The Full Picture of Carbon Capture in Pennsylvania

The concept of separating carbon dioxide from fuels and emissions has existed since 1970. Technology has changed since then, but the viability of the process has remained the same. As Sean O’Leary at Ohio River Valley Institute said, “Carbon capture technology is expensive to build and operate. According to recent estimates, it more than doubles the cost of construction for a gas-fired power plant, and it would triple the cost of electricity in coal-fired plants.”

Most carbon capture and storage projects in the United States never get off the ground because they are infeasible, and when they do, they leak. Even though it is a false solution, our federal and state government officials are depending on it to slow climate change. Read on to learn more about carbon capture and sequestration (“CCS”) and what is happening in the Pennsylvania regulatory landscape.

How Does it Work?

When examining carbon capture technology, some critical components need to be discussed, including the systems, how they work, where they can be located, and the cost. 

The most significant issue with carbon capture concepts is that they are a subsidized tool to reduce emissions in pollutant-heavy industries. Operating current carbon-heavy industries with carbon capture technology is not economically feasible. The price would fall on the consumer, resulting in a huge increase in utility costs. Even though there is widespread fraud and abuse in the program, our government is currently subsidizing privately-owned companies to practice CCS. This practice shifts the financial burdens onto the taxpayer, since the government is now paying the cost of dealing with these companies’ pollution. 

Continuing to rely on fossil fuels and developing carbon-based infrastructure is a lousy investment. Energy development and production need to look for solutions that reduce the overall carbon footprint, like getting renewable energy online.

Other issues with CCS are more regionally specific but no less critical. To phrase the issue differently, carbon capture technology essentially means, ‘If there is an available void in the underground rock formations, then let’s put our carbon dioxide in it’. The issue with that is that the formations that Pennsylvania rests on are not the best for carbon storage. 

For starters, the pockets of rock strata that could work for storage are tiny, and most carbon storage companies want the biggest space possible. Multiple storage wells mean more infrastructure, more money, and more footprint. 

The second issue is that depleted oil and gas reservoirs are also being considered for storage, which is a significant mistake. Using these reservoirs would cause a lot of harm to the communities around them, and there is no guarantee or certainty that the spaces they want to store in will still hold their integrity. To break that down, the more you develop a formation or an area of rock, the more instability and perforations you cause. The greater that formation is developed, the more likely it is no longer able to hold that carbon due to fractures, wells, and other developments in the strata. With the development of coal mining and conventional and unconventional drilling, our “storage field” for carbon is more like a strainer and less like a tank.

Lastly, Pennsylvania is not equipped to monitor and regulate carbon storage. Carbon dioxide storage is much more corrosive and hard to store than other chemicals. It reacts with water, forming carbonic acid, which can quickly corrode a pipe or well. The storage and movement of this chemical in concentration is far more complex than the industries PA is currently regulating. The infrastructure required for these systems is different from all other oil and gas infrastructure. It would require new pipelines, more trucks and more disturbances. Currently PA does not have any Carbon Storage infrastructure. These systems would also require regulating and monitoring, in addition to the increased responsibilities DEP would have to maintain. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) already lacks the capacity to carry out its current programs, so adding another without additional capacity could cause more issues than solutions. Regardless, our state legislature has directed the DEP to move forward.

Regulation in Pennsylvania

This summer, our legislators passed a law that sets the groundwork for regulating carbon capture and storage in Pennsylvania. After a few amendments in the House of Representatives, it became a win for Pennsylvanians on the frontlines of future carbon storage fields. 

The law, Act 87 0f 2024, provides several safeguards to frontline communities. First,  before any permits are issued,  the Environmental Quality Board has been directed to advance regulations and permitting requirements for carbon capture and storage that protect natural resources and public health, safety, and welfare. Permitting requirements specifically must consider community and cumulative impacts, and in environmental justice areas, DEP can require additional impact assessments, public participation, transparency, and reporting measures during permit reviews or renewals. Additionally, the DEP would have the authority to deny permits if they don’t meet these standards. 

Additionally, it clarifies that all pore space in Pennsylvania is owned by the surface property owner unless it was explicitly given away in a conveyance, even if the surface property owner doesn’t own their mineral rights. Additionally, when an operator is seeking to lease or receive a conveyance of pore space from under public land, a hearing must be held, and there must be an opportunity for comment on the proposal. 

Unfortunately, our legislators provided an avenue for operators to get a collective storage order so they can store carbon under the land where the homeowner does not approve. A collective storage order is issued by the Environmental Hearing Board to an operator so they can store carbon somewhere where they don’t have the consent of all surface property owners. This can only happen if the owners of  75% of parcels within the storage field want to proceed. However, a collective storage order cannot be issued if there is public land within the planned storage field. Public land is state or municipality-owned land, land subject to a conservation easement, land owned or operated by a charitable organization (if used for certain purposes), or land acquired under law for open space uses.

Additional provisions our legislators included in this law are:

• Required seismic monitoring, which the Secretary of the DEP can waive;
• The right for a surface property owner to sue the operator of the storage field if they acted without reasonable care and caused injury to an individual, animal, or real property;
• A fee on every ton of carbon stored is to be paid to the DEP;
• Liability transfer to the state from the operator after 5o years of storage when a certificate of completion has been received;
• Opportunity for objection by coal and gas owners with applicable mineral rights if extraction of their resource will be jeopardized.

In our area, we expect Tenaska, an energy company out of Nebraska, to apply to have three carbon storage wells in Washington County as part of a three-state carbon storage hub. Right now, since Pennsylvania does not have primacy over injection well permits, operators that want a storage field in the state must get a permit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency in addition to any other Pennsylvania-required permits. None have been applied for so far in the state. Tenaska is currently looking for pore space for its carbon storage field and may be reaching out to landowners.

It will be several years before we see any carbon injected into the ground in SWPA, but CCJ will be preparing in the meantime. We will keep our members updated on what’s new and what’s to come.