Primacy Certainty Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 29, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to accelerate the transfer of regulatory authority for carbon capture and storage wells from the EPA to states by imposing strict deadlines and an automatic approval process, thereby streamlining project deployment.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish strict deadlines for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve or disapprove State applications for primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) over Class VI underground injection control (UIC) wells, which are used for carbon dioxide sequestration. It introduces an automatic approval mechanism for complete applications if the EPA fails to act within a specified timeframe, provided the state already manages other UIC well classes. The bill also mandates EPA coordination with states on preapplication activities and requires a report on EPA's resources for these reviews.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current EPA approval process for Class VI well primacy is excessively slow, hindering the deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies essential for climate goals and economic development. They contend that states are capable and eager to manage these programs, and the bill provides necessary certainty and efficiency by setting clear timelines and preventing undue federal delays.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that automatic approval mechanisms and strict deadlines could compromise environmental protection by rushing the review process, potentially leading to inadequate state programs that fail to safeguard drinking water sources. They may also express concerns that limiting EPA's discretion could prevent the agency from requiring necessary updates or additional safeguards in state programs, especially given the novel nature of Class VI wells.
The bill is concise and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for stakeholders to understand its provisions and implications.
Section 2(a)(1)(B), amending SDWA Section 1422(b)(2)(C)(i)
EPA Notice Requirement for Delayed Class VI Primacy Decisions
If the EPA Administrator does not approve, disapprove, or partially approve a state's Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) program application within 180 days of submission, the Administrator must provide the state with a detailed written explanation. This explanation must describe the review status, the reason for the delay, and an itemized list of specific deficiencies the state needs to address to receive approval. This aims to increase transparency and accountability in the review process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures states are not left in the dark about their applications, allowing them to address issues promptly and reducing bureaucratic delays that hinder carbon capture and storage deployment.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this adds another layer of administrative burden to an already resource-constrained EPA, potentially diverting resources from substantive review to procedural reporting requirements.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the state's desire for transparency and progress in their applications with the EPA's need for thorough review and its existing resource limitations.
Section 2(a)(1)(B), amending SDWA Section 1422(b)(2)(C)(ii)
Automatic Primacy Approval for Class VI Wells
If the EPA Administrator fails to approve, disapprove, or partially approve a *complete* state application for Class VI UIC primacy within 30 days after the initial 180-day period (totaling 210 days from submission), the application is automatically considered approved. This automatic approval applies only if the state already has primary enforcement authority for one or more other classes of UIC wells. Additionally, the Administrator must determine an application's completeness within 10 days of submission, or it is deemed administratively complete upon state request.
Section 2(a)(1)(B), amending SDWA Section 1422(b)(2)(D)
Expedited Decision on Pending Permits and Information Transfer
Following the approval of a state's Class VI primacy application, the EPA Administrator is required to expeditiously render a decision on any Class VI well permits or applications that are pending under federal jurisdiction in that state. After these decisions, the Administrator must then transfer all relevant pending permits, applications, and other program information to the newly authorized state, ensuring a smooth transition of regulatory authority.
Section 2(a)(1)(B), amending SDWA Section 1422(b)(2)(E) and (F)
Limited Grounds for Denial and No Additional Conditions for Class VI Primacy
The bill specifies that the EPA Administrator can only deny a state's Class VI primacy application if the state demonstrably fails to meet the specific criteria outlined in paragraph (1)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Furthermore, the Administrator is prohibited from conditioning the approval of a state's Class VI UIC program on the inclusion of provisions not originally present in the application or not explicitly required by the Safe Drinking Water Act itself. This aims to prevent the EPA from imposing new or arbitrary requirements.
Section 2(a)(2), amending SDWA Section 1422(b) by adding paragraphs (5) and (6)
EPA Support for State Preapplication Activities and Designated Coordinator
The EPA Administrator is mandated to work expeditiously with states to complete any necessary activities prior to the submission of Class VI well primacy applications, while still considering the need for thorough and detailed applications. Additionally, the Administrator must designate a single individual for each state to coordinate all aspects of Class VI UIC programs, including preapplication activities, application review, and the hiring of any necessary additional staff to facilitate these processes.
Section 2(a)(2), amending SDWA Section 1422(b) by adding paragraph (7); Section 2(b)
EPA Resource Evaluation and Funding for Primacy Review
Within 90 days of the bill's enactment, the EPA Administrator must submit a report to relevant Congressional committees. This report must describe the availability of staff and resources to promptly carry out the bill's new requirements and identify any additional funding necessary. The bill also explicitly authorizes the use of existing funds made available under Section 40306(b) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to cover the costs of this report and other new requirements related to Class VI primacy review.
Defines "Class VI well" by cross-referencing section 40306(a) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (42 U.S.C. 300h-9(a)). This definition refers to wells used for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Section 2(a)(1)(B), amending SDWA Section 1422(b)(2)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing definitions across different statutes, rather than an attempt to obscure the provision.
Case for: Ensures legal consistency and avoids creating conflicting definitions across different statutes, which can prevent confusion and litigation.
Case against: Requires additional research for a full understanding of the bill's scope, potentially making it less accessible to a casual reader who may not be familiar with the referenced law.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the specific type of wells (carbon capture and storage) to which the new primacy rules apply, which is central to the bill's purpose and the industries it affects.
Specifies that for Class VI primacy applications submitted *before* the date of enactment but not yet approved, the 180-day review period described in the bill shall begin on the date of enactment. These applications will then be processed by the EPA in the order in which they were originally submitted.
Section 2(c)(4)
Why it matters:While transition rules are often placed in such sections, its placement here might make it less prominent than if it were integrated into the primary amendments, potentially reducing immediate awareness of its retroactive effect.
Case for: Ensures that states with pending applications immediately benefit from the new expedited timelines, providing retroactive relief from existing delays and preventing a two-tiered system for applications.
Case against: Could create an immediate surge of work for the EPA to process older applications under new, tighter deadlines, potentially straining resources and impacting the review of newly submitted applications.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts the timeline for states that have already invested time and resources in preparing and submitting their applications, potentially accelerating approvals for several states with existing applications.