Since last year’s landmark climate legislation, members of congress are looking for niche areas of climate progress. Enter the Carbon Removal and Emissions Storage Technologies (CREST) Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at accelerating carbon removal and storage solutions.
It was introduced by U.S. Senators Susan Collins and Maria Cantwell and also has a bipartisan version in the House, the CREST Act tasks the Departments of Energy with initiating research programs and exploring the feasibility of a number of carbon removal pathways.
The legislation focuses on several carbon removal techniques, such as biomass-based removal, ocean CDR, and DAC and geologic storage. A wide swath of organizations, including many familiar to the CDR industry like Clearpath, Stripe, and Vesta, have signed a letter of support.
In this episode, we going to delve into the details of the CREST Act, its potential impact on our climate, and the implications of its bipartisan support. Will it help scale up a domestic CDR industry? How will the Act's pilot reverse auction purchasing program facilitate the commercialization of carbon removal?
We’ll also take a look at the recent developments at the UNFCCC and their work on revising Article 6.4. The tone of their first draft has attracted a lot of attention and controversy for the way it characterized CDR.
Joining our policy panel are two experts in the field of carbon removal: Savita Bowman, Program Manager at ClearPath, who works on organization's carbon dioxide removal initiatives, and Holly Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo and author of “Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net-Zero is Not Enough”.
On This Episode
Resources
Connect with Nori
Nori’s other podcast Reversing Climate Change
Nori’s CDR meme twitter account
Full Transcript
Announcer: You’re listening to Carbon Removal Newsroom, a weekly show about current events in the world of carbon removal, from technology and innovation to policymaking and job growth. Brought to you by Nori, the carbon removal marketplace.
Asa Kamer: Welcome to this week’s edition of Carbon Removal Newsroom. Your regular host, Radhika Mulgavkar, is out this week. I’m going to be taking the helm. My name is Asa Kamer. I’m the producer of The show, and this week we have our policy panel, and we’ve got an excellent panel, so you’ll be in good hands, even without Radica. So following last year’s landmark climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, Members of Congress have been looking for niche areas of climate progress. So one such example is the Carbon Removal and Emissions Storage Technologies, or the CREST Act.
It’s a bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at accelerating carbon removal and storage solutions. It was introduced by Senators Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, and Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington State, and also has a bipartisan version in the House. And the CREST Act Tasks the Department of Energy with initiating research programs and exploring the feasibility of a number of carbon removal pathways. It focuses on several carbon removal techniques such as biomass based removal, ocean CDR, as well as DAC paired with geologic storage. A letter of support has been signed by a wide swath of organizations familiar to our audience, such as ClearPath, Stripe, and Vesta and many more.
So in today’s episode, we’re going to delve into the details of the CREST Act and the implications of its bipartisan support. We’re also going to take a look at some recent developments at the UNFCCC, which we talked about last week, but we’re going to get our panel this week to discuss as well because it’s so important. So the work going on there to revise Article 6. 4. And as a reminder, the tone of the first draft that they put out has attracted a lot of attention and controversy for the way that it characterized CDR.
So our panel this week are two experts in carbon removal. First, we have Savi Bowman, a program manager at ClearPath who works on the organization’s carbon removal initiatives. Hi, Savi. Thanks for joining us.
Savita Bowman: Hey, thanks for having me back.
Asa Kamer: All right. And we also have Holly Buck, who is an assistant professor of environment and sustainability at the University of Buffalo and an author of the book Ending Fossil Fuels, Why Net Zero Is Not Enough. Hi, Holly.
Holly Jean Buck: Hello.
Asa Kamer: Awesome. All right. So let’s dive into the Crest Act here. Savvy, you’re in DC. You’ve been on our show before kind of giving us the blow by blow accounts of what’s going on in Congress. You’re plugged in. So what is the Crest Act? How would it work? And why do you think, I mean, why, what are these lawmakers trying to do? Why are they, why has this been introduced?
Savita Bowman: Yeah, great question. So as you correctly pointed out, Asa, the Crest Act was introduced last Congress by Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, and Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington State. So bipartisan in the Senate, and then in the House, Representative John Curtis, a Republican from Utah, and Scott Peters, a Democrat from California. It has been reintroduced to Congress in the Senate and had a couple other senators Included in this reintroduction, Senator Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, Senator King, Independent from Maine, and Senator Kuhn, a Democrat from Delaware. And so this bill, it does three key things.
It expands CDR RD&D. It authorizes, that’s the first, number two, it authorizes funding for assessments for technological or economic barriers to wide-scale deployment of CDR and facilitates life cycle assessments. And lastly, it authorizes a competitive purchase program to purchase from CDR providers that not only meet the quality criteria, but also meet the low-cost criteria set by DOE. So the Title I is really where all the RD&D lives, and it’s great because it builds off of programs that were previously authorized in the Energy Act of 2020, which modernized RD&D at DOE and included the actual first comprehensive federal carbon Removal Research and Development Program.
But this expansion then also includes pathways like bikers, ocean carbon removal and mineralization. So looking at understanding how we can expand the portfolio of solutions is really what the CREST Act does and how we can then kind of pull a lot of these solutions along and get them to that commercial point is what we’re hoping the procurement provisions Great.
Asa Kamer: And so you kind of touched on this, but I’m going to ask Holly about like a little context for the last few years. So Holly, what do you think about the trajectory of federal support for carbon removal in the last few years? And do you think the passage of the CREST Act would be a positive development?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, it’s a relative question relative to nothing. I think it’s been pretty decent, both in terms of funding for research and moving into demonstration with the DAC hubs. And so I think obviously this would be positive. I think that the first part is, you could see it as a continuation of existing work that’s already going on with regards to R&D, but with more techniques, which I think is good. My main concern is how it will be organized within DOE and the federal government, which we can get into because these techniques really cross both domains as well as technological readiness levels.
But I think it’s great, for example, to see a report on the offshore capacity for Deep sea carbon storage. That’s something where we really do need to further develop the scientific basis. So I think that’s great. I think the pilot carbon removal purchasing program with the reverse auction mechanism would be really good. The only thing I think is missing worth calling out is that you have this title on carbon removal quantification where they’re calling for Assessments of technological or economic barriers to the wide scale deployment of carbon removal pathways. Again, like we’re missing assessing the social landscape, which I’m not surprised about because it’s a continuation of the existing pattern.
But this is a place where we really do need to start to pivot and think about actually funding social analysis and engagement and all of that stuff if we are serious about scale up.
Asa Kamer: We’ve touched on it a bit, but Savvy, can you break down for us the, I mean, something that’s interesting about this is the procurement component, the reverse auction. It’s a step past focusing only on research, like Holly said. So why would that be significant? And how politically likely do you think it is that the reverse auction will survive to the final bill or to passage?
Savita Bowman: Well, you’re absolutely right. It is significant because this will send a clear signal to the market that there is a ready and serious customer for their product. Procurement acts like a time-shifting mechanism. It helps establish an initial market demand for a product and competitively bring down costs. So as many of us know, CDR is a newer solution, or the newer solutions within CDR, sorry, can go up to $2,000 per ton, depending on the level of technological intervention required. And emerging ocean technologies that are currently in the lab, like electrochemical separation of CO2 from seawater or ocean alkalinity enhancement may cost even more depending on the infrastructure needs, especially because building in the ocean is not cheap.
This will then also have an immediate impact and catalyze more private sector investments beyond what we’ve seen with the Frontier Fund for things like projects and debt financing. So I’ll also note that it’s, It’s so important to have a purchasing program focused on the criteria of CDR, purchasing paired with a low-cost tiebreaker, because we want to make sure that the solutions being deployed have good MRV durability and the capability to come down in cost. And to Holly’s point, also have that good engagement and social aspect as well. As for the politics, I’m optimistic that we’ll see this move forward.
I chuckled in the beginning because I like to think that I’m an optimistic person. And so Republicans have worked together in the past, the past legislation on energy innovation, through the Energy Act and the IIJA and also in the Chips and Science Act. I think innovation is a bipartisan support. So this too is an extension of that support. And so we have the opportunity to continue that bipartisanship here.
Asa Kamer: This act was first proposed in 2020. Just for those of us who aren’t kind of in the loop, how does that work?
Savita Bowman: Well, so it was introduced at the tail, or the first time the press act was introduced was at the tail end of last Congress. And so, you know, there wasn’t any definitive action that was able to be taken before the Congress was over. And so that’s where I think we’re seeing a lot of push for it to be reintroduced in this Congress so that there will be action because we’re You know, kind of early on in the Congress and we have a little bit of ramp time before, you know, socialization and voting and all of that happens.
So I think that it’s something that at least we at Clear Path are optimistic and would love to see move forward.
Asa Kamer: All right, great. So we’ll have to keep an eye on this over the next like year or so. And hopefully we can follow this all the way to the end. So Holly, going back to the We have one of the authors, Maria Cantwell from Democratic Washington, a state that’s been very proactive on climate policy. We have a co-sponsor, Bill Cassidy, who’s been a big supporter of oil and gas from Fair Republic in Louisiana. They’re all interested. So is this a positive sign to you, or do you think that it potentially poses a risk that the ultimate bill might be sort of watered down if it’s something for everyone?
Holly Jean Buck: I think it’s probably positive. I’m not Totally sure what watering down would look like. It really does have a lot of things bound up together. So under geological carbon removal, you’re looking at enhanced weathering as well as mineralization, geologic mineralization. And then with aquatic carbon removal, you’re looking at direct ocean capture, but also blue carbon and thinking about one thing I found interesting is that in the assessment of offshore Carbon storage, they’re looking at geological formations, but also biomass sinking, but also within the oceans is liquid CO2 storage, which I think would be really contentious, but I think it’s worth doing a scientifically based assessment on it.
So I do think that right now I like how it’s kind of looking at all this stuff and I hope it wouldn’t lose that.
Asa Kamer: And Savvy, what do you think about the bipartisanship? I mean, obviously like on its face, That’s a positive development and there’s not a lot of areas within climate policy that both sides seem to agree. So we have a divided Congress here. What is your take on the bipartisan nature of this?
Savita Bowman: I think bipartisanship is very significant. It’s what ensures sustainability and technological progress. I mean, whenever there is a partisan exercise that excludes the opinion of the other side, progress tends to be stifled in the next Congress as some hurt feelings take time to recover. And innovators and project developers are then kind of the ones who are subject to this because they have to adapt or even, you know, halt operations depending on the policies that are in place. So this sometimes can kind of create a lack of security and unsure timeline.
So if we’re wondering if bipartisanship is a good thing, it definitely is. Most of the major energy legislation that was enacted in the last three years was either enacted on a bipartisan basis Or contain provisions that have historically enjoyed bipartisan support like 45Q. Unfortunately, carbon removal has been a bipartisan space. I was actually at Carbon Unbound in New York City a couple of weeks ago. And we were just talking about the fact that bipartisanship in CDR is actually very unique. And I think keeping that bipartisanship will be sort of that key to making sure that the industry is able to scale and really flourish.
So I think the Crest Act is a great example and is one way we’re gonna be able to continue in this space It is very interesting, the persistence of the bipartisan support.
Asa Kamer: Holly, you recently spent some time within the DOE reading how this would work. What can you tell us about the impact of this funding? Where would it go? Is it going to the right place based on what you saw from within the DOE?
Holly Jean Buck: I don’t know if there’s one right place for it. I think it’s going to many right places, but I think there needs to be some mechanism by which these places can talk with each other. So you’ve got some money going to the Bioenergy Technologies Office in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy within DOE. You have some going to fossil energy and carbon management. There’s some things where they’ll have to work together. There’s a discussion in this bill about, for example, co-firing fossil fuels with biomass. But then there’s some things like genetic modification of soil enhancements.
Well, there you have NSF and Agricultural Research Service, and you’ve got all these energies and agencies that need to coordinate. And I know there’s been proposed legislation trying to improve Interagency coordination, but I don’t know what the status of that is, and so that is an area of concern, but I’m optimistic we can figure it out.
Asa Kamer: While we’re on the subject, I guess the question’s for both of you, but are there other policy developments, legislation, or funding, or anything that you’re going to be watching for related to carbon removal for the remainder of this Congress and this presidential term between now and the next election? Savvy, what do you think?
Savita Bowman: We’re actually tracking quite a few things, but I think it’s more so on the permitting and storage side because a lot of companies are coming to stepping up to bat on carbon removal and even carbon capture. And so ensuring that there’s enough storage space for these projects is really going to be critical in the next year in transportation and all of these infrastructure pieces. So we’re really watching Permitting classifications for storage, so looking at whether or not CO2 injection into basalt would be a permissible activity through the Class 6 injection program.
Understanding whether or not if a Class 2 well is no longer used for extraction, whether it can fully transition to a Class 6 well and just be used purely for storage. And then also just movement on classics primacy generally to make sure that if there are states who are applying that, you know, we are moving in an orderly pace to get these permits because project developers are needing that sort of certainty and that timeline understanding.
Asa Kamer: Yeah, that’s something we’ve heard a lot about on the show is some of the regulatory hurdles when it comes to underground storage. Just briefly, are you hopeful about this in terms of resolving this bottleneck? Do you think there’s legislative fixes coming up soon?
Savita Bowman: I’m hopeful about it. I know that EPA, the main concern from them is that They are a small group of people. And, you know, the funny thing is you can’t really get a underground injection control program plastic specialist overnight. So it’s tough to fully staff a large group and all these projects coming along is just going to add to their workload. And so making sure that there’s enough capacity is one thing. But I am optimistic because we started seeing movement, you know, Louisiana got their proposed rule. Hopefully, once that deadline is met, we’ll be able to see the final rule published.
And I believe there’s something like, I don’t know, 70 EPA permit requests for Class 6 storage projects. So I’m optimistic that there is going to be movement. I think we just need to make sure that we’re providing the best support we can to these agencies to be able to effectively do their jobs.
Asa Kamer: Cool. Well, I kind of want to do like a whole podcast series just on that. Holly, what about you? Are there, what are you looking for in terms of like policy or, you know, federal action?
Holly Jean Buck: Honestly, I’m mostly focused on the execution of the policy we’ve seen in the past year or two. And, you know, what actually manifests, I can’t even wrap my head around new things. The research funding that goes out, the hydrogen hubs, I mean, kind of all of it.
Savita Bowman: Actually, one thing I just do want to note before we move on that’s actually a pretty interesting development is that in the FY23 Consolidated Appropriations Act, there was language included for CDR purchasing and something we’re watching is the implementation of that. So I know DOE is currently going through that process of figuring out what that looks like and trying to figure out what that breakup of purchasing looks like, who’s going to own that purchasing power because I think it was at the DOE level, not At an office level. So that’ll be really interesting to see how they fully implement it.
And then what happens in the FY24 Appropriations Act and whether or not there’s any plus up to that would be something we want to keep an eye out for.
Asa Kamer: Okay, great. Well, this is why it’s good having you on the show because there’s a lot happening. It’s very hard to keep up with all the details. And that’s just the US, but now we have to talk about global governance. So we’re going to talk a little bit about the UNFCCC, which as our listeners probably know, they’ve been revising or adding language about carbon removal to the text that governs the carbon trading system within the Paris Agreement. And so it’s caused some controversy. They cast a little shade on engineered carbon removal.
So Holly, what did you think of this development and the draft statement they put out?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, so with the context that you talked about this with Will Burns already, the first thing I’ll say to contextualize it is it’s not exactly a statement. It’s an informational note, kind of like a background note, and actually the fourth version of it. And so these kind of documents come out all the time. So it’s not clear to me that it’s super important because when governments actually sit down to negotiate, the result will be based on their objectives. But I think it got pressed because it was picked up in social media and the media Knows that CDR is algorithmogenic.
So, you know, EE News had their story. UN slams carbon removal is unproven and risky, which they put a picture of a coal bucket wheel excavator. Sorry, I just had to rant about that. What does that have to do with carbon removal? So, you know, that’s the reason we’re talking about it. But, you know, there’s a meeting on the Article 6. 4 mechanism supervisory body in Bonn, kind of ahead of the A bigger climate meeting in Bonn that’s happening right now. And already they dropped 10-year accounting from consideration. So that’s good.
And there’s another round of a public consultation process. So you could write to that. It’s open until June 19th. And then they’ll do a fifth or however many iterations of this informational note they’re going to do. So I’m glad it’s like getting people engaged in the UN process, I guess, is the optimistic take.
Asa Kamer: Well, that’s actually breaking news to me that they dropped the 10-year accounting portion, which we touched on last week. So that’s good to hear. And Savvy, what about you? Did you have a reaction to this update and have you been responding?
Savita Bowman: I was a little surprised, I’m not going to lie. And I know they say even bad press is good press, but I would like to highlight that. I would love it for CDR to just right now remain neutral or get good press, because especially if it’s misinformation or incorrect information, that’s really when it becomes a challenge. So I mean, ClearPath, we signed on to a community letter that more than 100 carbon normal blackbirds signed on to in response to the UNFCCC’s Article 6. 4. Carbon Business Council was the leader on a lot of this effort and they have the full letter on their page.
But yeah, we did sign on because we felt that we want to make sure that carbon removal does stay part of the solution and there’s recognition of that.
Asa Kamer: Holly, so you’re kind of giving us an insight into the process. You know, it’s a large committee. They get a lot of input from outside groups. Do you know much about the process for these? Specific revisions and what kind of groups and points of view were being represented to get this output that you know this this this view that a lot of people have taken issue with.
Holly Jean Buck: Yes, so I don’t know what their writing process are but you know you can read the public input that’s been submitted. And so there’s some from the carbon removal industry. There’s some from countries, which is kind of interesting, like Korea wanted to consider storage and products because they might not have a huge geological or terrestrial capacity. Russia wanted consideration of other greenhouse gas removals besides CO2. Why? I’m not sure. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Is that the right way to say that acronym? Basically, they wanted none of this.
I had no idea how hostile they were to carbon removal. And so how all of these perspectives added up into that document, I have no idea. I don’t know if anybody knows. But again, it will go into negotiation eventually and be probably completely different.
Asa Kamer: And Holly, do you think that part of what’s going on here is that maybe some of the decision makers involved aren’t like it’s, you know, this is a fast moving field, you know, generally where we are pretty optimistic about carbon removal and some of the innovations happening. Do you think part of it is that they just don’t know how far the field is coming or are, you know, basing it on some outdated assumptions?
Holly Jean Buck: I don’t know, because the input I read was all, I mean, it was well informed in its way, right? Even if it had its own perspective. And so I think the problem is that maybe the industry or the field is dominated by the US and Europe, generally the global north. And so, you know, this is an international group that’s considering it and This is maybe what we get for not doing better outreach and collaborative research internationally.
Asa Kamer: There you go. So one more question for both of you. Last question. We did see, like Holly said, kind of a big response from the CDR industry. At least a lot of US representation, which maybe goes to Holly’s last point, and Europe representation signing this letter from the Carbon Business Council in different ways, some organizing going on. Do we think it’s too little too late or is this maybe an indication of more collaboration and action going forward in maybe a more positive way? Savvy, do you have thoughts on that?
Savita Bowman: I tend to think that this is a positive indication of more collaboration and action in the future. I know that The response was a little reactive and sometimes when the US is so focused on our innovation here at home, we don’t necessarily translate that to global initiatives, but I think that this is one iteration and there is going to be many more and there’s a lot of optimism to work together on these solutions. So I perceive this as an opportunity to continue collaboration and develop stronger Partnerships domestically and internationally. I mean, ClearPath, we just recently expanded to work on international global policy.
And so we’re hoping to, you know, set up a little bit more coordination internationally on these innovations. I have to admit, you know, we are focused on some niche power sector areas for now, but I know that there’s been significant momentum around CDR internationally, especially when it comes to things like COP and COP coming up this year. So hopefully that’ll be a really good way to spotlight some of the global efforts.
Asa Kamer: Great.
Holly Jean Buck: No, I would basically agree. I think that the industry had been participating in some of these comment periods last year, but it was nice to see kind of the quick mobilization in real time. To this latest iteration. And so hopefully that collaboration will become more international, more with some of the parties that were also responding rather than just kind of to this UN body.
Asa Kamer: We’re going to wrap up there. I want to thank you both for joining the show, coming on our panel and talking about United States and global CDR governance. And there’s a lot happening. So we’ll hopefully have a lot more conversations with both you in the future. And to our listeners, make sure to like and subscribe. Maybe leave a five-star review. If you’re like me, you have a lot more questions. There’s a lot more you want to hear about. So you’re going to have to wait till next week. We have more policy talk coming up next week.
So Savvy and Holly, thank you both so much.
Announcer: Thanks so much for listening to Carbon Removal Newsroom. If you like the show, the best way you can help us is by giving us a great rating and review an Apple podcast, following the show on Spotify, and by sharing the show on social media. Tell your friends and help us spread the word about what’s happening in the world of carbon removal.
