Back
An Ohio bill that would establish rules for underground carbon dioxide storage is being shaped behind the scenes by oil and gas companies that stand to benefit from the legislation.
House Bill 170 would pave the way for companies to pump waste carbon dioxide from industrial plants and hydrogen production deep underground as a way to lower their emissions. Companies would lease subsurface property rights long-term and eventually transfer liability for the stored waste to the state.
Oil and gas industry groups have been busy for months vetting bill sponsors, drafting legislation, writing talking points for lawmakers, meeting with regulators, and coordinating with other industry stakeholders.
Industry lobbyists often play an active role in pushing for legislation that will favor them. But public records shared with Canary Media by Fieldnotes, a watchdog group that investigates the oil and gas industry, show that the American Petroleum Institute and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association have played an outsize role in shaping the bill.
Supporters say carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, is necessary to lower greenhouse gas emissions that drive human-caused climate change, especially for hard-to-electrify industries. As lawmakers and regulators craft rules for the technology, the stakes are high, with potentially large risks and rewards for industry and the public.
Carbon capture is “the new Wild West…where there is a lot of money to be made,” said Jennifer Stewart, the American Petroleum Institute’s director of climate and environmental, social, and governance policy, at a hearing on last year’s carbon capture bill in the Ohio Senate. She suggested that tax credits could offset the costs of reducing greenhouse gas pollution and that companies could also sell carbon offset credits to other businesses.
Left unsaid was that the petroleum industry was then facing Biden-era emissions rules for natural gas plants, which an aide for bill sponsor Sen. Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster) flagged in an internal memo as “the reason for the push for carbon capture.” The aide’s memo cited an American Petroleum Institute summary of what carbon capture “is and why it is good for the oil and gas industry.”
Although the Trump administration now proposes to repeal those rules, the oil and gas industry still faces increased competition from renewables as the energy transition continues. Carbon capture and storage could serve as a way to continue promoting their products.
Ohio is not alone in the push for carbon capture laws. More than 20 state legislatures have passed or have been considering such bills, according to a spring 2024 presentation by the American Petroleum Institute.
The laws are necessary if states want a lead role on permitting and regulating wells to pump waste carbon dioxide deep underground. As of May 30, four states already had federal approval for that role, called primacy. Nine others had applied.
The public records shared by Fieldnotes show that during the last legislative session, spanning 2023 and 2024, people at the American Petroleum Institute and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association vetted Rep. Monica Robb Blasdel (R-Columbiana) as a potential bill sponsor. Industry representatives offered to arrange media opportunities for Sen. Al Landis (R-Dover). They also provided talking points and supplied wording for initial one-page “placeholder” bills. Robb Blasdel, Schaffer, and Landis introduced identical one-page bills in December 2023.
In February 2024, the industry groups sent a draft substitute bill, with details for the carbon capture program. Ohio’s Legislative Service Commission, which reviews bills for form, clarity, and fiscal impacts, raised questions about the bill with Schaffer’s office. His office had the Ohio Oil and Gas Association provide answers.
Also that winter, the petroleum association sent Robb Blasdel’s office the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ alternative bill language “in response to the industry draft bill.” The group subsequently supplied her office with an analysis of differences in the industry’s and agency’s language. The agency generally wanted industry to pay higher initial fees, provide financial bonding, and wait decades longer before the state assumed liability for closed wells, along with other stricter provisions.
Although representatives from the industry groups met with staff from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to discuss terms in May 2024, staff members apparently didn’t talk with Robb Blasdel about the bill until months later. “This will be our first convo with Rep. Blasdel about the subject,” wrote Benjamin Bruns, the agency’s legislative affairs director, on September 12.
A detailed bill was finally swapped out for the earlier placeholder version in the House Natural Resources Committee last December. Along with Robb Blasdel, representatives of both the Ohio Oil and Gas Association and the American Petroleum Institute spoke in its favor.
Despite HB 170 and Senate Bill 136 having terms nearly identical to those of the 2024 substitute bill, Schaffer’s aide gave both petroleum groups a chance for advance review before the bills were introduced this year. House Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) is now a cosponsor with Robb Blasdel. Replacing Landis as a cosponsor of SB 136 is freshman Sen. Brian Chavez (R-Marietta), who has worked and owned companies in the oil and gas industry. He has not answered Canary Media’s questions about whether the bill might benefit any of his businesses.
After hearings in the Ohio House this spring, Robb Blasdel’s office asked for revised bill language, which the American Petroleum Institute’s representative supplied on June 2. Less than 90 minutes later, her office invited petroleum industry people and others to an “interested party” meeting on June 5. Among them were staff and lobbyists for carbon capture companies and other bill supporters, along with representatives for the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and the Nature Conservancy, which had identified themselves as interested parties (versus saying they were for or against the bill).
No opponents were invited, despite numerous concerns raised by the Buckeye Environmental Network, the Freshwater Accountability Project, and others, including whether provisions in the bill would infringe on property rights, lower home values, and cause health and safety problems, among other issues.
A new substitute bill was introduced during the June 18 meeting of the House Natural Resources Committee, which Robb Blasdel chairs. More hearings are planned for the fall.
Besides documenting industry’s push for Ohio to pass a carbon capture and storage law, the public records raise questions about whose interests lawmakers are serving.
As Fieldnotes researcher Julia Kane sees it, industry groups that stand to profit have “been in the driver’s seat of this process…I’d think in a democracy you’d want the lawmakers looking out for the interests of the public and talking to all the stakeholders,” she said.
Neither Chavez nor Schaffer responded to Canary Media’s requests for comment. Peterson’s aide, Kylie Fauber, said the representative would defer any comments to Robb Blasdel. She has not answered Canary Media’s questions for this story.
The American Petroleum Institute “regularly engages with policy makers on both sides of the aisle to educate on the critical role of American energy and to share our industry’s priorities,” said Christina Polesovsky, the organization’s associate director for Ohio, in response to Canary Media’s questions about critics who see the group as having outsize influence. She added that the group has provided on-the-record testimony through the committee process.
The Ohio Oil and Gas Association did not answer Canary Media’s request for comment for this story.
Opposing parties have also testified, and Robb Blasdel met with two representatives of the Buckeye Environmental Network on June 4. But they and other opponents were left out of the “interested party” meeting on June 5, before the most recent substitute bill was introduced.
“The cake is most of the way baked, and the oil and gas industry kind of set the foundation for the entire conversation,” Kane said.
While the extent of industry’s involvement in the carbon capture bills wasn’t clear before the most recent batches of the public records were released to Fieldnotes this spring, it’s not necessarily surprising.
“This is the system that we’re in,” said Stephanie Howse-Jones, a Cleveland City Council member who served for seven years as a Democratic representative in the Ohio House. Lobbyists often provide draft bills and talking points. Lawmakers often use those talking points when speaking about legislation, but they don’t always read the full text of their bills, she noted.
Howse-Jones said Ohioans need to understand specifically how bills will impact them and their communities. Getting that information may be more challenging after Ohio’s latest budget bill changed the state’s public records law to shield lawmakers’ notes and some internal communications from disclosure until the next legislative session. But more transparency isn’t enough, she said.
“Ohioans must demand more of their state legislature,” Howse-Jones said. Until campaign finance reform takes place, “most of us won’t be able to compete with the dollars. But we do have organizing-people power.” That goes beyond voting and includes taking an active role in organizing and communicating constituent concerns, she said.
Tristan Rader (D-Lakewood) said he hasn’t made up his mind about the carbon capture bills but has questions, especially whether the waste will escape from the underground spaces in which it will be stored. Yet he sees an imbalance in power at the legislature, where industry often holds more sway.
“The real problem is that the communities that are impacted by the activity of these organizations’ wells have a very minimal presence and limited input. And it’s not for lack of trying,” Rader said.
.svg)
