QuorumCivic. Hidden in plain sight Get the app
Bill intelligence

EPA loses veto over state carbon-storage wells after 210 days

S. 2505 — Primacy Certainty Act of 2025 · Filed by Dan Sullivan (R-AK) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Jul 29, 2025 · Referred to committee

65%
Transparency
Typical bill: 82%
28/100
Hidden-provision risk
Typical bill: 15/100
Regulatory Streamlining / Carbon Storage…

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 deny state applications to regulate Class VI underground injection wells (used for carbon dioxide storage). If the EPA does not decide within 180 days, it must explain why and list deficiencies; if it does not decide within 210 days total, the state's application is automatically approved—provided the state already regulates other classes of injection wells. The bill also requires the EPA to designate a single coordinator for each state, work expeditiously with states before applications are submitted, and report on staffing needs within 90 days.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a procedural acceleration: it replaces EPA discretionary review with time-certain deadlines and automatic approval triggers for state Class VI well programs. This is regulatory streamlining aimed at the carbon capture and storage sector, not a substantive rewrite of drinking-water protections.

What the text implies

  • Automatic approval after 210 days may lock in state programs even if EPA identifies material deficiencies in drinking-water protection, since the bill limits denial grounds to whether the state meets criteria in paragraph (1)(A) and prohibits conditioning approval on provisions not in the original application.
  • The bill redirects Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funds—originally appropriated for Class VI well oversight—to pay for the EPA's own compliance reporting under this bill, potentially starving the EPA's substantive review capacity.

The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.

Who stands to gain

carbon capture and storage companies; oil and gas operators (Class VI wells used for enhanced oil recovery and CO2 sequestration); states seeking to accelerate Class VI permitting

Correlative observation from public records — not evidence of coordination or wrongdoing, and not financial advice.
This page is the record as of today. The app tells you when it changes.
Quorum analysis of the full bill text · 119th Congress · public record