Summary/Abstract
The premise of this paper is that jurisdictional differences in liability will play an important role in the diffusion of CCS technologies. It considers the subsurface injection law of two jurisdictions: California and Texas. California is widely considered to be a first mover in environmental initiatives and climate change regulation. Its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) implements a greenhouse gas emissions cap for the electric power sector. Texas has extensive experience with subsurface injection and hydrocarbon recovery. Oil producers in the state have expressed an interest in tying CCS with their tertiary recovery (also known as “enhanced oil recovery”) activities, where CO2 is injected into oil fields to enhance the recovery of oil. In addition, Texas has a rich jurisprudence in subsurface injection liability issues.
This paper serves two purposes. First, it links potential CCS system requirements with potential risks and damages. It examines a number of potential CCS system requirements, including site characterization, operations, and post-closure. Second, the paper examines how damages are treated in the subsurface injection realm, with particular attention paid to distinctions in Texas and California regulations and case law. It focuses on both subsurface injection into oil fields, where there is significant case law, and injection into saline aquifers, which has less case law than injection into oil fields, but where there is significant operational experience with respect to natural gas storage.