To amend sections 1509.01, 1509.33, and 1509.99 and to enact sections 1509.71, 1509.72, 1509.73, 1509.75, 1509.76, 1509.77, 1509.78, 1509.79, 5301.57, 5301.58, 5301.59, and 5301.60 of the Revised Code to establish a process to regulate carbon capture and storage technologies and the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide for long-term storage.
HB170 establishes a statewide legal framework for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and the underground geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide in Ohio. It defines key terms such as carbon dioxide wells, pore space, storage facilities, storage operators, and UIC Class VI permits, and authorizes carbon sequestration projects that inject carbon dioxide into underground formations for long-term storage. The bill places primary regulatory authority with the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management and directs the chief to adopt rules governing permitting, monitoring, inspections, reporting, safety, insurance, bonding, and closure requirements.
The bill also creates a process for “statutory consolidation” of pore space interests when a storage operator has consent from at least 70% of the pore space owners in a proposed storage facility. It requires notice to affected pore space owners and subsurface property interest owners, provides for hearings and objections, and allows the chief to approve a storage facility operation order that allocates economic benefits and sets operating terms. After injection ends, the bill establishes a long post-injection care period before a certificate of project completion may be issued, at which point responsibility for the stored carbon dioxide generally transfers to the state subject to specified exceptions. It also creates two funding streams: a per-ton storage fee for a carbon dioxide storage facility fund and an additional administrative fee for a carbon capture administrative fund.
HB170 would significantly affect Ohio property, oil and gas, and environmental law by vesting pore space ownership in the surface owner unless severed, clarifying that mineral and oil and gas estates remain dominant over pore space in priority disputes, and limiting liability for certain claims arising from carbon dioxide injection or migration when a project operates under a valid permit. It also restricts damages against compliant storage operators and preserves separate claims for oil and gas interests and class II disposal wells. In practical terms, the bill would create a new permitting and liability regime for CCS projects while also reshaping how subsurface rights are treated in real property conveyances.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears strongly favorable. The bill received a 9-1 favorable passage vote in the House Natural Resources Committee and then passed the House by a wide margin, 93-4. That voting pattern suggests broad support for establishing a regulatory pathway for carbon storage, likely reflecting interest in developing CCS infrastructure and providing legal certainty for project developers and regulators.
The main points of contention are likely to center on property rights, local impacts, and liability allocation. The bill’s provisions on pore space ownership, statutory consolidation, notice and objection procedures, and the dominance of mineral and oil and gas estates could draw concern from landowners and subsurface rights holders. Its limits on damages and transfer of post-closure responsibility to the state may also be debated by opponents who worry about long-term environmental risk, groundwater protection, and whether the state is assuming future liability for stored carbon dioxide.
HB170 would add a new chapter of Ohio law governing carbon sequestration projects and related pore space rights, while also amending real property rules to define ownership and transfer of subsurface pore space. It centralizes regulatory authority in the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management, establishes permit, monitoring, insurance, bonding, fee, and closure requirements for UIC Class VI carbon dioxide wells, and creates a statutory process for consolidating pore space interests and approving storage facility operations. The bill also limits certain tort claims against compliant storage operators and creates dedicated state funds to support administration and post-closure care.
The available legislative history indicates strong support for the bill. It advanced from the House Natural Resources Committee by a 9-1 vote and then passed the House 93-4, suggesting broad bipartisan acceptance of creating a formal regulatory structure for carbon capture and storage. No committee transcript was provided, but the vote totals imply that most lawmakers viewed the bill as a necessary framework for CCS development and oversight.
Likely areas of dispute include the bill’s treatment of pore space ownership, the 70% consent threshold for statutory consolidation, and the extent to which the chief can approve storage projects over the objections of individual subsurface owners. Landowners and mineral-rights holders may object to notice procedures, the allocation of economic benefits, and the bill’s preservation of mineral estate dominance. Environmental and public-interest critics may focus on the liability protections for storage operators, the long timeline before site closure, and the transfer of post-closure responsibility to the state, while supporters are likely to emphasize regulatory certainty, safety standards, and the economic development potential of carbon storage.