In another blow to carbon capture hopefuls, a bill focused on the geological sequestration of carbon failed in its first committee.

The Senate Conservation Committee voted 8-1 to table SB 215 on Tuesday after a presentation by bill sponsors Sen. William Sharer, R-Farmington, and Rep. Meredith Dixon, D-Albuquerque.

This comes after the largest carbon capture proposal in the state—retrofitting the coal-fired San Juan Generating Station—failed when the City of Farmington chose to end its bid to take over the power that it partially owned.

Among the things that SB 215 would have done is define who owns the pore space—microscopic spaces in geological formations deep beneath the earth’s surface where the carbon dioxide would be stored.

The bill would have created a regulatory framework for carbon sequestration.

But Sen. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, said it was too ambitious for a thirty-day session, or at least late in the session.

Had it passed the Senate Conservation Committee, SB 215 would have headed to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cervantes, who is the chairman of the judiciary committee, said the bill would need amendments to clear that committee. For example, he highlighted that the legislation would release owners of sequestration facilities from liabilities at the end of its operations assuming certain conditions are met. 

Dixon described carbon capture and sequestration as a necessary tool in combating climate change. She said international models show that carbon dioxide must be pulled out of the atmosphere to prevent 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees Celsius of warming.

The U.S. and other countries are increasingly looking toward carbon capture and 2023 saw a 48 percent increase in carbon capture projects in development, construction or operation, according to the Global CCS Institute. 

But very few of these projects are focused on decarbonizing hard-to-decarbonize sectors like steel or iron production or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—or Bipartisan Infrastructure Law—provided funding to set up four direct air capture hubs in the United States. The Inflation Reduction Act further provided tax incentives to deploy carbon capture, including direct air capture.

But one of the barriers that the Global CCS Institute identifies to successful carbon capture projects is community support.

Many environmental advocates say that carbon capture and sequestration is an expensive false solution that distracts from the need to decarbonize and may be used to extend the use of fossil fuels. 

In a statement about federal spending on direct air capture last year, Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh said that direct air capture will make no difference in reducing climate pollution.

“The technology requires substantial energy to operate; capturing just a quarter of our annual carbon emissions would require all of the power currently generated in the country,” he said. “Even if the technology were effective, there are still serious questions about whether there is a safe and effective way to store the captured carbon dioxide. A more practical and effective approach would be to invest money in wind and solar energy – which would be far more effective in actually reducing climate pollution.”

Direct air capture has many challenges. For example, it is energy intensive and costly. Removing a single ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere can cost an estimated $600 to $1,000.

An article published last year in the journal Environmental Technology & Innovation further concluded that storage of carbon dioxide in underground geological formations is only economically feasible when paired with enhanced oil recovery. In those scenarios, the carbon dioxide is pumped underground to force oil out of the formation. This is currently done in New Mexico using carbon dioxide extracted from geological formations such as McElmo Dome near Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in southwest Colorado.

Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, D-Albuquerque, expressed concerns about carbon capture and sequestration during Tuesday’s hearing.

“What bothers me is that in New Mexico, we’ve tended to be a sacrifice zone for unproven technologies,” she said.

She highlighted uranium contamination on the Navajo Nation, orphaned oil and gas wells and injection wells leading to earthquakes.

Sedillo Lopez said she has concerns about the waste that will be left over when windmills reach the end of their useful lives.

Furthermore, she said she is concerned that SB 215 could lead to prolonging extraction of oil and gas at the expense of New Mexicans’ health.