Overview
Title
To require the Secretary of Energy to remove carbon dioxide directly from ambient air or seawater, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 7054 is a plan for a government official to help clean up the air and ocean by removing carbon dioxide, starting with a small amount and slowly increasing to a big amount over time, while making sure it doesn't cost too much and creates jobs to help people.
Summary AI
H.R. 7054, known as the “Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024,” requires the Secretary of Energy to remove specific amounts of carbon dioxide directly from the air or seawater each year. Starting with 50,000 metric tons annually for 2024 and 2025, the goal is to scale up to 10 million metric tons by 2035 and beyond. The bill outlines economic feasibility criteria, sets removal targets, and emphasizes using small removal projects and innovative technologies. It prioritizes projects that create jobs, support environmental justice, and offer community benefits while ensuring the monitoring and verification of carbon removal efforts.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill titled the "Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024" seeks to mandate the Secretary of Energy to remove carbon dioxide directly from the ambient air or seawater. This ambitious legislative proposal outlines specific targets for carbon dioxide removal, starting with 50,000 metric tons for fiscal years 2024-2025 and escalating to 10 million metric tons per year by fiscal year 2035 and beyond. The bill emphasizes ensuring the economic feasibility of these activities, promoting innovation and support for small projects, and fostering diverse technologies. It requires the removal projects to adhere to a lifecycle basis to assess net carbon impact.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues within the bill may pose challenges. Firstly, the requirement for carbon dioxide removal to be economically feasible is tied to fixed price caps per metric ton, which may not adapt well to changing market conditions or inflation if not managed transparently. The prioritization of projects lacks detailed criteria, potentially leading to inconsistencies or biases in selecting technologies and partners. Additionally, the process for awarding contracts could lead to favoritism due to a lack of prescriptive guidelines governing the competitive process. Monitoring and verification processes grant too much discretion, potentially undermining objective assessments. Furthermore, by excluding certain technologies from eligibility, the bill might unintentionally stifle innovation in this sector.
Public Impact
Broadly, this bill could have a considerable impact if successfully implemented, as it aims to address environmental concerns by actively removing carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas responsible for climate change, from our environment. The ambitious removal targets reflect a proactive stance toward mitigating climate change, potentially leading to improved environmental and public health outcomes over time. However, if the economic feasibility challenges are not resolved, the initiative may struggle with its sustainability and scalability.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The bill's impact on stakeholders is multifaceted. The energy sector, particularly companies focusing on carbon capture technologies, may benefit significantly from supported innovation and potential contracts arising from the legislation. There is also a possible positive impact on job creation, as the bill emphasizes preference for partnerships with labor organizations, small businesses, and minority- or women-owned enterprises.
Conversely, these proposed actions may pique concerns among stakeholders like fossil fuel producers and certain agricultural sectors, which might face stricter regulations or shifts in business models due to increased focus on carbon management and emission reductions. While environmental justice communities could see benefits from cleaner air and improved health, these benefits hinge on effective implementation and prioritization in project selection processes.
In summary, while this bill offers a transformative approach to tackling climate change, its success will largely depend on how it navigates economic feasibility and implementation nuances. Addressing the highlighted concerns will be essential to translate legislative intent into measurable environmental progress and equity.
Financial Assessment
The bill titled H.R. 7054, also known as the “Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024,” proposes several financial references and allocations related to the removal of carbon dioxide from the environment. Here, the financial aspects of the bill are examined in detail.
Economic Feasibility and Pricing
The bill stipulates certain conditions for the removal of carbon dioxide to be considered economically feasible. Specifically, the bill sets maximum prices per metric ton of carbon dioxide, which decrease over time:
- For fiscal years 2024 through 2025, the price should not exceed $750 per metric ton.
- For fiscal years 2026 through 2028, it is capped at $500 per metric ton.
- For fiscal years 2029 through 2031, the limit is $300 per metric ton.
- For fiscal years 2032 through 2034, it drops further to $200 per metric ton.
- From fiscal year 2035 onward, the price should not exceed $150 per metric ton.
Each of these allowances is adjustable for inflation, which leaves some room for interpretation about how these adjustments will be applied, potentially tying into the issue of achieving targets if inflation adjustments are not well-regulated.
Inclusion of Monitoring Costs
Additionally, the bill specifies that the price considered for feasibility should include costs related to monitoring, reporting, and verification. This ensures that the true cost of removal, along with associated regulatory compliance, is accounted for in pricing. However, discretion in who performs these tasks could lead to conflicts of interest, as highlighted in the issues section.
Contractual Provisions
The bill allows for multi-year contracts, enabling the removal of carbon dioxide to be executed over several years at a locked-in price, based on the first fiscal year of the contract. This aspect could potentially mitigate some risks associated with market fluctuations. Despite these provisions, the lack of detailed guidelines for awarding contracts might lead to ambiguity or favoritism.
Authorization of Appropriations
The bill authorizes the appropriation of funds necessary to carry out its mandates; however, it does not specify exact amounts. This open-ended authorization raises potential concerns about budgetary inefficiencies and a lack of financial oversight. Furthermore, the absence of specific sums might lead to challenges in securing funding or efficiently allocating financial resources.
Prioritization and Financial Implications
The priority given to projects based on economic and community impact does not have a clear financial guideline. While the bill highlights important social and economic factors, the vagueness in prioritizing projects could create inconsistencies, as noted in the issues section.
Conclusion
The financial aspects of the bill focus heavily on ensuring economic feasibility and setting caps on removal costs, yet they leave room for interpretation in terms of inflation adjustments and prioritization of projects. The lack of specific appropriation amounts presents potential risks in terms of financial oversight and budget planning. These financial decisions are crucial for the successful implementation and management of the proposed carbon dioxide removal targets.
Issues
The requirement for carbon dioxide removal to be 'economically feasible' as outlined in Section 2(d) ties removal to set price points per metric ton, potentially creating challenges in achieving targets if market conditions change or if inflation adjustments are not clearly regulated.
The provisions in Section 2(g) lack specificity in prioritizing projects, which could lead to inconsistencies in project selection, particularly around preferences for small removal projects, innovation, and diversity of technologies.
Section 2(h) describes a competitive process for contracts but lacks detailed guidelines, potentially leading to ambiguity or favoritism in awarding contracts for carbon dioxide removal.
The monitoring, reporting, and verification provisions in Section 2(f) give discretion on who performs these tasks, potentially allowing for conflicts of interest if not regulated rigorously.
The definition and exclusion of 'eligible technology' in Section 2(k) could limit innovation by excluding some methods of carbon dioxide removal, while allowing exceptions that might favor specific technologies.
The timeline for report submissions to Congress in Section 2(i) being every two years may be too infrequent for effective oversight of the carbon dioxide removal program.
Section 2(j) authorizes appropriations with unspecified sums, potentially leading to budgetary inefficiencies and lack of financial oversight in carbon dioxide removal initiatives.
The study in Section 3 sets an ambitious target for carbon dioxide removal at a gigaton scale without clearly defined funding, roadmap, or assessment of technological feasibility, raising concerns about the achievability of such goals.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill gives it a short title, allowing it to be referred to as the "Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024".
2. Federal requirement to remove carbon dioxide Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section mandates the Secretary of Energy to remove specific amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year, with the amounts increasing over time, and establishes guidelines to ensure this process is cost-effective and supports small projects. It highlights economic feasibility, sets priorities for projects with environmental and social benefits, and requires regular reporting to Congress on progress and impacts.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—The removal of carbon dioxide under this section shall be considered economically feasible if such removal can be accomplished or, in the case of a contract, purchased— (A) with respect to such removal carried out for any of fiscal years 2024 through 2025, at a price per metric ton of carbon dioxide of not more than $750 (which the Secretary may adjust for inflation); (B) with respect to such removal carried out for any of fiscal years 2026 through 2028, at a price per metric ton of carbon dioxide of not more than $500 (which the Secretary may adjust for inflation); (C) with respect to such removal carried out for any of fiscal years 2029 through 2031, at a price per metric ton of carbon dioxide of not more than $300 (which the Secretary may adjust for inflation); (D) with respect to such removal carried out for any of fiscal years 2032 through 2034, at a price per metric ton of carbon dioxide of not more than $200 (which the Secretary may adjust for inflation); and (E) with respect to such removal carried out for fiscal year 2035 and each fiscal year thereafter, at a price per metric ton of carbon dioxide of not more than $150 (which the Secretary may adjust for inflation). (2) INCLUSION OF MONITORING, REPORTING, AND VERIFICATION COSTS.—In determining whether the removal of carbon dioxide is considered economically feasible under paragraph (1), the price for such removal shall include any costs associated with the monitoring, reporting, and verification required under subsection (f)(1).
- (3) MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the removal of carbon dioxide carried out pursuant to a multi-year contract entered into under subsection (h) shall be considered economically feasible if such removal can be accomplished at the applicable dollar amount for the first fiscal year of the contract, as provided in paragraph (1), through the entire length of such contract.
3. Study on the long-term future of Federal carbon dioxide removal management Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of Energy, along with other government agencies, must prepare and submit a report within a year that explores different ways to design and finance a program for removing carbon dioxide from the air and oceans. This report should include ideas for managing the program through different structures, like a government corporation or a contracted service provider, to meet ambitious carbon removal goals by 2050.