Summary#
This bill requires the Secretary of Energy to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) directly from the air or seawater and to buy or carry out removal through contracts. The bill sets rising annual removal targets from 50,000 metric tons in 2026–2027 up to 10 million metric tons per year from 2036 onward. It sets rules for how removal is counted, how projects are chosen, and how removals must be measured and verified.
- Main change: Establishes a multi-year federal program to procure specified amounts of direct air or seawater CO2 removal and storage.
- Annual targets: 50,000 t (2026–27); 500,000 t (2028–30); 5,000,000 t (2031–35); 10,000,000 t (2036+).
- Price tests for feasibility: The Secretary only must proceed if removal can be obtained at or below specified per-ton prices that fall over time (e.g., $750/ton for 2026–27 down to $150/ton in 2037+; Secretary may adjust for inflation).
- Measurement rules: Removals must be measured, monitored, reported, and verified by independent third parties under standards the Secretary will set.
- Contract rules and safeguards: Contracts may run up to 15 years, no single entity can be required to remove more than 25% of the annual target if enough providers exist, and contractors must replace any CO2 that is later released from storage.
- Study: Requires a report within 1 year on options to scale to gigaton-per-year removal by 2050 and on possible program structures.
What it means for you#
- Federal government / Secretary of Energy: Must set up procurement and verification systems. Must create standards for measurement and verification within 1 year. Must report to Congress every 2 years starting 2029.
- CO2 removal companies (direct air capture, direct ocean capture): Could win federal contracts to sell verified removals. Must meet measurement and verification standards and may face liability to remove additional CO2 if stored CO2 is later released.
- Small removal projects and small businesses: At least 20% of required removals for 2026–2035 should come from small projects where practicable. The bill also prioritizes partnerships with small, minority-owned, and women-owned businesses.
- Independent verifiers / third parties: Will be needed to measure and verify removal amounts. The bill requires independent third-party verification.
- Communities near projects: Projects must quantify and mitigate local risks and may be prioritized if they provide measurable local benefits and enforceable community benefit agreements.
- Labor and regional economies: The bill favors projects that create domestic jobs, involve labor organizations, and help economic diversification in fossil-fuel-dependent regions.
- Entities receiving contract funds: Payments from these contracts are explicitly not counted as federal assistance that would affect eligibility for other federal assistance or tax incentives.
- General public / taxpayers: The bill authorizes “such sums as are necessary” to carry out the program. Exact funding levels and fiscal impacts are not specified in the bill text.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill authorizes whatever funding is necessary rather than specifying dollar amounts.
- Expected government costs would include contract payments to buy CO2 removal, administrative costs to run competitions and oversight, and costs for measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification systems.
- Contractors and project developers will face compliance costs to meet verification and lifecycle-accounting rules.
- The requirement that contractors replace any released CO2 could increase project costs or require financial assurances.
- The Secretary may adjust feasibility based on per-ton price limits; if market prices are higher, the agency may not be required to purchase removals.
Proponents' View#
The bill appears intended to accelerate federal demand for direct CO2 removal and to help scale up the industry. Possible arguments in favor, drawn from the bill text, include:
- The bill appears intended to create a stable federal market to drive commercialization of direct air and seawater CO2 removal technologies.
- It aims to ensure removals are real and durable by requiring lifecycle accounting and independent third-party verification.
- The prioritization criteria could support domestic job creation, small businesses, minority- and women-owned firms, and economic diversification in fossil-fuel regions.
- The small-project set-aside could help a wider range of technologies and companies enter the market.
- The required study could inform how to scale programs to gigaton-per-year removal by 2050.
Opponents' View#
Based only on the bill text, possible concerns or trade-offs include:
- One concern is that the bill does not include a clear funding level. It authorizes “such sums as are necessary,” but provides no fiscal estimates in the text.
- The definition of “economically feasible” ties required action to specific per-ton price caps. It is unclear how these caps will affect procurement if market prices differ from those caps.
- The bill leaves some important details to the Secretary’s judgment (for example, which other “durable storage methods” qualify and how eligible technologies might be expanded). This could create uncertainty for developers and communities.
- The requirement that contractors remove additional CO2 equal to any released amount could be costly and could discourage some bidders unless financial assurance rules are clarified.
- It is unclear how the program will interact with existing state, private, or international carbon accounting programs; the bill forbids double counting but leaves implementation details to the Secretary.
- The timelines (for example, removing each year’s required amount within 3 years of the fiscal year start) could be challenging for new technologies and supply chains.