PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 110-343.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 7, 2007
Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Act of 2007 - Requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a competitive grant program to provide assistance to at least three, but not more than five, eight-year commercial demonstration projects to demonstrate the long-term effects of sequestration of carbon dioxide in deep geological formations, of which: (1) not fewer than two shall be conducted in deep saline aquifers; and (2) the remainder may be conducted in saline aquifers combined with storage in established oil or gas fields.
Requires the Secretary to establish a competitive grant program to provide grants to at least three, but not more than five, commercial demonstration projects for the capture of carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Establishes an interagency task force composed of the Secretary, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Secretary of the Interior to develop regulations providing guidelines and practices for the capture and storage of carbon dioxide.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Director of the Office of Science to carry out a program for the research and development of potential technologies and approaches for the capture of carbon dioxide. Requires the Secretary to: (1) carry out a program for the research and development of carbon dioxide storage technologies; and (2) develop recommendations for optimal carbon dioxide storage features, practices, and conditions.
Requires the Secretary to complete a national carbon dioxide storage capacity assessment.
Requires the Secretary to offer to enter into agreements with China and India and any other country that is heavily dependent on coal-fired power plants for electricity generation to pursue technology-sharing agreements with respect to carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies.
People & committees
Sen. Kerry, John F. [D-MA] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 110-343.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2323 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2323 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2323 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2323 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.