Debunking the U.S. Chamber’s Narrative on CCUS and our Zero Emission Future

By Logan Solomon, August 26th 2021

The Chamber’s weak climate policy was made clear in their recent letter on the Clean Electricity Standard (CES), a requirement which would result in 100% clean electricity by 2035. They believe the current pace of innovation is not ready to meet CES without increasing rates or compromising grid reliability. The letter doesn’t mention net zero, but rather calls for a partial tax credit for technologies that will “reduce our carbon footprint”, allowing fossil fuel institutions to remain. In its stance, the Chamber is being woefully regressive, and must do better to back its claims of supporting a “market based approach” by calling on congress to act through various market policies to decarbonize our economy.

By allowing fossil fuels to stay, the Chamber also continues to fuel the problem of air pollution, which disproportionately hurts communities of color. In fact, a 2019 study found that Black and Latino people are especially at risk of being affected by air pollution. The Chamber's influence helped block Obama’s decarbonization efforts and fueled Trump’s deregulation, allowing industry to continue to unevenly pollute in marginalized communities. The Chamber’s  “innovation, not elimination” and “all of the above” strategy relies heavily on the modernization of current fossil fuels through CCUS.

CCUS shouldn’t be a priority, but particular technologies should be researched

Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) encompasses technologies which remove CO2 from a plant's exhaust or directly from the atmosphere, followed by recycling the CO2 for utilization and then determining safe storage. CCUS allows fossil fuel institutions to continue operating, and hence disproportionately exploiting the health of marginalized communities. These institutions do this all in the name of maximizing profit and remaining in the energy mix. We need a just deployment of zero emission technologies, not policy representation of special fossil fuel interests.

CCUS technologies range in technological maturity, but all of them have issues. Mature technologies have a longer history of being implemented in facilities, yet typically become expensive due to energy inefficiency or their inherent economic reliance on fossil fuels. Regardless of expense, these technologies only capture limited emissions and fail to store them as intended, further contributing to pollution. 

In Petra Nova’s three year period using coal fired CCS, 33% of total CO2 emissions were captured, ultimately missing its carbon capture goal by 17%. This technology, like most carbon capture projects, was only retrofitted in one smaller unit amongst the larger facility. Petra Nova’s CCS worked by capturing flue gas and then injecting it in oil reservoirs for extraction, which was supposed to be the solution for paying for the technology. However, an eventual dip in oil prices forced Petra Nova to shut down, leading to “warning signs” and  “red flags” for investors . Even with tax incentives, experts say projects like Petra Nova are “predicted to have to restructure, push for bankruptcy, or prompt to shut down entirely”.

Furthermore, funding for carbon capture deployment is ultimately a subsidy for large fossil fuel institutions. ExxonMobil is “the carbon capture and storage leader” and since 1970 captured 40% of the total amount of CO2 ever captured, more than any other company. Much of this captured CO2 was sold to other companies, who used it for oil extraction that contributed to global warming. Any efforts towards CCUS should be directed towards research and development of early stage technologies—​​as these have real potential in eliminating emissions and retrofitting more plants—not providing subsidies for established fossil fuel giants.

Currently no technology captures all CO2, but early stage technologies are most promising in being net zero. They need research as they are not proven, but offer lots of potential, either capturing a lot more emissions than maturer technologies or expanding the areas where carbon capture can be used. Targeted funds for advancing these technologies are needed so that technologies with the most potential to get to net-zero are developed. Innovating CCUS is only a small piece; renewable deployment must be expanded and we need to maintain current zero-emission technologies. 

Prioritize zero emissions market levers and discontinue current trends

In order to meet Biden’s goal of clean electricity by 2035, reducing emissions incentives won’t be enough. We need incentives that justly deploy renewables, strengthen transmission, promote early retirement of fossil fuel plants, and prolong zero emitting nuclear facilities that have community support and are safe. 

The Chamber advocates for “innovation not elimination” and “all of the above”, which is business as usual policy that has left us falling behind in decarbonization. Recent studies suggest the yearly pace of deployment for renewables may need to double to fully decarbonize. The EIA predicts that due to current policy, natural gas’s share of the U.S. electricity generation mix will remain at about one-third of total generation from 2020 to 2050. We need action now.

Not just a few market levers

In terms of short-term policy actions, the Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now (GREEN) Act should be passed as it has several tax incentives that would increase deployment, but this bill alone won’t be enough. Analysis has found that only passing the GREEN Act would deploy renewables to replace zero emission nuclear, rather than coal or natural gas, which would remain competitive. Along with funding towards research for promising CCUS technologies, we need a suite of policies that result in decarbonization:

• Incentivizes to safely retain nuclear infrastructure until the end of its life cycle is needed in order to prevent zero emissions nuclear from being replaced with natural gas.

• A loan forgiveness program for federal fossil fuel plants when substituted with renewables would help reduce carbon infrastructure.

• An extension on tax credits for solar & wind is needed to meet deployment needs. 

• Tax credit for transmission which unlocks more renewable deployment and would allow for regional energy security.

• Additional federal investments in renewables for low-income and historically disadvantaged communities so that polluting institutions are outcompeted from the energy mix.

There are countless market driven programs that have little impact on utility bills and decarbonize our economy. 

The Chamber says they are on board for “market based mechanisms”; now is the time to tell Congress to take action through implementing market incentives which align with the goal of 100% clean electricity by 2035. We need “all of the above” but for zero-emission technologies. The Chamber’s support of the Bipartisan American Nuclear Infrastructure Act and recognition that  “some technologies are not commercially available yet” must only be the beginning of their efforts. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce must advocate for market based mechanisms that actually decarbonize our economy and not pander to emitter interests.