EPA approves Occidental Petroleum CO2 storage in the Basin, stock in the spotlight
ODESSA, Texas (KMID/KPEJ) – The stock of Occidental Petroleum (known as OXY) was in the spotlight Monday after securing permits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to store carbon dioxide in underground wells 14 miles from the city of Odessa in Ector county.
This includes three wells that will store about 722,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year at a depth of about 4,400 feet. According to the EPA, Class VI injection wells store carbon dioxide (CO2) deep underground, either captured from an emissions source or the atmosphere.
In a statement from OXY, the company said 'the wells would store CO2 captured from STRATOS, which is the world's largest Direct Air Capture (DAC) facility in Ector County, Texas. Occidental has expressed intentions to build 100 DAC facilities by 2035.'
In a statement from EPA Regional Administrator Scott Mason, 'Oxy Low Carbon Ventures has demonstrated their ability and intention to operate these wells responsibly while creating jobs and supporting the Texas economy.'
Stay with ABC Big 2 news as we continue to follow the latest on this developing story. For your latest Energy Report, tune in Wednesday night's at 6pm for 'Powering the Permian' with Chris Talley.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Threats to Tesla's revenue are piling up
Tesla faces fresh risks to a big income stream: sales of regulatory credits to other automakers under vehicle emissions and efficiency rules. Why it matters: Tesla's credit sales were $595 million last quarter and totaled $3.36 billion in the five quarters through Q1 of 2025. The credits are awarded to companies like Tesla that exceed emissions standards. Producers of gas-powered vehicles buy them to help meet various CO2 and mileage standards. The latest: Republicans on the Senate's commerce committee late last week proposed ending civil penalties under the Transportation Department's fuel economy rules. It's part of the committee's portion of the budget "reconciliation" bill — the top GOP and White House legislative priority. The provision would "modestly" cut auto prices by ending penalties on automakers that now "design cars to conform to the wishes of DC bureaucrats rather than consumers," a GOP summary states. The intrigue:"This Senate action would effectively end the market for CAFE credits," Chris Harto, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, tells Axios via email. Dan Becker, who heads the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, noted: "Why buy credits if Trump gives you a get out of CAFE free card?" Driving the news: Separately, DOT on Friday issued an "interpretive rule" that bars consideration of EVs when it sets these mileage rules. It's a step toward crafting replacement standards, DOT said. This paves the way for less aggressive requirements — and less need for buying credits. State of play: Several buckets of credits benefit Tesla, the dominant U.S. EV seller. EPA emissions standards, Transportation Department fuel economy mandates, and California's ambitious clean cars program all provide opportunities. European emissions rules also generate credits. The big picture: The regulatory credit market was already facing risks before all the news late last week. EPA is planning to rescind Biden-era EPA carbon emissions rules for model years 2027 and onward. The House-passed reconciliation bill and the Senate GOP proposal would also nix them. And the House bill pulls back Biden-era DOT mileage rules. Both chambers have passed measures that end EPA's approval of California's auto emissions rules. Threat level: Potential loss of credit revenues comes at a perilous time for Tesla. Its sales have slumped in recent quarters, and CEO Elon Musk's rightward turn and alliance with Trump are among the reasons why, analysts say. The House plan ends $7,500 consumer purchase subsidies for EVs under the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. By the numbers: Credit revenues exceeded Tesla's overall profit last quarter — in other words, it would have been in the red without them. Yes, Q1 was atypically weak for Tesla, but consider Q4 of 2024, when Tesla reported $2.13 billion in profits that were helped along by $692 million in credit sales. In Q3, those numbers were $2.17B and $739M, respectively. Friction point: More broadly, the meltdown of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's relationship with Trump also creates new and unpredictable risks for the billionaire entrepreneur's business empire.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fury as Republicans go ‘nuclear' in fight over California car emissions
California has long been one of the nation's preeminent eco-warriors, enacting landmark environmental standards for cars and trucks that go much further than those mandated by the federal government. Vehicles across the country are cleaner, more efficient and electric in greater numbers because of it. But that could all change if Donald Trump and his Republican allies manage to revoke the state's ability to set its own, stricter emissions standards amid a White House crusade to combat climate-friendly policies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets and updates its own federal standards for all states on smog and emissions from cars and trucks, which the Biden administration made even stricter last year, saying they will save American drivers thousands in fuel costs and maintenance over the life of a vehicle. But for decades, California has been granted the ability to make those rules even stricter to help address some of the worst smog and air quality issues in the nation, which are linked to a host of health effects that disproportionately affect people of color. On Wednesday, the Senate voted to reverse the waivers, in move that prompted fury from Democrats who call it a 'nuclear' option, calling it an unprecedented, and illegal, use of the statute. The Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian have agreed, saying EPA waivers are not subject to the review law. The House approved similar resolutions earlier this month. The resolutions now go to the White House, where Trump is expected to sign them. 'This move will harm public health and deteriorate air quality for millions of children and people across the country,' said senators Alex Padilla, Sheldon Whitehouse and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. 'This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won't stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again,' California's governor, Gavin Newsom, said in a statement on Thursday. 'We're going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.' Kathy Harris, the director of clean vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council, emphasized California's ability to mandate strict emissions standards for cars, trucks and buses had existed for nearly 60 years, noting the state had been granted more than 75 waivers under Republican and Democratic presidents. Among the waivers include rules to increase the share of electric vehicles each year among all new car and truck sales, as well as mandates that auto companies introduce progressively cleaner vehicles. She described the waivers as a 'quadruple win', benefiting public health, air quality, drivers' pockets and the economy as a whole. 'These waivers are not new or novel,' Harris said in an interview. 'California has historically been innovators in systems to help produce cleaner air and stymying California's ability is a direct attack on our ability to limit pollution and health harming pollutants in the air.' She added revoking the waivers would immediately lead to an increase in pollution on the nation's roadways. More than a dozen states follow California's lead on emissions standards, according to the California air resources board. The standards now cover nearly 40% of new light-duty vehicle registrations and more than a quarter of heavy-duty vehicles like trucks across the entire US. Automakers have largely followed California's emissions standards as well so they can continue to sell cars there, as the state equates to the fourth-largest economy on the planet. Newsom upped the ante in the nation's environmental future in 2020, declaring his state would ban the sale of all new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Eleven states have also joined California's plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by the 2035 deadline, a reality that has spooked major car companies. Joe Biden's administration approved the plan at the end of his term. Trump, however – a vehement opponent to many of the nation's climate efforts – has vowed to see them reversed. 'California has imposed the most ridiculous car regulations anywhere in the world, with mandates to move to all electric cars,' Trump said during his campaign last year. 'I will terminate that.' Newsom on Wednesday cast the battle as a nail in the coffin for the American car industry and decades of public health advancements. 'The United States Senate has a choice: cede American car-industry dominance to China and clog the lungs of our children, or follow decades of precedent and uphold the clean-air policies that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon fought so hard for,' he challenged Republicans in a statement. 'Will you side with China or America?' The Senate's decision may have sweeping effects far beyond the state's borders. Harris said she recently pulled up pictures of what air quality looked like in cities around the country in the 1960s before the Clean Air Act, the seminal environmental law that regulates the nation's air quality, was in effect. She described normal levels of smog in California as blanketing the state similar to the apocalyptic clouds of wildfire smoke that have descended during recent fire seasons. The American Lung Association also found last month that Los Angeles remained the country's smoggiest city for the 25th time in 26 years of tracking, despite decades of improvements in air quality. 'I think we have forgotten about what our air used to look like,' Harris said. 'We take it for granted because it's a policy that's been around for so long we don't really recognize those direct benefits. 'There is still a long way to go, we have not succeeded in fully cleaning up our air yet,' she added. 'These types of policies help ensure we are moving in a positive direction.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's EPA set to claim power-plant emissions ‘not significant' – but study says otherwise
Donald Trump's administration is set to claim planet-heating pollution spewing from US power plants is so globally insignificant it should be spared any sort of climate regulation. But, in fact, the volume of these emissions is stark – if the US power sector were a country, it would be the sixth largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reportedly drafted a plan to delete all restrictions on greenhouse gases coming from coal and gas-fired power plants in the US because they 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' and are a tiny and shrinking share of the overall global emissions that are driving the climate crisis. However, a new analysis shows that the emissions from American fossil-fuel plants are prominent on a global scale, having contributed 5% of all planet-heating pollution since 1990. If it were a country, the US power sector would be the sixth largest emitter in the world, eclipsing the annual emissions from all sources in Japan, Brazil, the United Kingdom and Canada, among other nations. 'That seems rather significant to me,' said Jason Schwartz, co-author of the report from New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity. 'If this administration wants to argue only China has significant emissions they can try to do that, but a court will review that, and under any reasonable interpretation will find that US power plant emissions are significant too.' Fossil fuel-derived electricity is responsible for the second largest source of emissions in the US, behind transportation. No country in history has caused more carbon pollution than America, and while its power sector's emissions have declined somewhat in recent years, largely through a market-based decline in heavily-polluting coal, it remains a major driver of the climate crisis. The cocktail of toxins emitted by power plants have a range of impacts, the NYU analysis points out. A single year of emissions in 2022 will cause 5,300 deaths in the US from air pollution over many decades, along with climate impacts that will result in global damages of $370bn, including $225bn in global health damages and $75bn in lost labor productivity. 'We were surprised when we ran the numbers just how quickly these deaths start tallying up,' said Schwartz. 'All of these harms stack up on top of each other. Climate change will be the most important public health issue this century and we can't just ignore the US power sector's contribution to that public health crisis.' The Trump administration, though, is looking to dismantle a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The move comes as part of a wider deregulatory blitz upon a wide range of rules aimed at protecting clean air and water; on Thursday, the EPA also confirmed a plan to delay the implementation of Clean Air Act protections against methane and other harmful pollutants from fossil fuel production. Removing these protections will prove not only dangerous, but also costly, said Christopher Frey, who was a science advisor to Joe Biden and led a clean air EPA committee under Barack Obama. 'A 'do nothing' policy to rollback greenhouse gas emission standards is not really a policy to do nothing,' said Frey, now an associate dean at North Carolina State University's college of engineering. 'It is a policy to force us to have to do more later to compensate for not taking preventive action sooner. It is a policy to knowingly cause more damage for folks in the not so distant future to contend with.' The power plant plan has endured a tortuous history, having been first put forward by Barack Obama's administration, only to be halted by the first Trump administration and also the supreme court. Joe Biden's administration last year rolled out a more limited version of the plan aimed at satisfying the supreme court's ruling. This version is now targeted for repeal by the Trump administration, expected in the coming weeks ahead of a public comment period and further expected legal challenges. Despite pointing to declining power plant emissions in its justification, the Trump administration has simultaneously attempted to increase these emissions by demanding a revival of the coal industry, boosting oil and gas drilling and axing incentives for cleaner energy. 'President Trump promised to kill the clean power plan in his first term, and we continue to build on that progress now,' said Lee Zeldin, administrator of the EPA. 'In reconsidering the Biden-Harris rule that ran afoul of supreme court case law, we are seeking to ensure that the agency follows the rule of law while providing all Americans with access to reliable and affordable energy.' Trump has long claimed that the US should not engage in international climate talks because its emissions footprint is negligible, noted Judith Enck, who served as an EPA regional administrator under Obama. Meanwhile, his administration has cracked down on states' ability to regulate emissions, she said. 'Apparently there is no level of governance where we can have these regulations,' Enck said. 'It's a completely illogical argument: There's not a lot of emissions so don't worry, but yet it we have to block every attempt to control them at the state, federal, international levels?' Experts have questioned whether pollution needs to be deemed 'significant' in order to be subjected to the Clean Air Act, which has been used to regulate even proportionally small levels of environmental toxins. 'There is absolutely no legal basis for them to propose a pollutant like CO2 has to meet some sort of significance, they are making this up, this is make-believe law,' said Joseph Goffman, who led the EPA's office of air and radiation during Biden's term. 'This is a sort of cheat code to try to neutralize any tool they fear might be used to reduce greenhouse gases.' The climate crisis is a global problem of the shared commons that experts say requires all countries, particularly the largest emitters, to remedy. Goffman said the Trump administration is attempting to reject this basic tenet. 'They are trying to write one of the biggest historical emitters in the world a get-out-of-jail-free card,' he said.
