Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Legislation in the 115th Congress [May 9, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "In the 115th Congress, two bills authorizing a National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System (NVEWS) have been reported out of committee (H.R. 4475, reported out of the House Natural Resources Committee and S. 346, reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee). Legislation nearly identical to S. 346 is included as Title X, Subtitle A, of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017. (A hearing has been held on this bill.) The activities authorized in these bills include directing the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to establish a nationwide volcano early warning and monitoring system to lower the impacts of volcanic eruptions on U.S. citizens. USGS is a bureau within the Department of the Interior. USGS has indicated that progressively implementing an NVEWS to address a monitoring gap within its Volcano Hazards Program has been a priority since 2005. These bills would provide an explicit authorization for an NVEWS, with an objective to monitor U.S. volcanoes at a level commensurate with the volcanic threat. Assessing the volcanic threat involves combining the volcano hazards--the destructive phenomena produced by a volcano, such as lava flows, ash clouds, volcanic landslides--and the exposure to the hazard, such as the people and property at risk from a volcanic eruption (Figure 1). The bills state that the NVEWS would have two purposes: (1) to organize, modernize, standardize, and stabilize the monitoring systems of the five U.S. volcano observatories (the Alaska Volcano Observatory, California Volcano Observatory, Cascades Volcano Observatory, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, and Yellowstone Volcano Observatory) and (2) to unify the monitoring systems of these observatories into a single interoperative system."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Sheikh, Pervaze A.

  2018-05-09
• National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Legislation in the 116th Congress [Updated February 20, 2019]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "In 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, a bureau within the Department of the Interior) published a volcanic threat assessment that assigned five threat levels (very high, high, moderate, low, and very low) to 161 volcanoes in 14 states and U.S. territories (Figure 1). The assessment ranked 18 volcanoes as very high and 39 as high. Eleven of the 18 very high-threat volcanoes are in Washington, Oregon, or California; five are in Alaska; and two are in Hawaii. The study notes that the high- and moderate-threat volcanoes are mostly in Alaska and that the more explosive Alaskan volcanoes can affect national and international aviation. The volcano ranked as the highest threat is Kilauea, the Hawaiian volcano whose 2018 eruptions were accompanied by destructive lava flows and frequent earthquakes, including one of magnitude 6.9. Kilauea is the youngest and southeastern-most volcano on the island of Hawaii."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Sheikh, Pervaze A.

  2019-02-20
• National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): Issues in Brief [Updated December 13, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Portions of all 50 states and the District of Columbia are vulnerable to earthquake hazards, although risks vary greatly across the country and within individual states. Alaska is the most earthquake-prone state, experiencing a magnitude 7 earthquake almost every year and a magnitude 8 earthquake every 13 years, on average, since 1900. [...] Under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), four federal agencies have responsibility for long-term earthquake risk reduction: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). These agencies assess U.S. earthquake hazards, deliver notifications of seismic events, develop measures to reduce earthquake hazards, and conduct research to help reduce overall U.S. vulnerability to earthquakes. Congressional oversight of the NEHRP program encompasses how well the four agencies coordinate their activities to address the earthquake hazard. [...] The review and report would look at how states, tribes, and local governments are using NEHRP-generated information and implementing measures to reduce their earthquake risk."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2018-12-13
• National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): Issues in Brief [January 31, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Portions of all 50 states and the District of Columbia are vulnerable to earthquake hazards, although risks vary greatly across the country and within individual states. Seismic hazards are greatest in the western United States, particularly in California, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. Alaska is the most earthquake-prone state, experiencing a magnitude-7 earthquake almost every year and a magnitude-8 earthquake every 13 years, on average, since 1900. Because of its low population and infrastructure density, Alaska has a relatively low risk for large economic losses from an earthquake. In contrast, California has more citizens and infrastructure at risk than any other state because of its frequent seismic activity, large population, and extensive infrastructure."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2018-01-31
• National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): Issues in Brief [April 19, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), four federal agencies have responsibility for long-term earthquake risk reduction: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). These agencies assess U.S. earthquake hazards, deliver notifications of seismic events, develop measures to reduce earthquake hazards, and conduct research to help reduce overall U.S. vulnerability to earthquakes. Congressional oversight of the NEHRP program encompasses how well the four agencies coordinate their activities to address the earthquake hazard. [...] The NEHRP program's effectiveness is a perennial issue for Congress; the effectiveness of mitigation measures taken before an earthquake occurs is inherently difficult to capture precisely, in terms of dollars saved or fatalities prevented. A major earthquake in a populated urban area within the United States would cause damage, and in question is how much damage would be prevented by mitigation strategies underpinned by the NEHRP program."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2016-04-19
• National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Enacted in the 116th Congress [Updated May 28, 2019]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "In 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, a bureau within the Department of the Interior) published a volcanic threat assessment that assigned five threat levels (very high, high, moderate, low, and very low) to 161 volcanoes in 14 states and U.S. territories (Figure 1). The assessment ranked 18 volcanoes as very high and 39 as high. Eleven of the 18 very-high-threat volcanoes are in Washington, Oregon, or California; five are in Alaska; and two are in Hawaii. The study notes that the high- and moderate-threat volcanoes are mostly in Alaska and that the more explosive Alaskan volcanoes can affect national and international aviation. The volcano ranked as the highest threat is Kilauea, the Hawaiian volcano whose 2018 eruptions were accompanied by destructive lava flows and frequent earthquakes, including one of magnitude 6.9. Kilauea is the youngest and southeastern-most volcano on the island of Hawaii."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Sheikh, Pervaze A.

  2019-05-28
• Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress [Updated April 28, 2020]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Introduction: "The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region's future. Issues such as Arctic territorial disputes; commercial shipping through the Arctic; Arctic oil, gas, and mineral exploration; endangered Arctic species; and increased military operations in the Arctic could cause the region in coming years to become an arena of international cooperation, tension, or competition. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial political, economic, energy, environmental, and other interests in the region. Decisions that Congress makes on Arctic-related issues could significantly affect these interests. This report provides an overview of Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS [Congressional Research Service] reports on specific Arctic-related issues."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  O'Rourke, Ronald; Comay, Laura B.; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin) . . .

  2020-04-28
• Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress [Updated December 15, 2020]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Introduction: "The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region's future. Issues such as geopolitical competition in the region between the United States, Russia, and China; increased military operations in the region by the United States, Russia, and other Arctic countries; growth in commercial shipping through the Arctic; and oil, gas, and mineral exploration in the Arctic could cause the region in coming years to become an arena of international cooperation, tension, and/or competition. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial political, economic, energy, environmental, and other interests in the region. Decisions that Congress makes on Arctic-related issues could significantly affect these interests. This report provides an overview of Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS [Congressional Research Service] reports on specific Arctic-related issues."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  O'Rourke, Ronald; Comay, Laura B.; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin) . . .

  2020-12-15
• Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress [Updated November 4, 2020]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Introduction: "The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region's future. Issues such as geopolitical competition in the region between the United States, Russia, and China; increased military operations in the region by the United States, Russia, and other Arctic countries; growth in commercial shipping through the Arctic; and oil, gas, and mineral exploration in the Arctic could cause the region in coming years to become an arena of international cooperation, tension, and/or competition. [...] This report provides an overview of Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS [Congressional Research Service] reports on specific Arctic-related issues. Congressional readers with questions about an issue discussed in this report should contact the author or authors of the section discussing that issue. The authors are identified by footnote at the start of each section."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  O'Rourke, Ronald; Comay, Laura B.; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin) . . .

  2020-11-04
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States [July 24, 2017]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Carbon capture and sequestration (or storage)-known as CCS-is a process that involves capturing man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source and storing it to avoid its release to the atmosphere. (CCS is sometimes referred to as CCUS-carbon capture, utilization, and storage.) CCS could reduce the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels at power plants and other large industrial facilities. An integrated CCS system would include three main steps: [1] capturing and separating CO2 from other gases; [2] purifying, compressing, and transporting the captured CO2 to the sequestration site; and [3] injecting the CO2 in underground geological reservoirs (the process is explained more fully below in 'CCS Primer'). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has long supported research and development (R&D) on CCS within its Fossil Energy Research and Development portfolio (FER&D); however, the Trump Administration proposed to cut FER&D funding substantially in its FY2018 budget request. The Trump Administration's proposal differs from the policy trends of the previous two Administrations, which supported R&D on CCS and emphasized the development of large-scale demonstration projects-nearly first-of-their-kind ventures using technologies developed at a pilot or smaller scale that have been ramped up to commercial scale-to evaluate how CCS might be deployed commercially. The Trump Administration's proposal to curtail funding for CCS, coupled with the successful launch of one large CCS plant in January 2017 (the Petra Nova plant in Texas) and the suspension of another in June 2017 (the Kemper County Energy Facility in Mississippi), has contributed to uncertainty about the future of CCS. This report provides a summary and analysis of the current state of CCS in the United States."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2017-07-24
• Capturing CO2 from Coal-Fired Power Plants: Challenges for a Comprehensive Strategy [April 15, 2010]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Any comprehensive approach to substantially reduce greenhouse gases must address the world's dependency on coal for one-quarter of its energy demand, including almost half of its electricity demand. To maintain coal in the world's energy mix in a carbon-constrained future would require development of a technology to capture and stores its carbon dioxide emissions. This situation suggests to some that any greenhouse gas reduction program be delayed until such carbon capture technology has been demonstrated. however, technological innovation and the demands of a carbon control regime are interlined; a technology policy is no substitute for environmental policy and should be developed in concert with it."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Parker, Larry, 1954-; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2010-04-15
• Energy Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) [March 12, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) emphasizes jobs, economic recovery, and assistance to those most impacted by the recession. It also stresses investments in technology, transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure and proposes strategies to stabilize state and local government budgets. Energy provisions are a featured part of ARRA. More than $45 billion is provided in appropriations for energy programs, mainly for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Most funding must be obligated by the end of FY2010. ARRA also provides more than $21 billion in energy tax incentives, primarily for energy efficiency and renewable energy. More than $11 billion is provided in grants for state and local governments through three Department of Energy programs. They are the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides energy efficiency services to low-income households; the State Energy Program, which provides states with discretionary funding that can be used for various energy efficiency and renewable energy purposes; and the new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, which aims to help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The law conditions eligibility for most of the State Energy Program funding on enactment of new building codes and adoption of electric utility rate 'decoupling' to encourage energy efficiency. For the Department of Education, about $8.8 billion is provided for 'Other Government Services,' which may include renovations of schools and college facilities that meet green building criteria. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ($2 billion), and the Environmental Protection Agency ($1 billion) receive multi-purpose funds that can be used for energy efficiency measures in public housing and state and tribal facilities."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Sissine, Fred J.; Andrews, Anthony; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin) . . .

  2009-03-12
• Energy Savings Act of 2007 (S. 1321): Summary of Major Provisions [May 17, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Energy Savings Act (S. 1321) puts forth a broad range of proposals on biofuels, energy efficiency, and carbon storage. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources approved the bill by a vote of 20 to 3, on May 7, 2007. Title I, the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act, is taken primarily from S. 987, with a few other provisions added in markup by the Committee. That title would increase the renewable fuel standard, set some standards for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and provide support for fuel infrastructure, feedstocks, and biorefineries. Title II, the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act, is drawn primarily from S. 1115. That title would set some new standards for energy efficient equipment, establish goals for fuel savings, strengthen federal energy efficiency requirements, and authorize several new programs for vehicles and grants. Title III, the Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, is taken primarily from S. 962 and S. 731. That title would call for large-scale testing of carbon dioxide (CO2) storage in geological formations, establish competitive funding awards, direct that a national storage capacity assessment be conducted, and require that the Department of Energy (DOE) demonstrate the use of large-scale capture technologies at industrial facilities."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Sissine, Fred J.; Yacobucci, Brent D.; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2007-05-17
• Global Climate Change and Wildlife [February 6, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Recently projected climate changes could have widespread effects on wildlife species. These effects may include extinctions, changes in species' ranges, mismatches in their phenology (timing of pollination, flowering, etc.), and population declines. Other species could flourish in response to projected climate change. Effects of climate change on wildlife have been reported for some species and populations in localized areas. Many studies also show that climate change acts in concert with other variables to effect changes in species. If climate change is widespread, there is uncertainty on how wildlife will adapt. Some suggest that evolution and migration will enable species to adapt, whereas others contend that adaptation will be minimal because of limited habitat and that changes in climate may occur more rapidly than adaptation can respond to."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Sheikh, Pervaze A.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Leggett, Jane A. . . .

  2007-02-06
• Energy Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) [March 3, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) emphasizes jobs, economic recovery, and assistance to those most impacted by the recession. It also stresses investments in technology, transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure and proposes strategies to stabilize state and local government budgets. Energy provisions are a featured part of ARRA. More than $42 billion is provided in appropriations for energy programs, mainly for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Most funding must be obligated by the end of FY2010. ARRA also provides more than $21 billion in energy tax incentives, primarily for energy efficiency and renewable energy. More than $11 billion is provided in grants for state and local governments through three Department of Energy programs. They are the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides energy efficiency services to low-income households; the State Energy Program, which provides states with discretionary funding that can be used for various energy efficiency and renewable energy purposes; and the new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, which aims to help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The law conditions eligibility for most of the State Energy Program funding on enactment of new building codes and adoption of electric utility rate 'decoupling' to encourage energy efficiency. For the Department of Education, about $8.8 billion is provided for 'Other Government Services,' which may include renovations of schools and college facilities that meet green building criteria. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ($2 billion),and the Environmental Protection Agency ($1 billion) receive multi-purpose funds that can be used for energy efficiency measures in public housing and state and tribal facilities."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Sissine, Fred J.; Andrews, Anthony; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin) . . .

  2009-03-03
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS): A Primer [July 16, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Carbon capture and sequestration (or storage)--known as CCS--is a physical process that involves capturing manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source and storing it before its release to the atmosphere. CCS could reduce the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere despite the continued use of fossil fuels. An integrated CCS system would include three main steps: (1) capturing CO2 and separating it from other gases; (2) purifying, compressing, and transporting the captured CO2 to the sequestration site; and (3) injecting the CO2 in subsurface geological reservoirs or storing it in the oceans. As a measure for mitigating global climate change, CCS has attracted congressional interest and support because several projects in the United States and abroad--typically associated with oil and gas production--are successfully capturing, injecting, and storing CO2 underground, albeit at relatively small scales. The oil and gas industry in the United States injects nearly 50 million metric tons of CO2 underground each year to help recover oil and gas resources (a process known as enhanced oil recovery, or EOR). Potentially, much larger amounts of CO2 produced from electricity generation--approximately 2.1 billion metric tons per year, about 40% of the total CO2 emitted in the United States from fossil fuels (see Table 1)--could be targeted for large-scale CCS."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2013-07-16
• Earthquakes: Risk, Detection, Warning, and Research [July 18, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Close to 75 million people in 39 states face some risk from earthquakes. Earthquake hazards are greatest in the western United States, particularly in California, but also in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii. Earthquake hazards are also prominent in the Rocky Mountain region and the New Madrid Seismic Zone (a portion of the central United States), as well as in portions of the eastern seaboard, particularly South Carolina. Under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), the federal government supports efforts to assess and monitor earthquake hazards and risk in the United States. Given the potentially huge costs associated with a large, damaging earthquake in the United States, an ongoing issue for Congress is whether the federally supported earthquake programs are appropriate for the earthquake risk. This report discusses: [1] earthquake hazards and risk in the United States, [2] federal programs that support earthquake monitoring, [3] the U.S. capability to detect earthquakes and issue notifications and warnings, and [4] federally supported research to improve the fundamental scientific understanding of earthquakes with a goal of reducing U.S. vulnerability."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2013-07-18
• Shale Energy Technology Assessment: Current and Emerging Water Practices [July 14, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Shale oil and gas (collectively referred to as shale energy), long considered 'unconventional' hydrocarbon resources, are now being developed rapidly. Economic extraction of shale energy resources typically relies on the use of hydraulic fracturing. This technique often requires significant amounts of freshwater, and fracturing flowback and related wastewaters must be recycled or disposed of after a well is completed. While shale energy presents a significant energy resource, its development has the potential to pose risks to water availability and water quality. This report provides a technological assessment of existing and emerging water procurement and management practices in shale energy-producing regions of the United States. The intersection of evolving technology, growing environmental concerns, demand for new sources of hydrocarbon energy, and the potential national interests in developing shale oil and gas resources provides the context for this study. Congressional attention has been focused on two key aspects of the issue: shale energy as a growing U.S. energy source, and environmental concerns associated with the development of these resources."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Tiemann, Mary; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Carter, Nicole T.

  2014-07-14
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at the U.S. Department of Energy [May 2, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On September 20, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-proposed standards for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil-fueled power plants. On January 8, 2014, EPA published the re-proposed rule in the Federal Register, triggering the start of a 60-day public comment period. The proposed rule places a new focus on whether the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) CCS research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program will achieve its vision of developing an advanced CCS technology portfolio ready by 2020 for large-scale CCS deployment. As re-proposed, the standards would limit emissions of CO2 to no more than 1,100 pounds per megawatt-hour (lbs/Mwh) of production from new coal-fired power plants and between 1,000 and 1,100 lbs/Mwh (depending on size of the plant) for new natural gas-fired plants. EPA proposed the standard under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA, new natural gas-fired stationary power plants should be able to meet the proposed standards without additional cost and the need for add-on control technology. However, new coal-fired plants only would be able to meet the standards by installing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. The re-proposed rule has sparked increased scrutiny of the future of CCS as a viable technology for reducing CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2014-05-02
• Carbon Capture: A Technology Assessment [October 21, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is widely seen as a critical strategy for limiting atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)--the principal 'greenhouse gas' linked to global climate change--from power plants and other large industrial sources. This report focuses on the first component of a CCS system, the CO2 capture process. Unlike the other two components of CCS, transportation and geologic storage, the CO2 capture component of CCS is heavily technology-dependent. For CCS to succeed at reducing CO2 emissions from a significant fraction of large sources in the United States, CO2 capture technologies would need to be deployed widely. Widespread commercial deployment will likely depend, in part, on the cost of the technology deployed to capture CO2. This report assesses prospects for improved, lower-cost technologies for each of the three current approaches to CO2 capture: post-combustion capture; pre-combustion capture; and oxy-combustion capture. While all three approaches are capable of high capture efficiencies (typically about 90%), the major drawbacks of current processes are their high cost and the large energy requirements for operation. Another drawback is that at present there are still no full-scale applications of CO2 capture on a coal-fired or gas-fired power plant. However, a number of large-scale demonstration projects at both coal combustion and gasification-based power plants are planned or underway in the United States and elsewhere. Substantial research and development (R&D) activities are also underway in the United States and elsewhere to develop and commercialize lower-cost capture systems with smaller energy penalties."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2013-10-21
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at the U.S. Department of Energy [February 10, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On September 20, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-proposed standards for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil-fueled power plants. On January 8, 2014, EPA published the re-proposed rule in the 'Federal Register', triggering the start of a 60-day public comment period. The proposed rule places a new focus on whether the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) CCS research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program will achieve its vision of developing an advanced CCS technology portfolio ready by 2020 for large-scale CCS deployment. As re-proposed, the standards would limit emissions of CO2 to no more than 1,100 pounds per megawatt-hour (lbs/Mwh) of production from new coal-fired power plants and between 1,000 and 1,100 lbs/Mwh (depending on size of the plant) for new natural gas-fired plants. EPA proposed the standard under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA, new natural gas-fired stationary power plants should be able to meet the proposed standards without additional cost and the need for add-on control technology. However, new coal-fired plants only would be able to meet the standards by installing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. The re-proposed rule has sparked increased scrutiny of the future of CCS as a viable technology for reducing CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2014-02-10
• Carbon Capture: A Technology Assessment [November 5, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Carbon capture and sequestration (or carbon capture and storage, CCS) is widely seen as a critical strategy for limiting atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)--the principal 'greenhouse gas' linked to global climate change--from power plants and other large industrial sources. This report focuses on the first component of a CCS system, the CO2 capture process. Unlike the other two components of CCS, transportation and geologic storage, the CO2 capture component of CCS is heavily technology-dependent. For CCS to succeed at reducing CO2 emissions from a significant fraction of large sources in the United States, CO2 capture technologies would need to be deployed widely. Widespread commercial deployment would likely depend, in part, on the cost of the technology deployed to capture CO2. This report assesses prospects for improved, lower-cost technologies for each of the three current approaches to CO2 capture: post-combustion capture; pre-combustion capture; and oxy-combustion capture."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2013-11-05
• FutureGen Carbon Capture and Sequestration Project: A Brief History and Issues for Congress [February 10, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "More than a decade after the George W. Bush Administration announced its signature clean coal power initiative--FutureGen--the program is still in early development. Since its inception in 2003, FutureGen has undergone changes in scope and design. As initially conceived, FutureGen would have been the world's first coal-fired power plant to integrate carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) with integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technologies. FutureGen would have captured and stored carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal combustion in deep underground saline formations and produced hydrogen for electricity generation and fuel cell research. Increasing costs of development, among other considerations, caused the Bush Administration to discontinue the project in 2008. In 2010, under the Obama Administration, the project was restructured as FutureGen 2.0: a coal-fired power plant that would integrate oxycombustion technology to capture CO2. FutureGen 2.0 is the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) most comprehensive CCS demonstration project, combining all three aspects of CCS technology: capturing and separating CO2 from other gases, compressing and transporting CO2 to the sequestration site, and injecting CO2 in geologic formations for permanent storage. Congressional interest in CCS technology centers on balancing the competing national interests of fostering low-cost, domestic sources of energy like coal against mitigating the effects of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. FutureGen 2.0 would address these interests by demonstrating CCS technology as commercially viable."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2014-02-10
• California Drought: Hydrological and Regulatory Water Supply Issues [August 14, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "California is in its fourth year of drought. As of late July 2015, 47% of California was experiencing exceptional drought--the most severe U.S. federal drought classification--and approximately 71% of the state was experiencing extreme drought. The 2014 water year (October 2013 through September 2014) was the third driest on record. Water users that receive water supplies from the state of California and federal water projects are experiencing unprecedented water supply shortages due to the drought. Severe water supply shortages also hampered the state during a recent three-year drought (2008-2010). Paleontological and tree-ring records indicate that California has experienced many multiyear droughts over several millennia; however, some experts estimate that the current drought may be the most severe in the past 1,200 years. This report focuses on hydrological and regulatory compliance issues that affect operation and management of two large water supply projects that serve farms and communities throughout California: the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in the Department of the Interior, and the State Water Project (SWP), owned and operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Reductions in water supplied by these projects in drought years result in economic disruption across the state such as concentrated crop and financial losses in agricultural areas throughout the Central Valley, including portions of the San Joaquin Valley. At the same time, several fish species--one of which may be close to extinction--whose habitat lies at the heart of California's water supply system and throughout its northern rivers are in decline. Declining fish species, exacerbated by drought, also may have economic implications, resulting in job and income losses in coastal areas. In addition, the drought and low water supplies affect recreation, power production, other industries, and small and large communities."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Cody, Betsy A.; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Brown, Cynthia

  2015-08-14
• Recovery Act Funding for DOE Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Projects [February 18, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Federal policymakers have long been interested in the potential of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as a mitigation strategy for lowering global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). Congress has appropriated more than $7 billion since FY2008 to CCS activities at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The Obama Administration has promulgated rules on CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-burning power plants and entered into a global agreement to limit CO2 emissions. Congress remains divided over those executive branch decisions. DOE, however, has continued to embrace CCS as part of the Administration's strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. Several bills introduced in the 114th Congress address CCS directly or indirectly (e.g., S. 601, S. 1283, H.R. 3392, and others). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act; P.L. 111-5) provided $3.4 billion for CCS projects and activities at DOE. The large infusion of funding was intended to help develop technologies that would allow for commercial-scale demonstration of CCS in both new and retrofitted power plants and industrial facilities by 2020. Nine individual projects garnered approximately $2.65 billion of the $3.4 billion--about 78%. Each of the nine projects was awarded more than $100 million, and these projects illustrate that DOE prioritized large-scale demonstration projects with Recovery Act funding. The lion's share of funding went to DOE's flagship CCS project FutureGen, which was awarded nearly $1 billion from the Recovery Act."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2016-02-18
• Sea-Level Rise and U.S. Coasts: Science and Policy Considerations [September 12, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Policymakers are interested in sea-level rise because of the risk to coastal populations and infrastructure and the consequences for coastal species and ecosystems. From 1901 to 2010, global sea levels rose an estimated 187 millimeters (mm; 7.4 inches), averaging a 1.7 mm (0.07 inch) rise annually. Estimates are that the annual rate rose to 3.2 mm (0.13 inches) from 1992 to 2010. Although the extent of future sea-level rise remains uncertain, sea-level rise is anticipated to have a range of effects on U.S. coasts. It is anticipated to contribute to flood and erosion hazards, permanent or temporary land inundation, saltwater intrusion into coastal freshwaters, and changes in coastal terrestrial and estuarine ecosystems. Some states, such as Florida and Louisiana, and U.S. territories have a considerable share of their assets, people, economies, and water supplies vulnerable to sea-level rise. In 2010, roughly 100 million people lived in U.S. coastal shoreline counties. Increased flood risk associated with sea-level rise may increase demand for federal disaster assistance and challenge the National Flood Insurance Program. Federal programs support local and state infrastructure investments such as roads, bridges, and municipal water facilities that may be damaged or impaired. Sea-level rise also is anticipated to affect numerous federal facilities. [...] Policy choices related to sea-level rise have the potential to shape the future development and resiliency of U.S. coasts. Policy options include a continuation of current government programs and policies, actions that address the forces contributing to sea-level rise globally or locally, and actions that reduce the vulnerability to and consequences of sea-level rise on U.S. coasts."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Carter, Nicole T.

  2016-09-12
• Funding for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) at DOE: In Brief [May 26, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the introduction: "Carbon capture and sequestration (or storage)--known as CCS--is a physical process that involves capturing man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source and storing it before its release to the atmosphere. CCS could reduce the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from the continued use of fossil fuels at power plants and other large, industrial facilities. An integrated CCS system would include three main steps: (1) capturing CO2 before it is emitted to the atmosphere and separating it from other gases; (2) purifying, compressing, and transporting the captured CO2 to the sequestration site; and (3) injecting the CO2 into subsurface geological reservoirs. Following its injection into a subsurface reservoir, the CO2 would need to be monitored for leakage and to verify that it remains in the target geological reservoir. Once injection operations cease, a responsible party would need to take title to the injected CO2 and ensure that it stays underground in perpetuity. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has pursued research and development (R&D) [Research and Development] of aspects of the three main steps leading to an integrated CCS system since 1997. Congress has long been interested in the future of CCS as a mitigation strategy for lowering global emissions of CO2. Since FY2008, Congress has appropriated more than $7 billion for CCS activities at DOE. Nearly half that funding, $3.4 billion, came from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5; enacted February 17, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the Recovery Act). Authority to expend Recovery Act funding expired at the end of FY2015 [Fiscal Year]."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2016-05-26
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at the U.S. Department of Energy [June 10, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Carbon capture and sequestration (or storage)--known as CCS--is a physical process that involves capturing manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source and storing it before its release to the atmosphere. CCS could reduce the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere while allowing the continued use of fossil fuels at power plants and other large, industrial facilities. An integrated CCS system would include three main steps: (1) capturing CO2 at its source and separating it from other gases; (2) purifying, compressing, and transporting the captured CO2 to the sequestration site; and (3) injecting the CO2 into subsurface geological reservoirs. Following its injection into a subsurface reservoir, the CO2 would need to be monitored for leakage and to verify that it remains in the target geological reservoir. Once injection operations cease, a responsible party would need to take title to the injected CO2 and ensure that it stays underground in perpetuity. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has pursued research and development of aspects of the three main steps leading to an integrated CCS system since 1997. Congress has appropriated approximately $6 billion in total since FY2008 for CCS research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) at DOE's Office of Fossil Energy: approximately $2.7 billion in total annual appropriations (including FY2013), and $3.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5, enacted February 17, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the Recovery Act). The large and rapid influx of funding for industrial-scale CCS projects from the Recovery Act may accelerate development and demonstration of CCS in the United States, particularly if the RD&D pursued by DOE's CCS program achieves its goals as outlined in the department's 2010 RD&D 'CCS Roadmap'. However, the future deployment of CCS may take a different course if the major components of the DOE program follow a path similar to DOE's FutureGen project, which has experienced delays and multiple changes of scope and design since its inception in 2003.3 This report aims to provide a snapshot of the DOE CCS program, including its current funding levels and the budget request for FY2014, together with some discussion of the program's achievements and prospects for success in meeting its stated goals."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2013-06-10
• Carbon Cycle: Implications for Climate Change and Congress [June 25, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Congress is considering several legislative strategies that would reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases -- primarily carbon dioxide (CO2 ) -- or increase uptake and storage of CO2 from the atmosphere, or both. Both approaches are viewed by many as critical to forestalling global climate changed caused, in part, by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities. Others point out that the human contribution of carbon to the atmosphere is a small fraction of the total quantity of carbon that cycles back and forth each year between the atmosphere and two huge carbon reservoirs: (1) the global oceans, and (2) the land surface of the entire planet. The exchange, or flux, of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, and land surface is called the global carbon cycle. […] This report explores the answer to that question and attempts to put the human contribution of carbon to the atmosphere in to the larger context of the global carbon cycle. The report focuses almost entirely on CO2, although methane (CH4 ), black carbon, and organic carbon pollution are also part of the carbon cycle and have roles in human-induced climate change. Carbon dioxide, alone, is responsible for over half of the change in Earth's radiation balance, and methane for about an additional 20%."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2007-06-25
• FutureGen: A Brief History and Issues for Congress [April 3, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "FutureGen is a clean-coal technology program managed through a public-private partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the FutureGen Industrial Alliance. The FutureGen program as originally conceived in 2003 by the George W. Bush Administration had the intent of constructing a net zero-emission fossil-fueled power plant with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. CCS is a process envisioned to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from burning fossil fuels and store it in deep underground geologic formations, thus preventing its release into the atmosphere. If widely deployed in the United States, CCS could decrease the amount of U.S.-emitted CO2, a greenhouse gas associated with climate change. In 2008, DOE withdrew from the FutureGen partnership, citing rising costs of construction as its reason. Subsequently, DOE restructured the FutureGen program to instead develop two or three demonstration projects in different power plants around the country. In 2010, the Obama administration announced another change to the program with the introduction of FutureGen 2.0, which would retrofit an existing coal-fueled power plant in Illinois with CCS technology. […] This report briefly summarizes the history of FutureGen, discusses why it has gained interest and support from some Members of Congress and the Administration while remaining in initial stages of development, and offers some policy considerations on barriers that challenge its further development as a model for a CCS program."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2013-04-03