Carbon capture and sequestration (or storage)—known as CCS—is a physical process that involves capturing manmade carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) at its source and storing it before its release to the atmosphere. CCS could reduce the amount of CO 2 emitted to the atmosphere from the continued use of fossil fuels at power plants and other large, industrial facilities. An integrated CCS system would include three main steps: (1) capturing CO 2 at its source and separating it from other gases; (2) purifying, compressing, and transporting the captured CO 2 to the sequestration site; and (3) injecting the CO 2 into subsurface geological reservoirs. Following its injection into a subsurface reservoir, the CO 2 would need to be monitored for leakage and to verify that it remains in the target geological reservoir. Once injection operations cease, a responsible party would need to take title to the injected CO 2 and ensure that it stays underground in perpetuity. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has pursued research and development of aspects of the three main steps leading to an integrated CCS system since 1997. Congress has appropriated nearly $7 billion in total since FY2008 for CCS research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) at DOE's Office of Fossil Energy: nearly $3.5 billion in total annual appropriations (including FY2015) and $3.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ( P.L. 111-5 ; enacted February 17, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the Recovery Act). The large and rapid influx of funding for industrial-scale CCS projects from the Recovery Act was intended to accelerate development and demonstration of CCS in the United States. The Recovery Act funding also was likely intended to help DOE achieve its RD&D goals as outlined in the department's 2010 RD&D CCS Roadmap . (In part, the roadmap was intended to lay out a path for rapid technological development of CCS so that the United States could continue to use fossil fuels despite potential carbon restrictions.) However, the future deployment of CCS may take a different course if the major components of the DOE program follow a path similar to DOE's FutureGen project. FutureGen had experienced delays and multiple changes of scope and design since its inception in 2003, and on February 3, 2015, DOE announced that it was suspending the project. (For more details, see sections below on " FutureGen—A Special Case? " and " Lessons from FutureGen: A Similar Path for Other Demonstration Projects? ") This report aims to provide a snapshot of the DOE CCS program, including its current funding levels, together with some discussion of the program's achievements and prospects for success in meeting its stated goals. Other CRS reports provide substantial detail on the technological and policy aspects of CCS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rules and guidelines for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants have been a focal point of discussion in Congress about CCS. How the demise of FutureGen will affect that debate is yet to be seen. Legislation regarding CCS in the last Congress mainly focused on two issues: stopping or slowing implementation of the EPA GHG rules and guidelines and providing federal incentives to accelerate the demonstration and development of CCS at commercial scales. In 2014, EPA proposed emission standards for new and existing fossil-fueled electric generating units under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. EPA's regulatory proposal stems from the Obama Administration's stated goal to take action on climate change in the absence of congressional action to reduce GHG emissions through legislation. In June 2013, President Obama directed EPA to propose standards for GHG emissions from new fossil-fueled power plants by September 20, 2013, and to propose guidelines for existing power plants by June 1, 2014. EPA met both deadlines and may finalize the power plant rules by mid-summer 2015. According to EPA, new natural gas-fired stationary power plants should be able to meet the proposed standard without additional cost and without the need for add-on control technology. However, the only apparent technical way for new coal-fired plants to meet the standard would be to install CCS technology to capture about 40% of the CO 2 they typically produce. The proposed standard allows for a seven-year compliance period for coal-fired plants but would demand a more stringent standard for those plants that comply over seven years; CO 2 emissions for these plants would be limited to an average of 1,000-1,050 pounds per megawatt-hour. The prospects for building new coal-fired electricity generating plants depend on many factors, such as costs of competing fuel sources (e.g., natural gas), electricity demand, regulatory costs, infrastructure (including rail), and electric grid development. However, the EPA proposed rule clearly identifies CCS as the essential technology required if new coal-fired power plants are to be built in the United States. The re-proposed standard places a new focus on DOE's CCS RD&D program—whether it will achieve its vision of "having an advanced CCS technology portfolio ready by 2020 for large-scale CCS demonstration that provides for the safe, cost-effective carbon management that will meet our Nation's goals for reducing [greenhouse gas] emissions." One analysis concluded that the debate over EPA's proposed rule for new power plants is largely symbolic and that its real significance is that without the promulgation of a rule for new sources, EPA could not proceed to regulate existing power plants under the Clean Air Act. The proposed guidelines for existing plants would establish different goals for each state based on four factors: improved efficiency at coal-fired plants; substitution of natural gas combined cycle generation for coal-fired power; zero-emission generation from renewables and nuclear power; and demand-side efficiency. Although CCS was not specifically included as a factor, or as part of the four factors listed above, the rule would not preclude CSS as an option for reducing emissions to help states meet their emissions target. Given the pending EPA rule, congressional interest in the future of coal as a domestic energy source also appears to be linked to the future of CCS. The debate has been mixed as to whether the proposed rule for new plants would spur development and deployment of CCS for new coal-fired power plants or have the opposite effect. Multiple analyses indicate that there will be retirements of U.S. coal-fired capacity; however, virtually all analyses agree that coal will continue to play a substantial role in electricity generation for decades. How many retirements will take place and what role EPA regulations will play in causing them are matters of dispute. Part of the argument over the proposed rule for new plants has focused on whether CCS is the best system of emissions reduction (BSER) for coal plants and whether it has been "adequately demonstrated" as required under the Clean Air Act. In its re-proposed rule, EPA cites the "existence and apparent ongoing viability" of several ongoing CCS demonstration projects as examples that justify a separate determination of BSER for coal-fired plants and integrated gasification combined-cycle plants. (The second BSER determination is for gas-fired power plants.) EPA noted that these projects had reached advanced stages of construction and development, "which suggests that proposing a separate standard for coal-fired units is appropriate." The huge increases in the U.S. domestic supply of natural gas in recent years, due largely to the exploitation of unconventional shale gas reservoirs through the use of hydraulic fracturing, has also led to a shift to natural gas for electricity production. The shift appears to be largely due to the cheaper and increasingly abundant fuel—natural gas—compared to coal for electricity production. The EPA re-proposed rule noted that "power companies often choose the lowest cost form of generation when determining what type of new generation to build. Based on [Energy Information Administration] modeling and utility [Integrated Resource Plans], there appears to be a general acceptance that the lowest cost form of new power generation is [natural gas combined-cycle]." Cheap gas, due to the rapid increase in the domestic natural gas supply as an alternative to coal, in combination with regulations that curtail CO 2 emissions may lead electric power producers to invest in natural gas-fired plants, which emit approximately half the amount of CO 2 per unit of electricity produced compared to coal-fired plants. Regulations and abundant cheap gas may raise questions about the rationale for funding CCS demonstration projects (e.g., see " Lessons from FutureGen: A Similar Path for Other Demonstration Projects? "). Alternatively, and despite increasingly abundant domestic natural gas supplies, EPA regulations could provide the necessary incentives for the industry to accelerate CCS development and deployment for coal-fired power plants. As part of its re-proposed ruling for new power plants, EPA cited technology as one of four factors that it considers in making a BSER determination. Specifically, EPA stated that it "considers whether the system promotes the implementation and further development of technology," in this case referring to CCS technology. It appears that EPA asserted that its rule would likely promote CCS development and deployment rather than hinder it. Those arguing against the re-proposed rule do so on the basis that CCS technology has not been adequately demonstrated, and that it violates provisions in P.L. 109-58 , the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that prohibit EPA from setting a performance standard based on the use of technology from certain DOE-funded projects, such as the three projects cited in the EPA re-proposal, among other reasons.