Republican split widens as Texas regulator bashes CCS – E&E News by POLITICO

Report on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Initiatives and Sustainable Development Goals

A significant political and regulatory debate is unfolding in the United States regarding Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. This debate directly impacts the pursuit of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). Recent events in Texas and other states highlight a growing divergence in strategies for achieving these goals, with key political figures challenging the efficacy and safety of carbon injection projects.

Regulatory Scrutiny and Political Opposition

Challenges to Climate Action Strategies (SDG 13)

Opposition to CCS projects is emerging from within traditionally pro-fossil fuel political circles, creating a complex landscape for climate mitigation efforts. Wayne Christian, a Texas Railroad Commissioner, has publicly criticized a state-permitted carbon removal and storage project, labeling it a “danger” and questioning the use of taxpayer funds for technologies supported by international climate frameworks.

• Texas: Commissioner Christian expressed concern that government incentives for CCS align the state with the United Nations and the World Economic Forum rather than pro-oil and gas interests, questioning the premise of CCS as a primary tool for SDG 13.
• Florida: Governor Ron DeSantis described carbon sequestration as a “scam,” opposing state-level legislation designed to advance the technology.
• Louisiana: Governor Jeff Landry instituted a moratorium on new applications for Class VI carbon injection wells to develop a more methodical permitting approach.
• Alabama: State Representative Matthew Hammett prefiled legislation to prevent CO2 injection in Covington County, citing local concerns.

This political pushback complicates the national strategy for decarbonization, which relies on technologies like CCS to meet climate targets under SDG 13.

Environmental Safety and Community Well-being (SDG 6 & SDG 11)

The debate over CCS extends to fundamental environmental and safety concerns, aligning some Republican officials with environmental advocacy groups. These concerns directly relate to ensuring the long-term viability of sustainable communities and resources.

1. Water Safety (SDG 6): A primary concern is the potential for underground CO2 injection to contaminate drinking water sources, challenging the goal of ensuring Clean Water and Sanitation for all.
2. Community Safety (SDG 11): Risks associated with CO2 pipeline leaks and increased seismic activity in geologically sensitive areas pose a threat to Sustainable Cities and Communities.
3. Regulatory Oversight: Watchdog groups advocate for more stringent oversight at the Texas Railroad Commission to ensure that the deployment of CCS infrastructure under SDG 9 does not compromise public safety or environmental integrity.

The Role of CCS in Economic and Industrial Development

Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (SDG 9)

Proponents view CCS as a critical innovation for building resilient infrastructure and fostering sustainable industrialization. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted Texas primary regulatory authority (primacy) over Class VI injection wells, a move intended to streamline the permitting process and encourage investment. Industry leaders, such as Occidental Petroleum CEO Vicki Hollub, champion CCS projects like the STRATOS Direct Air Capture facility as milestones in developing the necessary infrastructure for a low-carbon economy.

This development is seen as essential for maintaining global energy leadership while transitioning towards cleaner energy systems, contributing to both SDG 9 and SDG 7.

Economic Growth and Policy Incentives (SDG 8)

Federal policies are a key driver for the CCS industry, aiming to stimulate economic growth and create jobs. The expansion of the 45Q tax credit, supported by both the Inflation Reduction Act and subsequent legislation, provides significant financial incentives for companies to invest in carbon capture projects.

• Job Creation: Supporters argue that a robust CCS industry will create jobs and attract investment, contributing to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).
• Economic Viability: These incentives are crucial for making large-scale CCS projects economically viable, thereby encouraging private sector participation in achieving national climate goals.
• Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR): CCS is also linked to EOR, a process that uses CO2 to increase oil production. Proponents argue this method produces crude oil with a lower carbon footprint per barrel, though it ties a climate solution to continued fossil fuel extraction.

However, the integrity of these incentive programs has been questioned. A 2020 Treasury Department investigation found that approximately $894 million in 45Q credits were claimed by companies not in compliance with EPA monitoring rules, raising concerns about the governance and effectiveness of policies designed to support SDG 13.

Conclusion: A Contested Path to Sustainable Development

The controversy surrounding CCS technology highlights a fundamental tension in the strategy for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. While CCS is presented by industry and some policymakers as a vital technology for advancing SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), its deployment faces significant opposition. This opposition is rooted in concerns over public expenditure, regulatory consistency, and critical environmental risks that threaten SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The future of CCS as a climate solution in the United States will depend on resolving these conflicts and establishing a regulatory framework that builds public trust and ensures environmental protection while pursuing decarbonization objectives.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article discusses issues related to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through its focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, its environmental implications, economic drivers, and the political debate surrounding it.

   • SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: The article revolves around a technology, CCS, designed to make fossil fuel energy production cleaner by capturing CO2 emissions. It discusses using CO2 for “enhanced oil recovery,” directly linking the technology to the energy industry and its sustainability.
   • SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: CCS is presented as an innovative technology requiring significant new infrastructure, such as “Class VI wells used to inject carbon dioxide underground.” The debate over permitting and safety standards for this infrastructure is a central theme.
   • SDG 13: Climate Action: This is the most prominent SDG. The article’s opening sentence states that CCS is “a technology designed to curb climate-warming emissions.” The entire discussion, including references to “global emissions efforts” and “Net Zero goals,” is framed within the context of climate change mitigation.
   • SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The article explicitly mentions safety concerns related to water resources. It notes EPA’s role in “empowering Texas to protect its underground sources of drinking water” from the potential risks of carbon injection.
   • SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The economic implications of CCS are discussed, including its potential to “attract investment, create jobs, and maintain its global leadership in energy.” The article also highlights how the technology can “ensure job security for thousands of energy industry workers in Texas.”
   • SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article illustrates the complex interplay and conflicts between various stakeholders. This includes partnerships and disagreements between state regulators (Texas Railroad Commission), federal agencies (EPA), industry players (Occidental), non-profits (Commission Shift), and international bodies (mentioned by Commissioner Christian, like the United Nations and World Economic Forum).

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

   • Target 7.a (under SDG 7): “By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology… and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology.” The article’s focus on government incentives (45Q tax credit) and permitting for CCS, which it describes as a “game-changing technology,” directly relates to promoting investment in cleaner fossil-fuel technology.
   • Target 9.4 (under SDG 9): “By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable… with greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies…” The development of Class VI wells for CO2 injection represents an effort to retrofit the energy industry with what is proposed as a clean and environmentally sound technology to manage emissions.
   • Target 13.2 (under SDG 13): “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” The entire debate over EPA granting Texas “primacy” for carbon well regulation, the creation of the 45Q tax credit, and state-level actions like Louisiana’s moratorium are examples of integrating (or contesting the integration of) climate mitigation measures into policy and planning.
   • Target 6.3 (under SDG 6): “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution…” The regulatory framework discussed, which requires projects to operate under “the strictest federal safety standards,” is aimed at preventing pollution and protecting “underground sources of drinking water” from the industrial process of CO2 injection.
   • Target 8.2 (under SDG 8): “Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through… technological upgrading and innovation…” The article frames CCS and direct air capture as technological innovations that will “attract investment, create jobs” and help “overcome the looming peak in Permian production,” thus contributing to economic productivity.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article mentions or implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators for measuring progress:

   • Number of permits for carbon injection wells: The article provides a specific statistic that can be used as an indicator: “applications for Class VI wells in Texas made up 24 percent of all Class VI permits pending at EPA.” Tracking the number of applications and approvals for these wells measures the deployment of this technology.
   • Financial investment in CCS projects: The article heavily discusses the 45Q tax credit as a key financial incentive. A direct indicator is mentioned in the Treasury Department’s investigation, which found that “$894 million of tax credits” had been awarded under the program, showing the scale of financial flows.
   • Volume of CO2 emissions reported and sequestered: The article mentions the federal “greenhouse gas reporting program — which collects annual emissions data from thousands of large industrial facilities.” This data is a direct indicator used to measure emissions and is foundational for verifying the amount of CO2 sequestered by CCS projects claiming tax credits.
   • Creation of policies and regulations: The article details numerous regulatory actions that serve as indicators of policy integration. These include the EPA’s approval of “so-called Class VI primacy for Texas,” Louisiana’s executive order for a “moratorium on new applications,” and Alabama’s prefiled bill to “prevent persons from injecting and storing CO2.”
   • Number of jobs created or secured: The article implies this indicator by stating that the technology will “ensure job security for thousands of energy industry workers in Texas” and that Texans will benefit from “investment and jobs that result as the CCS industry grows.”

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: eenews.net