EPA Administrator Michael Regan faced skepticism from Republican senators Wednesday about the potential for power generators to use carbon capture and sequestration technology to significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
At a hearing held to discuss EPA’s fiscal 2025 budget request, Regan spent much of his time defending a range of the agency’s regulatory actions. In addition to the power plant rule, he discussed EPA’s proposal to reduce discharges from meat and poultry slaughterhouses and processing facilities and its tailpipe emissions rule, among other regulations.
Senators Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., both hammered Regan on the viability of carbon capture technology, or CCS, for both coal-fired and natural gas plants. A rule announced last month that will be published in tomorrow’s Federal Register requires existing coal-fired plants and new natural gas plants to reduce 90% of their CO2 emissions by 2032.
Capito cited concern expressed by the National Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, whose CEO, Jim Matheson, said “the path outlined by the EPA is unlawful, unrealistic and unachievable. It undermines electric reliability and poses grave consequences for an already stressed electric grid.”
NRECA also said CCS technology is not “ready for prime time,” and Capito agreed.
After citing a multi-year fight to get the Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline built in West Virginia and Virginia, Capito said flatly, “How in the world can you say that we’re going to do CCS? We're going to build pipelines that are going to carry carbon? That's not going to happen.”
When Regan said it already was happening, Capito asked for an example of an “interstate pipeline that's been recently built that carries carbon,” and Regan said there was one being built from North Dakota to Iowa, an apparent reference to the currently planned but yet unapproved Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline that would carry liquid carbon from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota before terminating in North Dakota, where the proposed sequestration site is located.
“There are utilities that are putting in this technology and beginning to use it,” Regan said. “They're also taking full advantage of the resources provided by the Inflation Reduction Act,” which promises an $85 per ton credit for geologically secure sequestration.
The 2032 timeline for compliance with the 90% carbon reduction requirement “does match with the resources currently going to utilities who are investing in CCS technology,” Regan said. “Significant investments [are] going into carbon capture and storage right now.”
Cramer, however, called the 90% CO2 reduction requirement unrealistic, saying that standard had never been achieved. “It looks to me like 90% is a setup for failure and that the goal is to shut down coal,” he said.
Cramer also sought to correct Regan on the Summit project. “The pipeline you're referring to from Iowa to North Dakota is designed to ultimately take CO2 captured from ethanol plants from the Corn Belt and take it to North Dakota’s geology, which is suitable for carbon capture and storage, and even better yet, enhanced oil recovery, and who wouldn't want more of that?” Cramer asked rhetorically.
Summit says on its website that the project “will not be used for enhanced oil recovery,” and the company’s CEO told the North Dakota Monitor last month that no customers had approached it seeking to use its liquid CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.
Regan also faced questioning from Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., who challenged the administrator to identify the benefits of the agency's proposal to reduce discharges from meat and poultry plants.
Mullin said the cost of protein will rise significantly as a result of the proposed regulations, which foresee the shutdown of 16 plants.
“This is going to add a tremendous amount of cost to every dinner plate, every breakfast plate, and every sandwich served,” he said.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
Regan said benefits would flow to people in communities who would have cleaner water as a result of more stringent water pollution regulations.
“We're talking about the people that live in these communities that we recognize do work in these facilities,” he said. “They're also drinking the water, they’re breathing the air. We're trying to balance those public health benefits with the jobs and the economics in the meat industry.”
He also mentioned the recent creation of an Office of Agriculture and Rural Affairs at EPA and the agency’s Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee, but Mullin disparaged Regan's advisers as “professionals that work in colleges and universities that have a tremendous amount of theory but they've never got crap on their boots before.”
The FRRCC has several farmer representatives, including livestock producers.
A spokesperson said Mullin "was speaking about faceless EPA bureaucrats who generally lack first-hand business experience in the fields they regulate. I would also note the point of the senator’s questioning was not that the EPA has a new office to handle things, it’s that they already released data that they themselves admitted would cause closures if put into a final rule. The senator is a fourth-generation cow-calf rancher and business owner of over 25 years."
Regan also faced skepticism from EPW GOP members about the pace of electrical charging station construction across the country. He maintained that the U.S. is on track to provide enough electricity to service the expected surge in EV production that will be needed to meet new tailpipe emission standards.
Democrats mostly had kind words for Regan and the FY 2025 budget request, which seeks 20% more for the agency. Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., elicited the answer he wanted on the Chesapeake Bay, when Regan said EPA would "absolutely" reconstitute what’s known as the Federal Leadership Committee to help guide implementation of the multi-state Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.
The administrator committed to holding a meeting of the committee this fall.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com
This story was updated with a comment from Sen. Markwayne Mullin's office.
