United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman of the Select 

Committee on Energy Independence 

and Global Warming, House of 

Representatives 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Federal Actions Will 

Greatly Affect the 

Viability of Carbon 

Capture and Storage 

As a Key Mitigation 

Option 

September 2008 

 

GAO-08-1080 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2008

CLIMATE CHANGE

Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of 

Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation 

Highlights of GAO-08-1080, a report to the Option 

Chairman of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global 

Warming, House of Representatives 

Key scientific assessments have

underscored the urgency of 

reducing emissions of carbon

dioxide (CO2

) to address climate 

change. Many have cited carbon

capture and storage (CCS) as an 

essential technology because it has 

the potential to greatly reduce CO2

emissions from power plants while 

allowing for projected increases in 

electricity demand. CCS involves

capturing CO2

 from a power plant’s 

emissions, transporting it to an 

underground storage location, and 

then injecting it into a geologic 

formation for long-term storage. 

As requested, GAO examined (1) 

key economic, legal, regulatory, 

and technological barriers 

impeding commercial-scale

deployment of CCS technology and

(2) actions the Department of 

Energy (DOE), Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), and 

other agencies are taking to 

overcome barriers to commercial- scale deployment of CCS 

technology. Among other things, 

GAO examined key studies and 

contacted officials from pertinent 

agencies, companies, and 

environmental groups, as well as 

research and other organizations. 

What GAO Recommends

Among GAO’s recommendations 

are that (1) DOE continue to place 

greater emphasis on CO2

 capture at

existing power plants and (2) EPA 

examine how its statutory 

authorities can be used to address 

potential CCS barriers. DOE

neither explicitly agreed nor 

disagreed with the first 

recommendation. EPA expressed 

general agreement with the second

recommendation. 

Nationally-recognized studies and GAO’s contacts with a diverse group of 

industry representatives, nongovernmental organizations, and academic 

researchers show that key barriers to CCS deployment include (1) 

underdeveloped and costly CO2 capture technology and (2) regulatory and 

legal uncertainties over CO2 capture, injection, and storage. Key technological 

barriers include a lack of experience in capturing significant amounts of CO2

from commercial-scale power plants and the significant cost of retrofitting 

existing plants that are the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the 

United States. Regulatory and legal uncertainties include questions about 

liability concerning CO2 leakage and ownership of CO2 once injected. 

According to the National Academy of Sciences and other knowledgeable 

authorities, another barrier is the absence of a national strategy to control CO2

emissions (emissions trading plan, CO2 emissions tax, or other mandatory 

control of CO2 emissions), without which the electric utility industry has little 

incentive to capture and store its CO2 emissions. Moreover, according to key 

agency officials, the absence of a national strategy to control CO2 emissions 

has also deterred their agencies from resolving other important practical 

issues, such as how sequestered CO2 will be transported from power plants to

appropriate storage locations and how stored CO2 would be treated in a future 

CO2 emissions trading plan. 

Federal agencies have begun to address some CCS barriers but have yet to 

comprehensively address the full range of issues that would require resolution 

for large-scale CCS deployment: 

• DOE’s research strategy has, until recently, devoted relatively few 

resources to lowering the cost of CO2

 capture from existing coal-fired 

power plants, focusing instead on innovative technologies applicable to

new plants. In recent years, however, the agency has begun to place 

greater emphasis on CCS technologies applicable to existing facilities. 

• EPA issued in July 2008 a proposed rule to guide the permitting of large 

volume, or commercial-scale, CO2

 injections. It addressed at least some 

of the key issues under the Safe Drinking Water Act but left other issues 

related to EPA’s implementation of its air, hazardous waste and 

substance statutes unresolved. 

• Other agencies, such as Interior and Transportation, have jurisdiction 

over a number of interdisciplinary issues that could delay CCS 

deployment if unaddressed, but which have thus far received little 

attention. These include, among others, a legal and regulatory regime 

for a national CO2

 pipeline infrastructure and a plan for addressing CO2 

emissions reductions from CCS in a future emissions trading plan. In 

addition, unless the effects of CCS deployment are clearly explained, 

public opposition could delay future CCS projects. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-1080. 

For more information, contact John

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or

stephensonj@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Barriers to CCS Deployment Include the High Cost of Current 

Technologies, Regulatory Uncertainty, and the Lack of a 

National Strategy to Control CO2 Emissions 15 

Federal Agencies Have Yet to Resolve the Full Range of Issues 

Requiring Resolution for Widespread CCS Deployment 30 

Conclusions 51

Recommendations for Executive Action 52 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 52 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 55 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Energy 57

GAO Comments 59 

Appendix III Comments from the Environmental Protection 

Agency 61 

GAO Comments 64 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 66 

Figures 

Figure 1: Contribution of Coal-Fired Power Plants and Other 

Sources to Total U.S. CO2

 Emissions 8 

Figure 2: CO2

 Capture, Transport, and Storage in Geologic 

Formations 12

Figure 3: Pre-combustion (i.e., IGCC) versus Post-combustion (i.e., 

pulverized coal) CO2

 Capture 20 

Figure 4: Potential Geologic Storage in the United States 47 

Page i GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Abbreviations 

AoR Area of Review 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CCS carbon capture and storage 

CCTP Climate Change Technology Program 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

DOE Department of Energy 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ETS Emissions Trading Scheme 

EU European Union 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

IEA International Energy Agency

IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

NSR New Source Review 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SO2 sulfur dioxide

STB Surface Transportation Board 

UIC Underground Injection Control 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 30, 2008 

The Honorable Edward Markey 

Chairman 

Select Committee on Energy Independence 

 and Global Warming 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Edward Markey 

Chairman 

Select Committee on Energy Independence 

 and Global Warming 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Key scientific assessments have underscored the urgency of reducing 

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2

), the most significant greenhouse gas, to 

help mitigate the negative effects of climate change. Given the United 

States’ heavy reliance on coal-burning power plants that emit significant

quantities of CO2

, many have cited carbon capture and storage (CCS) as an 

essential technology because it can greatly reduce CO2

 emissions from 

these facilities, while allowing for projected increases in electric power 

demand.1

 CCS is a process of separating CO2 from other gases produced in 

fuel combustion and other industrial processes, transporting the CO2

 via 

pipeline to an underground storage location, and injecting and storing it 

long-term in underground geologic formations. 

Key scientific assessments have underscored the urgency of reducing 

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2

), the most significant greenhouse gas, to 

help mitigate the negative effects of climate change. Given the United 

States’ heavy reliance on coal-burning power plants that emit significant

quantities of CO2

, many have cited carbon capture and storage (CCS) as an 

essential technology because it can greatly reduce CO2

 emissions from 

these facilities, while allowing for projected increases in electric power 

demand.1

 CCS is a process of separating CO2 from other gases produced in 

fuel combustion and other industrial processes, transporting the CO2

 via 

pipeline to an underground storage location, and injecting and storing it 

long-term in underground geologic formations. 

While other climate mitigation options exist—such as energy efficiency 

improvements, a switch to less carbon-intensive fuels, nuclear power, and 

renewable energy sources—CCS is considered by many to be a crucial 

component of any U.S. approach or strategy for addressing the climate 

change problem, particularly given the United States’ current reliance on

coal for almost half of its electricity production. Moreover, there is a large 

potential role for CCS in rapidly developing countries, such as China and 

India, which will be relying increasingly on coal to meet their energy 

needs. In fact, as of 2007, Chinese CO2

 emissions likely exceeded those of 

the United States, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).2

While other climate mitigation options exist—such as energy efficiency 

improvements, a switch to less carbon-intensive fuels, nuclear power, and 

renewable energy sources—CCS is considered by many to be a crucial 

component of any U.S. approach or strategy for addressing the climate 

change problem, particularly given the United States’ current reliance on

coal for almost half of its electricity production. Moreover, there is a large 

potential role for CCS in rapidly developing countries, such as China and 

India, which will be relying increasingly on coal to meet their energy 

needs. In fact, as of 2007, Chinese CO2

 emissions likely exceeded those of 

the United States, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).2

 1

CCS can also be used to reduce the CO2 emissions from industrial production of hydrogen,

chemicals, substitute natural gas, and transportation fuels. 

2

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an intergovernmental organization founded in

1974 that acts as energy policy advisor to 27 member countries. The IEA’s current work

focuses on climate change policies, market reform, and energy technology collaboration 

and outreach. 

Page 1 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
The IEA projects continued growth in CO2

 emissions from China and other 

developing economies. 

At present, there are few commercial-scale CCS projects in operation. 

While recent assessments by the IEA and the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) have indicated that CCS could be a key 

contributor to controlling greenhouse gas emissions worldwide,3

 a number 

of barriers may preclude its widespread use. Therefore, many 

organizations, including the IEA, emphasize that it will be critical to 

overcome these barriers and demonstrate the feasibility of this technology. 

In this context, this report examines (1) the key economic, legal, 

regulatory, and technological barriers impeding commercial-scale 

deployment of CCS technology and (2) the actions federal agencies are 

taking to overcome barriers to or facilitate the commercial-scale 

deployment of CCS technology. 

To examine barriers to CCS, we conducted a literature review and 

synthesized CCS-related information contained in a number of key reports,

including those by the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and by

various federal agencies. We also contacted a nonprobability sample of 

electric power companies, major oil and gas companies, CO2

 pipeline 

owners, environmental organizations, and researchers at think tanks and 

universities to determine their perspectives on key barriers to CCS 

deployment at commercial scale. We selected major U.S. energy producing 

companies, as well as organizations and researchers that participate 

actively in ongoing dialogues on CCS. We also selected a number of 

smaller companies and organizations to ensure that we obtained a broader 

range of perspectives on key issues.4

 We used a semistructured interview

guide to (1) obtain information from individual stakeholders on key 

barriers to CCS deployment at commercial scale and (2) facilitate an 

aggregate analysis of stakeholder perspectives on key barriers to CCS. 

 3

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body set up by the

World Meteorological Organization and by the United Nations Environment Programme. 

The IPCC was established to provide decision makers with an objective source of 

information about climate change. 

4

Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a

population. This is because, in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the population 

being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the 

sample.

Page 2 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
To examine federal actions to address CCS barriers, we obtained and 

analyzed information from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

the Department of Energy (DOE), and other federal agencies regarding 

their CCS-related activities. We collected 12 years of budget information 

from DOE’s Coal Program and followed up on recommendations 

contained in two recent EPA and DOE advisory committee reports. We 

also attended two EPA Underground Injection Control program 

workshops and followed up with EPA officials on stakeholder concerns

expressed at these meetings. Using the methodology described for our 

first objective, we obtained the perspectives of industry stakeholders, 

environmental organizations, and researchers at think tanks and 

universities on federal agency actions to overcome barriers to, or to 

facilitate deployment of, commercial-scale CCS in the United States. We 

conducted this performance audit from October 2007 to September 2008 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Nationally-recognized studies and our contacts with a diverse group of 

industry representatives, nongovernmental organizations, and academic 

researchers show that key barriers to CCS deployment include (1) 

underdeveloped and costly CO2

 capture technology and (2) regulatory and 

legal uncertainties over CO2

 capture, injection, and storage. Among the key 

technological barriers are a lack of experience in capturing significant 

amounts of CO2

 from power plants and the significant cost of capturing 

CO2

, particularly from existing coal-fired power plants, which are the 

single largest source of CO2

 emissions in the United States. Compounding 

these technological issues are regulatory and legal uncertainties, including

uncertainty regarding liability for CO2

 leakage and ownership of CO2 once 

injected. According to the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and 

other knowledgeable authorities, another barrier is the absence of a 

national strategy to control CO2

 emissions (emissions trading plan, CO2

emissions tax, or other mandatory control of CO2 emissions), without 

which the electric utility industry has little incentive to capture and store 

its CO2

 emissions. Moreover, according to key agency officials, the 

absence of a national strategy has also deterred their agencies from 

addressing other important practical issues, such as resolving how stored 

CO2

 would be treated in a future CO2 emissions trading plan. 

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Federal agencies have begun to address some CCS barriers but have yet to

comprehensively address the full range of issues that would require 

resolution for commercial-scale CCS deployment: 

• Key technological barriers. DOE has achieved limited results in lowering 

the cost of CO2

 capture from existing coal-fired power plants. A major 

reason is that the agency has focused on “Integrated Gasification 

Combined Cycle” (IGCC) technology, a promising technology for new 

coal-fired power plants, but one that is less useful when applied to existing 

coal power plants. The agency has only recently begun to shift toward an 

approach that also emphasizes CCS technologies applicable to existing 

power plants. 

• Key legal and regulatory barriers. The EPA issued a proposed rule in July 

2008 concerning underground injection of CO2

 for geologic sequestration. 

Because of the large injection volumes associated with geologic 

sequestration, this proposed rule would apply to commercial-scale 

injections. The proposed rule was issued under the agency’s Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA) authority. However, some issues that fall outside of 

this authority are still unresolved. These include whether and how the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

apply to injected CO2

. Also unresolved are issues concerning how the 

Clean Air Act’s requirements will apply to existing power plants that install 

CCS. 

• Other considerations. Even if the DOE- and EPA-related issues are 

resolved, there are a number of issues, many of which cross the 

jurisdictions of multiple agencies, that could delay CCS deployment if not 

addressed in a timely fashion. These include whether the federal 

government could be held liable if CO2

 stored below public lands leaked

onto adjoining nonfederal property. In addition, a number of federal 

agencies (such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Surface

Transportation Board, Department of Transportation, DOE, and EPA) will 

need to work together to examine how CO2

 pipeline infrastructure might 

be regulated to accommodate commercial-scale CCS. Others will need to

devise a plan for how CO2

 emissions reductions from CCS will be treated

in a future emissions trading scheme. 

We are making a number of recommendations to agencies with major 

CCS-related responsibilities to address key barriers to CCS deployment. 

To better ensure that DOE’s research and development efforts address 

CCS at both new coal-fired power plants and existing plants, we are 

recommending that DOE continue its recent practice of placing a greater 

Page 4 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
emphasis on technologies that can reduce CO2

 emissions from existing 

coal-fired power plants. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE’s 

September 9, 2008, letter neither explicitly agreed nor disagreed with this 

recommendation but included a number of comments that recognized a 

need for increased funding for CO2

 emissions control technologies for 

existing coal-fired power plants. 

To enhance EPA’s ability to address barriers that may be affecting CCS 

deployment, we are recommending that EPA more comprehensively 

examine barriers to CCS development beyond those relevant to the SDWA, 

by addressing issues under RCRA, CERCLA, and other statutes within the 

agency’s jurisdiction. EPA’s September 12, 2008, letter responded that 

providing regulatory certainty on issues related to geological storage of 

CO2

 was a high priority for the agency and agreed with the intent of the 

recommendation—to provide clarity on how statutes within the agency’s 

jurisdiction may apply. The agency noted that it had made an initial effort 

to identify and discuss these issues in the preamble of its July 2008 

proposed rulemaking and had requested comments on many of the SDWA 

topics—including some of those identified in our report. It said it expected 

further progress on the SDWA topics after receiving input from 

stakeholders during the comment period (which extends through 

November 24, 2008). 

Finally, we are recommending that an interagency task force (or similar 

mechanism) be established to develop a comprehensive strategy that 

guides cognizant federal agencies in resolving remaining issues that, if not 

addressed proactively, could impede commercial-scale CCS deployment. 

DOE maintained that a coordinating body—the DOE-led Climate Change 

Technology Program (CCTP)—already addresses these kinds of issues. 

However, the CCTP’s scope focuses on technology; it does not address 

legal and institutional issues, such as the resolution of CO2

 pipeline 

regulation and infrastructure, among others. In addition, officials from 

cognizant offices within the Departments of the Interior and 

Transportation told us they have not yet been invited to participate in 

CCTP discussions. Moreover, we continue to believe that a more 

centralized task force with a broader mission, perhaps authorized by the 

Executive Office of the President, would be a preferable alternative. 

DOE’s and EPA’s comments are addressed at the end of this letter and 

reproduced in appendixes II and III, respectively (along with our 

responses to each of their main points). The agencies also provided 

technical comments separately, which have been incorporated in our final 

report, as appropriate. In addition, we sought and received clarification 

and verification on specific issues from the Department of the Interior’s 

Page 5 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey; the Department 

of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration; the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and the 

Surface Transportation Board, and have incorporated their input in 

finalizing the report. 

There is growing concern about climate change and the impact it will have 

on people and the ecosystems on which they depend. According to the 

National Academy of Sciences, global temperatures have already risen 1.4

degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the 20th century—with much of this 

warming occurring in the last 30 years alone—and temperatures will likely 

rise at least another 2 degrees Fahrenheit, and potentially more than 11

degrees, over the next 100 years. This warming will cause significant 

changes in sea level, ecosystems, and ice cover, among other impacts. In 

the Arctic region, temperatures have increased almost twice as much as 

the global average, and the landscape is changing rapidly. Most scientists 

agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by 

human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in 

the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, such as CO2

, have increased markedly 

since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for 

energy, industrial processes, and transportation. According to the National 

Academy of Sciences, CO2

 levels are at their highest in at least 650,000 

years and continue to rise. 

In 1992, the first major multilateral treaty on global warming, the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was 

finalized. One hundred ninety-two countries, including the United States,

have ratified this treaty and agreed to its objective to 

“achieve...stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the 

atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic 

interference with the climate system.” The UNFCCC required signatory 

states to publish greenhouse gas emission levels; formulate a national 

response to climate change; and develop and distribute technologies to 

control, reduce, or prevent greenhouse gas emissions. However, its 

mitigation provisions focused on voluntary efforts by signatory states. 

Under the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, 37 industrialized countries have 

agreed to reduce or limit their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of

5 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Also, in 2005, the 

European Union (EU) began implementing its Emissions Trading Scheme 

(ETS), a program that limits CO2

 emissions in each member state and is 

intended to help states achieve their commitments under the Kyoto 

Protocol. Many countries with significant greenhouse gas emissions, 

including the United States, China, and India, have not committed to 

Background 

Page 6 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
binding limits on emissions through the Kyoto Protocol or other 

mechanisms as of the date of this report. Despite the UNFCCC’s 

ratification, global annual fossil fuel-related CO2 emissions increased from

an average of approximately 23.5 billion metric tons of CO2 per year in the

1990’s to approximately 26.4 billion metric tons of CO2

 per year from 2000 

to 2005.5

A complicating factor in addressing this increase in temperature is the 

heavy reliance by the United States and other countries on coal-fired 

power plants for electric power generation. Coal accounts for about half 

of electricity generation in the United States. Moreover, according to the 

IEA, coal is used to produce more than half of several other nations’ 

electricity, including South Africa, Poland, China, Australia, and India. 

Coal-fired power plants are one of the largest sources of CO2

 emissions. In

the United States, coal-fired power plants account for approximately onethird of total CO2

 emissions. Figure 1 shows total U.S. CO2 emissions, what 

portions are from each sector of the economy, and sources where CCS 

could more readily be used.6

 5

The IPCC notes that these emissions include those from the production, distribution, and 

consumption of fossil fuels and as a by-product from cement production. The data from 

2004 and 2005 are interim estimates. 

6

CCS is not considered suitable for reducing emissions from the transportation, residential,

and commercial sectors because sources in these sectors tend to emit small quantities of 

CO2

. 

Page 7 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Figure 1: Contribution of Coal-Fired Power Plants and Other Sources to Total U.S. 

CO2 Emissions 

To complicate matters further, increased energy demands are projected 

for the future, both in the United States and worldwide. The IEA projects 

that if governments around the world proceed with current policies, the 

world’s energy needs would be over 50 percent higher in 2030 than today.7

For the United States, an assessment by DOE’s Energy Information 

Administration indicates that electricity sales will increase 29 percent by 

2030, if current policies continue. Moreover, the IEA anticipates that the 

two largest developing countries—China and India—will drive increased 

14.4%

31.0%

32.3%

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990-2006 (April 2008).

3.5%

Commercial

Transportation

Coal-fired power plants

5.5%

Residential

6.7%

All other

6.6%

Other fossil fuel power plants

(e.g., natural gas)

14.4%

Industrial

Sources for which CCS is applicable

 7

The IEA’s 2007 World Energy Outlook also assesses two alternative scenarios. These 

include a scenario in which world demand for energy and coal generally increases less than 

otherwise expected due to changes in government policies that address climate change

concerns and a scenario in which world demand increases more than otherwise expected 

due to higher rates of economic growth in China and India. 

Page 8 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
demand for coal to meet growing electricity demand. The IEA notes that 

China and India’s heavy reliance on coal has already contributed 

significantly to recent increases in global CO2 emissions, with China likely 

overtaking the United States as the largest CO2 emitter in 2007. 

In order to prevent this dramatic increase in coal-based energy production

from emitting significant amounts of CO2

 to the atmosphere, many are 

suggesting CCS as a unique tool that allows for continued coal use, while

mitigating its associated effect on the climate. The IEA identifies CCS and 

other clean coal technologies as one of the most promising routes for 

mitigating emissions and notes that “CCS could reconcile continued coal

burning with the need to cut emissions in the longer term.” Similarly, the 

IPCC notes that CCS would help preserve existing energy infrastructure, 

thereby restraining the cost of emissions reductions. Looking ahead, the 

IEA projects that CCS could contribute to 21 percent of avoided emissions 

to stabilize atmospheric CO2

 concentrations at 450 parts per million, a 

level which is projected to limit the average increase in global temperature 

to 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.3 degrees Fahrenheit). 

The EU is also beginning to highlight the importance of CCS in addressing 

climate change. In 2008, the EU proposed legislation, known as a proposed 

directive, on the geological storage of CO2

 that would support the EU 

policy of limiting global average temperature increases to less than 2 

degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Specifically, in 2007, the 

European Council urged EU member states and the European Commission 

to develop the necessary technical, economic, and regulatory framework 

to remove existing legal barriers to CCS so that the technology can be 

applied to new fossil fuel power plants by 2020, if possible. The following 

year, the European Commission proposed legislation that would create a 

legal framework for capture, transport, and geological storage of CO2

within member states’ territories. 

CCS is comprised of multiple processes, including CO2

 capture and 

compression; transport of the CO2

 to a storage location; injection and 

storage in geologic formations; and monitoring to verify that the CO2

 is 

staying in place. A successful CCS system must integrate all of them. The

first step in CCS is identifying and verifying a suitable location for CO2

storage. Next, CO2

 would be captured at power plants and other large 

industrial sources. The goal of CO2

 capture is to produce a concentrated 

stream of nearly pure CO2

 at high pressure so that it can be transported via

pipeline to a storage site. Regardless of the capture approach used, 

additional energy, often referred to as the energy penalty, is required for 

capture and compression. Three major approaches to capturing or 

separating CO2

 from industrial sources have been identified—prePage 9 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
combustion capture, post-combustion capture, and oxyfuel combustion 

capture.8

After CO2 capture and compression, the compressed gas, now in a 

supercritical state,9

 would likely be transported via pipeline to a storage 

site, unless a storage site was available at the capture facility. Once at a 

storage site, the CO2

 would likely be injected well below the surface, at 

depths of over 800 meters, or about 2,600 feet, into geologic formations 

thought to be conducive for long-term sequestration (that is, hundreds to 

thousands of years) from the atmosphere. When injected, the CO2 is 

sequestered by a combination of physical and geochemical trapping 

processes. 

Physical trapping occurs because the relatively buoyant CO2

 reaches a

layer of rock that inhibits further upward migration. Geochemical trapping

occurs when the CO2

 reacts chemically with minerals in the geologic 

formation that result in the precipitation of solid minerals. Geologic 

formations, such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs and saline formations, 

are thought to be particularly favorable for CO2

 storage. These formations 

tend to have high porosity, or an abundance of pores for CO2 to fill in, and 

an impermeable barrier, known as a solid caprock, to keep the buoyant

CO2

 from migrating to the surface. Figure 2 depicts CO2 capture, transport, 

and storage in geologic formations and highlights the characteristics of 

caprock and the underlying rock that are favorable for CO2

 storage. DOE 

and IEA estimates indicate that the United States has appropriate geology 

that could potentially store over 3 trillion tons of CO2

—enough to store 

1,000 years of CO2

 emissions from nearly 1,000 coal-fired power plants. 

 8

This report focuses primarily on pre- and post-combustion capture. 

9

When the temperature and pressure of CO2 are increased, the CO2 enters a fluid, or 

supercritical state. 

Page 10 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
[This page left blank intentionally.] 

Page 11 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Figure 2: CO2 Capture, Transport, and Storage in Geologic Formations

Caprock

Grains making up this

rock are densely packed 

with few interconnected 

pore spaces. The low 

permeability of these 

rocks makes them ideal 

barriers to prevent the 

migration of CO2 out of 

the target storage 

formation. Examples are 

shale and carbonates. 

Medium-grained 

sandstone

Grains making up this

rock are much less tightly 

packed than the caprock. 

The dark gray areas are 

voids in the rock that are 

filled with water not 

suitable for drinking. 

Injected CO2 would move 

into these void spaces.

Course-grained 

sandstone

Grains making up this

rock are even less tightly 

packed than the previous

sample. This looser 

packing means that all of 

the voids are well 

connected to each other 

allowing the injected CO2 

to more easily move 

through the formation. 

Thus, more CO2 can be 

injected and at a higher 

rate that in the mediumgrained sandstone. 

Source: GAO analysis of IPCC and Joint Global Change Research Institute, Battelle Pacific Northwest Division data.

Power

plant

Power

plant

Coal

Underground geology:

Key to CO2 Key to geological formation transport

Injected CO2

Stored CO2

Caprock

Medium-grained sandstone

Course-grained sandstone

Page 12 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Page 13 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage

CO2 capture

CO2 transport

CO2 injection and storage

1

1

2

2

3

3

Electricity distribution

Power

plant

Coal

Steps in the CO2 storage process

Page 13 GAO-08-1080 
Multiple federal agencies have programs and other responsibilities that 

will affect CCS deployment, but the key ones are administered primarily 

by DOE and EPA: 

• DOE is the lead federal agency for supporting the development of clean 

coal technology, including CCS technology. The agency established the 

Carbon Sequestration program in 1997 to ascertain the technical viability 

of CCS. The core research and development in the program involves 

laboratory and pilot-scale research in areas that include CO2

 capture and

storage. The demonstration and deployment element of the program is 

designed to show the viability of CCS technologies at a scale large enough 

to overcome real and perceived infrastructure challenges. In order to do 

so, DOE established a network of seven Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnerships to develop the technology, infrastructure, and regulations 

necessary to implement CO2

 storage in different regions of the nation. 

Other DOE programs are also developing technologies related to coalfueled power generation with CO2

 capture; including (1) the Advanced 

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) program to support 

development of gasification technology to enable CO2

 capture; (2) the 

restructured FutureGen program to demonstrate IGCC or other advanced 

coal technology, as well as CO2

 capture; (3) the Innovations for Existing 

Plants program, which has recently focused more attention on developing 

technology to facilitate CO2

 capture at existing coal-fired power plants; 

and (4) the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which is supporting advanced 

coal-based technologies that capture and sequester CO2

 emissions. 

• EPA has authority under the SDWA to regulate underground injections of

various substances, including nonhazardous and hazardous wastes into 

injection wells. Injection wells have a range of uses that traditionally 

include waste disposal, enhancing oil production, and mining. The SDWA 

requires EPA to develop minimum federal requirements for injection 

practices that protect public health by preventing injection wells from 

endangering underground sources of drinking water. There are five 

different well types: Class I (injections of hazardous wastes, industrial 

nonhazardous wastes, municipal wastewater); Class II (injections 

associated with enhanced oil and gas production); Class III (injections 

associated with mineral extraction); Class IV (now mostly banned,10 but 

formerly, to inject hazardous or radioactive waste above or into an 

underground source of drinking water); and Class V (wells not included in

other classes, including wells used in experimental technologies, such as

 10An exception is made for groundwater remediation at hazardous waste sites. 

Page 14 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
pilot CO2

 storage).11 EPA has given 33 states primacy, or primary 

enforcement responsibility, to administer the Underground Injection 

Control (UIC) program, and 7 states have partial responsibility for 

administering the UIC program.12

• The prospect of widespread, nationwide use of CCS would also require the 

involvement of other agencies with varied responsibilities. The 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, for example, 

would have broad jurisdiction over CO2

 injected on public lands. Whether 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Surface Transportation 

Board would have regulatory responsibilities for pipelines transporting 

captured CO2

 is an issue that needs to be resolved. The CCTP, authorized 

by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is tasked with assisting the interagency

coordination of climate change technology research, development, 

demonstration, and deployment. Because the CCTP coordinates 

interagency discussion of climate change technology issues, it will likely 

also be involved in any ongoing interagency dialogue on CCS deployment.

Nationally-recognized studies and our contacts with a diverse group of 

industry representatives, nongovernmental organizations, and academic 

researchers show that key barriers to CCS deployment include (1) the high 

cost of, and lack of experience with, CO2

 capture technologies and (2) 

regulatory uncertainties concerning CO2

 capture, injection, and storage. 

Among the technological barriers impeding CCS deployment at coalburning power plants are the significant cost of retrofitting existing coalfired power plants and lack of commercial-scale demonstrations. 

Compounding these technological issues are uncertainties over regulatory

and legal issues, including legal uncertainty regarding liability for CO2

leakage and ownership of CO2

 once injected. According to the IPCC, the 

National Academy of Sciences, and other knowledgeable authorities, 

another barrier is the absence of a national strategy to control CO2

emissions (emissions trading plan, CO2

 emissions tax, or other mandatory 

control of CO2

 emissions), without which the electric utility industry has 

little incentive to capture and store its CO2

 emissions. Moreover, according 

to key agency officials, the absence of a national strategy to control CO2

emissions has also deterred their agencies from resolving other important 

Barriers to CCS 

Deployment Include 

the High Cost of 

Current Technologies, 

Regulatory 

Uncertainty, and the 

Lack of a National 

Strategy to Control 

CO2 Emissions 

 11Class V wells are typically shallow wells that place a variety of fluids directly below the 

land surface. 

12EPA administers the UIC program in 10 states and for all Indian tribes. 

Page 15 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
practical issues, such as how stored CO2

would be treated in a future CO2

emissions trading plan. 

Capturing CO2

 from large electric power plants, particularly coal-fired 

power plants, entails a number of technological challenges that affect its 

cost of deployment, and hence its appeal to industry. Among these 

challenges are (1) the absence of any commercial-scale demonstration of 

the technology at a power plant; (2) certain limitations of coal gasification 

technology for capturing CO2

 emissions at new power plants; and (3) the 

high cost of retrofitting CCS to existing pulverized coal-fired power plants 

that will, for the next several decades, account for a significant share of 

U.S. CO2 emissions. 

To date, there have been several small-scale tests of CO2

 capture at power 

plants in the United States and other countries, but these demonstration

projects have typically removed CO2

 from only a small fraction of the 

power plant’s overall output. Large-scale demonstrations of CO2

 capture at

a power plant have been identified as an important step in improving 

capture technology, as well as securing industry support for CCS. Hence,

the DOE Carbon Sequestration Program’s program plan notes that the 

testing of CCS technologies at a larger scale is important to identify and

eliminate technical and economic barriers to commercialization of CCS 

technology. With the need to accelerate the testing of innovative 

technologies in mind, two key international organizations—the IEA and 

the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum—recommend that a 

minimum of 20 full-scale CCS demonstration projects be implemented 

worldwide by 2020. 

In a similar vein, a DOE advisory committee, the National Coal Council, 

noted that larger-scale demonstrations will be necessary to secure 

industry support. It noted, in particular, that “deployment will require 

successful pilot-scale testing and operation at a demonstration scale of 50

to 100 megawatts before companies will have confidence in their cost and 

performance for large scale systems.”13 Similar opinions were offered by 

several of the stakeholders we interviewed, who told us they thought it 

would be helpful for testing to focus more on actual demonstrations, 

rather than laboratory testing. For example, two electric power company 

officials told us they thought testing on a larger scale was important 

CO2 Capture Must 

Overcome Significant 

Technological Hurdles to 

be a Cost-Effective 

Technology for Coal-Fired 

Power Plants 

CCS Has Yet to Be 

Demonstrated on a Commercial 

Scale at a Power Plant 

 13National Coal Council, Technologies to Reduce or Capture and Store Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions (June 2007). 

Page 16 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
because the reliability of power plants with carbon management has not 

been adequately considered. 

Despite the importance of gaining this kind of experience with CO2

capture, CO2

 capture has not been demonstrated on a large scale at a 

power plant in the United States or in any other country. The IPCC’s 

Special Report on CCS observed that “there have been no applications [of 

carbon capture] at large-scale power plants of several hundred megawatts” 

and emphasized the significance of this omission by cautioning that largescale power plants are the major source of current and projected CO2

emissions. 

It should be noted that some progress has been made in testing CCS at 

other types of industrial facilities. Specifically, four industrial facilities 

have received attention as major demonstrations of CO2

 capture and 

storage technology. These facilities presently capture and store 

anthropogenic CO2

 on a large scale. 14 Three of these projects involve 

separation of CO2

 from natural gas: the Sleipner and Snohvit projects, 

located off the coast of Norway, and the In Salah project in Algeria. The 

fourth project captures CO2

 at a facility in North Dakota, where coal is 

gasified to make methane. The captured CO2

 is then injected at an oil field 

in Weyburn, Canada for the purposes of enhanced oil recovery and to 

permanently store almost all of the injected CO2

. 

CO2

 capture has also been demonstrated at other industrial facilities, 

including plants that purify natural gas and produce chemical products 

(ammonia, alcohols, and synthetic liquid fuels). For example, one existing 

industrial application of CO2

 capture is to remove CO2 from natural gas—a 

process called natural gas sweetening—to prevent pipeline corrosion and 

increase the heating value of the gas. However, much of the CO2

 captured 

at these facilities is currently vented to the atmosphere because there is no

requirement or incentive to store it.15

 14The IEA defines large scale as injecting over 0.5 Mt (500,000 metric tons) per year. 

15The IPCC Special Report on CCS notes that some of the CO2

 captured from natural gas 

processing and ammonia production facilities is used for enhanced oil recovery, a process 

which may result in the sequestration of a substantial amount of the CO2

 from the

atmosphere. 

Page 17 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Nonetheless, according to the IPCC and other knowledgeable authorities, 

key differences may inhibit the transferability of CO2

 capture at these 

facilities to coal-fired power plants: 

• Lower CO2 concentrations at coal-fired power plants. A study by 

researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) indicated 

that industrial processes, such as natural gas processing and ammonia 

production, produce highly concentrated streams of CO2

 as a byproduct, 

facilitating CO2

 capture.16 By contrast, CO2 is relatively diffuse in the 

exhaust, or flue gas, produced by coal power plants—about 13 to 15 

percent by volume—making CO2

 capture substantially more energy 

intensive. 

• Challenges in adapting the CO2 removal process to power plants. The 

most commonly-used chemical method for removing CO2

 from natural gas 

may be challenging to adapt to capture at power plants. According to the 

IPCC Special Report on CCS, CO2

 is most commonly removed from natural 

gas using chemical solvents. However, DOE officials told us that one such

commonly used solvent, monoethanolamine, is not designed to costeffectively remove the dilute concentrations of CO2

 from the extremely 

large volumes of flue gas produced by pulverized coal power plants. 

The IPCC report noted that applying CO2

 capture and sequestration only at

these types of industrial facilities—and not at other facilities, such as coalfired power plants—would contribute only marginally to addressing 

climate change. Specifically, it estimates that CO2 capture, if widely used 

at natural gas sweetening facilities, would account for less than 1 percent 

of CO2

 emissions per year from large stationary sources. 

DOE has pursued gasification technology—specifically IGCC 

technology—as a key technology for reducing the environmental impact of 

coal-based electricity generation, and which may be advantageous for CO2

capture. The gasification process chemically decomposes the fuel before 

its combustion to provide a stream of CO2

 for separation and storage, as 

well as a stream of hydrogen for electricity production. It is advantageous

in facilitating CO2

 capture because it provides a more concentrated stream

of CO2

 at high pressure for separation and reduces the energy required for 

additional compression of the CO2

 for transport. DOE also indicates that 

IGCC plants may enable near-zero emissions of pollutants, including sulfur 

Coal Gasification Technology 

Offers Promise in Capturing 

CO2 at New Plants but Has 

Limitations That May Impede 

Its Widespread Use 

 16Howard Herzog and Dan Golomb, “Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuel Use,”

Encyclopedia of Energy, 2004. 

Page 18 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions, as well as increase 

fuel efficiency. 

While capturing CO2

 at IGCC plants would impose additional costs, 

assessments by DOE and international organizations concluded that these 

costs would be lower than they would be for pulverized coal-fired power 

plants that remove the CO2

 after fuel combustion. For example, a 2007 

DOE study concluded that IGCC plants—if built initially with the 

capability to capture CO2

 emissions—had a lower adverse impact on 

efficiency and cost of electricity production than equipping a new 

pulverized coal-fired power plant and, therefore, were a less expensive 

option for capturing CO2 emissions.17 DOE officials told us that, based on 

the agency’s analysis, the cost of electricity production would increase by

35 percent for newly constructed IGCC plants with CO2

 capture, compared 

to a 77 percent increase for newly constructed pulverized coal power 

plants equipped with CO2

 capture.18 Figure 3 illustrates several of the key 

differences between the two capture approaches.

 17Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Cost and Performance 

Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants—Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to 

Electricity, Final Report (2007). 

18DOE officials told us these estimates were based on Cost and Performance Baseline for 

Fossil Energy Power Plants—Volume 1. 

Page 19 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Figure 3: Pre-combustion (i.e., IGCC) versus Post-combustion (i.e., pulverized coal) CO2

 Capture 

Gasification 

IGCC (pre-combustion)

Pulverized coal (post-combustion) 

Coal 

Air 

Air 

separation 

Coal 

Air 

Oxygen 

Nitrogen 

Nitrogen 

CO2

capture

CO2 capture 

CO2

CO2 

Combustion

turbine

Combustion 

CO2 

compression 

CO2 

compression 

H2

Boiler 

Flue gas (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) 

Steam turbine 

Electricity 

Electricity 

Syngas

Source: GAO analysis of IPCC and DOE data.

Nonetheless, while IGCC plants using CCS technology have been planned 

in a number of countries, the outlook for IGCC power plants remains 

uncertain. Among the factors impeding deployment of the technology are 

the following: 

• Cost of constructing IGCC power plants. Recent assessments indicate 

that it may be initially more expensive to build a new IGCC power plant 

than to build a pulverized coal power plant if CO2 emissions are not 

captured. The IEA notes, in particular, that the investment cost for an 

Page 20 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
IGCC plant is about 20 percent higher than for a pulverized coal 

combustion plant.19 Moreover, the DOE Cost and Performance Baseline 

for Fossil Energy Plants report states that if the power plant does not 

capture CO2 emissions, both the total cost of the plant as well as cost of 

electricity production would be more expensive at the IGCC power 

plants.20 Furthermore, the IEA notes considerable uncertainty in IGCC 

costs because no coal-fired IGCC plants have recently been built. 

• Reliability concerns with IGCC plants. Several stakeholders we 

interviewed expressed concern about the reliability of IGCC plants for 

electricity production. One electric power company official said that 

existing turbines for IGCC power plants are not reliable enough to provide 

base-load power for customers at high levels of CO2

 capture. Moreover, 

according to an MIT study, several IGCC power plants experienced 

reliability challenges in the first few years of operation, although many of

these early problems proved manageable and the reliability of the plants 

subsequently improved.21 However, the National Coal Council identifies 

reliability as one continuing area of concern in which IGCC technology 

could be improved.22

• Challenges in building new coal-fired power plants in the United States. 

Using IGCC as an enabling technology for CCS is premised on building 

new coal-fired power plants. However, efforts to build new coal-fired 

power plants, regardless of the technology used, are facing increased 

regulatory scrutiny due to environmental concerns. A 2008 DOE report, 

Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants, states that significantly fewer 

new U.S. coal-fired power plants have been built than originally planned.

Delays and cancellations have been attributed to regulatory uncertainty, 

including climate change concerns and escalating costs. 

 19International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios and 

Strategies to 2050 (Paris, 2008). 

20DOE officials told us that the study was based on current technology and not on possible 

advanced technology being developed. 

21MIT, The Future of Coal (2007). 

22The National Coal Council, Technologies to Reduce or Capture and Store Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions. 

Page 21 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Key assessments indicate that post-combustion capture of CO2

, which 

would be used at pulverized coal power plants, faces significant technical 

challenges that greatly affect the cost and feasibility of its deployment 

using currently available technology.23 This is significant because these 

pulverized coal facilities account for an overwhelming share of the world’s 

coal-fired capacity. 

In a pulverized coal plant, coal is burned with air in the boiler to produce 

steam. The steam then drives a turbine to generate electricity. Hence, CO2

would have to be separated from the boiler exhaust, or flue gas, after 

combustion, rather than separating the carbon before combustion, as is 

the case in an IGCC plant. The need to separate CO2 from the flue gas adds 

a number of technical challenges that can affect the cost and efficiency of

CO2

 capture:

Capturing CO2 from Existing 

Coal-fired Power Plants 

Requires Significant Amounts 

of Energy and Imposes High 

Costs 

• Treating large volumes of flue gas to remove CO2. As noted earlier, large 

volumes of flue gas must be treated to remove dilute concentrations of 

CO2

. DOE estimates that CO2 accounts for only about 15 percent of the 

volume of the flue gas from a pulverized coal-fired power plant, compared 

to about 40 percent in an IGCC plant. 

• Removing impurities from the flue gas before CO2 removal. Trace 

impurities in the flue gas, such as particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and

nitrogen oxides, can reduce the effectiveness of certain CO2

 capture 

processes. The IPCC notes that it is important to reduce the acidic gas 

components, which would reduce the absorption capacity of the solvent 

used to remove CO2

. Additionally, IPCC notes that fly ash and soot present 

in the flue gas could be problematic, if not addressed. 

• Compressing the captured or separated CO2. Compressing captured or 

separated CO2

 from atmospheric pressure to pipeline pressure represents 

a large auxiliary power load on the overall plant system. The MIT study 

indicated that the energy required to compress the CO2

 is the second 

largest factor in reducing the efficiency of the power plant.24

• Significant cost increases in retrofitting CCS to an existing plant. An 

IPCC assessment of several studies concluded that retrofitting a CO2

capture system to existing coal-fired power plants would increase the 

 23Nearly all existing coal-fired power plants are pulverized coal power plants.

24MIT, The Future of Coal. 

Page 22 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
incremental cost of producing electricity from about 150 to 290 percent. 

Similarly, based on a study of a representative coal-fired plant in Ohio, 

DOE estimated that capturing 30 percent of a retrofitted plant’s CO2

emissions would increase its cost of electricity production by 2.3 cents per 

kilowatt-hour, while capturing 90 percent of the plant’s CO2

 emissions 

would increase the cost of producing electricity by nearly 7 cents per 

kilowatt-hour.25 For comparative purposes, the DOE’s Energy Information 

Administration reports that the average retail price of electricity in the

United States is 8.9 cents per kilowatt hour. 

The IPCC, two federal advisory committee reports, and many stakeholders

we contacted agreed that key regulatory and legal issues will need to be 

addressed if CCS is to be deployed at commercial scale. Among these 

issues are (1) confusion over the rules for injecting large volumes of CO2

, 

(2) long-term liability issues concerning CO2

 storage and potential leakage, 

(3) how property ownership patterns may affect CO2

 storage, and (4) how 

the Clean Air Act will apply to facilities that capture CO2

. 

Electric utilities and oil and gas companies have underscored the need for 

guidance on how CCS projects that inject large volumes of CO2

 would be 

regulated under EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, 

which is designed to protect underground sources of drinking water. As 

noted earlier, under the UIC program, EPA regulates underground 

injections of various substances, including nonhazardous and hazardous 

wastes into more than 800,000 injection wells. The SDWA requires EPA to 

develop minimum federal requirements for injection practices that protect

public health by preventing injection wells from endangering underground 

sources of drinking water. However, the injection of CO2

 for long-term 

storage raises a new set of unique issues related to its relative buoyancy, 

its corrosiveness in the presence of water, and large volumes in which it 

would be injected. 

Stakeholders suggested that the absence of regulations related to largevolume CO2

 injection and storage was creating considerable uncertainty 

for CCS projects. Recently, EPA proposed a regulation to address this 

uncertainty. Prior to this proposal, nearly half of the 20 stakeholders we 

interviewed said uncertainty regarding CO2

 injection and storage 

regulations was a large or very large barrier to CCS deployment. For 

Regulatory and Legal 

Uncertainties Also 

Complicate Capture, 

Injection, and Storage of 

CO2

Confusion over Rules about 

Large-Volume Injections of CO2

 25Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Carbon Dioxide Capture 

from Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants (2007). 

Page 23 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
example, one industry stakeholder said that he was uncertain about 

whether injecting CO2

 in large volumes was actually legal, since EPA’s 

guidance to date only addresses pilot CCS projects. Other stakeholders 

have mentioned that without new EPA guidance on large volume CO2

injections, they were uncertain about how stringent their well

construction and monitoring needed to be. In addition, a diverse panel at

EPA’s 2007 UIC workshop on the issue noted that well spacing could be a 

significant issue that needed to be addressed, since the pressure effects 

caused by various CO2

 injections could intersect and have a major impact 

due to injection volumes, particularly with the size and potential number 

of CO2

 projects. Finally, according to a 2007 report by the American Public

Power Association, the uncertainty associated with UIC permit 

requirements has complicated commercial scale planning for new coalfired power plants because it has left utilities uncertain as to whether they 

could inject CO2

 locally or be required to pipe CO2 over great distances. 

In July 2008, EPA addressed some of these technical and regulatory issues 

in its proposed rule for underground injection of CO2

 for geologic 

sequestration. Preliminary stakeholder reaction to EPA’s proposed rule, 

discussed later in this report, suggests that some CO2

 injection-related 

uncertainties may be headed for resolution through the EPA rulemaking 

but that others will be more challenging to resolve. 

Beyond the immediate concerns over how to inject large volumes of CO2

, 

stakeholders expressed broader concerns over the long-term liability 

associated with its storage. They pointed specifically to a lack of clarity 

regarding who—the injector or the property owner—will ultimately be 

responsible for CO2

 injections and storage after the wells are capped. If 

stored CO2

 migrated beyond the area in which it was intended to be stored, 

there are two potential outcomes that generate concern: 

Long-Term Liability Concerns 

over CO2 Storage and Possible 

Leakage 

• Stored CO2 could migrate underground and endanger underground sources 

of drinking water, leading to liability under the SDWA for the party 

responsible. According to EPA, CO2

 migration into drinking water can 

cause the leaching of contaminants, such as arsenic, lead, and other 

compounds, into the water. CO2

 migration could also result in changes in

regional groundwater flow and the movement of saltier fluids into drinking 

water, causing its quality to degrade. As the July 2008 proposed rule’s 

preamble reiterates, under the SDWA, well operators remain responsible 

indefinitely for any migration that endangers underground sources of 

drinking water, and courts could impose civil penalties as high as $25,000

per day. Participants in EPA’s 2007 UIC workshop raised the prospect of

environmental and health concerns posed by CO2

 injections, including the 

Page 24 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
mobilization of previously isolated metals, lower pH as a result of CO2

interaction with water, and saltwater displacement. 

• Stored CO2 could also migrate beneath adjacent lands. If CO2 was injected

for geologic storage and it migrated underground into neighboring mineral 

deposits, for example, it could interfere with the adjacent mineral owners’ 

abilities to extract those resources, and the injection well’s operator could 

be held liable for nuisance, trespass, or another tort. 

EPA’s 2007 UIC workshop, attended by more than 200 stakeholders, 

revealed liability associated with unintended migration of injected CO2

 to 

be a critical concern. Similarly, 19 of the 20 stakeholders we interviewed 

told us that liability related to CO2

 storage was a large or very large barrier

to deployment of CCS at commercial scale, with some noting that liability 

concerns have already negatively impacted companies’ ability to initiate 

CCS projects. For example, two stakeholders reported that these concerns 

have already made it difficult to obtain insurance for CCS projects. They 

noted specifically that insurers have difficulty writing insurance policies 

because of the uncertainties associated with and limited data available for

CCS, while another added that investors will not support projects like CCS 

if they expose them to unlimited and undefined long-term liabilities, 

especially when future revenue streams are uncertain. 

Setting aside any complications that could later arise from CO2

 leakage 

onto others’ property, electric utilities and other stakeholders note that at

the outset of a CCS project, it would be essential to identify and obtain the 

consent of all surface and mineral property rights owners. Such a 

determination is not always straightforward because ownership of surface 

land is often severed from ownership of minerals located below the land’s 

surface and, in the same vein, ownership of saline reservoirs. In these 

circumstances of severed ownership, state law varies on who owns the 

geologic formation or potential storage site that would sequester the CO2

. 

In some states, the surface landowner owns the geological formation, but 

in others, the mineral rights owner owns the formation. Moreover, those 

geologic formations used for CO2

 storage that extend below surface lands

could encompass the mineral rights of multiple owners. 

Aside from the question of who owns the storage site, it is also not clear 

who would actually own the CO2

 once injected—the injector, the owner of 

the surface land, or the owner of the subsurface geologic formation—

because few state laws or courts have yet to address the issue. Some state 

laws and courts, however, have recognized that injectors of natural gas 

retain ownership of that gas. 

Property Ownership Patterns 

May Also Affect CO2 Storage 

Page 25 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Multiple stakeholders told us that this issue will be a much larger one as 

CCS projects are scaled up to commercial scale and move beyond existing

enhanced oil recovery projects that inject smaller volumes of CO2

 in order 

to extract additional oil from underground reservoirs. They noted that the 

CO2

 plume, or pressure front created by injecting the CO2 underground, 

can cover tens to hundreds of square miles, affecting numerous property 

owners. According to one power company official, this property rights 

issue is different from liability-related issues, since it could prevent CO2

from being injected into the ground in the first place. If they cannot get 

access rights to the formation, they cannot do a project. 

According to EPA air officials, the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review 

(NSR) requirements apply to new power plants that are constructed with 

carbon capture technology and may apply to existing power plants that 

install the technology. NSR is triggered when a new facility is built, or 

when an existing facility makes a major modification, a physical or 

operational change that would result in a significant net increase in 

emissions. Under NSR, permitting authorities review the proposed facility 

or modification to establish emission limits and ensure the requisite 

pollution control technologies will be used before granting it a permit. 

Because of the additional energy required for carbon capture, EPA 

officials note that power plants implementing the technology might need 

to burn more coal to generate the same amount of electricity. If this 

increased coal usage resulted in a significant net increase of emissions of 

pollutants regulated under the act, such as ozone or sulfur oxide, NSR 

could be triggered. 

Some note that the NSR requirements, and the additional costs and 

uncertainties associated with them, may discourage facilities such as 

power plants from adopting CCS technology. For example, a recent report 

from a federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy states that 

“for existing coal-fired facilities, a major question is whether the Clean Air

Act, including the NSR requirements of the Act, would apply if CCS 

equipment is installed.”26 Multiple stakeholders we interviewed agreed that 

adding CCS equipment to an existing power plant could raise problems 

under NSR. One noted, in particular, that NSR challenges were

manageable while CCS projects were at the demonstration scale but could 

pose greater problems when CCS is deployed at a larger scale.

Uncertainty Regarding How the 

Clean Air Act Will Apply to 

Power Plants with CCS 

 26The National Coal Council, The Urgency of Sustainable Coal (Washington D.C., 2008). 

Page 26 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
According to the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and other 

knowledgeable authorities, another barrier is the absence of a national 

strategy to control CO2

 emissions (emissions trading plan, CO2 emissions

tax, or other mandatory control of CO2

 emissions), without which the 

electric utility industry has little incentive to capture and store its CO2

emissions. Moreover, according to key agency officials, the absence of a 

national strategy to control CO2

 emissions has also deterred their agencies

from resolving other important practical issues that will ultimately require 

resolution if CCS is to be deployed on a large scale. Such issues include 

lack of clarity regarding who owns injected CO2

 and how stored CO2 will 

be addressed in a future emissions trading scheme. 

A wide range of academic, industry, and other knowledgeable authorities 

agree that CCS is unlikely to be used to any substantial extent without 

some kind of national strategy to control CO2

 emissions. The IPCC’s 2005 

report on CCS observed, for example, that “all models indicate that CCS 

systems are unlikely to be deployed on a large scale in the absence of an 

explicit policy that substantially limits greenhouse gas emissions to the 

atmosphere. With greenhouse gas emission limits imposed, many 

integrated assessments foresee the deployment of CCS systems on a large 

scale within a few decades from the start of any significant climate change 

mitigation regime.” It stated further that “the stringency of future 

requirements for the control of greenhouse gas emissions and the 

expected costs of CCS systems will determine, to a large extent, the future 

deployment of CCS technologies relative to other greenhouse gas 

mitigation options.”27

EPA’s Clean Air Act Advisory Committee’s Advanced Coal Technology 

Workgroup similarly reported that widespread commercial deployment of

advanced clean coal technologies, including large-scale CCS, likely will not 

occur without legislation that establishes a significant long-term “market 

driver.” The majority of stakeholders we interviewed agreed, 

characterizing the absence of a national strategy to control CO2

 emissions

as a large or very large barrier to CCS deployment on a commercial scale, 

with many stating that without a price on emitting CO2

, there is no 

rationale for utilities or other facilities to control their emissions. 

Moreover, according to a leading researcher,28 “in order for significant 

The Absence of a National 

Strategy to Control CO2

Emissions Gives Neither 

Industry Nor Government 

Agencies an Incentive to 

Invest in CCS 

Industry Has Little Incentive to 

Invest in CO2 Control 

Technologies without a 

National Strategy to Control 

CO2 Emissions 

 27IPCC, IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (2005).

28J.M. Antle, University Fellow, Resources for the Future, Is There a Role for Geologic and

Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation? (February 2008). 

Page 27 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
progress to be made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, some form of 

mandatory emissions limits or tax on greenhouse gases will be required, 

just as in every other area of environmental regulation where substantial

costs of emission reductions must be borne.” 

One indication as to how emitters might respond to a cost on CO2

emissions was provided by a Norwegian petroleum company after Norway 

introduced a $40 per metric ton tax on offshore CO2

 emissions in 1991. The

Statoil petroleum company’s Sleipner project, a natural gas processing 

project located at a gas field 250 kilometers off the coast of Norway, had 

already been removing CO2

 from the natural gas to prepare it for sale on 

the open market. But with no financial incentive to do otherwise, Statoil 

had simply vented the CO2

 into the atmosphere. At least partly in response 

to the tax, however, the company, in 1996, began to capture approximately 

3,000 metric tons of CO2

 per day from natural gas extraction and store it 

800 meters under the North Sea’s seabed in a geologic formation called a 

saline reservoir. 

The United States’ experience with other pollutants, notably sulfur dioxide 

(SO2

), also provides insights into the kind of market-based emissions 

control regime that could emerge if a national strategy to control CO2

emissions was adopted. In Title IV of the Clean Air Act 1990 Amendments, 

Congress established a goal of reducing annual emissions of SO2

 by 10 

million tons from 1980 emissions levels. Specifically, the law established 

overall emission limitations and allocated SO2

 emission allowances to 

individual electric utilities. The utilities are required to own enough 

allowances at the end of each year to cover their emissions. Under the 

law’s allowance trading system, utilities can trade some or all their 

allowances in a way that allows them greater flexibility in achieving the 

required emission reductions at the lowest cost. In cases where utilities 

were able to reduce emissions below their required allowance, they were 

able to sell the extra allowances at the market price to other utilities. As 

with the SO2

 program, analyses by government and academic 

organizations generally indicate that CCS technology will be more 

extensively used as emission limits tighten. 

An important lesson from the SO2

 program was that as vendors competed 

to meet utilities’ emission reduction needs, they were prompted to seek 

the least expensive means of providing utilities with low-sulfur coal, 

Page 28 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
“scrubbers,” and other methods for reducing sulfur dioxide emissions.29 As 

a result, the overall cost of reducing emissions decreased over time. More 

generally, a study commissioned by the IEA’s Greenhouse Gas R&D 

Program emphasizes the decrease in costs of new technologies over time.30

It suggests that for new coal emission control technologies, the initial 

higher plant costs incurred are gradually reduced through experience and 

from continued research and development. 

The absence of a national strategy to control CO2

 emissions not only 

leaves the regulated community with little incentive to reduce their 

emissions, it also leaves regulators with little reason to devise the practical

arrangements necessary to implement the reductions. For example, 

regulators have not addressed how utilities that capture and sequester CO2

would be treated under a future emissions trading plan. The EU’s early 

experience with CO2

 emissions trading illustrates the significance of 

including CCS in an emissions trading plan. EU officials told us when the 

Emissions Trading System (ETS) was conceived, the maturity of CCS as a 

technical reduction option for CO2

was not clear. Therefore, CCS projects 

were not systematically included in the ETS.31 However, EU officials 

noted that the situation has changed substantially since then. Indeed, a 

recent European Commission report indicates that not systematically 

including CCS in the ETS may be one barrier to its deployment. 32

Accordingly, the European Commission is now proposing legislation to 

explicitly include, after 2012, facilities involved in the capture, 

transportation, and storage of CO2

 in the ETS. These facilities would then 

earn allowances for nonemitted CO2

 and would have to surrender 

emissions allowances for any leakages of CO2

 that occur. Consequently, 

EU officials told us that the proposed directive, when enacted, would 

remove this barrier. 

The Absence of a National 

Strategy to Control CO2

Emissions Has Constrained the 

Federal Government’s Efforts 

to Plan For and Develop CCS 

Projects 

 29GAO, Air Pollution: Allowance Trading Offers an Opportunity to Reduce Emissions at 

Less Cost, GAO/RCED-95-30 (Washington, D.C.: December 16, 1994) and Air Pollution:

Overview and Issues on Emissions Allowance Trading Programs, GAO/RCED-97-183 

(Washington, D.C.: July 9, 1997). 

30Edward S. Rubin et al, “Use of Experience Curves to Estimate Future Cost of Power 

Plants with CO2

 Capture,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 1, issue 2 

(2007). 

31EU member states can seek to include CCS projects in their national emission cap by

gaining approval from the European Commission on a case-by-case basis.

32EU Commission Staff Working Document, accompanying document to the Proposal for a

Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Geologic Storage of 

Carbon Dioxide (January 23, 2008). 

Page 29 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Likewise, cognizant agency officials responsible for U.S. programs have 

told us that they will not act on key CCS implementation issues prior to 

Congress establishing a national strategy to control CO2

 emissions. For 

example, as noted earlier, the officials told us that uncertainty regarding

property rights ownership stems from ambiguity over who owns the 

injected CO2, and it is similarly unclear what the government’s potential 

liability might be for long-term storage of CO2

 on federal lands. Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) officials said they are aware of the issue and of 

the BLM’s jurisdiction in the matter but told us they are looking to 

Congress for a solution before they will take any specific actions to 

address it. These officials also noted that while they do have authority to 

permit CO2

 injections on federal lands that are solely for sequestration 

purposes, they are uncertain whether BLM has statutory authority to 

establish a funding mechanism for long-term management of sequestration 

sites on federal lands. 

Other practical issues requiring resolution, which cross the jurisdictions of 

a range of federal agencies and of state and local governments, are 

discussed later in this report. 

While federal agencies have begun to address CCS barriers, they have yet

to comprehensively address the full range of issues that would require 

resolution for widespread CCS deployment. DOE has achieved limited 

results in lowering the cost of CO2 capture at existing power plants, and 

the agency’s focus on gasification technology to date may not provide for

the needed reductions in emissions because few facilities with this 

technology currently exist. However, DOE’s focus has recently shifted to 

better balance the need for capture technology at both new and existing 

power plants. EPA has recently issued a proposed rule that clarifies 

significant regulatory uncertainties related to CO2

 injection and storage. 

However, critical questions remain about long-term liability for stored CO2

. 

Elsewhere in the federal government, agencies have not addressed a 

number of issues that could delay CCS deployment. Among them are how 

CO2

 pipeline infrastructure might be developed and how a future 

emissions trading plan would treat avoided CO2

 emissions due to CCS. 

Federal Agencies 

Have Yet to Resolve 

the Full Range of 

Issues Requiring 

Resolution for 

Widespread CCS 

Deployment 

Page 30 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
DOE has identified IGCC technology as the key enabling technology for 

reducing CO2

 emissions from newly constructed coal-fired power plants 

and has helped to develop and demonstrate IGCC technology. However, 

key assessments by the National Academy of Sciences and international

organizations have raised questions about how the agency’s focus on IGCC 

technology may have affected the broader effort to substantially reduce 

CO2

 emissions from coal-based electricity generation because (1) as noted

earlier, the outlook for widespread deployment of IGCC technology is 

questionable and (2) the agency’s funding related to IGCC technology has 

substantially exceeded funding for technologies more applicable to 

reducing emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. DOE has 

recently started to focus greater attention on technologies more applicable

to reducing emissions from existing power plants. 

Consistent with DOE’s emphasis on IGCC, the agency cites a number of 

accomplishments in advancing the technology, such as its support for two 

operational IGCC power plants, in Florida and Indiana, that produce 

substantial amounts of electricity, while also demonstrating the 

production of high-pressure syngas amenable to CO2

 capture.

33 DOE also 

cites its contributions to the development of several IGCC-related 

technologies, which would advance pre-combustion CO2

 capture. 

Specifically, recent technological advances cited by the agency include

successful fabrication and testing of a liquid membrane that is stable at 

high temperatures and that could be used for CO2

 capture in IGCC plants, 

as well as a new material with CO2

 separation potential for gas separation. 

Moreover, according to a published journal article with three DOE coauthors, advances in membranes may be significant in advancing CO2

capture because membranes are less energy intensive, compared to other 

separation techniques.34 Taken together, the National Academy of Sciences

credits DOE’s efforts in promoting IGCC technology, citing the agency’s 

DOE Has Only Recently 

Prioritized Research to 

Help Control CO2

Emissions from Existing 

Power Plants 

DOE Has Achieved Some 

Advances with IGCC 

Technology

 33Syngas is the gas produced by the gasification process, composed of hydrogen, carbon 

monoxide, and minor amounts of other constituents. While DOE considers the gas stream 

amenable to CO2

 recovery, CO2 capture was not actually demonstrated in the projects. 

34Jose D. Figueroa, Timothy Fout, Sean Plasynski, Howard McIlvried, and Rameshwar D. 

Srivastava, “Advances in CO2

 capture technology- The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon

Sequestration Program,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 2 (2008). 

Page 31 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
efforts to develop “a close working relationship with the industry to move 

the technology through the commercial demonstration stage.”35

Looking ahead, DOE hopes to make further investments, and progress, in 

demonstrating IGCC’s feasibility to capture CO2

 through its FutureGen 

program, which aims to accelerate commercial deployment of IGCC or 

other advanced clean coal-based power generation technology with CCS. 

Moreover, under the restructured FutureGen program, DOE anticipates 

supporting demonstrations at more than one site.

DOE’s progress, however, has required both significant time and 

resources. As the National Academy of Sciences noted, the development of

an integrated IGCC system has been an important component of DOE’s 

Fossil Energy Research Development and Demonstration program for 

more than 20 years, and between 1978 and 2000, DOE invested $2.3 billion 

in gasification technology.36 Moreover, DOE budget data indicate that in

more recent years, the agency has continued to provide substantial 

funding for IGCC technology. Several Fossil Energy programs provide 

substantial support for developing IGCC technology, including the IGCC 

program, the FutureGen program, and the advanced turbines program. 

Together, these programs account for a significant share of Fossil Energy’s 

overall budget. The Carbon Sequestration program also provides some 

additional funding for CO2

 capture using IGCC technology. 

Developing an exact estimate of DOE funding for IGCC technology is 

challenging because the individual DOE programs pursue multiple 

objectives and funding categories have changed over time. However, an 

examination of DOE’s budget information suggests that its support from 

1997 (the year the Carbon Sequestration program began) to present is 

likely on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars and probably in 

excess of $500 million. A DOE official within Fossil Energy acknowledged 

to us that “the bulk of coal program capture funding relates to gasification, 

particularly IGCC,” although DOE officials said they are now focusing 

more attention on existing pulverized coal power plants. 

DOE Funding Decisions Reflect 

Agency’s Focus on IGCC 

 35National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Energy Research at DOE: Was 

It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000 (Washington,

D.C., 2001). 

36National Academy of Sciences, Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It?

Page 32 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
The payoff for this investment, however, will depend heavily on the extent

to which IGCC technology is used in newly constructed power plants—

both in the United States and worldwide. In this regard, the National 

Academy of Sciences said in a recent assessment that the Carbon 

Sequestration program “is taking on a relatively high overall risk to create 

technologies for commercial demonstration by 2012 in that it relies heavily 

on the successful deployment of full-scale IGCC plants.” The report added 

that there are only a few IGCC plants operating worldwide and advanced, 

commercial-scale IGCC units are only in the design phase and have no CO2

sequestration.37

Moreover, as noted earlier, studies by the IEA, DOE, and the National Coal 

Council cite a number of compelling factors, such as the relative cost of 

IGCC plant construction and the limited operational experience 

worldwide with this relatively new technology, which may limit 

commercial deployment of IGCC technology. Several industry 

stakeholders we interviewed expressed concerns about using IGCC 

technology for electricity generation, including the cost of constructing 

IGCC plants and possible reliability concerns. For example, officials from 

one electric power company told us they thought high levels of CO2

capture at IGCC plants would necessitate the use of a turbine, which has

not yet been commercially demonstrated. Looking ahead, the IEA’s 2007 

World Energy Outlook notes that “for IGCC to establish itself in the 

market, further development to bring down costs and improve operational 

flexibility is necessary.” 

Until recently, DOE budget decisions reflected a view that IGCC 

technology offered greater potential to capture CO2

 than technologies 

applicable to pulverized coal-fired power plants. As indicated earlier, DOE 

budget information we reviewed indicates substantial funding for IGCC 

technology, likely in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. By 

comparison, DOE support for post-combustion CO2

 capture technology, 

most applicable for existing plants, appears more limited, likely on the 

order of tens of millions of dollars. 

As noted earlier, DOE has cited a number of challenges that complicate 

efforts to capture CO2

 emissions from pulverized coal-fired power plants, 

IGCC Technology’s Potential 

for Reducing CO2 Emissions Is 

Uncertain 

DOE Has Thus Far Achieved 

Limited Success in Reducing 

CO2 Emissions from Existing 

Power Plants 

 37National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Prospective Evaluation of 

Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two) (Washington, D.C., 

2007). 

Page 33 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
including the large volumes of gas that must be treated; trace impurities in 

the exhaust gas (such as particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen 

oxides) that can degrade the effectiveness of certain capture processes; 

and the high amount of energy needed to compress CO2

 emissions. Among 

other things, a DOE study concluded that if CO2

 capture were added to a 

pulverized coal-fired power plant that started operations in 2010, its cost 

of electricity production would increase by approximately 80 percent.38

These technological realities, however, are at odds with another reality 

anticipated by a number of organizations: these facilities will account for 

the vast majority of coal capacity in the United States and around the 

world in the near term. Accordingly, in past years, the agency has 

undertaken some initiatives to advance technologies to capture CO2

 from 

these facilities and points to a number of accomplishments arising from 

these efforts. Among them, DOE researchers reported patenting a 

technique to capture CO2

 from a coal-fired power plant’s exhaust using 

ammonia, a technique planned for two capture demonstrations at power 

plants in Ohio and North Dakota. DOE officials also point to several other 

projects related to post-combustion CO2

 capture, including development of 

ionic liquids with greater absorption capacity for CO2

 and development of 

sorbent technology for retrofitting existing pulverized coal plants. DOE 

officials also pointed to investments in two other challenging aspects of 

CO2

 capture. One involves research to address one of the largest cost 

drivers, the cost of regenerating the absorbent. DOE officials also pointed

to work on technologies to improve the efficiency of compressing CO2

, a 

major cost factor in capturing CO2

 at these facilities. 

Nonetheless, DOE’s own analysis raises questions concerning the agency’s 

progress in helping to reduce the cost of CO2

 capture at pulverized coal 

power plants. For post-combustion CO2

 capture, DOE officials indicated to 

us that the agency’s current goal is to develop, by 2012, pilot-scale systems 

to capture 90 percent of CO2

 at no more than a 35 percent increase in the

cost of electricity production. However, it is noteworthy that this goal is to 

develop pilot-scale systems only; commercial-scale units will not come 

online until the 2020 time frame. 

An assessment report recently published by DOE indicates the size of the 

challenge DOE faces in reducing the cost of capture. The study indicated

that CO2

 capture would increase the cost of electricity production by 77 

 38DOE, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants—Volume 1.

Page 34 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
percent at a pulverized coal power plant starting operation in 2010.

39 A 

DOE official within Fossil Energy acknowledged to us that owners of 

existing pulverized coal power plants, under a future emissions trading 

arrangement, might choose to purchase carbon allowances, rather than 

pay for an expensive retrofit, and that plant age and other economic 

considerations will make the determination of whether a retrofit or 

another action, such as purchasing allowances, will occur. 

One contributing factor to DOE’s limited progress in reducing CO2

emissions from existing power plants is that it is a relatively lower priority

for DOE. The National Academy of Sciences noted that the Carbon 

Sequestration program has focused on IGCC technology to achieve its goal 

of reducing the cost of carbon capture.

40 Our examination of DOE’s budget 

in recent years supports this view: 

• The Carbon Sequestration program has provided limited capture 

funding: DOE officials estimated the Carbon Sequestration program 

provided approximately $50 million in funding related to all types of CO2

capture from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2007. While DOE officials were 

able to provide limited information quantifying precisely how this funding 

was split between post-combustion and pre-combustion capture, they 

indicated that the majority of it went toward the development of postcombustion and oxy-combustion capture technologies. DOE officials 

suggest that, historically, 20 percent of the Carbon Sequestration 

program’s budget has gone toward capture, which DOE officials said 

allowed capture technology development to continue as DOE evaluated 

geologic storage of CO2

. However, capture-related funding has generally 

received less funding in the Carbon Sequestration program’s budget than

other areas, such as the regional partnerships. 

• Post-combustion capture has not been supported by related programs: 

Until recently, post-combustion CO2

 capture had not received large 

amounts of funding from other programs in Fossil Energy. Specifically, 

until fiscal year 2008, no other major Fossil Energy programs provided 

substantial funding related to post-combustion capture, in contrast to 

those programs’ support for IGCC technology. 

 39DOE, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants—Volume 1.

40National Academy of Sciences, Prospective Evaluation.

Page 35 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Looking ahead, DOE officials told us that the agency is now focusing more 

attention on reducing CO2

 emissions from existing plants by shifting the 

focus of a related Fossil Energy program, the Innovations for Existing 

Plants program, so that it emphasizes the development of post-combustion 

capture of CO2. Among the factors cited in this decision were (1) the large 

number of pulverized coal power plants in the United States; (2) 

congressional direction in the report accompanying the agency’s fiscal 

year 2008 appropriation to focus more attention on this issue; and (3) the 

applicability of advances in this area to the large number of pulverized 

coal power plants under construction in China and India. 

In February 2008, DOE announced that it was soliciting applications for 

projects “specifically focused on developing technologies for CO2

 capture 

and separation that can be retrofitted to existing pulverized coal (PC) 

power plants.” In July 2008, the agency announced it was providing $36 

million in funding for 15 projects to develop new and cost-effective 

capture technologies for existing power plants. 

Other recent changes in DOE’s funding decisions also appear to recognize 

the significance of reducing emissions from existing power plants: 

DOE Has Recently Focused 

More Attention on Existing 

Plants 

• The Carbon Sequestration program’s funding for post-combustion CO2

capture (including oxyfuel combustion capture) increased from $10.1 

million in fiscal year 2007 to $15.4 million in fiscal year 2008.

• The network of Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships appears to be

placing more emphasis on demonstrations of CO2 capture at coal power 

plants for an upcoming series of large-scale sequestration projects. 

Specifically, a DOE official identified three projects being planned to 

capture CO2 from coal-fired power plants, including possibly capturing 

500,000 tons of CO2

 from a coal-fired power plant in North Dakota. 

• DOE indicated in an August 2008 announcement that the agency’s Clean 

Coal Power Initiative program would support coal-based technologies to

capture and sequester CO2

 emissions. For post-combustion CO2 capture, 

the announcement indicated that advanced technologies are sought to 

reduce the cost and additional power load of CO2

 capture. 

While it seems too early to evaluate the results of DOE’s increased focus 

on post-combustion CO2

 capture, key organizations’ assessments appear 

supportive of this shift. A 2008 National Coal Council report, for example, 

Page 36 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
identifies retrofitting existing coal power plants with CCS as part of a 

larger approach to reducing emissions.41 In the same vein, the IPCC notes 

that the strategic importance of post-combustion capture systems 

becomes evident when one considers the large amount of emissions from

pulverized coal power plants. 

As discussed earlier in this report, CCS stakeholders have stated that the

absence of regulations governing large-volume CO2

 injection and storage 

had created considerable uncertainty about the projects and risks 

associated with CCS. In an effort to address many of these concerns, EPA 

issued a proposed a rule in July 2008 to address permitting and other 

requirements for injection of CO2

 for geologic sequestration. The proposed

rule, issued under the agency’s SDWA authority, clarifies a number of 

practical issues for prospective well owners and operators concerning CO2

injection and identifies certain requirements governing their financial 

responsibilities, including for the period after the CO2

 is injected and the 

well is closed. However, as EPA officials note, the rulemaking was not 

intended to resolve many questions concerning how other environmental 

statutes may apply to captured and injected CO2

, including the Clean Air 

Act, CERLCA, and RCRA. A number of key issues, therefore, have yet to 

be addressed. 

EPA’s July 2008 proposed rule creates a new “Class VI” well type for 

injection of CO2

 for geologic sequestration. In doing so, it clarifies a 

number of issues relating to the more immediate, practical issues 

regarding CO2

 injection for geological storage. However, some notable

ambiguities remain, particularly in the area of longer-term financial 

responsibility requirements. The following summarizes both the issues 

that have been addressed and those which may still need to be clarified. In

the discussion below, we provide the preliminary views of the 

stakeholders we interviewed. It is important to note, however, that the 

proposed rule’s 120-day comment period runs until November 24, 2008,

during which time EPA will obtain a broader array of public advice and 

opinions on its proposed rule. 

Site characterization, well construction, and monitoring requirements. 

The proposed rule specifies a number of requirements concerning the 

location of the CO2

 injection well, including (1) the criteria for 

EPA Has Begun to Address 

Regulatory Uncertainty 

Concerning CO2 Injection 

and Storage, but Key 

Issues Remain Unresolved 

EPA Has Issued a Proposed 

Rule under the SDWA on 

Permitting Large-Volume CO2

Injections 

 41The National Coal Council, The Urgency of Sustainable Coal. 

Page 37 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
characterizing the site of the geologic formation and (2) requirements for 

reviewing the wider geographic area surrounding the storage site prior to 

injection. Regarding site characterization, the well owner or operator must 

demonstrate that the well will be located in an area with a suitable 

geologic system, including a confining zone for the injected CO2

 that is free 

of faults or fractures, that would contain the CO2

. The proposed rule also 

specifies that injection of CO2

 above the lowermost formation containing

an underground source of drinking water is prohibited. Regarding the 

wider geographic area surrounding the storage site that may be impacted

by the injection, it requires well owners and operators to delineate an Area 

of Review (AoR) within which the owner or operator must identify all

penetrations, such as wells, that may penetrate the confining zone and 

determine whether the wells have been plugged in a manner that prevents

the movement of CO2

 or associated fluids that may endanger underground 

sources of drinking water. 

The proposed rule also includes standards for well construction, 

operation, and monitoring. For example, although EPA does not specify 

which materials must be used, the proposed rule does require the use of 

materials that meet or exceed industry standards, that are compatible with 

injected CO2

, and that are designed for the life of the well. The proposed 

rule also contains an injection pressure limitation so that an injection does 

not create new fractures or cause movement of injected CO2

 that 

endangers underground sources of drinking water. It requires continuous 

monitoring of injection pressure, rate, and volume, and requires 

semiannual reporting of this data to EPA. The proposed rule also requires 

well owners and operators to submit, with their permit application, a 

testing and monitoring plan to verify that the CO2

 storage project is 

operating as permitted and is not endangering underground sources of 

drinking water. 

The proposed rule also addresses stakeholder concerns about how current 

CO2

 injection wells operating as Class I industrial wells, Class II injection 

wells that use CO2

 for enhanced oil or natural gas extraction, and Class V 

experimental CO2

 injection wells would be regulated if they transition to 

use for long-term storage. It specifies that owners of these existing wells 

may apply for the new Class VI permit and that the UIC program director 

would have the discretion to grandfather the well’s pre-existing 

construction requirements if the director determined that doing so would 

not endanger underground sources of drinking water. With this exception,

the project would have to meet all other Class VI requirements in order to 

obtain a Class VI permit. 

Page 38 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Financial responsibility requirements. EPA’s proposed rule specifies 

that well owners and operators must demonstrate and maintain financial

responsibility for corrective action (that is, repairs or other actions 

necessary to assure that wells within the AoR do not serve as conduits for 

the movement of fluids into underground sources of drinking water), well 

plugging, post-injection site care for a period of 50 years following 

cessation of injections, site closure, and emergency and remedial 

response. The UIC program director can adjust the 50-year time period for 

post-injection site care depending on whether the project poses an 

endangerment to underground sources of drinking water. If the UIC 

program director chooses to lengthen the post-injection site care time 

period, the owner and operator must continue to demonstrate financial

responsibility until the end of that period. Although the financial 

responsibility demonstration requirement ends when the post-injection 

site care time period does, the proposed rule’s preamble indicates that 

well operators remain responsible indefinitely for any endangerment of 

underground sources of drinking water. 

In addition to clarifying well site care, the proposed rule also requires that

well owners and operators periodically update their cost estimate for 

corrective action, well plugging, post-injection site care and site closure, 

and emergency and remedial response, and that they redemonstrate 

financial responsibility for these increased costs as the UIC program 

director deems necessary. It also requires well owners and operators to 

notify the UIC program director of any adverse financial conditions they 

encounter, such as bankruptcy. 

While stakeholders acknowledge EPA’s progress in clarifying some key 

financial responsibility requirements, they cite several other concerns: 

• Although EPA’s proposed rule establishes a post-injection site care period, 

it does not include a provision allowing well operators to be released from 

liability for endangerment of underground sources of drinking water 

during the hundreds of years that CO2

 will be stored in a geologic storage 

project. While it is beyond EPA’s authority to release injection well owners 

and operators from liability, a discussion of long-term liability is included 

in the proposed rule’s docket. Stakeholders told us that they were 

concerned by the unspecified period of time for which they may be liable 

for stored CO2

. 

• The proposed rule only specifies a duty to demonstrate financial 

responsibility, stating that guidance will be developed at a later date 

describing the types of financial mechanisms that owners or operators can

Page 39 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
use. Currently, financial responsibility for other well classes is 

demonstrated through third-party instruments, such as a surety bond that 

establishes a trust fund, or self-insurance instruments, such as a corporate 

financial test. However, EPA’s existing financial responsibility 

requirements have been criticized as inadequate and the agency is 

currently reviewing its approach. EPA is evaluating whether to revise its 

financial responsibility guidance in light of these criticisms and is seeking 

public comments on various financial responsibility topics. Moreover, EPA 

officials told us that the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute limits the financial 

responsibility regulations because it prevents EPA from requiring a cash 

deposit or receiving money as a trustee.42 The proposed rule’s preamble 

also notes that EPA does not have the statutory authority to transfer 

financial responsibility from the well owner or operator to a third party.

Finally, there is some question as to whether EPA will have sufficient 

resources to implement the expanded UIC program. EPA has not 

examined the level of resources that will be needed to administer the UIC 

program once commercial-scale deployment of CCS occurs. However, a 

2007 report by DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory did examine the issue 

and concluded that if CO2

 were stored in large enough volumes to have a 

meaningful impact on global warming, it is likely that thousands or tens of 

thousands of injection wells would need to be developed and permitted in 

the United States. The report noted that this would require that state and 

regional UIC programs expand their staff and capabilities. In this 

connection, it observed that the annual national budget for the UIC 

program—approximately $11 million—has remained static for many years, 

even as UIC agencies have been asked to take on additional 

responsibilities. It warned that failure to provide sufficient resources 

would likely create permitting backlogs, resulting in a bottleneck in the 

overall carbon sequestration effort. 

Multiple stakeholders agreed that EPA needs additional resources for the 

UIC program, including permit writers. One industry representative 

expressed concern that it can take up to 2 years to obtain a permit for a 

well under EPA’s UIC program, and that if CCS projects become more 

widespread, EPA will be responsible for permitting thousands of 

additional injection wells. 

 4231 U.S.C. § 3302(b). 

Page 40 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
While EPA has addressed at least some of the legal and regulatory issues 

on how CO2

 injectors are to protect underground sources of drinking 

water, it has thus far not resolved a number of key environmental issues 

that fall under the jurisdiction of other statutes, including the Clean Air 

Act, RCRA, and CERCLA. 

Clean Air Act. As noted earlier, the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review 

(NSR) requirements could be triggered if an existing facility’s installation 

of capture technology makes a major modification that significantly 

increases emission of regulated pollutants. EPA officials acknowledge 

concerns that NSR could cause delays and impose added costs to CCS 

projects. However, they said that an assessment of how NSR might impact 

the feasibility of CCS projects cannot be made globally because it depends 

on site-specific factors, such as geological and hydrological 

considerations, the CCS technology that will be used, how it will operate,

and how that operation could affect the rest of the plant. 

Laws governing hazardous wastes and substances. RCRA and CERCLA 

could pose similar complications for CCS projects. RCRA authorizes EPA

to establish regulations governing the treatment, storage, and disposal of 

hazardous waste. A hazardous waste is generally defined as a solid waste 

that either (1) exhibits certain characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, or toxicity) or (2) has been listed as a hazardous waste by EPA. 

CERCLA established the Superfund program to clean up sites that have 

been contaminated by hazardous substances. CERCLA authorizes EPA to 

compel the parties statutorily responsible for the hazardous substances to 

bear the costs of cleaning up the contaminated site or to carry out 

cleanups itself and recover costs from the responsible parties. Hazardous 

substances are those which may present substantial danger to the public 

health, welfare, or environment when released and include all hazardous 

wastes subject to RCRA. 

Whether any given injected CO2

 stream is categorically a hazardous waste 

or hazardous substance has not been resolved by EPA. The preamble to 

EPA’s proposed rule notes that pure CO2

 in and of itself is not listed as a 

hazardous substance under CERCLA. However, the rule’s preamble 

cautions that injected CO2

 streams could contain hazardous constituents 

that would make these streams “hazardous.”43 It notes that since the 

Key Legal and Regulatory 

Issues outside of the SDWA 

Have Been Largely 

Unaddressed 

 43The proposed rule’s preamble notes that if a CO2

 stream contains hazardous waste as a 

constituent, it must be permitted as a Class I well. Class I wells are intended for hazardous 

materials. 

Page 41 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
chemical composition of individual injected CO2

 streams vary, no 

categorical determination can be made as to whether all injected CO2

streams are hazardous wastes. Accordingly, the preamble says that it will 

be up to the well owners and operators to make this determination on the 

basis of their particular circumstances. EPA officials said that they lacked

the information about the composition of CO2

 streams captured from coalfired power plants necessary to determine whether those streams should 

categorically be listed as a hazardous waste under RCRA. 

Thus, considerable uncertainties over how owners and operators of CCS 

projects would be treated under key environmental laws other than the 

SDWA remain unresolved. An EPA federal advisory committee working 

group had emphasized, in particular, that the EPA address the liability 

implications concerning CO2

 injection under RCRA and CERCLA.44

However, the proposed rule is unclear as to whether the two laws even 

apply to injected CO2

, and it is therefore uncertain whether injectors will 

be subject to hazardous waste disposal requirements and liability for 

hazardous substance releases. 

In addition to the technical and legal issues affecting CCS’s prospects, key 

studies, federal advisory committees, and the stakeholders we interviewed 

also identified an array of other issues that would need to be resolved if 

the technology is to be deployed within a time frame scientists believe is 

needed to address climate change. Moreover, whereas many of the 

technical and regulatory issues discussed earlier fall within the domain of 

two agencies (DOE and EPA), these other issues cross the jurisdictions of 

the Departments of the Interior and Transportation, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, and other agencies in a manner that would 

require collaboration between agencies and, in many cases, coordination 

with state governments and other entities. 

Under a national CCS program, CO2

 could be sequestered on both federal 

and nonfederal lands and would raise complex property rights issues 

needing resolution in both instances. In the case of federal lands, BLM, 

which manages the federal government’s mineral resources, is required by

Other Key Issues That 

Should Be Proactively 

Addressed to Support a 

National CCS Framework 

Property Rights and Liability 

Issues Related to CO2 Injection 

on Both Federal and 

Nonfederal Lands 

 44 Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Advanced Coal Technology Work Group, Final Report 

of the Advanced Coal Technology Work Group (Jan. 29, 2008). 

Page 42 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 200745 to report by December 

2008 on a framework to manage geological carbon sequestration activities 

on public lands. According to BLM officials, the report will include a 

discussion of the unresolved property ownership and liability issues 

related to long-term CO2

 storage. They note that the report will also 

discuss the statutory authority BLM currently has and what it lacks, such

as the authority to establish a funding mechanism for monitoring and 

mitigation efforts associated with sequestration sites. They cautioned, 

however, that the report will not recommend solutions to current 

uncertainties and explained that since injected CO2

 can move onto 

adjacent private or state lands, resolving them will require collaboration 

with private landowners and state agencies. 

Nationwide CO2

 sequestration would also pose major challenges on 

nonfederal lands. EPA notes that states with primacy for the UIC program 

have typically addressed such challenges when they have arisen under that 

program. The agency acknowledged the additional complications that 

would arise as stored CO2

 crossed state boundaries, but noted that such

cross-jurisdictional issues typically occur under the UIC program and that 

states have worked together to address them. Nonetheless, the 

significantly larger scale of a future CCS program could magnify the 

problems posed by these jurisdictional issues. EPA officials noted that 

they are hoping that the proposed rule’s comment process will surface 

ideas to address these problems. However, EPA officials also note that the 

agency lacks authority to issue regulations resolving these issues. 

Furthermore, while EPA’s proposed rule reaffirms liability related to 

underground sources of drinking water, ambiguity remains regarding 

who—the injector or the property owner— is ultimately responsible for 

unanticipated releases of the injected CO2

 that have other effects. As 

discussed earlier, the released CO2

 could interfere with the adjacent 

mineral owners’ abilities to extract those resources, and the injection 

well’s operator could be held liable for nuisance, trespass, or another tort.

Pipelines are the preferred method of transporting large amounts of CO2

. 

The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) administers safety regulations for CO2

pipelines that affect interstate commerce and certifies states that have

adopted regulations compatible with the minimum federal safety 

CO2 Pipeline Regulation 

 45Pub. L. No. 110-140 (2007). 

Page 43 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
standards to regulate their intrastate pipelines. No federal agency has 

claimed jurisdiction over siting, rates, or terms of service for interstate CO2

pipelines.46 However, early assessments indicate that a nationwide CCS 

program could require a network of interstate CO2

 pipelines that would 

raise cross-jurisdictional issues and involve multiple regulatory 

authorities—all in the unprecedented context of a nationwide program to 

transport massive volumes of CO2

. 

Neither the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or Surface 

Transportation Board (STB) currently regulate interstate CO2

 pipelines 

and have not developed any guidance for possible regulation because, 

according to agency officials, neither agency has statutory authority to do 

so. FERC has the statutory authority to regulate the siting, rates, and terms 

of service for interstate pipelines transporting natural gas, which is 

defined as “natural gas unmixed or any mixture of natural and artificial 

gas.”47 FERC has interpreted this statutory language to mean a gaseous 

mixture of hydrocarbons that is used as a fuel.48 According to FERC 

officials, under this interpretation, CO2

 pipelines fall outside of the 

commission’s jurisdiction.49 According to the FERC Chairman’s 

congressional testimony, he would not recommend that Congress preempt 

the states on CO2

 pipelines because state siting has not been a failure, 

unlike the situation that led to federal preemption of natural gas pipeline 

siting.50 FERC officials noted that the commission could have a 

prospective role in regulation of CO2 pipelines, which could be modeled on

its natural gas transport and storage work, but that it would need statutory 

authority to take such a role. 

The STB has statutory jurisdiction over pipelines that transport a 

commodity “other than water, gas, or oil.”51 STB’s predecessor, the 

 46FERC has jurisdiction over interstate pipelines that transport oil or natural gas. STB has 

jurisdiction over interstate pipelines that transport a commodity other than water, gas, or

oil.

4715 U.S.C. § 717a(5). 

48Cortez Pipeline Company, 7 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,024 (1979). 

49Id. 

50Testimony of the Honorable Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States 

Senate, January 31, 2008. 

5149 U.S.C. § 15301. 

Page 44 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Interstate Commerce Commission, interpreted its organic statute as 

excluding all gas types (including CO2

), regardless of origin or source, 

from its jurisdiction.52 Therefore, the commission concluded that it lacked

jurisdiction over interstate CO2

 pipelines. STB staff told us that if a party 

sought reconsideration of the prior decision disclaiming jurisdiction over 

interstate CO2

 pipelines, the board would consider re-examining the 

commission’s earlier decision. 

While neither FERC nor STB has developed guidance for the regulation of 

interstate CO2

 pipelines, the stakeholders we interviewed had differing 

views on whether federal regulation of CO2

 pipelines should be expanded. 

Several stakeholders thought it would be necessary for the federal 

government to take a more active role in siting issues and CO2

 pipeline 

rates. On the other hand, several other stakeholders expressed concern 

that expanding federal regulation could have unintended consequences. 

For example, one industry stakeholder told us that regulating pipeline 

rates could discourage investment in new pipelines. 

Other factors may need to be considered for CO2

 pipelines that cross 

federal lands managed by BLM. According to stakeholders, one key 

question will be whether new CO2

 pipelines should operate as common 

carriers under federal law. As common carriers, pipelines’ terms of service 

would need to be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. Under the 

Federal Land Policy Management Act, BLM has the authority to grant 

rights-of-way for pipelines across federal lands but not to require them to 

operate as common carriers. In addition, BLM officials told us they are not

assessing the rights-of-way on federal lands for CO2

 pipelines because their 

current statutory authority for rights-of-way is sufficient. 

DOE’s Southwestern and West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnerships are presently conducting a CO2

 pipeline study, in conjunction 

with MIT and Sandia National Laboratories, which may inform the 

discussion about future CO2

 pipelines. According to DOE officials, the 

report will be issued next year. The officials note that it is not clear 

whether the report will address all of the relevant issues, including 

regulatory jurisdiction and siting decisions.53

 5245 Fed. Reg. 85,178 (Dec. 24, 1980); 46 Fed. Reg. 18,805 (Mar. 26, 1981). 

53DOE officials note that several of the Regional Partnerships, including the Southwest, 

West Coast, Southeast, Midwest, and Plains CO2

 reduction partnerships, have completed or

are working on pipeline studies for their individual regions.

Page 45 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
In recent years, DOE has worked with state geologic survey offices and 

other partners to construct a national carbon sequestration geographic 

information system that provides information that can be used to evaluate 

the potential for CO2

 geologic sequestration across the United States. 

However, knowledgeable authorities agree that a more detailed evaluation

of these sites’ actual capacity is needed. As figure 4 shows, the geology of 

much of the United States may be well suited for CO2

 sequestration. 

However, a more detailed evaluation would determine whether these 

potential sites are actually appropriate for long-term CO2

 sequestration. 

For example, it is currently not known whether the caprock overlying 

these geologic formations is sufficient to contain stored CO2

. 

Detailed Assessment of

Feasible CO2 Storage Sites 

Page 46 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Figure 4: Potential Geologic Storage in the United States 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 200754 requires the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) to develop a methodology for, and conduct an 

assessment of, the capacity for sequestration of CO2

 in the United States.

USGS officials explained that their approach will be to explore geologic

formations at the individual sedimentary basin level, and they will take 

storage integrity and injectivity into account. They plan to begin with oil

and gas reservoirs because these are the most familiar geologic formations 

 54Pub. L. No. 110-140 (2007). 

Page 47 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
in terms of the integrity of the reservoirs and their ability to store CO2

. 

USGS officials will then assess saline formations, about which less data 

are available. According to USGS officials, the methodology should be 

completed by March of 2009, at which time it will be released for external 

technical review and public comment. Following any needed revisions to 

the methodology and receipt of funding, the USGS will proceed with the 

actual assessment. 

According to the preamble to EPA’s proposed rule, improperly operated

injection activities or ineffective long-term storage could result in release 

of injected CO2

 to the atmosphere, resulting in the potential to impact 

human health. EPA’s summaries of stakeholder workshops indicate that 

public health concerns have been expressed about such issues. One 

concern is the risk that improperly operated injections could result in the 

release of CO2

, and that at very high concentrations and with prolonged 

exposure, CO2

 can lead to suffocation. Concerns have also been raised that 

improperly injected CO2

 could raise the pressure in a geologic formation 

and, if it became too high, could cause otherwise dormant faults to trigger 

seismic events, such as earthquakes. The IPCC has noted, however, that 99 

percent of the CO2

 stored in appropriately selected and managed 

formations is very likely to be retained for over 100 years,55 and EPA states 

in the preamble to its proposed rule that the risk of asphyxiation and other 

health effects from airborne exposure to CO2

 resulting from injection 

activities is minimal. 

Potential Public Opposition 

Arising from Health Concerns 

over CO2 Storage and Transport 

Thus far at least, there has been little public opposition to the CO2

injections that have taken place in states such as Texas to enhance oil

recovery. However, several notable studies explain that this lack of 

publicly-expressed concern may reflect more a lack of knowledge about 

CCS rather than confidence that the process is safe.56 This is suggested in 

the IPCC’s 2005 report on CCS which stated, for example, that there is 

insufficient public knowledge of climate change issues and of the various

mitigation options and their potential impact. In another 2005 study, 

researchers surveyed 1,200 people, representing a general population 

sample of the United States, and found that that less than 4 percent of the

 55IPCC, IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. 

56IPCC, IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (2005); National 

Academy of Sciences, Prospective Evaluation; and Congressional Research Service, 

Community Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Infrastructure: Siting 

Challenges (July 2008). 

Page 48 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
respondents were familiar with the terms carbon dioxide capture and 

storage or carbon storage. 

Some of the stakeholders we interviewed explained that public opposition

could indeed grow when CCS extends beyond the relatively small projects 

used to enhance oil and gas recovery, to include much larger CO2

sequestration projects located in more populated areas. One noted, in 

particular, that a lack of education about CCS’s safety could potentially 

create confusion and fear when commercial-scale CCS is implemented. 

Citing such concerns, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences 

underscored the importance of public outreach, noting that while the 

success of DOE’s carbon capture program depends heavily on its ability to

reduce the cost of the technology, “the storage program cannot be 

successful if a significant fraction of the public views it as dangerous or 

unacceptable. Thus, the technologies must not only be safe and effective, 

they must be explainable to the public and the regulatory community in 

such a way as to instill confidence that they are in fact safe and 

effective.”57 The report went on to caution that “the federal government in 

general and the DOE in particular have not had a good track record in 

accomplishing this task in other programs.” For its part, EPA received 

similar advice from its Clean Air Act Advisory Committee’s Advanced Coal 

Technology Work Group. The Work Group’s January 2008 report 

recommended that the agency immediately develop, in consultation with 

other agencies, a public outreach effort to explain carbon capture and 

sequestration.58 A diverse group of panel members at EPA’s 2007 UIC 

workshop made similar recommendations for public outreach and 

participation. 

According to a recent federal advisory committee report, an accounting 

system, or protocol, will be needed to quantify the CO2

 emissions from 

CCS. The accounting protocol could clarify uncertainty related to 

monitoring, reporting, quality assurance and control, and cross-border 

issues. Establishing this protocol would be a necessary step to integrate 

projects that prevent CO2

 from being emitted to the atmosphere into a 

future regulatory regime that addresses climate change. The advisory 

committee report also notes that the IPCC has released national 

Accounting System for 

Measuring CO2 Stored by CCS 

for Use in a CO2 Emissions 

Trading Plan 

 57National Academy of Sciences, Prospective Evaluation. 

58Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Advanced Coal Technology Work Group, Final Report

of the Advanced Coal Technology Work Group. 

Page 49 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
greenhouse gas inventory guidelines for CO2

 capture, transport, injection, 

and storage, and that a comprehensive CCS accounting protocol 

developed by EPA and other agencies would provide needed guidance for 

applying IPCC Guidelines in the United States. 

The European Union’s experience suggests that in planning for future CCS 

deployment, it is important to address such practical issues early in the 

process, particularly how to address reductions in emitted CO2

 achieved 

by CCS. Specifically, the European Commission proposes to revise the EU

ETS to include CO2

 capture facilities, pipelines, and storage sites. A 

European Commission report acknowledges that resolution of this 

important practical matter is important to remove barriers to future CCS 

deployment.59 Although EU member states can seek to include CCS 

projects in their national emissions cap by gaining approval from the 

European Commission on a case-by-case basis, proposed legislation would 

explicitly include, after 2012, facilities involved in the capture, 

transportation, and storage of CO2

 in the ETS. These facilities would then 

earn allowances for nonemitted CO2

 and would have to surrender emission 

allowances for any leakages of CO2

 that occur. 

Thus far, EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation has begun to develop a rule 

requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from all 

sectors of the economy.60 The agency is not, however, developing a 

protocol clarifying how emissions avoided as a result of a CCS project 

would be measured, nor how a future emissions trading plan would treat 

the avoided emissions. EPA officials explained that, given the pressure of 

other priorities, they would only develop such a protocol when mandated 

by Congress to do so. However, they noted that such an accounting system

would be closely linked to the design of voluntary programs, future 

policies, and regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

 59EU Commission Staff Working Document, accompanying document to the Proposal for a

Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Geologic Storage of 

Carbon Dioxide, January 23, 2008. 

60Specifically, EPA officials told us they are developing a proposal that would require 

“upstream” producers and “downstream” sources above appropriate thresholds to report 

their greenhouse gas emissions. 

Page 50 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Recent federal and international assessments indicate that the United 

States will need to rely on CCS as an essential mitigation option to achieve 

appreciable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Federal agencies 

whose action—or inaction—will greatly affect the prospects for timely 

CCS deployment have taken early steps that address some barriers to CCS, 

but have left critical gaps that impede our understanding of CCS’s full 

potential for reducing CO2

 emissions and that could affect CCS 

deployment on a broader scale. 

Conclusions 

DOE has invested heavily in advancing CCS in IGCC plants, but 

knowledgeable authorities agree that these facilities will account for only 

a small percentage of power plants’ CO2

 emissions in the next several 

decades to come. DOE has recently begun to shift its approach in a way 

that also emphasizes development of CCS technology for existing coalfired power plants. Given the broad consensus that the technology used by 

these plants will dominate coal-fired power plant capacity for the next 

several decades—both in the United States and around the world—we 

believe the agency should continue this trend. EPA has begun to address 

some of the regulatory uncertainties under the SDWA that will need 

resolution for a national CCS program to move forward, but other key 

issues associated with other environmental statutes—such as RCRA, 

CERCLA, and the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act—have not been 

addressed. 

In addition to these key barriers, there is an array of other issues that 

would need to be resolved if the technology is to be deployed within a 

time frame scientists believe is needed to address climate change. 

Moreover, whereas many of the technical and regulatory issues discussed 

earlier fall within the domain of two key agencies (DOE and EPA), these 

other issues cross the jurisdictions of the Departments of the Interior and

Transportation, FERC, and other agencies in a manner that would require 

collaboration between agencies and, in many cases, coordination with 

state governments and other entities. While the DOE-led CCTP 

coordinates climate change technology research, development, 

demonstration, and deployment among federal agencies, it has not been 

tasked with resolving the issues of CO2

 pipeline regulation and 

infrastructure and liability for stored CO2

, among other issues. 

Furthermore, officials from relevant offices within the Departments of the 

Interior and Transportation told us they have not yet been invited to 

participate in CCTP discussions. 

Page 51 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
We recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct the Office of Fossil 

Energy to continue its recent budgetary practice of helping to ensure that 

greater emphasis is placed on supporting technologies that can reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions at existing coal-fired power plants. 

We recommend that the Administrator of EPA more comprehensively 

examine barriers to CCS development by identifying key issues that fall 

outside the agency’s SDWA authority. Specifically, we recommend that the 

Administrator direct the cognizant EPA offices to collectively examine 

their authorities and responsibilities under RCRA, CERCLA, and the Clean 

Air Act for the purposes of (1) obtaining the information necessary to 

make informed decisions about the regulation of (and potential liabilities 

associated with) the capture, injection, and storage of CO2

; (2) using this 

information to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework for 

capture, injection, and underground storage of CO2

; and (3) identifying any 

areas where additional statutory authority might be needed to address key 

regulatory and legal issues related to CO2

 capture, injection, and storage. 

We recommend that the Executive Office of the President establish an 

interagency task force (or other mechanism as deemed appropriate) to 

examine the broad range of issues that, if not addressed proactively, could 

impede large-scale commercial CCS deployment and to develop a strategy 

for cognizant federal agencies to address these issues. Among the issues 

this task force should examine are: (1) identifying strategies for addressing 

regulatory and legal uncertainty that could impede the use of federal lands 

for the injection, storage, and transport of CO2

; (2) examining how any 

regulation of carbon emissions will address leakage of stored CO2

 into the 

atmosphere; (3) developing an accounting protocol to quantify the CO2

emissions from capture, transport, injection, and storage of CO2

 in 

geologic formations; (4) examining CO2

 pipeline infrastructure issues in 

the context of developing a large-scale national CCS program; (5) 

developing a public outreach effort to explain CCS; (6) evaluating the 

efficacy of existing federal financial incentives authorized by the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 and other relevant laws in furthering the deployment of

CCS; and (7) examining the federal and state resources required to 

implement the EPA’s expanded UIC program incorporating commercialscale CCS. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of DOE and the EPA 

Administrator for review and comment. DOE’s September 9, 2008, letter 

first “commend[s]... the comprehensiveness of this study, including the 

analysis of potential barriers to widespread commercialization of CCS and 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 52 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
the potential need for involvement by multiple Federal agencies.” The 

letter’s subsequent comments are also consistent with the report’s 

recommendations that (1) DOE continue to place greater emphasis on 

pursuing increased funding for CO2

 emissions control technologies for 

existing coal-fired power plants and (2) an interagency task force be 

established to examine critical CCS issues and develop a comprehensive 

CCS strategy. However, the agency expressed disagreement with our 

rationale for placing greater emphasis on CCS technologies applicable to

these facilities and suggests a different approach for the interagency task 

force we recommended: 

• Placing greater emphasis on existing coal-fired power plants. DOE says 

that while it agrees with the report’s findings concerning the importance of 

pursuing CCS options for existing coal-fired power plants, these findings 

incorrectly imply “that DOE has focused too heavily on the IGCC option 

for new plants at the expense of retrofit opportunities.” We are not 

second-guessing decisions DOE made in past decades. Rather, we are 

concerned about how the agency can best move forward in light of the 

new emphasis on substantially reducing CO2

 emissions and the scientific 

consensus that CCS will be needed to help reduce emissions.

• Establishing an interagency CCS Task Force. DOE maintained that a 

coordinating body—the DOE-led CCTP—already addresses these kinds of

issues. However, the CCTP’s scope focuses on technology; it does not 

address legal and institutional issues such as the resolution of CO2

 pipeline 

regulation and infrastructure or liability for stored CO2

, among others. In

addition, officials from cognizant offices within the Departments of the 

Interior and Transportation told us they have not yet been invited to 

participate in CCTP discussions. Moreover, we continue to believe that a 

more centralized task force, with a broader scope than the technologyfocused CCTP, may be a preferable alternative.

DOE’s letter appears in appendix II, along with our responses to each of its

main points. The agency separately provided technical comments, which 

were incorporated in our final report, as appropriate. 

EPA’s September 12, 2008, letter stated that providing regulatory certainty

on issues related to geological storage of CO2

 was a high priority for the 

agency and agreed with the intent of our recommendation—to provide 

clarity on how the broader range of statutes within the agency’s 

jurisdiction may apply. The agency noted that it had made an initial effort 

to identify and discuss these issues in the preamble of its July 2008 

proposed rulemaking and had requested comments on many SDWA 

Page 53 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
topics—including some of those identified in our report. It said it expected 

further progress on these SDWA topics after receiving input from 

stakeholders during the comment period (which extends through 

November 24, 2008). EPA did not respond to the recommendation that an

interagency task force be established to examine critical CCS issues and to 

develop a comprehensive CCS strategy. The agency also offered several 

other comments and clarifications, which are presented in appendix III, 

along with our responses. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of EPA; the 

Secretary of Energy; the House Select Committee on Energy 

Independence and Global Warming; appropriate congressional 

committees; and other interested parties. We will also make copies 

available to others on request. In addition, the report will be available at 

no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202)512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions are listed in

appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

John B. Stephenson 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

Page 54 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Methodology 

We were asked to examine (1) the key economic, legal, regulatory, and 

technological barriers impeding commercial-scale deployment of carbon 

capture and storage (CCS) technology and (2) the actions federal agencies 

are taking to overcome barriers to or facilitate the commercial-scale 

deployment of CCS technology. 

To determine the key economic, legal, regulatory, and technological 

barriers impeding commercial-scale deployment of CCS, we reviewed 

assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the

National Academy of Sciences, federal agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and academic researchers. We also contacted a 

nonprobability sample of stakeholders from industry, including officials 

from electric power companies and oil and gas companies, as well as 

stakeholders from nongovernmental organizations and academic 

researchers. We selected major U.S. energy producing companies, as well

as organizations and researchers that participate actively in ongoing 

dialogues on CCS. We also selected a number of smaller companies and 

organizations to ensure that we obtained a broader range of perspectives 

on key issues.1

 We used a semistructured interview guide to interview 

these stakeholders and facilitate analysis of what stakeholders identified 

as key economic, legal, regulatory, and technological barriers impeding 

commercial-scale deployment of CCS. To obtain federal agency officials’ 

perspectives on key economic, legal, regulatory, and technological 

barriers, we conducted interviews with officials from the Department of 

Energy’s (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy, the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and Office of 

Air and Radiation, as well as other agencies, primarily in the Department 

of the Interior and Department of Transportation. 

To examine the actions federal agencies are taking to overcome barriers to 

or facilitate the commercial-scale deployment of CCS technology, we 

conducted interviews with officials from the DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy 

and the EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and the Office 

of Air and Radiation to assess these agencies’ efforts to overcome barriers 

to or facilitate the commercial-scale deployment of CCS. Moreover, we 

reviewed a report by the National Academy of Sciences assessing DOE’s 

Fossil Energy research and development programs. We reviewed reports 

 1

Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a

population. This is because, in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the population 

being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the 

sample.

Page 55 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

made by two federal advisory committees, the National Coal Council 

advising the Secretary of Energy and the Clean Air Act Advisory 

Committee advising the EPA Administrator, and asked agency officials 

how they were implementing recommendations contained in these 

reports. We obtained and analyzed 12 years of DOE budget information, 

from fiscal year 1997 through the present, to assess the funding DOE has 

provided for various CO2

 capture related technologies. We reviewed the 

proposed EPA rule for the underground injection of CO2

 for geologic 

sequestration under the Safe Drinking Water Act. To obtain perspectives 

from outside the government, using the methodology described above we 

contacted a nonprobability sample of stakeholders and used a 

semistructured interview guide to facilitate an aggregate analysis of 

stakeholders’ assessments of the actions of federal agencies. To assess the 

extent to which other federal agencies are overcoming barriers to or 

facilitating the commercial-scale deployment of CCS technology, we also 

conducted interviews with officials from federal agencies in the 

Department of the Interior and Department of Transportation (DOT), 

including the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 

Surface Transportation Board, and DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission. To assess the role of the Climate Change Technology 

Program (CCTP) in coordinating CCS-related activities across federal 

agencies, we interviewed a senior CCTP official and asked officials at 

several federal agencies about their involvement in CCTP activities. 

Finally, we attended two stakeholder workshops the EPA held concerning

development of proposed regulations for the underground injection of CO2

for geologic sequestration under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2007 to September 

2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 56 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy 

of Energy 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 1. 

See comment 2. 

Page 57 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

See comment 5. 

Page 58 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy 

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Energy’s letter 

dated September 9, 2008. 

1. DOE says that while it agrees with the report’s findings concerning the 

importance of pursuing CCS options for existing coal-fired power 

plants, these findings incorrectly imply “that DOE has focused too 

heavily on the IGCC option for new plants at the expense of retrofit 

opportunities.” We are not second-guessing decisions DOE made in the 

decades before concerns about carbon dioxide (CO2

) emissions had 

taken on the prominence they have today. Rather, we are concerned 

about how the agency can best move forward in light of the new 

emphasis on CO2 emissions and the scientific consensus that CCS will 

be needed to help deal with them. 

GAO Comments 

2. DOE says that even though CO2

 emissions from existing plants are 

important, current global trends indicate that many new coal power 

plants will continue to be built in coming decades and that many 

would choose IGCC as the lowest-cost CCS option if it were available. 

However, a DOE report, Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants, 

indicates that the new coal fired power plants currently being built and

permitted in the United States are predominately using pulverized coal 

technologies, with a smaller number of plant operators opting for 

IGCC technology. Furthermore, DOE cites the importance of 

controlling CCS emissions in developing countries—in particular, 

China and India. However, the International Energy Agency states that 

“the expansion of coal-fired generation in China will continue to be 

based on pulverized coal” and observes that all of India’s operating 

coal-fired power plants use a form of pulverized coal technology. That

said, our report does not call for a radical shift in focus from IGCC to 

conventional technology, but rather a budgetary strategy that

appropriately reflects a greater emphasis on developing capture 

technologies that could be applied to existing pulverized coal power 

plants. As our draft report noted, such a strategy has in fact already 

been reflected in recent DOE budgets. 

3. DOE acknowledges that it has recently increased requested funding for 

CCS technologies applicable to existing plants, but states that the 

increase does not necessarily reflect a higher priority. Rather, the 

increase reflects an evolution of the technology development process. 

Specifically, it is now moving from investigating such technologies 

from a less costly small scale to the point where costs rise as 

technology development is “scaled up.” Recent statements by the 

agency, however, suggest that research applicable to existing coalPage 59 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy 

fired power plant technologies do warrant a higher priority. In 

particular, DOE’s recent funding announcement for CCS technology 

development for existing pulverized coal power plants states that this 

funding opportunity is “driven by the fact that existing coal-fired 

power plants produce a sizeable portion of current CO2

 emissions from 

all fossil fuel-based sources, and that only about 6 GW of the existing 

coal-fired electricity generating fleet is projected to retire by 2030.” 

Similarly, in our discussions with DOE fossil energy officials about 

their fiscal year 2008 budget priorities, they pointed to language in 

House Report 110-185, which recommended “a rigorous research 

program on the potential for retrofitting existing coal plants for CO2

capture and sequestration.” 

4. DOE questions the report’s observation that funding for CO2

 storage 

has been significantly higher than the resources devoted to CO2

capture, noting that the higher funding level for storage-related 

activities reflects the fact that it has evolved to the point where 

advances in storage would now require expensive field-testing. We do 

not dispute the need to invest in the field-testing of storage activities. 

Rather, we note that timely CCS deployment will occur only if progress 

is made with both capture and storage and that considerably more 

progress is needed on the capture front. A comprehensive CO2

 storage 

capability will mean little if there is no CO2

 to store. 

5. DOE maintains that a coordinating body—the DOE-led Climate 

Change Technology Program (CCTP)—already addresses CCS-related 

issues. However, the CCTP’s scope focuses on technology; it does not 

address legal and institutional issues such as CO2

 pipeline regulation 

and infrastructure or liability for stored CO2

, among others. In addition, 

officials from cognizant offices within the Departments of the Interior 

and Transportation told us they have not yet been invited to participate 

in CCTP discussions. Moreover, we continue to believe that a more 

centralized task force, with a broader mission than the technologyfocused CCTP, may be a preferable alternative.

Page 60 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix III: Comments from the Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 1. 

Page 61 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

See comment 2. 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

Page 62 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

See comment 5. 

See comment 6. 

Page 63 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

The following are GAO’s comments on the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s letter dated September 12, 2008. 

1. EPA says that its recently-proposed UIC rule fully covers Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA)-related issues. We have modified the report to more 

fully reflect the work that EPA is doing to examine SDWA-related 

barriers to CCS deployment. However, while we acknowledge that the 

proposed rule discusses and seeks comments on many issues, we 

continue to believe that it leaves many of these issues unresolved. 

While EPA’s proposed rule prohibits the injection of CO2

 above the 

lowermost formation containing an underground source of drinking 

water, EPA is still exploring whether the UIC director should be given 

the authority to approve such an injection—an issue that can affect 

whether unmineable coal seams are used for CO2

 storage. 

GAO Comments 

2. EPA suggests that the report should state EPA’s position on whether 

the operator of an injection well will remain liable indefinitely for 

potential problems posed by leakage of CO2

. Pages 23 and 39 of the 

draft report did in fact state that well operators remain responsible 

indefinitely for any endangerment for underground sources of drinking 

water caused by such leakage. However, the draft report also 

addressed other unresolved liability issues of concern to stakeholders, 

which are unrelated to endangerment of underground sources of 

drinking water. We have added language to further emphasize these 

issues. 

3. EPA says that it is important to note that the agency does not have 

authority under the SDWA to release injection well owners or 

operators from long-term liability. The draft report had already done so 

on page 39 and 40, where it explained that EPA does not have the 

statutory authority to release well owners or operators from liability or 

transfer financial responsibility from the well owner or operator to a 

third party. In response to EPA’s comments, we have added language 

to the report to further clarify this point. 

4. EPA suggests that GAO note in its final report that EPA had discussed 

RCRA and CERCLA issues in the preamble to its proposed rule. The 

draft report had, in fact, mentioned that EPA addressed RCRA and 

CERCLA issues in the preamble. For example, page 42 of the draft 

noted that the preamble explained that pure CO2

 in and of itself is not 

listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA, and cautioned that 

injected CO2

 streams could contain hazardous constituents that would 

make these streams “hazardous.” That said, we continue to believe that 

Page 64 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

the preamble’s limited treatment of these issues still leaves much to be 

resolved about the implications of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for CO2

sequestration. Specifically, EPA suggests that determinations about 

whether injected CO2 is a hazardous waste or substance will be made 

on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, EPA says it is “currently in the 

process of further evaluating how CERCLA and RCRA may apply to 

[geologic sequestration] sites.” 

5. EPA notes that the proposed rule includes clarifications on the effect

of permits on property rights. However, these effects were not among 

the property rights-related issues of greatest concern to the 

stakeholders we interviewed. As we stated in the report, these 

stakeholders told us they were concerned about a lack of clarity 

regarding ownership of injected CO2

 and ownership of geologic 

formations. 

6. Notwithstanding the permit-related property rights issues raised in 

comment 5 above, EPA explains that it does not have the authority to 

propose federal regulations related more broadly to property rights 

issues. We agree that EPA’s authority does not extend to many of these 

issues discussed in the report, which is why the report notes that the 

resolution of this and other issues will require the involvement of other 

federal agencies and, in some cases, states. 

Page 65 GAO-08-1080 Carbon Capture and Storage
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 66 GAO-08-1080 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Steve Elstein, Assistant Director; 

Chuck Bausell; Cindy Gilbert; Katheryn Summers Hubbell; Michael O’Neill; 

Ben Shouse; Jeanette Soares; and Michelle Woods made major 

contributions to this report. Additional assistance was provided by 

Katherine M. Raheb and Melinda Cordero. 

Carbon Capture and Storage

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360906) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER