Blogs

After two action-packed weeks at the Capitol, Louisiana lawmakers continued to vote down bills this week on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), but did advance a few CCS bills out of committee.

The House Committee on Ways & Means heard and handled the following bill:

• HB 444 (Mack) which seeks to impose a $3/per metric ton injection tax on CCS projects and dedicate the money to local governments. The Committee deferred ruling on the bill.

The House Committee on Natural Resources & Environment also heard and handled the following bills:

• HB 75 (McCormick) which provides for pore space owners who are unitized to receive the highest compensation paid to any other pore space owner. 
  • Passed favorable but after significant amendments. The bill was amended to provide a pore space owner who is unitized into a CCS project with compensation which is at least the average of the amounts contractually provided to other pore space owners. The bill was also amended to require CCS operators to compensate mineral rights owners in a unit who do not have pore space agreements with the storage operator with either the value of the lost mineral rights or any additional expenses required by LDENR to drill through the storage unit to access the minerals.
• HB 304 (Carter) which provides for local venue for claims involving expropriation for carbon capture sequestration.
  • Passed favorable. Existing law already provides for local venue within the state’s general expropriation statute, so this bill appears to simply re-state existing law within the CCS statute itself.
• HB 396 (McCormick) which declares carbon capture sequestration illegal
  • Did not pass.
• HB 548 (Lacombe) which provides for dedication of revenue to local governments on carbon capture sequestration on certain state lands and water bottoms
  • Passed favorably.
• HB 585 (McCormick) which requires advance notice to surface and minerals owners prior to permitting carbon capture sequestration
  • Did not pass.
• HB 632 (Riser) which treats mineral rights owners in the same capacity as surface owners for purposes of carbon capture sequestration
  • Did not pass but may come back for hearing next week.
• HB 601 (Geymann) which seeks to eliminate the use of eminent domain for CCS pipelines
  • Passed favorably. Chairman Geymann’s bill was added back to the agenda the day before the committee hearing. HB 601 was heard in committee last week and tied on a 8-8 vote. This week HB 601 passed committee on a 11-4 vote. Based on comments made during the meeting, the bill appears to have advanced out of committee with the understanding that the bill will be amended on the House floor. Stay tuned on amendment discussions.

Next week, the following bills are scheduled to be heard in the House Committee on Ways & Means:

• HB 444 (Mack) which seeks to impose an injection tax on CCS projects is back on the agenda for Monday, May 12 at 9:00 a.m. It is anticipated that the bill will be amended to reduce the current assessment in the bill from $3/per metric ton to a lower number.  Stay tuned.
• HB 646 (Carter) which seeks to impose an excise tax on CCS projects, at a rate of 30% of a storage operator’s gross proceeds, is scheduled for on Tuesday, May 13 at 9:00 a.m.  HB 646 will likely take a back seat to HB 444, as HB 444 is expected to be the bill which may advance on the issue of taxing CCS projects.

Four local option bills on CCS remain pending in the House Committee on Municipal, Parochial, and Cultural Affairs. Two of those four bills are currently scheduled to be heard on May 15 at 9:00 a.m.

While the House Committee on Natural Resources & Environment appears to be done with bills on CCS, and it is unlikely more bills will be scheduled, the committee has not posted its schedule for next week.

Follow along Liskow attorney and Louisiana lobbyist Neil Abramson and Liskow CCS attorney Jeff Lieberman as they continue to monitor for these schedule and bill updates on the 2025 Liskow CCS Legislative Update page.

On Friday, May 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) announced its intent to revise the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) 2024 Risk Management and Financial Assurance of OCS Lease and Grant Obligations Rule (2024 Rule). The 2024 Rule, which became effective on June 29, 2024, revised the criteria for determining whether OCS oil and gas lessees and grant holders are required to provide supplemental financial assurance to backstop their decommissioning obligations. BOEM is still in the process of implementing the 2024 Rule. Based on DOI’s recent announcement, DOI will develop “a new rule that is consistent with the Trump administrations 2020 proposed regulatory framework” (2020 Proposed Rule) in furtherance of its commitment “to supporting domestic energy production, protecting American jobs, and reducing regulatory burdens on oil and gas producers.”

The 2020 Proposed Rule was a prior effort to revise BOEM’s financial assurance regulations. Although the 2020 Proposed Rule was published in the Federal Register in October 2020, near the end of the first Trump administration, it was never finalized. DOI instead proceeded with a new rulemaking under the Biden administration that resulted in the current BOEM financial assurance regulations promulgated by the 2024 Rule, with some similarities, but also significant differences from the 2020 Proposed Rule.

What might DOI leverage from the 2020 Proposed Rule to include in revisions to the financial assurance regulations? Similar to the 2020 Proposed Rule, the 2024 Rule adopted the use of credit ratings and oil and gas reserves to determine whether lessees and grant holders are required to post supplemental financial assurance. However, in contrast to the 2024 Rule, the 2020 Proposed Rule imposed significant limits on when BOEM could request supplemental financial assurance for a lease, right-of-way, or right-of-use and easement on which wells, platforms, pipelines, and other facilities are located.

For example, the 2020 Proposed Rule included limits on BOEM’s ability to require additional financial security beyond base bonds to those situations “when: (1) a lessee or grant holder poses a substantial risk of becoming financially unable to carry out its obligations under the lease or grant; (2) there is no co-lessee, co-grant holder, or predecessor that is liable for those obligations and that has sufficient financial capacity to carry out the obligations; and (3) the property is at or near the end of its productive life, and thus, may not have sufficient value to be sold to another company that would assume these obligations.” BOEM’s consideration of predecessors in connection with its evaluation of financial capacity is not part of the 2024 Rule and would be a first for BOEM if included in the contemplated revisions of the financial assurance regulations. In addition, the 2020 Proposed Rule provided that if a lessee/grant holder failed to meet the specified credit rating or proxy credit rating, and, with respect to a lessee, oil and gas reserves were insufficient, BOEM (a) would then look to the credit ratings or proxy credit ratings of prior lessees/grant holders and (b) would only require additional financial security in the event that no predecessor with decommissioning liability could meet the credit rating or proxy credit rating criteria. Specific to rights-of-use and easements (RUE), the 2020 Proposed Rule expanded the credit rating or proxy credit rating consideration to prior RUE holders and prior lessees (applicable if the RUE is for a platform or other facilities that were previously associated with a lease) such that BOEM could only request additional financial security in the event no RUE holder or “predecessor” has the requisite credit rating or proxy credit rating. Revision of the 2024 Rule to include these types of provisions from the 2020 Proposed Rule would be consistent with DOI’s stated goals.

It is also worth noting that the 2020 Proposed Rule was a proposed joint rulemaking of BOEM and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). It included a reverse chronological order process to be used by BSEE in enforcing decommissioning obligations. BSEE was to issue decommissioning orders by “group” of predecessors (all predecessors who held their interest during the tenure of a designated operator), beginning with the group before the defaulting group and also including other predecessors who assigned their interest to the defaulting lessee or grant holder. BSEE retained authority under the 2020 Proposed Rule to deviate from the reverse chronological framework in limited circumstances, including the presence of safety or environmental threats and in the event BSEE determined that following the process would create unreasonable delay in the performance of decommissioning. DOI’s announcement appears to be limited to financial assurance regulations and BOEM’s 2024 Rule. However, it is within the realm of possibility that, consistent with “the Trump administrations 2020 proposed regulatory framework,” DOI potentially could decide to revise BSEE’s decommissioning regulations as well.

DOI’s new rule could substantially impact BOEM’s financial assurance regulations promulgated by the 2024 Rule by requiring far less supplemental financial assurance be provided by lessees and grant holders than the current $6.9 billion contemplated by the 2024 Rule. DOI plans to finalize the new rule in 2025.

Liskow’s The Energy Law Blog will continue to monitor and report on DOI’s anticipated rulemaking process, including any proposed revisions to BOEM’s financial assurance regulations. Contact Liskow attorneys Jana Grauberger and Kathleen Doody for more information on this topic, and visit the Federal Offshore Regulatory practice page on our website.

There are seven more CCS bills, and potentially more to come, scheduled for hearing this week in the House Ways & Means Committee on Monday morning and in the House Committee on Natural Resources & Environment on Wednesday morning. The bill pending before the House Ways & Means Committee seeks to impose an injection tax on CCS, with the money dedicated to local governments where the storage unit is located. The six bills currently set before the House Committee on Natural Resources & Environment range from banning CCS, granting CCS rights to mineral rights owners, and requiring the maximum payment to any owners forced-pooled into a CCS storage unit.

See below for the description of the six bills currently set for hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources this week:

• HB 75 (McCormick) which provides for pore space owners who are unitized to receive the highest compensation paid to any other pore space owner
• HB 304 (Carter) which provides for local venue for claims involving expropriation for carbon capture sequestration
• HB 396 (McCormick) which declares carbon capture sequestration illegal
• HB 548 (Lacombe) which provides for dedication of revenue to local governments on carbon capture sequestration on certain state lands and water bottoms
• HB 585 (McCormick) which requires advance notice to surface and minerals owners prior to permitting carbon capture sequestration
• HB 632 (Riser) which treats mineral rights owners in the same capacity as surface owners for purposes of carbon capture sequestration

Keep watching the agenda here for the House Committee on Natural Resources to see if any additional bill(s) are added to the agenda.

Liskow will continue to provide updates on the status of these CCS bills on the 2025 Liskow Legislative Update page from Liskow attorney and Louisiana lobbyist Neil Abramson and Liskow CCS attorney Jeff Lieberman.

On Tuesday, April 29, the Louisiana House Committee on Natural Resources & Environment held a hearing involving 10 carbon capture and storage (CCS) bills, beginning at 9 a.m. with only a midday recess to attend the floor session, where they resumed until 10 p.m. when the hearing finally concluded. Read the descriptions of each bill heard on The Energy Law Blog here.

Of the 10 bills heard, SB 73 was the only one to receive a favorable vote out of committee. HB 75 and HB 568 were deferred and are expected to be reset for a hearing next week. The remaining bills were voted down in committee.

Liskow will be monitoring for further updates on these CCS bills throughout the session on The 2025 Liskow CCS Legislative Update. For further questions regarding the future of CCS in Louisiana, contact Liskow attorney and Louisiana Lobbyist Neil Abramson and Liskow CCS attorney Jeff Lieberman.

On this week’s episode of “Energy Law This Week,” hosts Matt Jones and April Rolen-Ogden are joined by Liskow attorney Bill Pugh to discuss key legal developments affecting property rights and risk allocation in the oil and gas industry. Together, they unpack recent case law and examine the ongoing tensions between surface and mineral owners when it comes to land access and resource control.

The conversation takes a deeper look at the role of indemnity agreements in oilfield operations, particularly in multi-party worksites where overlapping contracts and anti-indemnity statutes complicate risk management. Matt, April, and Bill offer practical guidance on navigating common pitfalls in indemnity structures, emphasizing the need for precise contract drafting and a clear understanding of enforceability limits. The episode delivers timely insights for operators, contractors, and legal professionals managing exposure in today’s oil and gas environment.

Listen to the full episode on the Oil & Gas Network here.