Environmentalists sue to block carbon capture and storage project

A coalition of environmental groups sued to block a major carbon capture and storage [CCS] project in Kern County.

The plaintiffs claim the facility will undermine the state's climate goals and grow the county's polluting oil and gas industry. They also say the proposed site won't work because it is literally full of holes -- in the form of 7,500 old wells that will leach the carbon back into the atmosphere.

More than 100 carbon projects have been proposed across the nation since President Joe Biden announced they could receive tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. But they have faced legal opposition, not just from environmental groups but from rural landowners in energy rich red states like the Dakotas.

"CCS projects are inextricably intertwined with, and in fact cannot exist without, their carbon sources," stated the complaint signed by Michelle Ghafar, a senior attorney with Earthjustice in San Francisco, and other attorneys. "This critical omission in the County's description and environmental analysis for the Project violates CEQA."

The complaint continued, "In addition, the County's analysis reveals that TerraVault I cannot satisfy the most important expectation for all CCS projects -- permanent underground storage of CO2 in perpetuity. The Project's location in one of the oldest and largest oil fields in the U.S., where over 7,500 existing wellbores puncture the surface, significantly increases the risk of CO2 leaks into the air or precious local groundwater resources. Experts confirm that existing wells in developed oil and gas fields serve as the single most common leakage path for CO2 in CCS projects like this one, and that risk is particularly acute in the Elk Hills oil field due to the large number of wells."

The project is one of six carbon storage facilities California Resources Corporation has planned for the Central Valley. The Kern County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the TerraVault I at its meeting on Oct. 21, despite letters and testimony opposing the project.

"Kern County cannot comment on pending litigation," said Ally Triolo, the county's chief communications officer, in an email, when asked for comment. Committee for a Better Shafter v. County of Kern, BCV-24-104003 (Kern Super. Ct., filed Nov. 20, 2024).

The company did not respond to an email seeking comment. However, company President and CEO Francisco Leon released a statement after last month's vote. "This is a significant step forward for Kern County and CRC in supporting energy transition in California," Leon said. "We believe that carbon capture technology will lead to the creation of new energy jobs and improve air quality in Kern County."

The project would be the first of its kind in California, and one of just a few active projects in the nation. The 9,104-acre site is fully owned by the California Resources Corp. According to the complaint, the company proposes to store 49 million metric tons of CO2 storage capacity in the two underground reservoirs," with 10% coming from carbon captured at a nearby natural gas field.

The area's gas fields have been in production for over a century. The site is about 35 miles west of Bakersfield. It is 10 miles from the Tule Elk Reserve State Natural Reserve and, according to the complaint, within five miles of homes and an elementary school.

Underlying the dispute is a disagreement about the future role of carbon capture and storage. Industry groups argue these facilities will allow for the cleaner use of fossil fuels during a decades-long transition to cleaner sources of power.

Opponents claim carbon capture is an expensive and impractical distraction in the fight against climate change. The complaint argues the facility will facilitate further growth in the area's oil and gas industry, worsening air quality and undermining the state's climate goals.

"TerraVault I has already entered into 'carbon dioxide management agreements' with some of these industries to build entirely new facilities in Kern County to serve as sources, including a hydrogen plant, a gasoline plant, and a waste-to-energy production plant," the complaint said.

Last month, the South Dakota Supreme Court rejected Summit Carbon Solutions' request for a rehearing in a case over a proposed carbon pipeline. This affirmed an earlier ruling that carbon did not quality as a commodity, which prevented the company from seizing private property under eminent domain to build the pipelines. A landowners' group has asked the North Dakota Supreme Court to block a Summit's proposed carbon storage facility in that state.

In February, a coalition of environmental groups asked the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to strip Louisiana of its ability to approve carbon storage facilities and put decisions back in the hands of federal regulators. They argued carbon injection would pollute drinking water and that the state "fails to demonstrate the expertise required to administer the program." Deep South Center for Environmental Justice v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 24-60084 (5th Circ., filed Feb. 20, 2024).

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last month to block a final U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule "requiring 90% carbon capture at existing coal-fired power plants and new gas-fired generators by 2032." The Oct. 16 ruling sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

President Donald Trump's incoming administration could also attempt to rescind the rule, but that could be a lengthy process. If the rule stands, it could exacerbate a potential shortage of long-term storage. A 2023 study by a trio of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that most carbon storage facilities will take between five and 10 years to build because of permitting, land acquisition and legal challenges.