Two House members are demanding the Department of Energy immediately stop directing carbon capture funding toward coal-fired power plants, with their release accusing the agency of "illegally funneling" the money to "prop up coal plants."

Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and a House colleague identified as Murray issued the demand through a release posted on House.gov. The headline — "Kaptur, Murray Blast DOE for Illegally Funneling Carbon Capture Funds to Prop Up Coal Plants, Demand Department Halts Plans" — frames the legal challenge in statutory terms.

The carbon capture dollars at issue fall under federal demonstration programs designed to commercialize capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology at industrial and power-sector emitters. The same demonstration portfolio finances post-combustion capture investments that waste-to-energy developers and recycling-stream operators track as potential feedstock for downstream CO2 offtake.

What is the dispute about?

The members' core objection is statutory authority. Federal CCUS programs were authorized to accelerate carbon capture deployment, not to extend the operating life of a fuel source that competing climate policy is trying to phase out. Routing demonstration dollars to keep coal units running past scheduled retirement fails the purpose Congress wrote into the appropriations.

The practical test is whether the funded projects let a coal plant continue operating past a state decarbonization deadline, a federal greenhouse-gas effluent rule, or an existing retirement commitment. If a capture credit enables continued generation that would not otherwise occur, the funding has done the opposite of what Congress intended.

Why the timing matters now

DOE is moving awards through its carbon management portfolio. A congressional halt demand at the application-review stage is faster than rescinding the underlying appropriation; the agency can freeze selections while the dispute is litigated.

The relevant signals for industry are an updated DOE selections timeline and any revised program guidance that re-scopes capture away from coal-extension use cases.

The dispute carries downstream consequences for byproduct streams. Capture demonstrations at coal plants routinely bundle post-combustion treatment upgrades with fly ash, bottom ash, and flue-gas desulfurization gypsum handling — residues recycling operators already manage at scale from the existing coal fleet.

What happens next?

DOE can comply with the halt, dispute the legal claim in writing, or suspend awards pending a congressional hearing. Each path produces a public document that capture technology vendors, industrial emitters, and waste-management operators will read closely.

The next milestone is the department's response to the lawmakers' demand, followed by any revised award schedule published by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations or the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. That response — not the rhetoric — decides whether demonstration dollars continue to mature the same capture and treatment supply chains serving municipal solid waste incinerators, hazardous-waste combustors, and industrial boilers.