February 17, 2026

Law Center Analysis: Carbon Capture & Storage in HB 170 

In March 2025, two Ohio representatives introduced House Bill 170 (HB 170), legislation designed to regulate carbon storage activities as a “matter of general statewide interest that requires uniform statewide regulation.” A laudable mission statement. But would the program, as currently designed, be protective of human health and the environment? 

At the Ohio Environmental Council, we pursue science-based, pragmatic solutions to environmental problems, especially climate change. Carbon Capture and Storage (commonly known as “CCS”) has been proposed as a potential solution to greenhouse gas emissions from major polluters for many decades, and if carbon capture technology successfully works, it might be a part of the picture. We applaud the Ohio lawmakers working on HB 170 for recognizing that carbon dioxide pollution is a problem we need to solve.  

But HB 170 may not be the right solution, especially in its current form. 

The following analysis will provide our thoughts on HB 170, especially the policies in the bill we view may miss the mark for protecting the health and environment of Ohioans. Before lawmakers pass any legislation regulating carbon storage, these issues must, at minimum, be addressed.  

However, we caution against focusing on unproven solutions, and instead urge legislators to invest in technologies that directly improve the lives of Ohioans. Without significant modification, HB 170 does not sufficiently protect human health and the environment. 

What is Carbon Capture and Storage? 

According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, CCS is the capture of carbon dioxide at its source (such as an industrial facility). It is then transported to a storage location (usually in an underground geologic formation). Very few CCS projects exist both in the United States and worldwide. For industrial processes that are carbon intensive, like steel production, CCS may be a viable solution to achieve carbon neutrality and mitigate the causes of climate change.  

What risks does CCS pose? 

There are trade-offs that come with aggressive use of CCS. It requires extensive investment in additional technology to capture the carbon, and it also likely requires upwards of 60,000 miles of high-pressure pipelines to transfer the carbon to storage locations, a nearly twelvefold increase. Sierra Club notes that public safety risks come with carbon dioxide pipelines, too, highlighting one example of the potential risk where over fifty people were hospitalized: “As the CO2 burst out of the [pipeline] rupture, it converted to gas and pooled in the valley below, displacing ambient oxygen and slowly asphyxiating those at the lowest elevation.”  

The Ohio River Valley Institute calls CCS a “false solution” that prolongs oil and gas production while blocking the expansion of renewable resources. They also note that widespread adoption in the power sector would cost up to $100 billion a year, dollars that could instead be invested in solar, wind, and energy efficiency to lower the electricity bills of Ohioans. 

Buckeye Environmental Network has also consolidated extensive research and information regarding the potential risks of CCS and other injection well technology in Ohio. In addition to their concerns about CCS, Buckeye Environmental Network has pointed out serious concerns with existing Ohio rules governing current injection wells. In November 2025, the organization filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Natural Resources over alleged unlawful approval of Class II oil and gas waste injection wells. 

What does HB 170 do? 

For a detailed breakdown of all the components of HB 170, you can review the Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s Bill Analysis. However, we’ve identified the key components we think Ohioans should understand.  

At its core, HB 170 is designed to facilitate CCS development and give Ohio’s state government exclusive authority over carbon capture and storage, rather than local governments. It also sets up the state to regulate CCS instead of the US EPA through what is known as “primacy.” To achieve these goals, it does the following: 

• Grants the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management sole and exclusive authority to regulate carbon storage. 

• Establishes UIC Class VI Permits for the operation of carbon dioxide wells, issued by the Chief of the Division. 

• Directs the establishment of various rules and regulations that meet minimum federal standards to establish primacy over CCS regulation. 

If Ohio wants to strictly regulate CCS and manage it in specific ways related to Ohio’s unique economy and geology, then state-level regulation might make sense. State-level regulations could also be designed in such a way to be more protective of human health and the environment in Ohio when compared to other states or the federal government. For example, state law could require companies doing CCS to fix orphaned wells within a certain distance of a new injection well, as well as identify them via best available detection techniques. 

However, provisions in HB 170 seem designed to put Ohio communities at greater risk, such as: 

• Allows a storage operator or UIC Class VI permit applicant to submit to the Chief a statutory consolidation application for the operation of an entire proposed storage facility if: 
  • The operator or applicant cannot locate or reach an agreement with all necessary pore space owners,  but has obtained the consent of owners of at least 70% of the pore space proposed to be used in a storage facility. 
  • What this means: A storage operator could store carbon beneath the land of a property-owner who does not wish to use the geology beneath their house for carbon storage. 

• Shifts liability—after 50 years, or an alternative timeline established by the division chief, former storage operators may be released from all regulatory requirements associated with continued storage and maintenance of the carbon dioxide well, transferring liability to the state. 

• Limits claims for damages against carbon dioxide storage operators if the operation harms an individual, their community, or property. 

• Regulates CCS within the same division (ODNR’s Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management) that regulates the extraction of oil and gas wells. 
  • Currently, ODNR regulates oil and gas waste wells (Class II wells) while the Ohio EPA regulates other types of injection wells. 

How could HB 170 be improved? 

While the Ohio Environmental Council questions the use of CCS as a long-term solution to mitigating the causes of climate change, if Ohio lawmakers decide to explore it as a solution, we do not believe HB 170 is sufficiently protective of human health and the environment in its current form.  

We recommend all of the following changes: 

1. Regulate Class VI wells at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

The Ohio EPA is the state agency responsible for protecting the environment in Ohio, and already manages an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. The ODNR Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management regulates oil and gas production—from a governance perspective; it does not make sense for this agency to regulate the production of oil and gas waste or the disposal of carbon dioxide. Given that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, and the purported goal of CCS is to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, Ohio EPA should hold regulatory authority. 

2. Remove provisions pertaining to forced pooling of pore space 

Forced pooling, a practice already commonly utilized for oil and gas production, removes a significant property right from a landowner who does not wish the geology beneath their land to be used in a certain way. We should not further expand this practice for the use of CCS as it violates important principles pertaining to property rights. 

At minimum, public lands should not be included in forced pooling.  

3. Allow local communities to ban CCS through Home Rule if the state receives primacy over CCS regulation 

While state primacy in regulation ensures uniformity in permits and other rules governing any resource management program, local communities should be allowed to decide whether they want CCS as a potential environmental risk in their communities, including risks from injection wells and associated pipeline infrastructure. In 2021, the Ohio General Assembly passed SB 52, which gave townships and counties a procedure through which to limit the expansion of solar and wind, even though those resources pose little risk to human health or the environment. If the Ohio General Assembly wants to give local communities the ability to restrict solar and wind, they should have the power to similarly restrict projects like CCS, injection wells, or other oil and gas operations. 

4. Strengthen provisions pertaining to liability 

Creating a regulatory system where liability for a carbon dioxide well transfers to the state unfairly transfers risk to taxpayers. If there is any circumstance in which liability should transfer to the state, it is when a corporation goes insolvent, and no other affiliated individual or entity is able to cover the liability. While HB 170 currently contemplates the creation of the Carbon Dioxide Storage Facility Fund, we do not see a way to reasonably estimate whether the accrued funds would cover the potential risks over fifty years.  
 
Further, HB 170 should not limit potential claims for damages if a carbon dioxide well harms a person, community, or their property. If Ohio allows CCS in any way whatsoever, it should ensure that individuals harmed by CCS have all legal avenues available to them to seek relief. 

5. Require minimum setbacks for Class VI wells 

Ohio already requires significant setbacks for Class I injection wells, requiring Class I injection wells to be at least 500 feet from property lines and 750 feet from occupied dwellings. Setbacks for Class VI injection wells should be significantly more stringent. Colorado, for example, requires Class VI wells to have at least a 2000-foot setback from essentially all non-industrial buildings.  

Concluding Analysis 

The Ohio Environmental Council appreciates the enthusiasm from legislators who are intent on regulating carbon dioxide pollution given the environmental risk it poses. But as currently written, HB 170 opens the door for Ohio to become a dumping ground for carbon dioxide. If we are to permit the use of CCS at all, it should be in a limited, absolutely necessary capacity, rather than an effort to prolong carbon-intensive industries.  

What are other parties saying about HB 170? 

• Opponents: Buckeye Environmental Network and Freshwater Accountability Project correctly identify the risks inherent in opening Ohio to a robust CCS industry.   

• Interested Parties: The Nature Conservancy and the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation pointed out issues with how HB 170 overrides property rights, among other considerations.  

• Proponents: Primarily from the oil and gas industry, a fact that should concern anyone worried about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

The problems with CCS, and HB 170, must be taken seriously. Thus, without significant modification, HB 170 does not sufficiently protect human health and the environment.