Alabama House Bill HB431

Alabama 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/26
• Refer: 2/12/26
• Report Pass: 3/11/26
• Engrossed: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/31/26

Caption

Injection wells; fees assessed on certain wells, notice and participation for local governments provided, study commission established

Summary

HB431 revises Alabama law governing carbon dioxide storage and injection wells. It requires storage operators seeking approval for a carbon dioxide storage facility to provide notice and supporting materials to affected local governing bodies within three business days of filing a petition, and it gives those local governments the right to submit written comments and participate in the board hearing on the petition. The bill also preserves existing consent and compensation requirements for pore-space and storage-rights owners, including a 66 2/3 percent consent threshold and fair compensation for nonconsenting owners, and it adds a special written-consent requirement for proposed storage operations in the Blue Creek or Mary Lee coal seams in specified counties or within 10 miles of a coal mine operation.

Impact

The bill amends Section 9-17-162 of the Code of Alabama 1975 and adds new Section 9-17-167. Beginning October 1, 2027, it imposes a per-ton fee of seven cents to the State General Fund and seven cents to the county of injection, with municipalities sharing equally when injection occurs within city limits. It also creates a mechanism for future fee increases tied to CPI-U, subject to board recommendation and Legislative Council review, and establishes a temporary Study Commission on Carbon Dioxide Storage Facility Fees to examine fee practices in other states, market impacts, and resource-protection considerations before reporting back to the Legislature in 2027.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support in the House, where it passed third reading and final passage with substantial majorities, though a notable number of members abstained. The broad support suggests agreement with both the regulatory notice provisions and the idea of charging fees on carbon dioxide storage, while the abstentions indicate some members may have been undecided or preferred to avoid taking a position on the fee structure or broader carbon-capture policy.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely the new fees on carbon dioxide storage, the potential for those fees to affect project economics and Alabama’s competitiveness, and the expanded role of local governments in the approval process. The study commission’s mandate to examine when fees become a barrier to market entry reflects concern from industry stakeholders, while the special consent requirement near coal seams and coal mine operations suggests sensitivity to coal interests and subsurface property rights. The inclusion of representatives from energy, manufacturing, petroleum, and oil-and-gas groups on the commission indicates that industry participation is central to the debate.