Overview:
- Michigan lawmakers have moved carbon capture legislation to the Senate floor, despite environmental groups' concerns over insufficient protections.
- The bills propose a state-run program for carbon storage, including a public hearing process requiring 60% approval from site owners.
- Environmental advocates argue the bills lack safeguards for water, air quality, and public safety, and warn carbon capture could increase emissions and local pollution.
- Business groups claim Michigan needs the legislation to compete for carbon capture funds and leverage its geology for industrial demand.
Michigan lawmakers advanced carbon capture utilization and storage legislation to the Senate floor on Thursday, despite concerns from environmental groups that say the bills lack adequate environmental protections.
Three bills, SB 1131-1133, passed out of the Senate Committee by a 10 to 0 vote, with two abstentions. They would create a state-run program for storing carbon pollution, including a public hearing process for projects that requires 60% approval from owners of the site’s “pore-space storage capacity.”
SB 1133 defines pore space as open space in geological formations that’s authorized for carbon storage and ties ownership to the “overlying surface of the real property.”
Leases of state-owned pore-space would generate funds for the Natural Resource Trust Fund, which purchases and develops public land for recreation.
Business groups argue Michigan needs the legislation to compete with other states for carbon capture dollars, while scientists have emphasized that Michigan’s geology makes it favorable for sequestering planet-warming CO2.
However, environmental advocates say the bills are being rushed through the legislature’s lame duck period without providing sufficient safeguards for water resources, air quality and public safety.
“When CO2 comes into contact with water, it can form carbonic acid,” Charlotte Jameson, chief policy officer for the Michigan Environmental Council, told the Senate Energy and Environment Committee on Dec. 5. “The increased acidity then dissolves minerals, releasing potentially harmful substances such as arsenic and uranium into groundwater.”
Jameson said the bills lacked state-specific water protections and didn’t require the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy to consider public health and safety when issuing a permit.
Advocates emphasize environmental and health risks from carbon capture
Environmental advocates say that if done poorly, carbon capture can increase air pollution, create safety risks and require Michiganders to pay the costs for future problems at storage sites.
Jameson said many residents depend on groundwater for drinking water, but the state has not done a good job of mapping this resource. As a result, decision-makers have a poor understanding of who might be affected by leaks from carbon storage sites.
She said leaks from pipelines carrying CO2 to storage sites could also put public safety at risk.
“When CO2 leaks, it vaporizes into a gas that is heavier than air, sinking low to the ground in low-lying areas and valleys,” Jameson said. “Pockets of accumulated CO2 can quickly reach deadly levels.”
A 2020 carbon pipeline rupture in Sartaria, Mississippi sent over 40 people to the hospital. And a carbon capture project in Illinois has been leaking and raising concerns for local drinking water supplies, although an Environmental Protection Agency review found there is no direct threat.
Carbon capture could also increase emissions and local air pollution because energy is required to operate carbon capture systems, according to Derrell Slaughter, Michigan policy director for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Any CCUS framework should include safeguards to ensure that it reduces overall emissions and protects air quality in alignment with Michigan’s climate, public health and equity goals,” Slaughter said. He pointed to Illinois as a model for how to successfully regulate CCUS so the CO2 at storage sites doesn’t exceed the emissions of what’s being stored, while also ensuring there’s no increase in air pollution.
Tim Minotas, deputy legislative and political director for the Michigan Sierra Club, also pointed to Illinois as a model because the state requires a 30-year post injection monitoring period from the operator before liability is transferred to the state and makes the operator responsible for any personal or property damage caused by the project.
In contrast, Minotas said Michigan’s legislation would transfer responsibility for projects to the state after sequestration is completed, which could leave residents to pay the price for environmental problems.
learn more
Are companies masking climate inaction with low-quality carbon offsets?
Companies are turning to carbon offsets to cut emissions, but many voluntary projects fall short on their climate promises.
Business groups tell lawmakers to act quickly to support a high demand industry
Lawmakers and representatives for business groups have pressed the need for Michigan to act quickly on CCUS saying the technology is an economic opportunity that could benefit climate action.
“This is a state competitiveness issue of critical importance,” said Mike Alaimo, director of environmental and energy affairs at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. “Indiana and Illinois, some of our fiercest regional competitors, have recently passed carbon capture legislation.”
Alaimo said companies want to locate facilities in states where they can decarbonize their operations.
Mike Witkowski, director of environmental and regulatory policy at the Michigan Manufacturing Association, said Michigan’s geology positions it well to take advantage of the high demand for carbon capture in the industrial sector.
“There’s really no reason why we can’t get on board with this and be a true leader in the country,” he said.
Meanwhile, environmental groups are divided over the extent to which they say carbon capture is necessary.
The Nature Conservancy supports the legislation, while Christy McGillivray, Michigan Sierra Club legislative and political director, has said the group only offers “cautious support” for hard to decarbonize industries like cement and steel manufacturing.
The Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition said in a statement that it opposes the legislation, calling carbon capture a “false solution” that will support a continued reliance on fossil fuel infrastructure.
“Instead of prioritizing carbon capture, we should invest in clean, renewable energy solutions like community solar and wind power, real solutions that benefit the whole ecosystem, not just corporate interests,” said Chris Gilmer-Hill, policy associate for MEJC.