Overview
Title
To require the Secretary of Energy to remove carbon dioxide directly from ambient air or seawater, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants the U.S. to clean the air by taking away the bad gas (carbon dioxide) using special tools, and it hopes this will also help invent new things and create jobs. It also plans to tell people in charge how it's going and promises to manage the money needed for this job carefully.
Summary AI
S. 3615, titled the “Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024,” requires the U.S. Secretary of Energy to remove carbon dioxide directly from the air or seawater. The bill sets specific goals for the amount of CO2 to be captured each year and supports the use of various technologies to achieve this. It prioritizes projects that minimize emissions, encourage technological innovation, and support job creation. Additionally, it requires regular reporting to Congress on progress and allows for funding to support these efforts.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, titled the "Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024," seeks to assertively address the pressing issue of carbon dioxide emissions by requiring the U.S. government, specifically the Secretary of Energy, to actively remove substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and oceans using advanced technologies. This bold initiative aims to not only combat climate change but also catalyze innovation, economic development, and job creation in related sectors.
General Summary of the Bill
This bill mandates that the U.S. government take significant steps each fiscal year to remove specific quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, scaling up efforts progressively through 2035 and beyond. The initiative emphasizes the use of "eligible technologies" for this task, ensuring that the methods utilized are verified, efficient, and environmentally responsible. The legislation outlines criteria for these technologies, establishes price caps, sets timelines for removal, and encourages the use of small-scale projects. Furthermore, the bill requires regular reporting to Congress to assess progress and impacts, while also calling for a comprehensive study on the long-term management of carbon dioxide removal on a massive scale by 2050.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues with the bill's language and structure could complicate its implementation. Notably, the definition of "eligible technology" is potentially too broad, which might allow the inclusion of ineffective methods, leading to inefficient use of resources. Similarly, the criteria for expanding eligible technologies, particularly concerning natural photosynthesis methods, create ambiguity. The bill's complex calculation of "lifecycle basis" emissions may pose challenges in achieving transparent and consistent assessments across projects.
The economic feasibility of carbon removal projects is constrained by rigid price caps that might not consider regional economic differences or inflationary pressures, limiting the bill's adaptability. Additionally, the requirement to allocate at least 20% of removal through smaller projects could hinder efficiency if such projects lack advanced technology or cost-effectiveness. The bill also restricts entities from assuming more than 25% of removal responsibilities in a given fiscal year, potentially leading to inefficiencies if some entities are more equipped to meet these targets.
Furthermore, the lack of detailed criteria for assessing impacts on environmental justice communities and for engaging with the public may result in inconsistent applications and overlook community concerns. An ambitious timeline for submitting a comprehensive report on the long-term management of carbon removal poses further challenges, lacking specificity on budgetary provisions for conducting this analysis.
Impact on the Public
The bill represents a significant federal initiative to combat climate change, which could have far-reaching positive impacts on the public, particularly in reducing atmospheric carbon levels and their associated impacts on global warming. If successfully implemented, it could spur technological advancements, create new jobs, particularly in regions transitioning away from fossil-fuel-dependent industries, and contribute positively to regional economies. Additionally, the environmental benefits of large-scale carbon removal could enhance public health and preserve biodiversity.
However, the complexities and ambiguities within the bill could deter its effectiveness, potentially leading to public skepticism about the government's commitment to addressing climate change efficiently. The constraints imposed by price caps and project allocations might also inhibit the rapid deployment of the most effective technologies, slowing down potential benefits.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For the technology and environmental sectors, this bill could stimulate investment and innovation by providing clear targets and incentives for developing advanced carbon removal technologies. Industries and businesses engaged in fossil fuel activities may find opportunities to diversify and participate in emerging markets related to this initiative. Small businesses and minority-owned enterprises could benefit from the bill's emphasis on inclusive economic development and partnerships.
Conversely, stakeholders involved in carbon removal may face challenges due to the undefined criteria for eligible technologies and the stringent economic constraints. Ambiguities in policy definitions and priority-setting might lead to uneven or biased opportunities for participation, potentially leaving some capable actors sidelined due to arbitrary constraints.
In conclusion, while the "Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024" is an ambitious and timely legislative effort to address environmental imperatives, its implementation will require careful navigation of outlined issues to effectively harness potential benefits for both the environment and the economy.
Financial Assessment
The bill, named the "Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024," mandates financial considerations crucial to its effective implementation. Careful attention to these financial aspects is essential to understanding the potential impacts and challenges of the proposed legislation.
Financial Summary
The bill outlines a structured price per metric ton of carbon dioxide capture that decreases over time, beginning at $750 for the years 2024 and 2025, and sliding down to $150 for the year 2035 and beyond. These caps are intended to evaluate the economic feasibility of carbon dioxide removal technologies. However, the usefulness of these price caps will depend on their sensitivity to inflation, which the Secretary has the discretion to adjust for.
Economic Feasibility Concerns
The fixed price mechanisms may not accurately account for regional cost disparities or unforeseen inflation, potentially making the removal targets financially impractical. The pricing strategy could also hinder ambitious projects, particularly if regional costs deviate significantly from the national averages. This aligns with the concern in the issues that such static pricing might inflexibly bind the program, affecting its effectiveness and adaptability.
Small Removal Project Allocation
The bill stipulates that at least 20% of the total carbon removal must come from small removal projects. While this could diversify technological approaches, it might inadvertently divert funds towards less efficient methods. The focus on numerous smaller projects could also dilute the impact of the most pioneering and cost-effective technologies, a concern highlighted regarding the efficiency of small-scale projects.
Limitation on Single Entity Contributions
There is a restriction preventing any single entity from handling more than 25% of the removal targets. This could limit efficient outcomes by preventing entities with potentially superior capability and scale from contributing to their fullest extent. This cap might lead to inefficiencies by necessitating funding allocation towards potentially less efficient entities, which could affect the program's cost-effectiveness and impact.
Contract Duration and Economic Considerations
The bill allows for multi-year contracts, with a duration of up to 15 years. This provision ensures that economic feasibility assessments consider the starting year of the contract, which helps shield projects from future inflationary pressures but might still not fully mitigate long-term financial uncertainties associated with such an extended timeline.
Monitoring Costs Included
The determination of economic feasibility includes costs for monitoring, reporting, and verification. While necessary for transparency and accountability, these added costs could increase the financial burdens of compliance, thus affecting the overall economic feasibility assessments of the projects.
Overall, the bill's financial structuring requires careful monitoring and potential adjustments to ensure that economic feasibility aligns with the effective and equitable advancement of technological and environmental goals. Addressing the concerns noted could lead to more robust and adaptable financial planning within the legislative framework.
Issues
The bill's definition of 'eligible technology' in Section 2(a)(1) might be too broad, potentially allowing ineffective technologies to qualify. This could lead to funds being allocated to methods that do not effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
The exclusion and subsequent conditional inclusion of natural photosynthesis technologies in Section 2(a)(1)(B)(ii) and Section 2(a)(1)(C) creates ambiguity that could complicate the implementation and oversight of qualifying technologies.
The calculation of 'lifecycle basis' emissions as specified in Section 2(a)(2) is complex and may pose challenges in ensuring accurate and consistent measurement across projects, raising concerns about reliability and transparency.
The designated price caps for economically feasible removal in Section 2(c)(1) might not account for regional cost variations or potential inflation, potentially hampering the bill's effectiveness and adaptability to local economic conditions.
Allocating 20 percent of carbon dioxide removal to small removal projects as mandated in Section 2(e) could reduce the overall efficiency of the program if these projects use less advanced or cost-effective technologies.
Limiting single entities to 25 percent of carbon removal in Section 2(i)(4) could introduce inefficiencies by preventing highly capable entities from contributing more significantly to removal targets.
The lack of specific criteria for evaluating environmental justice community impacts and measuring benefits in Section 2(j) might lead to inconsistent application and marginalization of vulnerable communities.
The absence of clear guidelines for public engagement and community benefits in Section 2(h)(7) might lead to inadequate assessment of the social value of carbon removal projects, overlooking important community interests.
The ambitious timeline for the report submission required by Section 3(a) could hinder the quality and comprehensiveness of the evaluation, impacting the effectiveness of future program design and implementation.
Section 3 does not specify the budget for conducting the study, raising concerns about potential overspending or inadequate financial resources to complete a thorough assessment.
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 the official name: "Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024."
2. Federal requirement to remove carbon dioxide Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the U.S. government to remove specified amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year using approved technologies that store the carbon dioxide permanently. This process needs to be affordable, verified, and environmentally friendly, with priority for projects that promote job growth and innovation while supporting areas affected by fossil fuel industries.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—The removal of carbon dioxide under subsection (b) shall be considered economically feasible if that removal can be accomplished or, in the case of a contract under subsection (i), purchased— (A) for each of fiscal years 2024 and 2025, at a price per metric ton of carbon dioxide of not more than $750 (which the Secretary may adjust for inflation); (B) for each 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) for each 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) for each 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) 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 (g)(1).
- (3) MULTIYEAR CONTRACTS.—The removal of carbon dioxide carried out pursuant to a contract entered into under subsection (i) that is a multiyear contract 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 the contract.
3. Study on the long-term future of Federal carbon dioxide removal management Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary of Energy to collaborate with various federal agencies and submit a report to Congress within a year of the Act's enactment. This report should evaluate and recommend how to create and fund a program for removing carbon dioxide at a gigaton scale annually by 2050, considering different management structures such as a government corporation or a contracted service provider.