Search

Abstract: Perceptions of the potential of emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) are constructed not just through technical and economic processes but also through discourse, i.e. through compelling narratives about what a technology is, what a technology might become and why it is needed and preferable to competing technologies. The influence of discourse is particularly important in the innovation phases prior to commercialization when innovation activities are focused on research, development and demonstration, and when feasibility and costs of alternatives systems cannot yet be tested by market dynamics. This paper provides a state-level comparative analysis of CCS discourse in the U.S. to provide insights about the socio-political context in which CCS technology is advancing and being considered in four different states: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, and Texas. This research combines analysis of interviews of state-level energy stakeholders and media analysis of state-level newspapers. In semi-structured interviews, state-level energy policy stakeholders were asked to explain their perceptions of the potential opportunities and risks of CCS technology within their unique state context. Interview texts were coded to assess the frequency and extent of various different frames of CCS opportunities and risks including technical, political, economic, environmental, aesthetic, and health/safety. A similar coding scheme was applied to analysis of state-level newspaper coverage of CCS technology. Here, the frequency of these different framings of CCS opportunities and risks in state-level print media was assessed. This analysis demonstrates wide variation in state-level CCS discourse and perceptions of the potential opportunities and risks associated with CCS technology. This mixed-methods approach to characterizing the socio-political context for CCS advancement in these four states contributes to improved understanding of state-level variation in energy technology innovation, provides valuable information about energy technology development in these specific states, and also offers insight into the very different sub-national discourses associated with emerging low-carbon energy technologies in the U.S. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: As the private sector and government begin to spend billions of dollars to research and deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, the question of legal liability for managing short-term and long-term environmental, health and safety risks must be addressed. We examine potential CCS liability within a U.S. context and survey the existing environmental and tort law liability regimes that may affect CCS. We conclude that while existing liability regimes are insufficient on their own to govern the CCS industry, they could provide important risk management tools and serve as safeguards to private parties and governments in the event of harm. We also propose a model for long term stewardship, blending including bonding, insurance, and pooled federal funding into commercial CCS project management to better provide financial security to investors without destroying existing liability protections for those who may suffer harm from CCS. This proposal offers a starting point to develop a model to integrate liability for the nascent CCS industry. A longer version of this paper can be found in the Emory Law Review, Fall 2008. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: States will play a vital role in the deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) in the United States. Many of the decisions and planning required to deploy CCS projects on a national scale will occur at the state and regional levels, including Public Utility Commission decisions on treatment of CCS costs, decisions on land use for building CO2 pipelines and developing geologic sequestration sites. There has been a burst of CCS policy activity in the states over the past few years. As of August 2008, 26 states have some sort of policy in place aimed at furthering CCS. To examine the importance of states’ particular circumstances on CCS policy development, we consider variables related to each state’s geology, electrical power system, economy, and political ideology. We find that distinctly different profiles emerge between states with CCS policies, states with climate policy, states with both, and states with neither. Understanding the state level policy landscape provides a basis for more effective coordination between state, regional, and federal CCS policy, and sheds some light on the compromises that need to be made between geographically diverse states for CCS to be widely deployed. A case study of the Midwestern Governors Association CO2 Management Infrastructure Partnership illustrates the opportunities that regional partnerships offer to facilitate these types of compromises and coordinate policy between states with varying circumstances but a shared interest in regional cooperation to advance commercial scale CCS. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: As a technology that may involve new risks, large-scale infrastructure, and significant government involvement, carbon capture and storage (CCS) faces a wide variety of deployment challenges. Because energy policy in the U.S. is negotiated at the state level, it is important to evaluate what might influence CCS related decisions in the U.S. at that level. This paper presents a detailed analysis of how deployment discussions and decisions regarding CCS are negotiated within Texas, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. These states were chosen based upon their current involvement in CCS research (high, medium, low), potential for deploying CCS (direct, indirect, or absent), and regulation (restructured, regulated). We explore nuances within the policy debates and public discourse surrounding CCS in these three states through the use of legislative and policy analysis, interviews with stakeholders, and media analysis. Using information generated from legislative dockets and state-level newspaper coverage we construct a template of CCS discussions, framing, and policy creation within each study state. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract The economic viability of new energy technologies is held as a central tenet to their future deployment; conventional wisdom posits economically rational decision-makers will readily invest in proven low-risk and affordable technologies. But what happens when this is not true. This paper examines the non-financial barriers facing economically viable Combined Heat and Power (CHP) projects. CHP is a mature and lower carbon technology that efficiently uses waste heat from thermal electricity generation; CHP can also provide flexibility services to help integrate variable renewable resources. CHP is low risk and many industrialized countries, particularly those in colder climates in Northern Europe and Russia, generate as much as 50% of their electricity and heat needs from CHP, but United States deployment remains low and investment hurdle rates high. While lower U.S. energy costs make some projects un-economic, many economically-viable CHP projects are stalled or killed by non-financial barriers. To better understand why financially viable CHP projects are not getting built, developers, owners and operators, regulators, and other stakeholders of this technology were interviewed and three major barriers emerged a) the business model of the electrical utility b) negative subjective impressions and c) challenges in allocating the risks and benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Over the past decade, the United States (US) has demonstrated strong and evolving interest in the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS), an emerging set of technologies with potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. Given the many technical, economic, and environmental uncertainties about the future of CCS, the political salience of this technology is high. In the US, states make key decisions about deploying energy technology projects, but variation in state-level energy context (both technical and socio-political) is substantial. This research assesses variation in the state-level energy context for CCS development by exploring energy policy stakeholders' perceptions of CCS in four geographically and demographically diverse states. Policy stakeholders have different degrees of familiarity with CCS, and the goal of this research is to understand and compare the perceptions of CCS among stakeholders who shape state-level energy policy. Semi-structured interviews with 84 energy policy stakeholders across government, industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations active in four different states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana and Texas) were analyzed to compare perceptions of CCS risks and benefits. Negative associations of CCS were mentioned more frequently than positive attributes in each state, and technical, political and economic risks are more dominant than environmental or health and safety risks. Content analysis of the interviews provides insight on emerging sub-national discourse regarding CCS, on state-level variation in familiarity with CCS, and on sub-national variation in the socio-political context for energy technologies. The variation in state and stakeholder energy priorities and perceptions revealed in this study highlights challenges in the development and implementation of national-level energy policy and also specific challenges in the deployment of CCS. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Grid-scale energy storage are modeled to arbitrage in electricity market. • Storage-induced emissions are estimated in two power grids with high and low wind penetration. • High wind penetration can favorably pair with storage and reduce air pollutant burden. • Carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury emissions are estimated. • Storage-induced emissions are 42-64% lower in the high- than in the low-wind grid. Energy storage provides many benefits that can improve electric grid performance but has been shown to increase overall system emissions. Yet, how energy storage might interreact with renewables in existing grids and how these interactions affect overall emissions remain unclear. Here, we estimate emissions induced by battery energy storage in two regions of the United States with very different levels of wind penetration using high-resolution, both spatially and temporally, locational marginal prices and hourly marginal emission factors. We find that the emission intensity of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury is 4264% lower in the high wind penetration grid (28%) than in the low wind penetration grid (<5%). This is due in part to a significant share of wind dispatched as marginal fuel in baseload hours when battery storage charges from the grid, reducing storage-induced emissions. Our study suggests that more wind generation can favorably pair with storage and reduce the air pollution burdens otherwise caused by storage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]