Texas takes the reins on Class VI carbon sequestration wells
The EPA’s November 2025 approval granting Texas primary enforcement authority over Class VI injection wells fundamentally changes who controls permitting of carbon capture and sequestration projects across the nation’s largest oil and gas state. For the 64 pending permit applications now transferring from federal to state oversight, this should improve permitting timeliness and accelerate projects tied to 45Q tax credits.[1]
Texas became the sixth state to secure Class VI primacy, joining North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Arizona. The Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) assumes authority on December 15, 2025.
I. What primacy means under cooperative federalism
“Primacy” is authority granted by EPA to a state to administer and enforce a federal environmental program. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), a state assumes regulatory authority previously exercised by EPA while the federal government sets minimum standards.
Once primacy takes effect, operators apply exclusively to the state agency. The RRC becomes the permitting authority, compliance monitor, and enforcement lead. EPA retains oversight authority and can revoke primacy if Texas fails to enforce federal standards.[2]
SDWA Section 1422 requires states seeking primacy to meet an “at least as stringent” standard across site characterization, well construction, area of review modeling, monitoring, financial assurance, post-injection site care, and emergency response.[3] EPA conducts line-by-line regulatory comparisons.
II. Understanding Class VI wells and the UIC program
EPA regulates underground injection through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, authorized by the SDWA in 1974 to protect underground drinking water sources. Classes I through III handle industrial waste disposal, oil-and-gas-related injection (including enhanced recovery), and mineral extraction.[4] Class IV wells—shallow hazardous waste injection into or above drinking water formations—are banned unless an injector obtains approval pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 144.13(c). Class V covers non-hazardous injection. Class VI, added in 2010, addresses long-term geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Class VI requirements are among the most stringent in the UIC program.[5] Carbon dioxide is buoyant, mobile, and corrosive in the presence of water, and projects inject massive volumes intended to remain underground for centuries.[6] Regulations require sophisticated computational modeling to predict CO₂ plume migration, corrosion-resistant materials, continuous monitoring, and a default 50-year post-injection site care period.[7]
III. How Texas earned primacy
Texas’s path to primacy began in 2009 when the legislature directed the state to pursue Class VI authority and established the legal framework for CO2 storage.[8] The pivotal moment came in June 2021, when HB 1284 consolidated jurisdiction solely under the RRC—previously split between RRC and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality—and mandated pursuit of primacy.[9]
Obtaining primacy required Texas to submit six core elements to EPA: a formal letter from Governor Abbott; a comprehensive program description; an Attorney General certification of adequate legal authority; a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA Region 6; copies of applicable statutes and regulations; and documentation of public participation.[10]
Texas adopted comprehensive regulations at 16 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 5, which EPA determined meet or exceed all federal Class VI standards. EPA’s evaluation followed a four-phase process spanning three years, culminating in proposed rulemaking that received 7,534 public comments, the vast majority supportive, and final approval in November 2025.
IV. Why industry should pay attention
The practical impact centers on speed and certainty. EPA has issued only 11 Class VI permits nationally since 2011, with applications historically taking two or more years.[11] As of late 2025, EPA had over 175 applications under review.[12] By contrast, North Dakota and Wyoming have nearly cut Class VI permit review times in half.[13]
For projects chasing 45Q tax credits, timing is critical. The credits—worth $85 per metric ton for point-source capture and $180 per metric ton for direct air capture—require secure geologic storage, meaning permitted Class VI wells.[14] Projects must begin construction by year-end 2032 to qualify. Delayed permitting can destroy project economics.
Texas leads in announced CCS development. Occidental’s Stratos facility in Ector County—the world’s largest direct air capture plant at 500,000 tons annually—received EPA Class VI permits in April 2025. ExxonMobil’s Houston CCS Hub envisions capturing 50 million metric tons annually by 2030 with at least 11 major industrial partners. The Environmental Integrity Project tracks 34 proposed carbon capture projects statewide.
V. Practical takeaways for operators and legal teams
Companies with pending EPA applications should prepare for transfer to RRC jurisdiction. The transition requires no new application, but teams should familiarize themselves with RRC procedures and 16 TAC Chapter 5 requirements.
New projects should apply directly to RRC. The $50,000 application fee buys access to experienced reviewers with local geologic knowledge and shorter projected timelines.
In-house counsel should note one procedural difference: unlike EPA permits, suits for judicial review of RRC decisions do not automatically stay permit effectiveness. This shifts litigation risk calculations for both opponents and permit holders.
Finally, monitor RRC’s actual performance. Projected 12-month timelines are aspirational; the agency’s first decisions will establish real-world benchmarks. Texas has staked enormous economic and political capital on CCS leadership—the RRC’s execution will determine whether that bet pays off.
[1] See Bipartisan Policy Ctr., EPA Expansion of Class VI State Primacy Gives Carbon Storage A Boost, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/epa-expansion-of-class-vi-state-primacy-gives-carbon-storage-a-boost/ (last visited Dec. 4, 2025) (noting 64 of 239 pending Class VI applications at EPA were for Texas wells as of September 2025); see also R.R. Comm’n of Tex., Texas Granted Primacy Over Class VI Wells, https://www.rrc.texas.gov/news/texas-granted-primacy-over-class-vi-wells/ (last visited Dec. 4, 2025).
[2] See 40 C.F.R. § 145.33(a)(3).
[3] See 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1; 40 C.F.R. § 145.11(b)(1).
[4] See 40 C.F.R. § 144.6.
[5] See EPA, Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Class II Well Plugging, Post-Injection Site Care, and Site Closure Guidance 8 (Dec. 2013).
[6] See U.S. EPA, Class VI - Wells used for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide, https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-vi-wells-used-geologic-sequestration-carbon-dioxide (last visited Dec. 5, 2025).
[7] See id.
[8] See S.B. 1387, 81st Leg., R.S. (Tex. 2009).
[9] Madeline Thomas, New Legislation Signals Strong Support for Carbon Capture, Use, and Sequestration in Texas, INST. FOR ENERGY L. (Nov. 2021), https://www.cailaw.org/media/files/IEL/Publications/2021/november/Thomas.pdf.
[10] See 40 C.F.R. § 145.22(a) (2024); Class VI Primacy Application, 90 Fed. Reg. 88,620, 88,621 (Nov. 14, 2025).
[11] Carly Sowecke, P.G., Class VI Well Permit Approvals Accelerate as States Gain Primacy, TRIHYDRO (June 2025), https://www.trihydro.com/news/news-details/class-vi-well-permit-approvals-accelerate-as-states-gain-primacy.
[12] See id.
[13] See M. Benjamin Cowan, John K. Arnold & Rachael Beavers, Locke Lord QuickStudy: CCS in Focus: Texas on Deck for Class VI Well Permitting Primacy, TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE (Feb. 27, 2024), https://www.troutman.com/insights/locke-lord-quickstudy-ccs-in-focus-texas-on-deck-for-class-vi-well-permitting-primacy/.
[14] Emma Jones Fredrickson & Anna Littlefield, Keeping Up with Carbon: Key Changes for 45Q Tax Credits Under “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and Possible Impacts, PAYNE INST. COMMENT. SERIES (Aug. 18, 2025), https://payneinstitute.mines.edu/keeping-up-with-carbon-key-changes-for-45q-tax-credits-under-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-and-possible-impacts/.