Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-301

======================================================================



 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, 
                     AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

 August 3, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and Technology, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1933]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1933) to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to 
reauthorize and improve the carbon capture and storage 
research, development, and demonstration program of the 
Department of Energy, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................6
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................6
  IV. Hearing Summary.................................................7
   V. Committee Actions...............................................9
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, as Reported...........11
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section), as Reported12
VIII. Committee Views................................................14
  IX. Additional Views...............................................18
   X. Cost Estimate..................................................20
  XI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................20
 XII. Compliance with Public Law 104-4...............................22
XIII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............22
 XIV. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........22
  XV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................22
 XVI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................23
XVII. Congressional Accountability Act...............................23
XVIII.Earmark Identification.........................................23

 XIX. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........23
  XX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........23
 XXI. Committee Recommendations......................................28
XXII. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup.........................29
XXIII.Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................59


                              I. Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Energy Carbon Capture 
and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                    DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

  (a) Amendments.--Section 963 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 
U.S.C. 16293) is amended--
          (1) in the section heading, by striking ``RESEARCH AND 
        DEVELOPMENT'' and inserting ``AND STORAGE RESEARCH, 
        DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION'';
          (2) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``research and development'' and 
                inserting ``and storage research, development, and 
                demonstration''; and
                  (B) by striking ``capture technologies on combustion-
                based systems'' and inserting ``capture and storage 
                technologies related to electric power generating 
                systems'';
          (3) in subsection (b)--
                  (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
                  (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; and''; and
                  (C) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) to expedite and carry out large-scale testing of carbon 
        sequestration systems in a range of geological formations that 
        will provide information on the cost and feasibility of 
        deployment of sequestration technologies.''; and
          (4) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
  ``(c) Programmatic Activities.--
          ``(1) Fundamental science and engineering research and 
        development and demonstration supporting carbon capture and 
        storage technologies.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out 
                fundamental science and engineering research (including 
                laboratory-scale experiments, numeric modeling, and 
                simulations) to develop and document the performance of 
                new approaches to capture and store carbon dioxide, or 
                to learn how to use carbon dioxide in products to lead 
                to an overall reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.
                  ``(B) Program integration.--The Secretary shall 
                ensure that fundamental research carried out under this 
                paragraph is appropriately applied to energy technology 
                development activities and the field testing of carbon 
                sequestration and carbon use activities, including--
                          ``(i) development of new or advanced 
                        technologies for the capture of carbon dioxide;
                          ``(ii) development of new or advanced 
                        technologies that reduce the cost and increase 
                        the efficacy of the compression of carbon 
                        dioxide required for the storage of carbon 
                        dioxide;
                          ``(iii) modeling and simulation of geological 
                        sequestration field demonstrations;
                          ``(iv) quantitative assessment of risks 
                        relating to specific field sites for testing of 
                        sequestration technologies; and
                          ``(v) research and development of new and 
                        advanced technologies for carbon use, including 
                        recycling and reuse of carbon dioxide.
          ``(2) Field validation testing activities.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall promote, to 
                the maximum extent practicable, regional carbon 
                sequestration partnerships to conduct geologic 
                sequestration tests involving carbon dioxide injection 
                and monitoring, mitigation, and verification operations 
                in a variety of candidate geological settings, 
                including--
                          ``(i) operating oil and gas fields;
                          ``(ii) depleted oil and gas fields;
                          ``(iii) unmineable coal seams;
                          ``(iv) deep saline formations;
                          ``(v) deep geologic systems that may be used 
                        as engineered reservoirs to extract economical 
                        quantities of heat from geothermal resources of 
                        low permeability or porosity;
                          ``(vi) deep geologic systems containing 
                        basalt formations; and
                          ``(vii) high altitude terrain oil and gas 
                        fields.
                  ``(B) Objectives.--The objectives of tests conducted 
                under this paragraph shall be--
                          ``(i) to develop and validate geophysical 
                        tools, analysis, and modeling to monitor, 
                        predict, and verify carbon dioxide containment;
                          ``(ii) to validate modeling of geological 
                        formations;
                          ``(iii) to refine storage capacity estimated 
                        for particular geological formations;
                          ``(iv) to determine the fate of carbon 
                        dioxide concurrent with and following injection 
                        into geological formations;
                          ``(v) to develop and implement best practices 
                        for operations relating to, and monitoring of, 
                        injection and storage of carbon dioxide in 
                        geologic formations;
                          ``(vi) to assess and ensure the safety of 
                        operations related to geological storage of 
                        carbon dioxide;
                          ``(vii) to allow the Secretary to promulgate 
                        policies, procedures, requirements, and 
                        guidance to ensure that the objectives of this 
                        subparagraph are met in large-scale testing and 
                        deployment activities for carbon capture and 
                        storage that are funded by the Department of 
                        Energy; and
                          ``(viii) to support Environmental Protection 
                        Agency efforts, in consultation with other 
                        agencies, to develop a scientifically sound 
                        regulatory framework to enable commercial-scale 
                        sequestration operations while safeguarding 
                        human health and underground sources of 
                        drinking water.
          ``(3) Large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration testing.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct not 
                less than 7 initial large-volume sequestration tests, 
                not including the FutureGen project, for geological 
                containment of carbon dioxide (at least 1 of which 
                shall be international in scope) to validate 
                information on the cost and feasibility of commercial 
                deployment of technologies for geological containment 
                of carbon dioxide.
                  ``(B) Diversity of formations to be studied.--In 
                selecting formations for study under this paragraph, 
                the Secretary shall consider a variety of geological 
                formations across the United States, and require 
                characterization and modeling of candidate formations, 
                as determined by the Secretary.
                  ``(C) Source of carbon dioxide for large-scale 
                sequestration demonstrations.--In the process of any 
                acquisition of carbon dioxide for sequestration 
                demonstrations under subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
                shall give preference to purchases of carbon dioxide 
                from industrial and coal-fired electric generation 
                facilities. To the extent feasible, the Secretary shall 
                prefer test projects from industrial and coal-fired 
                electric generation facilities that would facilitate 
                the creation of an integrated system of capture, 
                transportation and storage of carbon dioxide. Until 
                coal-fired electric generation facilities, either new 
                or existing, are operating with carbon dioxide capture 
                technologies, other industrial sources of carbon 
                dioxide should be pursued under this paragraph. The 
                preference provided for under this subparagraph shall 
                not delay the implementation of the large-scale 
                sequestration tests under this paragraph.
                  ``(D) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
                the term `large-scale' means the injection of more than 
                1,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, or a 
                scale that demonstrably exceeds the necessary 
                thresholds in key geologic transients to validate the 
                ability continuously to inject quantities on the order 
                of several million metric tons of industrial carbon 
                dioxide annually for a large number of years.
          ``(4) Large-scale demonstration of carbon dioxide capture 
        technologies.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out at 
                least 3 and no more than 5 demonstrations, that include 
                each of the technologies described in subparagraph (B), 
                for the large-scale capture of carbon dioxide from 
                industrial sources of carbon dioxide, at least 2 of 
                which are facilities that generate electric energy from 
                fossil fuels. Candidate facilities for other 
                demonstrations under this paragraph shall include 
                facilities that refine petroleum, manufacture iron or 
                steel, manufacture cement or cement clinker, 
                manufacture commodity chemicals, and ethanol and 
                fertilizer plants. Consideration may be given to 
                capture of carbon dioxide from industrial facilities 
                and electric generation carbon sources that are near 
                suitable geological reservoirs and could continue 
                sequestration. To ensure reduced carbon dioxide 
                emissions, the Secretary shall take necessary actions 
                to provide for the integration of the program under 
                this paragraph with the long-term carbon dioxide 
                sequestration demonstrations described in paragraph 
                (3). These actions should not delay implementation of 
                the large-scale sequestration tests authorized in 
                paragraph (3).
                  ``(B) Technologies.--The technologies referred to in 
                subparagraph (A) are precombustion capture, post-
                combustion capture, and oxycombustion.
                  ``(C) Scope of award.--An award under this paragraph 
                shall be only for the portion of the project that 
                carries out the large-scale capture (including 
                purification and compression) of carbon dioxide, as 
                well as the cost of transportation and injection of 
                carbon dioxide.
          ``(5) Preference in project selection from meritorious 
        proposals.--In making competitive awards under this subsection, 
        subject to the requirements of section 989, the Secretary shall 
        give preference to proposals from partnerships among 
        industrial, academic, and government entities.
          ``(6) Cost sharing.--Activities under this subsection shall 
        be considered research and development activities that are 
        subject to the cost-sharing requirements of section 988(b), 
        except that the Federal share of a project under paragraph (4) 
        shall not exceed 50 percent.
  ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Secretary for carrying out this section, other than 
        subsection (c)(3) and (4)--
                  ``(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
                  ``(B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                  ``(C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
                  ``(D) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
          ``(2) Sequestration.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
        to the Secretary for carrying out subsection (c)(3)--
                  ``(A) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
                  ``(B) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                  ``(C) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
                  ``(D) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
          ``(3) Carbon capture.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out subsection 
        (c)(4)--
                  ``(A) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                  ``(B) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
                  ``(C) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
                  ``(D) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
  (b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The item relating to section 963 in 
the table of contents for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is amended to 
read as follows:

``Sec. 963. Carbon capture and storage research, development, and 
demonstration program.''.

SEC. 3. REVIEW OF LARGE-SCALE PROGRAMS.

  The Secretary of Energy shall enter into an arrangement with the 
National Academy of Sciences for an independent review and oversight, 
beginning in 2011, of the programs under section 963(c)(3) and (4) of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as added by section 2 of this Act, to 
ensure that the benefits of such programs are maximized. Not later than 
January 1, 2012, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report 
on the results of such review and oversight.

SEC. 4. SAFETY RESEARCH.

  (a) Program.--The Assistant Administrator for Research and 
Development of the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct a 
research program to determine procedures necessary to protect public 
health, safety, and the environment from impacts that may be associated 
with capture, injection, and sequestration of greenhouse gases in 
subterranean reservoirs.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated for carrying out this section $5,000,000 for each fiscal 
year.

SEC. 5. GEOLOGICAL SEQUESTRATION TRAINING AND RESEARCH.

  (a) Study.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary of Energy shall enter into an 
        arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake 
        a study that--
                  (A) defines an interdisciplinary program in geology, 
                engineering, hydrology, environmental science, and 
                related disciplines that will support the Nation's 
                capability to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from 
                anthropogenic sources;
                  (B) addresses undergraduate and graduate education, 
                especially to help develop graduate level programs of 
                research and instruction that lead to advanced degrees 
                with emphasis on geological sequestration science;
                  (C) develops guidelines for proposals from colleges 
                and universities with substantial capabilities in the 
                required disciplines that wish to implement geological 
                sequestration science programs that advance the 
                Nation's capacity to address carbon management through 
                geological sequestration science; and
                  (D) outlines a budget and recommendations for how 
                much funding will be necessary to establish and carry 
                out the grant program under subsection (b).
          (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit 
        to the Congress a copy of the results of the study provided by 
        the National Academy of Sciences under paragraph (1).
          (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized to 
        be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this 
        subsection $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
  (b) Grant Program.--
          (1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy, through the 
        National Energy Technology Laboratory, shall establish a 
        competitive grant program through which colleges and 
        universities may apply for and receive 4-year grants for--
                  (A) salary and startup costs for newly designated 
                faculty positions in an integrated geological carbon 
                sequestration science program; and
                  (B) internships for graduate students in geological 
                sequestration science.
          (2) Renewal.--Grants under this subsection shall be renewable 
        for up to 2 additional 3-year terms, based on performance 
        criteria, established by the National Academy of Sciences study 
        conducted under subsection (a), that include the number of 
        graduates of such programs.
          (3) Interface with regional geological carbon sequestration 
        partnerships.--To the greatest extent possible, geological 
        carbon sequestration science programs supported under this 
        subsection shall interface with the research of the Regional 
        Carbon Sequestration Partnerships operated by the Department of 
        Energy to provide internships and practical training in carbon 
        capture and geological sequestration.
          (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized to 
        be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this 
        subsection such sums as may be necessary.

SEC. 6. UNIVERSITY BASED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM.

  (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with 
other appropriate agencies, shall establish a university based research 
and development program to study carbon capture and sequestration using 
the various types of coal.
  (b) Grants.--Under this section, the Secretary shall award 5 grants 
for projects submitted by colleges or universities to study carbon 
capture and sequestration in conjunction with the recovery of oil and 
other enhanced elemental and mineral recovery. Consideration shall be 
given to areas that have regional sources of coal for the study of 
carbon capture and sequestration.
  (c) Rural and Agricultural Institutions.--The Secretary shall 
designate that at least 2 of these grants shall be awarded to rural or 
agricultural based institutions that offer interdisciplinary programs 
in the area of environmental science to study carbon capture and 
sequestration in conjunction with the recovery of oil and other 
enhanced elemental and mineral recovery.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are to be authorized to 
be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section.

                              II. Purpose

    The purpose of H.R. 1933 is to amend the Energy Policy Act 
of 2005 to reauthorize and improve the carbon capture and 
storage research, development, and demonstration program of the 
Department of Energy.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    Approximately 50 percent of the electricity generated in 
the United States comes from coal. According to the Department 
of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) carbon 
dioxide emissions in the United States and its territories were 
6,008.6 million metric tons (MMT) in 2005. In the United 
States, most anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is 
emitted as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels. In 
particular, the electric power sector accounts for nearly 40 
percent of the manmade CO2 emissions in the U.S, 
according to EIA. For the foreseeable future, the U.S. will 
continue to rely on coal to meet our energy demand. With that 
understanding, the challenge lies in balancing our 
environmental goals with our energy needs. The Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology (MIT) report The Future of Coal (2007) 
concludes ``that CO2 capture and sequestration is 
the critical enabling technology that would reduce 
CO2 emissions significantly while also allowing coal 
to meet the world's pressing energy needs.''
    Crafting a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) strategy for 
the United States calls for an understanding of the technical 
challenges that exist with the development, demonstration and 
deployment of carbon dioxide capture technologies and the 
development of safe, effective large-scale containment of 
carbon dioxide. Appropriate investment in continued research is 
necessary to answer outstanding concerns with large-volume 
storage of CO2 in underground reservoirs. The 
Department of Energy has produced an Atlas of the 
CO2 storage capacity in the United States and 
Canada. This Atlas will be updated as the Department continues 
to conduct field injection tests. Sequestration demonstrations 
will help to address the outstanding safety and environmental 
issues associated with large underground reservoirs of carbon 
dioxide. Once the CO2 is injected, do we have the 
capability of successfully monitoring and verifying the 
movement of the subsurface CO2? The demonstrations 
will provide greater information about the probability of the 
CO2 leaking, the ability to detect a leak, how the 
CO2 would leak and how fast it would leak. 
Ultimately, the goal is to determine with increased certainty 
the measurable benefits of CCS strategies to reduce emissions 
of heat-trapping gases.
    There is also recognition that additional federal 
investment in carbon dioxide capture technologies is needed to 
bring these technologies to full-scale deployment. The MIT 
Report points out that there is no operational experience with 
carbon capture from coal plants and notes the absence of 
operational experience with an integrated capture and 
sequestration system. The MIT report states that ``the priority 
objective with respect to coal should be the successful large-
scale demonstration of the technical, economic, and 
environmental performance of the technologies that make up all 
of the major components of a large-scale integrated CCS 
system--capture, transportation and storage.'' H.R. 1933 
follows that recommendation and reauthorizes the Department of 
Energy's research and development and field testing programs, 
and specifically authorizes large-scale demonstrations of both 
carbon dioxide capture technologies and carbon dioxide 
containment.

                          IV. Hearing Summary

    The Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on 
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 to hear testimony on the Prospects for 
Advanced Coal Technologies: Efficient Energy Production, Carbon 
Capture and Sequestration to gain a better understanding of the 
programmatic needs at the Department of Energy to address the 
challenge of climate change. The following five witnesses 
testified at the hearing:
     Mr. Carl O. Bauer, Director of the Department of 
Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory, a national 
laboratory owned and operated by the Department of Energy. In 
his current position as Director of NETL, he oversees the 
implementation of major science and technology development 
programs to resolve the environmental, supply and reliability 
constraints of producing and using fossil resources, including 
advanced coal-fueled power generation, carbon sequestration, 
and environmental control for the existing fleet of fossil 
steam plants.
     Dr. Robert L. Finley, Director, Energy and Earth 
Resources Center for Illinois State Geological Survey with 
specialization in fossil energy resources. He is currently 
heading a regional carbon sequestration partnership in the 
Illinois Basin aimed at addressing concerns with geological 
carbon management.
     Mr. Michael Rencheck, Senior Vice President for 
Engineering Projects and Field Services at American Electric 
Power, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. He is responsible for 
engineering, regional maintenance and shop service 
organizations, projects and construction, and new generation 
development.
     Mr. Stuart Dalton, Director, Generation at the 
Electric Power Research Institute. His current research 
activities cover a wide variety of generation options with 
special focus on emerging generation, coal-based generation, 
emission controls and CO2 capture and storage. He 
also helped to create the EPRI Coal Fleet for Tomorrow program.
     Mr. Gardiner Hill, Director of Technology in 
Alternative Energy Technology, is responsible for BP group-wide 
aspects of CO2 Capture and Storage technology 
development, demonstration and deployment. He also is the BP 
manager responsible for the BP/Ford/Princeton Carbon Mitigation 
Initiative at Princeton University as well as the BP manager 
responsible for the BP/Harvard partnership on the Energy 
Technology Innovation Project. He possesses 20 years of 
technical and managerial experience which is directly relevant 
to technology, business and project management.
    Recognizing that coal is a critical resource for meeting 
our Nation's energy demand, witnesses at the hearing discussed 
strategies for managing carbon dioxide emissions. The 
challenges include advancing technologies that help gain 
combustion efficiencies from electric generating coal plants 
and demonstrating both carbon dioxide capture and sequestration 
technologies. Specifically, witnesses emphasized the need to 
demonstrate large-scale injection and storage of CO2 
in underground geologic formations in order to monitor and 
verify the fate of the CO2.
    Such large-scale storage demonstrations would provide an 
understanding of the risks associated with sequestering large 
volumes of CO2 and offer solutions to mitigate those 
risks.
    Available carbon capture and sequestration technologies are 
currently too expensive for commercial use. Mr. Stu Dalton, 
Director of Generation at the Electric Power Research Institute 
(EPRI), testified that using today's capture, compression, 
transportation, and storage technologies would increase 
pulverized coal plant costs by 40-60 percent and Integrated 
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant costs would increase 
by 40-50 percent. Mr. Carl Bauer explained the Department of 
Energy is working to address these added operational costs by 
developing CCS technology that can capture and store at least 
90 percent of the potential CO2 emissions from coal-
fired power plants with less than a 10 percent increase in the 
cost of electricity. Accomplishing this goal requires the 
Department to develop cost-effective technology options by 
leveraging basic and applied research with field verification.
    According to the Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United 
States and Canada, Dr. Finley explained there is roughly 3,500 
billion tons of storage capacity. Moreover, industry already 
has gained experience injecting carbon dioxide underground 
through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). While the geologic 
capacity and injection techniques exist, the Nation has not 
assessed short-term and long-term risks of CO2 
storage in geologic reservoirs, such as leakage. According to 
the witnesses, the main challenges to CCS--showing 
CO2 can be captured and stored in underground 
geologic formations with long-term stability, developing 
CO2 monitoring capabilities, and gaining public and 
regulatory acceptance--can be addressed through large-scale 
demonstration projects.
    Demonstration is the best method for successfully 
commercializing capture technology as well. Capturing carbon 
dioxide for sequestration is currently a very energy intensive 
and costly process. Witnesses explained CO2 capture 
and compression could require 20-30 percent of the overall 
energy of the plant. They also noted that for oxyfuel 
combustion and IGCC plants, making the oxygen or separating the 
nitrogen and the oxygen from air for partial combustion is one 
of the biggest cost drivers or inefficiencies.
    Witnesses also urged the Committee to integrate carbon 
capture with storage. They suggested operating and studying 
large-scale capture, transport and storage together will 
increase efficiency and operability.
    Just as integrated carbon capture and sequestration systems 
reduce carbon dioxide emissions, employing cost-effective 
efficient technologies and practices can dramatically reduce 
energy use and consequent CO2 emissions. Mr. Stu 
Dalton estimates that over the next 20 years, improvements in 
power plant efficiency can achieve CO2 reductions of 
up to 20 percent per megawatt-hour without additional 
CO2 capture.
    Finally, during the hearing, witnesses emphasized that for 
the foreseeable future, coal will continue to be used to meet 
our energy needs. Therefore, if the Nation is going to reduce 
carbon dioxide emissions, it is essential that we develop 
techniques to safely capture and sequester carbon as a 
byproduct of coal combustion. H.R. 1933, the Department of 
Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Act of 2007 introduced by Mark Udall (D-CO), is 
based on the recommendations in the MIT report The Future of 
Coal and authorizes research and development and demonstration 
programs to set a path that mitigates carbon dioxide emissions 
with continued use of coal as an energy resource.

                          V. Committee Actions

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider 
H.R. 1933 on June 21, 2007 and consider the following two 
amendments to the bill:
    1. Mr. Udall offered a Manager's amendment which made a 
number of technical and substantive changes to H.R. 1933. The 
amendment adds a new section to the bill authorizing three, but 
no more than five, demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture 
technologies. It further includes an authorization for funding 
these carbon dioxide capture demonstrations at $180 million per 
year for 4 years starting in Fiscal Year 2009. It increases the 
funding level for the large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration 
demonstrations to $140 million per year for four years 
beginning in Fiscal Year 2008. The amendment defines the large-
scale demonstrations of carbon dioxide sequestration as one 
million tons of carbon dioxide annually or a scale that 
demonstrably exceeds the necessary thresholds in key geologic 
transients to validate the ability to continuously inject large 
quantities of carbon dioxide for a number of years. The 
amendment encourages the integration of the storage 
demonstrations with the capture technology demonstrations. This 
is intended to provide operational experience with an 
integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of 
carbon dioxide at scale. The amendment includes an 
authorization for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct 
an independent review and oversight of the injection program to 
ensure its benefits are maximized. The amendment also 
authorizes the Assistant Administrator of the Office of 
Research and Development of EPA to conduct a research program 
to determine what procedures may be necessary to protect public 
health, safety and the environment from impacts that may be 
associated with sequestration of greenhouse gases. Finally, the 
amendment includes an authorization of appropriation for Fiscal 
Years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 to fund the Department of 
Energy's fundamental R&D; at the laboratory scale to allow for 
continued examination of new approaches on carbon dioxide 
capture and sequestration. The amendment was adopted by voice 
vote.
    2. Mr. Costello offered an amendment which authorizes a 
study by the National Academy of Sciences to define an 
interdisciplinary program to train a workforce to support 
development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration. 
The study will define curricula for undergraduate and graduate 
programs that would lead to degrees in geological sequestration 
science. The amendment also establishes a competitive grant 
program through which institutions of higher education can 
apply for four-year grants to support start-up costs for 
integrated geological carbon sequestration programs as well as 
internships for graduate students in geological sequestration 
science. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    The bill was approved for final passage by voice vote. Ms. 
Woolsey moved that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill 
H.R. 1933, as amended, to the full Committee on Science and 
Technology. The motion was agree to by voice vote.
    On Wednesday, June 27, 2007 the full Committee on Science 
and Technology met to consider H.R. 1933 and the following 
amendments to the bill:
    1. Mr. Udall offered a Manager's amendment that added a 
provision to the Carbon Dioxide Capture Demonstration section 
of the bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to take 
actions needed to further integrate the carbon dioxide capture 
demonstrations with the Department of Energy's large-scale 
carbon dioxide sequestration program. This provision is 
intended to build on testimony from the May 15, 2007 hearing 
and the MIT Report to provide operational experience with an 
integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of 
carbon dioxide at scale. The amendment also made a number of 
technical changes to H.R. 1933 and clarified the funding levels 
for the programs authorized in the bill without changing the 
authorized funding levels. Specifically, the amendment included 
a separate authorization of appropriations for the basic 
Research and Development and field testing programs at $100 
million for each of fiscal years 2008-2011, thus clarifying 
that the carbon dioxide sequestration testing program is funded 
at $140 million for each of fiscal years 2008-2011. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    2. Mr. Matheson offered an amendment to include high 
altitude terrain oil and gas fields to the Department of 
Energy's geologic sequestration field validation testing 
activities which include carbon dioxide injection and 
monitoring, mitigation and verification operations for a range 
of settings. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    3. Mr. Ross offered an amendment to add a new section to 
the bill creating a university research and development program 
aimed at studying carbon dioxide capture and sequestration 
using all different coal types in conjunction with enhanced oil 
and mineral recovery. Five grant projects are authorized with 
at least two of the grants being awarded to rural and/or 
agricultural based institutions that offer interdisciplinary 
programs in the area of environmental science to study carbon 
capture and sequestration in conjunction with the enhanced 
recovery of oil and other elemental and mineral recovery. The 
amendment authorized $10,000,000 to carry out this university 
grant program. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    4. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to require that two of 
the three carbon dioxide capture demonstrations authorized 
occur at fossil fuel electric generation plants. The amendment 
was adopted by voice vote.
    5. Mr. McCaul offered an amendment to make coal-to-liquid 
facilities eligible for participation in both the carbon 
dioxide capture demonstrations and the large-scale carbon 
dioxide sequestration program. The amendment was defeated by 
recorded vote of 15-22.
    The bill was approved for final passage by voice vote. Ms. 
Johnson moved that the Committee favorably report the bill H.R. 
1933, as amended, to the House for consideration. The motion 
was agreed to by voice vote.

        VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, as Reported

    H.R. 1933 provides federal support for the Department of 
Energy to demonstrate large-volume sequestration tests for 
geological containment of carbon dioxide and carry out at least 
three demonstrations of large-scale CO2 capture 
technologies. The bill defines large-scale sequestration 
demonstration as the injection of more than 1,000,000 metric 
tons of carbon dioxide annually. The bill requires that two of 
the carbon dioxide capture demonstrations are conducted at 
facilities that generate electric energy from fossil fuels. The 
bill will provide for the testing of a variety of geological 
settings for carbon dioxide storage and it will accelerate the 
demonstration of the three main categories of carbon dioxide 
capture technologies bringing them closer to commercial 
application. H.R. 1933 aims to integrate the carbon dioxide 
capture with the large-scale storage demonstration in order to 
gain the operational experience with an integrated system of 
capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at 
scale.
    The bill authorizes $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
2008-2011 for the Department of Energy's basic research and 
development and field testing programs. $140,000,000 is 
authorized each of fiscal years 2008-2011 for the large-scale 
carbon dioxide sequestration demonstration program to conduct 
research on the fate of large volumes of CO2 stored 
in underground geologic formations. And, $180,000,000 is 
authorized each of fiscal years 2009-2012 to carry out the 
carbon dioxide capture demonstration program.
    In addition, the bill provides for the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a research program to 
determine what procedures may be necessary to protect public 
health, safety and the environment with regard to the long-term 
storage of carbon dioxide in geological reservoirs. The EPA 
research program is authorized at $5,000,000 for each of the 
fiscal years from 2009-2012. Also, the bill authorizes the 
National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent review 
and oversight of the carbon dioxide injection program to ensure 
its benefits are maximized. The bill also authorizes the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to undertake a study 
defining an interdisciplinary program to train a workforce to 
support the development and deployment of carbon capture and 
sequestration systems. For fiscal year 2008, $1,000,000 is 
authorized to carry out this NAS study.
    The bill establishes a competitive grant program for 
institutions of higher learning to provide start up costs for 
integrated geological carbon sequestration programs and 
implement internships for graduate students in geological 
sequestration science. The bill also establishes a Department 
of Energy university grant program designed to study carbon 
dioxide capture and sequestration using a variety of coal 
types. Specifically, five grants are to be awarded to conduct 
the research on CO2 capture and sequestration in 
conjunction with the recovery of oil and other enhanced 
elemental and mineral recovery. At least two of the grants 
shall be awarded to rural or agricultural based institutions 
that offer interdisciplinary programs in the area of 
environmental science which explore carbon capture and 
sequestration combined with oil and mineral recovery. The bill 
authorizes $10,000,000 for this program.

                    VII. Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    ``Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007.''

Section 2. Carbon capture and storage research, development, and 
        demonstration program

    Directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out fundamental 
science and engineering research to develop and document the 
performance of new approaches to capture and store carbon 
dioxide, or use carbon dioxide in products that lead to an 
overall reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. The fundamental 
research shall be applied to energy technology development 
activities and the field testing of carbon sequestration 
activities.
    Requires the Secretary to promote regional carbon 
sequestration partnerships to conduct geologic sequestration 
field testing involving carbon dioxide injection and monitoring 
practices, mitigation, and verification operations in a variety 
of geologic settings including operating oil and gas fields, 
depleted oil and gas fields, unmineable coal seams, saline 
formations, deep geologic systems used to extract heat from 
geothermal resources, and high altitude terrain oil and gas 
fields.
    The field tests are aimed at advancing and validating 
geophysical tools and analysis and modeling used to monitor, 
predict, and verify carbon dioxide containment. The Secretary 
is authorized to promulgate policies, procedures, requirements 
and guidance to ensure that the objectives of the field testing 
are met in large-scale testing and deployment activities for 
carbon capture and storage funded by the Department.
    In addition, the bill authorizes seven large-volume 
sequestration tests for geologic containment of carbon dioxide. 
The Secretary shall select meritorious proposals on a 
competitive basis giving preference to proposals from 
partnerships among industrial, academic, and government 
entities. The Secretary shall consider a variety of geological 
formations across the United States and require 
characterization and modeling of candidate formations, as 
determined by the Secretary. The bill integrates the storage 
demonstrations with the demonstration of carbon dioxide capture 
technologies by giving preference to carbon dioxide captured 
from coal-fired electric generating plants and other industrial 
CO2 sources to provide operational experience with 
an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of 
carbon dioxide at scale. This preference shall not delay the 
implementation of the large-scale sequestration tests. H.R. 
1933 defines large-scale injection of carbon dioxide as one 
million tons of carbon dioxide annually or a scale that 
demonstrably exceeds the necessary thresholds in key geologic 
transients to validate the ability to continuously inject large 
quantities of carbon dioxide for a number of years. The large-
scale carbon dioxide sequestration demonstrations shall be 
considered research and development and meet the cost-sharing 
requirements of Section 988(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005--the Secretary shall require not less than 20 percent of 
the cost of a research or development activity to be provided 
by a non-Federal source.
    The bill directs the Secretary to carry out three, but no 
more than five, demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture 
technologies--two of these demonstrations shall be conducted at 
facilities that generate electric energy from fossil fuels. 
These demonstrations must include the three main approaches to 
carbon dioxide capture: pre-combustion, post-combustion and 
oxycombustion. Any award under this carbon dioxide capture 
demonstration program is available only for the portion of the 
project that carries out the large-scale capture (including 
purification and compression) of carbon dioxide, as well as the 
cost of transportation and injection of carbon dioxide. The 
Secretary is required to take necessary actions to provide for 
the integration of the carbon dioxide captured during the 
demonstrations with the long-term carbon dioxide sequestration 
tests. These actions should not delay the implementation of the 
large-scale sequestration projects. The carbon dioxide capture 
demonstrations shall meet the cost-share requirements of 
Section 988(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or the 
Secretary shall require that not less than 50 percent of the 
cost of the demonstration be provided by a non-Federal source.
    This section authorizes appropriations of $100,000,000 for 
each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for research and 
development and field testing.
    This section authorizes appropriations of $140,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for carrying out 
research on large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration 
demonstrations.
    This section authorizes appropriations of $180,000,000 for 
each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2012 for the 
demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture technologies.

Section 3. Review of large-scale programs

    Authorizes the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an 
independent review and oversight of the injection program to 
ensure its benefits are maximized. Not later than January 1, 
2012, the Secretary is directed to transmit to the Congress a 
report on the results of such review and oversight.

Section 4. Safety research

    Section 4 authorizes the Assistant Administrator for 
Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency 
to conduct a research program to determine the procedures that 
may be necessary to protect public health, safety, and the 
environment from potential impacts associated with capture, 
injection, and sequestration of greenhouse gases in 
subterranean reservoirs. Authorizes $5,000,000 for each fiscal 
year to carry out this research program.

Section 5. Geological sequestration training and research

    Directs the Secretary of Energy to enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake 
a study that defines an interdisciplinary program to train a 
workforce to support the nation's capability to capture and 
sequester carbon dioxide from anthropogenic sources, and 
develops curricula for undergraduate and graduate studies that 
lead to degrees in geological sequestration science. The study 
will establish guidelines for universities wishing to implement 
geological sequestration science programs and make 
recommendations on the budget needed to implement the grant 
program also authorized in this section. The Secretary is 
directed to submit a report to Congress providing the results 
of the National Academy of Sciences study.
    Authorizes $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 to carry out 
this section.
    Authorizes the Secretary of Energy, through the National 
Energy Technology Laboratory, to establish a competitive grant 
program through which institutions of higher education can 
apply for four-year grants to support salary and startup costs 
for newly designated faculty positions in an integrated 
geological carbon sequestration science program and internships 
for graduate students in geological sequestration science. The 
grants are renewable for up to two additional three-year terms 
and encouraged to interface with the research of the Regional 
Carbon Sequestration Partnerships operated by the Department of 
Energy to provide internships and practical training in carbon 
capture and geological sequestration. Authorizes such sums as 
necessary to carry out the grant program.

Section 6. University based Research and Development grant program

    Requires the Secretary of the Department of Energy to 
establish a university Research and Development program aimed 
at studying carbon dioxide capture and sequestration using all 
different coal types in conjunction with enhanced oil and 
mineral recovery. Five grant projects are authorized with at 
least two of the grants being awarded to rural and/or 
agricultural based institutions that offer interdisciplinary 
programs in the area of environmental science to study carbon 
capture and sequestration in conjunction with the enhance 
recovery of oil and other elemental and mineral recovery. The 
bill authorizes $10,000,000 to carry out this university grant 
program.

                         VIII. Committee Views

    It is the view of the Committee that the research, 
development, testing and demonstration of carbon dioxide 
capture and sequestration technologies should be accelerated if 
we are going to implement policies to reduce our greenhouse gas 
emissions and mitigate global warming. The United States has an 
abundant supply of coal and it provides usable energy at a cost 
much less than energy from oil and natural gas. Given the 
abundance and low cost of coal, it is expected that coal will 
continue to be used to meet our nation's energy needs for the 
foreseeable future. Unfortunately, coal-fired power plants also 
contribute significantly to anthropogenic carbon dioxide 
emissions. Balancing our energy needs with our environmental 
goals will require continued federal investment to address the 
technical challenges associated with strategies aimed to 
stabilize and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    The Committee believes the deployment of CCS (carbon 
capture and storage) technologies on a large-scale is a 
desirable path forward to mitigate CO2 emissions, 
and that research and development programs should be 
accelerated to achieve this goal. H.R. 1933 extends and better 
defines the research and development and field verification 
testing that must be conducted to help ensure large-scale CCS 
strategies can be performed in a manner which protects human 
health and safety and the environment.
    The Committee recognizes we have been using injection 
technologies for years for enhanced oil and gas recovery. 
However, the risks associated with enhanced oil recovery and 
permanent sequestration of power plant and industrial 
CO2 may be different. Conducting large-scale tests 
of carbon dioxide sequestration and monitoring will help us to 
better understand the behavior of the CO2--will it 
stay put and if not, how will it leak and how fast will it 
leak. It is the Committee's view that large-volume 
sequestration tests will help to develop and demonstrate 
practices for site selection, operation, monitoring, and 
closure of large sequestration facilities. The seven regional 
large-scale sequestration demonstrations in a variety of 
geologic reservoirs are aimed to determine the capability of 
this CO2 mitigation strategy.
    Section 2 of the bill aims to integrate the carbon dioxide 
capture demonstrations with the large-scale carbon dioxide 
sequestration program. The large-scale sequestration projects 
are defined as ``the injection of more than 1,000,000 metric 
tons of carbon dioxide annually, or a scale that demonstrably 
exceeds the necessary thresholds in key geologic transients to 
validate the ability to continuously inject quantities on the 
order of several million metric tons of industrial carbon 
dioxide annually for a large number of years''. The Department 
of Energy is considering a range of sources for the 
CO2 including coal-fired power plants, natural gas 
processing facilities, refineries, ethanol plants and natural 
CO2 deposits. The Committee believes the carbon 
dioxide captured during the technology demonstrations should be 
used in the large-scale sequestration projects. This is much 
preferred to a CO2 capture demonstration program 
that tests the capture technologies but ultimately releases the 
carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The Secretary of 
Energy is directed to give preference to procurement of carbon 
dioxide from industrial sources and particularly coal-fired 
electric generation facilities because they are the largest 
emitters of CO2. The carbon dioxide capture 
demonstrations are authorized to begin in fiscal year 2009 and 
the sequestration program is authorized to begin in 2008. The 
Department of Energy is already taking steps to move forward 
with large-scale containment of CO2 and anticipates 
operating integrated large-scale injection and capture projects 
in later years. Additional funding for demonstrating the three 
main categories of capture technologies (pre-combustion, post-
combustion and oxyfuel-combustion) is intended to accelerate 
the commercialization of the most promising technologies. 
Again, it is the Committee's view that the capture and 
sequestration demonstration programs should be integrated as 
rapidly as possible to gain the best operational experience of 
CCS technologies.
    The funding levels for the research, development and 
demonstration of CCS technologies are based upon information in 
the MIT report, The Future of Coal. CCS technologies offer 
great promise in the effort to stabilize greenhouse gas 
emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
estimates that CCS could contribute up to 55 percent of the 
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration mitigation effort 
worldwide. The Committee believes these funding levels are an 
essential public investment if we are to approach this goal.
    It is the Committee's view that the Environmental 
Protection Agency should undertake research to facilitate the 
development of necessary procedures and regulations to protect 
public health, safety, and the environment from impacts that 
may be associated with capture, injection, and sequestration of 
large volumes of greenhouse gases in subterranean reservoirs. 
EPA has authority to regulate underground injection of carbon 
dioxide for the purposes of geologic sequestration under the 
Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). The Act 
requires that underground injection does not endanger drinking 
water sources.
    The Agency issued a final guidance in March 2007 on using 
the Class V experimental technology well classification for 
pilot geologic sequestration projects (UIC Program Guidance 
UICPG #83). This guidance was prepared jointly by the Office of 
Water and the Office of Air and Radiation, and these offices 
have taken the lead within the Agency on efforts related to 
carbon dioxide sequestration. The Committee recognizes the key 
role the Office of Research and Development plays in support of 
these regulatory program offices. The Committee believes the 
Administrator of the Office of Research and Development should 
work in consultation with the regulatory offices to provide 
information to support development of any monitoring or 
additional regulations that may be needed to ensure that carbon 
dioxide sequestration proceeds in a manner that is protective 
of the environment and public health. The Committee does not 
anticipate or intend that any research conducted by EPA will 
slow down the progress of research to determine the feasibility 
of underground injection of large volumes of CO2.
    It is the Committee's view that the National Academy of 
Sciences is the appropriate entity to undertake a study that 
would define an interdisciplinary program in geology, 
engineering, hydrology, environmental science and other related 
disciplines that would support the nation's capability to 
capture and sequester carbon dioxide from anthropogenic 
sources. A Department of Energy competitive grant program 
designed to help cover the salary and startup costs for 
colleges and universities implementing integrated geological 
carbon sequestration science programs would help to ensure we 
have the properly trained workforce to continue to advance CCS 
technologies. Both the NAS study and the Department of Energy 
grant program would build off the NAS report: Rising Above the 
Gathering Storm. This report describes a need for greater 
federal investment in research to create new industries and 
enhance old ones. The report highlights the need to invest in 
energy research, development and demonstration to identify 
better technologies for improving energy efficiency. It also 
recommends research designed to establish ways to use our 
abundant coal resources in a manner that does not result in 
negative impacts on regional air quality as a good investment 
of public resources. Section 5 of H.R. 1933 adopts these 
recommendations.
    The Committee also sees the benefits in establishing a 
second university-based research and development grant program 
to study carbon capture and sequestration in conjunction with 
the recovery of oil and other enhanced elemental and mineral 
recovery. Regions of the country have indigenous untapped 
natural resources such as bromine that could be used 
commercially with additional research. Bromine is used in 
making fumigants, flame-proofing agents, water purification 
compounds, dyes, medicines, and sanitizers. Additional research 
conducted in strategic regions of the country, could yield 
other commercial applications for untapped natural resources.

                   IX. Additional Views on H.R. 1933

      ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES RALPH M. HALL, F. JAMES 
  SENSENBRENNER, JR., MICHAEL T. McCAUL, PHIL GINGREY, TODD AKIN, TOM 
         FEENEY, BOB INGLIS, RANDY NEUGEBAUER AND ADRIAN SMITH

    Representative McCaul (TX) offered an amendment to H.R. 
1933 to improve the legislation by adding coal-to-liquids (CTL) 
facilities to the list of industrial and electric generation 
coal facilities that are eligible sources of carbon dioxide for 
the large-scale sequestration demonstrations in the bill. A 
recorded vote on this amendment revealed the support of most 
Members of the minority for technology supporting transforming 
coal-to-liquid. The amendment was voted down by the majority.
    The German discovered Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process for 
converting coal into manufactured liquid hydrocarbon fuels was 
discovered by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923. Today the 
technologies required to produce large-scale supplies of clean 
liquid fuels from coal are no longer in the exploratory phase 
in laboratories. These technologies are in use around the world 
today. South Africa relies on coal liquefaction to provide a 
substantial amount of transportation fuel. China, India, 
Indonesia and the Philippines have all made substantial 
investments in coal liquefaction plants.
    While there are no current coal-to-liquid facilities in the 
United States at the time, according to the U.S. Department of 
Energy, companies, local governments and American Indian tribes 
have announced plans to build the nation's first 16 coal-to-
liquids plants. A recent study by Princeton University's 
Environmental Institute estimates that fuel-cycle greenhouse 
gas emissions of gasified coal are 47 pounds of CO2 
per gallon, compared to 26 pounds per gallon for crude oil-
derived hydrocarbon fuel, making these facilities a potentially 
large source of carbon dioxide for the large-scale 
sequestration demonstrations.
    I would like to point out that when carbon capture-and-
sequestering technology is added, fuel-cycle emissions of coal-
based oil could be cut almost in half. Thus, the net emissions 
from CTL fuel produced at a refinery with carbon-capture 
technology would be just 8 percent more than the emissions from 
petroleum diesel, the Princeton researchers found. It makes 
sense that if we're going to build these plants that we should 
ensure that the CO2 emitted from them will be able 
to be put to good use by furthering our understanding of the 
fate of carbon dioxide as it is sequestered.
    I urge my colleagues to consider the value of this 
technology as we move the United States away from dependence on 
foreign sources of energy.

                                   Ralph M. Hall.
                                   Todd Akin.
                                   Michael T. McCaul.
                                   Randy Neugebauer.
                                   Tom Feeney.
                                   Jim Sensenbrenner.
                                   Phil Gingrey.
                                   Bob Inglis.
                                   Adrian Smith.

                            X. Cost Estimate

    A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to 
the Committee on Science and Technology prior to the filing of 
this report and is included in Section XI of this report 
pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    H.R. 1933 does not contain new budget authority, credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming 
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 
1933 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as 
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the 
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

             XI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

H.R. 1933--Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, 
        Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007

    Summary: H.R. 1933 would authorize appropriations primarily 
to expand the Department of Energy's (DOE's) carbon 
sequestration development program. Carbon sequestration refers 
to methods of storing carbon emissions that result from the use 
of fossil fuels. Activities under the bill would include 
demonstration and grant programs to develop and test carbon 
dioxide capture and sequestration technologies to reduce 
emissions from electric power plants. Assuming appropriation of 
the authorized and necessary amounts, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 1933 would cost $58 million in 2008 and $1.3 
billion over the 2008-2012 period. Enacting H.R. 1933 would not 
affect direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 1933 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would benefit state and local governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1933 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 270 
(energy).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

DOE Carbon Capture and Sequestration Program:
    Budget Authority \1\........................................     100      35       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................      65      67      45      19      10       7
Proposed Changes:
    DOE Carbon Sequestration and Capture:.......................
        Authorization Level.....................................       0     205     420     420     420     180
        Estimated Outlays.......................................       0      51     198     303     367     328
    DOE Grant Programs:.........................................
        Estimated Authorization Level...........................       0      10       2       2       3       4
        Estimated Outlays.......................................       0       3       3       4       3       3
    EPA Safety Research Program:................................
        Authorization Level.....................................       0       5       5       5       5       5
        Estimated Outlays.......................................       0       3       5       5       5       5
    DOE Reporting Requirement:..................................
        Authorization Level.....................................       0       1       0       0       0       0
        Estimated Outlays.......................................       0       1       0       0       0       0
    Total Changes:..............................................
        Estimated Authorization Level...........................       0     221     427     427     428     189
        Estimated Outlays.......................................       0      58     206     312     375     336
Spending Under H.R. 1933:
    Estimated Authorization Level...............................     100     256     427     427     428     189
    Estimated Outlays...........................................      65     125     251     331     385     343
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: DOE = Department of Energy; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency.
\1\ The 2007 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the Office of Fossil Energy's carbon
  sequestration program. The 2008 level is the amount authorized under current law.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
1933 will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2007 and that 
the entire amounts authorized and estimated to be necessary 
will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated outlays 
are based on historical spending patterns for similar programs.
    H.R. 1933 would authorize the appropriation of $221 million 
in 2008 and $1.7 billion over the 2008-2012 period for specific 
DOE and EPA programs. In addition, CBO estimates that a 
university grant program to study the storage of carbon in 
geologic features would cost $6 million over the 2009-2012 
period. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 1933 would cost $58 million in 
fiscal year 2008 and $1.3 billion over the 2008-2012 period. As 
described below, most of those amounts would be used for carbon 
sequestration and capture research and demonstration program. 
(That is, the removal of carbon from fossil fuel combustion 
emissions and its permanent storage).

DOE Carbon Sequestration and Capture Research and Demonstration 
        Programs

    H.R. 1933 would authorize the appropriation of $240 million 
(of which $35 million was already authorized in Public Law 109-
58) in 2008 and $1.6 billion over the 2008-2012 period for 
research and demonstration programs. Specifically, the bill 
would authorize $100 million annually for fiscal years 2008 
through 2011 for general carbon capture and storage research 
and field testing, and $140 million annually (over the same 
period) for programs to demonstrate the sequestration of 
carbon. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $180 
million a year over the 2009-2012 period for demonstration 
programs to test technologies for carbon dioxide capture at 
industrial sources. CBO estimates that appropriation of 
specified amounts would result in discretionary spending of $51 
million in 2008 and $1.3 billion over the 2008-2012 period.

DOE Grant Programs

    H.R. 1933 would create two new grant programs. The first 
would award funds to colleges and universities to create 
programs to study the sequestration of carbon in geologic 
features. Based on the cost of other DOE grant programs, CBO 
estimates that the program would cost $6 million over the 2009-
2012 period. (Because of a 2008 reporting requirement, 
described below, grants would be awarded beginning in fiscal 
year 2009.) The second program would award five grants to 
colleges and universities to study carbon capture and 
sequestration technologies involving various types of coal. 
H.R. 1933 would authorize the appropriation of $10 million for 
this purpose.

EPA Safety Research Program

    The bill also would authorize the appropriation of $5 
million annually for an EPA research program to determine 
necessary procedures to protect public safety and health and 
the environment from the adverse effects associated with the 
storage of greenhouse gases in subterranean reservoirs. 
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates 
that this program would cost $3 million in 2008 and $23 million 
over the 2008-2012 period.

DOE Reporting Requirement

    H.R. 1933 would authorize the appropriation of $1 million 
in fiscal year 2008 for the National Academy of Sciences to 
conduct a study to define a national interdisciplinary carbon 
capture program and other activities.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1933 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would create several research and grant 
programs benefitting state and local governments. Any costs to 
those governments, including matching funds, would be incurred 
voluntarily.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Leigh Angres: Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Neil Hood; Impact on 
the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                 XII. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1933 contains no unfunded mandates.

         XIII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    The oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee 
on Science and Technology are reflected in the body of this 
report.

       XIV. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal of 
H.R. 1933 is to advance carbon capture and storage research, 
development, and demonstration by reauthorizing and improving 
the carbon capture and storage research, development, and 
demonstration program of the Department of Energy.

                 XV. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1933.

               XVI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 1933 does not establish nor authorize the 
establishment of any advisory committee.

                 XVII. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1933 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

                     XVIII. Earmark Identification

    H.R. 1933 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

      XIX. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or 
tribal law.

       XX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is 
as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
     * * * * * * *

                   TITLE IX--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

     * * * * * * *

                        Subtitle F--Fossil Energy

     * * * * * * *
[Sec. 963. Carbon capture research and development program.]
Sec. 963. Carbon capture and storage research, development, and 
          demonstration program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IX--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle F--Fossil Energy

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 963. CARBON CAPTURE [RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT] AND STORAGE 
                    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a 10-year 
carbon capture [research and development] and storage research, 
development, and demonstration program to develop carbon 
dioxide [capture technologies on combustion-based systems] 
capture and storage technologies related to electric power 
generating systems for use--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Objectives.--The objectives of the program under 
subsection (a) shall be--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) to increase the efficiency of the overall system 
        to reduce the quantity of carbon dioxide emissions 
        released from the system per megawatt generated; [and]
          (4) in accordance with the carbon dioxide capture 
        program, to promote a robust carbon sequestration 
        program and continue the work of the Department, in 
        conjunction with the private sector, through regional 
        carbon sequestration partnerships[.]; and
          (5) to expedite and carry out large-scale testing of 
        carbon sequestration systems in a range of geological 
        formations that will provide information on the cost 
        and feasibility of deployment of sequestration 
        technologies.
  [(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--From amounts 
authorized under section 961(b), the following sums are 
authorized for activities described in subsection (a)(2):
          [(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
          [(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          [(3) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.]
  (c) Programmatic Activities.--
          (1) Fundamental science and engineering research and 
        development and demonstration supporting carbon capture 
        and storage technologies.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry 
                out fundamental science and engineering 
                research (including laboratory-scale 
                experiments, numeric modeling, and simulations) 
                to develop and document the performance of new 
                approaches to capture and store carbon dioxide, 
                or to learn how to use carbon dioxide in 
                products to lead to an overall reduction of 
                carbon dioxide emissions.
                  (B) Program integration.--The Secretary shall 
                ensure that fundamental research carried out 
                under this paragraph is appropriately applied 
                to energy technology development activities and 
                the field testing of carbon sequestration and 
                carbon use activities, including--
                          (i) development of new or advanced 
                        technologies for the capture of carbon 
                        dioxide;
                          (ii) development of new or advanced 
                        technologies that reduce the cost and 
                        increase the efficacy of the 
                        compression of carbon dioxide required 
                        for the storage of carbon dioxide;
                          (iii) modeling and simulation of 
                        geological sequestration field 
                        demonstrations;
                          (iv) quantitative assessment of risks 
                        relating to specific field sites for 
                        testing of sequestration technologies; 
                        and
                          (v) research and development of new 
                        and advanced technologies for carbon 
                        use, including recycling and reuse of 
                        carbon dioxide.
          (2) Field validation testing activities.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary shall promote, 
                to the maximum extent practicable, regional 
                carbon sequestration partnerships to conduct 
                geologic sequestration tests involving carbon 
                dioxide injection and monitoring, mitigation, 
                and verification operations in a variety of 
                candidate geological settings, including--
                          (i) operating oil and gas fields;
                          (ii) depleted oil and gas fields;
                          (iii) unmineable coal seams;
                          (iv) deep saline formations;
                          (v) deep geologic systems that may be 
                        used as engineered reservoirs to 
                        extract economical quantities of heat 
                        from geothermal resources of low 
                        permeability or porosity;
                          (vi) deep geologic systems containing 
                        basalt formations; and
                          (vii) high altitude terrain oil and 
                        gas fields.
                  (B) Objectives.--The objectives of tests 
                conducted under this paragraph shall be--
                          (i) to develop and validate 
                        geophysical tools, analysis, and 
                        modeling to monitor, predict, and 
                        verify carbon dioxide containment;
                          (ii) to validate modeling of 
                        geological formations;
                          (iii) to refine storage capacity 
                        estimated for particular geological 
                        formations;
                          (iv) to determine the fate of carbon 
                        dioxide concurrent with and following 
                        injection into geological formations;
                          (v) to develop and implement best 
                        practices for operations relating to, 
                        and monitoring of, injection and 
                        storage of carbon dioxide in geologic 
                        formations;
                          (vi) to assess and ensure the safety 
                        of operations related to geological 
                        storage of carbon dioxide;
                          (vii) to allow the Secretary to 
                        promulgate policies, procedures, 
                        requirements, and guidance to ensure 
                        that the objectives of this 
                        subparagraph are met in large-scale 
                        testing and deployment activities for 
                        carbon capture and storage that are 
                        funded by the Department of Energy; and
                          (viii) to support Environmental 
                        Protection Agency efforts, in 
                        consultation with other agencies, to 
                        develop a scientifically sound 
                        regulatory framework to enable 
                        commercial-scale sequestration 
                        operations while safeguarding human 
                        health and underground sources of 
                        drinking water.
          (3) Large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration 
        testing.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct 
                not less than 7 initial large-volume 
                sequestration tests, not including the 
                FutureGen project, for geological containment 
                of carbon dioxide (at least 1 of which shall be 
                international in scope) to validate information 
                on the cost and feasibility of commercial 
                deployment of technologies for geological 
                containment of carbon dioxide.
                  (B) Diversity of formations to be studied.--
                In selecting formations for study under this 
                paragraph, the Secretary shall consider a 
                variety of geological formations across the 
                United States, and require characterization and 
                modeling of candidate formations, as determined 
                by the Secretary.
                  (C) Source of carbon dioxide for large-scale 
                sequestration demonstrations.--In the process 
                of any acquisition of carbon dioxide for 
                sequestration demonstrations under subparagraph 
                (A), the Secretary shall give preference to 
                purchases of carbon dioxide from industrial and 
                coal-fired electric generation facilities. To 
                the extent feasible, the Secretary shall prefer 
                test projects from industrial and coal-fired 
                electric generation facilities that would 
                facilitate the creation of an integrated system 
                of capture, transportation and storage of 
                carbon dioxide. Until coal-fired electric 
                generation facilities, either new or existing, 
                are operating with carbon dioxide capture 
                technologies, other industrial sources of 
                carbon dioxide should be pursued under this 
                paragraph. The preference provided for under 
                this subparagraph shall not delay the 
                implementation of the large-scale sequestration 
                tests under this paragraph.
                  (D) Definition.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term ``large-scale'' means the 
                injection of more than 1,000,000 metric tons of 
                carbon dioxide annually, or a scale that 
                demonstrably exceeds the necessary thresholds 
                in key geologic transients to validate the 
                ability continuously to inject quantities on 
                the order of several million metric tons of 
                industrial carbon dioxide annually for a large 
                number of years.
          (4) Large-scale demonstration of carbon dioxide 
        capture technologies.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry 
                out at least 3 and no more than 5 
                demonstrations, that include each of the 
                technologies described in subparagraph (B), for 
                the large-scale capture of carbon dioxide from 
                industrial sources of carbon dioxide, at least 
                2 of which are facilities that generate 
                electric energy from fossil fuels. Candidate 
                facilities for other demonstrations under this 
                paragraph shall include facilities that refine 
                petroleum, manufacture iron or steel, 
                manufacture cement or cement clinker, 
                manufacture commodity chemicals, and ethanol 
                and fertilizer plants. Consideration may be 
                given to capture of carbon dioxide from 
                industrial facilities and electric generation 
                carbon sources that are near suitable 
                geological reservoirs and could continue 
                sequestration. To ensure reduced carbon dioxide 
                emissions, the Secretary shall take necessary 
                actions to provide for the integration of the 
                program under this paragraph with the long-term 
                carbon dioxide sequestration demonstrations 
                described in paragraph (3). These actions 
                should not delay implementation of the large-
                scale sequestration tests authorized in 
                paragraph (3).
                  (B) Technologies.--The technologies referred 
                to in subparagraph (A) are precombustion 
                capture, post-combustion capture, and 
                oxycombustion.
                  (C) Scope of award.--An award under this 
                paragraph shall be only for the portion of the 
                project that carries out the large-scale 
                capture (including purification and 
                compression) of carbon dioxide, as well as the 
                cost of transportation and injection of carbon 
                dioxide.
          (5) Preference in project selection from meritorious 
        proposals.--In making competitive awards under this 
        subsection, subject to the requirements of section 989, 
        the Secretary shall give preference to proposals from 
        partnerships among industrial, academic, and government 
        entities.
          (6) Cost sharing.--Activities under this subsection 
        shall be considered research and development activities 
        that are subject to the cost-sharing requirements of 
        section 988(b), except that the Federal share of a 
        project under paragraph (4) shall not exceed 50 
        percent.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) In general.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this 
        section, other than subsection (c)(3) and (4)--
                  (A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
                  (B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                  (C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
                  (D) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
          (2) Sequestration.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out 
        subsection (c)(3)--
                  (A) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
                  (B) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                  (C) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
                  (D) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
          (3) Carbon capture.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out 
        subsection (c)(4)--
                  (A) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                  (B) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
                  (C) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
                  (D) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     XXI. Committee Recommendations

    On June 27, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology 
favorably reported H.R. 1933, as amended, by a voice vote and 
recommended its passage by the House of Representatives.

              XXII. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup



   XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 
 ENVIRONMENT ON H.R. 1933, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND 
      STORAGE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2007

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2007

                  House of Representatives,
            Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
                       Committee on Science and Technology,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in 
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick 
Lampson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Chairman Lampson. The Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment meets to consider the 
following measures: H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon 
Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Act of 2007; H.R. 2774, the Solar Energy Research and 
Advancement Act of 2007; and H.R. 2773, the Biofuels Research 
and Development Enhancement Act.
    We will now proceed with the markup beginning with opening 
statements, and I will begin.
    Energy is not something most Americans have thought about 
since the oil embargo of the 1970s. Gas and electricity were 
cheap, environmental issues were not a concern and we did not 
appreciate our increased vulnerability to unstable foreign 
energy supplies. Consequently, energy stayed out of the 
legislative spotlight for many years.
    The Congress passed significant energy legislation in 2005 
in response to rising fuel prices and increased concerns about 
energy security. Since then the growing public awareness and 
acceptance of climate change compels us to take further actions 
on energy. Today this committee is taking yet another step to 
increase federal investment in energy technologies that we know 
will lessen the environmental impact of our energy use, 
decrease our reliance on foreign fuels and still maintain the 
quality of life we enjoy today.
    First on the agenda is H.R. 1933 by Representative Udall 
which sets out the next steps in DOE's carbon mitigation 
strategies. In addition to continuing the Department's research 
on carbon dioxide management, the bill authorizes large-scale 
demonstrations of carbon sequestration technologies through 
partnerships with industrial, academic and government entities. 
An amendment by Mr. Udall will add demonstrations of carbon 
capture technology as well. Because we will continue to use our 
abundant resources of coal to meet our energy needs for the 
foreseeable future, it is critical that we demonstrate an 
integrated system of capture, transportation and storage of 
carbon dioxide at a large scale.
    Next we will take H.R. 2774, the Solar Energy and 
Advancement Act of 2007, introduced by Congresswoman Giffords. 
This bill creates a research and development program on energy 
storage technology for concentrating solar power plants which 
allows for the use of solar energy even when the sun isn't 
shining. It also asks the DOE to conduct studies on how best to 
integrate concentrating solar plants with the grid and ways to 
reduce water usage in these plants. I know the Congresswoman 
also plans to introduce an amendment today that creates a solar 
workforce program, and this will further improve the bill and I 
look forward to hearing what my distinguished colleague has to 
say about it soon.
    And finally, the Subcommittee will consider my bill, H.R. 
2773, the Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act. 
This bill attempts to better coordinate and compile information 
from federal biofuels research programs, focus some of the 
biofuels research on infrastructure needs and efficiency of 
biorefinery technologies, study some of the continuing 
challenges facing broader use of biofuels, and increase the 
funding levels for biofuels research.
    For each of these bills, the Subcommittee has held hearings 
examining the various technical barriers and possible pathways 
for these technologies. Many of the amendments that will be 
offered today result from the advice and input provided by the 
witnesses at these hearings. Today the Subcommittee should 
report meaningful legislation that will bring us one step 
closer to their consideration on the House Floor in July. I 
urge support for all of these bills and I look forward to 
working with all of you as we move these bills forward to Full 
Committee next week.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Lampson
    Energy is not something most Americans have thought about since the 
oil embargo in the 1970's. Gas and electricity were cheap, 
environmental issues were not a concern, and we did not appreciate our 
increased vulnerability to unstable foreign energy supplies. 
Consequently ``Energy'' stayed out of the legislative spotlight for 
many years.
    The Congress passed significant energy legislation in 2005 in 
response to rising fuel prices and increased concerns about energy 
security. Since then, the growing public awareness and acceptance of 
climate change compels us to take further actions on energy. Today this 
committee is taking yet another step to increase federal investment in 
energy technologies that we know will lessen the environmental impact 
of our energy use, decrease our reliance on foreign fuels, and still 
maintain the quality of life we enjoy today.
    First on the agenda is H.R. 1933 by Rep. Udall, which sets out the 
next steps in DOE's carbon mitigation strategies. In addition to 
continuing the Department's research on carbon dioxide management, the 
bill authorizes large-scale demonstrations of carbon sequestration 
technologies through partnerships with industrial, academic and 
government entities.
    An amendment by Mr. Udall will add demonstrations of carbon capture 
technology as well. Because we will continue to use our abundant 
resources of coal to meet our energy needs for the foreseeable future, 
it is critical that we demonstrate an INTEGRATED system of capture, 
transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at a large scale.
    Next we will take up H.R. 2774, the Solar Energy Research and 
Advancement Act of 2007, introduced by Congresswoman Giffords. This 
bill creates an R&D; program on energy storage technology for 
concentrating solar power plants, which allows for the use of solar 
energy even when the sun isn't shining.
    It also asks the DOE to conduct studies on how to best integrate 
concentrating solar plants with the grid, and ways to reduce water 
usage in these plants. I know the Congresswoman also plans to introduce 
an amendment today that creates a solar workforce program. This will 
further improve the bill, and I look forward to hearing what my 
distinguished colleague has to say about it soon.
    And finally the Subcommittee will consider my bill, H.R. 2773, the 
Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act. This bill attempts 
to better coordinate and compile information from federal biofuels 
research programs, focus some of the biofuels research on 
infrastructure needs and efficiency of biorefinery technologies, study 
some of the continuing challenges facing broader use of biofuels, and 
increase the funding levels for biofuels research.
    For each of these bills the Subcommittee has held hearings 
examining the various technical barriers and possible pathways for 
these technologies. Many of the amendments that will be offered today 
result from the advice and input provided by the witnesses at these 
hearings. Today the Subcommittee should report meaningful legislation 
that will bring us one step closer to their consideration on the House 
Floor in July. I urge support for all of these bills and I look forward 
to working with all of you as we move these bills forward to the Full 
Committee next week.

    Chairman Lampson. I now recognize Mr. Inglis, the Ranking 
Member, to present his opening remarks.
    Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to 
this markup.
    The bills we mark up today are reflections of the 
commitment we have made to move away from our dependence on 
foreign oil and toward solutions that make both economic and 
environmental sense.
    Renewable energy sources give us the opportunity to end our 
dependence on fossil fuels like oil and coal. In the meantime 
though, we will use a lot of oil and a lot of coal. That is why 
we must work to make sure especially that our coal consumption 
is as emission-free and energy efficient as possible, bringing 
benefits to both industry and to the environment.
    Carbon capture and storage technologies hold significant 
promise for reducing carbon emissions. H.R. 1933, the 
Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Act, will fund demonstration 
projects that integrate these technologies. The aim is that the 
research and experience gained from these projects will help 
bring down the cost of implementing carbon-reducing 
technologies in the private sector.
    As I mentioned earlier, the ultimate goal is energy sources 
that are renewable and emission-free. H.R. 2774, the Solar 
Research and Advancement Act, and H.R. 2773, the Biofuels 
Research and Development Act, are two steps in that direction. 
Biofuels and solar energy should be sources of energy for us, 
and I am looking forward to promoting research programs that 
will make these alternatives commercially viable.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to 
working with you to advance these pieces of legislation.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
    Thank you for holding this markup, Mr. Chairman.
    The bills we're marking up today are reflections of the commitment 
we have made to move away from our dependence on foreign oil, and 
toward solutions that make both economic and environmental sense.
    Renewable energy sources give us the opportunity to end our 
dependence on fossil fuels like oil and coal. In the meantime we'll use 
lots of coal. That's why we must work to make sure that our coal 
consumption is as emission-free and energy efficient as possible, 
bringing benefits to both industry and the environment.
    Carbon capture and storage technologies hold significant promise 
for reducing carbon emissions. H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy 
Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Act, will fund demonstration projects that integrate these 
technologies. The aim is that the research and experience gained from 
these projects will help bring down the cost of implementing carbon-
reducing technologies in the private sector.
    As I mentioned earlier, the ultimate goal is energy sources that 
are renewable and emission-free. H.R. 2774, the Solar Research and 
Advancement Act, and H.R. 2773, the Biofuels Research and Development 
Act, are two steps in that direction. Biofuels and solar energy should 
be sources of energy for us, and I'm looking forward to promoting 
research programs that will make these alternatives commercially 
viable.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with 
you to advance this legislation.

    Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.
    Without objection, Members may place statements in the 
record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
    Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's markup 
on H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007.
    First, I would like to commend Congressman Udall for his leadership 
on this issue and for developing this important legislation which 
builds upon the authorizations for carbon capture and sequestration 
(CCS) initiatives of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I am pleased to be 
a co-sponsor of H.R. 1933 and I strongly support the gentleman from 
Colorado's bill to provide adequate funding for research, development 
(R&D;), and demonstration programs for CCS technology. Technology has 
successfully overcome multiple environmental challenges to coal. 
According to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), emissions of 
nitrogen-oxide, sulfur-dioxide, and other air pollutants from new coal-
fired power plants have been reduced by more than 90 percent over the 
past three decades, as the technology has advanced. That is why I have 
been a strong advocate for clean coal technology. Emissions from coal 
plants can be reduced with advanced technology and I support the use of 
coal in an environmentally responsible manner.
    Our subcommittee held a hearing in May to examine advanced clean 
coal technologies, such as CCS. We learned from the witness panel that 
additional R&D; and large scale demonstrations need to be carried out in 
order to ensure that the technology works. In addition, the cost of CCS 
using current available technology is very high and there are 
significant integration and engineering considerations that need to be 
addressed. According to analyses by EPRI and the Coal Utilization 
Research Council (CURC), once substantial investments are made, the 
cost of CCS becomes manageable, and ultimately coal-based electricity 
with CCS can be cost competitive with other low-carbon generation 
technologies. However, current funding for R&D; and demonstration 
programs of carbon capture and sequestration technology is inadequate. 
I am concerned that the longer we delay in developing the capability to 
deploy CCS technologies to be used at a commercial scale, the longer we 
will wait for substantial reductions in CO2. In other words, 
we are not taking the necessary steps to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. The reality is that the U.S. is not going to stop using 
coal. We have at least a 250-year supply and according to the Energy 
Information Administration, the consumption of coal for electricity 
generation is expected to increase by 63 percent by 2030. Clean coal 
technologies is one part of an economy-wide solution to addressing 
climate change. We need to invest more in coal R&D;, and especially in 
demonstration of commercial-scale CCS systems. That is why this 
legislation is critical to ensuring the continued use of coal in this 
country. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1933.

    Chairman Lampson. We will now consider H.R. 1933, the 
Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007, and I yield to Mr. 
Udall for five minutes to describe his bill.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding to me. If 
I might, I would ask unanimous consent to include my entire 
statement in the record.
    Chairman Lampson. So ordered.
    Mr. Udall. In the interest of brevity and moving the 
process along, I would just like to thank the Chairman and the 
Ranking Member for bringing the bill to the Subcommittee today. 
I think the Chairman's statement as well as the Ranking 
Member's statement outlined in important detail what H.R. 1933 
would accomplish, and Mr. Chairman, with that I would yield 
back any time I have remaining and look forward to a little 
more detail in my comments on the manager's amendment that will 
follow.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall
    Thank you, Chairman Lampson, for bringing this bill up for markup 
today.
    Early this year, I introduced H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy 
Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act 
of 2007.
    As we all know, we have vast coal resources in the United States 
and these resources can help alleviate our dependence on foreign 
sources of energy. However, current coal energy generation produces 
large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, which are contributing to 
climate change.
    Carbon sequestration is the solution to this problem, yet current 
technology cannot capture and store the large amounts of carbon dioxide 
that we must remove from power plant emissions to mitigate climate 
change.
    My bill will address this issue by improving and expanding the 
Department of Energy's Carbon Capture and Storage Research and 
Development Program. This research, development, and demonstration 
effort will spur the development of needed capture and storage 
technology.
    Specifically, the bill authorizes seven large-volume sequestration 
tests for geological containment of carbon dioxide. These technology 
demonstrations will occur in a range of geological conditions and 
include stringent monitoring to determine that the emissions are not 
re-entering the atmosphere.
    An important part of these demonstrations is that the Federal 
Government will not be working alone on these projects--the bill 
specifically encourages the participation of State, industry, and 
academic groups, ideally through the Regional Sequestration 
Partnerships.
    Coal is an important part of our current energy portfolio and it 
will remain so for many years to come. We need this legislation to help 
us continue to support our domestic energy industry while also 
addressing the climate change challenge.
    I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.

    Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
    I recognize Mr. Inglis to present any remarks on the bill.
    Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of brevity too I 
would pass on that opportunity and look forward to moving along 
here.
    Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much. Does anyone else 
wish to be recognized? Does anyone wish to be recognized?
    I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read 
and open to amendment at any point and that Members proceed 
with the amendments in order of the roster. Without objection, 
so ordered.
    The first amendment on the roster is a manager's amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Udall, are you 
ready with your amendment?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Lampson. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1933 offered by Mr. Udall of 
Colorado.
    Chairman Lampson. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. And I recognize the 
gentleman from Colorado for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The manager's amendment 
makes a number of technical and substantive changes to H.R. 
1933. Let me take a brief moment to describe the substantive 
changes. The amendment adds a new section to the bill 
authorizing at least three but no more than five demonstrations 
of carbon dioxide capture technologies. It further includes an 
authorization for funding these carbon dioxide capture 
demonstrations at a total of no more than $180 million per year 
for four years starting in fiscal year 2009. Second, my 
amendment increases the funding level for the large-scale 
carbon dioxide sequestration demonstrations to $140 million per 
year for four years beginning in fiscal year 2008.
    The amendment further defines what size projects would be 
eligible as large-scale injection projects. The basic 
measurement would be projects involving at least one million 
tons but the Secretary would have discretion to adjust this in 
appropriate cases. The revised section also encourages 
integrating the storage technology demonstrations with the 
capture technology demonstrations. This is intended to provide 
operational experience with an integrated system of capture, 
transportation and storage of carbon dioxide at scale. The 
amendment authorizes the National Academy of Sciences to 
conduct an independent review and oversight of the injection 
program to ensure its benefits are maximized. The amendment 
also authorizes the assistant administration of the Office of 
Research and Development of the EPA to conduct a research 
program and what procedures may be necessary to protect public 
health, safety and the environment from impacts that may be 
associated with the separation and sequestration of greenhouse 
gases. I would like to underscore that this is a research 
program and the EPA office does not issue regulations.
    Finally, the amendment includes $100 million annually for 
fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to fund the Department of 
Energy's fundamental R&D; at the laboratory scale. This funding 
will allow for continued examination of new approaches on 
carbon dioxide capture and sequestration.
    Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment improves the bill 
significantly and I would urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment. Thank you, and I yield back any time I have 
remaining.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall
    Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman. My manager's amendment makes a number of 
technical and substantive changes to H.R. 1933. I will take a brief 
moment to describe the substantive changes.
    The amendment adds a new section to the bill authorizing at least 
three, but no more than five, demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture 
technologies.
    It further includes are authorization for funding these carbon 
dioxide capture demonstrations a total of no more than $180 million per 
year for four years starting in Fiscal Year 2009.
    Second, my amendment increases the funding level for the large-
scale carbon dioxide sequestration demonstrations to $140 million per 
year for four years beginning in Fiscal Year 2008.
    The amendment further defines what size projects would be eligible 
as large-scale injection projects. The basic measurement would be 
projects involving at least one million tons, but the Secretary would 
have discretion to adjust this in appropriate cases.
    The revised section also encourages integrating the storage 
technology demonstrations with the capture technology demonstrations. 
This is intended to provide operational experience with an integrated 
system of capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at 
scale.
    My amendment authorizes the National Academy of Sciences to conduct 
an independent review and oversight of the injection program to ensure 
its benefits are maximized.
    My amendment authorizes the Assistant Administrator of the Office 
of Research and Development of EPA to conduct a research program on 
what procedures may be necessary to protect public health, safety and 
the environment from impacts that may be associated with sequestration 
of greenhouse gases.
    I would like to underscore that this is a research program and this 
EPA office does not issue regulations.
    Finally, my amendment includes $100 million annually for fiscal 
years 2008 through 2011 to fund the Department of Energy's fundamental 
R&D; at the laboratory scale. This funding will allow for continued 
examination of new approaches on carbon dioxide capture and 
sequestration.
    Mr. Chairman, I think my amendment improves the bill significantly 
and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Thank you.

    Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment? Further 
discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions for 
Mr. Udall or Counsel or someone. One is, in the new scale on 
large-scale demonstration of carbon dioxide capture 
technologies, what is the award money used for?
    Mr. Udall. Counsel, would you like to respond?
    The Counsel. Could you repeat that again?
    Mr. Inglis. Yeah, it is the--in the large-scale 
demonstration of carbon dioxide capture technologies, that new 
section, there is award money, and the question is, what is 
the--what can the award money be used for? Can it be used to 
purchase carbon capture technology? What part of the process is 
considered capture and how much is--how is the cost determined 
and basically what about the federal share to be used to 
purchase the carbon from the company?
    The Counsel. The federal share of this particular section 
will be a 50/50 cost share and that is described right below 
that.
    Mr. Inglis. That is because it is carbon capture, right?
    The Counsel. The carbon capture----
    Mr. Inglis. The sequestration is 80/20?
    The Counsel. Correct. That is correct. And then in regard 
to your question about what the award would be for, that is 
largely at the discretion of the Secretary but they could use 
it to apply to the purchase of the carbon or for the 
technologies.
    Mr. Inglis. And then the second question, in the manager's 
amendment, the cost share for the large-scale sequestration 
testing and deployment differs from the cost share for the 
large-scale demonstration of CO2 capture 
technologies. I am working here to try to understand the need 
for the cost share to be different for each. Can you maybe 
explain, Counsel or someone, what is--why those are treated 
differently?
    Mr. Udall. Counsel.
    The Counsel. Sure. In section 988 of EPAct '05, the cost 
sharing provisions, the research and development is under one 
section and the demonstration and commercial application is 
under a separate section with different cost share 
arrangements. However, the section for demonstrations also has 
room for the Secretary to reduce that non-federal share, you 
know, at his or her discretion.
    Mr. Udall. So I guess we are comfortable with that. Does 
the gentleman have concerns about those ratios?
    Mr. Inglis. We are mostly just trying to make sure we 
understand how it works.
    Mr. Udall. My impression is, this is based on other similar 
relationships and arrangements, and as Counsel suggested, the 
Secretary has quite a bit of discretion, particularly on the 
higher end here when you have an 80 percent government funding, 
20 percent match, to move that around if that seems to make 
sense, given the circumstances.
    Mr. Inglis. I am sorry. We are learning as we go--or I am--
and so generally what I am trying to understand is the 
difference between the awards. Do the differences have to do 
with the difference between capture and sequestration, capture 
being a more demonstrated technology already, such that you 
don't need a subsidy; whereas, if you are talking about 
sequestration, there is a lot more research to be done on that? 
I think this is the concept.
    Mr. Udall. If I could----
    Mr. Inglis. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Udall. Yes, I think you are yielding to me, aren't you? 
The capture technology is less advanced than the sequestration 
technology. We had a hearing that was very illustrative and 
informative and it was one of the take-aways I had after that 
concluded which is that we have a much better idea of how we 
sequester. We are not quite as clear about how we capture. You 
can capture on the front end. You can capture through the 
process itself and then you can capture at the back end, so we 
want to provide more support to those efforts to industry and 
to the researchers and I think that is why this ratio is the 
way you see it here. And I would invite Counsel to--I would 
yield back, of course, to the gentleman but Counsel may be able 
to add more information to that.
    Mr. Inglis. I think my time has expired.
    Chairman Lampson. Mr. Inglis, we will extend if you have 
more questions, so continue.
    Mr. Inglis. Yeah, I guess I am--I think I am still confused 
as to whether it is capture or sequestration which is more 
difficult to get to and which one are we therefore subsidizing 
more.
    The Counsel. The R&D; piece on the sequestration is looking 
at what we can anticipate putting large volumes of the carbon 
dioxide into the ground and so that is the R&D; element of it. 
Does it stay put; if not, and we are looking at if not, what 
does that mean? And we are looking at how we are going to 
monitor and analyze that. So that is the R&D; piece of the 
injection. And then the capture falls under we are actually 
going to demonstrate existing technologies that have been used 
at a smaller pilot scale.
    Chairman Lampson. I can add something to that. This was 
worked out on the basis of a formula. The provision was worked 
out in H.R. 610, which was the Science Committee provision 
under Republican Chairman Boehlert, and the language is the 
same.
    Mr. Inglis. Well, it must be good then. I yield back.
    Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much, Mr. Inglis.
    Is there further discussion the amendment? Any further 
discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the 
amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed, say no. The 
ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    The second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I am, and I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Lampson. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1933 offered by Mr. Costello 
of Illinois.
    Chairman Lampson. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 
gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I will not take 
the entire five minutes. I will try and be brief.
    The purpose of the amendment is that it instructs the 
National Academy of Science to conduct a study that develops 
guidelines and proposals for colleges and universities for 
students interested in geological sequestration science. It 
also requires the Secretary of the Department of Energy and the 
National Energy Technology Laboratory to establish a 
competitive grant program for colleges and universities to 
encourage faculty to teach undergraduates and graduates about 
carbon sequestration science and to offer internships for 
graduate students in geological sequestration science. I have 
been working with the National Energy Technology Laboratory and 
the National Academies to draft this amendment. The reason why 
the amendment is necessary is that there has never been a study 
done on this subject, and in order to address carbon emissions 
from coal plants, we need scientific experts with trained 
experience in the geological sequestration science field. Many 
universities and colleges have reduced capabilities for 
instruction in the geology actually of fossil fuels and energy 
resources since the enactment of the Clean Air Act, and the 
purpose of this amendment of course is to have the universities 
and colleges go back into the business of training people in 
the field. If in fact as we are, it is obviously the intention 
of the Congress to increase funding for carbon capture and 
sequestration research and development and demonstration, we 
should in fact develop instructional programs at colleges and 
universities to increase the number of undergraduates and 
graduates capable of supporting this sequestration science, and 
I would again compliment our colleague, Mr. Udall, for his 
legislation. I believe that my amendment makes the legislation 
more attractive and in fact will further the development of 
students and professors in the subsequent science and I----
    Mr. Udall. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Costello. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Udall. I just want to make it clear for the Committee's 
benefit that I think this is an excellent amendment, and I 
thank the gentleman for offering it.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Lampson. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in 
favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments? Any other amendments? 
Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.R. 1933, the 
Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage----
    Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we need to roll that 
vote since we--do we have to? I guess we do, don't we? I don't 
think we have enough people here.
    Chairman Lampson. Pursuant to Rule 2T, further proceedings 
on the matter are postponed under further notice from the 
Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Inglis.
    Now, we will return to unfinished business and the next 
vote will be on H.R. 1933. Are there other amendments to H.R. 
1933? Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.R. 1933, the 
Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research 
Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007, as amended. All 
those in favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no. In the 
opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    I recognize Ms. Woolsey for a motion.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee 
favorably report H.R. 1933 as amended to the Full Committee. 
Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the 
Subcommittee legislative report and make necessary technical 
and conforming changes to the bill as amended in accordance 
with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.
    Chairman Lampson. The question is on the motion to report 
the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify 
by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill 
is favorably reported.
    I want to thank the Members for their attendance, and this 
concludes our Subcommittee markup. We stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


        H.R. 1933, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster






               Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1933,
       Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research,
               Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007

Section 1. Short Title.

    ``Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007.''

Section 2.  Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and 
                    Demonstration Program.

    Amends Section 963 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to include 
large-scale testing of carbon sequestration systems in a range of 
geological formations that will provide information on the cost and 
feasibility of deployment of sequestration technologies.
    The Secretary is authorized to carry out fundamental science and 
engineering research to develop and document the performance of new 
approaches to capture and store carbon dioxide. The fundamental 
research shall be applied to energy technology development activities 
and the field testing of carbon sequestration activities. The 
objectives are to develop the best tools for analysis, modeling, 
monitoring, prediction and verification of carbon dioxide containment.
    Requires the Secretary to promote regional carbon sequestration 
partnerships to conduct geologic sequestration field testing of the 
capture technologies and the injection and monitoring practices in a 
variety of geologic settings including operating oil and gas field, 
depleted oil and gas fields, unmineable coal seams, saline formation, 
and deep geologic systems to extract heat from geothermal resources.
    The field tests are aimed at advancing and validating geophysical 
tools, analysis and modeling used to monitor, predict, and verify 
carbon dioxide containment. The Secretary is authorized to promulgate 
policies, procedures, requirements and guidance to ensure that large-
scale testing and deployment activities for carbon capture and storage 
implement the best practices available for achieving safe carbon 
dioxide management.
    In addition, the bill authorizes seven large-volume sequestration 
tests for geological containment of carbon dioxide. The Secretary shall 
select meritorious proposals on a competitive basis giving preference 
to proposals from partnerships among industrial, academic, and 
government entities. The Secretary shall consider a variety of 
geological formations across the United States and require 
characterization and modeling of candidate formations, as determined by 
the Secretary.
    The activities under this section shall be considered research and 
development and meet the cost-sharing requirements of Section 988(b) of 
EPACT '05--the Secretary shall require not less than 20 percent of the 
cost of a research or development activity to be provided by a non-
federal source.
    The bill authorizes $90 million for fiscal year 2007, $105 million 
for fiscal year 2008 and $120 million for fiscal year 2009.



            XXIII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup



   XXIII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 1933, THE 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, 
                     AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2007

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2007

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Science and Technology,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Gordon. The Committee will come to order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology 
meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 906, the Global 
Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007; H.R. 1933, the 
Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007; H.R. 2773, the 
Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act; and H.R. 
2774, the Solar Energy Research and Investment Act of 2007.
    I know that we have a lot of other markups going on today, 
so we are going to try to proceed, but I would like to make a 
couple of announcements at first. Now, some of the Members have 
been interested in the trip we are going to be taking, the 
fact-finding trip we are taking to Greenland the weekend of 
July the 19th. We should know today about--we have a plane, but 
we still have concern about in-country travel, because we can't 
use our plane there, because of the lengths of the runway. We 
should know more about that today, so we will know the size and 
the number of folks that we can take.
    Also, you have received a letter through your office, but I 
will remind you, in case you didn't know, that there is going 
to be a climate change meeting of the UN Framework Convention 
on Climate Change, the parent body that oversees the Kyoto 
Protocol. It will be held in Bali from December the 3rd to the 
14th. There will be important areas of discussion. It will 
include carbon sequestration, reforestation, avoiding 
deforestation, and carbon trading. There will be about 10,000 
international delegates there. We will not, or as Members, we 
will not be a credentialed participant, but we will be able to 
interact with those folks that are there. We will not be taking 
a Science Committee group as a whole, but we do have some 
slots, I think, that will be made available to us, for 
individuals that would like to go. But again, when you put 
10,000 people there, it is going to be crowded, and so, you 
need to let us know soon.
    And finally, I think that we should all say happy birthday 
to Margaret today. We congratulate her on surviving one more, 
and hope there will be more to come.
    Mr. Lampson. And happy anniversary to you and your wife, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you for reminding me. By the way, 
from 7:00 to 9:00 will be a good time to call votes, because I 
am not going to be here tonight.
    With concern about global climate change, the high gas and 
electricity prices, and our growing reliance on unstable energy 
supplying nations, energy has come to the forefront of our 
constituents' awareness, and has been placed at the top of the 
Congressional to-do list. Here, on the Science and Technology 
Committee, we have responded with an aggressive energy agenda. 
With the addition of four bills, that we are going to mark up 
today, this committee will contribute an even dozen pieces of 
bipartisan legislation that made a vital contribution to the 
national strategy to put U.S. and the world on track to a more 
sustainable future.
    First, we will consider H.R. 906. Mr. Udall and Mr. Inglis, 
the Ranking Member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee 
and co-sponsor of the bill, have worked together to produce 
this legislation. H.R. 906 re-orients the U.S. Global Change 
Research Program to produce more policy relevant climate 
information for regional, State, and local governments, and 
other groups.
    We will then take up H.R. 1933, by Representative Udall, 
which sets out the next steps in DOE's carbon mitigation 
strategies. In addition to ongoing research in carbon 
management, the bill authorizes DOE to conduct demonstrations 
on large scale Carbon Capture and Storage technologies, through 
partnerships with industrial, academic, and government 
entities. Because we will continue to use our abundant 
resources of coal to meet our energy needs for the foreseeable 
future, it is critical that we demonstrate an integrated system 
of capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide, at a 
scale that encourages industry to start making technological 
choices.
    Next, the Committee will take up a bill by the Chairman of 
the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Representative Nick 
Lampson. H.R. 2773, the Biofuels Research and Development 
Enhancement Act, will better coordinate and compile information 
from federal biofuels research programs, and focus biofuels 
research on infrastructure needs and efficiency of biorefinery 
technologies. H.R. 2773 also provides for the in depth study of 
several challenges facing broader of biofuels, and increases 
the funding levels of biofuels research.
    Finally, we will consider H.R. 2774, the Solar Energy 
Research and Advancement Act of 2007, introduced by 
Congresswoman Giffords. This bill creates an R&D; program on 
energy storage technology for concentrating solar plants, which 
allows for the use of solar energy, even when the sun isn't 
shining. It also asks DOE to conduct studies on how to best 
integrate concentrating solar plants within the grid, and ways 
to reduce water uses in these plants. In addition, it creates a 
workforce training program for solar installation and 
maintenance, which is critical to making solar power a real 
energy option across the Nation.
    For each of these bills, the Energy and Environment 
Subcommittee held legislative hearings, had markups, where we 
heard valuable witness testimony, and facilitated good Member 
discussions on the barriers and possible pathways to these 
programs. And as you know, we are not alone in this effort. The 
Energy and Commerce Committee is marking up a series of bills 
today, at this very moment, and my friend, Congressman Hall, as 
well as a few of the folks in the Majority, are on both 
committees, so we are monitoring that, and if you see a dust 
cloud here at some point, we will be moving to the other 
committee to make those votes, but I am sure we will be left in 
good hands here, and we will continue with this markup.
    In conclusion, I want to urge my colleagues to support 
these bills. I know that the Committee's pace has been very 
aggressive, and it has been difficult at times for all of us. 
However, I believe the products that have resulted from this 
process demonstrate the value of this committee, and its 
bipartisan work reflects the entire membership.
    The bottom line is that we are going to have an energy bill 
in July. The Science Committee is going to, in a bipartisan 
way, make a major, major contribution with that. There are 
going to be several other committees that will have bills. We 
are going to get a reference from most of those, sequential, 
which we will also put our mark on. Every bill that has come 
out of this committee has been bipartisan, all but one. We will 
see what happens today, but so far, all but one has been 
unanimous, and so, I think everyone on this committee can go 
home, and claim a great deal of credit for what I think will be 
not an enormously comprehensive, but a good bill, a step 
forward, that will pass by a large margin on the House Floor in 
July.
    So now, I recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening 
remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
    With concerns about global climate change, high gas and electricity 
prices, and our growing reliance on unstable energy-supplying nations, 
energy has come to the forefront of our constituents' awareness and has 
been placed at the top of the Congressional ``To-Do'' list.
    Here on the Science and Technology Committee we have responded with 
an aggressive energy agenda.
    With the addition of the four bills we are marking up today, this 
committee will contribute an even dozen pieces of legislation that make 
a vital contribution to the national strategy to put the U.S., and the 
world, on track to a more sustainable future.
    First we will consider H.R. 906. Mr. Udall and Mr. Inglis, the 
Ranking Member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and co-
sponsor of the bill, have worked together to produce this legislation.
    H.R. 906 re-orients the U.S. Global Change Research Program to 
produce more policy-relevant climate information for regional, State, 
and local governments and other user groups.
    We will then take up H.R. 1933 by Rep. Udall, which sets out the 
next steps in DOE's carbon mitigation strategies. In addition to 
ongoing research in carbon management, the bill authorizes DOE to 
conduct demonstrations of large-scale carbon capture and storage 
technologies through partnerships with industrial, academic and 
government entities.
    Because we will continue to use our abundant resources of coal to 
meet our energy needs for the foreseeable future, it is critical that 
we demonstrate an integrated system of capture, transportation, and 
storage of carbon dioxide at a scale that encourages industry to start 
making technology choices.
    Next, the Committee will take up a bill by the Chairman of the 
Energy & Environment Subcommittee, Rep. Nick Lampson. H.R. 2773, the 
Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act, will better 
coordinate and compile information from federal biofuels research 
programs and focus biofuels research on infrastructure needs and 
efficiency of biorefinery technologies.
    H.R. 2773 also provides for the in-depth study of several 
challenges facing broader use of biofuels and increases the funding 
levels for biofuels research.
    Finally, we will consider H.R. 2774, the Solar Energy Research and 
Advancement Act of 2007, introduced by Congresswoman Giffords. This 
bill creates an R&D; program on energy storage technology for 
concentrating solar power plants, which allows for the use of solar 
energy even when the sun isn't shining.
    It also asks DOE to conduct studies on how to best integrate 
concentrating solar plants with the grid, and ways to reduce water 
usage in these plants. In addition, it creates a workforce training 
program for solar installation and maintenance, which is critical to 
making solar power a real energy option across the country.
    For each of these bills the Energy and Environment Subcommittee 
held legislative hearings and markups where we heard valuable witness 
testimony and facilitated good Member discussions on the barriers and 
possible pathways for these programs.
    And, as you all may know, we are not alone in this effort today. 
The Energy and Commerce Committee is also marking up a series of energy 
bills and I, along with Ranking Member Hall and a few others, may have 
to excuse myself for votes in that committee.
    In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support these four bills. I 
know the Committee's pace has been very aggressive and that has been 
difficult at times for all of us. However, I believe the products that 
have resulted from this process demonstrate the value of this committee 
and its work and it reflects well on the entire membership.
    I want to thank all the Members for their cooperation and 
participation.

    Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try not to 
take the full length of time, and make one statement. I will be 
glad, as I am sure you will and others, when this month passes.
    I understand that you and your fellow Chairmen and other 
Members have been working, I guess, under the usual pressure of 
this first year, to get and report bills out of the Committee, 
and sometimes, I fear that when we rush things through, we 
don't get the best end-product we could have, if we had more 
time to fully vet the language, but I guess we will be working 
that as we go.
    You have done a good job of working with us, and I thank 
you for that. While I think improvements in the bill before us 
today are going to occur through amendments to be offered, I 
think they could be improved further, and I hope we will have 
other opportunities to do this, as the bill moves to the Floor. 
It is also my hope and understanding that, going forward, there 
will be more of an effort to have both sides working together, 
as we craft legislation to come before this committee. We will 
have more time. I think this would improve not only the quality 
of work we produce, but also, the bipartisan way in which they 
are handled.
    With that said, I support and believe it is important to 
our country's energy future to keep all options on the table, 
and we strive to do that with the three energy bills before us. 
One of our greatest challenges as a Nation is energy self-
sufficiency. We need to break our dependence on foreign sources 
of energy from countries we don't trust and who don't trust us. 
To do that, we need to be honest and practical about what needs 
to be done to get to that point.
    Solar and biofuels are an important source of domestic 
energy, but they are also limited in their scope. It is 
important that we continue to research and develop the 
resources we know exist domestically, and currently provide 
reliable, affordable, and clean sources of energy. I look 
forward to working with the Committee and working with you, Mr. 
Chairman, in the months ahead, to address this reality, so that 
Americans can enjoy more energy choices at a lower cost.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
    Thank you Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I will keep my 
statement brief and say that I will be glad when this month is over. I 
understand that you and your fellow Chairmen have been working under 
pressure from the Speaker to report bills out of committee, but I fear 
that sometimes when things are rushed through, we don't get the best 
end-products we could have if we had more time to fully vet the 
language. While I think there are improvements in the bills before us 
today with the Subcommittee markup last week and the amendments to be 
offered today, I think that they could still be improved upon, and I 
hope that we'll have other opportunities to do so. It is also my hope 
and understanding that going forward, there will be more of an effort 
to have both sides working together as we craft legislation to come 
before the Committee. I think this would improve not only the quality 
of work we produce, but also the bipartisan way in which they are 
handled.
    With that said, I support what we're doing here today. It's 
important to our country's energy future to keep all options on table, 
and we continue to do that with the three energy bills before us.
    With that I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, or rather, thank 
you, Mr. Hall.
    Let me also say that you may not know, but I met privately 
and personally with the Republican, both the staff from the 
Members, as well as the Committee staff the other day, to talk 
about how we can, you know, do what I think is a good job even 
better. There were compliments in some areas of the 
consultation. There were suggestions for improvement in the 
others. I have asked for them to put together models of how 
they see things done, and good ways that we have done it, and 
if we haven't done it as well as we would like, so those kind 
of models, we are going to continue to work together.
    I am a new Chairman, there is a lot of new staff, and we 
are going to get this thing better and better, as we go along, 
because I truly believe that more consultation gets us a 
bipartisan bill, a consensus bill, and we are all going to be 
better off.
    So, does anyone else wish to be recognized?
    We will now consider H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy 
Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Act of 2007. I yield to the gentleman from--well, 
before I yield, let me, I just want to say thank you to Jean 
Fruci for her staff work on this. It was given as an 
illustration to us as the best practices, in terms of 
collaboration and so, thank you for that work.
    We will now consider H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy 
Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Act of 2007. I yield to the gentleman from 
Colorado five minutes to describe his bill.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for bringing this 
bill up for markup today.
    Coal has been an important source for energy in our country 
since the Industrial Revolution. Today, coal generates more 
than 50 percent of our electric power, and as the country with 
the largest coal reserves in the world, the U.S. will continue 
to use this plentiful energy source for years to come. 
Unfortunately, coal burning plants are also a major source of 
greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. As we confront 
concerns over climate change, one of the greatest challenges we 
face is how to lower our carbon dioxide emissions, while 
maintaining our strong economy at the American way of life.
    Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology will be 
critical to addressing that challenge, but we need to work 
together to fully advance these CCS technologies, and that is 
why I introduced H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon 
Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Act of 2007.
    The legislation will expand and improve the Department of 
Energy's carbon capture and storage research and demonstration 
program. It will authorize two separate demonstration programs, 
with up to five demonstrations for carbon capture, and up to 
seven demonstrations for large scale carbon dioxide injection 
and storage.
    The storage demonstrations will require a range of geologic 
settings, to ensure that we are exploring a variety of options, 
and will include research and development of monitoring and 
verification systems to determine whether CO2 is 
leaking back into the atmosphere or our drinking water supply.
    The bill recognizes that demonstrating an integrated CCS 
system is critical to developing a commercial application 
system to sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide, but the 
bill also recognizes that R&D; efforts on each cannon should 
proceed independently until the technology is ready to be 
integrated.
    The language in this bill is based in large part upon the 
recommendations included in an interdisciplinary study by the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, named The Future of 
Coal, which was released earlier this year. In working to 
improve the bill, my staff and the Committee staff worked with 
many stakeholders, including representatives from the coal 
industry and the environmental community.
    We must begin to address the climate change challenge, but 
we must not cause irreparable harm to our economy and our coal 
industry in the process. Creating safe, sound, and economical 
capture and storage strategies is the key, and H.R. 1933 will 
help get us there.
    I would ask my colleagues to support this important 
legislation, and it is now my pleasure to yield to Chairman 
Gordon my remaining time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall
    Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for bringing this bill up for markup 
today.
    Coal has been an important energy source in our country since the 
Industrial Revolution. Today, coal generates more than 50 percent of 
our electric power. As the country with the largest coal reserves in 
the world, the U.S. will continue to use this plentiful energy source 
for years to come.
    Unfortunately, coal burning power plants are also a major source of 
greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. As we confront concerns 
over climate change, one of the greatest challenges we face is how to 
lower our carbon dioxide emissions while maintaining our strong economy 
and the American way of life.
    Carbon capture and storage technology will be critical to 
addressing that challenge, but we need to work together to fully 
advance these CCS technologies. That's why I introduced H.R. 1933, the 
Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Act of 2007.
    This legislation will expand and improve the Department of Energy's 
carbon capture and storage research and demonstration program. It will 
authorize two separate demonstration programs, with up to five 
demonstrations for carbon capture and up to seven demonstrations for 
large-scale carbon dioxide injection and storage.
    The storage demonstrations will require a range of geologic 
settings to ensure that we are exploring a variety of options and will 
include research and development of monitoring and verification systems 
to determine whether CO2 is leaking back into the atmosphere 
or our drinking water supply.
    The bill recognizes that demonstrating an integrated CCS system is 
critical to developing a commercial application system to sequester 
large amounts of carbon dioxide--but the bill also recognizes that the 
R&D; efforts on each can and should proceed independently until the 
technology is ready to be integrated.
    The language in this bill is based in large part upon the 
recommendations included in an interdisciplinary study by the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of Coal, which was 
released earlier this year. In working to improve the bill, my staff 
worked with many stakeholders, including representatives from the coal 
industry and the environmental community.
    We must begin to address the climate change challenge, but we must 
not cause irreparable harm to our economy and our coal industry in the 
process. Creating safe, sound and economical capture and storage 
strategies is the key--and H.R. 1933 will help us get there.
    I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.
    Now, I would like to yield to Chairman Gordon.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Udall. Let me thank you 
for, really, the good work you have put into this legislation.
    Coal is our most abundant domestic fossil fuel, and without 
it, literally, the lights will go out over most of the country. 
Electric utilities across our nation and throughout the world 
use coal, and will continue to use coal. Therefore, it is 
essential that we develop carbon capture techniques that will 
safely sequester carbon production as a byproduct of coal 
combustion.
    And I know there are a number of Members on both sides of 
the aisle who have strong interest in conversion of coal to 
liquids as one solution to reducing our dependency on foreign 
sources. And let me say that, following up on Mr. Ehlers' 
comments earlier, this is an expensive venture, and following 
up on Mr. Hall's comments of earlier, of not doing something 
before it is ready.
    I have real concern that we are not ready, this issue is 
not ripe, in terms of the coal-to-liquid. We have had some 
informal, both Member meetings, as well as staff meetings, 
headed really by Jerry Costello, who has a strong interest in 
this issue, to learn more about it. We are going to have 
additional hearings in the fall on the coal-to-liquid issue. I 
really don't think that this is appropriate now, and I think 
that if we try to insert an area or an amendment at this time, 
it will only cause problems for a good bill on sequestration. 
And as a practical matter, I think it is going to be difficult 
to have a successful coal-to-liquid program without a good 
sequestration aspect to it. I think we can do it today. Coal-
to-liquid is not ripe, and for that reason, I would hope that 
we would not pass any amendment that would cause a problem for 
this one.
    And with that, I am, again, I will now ask if anyone else, 
Dr. Ehlers, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this morning, 
as you mentioned, I gave a magnificent statement about the 
difficulty of coal, carbon sequestration. Unfortunately, I had 
not emerged from my morning stupor and did not realize that the 
Majority had cleverly switched the order on the agenda, so I 
ask unanimous consent that my earlier statement be entered in 
the discussion of this bill, rather than the discussion of the 
previous bill, which we took up.
    Chairman Gordon. Certainly. And Dr. Ehlers, I think 
everyone knew what the intent of your comments, and your 
comments, and where they were directed. So, certainly, the 
unanimous consent is accepted.
    Mr. Ehlers. Well, if they noticed that, they probably 
emerged from their stupor before I did. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Gordon. Would you like to continue, reiterate that 
statement, now that we are here on the bill, and there might be 
new people here?
    Mr. Ehlers. No, if we can just put my statement at the 
appropriate place in the record. I was just pointing out that 
carbon sequestration is going to be extremely difficult, and 
especially, very difficult to make it economically feasible, 
and that also avoids the major source of carbon, which is the 
transportation sector.
    But for the details, you can go back to my earlier 
statement. Thank you.
    [Mr. Ehlers' earlier statement follows:]

    Just a comment, and this is not intended to be negative about the 
bill, but I think we have to realize that carbon sequestration has very 
serious limits.
    First of all, it is virtually impossible to use it to apply to the 
transportation sector, which is probably the largest single sector 
generating carbon dioxide. Secondly, I suspect serious efforts at 
carbon sequestration are going to be so expensive it is certainly going 
to make nuclear energy look much more palatable to most people for 
producing electricity, and that immediately removes a major source of 
carbon dioxide.
    So, I don't want to throw a cloud over this issue, particularly a 
CO cloud, but I think we have to keep in mind the broad picture that 
this is going to be a very difficult issue, and although this bill is a 
good thing to do, don't expect it to solve very many problems.
    Thank you.

    Chairman Gordon. Without objection, Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Udall for introducing 
the bill. If we are going to continue to use coal, which is our 
most abundant and affordable domestic resource, our companies 
that keep this country powered and running are going to need 
the technology to enable them to capture carbon dioxide and 
then sequester it.
    I would just like to take this opportunity to applaud DOE 
and the FutureGen Alliance in their continued work on this 
front. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Costello is recognized.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Mr. Chairman, 
let me associate myself with the comments made by Ranking 
Member Hall concerning the FutureGen Alliance and the FutureGen 
Program. As you know, both on this committee and other 
committees in the House, I have strongly supported the 
FutureGen Project. I think it is a worthwhile project, and I 
was pleased to see the Administration, their initiative on 
FutureGen, as well as their commitment on funding for the 
FutureGen Project.
    Let me also associate myself with your remarks concerning 
both sequestration and coal to liquids. I think everyone is 
aware that the leadership in the House has made it clear that 
coal-to-liquid technology will not be a part of the energy 
package that will be presented and considered in the House in 
July.
    I am disappointed, frankly, that we are not acting on coal 
to liquids now. However, I have been meeting with both Chairman 
Dingell and the Subcommittee Chairman, Chairman Boucher, 
concerning our commitment to coal to liquids, and we believe 
that we have a commitment, both from the leadership and from 
various Committee Chairs in the House, to move forward with a 
coal-to-liquid initiative later in the year, and I am pleased, 
Chairman, that you have also made a commitment to work with us 
on the coal-to-liquid technology in the future.
    So, I will associate myself with your remarks, and just say 
that we all know there is no substitute for coal for the next 
25 years or so. I have talked about the difference in cost of 
using coal versus using natural gas and oil, and what we need 
to do is to continue to look ahead, to determine how we can 
enhance the use of coal in a responsible, environmentally 
friendly way. So, I thank you for your commitment to work with 
us, both on carbon sequestration and coal to liquids in the 
future, and we will defer this fight on coal to liquids to 
another date in the fall.
    Chairman Gordon. Hopefully, it won't be a fight. It will be 
a consensus that we could bring together through more hearings, 
more information.
    Mr. Akin is recognized.
    Mr. Akin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just not to raise a big squalling fit here or anything, but 
my sense is that we would be wise, particularly when we are 
looking at research that we don't know how much things are 
going to be costing, or how the numbers work out, not to try to 
choose favorites. I think that that has been a strength of this 
committee, that we have not chosen favorites. So, we say hey, 
there is a place for nukes, there is a place for coal, there is 
a place for solar energy, a place for conservation. I think 
that that is a strength, because that allows the economy to 
work, and to choose their own favorites, maybe depending on the 
region, or depending on different technologies as they develop 
over time.
    I am a little concerned, Mr. Chairman, that what you are 
doing with this legislation is you are picking favorites. You 
are saying we like the sequestration, but we don't like 
liquefaction. Both of those technologies are pretty far out. 
Both of them appear to be very expensive, but it seems to me we 
would do better to proceed on a broad front, rather than to try 
to pick favorites.
    I do appreciate the fact that you are willing to look at 
the liquefaction later in the year, though. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Akin. Well, actually, we 
are following your advice. This bill does not pick favorites. 
That is why we are not getting into coal to liquids. You will 
find that sequestration is the foundation of any type of new 
coal technology. And so, this is a favorite neutral bill. It is 
developing right now only the base types of research technology 
that is necessary for any kind of coal use. At a later date, 
when we start getting more information, then we can get more 
specific, if we think so. But right now, this is not picking 
winners or losers.
    Does anyone----
    Mr. Akin. Mr. Chairman, do you yield?
    Chairman Gordon. Oh, certainly. Yes. Yes.
    Mr. Akin. Because just from an engineering point of view, I 
am not quite getting what you are saying. If you are taking the 
coal, and you are going to take the CO2, you get 
energy from combining the coal with oxygen. Then, you are going 
to pump that under the ground.
    Now, that isn't the same technology as taking coal, 
liquefying it, and then burning it somewhere, because then, you 
would have to pump the CO2 that comes out of 
whatever burned it into the ground. So, I don't understand--it 
doesn't seem to me that sequestration is a step before 
liquefaction. That doesn't make sense to me.
    Chairman Gordon. Not a step before, but a step that goes 
with. You are not going to see, I don't think, any type of 
coal-to-liquid process that doesn't have a parallel 
sequestration element to it.
    Mr. Akin. So, are you saying we are going to have every car 
that burns some type of liquid, is going to capture the 
CO2----
    Chairman Gordon. No, I am----
    Mr. Akin.--that is coming out of the tailpipe, and pump 
that into the ground?
    Chairman Gordon. No, the process of going coal-to-liquid 
will have a sequestration element to that.
    Mr. Akin. I am not sure about the science of that, but 
thank you anyway for----
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Rohrabacher was, I think, the next to 
have his hand up, followed by Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and I certainly 
believe that we should be doing what we can to ensure that our 
coal reserves are part of America's energy future.
    However, what we are doing today goes in exactly the 
opposite and wrong direction. This is aimed--and this is one of 
the reasons those of us who are so adamant in our opposition to 
this theory that humankind is causing the climate to change, 
this is a perfect example of the harm that is being done by the 
perpetuation of that false theory.
    We are fixating ourselves on CO. When we look at coal, when 
we should be looking at coal, we should be looking at the 
byproducts that are harmful to human beings. Now, whether it is 
methane or whether it is the particulates, or whatever comes 
out of using coal that hurts human beings, that is what we 
should be focusing on.
    Instead, what we are doing, as we are today, is we are 
focusing on a way to eliminate the coal emission of 
CO2. CO2, which is the basis, of course, 
this theory that we have too much CO2 and it is 
changing the climate, so we fix on that, and we leave the 
health of human beings behind. And just to point out what I 
consider to be the absurdity of it all, is CO has never been 
identified by any source, by any recognizable scientific 
source, as a threat to the health of human beings, ever. 
CO2, in fact, is plant food. The more CO2 
that is in the air, it is good for plants. It actually causes 
the plants to grow more robustly. Over the world's history, 
there have been time periods when there is more CO2 
in the air, and the CO2 that is in the air, let us 
note this, that if you imagine a football field, the amount of 
CO2 in the air is the equivalent of six inches on 
the football field. The amount of human contribution to that 
six inches of the football field is about one half of an inch.
    Now, this minuscule amount that is going on, in terms of 
CO2, with no discernible impact on the health of 
human beings, is not what we should be looking at. We want to 
use coal. We want to make sure we are energy independent, but 
by spending money, focusing on sequestering CO2, is 
exactly the wrong direction to go.
    Let me note also that there are ample scientists, from MIT 
and from major universities throughout the world, who suggest 
that human beings, you know, yes, we are producing 
CO2, but the CO2 is produced 
overwhelmingly by nature, and that the warming that has taken 
place in the last 150 years, which many of us believe is a 
natural trend caused by the solar activity, as is going on on 
Mars and all the other planets, that that CO2 that 
is being produced is not, of course, a product of global 
warming, it is being produced by other things, but that more 
CO2 happens after warming, rather than creating the 
warming. And there are a number of major scientists who have 
pointed this out, and have not been refuted by the scientific 
community.
    So, this particular legislation, which of course we are 
being told will help us utilize our coal, which I think we 
should, is exactly going in the wrong direction, and this 
should be defeated. It is a waste of money, and it is harmful 
to the health of human beings. While focusing on an idea that 
we are changing the climate of the planet with CO2, 
which is, of course, refuted by very, very prominent scientific 
authorities.
    Thank you very much.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Bartlett is recognized.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am an 
enthusiastic supporter of this bill, but I would like to inject 
a word of caution, that we not be overly enthusiastic about the 
contribution that coal will make to our energy future.
    It is true we have 250 years of coal at current use rates. 
If you increase the rate of use only two percent, which doubles 
by the way in 35 years, four times bigger in 70 years, eight 
times bigger in 105 years, then that 250 years of coal, that 
only two percent increase in use rate, shrinks to 85 years. If 
we now do what Mr. Costello would like to do, and what we will 
be doing in the future, and convert that to a liquid or to a 
gas, we will need energy to do that. If you take that energy 
from the coal to do that, now you have reduced it to 50 years, 
and if we share this with the world, and today, it is 
inevitable. There is no way not to share energy with the world, 
because it moves on a world market, then it shrinks to 12.5 
years. So our 250 years of coal at current use rates, if you 
increase its use only two percent, convert it to a gas or a 
liquid, and share it, as we must, with the world, that shrinks 
to 12.5 years.
    I am a very enthusiastic supporter of this bill, but I 
didn't want us to have the illusion that if we are able to 
sequester CO2, and therefore, can use coal widely, 
that that will be the solution to our energy future. It will 
make a valuable contribution, but a limited contribution.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I do have a manager's amendment 
pending, but I would say to the gentleman from California, my 
good friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, that we will continue to disagree 
on the utility and the reach of climate change theory, but when 
we capture carbon, as I understand it, we capture many of the 
other harmful elements that are present in coal as a solid, 
whether it be mercury, SOX, NO2, and other elements that are 
harmful to human health, so there is a collateral benefit when 
we capture carbon, and then sequester what we have captured.
    So, I think, in that sense, what we are attempting to do 
makes good sense when it comes to human health. I would be 
happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question, 
or would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Udall. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. To the degree that what you have just 
stated would be the focus, is to the degree that I could be 
supportive of what we are trying to do here. To the degree that 
we are looking at things that will be harmful to people's 
health, you know, children are going to be breathing this air 
their whole life, the things that we are putting in the air 
right now. If the things that you just stated were the target, 
I would be much more supportive, I would be very supportive of 
what we are trying to do.
    It seems to me that, however, we are just playing into a 
popular, you know, item of the day, with CO2, and we 
do that at the expense of people's health. But however, if we 
can do both, I would be happy to hear that.
    Mr. Udall. Reclaiming my time. I am certainly a proponent 
of the no regrets approach to climate change, which is we ought 
to do all we can now to deal with what we think, and again, I 
think you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion here, 
what is a changing climate, and in the process, we generate 
collateral benefits.
    One of the interesting ones that I have heard recently, and 
I look certainly to your right and further to your right, not 
politically speaking, but on the dais, Mr. Bartlett and Mr. 
Ehlers, that there are new liquid fuel technologies that, in 
effect, capture carbon, and then, that carbon can be used, it 
is a solid carbon, it is char, can be used to fertilize, and to 
be part of the agricultural cycle, so that we also, as you 
know, are very indebted to petroleum products for fertilizer 
and for production of food in this country.
    So, there are some very interesting technologies that I 
think will emerge----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield for just one 
moment?
    Mr. Udall. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. So, we are going to be eating it rather 
than breathing it, and again, indicates that it is not harmful 
to your health, and I would suggest that is very, coal 
sequestration is extremely expensive, compared to trying to 
focus on these other alternatives, which I say, if you are an 
environmentalist, we want to watch out for the environment so 
people will live better. I agree with those type of 
environmentalists, and----
    Mr. Udall. Reclaiming my time. It has been suggested, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, that human beings are temporary carbon sinks, so 
perhaps, that is a reason to eat additional carbon. I don't 
know. You may have to further study that particular situation.
    But Mr. Chairman, we could probably continue this 
discussion, but I think it would be useful to yield back the 
remainder of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Udall. I recognize that Mr. 
Rohrabacher is the father of triplets, and certainly, is 
concerned about their health, as we are about all of our 
children's health. The good news is, that this is one of four 
bills we are having today. We are not just focused solely on 
this issue. We are going to be talking about biofuels and solar 
and other types of area that will be good for those triplets 
that we all want to see grow up well.
    So, if there is no other discussion, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill is considered as read and open to 
amendment at any point, and that the Members proceed with the 
amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    The first amendment on the roster is a manager's amendment, 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall. Are you 
ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1933, offered by Mr. Udall of 
Colorado.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading, and without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best to be 
brief here.
    There are a number of technical changes that are included 
in the manager's amendment. I didn't want to go through those, 
but I wanted to give a brief description of the substantive 
change to the carbon dioxide capture demonstration program, and 
I wanted also to clarify the funding levels for the programs in 
the bill, although I would point out that we have not changed 
the funding levels.
    The amendment, manager's amendment, as a provision of the 
carbon dioxide capture demonstration section of the bill, to 
authorize the Secretary of Energy to take actions needed to 
further integrate the carbon dioxide capture demonstrations 
with the DOE's large scale CO2 sequestration 
program.
    Now, this provision comes from discussions with industry 
and environmental interests, and is intended to encourage the 
use of CO2 captured in the demonstrations to supply 
the large volumes of CO2 required under the 
sequestration demonstration program. And I would further add 
that this provision builds on MIT's report, The Future of Coal, 
that recommends that the U.S. should establish programs to 
provide operational experience with an integrated system of 
capture, transportation, and storage. H.R. 1933 moves us toward 
that goal.
    And then, in addition, because we received some questions 
about the funding levels for basic R&D; in the bill, my 
amendment breaks out the funding categories, and let me just 
outline those. The basic R&D; and field testing would be 
authorized at $100 million for each of Fiscal Years 2008 
through 2011, the carbon sequestration demonstration program is 
funded at $140 million for each of the Fiscal Years 2008 to 
2011, and the carbon dioxide capture demonstration program is 
funded at $180 million for each of the Fiscal Years from 2009 
to 2012.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for moving this 
important legislation forward, and for co-sponsoring H.R. 1933. 
Obviously, I think the amendment, the manager's amendment, 
improves the bill, and I would urge my colleagues to support 
it.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment? If no, the motion is on the amendment. All in favor 
say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 
to.
    The second amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson. Are you ready to proceed 
with your amendment?
    Mr. Matheson. I am ready, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1933, offered by Mr. Matheson 
of Utah.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This will be a brief explanation. This amendment is more of 
a clarification to make sure we consider eligibility for 
different opportunities for geologic formations for 
sequestration.
    The main candidate, I believe, for sequestration, is going 
to be depleted oil and gas fields, and there are some unique 
geologic characteristics to those that are located in high 
altitude areas. Since I come from the Rocky Mountains, which is 
a longstanding oil and gas producing region of the country, I 
thought it was important that we just include an amendment to 
this legislation that just expands the eligibility for a high 
altitude oil and gas field to be considered for the testing 
program. This isn't a mandate, but it just includes that 
eligibility.
    I just thought it would be helpful to clarify that in the 
legislation, and that is it, Mr. Chairman. If there is anyone 
who wants to discuss it, otherwise, I will just yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Matheson.
    You know, this is again, this is another example of why 
work by committee is better than work by a few. Mr. Hall just 
thinks that you get oil and gas from the plains, and didn't 
think about how altitude, and so, you bring a whole new 
dimension to this, and again, you make this bill a better bill. 
Does anyone else wish to be recognized?
    If there is no further discussion on the amendment, the 
vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye. 
Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The third amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross. Are you ready to proceed 
with your amendment?
    Mr. Ross. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1933, offered by Mr. Ross of 
Arkansas.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Ross. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for bringing 
the Committee together today to consider this important 
legislation that provides federal support for the Department of 
Energy's research and development programs for Carbon Capture 
and Storage technology.
    I think we all know that we have about a 250 year supply of 
coal in America. There is a lot of debate over whether we will 
ever be able to fully utilize that in an environmentally 
friendly manner. I am not here to debate the aspects of that 
today. I will say this, that the Fayetteville Shale, which is a 
natural gas find in Arkansas, that is going to surpass the 
Barnett Shale in Texas in size, no one knew it existed 50 years 
ago, 20 years ago we couldn't have recovered it in a 
environmentally friendly manner, 10 years ago, it was too 
costly to recover, and now, a lot of folks in Arkansas that 
grew up with very little are making a lot of money as a result 
of that Fayetteville Shale.
    My hope is that over the next years, we will be able to do 
the same thing with coal, finding a way, not utilizing 1940 or 
1950 technology, but utilizing 21st Century technology, to be 
able to utilize it an environmentally friendly manner, which 
helps make our nation more energy independent.
    My amendment simply does this. It works to help our nation 
achieve this goal by establishing a research and development 
grant program for universities and colleges to research Carbon 
Capture and Sequestration, in conjunction with enhanced oil and 
mineral recovery.
    The amendment authorizes $10 million for the Secretary of 
Energy to award five grants competitively for projects 
submitted by universities to research Carbon Capture and 
Storage, in combination with enhanced oil recovery. This study 
will help us to determine whether, by injecting and storing the 
CO2 underground, can we do that and recover 
significant quantities of domestic oil, all while addressing 
global warming.
    This amendment will provide universities the tools to 
research and develop ways to see if, in fact, this can work, 
and can lead to an environmentally friendly way to utilize the 
250 year supply of coal we have in this country. The amendment 
also designates that at least two of the grants should go to 
rural or agricultural-based institutions that offer programs in 
the environmental sciences, to promote diversity among the 
projects, and ensure that any environmental impacts of this 
technology are thoroughly examined. Additionally, the reason 
for this, most coal mines that we know about are not in urban 
areas. They are in rural areas.
    As our nation looks for new sources of energy, I don't 
believe that we can forget about those that we currently 
possess. This amendment will simply allow research and 
development to occur in colleges and universities, to be 
awarded by the Department of Energy in a competitive manner, to 
hopefully find ways to use coal in an environmentally friendly 
manner, and making America more energy independent.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would, that explains my 
amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Ross. Does Mr. Hall or anyone else 
from the Texas delegation wish to respond to the slur of Mr. 
Ross on the size of Texas?
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Ross. Yes.
    Mr. Hall. Well, Mr. Ross and I share Texarkana, and while 
he has a lot of Arkansans who are on the Texas side, I have a 
lot Texans who are on the Arkansas side. And I hope Mr. Ross 
doesn't forget that. And my mother was born in Cave City, and I 
have a good many people that vote in your district. Up to now, 
they have all voted for you, Mr. Ross.
    Chairman Gordon. Let us just say that Arkansas and Texas 
both share a large portfolio there.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the 
vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, 
no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The fourth amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you ready to proceed 
with your amendment?
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am ready to 
proceed. My amendment is at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1933, offered by Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson of Texas.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain 
her amendment.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for considering this 
amendment.
    Fossil fueled power with electric plants are one of the 
largest sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the United 
States, responsible for roughly 40 percent of our country's 
overall greenhouse gas emissions.
    In order to continue using our large supplies of coal and 
other fossil fuels to power our economy in a carbon constrained 
world, we must learn to capture the CO2 emissions 
from fossil fuel powered electric plants. For this reason, my 
amendment would revise the bill to place special emphasis on 
demonstration projects to capture CO2 from these 
plants, as opposed to other facilities. I know these plants oh 
so well. We have got plenty of them up in our area.
    The amendment focuses on a new demonstration grant program 
to develop technologies to capture carbon dioxide emissions 
from electric power plants. It would require at least two of 
the projects that demonstrate capture technology to take place 
at the fossil fuel powered electric facilities. This amendment 
would ensure that our attention is concentrated on the areas of 
greatest opportunity, so that we can leverage the lessons 
learned to have the greatest possible positive impact 
throughout our nation's power production system.
    I would like to thank the Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Udall, 
for his collaboration in devising this amendment, and urge my 
colleagues to support it.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for my amendment to H.R. 1933, the 
Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Act of 2007.
    Fossil fuel-powered electric plants are one of the largest sources 
of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, responsible for 
roughly 40 percent of our country's overall greenhouse gas emissions.
    In order to continue using our large supplies of coal and other 
fossil fuels to power our economy in a carbon constrained world, we 
must learn to capture the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel 
powered electric plants.
    For this reason, my amendment would revise the bill to place 
special emphasis on demonstration projects to capture CO2 
from these plants, as opposed to other facilities.
    The amendment focuses on a new demonstration grant program to 
develop technologies to capture carbon dioxide emissions from electric 
power plants.
    It would require at least two of the projects that demonstrate 
capture technology to take place at fossil-fuel powered electric 
facilities.
    This amendment will ensure that our attention is concentrated on 
the area of greatest opportunity so that we can leverage the lessons 
learned to have the greatest possible positive impact throughout our 
nation's power production system.
    I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Udall for his 
collaboration in devising this amendment and urge my colleagues to 
support it.
    I yield back.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Any other 
discussion?
    Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Bilbray is recognized.
    Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of the 
amendment.
    And let me just say that I think we look at the history of 
emission reductions in the last 40, 50 years in this country, 
and there has been so much talk about mobile sources, 
automobile emissions, but where the great breakthroughs have 
happened, the most cost-effective reduction in emissions across 
this country have been on stationary sources, and stationary 
sources are the low lying fruit. It is where we should aim for 
first. It is where we are going to get the biggest bang for the 
buck, and I would strongly support that we focus on the 
electric generation facilities, because that is where we going 
to find the best and the easiest place to make the big 
improvements, and be not diverted away over on a lot of these 
mobile sources, that look sexy, but are not going to have the 
impact in the reductions available that we are going to see in 
a very short time for stationary sources.
    So, I would support the gentlelady's amendment, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in 
favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The fifth amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul. Are you ready to proceed with 
your amendment?
    Mr. McCaul. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1933, offered by Mr. McCaul of 
Texas.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I applaud your efforts 
on Carbon Capture and Sequestration on this bill.
    As Lamar Smith and I know, the University of Texas has been 
very engaged in this area in research and development. I think 
it is a very promising area. My amendment clarifies, by adding 
Coal-To-Liquid (CTL) facilities to the list of facilities that 
are eligible for the large scale carbon sequestration 
demonstrations provided for in this bill.
    Although there are currently no coal-to-liquid facilities 
operating in the United States currently, the Department of 
Energy has informed us that there are at least 16 of these 
plants being planned by companies, local governments, and 
Indian tribes. When these facilities become operational, they 
will naturally become sources of carbon dioxide emissions, and 
it seems to me if they are going to be emitting carbon dioxide, 
we ought to be capturing that as well.
    Adding Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology could 
cut these carbon emissions from these facilities almost in 
half, which would put them in line with the emissions from 
petroleum-based diesel. The bill before us right now is 
intended to study the challenges, and develop technology 
related to safe, large scale sequestration of CO2. 
With these new CTL facilities already being planned, it makes 
good sense to me to add these new sources of large scale 
CO2 emissions to the list of sources that qualify 
for the study under this bill.
    And as the Chairman pointed out, this bill should apply to 
any type of coal use, and I think that would also apply on 
coal-to-liquid. This is good for human health, as one of the 
other Members stated earlier. As I look at the definition in 
the bill, it talks about facilities, and it says consideration 
must be given to the capture of carbon dioxide from industrial 
facilities.
    It seems to me that a coal-to-liquid facility already falls 
under this definition in the reading of this bill, and the bill 
does go further to delineate specific facilities it should 
apply to, such as electric energy from fossil fuels, refining 
petroleum, manufacturing iron and steel, manufacturing cement, 
and chemicals, ethanol, and fertilizer plants. So it seems to 
me that this simply clarifies the bill, and makes clear that 
the coal-to-liquid facilities, which are going to built, and 
which will be emitting carbon dioxide, will be able to capture 
that carbon dioxide, and protect human health, and further this 
program.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you. Let me say to Mr. McCaul, I 
know this is a very thoughtful amendment, and as I had 
mentioned earlier, though, we have started the process of 
trying to educate ourselves more on the coal-to-liquid issue.
    I simply think we are not there yet to develop what I would 
call a consensus and a really thoughtful position here. We are 
going to have additional hearings, gather more information in 
the fall. Hopefully, we then, can again bring that consensus 
around, and I think that your amendment is premature at this 
time, and would hope that again, the information that we learn 
from this sequestration will be something that will be what you 
might call technique neutral, in terms of whatever the use for 
coal might be in the future.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman. Go ahead.
    Chairman Gordon. Well, I guess we should go to Mr. Hall 
first.
    Mr. Hall. I will be very brief.
    I think this could help the Chairman and others on that 
side with their education, maybe just call this a little summer 
course, you know, getting a head start.
    I think it is a good amendment, and briefly, we are going 
to support it over here. We wish you would accept it, but if 
you can't accept it, then we will accept the challenge of 
change.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Udall is recognized.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Hall, I think 
perhaps we are going to have to forego summer school, but maybe 
we can pick this up when first semester starts in the fall, is 
what I heard the Chairman suggesting.
    I just want to associate myself with the Chairman's 
remarks. CTL remains experimental technology, but as we have, I 
think, made the case, and MIT, in particular, made the case, 
the need for carbon sequestration technology is much more 
urgent, and the Chairman underscored that we will address CTL, 
and I wanted to commend my good friend from Texas, Mr. McCaul, 
for his interest in this area, and I know we will take the time 
to better understand how we could apply these technologies at 
some other time.
    But in the context of this piece of legislation, I would 
urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Somewhat 
reluctantly, but nonetheless, I would ask you to oppose it.
    Mr. Matheson. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Move to strike.
    Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I do think this 
is an important issue, and I do look forward to this committee 
taking on a robust effort, as you have discussed, in terms of 
really studying this issue, because I do think there is 
interest on both sides of the aisle, to see if we can make this 
technology work.
    I share a lot of the interest that Mr. McCaul has in 
submitting this amendment, and so, I just appreciate your 
statement, that you want to take this on in a robust way , and 
have this committee really dive into this issue, and I think 
there is interest on both sides of the aisle to really dive in.
    Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield.
    Mr. Matheson. Yes.
    Chairman Gordon. This committee has not been shy this year 
in trying to be aggressive in a lot of areas. Mr. Costello came 
to me earlier this year, and said that he would like for the 
Science Committee to take the lead in letting Resources, Energy 
and Commerce, to join us, in terms of a variety of hearings.
    We started the process earlier. You know, I think, I 
believe we are the only committee that has had any kind of 
hearings, formally or informally, on this issue. And I am not 
sure where it is going, but I want the Science Committee to be 
on top of it, and we will take that lead this fall.
    Does anyone else wish to be recognized? If not, the vote is 
on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. In 
the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it.
    Mr. McCaul. Mr. Chairman, I ask for recorded vote.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon.
    Chairman Gordon. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes no. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Baird.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Lipinski.
    Mr. Lipinski. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes no. Ms. Giffords.
    Ms. Giffords. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords votes no. Mr. McNerney.
    Mr. McNerney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes no. Mr. Kanjorski.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Hooley.
    Ms. Hooley. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hooley votes no. Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Honda votes no. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Ross. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ross votes no. Mr. Chandler.
    Mr. Chandler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Carnahan.
    Mr. Carnahan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Melancon.
    Mr. Melancon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Melancon votes no. Mr. Hill.
    Chairman Gordon. Do we need another lesson here? Go ahead, 
Charlie. Help her one more time.
    The Clerk. Mr. Melancon.
    Chairman Gordon. Almost. We all have----
    The Clerk. I am getting close. Okay. Mr. Hill.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Okay. Mr. Melancon. Thank you.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hill.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Mitchell.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wilson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamar Smith votes aye. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye. Ms. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bonner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Finney.
    Mr. Finney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Finney votes aye. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. Reichert.
    Mr. Reichert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Reichert votes no. Mr. McCaul.
    Mr. McCaul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gingrey votes aye. Mr. Bilbray.
    Mr. Bilbray. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. Mr. Adrian Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye.
    Chairman Gordon. Has Mr. Mitchell been recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Mitchell is not recorded.
    Mr. Mitchell. No vote, please.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mitchell votes no.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there anyone else? Mr. Wilson.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wilson is not recorded.
    Chairman Gordon. I think Mr. Wilson, just--ask him again.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wilson.
    Mr. Wilson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wilson votes no.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there----
    Mr. Hall. Ask Mr. Melancon again.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there anyone else? We want to be sure 
everybody has a chance to get recognized on this. If not, the 
Clerk will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 22 vote no, 15 Members vote aye.
    
    
    Chairman Gordon. Are there other amendments? If no, then 
the vote is on the bill, H.R. 1933, as amended. All those in 
favor will say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the 
Chair, the ayes have it.
    Ms. Johnson is now recognized to offer a motion.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we report 
this bill to the Full House, with the recommendation that it 
pass. I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 1933, as 
amended, to the House, with the recommendation that the bill do 
pass. And further, I move that the staff be instructed to 
prepare the legislative report, and make necessary technical 
and conforming changes, and that the Chairman take all 
necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 
consideration.
    Chairman Gordon. The question is on the motion to report 
the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify 
by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The bill is 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid open 
the table. Members have two subsequent calendar days in which 
to submit supplemental, Minority, or additional views on the 
measure, ending Monday, July the 2nd, at 9:00 a.m.
    I move, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the 
Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House 
to adopt and pass H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon 
Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Act of 2007, as amended. Without objection, so ordered.
    I thank all of you, the hard core that are still here. We 
had a good day. Four more bills of a dozen that will go into a 
good Energy Bill next month, and again, a bipartisan, everybody 
go home and take credit. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


  Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Markup Report, H.R. 1933 as 
                       reported, Amendment Roster




                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

                    REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP

                             JUNE 21, 2007

     H.R. 1933, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage
          Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007

I. Purpose

    The Purpose of H.R. 1933 is to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
to reauthorize and improve the carbon capture and storage research, 
development, and demonstration program of the Department of Energy.

II. Background and Need for Legislation

    Approximately 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United 
States comes from coal. According to Department of Energy's Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) carbon dioxide emissions in the United 
States and its territories were 6,008.6 million metric tons (MMT) in 
2005. In the United States, most CO2 is emitted as a result 
of the combustion of fossil fuels. In particular, the electric power 
sector accounts for nearly 40 percent of the CO2 emissions 
in the U.S., according to EIA. For the foreseeable future, the U.S. 
will continue to rely on coal to meet our energy demand. With that 
understanding, the challenge lies in balancing our environmental goals 
with our energy needs. Taking a sensible approach to address climate 
change will require technological advancements. The Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology (MIT) report, The Future of Coal (2007), 
concludes ``that CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) is the 
critical enabling technology that would reduce CO2 emissions 
significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing 
energy needs.'' (page x)
    Crafting a CCS strategy that makes sense for the United States 
calls for an understanding of the technical challenges that exist with 
the development, demonstration and deployment of carbon dioxide capture 
technologies and the development of safe, effective large-scale 
containment of carbon dioxide. The MIT Report points out that there is 
no operational experience with carbon capture from coal plants and 
emphasizes the absence of operational experience with an integrated 
sequestration operation. The MIT report states that ``the priority 
objective with respect to coal should be the successful large-scale 
demonstration of the technical, economic, and environmental performance 
of the technologies that make up all of the major components of a 
large-scale integrated CCS system--capture, transportation and 
storage.'' (page xi) H.R. 1933 follows that recommendation and 
reauthorizes the Department of Energy's research and development and 
field testing programs, and specifically authorizes large-scale 
demonstrations of both carbon dioxide capture technologies and carbon 
dioxide containment.

III. Subcommittee Actions

    On April 18, 2007, Rep. Mark Udall introduced H.R. 1933 which 
serves as a companion bill to S.962 introduced in the Senate on March 
22, 2007 by Sen. Jeff Bingaman. Since introduction, five additional co-
sponsors have signed onto the bill.
    The Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on Tuesday, 
May 15, 2007 to hear testimony on the Prospects for Advanced Coal 
Technologies: Efficient Energy Production, Carbon Capture and 
Sequestration to gain a better understanding of the programmatic needs 
at the Department of Energy to address the challenge of climate change. 
The following five witnesses testified at the hearing:

          Mr. Carl O. Bauer, Director of the Department of 
        Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory, a national 
        laboratory owned and operated by the Department of Energy. In 
        his current position as Director of NETL, he oversees the 
        implementation of major science and technology development 
        programs to resolve the environmental, supply and reliability 
        constraints of producing and using fossil resources, including 
        advanced coal-fueled power generation, carbon sequestration, 
        and environmental control for the existing fleet of fossil 
        steam plants.

          Dr. Robert L. Finley, Director Energy and Earth 
        Resources Center for Illinois State Geological Survey with 
        specialization in fossil energy resources. He is currently 
        heading a regional carbon sequestration partnership in the 
        Illinois Basin aimed at addressing concerns with geological 
        carbon management.

          Mr. Michael Rencheck, Senior Vice President for 
        Engineering Projects and Field Services at American Electric 
        Power headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. He is responsible for 
        engineering, regional maintenance and shop service 
        organizations, projects and construction, and new generation 
        development. He will discuss ongoing projects at AEP and can 
        talk to plant efficiencies and retrofitting facilities to 
        capture carbon.

          Mr. Stuart Dalton, Director, Generation at the 
        Electric Power Research Institute. His current research 
        activities cover a wide variety of generation options with 
        special focus on emerging generation, coal-based generation, 
        emission controls and CO2 capture and storage. He 
        also helped to create the EPRI Coal Fleet for Tomorrow program.

          Mr. Gardiner Hill, Director of Technology in 
        Alternative Energy Technology, is responsible for BP group-wide 
        aspects of CO2 Capture and Storage technology 
        development, demonstration and deployment. He also is the BP 
        manager responsible for the BP/Ford/Princeton Carbon Mitigation 
        Initiative at Princeton University as well as the BP manager 
        responsible for the BP/Harvard partnership on the Energy 
        Technology Innovation Project. He posses 20 years of technical 
        and managerial experience which is directly relevant to 
        technology, business and project management.

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider H.R. 
1933 on June 21, 2007 and consider the following two amendments to the 
bill:

        1.  Rep. Udall offered a manager's amendment which made a 
        number of technical and substantive changes to H.R. 1933. The 
        amendment adds a new section to the bill authorizing three, but 
        no more than five, demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture 
        technologies. It further includes an authorization for funding 
        these carbon dioxide capture demonstrations at $180 million per 
        year for four years starting in Fiscal Year 2009. It increases 
        the funding level for the large-scale carbon dioxide 
        sequestration demonstrations to $140 million per year for four 
        years beginning in Fiscal Year 2008. The amendment defines the 
        large-scale demonstrations of carbon dioxide sequestration as 
        one million tons of carbon dioxide annually or a scale that 
        demonstrably exceeds the necessary thresholds in key geologic 
        transients to validate the ability to continuously inject large 
        quantities of carbon dioxide for a number of years. The 
        amendment encourages the integration of the storage 
        demonstrations with the capture technology demonstrations. This 
        is intended to provide operational experience with an 
        integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of 
        carbon dioxide at scale.

           The amendment includes an authorization for the National 
        Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent review and 
        oversight of the injection program to ensure its benefits are 
        maximized. The amendment also authorizes the Assistant 
        Administrator of the Office of Research and Development of EPA 
        to conduct a research program to determine what procedures may 
        be necessary to protect public health, safety and the 
        environment from impacts that may be associated with 
        sequestration of greenhouse gases. Finally, the amendment 
        includes and authorization of appropriation for Fiscal Years 
        2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 to fund the Department of Energy's 
        fundamental R&D; at the laboratory scale to allow for continued 
        examination of new approaches on carbon dioxide capture and 
        sequestration. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

        2.  Mr. Costello offered an amendment which authorizes a study 
        by the National Academy of Sciences to define an 
        interdisciplinary program to train a workforce to support 
        development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration. 
        The study will define curricula for undergraduate and graduate 
        programs that would lead to degrees in geological sequestration 
        science. The amendment also establishes a competitive grant 
        program through which institutions of higher education can 
        apply for four-year grants to support start up costs for 
        integrated geological carbon sequestration programs as well as 
        internships for graduate students in geological sequestration 
        science. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

IV. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    H.R. 1933 provides federal support for the Department of Energy in 
cooperation with its seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership 
programs to demonstrate both large-volume sequestration tests for 
geological containment of carbon dioxide and carry out at least three 
demonstrations of large-scale capture of carbon dioxide. The bill will 
provide for the testing of a variety of geological settings for carbon 
dioxide storage and it will accelerate the demonstration of the three 
main categories of carbon dioxide capture technologies bringing them 
closer to commercial application. And, H.R. 1933 aims to integrate the 
carbon dioxide capture with the large-scale storage demonstration in 
order to gain the operational experience with an integrated system of 
capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at scale. In 
addition, the bill provides for the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) to conduct a research program to determine what procedures may be 
necessary to protect public health, safety and the environment with 
regard to the long-term storage of carbon dioxide in geological 
reservoirs. Also, the bill authorizes the National Academy of Sciences 
to conduct an independent review and oversight of the carbon dioxide 
injection program to ensure its benefits are maximized. The bill also 
authorizes the National Academy of Sciences to define an 
interdisciplinary program to train a workforce to support the 
development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration systems. 
The bill also establishes a competitive grant program for institutions 
of higher learning to access start up costs for integrated geological 
carbon sequestration programs and implement internships for graduate 
students in geological sequestration science.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as reported by the 
                    Subcommittee

Section 1. Short Title

    ``Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007.''

Section 2.  Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and 
                    Demonstration Program.

    Directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out fundamental science 
and engineering research to develop and document the performance of new 
approaches to capture and store carbon dioxide, or convert carbon 
dioxide into products that lead to overall reduction of carbon dioxide 
emissions. The fundamental research shall be applied to energy 
technology development activities and the field testing of carbon 
sequestration activities.
    Requires the Secretary to promote regional carbon sequestration 
partnerships to conduct geologic sequestration field testing of the 
capture technologies and the injection and monitoring practices in a 
variety of geologic settings including operating oil and gas field, 
depleted oil and gas fields, unmineable coal seams, saline formations, 
and deep geologic systems to extract heat from geothermal resources.
    The field tests are aimed at advancing and validating geophysical 
tools, analysis and modeling used to monitor, predict, and verify 
carbon dioxide containment. And, the Secretary is authorized to 
promulgate policies, procedures, requirements and guidance to ensure 
that the objectives of the field testing are met in large-scale testing 
and deployment activities for carbon capture and storage funded by the 
Department.
    In addition, the bill authorizes seven large-volume sequestration 
tests for geologic containment of carbon dioxide. The Secretary is 
directed to select meritorious proposals on a competitive basis giving 
preference to proposals from partnerships among industrial, academic, 
and government entities. The Secretary is directed to consider a 
variety of geological formations across the United States and require 
characterization and modeling of candidate formations. The bill 
integrates the storage demonstrations with the demonstration of carbon 
dioxide capture technologies by giving preference to carbon dioxide 
captured from coal-fired electric generating plants to provide 
operational experience with an integrated system of capture, 
transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide at scale. This preference 
shall not delay the implementation of the large-scale sequestration 
tests.
    H.R. 1933 defines large-scale injection of carbon dioxide as one 
million tons of carbon dioxide annually or a scale that demonstrably 
exceeds the necessary thresholds in key geologic transients to validate 
the ability to continuously inject large quantities of carbon dioxide 
for a number of years. The large-scale carbon dioxide containment 
demonstrations shall be considered research and development and meet 
the cost-sharing requirements of Section 988(b) of Energy Policy Act of 
2005--the Secretary shall require not less than 20 percent of the cost 
of a research or development activity to be provided by a non-federal 
source.
    The bill directs the Secretary to carry out three, but no more than 
five, demonstrations of carbon dioxide capture technologies. These 
demonstrations should include the three main approaches to carbon 
dioxide capture: pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxycombustion. Any 
award under this carbon dioxide capture demonstration program is 
available only for the portion of the project that carries out the 
large-scale capture (including purification and compression) of carbon 
dioxide, as well as the cost of transportation and injection of carbon 
dioxide. The carbon dioxide capture demonstrations shall meet the cost-
share requirements of Section 988 (c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
or the Secretary shall require that not less than 50 percent of the 
cost of the demonstration be provided by a non-federal source.
    Authorizes appropriations of $240,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
years 2008 through 2011 for research and field testing as well as the 
large-scale carbon dioxide containment demonstrations.
    Authorizes appropriations of $180,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
years 2009 through 2012 for the demonstrations of carbon dioxide 
capture technologies.

Section 3. Review of Large-Scale Programs.

    Authorizes the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an 
independent review and oversight of the injection program to ensure its 
benefits are maximized. Not later than January 1, 2012, the Secretary 
is directed to transmit to the Congress a report on the results of such 
review and oversight.

Section 4. Safety Research.

    Authorizes the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development 
of the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a research program to 
determine what procedures may be necessary to protect public health, 
safety, and the environment from impacts that may be associated with 
capture, injection, and sequestration of greenhouse gases in 
subterranean reservoirs. Authorizes $5,000,000 for each fiscal year to 
carry out this research program.

Section 5.  Geological Sequestration Training and Research.

    Directs the Secretary of Energy to enter into an arrangement with 
the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a study that defines an 
interdisciplinary program to train a workforce to support the Nation's 
capability to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from anthropogenic 
sources, and develops curricula for undergraduate and graduate 
curricula that lead to degrees in geological sequestration science. The 
study will establish guidelines for universities wishing to implement 
geological sequestration science programs and make recommendations on 
the budget needed to implement the grant program also authorized in 
this section. The Secretary is directed to submit a report to Congress 
providing the results of the National Academy of Sciences study. 
Authorizes $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 to carry out this section.
    Authorizes the Secretary of Energy, through the National Energy 
Technology Laboratory, to establish a competitive grant program through 
which institutions of higher education can apply for four-year grants 
to support salary and startup costs for newly designated faculty 
positions in an integrated geological carbon sequestration science 
program and internships for graduate students in geological 
sequestration science. The grants are renewable for up to two 
additional three-year terms and encouraged to interface with the 
research of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships operated by 
the Department of Energy to provide internships and practical training 
in carbon capture and geological sequestration. Authorizes such sums as 
necessary to carry out the grant program.