Faithful readers will recall that the KCC has been considering geological carbon sequestration regulations for a while now. Last winter, they also held a roundtable on the topic. (Not entirely surprisingly – the topic is still so new, I think only seven or so states have carbon sequestration regulations – that blog entry is still very popular.)
At an open meeting last week, the KCC commissioners once again reviewed the status of the proposed KS regs, which are almost complete. An interesting discussion resulted, raising more questions than it answered.
While on one level the exchange was about carbon regs, on another level it was about the larger issue of uncertainty. How do regulators operate when dealing with new, evolving, and nascent technologies that are by no means yet proven safe? What is the right level of caution? How much certainty is required? How much uncertainty does it take to invoke a regulator’s duty to protect the state?
Commissioner Harkins made two motions to amend the proposed regulations. The first motion was to amend the regulations to apply to CO2 pilot projects, but not to authorize the full commercial development of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) facilities.
His arguments: The original statute required the commission to protect the health and environment of Kansas as they developed the regs. He read into the record a great deal of reliable evidence from well-known authorities that CCS are definitely at the research stage, not the deployment stage. The technologies have probably 20 years to go in terms of development alone, plus additional time for commercial deployment. Nor has the safety of any of these technologies been established – especially in terms of storage. Harkins stated that he was unaware of any documentation that could give the KCC certainty that these regulations could protect the health and environment of Kansas from potential complications of carbon sequestration.
(What are the complications of carbon sequestration? Go back and re-read the notes from the roundtable, but at a minimum, the CO2 plume stored underground can escape back up into the atmosphere, or into drinking water. Basically, CO2 acidifies water, and acidified water can dissolve yucky things into it – metals, etc., things you really don’t want to drink or spray on crops. Also, depending on the process of capture, some CO2 streams can contain additional and often nasty pollutants. Likewise, when compressed deep underground, CO2 condenses into a thick, viscous, acidic – goop. For lack of a better term.)
“There’s no rush,” Harkins said. “We have until at least 2030 to do it right, and no reason to do it wrong. There are certainly political issues, but those shouldn’t affect us. We have to be responsible, and follow the path of caution.”
Commissioners Moffat and Wright pointed out additional factors, however. Moffat argued that the regulations gave the KCC the ability to react responsibly to CCS proposals, and that EPA regulations on CCS would certainly affect revisions to the KCC regs as well. He felt that the KCC could move forward on the carbon sequestration regulations as the legislature had directed, but still retain authority to protect the health and environment of Kansas. Commissioner Wright noted mainly that the authorizing statute directed the KCC to move forward.
The first motion failed, 2-1. However, the next fared better, even though it was ultimately withdrawn… hang on, that will make sense in a moment.
Harkins’ second motion was regarding a very hot button issue in the regs – the issue of the perpetual liability of the state of Kansas for the care of deactivated CS sites. The liability would move from the private developer to the state of KS – for thousands, and thousands, and conceivably thousands of years. Harkins called this “an enormous transfer of liability, of a huge magnitude. The people of Kansas become permanently responsible, and the developer walks away.”
Faithful readers might also recall that at the roundtable, Representative Carl Holmes, Chair of House Energy and Utilities Committee, appeared to express surprise that in the proposed regulations, the state of KS was taking on said liability, since the original statute was silent on this issue. The last I heard, the House Joint Committee on Energy and Environmental Policy (JCEEP) woudl be taking on this issue in the interim session.
Harkins’ motion proposed to delete the liability languge in the regulations, and send it back to the legislature for their decision on this point. He pointed out that the legislature did not make the policy decision that KS should be the permanement custodian of these sites.
“If the legislature decides to do this, fine, I’ll live with it,” he said. “What I can’t live with is us doing it.”
Commissioners Wright and Moffat raised another point – the KCC CS regs are in fact almost a year overdue, and the legislature has been pressuring for their completion. If the KCC went ahead and passed these regs, then could they be amended? The KCC staff responded that yes, conceivably, but if someone set up a CCS facility in the meantime, then possibly they could be grandfathered in and take advantage of the liablity.
The motion was withdrawn, because the Commissioners decided to defer the decision to JCEEP, which will likely meet early this fall. The regs are tabled for now, waiting on the outcome of the JCEEP meeting.
— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
