EPA loses veto power over state carbon storage wells under new timeline
H.R. 4880 — Primacy Certainty Act of 2025 · Filed by Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Aug 5, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to set strict timelines for the EPA to approve or reject state applications to regulate Class VI wells (deep injection wells used for carbon dioxide storage). If the EPA does not make a decision within 180 days, it must explain why in writing; if it fails to decide within 210 days total, the state's application is automatically approved. The bill also requires the EPA to designate a single coordinator for each state and complete pre-application work expeditiously, shifting regulatory authority from federal to state control over carbon storage wells.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is procedural: it imposes strict timelines and automatic approval triggers on EPA review of state Class VI well programs. While framed as 'certainty,' the operative effect is to shift regulatory authority from federal to state hands and create a default-approval pathway that bypasses full EPA scrutiny.
What the text implies
- Automatic approval after 210 days applies even if the EPA has identified material deficiencies in a state's drinking water protection plan, potentially allowing states with inadequate safeguards to regulate injection wells that directly threaten groundwater.
- The bill allows states that have 'established and implemented' programs for OTHER classes of injection wells to qualify for Class VI primacy, but does not require demonstrated competence specifically in carbon storage regulation, which is a distinct technical domain.
- EPA must transfer all pending permits and applications to states immediately upon approval, potentially before the agency has completed its own technical review of those permits' safety implications.
- The 10-day completeness determination deadline, with automatic deeming of completeness if missed, creates a procedural trap: EPA staff shortages or administrative delays trigger approval regardless of actual application quality.
- Funds from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) can now be redirected to support this streamlined review process, potentially diverting resources from other IIJA carbon-management priorities.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill creates certainty and reduces federal regulatory delays, which may benefit states seeking to develop carbon storage infrastructure and could lower costs for carbon capture projects. However, automatic approval after 210 days—even if the EPA has legitimate safety concerns about a state's ability to protect drinking water—may weaken federal oversight of a technology that directly affects groundwater safety, a core public health issue.
Who stands to gain
- Utilities and energy companies operating or planning Class VI injection wells
- Carbon capture and storage (CCS) project developers
- Oil and gas companies using CO2 injection for enhanced oil recovery
- State environmental agencies (reduced federal oversight burden)
Named in the bill
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Safe Drinking Water Act, Class VI wells, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Section 40306 IIJA, State underground injection control programs, AES (American Electric Power), WEC Energy Group, Duke Energy (DUK), Consolidated Edison (ED), Xcel Energy (XEL)
Where it stands
2 cosponsors: 2 Republicans.
- Aug 5, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Aug 5, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
2 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $2,440,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 23 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.
Dan Crenshaw, the sponsor, reported $606,011 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- American Petroleum Institute — $1,920,000 on 1 filing
- Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, Inc. — $520,000 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (9,495 characters) on Aug 12, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“EPA loses veto power over state carbon storage wells under new timeline” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr4880 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.