There have been significant changes in certain EPA programs under the new administration. Some have been emphasized, and others have changed their direction. Class VI projects are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and states are attempting to ensure that, to the extent possible, they are using local resources to address local challenges, as carbon sequestration in Texas differs from that in California or West Virginia.
This is why the federal government says it encourages states to take primacy. It is believed that this will remove regulatory barriers to permitting these projects, streamline the process, and expedite it, resulting in a better outcome for permittees because local decision-makers may better understand and can address any issues.
The EPA has granted primacy for Class VI underground injection control (UIC) wells to four states: Wyoming (2018), North Dakota (2020), Louisiana (2024), and West Virginia (2025). Arizona and Texas are pending approval – expected in 2025. Here, we cover several states with primacy, moving toward primacy, or with local influences to illustrate what makes each state particularly attractive or challenging for carbon sequestration project developers. We’ll also provide some key recommendations for mitigating challenges with navigating a carbon sequestration project within each state.
Texas is interesting – the EPA retains primacy as it transitions to the state.
When you submit a Class VI project to Texas, you’re submitting it to both EPA Region 6 and, by Texas state law, to the Texas Railroad Commission. You also need a no-harm determination letter from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Each agency has jurisdiction in different ways.
Some of our clients in Texas are receiving three sets of questions or requests for clarification on these permits from three different agencies. With the transition to the state, this process is expected to be simplified relatively quickly after the memorandum of understanding completes the public comment period.
For those in the Lone Star State, it is advisable to consider approaches to solving technical issues, as Texas law requires. For example:
Louisiana got its primacy a year ago, but using public lands is an issue.
Louisiana is a state with a significant petrochemical industry and numerous potential permits. Notably, part of Louisiana’s process for Class VI wells involves leasing public lands, specifically the pore space beneath public lands. Pore space is the empty space within rocks, soils, and sediments, essentially the gaps between particles or within fractures. Pore space serves as storage for injected carbon dioxide. It is one of many factors examined in geological formations and processes like carbon capture and storage.
Public lands, such as state wildlife refuges, have been considered for carbon sequestration. The state leases pore space beneath these lands for 99-year periods or some long-term lease for developing a project. The underlying issue we see in Louisiana’s approach is that they’ve chosen to lease public land as a framework for many of their project developers and as a means to raise money and pay for carbon sequestration. There’s a tussle between different stakeholders who view things differently.
If you’ve worked on any number of these projects, education is paramount to the permitting process; the public needs to feel confident in the protection of the environment and their drinking water resources. As our projects in Louisiana progress, we continually talk about the safety of deep geologic storage on drinking water resources, monitor potential reevaluations, and stay ahead of opportunities to educate and inform the public. SCS employs conservative design philosophies and utilizes the most up-to-date scientific information on materials to prevent unexpected problems in wells. Robust testing and monitoring programs ensure that operations remain functional and safe. It may be that the state will have to choose a different way to implement Class VI reviews.
Illinois does not have primacy, but it passed a bill and a moratorium this year.
The bill SB1723 doesn’t replace the EPA Region 5 rule for carbon sequestration but adds bans or exemptions based on local geology requirements. The map shown here is of the subsurface Mahomet Aquifer, ranging from 300 to 500 feet deep. The bill prohibits penetrating this aquifer for geologic sequestration (typically 5,000 to 6,000 feet deep) to protect the aquifer if there is a leak. Redundant controls help to mitigate any compromise of integrity and escape of CO2.
Champaign County has also put a county-wide moratorium on wells for a year using Zoning Case 157-AT-24. When evaluating project feasibility in Illinois, there are federal-level regulations, plus state, county, and, in some cases, city regulations. These are very specific regulations about whether or not wells are acceptable on certain types of land. Understanding the federal-level landscape and the local stakeholders is vital for Underground Injection Control (UIC) consideration.
Arizona’s primacy was recently announced.
Primacy is a big step for Arizona with its deep sedimentary rocks. One interesting thing about Arizona is the proposed fee structure, which may make it an attractive area for injection wells. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality administers the UIC program. It plans for its fee-for-service model to cover operating expenses of carbon sequestration projects.
Arizona’s power generation includes coal-fired power plants and management of post-combustion waste streams alongside sources like natural gas and nuclear power, which make carbon sequestration in Arizona an attractive option.
West Virginia is considered a sustainable option.
West Virginia is nestled in the Appalachian Mountains and contains strata that make the state particularly attractive and cost-effective for developing UIC projects. The geologic media combination of porous sedimentary rock formations, impermeable shale layers, and primacy streamlines project permitting while maintaining the highest levels of safety.
Case Studies and Carbon Sequestration Challenges
As we mentioned previously, education is paramount to successful projects. To be transparent and educate all stakeholders, which include the public and all agencies, science, data, and a long-term approach must back any carbon sequestration-designed solution. Developers must be able to support a client’s project to fruition and beyond monitoring and control to foresee challenges and maintain safety throughout the carbon sequestration lifecycle.
In the Midwest, the EPA issued draft permits for a Class VI project supporting a cement kiln operation. The project site is located a little bit away from the source of the actual carbon dioxide produced; thus, a short stretch of pipeline is involved.
Some of their nearby stakeholders raised this appeal for the permit in the public comment period, and they had several different claims, including the post-injection site care period, the time frame after which the injection of carbon dioxide ceases.
Facility operators are required to monitor during the post-injection period and site closure. The standard default period is 50 years. A 10-year post-injection monitoring period was proposed for this site as adequate. The EPA responded by requesting a more detailed analysis to back the request, remanding it back to Region 5 for further evaluation.
In our experience, there are many technical reasons why a shorter than the standard default period is extremely hard to demonstrate that it is safe. Issues with plume, stability, movement, and geologic stability are just the beginning. Of all the things to ask for during permitting, a short post-injection period does not seem to be fruitful, and for truly sustainable projects, it doesn’t save much in the long term. Monitoring is one of the least expensive and valuable safety precautions of carbon sequestration.
In the West, Environmental Quality Acts
Kern County hosts a carbon sequestration project in California, which is interesting because of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and proposed climate laws within SB-253 and SB-261. Plaintiffs contend that the project did not fully analyze their potential carbon dioxide sources, claiming that the carbon capture and sequestration through California Resources Corporation’s (CRC) project will attract carbon dioxide-producing operations to the site that would not otherwise have come to the county. It’s now a land use matter.
The project illustrates the need for clients to look at the ties between their sources of carbon dioxide (producers) and their geographical location, along with the geologic storage capability. This is project siting, a standard part of a feasibility analysis conducted before a carbon sequestration project is developed. Sustainable projects are a combination of safety, environmental protection, and economic feasibility in the long term.
When evaluating a potential project, we inquire whether there are sustainable sources of carbon dioxide that a developer can effectively compete for. Unless the sources of carbon dioxide and storage capabilities are considered in the feasibility stage, the proposed project may be considered speculative. In short, early consideration of these factors reduces the perception that carbon sequestration is only a business venture and devalues the fact that it reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, significantly mitigating climate change.
Pipelines and their relationship to permitting carbon dioxide capture.
South Dakota is the latest in a history of pipelines and their relationship to carbon dioxide projects. The state enacted a ban on eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines.
Ethanol production, which generates almost pure carbon dioxide, has been a potential source of capture and sequestration. It’s easy to obtain, concentrated, and pure as a source for capture. The challenge is balancing the amount generated in an individual plant versus the amount of economically reasonable geologic storage.
It seems very basic, but they’re sometimes not in balance. For example, the output of 15 to 20 ethanol plants and a strategy to chain them together by pipelines was proposed to minimize transportation costs. Pipeline transport of carbon dioxide is inexpensive, so it seemed to make sense that a pipeline network could dispose of it all at one site.
The pipeline network has caused many problems for the industry regarding public opposition to pipelines, largely because the pipelines would run through farmland. Then, it brings in all sorts of additional permitting and safety issues as well.
It’s not simply an issue in South Dakota but nationwide. Under the Safe CCS Act, Illinois enacted a two-year moratorium on pipeline development until further evaluation of pipeline safety. Although an extension, the same challenges cause clients to look at alternatives.
Unique to each project, a developer might recommend right-sizing the facility or creating a smaller group of facilities rather than one networked superhub. It avoids landholder objections and pipeline issues while sizing the storage capacity to sources. It may seem more expensive in the short term, but in the long term, it may not.
Another thing we’ve been looking at that seems less objectionable is rail transport instead of pipeline transport. The bottom line is that your developer should be able to propose and analyze alternatives with you to ease the permitting process.
There are different arguments to make on one side or the other. Still, looking for alternatives to connecting a large regional pipeline across the Midwest is advisable because eminent domain issues drive firms to reevaluate spending time and resources when developing a project that relies on a large or multi-state pipeline.
About the Author: Charles Hostetler, Ph.D., is a project manager and subject matter expert in geochemistry, hydrogeology, risk assessment, environmental regulations and permitting, and natural resources assessment. He provides clarity for prospective project owners interested in developing carbon sequestration solutions, low-carbon intensity products, and environmental due diligence for the energy sector. His core competencies include project management, groundwater modeling, multimedia environmental monitoring, and wetland permitting, construction, and monitoring.
Dr. Hostetler Recommends these Resources:
SCS Engineers and a Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) state geologist presented a webinar as part of the Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists (PCPG) educational series. The educational webinar is timely as Governor Josh Shapiro recently signed Senate Bill 831 into law, creating a regulatory framework for the Commonwealth’s carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS).
The webinar, titled CCUS in the US and a Glimpse into What is Possible in Pennsylvania, Part I, includes SCS geologists from across the nation providing a technical overview of CCUS project planning, permitting, operations, and closure referencing current, active Class VI projects based on case studies. The webinar is available for a nominal fee on PCPG’s website, and professional credits (PDH or CEU) are available as allowed by your licensing state and entity.
The DCNR’s state geologist provides an overview of the CCUS work in Pennsylvania by DCNR for over 20 years, including coordinating with the Department of Energy, other states’ geological surveys, and public-private organizations to explore CCUS in the Commonwealth and neighboring states.
Questions and Follow-Up
During the live webinar, SCS received multiple inquiries from the audience, similar to our clients’ questions. We’ve created a separate video to answer them, which is available on the SCS website at the bottom of the carbon capture and DWI page. We hope you find the videos informative and valuable. Our geologists are passionate about their work and helping clients navigate regulations and implement sustainable projects.
Pennsylvania Senate Bill 831 and Other States
Our professionals continue to work on Class VI projects with multiple clients across the US where primacy has been granted, or states have regulations in place, including the outlook for CCUS in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Senate Bill 831 establishes the legal and regulatory framework for the Commonwealth’s potential carbon dioxide capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS). SB831 provides “for the injection of carbon dioxide into an underground reservoir for the purpose of carbon sequestration, for the ownership of pore space in strata below surface lands and waters of the Commonwealth, for conveyance of the surface ownership of real property; imposing duties on the Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Hearing Board; and establishing the Carbon Dioxide Storage Facility Fund.”
View a copy of the Bill here: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?sYear=2023&sInd=0&body=S&type=B&bn=0831.
CCUS | CCS | Deep Well Educational Video Resources:
Published CCUS Resources:
On May 26, 2024, Illinois passed legislation aimed at regulating carbon capture and storage projects at the state level. The Safety and Aid for the Environment in Carbon Capture and Sequestration Act (SAFE CCS Act) has a broad scope, bipartisan support, and support from industry, environmental advocacy groups, and other Illinois stakeholder groups.
SCS Engineers believes the SAFE CCS Act will impact schedule, cost, and scope in Illinois’s permitting, operation, and post-closure phases of Class VI projects.
Please join long-time Illinois Deep Well Practitioners Stephanie Hill, Charles Hostetler, and Kacey Garber for a look at how SCS will apply our state-level experience to help Project Developers, Owners, and Operators focus their permitting, operational, and reporting practices to navigate these complexities and minimize Class VI project risk.
Click on Additional CCS Resources:
Click to Read CCS Articles:
Many companies are exploring carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) to help reach greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Protecting aquifers is a primary concern for the public to safeguard underground drinking water sources. Starting with near-surface background environmental monitoring is the first step to addressing public concerns and maintaining safety.
A comprehensive monitoring plan helps preserve the safest conditions and can save time and expense during injection and post-closure care. This SCS Engineers webinar explains the concepts, how it protects aquifers, and what to look for in a background monitoring plan. Establishing baseline conditions before injection is the first step. Starting immediately after submitting the Class VI permit application, during the regulatory technical review period provides the time to take these important baseline measurements.
Dr. Charles Hostetler, with nearly four decades of experience as an engineer and hydrogeologist protecting aquifers, explains why near-surface monitoring is important to meet demands for addressing environmental concerns during the design and operation of a CCS project. His expertise helps protect aquifers and save time during the design, build, and operation of CCS wells through closure.
Class VI Underground Injection Control Well Permitting is Part III of our video series on Carbon Capture and Storage. Cutting through red tape and regulatory barriers is key to keeping the permitting process on track for your Class VI UIC well. There are steps you can take to prevent delays and meet key regulatory requirements.
Watch the SCS’s Carbon Capture and Storage webinar to learn more about each phase of the permitting process and how to keep each running smoothly. Carbon capture and storage is an EPA-approved technology companies are exploring to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and understanding the permitting process is key as you plan your project. In this chapter you’ll get answers to these questions:
Your business does not have to be in Illinois to learn from these educational webinars. If you’re ready to explore the benefits of carbon capture and storage but concerned you’ll get delayed by the ins and outs of the Class VI UIC well permitting process, watch Patty Herman’s video to learn more, or contact your local SCS office for a consultation.
Patty Herman graduated from Southern Illinois University Edwardsville with a Master of Science in Biological Sciences. Working in diverse and unique habitats enhances her awareness of the ecosystem’s fragility and the need to protect it, especially for agencies during the permitting process. During graduate school, she was selected by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources for the Natural Heritage Residency program. The residency provided exposure to resource management in both public and private sectors, interacting with many federal, state, and local agencies, as well as NGOs and landowners. She writes and executes management plans and permits using her intensive experience in land management techniques. She has the unique ability to find common ground with stakeholders, agencies, and the public in safe land management for industrial and manufacturing.
Additional Resources:
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) enables industry and manufacturing to reduce greenhouse gas footprints by up to 2 million metric tons annually, for decades. It’s a great time to learn how this technology works, how it can help you, and what the overall lifecycle of a CCS project looks like. In this chapter, Kacey Garber and Candy Elliot step through best practices based on project experience, regulations (in this example Illinois), and the compilation and submittal of permit applications. You’ll learn about:
Your business does not have to be in Illinois to learn from these educational, non-commercial webinars. Transform how industry leaders like you manage greenhouse gas as a byproduct of modern life.
Helpful Basic Tips:
Early planning and mindful project scoping are critical for a CCS project to understand and communicate the project’s needs, objectives, goals, and conceptualized design. Use site characterization data and have a good handle on the operational parameters to develop a good first model and initial area of review delineation. The monitoring system design should then be tailored based on those data. Use the baseline and operational monitoring data to calibrate the model and refine your area of review delineation.
Early financial planning is also important and should include long-term operations and monitoring. Spend rates will be variable throughout these projects and highly dependent on the project’s phase.
The site geology is a key factor — we highly recommend conducting a feasibility study before beginning a project to assess the suitability of Class 6 injection at the proposed location. In addition, when the permit process begins, it’s important to front-load the site characterization efforts to minimize the uncertainty surrounding your site suitability.
Proactive stakeholder engagement surrounding your project is more likely to help lead your project to success. Developing outreach plans help open and facilitate lines of communication with stakeholders, regulatory officials, and public and environmental advocate groups.
Use an iterative project approach – permitting is not a cookie-cutter but a site-specific process. Your early and thorough planning steps help create a feedback loop that will go on throughout the project’s life. It enables flexibility in implementing your approach.
Kacey Garber is an experienced groundwater project manager for active and closed industrial clients, including routine groundwater monitoring and statistical analyses; reports and permit applications; designing sampling and analysis plans; special groundwater studies; and conducting groundwater well construction planning and design. She has also been involved in PFAS work groups and publishes on the topics of UIC and geologic sequestration. Ms. Garber has a Masters degree in Geoscience.
Engaging With Your Stakeholders and Public Outreach is Part II of our four part video series.
Geologic sequestration can be seen as an incredible public good that reduces greenhouse gas and protects the health and wellness of generations to come, or a local risk. It’s likely you will receive questions and concerns from the public and other stakeholders during your project’s lifecycle. You can use an effective stakeholder engagement plan to help you anticipate and respond to those questions and concerns.
Watch the Geologic Sequestration webinar to learn how to engage your key stakeholders in a supportive, consistent way that demonstrates your commitment to the community and builds trust. Geologic sequestration is an EPA-approved technology companies are exploring to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In this chapter you’ll learn:
If you’re ready to explore the benefits of geologic sequestration and want to educate the public and stakeholders about the safety and sustainability of Class VI underground injection control wells, watch Richard Southorn’s video to learn more, or contact your local SCS office for a consultation.
Richard Southorn, PE, PG, serves as Project Director in our Chicagoland office. He manages coal combustion residual (CCR) and municipal solid waste projects, ranging from construction plan development to full-scale design services. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Alabama, South Carolina, Kansas, Michigan, Indiana, Hawaii, Oregon, and Georgia; and a licensed Professional Geologist in Illinois and Delaware.
Additional Resources:
Our latest video release is Carbon Capture and Storage – CCS Webinar Series. The video features Illinois as an example, but much of the information pertains to all states. Shifting consumer sentiment drives significant rewards to companies that acknowledge and address their climate impact. Many legislators, regulators, and industry professionals agree carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is one way to lower carbon footprints. Watch the Illinois Basin Carbon Capture and Storage webinar to learn about the benefits. It is an EPA-approved technology that companies are exploring to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. CCS includes three main components:
Geologic sequestration of CO2 can be of great benefit because it plays an important role in reducing GHG emissions, but some may see it as a risk without education. We’ve broken the webinar about the key influencers for industry and manufacturing use into 5 chapters:
Our professionals are available to answer questions about this technology and other methods to reduce your carbon footprint. Contact us at .
What if you could reduce your company’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 1.5 to 2 million metric tons per year for the next 20 years?
Now you can, with carbon capture and storage technology. Watch the Illinois Basin Carbon Capture and Storage webinar to learn more. Carbon capture and storage is an EPA-approved technology companies are exploring to help reduce GHG emissions.
In Illinois and many other states, leading firms are submitting permit applications for Class VI underground injection control wells. It’s a great time to review the state of the practice and learn how this technology works and how it can help you meet your carbon reduction goals. In this video chapter, SCS answers these questions:
This technology is on track to transform how industry leaders like you manage greenhouse gas as a byproduct of modern life. Watch Charles Hostetler’s short video to learn more, or contact your local SCS Engineers’ office for a consultation.
Dr. Charles Hostetler has nearly four decades of experience as an engineer and hydrogeologist. He has diverse experience in coal combustion residue (CCR) and solid waste management permitting, design, and construction projects. His areas of expertise focus on supporting electric utilities, property owners and developers, solid waste facility owners and operators to meet demands for addressing environmental changes and impacts on their operations.
Additional Resources:
Corporate Headquarters
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
Telephone
1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us
