Control of Geological Carbon Sequestration in the Western United States

• Date: 01 May 2011

5-2011 NEWS & ANALYSIS 41 ELR 10455

Control of

Geological

Carbon

Sequestration in

the Western

United States

by Arnold W. Reitze Jr. and

Marie Bradshaw Durrant

Arnold W. Reitze Jr. is Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney

College of Law, University of Utah, and member of

the University of Utah’s Institute for Clean & Secure

Energy; J.B. and Maurice Shapiro Professor Emeritus of

Environmental Law, e George Washington University.

Marie Bradshaw Durrant is an attorney with Holland &

Hart in Salt Lake City and a former Legal Fellow with the

University of Utah Institute for Clean & Secure Energy.



In the near future, the use of coal may be legally

restricted due to concerns over the eects of its com-

bustion on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentra-

tions. Carbon capture and geologic sequestration oer

one method to reduce carbon emissions from coal and

other hydrocarbon fuel. While the federal government

is providing increased funding for carbon capture and

storage, congressional legislative eorts to limit car-

bon emissions have failed. However, regional and state

bodies have taken signicant actions both to regulate

carbon and to facilitate its capture and storage. Part 1

of this A rticle, published last month, discussed how

regional bodies and state governments are addressing

the technical and legal problems that must be resolved

in order to have a viable carbon storage program. Part

2 of the Article discusses the western state legal devel-

opments that encourage carbon storage.

I. Western States Carbon Capture-and-

Storage Legislation

Coal production in the United States in 2009 totaled 1,075

million short tons; of this amount, 585 million short tons or

54% was produced in the eight westernmost states (includ-

ing Alaska).1 Wyoming dominates western coal production

by producing 40.1% of the nation’s coal, which is more

than the combined total of all the Appalachian states.2

In addition, Kansas has gone from two surface mines to

one, which produces 0.017% of the nation’s coal; Okla-

homa has one underground mine a nd nine surface mines

that produce 0.089% of the nation’s coal; and Texas has

12 surface mines that produce 3.26% of the nation’s coal.3

Among the states in the western half of the United States,

Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington

produce no coal, although some of these states have coal-

burning electric-power plants.4

1. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration, 

        http://

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/tables2.html) [hereinafter EIA Pro-

duction by State];  

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table21.html

[hereinafter EIA Mine Type].

2. EIA Production by State, supra note 1.

3. EIA Mine Type, supra note 1.

4. Id. While DOE lists these states as having no coal production, other data

sources list small amounts of production from some of these states. is is

discussed in material on specic states.



    

         





 

 

         



         

      



     

       

    

         



    



 





Copyright © 2011 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.

41 ELR 10456 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 5-2011

On March 25, 2009, the Arizona Department of Envi-

ronmental Quality (ADEQ) and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) announced the rst permit in

the Southwest for a CCS project in Joseph City, Arizona.

e Cholla pilot project planned a 20-day or less injection

of 2,00 0 tons of CO2 into an underground saline forma-

tion by the West Coast Regional Sequestration Partnership

(WESTCARB), a regional partnership organized by the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). e ADEQ permit is a

temporary one-year aquifer protection permit that requires

the holder to meet Arizona aquifer water quality standards

and to use the best available technology. In addition, EPA

issued a Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection

Control permit, because it administers the program in Ari-

zona. However, upon testing, WESTCARB determined

that the saline aquifer wa s not suciently permeable a nd

is now test ing alternative sites for the CCS project.14 is

test project is part of the second phase of an Arizona CCS

program. e rst phase characterized the opportunities

for CCS. e second phase involves small-scale eld tests.

e third phase, to run from 2008 to 2017, is to conduct

large-volume carbon storage tests.15

Although three CCS pilot projects are currently under-

way in t he state, Arizona does not yet appear to have any

legislation specically regulating CC S.16 On April 26,

2010, Arizona’s governor signed H.B. 2442 that forbids

state agencies from regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs)

without legislative approval.17  is law may slow or stop

eorts to implement CC S. In addition, Arizona has said

the state will not participate in current eorts to implement

the Western Climate Initiative’s cap-and-trade program,

which removes a major incentive for utilities to participate

in a CCS program.18 However, on December 1, 2010, EPA

included Arizona as one of 13 states that must adjust its

state implementation plan (SIP) to apply prevention of sig-

nicant deterioration (PSD) provisions to GHG emissions.

Arizona was ordered by EPA to include GHGs as one of

the speci c pollutants regulated by the PSD program by

December 22, 2010.19

ronment Arizona, 

  , http://www.environmentarizona.org/reports/global-

warming /global- warming- program-r eports/a mericas- biggest-p olluters -

carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-power-plants-in-2007 (last visited Mar. 22,

2011).

14. WESTCARB,  Storage Pilot—Cholla Site, http://www.

westcarb.org/AZ_pilot_cholla.html (last visited Mar. 22, 2011).

15. William H. Carlile, -

tration Project, 40 E’ R. (BNA) 719 (Mar. 27, 2009).

16. See Lee Allison,  , A G,

B   S G  A ( July 26, 2010), http://arizo-

nageology.blogspot.com/2010/07/carbon-capture-storage-legislation.html

(last visited Mar. 22, 2011).

17.  41 E’ R. (BNA)

1026 (May 7, 2010).

18. William H. Carlile,  

41 E’ R. (BNA) 1150 (May 21, 2010).

19. Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Sig-

nicant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call; Final Rule, 40 C.F.R. pt.

52 (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107).

A. Alaska’s Carbon Capture-and-Storage (CCS)

Efforts

Alaska has only one coal mine, which produces 0.17% of

the nation’s coal.5 e Usibelli Mine is near Healy and sup-

plies coal to six power plants in Alaska a nd exports coal to

South Korea and other Pacic countries.6 e amount of

coal in Alaska is the subject of considerable interest and

ongoing research. ere are vast reserves in the Arctic that

are thought to hold as much as one-half the nation’s coal.

However, accessing these reserves is not currently economi-

cally feasible.7 ere are ongoing eorts to expand coal pro-

duction in Alaska, primarily for export, but such eorts are

the focus of environmentalists’ opposition. e six power

plants using coal have a total capacity of 136 megawatts

(MWs), and none are larger than 50 MWs.8 A laska does

not currently have any legislation on geologic CCS.

ere are several coal-to-liquids projects u nderway

in A laska funded by the U.S. Department of Defense in

an eort to develop synthetic fuels from coal.9 In June of

2010, Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) and Laurus Energ y

announced plans to produce syngas from deep under-

ground coal in southcentral Alaska. e in-situ process

produces synthetic gas from underground coal, sepa rat-

ing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases underground

and storing them there. e proposed project would fuel

a 100 -MW power plant in southcentral Alaska.10 If the

proposed sequestration takes place, A laska may soon be

forced to deal with the legal issues of sequest ration on a

commercial scale.

B. Arizona’s CCS Efforts

Arizona has one surface coal mine that produced a little

under 7.5 million tons of coal in 2009.11 ere are six coal-

red power plants with 16 operating units in the state with

a total capacity of 5,681 MWs.12 e Navajo Generating

Station has three 750-MW units totaling 2,250 MWs.

At least 21% of this power is sent to California. In 2007,

this station was ranked as the nation’s eighth largest power

plant emitter of CO2.13

5. EIA Mine Type, supra note 1.

6. Source Watch, Alaska and Coal, http://sourcewatch.org/index.

php?title=Alaska_and_coal (last visited Mar. 11, 2011).

7. See David C  ., G T T, Q C:

H M I T http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/Alas-

kaCoal/HowMuchCoal.html.

8. Source Watch, Alaska and Coal, supra note 6.

9. Id.

10. CIRI P R, L E  C F J V

(June 8, 2010), available at http://www.ciri.com/content/company/News-

Details.aspx?ID=743.

11. EIA Mine Type, supra note 1.

12. Source Watch, http://www.source-

watch.o rg/index.p hp?title=C ategory:E xisting_co al_plants_ in_Arizona

(last visited Mar. 22, 201a). e plants are Abitibi Snowack Power Plant,

Apache Generating Station, Cholla Generating Station, Coronado Generat-

ing Station, H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station, and the Navajo Generat-

ing Station.

13. See Source Watch, http://sourcewatch.org/index.

php?title=Navajo_Generating_Station (last visited Mar. 22, 2011); Envi-

Copyright © 2011 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.