed and 

fostered. I hope this is the kind of progress that we will continue to see from participants at the 

lTC, and through other initiatives for value-added coal-use and C02 capture at the federal and state 

levels. 

Finally, a lot of our discussions on carbon capture tend to focus on the technological challenge of 

economically capturing C02 from electric generation, but the other side of this equation is what 

you do with C02 once it is captured. As I mentioned, Basin Electric, through the Dakota 

Gasification Company has delivered C02 for enhanced oil recovery for nearly two decades. More 

recently, Basin Electric has participated with the Plains C02 Reduction Partnership in the 

Department of Energy's CarbonSAFE program to investigate geology in both North Dakota and 

Wyoming, and ultimately develop a large-scale injection test well for C02 sequestration. I believe 
13 


35946.004

this program will provide important insight to prove out both geological capacity for permanently 

storing C02, as well as the costs associated with injecting, storing, and monitoring a sequestration 

well. 

Our region is particularly blessed with the geology for C02 sequestration and enhanced oil 

recovery, but either of those options will require additional buildout of pipeline infrastructure to 

come to fruition. For this reason, we support the Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative 

Technologies (USE IT) Act and its provisions to expedite guidance, permitting, and construction 

of C02 infrastructure. 

As a not-for-profit electric cooperative, Basin Electric has a fiduciary responsibility to its members 

to provide reliable electric generation at the least cost. As I mentioned, we have worked to achieve 

this goal by diversifying our portfolio with wind and market purchases. Basin Electric has a vested 

interest in generation sources with long-term fuel certainty, such as coal, that provide affordable 

power and serve as the backbone of the electric grid. However, in the near-term historically-low 

natural gas prices continue to drive new generation decisions while regulatory uncertainty makes 

new coal construction a cost-prohibitive option. Moreover, regional transmission organizations 

provide no pricing mechanisms to compensate utilities for investment in carbon-free or low-carbon 

facilities such as nuclear or carbon capture. The markets' failure to recognize and compensate 

these attributes effectively prevents market participants from spending considerable capital on 

these technologies. 

To this end, we appreciate members of this committee and others for their bipartisan support of 

policies that allow the Federal Government to be a partner with states and the private sector to 

prove out technologies, mitigate the risk of uncertainty, and eventually allow for commercial 

deployment of new electric generation by Basin Electric and other utilities. Legislation such as 

the 45Q carbon capture tax credit that was expanded last year, as well as the USE IT Act, provide 

further assistance to relieve the regulatory and financial barriers to carbon capture, utilization, and 

sequestration, as well as other novel technologies. I thank members of this committee for their 

support of these legislative efforts. 

Conclusion 

In closing, there is no shortage of challenges as we seek solutions that balance the need tor 

affordable and reliable energy with the challenge of reducing C02 emissions. However, the 

cooperative model was established specifically in response to a challenge, to extend electric 

service at the time to those areas no one else would, and continues to serve us well as the electric 

industry evolves. Basin Electric has undergone a number of changes in recent years, we have a 

good story to tell with respect to C02 reduction, and are well-positioned to serve our members at 

the end of the line now and well into the future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our thoughts on innovation and technology development 

in the electric sector, and for your support of these efforts. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you might have. 
14 


35946.005

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Hearing to ExamineS. 383, the Utilizing Significant Emissions with 

Innovative Technologies Act, and the State of Current Technologies that Reduce, Capture, 

and Use Carbon Dioxide" 

February 27,2019 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Sukut 

Chairman Barrasso: 

1. In your testimony, you mentioned a project that was held up by the New Source Review 

program. Although the project would have reduced emissions and the amount of coal 

burned, it did not go forward. In your experience, is the current New Source Review 

program a common impediment to projects that would reduce emissions? 

I would say that those types of capital projects are not terribly common, but when they do 

come up, NSR is certainly a consideration and can be an impediment. However, NSR 

evaluations are a frequent routine that require considerable staff time and expense to 

determine whether routine maintenance or modifications will trigger NSR. Case in point, 

the .first step when we plan a maintenance outage for our generating facilities is whether 

the outage work will trigger NSR. It is a program that would benefit from clarification 

and streamlining to avoid these issues. 

2. In your testimony, you discussed how the National Environmental Policy Act 

environmental review process limited Basin from securing public financing for a wind 

farm project. Can you talk more about that project and the environmental review 

uncertainties Basin encountered? 

Starting in the late 2000s, Basin's member systems in Western North Dakota experienced 

sudden and immense load growth due to the Bakken oil boom. Basin could not build 

high-voltage transmission fast enough to meet load due to the length of time needed to 

acquire easements, right-ofways, as well as state and federal permilling, including 

NEP A analysis and potential mitigation requirements. 

As such, our only option was to pursue construction of generation located in Western 

North Dakota near the distribution network. A condition ofpursuingfundingfrom the 

Rural Utilities Service was having to perform environmental analysis under NEP A. 

However, we had to have the generation in-place and operating before an Environmental 

Impact Statement would have been completed, therefore we had to seek outside sources 

offunds to build generation and keep the lights on in the Bakken region. Had we been 

forced to rely on RUS, the NEPA process would have been a significant threat to our 

ability to provide reliable power during this period. 

At the same lime, Basin sought to utilize section 1603 grants provided by the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act in order to build the Prairie Winds I wind project. While 

we did seek RUSfundingfor this proiect, the NEPA process was not complete until years 

afier the proiect had been placed into operation. In the meantime, Basin had to expose 
15 


35946.006

itse(f to considerable risk by utilizing short-term capital and general operatingfunds to 

construct the project and meet the timing requirements of section 1603. 

3. Can federal permitting uncertainty slow, or worse altogether prevent, environmentally 

beneficial projects that would reduce emissions from moving forward? If so, do these 

impediments affect development of both baseload power resources as well as more 

intermittent power resources? 

Yes. As I've mentioned, NSR has been a barrier to projects that could increase efficiency 

and reduce emissions. Similarly, the NEPA process has been a barrier to developing 

wind projects. In addition, NEPA and other federal permitting requirements such as 

mitigation requirements from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the pending Waters 

of the U.S. definition can greatly impact both renewable energy projects, as well as 

transmission development needed to transport that energy to load. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

4. What is the best-case scenario for deployment of CCUS by 2040? What could we expect 

in terms of quantity of C02 capture and removal? How do we get there? 

The Carbon Utilization Research Council, a group ofwhich Basin serves as a member, 

has developed a roadmap that identifies technologies that can be available by the 2025-

2035 time frame that can generate electricity while utilizing CCUS. I would encourage 

you and your staflto review this report and its recommendations for additional detail: 

http://www. cure. net!webfi/es!RoadmapiF!NAL %2020 18%20C URCEPRI%20Roadmap.pg[ A companion study by CURC and Clear Path, called "Making 

Carbon a Commodity" shows that if the technology recommendations of the roadmap are 

implemented, there could upwards of80 gigawatts of carbon capture on both coal and 

natural gasjired power plants in operation by 2040 that vmuld create 780,000 newjobs 

and increase our GDP by 5190 billion. This ana(vsis can be reviewed at: 

http:/kurc.net/making-carbon-a-commoditv-the-potential-o(-curbon-capture-rdd 

Simply put, the best case would be new thermal plants with integrated C02 capture by 

2040 that are able to provide a competitive cost of energy. The broad application of 

these .facilities could be limited by the market for utilization. Again, this is why it is 

important for the Federal Government to lead with policies like the USE IT Act to help 

sustainable C02 markets materialize. similar to how the renewable Production Tax 

Credit and other incentives have helped the wind industry become a prominent power 

provider. Finally, as most utilities have become participants in wholesale markets 

through Regional Transmission Organizations, the need to be able to recover these costs 

from the RTO market is critical. It is difficult, if not impossible, for utilities tojustifo 

these investments otherwise. 

5. What are the most exciting technologies and projects on the radar? 
16 


35946.007

As I mentioned during my testimony, there are many advancements being made with postcombustion technologies such as amine C02 scrubbers and membrane technology. Basin 

Electric has been working with numerous partners including the State of North Dakota to 

study the feasibility of utilizing NET Power's Allam Cycle technology with gasified coal 

to generate electricity with near-zero emissions. So far, these technologies have yet to 

break the cost barriers in today 's wholesale electricity markets, but there is a need to 

continue proving the technology because we will need options for backup generation to 

serve load when renewables are not available, i.e., the wind is not blowing and the sun is 

not shining. 

6. How would a price on carbon affect the economics ofCCUS and investment in CCUS 

technologies? 

As I mentioned during my testimony, as a cooperative utility we are tasked with providing 

electricity at the least cost. Any kind ofprice, tax, or other effort that will increase the 

cost of utilizing fossil resources will have a negative impact on our membership/the 

consumer, and will discourage investment in CCUS. A carbon price would further 

accelerate the current dynamic of coal plant retirements and reliance on natural gas 

generation, leavingfew, if any, facilities at which to test CCUS. A better way to incent the 

development of these technologies is to continue investment in research and development 

to lower the cost curve and help utilities deploy CCUS without harming the electric 

consumer. 
17 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Sukut. 

Mr. Oldham, welcome to the committee. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE OLDHAM, CEO, CARBON ENGINEERING 

Mr. OLDHAM. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, thank you very much for the opportunity to meet, and the 

other distinguished members of the committee, too. Thank you for 

your attention to this matter. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could we have a translator, 

please? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OLDHAM. Is it my British accent? I will talk slowly. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OLDHAM. I am CEO of a company called Carbon Engineering. We are actually based in British Columbia, Canada. We are an 

innovative company. We are privately funded. And we have been 

focused on developing technologies that will allow the large-scale 

capture of atmospheric CO2. Why atmospheric CO2? Why do we focus on capturing that? I am 

a simple guy, I would like to do a simple metaphor to help you and 

everybody else understand. Think of your kid in the bathtub. Think 

of the bathtub as the atmosphere, and we fill the bath with water. 

We all know there is a safe level of water that you can put in there 

before your kind is under any threat whatsoever. 

Now put the taps on, and leave the taps running. So the taps 

running is the equivalent of CO2 emissions. We keep building more 

and more water in that bathtub. Eventually, it becomes a threat 

for the child and the bathtub. Eventually, it runs over the side of 

the bathtub and wrecks the whole house. 

So what do we do about that? The first and most obvious thing 

we do is we turn down the tap. And that is CO2 emission control. 

It is absolutely essential that we turn down the tap. 

But every one of us knows that even if you turn the tap down 

so it is just dripping, it is just a matter of time before the bathtub 

fills and it overflows and it wrecks the house. So the other solution 

is to pull out the plug. And the plug allows you to rapidly drain 

the bathtub, and you can put the plug back in when it gets back 

to a safe level. 

That is negative emissions. That is direct air capture and that 

is what we do. 

Senator CARPER. Could you explain that to me one more time, 

please? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. That was a great example. That is terrific. 

Mr. OLDHAM. Thank you. 

So our focus as a company has been to develop the tools that 

allow very large-scale capture of CO2 directly from the atmosphere. 

We have developed and demonstrated that technology, it has been 

working in British Columbia since 2015. 

We are now moving ahead with a plan to bring that technology 

into the United States with a variety of different partners. We have 

had inquiries from 38 U.S. States that would like to set up a facility within their State. And of course, we have recently received investment from some significant companies here in the United 

18 

States, Occidental Petroleum and Chevron have become both 

shareholders and partners with Carbon Engineering in bringing 

our technology to market. 

The process is extremely safe. This is an example of a part of our 

process. When we capture the CO2 from the atmosphere, we make 

calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate is what you guys would 

know as seashells. So just as our kids play safely on beaches with 

seashells all around them, this calcium carbonate here, which is 

made out of atmospheric CO2, this is negative emissions right here 

in my hand, is part of our process. 

Moving forward, our company is now ready to start building commercial-scale activities. It is critical that we have large scale here. 

The CO2 problem in the atmosphere is significant, and it has to be 

addressed at scale. So the interest of Occidental, the interest of 

Chevron, why are they interested? They like negative emissions, 

they want to focus on de-carbonization. The use of CO2 enhanced 

oil recovery is a very valuable opportunity. If you capture CO2 from 

the atmosphere and you put that CO2 underground in the process 

of EOR, you are putting more carbon underground than is contained in the crude that comes back up. 

So now you have a win-win. We have a continued source of jobs 

and prosperity associated with that crude. But you also have a negative emission. 

Third, what if you take that CO2 from the atmosphere, you combine it with hydrogen and you make a synthetic fuel? Now that 

synthetic fuel uses the CO2 that was burned in the atmosphere already, you put it in your car, your vehicle, you drive that vehicle, 

the CO2 is put back into the atmosphere, we collect it again and 

we make more fuel. So the opportunity to create a sustainable, lowcarbon fuel which is compatible with every vehicle, every truck, 

every plane that exists today, is enabled by large-scale capture of 

atmospheric CO2. 

That is the reason why our friends at Chevron are interested in 

our business. They would like to de-carbonize their fuel by blending 

our fuel with their fossil fuel. It makes the fossil fuel more sustainable while achieving de-carbonization at the same time. 

Moving ahead as a company, the building of our plants is a critical activity, as the Senator pointed out earlier on. These are large 

capital projects, and investors in those projects look at the market, 

they look at the legislation that is on the books right now. 45Q has 

been an essential part of the economics of our plants, so thank you 

for your work and your leadership in bringing that in. 

The USEIT Act is also important. When we have the IPCC, we 

have the National Academy, we have the Royal Academy, the 

United Nations, all saying that negative emissions, capturing atmospheric CO2 is essential, it scares me that there are less than 

200 people in the world today working on direct air capture. We 

need more people. We need more brilliant minds onto this. And the 

USEIT Act will enable that by providing funding for R&D. 

Here at Carbon Engineer, we need more competitors. We need 

more partners, we need more innovation. We hope your Act brings 

more people to the table, and we thank you for your leadership. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oldham follows:] 

19 


35946.008

~Carbon Engineering 

Written Testimony of Steve Oldham 

CEO, Carbon Engineering 

W: www.carbonengineer!ng.com 

E: info@carbonengineering.com 

Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

February27, 2019 

Introduction and Executive Summary 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, and the 

other members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to participate in this 

hearing and to submit written testimony. 

My name is Steve Oldham and I'm the CEO 

of Carbon Engineering, where we have 

developed a direct air capture technology 

that removes carbon dioxide from the 

atmosphere, creating a valuable product 

that can be used or stored. 

To understand where our technology fits, 

Figure 1: Commercial-Scale Direct Air Capture (DAC) Unit. 

imagine that the atmosphere is simply a bathtub that holds all gases including carbon dioxide (CO,). The 

world is measuring a higher and higher fill level on the amount of co, in the bathtub, so in our attempts to 

decarbonize, we are trying to turn down the co, tap. 

But the other way to deal with too much C02 in the atmospheric bathtub is to open up the drain. While 

there are natural carbon removal techniques like afforestation, never before have we been able to open 

up the bathtub drain at large scale through technical means. 

Our technology, which is demonstrated and commercially viable, enables co, to be pulled out of the 

atmosphere at large scale and then permanently sequestered underground or used to manufacture 

transportation fuels and other industrial products. Our technology is similar to carbon capture on 

industrial flue stacks, but distinct and complementary in that we capture directly from the more dilute CO, 

in the atmospheric air. 

Within my written testimony I will cover: 

1. Carbon Engineering's successful efforts over the last ten years to solve the DAC technical 

challenges and capture atmospheric carbon for as little as $100 per ton. 

2. Our new partnerships including those with world-class industrial companies like Occidental 

Petroleum, Chevron, and BHP. 

3. Our commercialization plans and the potential for significant economic development in the US 

through production of CO, and liquid transportation fuels. 

4. The positive impact of the USE IT Act. 
20 


35946.009

~Carbon Engineering 

Background on Carbon Engineering 

W: www.carbonengineering.com 

E: info@carbonengineering.com 

Since our founding in 2009, we have designed and engineered our technology to be deployed at large 

industrial scales. Our commercial direct air capture plants are designed to capture 1,000,000 metric tons 

of carbon dioxide per year. At that scale, one facility is processing a quantity of co, equivalent to the 

emissions from 250,000 average cars. We designed our technology for these large scales because these 

are the capacities at which oilfield operations, geological injection of co,, and large fuel refineries operate. 

As an example, the energy industry utilizes 50 million tons (megatons) of CO, each year to inject 

underground to help produce oil in the Permian Basin through a technique called enhanced oil recovery. In 

part due to positive measures such as 450. some estimates show that this amount could triple in coming 

years to a demand of 150 megatons of co,. Existing supplies of co,- primarily from geologic sources·· are 

not enough. We are ready to meet that demand with atmospheric co,. Since our only feedstocks are air, 

water, and energy, our plants can be located adjacent to existing pipelines and oilfields to deliver co, at 

point of demand, and our castings show that this can be economical today. 

What Carbon Engineering has achieved over more than a decade of research and development- the 

ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for as little as $100 per ton- is significant. Carbon 

Engineering's technology represents a tremendous economic opportunity for the United States to lead on 

innovation around co, capture and utilization. Our co, capture plants will help established fossil energy 

companies to decarbonize their portfolios, while enhancing domestic energy security and creating entirely 

new domestic manufacturing industries that will utilize captured co, for the production of fuels, chemicals 

and industrial products. Carbon Engineering's technology provides a market-based solution for 

simultaneously meeting the demands of existing industries and decarbonizing the economy. 

I assumed the leadership of Carbon Engineering a little over a year ago, after building and running a 

number of businesses in the satellite and high-tech sectors, to help commercialize what I recognized then, 

and continue to believe now, to be an important game-changing technology. Carbon Engineering had been 

founded in 2009 by Professor David Keith, who is now at the Harvard University School for Engineering and 

Applied Sciences and the Kennedy School for Government. He raised seed capital from a small group of 

investors, including Bill Gates, to create and commercialize this important technology. 

David and his investors saw the potential in direct air capture and founded the company with the mission 

to develop and engineer a system that could be brought to market affordably and at industrial scale, and 

which could play a mainstream role in cutting emissions and producing clean energy. Since 2009, the team 

at Carbon Engineering- now over 50 individuals-- has been able to do just that. Our technology is proven, 

the leading commercial markets are ready, and we've formed core strategic partnerships with some of the 

world's largest energy companies. Our mission now is to be the preferred solution for the capture and 

utilization of atmospheric co,, by providing technology that is economic, accessible, and effective. 

And that's happening·· we're getting major buy-in and validation from private industry. We recently 

received investments from Occidental Petroleum, Chevron and BHP (Formerly BHP Billiton), each of whom 

see our technology as a strategic asset in delivering affordable- and increasingly clean- energy to 

consumers. This strategic interest will be key as we continue to develop project opportunities in locations 

such as Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and California- where 
21 


35946.010

~Carbon Engineering 

W: www.carbonengineering.com 

E: info@carbonengineering.com 

carbon dioxide is used in oilfield operations, where renewable energy is available, and where markets are 

demanding increasing quantities of domestic, low-carbon fuels. 

Direct Air Capture Technology Description 

"Direct air capture" is the term used to describe the process of capturing carbon dioxide directly out of 

atmospheric air with an engineered, mechanical system. DAC, as it is known, pulls in atmospheric air and 

through various chemical reactions, extracts the carbon dioxide within it, and returns the rest of the air to 

the environment. This is what plants and trees do every day as they photo-synthesize, except DAC 

technology does it much, much faster, and delivers the carbon dioxide in a pure, compressed form which 

can then be stored underground or used to manufacture products like clean transportation fuels. DAC is a 

similar, and complementary, technology to "carbon capture and storage" which removes carbon dioxide 

from industrial flue gas instead of the atmosphere. 

Over our ten years of work at Carbon Engineering, we have developed and now demonstrated a direct air 

capture technology that Is cost effective, ready for market, and which can be deployed at large industrial 

scale. We've done this by borrowing already commercial and widely used equipment and modules from 

other industries, and then innovating and integrating around them to create a fully-integrated DAC 

system. 

WATER r s~rJ.::g~..... I PELLETS t lr-----.. · .. r.~.~J,~O, 

t -I <· ~ R bd-~-~_:::~ I CO RICH __j + + ...__. SOLI.ifiON WATER NG1oGJ 

Figure 2: Schematic of CE's DAC Technology. Inputs are air, water, and energy. Output is pure, 

compressed, CO, ready for injection or use. 

Fundamentally, our technology has four main steps (See Figure 2): 

l. Our "air contactor"- built with design philosophy from the industrial cooling industry- pulls air in 

and reacts it with an alkaline liquid solution known as potassium hydroxide. It is non-toxic, nonvolatile, and reacts with atmospheric carbon dioxide to form a salt known as a carbonate. As air is 

passed through our device, carbon dioxide is removed, until once discharged from the outlet back 

into the environment, the air has only one quarter of its original co,; the rest having been 

absorbed into our liquid. This means air goes in with 400 parts per million (ppm) of co,, and 

comes out with only 100 ppm co,, and then the discharged air quickly mixes with the rest of the 

atmosphere. 

2. A second step takes the carbon dioxide we have absorbed and reacted to form carbonate and 

causes this to precipitate out of solution in solid form. This module uses technology from the 

wastewater treatment industry. This is very similar to a glass of salt water that evaporates, and 
22 


35946.011

~Carbon Engineering 

W: www.carbonengineering.com 

E: info@carbonengineering.com 

leaves behind a precipitated ring of salt. In our case, we don't evaporate, we use a chemical 

reaction to cause precipitation. What we have after this step is a solid carbonate, containing the 

C02 we have captured from air, that we can further process. 

3. In the last major step of our process, we heat this carbon dioxide-carrying carbonate to high 

temperature, which causes it to release pure co,. We do this in a closed vessel- adapted from 

mineral and ore processing- so we can capture and compress the co, that is released and deliver 

it for use or storage. 

4. Finally, to complete our process, we take the solids that are left behind from the high-temperature 

C02 release, and we mix them with water to return to our system. This mixture actually re-creates 

the original capture chemical used in the air contactor to absorb co,, and the cycle begins again. 

These four steps, all taken together, mean that we have a "closed loop" chemical process that captures 

and purifies atmospheric carbon dioxide. Closed loop means that we don't require a constant supply of 

chemicals to operate; rather, we simply need water and energy. The energy for our system can come in 

two main forms. We either operate with clean, Jow~carbon electricity, or we can operate by using natural 

gas as our energy source. In this latter case, we are able to take advantage of cheap and abundant natural 

gas to power our system, and we capture all of the carbon dioxide created by the gas, so that both the co, from the air and from the natural gas are purified and compressed for further use. This is important 

because it keeps us from releasing COz and counter-acting the COz that we have absorbed. 

Uses of Direct Air Capture 

We have developed our Direct Air Capture technology with a few key uses in mind, which now form the 

project opportunities that we are developing along with our strategic investors. First, our technology 

allows atmospheric carbon dioxide to be collected and purified at any location. Our system works just as 

well in West Texas as it would near a busy highway or big city and we are cultivating opportunities to 

capture and deliver carbon dioxide to where it is demanded for both geological sequestration and 

enhanced oil recovery. Enhanced oil recovery has been in practice since the 1970's, and American energy 

companies inject over fifty million tons of co, per year and need more. Current supplies are mostly C02 

produced from geologic wells, but these are limited, and direct air capture offers the opportunity to 

produce CO, at point of demand and also to leave atmospheric co, underground permanently during oil 

production. One of our largest investors, Occidental Petroleum, sees significant value in applying our 

technology to their oilfield operations in the Texas Permian Basin where they use it to manage reservoir 

production, and can manage their reservoir engineering to permanently store the carbon dioxide 

underground. We see additional value in deploying our technology in locations that have injectable 

geology but limited carbon dioxide pipeline capacity, such as areas of Wyoming, the Dakotas, the Gulf 

coast, and California. 

Another commercial opportunity to utilize our co, is to supply atmospheric carbon dioxide that can create 

valuable industrial products. Some are starting to call this broad concept "electrons to molecules". We 

have in fact developed a process that we call Air to Fuels'", which pairs our air capture system with 

renewable hydrogen, in order to provide both carbon dioxide and hydrogen as feedstocks for direct 

refining of liquid fuels (See Figure 3). Our Air to Fuels'" process allows us to harness low-carbon or 
23 


35946.012

~Carbon Engineering 

W: www.carbonengineering.com 

E: info@carbonengineering.com 

renewable electricity, such as that produced by wind turbines or solar panels- which is often intermittent 

-and to split water to make hydrogen. Instead of trying to sell the renewable electricity or the hydrogen, 

we instead combine the hydrogen with captured atmospheric carbon dioxide and directly refine it into a 

liquid fuel such as diesel or Jet-A. This has several benefits, including increasing the demand for renewable 

energy, as well as producing a hydrocarbon drop-in fuel that is compatible with existing refineries and 

engines. As with the case of using atmospheric co, for underground injection, we are now seeing 

significant interest in our Air to Fuels'" technology to deliver the increasing volumes of low carbon fuels 

demanded in leading markets like California, Oregon, British Columbia, and Europe. 

Air, Sun, Carbon ~ Engineering Water 

&li. II ~*" 

~ ......... ;,, ..... 

Fuilt synthun Synthetic 

• Fuels 

Figure 3: Schematic of CE's Airto Fuels'" Technology. Air to Fuels builds on direct air capture, and clean 

electricity, to directly produce liquid fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet. 

As an additional note, direct air capture, when coupled with geological sequestration, allows us to achieve 

what is known as 11Carbon dioxide removal" or "negative emissions." As companies and nations tackle 

commitments to reduce environmental footprints and cut emissions, many are starting to recognize that 

in certain sectors, cutting emissions at their source is too costly or challenging to be practicaL In certain 

industrial or agricultural sectors, emissions-reducing fixes are difficult to imagine. So rather than stopping 

or limiting activity in such sectors, direct air capture with permanent sequestration could be used to 

capture and store an equivalent quantity of emissions, thus offsetting the impact of the facility or practice 

in question. Further, in far future scenarios, if and when carbon emissions have largely been eliminated, 

negative emissions provided by direct air capture can allow us to achieve "global net negative" scenarios 

and to begin reducing the concentration of co, in the atmosphere. 

Status and Trajectory 

To date we have been almost entirely supported by private capital, coupled with early-stage R&D support 

from government sources. Our early private equity financing rounds allowed us to develop, engineer, and 

demonstrate the technology. We secured funding -largely from competitive, performance-based 

government funding solicitations- to augment our private capital, and we have been proud recipients of a 
24 


35946.013

~Carbon Engineering 

W: www.carbonengineerlng.com 

E: lnfo@carbonengineyring.com 

grant from the US Department of Energy to help us operate our direct air capture pilot facility and 

continue to advance the technology. This early work allowed us to demonstrate both our Direct Air 

Capture and our Air to Fuels'" technologies at pilot plant scale. Our direct air capture pilot was 

commissioned in 2015 and can capture a ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each day, and our full 

air to fuels pilot made first fuels from atmospheric carbon in late 2017 (See Figure 4). 

Figure 4: CE's DAC Pilot Facility. Commissioned 2015, capture capacity 1 ton· COJday. 

Having demonstrated these technologies, we are now poised to close a $60 million USD financing round 

that will see us continue our disciplined scale up strategy and will allow us to start work on first 

commercial projects. We have secured funding from Occidental Petroleum, BHP, and Chevron as investors 

in this round, and we anticipate announcing additional major investors in March 2019. 

This funding round will enable us to deploy a larger, fully-integrated system· roughly 5·10-times greater 

capacity than what has been done to date. We'll deploy this equipment at our existing facility, and its 

engineering, fabrication, commission, and operation life-cycle will take us roughly two years. The data and 

experience from these scale-up efforts will be used to validate our commercial scale designs, and to 

adhere to best-practice disciplined engineering scale up. Overall, this continues the hardware-driven 
25 


35946.014

~Carbon Engineering 

W: www.carbonengineering.com 

E: info@carbonengineering.com 

approach we've used as a company since day one, and allows our engineers to deploy early commercial 

facilities with high confidence and low risk. 

At the same time, we are already starting to develop our first commercial facilities, with several of our 

leading candidate sites being here in the United States. We're working with our lead investors, and other 

potential partners, to develop first commercial facilities. There are a number of candidate locations, but 

for example, one project would see us deploy a direct air capture facility capable of delivering 100,000-

500,000 metric tons of CO,, via an existing pipeline for use in oilfield operations in Texas. The facility would 

cost in the range of $300-GOOM USD, would create several hundred construction jobs and over a hundred 

permanent jobs, and would pay back a positive internal rate of return (IRR) to investors (even for this first 

project) from the value generated by co, delivery and by generation of California Low Carbon Fuel 

Standard credits and 450 tax credits for permanent capture and storage of co,. 

Figure 5: Depiction of a Commercial CE Air to Fuels'M Plant. 

We are also pursuing opportunities to acquire electricity from renewable power developers- which at 

some locations can be difficult to sell due to its intermittency- to drive full Air to Fuels"' facilities (see 

Figure 5). Again, we see leading candidate sites in Texas, but potential for deployment in Colorado, New 
26 


35946.015

~Carbon Engineering 

W: www.carbonengineering.com 

E: info@carbonengineering.com 

Mexico, Nevada, and other locations, as well. Such an early facility would likely produce 500 barrels per 

day of a product known as "Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Crude" which could be processed in existing 

refineries into the usual slate of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels (See Figure 6). 

Figure 6: Fuel production at CE's facility. 

Five hundred barrels per day is small by refining standards, but in both the stand-alone direct air capture, 

and the Air to Fuels configurations, our expectation is that energy industry and finance sector players need 

to see these early plants executed well before they'll allow us to finance bigger installations. These early 

commercial projects will be challenging. We have demonstrated technology, and market demand, but first 

projects often require extra help, and we see the mutual benefit of an active Government role here, on 

which we would welcome further discussion. 

Once through early projects, we anticipate deploying growing numbers of both stand-alone direct air 

capture and air to fuels facilities at increasingly larger scales. With the full economics of scale shown by 

our engineering work to-date, we anticipate that these facilities are financeable from competitive capital 

markets, and can be a self-sustaining, self-perpetuating industry based on the value of C02 and fuels 

produced, and credits generated under California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Eventually, with improved 

optimization and economics, we see the same technologies having significant export potential, and being 

applied in multiple regions of the world. 
27 


35946.016

~Carbon Engineering 

W: www.carbonengjneerlng.com 

E; info@carbonengineering.com 

Figure 7: Industry impacts: CE's DAC and Air to Fuels'" technologies play a key role in "electrons to 

molecules". 

Supportive Public Policies 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your role- and the role of Senator Whitehouse and others- in 

developing and reintroducing the USE IT Act. We are confident that Carbon Engineering's technology will 

be economic and competitive at commercial scale. We are grateful for the support that the Department 

of Energy has provided for necessary research and development work. We also acknowledge the support 

that the 45Q tax credit has provided to help secure investment from the petroleum sector. And we 

recognize that California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard provides long-term market opportunity by 

incentivizing the permanent sequestration of carbon dioxide, regardless of location, and the production of 

low carbon fuels for the transportation sector. 

But we hope you will recognize that there are significant challenges to developing the first-of-its-kind 

version of any new technology, and our technology is no exception. We believe the USE IT Act proposal, to 

the extent that it increases focus on direct air capture of carbon dioxide, will be an added incentive to 

potential investors in our sector. There are multiple measures that, as we understand them, will help both 

carbon capture and storage projects, as well as direct air capture projects. We especially agree that 

outcome-based investment, such as the "technology prize" mentioned in the USE IT Act proposal, is a 

viable approach for the Congress to encourage because it requires the government to take less risk, even if 

ultimate investments would be higher. We would note, however, that Carbon Engineering's critical path to 

market- now that our technology is demonstrated and that we have industry demand- is to raise 

financing for a first-of-a-kind commercial scale Direct Air Capture plant, for which a prize may not be the 
28 


35946.017

~Carbon Engineering 

W: www.carbonengineering.com 

E: info@carbonengineering.com 

right mechanism. Nonetheless, we support and endorse the "technology prize" described in USE IT, in the 

context that it will encourage more actors, more research projects, and more focus on the direct air 

capture space. We would encourage continued discussion with leaders in our field to determine how to 

provide the right support to anchor development of this new technology in the United States. 

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there is one other way that the federal government 

could help Carbon Engineering and companies like it to manage the risks associated with bringing new 

technologies to market. I have mentioned Carbon Engineering's Air to Fuels technology, which can directly 

synthesize liquid fuels from captured atmospheric co, and clean electricity. At present time, our feedstock 

-ambient air- is not among those feedstocks which are approved in the Renewable Fuels Standard to 

generate RIN credits. It simply was not anticipated when the legislation was written. lffuels generated by 

the Air to Fuels process were eligible to generate RINs, the economics of the process would be greatly 

enhanced and would allow us to finance such facilities from competitive capital markets. Increased 

deployment of Air to Fuels facilities would help parties obligated under the RFS, would create clean 

burning fuels for American consumers, and would unlock increased business activity in the wind and solar 

electricity sectors. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate very much the opportunity to discuss Carbon Engineering's new 

technologies and how they may be affected by the language of the newly re-proposed USE IT Act. We look 

forward to continuing to work with you on this and related matters. 

35946.018

From the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing 

entitled, "Hearing to ExamineS. 383, the Utilizing Significant Emissions with 

Innovative Technologies Act, and the State of Current Technologies that 

Reduce, Capture, and Use Carbon Dioxide", February 27, 2019 

'"""""" 

35946.019

Questions for the Record for Mr. Oldham 

Senator Markey: 

1. The USE IT Act would provide for the 4SQ production tax credit to be available f

years for qualifying projects constructed before 2024. 

a) What is the average scale of commercial direct air capture facilities you expect to deploy, in terms o

drawdown per day or per year? 

b) How much energy is required to draw down a ton of carbon dioxide currently using your technology 

scale? 

c) How much C02 do you expect an average commercial scale facility will be able to draw down from th

atmosphere with the investment credit as proposed over that 12 year time period? 

d) What amount, in dollars, would that tax credit amount to over that 12 year time period? 

2. What locations within the United States are you expecting to target for deploym

Please name at least one state, and indicate if you are working with that state as 

any implementation planning for emissions reductions. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

3. What is the best-case scenario for deployment of CCUS by 2040? What could we 

in terms of quantity of C02 capture and removal? How do we get there? 

4. What are the most exciting technologies and projects on the radar? 

5. How would a price on carbon affect the economics of CCUS and investment in C

technologies? ~c.-,_ 

35946.020

Question 1 

The USE IT Act would provide for the 45Q production tax credit to be available for 12 years for qualifying 

projects constructed before 2024. 

a) What is the average scale of commercial direct air capture facilities you expect to deploy, in terms of C02 ton drawdown 

day or per year? 

b) How much energy is required to draw down a ton of carbon dioxide currently using your technology at this scale? 

c) How much C02 do you expect an average commercial scale facility will be able to draw down from the atmosphere with 

investment credit as proposed over that 12 year time period? 

d) What amount, in dollars, would that tax credit amount to over that 12 year time period? 

a) A standard commercial Direct Air Capture (DAC) plant will draw 

down one million tons (1 Mt) of atmospheric C02 per year and uses 

the land footprint of bio-based methods 

b) CE published a peer-reviewed energy balance in Joule1 

- Power for the plant can be supplied from renewable and other 

zero-carbon energy sources 

c) Over a 12-year period, an average commercial-scale facility will draw 

down 12 Mt 

d) With 12 years of operations the DAC plant would create over 2,000 

person years of direct employment and enable significant additional 

economic development benefits and tax revenues. The plant would 

earn the following tax credits, depending on its configuration: 

- $420M for utilization, or 

- $600M for sequestration 

'""""' 1 ,_ https://www.cell.com/ioule/pdf/52542-4351(18)30225-3.pdf 

35946.021

Question 2 

What locations within the United States are you expecting to target for deployment? Please name at le

one state, and indicate if you are working with that state as part of any implementation planning for 

emissions reductions. 

• We are engaged in discussions with 

dozens of states and continue to 

investigate project opportunities in 

locations such as TX, WY, OK, IL, WA, 

ND, NM, CO, NV, AK, AZ, HI, and CA 

-where carbon dioxide is used in 

oilfield operations, where natural 

gas and renewable energy are 

available, where there are 

sequestration opportunities, and/or 

where markets are demanding 

increasing quantities of domestic, 

low-carbon fuels. 

Conventional Domestic Oil Resources 

Favorable for CO.-EOR 

• A number of states have included low-carbon fuels (such as CE's F-T fuels) in their low-ca

fuel standards. California has also included permanent sequestration from Direct Air Cap

projects in their Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 

,. "'t. 1 https //www eonwyom1f1g org'dowr:J.£i.q~cent event·pre~entatlcms/God~c C02 BusmPs~ Case-7018 pdf ~Cmb<'ln Ef>IPJlOOring 

35946.022

Conceptual Early Plant Rollout (aligned with market demand) 

·"·'- wCb,,_ '""""""' 

C

P

A

P

35946.023

Question 3 

What is the best-case scenario for deployment of CCUS by 2040? 

What could we expect in terms of quantity of C02 capture and removal? 

How do we get there? 

• In their 2018 report on Negative Emissions 

Technologies and Reliable Sequestration1, the 

National Academy of Sciences found that "Direct air 

capture flux and capacity potential has no 

fundamental physical limit, making its primary 

limitation financial" 

• Therefore, by 2040, the best-case scenario is 

determined by market 

,/With current policies and market conditions, CE can 

deploy dozens of direct air capture and air to fuels 

facilities. 

,/ Increased policy measures- such as participation in 

the EPA's RFS, or adoption of LCFS in additional statecould allow CE to deploy hundreds of facilities to 

meet industry demand for C02 and clean fuels. 

,/Globally, CE has studied deployment scenarios 

reaching into the 1000's of plants, and finds no 

barriers if favorable policy conditions are created. 

c.ortxw> 1 https://www.nap.edu/read/25259/chapter/1 

Engoneeung 

35946.024

Question 3 

What is the best-case scenario for deployment of CCUS by 2040? 

What could we expect in terms of quantity of C02 capture and removal? 

How do we get there? 

• CE has done a detailed feasibility 

analysis supporting plant rollout 

at a rate of 130 plants per year 

- This would lead to 2,600 plants 

by 2040 and 2,600 Mt/yr being 

sequestered 

• This is equivalent to 

decarbonizing all of the 1,800 

Mt/yr in the hard-to-decarbonize 

transportation sectorequivalent to taking all of the 

U.S. cars and trucks and 

airplanes "off the road"- and 

leaving another 800 Mt/yr of 

negative emissions to offset other 

sectors e.g., agriculture 

cort:>on 1 

·-

35946.025

Question 3 

What is the best-case scenario for deployment of CCUS by 2040? What could we expect in terms of quantity of C02 capture and removal? 

How do we get there? 

• Is there really room for all 

of that C02 underground? 

C.,,_ 

'"""""""' 

../In the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) 2015 version 

of the Carbon Storage Atlas 1, 

the DOE estimates that the 

U.S. has the median 

potential to store 8.6 trillion 

tons of C02 underground 

v"This means that the U.S. 

could offset its own 

emissions for >500 years 

with known underground 

storage 

1 https:l/www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon·storage/strategic·program·support/natcarb atlas 

35946.026

Question 3 

What is the best-case scenario for deployment of CCUS by 2040? What could we expect in terms of quantity of C02 capture and removal? 

How do we get there? 

• How do we get there? 

·-

Two simple steps: 

1. Support commercialization 

and scale-up of the first 

plants where economics 

are strongest and demand 

is highest (e.g., TX} 

2. Support U.S. and global 

policies that, in 

combination with the 

value of the product (e.g., 

C02, fuels}, value 

utilization and storage of 

atmospheric carbon 

35946.027

Question 4 

What are the most exciting technologies and projects on the radar? 

• Direct Air Capture 

• 95% of the C02 problem is the C02 that's already in the atmosphere 

• With Direct Air Capture and Storage, we finally have a tool to address the 

historical emissions as well as offsetting today's emissions 

With DAC, we finally have the potential ta meaningfully and permanently remove legac

~ corl>oo carbon from the atmosphere as well as offsetting today's emissions 

Engooo<ing 

35946.028

Question 5 

How would a price on carbon affect the economics of CCUS and investment in CCUS technologies? 

• For CCUS technologies to succeed in mainstream commercial markets, either th

emissions reductions they achieve or the products they make must generate 

additional financial value over and above the status quo. 

-There are many ways to achieve this including tax credits, carbon pricing, flexible 

performance-based regulations, or renewable and low carbon fuel standards. 

-Several of these can be revenue neutral from a government perspective, and several 

now tried and tested with proven track records of success in various jurisdictions. Bu

fundamentally, C02 must be priced as an externality in our society. 

• Implementing reliable, market-based systems that allow CCUS technologies to 

generate financial value for the emissions reductions they achieve creates 

predictable revenue, which in turn generates investment from competitive capi

markets. 

• In short, private investment and capital markets can drive widespread deploym

of CCUS technologies, but reliable carbon pricing is required. ~c-., '""""""" 
40 


35946.029
41 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Very, very interesting. 

Mr. Waltzer, please. 

STATEMENT OF KURT WALTZER, MANAGING 

DIRECTOR, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE 

Mr. WALTZER. Senator Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, members of the committee, I am here on behalf of Clean Air Task Force 

to express our support for the USEIT Act and urge its prompt enactment. 

The kinds of solutions proposed in this legislation is urgent. Supporting innovation and infrastructure development for carbon capture utilization and direct air capture as well as other types of 

technologies and policies is crucial, given the enormous challenges 

we are facing in addressing climate change. To address this Herculean challenge will require nothing less than fully de-carbonizing a 

$25 trillion global energy system at the same time that we expect 

a 40 percent increase in the world’s energy demand. 

To accomplish this task, we need a portfolio of low-carbon technologies that are widely commercially available. Solar and wind 

will certainly play an important role in de-carbonization, but relying wholly on those technologies would be risky. In part, this is because generating 100 percent of electricity from just those sources 

will be significantly more expensive than a more balanced portfolio 

of low-carbon solutions, including nuclear and CCUS. 

But more broadly, our complex energy system has some sectors 

that are really not easily addressed or electrified. These include 

aircraft, other certain types of industrial processes. So in short, we 

really need multiple technology shots on goal. 

This is underscored in the de-carbonization scenarios studied by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change where the vast 

majority of those scenarios included a substantial amount of CCUS, 

as well as direct air capture. We are also going to need a portfolio 

of policies, which includes policies that provide certainty to inventors and investors by setting clear targets through technology portfolio standards or emission limits. 

At the same time we need to also drive forward technology innovation policies, including research and development, support for 

commercial demonstrations, deployment incentives and support for 

infrastructure. We need all these tools in the tool kit if we are 

going to address this massive challenge. 

For CCUS and direct air capture, the 45Q incentive was an important bipartisan success supported by a broad range of stakeholders from environmental organizations, labor unions and industry. The USEIT Act is an important successor bill to that effort. 

If adopted, it will provide important, targeted support for early 

stage R&D for demonstrations in CO2 pipeline infrastructure development. The proposed direct air capture prize is an important addition to our current RD&D tool kit, and is based on a proven approach for leveraging private capital in service to technology problems. 

Supporting R&D for new products that utilize and efficiently 

store carbon will provide an important catalyst to an area that is 

already attracting early stage private investment and early comVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:04 May 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35946.TXT VERNE
42 

mercialization in niche markets. Clarifying the eligibility of CO2

pipelines under the FAST Act, and developing regional task forces 

to promote local, State and Federal coordination will help move 

projects while preserving environmental protections needed to ensure responsible development. 

Again, these policies by themselves are not going to be sufficient 

to get us where we need to be. But they are necessary. 

We appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman, as well as that of 

the bill’s cosponsors on championing these policies and on the bipartisan approach you have all taken in introducing this legislation 

as well as your commitment to maintaining that approach and addressing any future amendments. I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify and look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waltzer follows:] 

43 


35946.030

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC 

WORKS 

HEARING TO EXAMINES. 383, THE UTILIZING SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS 

WITH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ACT, AND THE STATE OF CURRENT 

TECHNOLOGIES THAT REDUCE, CAPTURE, AND USE CARBON DIOXIDE 

TESTIMONY OF KURT WALTZER 

ON BEHALF OF THE CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE 

FEBRUARY 27TH, 2019 
44 


35946.031

Chairman Barrasso and ranking member Carper, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Kurt Waltzer and I am the Managing Director of the Clean Air Task Force. The Clean 

Air Task Force is an environmental non-profit dedicated to catalyzing the development and 

global deployment of low-carbon energy technologies, and other climate protective 

technologies, through research, public advocacy leadership, and partnerships with the private 

sector. 

I am here today to voice CATF's support of the USE IT Act. The development and deployment of 

technologies such as carbon capture utilization and storage and direct air capture carbon is 

critical to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. If enacted, the USE IT Act will support 

innovation in the areas of direct air capture and C02 utilization, while also helping to facilitate 

infrastructure development that would benefit all forms of carbon capture. Policies such as 

these are urgently needed to develop the robust technology tool kit that we need to address 

climate change. 

The Scale and Urgency of the Climate and Technology Challenge 

The size of the climate challenge is staggering. Global energy and industrial production releases 

over 37 billion tonnes per year of C02. These emissions come from diverse sources in the 

power, industrial, transportation, commercial, and residential sectors. Increasingly, the 

emissions come from developing countries as well as developed ones. 

To prevent the worst impacts of climate change, not only must these emissions be eliminated 

by late this century, but there must also be actions that result in negative emissions (i.e., more 

greenhouse gases sequestered than are emitted).1 Based on current projections, average 

temperature growth is estimated to reach between 4.1 degrees and 4.9 degrees Celsius above 

pre-industrial conditions, unless action is taken to reduce emissions. Humanity has never 

existed in a world where the estimated global temperature is above 2 degrees more than preindustrial conditions. In order to achieve less than 2 degrees C of global warming, worldwide 

manmade C02 emissions must be at least 5D-80% lower in 2050 relative to 2010. 11 In order to 

achieve less than 1.5 degrees C of warming, at least a 65-90% reduction in C02 is needed from 

2010 levels by 20501

;;. Moreover, we know these emission reductions are going to have to 

occur in a global economy where total energy demand is projected to increase 40% between 

2010 and 2040.1

v 

Unfortunately, global emissions are in fact going in the wrong direction. Since nations first 

agreed to establish the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, in 1992, global C02 

emissions have increased 66%v. Whether this trajectory can be altered depends on policy, . 

investment and innovation. The world's need for economic development, energy and mobility 

cannot be denied. But the climate challenge demands this need be met through energy sources 

with much lower carbon emissions than conventional technologies. 
45 


35946.032

Currently, coal, oil and gas energy sources, that are unbated for C02 emissions, dominate the 

world's primary energy production- providing over 81%. In terms of low-carbon sources, 

nuclear energy provides roughly 4% of the world's energy, with wind and solar providing less 

than 1% of global energy production. Carbon capture, utilization and storage has only been 

recently applied to energy production with fossil sources through a few commercial 

demonstration projects. 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

oil coal 

Energy Sources as a Percentage of Global Supply 

gas nuclear biofuels and 

Wi:ite: 

hydro 

Figure 1 Source: International Energy Agency, Key Energy Statistics, 2018 (2016 data) 

wind solar 

Moreover, the current global energy system represents $25 trillion of investment, with an 

annual energy investment on the order of $1.8 trillion per year, and that rate is expected to 

grow as demand increases. Existing energy capital stock has a turnover rate of 2% to 4% per 

year. 

Given the scale and urgency of this challenge, replacing or modifying the system will require 

global markets to prefer zero-carbon technology over carbon-intensive alternatives for both 

new and replacement infrastructure. Meeting this challenge may be possible, but only if we 

ensure there are widely commercially available low-carbon technologies that global energy 

markets will deploy in the system. 

The Need foro Low-Carbon Technology Portfolio 

To maximize our chance of meeting this challenge within our limited window of time, we need 

a broad tool kit of technologies and policies. Our technology tool kit will require the continued 

development and deployment of technologies such as advanced renewable energy, nuclear 
46 


35946.033

fission and fusion, CCUS, low-carbon fuels, and electrification, where possible, in the 

transportation and industrial sectors. 

Given the substantial, rapid emission reductions needed, as well as the challenges of energy 

asset turnover and capital availability, it is clear that the need for action is urgent. In order to 

minimize the risk of failing to prevent climate change, most decarbonization modeling suggests 

we need to develop multiple zero-carbon technology options. This is the case for two reasons: 

(1) Having a portfolio reduces risk of any one technology failing. Technology innovation and 

market behavior are unpredictable, so relying on any single technology or a narrow group of 

technologies risks failure. A simple thought experiment based on portfolio theory supports a 

diversified approach; if 10 different technologies each have a 50% chance of failure, there is 

only a 0.1% chance they will all fail, as shown in Figure 3. While this is an oversimplification, the 

reality is we cannot predict the final level at which any potential option will be taken up in our 

future energy system- at least with enough accuracy to be confident we are adequately 

addressing the decarbonization challenge. All options will have inherent limits, and a diversity 

of solutions increases the likelihood of success. 

RISK Of 

fAILURE 

50% 

25% 

12.5% 

6.25% 

3.13% 

1.56% 

0.71% 

0.71% 

0.2" 

0.1" 

Figure 2 Source: Clean Air Task Force 

(2) Greenhouse gas emissions come from a wide range of activities, so we need a range of lowcarbon solutions. In the transportation sector, for example, we need solutions for many 

different purposes (personal, public and freight transportation) and modes (e.g., planes, trains, 

buses and automobiles). In the power sector, because supply and demand options vary over 
47 


35946.034

space and time, we need a mix of resources to accommodate a range of temporal, geographic, 

and climatic conditions. We also need innovation at the power system level to integrate a mix 

of supply and demand technologies into a resilient whole. 

Some of these activity areas are particularly challenging. These include industrial sources for 

which C02 emissions are an inherent part of the process (such as steel and cement}, and types 

of transportation that are not easily electrified (such as shipping, long-haul trucking, and 

aircraft). 

i! 

Figure 3 Source: Davis et al., Science 360, 1419 (2018) 29 June 2018 

Load-following electricity is also a significant challenge. Low carbon variable energy sources, 

such as wind and solar, are likely to play in important role in decarbonizing power grids. 

However, relying only on these resources can be substantially more expensive due to the need 

to overbuild generation and energy storage facilities in order to meet full demand load. One 

recent study looking at Texas and New England power markets found such systems could be as 

much as 105% (Texas} and 163% (New England} more expansive than a system using a more 
48 


35946.035

balanced portfolio that also included nuclear, gas with carbon capture and storage and 

bioenergyv'. 

The Importance of Carbon Capture in the Technology Portfolio 

Carbon capture utilization and storage can play an important role across many of the "hard to 

reach" areas of our energy sector. CCUS has been best understood as a source of potential 

dispatchable or load-following electricity, including the notable demonstration projects of 

NRG's Petra Nova and Sask Power's Boundary Dam, as well as the technology pilot project of 

NETPower. In addition, CCUS is an important technology for emissions reduction from industrial 

sources. While it can be applied across a range of industries, it will be particularly important for 

industrial sources with C02 process emissions, such as steel and cement production vii. CCUS can 

also be applied to the production of zero-carbon fuels such as hydrogen or ammonia. This 

approach is currently under development in the Netherlands and Japanv'''· 

More broadly, carbon capture, utilization and storage, and direct air capture will play a crucial 

role in decarbonizing our global energy system. In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change's (IPCC's) 4'h assessment report, the vast majority of decarbonization scenarios that 

limited global temperature growth to 2 decrees C from pre-industrial conditions include the use 

of CCUS (Figure 3) 1'. 

Dlrtd Sodorll CO, and Nan<o, GHG Emissions In aa..llno and Mitigation S<..,.rlos with and without CCS 

Figure 4 Direct emissions of C01by sector and total non-C01 GHGs (Kyoto gases) across sectors in baseline {!eft panel) and mitigation scenarios 

that reach around 450 (430- 480) ppm C01eq with CCUS {middle panel) and without CCUS (right panel). The numbers at the bottom of the 

graphs refer to the number of scenarios included in the range which differs across sectors and time due to different sectoral resolution and 

tlme horizon of models. Note that many models cannot reach about 450 ppm C02eq concentration by 2100 in the absence of CCUS, resulting in 

a low number of scenarios for the right panel. 

Source: !PCC1 2014: Summary for Policymakers. ln: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group 111 to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
49 


35946.036

In the IPCC's recent report on limiting temperature growth to 1.5 degrees C, three different 

scenarios projected a need of between 348 billion tonnes to 1,218 billion tonnes of C02 to be 

captured and stored by the year 2100. The share of carbon removal ranged from 43% to 97%, 

depending on the level of energy growth through the century. The only scenario where carbon 

capture and sequestration technologies were not included at significant levels, included a 

dramatic reduction in global energy demand of 32% between 2010 and 2osox. Relying on such a 

demand reduction to address climate is highly risky, given the history of demand growth to 

date and the likely growth, particularly in developing economies, which is projected to be 40% 

between the years 2010 and 2040x'. 

The Need for Comprehensive Policy 

Given the scale and scope of change that is required, we must use all the policy tools available 

to us to accelerate change. Our tool kit must include policies that promote R&D, and leverage 

private sector investment in demonstration, deployment and infrastructure development. In 

addition, we need to provide a clear signal to inventors and investors that our energy system of 

the future will be zero-carbon through either emissions requirements, technology requirements 

or carbon prices. 

There are important examples of how innovation and requirements can work in combination to 

reduce technology costs and drive technology deployment. 

One of the most arguably successful public health benefits in terms of air quality improvement 

has been the deployment of pollution controls on coal-fired power plants. The health impacts 

from fine particle pollution from coal-fired power plants have dropped substantially, with 

estimated premature mortality dropping 90% between the years 2000 and 2014xii. In large part 

this is due to the deployment of pollution controls such as sulfur dioxide scrubbers- with most 

coal-fired generation in the US coming from units that have installed sulfur dioxide scrubbersxiii. 

This result was driven by a combination of initial R&D investment paired with requirements 

through the Clean Air Act, which helped catalyze a technology cost reduction of scrubbers by 

nearly 50% from 1972 and 1996x'v, and paved the way for broad scale deployment through 

subsequent rules and regulations. 

Another example can be seen through deployment of photovoltaic solar technology. 

Historically, early R&D investment combined with deployment incentives (such as the 

investment tax credit) and requirements (such as state portfolio standards), have helped drive 

technology deployment and cost reduction. The combination of the R&D, deployment 

incentives, and market requirements have helped drop technology costs from $104/W in 1976 

to $0.67/W in 2014xv. 

It should be noted, however, in both cases most of the cost reduction came through 

incremental, not transformative technology innovation. Absent continued support for 
50 


35946.037

technology advancement, deployment incentives and requirements can lead to technology 

lock-in'vi, where cost reductions are driven more by learning than transformational innovation. 

Given the scale of the climate and technology challenge we are facing, we will need a robust 

approach to innovation that drives transformational technologies that are cost competitive 

with carbon-intensive alternatives, can deploy rapidly, can easily access the low-cost equity and 

debt from financial markets, and can either adapt to or facilitate change of infrastructure and 

regulatory frameworks. Catalyzing the development of multiple low-carbon technology options 

will require policy tools that drive: 

• investment in transformative R&D 

• development of commercial demonstration projects from first of a kind (FOAK) projects 

to Nth of a kind project (NOAK) 

• initial deployment in energy market 

• development of supporting infrastructure and regulations 

The USE IT Act is an important component to the set of tools needed to help carbon capture 

and storage, and direct air capture meet reach wide scale availability. 

The Importance of the USE IT Act 

As technologies, carbon capture and storage and direct air capture are both old and new. 

Carbon dioxide capture and its injection into geologic strata have been in commercial use for 

decades, and direct air capture technologies are a direct result of the US military's decades-long 

interest in developing novel fuel source alternatives. Both technologies are now being 

repurposed to address our climate crisis. Both technologies will need access to secure geologic 

storage sites and both will benefit from the development of a robust C02 pipeline network. 

Both will also benefit from further developing markets that utilize C02 in products, including 

enhanced oil recovery, but also other end uses, such as aggregates for construction material, 

specialty chemicals, plastics and other items. 

One key difference is that while carbon capture for industrial and power sources is seeing 

continuing investment into next generation technology, direct air capture is undergoing first 

generation innovation. That makes it even more important to support direct air capture at this 

point in the process, including with the types of policies that are included in the USE IT Act. 

This bill is an important follow-up to the recent enactment by Congress of the FUTURE Act, that 

extended and expanded the 4SQ tax incentive for carbon capture and storage and direct air 

capture. 45Q has the potential to catalyze a broader market for these technologies. CATF 

recently released a study on the potential impact of the 4SQ provision, Carbon Capture & 

Storage in the US Power Sector: The Impact of 45Q Financial Tax Creditsxvu. The study found that 

the provision has the economic potential to drive 49 million tonnes of emissions reduction per 

year in the power sector by 2030- the equivalent of taking 7 million cars off the road. It is 

important to note that this is only an economic potential, and to ensure it can be met, other 

factors will need to be addressed- including the development of C02 pipeline infrastructure. 
51 


35946.038

It's also important to recognize as well, that like the FUTURE Act, this bill represents a bipartisan commitment to support innovation. CATF greatly appreciates this broad support for 

such policies and in particular the approach stated by Senator Barrasso to approach any future 

amendments to this bill on a consensus basis with all of the bill's co-sponsors. 

As noted above, while not sufficient by themselves, policies that promote innovation and 

infrastructure development are important for decarbonizing our energy system. The USE IT Act 

addresses the need for innovation and infrastructure by promoting direct air capture and 

utilization technologies, while also helping to facilitate the development of C02 projects and 

pipelines. 

Establishing a prize competition for direct air capture is an innovative method for drawing 

technologies into the next stage of development. Such prizes have had powerful impacts, such 

as the Orteig prize that prompted Charles Lindberg's crossing of the Atlantic. As with the early 

stages of air travel, private companies are investing in this area to develop initial commercial 

technologies, and as while the development of intercontinental air travel took substantially 

more policy and investment, the prize played an important catalytic role. At least three 

commercial companies have developed direct air capture technologies and rewarding them for 

meeting a performance target would provide important support at this time. 

Carbon dioxide utilization, aside from enhanced oil recovery (EOR), is also in the early stages of 

development. Like direct air capture, it is an area attracting new investment. Accelerating the 

development of new end uses that ensure carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere 

with a robust R&D program will provide important support for this emerging industry. And 

while the market for other products may not be as large as for EOR, they can play an important 

catalytic role in moving carbon capture technology forward. As an example, Carbon Clean 

Solutions developed its first carbon capture project in India, producing baking soda from C02 

capture at a coal-fired power plant. The company is building on that experience by developing 

its next generation of solvents to further lower carbon capture costs- which would benefit all 

forms of CCUS. 

In terms of infrastructure development, the US has an important foundation for development 

in that we have 4,500 miles of C02 pipelines in place. However, for carbon capture and storage 

and direct air capture to be deployed at scale, we will need a pipeline network several times 

that size. A 2009 study by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) 

Foundation estimated a substantial use of carbon capture technology would require up to 

66,000 miles of C02 pipelinesxviii. The current C02 pipeline network is primarily point-to-point 

delivery, whereas we will need larger interstate trunk pipelines as well as pipeline spurs that 

helps make the buying and selling of C02 less financially risky through a more robust 

commodities market, in much the way that the natural gas delivery market functions today. By 

clarifying that C02 pipelines are eligible under the FAST Act and creating regional task forces 

focused on facilitating better and more efficient coordination on the permitting of interstate 

C02 pipelines, the USE IT Act would provide an important step in building this needed network, 
52 


35946.039

while maintaining the environmental protections that are needed to ensure responsible 

development. 

In summary, the enactment of the USE IT Act would be an important step on carbon capture 

utilization and storage and direct air capture innovation and infrastructure development and is 

another important example of pragmatic bipartisan policy. I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify this morning and look forward to answering your questions. 

1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1PCC} concludes that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 40 to 70% by 2050 and 

must be zero or below in 2100. Cuts from the electricity sector must be even deeper. The IPCC concludes that electricity sector emissions must 

reach zero by 2050 and be negative by 2100. (See pages 20 and 28 of the Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers, available at: 

https;//wwwJpcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/arS!syr/ARS syR FINAL SPM.pdfl The International Energy Agency (lEA) reaches a similar 

conclusion: a SO% reduction in C02 emissions from the whole energy sector is needed by 2050, while "the power sector becomes virtually 

decarbonized." {See page 107 of Energy Technology Perspectives, available at: 

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepubllcations/publlcation/etp2010.pdf). 

"IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In· Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group Ill to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change {Edenhofer, 0., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S 

Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Sch!omer, C. von Stechow, T. Zw1ckel and 

J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 11' IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming of l.S"C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts 

of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, 

in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, 

and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. 0. P.rtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, 

A. Pirani, W. Moufouma~Okia, C. P.an, R Pidcock, S Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, 

E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M, Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)J. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 

32 pp 

w International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook, 2018 

v Source: Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres, R.J. (2017). Global Regional and National Fossil-Fuel C02Emissions. Carbon Dioxide 

Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. doi 

10.3334/COIAC/00001_ V2017 

vi Sepulveda, Jenkins, de Sisternes, and Lester, "The Role of Flrm low-Carbon Electricity Resources ln Deep Decarbonization of Power 

Generation" Joule 2, 2403-2420, November 21,2018 

vii lEA (2017), Energy Technology Perspectives 2017: Cotalysing Energy Technology Transformations, lEA, 

Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/energy tech-2017-en. 

vm https://www.eguinor.com/en/news/evaluating-conversion-naturat-gas-hydrogen.html i https://hydrogenenergysupplychain.com 

lx !PCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group Ill to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the fntergovernmentaf Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, 0., R. Pichs~Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, s. Kadner, K. 

Seyboth, A. Adler, L Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eick.emeler, B. Krlemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schl6mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zw!ckel and J.C. Minx (eds.)J. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

x IPCC, 2018: Summary for Pollcymakers. In: Global warming of l.S"C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts 

of global warming of 1.5"C above pre~industriallevels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, 

in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, 

and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson~ Del motte, P. Zhai, H. 0. P.rtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, 

A. Pirani, W. Moufouma~Okia, C. P.an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, 

E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 

32 pp. 

xi International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook, 2018 

xii https://www.catf.us/educationallcoal·plant·pollution/ 

xm https://www.catf.us/educationa!/coal·plant·po!lution/ 

xiv Taylor, Rubin, and Houndshell, "Regulation as the Mother of Innovation: The Case of SOl Control", LAW & POLICY, Vol. 27, No.2, April 

2005; Yubin, Yeh and HoundsheH, "Experience curves for power plant emission control technologies:, Int. J. Energy Technology and Policy, 

VoL 2, Nos. 1/2,2004 
53 


35946.040

xv Trancik, J.E., Brown, P.R., Jean, J., Kavlak, G., Klemun, M.M., Edwards, M.R., McNerney, J., Miotti, M., Mue!ler,J.M., Need ell, Z.A., 2015. 

Technology Improvement and Emissions Reductions as Mutually Reinforcing Efforts: Observations from the Global Development of Solar and 

Wind Energy. Technical Report. Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, MIT. http:/lenergy.mit.edu/pub!ication/technology~improvement-and~ 

emissions~reductions~as·mutually~reinforcing-efforts/ 

xvi J. Hoppmann eta!. "The two faces of market support-How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation ln the 

solar photovoltalc industry", Research Polley 42 {2013) 989- 1003 

)(vi! https://www.catf.us/2019/02/ccHeduce-49~mlllion-tonnes·co2-emissions/ 

)(Vlii https://www.ingaa.org/File.aspx?id=8228&v=4903b99e 
54 


35946.041

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Hearing to ExamineS. 383, the Utilizing Significant Emissions with 

Innovative Technologies Act, and the State of Current Technologies that Reduce, Capture, 

and Use Carbon Dioxide" 

February 27,2019 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Waltzer 

Senator Whitehouse: 

I. What is the best-case scenario for deployment of CCUS by 2040? What could we expect 

in terms of quantity of C02 capture and removal? How do we get there? 

It is difficult to determine the best-case scenario for CCUS deployment by 2040, based on 

current modeling and analysis. But we can consider CCUS targets under various decarbonization 

pathways. As Figure I below shows, The international Energy Agency's (lEA'S) 2-degree 

Celsius scenario (2DS) projects that the US should be reducing C02 emissions by roughly 350 

million tons annually in 2040 to stay on track with the scenario's 2DS target. 

700 

600 

"' 500 

0 

0 

0 400 

., 

"' c 300 c 

~ 

c 200 

~ 

~ 100 

2020 2025 2030 20.35 2040 2045 2050 

• lEA 2DS (2017) 

Figure 1 

Based on modeling commissioned by CATF1

, the 45Q incentive has the potential to help the US 

come near the lEA 2DS 2030 target !eve!. However, to meet the exponential growth required to 

meet the 2040 target level, other considerations will need to be addressed: 

• Extending 45Q: Currently 45Q will not dive any project construction after the year 

2023, due the commence construction window closing that year. This will likely result in 

1 https:Uwww.catf.us/resource/45g-ccs-analysis/ 
55 


35946.042

the growth of additional projects tapering off beginning in the late 2020s and early 2030s. 

It should be noted that even in the near term, the development of CCUS projects have 

been hampered by lack of clear rules from the US Treasury, thereby reducing the 

emissions reduction potential indicated in Figure I. 

Reduction in technology cost: CATF's modeling results assumed no significant changes 

in technology costs through learning or innovation. However, if advanced technology 

developers are successful, this could significantly improve project economics and drive 

many more projects for the same incentive levels. Examples of this are provided in the 

answer to question 2, below. 

• Additional incremental incentives to unlock large usc of saline storage: Initial 

unpublished results from our modeling indicate incremental additional incentives, 

possibly in the range of $1 Olton, could help unlock significantly more saline storage 

project development. Such an incremental difference could be provided by a modest 

increase in the incentive level, allowing CCUS projects access to lower cost financing, 

such as through private activity bonds and Master Limited Partnerships, or reductions in 

technology costs. 

• Development of additional utilization options: CATF modeling did not include storage 

through utilization. Developing utilization options, particularly those that may reach a 

meaningful scale, such as aggregates, could help reach target levels. 

• Development ofCOz pipeline infrastructure: It is unlikely that CCUS will be able to 

scale to the target levels indicated by the lEA study without further significant 

development of the US C02 pipeline system. 

2. What are the most exciting technologies and projects on the radar? 

The most important issues to address in developing transformative carbon capture technology are 

the following: 

Thermodynamics: reducing energetic requirements 

• Kinetics: developing faster, more selective chemical/physical separation pathways that allow 

for the use of smaller, lower-cost, more efficient reactors 

• Reducing capital cost: reducing total required equipment and costs 

• Improving durability: developing capture media (solvents, sorbents, and membranes) with 

rugged long-term performance and slow degradation rates 

• Improving scalability: providing economic viability at all relevant process scales 

Potential transformative carbon capture technology approaches include oxy combustion, 

cryogenic capture, advanced solvents and sorbents, and membranes. In addition, advanced 

design and construction techniques such as modular construction, 3D fabrication of components, 

3D design modeling, and inclusion of open architecture designs also help address these cost 

issues. 

As noted in my testimony, two examples of potentially transformative technology developers 

include NETPower and Clean Carbon Solutions. The NETPower technology being pilot tested in 
56 


35946.043

LaPorte, Texas is attempting to address all five of the cost issues by combining oxy-combustion 

with turbines that use C02 as a working fluid in the process. Carbon Clean Solutions, being pilot 

tested in Tamil Nadu, India is developing advanced solvents to address kinetics, durability and 

capital costs. 

An interesting alternative model for CCUS is being studied by the Swedish Utility Vattenfall and 

the Norwegian state oil company Equinor2. Under this approach, CCUS would be centralized in 

that gas produced in the North Sea would be reformed on site into hydrogen or ammonia, and the 

C02 geologically stored in nearby saline formations under the ocean floor. The zero-carbon fuel 

would then be shipped to an existing combustion turbine in the Netherlands and used for zerocarbon electricity production. While none of technologies are new, the approach may have 

significant cost and inti·astructure advantages. 

3. How would a price on carbon affect the economics ofCCUS and investment in CCUS 

technologies? 

Having a price on carbon would provide important certainty to investors and help further drive 

technology innovation and reduce costs. As noted in my testimony, innovation policy, combined 

with the certainty of emissions reductions (whether through carbon prices, emission limits or 

energy standards) are the most powerful combinations for accelerating technology development 

and deployment. The combination of investment and production tax incentives for solar and 

wind, combined with renewable portfolio standards, helped drive deployment and significantly 

reduce the cost of renewable energy -contributing to a drop in technology costs from $1 04/W in 

1976 to $0.67/W in 20143 . Similarly, the combination of R&D investment, combined with Clean 

Air Act regulatory requirements, significantly reduce the costs of sulfur dioxide scrubbersdriving a cost reduction of nearly 50% from 1972 and 19964 . 

2 https://bellona.org/news/ccs/20 17-07-23661 

3 Trancik, J.E., Brown, P.R., Jean, J., Kavlak, G., Klemun, M.M., Edwards, M.R., McNerney, J., Miott!, M., Mueller, J.M., Need ell, ZA, 2015. 

Technology Improvement and Emissions Reductions as Mutually Reinforcing Efforts: Observations from the Global Development of Solar and 

Wind Energy. Technical Report. Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, MIT. http://energy.mit.edu/pubHcation/techno!ogy~improvement-and· 

Rubin, and Houndshell, "Regulation as the Mother of Innovation: The Case of S02 Contra!", LAW & POLICY, Vol. 27, No. 2, April 2005; 

Yubm, Yeh and HoundsheH, "Expenence curves for power plant em1sslon control technologies:, lnL l Energy Technology and Policy, Vol. 2, Nos 

1/2,2004 
57 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. We are going to proceed to a series of questions. I will start, Mr. Sukut, I would like 

to start with you. 

Basin Electric’s leadership in carbon capture and utilization and 

sequestration is impressive. I think you are really to be commended for what you have been doing. Through initiatives like the 

Integrated Test Center in Gillette and Basin’s Dry Fork Station, we 

are really proud to see Wyoming has already established itself as 

an innovation hub. Can you discuss why Wyoming and surrounding 

States are ideal, like yours, are ideal places to do carbon capture 

utilization and sequestration work? 

Mr. SUKUT. I think we should point out the first thing is States 

like Wyoming, and of course North Dakota, have abundant oil, gas 

and coal resources, natural resources. And these resources are 

going to be a part of the energy future for this Country for a long 

time. 

But I think the most important thing to point out, and the most 

relevant thing this morning to talk a little bit about is actually the 

geology. Through the CarbonSAFE program, we have got some 

wells drilled, one of them only less than a quarter mile from Dry 

Fork Station. The geology looks very promising to infuse carbon. 

We have two sites in North Dakota that are virtually under some 

of our resources, our coal-based resources. 

So from that standpoint, I think we have an opportunity here, a 

great opportunity here to infuse and demonstrate that once we capture the carbon, we will be able to infuse it and store it in the 

ground. But I think one of the most important things, and I am so 

encouraged by sitting in front of you all for all the leadership that 

you have taken in trying to get us the legislation. I thank you for 

all that. Because the leadership really does make a difference for 

us. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Oldham, you can followup on that. But 

I really have been interested for a long time in direct air capture. 

I am pleased to see that public interest is now coming into the fore. 

This is something I read about years ago in The Economist, talking 

about the ways that they can be doing it and trying to make it 

more cost-effective. Clearly, the technology is there. 

Why do you think we are seeing an increased interest in direct 

air capture? Do you think the USEIT Act can actually help drive 

public sector interest in direct air capture? 

Mr. OLDHAM. Thank you. I see we even made a Dilbert cartoon 

in the last couple of weeks. So I guess direct air capture is really 

public domain now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OLDHAM. So that is very good. 

I will answer the question two ways. First, I think in public conscience, the recent reports from the various scientific committees 

worldwide have raised awareness of the issue. So there is increasing recognition of need and equally, at the same time, the recognition that there are solutions out there like ours. We are not the 

only one. Having a need and a solution really drives interest. 

Economically, for sure, 45Q has made a big difference. It sent a 

very clear signal from this house that there is a desire to see innoVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:04 May 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35946.TXT VERNE
58 

vation in this area. It helped close the economics for business cases 

that didn’t close otherwise. 

For businesses like ours, the challenge is always the first couple 

of projects. There, the cost is higher, the schedule is longer, the 

perceived risk is higher. So having some support for those initial 

projects is just essential. 

So to my mind, that is a large part of it, helping us over the 

hump at the first few projects. 

Senator BARRASSO. Good. And Mr. Waltzer, in terms of this 45Q, 

and I am so pleased to see the Clean Air Task Force’s recent report 

about the real impact that the 45Q tax credit could have on reducing emissions. We have worked hard to extend and expand that tax 

credit to support carbon capture efforts. So we want to make sure 

that that tax credit is used. 

If carbon capture projects are developed on a scale that you predict, is there a real need for supporting infrastructure, and how can 

the Federal Government support and expedite the development of 

that infrastructure that you talk of? 

Mr. WALTZER. Mr. Chairman, in short, the answer is yes, that is 

needed. What our study really showed was the economic potential 

of 45Q. But 45Q by itself perhaps will not get us there. In fact, we 

think more is needed. 

We think that just because of the way commercial contracts are 

set up today for developing pipelines, you can set up a contract between point A and point B with the amount of CO2 that is going 

to flow through, but you are not going to necessarily set up the 

interState pipelines that are necessary to connect all the little 

sources together to get them to where the markets are. Right now, 

the most developed market is enhanced oil recovery activity. 

So we are going to need the sort of support to develop that infrastructure and develop our national CO2 pipelines. But we are also 

going to need the kind of solutions that are proposed in the USEIT 

Act that make the process of setting those pipelines efficient and 

effective, while maintaining our current environmental protection 

standards. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks so very much. Senator Carper? 

Senator CARPER. Thank you all for your testimony. I was especially interested in your example of the infant in the tub. I thought 

that was a great example. I wrote it down. I will use it often, never 

attribute it to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Oh, I will, I will. Thank you, that was great. 

I have a couple of questions for the whole panel. 

Senator BARRASSO. We don’t need to start the clock. So we had 

a former member of this committee, Senator Joe Lieberman. 

Senator CARPER. I remember, he just had his birthday last week. 

Senator BARRASSO. And he said, well, here is something really 

smart. The first time he repeats it, he says, and I have heard Mr. 

Oldham say, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. The next time he would say, 

I heard a wise man once say, dah, dah, dah, dah. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. And then the third time, he says, As I have 

said time and time again. 

[Laughter.] 

59 

Senator CARPER. We do this all the time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I am surprised there are not more cameras 

here. 

This is one for Mr. Waltzer. Again, thank you all for your testimony. Like you, Mr. Waltzer, I want to ensure that this legislation 

doesn’t lead to other efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act. I also appreciate the Chairman’s commitment about not using this bill as a 

vehicle to weaken the Clean Air Act, and want to thank him for 

accepting a number of changes that we recommended to last year’s 

legislation, which we think makes this version better. 

My question, if I could, Mr. Waltzer, in your opinion is the Clean 

Air Act inhibiting progress in CCUS technology development or deployment? 

Mr. WALTZER. Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, I want to make 

sure I understand your question. You are asking if the Clean Air 

Act is, can play a role in moving CCUS technology forward? 

Senator CARPER. I will repeat the question. In your opinion, is 

the Clean Air Act inhibiting progress in its current form in CCUS 

technology development or deployment? Is it impeding work in this 

area? 

Mr. WALTZER. We have looked at this question from a legal and 

technical perspective, and in our view, we don’t see any impediment. By the way, programs such as New Source Review would be 

applied when carbon capture equipment is installed on the power 

sector. So from our assessment, no, we don’t see an impediment. 

Senator CARPER. All right, good. As a followup, in 2009, Congress 

was debating a climate bill that amended the Clean Air Act. In the 

Senate climate bill, I worked with the late Senator Robert Byrd 

and other coal-State Senators to provide incentives for the deployment of CCUS. At the time, there were several CCUS projects in 

the works nationwide. Once the climate bill died, so did most of 

those projects. 

My question is, could the Clean Air Act and broader climate regulatory actions be helpful, maybe even critical, for the success of 

CCUS? 

Mr. WALTZER. Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, in our view, having that kind of long-term certainty associated with planning horizons is absolutely crucial for power companies, for example, to plan 

to include and develop carbon capture and storage in their portfolios. 

As many of us have witnessed, more and more power companies 

are making commitments or laying out plans for de-carbonizing 

their systems. We don’t see those plans coming to fruition unless 

there is a strong signal that is sent to allow that kind of investment to occur. What we will see in the interim is more investment 

in incremental resources that may reduce emissions. But we are 

not going to see the kind of large-scale energy system change that 

we think is needed, absent that kind of direction. 

Senator CARPER. My next question, and I am going to ask it initially of Mr. Waltzer, then I will ask our other panelists to respond 

as well. That question is, would you take a couple of moments to 

talk further about why the development of today’s carbon capture 

and sequestration technology is critical to help us meet our climate 

60 

goals and also help us get closer to having direct air capture become a reality? 

Mr. WALTZER. Senator, I think today’s legislation, as I noted, is 

an important component. We need all of the tools in the tool kit. 

We need the kind of innovative prize tools that are being proposed 

in this legislation to bring new commercial pilot scale projects to 

market. We need to be developing utilization technologies that create new uses. 

While those markets may not necessarily be large by themselves, 

they can have important catalytic effects. We have seen one company develop its first pilot project in India making baking soda, 

and based on that, they are developing their next generation of solvents for carbon capture. We think that moving this kind of legislation forward on a bipartisan basis also more broadly sends an important signal that technology innovation is increasingly being 

taken seriously, and that does have, as soft as it is, that has an 

actual impact on driving more interest in investment. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks for that. Mr. Oldham, any brief 

comments, please? 

Mr. OLDHAM. Yes. I think a recognition of the problem of increased carbon levels is critical. This house’s recognition of that 

problem is critical. The funding that you put aside will, as I said 

earlier on, bring more brilliant minds into this business. I think 

that is essential. 

For me, it is about developing the tools. If we have the tools that 

allow us the flexibility to make choices, we now are able to make 

choices to address decarbonization. So any innovation that drives 

that, any funding mechanisms that drive an innovation will make 

a big difference. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Mr. Sukut? 

Mr. SUKUT. I basically agree with both the other two panelists, 

maybe in a different way. When I look at our facilities and how we 

get there. When we put iron in the ground, we put it in for 30 or 

40 years. My sense is that sol, the USEIT Act gives us sort of the 

road map to get there, 45Q gives us the financial incentives to get 

there. That is so important. 

I mean, we recognize we are past the science now. We recognize 

the fact that we are in a carbon-constrained world, and how do we 

get there. So we need time, and we need some flexibility. I think 

Kurt mentioned the time element of this. From our perspective, 

those are kind of the two aspects of how we look at it, as I would 

look at it as a CEO of a utility. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you all. Thanks. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

None of the three of you will appreciate this statement, but it is 

so refreshing to me that we can talk about climate without the normal, hysterical Hollywood references that are being made, that the 

world is coming to an end and such as that. Our world is not coming to an end, and climate has always changed and always will 

change. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. 

All right. Let me just mention a couple of things. First of all, the 

comments that were made by Senator Whitehouse. That is significant, because those three pieces of legislation that he mentioned, 

61 

with the exception of the Defense Authorization Act, were the three 

biggest, most significant things passed that year. And it was a 

great partnership that did it, and it surprised a lot of people. 

Quite frankly, I didn’t get on this bill until today, because I 

didn’t want my appearance on this bill to chase off any of the others that were on this thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. So that is where I am. Now, I am the first to 

admit, my State of Oklahoma is an oil State. We have 150,000 jobs 

with an average salary of $104,000. We contribute $24 billion to 

the gross State product. It is nearly a quarter of the State’s budget, 

that is spent in the oil and gas industry. 

Now, you think that is the reason I would be supportive of this. 

It is not. Those are good things. But when you look at the fact that, 

I have 20 kids and grandkids, and they are going to be around here 

a lot longer than I am. And we have to run this machine called 

America. And you can’t do it without the use of fossil fuels. I think 

we now, this is kind of a recognition that that is a fact. 

Let me ask a question of you first, Mr. Oldham. In your testimony, you talk about the existing supply of CO2 are primarily from 

geological sources and they are not enough. I would like to have 

you speak on the demand side of this. 

Mr. OLDHAM. Yes, sure. So today, I believe the figure is about 18 

megatons of CO2 are used globally around the planet, of which my 

understanding is about 50 megatons are used for enhanced oil recovery. So enhanced oil recovery is actually the largest use of CO2

around the world today. 

Speculation and the market reports estimate that increasing the 

amount of CO2 up to even as high as 140 megatons per year is justified and can be used for EOR. So this is part of the reason why 

we have had some energy companies invest into our company and 

start working in partnership with us. 

Remember also, when you capture CO2 directly from the air, you 

have split the dependence on location. So we can build our plant 

just about anywhere. We no longer have to build a CO2 collection 

plant where the ethanol plant has to be, and then move the CO2

through a pipeline. By being able to do it by pulling CO2 directly 

from the air, you can do EOR and capture your CO2 locally, and 

then use that CO2 for EOR and get negative emissions at the same 

time. 

Senator INHOFE. That is great. That offsets so many of the people 

who are trying to use this issue for political purposes, and they say 

you just have to do away with fossil fuels altogether. You do that, 

you can’t do that we are talking about doing. 

I want to have one short question there to Mr. Sukut. I know 

this is addressed in the opening statement by our chairman. But 

in your testimony, you mentioned that your cooperative supports 

reform to other parts of the Clean Air Act, specifically the New 

Source Review. I would like to have you elaborate a little bit more, 

if you have more to say about that, the fact that we are looking 

at it. 

Mr. SUKUT. I would be happy to, Senator. We, I think, more than 

anything, encourage the enactment or, it isn’t that we don’t, are 

not compliant with the New Source Review. I think the biggest 

62 

problem that we have had in the past, we have had situations 

where, and I will use, actually I will give you a real-life situation, 

where we had one of our coal plants in North Dakota was going 

to put in some equipment to actually make it more efficient. And 

then at the same time, it would have generated 22 megawatts more 

of electricity. But we were impacted and not able to do it because 

of the NSR rules. 

Actually, if you had thought about it, it was going to reduce the 

amount of coal burned, we were going to increase the amount of 

electricity. But the rules were written such that we couldn’t get 

that done. I think we just need more clarity, Senator, in terms of 

with the NSR rules. We need more clarity in terms of what we can 

and can’t do. 

If we get a road map, we are going to be compliant and we are 

going to do it. But we just need clarity, because it really stopped 

us from, a, we could have generated more electricity, two, we could 

have burned less coal and we would have had less emissions. So 

it is kind of a double-edged sword. But if you will, that is sort of 

my comment in terms of the NSR rules. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Waltzer, I do have a question for you, but it will have to be 

in the record, because I will not have time to get to it now. But 

I do want to ask Mr. Oldham, you heard me describe my State of 

Oklahoma, the number of jobs, the reliance we have, how important the fossil fuels are to our State of Oklahoma. I would like to 

ask you, what specifically, for a State like Oklahoma, what does 

carbon capture utilization sequester, CCUS, mean for my State of 

Oklahoma and how do these technologies help? 

Mr. OLDHAM. Sure. So that is probably a several-point answer, 

but I will try and be brief. I think the first thing is the ability to 

do further enhanced oil recovery, but in an environmentally safe 

way. Negative emissions and EOR combined is really a win-win. So 

that is No. 1. And of course, Wyoming has a good amount of EOR 

already. 

Second, I think it offers an opportunity for new industry. There 

are many, the Department of Energy publishes an atlas of 

sequestrationsites across the United States. Wyoming has a lot of 

potential sequestrationsites, saline aquifers, geological formations. 

So the opportunity to store CO2 underground in a State like Wyoming and many other States is a very real opportunity. 

The third thing is the synthetic fuel. So by reducing the carbon 

intensity of fuel through blending, which of course the biofuel industry, the ethanol industry does today, it is a great way of helping 

de-carbonize the fossil fuels while continuing to enable the economy 

that is so essential. So I think those are the three main areas 

where I think we can benefit. What I have said to you here, sir, 

is also applicable for many other States across the United States. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I appreciate that very much, appreciate the 

testimony very much. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. Senator 

Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. Let me just take a 

minute to ask unanimous consent that letters of support from The 

Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, a list of our many, 

63 

many, many USEIT Act supporters, running from the AFL–CIO to 

the Wyoming Outdoor Council, alphabetically, and a series of statements from some of our supporters be put into the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. What was the first one? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. AFL–CIO. A to W. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. I was looking where the Algae Association would fit in there. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

64 


35946.091

The Nature/~\ Conservancy tti;;l'! Protect!ngnature.Preservingl!fe. 

February 26, 2019 

4245 North Fairfax Boulevard 

Suite 100 

Arlington, VA 22203 

natme.org 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

Jason Albritton 

Director of Climate and Energy Policy 

703-841-5300 

Jason.Albritton@mc org 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

On behalf of The Nature Conservancy, 1 write to express our support for S. 383, the USE IT Act, and 

applaud your leadership in introducing this bill. We also appreciate Sen. Whitehouse's tireless efforts to 

advance this legislation and are thankful to the many other members on both sides of the aisle who are 

cosponsors. 

As a conservation organization whose mission is to protect the land and waters on which all life depends, 

we are committed to finding common sense solutions to some of nature's greatest challenges, including 

climate change. The Conservancy recognizes that carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration can play a 

role in meeting the long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets that science indicates will be necessary to 

avoid the worst impacts of climate change. We support efforts to ensure carbon capture is available as an 

effective tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining environmental safeguards. 

TNC supports the passage of the USE lT Act and its efforts to advance carbon capture. By investing in 

research and development for carbon capture, and assessing its benefits and risks, the USE IT Act will 

play a critical role in helping these technologies come to market in an effective and responsible way. 

We appreciate the bipartisan leadership on this issue and urge the Environment and Public Works 

Committee to support the legislation. We also look forward to working with other members of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives to move the USE IT Act forward so that it can be signed into law this 

Congress. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views. 

Sincerely, 

Director 

~~~ of Climate and Energy Policy 

The Nature Conservancy 

cc: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse 
65 


35946.087

~udubon 

February 27, 2019 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

National Audubon Socloty 

225 Varlck Street, 7th Floor 

New York, NY 10014 

212.979.3196 

www.audubon.org 

Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

On behalf of Audubon's one m'illion plus members, we would like to express our support for S. 363, the 

Utilizing SignHicant Emissions with Innovative Technologies Act (USE IT Act). This bipartisan legislation 

aims to facilitate additional research and development of carbon capture and storage technologies that 

reduce emissions. 

The USE IT Act builds on the successful reform and extension of the federal450 tax credit by establishing 

a prize program for early-stage direct-air capture research and demonstration to spur investment and 

innovation in this technology. Removing C02 directly from the atmosphere and developing viable 

mechanisms for permanent storage will be critical to achieving meaningful emissions reductions now and 

in the future. 

Just like people, birds are facing a cascade of threats because of the changing climate. Rising seas and 

temperatures are shrinking and shifting the landscapes that sustain them. In 2014, Audubon published 

its Birds and Climate Change Report. The study shows that more than half of the bird species in North 

America could lose at least fifty percent of their current ranges by 2060 due to rising temperatures. These 

species include the Bald Eagle, the American Kestrel, and the Northam Harrier. 

Audubon believes we need to pursue an array of common-sense, bipartisan approaches that reduce 

carbon emissions, and that carbon capture, utilization and storage is one of those elements. According to 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon capture and storage is vital to meeting mid· 

century goals for reducing carbon emissions. 

Audubon appreciates the bipartisan leadership of Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse on S. 383 and we 

call on the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to support a full range of policy solutions at the 

spead and scale necessary to address the threat of climate change. We look forward to working with you 

and members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to protect human health, as well 

as birds and the places they need, now and into the future. 

Sin3e~~ 

Jesse Walls 

Senior Director of Government Affairs 

National Audubon Society 

Cc: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse 
66 


35946.086

ll6'h USE IT Act Supporters 

AFL-CIO 

Air Liquide 

Air Products 

American Carbon Registry 

ArcelorMittal 

Arch Coal 

Archer Daniels Midland Co. 

National Audubon Society 

Baker Hughes, aGE Company 

Bipartisan Policy Center 

Carboni SO 

Carbon Wrangler LLC 

Clean Air Task Force 

ClearPath Foundation 

Cloud Peak Energy 

Conestoga Energy Partners 

Core Energy LLC 

EBR Development LLC 

EnergyBlue Project 

Energy Innovation Reform Project 

Glenrock Petroleum 

Great River Energy 

Greene Street Capital 

Impact Natural Resources LLC 

ION Engineering LLC 

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 

International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers 

Jackson Hole Center for Global Affairs 

Jupiter Oxygen Corporation 

Lake Charles Methanol 

Lanza Tech 

Linde LLC 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. 

National Audubon Society 

National Farmers Union 

NET Power 

New Steel International, Inc. 

NRG Energy 

Occidental Petroleum Corporation 

Peabody Energy 

Prairie State Generating Company 

Praxair, Inc. 

Renewable Fuels Association 

Shell 

SMART Transportation Division (of the 

Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation 

Workers) 

Summit Power Group 

Tenaska Energy 

The Nature Conservancy 

Third Way 

Thunderbolt Clean Energy LLC 

United Mine Workers of America 

United Steel Workers 

Utility Workers Union of America 

White Energy 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 
67 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. After AFL–CIO. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you have the Algae Association? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No, I have got to get them on that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. First of all, very basic question. Do any of 

you doubt that climate change is a serious matter requiring urgent 

attention by Congress? 

Mr. WALTZER. No. 

Mr. SUKUT. No. I mean, I think we are past the science. I think 

we are to a point as a utility that we want to find ways to capture 

and sequester carbon. 

Mr. OLDHAM. No. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And how important do you feel carbon 

pricing is as one of the solutions to the problem? In the top ten, 

in the top two, top one? 

Mr. SUKUT. So maybe I will start with a comment and then you 

can followup with a question based on my comment. I think as a 

utility, we are really challenged or pressed to operate at the lowest 

possible cost that we can. I think technologically there are probably 

some solutions that might be a little bit, if you are referring to a 

carbon tax in its essence is maybe something a little bit cheaper 

than a carbon tax as far as being onerous to our end consumers. 

So I would encourage, as a utility, I would encourage the technological advances that we can make to capture carbon, because I 

think there are ways we can even do it cheaper there than through 

the carbon tax. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Oldham. 

Mr. OLDHAM. Let me first apologize to Senator Inhofe. I got your 

State wrong. Please chalk that down to an ignorant foreigner. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. The Chairman loved your answers. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OLDHAM. Again, my apologies. So I think the question is, 

how do you incentivize the public to recognize a better product, and 

a better product in terms of de-carbonization is a product that has 

a lower carbon footprint. 

Often the way that works is a combination of public sentiment, 

but also government direction and regulation. So the mechanism of 

government direction I am not the expert on. I can’t speak as to 

whether a carbon tax is the right answer or tax credits or positive 

incentive or a negative incentive. It is just not my area of expertise. 

But I think the signal is essential. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The signal is essential. 

Mr. OLDHAM. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Waltzer. 

Mr. WALTZER. I think there is ample evidence that a combination 

of a pull policy, something that has a clear signal that companies 

know they need to invest in order to meet a technology goal, an 

emissions reduction goal, or a carbon price, combined with innovation, has been a winning combination. We have seen that with deployment of sulfur dioxide scrubbers, there was a lot of R&D that 

went into that. 

68 

And obviously a lot of tools in the Clean Air Act that pulled that 

technology forward. We have seen that with solar, for example, significant price drop between the early 1980’s to say, 2010, almost 95 

percent, driven by a combination of R&D, the kind of deployment 

incentives that we have now with 45Q and the renewable portfolio 

standards. These policies, given how short our timeframe is, given 

the need to develop technologies that are here, not just here but 

globally, we have to have both of those options on the table and 

move forward with them quickly. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me ask a question specific to this technology. And it would be, what do you think the best case scenario 

is for the carbon capture industry, say by 2040? What could we expect in terms of potential carbon removal? And what in the way of 

getting there, to you, are the most exciting technical or other opportunities? What do you see as the great things that might open 

up? Let’s go the other way this time, we will start with Waltzer, 

Oldham and Sukut. 

Mr. WALTZER. So by 2040, what we hope to see and what we 

think is possible is significant deployment of carbon capture utilization storage, not just in the U.S., but around the world. We think, 

as we have seen with technologies like Net Power, there can be 

substantial cost reductions on CO2, carbon capture at industrial fa- cilities and power facilities. They are targeting $10 a ton if that 

happens, if you have a natural gas plant, if they can capture $10 

a ton, that is a game changer. 

We also are really interested in the concept of zero carbon fuels, 

and carbon capture and storage can play an important role there. 

Hydrogen and ammonia, basically taking natural gas or forming it, 

sequestering it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am down to 30 seconds and I have two 

more witnesses. So let me jump to Mr. Oldham. Sorry, Mr. Waltzer. 

Mr. WALTZER. No problem. 

Mr. OLDHAM. I would like to see a combination of successes. The 

first would be the continued prevalence of emission control through 

the types of activities that you have heard discussed here. The second would be a recognition that there are some industries that it 

is extremely challenging to de-carbonize, and instead, you set up a 

carbon offset program by doing something like direct air capture to 

reduce CO2. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. How big could this be? 

Mr. OLDHAM. How big? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. There are only 200 people working in 

this area right now. Could that be 200,000? Could that be 20,000? 

Mr. OLDHAM. So each of our plants does about a megaton of CO2

capture per year. So a large number of plants is required to make 

a dent in this problem. I believe there is no reason why you can’t 

roll out these plants worldwide. Our business model is to license 

our technology to any partner who is interested. So we would like 

to see literally hundreds of our plants put worldwide, because this 

is a global problem, it is everybody’s problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, my time is expired, so let me just 

leave a question for the record. Because I have truncated your answer and we ran out of time before you could have a chance, Mr. 

69 

Sukut. So if you could, again, what are the coolest things that you 

think are out there in this industry? And what do you think the 

prospects are, and how can we help you achieve those best case 

prospects? 

Senator BARRASSO. You would like written response to that? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. I think response to the record makes 

sense. We can go on with other colleagues who are waiting. 

Senator BARRASSO. All right. Before heading to Senator Capito, 

I have a list of letters supporting this as well in alphabetical order, 

from the Carbon Utilization Research Council to the Western Governors Association. And without objection, we will submit these as 

well. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

70 


35946.044

1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20007 

(202) 298-1850 Phone 

(202) 338-2416 Fax 

curc@vnf.com 

www.curc.net 

February 26, 2019 

The Honorable Senator John Barrasso 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Cu D~.;l. CARBOIIUTILIZ.I.TIOK r\ ~ RESEARCH COUNCIL 

ADVANCING FOSSIL ENERGY SOLUTIONS 

The Honorable Senator Sheldon Whitehouse 

530 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse: 

The Carbon Utilization Research Council (CURC) is pleased to support the "Utilizing Significant Emissions 

with Innovative Technologies" Act (USE IT Act). The introduction of the legislation is emblematic of a 

growing bipartisan leadership effort to advance carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) 

technologies that will improve our nation's economic and energy security objectives, while also mitigating 

emissions of C02 from the use of fossil fuels. 

The USE IT Act builds on the recently-enacted FUTURE Act and the Carbon Captura Modernization Act by 

improving the pem1lttlng of carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration projects and C02 pipelines. It 

would also provide necessary certainty to power generators and other industrtal sources and will incentivize 

the build-out of CCUS projects. 

Implementation of the USE IT Act will ultimately lead to solutions that will help bring down the costs of 

commercial-scale CCUS projects integrated with power generation. These efforts will complement and 

enhance work already being done through public-private partnerships such as the Wyoming Integrated Test 

Center and the National Carbon Capture Center. 

We thank you for your leadership and look f01ward to supporting your efforts to advance this important 

legislation. 

CO=CbaiCS 

Melissa Horton 

Sou them 

Company 

Holly Krutka 

Peabodv 

Sincerely, 

\,j h c>:-n (!<'Y' ~/els~ · 

Shannon Angielski 

Executive Director, CURC 

VIce Chairs 

Dale N!ezwaag 

Basin Electric Power 

Cooperative 

I.w!.l!mr 

ZakBalg 

ClearPath Action 

Secretary 

Ruth Demeter 

Peabody 

Executive 

Director 

Shannon 

Angielski 
71 


35946.046

WESTERN 

GOVERNORS' 

A\50CIArtON 

February 21,2019 

The Honorable john Barrasso The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Chairman Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment & Public Works Committee on Environment & Public Works 

United States Senate United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The United States has the opportunity to continue global leadership in carbon capture, utilization, 

and storage (CCUS) research and technology development. Western Governors support federal 

policies that promote the development and deployment of CCUS. Thank you for examining this 

important topic at your February 27 Hearing to ExamineS. 383, the Utilizing Significant Emissions 

with Innovative Technologies Act, and the State of Current Technologies that Reduce, Capture, and 

Use Carbon Dioxide. To inform the Committee's consideration of this subject, I request that you 

include the following attachments in the permanent record of the hearing: 

WGA Policy Resolution 2018-07, Enhanced Oil Recovery; 

WGA Policy Resolution ZQ1..aM, Energy in the West, and the Governors' Energy Vision for 

the West; and 

The Governors' April 24 2018letter to the Committee in support ofS. 2602, the Utilizing 

Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies Act. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Respectfully, 

Attachments 

,·lo:n WESTGOV ORG 
72 


35946.047

WESTERN 

GOVERNORS' 

ASSOCIATION 

A. BACKGROUND 

Policy Resolution 2018-07 

Enhanced Oil Recovery 

1. Enhanced oil recovery (EQR), using carbon dioxide (C02), when performed appropriately 

and responsibly offers a safe and commercially proven method of domestic oil production. 

The U.S. oil and gas industry, which pioneered the co, EOR process in West Texas in 1972, 

is the world leader. For decades, the EOR industry has captured, transported, and injected 

large volumes of CO, for oil recovery with no major accidents, serious injuries or fatalities 

reported. 

2. The CO, EOR process typically works by injecting CO, obtained from natural and 

anthropogenic sources into existing oil fields- often referred to as "brownfields"- to 

produce additional crude trapped in rock formations. This CO, "flooding" can result in 

recovery of about twenty percent of the original oil in place.' CO, flooding utilizes existing 

assets to recover significant additional resources stimulating the economy and minimizing 

surface disturbance that new exploration and development projects necessarily entaiL In 

addition, many areas favorable for CO, application exist where new or continued significant 

drilling activity is unlikely to occur at a meaningful scale for years, if ever. 

3. As of 2013, EOR using C02 produced approximately 280,000 barrels of domestic oil per day, 

or four percent of U.S. crude oil production.' 

4. America has an estimated 21.4 billion barrels of oil, requiring 8.9 billion metric tons of CO', 

which could be economically recovered with today's EOR technologies. With advances in 

technology, 63.3 billion barrels of oil, requiring 16.2 billion metric tons of C02, could be 

economically recovered, which is roughly double current U.S. proven reserves.' 

5. EOR enhances our nation's energy and fiscal security by reducing dependence on foreign oil, 

often imported from unstable and hostile foreign sources. It allows reduction of our trade 

deficit by keeping dollars now spent on oil imports here at home and at work in the U.S. 

economy. 

6. Coal, oil, and other industrial processes are a vital component of many western states' 

economies. EOR provides a long-term path for continued low-carbon production and use of 

our nation's coal and oil resources, while industrial sources can provide C02 at lower 

capture costs. EOR presents an opportunity for state and local governments to stimulate 

economic activity and realize additional revenue by transforming their co, emissions into a 

valuable commodity. 

'National Energy Technology Laboratory- Untapped Domestic Energy Supply and Long Term Carbon 

Storage. 

2 Energy Information Administration- Annual Energy Outlook 2015. 3 U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. 

Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 2018-07 
73 


35946.048

7. C02 is currently limited in availability from sources needed for EOR- natural sources will 

not close a supply gap projected to grow. Further, CO, capture and pipeline transport 

capacity to oil fields is not sufficient. 

8. co, capture equipment, installed on a broad range of industrial processes, has the potential 

to supply significant volumes of COz to the EOR industry enabling the U.S. to achieve 

significant net carbon reductions through the permanent storage of COz.4 

9. The U.S. has the opportunity to continue global leadership in carbon capture and storage 

(CCUS) research and technology development, while further deploying CCUS technologies 

that provide financial benefits to our nation's entire value chain. 

B. GOVERNORS' POLICY STATEMENT 

1. In recognition of the environmental and economic benefits of EOR, Western Governors 

Western Governors will work collaboratively to promote broad scale development of 

infrastructure for carbon capture, C02 pipelines, EOR, and other forms of geologic storage. 

2. Western Governors support efforts to increase the awareness of the many benefits of co, 

EOR. 

3. In order to expand deployment of C02 capture at power plants and other industrial sources, 

the President and Congress should continue to enact federal incentives to increase COz 

supply available for the oil industry to purchase and use in EOR. Federal incentives have 

the potential to leverage private and state investment, harness the ingenuity of 

entrepreneurs and capitalize on billions of dollars' worth of DOE-sponsored research and 

development to enable new commercial carbon capture and pipeline projects. 

4. Federal policies aimed to limit co, emissions should promote, and not impede, 

development and deployment of COz capture and commoditization. Federal regulations 

should allow states to create programs tailored to individual state needs, industries and 

economies and recognize permanent CO, storage that results from EOR in meeting federal 

regulatory objectives. As such, EPA should abide by principles already established by the 

Agency in its regulations promulgated to ensure the permanent storage of C02 in different 

geologic formations. 

5. Recognizing that lack of pipeline infrastructure is a critical challenge to deployment of CCUS 

technology, Western Governors support proactively identifying, analyzing and evaluating 

opportunities for pipeline corridors to transport industrial and power plant C02 for 

beneficial use and permanent storage. 

4 As of2014, approximately 13.6 million metric tons of COz was captured that would otherwise be released 

into the atmosphere has been permanently stored as a result ofEOR (U.S. Department of EnergyQuadrennial Energy Review). Over the life of a project, for every 2.5 barrels of oil produced, it is estimated 

that a typical commercial EOR project can safely prevent one metric ton of COz from entering the atmosphere 

(Kuuskraa, Godec, Dipietro- Energy Procedia). Further, the volume that could be captured and permanently 

stored from industrial facilities and power plants to support economically recoverable EOR reserves could be 

8.9 to 16.2 billion metric tons of C02. This is equal to the total U.S. COz production from fossil fuel electricity 

generation for approximately 4 to 8 years (EPA 2015 Green House Gas Inventory). 

Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 2018-07 
74 


35946.049

C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 

1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional committees of jurisdiction, the 

Executive Branch, and other entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of this 

resolution. 

2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the Staff Advisory Council 

regarding its efforts to realize the objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors 

apprised of its progress in this regard. 

Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. 

Please consult www. westgav.arg/policies far the most current copy of a resolution and o list of all 

current WGA policy resolutions. 

Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 2018-07 
75 


35946.050

WESTERN 

GOVERNORS' 

ASSOCIATION 

A. BACKGROUND 

Western Governors' Association 

Policy Resolution 2018-04 

Energy in the West 

L Energy policy and the development of sustainable energy resources are major priorities for 

every Western Governor. 

2. Western Governors recognize that approaches to energy use and development vary among 

our states, territories, and flag islands. However, the Governors remain committed to the 

development of policies and utilization of state energy endowments that result in the 

maximum benefit for their citizens, the region, and the nation. 

3. Western energy production is indispensable to meeting national energy demands. The 

West is the energy breadbasket of the United States: 

a. Western states have all high-yield geothermal energy capacity in the continental United 

States. 

b. Western states supply the majority of non-federal United States petroleum. 

c. Western states are at the forefront of unconventional natural gas production. 

d. The Pacific Northwest produces the largest output of hydropower in the nation. 

e. Western states have the largest contiguous areas of wind power resources in the nation. 

f. The Southwest has some of the highest-identified solar energy resource areas in the 

United States. 

g. Western states produce the largest portion of coal in the United States, which is the fuel 

that constitutes the largest share of the national electricity generation mix. 

h. The West has the largest contiguous areas of high-yield biomass energy resource 

potential in the nation. 

i. Western states have nuclear power generation facilities and produce all domestic 

uranium. 

4. Western states, Pacific territories, and flag islands have the resources to drive job creation 

and economic development through broad growth in the energy industry. 

Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 2018-04 
76 


35946.051

5. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 has prevented certain noncontiguous states, territories, 

and flag islands from being supplied with domestically produced energy commodities. 

B. GOVERNORS' POLICY STATEMENT 

1. Western Governors recognize the following as energy policy priorities for the West: 

a. Secure the United States' energy supply and systems, and safeguard against risks to 

cybersecurity and physical security. 

b. Ensure energy is clean, affordable, and reliable by providing a balanced portfolio of 

renewable, non-traditional, and traditional resources. 

c. Increase energy efficiency associated with electricity, natural gas, and other energy 

sources and uses to enhance energy affordability and to effectively meet environmental 

goals. 

d. Advance efficient environmental review, siting, and permitting processes that facilitate 

energy development and the improvement and construction of necessary electric grid 

(transmission and distribution) and pipeline infrastructure, while ensuring 

environmental and natural resource protection. 

e. Improve the United States' electric grid's reliability and resiliency. 

f. Protect western wildlife, natural resources, and the environment, including clean air 

and clean water, and strive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

g. Make the West a leader in energy education, technology development, research, and 

innovation. 

h. Utilize an all-of-the-above approach to energy development and use in the West, while 

protecting the environment, wildlife, and natural resources. 

2. Western Governors support increasing the development and use of energy storage, 

alternative transportation fuels, and alternative vehicles. 

3. Western Governors call on the federal government to lift a barrier to domestic free trade 

between the contiguous United States and the noncontiguous states, territories and U.S. flag 

islands by the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 by allowing those jurisdictions to receive 

energy commodities produced in the mainland but transported by foreign vessels, should 

those jurisdictions, and the jurisdictions whose ports are being used to ship these materials, 

desire it. 

4. Redundant federal regulation of energy development, transport, and use is not required 

where sufficient state, territorial, or flag island regulations exist. Existing state authority 

should not be replaced or impeded by Congress or federal agencies. 

Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 2018-04 
77 


35946.052

C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 

1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional committees of jurisdiction, the 

Executive Branch, and other entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of this 

resolution. 

2. The Governors also direct WGA staff to consult with the Western Interstate Energy Board to 

recommend updates to the 10-Year Energy Vision that provide detail on the Governors' 

energy policy objectives outlined in this resolution. 

3. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the Staff Advisory Council 

regarding its efforts to realize the objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors 

apprised of its progress in this regard. 

Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend existing resolutions on a biannual basis. 

Please consult www. westgov.org/policies for the most current copy of a resolution and a list of all 

current WGA policy resolutions. 

Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 2018-04 
78 


35946.053

WESTERN 

GOVERNORS' 

AS SOC I AT ION 

Introduction 

Energy Vision for the West 

The resource-rich West supplies a majority of the country's energy resources and electric power. 

The United States is currently projected to become a net energy exporter within five years. The 

increase in natural gas developed in the West. coupled with increased investment in renewable and 

alternative energy sources, have positioned the region and its Governors to play a central role in the 

nation's economy and energy policy. 

The West's vast energy resources and the Governors' role in the development of energy policy 

underscores the value of a regional energy policy, the Energy Vision for the West. This policy does 

not impede states or territories from approaching energy choice and industry growth based on 

their own resource endowments and policies. It illustrates that Western Governors have coalesced 

around common issues and specific goals. despite diverse geography. resources, and politics. The 

Energy Vision for the West elaborates on the Governors' objectives set forth in WGA Policy 

Resolution 2018-04, Energy in the West. 

Western Governors support a comprehensive energy portfolio for the West to ensure that energy is 

clean. affordable. and reliable. They are also committed to energy policies that promote economic 

growth and protect the environment. This approach facilitates a strong economy and jobs across a 

variety of professions. skill sets, and educations. 

This approach also recognizes that there are challenges and opportunities associated with every 

type of energy resource and use, the costs and benefits of which must be considered in 

policymaking. One such opportunity- and challenge- is creating an effective state-federal 

partnership in energy development, lands management, and environmental protection. This 

regional policy is a guide for realizing opportunities to advance the West as the nation's principal 

energy provider and a leader in energy innovation and effective policy. 

Goall: Secure the United States' energy supply and systems, and safeguard against risks to 

cybersecurity and physical security. 

Addressing threats to the nation's energy systems and resources is a high priority of Western 

Governors. Coordination between states, the federal government, and the private sector on energy 

emergency planning and response is vital to addressing physical and cybersecurity impacts on the 

West's energy systems and resources. To this end, the Governors establish the following objectives: 

Work with the Department of Defense to meet its national security mission by ensuring safe 

and secure onsite and off-site electricity generation for key defense installations. 

Continue to reduce reliance on non-North American oil imports from unstable foreign 

sources through individualized state-by-state solutions, such as increasing North American 

production. improving fuel efficiency, and developing renewable and alternative fuels. 

Western Governors' Association Energy Vision for the West 
79 


35946.054

Ensure there is sufficient domestic energy supply, including domestic renewable electric 

generation, to meet existing and new market demand. 

Identify security and other vulnerabilities of energy infrastructure and create programs and 

standards to defend infrastructure from cyber and physical attacks, as well as natural 

disasters. 

Encourage effective relationships between state agencies, federal agencies, public utilities, 

and the private sector to prevent and prepare for risks to the region's energy supply and 

systems, as well as to respond to and recover from disruptions. 

Partner with the federal government to ensure the provision of adequate funding and 

access to resources for state emergency planning, response, and recovery. 

Expand, upgrade, and secure transmission and pipeline infrastructure, as well as ensure 

that all federal pipeline safety measures are efficiently implemented. 

Goal2: Ensure energy is clean, affordable and reliable by providing a balanced portfolio of 

renewable, non-traditional and traditional resources. 

Western Governors believe that a balanced energy portfolio should consist of energy sources that 

are clean, affordable and reliable, that maintain system reliability, and limit rapid rate increases. 

These resources also require the maintenance and expansion of transmission and distribution 

infrastructure. To this end, the Governors establish the following objectives: 

Recognize the importance of western renewable (wind, solar, biomass, biofuels, geothermal, 

hydropower), nuclear, coal and natural gas resources, and the generation facilities that 

utilize those resources. 

Adapt utility regulation to changing markets, technologies, and resources. 

Encourage the addition of renewable, low-carbon, and clean generation, including utilityscale and distributed generation. 

Promote, advance and fund the evolution of new technologies, including carbon capture and 

advancements in renewable energy. 

Maintain the Rural Energy for America (REAP) program, which has benefited farmers, 

ranchers and rural businesses that are often underserved by other federal energy efforts. 

Goal3: Increase energy efficiency associated with electricity, natural gas, and other energy 

sources and use to enhance energy affordability and to effectively meet environmental goals. 

Eliminating waste and using resources wisely are cornerstones of a sound energy strategy. State 

and local governments, utilities, households, and businesses are currently realizing the economic 

and other benefits of energy efficiency, but there are still substantial gains to be made. To this end, 

the Governors establish the following objectives: 

Prioritize energy efficiency associated with electricity, natural gas, and vehicle 

transportation. 

Western Governors' Association Energy Vision for the West 
80 


35946.055

Enhance utility rate designs, including time-varying rates, and cost-effective utility energy 

efficiency programs that deliver electricity and natural gas savings to consumers. 

Support energy efficiency programs that provide incentives and rebates to lower the 

incremental up-front costs of energy efficiency technologies; Energy Service Company 

(ESCO) programs; and where successful, utility ratepayer-funded energy efficiency 

programs, including the use of rate decoupling. 

Encourage the retrofit of residential and commercial buildings and improve the energy 

efficiency of new buildings, such as through building energy codes and programs that 

stimulate energy efficient construction. 

Decrease energy intensity using tools such as combined heat and power and waste heat to 

power systems. 

Incorporate systems strategies to improve efficiency throughout the building lifecycle and 

to improve grid connectivity, including energy systems that enable two-way, automated 

utility-to-customer communications to facilitate demand response programs. 

Maintain funding and support long-term authorization for the State Energy Program (SEP), 

Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 

Program (LIHEAP). 

Goal 4: Advance efficient environmental review, siting and permitting processes that 

facilitate energy development and the improvement and construction of necessary electric 

grid (transmission and distribution) and pipeline infrastructure, while ensuring 

environmental and natural resource protection. 

Responsible energy development and a robust, well maintained energy delivery system are vital to 

the economy and quality of life in the West. To this end, the Governors establish the following 

objectives: 

Encourage responsible leasing and development of energy resources and infrastructure. 

Create a clear and transparent process for regulation and permitting, coordinated among 

well-trained and adequately funded federal, state and local agencies. 

Streamline project-permitting reviews to minimize time lines, without compromising 

environmental and natural resource protection or states' roles in those processes. 

Maintain state and local decision-making authority over transmission line siting and 

permitting. 

Encourage regional transmission planning organizations to conduct interconnection-wide 

planning with the full participation of the states and with consideration of state energy 

policies. 

Create functional partnerships among states, federal agencies, tribal governments and local 

jurisdictions to solve conflicts that hinder energy infrastructure and resource development. 

Western Governors' Association Energy Vision for the West 
81 


35946.056

Increase cooperation on interstate projects through interstate compacts and other tools. 

In the West-wide energy corridor process, ask federal agencies to guarantee: ongoing, 

substantive, and meaningful state consultation; consideration of state plans, processes, 

priorities, and policies; and integration of other streamlining efforts. 

Goal 5: Improve the United States electric grid's reliability and resiliency. 

Changes in energy generation, distribution, and management are transforming the nation's electric 

grid. But these advancements also highlight the need for grid level investment, along with 

associated updates for electricity regulation and policy. To this end, the Governors establish the 

following objectives: 

Protect state authority to determine the type and amount of new generation facilities and 

the programs used to procure new generation, recognizing that each state has their own 

priorities and portfolios. 

Protect state authority to encourage continued operation of existing generation facilities 

through long-term contracts, retail utility contracting, or other incentives. 

Encourage regional reliability organizations, utilities, state agencies and public utility 

commissions to assess the provision of essential reliability services under future scenarios 

that include a changing resource mix in the West. 

Support grid operator situational awareness of distributed energy resources by promoting 

coordination between utilities and distributed energy resource developers. 

Preserve areas of exclusive state authority regarding distributed energy resources, 

including storage, and improve utility distribution systems planning for distributed energy 

resources to enhance grid reliability and resilience. 

Improve understanding of grid resources and services and the need for new power 

production facilities and transmission/distribution infrastructure through data, analysis, 

and coordination. 

Prepare for potential disruptions to the grid from wildfires, flooding, earthquakes, 

tornadoes, cyberattacks and other disturbances and emergencies, as well as increase the 

grid's ability to withstand and reduce the magnitude of such events. 

Enable utilities to take necessary actions to enhance grid reliability and reduce the threat of 

wildfires to and from electric transmission and distribution rights-of-way. 

Goal 6: Protect western wildlife, natural resources and the environment, including clean air 

and clean water, and strive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Western states have long assumed a stewardship role for the natural environment and have 

worked across state lines to protect air, land, wildlife and water. Western Governors are committed 

to ensuring that energy development is done in an environmentally responsible manner. To this 

end, the Governors establish the following objectives: 

Western Governors' Association Energy Vision for the West 
82 


35946.057

Promote energy technologies and sources that lower emissions. 

Continue advancing air and water quality improvements and plans in each state and across 

state lines. 

Foster environmental cooperation that: protects the state-federal partnership; provides for 

sustainable environmental protection; is nimble and flexible; and ensures that state 

governments play a key role in regulation. 

Acknowledge that a productive economy and responsible development can support 

environmental protection by providing additional funding and opportunities for publicprivate partnership. 

Encourage technologies that reduce water consumption, prioritize water consumption for 

traditional activities (drinking water, agriculture, habitat conservation/restoration), and 

contribute to the responsible development of new energy resources. 

Achieve a balance between the responsible development of energy projects and wildlife 

conservation. 

Urge the federal government to identify and approve solutions for the long-term storage 

and permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. 

Encourage the development and deployment of a full range of technologies that offer the 

potential for cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from energy production 

and use, including carbon capture and storage, energy efficiency, zero emissions generation 

sources, and other emerging options. 

Goal 7: Make the West a leader in energy education, technology development, research, and 

innovation. 

Effective energy policy is facilitated by an understanding of a common set of impartial facts and 

scientific evidence. Furthermore, the advancement oftechnologywill play a critical role in realizing 

a clean energy future. To this end, the Governors establish the following objectives: 

Leverage the vast expertise in the West's industry, academic institutions, and national 

laboratories to make the region an international hub for new energy technology research 

and development, as well as energy education. 

Encourage Congress and the Department of Energy to support and fund research, 

development, demonstration, and deployment of advanced energy technologies. 

Create public-private research and development partnerships among industry, academia, 

the national labs, and federal agencies to identify promising new technologies, including 

energy efficiency technologies that advance clean energy with reduced environmental 

impacts. 

Encourage market operators, reliability organizations, and utilities to appropriately share 

electric system operational data with researchers, educators, and entrepreneurs to promote 

Western Governors' Association Energy Vision for the West 
83 


35946.058

electric system innovation and technology development, while still safeguarding against 

risks to cybersecurity and physical security. 

Encourage training and education in energy-related fields and ensure there is an adequate 

workforce operating under the highest safety standards. 

Facilitate the creation of employment opportunities for displaced energy sector workers. 

Educate the public regarding: the role of energy in maintaining a high standard of living and 

quality of life; trade-offs and externalities associated with all types of energy development 

and consumption; the coexistence of a healthy environment and a thriving economy; and 

how federal policy on public lands impacts energy and infrastructure development. 

Goal 8: Utilize an all-of-the-above approach to energy development and use in the West, 

while protecting the environment, wildlife and natural resources. 

A diverse energy portfolio is essential to the provision of clean, affordable, secure, and reliable 

energy. Western Governors support a comprehensive energy portfolio, including: oil, gas, coal, 

nuclear, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind, and conservation and energy efficiency. To 

this end, the Governors establish the following objectives: 

Reduce costs and risks for the environmentally sound development of all energy resources. 

Ensure competition in the market for all resources. 

Recognize the growing importance of consumer choice in driving energy policy. 

Support consumer choice of distributed energy resources to achieve affordability, 

environmental, and other objectives. 

Increase the development and use of alternative transportation fuels and vehicles, including 

the necessary infrastructure for those vehicles. 

Encourage innovation and application of energy storage, including pumped hydro storage, 

battery storage, and compressed air energy storage where cost-effective. 

Support the responsible and efficient development and use of traditional and renewable 

resources. 

Increase the amount of electricity generated from new, retrofitted, or relicensed 

hydroelectric facilities, including small, irrigation, and flood control hydropower projects. 

Restore financing for the geothermal exploration program financed by the Department of 

Energy. 

Accelerate the introduction of small modular reactors into the marketplace. 

Western Governors' Association Energy Vision for the West 
84 


35946.059

April24, 2018 

Honorable john Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The U.S. is the global leader in carbon dioxide (COz) capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) 

research, development and deployment. Given the appropriate resources and regulatory 

environment, we will advance our technologies so that we can continue to use our abundant 

resources while minimizing our carbon footprint. Western Governors support the bipartisan 

Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies (USE IT) Act (S. 2602), which will 

facilitate development and deployment of CCUS infrastructure. 

Western Governors have long supported advancement of carbon capture technology due to its 

environmental and economic benefits. S. 2602 directs the Environmental Protection Agency to 

support research on direct air capture and COz utilization, with a focus on technologies that 

transform COz into a product or product input with commercial value. The bill also clarifies that 

carbon capture and utilization projects and pipelines are eligible for the streamlined permitting 

process under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and directs the Council on 

Environmental Quality to develop guidance on reviews of CCUS projects and COz pipelines. 

Furthermore, WGA Policy Resolution 2017-01 Building a Stronger State-Federal Relationship, 

advocates for greater state representation on committees and panels advising federal agencies on 

scientific, technological, social, and economic issues. We are pleased that this bill requires the task 

force to include states [at their request) and to provide models for, and technical assistance to, 

states for CCUS projects and COz pipeline regulation. 

Thank you for your leadership in this area of crucial importance to our nation's economy, energy, 

and environment, as well as for your recognition that states have a critical role in promoting the 

development and utilization of carbon capture technologies. Please do not hesitate to contact us if 

we can be of further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

(hv~ ~~ } 

Dennis Daugaard 

Governor of South Dak 

Chair, WGA 

~+ Governor of Hawau 

Vice Chair, WGA 
85 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sukut, you mentioned in your statements about research and 

development. We have talked about enhanced oil recovery as a use. 

Mr. Oldham talked about a new synthetic fuel that could be used 

with the recycling of the carbon. Is it your intention or is the intention—how advanced would you say the research is in this area in 

terms of other kinds of uses of carbon, and where do you see this 

in the next 10 to 15 years? 

Mr. SUKUT. So just let me start by saying, I think we are probably, in the technology curve, we are probably back here a little bit. 

But let me say this. In taking a look at the Integrated Test Center 

in Wyoming that we have, we have the six participants now. I see 

a lot of excitement in some of the things they think they can do 

to extract and turn it into useable product, like a cement enhancer, 

ethanol. I think it could be limitless, especially with the timeframe 

that we have here in terms of years, saying to 2035 or 2040. 

Look what this Country did with sulfur. Thirty-five year ago, we 

were struggling with removing SO2 from the air. Today it is not 

tough at all to get to over 99 percent. All of our plants are able 

to do it, and they do it very routinely. So I think with a timeline 

like that, this Country has been able to do it before, and I think 

we can do it again with CO2. So I think it is limitless. I know I am not giving you as direct 

an answer as you want, but I really feel that. 

Senator CAPITO. Mr. Oldham, do you have any comments on 

that? 

Mr. OLDHAM. I think this technology is at different phases of implementation. Our technology is ready to go to market now. 

Senator CAPITO. Is this for the synthetic fuel? 

Mr. OLDHAM. No, well, for both. We have done it to capture CO2, and then you can make the synthetic fuel. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. OLDHAM. So it is ready to go to market now, because we use 

pieces of equipment from things like the clean power industry, the 

water treatment industry, the I&R industry. So in our case, we 

think, well, we know we are ready to go to market now, and the 

large energy companies that are working with us agree. 

But you can always improve the process. The sulfur example is 

a great example. It is an iterative process to make it better and 

better. But it is a spectrum. There are some technologies that are 

absolutely fully ready for implementation now. 

Senator CAPITO. So let me ask Mr. Sukut again, on the regulatory thing, do you agree that interState CO2 pipelines would be 

more challenging than international pipelines? Apparently, we 

have had some issues in Wyoming and other places where we can’t 

do interState carbon pipelines. 

Mr. SUKUT. I think there are some challenges. We have seen 

some challenges with pipelines via some of the landowners and 

some of the other things that have happened in this Country. I 

think all you have to do is look at the natural gas market and see, 

there are pockets there where natural gas can go to eight bucks 

where Nymex is trading at two, just because of its infrastructure. 

There is a lot of natural gas out there. 

86 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. SUKUT. So yes, I think that there are some issues. I think 

we could use some help with it. I think the USEIT Act is a huge 

step in that direction, I really do, and I applaud you, all of you, for 

taking that step, to be honest with you. 

Senator CAPITO. There has been a lot of pushback on pipelines. 

We are experiencing that in West Virginia right now, with the natural gas pipelines. 

In terms of, this is a little offshoot question, but in terms of the 

general public’s perception of a carbon CO2 pipeline, does that 

present any other inherent dangers, besides a regular ethane, 

methane pipeline? 

Mr. SUKUT. No, it doesn’t at all. In fact, we have a CO2 pipeline 

in service. We have had it in service for 20 years. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. SUKUT. We send CO2 every day to the Canadian oil fields. 

We add a sort of an odor, it is called mercaptan, it is added to natural gas. 

Senator CAPITO. To protect it. Yes. 

Mr. SUKUT. Absolutely not, doesn’t pose any kind of greater 

threat. 

Senator CAPITO. So I also have a large coal industry, as you all 

probably know, being from West Virginia. My interest here is obviously on the economic front, but on the environmental front as 

well. Globally, we know that a lot more countries are using coal in 

other areas to pull people out of poverty and bring up the economic 

viabilities. 

Are you finding globally that this technology is something that 

is—you mentioned you wanted to have plants all over the world. 

For the heavy coal-intense areas now, where are you seeing this acceptability? 

Mr. OLDHAM. It is a great question. So why people are interested 

in our technology is because we can offset the hard to de-carbonize 

industries that are essential for economy or essential for any other 

reasons, for jobs and so on. So our technology, because it sounds 

independent and does negative emissions in parallel with other industries, airline industry is another great example, really hard to 

de-carbonize, the coal industry, hard to de-carbonize. 

So by doing things like a negative emissions plant which can be 

located at any location, you can put them anywhere, you have another industry, but you allow that first industry to keep going, but 

you are still de-carbonizing it. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Cardin? 

Oh, Senator Whitehouse, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. When I gave my thank-yous to my cosponsors on this bill, Senator Duckworth was not in the room. She is 

now in the room, so I just want to add my gratitude personally to 

her for her support. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for working together to 

deal with a practical, bipartisan way to reduce carbon through carbon capture. To me, this is how we should be working to try to 

87 

make progress wherever we can make progress. I thank you. It is 

science-driven decisionmaking. 

In my State of Maryland, the geological survey has been working 

on carbon capture and sequestration for many, many years. They 

are targeting entities such as unused gas wells, geologic rift zones 

and deep saline aquifers. So we are very much engaged in this 

process, because we think there is a major return. 

But I would also point out there is no one answer to dealing with 

the carbon issue. Senator Van Hollen and Senator Carper and I, 

and also Senator Gillibrand, represent the Chesapeake Bay watershed. So we understand, and Senator Capito who was here, is also 

part of that region. 

We recognize the challenge that we have in the Chesapeake Bay. 

So we look at carbon capture as one way of helping deal with the 

issue. We also look at our energy policy as an important point on 

dealing with carbon emissions. We look at farming practices, we 

look at shoreline development and dealing with storm runoff 

issues. All these are important. 

One area where we have been able to get bipartisan support is 

to restore wetlands. Wetlands are a natural way of capturing carbon. So as we lose wetlands, and we lose wetlands every year, we 

are making the carbon issue more severe in this Country. 

So when we got to the nutria eradication issue, which was a bipartisan effort, this committee was very much engaged in it, we 

were able, effectively, to eliminate the nutria population on the 

eastern shore, which has saved, literally, a large portion of 

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, it is saved today with wetlands because we got rid of the nutria population. That is helping 

on our carbon emissions. 

So my question to Mr. Waltzer is, do you agree that carbon capture is important, but we need to have a coordinated effort on so 

many different directions if we are going to make a consequential 

difference on the carbon emissions that are occurring today? What 

would your priorities be? 

Mr. WALTZER. Senator Cardin, I think there is no question that 

we have to have a broad set of technology tools available to us to 

de-carbonize our planet. Our priorities are pretty simple. We need 

to have a set of policies that drive innovation across renewables, 

carbon capture and nuclear. 

We need to make sure that those technologies get to the point 

where they are widely commercially available, to be not just used 

here in the U.S., but around the world. And that tool kit is going 

to be a combination of certainty that comes from technology portfolio standards or emission limits or carbon pricing combined with 

a robust set of innovation policies, like we are talking about today 

with the USEIT Act. 

It seems like a pretty simple formula. But it is a profound formula, and one that we need to move on on all fronts quickly if we 

are going to address this in a timeframe that matters. 

Senator CARDIN. Another area that we were able to work in a bipartisan manner dealt with certain tax incentives for renewable 

energy sources. That also has a dramatic impact on reducing carbon emissions. I just mention the different areas that we need to 

work on in a coordinated way to deal with the realities of carbon 

88 

pollution and what it is doing to our atmosphere and what it is 

doing to our environment. 

So on a scale of where we need to put our attention, where 

should we be placing our attentions? 

Mr. WALTZER. I think our priorities need to be focused on insuring that renewable energy continues to develop as a solution. Right 

now it is only providing less than 1 percent of the world’s primary 

energy production. That is not enough. We can do much more. But 

we are currently getting over 80 percent of our primary energy production from fossil fuels. That is not likely to go away by mid-century. So we are going to need a robust application of carbon capture utilization and storage. 

And we get about 5 percent globally from nuclear power. We are 

beginning to see some evidence that that can get back to a place 

where it can play an important role in providing those solutions. 

And we need all of those tools in the tool kit. So I think we have 

to be ambitious and move forward on all fronts. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much. Senator Braun? 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. Indiana is a State among others that 

is disproportionately dependent on coal, and most of our fossil fuel 

reserves are in coal. My opinion is, in the long run, the cleanest, 

least expensive fuel is going to win out in the marketplace. We are 

slowly transitioning. 

I want to direct these questions at Mr. Sukut, if you could start 

off. Is there anything on the horizon that can take coal and have 

it emit more cleanly? I would also like a comment about recapture 

on fossil fuels once you burn them. Is that basically the same? And 

does one have an advantage over the other? 

But we are closing coal plants down, probably starting out any 

new regeneration with natural gas. But just curious if there is anything on the horizon for a State like Indiana that is so dependent 

on coal, to fix it in the short run and then maybe lengthen the life 

of these plants in a clean way. 

Mr. SUKUT. Thank you for the question, Senator. Yes, I think 

there is. I think there are some promising technologies out there 

that work. For example, Amine, and I am not a scientist, I am a 

finance CPA, so don’t ask me any scientific questions here, because 

I can’t answer them. 

But I do know this: the Amine process works, it does. I think the 

most important thing is, we really do kind of need an all of the 

above energy resources, inclusive of coal. If we can clean coal up, 

if we can take the CO2 out, we already know we can take sulfur, 

mercury, NOX out, it would operate a lot just like wind. You would 

have a clean source. 

Now, as time goes along, for example, in North Dakota, wind 

works very well for us. In fact, this year over 25 percent of the energy produced at Basin Electric is going to come from wind. Because wind works up in North Dakota, it really does. And as time 

goes along, new coal, as you know, Senator, has not come online 

for about 10 years. Dry Fork Station is one of the last ones that 

came on, and that was 2010. 

So if you think about it, the older coal plants, they will retire, 

and as they retire, you are going to see less and less coal. But I 

89 

think what we do need to do is the newer plants continue to work 

on, for example, the Amine technology is one I can think of right 

off hand, to capture carbon and infuse it. Because we know we 

have ways to do that, and we have caverns that we know we can 

store it at. 

So from that standpoint, I would encourage that we continue to 

re-use that natural resource to the extent we can utilize those 

kinds of technologies. 

Senator BRAUN. Anything other than Amine that you can think 

of? 

Mr. SUKUT. The science guys would be better at talking about 

this than I would. 

Senator BRAUN. Go ahead. 

Mr. WALTZER. I think it is important to note a couple of things 

with coal and CCUS. The first commercial demonstration of applying CCUS was done on a coal plant, the Petra Nova project, outside 

Houston. It is worth to note that project came in on time and on 

budget. It is very well managed, operating very well. 

More broadly, when we step back, we think about this issue as 

global. And we see a thousand gigawatts of coal plants in China, 

most are new and are going to be emitting for the next 50 years. 

It is absolutely crucial to develop this technology so it can be applied, not just in the U.S., but around the world. 

The third point is, we have talked with power companies that 

have expressed an interest in using 45Q to move forward on 

projects. I think as Senator Capito alluded to, we are waiting for 

the starting gun to happen, when the Treasury will put out its 

guidance, and that can’t happen too soon. We have that short window of commenced construction, which can be a challenge for power 

plants. But we do think that utilizing CCUS with coal plants is an 

important tool. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. Mr. Oldham? 

Mr. OLDHAM. Yes, thank you. One of the beauties of the technology that we have developed is the fact that it allows you to do 

purely negative emissions. Capture CO2 from the atmosphere, bury 

it under the ground permanently, at a location that makes sense. 

And there are many, many locations across the United States. 

What that allows you to do is make a choice. You can continue 

to operate a coal plant and it can continue to have emissions. But 

at the same time you build one of our plants or a similar technology, to completely offset those emissions. So you have immediately gone carbon-neutral. But you haven’t affected the economics 

of that plant and the industries that depend on it. 

So in my view, that is one of the critical reasons why direct air 

capture technology should be increased in funding. It gives you 

choices. You can continue with the airline industry, you can continue with the coal industry, but doing so in a carbon-neutral or 

even carbon-negative way. 

Mr. SUKUT. One last technology that we have participated with, 

Allete, it is a Minnesota-based investor-owned, is the Allam cycle. 

And I referred to it in my written testimony. Actually, that is a 

coal-based, but is zero-emissions. The byproduct of that, it uses 

compressed CO2 to run a turbine. And really, the byproduct of that 

is water, so it is completely clean. But yet another technology that 

90 

is on the horizon, and it is down the road a little way. We are trying to get to the demonstration stage with it. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Braun. Appreciate it. 

Senator Duckworth? 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, 

welcome, and Mr. Sukut, a special welcome to you. Your daughter 

is one of my wonderful staff members, and I exploit her labor on 

a daily basis. She is quite wonderful, I am glad to have her on 

staff. 

Mr. SUKUT. Thank you, Senator. We are very proud and thank 

you to, for employing her gainfully. We appreciate that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DUCKWORTH. You are most welcome. 

Across Illinois and our Country, we are already experiencing the 

harmful effects of climate change. Growing seasons are changing, 

heat waves are increasing, extreme floods are becoming more frequent and severe. This all that we are talking about today. 

Simply put, climate change is no longer a threat. It is here, the 

climate has changed. I believe that we must seek solutions to cutting carbon pollution that strengthen our economy and advance 

new industries and create quality American jobs. The bipartisan 

USEIT Act, combined with the action Congress took last year that 

extended and reformed the 45Q tax credit, will help to make sure 

we accomplish these goals. Senator Whitehouse mentioned this. I 

look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee to 

advance and further improve this promising legislation. 

Mr. Waltzer, Illinois has some of the best saline storage locations 

in the Country. Last Congress, Chairman Barrasso and Senator 

Whitehouse worked with me on adding language to the USEIT Act 

that requires the Department of Energy to author a report to make 

recommendations to project developers on how best to use saline 

formation for carbon sequestration. Can you share why this report 

would be important to the future of permanent carbon sequestration? 

Mr. WALTZER. Absolutely, Senator Duckworth, for three reasons. 

First, given the scale of what we need to do in terms of eliminating 

carbon emissions on the planet, saline is going to be our biggest 

target. There is really no substitute. We need to move forward on 

enhanced oil recovery and utilization. But if we are really going to 

make the cuts we need to make, that is where we are going to store 

the carbon. 

Second, there are innovations that are occurring, for example, 

being able to produce water, particularly in arid areas. So it is not 

just a storage space, it is potentially a place where we can also develop useful products. 

And third, it is the resource that is most abundant. That is why 

ADM is doing that project in Illinois in saline, because there is 

some EOR potential, but it is completely dwarfed by the availability of saline resources. We have more saline resources in North 

America than we have EOR or any other target. So if we are not 

developing this resource and we are not being thoughtful, then we 

are putting ourselves at a significant disadvantage. 

91 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. So you mentioned ADM. They 

are one of the world’s largest food processors, and this is a one of 

a kind project in Decatur, Illinois. It captures carbon dioxide, which 

is created as a by-product at a corn processing facility, and stores 

it safely almost a mile and a half underground in the Mount Simon 

Sandstone. A lot of attention is spent discussing on how CCUS can 

be applied to the power sector. I believe the USEIT Act will help 

spur industrial capture projects like the one in my back yard. 

Mr. Waltzer, you mentioned ADM’s project. Can you talk a little 

bit about how decarbonizing projects like ADM can teach us lessons 

about how we can decarbonize the industrial sector? 

Mr. WALTZER. Absolutely. It is a very important project. It is a 

first of a kind. Industry is one of those hard to reach places in 

terms of decarbonizing. CCUS is almost certainly going to be necessary to decarbonize the industrial sector. 

Fortunately, there are plants like the ADM plant that are readymade, in a sense. They have a low-cost CO2 supply, they have pure 

CO2 streams, and there are many of these types of facilities, from 

ethanol, from hydrogen or ammonia production, other sources that 

we can quickly move forward on. And we expect 45Q to really move 

first in those areas. 

So we think it is both absolutely necessary and an area that we 

expect to see a fair amount of activity on in terms of utilizing incentives like 45Q and the USEIT Act. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Mr. Sukut, I know you said that you are a finance guy and not 

a scientist, but I would think that a report that would come out 

of something like the USEIT Act, that would make recommendations to project developers on how best to use information for carbon sequestration would be something useful. Can you talk a little 

bit to that? In Illinois, for example, wind power has created 

100,000 jobs in 10 years. I see that there is potential on the economic front for some great benefits here as well. 

Mr. SUKUT. Absolutely, Senator. I think when we put iron in the 

ground, we put it in, as I said, for 30 or 40 years. To the extent 

that we can get more information and we can use it in terms of 

making sure that it is critical and can be used, and the fact that 

it gives us the information that we can go forward with, that is one 

of the most critical things in the utility industry, quite frankly. 

So I would think it is absolutely critical that we have information 

like this in the USEIT Act. So I would very strongly encourage it 

to be part of the Act. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. Mr. Oldham, I just have a 

minute left. Did you want to add anything to the discussion so far? 

Mr. OLDHAM. I think one of the things, you are absolutely correct, that renewable energy and the driver, that is a critical part 

of developing jobs. One of the key things to remember is the importance of not just reducing emissions but also reducing the CO2 already in the atmosphere. Senator Carper has an excellent bathtub 

analogy that I think he uses. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I have been using it for years. 

92 

Mr. OLDHAM. Continued focus on CO2 removal, and you are quite 

correct, saline aquifers are a fantastic place to store CO2, and Illinois a great place to do so. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much. Senator Sullivan? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You learn a lot in 

these hearings. I am not sure I was expecting to hear the exploitation of labor happening—I am just kidding. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. That is just a joke. 

But let me ask really all of you gentlemen, one of the issues, 

when we are all looking at the issue of bringing on new technologies in the energy space is our regulatory and permitting processes at the Federal level. One of the things that I have been very 

concerned about is the time it takes to deploy just basic infrastructure in our Country, whether it is roads or bridges or pipelines. 

And as all of you know, it takes forever, about 8 years on average, 

to permit a bridge in America, if you can believe that. Same with 

a pipeline. Highways, it is well over a decade. 

This is a problem that I say cuts across partisan issues. I had 

a bill las year we are going to reintroduce called the Rebuild America Now Act, which is looking at reforming the NEPA process, not 

to cut corners. But I don’t think anyone thinks nine to 10 years to 

permit a pipeline is a good idea for our Country. 

What are the big areas of permitting roadblocks that you have 

seen in your experience, and how can we address it here in the 

Congress? I will open that up to any and all. 

Mr. SUKUT. I can start, because this is sort of one of my things, 

too, quite frankly. So in some of the things with NEPA, one of the 

areas that we see a lot of roadblocks is the EA, or the environmental assessment or the EIA. Those things take months and 

months and months. 

Really, if we had some more certainty when we headed into 

them, and the rules that we could get over the hump. Because a 

lot of times, the actual work doesn’t really take that long. But 

there is just so many regulations. And really, we are not trying to 

bypass the environmental assessment at all. 

Senator SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. SUKUT. That is not what we are trying to do. Please don’t 

get that impression. But it takes so much time to get some of this 

done. 

So I will give you one example. We are not an RUS borrower any 

more. We used to be. We were putting in a 200-megawatt wind 

farm. We had to go through an environmental assessment. We finally went to outside financing, just because we couldn’t get all of 

the work done because we had to do an EIS instead of an EA. It 

took us so long to get it done, I think the thing was fully depreciated by the time we got the go-ahead from RUS. 

Senator SULLIVAN. How many years did it take? 

Mr. SUKUT. Well, we ran two and a half years. The wind farm 

was completed and we had run it two and a half years before we 

finally got the go-ahead, oh, you can go get the RUS money now. 

Well, too late, we had to do conventional financing. 

So yes, Senator, absolutely. 

93 

Senator SULLIVAN. We want to work with all of you on this. Because again, the original idea NEPA and EIS was to make sure 

there was public input with the EISs. Well, the irony is now, the 

EISs now are in the thousands of pages. They cost millions of dollars. They stop development. And nobody reads them, because they 

are too big. So the idea of public input has been turned on its head. 

Usually an EIS comes out, it is several thousand pages and nobody 

has any idea what is in it and nobody reads it. I think we can do 

better as a Country. 

Mr. SUKUT. That and it costs money. 

Senator SULLIVAN. It costs a lot of money and it stalls projects 

and jobs. 

Let me just ask one kind of final question. I think there is this 

really, really exciting area in the world of energy and technology, 

that relates to some of our traditional resources that we have and 

the marriage of technology. 

Let me just give you an example, natural gas. So our Country 

is now the largest producer of natural gas in the world. I happen 

to think that is a really good thing. We actually are the largest producer of oil in the world. I actually think that is a really good 

thing. We are actually the largest producer of renewables in the 

world. That is also a good thing. All of the above, energy. 

But in terms of gas, because it is low carbon, and when you burn 

it really high, you can actually almost zero out any emissions, the 

marriage of technology and a hundred to two hundred years of supply of natural gas in America creates enormous opportunities. 

Some of you might be familiar, I was out in the Silicon Valley area 

not too long ago. Bloom Energy is doing all kinds of really exciting 

work with natural gas and fuel cell opportunities. 

What do you see as some of the opportunities that relates to integrating some of our current, abundant resources, in particular I 

want to ask about natural gas, and technology, or renewables, for 

example. There is a lot of experiments going on with wind power 

and solar power. It is intermittent, and when you don’t have the 

wind, you find up natural gas turbines that can create power generation. I think it is a very exciting area and I would love any of 

your views on that. 

Mr. OLDHAM. Just a quick comment. Our direct capture plants 

use natural gas. They can be powered by natural gas or renewable 

electricity or both. And the reasons are exactly what you say, it is 

a prevalent resource, it is effective. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Low carbon when you burn it high. 

Mr. OLDHAM. We also capture all of the CO2 emissions from 

using natural gas and it becomes part of our product at the end 

of the day. So yes, I agree, natural gas is a tremendous resource. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So becoming the world’s largest producer of 

natural gas in terms of jobs, energy security, national security, but 

also in terms of the environment in the future is pretty exciting, 

wouldn’t you say? 

Mr. OLDHAM. Certainly when you combine it with a technology 

like ours, absolutely, yes. 

Mr. WALTZER. I would say that there is enormous potential to 

use low-cost gas to actually drive forward low carbon technologies. 

There is also a caution that we have to do that by managing things 

94 

like upstream methane emissions and insuring the coal life cycle 

chain of the gas is truly low carbon. 

But a couple of areas on the technology side that are most interesting to us, anyway, we have talked before about the Net Power 

technology that is potentially a breakthrough technology to supply 

zero carbon power, fueled by natural gas, at very low cost. The 

other area that we think is particularly interesting is generation of 

hydrogen or ammonia from zero carbon gas. You can even repurpose conventional gas turbines to burn hydrogen or ammonia. They 

are looking at that in the Netherlands right now. But that can also 

apply to the industrial sector and the transportation sector. 

It does have enormous potential, but it also is going to require 

some diligence on all the elements that are necessary to insure it 

is truly low carbon. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of 

you for being here today. 

I like this legislation, because it seems to be a bipartisan acknowledgment that we have to make public investments in order 

to reduce carbon pollution emissions, in order to address the risks 

of climate change. Do all of you gentlemen agree with that statement? Is that a yes? I see all of you nodding. 

Mr. SUKUT. Yes. 

Mr. OLDHAM. Absolutely. 

Mr. WALTZER. Yes. 

Senator Van Hollen. All right. Now, as you have all testified, 

there are a number of ways to do that. We have tax credits in the 

area of solar, we have had tax credits in the area of wind. A number of us have bills that would put a price on carbon. 

I would like all of you, if you could, to respond to an article that 

was written in Forbes just a few years ago. It was by Jeffrey 

Rissman and Robbie Orvis. One of them is the Energy Innovations 

head of modeling and energy policy. The other is the Energy Innovations policy design projects manager. Here is what they said. 

‘‘While many technologies can reduce power sector emissions, carbon capture and storage has gained support in Congress. But it is 

the most expensive option available.’’ 

They go on to say, ‘‘Our analysis shows coal plants equipped with 

CCS are nearly three times more expensive than on-shore wind 

power and more than twice as expensive as solar photovoltaics. Although these costs will decline with research and development, the 

potential for cost improvement is limited. Coal with CCS will always need significant subsidies to compete economically with wind 

and solar.’’ 

Now, the reason I support this legislation is I think that we are 

at a dangerous point and that we need to put all hands on deck. 

We need to turn off the faucets, as you said, Mr. Oldham, and pull 

out the plug. So I support this. 

But could you just discuss briefly the cost comparisons with respect to public subsidy, with respect to technologies, both today and 

what you see going forward? 

Mr. OLDHAM. Yes, I think that is a really challenging question, 

because it is a multi-faceted one. 

95 

I think the way to look at it is to baseline what we think the cost 

of a ton of carbon is. And the cost of a ton of carbon has an impact 

in a variety of different ways. A large amount of carbon has a very 

significant cost. 

So for us, the way that we look at our business is to drive our 

cost per ton of carbon down as low as we can. We do so by using 

technology that exists today, measurable performance. And we 

have driven it down to around about $100 per ton. 

So the question then becomes, is that a reasonable cost per ton 

of carbon. Now, the carbon that I am talking about is atmospheric 

carbon. It is not emitted carbon. So emitted carbon is easier to capture, because it is more prevalent in the source. CO2 in the atmosphere, 400 parts per million. So my carbon is more expensive to 

capture, but it is also essential per the bathtub analogy we discussed earlier on. 

So for us, about $100 per ton of CO2. A few years ago, the National Academy of Scientists published a report that said the cost 

of a ton of carbon from the atmosphere would be about $600. We 

are now at $100. So your point about innovation driving down the 

cost point, it is already happening and it will continue. 

Mr. WALTZER. So in a limited way I agree with that statement. 

Reducing current generation technology through incremental improvements on the kind of technologies we are applying to coal 

plants today, I don’t think they are going to get radically lower. 

But there are next generation technologies and carbon capture and 

storage that can take us to that golden zone of trying to be cost 

competitive with carbon-intensive alternatives. 

And so I think it is important to move forward to try and obtain 

that goal. The risk is if we don’t do that, then we are relying on 

fewer technologies. We support significant deployment, additional 

significant deployment of renewables, but they are variable source 

technologies, and there is a point at which you have to over-build 

the system in order to pay for it, even if on an incremental basis 

they are cost effective. 

Senator Van Hollen. I am sorry to interrupt. Do you envision 

that you are going to require a significant public subsidy for the 

foreseeable future to address, to provide for carbon capture technology? 

Mr. WALTZER. I would say the kind of support that is needed to 

move the technology forward isn’t that different than the kind of 

support that was needed to move wind and solar technologies down 

the cost curve. I don’t think we really want any technology to be 

on a perpetual subsidy. We want them all to become as affordable 

as possible as soon as possible. 

Senator Van Hollen. Absolutely. 

But if I could, Mr. Sukut, you mentioned, I think in response to 

Senator Whitehouse, that the cost of doing this relative to a carbon 

fee, you saw this technology being a lower cost, if I understood your 

answer. 

Mr. SUKUT. And I do, Senator. In fact, I would offer this up, I 

actually, again, I go back to our integrated test facility in Wyoming. One or two of those test guys are actually offering up that 

it would be less than $40 a ton, because I think it is, and I absoVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:04 May 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35946.TXT VERNE
96 

lutely agree with it, it is cheaper to extract from the existing flue 

than it is from the air, it really is. So less than $40, in terms of our Dry Fork Station, I don’t mean 

to be overly practical here, but that is such a new plant that it 

runs way cheaper and more efficiently also. So we have a lot more 

cost groom there in order to be able to still compete in the market. 

And the technology will improve a little bit. So I think they will 

come together some. 

But I think we have room to run those facilities, and if we can 

capture it in a way that is more economic, I think we have a good, 

good chance here to do this. 

Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. I see my time is out. It 

is that last part, if it is economical, right. That is the focus. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject one 

point on it. The way I see this is that, let’s say hypothetically there 

were a $50 per ton carbon price. That puts a huge economic incentive into the hands of every entity that is paying that $50 per ton 

carbon price to instead pay $49 per ton to have the carbon removed, or $48 or $10, depending on whatever the price is. 

And the fact that we have this artificial failure to price carbon 

emissions in our marketplace I think is discouraging to this industry. If we went to a proper market system in which the 

externalities are in the price of the product, then anything cheaper 

than that becomes something that becomes quickly marketable. I 

don’t consider that a subsidy. I consider the subsidy as not having 

that in the market system. 

So I just wanted to add that point, and I appreciate Senator Van 

Hollen’s concern. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator Van Hollen. If I could just, I agree with Senator 

Whitehouse. Look, a price on carbon in my view is the most economic way to do this. Subsidies, or the flip side of it, right. Because 

on one hand, a price on carbon, you are letting the market set the 

price by requiring people to be more efficient. The other side is you 

provide subsidies for different kinds of technologies. 

I would prefer the market approach, because I think that allows 

all players to compete on a more even playing field. There are some 

different pieces of legislation to do that. 

But in the meantime, I support efforts like this. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you, Senator Van Hollen. Just to 

interject, Senators Whitehouse, Carper and Duckworth are all cosponsoring the legislation. If you would like to, that would make 

it four Republicans and four Democrats from this committee. 

Senator Van Hollen. I would be happy to do that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate this conversation. I have felt that so much goal and gas is being burned 

around the world, that if we can find a way to extract carbon dioxide efficiently, economically, that it can make a big difference. We 

have to move quickly. 

I am struck by the fact that in the industrialized era, we have 

increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 50 

percent. And most of that has happened in my lifetime. And we are 

97 

on an upward accelerating, an upward curve. So I think we have 

to explore every possible option. 

Meanwhile, though, I remain somewhat skeptical. Worth investing and exploring, but somewhat skeptical. And here is why I am 

skeptical. I think about Xcel Energy doing their request for proposals where they came back with proposals at two cents per kilowatt hour for wind, three cents for solar, both of which were below 

the cost of burning coal at an already depreciated coal plant. 

Now, the cost, whatever the cost, there is at least some cost, 

whether it is $100 or it can be driven down to $50 or $40. And a 

number of the technologies require a significant amount of extra 

energy inputs and extra water. I used to have, somewhere in my 

office, I think I could find it, a hockey puck made out of carbon dioxide that was captured by some technology some 10 years. 

Give me a sense of why I should be a little more optimistic, at 

least in power generation, that burning fossil fuels with carbon 

capture can compete when it is at cost to an industry that is already falling above the line, if you will, of where solar and wind 

are now, and they will continue to drop over the next 10 years as 

a still-evolving technology. Just a brief comment. 

Mr. WALTZER. Sure. Again, solar and wind are important technologies and we need them to be deployed globally. The reason why 

we need carbon capture and storage and a broader assortment of 

low-carbon technologies options is first. There is at some point a 

level where because of the variability and because we don’t have 

seasonal storage, the levelized costs of electricity of those technologies really don’t reflect the full system costs. They can get substantially larger if we are approaching 80 to 100 percent. So we 

need load-following technologies, in addition to those technologies. 

In addition, there are technologies that are in pilot development 

that are really rethinking the way of doing carbon capture. Net 

Power is one that is often cited, but it is part of a broader class 

of technologies that use CO2 as a fluid within the turbine. It is 

thermodynamically very different. They are targeting $10 a ton as 

the objective of that cost. 

Mr. MERKLEY. So I am going to have you stop there, simply because my time is so short. But this is exactly the way I look at it. 

It is worth exploring these future technologies. I again remain 

skeptical. The cost of battery storage is coming down. Demand response systems can help address the supply and demand. 

But there is another issue that I am concerned about. That is, 

we have extensive leakage in our gas pipeline system. A number 

of the stretches of the system have a 4 percent or more factor, at 

which point you have methane, which unburned, is far more potent 

as a heat trapping gas than is carbon dioxide. Over a period of 20 

years, 80 times more heat trapped per pound. 

So I wrestle with whether it makes, even if you can get the carbon dioxide out of the smokestack where you are burning gas, are 

you sustaining a system in which leaky methane is doing a lot of 

damage? And that is a much harder problem, well, I won’t say it 

is a hard problem, it is an additional big part of the picture. So 

should I not be worried about sustaining a system of pipelines that 

are leaking methane into the air? 

98 

Mr. WALTZER. You should be worried about the fugitive methane 

emissions that are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. 

And those are controllable. We were strong supporters of the earlier Administration’s rule to reduce methane emissions from both 

new sources, and we think it should have gone further to look at 

existing sources. We are working with, we worked with the government of Mexico and are working with Argentina and Colombia on 

developing exactly those kinds of rules and regulations to reduce 

methane emissions. 

But that is something we need to do irrespective of whether or 

not we use gas and the way that we are talking about for a low 

carbon source. That is just something that has to happen. If we do 

expand its use into those areas, we need to double ensure that 

those upstream methane emissions are managed. But it is not really an either-or, it is an and, in our view. 

Senator MERKLEY. My time is expiring. Thank you. Those are a 

couple of my concerns. I am also concerned that we need to look 

at every strategy to remove carbon. If, for example, the best dollar 

effect is in supporting modified agricultural practices that maybe 

produce improved crop yields and store carbon in the soil, let’s look 

at that. If we are looking at forest practices that reduce the amount 

of forest fires and allow trees to grow and store more carbon, let’s 

look at that. Let’s look at this from every angle. 

Thank you all. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Before we close, I just 

want to mention one other thing. First of all, just thanks a lot for 

coming. Jim and I love music, and every now and then I like to 

work some lyrics into our hearings. One of those sets of lyrics is 

‘‘Hope in a Hopeless World.’’ Great song, if you have never heard 

it. It is a great song. 

It actually kind of reminds me of this hearing, the hope. A lot 

of people don’t see much hope for our world, but there is some 

hope. And you have given us some reasons to be hopeful. 

I hope we have given you some reasons to be hopeful, given the 

kind of bipartisan cooperation we have, led by our chairman, Sheldon and others on the committee. 

The other lyric I was reminded of today was, you have heard of 

doing a one hit wonder, there was this guy named Thomas Dolby 

who was a one hit wonder. But he had a great hit, the song was 

‘‘Blinded by Science.’’ Maybe we can have a remake of the song, at 

least for our purposes, it could be ‘‘Guided by Science,’’ not blinded, 

but guided by science. 

What you are giving us is some areas where we can agree and 

provide some hope, and also be guided by science in a way that can 

do good things for our planet and create economic opportunity. 

That is the goal, the holy grail, that is the holy grail for me and 

I think it is for our Chairman and others. 

So we thank you. I would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. 

Chairman, if I could, to submit for the record letters and documents related to the USEIT Act and the technologies we discussed 

today. 

Senator BARRASSO. They will be accepted in alphabetical order, 

without objection. 

99 

[The referenced information follows:] 

100 


35946.088

Carbon Capture Coalition 

Supportive Quotes from Participants on the USE IT Act 

February 2019 

"BPC Action commends Sens. john Barrasso (R-WY) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R!) for 

introducing the Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies (USE IT) 

Act. This bill is needed to build on recently enacted investments in carbon capture to continue 

important innovation in this space, reduce emissions and maintain America's energy 

leadership. Carbon utilization and direct air capture are at the forefront of American 

innovation and critical to not only addressing carbon pollution, but also expanding 

opportunities for American businesses in emerging technology sectors. Importantly, the USE 

IT Act supports the buildout of enabling carbon dioxide pipeline infrastructure critical to 

deploying these technologies to a point where American businesses can seize the economic 

opportunities afforded by them. As the global appetite for clean technologies grows, the 

United States has an opportunity to reassert its competitive edge by pioneering the 

technologies of tomorrow, and the USE IT Act helps us get there."- Michele Stockwell, 

Executive Director, BPC Action 

"The USE IT Act represents the first ever serious federal investment in carbon removal. Today, 

there are already a number of direct air capture and carbon tech entrepreneurs working to 

transform waste carbon into a valuable resource, and federal support will be critical to 

spurring on these new industries, unlocking a trillion dollar market opportunity, and 

ultimately building an economy that removes more carbon than we emit."- Noah Deich, 

Executive Director, Carbon180 

"Over and over, experts conclude that carbon capture and storage is essential for both rapid 

climate mitigation and economic growth. The USE IT Act provides some welcome support to 

CCS deployment in the US, including support for pipeline permitting and an expansive 

innovation agenda on carbon management. If the US wants to maintain its leadership and 

commercial edge, the USE IT act is cornerstone legislation."- Julio Friedmann, CEO, 

Carbon Wrangler 

"just like people, birds are facing a cascade of threats because of the changing climate. Rising 

seas and temperatures are shrinking and shifting the landscapes that sustain them," said jesse 

Walls, Director of Government Affairs for the National Audubon Society. "Audubon believes we 

need to pursue an array of common-sense, bipartisan approaches that reduce carbon 

emissions, and that carbon capture and sequestration is one of the essential elements. This 

legislation has the potential to get us to smart solutions faster, by supporting research and 

spurring investment in the most promising technologies. This is the kind of bipartisanship we 

need to see more of, and we applaud Senators Whitehouse and Barrasso for their leadership." 

-Jesse Walls, Director of Government Affairs for the National Audubon Society 

"We need both carbon capture on smokestacks and carbon removal from the atmosphere if 

we are going to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. Adoption by Congress of the USE 

IT Act would encourage early stage innovation for carbon removal and help develop needed 
101 


35946.089

infrastructure for both technologies. We urge its enactment as soon as possible."- Armond 

Cohen, Executive Director, Clean Air Task Force 

"The bipartisan USE IT Act is a common-sense approach to supporting carbon capture 

technologies, including necessary pipelines and other infrastructure, enhanced public-private 

partnerships, innovative R&D and permitting improvements. It is a strong and necessary step 

in enabling market-driven carbon capture and realizing its benefits for American consumers." 

- ClearPath Action Executive Director Rich Powell 

"We applaud the bipartisan leadership of Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse for their 

introduction ofS. {bill#}, the USE IT Act. As a science-based organization whose mission it is 

to protect the land and waters on which all life depends, The Nature Conservancy is 

committed to finding solutions to some of nature's greatest challenges, including climate 

change. The technologies supported by this bill-- carbon utilization and direct air capturecan play an important role in reducing carbon emissions and can be part of the 

comprehensive array of approaches needed to address climate change. The USE IT Act invests 

in research and development that will help expedite the commercial deployment of these 

critical technologies. We hope other members of the Senate will support this common-sense, 

bipartisan legislation."- Jason Albritton, Director of US Climate and Energy Policy, The 

·Nature Conservancy 

"Avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will require us to get to zero emissions by 

2050-something that leading climate authorities say is unlikely without carbon capture. The 

USE IT Act is a smart way to encourage innovative capture methods, profitable uses for 

captured carbon, and new infrastructure that will help scale-up this important climate 

solution."- Josh Freed, Senior Vice President for Clean Energy, Third Way 

"The USE IT Act is another step forward in advancing technology-based solutions to 

environmental challenges in a manner designed to maximize the economic potential of our 

energy and manufacturing sectors. In seeking new ways to power our nation and energize 

our industrial base, this bill recognizes the value of retaining and creating high-quality,family 

supporting jobs, and their importance to the working families and communities that depend 

on them for their way of life."- Mike Langford, National President, Utility Workers Union 

of America 

"While carbon capture is playing an important role in many states' environmental and 

economic development planning, Congress can and should continue to consider policies that 

can make viable carbon capture projects of all types and sizes. The USE IT Act is aimed at 

accelerating both the development of breakthrough technologies like Direct Air Capture and 

the deployment of C02 infrastructure that could foster a boom in new projects. Senators 

Barrasso and Whitehouse are true leaders in building the consensus for effective climate 

policies like the USE IT Act that can and should be enacted with bipartisan support this year." 

-Jeff Bobeck, co-director of the Carbon Capture Coalition and Center for Climate and 

Energy Solutions Director of Energy Policy Engagement 
102 


35946.090

"The Carbon Capture Coalition is pleased to endorse the USE IT Act and thanks Senators 

Barrasso, Whitehouse and all of the sponsors for continuing their bipartisan leadership on 

carbon capture. Last year's passage of landmark legislation to reform the Section 45Q tax 

credit showed that support for carbon capture spans the political spectrum. Early action by 

the new Congress to pass the USE IT Act will build on that bipartisan effort to reduce carbon 

emissions, strengthen American energy independence, and protect and create high-wage 

jobs." Brad Crabtree, co-director of the Carbon Capture Coalition and Great Plains 

Institute Vice President for Carbon Management 
103 


35946.060

INTERNATIONAL 

BROTHERHOOD 

OF ELECTRICAL 

WORKERS. 

900 Seventh S!reel, HW 

Washington, 0( 20001 

202.833.7000 

www.ibew.org 

lONNIE R. STEPHENSON 

lnfemafionnl President 

KENNETH W, COOPER 

!nternol!onal 

Secretory· Treasurer 

VIA EMAIL 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

February 27,2019 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies 

(USE IT) Act 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the approximately 775,000 active members and retirees of the 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), I am writing to express 

my support for federal legislation to facilitate the research and development of 

carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) and S. 383, the Utilizing Significant 

Emissions with Innovative Technologies (USE IT) Act. 

The IBEW represents hundreds of thousands of members who work in the 

generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in all 50 states. Our 

members are committed to ensuring communities in the United States can rely on a 

safe and resilient source of electricity while protecting our communities and natural 

resources from environmental degradation and climate change. IBEW members 

have worked countless hours installing and maintaining pollution control 

equipment in coal-fired powerhouses, steel mills, automobile manufacturing 

facilities, oil refineries, and other industrial facilities. 

There is consensus among energy and climate experts, including the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy 

Agency (lEA), that CCUS technology is an essential tool in the effort to reduce 

carbon emissions. which is necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change. 

while supporting energy security, protecting the existing energy infrastructure, and 

retaining and creating high-quality, family-supporting jobs that are critical to 

working families and communities. 

The IBEW supports many of the policies proposed in the USE IT Act, 

including the creation of financial incentives for innovators to develop direct air 

capture technology, as well as clarification that CCUS projects and carbon dioxide 

pipelines are eligible for expedited permitting review established under the FAST 

Act. These policies, if enacted, will accelerate the development and deployment of 

CCUS technology and position the United States as a leader in this important field. 

IBEW commends the leadership of Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, and the other co-sponsors of the USE IT Act for coming together in 
104 


35946.061

IAL 

BROTHERHOOD 

OF ELECTRICAL 

WORKERS., 

Mr. John Barrasso and Mr. Tom Carper 

February 27,2019 

Page 2 

bipartisan manner to introduce this legislation, which we hope will build on the 

success of the FUTURE Act and help retain and create thousands of jobs. 

The IBEW looks forward to working with the United States Senate and the 

EPW Committee in finding solutions that will best balance our nation's economic, 

environmental and security needs. 

Sincerely yours, 

J~~, ti-;_~_ Lonnie R. Step~;;J- -- "' - . 

International President 

LRS:slv 

Copy to All Members of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 
105 


35946.062

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

JACK HOWARD 

;> 1.'- )01\ \' li!. 1'11 LSIDI.'-: l 

C:tJ"-CIU:SSIO'.: \I. \'d) Pl'llJ,IC .\11·.\IR\ 

February 27,2019 

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS: 

1 (,I 5 I! z; 11\LI· I, 1'-. \X' 

\X' \SIJJ,V!O'.., DC 2UilG2 

J!!O\\ \RD@USCI! \\IBI·R.C0\1 

Earlier this year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced a revision to our 

legislative scorecard. Beginning with this Congress, lawmakers will receive credit for 

cosponsoring Chamber-endorsed bills or refraining from cosponsoring bills the Chamber 

endorses against. 

Our intent is to use this process to build momentum for the pro-business position 

on individual bills. 

How you vote on legislation where the Chamber has communicated a position will 

continue to make up 80% of your score. The Chamber will continue to issue support and 

opposition letters, including key vote letters, on legislation important to the business 

community and our members. 

The action you take by choosing to cosponsor, or not, the legislation the Chamber 

identifies will make up a 10% "Legislative Leadership" component of your overall grade. 

The remaining I 0% of your score will be assessed by the degree to which you 

cosponsor bipartisan legislation which is not anti-business. 

Attached is an initial list of bills the Chamber is endorsing for or against as part of 

the "Legislative Leadership" score. Over the course of the Congress, the Chamber will 

update this list, disseminate it to you, and maintain it on our website at 

USChamber.com/scorecard. 

Sincerely, 

Jack Howard 
106 


35946.063

The Chamber encourages you to cosponsor: 

I. S. 146 Move America Act 

2. S. 287- Bicameral Congressional Trade Authority Act 

3. S. 365- Trade Security Act 

4. S. 383- Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies Act 

5. S. 172- Health Insurance Tax Relief Act 

6. S. 471- Litigation Funding Transparency Act 

I. H.R. 940 Bicameral Congressional Trade Authority Act 

2. H.R. 1008- Trade Security Act 

3. H.R. 748- Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of2019 

4. H.R. 1166- Utilizing Significant Emissions with innovative Technologies Act 

5. H.R. 1007- Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act 

The Chamber encourages you to refrain from cosponsoring: 

l. S.Res.59- A resolution recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to 

create a Green New Deal 

2. Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Bills (S. 62 and S. 99) 

3. Medicare for All/ Medicare Buy-In (S. 470) 

I. H.Res.I09- Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a 

Green New Deal 

2. H.R. 764- United States Reciprocal Trade Act 

3. Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Bills (H.R. 275 and H.R. 448) 

4. H.R. 1346- Medicare for All/ Medicare Buy-In 
107 


35946.064

In addition to the bills above, examples of some of the bills we anticipate endorsing for 

cosponsorship upon their reintroduction in this Congress include: 

I. S. 488 (ll5'h) -JOBS ACT 3.0 

2. S. 2392 (115' ~- Cyber SAFETY Act 

3. S. II21 (I I 5'h) College Transparency Act 

4. S. 108 ( 115'h) Medical Device Access and Innovation Protection Act 

5. S. 584 ( 115'h) -Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act 

6. S. 2526 (15'h)- Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act 

7. S. 540 (115'h)- Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act 

8. S. 1885 (115'h) -AV START Act 

1. HR. 2434 ( 115'h)- College Transparency Act 

2. HR. 5963 (115'h) Health Insurance Tax Relief Act 

3. HR. 184 (ll5'h) Protect Medical Innovation Act 

4. HR. 3945 (ll5'h)- CASE Act 

5. HR. 33 (115'h)- Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act 

6. HR. 1393 (115'h)- Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act 

7. HR. 4015 (115'h)- Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act 
108 


35946.065

Barrasso USA Today Op-Ed: Green New Deal is 

Unworkable and Unaffordable 

March 5, 2019 

By: U.S. Senator John Barrasso 

March 5. 20 !9 

USA Today 

The Green New Deal would drive a stake through the heart of our nation's strong, healthy and 

growing economy. 

Since passing tax rcf(mn, the economy has added :l million new jobs. 

Americans· paychecks are growing, and there are a record 7.3 million available jobs across the 

country. But the Green New Deal would slam the brakes on our momentum. 

The cost is staggering. An analysis found that if fully implemented, the proposal would cost up to 

$93 trillion over the next decade. That's more than 90 percent oft he combined vvealth of all 

American households. 

It would cost every American family as much as $65,000 per year 

household makes in a year. 

more than the average 

One of the key tenets of this proposal is a mandate to move to 100 percent renewable energy. Doing 

so would eliminate abundant, affordable and reliable energy that currently powers three out of five 

U.S. homes. 

Even if it were possible- and it isn't- the massive costs would be passed directly to consumers in 

the form of higher electricity and heating bills. One estimate concludes that households could see 

their energy bills spike by as much as $3,800 a year. 

Eliminating American production of coal, natural gas and oil would be a hig mistake. We'd still need 

these sources of energy, meaning we would become dependent on the rest of the world. 

Solar and wind power provide 8 percent of our electricity. We should continue to increase use of 

renewables, but there are times the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. 

The Green New Deal would be a gin to Russian President Vladimir Putin, weakening our economy 

and making us dependent on f(Jreign energy. 

Instead, we should support more American innovation. 

The ea1th's climate is changing and it requires a global solution. 

In 2017, America generated just 13 percent of global carbon emissions. China and India produced 34 

percent. 

We must continue to develop and deploy innovative and reliable clean energy solutions around the 

world. 
109 


35946.066

In the Senate. Republicans and Democrats are working together on meaningful legislation to reduce 

carbon dioxide emissions. 

In the past year, Congress passed laws to support advanced nuclear power and carbon-capture 

technologies. 

Clean. reliable nuclear power currently provides 63 percent of America"s emission-free energy. 

Carbon capture is a cutting-edge technology that can even remove carbon directly from the air, while 

developing construction and medical uses for it. 

American innovation holds the key to reducing emissions, not unworkable and unaffordablc 

proposals like the Green New Deal. 

Sen. John Barrasso. R-Wyo .. is chairman of'the S'enale Commi/lee on Environment and Public 

Works. 
110 


35946.067

3/15/2019 Carbon Capture Coalition Endorses Bipartisan Carbon Capture LegislatiOn Introduced in the U.S, Senate Today! Carbon Capture Coalition 

ABOUT US ABOUT CARBON CAPTURE LEGISLATION RESOURCES 

NEWS AND BLOG 

Carbon Capture Coalition Endorses Bipartisan 

Carbon Capture Legislation Introduced in the 

U.S. Senate Today 

February 7, 20191 News 

Washington, D.C.- Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee Chairman John Barrasso (RWY) and a bipartisan group of Senators today introduced the Utilizing Significant Emissions with 

Innovative Technologies (USE IT) Act, legislation to boost carbon capture development and deployment 

nationwide. Cosponsors of the bill include EPW Committee members Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Shelley 

Moore Capito (R-WV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Tom Carper (D-DE) along with 

Mike Enzi (R-WY), Tina Smith (D-MN) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). This year's bill closely matches legislation 

introduced by Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse last year that passed the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee unanimously. Companion bipartisan legislation is expected to be introduced in 

the U.S. House this month. 

"The Carbon Capture Coalition is pleased to endorse the USE IT Act and thanks Senators Barrasso, 

Whitehouse and all of the sponsors for continuing their bipartisan leadership on carbon capture," 

declared Brad Crabtree, co-director of the Carbon Capture Coalition and Great Plains Institute Vice 

President for Carbon Management. "Last year's passage of landmark legislation to reform the Section 

45Q tax credit showed that support for carbon capture spans the political spectrum. Early action by the 

http://carboncapturecoalltion.org/carbon-capture·coalition-endorses-bipartisan-carbon-capture-!eglslation-inlroduced-in-the-u-s-senate-today/ 
111 


35946.068

3115/2019 Carbon Capture Coalition Endorses Bipartisan Carbon Capture Leg;Siation Introduced in the U.S. Senate Today I Carbon Capture Coalit1on 

new Congress to pass the USE IT Act will build on that bipartisan effort to reduce carbon emissions, 

strengthen American energy independence, and protect and create high-wage jobs." 

The USE IT Act would establish initial federal efforts to help advance carbon utilization and direct air 

capture technologies. It would also support collaboration between federal, state, tribal and nongovernmental interests to facilitate the planning and construction of pipeline systems to transport C02 

captured from industrial facilities and power plants for ultimate storage or use. 

"While carbon capture is playing an important role in many states' environmental and economic 

development planning, Congress can and should continue to consider policies that can make viable 

carbon capture projects of all types and sizes," said Jeff Bobeck, co-director of the Carbon Capture 

Coalition and Center for Climate and Energy Solutions Director of Energy Policy Engagement. "The USE 

IT Act is aimed at accelerating both the development of breakthrough technologies like Direct Air 

Capture and the deployment of C02 infrastructure that could foster a boom in new projects. Senators 

Barrasso and Whitehouse are true leaders in building the consensus for effective climate policies like the 

USE IT Act that can and should be enacted with bipartisan support this year." 

The USE IT Act would provide much needed funding for carbon capture and utilization technology 

development, including $50 million in federal funding for research and development of new uses of 

captured carbon that reduce emissions, such as producing low-carbon fuels, chemicals, materials and 

products, as well as a $25 million prize program for early stage research and demonstration of direct air 

capture technologies that remove C02 directly from the atmosphere. Currently, only minimal federal 

funding exists to support emerging direct air capture and utilization technologies. 

The Carbon Capture Coalition has supported the USE IT Act since introduction in 2018 and hosted 

invitation-only media breakfast briefings on the bill with Senator Barrasso in June 2018 and with Senator 

Whitehouse in September 2018. Introduction of the USE IT Act again this year comes just days after the 

one year anniversary of passage of the FUTURE Act, legislation to reform Section 45Q of the U.S. Tax 

Code to boost carbon capture deployment. 

### 

CARBON CAPTURE COALITION PARTICIPANT QUOTES IN SUPPORT OF THE USE IT ACT 

"BPC Action commends Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for introducing the 

Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies (USE IT) Act. This bill is needed to build on 

recently enacted investments in carbon capture to continue important innovation in this space, reduce 

emissions and maintain America's energy leadership. Carbon utilization and direct air capture are at the 

forefront of American innovation and critical to not only addressing carbon pollution, but also expanding 

http·ffcarboncapturecoa!ition.org/carbon-capture-coalition-endorses-bipartisan-carbon-capture-!egis!ation-introduced-in-the-u-s-senate-today/ 
112 


35946.069

3/15/2019 Carbon Capture Coalition Endorses Bipartisan Carbon Capture Leg1s!aUon Introduced in the U.S. Senate Today I Carbon Capture Coa!iliOn 

opportunities for American businesses in emerging technology sectors. Importantly, the USE IT Act 

supports the buildout of enabling carbon dioxide pipeline infrastructure critical to deploying these 

technologies to a point where American businesses can seize the economic opportunities afforded by 

them. As the global appetite for clean technologies grows, the United States has an opportunity to 

reassert its competitive edge by pioneering the technologies of tomorrow, and the USE IT Act helps us 

get there."- Michele Stockwell, Executive Director, BPC Action 

"The USE IT Act represents the first ever serious federal investment in carbon removal. Today, there are 

already a number of direct air capture and carbontech entrepreneurs working to transform waste carbon 

into a valuable resource, and federal support will be critical to spurring on these new industries, 

unlocking a trillion dollar market opportunity, and ultimately building an economy that removes more 

carbon than we emit."- Noah Deich, Executive Director, Carbonl80 

"Over and over, experts conclude that carbon capture and storage is essential for both rapid climate 

mitigation and economic growth. The USE IT Act provides some welcome support to CCS deployment in 

the US, including support for pipeline permitting and an expansive innovation agenda on carbon 

management. If the US wants to maintain its leadership and commercial edge, the USE IT act is 

cornerstone legislation."- Julio Friedmann, CEO, Carbon Wrangler 

"We need both carbon capture on smokestacks and carbon removal from the atmosphere if we are going 

to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. Adoption by Congress of the USE IT Act would encourage 

early stage innovation for carbon removal and help develop needed infrastructure for both technologies. 

We urge its enactment as soon as possible."- Armond Cohen, Executive Director, Clean Air Task Force 

"The bipartisan USE IT Act is a common-sense approach to supporting carbon capture technologies, 

including necessary pipelines and other infrastructure, enhanced public-private partnerships, innovative 

R&D and permitting improvements. It is a strong and necessary step in enabling market-driven carbon 

capture and realizing its benefits for American consumers."- ClearPath Action Executive Director Rich 

Powell 

"Building upon the bipartisan reform of 45Q, the USE IT Act will foster continued development and 

deployment of carbon capture by furthering research for carbon utilization and direct air capture 

technologies and facilitate planning and deployment of pipelines to transport co, for ultimate storage or 

beneficial use. The bipartisan sponsorship of the bill demonstrates that promotion of innovative 

technology to reduce GHG emissions while creating new business opportunities is an approach with far 

reaching support."- Vicki Hollub, President and CEO, Occidental Petroleum Corporation 

"We applaud the bipartisan leadership of Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse for their introduction of S. 

[bill#], the USE IT Act. As a science-based organization whose mission it is to protect the land and waters 

http·Jfcarboncapturecoalttion.org/carbon~capture-coa!ition~endorses-bipartisan-carbon-capture-legislation-introduced-in-the-u-s-senate-today/ 
113 


35946.070

3115/2019 Carbon Capture Coalition Endorses Bipartisan Carbon Capture Legts!a!ton Introduced m the U.S. Senate Today! Carbon Capture CoalitiOn 

on which all life depends, The Nature Conservancy is committed to finding solutions to some of nature's 

greatest challenges, including climate change. The technologies supported by this bill- carbon 

utilization and direct air capture- can play an important role in reducing carbon emissions and can be 

part of the comprehensive array of approaches needed to address climate change. The USE IT Act invests 

in research and development that will help expedite the commercial deployment of these critical 

technologies. We hope other members of the Senate will support this common-sense, bipartisan 

legislation."- Jason Albritton, Director of US Climate and Energy Policy, The Nature Conservancy 

"Avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will require us to get to zero emissions by 2050-

something that leading climate authorities say is unlikely without carbon capture. The USE IT Act is a 

smart way to encourage innovative capture methods, profitable uses for captured carbon, and new 

infrastructure that will help scale-up this important climate solution."- Josh Freed, Senior Vice 

President for Clean Energy, Third Way 

"The USE IT Act is another step forward in advancing technology-based solutions to environmental 

challenges in a manner designed to maximize the economic potential of our energy and manufacturing 

sectors. In seeking new ways to power our nation and energize our industrial base, this bill recognizes 

the value of retaining and creating high-quality, family supporting jobs, and their importance to the 

working families and communities that depend on them for their way of life."- Mike Langford, National 

President, Utility Workers Union of America 

Shore this post 00 

Related Posts: 

Aprilll, 2018 

Coalition Supports Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies {USE IT) Act 

http·ftcarboncapturecoalition.org/carbon-capture-coalition-endorses-bipartisan-carbon-capture-legis!ation-introduced-in-the-u-s-senate-today/ 
114 


35946.071

3115/2019 Carbon Capture Coalition Endorses Bipartisan Carbon Capture Legislation Introduced in the U.S, Senate Today I Carbon Capture Coahtion 

October 23, 2018 

Carbon Capture Coalition Wins the Inaugural Cleanie Award for Best Public Affairs Campaign 

Year 

July 12, 2017 

Momentum for Carbon Capture Grows with Introduction of Bipartisan Tax Incentive 

legislation Co-Sponsored by One-Fourth ofthe U.S. Senate 

Your Email Address 

CARBON CAPTURE COALITION 

2018 Carbon Capture Coalition 

A!! Rights Reserved 

GET IN TOUCH 

For more information, please contact: 

Brocl Crabtree nl bcrohtree(;;~gplsd.ru_'f 

Jeff Bobeck at bobeckj(§!c2es.org 

http·ffcarboncapturecoalitlon.org/carbon-capture-coa!ition-€ndorses-bipartisan-carbon-capture-!egislation-introduced-in-the-u-s-senate-today/ 
115 


35946.072

LATE-BREAKING NEWS 

CARBON CAPTURE 

Research funding legislation returns 

Dylan Brown, E&E News reporter 

PiJbi!Siled Thursday, February 7, 2019 

(LeJ\ tc nght; Setlate Env,ronmer,t anct PubliC Wo'KS C:ha•rm<Jn John Bsrrasso {RN,Y0 ) afld panel m~'l"lMr Sen SPel(!on VVh1tehouse 

{D·R I) Goo<<""'"""'""''"'"'"""' C''"""' A"""" 

Senators today revived two b1part1San b1Hs bent on boosting carbon capture and 

sequestration (CCS) m the United States. 

Senate Enwonment and Public Works Chatrman John Barrasso (R-\JV;Io.) 

mtroduced the latest "Utilizing Significant EmiSSIOns With Innovative 

Technologtes Act,"~-

Sen. John Hoeven (R~N 0.) put forward the "Carbon Capture Modernization 

A<!" 

"Congress needs to help make Amencan energy as clean as we can, as fast as 

we can, Without ra1smg costs on consumers," Barrasso saKitn a statement 

"Thts bi!l supports groundbreaktng mnovatron to address chmate change 

Carbon capture and utthzatton technologtes hold the key to maJOr emisstons 

reducttons " 

The btl! would direct EPA to conduct CCS research through an amendment to 

the Clean Atr Act. It would also make CCS and carbon dtoxide ptpehne projects 

ehgtbfe for streamlined permtttmg under the 2015 F1x111g America's Surface 

Transportalton Act. the last national mfrastructure package passed by 

Congress 

The bill would task the White House Council on Environmental Ouahty wtth 

creating guidance to help project developers 

The legislation also looks to extend and expand the Sectton 450 tax credit for 

CCS projects. Under a 2018 law, projects that qualify for the tax credit must 

start construction by 2023. 

Hoeven's bill would modtfy another coal tax cred1t, Sec!!on 48A, to encourage 

more CCS use. 

Former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D·N,D} was a key champion of both bills, as well 

as the Furthenng Carbon Capture. Ut!llzation, Tecllno!ogy, Underground 

Storage and Reduced Emissions Act that passed last year~. Nov, S, 
116 


35946.073

2018). Her Republican replacement, Sen. Kevm Cramer, IS a co-sponsor of 

both billS introduced today 

''We've proven we can pass sensible bills like this with broad bipartisan 

support," said Sen. Sheldon IJVtlltehouse {0-R.l.). "Now let's dolt again." 

Tw1tter @Oylan8rown26 I Email dbrown@eenews.net 

The essential news for energy & environment professionals 

@ 1"86·2019 Enwonmenl & Energy Pubhsh•nQ. LLC Pnv9cy and Data Practtces Policy .§.ili!....M..1 Contact Us 
117 


35946.074

CA TF Releases Modeling Study That Shows 45Q Carbon Capture & Storage Federal Tax Credit 

Can Have A Major Impact On C02 Emissions Reductions Through 2030 

DEEPIKA NAGABHUSHAN 

STUART ROSS 

February 12, 20 19 

Clean Air Task Force (CATF) today released a comprehensive report on the near-term 

implications of the federal tax credit (45Q) for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. The 

study found that, as a result of tax credit legislation known as 45Q, which was extended and 

expanded in early 2018, nearly 49 million metric tonnes of COz could be captured and stored 

annually by 2030 through CCS on U.S. coal- and gas-fired power plants, equivalent to taking 

seven million cars off the road. 

CA TF s modeling takes into account the passage and signing one year ago of the Bipartisan 

Budget Act that included the expansion and extension of the 45Q corporate income tax credits. 

These credits are expected to enable additional deployment of CCS projects in the U.S. and as a 

result will help reduce carbon emissions while meeting energy needs and supporting domestic 

jobs. The study covers the impact of 45Q on the power sector only, although 45Q tax credits will 

likely spur CCS projects on industrial facilities as well. 

CA TF retained Charles River Associates, a leading economic consulting firm that developed the 

North American Energy and Environment Model (NEEM), for the modeling underlying the 

report. NEEM is widely used by power utilities in the U.S for making strategic capacity and rate 

decisions. 

"Our study projects that the CCS tax incentive could result in nearly 49 million metric tonnes of 

COz captured and stored annually by 2030 through CCS on U.S. coal- and gas-fired power 

plants. That amount of COz reduction is equivalent to taking seven million cars off the road, a 

number greater than the number of new cars sold in the US in 2017," said Deepika Nagabhushan, 

Energy Policy Associate for CATF and lead author of the study. 

"Our study also projects that by 2030, 45Q could help the U.S. achieve more than two-thirds of 

the share of carbon capture that is needed on our power sector in order to limit global warming to 

2-degrees, based on assessments by the International Energy Agency (lEA)" she said. 
118 


35946.075

··so far, we've seen a few companies that have expressed strong interest in capitalizing on the tax 

breaks from 45Q," said Nagabhushan. "As a next step, the U.S. Treasury must issue updated 

guidance on the requirements for claiming 45Q tax credits. After that, we can expect carbon 

capture projects to ramp up in the near term towards the levels modeled in our study. 

''However, to achieve much wider deployment ofCCS in the longer term as seen in lEA's 2-

degrec modeling scenario, a suite of strategic policies would need to be implemented targeting 

all parts of the capture, transport and storage industries, and further extension of 45Q tax credits 

may be a part of that strategy." 

More findings of the study 

Importantly, the modeling results show that the 45Q-induced power sector C02 reductions are 

additive to those achieved through renewable sources of electricity generation. 

The modeling results from the analysis also show that 45 units of coal and natural gas power 

plants could be retrofitted with CCS, resulting in a total of I 0.8 GW of generating capacity with 

carbon controls. Currently one coal-fired power plant in Texas- Petra Nova- and one in 

Saskatchewan- Boundary Dam are capturing C02and sequestering it through EOR, so the 

prognosis for rapid expansion of the technology under 45Q is very encouraging. 

The results indicated that C02 is stored in oil fields within three regions. California would store 

6.4 million tonnes per year, East & Central Texas 19 million tonnes and the Mid-Continent 

region 23.5 million tonnes. To assess the growth level projected by the modeling, the study 

compared the results to historic U.S. EOR regional growth rates, which ranged from 3.6 to 19 

million tonnes per year. This suggests that the modeled regional growth rates are not out of line 

with previous growth periods. Furthermore, the largest rates of past growih were spurred by tax 

policy. 

Here's the link to our 45Q modeling study: https://www.catf.us/resource/45q-ccs-analysis/ 
119 


35946.076

In shadow of Green New Deal, bipartisan bill takes direct aim at emissions 

Axios 

Amy Harder 

February 8, 2019 

A small bipartisan group oflawmakers introduced legislation 'fhursday that would support the 

buildout of technology capturing carbon dioxide emissions, 

Why it matters: Although it's not nearly as high-profile or sweeping as the Green New Deal 

resolution, also unveiled Thursday, the bill takes a more direct, concrete aim at the root of 

climate change: emissions themselves, 

Details: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman John Barrasso (R.-Wyo.) 

and the panel's top Democrat. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.). led the group introducing the bill, 

which supports the technology by ensuring coordination among federal agencies to develop 

pipelines to move the captured C02 emissions, among other things. 

Barrasso likes the bill because it helps ensure use of U.S. fossil fuels in a world 

addressing climate change, while Carper said the technology is essential to cutting 

emissions. 

The bottom line: They're both right. The world remains heavily dependent on fossil 

fuels, so making them cleaner is key to addressing climate change. That's why this 

technology is both essential and a rare bipartisan policy. 

Flashback: The bill passed the same committee last year, but didn't make it through the Senate 

before session ended. 

Between the lines: The Green New Deal is agnostic on whether it supports carbon capture 

technology, despite scientists saying if s essential. An earlier version backed by Rep. Alexandria 

Ocasio-Cortez (D-NS.) appeared to endorse it, but that language is now gone. It's an indication 

ofthe internal disagreements between factions of the left over this tech, given that it supports 

fossil fuels. 
120 


35946.077

1/7/2019 Opinion I Cut Carbon Through Innovation, Not Regulation· The New York Times 

Cut Carbon Through Innovation, 

Not Regulation 

People across the world are rejecting the idea that carbon taxes are the answer to lowering 

emissions. 

By John Barrasso 

Senator Barrasso, a Republican of Wyoming, is chairman of the Environment and Public Works 

Committee. 

Dec. 18, 2018 

Leaders from nearly 200 countries met in Katowice, Poland, last week and agreed to rules to 

carry out the Paris climate accord. Now that the 22,000 delegates have returned home, there are 

three truths they need to recognize to make actual progress in the hard work of lowering carbon 

dioxide emissions across the globe. 

The first is, the climate is changing and we, collectively, have a responsibility to do something 

about it. Second, the United States and the world will continue to rely on affordable and abundant 

fossil fuels, including coal, to power our economies for decades to come. And third, innovation, not 

new taxes or punishing global agreements, is the ultimate solution. 

People across the world are rejecting the idea that carbon taxes and raising the cost of energy is 

the answer to lowering emissions. In France, the government just suspended a planned fuel tax 

increase after some of its citizens took to the streets in protest. And in the United States, the 

results of November elections showed that these plans and other government interventions are 

just as unpopular. 

Voters in Washington State rejected the creation of an expensive tax on carbon emissions. In 

Colorado, a ballot measure to severely restrict drilling was defeated. And in Arizona, voters 

rejected a mandate to make the state's utilities much more dependent on renewable energy by 

2030 - regardless of the cost to consumers. All three of these states elected liberal Democrats to 

Congress on election night. 

The United States is currently on track to reduce emissions to 17 percent below 2005levels by 

2025, according to one recent analysis. That's roughly two-thirds of the way to the original United 

States target under the Paris climate agreement. 

The nation is leading the way not because of punishing regulations, restrictive laws or carbon 

taxes but because of innovation and advanced technology, especially in the energy sector. 

https.//www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/opinion/cfimate-carbon-tax-innovation.html 
121 


35946.078

1/7/2019 Opinion I Cut Carbon Through Innovation. Not Regulation· The New York Times 

Over the past decade, American energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have been falling. 

Technology breakthroughs have led to an American energy renaissance and a growing economy. 

As our economy has strengthened, we have lowered emissions. 

While the United States cut its emissions in 2017, global emissions moved in the opposite 

direction. Emission levels increased in China and India, and even rose in the European Union in 

2017. 

Making energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs to consumers will be 

accomplished through investment, invention and innovation. 

As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I am working across party 

lines to support the development of new technologies that will further decrease America's carbon 

emissions. 

Nuclear energy is produced with zero carbon emissions. It has been a source of clean, affordable 

and reliable power for decades. Nuclear energy provides more than twice the global electricity of 

wind power and more than five times the amount of solar energy. 

Washington needs to make it simpler for innovators who are building state-of-the-art nuclear 

reactors. These advancements in nuclear energy will create jobs, lower costs and contribute to 

America's energy security without additional carbon emissions. 

Ground breaking new research in the area of carbon utilization to turn emissions into productive 

commodities, and even direct air capture of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, also hold keys 

to major emission reductions. We have made meaningful progress on bipartisan legislation to 

help researchers engaged in cutting-edge carbon capture and utilization technologies. 

The legislation supports efforts to find profitable uses for the captured carbon dioxide. The 

legislation will also simplify the process for building carbon dioxide pipelines, so that we can 

safely move the gas to where it is needed. 

A leading commercial use of captured carbon dioxide is a process called enhanced oil recovery. 

By injecting carbon dioxide into an otherwise unproductive well, oil can be economically 

extracted. This is good for the environment and the economy - producing more American 

energy and sequestering carbon dioxide underground. 

In addition to being used for enhanced oil recovery, carbon has the potential to be repurposed in 

building materials, medical supplies and manufactured goods. 

Citizens around the world will continue to reject climate policies that cost them personally, either 

by direct taxation or by undermining the competitiveness of their own economies. The sooner the 

world's leaders accept this reality, the sooner we will be able to put new and lasting solutions in 

place. 

https:/lwww. nytimes. com/20 18/12/1 8/opinion/c!imate-carbon-tax-1 nnovation. htm! 
122 


35946.079

1/7/2019 Opinion 1 Cut Carbon Through lnnovat1on. Not Regulation- The New York Times 

Senator John Barrasso was an orthopedic surgeon before joining the Senate in 2007. In addition to heading the 

Environment and Public Works Committee, he is a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and lnstagram. 

https://VNJW.nyt!mes.com/2018/12/18/opinion/ct!mate-carbon-tax-innovation.html 
123 


35946.080

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

PRESS RELEASES 

Senators Reintroduce USE IT Act to 

Promote Carbon Capture Research and 

Development 

February 7, 2019 

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Today, U.S. Senator john Barrasso (R-WY), chairman ofthe 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), joined with Sen. Sheldon 

Whitehouse (D-RI) to reintroduceS. 383, the Utilizing Significant Emissions with 

Innovative Technologies (USE IT) Act. The legislation is cosponsored by Sens. Shelley 

Moore Capito (R-WV), EPW Committee Ranking Member Tom Carper (D-DE), Tammy 

Duckworth (D-IL), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Tina Smith (D-MN), joe Manchin (D-WV), and 

Mike Enzi (R-WY). 

The USE IT Act would support carbon utilization and direct air capture research. The bill 

would also support federal, state, and non-governmental collaboration in the 

construction and development of carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) 

facilities and carbon dioxide (C02) pipelines. 

"Congress needs to help make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, 

without raising costs on consumers," said Barrasso. "The USE IT Act will promote the 

long term use of Wyoming's natural resources and help make America more energy 

dominant. This bill supports ground breaking innovation to address climate change. 

Carbon capture and utilization technologies hold the key to major emissions 

reductions. The bipartisan legislation supports efforts to find profitable uses for 

captured carbon dioxide and simplifies the process for building carbon dioxide 

pipelines." 

"The science from the world's top experts, including our own National Academies, 

shows that we ought to be reversing the carbon pollution driving climate change. If we 

don't, it will be nearly impossible to avoid the worst of climate change," said 
124 


35946.081

Whitehouse. "That's why I've been working across the aisle on ways to boost promising 

new technologies like direct air capture. We've proven we can pass sensible bills like 

this with broad bipartisan support. Now let's do it again." 

"This bipartisan legislation is part of a smart all-of-the-above energy plan," Capito said. 

"By providing incentives for the deployment of carbon capture technologies and 

regulatory certainty for those trying to reduce their emissions by using their carbon, 

we're building on America's energy leadership and investing in innovative ways to use 

our energy resources." 

"Carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, or CCUS, technologies are critical in our 

fight against climate change," said Ranking Member Carper. "The USE IT Act helps 

lower the current barriers that are preventing the wide-spread development and 

deployment of CCUS. I am especially pleased to see that this year's version of the bill 

makes a more significant investment in direct air capture of carbon pollution, which 

recent studies show will be needed- along with emissions reductions- to mitigate the 

dangerous effects of climate change. With the changes we've made, I'm happy to join 

Chairman Barrasso and my other colleagues on the USE IT Act. Especially on the heels 

of reports saying that 2018 was one of the hottest years on record, we need all effective 

tools like CCUS in our arsenal to rapidly drive down carbon emissions. I hope that we 

can continue to work on solutions like this that will reduce carbon emissions and spur 

good-paying American jobs in engineering, manufacturing and installation of these 

crucially needed technologies." 

The USE IT Act would: 

• Narrowly amend the Clean Air Act to direct the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to use its existing authority to support carbon utilization and direct air 

capture research; 

Clarify that CCUS projects and C02 pipelines are eligible for the permitting review 

process established by the FAST Act; 

Direct the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to establish guidance to assist 

project developers and operators of CCUS facilities and C02 pipelines; 

• Establish task forces to hear input from affected stakeholders for updating and 

improving guidance over time; and 

• Build on the FUTURE Act, bipartisan legislation now signed into law- introduced 

by Barrasso, Whitehouse, and Capito to extend and expand the 45Q tax credit to 

provide certainty to utilities and other industrial sources and incentivize the buildout of CCUS projects. 

Read the text of the USE IT Act here. 

Background Information: 

On March 22, 2018, Barrasso, Whitehouse, Capito, and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) 
125 


35946.082

introduced the USE IT Act during the 11Sth Congress. 

On May 22, 2018, the EPW Committee unanimously passed the USE IT Act. 

### 

Perm a I ink: https:/ /www.epw.senate .gov/pu blic/i nd ex.cfm/20 19/2/senatorsreintroduce-use-it-act-to-promote-carbon-capture-research-and-development 
126 


35946.083

2/25/2019 The Senate's Quiet Climate-Policy Dealmaker 

National Journal 

The Senate's Quiet Climate-Policy 

Dealmal{er 

As the Green New Deal hits a polanzed Congress, DemocratiC Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is finding Incremental 

success work1ng w1th Repubi1can colleagues 

Zach C. Cohen 

G Feb. 19, 2019, 8 p.m. 

ll s rank-and-file Democrats propose sweeping new regulations to combat climate change, one of their colleagues 

j_ 1 in the Senate is quietly pushing through more incremental environmental laws all the way to President Trump's 

desk. 

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat and frequent advocate for environmental causes, has found success 

working behind the scenes to pass legislation to limit the release of greenhouse gasses and clean up pollution. And while 

he has yet to endorse the Green New Deal 'PUshed by House Democrats, he said he believes a debate over national climate 

policy ahead of the 2020 election in the Republican-controlled Senate could prompt significant work to stem the effects of 

global warming. 

"The things that I'm doing ... I believe create at least a pilot light for potential Republican support on larger measures," 

Whitehouse said in an interview Thursday. "But nobody should make the mistake of believing that all of these things 

dialed up to their maximum effect will make a significant difference against the hazard that is coming at us ... [E ]very step 

that I can make in the direction of solving the problem I think is worth taking." 

https //www.nationaljoumal.com/s/676759/the-senates-qUiet-climate-policy.dea!maker 
127 


35946.084

2/25/2019 The Senate's Quiet Climate-Policy Dealmaker 

Whitehouse, who delivers a weekly ''Time to Wake Up" speech on the Senate floor about the existential threat posed by 

Climate change, has COSpOTISOred .8.9.lti.ll~.Jll111~mtlg~gn\·/nwmhPrhlH'Idon-wiJ!ltlu~~ 

''~'"'2ol"""' J6il@'-".1icml7l!l since coming to the Senate in 2007 that became law. Some of those successful legislative efforts 

just in the last year promoted nuclear energy and carbon-capture technology in the hopes of reducing carbon emissions, 

both which continue to be ~Y. members of both narties on committees g~g~gy_p.Q}k.y_. 

''I'm looking for common ground with people that want to actually solve a problem and not just have an issue, and I think 

he's very serious about wanting to solve this problem," said Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John 

Barrasso. 

Whitehouse said former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, recruited him to last year's carbon-capture bill 

because it required a "climate hawk" to broaden appeal for the technology, which Whitehouse said was no longer an 

"industry talking point to discourage and proper and full solution'' but a way to reduce the harmful effects of fossil fuel 

production. 

"By pushing carbon capture and sequestration and utilization and being able to get a tax advantage from that really has a 

huge environmental plus," said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican who sponsored the legislation. 

"And so there were a lot of stakeholders that joined both from the environmental side and then from the energy side." 

Nuclear power has similarly served as a bridge between environmentalists and most Republican lawmakers because, in 

Whitehouse's words, it "brought the Senate over the hurdle of denying that there is a value to carbon-free power," The 

Democrat is also increasingly optimistic about methods that could convert nuclear waste into energy. 

"It was a very natural fit to work with him on trying to expand and increase the availability of nuclear power," said 

Republican Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, who signed onto enacted legislation with Whitehouse that promotes research into 

spent nuclear fueL 

Whitehouse said the key to recruiting bipartisan partners is finding "safe political space" to address evident problems by 

courting Republican senators representing states particularly impacted by environmental hazards. For example, he 

approached Sen. John Kennedy to sponsor funding to protect communities from sea-level rise "because few states are 

more coastal than Louisiana." 

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, at a joint appearance with Whitehouse at an Alliance to End Plastic Waste panel this 

month, said Whitehouse approached him four years ago. The former Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

commissioner had arrived in Washington along with a new Republican Senate majority, and Whitehouse urged him to 

tackle marine debris along his state's and the country's vast shores. 

"We saw very broad support across our very often divided committee for this," Whitehouse said of the Environmental and 

Public Works Committee at the Alliance event, "and that I think was a strong signal for both of us that this was good to 

go 

The resulting Save Our Seas Act directed federal funding to dean up marine debris. It passed both chambers unanimously 

last fall before Trump signed it. 

"Literally every stakeholder is pulling on the same oar on this solvable issue," Sullivan said. "And that doesn't happen a lot 

here, especially on big environmental issues." 

https:f/www.nationaljoumal,com/s/676759/the-senates-quiet-climate-policy-dealmaker 
128 


35946.085

212512019 The Senate's Quiel C!1mate~Policy Oea!maker 

Whitehouse met Trump for the first time at the bill's Oval Office ~guing_(\lllp;;.)lwwl•' c+s1hl.I.U!X~5~7.7.::1LJ~!tb1Jml's-fed!'rlll-n·srrw-stork-m<~rki't·dnm), at which Trump thanked Whitehouse and Sullivan for "spearheading" the "very 

important" legislation to tackle the ''vast, tremendous, unthinkable amount of garbage ... floating right into our coast." 

It was a meeting even Trump found surprising. "Can you imagine Trump and Whitehouse in the same area?" the president 

asked before reaching out to shake the Democrat's hand. 

Trump at the signing said that, at Whitehouse and Sullivan's behest, the new trade deal vvith Canada and Mexico will 

"include commitments by the parties to cooperate to address land- and sea-based pollution and improve waste 

management." 

The two coastal senators are also working on an update to that law, dubbed SOS 2.0, that could include incentivize 

private-sector waste reduction innovation, dispatch aid overseas to cleanup projects, and research methods for physically 

catching upstream trash before it feeds into the ocean. Whitehouse gave the bill "a pretty good prognosis" as it's presented 

to the bipartisan Senate Oceans Caucus, which includes Jim Inhofe ofland1ocked Oklahoma, before it comes to the floor. 

"Everybody can look at it and go, 'Oh my God,"' Whitehouse told industry stakeholders this month. "lnhofe and 

Whitehouse, same bill? I guess there's room for me in there." 

Whitehouse, who won his primary and general campaigns last year by double digits, said he has received "surprisingly 

little blowback" from the Left for his support for carbon capture and nuclear technology. 

But his bipartisan outreach is not \vithout controversy. Lukas Ross, a senior policy analyst at the environmental advocacy 

organization Friends of the Earth, said Whitehouse's record on sequestration was "long and problematic." 

"The evidence certainly points towards the simple reality that this is not a viable solution to the climate crisis on the 

necessary timeline," Ross said. '"Therefore, it's unclear who the audience is for this kind of legislation." 

Whitehouse is effusive toward his Republican colleagues, who control two of the three bodies necessary to pass a bill. 

Whitehouse at the Alliance event praised Sullivan's "spectacular leadership" and for "pushing so hard on those open 

doors" at the Trump administration. 

But Whitehouse's bipartisan relationships haven't stopped the third-term senator from lambasting Republicans' general 

reluctance to join efforts to curb the effects of climate change. In an interview, he accused the GOP of backing "climatedenying" executive nominees and on the floor has railed against the party's inaction on rising global temperatures. 

Atop the environmental agenda after this week's congressional recess is the Green New Deal, an ambitious proposal from 

newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, the dean of Senate's climate-change caucus. Senate 

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week he'll bring the measure up for a vote, which lacks backing from senators 

who have signed on to Whitehouse's more-piecemeal environmental initiatives. 

Whitehouse for his part has yet to join Democratic presidential hopefuls in cosponsoring the resolution in the hopes of 

remaining a "facilitator in the climate debate," according to an aide. 

But the Democrat thinks McConnell's tactic to hold a vote in order to divide Democrats v..rill instead "rap the beehive" and 

show that Republicans are "heading into 2020 with nothing but industry talking points and denial on climate change. 

"So I think actually we could very well smoke out the probably dozen Republicans who would very much like to, I think, 

start working on this if they were bipartisan prospects if they weren't to be punished too badly by the Republican donor 

community," Whitehouse added. 

https:l/www,nationaljournal.com/s/676759/the~senates-quiet~cllmate-po!icy~dealmaker 
129 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. Thank you all. 

Senator BARRASSO. No further questions. Thanks so much for 

being here. Some of the other members of the committee may actually put some written questions to you, so I hope that you will submit answers quickly. The committee hearing will be open for 2 

weeks. 

I just really want to thank you for your testimony. It was very 

helpful. Senator Van Hollen, thank you for cosponsoring this wonderful, bipartisan piece of legislation. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:48 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ