Carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities have been preventing carbon dioxide from being added to the atmosphere since the early 1970s. While interest in the establishment of such facilities has grown, the process by which this is accomplished is problematically time-consuming. Earth.Org spoke to researchers Granger Morgan and Valerie Karplus from the Carnegie Mellon University’s College of Engineering who, alongside graduate student Emily Moore, completed a scientific assessment of the time required to develop, approve, and implement a CCS facility in the US, while also providing suggestions as to how to streamline the process.
—
The Problem With Carbon Capture Facilities
During the 1920s, when the collection of natural gas was still a procedure in its early years, carbon capture was invented as a means of separating carbon dioxide (CO2) from the saleable methane gas. The CO2 would then either be released into the air or captured and stored.
Today, this process is known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and, while it is still used in the oil refinement industry, the technology seems to have found itself a redeeming foothold within the field of conservation.
More on the topic: The Feasibility and Future of Carbon Capture and Storage Technology
With 40 CCS facilities in operation around the globe, approximately 45 metric tons (Mt) of CO2 is prevented from entering the atmosphere every year. This amount is only expected to increase as 50 more facilities will be operational by the end of the decade.
Though this number may seem large, it could be even larger, were it not for the long and arduous process behind the establishment of one of these carbon capture facilities; an issue that many experts, as well as worried stakeholders, have taken serious note of.
Take researchers Granger Morgan, Valerie Karplus, and Emily Moore for example.
After observing a need for a CCS facility in their own tri-state region of southwest Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, the three researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University’s College of Engineering determined an estimation of the time required to develop, approve, and implement a CCS facility within the United States. They found a 90% probability that the amount of time associated with site operational approval can be anywhere between 5.5 and 9.6 years, though in the more extreme cases, the time frame can be pushed forward by as far as 12 years, an amount of time deemed far too long to meet the nation’s ambitious climate goals set at this year’s UN climate summit, COP28.
“From a policy perspective we found that as things stand, the timelines are long. And if we want this to make a big difference, speeding up those timelines could really help us get our arms around the climate problem a lot faster,” Karplus told Earth.Org.
Though carbon storage is not a solution to climate change but rather a tool that can be used to mitigate it, estimates say that carbon capture alone could achieve 14% of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction required by 2050, and could even put the US on track to achieve its 2050 net-zero goal. The country also committed to an interim target of 65% reduction in GHG by 2030, which may prove difficult to achieve without the assistance of CCS technology.
“We’ve heard reports, for example, at various meetings we go to that this was emerging as a serious problem. And we understood that the White House and the Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA were talking with each other about trying to speed it up,” explained Morgan. “This is not something that just sort of came out of thin air.”
Streamlining the Approval Process
The paper clarifies that the approval process itself is divided into six main checkpoints, what they refer to as clearance points: time to locate site(s), time to prepare selected site, time for approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), time to resolve any legal challenge, time to build well and pipeline, and time for injection authorization. In addition, there are seven strategies emphasized near the end of the paper (and summarized below) that may assist in shortening each of these clearance points.
1. Pre-vet sites
The government at both the state and federal level could assess the more promising sequestration sites on land they own in order to prepare a set of pre-vetted sets. In respect to land they do not own, they could provide incentives to private landowners who choose to host CCS sites.
2. Reduce Barriers to multi-state coordination
In the Eastern United States, CCS infrastructure often crosses state boundaries. Eliminating any potential barriers to multi-state coordination ahead of time is likely to reduce the risk of any delays in the future.
3. Develop guidance on landowner compensation
In regards to compensation, there is still a significant level of uncertainty for private landowners who choose to host CCS sites. If the DOE were to develop a standard, delays due to ambiguity could be avoided.
4. Early and transparent community engagement
In order to minimize any potential objections from the community, engaging with them earlier may be advantageous. The paper also mentions that early engagement does not guarantee public support, and that they should prepare and present their organizational models to feel more like public utilities and less like private industry if they hope to gain public support.
5. Legal framework to help minimize litigation
The researchers mention that most new developments are opposed, regardless of their potential benefits. They advise that employing legal counsel to anticipate any objections that could occur in the future would assist in reducing the overall time associated with CCS site establishment.
6. Assess and facilitate state primacy application
As stated in their paper, the researchers found that granting state primacy “may, but would not necessarily, speed up the permitting process.”
When state primacy is achieved, the state in question is given the ability to carry out EPA’s authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (Class VI review) in approving a specific permit. This includes the establishment of a CCS facility. Though this may streamline the process, the researchers suggest that if a particular state intends to achieve state primacy, they should be fully versed on what that entails, otherwise they may only cause further delays.
7. Strengthen EPA and state-level staffing
Whether the Class VI review is accomplished by the EPA or the State, the researchers determined that approval “[depends] heavily on the number of staff performing reviews,” and that a strengthening of said staff would significantly reduce delays.
Karplus pointed out that of the seven strategies, strengthening EPA and state-level staffing should be considered a priority. “We looked at a lot of steps in the process and we found that indeed, one of the bottlenecks is the local state capacity,” she said.
“All of these steps take time and reducing any of them will help. However, one way to further accelerate the process safely could be to reinforce the EPA Regional Offices in their capacity to review permit applications.”
CCS Tax Incentives in the US
It should also be noted that if project developers responsible for carbon capture facilities are unable to navigate this process in time they may not be eligible for a significant tax incentive.
Known as the Section 45Q CCS Tax Credit of the Biden Administration’s historic 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – the largest climate investment in US history, this performance-based tax credit reserved for carbon management programs that capture carbon oxides is set to expire by the end of 2032.
“Right now you’re looking at 6 to 10 years and up to 12 years, potentially, to get through all of these regulatory steps. Said Karplus.
“If you’re not anticipating that, or if you’re not focused on accelerating that timeframe, then you may have trouble with the [development of your project].”
You might also like: 3 Carbon Capture Technologies We Must Scale Up to Meet Net Zero
