Direct Air CO2 Removal Program

Summary#

This bill requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to carry out or buy carbon dioxide removal that captures CO2 directly from ambient air or seawater and then stores it durably. It sets rising annual removal targets through 2036 and after, requires third‑party measurement and verification, and asks DOE to set standards and give project-selection priorities (jobs, low emissions, community benefits). It also directs a one‑year study on how the federal government could scale a removal program to gigaton levels by 2050.

• Main change: DOE must ensure specific amounts of CO2 are removed each year, starting at 50,000 metric tons in 2026–27 and rising to 10 million metric tons per year in 2036 and later.
• How removal is defined: CO2 must be captured from ambient air or seawater and then durably stored (for example, geologic injection, mineralization, or building materials).
• Price test for action: DOE only has to act if removal can be done at or below set per‑ton price ceilings that fall over time (for example, lower limits in later years).
• Verification and standards: DOE must hire independent third parties to measure, monitor, report, and verify removals and must publish standards within 1 year.
• Contract rules and priorities: DOE can use competitive contracts (up to 15 years), must spread work so no single entity does more than 25% in a year, and must prioritize low emissions, technology diversity, domestic jobs, community benefits, and avoidance of harms.

What it means for you#

• DOE and federal agencies

  • DOE must plan, fund, and supervise carbon removal projects and create measurement standards with other agencies.
  • DOE will report progress to Congress every two years starting in 2029.

• Companies that remove CO2

  • Firms that capture CO2 from air or seawater (not via normal photosynthesis or oil recovery) could win federal contracts.
  • Contracts are competitive, may last up to 15 years, and no single company can be guaranteed most of an annual target.

• Small project developers

  • At least 20% of required removals (through 2035) should come from “small removal projects” (projects that each remove no more than 5% of a year’s required tons).

• Communities near projects

  • Project selection must consider effects on nearby communities, public health, air and water quality, and include public engagement and enforceable community benefits when appropriate.

• Workers and businesses

  • The bill favors domestic job creation and partnerships with labor groups, small businesses, and minority- and women-owned businesses.

• Regulators and scientists

  • EPA, NOAA, Agriculture, and NIST are named in consultation and standard‑setting roles. Independent third parties must verify removals under DOE oversight.

• Taxpayers

  • The bill authorizes whatever sums are necessary to carry it out but does not include a cost estimate in the bill text.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill authorizes “such sums as are necessary,” but it does not include a fiscal note or specific appropriation amounts in the text provided.
• The bill sets maximum per‑ton price levels that DOE will use to decide if removal is “economically feasible.” Those ceilings change over time. This implies the government may pay for removal services, and it also implies potential contract spending, but the bill does not state how much will actually be appropriated or paid.
• The DOE will need to hire independent third parties for measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification. It will also need staff and contract management capacity to run competitive procurements, monitor compliance, and produce reports.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to do the following:

• Drive development and commercialization of direct air and seawater CO2 removal technologies by creating a stable federal buyer and predictable targets.
• Ensure removals are real and durable by requiring lifecycle accounting and independent verification.
• Support domestic jobs, small businesses, and historically fossil-fuel‑dependent regions by prioritizing domestic supply chains and economic diversification.
• Encourage project designs that minimize new emissions and provide benefits to nearby communities through explicit priorities and community engagement requirements.
• Begin planning for a long‑term, large‑scale federal removal program by directing a study on management and financing options for gigaton‑scale deployment by 2050.

Opponents' View#

The bill’s design raises practical questions and trade‑offs:

• One concern is cost uncertainty. The bill sets per‑ton ceilings for “economic feasibility” but does not include a budget estimate or specify how much will be appropriated, making total government spending unclear.
• The timing rule (DOE must secure each year’s required amount within three years of that fiscal year) could allow purchases to happen well after the target year, which may weaken near‑term accountability.
• The bill leaves many technical details to future rulemaking or DOE decisions (for example, how to judge durability of storage, exactly how lifecycle emissions are calculated, and how environmental impacts are mitigated). This could delay implementation or create uncertainty for developers.
• Limiting eligible methods (for example, excluding photosynthesis-based removals and enhanced oil recovery uses) narrows options. The bill allows some waste‑to‑carbon approaches only if DOE establishes additional rules.
• There is potential for administrative burden: DOE must run competitive procurements, oversee third‑party verifiers, and produce recurring reports, but the bill does not specify staffing or enforcement mechanisms.
• It is unclear how the program will interact with existing carbon credit systems and whether participants will face restrictions beyond the ban on “double counting” stated in the bill.