OKAY GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. MR
MIKE WORKING. GOOD ALRIGHT.
WELCOME EVERYONE. THIS IS A
INFORMATIONAL HEARING FOCUSING
ON CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE OF
THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES.
LEADS TO BE JOINED WITH THE VICE
CHAIR SENATOR BECKER AND MYSELF.
UM I TALKED TO, UH, COUPLE OF
OTHER MEMBERS. HOPEFULLY,
THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY. SO TODAY'S
INFORMATIONAL HEARING ON CARBON
CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION OR CCS
. AH, IS A JOINT HEARING BETWEEN
HE JOINED LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES, THE
ASSEMBLY NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE.
I KNOW WE DID RECEIVE REGRETS
FROM, UM. CHAIR SENATOR BEN
ALLEN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE WHO WAS NOT
ABLE TO MAKE IT. TWO SESSION
TODAY. UM, BUT WE WILL PROCEED
FORWARD. UM. I JUST WANT TO
START OFF BY SAYING THAT, UH YOU
KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A STRING OF
LEGISLATION PROPOSED THIS YEAR
AND A HEIGHTENED INTEREST IN
THIS TOPIC OF CARBON CAPTURE AND
SEQUESTRATION. UH ESPECIALLY
THIS LESS THAN FIVE YEAR. UM.
AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME OF
THE BILLS THAT SURVIVED THE
HOUSE OF ORIGIN DEADLINE LAST
WEEK. UM, THAT WE. CONTINUE TO
MOVE FORWARD ON THIS IMPORTANT
TOPIC IN A THOUGHTFUL MANNER. UM
I JUST WANTED TO. SAY THAT YOU
KNOW, WHILE THE LEGISLATURE AND
THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD IN
PARTICULAR AND DRAFTING. THEY'RE
SCOPING PLAN. UM THAT, UH WE?
AH. TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A
ROLE IN THE OVERALL STRATEGY
TOWARD CALIFORNIA'S PATHWAY
TOWARDS CLIMATE NEUTRALITY. WE
NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL AND HOW WE
MOVE FORWARD, ESPECIALLY ON THIS
ISSUE OF CCS. I HAVE SEVERAL
QUESTIONS THAT I'M PARTICULARLY
LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING THE
SPEAKERS ADDRESSED, UH,
ADDRESSING HERE TODAY. ONE IS,
UH, YOU KNOW, TO WHAT EXTENT IS
CCS. GOING TO DELIVER ON THE
PROMISE THAT SO MANY OF ITS
ADVOCATES, UM ARE CLAIMING
WHETHER THE FOCUS ON CCS WELL,
SUPPORT OR HINDER OUR EFFORTS.
TO TAKE MORE AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS
ON IMMEDIATE DIRECT EMISSION
REDUCTIONS. WEATHER. THERE MAY
BE SOME OVER PROMISE IN TERMS OF
THE CCS TECHNOLOGY AND THE
EXTENT TO WHICH IT CAN BE RELIED
ON TO REACH OUR CLIMATE GOALS.
WHETHER CCS WILL BE DEPLOYED IN
A WAY. THAT WILL PER LONG
CALIFORNIA'S RELIANCE ON FOSSIL
FUELS. AND ALLOW INDUSTRIES TO
CONTINUE TO RELY ON FOSSIL
FUELS. AND SO THESE ARE JUST
SOME OF THE MANY QUESTIONS THAT
WE HOPE TO BE ADDRESSING HERE
TODAY, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD HAS RELEASED ITS
DRAFT SCOPING PLAN, WHICH IS AH!
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD. UM BUT THEY
DRAFT SCOPING PLAN AS I BELIEVE
MANY OF OUR THOSE THAT ARE
WATCHING THIS HEARING HAVE
ALREADY INDICATED AND ARE
RECOMMENDING A SIGNIFICANT ROLE
FOR CCS IN CALIFORNIA'S PATHWAY
IN ACHIEVING CARBON NEUTRALITY
BY OR BEFORE 2045. THAT'S WHY WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A
GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE
POTENTIAL AND THE LIMITATIONS OF
CCS. UM I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ONE OF
ON AH, THE IMPLICATIONS AND
SPECIFICALLY IN TERMS OF WHETHER
IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO DELAY
OUR EFFORTS TO ADDRESS LOCAL AIR
QUALITY CONCERNS, AS WELL AS TO
DISCUSS WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER
ALTERNATIVES THAT MAY EXIST. SO
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO TURN OVER
TO FIRST TO THE VICE CHAIR LIKE
TO WELCOME ALSO THE CHAIR OF THE
ASSEMBLY NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE, UM, THREE OF US, AND,
UH, THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON UH
ENVIRONMENTAL, AMONG OTHER
ISSUES, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES BOB
WIECKOWSKI, UH SENATOR BECKER,
WHICH LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS.
CAN HEAR. THERE WE GO. YEAH
MOSTLY. I JUST SAY THAT THANK
THE CHAIR AND OTHER CHAIRS WHO
ARE HERE WITH US AS WELL AND
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
CONVERSATION. I THINK IT IS A
CRITICAL CONVERSATION AND LOOK
FORWARD TO EXPLORING SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT WERE JUST RAISED.
BY THE CHAIR, BUT REALLY ABOUT,
UM YOU KNOW, FUNDAMENTALLY DOES
IT WORK THE EFFECTIVENESS? UM
WHAT ARE THE RISKS IN TERMS OF
SUIT. YOU KNOW, SEO TWO STORAGE.
HOW CONFIDENT CAN WE BE? THAT'S
SEQUESTERED CARBON WILL STAY
SEQUESTERED FOR SAY, YOU KNOW,
HUNDREDS OF YEARS. AND HOW DOES
IT COMPARE TO OTHER STRATEGIES
TO ACHIEVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION,
SO I'M VERY EXCITED TO DIVE INTO
SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS TODAY,
INCLUDING ALSO AROUND ENHANCED
OIL RECOVERY. AND UNDERSTANDING.
HOW THAT PLAYS INTO LANDSCAPE
AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE
DISCUSSION HERE TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR FOR ORGANIZING. UM
THIS HEARING ON CARBON CAPTURE
AND STORAGE, UM, INTERESTED IN
LEARNING MORE. I KNOW WE'VE HAD
LOTS OF MEMBERS HAVE HAD THESE
DISCUSSIONS. THERE'S BILLS THIS
YEAR. UM THIS IS LIKE A HOT
TOPIC. UM AND WE ALL WANT TO
LEARN MORE AND LIKE THE VICE
CHAIR SAID, WE WANT TO LEARN
ABOUT THE RISKS. EFFECTIVENESS.
UM AND WHAT IS THE STATE'S ROLE?
WHAT ARE THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS
? UH AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
BETTER WIECKOWSKI. YEAH IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT MANY OF THE CARBON
CAPTURE UH, PROJECTS THAT EXISTS
. UNITED STATES THAT HAVE A
BACKGROUNDER IS TALKED ABOUT
THIS FAILED ARE COLD BASE, AND
IT'S BEEN TREMENDOUSLY EXPENSIVE
. IT'S LIKE NATURAL GAS BASED
CARBON CAPTURES HALF A BILLION
DOLLARS TO DO THE CARBON CAPTURE
, SO THERE ARE OTHER CARBON
CAPTURES ON CEMENT WITH
INDUSTRIAL. APPLICATION THERE IS
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY. THERE'S A
WHOLE KAMUT. UM IT SEEMS AS
THOUGH, ARE AS LEGISLATORS. OUR
ATTENTION HAS BEEN PEAKED WITH
THE LIVERMORE REPORTING AND
SUBJECT OTHER SUBJECTS, SAYING
THAT IT'S NOT AN OPTION FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON WHETHER
TO USE CARBON CAPTURE OR NOT, IF
WE DID EVERYTHING WE WANTED
EVERY CAR, EVERY TRUCK EVERY WAS
ELECTRIC. EVERY BUILDING WAS
ZERO EMISSION, WE WOULD STILL BE
128 MILLION METRIC TONS SHORT OF
GETTING TO NET ZERO. SO THE
PATHWAY IS BETWEEN WHAT DO WE DO
NOW? IN 2022 TO 2. TO CHANGE OUR
INDUSTRIAL FOOTPRINT TO CHANGE
THE CARBON RELEASES TO EDUCATE
THE REST OF THE WORLD. YOU KNOW,
I MEAN, THE BIG CALIFORNIA ONLY
PRODUCES 1% OF THE EMISSIONS.
OUR GREATEST EXPORT IS OUR
TECHNOLOGY AND THE LEADERSHIP
THAT WE THAT WE SHOW WITH
HEARINGS LIKE THIS.
INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS THAT WERE
OBJECTIVE AND WE'RE LOOKING AT
BOTH SIDES AND WE'RE NOT PICKING
WINNERS AND LOSERS ON MAY 31ST
OF 2022 WERE JUST SAYING, OKAY,
WHAT'S OUT THERE? HOW DID THESE
FAIL? WHAT ARE THE IS IT 90% OR
IS IT 33% OF WHAT ARE THE
CALCULATIONS? SO I'M UH, LOVE
BEING A STUDENT WITH THE REST OF
YOU HERE AS ON CARBON CAPTURE
AND READING BACKGROUND
INFORMATION AND LISTENING TO
SOME OF THE DISTINGUISHED, UH,
PANELISTS THAT YOU'VE PUT
TOGETHER, MR CHAIRMAN, MR VICE
CHAIR, SO I APPRECIATING AND
INVITED ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH BEFORE WE CALL OUR%
FIRST SPEAKER. I'D LIKE TO JUST
GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF TODAY'S
AGENDA. WE HAVE THREE PANELS.
THE FIRST PANEL WILL BE WE
CALLED IT. CARBON CAPTURE AND
STORAGE ONE. OH, ONE, UM,
CHANNEL TWO WILL BE CCS AND
PRACTICE. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED
AND PANEL THREE IS, UH, TO TALK
ABOUT VARIOUS POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS FOR CCS AND.
WE'RE GOING TO ASK EACH SPEAKER
TO, UH, SPEAK FOR ABOUT 10
MINUTES. WE'D LIKE TO CRANK
THROUGH ALL OF THE SPEAKERS
BEFORE WE OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS
SO THAT WE CAN MAXIMIZE OUR
LIMITED TIME HERE THIS MORNING.
AND SO WITH THAT I'D LIKE TO
FIRST INVITE FROM PANEL ONE.
GEORGE PERITUS, DIRECTOR OF
CARBON MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS
WITH THE LAWRENCE LIVERMORE
NATIONAL LABORATORY.
GOOD MORNING. THERE'S VICE CHAD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY.
I'M DELIGHTED TO BE HERE. NAME
IS GEORGE PERRY DOES AND I MEAN
I CAME TO THE U. S AND 1006.
JOIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT
AND THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE
CHANGE. DURING THE DECADES 20
YEAR AT THE NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL, I LOOKED INTO
HOW WE CAN REDUCE CARBON AND OUR
AIR THROUGH REGULATION AND
TECHNOLOGY. I'VE BEEN AT THE
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LAB
FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS,
CONTINUING THAT WORK. AT LIVING
WHILE WE HAVE NO DOG IN THE
CLIMATE FIGHTS, OUR JOB IS TO
SOLVE HOW HARD PROBLEMS AND TO
PROVIDE POLICYMAKERS WILL
ACCURATE, SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND
INFORMATION. VERY GLAD TO BE
SHARING. TODAY WE SIMPLY HAVE
TOO MUCH CARBON IN OUR AIR. IT
GETS WORSE EVERY DAY.
UNFORTUNATELY AT 11, WHILE WE
HAVE LOOKED AT ALL THE OPTIONS
FOR REDUCING IT AND YOU WILL
HEAR TODAY THAT RENEWABLES ALONE
CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM. BUT THEY
CANNOT REDUCE CARBON ALREADY IN
THE AIR. YOU WILL HEAR THE
NATURE CAN REMOVE CARBON, AND IT
CAN BUT OUR STUDIES SHOW THAT
THIS WON'T HAPPEN ENOUGH.
UNFORTUNATELY IN CALIFORNIA
TODAY ON NATURAL LANDS ADD CO.
TWO TO THE AIR INSTEAD OF
REMOVING IT. AND FINALLY. YOU
WILL HEAR THAT STORING ACCESS SO
TOO DEEP UNDERGROUND IS UNSAFE.
AND UNPROVEN. BUT THAT IS
PLAINLY NOT TRUE. THE U. S
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAS ALREADY
PUT 14 MILLION TONS OF CO. TWO
PERMANENTLY UNDERGROUND OVER THE
PAST TWO DECADES IN
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS. AND
THESE WERE CAREFULLY DESIGNED TO
ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS AND
SAFETY OF THE PROCESS. THEY
FOUND THAT IT IS BOTH SAFE AND
EFFECTIVE. WE HAD A FRONT ROW
SEAT IN EVERY STEP OF THIS
PROCESS AT THE OTHER LAB, AND WE
SAW THIS WELL WITH OUR OWN EYES.
OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE UNDERTAKEN
SIMILAR EFFORTS AND REACHED THE
SAME CONCLUSION. CARBON CAPTURE
AND STORAGE OR CCS. WHAT IS IT?
WELL IT REFERS TO A FAMILY OF
TECHNOLOGIES THAT REMOVE CAPTURE
C 02 FROM THE ATMOSPHERE OR
LARGE INDUSTRIAL SOURCES. AND
TRANSPORTED TO LOCATIONS WITH
CAREFULLY SCREENED GEOLOGY AND
THEN STORIES DEEP UNDERGROUND
SAFELY AND PERMANENT. CCS CAN
REMOVE CEO TO THAT'S ALREADY IN
THE AIR. ECONOMICS ELIMINATES CO
TWO POLLUTION FROM INDUSTRY SO
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE
VISIBILITY OF THOSE THREE STEPS
REQUIRED CAPTURE, TRANSPORT AND
STORAGE. AND THEN I'LL FINISH
WITH A PERSPECTIVE ON REGULATION
OF THE OF THE PRACTICE AND ALSO
ITS TRACK RECORD TO DATE. LET'S
LOOK AT CAPTURE C 02 CAN BE
REMOVED DIRECTLY FROM THE
ATMOSPHERE AND WHAT'S KNOWN AS
DIRECT A CAPTURE. A TYPICAL
CAPTURE PLANS WILL USE PHYSICAL
OR CHEMICAL SALT CHEMICAL
SOLVENTS TO BIND CEO TWO AND
THEN RELEASE IT IN A
CONCENTRATED FORM THAT CAN BE
COMPRESSED, TRANSPORTED AND
INJECTED ON THE GROUND. DIRECTOR
CAPTURE IS ONE OF THE MOST
CHALLENGING APPLICATIONS AND THE
FIRST LARGE PILOT PLANS BEING
DEVELOPED AS WE SPEAK. ZERO TO
CAPTURE FROM INDUSTRIES EASIER
AND MORE ADVANCED TODAY. HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. WE SHOULD CAREFULLY
CONSIDER CEMENT PRODUCTION, FOR
EXAMPLE. WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
SUBSTANTIALLY THE CARBONIZED
WITHOUT CCS. WE CAN EITHER
INSTALL CCS ON CEMENT PLANTS. WE
CAN LIVE WITH THEIR C 02
POLLUTION, OR WE CAN GET BY
WITHOUT CEMENT REASONABLE
CHOICE, YOU CCS. THE HIGHER THE
CONCENTRATION OF CO. TWO IN THE
EMISSION STREAM. THE CHEAPER AND
EASIER TYPICALLY IS TO CAPTURE
IT. THIS MEANS THAT AN ETHANOL
PLANT EMITTING ALMOST 100% HERE,
TOO, IS AN EASY APPLICATION. MEN
PLANNED AT ABOUT 15% IS HARDER.
AND GRABBING IT FROM THE AIR AT
ABOUT 400 PARTS PER MILLION IS A
CHALLENGE. AFTER THE 02 LIKE
MANY AIR POLLUTION, TECHNOLOGY
POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
REQUIRES MORE ENERGY THAN SIMPLY
VENTING IT TO THE AIR. LIKE WE
ALWAYS HAVE. HOWEVER THIS ENERGY
PENALTY IS MODEST, AND IT
DOESN'T IN ANY WAY NEGATE THE
NET BENEFITS OF CAPTURING THAT C
02 IN THE FIRST PLACE. CCS DONE
PROPERLY RESULTS IN SUBSTANTIAL
CEO TO SAVINGS OVER THE LIFE
CYCLE. AND YOU WILL FIND A SMALL
NUMBER OF ANALYSES THAT ARGUE
THE CONTRARY. BUT A CLOSER LOOK
AT THEM REVEALS THAT THEY HAVE
STACKED SELECTIVELY UNREALISTIC
ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH PRACTICAL REAL
WORLD ENGINEERING. OKAY SO WE'VE
CAPTURED THE CO TWO. WHAT DO WE
DO WITH IT? WE HAVE EVALUATED
THE OPTIONS AND FOUND THAT
PRIMARILY WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS
TO STORE THAT C 02 AND SPECIALLY
SELECTED LOCATIONS. HAVE BEEN
CAREFULLY SCREENED FOR THE
GEOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES AND THEIR
ABILITY TO SAFELY AND
PERMANENTLY TRAPPED. THAT'S C
02. FINAL RESTING PLACE FOR THIS
GREENHOUSE POLLUTANT IS MORE
THAN 3000 FT UNDERGROUND, WHERE
THE CEO TO BECOMES THE DENSE
FLUID IN CALIFORNIA. WE EXPECTED
A THAT RESTING PLACE WILL BE A
VERTICAL MILE DEEP OR EVEN MORE
TYPICAL SPORTS. THIS IS THE ONLY
OPTION LARGE ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH
OUR MASSIVE TO LEGACY. GET THE
CEO TO THESE PLACES WE NEED
TRANSPORT. YOU TOO, CAN BE
COMPRESSED AND TRANSPORTED BY
PIPELINE, RAIL, ROCK OR SHIP.
YOUR TWO PIPELINES ARE MATURE
TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE OVER 4.5 1000
MILES OF THEM IN THE UNITED
STATES. THEY REFRIGERATED LIQUID
. SIO TWO IS CARRIED BY TRUCKS
BRINGING OR SHIPS. AND YOU WILL
HAVE SEEN ANCHOR TRUCKS ON THE
FREEWAY. TRANSPORTING FOOD GRADE
. CO. TWO FROM CAPTURE FACILITY
TO USING OUR FAVORITES,
CARBONATED. AS FUTURISTIC AS IT
MAY SOUND, YOUR LOGIC STORAGE,
HE USES A PROCESS THAT NATURE
ITSELF AS PRACTICE. UH, HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF YEARS.
SEDIMENTARY ROCKS OF L C. 02 OIL
, GAS GRINDS AND OTHER FLUIDS
OVER GEOLOGIC TIME. AND THEY CAN
SAFELY HOLD ARE SO TO TODAY.
LIQUID CO. TWO HAS PROPERTIES
VERY SIMILAR TO OIL, AND WE CAN
EXPECT IT TO REMAIN PERMANENTLY
IN THE SAME KINDS OF ROCKS. THAT
HAVE HELD OIL AND GAS UNTIL
THAT'S SPECIAL GEOLOGY REQUIRED
CONSISTS OF SEVERAL LAYERS OF
POROUS SANDSTONE ROCK. THE KIND
ACCOMMODATE SO TOO, AND IT'S
MUCH MICROSCOPIC OR SPACES. AND
THESE. FOREST ROCKS IS
SANDWICHED BETWEEN LAYERS OF
LESS PERMEABLE ROCKS SUCH AS
SHALES, STOP OF THE MOVEMENT OF
THE COR. SEVERAL OTHER FORCES
AND MECHANISMS THAT C 02
UNDERGROUND AND LIMIT ITS
MOVEMENTS. THE START, SO TOO, IS
MONITORED BY AN ARRAY OF
DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTS AND
TECHNIQUES, ALL OF WHICH HAVE
BEEN TESTED OVER SEVERAL
DECADES. APPARENTLY WE RECEIVED
SOME PEOPLE SAYING THAT THEY
CAN'T HEAR YOU. VERY WELL. OKAY,
AND YOU TRY AND MOVE. THAT'S
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I'LL REWIND
ONE SENTENCE HERE. THEY'RE THE
STORED. CO TWO IS MONITORED BY
AN ARRAY OF DIFFERENT
INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES THAT
HAVE BEEN TESTED OVER SEVERAL
DECADES. THE KEY TO SUCCESS LIES
AND CHOOSING THE RIGHT ROCKS TO
BEGIN WITH CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS
FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR
SCREENING THESE ROCKS AND
DESIGNING AND OPERATING THE
WELLS AND MONITORING SYSTEMS ARE
THE STRICTEST IN THE WORLD. IN
CALIFORNIA, THE CENTRAL VALLEY
IS HOST TO WORLD CLASS GEOLOGY.
THAT MEANS JUST THE RIGHT KINDS
OF ROCKS FOR SAFE AND PERMANENT
STORAGE. OUR STATE IS BLESSED
WITH SAFE AND ABUNDANT STORAGE
OPPORTUNITIES. FINALLY HOW IS
CCS REGULATED AND WHAT IS ITS
TRACK RECORD TO DATE? LIKE ANY
INDUSTRIAL FACILITY, THE CAPTURE
FACILITIES REGULATED BY HOST
CITIES OR COUNTIES, AS WELL AS
LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS. C 02
PIPELINES ARE REGULATED UNDER
FEDERAL STANDARDS BY THE OFFICE
OF PIPELINE SAFETY OR ITS STATE
DELEGATES. OF THE MANY DECADES
OF OPERATION. THE TRACK RECORDS
OF C 02 PIPELINES HAS BEEN
EXCELLENT. WITH THE NOTABLE
EXCEPTION OF ONE OPERATOR WHO
WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN A SERIOUS
RECENT RUPTURE AND LEAKAGE
INCIDENT IN MISSISSIPPI AND JOHN
THOMPSON WILL BE COVERING THAT
SHORTLY. UNDERGROUND SO TO
STORAGE IS SUBJECT TO AN
EXCEPTIONAL LEVEL OF REGULATORY
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BY EPA AND
ALSO BY THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD.
AND A NEW ROLES THAT WERE
WRITTEN WITH THE FAILINGS OF OIL
AND GAS REGULATION IN IN MIND.
TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THIS
LEVEL OF SCRUTINY. CALCIUM ARE
STATES REGULATOR. REGULATES JUST
UNDER A QUARTER OF A MILLION
WELLS OF WHICH 100,000 OR SO ARE
DEFINED AS ACTIVE OR IDLE OIL
PRODUCERS. IN CONTRASTS. UH THE
E P A. U. S. C. P A LIST A MERE
NINE. ENDING CLASSICS INJECTION
WELL PERMIT APPLICATIONS
NATIONWIDE. WITH ONLY TWO WELLS
ALREADY HAVING BEEN PERMITTED.
THIS IS EXTRAORDINARY COMPARED
TO THEIR LONELY OIL AND GAS
COUSINS THESE WELL, THESE WELLS
ARE RECEIVING A DEGREE OF
ATTENTION THAT'S TYPICALLY
RESERVED FOR MUSEUM ARTIFACTS
LIKE THE MONA LISA, THE ROSETTA
STONE OR MICHELANGELO'S DAVID.
IMPORTANTLY THE TRACK RECORD OF
GEOLOGIC STORAGE TESTING AND
GLOBAL DEMONSTRATION HAS BEEN
OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE. WE ARE
AWARE OF FEWER THAN A HANDFUL OF
INCIDENTS IN STORAGE PROJECTS.
TWO OF THE MOST SERIOUS WERE
PART OF WHICH PARTIALLY CRAPPED
CRACKED CAPROCK IN 2000 AND FIVE
AT THE IN SOLID PROJECT IN
ALGERIA DUE TO OPERATOR ERROR.
THAT RESULTED IN NO LEAKAGE. AND
WE'RE ALSO AWARE OF A LEAKING,
INACCESSIBLE WELLHEAD AT THE
SAME SITE. THE ALGERIAN
GOVERNMENT DID NOT GRANT ACCESS
TO PRE INSPECTION TO THAT WELL
BECAUSE OF THE LOCAL NOMAD
SITUATION. UM ENHANCED OIL
RECOVERY IS NOT THE SAME AS TWO
STORAGE, BUT IT'S STILL HOLDS
SOME VALUABLE LESSONS IN THE
EARLY TWO THOUSANDS. THERE WAS A
NOTABLE INCIDENT IN WYOMING.
WHERE C 02 LEAKED UP OLD
ABANDONED WELLS, CAUSING BUBBLY
CREEK BUBBLING CREEKS, WILDLIFE
DEATHS AND THE LOCAL SCHOOL
EVACUATION. THIS OIL FIELD
INJECTION WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY
FAILED TODAY'S REGULATORY
STANDARDS BEFORE HE WOULD EVEN
BEGIN. WE HAVE LEARNED FROM
THESE INCIDENTS AND GLAD TO
REPORT SUCCESSFULLY CAMPAIGNED
TO STRUCTURE REGULATORY
OVERSIGHT SINCE THAT TIME TO
PROVIDE THAT PREVENT THEIR
RECURRENCE. IN SUMMARY AT
LIVERMORE. WE BELIEVE THAT CCS
IS UNNECESSARY TO PREVENT AND
REDUCE CO TWO IN THE AIR. CCS
WILL NOT HAVE THE STARRING ROLES
THAT RENEWABLES OR EFFICIENCY
WILL HAVE. BUT IT IS NONETHELESS
A SAFE AND DISPENSABLE TOOL AND
OUR CLIMATE CRISIS STRATEGY. CCS
AS WELL UNDERSTOOD, HEAVILY
REGULATED. AVAILABLE FOR
DEPLOYMENT TODAY. AND HAS AN
OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE TRACK
RECORDS. LIKE ANY LARGE
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. THERE ARE
RISKS. BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE
RISKS ARE READILY MANAGEABLE.
OUR CHOICE IS CLEAR. PUT EXCESS
CO TWO BACK UNDERGROUND WHERE IT
CAME FROM, OR FAILED TO CLEAN UP
OUR AIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT NEXT. WE'D LIKE TO
INVITE SARAH SALZER, MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF THE STANFORD CENTER
FOR CARBON STORAGE AND THE
STAFFORD CARBON REMOVAL
INITIATIVE. WELCOME. HI THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME HERE
TODAY IF I COULD HAVE THE NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY GREAT. THIS
FIGURE SHOWS THE CAN YOU ALL
HEAR ME? THIS FIGURE SHOWS THE
HISTORICAL EMISSIONS IN THE
BLACK LINE ALONG THE VERTICAL
AXIS AS WELL AS WHAT ADMISSIONS
WILL LOOK LIKE IF WE FOLLOW A
SCENARIO CALLED THE STATED
POLICIES SCENARIO PUT TOGETHER
BY THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY
AGENCY. THIS SCENARIO IS AN
ASSESSMENT OF THE SPECIFIC
POLICIES THAT ARE IN PLACE AS
WELL AS SOCIAL HAVE BEEN
ANNOUNCED BY GOVERNMENTS AROUND
THE WORLD. THE SCENARIO THE TOP
ONE WILL LEAD TO MORE THAN 2.5
DEGREES C. SENATE. TEMPERATURE
RISE BY 2100. CONVERSELY THE
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO
, THE BOTTOM CURVE RESULTS IN
ONLY A 1.5 DEGREE TEMPERATURE
RISE BY 2100 THE SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO, THE BOTTOM
ONE DRAWS ON LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS
FROM EFFICIENCY GAINS, WHICH IS
SHOWN IN THE BLUES, THE VARIOUS
BLUE COLORS RENEWABLES, WHICH
ARE SHOWN IN THE PINKS AND
PURPLES AS WELL AS FUEL
SWITCHING AND CCS. THE CCS
CONTRIBUTION IS OUTLINED. I
THINK YOU CAN JUST BARELY SEE IT
IN THE YELLOW. UM AND WHAT WE
SEE IS THAT 15% OF THE WORLD'S
EMISSIONS REDUCTION BETWEEN NOW
AND 2050 ARE DELIVERED BY CCS.
HOWEVER IF WE JUST TAKE THE AREA
IN THAT YELLOW BOX THIS EQUATES
TO 2000 LARGE SCALE FACILITIES
BEING DEPLOYED BY 20 52,000. I
COULD HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. RIGHT? GREAT SO THIS
SLIDE SHOWS THE CCS FACILITIES
AROUND THE WORLD AS OF TODAY, SO
WHERE DO WE STAND? THERE ARE
CURRENTLY 27 CCS PROJECTS IN
OPERATION. AND REMEMBER IN THE
LAST SIDE SIDE, I SAID, WE NEED
2000 BY 2050. SO THESE 27 CCS
PROJECTS CURRENTLY CAPTURED 37
MILLION TONS OF CO. TWO PER YEAR
AND 12 OF THEM ARE IN THE US AND
THE ACTIVE PROJECTS ARE THE ONES
THAT ARE SHOWN IN RED. THE THERE
ARE ALSO 6 62 CCS PROJECTS IN
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER 44 IN
THE EARLY PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT STAGES, AND ALL OF
THOSE ARE SHOWN IN THE VARIOUS
BLUE DOTS. THE FIRST PROJECT WAS
A NATURAL GAS PROCESSING PLANT
IN TEXAS IN 1971. OF THE 27 CCS
PROJECTS IN OPERATION 21
INVOLVED ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
S GEORGE MENTIONED, AND THIS IS
WHERE SEO TWO HELPS TO PUSH OUT
ADDITIONAL HYDROCARBONS. HOWEVER
EVER SINCE THE FIRST SUCCESSFUL
PERMANENT SAILING STORAGE
PROJECT AT SLEIPNER IN NORWAY,
WHICH CAME ONLINE IN 1996, THE
TREND HAS BEEN AWAY FROM
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY. AND
TOWARDS PERMANENT GEOLOGIC
STORAGE. ROUGHLY 80% OF THE
PROJECTS AND DEVELOPMENT TODAY
INCLUDE DEDICATED GEOLOGIC
STORAGE OF SIO TWO AND NO
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY. BUT IT'S
ALSO CLEAR FROM THIS FIGURE. IS
THAT WHAT YOU WHILE WE HAVE
PROJECTS IN DEVELOPMENT IN
CALIFORNIA? WE HAVE NONE IN
OPERATION IN THE STATE AS OF
TODAY. SO LET'S TALK A LITTLE
BIT MORE ABOUT CALIFORNIA ON THE
NEXT SLIDE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE
HISTORIC EMISSIONS OVER THE LAST
20 YEARS IN CALIFORNIA, AS WELL
AS SOME OF OUR FUTURE TARGETS
THAT WE HAVE GOING FORWARD AS
WELL AS ACHIEVING NET ZERO BY
2045. THE DIFFERENT SECTORS THAT
ARE EMITTING ARE SHOWN IN
DIFFERENT COLORS ON THOSE BARS
AS OUTLINED IN THE BAR PLOT, BUT
WHAT YOU SEE IF YOU LOOK AT THE
SLOPE OF THE LINE, AND YOU LOOK
AT THE SUB OF THE HISTORICAL
EMISSIONS IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RATHER
DRAMATIC. IF WE WANT TO CHANGE
THAT SLOPE AND ACTUALLY ACHIEVE
CARBON NEUTRALITY BY 2045. SO WE
RECENTLY COMPLETED A STUDY TO
FIGURE OUT WHERE CCS MIGHT FIT
INTO THIS GETTING GETTING TO
NEUTRAL. IF WE COULD GET TO THE
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THIS SIDE
UP OUTLINES SOME OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES IN THE INDUSTRIAL
AND ELECTRICITY SECTORS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE
ELECTRICITY SECTOR AMIDST OVER
60 MILLION TONS A YEAR AND THE
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR AND IT'S
AROUND 100 MILLION TONS PER
YEAR. IN THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR
. WE FOCUSED ON NATURAL GAS
COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANTS IN
CALIFORNIA, AS THESE TEND TO BE
YOUNGER, BIGGER AND NAMEPLATE
CAPACITY AND HAVE HIGHER
UTILIZATION RATES. UM THEN STEAM
TURBINES AND OTHER POWER PLANTS.
WE IDENTIFIED 25 THAT WE FELT
WERE MOST SUITABLE FOR CCS
RETROFIT AND THE QUALIFICATIONS
FOR THEM ARE OUTLINED IN THE
BLUE BOX. ON THE INDUSTRIAL
SIDE. WE WENT THROUGH A SIMILAR
HIGH GRADING OR QUALIFICATION
PROJECTS WHO, UM, IDENTIFY
INDUSTRIAL SITES FOR CARBON
CAPTURE. UM THERE ARE OVER 400
EMITTING SITES IN CALIFORNIA,
AND WE FOCUSED ON THE LARGER
EMITTERS AND THOSE WERE THE
MISSION STREAMS SUITABLE FOR
CARBON CAPTURE, RETROFIT AND
IDENTIFIED WITH 51 INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES AND YOU CAN SEE FROM
THE DIFFERENT COLORS OF THE BARS
THAT INCLUDES EIGHT CEMENT
PLANTS, 15 COMBINED HEAT AND
POWER FACILITIES. THREE ETHANOL
PLANTS, 16 HYDROGEN PLANTS AND
NINE CAT CRACKERS AT PETROLEUM
REFINERIES. THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS
WHAT THE AVERAGE EMISSIONS ARE
FROM EACH OF THOSE DIFFERENT
QUICK QUESTION ON LAST SLIDE. IS
ON THE INDUSTRIAL, IT SAYS. THE
FIRST VOTE 35.8, UH MILLION
METRIC TONS. CURRENT EMISSIONS
BUT THEN 100,000 YEAR. YEAH WE
ONLY ARE FOCUSING ON UH, 51
FACILITIES. AND AS I SAID, THERE
ARE OVER 400 FACILITIES THAT ARE
MET. SO THIS STUDY THAT WE DID
ONLY FOCUSED ON SOME OF THE
LARGEST EMITTERS. SO WHAT IS
THAT 100,000 YEAR OF WHAT? THE
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL SECTOR IN
CALIFORNIA. THAT'S ALL 400
EMITTING FACILITIES, PROBABLY
MORE THAN 400. WE'RE ONLY
FOCUSING ON IN THIS SLIDE ON THE
51 LARGEST, AND THAT WILL GET US
35 MILLION TIMES. GOT IT. OKAY,
SHE SAID THE POTENTIAL IF
THERE'S 51 FACILITIES WOULD BE
35 MILLION. EXACTLY SO WE
FOCUSED ON THE ONES THAT WERE
ELIGIBLE FOR THE 45 QUÊ FEDERAL
TAX INCENTIVE. OUT OF 100,000.
YOU'RE SAYING YEAH, SO WE DIDN'T
FOCUS ON SOME OF THE SMALLER
ONES, ALTHOUGH THEY ALSO WOULD
BE ELIGIBLE FOR CARBON CAPTURE,
RETROFIT, THEY JUST MIGHT NOT BE
ELIGIBLE FOR THAT INCENTIVE. SO
IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU
CAN SEE FOR THE DIFFERENT KINDS
OF FACILITIES WITH THEIR AVERAGE
EMISSIONS LOOK LIKE ON THE LEFT
AS WELL AS THE AVERAGE CAPTURE
COSTS, AND WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS
THAT CAPTURE COST RANGE FROM A
LOW OF $20 A TON FOR ETHANOL,
WHICH IS A FAIRLY PURE STREAM OF
C 02. AND THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE
SEPARATION UP TO THE $80 A TON
AND MORE A LOT MORE FOR NATURAL
GAS COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANTS
AND SOME OF THE COMBINED HEAT
AND POWER PLANTS AS WELL. IF WE
GO TO THE NEXT SIDE, THIS SORT
OF TIES IT ALL TOGETHER IN A
MARGINAL ABATEMENT CURVE, AND
THIS IS ALL 76 FACILITIES. SO
THIS IS THE POWER PLANTS AS WELL
AS THOSE 51 INDUSTRIAL EMITTERS
THAT I MENTIONED. AND THEY'VE
BEEN LAID OUT IN THIS ABATEMENT
CURVE. UM THE WIDTH OF EACH OF
THE BARS IS THE AMOUNT OF
EMISSIONS AND THEN THE BARS ARE
POINTING EITHER DOWNWARDS OR
UPWARDS AND BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE
SHOWING ON THE VERTICAL OR THE Y
AXIS IS THE TOTAL COST. NOW,
THIS IS A KIND OF A FUNKY PLOT,
BUT THIS IS THE WAY THAT
MACKENZIE DEFINED THESE PLOTS.
THE BARS THAT ARE POINTING
DOWNWARD ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY. SO
THERE ARE 34 FACILITIES THAT
COLLECTIVELY COULD ABATE OVER 20
MILLION TONS OF EMISSIONS. AND
WITH JUST LCF S CREDIT AT A
MODEST UM $100 A TON PLUS 45 QUÊ
TAX CREDIT THESE FACILITIES IF
THEY INSTALLED CARBON CAPTURE
RETROFIT FACILITIES AT THEIR
SITES COULD ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY.
BUT WHAT YOU NOTICE IS THAT
THESE ARE A LOT OF THE CAT
CRACKERS, ETHANOL HYDROGEN
FACILITIES. IF YOU LOOK OVER TO
THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS GRAPH,
YOU SEE CEMENT PLANTS AND IN THE
HOT BLUE AND THE PURPLE NATURAL
GAS COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANTS.
THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WOULD
NOT MAKE MONEY AND WILL REQUIRE
SOME ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE IN
ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
CARBON CAPTURE, RETROFIT. NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. GEORGE MENTIONED
IN HIS REMARKS THAT WE HAVE
AMPLE STORAGE OPPORTUNITIES IN
CALIFORNIA. THE LEFT IS A PLOT
THAT WE PUT TOGETHER IN OUR
STUDY THAT WE DID LAST YEAR. THE
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE WORK THAT
THEY DID ALSO IN 2020 IS ON THE
RIGHT. UM OUR STUDY LOOKED AT
BOTH OILFIELDS AND POTENTIAL
SALINE STORAGE FOR THE ENTIRE
STATE. ALSO WE ELIMINATED
REGIONS WHICH WERE IN THE PINK
COLOR THAT WE DEEMED UNSUITABLE
FOR GEOLOGIC STORAGE, AND WE
FOUND UP TO 72 GIGATONS OF
POTENTIAL STORAGE. THE LAWRENCE
LIVERMORE STUDY TOOK MORE
DETAILED LOOK INTO REGIONS IN
KERN COUNTY AND THE SACRAMENTO
BASIN AND FOUND 17 GIGATONS OF
POTENTIAL STORAGE. REGARDLESS
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THERE IS
SUFFICIENT STORAGE FOR HUNDREDS
OF YEARS OF CALIFORNIA'S
INDUSTRIAL AND ELECTRICITY
SECTOR EMISSIONS. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE STUDY, UM IDENTIFIED MANY
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CCS IN THE
STATE, BUT ALSO MANY CHALLENGES
FOR CCS IN CALIFORNIA. UM AND
THESE CHALLENGES ARE BUCKET ID
INTO A FEW DIFFERENT AREAS ON
THIS SLIDE THESE RANGE FROM THE
AMBIGUOUS POSITION, UM OF CCS IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. TO THE
COMPLEX AND PROBABLY THE MORE
IMPORTANT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE
UNTESTED REGULATORY PROCESSES.
T REVENUE AND COST UNCERTAINTY
, ESPECIALLY AROUND L. C. F S
AND 45. Q AND FINALLY THE PUBLIC
BOTH THEIR LACK OF AWARENESS AND
LACK OF SUPPORT. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. I'D LIKE TO MENTION THAT
WHILE THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF
CCS IS TO REDUCE CO TWO
EMISSIONS AND MITIGATE CLIMATE
CHANGE, POST COMBUSTION CAPTURE
ALSO RESULTS IN THE REDUCTION OF
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
FROM CERTAIN FACILITIES, AND
JOHN THOMPSON WILL GET INTO THIS
LATER. CCS ACTIVITIES ALSO
SUPPORT EMPLOYMENT FOR SKILL
SETS, WHICH MAY OTHERWISE BECOME
OBSOLETE IN A CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION. AND PROVIDE A STRONG
FOUNDATION FOR THE EMERGING
HYDROGEN ECONOMY AND CARBON
DIOXIDE REMOVAL JOBS, AS
MENTIONED BY GEORGE CCS
INFRASTRUCTURE CAN ALSO ENABLE
EMERGENCE OF NEW INDUSTRIES SUCH
AS HYDROGEN PRODUCTION, DIRECT
AIR CAPTURE AND BIOENERGY WITH
CCS AND ALL OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES WILL RELY ON
GEOLOGIC STORAGE OF C 02. NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. MANY PEOPLE ASK
WELL, KEN RENEWABLES SAVED THE
DAY AND WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS
SLIDE IS, UM, ALL 12 MONTHS OF
THE YEAR 2017 AND EACH LINE
SHOWS YOU SEE A RED BUMPS.
THAT'S THE SUN RISING AND
SETTING EACH DAY THAT'S
SOMETHING WE CAN GENERALLY COUNT
ON. BUT SOME DAYS THE SUN
DOESN'T RISE AND DOESN'T PROVIDE
AS MUCH SOLAR POWER AS OTHER
DAYS, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SUPER
CLOUDY. THERE'S ALSO SOME BLUE
ON THIS PLOT, AND THAT IS THE
WIND CONTRIBUTION TO THE ENERGY
PROFILE. AND YOU SEE THAT SOME
DAYS WE HAVE A LOT OF WIND, BUT
SOME DAYS WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
AND IN FACT, YOU SEE SOME
NUMBERS THAT START AT THE NUMBER
ONE IN JANUARY AND SOLELY COUNT
AROUND GETTING TO 90 BY THE END
OF THE YEAR. WE'VE COUNTED ALL
THE DAYS WHERE THE RENEWABLES
WERE NOT ENOUGH TO GENERATE THE
POWER WE NEEDED FOR THE DAY. AND
WE HAVE CIRCLED IN BLUE, WHERE
WE HAD MORE THAN FIVE DAYS IN A
ROW OF SUCH BEHAVIOR. THIS IS
THIS WAS DONE TO POINT OUT THE
FACT THAT WE CANNOT RELY ON
RENEWABLES ALONE AS WE DO NOT
HAVE THE CAPACITY AND PROBABLY
DO NOT WANT TO GO WITHOUT POWER
FOR A NUMBER OF DAYS IN A ROW.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO WE
ANALYZED AN OPTION FOR 2030
MEETING THE SP 132 OBJECTIVES
AND IN THIS BAR PLOT, YOU CAN
SEE THE CURRENT DAY CAPACITY.
AND THEN TWO SCENARIOS. THE
SCENARIO ITH NO CCS IN 2030 AND
A SCENARIO WITH SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF CCS ON NATURAL GAS
FIRED COMBINED CYCLE POWER
PLANTS. AND WHAT WE SEE IS THAT
, UM WE CAN, UM UM HALF
APPROXIMATELY FOUR GIGAWATTS OF
NGC CC CS AND THAT REDUCES THE
PV AND THE BATTERY CAPACITY
THAT'S REQUIRED. AND CAN COST
APPROXIMATELY 750 MILLION LESS
THAN THE SCENARIO WITHOUT ANY
CCS. SO IN CONCLUSION. NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. UM I'D LIKE TO
JUST END WITH STATING THAT WE
BELIEVE THAT INCLUDING CCS AND A
WIDE RANGE OF PORTFOLIO OF
OPTIONS FOR REDUCING EMISSIONS
OF CO TWO CAN PROVIDE A WAY TO
DEAL WITH HARD TO DE CARBONIZED
SECTORS. WE HAVE ENOUGH
EXPERIENCE WITH CO TWO IN THE
SUBSURFACE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS
SAFELY. CCS WITH DISPATCH OF
ELECTRIC POWER CAN IMPROVE
RELIABILITY FOR POWER SYSTEM IN
THE FUTURE. AND WHAT WE NEED IS
SOME STREAMLINED AND COORDINATED
, COORDINATED PROCESSES FOR
PERMITTING CCS IN THE STATE TO
ALLOW PROJECTS TO MOVE FORWARD
QUICKLY. AND FINALLY, AIR
QUALITY AND JOBS BENEFITS WILL
ENSUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WE'D
LIKE TO INVITE PROFESSOR AHMED
ABDULLAH. WITH THE MECHANICAL
AND AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT AT CARLETON
EVERYONE. I'M GOING TO ASSUME
THAT I'M HONORABLE. BUT PLEASE
LET ME KNOW IF I'M NOT. YES, WE
CAN HEAR YOU. WONDERFUL THANK
YOU FOR ORGANIZING THIS HEARING.
AND I'M SORRY. I CAN'T BE WITH
YOU TODAY. I'VE BEEN ASKED TO
BRIEFLY DISCUSS THE HISTORICAL
EXPERIENCE OF DEPLOYING CCS
PROJECTS IN THE U. S
SPECIFICALLY THE PHYSICAL
CAPTURE INFRASTRUCTURE RATHER
THAN THE GEOLOGICAL ASPECTS. AND
THE TRADITIONAL ANSWER TO THIS
QUESTION IS THAT THE HISTORICAL
RECORD DOES NOT MAKE FOR
PLEASANT READING. BUT IT'S ALSO
UNSURPRISING THAT WE'VE HAD SO
MUCH FAILURE GIVEN HOW WE USED
TO DEPLOY CCS SO WHY ARE WE
FAILED? AND WHAT HAVE WE
LEARNED? AND BEFORE I ANSWER
THOSE TWO QUESTIONS, I SHOULD
SAY THAT ANSWERING THEM IS
CRITICAL BECAUSE DESPITE THE
LARGE NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT
HAVE BEEN PROPOSED OVER THE
PREVIOUS DECADES, A MUCH SMALLER
NUMBER HAVE MADE IT THROUGH WHAT
YOU CALL THE VETTING PROCESS.
AND ANY TIME YOU HAVE SUCH A
SMALL NUMBER OF PROJECTS FROM
WHICH TO LEARN. ANECDOTES CAN
QUICKLY REPLACE ANALYSIS. SO IF
YOU ASK PEOPLE INVOLVED IN CCS
WHITES FAILED, YOU OFTEN GET
DIFFERENT ANSWERS THAT ARE
COLORED BY PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCE.
AND, OF COURSE, THERE IS AN
ELEMENT OF TRUTH AND PERHAPS
EXAGGERATION IN EACH ANSWER. AND
THE SECOND REASON THIS QUESTION
IS CRITICAL IS BECAUSE SOME OF
THE ATTRIBUTES THAT LEAD TO
FAILURE OR SUCCESS ARE STILL
WITH US. YOU STILL NEED TO BUILD
A COMPLEX ENGINEERING
INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU NEED TO FIND
WAYS TO FINANCE IT. YOU NEED TO
DEAL WITH TRANSPORTATION AND
STORAGE AND SO ON. AND SO TO
ANALYZE THE HISTORICAL
EXPERIENCE WITH CCS MORE
SYSTEMATICALLY THAN THE
ANECDOTAL TAKE THAT I JUST
MENTIONED. I WORKED WITH A GROUP
OF COLLEAGUES TO DIG THROUGH
EVERY PROPOSED US CCS PROJECTS
FOR WHICH DATA EXISTED. AND THIS
INCLUDED MINUTES OF TESTIMONY
HEARINGS, REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS
, NEWS ARTICLES AND ENGINEERING
ECONOMIC REPORTS THAT ARE
PRODUCED BY PROPONENTS AND
OPPONENTS OF THESE PROJECTS. AND
THAT HELPS US DEVELOP A LIST OF
THE VARIABLES OR THE
CHARACTERISTICS IF YOU WILL, AND
THERE ARE ABOUT TWO DOZEN THAT
CONSISTENTLY POPPED UP AS EITHER
HELPING OR HURTING PROJECTS. AND
HAVING THAT SET OF VARIABLES
MEANS THAT WE CAN NOW GO BEYOND
THE ANECDOTAL AND ANALYZE HOW
EACH ATTRIBUTES AFFECTED EACH
PROJECT. NOW. WHAT ARE THESE
ATTRIBUTES AND WHY DO THEY
MATTER? SOME OF THEM ARE ROOTED
IN TECHNOLOGY. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW
READY IS YOUR TECHNOLOGY? WE
ENGINEERS HAVE WAYS OF ASSESSING
THE READINESS LEVELS OF
DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES. IT'S
IMPERFECT, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT
THAT BAD. OTHER VARIABLES ARE
ROOTED IN ECONOMICS LIKE CAPITAL
COST. AND OTHERS STILL HAVE TO
DO WITH POLITICAL ECONOMY. SO
PUBLIC OPPOSITION THE DEFECTION
OF A STAKEHOLDER FROM A PROJECT
ALL OF THESE THINGS CAN MAKE THE
NEWS. THEY CAN SINK YOUR PROJECT
, BUT THEY'RE RARELY CAPTURED IN
THE MODELS THAT ENGINEERS AND
TECHNOLOGIST BUILT TO ANALYZE
CCS. AND DIGGING THROUGH THE
LITERATURE ALSO HELPED US
DEVELOP A LIST OF EXPERTS INSIDE
AND OUTSIDE THE INDUSTRY WHO
HAVE EXPERIENCED FAILURE OR
SUCCESS, AND THEY RANGE FROM
ENGINEERS TO LAWYERS TO EVEN
POLICYMAKERS. SO ONCE WE ANALYZE
THE DATA WE GOT FROM THE
LITERATURE. WE PUT SOME OF THESE
EXPERTS IN A ROOM AND WE GAVE
THEM A STRUCTURE SET OF
QUESTIONS TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND
WHERE WE WENT WRONG AND HOW WE
MIGHT DO BETTER. AND I BELIEVE
YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THAT PAPER AS
WELL. SO I'LL SPEND A MINUTE
SUMMARIZING THE RESULTS. AND
THEN I'LL GIVE YOU THREE
TAKEAWAYS AS YOU CONSIDER THE
BILLS BEFORE YOU NOT TO MENTION
THE BROADER ENERGY TRANSITION.
FIRST THE RESULTS SHOWED THAT
THERE'S A SMALL SET OF
CHARACTERISTICS THAT GREATLY
ENHANCE OR INCREASE THE
LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS. THE FIRST
IS CAPITAL COST. MY TEAM
OBVIOUS, BUT THE CHEAPER YOUR
PROJECT, THE GREATER THE
LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS. WHY AM I
SAYING THIS? I'M SAYING THIS
BECAUSE THERE'S A VERY LARGE
LITERATURE ON THE DIFFICULTY IN
FINANCING AND EXECUTING LARGE
PROJECTS AND CCS PROJECTS WHEN
THEY FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY OF
LARGE OR MEGAPROJECTS ARE
ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTION. DESPITE
THE INDUSTRY'S LONG RECORD AND
BUILDING HARDWARE, THEY STILL
HAVE TO CONTEND WITH THE FACT
THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE
INHERENTLY BRITTLE AND THEIR
NATURAL TENDENCY IS TO FALL
APART, SO THEY NEED A LOT OF
GOOD WORK TO KEEP THEM TOGETHER.
NOW MANY MEGAPROJECTS ACTUALLY
SUCCEED, AND I CAN SPEAK MUCH
MORE ABOUT HOW MEGA PROJECTS
COULD BE DESIGNED TO SUCCEED IN
THE QUESTION PERIOD. THE SECOND
IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTIC WAS
TECHNOLOGICAL READINESS.
PROJECTS ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO
SUCCEED IF THEY EMPLOY ALL TINY
TECHNOLOGIES. SYSTEMS THAT ARE
STILL LARGE AND COMPLEX. BUT
WHERE WE KNOW HOW ESTABLISHED
THEY ARE. WE KNOW THE READINESS
LEVEL. WE KNOW THE SUPPLY CHAIN
. WE KNOW THE DIVERSITY OF
SUPPLIERS THAT EXIST BOTH
NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY.
AND WHERE WE KNOW WHETHER THE
PIECES FIT TOGETHER PERFECTLY TO
KIND OF SET SIMPLIFY THINGS
BECAUSE THE PIECES CAN BE READY
ABOUT PUTTING THEM TOGETHER IS A
HUGE HEADACHE AND ENGINEERING.
AND THE THIRD CHARACTERISTIC IS
NOT TECHNICAL, ITS POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC AND I CALL IT
CREDIBILITY. HOW CREDIBLE ARE
THE REVENUES THAT ARE BEING
PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT? AND
HOW CREDIBLE ARE THE INCENTIVES
THAT ARE BEING OFFERED? NOW?
WHAT DO I MEAN BY CREDIBILITY?
BY WAY OF AN EXAMPLE IF YOU HAVE
A SIGNED POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENTS FOR YOUR POWER PLANT
CALLED OR NATURAL GAS WITH A
TRUSTED CUSTOMER. THEN THAT IS A
MUCH MORE CREDIBLE REVENUE
STREAM THAN LET'S SAY IF YOU'RE
PLAYING THIS POT MARKETS OR IF
YOU'RE PLAYING THE CAPACITY
MARKET EVEN YOUR CONTRACTORS
PERFORM DIFFERENTLY IF THEY
BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE A MORE
CREDIBLE EXECUTION, A MORE
CREDIBLE PROJECT SCOPE. SAME
WITH INCENTIVES IF YOU HAVE A
LARGE UPFRONT CASH INFUSION
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION.
EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT'S MUCH
MORE CREDIBLE THAN AN UNCERTAIN
DELAYED OR SMALL INCENTIVE LIKE
AN INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS, FOR
INSTANCE. SO THESE INSIGHTS
MIGHT SEEM OBVIOUS, BUT THEY
HAVE PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS FOR
POLICY MAKERS AS THEY DECIDE
WHETHER OR HOW TO SUPPORT CCS
GOING FORWARD. FIRST I WOULD SAY
THAT GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS TEND TO
VALUE INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
THAT ARE LOWER IN THEIR LEVEL OF
TECHNOLOGICAL READINESS. AND THE
REASON THEY DO THIS IS BECAUSE
GOVERNMENT WANTS TO SHOW THE
PUBLIC THAT VALUES INNOVATION.
AND WE SHOW AND THERE'S EMERGING
LITERATURE THAT CONFIRMS US THAT
LESS TECHNOLOGICALLY READY
SYSTEMS ARE MORE LIKELY TO FAIL
THESE LARGE DEMONSTRATION
EFFORTS SO THE PRIMARY GOAL OF
THE POLICYMAKER IN CALIFORNIA
STATE ITS CARBON REDUCTION AND
MEETING A TARGET BY A SET TIME
AS WELL AS SAFEGUARDING THE
PUBLIC PURSE. THEN ONE
SUGGESTION COULD BE FOR
POLICYMAKERS TO SHOW RESTRAINT
WHEN IT COMES TO URGING THE
PURSUIT OF RISKY, INNOVATIVE
PROJECTS. RISKY INNOVATIVE
PROJECTS CAN BE CATERED TO WITH
AN INDEPENDENT BUT SMALLER PARTS
OF MONEY. THEN THE MULTI BILLION
DOLLAR EFFORTS THE SECOND
PROFOUND TAKEAWAY IS THAT IF YOU
BELIEVE LIKE ME THAT CCS WILL
LIKELY NEED TO PLAY A SMALL ROLE
IN THE ENERGY SYSTEM, PERHAPS
LIKE CAPTURING CARBON FROM HEART
TO DEBATE SECTORS LIKE CEMENT.
WE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT THAT.
THAT MORE TARGETED INCENTIVES
PROGRAMS THAT ARE SMALLER
OVERALL BUT MORE GENEROUS AND
THEREFORE MORE CREDIBLE TO
INVESTORS COULD DO MUCH MORE
GOOD FOR DECARBONIZATION. THAN
THE LARGE AND AMBITIOUS. THEY
JUST LIKE TO PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE
SEEN AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL IN THE
PAST. AND FINALLY, AND I'M
TAKING SOME LIBERTIES HERE
BECAUSE I'M COMBINING THIS
RESEARCH WITH OTHER PARTS OF MY
RESEARCH. I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT
NONE OF THE LARGE MODELS THAT
ARE SHAPING THIS CONVERSATION,
INTEGRATE WHAT I CALL THE REAL
WORLD CONSTRAINTS THAT CHALLENGE
THE DEPLOYMENT OF ALL SYSTEMS
RELIABILITY, SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE
SUPPLY CHAIN CONSTRAINTS. COST
OVERRUNS, SCHEDULE OVERRUNS. YOU
KNOW MUCH BETTER THAN WE DO THAT
NO POLICY, NO MATTER HOW WELL
DESIGNED CAN ACHIEVE 100% OF ITS
GOALS, AND THE SAME GOES FOR
TECHNOLOGY. AND SO HOW DO WE FIX
THIS? WE FIX THIS WITH SMART,
TARGETED INCENTIVES. THEY NEED
TO BE INFORMED BY WHAT WORKED IN
THE PAST. AND WHAT DIDN'T BUT
THEY ALSO SHOULD BE INFORMED BY
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE RELEVANT
INDUSTRY. AND I SAY THIS
ADVISEDLY BECAUSE OFTEN IN MY
RESEARCH, WHETHER IT'S
RENEWABLES OR NUCLEAR OR CCS, I
FIND THAT WHAT POLICYMAKERS ARE
OFFERING INDUSTRY IS NOT
NECESSARILY WHAT INDUSTRY
BELIEVES IT NEEDS TO ACCELERATE
DEPLOYMENT, BUT INDUSTRY ALSO
DOESN'T WANT TO BAT AWAY THE
HAND THAT'S OFFERING MONEY ON
THE TABLE. SO THIS PROBLEM IS
NOT LIMITED TO CCS AND WE COULD
SAVE TIME, MONEY AND AGONY IF WE
ALIGN NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS
BETTER. AND I'LL STOP THERE AND
TURN IT OVER TO THE CHAIR. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH BEFORE
I. CALL UP THE NEXT SPEAKER. I'D
LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE SENATOR
BRIAN DOLLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
SENATOR FOR JOINING TODAY'S
INFORMATIONAL HEARING. NEXT WE
HAVE. MARK JACOBSON, PROFESSOR
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING AT STANFORD
UNIVERSITY. UM PROFESSOR
JACOBSON. YES CAN YOU ALL HEAR
ME? THANK YOU. GREAT ULTRA MY
VIDEO, TOO. SO I'M GOING TO TALK
ABOUT UM, DATA AND FACTS AND
DATA ABOUT CARBON CAPTURE AND
DIRECT AIR CAPTURE AND ALSO
ABOUT BLUE HYDROGEN. AND JUST
SHOW SOME BACKGROUND SO I'VE
BEEN WORKING ON UNDERSTANDING
AND SOLVING LARGE SCALE AIR
POLLUTION AND CLIMATE PROBLEMS.
UM SINCE ABOUT 1989. AND
SPECIFICALLY IN CALIFORNIA. DONE
A LOT OF WORK ON AIR POLLUTION,
CLIMATE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY IN
CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING OUR
SCIENTIFIC WORK IS THE BASIS OF
SB 100, THE GREEN US GREEN NEW
DEAL. SO WE'VE BEEN DEVELOPING
PLAYERS TO TRANSITION STATES AND
COUNTRIES AND CITIES AND TOWNS
AND BUSINESSES TO 100% CLEAN,
RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND I LOOKED
AT THE IMPACTS OF APARTMENT,
CAPTURE DIRECT AIR CAPTURE AND
BLUE HYDROGEN. ON THE ATMOSPHERE
AND ON CLIMATE SO FIRST I WANT
TO START WITH THE NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. GOING TO START WITH
CARBON CAPTURE. UM WHAT HASN'T
BEEN DISCUSSED? HERE IS THE AIR
POLLUTION. THE UPSTREAM MINING.
OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE INCREASE%
DUE TO FOSSIL FUELS THAT WOULD
BE MAINTAINED WITH CARBON
CAPTURE. SO NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
I'M GONNA TALK ACTUALLY PROVIDE
DATA. AND FROM THE ONLY CARD
CALL WITH CARBON CAPTURE PLANT
IN THE U. S, WHICH WAS THE PETRA
NOVA PLANT. IN TEXAS AND LOOK AT
NOT ONLY THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
CARBON CAPTURE BUT ALSO THE.
UPSTREAM EMISSIONS THAT WERE NOT
CAPTURED. FOR THIS PLAN JUST
PUT IN PERSPECTIVE. THIS WAS A
COAL PLANT, WHERE PART OF THE
COAL PLANT DEPARTMENT CAPTURES
PUT ON WAS CARBON WAS TRAPPED
COMING DIOXIDE, BUT THE ENERGY
REQUIRED WAS SO GREAT THAT A
NATURAL GAS PLANT WAS BUILT JUST
TO PROVIDE THE ELECTRICITY FOR
THE CARBON CAPTURE EQUIPMENT FOR
THE COAL PLANT. THEN THE C 02
THAT WAS CAPTURED, WAS THEN
PIPED TO A NEARBY OILFIELDS FOR
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY. SO HERE,
I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME DATA.
THE 1ST 20, YEAR TIME FRAME AND
100 YEAR TIME FRAME. THAT'S
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS BASED
ON EACH TIME FRAME FROM FIRST
I'M GONNA ARGUE THAT THE 20 EAR
TIME FRAME IS MOST RELEVANT
BECAUSE TIPPING POINTS IN
CLIMATE AND CLIMATE DAMAGE IS
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, AND
TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE RESULTING
EMISSIONS THAT AFFECT ON CLIMATE
SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE NEXT 20
YEARS ARE GOING TO RESULT IN
FEEDBACKS, ESPECIALLY TO THE
ARCTIC ICE. WHERE YOU HAVE THIS
SNOW ALBEDO EFFECT THAT WILL
TRIGGER FASTER WARMING. IF ONE
OF YOU OCCURS WHEN YOU MELT ALL
THE ICE, IT'S VERY MUCH MORE
DIFFICULT FOR THE ICE TO
RECOVER. SO THERE'S 20 TIMEFRAME
IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR CLIMATE
FEEDBACK POINT OF VIEW. NOW THE
pUPSTREAM CARBON DIOXIDE FROM.
CARBON DIOXIDE FROM ACTUALLY
MINING THE COAL AND ALSO THE
METHANE LEAKS THE CARBON
EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS FROM THE
METHANE LEAKS FROM THE COAL
PLANT AMOUNT TO ABOUT 450 KG OF
C 02 PER MEGAWATT HOUR OF
ELECTRICITY BURN. PRODUCED C 02
FROM THE STACK HAS ANOTHER 930
KG OF C 02 EQUIVALENT PER
MEGAWATT HOUR. SO THAT'S A TOTAL
OF ABOUT 1380 THIS YEAR TO
CAPTURE EQUIPMENT. CAPTURED 55%
IN THE FIRST YEAR. 55% OF THE
930 KG FROM MEGAWATT HOUR FROM
THE STACK. SO THAT'S 516 BUT THE
NATURAL GAS PLANT THAT WAS BUILT
RESULTED FROM BOTH THE MINING
AND COMBUSTION AND ANOTHER 3 67
EMISSIONS SERVED A TOTAL CAPTURE
RATE. WELL, THERE'S ONLY 149 KG
IS HERE TO PER MEGAWATT HOUR
WERE CAPTURED OUT OF 1380 TOTAL,
SO ONLY 10.8% CAPTURE RATE. OVER
A 20 YEAR TIME FRAME. IF YOU
LOOK AT 100 YEAR TIMEFRAME IS
20. SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 10 AND
20% NOTHING CLOSE TO WHAT WE
WOULD NEED TO SOLVE THE CLIMATE
PROBLEM LIKE HIS, WHICH IS 90 TO
100. THIS IS BEFORE THE C 02
EMISSIONS DURING ENHANCED OIL
RECOVERY, BASED ON PUBLISHED
WHAT PUBLISHED DATA. UH THAT'S
ABOUT 40% OF THAT DURING
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY ABOUT 40%
OF ALL THE C 02 THAT'S CAPTURED
GOES RIGHT BACK TO THE AIR. SO
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 6 TO 7%
CAPTURE IT OVER A 20 YEAR. TIME
FRAME COMPLETELY USELESS. NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. BUT THAT'S NOT
THE WORST OF THE PROBLEMS AND
THE WORST OF THE PROBLEMS IS
THIS IGNORES THE INCREASE OF AIR
POLLUTION THAT RESULTS IN
CALIFORNIA. SB 100 IS VERY
SPECIFIC THAT WHATEVER
TECHNOLOGIES USE CANNOT INCREASE
AIR POLLUTION. CARBON CAPTURE
DIRECT AIR CAPTURE BLUE HYDRANT
ALL INCREASED AIR POLLUTION
CALIFORNIA THERE ARE 13,000 AIR
POLLUTION DEATHS PER YEAR. THIS
WILL GO UP WITH MORE CARBON
CAPTURE IN THE STATE, AS WILL
MINING FOR FOSSIL FUELS AND
UPSTREAM LEAKAGE, ETCETERA.
HERE'S THIS LOOKS AT THE SOCIAL
COST AND ALL, UM, CARBON
EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS ON THE LEFT
IS CARBON EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS
OF FOUR CASES FOR THE SAME
PLANT. AH SO THE LEFT ARE THE
VERY LEFT BAR IS IF YOU DO
NOTHING TO THE C 02 EMISSIONS
THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT THEIR
EMISSIONS FROM THE COAL PLANTS.
THE RED IS THE C 02 EMISSIONS
FROM THE STACK THE ORANGES THE
UPSTREAM EMISSIONS. FROM METHANE
LEAKS, AND THE BLUE IS UPSTREAM
EMISSIONS FROM OTHER THINGS. ON
THE SECOND BAR IS THE SAME THING
IF YOU HAD CARBON CAPTURE WHERE
THE CARBON CAPTURE IS POWERED BY
NATURAL GAS YOU REDUCE THIS YEAR
TO EMISSIONS FROM THE STACK, BUT
YOU INCREASE THE 02 EQUIVALENT
EMISSIONS FROM THE YELLOW, GREEN
AND BLUE ARE FROM THE NATURAL
GAS SYSTEM. YELLOW IS FROM THE
COMBUSTION FROM THE NATURAL GAS
. THE GREEN IS THE UPSTREAM
METHANE EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL
GAS. AND THE PURPLE IS THE
UPSTREAM. OTHER C 02 EMISSIONS
FROM NATURAL GAS MINING. SO
THAT'S ONLY 10.8% REDUCTION OVER
OVER 20 YEAR TIME FRAME. THE
THIRD BAR IS IF LET'S SAY WE USE
WIND POWER OF THE CARBON CAPTURE
HAVE THE NATURAL GAS EMISSIONS,
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
HOWEVER WHAT IF YOU USE THAT
SAME AMOUNT OF WIND JUST TO
REPLACE THE COAL PLANT FOR PART
OF THE COAL PLANT? YOU GET EVEN
MORE SO TWO REDUCTIONS NOT ONLY
FROM THE STACK BUT ALSO FROM THE
UPSTREAM MINING BECAUSE WE
ELIMINATE MINING OF COAL, IN
ADDITION TO ELIMINATING STACK
EMISSIONS FROM COAL, SO THE BEST
CASE IS TO USE WIND TO REPLACE
COLD NOT TO USE WIND TO POWER
CARBON CAPTURE EQUIPMENT FOR
COLT NOW THIS BECOMES EVEN MORE
OBVIOUS WHEN WE LOOK AT THE
TOTAL SOCIAL COST ON THE RIGHT.
ON THE RIGHT IS ON THE LEFT THE
BAR ON THE RIGHT. IS IF WE DO
NOTHING. THE BLUE IS THE ENERGY
COST. THE BROWN IS THE AIR
POLLUTION COSTS FROM COAL. BLACK
IS THE CARBON EMISSION COSTS
FROM COLT. IF WE HAD NATURAL GAS
POWERING CARBON CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT, THE SECOND BAR, UH,
WE ACTUALLY INCREASE THE SOCIAL
COST, IF BY ADDING CARBON
CAPTURE, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE
REDUCED THE C 02 CARBON CAPTURE
COST WE INCREASE THE AIR
POLLUTION CAUSED 25% IT TAKES
25% OF THE ENERGY OF THE COAL
PLANT 25 TO 50% BY THE WAY, NOT
JUST 25% 25 TO 50. OF THE ENERGY
OF THE COAL PLANT IS USED JUST
TO POWER THE CARBON CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT. IN THIS CASE, NATURAL
GAS WAS USED TO IT TO POWER THAT
EQUIPMENT, BUT THE AIR POLLUTION
GOES UP ABOUT 25% AND THE
EQUIPMENT COSTS. IT COSTS $1
BILLION FOR THAT CARBON CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT PLUS THE NATURAL GAS
PLANT. SO YOUR EQUIPMENT COST
GOES UP YOUR AIR POLLUTION COST
GOES UP YOUR CEO TO COST GOES
DOWN, BUT SO YOUR OVERALL COST
GOES UP. WHEN YOU USE CARBON
CAPTURE, THAT'S YOUR SOCIAL
COST. YOU USE WIND TO POWER, THE
CARBON CAPTURE EQUIPMENT, YOUR
SOCIAL CUSTOM GOES UP COMPARED
TO DOING NOTHING, SO IT'S BETTER
TO DO NOTHING THAN TO USE WIND
POWER. CARBON CAPTURE EQUIPMENT
. NOW LET'S SAY YOU USE WIND TO
REPLACE THE COAL PLANT. YOUR
CURRENT YOUR COUNT COST GOES
DOWN. THAT'S THE ONLY CASE WHERE
THE COST GOES DOWN TO ACTUALLY
REPLACE THE COAL PLANT. SO NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. SO TO SUMMARIZE
CARBON CAPTURE USING NATURAL GAS
TO RUN COAL WITH CARBON CAPTURE
REDUCES CARBON DIOXIDE
EQUIVALENT MISSIONS. ONLY ABOUT
12 TO 20% OVER 2200 YEAR
TIMEFRAME WHILE INCREASING AIR
POLLUTION IN MINING 25%
INCURRING THE CARBON CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT COSTS USING WIND TO
RUN COAL WITH CARBON CAPTURE
REDUCES HERE TO EQUIVALENT ONLY
34 TO 44% WHILE KEEPING AIR
POLLUTION AND MINING THE SAME
WHILE INCREASING AND EQUIPMENT
COSTS BY USING WIND TO REPLACE
COAL REDUCES CO TWO EMISSIONS,
AIR POLLUTION, EMISSIONS AND
MINING ABOUT 50, AND THERE'S NO
CC EQUIPMENT COSTS. BY FAR THE
BEST THING IS TO USE RENEWABLES
TO REPLACE FOSSILS NOT TO DO
CARBON CAPTURE AT ALL. NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. WHAT ABOUT WERE
GREAT HYDROGEN NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. SO WE DID ANOTHER STUDY
LOOKING AT THIS FIRST, I SHOULD
POINT OUT THAT WHAT'S THE
PUBLIC? WE SHOULD ONLY USE GREEN
HYDROGEN THAT'S HYDROGEN
PRODUCED FROM CLEAN, RENEWABLE
ELECTRICITY. RUNNING THROUGH AN
ELECTROLYZER TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN
AND THE ONLY APPLICATIONS OF
THAT HYDROGEN SHOULD BE LONG
DISTANCE VEHICLES. I GOT LONG
DISTANCE AIRPLANES, SHIPS,
TRAINS, TRUCKS, MILITARY
VEHICLES, STEEL PRODUCTION AND
SOME OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES.
ELECTRIC ELECTRICITY AND HEAT
AND REMOTE MICRO GRANTS, BUT NOT
STATIONARY. ELECTRICITY STORAGE,
NOT FOR BUILDING HEAT. NOT FOR
PASSENGER VEHICLES USING BATTERY
ELECTRICITY IS MUCH MORE
EFFICIENT. SO LIMITED
APPLICATIONS AND ONLY GREEN
HYDROGEN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
BUT WHY? WHY NOT BLUE OR GRAY
HYDROGEN? FIRST OF ALL, UM, WELL
FOR WHAT IS BLUE, HYDROGEN OR
GREAT GREAT HYDROGEN IS WHERE IS
HYDROGEN PRODUCED FROM NATURAL
GAS. 96% OF ALL HYDROGEN TODAY
IS PRODUCED BY NATURAL GAS.
THERE'S THROUGH STEAM REFORMING
STEAM, METHANE, REFORMING SMR.
THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO PRODUCE
HYDROGEN FROM NATURAL GAS, AND
THAT'S CALLED AUTO. THERMAL
REFORMING 80 ARE BOTH ARE GONNA
HAVE MAJOR PROBLEMS. FIRST WE
LOOKED AT. WE LOOKED AT AS WE
DID A STUDY OF LOOKING AT
EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH STEAM
REFORMING UH, SO GREAT HYDROGEN
VERSUS THE STEAM REFORMING BUT
WITH ADDING CARBON CAPTURE
THAT'S BLUE HYDROGEN. WE ASSUMED
A LEAKAGE RATE BETWEEN 1.5 AND
4.3% OF THE UPSTREAM MINING OF
THE UPSTREAM NATURAL GAS WITH A
MEAN OF 3.5% AND JUST TO PUT
THAT IN PERSPECTIVE. THE LARGEST
GAS FIELDS IN THE WORLD ARE IN
TURKMENISTAN. THE AVERAGE LEAK
LEAKAGE RATE FROM THE WELLS
ALONE OR 4.1% FROM SATELLITE
DATA. NEW MEXICO JUST A COUPLE
MONTHS AGO, MEASUREMENTS FROM A
PAPER WHERE THEY HAVE SATELLITE
DATA OVER NEW MEXICO, 9.4% JUST
FROM THE WELLS. OUR LEAKAGE
RATES INCLUDE REALLY EMISSIONS
RATE, NOT ONLY FROM THE WELLS
BUT FROM THE PIPELINES FROM THE
PROCESSING STATION, AND YOU KNOW
EVERY EVERYTHING UPSTREAM TO
3.5. IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE.
NATURAL BLUE HYDROGEN PROPONENTS
WILL CLAIM THAT IT'S ONLY GONNA
BE 0.1% LEAKAGE RATE. THIS IS
JUST COMPLETE NONSENSE. IT
DOESN'T EXIST IN REALITY. UH YOU
CAN. THE BEST YOU'RE GONNA FIND
IS 1.5% AND BUT WE REALLY NEED
TO LOOK AT A WORLD AVERAGE HERE
BECAUSE NATURAL GAS IS A
COMMODITY, EVEN IF YOU FIND AN
ISOLATED CASE WHERE YOU CAN
MINIMIZE LEAKAGE. WORLDWIDE
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND THAT
AND IN EUROPE, FOR EXAMPLE, TO
GET A LOT OF THEIR GAS FROM
RUSSIA, TURKMENISTAN, OTHER
PLACES. AND SO YOU'VE GOT TO USE
A REASONABLE LEAKAGE RATE 3.5%
IS COMPLETELY MODEST. THE
CAPTURE RATE. THERE'S FROM STEAM
METHANE REFORMING. THEY'RE
ACTUALLY TWO STREAMS OF C. 021
IS FOR THE ENERGY WHERE YOU'RE
USING NATURAL GAS TO PRODUCE
ENERGY TO RUN THIS STEAM,
REFORMING REQUIREMENT AND THE
OTHER IS THAT YOU'RE USING
METHODS OF FEEDSTOCK. TO PRODUCE
HYDROGEN AND METHANE IS AN
EXHAUST GAS. SO THERE'S ONE
PLACE THAT ACTUALLY MEASURES. UH
MEASURES ACTUALLY HAS CARBON
CAPTURE IN A STEAM REFORMING
PLANT WITH THE WITH THE
FEEDSTOCK AND THAT CAPTURE RATE
OF 78.8% AND WE ASSUMED 85% SO
WE ASSUMED IT'S EVEN BETTER THAN
THAT, BUT FOR THE ENERGY
PRODUCTION, UH, THE AVERAGE
WORLDWIDE I MEAN, THERE'S FOR
CAPTURING CO TWO, THE ACTUAL
CAPTURE EFFICIENCIES FROM THE
PETRA NOVA PLANT FOR THE FIRST
YEAR WAS 55% FOR THE AVERAGE
OVER THREE YEARS WITH 70. THAT'S
THE HIGHEST THE BOUNDARY DAM
PLANT PROJECT IN CANADA. 55% IS
THE AVERAGE CAPTURE RATE OVER
FIVE YEARS. THE GORGON PROJECT,
WHICH IS AN LNG PROJECT IN
AUSTRALIA, THE AVERAGE CAPTURE
RATE OVER FIVE YEARS WAS 20. SO
THE RANGE IS REALLY 22 TO 70%
CAPTURE RATE FOR THE FLU. GAS
FOR ENERGY. WE ASSUME 65. SO AND
THEN WE ASSUMED A 20 YEAR GHETTO
WP AND ALSO BUT WE ALSO EXAMINED
THE 100 YEAR. DWP LET ME JUST
SHOW YOU THE RESULTS. NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. SO ON THE LEFT IS
THE GRAY HYDROGEN. THE C 02
EMISSIONS PER MEGA JEWEL OF
ENERGY. WITH GREAT HYDROGEN, SO
THAT'S HYDROGEN FROM NATURAL GAS
AND NO CARBON CAPTURE. UH HUH.
LIKE OVER 150 G OF C 02
EQUIVALENT PER MEGA JILL. BLUE
HYDROGEN ONLY SLIGHTLY LESS, AND
THERE'S TWO. THERE'S TWO BARS
WITH BLUE HYDROGEN. ONE IS WHEN
YOU'RE CAPTURING THE FLUE GAS.
ONE IS WHEN YOU'RE NOT A LOT OF
THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE UPSTREAM
EMISSIONS OF METHANE DUE TO THE
LEAKS. AND THE LOW CAPTURE
EFFICIENCIES. BUT BOTH OF THOSE
ARE HIGHER THAN JUST BURNING
NATURAL GAS FOR HEAT OR DIESEL
OIL FOR HEAT, SO ACTUALLY BLUE
HYDROGEN. ACTUALLY PRODUCES MORE
EMISSIONS. AND JUST BURNING
NATURALGAS. I MEAN, IT'S
RIDICULOUS, AND THAT DOESN'T
EVEN ACCOUNT AGAIN FOR THE FACT
THAT YOU NEED 25% MORE ENERGY TO
RUN THE CARBON CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT. SO YOU HAVE MORE AIR
POLLUTION. YOU HAVE MORE
UPSTREAM MINING. WITH BLUE
HYDROGEN THAN YOU DO WITH EVEN
GREATER HYDROGEN. UM THEN GREEN
HYDROGEN. BY THE WAY, THERE'S
ZERO EMISSIONS NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. OKAY SO ONE MORE THING.
WHY NOT DIRECT AIR CAPTURE YOU
MIGHT THINK WOULD JUST TAKING C
02 OUT OF THE YEAR IS USEFUL. NO
IT'S JUST AS BAD AS CARBON
CAPTURE AND FOR FROM FUELS. NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. SO HERE AGAIN,
DATA FROM UH, CARBON
ENGINEERING'S CARBON CAPTURE
PLANT. THIS IS THEIR PUBLISHED
PAPER. C 02 FROM THE AIR THAT
AGAIN 20 YEAR TIME FRAME, 100
YEAR TIMEFRAME. DIRECT AIR
CAPTURE EQUIPMENT TAKES 825 KG
OF C 02 PER MEGAWATT HOUR. BUT
IT'S IN THEIR PLANTS. THEY USE
NATURAL GAS TO RUN THE DIRECT
AIR CAPTURE EQUIPMENT, SO
THERE'S THE UPSTREAM EMISSIONS
OF NETWORK FROM NETWORK GAS
MINING. THAT'S 334 GOES BACK TO
THE AIR. C 02 FROM NATURAL GAS
COMBUSTION. THAT'S 404 FROM
COMBINED CYCLE PLANT. AND SO
THAT'S 738 GOES BACK TO THE AIR,
SO IT'S ONLY 87 CAPTURED OR 11%
CAPTURE RATE OVER 20 YEARS. 31%
CAPTURE IT OVER 100 YEARS AGAIN
COMPLETELY USELESS. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY MY
LAST SLIDE OR AND THEN WE'LL
HAVE A SUMMARY AFTER THIS. WE
THEN LOOKED AGAIN AT A SIMILAR
CASES. WHAT IF WE DO NOTHING
WHICH IS THE LEFT LEFT IS A C 02
EMISSIONS. THE RIGHT IS A SOCIAL
COST. WITH DIRECT AIR CAPTURE,
AND WE'RE COMPARING THIS WITH UM
, WE'RE GONNA COMPARE THIS
EVENTUALLY WITH USING WIND TO
REPLACE COAL. SO IF WE DON'T DO
ANYTHING, NO DIRECT AIR CAPTURE
. WE HAVE NO CHANGE IN THE C 02
EMISSIONS ON THE LEFT. IF WE USE
NATURAL GAS WITH DIRECT AIR
CAPTURE WE REDUCE CO TWO DUE TO
TAKING CEO TWO OUT OF THE AIR.
THAT'S THE BLUE BAR GOING DOWN.
BUT WE USE NATURAL GAS THAT
RESULTS IN EMISSIONS OF THE
YELLOW, RED AND PURPLE DUE TO
THE UPSTREAM EMISSIONS AS WELL
AS THE COMBUSTION EMISSIONS.
THEN THE THIRD BAR IS IF WE JUST
USE WIND TO RUN THE DIRECTOR
CAPTURE EQUIPMENT WHERE YOU JUST
READ. WE DO REDUCE CO TWO. BUT
IF WE USE THAT SAME WIND TO
REPLACE COAL, WE GET THE GREEN
BAR, WHICH IS EVEN MORE SO TWO
REDUCTION. SO AGAIN, IT'S FAR
BETTER TO USE RENEWABLE
ELECTRICITY TO REPLACE FOSSIL
FUELS THAN TO RUN. DIRECT AIR
CAPTURE EQUIPMENT ON THE RIGHT
IS THE SOCIAL COST. IF WE DON'T
DO ANYTHING, THE LEFT BAR IS
THAT SOCIAL COSTS OF COAL, THE
BROWNS THE AIR POLLUTION COSTS,
THE BLACK IS THE C 02 EMISSIONS
COST IF WE USE NATURAL GAS TO
RUN DIRECT AIR CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT. THEN WE INCREASE THE
EQUIPMENT COSTS, WHICH IS BLUE.
WE INCREASE AIR POLLUTION COSTS
, WHICH IS BROWN COMPARED TO
COLD AIR POLLUTION BECAUSE WE'RE
USING NATURAL GAS NOW TO RUN THE
CAPTURE EQUIPMENT. AND DIRECT
AIR CAPTURE EQUIPMENT, AND WE'RE
INCREASING AIR POLLUTION COSTS
AND THE CARBON DIOXIDE SAVINGS
IS ONLY A LITTLE BIT SO THAT
COMES DOWN A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE
TOTAL SOCIAL COST IS HIGHER THAN
DOING NOTHING. IF WE USE WIND TO
RUN DIRECT AIR CAPTURE, WE STILL
HAVE A HIGHER SOCIAL COSTS THAN
DOING NOTHING. BUT IF WE USE
WIND TO REPLACE COAL, WE
ELIMINATE ALL AIR POLLUTION FROM
THE COAL ALL, UM, C 02 FROM THE
COAL. WE ONLY HAVE A WIND
EQUIPMENT COSTS. SO THE SOCIAL
COST OF WIND POWER DIRECT AIR
CAPTURE SIX TIMES. THE SOCIAL
COST OF WIND REPLACING COAL, THE
SOCIAL COSTS OF USING NATURAL
GAS TO RUN DIRECT AIR CAPTURE IS
EIGHT TIMES THAT OF USING WINTER
REPLACED COAL. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE
DIRECT AIR CAPTURE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY COST IT PREVENTS
PREVENTING C 02. IF YOU PREVENT
YOUR TWO FROM GETTING IN THE
INTO THE AIR, IT HAS THE EXACT
SAME IMPACT AS REMOVING C 02
FROM HERE. SO LET'S FOCUS ON
PREVENTING C 02 FROM GETTING
INTO THE AIR. SO THAT IN FACT,
THE SOCIAL COST OF DIRECT AIR
CAPTURE POWERED BY FOSSIL FUELS
IS EIGHT TIMES THAT OF USING
RENEWABLES TO REPLACE FOSSILS
AND THE SOCIAL COST OF DIRECT
AIR CAPTURE. POWERING POWERED BY
RENEWABLES IS SIX TIMES THAT OF
USING RENEWABLES TO REPLACE
FOSSILS. BUT WHEN YOU REPLACE
RENEWABLES WITH WHEN RENEWABLES
REPLACED FOSSILS, THEY NOT ONLY
ELIMINATE C 02. THEY ALSO REDUCE
NON CEO TO AIR POLLUTANTS FROM
FOSSILS. THEY REDUCE THE
UPSTREAM FUEL MINING AND
POLLUTION. THEY REDUCE THE
PIPELINE REFINERY, THE GAS
STATION AND THE OTHER FOSSIL
FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY REDUCE
OIL SPILLS. OIL FIRES, GAS
LEAKS, GAS EXPLOSION. AND
INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS OF
ENERGY OVER ENERGY WHEN YOU USE
DIRECT AIR CAPTURE OR CARBON
CAPTURE, ALL YOU'RE DOING IS
SUBSIDIZING THE FOSSIL FUEL
INDUSTRY, KEEPING THEM ALIVE.
DIRECT AIR CAPTURE SUBSIDIES.
CARBON CAPTURE SUBSIDIES. BLUE
HYDROGEN SUBSIDIES ARE DIRECT
SUBSIDIES OF FOSSIL FUELS,
KEEPING THOSE INDUSTRIES ALIVE,
KEEPING THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE
GOING INCREASING AIR POLLUTION
IN CALIFORNIA. UH AND
MAINTAINING MORE CLIMATE DAMAGE
THAN USING THAT SAME MONEY TO
SUBSIDIZE REPLACING FOSSIL FUELS
WITH RENEWABLES AND THEN LAST
SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THE CONCLUSION
, CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE OR
USE DIRECT AIR CAPTURE BLUE
HYDROGEN ARE ALL OPPORTUNITY
COSTS THAT INCREASED AIR
POLLUTION, MINING INFRASTRUCTURE
, CARBON DIOXIDE AND SOCIAL
COSTS RELATIVE TO SPENDING THE
SAME MONEY. REPLACING FOSSIL
FUELS WITH RENEWABLES AND HIS
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR C. C S U
D A C AND BLUE HYDROGEN IS A
FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDY THAT WILL
KEEP THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY
AND BUSINESS ANY NON SUBSIDIZED
COST OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES WILL
BE PAID BY RATEPAYERS. THUS AS A
TAX ON RATEPAYERS. THERE WAS A
COMMENT BEFORE THAT. WE CAN'T WE
CAN'T POWER CALIFORNIA 100%
RENEWABLES JUST SIMPLY NOT TRUE
. I PUT IN THE CHATS A LINKS TO
A PAPER WE DID, JUST RECENTLY
PUBLISHED ON THAT INCLUDES
POWERING CALIFORNIA WITH 100%
RENEWABLES EVERY 30 SECONDS FOR
TWO YEARS. WITH ENTIRELY WIND
AND WATER AND SOLAR STORAGE.
DEMAND RESPONSE INTERCONNECTION
, IT CAN BE DONE, AND IT'S AT
LOW COST, AND CALIFORNIA WAS
100% RENEWABLES ON MOTHER'S DAY
FOR A FEW MINUTES AND 90%
RENEWABLE WIND, WATER AND SOLAR
FOR OVER THINK IT WAS ON SEVEN
HOURS ON MOTHER'S DAY. UH
CALIFORNIA'S GETTING CLOSER. WE
SHOULD PUSH TOWARDS TO GET TO
THE LIMIT AND IGNORE FOSSIL FUEL
. UH JUST THESE SCHEMES LIKE
DIRECT AIR CAPTURE BLUE HYDROGEN
AND CARBON CAPTURE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. I KNOW WE
HAD A QUESTION FROM SENATOR
BECKER. DID YOU WANT TO ASK HIM
NOW? OR DID YOU WANT TO WAIT
UNTIL THE END? JUST ONE QUICK
QUESTION. WE CAN SAVE THE
OTHERS. BUT WHEN YOU'RE
ADDITIONAL ICIS OF PETRA NOVA.
ASSUME BUILD A NEW POWER PLANT
TO POWER. THE CARBON CAPTURE
ALSO ASSUME COAL AS THE UPSTREAM
AND NOT NATURAL GAS. DO YOU HAVE
THE ANALYSIS WITHOUT THOSE TWO
FACTORS WITHOUT CALL AND UM, AND
IS IT TRUE THEY HAVE TO BUILD A
NEW POWER PLANT TO POWER? CARBON
CAPTURE EQUIPMENT EVERY TIME
THAT YOU BUILD A CARBON CAPTURE
SYSTEM. UM WELL, I SHOULD SAY IT
WASN'T AN ASSUMPTION. THAT'S
WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID. THEY DID
BUILD A NATURAL GAS PLANT TO
POWER OF THE CARBON CAPTURE FOR
THE COAL PLANT. UM AND THEN WE
DID DO AN ANALYSIS. WELL, WHAT
IF YOU JUST USE WIND TO POWER
THE CARBON CAPTURE EQUIPMENT AND
NOT NOW NOT NATURAL GAS. SO WE
DID THAT ANALYSIS AND THAT WAS
WHAT I PRESENTED. THE RESULTS
WERE UM, MAYBE YOU'RE ASKING
ALSO. WELL WHAT IF YOU'RE
PUTTING CARBON CAPTURE ON ON A
NATURAL GAS PLANT? SOME CALL IT
THE UPSTREAM ASSUMED COAL. SEEMS
LIKE SOME OF THE MISSIONS WERE
FROM THE COAL MINING. UPSTREAM
IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. THERE
ARE YEAH. IF IT WAS NOT. UM CALL
THAT ORIGINAL MINING. THEN IT
WAS NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION, NOT
COAL MINING. UM YEAH, WELL, IN
THIS CASE THE THEY'RE PUTTING
CARBON CAPTURE ON THE COAL
PLANT. IF THERE'S A THERE'S
GOING TO BE COAL MINING FOR THAT
COAL PLANT FOR SURE, AND THERE'S
NEVER A CARBON CAPTURE ON THE
COLD ON THE MIND AND PART OF IT.
AND THERE'S METHANE RELEASED
FROM COAL MINING. BUT IT'S A
REALLY NATURAL GAS PLAN WOULD BE
THE SAME THING. YOU'D HAVE THE
UPSTREAM. EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL
GAS MINING. THE 3.5% LEAKAGE
RATE. OF METHANE ON AVERAGE
THERE. KEEP IN MIND THERE 1.3
MILLION ACTIVE OIL AND GAS WELLS
IN THE U. S. AND THEIR 3.2
MILLION ABANDONED ONES. UH OF
THE ABANDONED ONES. TWO THIRDS
OF THEM LEAK IS STILL IN THERE
29 MILLION ABANDONED WELLS
WORLDWIDE AND TWO THIRDS OF THEM
LEAK. SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE
LEAKING FOR DECADES AND EVEN
CENTURIES. UH, EVEN AFTER
YOURSELF. YOU'RE DRILLING MORE
WELLS FOR NATURAL GAS,
ESPECIALLY FOR IF YOU'RE USING
NATURAL GAS TO RUN THE CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT, THEN WE'RE JUST
TALKING MORE NATURAL GAS AND
WE'RE WE NEED TO REDUCE THE
NATURAL GAS, NOT INCREASE IT.
AND THERE'S BUT I LOOKED AT THE
SCENARIOS. WELL LET'S SAY WE'RE
USING RENEWABLES INSTEAD OF
NATURAL GAS TO RUN THE CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT. THAT'S JUST AN
OPPORTUNITY COSTS BECAUSE IT'S
MUCH MORE EFFICIENT FROM A
SOCIAL COST PERSPECTIVE, JUST TO
USE THE RENEWABLES TO REPLACE
THE FOSSIL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
OKAY WELL, I DON'T WANT TO DO.
LET'S LET'S KEEP GOING FOR NOW.
I APPRECIATE THAT. THOSE
COMMENTS OKAY, THANKS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NEXT WE HAVE A JOHN
THOMPSON THE TECHNOLOGY AND
MARCUS, DIRECTOR FOR THE CLEAN
AIR TASK FORCE. ERIN. PERSON.
THANK YOU. MR CHAIRMAN. MAY I
CHECK MY COMING THROUGH? OKAY?
THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN, MR VICE
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS AND OTHER
COMMITTEE CHAIRS FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU THIS
MORNING ABOUT CARBON CAPTURE.
I'M THE MARKETS AND TECHNOLOGY
DIRECTOR OR A NON PROFIT
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP CALLED THE
CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE, AND I'VE
BEEN WORKING ON CARBON CAPTURE
ISSUES FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS NOW,
MOSTLY IN NORTH AMERICA, SOME IN
CHINA. AND I WORK ON TECHNOLOGY
ALSO WORK ON POLICIES. MAKE SURE
THAT IT WORKS. SO WHAT I'D LIKE
TO DO IF I COULD MOVE TO THE
FIRST SLIDE IS TELL YOU A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THE CLEAN AIR TASK
FORCE. WE'RE A NON PROFIT
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP. FOUNDED IN
1996, AND WE'RE HEADQUARTERED IN
BOSTON. WE ALSO HAVE OUR
EUROPEAN OPERATIONS
HEADQUARTERED IN BRUSSELS WERE
GROWING ORGANIZATION. THIS SLIDE
WAS WRITTEN. IT WAS ABOUT 80
EMPLOYEES WERE ABOUT 100, NOW
FROM DUBAI TO SAN FRANCISCO. IN
OUR MISSION. IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ONE. WE ARE. SEEKING TO CREATE A
ZERO CARBON ECONOMY. GLOBALLY.
THROUGH PRAGMATIC POLICIES WITH
NEW BUSINESS STRATEGIES. IN
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, AND WE
SEE THE NEED TO DO THIS. USING
UM, YOU KNOW, MEETING WITH
ENERGY DEMAND IN A FINANCIALLY
AND SOCIALLY AN ENVIRONMENTALLY
SUSTAINABLE WAY. OUR FUNDING IS
ENTIRELY PHILANTHROPIC. STAND.
IF I DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT CARBON
CAPTURE WAS PART OF THE SOLUTION
. I WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. SO I
DISAGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS
SPEAKER, AND PERHAPS DURING THE
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD, WE
CAN EXPLORE SOME OF THOSE AREAS
OF DISAGREEMENT. AND ALSO SOME
OF THE AREAS WHERE WE AGREE FOR
EXAMPLE, IT'S IMPERATIVE WE GET
THE UPSTREAM EMISSIONS OF FOSSIL
FUELS UNDER CONTROL. CAUSE IF WE
ONLY DO CARBON CAPTURE AND LEAVE
THOSE UNABATED, THEN WE HAVE
PROBLEMS. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO
IS IF I COULD GO TO THE NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. ONE OF THE
PILLARS OF THE CLEAN AIR TASK
FORCE PHILOSOPHIES AND OUR
GUIDING PRINCIPLES. IS THAT THE
WORLD NEEDS MULTIPLE OPTIONS TO
SOLVE CLIMATE CHANGE. UM YOU
KNOW, MORE THAN ONE OPTION MEANS
MORE CHANCES TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG.
AND THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I'VE ALSO THINK OF SHARED
IN CALIFORNIA SCOPING PLAN. AND
I'LL JUST QUOTE ONE SENTENCE
FROM IT. THE FROM THE PLANET,
SAYS THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US
REQUIRES US TO KEEP ALL TOOLS ON
THE TABLE. YOU THINK THAT'S
IMPERATIVE FOR A COUPLE OF
REASONS? UM ONE OF THE OTHER
THINGS I WANT TO UNDERSCORE IS
SOMETHING IN THE SCOPING PLAN
THAT SAID. I WON'T CALIFORNIA
NEEDS TO COLLABORATE WITH OTHER
JURISDICTIONS. AND INCLUDE
EXPORTABLE POLICIES. THAT'S THE
SAME THING, SENATOR THAT I THANK
YOU OPENED WITH BY SAYING WE
NEED TO EXPORT TECHNOLOGIES AND
OUR LEADERSHIP. NOW, RIGHT NOW,
CARBON CAPTURE IN THIS DOCUMENT
IS LIMITED TO REFINERIES AND
CEMENT. I WOULD URGE YOU TO
THINK ABOUT EXPANDING IT BEYOND
THAT, THAT NECESSARILY BECAUSE
YOU AND CALIFORNIA CAN'T GET BY
WITHOUT PUTTING CARBON CAPTURE
ON NATURAL GAS PLANTS, BUT I
WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK
ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD. IF
CALIFORNIA MEET NET ZERO BY 2045
. BUT THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES
NOT. YOU STILL HAVE THE RISKS OF
WILDFIRE. YOU STILL HAVE
UNACCEPTABLE RISKS OF DROUGHT.
YOU STILL HAVE UNACCEPTABLE RISK
OF EXTREME HEAT. YOUR LEADERSHIP
AND EXPORTING POLICY OPTIONS. I
WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU OPENS THE
DOOR TO DO AT LEAST SOME, UM,
DEMONSTRATIONS. SOMETHING'S ON
NATURAL GAS WITH CARBON CAPTURE.
ON OTHER MANUFACTURING WITH
CARBON CAPTURE AND BIOENERGY
WITH CARBON CAPTURE. BECAUSE IT
IS ESSENTIAL SO WITH THAT. LET
ME MOVE INTO AT LEAST THE TOPICS
THAT I WAS ASKED TO DESCRIBE
TODAY AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH
, UH, THE QUESTION OF WHAT DOES
CARBON CAPTURE D TWO OTHER AIR
POLLUTANTS IN THE FLUE GAS
STREAM. THE SHORT ANSWER IS IN
ALMOST ALL CASES THAT GOES DOWN
. UM CARBON CAPTURE CAN CREATE
CO BENEFITS BY REDUCING THE AIR
POLLUTANTS. AND WHAT YOU SEE IN
THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SLIDE
IS A TABLE FROM A STUDY FROM THE
INTERNATIONAL CCS KNOWLEDGE
CENTER IN SASKATCHEWAN STUDY
THAT THEY DID ON A PROPOSED
RETROFIT ON A CEMENT PLANT. AND
WHAT YOU SEE IS THAT AT AT 90%
CAPTURE OF SEASON SO TO AT THAT
PLANT SULFUR DIOXIDE IS ALMOST
ENTIRELY ELIMINATED. KNOX GOES
DOWN BY ABOUT 55. PARTICULATE
MATTER SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 70 AND
95. AND THE CLEAN AIR TASK
FORCES AND THE PROCESS OF A
STUDY RIGHT NOW. THAT WE WILL
RELEASE SOMETIME THIS SUMMER, UM
CEMENT AND ON REFINERIES AND THE
IMPACTS ON OF CARBON CAPTURE ON
WHAT THESE ARE CALLED CRITERIA.
AIR POLLUTANTS ARE WORKS ARE
PRELIMINARY WORK SHOWS THE SAME
EFFECT. VIRTUAL ELIMINATION OF
SO 2 90% REDUCTION 95% REDUCTION
ON PM AND VERY HIGH LEVELS ON
KNOX KNOX DEPENDS ON A COUPLE OF
OTHER FACTORS. WHY IS THAT? WE
THINK OF THESE AIR POLLUTANTS
SULFUR NITROGEN OXIDES PM AND
THEIR IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTHY.
FORM SECONDARY PARTICLES
DOWNWIND OF THE SMOKE STACK AND
THOSE CAUSE PREMATURE DEATH AND
MORE MORBIDITY. THINGS. ASTHMA
ATTACKS COPD. THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT TURNS OUT THAT THOSE
POLLUTANTS ARE NOT ONLY BAD FOR
HUMAN HEALTH, THEIR DEVASTATING
ON THE AMIN SOLVENT THAT IS USED
AND CAPTURE EQUIPMENT TO MAKE
THE PLANT RUN. SO IN OTHER
WORDS, SULFUR DIOXIDE DEGRADES
THE AMIN IN THAT CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT AND YOU HAVE TO TAKE
IT OUT. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO
FOLLOW THE THING UP. IT'S VERY
EXPENSIVE AND YOU'RE GOING TO
BUILD A SEVERAL BILLION DOLLARS
PLANT AND YOU'RE ONLY REVENUE IN
THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO BE
FROM PERFORMANCE BASED TAX
CREDITS LIKE 45. Q WHERE YOU GET
PAID FOR INJECTING IT, CAPTURING
AND INJECTING DEEP UNDERGROUND
AND YOU DON'T GET PAID
OTHERWISE. IF YOU DON'T KEEP
THAT SYSTEM RUNNING. YOU DON'T
HAVE ANY REVENUE AND YOU LOSE
MONEY. SO THIS IS A POTENTIAL
BENEFIT. WE HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT
. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN KNOX
COULD GO UP. BUT THAT IS WHY WE
NEED LEADERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA.
WE NEED TO HAVE THE KINDS OF
PROGRAMS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED
AND HOW THAT IS YOU AND YOU'RE
SCOPING PLAN COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT OF BRINGING TOGETHER
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, EXPERTS.
AND DOING IT IN A WAY THAT WE
MAXIMIZE THESE BENEFITS.
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN
DISPROPORTIONATELY HARMED BY
THESE POLLUTANTS FOR DECADES,
HAS TO STOP. WE HAVE TO GIVE
THEM A VOICE. WE HAVE TO GIVE
THEM AN OPTION TO PROTECT THEIR
COMMUNITIES PROPERLY DONE.
CARBON CAPTURE COULD BE PART OF
THAT SOLUTION. LET ME GO TO THE
NEXT SLIDE. WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY
ON PERMANENT. AH SIO TWO
STORAGE. UM. SAFE AND PERMANENT
INJECTION AND STORAGE OF SO TWO
AND DEEP GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS.
IT'S WELL UNDERSTOOD, AND IT'S
BEEN FULLY COMMERCIAL PRACTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES AND
WORLDWIDE. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE
OVER A BILLION MILLION BILLION
METRIC TONS OF CO TWO HAVE BEEN
INJECTED IN THE UNITED STATES
SINCE ABOUT 1970 FOR ENHANCED
OIL RECOVERY. UM WE HAVE OVER A
QUARTER OF A BILLION WORLDWIDE
IN SAILING STORAGE. WE HAD
REALLY A REMARKABLE TRACK RECORD
. THESE ARE REGULATED BY UM E P
A UNDER CLASS TWO AND CLASS SIX
THINGS, BUT YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT
IS JUST A DIAGRAM SHOWING HOW
DEEP THE FORMATIONS HAVE TO GO.
IT'S SOMETHING LIKE 2400 M BELOW
GROUND AND WHAT YOU SEE IN THAT
DIAGRAM ARE DIFFERENT BUILDING
SIZES RANGING FROM THE
WASHINGTON MONUMENT, THE EIFFEL
TOWER. AH TO, UH, TOWER IN IN
DUBAI AND THESE HUMAN STRUCTURES
DWARF THE DEPTH THAT WE HAVE TO
GO AND THE KAPPA ROCKS THERE.
THERE. GIVE US CONFIDENCE THAT
THIS CAN BE DONE OVER CENTURIES
OVER GEOLOGIC TIME AND KEEP THIS
CEO TWO OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE.
LET ME TALK ABOUT TRANSPORTATION
ON THE NEXT SLIDE. SO TOO. IF
YOU CAPTURE THE CEO TO SOMETIMES
YOU CAN INJECT IT DIRECTLY UNDER
SITE MORE TIMES THAN NOT, YOU
HAVE TO BRING IT TO A PLACE
WHERE IT'S INJECTED DEEP
UNDERGROUND WE HAVE ABOUT 50
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE TRANSPORTING
COATUE IN THE UNITED STATES.
OVER 5000 MILES OF PIPELINE AS
GEORGE MENTIONED EARLIER. AND
pABOUT 500 MILLION METRIC TONS OF
CO. TWO WITHOUT A FATALITY. NOW
THAT SOUNDS GREAT, BUT WE CAN'T
REST ON OUR LAURELS. THAT
IPELINE EQUITY OF 5000 MILES IS
ACTUALLY FAIRLY SMALL. IF WE'RE
GOING TO EXPAND THIS TECHNOLOGY
ACROSS THE UNITED STATES TO
ADDRESS CEMENT PLANTS, STEEL
MILLS, REFINERIES, FERTILIZER,
ALL THE INDUSTRIAL AND SOME
POWER APPLICATIONS. BET NETWORK
HAS MAY HAVE TO GROW TO, YOU
KNOW 65,000 MILES. WE HAVE TO
INCREASE. PIPELINE SAFETY WHILE
THAT NETWORK GROWS OUT NOW
INTERESTING. LAST LATE LAST WEEK
ON THE 26TH, THE REGULATOR, THE
PIPELINE. UM UH, PIPELINE AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION OR FILMS OF AS
IT'S CALLED. ANNOUNCED NEW
REGULATIONS THAT THEY WERE GOING
TO IMPLEMENT TO INCREASE C 02
PIPELINE STATIONS SAFETY THESEGREW OUT OF AN ACCIDENT IN
TARSIA, MISSISSIPPI. THAT 23
YEARS AGO. HEAVY RAINS IN
MISSISSIPPI CAUSED A LANDSLIDE,
EXPOSING THE PIPE RUPTURED AND
AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF OH T WAS
RELEASED. NO ONE WAS KILLED.
LUCKILY BUT WHAT WE LEARNED FROM
THAT WERE THE GEO HAZARDS HAVE
TO BE ADDRESSED. AND THEY ARE
EMBRACING NEW UPDATED
REGULATIONS. WE HAVEN'T SEEN
WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE YET WE'RE
GOING TO BE INVOLVED BECAUSE OUR
INTEREST IS IN MAKING SURE THAT
WHEN THIS PIPELINE NETWORK
EXPANDS THE BEST. THE CHANCES OF
ACCIDENTS BECOME VANISHINGLY
SMALL. THAT MUST BE OUR GOAL.
LET ME TALK ABOUT ONE MORE ITEM
THAT I ALLUDED TO ON THE NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. AND THAT'S
ENGAGEMENT WITH DJ COMMUNITIES.
THEY MUST HAVE A VOICE NOT ONLY
IN CCS, BUT ALL OF THE WAYS THAT
WE ARE TRYING TO TRANSITION TO.
A NET ZERO ECONOMY AND I'VE
DESCRIBED SOME OF THESE ITEMS ON
THE SLIDE RANGING FROM
PROVIDING, UM A SEAT AT THE
TABLE. TRANSPARENCY ALL OF THESE
THINGS ARE IN YOUR SCOPING
PLANS. BUT IF YOU IN CALIFORNIA
CAN IMPLEMENT THESE THINGS AND
EXPORT THROUGH YOUR LEADERSHIP
TO OTHER COMMUNITIES. WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS
TECHNOLOGY WORK EVERYWHERE. NOW
I'D LIKE TO JUST CONCLUDE WITH
SOME POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ON
CARBON MANAGEMENT. SOME OF THESE
ARE DESCRIBED IN YOUR EXECUTIVE
ORDERS. SOME OF THESE ARE
DESCRIBED IN YOUR SCOPING PLANS
, BUT SOME OF THEM REQUIRE
LEADERSHIP FROM THE, UM AL AS
YOU CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS INTO
ENACT THEM INTO LAW. THERE NEEDS
TO BE EXPLICIT INCLUSION OF CCS
TECHNOLOGY AND CARBON NEUTRALITY
, LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE. IT HAS
TO BE MORE EMBEDDED IN THE TOOLS
ON THE TABLE. UM COORDINATING OF
CCS PERMITTING PROCESSES. WE
HAVE TO MAKE THESE PROCESSES
WORK FOR PEOPLE. WE ALSO HAVE TO
MAKE THEM WORK FOR THE PLANET SO
THAT WE CAN GET THIS, UH, THIS
WORK DONE. AND WE NEED TO GET
POLICY GUIDELINES. GUIDANCE TO
ELIGIBILITY, UH, TO CLARIFY CCS
ELIGIBILITY AND EXISTING
POLICIES AND REGULATIONS,
PARTICULARLY IN THINGS LIKE SB
100. AND INCLUDING INCLUSION IN
THE CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM. WE
HAVE TO PROVIDE IMPROVED SUPPORT
MECHANISMS, UM, FOR PROJECT
REVENUES, AND I WANT TO ADDRESS
THE POINT THAT WAS RAISED. UM UM
BY EARLIER. THERE ARE A LOT OF
DIFFERENT WAYS TO MAKE SURE THE
TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE USED WISELY
ON CARBON CAPTURE. I'M NOT SO
CONCERNED ABOUT TARGETED AND
SMALL. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT
MAKING SURE THAT INCENTIVES CAN
ONLY BE CLAIMED WHEN THE
TECHNOLOGY WORKS. THE THING
ABOUT 45 QUÊ TAX CREDITS THAT
ARE THE BASIS FOR MOST CCS
PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES IS
YOU CAN ONLY CLAIM THEM IF YOU
CAPTURE AND IF YOU SUCCESSFULLY
INJECT UNDERGROUND. YOU DON'T
YOU DON'T GET THEM JUST FOR
BUILDING THE PLANT. PERFORMANCE
IS THE KEY. THE RISK SHOULD BE
SWITCHED FROM TAXPAYERS TO THE
PRIVATE SECTOR IF IT DOESN'T
WORK. THEY DON'T GET PAID
APPEARANCE SIMPLE. SO THERE WAYS
I THINK THAT EITHER CALIFORNIA
CAN LEND ITS VOICE TO MAKING
SURE THAT FEDERAL INCENTIVES ARE
INCREASED IN FOLLOW THAT
PRINCIPLE, OR AS YOU DESIGN YOUR
OW ONES. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU
TO THINK ABOUT PERFORMANCE BASED
INCENTIVES RATHER THAN SIMPLY
GRANTS AND THOSE THINGS WHERE
THE EQUIPMENT DOESN'T WORK. THE
MONEY IS LOST. LET ME LET ME
JUST WRAP UP BY TALKING ABOUT
SOME NEXT GENERATION POLICIES.
BASIN SCALE MANAGEMENT IF WE
RELY ON A PATCHWORK OF
DEVELOPERS TO CREATE STORAGE
SITES IN THE STATE. IT WILL
INVITE UM QUESTIONS ABOUT
WHETHER IT IT'S GOING TO WORK
WHETHER YOU CAN TRUST BUT IF WE
COULD DO THIS IN A COMPREHENSIVE
MANNER WHERE ALL OF THESE ARE
COORDINATED IN IN A WAY THAT THE
PUBLIC CAN TRUST AND THAT WE
GAIN EFFICIENCIES. THAT'S THE
WAY TO GO. IT'S BASIN SCALE
MANAGEMENT. AND FINALLY, I WOULD
JUST SAY THAT MHM. PLEASE
CONSIDER EXPANDING YOUR SUPPORT
FOR CCS INTO OTHER AREAS. IT MAY
NOT BE WHAT YOU NEED IN
CALIFORNIA ON EVERY SINGLE PLANT
, BUT THE REST OF THE WORLD WILL
NEED IT. AND THE REST OF THE
WORLD NEEDS YOUR LEADERSHIP AND
EXPORT YOUR POLICY EXPERTISE.
YOUR SUCCESSFUL DEMONSTRATIONS.
IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE
OF KEEPING THIS PLANET FROM
BAKING, THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, UM OUR OUR LAST
SPEAKER IS, UH, STEVEN FATE
ATTORNEY WITH THE CLIMATE AND
ENERGY PROGRAM WITH THE CENTER
FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW. EIGHT. VIRTUALLY HEAR ME?
YES, WE CAN. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. HONORABLE CHAIR. MORE
ATSUGI MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO ADDRESS YOU TODAY. MY NAME IS
STEPHEN FIGHT, AND I'M A SENIOR
ATTORNEY IN THE CLIMATE AND
ENERGY PROGRAM. AT THE CENTER
FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW, OR CL. SINCE 1989 CL HAS
USED THE POWER OF LAW TO PROTECT
THE ENVIRONMENT, PROMOTE HUMAN
RIGHTS AND ENSURE A JUST AND
SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. TODAY I
WANT TO DISCUSS THE RISKS OF
RELYING ON CARBON CAPTURE AND
STORAGE. CCS IS PITCHED AS ONE
SIMPLE TRICK THAT CAN SOLVE THE
GENUINE CHALLENGE OF HARD TO
ABATE EMISSIONS. IT FUNCTIONS IN
MODELS AS A SIGNIFICANT
EMISSIONS REDUCTION, THOUGH NOT
ELIMINATION APPROACH, BUT IN
REALITY, AND AS YOU HEARD FROM
PROFESSOR JACOBSON, THE ABILITY
OF CCS TO MEANINGFULLY REDUCE
EMISSIONS AS LIMITED. AND IT MAY
ACTUALLY MAKE THE CLIMATE
PROBLEM WORSE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO
STRESS THAT EVEN IF CCS COULD DO
ALL OF THE THINGS PROPONENTS
CLAIM IT COULD ITS APPLICATION
WOULD STILL BE LIMITED AND AS A
CLIMATE SOLUTION, IT WOULD BE
INSUFFICIENT. PROPONENTS
FREQUENTLY CLAIM CCS CAN ACHIEVE
90% CAPTURE. BUT THIS 90% ONLY
REFERS TO THE STREAM SUBJECT TO
CAPTURE AND IGNORES THE
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF EMISSIONS
AT THE SAME FACILITY, THE
EMISSIONS FROM THE CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT ITSELF. AND CRITICALLY
THE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM
EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUEL
PRODUCTION. ACCORDING TO THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON
CLIMATE CHANGE, THE CARBON
CAPTURE PROCESS INCURS AN ENERGY
PENALTY OF BETWEEN 13 AND 44.
EVEN IF CAPTURE RATES ARE AS
HIGH AS INDUSTRY CLAIMS THEY
WILL BE THE ENERGY PENALTY OF
CAPTURED DRAMATICALLY REDUCES
THE PURPORTED CLIMATE BENEFIT.
BUT NOT ONLY DOES CARBON CAPTURE
DO NOTHING TO THEN ADDRESS
UPSTREAM EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL
FUEL PRODUCTION INCREASES THEM
IN PROPORTION TO ADDITIONAL FUEL
REQUIRED ONE EVALUATION OF THE
POTENTIAL OF CARBON CAPTURE TO
REDUCE LIFECYCLE ENERGY SYSTEM
EMISSIONS FOUND THAT EVEN
ASSUMING IDEALISTIC 90% CAPTURE
THE ENERGY PENALTY AND EXCESS
PRODUCTION EMISSIONS RESULTED IN
ONLY A 39% REDUCTION IN LIFE
CYCLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
THE REALITY. IS THAT DESPITE
DECADES OF SCIENTIFIC, CORPORATE
AND GOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT, CCS
HAS A HISTORY OF OVER PROMISING
AND UNDER DELIVERING. THE GORGON
GAS SEPARATION FACILITY IN
AUSTRALIA, THE ILLINOIS
INDUSTRIAL CARBON CAPTURE
PROJECT AT AN ETHANOL REFINERY,
PETRA NOVA AND BOUNDARY DAM
PROJECTS OF COAL FIRED POWER
PLANTS, THE QUEST AND AIR
PRODUCTS CAPTURE PROJECTS AND
HYDROGEN PLANTS. ALL HAVE FAILED
TO MEET THE AMBITIOUS CAPTURE
TARGETS CLAIMED BY INDUSTRY
ACTORS, MANY MISSING THEM QUITE
SIGNIFICANTLY. AND THERE'S ALSO
THE ISSUE OF EMISSIONS OVER TIME
THAT GETS OBSCURED IN DEBATES
AROUND CAPTURE RATES, REGARDLESS
OF IF OR HOW MUCH CCS CAN REDUCE
EMISSIONS AT A FACILITY. IT IS
NO IMPROVEMENT IF THAT FACILITY
WAS PLANNING TO CLOSE. AND WE'RE
ALREADY SEEING THIS IN PRACTICE
A COAL PLANT BOUNDARY DAM, ONE
OF THOSE TWO COAL FIRED POWER
STATIONS, RETROFITTED WITH CCS
WAS PLANNING TO SHUT DOWN BEFORE
THE RETROFIT. THE ADDITION
EXTENDED ITS EXPECTED LIFE BY 30
YEARS. ANOTHER COAL PLANT THAT
COLD CREEK PLANT IN NORTH DAKOTA
SIMILARLY REVERSED ITS DECISION
TO RETIRE AND IS PURSUING A SALE
AND CCS RETROFIT INSTEAD. THIS
IS NO SURPRISE AS THE
FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF CARBON
CAPTURE IS TO ENABLE EMITTING
FACILITIES TO CONTINUE TO DO SO.
AND THIS IS THE RISK OF
ENTRENCHMENT THE RISK THAT CCS
SERVES TO EXTEND THE FOSSIL FUEL
ERROR THAT THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT
CCS ARE WARNING ABOUT. IT'S NOT
HYPOTHETICAL. IS WHAT IS
ACTUALLY HAPPENING. AND OF
COURSE, THERE IS ENHANCED OIL
RECOVERY. TO DATE, ALMOST ALL OF
THE CARBON CAPTURED IN THE
UNITED STATES HAS BEEN USED FOR
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY, OR E O. R
THE PROCESS OF PUSHING MORE OIL
OUT OF SPENT WELLS BY INJECTING
INTO THEM. MUCH OF THE PUSH FOR
CCS IS AS MUCH ABOUT SECURING
AFFORDABLE SUPPLIES OF COCOA TO
EXPAND OIL PRODUCTION AS IT IS
ANY KIND OF CLIMATE ACTION. I
WON'T SPEND MUCH TIME DISCUSSING
YOU ARE, BUT IT SHOULD SUFFICE
TO SAY THAT PRODUCING OIL IS NOT
A CLIMATE SOLUTION. SO DESPITE
BEING A PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY
WITH A LIMITED ABILITY TO
ADDRESS EMISSIONS, CCS CONTINUES
TO OCCUPY A PROMINENT SPACE AND
CLIMATE DISCOURSE BECAUSE IT
PRESENTS THE VAGUE, INCOMPLETE
PROMISE OF CARBON FREE FOSSIL
FUELS. BUT CCS ALSO LOOKS REALLY
GOOD IN MODELS, DESPITE ALL OF
ITS REAL WORLD SHORTCOMINGS, AND
IT IS TRUE THAT CCS APPEARS IN,
FOR EXAMPLE, MODELED I PCC
SCENARIOS BUT A CLOSER READING
OF THE RECENT REPORT ON CLIMATE
MITIGATION FROM THE IPCC S THIRD
WORKING GROUP REVEALS A SERIES
OF WARNINGS AGAINST RELYING ON
CARBON CAPTURE TO SOLVE OUR
CLIMATE PROBLEM. CRITICALLY
THERE ARE TWO INTERRELATED
ASSUMPTION THAT UNDERLIE THE
WIDESPREAD USE OF CCS AND
CLIMATE MODELS, HIGH CAPTURE
RATES AND DECREASING COSTS. AS
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT REAL LIFE
CAPTURE RATES AT EXISTING CCS
FACILITIES FALLS FAR, FAR SHORT
OF THE 90 TO 95% CAPTURE RATES
REFLECTED IN MODELS THAT ALL
RELY ON THIS TECHNOLOGY WORKING.
THIS IS A CRITICAL POINT. THE
MODELS DON'T SUGGEST THE
LIKELIHOOD OF CCS MEETING
CAPTURE RATES. THEY JUST SHOW
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY DID,
AND THIS IS A MEANINGFUL
DISTINCTION THAT OFTEN GETS LOST
AND EVALUATIONS OF POTENTIAL
MITIGATION PATHWAYS. BUT THE
OBSTACLES TO CCS ARE NOT JUST A
MATTER OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
BUT ALSO FINANCIAL COST. CARBON
CAPTURE IS REALLY, REALLY
EXPENSIVE AND IS LIKELY TO STAY
SO SOLVENT BASED CAPTURE THE
MOST WELL DEVELOPED OF THE POST
COMBUSTION APPROACHES REQUIRE
SIGNIFICANT ENERGY AND CHEMICAL
INPUTS THAT ARE UNAVOIDABLE.
SECONDLY EACH CARBON CAPTURE
INSTALLATION IS BESPOKE TO THE
FACILITY TO WHICH IT IS APPLIED
THE PARTICULAR ARRANGEMENT OF
EMISSIONS AND POWER SOURCES AND
EVEN THE AVAILABILITY OF
PHYSICAL SPACE ON WHICH TO
CONSTRUCT CARBON CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT. DIFFERS FROM FACILITY
TO FACILITY. THIS MAKES EACH
RETROFIT A COMPLICATED
CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING
PROJECT, NOT THE KIND OF PROJECT
YOU CAN SIMPLY BUY OFF THE
SHELF. SO PUT TOGETHER. THIS
MEANS THAT CARBON CAPTURE IS NOT
THE KIND OF TECHNOLOGY THAT IS
LIKELY TO DECREASE MEANINGFULLY
AND COST THE WAY THINGS LIKE
WIND AND SOLAR HAVE THE IPCC
ADDRESSES THIS DIRECTLY IN THEIR
RECENT REPORT, NOTING THE
ADOPTION OF C O TO CAPTURE AND
STORAGE IN THE ELECTRICITY
SECTOR HAS BEEN SLOWER THAN THE
GROWTH RATE ANTICIPATED AND
STABILIZATION SCENARIOS.
EMERGING EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT
SMALL SCALE TECHNOLOGIES LIKE
SOLAR AND BATTERIES TEND TO
IMPROVE FASTER AND BE ADOPTED
MORE QUICKLY THAN LARGE SCALE
TECHNOLOGIES LIKE CCS. FINALLY
AS YOU KNOW, THE CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD RECENTLY
RELEASED ITS DRAFT SCOPING PLAN
AND INCLUDED IN ITS PROPOSED
SCENARIO, A ROLE FOR CCS AND
CEMENT, MANUFACTURING AND
PETROLEUM REFINING. BOTH ARE
DESCRIBED AS HARD TO ABATE
EMISSIONS THAT NECESSITATE THE
BUILD OUT OF CCS, AND EACH HAS
UNIQUE CHALLENGES THAT I WILL
ADDRESS. FIRST APPLYING CCS TO
CEMENT RAISES PARTICULAR
CONCERNS. CEMENT PRODUCTION
REPRESENTING JUST 1.8% OF
CALIFORNIA'S EMISSIONS IS OFTEN
CITED AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR
THE NEED FOR CCH GUESTS. THE
EMISSION SOURCE THAT IS NOT
AMENABLE TO OTHER INTERVENTIONS
. HOWEVER THE LOGIC OF USING CCS
FOR CEMENT PRODUCTION BREAKS
DOWN WHEN YOU EXAMINE IT MORE
CLOSELY. CEMENT PRODUCTION IS
THE MOST EXPENSIVE INDUSTRIAL
CARBON CAPTURE CAPTURE
APPLICATION, ACCORDING TO THE
GLOBAL CCS INSTITUTE, AND IT IS
EXPECTED TO REMAIN SIGNIFICANTLY
MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OTHER CCS
OPTIONS PER TON OF CO TWO
REMOVED. AND TRANSPORTING CC
CARBON WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT
AND EXPENSIVE WHEN APPLIED TO
CEMENT, WHEREAS INDUSTRIES LIKE
STEEL AND CHEMICALS TEND TO
CLUSTER IN ARE LOCATED NEAR
PORTS. CEMENT FACILITIES ARE
MORE GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED.
THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP ECONOMIES
OF SCALE BY BUILDING
CONCENTRATED PIPELINE NETWORKS
THAT MANY CCS PLANS RELY ON IS
THEREFORE MUCH MORE LIMITED,
ADDING TO THE DIFFICULTY OF
ACTUALLY APPLYING CCS TO CEMENT
SECOND, THEIR REFINERIES, WHICH
ARE ALSO NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT
TO APPLY CCS TO AS THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD NOTES,
REFINERIES CAN HAVE A VARIETY OF
POINT SOURCES THAT EMIT CO. TWO
EACH CONFIGURATION OF A REFINERY
CAN BE UNIQUE TO ITS FOOTPRINT
ON SITE OPERATIONS AND THE TYPES
OF CRUDE OILS PROCESS.
REFINERIES ARE EXACTLY THE KIND
OF FACILITY I DESCRIBED ABOVE
AND MUCH OF THE REFINERIES.
FOOTPRINT MAY NOT EVEN BE
AMENABLE TO A CCS RETROFIT. EVEN
IN THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD'S
LEAST AMBITIOUS ALTERNATIVE
SCENARIO. REFINERY EMISSIONS
DROPPED BY ABOUT THREE QUARTERS
WITHOUT CCS. SO AGAIN, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT LESS THAN 2% OF
CALIFORNIA'S EMISSIONS. AND OF
COURSE, PHASING OUT FOSSIL FUELS
AND THE DEMAND FOR REFINERY
PRODUCTS IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE
WAY TO ELIMINATE THEIR EMISSIONS
. AS THE RB NOTES CCS UH, YEAH.
SORRY AS THE RB NOTES, CCS WILL
BE ESSENTIALLY UNAVAILABLE AT
REFINERIES THIS DECADE, BY
CONTRAST, IN THE RBS FIRST
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO, WHERE
DEMAND FOR FOSSIL FUELS ARE
RAPIDLY PHASED OUT, EMISSIONS
FROM REFINERIES ARE ELIMINATED
BY 2035. AND AGAIN, I MUST
REITERATE THAT CARBON CAPTURE
DOES NOT ELIMINATE EMISSIONS, IT
IS OFTEN POSITIONED AS AN ANSWER
TO THE QUESTION OF HOW TO DEAL
WITH HARD TO ABATE EMISSIONS,
BUT IT DOES NOT, IN FACT
ELIMINATE THEM. PROPONENTS OF
CARBON CAPTURE SAY THINGS LIKE
WE NEED AN ALL OF THE ABOVE
STRATEGY OR THAT WE HAVE TO USE
ALL OF THE TOOLS IN OUR TOOLBOX.
BUT THE RISK OF CCS IS EXACTLY
THAT IT WILL CROWD OUT OTHER
STRATEGIES THAT IT WILL DELAY
THE NEEDED TRANSITION AND PHASE
OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS IN A CONTEXT
OF FEDERAL SUBSIDIES AND
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY. CCS WILL
BE A LIFELINE FOR EMITTING
FACILITIES THAT GOES THROUGH
INVESTMENT CYCLES MEASURED IN
DECADES AND WILL LOCK IN FOSSIL
FUELS FOR DECADES TO COME. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, UM QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE, SENATOR WIECKOWSKI.
LET'S JUST GO TO WORK THE
PANELIST TO COME FORWARD THAT
ARE HERE. HOW DO YOU WANT TO DO
THAT? MR. PARDON? I THINK WE CAN
JUST DIRECT QUESTIONS TO, UH,
THE PANELISTS THAT YOU'D LIKE
TO, UH, OKAY. IT SEEMS IT SEEMS
LIKE INTIMATED THIS IN MY
OPENING, IT SEEMS THAT MANY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
PROJECTS THAT FAILED OR A COAL
FACILITIES AND ARE QUITE COSTLY
. HOW REPRESENTATIVE IS CCS IN
GENERAL WITH THE DEAL DEAL WITH
PROJECTIONS THAT FAILED. I MEAN
, I KNOW PROFESSOR JACOBSON
TALKED ABOUT CALL DATA ON COAL
AND THEN SAID THIS IS
TRANSFERRABLE TO ALL FOSSIL
FUELS. ALSO ANYBODY WOULD TAKE
THAT. UH ACTUALLY, IN THE
INTEREST OF TIME, PERHAPS IF WE
CAN TRY TO DIRECTOR OR QUESTIONS
TO, UH TO PANELISTS, UM SO THAT
WE DON'T FEEL LIKE EVERYONE
NEEDS TO BE RESPOND. SURE JOHN
THOMPSON HERE. LET ME LET ME
JUST START WITH A COUPLE OF
POINTS. LET'S START WITH PETRA
NOVA, IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REPORT
FINAL REPORT THERE THAT THAT
PARTICULAR PLANT CAPTURED. 90%
THAT PARTICULAR EQUIPMENT
CAPTURED 92% OF THE CEO TO THAT
PASSED THROUGH IT. SO IT WAS
ABOUT TO SIGN FOR 90 ACTUALLY
CAPTURED 92. THE REASON FOR THE
LOWER PERCENTAGES THAT, UH, MARK
TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WAS THAT
THERE WAS SOME DOWNTIME ON THAT
EQUIPMENT. AND SOME OF THAT, YOU
KNOW EMISSIONS WEREN'T CAPTURED.
WITH THE OTHER MAIN THING THAT
YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND ABOUT
PETRA NOVA. IS THAT THE SEPARATE
CO TWO UH, POWER PLANT, THE
NATURAL GAS POWER PLANT
EMISSIONS WENT UP THE STACK.
THAT'S NOT HOW ANYONE WOULD
DESIGN PROJECT WHO BUILT A
SEPARATE POWER PLANT FOR RUNNING
THE CAPTURE EQUIPMENT, IN FACT,
IN PROJECT TUNDRA IN NORTH
DAKOTA. THE COAL PLANTS,
EMISSIONS ARE CAPTURED AND THE C
02 FROM THE AUXILIARY BOILER
NATURAL GAS PLANT ARE CAPTURED.
THAT'S WHY SO IT'S NOT REALLY
FAIR TO SAY. PETRA NOVA
REPRESENTS WHAT FUTURE PROJECTS
WE'RE GOING ARE GOING TO DO IN
THE COAL SPACE THAT WAS REALLY
DESIGNED AS A THREE YEAR PROJECT
TO LOOK AT SOME SPECIFIC AH,
EQUIPMENT INTO SIMPLIFY IT SO
THEY COULD NARROW DOWN ON THAT.
SO WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO BE
DOING ON CARBON CAPTURE
GENERALLY, AND COAL AND NATURAL
GAS IS HIGHER LEVELS THAN 90%
MOST OF THE PROJECTS BEING
DESIGNED TODAY, OR 95. BUT WHAT
WE REALLY NEED IS 98 99% CAPTURE
98% ON A NATURAL GAS PLANT
BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, THE C 02
CONCENTRATION IN THE STACK IS
ABOUT THE SAME AS WHAT'S IN THE
ATMOSPHERE. WITH GREATER THAN
99% OF THE COAL PLANT THAT STACK
CONCENTRATION OF CO TWO RIVALS
THAT IN THE ATMOSPHERE AS WELL.
THAT'S THE LEVEL WE NEED TO GET
TO. SO IF YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T
HAVE ANY COAL PLANTS IN THE
STATE, BUT IF YOU DECIDED TO DO
NATURAL GAS COMBINED CYCLE CCS,
PLEASE DRIVE THE CAPTURE LEVEL.
UP INTO THE 98% CAPTURE LIMIT
AREA. THERE'S NO REASON WHY THIS
CAN'T BE DONE. NO I A
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY ASSOCIATION
OR AGENCY HAS LOOKED AT THIS.
THEY CONCLUDE THESE HIGH LEVELS
OF CAPTURE ARE NOT TECHNICAL
BARRIERS. UM, BUT WHERE CCS
HASN'T WORKED IN THE PAST HAS
LARGELY BEEN NOT BECAUSE OF THE
TECHNOLOGY. BUT BECAUSE OF THE
ECONOMICS, IT WASN'T UNTIL 2018
THAT CONGRESS RAISED 45 QUÊ TAX
CREDIT LEVELS. THESE ARE THE
PERFORMANCE ONES THAT I TALKED
ABOUT FROM $20 A TON. ON CCS TO
$50 A TON AT THAT POINT, WHAT
WE'VE SEEN IS ABOUT 60 ETHANOL
PLANTS BEING PROPOSED IN THE
UNITED STATES WITH CARBON
CAPTURE. THEY'VE ALWAYS HAD THE
OPTION TO DO CARBON CAPTURE IN
THE PAST. ETHANOL PLANTS HAVE
DONE SOME OF IT, YOU KNOW TO FOR
THE FOOD, GREAT INDUSTRY. WE'RE
NOW SEEING HUGE AMOUNTS OF
CARBON CAPTURE BEING PROPOSED
FOR ETHANOL PLANTS BECAUSE ITS
ECONOMIC IF WE DON'T HAVE THE
ECONOMICS, THE TECHNOLOGY JUST
DOESN'T GET, YOU KNOW, PUT
FORWARD, SO I WOULD JUST SAY
THAT THESE ARE ALL DOABLE AND
TRANSFERABLE INTO THE HARD
DEBATE. SEGMENTS OF THE
INDUSTRIAL SIDE AS WELL,
RESPONDED THAT DR SELTZER UH DR
CELSER, ARE THE CCS IMPACTS ON
LOCAL AIR. ALL THE FACILITY
FACILITIES SPECIFIC. THAT MEANS
, YOU KNOW, WILL A NATURAL GAS
FACILITY OR A BIOFUEL FACILITY
HAVE TO SEE HIM. IMPACT IS A
COLD FACILITY. NO ACTUALLY, THEY
WILL BE DIFFERENT, BUT THAT'S
ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT JOHN
SHOULD PROBABLY ADDRESS BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT HE TALKED ABOUT. OH,
HI, JOHN. THE QUESTION ONE MORE
TIME, PLEASE ARE THE ARE THE C C
S IMPACT ON LOCAL AIR QUALITY.
FACILITY SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW,
IT'S A NATURAL GAS IMPACT GOING
TO BE DIFFERENT THAN THE BIOFUEL
FACILITY VERSUS A COLD FACILITY
. YES YES AND NO. SO FIRST OF
ALL, WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S THE
POLLUTANTS IN THE STACK. NATURAL
GAS DOESN'T HAVE MUCH SULFUR IN
IT, SO YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH
SULFUR DIOXIDE TO BEGIN WITH
WHAT YOU HAVE IS OR MORE
CONCERNS ABOUT NITROGEN OXIDES
AND PARTICULATE MATTER SO ALL OF
THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO
CHANGE. UM DEPENDING ON THE
SETTING, BUT GENERALLY WHAT I
SAID TO BEGIN WITH IS THAT, UH,
CARBON CAPTURE EQUIPMENT HAS TO
BE PROTECTED FROM MANY OF THESE
CONSTITUENTS. AND. AND I CAN GO
INTO MORE DETAIL, BUT BUT THAT'S
GOING TO BE TRUE WHETHER IT'S A
STEEL PLANT, WHETHER IT'S A
CEMENT PLANT, WHETHER IT'S A
NATURAL GAS PLANT, WHETHER IT'S
A FERTILIZER PLANT, OR EVEN IF
IT'S A COAL PLANT. HMM CAN I
RESPOND TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS?%
YES, PROFESSOR. UM JACOBSON.
THANKS UM, WELL WITH REGARD TO
PETRA NOVA, FIRST OF ALL THE
NUMBER 90% CAPTURE RATE THAT'S
ONLY AT FULL LOAD. AND, YEAH,
THAT'S THE CAPTURE THE CARBON
CAPTURE. INDUSTRY ALWAYS USES
THAT NUMBER BECAUSE THEY ONLY
REPORT FULL LOAD, BUT THAT'S NOT
WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURS IN THE
ANNUAL AVERAGE. THE ANNUAL
AVERAGE CAPTURE RATE FOR THREE
YEARS OF PETRA NOVA WAS 70% THE
FIRST YEAR IS 55. THAT'S THE
DATA THAT BOUNDARY DAM IT'S 55%
SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE
FULL LOAD IS, BECAUSE, AS THE
STATED, YOU'RE NOT ALWAYS AT
FULL LOAD FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT
REASONS, LIKE THERE'S NOT A
DEMAND, THERE'S THE C 02 PIPES
AREN'T WORKING THERE. IT'S DOWN
FOR MAINTENANCE OR WHATEVER.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE ANNUAL
AVERAGE, WHICH IS 70% AND PETRA
. NOVA WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR
THREE YEARS. THE REASON IT SHUT
DOWN AFTER THREE YEARS WAS
BECAUSE IT WAS FINANCIALLY IT
WAS A DISASTER. COST A BILLION
DOLLARS AND IT WAS FINANCIALLY
BOONDOGGLE, AND THAT'S WHY IT
WAS SHUT DOWN. IT WAS THE BEST
PLANT IN THE WORLD. THERE WAS IT
WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A BASIC
POSTER TITLE PLANT, AND IT JUST
DIDN'T WORK. NOW WITH REGARD TO
AIR POLLUTION, THE AIR POLLUTION
INCREASES BECAUSE NOT ONLY
BECAUSE STACK EMISSIONS INCREASE
FOR MOST CHEMICALS, BUT BECAUSE
UPSTREAM YOU NEED MORE FUEL. YOU
NEED 25 UP TO 50% OR 45% MORE
FUEL. UH FOR THE CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT, SEE MORE MINING.
AMMONIA GOES UP AT THE STACK ALL
THE TIME, PARTICULARLY MATTER IS
GOING TO GO UP SULFUR DIOXIDE
MAKE NO DOWN, BUT THAT'S ONLY
BECAUSE YOU NEED ADDITIONAL
EQUIPMENT TO RUN AS WAS
MENTIONED TO RUN THE CAPTURE
EQUIPMENT. YOU CAN'T HAVE TOO
MUCH SULFUR. AND SO YOU MIGHT
HAVE TO ADD MORE EQUIPMENT,
WHICH ADDS MORE COST, BUT
THERE'S DEFINITELY AN INCREASE
OF OVERALL AIR POLLUTION. NO
MATTER WHERE YOU GO. AMMONIA IS
NOT ONLY BAD FOR VISIBILITY IS
THE WORST AMMONIUM NITRATES THE
WORST VISIBILITY REDUCER IN THE
LOS ANGELES BASIN AND HAS BEEN
FOR YEARS. AND THIS WILL GO UP
WITH CARBON CAPTURE EQUIPMENT,
AND IT'S ALSO IT'S GOING TO
CONVERT THE PARTICLES IN THE AIR
POLLUTION DEATHS. 90% ARE DUE TO
PARTICLES SO THIS IS WE REALLY
NEED TO FOCUS ON REAL THE
REALITY OF THIS SITUATION THAT
THIS IS A DANGEROUS PRODUCT JUST
INCREASES AIR POLLUTION
INCREASES MINING AND IT'S NOT AS
EFFICIENT AS INDUSTRY CLAIMS I
GUESS FOR A DOCTOR APPARATUS. I
HAD A QUESTION YOU COULD FOLLOW
UP ON GENERAL DISCUSSION. BUT
PERMIT THESE SITES AND CARBON
CAPTURE TAKES 5 TO 10 YEARS. THE
FLEET. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS
ELONGATING THAT PROCESS? YOU
HELP US OUT AS LEGISLATORS. YEAH
THAT'S A ABSOLUTELY VALID
OBSERVATION. WE ACTUALLY WROTE A
REPORT THIS JUST OVER A YEAR
AGO. SO YES, THIS IS A LONG
WINDED PROCESS. IT IS THEREFORE
REASON, ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA
. WE VALUE OUR LANDSCAPES IN OUR
AIR. AND OUR HEALTH AND THESE
PROCESSES ARE NOT TO BE BRUSHED.
ASIDE OF CIRCUMVENTED. THAT SAID
THEY CAN BE MADE MORE TIME
EFFICIENT. SO PRIMARILY WHAT WE
THINK IS NEEDED IS OR THE
RELEVANT AGENCIES TO MAP OUT
THEIR JURISDICTION AND TO BE
VERY COGNIZANT OF THEIR OWN
TASKS AND ALSO TO COLLABORATE
BETWEEN THEM SO THAT YOU DON'T
HAVE AN APPLICATION BEING
BOUNCED BACK AND FORTH FOR
MONTHS ON END WITHOUT ACTUALLY
MOVING THE BALL FORWARD. NOW
THAT HAS BEGUN. SO IT'S BEEN
LEAST A YEAR AND A HALF. NOW
THAT'S RELEVANT STATE AGENCIES
HAVE FORMED A WORKING GROUP.
THERE WAS A SMALL NUMBER OF
REGULATORY OR EVEN STATUTORY
REFORMS THAT COULD BE USEFUL.
UM, THAT IS NOT. ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY FOR THE FIRST PROJECTS
TO MATERIALIZE. I THINK IT WILL
BE NECESSARY IN THE LONG TERM IF
WE ARE TO REPLICATE AND BUILD
MORE PROJECTS RIGHT NOW, THE
NUMBER ONE IS EFFICIENCY,
AWARENESS OF DUTIES AND, UM,
TIMELY PROCESSING AND
COORDINATION AMONG AGENCIES. AND
REBECCA, DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW
UP? OKAY. WHY DON'T WE LET OKAY?
SENATOR BECKER. TRACKING SYSTEM
THAT QUESTION FOR THAT MAY BE
FOR SALZER. AND FOR MR THOMPSON,
SO IT SEEMS LIKE DR JACOBSON'S
MAIN OR A COUPLE OF HIS
CRITIQUES ARE ABOUT UPSTREAM
EMISSIONS NOT BEING ACCOUNTED
FOR, AND YOU ALLUDED TO THAT AS
WELL. UM, AND THOSE CAN BE UP TO
50% OF EMISSIONS. SECONDLY, IF.
WE HAVE TRAINING IN CORPORATE
RENEWABLES TO POWER. ANY OF THIS
THAT WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF
USING THOSE RENEWABLES. IN THE
SHORT TERM IF WE HAVE LIMITED
LEVELS, WHICH WE DO TO DIRECTLY
REDUCE FOSSIL FUELS, SO WHAT?
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THOSE TWO
CRITIQUES? SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
QUESTION. HAVE A COUPLE OF
RESPONSES. UM FIRST THE. I'M
SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR
QUESTION? ONE MORE TIME I LOST
TRAIN. THE FIRST WAS ABOUT
UPSTREAM EMISSIONS. IF THAT'S UP
TO 50% WE HAVE TO ADDRESS
UPSTREAM EMISSIONS. AS I, UH
TESTIFIED EARLIER CLEANER TASK
FORCE. WE HAVE A LARGE PROGRAM
DEDICATED TO ADDRESSING THOSE
UPSTREAM. EMISSIONS BOTH ON THE
POLICY STANDPOINT, AND FROM A
TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, IT'S
ESSENTIAL THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO
USE FOSSIL FUELS OR IF SOMEONE
USES FOSSIL FUELS THAT WE HAVE
TO ADDRESS THOSE, IT'S NOT
ENOUGH JUST TO DO CARBON
CAPTURE. IT IS A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF EMISSIONS THAT ARE
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND WE'VE
PUBLISHED A PIECE IN. UM UH,
ELECTRICITY JOURNAL THAT I CAN
SHARE WITH YOU. THAT KIND OF
SHOWS THESE GRAPHS, BUT WE
ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO GET THOSE
UPSTREAM EMISSIONS. UNDER
CONTROL, AND IT'S NOT JUST IN
THE UNITED STATES THAT WE HAVE
TO WORRY ABOUT THIS. THERE'S
SOME NUMBERS ABOUT CHINA. AH IF
YOU ONLY REMEMBER THREE NUMBERS
FROM MY PRESENTATION. LET ME
GIVE YOU 3 15 7 AND FIVE 15
BILLION MILLION 15 BILLION
METRIC TONS, OR WHAT THE AMOUNT
OF CO TWO THE CHINA RELEASES
EVERY YEAR. SEVEN BILLION. UM
METRIC TONS IS COMES FROM THEIR
COAL USE ALONE. FIVE BILLION
THAT'S ROUNDING UP THAT'S ALL OF
THE C 02 THAT THE U. S PRODUCERS
FROM ALL ITS SECTORS.
TRANSPORTATION POWER INDUSTRIAL
THEY PRODUCE MORE CO TWO FROM
THEIR COAL THAN WE DO AS A
NATION. WE HAVE TO GET THEIR
UPSTREAM EMISSIONS UNDER CONTROL
, AND WE HAVE TO PILOT THAT IN
THIS COUNTRY AS WELL. AND I
THINK THAT ULTIMATELY THIS
TECHNOLOGY OF CARBON CAPTURE
DOESN'T EXTEND THE LIFE OF
CHINA'S COAL PLANTS. WE HAVE SO
MUCH THAT WE DON'T GET UNDER
CONTROL. UH WE'RE IN TROUBLE.
CARBON CAPTURE, RENEWABLES AND
NUCLEAR HAVE TO ALL PLAY A ROLE
IN CHINA IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
A CHANCE IN CALIFORNIA OF
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS WE SEE
WELL, THANK YOU. WELL AGAIN
DOESN'T RAISE THE AS YOU SAID
THE DEFINITION OF UPSTREAM
MISSIONS WILL GIVE THE TO
PRODUCE A CHANCE IN A SECOND.
JUST UM, AGAINST THIS. WE'RE ALL
AWARE OF THAT SIGNIFICANT
SOURCE. MY OTHER SECOND QUESTION
WAS THAT'S LIKE SAYING, IF WE
HAVE LIMITED RENEWABLES, WHICH
DO IN A SHORT TERM, WE'RE BETTER
OFF USING THEM TO DIRECTLY
REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS THAN TO
POWER. ANY KIND OF, UM, EITHER.
UH YOU KNOW, DIRECT CCS OR EVEN
HE WOULD ARGUE. MAYBE EVEN
DIRECT AIR CAPTURE OTHER
GOVERNMENT REMOVAL. I DON'T
SHARE THAT OPINION. I THINK THAT
WE'RE GOING TO NEED ALL OF THE
OPTIONS WE HAVE. WE'RE GOING TO
NEED ALL OF THE RENEWABLES WE
POSSIBLY CAN BUILD. AND WE'RE
STILL GOING TO NEED TO DE
CARBONIZED CEMENT PLANTS,
REFINERIES AND OTHER THINGS WITH
CARBON CAPTURE 60% OF THE C. 02
THAT'S RELEASED BY A CEMENT
PLANT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
FUEL. IT'S INHERENT TO THE
CHEMISTRY OF TRANSFORMING THAT
LIMESTONE INTO THE FINAL PRODUCT
. THAT'S TRUE OF A LOT OF
INDUSTRIES. IT'S TRUE OF GLASS.
IT'S TRUE OF PULP AND PAPER.
IT'S TRUE. FERTILIZER IT'S THE
CHEMISTRY THAT DRIVES THIS STUFF
AND ABSENT CARBON CAPTURE. WE'RE
JUST NOT GOING TO GET A HANDLE
ON THAT. SO I DON'T SEE THIS AS
A CHOICE OF DO WE DO ONE OR DO
WE DO THE OTHER? WE HAVE TO DO
THEM ALL. WE HAVE TO BE WISE
ABOUT DOING IT. OH, THANK YOU
ALSO OR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
WEIGH IN, AND I FEEL SOME OF MY
PANELISTS MISSING THE FOREST FOR
THE TREES HERE, SO I'LL MAKE A
COUPLE OF DETAILED COMMENTS AND
THEN TRY AND BOIL IT DOWN TO THE
OVERARCHING THEME MIA. SO
CAPACITY FACTOR CAPTURE RATES
DOWN TO MAKE SURE SPEAKING TO
THE MIC, PLEASE. THAT MEANS THAT
BETTER OKAY? SO CAPTURE RATES
CAPACITY FACTORS DOWNTIME. IT'S
IMPORTANT TO REALIZE FIRST OF
ALL THAT, YOU KNOW WAS IN ALL OF
FIELD PROJECTS, AND IT WAS
CONFIGURED AWAY. IT WAS BECAUSE
OF LIMITED MONEY ON THE TABLE.
IF YOU'RE AFTER CLIMATE
MITIGATION, YOU WILL NOT JUST
CAPTURE FROM A SLIPSTREAM. YOU
CAN'T CAPTURE FROM THE ENTIRE
PLANT. UM BOUNDARY DOWN. IT'S
VERY LARGE FACILITY HAS SIX
UNITS. ONLY ONE OF THEM, UM WAS
RETRO FEDERAL CCS BECAUSE OF
MONETARY CONSTRAINTS. THERE WAS
SCHEDULED DONE DOWNTIME FOR THE
ENTIRE BASE POWER PLANT. IF YOU
ATTRIBUTE THAT DOWNTIME TO A
FAILURE OF THE CCS EQUIPMENT AND
YES, YOU CAN MAKE IT LOOK WORSE.
BUT THAT WAS A DOWNTIME THAT WAS
GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. THERE
ARE MANY CREATIVE WAYS TO STACK
ASSUMPTIONS TO MAKE CARBON
CAPTURE LOOK BAD. UM IT'S
IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THESE
ARE FIRST OF ACCOUNT PLANTS.
SEVERAL OTHER TECHNOLOGIES WHEN
SOLAR HAVE BEEN THE TARGET OF
POLICIES OVER SEVERAL DECADES,
AND BEFORE THOSE DECADES THEY
FOUND THEMSELVES IN A SIMILAR
PLACE. THEY WERE MORE EXPENSIVE
AND MORE CLUNKY. CCS HAS NOT HAD
THAT BENEFIT. IT'S ONLY BEEN THE
LAST ROUGHLY THREE YEARS THAT
THERE'S BEEN A UM, AN INCREASE
IN THE AVAILABLE TAX CREDITS FOR
THIS WOULD BE NO PORTFOLIO
STANDARDS. THERE'D BE NO SEXUAL
TARGETS. CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN A
TRUE CHAMPION IN OVERCOMING THIS
INITIAL HURDLE THAT SOME
TECHNOLOGIES FACE THROUGH THE
USE OF POLICIES WISE POLICIES.
CCS HAS NEVER HAD THAT
OPPORTUNITY. SO YES, WE CAN LOOK
AT THOSE ONE OFF FIRST OF
ACCOUNT PLANTS AND SAY, OKAY,
BUT THIS LOOKS LIKE THIS OR THIS
IS A LITTLE BIT ODD. YES, THEY
ARE. BUT THERE'S NO LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD YET. THIS IS THE
DECISION THAT WE FACE TODAY. DO
WE WANT TO GET CCS TO THAT STAGE
AND NONE OF US HERE ARE
PROPOSING THAT CCS IS A IS A
MAGIC WAND OR A SUBSTITUTE TO
ALL THE OTHER SOLUTIONS. UM BUT
WE ALSO THINK THAT WE'RE GOING
TO NEED IT ALONGSIDE EFFICIENCY
IN ALONGSIDE RENEWABLES. IF THIS
IS EXACTLY THIS SORT OF HUMBLING
CLIMATE MATH THAT CARB IS
RUNNING INTO AND PUTTING IT
SCOPING PLAN TOGETHER. IT IS
VERY, VERY HARD WE DO NEED OR
SOLUTIONS AT THE TABLE. SENATOR
DOLLY THANK YOU FOR A. BRINGING
US THIS INFORMATION. I JUST WANT
TO MAYBE PAINT A LITTLE
DIFFERENT PICTURE. UM NOW WE'RE
LEGISLATORS. WE? WE. WE'RE
TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING
WITH THE INFORMATION THAT IS
PRESENTED TO US AND THEN WORK
THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF LÀ
BEINGS AND DIFFERENT DIFFERENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND. AND I THINK
THE FRUSTRATING THING FOR ME IS
THAT WE EVEN HAVE CONFLICTS ON
WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY. AND SO
HOW? HOW DO I DO THE RIGHT THING
FOR MY CONSTITUENTS FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT? AND FOR THE WORLD,
QUITE FRANKLY, AND WE'VE HEARD
TODAY THAT YOU KNOW, CHINA IS
SPEWING OUT 15 BILLION. THAT WAS
I WAS THE ONE NUMBER I CAUGHT
THAT YOU YOU TALKED ABOUT, AND
THEN AND THEN YOU KNOW, SO WHAT?
SO CALIFORNIA. REPRESENTS ABOUT
1% OF THE WORLD'S POLLUTION. C
02 CARBON. AND THE FRUSTRATION I
GUESS IS AS A LEGISLATOR IS THAT
I NEED I WHAT I WOULD REALLY
PREFER TO HAVE FROM YOU REALLY
SMART PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING ALL
THIS IS YOU TALK ABOUT THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THERE'STAX
CREDITS AVAILABLE. THERE'S UM
AND WHAT I WHAT I'M FACED WITH
EVERY DAY IS PEOPLE CALLING MY
OFFICE SAYING I CAN'T AFFORD TO
LIVE IN CALIFORNIA? MY ENERGY
RATES ARE ARE VERY HIGH. MY FOOD
COSTS ARE HIGH. MY GASOLINE IS
HIGH. AND SO I WANT TO MAKE. I
WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT AT THE SAME TIME
PROTECTING CALIFORNIANS TO BE
ABLE TO STAY HERE AS WE EXPORT.
ALL OF OUR WORK. ALL OF ALL THE
PRODUCTS THAT WE NEED. WE EXPORT
THOSE JOBS AND WE PUSH IT TO
CHINA, OR WE PUSH IT TO
SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT WE IMPORT
ALL THE GOODS. WE IMPORT CEMENT
FROM CHINA. WE DON'T DO IT HERE
IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE WE HAVE A
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT AND THE
LEGISLATURE CONTINUES THE PASSED
LEGISLATION THAT MAKES YOU FEEL
GOOD THAT YOU'RE NOT DOING IN
YOUR BACKYARD, BUT YOU'RE STILL
POLLUTING. THE AIR. SO MY
QUESTION IS, HAS ANYBODY DONE AN
ANALYSIS OF IF WE WERE ABLE TO
DO IT IN CALIFORNIA, IN THE MOST
SAY IN A SAFE AND, UH, PROTECTED
WAY WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO
CALIFORNIANS VERSUS. COMPANIES
LEAVING CALIFORNIA AND IMPORTING
THOSE PRODUCTS TO CALIFORNIA
THAT WE ALL NEED. WE'RE ALL
GOING TO USE. SEE MATT, WE'RE
GOING TO USE WE WE'RE GONNA
WE'RE GONNA BUILD ROADS WERE NOT
GOING TO GET AWAY FROM IT
ANYTIME SOON, BUT BUT THAT'S
WHAT I NEED. I NEED ACTUAL
NUMBERS THAT SAY, WHAT IS THE
COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO THE
ENVIRONMENT. LOOK WE'RE DOING
EVERYTHING IN CALIFORNIA, BUT I
DON'T SEE OUR OTHER COUNTRIES
DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING SO IF WE
TRULY CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT
, IT'S ANALOGY I USE IN THE
LEGISLATURE ALMOST EVERYDAY
BECAUSE IT'S A FRUSTRATION AND
WE BURN OUR FOREST DOWN. MILLION
ACRES IN MY DISTRICT LAST YEAR
BURNED DOWN AND I WHAT WE DID IN
THE LEGISLATURE. WE REGULATED
LAWN MOWERS, WEED EATERS AND
GENERATORS. DIDN'T DO A THING
FOR THE FOREST. AND CARVED
DOESN'T EVEN COUNT IT SO I NEED
WHAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR
ME FROM ALL THIS VERY TALENTED
PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THIS PANELS
IS SOME ANALYSIS OF WHAT IT
COSTS. AND WHAT THE FUTURE LOOKS
LIKE. IF CALIFORNIA IS AN ISLAND
OR WE'RE LOOKING AT THE GLOBAL
AIR THAT WE ALL BREATHE. WELL
CAN I CAN I ANSWER THAT? YES I
WOULD LOVE AN ANSWER. I'VE BEEN
WAITING FOR 10 YEARS I'VE BEEN
HERE, SO WE HAVE DEVELOPED AN
ENERGY PLAN FOR CALIFORNIA TO
TRANSITION INTO ENTIRELY CLEAN,
RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND IT'S
PUBLISHED IN THE SENATE. PUT IT
ON THE CHAT HERE, SOHOPEFULLY,
WE'LL SEND IT TO YOU. YOU KNOW
YOU REDUCE WHEN YOU ELECTRIFY
EVERYTHING. PROVIDE THE
ELECTRICITY WITH CLEAN RENEWABLE
ENERGY. REDUCE YOUR ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS. 60% YOU REDUCE
YOUR ENERGY COSTS OVER 60. YOUR
SOCIAL COSTS OVER 90% THERE'S NO
IT'S AND YOU CREATE MANY MORE
JOBS THAN LOST IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. SO WE DID A JOBS
ANALYSIS THAT COST ANALYSIS. A
LAND USE ANALYSIS. ALL THAT FOR
TRANSITION IN CALIFORNIA CLEAN
RENEWABLE ENERGY WITHOUT CARBON
CAPTURE. YOU DO NOT NEED THE
CARBON CAPTURE. YOU DON'T NEED
IT FOR CEMENT. AND BECAUSE FIRST
OF ALL, THERE ARE THREE WAYS TO
PRODUCE CEMENT. THAT DON'T
REQUIRE DON'T RESULT IN ANY OF
THE PROCESS EMISSIONS A CHEMICAL
EMISSIONS. GEO POLYMER CEMENT
FARROKH AND THEN RECITE THE
RECYCLING PROCESS. THESE ARE ALL
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES THAT
DON'T NEED CEO TO DON'T RESULT
IN SEO TO PROCESS EMISSIONS.
EVEN FOR PORTLAND CEMENT WHERE
YOU DO HAVE PROCESS EMISSIONS.
AGAIN IT'S BUT IT'S MUCH CHEAPER
FROM A SOCIAL COST ANALYSIS TO
JUST LET THOSE EMISSIONS GO AND
THEN USE THAT RENEWABLE ENERGY
YOU WERE GOING TO USE TO RUN THE
CARBON CAPTURE EQUIPMENT TO
REPLACE FOSSIL PLANT. WAS THE
BEST THING YOU CAN DO WITH
RENEWABLE ENERGIES. GET RID OF
FOSSIL FUELS. GET RID OF THE AIR
POLLUTION FROM THEM. GET RID OF
THE MINING. GET RID OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE. GET RID OF THE
CO TWO EMISSIONS PERMIT CAPTURE.
ALL IT DOES IS TAKE OUT. CEO TO
IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. IT
JUST INCREASES POLLUTION, MORE
MINING MORE INFRASTRUCTURE. WHY
ARE YOU JUST TAKING C 02 OUT OF
THE YEAR? THAT'S THE ONLY THING
THAT TAKES OUT AND IT AND C 02
IS ONLY 45% OF GLOBAL WARMING.
IT'S JUST SUCH A IT'S SUCH A AND
SO MUCH ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
PIPES. DRILLING INFRASTRUCTURE,
DESTROYING THE LANDSCAPE FOR
WHAT IT'S JUST AND THEN ALL
YOU'RE DOING IS PAYING ATTACK
PEOPLE WHEN YOU PUT YOUR TWO
IT'S JUST ATTACKS ON PEOPLE WHO
CAN LEAST AFFORD IT. WHO PAYS
THE HIGHEST FRACTION OF THEIR OF
THEIR INCOME FOR ELECTRICITY.
IT'S PEOPLE WHO ARE LOW INCOME.
AND SO WHEN YOU PAY FOR CARBON
CAPTURE, YOU'RE STILL YOU HAVE
THE SAME FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS, BUT
YOU JUST HAVE NOW ANOTHER
BILLION DOLLARS OF CARBON
CAPTURE EQUIPMENT AND PIPES THAT
YOU HAVE TO ADD ONTO AND WHO'S
GOING TO PAY FOR. THAT COULD BE
THE RATEPAYERS, THE POOREST
PEOPLE. IT'S JUST A TAX ON POOR
PEOPLE. THAT'S ALL CARBON
CAPTURE IS WHEN YOU JUST PUT IT
UNDER THE GROUND. AT LEAST
WITHIN ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY.
YOU'RE GETTING SOME MONEY BACK
WHEN WE PUT IT INTO THE GROUND.
THERE'S NO INCOME FROM THAT, SO
THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL COST, SO
NOBODY HAS AN INCENTIVE TO DO
THAT. SO ALTHOUGH THERE ARE ALL
THESE PLANS TO PUT CARBON INTO
THE GROUND, WHO HAS INCENTIVE TO
PUT IT UNDER THE GROUND WHEN
NOBODY'S PAYING FOR THAT C 02 OR
AT LEAST I MEAN, SISTER C 02 FOR
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY. THAT'S
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BECAUSE
THAT'S WHERE THEY GET MONEY
FROM. BUT WHEN YOU DO THAT 40%
GOES RIGHT BACK TO THE YEAR YOUR
YOUR PERSONAL BOONDOGGLE. IT'S
SOMETHING IT'S THE THOROUGHNESS
OF ENERGY. WE JUST NEED TO GET
RID OF IT AND FOCUS ON WHAT
WORKS. WE HAVE EIGHT YEARS. TO
ELIMINATE 80% OF EMISSIONS TO
SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEM.
YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T FOCUS ON
TECHNOLOGIES THAT DON'T WORK
COMPLETELY CLEAN, RENEWABLE
ENERGY WORKS, IT CAN BE PUT UP
FAST. YOU KNOW THESE OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
SMOKESCREEN ARE THOSE
TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT? SOLAR AND WIND AND WHAT
GENERATION ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT? YEAH SO IT'S SOLAR,
ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE WIND
ROOFTOPS OR UTILITY SOLAR
CONCENTRATED SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL
ELECTRICITY, GEOTHERMAL HEAT.
EXISTING HYDRO RUN OF THE RIVER
HYDRO AND THEN TINY AMOUNTS OF
TIDAL WAVE. SO IN CALIFORNIA, WE
DON'T COUNT. NUCLEAR WE'RE GOING
TO SHUT DOWN OUR NUCLEAR PLANT.
WE DON'T COUNT HYDRO OVER 30
MEGAWATTS AND WE DON'T TAP. WE
HAVE A LOT OF ACTUALLY THERMAL,
WHICH IS GEOTHERMAL, BUT WE
DON'T HAVE THE TRANSMISSION TO
GET WHERE WE WANT IT. YEAH MAYBE
. OKAY SO THAT'S FINE WITHOUT
NUCLEAR. WE'VE YOU DON'T NEED
THE NUCLEAR DIABLO CANYON. WE
FIRST OF ALL THE SAME
TRANSMISSION WILL BUILD OFFSHORE
WINDS FOR TO GET THE SAME
TRANSMISSION HUBS. UM, THERE'S
ENOUGH OFFSHORE WIND POWER, MOST
OF CALIFORNIA FOR ALL PURPOSES.
AND THAT'S WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO
GROW. THERE'S MUCH MORE SOLAR.
WE'RE ALREADY 100% RENEWABLE
SOLAR AND SOME HOURS OF THE DAY
OF THE DAY IN APRIL MAY AND
WE'RE GOING TO MEET. WE'RE GONNA
GET TO 80% RENEWABLES IN
CALIFORNIA IN THE IN THE ANNUAL
AVERAGE BY 2028 OR 2030, SO
WE'RE GOING TO BE AHEAD OF SB
100. ELECTRIFYING BUILDINGS.
THAT'S THE KEY USING HEAT PUMPS.
TO REPLACE NATURAL GAS. MY HOME
100% RENEWABLES. I HAVE HAD A
FIVE YEARS I HAVEN'T BEEN AN
ELECTRICITY BILL AND NATURAL GAS
BILL OR GASOLINE BILL IN FIVE
YEARS. I'M RUNNING ON SOLAR AND
BATTERIES. AND I MEAN LAST FOUR
DAYS. IN FACT, I HAVEN'T EVEN
TAKEN A DROP OF GRID ELECTRICITY
BECAUSE IT'S JUST RUNNING ON ITS
OWN. THIS IS WHAT EVERY BUILT
NEW BUILDING IN CALIFORNIA NEEDS
TO BE ELECTRIC SOLAR BATTERIES.
NO GAS GOING ONTO THE PROPERTY,
KEEP PUMPS. INDUCTION COOKTOP
STOVES, LED LIGHTS, ENERGY
EFFICIENCY, UH, ELECTRIC
VEHICLES. THIS IS WHAT REDUCES
ENERGY USE WHAT CREATES JOBS.
WHAT REDUCES AIR POLLUTION
IMPACTS ON HEALTH IMPACTS. HAS
THERE BEEN AN ANALYSIS ON WHAT
THE KILOWATT WOULD BE TO DO THAT
AND WHAT THE COST PER KILOWATT
IS GOING TO BE THAT ANALYSIS? WE
DID THAT ANALYSIS PUBLISHED IN
2021. IT'S THAT'S THE THAT'S THE
ONE I PAPER. I DID. I MENTIONED
THAT WASN'T ON THE CHAIR HERE.
BUT I CAN. WELL, THE COMMITTEE
CONSULTANT GET. I'D LIKE TO HAVE
THAT PUBLICATION. PLEASE WILL
FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND GET THAT
TO YOU. YEAH MHM DOCTOR
PRACTICE. YOU ALSO HAD A
RESPONSE. THANK YOU. I JUST LIKE
TO ADD ONE MORE ANALYSIS ON THE
TABLE WE CAN CONDUCT CONCLUDED
THAT TWO YEARS AGO IT'S CALLED
GETTING TO NEUTRAL. AND IT WAS A
BOTTOM UP STUDY. FIRST OF ITS
KIND WE'VE SINCE FOLLOWED IT UP
WITH A SIMILAR REPORT FOR THE
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, AND NOW
WE'RE DOING THE SAME FOR THE
ENTIRE US. IT WAS A CALIFORNIA
SPECIFIC STUDY. TO SEE HOW IT
COULD REMOVE IN THE REGION OF
100 MILLION TONS A YEAR OF CO
TWO FROM THE ATMOSPHERE AND THE
REASON I BRING IT UP BECAUSE IT
TOUCHES ON SEVERAL OF THE OTHER
ISSUES YOU JUST MENTIONED.
INCLUDING WILDFIRES. WE FOUND
THAT IT'S POSSIBLE IT CAN BE
DONE AT A VERY SMALL FRACTION OF
GDP AND AT A COST THAT'S SIMILAR
TO WHAT WE PAY TODAY TO MANAGE
OUR HOUSEHOLD TRASH. THE MAIN
PILLAR IN THAT APPROACH IS
UTILIZING WASTE BIOMASS. FROM
AGRICULTURE FROM THE FOREST, BUT
ALSO IN OUR OWN TRASH. THERE ARE
TECHNOLOGIES TODAY THAT CAN
TRANSFORM THAT CONVERTS THAT
WASTE BIOMASS INTO HYDROGEN,
ANOTHER CLEAN TRANSPORTATION
FUELS. BY DOING SO YOU CAN
REMOVE THE CARBON PUT IT ON THE
GROUND. AND ALSO YOU REMOVE
EXCESS FUELS FROM THE FOREST
WHERE THEY POSE A SERIOUS
THREAT. AS YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW,
THE FOREST SERVICE AND AL FIRA
UM AND DOING THE TREATMENTS
KNOWN HERE AS MUCH AS THEY WOULD
LIKE, AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT
TO DO WITHOUT BIO MESS. WE THINK
WE CAN TURN THAT BIOMASS INTO
CLEAN BURNING HYDROGEN, WHICH
CAN DISPLACE DIESEL FROM THE
ROADS. NOT ONLY DOES THAT HELP
FOREST HEALTH AND WILDFIRE RISK
REDUCTION. IT ALSO REDUCES
PARTICULATE AND OTHER POLLUTION
FROM THE ROADS. IF YOU CAN
REPLACE LONG HAUL TRUCKING WITH
HYDROGEN INSTEAD. WE'RE IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH LOCAL
COMMUNITY GROUPS FROM BUTTE
COUNTY FROM PLUMAS COUNTY FROM
OTHER FOREST COUNTIES THAT ARE
LOOKING FOR WAYS TO PUT THIS
BIOMASS TO USE AND WE THINK THAT
THERE'S THIS IS ENTIRELY
FEASIBLE. WE HAVE NOT DONE A
JOBS ANALYSIS THAT WAS OUTSIDE
OUR SCOPE, BUT IT'S OBVIOUS THAT
THIS CONVERSION TRANSPORTATION
CHAIN OF EVENTS CAN HELP SOME OF
CALIFORNIA'S COUNTIES IN MOST
MOST IN NEED. THIS INCLUDES
CENTRAL VALLEY, AND THIS
INCLUDES THE FORESTED COUNTY.
EVENT TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION,
YOU KNOW? HOW DO YOU FIND THE
SILVER LINING. UM AND IN A PANEL
WITH DISSENTING VIEWS, YOU KNOW,
I WOULD URGE YOU TO TRUST YOUR
NOSE HERE AND FIGURE OUT WHO IS
LOOKING AT FACTS AND WHO IS
FOLLOWING THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS
VERSUS FORMING OPINIONS BASED ON
PREDETERMINED THE PRECONCEIVED
WORLDVIEWS. I'VE I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO SNAP MY FINGERS AND MAKE
THE WORLD DIFFERENT THAN IT IS
TODAY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I'VE
FOUND THAT IT DOESN'T WORK SO
WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I
THANK YOU FOR THAT. I JUST WANT
TO THE LAST THING I WOULD HAVE
ASSUMED. MY COLLEAGUES WOULD SAY
THE SAME THING. IS THAT YOU KNOW
THE FRUSTRATION AS A LEGISLATOR
, IS THAT NOT ALWAYS DO THE YOU
ARE YOU ABLE TO GET THOSE
OUTCOMES BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT
OF FACTORS THAT HAPPENED HERE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS. UM
SOME PEOPLE DON'T CARE WHAT THE
TECHNOLOGY IS AS LONG AS THERE
PEOPLE ARE JUST WORKING. AND OR
OR WHAT IF IT'S THE RIGHT THING
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AS LONG AS
PEOPLE WORKING, AND THERE ARE
MANY EXAMPLES OF THAT? I MEAN,
YOU CAN GO LOOK AT THE BULLET
TRAIN AND I WILL GUARANTEE YOU
IT DOES NOT REDUCE CARBON IN ITS
LIFE CYCLE. FOREVER I MEAN, WE
CAN PROBABLY POINT TO THAT RIGHT
NOW WHAT IT'S COSTING
ENVIRONMENT IN PRODUCING
CONCRETE AND STEEL AND ALL THOSE
THINGS AND BUT BUT THE LOBBY WAS
VERY POWERFUL HERE, AND THE
PEOPLE THAT WANTED THOSE JOBS
CREATED THOSE JOBS ON THE BACKS
OF THE ENVIRONMENT. QUITE
FRANKLY, IN MY OPINION, SO WE
WERE FACED WITH REALLY DIFFICULT
DECISIONS TO MAKE AND TO MAKE
THE RIGHT ONE. WE HAVE TO HAVE
REALLY GOOD INFORMATION. AND
THEN WE CAN. THEN IF WE HAVE THE
IF WE HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION
WE CAN THE SELL THAT TO OUR
CONSTITUENTS AT THE WHATEVER
THAT COST IS AND THE ONE THING
THAT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET
THE COST. TO BE ABLE TO TELL
YOUR CONSTITUENTS THAT HEY, THE
KILOWATT HOUR IS GOING TO BE
THIS. YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE TOLD
WE WANTED AND WE AND THEY AND
THE LEGISLATURE SETS DEADLINES
WERE GOING TO BE 100% RENEWABLE
BY 2035 DOESN'T TELL YOU HOW
WE'RE GONNA GET THERE WITH A
GRID THAT'S VERY ANTIQUATED, NOT
WORKING VERY WELL. AND THEN YOU
KNOW, TWO OR THREE YEARS LATER,
WE ASKED YOU NOT TO CHARGE YOUR
CAR BECAUSE THE GRID IS GOING TO
FAIL YOU THAT'S BAD POLICY. AT
SOME POINT WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY
LAY OUT A PLAN THAT SAYS HERE'S
HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET FROM
POINT A TO POINT B AND THIS IS
THE COST. ON TODAY'S MARKETS. IF
THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO US, WE
COULD MAKE REALLY GOOD
DECISIONS, BUT IT'S NOT AND
THAT'S THE DIFFICULT PART OF
TRYING TO BE A LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATOR AND DOING THE RIGHT
THING. AND THEN WE LIVE OFF OF
SOUND BITES THAT DON'T TELL THE
WHOLE STORY. SO THAT'S VERY
CHALLENGING FOR A LEGISLATOR
SITTING HERE WITH. FOUR
PANELISTS, NOT ALL AGREEING ON
SOMETHING AS AS WE'VE TRIED TO
MOVE TO THE FUTURE. I APPRECIATE
YOU COMING. I WILL READ YOUR
INFORMATION AND TRY TO MAKE
THOSE DECISIONS BECAUSE THE
DECISIONS ARE ONCE THEY ARE MADE
THERE. FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE WE
EVER REEL THEM BACK AND FIX THE
IF THEY'RE NOT RIGHT. THE RIGHT
DECISION. WE'RE STUCK WITH HIM
FOR A LONG TIME. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR WIECKOWSKI.
SO LET'S STIPULATE THAT WE HAVE
A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON OUR
SIX PANELISTS THAT ARE HERE AND
WE HAVE ENERGY PRODUCTION AND
THE USE OF CARBON CAPTURE, AND
THEN WE HAVE INDUSTRY WHERE
CARBON CAPTURE UM, DR THREE DAYS
YOU YOUR REPORT DOES INDICATE
THAT IF WE DO EVERYTHING THAT DR
JACOBSON SAYS THE WHOLE KIT AND
CABOODLE. WE'RE STILL GOING TO
BE SHORT OF GETTING TO OUR NET
ZERO IN THIS AREA OF, UM,
BIOFUELS. YOU KNOW WHAT
INCENTIVES DO DOES THAT INDUSTRY
HAVE TO USE CARBON CAPTURE TO
CREATE BIOFUELS? AND THEN WHAT?
AGAIN THE OTHER. I THINK IT'S Q
45. BUT YOU TELL ME AND THEN
WHAT INCENTIVES SHOULD WE BE
THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE THEY WERE
VERY COSTLY PROCESSES THAT ARE
GOING THROUGH AND HOW DO WE HOW
DO WE AS THIS STATE AS A
GOVERNMENT IF WE DECIDE TO GO
FORWARD WITH ASSISTING IN CARBON
CAPTURE, HOW DO WE NARROWLY
TAILORED? THESE THINGS ARE
TAILORED THEM IN THE WAY THAT
MAKES SENSE ECONOMICALLY. YES
THANK THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. SO YOU HAVE 45 Q IS
THE OBVIOUS INCENTIVE HERE? IT
REFERS TO THE SECTION OF THE
FEDERAL INTERNAL REVENUE. COLD
WEATHER TAX CREDITORS APPEARS,
UM IT HAS BEEN REVISED, AND IT
WAS RECENTLY INCREASED. WHICH
HAS MADE CERTAIN CLASSES. IT'S A
FIXED PRICE SO IF YOU'RE
BIOFUELS PLANT OPERATOR
PROPONENTS. THEN YOU HAVE TO
LOOK AT THAT. THE NUMBER WHICH
IS IN THE REGION OF $50 A TON
AND SAY, OKAY, THIS WORKS FOR ME
OR IT DOESN'T BOTH THINGS LIKE
CORN, ETHANOL. IT DOES MORE THAN
DOES YOU KNOW THESE ARE THE
PLANTS THE REASON UM JOHN
MENTIONED A SECOND AGO THAT YOU
HAVE TENS OF THESE PLANS
ACTIVELY BEING DEVELOPED IN THE
US IS BECAUSE THEY NOW MAKE
ECONOMIC SENSE UNDER THIS TAX
CREDIT. THERE ARE OTHER
APPLICATIONS, WHICH MAY BE MORE
COSTLY, SUCH AS TAKING, UM WASTE
BIOMASS FROM THE FOREST AND THEN
GAS IF EYEING IT OR PARALYZING
IT TO MAKE, UM HYDROGEN FUEL OR
SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL THAT
MAY NOT BE ECONOMIC IN
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE ONE
ADDITIONAL INSTRUMENT THAT HELPS
IT'S CALLED THE LOW CARBON FUEL
STANDARD. I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD
OF IT. UM AND THAT IS A HUGE
HELP. CATCH THERE IS THAT
ELIGIBILITY IS LIMITED. AND ALSO
THE. THE VALUE OF THE PRICE OF
CREDITS ON THE BL CFS IS
VARIABLE. NOW WE EXPECT IT'S
BEEN VERY LUCRATIVE. YOU KNOW
THAT. CREDIT TRADED IN THE
REGION OF $200 A TON FOR A
WHILE. NOW THERE'S BEEN A RECENT
, UM, DIP IN PRICES. THAT
COMBINATION IS PRETTY POWERFUL,
BUT I THINK THERE ARE THERE'S
STILL A SIDE BASIC ECONOMICS.
THERE ARE STILL LOGISTICAL.
CHALLENGES THAT POLICYMAKERS AND
HELP WITH IN ORDER TO MAKE THESE
PROJECTS ARE REALITY PERMITTING
IS ONE OF THEM. UM THE OTHER ONE
IS I'M ALWAYS STRUCK BY HOW MANY
DIFFERENT WALKS OF LIFE AND
TALENTS AND TYPES OF EXPERTISE.
NEED TO COME TOGETHER TO PUT
TOGETHER A PROJECT LIKE THIS.
AND I THINK THIS IS LIVING
TESTAMENT. WHY CCS WILL NOT
SUDDENLY CANNIBALIZE ALL THE
OTHER THINGS THAT WE LOVE, SUCH
AS FISH IN SEA AND RENEWABLES
THERE ARE CHALLENGED TO BUILD,
SO LET'S SAY WE'RE GONNA TAKE
BIOMASS FROM THE FOREST. UM AND
THEN TURNING INTO HYDROGEN. PUT
THE C 02 ON THE GROUND. THINK
ABOUT THAT UNDERTAKING. YOU NEED
CREWS ARE GOING TO GO INTO THE
FOREST AND DO THE FUEL
REDUCTIONS. YOU NEED TO
TRANSPORT THAT BIOMASS. YOU NEED
TO EITHER POLITICIZE IT OR CHIP
IT. YOU NEED TO SORT IT. YOU
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, UM
THE CONSISTENCY OR COMPOSITION
IS GOING TO BE UNIFORM THAT'S
GOING TO BE DONE WITH THE FOREST
IS WELL WORDS THE GEOLOGIC
STORAGE COMPARED TO THE FOREST
THAT'S PROBABLY A FEW 100 MILES
TO THE SOUTH. DESIGN THE PLANS.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A
MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERS, CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
COME TOGETHER. SUDDENLY YOU'RE
ADDING GEOLOGISTS TO THE MIX
BECAUSE YOU'RE ALSO THINKING
ABOUT THE GEOLOGIC STORAGE
COMPONENTS. ALL OF THESE ARE
PERFECTLY FEASIBLE BY
THEMSELVES. BUT IN ORDER TO PULL
OFF A SINGLE PROJECT YOU NEED TO
MARRY. THESE THESE SKILLS AND
THIS EXPERTISE. SO THERE IS A
ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT TO COME IN
AND SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, IN
ADDITION TO JUST THROWING PURE
MONEY AT THIS. THERE MAY BE
OTHER FACILITATION ROLE, SUCH AS
EASING UM, CONTRACTING FOR
GENUINE WASTE BIOMASS. UM
CENTRAL PLANNING FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF EITHER BIOMASS
OR C 02 AND SO ON, AND ALSO THE
FACT THAT YOU KNOW IF WE'RE
GOING TO DO THIS AT SCALE THEN
WE'RE BEYOND DOING IT FOR A
HANDFUL OF PLANTS. THE CURRENT
SET UP 45 Q. PLUS ALL CFS WOOL
WORKED WILL WORK FOR THAT
INITIAL WAVE. BUT AT SOME POINT
WE'LL NEED TO GO BEYOND THAT.
DUCK YOURSELF THROUGH. YOUR
COLLEAGUE FROM STANFORD
INDICATED THAT IT WOULD BE
BETTER FOR LIKE A GLASS FACILITY
WERE VERY INTERESTED IN, UH, YOU
KNOW. RECYCLING ALL OUR
GLASSWARE AND OUR BOTTLES AND
MAKING SURE THAT THOSE NEW
BOTTLES ARE MADE OR FOOD
PROCESSING. WE USED, YOU KNOW,
HAVE A BIG AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
HERE. YOU AGREE WITH IT'S BETTER
TO JUST ALLOW THOSE EMISSIONS IN
THOSE LIMITED SECTORS TO GO UP
IN THE AIR, OR IS IT WORTH THE
INVESTMENT OF SOME CARBON
CAPTURE. UM RETROFIT AND THOSE
AND THOSE HEARTED CARBONIZED?
YEAH THE HEART TO DE CARBONIZED
SECTORS THAT I THINK WE SHOULD
BE CONSIDERING. CARBON CAPTURE
FOR INCLUDES CEMENT. PERHAPS
GLASS. A LOT OF THOSE FACILITIES
IN CALIFORNIA ARE QUITE SMALL.
THE CEMENT ONES ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY OF SEVEN OR EIGHT
FACILITIES, EMITTING ABOUT SEVEN
OR EIGHT MILLION TONS A YEAR,
AND THOSE ONES I THINK ARE I
WOULD SAY RIPE FOR CARBON
CAPTURE EQUIPMENT, SOME OF THE
OPTIONS OF ELECTRIFYING OR USING
HYDROGEN AND STUFF INSTEAD TO AH
, UM, FUEL THE PLANT WOULD NOT,
UM UM, DECREASE ALL OF THE
ADMISSIONS BECAUSE, AS JOHN
MENTIONED, YOU STILL HAVE THE
PROCESS EMISSIONS FROM THOSE SO
NO, I DON'T. I DON'T AGREE WITH
THAT POINT NOW WHEN IT COMES TO
FOOD WE HAVE MANY, MANY SMALL
FOOD, TOMATO PROCESSING PLANTS,
AND SO ON THAT, UM, UM POSSIBLY
COULD BE ELECTRIFIED. I HAVEN'T
DONE A COMPARISON OF COST. BUT
THAT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE TO
ELECTRIFY RATHER THAN CARBON
CAPTURE. NOT QUITE SURE AT THIS
POINT. UM WHAT WOULD MAKE MOST
SENSE SOME OF THE BIGGER ONES?
CARBON CAPTURE MIGHT MAKE SENSE.
BUT THOSE PLANS WERE MOST OF
THEM ARE ON THE SMALL SIDE. I
BELIEVE THERE'S A SUGAR PLANT
THAT'S RATHER LARGE. MOST OF
THEM ARE SMALL AND WOULD NOT BE
ELIGIBLE FOR THE 45. Q. AND
OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT PRODUCING
A TRANSFER. TRANSPORTATION FUEL
, SO THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR L
CFS EITHER. SENATOR BECKER.
SURE. THANK YOU, UM HEY, YOU HAD
SAID. VARIOUS PEOPLE. I GUESS HE
SAID. THAT, UM YOU ARE HAS BEEN
USED ABOUT 80% OF CARBON
CAPTURE. PLANTS TODAY. UM AND I
BELIEVE IT WAS SET OF RESULTS
ABOUT 40% OF EMISSIONS. HE CAN
RECOMMEND THAT 40% NUMBER WHEN
YOU ARE IS USED, CLARIFY WHAT
THAT IS, BUT I GUESS THE
QUESTION IS DR SALTER. YOU WERE
SAYING THAT YOU ARE IS UM NOT
BEING USED IN THE OPTIONS OF NEW
DEVELOPMENTS DO NOT HAVE THE OR
SO WHY DO 8% OF THIS NEW
DEVELOPMENTS? NOT HAVE YOUR AND
, UM, WHAT DO YOU THINK, IS THE
PROGNOSIS FOR CARBON CAPTURE,
WITH OR WITHOUT? YOU ARE. THE
FIRST DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT YOUR
WAS TH SITE SLEIPNER FIELD IN
NORWAY IN 1996, AND WE'VE BEEN
SEEING MOST OF THE NEW ONES THAT
ARE COMING ON AND ARE UNDER
DEVELOPMENT. THESE DAYS ABOUT
80% OF THEM DON'T INVOLVE THE O
R. AND I THINK THAT THAT JUST
GOES TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A
DRIVE TO, UM PERMANENTLY DISPOSE
OF THE C 02 AND, UM AND THAT'S
WHY WE'RE SEEING THOSE KINDS OF,
UM, PROJECTS GO FORTH NOW. IN
CALIFORNIA WE DO HAVE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOU ARE THERE
ARE SOME FIELDS WHERE AND HANDS
DOYLE RECOVERY IS POSSIBLE. WE
ALSO HAVE A LOT OF DEPLETED GAS
FIELDS, ESPECIALLY IN THE
SACRAMENTO BASIN, WHICH WOULD
MAKE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES FOR
JUST PURE SEQUESTRATION. CLASS
SIX WELLS WHERE YOU WOULD JUST
PERMANENTLY STORE THE CEO TO AND
THESE ARE ACTUALLY WOULD BE GOOD
PLACES TO PUT IT, BECAUSE AS I
BELIEVE GEORGE MENTIONED THEY
STORED GAS FOR MILLIONS OF
YEARS, SO THEY'RE KIND OF TESTED
AND THEY'RE WELL UNDERSTOOD
STRUCTURES SO THEY WOULD BE A
GOOD OPPORTUNITY OR A GOOD A
GOOD PLACE TO POTENTIALLY
STORED. CO. TWO. WE ALSO HAVE
VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITIES FOR
SALINE STORAGE OR PERMANENT
GEOLOGIC STORAGE. BUT EVEN THOSE
GAS FIELDS COULD BE DONE AS
PERMANENT GEOLOGIC STORAGE.
FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, UM I
BELIEVE. MR FIGHT, AMONG OTHERS.
INDICATED THAT, UH. CURRENTLY
ALMOST ALL CCS IS USED FOR E. O.
R. UM THERE. THERE IS A BILL
THAT, UH, THE SENATE PASSED TOO.
PROHIBIT. THE USE OF CCS FOR
YOUR. I MEAN, I GUESS MY YOU
KNOW, KIND OF FOLLOWING ARAH
DOLLY IN TERMS OF TRYING TO
BRING BACK TO THE BIG PICTURE.
AS FAR AS OUR. EFFORTS TO FIGHT
CLIMATE CHANGE. I MEAN, MY
BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT CCS
ULTIMATELY IS JUST BEING USED TO
CONTINUE TO RELY ON FOSSIL
FUELS. YOU KNOW? WHEN I SEE. BIG
OIL COMPANIES RUNNING TELEVISION
COMMERCIALS DURING THE SUPER
BOWL, TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY'RE
GOING TO BE CLIMATE LEADERS.
USING CARBON CAPTURE AND
STORAGE. UH MAKES ME CONCERNED
THAT CCS UM IS GOING TO BE, UH,
USED. TO PERPETUATE, UH.
INDEFINITELY OUR RELIANCE ON
FOSSIL FUEL. I MEAN, IS THERE
WHAT'S SO WHY SHOULD WHY? WHY IS
THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD DEFEND
THE USE OF CCS AND CALIFORNIA
AND WHY. YES SURE. SURE. LET ME
SO FIRST OF ALL I I'M THANK YOU
FOR YOUR QUESTION, AND IT'S A
VALID CONCERN THAT I HEAR OVER
AND OVER AGAIN. DOES CCS EXTEND
THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS? SO I
WOULD JUST GO BACK TO WHAT I
SAID BEFORE WE'VE HAD LONG
HISTORY OF FOSSIL USE, AND NO
ONE IS USED IN CHINA. CARBON
CAPTURE THEY'VE BUILT THESE
PLANTS CARBON CAPTURE ITS CORE
IS A POLLUTION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY. IT HAS ONE PURPOSE,
AND THAT'S TO TAKE OUT. SO TOO
HAS SOME OTHER BENEFITS ON THE
SECONDARY AIR POLLUTANTS AND SO
ON. BUT NO ONE BECAUSE IT ADDS
COSTS, WANTS TO DO THAT
VOLUNTARILY. SO I WOULD I WOULD
JUST SAY THAT UM YOU IN
CALIFORNIA AS I HAVE READ YOUR
SCOPING PLAN HAVE MADE VERY
CLEAR THAT YOU'RE PHASING OUT
FOSSIL FUELS. AND IF YOU HAVE
SET THAT, UH AS AS YOUR POLICY
AND AS YOUR GUIDE POST THEN I
WOULD I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO
LOOK AT WHAT CARBON CAPTURE DOES
FOR YOU ON POLLUTION CONTROLS TO
THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
USE IT ON CEMENT. IT'S GOING TO
MAKE A BIG IMPACT ON ON CLIMATE.
TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN'T
PHASE OUT THOSE FOSSIL FUELS AS
FAST AS YOU WANT. IT BEHOOVES
YOU TO PUT CCS ON THOSE
REFINERIES, AND IT DOESN'T GO ON
EVERY PART OF THE REFINERY. IT'S
GOING TO WORK ON THE HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION. IT'S GOING TO WORK
ON CAT CRACKERS. BUT THE BOILERS
AND HEATERS ARE PROBABLY BETTER
OFF WITH HYDROGEN OR WITH, UM,
ELECTRIFICATION, BUT WHAT IT
DOES WELL IN THOSE REFINERIES
THAT DOES BETTER THAN ANYTHING,
BECAUSE THOSE ARE BIG SOURCES,
THOSE CAT CRACKERS. THOSE
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
UH, THOSE ARE BIG SOURCES OF CO.
TWO. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO
THINK ABOUT HOW YOU USE IT
WISELY. UM AND I WOULD ALSO JUST
ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT
OUTSIDE OF THE STATE. THERE ARE
OTHER PLACES WHERE THE PHASE OUT
OF THESE FOSSIL FUELS IS GOING
TO BE A LOT SLOWER. I SHOULD
CORRECT ONE OF MY NUMBERS ON
CHINA ON 15 BILLION TONS THAT'S
GOING TO BE IN 2030. THEY'RE
GOING TO GROW TO THAT NUMBER,
AND THEN THEY CLAIM THEY'RE
GOING TO DECREASE. BUT THAT'S
WHY I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK
ABOUT HOW YOU CAN USE YOUR
LEADERSHIP. TO DEFINE THE RIGHT
WAYS OF USING CCS. THE RIGHT
WAYS INCLUDE THE PROCESS OF
INVOLVING E J. COMMUNITIES THE
RIGHT WAYS REQUIRE HIGH LEVELS
OF CAPTURE. NOT 90, NOT 95. TRY
TO PUSH THE BOUNDARIES INTO THAT
98 99% OVER TIME MAY NOT BE
RIGHT WHEN IT GOES OUT OF THE
GATE, BUT DO THOSE KINDS OF
POLICIES THAT THAT MAKES SENSE
SO THAT YOU CAN EXPORT THOSE
POLICIES AND THAT LEADERSHIP TO
THOSE PLACES WHERE THEIR C 02
EMISSIONS NEED TO COME DOWN AND
IF THEY DON'T COME DOWN,
CALIFORNIA SUFFERS NO, I THINK I
FOR ONE. HEAR THE MESSAGE
CLEARLY THAT ESPECIALLY IN THE
HARD TO DE CARBONIZED SECTORS,
LIKE CEMENT OR SOME OF THE
OTHERS THAT SENATOR WIECKOWSKI.
UM BROUGHT UP THAT YOU KNOW
THERE THERE MAY BE A LEGITIMATE
ARGUMENT TO BE MADE FOR CARBON
CAPTURE AND STORAGE, BUT I'M
TALKING ABOUT ENHANCED OIL
RECOVERY. SORRY SO FIRST LET ME
LET ME GO BACK. WHY DID ENHANCED
OIL RECOVERY? DOMINATE STORAGE
HISTORICALLY, AND IT WAS BECAUSE
, UM, IT WAS THE ONLY WAY OF
GETTING REVENUE FOR, UH,
CAPTURING C 02. IN THE 19
SEVENTIES. WE HAD HIGH OIL
PRICES, UM ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
OFFERED AWAY FOR, UH, GAS FIELDS
, YOU KNOW TO TAKE THEIR C 02
AND INJECTED UNDERGROUND AND GET
PAID FOR IT AS OPPOSED TO
VENTING IT. THE PROBLEM WITH
RELY ON ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY IS
THE OIL MARKET IS VERY CYCLICAL
. THE REASON PETRA NOVA IS NOT
AN OPERATION TODAY IS THAT THE
OIL PRICES CRASHED. YOU KNOW, WE
WENT DOWN TO UNDER $50 A BARREL
AND THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH REVENUE
TO OFFSET THE COSTS OF CAPTURE,
SO THEY CLOSED IT DOWN. AND THE
REASON I THINK MANY, UM
DEVELOPERS NOW OVERWHELMINGLY
FAVOR GOING TO SALINE STORAGE IS
WE HAVE TAX CREDITS THAT DON'T
CHANGE WITH TIME. THEY'RE NOT
HIGH ENOUGH AT $50 TO DO CEMENT.
THEY'RE NOT HIGH ENOUGH TO DO
STEAL. THEY'RE NOT HIGH ENOUGH
TO DO MANY ASPECTS OF REFINERY
AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, BUT
CONGRESS IS CONSIDERING RAISING
THOSE 2 $85 A TON ABOVE THE $50
LEVEL. AND THAT PROVIDES
CERTAINTY ON SAILING STORAGE
THAT NO ONE WILL WANT TO GO TO
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY. BECAUSE
WELL, PRICES ARE TOO VOLATILE.
YOU CAN'T GO TO A BANK THESE
DAYS AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE GONNA OIL PRICES ARE HIGH
. WE'RE GONNA WE'RE GONNA DO EO
ARE THEY'RE GONNA SAY WELL, YOU
KNOW, IN FIVE YEARS THERE,
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE THAT
HIGH. BUT WE CAN'T COUNT ON THAT
SO THAT UNCERTAINTY PUSHES
PROJECT DEVELOPERS TOWARDS
SALINE. SO AS A PROPONENT OF CCS
, DO YOU SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH
CALIFORNIA PROHIBITING THE USE
OF CCS FOR ENHANCED OIL COVERING
. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM FOR THE
USES THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING, UM
AND IF YOU WANT TO GO SALINE
THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE TO ME. A
DOCTOR PREJUDICE. THANK YOU.
CHAIR I WILL COMPLETELY AGREE
WITH JOHN HERE. PEOPLE. DIDIO
ARE INITIALLY. UM FOR REASONS
COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO C 02
STORAGE. THEN AFTER THAT,
BECAUSE OF A DISTINCT LACK OF
STATE OR FEDERAL INCENTIVES TO
DO CARBON STORAGE WHEN IT BECAME
ERIN THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
PEOPLE WERE SCROUNGING FOR
REVENUE, SO WELL, I CAN LEARN
SOMETHING ADDITIONAL BY
PRODUCING OIL, SO WE'LL DO THAT.
UM TODAY WE WERE MOVING BEYOND
THAT BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE NEW
INCENTIVES THAT DO NOT NOT
PREDICATED ON UR STORAGE
CAPACITY WISE, THE AMOUNT OF
VOLUME STORAGE VOLUME THAT IS
AVAILABLE IN NON YOUR SETTINGS.
COMPLETELY OVERWHELMS WHAT'S
AVAILABLE IN OIL AND GAS FIELDS.
SO WE DON'T NEED IT AS A AS A
TOOL OR AS A CRUTCH FOR MOVING
CCS ALONG NOT NATIONALLY AND
INTERNATIONALLY. NOT NOT IN
CALIFORNIA THE ROCKS AND TAKE
THE CO TWO AND THEN, FINALLY ON
. I COMPLETELY SYMPATHIZE AND
AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT OF
THIS STAYS FOR PUBLICITY
CAMPAIGNS BY SPECIAL INTERESTS
WHERE THEY PORTRAY CCS AS A
SILVER BULLET SOLUTION OR THE AS
IT SORT OF TOKEN INVESTMENT. UM. CHECKS THE CLIMATE ACTION BOX
I WOULD URGE YOU TO SEE BEYOND
THAT. UM YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT
THE WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM IS
NEITHER PUBLICITY CAMPAIGNS NOR
POLEMIC RHETORIC, BUT IT'S TO
SIT DOWN WITH AND GOT ON WITH
WHAT IS A INHERENTLY A VERY HARD
JOB. THANK YOU. ANY, UH OTHER
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
SAYING NONE. WE, UH WANT TO
PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT, UM. SEE WHERE IS. MOVING ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
EACH PERSON WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE
TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT. WE
WILL START WITH THOSE HERE IN
THE AUDITORIUM IN THE HEARING
ROOM, AND THEN THOSE ARE CALLING
IN BY PHONE. LET ME JUST FOR
THOSE THAT WOULD BE CALLING IN
THE PHONE NUMBER IS TOLL FREE
NUMBER 877692. 8957. UM WITH THE
ACCESS CODE 1850110. AGAIN THE
TOLL FREE NUMBER IS 87769289. UH
WITH THE ACCESS CODE 1850110.
AND BEFORE I, UH WE STARTED
TAKING PUBLIC COMMENTS. I WANT
TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF
THE PANELISTS. FOR VERY
INFORMATIVE PRESENTATIONS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
BOTH THOSE ALL OF YOU IN PERSON,
AS WELL AS THOSE PARTICIPATING
VIRTUALLY THANK YOU. WITH THAT
WE HAVE. PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE
HEARING GROUP. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS.
VIRGIL WELSH, CALIFORNIA CARBON
CAPTURE COALITION WHEN STATES
LEADING BUSINESS LABOR
ORGANIZATION COMMITTED TO
ENSURING THAT CCS TECHNOLOGIES
ARE PART OF THE STATE'S EFFORTS
TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. I WAS SCIENTIFICALLY
BASED TARGETS. UM IN MY BRIEF
TIME HERE, I WOULD SAY AT THE
RISK OF OVERSIMPLIFICATION. WHY
ARE WE NOT REDUCING EMISSIONS
WHEREVER WE CAN? WE HAVE SEEN
THE CHARTS AND THE GRAPHS THAT
SHOWED DRAMATIC CURVE THAT WE
HAVE TO ACHIEVE TO REDUCE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. WE
HAVE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF
LEADING EXPERTS SITTING RIGHT IN
FRONT OF YOU TODAY THAT WE ARE
UNIQUELY SITUATED AND HAVE
DOZENS OF WILLING INDUSTRIES WHO
ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING TO REDUCE
EMISSIONS ACROSS A SWEET OF
APPLICATIONS BY DEPLOYMENT OF CC
US TECHNOLOGIES. THE QUESTION
WAS RAISED IN THE ONE THING WE
DIDN'T FOCUS ON VERY MUCH TODAY
WAS, WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC
BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH
DEPLOYMENT OF CCS? AND THERE ARE
IN FACT, TWO RECENT STUDIES,
WHICH I WILL MAKE SURE THAT THIS
COMMITTEE HAS THAT SHOW THAT
THERE ARE TREMENDOUS JOB
BENEFITS IN BOTH NEW AND
EXISTING JOB AREAS ACROSS A
SUITE OF INDUSTRIES AND
DISCIPLINES, AND THERE ARE
TREMENDOUS ENERGY COST SAVINGS.
AND IN FACT WE SAW FROM DR
SALTER. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. POTENTIALLY
BILLIONS ANNUALLY AND ENERGY
COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH
DEPLOYMENT OF CCS TECHNOLOGIES,
SO LIMITING APPLICATION ANYWHERE
WHERE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE IN
TERMS OF REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS, INCLUDING ON THE MOST
RECENT TOPIC. WE WERE JUST
DISCUSSING, WHICH IS IF WE CAN
ACHIEVE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM
CC US WHETHER IT BE E, O R OR IN
CEMENT OR IN THE ENERGY SECTOR.
THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO FOCUS
OUR ENERGY HERE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER,
PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. POLICE
PH DRINK WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. ALL THE
SPEAKERS TODAY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
SUCCESS. THE SUCCESS OF CCS
DEPENDS ON MASSIVE INVESTMENT,
AND WE WANT TO URGE THAT ANY
ADVANCEMENT OF CCS CANNOT BE
USED TO SUBSIDIZE THE FOSSIL
FUEL INDUSTRY IN THIS STATE.
SPECIFICALLY IT SHOULD NOT BE
USED FOR ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY,
AND IT SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON HARD
TO DE CARBONIZED SECTORS, NOT
PROLONGING OIL AND GAS
PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA WERE
ALSO URGING THAT THE LEGISLATURE
INSURANCE CCS TECHNOLOGY DOES
NOT FURTHER UNDERMINED PUBLIC
HEALTH AND SAFETY. IT CANNOT
INCREASE AIR POLLUTION TO
SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, AND WE
MUST CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE
PROTECTIONS NEEDED TO ADDRESS
THE UNIQUE AND SIGNIFICANT RISKS
RELATED TO THE TRANSPORT OF C.
02 SPECIFICALLY SIO TWO
PIPELINES, WHICH ARE VASTLY
UNDER REGULATED AT THE FEDERAL
LEVEL. AND FINALLY, AS WE'VE
HEARD TODAY, THE RIGHTS OF
CARBON CAPTURE ARE OFTEN FAR
LOWER THAN PROMISED OR PREDICTED
. THE LEGISLATURE AND STATE
REGULATORS SHOULD TAKE GREAT
CAUTION AND BASING THE SUCCESS
OF OUR CLIMATE GOALS OFF OF
OVERLY OPTIMISTIC AND UNPROVEN
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HIGH CAPTURE
RATES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO FURTHER, UH, PUBLIC
COMMENTS IN THE HEARING ROOM
WE'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO THE
OPERATOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE PHONE
LINES. IF YOU DO WISH TO MAKE
PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY, PLEASE
PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY THE ZERO
AND 18 T OPERATOR WILL QUICKLY
GIVE YOUR LINE NUMBER AND THEN
PLACE YOU RIGHT BACK IN THE
QUEUE. AND FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
PLEASE PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME. MR
CHAIR WILL START WITH FLYING 23.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 23 YOU ARE
OPEN. A LITTLE BIT SCISSORS,
AMBER. SO HOW WOULD THREATEN
PRICE GROUP SALTING ON BEHALF OF
A PEN AND SAY HI. WE APPRECIATE
THE COMMENTS TODAY. AND WHILE WE
BELIEVE THAT TECHNOLOGY IS THE
SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE
CONTINUATION OF FOSSIL FUELS THE
LEGISLATURE TO ATTEND THAT ARE
ALL IMPACTS LIKE COMMUNITY
HEALTH. STANDARD ECONOMIC, UM,
ECONOMIC REFORM. MOVING FORWARD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LINE. 30,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON
, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
MARJAH ON BEHALF OF THE CLIMATE
CENTER. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
TOGETHER THIS HEARING. IT WAS A
GOOD CONVERSATION. THE CLIMATE
CENTER IS VERY WARY AT CCS AS
THE STATE EXPLORER CCS
TECHNOLOGIES. WE SHOULD FIRST
OFF ENSURE THAT CCS IS NOT USED
FOR ANY FORM OF FOSSIL FUEL
APPLICATION. THIS IS INCLUSIVE
OF ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY. WE
DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE THIS OUR
RELIANCE ON FOSSIL FUELS.
ADDITIONALLY WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT ANY CCS APPLICATIONS
ARE SAFEGUARDED WITH THE RIGHT
GUARD RAILS. UM AND FINALLY WE
ARE OPEN TO LIMITED EXPLORATION
FOR APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE
PROCESSED MISSIONS THAT CANNOT
OTHERWISE BE CONTROLLED THROUGH
ELECTRIFICATION, FIELD SWITCHING
OR OTHER TECHNOLOGICAL SHIFTS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.
AND WE'RE GONNA LINE 31. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. HELLO THIS ISHIDA
AZANIAN WITH LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
BASED IN RURAL INLAND CALIFORNIA
, UM AT FIRST LIKE TO START BY
SAYING EVEN IF SOME CCS
TECHNOLOGIES COULD BE DEPLOYED
TODAY, IT SHOULD BE OUR
STRONGEST CAUTION THAT ARE MOST
IMPACTED COMMUNITIES. SPECIALLY
THOSE IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
AND OUR ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANTS
ARE BEING ASKED TO SUPPORT
CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY OUTRIGHT WHEN
PROPONENTS HAVE NOT BROUGHT
FORTH CCS FOR SERIOUS PUBLIC
DISCUSSION THROUGHOUT THE MANY
PERIOD PREVIOUS DECADES OF ITS
DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY IS NOT
NEUTRAL. OUR VALUES AND PERSONAL
TRADE OFF ARE EMBEDDED IN
TECHNOLOGY EMBEDDED INTO THOSE
WHO IMAGINE AND APPLY THEM. TO
JUST ADVANCEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPENDS ON INCORPORATING THE
VALUES OF IMPACTED COMMUNITIES
AND DEPENDS ON THEIR
PARTICIPATION. THIS IS FAR FROM
THE REALITY BEFORE US SO MUCH OF
THE RESEARCH ON CCS SO FAR. HAS
BEEN FUNDED BY FOSSIL FUEL
CORPORATIONS WHOSE ACTIONS
LARGELY HAVE NOT RENDERED THEM
AND BIASED OR NEUTRAL
INSTITUTIONS IN THE CONVERSATION
ON CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNITIES
LIVING WITH DEADLY POLLUTION AND
BIOFUELS PLANT IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY, SEE FIRSTHAND OUR
EXTRACTIVE ECONOMY FOR WHAT IT
IS, AND HAS BEEN HOLDING FIRM
THAT OUR PLANET AND OUR HEALTH
CANNOT AFFORD DEPENDENCE ON
CARBON CAPTURE. CALIFORNIA
SIMPLY HAS NOT YET DILIGENTLY
EXPORT STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE
CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENTS AND
ACCELERATE SPECIFIC TRANSITIONS
AT ALL LEVELS OF THE ECONOMY
STRATEGIES THAT WERE PRESENTED
TO THIS VERY COMMITTEE AT A
PREVIOUS HEARING. AND THERE IS
NO SCENARIO IN WHICH CCS HELPS
TRANSITION. US 20 EMISSIONS
ECONOMY. I WOULD I END BY ASKING
WHETHER BEING NO PUBLIC FUNDING
OF PCS AND THAT THIS COMMITTEE
INCLUDING YOUR ASSESSMENTS, HOW
FAR THIS MONEY COULD GO IF IT
WERE REDIRECTED TO ACCELERATING
ZERO EMISSIONS ENERGY? THAT WILL
MOVE US TO SUSTAINABLE
INDUSTRIES INSTEAD OF POURING.
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DURING
TRENCHING THE HARMS OF OUR
CURRENT ECONOMY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. 9 28, YOU'RE OPEN.
THIS IS COLIN HOLLY ON BEHALF OF
CALPINE. AND JUST, FIRSTLY WANT
TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ALSO
THE PANELISTS FOR THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION ON PCS. CALIFORNIA IS
ONE OF THE LARGEST CALIFORNIA
PROVIDERS ELECTRICITY FROM
RENEWABLE CHILDREN OF POWER
PLANTS, ENERGY, BATTERY STORAGE,
NATURAL GAS POWER PLANTS. AND
SINCE OUR FOUNDING IN 1984
CAPITALS BEEN AN INDUSTRY LEADER
IN ENVIRONMENTAL AND CARBON
POLICY CAMPAIGN, BELIEVES, AS
MANY OTHER CALIFORNIANS THAT
TEACH US WILL PLAY A CRITICAL
ROLE IN COST EFFECTIVELY. CARBON
IS THE COMEDY AND MEETING OUR
CLIMATE GOALS WILL SUPPORTING
RELIABILITY AND WE ARE COMMITTED
TO THIS. WE HAVE RECEIVED
FUNDING FROM THE U A PER THREE
PILOT PROJECTS TO ARE LOCATED IN
CALIFORNIA IN CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY, ADVANCING SUS RETROFITS
AND A NUMBER OF OTHER SITES. WE
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND
LEGISLATURE TO INSERT CALIFORNIA
REMAINS THE LEADER IN CLIMATE
POLICIES AND DEVELOPS A PROGRAM
THAT SUPPORTS THE STATE'S
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
DEPLOYMENT. SUS THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. I'M 32. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS
IS DR KATHRYN GROUP, A WHITE,
DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY
AIR QUALITY COALITION AND CO
CHAIR OF CARBS ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
PUBLIC HEALTH, FRONTLINE
COMMUNITIES AND ACHIEVING THE
STATE'S CLEAN AIR ATTAINMENT.
GOALS ARE PUT AT RISK BY
GAMBLING ON CC US RATHER THAN
FOCUSING ON DIRECT REDUCTION.
THE CENTRAL VALLEY DESERVES
BETTER THAN TO BE CONSIDERED THE
CONTINUED DUMPING GROUND FOR
POLLUTING AND EXPERIMENTAL%
ACTIVITIES. EVERY STEP OF THE
PROCESS FROM CAPTURING THE
CARBON TO TRANSPORTING USING AND
STORING IT. EACH POSES ITS OWN
SET OF RISKS. THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY IS IN THE MIDST OF A
DECADES LONG PUBLIC HEALTH
EMERGENCY COSTS BY CHRONIC
LEVELS OF UNHEALTHY AIR
POLLUTION AND OTHER
INTERSECTIONAL ISSUES AND
ACCELERATING CLIMATE IMPACTS
LIKE EXTREME HEAT AND WILDFIRES
ONLY MAKE THESE PROBLEMS WORSE.
THE VALLEY IS THE MOST POLLUTED
AIR BASIN FOR FINE PARTICLES AND
ONE OF THE MOST POLLUTED FOR
OZONE, AUSING EPIDEMIC LEVELS
OF SICKNESS AND COSTING THE
REGION'S $6 BILLION PER YEAR.
THERE ARE NO OPTIONAL AIR
POLLUTION EMISSION REDUCTIONS
LEFT ON THE TABLE. ADDING MORE
SOURCES IS NOT A NET BENEFIT. IT
IS A MISCHARACTERIZATION TO
CLAIM THESE PROJECTS IMPROVE AIR
QUALITY. MANY OF THE C. C U. S
PROJECTS CURRENTLY IN THE
PERMITTING PROCESS ARE IN SOME
OF THE MOST POLLUTED
NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE STATES LIKE
MENDOTA STOPPED HIM IN SEVERAL
LOCATIONS IN CURRENT COUNTY. IF
PIPELINES ARE QUOTE UNQUOTE
PROVEN TECHNOLOGY. WHY ARE SO
MANY STILL LEAKING WATER? THE
IMPLICATIONS OF UNDERGROUND
INJECTION WITH THE TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF EXISTING WELLS IN
THE SAME WORKING VALLEY? MANY
ABANDONED AND NOT PROPERLY
PLUGGED, INCLUDING THE 14 THAT
WERE RECENTLY DISCOVERED BY
COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO BE LEAKING
DANGEROUS LEVELS OF METHANE NEAR
THEIR HOMES. AND I'M GOING TO
ASK YOU TO WRAP UP. PLEASE
PURPORTEDLY IDEAL, ACCORDING TO
EXPERTS BECAUSE EXISTING DATA
FROM ABUNDANT OIL AND GAS
DRILLING AND EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE FROM HIGH
CONCENTRATION, INCLUDING
INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE SAME
JOAQUIN VALLEY THE STATE MUST
NOT PERPETUATE ENVIRONMENTALLY
RACIST CITING AND PERMITTING
PRACTICES, INVEST IN DIRECT
REDUCTIONS ON THE PATH TO A
PHASE OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WE'VE GOT A LINE 22, YOU ARE
OPEN. MY NAME IS MARSHALL,
AMMONIUM PHYSICIAN AND ON THE
BOARD OF PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY. CCS IS ENERGY
INTENSIVE AND INCREASES EMISSION
OF HARMFUL AIR POLLUTANTS. SUCH
AS PM 2.5 AMMONIA AND VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, PARTICULARLY
IN FRONTLINE COMMUNITIES. THERE
ARE MANY PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
AT EVERY STAGE OF THIS PROCESS.
STUDY PUBLISHED LAST MONTH BY
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY SHOWED THAT CCS
HAS FAILED TO REACH ITS PROMISED
RATES OF CAPTURE. THE REVIEW OF
MORE THAN 200 PAPERS CONCLUDED
THAT POINT SOURCE. BCS IS NOT A
NEGATIVE EMISSION TECHNOLOGY
THAT'S CURRENTLY PRACTICE.
RELEASES INTO THE ATMOSPHERE
THAN ADRENALS. AFTER OUR
EXPERIENCE WITH COVID 19
PANDEMIC BE NO, THERE IS NO
ECONOMIC PROSPERITY WITHOUT
PUBLIC HEALTH CAN'T UNDO CLIMATE
CHANGE AND OIL AND GAS HEALTH
HARMS IN OUR CLINIC. PLEASE
INVEST IN RENEWABLES, NOT
EXPENSIVE CLIMATE DEBT ENDS,
SUCH AS PCS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO
EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE
BATTLEFIELD. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND NEXT IS LINE 19. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. 19. GOOD AFTERNOON AND
THANK YOU FOR USEFUL
CONVERSATION. MY NAME'S VALERIE
VENTRIA HUTTON. I'M WITH 3 50
BAY AREA ACTION. UM ANY
INVESTMENT IN TECHNOLOGY NEEDS
TO PASS THREE TESTS. THE
TECHNOLOGY POSSIBLE. IS IT
PLAUSIBLE AND IS IT DESIRABLE
CCS AND SPECIFICALLY, CC US FOR
BOR IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT'S NOT
ECONOMICALLY PLAUSIBLE WITHOUT
ONGOING TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES
BECAUSE IT DOES NOTHING TO
ACTUALLY ELIMINATE CARBON
POLLUTION. IT FEELS THE
DESIRABILITY TEST COMPARED TO
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
THAT PRODUCE NO CARBON ONCE
THEY'RE IN PLACE IN THE U. S.
TAXPAYERS HAVE BEEN SUBSIDIZING
THESE EFFORTS FOR 25 YEARS AND
PERPETUATING THE HARM TO
FRONTLINE AND FENCE LINE
COMMUNITIES. IT'S TIME TO MOVE
ON. THANK YOU. 29 YOU'RE UP. HI
MY NAME IS JEN WARREN. I'M WITH
THE INTERFACE CLIMATE ACTION
NETWORK OF COUNTRY. COSTA COUNTY
APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION TODAY
AND RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICULTIES
OF THE LEGISLATURES. ARE DEALING
WITH. UM. WE NEED TO KEEP OUR
EYE ON THE PRIZE, WHICH IS TO
REDUCE POLLUTION AND DO MOVE TO
CLEAN RENEWABLE FUELS. UM
REDUCTION OF FOSSIL FUELS USED
IN POLLUTANTS, NOT JUST TARGETED
ONES THAT MAKE SENSE TO CERTAIN
CARBON CAPTURED, UM UM, PROJECTS
WE NEED TO PUT INCREASE.
INCENTIVES ON WHAT WE KNOW
ALREADY WORKS. UH IT'S ALREADY
BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CARBON
CAPTURE NEEDS MORE FUNDING. I
SAVED NEED MORE FUNDING. THEY
SHOULD GO TO VENTURE CAPITALISTS
FOR THINGS THAT ARE UNPROVEN.
RATHER THAN THE PUBLIC BANK. I
AM. WE'RE ALREADY DEALING WITH
THE CHANGES WITH BIOFUELS.
THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY AND
I ASK THAT YOU, UM, REALLY
CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. KEEPING US
CARBON CANCER AS NARROW AS
POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT
THE HEALTH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS.
YOU CAN LOOK AT THEIR ASKED TO
AND THEY WANT TO PRIOR OUR TIES,
DIRECT EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS OVER
CCS. AND A PRIORITIZED
ECOLOGICALLY BASED SOLUTIONS TO
NATURAL SEQUESTER CARBON,
RESTORING SOIL AND ECOSYSTEM
HEALTH. THEY ARE AGAINST THIS
THAT PEOPLE SAY THAT WELL, IT'S
BRINGING TO THE TABLE. WE CARE
ABOUT THEIR HEALTH. AND YET
THEY'VE ALREADY STATED THAT THEY
DON'T SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 26, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. HELLO YES. MY NAME IS
GENEVIEVE ANSEL. UM AND I AM
WITH THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK. I
LIKE TO USE MY ONE MINUTE TO
CRAFT EXCUSE ME, SA KÞT THOUGHT
EXPERIMENT FOR YOU ALL. START
CONSIDER THIS CAPITOL BUILDING
WAS LOCATED IN THE MOST POLLUTED
AIR BASE IN IN THE NATION
CONSIDERED CHEVRON HAS A BIOMASS
POWER PLANT IN THE LATIN NEXT TO
THIS BUILDING, AND THIS FACILITY
IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE MOST
POLLUTING FACILITIES IN THE AIR
BASIN. CONSIDER THAT YOUR CHILD
HAS ASTHMA. CONSIDER THAT WHILE
RACING TO THE HOSPITAL. YOU HAVE
SEEN YOUR CHILD STOP BREATHING.
NOW CONSIDER THIS POLLUTING
FACILITY PLANS TO ADD CCS
EQUIPMENT THAT WILL INCREASE ITS
EMISSIONS BY 25% AND INJECTS THE
02 UNDERGROUND. LASTLY CONSIDER
A NIGHT WHERE YOU LAY IN BED
WORRYING. IF THERE WAS A LEAK,
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE OR
SMELL IT. YOU LATER THINKING
YOUR CLOSEST HOSPITAL IS AN HOUR
AWAY, AND YOUR TOWN ONLY HAS ONE
AMBULANCE. THIS IS LIFE IN
MENDOTA. THIS IS LIFE AND DELAY.
NO, THIS IS THE REALITY FOR
RURAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
COMMUNITIES AND WALKING VALLEY.
TREATING OUR COMMUNITIES AS
SACRIFICE ZONES IS NOT AN
ACCEPTABLE CLIMATE SOLUTION.
THANK YOU. WE'LL GO TO LINE 17.
HELLO THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
ELISE QUALIFYING AND I AM A
MEMBER OF THE GLENDORA
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION. THE U.
S HAS BEEN HEAVILY PROMOTED BY
THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY AND
SPENDING AND TAX CREDITS FOR CC
US PROJECTS, ESPECIALLY ANY
INVOLVING ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
ARE BAD INVESTMENTS. HARMFUL TO
THE ENVIRONMENT. THEY DEPRIVE
ACTUAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS OF
NEEDED FUNDING. WE NEED TO USE
PUBLIC FUNDS AND TAX CREDITS TO
TRANSITION TO A ZERO EMISSION
ECONOMY. SOME OF THESE PANELISTS
EFFECTIVELY REPRESENT THE FOSSIL
FUEL INDUSTRY AND FRONTLINE
COMMUNITIES HAVE ALREADYENDURED
A CENTURY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RACISM THAT THE OIL INDUSTRY HAS
ENGINEERED. CARBON CAPTURE
INCREASES. POLLUTION DOUBLES
DOWN ON EXISTING POLLUTION
INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS USUALLY
LOCATED IN LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES. CARBON DIOXIDE
PIPELINES ARE DANGEROUS. SEE SEE
US WILL INCREASE HEALTH HARMS TO
FRONTLINE COMMUNITY THAT EVERY
STAGE OF CAPTURE, TRANSPORT
UTILIZATION AND STORAGE AND
COMPOUND EXISTING HEALTH HARMS.
CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE SEEKING AND
ADVOCATING FOR TAX CREDITS FOR
ZERO EMISSION ENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES AND PASS OFF YOUR
PHASE OUT PLANS ONLY. THANK YOU.
WE'LL GO TO 11. PLEASE GO AHEAD,
11. AFTERNOON I'M DOZEN MARTINEZ
WITH THE CENTRAL VALLEY AIR
QUALITY COALITION, AND I GREW UP
IN DELANA WITHIN CURRENT COUNTY,
WHERE THERE WAS AN ACTIVE
BIOMASS PLANT IN MY MIDDLE
SCHOOL AFTER MANY COMPLAINTS OF
SMOKE, SMELLS AND NOISES ARE
COMMUNITY MEMBERS LED THE
GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN TO SHUT IT
pVIOLATION REPORTS LEADING TO
OVER $30,000 AND FINE MY
COMMUNITY CELEBRATED THE PLANT'S
CLOSURE IN 2015. WE ARE NOW
CONCERNED ABOUT CURRENT PLANS TO
REOPEN THIS PROBLEMATIC FACILITY
. WHAT THEIR CLIMATE DEBT AND
LIKE, SEE SEE US. SOMEONE CAME
VALLEY HAS FAILED TO MEET
FEDERAL HEALTH STANDARDS FOR
FINE PARTICLE POLLUTION AND THE
DELANA BIOMASS PLANT RANKED IN
OUR TOP 10 FACILITIES EMITTING
THIS POLLUTION. SUS IS AN EMPTY
PROMISE THAT WILL FURTHER HARM
FROM MY COMMUNITIES LIKE MINE IS
VOICES AREN'T BEING GIVEN THE
SAME WAY AS INDUSTRY EVEN THOUGH
WE KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LIVE
WITH THESE OPERATORS AND ARE
EXPECTED TO BEAR THE INCREASED
RISK OF THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL
GO TO LINE 14. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS DANIEL REST, AND I'M
A STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE CENTER
AND RACE, POVERTY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT. CARBON CAPTURE AND
STORAGE WILL INCREASE HEALTH
HARMS TO THE FRONTLINE
COMMUNITIES THAT EVERY STAGE OF
CAPTURED TRANSPORT UTILIZATION
AND STORAGE OF CARBON.
COMPOUNDING THE EXISTING HEALTH
ARMS TO LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES
AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. WHERE
OIL INFRASTRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY
PLACED. CARBON CAPTURE INCREASES
DEADLY PARTICULARLY MATTER
POLLUTION AND TOXIC AIR
POLLUTION AND CARBON PIPELINES.
LEAK RELEASING SUFFOCATING AND
POTENTIALLY FATAL CARBON DIOXIDE
GAS BACK INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AND
THREATENING SOIL, HEALTH AND
GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES. FOR THEIR
STORAGE IS COMPLETELY UNTESTED
AND UNPROVEN OVER A LONG TIME
LINES AND CAN RESULT IN SERIOUS
HARM TO NEARBY COMMUNITIES. NOT
TO MENTION THAT NOT TO MENTION
THE RAVAGES OF ENHANCED OIL
RECOVERY. GIVEN THESE RISKS,
URGED THE STATE NOT TO DOUBLE
DOWN ON POSSIBLE FUEL
INFRASTRUCTURE BY DEPENDING ON
C. C. U. S PROPONENTS. CARBON
MATH IS DECEPTIVE AND THESE
PROJECTS WOULD EXACERBATE
ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM AS WELL AS
THE CLIMATE CRISIS. HOWEVER
SHOULD THE STATE DECIDED TO
PURSUE THIS PATH IS IMPERATIVE
THAT SAFEGUARDS BE ATTACHED TO
THIS DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY TO
PROMOTE AT LEAST HARM SCENARIO,
MOREOVER, TO MAINTAIN EVEN THE
POSSIBILITY OF CLIMATE BENEFITS.
IN ANY APPLICATION OF CARBON
CAPTURE, THE LEGISLATURE MUST
PROHIBIT THE USE OF CAPTURED
CARBON FOR ENHANCED OIL
RECOVERY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AS THE FINAL REMINDER, PLEASE
PRESS 10 IF YOU DO HAVE PUBLIC
COMMENT AND LINE 33, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HELLO MY NAME IS DANTE
SWINTON. I AM A GENERAL CITIZEN
AND JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON TWO
POINTS. FIRST I NOTICED THAT THE
PROPONENTS FOR CCS DID NOT
ADDRESS OR LIMITED TO KNOW.
ADDRESSING OF PIPELINE BUILD
OUT. CONSIDERING IT WOULD TAKE
ABOUT 65,000 MILES OF ADDITIONAL
PIPELINE IN THE US FOR CCS TO
HAVE A REAL IMPACT ON THE
CLIMATE CRISIS. IN ADDITION,
THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE ATTENTION
PAID TO THE PIPELINE EXPLOSION
THAT HAPPENED IN SANTOSH IN
MISSISSIPPI. IN 2020.
ADDITIONALLY THERE HAS BEEN
LIMITED TO NO CONVERSATION ON
THE MASS VOTE. COST OF CCS BUILD
OUT. AND I THINK THERE NEEDS TO
BE A GREAT ASSESSMENT OF THE
AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT THAT
TAXPAYERS LOVES YOU AT THE STATE
AND FEDERAL LEVELS IN ORDER FOR
SISI HAS TO BE SUCCESSFUL VERSUS
THE ACTUAL ROLLOUT OF RENEWABLE
ENERGY IS A STORAGE IN THE LIKE
, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S MUCH
MORE EFFECTIVE TO USE TAXPAYER
MONEY ON THAT FIRST CCS BUILD
OUT. THANK YOU. WE WILL ALIGN
36, PLEASE GO AHEAD. TIME MY
NAME IS JAN DIETRICH ON POLICY
LEAD FOR THE 3 50 VENTURA COUNTY
CLIMATE HERB AND ON THE STEERING
COMMITTEE OF 3 50 SHOUTS ONE
LEGISLATOR ALLIANCE. WE ENDORSE
THE COMMENTS FROM THE CLIMATE
CENTER FROM C R P. E. AND DR
WEITZ COX, BUT I AM CALLING AS A
SOMEONE WHO LIVES AND WORKS RUN
THE BUSINESS AND THE VENTURA
OILFIELD AND THERE'S A OIL WELL
ON OUR PROPERTY. WHEN MY FATHER
BOUGHT THE PLACE IN 1967, THAT'S
ON AN ANTIQUATED PERMIT. RIGHT
NOW, THE OIL INDUSTRY HAS SO FAR
SPENT $8.1 MILLION IN A COUNTY
REFERENDUM TO BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE TO DO THINGS LIKE
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE FOR
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY IN MY
DRIVEWAY. AT NO, WE DO IF THE
OIL INDUSTRY WHEN THIS COUNTY
REFERENDUM NO ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, MIKE. TIME TO SHOW
INTACT. COMPANY HAS TO DO
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND WE DO A
PROJECT. HOW DOES ERA ENERGY GET
AN EXCEPTION IN OUR COUNTY? SO
THIS HAS BEEN THANK YOU SO MUCH
UNIQUELY BONE FOR UH, HER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACTS OF
THIS IN HER DISTRICT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. LINE 38 YOU ARE OPEN.
HELLO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS ALEJANDRO. A ALLIANCE
. UM I'M ACTUALLY CALLING IN
FROM NEW MEXICO WITH THE
SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECTS. I
WAS ASKED TO LISTEN IN. UM AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ORGANIZER WITH SWAP UM YOU KNOW
, I THINK THAT THERE WAS A LOT
OF COMMENTS UM MAIN AND THAT IS
REALLY GOOD SCIENCE AGAINST
CARBON OFFSETTING AND TALKING
ABOUT HOW THIS IS A VIOLATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INDIGENOUS
RIGHTS. FROM SOME OF OUR LOCAL
PARTNERS THAT WE WORK WITH UP IN
WHO? PA YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SEEN
HOW THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF
COLONISTS. LAND GRABS, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MOVEMENT
TOWARDS LAND BACK, BUT IT COMES
WITH CARBON MARKETS AND CARBON
MARKETS 100% OF THE TIME. THEY
WILL INCREASE EMISSIONS. THERE'S
NO GOOD SCIENCE THAT WE HAVE
SEEN A LOT OF THE PARTNERS THAT
WE WORK WITHIN THE INDIGENOUS
ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK. UM AND WE
ARE IN A GLOBAL COMMUNITY,
WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. THE
CALIFORNIA IS NOT THAT FAR FROM
NEW MEXICO AND WE HAVE A DUTY TO
PROTECT THOSE LANDS AND PROTECT
INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS
OF ALL COMMUNITIES THAT WILL BE
AT THE FRONT LINE OF THIS
CLIMATE ISSUE. SO I URGE YOU ALL
TO THINK OF US HERE, YOU KNOW,
ARE THE FIRES ARE GOING REAL
BAD? UM YOU KNOW, HEARING IN
MEXICO, AND WE REALLY HAVE TO
WORK TOGETHER TO ATTACK AND
ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE, SO THANK
YOU ALL FOR JUST COMMENT. THANK
YOU. 9 35, YOU ARE OPEN. TAKE
ABOUT ZERO WATER OR YEAH, OF
COURSE. COME ON. BRIAN. 9 35.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO TESTIFY? LAST
SHOTS. 35 YOU ARE OPEN. MY NAME
IS ROSCOE MADRIGAL. YES, WE CAN
HEAR YOU. OKAY I AM FROM THE
FRESNO COUNTY AND I THANK YOU
FOR GIVING US THIS TIME. UM WITH
SOME WITH US BEING IN THE TOP,
UM COUNTY. OF. BAD AIR AND BAD
WATER. WE SHOULD NOT BE
CONSIDERING ANYTHING TO MAKE
THIS WORSE. ALREADY ENHANCED
ENHANCING OIL IS 80. BECAUSE TO
THE BUSINESSES OF OIL, MAKING
MILLIONS IDEAL IN FRESNO COUNTY
AND KERN COUNTY, WHERE PEOPLE
ARE ALREADY SUFFERING FROM
BURNING IN THEIR NOSE BURNING IN
THEIR THROATS. BURNING AND
RESPIRATORY TRACT. DESTRUCTION
OF THEIR AIRWAYS, DISTRESS AND
FAILURE. WE ALREADY HAVE
RESEARCH SHOWING THAT IN
CALIFORNIA WE HAVE 13,110 DEATHS
A YEAR BECAUSE OF THE AIR
QUALITY. I ASK YOU, YOU ONE OF
YOUR MEMBERS SAID WHAT SHOULD WE
LOOK AT? LOOK AT THAT. LOOK AT
THE ILLNESSES. LOOK AT THE
PEOPLE DYING. THIS ISN'T
SOMEBODY THAT HAS JUST HAVE
DISCOMFORT. THEY ARE DYING FOR
THIS. SO I ASK YOU TO PLEASE
REVIEW EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SEEN.
YOU HAVE HEARD TODAY AND PLEASE
DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO NOT
MAKE OUR AIR OUR WATER WORSE. I
THINK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU. 9 34, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HELLO REPRESENTATIVES. MY NAME
IS THOMAS JOSEPH I'M A TRIBAL
MEMBER OF THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE
. I ALSO HAVE ANCESTRAL LANDS
AND WHAT'S NOW KNOWN AS OWENS
VALLEY. YOU, NADA. AND THIS YEAR
IN NEVADA'S AND I'M CALLING IN
TODAY TO NOT SHARE ANYTHING. ANY
NEW INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVEN'T
HEARD ALREADY THAT THIS THAT THE
CCS IS JUST AN EXTENSION OF THE
FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. DRIVING TO
HOLD ON TO THEIR TO THEIR POWER
INTO THEIR INFLUENCE OVER THIS
OVER THESE ELECTED BODIES, AND I
URGE THAT AS ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THAT YOU REALLY
LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE
CALLED IN AND THEY ARE SHARING
PERSONAL TESTIMONY TO WHAT THEY
ARE EXPERIENCING, AS YOU ARE THE
CARETAKERS OF THESE LANDS AT
THIS MOMENT THAT YOU KNOW THAT
AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THESE
PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE SUFFERING
AT THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY HAS
CAUSED THEM GREAT HARM AND THAT
WILL CONTINUE TO CAUSE CAUSE
HARM WITH THESE SO CALLED
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES OF CCS
CCS IS A FURTHER EXTENSION OF
THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY AND
WILL CONTINUE TO ALLOW
GREENHOUSE GASSES THAT WE PUT UP
INTO THE AIR AND EARTH CONTINUES
TO WARM. AND AS WE ARE FACING
THIS ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS THAT'S
ON HAND I COME FROM A FORESTED
REGION OF CALIFORNIA. I KNOW
FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE OF THE OF
THE OF OUR DR FOREST BURNING UP.
THAT WE NEED REAL SOLUTIONS THAT
COME FORTH TO THE TABLE AND REAL
SOLUTIONS CONSISTS OF KEEPING
FOSSIL FUELS IN THE GROUND AND
BRINGING THE FOSSIL FUEL
INDUSTRY UH TO IT, AND THAT'S
WHAT'S GOING TO HELP PREVENT THE
GLOBE FROM WARMING, AND THAT'S
THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT YOU HAVE
BEEN ELECTED TO PARTAKE IN. AND
AS ELECTED OFFICIALS LISTEN TO
YOUR PEOPLE. THEY NEED YOUR HELP
, AND THIS IS THE SAME CRY
THAT'S BEEN GOING TO BE HEARD
ACROSS THE GLOBE AS COMMUNITIES
WILL CONTINUE TO SUFFER FROM
CLIMATE CHANGE, AND WE NEED TO
END THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY AND
THANK YOU TO THOSE FOSSIL FUEL
REPS THAT ARE SITTING BEFORE
YOU. THANK YOU. OPERATOR. HOW
MANY MORE CALLS THAT WE HAVE IN
THE QUEUE? WELL WE'RE JUST DOWN
TO THE LAST ONE RIGHT NOW. MR
CHAIR, ALL RIGHT. ALRIGHT WE'LL
WRAP UP WITH LINES 37, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME?
YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE
CAN. AWESOME I MEAN, THIS IS
RUBEN RODRIGUEZ. I AM A RESIDENT
OF THE CENTRAL VALIUM. I'D LIKE
TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT IT IS
IMPORTANT TO LISTEN TO THE FACT.
IT'S IMPORTANT LISTEN TO WHAT'S
HAPPENING AND WHAT'S GOING ON.
MOST IMPORTANT, IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO LISTEN TO THE
ENVIRONMENT AND WHAT'S HAPPENING
AROUND US. THE EASY TO SEE
NOBODY CAN DENY IT. THERE WAS NO
FACTS NEEDED. THERE IS NOTHING.
YOU NEED TO OPEN YOUR EYES AND
SEE WHAT IT IS THAT'S HAPPENING.
WE NEED TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTING THE
GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT OUR
FUTURE. PROTECTED GENERATIONS.
YOUR INDUSTRY KNOWS AND
UNDERSTANDS THAT WHAT YOU GUYS
ARE DOING IS WRONG. THAT WHAT
YOU GUYS ARE DOING IS GONNA END
UP HURTING OUR FUTURE
GENERATIONS. IT IS TIME TO STOP
TALKING ABOUT JOBS TO STOP
TALKING ABOUT BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS BEING SAVED AND THIS IS
THE PERFECT SPACE AND IT HAS THE
GEOGRAPHY TO BE ABLE TO STORY
THIS. YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT'S
HAPPENED? STOP ACTING LIKE FOOLS
AND THINK ABOUT OUR CHILDREN.
THINK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT.
THINK ABOUT THE CRIMES. THINK
ABOUT THE TREES. THINK ABOUT
THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE A VOICE ON
THIS TABLE. SARAH, PLEASE WRAP
UP AND YOU TALK ABOUT YOU TALKED
ABOUT MONEY? YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT JOBS, MAN. IT'S NOT ABOUT
THAT ANYMORE. JOBS MOVIE MADE
OPPORTUNITIES WILL BE MADE, BUT
WE NEED TO PROTECT WHAT IS THE
SUSTAINABILITY OF EVERYTHING,
AND THAT'S THE EARTH. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HEARING NO FURTHER
COMMENTS. YES, OPERATOR. I WAS
JUST GONNA SAY THAT WRAPS IT UP.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
AGAIN TO ALL THE PANELISTS AND
THE PRISON. UH PUBLIC COMMENTS.
THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.