Illinois Carbon Capture, Pipelines & Geologic Sequestration Policy

Use these current government and regulatory resources to review Illinois carbon-capture law, sequestration permits, pipeline proceedings, groundwater protections, pore-space issues, emergency planning, federal incentives, and project status. A proposed project may require multiple federal, state, and local approvals; no single permit or agency record supplies the complete regulatory history.

Illinois Law & State Policy

• Public Act 103-0651 — SAFE CCS Act — The 2024 law establishing Illinois requirements for carbon capture, transportation, sequestration permits, environmental monitoring, emergency response, financial assurance, insurance, closure, pore-space interests, and related protections.

• Senate Bill 1289 — Legislative History of the SAFE CCS Act — Bill text, amendments, votes, procedural history, and other legislative materials leading to Public Act 103-0651.

• Senate Bill 1723 — Sole-Source-Aquifer Protection — Legislative record for the 2025 law prohibiting carbon sequestration facilities that overlie, underlie, or pass through a federally designated sole-source aquifer.

• Illinois Environmental Protection Act — Current statutory provisions governing environmental permits, pollution control, carbon sequestration, enforcement, and related state responsibilities.

• Governor’s Office — SAFE CCS Act Signing and Summary — State summary of the 2024 law and its principal environmental, safety, pipeline, monitoring, and emergency-response provisions.

Illinois Permitting, Proceedings & Agency Oversight

• Illinois Environmental Protection Agency — State agency responsible for administering environmental requirements affecting sequestration facilities, air emissions, water, groundwater, monitoring, permits, and enforcement.

• Illinois EPA — Water Quality — Drinking-water, groundwater, wastewater, permitting, compliance, and regulatory resources relevant to proposed sequestration facilities.

• Illinois Department of Natural Resources — State agency with responsibilities involving geology, mineral resources, pore-space integration, and other subsurface issues arising under Illinois law.

• Illinois Commerce Commission — e-Docket — Searchable filings, testimony, staff reports, orders, and procedural records for carbon-dioxide-pipeline and other regulated proceedings.

• Illinois Pollution Control Board — State rulemaking and adjudicatory body for Illinois environmental regulations and disputes under the Environmental Protection Act.

• Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security — State emergency-planning, preparedness, hazardous-material, and incident-coordination resources.

• Illinois Office of the State Fire Marshal — Fire-service training, hazardous-material response, responder safety, and related public-safety resources.

Federal Class VI Permitting & Geologic Storage

• U.S. EPA — Class VI Wells Used for Geologic Sequestration — Explanation of federal Class VI requirements involving site characterization, well construction, drinking-water protection, monitoring, corrective action, financial responsibility, emergency response, closure, and post-injection care.

• U.S. EPA — Current Class VI Projects Under Review — Current information concerning Class VI permit applications undergoing direct EPA review.

• U.S. EPA — Class VI Permitting Tools — Application, technical, modeling, financial-responsibility, monitoring, and permitting resources for Class VI projects.

• U.S. EPA — Geologic Sequestration Data Tool — Public access to selected permitting and operational information concerning Class VI wells and sequestration projects.

• U.S. EPA — Underground Injection Control Program — Broader federal program governing underground injection and protection of underground sources of drinking water.

Carbon-Dioxide Pipeline Safety

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration — Federal agency responsible for safety regulation and enforcement involving covered interstate and intrastate carbon-dioxide pipelines.

• U.S. Department of Transportation — Proposed Carbon-Dioxide-Pipeline Safety Requirements — Summary of the federal proposal addressing gaseous and supercritical carbon dioxide, converted pipelines, emergency-responder training and equipment, public communications, and vapor-dispersion analysis.

• PHMSA — Pipeline Safety Regulations — Current federal regulations, proposed rules, interpretations, guidance, and related pipeline-safety materials.

• National Pipeline Mapping System — Federal mapping and public-information system for covered pipeline infrastructure. Public access may be limited for particular facilities or security-sensitive details.

Geology, Research & Project Information

• Illinois State Geological Survey — Research concerning Illinois geology, groundwater, subsurface formations, energy resources, and the Illinois Basin.

• U.S. Department of Energy — Carbon Management — Federal research, development, demonstration, funding, and policy resources concerning carbon capture, transport, utilization, removal, and storage.

• National Energy Technology Laboratory — Carbon Storage — Technical research, regional assessments, storage-resource information, project materials, and best-practice guidance.

• NETL — Carbon Capture and Storage Database — Information concerning announced, planned, operating, completed, and discontinued CCS projects. Project status should be confirmed through current regulatory and developer records.

Federal Tax Incentives & Funding

• Internal Revenue Service — Carbon Oxide Sequestration Credit — Federal information concerning the Section 45Q tax credit for qualifying carbon capture, utilization, and permanent sequestration.

• U.S. Department of Energy — Carbon Management Funding Opportunities — Current federal funding announcements, research opportunities, demonstrations, grants, and cooperative agreements.

• Congressional Research Service — Carbon Capture and Sequestration — Federal legislative and policy reports concerning CCS technology, infrastructure, tax incentives, environmental regulation, and deployment.

Related Illinois Capitol Group Policy Pages

• Illinois Energy, Utility & Electric Grid Policy — Illinois generation policy, utility regulation, grid planning, industrial energy demand, customer costs, and clean-energy implementation.

• Illinois Emergency Services Policy — Emergency planning, intergovernmental coordination, responder training, equipment, hazardous-material response, and public-safety funding.

• Illinois Infrastructure Policy & Investment — Infrastructure development, project selection, funding, permitting, and local implementation.

• Illinois Property Tax Policy — Property assessment, tax-base effects, economic-development tools, local revenue, and impacts on overlapping taxing bodies.

These resources are starting points. Current project status, applicable requirements, agency jurisdiction, and available incentives should be confirmed through the relevant statutes, regulations, permit files, dockets, and agency records.

Carbon capture is not a single technology or approval. A complete project may involve equipment at an emitting facility, compression and processing, transportation infrastructure, an industrial use or underground storage site, injection wells, monitoring systems, emergency plans, and long-term closure responsibilities. Each component presents different technical, financial, environmental, and regulatory questions.

What Is Carbon Capture?

Carbon capture separates carbon dioxide from a gas stream before the carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Potential sources include:

• Ethanol and other fermentation facilities;

• Cement, lime, steel, chemical, and fertilizer production;

• Hydrogen or ammonia production;

• Natural-gas processing;

• Electric-generating facilities; and

• Other industrial processes producing concentrated or significant carbon-dioxide emissions.

Capture systems differ according to the facility, gas stream, carbon-dioxide concentration, equipment, fuel, and production process. Common approaches include:

• Post-combustion capture, which separates carbon dioxide from exhaust after fuel is burned;

• Pre-combustion capture, which separates carbon dioxide during conversion of a fuel into hydrogen or another intermediate product;

• Oxy-fuel combustion, which uses oxygen rather than ordinary air to produce an exhaust stream with a higher carbon-dioxide concentration; and

• Process capture, which separates carbon dioxide generated directly by fermentation, chemical reactions, or industrial production rather than fuel combustion.

Carbon dioxide may also be removed directly from ambient air through direct-air-capture technology. Direct-air capture differs from point-source capture because atmospheric carbon dioxide is much more dilute than many industrial gas streams, generally requiring different equipment and greater energy input.

Capture Is Only the First Stage

After separation, the carbon dioxide generally must be dehydrated, purified, compressed, measured, and prepared for transportation or use. The appropriate specifications depend on the transportation method, pipeline requirements, injection formation, industrial use, and impurities present in the original gas stream.

A capture facility may continue producing other air pollutants or greenhouse gases even if it captures a large share of one carbon-dioxide stream. Project analysis should therefore distinguish among:

• Carbon dioxide produced by the targeted process;

• Carbon dioxide entering the capture equipment;

• The percentage successfully captured;

• Emissions created by the energy used to operate the capture system;

• Emissions from compression, transportation, and injection;

• Other pollutants emitted by the facility; and

• Upstream or downstream emissions associated with fuels, feedstocks, products, or waste.

A stated capture rate is not necessarily the same as the project’s total reduction in lifecycle greenhouse-gas emissions.

How Is Carbon Dioxide Transported?

Captured carbon dioxide may be transported by:

• Pipeline;

• Truck;

• Rail;

• Ship or barge; or

• A combination of methods.

Large, continuous projects often propose pipelines because they can transport substantial volumes over long distances. Smaller or demonstration projects may use trucks or other methods, although those alternatives can require frequent shipments and create their own traffic, loading, safety, cost, and emissions considerations.

Pipeline transportation may involve carbon dioxide in gaseous, liquid, dense, or supercritical conditions, depending on pressure, temperature, composition, and system design. These physical differences affect pipeline materials, fracture behavior, corrosion, dispersion modeling, detection, emergency planning, and federal regulatory coverage.

A release can create a low-oxygen environment because carbon dioxide can displace breathable air, particularly in low-lying or poorly ventilated areas. Carbon dioxide is colorless and odorless at ordinary concentrations, so emergency planning may require detection equipment, plume modeling, public-warning procedures, evacuation planning, responder training, and coordination with healthcare facilities and local governments.

What Is Carbon Utilization?

Carbon utilization means using captured carbon dioxide as an input to another product or industrial process. Examples may include:

• Production of chemicals, fuels, building materials, or synthetic products;

• Food, beverage, refrigeration, and greenhouse uses;

• Mineralization of carbon dioxide into concrete or other materials; and

• Enhanced oil recovery.

Utilization does not always result in permanent storage. Carbon dioxide incorporated into a durable mineral or building material may remain contained for a long period, while carbon dioxide used in a fuel, beverage, greenhouse, or short-lived product may return to the atmosphere comparatively quickly.

Claims about utilization should therefore identify:

• How much carbon dioxide is used;

• How long it remains contained;

• Whether the product would have been manufactured without captured carbon dioxide;

• What energy and other inputs the process requires;

• Whether the process displaces another source of emissions; and

• How storage or emissions reductions are measured and verified.

The term “CCUS”—carbon capture, utilization, and storage—should not be interpreted to mean that every utilization project provides the same climate benefit as verified permanent sequestration.

What Is Geologic Sequestration?

Geologic sequestration involves injecting carbon dioxide into a deep underground formation intended to contain it over the long term. Potential formations may include deep saline formations and certain depleted oil or gas reservoirs.

A proposed storage formation generally requires:

• Sufficient depth, thickness, porosity, and permeability to receive the projected volume;

• A confining layer capable of limiting upward migration;

• Evaluation of faults, fractures, seismic conditions, and nearby wells;

• Modeling of the anticipated carbon-dioxide plume and pressure front;

• Identification and correction of existing wells or other possible leakage pathways;

• Injection and monitoring wells constructed for the site’s conditions;

• Groundwater, pressure, mechanical-integrity, and plume monitoring;

• Emergency and remedial-response procedures;

• Financial resources for operation, corrective action, closure, and post-injection care; and

• A plan for plugging wells and demonstrating that the site no longer endangers underground sources of drinking water.

Several mechanisms can help retain injected carbon dioxide. It may remain physically trapped beneath a confining layer, become immobilized in small pore spaces, dissolve into formation fluids, or react with minerals over time. The relative importance and timing of these processes differ among formations and projects.

What Is a Class VI Well?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created the Class VI category for wells injecting carbon dioxide for long-term geologic sequestration. The principal purpose of the federal Underground Injection Control program is to protect underground sources of drinking water.

Class VI requirements address the entire project lifecycle, including:

• Site characterization;

• Well construction and operation;

• Delineation of the area of review;

• Plume and pressure-front modeling;

• Corrective action involving existing wells;

• Mechanical-integrity testing;

• Groundwater and geochemical monitoring;

• Tracking the injected carbon dioxide;

• Reporting and recordkeeping;

• Emergency and remedial response;

• Financial responsibility;

• Well plugging;

• Post-injection site care; and

• Final site closure.

A Class VI permit authorizes specified underground injection activity under federal drinking-water law. It does not automatically authorize capture equipment, a pipeline, land acquisition, pore-space integration, an Illinois sequestration permit, construction on local roads, or every other component of the project.

How Do CCS, Carbon Removal & Avoided Emissions Differ?

These terms describe different climate functions:

• Point-source carbon capture seeks to prevent a portion of emissions from an industrial or energy facility from reaching the atmosphere.

• Direct-air capture removes carbon dioxide already present in ambient air.

• Biological carbon removal may involve forests, soils, wetlands, or agricultural practices that increase carbon stored in ecosystems.

• Avoided emissions occur when an activity prevents emissions that otherwise would have occurred, such as replacing a higher-emitting production method.

• Geologic sequestration describes long-term underground storage and can be paired with point-source capture or direct-air capture.

Capturing fossil-derived carbon dioxide from an industrial facility may reduce that facility’s emissions without producing a net removal of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. Direct-air capture combined with verified permanent storage may qualify as carbon removal, but its net result still depends on energy sources, transportation, leakage, and lifecycle emissions.

Which Industries May Consider Carbon Capture?

The strongest technical and economic candidates often have concentrated carbon-dioxide streams or limited alternatives for eliminating process emissions. Ethanol fermentation produces a comparatively concentrated stream, while cement manufacturing releases carbon dioxide both from fuel use and from the chemical conversion of limestone.

Other industries may face greater capture costs because their exhaust contains lower carbon-dioxide concentrations, additional contaminants, variable operations, or large energy requirements.

A project should therefore be evaluated according to the particular facility rather than assuming that performance or cost demonstrated at one industry can be transferred directly to another.

How Should a Proposed Project Be Evaluated?

Important questions include:

• Which emissions source will be captured?

• What percentage of the relevant carbon-dioxide stream is expected to be captured?

• What are the project’s total lifecycle emissions?

• What energy source will operate the capture and compression equipment?

• How will the carbon dioxide be transported?

• Will it be permanently stored or used in a product?

• What impurities will be present in the transported stream?

• Which communities, landowners, water resources, roads, and emergency responders may be affected?

• What federal, state, and local approvals are required?

• Who owns or controls the necessary surface property and pore space?

• What monitoring information will be publicly available?

• Who bears construction, operating, emergency, remediation, closure, and post-closure costs?

• How long must the project operate to produce the projected environmental and financial benefits?

• What happens if the capture facility, pipeline, or storage site stops operating?

• Does the project depend on tax credits, grants, regulated customer payments, or other public support?

• Which emissions-reduction alternatives were evaluated?

Carbon capture may offer meaningful emissions reductions in appropriate applications, especially for difficult-to-decarbonize industrial processes. Its benefits and risks cannot be determined from the technology label alone. They depend on the complete project, including capture performance, energy use, transportation, geology, monitoring, financing, regulatory compliance, community effects, and long-term stewardship.

Sources & Further Reading:

• U.S. Department of Energy — Carbon Capture

• U.S. Department of Energy — Carbon Transport and Storage

• U.S. EPA — Class VI Wells Used for Geologic Sequestration

• U.S. EPA — Underground Injection Control Program

• U.S. EPA — Greenhouse-Gas Reporting for Geologic Sequestration

• National Energy Technology Laboratory — Carbon Capture

• National Energy Technology Laboratory — Carbon Storage

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

• Illinois State Geological Survey

Illinois regulates carbon capture, carbon-dioxide transportation, and geologic sequestration through a combination of state and federal laws rather than a single consolidated permit. The SAFE CCS Act established the principal Illinois framework in 2024, but it did not replace federal Class VI requirements, federal pipeline-safety regulation, other environmental permits, property-right proceedings, or lawful local responsibilities.

What Did the SAFE CCS Act Establish?

Public Act 103-0651, known as the Safety and Aid for the Environment in Carbon Capture and Sequestration Act, established requirements covering multiple stages of a CCS project.

Among other subjects, the law addresses:

• State permits for new carbon-sequestration facilities;

• Environmental and groundwater monitoring;

• Demonstration of a net reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions;

• Corrective action and remediation;

• Emergency planning and response;

• Insurance and financial assurance;

• Facility closure and post-injection monitoring;

• Carbon-dioxide-pipeline review and safety;

• First-responder training and equipment;

• Public notice, participation, reporting, and enforcement;

• Ownership and integration of underground pore space; and

• Fees and funding associated with state oversight.

The law also imposed a temporary two-year moratorium on new carbon-dioxide pipelines while federal regulators developed updated pipeline-safety standards. That temporary moratorium reached its statutory endpoint in 2026. Its expiration did not approve a pipeline or eliminate the state and federal reviews applicable to a future proposal.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency administers the state environmental-permitting framework for carbon-sequestration activities. Its responsibilities may include review of:

• The proposed sequestration facility and injection activity;

• Environmental and groundwater-monitoring plans;

• Air, water, and waste requirements affecting the capture or storage facility;

• Emergency and remedial-response plans;

• Financial assurance and insurance documentation;

• Closure and post-injection monitoring;

• Compliance reports and monitoring results; and

• Violations, corrective action, and enforcement.

A state sequestration permit operates separately from the federal Class VI permit. A project generally cannot rely on federal authorization alone when Illinois law independently requires a state permit or other state environmental approval.

Capture equipment installed at an industrial facility may also require changes to the facility’s air permits, water permits, waste-management practices, or other environmental approvals. The permits required will depend on the facility, equipment, emissions, wastewater, construction, and proposed use or disposition of the captured carbon dioxide.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources has responsibilities involving underground geology, natural resources, and integration of pore-space interests.

A storage reservoir may extend beneath numerous separately owned parcels. A developer that cannot obtain voluntary agreements from every pore-space owner may seek an integration order when the statutory requirements are satisfied. Integration is intended to permit coordinated development of a geologic storage formation while providing notice, participation, and compensation protections for affected owners.

An IDNR integration order does not:

• Replace a Class VI permit;

• Replace an Illinois EPA sequestration permit;

• Automatically authorize surface access;

• Establish a pipeline route;

• Resolve every ownership dispute; or

• Eliminate the applicant’s continuing environmental and financial responsibilities.

Geologic suitability and legal control of pore space are related but distinct questions. A formation may appear technically suitable while the applicant still lacks the property rights or agency approvals needed to use it.

Illinois Commerce Commission

The Illinois Commerce Commission reviews qualifying applications involving the construction and operation of carbon-dioxide pipelines under Illinois law. Depending on the project and asserted authority, an ICC proceeding may address:

• The proposed route;

• Project purpose and need;

• Engineering and construction plans;

• Applicant qualifications and financial capacity;

• Public convenience and necessity;

• Land acquisition and right-of-way issues;

• Safety information and emergency planning;

• Environmental and community effects within the Commission’s authority;

• Conditions attached to a certificate; and

• Compliance with applicable state and federal requirements.

An ICC certificate is not equivalent to a federal pipeline-safety approval, an Illinois EPA permit, or a Class VI permit. It also does not mean every parcel has been acquired or that construction may begin without satisfying remaining conditions and permits.

The Commission’s public docket provides filings, testimony, staff analysis, intervenor positions, hearing records, and final orders. Those records are generally more reliable indicators of current project status than a developer announcement or an older news article.

Illinois Pollution Control Board

The Illinois Pollution Control Board adopts environmental regulations and adjudicates qualifying disputes under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. Rules needed to implement the SAFE CCS Act may define or clarify permit standards, monitoring, reporting, financial assurance, closure, enforcement, and other requirements.

The Pollution Control Board and Illinois EPA perform different functions. The Board adopts rules and decides matters within its adjudicatory authority, while Illinois EPA administers permits, compliance, and enforcement responsibilities assigned to the agency.

Emergency Management & First Responders

Carbon-dioxide-pipeline and sequestration emergencies may require coordination among:

• Pipeline or facility operators;

• Local fire departments and fire protection districts;

• Emergency medical services;

• Law-enforcement agencies;

• County and municipal emergency-management agencies;

• Hospitals and public-health authorities;

• Illinois emergency-management and fire-service agencies;

• Illinois EPA and the ICC; and

• Federal pipeline or environmental regulators.

Planning may need to address detection, public warning, evacuation, sheltering, road closures, medical response, atmospheric monitoring, responder communications, incident command, and access to specialized equipment.

State-level requirements do not eliminate the need for project-specific local planning. The appropriate response may differ according to pipeline pressure, carbon-dioxide composition, terrain, weather, population density, nearby institutions, transportation routes, and available emergency resources.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administers the Class VI program under the Safe Drinking Water Act in jurisdictions where EPA directly implements the Underground Injection Control program.

Class VI review focuses on protecting underground sources of drinking water and includes:

• Geologic characterization;

• Well design and construction;

• The area of review;

• Modeling of the carbon-dioxide plume and pressure front;

• Existing wells and other potential leakage pathways;

• Operating pressures and injection conditions;

• Groundwater and geochemical monitoring;

• Mechanical-integrity testing;

• Emergency and remedial response;

• Financial responsibility;

• Well plugging;

• Post-injection site care; and

• Final site closure.

EPA’s Class VI process includes public notice and an opportunity to comment on a draft permit. Depending on the proceeding, members of the public may also request a hearing or seek administrative review of a final decision.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulates the safety of covered carbon-dioxide pipelines. Its authority includes federal standards involving pipeline design, construction, operation, maintenance, integrity management, emergency response, incident reporting, and enforcement.

PHMSA proposed expanded carbon-dioxide-pipeline regulations in January 2025. The proposal addressed gaseous carbon dioxide, supercritical or dense-phase transportation, conversion of existing pipelines, emergency-responder training and equipment, public communications, and vapor-dispersion analysis.

Federal safety standards and state siting authority serve different functions. PHMSA standards generally address safe pipeline operation, while Illinois proceedings may address whether and under what conditions a proposed route receives state authorization.

Other Federal Reviews

Depending on the project, other federal requirements may include:

• Clean Air Act permits;

• Clean Water Act permits;

• Federal environmental review connected to funding, permits, or federal land;

• Endangered-species or historic-preservation consultation;

• Federal transportation or hazardous-material requirements;

• Greenhouse-gas monitoring and reporting; and

• Conditions attached to federal grants, loans, or tax credits.

Receipt of federal financial support does not waive environmental, pipeline, property, or public-participation requirements.

Local Governments and Special Districts

Counties, municipalities, townships, fire protection districts, water authorities, road districts, school districts, and other local bodies may be affected even when they do not issue the principal sequestration or pipeline permit.

Depending on state law and the project, local responsibilities and interests may include:

• Zoning and land use;

• Building and construction approvals;

• Road-use agreements and restoration;

• Drainage and agricultural impacts;

• Water and wastewater services;

• Emergency planning and response;

• Fire and EMS staffing, equipment, and training;

• Local taxes and public-service costs;

• Public meetings and community engagement; and

• Development or community-benefit agreements.

State or federal law may preempt some local requirements. Preemption should be evaluated issue by issue rather than assuming either that local government controls the entire project or that it has no role.

No Single Approval Authorizes the Entire Project

A complete CCS development may require several separate decisions:

1. Authorization for the emitting facility and capture equipment;

2. Approval to construct or operate transportation infrastructure;

3. Property rights for the pipeline route;

4. A federal Class VI injection-well permit;

5. An Illinois sequestration permit;

6. Control or integration of necessary pore space;

7. Environmental, water, construction, and road approvals;

8. Emergency-response arrangements;

9. Financial assurance and insurance; and

10. Compliance with ongoing monitoring, reporting, and closure obligations.

These approvals may occur on different timelines and may be handled by different agencies. A project can obtain one approval while other essential applications remain pending or have not yet been filed.

Implementation Issues to Monitor

Illinois stakeholders should continue monitoring:

• Illinois EPA and Pollution Control Board implementation of the SAFE CCS Act;

• New state sequestration-permit applications;

• EPA Class VI applications, draft permits, final permits, and compliance records;

• IDNR pore-space integration proceedings;

• New or renewed ICC pipeline applications;

• Final federal pipeline-safety regulations;

• Coordination of state and federal monitoring requirements;

• Emergency-response funding, training, equipment, and exercises;

• Public availability of permit, monitoring, and enforcement information;

• Agency staffing and technical capacity;

• Effects of the sole-source-aquifer prohibition;

• Conditions attached to public funding or tax benefits; and

• Whether developers maintain the technical and financial capacity to complete, operate, monitor, close, and remediate their projects.

Effective implementation depends not only on the content of the statutes but also on agency rules, permit conditions, staffing, enforcement, public access to information, and coordination across the full project lifecycle.

Sources & Further Reading:

• Illinois General Assembly — Public Act 103-0651, SAFE CCS Act

• Illinois General Assembly — Environmental Protection Act

• Governor’s Office — SAFE CCS Act Signing and Summary

• Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

• Illinois Department of Natural Resources

• Illinois Commerce Commission — e-Docket

• Illinois Pollution Control Board

• U.S. EPA — Class VI Wells Used for Geologic Sequestration

• U.S. Department of Transportation — Proposed Carbon-Dioxide-Pipeline Safety Requirements

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Long-term geologic sequestration requires more than identifying a deep underground formation. Regulators must evaluate whether the proposed injection zone can receive and contain the projected carbon-dioxide volume without endangering underground sources of drinking water, whether wells and monitoring systems are appropriately designed, and whether the operator has the technical and financial capacity to manage the site throughout its lifecycle.

What Is a Class VI Well?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created the Class VI well category under the Safe Drinking Water Act for injection of carbon dioxide intended for long-term geologic sequestration.

Class VI requirements reflect several characteristics of carbon-dioxide storage:

• Projects may inject large volumes over many years;

• Carbon dioxide may be buoyant and mobile underground;

• Carbon dioxide combined with water can be corrosive;

• Injection creates a pressure front extending beyond the carbon-dioxide plume;

• Old wells, fractures, faults, or construction defects may create migration pathways; and

• Monitoring and corrective-action responsibilities can continue after injection ends.

Each injection well requires its own permit. A project proposing several wells may therefore have multiple related applications and permits.

Site Characterization & Geologic Suitability

Before receiving authorization to construct and operate a Class VI well, an applicant must provide information demonstrating that the proposed site is suitable for long-term storage.

The review generally addresses:

• The depth, thickness, porosity, permeability, and capacity of the injection formation;

• The composition and pressure of formation fluids;

• The strength and continuity of the confining layer;

• Faults, fractures, seismic conditions, and other geologic features;

• Existing, abandoned, or undocumented wells;

• The chemical composition of the carbon-dioxide stream;

• Anticipated injection pressure and volume;

• The projected carbon-dioxide plume;

• The associated pressure front; and

• Potential pathways to underground sources of drinking water.

A large estimated storage capacity for a regional formation does not establish that every location within that formation is suitable. Permitting requires site-specific data and modeling.

Area of Review & Corrective Action

The “area of review” generally encompasses the region in which the injected carbon-dioxide plume and associated pressure front may affect underground fluids or potential leakage pathways.

The operator must identify wells or other penetrations within that area and determine whether corrective action is needed. Older oil, gas, water, disposal, exploration, or monitoring wells can be important because incomplete records, deteriorated materials, or inadequate plugging may create pathways between formations.

The area of review is not necessarily fixed for the project’s entire life. Modeling and monitoring results may require it to be reevaluated as injection proceeds and actual plume or pressure behavior becomes better understood.

Well Construction, Operation & Monitoring

Class VI wells and associated monitoring systems must be designed for the site’s pressure, temperature, fluids, corrosion conditions, and intended operating life.

Permit requirements may address:

• Casing, cement, tubing, packers, and corrosion-resistant materials;

• Maximum injection pressure;

• Injection rate and volume;

• Mechanical-integrity testing;

• Groundwater and geochemical monitoring;

• Pressure and temperature monitoring;

• Tracking the plume and pressure front;

• Monitoring above the confining zone;

• Surface-air or soil-gas monitoring where appropriate;

• Identification of unexpected migration;

• Emergency and remedial response;

• Reporting of operating and monitoring data; and

• Procedures for temporarily stopping injection.

Monitoring serves several different purposes. It can help determine whether the injection well remains mechanically sound, whether the plume behaves as predicted, whether pressure is developing outside expected areas, and whether fluids are moving into unauthorized formations.

Closure & Post-Injection Site Care

Stopping injection does not immediately end the operator’s responsibilities. The carbon-dioxide plume and pressure front may continue changing after active injection ceases.

Post-injection responsibilities may include:

• Continued groundwater, pressure, plume, and well monitoring;

• Corrective action involving affected wells or formations;

• Maintenance of financial assurance;

• Plugging injection and monitoring wells;

• Demonstrating that the site no longer endangers underground sources of drinking water;

• Preserving records and monitoring data; and

• Obtaining regulatory approval for final site closure.

The length of post-injection monitoring depends on the governing federal permit, Illinois requirements, site conditions, and the evidence needed to demonstrate non-endangerment. A projected closure date is not necessarily the date on which regulatory responsibility terminates.

Federal and Illinois Permits Are Separate

A federal Class VI permit focuses principally on underground injection and protection of drinking-water sources. Illinois law separately requires qualifying sequestration facilities to obtain state authorization and comply with requirements involving environmental monitoring, greenhouse-gas reductions, emergency response, insurance, financial assurance, closure, reporting, and enforcement.

A project may also require:

• Air-permit modifications for capture and compression equipment;

• Water or wastewater permits;

• Pipeline authorization;

• Pore-space agreements or an integration order;

• Surface-property rights;

• Road, construction, or development approvals; and

• Emergency-service coordination.

Issuance of a Class VI permit therefore does not authorize every part of the project.

Protection of the Mahomet Aquifer

EPA designated a portion of the Mahomet Aquifer system as a sole-source aquifer in 2015. A sole-source designation generally means that the aquifer supplies at least half of the drinking water consumed in the area and that contamination would create a significant public-health hazard because reasonably available alternative sources are limited.

Illinois enacted additional protection in 2025 through Senate Bill 1723. Effective January 1, 2026, state law prohibits carbon-sequestration activity within a sequestration facility that overlies, underlies, or passes through a federally designated sole-source aquifer.

The law applies to the geographic and geologic relationship between the proposed sequestration facility and the protected aquifer. It should not be described as:

• A statewide prohibition on CCS;

• A prohibition on every industrial activity located within the broader region;

• A replacement for federal drinking-water protections; or

• A finding that every project outside the protected area is safe.

Projects outside the sole-source-aquifer prohibition remain subject to Class VI review, Illinois permitting, groundwater protections, and project-specific evaluation.

ADM’s Decatur Compliance History

ADM’s Decatur operation has provided Illinois and federal regulators with substantial experience involving commercial-scale geologic sequestration.

In 2024, EPA reported that injected carbon dioxide and brine migrated through holes in a monitoring well into an unauthorized formation approximately 5,000 feet underground. EPA alleged violations involving fluid migration and monitoring requirements. Information available to EPA did not indicate that the event threatened drinking water.

EPA issued a final administrative order in August 2025 requiring ADM to address its Class VI compliance obligations. Required actions included:

• Evaluating the cause and extent of fluid migration;

• Implementing applicable portions of the emergency and remedial-response plan;

• Identifying appropriate remedial measures;

• Determining whether nearby wells required corrective action;

• Completing corrective action where necessary;

• Providing status reports and documentation; and

• Seeking permit modifications when required.

The Decatur events illustrate several important regulatory principles:

• Monitoring wells can themselves become potential pathways requiring inspection and maintenance;

• Migration outside the authorized injection zone can constitute a permit violation even when drinking water is not affected;

• Emergency and remedial-response plans must be implemented when triggering conditions occur;

• Regulators need timely, accurate operating and monitoring information; and

• A permit does not eliminate the possibility of later enforcement, corrective action, or operational restrictions.

The events should not be generalized into a conclusion that every sequestration project will experience the same failure. They demonstrate why well integrity, monitoring design, transparent reporting, corrective action, and regulatory enforcement are essential.

Current Illinois Class VI Applications

Illinois continues to receive interest in additional Class VI projects. EPA Region 5 maintains public application materials for proposed Illinois wells, including project narratives, area-of-review models, monitoring plans, emergency-response plans, plugging plans, financial-responsibility materials, and post-injection site-care plans.

In 2026, EPA issued public notice of its intent to issue draft permits for three proposed One Earth Sequestration wells in McLean County. A draft-permit notice begins a public review process; it is not the same as a final permit, authorization to inject, completion of Illinois permitting, or construction of an operating facility.

Project status should be confirmed through EPA’s current project list and document repository because applications may be revised, withdrawn, placed on hold, approved with conditions, challenged, or denied.

Public Participation

When EPA proposes a draft Class VI permit, it generally provides:

• Public notice;

• Access to the draft permit and supporting materials;

• A minimum public-comment period;

• An opportunity to request a public hearing; and

• A response to significant comments before a final decision.

Useful public comments connect community concerns to the applicable permit standards and available evidence. Relevant subjects may include:

• Accuracy of geologic assumptions and modeling;

• Location and condition of existing wells;

• Drinking-water sources and groundwater-monitoring locations;

• The proposed area of review;

• Emergency and remedial-response procedures;

• Financial assurance;

• Environmental-justice and cumulative-impact concerns;

• Accessibility of technical materials;

• Requested permit conditions; and

• Plans for publishing monitoring and compliance information.

Community engagement before a formal draft permit can also help identify local water supplies, private wells, emergency-service limitations, land-use concerns, and historical information not readily apparent from regional datasets.

Questions to Ask About a Proposed Storage Site

Stakeholders evaluating a proposed sequestration facility should ask:

• Which geologic formation will receive the carbon dioxide?

• How far below drinking-water sources is the injection zone?

• What confining layers separate the formations?

• How were faults, fractures, and seismic risks evaluated?

• Which existing or abandoned wells lie within the projected area of review?

• How will the plume and pressure front be modeled and monitored?

• What happens if actual behavior differs from the model?

• Which monitoring wells are required, and how will their integrity be tested?

• What conditions require injection to stop?

• Who receives emergency and compliance notifications?

• Which monitoring data will be publicly accessible?

• What financial resources are available for corrective action and long-term care?

• How long will monitoring continue after injection ends?

• What evidence must be provided before final site closure?

• Does the project overlap a protected sole-source aquifer?

• Which federal, Illinois, and local approvals remain pending?

Class VI permitting is a continuing lifecycle process, not a one-time prediction that underground conditions will remain unchanged. Effective protection depends on careful site selection, appropriate construction, reliable monitoring, transparent reporting, timely corrective action, financial capacity, and regulatory oversight throughout operation and post-injection care.

Sources & Further Reading:

• U.S. EPA — Class VI Wells Used for Geologic Sequestration

• U.S. EPA — Current Class VI Projects Under Review

• U.S. EPA — Class VI Permit Applications in Region 5

• U.S. EPA — Class VI Data Repository

• U.S. EPA — Mahomet Sole Source Aquifer

• Illinois General Assembly — Senate Bill 1723, Sole-Source-Aquifer Protection

• U.S. EPA — Final Order Concerning ADM’s Decatur Sequestration Well

• U.S. EPA — One Earth Sequestration Draft-Permit Public Notice

• Illinois General Assembly — Public Act 103-0651, SAFE CCS Act

Carbon-dioxide pipelines connect capture facilities with utilization sites or underground injection wells. Although they may resemble other pipelines, their operating conditions, potential release behavior, regulatory structure, and emergency-response needs require specialized analysis. Pipeline approval is also separate from approval of the capture facility and the Class VI injection wells used for geologic sequestration.

How Carbon Dioxide Is Transported

Carbon dioxide may be transported as a gas or in a compressed, dense-phase state, depending on pressure, temperature, composition, and pipeline design. Water and other impurities in the transported stream can affect corrosion, phase behavior, material selection, and pipeline integrity.

A sudden pressure loss may cause rapid cooling, formation of dry ice, and propagation of a pipeline fracture. Project review therefore includes more than the pipe’s proposed location. Relevant considerations include the composition of the carbon-dioxide stream, operating pressure, pipeline materials, valves, monitoring systems, maintenance practices, and procedures for detecting and isolating a release.

Public-Safety and Health Considerations

Carbon dioxide is colorless, odorless, and nonflammable. It nevertheless can create a serious hazard when released in high concentrations because it displaces oxygen and can cause disorientation, unconsciousness, or death.

Depending on weather, terrain, release conditions, and the material’s temperature and pressure, a carbon-dioxide plume may travel along the ground or accumulate in low-lying areas. Reduced oxygen also can affect vehicle engines and emergency equipment. These characteristics make site-specific dispersion modeling, detection equipment, public notification, responder preparation, and evacuation planning important parts of pipeline-safety review.

The consequences of a release cannot be determined from distance alone. Reviews should consider topography, atmospheric conditions, nearby buildings and populations, access routes, and the ability of residents and responders to receive warnings and leave or avoid an affected area.

Federal and Illinois Regulatory Roles

The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, administers federal pipeline-safety standards addressing matters such as design, construction, operation, maintenance, integrity management, inspections, and incident reporting. PHMSA proposed broader carbon-dioxide pipeline standards in 2025, including requirements addressing gaseous carbon dioxide, emergency-response planning, public communication, dispersion analysis, and converted pipelines. Interested parties should confirm the status and effective dates of any final federal requirements when evaluating a project.

In Illinois, a proposed carbon-dioxide pipeline also may require review by the Illinois Commerce Commission under the Carbon Dioxide Transportation and Sequestration Act. Depending on the application, the Commission may consider the proposed route, public convenience and necessity, the applicant’s qualifications, safety, environmental impacts, landowner interests, and the project’s claimed public benefits.

Other agencies and units of government may have responsibilities involving environmental permits, roads and crossings, emergency management, fire protection, worker safety, construction, or related infrastructure. Approval from one regulator does not replace the other authorizations a project may require.

The Temporary Illinois Moratorium Has Ended—but No Pipeline Was Automatically Approved

The SAFE CCS Act imposed a temporary restriction on approval and construction of new carbon-dioxide pipelines while federal safety standards were under development. That temporary restriction reached its statutory endpoint in 2026.

Expiration of the restriction did not approve a route, authorize construction, or grant eminent-domain authority to any company. It instead removed a temporary procedural barrier. Any new or renewed proposal must still proceed through the applicable federal, state, and local processes.

Prior Illinois proposals that were withdrawn or canceled should not be treated as pending projects unless their sponsors submit new applications. Current project status can be checked through the Illinois Commerce Commission’s public docket system.

Pipeline Siting and Route Evaluation

Route selection can determine which communities, landowners, institutions, environmental resources, and emergency responders would bear a project’s effects. Relevant considerations may include:

• Population density and proximity to homes, schools, hospitals, nursing facilities, businesses, and public gathering places;

• Low-lying terrain, valleys, drainage patterns, waterways, and other conditions that could influence plume movement;

• Drinking-water resources, wetlands, wildlife habitat, agricultural land, and environmental-justice communities;

• Road, railroad, utility, and waterway crossings;

• Access for inspections, maintenance, emergency response, and evacuation;

• Alternative routes and opportunities to use existing infrastructure corridors;

• Isolation-valve placement and the amount of material that could escape before a pipeline segment is shut down;

• Coordination with county, municipal, fire-protection-district, emergency-management, and public-health officials; and

• Cumulative impacts where multiple capture facilities, pipelines, compressor stations, or injection wells are proposed in the same region.

The extent of local authority can vary by subject and by the governing statute. Local governments and emergency-service agencies therefore should identify early which land-use, road, building, emergency-planning, and intergovernmental powers remain available for a particular proposal.

Emergency Preparedness and Community Notification

A pipeline emergency plan should be tailored to the proposed route and supported by current dispersion modeling. Planning should address credible release scenarios rather than relying only on a general statewide or corporate response manual.

Important elements may include:

• Continuous monitoring and procedures for promptly identifying a release;

• Automatic and manual shutdown systems and remotely operated isolation valves;

• Direct notification of 911 centers, local emergency managers, fire departments, fire protection districts, law-enforcement agencies, hospitals, schools, and other affected facilities;

• Public-warning systems that do not depend on a person seeing or smelling the release;

• Clearly defined evacuation and sheltering procedures;

• Carbon-dioxide and oxygen-detection meters, respiratory protection, communications equipment, and other responder resources;

• Training concerning plume behavior, safe approach routes, rescue limitations, incident command, and medical effects;

• Mutual-aid arrangements and coordination across jurisdictional boundaries;

• Public education for residents, businesses, schools, health-care facilities, and agricultural operations near the route;

• Exercises conducted before operation and periodically thereafter; and

• Sustainable operator funding for training, equipment, planning, and response costs imposed on local agencies.

Illinois law includes emergency-planning, training, and financial-support provisions for affected emergency responders. Their effectiveness will depend on timely coordination, adequate funding, transparent information, and project-specific implementation.

Landowner Agreements and Eminent Domain

Pipeline development often begins with surveys and negotiations for voluntary easements. A regulatory certificate does not itself mean that every necessary property interest has been acquired.

If a developer seeks eminent-domain authority, the applicable statutory requirements and the scope of the Illinois Commerce Commission’s order become especially important. Landowners may need to evaluate compensation, construction access, drainage restoration, crop losses, maintenance obligations, insurance, abandonment, future land use, and responsibility for property damage.

Pipeline easements also should be distinguished from ownership or leasing of underground pore space for carbon storage. Those property interests raise different legal and operational questions and should be documented separately.

Application, Approval and Construction Are Different Stages

Public announcements, preliminary surveys, requests for landowner access, and regulatory filings do not necessarily mean that a pipeline has been approved. Similarly, receipt of one permit does not establish that all approvals have been obtained.

When reviewing a proposed project, stakeholders should determine:

1. Whether an application has actually been filed;

2. Which state and federal agencies have jurisdiction;

3. Whether the proposed capture facilities and sequestration wells have separate applications;

4. What public-comment, hearing, and intervention opportunities are available;

5. Whether the route or project design has changed;

6. Which permits or certificates remain outstanding;

7. Whether easements have been obtained; and

8. Whether construction and operating conditions have been satisfied.

Policy Issues to Monitor

Illinois carbon-dioxide pipeline policy will continue to develop as federal standards, state implementation, and individual project proposals evolve. Issues to monitor include:

• Final federal standards and their treatment of gaseous and dense-phase carbon dioxide;

• Pipeline-material, impurity, fracture-control, valve, and dispersion-modeling requirements;

• Illinois Commerce Commission procedures for reviewing new applications;

• Transparency of plume modeling, emergency plans, and incident information;

• Funding and equipment for local emergency responders;

• Landowner protections, easement terms, eminent domain, and restoration obligations;

• Coordination among pipeline, capture-facility, and Class VI well approvals;

• Environmental-justice and cumulative-impact analysis; and

• Financial responsibility for accidents, closure, abandonment, and long-term site obligations.

Sources & Further Reading:

• Illinois SAFE CCS Act—Public Act 103-0651

• Illinois Commerce Commission—Docket Search

• Illinois Commerce Commission—Pipeline Safety

• U.S. Department of Transportation—2025 Proposed Carbon-Dioxide Pipeline Safety Rule

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

• PHMSA—Pipeline Regulations

• PHMSA—National Pipeline Mapping System

• Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security

• Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal

• Illinois Capitol Group—Emergency Services Policy

• Illinois Capitol Group—Infrastructure Policy

Carbon sequestration can affect several different property interests: the surface of the land, underground pore space, mineral rights, pipeline easements, access rights, and locations needed for injection or monitoring wells. These interests should not be treated as interchangeable. A landowner who signs a pipeline easement, for example, has not necessarily agreed to the use of underground pore space for permanent carbon storage.

Illinois’ SAFE CCS framework establishes rules for identifying pore-space owners, negotiating storage rights, integrating multiple ownership interests, compensating nonconsenting owners, and protecting landowners whose property overlies a sequestration facility.

What Is Pore Space?

Pore space consists of the small openings within underground rock formations into which compressed carbon dioxide may be injected. A sequestration reservoir generally extends beneath multiple surface parcels, and the injected carbon dioxide and associated pressure effects may spread beyond the immediate location of an injection well.

Illinois law generally associates ownership of sequestration pore space with the ownership of the overlying surface estate. Ownership questions can nevertheless become complicated when deeds, trusts, estates, severed mineral interests, easements, mortgages, or other recorded interests affect the property.

Before entering an agreement, a property owner should understand whether the document covers:

• Pipeline construction or operation;

• Underground carbon-dioxide storage;

• Injection or monitoring wells;

• Surface access for testing, monitoring, maintenance, or emergency response;

• Restrictions on future development or other uses of the property;

• Compensation during construction, injection, monitoring, and closure;

• Assignment of the agreement to another operator; and

• Obligations that continue after the property is sold.

Voluntary Pore-Space Agreements

A sequestration operator may negotiate voluntary agreements with individual pore-space owners. These agreements can address payment, access, monitoring, surface use, restoration, indemnification, insurance, assignment, duration, and the rights and obligations of future owners.

Compensation structures may include signing payments, payments tied to acreage, payments during injection or operation, and compensation for particular surface activities. Because agreements may differ substantially, the stated payment amount should not be considered without examining the rights conveyed, the duration of those rights, restrictions on the property, and the allocation of future risks.

Landowners also should distinguish compensation for pore-space use from compensation for:

• A pipeline easement;

• Damage to crops, drainage, soil, structures, or improvements;

• Access for surveys or monitoring;

• Placement of injection or monitoring wells;

• Temporary construction activity; and

• Long-term limitations on land use.

Integration and Unitization of Pore Space

A sequestration reservoir may not correspond neatly with surface-property boundaries. Illinois law therefore permits multiple pore-space owners to combine, or integrate, their interests voluntarily.

If every owner does not agree, a sequestration operator may petition the Illinois Department of Natural Resources for an order integrating and unitizing the proposed storage area. Unitization allows the reservoir to be regulated and operated as one sequestration facility rather than as a collection of separate underground parcels.

An operator seeking compulsory integration must first obtain rights from owners representing at least 75% of the surface area above the proposed sequestration facility. The petition must identify the affected parcels and owners, distinguish consenting and nonconsenting owners, describe efforts to locate and negotiate with each owner, explain the proposed operations, and describe how owners will be compensated.

Reaching the 75% threshold does not itself authorize injection. The operator still must satisfy the remaining state and federal permitting requirements.

Notice, Public Hearing and Agency Review

Before issuing a unitization order, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources must provide public notice and hold a public hearing. Interested persons may present testimony and comments concerning the proposed integration.

The Department must consider whether the operator:

• Obtained the required percentage of pore-space rights;

• Made good-faith efforts to negotiate with all affected owners;

• Properly identified consenting, nonconsenting, unknown, and nonlocatable owners;

• Proposed an appropriate method for allocating storage capacity and compensation; and

• Satisfied the statutory prerequisites related to the federal Class VI process.

An integration order does not become effective until the operator has received both a federal Class VI well permit and the required Illinois carbon-sequestration permit.

Rights of Nonconsenting Pore-Space Owners

A landowner’s refusal to sign a voluntary agreement does not necessarily prevent inclusion of the owner’s pore space in an approved unitized facility. However, Illinois law requires just compensation for nonconsenting owners whose pore space is included.

Beginning January 1, 2026, Illinois law more specifically provides that a nonconsenting owner’s compensation must be no less than the average total payment package provided to similarly situated consenting owners for the same project. The comparison includes qualifying operational or injection-term payments but excludes certain pre-injection incentives, such as signing bonuses.

In deciding whether owners are similarly situated, the Department of Natural Resources may consider:

• The size, location, and proximity of the pore space;

• Its geologic characteristics;

• Restrictions imposed on surface use;

• The existing use of the surface;

• The proximity of surface infrastructure;

• Effects on known mineral rights;

• Title defects or warranties; and

• The fair market value of the pore space.

The operator must request a separate compensation determination for each nonconsenting owner. Both the operator and the property owner may present evidence, and the operator bears the burden of proving that its proposed compensation complies with the law. The Department’s final decision is subject to judicial review.

Unknown and Nonlocatable Owners

A proposed sequestration area may include property for which ownership is unclear or an owner cannot be located. Illinois law requires additional notice efforts, including publication and notice to the owner’s last known address when available.

Compensation attributable to unknown or nonlocatable owners must be placed in a separate escrow account for 20 years. If the owner is not located during that period, the funds are transferred to the State Treasurer under Illinois’ unclaimed-property law.

These provisions make accurate title research important to both operators and affected families, particularly where property has passed through multiple generations or probate proceedings.

Migration Beyond the Approved Storage Area

Monitoring may later show that stored carbon dioxide has migrated into pore space not included in the original application or unitization order. When that occurs, the operator must notify the affected owner of the migration and the opportunity to petition the Department of Natural Resources for inclusion in the integrated area.

If the Department determines that stored carbon dioxide is physically present beneath the property, a nonconsenting owner may become entitled to just compensation. This process is separate from regulatory action that may be required if migration violates a permit, threatens drinking water, or indicates that the project is not operating as approved.

Additional Statutory Landowner Protections

The SAFE CCS Act includes several protections for owners whose property overlies a sequestration facility:

• Injection wells and deep monitoring wells must comply with applicable setback requirements;

• Before injection begins, the operator must notify overlying property owners that they may request a functioning carbon-dioxide monitor;

• The operator must provide a requested monitor within the statutory period;

• If a significant surface leak occurs, affected landowners are entitled to operator-funded medical monitoring of a scope and duration determined by the Illinois Department of Public Health; and

• If required monitoring indicates that a drinking-water source has become unsafe, the operator must provide alternative water supplies within the timeframes established by law.

These rights supplement—but do not necessarily replace—rights available under permits, contracts, property law, environmental law, or other applicable statutes.

Surface Damage and Agricultural Property

Pipeline construction, well installation, monitoring, and related access may disturb agricultural land even when underground storage does not interfere with ordinary surface use.

Effective January 1, 2026, Illinois law more expressly addresses compensation for certain pipeline-related surface damage, including damage to crops, trees, fences, roads, structures, livestock, soil productivity, conservation practices, and surface or subsurface drainage. It also requires compliance with applicable agricultural-impact mitigation agreements.

Property-specific agreements should address matters such as:

• Topsoil separation and replacement;

• Soil compaction and rutting;

• Drainage-tile identification, repair, and later-discovered damage;

• Crop losses and interruption of farming operations;

• Weed and erosion control;

• Access roads and construction staging;

• Restoration standards and inspection;

• Responsibility for future subsidence or damage; and

• Procedures and deadlines for submitting claims.

Questions for Landowners and Local Governments

Before relying on a proposed agreement or project description, affected stakeholders may wish to determine:

• Which property interests the operator is seeking;

• Whether the request concerns a pipeline, pore space, surface access, wells, monitoring, or several of these;

• The proposed duration of the agreement and whether it binds future owners;

• How compensation is calculated and when it is paid;

• Which surface activities and land-use restrictions are permitted;

• How migration outside the anticipated area will be detected and addressed;

• Who is responsible for crop, drainage, soil, water, or structural damage;

• What insurance and financial assurance support the operator’s promises;

• Whether the agreement may be assigned to another company;

• What happens if the operator becomes insolvent or abandons the project; and

• Which disputes are subject to agency proceedings, court review, arbitration, or contractual remedies.

Because pore-space agreements can create long-duration property obligations, owners should evaluate the entire document and its interaction with current law rather than focusing only on the initial payment.

Sources & Further Reading:

• Illinois SAFE CCS Act—Public Act 103-0651

• Illinois Safety and Aid for the Environment in Carbon Capture and Sequestration Act

• Public Act 104-0390—2026 Landowner-Compensation and Unitization Amendments

• 415 ILCS 185/15—Integration and Unitization of Ownership Interests

• 415 ILCS 185/30—Additional Landowner Rights

• Illinois Carbon Dioxide Transportation and Sequestration Act

• Illinois EPA—SAFE CCS Act and Carbon-Sequestration Permitting

• U.S. EPA—Class VI Wells Used for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

Permanent geologic sequestration creates obligations that can continue long after carbon-dioxide injection ends. A complete project plan therefore must address not only construction and operation, but also well plugging, post-injection monitoring, corrective action, emergency response, facility closure, financial assurance, insurance, and responsibility for future harm.

Illinois’ SAFE CCS framework supplements the federal Class VI program and generally keeps responsibility with the sequestration operator rather than transferring project liability to the State when injection stops or a facility receives closure certification.

The Carbon-Sequestration Project Lifecycle

A sequestration facility may move through several regulatory phases:

1. Site characterization and permit review;

2. Construction and testing;

3. Carbon-dioxide injection;

4. Post-injection site care and monitoring;

5. Well plugging and site closure; and

6. Continuing responsibility for liabilities that survive closure.

Stopping injection is not the same as closing the facility. After injection ends, the operator must continue monitoring the carbon-dioxide plume and underground pressure front, maintain required financial protections, address any migration or leakage, and demonstrate that the site no longer presents an unacceptable risk to underground sources of drinking water, public health, or the environment.

Federal Post-Injection Site Care

The federal Class VI program requires an owner or operator to conduct post-injection site care and monitoring after injection ends. Federal regulations generally use a 50-year default post-injection monitoring period, although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may approve a different period when site-specific information demonstrates that another timeframe is appropriate.

Monitoring may include:

• Tracking the location of the carbon-dioxide plume and pressure front;

• Testing groundwater and monitoring wells;

• Evaluating whether abandoned or improperly constructed wells could provide migration pathways;

• Detecting movement outside the permitted area;

• Updating computational models with actual operating and monitoring data;

• Maintaining records and submitting reports; and

• Conducting corrective or emergency action when required.

Federal site closure requires an operator to demonstrate that the injected carbon dioxide no longer poses an endangerment to underground sources of drinking water. Injection and monitoring wells must then be plugged or otherwise closed in accordance with approved plans.

Illinois Monitoring and Closure Requirements

Illinois establishes an additional state closure process. Under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, post-injection site care must continue for no less than 30 years after the final injection and until the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency certifies the sequestration facility as closed.

The operator must continue to demonstrate the position of the carbon-dioxide plume and pressure front and show that the facility does not endanger groundwater, human health, or the environment. Air and soil-gas monitoring required by the state permit also must continue until Illinois EPA issues its closure certification.

To obtain state certification, the operator must provide:

• A federal closure certification issued under the Class VI program; and

• Location-specific monitoring data demonstrating that additional air or soil-gas monitoring is not necessary to protect groundwater, human health, or the environment.

The federal and Illinois processes therefore overlap but are not identical. Federal closure does not automatically produce state closure, and an operator must satisfy both sets of requirements.

Closure Does Not Eliminate Liability

Illinois law expressly states that certification of closure does not relieve an operator of liabilities arising from the sequestration activity or facility.

This distinction is important. Closure certification means that the regulatory requirements for active post-injection monitoring and site care have been satisfied. It does not necessarily extinguish responsibility for:

• A later-discovered release or migration;

• Contamination of groundwater;

• Personal injury or property damage;

• Damage caused by injection, monitoring, or related equipment;

• Breach of a landowner agreement;

• Failure to disclose or address a known condition;

• Improper well plugging or abandonment; or

• Other obligations preserved by state, federal, or contractual law.

The State of Illinois does not assume liability merely because it issued a permit, supervised closure, or certified the facility as closed.

Operator Liability and Ownership of Stored Carbon Dioxide

Illinois law places title to sequestered carbon dioxide with the operator of the sequestration facility. The stored carbon dioxide is treated as property separate from the underground pore space.

The operator is liable for damage that may result from equipment associated with sequestration, including equipment that transfers carbon dioxide from a pipeline to an injection well. When another party also caused or contributed to the harm, liability may be joint and several as provided by law.

Illinois also limits certain subsurface-trespass claims against a facility operating under valid federal and state permits. A claim may proceed when the claimant demonstrates that injection or migration substantially interfered with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property or caused wrongful death or direct physical injury to a person, animal, or tangible property.

These provisions do not convert a permit into immunity from all claims. Compliance with permits, causation, the nature of the injury, contractual terms, and other applicable laws may remain significant in an individual dispute.

Required Financial Assurance

Before and during operation, a sequestration owner or operator must maintain financial assurance at least equal to the project’s approved cost estimate. Financial assurance is intended to ensure that resources are available to perform required work even if the operator experiences financial difficulty.

Illinois allows one or a combination of the following mechanisms:

• A fully funded trust fund;

• A surety bond guaranteeing payment;

• A surety bond guaranteeing performance; or

• An irrevocable letter of credit.

The Illinois EPA must be identified as the sole beneficiary of the state financial-assurance mechanism. The Agency may pursue enforcement of the financial instrument if funds are needed to complete required activities.

The cost estimate should be reviewed as the project changes. A financial-assurance amount based on outdated assumptions may not reflect the actual expense of responding to a release, plugging wells, monitoring a large pressure front, providing replacement water, restoring property, or managing a facility after operator default.

Federal Class VI permits also require financial responsibility for activities such as corrective action, injection-well plugging, post-injection site care, site closure, and emergency or remedial response. A qualifying federal mechanism may satisfy part of the Illinois requirement when it also complies with state law, but the two regulatory programs should not be assumed to have identical scope.

Insurance Requirements

Illinois separately requires at least $25 million in insurance covering wrongful death, bodily injury, property damage, and public or private losses associated with a release from the sequestration facility.

The insurer must meet the statutory financial-rating requirement. Coverage must remain in place:

• During carbon-dioxide injection;

• Throughout the post-injection period; and

• Until the Illinois EPA certifies the facility as closed.

The policy also must permit assignment to a successor owner or operator, subject to the statutory conditions.

Insurance and financial assurance serve different purposes. Insurance generally addresses covered losses and claims, while financial assurance reserves resources for specified regulatory duties. Neither should be treated as a complete substitute for the other.

Operator Transfers, Corporate Changes and Insolvency

Carbon-sequestration facilities may operate for decades and may be transferred among corporate entities. Project review should therefore consider more than the financial condition of the original developer.

Relevant questions include:

• Whether a permit or property agreement can be transferred;

• What regulatory approval is required for a successor operator;

• Whether financial assurance and insurance remain effective after a transfer;

• Whether parent companies or affiliates provide guarantees;

• How liabilities are allocated in a merger, sale, or bankruptcy;

• Whether the operating entity holds sufficient independent assets;

• Whether landowners and local governments receive notice of a transfer; and

• Who performs monitoring or corrective action if the operator dissolves or abandons the site.

An assignment clause in a private contract does not itself determine whether a regulator will approve transfer of a permit or release the original operator from its obligations.

The Environmental Disaster and Remediation Fund

The 2024 SAFE CCS Act originally directed part of the state’s per-ton sequestration fees to a Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Long-Term Trust Fund. Public Act 104-0466 changed that structure beginning July 1, 2026.

The remaining balance, future deposits, and outstanding obligations of the former long-term trust fund were transferred to the Environmental Disaster and Remediation Fund. A portion of carbon-sequestration fee revenue is now directed to that fund.

The transferred authority may support costs associated with:

• Remedial or corrective action necessary to protect human health and the environment;

• Monitoring, inspection, or other action if an operator abandons a facility or fails to perform its obligations;

• Compensation for otherwise uncompensated damage or loss caused by a release; and

• Other eligible costs authorized by law.

This public backstop does not relieve an operator of its statutory obligations, liability, insurance requirements, or financial-assurance duties. It is intended to provide an additional means of responding when immediate protection or remediation is necessary—not to socialize ordinary project costs or grant the operator a release from responsibility.

Annual Sequestration Fees and State Oversight

Illinois imposes a fee based on the amount of carbon dioxide injected. Fee revenue supports state regulation and oversight and is distributed among funds addressing groundwater protection, emergency planning and training, oil and gas resource management, environmental remediation, environmental-justice projects, and general state purposes.

The existence of a fee-supported fund does not guarantee that sufficient resources will be available for every possible long-term event. Policymakers may need to periodically evaluate:

• Whether fee amounts reflect the actual scale and risk of sequestration activity;

• Whether financial-assurance cost estimates remain current;

• Whether inflation adjustments are adequate;

• Whether sufficient resources remain available decades after injection;

• Whether expenditures are transparent;

• Whether responsible operators reimburse the State for public expenditures; and

• Whether communities and landowners can obtain timely assistance after a release.

Questions for Project and Permit Review

Stakeholders evaluating a proposed facility may wish to ask:

• What activities and time periods are included in the project’s cost estimate?

• How often will the estimate and financial-assurance amount be updated?

• Which financial instruments will be used, and who issued them?

• Does the assurance cover corrective action, plugging, post-injection care, emergency response, replacement water, and site closure?

• What insurance exclusions, deductibles, limits, and aggregate caps apply?

• How are gradual migration and later-discovered damage treated?

• What happens if the operator or its parent company becomes insolvent?

• Can the project be transferred without landowner or local-government notice?

• Which obligations continue after federal and state closure?

• How will public expenditures be recovered from the responsible operator?

• What monitoring records will remain publicly accessible after closure?

• Who will respond if a problem emerges decades after injection ends?

Financial assurance should be evaluated as part of the project’s engineering and risk structure, not merely as a permit-application formality.

Sources & Further Reading:

• Illinois SAFE CCS Act—Public Act 103-0651

• Illinois EPA—SAFE CCS Act and Carbon-Sequestration Permitting

• 415 ILCS 5/59.9—Facility Closure

• 415 ILCS 5/59.10—Financial Assurance

• 415 ILCS 5/59.11—Insurance

• 415 ILCS 5/59.12—Liability and Ownership of Sequestered Carbon Dioxide

• 415 ILCS 5/59.13—Environmental Remediation Funding

• 415 ILCS 5/59.17—Annual Sequestration Fee

• Public Act 104-0466—2026 Fund Amendments

• U.S. EPA—Class VI Wells Used for Geologic Sequestration

• U.S. EPA—Class VI Well Plugging, Post-Injection Site Care and Closure Guidance

• U.S. EPA—Financial Responsibility for Underground Injection Wells

Carbon-capture projects depend on more than geological suitability and regulatory approval. Their viability also depends on capture costs, energy use, transportation and storage expenses, federal incentives, access to capital, long-term contractual arrangements, and the allocation of financial risk among developers, taxpayers, utility customers, host communities, and landowners.

The economic analysis should cover the complete capture, transportation, injection, monitoring, and closure system. A capture facility may be technically successful but financially unworkable if the associated pipeline, storage site, or long-term liability arrangements are incomplete.

Different Facilities Have Different Capture Costs

The cost and complexity of carbon capture vary considerably by source. Some industrial processes produce relatively concentrated carbon-dioxide streams that may require less separation before compression and transportation. Ethanol production is frequently cited as an example.

Capturing carbon dioxide from power plants, cement plants, steel production, or other industrial processes may require more complex equipment and greater energy input. Project economics can be affected by:

• The concentration and composition of the carbon-dioxide stream;

• The percentage of emissions the equipment is designed to capture;

• Whether the facility is new or must be retrofitted;

• The remaining useful life of the underlying industrial facility;

• Energy needed to operate the capture and compression systems;

• Water use and cooling requirements;

• Pipeline distance and transportation charges;

• Injection and monitoring costs;

• Federal tax-credit eligibility;

• Financing costs and construction delays;

• Required insurance and financial assurance; and

• Long-term monitoring, corrective-action, and closure obligations.

A project’s announced capture capacity should be distinguished from its actual annual performance. Equipment availability, plant operations, maintenance, energy requirements, and market conditions can affect how much carbon dioxide is ultimately captured and stored.

The Federal Section 45Q Tax Credit

Section 45Q of the Internal Revenue Code provides a federal tax credit for qualified carbon oxide captured using eligible equipment and then securely stored, used in a qualifying enhanced-recovery project, or utilized in an approved manner.

For newer qualifying projects, the federal credit generally provides base amounts per metric ton that are multiplied by five when applicable prevailing-wage and registered-apprenticeship requirements are satisfied. Based on current Internal Revenue Service guidance, the resulting maximum amounts generally include:

• $85 per metric ton for qualified carbon oxide captured from an industrial or power facility and placed in secure geologic storage;

• $60 per metric ton for qualified carbon oxide from those facilities that is used in qualifying enhanced recovery or another qualifying utilization process; and

• As much as $180 per metric ton for qualifying direct-air-capture projects.

The applicable amount depends on the type of facility, use or disposition of the carbon dioxide, placed-in-service rules, labor requirements, and other federal conditions.

The credit generally may be claimed for 12 years after qualifying carbon-capture equipment is placed in service. Current federal law also permits eligible taxpayers to transfer credits to an unrelated taxpayer for cash, while certain qualifying entities may use elective payment, commonly called direct pay.

A project announcement that references Section 45Q does not establish that every anticipated ton will generate a credit. The project must satisfy eligibility, measurement, reporting, secure-storage, labor, and other requirements. Changes in construction schedules, capture performance, ownership, tax law, or federal guidance can materially affect projected revenue.

Federal Grants, Loans and Demonstration Funding

Federal carbon-management programs have supported research, engineering studies, pilot projects, commercial demonstrations, transportation infrastructure, and storage-site development. These programs may provide grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or cost sharing in addition to Section 45Q.

Public support can help demonstrate emerging technology or reduce first-of-a-kind costs. It also raises questions about:

• The amount and form of public assistance;

• Required private matching funds;

• Performance milestones and repayment provisions;

• Whether assistance supports preliminary study or full construction;

• Treatment of cost overruns;

• Community-benefit commitments;

• Disclosure of project results;

• Ownership of publicly funded infrastructure; and

• Consequences if the project is canceled or fails to meet performance targets.

An announced award may be conditional and divided into phases. Stakeholders should distinguish selection for negotiations from a finalized award and distinguish an initial planning award from authorization of the entire project.

Illinois Incentives and Project Costs

Illinois’ SAFE CCS Act primarily establishes environmental, safety, landowner, and financial-responsibility requirements rather than guaranteeing state financial support for individual projects.

A developer may seek generally available economic-development incentives, infrastructure assistance, workforce funding, or local tax arrangements. Eligibility depends on the particular program and project. Regulatory approval for carbon capture or sequestration does not itself entitle the developer to an incentive.

Illinois also imposes project costs intended to support oversight and community protection. These include permit-application fees, financial assurance, insurance, and annual fees based on the amount of carbon dioxide injected. Annual sequestration-fee revenue supports regulatory administration, groundwater protection, emergency planning, environmental remediation, environmental-justice initiatives, and other state purposes.

The state per-ton fee differs depending on whether the sequestration operator has a qualifying project labor agreement. Federal prevailing-wage and apprenticeship standards separately affect the value of the Section 45Q credit.

Who Bears the Project’s Financial Risk?

The answer depends on the project’s ownership and contracts.

A privately financed industrial project may place substantial risk on its owners, lenders, tax-equity participants, insurers, and contractual counterparties. Other projects may seek public grants, state or local incentives, regulated utility cost recovery, public infrastructure, or long-term commitments from customers.

For each proposal, stakeholders should identify:

• Who pays the initial capital cost;

• Who pays if construction exceeds the budget;

• Who bears the risk of lower-than-expected capture performance;

• Whether pipeline and storage costs are fixed or subject to escalation;

• Whether customers or utility ratepayers are expected to reimburse expenses;

• Whether public funds must be repaid if the project is canceled;

• Who bears the cost of corrective action or premature closure;

• Whether the operator’s liability is supported by a financially strong parent company; and

• Whether long-term obligations remain funded if the original facility closes.

No general carbon-capture approval automatically authorizes recovery of project costs from Illinois utility customers. A regulated utility seeking cost recovery would need to rely on applicable statutes and obtain the necessary approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission.

Energy Use, Capture Rates and Net Emissions

Carbon-capture equipment consumes energy. This “energy penalty” may increase fuel use or reduce the useful output of a power or industrial facility. Compression, pipeline operation, injection, and monitoring also require energy.

A complete emissions assessment therefore should distinguish among:

• The equipment’s designed capture rate;

• The percentage captured while the equipment is operating;

• Annual capture after accounting for outages and maintenance;

• Emissions from additional energy consumption;

• Upstream emissions associated with fuel production and transportation;

• Pipeline and storage-system emissions;

• Permanence of underground storage; and

• The project’s net lifecycle greenhouse-gas reduction.

Capturing a high percentage of carbon dioxide from one emission point does not necessarily mean that the same percentage of the facility’s total lifecycle emissions has been eliminated.

Local Employment and Economic Development

A carbon-capture, pipeline, or sequestration project may create construction employment, demand for skilled trades, engineering work, purchases from local vendors, landowner payments, and a smaller number of continuing operating and monitoring positions.

The scale and duration of those benefits should be independently evaluated. Temporary construction jobs should be distinguished from permanent employment, and statewide or regional estimates should not be presented as jobs located entirely within one host community.

Useful information includes:

• Number and duration of construction jobs;

• Number of permanent positions;

• Expected wages and benefits;

• Use of registered apprenticeships;

• Local hiring and contractor commitments;

• Opportunities for disadvantaged businesses;

• Workforce-training partnerships;

• Expected local purchasing;

• Property-tax treatment; and

• Effects on existing employers and industries.

Community-benefit or project-labor agreements may convert general projections into enforceable commitments when they clearly identify responsible parties, timelines, reporting requirements, and remedies for nonperformance.

Property Taxes and Local Revenue

The local property-tax effect will depend on ownership, valuation, location, statutory classification, exemptions, abatements, and agreements with local governments.

A project may add taxable equipment or improvements while also seeking an enterprise-zone benefit, property-tax abatement, tax-increment-financing assistance, or another incentive. Pipelines and underground property interests can raise specialized valuation and allocation questions.

Local officials should identify:

• Which assets will be taxable;

• Which taxing districts contain those assets;

• How property will be assessed;

• Whether exemptions or abatements are requested;

• When new revenue is expected to begin;

• Whether assessed value could decline after construction;

• How decommissioning would affect the tax base; and

• Whether a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes or other agreement is proposed.

Readers seeking additional background on these tools may consult Illinois Capitol Group’s Illinois Property Tax Policy.

Costs to Host Communities

Projects also may create costs for counties, municipalities, fire protection districts, emergency-management agencies, road authorities, public-health departments, schools, and other local institutions.

Possible costs include:

• Staff time for reviewing applications and agreements;

• Road and drainage damage;

• Emergency-response equipment and training;

• Communications and public-warning systems;

• Emergency exercises and mutual-aid planning;

• Additional inspections or monitoring;

• Legal, engineering, geological, or financial consultants;

• Increased demands on housing and public infrastructure during construction; and

• Long-term planning for incidents, closure, or abandonment.

State fees and operator payments may support some of these needs, but local governments should determine whether the available funding is timely, sufficient, and legally committed. Illinois Capitol Group’s Emergency Services Policyprovides related information concerning emergency-response governance and funding.

Environmental Justice and Community Participation

The distribution of benefits and burdens is central to carbon-capture policy. A project may preserve industrial employment or reduce greenhouse-gas emissions while continuing or increasing other emissions, water use, traffic, noise, or industrial activity in an already burdened community.

Project review should examine:

• Existing pollution and cumulative environmental burdens;

• Demographic and public-health conditions;

• Whether capture equipment changes emissions of conventional pollutants;

• Proximity of pipelines, wells, and other infrastructure to homes and community facilities;

• Accessibility of technical and permit information;

• Language access and meaningful opportunities to participate;

• Whether community input can influence siting and operating conditions;

• Distribution of jobs, tax revenue, incentives, and environmental risk; and

• Enforceability of promised community benefits.

Illinois law directs part of sequestration-fee revenue to environmental-justice purposes and requires a state report by December 1, 2028, reviewing implementation of carbon capture, transportation, and storage projects, including possible improvements to public-health, environmental, and economic protections for environmental-justice and economically disadvantaged rural communities.

Evaluating Whether a Project Is Economically Durable

Because sequestration obligations may continue for decades, a project should remain capable of financing safety and environmental requirements even if commodity prices, tax policy, ownership, or the underlying industrial facility changes.

Indicators of economic durability may include:

• Binding transportation and storage agreements;

• Conservative assumptions about capture volume and tax-credit revenue;

• Contingency funding for construction overruns;

• Adequate insurance and financial assurance;

• Creditworthy counterparties or parent guarantees;

• Plans for failure of the capture facility, pipeline, or storage component;

• Funding for post-injection care and closure;

• Clear responsibility if the source facility closes early; and

• Public disclosure of major subsidies, obligations, and performance results.

Questions for Policymakers and Communities

When reviewing the economic case for a proposed project, stakeholders may wish to ask:

1. What assumptions support the projected amount and cost of captured carbon dioxide?

2. How dependent is the project on Section 45Q or other public support?

3. What happens if the project receives fewer tax credits than expected?

4. Are government awards final, conditional, or limited to an early project phase?

5. Who pays for cost overruns, delays, or underperformance?

6. Will utility customers or local taxpayers bear any project costs?

7. How many jobs are temporary, permanent, local, and covered by labor standards?

8. What benefits are enforceable rather than aspirational?

9. What tax incentives are requested, and how do they affect local governments and schools?

10. Are emergency-response and infrastructure costs fully funded?

11. What are the project’s net lifecycle emissions after accounting for energy use?

12. Does the operator have sufficient resources to meet obligations after injection stops?

A durable carbon-capture project must be able to finance its complete lifecycle—not merely the construction and initial operation of the capture equipment.

Sources & Further Reading:

• Internal Revenue Service—Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration

• Internal Revenue Service—Form 8933 and Instructions

• Internal Revenue Service—Elective Pay and Credit Transferability

• U.S. Department of Energy—Carbon Management Projects

• U.S. Department of Energy—Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program

• U.S. Department of Energy—Carbon Capture Large-Scale Pilot Projects

• Illinois SAFE CCS Act—Public Act 103-0651

• Illinois EPA—SAFE CCS Act and Carbon-Sequestration Permitting

• 415 ILCS 5/59.2—State Carbon-Capture Implementation Report

• 415 ILCS 5/59.17—Annual Sequestration Fee

• Illinois Capitol Group—Property Tax Policy

• Illinois Capitol Group—Emergency Services Policy

This archive preserves selected legislation, regulatory proceedings, project proposals, reports, and news coverage that contributed to the development of Illinois’ current carbon-capture policy. These materials remain useful for understanding the state’s policy history but should not be treated as descriptions of current law or as evidence that a previously proposed project remains active.

For current requirements, consult the preceding sections of this page and the official resources listed in Illinois Carbon Capture Policy Resources.

Early Illinois Pipeline Applications: Navigator Heartland Greenway

Navigator Heartland Greenway proposed a multistate pipeline network that would have collected carbon dioxide from ethanol and other facilities and transported it for underground sequestration. The proposed Illinois route generated significant discussion concerning eminent domain, agricultural land, drainage, pipeline safety, emergency response, and the authority of the Illinois Commerce Commission.

Navigator’s first Illinois application, filed in July 2022, was withdrawn in January 2023 and dismissed without prejudice by the Commission in February 2023.

Navigator submitted a revised application in February 2023. It withdrew that application in October 2023 before receiving authority to construct or operate the pipeline. The broader Heartland Greenway project was subsequently canceled.

Archived regulatory records:

• Illinois Commerce Commission Docket 22-0497—Original Navigator Application

• Docket Sheet for ICC Docket 22-0497

• Illinois Commerce Commission Docket 23-0161—Refiled Navigator Application

• Docket Sheet for ICC Docket 23-0161

These closed dockets contain applications, proposed routes, landowner notices, testimony, public comments, motions, and other records illustrating the issues raised during early Illinois consideration of a large carbon-dioxide pipeline.

Wolf Carbon Solutions’ Mt. Simon Hub Proposal

Wolf Carbon Solutions filed an application in June 2023 seeking authority to construct and operate the Illinois portion of its proposed Mt. Simon Hub carbon-dioxide pipeline. The proposal involved transporting carbon dioxide from ethanol facilities in Iowa to a proposed Illinois sequestration site.

The proceeding included participation by counties, townships, school districts, agricultural interests, landowners, and other parties. Wolf moved to withdraw its application without prejudice in November 2023, and the Illinois Commerce Commission granted the withdrawal in January 2024. The proceeding did not result in approval to construct the pipeline.

Archived regulatory records:

• Illinois Commerce Commission Docket 23-0475—Wolf Carbon Solutions

• Docket Sheet for ICC Docket 23-0475

• Documents Filed in ICC Docket 23-0475

• Public Comments Filed in ICC Docket 23-0475

A withdrawal “without prejudice” allowed the applicant to propose a future project or file another application, but it did not keep the withdrawn application pending or confer any construction authority.

Competing Illinois Legislative Proposals: 2023

Before enactment of the SAFE CCS Act, Illinois legislators introduced competing approaches to carbon capture, pipeline regulation, pore-space ownership, environmental protection, and landowner rights.

House Bill 3119 proposed a broader regulatory framework addressing capture, transportation, sequestration, permitting, liability, environmental protections, water use, and review of permit decisions.

House Bill 2202 and Senate Bill 2153 focused more heavily on pore-space ownership, integration of property interests, and procedures for developing sequestration facilities.

These proposals were not enacted in their introduced form, but their differences helped frame the later debate over:

• State and federal agency responsibilities;

• Pipeline safety and siting;

• Pore-space ownership and compulsory unitization;

• Landowner compensation;

• Environmental-justice protections;

• Long-term monitoring and liability;

• Emergency-response funding; and

• The relationship between carbon capture and Illinois’ climate goals.

Archived legislation:

• House Bill 3119—103rd General Assembly

• House Bill 2202—103rd General Assembly

• Senate Bill 2153—103rd General Assembly

These bills should be read as legislative history, not as current Illinois law.

The 2024 Legislative Debate and SAFE CCS Compromise

During the 2024 legislative session, lawmakers, environmental organizations, labor groups, agricultural interests, industry representatives, local governments, and landowners continued negotiating the state’s approach.

Proposals included Senate Bill 3311 and House Bill 569, which addressed matters such as environmental protection, landowner rights, project permitting, notice, compensation, fees, and liability.

The General Assembly ultimately used Senate Bill 1289 as the vehicle for the negotiated SAFE CCS framework. Governor JB Pritzker signed the legislation as Public Act 103-0651 on July 18, 2024.

The enacted law established or expanded requirements concerning:

• Illinois permits for sequestration facilities;

• Public notice and participation;

• Groundwater, air, and soil-gas monitoring;

• Emergency planning and responder support;

• Pore-space ownership and unitization;

• Landowner compensation;

• Insurance and financial assurance;

• Operator liability;

• Post-injection monitoring and closure;

• State fees and regulatory funds; and

• A temporary restriction on approval of new carbon-dioxide pipelines.

Archived legislation and coverage:

• Senate Bill 3311—103rd General Assembly

• House Bill 569—103rd General Assembly

• Senate Bill 1289—103rd General Assembly

• Public Act 103-0651—SAFE CCS Act

• Capitol News Illinois—Lawmakers Move to Pause and Further Regulate Carbon-Dioxide Pipeline Development

• WBEZ—Illinois Carbon-Capture Legislation Coverage

• Energy News Network—Illinois Carbon-Sequestration Standards and Remaining Issues

Later legislation and agency implementation have clarified or changed parts of the original 2024 framework. The current-policy sections above should therefore be used for present requirements.

Temporary Pipeline Restriction: 2024–2026

Public Act 103-0651 temporarily restricted Illinois Commerce Commission approval of new carbon-dioxide pipelines while the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration developed expanded safety standards.

That temporary restriction reached its statutory endpoint in 2026. Its expiration did not approve any pipeline or revive the Navigator or Wolf applications. It instead ended the temporary barrier, allowing a future applicant to seek project-specific approval under the laws and regulations then in effect.

Historical discussion describing the restriction as “pending” or predicting what would occur before its expiration should now be treated as dated background.

Relevant records:

• Public Act 103-0651

• U.S. Department of Transportation—2025 Proposed Carbon-Dioxide Pipeline Safety Rule

• PHMSA—Pipeline Safety Regulations and Rulemaking

Mahomet Aquifer and Pore-Space Debate

During consideration of the 2024 law, lawmakers and stakeholders raised concerns about sequestration beneath or near the Mahomet Aquifer, which supplies drinking water to communities and private wells across central Illinois.

Public Act 103-0651 created the initial statewide SAFE CCS structure but did not resolve every issue involving the aquifer. Subsequent legislation added the current prohibition on sequestration activity that overlies, underlies, or passes through a sole-source aquifer.

Similarly, the original 2024 debate over compulsory pore-space integration continued after enactment. Public Act 104-0390, effective January 1, 2026, clarified procedures and compensation standards for nonconsenting pore-space owners.

Historical sources:

• U.S. EPA—Mahomet Aquifer Sole-Source Designation

• Public Act 103-0651—Original SAFE CCS Framework

• Public Act 104-0390—Pore-Space and Landowner-Compensation Amendments

For the current requirements, see Class VI Wells, Groundwater & the Mahomet Aquifer and Landowner Rights, Pore Space & Unitization above.

Foundational Federal Class VI Regulation

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established the federal Class VI well category in 2010 for underground injection of carbon dioxide for geologic sequestration. The regulations addressed characteristics specific to carbon dioxide, including buoyancy, subsurface mobility, pressure effects, potential corrosion in the presence of water, and the need for long-term monitoring.

These foundational materials remain useful for understanding the origins of the current program:

• U.S. EPA—Class VI Wells Used for Geologic Sequestration

• U.S. EPA—Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon-Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells

• U.S. EPA—Final Class VI Guidance Documents

Current permit applications, guidance, and agency decisions should be consulted because the federal program continues to develop.

The 2020 Satartia Pipeline Failure and Federal Rulemaking

A carbon-dioxide pipeline failure near Satartia, Mississippi, in February 2020 became a central reference point in later pipeline-safety debates. The incident raised concerns involving plume modeling, public warnings, emergency communications, vehicle operation in oxygen-deficient conditions, responder equipment, evacuation, and federal regulation of carbon dioxide transported in different physical phases.

PHMSA subsequently began work on expanded federal carbon-dioxide pipeline standards. These materials provide historical context for the pipeline provisions considered in Illinois:

• National Transportation Safety Board—Denbury Carbon-Dioxide Pipeline Failure Investigation

• PHMSA—Carbon-Dioxide Pipeline Safety Rulemaking Announcement

• Congressional Research Service—Carbon Dioxide Pipelines: Safety Issues

Current PHMSA regulations and official rulemaking records should be used when determining present federal requirements.

Earlier National Reports and Project Databases

The following resources preserve useful background concerning carbon capture, pipeline development, federal incentives, sequestration technology, and projects announced during the early expansion of United States carbon-management policy:

• Congressional Research Service—Carbon Capture and Sequestration in the United States

• Congressional Research Service—Carbon Dioxide Pipelines: Safety Issues

• National Energy Technology Laboratory—Carbon Capture and Storage Database

• U.S. Department of Energy—Carbon Management Projects

Project counts, estimated capacity, costs, and development status shown in older reports may no longer be current. The most recent official project record should be consulted before describing a facility as proposed, active, canceled, operational, or under construction.

Using This Archive

Archived materials are most useful for:

• Tracing how Illinois’ regulatory framework developed;

• Reviewing arguments made by landowners, industry, environmental organizations, labor, and local governments;

• Understanding why particular safety and compensation provisions were enacted;

• Examining withdrawn pipeline applications and public comments;

• Comparing introduced legislation with the law ultimately enacted; and

• Identifying issues that may return in future legislation or project proceedings.

An archived proposal, application, article, or bill should not be cited as the current statement of Illinois law without checking subsequent legislation, regulations, permits, and agency actions.