Prohibits the exercise of eminent domain or unitization for a pipeline that carries carbon dioxide
Summary
HB 553 would sharply limit the use of eminent domain and unitization for carbon dioxide pipeline projects in Louisiana. The bill amends existing expropriation and carbon sequestration statutes to remove language that currently allows certain entities involved in carbon dioxide transport or underground storage to take property for CO2 pipeline infrastructure. It also adds a new provision stating that no person or entity may use eminent domain to acquire surface rights or property interests to build or operate a pipeline for the primary purpose of transporting carbon dioxide.
The bill also revises Louisiana’s carbon storage law to eliminate the authority of storage operators to use eminent domain for pipelines carrying carbon dioxide to storage facilities. Under the new section, unitization for a CO2 pipeline would not be allowed without the property owner’s consent, even though unitization remains available by agreement. In practical terms, the bill would make it much harder for carbon capture, carbon sequestration, and related enhanced oil recovery projects to assemble the land and rights-of-way needed for CO2 pipeline networks.
Impact
HB 553 would amend R.S. 19:2 and R.S. 30:1108 and add R.S. 30:1108.1, changing Louisiana law on expropriation, eminent domain, and unitization as applied to carbon dioxide pipelines. It would remove existing statutory authority for certain CO2 transport and storage entities to condemn property for pipeline-related use and would prohibit the commissioner of conservation from issuing unitization orders for CO2 pipelines without the landowner’s consent. The bill would therefore affect pipeline developers, storage operators, carbon capture and sequestration projects, landowners, and potentially enhanced oil recovery operations tied to CO2 transport.
Sentiment
Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears to reflect a restrictive, property-rights-oriented approach toward carbon dioxide pipeline development. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support in the available materials. The bill’s framing suggests support from lawmakers concerned about landowner consent and opposition to compulsory acquisition for CO2 infrastructure, while likely drawing concern from the carbon capture and pipeline industry and proponents of sequestration projects.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether carbon dioxide pipelines should be treated like other utility or energy infrastructure that can use eminent domain, or whether they should be barred from doing so because of the burden on private property owners. Supporters of the bill would likely emphasize property rights, voluntary agreements, and limits on state-backed land acquisition. Opponents would likely argue that removing eminent domain and limiting unitization could impede carbon capture, sequestration, and related energy-transition projects by making pipeline routing and project development more difficult or expensive. The bill also raises a narrower legal issue about whether CO2 transport for underground storage or injection should remain subject to existing expropriation authority.