Victories, but carbon capture bill making its way through the house is a dangerous proposal based on a lie

No False Solutions Day, March 7th, 2025. Photocredit @4thworldstories.

If we fight, we CAN win. On Saturday HB 311, the Reclaimed Water Act was defeated in House Judiciary, a second major victory against produced water reuse for this session. And today, in response to WildEarth Guardians application for a rulemaking, the Oil Conservation Commission voted to prohibit PFAS in oil and gas downhole operations and adopted our more expansive and accurate definition in the rule! We'll write more about that soon, but first...

There are some who believe that climate change can only be solved through mass sacrifice, a collective return to an agrarian economy in which we all relearn how to survive off the land like forebears whose names most of us don't even remember. There are others who scoff at these idealists as foolish environmental luddites and believe that "advanced technologies" will allow us to continue our current consumerist, extraction driven economy indefinitely, learning to live not in harmony with earth but in complete control, dominion and disdain of a basic fact of existence - we are all dependent upon a healthy ecosystem. None of us are going to Mars anytime soon.

Every morsel of food we eat, every drop of water we drink, every breath we take, every consumer product we buy - all come from the complex ecosystem their capitalist God is actively destroying. Even tiny insects, which have declined worldwide by 75%, form such an essential part of this interconnected system that scientists predict exponential biodiversity loss if populations further collapse!

Unfortunately our legislature has been captured by the latter - a cabal of "advanced technology" zealots (or insert "strategic economic development" or "strategic water supply") that believe liquid fracking waste is the answer to water scarcity, that fossil fueled hydrogen is somehow a "renewable energy," and who argue, along with Occidental Petroleum CEO Vicki Hollub, that oil and gas extraction should continue until the last drop of fossil fuels has been burned because carbon capture will save the day. As we observed in today's floor debate on HB 457, the Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Act, these zealots frame their tech solutions as sophisticated necessities and look down their nose at anyone they deem less sophisticated, but history shows that such advocates are just the useful tools of capitalist billionaires who have no allegiance to anyone or anything, except more PROFIT.

The oil and gas industry, and the industrialists selling related "advanced technologies," peddle false climate solutions from one face while simultaneously and vigorously promoting absurd climate change denial theories from the other, resulting in a successful delay of progress on renewable energy for decades.

That our Democratic legislators continue to pass bills throwing hundreds of millions of public taxpayer dollars at these private industries proves them either supremely gullible or totally corrupt. We'll let you be the judge.

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BILLS DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO PASSAGE

HB 457 - the Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Act passed the House Floor today with all present Republicans and 24 Democrats voting for passage. (It waited just two days for a floor hearing while other bills have been waiting for weeks.) Sponsored by Rep. Dixon, the legislation made it through two committees despite vigorous opposition from numerous environmental groups, large and small. We argued that carbon capture is a false and expensive climate solution, serving only to provide an excuse for heavily polluting industries to continue business as usual and delay significant investments in the transition to renewable energy, and could endanger our water and our communities. These arguments were ignored.

The bill will likely be heard next in Senate Conservation where we hope legislators will ask key questions:

1. Why is this bill being fast tracked when carbon capture has thus far failed to capture even one percent of climate warming emissions? The bill is primarily aimed at permitting wells for sequestration of carbon captured from industrial point source pollutants like coal plants, "blue" hydrogen production, cement manufacturing etc. and has no economic business model except for the sale of carbon credits to help those polluting industries continue business as usual. That is its only purpose.

2. Are carbon capture and sequestration projects proven effective in mitigating carbon emissions? According to a comprehensive review conducted by Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the history of carbon capture technology is full of failed or underperforming projects. In the power sector there has not been any operational project that could meet its capture target as of the publication of the report. Petra Nova, marketed as a flagship breakthrough in this area, underperformed by 17% in four years of its operation before being mothballed in 2020. Boundary Dam 3, the only active carbon capture project in the power sector worldwide, captured less than its pre-specified target by a wide margin (about 50%). Carbon capture has shown a track record of technical failures in the power sector since 2000. As of 2022 close to 90% of proposed CCS capacity in the power sector failed at the implementation stage or was suspended early.

3. Is carbon capture and sequestration in Class VI wells a safe and effective method of storing carbon?  Leakages and fugitive emissions in the long term are serious risks, with the EPA recommending monitoring for 50 years. It is impossible to guarantee that the stored CO2 will stay underground and not leak into the atmosphere, as evidenced by the In Salah project in Algeria, which was a CCS project with a total cost of US $2.7 billion. Injection started in 2004 and was suspended in 2011 due to concerns about the integrity of the seal and suspicious movements of the trapped CO2 under the ground. An amendment to the bill moved transfer of liability from operator to the state from immediately upon well completion to five years, still inadequate and likely to result in significant unfunded remediation costs.

4. Is the proposed conversion of Class II wells often used for Enhanced Oil Recovery to Class VI wells for carbon sequestration protective of our water resources? During floor debate the sponsor indicated that Class 2 wells can be easily converted to class 6 wells but failed to note that the increased pressure in a converted Class VI injection well related to significant storage of CO2 can significantly increase the risk to underground sources of drinking water (USDW). A 93 page instruction manual from the EPA about such conversions notes that "The nature and risks of carbon dioxide injection for long-term storage into Class VI wells are different from those at Class II carbon dioxide injection wells used for EOR [Enhanced Oil Recovery]. For example, reservoir pressure conditions and injection rates and volumes will be different between Class II and Class VI. Additionally, the corrosivity of carbon dioxide in the presence of water necessitates additional protective measures that are not required of Class II owners or operators." The instructions further note the risk of blowouts related to abandoned wells connected to the same underground formations, noting that "the quality of abandoned well plugs and well construction are key determinants of the risk to USDWs posed by the injection operation."

HB 20 - the Technology and Innovation Division Act is on the fast track to passage, with a 60-2 Do Pass on the House Floor and scheduled next for Senate Tax, Business, and Transportation. HB 20 provides $100 million in public funding for grants to private industry, including target sectors " aerospace and space,biosciences, clean energy and water, advanced computing, which includes artificial intelligence, quantum computing and cybersecurity, and other sectors that are strategic and important for statewide economic development. Most notably the "clean energy and water" target sector does not define "clean," opening the door wide to public funding of false climate solutions like fossil fueled hydrogen, carbon capture and produced water reuse. Clean energy and clean water are non-negotiable!

SB 169 and SB 170 - the Strategic Economic Development Site Readiness Act and the NMFA Definitions, Funds and Rates Act. The FIR notes "The two processes outlined in SB170 and SB169 coincide to allow public utilities to pre-develop infrastructure" for economic development projects. SB 169 appropriates $24 million from the general fund for a site readiness fund that includes no criteria or goals and limited reporting requirements. SB 170 will expand permitted uses of the public project revolving fund and amends existing statute to allow utility companies to recover costs for energy infrastructure projects from ratepayers without obtaining prior approval for construction from the PRC, a complete nullification of regulatory protections for utility ratepayers. SB 169 passed the Senate Floor 37-2 and will be heard tomorrow in House Commerce. SB 170 passed the Senate Floor 31-10 and is awaiting a committee assignment in the House.

THE ANSWER TO CLIMATE CHANGE IS NEITHER TECHNOLOGY NOR TURNING BACK TIME. IT IS BOTH.

The answer is as much about shared values as it is about technology. It is thoughtful deployment of scientific knowledge, but most importantly, a return to the ethos of respect for both the earth and the value of good governance to protect the wellbeing of all. The opposite approach of our current federal administration. A neoliberal, capitalist approach to the climate crisis cannot succeed, because extraction and competition are the beating black heart of capitalism, and the very antithesis of the cooperative spirit necessary to solve a complex issue that extends beyond nations to every aspect of life on earth.

At the same time we cannot reject technology as a solution - some of the real climate solutions that we do have - wind, solar, battery storage and more, are technological solutions that continue to evolve every day. But the climate crisis requires a critical analysis of new technologies - does this technology effectively accomplish its intended purpose, does its creation or deployment result in unintended consequences that may be worse than the problem solved, what are the guardrails and regulations necessary for safe and equitable deployment, are there better solutions that cause less harm, is this the most important thing we should be investing our time, money and attention in right now?

We applaud those legislators who are asking these more nuanced questions. Representatives Hochman-Vigil, Rubio, Roybal-Caballero and Anaya who made lonely votes against the Strategic Water Supply Act on the floor, Representatives Chandler, McQueen, Szczepanski, Hochman-Vigil, Abeyta and Andrea Romero who blocked passage of HB 311, the Reclaimed Water Act in House Judiciary on Saturday, and the fifteen Democrats who voted against HB 457, the carbon capture permitting bill on the floor today. Thank you for putting science, public health and our earth before political expedience. We see you.