California Carbon Capture Projects Need Stronger Regulations, Advocates Say

Sacramento, CA -- Today conservation and public interest groups submitted a letter to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) calling for regulators to fix major flaws in their proposed carbon capture program. The letter outlines harms of unchecked pollution, lack of reporting, and major financial risk to California taxpayers.

"The law is clear - CARB has a responsibility to protect our communities from the potential negative impacts of carbon capture deployment in our neighborhoods," said Lupe Martinez, community leader with the Delano Guardians. "I live nearby some of these proposed projects, and am very worried about the impacts it might have on my family."

CARB is required under a2022 state law to design a carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) program to address carbon emissions. If finalized into state policy, the initial proposals rely on the oil and gas industry to largely self-regulate and self-report progress on reducing carbon emissions through this technology.

"California's lawmakers were cautious in how they adopted carbon capture and storage given the enormous opposition and controversy around many applications of this technology throughout California. This proposal falls short of meeting community and climate concerns," said Lori Pesante, Director of Sierra Club's Kern-Kaweah Chapter. "The oil and gas industry has consistently shown it cannot be trusted to protect local communities from dangerous pollutants and to cut its emissions. This program needs robust oversight to ensure emissions are actually cut down while communities are kept safe and in the know."

Specifically, the advocates' letter says:

• CARB does not define regulation of co-pollutants, which are other dangerous chemicals released during the carbon dioxide capture process from power plants and other facilities.
• CARB would not require state health and safety monitoring.
• The program would allow oil and gas companies to self-insure and not meet strong assurance guidelines so communities are protected if a company goes bankrupt or out of business in the future.
• The state would not monitor geologic activity from the injections, meaning it could fail to actually assess whether the projects are even working or safe.

Several major projects are already underway in California's central valley, receiving fierce opposition from local communities who say they are already overburdened by severe air pollution.The Carbon Terravault I project just made its first injections while Chevron develops a similar facility. Both projects compress carbon dioxide and transport it via pipelines to sites where millions of tons of gas are injected into underground caverns. Whether the carbon stays in those reservoirs depends on strict and consistent maintenance, oversight and monitoring.

These projects are partially paid by taxpayers, who through federal 45Q tax credits give the industry money per ton of carbon sequestered. Critics say these credits run the risk of dumping taxpayer money into risky, ineffective projects that pose threats to local communities while protecting wealthy oil and gas shareholders.

"The risks these projects pose to communities far outweigh any benefit the developers claim the projects have," said Food & Water Watch Northern California Organizer Isabel Penman. "Carbon capture facilities don't create substantial long-term employment. What they do create are dangerous CO2 pipelines and a lifeline for polluters to continue polluting. Instead of investing in CCS, our climate leaders should invest in proven solutions like renewable energy."

According to a Stanford study, reducing emissions with an all-of-the-above carbon capture approach is estimated to be nine to 12 times more expensive than using 100 percent renewable resources like wind, solar, and battery storage. Environmentalists say the oil and gas industry is, in many cases, seeking to use it to prolong the life of fossil fuel facilities that already create deadly pollution in communities across the state. Contrary to industry claims, carbon capture also only possibly offers a fraction of the emission reductions needed to address the threat of climate change. According to the IEEFA, if implemented to its full potential by 2030, carbon capture will account for only 2.4% of global carbon mitigation.

About the Sierra Club

The Sierra Club is America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with millions of members and supporters. In addition to protecting every person's right to get outdoors and access the healing power of nature, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action. For more information, visit https://www.sierraclub.org.