Continue Reading…
- First, consistent with the subject matter of this blog, the twenty-six alphabetical posts that we published since mid-April focus on the broad array of energy and environmental infrastructure objectives of the AJP. We did not address in depth two of the other core infrastructure elements of the AJP — namely digital infrastructure (high-speed broadband) and social infrastructure (education, housing, health, social services to support the "care economy"). Nor did we address President Biden's companion American Families Plan that proposed an additional $1.8 trillion mix of federal spending and tax credits in support of the care economy or his Made in America Tax Plan that would raise $2 trillion in revenue to fund the AJP and Families Plan.AJP和Friends计划蓝图,加之已颁布的1.9万亿
正因如此,尽管AJP本身规模庞大,但凡想分析和理解AJP全部范围和前景者,都应在大全中加以考虑,大全中包括政府为改变美国经济和社会而综合的一套主要政策优先级。 - 第二编,立法不是线性过程AJP开始从蓝图向立法过渡时, 众议院和参议院法案触及AJP各种元素像蘑菇在酷暑之夜扩散While members in both houses of Congress and on both sides of the aisle have introduced scores of bills vying to be part of the final legislative package, as of this writing the path forward appears to have winnowed to a dual track of two legislative "vehicles" for which much bill drafting still remains to be completed.
- Track one is the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework which was initially negotiated and published in late June with the support of 21 senators (split among 11 Republicans, 9 Democrats and one independent) and promptly endorsed by President Biden.最初的博弈后,两党努力近乎破碎四星期后从框架通向立法,原因是党内和党内辩论部分范围,但主要是“付费”。然而,经过紧张谈判后,联盟现在似乎把足够的立法细节放入原框架骨架上,使参议院能够批准67-32票推向参议院全面辩论并修正众议院初始议案
https////www.congress.gov/bell/congress/house-bill/3684>R3684 seeking to implement the framework. A White House fact sheet detailing the revised bipartisan framework summarizes $550 billion of new spending including the following:
-
-
- $110 billion for roads, bridges and other major projects;
- $11 billion in transportation safety programs;
- $39 billion in transit modernization and improved accessibility;
- $66 billion for rail transport;
- $7.5 billion to build a national network of electric vehicle chargers;
- $7.5 billion in electric busses and ferries;
- $42 billion in airports and port infrastructure;
- $65 billion in high-speed internet broadband infrastructure for rural and other disadvantaged areas of America;
- $50 billion to make communities safer and more resilient against extreme weather, climate and cyber risks
- $55 billion in water infrastructure including to remove lead pipes and PFAS contamination;
- $21 billion in environmental remediation!and
- $73 billion in power infrastructure and clean energy transmission.
-
As such the bipartisan framework addresses many of the AJP's components but falls considerably short of meeting the AJP's full ambitions to address climate change and essentially ignores investments in the care economy. And the "payfors" in the bipartisan framework come from repurposing some COVID relief funding and a hodgepodge of aspirational sources without proposing any new taxes or tax increases. Accordingly, although President Biden has endorsed the bipartisan framework, he also has committed to support a second track that would enact other portions of the AJP and portions of the Families Plan.
- Track two is a Senate Democratic-led budget resolution that is still evolving, albeit quickly.初步估计规模和范围介于1万亿至6万亿美元之间,而参议院民主党似乎在a3.5万亿美元预算对齐包细节远未消除 并保持整个民主核心 将保持高线行为最终轮廓将受民主党进步翼和中间翼之间所达成的任何折中约束。 决议将在院中取多数票并参院根据
As a budget measure, this will be the vehicle to implement any meaningful new taxes or tax increases, likely over Republican opposition, to pay for the infrastructure spending. But also as a budget measure, this legislative vehicle cannot carry non-fiscal matters. This poses a structural challenge for including the AJP's proposed federal clean energy standard that we described in an earlier post and that is not included in the bipartisan framework.
Between now and August 6 when the Senate recesses until after Labor Day we will see "make or break" efforts by Senate Majority Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi to herd and coalesce their respective members around legislative language that can accomplish both tracks of President Biden's agenda with the expectation of final votes after Congress returns from recess.
- Third, legislation is a beginning, not an end of government policy engagement.万博体育app手机登录Regardless of the contours of final AJP legislation, if and when it is enacted, Congress inevitably will leave vast ambiguities and details to be resolved by administrative rulemaking, agency implementation guidance and likely an array of administrative and civil litigation. All stakeholders in the AJP, whether disappointed or pleased with the final legislative product, will carry forward myriad policy debates in these regulatory and judicial forums. So opportunities for continued policy engagement will be robust and, accordingly, we will continue to follow and write on these developments.
- Fourth, despite the divisiveness and rancor that have plagued American politics, the unfolding process seeking to enact the AJP is an object lesson in the fundamental optimism that historically has imbued American government and society."Build Back Better" embodies that optimism. While acknowledging that some in the world may like to see the United States democracy falter, President Biden in his April 28 Statement to a Joint Session of Congress urged that "we have to prove democracy still works — that our government still works and we can deliver for our people" and that, "if … "We the People" … all do our part … we will meet the center challenge of the age by proving that democracy is durable and strong … the future belongs to America." He concluded by adding "it's never, ever been a good bet to bet against America … There is not a single thing — nothing — nothing beyond our capacity. We can do whatever we set our mind to do if we do it together."
President Biden doubled down on this optimism in his June 24 statement in support of the bipartisan framework.白屋声明中说 : “ 总统上任后承诺寻找公有基础实现 — — 并实现这一承诺.[他]认为,我们必须投资于我们国家和人民,创造高薪工会工作,解决气候危机并持续增长经济,在未来几十年内实现公平.[他还]相信,我们正处在民主与自治之间的分界点上.拜登总统认为我们必须向世界展示美国民主能为美国人民实现.但民主需要妥协.[并As we first noted in our Earth Day post, the AJP targeted solutions to the twin "great challenges of our time: the climate crisis and the ambitions of an autocratic China." It was no coincidence that the White House launched the AJP prior to President Biden's Leaders Summit on Climate on Earth Day which was a warmup for the June 11-13 G7 Summit in Cornwall in which President Biden sought to reassure the World that "America is Back." That Summit culminated in the Carbis Bay Communiqué in which the leaders of the G7 democratic nations announced a joint agenda of global action to:
-
- Reinvigorate our economies by advancing recovery plans that build on the $12 trillion of support we have put in place during the pandemic;
- Secure our future prosperity by championing freer, fairer trade within a reformed trading system, a more resilient global economy, and a fairer global tax system that reverses the race to the bottom;
- Protect our planet by supporting a green revolution that creates jobs, cuts emissions and seeks to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees!i/li/hrefs/ss/served/ss-releases/2021/06/12fact-president-pident-biden-g7-leaders-reading-building-back-bet-world-b3w-Partnership/So as Congress continues its non-linear legislative process that demands compromise, the larger geopolitical context should be a patriotic unifying factor to help forge final AJP legislation.
In conclusion, while the hurdles of vigorous, tense, political and policy negotiations and detailed bill drafting still remain, there is reason to be confident that over the next three months this Congress will pass, and President Biden will sign, a version of the AJP that will materially alter the size and impact of the federal government on the American economy and society. This legislation will set the stage for years of further regulatory proceedings, negotiated transactions, and a variety of litigation involving major stakeholders seeking to leverage the AJP's legislative outcome. This is how democracy works. Just as Amanda Gorman so eloquently pronounced about America in her Inaugural poem, "The Hill we Climb", likewise the AJP is "not broken, but simply unfinished." There is much more to come.
This is the twenty-sixth post in our series on "The ABCs of the AJP."
As we wrap up our blog series on the climate and energy implications of the Biden Administration's American Jobs Plan (AJP), it is an opportune moment to revisit our journey from A through Z, and reflect on whether the Biden Administration's proposed investment in infrastructure can set the nation on a path to achieve its 2050 net-zero target.
We started with our first post in the series on Earth Day, April 22, when, on the first day of the Leaders Summit on Climate, President Biden announced a new nationally determined contribution (NDC) to achieve a 50 to 52 percent reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution from 2005 levels by 2030.
The President's announcement noted the many steps his Administration would take to support the NDC, which will be submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in advance of the Conference of the Parties 26 later this year in Glasgow. The announcement also described the Administration's "whole-of-government" approach to addressing climate change, including through infrastructure investment and job creation.
We then discussed the ways in which the AJP could give life to the Administration's mantra to "Build Back Better," including through investments in battery technology, where we noted that Princeton's Net-Zero America study projected a massive build-out of batteries to achieve deep-decarbonization goals on par with this Administration's. We also discussed why, besides addressing the climate crisis, the AJP is also intentionally designed to reverse the trend of China's dominance in manufacturing electric vehicle (EV) batteries and onshore that manufacturing capacity here in the U.S.
Other investments proposed by the AJP are intended to make the power grid more resilient, an objective made clearer by last winter's storms in Texas and the resulting power outages. As the AJP notes in supporting its proposed investments in distributed energy resources (DERs), power outages cost Americans over $70 billion each year in lost productivity.
The AJP notes how past infrastructure investments – most notably, construction of the largest infrastructure investment in the past century – often split communities apart, such as the construction of an elevated freeway through the middle of a predominantly African American neighborhood in Syracuse, New York. To leverage infrastructure investment to counteract environmental injustice, the AJP would instead target 40 percent of the benefits of climate and clean infrastructure investments to disadvantaged communities.AJP支持政府所有四大优先事项:响应COVID-19大流行创造工作支持经济恢复减少种族不平等and addressing climate change.
Recognizing the role that forests and working lands can play in climate mitigation and adaptation, the AJP also calls for $10 billion to create a new "Civilian Climate Corps." The AJP also endorses legislation introduced in Congress, which proposes $120 billion in wildfire and climate change resilience projects, forest health, and watershed restoration, as a means of creating two million jobs in rural America. Given the role that power lines have had in sparking wildfires in California, and the experience in Texas last February, the AJP also calls for $100 billion in grid modernization and hardening.
The AJP would also support game-changing technologies, such as green hydrogen. Hydrogen is viewed as key to decarbonization of hard-to-abate industrial processes and would be supported by the AJP's proposal of 15 decarbonized hydrogen demonstration projects in distressed communities and as part of an additional $15 billion increase in funding for climate R&D priorities.
Such proposed investments may reveal the disconnect between the AJP's broad concept of "infrastructure" and some of its opponents' narrower formulation of what should appear in an infrastructure package. While the Biden Administration views infrastructure investment as a vehicle to promote economic opportunity and equality and to address climate change, Republican proposals have sought to strip the package from many components viewed as either "soft" infrastructure or too focused on climate change.
As a vehicle of job creation, the AJP intends to blunt the impacts of the energy transition upon communities whose livelihood has centered around fossil fuels, including by ensuring that jobs in the clean energy economy would pay prevailing wages and provide opportunities for unionization. The Administration's objective in this regard – often referred to as "just transition" – is shared by international efforts to address climate change, including in the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal.
Some of that just transition could be fulfilled in part by the AJP's proposal to invest $100 billion to modernize kids' schools and childcare facilities. Additionally, the AJP's proposal for a $40 billion Dislocated Workers Program to fund job training out of fossil-intensive industries and into union jobs might help support this transition in the labor force.
Other union-pleasing provisions of the AJP would seek to onshore critical supply chains, in accord with an Executive Order President Biden signed during his first week in office!题为“全美工人建设未来”,该命令将在整个联邦政府嵌入“BuyAmerica”限制,包括创建新主管s/www.insideEnergyandEnvironce.com/202/05/made- in-merica-spring-droduction-brough-buy-america-rules-bed/'Made-in-America The AJP would accomplish this through support for deployment of nascent technologies, such as small modular nuclear units and offshore wind, which the Administration announced it intends to increase by 30 gigawatts (GW) by 2030 through a series of federal actions. By that date, the Administration has also set a goal of reducing power-sector emissions by 80 percent, including through a centerpiece "Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard" – what's generally referred to as a "CES" – which would require load-serving entities to increase their reliance upon zero-carbon power sources each year.
But these targets raise the question of what constitutes zero-carbon power and whether carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) can play a role in cleaning up both the power sector and the broader economy. Despite opposition to CCUS from many in the environmental community, the Administration made a bold move in the AJP, when it announced support for expansion of the bipartisan Section 45Q tax credit, and made clear that this would apply not only to hard-to-decarbonize sectors, but to direct air capture and retrofits of existing power plants as well.
Beyond its emission reduction targets, the AJP also intends to make the electricity grid more resilient, including through promoting utility-scale energy storage by making standalone storage projects eligible for the federal investment tax credit.
Much of the disconnect between Democrats and Republicans with respect to advancing the AJP's objectives involves how to pay for trillions in infrastructure investment. Another major unresolved question is whether the Administration can advance a CES to reduce emissions from electric utilities through the reconciliation process. The AJP, when announced, made it unclear whether the Administration would pursue this through executive action or legislation!indeed, the White House's statement that "President Biden will establish an Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard (EECES)" might be interpreted to suggest that no Congressional authorization is needed.
Another element of the AJP on the chopping block is its proposed $174 billion investment in EVs. Although that investment in electrifying the nation's vehicle fleet was the single largest expenditure in the AJP as initially proposed, the bipartisan framework omits $100 billion in EV subsidies.
In contrast, that framework supports $55 billion of the AJP's proposed $111 billion in investments into improvements in drinking water and wastewater management systems, reflecting that replacing lead service lines may more clearly fall within what is viewed as hard infrastructure, than EV charging stations and rebates.
Perhaps the X-treme weather experienced globally this summer will cause both parties to come closer on the need to address the impacts of a warming environment, both by reducing emissions and promoting adaptation. Yet, the more likely scenario is that, even if dressed as improving children's health, investments in climate mitigation lie in a politically intractable place.
What's clear is that the AJP's investments would amount to a significant down payment towards the changes in energy generation and consumption needed to achieve the Administration's new NDC. Some Republicans say it is too much, too soon. Some progressives say it is too little, too late!我们今天应该停止生产和使用化石燃料,而AJP指向美国正确方向上的最大问题肯定就是 何时何时何地大都参会 实现净零未来
This is the twenty-fourth in our series, "The ABCs of the AJP."
In 2020 alone, the United States suffered 22 separate extreme weather and climate-related disasters that each caused at least $1 billion in damages, for a total of more than $100 billion in losses. That staggering statistic is not an anomaly, as climate change continues to result in more and more extreme weather events every year. For example, the Texas freeze that rocked the state earlier this year and killed more than one hundred people, also shut down the state's significant petrochemical industry, disrupting supply chains nationwide, and caused an estimated $80 billion to $130 billion in direct and indirect economic losses.数以百计的死亡者为 < a hrefss/www.npr.org/2021/07/climbs-in-crips-northWest/
Given the escalating human and economic costs of extreme weather events, it is no surprise that the Biden Administration's American Jobs Plan (AJP) prioritizes climate resiliency, a topic which has also been covered in a prior blog post. Significantly, the AJP pledges that: "Every dollar spent on rebuilding our infrastructure during the Biden administration will be used to prevent, reduce, and withstand the impacts of the climate crisis." The AJP also proposes to spend $50 billion on investments to specifically improve the resiliency of the nation's infrastructure, highlighting the importance of protecting critical infrastructure and services, defending vulnerable communities, and "[m]aximiz[ing] the resilience of land and water resources to protect communities and the environment."
As for protecting vulnerable communities, the AJP points out that "[p]eople of color and low-income people are more likely to live in areas most vulnerable to flooding and other climate change-related weather events" and "[t]hey also are less likely to have the funds to prepare for and recover from extreme weather events." To improve resiliency for those communities most vulnerable "physically and financially to climate-driven disasters", the AJP proposes increased investments through existing programs, such as FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program and HUD's Community Development Block Grant program, new initiatives at the Department of Transportation, as well as "a bipartisan tax credit to provide incentives to low- and middle-income families and to small businesses to invest in disaster resilience, and transition and relocation assistance to support community-led transitions for the most vulnerable tribal communities."
Separately, the AJP would provide $500 million in grants and loan funds to renovate tens of thousands of multifamily homes to make them more resilient to extreme weather events.
Finally, the AJP proposes investing in nature-based resiliency, such as by restoring "our lands, forests, wetlands, watersheds, and coastal and ocean resources", as a means of wildfire and drought mitigation, among other goals. The Administration also suggests that such restoration and resilience project funds would follow the guidelines of the proposed Outdoor Restoration Force Act (S.近些年来,人们更加关注自然基础建设的潜在利益,值得注意的是,美国土木工程师学会首次使用s/informstructioncard.org/solups/reslience/历经数年研究分析 来自世界各地的专家 今年夏美Army Corps of Engineers is set to release first-of-their-kind guidelines for nature-based resilience projects.
Beyond the AJP, protecting against extreme weather has been a priority of the Biden Administration from the beginning. A few days into his presidency, President Biden signed a sweeping climate Executive Order which, among other things, directed federal agencies to develop climate resiliency plans. More recently, on May 24, 2021, the Administration announced a plan to invest $1 billion in protecting communities through FEMA's Pre-Disaster Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program. As with other actions taken by the Administration, this increased investment "seeks to categorically shift the federal focus from reactive disaster spending and toward research-supported, proactive investment in community resilience so that when the next hurricane, flood, or wildfire comes, communities are better prepared." Along with the increased funding, the Administration also announced plans to develop and launch "a new NASA mission concept for an Earth System Observatory" to better forecast and monitor natural disasters.
At this point, it is unclear whether or how Congress will act to implement the Biden Administration's proposals to protect against extreme weather. However, there are some signs of bipartisan interest in such legislation. For example, after the Texas freeze in early 2021, a bipartisan group of members of the Texas congressional delegation introduced the Power On Act (S.1432 帮助保护电网基础设施不受极端天气影响。此外,2019年,参议院环境与公共工程委员会一致通过了2019年美国交通基础设施法(
Continue Reading…
Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework that the President endorsed last week would provide just about half of that amount – $55 billion – which the President nevertheless described as "the largest investment in clean drinking water and waste water infrastructure in American history."
Yet that includes all of the President's proposed investments in replacing lead-containing water service lines and pipes, reflecting apparent bipartisan agreement that reducing exposure to lead in drinking water is worthwhile.
Infrastructure, Unqualified and Unplugged
Municipal drinking water and wastewater treatment systems epitomize infrastructure.
In contrast to the electric vehicle and grid modernization technologies that the AJP also seeks to promote as solutions to the climate crisis, replacement of lead-containing domestic water service lines falls much more clearly within what's thought of as traditional infrastructure.
While the Bipartisan Framework would fund just half of the President's initially proposed water infrastructure investments, it includes all of the lead service-line replacement expenditures proposed by the President. Additionally, the Democratic-controlled House last week passed the INVEST in America Act (H.R.包括1 672.5亿美元的饮用水和废水基础设施拟支用量,由两位共和党成员s/clerk.house.gov/Votes/202208投票 Environmental Protection Agency, there is no safe level for lead in drinking water and even low levels of lead in children's blood can cause behavioral and learning problems, lower IQ and hyperactivity, slowed growth, hearing problems and anemia.
The memory of the recent Flint, Michigan water crisis also looms large in the public mindset. In Flint, where 40 percent of people live in poverty, the city made a cost-saving decision in 2013 to switch from obtaining its domestic water supply from Detroit, to the Flint River. The Flint's water was much more corrosive and not adequately treated, which resulted in lead in service lines and household plumbing leaching into the water.
Now, after $250 million of state funding and $100 million of infrastructure funding awarded by EPA pursuant to the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, the troubled service lines and household plumbing have largely been identified, with the last 500 service lines slated to be excavated, checked and replaced this month.
The situation in Flint – described by one researcher as the most egregious example of environmental injustice in recent U.S.历史 — — 成为对基础建设投资不足对贫困社区造成的不公平公共健康后果的象征Recent analysis suggests that lead exposure in the United States correlates to race.
Yet Flint is hardly unique:
- Newark, New Jersey, just recently removed over 18,000 lead service lines at no cost to residents.
- Washington, D.C., has embarked on a similar program, although one study found that customer-initiated service line replacements were being conducted primarily in higher-income neighborhoods.
These programs are costly and require significant levels of public investment to deploy at scale. Recognizing that, the AJP had initially proposed $45 billion in EPA State Revolving Fund and WIIN grants to replace all lead pipes and service lines for both homes and 400,000 schools and childcare facilities. The bill that the House passed last week includes funding for all of these efforts, plus an additional $53 billion to fund safe drinking water infrastructure and $51 billion for wastewater infrastructure.
Infrastructure and Environmental Justice
As described by our prior post, an animating principle of this Administration's infrastructure plan is addressing environmental injustice. And perhaps no feature of the AJP so tangibly marries the concept of traditional infrastructure to the Administration's environmental justice objectives as the proposed investment in the replacement of lead-containing water service lines.
Unlike other public health threats, the risks from exposure to lead have long been understood and its presence in domestic service lines and plumbing well known. As President Biden remarked upon pitching the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework last week in Wisconsin, more than 70,000 of Milwaukee's 160,000 water service lines contain lead, although Milwaukee is far from unusual!上星期二EPA管理员Michael Regan与Milwaukee市长和副手一起出现
This post is the 17th in our series, "The ABCs of the AJP."
President Biden's American Jobs Plan (AJP) sends strong signals in support of carbon capture and sequestration as an important tool to achieve the President's ambitious decarbonization objectives.
Most significantly, the President's plan would reform and expand the bipartisan Section 45Q tax credit, "making it direct pay and easier to use for hard-to-decarbonize industrial applications, direct air capture, and retrofits of existing power plants." The President's plan would also "establish ten pioneer facilities that demonstrate carbon capture retrofits for large steel, cement, and chemical production facilities," while also ensuring – consistent with the plan's overall emphasis on redressing environmental injustices – "that overburdened communities are protected from increases in cumulative pollution."
According to many studies, such as Princeton's Net-Zero America report, carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) will play an important role in achieving carbon neutrality by mid-century. Princeton's modeling suggests that geological sequestration could amount to between 1 to 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year by 2050, with the majority occurring in the Texas gulf coast, and an additional 100 to 700 million tonnes of CO2 converted to synthetic liquid or gas fuels (through synthesis with hydrogen).
On a global scale, the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently concluded that "reaching net zero will be virtually impossible without CCUS." In the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario, the initial focus would be on retrofitting existing fossil fuel-fired power plants and industrial operations, including production of low-carbon hydrogen, but then, over time, the focus would shift to net removals of CO2, including through direct air capture, and as a source of climate-neutral CO2 for synthetic aviation fuels.
All these studies envision the build-out of regional "hubs" of pipeline infrastructure to transport captured CO2 from many sources, to sequestration reservoirs for permanent storage of the CO2. Building that infrastructure in the U.S.would require a massive amount of capital and labor, hence, why CCUS features prominently within the President's job-creating climate strategy.
Yet none of these studies suggest that market forces alone are sufficient to cause wide-scale deployment of CCUS. Particularly in the absence of an express price on carbon emissions, public support and incentives are critical. That's where the Section 45Q tax credit comes in.
The 45Q credit has been available since 2008, but was expanded significantly by Congress in 2018. It provides a volumetric tax credit for each ton of CO2 captured and either sequestered permanently, used in enhanced oil recovery or otherwise used in a commercial process. The credit is available for 12 years after the capture equipment is put in service, with the amount of the credit rising from $34.81 in 2021 for a ton permanently sequestered in geological formations, to $50 per ton in 2026. For EOR or other utilization, the credit tops off at $35 per ton in 2026.
The U.S.Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) finalized regulations earlier this year clarifying many issues that should remove regulatory hurdles that may have been stymying interest among taxpayers to develop projects directly or provide tax equity financing to CCUS project developers. However, most observers acknowledge that more than the 45Q is needed at this time to motivate investment at the scale needed to realize the potential for CCUS as part of the U.S.'s carbon neutrality strategy.
State incentives can help make projects economically viable. For example, California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) provides a ton-for-ton credit for direct air capture (DAC). With LCFS credits currently trading just below the $200 per ton price ceiling, the promise of "stacking" the LCFS and 45Q credits has led to significant milestones in DAC project development in the U.S. But the LCFS only provides access to credits for DAC projects and CCUS projects that are directly related to reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels!it provides no pathway for crediting CCUS in power generation or hard-to-abate sectors, such as cement and steelmaking.
Fortunately, the prospects for broader federal support of CCUS look good in Congress. Despite the general disagreement between Republicans and Democrats on climate change strategies, several bills advancing through Congress that would help motivate the wide-scale deployment of CCUS have broad bipartisan support.
- The 45Q Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Tax Credit Amendments of 2021, introduced in Senator Tina Smith (D-MN) with bipartisan support, would provide a direct pay option for the full value of the tax credit, meaning that project developers who don't pay income taxes would no longer be beholden upon tax equity sponsors to finance their projects.ahrfs/www.congress.gov/bill117-congress/senate-bill79/text>CSLE Representatives Marc Veasey (D-TX) and David McKinley (R-WV), would establish a financing mechanism at the Department of Energy for common carrier CO2 transport infrastructure, in essence, helping motivate development of the transportation infrastructure that doesn't qualify for 45Q credits.
- The Coordinated Action to Capture Harmful Emissions (CATCH) Act, introduced last month in the House by a bipartisan group of representatives, led by Tim Ryan (D-OH), would boost the 45Q credit to $85 per ton for industrial and power generation facilities securely storing CO2 in saline geologic formations and $60 per ton for EOR and other beneficial uses.
Together, this suite of bills, if enacted, could put CCUS projects in the money, regardless of the taxpayer status of their sponsors.
Yet many from the environmental community are critical of CCUS, including the White House's Environmental Justice Advisory Council (EJAC), which recently suggested that the Biden Administration should exclude CCUS and DAC from its tool chest of climate solutions because it would extend the lifespan of fossil-fuel generation. White House domestic climate adviser Gina McCarthy responded by saying that the Administration has not "taken anything off the table" in terms of its carbon reduction strategy.
The EJAC's logic is apparently holding sway in places where the environmental justice movement first proved its ascendance.
Last week, the California Assembly approved a bill that would potentially sideline CCS from playing any role in achieving the state's carbon neutrality targets. AB 1395 would limit carbon "removals" to no more than 10 percent of what is needed to achieve the state's carbon neutrality objective. It would also define technology-based solutions, including electricity generation with CCS, as a removal. This is scientifically inaccurate, as CO2 captured from a power plant is never emitted to the atmosphere in the first place.
But the bill would also impose criteria on the state's ability to rely upon any technology-based solutions, including that use of any such solutions shall not increase toxic and criteria air pollutants. This could act as a poison pill for any CCUS project, as the process of stripping CO2 out of flue gas requires the use of amines and the chemical reaction between those substances and the flue gas results in small amounts of toxic air contaminants, which, albeit insignificant, are unavoidable. Moreover, the primary argument against CCUS is that it will allow for continued production and consumption of fossil fuels, the consumption of which will result in criteria pollutant emissions, and that exclusion of CCUS would force a faster transition.
And so policymakers face a choice: They can relegate to the side a promising technology that can deliver significant reductions in CO2 because, according to one narrative, anything that allows for continued production and consumption of fossil fuels is per se bad. Or they can focus on carbon reduction as the target and support investment in CCUS. Based upon legislation introduced in the past several months, a bipartisan caucus in Congress is unwilling to write CCUS off.
This is the fourth in our series on "The ABCs of the AJP."
The White House's recent announcement of the American Jobs Plan (AJP) highlights the establishment of a "$27 billion Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator to mobilize private investment into distributed energy resources." While distributed energy resources (DERs) are only mentioned once in the announcement, they figure to play an important role in the Administration's overall goals.
Compared to traditional large-scale electricity generators, DERs are a collection of smaller, decentralized generators. They typically harness cleaner sources of energy, including renewables such as solar, wind, and geothermal, and are located closer to the energy users, reducing the need for long-range transmission.
By promising diverse localized production and a higher percentage of renewable energy in our grid, DERs figure to be a useful tool to achieve several of the Administration's goals, including: reducing economy-wide greenhouse gas pollution!and resiliency—not dependent upon just one energy source or provider, our grid will be less vulnerable to widespread outages. DERs have been an increasing focus of attention in California, since public-safety power-shutoffs have caused multi-day shutoffs for thousands of customers due to wind-precipitated events that pose a risk of wildfires.
The AJP explains that investment in DERs will come from an "Accelerator." The specifics of the Accelerator will be determined by Congress, where relevant bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate. Specifics aside, the Accelerator will be an independent public or not-for-profit financial organization that will invest in clean energy. By focusing on renewable energy and energy efficiency, this entity would accelerate investment in a clean energy economy.
Both the House and Senate bills embrace the Administration's goal of using this Accelerator to advance environmental justice goals: "These investments have a particular focus on disadvantaged communities that have not yet benefited from clean energy investments." To this end, both bills make clear that not less than 40% of the total money invested would be directed towards disadvantaged communities that figure to be especially hard hit by climate change. See H.R.806, §1627(b)!S.283, §5245H(b).