59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–301 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION 

ACT OF 2007 

AUGUST 3, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and 

Technology, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1933] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 1933) to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

to reauthorize and improve the carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program of the Department of Energy, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2 

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 6 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 6 

IV. Hearing Summary ....................................................................................... 7 

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 9 

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, as Reported ............................ 11 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section), as Reported ............ 12 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 14 

IX. Additional Views ......................................................................................... 18 

X. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 20 

XI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 20 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
2 

XII. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 .......................................................... 22 

XIII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 22 

XIV. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 22 

XV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 22 

XVI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 23 

XVII. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 23 

XVIII. Earmark Identification ............................................................................... 23 

XIX. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 23 

XX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 23 

XXI. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 28 

XXII. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup ................................................ 29 

XXIII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 59 

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage 

Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007’’. 

SEC. 2. CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION 

PROGRAM. 

(a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 963 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16293) 

is amended— (1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT’’ and inserting ‘‘AND STORAGE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, 

AND DEMONSTRATION’’; 

(2) in subsection (a)— (A) by striking ‘‘research and development’’ and inserting ‘‘and storage research, development, and demonstration’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘capture technologies on combustion-based systems’’ and 

inserting ‘‘capture and storage technologies related to electric power generating systems’’; 

(3) in subsection (b)— (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; 

and’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(5) to expedite and carry out large-scale testing of carbon sequestration systems in a range of geological formations that will provide information on the 

cost and feasibility of deployment of sequestration technologies.’’; and 

(4) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: ‘‘(c) PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES.— ‘‘(1) FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

AND DEMONSTRATION SUPPORTING CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out fundamental science and 

engineering research (including laboratory-scale experiments, numeric modeling, and simulations) to develop and document the performance of new 

approaches to capture and store carbon dioxide, or to learn how to use carbon dioxide in products to lead to an overall reduction of carbon dioxide 

emissions. 

‘‘(B) PROGRAM INTEGRATION.—The Secretary shall ensure that fundamental research carried out under this paragraph is appropriately applied 

to energy technology development activities and the field testing of carbon 

sequestration and carbon use activities, including—

‘‘(i) development of new or advanced technologies for the capture of 

carbon dioxide; 

‘‘(ii) development of new or advanced technologies that reduce the 

cost and increase the efficacy of the compression of carbon dioxide required for the storage of carbon dioxide; 

‘‘(iii) modeling and simulation of geological sequestration field demonstrations; 

‘‘(iv) quantitative assessment of risks relating to specific field sites for 

testing of sequestration technologies; and 

‘‘(v) research and development of new and advanced technologies for 

carbon use, including recycling and reuse of carbon dioxide. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
3 

‘‘(2) FIELD VALIDATION TESTING ACTIVITIES.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall promote, to the maximum extent 

practicable, regional carbon sequestration partnerships to conduct geologic 

sequestration tests involving carbon dioxide injection and monitoring, mitigation, and verification operations in a variety of candidate geological settings, including— ‘‘(i) operating oil and gas fields; 

‘‘(ii) depleted oil and gas fields; 

‘‘(iii) unmineable coal seams; 

‘‘(iv) deep saline formations; 

‘‘(v) deep geologic systems that may be used as engineered reservoirs 

to extract economical quantities of heat from geothermal resources of 

low permeability or porosity; ‘‘(vi) deep geologic systems containing basalt formations; and 

‘‘(vii) high altitude terrain oil and gas fields. ‘‘(B) OBJECTIVES.—The objectives of tests conducted under this paragraph 

shall be—

‘‘(i) to develop and validate geophysical tools, analysis, and modeling 

to monitor, predict, and verify carbon dioxide containment; ‘‘(ii) to validate modeling of geological formations; 

‘‘(iii) to refine storage capacity estimated for particular geological formations; 

‘‘(iv) to determine the fate of carbon dioxide concurrent with and following injection into geological formations; 

‘‘(v) to develop and implement best practices for operations relating 

to, and monitoring of, injection and storage of carbon dioxide in geologic 

formations; 

‘‘(vi) to assess and ensure the safety of operations related to geological storage of carbon dioxide; 

‘‘(vii) to allow the Secretary to promulgate policies, procedures, requirements, and guidance to ensure that the objectives of this subparagraph are met in large-scale testing and deployment activities for carbon capture and storage that are funded by the Department of Energy; 

and 

‘‘(viii) to support Environmental Protection Agency efforts, in consultation with other agencies, to develop a scientifically sound regulatory framework to enable commercial-scale sequestration operations 

while safeguarding human health and underground sources of drinking 

water. 

‘‘(3) LARGE-SCALE CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION TESTING.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct not less than 7 initial 

large-volume sequestration tests, not including the FutureGen project, for 

geological containment of carbon dioxide (at least 1 of which shall be international in scope) to validate information on the cost and feasibility of commercial deployment of technologies for geological containment of carbon dioxide. 

‘‘(B) DIVERSITY OF FORMATIONS TO BE STUDIED.—In selecting formations 

for study under this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider a variety of geological formations across the United States, and require characterization 

and modeling of candidate formations, as determined by the Secretary. 

‘‘(C) SOURCE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FOR LARGE-SCALE SEQUESTRATION DEMONSTRATIONS.—In the process of any acquisition of carbon dioxide for sequestration demonstrations under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 

give preference to purchases of carbon dioxide from industrial and coal-fired 

electric generation facilities. To the extent feasible, the Secretary shall prefer test projects from industrial and coal-fired electric generation facilities 

that would facilitate the creation of an integrated system of capture, transportation and storage of carbon dioxide. Until coal-fired electric generation 

facilities, either new or existing, are operating with carbon dioxide capture 

technologies, other industrial sources of carbon dioxide should be pursued 

under this paragraph. The preference provided for under this subparagraph 

shall not delay the implementation of the large-scale sequestration tests 

under this paragraph. 

‘‘(D) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘large-scale’

means the injection of more than 1,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide 

annually, or a scale that demonstrably exceeds the necessary thresholds in 

key geologic transients to validate the ability continuously to inject quantities on the order of several million metric tons of industrial carbon dioxide 

annually for a large number of years. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
4 

‘‘(4) LARGE-SCALE DEMONSTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out at least 3 and no more 

than 5 demonstrations, that include each of the technologies described in 

subparagraph (B), for the large-scale capture of carbon dioxide from industrial sources of carbon dioxide, at least 2 of which are facilities that generate electric energy from fossil fuels. Candidate facilities for other demonstrations under this paragraph shall include facilities that refine petroleum, manufacture iron or steel, manufacture cement or cement clinker, 

manufacture commodity chemicals, and ethanol and fertilizer plants. Consideration may be given to capture of carbon dioxide from industrial facilities and electric generation carbon sources that are near suitable geological 

reservoirs and could continue sequestration. To ensure reduced carbon dioxide emissions, the Secretary shall take necessary actions to provide for the 

integration of the program under this paragraph with the long-term carbon 

dioxide sequestration demonstrations described in paragraph (3). These actions should not delay implementation of the large-scale sequestration tests 

authorized in paragraph (3). 

‘‘(B) TECHNOLOGIES.—The technologies referred to in subparagraph (A) 

are precombustion capture, post-combustion capture, and oxycombustion. 

‘‘(C) SCOPE OF AWARD.—An award under this paragraph shall be only for 

the portion of the project that carries out the large-scale capture (including 

purification and compression) of carbon dioxide, as well as the cost of transportation and injection of carbon dioxide. 

‘‘(5) PREFERENCE IN PROJECT SELECTION FROM MERITORIOUS PROPOSALS.—In 

making competitive awards under this subsection, subject to the requirements 

of section 989, the Secretary shall give preference to proposals from partnerships among industrial, academic, and government entities. 

‘‘(6) COST SHARING.—Activities under this subsection shall be considered research and development activities that are subject to the cost-sharing requirements of section 988(b), except that the Federal share of a project under paragraph (4) shall not exceed 50 percent. 

‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 

for carrying out this section, other than subsection (c)(3) and (4)—

‘‘(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

‘‘(B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

‘‘(C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 

‘‘(D) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

‘‘(2) SEQUESTRATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out subsection (c)(3)—

‘‘(A) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

‘‘(B) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

‘‘(C) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 

‘‘(D) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

‘‘(3) CARBON CAPTURE.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out subsection (c)(4)—

‘‘(A) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

‘‘(B) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; 

‘‘(C) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and 

‘‘(D) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 963 in the 

table of contents for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘Sec. 963. Carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program.’’. 

SEC. 3. REVIEW OF LARGE-SCALE PROGRAMS. 

The Secretary of Energy shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for an independent review and oversight, beginning in 2011, of the 

programs under section 963(c)(3) and (4) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as added 

by section 2 of this Act, to ensure that the benefits of such programs are maximized. 

Not later than January 1, 2012, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report on the results of such review and oversight. 

SEC. 4. SAFETY RESEARCH. 

(a) PROGRAM.—The Assistant Administrator for Research and Development of the 

Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct a research program to determine 

procedures necessary to protect public health, safety, and the environment from impacts that may be associated with capture, injection, and sequestration of greenhouse gases in subterranean reservoirs. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
5 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

for carrying out this section $5,000,000 for each fiscal year. 

SEC. 5. GEOLOGICAL SEQUESTRATION TRAINING AND RESEARCH. 

(a) STUDY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Energy shall enter into an arrangement 

with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a study that—

(A) defines an interdisciplinary program in geology, engineering, hydrology, environmental science, and related disciplines that will support the 

Nation’s capability to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from anthropogenic sources; 

(B) addresses undergraduate and graduate education, especially to help 

develop graduate level programs of research and instruction that lead to advanced degrees with emphasis on geological sequestration science; 

(C) develops guidelines for proposals from colleges and universities with 

substantial capabilities in the required disciplines that wish to implement 

geological sequestration science programs that advance the Nation’s capacity to address carbon management through geological sequestration science; 

and 

(D) outlines a budget and recommendations for how much funding will 

be necessary to establish and carry out the grant program under subsection 

(b). 

(2) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Congress a copy of the results of 

the study provided by the National Academy of Sciences under paragraph (1). 

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this subsection $1,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2008. 

(b) GRANT PROGRAM.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Energy, through the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, shall establish a competitive grant program through 

which colleges and universities may apply for and receive 4-year grants for—

(A) salary and startup costs for newly designated faculty positions in an 

integrated geological carbon sequestration science program; and 

(B) internships for graduate students in geological sequestration science. 

(2) RENEWAL.—Grants under this subsection shall be renewable for up to 2 

additional 3-year terms, based on performance criteria, established by the National Academy of Sciences study conducted under subsection (a), that include 

the number of graduates of such programs. 

(3) INTERFACE WITH REGIONAL GEOLOGICAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION PARTNERSHIPS.—To the greatest extent possible, geological carbon sequestration science 

programs supported under this subsection shall interface with the research of 

the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships operated by the Department of 

Energy to provide internships and practical training in carbon capture and geological sequestration. 

(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this subsection such sums as may be 

necessary. 

SEC. 6. UNIVERSITY BASED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, shall establish a university based research and development program to study carbon capture and sequestration using the various types of coal. 

(b) GRANTS.—Under this section, the Secretary shall award 5 grants for projects 

submitted by colleges or universities to study carbon capture and sequestration in 

conjunction with the recovery of oil and other enhanced elemental and mineral recovery. Consideration shall be given to areas that have regional sources of coal for 

the study of carbon capture and sequestration. 

(c) RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTIONS.—The Secretary shall designate that 

at least 2 of these grants shall be awarded to rural or agricultural based institutions 

that offer interdisciplinary programs in the area of environmental science to study 

carbon capture and sequestration in conjunction with the recovery of oil and other 

enhanced elemental and mineral recovery. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are to be authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
6 

II. PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 1933 is to amend the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 to reauthorize and improve the carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program of the Department of Energy. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Approximately 50 percent of the electricity generated in the 

United States comes from coal. According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) carbon dioxide 

emissions in the United States and its territories were 6,008.6 million metric tons (MMT) in 2005. In the United States, most anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels. In particular, the electric power sector accounts 

for nearly 40 percent of the manmade CO2 emissions in the U.S, 

according to EIA. For the foreseeable future, the U.S. will continue 

to rely on coal to meet our energy demand. With that understanding, the challenge lies in balancing our environmental goals 

with our energy needs. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

(MIT) report The Future of Coal (2007) concludes ‘‘that CO2 capture and sequestration is the critical enabling technology that 

would reduce CO2 emissions significantly while also allowing coal 

to meet the world’s pressing energy needs.’’ Crafting a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) strategy for the 

United States calls for an understanding of the technical challenges 

that exist with the development, demonstration and deployment of 

carbon dioxide capture technologies and the development of safe, 

effective large-scale containment of carbon dioxide. Appropriate investment in continued research is necessary to answer outstanding 

concerns with large-volume storage of CO2 in underground reservoirs. The Department of Energy has produced an Atlas of the 

CO2 storage capacity in the United States and Canada. This Atlas 

will be updated as the Department continues to conduct field injection tests. Sequestration demonstrations will help to address the 

outstanding safety and environmental issues associated with large 

underground reservoirs of carbon dioxide. Once the CO2 is injected, 

do we have the capability of successfully monitoring and verifying 

the movement of the subsurface CO2? The demonstrations will provide greater information about the probability of the CO2 leaking, 

the ability to detect a leak, how the CO2 would leak and how fast 

it would leak. Ultimately, the goal is to determine with increased 

certainty the measurable benefits of CCS strategies to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases. 

There is also recognition that additional federal investment in 

carbon dioxide capture technologies is needed to bring these technologies to full-scale deployment. The MIT Report points out that 

there is no operational experience with carbon capture from coal 

plants and notes the absence of operational experience with an integrated capture and sequestration system. The MIT report states 

that ‘‘the priority objective with respect to coal should be the successful large-scale demonstration of the technical, economic, and 

environmental performance of the technologies that make up all of 

the major components of a large-scale integrated CCS system—capture, transportation and storage.’’ H.R. 1933 follows that recVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:47 Aug 08, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR301.XXX HR301

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
7 

ommendation and reauthorizes the Department of Energy’s research and development and field testing programs, and specifically 

authorizes large-scale demonstrations of both carbon dioxide capture technologies and carbon dioxide containment. 

IV. HEARING SUMMARY

The Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on 

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 to hear testimony on the Prospects for Advanced Coal Technologies: Efficient Energy Production, Carbon 

Capture and Sequestration to gain a better understanding of the 

programmatic needs at the Department of Energy to address the 

challenge of climate change. The following five witnesses testified 

at the hearing: 

• Mr. Carl O. Bauer, Director of the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, a national laboratory owned 

and operated by the Department of Energy. In his current position 

as Director of NETL, he oversees the implementation of major 

science and technology development programs to resolve the environmental, supply and reliability constraints of producing and 

using fossil resources, including advanced coal-fueled power generation, carbon sequestration, and environmental control for the existing fleet of fossil steam plants. 

• Dr. Robert L. Finley, Director, Energy and Earth Resources 

Center for Illinois State Geological Survey with specialization in 

fossil energy resources. He is currently heading a regional carbon 

sequestration partnership in the Illinois Basin aimed at addressing 

concerns with geological carbon management. 

• Mr. Michael Rencheck, Senior Vice President for Engineering 

Projects and Field Services at American Electric Power, 

headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. He is responsible for engineering, regional maintenance and shop service organizations, projects 

and construction, and new generation development. 

• Mr. Stuart Dalton, Director, Generation at the Electric Power 

Research Institute. His current research activities cover a wide variety of generation options with special focus on emerging generation, coal-based generation, emission controls and CO2 capture and 

storage. He also helped to create the EPRI Coal Fleet for Tomorrow 

program. 

• Mr. Gardiner Hill, Director of Technology in Alternative Energy Technology, is responsible for BP group-wide aspects of CO2

Capture and Storage technology development, demonstration and 

deployment. He also is the BP manager responsible for the BP/ 

Ford/Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton University as well as the BP manager responsible for the BP/Harvard 

partnership on the Energy Technology Innovation Project. He possesses 20 years of technical and managerial experience which is directly relevant to technology, business and project management. 

Recognizing that coal is a critical resource for meeting our Nation’s energy demand, witnesses at the hearing discussed strategies 

for managing carbon dioxide emissions. The challenges include advancing technologies that help gain combustion efficiencies from 

electric generating coal plants and demonstrating both carbon dioxide capture and sequestration technologies. Specifically, witnesses 

emphasized the need to demonstrate large-scale injection and storVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:47 Aug 08, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR301.XXX HR301

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
8 

age of CO2 in underground geologic formations in order to monitor 

and verify the fate of the CO2. Such large-scale storage demonstrations would provide an understanding of the risks associated with sequestering large volumes of 

CO2 and offer solutions to mitigate those risks. 

Available carbon capture and sequestration technologies are currently too expensive for commercial use. Mr. Stu Dalton, Director 

of Generation at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), testified that using today’s capture, compression, transportation, and 

storage technologies would increase pulverized coal plant costs by 

40–60 percent and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) 

plant costs would increase by 40–50 percent. Mr. Carl Bauer explained the Department of Energy is working to address these 

added operational costs by developing CCS technology that can capture and store at least 90 percent of the potential CO2 emissions 

from coal-fired power plants with less than a 10 percent increase 

in the cost of electricity. Accomplishing this goal requires the Department to develop cost-effective technology options by leveraging 

basic and applied research with field verification. 

According to the Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States 

and Canada, Dr. Finley explained there is roughly 3,500 billion 

tons of storage capacity. Moreover, industry already has gained experience injecting carbon dioxide underground through Enhanced 

Oil Recovery (EOR). While the geologic capacity and injection techniques exist, the Nation has not assessed short-term and long-term 

risks of CO2 storage in geologic reservoirs, such as leakage. According to the witnesses, the main challenges to CCS—showing CO2

can be captured and stored in underground geologic formations 

with long-term stability, developing CO2 monitoring capabilities, 

and gaining public and regulatory acceptance—can be addressed 

through large-scale demonstration projects. 

Demonstration is the best method for successfully commercializing capture technology as well. Capturing carbon dioxide for 

sequestration is currently a very energy intensive and costly process. Witnesses explained CO2 capture and compression could require 20–30 percent of the overall energy of the plant. They also 

noted that for oxyfuel combustion and IGCC plants, making the oxygen or separating the nitrogen and the oxygen from air for partial 

combustion is one of the biggest cost drivers or inefficiencies. 

Witnesses also urged the Committee to integrate carbon capture 

with storage. They suggested operating and studying large-scale 

capture, transport and storage together will increase efficiency and 

operability. 

Just as integrated carbon capture and sequestration systems reduce carbon dioxide emissions, employing cost-effective efficient 

technologies and practices can dramatically reduce energy use and 

consequent CO2 emissions. Mr. Stu Dalton estimates that over the 

next 20 years, improvements in power plant efficiency can achieve 

CO2 reductions of up to 20 percent per megawatt-hour without additional CO2 capture. 

Finally, during the hearing, witnesses emphasized that for the 

foreseeable future, coal will continue to be used to meet our energy 

needs. Therefore, if the Nation is going to reduce carbon dioxide 

emissions, it is essential that we develop techniques to safely capture and sequester carbon as a byproduct of coal combustion. H.R. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
9 

1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007 introduced by 

Mark Udall (D–CO), is based on the recommendations in the MIT 

report The Future of Coal and authorizes research and development and demonstration programs to set a path that mitigates carbon dioxide emissions with continued use of coal as an energy resource. 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider 

H.R. 1933 on June 21, 2007 and consider the following two amendments to the bill: 

1. Mr. Udall offered a Manager’s amendment which made a number of technical and substantive changes to H.R. 1933. The amendment adds a new section to the bill authorizing three, but no more 

than five, demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture technologies. It 

further includes an authorization for funding these carbon dioxide 

capture demonstrations at $180 million per year for 4 years starting in Fiscal Year 2009. It increases the funding level for the largescale carbon dioxide sequestration demonstrations to $140 million 

per year for four years beginning in Fiscal Year 2008. The amendment defines the large-scale demonstrations of carbon dioxide sequestration as one million tons of carbon dioxide annually or a 

scale that demonstrably exceeds the necessary thresholds in key 

geologic transients to validate the ability to continuously inject 

large quantities of carbon dioxide for a number of years. The 

amendment encourages the integration of the storage demonstrations with the capture technology demonstrations. This is intended 

to provide operational experience with an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at scale. The 

amendment includes an authorization for the National Academy of 

Sciences to conduct an independent review and oversight of the injection program to ensure its benefits are maximized. The amendment also authorizes the Assistant Administrator of the Office of 

Research and Development of EPA to conduct a research program 

to determine what procedures may be necessary to protect public 

health, safety and the environment from impacts that may be associated with sequestration of greenhouse gases. Finally, the amendment includes an authorization of appropriation for Fiscal Years 

2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 to fund the Department of Energy’s fundamental R&D at the laboratory scale to allow for continued examination of new approaches on carbon dioxide capture and sequestration. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

2. Mr. Costello offered an amendment which authorizes a study 

by the National Academy of Sciences to define an interdisciplinary 

program to train a workforce to support development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration. The study will define 

curricula for undergraduate and graduate programs that would 

lead to degrees in geological sequestration science. The amendment 

also establishes a competitive grant program through which institutions of higher education can apply for four-year grants to support start-up costs for integrated geological carbon sequestration 

programs as well as internships for graduate students in geological 

sequestration science. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
10 

The bill was approved for final passage by voice vote. Ms. Woolsey moved that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 

1933, as amended, to the full Committee on Science and Technology. The motion was agree to by voice vote. 

On Wednesday, June 27, 2007 the full Committee on Science and 

Technology met to consider H.R. 1933 and the following amendments to the bill: 

1. Mr. Udall offered a Manager’s amendment that added a provision to the Carbon Dioxide Capture Demonstration section of the 

bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to take actions needed to 

further integrate the carbon dioxide capture demonstrations with 

the Department of Energy’s large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration program. This provision is intended to build on testimony from 

the May 15, 2007 hearing and the MIT Report to provide operational experience with an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at scale. The amendment also 

made a number of technical changes to H.R. 1933 and clarified the 

funding levels for the programs authorized in the bill without 

changing the authorized funding levels. Specifically, the amendment included a separate authorization of appropriations for the 

basic Research and Development and field testing programs at 

$100 million for each of fiscal years 2008–2011, thus clarifying that the carbon dioxide sequestration testing program is funded at $140 

million for each of fiscal years 2008–2011. The amendment was 

adopted by voice vote. 

2. Mr. Matheson offered an amendment to include high altitude 

terrain oil and gas fields to the Department of Energy’s geologic sequestration field validation testing activities which include carbon 

dioxide injection and monitoring, mitigation and verification operations for a range of settings. The amendment was adopted by 

voice vote. 

3. Mr. Ross offered an amendment to add a new section to the 

bill creating a university research and development program aimed 

at studying carbon dioxide capture and sequestration using all different coal types in conjunction with enhanced oil and mineral recovery. Five grant projects are authorized with at least two of the 

grants being awarded to rural and/or agricultural based institutions that offer interdisciplinary programs in the area of environmental science to study carbon capture and sequestration in conjunction with the enhanced recovery of oil and other elemental and 

mineral recovery. The amendment authorized $10,000,000 to carry 

out this university grant program. The amendment was adopted by 

voice vote. 

4. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to require that two of the 

three carbon dioxide capture demonstrations authorized occur at 

fossil fuel electric generation plants. The amendment was adopted 

by voice vote. 

5. Mr. McCaul offered an amendment to make coal-to-liquid facilities eligible for participation in both the carbon dioxide capture 

demonstrations and the large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration 

program. The amendment was defeated by recorded vote of 15–22. 

The bill was approved for final passage by voice vote. Ms. Johnson moved that the Committee favorably report the bill H.R. 1933, 

as amended, to the House for consideration. The motion was agreed 

to by voice vote. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
11 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

H.R. 1933 provides federal support for the Department of Energy 

to demonstrate large-volume sequestration tests for geological containment of carbon dioxide and carry out at least three demonstrations of large-scale CO2 capture technologies. The bill defines largescale sequestration demonstration as the injection of more than 

1,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. The bill requires 

that two of the carbon dioxide capture demonstrations are conducted at facilities that generate electric energy from fossil fuels. 

The bill will provide for the testing of a variety of geological settings for carbon dioxide storage and it will accelerate the demonstration of the three main categories of carbon dioxide capture 

technologies bringing them closer to commercial application. H.R. 

1933 aims to integrate the carbon dioxide capture with the largescale storage demonstration in order to gain the operational experience with an integrated system of capture, transportation, and 

storage of carbon dioxide at scale. 

The bill authorizes $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008–

2011 for the Department of Energy’s basic research and development and field testing programs. $140,000,000 is authorized each 

of fiscal years 2008–2011 for the large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration demonstration program to conduct research on the fate of 

large volumes of CO2 stored in underground geologic formations. 

And, $180,000,000 is authorized each of fiscal years 2009–2012 to 

carry out the carbon dioxide capture demonstration program. 

In addition, the bill provides for the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to conduct a research program to determine what 

procedures may be necessary to protect public health, safety and 

the environment with regard to the long-term storage of carbon dioxide in geological reservoirs. The EPA research program is authorized at $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years from 2009–2012. 

Also, the bill authorizes the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent review and oversight of the carbon dioxide injection program to ensure its benefits are maximized. The bill also 

authorizes the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to undertake 

a study defining an interdisciplinary program to train a workforce 

to support the development and deployment of carbon capture and 

sequestration systems. For fiscal year 2008, $1,000,000 is authorized to carry out this NAS study. 

The bill establishes a competitive grant program for institutions 

of higher learning to provide start up costs for integrated geological 

carbon sequestration programs and implement internships for 

graduate students in geological sequestration science. The bill also 

establishes a Department of Energy university grant program designed to study carbon dioxide capture and sequestration using a 

variety of coal types. Specifically, five grants are to be awarded to 

conduct the research on CO2 capture and sequestration in conjunction with the recovery of oil and other enhanced elemental and 

mineral recovery. At least two of the grants shall be awarded to 

rural or agricultural based institutions that offer interdisciplinary 

programs in the area of environmental science which explore carbon capture and sequestration combined with oil and mineral recovery. The bill authorizes $10,000,000 for this program. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
12 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

‘‘Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, 

Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007.’’

Section 2. Carbon capture and storage research, development, and 

demonstration program 

Directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out fundamental science 

and engineering research to develop and document the performance 

of new approaches to capture and store carbon dioxide, or use carbon dioxide in products that lead to an overall reduction of carbon 

dioxide emissions. The fundamental research shall be applied to 

energy technology development activities and the field testing of 

carbon sequestration activities. 

Requires the Secretary to promote regional carbon sequestration 

partnerships to conduct geologic sequestration field testing involving carbon dioxide injection and monitoring practices, mitigation, 

and verification operations in a variety of geologic settings including operating oil and gas fields, depleted oil and gas fields, 

unmineable coal seams, saline formations, deep geologic systems 

used to extract heat from geothermal resources, and high altitude 

terrain oil and gas fields. 

The field tests are aimed at advancing and validating geophysical tools and analysis and modeling used to monitor, predict, 

and verify carbon dioxide containment. The Secretary is authorized 

to promulgate policies, procedures, requirements and guidance to 

ensure that the objectives of the field testing are met in large-scale 

testing and deployment activities for carbon capture and storage 

funded by the Department. 

In addition, the bill authorizes seven large-volume sequestration 

tests for geologic containment of carbon dioxide. The Secretary 

shall select meritorious proposals on a competitive basis giving 

preference to proposals from partnerships among industrial, academic, and government entities. The Secretary shall consider a variety of geological formations across the United States and require 

characterization and modeling of candidate formations, as determined by the Secretary. The bill integrates the storage demonstrations with the demonstration of carbon dioxide capture technologies 

by giving preference to carbon dioxide captured from coal-fired electric generating plants and other industrial CO2 sources to provide 

operational experience with an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at scale. This preference 

shall not delay the implementation of the large-scale sequestration 

tests. H.R. 1933 defines large-scale injection of carbon dioxide as 

one million tons of carbon dioxide annually or a scale that demonstrably exceeds the necessary thresholds in key geologic transients 

to validate the ability to continuously inject large quantities of carbon dioxide for a number of years. The large-scale carbon dioxide 

sequestration demonstrations shall be considered research and development and meet the cost-sharing requirements of Section 

988(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005—the Secretary shall require not less than 20 percent of the cost of a research or development activity to be provided by a non-Federal source. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
13 

The bill directs the Secretary to carry out three, but no more 

than five, demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture technologies— two of these demonstrations shall be conducted at facilities that 

generate electric energy from fossil fuels. These demonstrations 

must include the three main approaches to carbon dioxide capture: 

pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxycombustion. Any award 

under this carbon dioxide capture demonstration program is available only for the portion of the project that carries out the largescale capture (including purification and compression) of carbon dioxide, as well as the cost of transportation and injection of carbon 

dioxide. The Secretary is required to take necessary actions to provide for the integration of the carbon dioxide captured during the 

demonstrations with the long-term carbon dioxide sequestration 

tests. These actions should not delay the implementation of the 

large-scale sequestration projects. The carbon dioxide capture demonstrations shall meet the cost-share requirements of Section 

988(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or the Secretary shall require that not less than 50 percent of the cost of the demonstration 

be provided by a non-Federal source. This section authorizes appropriations of $100,000,000 for each of 

the fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for research and development 

and field testing. This section authorizes appropriations of $140,000,000 for each of 

fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for carrying out research on largescale carbon dioxide sequestration demonstrations. This section authorizes appropriations of $180,000,000 for each of 

the fiscal years 2009 through 2012 for the demonstrations of carbon 

dioxide capture technologies. 

Section 3. Review of large-scale programs 

Authorizes the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent review and oversight of the injection program to ensure its 

benefits are maximized. Not later than January 1, 2012, the Secretary is directed to transmit to the Congress a report on the results of such review and oversight. 

Section 4. Safety research 

Section 4 authorizes the Assistant Administrator for Research 

and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a research program to determine the procedures that may be 

necessary to protect public health, safety, and the environment 

from potential impacts associated with capture, injection, and sequestration of greenhouse gases in subterranean reservoirs. Authorizes $5,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry out this research 

program. 

Section 5. Geological sequestration training and research 

Directs the Secretary of Energy to enter into an arrangement 

with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a study that 

defines an interdisciplinary program to train a workforce to support the nation’s capability to capture and sequester carbon dioxide 

from anthropogenic sources, and develops curricula for undergraduate and graduate studies that lead to degrees in geological sequestration science. The study will establish guidelines for universities wishing to implement geological sequestration science proVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:47 Aug 08, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR301.XXX HR301

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
14 

grams and make recommendations on the budget needed to implement the grant program also authorized in this section. The Secretary is directed to submit a report to Congress providing the results of the National Academy of Sciences study. Authorizes $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 to carry out this section. 

Authorizes the Secretary of Energy, through the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, to establish a competitive grant program 

through which institutions of higher education can apply for fouryear grants to support salary and startup costs for newly designated faculty positions in an integrated geological carbon sequestration science program and internships for graduate students in 

geological sequestration science. The grants are renewable for up 

to two additional three-year terms and encouraged to interface 

with the research of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships operated by the Department of Energy to provide internships 

and practical training in carbon capture and geological sequestration. Authorizes such sums as necessary to carry out the grant program. 

Section 6. University based Research and Development grant program 

Requires the Secretary of the Department of Energy to establish 

a university Research and Development program aimed at studying 

carbon dioxide capture and sequestration using all different coal 

types in conjunction with enhanced oil and mineral recovery. Five 

grant projects are authorized with at least two of the grants being 

awarded to rural and/or agricultural based institutions that offer 

interdisciplinary programs in the area of environmental science to 

study carbon capture and sequestration in conjunction with the enhance recovery of oil and other elemental and mineral recovery. 

The bill authorizes $10,000,000 to carry out this university grant 

program. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

It is the view of the Committee that the research, development, 

testing and demonstration of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration technologies should be accelerated if we are going to implement policies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate 

global warming. The United States has an abundant supply of coal 

and it provides usable energy at a cost much less than energy from 

oil and natural gas. Given the abundance and low cost of coal, it 

is expected that coal will continue to be used to meet our nation’s 

energy needs for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, coal-fired 

power plants also contribute significantly to anthropogenic carbon 

dioxide emissions. Balancing our energy needs with our environmental goals will require continued federal investment to address 

the technical challenges associated with strategies aimed to stabilize and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Committee believes the deployment of CCS (carbon capture 

and storage) technologies on a large-scale is a desirable path forward to mitigate CO2 emissions, and that research and development programs should be accelerated to achieve this goal. H.R. 

1933 extends and better defines the research and development and 

field verification testing that must be conducted to help ensure 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
15 

large-scale CCS strategies can be performed in a manner which 

protects human health and safety and the environment. 

The Committee recognizes we have been using injection technologies for years for enhanced oil and gas recovery. However, the 

risks associated with enhanced oil recovery and permanent sequestration of power plant and industrial CO2 may be different. Conducting large-scale tests of carbon dioxide sequestration and monitoring will help us to better understand the behavior of the CO2— will it stay put and if not, how will it leak and how fast will it leak. 

It is the Committee’s view that large-volume sequestration tests 

will help to develop and demonstrate practices for site selection, operation, monitoring, and closure of large sequestration facilities. 

The seven regional large-scale sequestration demonstrations in a 

variety of geologic reservoirs are aimed to determine the capability 

of this CO2 mitigation strategy. 

Section 2 of the bill aims to integrate the carbon dioxide capture 

demonstrations with the large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration 

program. The large-scale sequestration projects are defined as ‘‘the 

injection of more than 1,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, or a scale that demonstrably exceeds the necessary thresholds in key geologic transients to validate the ability to continuously inject quantities on the order of several million metric tons 

of industrial carbon dioxide annually for a large number of years’’. 

The Department of Energy is considering a range of sources for the 

CO2 including coal-fired power plants, natural gas processing facilities, refineries, ethanol plants and natural CO2 deposits. The Committee believes the carbon dioxide captured during the technology 

demonstrations should be used in the large-scale sequestration 

projects. This is much preferred to a CO2 capture demonstration 

program that tests the capture technologies but ultimately releases 

the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The Secretary of Energy is directed to give preference to procurement of carbon dioxide 

from industrial sources and particularly coal-fired electric generation facilities because they are the largest emitters of CO2. The carbon dioxide capture demonstrations are authorized to begin in fiscal year 2009 and the sequestration program is authorized to begin 

in 2008. The Department of Energy is already taking steps to move 

forward with large-scale containment of CO2 and anticipates operating integrated large-scale injection and capture projects in later 

years. Additional funding for demonstrating the three main categories of capture technologies (pre-combustion, post-combustion 

and oxyfuel-combustion) is intended to accelerate the commercialization of the most promising technologies. Again, it is the Committee’s view that the capture and sequestration demonstration 

programs should be integrated as rapidly as possible to gain the 

best operational experience of CCS technologies. 

The funding levels for the research, development and demonstration of CCS technologies are based upon information in the MIT report, The Future of Coal. CCS technologies offer great promise in 

the effort to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that CCS could contribute up to 55 percent of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration mitigation effort worldwide. The Committee believes 

these funding levels are an essential public investment if we are 

to approach this goal. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
16 

It is the Committee’s view that the Environmental Protection 

Agency should undertake research to facilitate the development of 

necessary procedures and regulations to protect public health, safety, and the environment from impacts that may be associated with 

capture, injection, and sequestration of large volumes of greenhouse gases in subterranean reservoirs. EPA has authority to regulate underground injection of carbon dioxide for the purposes of 

geologic sequestration under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 

U.S.C. 300h et seq.). The Act requires that underground injection 

does not endanger drinking water sources. 

The Agency issued a final guidance in March 2007 on using the 

Class V experimental technology well classification for pilot geologic sequestration projects (UIC Program Guidance UICPG #83). 

This guidance was prepared jointly by the Office of Water and the 

Office of Air and Radiation, and these offices have taken the lead 

within the Agency on efforts related to carbon dioxide sequestration. The Committee recognizes the key role the Office of Research 

and Development plays in support of these regulatory program offices. The Committee believes the Administrator of the Office of Research and Development should work in consultation with the regulatory offices to provide information to support development of 

any monitoring or additional regulations that may be needed to ensure that carbon dioxide sequestration proceeds in a manner that 

is protective of the environment and public health. The Committee 

does not anticipate or intend that any research conducted by EPA 

will slow down the progress of research to determine the feasibility 

of underground injection of large volumes of CO2. It is the Committee’s view that the National Academy of Sciences 

is the appropriate entity to undertake a study that would define an 

interdisciplinary program in geology, engineering, hydrology, environmental science and other related disciplines that would support 

the nation’s capability to capture and sequester carbon dioxide 

from anthropogenic sources. A Department of Energy competitive 

grant program designed to help cover the salary and startup costs 

for colleges and universities implementing integrated geological 

carbon sequestration science programs would help to ensure we 

have the properly trained workforce to continue to advance CCS 

technologies. Both the NAS study and the Department of Energy 

grant program would build off the NAS report: Rising Above the 

Gathering Storm. This report describes a need for greater federal 

investment in research to create new industries and enhance old 

ones. The report highlights the need to invest in energy research, 

development and demonstration to identify better technologies for 

improving energy efficiency. It also recommends research designed 

to establish ways to use our abundant coal resources in a manner 

that does not result in negative impacts on regional air quality as 

a good investment of public resources. Section 5 of H.R. 1933 

adopts these recommendations. 

The Committee also sees the benefits in establishing a second 

university-based research and development grant program to study 

carbon capture and sequestration in conjunction with the recovery 

of oil and other enhanced elemental and mineral recovery. Regions 

of the country have indigenous untapped natural resources such as 

bromine that could be used commercially with additional research. 

Bromine is used in making fumigants, flame-proofing agents, water 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
17 

purification compounds, dyes, medicines, and sanitizers. Additional 

research conducted in strategic regions of the country, could yield 

other commercial applications for untapped natural resources. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
(18) 

IX. ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 1933 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES RALPH M. 

HALL, F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., MICHAEL T. 

MCCAUL, PHIL GINGREY, TODD AKIN, TOM FEENEY, BOB 

INGLIS, RANDY NEUGEBAUER AND ADRIAN SMITH 

Representative McCaul (TX) offered an amendment to H.R. 1933 

to improve the legislation by adding coal-to-liquids (CTL) facilities 

to the list of industrial and electric generation coal facilities that 

are eligible sources of carbon dioxide for the large-scale sequestration demonstrations in the bill. A recorded vote on this amendment 

revealed the support of most Members of the minority for technology supporting transforming coal-to-liquid. The amendment was 

voted down by the majority. 

The German discovered Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process for converting coal into manufactured liquid hydrocarbon fuels was discovered by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923. Today the technologies required to produce large-scale supplies of clean liquid 

fuels from coal are no longer in the exploratory phase in laboratories. These technologies are in use around the world today. South 

Africa relies on coal liquefaction to provide a substantial amount 

of transportation fuel. China, India, Indonesia and the Philippines 

have all made substantial investments in coal liquefaction plants. 

While there are no current coal-to-liquid facilities in the United 

States at the time, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, 

companies, local governments and American Indian tribes have announced plans to build the nation’s first 16 coal-to-liquids plants. 

A recent study by Princeton University’s Environmental Institute 

estimates that fuel-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of gasified coal 

are 47 pounds of CO2 per gallon, compared to 26 pounds per gallon 

for crude oil-derived hydrocarbon fuel, making these facilities a potentially large source of carbon dioxide for the large-scale sequestration demonstrations. 

I would like to point out that when carbon capture-and-sequestering technology is added, fuel-cycle emissions of coal-based oil 

could be cut almost in half. Thus, the net emissions from CTL fuel 

produced at a refinery with carbon-capture technology would be 

just 8 percent more than the emissions from petroleum diesel, the 

Princeton researchers found. It makes sense that if we’re going to 

build these plants that we should ensure that the CO2 emitted 

from them will be able to be put to good use by furthering our understanding of the fate of carbon dioxide as it is sequestered. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
19 

I urge my colleagues to consider the value of this technology as 

we move the United States away from dependence on foreign 

sources of energy. 

RALPH M. HALL. 

TODD AKIN. 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL. 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER. 

TOM FEENEY. 

JIM SENSENBRENNER. 

PHIL GINGREY. 

BOB INGLIS. 

ADRIAN SMITH. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
(20) 

X. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on 

Science and Technology prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section XI of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, 

clause 3(c)(3). 

H.R. 1933 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the 

sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 1933 does 

authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the 

Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained 

in Section X of this report. 

XI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

H.R. 1933—Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007 

Summary: H.R. 1933 would authorize appropriations primarily to 

expand the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) carbon sequestration 

development program. Carbon sequestration refers to methods of 

storing carbon emissions that result from the use of fossil fuels. Activities under the bill would include demonstration and grant programs to develop and test carbon dioxide capture and sequestration 

technologies to reduce emissions from electric power plants. Assuming appropriation of the authorized and necessary amounts, CBO 

estimates that implementing H.R. 1933 would cost $58 million in 

2008 and $1.3 billion over the 2008–2012 period. Enacting H.R. 

1933 would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 1933 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would benefit state and local governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1933 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 270 (energy). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

DOE Carbon Capture and Sequestration Program: 

Budget Authority 1 ........................................................................... 100 35 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 65 67 45 19 10 7 

Proposed Changes: 

DOE Carbon Sequestration and Capture:.

Authorization Level ................................................................. 0 205 420 420 420 180 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 51 198 303 367 328 

DOE Grant Programs:.

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................ 0 10 2 2 3 4 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 3 3 4 3 3 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
21 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

EPA Safety Research Program:.

Authorization Level ................................................................. 0 5 5 5 5 5 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 3 5 5 5 5 

DOE Reporting Requirement:.

Authorization Level ................................................................. 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Total Changes:.

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................ 0 221 427 427 428 189 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 58 206 312 375 336 

Spending Under H.R. 1933: 

Estimated Authorization Level ......................................................... 100 256 427 427 428 189 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 65 125 251 331 385 343 

Note: DOE = Department of Energy; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency. 

1 The 2007 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the Office of Fossil Energy’s carbon sequestration program. The 2008 level is the amount authorized under current law. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

1933 will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2007 and that the 

entire amounts authorized and estimated to be necessary will be 

appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are based on 

historical spending patterns for similar programs. H.R. 1933 would authorize the appropriation of $221 million in 2008 and $1.7 billion over the 2008–2012 period for specific DOE 

and EPA programs. In addition, CBO estimates that a university 

grant program to study the storage of carbon in geologic features 

would cost $6 million over the 2009–2012 period. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1933 would cost $58 million in fiscal year 2008 and 

$1.3 billion over the 2008–2012 period. As described below, most of 

those amounts would be used for carbon sequestration and capture 

research and demonstration program. (That is, the removal of carbon from fossil fuel combustion emissions and its permanent storage). 

DOE Carbon Sequestration and Capture Research and Demonstration Programs 

H.R. 1933 would authorize the appropriation of $240 million (of 

which $35 million was already authorized in Public Law 109–58) 

in 2008 and $1.6 billion over the 2008–2012 period for research and 

demonstration programs. Specifically, the bill would authorize $100 

million annually for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for general carbon capture and storage research and field testing, and $140 million annually (over the same period) for programs to demonstrate 

the sequestration of carbon. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $180 million a year over the 2009–2012 period for demonstration programs to test technologies for carbon dioxide capture 

at industrial sources. CBO estimates that appropriation of specified 

amounts would result in discretionary spending of $51 million in 

2008 and $1.3 billion over the 2008–2012 period. 

DOE Grant Programs 

H.R. 1933 would create two new grant programs. The first would 

award funds to colleges and universities to create programs to 

study the sequestration of carbon in geologic features. Based on the 

cost of other DOE grant programs, CBO estimates that the proVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:47 Aug 08, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR301.XXX HR301

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
22 

gram would cost $6 million over the 2009–2012 period. (Because of 

a 2008 reporting requirement, described below, grants would be 

awarded beginning in fiscal year 2009.) The second program would 

award five grants to colleges and universities to study carbon capture and sequestration technologies involving various types of coal. 

H.R. 1933 would authorize the appropriation of $10 million for this 

purpose. 

EPA Safety Research Program 

The bill also would authorize the appropriation of $5 million annually for an EPA research program to determine necessary procedures to protect public safety and health and the environment from 

the adverse effects associated with the storage of greenhouse gases 

in subterranean reservoirs. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that this program would cost $3 million in 2008 and $23 million over the 2008–2012 period. 

DOE Reporting Requirement 

H.R. 1933 would authorize the appropriation of $1 million in fiscal year 2008 for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 

study to define a national interdisciplinary carbon capture program 

and other activities. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1933 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would create several research and grant programs benefitting state and local governments. Any costs to those governments, including matching funds, would be incurred voluntarily. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Leigh Angres: Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Neil Hood; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

XII. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

H.R. 1933 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XIII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee 

on Science and Technology are reflected in the body of this report. 

XIV. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal of H.R. 

1933 is to advance carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration by reauthorizing and improving the carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration 

program of the Department of Energy. 

XV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1933. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
23 

XVI. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 1933 does not establish nor authorize the establishment of 

any advisory committee. 

XVII. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 1933 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

XVIII. EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 1933 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

XIX. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

XX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as 

follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IX—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle F—Fossil Energy 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 963. Carbon capture research and development program.¿ 

Sec. 963. Carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration 

program. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IX—RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
24 

Subtitle F—Fossil Energy 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 963. CARBON CAPTURE øRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT¿ AND 

STORAGE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a 10-year carbon 

capture øresearch and development¿ and storage research, development, and demonstration program to develop carbon dioxide øcapture technologies on combustion-based systems¿ capture and storage technologies related to electric power generating systems for 

use—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) OBJECTIVES.—The objectives of the program under subsection 

(a) shall be—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) to increase the efficiency of the overall system to reduce 

the quantity of carbon dioxide emissions released from the system per megawatt generated; øand¿ 

(4) in accordance with the carbon dioxide capture program, 

to promote a robust carbon sequestration program and continue the work of the Department, in conjunction with the private sector, through regional carbon sequestration 

partnershipsø.¿; and 

(5) to expedite and carry out large-scale testing of carbon sequestration systems in a range of geological formations that 

will provide information on the cost and feasibility of deployment of sequestration technologies. 

ø(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—From amounts authorized under section 961(b), the following sums are authorized for activities described in subsection (a)(2): 

ø(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

ø(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

ø(3) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.¿ 

(c) PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES.— (1) FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION SUPPORTING CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out fundamental science and engineering research (including laboratory-scale experiments, numeric modeling, and simulations) 

to develop and document the performance of new approaches to capture and store carbon dioxide, or to learn 

how to use carbon dioxide in products to lead to an overall 

reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. 

(B) PROGRAM INTEGRATION.—The Secretary shall ensure 

that fundamental research carried out under this paragraph is appropriately applied to energy technology development activities and the field testing of carbon sequestration and carbon use activities, including—


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
25 

(i) development of new or advanced technologies for 

the capture of carbon dioxide; 

(ii) development of new or advanced technologies that 

reduce the cost and increase the efficacy of the compression of carbon dioxide required for the storage of carbon dioxide; 

(iii) modeling and simulation of geological sequestration field demonstrations; 

(iv) quantitative assessment of risks relating to specific field sites for testing of sequestration technologies; 

and 

(v) research and development of new and advanced 

technologies for carbon use, including recycling and 

reuse of carbon dioxide. 

(2) FIELD VALIDATION TESTING ACTIVITIES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall promote, to the 

maximum extent practicable, regional carbon sequestration 

partnerships to conduct geologic sequestration tests involving carbon dioxide injection and monitoring, mitigation, 

and verification operations in a variety of candidate geological settings, including—

(i) operating oil and gas fields; 

(ii) depleted oil and gas fields; 

(iii) unmineable coal seams; 

(iv) deep saline formations; 

(v) deep geologic systems that may be used as engineered reservoirs to extract economical quantities of 

heat from geothermal resources of low permeability or 

porosity; 

(vi) deep geologic systems containing basalt formations; and 

(vii) high altitude terrain oil and gas fields. 

(B) OBJECTIVES.—The objectives of tests conducted under 

this paragraph shall be— (i) to develop and validate geophysical tools, analysis, and modeling to monitor, predict, and verify carbon dioxide containment; 

(ii) to validate modeling of geological formations; 

(iii) to refine storage capacity estimated for particular geological formations; 

(iv) to determine the fate of carbon dioxide concurrent with and following injection into geological formations; 

(v) to develop and implement best practices for operations relating to, and monitoring of, injection and 

storage of carbon dioxide in geologic formations; 

(vi) to assess and ensure the safety of operations related to geological storage of carbon dioxide; 

(vii) to allow the Secretary to promulgate policies, 

procedures, requirements, and guidance to ensure that 

the objectives of this subparagraph are met in largescale testing and deployment activities for carbon capture and storage that are funded by the Department of 

Energy; and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
26 

(viii) to support Environmental Protection Agency efforts, in consultation with other agencies, to develop a 

scientifically sound regulatory framework to enable 

commercial-scale sequestration operations while safeguarding human health and underground sources of 

drinking water. 

(3) LARGE-SCALE CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION TESTING.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct not less 

than 7 initial large-volume sequestration tests, not including the FutureGen project, for geological containment of 

carbon dioxide (at least 1 of which shall be international 

in scope) to validate information on the cost and feasibility 

of commercial deployment of technologies for geological containment of carbon dioxide. 

(B) DIVERSITY OF FORMATIONS TO BE STUDIED.—In selecting formations for study under this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider a variety of geological formations 

across the United States, and require characterization and 

modeling of candidate formations, as determined by the 

Secretary. 

(C) SOURCE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FOR LARGE-SCALE SE- QUESTRATION DEMONSTRATIONS.—In the process of any acquisition of carbon dioxide for sequestration demonstrations under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give preference to purchases of carbon dioxide from industrial and 

coal-fired electric generation facilities. To the extent feasible, the Secretary shall prefer test projects from industrial 

and coal-fired electric generation facilities that would facilitate the creation of an integrated system of capture, 

transportation and storage of carbon dioxide. Until coalfired electric generation facilities, either new or existing, are 

operating with carbon dioxide capture technologies, other 

industrial sources of carbon dioxide should be pursued 

under this paragraph. The preference provided for under 

this subparagraph shall not delay the implementation of 

the large-scale sequestration tests under this paragraph. 

(D) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

term ‘‘large-scale’’ means the injection of more than 

1,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, or a scale 

that demonstrably exceeds the necessary thresholds in key 

geologic transients to validate the ability continuously to 

inject quantities on the order of several million metric tons 

of industrial carbon dioxide annually for a large number of 

years. 

(4) LARGE-SCALE DEMONSTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out at least 

3 and no more than 5 demonstrations, that include each of 

the technologies described in subparagraph (B), for the 

large-scale capture of carbon dioxide from industrial 

sources of carbon dioxide, at least 2 of which are facilities 

that generate electric energy from fossil fuels. Candidate facilities for other demonstrations under this paragraph shall 

include facilities that refine petroleum, manufacture iron or 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
27 

steel, manufacture cement or cement clinker, manufacture 

commodity chemicals, and ethanol and fertilizer plants. 

Consideration may be given to capture of carbon dioxide 

from industrial facilities and electric generation carbon 

sources that are near suitable geological reservoirs and 

could continue sequestration. To ensure reduced carbon dioxide emissions, the Secretary shall take necessary actions 

to provide for the integration of the program under this 

paragraph with the long-term carbon dioxide sequestration 

demonstrations described in paragraph (3). These actions 

should not delay implementation of the large-scale sequestration tests authorized in paragraph (3). 

(B) TECHNOLOGIES.—The technologies referred to in subparagraph (A) are precombustion capture, post-combustion 

capture, and oxycombustion. 

(C) SCOPE OF AWARD.—An award under this paragraph 

shall be only for the portion of the project that carries out 

the large-scale capture (including purification and compression) of carbon dioxide, as well as the cost of transportation 

and injection of carbon dioxide. 

(5) PREFERENCE IN PROJECT SELECTION FROM MERITORIOUS

PROPOSALS.—In making competitive awards under this subsection, subject to the requirements of section 989, the Secretary 

shall give preference to proposals from partnerships among industrial, academic, and government entities. 

(6) COST SHARING.—Activities under this subsection shall be 

considered research and development activities that are subject 

to the cost-sharing requirements of section 988(b), except that 

the Federal share of a project under paragraph (4) shall not exceed 50 percent. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to 

the Secretary for carrying out this section, other than subsection 

(c)(3) and (4)—

(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

(B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

(C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 

(D) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

(2) SEQUESTRATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out subsection (c)(3)—

(A) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

(B) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

(C) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 

(D) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

(3) CARBON CAPTURE.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out subsection (c)(4)—

(A) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

(B) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; 

(C) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and 

(D) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. 

* * * * * * * 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
28 

XXI. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On June 27, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology favorably reported H.R. 1933, as amended, by a voice vote and recommended its passage by the House of Representatives. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
(29) 

XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP

XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ON H.R. 1933, THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2007 

THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Lampson 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Chairman LAMPSON. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Environment meets to consider the following measures: 

H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage 

Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007; H.R. 2774, 

the Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act of 2007; and H.R. 

2773, the Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act. 

We will now proceed with the markup beginning with opening 

statements, and I will begin. 

Energy is not something most Americans have thought about 

since the oil embargo of the 1970s. Gas and electricity were cheap, 

environmental issues were not a concern and we did not appreciate 

our increased vulnerability to unstable foreign energy supplies. 

Consequently, energy stayed out of the legislative spotlight for 

many years. 

The Congress passed significant energy legislation in 2005 in response to rising fuel prices and increased concerns about energy security. Since then the growing public awareness and acceptance of 

climate change compels us to take further actions on energy. Today 

this committee is taking yet another step to increase federal investment in energy technologies that we know will lessen the environmental impact of our energy use, decrease our reliance on foreign 

fuels and still maintain the quality of life we enjoy today. 

First on the agenda is H.R. 1933 by Representative Udall which 

sets out the next steps in DOE’s carbon mitigation strategies. In 

addition to continuing the Department’s research on carbon dioxide 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
30 

management, the bill authorizes large-scale demonstrations of carbon sequestration technologies through partnerships with industrial, academic and government entities. An amendment by Mr. 

Udall will add demonstrations of carbon capture technology as well. 

Because we will continue to use our abundant resources of coal to 

meet our energy needs for the foreseeable future, it is critical that 

we demonstrate an integrated system of capture, transportation 

and storage of carbon dioxide at a large scale. 

Next we will take H.R. 2774, the Solar Energy and Advancement 

Act of 2007, introduced by Congresswoman Giffords. This bill creates a research and development program on energy storage technology for concentrating solar power plants which allows for the 

use of solar energy even when the sun isn’t shining. It also asks 

the DOE to conduct studies on how best to integrate concentrating 

solar plants with the grid and ways to reduce water usage in these 

plants. I know the Congresswoman also plans to introduce an 

amendment today that creates a solar workforce program, and this 

will further improve the bill and I look forward to hearing what my 

distinguished colleague has to say about it soon. 

And finally, the Subcommittee will consider my bill, H.R. 2773, 

the Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act. This bill 

attempts to better coordinate and compile information from federal 

biofuels research programs, focus some of the biofuels research on 

infrastructure needs and efficiency of biorefinery technologies, 

study some of the continuing challenges facing broader use of 

biofuels, and increase the funding levels for biofuels research. 

For each of these bills, the Subcommittee has held hearings examining the various technical barriers and possible pathways for 

these technologies. Many of the amendments that will be offered 

today result from the advice and input provided by the witnesses 

at these hearings. Today the Subcommittee should report meaningful legislation that will bring us one step closer to their consideration on the House Floor in July. I urge support for all of these 

bills and I look forward to working with all of you as we move 

these bills forward to Full Committee next week. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK LAMPSON

Energy is not something most Americans have thought about since the oil embargo in the 1970’s. Gas and electricity were cheap, environmental issues were not a 

concern, and we did not appreciate our increased vulnerability to unstable foreign 

energy supplies. Consequently ‘‘Energy’’ stayed out of the legislative spotlight for 

many years. 

The Congress passed significant energy legislation in 2005 in response to rising 

fuel prices and increased concerns about energy security. Since then, the growing 

public awareness and acceptance of climate change compels us to take further actions on energy. Today this committee is taking yet another step to increase federal 

investment in energy technologies that we know will lessen the environmental impact of our energy use, decrease our reliance on foreign fuels, and still maintain the 

quality of life we enjoy today. 

First on the agenda is H.R. 1933 by Rep. Udall, which sets out the next steps 

in DOE’s carbon mitigation strategies. In addition to continuing the Department’s 

research on carbon dioxide management, the bill authorizes large-scale demonstrations of carbon sequestration technologies through partnerships with industrial, academic and government entities. 

An amendment by Mr. Udall will add demonstrations of carbon capture technology as well. Because we will continue to use our abundant resources of coal to 

meet our energy needs for the foreseeable future, it is critical that we demonstrate 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
31 

an INTEGRATED system of capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide 

at a large scale. 

Next we will take up H.R. 2774, the Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act 

of 2007, introduced by Congresswoman Giffords. This bill creates an R&D program 

on energy storage technology for concentrating solar power plants, which allows for 

the use of solar energy even when the sun isn’t shining. 

It also asks the DOE to conduct studies on how to best integrate concentrating 

solar plants with the grid, and ways to reduce water usage in these plants. I know 

the Congresswoman also plans to introduce an amendment today that creates a 

solar workforce program. This will further improve the bill, and I look forward to 

hearing what my distinguished colleague has to say about it soon. 

And finally the Subcommittee will consider my bill, H.R. 2773, the Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act. This bill attempts to better coordinate 

and compile information from federal biofuels research programs, focus some of the 

biofuels research on infrastructure needs and efficiency of biorefinery technologies, 

study some of the continuing challenges facing broader use of biofuels, and increase 

the funding levels for biofuels research. 

For each of these bills the Subcommittee has held hearings examining the various 

technical barriers and possible pathways for these technologies. Many of the amendments that will be offered today result from the advice and input provided by the 

witnesses at these hearings. Today the Subcommittee should report meaningful legislation that will bring us one step closer to their consideration on the House Floor 

in July. I urge support for all of these bills and I look forward to working with all 

of you as we move these bills forward to the Full Committee next week. 

Chairman LAMPSON. I now recognize Mr. Inglis, the Ranking 

Member, to present his opening remarks. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to this 

markup. 

The bills we mark up today are reflections of the commitment we 

have made to move away from our dependence on foreign oil and 

toward solutions that make both economic and environmental 

sense. 

Renewable energy sources give us the opportunity to end our dependence on fossil fuels like oil and coal. In the meantime though, 

we will use a lot of oil and a lot of coal. That is why we must work 

to make sure especially that our coal consumption is as emissionfree and energy efficient as possible, bringing benefits to both industry and to the environment. 

Carbon capture and storage technologies hold significant promise 

for reducing carbon emissions. H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Act, will fund demonstration projects that integrate 

these technologies. The aim is that the research and experience 

gained from these projects will help bring down the cost of implementing carbon-reducing technologies in the private sector. 

As I mentioned earlier, the ultimate goal is energy sources that 

are renewable and emission-free. H.R. 2774, the Solar Research 

and Advancement Act, and H.R. 2773, the Biofuels Research and 

Development Act, are two steps in that direction. Biofuels and solar 

energy should be sources of energy for us, and I am looking forward to promoting research programs that will make these alternatives commercially viable. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working 

with you to advance these pieces of legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Thank you for holding this markup, Mr. Chairman. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
32 

The bills we’re marking up today are reflections of the commitment we have made 

to move away from our dependence on foreign oil, and toward solutions that make 

both economic and environmental sense. 

Renewable energy sources give us the opportunity to end our dependence on fossil 

fuels like oil and coal. In the meantime we’ll use lots of coal. That’s why we must 

work to make sure that our coal consumption is as emission-free and energy efficient as possible, bringing benefits to both industry and the environment. 

Carbon capture and storage technologies hold significant promise for reducing carbon emissions. H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage 

Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, will fund demonstration projects 

that integrate these technologies. The aim is that the research and experience 

gained from these projects will help bring down the cost of implementing carbonreducing technologies in the private sector. 

As I mentioned earlier, the ultimate goal is energy sources that are renewable 

and emission-free. H.R. 2774, the Solar Research and Advancement Act, and H.R. 

2773, the Biofuels Research and Development Act, are two steps in that direction. 

Biofuels and solar energy should be sources of energy for us, and I’m looking forward to promoting research programs that will make these alternatives commercially viable. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you to advance this legislation. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. 

Without objection, Members may place statements in the record 

at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s markup on H.R. 

1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007. 

First, I would like to commend Congressman Udall for his leadership on this issue 

and for developing this important legislation which builds upon the authorizations 

for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) initiatives of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of H.R. 1933 and I strongly support the gentleman from Colorado’s bill to provide adequate funding for research, development 

(R&D), and demonstration programs for CCS technology. Technology has successfully overcome multiple environmental challenges to coal. According to the Electric 

Power Research Institute (EPRI), emissions of nitrogen-oxide, sulfur-dioxide, and 

other air pollutants from new coal-fired power plants have been reduced by more 

than 90 percent over the past three decades, as the technology has advanced. That 

is why I have been a strong advocate for clean coal technology. Emissions from coal 

plants can be reduced with advanced technology and I support the use of coal in 

an environmentally responsible manner. 

Our subcommittee held a hearing in May to examine advanced clean coal technologies, such as CCS. We learned from the witness panel that additional R&D and 

large scale demonstrations need to be carried out in order to ensure that the technology works. In addition, the cost of CCS using current available technology is very 

high and there are significant integration and engineering considerations that need 

to be addressed. According to analyses by EPRI and the Coal Utilization Research 

Council (CURC), once substantial investments are made, the cost of CCS becomes 

manageable, and ultimately coal-based electricity with CCS can be cost competitive 

with other low-carbon generation technologies. However, current funding for R&D 

and demonstration programs of carbon capture and sequestration technology is inadequate. I am concerned that the longer we delay in developing the capability to 

deploy CCS technologies to be used at a commercial scale, the longer we will wait 

for substantial reductions in CO2. In other words, we are not taking the necessary 

steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The reality is that the U.S. is not going 

to stop using coal. We have at least a 250-year supply and according to the Energy 

Information Administration, the consumption of coal for electricity generation is expected to increase by 63 percent by 2030. Clean coal technologies is one part of an 

economy-wide solution to addressing climate change. We need to invest more in coal 

R&D, and especially in demonstration of commercial-scale CCS systems. That is 

why this legislation is critical to ensuring the continued use of coal in this country. 

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1933. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
33 

Chairman LAMPSON. We will now consider H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007, and I yield to Mr. Udall for 

five minutes to describe his bill. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding to me. If I 

might, I would ask unanimous consent to include my entire statement in the record. 

Chairman LAMPSON. So ordered. 

Mr. UDALL. In the interest of brevity and moving the process 

along, I would just like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member for bringing the bill to the Subcommittee today. I think 

the Chairman’s statement as well as the Ranking Member’s statement outlined in important detail what H.R. 1933 would accomplish, and Mr. Chairman, with that I would yield back any time I 

have remaining and look forward to a little more detail in my comments on the manager’s amendment that will follow. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Thank you, Chairman Lampson, for bringing this bill up for markup today. 

Early this year, I introduced H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007. 

As we all know, we have vast coal resources in the United States and these resources can help alleviate our dependence on foreign sources of energy. However, 

current coal energy generation produces large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, 

which are contributing to climate change. 

Carbon sequestration is the solution to this problem, yet current technology cannot capture and store the large amounts of carbon dioxide that we must remove 

from power plant emissions to mitigate climate change. 

My bill will address this issue by improving and expanding the Department of Energy’s Carbon Capture and Storage Research and Development Program. This research, development, and demonstration effort will spur the development of needed 

capture and storage technology. 

Specifically, the bill authorizes seven large-volume sequestration tests for geological containment of carbon dioxide. These technology demonstrations will occur in a 

range of geological conditions and include stringent monitoring to determine that 

the emissions are not re-entering the atmosphere. 

An important part of these demonstrations is that the Federal Government will 

not be working alone on these projects—the bill specifically encourages the participation of State, industry, and academic groups, ideally through the Regional Sequestration Partnerships. 

Coal is an important part of our current energy portfolio and it will remain so 

for many years to come. We need this legislation to help us continue to support our 

domestic energy industry while also addressing the climate change challenge. 

I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Udall. 

I recognize Mr. Inglis to present any remarks on the bill. 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of brevity too I would 

pass on that opportunity and look forward to moving along here. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much. Does anyone else 

wish to be recognized? Does anyone wish to be recognized? 

I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and 

open to amendment at any point and that Members proceed with 

the amendments in order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is a manager’s amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Udall, are you ready 

with your amendment? 

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
34 

Chairman LAMPSON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1933 offered by Mr. Udall of 

Colorado. 

Chairman LAMPSON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. And I recognize the gentleman from Colorado for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The manager’s amendment makes a number of technical and substantive changes to H.R. 

1933. Let me take a brief moment to describe the substantive 

changes. The amendment adds a new section to the bill authorizing 

at least three but no more than five demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture technologies. It further includes an authorization for 

funding these carbon dioxide capture demonstrations at a total of 

no more than $180 million per year for four years starting in fiscal 

year 2009. Second, my amendment increases the funding level for 

the large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration demonstrations to 

$140 million per year for four years beginning in fiscal year 2008. 

The amendment further defines what size projects would be eligible as large-scale injection projects. The basic measurement would 

be projects involving at least one million tons but the Secretary 

would have discretion to adjust this in appropriate cases. The revised section also encourages integrating the storage technology 

demonstrations with the capture technology demonstrations. This 

is intended to provide operational experience with an integrated 

system of capture, transportation and storage of carbon dioxide at 

scale. The amendment authorizes the National Academy of 

Sciences to conduct an independent review and oversight of the injection program to ensure its benefits are maximized. The amendment also authorizes the assistant administration of the Office of 

Research and Development of the EPA to conduct a research program and what procedures may be necessary to protect public 

health, safety and the environment from impacts that may be associated with the separation and sequestration of greenhouse gases. 

I would like to underscore that this is a research program and the 

EPA office does not issue regulations. 

Finally, the amendment includes $100 million annually for fiscal 

years 2008 through 2012 to fund the Department of Energy’s fundamental R&D at the laboratory scale. This funding will allow for 

continued examination of new approaches on carbon dioxide capture and sequestration. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment improves the bill significantly and I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. 

Thank you, and I yield back any time I have remaining. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. My manager’s amendment makes a number of technical and substantive changes to H.R. 1933. I will take a brief moment to describe 

the substantive changes. 

The amendment adds a new section to the bill authorizing at least three, but no 

more than five, demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture technologies. 

It further includes are authorization for funding these carbon dioxide capture 

demonstrations a total of no more than $180 million per year for four years starting 

in Fiscal Year 2009. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
35 

Second, my amendment increases the funding level for the large-scale carbon di- oxide sequestration demonstrations to $140 million per year for four years beginning 

in Fiscal Year 2008. 

The amendment further defines what size projects would be eligible as large-scale 

injection projects. The basic measurement would be projects involving at least one 

million tons, but the Secretary would have discretion to adjust this in appropriate 

cases. The revised section also encourages integrating the storage technology demonstrations with the capture technology demonstrations. This is intended to provide operational experience with an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage 

of carbon dioxide at scale. 

My amendment authorizes the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent review and oversight of the injection program to ensure its benefits are 

maximized. 

My amendment authorizes the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research 

and Development of EPA to conduct a research program on what procedures may 

be necessary to protect public health, safety and the environment from impacts that 

may be associated with sequestration of greenhouse gases. 

I would like to underscore that this is a research program and this EPA office 

does not issue regulations. Finally, my amendment includes $100 million annually for fiscal years 2008 

through 2011 to fund the Department of Energy’s fundamental R&D at the laboratory scale. This funding will allow for continued examination of new approaches on 

carbon dioxide capture and sequestration. 

Mr. Chairman, I think my amendment improves the bill significantly and I urge 

my colleagues to support the amendment. Thank you. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Udall. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? Further discussion on the amendment? 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions for Mr. 

Udall or Counsel or someone. One is, in the new scale on largescale demonstration of carbon dioxide capture technologies, what is 

the award money used for? 

Mr. UDALL. Counsel, would you like to respond? 

The COUNSEL. Could you repeat that again? 

Mr. INGLIS. Yeah, it is the—in the large-scale demonstration of 

carbon dioxide capture technologies, that new section, there is 

award money, and the question is, what is the—what can the 

award money be used for? Can it be used to purchase carbon capture technology? What part of the process is considered capture 

and how much is—how is the cost determined and basically what 

about the federal share to be used to purchase the carbon from the 

company? 

The COUNSEL. The federal share of this particular section will be 

a 50/50 cost share and that is described right below that. 

Mr. INGLIS. That is because it is carbon capture, right? 

The COUNSEL. The carbon capture——

Mr. INGLIS. The sequestration is 80/20? 

The COUNSEL. Correct. That is correct. And then in regard to 

your question about what the award would be for, that is largely 

at the discretion of the Secretary but they could use it to apply to 

the purchase of the carbon or for the technologies. 

Mr. INGLIS. And then the second question, in the manager’s 

amendment, the cost share for the large-scale sequestration testing 

and deployment differs from the cost share for the large-scale demonstration of CO2 capture technologies. I am working here to try 

to understand the need for the cost share to be different for each. 

Can you maybe explain, Counsel or someone, what is—why those 

are treated differently? 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
36 

Mr. UDALL. Counsel. 

The COUNSEL. Sure. In section 988 of EPAct ’05, the cost sharing 

provisions, the research and development is under one section and 

the demonstration and commercial application is under a separate 

section with different cost share arrangements. However, the section for demonstrations also has room for the Secretary to reduce 

that non-federal share, you know, at his or her discretion. 

Mr. UDALL. So I guess we are comfortable with that. Does the 

gentleman have concerns about those ratios? 

Mr. INGLIS. We are mostly just trying to make sure we understand how it works. 

Mr. UDALL. My impression is, this is based on other similar relationships and arrangements, and as Counsel suggested, the Secretary has quite a bit of discretion, particularly on the higher end 

here when you have an 80 percent government funding, 20 percent 

match, to move that around if that seems to make sense, given the 

circumstances. 

Mr. INGLIS. I am sorry. We are learning as we go—or I am—and 

so generally what I am trying to understand is the difference between the awards. Do the differences have to do with the difference 

between capture and sequestration, capture being a more demonstrated technology already, such that you don’t need a subsidy; 

whereas, if you are talking about sequestration, there is a lot more 

research to be done on that? I think this is the concept. 

Mr. UDALL. If I could—— Mr. INGLIS. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. UDALL. Yes, I think you are yielding to me, aren’t you? The 

capture technology is less advanced than the sequestration technology. We had a hearing that was very illustrative and informative and it was one of the take-aways I had after that concluded 

which is that we have a much better idea of how we sequester. We 

are not quite as clear about how we capture. You can capture on 

the front end. You can capture through the process itself and then 

you can capture at the back end, so we want to provide more support to those efforts to industry and to the researchers and I think 

that is why this ratio is the way you see it here. And I would invite 

Counsel to—I would yield back, of course, to the gentleman but 

Counsel may be able to add more information to that. 

Mr. INGLIS. I think my time has expired. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Mr. Inglis, we will extend if you have more 

questions, so continue. 

Mr. INGLIS. Yeah, I guess I am—I think I am still confused as 

to whether it is capture or sequestration which is more difficult to 

get to and which one are we therefore subsidizing more. 

The COUNSEL. The R&D piece on the sequestration is looking at 

what we can anticipate putting large volumes of the carbon dioxide 

into the ground and so that is the R&D element of it. Does it stay 

put; if not, and we are looking at if not, what does that mean? And 

we are looking at how we are going to monitor and analyze that. 

So that is the R&D piece of the injection. And then the capture 

falls under we are actually going to demonstrate existing technologies that have been used at a smaller pilot scale. 

Chairman LAMPSON. I can add something to that. This was 

worked out on the basis of a formula. The provision was worked 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
37 

out in H.R. 610, which was the Science Committee provision under 

Republican Chairman Boehlert, and the language is the same. 

Mr. INGLIS. Well, it must be good then. I yield back. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Inglis. 

Is there further discussion the amendment? Any further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. 

All in favor say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it and 

the amendment is agreed to. 

The second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 

by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I am, and I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman LAMPSON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1933 offered by Mr. Costello of 

Illinois. 

Chairman LAMPSON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I will not take the 

entire five minutes. I will try and be brief. 

The purpose of the amendment is that it instructs the National 

Academy of Science to conduct a study that develops guidelines and 

proposals for colleges and universities for students interested in geological sequestration science. It also requires the Secretary of the 

Department of Energy and the National Energy Technology Laboratory to establish a competitive grant program for colleges and 

universities to encourage faculty to teach undergraduates and 

graduates about carbon sequestration science and to offer internships for graduate students in geological sequestration science. I 

have been working with the National Energy Technology Laboratory and the National Academies to draft this amendment. The reason why the amendment is necessary is that there has never been 

a study done on this subject, and in order to address carbon emissions from coal plants, we need scientific experts with trained experience in the geological sequestration science field. Many universities and colleges have reduced capabilities for instruction in the 

geology actually of fossil fuels and energy resources since the enactment of the Clean Air Act, and the purpose of this amendment of 

course is to have the universities and colleges go back into the 

business of training people in the field. If in fact as we are, it is 

obviously the intention of the Congress to increase funding for carbon capture and sequestration research and development and demonstration, we should in fact develop instructional programs at colleges and universities to increase the number of undergraduates 

and graduates capable of supporting this sequestration science, and 

I would again compliment our colleague, Mr. Udall, for his legislation. I believe that my amendment makes the legislation more attractive and in fact will further the development of students and 

professors in the subsequent science and I——

Mr. UDALL. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COSTELLO. I would be happy to yield. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
38 

Mr. UDALL. I just want to make it clear for the Committee’s benefit that I think this is an excellent amendment, and I thank the 

gentleman for offering it. 

I yield back. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say 

aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it and the amendment 

is agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments? Any other amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage—— Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we need to roll that vote 

since we—do we have to? I guess we do, don’t we? I don’t think we 

have enough people here. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Pursuant to Rule 2T, further proceedings on 

the matter are postponed under further notice from the Chair. 

Thank you, Mr. Inglis. 

Now, we will return to unfinished business and the next vote will 

be on H.R. 1933. Are there other amendments to H.R. 1933? Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007, as amended. All those in favor will say aye. 

Those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes 

have it. 

I recognize Ms. Woolsey for a motion. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee favorably report H.R. 1933 as amended to the Full Committee. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the Subcommittee legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill as amended in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee. 

Chairman LAMPSON. The question is on the motion to report the 

bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying 

aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is favorably 

reported. 

I want to thank the Members for their attendance, and this concludes our Subcommittee markup. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
(39) 

Appendix: 

H.R. 1933, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
40 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933a.eps
41 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933b.eps
42 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933c.eps
43 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933d.eps
44 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933e.eps
45 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933f.eps
46 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933g.eps
47 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 1933, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE RESEARCH, 

DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2007 

Section 1. Short Title. 

‘‘Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Act of 2007.’’

Section 2. Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Program. 

Amends Section 963 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to include large-scale testing 

of carbon sequestration systems in a range of geological formations that will provide 

information on the cost and feasibility of deployment of sequestration technologies. 

The Secretary is authorized to carry out fundamental science and engineering research to develop and document the performance of new approaches to capture and 

store carbon dioxide. The fundamental research shall be applied to energy technology development activities and the field testing of carbon sequestration activities. 

The objectives are to develop the best tools for analysis, modeling, monitoring, prediction and verification of carbon dioxide containment. 

Requires the Secretary to promote regional carbon sequestration partnerships to 

conduct geologic sequestration field testing of the capture technologies and the injection and monitoring practices in a variety of geologic settings including operating 

oil and gas field, depleted oil and gas fields, unmineable coal seams, saline formation, and deep geologic systems to extract heat from geothermal resources. 

The field tests are aimed at advancing and validating geophysical tools, analysis 

and modeling used to monitor, predict, and verify carbon dioxide containment. The 

Secretary is authorized to promulgate policies, procedures, requirements and guidance to ensure that large-scale testing and deployment activities for carbon capture 

and storage implement the best practices available for achieving safe carbon dioxide 

management. 

In addition, the bill authorizes seven large-volume sequestration tests for geological containment of carbon dioxide. The Secretary shall select meritorious proposals 

on a competitive basis giving preference to proposals from partnerships among industrial, academic, and government entities. The Secretary shall consider a variety 

of geological formations across the United States and require characterization and 

modeling of candidate formations, as determined by the Secretary. 

The activities under this section shall be considered research and development 

and meet the cost-sharing requirements of Section 988(b) of EPACT ’05—the Secretary shall require not less than 20 percent of the cost of a research or development 

activity to be provided by a non-federal source. 

The bill authorizes $90 million for fiscal year 2007, $105 million for fiscal year 

2008 and $120 million for fiscal year 2009. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
48 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933r.eps
49 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933h.eps
50 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933i.eps
51 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933j.eps
52 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933k.eps
53 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933l.eps
54 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933m.eps
55 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933n.eps
56 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933o.eps
57 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933p.eps
58 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933q.eps
(59) 

XXIII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP

XXIII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 1933, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE 

AND STORAGE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, 

AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2007 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman GORDON. The Committee will come to order. 

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology 

meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 906, the Global 

Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007; H.R. 1933, 

the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, 

Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007; H.R. 2773, the 

Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act; and H.R. 

2774, the Solar Energy Research and Investment Act of 2007. 

I know that we have a lot of other markups going on today, so 

we are going to try to proceed, but I would like to make a couple 

of announcements at first. Now, some of the Members have been 

interested in the trip we are going to be taking, the fact-finding 

trip we are taking to Greenland the weekend of July the 19th. We 

should know today about—we have a plane, but we still have concern about in-country travel, because we can’t use our plane there, 

because of the lengths of the runway. We should know more about 

that today, so we will know the size and the number of folks that 

we can take. 

Also, you have received a letter through your office, but I will remind you, in case you didn’t know, that there is going to be a climate change meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate 

Change, the parent body that oversees the Kyoto Protocol. It will 

be held in Bali from December the 3rd to the 14th. There will be 

important areas of discussion. It will include carbon sequestration, 

reforestation, avoiding deforestation, and carbon trading. There 

will be about 10,000 international delegates there. We will not, or 

as Members, we will not be a credentialed participant, but we will 

be able to interact with those folks that are there. We will not be 

taking a Science Committee group as a whole, but we do have some 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
60 

slots, I think, that will be made available to us, for individuals that 

would like to go. But again, when you put 10,000 people there, it 

is going to be crowded, and so, you need to let us know soon. 

And finally, I think that we should all say happy birthday to 

Margaret today. We congratulate her on surviving one more, and 

hope there will be more to come. 

Mr. LAMPSON. And happy anniversary to you and your wife, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you for reminding me. By the way, 

from 7:00 to 9:00 will be a good time to call votes, because I am 

not going to be here tonight. 

With concern about global climate change, the high gas and electricity prices, and our growing reliance on unstable energy supplying nations, energy has come to the forefront of our constituents’ awareness, and has been placed at the top of the Congressional todo list. Here, on the Science and Technology Committee, we have 

responded with an aggressive energy agenda. With the addition of 

four bills, that we are going to mark up today, this committee will 

contribute an even dozen pieces of bipartisan legislation that made 

a vital contribution to the national strategy to put U.S. and the 

world on track to a more sustainable future. 

First, we will consider H.R. 906. Mr. Udall and Mr. Inglis, the 

Ranking Member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee 

and co-sponsor of the bill, have worked together to produce this legislation. H.R. 906 re-orients the U.S. Global Change Research Program to produce more policy relevant climate information for regional, State, and local governments, and other groups. 

We will then take up H.R. 1933, by Representative Udall, which 

sets out the next steps in DOE’s carbon mitigation strategies. In 

addition to ongoing research in carbon management, the bill authorizes DOE to conduct demonstrations on large scale Carbon 

Capture and Storage technologies, through partnerships with industrial, academic, and government entities. Because we will continue to use our abundant resources of coal to meet our energy 

needs for the foreseeable future, it is critical that we demonstrate 

an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide, at a scale that encourages industry to start making 

technological choices. 

Next, the Committee will take up a bill by the Chairman of the 

Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Representative Nick 

Lampson. H.R. 2773, the Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act, will better coordinate and compile information from 

federal biofuels research programs, and focus biofuels research on 

infrastructure needs and efficiency of biorefinery technologies. H.R. 

2773 also provides for the in depth study of several challenges facing broader of biofuels, and increases the funding levels of biofuels 

research. 

Finally, we will consider H.R. 2774, the Solar Energy Research 

and Advancement Act of 2007, introduced by Congresswoman Giffords. This bill creates an R&D program on energy storage technology for concentrating solar plants, which allows for the use of 

solar energy, even when the sun isn’t shining. It also asks DOE to 

conduct studies on how to best integrate concentrating solar plants 

within the grid, and ways to reduce water uses in these plants. In 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
61 

addition, it creates a workforce training program for solar installation and maintenance, which is critical to making solar power a 

real energy option across the Nation. 

For each of these bills, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee held legislative hearings, had markups, where we heard 

valuable witness testimony, and facilitated good Member discussions on the barriers and possible pathways to these programs. 

And as you know, we are not alone in this effort. The Energy and 

Commerce Committee is marking up a series of bills today, at this 

very moment, and my friend, Congressman Hall, as well as a few 

of the folks in the Majority, are on both committees, so we are 

monitoring that, and if you see a dust cloud here at some point, 

we will be moving to the other committee to make those votes, but 

I am sure we will be left in good hands here, and we will continue 

with this markup. 

In conclusion, I want to urge my colleagues to support these bills. 

I know that the Committee’s pace has been very aggressive, and it 

has been difficult at times for all of us. However, I believe the products that have resulted from this process demonstrate the value of 

this committee, and its bipartisan work reflects the entire membership. 

The bottom line is that we are going to have an energy bill in 

July. The Science Committee is going to, in a bipartisan way, make 

a major, major contribution with that. There are going to be several other committees that will have bills. We are going to get a 

reference from most of those, sequential, which we will also put our 

mark on. Every bill that has come out of this committee has been 

bipartisan, all but one. We will see what happens today, but so far, 

all but one has been unanimous, and so, I think everyone on this 

committee can go home, and claim a great deal of credit for what 

I think will be not an enormously comprehensive, but a good bill, 

a step forward, that will pass by a large margin on the House Floor 

in July. 

So now, I recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

With concerns about global climate change, high gas and electricity prices, and 

our growing reliance on unstable energy-supplying nations, energy has come to the 

forefront of our constituents’ awareness and has been placed at the top of the Congressional ‘‘To-Do’’ list. 

Here on the Science and Technology Committee we have responded with an aggressive energy agenda. 

With the addition of the four bills we are marking up today, this committee will 

contribute an even dozen pieces of legislation that make a vital contribution to the 

national strategy to put the U.S., and the world, on track to a more sustainable future. 

First we will consider H.R. 906. Mr. Udall and Mr. Inglis, the Ranking Member 

of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and co-sponsor of the bill, have 

worked together to produce this legislation. 

H.R. 906 re-orients the U.S. Global Change Research Program to produce more 

policy-relevant climate information for regional, State, and local governments and 

other user groups. 

We will then take up H.R. 1933 by Rep. Udall, which sets out the next steps in 

DOE’s carbon mitigation strategies. In addition to ongoing research in carbon management, the bill authorizes DOE to conduct demonstrations of large-scale carbon 

capture and storage technologies through partnerships with industrial, academic 

and government entities. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
62 

Because we will continue to use our abundant resources of coal to meet our energy 

needs for the foreseeable future, it is critical that we demonstrate an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at a scale that encourages industry to start making technology choices. 

Next, the Committee will take up a bill by the Chairman of the Energy & Environment Subcommittee, Rep. Nick Lampson. H.R. 2773, the Biofuels Research and 

Development Enhancement Act, will better coordinate and compile information from 

federal biofuels research programs and focus biofuels research on infrastructure 

needs and efficiency of biorefinery technologies. 

H.R. 2773 also provides for the in-depth study of several challenges facing broader 

use of biofuels and increases the funding levels for biofuels research. 

Finally, we will consider H.R. 2774, the Solar Energy Research and Advancement 

Act of 2007, introduced by Congresswoman Giffords. This bill creates an R&D program on energy storage technology for concentrating solar power plants, which allows for the use of solar energy even when the sun isn’t shining. 

It also asks DOE to conduct studies on how to best integrate concentrating solar 

plants with the grid, and ways to reduce water usage in these plants. In addition, 

it creates a workforce training program for solar installation and maintenance, 

which is critical to making solar power a real energy option across the country. 

For each of these bills the Energy and Environment Subcommittee held legislative 

hearings and markups where we heard valuable witness testimony and facilitated 

good Member discussions on the barriers and possible pathways for these programs. 

And, as you all may know, we are not alone in this effort today. The Energy and 

Commerce Committee is also marking up a series of energy bills and I, along with 

Ranking Member Hall and a few others, may have to excuse myself for votes in that 

committee. 

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support these four bills. I know the Committee’s pace has been very aggressive and that has been difficult at times for all 

of us. However, I believe the products that have resulted from this process demonstrate the value of this committee and its work and it reflects well on the entire 

membership. 

I want to thank all the Members for their cooperation and participation. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try not to take 

the full length of time, and make one statement. I will be glad, as 

I am sure you will and others, when this month passes. 

I understand that you and your fellow Chairmen and other Members have been working, I guess, under the usual pressure of this 

first year, to get and report bills out of the Committee, and sometimes, I fear that when we rush things through, we don’t get the 

best end-product we could have, if we had more time to fully vet 

the language, but I guess we will be working that as we go. 

You have done a good job of working with us, and I thank you 

for that. While I think improvements in the bill before us today are 

going to occur through amendments to be offered, I think they 

could be improved further, and I hope we will have other opportunities to do this, as the bill moves to the Floor. It is also my hope 

and understanding that, going forward, there will be more of an effort to have both sides working together, as we craft legislation to 

come before this committee. We will have more time. I think this 

would improve not only the quality of work we produce, but also, 

the bipartisan way in which they are handled. 

With that said, I support and believe it is important to our country’s energy future to keep all options on the table, and we strive 

to do that with the three energy bills before us. One of our greatest 

challenges as a Nation is energy self-sufficiency. We need to break 

our dependence on foreign sources of energy from countries we 

don’t trust and who don’t trust us. To do that, we need to be honest 

and practical about what needs to be done to get to that point. 

Solar and biofuels are an important source of domestic energy, 

but they are also limited in their scope. It is important that we 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
63 

continue to research and develop the resources we know exist domestically, and currently provide reliable, affordable, and clean 

sources of energy. I look forward to working with the Committee 

and working with you, Mr. Chairman, in the months ahead, to address this reality, so that Americans can enjoy more energy choices 

at a lower cost. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I will keep my statement brief 

and say that I will be glad when this month is over. I understand that you and your 

fellow Chairmen have been working under pressure from the Speaker to report bills 

out of committee, but I fear that sometimes when things are rushed through, we 

don’t get the best end-products we could have if we had more time to fully vet the 

language. While I think there are improvements in the bills before us today with 

the Subcommittee markup last week and the amendments to be offered today, I 

think that they could still be improved upon, and I hope that we’ll have other opportunities to do so. It is also my hope and understanding that going forward, there 

will be more of an effort to have both sides working together as we craft legislation 

to come before the Committee. I think this would improve not only the quality of 

work we produce, but also the bipartisan way in which they are handled. 

With that said, I support what we’re doing here today. It’s important to our country’s energy future to keep all options on table, and we continue to do that with 

the three energy bills before us. 

With that I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, or rather, thank 

you, Mr. Hall. 

Let me also say that you may not know, but I met privately and 

personally with the Republican, both the staff from the Members, 

as well as the Committee staff the other day, to talk about how we 

can, you know, do what I think is a good job even better. There 

were compliments in some areas of the consultation. There were 

suggestions for improvement in the others. I have asked for them 

to put together models of how they see things done, and good ways 

that we have done it, and if we haven’t done it as well as we would 

like, so those kind of models, we are going to continue to work together. 

I am a new Chairman, there is a lot of new staff, and we are 

going to get this thing better and better, as we go along, because 

I truly believe that more consultation gets us a bipartisan bill, a 

consensus bill, and we are all going to be better off. 

So, does anyone else wish to be recognized? 

We will now consider H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007. I yield to the gentleman from—well, before I yield, 

let me, I just want to say thank you to Jean Fruci for her staff 

work on this. It was given as an illustration to us as the best practices, in terms of collaboration and so, thank you for that work. 

We will now consider H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado five minutes to describe his bill. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for bringing this bill 

up for markup today. 

Coal has been an important source for energy in our country 

since the Industrial Revolution. Today, coal generates more than 50 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
64 

percent of our electric power, and as the country with the largest 

coal reserves in the world, the U.S. will continue to use this plentiful energy source for years to come. Unfortunately, coal burning 

plants are also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and 

other pollutants. As we confront concerns over climate change, one 

of the greatest challenges we face is how to lower our carbon dioxide emissions, while maintaining our strong economy at the American way of life. 

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology will be critical to 

addressing that challenge, but we need to work together to fully 

advance these CCS technologies, and that is why I introduced H.R. 

1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007. 

The legislation will expand and improve the Department of Energy’s carbon capture and storage research and demonstration program. It will authorize two separate demonstration programs, with 

up to five demonstrations for carbon capture, and up to seven demonstrations for large scale carbon dioxide injection and storage. 

The storage demonstrations will require a range of geologic settings, to ensure that we are exploring a variety of options, and will 

include research and development of monitoring and verification 

systems to determine whether CO2 is leaking back into the atmosphere or our drinking water supply. 

The bill recognizes that demonstrating an integrated CCS system 

is critical to developing a commercial application system to sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide, but the bill also recognizes 

that R&D efforts on each cannon should proceed independently 

until the technology is ready to be integrated. 

The language in this bill is based in large part upon the recommendations included in an interdisciplinary study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, named The Future of Coal, which 

was released earlier this year. In working to improve the bill, my 

staff and the Committee staff worked with many stakeholders, including representatives from the coal industry and the environmental community. 

We must begin to address the climate change challenge, but we 

must not cause irreparable harm to our economy and our coal industry in the process. Creating safe, sound, and economical capture 

and storage strategies is the key, and H.R. 1933 will help get us 

there. 

I would ask my colleagues to support this important legislation, 

and it is now my pleasure to yield to Chairman Gordon my remaining time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for bringing this bill up for markup today. 

Coal has been an important energy source in our country since the Industrial Revolution. Today, coal generates more than 50 percent of our electric power. As the 

country with the largest coal reserves in the world, the U.S. will continue to use 

this plentiful energy source for years to come. 

Unfortunately, coal burning power plants are also a major source of greenhouse 

gas emissions and other pollutants. As we confront concerns over climate change, 

one of the greatest challenges we face is how to lower our carbon dioxide emissions 

while maintaining our strong economy and the American way of life. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
65 

Carbon capture and storage technology will be critical to addressing that challenge, but we need to work together to fully advance these CCS technologies. That’s 

why I introduced H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage 

Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007. 

This legislation will expand and improve the Department of Energy’s carbon capture and storage research and demonstration program. It will authorize two separate demonstration programs, with up to five demonstrations for carbon capture and 

up to seven demonstrations for large-scale carbon dioxide injection and storage. 

The storage demonstrations will require a range of geologic settings to ensure that 

we are exploring a variety of options and will include research and development of 

monitoring and verification systems to determine whether CO2 is leaking back into 

the atmosphere or our drinking water supply. 

The bill recognizes that demonstrating an integrated CCS system is critical to developing a commercial application system to sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide—but the bill also recognizes that the R&D efforts on each can and should proceed independently until the technology is ready to be integrated. 

The language in this bill is based in large part upon the recommendations included in an interdisciplinary study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

The Future of Coal, which was released earlier this year. In working to improve the 

bill, my staff worked with many stakeholders, including representatives from the 

coal industry and the environmental community. 

We must begin to address the climate change challenge, but we must not cause 

irreparable harm to our economy and our coal industry in the process. Creating 

safe, sound and economical capture and storage strategies is the key—and H.R. 

1933 will help us get there. 

I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. 

Now, I would like to yield to Chairman Gordon. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Udall. Let me thank you for, 

really, the good work you have put into this legislation. 

Coal is our most abundant domestic fossil fuel, and without it, 

literally, the lights will go out over most of the country. Electric 

utilities across our nation and throughout the world use coal, and 

will continue to use coal. Therefore, it is essential that we develop 

carbon capture techniques that will safely sequester carbon production as a byproduct of coal combustion. 

And I know there are a number of Members on both sides of the 

aisle who have strong interest in conversion of coal to liquids as 

one solution to reducing our dependency on foreign sources. And let 

me say that, following up on Mr. Ehlers’ comments earlier, this is 

an expensive venture, and following up on Mr. Hall’s comments of 

earlier, of not doing something before it is ready. 

I have real concern that we are not ready, this issue is not ripe, 

in terms of the coal-to-liquid. We have had some informal, both 

Member meetings, as well as staff meetings, headed really by Jerry 

Costello, who has a strong interest in this issue, to learn more 

about it. We are going to have additional hearings in the fall on 

the coal-to-liquid issue. I really don’t think that this is appropriate 

now, and I think that if we try to insert an area or an amendment 

at this time, it will only cause problems for a good bill on sequestration. And as a practical matter, I think it is going to be difficult 

to have a successful coal-to-liquid program without a good sequestration aspect to it. I think we can do it today. Coal-to-liquid is not 

ripe, and for that reason, I would hope that we would not pass any 

amendment that would cause a problem for this one. 

And with that, I am, again, I will now ask if anyone else, Dr. 

Ehlers, is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this morning, as 

you mentioned, I gave a magnificent statement about the difficulty 

of coal, carbon sequestration. Unfortunately, I had not emerged 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
66 

from my morning stupor and did not realize that the Majority had 

cleverly switched the order on the agenda, so I ask unanimous consent that my earlier statement be entered in the discussion of this 

bill, rather than the discussion of the previous bill, which we took 

up. 

Chairman GORDON. Certainly. And Dr. Ehlers, I think everyone 

knew what the intent of your comments, and your comments, and 

where they were directed. So, certainly, the unanimous consent is 

accepted. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, if they noticed that, they probably emerged 

from their stupor before I did. Thank you very much. 

Chairman GORDON. Would you like to continue, reiterate that 

statement, now that we are here on the bill, and there might be 

new people here? 

Mr. EHLERS. No, if we can just put my statement at the appropriate place in the record. I was just pointing out that carbon sequestration is going to be extremely difficult, and especially, very 

difficult to make it economically feasible, and that also avoids the 

major source of carbon, which is the transportation sector. 

But for the details, you can go back to my earlier statement. 

Thank you. 

[Mr. Ehlers’ earlier statement follows:] 

Just a comment, and this is not intended to be negative about the bill, but I think 

we have to realize that carbon sequestration has very serious limits. 

First of all, it is virtually impossible to use it to apply to the transportation sector, 

which is probably the largest single sector generating carbon dioxide. Secondly, I 

suspect serious efforts at carbon sequestration are going to be so expensive it is certainly going to make nuclear energy look much more palatable to most people for 

producing electricity, and that immediately removes a major source of carbon dioxide. 

So, I don’t want to throw a cloud over this issue, particularly a CO cloud, but I 

think we have to keep in mind the broad picture that this is going to be a very difficult issue, and although this bill is a good thing to do, don’t expect it to solve very 

many problems. 

Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Without objection, Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Udall for introducing the 

bill. If we are going to continue to use coal, which is our most 

abundant and affordable domestic resource, our companies that 

keep this country powered and running are going to need the technology to enable them to capture carbon dioxide and then sequester 

it. 

I would just like to take this opportunity to applaud DOE and 

the FutureGen Alliance in their continued work on this front. With 

that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Costello is recognized. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Mr. Chairman, let 

me associate myself with the comments made by Ranking Member 

Hall concerning the FutureGen Alliance and the FutureGen Program. As you know, both on this committee and other committees 

in the House, I have strongly supported the FutureGen Project. I 

think it is a worthwhile project, and I was pleased to see the Administration, their initiative on FutureGen, as well as their commitment on funding for the FutureGen Project. 

Let me also associate myself with your remarks concerning both 

sequestration and coal to liquids. I think everyone is aware that 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
67 

the leadership in the House has made it clear that coal-to-liquid 

technology will not be a part of the energy package that will be 

presented and considered in the House in July. 

I am disappointed, frankly, that we are not acting on coal to liquids now. However, I have been meeting with both Chairman Dingell and the Subcommittee Chairman, Chairman Boucher, concerning our commitment to coal to liquids, and we believe that we 

have a commitment, both from the leadership and from various 

Committee Chairs in the House, to move forward with a coal-to-liquid initiative later in the year, and I am pleased, Chairman, that 

you have also made a commitment to work with us on the coal-toliquid technology in the future. 

So, I will associate myself with your remarks, and just say that 

we all know there is no substitute for coal for the next 25 years 

or so. I have talked about the difference in cost of using coal versus 

using natural gas and oil, and what we need to do is to continue 

to look ahead, to determine how we can enhance the use of coal in 

a responsible, environmentally friendly way. So, I thank you for 

your commitment to work with us, both on carbon sequestration 

and coal to liquids in the future, and we will defer this fight on coal 

to liquids to another date in the fall. 

Chairman GORDON. Hopefully, it won’t be a fight. It will be a 

consensus that we could bring together through more hearings, 

more information. 

Mr. Akin is recognized. 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just not to raise a big squalling fit here or anything, but my 

sense is that we would be wise, particularly when we are looking 

at research that we don’t know how much things are going to be 

costing, or how the numbers work out, not to try to choose favorites. I think that that has been a strength of this committee, that 

we have not chosen favorites. So, we say hey, there is a place for 

nukes, there is a place for coal, there is a place for solar energy, 

a place for conservation. I think that that is a strength, because 

that allows the economy to work, and to choose their own favorites, 

maybe depending on the region, or depending on different technologies as they develop over time. 

I am a little concerned, Mr. Chairman, that what you are doing 

with this legislation is you are picking favorites. You are saying we 

like the sequestration, but we don’t like liquefaction. Both of those 

technologies are pretty far out. Both of them appear to be very expensive, but it seems to me we would do better to proceed on a 

broad front, rather than to try to pick favorites. 

I do appreciate the fact that you are willing to look at the liquefaction later in the year, though. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Akin. Well, actually, we are 

following your advice. This bill does not pick favorites. That is why 

we are not getting into coal to liquids. You will find that sequestration is the foundation of any type of new coal technology. And so, 

this is a favorite neutral bill. It is developing right now only the 

base types of research technology that is necessary for any kind of 

coal use. At a later date, when we start getting more information, 

then we can get more specific, if we think so. But right now, this 

is not picking winners or losers. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
68 

Does anyone—— Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, do you yield? 

Chairman GORDON. Oh, certainly. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. AKIN. Because just from an engineering point of view, I am 

not quite getting what you are saying. If you are taking the coal, 

and you are going to take the CO2, you get energy from combining 

the coal with oxygen. Then, you are going to pump that under the 

ground. 

Now, that isn’t the same technology as taking coal, liquefying it, 

and then burning it somewhere, because then, you would have to 

pump the CO2 that comes out of whatever burned it into the 

ground. So, I don’t understand—it doesn’t seem to me that sequestration is a step before liquefaction. That doesn’t make sense to me. 

Chairman GORDON. Not a step before, but a step that goes with. 

You are not going to see, I don’t think, any type of coal-to-liquid 

process that doesn’t have a parallel sequestration element to it. 

Mr. AKIN. So, are you saying we are going to have every car that 

burns some type of liquid, is going to capture the CO2—— Chairman GORDON. No, I am——

Mr. AKIN.—that is coming out of the tailpipe, and pump that into 

the ground? 

Chairman GORDON. No, the process of going coal-to-liquid will 

have a sequestration element to that. 

Mr. AKIN. I am not sure about the science of that, but thank you 

anyway for—— Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher was, I think, the next to 

have his hand up, followed by Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and I certainly believe 

that we should be doing what we can to ensure that our coal reserves are part of America’s energy future. 

However, what we are doing today goes in exactly the opposite 

and wrong direction. This is aimed—and this is one of the reasons 

those of us who are so adamant in our opposition to this theory 

that humankind is causing the climate to change, this is a perfect 

example of the harm that is being done by the perpetuation of that 

false theory. 

We are fixating ourselves on CO. When we look at coal, when we 

should be looking at coal, we should be looking at the byproducts 

that are harmful to human beings. Now, whether it is methane or 

whether it is the particulates, or whatever comes out of using coal 

that hurts human beings, that is what we should be focusing on. 

Instead, what we are doing, as we are today, is we are focusing 

on a way to eliminate the coal emission of CO2. CO2, which is the 

basis, of course, this theory that we have too much CO2 and it is 

changing the climate, so we fix on that, and we leave the health 

of human beings behind. And just to point out what I consider to 

be the absurdity of it all, is CO has never been identified by any 

source, by any recognizable scientific source, as a threat to the 

health of human beings, ever. CO2, in fact, is plant food. The more 

CO2 that is in the air, it is good for plants. It actually causes the 

plants to grow more robustly. Over the world’s history, there have 

been time periods when there is more CO2 in the air, and the CO2

that is in the air, let us note this, that if you imagine a football 

field, the amount of CO2 in the air is the equivalent of six inches 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
69 

on the football field. The amount of human contribution to that six 

inches of the football field is about one half of an inch. 

Now, this minuscule amount that is going on, in terms of CO2, with no discernible impact on the health of human beings, is not 

what we should be looking at. We want to use coal. We want to 

make sure we are energy independent, but by spending money, focusing on sequestering CO2, is exactly the wrong direction to go. 

Let me note also that there are ample scientists, from MIT and 

from major universities throughout the world, who suggest that 

human beings, you know, yes, we are producing CO2, but the CO2

is produced overwhelmingly by nature, and that the warming that 

has taken place in the last 150 years, which many of us believe is 

a natural trend caused by the solar activity, as is going on on Mars 

and all the other planets, that that CO2 that is being produced is 

not, of course, a product of global warming, it is being produced by 

other things, but that more CO2 happens after warming, rather 

than creating the warming. And there are a number of major scientists who have pointed this out, and have not been refuted by the 

scientific community. 

So, this particular legislation, which of course we are being told 

will help us utilize our coal, which I think we should, is exactly 

going in the wrong direction, and this should be defeated. It is a 

waste of money, and it is harmful to the health of human beings. 

While focusing on an idea that we are changing the climate of the 

planet with CO2, which is, of course, refuted by very, very prominent scientific authorities. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Bartlett is recognized. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am an 

enthusiastic supporter of this bill, but I would like to inject a word 

of caution, that we not be overly enthusiastic about the contribution that coal will make to our energy future. 

It is true we have 250 years of coal at current use rates. If you 

increase the rate of use only two percent, which doubles by the way 

in 35 years, four times bigger in 70 years, eight times bigger in 105 

years, then that 250 years of coal, that only two percent increase 

in use rate, shrinks to 85 years. If we now do what Mr. Costello 

would like to do, and what we will be doing in the future, and convert that to a liquid or to a gas, we will need energy to do that. 

If you take that energy from the coal to do that, now you have reduced it to 50 years, and if we share this with the world, and 

today, it is inevitable. There is no way not to share energy with the 

world, because it moves on a world market, then it shrinks to 12.5 

years. So our 250 years of coal at current use rates, if you increase 

its use only two percent, convert it to a gas or a liquid, and share 

it, as we must, with the world, that shrinks to 12.5 years. 

I am a very enthusiastic supporter of this bill, but I didn’t want 

us to have the illusion that if we are able to sequester CO2, and 

therefore, can use coal widely, that that will be the solution to our 

energy future. It will make a valuable contribution, but a limited 

contribution. 

Thank you. 

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I do have a manager’s amendment 

pending, but I would say to the gentleman from California, my 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
70 

good friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, that we will continue to disagree on 

the utility and the reach of climate change theory, but when we 

capture carbon, as I understand it, we capture many of the other 

harmful elements that are present in coal as a solid, whether it be 

mercury, SOΧ, NO2, and other elements that are harmful to human 

health, so there is a collateral benefit when we capture carbon, and 

then sequester what we have captured. 

So, I think, in that sense, what we are attempting to do makes 

good sense when it comes to human health. I would be happy to 

yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question, or 

would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. UDALL. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. To the degree that what you have just stated 

would be the focus, is to the degree that I could be supportive of 

what we are trying to do here. To the degree that we are looking 

at things that will be harmful to people’s health, you know, children are going to be breathing this air their whole life, the things 

that we are putting in the air right now. If the things that you just 

stated were the target, I would be much more supportive, I would 

be very supportive of what we are trying to do. 

It seems to me that, however, we are just playing into a popular, 

you know, item of the day, with CO2, and we do that at the expense of people’s health. But however, if we can do both, I would 

be happy to hear that. 

Mr. UDALL. Reclaiming my time. I am certainly a proponent of 

the no regrets approach to climate change, which is we ought to do 

all we can now to deal with what we think, and again, I think you 

and I have a fundamental difference of opinion here, what is a 

changing climate, and in the process, we generate collateral benefits. 

One of the interesting ones that I have heard recently, and I look 

certainly to your right and further to your right, not politically 

speaking, but on the dais, Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Ehlers, that there 

are new liquid fuel technologies that, in effect, capture carbon, and 

then, that carbon can be used, it is a solid carbon, it is char, can 

be used to fertilize, and to be part of the agricultural cycle, so that 

we also, as you know, are very indebted to petroleum products for 

fertilizer and for production of food in this country. 

So, there are some very interesting technologies that I think will 

emerge——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield for just one moment? 

Mr. UDALL. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, we are going to be eating it rather than 

breathing it, and again, indicates that it is not harmful to your 

health, and I would suggest that is very, coal sequestration is extremely expensive, compared to trying to focus on these other alternatives, which I say, if you are an environmentalist, we want to 

watch out for the environment so people will live better. I agree 

with those type of environmentalists, and——

Mr. UDALL. Reclaiming my time. It has been suggested, Mr. 

Rohrabacher, that human beings are temporary carbon sinks, so 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
71 

perhaps, that is a reason to eat additional carbon. I don’t know. 

You may have to further study that particular situation. 

But Mr. Chairman, we could probably continue this discussion, 

but I think it would be useful to yield back the remainder of my 

time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Udall. I recognize that Mr. 

Rohrabacher is the father of triplets, and certainly, is concerned 

about their health, as we are about all of our children’s health. The 

good news is, that this is one of four bills we are having today. We 

are not just focused solely on this issue. We are going to be talking 

about biofuels and solar and other types of area that will be good 

for those triplets that we all want to see grow up well. 

So, if there is no other discussion, I ask unanimous consent that 

the bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, 

and that the Members proceed with the amendments in the order 

of the roster. Without objection, so ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is a manager’s amendment, 

offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall. Are you ready 

to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1933, offered by Mr. Udall of 

Colorado. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading, and without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best to be 

brief here. 

There are a number of technical changes that are included in the 

manager’s amendment. I didn’t want to go through those, but I 

wanted to give a brief description of the substantive change to the 

carbon dioxide capture demonstration program, and I wanted also 

to clarify the funding levels for the programs in the bill, although 

I would point out that we have not changed the funding levels. 

The amendment, manager’s amendment, as a provision of the 

carbon dioxide capture demonstration section of the bill, to authorize the Secretary of Energy to take actions needed to further integrate the carbon dioxide capture demonstrations with the DOE’s 

large scale CO2 sequestration program. 

Now, this provision comes from discussions with industry and environmental interests, and is intended to encourage the use of CO2

captured in the demonstrations to supply the large volumes of CO2

required under the sequestration demonstration program. And I 

would further add that this provision builds on MIT’s report, The 

Future of Coal, that recommends that the U.S. should establish 

programs to provide operational experience with an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage. H.R. 1933 moves us toward that goal. 

And then, in addition, because we received some questions about 

the funding levels for basic R&D in the bill, my amendment breaks 

out the funding categories, and let me just outline those. The basic 

R&D and field testing would be authorized at $100 million for each 

of Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011, the carbon sequestration demVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:47 Aug 08, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR301.XXX HR301

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
72 

onstration program is funded at $140 million for each of the Fiscal 

Years 2008 to 2011, and the carbon dioxide capture demonstration 

program is funded at $180 million for each of the Fiscal Years from 

2009 to 2012. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for moving this important legislation forward, and for co-sponsoring H.R. 1933. Obviously, I think the amendment, the manager’s amendment, improves the bill, and I would urge my colleagues to support it. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the motion is on the amendment. All in favor say aye. 

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The second amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman 

from Utah, Mr. Matheson. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Mr. MATHESON. I am ready, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1933, offered by Mr. Matheson 

of Utah. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This will be a brief explanation. This amendment is more of a 

clarification to make sure we consider eligibility for different opportunities for geologic formations for sequestration. 

The main candidate, I believe, for sequestration, is going to be 

depleted oil and gas fields, and there are some unique geologic 

characteristics to those that are located in high altitude areas. 

Since I come from the Rocky Mountains, which is a longstanding 

oil and gas producing region of the country, I thought it was important that we just include an amendment to this legislation that just 

expands the eligibility for a high altitude oil and gas field to be 

considered for the testing program. This isn’t a mandate, but it just 

includes that eligibility. 

I just thought it would be helpful to clarify that in the legislation, and that is it, Mr. Chairman. If there is anyone who wants 

to discuss it, otherwise, I will just yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Matheson. 

You know, this is again, this is another example of why work by 

committee is better than work by a few. Mr. Hall just thinks that 

you get oil and gas from the plains, and didn’t think about how altitude, and so, you bring a whole new dimension to this, and again, 

you make this bill a better bill. Does anyone else wish to be recognized? 

If there is no further discussion on the amendment, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The third amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman 

from Arkansas, Mr. Ross. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
73 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1933, offered by Mr. Ross of Arkansas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for bringing the 

Committee together today to consider this important legislation 

that provides federal support for the Department of Energy’s research and development programs for Carbon Capture and Storage 

technology. 

I think we all know that we have about a 250 year supply of coal 

in America. There is a lot of debate over whether we will ever be 

able to fully utilize that in an environmentally friendly manner. I 

am not here to debate the aspects of that today. I will say this, that 

the Fayetteville Shale, which is a natural gas find in Arkansas, 

that is going to surpass the Barnett Shale in Texas in size, no one 

knew it existed 50 years ago, 20 years ago we couldn’t have recovered it in a environmentally friendly manner, 10 years ago, it was 

too costly to recover, and now, a lot of folks in Arkansas that grew 

up with very little are making a lot of money as a result of that 

Fayetteville Shale. 

My hope is that over the next years, we will be able to do the 

same thing with coal, finding a way, not utilizing 1940 or 1950 

technology, but utilizing 21st Century technology, to be able to utilize it an environmentally friendly manner, which helps make our 

nation more energy independent. 

My amendment simply does this. It works to help our nation 

achieve this goal by establishing a research and development grant 

program for universities and colleges to research Carbon Capture 

and Sequestration, in conjunction with enhanced oil and mineral 

recovery. The amendment authorizes $10 million for the Secretary of Energy to award five grants competitively for projects submitted by 

universities to research Carbon Capture and Storage, in combination with enhanced oil recovery. This study will help us to determine whether, by injecting and storing the CO2 underground, can 

we do that and recover significant quantities of domestic oil, all 

while addressing global warming. 

This amendment will provide universities the tools to research 

and develop ways to see if, in fact, this can work, and can lead to 

an environmentally friendly way to utilize the 250 year supply of 

coal we have in this country. The amendment also designates that 

at least two of the grants should go to rural or agricultural-based 

institutions that offer programs in the environmental sciences, to 

promote diversity among the projects, and ensure that any environmental impacts of this technology are thoroughly examined. Additionally, the reason for this, most coal mines that we know about 

are not in urban areas. They are in rural areas. 

As our nation looks for new sources of energy, I don’t believe that 

we can forget about those that we currently possess. This amendment will simply allow research and development to occur in colleges and universities, to be awarded by the Department of Energy 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
74 

in a competitive manner, to hopefully find ways to use coal in an 

environmentally friendly manner, and making America more energy independent. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would, that explains my amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Ross. Does Mr. Hall or anyone else from 

the Texas delegation wish to respond to the slur of Mr. Ross on the 

size of Texas? 

Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROSS. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. Well, Mr. Ross and I share Texarkana, and while he 

has a lot of Arkansans who are on the Texas side, I have a lot Texans who are on the Arkansas side. And I hope Mr. Ross doesn’t forget that. And my mother was born in Cave City, and I have a good 

many people that vote in your district. Up to now, they have all 

voted for you, Mr. Ross. 

Chairman GORDON. Let us just say that Arkansas and Texas 

both share a large portfolio there. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The 

ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The fourth amendment on the roster is offered by the gentlelady 

from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am ready to proceed. 

My amendment is at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1933, offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain her 

amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for considering this 

amendment. 

Fossil fueled power with electric plants are one of the largest 

sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, responsible for roughly 40 percent of our country’s overall greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

In order to continue using our large supplies of coal and other 

fossil fuels to power our economy in a carbon constrained world, we 

must learn to capture the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel powered 

electric plants. For this reason, my amendment would revise the 

bill to place special emphasis on demonstration projects to capture 

CO2 from these plants, as opposed to other facilities. I know these 

plants oh so well. We have got plenty of them up in our area. 

The amendment focuses on a new demonstration grant program 

to develop technologies to capture carbon dioxide emissions from 

electric power plants. It would require at least two of the projects 

that demonstrate capture technology to take place at the fossil fuel 

powered electric facilities. This amendment would ensure that our 

attention is concentrated on the areas of greatest opportunity, so 

that we can leverage the lessons learned to have the greatest posVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:47 Aug 08, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR301.XXX HR301

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
75 

sible positive impact throughout our nation’s power production system. 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Udall, for his 

collaboration in devising this amendment, and urge my colleagues 

to support it. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for my amendment to H.R. 1933, the Department of 

Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act 

of 2007. 

Fossil fuel-powered electric plants are one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide 

emissions in the United States, responsible for roughly 40 percent of our country’s 

overall greenhouse gas emissions. 

In order to continue using our large supplies of coal and other fossil fuels to power 

our economy in a carbon constrained world, we must learn to capture the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel powered electric plants. 

For this reason, my amendment would revise the bill to place special emphasis 

on demonstration projects to capture CO2 from these plants, as opposed to other facilities. 

The amendment focuses on a new demonstration grant program to develop technologies to capture carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants. 

It would require at least two of the projects that demonstrate capture technology 

to take place at fossil-fuel powered electric facilities. 

This amendment will ensure that our attention is concentrated on the area of 

greatest opportunity so that we can leverage the lessons learned to have the greatest possible positive impact throughout our nation’s power production system. 

I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Udall for his collaboration in devising this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Any other discussion? 

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Bilbray is recognized. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of the amendment. 

And let me just say that I think we look at the history of emission reductions in the last 40, 50 years in this country, and there 

has been so much talk about mobile sources, automobile emissions, 

but where the great breakthroughs have happened, the most costeffective reduction in emissions across this country have been on 

stationary sources, and stationary sources are the low lying fruit. 

It is where we should aim for first. It is where we are going to get 

the biggest bang for the buck, and I would strongly support that 

we focus on the electric generation facilities, because that is where 

we going to find the best and the easiest place to make the big improvements, and be not diverted away over on a lot of these mobile 

sources, that look sexy, but are not going to have the impact in the 

reductions available that we are going to see in a very short time 

for stationary sources. 

So, I would support the gentlelady’s amendment, and I yield 

back. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 

aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 

to. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
76 

The fifth amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. McCaul. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Mr. MCCAUL. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1933, offered by Mr. McCaul of 

Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I applaud your efforts 

on Carbon Capture and Sequestration on this bill. 

As Lamar Smith and I know, the University of Texas has been 

very engaged in this area in research and development. I think it 

is a very promising area. My amendment clarifies, by adding CoalTo-Liquid (CTL) facilities to the list of facilities that are eligible for 

the large scale carbon sequestration demonstrations provided for in 

this bill. 

Although there are currently no coal-to-liquid facilities operating 

in the United States currently, the Department of Energy has informed us that there are at least 16 of these plants being planned 

by companies, local governments, and Indian tribes. When these facilities become operational, they will naturally become sources of 

carbon dioxide emissions, and it seems to me if they are going to 

be emitting carbon dioxide, we ought to be capturing that as well. 

Adding Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology could cut 

these carbon emissions from these facilities almost in half, which 

would put them in line with the emissions from petroleum-based 

diesel. The bill before us right now is intended to study the challenges, and develop technology related to safe, large scale sequestration of CO2. With these new CTL facilities already being 

planned, it makes good sense to me to add these new sources of 

large scale CO2 emissions to the list of sources that qualify for the 

study under this bill. 

And as the Chairman pointed out, this bill should apply to any 

type of coal use, and I think that would also apply on coal-to-liquid. 

This is good for human health, as one of the other Members stated 

earlier. As I look at the definition in the bill, it talks about facilities, and it says consideration must be given to the capture of carbon dioxide from industrial facilities. 

It seems to me that a coal-to-liquid facility already falls under 

this definition in the reading of this bill, and the bill does go further to delineate specific facilities it should apply to, such as electric energy from fossil fuels, refining petroleum, manufacturing 

iron and steel, manufacturing cement, and chemicals, ethanol, and 

fertilizer plants. So it seems to me that this simply clarifies the 

bill, and makes clear that the coal-to-liquid facilities, which are 

going to built, and which will be emitting carbon dioxide, will be 

able to capture that carbon dioxide, and protect human health, and 

further this program. 

And with that, I yield back. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
77 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. Let me say to Mr. McCaul, I 

know this is a very thoughtful amendment, and as I had mentioned 

earlier, though, we have started the process of trying to educate 

ourselves more on the coal-to-liquid issue. 

I simply think we are not there yet to develop what I would call 

a consensus and a really thoughtful position here. We are going to 

have additional hearings, gather more information in the fall. 

Hopefully, we then, can again bring that consensus around, and I 

think that your amendment is premature at this time, and would 

hope that again, the information that we learn from this sequestration will be something that will be what you might call technique 

neutral, in terms of whatever the use for coal might be in the future. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, I guess we should go to Mr. Hall first. 

Mr. HALL. I will be very brief. 

I think this could help the Chairman and others on that side 

with their education, maybe just call this a little summer course, 

you know, getting a head start. 

I think it is a good amendment, and briefly, we are going to support it over here. We wish you would accept it, but if you can’t accept it, then we will accept the challenge of change. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Udall is recognized. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Hall, I think perhaps we are going to have to forego summer school, but maybe we 

can pick this up when first semester starts in the fall, is what I 

heard the Chairman suggesting. 

I just want to associate myself with the Chairman’s remarks. 

CTL remains experimental technology, but as we have, I think, 

made the case, and MIT, in particular, made the case, the need for 

carbon sequestration technology is much more urgent, and the 

Chairman underscored that we will address CTL, and I wanted to 

commend my good friend from Texas, Mr. McCaul, for his interest 

in this area, and I know we will take the time to better understand 

how we could apply these technologies at some other time. 

But in the context of this piece of legislation, I would urge my 

colleagues to oppose the amendment. Somewhat reluctantly, but 

nonetheless, I would ask you to oppose it. 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Move to strike. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I do think this is an 

important issue, and I do look forward to this committee taking on 

a robust effort, as you have discussed, in terms of really studying 

this issue, because I do think there is interest on both sides of the 

aisle, to see if we can make this technology work. 

I share a lot of the interest that Mr. McCaul has in submitting 

this amendment, and so, I just appreciate your statement, that you 

want to take this on in a robust way , and have this committee 

really dive into this issue, and I think there is interest on both 

sides of the aisle to really dive in. 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. MATHESON. Yes. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
78 

Chairman GORDON. This committee has not been shy this year 

in trying to be aggressive in a lot of areas. Mr. Costello came to 

me earlier this year, and said that he would like for the Science 

Committee to take the lead in letting Resources, Energy and Commerce, to join us, in terms of a variety of hearings. 

We started the process earlier. You know, I think, I believe we 

are the only committee that has had any kind of hearings, formally 

or informally, on this issue. And I am not sure where it is going, 

but I want the Science Committee to be on top of it, and we will 

take that lead this fall. 

Does anyone else wish to be recognized? If not, the vote is on the 

amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I ask for recorded vote. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon. 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Baird. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Mr. Lampson. 

Mr. LAMPSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lampson votes no. Ms. Giffords. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. Mr. Kanjorski. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley. 

Ms. HOOLEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes no. Mr. Rothman. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Honda votes no. Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Ross. 

Mr. ROSS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ross votes no. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Carnahan. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
79 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Melancon. 

Mr. MELANCON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon votes no. Mr. Hill. 

Chairman GORDON. Do we need another lesson here? Go ahead, 

Charlie. Help her one more time. 

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon. 

Chairman GORDON. Almost. We all have—— The CLERK. I am getting close. Okay. Mr. Hill. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Okay. Mr. Melancon. Thank you. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith votes aye. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. Ms. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bonner. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Finney. 

Mr. FINNEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Finney votes aye. Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. Reichert. 

Mr. REICHERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert votes no. Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Gingrey. 

Mr. GINGREY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey votes aye. Mr. Bilbray. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. Mr. Adrian Smith. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
80 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Has Mr. Mitchell been recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell is not recorded. 

Mr. MITCHELL. No vote, please. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone else? Mr. Wilson. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson is not recorded. 

Chairman GORDON. I think Mr. Wilson, just—ask him again. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there——

Mr. HALL. Ask Mr. Melancon again. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone else? We want to be sure everybody has a chance to get recognized on this. If not, the Clerk 

will report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 22 vote no, 15 Members vote aye. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
81 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933qq.eps
82 

Chairman GORDON. Are there other amendments? If no, then the 

vote is on the bill, H.R. 1933, as amended. All those in favor will 

say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes 

have it. 

Ms. Johnson is now recognized to offer a motion. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we report 

this bill to the Full House, with the recommendation that it pass. 

I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 1933, as amended, to the House, with the recommendation that the bill do pass. 

And further, I move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report, and make necessary technical and conforming 

changes, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring 

the bill before the House for consideration. 

Chairman GORDON. The question is on the motion to report the 

bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying 

aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The bill is favorably reported. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid open the table. 

Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit 

supplemental, Minority, or additional views on the measure, ending 

Monday, July the 2nd, at 9:00 a.m. 

I move, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to 

adopt and pass H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 

2007, as amended. Without objection, so ordered. 

I thank all of you, the hard core that are still here. We had a 

good day. Four more bills of a dozen that will go into a good Energy 

Bill next month, and again, a bipartisan, everybody go home and 

take credit. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
(83) 

Appendix: 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT MARKUP REPORT, 

H.R. 1933 AS REPORTED, AMENDMENT ROSTER


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
84 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP 

JUNE 21, 2007 

H.R. 1933, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2007 

I. Purpose 

The Purpose of H.R. 1933 is to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize and improve the carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program of the Department of Energy. 

II. Background and Need for Legislation 

Approximately 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United States comes 

from coal. According to Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and its territories were 6,008.6 

million metric tons (MMT) in 2005. In the United States, most CO2 is emitted as 

a result of the combustion of fossil fuels. In particular, the electric power sector accounts for nearly 40 percent of the CO2 emissions in the U.S., according to EIA. For 

the foreseeable future, the U.S. will continue to rely on coal to meet our energy demand. With that understanding, the challenge lies in balancing our environmental 

goals with our energy needs. Taking a sensible approach to address climate change 

will require technological advancements. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

(MIT) report, The Future of Coal (2007), concludes ‘‘that CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology that would reduce CO2 emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world’s pressing energy needs.’’ (page 

x) 

Crafting a CCS strategy that makes sense for the United States calls for an understanding of the technical challenges that exist with the development, demonstration and deployment of carbon dioxide capture technologies and the development of 

safe, effective large-scale containment of carbon dioxide. The MIT Report points out 

that there is no operational experience with carbon capture from coal plants and 

emphasizes the absence of operational experience with an integrated sequestration 

operation. The MIT report states that ‘‘the priority objective with respect to coal 

should be the successful large-scale demonstration of the technical, economic, and 

environmental performance of the technologies that make up all of the major components of a large-scale integrated CCS system—capture, transportation and storage.’’

(page xi) H.R. 1933 follows that recommendation and reauthorizes the Department 

of Energy’s research and development and field testing programs, and specifically 

authorizes large-scale demonstrations of both carbon dioxide capture technologies 

and carbon dioxide containment. 

III. Subcommittee Actions 

On April 18, 2007, Rep. Mark Udall introduced H.R. 1933 which serves as a companion bill to S.962 introduced in the Senate on March 22, 2007 by Sen. Jeff Bingaman. Since introduction, five additional co-sponsors have signed onto the bill. 

The Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on Tuesday, May 15, 

2007 to hear testimony on the Prospects for Advanced Coal Technologies: Efficient 

Energy Production, Carbon Capture and Sequestration to gain a better understanding of the programmatic needs at the Department of Energy to address the 

challenge of climate change. The following five witnesses testified at the hearing: 

• Mr. Carl O. Bauer, Director of the Department of Energy’s National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, a national laboratory owned and operated by the Department of Energy. In his current position as Director of NETL, he oversees 

the implementation of major science and technology development programs to 

resolve the environmental, supply and reliability constraints of producing and 

using fossil resources, including advanced coal-fueled power generation, carbon sequestration, and environmental control for the existing fleet of fossil 

steam plants. 

• Dr. Robert L. Finley, Director Energy and Earth Resources Center for Illinois 

State Geological Survey with specialization in fossil energy resources. He is 

currently heading a regional carbon sequestration partnership in the Illinois 

Basin aimed at addressing concerns with geological carbon management. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
85 

• Mr. Michael Rencheck, Senior Vice President for Engineering Projects and 

Field Services at American Electric Power headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. 

He is responsible for engineering, regional maintenance and shop service organizations, projects and construction, and new generation development. He 

will discuss ongoing projects at AEP and can talk to plant efficiencies and retrofitting facilities to capture carbon. 

• Mr. Stuart Dalton, Director, Generation at the Electric Power Research Institute. His current research activities cover a wide variety of generation options 

with special focus on emerging generation, coal-based generation, emission 

controls and CO2 capture and storage. He also helped to create the EPRI Coal 

Fleet for Tomorrow program. 

• Mr. Gardiner Hill, Director of Technology in Alternative Energy Technology, 

is responsible for BP group-wide aspects of CO2 Capture and Storage technology development, demonstration and deployment. He also is the BP manager responsible for the BP/Ford/Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative at 

Princeton University as well as the BP manager responsible for the BP/Harvard partnership on the Energy Technology Innovation Project. He posses 20 

years of technical and managerial experience which is directly relevant to 

technology, business and project management. 

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider H.R. 1933 on 

June 21, 2007 and consider the following two amendments to the bill: 

1. Rep. Udall offered a manager’s amendment which made a number of technical and substantive changes to H.R. 1933. The amendment adds a new section to the bill authorizing three, but no more than five, demonstrations of 

carbon dioxide capture technologies. It further includes an authorization for 

funding these carbon dioxide capture demonstrations at $180 million per 

year for four years starting in Fiscal Year 2009. It increases the funding 

level for the large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration demonstrations to $140 

million per year for four years beginning in Fiscal Year 2008. The amendment defines the large-scale demonstrations of carbon dioxide sequestration 

as one million tons of carbon dioxide annually or a scale that demonstrably 

exceeds the necessary thresholds in key geologic transients to validate the 

ability to continuously inject large quantities of carbon dioxide for a number 

of years. The amendment encourages the integration of the storage demonstrations with the capture technology demonstrations. This is intended to 

provide operational experience with an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at scale. 

The amendment includes an authorization for the National Academy of 

Sciences to conduct an independent review and oversight of the injection program to ensure its benefits are maximized. The amendment also authorizes 

the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development of 

EPA to conduct a research program to determine what procedures may be 

necessary to protect public health, safety and the environment from impacts 

that may be associated with sequestration of greenhouse gases. Finally, the 

amendment includes and authorization of appropriation for Fiscal Years 

2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 to fund the Department of Energy’s fundamental 

R&D at the laboratory scale to allow for continued examination of new approaches on carbon dioxide capture and sequestration. The amendment was 

agreed to by voice vote. 

2. Mr. Costello offered an amendment which authorizes a study by the National 

Academy of Sciences to define an interdisciplinary program to train a workforce to support development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration. The study will define curricula for undergraduate and graduate programs that would lead to degrees in geological sequestration science. The 

amendment also establishes a competitive grant program through which institutions of higher education can apply for four-year grants to support start 

up costs for integrated geological carbon sequestration programs as well as 

internships for graduate students in geological sequestration science. The 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

IV. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill 

H.R. 1933 provides federal support for the Department of Energy in cooperation 

with its seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership programs to demonstrate 

both large-volume sequestration tests for geological containment of carbon dioxide 

and carry out at least three demonstrations of large-scale capture of carbon dioxide. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
86 

The bill will provide for the testing of a variety of geological settings for carbon dioxide storage and it will accelerate the demonstration of the three main categories of 

carbon dioxide capture technologies bringing them closer to commercial application. 

And, H.R. 1933 aims to integrate the carbon dioxide capture with the large-scale 

storage demonstration in order to gain the operational experience with an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at scale. In 

addition, the bill provides for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a research program to determine what procedures may be necessary to protect 

public health, safety and the environment with regard to the long-term storage of 

carbon dioxide in geological reservoirs. Also, the bill authorizes the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent review and oversight of the carbon dioxide injection program to ensure its benefits are maximized. The bill also authorizes 

the National Academy of Sciences to define an interdisciplinary program to train a 

workforce to support the development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration systems. The bill also establishes a competitive grant program for institutions of higher learning to access start up costs for integrated geological carbon sequestration programs and implement internships for graduate students in geological 

sequestration science. 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as reported by the Subcommittee 

Section 1. Short Title 

‘‘Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Act of 2007.’’

Section 2. Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Program. 

Directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out fundamental science and engineering 

research to develop and document the performance of new approaches to capture 

and store carbon dioxide, or convert carbon dioxide into products that lead to overall 

reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. The fundamental research shall be applied 

to energy technology development activities and the field testing of carbon sequestration activities. 

Requires the Secretary to promote regional carbon sequestration partnerships to 

conduct geologic sequestration field testing of the capture technologies and the injection and monitoring practices in a variety of geologic settings including operating 

oil and gas field, depleted oil and gas fields, unmineable coal seams, saline formations, and deep geologic systems to extract heat from geothermal resources. 

The field tests are aimed at advancing and validating geophysical tools, analysis 

and modeling used to monitor, predict, and verify carbon dioxide containment. And, 

the Secretary is authorized to promulgate policies, procedures, requirements and 

guidance to ensure that the objectives of the field testing are met in large-scale testing and deployment activities for carbon capture and storage funded by the Department. 

In addition, the bill authorizes seven large-volume sequestration tests for geologic 

containment of carbon dioxide. The Secretary is directed to select meritorious proposals on a competitive basis giving preference to proposals from partnerships 

among industrial, academic, and government entities. The Secretary is directed to 

consider a variety of geological formations across the United States and require 

characterization and modeling of candidate formations. The bill integrates the storage demonstrations with the demonstration of carbon dioxide capture technologies 

by giving preference to carbon dioxide captured from coal-fired electric generating 

plants to provide operational experience with an integrated system of capture, 

transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at scale. This preference shall not 

delay the implementation of the large-scale sequestration tests. 

H.R. 1933 defines large-scale injection of carbon dioxide as one million tons of carbon dioxide annually or a scale that demonstrably exceeds the necessary thresholds 

in key geologic transients to validate the ability to continuously inject large quantities of carbon dioxide for a number of years. The large-scale carbon dioxide containment demonstrations shall be considered research and development and meet 

the cost-sharing requirements of Section 988(b) of Energy Policy Act of 2005—the 

Secretary shall require not less than 20 percent of the cost of a research or development activity to be provided by a non-federal source. 

The bill directs the Secretary to carry out three, but no more than five, demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture technologies. These demonstrations should include the three main approaches to carbon dioxide capture: pre-combustion, postcombustion and oxycombustion. Any award under this carbon dioxide capture demonstration program is available only for the portion of the project that carries out 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
87 

the large-scale capture (including purification and compression) of carbon dioxide, 

as well as the cost of transportation and injection of carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide capture demonstrations shall meet the cost-share requirements of Section 988 

(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or the Secretary shall require that not less than 

50 percent of the cost of the demonstration be provided by a non-federal source. 

Authorizes appropriations of $240,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 

through 2011 for research and field testing as well as the large-scale carbon dioxide 

containment demonstrations. 

Authorizes appropriations of $180,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 

through 2012 for the demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture technologies. 

Section 3. Review of Large-Scale Programs. 

Authorizes the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent review 

and oversight of the injection program to ensure its benefits are maximized. Not 

later than January 1, 2012, the Secretary is directed to transmit to the Congress 

a report on the results of such review and oversight. 

Section 4. Safety Research. 

Authorizes the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a research program to determine what 

procedures may be necessary to protect public health, safety, and the environment 

from impacts that may be associated with capture, injection, and sequestration of 

greenhouse gases in subterranean reservoirs. Authorizes $5,000,000 for each fiscal 

year to carry out this research program. 

Section 5. Geological Sequestration Training and Research. 

Directs the Secretary of Energy to enter into an arrangement with the National 

Academy of Sciences to undertake a study that defines an interdisciplinary program 

to train a workforce to support the Nation’s capability to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from anthropogenic sources, and develops curricula for undergraduate 

and graduate curricula that lead to degrees in geological sequestration science. The 

study will establish guidelines for universities wishing to implement geological sequestration science programs and make recommendations on the budget needed to 

implement the grant program also authorized in this section. The Secretary is directed to submit a report to Congress providing the results of the National Academy 

of Sciences study. Authorizes $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 to carry out this section. 

Authorizes the Secretary of Energy, through the National Energy Technology Laboratory, to establish a competitive grant program through which institutions of 

higher education can apply for four-year grants to support salary and startup costs 

for newly designated faculty positions in an integrated geological carbon sequestration science program and internships for graduate students in geological sequestration science. The grants are renewable for up to two additional three-year terms and 

encouraged to interface with the research of the Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnerships operated by the Department of Energy to provide internships and 

practical training in carbon capture and geological sequestration. Authorizes such 

sums as necessary to carry out the grant program. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
88 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933t.eps
89 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933u.eps
90 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933v.eps
91 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933w.eps
92 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933x.eps
93 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933y.eps
94 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933z.eps
95 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933aa.eps
96 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933bb.eps
97 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933cc.eps
98 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933dd.eps
99 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933ee.eps
100 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933ff.eps
101 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933gg.eps
102 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933s.eps
103 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933hh.eps
104 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933ii.eps
105 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933jj.eps
106 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933kk.eps
107 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933ll.eps
108 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933mm.eps
109 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933nn.eps
110 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933oo.eps
111 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTShr1933pp.eps