U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–807 PDF 2008

H.R. 6258, THE CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE 

EARLY DEPLOYMENT ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 10, 2008 

Serial No. 110–134 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

SUE D. SHERIDAN, Chief Counsel 

JOHN W. JIMISON, Counsel 

RACHEL BLESHMAN, Legislative Clerk 

DAVID MCCARTHY, Minority Counsel 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 17 

Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, prepared statement ................................................................. 18 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 19 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 21 

Hon. Doris Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 22 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 23 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 24 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 25 

Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement ................................................................................... 26 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 27 

Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 28 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 28 

WITNESSES

Michael G. Morris, Chairman, President, and Chief Operating Officer, American Electric Power .............................................................................................. 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 217 

Edward S. Rubin, The Alumni Professor of Environmental Engineering and 

Science, Carnegie Mellon University .................................................................. 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 223 

Steven Specker, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric Power Research Institute .................................................................................................... 106 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 108 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 225 

James Y. Kerr, II, Commissioner, North Carolina Utilities Commission ........... 117 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 120 

Eugene M. Trisko, Counsel to United Mine Workers of America ........................ 142 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 144 

Michael Goo, Climate Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense Counsel .......................................................................................................................... 159 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 161 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 6258 .................................................................................................................. 4 

Page

VI 

‘‘The Energy Challenge: Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal,’’ 

Matthew L. Wald, The New York Times, May 30, 2008, submitted by 

Ms. Blackburn ...................................................................................................... 212 

‘‘More Power Cuts Loom in China This Summer,’’ Sherry Su, The Wall 

Street Journal, July 10, 2008, submitted by Mr. Upton ................................... 216 

(1) 

H.R. 6258, THE CARBON CAPTURE AND 

STORAGE EARLY DEPLOYMENT ACT 

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Boucher 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Boucher, Butterfield, Barrow, 

Markey, Doyle, Harman, Inslee, Baldwin, Matheson, Matsui, Dingell (ex officio), Upton, Whitfield, Shimkus, Myrick, Blackburn, and 

Barton (ex officio). 

Staff present: Bruce Harris, Laura Vaught, Ben Hengst, Chris 

Treanor, Rachel Bleshman, Alex Haurek, Erin Bzymek, David 

McCarthy, Amanda Mertens-Campbell, Andrea Spring, and Garrett 

Golding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. BOUCHER. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Our hearing this morning focuses on H.R. 6258, the Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act, which I introduced in 

June along with a bipartisan group of members of this committee. 

I want to acknowledge and thank our colleagues, Mr. Upton, the 

Ranking Member of this subcommittee, Mr. Barton, the Ranking 

Member of the full Commerce Committee, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Hill, Mr. Towns, and Mr. 

Terry for their patronage of the measure. 

The bill creates a non-governmental fund operating under the 

auspices of the widely respected Electric Power Research Institute 

for the purpose of accelerating the early deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. It is a response to recommendations from a broad range of individuals and groups including the Advanced Coal Technology Working Group that Congress create a Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment 

Fund. The Advanced Coal Technology Working Group, to which I 

previously referred, an advisory committee to the Environmental 

Protection Agency, is comprised of a broad cross-section of energy 

and environmental stakeholders and their support of this measure 

is particularly noteworthy. Its final report issued in January of this 

year unanimously recommended the early creation of a CCS deVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:31 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-134 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
2 

ployment fund and this legislation is in part a response to that recommendation. 

Carbon capture and storage is a two-step process for reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions by capturing and injecting underground 

the carbon dioxide that is emitted through the combustion of fossil 

fuels including petroleum, natural gas, and coal. It will have its 

most prominent application in the electric utility sector where 72 

percent of the Nation’s electric power is generated through fossil 

fuel use. Fifty-one percent of electricity is coal-fired, 20 percent is 

reliant on natural gas, and 1.6 percent on petroleum. Given our extensive reliance on fossil fuels and the current unavailability of sufficient alternatives to replace them, their continued use is essential 

to our long-term economic security. The bill before the Committee 

addresses this clear need by enabling facilities that use fossil fuels 

to continue to do so when a mandatory progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions becomes law, and it is this committee’s intention to produce that mandatory control measure. 

Under its terms, power plants and industrial emitters of greenhouse gases will be required to lessen their CO2 emissions in accordance with a schedule that is set in the statute. As CO2 constraints become ever more severe, emitters will turn to CCS methods in order to meet the CO2 reduction schedule while continuing 

to use the fuels upon which they are reliant and for which in the 

foreseeable future there will be little in the way of affordable alternatives. The CCS Early Deployment Fund therefore is a necessary 

first step for the passage and implementation of a cap-and-trade 

program to address the challenge of climate change. 

When mandatory CO2 controls go into effect, greenhouse gas reduction requirements will begin in the early years. It is important 

that between the time when the first controls apply and the time 

when CCS becomes widely available, the reduction requirements be 

such that they can be achieved by fossil fuel-based emitters without the necessity that they abandon their existing fuel use. In 

those early years, prior to the general availability of CCS, coal 

users in particular would achieve CO2 reductions through approaches such as achieving new efficiencies, making offsetting investments and activities such as forest protection and expansion 

and the shift to no-till agriculture by farmers as well as by purchasing emission allowances from other emitters. As soon as CCS 

technologies are forecast to be generally available, the CO2 reduction requirements will become ever more stringent since the larger 

reductions can then be achieved by fossil fuel users without abandoning their fuel choice. Therefore, the sooner CCS technologies are 

made available, the sooner the more significant CO2 reductions can 

be required under a cap-and-trade schedule. 

The bill before the Committee will accelerate the time when CCS 

becomes generally available. While there are some commercial CCS 

projects in operation today, they are small in scale and they are 

used for enhancing oil recovery. Further research, development and 

demonstration projects are necessary for the permanent storage underground of large quantities of CO2 in storage media of various 

kinds in widely dispersed geographic locations around the Nation. 

There are simply not enough oil fields to meet the national need 

for large-scale CO2 storage. 

3 

In order to accelerate the deployment of CCS technologies, the 

Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act authorizes the 

establishment of a Carbon Storage Research Corporation. The Nation’s fossil fuel-based electricity distribution utilities would be authorized to hold a referendum for the creation of the corporation. 

If the referendum results in approval by representatives of twothirds of the fossil fuel-based electricity delivered to retail consumers, the corporation will be established. It will assess fees on 

distribution utilities for all fossil fuel-based electricity that is delivered to retail customers. The assessment will be applied to electricity generated from coal, natural gas, and oil and will reflect the 

relative CO2 emission rates for each fuel. The assessment will total 

approximately $1 billion annually and the legislation specifies that 

distribution utilities will be allowed to recovery the costs of that fee 

from retail customers resulting in roughly a $10 to $12 annual increase in residential electricity rates. That sum can be viewed as 

a modest investment today by these electricity users in their longterm ability to continue to purchase low-cost electricity. 

I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 

working with us as we structure the legislation and I look forward 

to our continued work together as we process it through this committee and through the full House. The Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act enjoys bipartisan, industry, and labor 

support and will enable the continued use of our Nation’s most inexpensive and abundant resources for fuel generation when a mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reduction program is implemented for this country. 

Today’s witnesses will provide valuable testimony regarding the 

legislation including some very productive comments on ways that 

it can be strengthened as the bill moves through the legislative 

process. I welcome their testimony and thank them for being with 

us this morning. 

[H.R. 6258 follows:] 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Mr. BOUCHER. At this time I recognize the ranking member of 

the subcommittee and original cosponsor of the measure, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly want to 

thank you for holding this hearing this morning on the Carbon 

Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act. This is bipartisan legislation, as you noted, and is evidence that the Republicans and 

Democrats indeed can work together towards commonsense solutions to effectively combat climate change, solutions that will both 

protect jobs and keep energy costs down. I appreciate your willingness to work with members on our side to draft this very important 

legislation and we certainly look forward to more bipartisan cooperation on these important issues down the road. 

I see this legislation not as a first step but rather as a building 

block on what we have already done to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The bill is yet another component of a no-regrets approach 

to tackle the problem of climate change while simultaneously be 

mindful of our economy and domestic energy security. Along with 

advancing a renaissance in nuclear power, if you combine this legislation with what we have already done on lighting standards, 

CAFE, appliance standards, building standards, and others, we are 

talking about major emission reductions without cap-and-trade. 

Energy prices drive our economy. As the price of gasoline has 

skyrocketed due in part to policies that limit access to American 

energy resources, it is absolutely critical that electricity rates do 

not follow suit. For decades, opponents of American-made energy 

have fought to block domestic oil production, and as a result, we 

import nearly 70 percent of our oil and prices reach new highs almost every day. The new target is coal, America’s most affordable 

and abundant energy resource, and if we block American coal like 

we blocked American oil, our electricity rates will soon match and 

exceed what we are paying for gasoline. Working American families 

cannot afford such irrational policies. It is imperative that we continue to take advantage of our Nation’s vast coal reserves which 

have the promise to produce clean and affordable power for generations. In our quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect 

the environment, we must promote exciting new clean coal technologies that will not only keep costs down for consumers but also 

foster new jobs in a strong economy. These technologies exhibit 

great promise and encouraging advancements in carbon capture 

will be able to responsibly fortify our Nation’s energy supply with 

American-made energy and protect the pocketbooks of our Nation’s 

consumers as well. 

An added benefit of CCS is that it can be and currently is being 

conducted for enhanced oil recovery. According to a DOE assessment conducted in 10 known domestic oil basins, not the entire 

United States, an estimated 89 billion barrels of additional oil 

could be technically recoverable by applying this state-of-the-art 

CO2 technology. This is truly, I think, a win-win. Let us be honest: 

Our constituents are interested in what we are doing in Congress 

to address record oil prices and enhance our overall energy secuVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:31 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-134 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
18 

rity. Global warming is lower on that list yet the legislation we 

have examined prior to this hearing would not only send energy 

prices higher but also make the United States less energy secure. 

This legislation, I think, will protest the environment as well as 

our economy. 

There are members of this committee who have introduced legislation that would block any new coal-fired power plant without 

CCS. My colleagues who are serious about reducing emissions 

while keeping energy affordable, I would ask them to join us in cosponsoring this legislation that we are discussing today. Surprisingly, none of the 15 cosponsors of that bill have cosponsored this 

bill, which would ensure CCS becomes available. By ensuring carbon capture and storage, we won’t need to set arbitrary mandates 

that will send electricity rates through the roof and American jobs 

overseas. By using the legislative approach in this bill, we can 

avoid a costly cap-and-trade regime that will have no impact on 

emissions from the developing world. Instead, we will advance CCS 

technology that will create U.S. jobs and provide the opportunity 

to export. U.S. energy security will be strengthened and we will be 

able to help China and India obtain clean and affordable energy 

and working Americans will be better off. I would urge my colleagues to cosponsor the legislation. 

I again thank you for having this hearing today and I would 

yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Upton. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is recognized for 

3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to begin my remarks by welcoming a constituent 

who has traveled here to Washington to share his expertise with 

us. Dr. Edward Rubin is a professor at Carnegie Mellon University 

in Pittsburgh. He has done extensive work on carbon capture and 

sequestration and we are all looking forward to his insights as we 

try to facilitate the rollout of these critical technologies. 

As Congress moves forward to develop climate change legislation, 

it is critical that we ensure that our energy portfolio is as diverse 

as possible as we attempt to address the dual concerns of global 

warming and energy independence. We must develop new alternatives like solar, wind, and hydropower but we must also work to 

ensure that we are able to use the fuels that currently power our 

country in the most environmentally sustainable way possible. 

Today, Mr. Chairman, over 50 percent of the United States and 

over 60 percent of the world is powered by coal. Pennsylvania alone 

has a 250-year supply of this cheap resource. However, despite its 

ample supply and cheap price tag, the burning of coal as we use 

it today must be improved if we are ever going to address the 

threat of global warming. Over the past several decades, various 

improvements have been made on carbon capture and sequestration technologies. These technologies, which allow for carbon to be 

removed from our smokestacks and instead injected back into the 

19 

ground, are not new. They have been in use for years in places 

such as Texas in order to achieve enhanced oil recovery. However, 

these technologies have not been used at the scale which will be 

required if we are going to remove carbon from our industrial 

transportation or utility sectors. Simply stated, the time is now for 

Congress to act to encourage CCS advancement and deployment. 

For this reason, I am pleased to join Chairman Boucher and 

Ranking Member Barton in cosponsoring the Carbon Capture and 

Storage Early Deployment Act. While I have a few concerns with 

the bill, especially as it pertains to what role the National Energy 

Technology Lab may have in the program, I am strongly supportive 

of this committee’s efforts. I look forward to working closely with 

Chairman Boucher to improve this bill so that the final product we 

bring to the floor will be as effective as possible in facilitating the 

wide-scale demonstration of carbon capture and storage technologies. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for your efforts here. I will continue to do all I can to ensure that this Nation continues to move 

forward with our energy policies. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle, and I very much 

appreciate your copatronage of this measure and strong support for 

it and the contributions you made to its construction. 

The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, is recognized for 3 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I also want to commend you for introducing the Carbon Capture and Storage Early 

Deployment Act, which is vitally important to the economics and 

environmental health of this country. 

We recognize that there has been a lot of talk by a lot of different 

groups about the importance of developing carbon capture and sequestration projections and to develop them, and yet I think that 

in Dr. Rubin’s testimony, he pointed out, which I think is a fact, 

that not a single large-scale CCS project at a coal plant anywhere 

in the world is in place today, and as you well know, our government canceled its FutureGen project in Illinois just 3 or 4 months 

ago because the cost had escalated from $850 million to $1.8 billion. So this legislation is vitally important. It may not be in its 

perfect form but that is the reason we have hearings, to have experts like this group of witnesses to help us look at ways to improve this bill, and so we welcome their expertise and advice. I 

might also say that it is my understanding in the United States 

that from electricity we are producing about 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year and this bill, it is my understanding, will provide about $1 billion a year to help develop the project which is vitally important. Coal is our most abundant resource. It does give 

us the best opportunity to be competitive with other nations around 

the world for economic development and maintaining relatively low 

energy costs although obviously carbon dioxide capture will be 

quite expensive. We know that. 

20 

But I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and others as we continue our efforts in this area. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield. 

The gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Dingell, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for holding 

this hearing. It is most important, and I want to commend you not 

only for that but for the exemplary work that you continue to do 

on the issue of climate change and on your leadership as chairman 

of this valuable subcommittee. I want to welcome the witnesses 

and thank them for their testimony, which I know will be of great 

value. 

Throughout many of the climate change hearings that have been 

held by this subcommittee over the past few months, a number of 

key things have emerged but none more central than the following: 

combating global climate change will require that we make deep 

cuts in our greenhouse gas emissions even as we meet our future 

energy demands. The United States currently generates more than 

50 percent of its electricity through the use of coal, a fuel that must 

continue to be a part of our energy mix, and I intend that that 

shall be so. For that to be possible, however, in a carbon-constrained world, a robust carbon capture and sequestration program 

is necessary on a scale that does not exist today. A survey of current carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, technologies reveals that constituent elements of an overall strategy are not yet 

fully integrated or fully understood. 

First, several promising capture technologies have been demonstrated on a small scale but have yet to be deployed at the commercial level because of concerns about costs and energy penalties. 

Second, liquid CO2 is transported in pipelines today but building 

the additional infrastructure necessary for a national CCS pipeline 

program represents a unique set of challenges. Finally, CO2 has 

been sequestered underground for decades during enhanced oil recovery and this is a valuable use for this resource but not on the 

massive scale needed for continued use of coal as a fuel source in 

a carbon-constrained environment. Clearly, a comprehensive strategy with an adequate and appropriate source of revenue is needed. 

Today the Committee will examine one such idea put forward by 

its chairman with bipartisan support. The CCS legislation introduced by you, Mr. Chairman, closely follows the recommendations 

of the Advanced Coal Technology Work Group, an advisory panel 

to EPA. It could also help facilitate a comprehensive CCS deployment strategy in time to make the emission reductions that scientists have determined are needed to prevent further damage to 

this planet. 

Mr. Chairman, again I commend you for holding this hearing, it 

is most timely, and I praise you for presenting a bold solution to 

this challenge. I look forward to learning more about the issue from 

our witnesses today, and I thank you for your courtesy. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:] 

21 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing and for the exemplary work you continue to do on the issue of climate change. I welcome our witnesses and thank them for their valuable testimony. 

Throughout the many climate change hearings held by this subcommittee over the 

last few months, several key themes have emerged, but none more central than the 

following: combating global climate change will require that we make deep cuts in 

our greenhouse gas emissions even as we meet our future energy demands. 

The United States currently generates more than 50 percent of its electricity 

through the use of coal, a fuel that must continue to be part of our energy mix. For 

that to be possible in a carbon-constrained world, a robust carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) deployment program is necessary on a scale that does not exist 

today. 

A survey of the current state of CCS technologies will reveal the constituent elements of an overall strategy that is not yet fully integrated. First, several promising 

capture technologies have been demonstrated on a small scale but have yet to be 

deployed at the commercial level because of concerns about costs and energy penalties. Second, liquid CO2 is transported in pipelines today, but building the additional infrastructure necessary for a national CCS pipeline program presents a 

unique set of challenges. Finally, CO2 has been sequestered underground for decades during enhanced oil recovery, but not on the massive scale needed for the continued use of coal as a fuel source in a carbon-constrained environment. Clearly, a 

comprehensive strategy with an appropriate source of revenue is needed. 

Today the Subcommittee will examine one such idea, put forward by its Chairman 

with bipartisan support. The CCS legislation introduced by Mr. Boucher closely follows the recommendations of the Advanced Coal Technology Work Group, an advisory panel to the EPA. It could help facilitate a comprehensive CCS deployment 

strategy in time to make the emissions reductions that scientists have determined 

are needed to prevent further damage to the planet. 

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this timely hearing and for presenting 

a bold solution to this challenge. I look forward to learning more about this issue 

from our witnesses today. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Dingell. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 3 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am proud to be 

an original cosponsor of this bill. Thanks for your hard work. 

The United States is basically electricity independent. We can’t 

say that about liquid fuels in this country and that is really the 

current major debate we are having on the floor about trying to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil, but for electricity, we are 

basically independent, and when are producing electricity and we 

are doing it independently, that is American jobs, both in our coal 

mines and in our coal-fired generation plants, and that has to remain. Fifty percent of all electricity that we generate today comes 

from coal. That is one of the concerns I have with the current 

House leadership. We may do a lot of work here, but based upon 

a Hill brief on June 25, Bush-backed energy funds stalled by Frank 

and Pelosi, citing concerns by House Speaker Pelosi that the International Clean Technology Fund backed by the Bush Administration might be used to build coal-burning power plants. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank postponed a 

markup on the bill on Tuesday. So that is why it is very courageous of you, Mr. Chairman, to work with us to bring a bill that 

ensures a place for coal in the generation of electricity in this counVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:31 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-134 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
22 

try and the future, and for that you should be applauded and that 

is why we are in support. 

We also support all the above. We want to encourage with wind 

and solar and renewables. But just to keep up with electricity demand, by 2030 we are going to need 747 new coal-fired plants, 52 

new nuclear power plants, 2,000 new electric generators, and also 

add 13,000 new megawatts of renewable power. China is building 

a new coal-fired power plant every 2 weeks. In fact, there was a 

great announcement in my district, Mr. Chairman. I had a coal 

mine that was closing. It is now reopening to sell Illinois coal to 

China, just making a point that I would rather have that coal be 

used cleanly in this country to create low-cost power to keep manufacturing jobs in this country. 

So I thank you for holding this hearing. It is very important that 

we do something and not nothing, and we move to deploy technology now so that we are prepared to debate the other options 

that we have to debate in the succeeding Congress, and I yield 

back my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus, and thank you for your 

copatronage of the measure as well. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, is recognized for 3 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am very pleased 

to be here today, and thank you for calling this important hearing. 

I would also like to thank today’s panelists for joining us to discuss 

the important subject of carbon capture and storage. I look forward 

to hearing all of your expert opinions. 

This committee heard only 2 weeks ago about the urgent repercussions that we will face if we do not seriously address the issue 

of climate change. We have also heard about the daunting scope of 

that task. To tackle this enormous challenge, we must have all the 

available resources at our disposal. This is why I am encouraged 

that we are looking into a wide variety of technologies to help us 

confront global warming from solar to biomass to wind and today, 

carbon storage. This committee needs to fully investigate what is 

available and what solutions will best reverse this troubling course 

we are heading down. Fossil fuels currently meet the vast majority 

of our energy needs so we will not be able to abandon them immediately. However, we know that burning these fossil fuels produces 

the carbon dioxide at the heart of the climate problem. We must 

begin to take steps to reduce the amount of energy we use, reduce 

the amount of fossil fuels we burn, and to reduce the amount of 

carbon dioxide those fuels emit. More research is critically important in improving and perfecting the technologies we will need. 

Carbon capture and storage holds great promise for reducing our 

emissions of greenhouse gases. It could afford us the time we need 

to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without destroying our 

planet in the process and show other countries the leadership that 

is direly needed on this issue. However, we must use any new technology safely and effectively, and carbon capture remains to be 

fully tested. 

23 

My home State of California has so many environmental issues, 

from contaminated groundwater to severe smog, so I want to ensure that any new technologies we use do not adversely affect the 

health of our population. While we must embrace new technologies, 

we cannot do so at the expense of clean water, clean air, and our 

health. As a mother and grandmother, I am constantly reminded 

of the importance of leaving a safe, livable, and sustainable planet 

to future generations. That is why I am so pleased with the active 

and constructive efforts this committee has been taking and I look 

forward to learning more about the issue of carbon capture and 

storage. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership and your commitment to these issues, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Matsui. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, the ranking member of 

the full committee, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having an 

opportunity to be an original sponsor of this legislation. 

It may surprise some people, but I do believe that we need to develop the technology to capture and storage or capture and convert 

CO2 regardless of the outcome of the global warming debate. I am 

a believer in efficiency and technology advance, and if we can use 

this vehicle to have the United States of America and our private 

and public institutions develop such technology, it can’t be anything but a good thing for the world community. So my guess is 

that this is the only bill that might actually become law this year. 

We are still engaged in a very vigorous debate about the overall 

global warming issue but in the middle of this, your leadership, 

Chairman Boucher, along with Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Shimkus, is 

pointing a pathway forward that all members regardless of their 

position or party affiliation can work together to do something that 

is good for the country. 

The bill before us sets up a corporation that the stakeholders, 

based on their size and their operations, participate in. It sets up 

an assessment fee schedule to assess the consumers of electricity 

in this country a small fee, similar to what we did on the nuclear 

waste fund 30 years ago approximately, and use that money to develop the technologies that would capture and storage or capture 

and convert, and I think the word ‘‘convert’’ is very important because it appears to me that conversion technology may be much 

more cost-effective than storage technology. So in any event, this 

is a small step forward. It would not have happened if it hadn’t 

been for your leadership, Chairman Boucher, and it would also not 

have happened if Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Shimkus hadn’t worked 

hard, and Mr. Upton, to put this bill together. 

So I hope we have a good hearing today. I want to commend our 

witnesses, most of whom I know personally, for being here, and 

hopefully this will result in a markup and a bill going to the floor 

that can be supported and sent to the other body. I have a formal 

statement I will submit for the record, but again, I am proud to be 

24 

a sponsor and I look forward to perfecting the bill in open markup 

and moving it the floor. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Barton, thank you very much and I truly appreciate your copatronage and the many contributions you made to 

constructing this measure as it was being discussed in its early 

stages. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, is recognized 

for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for convening this hearing to talk about solutions to climate change and 

for the excellent panel which you have put together. 

I believe that with successful carbon capture and storage coal can 

be an important part of our energy future. For that reason, I support funding for carbon capture and storage as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat global warming. But I do have reservations about a piecemeal approach and whether that is an effective way to achieve our shared goals of cutting global warming pollution and growing our economy. We need to provide a level playing field for all clean energy technologies to compete and we need 

assurances that our investments will curb global warming pollution. The best way to do this is through economy-wide climate legislation with mandatory emission cuts. Such legislation can fund 

investments in CCS, renewable energy and other clean technologies 

while guaranteeing environmental results and protecting American 

consumers. 

This bill raises a number of concerns. The bill imposes a $1-billion-per-year tax increase on Americans for 10 years but provides 

no guaranteed environmental benefit. Now, some of my friends 

across the aisle who last month complained that global warming 

bills will impose higher costs on consumers are now sponsoring this 

$10 billion tax increase. That is fine, but it is a different storyline 

than we heard just a month ago. Second, I believe that we should 

advance CCS by reforming and expanding the Department of Energy’s existing programs, which are subject to congressional oversight. Instead, this bill takes $10 billion in taxpayers’ money and 

hands it over as a blank check to a new private corporation run 

by industry representatives. It allows that corporation to spend this 

$10 billion however it wants with no benchmarks for success, no 

review of costs, no public participation and no government oversight whatsoever. I am not aware of any precedent for such a program. CCS does have to be a big part of our future if we are going 

to solve the problem of the relationship between coal and global 

warming. 

I look forward to working with Chairman Boucher, Chairman 

Dingell, Ranking Members Upton and Barton on this legislation 

but I think it should be part of a comprehensive approach. I thank 

the gentleman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey. 

The gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, is recognized for 

3 minutes. 

25 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

good work and for holding the hearing today. I appreciate the work 

of the ranking member and I want to thank all of our witnesses 

who are here today. 

I am one of those that still has some pretty serious concerns 

about Congress mandating this technology and then spending lots 

of taxpayer money on developing it. First, the liability and environmental hazards are issues that I think still need to be addressed 

and currently scientists in Utah are preparing to inject millions of 

tons of CO2 into the ground and they state that carbon sequestration is low risk and safe but they can’t guarantee that for the long 

term, and then if you have a natural disaster and it is released into 

the groundwater or oil and gas reserves, then who pays for the release and the contamination and the responsibilities there. There 

is another issue that is of concern to us, and there is research out 

of Columbia University that indicates the possibility is real, and 

since carbon sequestration is likely to be located near cities, that 

it could cause damage in case of earthquakes and it could be an 

inducer of earthquakes, and Memphis is in my district and of 

course that is near the New Madrid fault, and if industries in that 

area have to use carbon sequestration, then the concerns with 

something that would precipitate an earthquake certainly are very 

valid concerns in that fault zone. 

Another issue is how fast carbon sequestration technology can be 

developed and how its costs will be borne by the marketplace, and 

Mr. Chairman, I have got a New York Times study that talks 

about this, and rather than quoting from it, I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to place the New York Times article on those 

reports in the record with my statement. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the most optimistic projections we have is that some of 

this technology would be available by 2030, still a long way away, 

that we are also seeing that this can lead to raising electricity 

rates. Of course, we know that is going to be borne by the American consumer, and if this country decides to cap greenhouse emissions, Congress must avoid picking winners and losers. There is 

available technology to capture CO2 and convert it to fuel for transportation and electric power generation. Those deserve our consideration and deserve a review. 

I thank you for the hearing, and I am looking forward to our witnesses and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Blackburn. 

The gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, is recognized for 3 

minutes. 

26 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this hearing and I know that a lot of your time and hard work 

has gone into crafting the language of the Carbon Capture and 

Storage Early Deployment Act, and for that I am very appreciative. 

It has already been established that climate change is real and 

that it poses serious threats to our economy, our environment, and 

our national security and clearly it is time for us to act to address 

this growing crisis. One of the ways that we can begin to lessen the 

effects of climate change is through investments in research and 

development of carbon capture and storage technology. A carbon 

capture and storage program is key to addressing our reliance on 

coal to produce electricity while finding a method for disposing of 

its harmful emissions. 

In Wisconsin we have begun to examine carbon capture technology. We Energy’s Pleasant Prairie power plant located in Kenosha, Wisconsin, launched a $10 million pilot project earlier this 

year to capture a portion of the CO2 produced as coal is burned. 

The plant is the first of its kind in the United States and has the 

potential to capture 90 percent of the CO2 it emits from 1 percent 

of the flue gas that they are currently capturing, but as we all 

know, the problem is what to do with the CO2 once it has been captured and certainly we need more research into this issue. 

While I appreciate the work that has gone into crafting the Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act, I do have a couple 

of concerns. First, as I believe some of our witnesses will point out, 

I am concerned that the funds being collected coming from our 

ratepayers are solely being used to back industry for carbon capture and storage but not also investments in renewable energy and 

energy efficiency, and I am concerned about the added costs that 

will be placed on all ratepayers, perhaps without State regulatory 

oversight. Finally, I have some questions about exactly how the 

funds will be used. For instance, will they apply to research into 

transportation of CO2 and will they be used for research into liability issues? My concerns essentially stem from the knowledge that 

among other States, Wisconsin appears to lack the geological formations necessary for storage. As a result, we will likely need to 

transport CO2 by a pipeline system to oil and gas fields, coal 

seams, and deep saline aquifers found in the Illinois basin. 

Mr. Chairman, I agree that a large financial investment in carbon capture and storage technology is necessary to make its fullscale deployment a reality. I appreciate your holding this hearing 

today to examine your bill and the larger issues at hand, and I look 

forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Baldwin, for those 

thoughtful remarks. 

The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, is recognized 

for 3 minutes. 

27 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, and I too want to add my appreciation 

of the chair of moving a research and development effort forward, 

and he has been most gracious working on this and I have been 

talking to the chair about a couple other issues that might dovetail 

if this bill advances, and I appreciate him getting the Congress to 

focus on R&D. But I do, with some of my colleagues, have some 

questions and I think the most fundamental one I have as I was 

listening to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, who 

have expressed objections to a cap-and-trade system, and I started 

thinking about this. Even if we do this and if this is successful— 

and I support R&D for carbon capture and sequestration— I think 

it is appropriate as one of the very large smorgasbord of technologies that we hope will work. But if we do this and we spend 

several billion dollars perfecting a carbon sequestration technology 

for coal, but if we never adopt a cap-and-trade system and there 

is never any price on carbon, nobody will ever use this wonderful 

technology, and it is a little bit difficult to justify the expenditure 

of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money for technology that some 

of the supporters will effectuate policies that will assure that it will 

never be utilized. I remember talking to President Bush about this 

when he was gracious enough to come to our retreat last year. He 

was also pushing CCS research. I said this is great stuff but it will 

just sit on the shelf and never be used unless there is some price 

on carbon and a CO2 cap. In a word, I think that we need to address these issues together. 

I may also add that if we do a cap-and-trade system with an auction, the revenue source from this research will come from the polluting industries, not from the consumers. Now, there is a passthrough to consumers, as we know, but I suspect given a choice, 

our constituents would prefer an auction system where the polluting industries contribute to the resource base to pay for this. It 

is better than a surtax right onto the consumer’s bill. 

So I hope that at some point we will address these things together. I share my colleagues’ concern that if we are going to do 

a big R&D program, it by necessity has to include all of the technologies involved including wind that DOE 3 weeks ago concluded 

could provide 20 percent of our electricity, and if are you watching 

CNN, you are seeing T. Boone Pickens running ads saying we can 

do 20 percent of our system and more through wind, solar thermal, 

solar photovoltaics, enhanced geothermal, and the whole 9 yards. 

So I think we have some more work to do on this, but again, I want 

to thank the chair for his leadership on this. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Inslee, and we 

look forward to working with you also as we refine this measure 

and hopefully we will earn your support. Let me just say for my 

part, I certainly agree that we need to have a mandatory control 

on carbon dioxide emissions and that will be a necessary second 

step that will be taken as soon as is possible. 

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, is recognized for 3 

minutes. 

28 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue. 

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 6258. I believe that one 

of the current challenges to implementing the cap-and-trade system 

to address climate change is a lack of readily available technology 

for carbon capture and sequestration among other innovations we 

need to see. While I recognize that carbon is already being captured and used in some circumstances in the enhanced oil recovery 

process, there are clearly significant challenges regarding the deployment of full-scale commercial carbon capture and sequestration. I am also concerned we don’t know enough right now about 

the long-term implications of storing all the carbon that we would 

need to house in a carbon-constrained future. Geological variations 

across our Nation, for instance, present significant challenges to 

storage. If that is the case, we need to be thinking about what to 

do with carbon emissions in parts of the country where storage 

isn’t as viable. Developing these technologies will be necessary for 

the United States to meet long-term CO2 reduction targets, and I 

believe we should start this intensive research and development 

process sooner rather than later. However, I also caution that this 

type of program must remain accountable and I believe that as 

written, the bill might benefit from stronger standards for ensuring 

that the public’s money is being well spent on truly promising 

projects. 

One of the questions that I hope we answer today is, how can 

Congress ensure that the public funds are used for projects that 

would not otherwise receive private-sector funding? How do we encourage the development of breakthroughs and novel ideas instead 

of just subsidizing the easy projects that would probably be funded 

by the private sector alone? I am also concerned about ensuring 

that this program is seed money for future technology development 

efforts. I think what we are doing today should be part of a larger 

technology development strategy. This program should not be duplicative nor should it become a fund for pet projects. I see H.R. 

6258 as an opportunity to jump-start a necessary component of addressing climate change. 

And finally, I believe we should resolve issues such as the question of who would control or won patent rights to the technologies 

developed via this fund. This is particularly important if trust fund 

money is matched or exceeded by private-sector funding in key 

projects. 

Those are some issues I would like to see addressed if we could. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Matheson. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, 

let me apologize for being late. I just left a meeting and was unVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:31 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-134 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
29 

avoidably detained, but thank you very much for convening this 

hearing today and thank you for your leadership on this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, despite what I view as irrefutable evidence, there 

remains skepticism and doubt regarding the need for immediate action on climate change legislation and this will continue to delay 

us from our task of generating policies that will signal the public 

and private world alike that a greener future is indeed inevitable. 

Despite this, we can take meaningful steps to ramp up technological innovation and deployment such as the bill that we are considering today. Further, the authors of this legislation wisely understand that creating a greener future will require transition from 

our current energy infrastructure to the next. Coal, which is abundant and inexpensive in our country, must be a part of that transition. Coal is responsible for over half of the electricity generated in 

the United States, and is especially critical to the Southeast. It is 

prolific in its utility and carbon capture and storage will provide 

a useful tool in transitioning coal into a greener fuel stock for years 

to come. It is therefore imperative that we encourage its development as well as its proliferation at a commercial level as soon as 

possible. 

I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their bipartisan support. I hope that we can see this type of collegiality as we 

continue to address the important issue of climate change policy. 

It will require an attitude of compromise from all of us. I especially 

want to welcome all of our witnesses today and extend a special 

welcome to my fellow North Carolinian, James Kerr, who is a Commissioner with our Utilities Commission in North Carolina. Jim 

was born in Goldsboro, which is in my congressional district, and 

I am pleased that he has taken the time to join us today to offer 

his testimony on this legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Butterfield. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, is recognized for 3 

minutes. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the chair. I too want to apologize for being 

late, but as the chairman may know, I am bouncing back and forth 

between two hearings. The Committee on Agriculture is meeting on 

excessive speculation in the oil and natural gas markets, which is 

a timely subject, and I haven’t yet mastered the art of bilocation, 

but I am working on it, Mr. Chairman. 

I waive an opening. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Or teleportation. Thank you, Mr. Barrow. We will 

add 3 minutes to your time for questioning our witnesses today 

since you waived an opening statement. 

That completes the opening statements of the members present, 

and at this time we welcome our panel of witnesses, and I want 

to thank each of them for their carefully prepared and thoughtful 

testimony. We welcome this morning Mr. Michael Morris, the 

President, the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of American Electric Power; Dr. Steven Specker, the President and Chief 

Executive Officer of the Electric Power Research Institute; Mr. Eugene Trisko, Counsel to the United Mine Workers of America; Dr. 

Edward Rubin, the Alumni Professor of Environmental Engineering and Science at the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh; 

30 

Mr. James Kerr, Commissioner of the North Carolina Utilities 

Commission; and Mr. Michael Goo, a former counsel to this committee, who is the Legislative Director for Climate at the National 

Resources Defense Counsel. 

Without objection, all of your prepared written statements will be 

made a part of the record. We would welcome your oral summaries 

and ask that they kept to approximately 5 minutes. 

Mr. Morris, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL G. MORRIS, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, 

AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AMERICAN ELECTRIC 

POWER 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor 

to be here again to speak to this subcommittee, particularly on a 

subject as important as this and seeing the bipartisan nature of it 

that you and Ranking Member Upton brought to this very important piece of legislation is impressive, to say the least. 

Having heard some of the comments of your colleagues on the 

panel, however, I continue to be concerned about the likelihood of 

us taking this most important first step. All of these issues cannot 

be handled in a single piece of legislation and the unknowns about 

what a single piece of legislation might yield for the country surely 

ought to be in the back of our minds. All we have to do is think 

of biofuels in a larger sense. 

So if we take this piece and think it through in a logical way, 

you have heard from me before and many of my colleagues testify 

to this committee and the larger committee, both here and in the 

Senate, on the unavailability of the technology today allowing coal 

to continue and the critical source or electrical generation in this 

country. You don’t need to look very much further than our own 

shores to see what happens to an economy when it runs out of 

baseload power generation. South Africa’s economy has been affected in all of 2008. China’s economy with a story today in the 

Wall Street Journal is being affected now with a lack of baseload 

power generation. And it is clear that these kinds of challenges are 

not that are off for this country if we don’t get about addressing 

the issue of allowing coal to play near and long-term. The availability of this carbon capture and storage technology will allow coal 

to continue to play, and I don’t know that I heard from any of your 

colleagues any opposition to that because it is just plain true. This 

country is 50 percent electrically fueled by coal. The world, in fact, 

is 50 percent electrified by coal, and that will continue no matter 

what we do in the halls of this Congress. So seeing the bipartisan 

nature and the support of what you put together is really quite impressive and we thank you for that. 

Does the bill have some points that could be addressed? I am 

sure that it does but I thank my colleagues from the United Mine 

Workers Association, the International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers and the utilities who have volunteered to come forward 

and employ this kind of an approach. I think this is a logical way 

for us to go about doing it, and with all respect, and I mean this 

from the bottom of my heart, but as a participant in this democracy, keeping the money out of the hands of the administrative arm 

of the Federal Government is one way to ensure that something 

31 

happens, and that is why you are seeing so much strong support 

for this bill as it comes forward. This is not tax money. This is a 

fee on top of the electric rate that my 5.1 million customers pay 

and that quite honestly the many millions of customers, the 300 

million-plus customers in this country pay intended to address this 

very important issue in a very realistic way. 

As I have said before, this is not the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1980 and 1990 where technology was available; we didn’t want 

to do it. We as an industry, I surely standing here on behalf of 

American Electric Power and our 20,000-plus people and our 5 million customers are saying we would love to do this, please let us. 

Pass this enabling legislation, handle this very first piece so that 

we can bring you demonstrations that show carbon capture and 

storage is a viable technology because coal has to play in this endeavor as we go forward. The Congresswoman from Wisconsin 

points to the We Energy project that we are all part of, my company and many of my colleagues. It is the very first and important 

step and it is a pure research project that is being directed by 

EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute, which Steve will surely speak on behalf of and will do so better than I will now, is a 

great organization to do that work. The concept and the construct 

of how this corporation will come together to allow these projects 

to come forward is exactly what we need to do. It is pinpointed toward carbon capture and storage. It not ought be pinpointed at 

solar and wind and efficiency. We all believe in that and we are 

all working on that. But you have created with your colleagues a 

very workable piece of legislation that will help us address this 

issue. 

We can’t solve whether we should go forward with carbon capture and storage in a much larger bill of a cap-and-trade program. 

That is a debate for another day. This is not a means in any way, 

shape, or form to not have that debate and not see that legislation 

passed, but all of that will be folly if we don’t know if this technology works. So I think for one time in my career, we have the 

cart and the horse in the appropriate alignment and we should go 

forward and pass this, get it to the floor, get a companion piece like 

this out of the Senate and have a piece of legislation that says to 

the world, to both candidates for the presidential election this November, America is ready to lead, and in fact, this piece of legislation will allow us to do that. 

I thank you very much for your creative activity and your steadfast support of the concept of let us do something. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:] 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Morris. 

Dr. Rubin. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD S. RUBIN, THE ALUMNI PROFESSOR 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. RUBIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today. My name is Ed Rubin. I am a schoolteacher from western Pennsylvania where I am a professor in the 

Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon 

University. My teaching and research focus on problems of energy 

and the environment, especially issues related to coal use, environmental technologies, and climate change. 

Over about the past 3 years, I have also worked in a consulting 

role with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change to look at alternative policies for accelerating the deployment of CO2 capture 

and storage, or CCS. That work appears to have influenced the bill 

we are discussing here today and I very much appreciate your invitation to comment on it. So first let me say that I was extremely 

pleased to see this bill introduced with bipartisan support following 

the Senate’s failure last month to tackle the issue of climate policy. 

It is clear that progress on that issue will require considerably 

more time no matter who the next President is. The great virtue 

of H.R. 6258 is that it can still allow our country to make urgently 

needed progress this year on a technology that will be critical to 

whatever climate policy ultimately emerges in the future. 

So today I have three simple points to make. The first is that 

CO2 capture and storage is a critical technology for bridging the 

Nation’s energy and environmental objectives. It is the only way we 

know to reconcile the realities and importance of coal use with the 

need to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions linked to climate 

change. Therefore, we should not delay demonstrating its application in the electric power sector, which is the largest source of CO2

in the United States today. 

My second point is that several full-scale projects are needed urgently to ensure that CCS can be used safely, effectively and reliably in power plant applications. This need for full-scale demonstrations is widely recognized but funding for such projects has 

not yet been forthcoming. My estimate is that the full cost of building a CO2 capture and storage system at a nominal 400-megawatt 

power plant and operating it for 5 years is somewhere between 

$700 million and $1 billion per project. As best I have been able 

to tell, there is today not a single large-scale CCS project at a coalfired power plant anywhere in the world with the full financing 

needed to proceed at that scale. And so in the absence of a strong 

policy mandate, H.R. 6258 would overcome this obstacle in a very 

creative and efficient way by spreading the cost of demonstrations 

over a broad set of stakeholders, all of whom will benefit from the 

outcome of these projects. Ultimately, all consumers of fossil fuel 

electricity would bear the cost under this bill. But my estimate is 

that the cost to an average residential customer will be no more 

than a penny a day per household, or about $3 to $5 a year. That 

is an even smaller amount than the Committee’s estimate of $10 

52 

to $12 a year, which in fact I believe is in error and I have provided details of that to the committee staff. 

My third point is that several changes to the current draft bill 

are needed to make it both more effective and more acceptable. In 

my written testimony, I have outlined six specific changes I would 

recommend. Most important, I think, is the need to define more explicitly and more narrowly the mission of the corporation established by this bill. In a nutshell, that mission should be to accelerate the deployment of CCS by financing and overseeing the management of critically selected CCS projects at new and existing 

power plants, typically at a scale of several hundred megawatts 

each. 

Given that mission, I would strongly urge that the language in 

section 4(b) of the bill be deleted. That language muddles and diffuses the purpose of this bill. It would put the corporation in the 

same business as a variety of other organizations whose mission is 

to support and carry out research and development, principally the 

Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research Institute. 

Unquestionably, R&D is critical but it should not be the mission 

of this corporation. Thus, I would also suggest that the word ‘‘research’’ be dropped from the proposed name of the corporation. Instead, following the title of the bill, it should be called something 

like the Carbon Capture and Storage Deployment Corporation, or 

more simply, the CCS Deployment Corporation. 

Finally, I would recommend that the composition of the board of 

directors of the corporation be modified to include representatives 

of other key stakeholder groups. This is necessary, I think, both to 

broaden the expertise and perspectives of the board and also to 

strengthen its external credibility and public trust. While most 

board members should be drawn from electric power organizations, 

I believe at least two members should be drawn from non-utility 

industries and at least two from public organizations. For example, 

non-utility industrial members might be drawn from segments of 

the oil and gas industry, which today has the most experience and 

expertise in CCS operations. The public members should include at 

least one government representative such as from the Department 

of Energy and one non-governmental member such as from an environmental NGO or even an academic organization. 

With these modifications, I believe H.R. 6258, if enacted this 

year, will indeed be a critical piece of legislation that will greatly 

facilitate future progress on climate policy, energy policy, and the 

reduction of CO2 emissions and so I am happy to offer my penny 

a day in support of this bill. I have brought along some extra pennies in case anybody else at the table would like to join me. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rubin follows:] 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Dr. Rubin, and for your endorsement of this measure. 

Dr. Specker. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SPECKER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

Mr. SPECKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am Steve 

Specker, President and CEO of the Electric Power Research Institute, better known as EPRI. EPRI appreciates the opportunity to 

be considered in the legislation as the institutional home for the 

carbon storage research corporation. I would like to begin by summarizing my testimony today in three points. 

First, EPRI’s 35 years of experience as the collaborative public 

interest research, development, and deployment organization for 

the electricity sector makes us well suited to house the Carbon 

Storage Research Corporation. It is the type of role that EPRI is 

designed to perform. Second, our proven governance and operating 

model will enable EPRI to promptly and efficiently establish the 

needed structures and processes to launch the Corporation. Third, 

our extensive experience in helping lead large-scale technology 

demonstrations provides confidence that we can successfully fulfill 

the objectives of this legislation. 

Let me briefly expand on several of these points. EPRI’s collaborative and governance model compares favorably to the governance 

and management structure that is proposed in the legislation. Our 

activities are shaped by advice from public as well as different private sector and government viewpoints. Our Board of Directors has 

33 members including representation from federal, municipal, cooperative, and investor-owned utilities. We also have six external directors who are typically drawn from academia and the broader 

business community. Our management and our board draw upon 

the experiences and viewpoints of our Advisory council, which consists of 30 leaders from the environmental, academic, labor, business, and regulatory communities. Very importantly, our charter 

requires that we include 10 State public utility Commissioners on 

our Advisory council. Our Advisory council helps us consider the 

impact of societal and public policy needs when we evaluate the direction of our various programs. 

It is also important to note that EPRI is not a trade association. 

The IRS recognizes us as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt scientific research 

organization which is chartered to operate in the public interest 

and for the public benefit, and we take that obligation very seriously. We conduct our activities with objectivity and scientific integrity. Our agenda is very simple: find the most effective solutions 

to help solve the most important challenges associated with providing the public with reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible electricity. 

Regarding our experience, we are recognized both in the United 

States and internationally as an organization that can successfully 

lead large-scale demonstrations. We work closely with industry 

participants, governmental agencies, equipment manufacturers, 

and utilities, and in doing this have helped lead major programs. 

Let me give you a few examples. The Cool Water program, an 

EPRI-led collaborative program in the late 1980s, was the first 

107 

commercial-scale IGCC plant in the United States. The Environmental Control Technology Center, which EPRI constructed and 

operated from 1989 to 1999, demonstrated technologies for controlling sulfur, nitrous oxide, and particulate emissions from coalbased generation, and was a very important facility. And the Advanced Light Water Reactor program, a $1 billion public-private 

partnership that operated for over a decade, was coordinated by 

EPRI in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy, utilities 

and reactor suppliers. 

Most recently in the carbon capture and storage area, we have 

been providing collaborative leadership for several important precommercial carbon capture and storage demonstrations. As already 

has been mentioned, the first chilled ammonia capture technology 

demonstration at the We Energy’s Pleasant Prairie plant in Wisconsin is an EPRI-led collaboration and is the first of a kind, very 

important facility. We are continuing moving forward with two 

planned 20-megawatt CCS demonstrations on pulverized coal and 

several planned CCS demonstrations on both existing and new 

IGCC facilities. 

I would like to close with a couple comments on the scale of the 

funding proposed by this legislation. First, the amount, $1 billion 

per year, is consistent with estimates that are provided by a number of independent studies, done by the National Coal Council, the 

Coal Utilization Research Council and, very important, the MIT 

study entitled The Future of Coal. All of those various studies’ estimates are in the ballpark of $1 billion per year. In addition, our 

own work supports a number of somewhere from $700 million to 

$1 billion in that range per year for CCS. 

In summary, we support the need for a very focused demonstration, and I will emphasize the demonstration part of this. This is 

not research. It is some development, primarily commercial-scale 

demonstration fund for the development of large-scale projects to 

advance the commercial availability of CCS. Very importantly, I 

agree with the previous speaker, there is no R in this. This is not 

research. This is large-scale commercial demonstration of this technology. We are honored to be asked to play a role in its success and 

look forward to the opportunity. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Specker follows:] 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Dr. Specker. 

Mr. Kerr. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES Y. KERR, II, COMMISSIONER, NORTH 

CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION 

Mr. KERR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Butterfield, 

Ranking Members Upton and Barton. My name is Jim Kerr. I am 

a member of the North Carolina Utility Commissioner and immediate past president of NARUC, and I guess as a matter of full disclosure, I am a member of the EPRI advisory council. We thank the 

chairman and the sponsors for this important piece of legislation 

and for the opportunity to provide the perspective of the National 

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 

NARUC supports the policy goals of this legislation and the need 

for broad-based funding mechanisms that match the resources committed to the magnitude of the challenge. NARUC also supports 

the policy goals of the legislation to expedite the commercial application of carbon capture and storage as one option to begin addressing the revolution in energy production and delivery technologies needed if the United States expects to make a serious effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the 

threat of global climate change. We strongly agree with the underlying assumption of the authors of this legislation that a solution 

to the technological and research and development challenges of 

greenhouse gas mitigation is an off-budget mechanism that is supported by the utility industry and its regulators. State Commissioners are strong supporters of EPRI and I endorse the written 

testimony of Dr. Specker. There are, however, three areas of concern that we urge the subcommittee to address as this legislation 

advances. 

First, concerning the formation and governance of the CSRC, we 

are troubled that there is no governmental role or regulatory oversight involved in the formation of the corporation or its ongoing operations, despite the fact that the corporation is intended to be 

funded through rates paid by retail consumers who have no alternative but to pay the fees. We believe that there should be a duty 

on the part of EPRI written into the legislation to consult with regulators and other stakeholders before the referendum is conducted. 

Specifically, the subcommittee could amend section 3(a) of the bill 

to provide the distribution utilities voting in the referendum in 

favor of establishing the corporation certify to the independent auditing firm that their respective retail regulators support their vote 

with the knowledge that the fees imposed by the bill will be automatically passed through to their customers. 

Concerning the CSRC’s operations once formed, we recommend 

that the legislation be revised to specify a role for representatives 

of regulators and consumers. This could be accomplished by amending section 3(c) to include such representation on the CSRC board 

in addition to the industry representatives there listed or by creating a separate advisory council for the CSRC modeled after the 

current EPRI advisory council board of directors. We also recommend that the legislation specifically provide that the CSRC 

consult with representatives of regulators and consumers as it prepares its budget and research agenda under section 4(e) and that 

118 

the legislation specifically require that the corporation provide its 

annual report and audit to each State commission with jurisdiction. 

Second, we have strong reservations about the inclusion in the 

bill of section 8(a) on the cost recovery of the fees. This section is 

problematic for a host of reasons. As drafted, the legislation would 

authorize utilities to vote to exempt themselves from any regulatory oversight to recover costs from captive ratepayers. This is 

unprecedented. While Congress has preempted State authority in 

other areas of energy and telecommunications policy and practice, 

we know of no other example where it has given private entities 

the ability to band together to exempt themselves from the lawful 

application of otherwise applicable State law. In addition, H.R. 

6258 treats the consumer served by investor-owned utilities less favorably than customers of publicly owned utilities such as municipal or cooperative utilities. While section 8 of the bill appears to 

apply equally to consumers served by all distribution utilities, public and private, there is a significant difference. Because the regulators of municipal and cooperative utility systems are the publicly 

owned and managed utilities themselves, their consumers have a 

say in how their utilities vote in the referendum to establish the 

CSRC and thereby become subject to the fees imposed by the legislation. By contrast, neither the consumers nor the regulators of investor-owned utilities have any say in whether their distributors 

will subject their consumers to these same fees. It may well be argued that because the fees established under H.R. 6258 only 

amount to $10 to $12 per residential customer per year, section 8 

is of little consequence. However, for retail regulators charged 

under law to protect the interests of consumers who remain captive 

to the distributors, this is an important matter of principal. Regardless of the amounts in question, Congress should not sanction 

a system where the monopoly providers of an essential service 

agree among themselves to charge consumers fees that they cannot 

avoid from any regulatory oversight at either the State or federal 

level regardless of how worthy the purpose. Moreover, we are deeply troubled by the precedent this bill would establish for other utilities fees and charges for other worthy purposes. We are aware of 

bills pending that would mandate the recovery of costs for new investments in electric transmission facilities compliance with greenhouse gas emission reductions and power purchase from renewable 

technologies, to name but a few. Both as a matter of principle and 

practical application, we would strongly urge Congress to let retail 

regulators do their jobs. The State Commissions understand this 

responsibility and we last year passed a resolution endorsing the 

timely recovery of reasonably and prudently incurred costs. Frankly, we expect that State Commissions that would be most affected 

by these fees established in the bill would support recover of these 

costs and rates simply because of the benefit they as large consumers of fossil-based electricity would reap from this legislation. 

I would note, to our knowledge, no State regulators have refused 

to pass through the costs that nuclear utilities contribute to the nuclear waste fund, which operates under a statute, the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act, that notably has no provisions mandating that 

costs be passed through to consumers. Similarly, we have seen little evidence that utilities that voluntarily contribute to EPRI’s curVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:31 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-134 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
119 

rent research program have suffered by virtue of disallowances of 

their contributions. 

Third, concerning the scope of the bill, as I have noted at the beginning of this statement, NARUC strongly supports steps to advance research, development, and deployment to meet the climate 

challenge. Accordingly, while I understand the interests the sponsors of H.R. 6258 have in carbon capture and storage, there are 

clearly other areas in the utility sector and beyond that cry out for 

greater commitment for research, development, and demonstration. 

While it is not necessarily the burden of the authors of this bill to 

address other technologies, we look forward to working with this 

subcommittee, our colleagues at EPRI, and other stakeholders to 

fashion a research agenda that enables the Nation to reduce carbon 

emissions as quickly, efficiently, economically, and realistically as 

possible. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerr follows:] 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Kerr. 

Mr. Trisko, we will be happy to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF EUGENE M. TRISKO, COUNSEL TO UNITED 

MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. TRISKO. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member 

Upton and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am very 

pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of the United Mine 

Workers of America to support enactment of H.R. 6258. 

This bill provides an essential foundation for national climate 

change legislation by establishing a secure, non-budget source of financing for demonstrating the technical feasibility of carbon capture and storage technologies. CCS technologies are the only means 

for assuring that domestic coal can continue to supply the majority 

of our electric-generating needs in a carbon-constrained environment. The UMWA supports national climate change legislation. 

The union is mindful, however, that imprudent climate change legislation potentially represents the greatest threat to its membership and to the continued use of coal. 

More than half of our Nation’s electricity is generated by coal, 

principally in large baseload power plants. Intermittent renewables 

such as wind energy cannot replace baseload coal and usually are 

backed up with natural gas. At the margin, our gas supplies are 

imported from Canada and from unstable foreign markets in the 

form of LNG. 

H.R. 6258 represents a major step forward in advancing the technologies that will allow coal to be consumed in a carbon-constrained environment. It will help us once and for all put to rest 

the myth of dirty coal. 

In January 2008, U.S. EPA’s Advanced Coal Technology Work 

Group, representing a broad array of stakeholders, including the 

mine workers, unanimously recommended that Congress immediately enact legislation to create an early deployment fund to defray the additional costs and risks of CCS technologies. This recommendation was not tied to or in any manner contingent upon enactment of broader climate change legislation. The Work Group 

recommended raising approximately $1 billion annually through 

non-budget mechanisms such as temporary fees on fossil-fueled 

electricity. 

H.R. 6258 translates these recommendations to reality. It calls 

for the creation of an industry-operated Carbon Storage Research 

Corporation to assess modest fees on electricity from coal, oil and 

gas, reflecting the relative CO2 emissions of each fuel type. In 

short, the bill embraces the polluter-pays principle. 

The bill directs that projects to be supported should be geographically diverse, using a variety of coal and other fossil fuel, 

and employing carbon capture technologies that could be used on 

new or existing power plants. The bill also provides for potential 

support to U.S. DOE and related governmental and academic programs. The UMWA envisions an active working partnership among 

the corporation, U.S. DOE and its national labs and other research 

entities collectively supporting major projects that have the greatest promise of demonstrating the technical and economic feasibility 

of CCS. 

143 

Moreover, the United States must take the lead in establishing 

the technical viability of CCS for use both here and abroad. The 

world’s ability to stabilize future global CO2 concentrations depends upon the willingness of major developing economies like 

India and China to accept meaningful commitments to reduce their 

future rate of emissions. Our leadership in CCS technologies is critical to the world’s ability to use coal in an environmentally responsible manner. 

As the EPA Work Group recognized, we cannot depend entirely 

upon the appropriations process to deliver the magnitude of financial support needed to commercialize these technologies. By providing a more stable form of long-term support, this bill can create 

the bases for independent private financing of coal-based energy 

technologies that otherwise might never get off the drawing board. 

Mr. Chairman, the UMWA conveys its sincere appreciation for 

the leadership that you, sir, have taken in moving this bill forward 

to attract a broad bipartisan basis of support. The union stands 

ready to work with you and the Committee to do whatever it can 

to help make this program a reality. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trisko follows:] 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Trisko. 

Mr. Goo. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GOO, CLIMATE LEGISLATIVE 

DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL 

Mr. GOO. Chairman Boucher and Ranking Member Upton, thank 

you for holding this hearing on H.R. 6258, the Carbon Capture and 

Storage Early Deployment Act. My name is Michael Goo. I am the 

climate Legislative Director for the Natural Resources Defense 

Council. We appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

Chairman Boucher, the introduction of this legislation marks yet 

another step forward in our search for the solution to the urgent 

problem of global warming but we believe it must be part of a comprehensive package of measures. I want to commend you and 

Ranking Member Upton and the other members of the Committee 

who have cosponsored this bill for taking on directly one of the 

most important and toughest challenges in the global warming 

arena, that is, the role of coal combustion, and for trying to find 

ways to encourage the early deployment of carbon capture and disposal technologies. To help us stop global warming as soon as possible, we really need your leadership in this area. 

As the global warming debate has progressed, too often we tend 

to focus on areas of disagreement and not enough on areas of 

agreement, so I would like to begin by emphasizing some of the 

things that I hope most or even all of us can agree on. First, urgent 

action to combat global warming is required immediately. Second, 

that emissions of CO2 from the burning of coal are a major source 

of global warming. Third, for some time to come, we will continue 

to use coal as part of our energy mix. Fourth, since we will likely 

continue to use substantial amounts of coal, we must ensure the 

deployment of technologies to capture and dispose of CO2 from coal. 

And fifth and perhaps most importantly, it will always be cheaper 

to vent CO2 into the atmosphere than to capture and store it. 

These are the things that I hope we can agree on. 

But turning to something that I expect there will be less agreement, but which is still true, I wish to emphasize that we have the 

technology now to start to deploy the first wave of carbon capture 

and sequestration technologies. I don’t want you to accept that at 

face value from me, I am an environmentalist, but I would also ask 

that you not accept positions from people who have vested financial 

interest to the opposite in delaying limits on carbon capture and 

storage. I don’t expect you to believe me but you should listen to 

the words of the president and chairman of BP America, Robert 

Malone, in testimony before Congress this year, and he said deploying CCS at scale is not as much a question of technology availability but of economic viability. CCS is available today to play a 

significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing climate change. Those are not my words, those are his words. 

So what is needed then is an appropriate economic incentive for 

deployment, not further research and development that will serve 

as an excuse for delay. Many companies already, such as NRG, 

Tenaska, and BP, are already acting now in anticipation of caps on 

global warming pollution and are building facilities to capture and 

dispose of their CO2 . They are not so much worried about the techVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:31 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-134 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
160 

nology as they are about the economics. The single most effective 

thing that one could do to encourage more early deployment of CCS 

technology is to enact cap-and-trade legislation that will provide a 

price signal to power producers using coal. There is an old saying: 

give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed 

him for a lifetime. It is the same thing with CCS. If we give you 

a CCS plant, there will be one, there will be two, there will maybe 

be three CCS plants. Put a price cap in place, there will be large, 

widespread deployment of CCS technology immediately. The industry will learn how to produce electricity and capture and control 

their carbon. Without a cap, pushing CCS into the marketplace is 

like using a wet noodle to push a rock uphill. It just doesn’t work. 

Now, even with a cap in place, we have some other suggestions 

about ways to incentivize early deployment of CCS that would provide even stronger incentive for deployment of CCS, and these include a fixed feed-in approach described in my testimony that 

would provide a substantial subsidy to the earliest adopters of 

CCS, it would create a race to deploy CCS, a low-carbon generation 

obligation that functions like a renewable electricity standard, and 

a performance standard for new coal-fired power plants like what 

has already been adopted in California. 

And with regard to the specifics of H.R. 6258, we have some suggestions outlined in my testimony for further ways to improve its 

efficacy, transparency, and fairness to consumers, which we will be 

happy to discuss further. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your efforts in this regard 

and for inviting NRDC to testify. We look forward to working with 

you on comprehensive global warming legislation and on specific 

proposals to encourage early deployment of CCS technologies. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goo follows:] 

161 

162 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

174 

175 

176 

177 

178 

179 

180 

181 

182 

183 

184 

185 

186 

187 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Goo, and thanks to all 

of the witnesses for your thoughtful testimony and also for your 

recommendations on ways that the legislation pending now before 

the committee can be strengthened. We will consider very carefully 

all of those recommendations. 

Dr. Specker, let me begin my questions with you, and they are 

focused on your role as the chief executive officer of EPRI. You 

have made recommendations with the level of funding that would 

be required for the near-term deployment of CCS technologies, and 

my first question to you is whether or not the funding levels reflected in the legislation are consistent with EPRI’s recommendations. 

Mr. SPECKER. Yes, they are consistent with our recommendations. Our studies indicate $700 million to $1 billion a year is what 

is required to demonstrate CCS on a large scale. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And that would be over a 10-year period? 

Mr. SPECKER. Yes, we actually looked out over 25 years, the CCS 

in particular over the next 10, about $1 billion a year. Also— 

Mr. BOUCHER. And when would you anticipate if we expend $1 

billion annually for 10 years that CCS would be generally available, widely dispersed in various kinds of storage media around the 

country and affordable for use by electric utilities? 

Mr. SPECKER. We have set the aggressive target of 2020 for widespread deployment for all new coal plants beginning operation after 

2020. That is an accelerated schedule but we think it is still doable. 

Mr. BOUCHER. You mentioned all new builds after 2020. Would 

that availability of storage also accommodate retrofits that would 

be applied to existing coal-fired units? 

Mr. SPECKER. That is certainly possible. I think in the retrofit 

area, it is going to be a plant-by-plant situation. The technologies 

that would be demonstrated for new plants could certainly be applicable to retrofit but the circumstances are going to be different 

at every plant. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, understanding that, but let us assume that 

the utilities decide they want to retrofit, perhaps to overcontrol in 

order to achieve emission allowances that would be tradable in the 

market, or in order to meet their compliance, they would be free 

to make those decisions. Let us suppose they decide to do that. 

Would the storage capacity that is produced by a 10-year schedule 

at $1 billion annually by 2020 be sufficient to accommodate not 

only the new builds but also a measure of retrofits on existing facilities? 

Mr. SPECKER. I would have to look more specifically at the data. 

My view right now would be that those storage locations used for 

the major demonstrations would have capacity for some use by retrofit but certainly could not— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Let me move on to another question. Thank you. 

You have an analysis that shows that the presence or absence of 

CCS by the year 2050 would make a dramatic difference in terms 

of what the retail electricity rates generally would be across the 

country. Your analysis, as I read it, shows that with CCS, the rate 

would be about 9 cents per kilowatt-hour. In the absence of CCS, 

it would be about 21 cents per kilowatt-hour. Does that study take 

into account the fuel shifting to natural gas from coal that would 

194 

occur in the event that electric utilities are required by the law to 

reduce their emissions at a time when CCS is not available and 

therefore would take the obvious economic option of defaulting to 

the next least expensive fuel, which would be natural gas? Is that 

phenomenon accounted for in your analysis? 

Mr. SPECKER. Yes, it is. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And how much more natural gas capacity would 

you anticipate being built if those events transpire in that fashion? 

Mr. SPECKER. Again, I don’t have those exact numbers but it is 

very significant expansion in the amount of natural gas and LNG 

that would need to be used over the next 30 years. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And it would be that switch from coal to natural 

gas that would primarily account for this major increase in electricity prices? 

Mr. SPECKER. Yes, that is a primary driver of the increase. 

Mr. BOUCHER. One of the things that I certainly would hope 

would occur and I know many other members have commented on 

this also is that assuming that the corporation contemplated by 

this legislation is created and EPRI has a guiding role in deciding 

how the investments of funds from this corporation will be applied 

to specific projects, that the roadmap which has been developed by 

the Department of Energy in collaboration with its multiple regional partnerships be used in some fashion as a guide and that 

at a minimum, DOE be involved in consultations with the corporation to make sure that the work that DOE has done, which I think 

most people would say has been quite effective, is utilized and that 

the corporation take those recommendations into serious account. 

Can you just talk a little bit about what your relationship from an 

advisory perspective with DOE would be? 

Mr. SPECKER. Yes. We would certainly utilize and consult with 

the Department of Energy. We work closely with them today. We 

have worked with them on the roadmap. It is a consistent roadmap 

with what EPRI has developed, and that would really be the template for working with them as to how we decide the matrix of potential projects that are needed. Again would be very comfortable 

as we are today working closely with the Department of Energy. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Trisko, let me direct some brief questions to you. I know that 

you were involved in the work of the EPA’s Advanced Coal Technology Work Group that recommended raising approximately $1 

billion annually through a non-budget fund. Does the bill that is 

before us reflect that recommendation? 

Mr. TRISKO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it reflects the recommendation 

exactly. Moreover, the specific assessments that are assigned in the 

bill for coal, natural gas, and oil generation, that is, mills per kilowatt-hour, derived from a work paper that was discussed within 

the EPA Advanced Coal Technology Work Group and that work 

paper used emission rates for the various fuels taken from a report 

by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Trisko. Can you speak to the degree of consensus that existed among the Working Group at the 

time its recommendations were adopted? 

195 

Mr. TRISKO. Yes, sir. The Advanced Coal Technology Work Group 

was like many EPA working group initiatives. It was a part-time 

job. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, Mr. Trisko, my time is actually expired. I 

am looking for one word here and it starts with a U and it reflects 

the number of votes that were provided. I am trying not to ask a 

leading question. 

Mr. TRISKO. Mr. Chairman— 

Mr. BOUCHER. The number of votes that were provided among 

the working group members when the adoption of the recommendation occurred. It starts with a U. It is pretty easy. 

Mr. TRISKO. You have led unavoidably— 

Mr. BOUCHER. No, that wasn’t the word I had in mind. 

Mr. TRISKO. You have led unavoidably to the recommendation 

was made on a unanimous basis by all stakeholders. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much. I have one other question, 

Mr. Trisko. Within that recommendation, was there any linkage 

among the recommendations or between the recommendations for 

this independent, non-governmental CCS fund on the one hand and 

the recommendation that a mandatory program to control greenhouse gas emissions be adopted on the other hand? Were those two 

recommendations linked? Was one made in any way contingent on 

the other? 

Mr. TRISKO. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. One other question, Mr. Trisko. Was the National 

Resources Defense Council a member of that working group? 

Mr. TRISKO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you. Thank you very much. My time is expired. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I want 

to thank particularly my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I 

look at Mr. Shimkus to my left and Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Barton 

on our side that worked very diligently to get this bill in shape that 

we could put our name on it and feel proud, and I would just encourage you based on the testimony that I have heard this morning 

that we have only 18 legislative days left really probably in this 

session, and I would like to think that with such broad bipartisan 

support, that you and Mr. Dingell might be able to get together 

with the Speaker and see what we can do to try and push this bill 

through because it really is important to the future of the country. 

I have no bones about it, that I am a supporter of increasing the 

supply of electricity, whether it be nuclear, whether it be renewable, whether it be clean coal. Our electricity needs, as many of you 

know, are going to grow by nearly 30 to 40 percent by the year 

2030, and we have to be prepared for that. Mr. Shimkus made the 

point that to maintain coal electricity at 50 percent, 750 new plants 

have to be online. Last year it was zero. Not one came online. I 

think we just got a new permit for one in this area of Virginia and 

Maryland in the last couple weeks, nuclear. Hasn’t happened in 25 

years. We know that there are a couple that are pending including 

one in Michigan that I would like to see happen. But we are very 

troubled by the landscape. This USA Today story just a couple 

196 

weeks ago, utilities raising the price of power, some increases 

around the country by 30 to 40 percent. 

Mr. Morris, you raised the story that I missed this morning. I 

didn’t see it until you referenced it. I would like to put it into the 

record, but today’s Wall Street Journal story about China. Power 

shortfalls this summer could be as high as 10 gigawatts, 60 percent 

of the disparity in some of the manufacturing hubs, inventories are 

way down, and in fact, they expect a coal shortage that is likely 

to reach perhaps as many as 20 million tons this year. Trouble for 

sure. The Sierra Club, I think I read earlier this year, announced 

that their number 1 target was to prevent any new coal-fired 

plants from being permitted and they were successful last year. So 

I look to you, Mr. Morris, with great production in 11 States 

through the Midwest. What are your plans as you look to increase 

production for the needs that we have, whether it is an expanding 

population, the new utility needs that we have, perhaps electric 

cars, HDTV sets, charging our BlackBerries and phones, all those 

different things making up that 30 percent growth? Can you move 

new coal-fired plants without this technology? I know that when I 

was on Wall Street a couple weeks ago, many of the big finance 

folks said we are not going to do it, we are not going to provide 

the financing unless this technology is in place. It needs to be proven. Where do you see things coming in that regard? 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, Congressman Upton, you have put your 

thumb on the pulse of a very important issue to this country, and 

quite honestly to the world. China and other countries are facing 

these issues. And when we see that challenge in front of us, we 

have four coal-based power plants that were in the overall State 

regulatory process as all of this discussion began some time in 

2007. To date, we have received the authority from three States, 

Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, to build an ultra-supercritical coal production facility in Arkansas. We are still awaiting our air permit. 

You mentioned the Virginia power plant but the air permit on the 

Virginia power plant is unaccomplishable so our friends at Dominion Energy still need to have another session to try to understand 

that. Our integrated gas plant in West Virginia-Virginia at Appalachian Power approved by the West Virginia commission, not approved yet by the Virginia Commission, and we will continue to try 

and open a dialog to see to it that that can happen as well. Our 

ultra-supercritical coal plant in Oklahoma voted down because they 

wanted us to look at natural gas, having heavy lobbying from a 

natural gas supplier who shut his gas wells in at $7 a million 

BTUs because he thinks he is going to sell it for $3 tomorrow or 

$10 tomorrow. Our integrated gas plant in Ohio, because of the legislative restructuring process in Ohio, is caught up in the courts by 

some who would not like to see a plant like that built. We are 

heading as a Nation toward an electric shortage of baseload power 

that will change the environment in this country for a long, long 

time. Shutting malls down one or two days a week, shutting production facilities down one or two days a week, as they are doing 

in South Africa as we sit here today, as they are doing in China, 

and you looked at it today. To the answer that was given on the 

9 cents, 21 cents, look at what Germany did today. Again, another 

Wall Street story. They are now delaying the shuttering of their 

197 

nuclear station so that they do not become more dependent on imported natural gas from Russia, the world’s largest supply of natural gas in Russia. You would hate to be at the end of the pipelines 

that serve the European Union when Russia decides to show the 

Ukraine that they are not paying the appropriate price for gas. So 

this bill, as I tried to say in my opening comments, is so important. 

If we don’t have this technology, and I do not agree with my friend 

at the end of the table, deploying carbon capture and storage technology at an oil refinery is 1,000 times different than deploying it 

at a power plant where you may lose as much as 30 or 40 percent 

of the current gigawatts-hour production. That is the equation we 

are trying to fill with the deployment that we are going through 

at We Energy, ultimately that we will do at our Mountain Air station, ultimately that we will do at our Northeastern station in 

Oklahoma. Those are our challenges. This funding, this bill, critically important to finally get going and do something that is constructive. As I said at the close of my comments, I hold you in high 

regard, you and your colleagues, for this bipartisan bill. 

Mr. UPTON. I know my time is expired but let me just close with 

one thought, and I say this with a smile to my friend, Mr. Goo. I 

thought that was just the NRDC’s effort to say that we ought to 

drill more so that we can have more capacity elsewhere around the 

country. They went through the troubling debate in the Senate and 

failed to get the votes. Another 10 Senators, Democratic Senators, 

came out and said that they would have voted against it had it 

come to final passage. It is clear that this debate is going to take 

a long, long time. This is a bill that we can do now. We can have 

this in place within the next several years and we can get it done 

perhaps even in this Congress without waiting for the debate that 

comes at some point down the line. 

Mr. MORRIS. And I really believe it is disingenuous for someone to compare $10 billion raised over 10 years by utility charges on 

the delivered kilowatt-hour to a $7, $8 trillion tax on the country, 

which is what Warner-Lieberman was. That is disingenuous and 

really unfortunate to hear those kinds of comments here this morning. 

Mr. UPTON. I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Upton. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Rubin, welcome to the Committee. I have always said to my 

colleagues from other parts of the country, if they would just cede 

power to those of from Pittsburgh, we could solve all these problems. I don’t think Mr. Shimkus agrees with that though. I have 

a question, Dr. Rubin. You heard me say in my opening remarks 

that I have some concerns with the way this program would work 

in regards to operations at DOE and more particularly the National Energy Technology Lab, and my basic concern is that we 

may end up duplicating or competing with work that is already 

being done there. I noted in your testimony, you recommend deleting section 4(b) of the bill because, in your point, I think your 

words were, it puts the program in the same business as the Department of Energy. What do you see as the role the NETL would 

198 

play in this program and what values do you see NETL having as 

we work towards moving up deployment of CCS? 

Mr. RUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. NETL and DOE have played 

very critical roles in the carbon sequestration program and have 

provided leadership not only in this country but globally. The Regional Partnership Program has been a very important effort. 

These efforts and the kinds of things that EPRI are doing are the 

critical underpinnings of the longer-term solutions. But my notion 

of this corporation and the purpose of this bill is to do a job that 

is critically needed to break the deadlock that we currently have 

and then go out of business in 10 years or so. I sure hope DOE and 

EPRI will not go out of business in 10 years. And I think the key 

issue is to talk about and clarify the division of labor between these 

different organizations. So I see NETL as with EPRI doing the critical job of advancing and developing new technologies, bringing it 

to a stage where it is ready for that final step of scale-up to a several-hundred-megawatt facility. That is the handoff I see to this 

corporation. The kinds of projects certainly initially that should go 

in place at large-scale need to be projects that have already been 

vetted, tested, and in which there is generally a high degree of confidence but you still have to take that next step because surprises 

happen when you scale-up an order of magnitude. So DOE is critical as is EPRI, I think, in carrying that ball up to that point but 

I would hand it off at that point to a different entity with a very 

focused mission, and that is also the way we will know whether it 

succeeds or not. 

Mr. DOYLE. One more question. You heard our friend Michael 

Goo say that deployment of CCS technology, that this could be deployed today, that it is not a question of technology, it is a question 

of economics, and do you believe that we could today deploy CCS 

technology that could successfully—on a scale that could be used 

at a coal-fired utility plant? 

Mr. RUBIN. Thanks for the softball question. 

Mr. DOYLE. Since you are not an electric company, I wanted to 

ask somebody that didn’t have a vested financial interest. 

Mr. RUBIN. I am personally confident it can be done but we need 

to do it to be sure. Again, surprises happen when you go and scale 

things up an order of magnitude. But not very far from where we 

are sitting is a coal-fired power plant that has been capturing and 

sequestering CO2 using current technology at the scale of about 40 

or 50 megawatts, a plant in Cumberland, Maryland. It is one of a 

couple of plants, coal-fired power plants in this country which are 

doing this at smaller scale. But until you go from 50 to 500 

megawatts and until you link the capture operation with the transport and sequestration operations, you still do not have the confidence that you need to start doing this at a larger scale. A lot of 

the problems I think and the most critical ones that would be facilitated and resolved by this corporation are downstream, that last 

step. The sequestration step, the storage step is perhaps where 

many of the issues that need to be resolved lie most critically. I am 

personally much more confident we know how to engineer and do 

the first step but there are legal and liability and regulatory issues 

which are receiving a lot of attention, and I don’t know about your 

experience but in my experience, deadlines and real projects help 

199 

focus the mind and bring decisions to fruition. I think that could 

happen here. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. I see my time is expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Doyle. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to ask Dr. Rubin and Mr. Morris to comment on carbon 

conversion technology. All the testimony so far has been about carbon capture, but I have seen some conversion technology on a pilot 

program at a power plant in my district that looks very promising, 

and the bill before us does allow for funding to research the conversion technology also. So could you two gentlemen discuss briefly 

your view of conversion technology as opposed to the storage technology? 

Mr. RUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Barton. By that I assume you mean 

taking CO2 and doing something with it, converting it to something? 

Mr. BARTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUBIN. I am afraid I am not going to be the bearer of good 

news on that as far as my— 

Mr. BARTON. Tell the truth. That is all we ask. 

Mr. RUBIN. That issue received a lot of attention. I spent a couple 

of years recently on a special report that the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, undertook on CO2 capture 

and storage, and one of the issues that was prominent in that 

study, and there is a chapter in that report on it, is the utilization 

of CO2 . It is an awfully appealing idea. God, if we could just do 

something useful with it and keep it out of the atmosphere. And 

it received a lot of attention because it had a lot of political importance and attraction. But the bottom line is that if we look at the 

amount of CO2 used today and potentially useful, it is trivial in 

comparison to the amount of CO2 we emit. There is a lot of CO2

being used to make things like methanol and other chemicals and 

there are other things that can be done, and there are processes 

potentially that can convert it into minerals. But those processes 

are all a long way from commercial reality, and if you think normal 

capture processes have been characterized as expensive, these processes today are many times more expensive. Most of the CO2 that 

gets used today soon gets re-emitted. A lot of CO2, like the plants 

that are capturing it now in Maryland, sell it across the street— 

Mr. BARTON. I don’t want to interrupt you too much, but— 

Mr. RUBIN. So I think— 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. I am really talking about—I am not 

talking about re-injection of CO2 . I am talking about actually converting it to a different substance that then has commercial value 

or is more easily disposed of. 

Mr. RUBIN. I do not foresee that being a significant player in reducing CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. It is a very appropriate 

and necessary thing to be going on at the R&D scale. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Mr. Morris? 

200 

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman Barton, a biologist/lawyer from Eastern Michigan University and Detroit College of Law knows better 

than to argue with an engineer from Texas A&M. 

Mr. BARTON. I am not a chemist though. 

Mr. MORRIS. The fact of the matter is, I am encouraged by the 

opportunity to do that kind of activity and I think it is again just 

wrong for this country to think that we are going to store CO2 underground for millennia without understanding all of the legal 

ramifications. I would much rather see more of these dollars go toward the research. Our piece of this would be on conversion technology. We keep hearing that our friends in Japan are doing something along those lines in a fuel cell technology application. If that 

is true, wouldn’t it be great if we could also join— 

Mr. BARTON. The whole point of this bill is not to dictate an outcome— 

Mr. MORRIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. It is to actually do science-based research to see what is possible. 

Mr. MORRIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. BARTON. The bill allows it. It doesn’t—we don’t have a preordained outcome. But I have seen a pilot project in my congressional district that the proponents of claim is just the greatest 

thing since sliced bread. Of course, they are the proponents of it, 

so that is— 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, I am with you. I really believe that we ought 

to do that. We ought to add some of these dollars and make sure 

they go to the conversion, understanding it is a much better way 

than transporting and storing and dealing with all those issues. 

Mr. BARTON. I want to ask Mr. Kerr a question. I believe you 

represent NARUC. Is that correct? 

Mr. KERR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. One of the things that I have reserved the right to 

offer in the markup is an amendment that would require some corporate contribution in terms of equity to the corporation as opposed 

to financing it totally with ratepayer surcharges. We don’t have 

consensus on the subcommittee about whether that is a good idea 

or a bad idea, but in the FutureGen project, which is somewhat 

similar to what we are setting up here, not totally but somewhat, 

we did require that corporations put up equity money themselves 

that would be at risk from the shareholders as opposed to the ratepayers. Does NARUC have a position or do you have a personal position whether we should require some sort of a corporate contribution to the corporation, equity capital in addition to the ratepayer 

surcharges? 

Mr. KERR. NARUC does not have a specific position on the more 

discrete issue. I think our fundamental position has been that technology is the key to the climate issue and the more dollars available, the better. The support that we have given to this legislation 

recognizes that ratepayers have a role to play but we think there 

are other participants in our energy economy that are potential 

sources. My personal view is that that is something that ought to 

be considered, your amendment. I think there are also other participants, whether they be the coal production side of the business, 

the rail transportation, there are many participants other than conVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:31 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-134 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
201 

sumers, individual ratepayers paying their $10 to $12 at the end 

of the line. I think my comments about cost recovery go to this. It 

is not, should we make the investment, it is not, is this bill a good 

idea, but it is that there has got to be some level of protection for 

those nameless, faceless consumers out there who more and more 

in the name of climate change, more and more ideas are going to 

be financed on the back of individual ratepayers at the end of the 

line and so I think ideas like yours are certainly worthy of discussion. This is my personal view, but I also think that that is the 

point we are making about some level of regulatory oversight before these fees are just simply placed on the ratepayers. I appreciate your sensitivity to that. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Barton. 

The gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you. I want to actually take up where our 

ranking member left off here with Mr. Kerr. You had argued in 

your testimony that NARUC had strong concerns about section 8(a) 

of the bill, because in essence it is allowing the utilities to recover 

their costs by increasing rates for consumers without any regulatory oversight. First, you seem to think that the costs will 

amount to $10 to $12 per customer per year in the residential sector. I wonder what estimates you have about the cost impact in the 

commercial and industrial sector. 

Mr. KERR. I don’t have any. I think that the $10 to $12 per residential was provided by the subcommittee and we accept that subject to checking. Obviously it will be more than the $10 to $12 per 

residential customer. 

Ms. BALDWIN. What sort of precedent are we setting if we remove 

regulatory oversight for rate increases for monopolistic entities 

such as utilities? 

Mr. KERR. Well, I think it is an important point to distinguish, 

you know, and I feel like I am a little bit throwing a wrench in the 

works here. It is not really a question of should these costs be recovered. I mean, we think they are reasonable and they are prudent we incurred and they should be recovered under State law. 

What we are concerned about, as I just mentioned in responding 

to Ranking Member Barton, is that there will be more and more 

ideas that the solution will be, well, let us just decree in Washington that they be passed through in a rising cost environment. 

You know, essentially you relegate State regulators to become the 

tax collectors for federal ideas, and we think that that this is a 

dangerous precedent. We think that in a rising cost environment, 

you ought to have more scrutiny of the costs that are incurred. 

Again, I have every expectation, just as with the nuclear waste 

fund and the $300 million a year that EPRI receives, which is 

largely ratepayer funding now, these costs will be passed through 

in rates but we certainly think that there needs to be State regulatory review of that to make sure that these costs are reasonable, 

that they are going for the intended purpose, that the program 

itself is yielding benefits to ratepayers and under State law they 

will be recoverable. But you ought not to decree as section 8(a) does 

that these costs are deemed reasonable and necessary and thereVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:31 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-134 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
202 

fore shall be recovered because, frankly, I am not sure how would 

you know that at this point. 

Ms. BALDWIN. And absent an amendment like the one that Mr. 

Barton just described, the Commissions wouldn’t have any discretion to look at passing this onto shareholders versus ratepayers? 

Mr. KERR. As written, I think it would preempt the States from 

doing that. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Do you think that the purpose or intent of the underlying bill would be diminished if the regulatory oversight was 

not preempted? 

Mr. KERR. I am sorry. Ask the question again. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Would the purpose or intent of the underlying bill 

that we are looking at be diminished if the regulatory oversight 

were not preempted? 

Mr. KERR. No, not at all, and in my written testimony which was 

provided for the record, we just last year as part of our Task Force 

on Climate Change adopted a resolution at NARUC doing just 

what this bill does, supporting these technologies and decreeing 

that reasonable and prudent costs shall be timely recovered. So 

there really isn’t a disagreement. The question is whether it is necessary to intrusively step in and preempt States or whether you 

ought to go ahead and pass the bill and then let the companies 

work with their regulators to ensure that those costs are recovered, 

and I have every expectation they will be, and similarly, I think 

that if this technology is as important as it is being discussed 

today, and it is, and we agree with that, the companies will support 

the bill without this language in it. They should. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Turning to Mr. Goo, as I mentioned in my opening 

statement, studies seem to conclude that in my home State of Wisconsin, we lack the necessary geological formations for storage. As 

a result, we would need to transport CO2 by a pipeline system that 

currently does not exist, and local experts looking at this presume 

that we would have to transport it to either oil or gas fields, coal 

seams and deep saline aquifers that are present in the Illinois 

basin. Where are the concerns associated with transporting CO2

and what are the possible liabilities during transport and storage 

on site? 

Mr. GOO. CO2 is currently being transported many hundreds of 

miles. There is actually about 40 million tons of CO2 that are 

transported today in the United States and in North America and 

that CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery over thousands of miles 

of pipeline right now. So that is a mature technology that is already in place. Right now people are doing that. There is not a regulatory structure or liability structure associated with that, and we 

think that that can be done now immediately and we certainly 

don’t need to wait for a complex liability structure to be put in 

place. 

Ms. BALDWIN. I understand that the currently existing CO2 pipelines have quality standards that limit the amount of substances 

such as hydrogen sulfide that can be mixed with the CO2 . Are you 

aware of any movement or desires to change these standards and 

is that an area where we need to be careful? 

Mr. GOO. It is certainly an area where we need to be careful. I 

am not aware of movement to change or adjust those standards but 

203 

that is one of the things that we would do. EPA is looking at a 

number of those issues and there can be standards and rules set 

for that when it starts to happen on an even more wide-scale basis 

than is happening today. 

Ms. BALDWIN. And one— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Ms. Baldwin, we are going to need to move along, 

but thank you. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 

panel. I think it has been very good, and I like the debate on conversion because that should be a focus and that is what Joe Barton 

held out for in our discussion because of these colleagues that my 

colleague just addressed, the transportation and recovery. 

Mr. Goo, real quick. BP, British Petroleum, do they operate any 

coal-fired power plants? 

Mr. GOO. I am not aware that they do. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So it is a little disingenuous to talk about the ability to capture and sequester carbon based upon a crude oil petroleum liquid fuel model versus the three or four different types of 

coal-fired power plants out there, isn’t it? 

Mr. GOO. I don’t think so. I mean— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. They are apples and oranges. We are talking about 

pulverized coal. We are talking about supercritical. We are talking 

about gasification plants. We are talking about emissions into the 

air versus capturing and storage for advanced oil recovery. We are 

all smarter than that. You can’t use British Petroleum in this debate and what they do on liquid fuel to electricity generation. 

Mr. GOO. Well, they are familiar with the basic technologies to 

capture carbon. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In liquid fuels, in crude oil, in— 

Mr. GOO. No, from petcoke, which is a solid fuel. But in any 

event, let us not cite them. Maybe they don’t know what they are 

doing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Don’t cite them. I think it is bad— 

Mr. GOO. Let us look at Tenaska. Let us look at NRG. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time. Let me move to this fuel 

switching debate, which is a critical debate because that is what 

happened in the Clean Air Act. The coal mines in southern Illinois 

closed. Instead of moving to scrubbers, we shipped in western coal 

to meet the regulations, and you know, miners went out of work. 

The United Mine Workers will testify to that. The market for natural gas and cutter is probably $1.50 per cubic feet. The United 

States, it is probably $15. If we fuel shift to electricity generation, 

it will make the debate for more drilling in the Outer Continental 

Shelf because we will need massive more need for natural gas. Natural gas is used for transportation. Natural gas is used for manufacturing. Natural gas is used for farming and fertilizers and these 

costs—if you want to understand what is driving up the cost of 

food, it is energy costs, it is fertilizer costs and all these energy 

input costs. So that makes the other part of this energy debate, 

which is more supply, even more—if we fuel shift to natural gas, 

drilling, exploration, and recovery is even more critical. That is 

why this all above strategy I think is a good way to good. Don’t put 

204 

all your eggs in one basket. Coal has to be a major input in this 

whole debate. Now, it is only because of the great leadership of the 

chairman that—it is hard to get Republicans to agree, as Mr. Markey said, for additional costs. But I do it for my friends in the coal 

industry and my mine workers because we have to have the technology available if we go down this route through climate change, 

and that is kind of what this debate is about, large-scale, many 

megawatts, ability to capture and sequester, or use conversion. 

Mr. Trisko, I would much rather the United Mine Workers take 

this position. Your position is, we support climate change but we 

know there is a risk. I would rather you say like I say, I don’t support climate change until you show me there is not going to be a 

risk in my members losing their jobs, and I am waiting for you all. 

You guys are the guys who can make this happen because of your 

connection with mostly—you have some friends over on my side but 

you have a lot of friends on the Democrat side and they are in 

charge, and so I would plead with you and the other folks who are 

looking for expansion of energy opportunities, the operating engineers, the electricians, that they hold out for a good bill that they 

are not going to lose their jobs. I am not for it. Chairman Boucher 

knows, I am not for it. He is going to have to convince me that my 

folks don’t lose their jobs and my manufacturers don’t lose their 

jobs by high costs. 

Mr. Chairman, I could go on, as you know. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Yes, I know. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But I will yield back the balance of my time. I had 

8 seconds before she switched. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And you generously conceded those. Thank you 

very much. We will restore that to you at the proper time some 

day. 

The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Dr. Specker, in your testimony, you made reference to when you 

were addressing the issue of what the appropriate level of R&D in 

this and sequestration. You made reference to a full portfolio of 

R&D projects for the full portfolio of other sources of energy. Could 

you tell us what your organization believes should be a national 

R&D budget for the full portfolio including solar, thermal, photovoltaic, engineered geothermal, hydrokinetic, you name it? Can you 

give us any ballpark? In your testimony, you said it would be about 

$1 billion seems in the ballpark a year for this particular technology. Can you give us any other ballparks for the remaining 

other sources including wind? 

Mr. SPECKER. We have done some looking at this and I hesitate 

to put an exact number on it but— 

Mr. INSLEE. And I don’t ask for an exact number. 

Mr. SPECKER. Probably an order of magnitude more than the $1 

billion a year, at least $10 billion, and our $1 billion a year is really incremental to the research and development that is already 

going on on CCS. The $1 billion a year is very focused on largescale demonstration of CCS, but if you expand that as to what additionally is needed for this full portfolio, in effect the sky is the 

limit. I think to me the question is much more around how do you 

205 

effectively spend the money that we collectively can afford. We 

have to be very selective. What I like very much about this legislation, it is targeted. I think we need to be very targeted, work the 

whole portfolio, renewables, efficiency, nuclear, coal, but in targeted ways. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we like to be targeted too, each to our own district. That is our targeting, of course. Your answer is music to my 

ears because I share it. I share we have got to have orders of magnitude and, you know, right now we are at about $3 billion total 

national energy R&D for everything, the whole portfolio. We spend 

$84 billion a year on R&D for full portfolio of weapons systems. It 

seems to me we need to increase this dramatically. We spent less 

than one-eighth of what we did in the original Apollo project and 

we need to get up in, in my view, to $15 to $20 billion a year investment that I believe, at least my looking at it, that is in the 

range of what can be usefully invested. And so I appreciate your 

thoughts. 

Having said that, is there any reason, if we know these are good 

investments, if we are going to create a revenue source for investment, is there is any reason to do it for just one technology? To me, 

it seems very difficult to justify doing any—we all have our favorites. You know, I have my favorite. But is there any legitimate reason to restrict our investment if we are going to create a revenue 

source to only one technology? 

Mr. SPECKER. Yes, I believe there is. First of all, at EPRI we 

have no favorites. We work on all of them, every part of the portfolio, but from my view, looking at the full portfolio of technologies, 

the biggest gap we have by far is CCS. Our prism analysis that is 

in my written testimony shows that CCS is the biggest opportunity 

to slow, stop and reverse CO2 emissions in the electricity sector. 

We and others are working very hard on all the other technologies 

and I could go through all of those, but the fact is, today the one 

that we don’t have confidence we can do on a large-scale is CCS 

and it is the most critical technology to slowing, stopping and reversing CO2 emissions. So I think there is a good reason to target 

CCS specifically. 

Mr. INSLEE. That is assuming we have only got $1 billion, but 

if I tell you that we had a $10 billion increase in the research and 

development budget of the federal, I assume you are not suggesting 

we put all the $10 billion into clean coal? 

Mr. SPECKER. No, absolutely not. 

Mr. INSLEE. You would suggest—and I want to make sure I understand this because I think I am going to get an answer I like 

but I will find out. I think you would like to urge us to find a way 

to have a federal investment of somewhere on the order of magnitude of $10 billion for research in a full portfolio and allocated 

with as much wisdom as we can muster amongst the various technologies. Would that be your preferential course? 

Mr. SPECKER. I certainly agree with that, yes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I took a flier on that. You are not supposed to ever answer a question you don’t know what you are going 

to get. I appreciate that, and that is something that is a serious 

issue that we will be working on. 

206 

Just one other question. Since this technology will never be used 

unless there is a cap-and-trade system or some price on carbon, is 

there any reason people should advocate for this unless they believe there should be some restraint on carbon because if they did 

that, they would be advocating for a total waste of taxpayer money. 

Would you agree that anyone who argues for this investment, and 

I am arguing for an investment, should also support restraints on 

CO2 emissions and some price on carbon ultimately? That is an 

open question to the whole panel. 

Mr. SPECKER. My answer would be, we have to look at option to 

option. This is an option we have to have. 

Mr. INSLEE. But should anybody support this option unless they 

also support a cap on CO2 emissions? Why would anybody anywhere in the U.S. Congress—forget Congress. How can you justify 

an expenditure of $1 billion of taxpayers’ money unless you also 

support the conditions that will lead to its usage, which is a need 

to restrain CO2 ? Is there any answer to that? That is a rhetorical 

question, I think. 

Mr. MORRIS. The fact of the matter is, it makes sense to have 

this as a predicate to the larger debate of a carbon capture or a 

cap-and-trade program as we go forward. The point that surely I 

have been trying to make in front of this committee on many occasions and my colleagues in the utility business have been trying to 

make is dates and rates are immaterial if you don’t have this technology. So do A before you do B or you are just creating something 

that won’t happen. It may feel good but it won’t happen. It will 

simply be a massive tax on the United States economy. 

Mr. INSLEE. But will this ever be used unless there is some cap 

on CO2 ? 

Mr. MORRIS. I don’t know that it would and I don’t know that 

it won’t. I think it is too premature to come to that conclusion. 

Mr. INSLEE. Why would it be used? 

Mr. MORRIS. We are capturing mercury at stations today and 

there is no federal legislation that requires that. So there are 

States that already have programs, the West Coast States. I mean, 

it will be used. There is no question about that. And again, this is 

very, very different. We keep talking about the taxpayer. This is 

a fee on the electric customers of the country. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you for the chair’s indulgence. 

Mr. BOUCHER. The gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MYRICK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all the 

witnesses. This has been extremely helpful to me to hear what you 

had to say this morning. Actually, all my questions have been 

asked by Mr. Barton and Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Shimkus, so I really 

don’t have anything further to ask except to say thanks and hopefully we will move forward. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Myrick. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Harman, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I have said before, 

it is a great pleasure to be part of a committee that tackles big 

problems in a serious and comprehensive way. That is what this 

House should be doing and one of the things I love about this comVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:31 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-134 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
207 

mittee is that to a greater extent than most parts of this House, 

we operate in a bipartisan manner. There are few problems bigger 

than global climate change. The reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that we must make to have a meaningful impact on the problem are enormous. As everyone on this committee knows and obviously these witnesses know, there will be no silver bullets, no easy 

fixes. Turning the enormous supertanker that is the U.S. economy 

is a monumental undertaking and we will need all hands on deck. 

That means we need to consider a wide range of technologies and 

a varied collection of regulatory schemes to drive change in energy 

and climate policy. In my view, a cap-and-trade system that puts 

the costs of emitting carbon on the entities doing the emitting must 

be part of the solution, and I surely hope that early in the next 

term of Congress we tackle this effectively. But there also need to 

be efficiency standards and incentives for the development of new 

technologies, as we know, and I was very pleased that we were able 

to get a good efficiency bill out of this committee and it was signed 

into law late last year by the President. 

I agree with you and many of our colleagues that we cannot afford to take coal off the table. Coal is, of course, a notoriously dirty 

fuel but it is too plentiful and too deeply enmeshed in our economy 

to ignore. Renewable sources of energy may someday supplant coal 

as the central piece of America’s energy portfolio but it is not realistic to expect that day will come any time soon. Coal is also the 

principal energy source for much of the developing world, China in 

particular, and that is not likely to change anytime soon. So coal 

will be with us. We had better find a way to use coal in a clean 

manner. That likely means spending some money, maybe a lot of 

money, on research into carbon capture and storage technologies. 

I think your bill is a good beginning and I applaud you for getting 

the conversation started, but there are many ways to incentivize 

technology development and I was interested in listening to the 

questions from some of our members about that and about where 

coal fits in the bigger picture of a comprehensive energy strategy 

that dramatically reduces carbon emissions so that hopefully we 

can save our planet. 

So in that spirit, let me thank you for what you are doing here 

and let me just put a question to the witnesses, because I do want 

to observe my time. That is, Mr. Inslee was just asking, you know, 

if we had $10 billion that fell out of the sky, which would be nice, 

and we could spend it on investments in clean energy, would you 

think that coal would be part of that picture. Obviously the answer 

to that was yes. But let me ask you what else besides coal you 

think are the most promising clean energy technologies and just 

give you all a little bit of time to push some of those. I certainly 

hope you have that point of view. If any of you disagree with me 

and think coal is the only thing in our future, speak up, but I doubt 

that would be your view. It surely isn’t mine. 

Mr. MORRIS. I think it is clear that to the utility industry, we believe that energy efficiency is the first and most cost-effective way 

for us to tackle this issue, but to the larger comments that you 

made, the comments that I just made, the world is going to burn 

coal, period. This country may be one of the few countries that can 

208 

develop this technology appropriately so it should still stay center 

stage. 

Ms. HARMAN. Well, I hear you, but what about other technologies? What do you think are the most promising, let me ask the 

rest of you, technologies other than coal that we should be investing our pretend $10 billion in on a short-term basis? 

Mr. RUBIN. Ms. Harman, I have just taken another penny out of 

my pocket so I can get my 2 cents in on this one. I would like to 

second Mr. Morris’s comment about the importance of energy efficiency. I don’t think we hear enough about that. Most of the discussion tends to be on supply-side issues. There is not a single supplyside option, be it fossil, nuclear or renewable that I know of that 

at very large-scale doesn’t have problems. The one relatively and 

maybe totally problem-free solution is to do a more efficient job of 

using less energy to get the goods and services we desire. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. RUBIN. We know how to do that. That is where I would put 

a lot of that resource. 

Ms. HARMAN. Other comments? 

Mr. SPECKER. I would like to add, certainly in the written testimony that I have, you have our full portfolio which has all the 

technologies. One I would like to emphasize is electric transportation, which is not often brought up in this context, but to tackle 

CO2 , we must address transportation. Tremendous advances in 

battery technology that are occurring open up the opportunity to 

electrify certainly the light-duty vehicles to a much greater degree 

and we think that is essential, and it all links to having a low-carbon source of electricity. 

Ms. HARMAN. You bet. Well, this committee in our energy bill did 

authorize investments in new battery technologies. We agree with 

you. 

Mr. KERR. I just wanted to add too, you said it yourself, I think, 

there is no silver bullet, and I think that is why Dr. Specker’s work 

and EPRI’s work on the Prism analysis really is the best work I 

have seen. It amounts to answering the question of pursuing all 

available options and that won’t satisfy any purists, but in fact, I 

think it is the most prudent course and it is the most comprehensive course that I have seen put together for this country to move 

forward. But you have to realize that there are regional differences 

in terms of the availability of different sorts of generation. There 

are also operational and reliability differences. I think in response 

to Mr. Inslee’s question about the need for the deployment research 

in this bill, as a State regulator, one of my chief concerns is reliability, and one of the reasons you need to scale this up is to make 

sure that when you have to have it, which we’re getting more and 

more rapidly to that point, given the growing demand, that you can 

count on it and so different sorts of generation have different reliability and operational characteristics, and that is another reason 

we need all of the available options so the different regions can go 

in and tailor service to the customers in those regions in a reliable 

and effective manner. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. 

209 

Mr. Chairman, I have run over my time. I would just amend that 

last comment by saying all the available clean resources tailored to 

different regions. I thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Harman. 

Mr. Markey has just arrived in the nick of time to pose questions 

and so he is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Mr. Chair- man, this bill imposes a $10 billion tax on American consumers 

and gives the money to an industry-run private corporation. That 

corporation has a vague mandate to develop CCS technology but no 

requirement to deliver any specific results, no strings attached and 

no meaningful government oversight. Can any of you identify any precedent for Congress taking $10 

billion from consumers and giving it to a private corporation for a 

research fund without congressional oversight? Mr. Trisko? 

Mr. TRISKO. Yes, Congressman Markey. In fact, one of the design 

elements of this bill is that it is modeled specifically upon the 1996 

Propane Research Act. In that Act, Congress authorized members 

of the Propane Association to vote to establish a research corporation to pursue research related to propane and natural gas and to 

impose a fee of 50 cents per gallon on every gallon of propane sold 

in the United States. 

Mr. MARKEY. So how much money has that wound up providing 

in total? 

Mr. TRISKO. Less money than we are talking about here but it 

was a smaller entity overall. 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, but what is the scale that we are talking 

about? 

Mr. TRISKO. Maybe it is a couple hundred million, something— 

Mr. MARKEY. A couple hundred million? 

Mr. TRISKO. Yes, instead of a billion, something on that order. 

Mr. MARKEY. And— 

Mr. TRISKO. But there is a precedent. 

Mr. MARKEY. And what was the oversight mechanism over that 

$200 million? 

Mr. TRISKO. I don’t believe there was a direct oversight mechanism provided in the bill. 

Mr. MARKEY. There was not. I see. We have a nuclear waste 

trust fund funded through funds collected by the Federal Government subject to congressional appropriations and oversight and 

overseen by the Department of Energy. Doesn’t that make it different than what is being proposed here, Mr. Kerr? 

Mr. KERR. It does make it different, and it is our position that 

something off-budget would be preferable, given the experience we 

have had with the nuclear waste fund. Customers who receive part 

of their power from nuclear generation have invested $27 billion in 

the nuclear waste fund, and unfortunately, you have our money 

and we still have your waste. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Morris, last year you received about $20 million in the—the question that I have is, why not make the funding 

for this effort a surcharge on coal since coal is the main beneficiary? 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, in essence, that is what you are doing by having this as a fee charged to any carbon-based fuel so the fee that 

210 

coal pays is larger than the fee that natural gas pays. Let us not 

forget, natural gas is also a carbon-based technology and that is 

more than the fee that oil would pay and it too is a carbon-based 

fuel. So I think that they have addressed that in a most appropriate way, and again, this was the recommendation that came out 

of the EPA and the work that had been done a few years back supporting this kind of recommendation. I think we have done exactly 

as you are suggesting. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Goo, the Republicans in the Senate have been 

blocking attempts to extend tax credits for wind and solar and geothermal. Are we sending the right message by talking about passing legislation to help coal technology while the Republicans in the 

Senate are blocking the renewal of the tax breaks for wind and 

solar and geothermal and also blocking the renewable electricity 

standard that would also give an incentive to the—and we know 

Senator McCain was the key vote in the Senate, so does this make 

any sense in terms of balance? 

Mr. GOO. In terms of balance, it does not make sense. In terms 

of balance, we should be pursuing renewable energy and these 

other types of technologies with equal, if not greater, zeal and vigor 

than we are pursuing CCS. Nonetheless, in order to solve the climate problem, we need to pursue CCS very rapidly and very aggressively. So we need a dual path strategy, as every one here has 

said. 

Mr. MARKEY. And Mr. Morris, is the industry incapable of putting together its own CCS funding? 

Mr. MORRIS. That is exactly what this is. This was brought to 

you by the United Mine Workers, brought to you by utilities across 

this country who burn these fuels— 

Mr. MARKEY. No, I mean— 

Mr. MORRIS [continuing]. And want to get going. 

Mr. MARKEY. I mean out of existing profits. 

Mr. MORRIS. This is a way to get it done in a more creative way 

in keeping with the first step of a carbon cap-and-trade program. 

Again, Congressman Markey, or you weren’t with us when we had 

this conversation, but without this enabling technology, you can 

make all the cap-and-trade bills you want. The world is going to 

burn coal. It needs this technology. 

Mr. MARKEY. Oh, I agree they need this technology. 

Mr. MORRIS. This is a great way to go about doing it. It is an 

excellent way. 

Mr. MARKEY. I agree they need the technology. It is just what is 

the mechanism by which we achieve that. 

Mr. MORRIS. I would argue that utilities all across this country 

have for years and years and years invested our customers’ money 

and invested it very wisely. I don’t think we need government oversight. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I will say this: it does need government oversight, and if anything is an example of something that is in need 

of it, it is these energy projects. In the 32 years that I have been 

in Congress, if you don’t keep a close watch on them, they tend to 

run on and on in costs and return less and less in terms of a benefit to the public. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

211 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey. 

Again, I want to thank this panel of witnesses for what has been 

a very thoughtful discussion. We have all learned a lot from the 

testimony you provided and the excellent answers you have posed 

to our questions. 

I am going to conclude with one suggestion. I know that Mr. 

Morris is concerned about making sure that whatever fees are imposed through this legislation be recoverable through rates. Mr. 

Kerr is concerned about making sure that utility regulators have 

a measure of say in those decisions. And I would like to suggest 

that the two of you perhaps have a conversation, assuming you are 

both willing to do that, and see if a way can be found to your mutual satisfaction to make sure that both of your goals are met. I 

note from your testimony both of you have suggested that potentially ways could be found to do it and that is what leads me to 

make this recommendation. So Mr. Morris and Mr. Kerr, would 

that be agreeable to you? 

Mr. KERR. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MORRIS. I am always happy to leave with an assignment. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Excellent. Thank you very much. Well, let us 

know when you have something. With the Chair’s thanks to these 

witnesses and to the members of the panel, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

212 

213 

214 

215 

216 

217 

218 

219 

220 

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

229 

230 

231 

Æ