Carbon capture and storage policy in the United States: A new coalition endeavors to change existing policy |
| |
| Authors: | Melisa Pollak Sarah Johnson Phillips Shalini Vajjhala |
| |
| Institution: | a Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States
b Resources for the Future, 1616 P St. NW, Washington, DC 20036, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered by some to be a promising technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and advocates are seeking policies to facilitate its deployment. Unlike many countries, which approach the development of policies for geologic storage (GS) of carbon dioxide (CO2) with nearly a blank slate, the U.S. already has a mature policy regime devoted to the injection of CO2 into deep geologic formations. However, the existing governance of CO2 injection is designed to manage enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and policy changes would be needed to manage the risks and benefits of CO2 injection for the purpose of avoiding GHG emissions. We review GS policy developments at both the U.S. federal and state levels, including original research on state GS policy development. By applying advocacy coalition framework theory, we identify two competing coalitions defined by their beliefs about the primary purpose of CO2 injection: energy supply or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. The established energy coalition is the beneficiary of the current policy regime. Their vision of GS policy is protective: to minimize harm to fossil energy industries if climate policy were to be enacted. In contrast, the newly formed climate coalition seeks to change existing GS policy to support their proactive vision: to maximize GHG reductions using CCS when climate policy is enacted. We explore where and at what scale legislation emerges and examine which institutions gain prominence as drivers of policy change. Through a detailed textual analysis of the content of state GS legislation, we find that the energy coalition has had greater success than the climate coalition in shaping state laws to align with its policy preferences. It has enshrined its view of the purpose of CO2 injection in state legislation, delegated authority for GS to state agencies aligned with the existing policy regime, and protected the EOR status quo, while creating new opportunities for EOR operators to profit from the storage of CO2 The climate coalition's objective of proactively putting GS policy in place has been furthered, and important progress has been made on commonly held concerns, such as the resolution of property rights issues, but the net result is policy change that does not significantly revise the existing policy regime. |
| |
| Keywords: | CCS Geologic storage EOR Advocacy coalition framework State policy |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
