Provides for sequestration of carbon dioxide. (8/1/25)
SB 73 revises Louisiana’s carbon sequestration laws, which govern the underground storage of carbon dioxide and related permitting for geologic sequestration projects. The bill increases the consent threshold for unitization of a proposed storage unit from three-fourths to 85% of owners in interest, and it requires the commissioner of conservation to give substantial consideration to comments from local governments when deciding matters that involve public comment periods or public hearings.
The bill also tightens eminent domain procedures for carbon sequestration storage facilities and pipelines. Before filing expropriation proceedings, an owner or operator must provide written notice to landowners, allow them to be present during appraisal inspections, engage in at least five in-person meetings or documented attempts to meet, make a written offer with specified details, and give the landowner at least ten days to respond. The bill preserves the existing expropriation filing timeline while adding these pre-filing steps.
SB 73 further expands notice requirements for Class VI permit applications for geologic sequestration projects and Class V stratigraphic test wells. Applicants must make a reasonable search and good-faith effort to notify specified parties, including last operators of record, mineral servitude owners, mineral lessees, surface owners, and others with relevant mineral rights or production rights, and the Department of Energy and Natural Resources must post notice of each application on its website. These changes affect permitting completeness and public notice obligations for carbon capture and storage projects.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive, with unanimous or near-unanimous votes in both chambers on the major actions and final conference report adoption. The vote history suggests broad bipartisan agreement on the need for more notice, more local input, and more landowner protections in carbon sequestration projects.
The main points of contention are not reflected in committee transcripts, but the substance of the bill indicates likely tension between carbon capture developers and landowners/local governments. The most notable issues are the higher owner-consent threshold, the expanded notice and negotiation requirements, and the added weight given to local government comments, all of which may be viewed as increasing procedural burdens on project sponsors while strengthening property-owner and community protections.
SB 73 amends Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 30 provisions governing carbon sequestration, unitization, public hearings, eminent domain, and permit notifications. It changes the legal standards and procedures for geologic storage projects by raising the consent requirement for unitization, imposing new pre-expropriation notice and negotiation duties, and expanding notice obligations for Class VI and Class V permit applications. The bill affects the commissioner of conservation, project applicants, landowners, mineral interest holders, surface owners, local governments, and operators of carbon sequestration storage facilities and pipelines.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. It passed the Senate 38-0, the House 88-1, and later adopted the conference report unanimously in both chambers, indicating a strong consensus in favor of the measure. The voting pattern suggests lawmakers generally supported the bill’s emphasis on notice, transparency, and landowner protections in carbon sequestration projects.
Although no committee transcript is available, the bill’s provisions point to the likely areas of disagreement: how difficult it should be to assemble a storage unit, how much deference should be given to local government comments, and how much process should be required before a carbon sequestration operator can pursue eminent domain. Landowners and local governments are the apparent beneficiaries of the added protections, while carbon capture developers, pipeline operators, and project sponsors may view the bill as increasing costs, delays, and procedural hurdles. The consent threshold increase and the detailed expropriation prerequisites are the most significant potential flashpoints.