Carbon dioxide sequestration.
SB 457 revises Indiana’s laws governing carbon dioxide transmission pipelines and carbon sequestration projects. It updates the permitting process for carbon dioxide transmission pipeline certificates of authority, including application requirements, public notice and meeting procedures, and a default approval if the department does not act within the deadline. The bill also creates limited exemptions from the pipeline certificate requirement for certain short pipeline segments associated with storage facilities that do not cross public property, public rights-of-way, or easement areas.
The bill makes substantial changes to the state’s carbon sequestration framework. It updates definitions related to pore space, storage facilities, mineral owners, and UIC Class VI permits; revises the rules for integrating pore space interests when owners do not agree; and changes permit application, notice, and review procedures for carbon sequestration projects. It also adds a new permit for nonproduction wells used to investigate formations for sequestration or convert oil and gas wells for carbon dioxide investigations, with associated bond and fee requirements.
SB 457 changes several fee and fund provisions. It redirects certain fee revenue to the state general fund, modifies the annual per-ton fee structure for storage operators, and ends the carbon dioxide storage facility trust fund by transferring its balance to the general fund. The bill also adds a new civil penalty structure for violations, including penalties for operating without required certificates or permits, and authorizes cessation orders for noncompliance.
The bill’s impact on state law is broad: it expands and clarifies regulatory authority over carbon dioxide pipeline and storage infrastructure, adjusts property-rights and notice rules affecting landowners, mineral owners, and storage operators, and changes how the state finances long-term oversight of sequestration projects. It also provides that, after project completion, the state may assume ownership and responsibility for qualifying storage facilities, subject to specified conditions.
The overall sentiment appears mixed but ultimately favorable enough for passage, as reflected by approval in both chambers, though with notable opposition in each vote. The main points of contention likely center on property rights, forced integration of pore space, landowner notice and compensation, regulatory burdens, and the broader policy of facilitating carbon capture and storage projects. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a necessary framework for carbon sequestration development and oversight, while opponents likely objected to the land-use and liability provisions and the expansion of state authority.
SB 457 amends multiple sections of Indiana Code chapter 14-39 to expand and refine the state’s regulatory structure for carbon dioxide transmission pipelines and carbon sequestration projects. It changes permit application standards, notice requirements, fee schedules, enforcement tools, and post-closure state responsibilities, while also creating a new permit category for certain exploratory or conversion wells related to sequestration. The bill affects carbon dioxide pipeline companies, storage operators, mineral owners and lessees, pore space owners, surface property owners, and the Department of Natural Resources, and it shifts certain revenues to the state general fund while ending the dedicated storage facility trust fund.
The bill appears to have had a divided but ultimately supportive reception. It passed the Senate 27-21 and the House 55-37, indicating meaningful bipartisan or intra-party support but also substantial opposition. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into specific arguments, but the vote margins suggest the bill was controversial rather than broadly consensus-driven.
The likely major points of contention are landowner and mineral-owner rights, especially the bill’s provisions on involuntary pore-space integration, notice to potentially affected parties, and limits on when a storage operator may proceed. Another area of dispute is the balance between encouraging carbon capture and storage infrastructure and imposing regulatory safeguards, fees, and penalties. Opponents may also have objected to the state assuming ownership and liability after project completion, while supporters likely emphasized the need for a workable permitting and enforcement framework for carbon sequestration development.