House approves measure requiring drills, training for carbon sequestration projects after heated floor debate
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Representative Mack’s bill requires emergency drills, interagency coordination and training for communities and responders involved in carbon dioxide injection and CO2 pipeline projects. Sponsors said it is a safety measure for rural areas; opponents warned it could chill industry expansion. The House recorded a close vote.
The House advanced House Bill 696, a bill by Representative Mack that adds emergency‑planning requirements related to carbon dioxide sequestration projects and associated pipelines, including required drills, coordination with local emergency responders and training offers from operators.
Representative Mack, the bill’s sponsor, framed the measure as a public‑safety law designed to ensure rural and volunteer fire departments are prepared for a possible large‑scale CO2 release. “If you really want to keep the people that you care about safe, you'll have a good emergency response plan in place,” Mack said on the floor, describing his work with industry to craft amendments and to remove portions of the bill that addressed groundwater and drinking water at industry’s request.
The bill’s nut graf: supporters portrayed HB 696 as a narrow safety standard filling a regulatory gap in rural parishes where existing permit requirements do not necessarily produce consistent drills or coordinated equipment inventories. Opponents countered that permitting and emergency‑response requirements are already addressed in the class‑6 injection permitting process and warned the bill could deter investment and economic development.
Floor exchanges included accounts from members representing rural parishes who said volunteer fire departments lack equipment and training for a large CO2 incident; Representative Robbie Carter said a Denbury pipeline runs the length of his parish and described volunteer departments with outdated trucks and limited insurance. Representative Travis Johnson spoke against the bill on grounds of vagueness and potential economic impact, saying the committee vote had been close in Natural Resources and that he remained opposed on the floor.
Mack described amendments adopted in committee and on the floor that removed portions of the bill related to groundwater monitoring and financial assurance and said he had worked with industry to narrow the bill to emergency preparedness, drills and training offers.
The transcript records a close roll call on final passage: 47 yays and 39 nays were recorded during the floor vote. The passage was followed by members taking notice to call other bills; the sponsor said he would continue to work with industry and local responders on implementation details.
Votes at a glance House Bill 696 — Final floor roll call recorded in the transcript as 47 yays, 39 nays.