Louisiana lawmaker seeks state review of tools to model underground carbon storage

Representative Owen introduced a House concurrent resolution asking state agencies and academic experts to evaluate whether tools exist to model the behavior of carbon dioxide stored underground and, if not, how long it would take to develop them.

Owen said the resolution asks the House Natural Resources Committee, the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), together with academic and federal experts, to determine whether Louisiana can reach a “reasonable” and “tight” degree of certainty about where injected CO2 would migrate in the subsurface before the state endorses commercial-scale sequestration. “What this resolution does is it asks House Natural Resources, DNR, DEQ and academia to get together and say, is there a tool out there? And if there’s not a tool out there, tell us how long it’ll take one to build,” Representative Owen said on the floor.

Why it matters: proponents and opponents of subsurface carbon storage disagree about how well current models predict long-term migration of CO2, a question that affects permitting, landowner protections and environmental risk. Owen told colleagues the state has not previously conducted this kind of modeling exercise at scale and cited examples of limited projects in Illinois and Wyoming as the only U.S. comparisons he was aware of.

During floor discussion Representative Robbie Carter asked about the chemistry of CO2 once it mixes with groundwater; Carter said, “what do you get when you mix carbon dioxide and water together? Carbonic acid,” and noted the chemical can be harmful to people and wildlife. Owen responded by stressing the need for better geologic surveys and trap-space understanding so the state “doesn’t harm our citizens” and can protect the environment.

Procedural steps: Representative Owen offered an amendment set (Amendment Set No. 4077) described on the floor as technical; the chair accepted the amendment by unanimous consent. After the discussion, Owen asked to “return this to the calendar” so the work can be handled by the House Natural Resources Committee in the off season rather than by a newly created task force. The sponsor said the committee will coordinate with DNR, DEQ and academic and federal scientists.

Discussion vs. decision: the floor record shows only a referral of the matter to committee work (sponsor-directed) and adoption of technical amendments; there is no final legislative action or policy adoption recorded on the floor for this resolution. Owen explicitly returned the resolution to the calendar rather than asking for final passage.

Next steps and context: Owen said the committee will review existing modeling tools and, if necessary, estimate the time needed to develop a reliable tool suited to Louisiana geology. The sponsor and the Speaker asked members to prefer using standing committees to new task forces to limit staff and member burdens. The resolution therefore remains a call for study and does not authorize project approvals, funding or permitting changes.

Quoted speakers are from the House floor transcript and are identified by name and title in the speaker list below. The article reports floor discussion and procedural steps only; it does not assume any technical adequacy of subsurface modeling tools or predict regulatory outcomes.

Ending: The House record shows the resolution will be taken up through the House Natural Resources Committee during the legislative off season; no further dates or deliverables were specified on the floor.