The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 establishes the State Air Resources Board as the state agency responsible for monitoring and regulating sources emitting greenhouse gases. The act requires the state board to approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020 and to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The act requires the state board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to update the scoping plan at least once every 5 years. Existing law requires the state board, as part of its scoping plan, to establish specified carbon dioxide removal targets for 2030 and beyond.

Existing law, the California Climate Crisis Act, declares the policy of the state both to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85% below the 1990 levels.

This bill would, for the purpose of meeting, or tracking progress against, any state requirement to achieve net zero emissions of greenhouse gases, or for the purpose of reporting offsets against any of a reporting entitys greenhouse gas emissions as part of reporting required pursuant the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, authorize only qualified carbon dioxide removal, as defined, to be used to reduce counterbalance the states or an entitys greenhouse gas emissions and would require qualified carbon dioxide removal used for those purposes to meet certain requirements, as specified.

Existing law requires the state board to establish a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to, among other things, evaluate the efficacy, safety, and viability of carbon capture, utilization, or storage technologies and carbon dioxide removal technologies and facilitate the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide from those technologies, where appropriate. In furtherance of the objectives of that program, existing law authorizes the state board, by January 1, 2024, to adopt protocols to support additional methods of utilization or storage of captured carbon dioxide.

This bill would indefinitely authorize the state board to adopt those protocols, and protocols to support methods of utilization or storage of removed carbon dioxide.

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 establishes the State Air Resources Board as the state agency responsible for monitoring and regulating sources emitting greenhouse gases. The act requires the state board to approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020 and to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The act requires the state board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to update the scoping plan at least once every 5 years. Existing law requires the state board, as part of its scoping plan, to establish specified carbon dioxide removal targets for 2030 and beyond.

Existing law, the California Climate Crisis Act, declares the policy of the state both to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85% below the 1990 levels.

Existing law, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, requires, on or before July 1, 2025, the state board to develop and adopt regulations to require a reporting entity to annually disclose to the emissions reporting organization, as defined, or the state board all of the reporting entitys scope 1 emissions, scope 2 emissions, and scope 3 emissions, as defined.

This bill would, for the purpose of meeting, or tracking progress against, any state requirement to achieve net zero emissions of greenhouse gases, or for the purpose of reporting offsets against any of a reporting entitys greenhouse gas emissions as part of reporting required pursuant the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, authorize only qualified carbon dioxide removal, as defined, to be used to reduce the states or an entitys greenhouse gas emissions and would require qualified carbon dioxide removal used for those purposes to meet certain requirements, as specified.

Existing law requires the state board to establish a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to, among other things, evaluate the efficacy, safety, and viability of carbon capture, utilization, or storage technologies and carbon dioxide removal technologies and facilitate the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide from those technologies, where appropriate. In furtherance of the objectives of that program, existing law authorizes the state board, by January 1, 2024, to adopt protocols to support additional methods of utilization or storage of captured carbon dioxide.

This bill would indefinitely authorize the state board to adopt those protocols, and protocols to support methods of utilization or storage of removed carbon dioxide.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 285 (Becker) - Net zero greenhouse gas emissions goal: carbon dioxide removal: regulations

Bill Summary:

This bill would require carbon removal done for the purposes of net zero emissions to (1) be “qualified carbon dioxide removal”, as defined, and (2) counterbalance greenhouse gas emissions using only forms of carbon sequestration with substantially similar durations.

Fiscal Impact:

• The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates ongoing costs of about $10.2 million annually (Cost of Implementation Account [COIA]) for 31 positions and contract funds in order to collect and clean data, verify “durability”, track carbon dioxide removal (CDR) activities, develop accounting frameworks, and provide reports, among other things.

Background:

Achieving net zero GHG emissions – a state where GHG emissions either reach zero or are entirely offset by equivalent atmospheric GHG removal – is essential in all scenarios that would keep Earth’s average temperature within 1.5 °C of its historical average. In California, carbon neutrality by 2045 was initially set as a goal for the state under Governor Brown’s Executive Order (EO) B-55-18. The goal was subsequently set in statute by Assemblymember Muratsuchi’s AB 1279 in 2022, with the additional condition that net zero GHG emissions be achieved with at least an 85% direct reduction in emissions, and no more than 15% of the goal being achieved through negative emission technologies and approaches.

There are several ways to proceed when it comes to restoring a safe atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration: emissions from a given source can be mitigated or captured, and atmospheric emissions can be removed by some form of carbon dioxide removal (CDR).

CDR refers to actually reducing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not from a point source, but from the ambient air itself. Since the concentration of carbon dioxide is much lower than at single-point sources (such as a smokestack), it can be challenging to remove carbon dioxide at a level that is both effective and cost-efficient. However, this is the only approach that results in actually lowering atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, rather than just preventing them from increasing.

There are many biological and non-biological processes that remove carbon dioxide from the air and turn it into a solid form, ranging from photosynthesis in plants to chemical capture with engineered membrane filters. Each process is unique and requires careful consideration to evaluate its usefulness. For example, Frontier (an advanced market commitment to procure and drive market development for CDR) evaluates projects on eight characteristics: durability, physical footprint, cost, capacity, net negativity, additionality, verifiability, and safety and legality.

Although it is an imperfect categorization, CDR is generally considered either “nature-based” (or NWL) or “engineered” (also called “mechanical” CDR). Nature-based CDR may include approaches such as re- or afforestation, increasing soil carbon content, and other land stewardship practices. Mechanical CDR includes technologies such as direct air capture (DAC), (where air is passed over membranes or other carbon-adsorbing materials), mineralization (where rock weathering or other geologic processes that draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are enhanced), and bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) (where plant matter—having captured carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using photosynthesis—is used as a feedstock for a beneficial process (such as energy or hydrogen production) and then CCS is applied to the resultant carbon emissions.

Ultimately, the usefulness of any method of carbon removal depends on a number of tremendously variable factors. Accurate quantification is massively important when such removals are used to “counterbalance” or offset other emissions. A ton of carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere the same whether it comes from a wildfire or a smokestack. But a ton of carbon dioxide pulled from the air into short-lived (or suspect-to-burning) flora does not prevent global climate change in the long run the same way putting that ton in stable minerals or underground does. Particularly when used to counterbalance a ton of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere that may warm the atmosphere for a thousand years or more, the permanence of the removal matters.

Proposed Law:

This bill would require CDR done for the purposes of net zero emissions to be “qualified carbon dioxide removal”, as defined, and to counterbalance greenhouse gas emissions using only forms of carbon sequestration with substantially similar durations. Specifically, it would:

1. Make findings and declarations regarding global climate change, carbon neutrality, and the role and dynamics of carbon dioxide removal.
   
2. Define a number of pertinent terms, notably including:
   1. “Carbon dioxide removal” to mean a net reduction of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by a process that uses biological means, chemical means, physical means, or any combination of these means, and that puts the removed carbon atoms into a form of carbon sequestration, including the use of CDR technology, as defined in Section 39741, and carbon dioxide removal through the use of nature-based climate solutions, as defined in Section 38561.5. The carbon dioxide removal process may remove carbon from the atmosphere directly or indirectly, including by direct air capture or using carbon stored in biomass or soil or absorbed in water, but may not represent only an avoidance or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions;
      
   2. “Durable carbon dioxide removal” to mean either of the following:
      1. A type of qualified carbon dioxide removal that uses a form of durable carbon sequestration; or
      2. Any other type of qualified carbon dioxide removal that, at the end of the guarantee period for its carbon sequestration, is coupled with an enforceable commitment to provide an equal quantity of qualified carbon dioxide removal; and
         
   3. “Qualified carbon dioxide removal” to mean CDR that meets all of the following:
      1. If the carbon dioxide removal process requires terrestrial biomass as a feedstock, it only uses biomass from agricultural residues, forestry residues, or municipal organic waste;
      2. The carbon dioxide removal process is not used for purposes of enhanced oil recovery, including the facilitation of enhanced oil recovery from another well; and
      3. The carbon dioxide removal process is consistent with certain requirements established by SB 905.
         
3. Require, for any GHG emission reduction undertaken to meet specified state goals:
   1. That only qualified CDR may be used to reduce remaining GHG emissions;
   2. That the qualified CDR used to counterbalance emissions have a substantially equivalent storage duration to the GHG emitted, including:
      1. Carbon dioxide previously held in a stable, long term mineral form may only be counterbalanced with durable CDR;
      2. Carbon dioxide emissions from relatively short-term forms of storage (such as soil or biogenic sources) may be counterbalanced with negative net emissions from natural and working lands or other qualified CDR; and
      3. Short-lived climate pollutants may be counterbalanced by net negative emissions from natural and working lands or other qualified CDR.
         
4. Require entities reporting emissions information to provide the amount of GHG emissions and qualified CDR as separate numbers and provide specified details about each.
   
5. State that this section does not restrict:
   1. What can be used as an offset under cap-and-trade; nor
   2. What voluntary carbon offsets (or other tradeable instruments) may be used to meet voluntary pledges
      
6. Amend requirements created by SB 905 (Caballero, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022) for CARB to create further protocols for utilization and storage of capture carbon to apply to “removed” carbon as well as “captured” carbon, remove the January 1, 2024 deadline for protocols to be adopted, and explicitly state that those protocols include methods of long-term storage.

Related Legislation:

SB 308 (Becker, 2023) would have required CARB to establish rules and processes for certifying carbon dioxide removal processes that can be used for negative emissions credits. It required CARB to adopt a regulation requiring certain emitting agencies to purchase negative emissions credits equal to a specified percentage of their GHG emissions, with that percentage increasing over time. SB 308 died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 905 (Caballero, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022) directed CARB to establish a CCRUS Program to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and viability of CDR and CCRUS and facilitate their implementation where appropriate. This bill requires CARB to track the deployment of CCRUS and CDR and adopt regulations for financial responsibility for CO2 capture, removal, or sequestration projects. This bill also directs the California Geological Survey to establish a Geologic Carbon Sequestration Group that identifies injection wells capable of maintaining integrity for at least 1,000 years, identifies appropriate monitoring of injected carbon dioxide and identifies hazards.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Blakespear, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 285

SUBJECT: Net zero greenhouse gas emissions goal: carbon dioxide removal: regulations

DIGEST: This bill requires carbon removal done for the purposes of net zero emissions to be “qualified carbon dioxide removal”, as defined, and to counterbalance greenhouse gas emissions using only forms of carbon sequestration with substantially similar durations.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

Under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and updates thereof (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 38500 et seq.):

1. Requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030 (SB 32, Pavley, 2016).
2. Requires CARB to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions and to update the scoping plan at least once every 5 years.
3. Requires CARB when adopting regulations, to the extent feasible and in furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions goal, to do the following:
   1. Ensure that activities undertaken to comply with the regulations do not disproportionately impact low-income communities.
   2. Ensure that activities pursuant to the regulations do not interfere with efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and reduce toxic air contaminant emissions.
   3. Consider overall societal benefits, including reductions in other air pollutants, diversification of energy sources, and other benefits to the economy, environment, and public health.
   4. Consider the cost-effectiveness of these regulations.
4. Statues, under the California Climate Crisis Act (AB 1279, Muratsuchi, Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022), that it is the policy of the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85% below the 1990 level.
   
5. Directs CARB, under SB 905 (Caballero, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022), to establish a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to, among other things, ensure all included projects minimize copollutant emissions, minimize local water and air pollution, minimize risk of seismic impacts, include specified seismic and underground carbon dioxide monitoring and reporting requirements, and monitor criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants.

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations regarding global climate change, carbon neutrality, and the role and dynamics of carbon dioxide removal (CDR).
   
2. Defines a number of pertinent terms, notably including:
   1. “Carbon dioxide removal” to mean a net reduction of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by a process that uses biological means, chemical means, physical means, or any combination of these means, and that puts the removed carbon atoms into a form of carbon sequestration, including the use of CDR technology, as defined in Section 39741, and carbon dioxide removal through the use of nature-based climate solutions, as defined in Section 38561.5. The carbon dioxide removal process may remove carbon from the atmosphere directly or indirectly, including by direct air capture or using carbon stored in biomass or soil or absorbed in water, but may not represent only an avoidance or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions;
      
   2. “Durable carbon dioxide removal” to mean either of the following:
      1. A type of qualified carbon dioxide removal that uses a form of durable carbon sequestration; or
      2. Any other type of qualified carbon dioxide removal that, at the end of the guarantee period for its carbon sequestration, is coupled with an enforceable commitment to provide an equal quantity of qualified carbon dioxide removal; and
         
   3. “Qualified carbon dioxide removal” to mean CDR that meets all of the following:
      1. If the carbon dioxide removal process requires terrestrial biomass as a feedstock, it only uses biomass from agricultural residues, forestry residues, or municipal organic waste;
      2. The carbon dioxide removal process is not used for purposes of enhanced oil recovery, including the facilitation of enhanced oil recovery from another well; and
      3. The carbon dioxide removal process is consistent with certain requirements established by SB 905.
         
3. Requires, for any GHG emission reduction undertaken to meet specified state goals:
   1. That only qualified CDR may be used to counterbalance remaining GHG emissions;
   2. That the qualified CDR used to counterbalance emissions have a substantially equivalent storage duration to the GHG emitted, including:
      1. Carbon dioxide previously held in a stable, long term mineral form may only be counterbalanced with durable CDR;
      2. Carbon dioxide emissions from relatively short-term forms of storage (such as soil or biogenic sources) may be counterbalanced with negative net emissions from natural and working lands or other qualified CDR; and
      3. Short-lived climate pollutants may be counterbalanced by net negative emissions from natural and working lands or other qualified CDR.
         
4. Requires entities reporting emissions information to provide the amount of GHG emissions and qualified CDR as separate numbers and provide specified details about each.
   
5. States that this section does not restrict:
   1. What can be used as an offset under cap-and-trade; nor
   2. What voluntary carbon offsets (or other tradeable instruments) may be used to meet voluntary pledges
      
6. Amends requirements created by SB 905 (Caballero, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022) for CARB to create further protocols for utilization and storage of capture carbon to apply to “removed” carbon as well as “captured” carbon, remove the January 1, 2024 deadline for protocols to be adopted, and explicitly states that those protocols include methods of long-term storage.

Background

1. Net zero GHG emissions. Achieving net zero GHG emissions – a state where GHG emissions either reach zero or are entirely offset by equivalent atmospheric GHG removal – is essential in all scenarios that would keep Earth’s average temperature within 1.5 °C of its historical average. Net zero GHG emissions is also often used interchangeably with “carbon neutrality,” however net-zero GHG emissions implies the inclusion of GHGs other than those that contain carbon, such as nitrous oxide, as defined by AB 32 (Nunez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006). The sooner net-zero GHG emissions is reached globally, the less warming will be experienced.
   
   In California, carbon neutrality by 2045 was initially set as a goal for the state under Governor Brown’s Executive Order (EO) B-55-18. The goal was subsequently set in statute by Assemblymember Muratsuchi’s AB 1279 in 2022, with the additional condition that net zero GHG emissions be achieved with at least an 85% direct reduction in emissions, and no more than 15% of the goal being achieved through negative emission technologies and approaches.
   
2. Negative emissions: capturing versus removing. There is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is over 427 parts per million (ppm)^[1], and 350 ppm is generally regarded as the level necessary to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted^[2]. To restore Earth’s atmosphere to roughly 350 ppm carbon dioxide, two things must happen: we must stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere faster than it is removed (to stop the concentration from rising ever higher), and we must remove carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere (to bring the concentration back in line with historic levels).
   
   There are several ways to proceed when it comes to restoring a safe atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration: emissions from a given source can be mitigated or captured, and atmospheric emissions can be removed by some form of carbon dioxide removal (CDR).
   
   Mitigating GHG emissions is generally the least expensive, lowest regrets option. This could look like using a zero-emission technology to replace a polluting legacy source, such as shifting a natural gas boiler in a factory to an electric-powered one (and using zero-carbon electricity to power that). The vast majority of GHG emission reductions that need to be achieved to meet our climate goals are most likely to be achieved through moving to zero-emission processes. However, that is not an option in all circumstances.
   
   Capturing carbon from a point source and preventing it from entering the atmosphere (often referred to as “carbon capture and sequestration” or CCS) is another way to reduce emissions from a source. In the ideal situation where CCS works perfectly, an otherwise polluting source could be effectively zero-emission and not contribute to rising atmospheric GHG levels. This is generally much more costly than replacing the polluting source, relies on technology that in many cases is still under development and testing, and generally does not operate with 100% efficiency. However, in some situations, this may be the only option for reducing stubborn, hard-to-decarbonize sources’ contributions to atmospheric GHG levels.
   
   Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) refers to actually reducing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not from a point source, but from the ambient air itself. Since the concentration of carbon dioxide is much lower than at single-point sources (such as a smokestack), it can be challenging to remove carbon dioxide at a level that is both effective and cost-efficient. However, this is the only approach that results in actually lowering atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, rather than just preventing them from increasing.
   
   Without mitigating emissions extensively and rapidly, Earth will face rampant and worsening climate catastrophes, regardless of how much CDR is deployed. Without CDR, only natural biologic and geologic processes will reduce the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and they will likely do so on too slow a timescale to stave off the worst impacts of climate change. Thus, we must both reduce and remove GHG emissions simultaneously, and prompt mitigation is of paramount importance.
   
3. Flavors of CDR. There are many biological and non-biological processes that remove carbon dioxide from the air and turn it into a solid form, ranging from photosynthesis in plants to chemical capture with engineered membrane filters. Each process is unique and requires careful consideration to evaluate its usefulness. For example, Frontier (an advanced market commitment to procure and drive market development for CDR) evaluates projects on eight characteristics: durability, physical footprint, cost, capacity, net negativity, additionality, verifiability, and safety and legality.^[3]
   
   Although it is an imperfect categorization, CDR is generally considered either “nature-based” (or NWL) or “engineered” (also called “mechanical” CDR). Nature-based CDR may include approaches such as re- or afforestation, increasing soil carbon content, and other land stewardship practices. Mechanical CDR includes technologies such as direct air capture (DAC), (where air is passed over membranes or other carbon-adsorbing materials), mineralization (where rock weathering or other geologic processes that draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are enhanced), and bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) (where plant matter—having captured carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using photosynthesis—is used as a feedstock for a beneficial process (such as energy or hydrogen production) and then CCS is applied to the resultant carbon emissions. Notably, BECCS is considered CDR even though it uses CCS technology because the carbon dioxide being captured off of the process was recently removed from the atmosphere (i.e. the biomass pulled it from the atmosphere when it grew) as opposed to carbon dioxide from fossil fuels which add carbon to the atmosphere that had not been there in millennia.
   
   Ultimately, the usefulness of any method of carbon removal depends on a number of tremendously variable factors. Accurate quantification is massively important when such removals are used to “counterbalance” or offset other emissions. A ton of carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere the same whether it comes from a wildfire or a smokestack. But a ton of carbon dioxide pulled from the air into short-lived (or suspect-to-burning) flora does not prevent global climate change in the long run the same way putting that ton in stable minerals or underground does. Particularly when used to counterbalance a ton of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere that may warm the atmosphere for a thousand years or more, the permanence of the removal matters.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “California has established goals for reaching net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including for the state as a whole no later than 2045 (AB 1279, 2022) and for state agencies’ own scope 1 and scope 2 emissions by 2035 (SB 1203, 2022). To meet those goals, the state must reduce GHG emissions from fossil fuels and other sources dramatically, and it must also remove CO2 from the atmosphere to balance the impacts of whatever GHG emissions have not yet been eliminated. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is thus essential for any credible plan to reach net-zero, and the state is poised to start encouraging CDR development through the implementation of a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program, as required by SB 905 (Caballero, 2022). Despite the importance of CDR, current law includes only very vague definitions of what should count as CDR for achieving net-zero, and the rules that do exist focus too narrowly on geologic sequestration of CO2, without addressing the many other valid CDR pathways.
   
   “This bill establishes standards for what should be allowed to count for the purpose of balancing the impacts of remaining GHG emissions and reaching our net-zero targets. These rules are needed before the state starts to scale up CDR so that we are encouraging the development of CDR pathways that meet minimum quality, safety, and longevity standards and that avoid causing damaging side effects, such as increased air pollution. Without solid standards, the state would be at risk of supporting counterproductive “solutions” that could actually damage the environment or fail to adequately counteract the impacts of the state’s ongoing GHG emissions, thus undermining the credibility of any net-zero claims. SB 285 establishes clear standards that will put guardrails around what can be counted and will ensure the scientific credibility of the state’s net-zero efforts”
   
2. Greenhouse gas emissions are more than numbers in a spreadsheet. In all the discussion of carbon accounting, net zero emissions, and multi-century timescales, it can be easy to forget the material reality of these technologies and the very real impacts of implementing—or not implementing—them in California. Regardless of how important they will be towards achieving the state’s climate goals, they come with important considerations and trade-offs.
   
   Many carbon management tools have unintended consequences. Carbon pipelines may be a necessary piece of infrastructure for connecting carbon capture technology with storage locations, yet these pipelines can fail, and when they do they are wickedly dangerous and challenging to repair.^[4] Capturing methane—a potent short-lived climate pollutant—from dairy manure shows a massive improvement on paper for reducing GHGs. Yet such calculations fail to reflect the reality of the unaddressed water contamination, odor, and other pollutant exposure for nearby communities.^[5]
   
   Nevertheless, it is not as though inaction benefits these communities either. Vulnerable communities experience heightened risk and increased sensitivity to climate change and have less capacity and fewer resources to cope with, adapt to, or recover from climate impacts. Meaning, without drastic action to reduce our ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, these same communities are likely to be among the hardest and earliest hit by the consequences as well. Thus, it is vitally important to take action and to do so with full consideration of the community impacts as well.
   
3. Carbon neutrality won’t come cheap. Increasing CDR capacity to the scale projected to meet climate goals will take a massive amount of money. Current CDR prices with durable storage are typically around $200-$700 per ton of carbon, though many available solutions cost upwards of $2,000 per ton. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s 2020 “Getting to Neutral” report projects prices for DAC projects to fall to approximately $200 per ton by 2045, gasification or pyrolysis of biomass to between $30 and $150 per ton, and natural solutions to $10-20 per ton (natural solutions likely do not store carbon as long). Using the $200 per ton projection and CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan scenario of 75 million metric tons (MMT) of CDR, $15 billion worth of CDR would be needed a year in California by 2045. For a 7 MMT intermediate goal in 2030 laid out in the Scoping Plan, $1.4 billion will be needed by seven years from now, but this number could feasibly be three times higher or more as prices per ton of carbon are likely to still be high.
   
   It is important to note that the markets that will ultimately drive these prices lower are unlikely to mature on their own without policy intervention. Carbon dioxide removal is akin to waste management in that it is not producing anything of material value, but there is societal value in preventing its accumulation. Understandably, entities who (either voluntarily or mandatorily) purchase CDR to manage their carbon waste are likely to choose the lowest-cost option. If you had the option to have your trash cans picked up for $10 a week or $1,000 a week, no one would fault you for picking the $10 option; the trash is getting taken care of either way.
   
   At a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to accelerate upwards, it may seem early to be considering which CDR technologies should be prioritized for achieving carbon neutrality. But without focusing on market development and investment through early interventions, the technology will not be mature when we need it. Policies must strike a careful balance then, to foster a fledgling industry without inducing “mitigation deterrence” which is “the prospect of reduced or delayed mitigation resulting from the introduction or consideration of another climate intervention.”^[6]
   
4. Two roads diverged in a wood. Imposing the types of limitations contemplated in SB 285 on California’s net neutrality target would make it more costly and difficult to achieve. However, not imposing such limitations could lead to a reliance on lower-cost, less-reliable CDR and carbon accounting, which may not be as effective as it appears. Doing so could set California up for a pyrrhic victory, where we meet our carbon neutrality goals on paper while in reality still contributing significantly to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

SB 285 forces us to confront the harsh reality that short-term CDR and nigh-permanent GHG emissions may not be as fungible as we would hope.

These distinctions matter and policies (like SB 285) to address them must be constructed in such a way that nature-based CDR is still promoted. Even if carbon is potentially not stored as long as it would be in an underground formation or mineralized form, nature-based solutions have tremendous co-benefits to biodiversity, protecting the state’s natural resources, improving climate adaptation, and much more.

Ultimately, SB 285 would prioritize more precise carbon accounting over ease of deployment. Would it have a chilling effect on nature-based carbon removal by reducing the market for offsets generated by them? Would it shift the CDR market towards greater support for more durable technologies, driving them down the cost curve? Would it help or hinder California’s ability to achieve carbon neutrality? How should policymakers weigh the relative value of moving quickly on nature-based approaches today against the importance of being able to more credibly claim carbon neutrality in the future? These questions do not have easy answers, but they are discussions this committee should be thinking about sooner rather than later.

Given the stakes of getting this policy wrong in either direction (either too lax or too prescriptive), the author should continue to engage with stakeholders and experts going forward to avoid any unintended consequences. Even though no entities have binding net-zero or carbon neutrality requirements yet, at some point they will, and this bill will change how they go about achieving them.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 308 (Becker, 2023) would have required CARB to establish rules and processes for certifying carbon dioxide removal processes that can be used for negative emissions credits. It required CARB to adopt a regulation requiring certain emitting agencies to purchase negative emissions credits equal to a specified percentage of their GHG emissions, with that percentage increasing over time. SB 308 died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 905 (Caballero, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022) directed CARB to establish a CCRUS Program to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and viability of CDR and CCRUS and facilitate their implementation where appropriate. This bill requires CARB to track the deployment of CCRUS and CDR and adopt regulations for financial responsibility for CO2 capture, removal, or sequestration projects. This bill also directs the California Geological Survey to establish a Geologic Carbon Sequestration Group that identifies injection wells capable of maintaining integrity for at least 1,000 years, identifies appropriate monitoring of injected carbon dioxide and identifies hazards.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

350 Humboldt: Grass Roots Climate Action

350 Sacramento

4 Corners Carbon Coalition

AirMiners

Alkali Earth

AltaSea at the Port of Los Angeles

Andes

Avnos

CDR.fyi

Captura

Carba

Carbon Capture, Inc.

CarbonBuilt

Carbonfuture

Cascade Climate

Clarity Tech

Climate Action California

Climate Reality Project, Monterey Bay Chapter

Climeworks

Crew Carbon

Direct Air Capture Coalition

Heirloom Carbon

Holy Grail, Inc.

Indigenous Greenhouse Gas Removal Commission

League of Women Voters of California

Noya PBC

Ocean Visions

OpenAir

Partnerships for Tribal Carbon Solutions

Producer Accountability for Carbon Emissions (PACE)

Project 2030

Rethinking Removals

Sitos Group

Sitos Group, LLC

The Pacific Coast Legacy Emissions Action Network

U.S. Biochar Coalition

US Green Building Council

United States Biochar Initiative

VyCarb

XPRIZE

OPPOSITION:

Anew Climate LLC
Bezero Carbon
Business Alliance for Climate Action (BACA)
California Chamber of Commerce
Climate Impact Partners
Climeco LLC
Conservation International

IETA
Pollination Law
Rubicon Carbon
The Climate Trust

-- END --

1. NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory trends. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/monthly.html Accessed 3/7/2025 ↑

2. How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters, Nicola Jones. January 26, 2017, Yale Environment 360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters ↑

3. https://frontierclimate.com/ Accessed 3/7/2025 ↑

4. The Gassing of Satartia, Dan Zegart, August 26, 2021. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gassing-satartia-mississippi-co2-pipeline_n_60ddea9fe4b0ddef8b0ddc8f ↑

5. Why some people think California’s cow manure methane plan stinks. Tony Briscoe, December 5, 2023. LA Times. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-12-05/californias-cow-manure-methane-plan-is-making-people-angry ↑

6. Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs). N. Markusson, D. McLaren, D. Tyfield, Glob. Sustain., 1 (2018), Article e10, 10.1017/sus.2018.10 ↑