Carbon capture use and storage (CCS) infrastructure has been
touted as a necessary and inevitable technology for a decarbonized
future. It is one of few “transition” technologies that the Biden and
Trump administrations have both supported, and generous federal
subsidies have created a boom in demand for carbon capture
infrastructure. With hundreds of proposed projects and billions of
dollars in promised investment, the emitters are “holding the gold.”
But in the rush to monetize the capture of emissions from our rapacious
production of carbon dioxide, federal regulatory regimes governing
permitting, siting, safety, and long-term risk have not kept pace. The
under-regulation of carbon capture pipeline and well infrastructure
runs counter to the usual refrain from critics of the American
regulatory regime who assert that there is too much “red tape.” If
made available in other areas of green infrastructure development,
this well-funded investment environment and expeditious regulatory
landscape might be lauded as easing the path to “energy abundance.”
However, CCS infrastructure presents a unique set of near- and long-
term risks for local communities and broader climate goals. It
therefore demands more regulation—and less abundance.
This Article will assess the nascent deployment of CCS
infrastructure in the United States and evaluate how federal regulatory
gaps prioritize the rapid and large-scale deployment of projects
without simultaneously prioritizing public safety. It will explore how
instead of serving as a climate “solution” and a bridge technology for
reaching net zero, CCS will extend reliance on fossil fuels. Using the
framework of “slow violence,” this Article will assess how the federal
regulatory regimes governing the carbon dioxide pipeline and Class
VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) well infrastructure
incentivize reckless development in the short term and bury long-term
risk, facilitating the preservation of fossil fuel dominance at the
expense of real transition. This Article will posit an “anti-abundance”
approach to carbon capture and suggest several specific regulatory
reforms that would require carbon capture projects to be assessed on
an individualized basis with a thorough accounting of risk. The stakes
are high for the planet, and especially high for those communities
living in the shadow of these invisible infrastructure networks. Only by
rendering CCS infrastructure visible, honestly grappling with its costs
and benefits, and allowing directly impacted communities to weigh in
can we begin to assess whether this infrastructure is really worth it.
