regulatory developments and implications for ccus deployment
Post on 02-Mar-2018
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
1/53
D I N A K R U G E R
K R U G E R E N V I R O N M E N T A L S T R A T E G I E S L L C
J U N E 1 3 , 2 0 1 6
An Overview of thePolicy Landscape for CCUS
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
2/53
2
The Regulatory Frameworkfor CCUS
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
3/53
Overview
3
!
EPA Office of Water, Underground Injection Control(UIC) Program, under the Safe Drinking Water Act:! Role of Class II Wells! Role of Class VI Wells!
Potential for transition of Class II Enhanced Recovery (ER) wells toClass VI
! EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):! Approach on Class VI wells
!
EPA Office of Air & Radiation: GHG Reporting Program(GHGRP)!
Accounting Requirements for quantifying CO2 sequestration in ClassII and Class VI wells
!
California Air Resources Board QuantificationMethodology
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
4/53
4
EPAs Underground InjectionControl Program
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
5/53
Description of Class II and Class VI
5
! Class II UIC wells are used by the oil and gas industry.!Where CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is practiced,
CO2 can be incidentally stored in the formation.! EPA recognizes that CO2 is often stored in the Class II
setting.
! Class VI is a relatively new class of UIC well, designedfor CO2 storage in deep saline formations! The Class VI rule was promulgated in December 2010.
! To date, only a few Class VI wells have been permitted.! The requirements for Class VI well are more stringent
than the Class II program.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
6/53
Class II to Class VI Transition
6
!
December 2013: EPA issued guidance on ontransitioning Class II EOR wells to Class VI.! This guidance created significant concern and confusion in the
regulated community (EOR operators and state UIC directors).
!
April 2015: EPA issued a memo outlining the keyprinciples in the Class VI rule related to the transition ofClass II ER wells to Class VI.! This memo has clarified the approach and reduced concern.
! Link to the memo:
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/class2eorclass6memo.pdf
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
7/53
EPAs Transition Principles (#1 3)
7
! Geologic storage of CO2 can continue to bepermitted under the UIC Class II program.
!
Use of anthropogenic CO2 in EOR operations doesnot necessitate a Class VI permit.
!
Class VI site closure requirements are not requiredfor Class II CO2 injection operations.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
8/53
Transition Principles (#4)
8
! The key factor in determining the potential needto transition a CO2 EOR operation from Class II toClass VI is the increased risk to [Underground
Sources of Drinking Water]related to the significantstorage of CO2 in the reservoir, where the regulatory
tools of the Class II program cannot successfullymanage the risk.
!
Transition to Class VI should only be considered ifthe Class II tools are insufficient to manage the
increased risk.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
9/53
Transition Principles (#5 6)
9
!
The Class II and Class VI directors should work togetherto address the potential need for transition of anyindividual operation from a Class II to a Class VI permit.! The Class II program director (in most cases a state official) will have
the relevant data on pressure and volume of CO2 injected into ClassII EOR operations, which will influence any transition decision.
! The best implementation approach is for states toadminister both the Class II and the Class VI UIC
programs. EPA encourages states to apply for Class VIprimacy.! No states have been granted primacy to date. North Dakota is
awaiting EPAs decision.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
10/53
10
The RCRA ConditionalExemption Rule
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
11/53
RCRAs Conditional Exemption
11
! The rule allows for a conditional exemptionfor CO2 streams that are hazardous, providedthese hazardous CO2 streams are:
1. Captured from emissions sources (e.g., notnatural domes);
2. Injected into UIC Class VI wells; and,
3.
Meet certain other conditions.! Issued in January 2014.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
12/53
Specific Requirements
12
1. Transportation of the CO2 stream must be incompliance with applicable Dept. of Transportationrequirements.
2.
Injection of the CO2 stream must be in compliancewith the applicable requirements for Class VI wells.
3. No other hazardous wastes may be mixed or co-injected with the CO2 stream.
4.
Generators of CO2 and UIC Class VI well ownersmust sign a certification statement that the
conditions of the exclusion are met.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
13/53
Why did EPA promulgate this rule?
13
!After evaluating the existing regulatory frameworkfor CO2 generators, CO2 transportation and CO2injection in Class VI wells, EPA concluded that:
regulations under RCRA would not provide additionalprotections for CO2 streams injected for purposes of geologicsequestration.
! Put another way, EPA concluded that the UIC Class
VI framework was sufficiently protective and thatadditional regulation under RCRA would beredundant and unnecessary.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
14/53
What about UIC Class II Wells?
14
!
Most CO2 injection today occurs in Class II wells, withthe primary purpose of conducting EOR.
!
EPA states in the preamble to the the RCRA rule:[T]his conditional exemption is not intended to affect the regulatorystatus of CO2 streams that are injected into wells other than UIC ClassVI wells. [I]n the light of the several public comments on this issue,EPA does note that (based on the limited information provided in publiccomments) should CO2 be used for its intended purpose as it is injectedinto UIC Class II wells for the purpose of EOR/EGR, it is EPAsexpectation that such an injection process would not generally be a wastemanagement activity.
!
Put simply, where EOR is taking place in Class II wells,CO2 is treated as a commodity.
!
In this scenario, the CO2 stream is not considered awaste, and it is not covered under RCRA.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
15/53
15
EPAs Greenhouse GasReporting Program (GHGRP)
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
16/53
GHGRP Requirements for Carbon Capture
! CO2 Suppliers applicability under Subpart PP:(1) Facilities with production processes that capture CO2 in
order to sequester it or otherwise inject it underground.
(2)
Facilities with CO2 production wells.(3) Importers or exporters of CO2, if the amount exceeds 25,000
tons.
!
Information reported under Subpart PP:! The mass of CO2 captured and supplied for CO2 storage, either
on-site (at the capture facility) or off-site.
16
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
17/53
Requirements for Geologic Sequestration of CO2
!Applicability for CO2 sequestration accountingrequirements under Subpart RR :!All UIC Class VI wells must report under Subpart RR.
"
R&D facilities that apply to EPA for an exemption do not have to
report.!Any EOR operator using UIC Class II wells can opt into
Subpart RR.
! Subpart RR Requirements:! Development and implementation of an EPA-approved
Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) plan.!Annual reporting of the amount of CO2 sequestered, along
with supporting information.
17
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
18/53
Requirements for Injectors of Carbon Dioxide
!
CO2 Injector Applicability under Subpart UU:
!A well or group of wells injecting CO2 for EOR, including Class
II wells and wells with a R&D exemption under Subpart RR.
!
Information Reported:! Covered facilities must report basic information on the amount
of CO2 injected (including volume and source).
! Note: Subpart UU is not designed to serve as anaccounting framework for CO2 storage, because the
amount of CO2 injected does not provide sufficientinformation to quantify CO2 sequestration amounts.
18
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
19/53
19
Californias RegulatoryApproach
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
20/53
Californias Regulatory Framework
20
!
CCS is covered under the Regulation for the CaliforniaCap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-BasedCompliance Mechanisms.
!
The CCS rule applies to CO2 suppliers, which have acompliance obligation based on the amount of CO2 intheir emissions data report.
! The regulation requires use of an [Air Resources Board]-approved carbon capture and geologic sequestration
quantification methodology that ensures that theemissions reductions are real, permanent, quantifiable,verifiable, and enforceable. See 98.852(g)
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
21/53
The CA Regulatory Process
21
!
In April 2016, the Air Resources Board (ARB) initiated aRegulatory Adoption Process to develop a QuantificationMethodology (QM) for CCS, using an informaldevelopment process of:! Public workshops, technical and policy discussions! Stakeholder outreach! Draft proposals! Per ARB: This process can take several years.
!
Rule-making proceedings include:! 45-day public notice and comment on proposed regulations
! Public hearings! Responses to relevant comments! Submission of the rulemaking action to the CA Office of
Administrative Law
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
22/53
Key Topics being considered by ARB
22
! Accounting and reporting protocols.! Evaluating existing frameworks and data verification requirements.
! Site selection and characterization.! Identifying and assessing long- and short-term risks.! Defining the Area of Review.! Requirements for remedial action, monitoring and contingency plans.
!
Site injection operations.! Injection well design for Class II vs. Class VI wells.! Injection quantity and pressure limits.! Monitoring, reporting and active site management.
!
Site Closure/Post-Closure.! Decommissioning and timeframe for ongoing monitoring.
!
Long-Term Stewardship, including responsibility andfinancial liability.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
23/53
ARB Concerns with CO2-EOR
23
! Potential for overall increased oil production, inconflict with CAs oil reduction goals.
! Uncertainty with site closure, unclear responsibilities
for permanent CO2 sequestration.! Maximizing CO2 storage vs. oil production.
!
ARB plans to include requirements that are more
strict than Class II or similar.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
24/53
D I N A K R U G E R
K R U G E R E N V I R O N M E N T A L S T R A T E G I E S L L C
J U N E 1 4 , 2 0 1 6
EPAs First Approved MRV Plan:
An Overview of theApproach and Process
24
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
25/53
Overview of Presentation
! Requirements of MRV Plans under GHGRP SubpartRR MRV of the Clean Air Act
!
Approach taken in Oxys MRV Plan
! Process that led to MRV Plan approval
25
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
26/53
Basic Information
26
! EPA approved the first MRV plan under Subpart RRof the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)on December 22, 2015.
!
The MRV plan was submitted by OccidentalPetroleum Co.
! Oxy opted in to the requirements of Subpart RR.
! The MRV plan covers Oxys Denver Unit.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
27/53
Required MRV Plan Elements
27
1. Facility Information2. Project Description3. Monitoring Area and
Timeframes4. Potential Leakage Pathways to
Surface5. Considerations for Site-Specific
Variables6. Baseline Determinations7. Sequestration Volume
Calculation8. MRV Plan Implementation
Schedule9. QA Program10. Records Retention
The most critical (and challenging)elements in the MRV plan are:3. Monitoring Area and
Timeframes;4. Potential Leakage Pathways to
Surface;5.
Considerations for Site-SpecificVariables; and
6. Baseline Determinations.
Significant time was spent:
! Developing strong approaches;! Responding to EPA questions and
ideas;! Revising, as necessary; and! Ensuring that these elements were
fully and clearly described in theplan.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
28/53
Each MRV Plan will be Unique
28
! EPA does not require the use of any single approach/technique all MRV Plans.
!
The operator must identify appropriate site-specific
monitoring and quantification approaches/techniques.
! The selected approaches/techniques will bedetermined based on site conditions, such as:! Geology
! Likely leakage pathways! Current site monitoring approaches
! Other
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
29/53
The Basis for Occidentals Approach
1. Knowledge of the subsurface, gained through CO2EOR experience.
2. Oxys standard operating procedures for CO2-EOR.
3.
The operating history at the Denver Unit.4. The flexibility to tailor the MRV plan for specific
site characteristics, as provided in Subpart RR.
5.
Feedback from EPA during the process of
developing the MRV plan.
29
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
30/53
Key Elements Supporting the MRV Plan
1. Denver Unit has a strong containment zone with nofaults or fractures.
2. Denver Unit is most updip in the Wasson Field,
which will tend to keep CO2 in the formation overtime.
3. Key focus of Oxys risk assessment is existingwellbores, implemented via:
! Compliance with regulatory requirements.!A rigorous program of subsurface performance and well bore
monitoring.
30
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
31/53
Very Low Risk for Most Theoretical Leakage Pathways
! Faults
! Natural and InducedSeismicity
! Previous Operations
! Overfill through
Lateral Spill Points
! Dissolution of CO2 intoFormation Fluid and
Subsequent Migration
!
Drilling Through theCO2 Area
31
Key Elements (2)
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
32/53
Monitoring Information Management
! Leakage detection via:
! Daily visual inspections ateach facility and usingaerial inspections.
! Use of H2S monitors wornby all personnel and fixedmonitors at the Denver
Unit CO2 Recovery Plant.! Monitoring of injection
and productionperformance.
! Piggy-backing on CO2-
EOR Control Systems:! Use of automated data
systems for performanceevaluation and incident
tracking.
! Developing criteria toidentify those events thatcould involve CO2
leakage.
32
Key Elements (3)
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
33/53
OXY EPA
! Shared draft MRV plan withEPA in late Spring 2014.
! Revised draft and resubmitteda few more times.
! Submitted final version in lateSummer 2015.
! EPA provided feedback oninitial draft.
! EPA provided additionalfeedback on subsequent drafts.
! EPA approved the MRV Plan onDecember 22, 2015.
33
An Iterative MRV Plan Review Process
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
34/53
The EPA Process
! Entire approval process took about 18 months.! First 12 months: Oxy was refining the MRV Plan.
! Last 6 months: EPA was developing the approval decision,and briefing up.
! Following an MRV Plan approval, interestedparties have 30 days to appeal to EPAs
Environmental Appeal Board (EAB).! Focus is on the elements of EPAs approval document.
!No appeals were filed on the Denver Unit MRV plan
34
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
35/53
A few tips for those considering an MRV Plan
! Review the Oxy plan for the Denver Unit, with thegoal of understanding the general requirements andhow to present the necessary information.
!
Meet with EPA after identifying the site, and aninitial approach for the MRV plan has beendeveloped.
!
Expect significant feedback from EPA, and several
revisions of the plan.! EPAs goal is to ensure that no approved MRV Plan will be
overturned by the Environmental Appeals Board.
35
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
36/53
MRV Plan Links36
!Approved MRV Plan for the Denver Unithttps://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/denver_unit_mrv_plan.pdf
! EPAs Decision on the Denver Unit MRV Planhttps://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/denver_unit_final_decision.pdf
Note: The decision document is long, as it contains all of the MRVPlan drafts submitted by Occidental, as well as the revisionsrequested by EPA.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
37/53
CCUS Opportunitiesunder EPAs Clean Power Plan
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
38/53
Key GHG Rules for Power Plants
! Final Rule: Standards of Performance forGreenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, andReconstructed Sources: Electric Utility GeneratingUnits (EGUs).! Published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015.
! Litigation pending.
! Final Rule: Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelinesfor Existing Stationary Sources: EGUs.
! Published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015.! Stayed by the Supreme Court on February 9, 2016.
! DC Circuit has decided to hear the case en banc, and willhold oral argument on September 27, 2016.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
39/53
The NSPS Final Rule
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
40/53
CCS in the Final NSPS
! EPA has determined that the Best System ofEmission Reduction (BSER) for new steam units isa highly efficient supercritical pulverized coal unit
with partial CCS.! The required emission rate for new fossil-fired EGUs under the
NSPS is 1,400 pounds CO2 per MWh-gross.
! This is equivalent to the performance of an SCPC unitcapturing about 20% of its carbon pollution.
!
EPAs final BSER is less stringent than the proposedstandard of 1,100 pounds CO2 per MWh-gross.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
41/53
NSPS rules set a Standard, not a Market-Based Approach
! New Coal Units:
! Few (if any) new builds areexpected.
! These units would have tomeet the required rate of1,400 pounds CO2/MWh-gross.
! Within the NSPS, there is noincentive to reduce emissionsbelow the standard, becauseNSPS units cannot trade.
! New NGCC Units:
! Many units are likely to bebuilt.
! These units can comply withthe final standard (1,000 lbs-CO2/MWh-gross) withoutCCS.
! As with new coal units,within the NSPS, there is noincentive to reduce emissionsbelow the required standard.
CCS Opportunities under the NSPS
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
42/53
CCS in the Final NSPS
!
If an affected power plant captures CO2 to meetemissions standard:! The power plant must report under Subpart PP (Suppliers of CO2)
regarding whether the CO2 was injected on-site, or transferred for
off-site injection.! In addition, both on-site and off-site injection of captured CO2 must
be reported under Subpart RR (Geologic Sequestration of CO2).
! Innovative Technology Waivers are available for CCUprojects, based on a demonstration that the project
would store CO2 as effectively as geologic sequestrationwith minimal risk to health and welfare.
!
See 80 FR 64654-55, 60.5505(f) and (g)
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
43/53
Clean Power Plan Final Rule
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
44/53
CCS in the Final CPP
!
EPA confirms CCS is an available compliance option.! We are confirming our proposal that CCS is not an element of the
[Best System of Emission Reduction], but it is an availablecompliance measure for a State Plan. 80 FR 64884
!
Affected EGUs may utilize retrofit CCS technology toreduce reported stack CO2 emissions from the EGU.
!
Retrofitting CCS on an existing unit should not beconsidered a modification, which would bring the unit
into the NSPS.! Footnote 898: Addition of retrofit CCS technology should not
trigger CAA section 111(b) applicability for modified or reconstructedsources. 80 FR 64883
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
45/53
CCS in the CPP (continued)
!
Following the requirements of the NSPS and CPP will notlead to a change in the UIC well class.! Footnote 901: Under final requirements , any well receiving CO2
captured from an affected EGU, be it a Class VI or a Class II well,
must report under Subpart RR. A UIC Class II wells regulatorystatus does not change because it received such CO2, nor does itchange by virtue of reporting under Subpart RR. 80 FR 64883
!
Affected EGUs that apply CCS under a State Plan mustmeet the same requirements as new units that implement
CCS under the Final NSPS.! Specifically, Subparts PP and RR of the GHGRP, as described on
slide 7.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
46/53
CCS Opportunities: Rate-Based Trading
!
New sources cannot participate in the CPPs rate-basedtrading approach, per 60.5800(c)(1), 80 FR 64950.
!
CCS retrofits are allowed at existing coal- and gas-fired
units.! The Emission Rate Credits (ERCs) generated by such projects could
be used by the EGU, or sold to other EGUs.
!
The monitoring requirements for ERCs generated byexisting power plants are much less complicated than the
requirements for renewable energy and energy efficiency.! ERC prices alone are unlikely to be high enough to
incentivize CCS retrofits in a rate-based system.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
47/53
CCS Opportunities: Mass-Based Trading
! Incentivize CCS retrofits of existing power plants via:! Targeted allowance allocation;
! Establishing allowances set-asides;
!
Using allowance auction revenues.! Bring new sources into the existing source program.
! States that implement this approach would have a largeremissions cap to cover the additional sources.
! This approach would enable both new and existing power
plants to consider developing CCS projects.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
48/53
The best way to drive CCS under the CPP
! Create state-level mass-based trading markets thatinclude both new and existing sources.
!
This approach is the most likely to incentivize CCSbecause it:! Establishes a clear price signal on CO2 that will apply to both
new and existing power plants.
! Ensures that all fossil generation new and existing, gas andcoal will have incentives to consider CCS.
! Including new sources will probably lead to higher allowance
prices, which would be helpful for CCS.
!Additional Federal and/or state financial incentivesmay be needed.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
49/53
49
A Brief Discussionon Financial Incentives
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
50/53
Currently, few incentives for CCS50
!
Tax Credits for Renewables and CCS not comparable.From 2010 2014:! Renewable Federal Revenue Cost : $37.3 billion
! CCS Federal Revenue Cost: $1 billion
!
DOE Budget Outlays from 2012 2016:! Renewables: $2.5 billion
! CCS: $1 billion
Information for this section taken from the National CoalCouncil report Leveling the Playing Field: Policy Parityfor Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
51/53
IRC Section 45Q Tax Credit51
!
Promulgated in 2009.
!
Provides a financial incentive to the capturer of the CO2of $20/ton for Class VI injection and $10/ton for Class IIEOR injection.
!
Modifications for the 45Q tax credit are needed:! Lower the limit on CO2 capture to enable smaller sources to
participate. (Currently set at 500,000 tons/year.)
! Provide transferability of the credit between parties in the captureand injection chain of custody.
!
Increase the credit for both Class VI and EOR injection.!
This incentive appears to have the best prospectscurrently.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
52/53
Other Financial Incentives52
!
Contracts for Differences (CFD)! DOE could create an approach under which a limited number of
projects could receive financial support from a menu of incentives.! First step would likely be for DOE to lay out how a CFD program
would work.
!
Production and Investment Tax Credits! Available for renewables, but not for CCS.
!
Tax-preferred bonds! Funded by local governments.! Available for renewables, but not for CCS.
!
Master Limited Partnerships! Allows for taxation at the individual level, as opposed to both the
individual and corporate level.! Currently neither renewables nor CCS are eligible.
-
7/26/2019 Regulatory Developments and Implications for CCUS Deployment
53/53
K R U G E R E N V I R O N M E N T A L S T R A T E G I E S L L C
D I N A @ K R U G E R S T R A T E G I E S . C O M
( 3 0 1 ) 8 0 1 - 9 6 7 6
Contact:
top related