HB4880, the “Primacy Certainty Act of 2025,” would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to speed up and clarify EPA review of state applications to obtain primary enforcement responsibility for Class VI underground injection control wells, which are the wells used for geologic carbon dioxide sequestration. The bill sets a 90-day general response deadline and adds a 180-day outer deadline for EPA to approve, disapprove, or partially approve a state’s Class VI program application or notice. If EPA misses that deadline, it must provide a written explanation of the review status, the reasons for delay, and a detailed list of deficiencies that must be addressed.
The bill also creates an automatic-approval mechanism if EPA does not act within 30 days after the 180-day period, provided the state already has an established primary enforcement program for other underground injection control well classes. It requires EPA to determine whether an application is complete within 10 days, to transfer pending permits and relevant information to the state after approval, and to base any denial only on the statutory criteria. It further bars EPA from conditioning approval on new requirements not already in the application or explicitly required by law.
In addition, the bill directs EPA to work with states before submission to complete preapplication activities, designate a staff coordinator for each state’s Class VI program review, and report to Congress within 90 days on staffing, resources, and funding needed to carry out these new requirements. It also allows certain Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds to be used for that report and makes conforming changes to the IIJA.
The bill’s impact would be to constrain EPA discretion and impose firm timelines on state primacy decisions for Class VI wells, potentially accelerating state control over carbon sequestration permitting. It would affect EPA, state environmental agencies, and entities seeking permits for carbon capture and storage projects, especially in states pursuing Class VI primacy.
Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts, there is no documented debate or formal sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to support state primacy and regulatory certainty, while preserving EPA’s ability to deny or revoke primacy when statutory criteria are not met. The main likely point of contention is whether the bill’s automatic-approval and deadline provisions unduly limit EPA oversight and could weaken federal review, versus supporters’ view that the bill is needed to reduce delays and provide certainty for carbon capture development.
HB4880 would amend section 1422(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act to impose new deadlines, notice requirements, and procedural rules for EPA review of state underground injection control programs for Class VI wells. It would also amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to allow related funds to support a required EPA resource report. The bill would primarily affect EPA, state primacy applicants, and carbon capture and storage permitting for Class VI wells.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the materials. The bill text suggests a pro-state-primacy, pro-certainty approach aimed at expediting EPA action on Class VI well programs, while retaining EPA’s underlying authority to deny or revoke primacy when statutory criteria are not met.
The likely point of contention is the bill’s automatic-approval framework and strict deadlines, which may be viewed by critics as limiting EPA’s ability to conduct a thorough review or require additional information. Supporters would likely argue that EPA delays have hindered state primacy decisions and that clearer timelines are necessary for carbon capture and storage deployment. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s prohibition on conditioning approval on extra requirements could reduce flexibility in the review process.