This article provides a review of a portfolio of regulations advancing CCS including technical regulations, pore space ownership, monitoring, enforcement and verification of CO2 injection.
This paper examines a wide variety of policy documents from different countries, international organizations and NGOs to gain insights into how geoengineering is perceived at the policy level.
This paper links potential CCS system requirements with potential risks and damages and examines how damages are treated in the subsurface injection realm, with particular attention paid to Texas and California regulations and case law.
This paper compares the Australian and U.S. models of geologic ownership for CCS, arguing that the Australian model of state ownership is preferable as it provides clarity, structure, and certainty for CCS markets.
Lincoln Davies, Kirsten Uchitel, John Ruple, Heather Tanana
This report identifies a need for a comprehensive CCS regulatory regime based around a cooperative federalism approach that directly addresses liability concerns and that generally does not upset traditional lines of federal-state authority.
Jonas J. Monast, Brooks R. Pearson, Lincoln F. Pratson
This paper reviews the history of cooperative federalism and how it may provide a framework to determine appropriate roles for federal and state governments, and applies that framework to the gaps in the CCS regulatory structure.
This article navigates the legal challenges related to pore space ownership in Texas, what regulatory actions are needed to clear a path for CCS, and the risk of liability related to CCS and pore space ownership.