Informing policy development for geologic carbon sequestration in California.

Abstract: In California, there have been numerous policy directives aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2005, Executive Order S-3-05 established three target reduction levels for GHG emissions for the state, most notably a return to 1990 levels by 2020 (codified into law by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and a reduction to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2006, Senate Bill 1368 mandated a GHG emission performance standard (set at an interim level of 1100 lb- CO2/MWh or 500 kg-CO2/MWh) for new or renewed long-term contracts to purchase electricity from baseload facilities, and Assembly Bill 1925 required a report to the California legislature containing recommendations for accelerating the adoption of cost-effective geologic sequestration strategies for the long-term management of industrial carbon dioxide. Assembly Bill 1925 provided a unique opportunity for technical experts and other stakeholders to inform future policy decisions and regulations for geologic carbon sequestration in California. The author of the bill, the state agencies, and other stakeholders involved in developing the report agreed that a two-stage process would best address the goals of the legislation. A first report was recently released that provides a thorough overview of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) fundamentals in a California context and recommends areas for additional data acquisition or analyses. A second report, to be issued in 2010, will contain a full set of recommendations based on further studies, stakeholder input, and data and lessons learned from ongoing geologic CCS projects worldwide and particularly from field tests in California conducted by the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (WESTCARB). This paper presents an overview of the approach and key findings of the first report, including technical readiness, infrastructure needs, regulatory and economic assessments, identification of potential early opportunities for application of CCS technology, and assessment of the greatest barriers to widespread CCS adoption in the state. Many of these findings are generally applicable beyond California or provide analogs useful to other states. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]