Sequestering Skepticism

This Week's Trend In Brief:

• Even as President Biden prepares to bet big on carbon capture technology in his EPA’s forthcoming power plant rule, there are growing challenges and pressures to bringing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to life. 
   

• The technology is dividing policymakers and regulators as well as climate policy advocates in ways that are emblematic of the modern environmental movement, as some activists and officials stoke unsubstantiated fears about technologies other policymakers and advocates say are essential to reach aggressive emission reduction targets. 
   

• As this divide emerges, those seeking to adopt, build, or invest in CCS infrastructure risk finding themselves caught in an untenable regulatory middle ground while facing professionally-backed opposition within the communities in which they operate. 
   

• To navigate these risks and challenges, CCS supporters need to ensure they can effectively communicate the benefits and safety of CCS infrastructure while fully understanding the range of stakeholders and policymakers they will have to navigate if they are going to bring projects to fruition.

Digging Deeper:

 
Across the country, skeptical policymakers are moving to regulate or limit carbon capture infrastructure development. Last week, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced a public meeting to hear from stakeholders on issues related to “CO2 pipeline safety” to “inform pipeline safety-related rulemaking.” Simultaneously, lawmakers in Louisiana are considering “more than a dozen bills” related to carbon capture, including bills to restrict carbon capture statewide or prevent specific projects, even as certain parishes discuss moratoriums on CCS projects, one of which was recently blocked by a federal judge. The Iowa House passed legislation to limit eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines, though the bill died in the state senate. Similar efforts in North Dakota and South Dakota were also considered earlier this year. Last year, California’s state legislature banned CO2 from flowing “through new pipelines until the federal government finishes writing stronger safety regulations.”
 
This push for restrictions come even as federal and state policymakers push for ambitious adoption of carbon capture technology. In recent years, Congress has provided billions of dollars to spur the growth of carbon capture, including through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act. In California, even as state lawmakers have impeded the ability to move carbon to storage sites, the state has placed significant emphasis on the use of CCS to meet its climate goals. As soon as next week, the EPA is expected to issue new power plant rules that will lean heavily on carbon capture, and may require certain power plants “to capture most of their carbon emissions” and “install technology to capture planet-warming carbon emissions.” Although the impending proposal may not specifically “mandate the use of carbon capture equipment,” the ambitious emission reductions expected in the rule will be very difficult to meet without the technologies.
 
Driving this divide among policymakers is skepticism and unsubstantiated fears about carbon capture stoked by climate activists who view the technology as a “false solution” that merely enables the continuation of fossil fuels. The International Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly affirmed that capturing and removing carbon emissions will be essential for meeting climate goals set in the Paris Climate Accord. The International Energy Agency has similarly explained carbon capture’s important role in meeting global climate goals. Despite these science-based assessments, many climate activists actively reject IPCC’s observation. Indeed more than 500 climate groups have labeled CCS a “false solution,” and urged policymakers to oppose the technology. These groups have advanced unsubstantiated claims, calling CCS is a dangerous public health hazard, unproven, and a prohibitively expensive handout to fossil fuel companies.
 
As activists continue to push false fears about CCS, industry risks finding itself caught trying to operate within an untenable regulatory framework and facing professionally backed opposition within the communities in which they hope to operate. As we have noted before, while industry participants are working to scale climate change solutions, “climate activists… have little incentive to proclaim victory and depart the field. Their fundraising and grassroots energy relies on never being satisfied with the solutions proposed for problems these activists have demanded be addressed.” As a result, CCS projects will likely face stiff opposition from local stakeholders backed by professional activists, a phenomenon we’ve discussed previously. These activists will stoke fear about the projects, complicating the task of state and federal regulators looking to “lean on carbon capture” and lead to an untenable situation for project developers.
 
To combat these risks, industry needs to arm itself with an information advantage so it can effectively communicate the benefits it offers. As activists, climate experts, and policymakers send a range of diverging messages on CCS, industry needs to arm itself with the information needed to push back on the false narratives driven by professional activists. From developing the verifiable, third party materials that tell the real story of how essential and safe CCS is, to understanding the motives, influences, and vulnerabilities of CCS’s opponents, building and leveraging this information advantage will be crucial in the fight ahead.

Trends in Energy is your weekly look at key trends affecting the energy industry, brought to you by the competitive intelligence experts at Delve. As the political and regulatory landscape continues to shift, reach out to learn how our insights can help you navigate these challenges.